Energize Book Blog

In this post, author Steve McCurley tackles the problem of an organization whose old methods of volunteer management aren’t working well anymore.

Do you have a volunteer management problem that needs an expert diagnosis? You’re in luck, because the experts are in! Submit your questions to ask-an-author@energizeinc.com. Our favorites will be answered on the blog (and we’ll do our best to provide some help to everyone who writes in).

The Question:
I work with a small nonprofit organization that’s beginning to expand our services. For years, we have hosted “drop-in” volunteer opportunities. At scheduled times, anyone can show up, be trained and oriented upon arrival, and assist with one of our projects – no application, no screening (these projects do NOT involve direct contact with clients).

As we’ve continued to grow and become more well-known, the drop-in volunteer program has started to cause some problems. Volunteers really like to work with us because they don’t have to pre-register, so we almost always have enough help. However, some of the volunteers, while well-meaning, are really not well-suited for the project, and have trouble doing a good job even after being trained and re-trained. Other volunteers come for mandated service, and although some are great, others really don’t care and thus require substantial oversight and redirection. Right now, we don’t have a procedure for dismissing these “problem” volunteers – we just try our best to put them back on the right track, often while trying to help several other new volunteers at the same time.

What can we do to have some greater formality to the drop-in sessions (i.e., basic standards for accepting a volunteers, a process for addressing problem volunteers and dismissing them if necessary) while maintaining the open environment?

Steve’s Answer:
As volunteer programs experiment with ways to streamline the involvement process they discover that there are tradeoffs between making it simple and easy for people to become involved and at the same time developing clear management standards. You have found one of these tradeoffs and it will require making some choices about balancing the interests that are involved.

Drop-in programs (which are a great and effective idea) only work if they allow volunteers to begin work without having to endure interviews, applications, background checks and the other entry procedures we have developed over past years. To work effectively the drop-in programs must minimize the time between the volunteer showing up and the time when they actually begin work. Too many rules, procedures, and hoops to jump over will kill the program. Programs for on-going volunteers, on the other hand, require a bit of structure, rules and procedures, both for purposes of safety and for ensuring a good volunteer experience.

In your case, I’d recommend creating a two-tier system for involvement which allows people to choose whether they will stay in the more casual drop-in mode of involvement or move on to the higher level of ongoing volunteering. The system would work something like this:

1. Drop-in volunteers would fill out a minimal “registration” form, basically listing name and contact information. This will allow you to send them thank-you notices, information about upcoming events, etc. Personally I’d make this optional, but I suspect most volunteers will have no trouble with giving you this basic information if it is explained nicely.
2. Drop-in volunteers receive minimal “orientation,” and most of that is to the setting (”There’s the food and restrooms…”) and the actual work. They also receive a brochure or other information about the organization (and this can be provided by giving it to them as they leave or by mailing it to them afterwards).
3. Ongoing volunteers go through a formal application, interviewing, and orientation process, and are eligible for volunteer positions beyond the simple ones performed at the drop-in center. An ongoing volunteer makes a greater commitment to the organization and thus qualifies for a different level of involvement and responsibility. Drop-in volunteers are invited to apply for ongoing volunteer positions, but are not required to.
4. The only rules that are the same for both drop-in and ongoing volunteers involve those around dealing with problem situations – the same rules of conduct and performance should apply to each. These are explained to ongoing volunteers as part of their orientation process; they are only explained to a drop-in volunteer if they are violating a rule. The key, however, to making these work in the drop-in situation is having an “immediate suspension” rule that can be invoked when a problem arises – this is designed to get the problem volunteer out of the work area while things are being sorted out.
5. In practice, this will probably work better than it sounds, unless you have an unusual number of unruly drop-in volunteers.

Since you do seem to have some of these (the ones who just don’t “get it” and the mandatory service ones) I’d recommend handling these special cases in the old fashioned way – just say “No.” Once a drop-in volunteer has demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to perform the work in a satisfactory manner, they should not be allowed to come back and volunteer again. The procedure for implementing this is simple:

• At the time the volunteer exhibits the unsatisfactory behavior they are first cautioned, then removed from the setting (”fired”), and told that they will not be accepted for further drop-in volunteering. If they have a problem with this decision, they may discuss it with the volunteer manager at a later time. If they are being referred by another agency, that agency should be informed of this decision (without any details about why this is being done). You have an absolute right not to accept these referrals unless you have some kind of contract with the referring organization; and if you do have a contract or agreement you should make sure it allows you the right of absolute rejection of unsuitable volunteers.
• If they return to the drop-in setting and attempt to volunteer, they are refused entry. This means that you need someone supervising the drop-in setting who has some personal authority, since this is what will substitute for the procedural rules that we institute in an ongoing volunteer program.

The bottom line on all this is that you can’t run a drop-in volunteering effort with all the rules and procedures of an ongoing program. Attempting to do so will only kill the drop-in effort. And the worst justification for adding more rules is a situation like yours where a few bad volunteers are being used as the rationale. In drop-in settings you still provide management, but the management is more of a personal, not a procedural, nature.

__________________

If you want to learn more about effectively managing a drop-in volunteer program, be sure to check out “Drop-In Volunteers and the Benefits of Flexibility,” an article from the April 2009 issue of e-Volunteerism.