Research and analysis

Digital tools that support 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 New Philanthropy Capital (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 experts, providers, volunteer-involving organisations and volunteers) who gave up their time to participate in this research and share their experiences with us. 

This research was conducted by:

• Victoria Harkness – Senior Director, Basis Social

• Tom Curran – Associate Director, Basis Social

• Dan Lemmon – Senior Research Executive, Basis Social

• Katie Boswell – Associate Director, NPC

• Penny Nkrumah – Innovation and Product Manager, NPC

• John Williams – Senior Consultant, NPC

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

Key messages

This research explores how digital tools are currently supporting volunteering in England, and how their role in sustaining and promoting volunteering in the future could be improved. 

It involved a desk review of existing literature and a market scan of digital tools that support volunteering, followed by 39 online in-depth qualitative interviews with a mix of digital experts, digital tool providers and volunteer-involving organisations (VIOs), plus volunteers with experience of using digital tools (conducted between August 2023 and February 2024). 

The research found wide-ranging consensus among experts, providers, VIOs and volunteers that digital tools benefit volunteering.

For example, by increasing the reach and inclusiveness of volunteering opportunities, in saving VIOs and volunteers time, and giving volunteers the flexibility to search for opportunities that match their needs. 

However, multiple barriers mean the extent to which these benefits are being realised in practice varies.

Currently, the uptake and positive impact of digital tools is limited by a range of barriers. These include low VIO and volunteer awareness of the range of digital tools on offer, poor digital literacy, skills gaps in the digital transformation space among VIOs, and limited VIO capacity and resourcing.

The digital marketplace is fragmented, with limited interoperability between tools.

This may be due to the ad-hoc way in which the market for digital tools has evolved in the UK, but it can be seen to be fuelling challenges around awareness and adoption of digital tools. Furthermore, poor interoperability was found to be creating additional work for some VIOs.

There is an underlying consensus about the principles of what ‘good’ looks like.

Experts, providers and VIOs commonly called for digital tools and a digital tools marketplace that is:

• strategic
• financially sustainable
• open to new market entrants, innovations and technologies
• easily navigable and better sign-posted
• interoperable and integrated with local volunteering infrastructure organisations such as Volunteer Centres (VCs) and Councils for Voluntary Services (CVSs).

It is clear that some tensions exist between the different groups interviewed, in terms of how the potential of digital tools can and should best be realised. For example, how to balance the desire for a more navigable market (with a potentially smaller range of tools on offer) with that of one which remains open to new entrants and which facilitates competition and innovation. 

Further sector engagement and capturing lessons from relevant government interventions will be important to realising the potential of digital tools. The research shows there is clearly an appetite for greater strategic leadership and championing from DCMS to set a clear direction of travel for the sector here. 

Executive summary

Overview

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a surge in the use of digital platforms among the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector, in place of face-to-face interactions. At the same time, volunteering more broadly is changing. The latest data suggests that there are fewer people participating in formal volunteering (DCMS, 2023), whilst recruiting and retaining volunteers remains a challenge for many volunteer-involving organisations (VIOs). Digital technology in the form of tools and platforms is recognised as having the potential to support and facilitate greater volunteering and foster a greater and more diverse pool of volunteers.

This research explores how digital tools are currently supporting volunteering in England, and how their role in sustaining and promoting volunteering in the future could be improved, focused on four key research questions:

• To what extent do digital tools currently support VIOs and volunteers at different stages in the volunteering journey (meaning recruitment, onboarding, management and gathering feedback)? 

• Where digital tools aren’t supporting VIOs in the volunteering user journey, for what reasons are they not? 

• What kind of digital infrastructure can help to harness digital tools to support volunteering?

• What, if any, are the opportunities for government and/or voluntary sector intervention to enhance the role of digital tools to support volunteering?

The project combined an initial desk review of existing academic and grey literature and a market scan of digital tools that support volunteering, followed by 39 online in-depth qualitative interviews with a mix of digital experts, digital tool providers and VIOs, plus volunteers with experience of using digital tools (conducted between August 2023 and February 2024). 

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

Main findings 

There is a wide-ranging consensus among experts, providers, VIOs and volunteers that digital tools benefit volunteering.

For example, they help by increasing the reach and inclusiveness of opportunities and in saving VIOs and volunteers time. They also give volunteers the flexibility to search for opportunities that match their needs. 

However, the extent to which these benefits are being realised in practice varies. For example, for volunteer recruitment, there is evidence of digital tools helping to increase both the number and diversity of volunteers. This can have unintended consequences if VIOs then lack the capacity to respond to surges in applications, meaning their recruitment drives can become counterproductive. Similarly, while there is evidence of efficiency gains, these were more pronounced for certain types of VIOs and volunteering, such as larger VIOs using volunteers to support delivery of key services (for example, within healthcare). 

There are a wide range of barriers to the uptake and positive impact of digital tools among both VIOs and volunteers.

This includes a lack of awareness as to the range of digital tools available, including the knowledge of which tools may best meet the needs of VIOs and volunteers. Digital literacy among the volunteering population was a concern among VIOs. So too was the lack of more specialised digital transformation skills and expertise within VIOs to maximise the adoption and utility of digital tools. Digital tools could be seen to reduce human interaction (a key motivation for volunteering). For VIOs, they can also entail high costs in terms of the money, time and resources required to use them. Justifying these investments was seen as particularly difficult in the current economic climate. The research also found contrasting examples of how well digital tools integrate with the work of sector infrastructure organisations like Councils for Voluntary Services (CVSs) and Volunteer Centres (VCs).

The digital marketplace is fragmented, with limited interoperability between tools.

The lack of interoperability (the degree to which digital tools or platforms can connect and communicate with one another) may be due to the ad-hoc way in which the market for digital tools has evolved in the UK. The research suggests it has resulted in different tools emerging in different contexts and in response to different audience needs. This fragmentation, combined with a lack of clear signposting and direction from trusted voices, can be seen to be fuelling challenges around awareness and adoption. Furthermore, poor interoperability was found to be creating additional work for some VIOs that engaged through this research. This is exacerbated by the fact that no single tool on the marketplace currently appears to satisfy all needs (the research found several VIOs needing to adopt multiple tools and platforms to perform all the functions they needed). 

There is underlying consensus about the principles of what ‘good’ looks like, but tensions exist around how to achieve these in practice.

Experts, providers and VIOs commonly called for digital tools and a digital tools marketplace that is: strategic; financially sustainable; open to new market entrants, innovations and technologies; easily navigable and better sign-posted; and, interoperable and integrated with local volunteering infrastructure organisations such as VCs and CVSs. 

However, the research uncovered tensions as to how these goals might be achieved in practice. For example, how to balance the desire for a more navigable market (with a potentially smaller range of tools on offer) with the perceived importance of keeping the market open to new entrants, to facilitate competition and innovation. 

Reflections and implications 

Further sector engagement and capturing lessons from relevant government interventions will be important to realising the potential of digital tools. The research shows there is clearly an appetite for greater strategic leadership and championing from DCMS to set a clear direction of travel for the sector here. 

DCMS is seen to have the convening power to get people together to try to establish a strategy and set of policies for digital volunteering infrastructure, building on the Vision for Volunteering (Vision for Volunteering, undated). DCMS could look at the merits of bringing together volunteers, providers, relevant government departments, big tech and the voluntary sector to co-create a shared vision and strategy for digital tools that support volunteering. This strategy could help guide future innovation and provide clarity and confidence about the direction of travel of digital infrastructure more broadly.

As part of this, DCMS could draw on lessons learned from previous UK government interventions in the digital tools space, since investment in this area is not necessarily new, and other government departments may already be engaging in relevant activity (noting previous support provided for tools such as Vinspired, as well as to other providers engaged through this research, for example, DoIT and Volunteero). Certainly, DCMS could consider speaking with other relevant government bodies, such as UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the Competition and Markets Authority, to deepen its understanding of how UK Government might best support and facilitate technological innovation in this space.

Introduction

Context and background

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a surge in the use of digital platforms among the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector, often in place of face-to-face interactions. The sector was already moving towards the greater adoption of digital solutions, but the pandemic accelerated this. Research has shown that “the pandemic led to a rapid uptake of digital technology” within the sector (COVID-19 VCSE Impact Barometer, 2021). This included delivering services online, staff moving to remote working, keeping in touch through digital or social media platforms, and digital fundraising. According to the same report, 65% of organisations reported a shift to online services by September 2021. While much of the literature focuses on the VCSE sector more broadly, these trends can also be seen across volunteering, such as the use of digital micro-volunteering as part of the NHS Volunteer Responders programme, and the rise of app-based services such as Be My Eyes.

At the same time, volunteering more broadly is changing. The latest data suggests that there are fewer people participating in formal volunteering (DCMS, 2023). Recruiting and retaining volunteers remains a challenge for many volunteer-involving organisations (VIOs). This is against a backdrop of challenging macro-environmental trends: changing ways of working, an ageing population and a cost-of-living crisis. While not a panacea, and not ignoring the very live issue presented by digital exclusion, digital technology in the form of tools and platforms is recognised as having the potential to support and facilitate greater volunteering, and foster a greater and more diverse pool of volunteers.  

In light of the evolving context, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), the government department responsible for volunteering, commissioned independent research from Basis Social and NPC to explore the current market for digital tools and how it might be supported as a way to sustain and promote volunteering into the future. The research forms part of a two-year Volunteering Research Managed Services (VRMS) call-off contract, which aims to fill knowledge gaps and develop useful evidence that can support policymakers and practitioners in the VCSE sector. 

Research objectives

The research examines the role of digital tools in facilitating and supporting volunteering through two broad lenses. The first is their role in supporting volunteer recruitment (for example, through brokerage platforms and volunteering matching tools, such as DoIT, Reach Volunteering and Volunteering Matters). The second is their role in supporting volunteer management (through tools such as Better Impact and Assemble). These are the broad categories which emerged from the evidence gathered by the research team. 

The research adopted a volunteer-centred approach to explore how digital tools can support VIOs and volunteers at different stages of the volunteering ‘journey’ (meaning recruitment, onboarding, management and gathering feedback), to understand where the market is currently focused, and to identify where gaps exist. 

The key questions explored were:

1. To what extent do digital tools currently support VIOs and volunteers at different stages in the volunteering journey? This question enabled us to consider tools’ benefits and challenges at different points in the volunteering journey and classify them based on where in the journey they play a significant role.

2. Where digital tools aren’t supporting VIOs in the volunteering user journey, for what reasons are they not? This question aimed to offer an overview of current barriers to adoption and use, helping to inform policies for greater impact.

3. What kind of digital infrastructure can help to harness digital tools to support volunteering? Digital tools and their ability to support volunteering do not exist in a vacuum; they rely on a wider volunteer infrastructure to operate successfully.

4. What, if any, are the opportunities for government and/or voluntary sector intervention to enhance the role of digital tools to support volunteering? In conclusion, and drawing on insights from research participants, several key reflections are presented for consideration here.

In examining the role of digital tools, the research has deliberately excluded civic technology, as this was felt to be distinct and could benefit from a separate, more exploratory and developmental approach. Civic technology refers to projects involving intentional collaboration between technologists, government, entrepreneurs and VCSE sector employees or volunteers to engage the public to solve civic problems. 

Nor did the project focus on digital as a form of volunteering specifically - for example, online mentoring - though these types of volunteer activities were inevitably captured through engagement with such a broad range of volunteer stakeholders and volunteers. 

It would also be remiss not to mention the very live debate around artificial intelligence (AI). This was not a specific focus for this research. However, given the very rapid evolution of the technology, and the accompanying debate around it (NPC, 2023), AI will be an important aspect to consider when looking at the role digital technology plays in volunteering going forward. 

Further details on definitions and scope for this research are provided in Appendix 1. 

Methodology 

The focus for this research was informed by an initial scoping review conducted by Basis Social, NPC and London Economics during Spring 2023, as part of the wider VRMS contract. Following this, a two-staged method was adopted for the research. This approach was deliberately iterative, ensuring any primary research built on existing evidence and literature. 

Phase 1 – scoping.

This consisted of multiple strands of desk research, including a literature review of academic and grey literature, plus a market scan to identify and analyse the range of purpose-built digital tools that support volunteering currently available in England (conducted August to October 2023). From this a methodology for the mainstage Phase 2 was designed and agreed.

Phase 2 – mainstage.

The research team conducted 39 online in-depth qualitative interviews with individuals from the following key groups, framed around a high-level volunteering ‘user journey’ (conducted November 2023 to February 2024):  

• volunteers with experience of digital tools (x 15)

• experts in digital tools that support volunteering (x 2) 

• providers/developers of digital tools that support volunteering (primarily identified during the Phase 1 market scan) (x 7)

• VIOs (x 15)

Volunteers were recruited by Criteria, an independent participant recruitment company, using a screener and quotas to ensure a mix of volunteers took part. Relevant experts, providers and VIOs were identified through a combination of desk-based research, responses to open calls to take part from DCMS, recommendations from the research team and DCMS’s own networks, and snowballing from interviewees. Shortlisted organisations were recruited by the research team via email.  

Further information about the methodology is provided in Appendix 1. This includes a profile breakdown of organisations and volunteers who took part.

Note on interpretation

This report draws mainly on the findings of the mainstage primary research phase, drawing on the insights gleaned through the existing evidence and scoping phase where relevant. It seeks to answer the four key research questions through three key reporting chapters: 

• How are digital tools currently supporting volunteering? This seeks to directly answer research questions 1 and 2.

• How can the role of digital tools for volunteering be improved? This seeks to directly answer questions 3 and 4.

• Next steps for realising the potential of digital tools. This seeks to summarise the research findings and provide recommendations for next steps. 

It should be noted that the sample sizes on which the primary research is based are relatively small and are not designed to offer a ‘representative’ picture of the market for digital tools, nor of VIOs or volunteers. Qualitative research is designed to be illustrative, detailed, and exploratory. It offers insights into the perceptions, feelings, and behaviours of people (or, in this case, representatives of organisations) rather than quantifiable conclusions from a statistically representative sample. This has been reflected in the evidence presented in this report. 

The specific digital tools that research participants were familiar with varied. As such, the research aims to capture key themes about the use of, and engagement with, different types of tools; it has not been designed to provide detailed insights into individual tools specifically, nor provide a complete picture of the digital tools market. 

Verbatim quotes have been used throughout this report to help to illustrate points made in the main narrative.

How are digital tools currently supporting volunteering?

Introduction

This section examines how digital tools are currently supporting volunteering in England. It also considers barriers to the uptake and effectiveness of different types of digital tools. It provides answers to the project’s first two research questions: 

• To what extent do digital tools currently support VIOs and volunteers at different stages in the volunteering journey? 

• Where digital tools aren’t supporting VIOs in the volunteering user journey, for what reasons are they not? 

The digital tools identified and examined through the research fell broadly into two areas: brokerage platforms and volunteering matching tools, and volunteer management tools. Within these, the research team found four categories of tools, which provide a useful starting point for distinguishing how different sorts of tools are supporting volunteering, and for describing their respective benefits and barriers. They are:

• volunteer management systems

• third-party matching tools

• hybrid management/matching systems

• non-volunteering-specific digital tools and systems

Appendix 2 provides the full list of tools identified through the research. 

Volunteer management systems

What are they and how do they support volunteering? 

The research team defined these as end-to-end digital systems which VIOs can use to execute tasks across different stages of the volunteer journey, from recruitment through to gathering feedback. Of the 22 tools identified in the research, 12 were classified as this type. However, only some of these were used by the VIOs interviewed. These included Assemble, Better Impact and Team Kinetic. 

Based on the market scan, which included a review of their websites, these tools offer many of the same features at each stage of the volunteer journey. This echoes the view of one provider, who felt that there was “little differentiation in tools for volunteer management” in terms of usability and features. 

A brief overview of the more common and unique features of these tools at each stage of the volunteering journey is provided below. 

Recruitment 

These tools enable VIOs to create digital content describing a volunteering opportunity and how to get involved. This content can then be communicated to prospective volunteers via different channels, for example, via SMS and email (to volunteers in a VIO’s contact database), via an online ‘hub’ (for volunteers subscribed to a relevant app), or via a VIOs’ own website for visitors to see and respond to. Some, like Team Kinetic, also integrate directly with third-party online matching platforms like DoIT, although this appeared to be rare, and no tool was found to integrate with all third-party matching platforms. 

Onboarding 

These tools can automate the onboarding journey - for example, by automatically sending volunteers and volunteer managers alerts and information at relevant stages, and storing onboarding information (for example, volunteer name and age) into a centralised database. They also enable volunteer managers to track volunteers’ progress through the onboarding journey, and to easily retrieve and review applications. Some tools, for example, Better Impact and Assemble, also enable VIOs to produce learning and testing content for their volunteers. However, based on both the market scan and provider interviews, this is a less common feature of current tools.  

Volunteer management 

These tools enable centralised communications between VIOs and volunteers - for example, by allowing volunteers to communicate with their managers (and vice-versa) through in-app channels, as well as email and SMS. These tools also support VIOs and volunteers with ongoing logistics, such as scheduling volunteering shifts or supervisions, and record keeping. Finally, they enable VIOs to understand volunteer engagement and impact - for example, by tracking volunteer hours, or monitoring volunteer attrition rates. At the core of many of these functions is a volunteer database, which these tools help volunteer managers to curate, search and analyse on an ongoing basis. 

Volunteer feedback, incentives and rewards 

Compared with other stages of the volunteer journey, research with providers suggested that features that facilitate feedback, incentives and rewards for volunteers are newer and less widely adopted. Nevertheless, several providers are innovating in this area.  For example, Team Kinetic asks for feedback at the end of sessions with a link to Google Forms, and offers links to Tempo time credits, as well as reward badges for the number of hours volunteered that can be linked to an e-wallet like Yoti. Tools like Volgistics also offer gamified elements designed to encourage engagement by feeding back information to volunteers about their performance relative to others. For example, their website offers advice via a blog on how to use the platform to create a leaderboard report based on the number of hours volunteered, to motivate volunteers to give more time. 

Benefits and barriers  

Volunteer management systems may improve efficiency and understanding, and relationships between VIOs and volunteers – however, the evidence on the latter benefit is mixed.

The primary benefit of volunteer management systems, as advertised by the websites and attested to by some interviewees, is improved efficiency. These tools can save both VIOs and volunteers time and energy by integrating different tasks as part of one system, and by automating processes involved along the volunteering journey. This benefit is illustrated by cases like King’s College Hospital’s adoption of Better Impact (see case study, below). There was a perception among VIOs and volunteers that larger, formal VIOs that managed a greater number of volunteers are most likely to experience these efficiency benefits.

These tools may also support VIOs to better understand volunteers by helping VIOs to build a more comprehensive volunteer database. Having this information can help VIOs to tailor their engagement with volunteers. For example, it can enable VIOs to target and personalise the communication of opportunities to particular volunteers based on information contained in their database. In theory, this could also improve retention and enhance the overall VIO-volunteer relationship.

Despite being frequently touted on the websites of these tools, these benefits were not particularly mentioned by the VIOs interviewed. Meanwhile, some volunteer interviewees expressed worry that the automation of processes could reduce opportunities to build relationships between volunteers and volunteer managers. While not discussed in any of the interviews, this is something that could be exacerbated by AI. 

This mix of views echoes findings from the Phase 1 desk research. On the one hand, evidence found that the social aspect of volunteering is a key motivator for many volunteers, which can be difficult to achieve where aspects of this experience are digitised (Kanemura, R. et al, 2022). On the other, there was evidence of platforms being at least partially successful in this regard, with one source finding that online volunteering platforms

allow for rich and very early communication between volunteers, but they remain somewhat removed from the ‘traditional’ world of volunteering where the relationships between host organisation and volunteer are more complex (Health Innovation Network, 2021). 

Volunteer management systems appear limited by poor interoperability with other types of tools and marketplace fragmentation, which may be contributing to low VIO awareness.

As noted previously, very few of those tools identified in the market scan appeared to integrate with third-party matching tools, and none integrated with all such tools identified in the scan. Based on VIO interviews, this is producing inefficiencies for VIOs that use both types of tools for recruitment, as they are forced to manage different systems simultaneously. This issue may be compounded by the perception, voiced by some VIOs, that no one tool does everything they need. As a result, several VIOs reported juggling multiple tools at once, to satisfy all their needs. 

I think Better Impact is very good. I think Assemble is very good. But if I were to buy and use either of those, they would only ever give me an 80-90% solution. They never quite scratched the itch of everything that I wanted to do. They’re never quite customisable enough.

– VIO

The lack of interoperability with third-party matching tools also restricts the reach of recruitment communications to existing VIO volunteer databases and website traffic. That said, no volunteers in the sample had heard of or used third-party matching tools, with many tending to find volunteering opportunities by navigating directly to VIO websites. Therefore, these tools could still arguably improve the reach and uptake of opportunities. 

Low awareness of the range of tools on the market was another common finding from VIO interviews. When presented with the list of digital tools identified in the desk-based market scan (which included several volunteer management systems), most VIOs tended to recognise a minority. This low awareness may be acting as a barrier to uptake of certain tools, including those that could offer real benefit. VIOs may end up choosing the wrong tool for their needs simply because they aren’t aware of potentially more suitable options. 

One explanation for low VIO awareness may come from experts’ and providers’ observations of the marketplace for digital tools being highly fragmented. This may be due to the way in which the digital tools market has developed in the UK. According to some providers, this has occurred in an ad-hoc way in response to different demands and needs. Consequently, different tools have emerged in varying contexts, to support certain users, without any shared understanding of the ideal direction of travel for the sector as a whole. 

Digital tools used by the charity sector are highly fragmented, with lots of players. I don’t think anybody’s carved out a real clear kind of strategic advantage.

– VIO

Volunteer management systems also require significant upfront and ongoing investment and expertise for VIOs to adopt and use successfully – capabilities and resources which VIOs may lack, particularly in the current financial context.

Concerns about people lacking the knowledge and skills to use digital tools effectively were a common theme across all four interviewee groups. These concerns are reflected in the literature: according to the Charity Digital Skills Report, 41% of small charities reported that upskilling staff and volunteers was a key challenge (Amar, Z. and Ramsay, R., 2023). Interviewees presented this skills gap as a reason why VIOs (and the sector more widely) may sometimes be reluctant to adopt digital tools (including, but not limited to, volunteering management systems). It was also a live challenge for several VIOs that were using digital tools, and which were simultaneously having to maintain digital and non-digital methods for performing key functions to ensure that no volunteers were excluded. 

In addition to basic digital literacy, interviews highlighted limited skills and capacity within the charitable sector for good digital transformation work – particularly, among small and medium charities that cannot afford to employ staff with expertise in this area. Based on the interviews, these skills include technical skills using IT and technology, but also organisational change skills, as illustrated by the case of King’s College and Better Impact (see case study below). Limited digital transformation knowledge and skills also mean VIOs may struggle to make informed decisions about which tools to adopt and how to procure them. As one provider noted: 

Charities purchase software in a way that checks a list of things they think they need. They try and fit the tool to their list of things they need, but this isn’t the best way to build a tool. The usability and needs of the charity can clash, and the development of the tool is limited by requirement specs.

– Provider

The interviews also pointed to knowledge gaps around legal compliance when using digital tools, though this was not a dominant theme. Uncertainty about what is required in terms of data storage, security and processing was seen as a barrier which can make VIOs cautious about adopting digital tools. Based on the market scan website review, many volunteer management platforms make a point of showcasing their compliance with legal standards. 

Besides knowledge and skills gaps, experts, VIOs and providers all flagged concerns about the financial costs of digital tools. These concerns are echoed by secondary evidence. For example, the Charity Digital Skills report found that 54% of small charities say finding funds for devices, software and infrastructure was their top challenge faced in relation to digital in 2023 (Amar, Z. and Ramsay, R., 2023). Some VIOs noted that justifying these costs may be even harder within today’s tough macroeconomic climate. For example, one noted that VIOs may prefer to spend the limited funds available to them on delivering frontline services, rather than investing in digital technology.  

There’s a learning process of how a new tool works and I think there’s often some quite natural resistance there, particularly if it costs money and people haven’t seen the benefits yet and people are worried about money and have small budgets.

– VIO

Based on the market scan, issues with direct costs (such as purchasing or subscribing to a tool) relate more to volunteer management and hybrid systems, which often have a price tag attached, than to third-party matching tools, which are often free to use. That said, interviewees also flagged indirect costs associated with tools as well, which may apply to other types of tool, including third-party matching tools. These indirect costs include, for example, costs of bringing in people with IT expertise to facilitate the adoption of a tool, or the training of new staff and volunteers to use the tool. 

The market scan also found that different systems have different pricing models. For example, Assemble prices are based on the number of volunteer managers, while Bloomerang prices are based on number of volunteers. This complicates comparing the costs of different tools.

Case Study: King’s College Hospital and Better Impact

The need: King’s College Hospital needed a digital solution to help manage nearly 700 volunteers to perform a wide range of tasks.   

The tooL: Better Impact is an end-to-end volunteer management system that acts as the primary point of contact for volunteers across the volunteering journey.

Key lessons: 

• Centralising volunteer management in one system can create consistency for volunteers, plus free up more time to spend on volunteering rather than onboarding and logistical tasks, like scheduling.

• Tools can be difficult to fit with existing ways of working – instead, sometimes ways of working need to evolve to get the most out of a tool. This may require a cultural shift within the organisation. 

The learning was a little bit more cultural for the team itself. It was about stepping away from what has been done in the past to look at what we’ve got now, and how we can use it better.

Third-party matching tools 

What are they and how do they support volunteering

The research team defines these as online platforms which act like job boards for volunteering. Through these platforms, registered VIOs can post and promote volunteering opportunities, while registered members of the public can search for and respond to those opportunities to become volunteers. As such, their role is primarily for recruitment. 

The research identified six of these tools: DoIT, Reach Volunteering, Simply Connect, The Tribe Project, Vinspired and Volunteering Matters, although this is not an exhaustive list and other tools exist, often in specialist volunteering roles, such as for trustees. Of these, only DoIT and Reach Volunteering were being used by the VIOs interviewed, and none had been used by the volunteers.  

The market scan shows these tools share a lot of similar features with volunteer management systems. These include features which: 

• enable VIOs and volunteers to create an organisational or personal profile, which others on the platform can see or be granted access to

• enable volunteers to customise their searches based on their preferences - for example, searching for opportunities by postcode, type of activity, and duration

• provide access to information and advice around volunteering - for example, in the form of blogs and learning resources

Based on the market scan, where these tools appear to differ is in terms of: 

• their level of interoperability with other tools. For example, the DoIT platform is connected to several other apps, including the app used by the Big Help Out campaign, Micro Actions and the Community Hub by Fareshare. Other tools offered their own integrations - however, based on the market scan there was little crossover between them. 

• how they talk about volunteering. Different tools have their own language for talking about volunteering. DoIT divides volunteering opportunities into four categories: events, team events, actions and ongoing opportunities. They also describe the benefits differently. For example, the Tribe website states that the platform matches people in order to “grow the support, relationships and opportunities that permit everyone, everywhere to live safe and well in the place we call home”, while the Simply Connect website states that it connects people “with the support they need to live healthier, happier lives”. 

• the types of volunteering and social action they enable. As well as advertising a broad range of volunteering opportunities, Tribe has a specific function for matching carers and those in need of care. Simply Connect enables social prescribing by linking providers to community support services, and Reach Volunteering specialises in skills-based volunteering. DoIT offers a separate portal for companies who want to get involved in corporate volunteering.   

Benefits and barriers 

These tools can improve the reach and inclusivity of opportunities and give people the flexibility to find opportunities that match their needs and wants.

Based on the market scan, by promoting their opportunities via these third-party tools, VIOs gain access to a wider online audience than just volunteers already in their database and visitors to their website and social media channels. Volunteers are also able to see opportunities from a range of VIOs all in one place and can customise searches based on their own preferences (Research Works Ltd., April 2021). 

Interviews with providers of these tools highlighted their user-friendly design that makes it easier for volunteers to search for, learn about and apply for volunteering opportunities. Tools like DoIT are designed to make the process as simple and frictionless as possible for volunteers, for example, by minimising the number of steps required for someone registering interest in an opportunity. For people with access to the internet, these platforms reduce the need for prospective volunteers to physically go out and find VIOs, or to know someone involved in volunteering.

Several VIOs reported using these types of tools to specifically engage under-represented groups (for example, advertising for trustees from ethnic minority backgrounds) in voluntary activity. In a similar vein, initiatives like the Big Help Out demonstrate efforts by the sector to use these types of tools as part of campaigns to engage first-time volunteers, at scale, regardless of background. Interviewees’ perceptions of the tools’ utility in both cases may be attributed to their reach and the fact that people do not need a pre-existing connection with a VIO to hear about the opportunity. 

While some VIOs reported successful use of digital tools to diversify recruitment, others had less success. One reason may be that these platforms still rely on VIOs’ target audiences knowing how to visit and use them in the first place (and thus it’s likely that those groups are already digitally engaged and confident, and motivated to search out volunteer opportunities). 

Low awareness may create barriers to members of the public finding opportunities that suit them.

Almost no volunteers spoken to as part of this research had heard of any of the digital tools identified in the market scan, including public-facing platforms like DoIT. While it is important not to generalise based on a relatively low sample of 15, this finding points to a need for these tools to build their profile among members of the public if they are to be effective. For example, several volunteers said that if they wanted to find volunteer opportunities online, they would start with a Google search. Public-facing platforms may benefit from ensuring they are visible in these searches, and that their role is clearly communicated in the search returns.  

Like volunteer management systems, the market scan suggests that the current marketplace for third-party matching tools is also fragmented. Despite having the same model, different tools position themselves differently to occupy their own niches or to appeal to different motivations for volunteering. While this may be beneficial as a way of appealing to audiences with different motivations, there was little evidence to suggest that these tools interoperate. It also means that volunteers lack a single, consolidated and verified marketplace that gathers all the opportunities in one place - something that was specifically called out by two volunteer interviewees. 

These tools depend on VIOs having the capacity to manage communications and responses from prospective volunteers that come via the tool.

Several sampled VIOs made use of multiple channels to spread the word about volunteering opportunities. This can strain capacity, as it requires VIO staff (or volunteers) to manage advertising across multiple tools. VIOs reported risks related to this, such as volunteers seeing advertisements for out-of-date opportunities or expressing interest in opportunities, but receiving no response. Limited interoperability both with other third-party matching tools and volunteer management systems (reported above) may compound these challenges. 

Also related to capacity, both the literature and interviews suggested that digital tools can facilitate a surge in the number of applications to get involved in volunteering, but that this may not convert into actual volunteering (Thomas, L., Pritchard, G., Briggs, P., 2019). For example, during COVID-19, a large volume of people expressed interest in volunteering via the NHS Volunteer Responders (NHSVR) programme, which used an adapted version of the GoodSAM app. However, a lack of backend resource capacity sometimes meant not everyone who was eligible received approval to volunteer or, once approval was given, received an alert to carry out a role. This may inadvertently put off some people from applying for volunteering opportunities again. This was recognised by the team at NHS England which led the programme, and they in turn advertised alternative roles to people who were unable to volunteer through NHSVR.

Ironically, conversion from application to volunteering can also be more challenging because of how digital tools reduce the barriers for people expressing interest in an opportunity. Given that platforms make it easy and convenient for people to register interest for multiple opportunities, it might be that an individual is more able to pick one volunteering role over another, requiring a VIO to re-advertise if recruitment fails. Similarly, platform users can apply for multiple roles even if their actual motivation, capacity or likelihood to take part in one or more of those is low.

Case Study: The Big Help Out and DoIT

The need: The Big Help Out wanted a stand-alone application where people could find volunteering opportunities across the country. They partnered with DoIT to build an app off the back of that tool, which could then be used as part of the campaign.  

The tool: DoIT acts as a shop window for volunteering opportunities. VIOs can post opportunities onto the platform and volunteers can engage with them, by either signing up through DoIT itself or being redirected to the VIO’s website. The Big Help Out app, which piggy-backed on the DoIT platform, replicated these features. 

Key lessons: 

• New tools can be developed quicker when they build on existing platforms. 

• VIOs involved in the Big Help Out often used different tools and had different needs – this made integration with a single app challenging. 

• Greater interoperability can enable more VIOs and volunteers to take advantage of the benefits provided by different tools. 

One of the things we’re now working on is trying to make sure that there’s integration between the app we have for the Big Help Out and other apps that people use elsewhere. So, for example, we’ve now got Assemble talking to DoIT to make sure that there’s an integrated flow of data between people coming on board through the app into a volunteer management system of an individual charity.

Hybrid and non-volunteering-specific tools

What are they and how do they support volunteering

Hybrid management and matching tools are those which combine the back-end functionality of volunteer management systems with the job-board feature of third-party matching tools. For example, based on the market scan, tools like Golden Volunteer, VOMO and Volunteero have a volunteer-facing app which enables people to browse opportunities shared by VIOs that use their volunteer management system. These were the only three examples of this type identified by the research. Only one of the VIOs interviewed was using such a tool, which was Volunteero. None had been used by the volunteers interviewed. While making up only a small proportion of the tools identified, they are interesting for the way they attempt to blend volunteer management and matching functions.  

There was also evidence from interviews of VIOs co-opting tools built for other sectors or purposes. For example, Eventotron is an arts event management system that one VIO, which works in the arts space, was using to deliver its services (see case study below). It was also common for both volunteers and VIOs to use ‘everyday’ digital technologies like social media, messaging apps and remote meeting platforms to support volunteering. 

Benefits and barriers 

They are likely to share some of the benefits and barriers of volunteer management systems and third-party matching tools.

Due to the limited number of interviewees with experience using hybrid tools, this research generated limited insight into their specific benefits and barriers. However, we can speculate that given their hybrid nature, it is possible that they share some of the benefits and barriers of volunteer management systems and third-party matching tools. 

Usage of everyday digital tools like Facebook and WhatsApp for volunteering was common across VIOs and volunteers interviewed. The key benefit of these tools was that they are already widely used and understood by the general population. This makes them useful for advertising opportunities and recruiting and managing volunteers. However, based on the market scan, these everyday digital tools do not offer the same range of volunteering-specific features of volunteer management systems. 

The research found VIOs were also co-opting tools built for other sectors/purposes, like Eventotron and Salesforce. However, these tools are so different that it is difficult to draw insights about them as a category. Certainly, the example of Eventotron was found to be helping drive efficiency and free up VIO resources, but also highlighted broader challenges around volunteers’ levels of digital access and literacy.  

Case Study: Villages in Action and Eventotron

The need: Villages in Action is a small charity based in Devon that supports people to organise arts and culture events in their communities. They wanted a tool that automated the process for people to find and book acts for their events, so that they didn’t have to rely on charity staff to do this for them.

The tool: Eventotron is an events management system designed to manage live performance events, festivals and venues. It was built for the creative industries, rather than VIOs specifically.

Key lessons: 

• Villages in Action serves a predominantly rural audience – low levels of basic digital literacy and poor digital infrastructure (for example, broadband) mean the tool doesn’t work for everyone.
• Getting buy-in within a VIO can be challenging – some trustees have been reluctant to get on board, worried that the change will alienate frequent users of the charity.
• Being inclusive of different needs means running digital and non-digital processes simultaneously.

We’re not in the cities where the broadband tends to be better; we’re in the rural communities where they’re having to fight for broadband. Also, if you’ve got an old computer, as many of our kind of volunteers will have, that doesn’t have the latest updates, then they can’t engage with it. So it really depends on where the volunteers at, but we are trying to bring them along with us.

How can the role of digital tools for volunteering be improved

Introduction

This section examines interviewees’ suggestions for how the benefits of digital tools for volunteering can be maximised and the barriers minimised. It provides answers to the project’s second two research questions: 

• What kind of digital infrastructure can help to harness digital tools to support volunteering?

• What, if any, are the opportunities for government and/or voluntary sector intervention to enhance the role of digital tools to support volunteering?

The research has identified a number of common principles which can help in defining what ‘good’ looks like here, drawing on the views of interviewees. In summary, this is a digital tool marketplace that is:   

• strategic

• financially sustainable 

• open to new market entrants, innovations and technologies 

• easily navigable and better signposted

• interoperable

• integrated with local organisations which support volunteering, for example, CVSs and VCs

It should be noted that the feasibility or merits of specific actions or interventions for how these common principles might be realised have not been assessed; rather, they are presented as ideas which may warrant further exploration by DCMS. Additionally, there may be other ways of realising these principles that were not reported in the interviews. Further research targeted at specific principles could be beneficial for generating a wider list of ideas and testing the feasibility of different approaches. 

In analysing responses to the key questions, it is clear that a number of tensions exist between the views of different stakeholder groups. These have been drawn out where relevant, as they will be important to navigate when looking at potential support and interventions going forward. 

Principle 1: Strategic 

Multiple providers expressed a desire for innovation in the digital space to be guided by long-term, mutually agreed and shared goals. Some felt that this was not the case due to: competitive dynamics among VIOs (for example, competing over funding and contracts) fragmenting the sector and making collaboration in other areas difficult; a lack of clear sector leadership in setting strategy; and, a lack of coordination across government departments in terms of consistent messaging. 

The situation in England was contrasted with Scotland and Wales, both of which have national brokerage systems. Volunteer Scotland and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) have a Salesforce system called Milo that powers all third-sector interface organisations in Scotland. Wales has volunteering-wales.net, originally built by Team Kinetic, and which goes to their volunteer interface organisations. 

By contrast, interviewees felt the voluntary sector in England was more fragmented. They observed that it covers a wider geographic area with more players, with responsibility for volunteering in different sectors shared in a more piecemeal way across government departments. There are multiple national infrastructure and umbrella organisations, including the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), the National Association for Voluntary and Community Action (NAVCA), the Association of Volunteer Managers, Heritage Volunteering Group and the Charity Retail Association. The impression shared by providers was that these actors are not operating with a shared understanding of what good digital infrastructure (which includes the digital tools marketplace) in England would look like, or how to get there. 

The charity sector [in England] is quite competitive and has put barriers up in the past which makes it difficult to build ambitious tech platforms to address issues.

At the moment you’ve got a lot of people doing their own thing and there isn’t a joined-up strategy around it. This will lead to challenges in the future if we have another COVID situation and we get work done in isolation.

COVID was the classic example; it felt like government departments did their own thing without acknowledging each other or what’s happening in the [volunteering] sector and then you’ve got local authorities - ten years of austerity hasn’t done that any favours either.

– Providers

There was some recognition of previous efforts to provide more strategic sector leadership in the digital space. For example, it was mentioned that Join In, the post-Olympics legacy organisation, was viewed by one VIO as occupying a leadership role for a period, but this was replaced by the Sport and Recreation Alliance in 2016. 

Interviewees also praised the Vision for Volunteering for helping set a direction of travel for the sector more widely. There were, however, concerns about the lack of resources to implement the vision, fill the leadership space and capitalise on opportunities. 

The Vision for Volunteering is a great vision, but there’s not a lot of resource behind it, it’s relying on the sector to do it. Digital tools fit within the innovation and power themes of the Vision for Volunteering. There’s potential to democratise and take volunteering to a wider audience.

– Provider

It should be noted that the Vision for Volunteering is backed by HM government and has received government funding since its inception, including for dedicated staff. The aim of this support is to create a space for the voluntary sector to lead a ten-year strategic initiative that a wide range of stakeholders can and will support. This is in acknowledgement that the voluntary sector and VIOs are often in the best position to offer thought leadership and build a movement for change over the long-term. 

Providers also pointed to some successful examples of collaboration that could be built upon. For example, the Big Help Out brought in lots of VIOs and leveraged DoIT’s platform to widen access to volunteering opportunities. While this collaboration was challenging because everyone had different platforms, it was seen as a potential blueprint to build upon. A provider involved with the Big Help Out said: 

More support and certainty would be beneficial with a longer-term plan; one where all parties consider the known unknowns during the planning stage.

– Provider

In the absence of a clear, unified strategic vision for digital volunteering infrastructure (and the role of digital tools and platforms within this), most providers said they would welcome greater strategic leadership, including from government. DCMS was seen as having convening power to get people together to try to establish a strategy and set of policies for the digital tools marketplace, building on the Vision for Volunteering. This could include convening tech providers and bringing them together with VIOs and sector infrastructure bodies. In addition, there was a view that DCMS could play a role in coordinating different government departments. 

Government should be dictating the direction of travel and trying to convene appropriate people to enable something to happen.

NCVO should play a role in the leadership debate. Others like Sport England, Arts Council, and big funding bodies like Comic Relief and BBC Children in Need could also play a part.

If the government had similar views or values on volunteering that cut across various departments, such as DWP, DCMS, this might lead to effective collaboration.

– Providers

Principle 2: Financially sustainable 

As previous sections have highlighted, financial costs are a key consideration for VIOs when considering the adoption of digital tools. High direct costs (for example, through paying for tools) and indirect costs (for example, money spent on training staff and volunteers, or to cover the time spent managing tools) threaten to make digital tools financially unsustainable for some VIOs. This is important in today’s economic climate, in which donors and funders prefer to see VIOs prioritising ‘frontline’ activities. 

Concerns about financial sustainability were echoed by providers, sometimes in ways that highlighted tensions between the needs of providers versus VIOs. This underscores the need for funding models that are sustainable from the perspective of both groups. For example, one provider was concerned about perceptions that digital tools for volunteering should be free, arguing that this was at odds with the amount of resource and expertise required to develop truly effective tools. 

There is a perspective around volunteering that it shouldn’t incur a cost, but building something that delivers value is tricky.

– Provider

Providers expressed a variety of perspectives about how to ensure sustainable income for providers while avoiding prohibitive costs for VIOs. Some believed that VIOs are willing to pay for digital tools because it helps them to recruit volunteers as the benefits outweigh the costs. Other providers noted that they get most of their funding from corporates or public sector bodies to enable them to offer a free or subsidised version to charities. Some also identified the need for more grants ringfenced for digital transformation - for example, arguing that government bodies could play a role in influencing other funding providers, such as arms-length bodies and trusts and foundations, to support digital transformation in the volunteering space.

It is important to note that the long-term financial sustainability of providers (and, by extension, the tools and services they offer) was not just a preoccupation of providers themselves, but also of VIOs. As one interviewee noted, VIOs need confidence that any tool they adopt will remain suitable over the long-term and will keep pace as technology evolves. The prospect of providers going out of business or cancelling services for financial reasons is therefore a concerning one. 

They [provider] have kind of gone in a different direction while we’re still trying to set ours up. We’re a year and a half in and kind of regretting it.

It’s so much money and cost invested, and it’s going to have a longevity for us because we can’t afford to change massive stuff frequently. This will hopefully be a huge platform that we can then evolve and develop and look at how we think about our product and stuff differently to what we might have done five to ten years ago, where you go and build a system and then leave it until it becomes a legacy. We look at being iterative and building that into the business expectations and costings.

– VIOs

A point of tension emerged around the question of government funding of digital tools. One developer wanted government to provide unrestricted funding to: 

some core providers who can genuinely deliver really successful services at scale and fund them to keep iterating and being experimental, innovative and reaching across the whole array of civil society.

They viewed unrestricted core funding as critical for developing digital tools because: 

You have to iterate your service according to user needs, and so you can’t predetermine what the outcome is, like you would do for restricted funding. What you need to do is be invested in having the capacity and ability to run service design cycles with your users so that you can genuinely understand what’s working or not working on the ground.

– Provider

Despite being a potential solution to the long-term financial sustainability of specific digital tools and services, this idea may conflict with some interviewees’ desire for a digital tools market that is open to new entrants, innovations and technologies. This is discussed in more detail below. 

Principle 3: Open to new market entrants, innovations and technologies

Multiple providers were in favour of an enabling environment within which small and medium enterprises (SMEs) could innovate and scale. They called for more SME grants, accelerator and challenge programmes, and changes to procurement processes (especially for government contracts) to make it simpler for SMEs to tender for opportunities. 

The government can set the problem and have a competition that providers can pitch their solutions. They don’t have to pick winners, and it shouldn’t be a heavy procurement exercise, but the challenge method enables more innovation to happen…

The innovation of tools would benefit from a change to procurement rules, which big businesses like Google aren’t affected by. As a new company, it can be very expensive to sell a new contract because procurement rules require you to sell in this way.

– Provider

Providers acknowledged several digital tools had benefited from grants or accelerator programmes targeted at tech innovation for social good. Examples included:

• Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) grants

• CivTech: a Scottish funding pot which is a series of challenges from the public sector for businesses to bid for

• PUBLIC: an accelerator programme with some funding from government

• Techscaler: a membership body in Scotland which has six or seven hundred businesses

The work of the Centre for Social Action Innovation Fund delivered by Nesta and funded by HM government; and, grants from the Greater London Authority. These types of programmes were seen as useful beyond the money as they provide networks and skills development and “they give us the stamp of authority and enable trust from charities”.

Furthermore, there was evidence of innovative SMEs already helping to unlock the potential of new technologies, including AI and predictive analytics for volunteering (though this was not a key line of enquiry for this particular research). For example, Team Kinetic has partnered with an organisation called Braw Data based out of Stirling University to look at predictive analytics on volunteer behaviour, such as drop out. 

Despite the perceived merits of more open innovation, some providers suggested that the market (and the role of government within it) is not always conducive to fostering openness. As highlighted above, one provider saw procurement rules as benefiting larger tech players. Another was critical of what they perceived as government protectionism of incumbents, calling for greater openness to newcomers and trust in market dynamics to surface the best digital solutions. This view is in opposition to calls for longer-term funding to sustain ‘core providers’, which the international provider perceived as contributing to an uneven playing field that makes it difficult for newcomers (including new, smaller organisations) to enter the market. 

Finally, there may be a tension between the desire for greater openness and a digital infrastructure that is easily navigable by VIOs and volunteers. This is discussed below. 

Principle 4: Easily navigable and better signposted

As already highlighted by this research awareness of the range of digital tools and platforms available is relatively low. There is also evidence of VIOs lacking the capability and opportunity (for example, time and resources) to research what options are available and having the necessary digital capabilities and resources to vet them for suitability, quality and safety. 

These barriers suggest a marketplace for digital tools that is currently difficult to navigate. Interviews with providers echoed this. While there was no standout area of unmet demand or underserved area identified consistently, providers observed that if the marketplace is fragmented. This was attributed to variation in sector demand across different parts of the UK, with varied needs, experiences and ways of engaging with tools. 

A number of recommendations from the audiences interviewed expressed a desire for a more navigable marketplace for digital tools. There were calls for DCMS to provide more signposting here - for example, by developing a trusted mark of accreditation or by bringing together trusted tools into a single list or website for VIOs to access, beyond the information already available on GOV.UK 

With no kind of accreditation scheme, what it leaves the charity with is a minefield of people that could do the job and no real assurances who actually will do the job when they go hunting for a tool. So, I think it leads to confusion and paralysis for the most part.

– VIO

HMRC has a list of corporation tax software that is approved by them; it might be good to have something like this for volunteering and work on a mechanism to get on the list.

– Provider

This work would have to be done with the acknowledgement that government is in a sensitive position if recommending one service over another; this could be deemed as direct market intervention. There is, however, potential for a sector-led approach in line with the Payroll Giving Quality Marks, which in the past were supported by the government.

Some VIOs also discussed the benefits of networking between VIOs to connect them with early and successful adopters of digital tools. This would help to spread awareness and to demonstrate good practice and the returns on investment digital tools can offer. This is an area in which umbrella organisations might have a particular impact, namely by signposting approved tools to their members and/or supporting networking.

Creating local ‘digital tool champions’ to help VIOs navigate the marketplace and select which tools might work for them was another suggestion. This could help reduce the time and expertise burden on VIOs.  

Let’s say there was a digital tools champion in [our local area] who was able to help us and other organisations to develop our digital tools and it didn’t cost us anything, then great, that would be fantastic.

– VIO

In addition, there was discussion around reducing the range of options available to enable easier choices. This idea manifested in different ways and generated a mix of views.  

For example, some volunteers and VIOs proposed the creation of a single app or national platform to help address the fragmented nature of existing volunteer recruitment. This could make it easier to find and manage volunteering opportunities. Proponents of this view argued that such a platform could bring together volunteer opportunities, helping to streamline the process for both VIOs and volunteers. They also suggested this platform would offer reassurance that the opportunities presented were authentic and trustworthy. 

I think if you’ve got kind of one central point that people can go to, like something run by the government where they know what’s on there is kind of legitimate, and people aren’t just kind of mining them for their contact details to harass them and things like that, because I found definitely the younger generation are very aware of kind of fake news and who they want to give their details out to.

– Volunteer

There was some opposition to such an approach, particularly among providers. For these interviewees, the creation of a single platform or app missed the more important point of needing an underlying digital marketplace that enables the interoperability of multiple tools (discussed elsewhere in this report). Finally, the proposal to reduce options conflicts with the desire for a marketplace that is open to new entrants (also discussed elsewhere). This was reflected in concerns from some providers about whether there would be an expectation for everyone to use a single tool instead of facilitating competition and choice in a free market. 

If DCMS or the government is thinking about a national platform, would this be something everyone must use? It might annoy some people if that is the case and misses key points on building digital infrastructure and digital railroads. The government should be investing in infrastructure so others can build on it, rather than focus on a single app or a new app.

– Provider

Some providers anticipated that concentration in the supply of digital tools would happen organically. They argued that this was because many of the products currently offered by providers do similar things, and over time some companies will run out of investment, possibly leading to mergers and/or to a reduction in competition. 

Principle 5: Interoperable 

Both VIOs and providers expressed a desire for greater interoperability of tools and systems within a wider digital volunteering infrastructure. Limited interoperability at present is adding to the resource burden for VIOs using multiple digital tools simultaneously. From providers’ perspectives, lack of interoperability limits their ability to integrate with existing and new tools, which may make it harder for newcomers to penetrate the market. It can also prevent established players from harnessing new innovations. Better interoperability may also improve the flow of data between tools and enhance the volunteer and VIO user experience by reducing friction points between tools. 

A dominant theme was the need for a set of common, open data standards to create an “ecosystem where all providers can plug in and drive”. Open standards for data make it easier for people and organisations to publish, access, share and use better quality data. For example, there is an open data standard for public transport that makes it easy to find bus, train, and tram stops and schedules when you use apps like Citymapper or Google Maps.

Team Kinetic is currently looking to build an open data standard for volunteering with the Open Data Institute (ODI), with the involvement of others including the Duke of Edinburgh, Wales Council for Voluntary Action (WCVA), the SCVO and Volunteer Scotland. This could enable more innovative solutions to be developed from more competitors, with developers building on top of one another’s tools. In turn, this open ecosystem could improve the adoption rate in the VCSE sector by making it easier for VIOs and volunteers to navigate the marketplace. 

There is also appetite for greater integration with widely used apps beyond the volunteering space - for example, Amazon’s Alexa app. This is driven by providers’ recognition of the need to meet volunteers where they are, rather than creating new apps. 

[Team Kinetic] can search by voice, Alexa, Google. We’ve just signed a deal with Meta to build a WhatsApp chat bot.

– Provider

Principle 6: Integrated with local organisations which support volunteering 

National and local volunteering infrastructure organisations can help to support both VIOs and volunteers to make optimal use of the digital tools that are available. However, they can only do this when they are sufficiently empowered and resourced to do so. As examples such as the GoodSAM app illustrate, particularly when it was scaled and adapted at pace for the pandemic response, the effectiveness of digital tools depends on the capacity and expertise of the people operating them. In some areas, VCs and CVSs can be effective at linking VIOs with digital tools that can help them perform tasks like marketing volunteering opportunities. One reason for this is because they have a high level of credibility among VIOs in the area. 

Because it’s them [the local CVS] who are promoting the website, that’s why it works. The tech on its own would be useful, but it wouldn’t be reaching the right people necessarily. So, my sense is that it works because the right people are promoting it and putting it in the right places.

– VIO

The research suggests that digital tools (as a key element of digital volunteering infrastructure) need to be considered in the context of existing sector infrastructure, at both the national and local levels, to ensure they are aligned. 

As several interviewees pointed out, the reduced capacity of local volunteering infrastructure organisations (for example, CVSs and VCs) due to reductions in funding means that, currently, VIOs and volunteers can lack support to make the best use of the tools available. Renewed investment in local volunteering infrastructure may ultimately help enhance the role of digital tools to support volunteering. 

I think that building up your local infrastructure is a really good idea because then if there are digital tools, new ones, or if there is something that the government thinks, hey, this is a really cool tool, actually supporting, developing, building up local infrastructure organisations who are then able to be those ambassadors in those areas, it really makes a lot of sense.

– VIO

As a further illustration of the need to integrate digital tools with the services provided by supporting organisations, one interviewee spoke about how the DoIT platform had once enabled, but now risked disrupting, the traditional role of VCs - all while producing worse outcomes. DoIT had previously integrated with V-Base, a system which provided VC partners with a volunteer management system that synchronised with their DoIT account. However, DoIT went onto the Cloud and began operating more as an independent marketplace of volunteering opportunities directly accessible for volunteers. This undermined the effectiveness of VCs as it left little space for them to play a brokerage role, connecting local volunteers with local opportunities.  

It doesn’t work for us being a broker. So, everything is forced towards the relationship between the individual and the opportunities they want to do. There isn’t really much space for us now to be creative and kind of do the brokerage.

– VIO

Other volunteer-supporting organisations interviewed for this study appeared to be working much more effectively with the tools available, demonstrating that integration between their operations and between digital tools is possible and can drive positive impact.

Next steps for realising the potential of digital tools

This research has helped to identify how digital tools are currently supporting volunteering in England, and how their role in sustaining and promoting volunteering in the future could be improved. 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

The research highlights a general consensus among a sample of experts, providers, VIOs and volunteers that digital tools can and do benefit volunteering through various means. This includes increasing the reach and inclusiveness of opportunities (for those who are able to engage digitally) and driving efficiencies in recruitment and volunteer management. This consensus affirms DCMS’s ambition to develop policies that can harness the potential of digital tools for volunteering going forward. 

However, while potential benefits are widely recognised, the extent to which these are being realised varies. While some VIOs interviewed reported successful outcomes using digital tools, there are barriers (including among VIOs and volunteers, as well as at the marketplace-level). These include: low awareness of digital tools; digital literacy and digital transformation skills gaps; VIO capacity and resources challenges; and, limited interoperability between tools. These barriers are limiting the uptake and overall effectiveness of digital tools for volunteering. 

The research has identified a number of common principles which can help in defining what ‘good’ looks like for the digital tools marketplace going forward, and potential considerations and interventions. In summary, this is a digital tools marketplace that is:   

• strategic

• financially sustainable 

• open to new market entrants, innovations and technologies 

• easily navigable and better sign-posted

• interoperable

• integrated with ‘physical’ volunteering infrastructure

Some tensions exist between the different groups interviewed, in terms of how the potential of digital tools can and should best be realised. These tensions will need to be navigated and managed.

Finally, it is important to note that the nature of the research questions has meant the focus of this report has been on gathering the views of those engaging, at least to some degree, in volunteer activity through digital means specifically. Inclusivity is a priority for DCMS (and the sector). Thus, it is important to emphasise that any commitment to supporting the use and adoption of digital tools would not be to lose focus on those members of the population/volunteers more likely to be at risk of digital exclusion.

Ideas for further consideration 

The research shows there is a need for greater strategic leadership and championing to more clearly set a direction of travel for the sector. It points to three key next steps for DCMS to consider. 

1. Continue the conversation with the sector

DCMS benefits from having the convening power to bring together key stakeholders. By doing so, it can start to navigate some of the unanswered questions surfaced by the research. This includes supporting the development of a strategy and set of policies for digital volunteering infrastructure, and the digital tools market specifically, which should build on the Vision for Volunteering. 

DCMS should look at the merits of bringing together volunteers, tool and platform providers, relevant government departments, big tech and the voluntary sector to co-create a shared vision for digital tools that support volunteering. This could help guide future innovation and provide clarity and confidence about the direction of travel of digital infrastructure more broadly.

2. Learn from previous relevant government interventions and approaches

As several interviewees highlighted, and as examples like Vinspired and DoIT demonstrate, the UK government has intervened in the digital tools space before. DCMS should consider taking stock of the lessons from these interventions, insofar that these can inform any future strategy and approach. 

Other departments, regulators and arms-length bodies connected to the public sector will also be thinking about the role of government with regards to digital technology and innovation. DCMS should consider speaking with other relevant government bodies, such as the National Lottery Community Fund, related to their Accelerating Ideas fund, to deepen its understanding of how the UK government can best support and facilitate technological innovation in this space. This should take into account that some providers in the market are wary of further government intervention. Several interviewees highlighted that the market is already crowded and difficult to navigate.

3. Explore opportunities for further primary research

This research was intentionally focused on the digital tools space and has accordingly engaged a range of relevant stakeholder audiences. It was not intended to offer a complete picture of the digital tools marketplace. Nor was it intended to provide a representative set of views across stakeholders, given sample sizes and the nature of the sampling approach taken. The expectation is this research should serve as a springboard from which to initiate further insights work, drawing on the collective findings of the wider VRMS research programme. 

Certainly, this research points to some areas that would warrant further exploration to extend DCMS’s understanding of this space. This could include further work to understand how the sector is or could be adapting to emerging technologies, such as AI and predictive analytics. This report notes some limited innovative approaches being adopted by the sector. Further work could also include testing and refinement of some of the proposed interventions suggested with key sector stakeholders. This could help to inform any future vision or strategy.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Technical note

Definitions and scope

DCMS’s definition of digital tools encompasses volunteer management, those used by volunteers and civic technology. These categories are not mutually exclusive; some tools fit within two or more categories simultaneously (see Figure 1). Civic technology refers to projects involving intentional collaboration between technologists, government, entrepreneurs and VCSE sector employees or volunteers to engage the public or solve civic problems. 

Figure 1: DCMS's mapping of different types of digital tools

Given the breadth of DCMS’s definition of digital tools, it was agreed that this research would focus on tools for volunteer management and those used by volunteers only. Civic technology may be a focus for future research as part of the VRMS call-off contract. It was also agreed that digital forms of volunteering (for example, online peer support) were beyond the scope of this particular study, as it would not have been possible to do justice both to the role of digital tools supporting volunteering and digital forms of volunteering within the budget and timeframes of the research.

Phase 1 - scoping

The research began with a scoping phase of desk research, conducted by NPC between August and October 2023. The desk research method involved a literature review, a market scan of the tools available in the market, and the development of a model volunteer journey - detailed below. 

Literature review 

The literature review drew together academic and grey literature from three sources: 

1. the research team re-reviewed a library of documents identified during the scoping phase of the VRMS contract, using keyword searches to identify abstracts which mentioned “digital” and/or “technology”.

2. a fresh set of searches of Google, Google Scholar and key websites identified in the scoping phase were conducted to identify other relevant academic and grey literature.

3. DCMS put out a call for academics known to be working on digital volunteering, to share further academic literature. However, no responses to this call-out were received. 

Searches of Google and Google Scholar were conducted based on an agreed set of search terms. These terms were informed by the model volunteering journey (see below), as well as other key words relating to digital tools and infrastructure, to identify sources that would help answer the research questions. A full bibliography, details of key organisations and sources searched, together with the search term strategy adopted, were captured in a separate Excel document, which is available upon request from DCMS. 

Key sources identified as mid- or high-priority were prioritised for in-depth review. The review found that there was a limited base of evidence to draw on in answering the study’s research questions, and in many cases only small sections of these sources were relevant to this study. 

Market scan 

Alongside the literature review, a market scan of the main digital tools and platforms on the market and their uses was conducted. Tools were primarily identified through a systematic Google search and app store search. Four tools were also recommended through responses to an open call for known tools and platforms shared by DCMS (within cross-government working groups) and NPC (via social media). 

The market scan identified 20 purpose-built volunteering tools. Using publicly available information, the research team documented and compared each tool in terms of its uses, cost and user information. The outputs of this exercise are summarised in Appendix 2. 

Personas and model volunteering journey

To frame and build on the insights from the literature review and market scan, four personas and associated ‘volunteering user journeys’ were developed. These were drafted based on the research team’s initial understanding of the needs and activities of VIOs and volunteers at different points along the volunteering journey, in different contexts. They were then iterated based on the findings of the literature review and market scan. An illustration of one of personas and associated volunteering journey is presented in Figure 2, below. Originally, these were intended for use as stimulus in the Phase 2 qualitative interviews. In the end, the research team used a broader ‘volunteering journey’ to structure discussion, based on the four key stages of: recruitment, onboarding (training and induction), ongoing management and feedback.

Figure 2: Example user journey developed through Phase 1

Phase 2 – mainstage 

A mainstage Phase 2 design was agreed with DCMS following the completion of Phase 1. Between November 2023 and February 2024 Basis Social and NPC conducted 39 online qualitative interviews with individuals from the following groups: 

• volunteers with experience of digital tools (x 15)

• experts in digital tools that support volunteering (x 2)

• providers/developers of digital tools that support volunteering (x 7)

• VIOs (x 15)

Recruitment of volunteers was carried out by Criteria Fieldwork, a dedicated qualitative fieldwork service provider, using a pre-defined recruitment screener and a set of quotas. This approach was used to ensure that a mix of volunteers were recruited to take part in the study. All volunteers received a £40 incentive in return for taking part in the study, as is standard industry practice. The target quotas and achieved sample of volunteers is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Participating volunteers – sample breakdown

Volunteer Sampling Criteria	Recruited
Total	15
Frequency of volunteering
Volunteering on a regular basis	5
Volunteering on a non-regular basis	5
Volunteered as a one-off occasion	5
Use of digital tools (multi-coded)
Used digital tools to discover and apply for volunteering activities/ opportunities	10
Used digital tools for volunteering induction and/or training purposes	8
Used digital tools to communicate with other volunteers or volunteering managers	11
Recency of use of digital tools
Used a digital tool for volunteering in the past 3-months	10
Used a digital tool for volunteering in the past 12-months, but longer than 3-months ago	5
Sex
Male	7
Female	8
Age
18-30	3
31-44	5
45-60	4
61+	3
Ethnicity
White	9
Mixed	2
Asian or Asian British	1
Black or Black British	2
Other ethnic group	1
Region
Yorkshire and Humberside	1
East Midlands	5
South East	4
London	5
Types of unpaid help performed in the last 12 months (multi-coded)
Raising or handling money/taking part in sponsored events	9
Leading a group/member of a committee	4
Getting other people involved in helping the group, club or organisation	10
Organising or helping to run an activity or event	9
Visiting people	5
Befriending or mentoring people	6
Giving advice/information/counselling	7
Secretarial, admin or clerical work	6
Providing transport/driving	3
Representing	6
Campaigning	1
Other practical help (for example, helping out at school, shopping)	2

Recruitment of organisations (including experts, providers and VIOs) was carried out by Basis Social and NPC, with support from DCMS. An initial shortlist of organisations was created based on the research team’s prior knowledge of and networks within the sector, DCMS’s own recommendations, an open-call from DCMS for VIOs to take part, and the findings of Phase 1. This shortlist evolved over time by snowballing based on interviewees’ recommendations and ongoing desk research to identify potential candidates. When curating the shortlist of VIOs, the aim was to ensure a mix of organisations in terms of size, geography, national vs. local, and digital tools used. However, in the interests of flexibility, hard quotas were not set against these characteristics. 

Shortlisted organisations were sent an invitation explaining the purpose and objectives of the study, how the findings would be used by DCMS, and what participation would involve. In return for their participation, VIOs were offered a £75 donation to their organisation, made by the researchers. Providers and experts were not financially incentivised. 

Tables 2 to 4 provide an overview of the organisations who took part in an interview. Table 4 also provides a breakdown of VIOs in terms of their size, region and which digital tools they were using at the time of the interview. 

Interviews were conducted using a set of four semi-structured topic guides, one for each interviewee group. These guides included both cross-cutting and group-specific questions, enabling the research team to compare responses across different groups while also delving into their distinctive areas of experience and expertise. Stimulus was also used to generate discussion with interviewees. Copies of these topic guides and associated stimulus are available upon request. 

With the interviewee’s permission, the interviews were audio and video recorded for analysis. The analysis process began with Basis Social and NPC convening an interviewer brainstorm session to identify emerging themes from the interviews. Topline summaries were also created for each interviewee group, to allow the researcher to compare across them. These outputs formed the basis of a codeframe, which was used to systematically code video and audio recordings using an online qualitative analysis platform. This process unearthed a set of key themes sitting under each of the main research questions of the study. In the final stage before reporting, these themes were presented during a 90-minute workshop with DCMS colleagues to gather their reflections and feedback. 

Table 2: Participating organisations - experts in digital tools that support volunteering

Participating organisations
Experts in digital tools that support volunteering
Centre for Acceleration of Digital Technology (CAST)
Time for Impact

Table 3: Participating organisations – providers of digital tools that support volunteering

Participating organisations
DoIT
Golden Volunteer
Plinth
Reach Volunteering
Team Kinetic
Three Rings
Volunteero

Table 4: Participating organisations - VIOs

VIO	Size	Region	Digital tool(s) used
Bay Volunteers	Medium	North-West	Team Kinetic, Volunteero
Big Help Out	Major	National	DoIT
British Red Cross	Super Major	International	Assemble
Community Hubs and Libraries, Newcastle Local Gov	N/A	North-East	Interviewee had previous experience using digital tools to maintain services during the pandemic
Diabetes UK	Major	National	Assemble
FareShare	Major	National	Sign-in App, Salesforce
King’s College	Large	Greater London	Better Impact
Mental Health Innovations	Large	National	Okta, Titus learning
OCVA	Medium	South-East	Team Kinetic
Oxford Hub	Medium	South-East	Asana
Parkinsons	Major	National	Assemble
Scouts	Major	National	Office 365 based solution
Trussell Trust	Major	National	Assemble, Reach
Villages in Action	Small	South-West	Eventotron
Volunteer Centre - Kensington and Chelsea	Medium	Greater London	Vbase, DoIT, Plinth, Reach

Appendix 2: Market scan results

The description and costs included in this table are based on information gleaned through a review of the tool’s website. The ‘used by’ column is based on information provided during the interviews; the research was unable to identify the wider user base of each tool. The classifications by type are based on the research team’s own analysis. 

Table 5 – Market scan results

Name	Type	Description	Cost	Used by (in the sample)
Assemble	Volunteer Management System (VMS)	Volunteer management platform for tasks such as automated reference checks. Includes volunteer recognition features, for example, trophies and badges.	Starts at £75/month for up to 3 managers	British Red Cross, Diabetes UK, Parkinsons, Trussell Trust
Better Impact	VMS	A volunteer management software platform that allows organisations to create their own database. It includes a feature for organisations to create e-learning modules for volunteer training.	Starts at £15 per month for unlimited administrators and 50 volunteers	King’s College Hospital
Blackbaud	VMS	Fundraising volunteer management software. Allows setting and tracking of goals, delegating tasks and accessing giving history when communicating with individual volunteers.	Unknown (negotiated on a case-by-case basis)	None of VIOs in sample
Bloomerange/InIt Live	VMS	A digital database that supports organisations to connect with volunteers, funders and partners.	Starts at £39 per month for up to 100 users/volunteers	None of the VIOs in sample
DoIT	Third-party matching tool	A marketplace that connects people with volunteering opportunities.	Free	Big Help Out, Volunteer Centre Kensington and Chelsea
G-Force	VMS	A volunteer management app designed for churches and NGOs.	Starts from free for 30 users, pro version is $20 for 300 users	None of the VIOs in sample
Golden Volunteer	Hybrid	A volunteer management app that incorporates social media into an individual’s experience. A volunteer can share their volunteering opportunity on Facebook and invite their friends to join them.	$12,00 a year or $110 a month	None of the VIOs in sample
Plinth	VMS	Platform to match volunteers with available opportunities. Targeted towards emergency response, national coordination or management of decentralised volunteering organisations.	Basic options are free for community organisations. Also have £400/month and £1,250/month options	Volunteer Centre Kensington and Chelsea
Reach Volunteering	Third-party matching tool	A charity that connects other charities with specialised professional volunteers.	Free self-service option for small charities (income less than £1 million), increases to £450 + VAT for larger charities	Volunteer Centre Kensington and Chelsea, Villages in Action, Trussell Trust
Simply Connect	Third-party matching tool	A volunteering platform that promotes local opportunities. It includes a live and updated database.	Unknown	None of the VIOs in sample
Team Kinetic	VMS	Volunteer management software that hosts and manages volunteer opportunities	Has free and paid options	OCVA, Bay Volunteers
The Tribe Project	Third-party matching tool	A community networking app and online platform. Volunteers connect with local opportunities when organisations share requests for support.	Free but there is a cost for personalised support	None of the VIOs in sample
Three Rings	VMS	An online volunteer management system run by volunteers. Includes a handy rota tool to manage mass shifts.	Unknown	None of the VIOs in sample
Time Counts	VMS	A modern digital tool that centralises the management functions of small to large volunteer programmes.	Pricing starts from $39 a month for a basic package. There is a free trial offer	None of the VIOs in sample
Vinspired	Third-party matching tool	A volunteer recruitment tool originally part of a charity, Vinspired, created by Gordon Brown and David Blunkett to connect young people with social action and volunteering opportunities that can be performed at home or in-person.	Free	None of the VIOs in sample
Volgistics	VMS	A volunteer management tool that can be customised based on an organisation’s processes and needs.	Starts at $17 (£12 approx) for 2 admins and up to 50 volunteers	None of the VIOs in sample
Volunteer Makers	VMS	A web platform that allows organisations to promote opportunities that match needs with volunteer interests and skills. It began as a funded pilot working with targeted sectors and expanded into a national programme supported by Arts Council England.	Prices begin at £66 + VAT	None of the VIOs in sample
Volunteer Mark	VMS	A digital app volunteer database	Free up to 50 volunteers and 3 events per month. There are also paid options for access to more features ($125 a month)	None of the VIOs in sample
Volunteering Matters	Third-party matching tool	A community website and marketplace promoting local volunteering opportunities.	Free	None of the VIOs in sample
Volunteero	Hybrid	A volunteer management website and app that centralises volunteer coordination to simplify management tasks.	An estimated price based on number of active volunteers and staff	Bay Volunteers
VOMO	Hybrid	A cloud-based volunteer management system built for NGOs, churches and agencies. Can be accessed through an app or online.	A subscription service, the standard package starts at $49 a month, the pro version is $99 a month	None of the VIOs in sample

Appendix 3: Bibliography

Abercrombie, R., Harries, E., Wharton, R. (2015) ‘Systems change: A guide to what it is and how to do it’, New Philanthropy Capital. Available online.

Amar, Z., Ramsay, R. (2023), ‘Charity Digital Skills Report 2023’. Available online.

Catalyst (2023), ‘Building Resilience In the Nonprofit Sector: The Role of the Catalyst Network’. Catalyst. Available online.

COVID-19 VCSE Impact Barometer (2021). ‘Respond, recover, reset: the voluntary sector and COVID-19’, Nottingham Trent University, Sheffield Hallam University, NCVO. Available online.

DCMS (2023). Official statistics – Community Life Survey 2021/22: Volunteering and charitable giving. Available online.

Health Innovation Network (2021). ‘Digitally supported micro-volunteering – a report of an evaluation’. Health Innovation Network. Available online.

Kanemura, R., Chan, O. Farrow, A., 2022. ‘Time well spent: Impact of COVID-19 on the volunteer experience’. NCVO. Available online.

Loosemore, T. (2017), ‘Definition of Digital’, Public Digital. Available online.

NPC (2023). ‘AI for charities: What you need to know.’ NPC. Available online.

Ofcom (2022), Digital Exclusion: A review of Ofcom’s research on digital exclusion among adults in the UK. Available online.

Stuart, J., Crawford, L. (2022), ‘Digital technology and volunteering beyond the pandemic’. University of Birmingham. Available online.

Research Works Ltd., April 2021. ‘Research report on Volunteer Passports’. DCMS. Available online.

Thomas, L., Pritchard, G., Briggs, P., June 2019. “Digital Design Considerations for Volunteer Recruitment: Making the Implicit Promises of Volunteering More Explicit”. Association for Computing Machinery, C&T ‘19: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Communities and Technologies - Transforming Communities. Available online.

Thomasoo, R. and Shea, J. (2017) ‘User mapping techniques: A guide for the social sector’, New Philanthropy Capital. Available online.

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

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

Appendix 4: Glossary

Civic technology - Refers to projects involving intentional collaboration between technologists, government, entrepreneurs and VCSE sector employees or volunteers to engage the public or solve civic problems. It was deliberately excluded as a focus for this research as it was felt to be distinct and could benefit from a separate, more exploratory and developmental approach.

Digital – Former Government Digital Service (GDS) deputy director Tom Loosemore famously defined digital as: “Applying the culture, practices, processes and technologies of the Internet-era to respond to people’s raised expectations” (Loosemore, T., 2017). In this definition, technologies are only one aspect of digital; it is also vital to consider the culture, practices and processes around them. We have adopted this approach for this report: alongside looking at specific digital tools for volunteering, we examine the wider culture, practices and processes around their use.

Digital ecosystem – A set of digital things – meaning cultures, practices, processes and technologies – interconnected in such a way that they produce their own patterns of behaviour over time. The term is inspired by natural ‘ecosystems’ and by the understanding of ‘systems’ in NPC’s guide to systems change (Abercrombie, R et al., 2015).

Digital exclusion– while there is no universally accepted definition of digital exclusion, it typically refers to sections of the population not being able to use the internet in ways that are needed to participate fully in modern society.

Digital infrastructure for volunteering– The support provided to maximise the potential of digital tools for volunteering. For example, the organisations, policies and resources available to support both users (VIOs and volunteers) and providers of digital tools.

Digital tools for volunteering – Technology-based software, applications or online platforms that are designed to enhance the effectiveness of volunteering.

Open data standards - Standards are documented, reusable agreements that affect us every day. Open standards for data make it easier for people and organisations to publish, access, share and use better quality data. For example, there is an open data standard for public transport that makes it easy to find bus, train, and tram stops and schedules when you use apps like Citymapper or Google Maps.

Payroll Giving Quality Mark – a government-backed accreditation which rewards companies offering Payroll Giving with a Quality Mark which they can use to celebrate and promote their achievements 

Social prescribing - An approach that connects people to activities, groups and services in their community to meet the practical, social and emotional needs that affect their health and wellbeing

Third-party matching tools – the research team defined these as digital systems which facilitate matching prospective volunteers to volunteering opportunities advertised via the tool 

User journey– A specific visualisation which shows the sequence of events a user might encounter while using a specific product or service. It typically maps these journeys through multiple lenses to understand users’ motivations, needs, feelings and behaviours at different stages of this journey. It also involves creating ‘user personas’, which seek to realistically represent the experiences of individuals or communities, and generally include information such as demographic features, behaviours, and aspirations (Thomasoo, R. and Shea, J., 2017).​ A typical ‘volunteer  journey’ was created for the purposes of this research drawing on the Phase 1 scoping work. It takes the four key stages of the journey broadly as follows: recruitment, onboarding (training and induction), ongoing management and feedback.

Volunteer infrastructure– based on the UN definition, volunteer infrastructure is an enabling environment, operational structures and implementation capacities to promote volunteering, mobilise volunteers and support them in their work. The enabling environment includes the body of policies and laws that protect volunteers and provide incentives for volunteer action. Operational structures include schemes through which volunteers are mobilised, deployed and supported. Implementation capacities include functional and technical resources of volunteer organisations to adapt to changing circumstances, function at high standards of efficiency and achieve results.

Volunteer management systems - The research team defined these as end-to-end digital systems which VIOs can use to execute tasks across different stages of the volunteer journey, from recruitment through to gathering feedback.

Appendix 5: Abbreviations

AI – Artificial intelligence

BHO – Big Help Out

CVO – Community and voluntary organisation

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

NAVCA– National Association for Voluntary and Community Action

NCVO – National Council for Voluntary Organisations

NHSVR – NHS Volunteer Responders

NPC – New Philanthropy Capital

ODI – Open Data Institute

ONS – Office for National Statistics

SCVO – Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

SME – Small and medium enterprise

VCSE – Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise 

VC – Volunteer centre

VIO – Volunteer-involving organisation

VMS – Volunteer management system

VRMS – Volunteering Research Managed Services

WCVA – Wales Council for Voluntary Action