-A +A
Volume VI, Issue 1, October 2005

Developing Volunteering Infrastructure: National Down or Local Up?


Keyboard Roundtables
Moderated by Rob Jackson
Contributors:
Chris Krinock Davis, Maria Elena Pereira Johannpeter and Michael Riou

Volunteering infrastructure is a crucial element to encourage the development of a broad range of meaningful volunteering opportunities and the engagement of a diverse spectrum of people in volunteering. Whether it is “peak bodies” engaging in policy debate with national government, volunteer centres providing local brokerage of volunteering opportunities, or other organisations delivering many other services at any of the levels in-between, volunteering infrastructure permeates all we do as volunteer management professionals.

In this Keyboard Roundtable we’ll explore the nature of volunteering infrastructure and particularly the roles, if any, that national and state/provincial/regional bodies have to play in developing and nurturing a strong culture and practice of volunteerism. Participants come from Brazil, Australia, the USA, and England.

The full article is only available to subscribers.

Subscribers: Log in at top left or, if you have logged in and cannot access the article, your subscription has probably expired. Renew Now.

Non-subscribers: Subscribe now for full year ($45) or 48-hour access ($10).

Comments

Chang-ho Lee, Secretary General Korea BBB Association, Seoul NA KR

January 3rd, 2006, 8:12am

I recently presented a paper on volunteering infrastructure in a winter conference of the Korea Academy of Volounteering. It examines the cases of England, Japan, and the U.S. and presents an implication for the Korean volunteering community. I generally agree with the opinions of the participants at this roundtable, however, their discussions appear to be too much concentrated on the roles and functions of volunteer centers. Council organization like CVSs (Councils for Voluntary Service) in England and/or NPO Supporting Centers in Japan are also providing very important roles as volunteering infrastructures at both local and national levels. My examination of the relationship between CVSs and Volunteer Centers in England shows that they have had conflict with each other with regard to the identity of volunteering infrastructure since Compact in 1998.

P.S. Korea passed a bill of Volunteering Promotion Act in Congress on June 30, 2005, and will put it in effect from Feb.8,2006.

Rob Jackson, Regional Volunteering Development Manager Volunteering England

January 5th, 2006, 8:13am

Thanks for the comments on the roundtable (see below). I'm glad you found it useful.

I wanted to pick up on your comment that your "examination of the relationship between CVSs and Volunteer Centers in England shows that they have had conflict with each other with regard to the identity of volunteering infrastructure since Compact in 1998".

In England about half of the 320 Volunteer Centre's are hosted by CVS's and half are independent. Both Volunteering England and NACVS (as the umbrella bodies for VC's and CVS's)have recently re-stated our belief that there is no right model for delivering volunteering infrastructure locally. Rather, our mutual belief is that what works locally is best and this is borne out by a diversity of approaches to delivering quality local infrastructure for volunteerism across England.

The conflict you refer to is more rightly a result of a debate about the distinct nature of volunteering infrastructure within the broader voluntary and community sector (VCS).

The Compact in England between government and the VCS recognises that volunteering, whilst a part of the VCS, is a distinct aspect if it that merits its own attention and associated infrastrcuture. As a result, volunteering receives special attention and focus within government that others in the VCS don't always see as acceptable as they do not see volunteering as such a crucial and distinctive element of the VCS.

Chang-ho Lee,

January 15th, 2006, 8:14am

Thank you for your kind explanation and comments on my response. I also understand that the conflict surrounding the volunteering infrastructure in England was mostly between VCs and VCS. However, I am wondering if there wasn't any conflict in the roles and functions of the two entities at the local level in England. During the debate on volunteering infrastructure for the past two to three years, VCs had insisted that they were 'specialist volunteering infrastructure'. What does that mean? Wasn't there any conflict involved between VCs and CVSs? Can CVSs also be regarded as 'specialist volunteering infrastructure'? Your further comments are appreciated in advance.

Steve McCurley, Editor, e-Volunteerism

January 16th, 2006, 8:15am

To extend Rob's comments to another country, the United States has always experienced a similar situation with Volunteer Centers - some are independent charities, some are within United Way organizations, and the rest may be housed practically anywhere (state government, another charity, an educational institution, etc0. This has always been a bit confusing when trying to determine mission, identity, pattern of services,national affiliation, etc. Rob's answer is technically correct - local volunteer infrastructure organizations should best determine and reflect their own community's needs - but the reality, at least in the US, has turned out sometimes to be a bit messier and more politically contentious.

Rob Jackson, Regional Volunteering Development Manager Volunteering England

January 23rd, 2006, 8:16am

Volunteer Centres are really generalist volunteering infrastructure agencies as they deal with a general range of volunteering and volunteers across a given area. The term specialist volunteering infrastructure is more rightly applied to those agencies who provide services, brokerage for example, to specific audiences of volunteers and Volunteer Involving Organisations. An example might be Health and Social Care or arts and culture sectors.

In theory, Councils for Voluntary Service can indeed be considered generalist volunteering infrastructure, where they are deemed to deliver the six core functions to the volunteering sector which define such an agency, these being:

1. Brokerage
2. Marketing volunteering
3. Good practice development
4. Developing volunteering opportunities
5. Policy response and campaigning
6. Strategic development of volunteering

The reality is that where Council for Voluntary Services do deliver these six core functions, it is usually through a Volunteer Centre which is operated as part of the Council for Voluntary Service. Where the Volunteer Centre is a separate agency delivering these core functions then the Council for Voluntary Service is not usually a provider of generalist volunteering infrastructure as it focuses more on the core mission of such agencies, which is to build the capacity of the Voluntary and Community Sector locally.