Coronavirus (COVID-19) volunteering - third sector perspectives: survey report

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Volunteers across Scotland have played an essential role in supporting communities and individuals most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This volunteer response to the pandemic has included formal volunteers undertaking tasks on behalf of established volunteering organisations, as well as informal volunteering where individuals sought to support and help others in their neighbourhoods and networks.

It is clear that the volunteer response to COVID-19 succeeded in engaging new volunteers – people who were not already engaged in volunteering activities – as well as many existing volunteers. Throughout Scotland, new volunteer-based community support – or 'mutual aid' – groups were rapidly created to respond to the pandemic. These groups played a key role in mobilising and targeting local efforts and the willingness of people across Scotland to help others in their communities. A Scottish Government campaign, 'Scotland Cares', was set up to help support and manage the public impetus to volunteer in response to COVID-19. This was run in collaboration with the British Red Cross, Volunteer Scotland and NHS Scotland Through the campaign there were more than 60,000 sign-ups of potential volunteers with Volunteer Scotland (35,262) and the British Red Cross (25,172), indicating enormous public willingness to help.^[5]

At the same time, COVID-19 has presented significant challenges for organisations working with volunteers. Existing volunteers in older age categories or with underlying health conditions were particularly affected by the advice that they should shield, in many cases preventing them from undertaking their pre-existing volunteering roles. The general advice to stay at home that was in place during lockdown also had an impact on volunteering rates. Volunteers with support needs or who need specific support in order to volunteer were also negatively affected. The result of all of these changes was that organisations reliant on volunteers lost a significant part of their volunteering capacity. Many organisations adapted their work to be able to engage their volunteers and service users remotely, but this was not always possible. This shift to digital and remote forms of volunteering also posed the risk of excluding some volunteers and service users who were less able to access digital technologies.

As Scotland grapples with the emergence of the Omicron variant – just as many organisations were cautiously emerging from the COVID-19 restrictions – there are many questions about the long-term impacts that the pandemic will have on volunteering. Will volunteers who paused their volunteering during the lockdown choose to return to their previous volunteer roles? Will new volunteers who signed up to help during the pandemic continue their volunteering engagement beyond COVID-19? Will digital adaptations and new ways of volunteering persist? What support is needed to help organisations adapt to offer safe and inclusive volunteering opportunities in the post-pandemic context?

This report presents the results of a survey undertaken by Scottish Government in collaboration with Volunteer Scotland, intended to gather third sector organisational perspectives on volunteering during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. The survey was targeted to gather views from volunteer-involving organisations (organisations that work with volunteers directly) and from infrastructure organisations (such as Third Sector Interfaces and local authorities) that have supported volunteering within communities and local areas. Representatives of Third Sector Interfaces (TSIs), local authorities, and volunteer-involving organisations (VIOs) gave invaluable input into the development of the survey questionnaire.

The survey questions were designed to give insights into the contribution of volunteers and volunteering during the pandemic, and to highlight the learning emerging around volunteering and its role in this crisis. The survey also enables us to take stock of the current challenges faced by volunteering organisations as we move into the next stages of the pandemic and beyond, and to consider what this means for volunteering policy, and support for volunteering in practice.

1.2 Methodology

The survey was created by Scottish Government researchers using Questback, an online survey tool. It included two questionnaires, one aimed at representatives of 'infrastructure organisations' working with the third sector – such as Third Sector Interfaces, local authorities, Health and Social Care Partnerships and other umbrella organisations – and one aimed at volunteer-involving organisations (VIOs). Reflecting the different roles of these two sets of organisations, the questionnaire for infrastructure organisations focused more on the overall coordination of the volunteering response within local areas, while the questionnaire for VIOs asked about the experiences of these organisations in implementing and maintaining volunteering programmes through the pandemic and beyond.

The survey was live between 30 April and 6 June 2021. It was promoted as widely as possible to Third Sector Interfaces and local authorities, with a request for these organisations to promote the survey within their third sector networks. The survey was also promoted through Scottish Government and Volunteer Scotland networks, as well as by other third sector intermediary organisations such as OSCR and SCVO.

We received a total of 346 complete responses to the survey. Of these, 68 were responses to the questionnaire for infrastructure organisations, and 278 were responses to the questionnaire for volunteer-involving organisations. Fifteen responses to the infrastructure organisation questionnaire were submitted by third sector organisations which did not fall into the category of TSIs, local authorities, health and social care partnerships or other umbrella organisations. These were not included in the quantitative analysis for the infrastructure organisations, but their responses were considered as part of the overall qualitative analysis. One response from an individual volunteer – not representing an organisation – was also excluded from the infrastructure organisation responses.

The survey results for the VIOs included responses from a wide range of organisation types, sizes and locations, meaning that all estimates have a 95% confidence interval of around +/- 5%. In practice, the exact confidence intervals will vary for each statistic. The sample size was not large enough to support breakdowns of the analysis (for example by organisational type, size and geography), so most data is presented for the respondent population as a whole. For a small number of questions we have considered the role of organisational size and sector, but these findings should be considered as indicative only given the relatively small sample sizes involved. The questions for infrastructure organisations received responses from a third of all local authorities and 28 of Scotland's 32 TSIs, as well as a number of other infrastructure organisations.

Analysis of the quantitative survey questions was undertaken in Excel. Qualitative responses were coded to identify key themes and perspectives for analysis. The range of comments and perspectives provide a rich source of data and insight, and these have been illustrated using quotes as far as possible throughout this report.

Participation in the survey was voluntary and all respondents were provided with a privacy notice before beginning the survey. At all stages of the research, all of the necessary steps were taken to ensure that the survey complied with GDPR guidance and to ensure the anonymity of respondents. All quotes used in this report have been anonymised, with any potentially identifiable data being redacted.

1.3 Definitions

The survey asks questions about both 'formal' and 'informal' volunteering, and about 'mutual aid'. We provided the following definitions to guide respondents.

Formal volunteering refers to volunteering through a charity, formally organised group, club, or public or private sector organisation.

Informal volunteering refers to volunteering as an individual (not through a group) to help other people outside your family, or to support your local community or environment.

Mutual aid refers to volunteering through an informal group, often organised via a social media platform, to support and help others in your local community.

This definition of 'mutual aid' highlights the limitations in the notion that volunteering can be clearly identified as being either 'formal' or 'informal'. Many mutual aid 'groups' were loosely organised, sponaneously formed groups. Many had no formal status – at least initially – and were highly informal and essentially non-hierarchical in their way of operating. Others had much more formal operational models or developed these during the course of the pandemic.

In practice, volunteering takes place along a continuum from very informal 'neighbourliness' type help – which many people may not even consider to be volunteering – to formal placements within organisations (Figure 1.1). Given the relative informality of many of the 'mutual aid' groups – particularly at the beginning of the pandemic – these probably fall towards the middle of the spectrum in Figure 1.1.

Source: Volunteering for All: Our National Framework^[6]

In the context of this report, where possible we have therefore explored 'mutual aid' volunteering separately from formal and informal volunteering during the pandemic. However, it is clear that for many practitioners these distinctions may be unclear or contested, and that the attempt to categorise volunteering activities as informal or formal has been shown not to be straightforward in this case. Responses to the survey suggest that responding organisations often considered volunteers with mutual aid groups to be 'informal' volunteers.

1.4 Limitations of the survey

The survey sample of volunteer-involving organisations is relatively small, when put in the context of the size of Scotland's third sector as a whole.^[7] As such, while we can have reasonable confidence in the overall aggregate findings, we are not able to reliably disaggregate the findings to specific geographies or sectors, as the sample sizes at the local authority or sectoral levels are very small. Accordingly, we present the data at an aggregate level, and include just a small number of disaggregated insights where we feel these are appropriate.

The sample of infrastructure organisations includes very good coverage of TSIs, one of the key organisational groups that we wanted to reach. However, representaton of local authorities and other infrastructure organisations such as Health and Social Care Partnerships is more limited. As such, views expressed in the infrastructure organisation part of the survey may reflect TSI views more strongly than the views of these other types of organisation. In addition, the survey received responses from just two infrastructure organisations with national scope.

The coverage of 'volunteering' in this survey is mainly reflective of volunteering in third sector organisations, and community-based mutual aid and informal volunteering. It does not include coverage of the NHS campaign which was aimed at encouraging former medical professionals to return to work within the NHS, and which formed part of the Scotland Cares campaign.

1.5 About this report

This report has been written by Scottish Government analysts, with extensive input from Volunteer Scotland. It endeavours to present the survey responses as fully and accurately as possible, and as such it represents the views of the survey respondents, not the official policy positions of Volunteer Scotland or Scottish Government.

Throughout the report, we present results from the perspectives of volunteer-involving organisations and infrastructure organisations separately. The results from the perspectives of these two groups of organisations sometimes differ, for a variety of reasons.

The infrastructure organisations responding to this survey generally provide support to many different organisations and communities across a local area. Their responses reflect an area-based perspective. They were asked to consider what happened across their area in relation to volunteering, and to include reflections on the different forms of volunteering taking place across their area – including formal, informal, and the emerging community-led mutual aid response.

Volunteer-involving organisations responding to the survey were asked to respond from the perspective of their own organisational experiences of engaging and supporting volunteers during the pandemic. As such they represent a formal volunteering perspective, with a small number of respondents representing mutual aid groups. Their responses naturally reflect the purpose and activities of their own organisations, and the needs of their specific service users.

Throughout the report, where the views of infrastructure organisations and VIOs differ, we try to give insights as to why this may be.

We have presented quotations from respondents verbatim, except where we have redacted text to ensure anonymity – for example removing geographical information, names of organisations, or other potentially identifying text.

There are some instances where the data in the text may not match exactly with data summed from the charts. This is due to rounding.