I have had a report sitting on the desktop of my computer for a few weeks now and have just gotten a chance to read it. It is a report done by The Grantmaker Forum On Community & National Service (now Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement) called The Cost of a Volunteer

The paper was a result of the days after President George W. Bush called for citizens to devote 4,000 hours to volunteer service. There was a concern that the current infrastructure of most nonprofits couldn’t support the deluge of so many well-meaning individuals. The Grantmaker Forum made an effort by way of survey to discern what the hidden costs of free labor might be.

Two common approaches to determining the value of volunteer work are calculating the opportunity cost for the volunteer (the gains the volunteer could make if using that time for employment or recreation) and figuring the cost of replacing the volunteer with paid staff.

The value-added equation is almost always established as a no-cost concept; that is, that volunteers
simply and strictly augment the capacity of professional staff. This calculation avoids two critical questions: What resources are needed to sponsor volunteers? And where do those resources come from?

The literature review section of the survey results is rather interesting and illustrates the difficulty connected with quantifying the cost-benefit ratio of volunteerism. One study found “a return of between $2.05 and $21.24 for every $1.57 expended.” Another said it costs $300 per volunteer and another came in at about $1,000. I suspect some of the difference springs from the type of volunteer programs they studied and the the extent of staff oversight necessary. (Big Brothers/Big Sisters has to do background checks and scrutinize the relationships of adults and kids whereas a theatre might just spend an hour or so training volunteers.)

Another reason why it is hard to quantify the costs for volunteering. It isn’t just the salary to pay the volunteer coordinator and the cost of the materials, phone bill, etc that needs to be calculated. It is also the time the other staff members (doctors and nurses in a hospital, for example) spend supervising the volunteers that needs to be included.

One very interesting observation that the study makes is that half of the participants in the survey were unwilling or unable to accept more volunteers at the time. “This finding fundamentally
challenges the assumption that the only requirement to engage more citizens in volunteer
service is an effective call to serve.”

The study also points out that behind every great volunteer, there is a great professional staff. They mention that without the support of a well organized staff, volunteer intensive programs like tutoring and food banks would be hard pressed to succeed. Volunteering doesn’t just happen, it takes dedication and organization.

When I was organizing an outdoor arts and music festival I needed 500 volunteers for that one day. I had a long to do list, but the daily notes marked on my calendar were the number of volunteers I needed to have recruited by that day to reach my goal of 500 by festival day. If I was falling behind, I would come back to work and make calls to people who had volunteered in the past and hadn’t signed up yet. (A good database is also key to good volunteer recruitment!)

Because volunteer managers don’t want to waste people’s time by not having the staff to provide supervision/direction needed for tasks, they are in the unenviable position of having to turn people away even if there is a huge task to be addressed.

The other problem is that organizations have a surfeit of volunteers at some times (nights and weekends) but few at other key periods of time such as summer vacation periods. Other organizations have fairly involved volunteer training programs and can’t easily accept additional people in the middle of a training cycle.

Another observation the report makes is that changing expectations are requiring a shift in the care and feeding of volunteers

The classic volunteer of forty years ago was a housewife who had enough time available that she was able to commit to a regular schedule for her volunteering – four-to-six hours per week. With this time commitment and regular schedule, she could be relied upon to shoulder significant organizational responsibilities. The 21st century volunteer is more likely to be employed, have professional skills to share, have a limited amount of time available, and have greater need for immediate gratification. The 21st century volunteer seeks ‘short-term assignments with a high level of personal reward.’ Today’s volunteers want to see change happen quickly as a result of their contributions and are less likely to commit over a long period of time on a consistent basis.

One volunteer program leader explained that 21st century volunteers require a kind of job sharing approach to their volunteer service. “We do more short-term projects that are more interesting. People want instant gratification from their volunteer experience.” The classic volunteer asks, “What can I do for you'” The 21st century volunteer says, ‘What can you do for me'”

In some cases, people are looking to volunteer to add to their skills in order to make themselves more marketable. They aren’t content with simple jobs like filing papers, but would rather perform a task that engages their skills.