This is taken from my correspondence with a friend seeking to recruit volunteers to work with at-risk kids in the Greater Los Angeles area. From what I could tell, this project was early in the planning stages. Some of it may be helpful to me or someone else, despite the fact that I'm too lazy to tighten the structure and organize the points better. If there's interest, I may do so -- however, most of these things are self-evident after a bit of thought and reflection, and are probably treated better elsewhere.
I wrote up something on the lessons learned recruiting volunteers in college, linked here. However, it's only somewhat relevant to your cause, since (1) I assume you're trying to recruit people who are out of school, and (2) the type of events might be geared toward a more long-term, regular commitment than one-off events. Still perhaps helpful as a testimonial for things that worked and didn’t within an institutional setting.
This summary, written after the rest of this note, may be out of order. But I thought a concise list would be helpful if you’re short on time.
In summary, I’d recommend thinking about the following:
(1) Make the mission clear, and the tasks clearly related to the mission, with visible signs of progress
(2) Make the time commitment clear and reasonable, with a mix of one-time and continuing commitments.
(3) Make it fun. Do your best to make sure volunteers get to spend time with each other, as well as on their tasks. Social work should be social.
(4) Make sure it’s clear there’s a place for everyone, shy or outgoing, well-spoken or mumbling, physically strong or unable to benchpress a ferret.
(5) Never, ever, let leader ego ruin a good cause. Whether this means keeping the structure informal or clearly defined depends upon the task and the group of people involved. But settle fights early by defining the mission and its scope clearly and agreeing upon the philosophy toward volunteers (inclusive and low-commitment vs. exclusive but highly committed toward periodic events, etc.)
From the point of view of well-intentioned but wary possible participants, the main concern is probably fear of a large time commitment. It feels bad to flake out, and really bad if there's an at-risk kid who is going to be hurt by it. People are always busy, and so it's tough to sell a weekly commitment, or something that requires 50 hours of training (as some social service work with children requires).
You can address this concern of people saying "But I just don't have time" by making the level of commitment a flexible quantity (though pretty fixed after an initial adjustment period). Also make it clear exactly how much time is required. Hearing "weekly one-hour mentoring sessions with an at-risk student" sounds intimidating. But emphasizing that it's only one hour a week can help.
Alternatively - if possible - include a mix of one-off events and more consistent commitment. If your project is in the early stages of development, it might make sense to do one-time events (like a science day). Turnout will be higher for less open-ended, well-defined events like this, which also serve as an introduction to both organizers and participants to opportunities and challenges associated with further work in that field.
The other major problem with recruiting volunteers is that volunteer efforts are frequently unfocused efforts with a vague mission. Everyone’s got good ideas, and a wish to help. But few are able to translate that into something that gets people excited and sustains enough interest to get through the graveyard of good intentions that claims most projects a few weeks/months in.
Vague goals can also lead to projects where a participant really questions how much help is being given. A tour of Skid Row coupled with an hour in a soup kitchen might assuage some liberal guilt, but a thoughtful person probably would feel a little weirded out and discouraged by the sheer scope of the challenge.
Finally, I think it’s important for it to be fun at some level. I once worked with students at another college who were going into shelters to help homeless people with resumes and job skills. While an important and valuable component, it wasn’t fun, and it was wholly unpleasant. It was isolating and not conducive to a lot of interaction with other volunteers – one of the chief sources of “fun” and connection in volunteering. It wasn’t clear how well we were helping them – we never received feedback on successes (or failures). We didn’t receive any training; I was, and remain, pretty crappy at resumes and cover letters, and questioned whether I really should be doing this.
Contrast that with Red Cross blood drives. There’s plenty of opportunity to interact with people, from the nurses to others donating blood. So even though donating blood might be (1) more physically demanding, and (2) more removed from the people one is helping, it is actually more enjoyable because of the people presence and the feeling of being part of something with a clear, identifiable and understandable purpose.
I also like Habitat for Humanity is because (1) the mission and benchmarks for progress are clearly definable and quite visible, (2) brings participants in personal contact with the people they are helping - participants who, by virtue of their "sweat equity", don't come off as charity cases, (3) and creates a social atmosphere by which volunteers actually get to interact with other volunteers without feeling like they’re neglecting their responsibility.
Obviously, if the goal is tutoring kids, then it will involve a lot of one-on-one time with students. And, especially in the case of tutoring, training and student participation might not be as solid as we’d like. But in a case that doesn’t lend itself to the model of blood drives or Habitat builds, it becomes even more important to think creatively about how to get that “fun” factor and begin forging that group identification that will help it feed on itself.
I haven’t mentioned leadership here. That’s because I think tons of volunteer efforts are plagued by ego and poor communication. (I’m guilty as charged on both counts.) Having attractive, happy people helps – the young, hot Asian coordinator I hired got people to stop at the table, while cynical, tired, I’m-working-on-my-thesis-written-in-my-eyes Ryan was, to put it mildly, somewhat less approachable. Organization is important, but charisma isn’t necessary. Sorry to say it, but people will stick around for the other people – either volunteers or people being helped – and not for whoever is in charge. And that’s how it should be.
What I will mention quickly here is that there are a lot of ways of helping. I felt comfortable hugging homeless people. Some people preferred to work on grants. Some hosted fundraising dinners. NONE of these are better than the others. The mission is the same, and all parts are necessary. Doing more “dirty” work doesn’t put one on the path toward canonization or greater esteem. If someone believes that, well, try to mitigate the damage of self-righteousness as best as you can. But there’s a place for everyone. It’s important to help people with that in the beginning – and later, if needed or desired, ease them into other roles.
Good luck with your project. Hope you’ve got a good team – it’s hard to go it alone, and ill-advised for a number of reasons.
Hope this helps.
- Ryan
No comments:
Post a Comment