This toolkit and report are the result of a project in 2022/23 supported by the Scottish Government as part of Scotland’s Volunteering Action Plan.Make Your Mark is an ongoing campaign to make heritage volunteering for all in Scotland. It was created in 2020 as part of Our Place in Time, Scotland’s first national strategy for the historic environment.Download a PDF version of the toolkit and a PDF version of the report.

The team behind this toolkit

Yvette Taylor is a Professor in the School of Education, University of Strathclyde researching gender inequalities, LGBTQ+ life and social class. Yvette holds a Royal Society of Edinburgh (RSE) Personal Fellowship (2023-25) on Queer Social Justice.Churnjeet Mahn is a Professor in the School of Humanities, University of Strathclyde researching migrant communities and LGBTQ+ life. She has worked on Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) initiatives in the Scottish heritage sector.Erin Burke is the Communications Officer of the Make Your Mark campaign. They have a background in community engagement and inclusive heritage practice.Jeff Sanders is the Project Manager for Dig It! at the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. He holds a doctorate in archaeology and his professional experience focuses on engaging new audiences with heritage.

Additional Thanks

Graphic Design, Website, Accessibility. Brian Tyrrell, Stout Stoat Press.

Illustrations and Photographs. Saffron Russell, Julie Howden, and Helen Pugh. Thanks to Archaeology Scotland, Historic Environment Scotland, Scottish Civic Trust, David Livingstone Birthplace, Glasgow Women’s Library for additional photos.

First Published 2023.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit:
creativecommons.org.

produced in partnership with

All links lead to content on this website.

About This Toolkit

This toolkit is designed to support voluntary organisations in Scotland to make their volunteering programmes more inclusive.

Background

This toolkit is the result of a project in 2022/23 supported by the Scottish Government as part of Scotland’s Volunteering Action Plan. Further information on the research that informed this toolkit is available for download in a full project report.

Conducted across 2022-23, the project aimed to investigate the accessibility and inclusivity of volunteering in Scotland, and how barriers to volunteering could be removed.

The toolkit has been designed in response to data generated by a survey of Make Your Mark members (52 respondents from a variety of large, medium and small volunteer-involving organisations across Scotland) and 4 focus groups composed of volunteers and people interested in volunteering.

The survey focused on attitudes and approaches to different aspects of diversity and inclusion in volunteering, especially how positive change can be measured.

The focus groups gathered the views of a diverse range of participants which highlighted barriers and opportunities for migrant, asylum-seeking, refugee, and BAME communities, disabled people, and people in formal education. Collectively, the groups also highlighted barriers for LGBTQ+ volunteers, older volunteers and issues related to social class¹.

Drawing on this data, and the existing experience of the Make Your Mark membership in the form of case studies, the toolkit offers practical steps to enhancing inclusion and diversity in the volunteering sector in Scotland.

^1. For definitions of key terms, please see the glossary at the end of this toolkit.

How to use this toolkit

This toolkit includes information and guidance on inclusive volunteering, as well as a series of reflective exercises and challenge-framed questions.

It is recommended that all readers begin with reviewing and completing the reflective exercises within sections 1 and 2 to establish an understanding of the current voluntary sector in Scotland and barriers to volunteering. Readers should then complete section 3, which will help them reflect on inclusion individually and within their own organisation.

This is a reflective exercise

Readers can then proceed through the rest of the sections chronologically, or have the option to choose which topics within sections 4 through 6 are applicable to their organisation’s volunteering challenges and priorities. This flexible approach to the toolkit recognises that each organisation will be at different stages towards building an inclusive volunteering programme, and have different staffing, structures and budgets for volunteering.

It is then recommended that all readers end with reviewing section 7, and incorporating their learnings from the toolkit into an inclusive volunteering plan for their organisation.

Within each section of the toolkit, further reading and case studies are provided for those interested in specific topics.

An appendix with a glossary and template equalities monitoring form can be referenced at the end of this document.

1. Volunteering in Scotland: Where Are We Now?

Volunteering is a central part of civic life and is most commonly motivated by a desire to make a social contribution or to participate in networks that can enhance a sense of belonging and purpose. This section of the toolkit reviews current data on inclusive volunteering in Scotland.

COVID-19 and the cost of living crisis are two recent examples of forces that have had a negative impact on third sector finances, but which have also underlined the importance of the third sector, especially volunteering, in ensuring the sustainability of public life and services across communities (Scottish Third Sector Tracker, 2023).

The Scottish Government’s Scottish Household Survey (2021) found that:

This toolkit is designed to help volunteer organisations think about how to distribute the value, opportunities and benefits of volunteering across the whole of Scottish society.

Volunteer Scotland’s Report on Volunteering Trends in Scotland (2022) has shown that in Scotland you are more likely to volunteer if you are:

Inclusive volunteering in Scotland

What is Equality, Diversity and Inclusion?

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) has provided a framework for many organisations to address cultures of inequalities. One frequent criticism of EDI policies is that they can encourage a culture of ‘box ticking’ where there are token changes without challenging underpinning norms in an organisation.In this toolkit, we define:

The Equality, Inclusion and Human Rights Directorate at the Scottish Government identifies priority areas for inclusion work, which covers, and goes beyond, protected characteristics.

Case Study:
Creating an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Policy

Why is inclusion a particular issue for the voluntary sector?

Volunteering is a key way to develop new social networks and skills which can help with employment. The value of volunteering is most likely to have a transformational social and economic impact on individuals and communities which experience marginalisation. However, these individuals and communities are also more likely to experience:

Key reasons inclusion initiatives fail or have limited success include:

A commitment to inclusive volunteering involves taking meaningful action to create equal and diverse access to the personal, social and economic benefits of volunteering. This toolkit has links to a range of resources and expertise in the sector; you are not alone!Make Your Mark also continues to offer dedicated support, especially in fostering smaller communities of practice.

It’s important to recognise that there are a range of organisations working on developing inclusive volunteering opportunities. Challenges include:

Inclusion in the voluntary sector

2. Understanding Barriers to Volunteering

Potential volunteers may face various barriers that could dissuade or prevent them from volunteering. This section of the toolkit identifies possible barriers to volunteering, including economic, social, cultural and physical barriers.

Economic barriers
to participation

Time

All volunteer roles require people to give their time, but some people may need to work long hours to make ends meet, have childcare or other responsibilities, and thus have a lack of free time.

Travel expenses

Some volunteer roles are in-person rather than online. Some volunteers will have to access transport, which can be prohibitively expensive.

Equipment costs

Some roles require equipment (computers, wifi, uniforms, tools) to be undertaken.

Disclosure costs

Some roles require disclosure checks, which cost money and may discourage people with convictions or experiences of being unhoused from applying to volunteer.

Benefits & Rights to Work

Some people who receive UK State benefits or who are seeking asylum may not be aware that volunteering will not affect their benefits or status, and may be nervous about volunteering.

Food & drink

Some people who volunteer may be giving up time that they’d otherwise use to earn money to pay for food and other needs.

Childcare costs

Some volunteers may have childcare responsibilities, and need to pay for childcare cover whilst they volunteer.

Social & cultural
barriers to belonging

Although volunteer programmes may encourage everyone to apply, attitudes, assumptions and previous experiences may prevent people from getting involved. Each sector of volunteering has some common assumptions about what a typical volunteer looks like.

For example: There is a perception that museum volunteers are typically white and middle-class, and that many have degrees or qualifications. Some potential volunteers may think that it would be difficult for someone without qualifications or a good knowledge of history to volunteer in a museum.

Examining barriers

Potential volunteers may face these social and cultural barriers to volunteering with your organisation:

Experiences of structural discrimination: Experiences of racism, for example, can reduce faith in the willingness of white-led or white dominated organisations to support and value diversity.

Lack of confidence: Everyone has useful and valuable skills and experiences, but some people may have had negative experiences where they were made to feel undervalued or unqualified in society. This is commonly experienced by marginalised groups (e.g. because of their disability or race).

Ideas about what ‘volunteering’ means: Many communities have informal types of voluntary work (e.g. religious service or ‘helping neighbours out’). This is very common in working-class, migrant, disabled and LGBTQ+ communities.

Attitudes and assumptions amongst staff in volunteer organisations: The lack of diversity within volunteer organisations can lead to gaps in knowledge and lived experience, resulting in stereotypes and discriminatory views going unchallenged.

Physical barriers to access

The site or building that people volunteer at can be a barrier to volunteering.

3. Reflection on Inclusion in Volunteering Organisations

Each individual and organisation will be at different stages in developing awareness about equality, diversity and inclusion. This section of the toolkit will help you reflect on your own experiences and your organisation’s practices to identify areas for growth.

Reflecting on your own experiences

Everyone has different backgrounds, identities and needs that shape our position in and understanding of the world. It can be helpful to think through your experiences and how they impact you. There are several self-guided tools that can help:

Power and privilege are two interconnected terms. They have become useful ways to conceptualise the everyday hurdles some people face when navigating daily life.For more guidance on terms related to equality, diversity and inclusion, please see the glossary at the end of this toolkit.

Privilege walk

The Intersectionality Wheel is reproduced from designs by Sylvia Duckworth.

“Intersectionality is a lens through which you can see where power comes and collides, where it locks and intersects. it is the acknowledgement that everyone has their own unique experiences of discrimination and privilege.” - Kimberlé Crenshaw.

Expanding intersectionality

Where is your organisation in the inclusion journey?

1. Groundwork

Does your organisation have the necessary skills and knowledge to implement NCVO’s recommendations for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion? Does your organisation collect data about the current diversity of volunteers?

2. Induction

Do your induction processes contain information that signposts support for diverse communities of volunteers?

3. Listening

Do volunteers feel that their views and voices are equally valued? Is there a culture where volunteers can report problems and have confidence in concerns being addressed?

4. Supporting

Are a range of mechanisms in place to acknowledge different volunteers need different kinds of support?

5. Reflection

Is there space to critically think with volunteers about what could be done differently or better?

6. Acting

Is a clear inclusive volunteering plan in place to address any issues relating to wellbeing, safety and/or discrimination? Have they been tested or used? Have they been proven to work well?

7. Learning

Can you document and record areas of best practice and learning to share with other voluntary organisations?

8. Evaluation

Do you combine qualitative and quantitative mechanisms to evaluate success?

Inclusive volunteering at your organisation

Based on your answers to this exercise, how would you rate where your organisation is in its inclusion journey from 1-10 (where 1 is not started, and 10 is highly developed)?
What areas do you need to work on?

4. Governance and Policies

The work of inclusion can too easily focus on siloing diversity into a problem for one part or department of the organisation, such as outreach, education or community engagement. Having expertise in inclusive governance and policies can be an important step forward in bolder, all-organisational approaches to equality and representing the society we live in. This section of the toolkit gives advice for inclusive governance policies and practices.

Leadership

The Charities Inclusive Governance Report (2022) found that:

Only 13% of charity boards had gender parity, and 29% of boards were all-white. For boards of organisations on the Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 100 Index, which are companies in with the highest market capitalisation, only 4% had all-white boards.

Getting On Board’s Practical Guide to Diversifying Boards takes you through the steps of how to approach the subject of changing your board composition with your existing trustees and chair.

Inclusive governance

Policies for volunteers

While many organisations have policies that help protect and support employees, they do not always have policies to protect and support volunteers.

Inclusive volunteering policies

5. Inclusive Volunteering Steps to Positive Action

Volunteer organisers can take a variety of steps to develop meaningful and accessible volunteering opportunities for everyone. This section of the toolkit gives an overview of how to remove barriers to volunteering. The final topic of this section is an inclusive volunteering checklist that you can use to assess what facilities and services you can offer to be more inclusive.

Centring the voices and
experiences of volunteers in Scotland

Centring a diverse volunteer voice in the development of volunteer policies, procedures and opportunities is key to ensuring that your volunteer programme is accessible, inclusive, relevant and fulfilling for everyone.

Surveys

You could partner with a community group to survey their members about their perceptions and experiences of your organisation and volunteer programme.You could ask:

Focus groups

Another method you could use to better understand marginalised people’s perceptions and experiences of your organisation and volunteer programme is to host focus groups.

Our top tips for organising focus groups are:

Partner with organisations that engage with marginalised audiences. These organisations are best placed to understand their audiences’ needs, help you organise an accessible space and advertise the session to participants.

Ensure that you have everyone’s informed consent. Adapt NCVO’s template consent form to draft a basic consent form outlining the purpose of the focus group.

Frame the approach as an open discussion. Some focus group participants may be worried about offending a representative from your organisation. Be clear that the session is an open discussion, every experience is valid and there are no wrong answers. You could also consider hiring an external facilitator or partnering with a local equality council to help facilitate the sessions.

Establish caretaking practices and procedures. Some participants may talk about distressing instances of racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism and/or classism that they experienced whilst trying to visit a site or participate in a volunteer opportunity. Prepare a list of organisations and resources that participants can access for additional support should they need it. You should also make it clear to participants that they can take a break or leave at any time, and do not have to answer any questions they don’t want to.

Recruiting volunteers

There are several examples of inclusive recruitment best practice that the volunteer sector can draw on, such as:

The following information provides suggestions based on feedback from focus groups with potential volunteers from diverse backgrounds.

Sharing volunteer stories

Having your current volunteers share their stories can encourage people to try out volunteering by giving more information about roles and the benefits of volunteering. Content created by volunteers, also called user-generated content, is 10 times more trusted than content produced by organisations themselves, so it’s a powerful marketing tool.

You could share blog posts or videos with your volunteers talking about:

Case study:
Sharing volunteer stories

Taster sessions

Taster sessions are informal ways for people to learn more about an organisation or volunteer role ahead of applying. They can help to alleviate any questions or concerns that people may have about volunteering.

During the session, it can be helpful to introduce the day by covering:

People could then choose the role most interesting to them and break into groups to complete a small task associated with the role. After 20 minutes, groups could switch roles so people can try out a few different types of tasks and see what they like.

Shadowing opportunities, like taster sessions, can help potential volunteers get a sense of your organisation and volunteer roles, as well as alleviate any anxieties about volunteering.

Multiple ways to apply

Providing multiple ways to apply to your volunteer opportunities allows people to choose the communication channel accessible or most comfortable to them.

Multiple ways to apply could include:

Case study:
Inclusively recruiting volunteers

Advertising opportunities

Advertising opportunities is a key issue. Developing a proactive plan combining social media (especially targeted at community groups), community radio stations and hubs and events within community settings is a positive step towards reaching ‘out’ to volunteers.

Working in partnership with community organisations is another beneficial vehicle for building trust, especially in resolving issues which may arise later. In your introductory communication to potential partners, you should specify:

Working with community collectives can help to connect volunteering organisations to other socially-driven care groups. Thistles and Dandelions have created a toolkit to help organisations partner with community groups.

If you’re keen to connect with a relevant partner organisation or group, but not sure where to start, Make Your Mark manages a database of organisations in Scotland who work with and represent excluded groups.

Case Study:
Partnering with local groups

Flexible opportunities

Especially since COVID-19 and the cost of living crisis, flexible opportunities are a requirement for many people who can’t afford transport or childcare costs involved in volunteering, or have barriers related to health and/or disability. Ongoing innovation in sourcing flexible opportunities will allow more people to consistently engage with the benefit of volunteering.

Asking about volunteers’ needs

Having an open and ongoing conversation about volunteers’ needs is key to making volunteering more accessible. It’s important to avoid making assumptions and speak to each person individually about their needs, as every person has different abilities and has had different experiences.

To foster a culture of open conversation around needs, you could:

Case study: Enabling everyone
to take action for nature

Offering adaptations

Once you’ve had a conversation with a volunteer about their needs and circumstances, have a think about how you could change up your practices to support their volunteering. You could:

Reconsider what skills or experiences are actually necessary. Some volunteer role descriptions include things like being personable and friendly, which can exclude people who are looking to volunteer to build their confidence. You may also consider whether volunteers really need any prerequisites to complete your roles, or if they can be trained and supported to do their tasks.

Offer a buddy system or group or family volunteer opportunities. If a person is worried, unsure or anxious about volunteering, you could offer to initially pair them up with an experienced volunteer who can support them. You could also offer group or family volunteering opportunities so that people can try out a new activity amongst the security of friends and family members. The buddy system can also be a great approach for supporting people who are volunteering to improve their English language skills.

Offer shorter shift times. Some people may not be able to stand for long periods of time, or may be living with conditions that cause fatigue. Think about if you could break up longer shifts into shorter periods, or adapt roles so volunteers can complete them whilst seated.

Communication

The way organisations communicate - the words and images used, tone of voice, format of designs and channels chosen - affect whether they exclude or include a person or a group.

Design

How communications are designed can increase the accessibility of your information. In order to maximise the number of people who can understand your graphic design, consider the following:

Left align your text.

In some languages, like English and Scots, sighted readers are used to reading from left to right, and from top to bottom. Left aligned text is therefore typically the easiest to read because it best follows these expected conventions.

Right align, centred, and justified text is harder to read because sighted readers have to work harder to find the start of each line, and have to process unexpected spacing in-between words.

Write in Sentence Case.

Writing full words in capital letters is harder to read, so capital letters should only be used for proper nouns and words at the beginning of sentences. If you would like to highlight or emphasise words, use bold or increase the size of the font.

Use sans serif fonts.

San serif fonts (fonts without decorative lines or curls added to them) are generally easier to read than serif fonts.

Accessible fonts do not have mirrored lettering, meaning ‘d’ is not the mirror image of ‘b’. Accessible fonts should also have distinct characters for uppercase i, lowercase L and the number 1.

If your organisation’s brand guidelines include the use of a serif font, use a sans serif font for alternative versions of communications.

Use at least 12-point font size in printed media.

A point is the smallest unit of measurement in a font, and averages 0.358mm. Therefore, using 12pt should ensure text will be large enough to be comfortably read, regardless of font choice.

In digital texts, users should be able to zoom or reflow your content, so point size is less of a priority.

Use bold, avoid italics.

Italicised fonts contain exagerated shapes which can make them harder to read. Underlining text to emphasise it can be similarly disorientating. Slanted oblique fonts are often conflated with italics; while they’re less confusing, regular fonts are preferred.

Use bold sparingly

Overuse can make a piece of text harder to read, rather than highlight key information.

Replace italics with quotation marks.

Italics are a popular way to indicate the title of something or to signal a quote, but italicised text changes the weighting of the font and makes text harder to read.

Use high contrasts.

Documents with a high level of colour contrast between background and foreground colours are easier to read. You can check the strength of your colour contrast with WebAIM’s Colour Contrast Checker.

WCAG level AAA guidelines recommend a contrast ratio of at least:

Contrast levels aren’t everything! Consider other forms of legibility, like combinations of glaring colours.

Use images intentionally.

Because not everyone will be able to access the image in the same way, images should not be the sole way of communicating information. Images should illustrate key messages, not introduce new points. Images and graphics should portray a diverse range of people.

Language and terminology

Using inclusive language increases the number of people you can communicate with. Below, we’ve outlined some general best practices of inclusive language.

For more specific guidance on terms relating to race, sex and gender, sexuality, class and disability, please see the glossary.

Use simple sentence structures. This means that sentences are concise and ideas are broken up into short paragraphs.

Use the active voice. This means that a sentence has a subject that acts upon its verb. For example, “I attended the Make Your Mark event” (active) rather than “The Make Your Mark event was attended by me” (passive).

Address readers directly by using ‘we’ and ‘you’. This language is approachable and encourages audiences to engage with you. Inclusive communications views communication as a partnership in which all people are equal, with equal amounts to give, share and learn from each other.

Avoid jargon, such as organisational acronyms and sector-specific words like ‘heritage.’ The Heritage Blueprint Report (Young Scot and National Trust for Scotland, 2017) found that while 34% of young people were interested in ‘history’, only 16% had an interest in ‘heritage’. You may consider replacing ‘heritage’ with ‘history’, ‘culture,’ ‘buildings,’ ‘places,’ ‘collections,’ ‘stories’ and other words as appropriate.

Materials in different languages

Many potential volunteers might not have English as a first language or might not be confident in their English language skills. To encourage people from these communities to apply, you could have a few key phrases or materials translated into different languages.

Deciding what languages to offer materials in can be tricky, as demographic data often groups many ethnicities with different cultures and languages together. To help you map the languages spoken by people in your area, you could:

Case Study: Supporting multilingual volunteers

Alternative formats

In addition to offering materials in different languages, offering other alternative formats can make your volunteer programme more accessible for people with learning, hearing or visual disabilities.You could create:

Easy read versions, which break down complex information into shorter text and support the meaning of the text with the use of simple images or icons. Easy read versions are accessible to people with a learning disability and can also be accessible to those whose first language is not English or who have a lower reading level.

Large print versions, which are generally 16 to 18 point font size.

Braille versions. There are around 12,000 Braille users in the UK, and a few English Braille codes currently in use. If you choose to create Braille materials for audiences, you can post these materials for free via the Royal Mail under the Articles for the Blind scheme.

Video versions. Short videos (under 2 minutes) which can easily be shared across social media may help to reach new groups and communities. Where possible, having the video in 2-3 major languages spoken in Scotland will help to increase reach. Ensure to caption videos to increase accessibility, and double check that any auto-generated captions are accurate.

Audio versions. Community radio stations continue to be a vital source of connection for many groups. Consider short ads or features on local community radio stations.

British Sign Language (BSL) versions. 1 in 6 of the UK population experience deafness. Engaging with organisations such as Contact Scotland BSL will help to ensure your organisation is confident in supporting a broader range of volunteers.

Case Study: Engaging
with non-screen users

Supporting Volunteers

Once volunteers are recruited, it is essential that volunteer organisers take steps to support them and ensure that they have a positive experience. Volunteer organisers should consider:

Creating a clear induction process. This should include a volunteer agreement and an introduction to policies (see section 4).

Identifying a clear point of contact and communication. This will ensure that volunteers know who they can contact with questions and concerns.

Organising regular check-ins. This will provide volunteers with opportunities to discuss the experience and how it could grow and/or be improved.

Hosting annual surveys, exit surveys and focus groups. This will capture honest reflections and responses from volunteers about their experiences.

Providing information on skills development and employment support. This will ensure that volunteering is mutually beneficial for the organisation and volunteer, and may include developing training pathways and shadowing opportunities, offering feedback on CVs, hosting mock interviews and providing references.

Thanking volunteers and recognising their efforts. This will ensure that volunteers feel valued for their contributions. Volunteer Scotland provides guidance on recognising and valuing your volunteers.

Case study: Supporting volunteer development

Budgeting for inclusion

Many people face economic barriers to volunteering, including travel expenses, childcare costs, food costs and a lack of free time. At a minimum, volunteer-involving organisations should pay travel costs for volunteers.

When applying for funding, volunteer organisers should budget for these factors to enable more people to volunteer. Below is a sample budget for costs associated with an inclusive volunteer programme. Volunteer Scotland has also produced additional guidance on supporting volunteers during the cost of living crisis.

Budget 1: Travel costs

¹ As per rates from HMRC.

Budget 2: Childcare costs

Budget 3: Disclosure costs

Budget 4: Food costs

¹ As per rates from HMRC.

Budget 5: Thanking volunteer for their time

Budget 6: Communication costs

Inclusion checklist

Please use this checklist to understand the barriers to inclusion in your organisation. This can be used to develop an inclusive volunteering plan (see Section 7). Which of the below practices and facilities can your organisation offer to volunteers?

1. Economic

2. Social & Cultural

3a. Physical: Entering and Accessing Venues and Sites

3b. Physical: Engaging at Venues and Sites

If you want more detailed feedback on the accessibility of your volunteer programme, you can partner with a local organisation that engages with marginalised people to arrange an accessibility audit with their members. This may consist of their members visiting your venue, reviewing policies or role descriptions and/or participating in a volunteer taster session and giving you feedback on how to be more accessible or inclusive.

Consider contacting potential partner organisations for quotes and developing a budget for this type of expert work.

6. Benchmarking and Tracking the Benefits of Inclusive Volunteering

Inclusive volunteering has benefits for individuals, organisations and societies. This section of the toolkit outlines the social justice and economic case for inclusive volunteering, and why collecting data on your volunteer programme is a critical tool for change.

Why inclusion is a social justice and economic issue

The Centre of Economics and Business Research’s recent research into the value of volunteering (2023) showed that volunteering makes a major contribution to the economy and can be considered a vital part of Scotland’s Inclusive Growth Strategy:

What does it mean to fairly distribute the dividends of volunteering opportunities in Scotland? The cost of living crisis has had an impact on volunteering through cuts to funding and giving, and constrained time or personal circumstances for individual volunteers.

Combined with an increase in the need for volunteers, this produces a complex challenge for the sector:

What can volunteering offer individuals and society?

By volunteering, people can:

Involving a wider range of volunteers enables volunteer organisations to:

Although volunteering has many documented benefits, it has not previously been accessible to, and inclusive of, everyone, thereby limiting its positive impact. Involving a more diverse range of people in volunteering would:

Inclusive volunteering at your organisation

Data and benchmarking: why does it matter?

Collecting data from volunteers about their backgrounds is a powerful tool that can enable you to create effective inclusive volunteering plans.

Data can help identify trends and evidence, or contradict, anecdotal knowledge you have about your organisation. Organisations should never assume anything about someone’s identity - collecting personal data from volunteers themselves ensures that you have an accurate picture of your volunteer programme.

Basic data gathering on protected characteristics can help an organisation to benchmark where they are, and how they compare against other organisations. The same data can be used to identify goals for the future (e.g. creating a plan to engage more disabled volunteers and support their ongoing participation). This section outlines a range of data that can be tracked about volunteers, along with how that data can be sensitively stored and used.

While there is some data on volunteering demographics in Scotland (see section 1), there are gaps in the data picture.

If all organisations gathered more basic data about volunteering, we could:

Combining qualitative (non-numeric information about emotions and perceptions) and quantitative (numeric information such as statistics) data can help to gather a range of evidence. Qualitative data can be particularly useful when you’re trying to understand the reason for more complex barriers (e.g. why people don’t feel included). Qualitative data is often best collected through surveys or focus groups (see section 5). Quantitative data is useful for creating concrete goals (e.g. we want to increase the number of disabled volunteers by 30% in three years).

Equalities monitoring

Equalities monitoring involves the collection of information, or data, about volunteers. Many organisations choose to monitor ‘protected characteristics’ as identified in The Equality Act (2010):

A template Equalities Monitoring form is available from Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (see appendix).

Collecting data about socio-economic backgrounds and social mobility

Although work on inclusion often focuses on protected characteristics, socio-economic background is a key underpinning condition for exclusion, discrimination and inequality.

For an insight into tackling socio-economic inequalities, please see the Social Mobility Commission’s Socio-economic Diversity and Inclusion toolkit, which is based on case studies from the creative industries.

Data storage, ethics and accountability

When collecting, storing and analysing personal data about volunteers, it is important to comply with legal requirements to protect people’s privacy.

Not everyone will feel comfortable providing data about themselves. It’s important to explain the reasons why you are asking for the data, how you will keep it safe and how you will use it. Here is a template statement to use when collecting equalities data:

It is important to comply with the Data Protection Act (2018) when processing personal data about individuals. Under this law, you must ensure:

SCVO provides detailed guidance on data protection, and the Information Commissioner’s Office has a data protection self-assessment toolkit. If you are a large organisation and will be collecting a high volume of data, Volunteer Scotland provides guidance about responsible research and ethics.

Volunteer equalities monitoring

Quality standards

Working within your organisation to achieve a recognised quality standard provides a framework that can help you evaluate and improve your volunteer programme.[Volunteer Scotland’s Volunteer Charter]((https://www.volunteerscotland.net/volunteer-practice/quality-standards/volunteer-charter/) is an initial standard for volunteer-involving organisations to sign up to. It sets out ten principles which help to underpin good relations within a volunteering environment. It is open to any group or organisation from any sector that involves volunteers.Once your organisation signs up to the Volunteer Charter, you may consider working towards a further quality standard:

By achieving a quality standard, you’ll be part of a growing community of peers focused on quality volunteer practice.

7. Developing an Inclusive Volunteering Plan

An Inclusive Volunteering Plan should set out an evidence-based, current picture of involvement across an organisation of marginalised people; highlight priority areas for development in inclusion; and set out plans and objectives for changes. This section of the toolkit supports you to develop your own Inclusive Volunteering Plan.

Develop your own Inclusive Volunteering Plan

Planning for inclusive volunteering

Glossary

Diversity

Diversity is the acknowledgement of and respect for differences within and between groups of people.(Group for Education in Museums, 2018).

Accessibility

Accessibility is ensuring that people are not excluded from using something on the basis of experiencing a disability. Accessibility means that people can do what they need to do in a similar amount of time and effort as someone that does not have a disability. It means that people are empowered, can be independent and will not be frustrated by something that is poorly designed or implemented.(UK Government, 2016).

Inclusion

Inclusion is the active process of working to break down the barriers that exclude people from accessing your services(Group for Education in Museums, 2018).

Exclusion

Exclusion means being shut out from any of the political, social, cultural or economic systems which determine the social integration of a person in society. People who are excluded from society and the privileges of being part of its systems are often referred to as ‘marginalised’ or ‘oppressed’ people.(Group for Education in Museums, 2018).

Equality

Equality is an approach that ensures that every individual has an equal opportunity to make the most of their lives and talents. In other words, equality means ensuring that everyone has the same opportunities and receives the same support.(Social Change UK, 2023).

Equity

Equity is about giving people what they need in order to make things fair. In other words, equity means giving more or different support to those who need it. The difference between equality and equity must be emphasised. Although both promote fairness, equality achieves this through treating everyone the same regardless of need, while equity achieves this through treating people differently depending on need.(Social Change UK, 2023).

Sex and Gender

Sex at birth

Infants are assigned a sex at birth, ‘male’ or ‘female’, based on the appearance of their external anatomy. However, the development of the human body is a complex process, and sex is not solely determined by anatomy, nor is it strictly binary. As many as 1.7% of people are born with an intersex trait.(GLAAD, 2022).

Intersex

Intersex refers to someone with one or more innate sex characteristics, including genitals, internal reproductive organs, and chromosomes, that fall outside of traditional conceptions of male or female bodies.(GLAAD, 2022).

Gender Identity

A person’s knowledge of their own gender. Everyone has a gender identity. For most people their gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth. For trans people, their gender identity does not align with the sex they were assigned at birth. Many people have a gender identity of man or woman (or, for children, boy or girl).

For other people, their gender identity does not fit neatly into one of those two binary genders. Gender identity is not visible to others.

You cannot look at someone and “see” their gender identity.(GLAAD, 2022).

Gender Expression

External manifestations of gender, expressed through a person’s name, pronouns, clothing, haircut, voice, and/or behaviour. Societies classify these external cues as masculine and feminine, although what is considered masculine or feminine changes over time and varies by culture.(GLAAD, 2022).

Trans

An adjective to describe people whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. People who are transgender may also use other terms, in addition to transgender, to describe their gender more specifically. Use the term(s) the person uses to describe their gender. It is important to note that being transgender is not dependent upon physical appearance or medical procedures.

A person can call themself transgender the moment they realise that their gender identity is different than the sex they were assigned at birth.(GLAAD, 2022).

Cis

An adjective used to describe people who are not transgender. A cisgender person is a person whose gender identity is aligned with the sex they were assigned at birth.(GLAAD, 2022).

Nonbinary and/or Genderqueer

Nonbinary is an adjective used by people who experience their gender identity and/or gender expression as falling outside the binary gender categories of man and woman. Many nonbinary people also call themselves transgender and consider themselves part of the transgender community. Others do not.

Nonbinary is an umbrella term that encompasses many different ways to understand one’s gender. Some nonbinary people may also use words like agender, bigender, demigender, pangender, etc. to describe the specific way in which they are nonbinary. Always ask people what words they use to describe themselves.

Nonbinary is sometimes shortened to enby.(GLAAD, 2022).

Sexuality

LGBTQ

Acronym for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer. LGBT and LGBTQ+ are also used, with the + added in recognition of all non-straight, non-cisgender identities.(GLAAD, 2022).

Gay

An adjective used to describe a person whose enduring physical, romantic and/or emotional attractions are to people of the same sex (e.g. gay man, gay people). Sometimes lesbian is the preferred term for women.(GLAAD, 2022).

Lesbian

A woman whose enduring physical, romantic and/or emotional attraction is to other women. Some lesbians may prefer to identify as gay or as gay women.(GLAAD, 2022).

Bisexual

An adjective used to describe a person who has the potential to be physically, romantically, and/or emotionally attracted to people of more than one gender, not necessarily at the same time, in the same way, or to the same degree. The bi in bisexual refers to genders the same as and different from one’s own gender.(GLAAD, 2022).

Queer

An adjective used by some people, particularly younger people, whose sexual orientation is not exclusively heterosexual (e.g. queer person, queer woman).

Typically, for those who identify as queer, the terms lesbian, gay, and bisexual may be perceived to be too limiting and/or fraught. Once considered a pejorative term, queer has been reclaimed by some LGBTQ people to describe themselves. However, it is not a universally accepted term even within the LGBTQ community, so use caution when using it outside of describing the way someone self-identifies or in a direct quote.(GLAAD, 2022).

Class

Class is a series of intersecting factors determining perceived social and economic status.(Savage et al, 2013)

Working Class

People from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
Low socioeconomic backgrounds mean people who have a low amount of economic (how much money you have), social (who you know) and cultural (what you know) privilege.(Bourdieu, 1983)

Deprived Areas

The Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) is a relative measure of deprivation across 6,976 small areas (called data zones). If an area is identified as ‘deprived’, this can relate to people having a low income but it can also mean fewer resources or opportunities. SIMD looks at the extent to which an area is deprived across seven domains: income, employment, education, health, access to services, crime and housing.(Scottish Government, 2020)

Race

Race is a social construct (i.e. human-made invention) based on skin colour and facial features (shape of eyes, nose, lips, hair texture, etc.). Even if it isn’t biologically ‘real,’ its impact on people is very much a reality. Race is a system of social categorisation which advantages certain groups of people and disadvantages other groups of people.(The Anti-Racist Educator, 2019).

Prejudice

Prejudice is often understood as an unfavourable or unreasonable opinion, feeling or attitude especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social or religious group.(The Anti-Racist Educator, 2019).

Racism

Racism is different from racial prejudice, hatred, or discrimination. Racism involves one group having the power to carry out systematic discrimination through the institutional policies and practices of the society and by shaping the cultural beliefs and values that support those racist policies and practices.However, racism is often simplified to discrimination against a person or group of people based on their race.(Dismantling Racism Works, 2021).

Xenophobia

Xenophobia is prejudice against people who are viewed as being ‘foreign’ or ‘from another country’. This often gets confused with racism: racism has more to do with skin colour and facial features while xenophobia has more to do with nationality, language/accent, culture and ethnicity.(The Anti-Racist Educator, 2019).

BME / BAME

BME stands for Black and Minority Ethnic and it includes people who might face discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, language, religion, tradition and cultural practices.

BAME stands for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic. The addition of the ‘A’ makes sense in the UK considering that people of Asian descent make up a big chunk of the total minority ethnic population. These terms tend to be used in British research and policy on race and diversity. While this term is politically correct and officially recognised, it is imperfect. The word ‘minority’ can be frustrating due to its connotations of weakness and powerlessness.

In fact, some groups that constitute a ‘minority’ in certain regions and countries actually constitute a majority in other regions or around the world as a whole – on a global scale, people racialised as white are actually the minority population but they are granted the ‘majority’ status in Scotland.(The Anti-Racist Educator, 2019).

Person of Colour

The umbrella term ‘person of colour’ (POC) was first used in the USA, but it is increasingly used by activists in the UK. It essentially refers to anybody who is not white. Many believe it is more empowering than the term ‘non-white’ and ‘minority’ (in BME and BAME) because it does not revolve around whiteness.

This term must not be confused with coloured – an outdated word that many will find offensive today due to its historical use as a pejorative.(The Anti-Racist Educator, 2019).

Disability

Disability is used as an umbrella term – this is broadly accepted but some groups and individuals do not necessarily identify with the term and would not consider themselves to be disabled. The term disability covers a wide range of different conditions and impairments. There is a broad legal definition for disability in the UK in the Equality Act 2010: “A physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities”.(The English Federation of Disability Sport, 2018)

Social Model of Disability

The social model of disability says disability is caused by barriers that arise because society is not designed to accommodate people who have impairments. It is these barriers that disable people who have impairments, and stop them from being included in society and participating on an equal basis.

If these barriers are removed, a person may still have an impairment but would not experience disability. The social model of disability was developed by disabled people and it is supported by organisations led by disabled people. This is in comparison to the medical model of disability, which says that a person’s health condition or impairment causes the disability and that this requires medical intervention and treatment to cure the problem.(Inclusion Scotland, 2023)

Barriers

The things that prevent disabled people from participating in everyday life. They include everything from inaccessible buildings, websites and people’s attitudes or assumptions.(The English Federation of Disability Sport, 2018)

Person-centred Descriptions

Communications should only mention characteristics like a person’s disability when relevant. When it is relevant to mention a person’s or group’s disability, the emphasis should be put on their humanity, rather than their characteristics.(The English Federation of Disability Sport, 2018)

Appendix

Sample Equalities
Monitoring Form

This template has been provided the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO).

Use of this model policy is entirely at your own risk. This policy should be adapted to suit your own organisational needs, and you should ensure it meets your own specific requirements. You should also check this policy is compliant with the law and your organisation’s governing document.

No liability rests with SCVO.

For more information see our information on using SCVO templates.

This is a sample form that you can adapt or develop to meet your needs. Make sure you adapt this template to comply with the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). If you need help with this, go to www.ico.org.uk.

Start of form.

[INSERT ORGANISATION NAME] wants to meet the aims and commitments set out in its equality policy. This includes not discriminating under the Equality Act 2010 and building an accurate picture of the make-up of the workforce in encouraging equality and diversity.

The organisation needs your help and co-operation to enable it to do this but filling in this form is voluntary.

1. How would you describe your gender?

2. Do you identify as transgender?

3. Are you married or in a civil partnership?

4. What is your age?

5. What is your ethnicity?

White

Mixed/multiple ethnic groups

Asian/Asian British

Black/African/Caribbean/Black British

Other ethnic group

6. Do you consider yourself to have a disability or health condition?

What is the effect or impact of your disability or health condition on your ability to give your best at work?Please write it in here:

The information in this form is for monitoring purposes only. If you believe you need a “reasonable adjustment”, then please discuss this with your manager, or the manager running the recruitment process if you are a job applicant.

7. What is your sexual orientation?

8. What is your religion or belief?

9. What is your current working pattern?

10. What is your flexible working arrangement?

11. Do you have caring responsibilities?

End of form.

All links lead to content on this website.

Introduction

Volunteering ¹ is often seen as a social and individual good, contributing to personal and collective health and well-being, where people and communities are invested in, recognised and supported. However, for this potential to be fulfilled, the voluntary sector has to think about the inequalities faced by society as a whole, discarding a view of volunteering as solely initiated or driven by choice or openness. The voluntary sector has an important role in challenging and transforming inequalities, where the commitment to making a difference is often part of organisational missions and stated intentions.People volunteer all of the time. They may help out a neighbour. It might be part of religious observation or service. It can form part of the norm of a community. But what gets called ‘volunteering’ is often a recognised and structured opportunity that can accrue social privilege or help to scaffold access to economic privilege.How can we ensure that volunteering as a sector represents and serves the breadth and depth of our society’s needs? How do we ensure it doesn’t revert to older forms of philanthropy which created a hierarchy between people with the skills and resources to help the world around them, and people, places, and organisations, which need help?Volunteering organisations may be able to act as transformative sites of participation, able to respond to questions of varied resourcing, recognition and support. At present, this report reveals a patch-work provision of inclusive volunteering experiences, resources, supports and practices in Scotland. While this is a consequence of the informality around much volunteering (and is an important benefit in terms of flexibility), it can unintentionally foster the very same inequalities that volunteer organisations work so hard to overcome in their social mission.

Footnote

About this project

With the support of the Scottish Government, and as part of Scotland’s Volunteering Action Plan, a project was developed by Make Your Mark and the University of Strathclyde to support inclusive volunteering programmes across Scotland’s voluntary sector.The project had two elements:

The project commenced in October 2022 with the first development programme workshop, and came to a close in July 2023 with the launch of the Inclusive Volunteering Toolkit. This report offers a summary of key findings and recommendations from the project.

Footnote

Why inclusive volunteering matters

Volunteering has significant economic and social impacts in Scotland. Volunteering supports skills development, improves individual physical and mental health and wellbeing and strengthens social bonds within and between communities (Scottish Government, 2019). Although volunteering has many benefits, it has not historically been accessible or inclusive for everyone.There have been various initiatives aiming to address inclusive volunteer programmes. In 2004, the Scottish Executive published its Volunteering Strategy to improve volunteer experiences, remove barriers to participation and support young people through targeted interventions such as Project Scotland. In 2013, the UK-wide #iwill campaign sought to increase by 50% the proportion of young people taking part in meaningful social action by 2020. In 2017/18, the Scottish Government indicated its intention to reinvigorate volunteering by focusing on young volunteering opportunities during the Year of Young People and supporting groups experiencing barriers to volunteering. In 2019, The Scottish Government published Volunteering For All, which provided a comprehensive framework for articulating a national narrative for the value of volunteering, alongside a strategic approach to incorporating volunteering into broader programmes of inclusive social and economic growth.Major reports such as Time Well Spent (NCVO, 2022) and resources such as Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Volunteering (Kanemura et al, 2021), have been vital for capturing the complexity of intersectional inequalities, the long-term impact of the pandemic, and the ongoing cost of living crisis on the volunteer sector. As the voluntary sector becomes more important for maintaining services and care in society, how can we ensure that the benefits of volunteering are equally shared, and that the full breadth and depth of our society’s experience is represented in the volunteering sector?To date, many of the initiatives to remove barriers to volunteering have focussed on youth engagement. From 2009–2016, the percentage of young people aged 11–18 in Scotland who volunteered at least once per year significantly increased from 33% to 52% and remained steady at approximately 50% through 2019 (Volunteer Scotland, 2020). Youth volunteering has decreased by 12% between 2019 and 2022, predominantly due to the impacts of COVID-19 and the cost of living crisis, but still remains 10% higher than average adult (over 18) volunteering engagement (Volunteer Scotland, 2022).Whilst initiatives have been successful in increasing youth volunteering, disparities in engagement have persisted across other demographics.From 2007 – 2017, the Scottish Household survey indicated that volunteer engagement rates were consistently lowest amongst people:

The most recent Scottish Household Survey (2021) similarly found that those most likely to volunteer are:

The disparities in volunteering have profound implications for wider society, where the accrual of benefits for more privileged people increases inequality.

Drawing on existing literature, a new survey and specially-commissioned focus groups, this project found that there was a large variation in approaches to making volunteering more inclusive in Scotland, with initiatives often being driven by key individuals. While this is a natural consequence of the informality around much volunteering (and is an important benefit in terms of flexibility), it can unintentionally foster the very same inequalities that volunteer organisations work so hard to overcome in their social mission.By working with members of Make Your Mark, and a range of community-centred focus groups, we identified key recurring barriers, including:

A lot of groundwork is required before there can be a national approach to benchmarking progress in equalities and inclusion in the volunteering sector in Scotland. There is a danger that partial data will skew the ‘real’ picture, and that only large, well-resourced, organisations with distinct volunteering demographics will be captured. Our recommendations are focused on developing knowledge, skills, and capacity in inclusive volunteering across Scotland, and across volunteering sectors.The key recommendations from this project include:

The recommendations and findings in the report are drawn from the existing expertise in Make Your Mark, reports and resources produced and shared widely in the UK volunteer sector, alongside a specially designed survey and series of commissioned focus groups.This mixed-methods approach was designed to elicit different types of responses. With volunteer organisations, we used surveys to allow anonymity in the expectation that it would generate more honest responses. The fear of ‘getting it wrong’ with equalities and inclusion is itself a barrier to achieving positive outcomes. The focus groups were designed to create an informal peer-led environment where people could speak honestly about their perception of volunteering, and their experiences of volunteering (including the experience of people hesitant about volunteering).

Survey of volunteer organisations and groups

The survey was a combination of open and closed questions to allow us to gather data alongside qualitative responses. 52 responses were received from volunteer-involving heritage organisations, with 73.1% (38) already Make Your Mark members.The organisations who responded represent the majority of heritage volunteers in Scotland, as well as represented a range of sizes of heritage organisations, from entirely voluntary run (17.3%) to having more than 250 staff members (17.3%). The largest group (44.2%) of respondents were small to medium sized heritage organisations with between 1-10 staff members.Most respondents came from small organisations with some dedicated staffing to support volunteering. Just over half did not collect information on volunteering hours, and almost two thirds did not collect equalities data. Of those that did collect equalities data, a majority did not have confidence in sharing this data. This in itself was interesting: while organisations did have a sense of who was volunteering (and why tracking protected characteristics might matter), there were fewer resources dedicated to how that impacted participation (through the volume of volunteering hours or range of engagement). The reticence around sharing summarised equalities data speaks to the sensitivity of the data (in terms of how it’s collected, stored, shared, and used).Key data on the organisations:

Chart 1: How many paid staff members does your organisation have?

• A. No Paid Staff Members - Entirely Volunteer Run, (17.3%, 9 Organisations).

• B. 1 to 10. (44.2%, 23 Organisations).

• C. 11 to 25. (19.2 %, 10 Organisations).

• D. 51 to 100. (1.9%, 1 Organisation).

• 250 or more. (17.3, 9 Organisations).

Chart 2: Does your organisation have a volunteer organiser role?

• A. As part of a paid staff member’s duties (32.7%, 17 Organisations)

• B. Shared by a few paid staff members (25%, 13 Organisations).

• C. As a paid staff member’s entire role (17.3%, 9 Organisations).

• D. A volunteer oversees other volunteers (17.3%, 9 Organisations)

• E. Shared between paid employees and volunteers (1.9%, 1 Organisation).

• F. Project based, so there aren’t always volunteers and their organisers (1.9%, 1 Organisation)

• G. No (3.8%, 2 Organisations)

Chart 3: Do you collect equalities data about volunteers’ demographics and background (gender, age, etc)?

• No (63.5%, 33 Organisations).

• Yes (36.5%, 19 Organisations).

Chart 4: Would you be willing to share anonymised, summarised equalities information about your volunteers with Make Your Mark for the purposes of this survey?

• No (57.9%, 11 Organisations).

• Yes (42.1%, 8 Organisations).

We chose to survey heritage sector volunteer organisers for two key reasons:

Whilst the heritage sector provides an insightful picture of current inclusive volunteering practice, the survey data has limits. Recent research into the heritage sector highlights the current turbulence and uncertainty facing the sector, specifically how recent and current events like the COVID-19 pandemic and cost of living crisis are threatening the existence and sustainability of many heritage organisations across Scotland.The heritage sector relies on older volunteers, many of whom were and are shielding due to COVID-19 or are leaving roles due to health issues. According to the most recent UK Heritage Pulse Report on volunteering (2023), only 14.1% of respondents said volunteer recruitment had gone well, and only 8% of respondents said that attracting volunteers from a broad range of ages and backgrounds had gone well.According to the UK Heritage Pulse report on price increases and impact published in September 2022, only 47% of organisations felt confident or very confident they could accurately predict the financial outlook for their organisation over the next 12 months. While the cost of supplies and overheads was recorded as increasing for 91% of respondents, 55% of organisations had not implemented or planned any measures in response.This means that the survey data collected in February and March 2023 provides a snapshot in time, and is likely to change with the continued uncertainty and upheaval caused by the pandemic and inflation.

Diversifying Volunteering: Existing Approaches to Recruitment

The most popular method of recruitment was ‘word of mouth’ (92.3%). This could begin to explain why many heritage organisations have reported issues with recruiting a diverse range of volunteers (Carr, 2023). Oftentimes word of mouth promotion results in recruitment of people of similar backgrounds and experiences to the existing volunteer base.Organisations’ websites (76.9%) and social media (75%) were the next most popular recruitment methods. The high level of digital volunteer recruitment could be linked to organisations’ desires to recruit younger people, as people aged 19 – 29 are the most active age group on social media. However, a heavy reliance on digital media could exclude people who cannot afford computers or phones, have no time to go online due to work or other commitments, lack technological ability or experience barriers in using screen technology. Posters (32.7%), Make Your Mark portal (30.8%) and local volunteer centre or third sector interface (42.3%) all ranked as middling strategies.Partnering with local charities to engage with a more diverse range of volunteers was used as a recruitment method by 25% of respondents. Research and practice in inclusive engagement has shown that building relationships with groups representing marginalised people is the most effective way to diversify volunteer programmes. These groups are trusted messengers within communities and can provide feedback on how to make opportunities, sites, policies and practices more accessible (Volunteer Scotland, 2022).12 (92.3%) of the 13 respondents who indicated that they used this recruitment method were Make Your Mark members, representing about one third (31.2%) of campaign members who answered the survey. Only 1 respondent who indicated that they used this recruitment method was not a Make Your Mark member, representing 7.1% of non-campaign members who answered the survey. This is an early indication that the Make Your Mark campaign is successful supporting the development of more inclusive volunteering practices amongst members.

Qualitative Responses on Making Volunteering Inclusive

The survey contained options to write in free-text format to respond to set questions.

"How do you foster an inclusive environment for volunteers at your organisation?"

We offered some prompts for this question and many respondents referred to these, without necessarily unpacking what a ‘taster session’, ‘open days’, ‘try-out days’ or ‘multi-lingual provisioning’ might mean in their particular settings.Responses tended to gesture towards inclusive feelings that were not necessarily linked to clear policies or practices, e.g.: ‘We offer a friendly and open environment’. Only a slight majority of respondents (55.8%) stated that they had an organisation-wide equality, diversity and inclusion policies or guidelines.Many noted the interpersonal and relational aspects of creating a good atmosphere e.g.: ‘Nothing formal, just day-to-day interaction to create a welcoming environment’. This was linked with organisational methods of recruitment via personal relations and proximity:

Other responses noted ‘flexible’ methods, or ‘open’ opportunities, centring volunteers’ ‘choice’:

It may be that having ‘no minimum expectations’ could create disadvantage and uncertainty rather than flexibility, as people new to volunteering generally or with a sector or organisation specifically may not have a sense of expectations, time commitments and benefits of volunteering, thereby dissuading them from getting involved.Similarly, there may be a missed opportunity to capitalise on volunteers’ full and pre-existing skill-set by emphasising ‘no experience is necessary’: across all ages and experiences, volunteers often want to consolidate their skill set and may look to be matched with organisations able to support this desire. For older volunteers in retirement this might be about recognising previous and ongoing skills in previous workplace contexts; for younger people this might be about building skills for future educational and/or employment opportunities. There are certain groups, particularly refugees and people seeking asylum, whose skills may not be fully recognised by their country of arrival. The emphasis on ‘no experience’ may not fully invite in or capitalise upon the valuable experiences of such groups.There was an assertion of organisational members and/or potential volunteers being free to choose or opt-in, e.g.: ‘All members are offered the opportunity to volunteer. Some do, some don’t. If interested we invite them along to spend some time with the people/section they are interested in’. However, recruiting from the existing membership base may not be effective in attracting new audiences and ensuring diverse recruitment. An insistence that ‘everyone is welcome’ may explain why there is a nervousness and/or reluctance around gathering and sharing EDI data that may indicate a lack of representation; this welcoming gesture may gloss over the hard work to be done in practising rather than expressing inclusion.Some respondents mentioned fostering inclusivity through adapting resources, opportunities and training. These adaptations were primarily related through the provision of materials, such as offering versions online and in print, and in languages other than English. Training was linked to often rather undefined skills workshops, inductions and training sessions, although some links were made between a skilling-up and a potential return to paid employment, e.g.: ‘ … supporting the community back into work roles if they wish …’). Several organisations mentioned additional support needs in terms of volunteers’ learning and language capacities:

More formal skills/qualifications were mentioned, e.g.: Duke of Edinburgh awards, school placements, buddy schemes, although the survey indicated that recruitment through educational providers was not prioritised, with only 1.9% of respondents listing it as a recruitment method.Several organisations were honest and upfront about the need to do more to make their organisation more inclusive:

Such good intentions were also evident in statements such as:

One respondent also indicated that the survey itself provided ‘food for thought!’. These seemingly indicate good intent, but may be less proactive and more reactive, as responsive to needs (e.g., specific volunteers’ requirements) or necessity (legislation/guidance). Several noted the limitations to developing inclusive policy and practice, including a lack of funding and/or staff, e.g. ‘We have no-one dedicated to volunteering full or part time’.Other organisations seemed versed in good policy and practice and could relate examples, using legalistic language to speak of ‘reasonable adjustments’ ³ and working with organisations and volunteers to ‘teach us how to be more inclusive and reach different audiences’:

Others spoke of in-person adaptation (‘Ask people if they need any adjustments and accommodate this where possible, tailoring volunteer experience to individual needs’), financial reimbursement (‘re-imbursement for costs incurred during volunteering’) and a range of non-financial benefits were also expressed such as ‘tea/lunch’ and ‘coffee morning’ provision.

Footnote

"Why do you think people want to volunteer with your organisation?"

When asked about why people volunteered, emotional attributes (‘love’, ‘belief’, ‘passion’), personal and social connections (‘combating loneliness’, ‘fun’), responsibilities and duties (‘to give something back’) and leisure/hobbies (‘keeping busy’) were consistently emphasised. There was a degree of self-praise for their own ‘welcoming organisations’, whereby volunteers become organisational advocates, e.g.: ‘They want to meet new people and tell the story of the project’.There was some linkage to skill sets and developing a CV which arguably positioned volunteers as unskilled, building their CV and acquiring experiences, rather than primarily sharing these. There was a binary between older and younger volunteers with younger volunteers positioned as CV-builders, while older people (‘retirees’) were simply ‘looking to be involved in something’:

"What barriers could prevent or dissuade people from volunteering with your organisation?"

Respondents identified a range of barriers which might act to prevent or dissuade people from volunteering, including a sense of limited finances and time.Significantly, the onus was often put back on the individual volunteers to come forward to participate, even as structural inequalities were identified. This was evident in statements around volunteers ‘choosing’ their role and organisations being ‘open’ to everyone, which was contrasted with an acknowledgement of a sense of limitation, for example around volunteers’ temporal and economic resources and sites’ inaccessibility. Having ‘confidence’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘technological’ or ‘communicative skills’ represented another way of framing access as something volunteers themselves could challenge by effectively ‘skilling-up’.Barriers were also identified and located within existing voluntary organisations, which included the physical premises of buildings, often seen as just matter-of-fact or insurmountable:

Interestingly both old and new sites related these physical factors, framed as factual and potentially leading to an unchanging and narrow view of ‘the problem’, seen as one of ‘objective’, ‘unchanging’ infrastructures (buildings, stairs, streets, cars) rather than as a necessary responsiveness to equality legislation and protected characteristics.Respondents also identified barriers in the felt cultures of groups. Everyday cultures, expectations and assumptions of organisations may be felt as, for example, white and/or middle-class and may mean that marginalised ethnic groups and/or those from working-class backgrounds feel less welcome. Some organisations are known and even celebrated as large, well-funded, prestigious and elite, and with fee-paying membership bases. These realities may not best signal organisational commitment to EDI.Notably, there was reported staff resistance to expanding and diversifying volunteering, including through reimagining and varying roles, with suspicion that increasing volunteering numbers could be used to reduce paid staff, e.g. ‘Currently working on increasing the variety of roles. Still some staff resistance’. Such sensitivities may at least partly explain general reluctance to share equalities data, which itself acts as a barrier to understanding and transforming the sector.

Focus Groups on Inclusion and Volunteering

To gain an understanding of barriers and enablers to volunteering from marginalised people, the project partnered with several volunteering organisations working with specific marginalised groups including African and Caribbean people, Muslim women, and disabled people. We also conducted a focus group with students, with LGBTQ+ representation.Questions focused on participants’ experiences and perceptions of volunteering in Scotland, as well as barriers to volunteering and how these could be removed.Focus groups varied between 5-12 members and ranged in age from ‘18-29’ to ‘70 and over’, describing themselves as ‘African, African Scottish or African British’, ‘African: any other African ethnic group’, ‘Caribbean, Caribbean Scottish or Caribbean British’, ‘Caribbean or Black: any other Caribbean or Black ethnic group’, ‘Asian, Asian Scottish or Asian British’, ‘Pakistani, Pakistani Scottish or Pakistani British’; ‘White: Scottish’, ‘White: Other British’, ‘White: Irish’. Participants described themselves Buddhist, Christian, Muslim and not religious. Participants identified as cis gender, trans gender and non-binary. As indicated by partial postcode data, participants also lived in areas of varying advantage and disadvantage, according to the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation.Whilst focus group participants represented a range of ages, ethnic groups, genders, religious backgrounds, abilities, sexualities and socioeconomic backgrounds, participants were all based in the Central Belt of Scotland.Participating in the focus groups could itself be seen as mirroring some of the broad concerns around inclusive volunteering in terms of who enters and gets involved in community spaces, and who and what is recognised, supported and remunerated.To enable a diverse range of people to participate, focus group participants were offered a gift token and lunch as recognition of time and energy invested in this process.As facilitators we asked participants how we could facilitate their participation in the group and support those with experiences of financial hardship, gendered care, experiences of discrimination, socio-legal precarity, and cultural and linguistic diversity.The following is a summary of the focus groups:

Focus Group Data Analysis

The four focus groups contained much rich insight, discussion and debate and it was clear that people have much knowledge, passion and experience in and for the subject area. Alongside both new and sustained commitment to volunteering – as a lived experience and as a sense of future possibilities – focus groups highlighted several challenges around inclusive volunteering. There were different opinions about the worth and cost of volunteering, both socially and individually, with the call for a diversity of approaches and opportunities, including for recruiting within and through minoritised communities by using diverse channels to advertise opportunities (e.g. local LGBTQ+ cafés, Afro Caribbean cafés, WhatsApp groups, Facebook membership pages, etc.).Three focus groups mentioned ‘box ticking’ as a tokenistic measure involving organisations gesturing towards equality and diversity but without creating full and sustainable change ("Was it just a tick-box exercise? Like, I’m determined that they will be accessible, whether they want to be or not", Group A). While many had a sense of agency and commitment to making change and for ‘people like us’, there is a need to think beyond asking people to find their own solution to the ‘problem’. Making minoritised groups always and fully welcomed, equipped and supported in the sector should be a norm.Notably, racialised inequality and discrimination was often not explicitly named as racism but rather often implied and gestured towards amongst focus group members, revealing the difficulty and potential unease in naming inequalities. That said, one group did mention ‘subtle racism’ ("I think there’s subtle barriers but I think there’s subtle racism. When young people go for jobs they get the degrees and it’s very difficult. Sometimes you have to go down south to get the experience and then come back up", Group B). Here, the ‘confidence’ in naming inequalities, particularly racism, was seen to implicate both individuals and organisations - confidence for minoritised people to speak and a confidence in volunteering organisations about how to make those voices more meaningfully heard. Interestingly, ‘whiteness’ as a structuring force beyond individualised racialised bodies was named by the student focus group whose members were all white:

Respondents spoke variously about group precarity (e.g. as students, Muslim women, Afro Caribbean women and men, refugees, people seeking asylum, disabled people, members of the LGBTQ+ community) where social and legal futures were not always felt as secure, safe or even known). Many of the issues that participants and organisations grappled with speak to broader societal inequalities and vulnerabilities, including having a safe and accessible usable space for members, providing childcare and making an inclusive space even with the challenges of resources, infrastructure and investment.

While barriers against participating are outlined in the above example, conversely, there can be a compulsion to volunteer given the lack of and/or inability to work.

Participants have been living through various periods of crisis including the contemporary cost of living crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to remember that these are local, national and international crises and implicate participants in wide networks, including as migrants, first generation citizens and people seeking asylum, and as members of families and communities.

Imagining populations as having needs in and beyond ‘crisis’ contexts may help more fully situate volunteers as equipped with a range of skills, preferences, choices and as having needs and critical concerns. In this we see a challenge to wholly positive, naïve or traditional ideas of volunteering, which may reinforce gender inequality:

Common concerns were around the transactional nature of volunteering and how to best think about the exchange of skills, expenses, friendship and, importantly, the forms of recognition involved:

There were ideas of how the potential for invisibility or inequality (‘obligation’), and even exploitation (‘working for free’) could be offset by a commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion values and practices. Diversity could be imagined through having a varied offering of roles rather than to be filled or signalled by ‘diverse people’. Reciprocity was also valued in that if organisations use volunteers, this use should be rewarded and celebrated, where volunteers become ‘part of it’, reflected in the commonly related experience that lived experience was often shared between service providers and service users:

All focus groups mentioned the need to think of volunteering as involving a wider set of opportunities: some respondents lived with the reality of often feeling undermined and under-appreciated, where assumptions were made about incapacity particularly in terms of race, gender, disability and social class:

There are questions of resources and training within these mis-recognitions ("recognising that the barrier isn’t your impairment; it’s the lack of support" Group A) and focus group A in particular talked about making ‘reasonable adjustments’, while all groups were attentive to volunteering opportunities being aligned to personal needs and desired benefits:

All focus groups mentioned the need to think of volunteering as involving a wider set of opportunities: some respondents lived with the reality of often feeling undermined and under-appreciated, where assumptions were made about incapacity particularly in terms of race, gender, disability and social class:

There are questions of resources and training within these mis-recognitions (“recognising that the barrier isn’t your impairment; it’s the lack of support” Group A) and focus group A in particular talked about making ‘reasonable adjustments’, while all groups were attentive to volunteering opportunities being aligned to personal needs and desired benefits:

A key area through which to signal a commitment to EDI was in engaged recruitment, involving marginalised communities from the outset, including in imagining volunteering opportunities, rather than as somewhere to ‘outreach’ to or recruit from. A more ‘of, with, for, by’ approach was preferred, with privilege at times overtly named:

Involvement, engagement and recruitment was seen as a way to start from and learn with minoritised groups, utilising different strategies and thinking through specific and specialist contributions that volunteers may offer:

While all participants expressed moments of hope and joy in and across the sector, particularly in terms of ‘making a difference’ to other people, including ‘small changes’, at times this was tempered with a sense of limitation in re-imagining bigger sector-wide and indeed societal changes:

The critique of filling a quota, or ticking a box, touches on superficial inclusion policies, as gestures which do not realise equality, diversity and inclusion as an ongoing and resourced effort. This is made all the more problematic when ‘doing good’ can also gloss over questions of reciprocity, remuneration and recognition, as well as broader social justice:

We have deliberately included lengthy quotes in this section to amplify the responses of the focus group participants. Collectively, they raise issues related to the perception of volunteering, economic barriers to access, as well as offering a critique about the ‘value’ of volunteering. The benefit of inclusive volunteering isn’t simply to diversify who volunteers in organisations; it also includes expanding how we count and value the role of volunteering in inclusive social and economic prosperity in Scotland.

Although ‘inclusion’ has been a priority of national volunteering agendas in Scotland for almost two decades, systemic inequalities, a lack of staffing and funding dedicated to volunteering, a lack of volunteer equalities data and entrenched organisational cultures continue to make formal volunteering inaccessible for many people, especially those from marginalised groups. However, it is again important to note that marginalised people have historically and currently volunteer informally at high rates, a practice necessitated by long-term exclusion from access to economic, social, political and cultural privilege.Despite significant barriers to societal and organisational change, the progress made in increasing youth engagement shows that with sustained commitment across the voluntary sector, coupled with adequate staffing and funding, change can be made. This research builds on existing inclusion initiatives, many of which focused on youth volunteering, and uses an intersectional model to analyse multiple dimensions of marginalisation and suggest key recommendations for inclusive volunteering programmes.

Barriers to volunteering

Our research has identified a few key barriers to inclusive volunteer engagement, including:

General under-confidence in EDI-focused policy, legislation and practice.

Many volunteer organisers expressed a nervousness or lack of confidence in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion, especially in relation to what their organisations were legally required to do to support a diverse range of people to volunteer. Many also noted uncertainty around what terms to use when speaking about various identities and backgrounds, and expressed a fear of ‘getting it wrong’.

A lack of organisation-specific strategies and targets for inclusion.

Whilst many volunteer organisers expressed their intentions to foster a welcoming environment for everyone, there was a lack of concrete commitments, plans and targets for inclusion work within organisations. Instead, volunteer organisers were more reactive to specific volunteer requirements. This is likely a function of volunteer engagement staffing and funding limitations noted by many respondents.A lack of proactive and specific inclusion strategies can lead to marginalised people being engaged as a ‘tick box’ exercise wherein they are expected to fit into structures that don’t suit their needs and desires for volunteering. This can create volunteering relationships that are not mutually beneficial and exploitative in that marginalised people fulfil organisational EDI quotas, but do not have positive volunteering experiences.If organisations do not take a proactive approach to inclusion, the onus is put on volunteers to highlight their needs and ask for adjustments, which can make them feel like ‘the problem’.

Lack of collection of and standardisation in data collection around volunteer demographics.

Collecting equalities data on volunteers is not legally mandated, and so many organisations do not collect such data, or collect some equalities data (e.g. on age), but not other equalities data (e.g. on race, sexuality, class).The lack of collection of equalities data, and the varying types of equalities data collected, makes it difficult to get an accurate understanding of who, and who does not, volunteer. Our research initially sought to collect volunteer equalities data in Scotland’s heritage sector and produce a benchmark for future inclusion work. However, as less than a third of respondents collected equalities data, there was not enough data to produce an accurate representation of volunteers.Organisations that do collect equalities data have expressed an unwillingness or anxiety around sharing their equalities data for sectoral and national benchmarking efforts. This could be for several reasons:

Recent events (COVID-19 and the cost of living crisis) disproportionately affecting marginalised people.

Broader societal inequalities shape how and if people can engage with volunteering. Marginalised people are more likely to have greater time and economic pressures that make it more difficult for them to volunteer, and the resulting lack of diversity in many voluntary organisations can lead to a lack of awareness of varying needs, abilities, cultures, lived experiences and backgrounds. Due to these embedded inequalities, marginalised people have been living through various periods of crisis. The contemporary cost of living crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic have disproportionately affected marginalised people, further entrenching inequalities and increasing barriers to volunteering.

Perception of volunteering as predominantly for white, non-disabled and middle class people continues to entrench existing inequalities.

Even though the majority of focus group participants volunteered formally and informally, expressed experiencing benefits from volunteering or were very interested in volunteering, there remained a perception that volunteering wasn’t ‘for them’ because:

Enablers to volunteering

Our key recommendations to overcome these barriers and enable a diverse range of people to volunteer are:

More active support for organisations undertaking inclusive volunteering initiatives.

More active support for inclusive volunteering could take the form of guidance and development programmes.Volunteer Scotland already provides extensive inclusive volunteering guidance at a national level, but more regional or sectoral advocacy bodies such as Make Your Mark would provide organisations with more tailored and regular support, and help to influence those within their sector around the importance of inclusive volunteering. Furthermore, advocacy bodies could develop smaller Communities of Practice, such as the Make Your Mark Volunteer Organisers Network, for peer-to-peer support around inclusive volunteering, including sharing what went well and suggestions of what to do differently.These advocacy bodies, as well as Third Sector Interfaces (TSIs), could also look to offer more tailored support for individual organisations to develop inclusive volunteering strategies and targets. Make Your Mark has trialled this approach by partnering with inclusive recruitment specialists at AAI Employability to support 10 voluntary organisations in Scotland to develop inclusive volunteering strategies. A full report detailing the process of creating inclusive volunteering strategies and recurring themes identified by participants is available for download. These organisations will also share their learning through a series of case studies, thereby providing more guidance for other organisations looking to develop their own inclusive volunteering strategies.Making inclusion commitments, plans and targets publicly available would give potential volunteers confidence that organisations are being proactive in their approach to inclusion, and that their needs would be met, thereby encouraging them to volunteer.

Co-designing volunteer programmes with marginalised people

Partnering with community, social, and third sector organisations led by under-represented groups and communities is the most effective way to model collaborative leadership in equalities. Working in partnership with organisations that are experts in equalities and inclusion would also help to upskill staff in relation to EDI and work to resolve people’s lack of confidence around EDI policy, legislation and practice.Working in partnership would position potential volunteers as having a wealth of knowledge and experience, rather than positioning them as beneficiaries of upskilling via the organisation. Involving marginalised people in all aspects of the volunteer programme also removes the onus from volunteers to opt-in or get involved.Involving marginalised people in the development of volunteer programmes will also inform inclusive recruitment practices and ensure that volunteers are recruited through a variety of methods, such as local LGBTQ+ cafés, Afro-Caribbean restaurants, WhatsApp groups, Facebook membership pages, and in a variety of formats, such as online, print, multiple languages, Braille, audio, video and BSL.

Development of flexible and varied volunteer roles

In light of the impact of embedded inequalities and the contemporary COVID-19 pandemic and the cost of living crisis on marginalised people, developing flexible and varied volunteer roles will be key to enabling marginalised people to volunteer despite increased disabilities and health issues, as well as mounting economic and time pressures. Volunteering, as a way for people to improve wellbeing, build social networks and practice or develop skills, can also help to tackle societal inequalities.Volunteer organisers could explore micro-volunteering, digital volunteering, event volunteering and family volunteering as varying ways for people to volunteer, and highlight on recruitment materials how roles can be adjusted to suit varying needs and interests of volunteers.

Increased funding for volunteer organisers and volunteer programmes.

Many people who organise volunteers do so as part of a larger role, such as community engagement or events management. Due to staffing and funding pressures, some people who organise volunteers are volunteers themselves. In order to ensure that volunteers have proper support and that inclusive volunteering strategies have adequate staffing to be enacted, organisations should prioritise hiring volunteer organisers.Beyond staffing, having an adequate budget for volunteers is especially critical in light of supporting volunteers during continued periods of crisis, including COVID-19 and the cost of living crisis. When writing funding bids, volunteer organisers could include budgets for paying volunteer expenses, as well covering childcare costs, offering snacks or meals and including provision for interpreters.

Increased promotion of volunteer stories from diverse backgrounds.

Sharing blog posts, audio recordings or videos of volunteers from a range of backgrounds talking about their volunteering experiences would play a key role in changing the perception of volunteering as predominantly for white, middle-class people.

Supporting organisations to collect and report equalities data.

Advocacy bodies and Third Sector Interfaces (TSIs) could signpost organisations to best practice in collecting equalities data, such as that from Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO), and Evaluation Scotland, as well as organise events and publicise case studies on the importance of collecting equalities data. For example, Make Your Mark intends for a large part of its 2024 annual conference to focus on the importance of collecting equalities data, as well as how to collect it and use it effectively to make change.Funders could also require that any project that involves volunteers report on volunteer demographics in line with standardised equalities forms developed by the SCVO. Advocacy bodies with memberships, such as Make Your Mark, could also require reporting on volunteer demographics as a requirement of membership.

Further research into inclusive volunteering

Whilst this research has illuminated key barriers and enablers for inclusive volunteering, as well as foregrounded the lived experiences of marginalised people, there is more to be done.Further focus groups could be held with marginalised people based outwith Scotland’s Central Belt, as marginalisation is experienced differently across and within urban and rural areas. Further focus groups could also be held with people with convictions as well as people with experience of long-term homelessness, perspectives that were missing in this research.The survey of heritage volunteer organisers could also be replicated across volunteer-involving organisations in other sectors to build a national picture of inclusive volunteering practices and provide points for comparison and difference between sectors.

Carr, F. (2023). Spotlight on: Volunteering. UK Heritage Pulse.Clement, L., & Lafferty, S. (2015). Youth Volunteering in East Dunbartonshire: The Lived Experience. Kirkintilloch: East Dunbartonshire Voluntary Action.Ellis, A. (2004). Generation V: Young People Speak Out On Volunteering. London: Institute for Volunteering Research.Gaskin, K. (2004). Young People, Volunteering and Civic Service: A Review of Literature. London: Institute for Volunteering Research.Hardill, I., & Baines, S. (2011). Enterprising Care? Unpaid Voluntary Action in the 21st Century. Bristol: Policy Press.Hardill, I., Baines, S., & Perri 6. (2007). Volunteering for All? Explaining Patterns of Volunteering and Identifying Strategies to Promote It. Policy & Politics, 35(3), 395-412.Harflett, N. (2015). "Bringing Them With Personal Interests": The Role of Cultural Capital in Explaining Who Volunteers. Voluntary Sector Review, 6(1), 3-19.Kanemura, R., Chan, O., & Farrow, A. (2022). Time Well Spent: Impact of COVID-19 on the Volunteer Experience. London: The National Council for Voluntary Organisations.Linning, M., & Jackson, G. (2017). Young People in Scotland Survey 2016. Stirling: Volunteer Scotland.Lukka, P., & Ellis, A. (2001). An Exclusive Construct: Exploring Different Cultural Concepts of Volunteering. Voluntary Action, 3(3), 87-109.Lum, T., & Lightfoot, E. (2005). The Effects of Volunteering on the Physical and Mental Health of Older People. Research on Aging, 27(1), 31-55.MacDonald, R. (1996). Labours of Love: Voluntary Work in a Depressed Local Economy. Journal of Social Policy, 25(1), 19-38.Maltman, D., Jackson, G. & Linning, M. (2020). Young People in Scotland Survey 2019. Stirling: Volunteer Scotland.**Maltman, D., Jackson, G., Stevenson, A. & Linning, M. (2019). **Volunteering in Scotland: Findings from the Scottish Household Survey 2007-2017 Full Report. Stirling: Volunteer Scotland.Phillips, R. (2010). Initiatives to Support Disadvantaged Young People: Enhancing Social Capital and Acknowledging Personal Capital. Journal of Youth Studies, 13(4), 489-504.The National Council for Voluntary Organisations (2021). Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Volunteering. London: The National Council for Voluntary Organisations.The Scottish Government (2014). Our Place in Time: The Historic Environment Strategy for Scotland. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.The Scottish Government (2018). Volunteering in the Year of Young People. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.The Scottish Government (2019). Volunteering for All: Our National Framework. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.The Scottish Government (2022). Workplace Adjustment: Onboarding Process - Equality Impact Statement. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.UK Heritage Pulse (2022). UK Heritage Pulse: Survey 2 - Survey Results and Analysis. UK Heritage Pulse.Volunteer Scotland (2022a). Young People in Scotland Survey. Stirling: Volunteer Scotland.Volunteer Scotland (2022b). Volunteer Practice Guidance Note Top Tips Inclusion in Volunteering - The Common Areas. Stirling: Volunteer Scotland.

Anderson, P., & Green, P. (2012). Beyond CV Building: The Communal Benefits of Student Volunteering. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 247-256.Bennett, M., & Parameshwaran, M. (2013). What Factors Predict Volunteering Among Youths in the UK? Third Sector Research Centre, Working Paper 102.Binder, M., & Freytag, A. (2013). Volunteering, Subjective Well-Being and Public Policy. Journal of Economic Psychology, 34, 97-119.Bradford, S., Hills, L., & Johnston, C. (2016). Unintended Volunteers: The Volunteering Pathways of Working Class Young People in Community Sport. International Journal of Sports Policy and Politics, 8(2), 231-244.Brewis, G., Russell, J., & Holdsworth, C. (2010). Bursting the Bubble: Students, Volunteering and the Community. London: Institute for Volunteering Research.Brooks, R. (2007). Young People’s Extra-Curricular Activities: Critical Social Engagement - Or “Something for the CV”? Journal of Social Policy, 36(3), 417-434.Clary, E., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. (1996). Volunteers’ Motivations: Findings From a National Survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(4), 485-505.

1. What is your postcode?

2. What is your age range?

3. What is your gender?

4. Do you identify as transgender?

5. What is your sexuality?

6. What is your religion?

7. What is your ethnicity?

8a. Do you have a physical or mental health condition lasting or expected to last 12 months or longer?

8b. (If answered "Yes" to 8); Does this illness or condition affect you in any of the following areas?

End of Form.