Research and analysis

Comparing national enabling environments for volunteering

Published 3 February 2025

Applies to England

This research was conducted under the 2022 to 2024 Sunak Conservative government

Acknowledgements

This research was commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in the summer of 2023.

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the DCMS Volunteering and Tackling Loneliness Team for their management of the project and their valuable input and support. We extend our thanks to James Richardson and Georgina Colton for their project leadership and contributions throughout the process.

This project was conducted by independent researchers, Basis Social, in partnership with NPC. It forms part of a wider programme of work commissioned by DCMS under the Volunteering Research Managed Services work programme.

Finally, we would like to extend a large thank you to all the research participants (including government officials, policy experts, academics, and wider sector experts) who gave up their time to participate in this research and share their experiences with us. 

This research was conducted by:

• Erica Harrison – Associate Director, Basis Social

• Victoria Harkness – Senior Director, Basis Social

• Theo Clay – Policy Manager, NPC

• Katie Boswell – Associate Director, NPC

• Olivia Halliwell – Senior Consultant, NPC

• Rose Anderson – Consultant, NPC

For further information about this report please email: social@basisresearch.co.uk.

Key messages

This research examines the differences in the ‘enabling environments’ that exist to support volunteering in different national contexts. It compares the enabling environment in England to that in Scotland, Wales, Australia and the Republic of Ireland. The aim is to identify potential policies and interventions that could be explored further to support England’s national enabling environment. 

The research involved a desk review of existing literature and 23 in-depth qualitative interviews with a range of stakeholders involved in volunteering across the countries of study. It highlights four key themes that underpin how the enabling environment for volunteering in England might be better supported going forward. 

1. Locally-led approaches can improve efficiency and outcomes in both the short and longer-term: Using the knowledge and networks of existing local organisations helps new initiatives to function efficiently and effectively. Recognising the importance of place in people’s motivations to volunteer is also seen as a route to retaining volunteers who want to support their communities.

2. An effective enabling environment demands consistent and intentional cross-government working: Volunteering should not be the domain of a single government department. Representatives across government should be brought into policy conversations around volunteering to ensure engagement and to minimise the risk of conflicting policies emerging later. Relationships need to be maintained and protected against the loss of institutional memory.

3. While there is valuable data available on volunteering, it is not equally accessible to all organisations, and this may be disguising evidence gaps. Existing (and future) data on volunteering needs to be made accessible and easily findable to all interested parties. Encouraging sharing on agreed platforms could help smaller organisations find what they need.

4. It is time to update the language used to describe volunteering. Other governments have found that using language that better reflects how volunteers themselves perceive their role (such as ‘helping out’ instead of ‘volunteering’) can do a lot to broaden the appeal of volunteering and make it feel more inclusive.

The research has uncovered a number of tensions at play, since the enabling environment involves a wide range of interconnected organisations and individuals whose priorities may not always align. Its recommendations are premised on the understanding – widely shared among research participants – that national government is only one actor in this complex system. Government’s role should be to support existing local organisations, rather than over-regulate or restrict them.

Several ideas generated by this research warrant further investigation as part of a wider approach to supporting an improved enabling environment in England. These could include: drawing up a national strategy for volunteering; exploring Charity Action Zones, Community Covenants and other strategies to support communities; promoting an open definition of volunteering and updating the language used around it; and, facilitating further cross-government working.

Executive summary

Overview

This research examines the differences in the ‘enabling environments’ that exist to support volunteering in different national contexts. The aim is to identify what aspects of different enabling environments work well in what context, and to highlight potential policies and interventions that could be explored further to support England’s national enabling environment.

National enabling environments refer to the complex and intersecting network of factors which influence volunteering. They include policies and programmes, legislation, incentives, funding, data and research, and organisations and structures which permit collaboration with the sector. Large macro-environmental shifts and recent crises (such as changing ways of working, the COVID-19 pandemic and cost-of-living crisis) have had a significant impact on volunteering. This makes it timely to examine the current enabling environment in England and how it might be better supported.

Since volunteering policy is devolved in the UK, the research seeks to examine and compare the national enabling environment in England with two of the Home Nations (Scotland and Wales) and two other relevant international examples (the Republic of Ireland and Australia), chosen for their recent work to develop their enabling environments and thus the potential to learn from those contexts. It involved a desk review of existing literature and 23 in-depth qualitative interviews with a range of stakeholders involved in volunteering (internal and external to government) across the countries of study, between November 2023 and February 2024.

This research has been commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), the government department responsible for civil society policy , as part of a two-year Volunteering Research Managed Services (VRMS) call-off contract. 

Main findings

The research has highlighted four key themes that underpin how the enabling environment for volunteering in England might be better supported going forward. 

1. Locally-led approaches can improve efficiency and outcomes in both the short and longer-term. A bottom-up approach means starting with the individual volunteer’s experience and appreciating that their motivation to volunteer is often specifically tied to their local community. Acknowledging and prioritising both of these factors in decision-making is likely to result in more positive volunteer experiences, improving engagement over time. Using pre-existing local infrastructure in the form of clubs, organisations and networks can also bring efficiency savings, as well as helping to ‘embed’ a scheme in a particular place. 

2. An effective enabling environment demands consistent and intentional cross-government working. Research participants from Ireland and Australia underscored this point: representatives from relevant government departments should be brought into policy conversations around volunteering to ensure engagement and minimise the risk of conflicting policies emerging later. These relationships need to be maintained outside of specific consultation periods (for example when a new policy or strategy is being developed) and protected against the impact of staff turnover (and thus a loss of institutional memory). When policy conflicts do arise, sector expertise should be called upon to help resolve issues (for example by co-designing updated guidance for the public). 

3. While there is valuable data available on volunteering, it is not equally accessible to all organisations, and this may be disguising evidence gaps. Research participants had different views on the availability of data on volunteering. For example, while academics often had good knowledge of and access to available data, some charities lacked one or both of these and the capacity to devote time to searching for it. This issue could be addressed through consistent use of agreed platforms for sharing data to enable time-poor organisations to search more efficiently. Participants also saw value in the government collecting and acknowledging data on civil society (including volunteering) in decision-making and when looking at the growth and success of the economy. 

4. It is time to update the language used to describe volunteering. Other governments – including Australia and Wales - have found that using language that better reflects how volunteers themselves perceive their role (such as ‘helping out’ instead of ‘volunteering’) can do a lot to broaden the appeal of volunteering and make it feel more inclusive.

The research has also highlighted a number of tensions that need to be navigated when considering changes to the enabling environment for volunteering in England. Government should be aware of these competing interests as it considers its approach, to ensure any changes and their anticipated impacts are balanced.

There may be a tension between empowering volunteer-involving organisations (VIOs) and empowering volunteers

The goals of a small frontline organisation may not be the same as a larger organisation, and both may differ from those of a supervisory body or membership organisation. Different people within organisations may have distinct goals around involving volunteers: from supporting service delivery on specific projects, to involving a wider range of community members in the organisation’s work. Organisational goals on any scale may also conflict with those of individual volunteers. Indeed, even promoting the interests of existing volunteers may have a negative impact on involving future potential volunteers. 

National government has a role, but must not overlook the importance of local contexts and stakeholders

Research participants called for balance and restraint on the part of national government. That is, using its power as a convenor to support existing local organisations, rather than over-regulate or restrict them. This will require consistent engagement with local government, local infrastructure bodies and national umbrella bodies that represent local VIOs, along with an acceptance that government may always be one step removed from the frontline and therefore less directly able to influence outcomes.

Lessons should be learned from previous volunteering-related interventions

This needs to allow for the fact that there is rarely consensus on the success or failure of volunteering-related interventions. While specific cases (such as pandemic response initiatives) commonly recurred in conversations with participants, there was no overall consensus as to whether or not they were successful in meeting their aims. While there may be a specific evaluation undertaken for certain aspects of programmes, this is about taking a wider view and seeing how such a programme impacts volunteering in general, outside of its own stated objectives. This could involve interviewing stakeholders, implementers, and/or participants to gather insights that fall beyond the scope of a programme evaluation, to identify lessons to be learned.

Over-regulation imposes bureaucracy and barriers that can impede service delivery

Research participants in a range of volunteering-related roles accept and advocate for regulation when it comes to safeguarding, promoting equity, diversity and inclusion, and ensuring organisations collect data to support the work they do. However, compliance requirements impose a significant administrative and financial burden on resource limited VIOs, and it was felt they should be imposed only where necessary. There were some calls for greater support for organisations to meet compliance requirements; one example of a non-project specific task that is often overlooked for funding. But, there was also a desire for a demonstration of mutual trust; the ideal role for government is seen as that of a facilitator who enables the sector to do the work themselves.

Reflections and implications

This research has generated a number of ideas which warrant further investigation as part of a wider approach to supporting an improved enabling environment in England.

These could include:

• drawing up a national strategy for volunteering, learning from the successes (and challenges) reported in countries such as Ireland and Australia

• acknowledging the importance of ‘place’ to volunteers and successful volunteering initiatives by exploring Charity Action Zones, Community Covenants, and other strategies to support communities, as proposed in the Levelling Up White Paper (UK government, 2022)

There is also value in some more general endeavours, such as promoting an open definition of volunteering and updating the language used around it to better reflect the volunteer experience. 

These are best supported and facilitated by a truly cross-government approach to volunteering, requiring DCMS to act as an advocate for the sector and for volunteers, both existing and potential. This would see DCMS bring other government departments into the conversation and ensure that communication channels are protected against staff turnover and the loss of institutional knowledge and relationships this can cause.

Introduction

Overview

This research examines the different national ‘enabling environments’ that exist to support volunteering, and in turn identifies where government could best influence and support the English national enabling environment.

National enabling environments refer to the complex and intersecting network of factors which influence volunteering. They include policies and programmes, legislation, incentives, funding, data and research, and organisations and structures which permit collaboration with the sector.

Context and background

The volunteering ecosystem is broad and diverse. While volunteering is typically associated with the voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector, public sector organisations like local NHS Trusts and councils also involve volunteers in their work. Volunteer-involving organisations (VIOs) work across varied policy areas such as sport, arts and heritage, health, social care, the environment, education, and justice. The priorities and impact of these organisations interact in a broader environment that is subject to the influence of a wide range of social, political and economic factors. 

Recent macro-environmental shifts and events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and cost-of-living crisis have changed the context in which VIOs operate, perhaps permanently. These changes intersect with factors such as government policy, legislation, and changes in the landscape for research and funding. There is therefore a desire on the part of government to understand how to best support the complex ‘enabling environment’ in which vital volunteering work is conducted: specifically, what more can central government do to enable the effective and efficient functioning of volunteering in England?

Research objectives

This research has been commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). It forms part of a two-year Volunteering Research Managed Services (VRMS) call-off contract. It aims to plug an identified gap in the evidence on enabling environments, or what is also referred to in the sector as ‘volunteering infrastructure’. The last comprehensive study of this was conducted by the European Centre for Volunteering more than a decade ago (CEV, 2012). 

The focus of this research has been specifically on ‘enabling environments’, as the term is felt to more accurately represent the complex and intersecting network of factors which influence volunteering. The term ‘volunteering infrastructure’ has a broader meaning in the international literature, with the United Nations Volunteers taking it to include operational structures and implementation capacities (UN Volunteers, 2018), which are beyond the scope of this research. It also has a more limited interpretation in Britain, where it is often seen as referring to specific ‘infrastructure bodies’ (such as NCVO, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations). 

Since volunteering policy is devolved in the UK, the project examines and compares the national enabling environment in England with two of the Home Nations (Scotland and Wales) and two other relevant international examples (the Republic of Ireland and Australia). The research aimed to explore what works well, in what context and why, with a focus on the following key levers available to government: 

• policies
• laws
• incentive schemes (for example, tax credits, discount schemes)
• funding sources/systems
• structures for collaboration between government and other stakeholders
• decisions regarding data and research (for example, producing and sharing statistics) 

Methodology

This project combined a desk review of existing literature and 23 in-depth qualitative interviews with a range of stakeholders (inside and outside national governments) across the countries of study. The context of Great Britain included stakeholders working in England, Scotland, Wales and Britain-wide. The Republic of Ireland was chosen as an interesting and useful international comparator as it is a close neighbour which also participates in various European collaborations and has recently published several wide-ranging strategies aimed at civil society. Australia was selected as a country that is perceived internationally as world-leading in terms of its government commitment to volunteering. 

Interviewees included: officials focused on volunteering (both within and outside DCMS, including representatives of the Cross-Whitehall Volunteering Working Group and Four Nations Volunteering Working Group); VCSE sector leaders and interface organisations; representatives from public sector VIOs (for example, the NHS); frontline volunteer-involving organisations; and, researchers and academics. 

It should be noted that the sample was not intended to be representative of volunteering or of the VCSE sector as a whole. An initial sample frame identified different types of organisations whose work relates to volunteering, and a priority list of potential interviewees was then drawn up covering these groups. Ultimate participant engagement was influenced by stakeholder availability and relied to a degree on existing connections. This meant greater coverage of some sample groups than others. In some cases ‘snowballing’ was used as a way to connect the researchers with other potential participants. A full sample breakdown is included in Appendix 1.

Interviews lasted up to an hour and were conducted via video call between November 2023 and February 2024. Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured topic guide orientated around an agreed definition of ‘enabling environment’ (see Appendix 2 for this definition). Preliminary findings were discussed in a stakeholder workshop with DCMS prior to producing this report. 

The participants engaged through this research were diverse and conversations were wide-ranging. Some of the ‘levers’ this research was looking to explore elicited limited material for discussion (for example, incentive schemes were not widely used in any country studied), or else the definition of some levers was broadened. Accordingly, this report presents findings thematically, synthesising evidence from both the desk research and interviews.

For further details on the methodology and definitions used, see Appendix 2.

Comparing enabling environments

This section includes an overview of current trends in volunteering within Great Britain, before moving on to a brief outline of enabling environments on a global scale. There are then individual sections on each of the countries of study, highlighting differences in volunteering prevalence, policy, and infrastructure bodies, enabling comparisons to be drawn between England and other countries. 

State of volunteering: Great Britain 

A common view among research participants was that volunteering in Britain is facing new challenges as the country recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic and grapples with the cost-of-living crisis. The Community Life Survey found that participation rates in both formal and informal volunteering in 2021/22 were the lowest recorded since data collection began in 2012, although it should be noted that this may have been related to ongoing restrictions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.^{[footnote 1]} Reports such as that published by Reach Volunteering found that frontline organisations are facing significant challenges in recruiting and retaining volunteers in the current climate (Reach Volunteering, 2023). 

Remote volunteering has become more common in recent years, partly due to the need to shift away from face-to-face activities at an unprecedented scale and speed during the pandemic (MVAin4, 2021). About one in three formal volunteers (31%) have volunteered online or over the phone - making it one of the most common ‘places’ for people to volunteer – and around one in five (18%) exclusively volunteer remotely (NCVO, 2023). 

The decline in numbers of volunteers noted above has been attributed by some to barriers such as increased financial pressure on volunteers (exacerbating issues around late, partial, or non-existent repayment of expenses, rising transport costs, etc.) (NCVO, 2023), and the impact of burnout or long-term ill health among core volunteer demographics, including older people (NCVO, 2022). These barriers affect different (potential) volunteers in different ways, and this has implications for equity, diversity and inclusion - as set out in NCVO’s recent Time Well Spent research (NCVO, 2023) and a forthcoming VRMS study on EDI in volunteering by Basis Social and NPC. 

Some recent reports have also highlighted the impact of wider political and economic factors on the voluntary sector, including increased economic uncertainty associated with Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine (for example, Hastings Voluntary Action, 2022). Furthermore, Britain is currently facing a cost-of-living crisis, putting pressure on households, and squeezing public spending due to high national debt. 

Some recent reports have also highlighted the impact of wider political and economic factors on the voluntary sector, including increased economic uncertainty associated with Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine (for example, Hastings Voluntary Action, 2022). Furthermore, Britain is currently facing a cost-of-living crisis, putting pressure on households, and squeezing public spending due to high national debt. With more people focusing on paid work and having less leisure time, they are less likely to prioritise volunteering. 

Enabling environments: A global picture

Internationally, there are some promising developments in terms of the enabling environments and wider policy and regulatory environment in place to support volunteering. The 2018 report Global Trends in Volunteering Infrastructure reviews the policy and legislation relating to volunteering in 117 countries. It found that between 2008 and 2018, 72 countries were adopting, amending, or in the process of drafting a policy or regulatory framework relevant to volunteering. The report also noted that many of these policies and legislation had similarities, partly due to the international exchange of ideas while legislation was being drafted. There has been an expansion in volunteering regulation, also influenced by inter-governmental initiatives and the international exchange of best practices (UN Volunteers, 2018). 

There are significant differences between the Global North and Global South in terms of the development of infrastructure around volunteering. Approaches to volunteering are influenced by the availability of finances to support it, public perceptions and relationship to employment, and its formalisation. All Global North countries surveyed had adopted or were drafting volunteering policies, compared to less than three quarters (73%) of the Global South countries surveyed (UN Volunteers, 2018). 

Across countries, the most prominent barriers to volunteering include: a lack of material support and information from organisations interacting with volunteers; marginalisation and discrimination; and, the under-appreciation of the contribution of volunteering. Among the 91 countries surveyed for further information (70 of which were low-income or middle-income countries), roughly half (46) reported having legislation or policies focusing on the inclusion of groups of people previously under-represented in volunteering and a similar number (44) had programmes or initiatives taking steps to improve inclusion (UN Volunteers, 2018). 

It is worth noting that certain forms of volunteering infrastructure have the potential to be exclusionary. This is especially true of infrastructure which is highly formalised or dominated by national government, which can discourage outside infrastructure organisations from becoming involved in volunteering. This is discussed further in the locally-led approaches section (p.25). Regulation may also have the unintended side-effect of discouraging certain demographic groups from volunteering. Some countries explicitly define volunteering as unpaid work, which can inhibit the desire to volunteer among people with lower incomes as they realise the personal cost of involvement (UN Volunteers, 2018). 

Country focus: England

People should be able to take positive action on issues that they care about. This Strategy sets out a vision for all people of all ages to be able to thrive, connect with each other, and give back to their communities.

Civil Society Strategy, 2018

Volunteering in England: key data

27% of adult population who (formally) volunteer

(DCMS, 2023)

• National strategy for volunteering: Volunteering was covered in the Civil Society Strategy 2018, but there is no national strategy for volunteering

• Government department responsible for volunteering: DCMS

• National centre for volunteering: No single body

Volunteering prevalence

According to the Community Life Survey, around one in four people aged 16+ in England (27%) volunteered formally (meaning through a club or organisation) at least once in the year 2021/22, with 16% doing so at least once a month. Informal volunteering (defined as giving unpaid help to individuals who are not a relative) was even more widespread; almost half volunteered informally at least once in 2021/22 (46%), and 26% did so at least once a month (DCMS, 2023). 

The most popular cause to volunteer for was local community or neighbourhood groups, with 21% of recent formal volunteers having volunteered for such groups. The next most popular causes were ‘health/disability/social welfare’ and ‘hobbies/recreation/arts/social clubs’, receiving support from 17% and 16% of formal volunteers respectively. About three in five recent formal volunteers have volunteered for a third sector or civil society organisation. Slightly fewer than a quarter (23%) have volunteered for a public sector organisation, according to Time Well Spent (NCVO, 2023).

Volunteering infrastructure bodies

There has been no dedicated national centre for volunteering in England since Volunteering England and NCVO (National Council for Voluntary Organisations) merged in 2013. In 2016, NCVO announced a restructure which saw it close its volunteering and development department and integrate volunteering policy and support throughout its work. The organisation currently has approximately 17,000 members according to their website. NCVO runs the National Volunteering Forum, which brings together VIOs and volunteer infrastructure bodies from around England. Other key infrastructure bodies for VIOs in England include NAVCA (National Association for Voluntary and Community Action), Volunteering Matters and the Association of Volunteer Managers.

Volunteering policy

DCMS is the government department responsible for volunteering. There is no national government strategy for volunteering in England, though volunteering was a key theme of the Civil Society Strategy (UK government, 2018), which set out a vision of people taking action on issues they care about via formal and informal volunteering, and through social action. In keeping with this vision, many of DCMS’s programmes in recent years (such as Community First, Community Organisers, Growing Place-based Giving, Place-based Social Action) aimed to create structures that support more informal, extra-organisational volunteering and social action.

The Vision for Volunteering movement is funded by the UK government and involves all the key infrastructure bodies mentioned above. In 2022 the Vision for Volunteering set out a ten-year vision for the future of the volunteering ecosystem focused on five themes: Awareness and appreciation; Power; Equity and inclusion; Collaboration; and, Experimentation (Vision for Volunteering, undated). DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund have also invested in the #iwill Fund for youth social action, complementing the #iwill Movement additionally supported by Volunteering Matters and UK Youth. The stakeholders interviewed through this research welcomed the collaborative and bottom-up approach taken by the Vision for Volunteering and #iwill, though felt that there was no strategic overview for involving volunteers in achieving national outcomes.

I think #iwill and Vision for Volunteering are good examples of frameworks that resonate with people, help them to connect and act, and are genuinely enabling. They’re building a movement around things you want to shift, not a service-based model dropped from above. 

– GB VCSE Interviewee

I’ve observed that Scotland has considered why they want people involved at a national policy level and the role of volunteering in achieving national outcomes. I feel this strategic overview is missing in England, with involvement often reduced to ‘nice things’ politicians say. 

– Academic interviewee

Local volunteering infrastructure

At the local level, Volunteer Centres (VCs) support volunteers and VIOs. Centres are accredited nationally by NAVCA through the Volunteer Centre Quality Accreditation (VCQA). While there used to be over 300 Volunteer Centres in England, numbers have fallen dramatically in recent years as many have closed, merged, or have been integrated into larger organisations like Councils for Voluntary Service (CVSs). The current local volunteering infrastructure is seen as fragmented overall, though there are some bright spots of positive local partnerships.

Local infrastructure organisations often fund public benefit work, including volunteer engagement, through income generated from other activities. The funding model for such volunteering support is fragmented, pieced together from different sources, due to a lack of systems level overview.

– (Academic interviewee)

Malvern Hills District Council in Gloucestershire…have a very engaged way of linking their local VCS sector with the council, with the NHS, and other organisations that linked well with volunteering…In Derby and in Hackney, there are similar examples of this.

– (England Official interviewee)

Volunteering infrastructure is seen by some to be hampered by a lack of strategic funding. The financial crash of 2008 meant cuts to local authority funding over the past decade, which has had a significant impact on funding for and the size and scale of local infrastructure (CEP, 2022; 360Giving, 2023). The majority of grant funding goes to frontline services or to specific policies and programmes with direct outcomes, rather than contributing to the enabling environment that creates the conditions for volunteering to happen (for example, helping organisations to ensure compliance with regulations affecting all their projects). 

In 2020, the government announced a £750 million financial support package for frontline charities as part of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Support was targeted at organisations providing vital services to the vulnerable, some of which would have involved volunteers. Research participants pointed out that when there is significant investment targeted at volunteering more directly, there are demonstrable positive impacts. For example, funding for the Youth United Foundation for uniformed youth volunteers has led to around 40,000 volunteering opportunities and a significant increase in volunteers, particularly in more deprived areas (YUF, 2016). Most recently, funding from the government for The Big Help Out contributed to an estimated seven million people taking part (Together, 2023).

Country focus: Scotland

Volunteering is at the heart of everything that we do as a government, and is the golden thread running through all of our policies and contributing right across the National Outcomes in the National Performance Framework.

Aileen Campbell, MSP, Ministerial Forward, ‘Volunteering for All: Our National Framework, Scottish Government, 2019

Volunteering in Scotland: key data

22% of the adult population (formally) volunteer

(Scottish Government, 2023)

• National strategy for volunteering: ‘Volunteering for All: Our National Framework’ (2019); ‘Volunteering Action Plan’ (2022)

• Government department responsible for volunteering: Scottish Government (cross-government, but especially Third Sector Unit)

• National centre for volunteering: Volunteer Scotland

Volunteering prevalence

Around one in five people in Scotland (22%) did any formal volunteering (meaning through an organisation or group) between mid-2021 and mid-2022, according to the 2022 Scottish Household Survey (Scottish Government, 2023). When informal volunteering is included, this rises to 46% of the population involved in volunteering of some kind. Compared to previous waves, this suggests that formal volunteering has declined since before the COVID-19 pandemic, but informal volunteering rates are consistent. The most common causes for formal volunteering among adults were local community and neighbourhood issues, followed by ‘health, disability and wellbeing’, ‘hobbies and recreation’ and ‘physical activity, sport and exercise’.

Volunteering infrastructure bodies

In terms of how volunteering infrastructure functions in Scotland, there are two key differences to the English context. Firstly, in Volunteer Scotland, the country has a single national centre for volunteering, working to deliver a national strategy for the sector. In recent years, Volunteer Scotland has scaled up its efforts to act as a national coordinator for volunteering in Scotland, supporting VIOs with training and advice while also representing the voluntary sector in conversations with the Scottish Government. It works closely with SCVO (Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations), a membership organisation for voluntary organisations that is analogous to NCVO in the English context. With around 4,000 members, SCVO is involved in grant management and policy work, a key example being their campaign for fair funding for the sector (SCVO, 2023). As well as working extensively in capacity building and training, SCVO is also responsible for managing digital infrastructure for the sector (for example, the data management and reporting platform Milo, used by Third Sector Interfaces (TSIs) – see below). 

Volunteering policy

Key recent policy documents relating to the Scottish volunteering sector include the ‘Volunteering for All’ National Outcomes Framework for Volunteering (Scottish Government, 2019) and Scotland’s Volunteering Action Plan (Scottish Government, 2022). The former was government-led (the Scottish Government’s Third Sector Unit is the department which is most closely focused on volunteering), but produced in consultation with voluntary sector representatives. It made recommendations for how different agents within the sector could help progress towards the outcomes it proposed. The Action Plan aimed to build on this document (and update proposals for the social and economic changes since the COVID-19 pandemic), but the more collaborative and conceptual approach taken by Volunteer Scotland and the other agencies developing it was seen by research participants to have had advantages and disadvantages. While the recognition the plan offered of the complex interconnected nature of the enabling environment for volunteering is widely seen as valuable, some felt that the bottom-up approach taken in the Action Plan has resulted in a document which lacks a clear focus and objectives for the Scottish Government’s work in the sector.

Local volunteering infrastructure

TSIs are a second key difference in volunteering infrastructure in Scotland, operating at a local level. With one per local authority area, this network of 32 organisations sits between government and third sector organisations working at the local level. Some TSIs are the product of the merging of multiple previously separate entities, meaning there is significant variation in their roles and remits. For example, three of the larger TSIs (in Glasgow, Edinburgh and the Western Isles) combine a Volunteer Centre (a public-facing centre connecting would-be volunteers with organisations seeking to fill roles) with a ‘voice of the sector’ role, representing their members at both local authority (for example, Community Planning Partnerships) and other government levels. Other TSIs are smaller and therefore have more restricted functions (see below). All TSIs are connected through the TSI Scotland Network, facilitating shared learning and collaboration. This system was generally perceived by research participants to be working well, as the lines of communication between sector and government are clear to all involved – something that research participants with experience of both suggested was sometimes lacking in the English context. 

However, there are also practical constraints on what TSIs can achieve with the resources at their disposal. Although the voluntary sector has cross-party support within the Scottish Government, TSIs are largely funded by local authorities which as noted have seen significant budget cuts during the austerity years. In many cases this has resulted in the loss of key functionality, such as a public-facing Volunteer Centre. Some in the sector feel that – especially outside the bigger three TSIs mentioned previously – this has resulted in resources being spread too thinly to function effectively. They said that there would be benefits in centralising some aspects of TSI work so that not every TSI was attempting to cover all bases.

Country focus: Wales

There is a long and proud history of volunteering in Wales, built on long-standing traditions of mutual aid and support.

Volunteering Policy, Welsh Government, 2015a

Volunteering in Wales: Key data

30% of adult population (formally) volunteer

(Welsh Government, 2023)

• National strategy for volunteering: Volunteering Policy: Supporting Communities, Changing Lives (2015 – currently under review)

• Government department responsible for volunteering: Welsh Government (Communities Division, Third Sector Team)

• National centre for volunteering: No single body

Volunteering prevalence

The National Survey for Wales records comparatively high prevalence of formal volunteering, with 30% of adults giving time to an organisation or club for free between April 2022 and March 2023 (Welsh Government, 2023). Common causes for volunteering included sports clubs (particularly among men), charitable organisations and school/youth groups.

Volunteering infrastructure bodies

Aspects of the volunteering enabling environment in Wales are similar to those in Scotland. This is especially the case for volunteering infrastructure bodies. These include the Third Sector Infrastructure (comprising Wales Council for Voluntary Action [WCVA], County Voluntary Councils [CVCs] and VCs) and the Third Sector Partnership Council. The WCVA is the national volunteering organisation which acts in a similar way to SCVO, with core funding being given by the Welsh Government to WCVA along with the 19 local CVCs, situated in each county. CVCs provide advice and information to local voluntary and community groups on volunteering, funding sources and any other issues they may have. 

There is also Third Sector Support Wales (TSSW), which is a network of organisations working across Wales to support the voluntary sector. TSSW includes Volunteering Wales and Funding Wales, both digital platforms providing information and access to volunteering and funding opportunities for volunteers and organisations respectively. 

The status and image of both formal and informal volunteering was seen by research participants to have been raised in Wales by a combination of factors. These included: positive media coverage; celebrating volunteers’ achievements, including in governance roles; being open to a diverse range of people as volunteers; and volunteers themselves talking about their experiences. 

Volunteering policy

The Welsh Government’s ‘Volunteering Policy: Supporting Communities, Changing Lives’ document (published in 2015) sets out the actions that the Welsh Government, the Third Sector Infrastructure (WCVA, CVCs and Volunteer Centres) and the Third Sector Partnership Council would take to continue and to build on their support for volunteering (Welsh Government, 2015a). The Welsh Government promised it would seek to promote and influence best practice and advocate that other bodies working with and supporting volunteers adopt the policy’s principles.

A WCVA representative noted that WCVA and the Welsh government are the guardians of this policy, which has been important in laying down an indefinite commitment by the government to be active in volunteering. This commitment obliges the government to do certain things. The representative noted that this helped to maintain consistent dialogue between government and the third sector, with volunteering being regularly discussed when making decisions. 

As the Volunteering Policy approaches its tenth year, it is in the process of being reviewed and refreshed. This review has highlighted the need to update the language used in the policy and the tone (which refers mostly to formal volunteering), which the sector appears to be shifting away from. They engaged partners in Australia in this debate and were advised that they needed to “pitch in a meaningful way in today’s language, using ‘helping out’ instead of ‘volunteering’.”

The Third Sector Partnership Council has a commitment to meet a cross-section of stakeholders on a regular basis. A research participant from the Welsh VCSE sector noted this group includes VIO representatives from different sectors, including health, sport, and employment. They meet with the minister responsible for the Third Sector and Volunteering to give advice on the new approach.

Wales also introduced the Well-being of Future Generations Act in 2015, along with a Future Generations Commissioner (Welsh Government, 2015b). The Act requires public bodies in Wales: to think about the long-term impact of their decisions; to work better with people, communities, and each other; and, to prevent persistent problems such as poverty, health inequalities and climate change. 

Although volunteering is a devolved policy area, problems cited about Wales’s volunteering infrastructure included some instances in which Wales did not benefit from UK funding systems. Examples included the #iwill campaign led by Volunteering Matters in the UK, and the Big Help Out campaign which, due to the digital systems they used, were not felt to be fit for purpose outside England despite being supposedly UK-wide programmes.

Country focus: Republic of Ireland 

There’s a very strong recognition across government that all of our services and policies and schemes, every single government department, relied on the community and voluntary sector to deliver some of their services or their programmes…in one way or another.

Irish Government interviewee

Volunteering in Republic of Ireland: key data

14% of adult population (formally) volunteer

14% of people aged 15+ (Central Statistics Office, 2022)

• National strategy for volunteering: National Volunteering Strategy 2021-2025

• Government department responsible for volunteering: Department of Rural and Community Development (DRCD)

• National centre for volunteering: Volunteering Ireland

Volunteering prevalence

In the 2022 Census, 14% of people in Ireland aged 15 or older said that they help or volunteer for one of a list of organisation types, or in their local community (Central Statistics Office, 2022).^{[footnote 2]} This is considerably lower than the last recorded volunteering rate in Ireland collected in 2013, which put the figure at 28.4% (CSO, 2015). However, the 2013 survey used a broader definition of volunteering to include all unpaid and non-compulsory work performed outside the respondent’s household, capturing both formal and informal volunteering. As informal volunteering (outside organisations) is thought to constitute over half of the volunteering carried out in Ireland, this could explain the discrepancy in these figures (Government of Ireland, 2020). As noted in Wales and Australia (see next section), sport is a key field for volunteering in Ireland; one report estimated that more than half of adults in Ireland have volunteered for sport at some point in their life (Sport Ireland, 2019)

Volunteering infrastructure bodies

National volunteering infrastructure in the Republic of Ireland offers an interesting point of comparison for this research, not least because the relationship between central government and the VCSE sector is very different to Britain. Although a strong sense of community and volunteerism was identified by research participants as a characteristic of Irish culture, the VCSE sector in the country is relatively young. Research participants attributed this to the historical prominence of religious organisations (including the Catholic Church) in the provision of public services such as health, social care and education. This was seen by some research participants to have slowed the development of non-religious civil society in Ireland. Following the scaling-down of church service provision, a gap was created within which civil society organisations began to grow, and the 1980s and 1990s saw the growth of a large – and largely unregulated – charity and voluntary sector. In keeping with the relative youth of the sector as a whole, the introduction of a robust regulatory landscape is also fairly new in the Irish context; the Charities Regulator was established only in 2014. This historical development has two key consequences in the present: the voluntary sector is central to the provision of essential public services in Ireland (following a ‘welfare partnership’ model),^{[footnote 3]} and the sector is struggling to continue to provide these services in the face of pressures such as increased regulatory requirements, and a recruitment and retention crisis.

In 2017, the Department of Rural and Community Development (DRCD) was founded and took on responsibility for oversight of the VCSE sector. From the start, the department was committed to building relationships not only with the sector, but also with all other relevant departments, aiming to be the advocate for the VCSE sector across government. 

The Wheel is Ireland’s national representative body for community and voluntary organisations (CVOs), with about one third of Ireland’s non-school charities among its membership. It acts in a role analogous to that of the NCVO (in England), SCVO (in Scotland) or WCVA (in Wales), offering support, information, advice, and advocacy to the independent CVOs working to provide public services in Ireland.

Volunteering policy

The National Volunteering Strategy 2021-2025 laid out the government’s strategy for the sector and was developed in collaboration with eight other government departments, as well as numerous frontline and representative organisations (Government of Ireland, 2020). This collaborative approach is central to DRCD’s understanding of its role as an enabler of the sector, seeking to provide supporting infrastructure and preserve accountability without needing to intervene in all aspects of volunteering. 

In practice, this means preserving the independence of local agents, like VCs, but providing support that fills gaps and ensures developments made to support volunteering are sustainable. For example, DRCD worked with VCs over several years to develop a list of ‘core’ functions that all would offer, establishing some continuity across the country. As the current volunteering strategy is drawing to a close in 2025, DRCD is working to make sure that some achievements of the last strategy are preserved, such as the Community Volunteers Programme, which grew out of response to the COVID-19 pandemic and will ensure each country retains a trained corps of volunteers that can be called upon for major events and emergencies. 

Local volunteering infrastructure

At the local level, there are 29 VCs across Ireland, serving as an interface between individuals seeking to volunteer and organisations with volunteer roles to fill. They also provide advice, training, and facilities, as well as important administrative processes such as Garda vetting (a screening procedure for volunteers who will work with children or vulnerable people). Each of these VCs receives direct state funding and is independently constituted, with its own board of trustees. However, they are all affiliated to the national volunteering organisation, Volunteer Ireland, which supports the network of VCs and provides an IT platform for them to use. Although the VCs are fully independent of government, DRCD has worked to foster a collaborative relationship with them, aiming to bring them into conversations alongside other representatives from the sector. 

Country focus: Australia

Volunteering is the thread that binds together the Australian spirit. It betters all our communities.

The Hon Amanda Rishworth MP, Minister for Social Services in National Strategy for Volunteering, Volunteering Australia, 2023

Volunteering in Australia: Key data

27% of adult population (formally) volunteer

(Volunteering Australia, 2023)

• National strategy for volunteering: National Strategy for Volunteering 2023 to 2033 

• Government department responsible for volunteering: Department of Social Services (Federal level), various departments (State/Territory level)

• National centre for volunteering: Volunteering Australia

Volunteering prevalence

According to figures shared by Volunteering Australia, more than one in four people in Australia (27%) were involved in formal volunteering in 2022, and just under half (47%) had volunteered informally. When both are factored in, more than half of the population volunteered in some form (57%) (Volunteering Australia, 2023). The most common types of organisations in which people volunteered were sport and recreation organisations, community services, welfare and homelessness organisations, and religious organisations. 

Volunteering infrastructure bodies

At the federal level, volunteering in Australia is overseen by the Department of Social Services. However, a variety of departments are involved at the state and territory level. In an attempt to overcome the potential for inconsistency in approach caused by a large number of government stakeholders being involved, trying to establish a cross-government approach to promoting volunteering was a major pillar of the Australian volunteering strategy (see next section). 

Volunteering Australia is the national peak body for volunteering, involved in policy, advocacy, research and development of organisations involved in volunteering. It was founded in 1997 following the merging of previous organisations.^{[footnote 4]} While previously membership was restricted only to VCs at the state/territory level, in 2003 this was widened to include national organisations involved in volunteering (Volunteering Australia, undated).

Volunteering policy

Many research participants saw Australia as leading the way in volunteering policy globally, with many citing the National Strategy for Volunteering 2022-2032 as evidence of this (Volunteering Australia, 2023). The strategy was developed in consultation with over 3,500 members of the public, and stakeholders from government, business and the voluntary sector in different territories and jurisdictions, in what organisers believe was a ‘global first’. The strategy was funded by a grant from the Department of Social Services and was carried out by the national body Volunteering Australia. It had 12 strategic aims, including focusing on the volunteer’s experience, enabling a community-led approach, reshaping the public perception of volunteering, and making volunteering a cross-portfolio issue in government. Volunteering Australia has been given a small grant of $360,000 (£180,000) to implement the strategy, so the actions will require drawing on significant resources and time from across government and the wider volunteering ecosystem. Financial support for volunteering from state bodies has been strong in the past, though the pressures of the cost-of-living crisis and budgetary cuts have led some to question whether this will continue.

The Strategy’s guiding principles highlight the need to be experimental (requiring openness to new collaborations and ideas which will need to be tested), and to invest in ‘continuous improvement’, requiring proactive reflection and adaptability. It also emphasises the role of strong leadership and shared accountability in adapting to changing circumstances. However, as explained below, this is made more complicated by Australia’s federated structure. 

Research participants felt that there had been a shift in tone and discussion around volunteering at a strategic level in response to the Strategy. More organisations and think tanks are focused on ‘future-proofing’, particularly in terms of changes in digital volunteering and adjusting to the climate crisis. Participants also felt the Strategy had added significant momentum and optimism to volunteering in Australia, with a specific set of outcomes to focus efforts. However, they were still wary of a range of practical barriers to implementation and delivery of the strategic aims. One example was aligning the breadth of policies and outcomes which touch on volunteering in a federated country, and trying to overcome the shrinking in volunteering infrastructure (such as VCs) in response to cuts.

There are several common themes between the British and Australian volunteering context. Research participants in both countries suggested that volunteering is often seen as an ‘afterthought’ in wider legislation, though this may be changing due to the increased profile of volunteering during the COVID-19 pandemic. Volunteers in both contexts are predominantly older, and both saw a significant reduction of volunteer numbers and hours during the pandemic. Rates in Australia have recovered somewhat since, and the resurgence of volunteering since the pandemic has been driven by faith-based and disaster relief organisations which often respond to the effects of the climate crisis. One research participant noted their organisation had seen a rise in young volunteers, but they had not taken up the roles traditionally done by older ones, such as driving people to appointments.

What works well and why

Introduction

There are a number of broad themes identified through the research that help in highlighting what works well in creating an effective national enabling environment for volunteering. These are summarised below, before being explored further. 

1. Locally-led approaches– starting with the volunteer’s experience to encourage volunteering; working through existing local infrastructure; acknowledging the importance of ‘place’ in volunteering; and, encouraging and acknowledging informal volunteering. 

2. Cross-governmental working– ensuring that all relevant departments are involved in conversations relating to volunteering, and that the interests of volunteers and VIOs are advocated for in policy-making; and, aligning departments’ policies and communications to prevent instances where the policies of different departments impact on the sector in conflicting ways. 

3. Sharing valuable data– gathering further data and evidence where it is required; sharing data better through agreed shared platforms; and collecting and acknowledging data on civil society (including volunteering) when looking at the growth and success of the economy.

4. Accessible language– using accessible language across volunteering programmes. 

It must also be acknowledged that, across all countries studied, participants also raised the issue of more effective funding. This was often discussed in terms of meeting the need for more long-term funding, avoiding competitive funding pots which undermine local capacity and collaboration, and supporting volunteering infrastructure through funding which is core and unrestricted wherever possible. 

This last point in particular feels central to the aims of this study – research participants emphasised that infrastructure is vital, but by definition not project-specific and therefore rarely eligible for existing funding streams. However, generating actionable recommendations on how this could be achieved falls outside the scope of this study. Consequently, this topic is not examined in depth here, but is included in the recommended areas for further research. 

Our approach to understanding ‘what is working well’ started with the Vision for Volunteering themes, as an example of ‘what good looks like’ for volunteering, and therefore what an effective national enabling environment needs to contain and encourage. The Vision for Volunteering highlights five proposed priorities for the future of volunteering: Awareness and Appreciation; Power; Equity and Inclusion; Collaboration; and, Experimentation (Vision for Volunteering, undated). However, the Vision’s themes view volunteering primarily from the perspective of the volunteer (with the Vision containing a section on ‘How should this feel for volunteers in 2032?’). Thus, not all of it is relevant to this project which aims to focus more on the experiences of organisations, academics and officials. 

Nonetheless, there is some alignment between the four research themes identified and the Vision’s emphasis on Power and Collaboration (which links to the themes of locally-led approaches and cross-government working), Equity and Inclusion (which links to the theme of accessible language), Awareness and appreciation and Experimentation (which links to the theme of sharing valuable data – this is arguably needed as a first step to appreciating the work that volunteers do and innovating to improve it). 

A key tension found in this research is that there are mixed views on specific government interventions in volunteering, with the COVID-19 pandemic often cited as an example of where quick and dramatic changes were made. In some interviews, the achievements of national programmes were recognised, but some research participants suggested that these would not be replicable in non-emergency situations. This was because they would be unlikely to receive the same level of prioritisation (both in terms of funding and in terms of accelerated approval/implementation processes). 

However, there was also debate over whether a national approach was always appropriate. Some participants suggested the government should have done more to capitalise on the possibility of community-run schemes during the pandemic, suggesting the funding released to support VCSE organisations of all sizes did not always meet the needs these participants felt it should have. 

Additionally, there was some pushback from participants around the idea of the government using volunteering to ‘plug gaps’ in public services, perceived by many as being under-funded. This criticism is connected to concerns around the language used for volunteering initiatives, including a backlash against phrases like ‘Big Society’, which some in the VCSE sector perceive as shifting the responsibility for the provision of public services away from government and onto the public themselves.

Theme 1: Locally-led approaches

6.2.1 Start with the volunteer’s experience to encourage volunteering

Beginning with the priorities and aspirations of the volunteer when shaping the national enabling environment was seen by many participants as the most effective way to encourage and sustain volunteering over the longer-term. Indeed, the Vision for Volunteering was written from the volunteer’s perspective for this reason. The most common challenge raised against the working definition of ‘enabling environment’ used within this project was that it did not account for the individual volunteer’s experience.

Research participants gave examples of how specific programmes could be designed with the volunteer’s experience at the forefront, acknowledging that such programmes are an essential part of the national enabling environment, as set out above. Top-down programmes with pre-determined aims and outcomes (and a specified number of volunteers that were intended to be recruited) were seen by participants as being less likely to lead to a positive experience for volunteers, or to develop volunteering over the long-term. This is particularly important for attempts to broaden the range of people who volunteer, as those who volunteer less regularly (younger people, people from lower income households or those from minority ethnic communities) have different priorities and face different barriers which may not be accommodated in a one-size-fits-all programme. 

Some criticised the NHS Responders Scheme as an example of a scheme which took a top-down approach to volunteering and dictated the terms to the volunteer; the cause, objectives and numbers were pre-set. They contrasted this with the Big Help Out, which enabled volunteers to choose how and where they provided help. Although it was a national programme, participation did not require people to meet narrow requirements, and left room for local adaptation and involvement. Other DCMS programmes such as Community Organisers and the Place Based Social Action Programme have returned similar findings (DCMS, 2019b).

More widely, volunteer ‘passports’ have been suggested as one route to emphasise and validate a volunteer’s experience, while also making it easier for them to seek further opportunities. However, research participants were divided as to whether this could be achieved in practice. Previous research has also highlighted the diversity of meanings attached to the ‘passport’ concept, as well as difficulties and challenges associated with their adoption (Research Works for DCMS, 2021).

Prioritising the volunteer experience is a trend globally. The Global Trends in Volunteering report found that volunteering infrastructure is being increasingly framed as a means to leverage local citizen contributions for local development, with an emphasis on inclusion and community-based solutions (UN Volunteers, 2018). In Australia’s Volunteering Strategy, one of the 12 key pillars was ‘Focusing on the Volunteer’s Experience’, with the strategy written from that perspective. One driver towards a local and grassroots focus for this may have been the reduction of state-funded support for local services in countries across the world due to austerity measures. It also, however, reflects the momentum behind drives towards localism across the delivery of government and non-profit services, which is seen as more impactful and empowering for those involved.

Volunteers are, in a traditional setting, the bottom of the food chain. What happens if you [invert] that and put power with communities and then as charities you sit alongside [them] and help them work out the actions they want to take?

– GB VCSE Interviewee

6.2.2 Work through existing local infrastructure, acknowledging the importance of place

One key aspect of promoting volunteering in a community is ensuring that any initiative is already linked into the networks and assets which exist in that community.

There is a lack of appreciation and understanding that things happen in a place and people live in a place - funding is not structured to reflect that.

– GB VCSE Interviewee

Wider research indicates that many people are motivated to volunteer to meet a need in their local community (NCVO, 2023). Interviewees felt that local organisations, voluntary sector bodies, community hubs, sports clubs and businesses were key partners in trying to encourage volunteering across the country. One research participant felt the place-based regeneration movement has seen an increase in people volunteering as a result of it. 

If I was in DCMS, this is the sort of thing I would be exploring— ‘Where can we lean into things that really work that really require volunteers?’ Then take those learnings (for example, from ‘place building’) and see how they could be applied in other sectors—for example, arts and sport.

– GB VCSE Interviewee

Community-led approaches can be supported through structuring funding so it can be flexibly used to support existing initiatives which are rooted in a local community. One research participant gave the example of the Household Support Fund, which was awarded with minimal instructions on how to spend it, giving local councils a significant amount of freedom; many used the opportunity to engage with their local voluntary sector and volunteer involving organisations to support distribution of the funding. In some areas like Southwark in London, local councils have sought to build on a surge in volunteering during the pandemic to develop innovative community referral pathways for the Household Support Fund (LGA, 2022).

That pot of funding has helped to rebuild and restructure that relationship between councils and a lot of the VCSE organisations. That has happened in relatively well-off areas, where deprivation is much more hidden and harder to identify and not a critical mass of the electorate. This is where the VCSE sector is showing its worth; a lot of councils were using VCSE organisations as intelligence to help them distribute that pot of funding.

– (GB VCSE Interviewee)

Other suggestions from participants included making it easier for assets to be transferred into local community management (also suggested in Labour’s Take Back Control Bill [Partington, 2024]), and giving councils the freedoms and powers to harness their local VCSE sector by removing ringfencing and inflexible requirements on funding. While these initiatives don’t specifically focus on volunteering, many of the organisations that would benefit are community organisations that involve volunteers significantly in their work.

Community-led approaches in practice

Over recent years, community power and community-led approaches have gathered momentum across Britain. Community-led approaches prioritise the values, views and aspirations of a community, on the assumption that those who know an area best should decide what outcomes and approaches are best for that community. This touches on policies as diverse as health, energy and crime. Proponents advocate for greater devolution of power, resources and funding to communities who can decide how to spend it. Many community members also get involved in delivering the work as volunteers.

A prominent example is the Community Wealth Fund, which received a commitment to a proportion of DCMS’s Dormant Assets fund.^{[footnote 5]} Other examples include the Place Based Social Action programme jointly funded by DCMS and The National Lottery Community Fund, the Community Organisers Programme and the Community Organisers Expansion Programme funded by DCMS.

However, there are also risks involved. Firstly, in representation. Those who are actively involved do not always represent the whole community, while existing power imbalances or inequalities in communities can be reinforced through a community-led approach. Secondly, there are risks in terms of safeguarding, and the responsibilities of government to minimise the risk of harm to those involved. Finally, there are risks in terms of impact, and ensuring that government money is spent effectively on tackling specific and identified outcomes. Mitigating these risks requires careful planning and investment from the organisations involved, as well as robust evaluation.

Additional ideas from the wider literature (though not specifically raised by research participants themselves) include:

• Accelerating the Strategy for Community Spaces and Relationships - promised in the Levelling Up White Paper, and aimed at “strengthening our community and neighbourhood infrastructure”, this wider strategy could bring volunteering’s evidence-based role in supporting spaces and relationships to the forefront and act as a platform for a series of changes to the enabling environment around volunteering (UK government, 2022).

• Social Investment or Charity Action Zones - as suggested by a series of research organisations. These could be targeted zones in deprived parts of the UK where the government sets up a series of incentives, including gift-aid breaks, which could encourage greater charitable activity and giving, including to volunteering initiatives (NPC, 2023; Centre for Cities, 2024; Onward, 2024).

• Rolling out Community Covenants - as recommended in the government’s response to the Kruger Review. These co-created agreements between councils, public bodies and communities to shape the regeneration of their areas and improve public services could give local communities the opportunities to investigate the role of volunteering as a key component of community life (Kruger, 2020; DCMS, 2022).

Whichever approach is taken, this must involve local government, as councils have the legitimacy in and knowledge of a local area to support in volunteering initiatives. Although Levelling Up and the corresponding funding pots were not brought up by research participants, several did feel that handing greater freedom to local governments around spending and procurement would better enable them to build relationships and deliver at a local level. 

There is, however, a tension here between empowering an individual volunteer to support their experience and focusing on the experience of a local organisation. Local organisations and those who are most actively involved in community infrastructure are not always representative of the wider community. At their best, organisations recognise this and make efforts to engage all parts of their community, but the government has a responsibility to take action to ensure that volunteering initiatives are inclusive of the whole population and reflect their priorities. This requires either placing some requirements on local organisations to consider this, or directly stepping in to fill this gap.

6.2.3 Encourage and acknowledge informal volunteering

Informal volunteering is a core aspect of England’s volunteering activity. In the Community Life Survey, informal volunteering is defined as ‘giving unpaid help to individuals who are not a relative’ (DCMS, 2023). As noted in the England section previously, about twice as many people volunteered informally as formally in 2021/22 (DCMS, 2023). Within large-scale volunteering programmes such as the Big Help Out, informal participation is hard to capture, but is seen to play a major role; one participant estimated that up to a third of the seven million who took part did so through informal volunteering.

Acknowledging and encouraging informal volunteering (and the organisations who support and facilitate it) is a key part of supporting volunteering across England. Specific barriers to this include the variety of terms used to describe informal volunteering (see Theme 4), mistrust of government initiatives as being about ‘plugging gaps’ in public services, and the need to create programmes that empower individuals and communities within their specific local and cultural contexts. Research participants noted that some of the actions the government can take to create a better enabling environment for formal volunteering also benefit informal volunteering. This includes considering the impact of any new pieces of legislation on volunteers and providing funding for local community services across the country, including community centres, sports clubs and others, which can foster social capital. Specific initiatives to support informal volunteering might also be beneficial: these should be shaped with organisations supporting informal volunteers in different community and cultural contexts.

Participants felt the role of the informal volunteer must be considered when decisions are made about volunteering. This will likely include involving smaller and more informal community organisations in decision-making processes; ensuring that officials consider how new policies and programmes may affect or disincentivise informal volunteers. The global literature suggests that volunteering regulation and the ‘professionalisation’ of volunteering can inadvertently squeeze out wider participation through adding specialised requirements for volunteers; it is important to balance the need for high standards with flexibility to account for different types of volunteering (UN Volunteers 2018). It is also important to ensure that attempts to measure or collect data on volunteering considers the role of informal volunteering too. This connects to themes 3 (sharing valuable data) and 4 (accessible language), discussed next.

Theme 2: Cross-government working

6.3.1 Bring other departments into conversations on volunteering (beyond collaboration on specific policies) and bring up volunteering in wider policy discussions

As well as working collaboratively with local authorities and VIOs, an effective enabling environment for volunteering needs different arms of government to work well with one another. It is crucial that departments communicate well and include voices from VIOs and volunteering infrastructure bodies in policy discussions to minimise the risk of unintended negative impacts on volunteering. In the English context, this could involve building on the Civil Society Strategy of 2018, which also cut across multiple government departments, and incorporating learnings from previous efforts in this space, such as the Council for Social Action (2007 to 2009). 

In countries where a national strategy has been devised for volunteering, the involvement of representatives from across government in the development process has been cited as key, but communication cannot be limited to these discrete periods. Research participants in Australia highlighted the importance of an ongoing cross-government approach to resolving issues in the implementation stage of the National Strategy in order to prevent the same obstacles arising in multiple jurisdictions and policy areas. In the Australian context, this issue was exacerbated by the federalised structure in which each territory has its own legislation, data collection methods, policy frameworks and security check system, making the standardisation of volunteering policy difficult. Interviewees said this acted as a barrier to learning from others’ experience. It also threw up major issues for implementing the aims of the strategy as a result.

There are some challenges involved in keeping volunteering among the priorities of government departments where it is not traditionally part of their remit, and therefore not something against which they are evaluated. Australia offers an example here. One change made as a result of the Volunteering Strategy has been making volunteering a critical indicator for the Treasury’s Wellbeing Framework, informing all budgetary decisions. In theory this acts as a motivator and reminder to factor volunteering into policy-making, requiring a consideration of volunteering across all of government. In practice, it is still unclear exactly at what stage and in what level of depth this is considered. 

In the Republic of Ireland, DRCD has worked from the outset to ensure cross-departmental buy-in on changes made to support volunteering and the VCSE sector. The creation of the National Volunteering Strategy 2021-2025 involved representatives from nine government departments (in addition to many representatives from the wider sector). This collaboration has extended into the development of subsequent strategies and plans such as the Social Enterprise Strategy (currently under consultation). 

Beyond these consultation processes, however, DRCD represents and advocates for the interests of the sector across government. For example, a major obstacle facing VIOs in Ireland is the cost of insurance. As this is an issue affecting multiple sectors, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Recovery and Investment established a sub-group on Insurance Reform in 2020 (taking over from the Cost of Insurance Working Group which was active 2016-20). DRCD plans to take their report on the specific issues of insurance in the VCSE sector to this cross-departmental sub-group. By advocating for the needs of the sector while reform plans are being formulated, DRCD can ensure that any changes implemented as a result also bring improvements for VIOs. 

Research participants both within and outside government in several countries raised the issue of staff ‘churn’ as an additional barrier in the context of cross-departmental communication. The relatively high internal turnover of staff within the UK Civil Service introduces an additional challenge here, as relationships need to be regularly ‘refreshed’ as different individuals move in and out of roles, and subject-specific knowledge can be lost.

6.3.2 Allow the sector to help resolve barriers raised by policies that can negatively impact volunteering

Research participants highlighted some areas where the policies of different UK government departments have negatively impacted volunteering, often requiring VIOs to resolve the issue. For example, previous Home Office guidance excluded asylum seekers from volunteering in the public sector. Following a campaign by Refugee Action, this guidance was revised, and current guidance is explicit in detailing the right of asylum seekers to volunteer for a charity or public sector organisation. Participants also mentioned ongoing work to try to bring clarity around volunteering while claiming benefits. Since 2013, Volunteering Glasgow has been working with the Department of Work and Pensions and other organisations (such as the Poverty Leadership Panel) to produce guidance co-designed with benefit claimants that makes the right to volunteer clear. While great improvements have been made (this guidance has now fed into the UK-wide information on gov.uk), there remain some unanswered questions for those claimants who are subject to a Work Capability Assessment (WCA). 

Theme 3: Sharing valuable data

6.4.1 Mixed views on what further data and evidence is required 

The desk research and interviews raised conflicting responses to the question of whether more data was needed about volunteering, or whether the data existed and needed to be shared and utilised more effectively. Some organisations, mainly charities, cited a need for data on volunteers’ drivers and motivations at different points in their lives. Others suggested it was more important to improve access to the rich data sets already available. This included this study’s research participants themselves, such as academics, currently using those resources. 

There were several examples of data and research that were talked about positively, including Pathways through Participation (Involve, 2011). Interviewees liked that this study was longitudinal, looking at why people started, stopped and volunteered at different points throughout their lifetime. One research participant wanted this survey to be completed again to see how the pathways have been impacted since 2011. They went on to mention the government’s Community Life Survey, NCVO’s Time Well Spent research (which is more qualitative and works well as a complementary resource for the quantitative data) and the work of Pro Bono Economics, which adds financial nuance to the picture. They felt all these studies complemented one another, so all are needed to get the full picture (DCMS 2023; NCVO 2023).

Participants in Wales also noted the positives of the Time Well Spent research in England, and the need to expand Time Well Spent to get a true picture across the whole of the UK. 

However, many research participants did have specific data they felt were missing from the current resources available in the sector.

What doesn’t seem to exist is why people who don’t volunteer don’t. Which pockets of the population do not want to volunteer. What would get them to change their mind?

– GB VCSE Interviewee

Several participants wanted more research into the way communities came together during the pandemic and how local governments supported social cohesion during this time. They would use this research to emulate these behaviours in the sector outside of an emergency scenario. There was also discussion of looking into when and why volunteers stopped participating in the emergency responder scheme and using this information to prevent this from happening in the future.

The conflicting views expressed by different research participants may be the result of varying degrees of access to available data.^{[footnote 6]} This is an area that may require further examination into the barriers for different stakeholders in data use and coverage. 

6.4.2 Share data better through agreed platforms 

Aside from whether more data is needed and in what area, the question of sharing data and research about volunteering across the public and VCSE sector was brought up frequently. At a basic level, the point was made that the data is there, but is not accessible across VCSE organisations and government departments. One participant noted the need for “a way of unlocking all the data that different organisations hold,” because while the government and volunteer-involving organisations collect their own data, this often remains siloed. Data sharing platforms such as 360Giving were highlighted as a model to emulate:

There is nothing bringing the data all together; charity funders share their funding data on 360Giving, and that gives an overview of which areas are covered and not covered, so something like that is needed, rather than the current siloed approach.

– GB VCSE Interviewee

Referring to the silos between the devolved administrations:

Volunteering is developed, but there is a lot more governments could do together on data to gain economies of scale.

– Wales VCSE interviewee

Danny Kruger MP noted in ‘Levelling up our communities’ that the Cabinet Office, DCMS, ONS and the Charity Commission should coordinate under a Chief Data Officer and insist that organisations benefiting from public funding or tax relief should publish coherent and comparable data on their activities and outcomes (Kruger, 2020).

A tension appeared among participants around whether national volunteering platforms were useful in the English context. On the one hand, it was felt that centralised platforms do not cater for all kinds of volunteers and organisations.

[Referring to Volunteering Wales:] People can find opportunities to volunteer and volunteers for their orgs. This is a small picture of people who want to use a digital platform, but doesn’t represent people who do things more informally or in person.

– (Wales VCSE interviewee)

Platforms pose a risk of only catering for those well versed in using technology, or able to afford the technology needed (themes of which are further explored in a separate project on ‘Digital tools that support volunteering’ under the VRMS contract). 

Technology is often highlighted as offering new ways to overcome barriers of access to volunteering. In some contexts, the anonymity of remote, online volunteering provides new channels for marginalised groups to engage, while technology can offer powerful new tools for persons with disabilities to volunteer.

But technology also has potentially harmful effects on inclusion… This may particularly be the case for groups that less frequently utilise new technologies in their daily lives, such as older people (who have traditionally high volunteer participation rates in many cultures) or the economically disadvantaged. For VIOs, organisations that do not, or cannot, use technology potentially lose out on funding, partnership, and mobilisation opportunities, putting smaller, less well-funded VIOs at a disadvantage.

– State of Volunteering Infrastructure

Conversely, participants spoke positively about various platforms including the Big Help Out, saying the programme addresses a technical need.

The digital platform provides an easy single front door for new interest – survey after survey tells us the public don’t know where to go to find good opportunities. Combining a public campaign with an accessible platform is very innovative for the UK […] BHO helps put volunteers in control of what they do, and that’s vital.

– Wales VCSE Interviewee

This participant also went on to talk in a positive way about Volunteer Responders, which was developed during the pandemic. 

The programme is a huge step forward in volunteering innovation, with the potential to become the model for civic-minded, cause-led volunteering at times of national need or crisis.

– Wales VCSE Interviewee

6.4.3 Data on civil society should be collected and acknowledged in the same manner as other data when looking at its impact on the economy 

Across the desk research and interviews, a consistent response was that volunteering and civil society was not taken into serious consideration by public bodies during the decision-making process. Some felt this was displayed in the lack of collection and use of data from the VCSE sector in comparison to public and private data, when looking at the growth and success of the economy. 

Danny Kruger cites the United Nation’s point that the UK does not properly measure the work or value of volunteers and voluntary organisations. Some participants felt similarly, and suggested that changing this needed to be part of a wider culture shift led by the government. 

Almost every funded programme will have some voluntary activity related to it, on the board or in delivery, even if volunteers are not specifically mentioned as part of the programme.

Charities normally have good data about the return on investment of working with volunteers, but that data is rarely treated seriously by public services. There is almost a distrust of it.

There are policies in place to support and encourage volunteering, but cultural support is needed for things like that, and that is missing. There is a lot of talk about the value of volunteering, but when it comes to action, there is a little bit of snobbery.

– GB VCSE Interviewee

Theme 4: Accessible language

6.5.1 Adapt language used to reflect how volunteers perceive their role

One of the levers that national government can use to create an effective enabling environment for volunteering is helping to establish a shared understanding of what volunteering means, and how to support it. Although it was not included in the research’s original definition of a national enabling environment, language and tone was a theme that emerged during interviews, especially when speaking to representatives of other countries. 

Adapting language so that it reflects how volunteers perceive their role was felt to make volunteering feel more inclusive and accessible. The Civil Society Strategy noted in 2018 that England has a great record of people helping others, from individual acts of kindness to the work of charities and faith groups (UK government, 2018). More recently, the Vision for Volunteering called for greater awareness and appreciation of volunteering as “a continuum of involvement and participation, from occasional to regular and from highly organised to informal” (Vision for Volunteering, undated).

As with any industry trying to attract people, participants were vocal about marketing volunteering in a way that would reach everyone. Moving away from the traditional image of a volunteer still held by many – that of a person of retirement age with a lifetime of experience and plenty of free time – is important. It could help to reach people who either volunteer informally in their community without seeing themselves as ‘volunteers’, or who have felt volunteering was not for them and so have not been involved to date. 

Some felt the language around volunteering feels exclusive, technical, or old fashioned and acts as a deterrent. It does not recognise the informal community volunteering and social action that is on the rise. 

Wales has a really active volunteering sector around the arts and culture (for example, choirs); in that avenue, and with sports, these people do not see themselves as volunteers and do not connect with the word ‘volunteering’, which sounds too formal. Research does not capture that aspect of volunteering because people do not see themselves as volunteering, but it is voluntary activity happening all over the country.

– (Wales VCSE interviewee)

Some participants pointed to the Big Help Out as an example of how language can remove barriers for people to get involved, using a term which reflects how people see what they are doing. 

Big Help Out is public facing and designed to create new volunteering habits. It addresses a public awareness need. We don’t fully appreciate the power of volunteering for society, that message needs promoting in order to inspire more people to make volunteering part of their lives.

– GB VCSE Interviewee

The Welsh Government is currently re-evaluating its approach to volunteering for the first time since 2014. A WCVA interviewee noted that during this work they have consulted the Australian Government which (as already noted in this report) found accessible language and tone are necessary to reach a broader group of people. The interviewee said the Welsh Government has recognised that language needs to evolve with the changing needs of volunteers and VIOs:

A group was formed following the review reflecting a wide cross section of interests, for example, Social Care Wales, NHS, third sector [organisations], Welsh LGA, academics, all who come with a passion and sectoral angle. They are developing a new approach to volunteering in Wales. [They] engaged with partners in Australia to learn from best practice and to pitch in a meaningful way in today’s language – ‘helping out’ instead of ‘volunteering’.

– Wales VCSE Interviewee

Further research reflects this:

Research has suggested that people may enjoy distinctly better physical and mental health when they volunteer, including something called a “helpers high.” Many of those who volunteered as purple-clad games makers at the 2012 London Olympics will testify to that. Justin Davis Smith, executive director of volunteering and development at the NCVO, notes how that the “makers” title made the volunteers feel front and centre of the games, not add-ons.

– David Brindle, ‘A history of the volunteer: how active citizenship became the big society,’ 2015

The tension here is that people aged between 65 and 74 have the highest level of formal volunteering across all age groups in England, according to the Community Life Survey. It may seem counterintuitive to shift the focus of volunteering away from its most involved group. Although some research participants mentioned struggling to get older volunteers back following the health fears caused by the pandemic, the Community Life Survey shows that recent declines in the level of volunteering have only been among those below the age of 65. The lowest levels of formal volunteering were among those aged between 25 and 34. Informal volunteering rates decreased only among those below the age of 65, with those aged 65 to 74 recording the highest levels. 

While it is not a binary choice, this raises the question of whether energy is best placed in bringing in more volunteers from the 65 to 74 age group or rebranding to reach a wider demographic. Some felt there may be a place for government in running particular volunteering initiatives in schools based on the evidence of starting young to encourage life-long volunteering. The Full Time Social Action Review notes that the rapid expansion of the National Citizen Service (NCS) will see increasing numbers of young people who wish to progress onto more committed forms of social action (Holliday, 2018) (more recently evidenced through annual evaluations of the NCS programme [DCMS, 2021a]). This could be accompanied by training for VIOs on how to engage and work with a range of under-represented demographics.

(The issues related to the equity, diversity, and inclusion of volunteering in England are being explored in forthcoming research under the VRMS contract.)

Reflections and implications

This research has helped to identify what aspects of different enabling environments work well in what context across different parts of the UK and internationally. It points to a number of potential policies and interventions that could be explored further by DCMS, as a way to support volunteering in the future.

Key reflections 

In considering next steps and implications for government, the research suggests there are a number of possible tensions that should be considered and navigated, reflecting the interconnected nature of the enabling environment for volunteering.

Empowering organisations versus empowering volunteers

Some research participants emphasised a need to empower volunteers as individuals, while others argued for a need to empower VIOs. Individuals involved in VIOs are not always representative of the UK population, and the aims and objectives of one organisation may not line up with another; or with the objectives of a volunteer. Larger organisations that have the capacity and knowledge to most actively engage with the state do not always share the aims of smaller organisations. Finally, focusing on the experience of existing volunteers can conflict with the longer-term aim of encouraging more individuals (or a more diverse range of individuals) to volunteer. 

Navigating this tension requires careful mapping of different stakeholders, spending time working with different groups to identify their needs, and the design and funding of appropriate policies to ensure that marginalised groups’ needs are met.

Emphasis of the local versus important role of national government as enabler

Participants felt that government-led initiatives to actively promote and incentivise volunteering can be counter-productive. Instead, they suggested that volunteering driven by intrinsic motivation and a local cause was more likely to sustain itself and be beneficial over the longer-term. 

This did not mean they saw no role for government in volunteering. Many felt there was a role for the government in acting as an enabler for volunteering, removing barriers, and ensuring that organisations had the capacity and space to support volunteers. Some said that the UK Prime Minister’s role in supporting and championing the Big Help Out had been a positive force in bringing attention to the initiative and ensuring multiple departments considered their role in supporting it to be a success.

The role of government will vary in different contexts. Given the prevailing view across many involved in volunteering that local organisations are often best placed to make decisions around implementation in their area, it may be the case that national government prioritises programmes and systems that allow that freedom at the local level. Government can then use its national platform to promote and celebrate these initiatives, while working to remove any potential barriers to their success. Engaging with those working on the local level whenever decisions are being made that may impact volunteering will also be important here, to prevent initiatives being seen as ‘top down’ and not fit for purpose.

Mixed views on specific interventions

Research participants had conflicting views in some areas. Firstly, some felt national initiatives that worked well during the pandemic would not be replicable in non-emergency situations. They would likely have to be replaced by locally-led approaches which were more likely to be prioritised by local stakeholders. Others debated how well national initiatives had actually worked during COVID-19 and criticised the government for failing to capitalise on the possibility of community-run schemes post-pandemic. There was some wider pushback from participants around the idea of the government using volunteering to plug gaps in public services, which formed part of a wider pushback against ‘Big Society’ type approaches. 

Some felt that a single comprehensive digital platform could be beneficial in encouraging volunteering, and those in countries where single platforms were in use (such as Scotland) appreciated the benefits. However, in the English context some felt that this would only make a difference to a small minority of volunteers and could have negative effects for those who are digitally excluded. (Separate research on the role of digital platforms in promoting volunteering under the VRMS contract also points to conflicting views here.)

There were mixed views from participants on Volunteering England. There were perceived  issues with how the organisation was funded, and that if it were to be a truly national organisation that had a presence in all communities it would have required a national funding settlement. Participants also pointed out issues with the brand which led to confusion and lack of awareness of its work from the public. On the other hand, the merger between NCVO and Volunteering England was generally seen as a positive choice by the sector, and one which aided NCVO’s ability to support pieces of work like the Vision for Volunteering. One participant welcomed Volunteering England’s focus on starting with the volunteer as the key priority. 

Although research participants from countries with a single body for volunteering felt these organisations played an important role, there was not necessarily a common desire for a like-for-like replacement for Volunteering England in the English context. However, there was seen to be value in an independent and non-partisan organisation – separate to NCVO – which is wholly focused on rebuilding local and digital volunteering infrastructure. Further research among key stakeholders who would expect to engage with such an organisation could shed further light on the value this could bring, and any associated risks.

Mixed views on what/whether (further) data and evidence is required

There was mixed response as to whether further data on volunteering was required. It is clear that not everyone who wants to use existing data can easily access it. Generally, those who felt that the current amount of data was sufficient came from an academic background, while those who thought more data would be helpful worked in voluntary sector organisations. This may reflect the accessibility of data as much as the existence of it - with those in voluntary sector organisations reporting how they sometimes struggle to access the data needed.

There could be a role for government to play in helping to centralise data on volunteering and making it more accessible. This could involve measures such as: requesting (or requiring) VIOs to collect different data; providing a centralised hub for this data (or advocating for the increased use of pre-existing sources); and, commissioning or otherwise supporting the production of a regular data audit or review of recent work in the sector. 

Before any such changes could be implemented, however, the occasionally conflicting findings in this research suggest that engaging with VIOs and other stakeholders in advance would be valuable. It’s important to ensure their needs are fully understood and that existing efforts and resources will not be duplicated. Furthermore, separate work looking at the equity, diversity and inclusion of Volunteering being conducted under the VRMS contract demonstrates that it will be important not to place additional data collection requirements on VIOs without clear value add and support.

Bureaucracy versus necessary policies to promote safeguarding, inclusion, and impact

Although research participants were broadly supportive of a more ‘laissez-faire’ role for government as an enabler of volunteering, they appreciated this could conflict with the important and universally valued role government plays in guaranteeing certain standards. These included safeguarding measures, promoting diversity, equity and inclusion aims, and requiring basic data on impact from organisations who receive public funding. 

This becomes more complicated when we consider the large proportion of volunteering that happens informally and outside of organisational structures. Here, government’s role could include offering resources and guidance, while ensuring that local government and other statutory services such as the NHS and the police are equipped to monitor safeguarding risks.

Ideas for further consideration 

This research points to a number of ideas which could bring benefits and efficiencies to the enabling environment in England, which could be explored by DCMS. These relate to the research’s four key themes identified in Section 5, bringing the best of ‘what works’ elsewhere to the English context.

Locally-led approaches (Theme 1) could include the following:

Accelerating the Strategy for Community Spaces and Relationships- promised in the Levelling Up White Paper and aimed at “strengthening our community and neighbourhood infrastructure” (UK government, 2022), this strategy could bring volunteering’s evidence-based role in supporting spaces and relationships to the forefront, and act as a platform for changes to the enabling environment around volunteering. 

Creating Social Investment or Charity Action Zones - as suggested by research organisations outside of this study, including Onward, NPC and the Centre for Cities, these could be targeted zones in deprived parts of the UK where the government sets up incentive programmes such as gift-aid breaks, which could encourage greater charitable activity and giving, including to volunteering initiatives. These would build on learnings from previous initiatives such as the Growing Place-based Giving programme (DCMS, 2018), the Innovation in Democracy programme (DCMS, 2019a) and the Place Based Social Action Programme (PBSA) (DCMS, 2019b). Place-based schemes less directly related to volunteering could also be informative, such as the government-funded Heritage Action Zones programme run by Historic England (Historic England, undated).

Rolling out Community Covenants - as recommended in the response to the Kruger Review (and again building on the PBSA Programme, as mentioned above), Community Covenants could give local communities the opportunities to investigate the role of volunteering as a key component of community life (Kruger, 2020). An example from outside the sphere of volunteering could include the Community Covenant supporting the Armed Forces Covenant, which encourages local communities to support the armed forces community in their area (MOD, 2019).

Ensuring greater flexibility and devolved powers to allow local government to support their VCSE organisations- such as making it easier for assets to be transferred into local community management and removing ringfencing and inflexible requirements on funding.

Effective cross-government working (Theme 2) could be facilitated by the following:

Drawing up a national volunteering strategy- drawing inspiration from the positive effect it has had in Ireland and Australia, but keeping in mind the implementation barriers Australia faced (particularly around funding and cross-government working). Such a strategy could combine some of the principles and priorities established in the Vision for Volunteering with more concrete steps for achieving and advancing them. While this strategy is unlikely to be a panacea for all issues, it could provide a rallying point for a range of government and non-government bodies.

Encouraging and facilitating a cross-government approach to volunteering- by making use of existing connections (for example, the Cross-Whitehall and Four Nations Volunteering Working Groups) and ensuring relationships are renewed when staff move on, so retaining a degree of continuity. DCMS could use these relationships to ensure that VIOs and the umbrella bodies representing them have an advocate in policy conversations where volunteering may be only tangentially relevant.

Maintaining open channels for communication with VIOs and volunteering infrastructure bodies-to enable organisations to highlight where policy obstacles are impacting the sector (for example, a named DCMS point of contact that coordinating bodies can escalate to), and foster collaboration in resolving them.

Sharing valuable data (Theme 3) could include:

Ensuring data collection on volunteering is based on an open definition of the term– making sure that research designs will capture all the different ways in which people volunteer, including informal contributions (as it is in, for example, the Community Life Survey). This will relate not only to question wording (explicitly asking about contributions made both inside and outside organisations), but also to sampling and fieldwork plans, as evaluating only formal organisations and schemes will risk omitting the informal efforts people are making in their day-to-day lives.

Adopting more accessible language (Theme 4) could involve the following:

Using language volunteers use- ensuring policies and programmes relating to volunteering – and the language used to describe them – consider the individual volunteer’s perspective and experience. This could include adopting more colloquial terms such as ‘helping out’ instead of some of the separate ‘formal’ and ‘informal volunteering’ terms currently used, relating to Theme 3 above.

Gaps and avenues for future research

While not exhaustive, the following list includes some suggestions for further areas of research, which would help to further evolve DCMS’s thinking around potential policies and interventions that support volunteering in the future. 

Further research on how to most effectively and fairly fund infrastructure around volunteering – separate from project funding – is necessary and could build on previous work such as that by SCVO and the TSI Scotland Network (SCVO 2023; TSI Scotland Network 2023). Showing willingness and engagement here is likely to be key to gaining trust from the sector, as talk of change without acknowledgement of the limited resources at their disposal for non-project specific work may undermine confidence. 

Ensure the outcomes of the Value of Volunteering research, commissioned under the VRMS contract and demonstrating the economic value of volunteering, are well documented and shared with key influencers across government. This will help to ensure the impact of subsequent work gains more traction, as the value of volunteering overall is more widely understood and appreciated.

Consider research which looks at the lessons from the pandemic - both around how local government supported social cohesion during this time, and also digging further into perceived issues research participants identified with the Volunteer Responders programme. This will help to safeguard future emergency response schemes from repeating previous mistakes, and facilitate quicker implementation of volunteer initiatives in the event of a future crisis.

Review stakeholder needs relating to research and data across volunteering to see if there is a role that government can play in either initiating or supporting more coherent collecting and sharing of accessible data. This should be considered in light of wider findings around data needs collected as part of the 2023/24 programme of VRMS research, which serves to highlight a range of considerations here. 

Triangulate findings from this work and the separate VRMS research looking at equity, diversity and inclusion in volunteering to understand how changing the language used in policies and communications could impact how particular groups engage (or not) with volunteering.

Some participants felt that it would be helpful to further investigate the space for, and effective components of, a national volunteering passport programme. This is in the context of considering changes to infrastructure (for example, digital platforms, a single national co-ordinating body, or a national volunteering strategy). This could build on previous research in the space funded by DCMS (DCMS, 2021b), incorporating the specific factors involved in any other proposed changes to the enabling environment.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Sample profile

The below shows the number of participants interviewed in relation to each country, and the sample group they were included in. In the case of British interviewees, some worked in one nation only while others had a wider British perspective. While many made comparisons between different nations, only those whose interviews specifically focused on Scotland and Wales have been listed as such here. Some individuals and organisations requested not to be named, so these have been anonymised, but are included in the total numbers.

Australia

Total interviewees: 3

• VCSE sector leaders and working leaders: Volunteering Australia, National Strategy Director (Sarah Wilson)

• Researchers, academics, consultants: Independent Consultant (Andy Fryar), Independent Consultant (Anonymous)

Ireland

Total interviewees: 2

• Government officials: Department of Rural and Community Development (DRCD), Government of Ireland (Anonymous)

• VCSE sector leaders and working leaders: Anonymous (Anonymous)

Great Britain (England)

Total interviewees: 13

• Cross-Whitehall Volunteering Working Group: Anonymous (Anonymous)

• DCMS officials:  Anonymous (Anonymous)

• Officials (non-DCMS) focused on volunteering:  Local Government Association, Policy Adviser: Democracy, Equalities and VCS (Jo Kibble), 

• Researchers, academics, consultants: Nottingham Trent University, Professor of Organisation Studies (Daniel King), University of Kent, Lecturer in Philanthropic Studies (Karl Wilding), Independent Consultant (Gethyn Williams), Rob Jackson Consulting, Director  (Rob Jackson)

• Social action frontline organisations: Reach Volunteering, CEO (Janet Thorne), Scouts, CEO (Matt Hyde), British Red Cross, Director of Volunteering and Youth (Chris Reed)

• VCSE sector leaders and working leaders:  Volunteering Matters, Chief Executive (Paul Reddish (no longer in post)), Anonymous (Anonymous), NAVCA, CEO (Maddy Desforges)

Great Britain (Scotland)

Total interviewees: 4

• Four Nations Volunteering Working Group: Healthcare Improvement Scotland, Programme Manager (Volunteering) (Janice Malone)

• VCSE sector leaders and working leaders: SCVO, Director of Development (David McNeil), Volunteer Scotland, CEO (Alan Stevenson)

• Social action frontline organisations:  Volunteer Glasgow, Chief Executive (David Maxwell)

Great Britain (Wales)

Total interviewees: 2

• VCSE sector leaders and working leaders: Community Foundation Wales, CEO (Richard Williams), WCVA, Assistant Director of Support & Invest (Judith Stone)

Appendix 2: Technical note

Further details on methodology

This project comprised four stages: 

Stage 1: Desk research into existing literature on the enabling environment for volunteering in each country of study (including existing or draft policies or legislation, academic research, etc.).

Stage 2: Interviews with policymakers, infrastructure bodies and sector stakeholders.

Stage 3: A workshop with DCMS to present draft findings and explore different policy implications.

Stage 4: Synthesis of findings and feedback into this final report.

Stage 1 began with a scoping phase to identify relevant documents for each country in order to answer the research questions. Documents were then reviewed in order of priority, with country-specific themes incorporated into the planned interviews for each country. In total, 46 documents were reviewed, and findings were incorporated into the design of the topic guide, and this report. 

The sample frame for Stage 2 was agreed with DCMS, with potential research participants identified across four main sample groups of interest: officials focused on the VCSE sector (both within and outside DCMS, including representatives of the Cross-Whitehall Volunteering Working Group and Four Nations Volunteering Working Group); VCSE sector leaders and interface organisations; social action frontline organisations; and, researchers and academics. 

Within each sample group, potential participants were identified and invited to interview. It should be noted that the sample was not intended to be representative of the sector as a whole, and recruitment was driven by stakeholder availability and existing connections. In some cases, ‘snowballing’ was used with research participants connecting interviewers with others in the sector. In total, 23 interviews were conducted between November 2023 and February 2024 by members of the Basis Social and NPC teams.

Interviews were semi-structured using a topic guide developed by Basis Social and NPC, in consultation with DCMS. Given the specialist expertise of many participants, it was anticipated that interviews would deviate from the topic guide as appropriate to allow for more in-depth discussion of a participant’s experience and maximise the time of this senior and experienced audience. Interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes and were generally with a single participant. However, where deemed appropriate (for example, where multiple figures at the participant’s organisation wished to contribute at once) some interviews included up to three participants in a single interview.

The topic guide was broadly structured around the working definition of ‘enabling environment’ used for this project and the different ‘levers’ available to government in supporting this (see below for this definition). Each interview included: 

• an introduction to the participant(s) and their current role/organisation, including how this relates to volunteering

• a discussion of the current state of volunteering in their country of interest (including current successes and challenges)

• a review of our definition of ‘enabling environment’

focused discussion on the ‘levers’ most relevant to the participant’s work, including current examples they feel are/are not working well, changes they would like to see in the future; and

• suggestions for additional data sources and research participants to inform this project

The workshop for Stage 3 was held at DCMS on 31 January 2024, and discussions fed back into the development of this report.

Defining ‘enabling environment’

Early in the design of this project, the research team and DCMS decided that the term ‘enabling environment’ should be used in discussions with participants rather than ‘volunteering infrastructure’. This is because infrastructure has a broader meaning in the international literature, with United Nations Volunteers taking it to include operational structures and implementation capacities, which are beyond the scope of this research. It also has a more limited connotation in Britain, where it is often interpreted as referring to specific ‘infrastructure bodies’ (such as NCVO, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations). ‘Enabling environment’ was therefore felt by the research team and DCMS to more accurately represent the complex and intersecting network of factors which influence volunteering. 

Having conducted a review of various definitions of ‘enabling environment’ across volunteer involvement and voluntary action, a working definition was developed for this project, drawing on the United Nations Volunteers definition (UN Volunteers, 2018).

For this research, the term ‘enabling environment’ was focused on a specific range of levers and actions that are available to government when seeking to support or drive volunteering. This includes:

• policies and programmes (national and regional)

• legislation

• incentives, such as tax breaks, time credits, discount schemes

• funding sources/systems (including grant making, commissioning, etc.)

• data and research (funding and producing statistics and evidence for a public audience)

• organisations and structures for collaboration between government(s) and other sector stakeholders

During the course of fieldwork, the definition of some of these ‘levers’ broadened. For example, lever C (incentive schemes) was originally intended to capture programmes put in place to incentivise volunteering at different levels, including those targeted at the volunteer (for example, voucher/discount programmes to reward volunteering, time back programmes), at employers (for example, tax incentives for supporting volunteering among the workforce), etc. However, interviews showed that awareness and practice of such programmes was uncommon. Instead, participants highlighted the need to remove existing disincentives to get involved in volunteering (see, for example, the point below on cross-government working).

Originally lever F (collaboration) focused on structures that facilitate collaboration between government and stakeholders representing VIOs. However, during the interviews this was broadened to incorporate collaboration across the different government departments involved in volunteering, and the role of government in enabling collaboration across the sector (including through coordinating bodies such as Volunteering Matters in Scotland, The Wheel in Ireland, etc.).

Appendix 3: Bibliography

360Giving (2023), ‘Sector Infrastructure Funding Analysis’, available online.

Brindle, David (2015), ‘A history of the volunteer: how active citizenship became the big society’, The Guardian, 1 June 2015, available online.

Centre for Cities (2024), ‘Can charitable giving help level up the economy’, available online.

CEP, Centre for Economic Performance (2022), ‘Charity in the time of austerity: in search of the “Big Society”’, available online. 

CEV, Centre for European Volunteering (2012), ‘Volunteering Infrastructure in Europe’, available online.

CSO, Central Statistics Office (2015), ‘CSO Statistical Release, 16 July 2015: QNHS Volunteering and Wellbeing’, available online.

CSO, Central Statistics Office (2022), ‘Census of Population 2022 Spotlight Series: Volunteering in Ireland’, available online.

DCMS (2018), ‘Growing Place-based Giving: submit an expression of interest’, available online.

DCMS (2019a), ‘The Innovation in Democracy Programme (IiDP)’, available online.

DCMS (2019b), ‘Place Based Social Action Programme’, available online.

DCMS (2021a), ‘National Citizen Service Evaluation Report 2019’, available online.

DCMS (2021b), [‘Research Report on Volunteer Passports’], available online.

DCMS (2022), ‘Government Response to Danny Kruger’MP’s Report: “Levelling Up Our Communities: Proposals for a New Social Covenant”’, available online.

DCMS (2023), ‘Community Life Survey 2021/22’, available online.

Government of Ireland (2020) ‘National Volunteering Strategy (2021-2025)’, available online.

Hastings Voluntary Action (2022), ‘Volunteering Voices: A Future Vision for Hastings’, available online. 

Historic England (undated), ‘The Impact of Heritage Action Zones across England’, available online. 

Holliday, Steve (2018), ‘Independent review of Full-Time Social Action’, available online.

Involve (2011), ‘Pathways Through Participation’, available online.

Kruger, Daniel (2020), ‘Levelling up our communities: proposals for a new social covenant’, available online.

LGA, Local Government Association (2022), London Borough of Southwark: Innovative use of the Household Support Fund, available online. 

MOD, Ministry of Defence (2019), ‘Armed Forces Covenant for Communities’, available online.

MVAin4, Mobilising UK Voluntary Action (2021), ‘Volunteering in England During COVID-19: Current Issues and Learning for Recovery’, available online.

NCVO (2022), ‘Time Well Spent: Impact of covid-19 on the volunteer experience’, available online.

NCVO (2023), ‘Time Well Spent 2023: A National Survey on the Volunteer Experience’, available online.

NPC (2023), ‘Building Blocks of Growth’, available online.

Onward (2024), ‘Giving Back Better: Unlocking Philanthropy in the UK’, available online.

Partington, Richard (2024), ‘Labour mulls plan to boost local buyouts of community sites in England’, The Guardian, 9 January 2024, available online.

Reach Volunteering (2023), ‘Reach volunteer numbers at record high as overall volunteering falls’, available online.

Research Works (2021), ‘Volunteer Passporting Research: Final Report’, available online.

Scottish Government (2019), ‘Volunteering for All: Our National Framework’, available online.

Scottish Government (2022), ‘Scotland’s Volunteering Action Plan’, available online.

Scottish Government (2023), ‘Scottish Household Survey 2022: Key Findings’, available online.

SCVO (2023), ‘Fair Funding for the Voluntary Sector’, available online.

Sport Ireland (2019), ‘Irish Sports Monitor: Annual Report 2019’, available online.

Together Initiative (2023), ‘/together Coalition Campaigns 2022/2023’, available online.

TSI Scotland Network (2023), ‘Local Fair Funding Charter’, available online.

UK government (2018), ‘Civil Society Strategy: Building a Future that Works for Everyone’, available online.

UK government (2022), ‘Levelling Up the United Kingdom’, available online.

UN Volunteers (2018), ‘Global Trends in Volunteering Infrastructure’, available online.

Vision for Volunteering (undated), ‘Vision Themes’, available online.

Volunteering Australia (2023), ‘National Strategy for Volunteering 2023 to 2033’, available online. 

Volunteering Australia (undated), ‘History’, available online.

Welsh Government (2015a), ‘Volunteering Policy: Supporting Communities, Changing Lives’, available online.

Welsh Government (2015b), ‘Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015’, available online].

Welsh Government (2023), ‘Volunteering (National Survey for Wales): April 2022 to March 2023’, available online.

YUF, Youth United Foundation (2016), ‘Annual Report and Financial Statements’, available online.

Appendix 4: Abbreviations

BHO – Big Help Out

CEV – Centre for European Volunteering

CVC – County voluntary councils

CVO – Community and voluntary organisation

DCMS – Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (UK government)

DRCD – Department for Rural and Community Development (Irish Government)

HVA – Hastings Voluntary Action 

LGA – Local Government Association

NAVCA – National Association for Voluntary and Community Action

NCS – National Citizen Service 

NCVO – National Council for Voluntary Organisations

NPC – New Philanthropy Capital

ONS – Office for National Statistics

SCVO – Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

TSI – Third Sector Interface

TSSW – Third Sector Support Wales

VCSE – Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise

VC – Volunteer centre

VCQA - Volunteer Centre Quality Accreditation 

VIO – Volunteer-involving organisation

VRMS – Volunteering research managed services

WCA – Work capability assessment

WCVA – Wales Council for Voluntary Action

Appendix 5: Topic guide used in interviews

Introduction (5 mins) 

My name is [XXX]. I work on behalf of [insert researcher organisation]. 

Thank you for agreeing to speak with me today.

Together with [Basis Social/NPC] we have recently been appointed by DCMS to research volunteering infrastructure in [country]. The aim is to better understand the existing ‘enabling environment’ in [country] and see what lessons can be drawn to improve volunteering infrastructure in England. 

We are conducting interviews with a range of government and sector stakeholders across England, Scotland, Wales, the Republic of Ireland and Australia to inform this research.

The interview will last for up to one hour. If you need us to complete the interview sooner please let me know and I will try to ensure we cover the most critical questions.

As explained in the invitation, we would like to record the discussion today. The recording is used to ensure we have an accurate record of the discussion for analytical purposes and is not shared with DCMS. [Gain verbal consent to record.]

For our report, we would like to be able to attribute answers to specific organisations/ interviewees to offer DCMS an understanding of the full range of views. However, we are happy to keep your views anonymous if you would prefer. I will ask you again at the end of the interview if you would be happy to have comments attributed. The most important thing is that you feel you can be honest and open as part of our interview.

Finally, Basis Social and NPC are company partners of a body called the Market Research Society and abide by their code of conduct. Participation in this discussion is completely voluntary and you are able to withdraw your consent to participate at any point in the process. This includes during this discussion, or up until the report is produced at the end of February 2024. 

Further information about Basis Social’s privacy policy is available here: https://www.basisresearch.com/research-respondent-privacy-notice.

Any questions before we start? 

Participant introduction and overall views of volunteering sector (10 mins)

Question 1. To get us started, please could you introduce yourself, say a bit about your current role and professional background?

Question 1a. [If not specified already] How does your role / your organisation relate to the world of volunteering?

In this project, we are using the DCMS definition of volunteering which distinguishes between formal volunteering (giving unpaid support through organised groups or clubs) and informal volunteering (giving unpaid support to people who are not relatives on an informal basis). It can also include community action which encompasses a range of activities including community campaigning and organisation, collating petitions, and other civic engagement.

Question 2. Does that definition match with your own understanding of volunteering?

Question 3. How would you describe the current state of volunteering in [country] today? Why?

Question 3a. Are there areas that you think are particularly successful at the moment?

Question 3ai. Probe: differences by region / focus area / type of volunteering

Question 3b. And are there areas where you see particular challenges at the moment?

Module 1: Understanding Enabling Environments (15 mins)

As I mentioned, our focus for this project is on better understanding the existing ‘enabling environment’ for volunteering in each of the countries of this study.

Question 4. Is this a phrase you’re aware of? What does it mean to you?

Question 4a. How would you define ‘enabling environment’ with regards to volunteering?

There are a number of different definitions of ‘enabling environment’ in use in regard to volunteering, and some are broader than others. For this project, we are working with the following definition, guided by the UN Volunteers definition: [Share screen and show definition slide]

For this research, the term ‘enabling environment’ is taken to mean a range of levers and actions at the disposal of government that can be used to support/drive the [Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE)/civil society/nonprofit] sector. This includes:

• policies and programmes (national and regional)
• legislation
• incentives, such as tax breaks, time credits, discount schemes
• funding sources/systems (including grant making, commissioning etc)
• data and research (funding and producing statistics and evidence for a public audience)
• organisations and structures for collaboration between government(s) and other sector stakeholders

Question 5. How does this definition match with your own understanding of the term ‘enabling environment’?

Question 6. [If not clarified in advance] What aspects of this definition are particularly relevant to your area of work / that of your organisation?

Question 6a. Probe for which specific areas A to F they would like to expand on (up to 3 to start, can include more if time allows)

Module 2: Specific Examples of National and Regional Enabling Environments (30 minutes)

Note to interviewer: Agree with participant which areas to focus on and omit irrelevant questions as appropriate.

A: Policies and programmes (national and regional)

Question 7. Are there specific examples of policies or programmes in [country] which you feel have been particularly significant (clarify: could be positive or negative)?

Question 7a. Is this a national policy/programme or is it state/region-specific?

Question 7b. What particular need does this policy/programme address?

Question 7c. What impact has this policy/programme had/is it expected to have?

Question 7d. What about this policy/programme makes you feel that it is working well?

Question 8. What implications do you feel this policy/programme has for future decision making in the [VCSE/civil society/nonprofit] sector?

Question 9. Are there specific policies or programmes that you would like to see implemented in [country] in future?

Question 9a. Would you want this to be on the national level, or state/region-specific? Why?

Question 9b. What particular need would this address?

Question 9c. How would the impact/success of this be measured? 

Question 9ci. (Probe for elements used in comparative framework, for example, public awareness/appreciation; equity and inclusion; collaboration between organisations, or between organisations and government, etc.)

B: Legislation

Question 10. Are there specific examples of legislation in [country] which you feel have been particularly significant (Clarify: could be positive or negative)?

Question 10a. Is this national legislation or is it state/region-specific?

Question 10b. What particular need does this legislation address?

Question 10c. What impact has this legislation had/is it expected to have?

Question 10d. What about this legislation/its effects makes you feel that it is working well?

Question 11. What implications do you feel this legislation has for future decision making in the [VCSE/civil society/nonprofit] sector?

Question 12. Are there specific pieces of legislation that you would like to see implemented in [country] in future?

Question 12a. Would you want this to be on the national level, or state/region-specific? Why?

Question 12b. What particular need would this address?

Question 12c . How would the impact/success of this be measured?

C: Incentive programmes

Question 13. Are there specific examples of incentive programmes in [country] which you feel have been particularly significant (clarify: could be positive or negative)? These could include tax breaks, time credits, discount schemes, etc.

Question 13a. Probe: specifics of programme (target audience, how does it work)

Question 13b. What impact has this programme had/is it expected to have?

Question 13c. If not: Do you think there are any particular barriers to the introduction of incentive programmes?

Question 14. What implications do you feel this programme has for future decision making in the [VCSE/civil society/nonprofit] sector?

Question 15. Are there specific incentive programmes that you would like to see implemented in [country] in future?

Question 15a. What particular audience would this target/how would it work?

Question 15b. How would the impact/success of this be measured?

D: Funding sources/systems

Question 16. Are there specific examples of funding sources or systems in [country] which you feel have been particularly significant (clarify: could be positive or negative)? This could include government funding, including via arm’s length bodies or other delivery mechanisms but also wider funding systems such as trusts and foundations, philanthropists or corporate funding for volunteering.

Question 16a. What particular need does this funding system address?

Question 16b. What impact has this system had/is it expected to have?

Question 16c. What about this system/its effects makes you feel that it is working well?

Question 17. What implications do you feel this funding source/system has for future decision making in the [VCSE/civil society/nonprofit] sector?

Question 18. Are there specific examples of funding sources/systems that you would like to see implemented in [COUNTRY] in future?

Question 18a. What particular need would this address?

Question 18b. How would the impact/success of this be measured?

E: Data and research

Question 19. Are there specific examples of data or research on volunteering in [country] which you feel have been particularly significant (clarify: could be positive or negative)?

Question 19a. What particular knowledge gap does this research address?

Question 19b. What impact has this research had/is it expected to have?

Question 20. What implications do you feel this research has for future decision making in the [VCSE/civil society/nonprofit] sector?

Question 21. Are there specific areas of research/knowledge gaps that you would like to see addressed in [country] in future?

Question 21a. Why do you feel this should be a priority for research?

Question 21b. Are there particular policy/impact areas that you envisage being influenced by this research?

F: Collaboration between government(s) and other sector stakeholders

Question 22. Are there specific examples of collaboration between government(s) and other [VCSE/civil society/nonprofit] sector stakeholders in [country] which you feel have been particularly significant (clarify: could be positive or negative)?

Question 22a. Probe: is this an ad hoc collaboration, or longer-term partnership?

Question 22b. Probe: exactly which bodies are involved? (including level of government: national, federal, regional, local)

Question 22c. What impact has this collaboration had/is it expected to have?

Question 22d. What about this collaboration/its effects makes you feel that it is working well?

Question 23. What implications do you feel this collaboration has for future decision making in the [VCSE/civil society/nonprofit] sector?

Question 24 . Are there specific examples of government/VCSE sector collaboration that you would like to see implemented in [country] in future?

Question 24a. What level of government would you like to see this at? (national, federal, regional, local)

Question 24b. What particular need would this address?

Question 24c. How would the impact/success of this be measured?

Final reflections wrap-up (5 mins)

Thank you so much for sharing your views so far.

Question 25. Are there any other organisations / programmes / data sources that you haven’t already mentioned that you feel we should be including in our ongoing desk research on this topic? (These can be sent via email afterwards.)

Question 26. Are there any people/organisations you would recommend we also speak to for this research?

Question 27. Finally, are there any further questions or reflections you would like to share before we finish?

Can I just check based on our discussions today whether you would be happy to have your comments attributed, or if you would prefer to keep them anonymous? [Please record on analysis sheet.]

Thank you for your time today.

1. Informal volunteering was defined as “giving unpaid help without being involved in groups, clubs, or organisations.” Fieldwork for the Community Life Survey 2021/22 – the findings of which are included in other reports such as the NCVO Time Well Spent report, and the Volunteering Almanac – was conducted between October 2021 and September 2022, for a period of which some COVID-19 restrictions were still in place (UK government, 2023). ↩

2. Due to the wording of this question, it is not possible to fully separate out rates of formal and informal volunteering. The list of options offered was ‘a social or charitable organisation’, ‘a religious group or church’, ‘a sporting organisation’, ‘a political organisation’, and ‘in your community’, meaning that the last option would capture both formal and informal volunteering.  ↩

3. A model for public service provision whereby government provides funding to the third sector (including charities, social co-operatives, etc.) to deliver public services, rather than administering them directly through state bodies. ↩

4. A ‘peak body’ in the Australian context is a generally a trade association or advocacy group whose members share common interests. The body acts to promote these interests and often represents its members when lobbying government. The title is not officially conferred on organisations, but tends to connote legitimacy to speak on behalf of a group or sector. ↩

5. This should not be confused with Community Wealth Building, which is an approach focused on ensuring that local economic activity benefits local communities first and foremost. ↩

6. Examples of such work includes: New Local (2020) ‘Communities vs Coronavirus: The Rise of Mutual Aid’, available online; Benton, E. and Power, A., (2021) ‘Community Responses to the Coronavirus Pandemic: How Mutual Aid Can Help’, LSE Public Policy Review, 1(3), p.4, available online; Local Trust (2022), ‘One pandemic, many responses’, available online. ↩