The NonProfit Times - July 1, 2008 - (Page 22)

ON VOLUNTEERS SUSAN J. ELLIS Nothing Is Forever Evaluating by comparisons while accomplishing something of value A gencies frequently seek ways to evaluate the success of their volunteer efforts by comparing their data to what other organizations report. Here’s an actual query from an Energize Web site visitor: Can you help me find information on number/percentage “norms” for: 1) number of people who contact us about volunteering, compared to number who actually attend an introductory meeting; 2) number of those who attend an introductory meeting and actually become volunteers; 3) yearly rate of increase in volunteer numbers; and 4) yearly attrition rate for a volunteer program? It sounds so reasonable for someone to ask: “What happens elsewhere?” People seek an external standard of effectiveness. But such questions, while certainly seeking useful information, are based on some false assumptions. First is the expectation that somewhere there’s a database of statistics about volunteering that can illuminate practical issues. Unfortunately, such a database does not exist.We have precious little data about who volunteer, how many people volunteer, and other basic demographic details, let alone information about volunteer management practices within agencies. The second assumption is that some sort of generic data about volunteering, regardless of setting, would provide comparable (and therefore useful) information. The variety of things that volunteers do is so enormous that it would be hard to create measurements relevant to all.For example, in the paying work world, would anyone think of comparing attrition/retention rates of nurses to, say, truck drivers, or to astronauts? There are so many other variables apart from the isolated fact that they are all paid a salary. This multiplies when it comes to volunteer assignments. Further, how can one compare 10 retired secretaries giving five hours every week to 10 corporate managers on workrelease time once a month to 10 high school students on a service-learning project? But numerically, all three examples involve 10 volunteers. and then trying to compare how long volunteers in one agency stayed in place versus another. The only legitimate evidence of successful retention is whether or not a volunteer remains with an organization for the amount of time to which the person initially committed -- which, in turn, should be a length of time the organization has requested as the minimum for accomplishing something of value. So the volunteer who commits to and completes why. Asking what the “norm” is for volunteer retention in other settings is irrelevant. In fact, it focuses the attention (blame) on volunteers -- trying to find a cause inherent in them -- rather than considering what is going on in your setting. For those liking comparisons, it might make more sense to compare internal data from one year to the next. So, if 60 percent of volunteers remained committed after training in 2006, what’s the percentage in 2008 and why? Or, you might discover you doubled the volunteer workforce this year versus last year,but did you need to triple it? LEGITIMATE EXTERNAL COMPARISONS If there is still a desire to do external comparisons, then focus on other organizations similar to yours so that you can compare like to like. If you are part of a professional association for your field or setting, suggest some centralization of data for such statistical comparisons. But also be sure to form an assessment team that will interpret the information beyond the simplistic, and often wrong, conclusion that high numbers equate to better performance. It might also be useful to know about trends or issues faced by other organizations -- at least those that are dealing in a similar context. For example: Are others finding that high school students are most likely to cite transportation problems as a reason they can’t volunteer? How are others dealing with volunteers who are older than age 85 and perhaps losing some abilities? These types of questions allow you to distinguish what is and isn’t the result of your managerial actions. Another valid comparison is what is going on in your particular community. If you are having trouble attracting or keeping certain types of volunteers, what’s the experience of other organizations nearby? Are you alone in having this problem? Why? On the other hand, does it seem to be community-wide? Does that explain, comfort, or challenge you? But note that you can’t expect such data to be available already. No one is collecting it now, but perhaps your local Volunteer Center or Hands On affiliate would be interested in studying such statistics. However, no external data is going to mean anything in deciding whether the attrition rate of volunteers in your organization is acceptable or not. ONE LAST COMPARISON WARNING There’s one last area of comparison that deserves mention: Trying to set the salary for your volunteer program manager based on what other volunteer program managers in the area earn. This is a great object lesson in the fallacy of general comparisons. If you look at the volunteer management field as a whole, salaries range from maybe $12,000 to $80,000. What does that prove? On Volunteers, page 23 The third assumption is that numbers alone tell a meaningful story, especially things like whether or not the volunteer corps grew or shrank during a given period. Such increases or decreases rarely measure effectiveness. In fact, many programs would be more successful if they cut their volunteer corps in half and retained only those volunteers qualified to help or actually active. Finally, there’s the mistake of measuring “retention” of volunteers by longevity -- a summer project and then departs hasn’t “dropped off.”That volunteer was retained as expected and left as planned within three months. The idea that retention means volunteers stay forever makes very little sense. It also gets depressing. Since in today’s world both volunteers and employees change positions all the time,“forever” becomes an unobtainable goal. Here are some suggestions for more meaningful evaluation. SETTING-SPECIFIC GOALS Stop looking for outside validation of your program. Instead, articulate reasonable, measurable goals and objectives for the work you need volunteers to do. Do this at the start of a period so that it is clear what you will be measuring. Initial goals lead to strategies for achieving them and data that can be analyzed. Think impact, not numbers. For example, rather than some arbitrary, “we want to grow 15 percent next year,” how about: “Next year we’d like to have enough qualified volunteers to respond to 90 percent of requests made of the department.” The difference, of course, is that now it’s possible to assess whether growth in numbers translates into increased services. And it could develop that the increase in services can be accomplished by better training and supervision of current volunteers, not necessarily with more new volunteers. INTERPRETING THE DATA Interpreting data is as important as collecting it. For example, if you discover that 50 percent of volunteers drop off after six months, you need to look for clues as to Coming August 1 TRAVEL GUIDE find out more at www.nptimes.com 22 JULY 1, 2008 THE NONPROFIT TIMES www.nptimes.com http://www.nptimes.com http://www.nptimes.com http://www.nptimes.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of The NonProfit Times - July 1, 2008

The NonProfit Times - July 1, 2008 Time to Let GO Sparks Flying From Blackbaud's Bid For Kintera Holiday Jeer Contents Who...When...Where...How...What? The Wrong Arguments Calendar Measure the Unmeasureable Getting Good Advice We Barely Got to Know You Special Report: Giving USA Shows Bequests, Foundations Boosted Otherwise Flat Giving to 306 Billion Dollars National Benchmarking Nothing Is Forever Diversified Planet Business Briefs NPT Jobs Resource Directory Bridge Map Insert

The NonProfit Times - July 1, 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.