Research and analysis

Evaluation of the Volunteering Futures Fund

Published 18 September 2025

Applies to England

Evaluation of the Volunteering Futures Fund

Key terms and definitions

The table below describes how key terms have been used throughout the report 

Key terms and definitions

Term	Definition
Arts Council England (ACE)	Delivery partner for the VFF, responsible for delivering the majority of the fund for arts, culture, heritage, civil society, youth and sport initiatives involving volunteers.  The fund was split across 19 projects running until March 2024.
Beneficiaries	People and organisations who benefitted from the VFF programme. This includes the volunteers, organisations delivering projects and their staff members, and the service users of the projects.
Common Minimum Dataset (CMD)	The minimum set of variables that all VFF funded projects had to collect data on through the data form which is then aggregated to report programme level data.
Contribution analysis	A theory-based evaluation method used to assess impact through revising theories about how particular outcomes arose, with evidence collected used to either confirm or discount any alternative explanations.
Data form	A form produced for the evaluation which outlined key areas which all VFF funded projects had to report data against.
Delivery partners	There were three delivery partners in this programme: Arts Council England (ACE), Pears Foundation and NHS Charities Together (NHSCT). They were responsible for choosing the grantees, distributing the funds, and monitoring grantees.
Digital volunteering	Volunteering which takes place digitally, either remotely or in person.
Flexible volunteering	Volunteering where volunteer services offered have no regular pattern of commitment or a minimum stipulated number of hours.
Formal volunteering	Giving unpaid help to groups or clubs, for example, leading a group, providing administrative support or befriending or mentoring people.
Grantees	The collective term for organisations receiving a grant under the VFF programme to deliver a project.
Match funding	Funds paid in proportion to funding being paid from other sources (e.g. fundraising through donations).
Micro volunteering	Volunteering to do specific time-bound tasks that can be undertaken as one-off (e.g. collecting or delivering groceries, doing an errand, making telephone calls, or giving someone a lift).
NHS Charities Together (NHSCT)	Delivery partner for the VFF, focused on funding health and social care related projects. The fund was split across 14 projects running until March 2023.
Partners	Organisations working alongside the lead grantee to deliver the project or an element of a project.
Pears Foundation	Delivery partner for the VFF, focussed on funding projects supporting children and young people, or disabled people. The fund was split across six projects running until March 2023.
Programme	Refers to the Volunteering Futures Fund (VFF) programme.
Regular volunteering	Volunteering where volunteer services are offered on a regular pattern of commitment (that is, each week at the same time).
Volunteer retention	The ability for organisations involved to retain their volunteers for the expected period of volunteering.

Key findings and recommendations

Key findings from the evaluation

• The Volunteering Futures Fund (VFF) is a £7.4 million fund which aimed to support high quality volunteering opportunities for young people and those who experience barriers to volunteering, encourage innovation in volunteering practices and learn about the effectiveness of different volunteering models. It was launched in 2021 by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). At the time of the evaluation concluding in October 2023, across the three delivery partners, VFF funded projects had recruited 15,136 volunteers. Of these volunteers recruited, 43% were first-time volunteers.

• The impact evaluation found that the funding package achieved its stated aims and objectives. It found strong evidence that the VFF supported volunteers from diverse backgrounds to engage in volunteering, and of subsequent impacts on these volunteers (such as increased confidence, wellbeing, and connection to local communities). It also found moderate evidence that organisations improved routes into regular volunteering and increased the number of volunteering opportunities available, and that funding led to improved services. However, at the time of the evaluation concluding in October 2023 (prior to completion of projects in March 2024), it had only found weak evidence to conclude that the funding increased learning about and understanding of new models of volunteering and what works well/less well for improving volunteer recruitment and diversity.

• The VFF helped to improve services and collaboration across the voluntary sector. Data from grantee interviews shows that the VFF helped promote partnership working, which enabled the tailoring and personalisation of volunteering opportunities for target groups.

• Although delivery partners felt that the overall fund objectives were broad enough to allow for a wide range of projects to be funded, time constraints both for applications and delivery limited the diversity of projects funded, with delivery partners making more a risk-averse selection of potentially less innovative projects. 

• The match-funding element of the VFF was particularly beneficial and was a facilitator for the success of projects. The funding gave grantees more flexibility with project delivery, allowing adaptations and opportunities for innovation and learning within projects.

• Requirements for spending grants were challenging. NHS Charities Together (NHSCT) and Pears Foundation projects had to spend the DCMS portion of the grant in the Fund’s first financial year. This affected the way projects were chosen, as delivery partners chose projects that were capital-intensive and involved large investments in infrastructure early on.

• Many grantees co-designed their projects with volunteers, which helped them design appealing activities. Pre-project outreach with schools and colleges was also important for expediting the recruitment of young and disabled volunteers. 

Recommendations for future fund design and delivery

• Increase timelines for delivery (and flexibility with grant spending within the delivery window) to allow for innovation within projects and sufficient time to build trust with new groups of volunteers.

• Lengthen the application process to allow grantees to collaborate on applications with multiple partners.

• Ensure that project timelines allow sufficient time to recruit new volunteer groups.

• Ensure a range of volunteering modalities are offered across (and within) funded projects. 

• Offer volunteers greater ownership and agency in volunteering activities (e.g. through co-production).

Executive summary

Overview of the research 

This report presents findings from an evaluation of the Volunteering Futures Fund (VFF) – a £7.4 million UK Government fund designed to support a range of volunteering opportunities for young people and those experiencing barriers to volunteering. The Fund aimed to support high quality volunteering opportunities and increase volunteer recruitment and retention, support long term diversification of volunteers in the voluntary sector, encourage innovation in volunteering practices and support the sector to learn about the effectiveness of different volunteering models (such as micro, flexible and digital volunteering). The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) launched the Fund in 2021 with two strands of funded volunteering activities: (i) arts, culture, heritage, sport, civil society, and youth initiatives, delivered by Arts Council England (ACE); and (ii) community and youth initiatives involving volunteers, match-funded and delivered by Pears Foundation and NHS Charities Together (NHSCT). DCMS commissioned the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and RSM UK Consulting LLP (RSM) to conduct a process and theory-based impact evaluation applying contribution analysis. The contribution analysis assessed evidence across all data sources in relation to developed contribution statements.

The evaluation aimed to understand:

• How the Fund was designed, set-up and delivered;

• Key lessons learned across the funded projects; 

• Key lessons learned about different volunteering models (micro, flexible, digital, other); 

• The impact of the Fund on improved volunteer recruitment and retention, and the diversity of volunteers recruited; and

The impact of the Fund on the outcomes for volunteers and organisations and the volunteering sector.

The evaluation report draws on findings from:

• A Common Minimum dataset (CMD) which captured details of volunteer numbers, demographics (such as age, gender and ethnicity), and types of volunteering opportunities offered (modality and length);

• In-depth interviews with grantees (n=18) and volunteers (n=36). Grantee interviews explored how the VFF was designed and delivered and gathered evidence about best practice and learning. Volunteer interviews explored volunteering experiences through the VFF, including motivations to volunteer, experiences of recruitment and impacts of volunteering; and

• A delivery partner focus group with all three delivery partners (ACE, Pears Foundation and NHSCT). The focus group explored how the VFF was designed and delivered, including experiences and lessons learned from onward granting and the implementation of projects.

At the time of the evaluation concluding in October 2023, across the three delivery partners, VFF funded projects had recruited 15,136 volunteers. Of these volunteers recruited, 43% were first-time volunteers. Across opportunities, the most common volunteering modality was ‘other formal’ ^{[footnote 1]} (55%) compared to micro (15%), digital (7%) or flexible volunteering opportunities (23%). Key findings from the impact and process evaluation are set out below. 

Impact evaluation findings

• The overarching hypothesis for the VFF is: ‘Young people and people who face barriers to volunteering take up new volunteering opportunities, build new skills, improve their well-being and broaden their social networks, as a result of organisations targeting diverse groups, providing better support to volunteers, and offering new ways of volunteering’. The evidence gathered as part of this evaluation supports this overall hypothesis, by providing strong supporting evidence against two of the underlying contribution statements, and moderate evidence against three of the contribution statements. This suggests the funding package successfully achieved its stated aims and objectives. 

• Overall, the impact evaluation found strong evidence that the VFF supported volunteers from diverse backgrounds to engage in volunteering and delivered subsequent impacts for these volunteers (e.g. increased confidence and wellbeing). There was moderate evidence that organisations improved routes into regular volunteering and increased the number of volunteering opportunities available, and that funding led to improved services. However, at the time of the evaluation concluding in October 2023, there had only been weak evidence identified to conclude that the funding increased learning about and understanding of new models of volunteering and of what works well/less well for improving volunteer recruitment and diversity. 

• Although there was strong evidence to show that the funding programme encouraged participation of individuals from a range of backgrounds, there was more success reaching young volunteers than other groups. Interview data from grantees and volunteers indicated that projects successfully reduced barriers to volunteering through working closely with educational institutions and youth clubs, offering introduction sessions for volunteers, making venues more accessible, and regularly engaging with volunteers to build trust and provide support. 

• There is evidence that the VFF supported projects and organisations to increase volunteering opportunities, leading to improved outcomes for those seeking employment, particularly in relation to the development of skills and knowledge of the labour market. However, there is less evidence to suggest that this directly led to paid employment.

• Looking at the wider impacts of the funding programme, evidence shows that the VFF contributed to improved services and increased collaboration across the sector. Data from grantee interviews shows that VFF funding helped foster partnership working and enabled tailored volunteering opportunities for target groups.

Key findings from the process evaluation 

Design and delivery of the Fund 

• Delivery partners expressed that the Fund objectives were broad enough to allow for a diverse range of projects to be selected. However, short timelines for project selection and delivery significantly impacted the types of projects chosen. Delivery partners indicated they had to adopt a risk-averse approach, selecting grantees with existing volunteer networks and recruitment processes. 

• The Expression of Interest (EOI) stage impacted project selection. Delivery partners predominantly worked with organisations they had pre-existing relationships with, as these organisations had the knowledge and capacity to turn around EOIs quickly and to a higher quality. 

• Delivery partners indicated that grant spending requirements were challenging for grantees. Pears Foundation and NHSCT projects had a requirement to spend the DCMS portion of the grant within the first financial year of the Fund (by March 2022). This impacted project selection, as delivery partners opted to choose capital-intensive projects involving large investments in infrastructure at an early stage.

• The match-funding element of Strand 2 of the VFF was hugely beneficial and was a facilitator for the success of projects. The funding enabled grantees to have more flexibility with project delivery, enabling adaptations and opportunities for innovation within projects.

Project level delivery findings

• Grantees had mixed views on the application process, with some ACE grantees finding it time intensive owing to the need to submit within short time scales. However, Pears Foundation and NHSCT grantees felt the application process was proportionate to the amount of awarded funding. 

• Opinions on the monitoring and reporting process were mixed, with some grantees facing challenges with the requirements, particularly when new information was requested part way through delivery.

• Grantees found support from delivery partners to be key to successful project set-up and delivery. They also benefited from partnerships with other organisations, which helped them to recruit volunteers and raise their profile in new areas. Many grantees co-designed their projects with volunteers, which helped them design activities that were attractive to young people. 

• Grantees used multiple recruitment strategies but found that face-to-face recruitment was most effective for volunteer recruitment, particularly where projects targeted young people. Recruitment was facilitated by using a range of volunteering models (e.g. flexible, micro, and digital).

• Grantees explained they needed additional time and resources to build trust where they were trying to attract disabled volunteers or those who were more isolated or vulnerable. Grantees working with young volunteers found that reducing the time between sign-up and commencing activities was a critical strategy for successful recruitment and retention. Volunteers cited a range of factors that encouraged them to continue volunteering including positive experiences while volunteering (for example, increased wellbeing or learning new skills) and engaging in roles that had been tailored to their individual needs and interests.

Recommendations for future fund design and delivery:

• Increase timelines for delivery (and flexibility with grant spending within the delivery window) to allow for innovation within projects and sufficient time to build trust with new groups of volunteers – this would help to ensure that volunteering projects attract individuals from all backgrounds. This would also enable further opportunities for learning and collaboration across the volunteering sector. The use of match-funding elements could aid with this through providing more flexibility to grantees with grant spending. 

• Lengthen the application process to allow grantees to collaborate on applications with multiple partners – the evaluation found that partnerships were key to engaging new groups of volunteers and trialling new approaches. 

• Ensure that project timelines allow sufficient time for volunteer recruitment – this will allow grantees to involve those who have not volunteered before or have barriers to volunteering (e.g. disabled volunteers). Additional time should be factored in both for working with gatekeepers (if applicable) and working with new volunteers. 

• Ensure a range of volunteering modalities are offered across (and within) funded projects – this includes micro, digital and flexible approaches as well as more traditional volunteering roles. Micro and flexible roles can help recruit those with barriers to volunteering. To aid volunteer retention, volunteering opportunities need to be flexible to volunteer needs and allow volunteers to change modality at different points in their volunteer journey or if their circumstances change.

• Offer volunteers greater ownership and agency in volunteering activities – findings from the evaluation indicate that volunteers valued engaging with activities that adopted elements of co-production or enabled volunteers to guide their own volunteer journey, such as by choosing activities. By consulting with volunteers throughout the process of activity development, in open and ongoing feedback, projects can ensure greater retention of individual volunteers. 

• Ensure that future funds provide opportunities for collaboration across the sector – for example through delivery partner level events for grantees, or funding specific projects which build infrastructure for collaboration across the voluntary sector. The evaluation showed that collaboration between different projects is key to reaching new groups of volunteers and tailoring opportunities for target groups.

1. Introduction 

The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and RSM UK Consulting LLP (RSM) were commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to conduct an evaluation of the Volunteering Futures Fund (VFF). The evaluation aimed to understand how the Fund was designed, set-up and delivered, lessons learned across projects, and the impact of the Fund on the outcomes for volunteers, organisations and the volunteering sector. The evaluation ran from October 2022 to October 2023. Although NHSCT and Pears Foundation projects finished delivery in March 2023, ACE projects are not scheduled to finish delivery until March 2024. Insights from ACE projects were gathered through grantee and volunteer interviews and CMD data collection, but the evaluation findings do not include the full picture of impact and reach for ACE projects.

1.1 Background to the VFF

The VFF is a £7.4 million fund which aimed to support high quality volunteering opportunities for young people and those who experience barriers to volunteering. It was launched in 2021 by DCMS and was delivered through three delivery partners: Arts Council England (ACE), NHS Charities Together (NHSCT) and Pears Foundation. The Fund aimed to test and trial solutions to known barriers to volunteering using micro, flexible and digital approaches. The VFF was delivered through two strands: 

• Strand 1: funding for volunteering projects across arts, culture, heritage, sport, civil society, and youth initiatives. This was delivered by ACE, which awarded £4.65 million of VFF funds across 19 projects running until March 2024.

• Strand 2: funding for community and youth initiatives involving volunteers. This was match-funded and delivered by Pears Foundation (£550,000 across six projects) and NHSCT (£624,000 across 14 projects) until March 2023 ^{[footnote 2]}.

The overarching objectives of the Fund included: 

• Improving the accessibility of volunteering, particularly among young people and those who experience barriers to volunteering (that is, volunteering rates tend to be lower among those who experience loneliness, those with disabilities and those from ethnic minority backgrounds);

• Increasing the skills, wellbeing, and social networks of volunteers, and reducing levels of loneliness; 

• Encouraging and exploring innovation and scaling of volunteering practices that may have emerged during the pandemic;

• Learning about the comparative effectiveness of different volunteering models (e.g. flexible, micro and digital) and recruitment approaches for engaging and sustaining volunteers; 

• Strengthening volunteer pipelines in DCMS sectors and widening participation in, engagement with and access to arts, culture, sport and heritage activities and places; and

• Leveraging additional investment towards volunteering initiatives through a match funding challenge. 

Previous research highlighted that certain groups are less likely to volunteer, including those who live in more deprived areas ^{[footnote 3]}, potentially because there are fewer volunteering opportunities available. Volunteering is also less common among those aged 25 to 34 than older age groups ^{[footnote 4]}. Young people, volunteers from ethnic minority backgrounds, and disabled people are more likely to have had a negative experience of volunteering, with those from ethnic minority backgrounds having lower levels of volunteering satisfaction. Disabled volunteers are also more likely to say that volunteering had negatively impacted their health and wellbeing than non-disabled people ^{[footnote 5]}. The VFF targeted a range of people facing barriers to volunteering, with a focus on young people, disabled people, people from ethnic minority backgrounds and those living in deprived areas. 

1.2 Report Structure

This report is divided into the following sections:

• Chapter 2 provides a brief overview of the methodology for each work strand, including the research aims and contribution analysis approach.

• Chapter 3 reports on findings from the Common Minimum Dataset (CMD), offering an overview of the volunteer recruitment for the VFF, including numbers and demographics of volunteers reached as well as modalities of volunteering opportunities.

• Chapter 4 presents the process evaluation findings, drawing on evidence from the delivery partner focus group, grantee, and volunteer interviews.

• Chapter 5 presents impact findings based on the contribution analysis. The section is structured by contribution statements, and evidence from across work strands is drawn on to assess the strength of evidence and alternative explanations for each contribution statement.

• Chapter 6 offers conclusions and recommendations. The chapter provides a list of key findings, lessons learned, and recommendations for future fund design, delivery, and evaluation. 

2. Methodology

2.1 Overview of the evaluation 

Prior to the start of the evaluation, a feasibility study was commissioned by DCMS to develop evidence-based options for a robust and independent evaluation. This scoping work involved a desk review of relevant documents, grantee level discussions, discussions with non-funded applicants, and further development of the existing Theory of Change (ToC). A range of evaluation options were considered, including Quasi Experimental Design. However, they were not deemed feasible due to the challenge of identifying a suitable comparison group that could assess the individual and organisation-level outcomes, as well as the additional costs required for such an approach. Therefore, the recommended approach was a process evaluation and a theory-based impact evaluation applying contribution analysis ^{[footnote 6]}. Findings from both the process and theory-based impact evaluation are presented in this report. The following chapter provides an overview of the methodology for the evaluation. Full details of the methodology can be found in Appendix 2 . 

2.2 Research Aims

Process evaluation research questions

Fund design

• How was the Fund designed, including how were delivery partners and projects selected? 

• How appropriate were the design and objectives of the VFF? 

Project set-up 

• How were projects implemented? 

• What types of projects were reached? 

*What worked well and less well with the recruitment of volunteers?

• Which approaches worked to bring on-board first-time volunteers and those more likely to face barriers to volunteering?

Lessons learned 

• What were the strengths, weaknesses and lessons learned from different volunteering models (micro, flexible, digital, other)?

• What, if any, were the unintended consequences of the programme (such as the impact on the services that volunteering organisations provide or run)?

• What lessons could be learned for future interventions?

Theory-based impact evaluation research questions

• What impact did the VFF have on outcomes for volunteers (i.e. is there a link between volunteering and improved wellbeing, reduced loneliness, increased feelings of community connectedness and the development of skills)?

• What impact did the VFF have on outcomes for organisations (i.e. to what extent did organisations see an increase in volunteer recruitment and retention, and the diversity of volunteers recruited)? 

• How did impact vary by volunteering opportunity? 

• How did impacts vary for different groups of volunteers (e.g. young people, disabled people)? 

2.3 Theory of Change

The Theory of Change (ToC) reflects how the VFF was expected to lead to changes for the organisations and individuals it supported (see Appendix 1). An initial ToC was provided to the evaluation team by DCMS. This was further  during the feasibility study through a desk review of documentation and data relating to the VFF, discussions with grantees and a ToC workshop with DCMS. 

2.4 Contribution analysis

The impact evaluation applied contribution analysis. Contribution analysis provides a pragmatic framework for evaluators to make credible causal claims where the ToC is complex, and infer whether the projects have made a difference and contributed to the impacts observed. The approach revises theories about how particular outcomes arose, with evidence collected to confirm or discount any alternative explanations. CMD, grantee and volunteer interview data, and data from the delivery partner focus group were triangulated to inform the contribution narrative and its assessment. This assessment was framed by six ‘contribution statements’ which were based on the VFF ToC (see Appendix 2). Relevant evidence that supported or conflicted with each statement was identified, allowing an assessment of whether the assumptions behind the VFF’s effectiveness were plausible, whether it was implemented as per the ToC and whether the chain of expected results occurred.  

2.5 Common Minimum Dataset (CMD) 

A Common Minimum Dataset was designed as part of the feasibility study for grantees to capture details of volunteer numbers, demographics, and types of volunteering opportunities offered (see Appendix 4).  The final CMD form for ACE grantees will be submitted directly to ACE in March 2024. This data is not included in our CMD analysis and reporting as it is outside the evaluation’s scope. The CMD data presented in this report for ACE grantees therefore shows an incomplete picture of the reach of ACE projects.  

2.6 Grantee interviews 

In-depth interviews with grantees explored how the VFF was designed and delivered and gather evidence about best practice and learning. Interviews were conducted from December 2022 to February 2023. 18 grantees out of a total of 39 projects were sampled, between ACE (10/19), NHSCT (5/14) and Pears Foundation (3/6) projects. As some ACE projects were not due to start delivery with volunteers until after the interview period, we sampled to include those further along in recruitment of their volunteers.

2.7 Delivery Partner focus group

A focus group with representatives from all three delivery partners (ACE, NHSCT and the Pears Foundation) took place in May 2023 via Microsoft Teams.  The focus group explored how the VFF was designed and delivered, including experiences and lessons learned from onward granting and the implementation of projects. 

2.8 Volunteer interviews

In-depth interviews were conducted with 36 volunteers from 10 ACE projects ^{[footnote 7]} and sub-projects between March and July 2023. The “primary sampling criteria” was volunteering model (micro, flexible, digital, or other) and “secondary level criteria” ensured a range of demographics were included (e.g. gender, age, ethnicity, health and disability). The interviews explored volunteering experiences through the VFF, including motivations to volunteer, recruitment experiences, and any impacts of volunteering. 

2.9 Timing of the Evaluation

The evaluation ran from October 2022 to October 2023. Although NHSCT and Pears Foundation projects finished delivery in March 2023, ACE projects are not scheduled to finish delivery until March 2024. Insights from ACE projects were gathered through grantee and volunteer interviews and CMD data collection, but the evaluation findings do not include the full picture of impact and reach for ACE projects ^{[footnote 8]}. This is a limitation of the evaluation and is discussed further in Chapter 6. 

3. Overview of volunteer recruitment 

This chapter reports on findings from the CMD, offering an overview of volunteer recruitment for the VFF, including the numbers and demographics of volunteers recruited and the modality and length of volunteering opportunities. For NHSCT and Pears Foundation projects, the data presented below covers the whole of their delivery period, with their final CMD forms submitted in March 2023. For ACE grantees, the data presented below is from September 2023, six months prior to the end of project delivery and therefore shows an incomplete picture of the reach of ACE projects (see section 2.9). 

3.1 Numbers of volunteers recruited

Across the three delivery partners, VFF funded projects recruited 15,136 volunteers who were new to organisations (5,331 through ACE projects, 1,962 through NHSCT projects and 7,843 through Pears Foundation projects). Most volunteers were either recruited through Pears Foundation or ACE funded projects with 52% and 35% of volunteers respectively. Of the 15,136 volunteers recruited, 43% were first-time volunteers. This refers to people who have never formally volunteered (given unpaid help to groups or clubs) before and was self-defined by the volunteers. Table A2 in Appendix 3 details the full breakdown of first-time volunteers segmented by delivery partner.

3.2 Volunteer demographics

At the outset of the programme, VFF funded projects selected their target volunteer groups. The groups targeted were not mutually exclusive as projects could target more than one type of volunteer group. As illustrated in Table 1, most of the projects targeted young people aged 16 to 25, with 82% of projects falling into this category. The following volunteer groups were also targeted by many projects: people living in deprived areas (67%), disabled people (59%) and people from ethnic minority backgrounds (56%). Further detail on the breakdown of volunteer groups targeted by delivery partners can be found in Table A3 in Appendix 3.

Table 1: Volunteer groups targeted by projects (n=39) 

Number of projects targeting different volunteer groups

Universal	People from ethnic minority backgrounds	Young people (16 to 25)	People living in deprived areas	Disabled people	Other targeting
18	22	32	26	23	3

Across the programme, and when broken down by delivery partner, many more female volunteers were recruited than volunteers who were male, non-binary or self-defined their gender (Table 2). The totals provided for gender do not include all volunteers recruited through the projects as some projects chose to collect data on sex rather than gender. It was up to the grantees’ discretion whether to collect data on volunteer sex, gender or both. Seven projects across the Fund chose not to collect data on volunteers’ gender and therefore are not included in the tables. These seven projects accounted for 4,072 volunteers. 

A large proportion of volunteers also fell into the following categories: young people (16-25) (38%), and those from ethnic minority backgrounds (16%). NHSCT projects predominantly recruited young people, with 99% of all volunteers recruited by these projects falling into this category. Pears Foundation projects typically had a lower representation of young people with just 14% of volunteers belonging to this age group. Among the recruited volunteers, ACE had a higher percentage of disabled volunteers, with 13% of their total volunteers being disabled, as opposed to 6% for Pears Foundation and 2% for NHSCT.  

Table 2: Volunteer groups recruited^{[footnote 9]}

Type of volunteer groups reached	Number of volunteers: programme-wide	Number of volunteers: ACE	Number of volunteers: NHSCT	Number of volunteers: Pears Foundation
Young people (16 to 25)	5798	2779	1939	1080
Ethnic minorities	2344	1014	394	936
People with disabilities	1146	631	37	478
Male (Gender)	1584	1391	97	96
Female (Gender)	3501	2393	433	675
Non-binary/self-defined (Gender)	332	305	8	19
Total	15136	5331	1962	7843

3.3 Modality of volunteering opportunities 

At the outset of the programme, VFF funded projects outlined the modality or types of volunteering opportunities they planned to offer. As illustrated in Table 3, flexible volunteering projects were most targeted with 32 projects (82%) planning to include flexible opportunities. However, micro and digital volunteering opportunities were also largely targeted, with 28 projects (72%) planning to include micro opportunities and 28 projects (72%) planning to include digital opportunities. The ‘other formal’ category ^{[footnote 10]} was the least common at the outset of the programme, with 26 projects (67%) planning to recruit volunteers into this category. More detail on the breakdown of volunteering opportunities targeted by delivery partners can be found in Table A4 in Appendix 3.

When comparing the types of projects targeted at the outset of the programme to the types of project subsequently offered, the biggest change was seen with digital opportunities. At the outset of the programme 28 projects (72%) stated they were targeting digital opportunities compared to 23 projects (59%) which subsequently offered digital opportunities. There were also slightly fewer projects offering micro and flexible opportunities (26 (67%) and 30 projects (77%) offered compared to 28 (72%) and 32 (82%) targeted at the outset, respectively). In comparison, there were slightly more projects offering ‘other formal’ opportunities (27 projects, 69%) compared with the number targeting these at the outset of the programme (26 projects, 67%). However, volunteer modalities were not mutually exclusive, and many projects offered multiple volunteer modalities, so the total of all opportunities does not equal 39 (the total number of projects).  

Table 3: Types of volunteering opportunities which were targeted at programme outset and subsequently offered (n=39) 

Number of projects

	Micro	Flexible	Digital	Other formal
Number of projects targeting types of of volunteering opportunity at the outset of the programme)	28	32	28	26
Number of projects offering types of volunteering opportunity	26	30	23	27

Table 4 below outlines the number of volunteers recruited in each type of volunteering model. The most common form of volunteering opportunity recruited into was ‘other formal’ with 55% of reported modalities being this type of opportunity. Volunteering opportunities categorised as ‘other formal’ include mixed modalities (e.g. digital and flexible) as well as regular volunteering opportunities which are not micro, flexible or digital. This helps account for the notably high number of volunteers categorised in ‘other formal’ volunteering opportunities. Not all grantees counted volunteers participating in multiple modalities as being in the ‘other formal’ category but instead counted the volunteer for each modality. While the volunteers were counted as a single volunteer in terms of total number of volunteers recruited, they contributed to more than one type of volunteering opportunity in Table 4.

ACE and NHSCT projects recruited more volunteers into flexible opportunities than ‘other formal’ opportunities, with these accounting for 36% and 45% of reported modalities respectively. Overall, fewer volunteers were recruited into micro and digital opportunities. 

Table 4: Number of volunteers recruited in micro, flexible, digital, or ‘other formal’ volunteering opportunities^{[footnote 11]}

Volunteer numbers by delivery partner

Modality	Programme-wide	ACE	NHSCT	Pears Foundation
Micro	2382	2087	178	117
Flexible	3685	2150	987	548
Digital	1199	258	213	728
Other formal	8742	1438	824	6480

3.4 Length of volunteering opportunities

As illustrated in Table 5, across the programme most volunteers were involved in long-term volunteering opportunities, defined as opportunities longer than six months or still ongoing. This represented 64% of the recorded volunteering opportunities where length of volunteering opportunities was reported. Conversely, 19% of volunteers were engaged in opportunities shorter than six months and 17% attended volunteering opportunities that were one-off. 

There was a more even split across ACE projects, with 34% of volunteers taking part in one-off opportunities, 30% in short-medium opportunities, and 36% in long-term opportunities. In contrast, Pears Foundation and NHSCT volunteers were primarily recruited into long-term opportunities (Table 5). 

Table 5: Length of volunteering opportunity^{[footnote 12][footnote 13]}

Volunteer numbers by delivery partners

Timescale	Programme-wide	ACE	NHSCT	Pears Foundation
One-off	2351	1790	276	285
Short-medium	2676	1577	727	372
Long term	9001	1939	1028	6034

4. Process evaluation findings 

This chapter reports on findings from the process evaluation, drawing on evidence from the delivery partner focus group, grantee interviews, CMD data and volunteer interviews. The interviews were conducted with a selection of participants for each group and allowed us to capture the range and diversity of views and experiences, but are not statistically representative of the population. Therefore we do not give a sense of the scale and strength of their views as the sampling approach was not designed for this purpose. ^{[footnote 14]}

4.1 Design of the Fund 

Impact of timelines on project selection and delivery 

Delivery partners (ACE, Pears Foundation and NHSCT) had mixed views about the overall design of the Fund. Generally, the delivery partners felt the objectives set by DCMS for the Fund were very broad. This approach allowed them to select a more diverse range of projects and gave them more flexibility to focus on areas of their own particular interest. However, delivery partners felt that timelines for project selection and delivery were short which directly influenced the types of projects they selected. They took a more risk-averse approach by selecting grantees which had existing volunteer networks and recruitment processes as they felt grantees with little or no volunteer infrastructure might not successfully deliver within the short delivery timeframe.  

In order to meet those timelines, we had to select projects where there was already that existing framework. If you want really innovative, new, dynamic projects that are grown from nothing, you couldn’t do it in the timelines we had.

-  Delivery partner

Similarly, delivery partners felt that the short Expression of Interest (EOI) stage led them to predominantly select organisations they had pre-existing relationships with, despite receiving many EOIs from organisations they had not worked with before. They felt these organisations had the knowledge and capacity to produce EOIs much quicker, and to a higher quality. Delivery partners emphasised that the short timeframes limited the diversity of grantees selected and led to the selection of more risk-averse and (potentially) less innovative projects. Timelines also impacted the ability of projects to forge new partnerships or reach new volunteer groups. 

Grant spending requirements

Grant spending requirements were cited as a challenge, particularly for NHSCT and Pears Foundation grantees. Projects had a requirement to spend the DCMS portion of the grant within the first financial year of the Fund (by 31st March 2022) ^{[footnote 15]}. To ensure grantees could complete all DCMS funded activities within that five-month period, delivery partners selected many capital-intensive projects, such as projects involving large investments in infrastructure at an early stage. 

Match-funding element 

Strand 2 of the VFF involved pilots match-funded and delivered by NHSCT and Pears Foundation. DCMS’ total funding of £1.17 million for Strand 2 was to be spent by March 2022 with the equal match-funding element, provided by delivery partners, to be spent by 2023. NHSCT and Pears Foundation delivery partners agreed that the match-funding element was hugely beneficial and was a facilitator for the success of projects. For example, one delivery partner explained that the match-funding enabled them to be much more flexible with grantees, allowing adaptation to delivery and opportunities for innovation within projects as the matched funding could be spent over a longer period. 

4.2 Delivery of the VFF at project level 

Application and monitoring 

Pears Foundation and NHSCT grantees interviewed felt the application process was proportionate to the awarded funding. Many grantees cited their existing relationship with the delivery partner or support received from the delivery partner during the application process as a key facilitator. There were mixed views among ACE grantees, with some grantees finding the application process lengthy and required in a short turnaround. This was particularly the case for grantees working with downstream partners who needed to gather all partners’ data and evidence for the application form. 

Views on monitoring and reporting were mixed. ACE grantees had more positive experiences with monitoring arrangements with many describing the forms as ‘light touch’ in comparison to their experience with other funders. Other grantees faced challenges with the requirements, particularly when new information, such as demographic data, was requested part way through delivery. Due to sensitivity issues, grantees also highlighted challenges collecting demographic data with new or vulnerable volunteers. 

Project design, set-up, and delivery 

A key facilitator to project set-up and delivery for grantees was support from the delivery partners, especially in helping them understand the monitoring processes and providing flexibility with any required changes to delivery. However, grantees who were not using a significant portion of their budget for capital investments (e.g. in technology or infrastructure) reported that it was challenging keeping to the planned spending requirements. In particular, Pears Foundation and NHSCT grantees highlighted that it was difficult spending the entire DCMS grant budget by 31st March 2022, the end of the first financial year of the grant. 

We had a very short space of time to spend quite a large amount of that money… we had to spend [tens of thousands of pounds] within the space of about two months.

-  NHSCT grantee

Partnerships between grantees and other downstream organisations played a pivotal role to successful project set-up and delivery. Partnerships were established for a variety of reasons, including supporting the recruitment of volunteers, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Several grantees established new partnerships to raise their organisation’s profile in new areas and reach groups they had not previously engaged with. ACE grantees working with multiple delivery partners utilised steering groups, advisory boards, or monthly meetings to foster collaboration and learning between partners.

Many grantees co-designed their projects with volunteers, particularly if their projects targeted young people. Co-design was used as an opportunity to assess what activities would attract young people into volunteering or to make adaptations to existing activities based on feedback. Co-design generally occurred very early on in the project and grantees emphasised the importance of allocating sufficient time for effective co-design within the overall project design. Many NHSCT grantees highlighted the importance of pre-project outreach with schools and colleges and young people, which expedited recruitment as it enabled them to mitigate against stringent, time-consuming NHS volunteer recruitment processes. 

Volunteer recruitment 

Volunteers described several ways they first heard about or became involved in VFF volunteering opportunities. These ranged from seeing advertisements on social media (in particular Facebook or Instagram), to finding out about opportunities through their own research or hearing about the opportunity through youth clubs or educational institutions (for example through a stall at a university fair). 

Although grantees used multiple recruitment strategies, they reported that volunteer recruitment was generally slower than expected. Grantees found that face-to-face recruitment was the most effective, particularly where projects targeted young people by recruiting from places they frequent, such as schools or barbershops. For some grantees this was a tried and tested approach, while others, especially organisations targeting a new demographic of volunteers, were adopting it for the first time. Similarly, recruitment through word of mouth from existing volunteers was noted as effective. Social media was found to be a less effective approach; however, it is unclear whether this was because of poor implementation by grantees or their partners or other factors. 

We’ve got social media up and running, the best way at the moment for us to recruit volunteers is to be out and about talking to people…I was surprised that social media hasn’t actually gone the way we thought it would.

-  ACE grantee

Several grantees explained they needed additional time and resources to build trust where they were trying to attract disabled volunteers or those who were more isolated or vulnerable. In comparison to other volunteer groups, grantees felt that young people needed to be incentivised to engage in their activities (for example, by using the volunteering opportunity as work experience). Grantees working with young volunteers found that reducing the time between sign-up and the commencement of activities was also a critical strategy for successful recruitment and retention. This finding was mirrored in the volunteer interviews, with volunteers reporting that this maintained their motivation and enthusiasm to be involved.  

Volunteers discussed several factors that were key to deciding whether to participate in volunteering. Clear and effective communication from organisations about what the volunteering would involve (including specific tasks and timings) was important, particularly for volunteers who had not volunteered before or were nervous about volunteering. Volunteers who needed flexibility in their role were reassured when they were told about flexibility early on and cited this as a factor in deciding to sign up. Volunteers appreciated when volunteering opportunities had a simple and easy recruitment process, such as signing up online using tick boxes rather than a written application, and a lack of tests or interviews. Volunteers felt this made opportunities more accessible to them.  

That was partially what made it [the volunteering opportunity] more accessible because it’s not like I had to pass any tests or anything beforehand

-  Volunteer

For young volunteers and disabled volunteers, recruitment through educational institutions was key, including advertising roles through work experience coordinators at schools and colleges, and making use of university networks and platforms, such as online job boards, to advertise opportunities. Interviews with volunteers also highlighted the need for tailored recruitment and onboarding approaches for different volunteers. One volunteer who struggled with their mental health described how someone came to their house to talk about the project, which they felt was a very positive start to their involvement. 

Approaches for on-boarding first-time volunteers and those more likely to face barriers to volunteering 

The successful approaches for volunteer recruitment outlined above, such as using social media and partnerships with educational institutions, were also successful with first-time volunteers and those facing barriers to volunteering. First-time volunteers, especially young people and disabled people, were likely to have been referred to the volunteering opportunity by a support worker, teacher or youth club leader. Participants from this group highlighted the importance of a welcome or introductory session to get to know the team and the other volunteers. They described how knowing people before the start of volunteering made them not feel like an outsider, as they had already built connections with other volunteers and staff. This was an important factor in their interest and motivation to volunteer. A key previous barrier to volunteering for this group was a lack of confidence. Volunteers mentioned that introductory sessions helped build their confidence and made them feel they were in a safe environment. 

Volunteers who had previously faced barriers to volunteering or had negative experiences of volunteering found that the organisations were more responsive to their physical and emotional needs than the previous organisations they had volunteered with. A volunteer with a long-term health condition mentioned that the organisation always made sure they had somewhere to sit if needed which improved their volunteering experience. 

Grantees interviewed described several key lessons learned for engaging first-time volunteers. They emphasised the importance of taking a proactive approach to recruitment and visiting places frequented by target volunteer groups such as schools, colleges, youth clubs, shopping centres and universities. Grantees also felt that it was important for project workers to engage with volunteers regularly, particularly those with additional needs, to build trust and provide support. However, many of these grantees also highlighted the resource-intensive nature of this approach. 

Volunteer Retention

Grantees found that co-designing project activities with young people was effective in ensuring activities were relevant and had the buy-in from volunteers. They described how co-production led to projects that volunteers felt more ownership towards and were more interested in. Ensuring volunteers were assigned to activities/tasks they found relevant and passionate about was also key to successful retention. 

Retention is higher when people are in volunteering roles they actually are interested in. I understand that for students it could be a time-limited opportunity: but that doesn’t mean it can’t be meaningful.

-  Pears Foundation grantee

Volunteers also highlighted several factors that encouraged them to continue volunteering. These included being impacted positively by the role (e.g. through increased wellbeing, learning new skills or meeting new people) and roles tailored to individual needs and interests. Many organisations with flexible and micro opportunities had various volunteering opportunities available, which volunteers cited as a factor influencing retention, as they could engage with the most interesting opportunities for them.

For NHSCT grantees, partnering with schools and colleges for work experience aided retention as it guaranteed a certain number of volunteer hours. Both grantees and volunteers emphasised the importance of making volunteers aware of available opportunities and managing expectations early. A few grantees used celebratory events or gave awards to volunteers to show recognition for their input. 

We’ve developed a long service award badge, so they get a badge for one year’s service and two years’ service…The engagement activities have definitely helped our retention, making it more fun for them.

-  NHSCT grantee

Volunteers also appreciated projects that collected ongoing feedback from volunteers as they felt this improved their experiences and made them feel valued. One volunteer with a long-term health condition highlighted to an organisation that the online platform for volunteers did not include accessibility information about venues and appreciated that this was quickly changed after they discussed it with project staff. 

Interviews with volunteers also identified several barriers to retention. These included volunteers feeling like their skills were not being fully utilised in their roles, a lack of communication about future volunteering opportunities and projects which were aimed at certain age groups (e.g. young people) not being able to accommodate volunteers in other projects once they become older than the targeted age range. 

4.3 Strengths, weaknesses and lessons learned from the different volunteering models (micro, flexible, and digital volunteering) 

Although there are clear distinctions between the models in terms of their definitions (see sections below), many grantees did not use the same terminology. Many volunteer roles were either not clearly defined as a particular type of volunteering or combined models (e.g. digital and flexible). Grantees who did not relate to the terminology used were therefore unable to comment on specific learnings or experiences compared to a ‘regular’ or existing model. Some volunteers who took part in VFF funded projects were also involved in regular volunteering and in some cases, volunteering models changed based on volunteer needs, for example a flexible opportunity becoming more regular volunteering if that suited a volunteer best. The following section draws on findings from the delivery partner focus group, grantee interviews and volunteer interviews.

Micro volunteering 

Micro volunteering is defined as volunteering to do specific time-bound tasks that can be undertaken as one-off. Examples described by volunteers who took part in interviews included attending one-off conservation sessions, supporting with an anniversary event for a local arts venue or volunteering as an invigilator for a late-night museum event. 

Fewer volunteers were recruited into micro-opportunities, as detailed in the CMD analysis in Table 4, with 2,382 volunteers recruited into these roles across the three delivery partners. Grantees who had delivered micro opportunities described using them in conjunction with other types of volunteering activities, with the opportunity for volunteers to progress to longer-term volunteering. A couple of NHSCT grantees explained their choice not to use micro-opportunities in their projects due to the lengthy nature of NHS recruitment processes. Because it includes extensive background checks and mandatory training, micro volunteering opportunities were not feasible to offer.

One-off opportunities, you can’t really integrate into volunteer services in the NHS because of the amount of training and time it takes to get all of your checks done just to volunteer for one day.

-  NHSCT grantee

Volunteers described several positive aspects of micro volunteering. For those who hadn’t volunteered before, micro opportunities were a good opportunity to try out volunteering without a longer-term commitment. Because each micro volunteering session was stand alone, organisations often provided detailed information about what would happen during the volunteering session. Volunteers felt that this helped to break down barriers to volunteering as they could fully prepare for the session and therefore felt more confident. Volunteers also appreciated the fact that micro volunteering meant they could plan volunteering around other commitments related to work, study or family. This was particularly useful for volunteers with changing schedules, such as those with varying work schedules or university students. Micro volunteering opportunities worked particularly well for disabled volunteers who needed to attend sessions with their support worker. Because their time with their support worker(s) was limited, micro volunteering opportunities were easier to co-ordinate in relation to their support worker’s availability. This may not have been possible for some volunteers with a longer-term volunteering opportunity. 

Volunteers also highlighted negative aspects related to micro volunteering. Volunteers who wanted to be involved in volunteering longer term or continue volunteering with the same organisation sometimes felt frustrated that micro opportunities were ‘one-off’ and some volunteers felt that organisations did not communicate well about whether there would be any future opportunities. 

Flexible volunteering 

Flexible volunteering is where volunteer services have no regular commitment pattern or a minimum stipulated number of hours. Examples described by volunteers who took part in interviews included volunteering opportunities where you can sign up for suitable shifts using an online platform (e.g. to steward during a theatre or music performance) or volunteering on a farm (e.g. looking after animals, planting) where there was flexibility on the days they could attend. This was the second most common volunteering mode across the programme, with 3,637 volunteers recruited into flexible volunteering opportunities.

In general, volunteers felt positive about flexible volunteering opportunities. Similar to micro opportunities, they highlighted that they could fit volunteering around other commitments, such as work or education. 

If I’m like, ‘Oh, I know I signed on to this thing that’s tomorrow, but I’m really, really behind on my work,’ they’ll just be like, ‘Yes, don’t worry about it. Thanks for letting us know,’ and you can easily just sign off from the shifts on the app.

-  Volunteer

Flexible volunteering allowed volunteers with long term, and often unpredictable, health problems to sign up to volunteer when they felt able – even last minute. This was particularly the case for grantees with online sign-up systems, enabling volunteers to sign up to or cancel sessions at short notice. Other benefits of flexible volunteering highlighted by volunteers included feeling more engaged with volunteering because the flexibility made it feel like a choice, rather than something they had to do. This was key for the engagement of volunteers who were apprehensive about volunteering or had previous negative experiences. 

Volunteers also highlighted negative aspects of flexible volunteering. One example related to the fact that flexible opportunities had varied staff and volunteers at each session. This meant that for volunteers with complex and specific needs, these were not always known and therefore could not be met. This situation was described in contrast to other regular volunteering situations where staff could build longer term relationships with volunteers, making it easier to provide support. Some volunteers also felt that flexible volunteering didn’t provide the same structure as more regular volunteering slot (e.g. the same day each week), to enable them to plan around the volunteering role more easily. One disabled volunteer highlighted that a regular schedule would work better, allowing them to schedule attendance with their support worker.

Grantees and delivery partners were also asked about flexible volunteering and had mixed views on the success of these opportunities. Pears Foundation projects felt the approach was largely successful and was particularly attractive for volunteers with other time-consuming commitments such as caring for young children. As set out above with micro opportunities, a key barrier to delivery for NHSCT grantees again was difficulty recruiting for flexible roles within the constraints of NHS recruitment processes.  

Digital volunteering 

Digital volunteering is defined as volunteering which takes place digitally, either remotely or in person. Examples of this described in the grantee and volunteer interviews included volunteering involving local history research using a laptop provided by a funded project or digitalising museum archives. Only a few projects offered digital volunteering opportunities. This is reflected in the CMD analysis which reports just 1,191 digital volunteering opportunities were taken up across the three delivery partners (Table 4).

Interviews with grantees found that several projects had planned to offer digital volunteering at the outset of the programme but were unable to proceed with this approach in practice. These grantees generally found that there was less demand for digital opportunities than previously anticipated, and therefore shifted to other types of opportunities. 

We thought we’d do more digital opportunities, but this hasn’t happened, we’ve had very low uptake. I was surprised that digital and social media use hasn’t actually gone the way we thought it would.

- ACE grantee

For the few grantees who did offer digital volunteering opportunities, it was reported that a high level of investment was required during their set-up phase to develop and establish the digital infrastructure required to deliver digital volunteering activities. A delivery partner highlighted that projects have potentially duplicated efforts in developing digital assets. For instance, they found that many of the grantees were individually investing in and creating portals for their volunteering opportunities and suggested the need for sharing knowledge on setting up digital assets to avoid unnecessary, duplicated costs across these organisations.

Volunteers interviewed described being able to use their own digital equipment if they wished or being provided with good quality digital equipment such as laptops, allowing them to easily do their volunteer role and appreciated the independence that digital volunteering gave them. Volunteers also appreciated the flexibility of working from home or from an office. Challenges highlighted by volunteers related to the supply of equipment. One volunteer described having to miss their volunteering session on occasion as there were not sufficient laptops for all volunteers. 

Lessons learned from the different volunteering models 

Volunteer interviews highlighted several lessons learned related to volunteering models. All three models had strengths and weaknesses. Although it was clear that micro and flexible opportunities appealed to those who had not volunteered before, there were no clear associations between models and the recruitment and retention of different groups. Whether a model worked for a particular volunteer was based on several personal factors, including the point at which a volunteer was in their volunteering journey. For example, for some volunteers micro volunteering was key to their initial recruitment but to stay involved longer-term, they would prefer a more formal arrangement with a regular schedule. Thus, allowing volunteers to change model at different points in their volunteer journey could facilitate the longer-term retention of young volunteers and those who experience barriers to volunteering. Interviews with volunteers also highlighted the challenges of digital equipment availability for digital volunteering and grantees described the high levels of investment needed in the set-up of digital volunteer projects. Going forward, funding for or availability of digital equipment should be considered when funding digital volunteering projects. 

Delivery partners felt that whilst some valuable lessons were learned about volunteer recruitment and retention, they were not ground-breaking, and approaches taken often aligned with standard practices. They felt this was because the projects had little freedom to experiment and innovate (see section 4.1).

4.4 Lessons learned for future interventions

This chapter has set out how the Fund was delivered and some of the key challenges and successes related to delivery at both fund and project level. Several key lessons learned from the process evaluation are set out below. 

• Funders need to build in an appropriate amount of time if planning to reach new groups of volunteers, especially those who face barriers to volunteering

Delivery partners and grantees felt that for grantees to reach new groups of volunteers, the funding timelines should be lengthened.^{[footnote 16]} As a result of the shorter timelines, delivery partners reported that they often selected projects with existing volunteer frameworks and recruitment processes with groups of volunteers they were familiar with and were not trialling new, innovative approaches with new groups.

• Including match-funding elements within volunteering funds can allow greater flexibility for grantees and lead to new and innovative approaches

Delivery partners felt positively about the match-funding element of the Fund as it allowed grantees to be more flexible with their delivery which provided opportunity for adaptation and innovation. 

• Where projects are expected to involve multiple partners (or require partnership working to reach new volunteers), application processes should be lengthened to allow time for partners to feed in to or support with the application

ACE projects which involved multiple partners cited the need for a longer application window to establish new relationships and allow all parties to feed into the application. These partnerships were often key to engaging with new groups of volunteers. 

• Using a range of alternative volunteering models (micro, flexible, digital) can help recruit new volunteers, in particular disabled volunteers, volunteers in education and volunteers who have not volunteered before or have experienced previous barriers to volunteering.

To aid volunteer retention, volunteering opportunities need to be flexible to volunteer needs and allow volunteers to change model at different points in their volunteer journey or if their circumstances change. Grantees highlighted how some volunteers started in micro or flexible roles and then later chose to move to more regular volunteering which ensured long term retention. However, allowing volunteers to change model was not possible for some NHSCT grantees who could not offer micro-opportunities in their projects due to the lengthy nature of NHS recruitment processes. 

• Partnerships with educational establishments (e.g. universities, colleges and schools for students with special educational needs) were key to recruiting young and disabled volunteers

Particular successes included the use of university fairs and job boards to advertise volunteer roles and work experience co-ordinators promoting volunteer opportunities within colleges and schools. 

• Online platforms and apps for volunteers aided retention through communication about future opportunities and made it easier for flexible and micro volunteers to sign up to volunteering shifts

These platforms (such as MyImpact) enabled volunteers to see details of upcoming volunteering opportunities (including specific timing and accessibility information), sign up to volunteer, and cancel sessions if needed. 

• Giving volunteers agency in their role can improve impacts for volunteers and aid retention

This can be achieved through various interventions, including co-production, consulting volunteers about the broader project and ongoing feedback dialogues between volunteers and projects. Volunteers also highlighted how flexible volunteering can be empowering as they have the agency to choose when to volunteer. 

• Clear, regular, and engaging communication to volunteers is key to successful recruitment and retention, particularly for young people and those who experience barriers to volunteering

This includes providing clarity about what volunteering will involve (including activities and timings), and the recruitment process (e.g. making clear that there is no formal interview or written application).

5. Impact evaluation findings 

This chapter presents the impact findings based on the contribution analysis. The sub-sections below are structured by contribution statement and evidence collected across all evaluation work strands (CMD, delivery partner focus group, grantee interviews, and volunteer interviews) was used to assess the strength of evidence for each contribution statement. Strength of evidence was evaluated in terms of how many sources of evidence there were for each statement, whether data supported or conflicted with the contribution statements, and how far the different sources of data supported each other. Drawing on this, strength of evidence for each contribution statement was assessed as ‘Strong’, ‘Moderate’, or ‘Weak’: 

• Strong: numerous sources of evidence, with high convergence of findings; 
• Moderate: moderate amount of evidence, with general convergence but possibly with conflicting results; and 
• Weak: limited evidence, with limited convergence of findings. 

It should be noted that although insights from ACE projects were gathered through grantee and volunteer interviews, and the CMD, projects are due to finish delivery in March 2024, after the delivery of this evaluation. The final CMD form for ACE grantees will be submitted directly to ACE in March 2024, meaning that CMD data shows an incomplete picture. This meant that less longer-term data on both organisational change and learning and volunteer impacts could be collected and are therefore not factored into the following contribution analysis. 

5.1 Impact of the VFF on organisations and the voluntary sector 

This section discusses how the VFF funding package impacted grantees and the voluntary sector more broadly. The funding’s impact is assessed in terms of how far the evidence collected supports contribution statement 1 (improving routes for individuals into regular volunteering) and contribution statement 2 (increasing understanding of new models of volunteering within organisations and across the sector). 

Summary of evidence to support contribution statement 1 

Contribution statement 1

VFF funding programme supported local projects and community organisations to improve routes for individuals into regular volunteering, either through increasing recruitment drives or improving rates of retention.

Overall, there is moderate evidence that the VFF supported local projects and organisations to improve routes for individuals into regular volunteering. At the time of the evaluation concluding in October 2023, CMD data showed that across all projects 15,136 volunteers had been recruited (of which 6,488 were first-time volunteers) with a 16% dropout rate. Grantees and delivery partners discussed learnings gained through the VFF about successful and unsuccessful approaches to recruitment and retention. However, delivery partners also emphasised that the short timeframes for project delivery limited the diversity of grantees they selected and led to the selection of more risk-averse and (potentially) less innovative projects. 

Evidence to support the contribution statement	Strength of evidence
At the time of the evaluation concluding in October 2023, CMD data showed that across all projects 15,136 volunteers had been recruited (of which 6,488 were first-time volunteers). Grantees had a mixed experience in terms of how effective their recruitment approaches were. This ranged from projects saying they had received lots of engagement from volunteers, feeling that they would exceed their target, reaching lots of new groups of people (including lots of young people), to others who felt they were on track and others who found the process very challenging. Grantees reported learning about effective ways to increase recruitment of volunteers for their projects. Grantees generally found the following approaches the most effective: face-to-face recruitment; going to spaces where people who face barriers to volunteering frequent; and utilising partners who have relationships with those who face barriers to volunteering. Grantees also discussed the less effective volunteer recruitment approaches, including the use of social media/online recruitment. Some grantees felt it was too early to assess. Volunteer interviews showed that micro and flexible approaches were appealing, particularly for volunteers who had limited previous volunteering experience.. Although delivery partners reported that improvements were made in terms of recruitment, they emphasised that the short timeframes limited the diversity of grantees selected and led to the selection of more risk-averse and (potentially) less innovative projects.	Moderate (CMD, grantee interviews, delivery partner focus groups, volunteer interviews)
At the time of the evaluation concluding in October 2023, CMD data showed a low dropout rate of 16% for volunteers. Grantees discussed a range of retention approaches they used. According to grantees, the most successful approaches included: co-designing activities/volunteering opportunities with volunteers; celebratory events and awards to show recognition for the efforts of volunteers; ensuring volunteers were assigned activities/tasks they found relevant and interesting; and, linking up with schools and colleges for work experience.  Volunteer interviews showed that projects helped volunteers build confidence which helped retention. Co-production approaches also helped volunteers build confidence as they had more agency within projects and felt like their views and input were valued. Delivery partners reported that improvements were made in terms of retention but emphasised that the short timeframes limited the diversity of grantees selected and led to the selection of more risk-averse and (potentially) less innovative projects.	Moderate (CMD, grantee interviews, delivery partner focus groups, volunteer interviews)

 

Contribution statement 2

VFF funding programme increased learning and understanding of new models of volunteering for organisations leading funded projects and a greater understanding of what worked well/less well with improving volunteer recruitment and diversity.

Summary of evidence to support contribution statement 2

Overall there is weak evidence to conclude that the VFF increased learning about and understanding of new models of volunteering and what works well/less well for improving volunteer recruitment and diversity. Although grantees reported using the VFF funding to trial volunteer recruitment and retention approaches, delivery partners felt that opportunities for significant learning within projects were limited due to the short delivery timescales. Many grantees did not use specific terminology around volunteer models and were unable to comment on specific learnings or experiences in comparison to a more regular or existing model. Due to the timing of interviews being early in their delivery phase, ACE grantees also felt it was difficult to comment on learnings from their projects overall. It is therefore possible that evidence for this contribution statement may have been stronger had ACE grantee interviews taken place later, or at the end, of their delivery phase. Delivery partners emphasised that the short timeframes led to the selection of more risk-averse projects which reduced learning about new models.

Evidence to support the contribution statement

Strength of evidence

Grantees reported using VFF funding to trial volunteer recruitment and retention approaches which led to learning and gaining understanding of new approaches. Grantees had adapted their recruitment and retention approaches because of the VFF and were planning to continue with these adaptations after the funding was over. As a result, grantees had a greater understanding in terms of “what works” for recruiting volunteers, including the types of activities and opportunities most attractive to different groups of volunteers. However, delivery partners reported that due to the short delivery timescales the opportunity for significant/extensive learnings for projects was limited and learning had only really come through where the projects were reaching new volunteers, either geographically or demographically. Many grantees also did not use specific terminology around volunteer models and were unable to comment on specific learnings or experiences in comparison to a ‘formal’ or existing model. Due to the timing of interviews being early in their delivery phase, ACE grantees also felt it was difficult to comment on learnings from their projects overall.

Weak (grantee interview, delivery partner focus group)

Alternative explanations	Strength of evidence
Some grantees reported that they had already planned to try new volunteer models or approaches to volunteering, prior to the VFF. However, grantees described how they had not previously received the funding or reached the organisational capacity required to fully test these approaches.	Weak (grantee interviews)

5.2 Impact of the VFF on volunteers and project beneficiaries 

This section discusses how the VFF funding package impacted volunteers and project beneficiaries. The funding’s impact is assessed in terms of how far the evidence collected supports contribution statement 3 (supporting individuals from diverse backgrounds to engage in volunteering), contribution statement 4 (improving the health and wellbeing of volunteers and project beneficiaries), and contribution statement 5 (improving outcomes for volunteers seeking paid employment). 

Summary of evidence to support contribution statement 3 

Contribution statement 3

VFF funding programme supported individuals from a diverse set of backgrounds, including younger people, minorities and those from deprived areas, to engage in a range of short and long-term volunteering opportunities.

Overall, there is strong evidence to conclude that the VFF supported individuals from a diverse set of backgrounds to engage in a range of volunteering opportunities. CMD data, grantee interviews and the delivery partner focus group showed that projects successfully attracted volunteers from diverse backgrounds, although there was more success reaching young volunteers than other groups. Grantees and volunteers also described how projects reduced barriers to volunteering. The evaluation found that a range of short and long-term volunteering opportunities were offered through the VFF, however CMD data showed that most opportunities were long term. 

Data collection identified weak evidence that grantees already had diverse groups of people involved in volunteering prior to the VFF. However, grantees also highlighted that VFF had led to engaging with new groups, even if there was existing diversity among volunteers. 

Evidence to support the contribution statement	Strength of evidence
CMD data showed that of the available data, 38% of volunteers recruited at the time of the evaluation concluding in October 2023, were young people, 16% were from an ethnic minority background, and 8% were disabled people. The data shows that young people were a focus for recruitment over other groups. Grantee interviews reported that the projects successfully attracted volunteers from diverse backgrounds, including young people, people from ethnic minority backgrounds, and people from deprived areas. Grantees employed targeted recruitment strategies through partnership with local organisations, schools, colleges, and community centres. Efforts were made to reduce barriers preventing individuals from diverse backgrounds from volunteering, such as accessibility issues and support with the application process. Delivery partners felt that overall many projects successfully engaged new volunteer groups, especially young people.	Strong (CMD, grantee interviews, delivery partner focus groups)
Interviews with grantees and volunteers showed the ways in which different volunteer groups were reached. Disabled, younger and ethnic minority volunteers highlighted transport fees being refunded, accessibility information being provided on volunteering apps, the offer of English language courses for volunteers who did not have English as a first language, support workers being welcomed, and training opportunities being offered to new volunteers. Interviews with volunteers from diverse backgrounds highlighted that flexibility around volunteering helped with recruitment and retention, by allowing volunteers to schedule their volunteering around their work, school, long-term health conditions, or support worker schedule.	Strong (grantee interviews, volunteer interviews)
Volunteers described taking part in a range of longer and shorter-term opportunities. CMD data shows that a range of opportunities were taken up, however the majority of the VFF volunteering opportunities were long term (9,001), compared to short-medium term (2,676) or one-off opportunities (2,351).	Moderate (CMD, volunteer interviews)

Alternative explanations	Strength of evidence
One perspective highlighted by grantees was that they already had a diverse group of people involved in their volunteering opportunities, prior to the VFF. However, grantees also highlighted that VFF had led to engaging with new groups, even if there was existing diversity among volunteers.	Weak (grantee interviews)

Contribution statement 4

VFF funding programme enabled local projects to deliver targeted support, through volunteering activities, to help improve the health and wellbeing of beneficiaries/volunteers, particularly in reducing instances of loneliness and improve connection to their local community.

Summary of evidence to support contribution statement 4

Overall, there is strong evidence to conclude that the VFF enabled local projects to deliver targeted support through volunteering activities to improve the health and wellbeing of beneficiaries/volunteers. The evaluation found that volunteers involved in VFF projects reported improved mental health (e.g. decreased anxiety), increased confidence and self-esteem, increased connection to local communities, and reduced loneliness. It should be noted that although wider research has shown that volunteering is associated with enhanced wellbeing, evidence suggests that context matters and wellbeing is shaped by a number of factors ^{[footnote 17]}. There was also evidence that participating in non-VFF funded projects or activities contributed to these observed outcomes for volunteers. However, this evidence was limited and considered weak. 

Evidence to support the contribution statement

Strength of evidence

Volunteers reported that volunteering activities helped with their mental health and their confidence, as well as decreasing their anxiety. Volunteering was described as ‘therapeutic’ as well as ‘rewarding’ and ‘fulfilling’, and participants mentioned feeling happier since they started volunteering. Grantees also emphasised increased confidence and reported this as a key outcome for volunteers across the Fund, regardless of volunteer demographics. Volunteers reported increased connection to their community, through meeting new people, learning about the culture and history of their region, and in some cases, improving their English language skills. Many grantees interviewed reported that their volunteers experienced increased self-esteem through taking part in the volunteering opportunity as they felt they were contributing something worthwhile and valuable to their communities. There was limited evidence from volunteer interviews specifically about reduced loneliness. Grantees reported that volunteers experienced increased social connections and reduced loneliness because of taking part in their volunteering opportunities, however this was based on anecdotal evidence from only a few volunteers in each of these projects.

Strong (grantee interviews and volunteer interviews)

Alternative explanations	Strength of evidence
Volunteers reported being engaged in volunteering projects not funded through the VFF or other local activities they had become involved with alongside the VFF funded project (e.g. art classes) which may have contributed to improved wellbeing and connection to their community.	Weak (volunteer interviews)

Contribution statement 5

VFF funding programme supported local projects and community organisations in increasing the number of available volunteering opportunities, which led to improved outcomes for those volunteers seeking paid employment.

Overall, there is moderate evidence to conclude that the VFF supported projects and organisations to increase the number of volunteering opportunities, leading to improved outcomes for those volunteers seeking paid employment. At the time of the evaluation concluding in October 2023, CMD data shows that the VFF had supported the recruitment of 15,136 volunteers. This figure doesn’t include ACE volunteers recruited between September 2023 and March 2024 (the end point of ACE projects). There was moderate evidence of improved outcomes for volunteers seeking paid employment. Volunteers and grantees reported that volunteers had a better understanding of the labour market as well as increased awareness of job opportunities and career options in different fields. They also emphasised skills developed through volunteering (e.g. social skills, teamwork, time management) which would help with future work and education. However, there was limited evidence that this led to paid employment. Potentially this is due to the timing of the evaluation and the fact that volunteers were still at an early stage of volunteering and hadn’t yet started applying for further employment. Interviews with ACE grantees also took place earlier in their delivery window which may have influenced their ability to discuss longer term outcomes. Additionally, there are other factors not considered as part of this evaluation that can support people in engaging with the labour market. Data collection identified no evidence of alternative explanations for these volunteer outcomes.

Evidence to support the contribution statement

Strength of evidence

At the time of the evaluation concluding in October 2023, CMD data shows that the VFF had led to the recruitment of 15,316 volunteers. This figure doesn’t include ACE volunteers recruited between September 2023 and March 2024 (the end point of ACE projects). Volunteers reported a better understanding of the labour market, as well as increased awareness of job opportunities in specific fields, for example through exposure to new career options and interaction with a diverse range of people working in different fields. Volunteers listed many soft skills (e.g. social skills, customer service, teamwork, and time management) and hard skills (e.g. sign language, research, writing, event planning, social media, graphic design, and English language) they acquired through volunteering that could help with future work and education. However, there was limited evidence from volunteer interviews that this led to paid employment. Grantees interviewed felt that their volunteering opportunities had provided career opportunities for volunteers. This was particularly relevant for NHSCT projects. NHSCT projects often framed their volunteering opportunities as opportunities for volunteers to build skills and gain experience within hospitals for university medical applications and to help apply for jobs within hospitals. NHSCT projects were focused on recruiting young people into volunteering opportunities and supporting them into employment. There were also examples from grantee interviews of activities delivered which supported volunteers with interview preparation.

Moderate (CMD, grantee interviews, volunteer interviews)

5.3 Wider impact of the VFF

This section discusses how the VFF funding package impacted service delivery and collaboration in the voluntary sector more broadly. The funding’s impact is assessed in terms of how far the evidence collected supports Contribution statement 6 (improving services and the strengthening of relationships between services and organisations through increased collaboration across the sector). 

Summary of evidence to support contribution statement 6

Contribution statement 6

VFF funding programme contributed to improved services and the strengthening of relationships between services and organisations, through increased collaboration across the sector.

Overall there is moderate evidence to conclude that the VFF contributed to improved services and increased collaboration across the sector. There was moderate evidence (through volunteer interviews) that the VFF led to improved services through the diversification of volunteers. For example, co-production approaches with volunteers helped bring new and more diverse beneficiaries to services, increasing their reach, and the increased number of volunteers allowed grantees to offer additional activities for beneficiaries. There was strong evidence from grantee interviews that VFF funding fostered collaboration, with partnerships playing a key role in projects. 

Data collection also highlighted an alternative explanation for increased collaboration; there was evidence that some grantees used or built on existing partnerships for the VFF delivery (for example, many NHSCT grantees had existing relationships with schools). However, when this was the case, the VFF still led to deeper collaboration and/or additional partnerships.

Evidence to support the contribution statement	Strength of evidence
Volunteers highlighted how their volunteering activities supported projects and services to have greater impact for beneficiaries. This included developing beneficiaries’ skills, and increasing confidence, self-esteem and health and wellbeing through interaction and activities with volunteers. Co-production approaches with volunteers helped bring new and more diverse beneficiaries to services and projects. One example was a co-produced project at a museum with young volunteers, who ran events which helped bring new beneficiaries into the museum from more varied demographics. NHSCT grantees described how volunteers on VFF projects had improved patient experience in hospitals and ACE grantees emphasised that increased numbers of volunteers allowed them to offer additional activities which supported more beneficiaries.	Moderate (volunteer interviews, grantee interviews)
The VFF funding fostered collaboration between organisations, with partnerships playing a role within projects. For the projects which worked in partnership, many established new relationships and there was evidence of increased collaboration across the sector. Projects also planned to continue some of these relationship after the funding. Partnership working enabled grantees to engage with volunteers outside of their usual remit, either in terms of geography or demography. Partnerships were also used to tailor volunteering opportunities for target volunteer groups. Key within this was tailoring approaches for those with mental ill health. Projects worked with mental health charities or NHS support services to ensure the volunteering opportunities were both appropriate and genuinely supportive for those with mental ill health.	Strong (grantee interviews)

Alternative explanations	Strength of evidence
Some grantees used or built on existing partnerships for the VFF delivery (for example NHSCT grantees who had existing relationships with schools).	Moderate (grantee interviews)

5.4 Comparison of impacts for different groups of volunteers 

The key targeted demographic groups for the VFF were young people and those who experience barriers to volunteering (e.g. disabled people and those from ethnic minority backgrounds). As outlined above, interviews with volunteers showed that volunteers were impacted positively by volunteering in a variety of ways. Several reported impacts were consistent across all targeted groups particularly improved mental health and confidence, increased connection to others and to the local community, and gaining skills for employment. A number of impacts specific to certain groups were also identified. 

• Young volunteers who were in college highlighted that they had gained skills which helped them with college assignments (e.g. researching and writing skills) and volunteering in a sector they were interested in had helped them to decide next steps after college (e.g. applying to a certain university course). For university students who had moved to a new area for university, volunteering was a way to build connections and feel more connected to their university town or city. 

• Volunteers from an ethnic minority background who had only recently started living in the UK highlighted that moving to the UK from another country could be lonely and isolating and volunteering gave them a way to meet new people and learn more about the UK. This group of volunteers also described volunteering as a way to learn or practice English. 

• Disabled volunteers and those with long-term health conditions also described specific impacts of volunteering. One autistic volunteer described how having a routine was important for them and their regular volunteering allowed them to build a routine. Another volunteer who struggled with their mental health described how having choices through volunteering (e.g. deciding which tasks to get involved with) was beneficial for their mental health as it gave them a sense of control. Pears Foundation grantees noted their disabled volunteers gained confidence through volunteering, especially relating to post-pandemic social engagements and therefore this had a knock-on effect on volunteers’ social connections.

• Volunteers who had not volunteered previously because of low self-esteem found that volunteering made them feel more confident and gave them the confidence to take on new volunteering (or similar employment) opportunities. 

6. Conclusions and recommendations

This concluding chapter brings together the evidence to assess the overarching hypothesis of the VFF funding package, followed by a discussion of lessons learned and recommendations for mobilising and delivering similar volunteering funds in the future. Finally, a discussion of the limitations of the evaluation is provided. 

6.1 Key findings from the impact evaluation 

The overarching hypothesis for VFF is: ‘Young people and people who face barriers to volunteering take up new volunteering opportunities, build new skills, improve their well-being and broaden their social networks, as organisations:

• Target diverse groups;

• Provide better support to volunteers; and

• Offer new ways of volunteering (including but not limited to micro, digital and flexible opportunities). 

The evidence gathered as part of this evaluation supports this overall hypothesis, by providing strong supporting evidence for two of the underlying contribution statements, and moderate evidence for three of the contribution statements. This suggests the funding package successfully achieved its stated aims and objectives. Overall, the impact evaluation found strong evidence of the VFF supporting volunteers from diverse backgrounds to engage in volunteering and subsequent impacts on these volunteers (e.g. increased confidence and wellbeing). There was also moderate evidence that organisations improved routes into regular volunteering and increased the number of volunteering opportunities available, and that funding led to improved services. However, at the time of the evaluating concluding in October 2023 (prior to the completion of ACE projects in March 2024) there was weak evidence to conclude that the funding increased learning about and understanding of new models of volunteering and what works well/less well for improving volunteer recruitment and diversity. It is possible that evidence for this impact may have been stronger had ACE grantee interviews taken place later, or at the end, of their delivery phase. 

Some lessons learned, particularly related to timelines and the need to allow time for innovation and learning, arose from this evaluation, which may help DCMS when designing and mobilising similar funding packages in future (detailed further in section 6.2). The strength of evidence for each of the contribution statements is summarised below. 

Contribution statement	Strength of evidence
Contribution statement 1: VFF funding programme supported local projects and community organisations to improve routes for individuals into regular volunteering, either through increasing recruitment drives or improving rates of retention.	Overall, there is moderate evidence to conclude that the funding supported local projects and organisations to improve routes for individuals into regular volunteering.
Contribution statement 2: VFF funding programme increased learning and understanding of new models of volunteering for organisations leading funded projects and a greater understanding of what worked well/less well with improving volunteer recruitment and diversity.	Overall, there is weak evidence to conclude that the funding increased learning about and understanding of new models of volunteering and what works well/less well for improving volunteer recruitment and diversity.
Contribution statement 3: VFF funding programme supported individuals from a diverse set of backgrounds, including younger people, minorities and those from deprived areas, to engage in a range of short and long-term volunteering opportunities.	Overall, there is strong evidence to conclude that the funding supported individuals from a diverse set of backgrounds to engage in a range of volunteering opportunities.
Contribution statement 4: VFF funding programme enabled local projects to deliver targeted support, through volunteering activities, to help improve the health and wellbeing of beneficiaries/volunteers, particularly in reducing instances of loneliness and improve connection to their local community.	Overall, there is strong evidence to conclude that the funding enabled local projects to deliver targeted support through volunteering activities to improve the health and wellbeing of beneficiaries/volunteers.
Contribution statement 5: VFF funding programme supported local projects and community organisations in increasing the number of available volunteering opportunities, which led to improved outcomes for those volunteers seeking paid employment.	Overall, there is moderate evidence to conclude that the funding supported projects and organisations to increase the number of volunteering opportunities, leading to improved outcomes for those volunteers seeking paid employment.
Contribution statement 6: VFF funding programme contributed to improved services and the strengthening of relationships between services and organisations, through increased collaboration across the sector.	Overall, there is moderate evidence to conclude that the funding contributed to improved services and the strengthening of relationships between services and organisations through increased collaboration across the sector.

6.2 Key lessons learned 

Through the process evaluation, the evaluation identified several key lessons learned at fund and delivery level. At fund level, greater time needed to be built in to allow projects to trial new approaches and reach new groups of volunteers, especially those who face barriers to volunteering. However, including match-funding elements allowed grantees to be more flexible with their delivery as project funding was spread over a longer period, enabling innovation within their approaches.

At project delivery level, using a range of volunteering models helped projects recruit new volunteers, particularly disabled volunteers, volunteers in education and volunteers who had not volunteered before or had experienced previous barriers to volunteering. The evaluation found that volunteering opportunities need to be flexible to volunteers’ needs and allow volunteers to change model at different points in their volunteer journey or if their circumstances change. Other key facilitators of success included clear and effective communication to volunteers, simple and easy recruitment processes and establishing partnerships to reach new volunteers. However, grantees emphasised the time required to build new partnerships and gain trust from new groups of volunteers. 

The table below sets out the key barriers and enablers of success at both fund and project delivery level.  

Table 6: Identified enablers and barrier to VFF delivery at both fund and project delivery levels

Level	Enablers	Barriers
Fund level	The broad remit of the Fund, allowing delivery partners to fund a diverse portfolio	Short timeframes for project delivery limited the diversity of grantees selected by delivery partners and the selection of more risk-averse projects
Fund level	Match-funding allowed flexibility for grantees in relation to the timing of project delivery, leading to greater innovation in volunteering approaches	Short application timelines were challenging for grantees working with additional parties
Fund level	Guidance and support provided to grantees by delivery partners throughout the application process	-
Project delivery level	Effective partnerships allowed projects to reach new and more diverse volunteers (e.g. partnerships with educational institutions allowed more successful recruitment of young and disabled volunteers)	Grant spending requirements were difficult to meet when grantees were not spending a significant portion of their budget on capital investments
Project delivery level	Clear and effective communication from grantees about volunteering opportunities helped break down barriers	Lack of digital equipment for digital volunteering and high investment costs for set-up
Project delivery level	Alternative volunteering models (micro, flexible, digital) were appealing to volunteers and helped recruit new volunteers	Time required to build new partnerships and trust with new volunteer groups
Project delivery level	Simple and easy volunteer recruitment processes aided accessibility	-
Project delivery level	Online volunteering platforms allowed volunteers to sign up and cancel volunteer shifts easily and reduced attrition	-

6.3 Limitations of the evaluation 

There are some limitations of this evaluation, arising primarily through the process of data collection from VFF funded projects. Although there is good evidence across this report to measure the outcomes and impacts of the Fund, we note the following limitations which have influenced some of the findings: 

• Availability of longer-term data for ACE projects– where ACE projects are concerned, there are some caveats in terms of data availability. ACE projects will continue with delivery until March 2024, beyond the endpoint of this evaluation. Although insights from ACE projects were gathered through grantee and volunteer interviews, projects were at earlier delivery stages, which meant that less longer-term data on both organisational change and learning and volunteer impacts could be collected. This data will be provided to DCMS by ACE at the end of their programme. 

• Availability of historic data – our original intention with the evaluation was to undertake a historical comparison of the VFF CMD data with historic organisation data from ACE grantees. This may have provided additional findings to demonstrate the impact of the VFF funding. However, this was not possible as all ACE projects consulted had set up new systems for data collection, which meant that historic data was not available for comparison. 

• Many grantees did not use the same terminology for the volunteering models and many volunteering roles were not clearly defined as a particular type of volunteering or combined models – although there is no evidence to say this impacted the success of projects, this varied approach meant it was more difficult to draw out specific findings from different models and compare models within the evaluation.   

• Volunteers who were interviewed were only sampled from ACE projects – Additional interviews with individuals who had volunteered on NHSCT and Pears Foundation projects may have provided additional insights and learning.

6.4 Recommendations for future fund design, delivery and evaluation 

Based on the findings outlined above, we make the following recommendations in relation to future fund design, fund and project delivery and future evaluation activity.

Recommendations for future fund design and project delivery

• Increase timelines for delivery (and flexibility with grant spending within the delivery window) to allow for innovation within projects and sufficient time to build trust with new groups of volunteers – additional time for delivery when designing funds would help to ensure that volunteering projects attract individuals from all backgrounds Although timescales would vary depending on the aims of future funds, for a fund with a similar structure and scope, 2-3 years would likely be an appropriate timescale This would also enable further opportunities for learning and collaboration across the volunteering sector. Using match-funding elements can aid with this by providing more flexibility to grantees. 

• Lengthen the application process to allow grantees to collaborate on applications with multiple partners – the evaluation found that partnerships were key in engaging new groups of volunteers and trialling new approaches. 

• Delivery partners and grantees should ensure that project timelines allow sufficient time for volunteer recruitment – this will allow grantees to involve those who have not volunteered before or have barriers to volunteering (e.g. disabled volunteers). Additional time should be factored in for working with gatekeepers (if applicable) and new volunteers. 

• Ensure a range of volunteering modalities are offered across (and within) funded projects – this includes micro, digital and flexible approaches as well as more traditional volunteering roles. Micro and flexible roles can help recruit those with barriers to volunteering. To aid volunteer retention, volunteering opportunities need to be flexible to the needs of volunteers and where possible allow them to change model at different points in their volunteer journey or if their circumstances change.

• Where possible, projects should offer volunteers greater ownership and agency in volunteering activities – findings from the evaluation indicate that volunteers valued engaging with activities that adopted elements of co-production or enabled volunteers to guide their own volunteer journey (e.g. by choosing activities). By consulting with volunteers throughout the process of activity development, in open and ongoing feedback, projects can ensure greater retention of individual volunteers. 

• Ensure that future funds provide opportunities for collaboration across the sector – for example through delivery partner level events for grantees, or funding specific projects which build infrastructure for collaboration across the voluntary sector. The evaluation showed that collaboration between different projects was key to reaching new groups of volunteers and tailoring opportunities for target beneficiary groups.

Recommendations for future fund evaluation 

• Consider flexibility in evaluation timings to account for delays or changes to delivery which could affect data collection and/or analysis – changes to ACE programme delivery impacted the level of information that was available to form the findings of this evaluation. During the feasibility study, it was assessed that a large proportion of ACE projects would have recruited volunteers by the time of grantee interviews in January 2023. However, due to set-up taking longer on projects than expected, fewer ACE projects had recruited substantial volunteers by the time of data collection. Allowing flexibility with timelines when planning future fund evaluations, insofar as is possible, would help to mitigate the impacts of any delays or changes to delivery.

• Ensuring a flexible approach to qualitative data collection for volunteers – future evaluation work should allow for shorter or paired interviews to increase the accessibility of interviews, particularly for disabled volunteers. Allowing written participation in the evaluation, where required, would also allow more volunteers to participate. 

Authors and acknowledgments

Authors: The National Centre for Social Research (Imogen Martin, Florence Trégan, Dr Gregory White, Dr Sokratis Dinos) and RSM UK Consulting LLP (Ali Nur, Ella Cowin, Kieran Jones) 

Appendix 1: Theory of Change 

Diagram of the Theory of Change.

Inputs: £7 million (DCMS), including match funding to leverage additional investment; Support and resources in kind from matched funders to administer grant aid.

Activities: VFF volunteering schemes running; Recruitment, management and training of volunteers; Test and trial solutions to known barriers to volunteers; Data monitoring and reporting; Advisory Board meetings; Management/governance of the fund.

Outputs: Increased number of volunteers; Number of first time volunteers; Increased diversity of volunteers; Number of flexible, micro, digital, and other formal volunteering appointees created; Creating and filling a range of volunteering opportunities in DCMS sectors for those facing barriers to volunteering; Evidence on the effectiveness of different volunteering models and recruitment approaches; Stewardship: a new multi-partner cross sector stakeholder group focused on strengthening approaches to volunteering for young people and people facing barriers to volunteering across DCMS sectors and for young people.

Outcomes - For the sector: Increased volunteer recruitment and retention; Increased volunteering opportunities in deprived areas and for those often or always lonely; More diverse pool volunteers (including younger volunteers and ethnic minorities); Increased collaboration across the sector, sharing learnings across organisations within the sector; Increased learning and understanding of new models of volunteering and recruitment, comparative effectiveness and opportunities to invest in the sector; Increased capacity building of volunteer management - e.g., through smarter systems, resources better placed to provide more support for volunteers, better recruitment systems; Improved services (improved quality and/or increased coverage) and positive impacts on beneficiaries of the services provided by the volunteers.

Outcomes - For volunteers: Improved sense of belonging and feeling part of wider society; Reduced loneliness; Enhanced wellbeing including increased life satisfaction and happiness, better health and decreased symptoms of depression; Satisfaction with the volunteering experience; Developing new and improved skills, helping to gain future employment opportunities.

Impacts: Pipeline of volunteers strengthened, increasing the sustainability of DCMS sectors; Long term diversification of volunteers; Enhance the cohesiveness of our communities and reduce inequalities in participation in society particularly among young people; Improved health and wellbeing as volunteers experience the physical and mental benefits of volunteering; The impacts of volunteering increases opportunities for volunteers to gain future paid employment.

Appendix 2: Methodology

Common Minimum Dataset 

A Common Minimum Dataset (CMD) was designed as part of the feasibility study for grantees to capture consistent data on the volunteers recruited and the types of volunteering opportunities offered. The CMD captured data on the following:

• Number of new volunteers recruited (including by each type of volunteer opportunity type);

• Number of first-time formal volunteers recruited;

• Volunteer demographics (age, ethnicity, sex, gender and whether the volunteer has a disability);

• Number of volunteers recruited for each of the different durations of roles; and

• Number of volunteers who dropped out from their volunteering opportunity.

NHS Charities Together (NHSCT) and Pears Foundation submitted forms collected by their lead grantees to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) on three instances: April 2022, September 2022 and March 2023. Arts Council England (ACE) submitted forms collected by their lead grantees directly to the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) on three instances: September 2022; March 2023; and September 2023. ACE’s final CMD data collection (to be submitted in March 2024) was not included in our CMD analysis and reporting as it is outside our evaluation scope. Data from the CMDs for analysis has been aggregated by delivery partner, as well as for the overall Fund. CMD data analysis has been fed into Chapters 3, 4 and 5. 

Grantee interviews

In-depth interviews were conducted with 18 grantees in January and February 2023. Interviews were semi-structured and were conducted via Microsoft Teams. We sampled 18 grantees out of a total of 39 funded projects. The split across delivery partners were as follows: ACE 10/19, NHSCT 5/14 and Pears Foundation 3/6. The research team received grantee contact details from their respective delivery partners. Names and contact details were shared securely with the research team via secure File Transfer Portals. Grantees were contacted individually via email with details on the content of the interviews and offered multiple time slots to select at their convenience.

The ‘primary sampling criteria’ were proportional to get weighted representation across each of the delivery partners. The ‘secondary sampling criteria’ were specific to ACE. As some projects were not due to start delivery with volunteers until after the interview period, we sampled to include those further along in their recruitment of volunteers, as indicated by their September 2022 CMD return.

Interviews lasted up to 60 minutes. A topic guide was developed in collaboration with DCMS. A topic guide is a tool used for interviews which sets out key discussion topics. This ensures a consistent approach across interviews while allowing the discussion to remain participant-led. The topic guide covered areas of interest for this research, including participants’ experience of the application process and monitoring requirements, project design and delivery, volunteer reach and recruitment, outcomes for the project and for volunteers and lessons learned. 

Delivery partner focus groups 

We conducted one focus group with representatives from all three delivery partners (ACE, NHSCT and Pears Foundation) in May 2023. The focus group was designed to capture observations from delivery partners about their grants as a whole and their experience of delivering the VFF programme. DCMS provided contact details for the lead contacts at each of the delivery partners. Names and contact details were shared securely with the research team via secure File Transfer Portals. We reached out to the lead contacts and asked for them to invite other colleagues, if necessary, to cover different areas of focus. 

The focus group lasted 90 minutes. The topic guide was developed in collaboration with DCMS and covered areas of interest for this research, including participants’ experience of the programme set-up and monitoring, the grant making process, delivery of projects, the impact of the funding and overall reflections and recommendations.

Volunteer interviews

In-depth interviews were conducted with 36 volunteers from across ten ACE projects and sub-projects between March and July 2023. Interviews were semi-structured and were conducted by phone or Microsoft Teams. Lead grantees for ACE projects were contacted about the volunteer interviews via email. Grantees that were able to support the research provided a list of volunteers (who had consented to their names being shared) to the research team. Names and contact details were shared securely via secure File Transfer Portals. 

The research team invited volunteers to participate via email. If participants expressed interest, a short screening call was arranged to provide further information about the research, answer any questions and find a suitable time for an interview. The research team also checked accessibility needs during the screening call. To support participation, a range of accessibility adjustments to the interview format were offered including written participation, shorter interviews and paired interviews (e.g. volunteers attending with a support worker). Parental/carer consent was obtained for participants under the age of 16 ^{[footnote 18]} or those who required support with decision making. 

Participants were selected based on sampling criteria. The ‘primary sampling criteria’ was volunteering model (micro, flexible, digital, other) and we aimed to include a range of projects and volunteers across these models.^{[footnote 19]} Demographic information was also collected in the screening call, such as gender, age, ethnicity, health and disability. These were our ‘secondary level criteria’ which were monitored to try and ensure that the research involved people with diverse experiences. The achieved sample is detailed in Table A1 below.

Table A1: Sample of volunteers

Attribute	Number of participants
Volunteer mode	-
Flexible	16
Digital	2
Micro	9
Formal/regular	4
Other (e.g. micro and flexible)	5
Age	-
16 to 24	16
25 to 34	8
35 to 54	6
Over 55	6
Gender	-
Male	8
Female	27
Other	1
Ethnicity	-
White British/White Other	25
Black British/Black Other	2
Asian British/Asian Other	7
Mixed/Multiple	2
Disability or long-term health condition	-
Disability or long-term health condition	17
No disability or long-term health condition	19

Interviews lasted up to 45 minutes. A topic guide was developed in collaboration with DCMS to ensure a consistent approach across interviews while allowing the discussion to remain participant-led. The topic guide covered areas of interest for this research, including experiences of volunteering, motivations to volunteer, experiences of recruitment and any personal impacts of volunteering. Following the interview, participants received a £20 voucher.

Qualitative data analysis

With permission, all interviews and the focus group were recorded and transcribed to support analysis. Data was analysed and managed using the ‘framework’ approach. In this approach, relevant information from each interview or focus group is written up into a framework, where each row represents one interview, and each column represents a research question or sub-question. This enables the research team to assess the evidence relevant to each research question. Analysis explored the full range of experiences and views, interrogating data to identify similarities and differences between participants (for example, the experiences between volunteers with different volunteer modalities or demographics, or experiences between grantees of different delivery partners) and sought to explain patterns and themes.

Contribution analysis

The impact evaluation applied contribution analysis. Contribution analysis provides a pragmatic framework for evaluators to make credible causal claims where the ToC is complex, and infer whether the projects have made a difference and contributed to the impacts observed. The approach revises theories about how particular outcomes arose, with evidence collected to confirm or discount any alternative explanations. As such, it allowed the evaluation to come to reasonably robust conclusions about the contribution made by the VFF to observed results. 

CMD, grantee and volunteer interview data, and data from the delivery partner focus group were triangulated to inform the contribution narrative and its assessment. This assessment was framed by six ‘contribution statements’ which were based on the VFF ToC and developed by the evaluation team in collaboration with DCMS. 

Contribution statement 1

VFF funding programme supported local projects and community organisations to improve routes for individuals into regular volunteering, either through increasing recruitment drives or improving rates of retention.

Contribution statement 2

VFF funding programme increased learning and understanding of new models of volunteering for organisations leading funded projects and a greater understanding of what worked well/less well with improving volunteer recruitment and diversity.

Contribution statement 3

VFF funding programme supported individuals from a diverse set of backgrounds, including younger people, minorities and those from deprived areas, to engage in a range of short and long-term volunteering opportunities.

Contribution statement 4

VFF funding programme enabled local projects to deliver targeted support, through volunteering activities, to help improve the health and wellbeing of beneficiaries/volunteers, particularly in reducing instances of loneliness and improve connection to their local community.

Contribution statement 5

VFF funding programme supported local projects and community organisations in increasing the number of available volunteering opportunities, which led to improved outcomes for those volunteers seeking paid employment.

Contribution statement 6

VFF funding programme contributed to improved services and the strengthening of relationships between services and organisations, through increased collaboration across the sector.

Relevant evidence that supported or conflicted with each statement was identified. This allowed an assessment of whether the assumptions behind the VFF’s effectiveness were plausible, whether it was implemented as per the ToC and whether the chain of expected results occurred. 

The four data collection strands which fed into both the process and theory-based impact evaluation are outlined in further detail below.

Ethics

This study was approved by NatCen’s Research Ethics Committee. Research teams sought to reduce any risk of psychological harm for those taking part in interviews and focus groups. All participants received information which set out the purpose of the research and explained what would happen to participant data. Participants were reminded of their right to withdraw before and during the interviews and focus group.  For the volunteer interviews, participants were also signposted to a list of organisations that they could contact if the subject matter of the research prompted any upset or distress.

Appendix 3: Findings from the Common Minimum Dataset 

Table A2: Proportion of first-time volunteers (n=15,136)

Delivery partner	Total number of volunteers	Number of first-time volunteers	Percentage of first-time volunteers
ACE	5331	2279	43%
NHSCT	1962	1335	68%
Pears Foundation	7843	2874	37%
Programme-wide	15136	6488	43%

Table A3: Types of volunteer groups projects targeted

Number of projects

Type of volunteer groups targeted	Programme-wide (n=39)	ACE (n=19)	NHSCT(n=14)	Pears Foundation (n=6)
Universal	19	11	3	5
Ethnic minorities	22	12	8	2
Young people	32	17	12	3
People living in deprived areas	25	14	11	1
People with disabilities	23	12	9	2
Other targeting	3	2	1	0

Table A4: Volunteer opportunity modalities targeted

Delivery partner by project number

Modality	Programme-wide (n=39)	ACE (n=19)	NHSCT(n=14)	Pears Foundation (n=6)
Micro	28	19	8	1
Flexible	31	17	12	2
Digital	28	15	9	4
Other formal	26	13	8	5

Table A5: Total new volunteers who dropped out (n=15,136)

Delivery partner	Total new volunteers who dropped out	Total new volunteers who dropped out
ACE	363	7%
NHSCT	165	8%
Pears Foundation	1821	23%
Programme-wide	2349	16%

Appendix 4: Data form

Volunteering Futures Fund data form

Grant Recipient Details (NB: this section is only required to be completed once):

Full Name (this should be the lead contact any queries related to this data can be directed to):

Role:

Email Address:

Organisation Name:

Project Title:

Total Grant Amount:

Geographical Area(s) Covered (Related to the localities covered under this project. Please also note if the activities are expected to strengthen volunteering systems across the organisation and not just in these localities):

Target volunteer group for this project (you can select multiple options):

• universal / not targeted

• ethnic minorities

• young people (aged 16 to 25)

• those who live in deprived areas

• disabled people

• other (please specify)

Short summary of your programme, including objectives, key activities and target outcomes (200 words max):

Types of volunteering opportunities offered (you can select multiple types if relevant):

• Micro volunteering – volunteering to do specific time-bound tasks that can be undertaken as a one-off (e.g. collecting or delivering groceries, doing an errand, making telephone calls, giving someone a lift).

• Flexible volunteering – the ability to help out by offering your services as a volunteer as and when it suits you with no regular pattern of commitment or a minimum stipulated number of hours each week.

• Digital volunteering – includes digital volunteering activities that take place remotely or in person.

• Other formal volunteering – any other formal volunteering opportunities not covered by the above modalities (defined as those who have given unpaid help to groups or clubs, for example, leading a group, administrative support or befriending or mentoring people).

Project Data:

All data under this section should be reported on a cumulative basis, e.g. March 2022 reporting should include data on all volunteers recruited to date under the funded project and not just in that month.

Number of new volunteers recruited

This refers to the number of new volunteers recruited as a result of the project. When reporting by types of volunteering opportunities, new volunteers can be counted under several categories of volunteering opportunities if they will be undertaking / end up undertaking several types of roles.

Project data	Total
Total number of new volunteers recruited	XXX
Number of new volunteers in micro volunteering opportunities	XXX
Number of volunteers in flexible volunteering opportunities	XXX
Number of volunteers in digital volunteering opportunities	XXX
Number of volunteers in other formal volunteering opportunities	XXX

Number of first-time formal volunteers

This refers to people who have never formally volunteered (never given unpaid help to groups or clubs, for example, leading a group, administrative support or befriending or mentoring people) anywhere before. This will be self-defined by volunteers.

Demographics

Number of new volunteers from the following groups: Projects do not need to provide information for volunteers against both sex and gender but should report numbers against the category collected.

Demographic	Total
Young people (under 25 years)	XXX
Where possible, please break down data on young people by:	Number of volunteers under 18: XXX, Number of volunteers 18 to 15 years: XXX
Disabled people	XXX
Ethnic minorities	XXX
Sex	M: XXX F: XXX
Gender	Male: XXX Female: XXX Non-binary: XXX Prefer to self-describe: XXX

Areas from which volunteers are recruited

This should include details of local authority or equivalent. This will be used to understand the extent to which areas of most deprivation have been targeted. Projects may choose to use other indicators of deprivation, e.g. those working with young people may collect if students are receiving pupil premium. Please provide details and any linked numbers where alternative measures of deprivation have been gathered.

Number of volunteers recruited for the following duration of roles

If volunteers take part in a number of different opportunities (e.g. a long-term role and a one-off opportunity), please record under both. Even if a volunteer started in what was supposed to be a longer-term role (ongoing) but dropped out early, they would still be classed under long term opportunity.

Opportunity	Total
One-off opportunities	XXX
Short to medium term opportunities (up to 6 months long and more regular than one-off opportunities across this period)	XXX
Long term opportunities (longer than 6 months, or ongoing/no planned end date)	XXX

Number of new volunteers who dropped out from their volunteering opportunity

This should include the number of volunteers who dropped out earlier than expected.

Please provide a short update on emerging learnings around the following areas:

Please share any emerging learnings from the recruitment process (e.g. challenges and successes in recruiting particular groups of volunteers, points at which volunteers drop out of onboarding process etc).

Please describe if and how this project has created better and more volunteering opportunities for people:

• In deprived communities

• Who experience other barriers to volunteering

Any learnings around attrition of volunteers (e.g. the stage of dropping out, any barriers or reasons for dropping out).

Please describe if / how this project has impacted your organisation’s collaboration across the sector.

Please use this space to provide any additional comments or feedback.

Footnotes

1. Volunteering opportunities categorised as ‘other formal’ include mixed modalities (e.g. digital and flexible) as well as regular volunteering opportunities that are not micro, flexible or digital. ↩

2. These projects were required to spend the DCMS component of their grant in the first financial year of delivery (by March 2022), see section 4.1 for further detail. ↩

3. What Works Wellbeing (2020). Volunteer wellbeing: what works and who benefits?. ↩

4. Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2021a). [Community Life Survey 2020/22]((https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/community-life-survey-202122). ↩

5.   NCVO (2020). Time Well Spent: Diversity and Volunteering. ↩

6. Volunteering Futures Fund Evaluation Feasibility Study. ↩

7. For the main evaluation, a decision was made in consultation with DCMS that ACE volunteers would be prioritised for data collection. This was because ACE projects were most likely to be trialling new approaches and interviews with ACE volunteers would therefore allow insights on such innovation to be captured.    ↩

8. The decision on timing of the evaluation was made by DCMS following the feasibility study when opting for a theory-based evaluation rather than a quasi-experimental design. It was known that volunteering recruitment would be happening on an ongoing basis for ACE projects so it would be possible to still gather some findings prior to October 2023 and it was expected that a large proportion of ACE projects would have recruited volunteers by the time of grantee interviews in January 2023, which would have provided sufficient learnings. However, due to set-up taking longer on projects than expected, fewer projects had recruited substantial volunteers by the time of data collection. ↩

9. As of September 2023. These figures include final figures for NHSCT and Pears Foundation projects, but ACE projects are scheduled to finish delivery in March 2024. Not all projects reported demographic information for all volunteers. For gender, data is missing from three ACE grantees and four Pears Foundation grantees. For disability, data is missing from two ACE grantees and one Pears Foundation grantee. For ethnicity, data is missing from one ACE grantee.  ↩

10. Volunteering opportunities categorised as ‘other formal’ includes regular volunteering opportunities which are not micro, flexible or digital. ↩

11.  As of September 2023. These figures include final figures for NHSCT and Pears Foundation projects, but ACE projects are scheduled to finish delivery in March 2024. ↩

12. As of September 2023. These figures include final figures for NHSCT and Pears Foundation projects, but ACE projects are scheduled to finish delivery in March 2024 ↩

13. Not all projects reported the length of volunteering opportunities. Additionally, NHSCT caveated that the ‘length of opportunity’ fields were not mutually exclusive (i.e. volunteers who engaged in multiple opportunities of varying lengths, such as a one-off and a longer-term opportunity, were counted for each), resulting in the total number being higher than the actual number of volunteers.  ↩

14. Cabinet Office (2003). Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence. ↩

15. Projects started in October 2021 which gave approximately 5 months to spend the DCMS portion of the grant. ↩

16. Although delivery partners and grantees stated varying timescales, in general they felt that 2 to 3 years would be an appropriate timescale for the scale and scope of projects. ↩

17. What Works Centre for Wellbeing (2020), Volunteer wellbeing: What works and who benefits? ↩

18. In the final achieved sample, no volunteers were under the age of 16. Full details of the achieved sample are provided in Table A1. ↩

19. Organisations provided fewer contact details of digital volunteers compared to other volunteering formats which led to fewer digital volunteers being invited and taking part in interviews. The reasons for this are unclear but it is worth noting that the CMD data shows that there were fewer ACE digital volunteers compared to volunteering taking part in other modalities (see Chapter 3). ↩