Blog

Volunteerism: Finding the Perfect Match, and Then What?

It seems like the perfect match: nonprofit organizations need to accomplish their goals with less money and less staff, while unemployed professionals need to keep their skills fresh and their minds alert. Surely these two groups can help each other out. But, creating a mutually beneficial match isn’t as easy for organizations and individuals as it might seem. Sometimes it happens: Take, for example, Global Washington’s ability to corral a team of volunteers and interns to build and develop everything from blogs (this one included) to events to policy reports. But often, organizations struggle with how to handle the volunteer sector.

A couple of statistics, from the Volunteering in America Fact Sheet for 2009, get the mind spinning. (It’s a bit out of date, but socioeconomic trends haven’t changed that much, right?) One survey shows that the higher the education level and the more “robust the nonprofit infrastructure”, the higher the volunteering rates. But, contrary to all logic, higher unemployment rates lead to lower volunteering rates. Can we assume then that well-educated individuals volunteer less once they’re laid off?

Washington State, and Seattle in particular, have some more comforting statistics. Our state ranks 10th among the 50 states and DC in volunteers. Factors accounting for this are our above average level of education (30.7% state vs. 27.7% national with college degrees) and a slightly higher than average number of nonprofits (4.75 per 1,000 residents state vs. 4.45 per 1,000 residents national). But, despite rising unemployment, Washington State actually increased in volunteer hours in 2009, defying the national trend. Kudos to all, Seattle ranks 4th out of 51 large cities for the volunteer rate from 2007 to 2009. (Portland beat us though, coming in 2nd.)

Washington beats out the rest of the US with 20.6% providing professional and management services, versus the national average of 16.7%, with most of the work happening at religious institutions and at schools. The other top jobs in volunteerism are general labor (26.5%) and, no surprise, fundraising (25.2%).

Worth noting from these surveys is the retention rates of volunteers. In other words, once you get people to work for free, how do you keep them? Retention rates increased for volunteers providing activities that they do professionally, namely in management (69.5% to 82.3%) and administration (61.2% to 75.6%). On the other hand, fundraising is one of the few areas where retention rates decreased, from 63.4% to 61.4%.

Why? According to a study conducted for the article, “The New Volunteer Workforce” (Stanford Social Innovation Review, winter 2009), volunteers leave because the organization fails to do the following: match skills to assignments, recognize volunteer’s contributions, measure the value of volunteers, train volunteers (and train staff to train volunteers), and provide strong leadership.  Many studies, including those mentioned above, encourage nonprofit organizations to rethink how they manage volunteers. Considering that the value of one hour of volunteer time in Washington state is $21.62, according to the Independent Sector website, successful volunteer management makes financial sense.

How do organizations and individuals find one another? Online resource centers provide both parties a quick and easy way to detail skills, time frames, and expectations in such a way that both parties can make better choices. Global Washington’s Careers in Global Development site is a great resource for finding volunteer opportunities with member organizations, and for Global Washington members to find like-minded volunteers. With proper management and with volunteers able to treat their volunteer ‘gig’ with professionalism, it is possible to make a near perfect match.

Learn more about best practices in volunteer management and how to attract the skill set your organization wants at Global Washington’s workshop, Harnessing Volunteer Power, on August 23rd.

“Back to the Future: Recent Evolutions in EU Development Policy and Its Implications for the Global Development Agenda”

The European Centre for Development and Policy Management (ECDPM) is an independent foundation established in 1986 to promote cooperation between the European Union and developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific (ACP). Global Washington members heard a presentation by ECDPM’s Senior Executive for International Relations Andrew Sherriff, on the complex interactions between and among European nations, and how EU development policies might have implications for the global development agenda. Andrew asked the members present if there are parallel trends in the U.S. If you would like to share your thought, please feel free to “comment” in response to this blog.

Andrew presented the EU’s current role in providing “Official Development Assistance” (ODA) to the developing world. (By definition, ODA must be provided by the official (government) sector, its main objective must be the promotion of economic development, and it must have a grant element of at least 25 per cent.) The UN has established a target for each developed country to provide 0.7 per cent of its GNP to ODA by 2015. A few countries (Sweden, Luxembourg) have already met that goal. The U.S. is currently at <0.2 per cent of GNP. With the current worldwide financial crisis, many countries are backing off their current commitments; however, the U.K. and the European Commission are bucking the trend and proposing to raise their contributions. Another way to “increase” ODA would be to broaden the categories that ODA can fund. (The U.S. contribution, for example, would be considerably higher if military aid were included.) Some have suggested that support for security sector reform, such as police forces, be included within the ODA categorization.

Another major change that is influencing the EU’s outlook on its contributions to ODA is the rise of the “BRICS” – the emerging market countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. BRICS are investing in Africa in a different way from the EU model of investing ODA in good government; over 37 per cent of Africa’s trade is now with BRICS countries. Much of the BRICS investment is in infrastructure, such as roads and transportation routes to access raw materials that the developing countries have.

A further complication is that the fragile and conflict states, countries which could benefit most from outside investment, are often the least well performing. “How do you spend money well?” in fragile states, Andrew asked.

Andrew presented the conclusions of a European Commission “Green Paper” on Developmental Policy, prepared in 2010. [http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/GREEN_PAPER_COM_2010_629_POLITIQUE_DEVELOPPEMENT_EN.pdf] The goal of the paper was to launch a debate on how the EU can best support developing countries' efforts to speed up progress towards the Millennium Development Goals centering on four main objectives:
• how to ensure high EU impact development policy, so that every euro spent provides the best value added and value for money, the best leverage and the best legacy of opportunities for generations to come (Andrew noted that ensuring high impact requires measuring results, but cautioned that overemphasis on short-term results may lead to perverse outcomes);
• how to facilitate more, and more inclusive, growth in developing countries, as a means of reducing poverty and providing a chance for all to have a decent living and a perspective for their future;
• how to promote sustainable development as a driver for progress (but noted that blending loans from the private sector may lead to unsustainable debt); and
• how to achieve durable results in the area of agriculture and food security (without additional “new” money).

However, he also noted that this paper was prepared before the Arab Spring of 2011, which could have long-ranging effects, particularly on Northern Africa.

Andrew ended his talk with the title of his talk: Back to the Future. He asked where the EU might be going “back” to:
• The early 1990’s, focusing on sustainable development?
• The 1980’s, focusing on competition and the Cold War?
• The 1960’s, focusing on economic growth?
• The 1950’s, focusing on the political strategy of the Marshall plan?
Do you have any thoughts? Feel free to “comment” below.

Foreign Assistance: A moral imperative

The Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development strategy stipulates that development is not only a strategic, economic but also a moral imperative for the United States. “It is rooted,” as President Barack Obama said during the Millennium Development Goals Summit in 2010, “in America’s enduring commitment to the dignity and potential of every human being.” The United States of America has been the global leader in providing assistance and as a result of it the past half century has witnessed more gains in human development than at any other time in history.

Over the last 60 years, America has offered helping hand to people at the mercy of extreme poverty, disease and tyranny in the darkest corners of the globe. Over the past 6 decades, with the help of U.S. international assistance, child mortality statistics have plummeted, literacy rates worldwide have risen 50 percent and household income in the developing countries world has tripled.

U.S.- funded programs defend against global health threats. More than 3 million lives are saved each year through international immunization programs. Infant mortality rates have been reduced by 10 percent worldwide in recent years and child survival programs funded by the U.S government have made a major contribution to that reduction. The average number of children born to couples in developing countries has dropped by about one third, from more than six to less than four, and more than 50 million couples in 60 countries in the developing world are able to plan their families as a direct result of U.S.-funded efforts.

Globally, funding for malaria control and treatment programs soared from $0.3 billion in 2003 to $1.7 billion in 2009, with the U.S. responsible for the lion’s share of the effort. Worldwide, 1 million people died of malaria in 2000, while 860,000 died of the disease in 2008, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). About a third of the people in poor countries that need daily medicine to control HIV/AIDS are now receiving antiretroviral drugs with the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the major provider of treatment. U.S. international climate funding programs has helped reduce the impact of carbon pollution.

Despite these positive outcomes, we must also face the fact that progress towards other goals has not come nearly fast enough. The future wellbeing of millions of people in the developing world rests on U.S. foreign assistance. Nearly one billion people endure the misery of chronic hunger—approximately one-sixth of the world’s population. Acute hunger “threatens the stability of governments, societies and borders around the world.” In February, the U.N Food and Agriculture Organization’s Global food price index climbed to a record high, above 2008 peaks when high food prices sparked riots in several countries. Foreign aid cuts could create social instability by damaging food security programs in the developing world.

Global health practitioners conservatively estimate that more than 1 million lives could be lost per year if U.S. cuts foreign aid for global health by 40 percent. If support from the United States disappears or suffers a significant cutback, most health achievements face reversal, and “reversal” means deaths.
Cuts to the budget will impact U.S. Global Climate change initiative. It will negate U.S. efforts to help developing countries deploy clean energy, reduce deforestation and adapt to the impacts of climate change. U.S. international climate funding programs help reduce the impact of carbon pollution. Building climate security for the world’s most vulnerable people may help prevent disruptive migration and protect all the development gains already made in health, education and political stability. Climate change has the potential to dramatically reshape future security environments. U.S. funding for adaptation helps to reduce this risk by making countries less vulnerable to the impacts of global warming.

In the light of the above facts, recent budget battles in congress has given rise to a lot of anxiety about whether the U.S has the political energy to push the reform agenda forward and continue assistance. There is a looming ambiguity about U.S. foreign aid measures which in the past have saved millions of lives and helped countries move along a path of stable and responsible growth. With the House of Representatives pushing ahead a bill that includes some of the steepest cuts in history to the international affairs budget, Global Washington feels that the onus lies on the development community. Let’s take action to oppose such deep and disproportionate cuts and fulfill our moral responsibility to build a safer and prosperous world. As President Obama said during the MDG summit “Let’s not abandon those who depend on the U.S. for life saving help and keep our promises and honor our commitments.”

With that objective in mind, Global Washington is hosting a special discussion of foreign assistance reform, principles in effectiveness and the effect of reform on global development work on August 30 from 3:30-5:30 in Kane Hall of the University of Washington. The event will feature U.S Representative Adam Smith and Kent R. Hill of World Vision. Special Assistant to the President Gayle Smith has also been invited. Come and join us to talk about the most pertinent issues.

For more information on the event and to register please click:

https://globalwa.org/our-work/reforming-aid-policy-event/