Attend’s reflection on the King’s Fund report
The King’s Fund published a new report today, entitled ‘Volunteering in acute trusts in England – understanding the scale and impact’. This was undertaken when they realised from earlier work that there is a significant lack of data on a local level on volunteering in NHS acute trusts.
We have been highlighting this lack of data and robust research for some time, and welcome the research as an initial attempt to understand the scale, scope and value of volunteers in NHS acute trusts in England.
There are a few areas however that we feel the report doesn’t consider, and wanted to take the opportunity to highlight these areas with a view to future research and truly understanding the bigger picture of volunteering in NHS acute trusts.
A key finding in the report is that out of the 3 million people volunteering for health, disability and welfare organisations in England, approximately 78,000 people volunteer in acute trusts. However, as the report openly admits, this statistic fails to capture data about volunteers supporting the work of external groups who operate in acute trusts. It highlights that the limited data could be due to the respondents being unaware of how many volunteers are recruited by external organisations. If this is the case, it presents quite a sobering picture of acute trusts having little knowledge of who in the local community is ‘reaching in’ towards them.
From our own knowledge as a member body for independent volunteering organisations in health and social care, we know that there are many such organisations that offer their services to acute trusts. Attend’s data highlights that Friends Groups alone have an average of 46 members and 343 supporters, often with 3 or 4 Friends Groups linked to separate units in each acute trust. So we would suggest that when considering volunteering in NHS acute trusts we need to recognise and gather evidence on this sector of volunteering as well as those working within the trusts internal structure.
In particular, we would like research to explore how this group of volunteers and supporters represents evidence of significant reach into the local community. The volunteering endeavours of these groups create positively fertile ground for acute trusts to develop their community engagement strategies.
The report also cites an £11 return on every £1 invested in volunteering, However that is for volunteer-involving organisations with paid staff infrastructure. It is worth noting that 85% of charities in the UK are ‘volunteer led and run’ organisations, with a much higher return on investment.
The report also talks about ‘service delivery’ volunteering, which reflects the artificial division made by acute trusts between service-delivery and fundraising. Therefore the report fails to capture and celebrate the volunteering contribution to fundraising. Last year, Attend’s member groups raised £56.8 million through their voluntary fundraising activities.
So although we wholeheartedly welcome research that starts to quantify and explore volunteering in acute trusts we would suggest that this report is missing out the contribution of a large section of the volunteers and is actually about volunteering FOR acute trusts, not volunteering IN acute trusts. By not capturing sufficient data to compare the contribution of ‘independent external volunteering’ and ‘trust organised volunteering’, we are yet to fully understand how volunteering is enabling acute trusts to engage with their wider community, and also what value for money the volunteers across England really offer.
For a Chief Executive of an acute trust, this would be key information to establish how best to invest, what is essentially a limited budget, into volunteering.