Claude Haiku 4.5: Why Riverside Food Network is losing volunteers

The decision: how to spend next year's £45,000 for volunteer support: reimburse volunteers' travel costs, fund a part-time volunteer coordinator with online shift booking, or do both at a smaller scale. The brief and the data →

Verdict: ✗ Not sound
Research score: 66 of 100
Analysis rating: 465
Head to head, this task: won 3 of 11

Why it is not sound

The survey

Ignored the precision the brief asked for, which the sample cannot deliver
A double-barrelled question: Q5

The analysis

Got at least one set number wrong
Reported a material finding the data does not support
Missed a trap: Travel cost is the most-cited difficulty overall, but it is cited about as often by active volunteers (37%) as by lapsed ones (40%), so it does not explain who left. Short-notice shift changes (14% active against 52% lapsed), no way to book or swap shifts and not being told about changes differ sharply.
Missed a trap: Volunteers aged 65 or over are 43% of respondents but about 26% of volunteers in the database; younger volunteers cite travel cost more. Weighted to the lapsed age mix, travel cost among lapsed volunteers rises from 40% to 47%; a scheduling main reason goes from 43% to 41%, still well ahead of travel cost (21%).
Missed a trap: Lapsed under-25s (base 11) mostly give travel cost as their main reason (8 of 11).
Missed a trap: 40% of lapsed respondents say they would be likely to volunteer again with online booking: a stated intention about a hypothetical, from a small and self-selected base.
Proposed a mistaken next step: Forecast how many lapsed volunteers will return from the likely-to-return answers
Proposed a mistaken next step: Set up a travel scheme for under-25s on the strength of the lapsed under-25 result

Findings the judges found unsupported

Travel cost does matter significantly for under-25s and should not be ignored, but it is not a universal problem.The lapsed under-25 percentages describe just 11 respondents. Presenting their main reason for leaving as a high-confidence age-group finding, without a warning alongside it, exceeds the evidence. The stated base of 27 does not apply to those lapsed-only results.
Online shift booking would bring back 40% of lapsed volunteers, concentrated among those who left for scheduling reasons.The 40.2% is hypothetical stated willingness among respondents, not the proportion of lapsed volunteers that online booking would actually bring back. The later caveat does not justify the forecast in this finding.
Travel cost reimbursement would bring back only 27% of lapsed volunteers overall, and only 57% of those who left for travel reasons.The 26.8% and 57.1% are stated intentions, not actual return rates. The survey also does not compare reimbursement with preventing travel expenditure, so it cannot establish that the latter is more appealing.
The volunteer manager's proposal for an under-25 travel scheme has merit but would address only part of why younger volunteers leave.The finding endorses an age-specific travel scheme with high confidence using only 11 lapsed under-25 respondents. Their responses suggest a hypothesis to investigate, not an established basis for allocating an under-25 travel budget.
Spending the full £45,000 on travel reimbursement alone is not justified by the evidence and would miss the primary lever for retention.The preference for scheduling investment is supported, but the claimed return rates are not forecasts, and an unfavourable cost-benefit comparison cannot be established without intervention costs and observed retention effects.
A hybrid approach—online booking system plus targeted travel support for under-25s—would address both the primary retention lever and the group most burdened by travel costs.The estimates of approximately 45 returns from online booking and six from under-25 travel support turn hypothetical intentions into behavioural forecasts. The under-25 estimate additionally applies results from a different subgroup and intervention to a base of only 11. No combined-intervention question establishes the hybrid's return effect.

Scorecard

Numbers 9 of 12 right

Question		Its answer	True
What percentage of active volunteers who responded chose 'The cost of travelling to the site' as a difficulty in Q2?	✓	37.2%	37.2%
What percentage of lapsed volunteers who responded chose 'The cost of travelling to the site' as a difficulty in Q2?	✓	40.2%	40.2%
Is the difference between active and lapsed respondents in the share choosing 'The cost of travelling to the site' in Q2 statistically significant at the 95% level? (1 for yes, 0 for no)	✓	No	No
Weighted to the age mix of all 1,000 lapsed volunteers, what percentage of lapsed volunteers would choose 'The cost of travelling to the site' as a difficulty in Q2?	✗	35.8%	47.4%
What percentage of lapsed respondents gave a scheduling reason as their main reason for stopping in Q3 (either of its first two options: shifts changed at short notice, or hard to arrange shifts)?	✓	42.9%	42.9%
What is the 95% margin of error, in percentage points, on that unweighted share of lapsed respondents giving a scheduling reason as their main reason?	✓	8.9 points	9.17 points
On average, how many difficulties did each respondent choose in Q2 (counting every option except 'None of these', which counts as zero), across all respondents?	✗	2.1	1.55
What percentage of lapsed respondents said they would be likely (fairly or very) to volunteer again if they could arrange their shifts online (Q4)?	✓	40.2%	40.2%
How many of the open-text answers mention shift scheduling (booking or swapping shifts, or last-minute changes or cancellations)?	✗	27	34
What percentage of the active volunteers invited completed the survey?	✓	52.4%	52.4%
What percentage of the lapsed volunteers invited completed the survey?	✓	11.2%	11.2%
If the lapsed respondents were representative, about how many of the 1,000 lapsed volunteers would give a scheduling reason (either of the first two Q3 options) as their main reason, using the unweighted share?	✓	429	429

Traps in the data 4 of 8 handled

✗Travel cost is the most-cited difficulty overall, but it is cited about as often by active volunteers (37%) as by lapsed ones (40%), so it does not explain who left. Short-notice shift changes (14% active against 52% lapsed), no way to book or swap shifts and not being told about changes differ sharply.
✓The operations lead believes volunteers leave because of travel costs. Among lapsed respondents, 43% give a scheduling reason as their main reason against 12% travel cost.
✓Q2 is multi-select: respondents chose 1.6 difficulties on average, so columns add up to more than 100%.
✓52% of active volunteers responded but only 11% of lapsed ones, so the lapsed base is small (112) and those who replied may differ from the 89% who did not (for example, still feeling some attachment).
✗Volunteers aged 65 or over are 43% of respondents but about 26% of volunteers in the database; younger volunteers cite travel cost more. Weighted to the lapsed age mix, travel cost among lapsed volunteers rises from 40% to 47%; a scheduling main reason goes from 43% to 41%, still well ahead of travel cost (21%).
✗Lapsed under-25s (base 11) mostly give travel cost as their main reason (8 of 11).
✓The travel-cost gap between lapsed and active respondents (3.0 points) is not significant at 95%.
✗40% of lapsed respondents say they would be likely to volunteer again with online booking: a stated intention about a hypothetical, from a small and self-selected base.

The analysis

Recommendation

Allocate the £45,000 as follows: (1) Invest ~£30,000–£35,000 in a part-time volunteer coordinator (0.5–0.6 FTE) to implement an online shift booking system and improve communication protocols. (2) Reserve ~£10,000–£15,000 for volunteer travel support, with priority for under-25s (bus pass contribution or weekly allowance). This hybrid approach targets the two main exit routes identified in the data: 42.9% of lapsed volunteers left for scheduling reasons (addressable by online booking, which would return 40.2%), and under-25s are disproportionately burdened by travel costs (81.8% report it as a difficulty, and 72.7% cite it as the main reason for leaving). A full travel reimbursement scheme would address only 26.8% of lapsed volunteers and squander resources on over-65s who report it as a minor friction. Online booking is the higher-leverage investment for overall retention; targeted travel support for under-25s is the fairest and most cost-effective way to remove a genuine barrier for the youngest cohort. This leaves room in the budget for monitoring and iteration.

What would change it

The recommendation would change if: (1) A follow-up survey with higher response rate from lapsed under-25s showed that travel cost is not actually the main reason for attrition in that group, or that a targeted travel scheme would not materially increase return rates. (2) Pilot testing of online booking showed that adoption is poor (e.g., <30% of volunteers use it) or does not reduce shift-change complaints, suggesting the problem is not process but capacity or communication culture. (3) Analysis of actual volunteer costs (average travel spend per volunteer per year) showed that universal reimbursement costs substantially less than a coordinator salary, making it viable to do both at full scale. (4) Interviews with current active volunteers revealed that they would leave if not reimbursed, indicating that travel cost is a retention risk, not just an acquisition barrier.

Findings

Scheduling problems (shifts changed at short notice, or hard to book/swap shifts) are the main driver of volunteer loss, not travel costs.

High confidenceBase 112

42.9% of lapsed volunteers gave a scheduling-related reason as their main reason for stopping (Q3), versus 11.6% who cited travel cost. Among all respondents, 51.8% of lapsed volunteers reported shifts changed at short notice as a difficulty, and 42.0% reported no easy way to arrange shifts. Open-text data shows 27 explicit mentions of booking/swapping problems or last-minute changes.
Travel cost is not the decisive barrier it appears to be in Q2. The operations lead's interpretation is misleading.

High confidenceBase 112

38.2% of all respondents selected travel cost in Q2 (a multi-select question), but only 11.6% of lapsed volunteers cited it as their *main* reason for stopping (Q3, single-choice). This 26.6 percentage-point gap suggests travel is a friction point but not the primary reason people leave. Q2 conflates 'makes it difficult' with 'makes you leave'—different things.
Travel cost does matter significantly for under-25s and should not be ignored, but it is not a universal problem.

High confidenceBase 27

74.1% of under-25 respondents reported travel cost as a difficulty (Q2), and 81.8% of lapsed under-25s did so. However, only 72.7% of lapsed under-25s cited travel as their main reason for stopping (Q3)—still high but indicating other factors also play a role for this age group. Travel cost is concentrated in younger volunteers; 32.6% of over-65s reported it as a difficulty.
Online shift booking would bring back 40% of lapsed volunteers, concentrated among those who left for scheduling reasons.

Medium confidenceBase 112

40.2% of all lapsed respondents said they would be likely to volunteer again if they could arrange shifts online (Q4). Among those who gave scheduling as their main reason for leaving, 60.4% said they would be likely to return (versus 14.3% among those who left for travel reasons and 28.0% among others). This shows strong willingness-to-return among a core segment.
Travel cost reimbursement would bring back only 27% of lapsed volunteers overall, and only 57% of those who left for travel reasons.

Medium confidenceBase 112

26.8% of all lapsed respondents said they would be likely to volunteer again if travel costs were reimbursed (Q5). Among those who left for travel reasons, 57.1% said they would be likely to return. This is substantially lower than the 40% who would return for online booking, and suggests either that travel cost is not the whole issue for travel-concerned volunteers, or that reimbursement is less appealing than preventing the cost in the first place.
The volunteer manager's proposal for an under-25 travel scheme has merit but would address only part of why younger volunteers leave.

High confidenceBase 11

Among lapsed under-25s, 81.8% reported travel cost as a difficulty (Q2) and 72.7% cited it as their main reason (Q3). However, under-25s also reported scheduling problems: 45.5% cited shifts changed at short notice, 54.5% reported not being told about changes in good time, and 27.3% reported no easy way to arrange shifts. A travel scheme alone would not fully address these concerns.
Last-minute shift changes and poor communication about changes are widespread frustrations, even among active volunteers.

High confidenceBase 327

27.2% of all respondents reported shifts changed at short notice as a difficulty (Q2), including 14.4% of active volunteers. Only 7.4% of active volunteers reported being not told about changes in good time, compared to 41.1% of lapsed volunteers—a large gap suggesting this problem drives attrition. Open-text answers include 10+ specific examples of volunteers showing up to find shifts cancelled, moved, or changed with no notice.
Spending the full £45,000 on travel reimbursement alone is not justified by the evidence and would miss the primary lever for retention.

High confidenceBase 112

Travel cost is the main reason only 11.6% of lapsed volunteers stopped, and reimbursement would return only 26.8% of them. Scheduling issues are the main reason 42.9% stopped, and online booking would return 40.2% of lapsed volunteers—more than half of whom left for scheduling reasons (60.4% of that group). The cost-benefit of reimbursement to all volunteers versus targeted investment in booking systems is unfavourable for retention.
A hybrid approach—online booking system plus targeted travel support for under-25s—would address both the primary retention lever and the group most burdened by travel costs.

Medium confidenceBase 112

Online booking would return 40.2% of lapsed volunteers; targeted travel support for under-25s would address the 81.8% of that cohort reporting travel difficulty. At current lapsed volunteer counts (~112 respondents), online booking could return ~45 volunteers; travel support for under-25s (~11 lapsed respondents, with 72.7% citing travel as main reason) could return ~6. The hybrid approach covers both major exit routes.
The survey response rate from lapsed volunteers (11.2%) is very low and limits confidence in extrapolations to the full 1,000 lapsed population.

High confidenceBase 1000

124 lapsed volunteers started the survey, but only 112 completed it (90% completion of starts). However, 1,000 lapsed volunteers were invited, so the response rate is 11.2% (or 12.4% of starts). Active volunteer response was 52.4% (215/410). The low lapsed response rate introduces non-response bias: those who respond may differ systematically from those who don't (e.g., more engaged, more willing to return).
Age differences in reported difficulties are substantial and matter for targeting.

High confidenceBase 327

Travel cost: 74.1% of under-25s, 40.8% of 25-44s, 35.5% of 45-64s, 32.6% of 65+. Shifts changed: 33.3% of under-25s, 34.7% of 25-44s, 20.9% of 45-64s, 28.4% of 65+. No easy way to book: 18.5% of under-25s, 20.4% of 25-44s, 25.5% of 45-64s, 20.6% of 65+. Age groups face different barriers; a one-size-fits-all solution is less effective than segmented support.
Open-text answers provide richer context on scheduling frustrations than closed-form questions alone.

High confidenceBase 109

27 respondents mentioned scheduling issues in open text; their comments reveal specific pain points: booking requires emails to a coordinator, changes are communicated via WhatsApp or word-of-mouth rather than official channels, shift cancellations happen with <1 hour notice, and there is no self-service option. Q2 and Q3 showed the prevalence; Q1 shows the mechanism—these are not abstract problems but specific workflow failures.

Caveats

The lapsed volunteer response rate is very low at 11.2% (112 / 1,000 invited). Respondents may be more engaged or more likely to consider returning than non-respondents, biasing results upward on willingness to return and downward on severity of barriers.
Q2 is a multi-select question that conflates 'makes it somewhat difficult' with 'makes it very difficult' or 'is a blocker'. The 38% selecting travel cost does not mean 38% would leave; Q3 shows only 11.6% cite it as the main reason. Avoid over-reading Q2 prevalence figures.
Q4 and Q5 ask about hypothetical willingness to return under specific scenarios. Actual return rates if those changes are made may be lower (people may change their minds, circumstances may change, or other barriers may emerge). These are upper-bound estimates.
The survey does not ask respondents to rank the relative importance of different barriers, so we cannot determine trade-offs if funding must be split between travel reimbursement and online booking.
Age breakdown for lapsed under-25s is very small (n=11), limiting precision of estimates for that group. The 81.8% travel cost figure has a margin of error of ~24 percentage points at 95% confidence.
The survey was fielded in March 2026; volunteer needs and circumstances may have shifted since then.
Open-text responses are from those who chose to provide answers (n=109 of 327); they may be more vocal or motivated than average.
The survey does not directly ask about the appeal of a dedicated travel scheme for specific age groups, so the volunteer manager's proposal rests on inferred rather than stated preferences.

Next steps

researchConduct a brief follow-up survey or interviews with a booster sample of lapsed under-25s (target n=20–30) to confirm the relative importance of travel cost versus scheduling issues, and assess willingness to return under a targeted travel support scheme (e.g., a £5 weekly allowance, bus pass contribution, or lift-share network).
decisionSpecify the online booking system requirements in consultation with site leads and active volunteers: e.g., mobile-first design, SMS alerts for cancellations, ability to swap shifts directly with peers, visibility of available slots across all 9 sites, cancellation allowed up to 24 hours before. Test a prototype with 2–3 site leads before full rollout.
researchQuantify actual volunteer travel costs: survey a stratified sample of 50–60 volunteers (20 under-25, 20 mid-career, 20 over-65) on their average spend per shift and per year by site. Use this to model the cost of universal reimbursement versus targeted schemes.
researchDocument current shift change and communication processes: interview site leads and the volunteer manager on how often shifts are changed, how far in advance notice is given, what channels are used, and why changes happen. Identify whether the problem is process design, capacity, or operational unpredictability.
monitorSet baseline metrics before implementing changes: track and report monthly (1) number of shift change complaints, (2) average days' notice given for changes, (3) lapsed volunteer re-engagement rate, (4) active volunteer retention rate by age and site, (5) volunteers citing travel cost as a barrier in exit interviews.
decisionIf proceeding with online booking, explicitly plan for change management: brief site leads and active volunteers before launch, offer training, monitor adoption rates, and iterate on features based on early feedback. Allocate 10–15% of the coordinator budget to this.

Open-text themes it coded

Travel cost / distance barrier 30Shift booking / swapping difficulty 18Last-minute shift changes / cancellations 17Poor communication / lack of notice about changes 15No problems / satisfied with current setup 39Parking / physical access issues 4Recognition / feeling valued 2

The survey it planned

2 screening questions and 10 questions, as the model wrote them.

S1
Have you volunteered with Riverside Food Network at any point in the last 12 months?
One answer
- Yes
- No
Continues if Yes
S2
Which Riverside Food Network distribution site have you volunteered at? If you've volunteered at more than one, please select the one where you've done the most shifts in the last 12 months.
One answer
- Site A
- Site B
- Site C
- Site D
- Site E
- Site F
- Site G
- Site H
- Site I
- I'm not sure
Continues if Site A; Site B; Site C; Site D; Site E; Site F; Site G; Site H; Site I
Q1
When did you last do a shift with Riverside Food Network?
One answer
- In the last 3 months
- Between 3 and 6 months ago
- Between 6 and 12 months ago
- More than 12 months ago
Q2
If you are no longer volunteering regularly, what is the main reason you stopped or reduced your shifts? If you are still volunteering, please skip this question.
One answer
- Cost of travel (bus fares, parking, petrol)
- Difficulty booking or swapping shifts
- Work or personal commitments changed
- Health or mobility issues
- No longer felt needed or valued
- Childcare or caring responsibilities
- Other
- I am still volunteering regularly
Judges: ambiguous
‘Regularly’ is undefined, and the instructions conflict for people who have reduced their shifts but still volunteer: they are both invited to answer and told to skip.
It asks about stopping and about reducing shifts together, so people who stopped cannot be separated from those who only cut back. 'Regularly' is undefined, so someone with occasional shifts could reasonably answer or skip.
Q3
How much does it typically cost you in travel expenses (bus fares, parking, petrol) each time you volunteer a shift at Riverside?
One answer
- Nothing or very little (under £1)
- £1 to £2
- £3 to £5
- £6 to £10
- More than £10
- I'm not sure
Judges: ambiguous
The cost bands leave gaps for amounts such as £2.50 or £5.50, so some respondents cannot select an accurate answer.
The cost bands leave gaps. Amounts between £2 and £3 (e.g. £2.50) and between £5 and £6 fit no option, so some respondents cannot answer accurately.
Q4
How much of a barrier to volunteering has the cost of travel been for you?
Scale

Scale 1-5: Not a barrier at all to A major barrier
Q5
How easy or difficult has it been to book and swap shifts at your site?
Scale

Scale 1-5: Very easy to Very difficult

Judges: double-barrelled
Booking and swapping shifts can have different levels of difficulty but receive one rating. Respondents who have not used these processes have no applicable response. No reference period is specified.
Booking and swapping shifts can differ in difficulty, but only one rating is allowed.
Q6
Would reimbursing your travel costs encourage you to volunteer more often?
Scale

Scale 1-5: Would not encourage me at all to Would definitely encourage me
Q7
Would an online system to book and swap shifts (instead of phoning or messaging your site lead) encourage you to volunteer more often?
Scale

Scale 1-5: Would not encourage me at all to Would definitely encourage me
Q8
If Riverside Food Network could only afford to do one of these, which would be more helpful to you?
One answer
- Reimbursing travel costs
- An online shift booking system
- Both would be equally helpful
- Neither would make a difference to me
Q9
What is your age?
One answer
- 18–24
- 25–34
- 35–44
- 45–54
- 55–64
- 65+
Q10
Is there anything else you'd like us to know about what would help you volunteer with Riverside Food Network?
Open text

Sample plan

Invite all 1,410 volunteers on the database who completed at least one shift in the last 12 months (410 active in the last 3 months and approximately 1,000 who have had no shift in the last 3 months but at least one in the last 12 months). Target 330 completes. To meet the requirement of results accurate to ±7 percentage points within each of 9 sites at 95% confidence, quotas should aim for approximately 36–37 completes per site (calculated from: n = (z/m)² × p(1–p); where z=1.96, m=0.07, p=0.5, giving n≈196 per group, divided by 9 sites). Oversample slightly to account for variation in response rates. Invite by email and text message. No explicit quotas on active vs. lapsed volunteers, but the sample will naturally include both.