GPT-6.1 Sol: 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: 89 of 100
Analysis rating: 1,650
Head to head, this task: won 9 of 9

Why it is not sound

The survey

Answer bands that overlap or leave gaps

The analysis

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.

Scorecard

Numbers 12 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?	✓	47.4%	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?	✓	9.2 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?	✓	1.55	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)?	✓	36	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 7 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

Choose a staged combined programme within the £45,000, with operational coordination as the first priority and a bounded travel-support component. Cost a viable part-time coordinator and simple online booking service that also provides recurring shifts, confirmed bookings, swap arrangements, direct notifications and clear responsibility for cancellations. Retain phone/message access. Use a defined remaining budget for a transparent, capped travel-support pilot available across ages, with targeted outreach to younger volunteers and others reporting financial barriers; test an upfront option so people unable to advance fares are not excluded. Do not commit all funds to universal reimbursement or restrict support to under-25s on this evidence. Do not split the money so thinly that neither service works: establish the minimum viable operational cost before fixing the travel allocation, and phase delivery if necessary. Release further spending against observed attendance, retention, service reliability and affordability rather than survey intentions.

What would change it

Shift more funding towards travel if better outreach confirms widespread financial barriers and a real reimbursement or upfront-fare trial produces more sustained additional volunteer shifts per pound than operational improvements. Shift more towards coordination if travel uptake or sustained effects are low while rota and communication changes improve attendance and retention. An age-restricted scheme would require substantially stronger evidence of concentrated unmet need, a clear rationale for excluding similarly affected older volunteers, and a demonstrated advantage over needs-based access. If coordinator, software and implementation costs leave too little for a meaningful travel pilot, phase the interventions rather than assume a smaller-scale combined package is viable. If most cancellations result from constraints a coordinator cannot change, redesign the operational proposal before funding it.

Findings

Operations lead: no, travel being the most frequently selected difficulty overall does not establish that all £45,000 should go to reimbursement. Travel is a substantial support need, but mentioning a difficulty is different from identifying why someone stopped or showing which intervention will work.

High confidenceBase 327

Travel cost was selected by 38.2% of all 327 respondents, including 37.2% of active respondents (80/215) and 40.2% of lapsed respondents (45/112). The active–lapsed difference is not statistically significant at 95% using a two-sided two-proportion test, approximately p=0.60. Among lapsed respondents, 51.8% reported short-notice shift changes, while only 11.6% (13/112) named travel cost as their main reason for stopping.
Prioritise reliable rota management, easier booking and timely notifications as a package. Buying an online booking tool alone would leave important problems unresolved.

Medium confidenceBase 112

Among 112 lapsed respondents, 29.5% named short-notice changes and 13.4% difficulty arranging shifts as their main reason: 48/112, or 42.9%, together. The approximate unweighted 95% margin of error is ±9.2 percentage points under a simple-random-sample assumption. A further 12.5% named inadequate notice, bringing these three operational reasons to 55.4% (62/112). In Q2, 42.0% reported difficulty arranging shifts and 41.1% inadequate notice; these overlapping selections must not be added. Thirty-six open answers describe scheduling problems, including cancelled shifts, uncertain bookings and repeated chasing.
Chair of trustees: this survey cannot tell us how many lost volunteers will return after online booking is introduced. It identifies an interested group to invite into a real-world trial, not a return forecast.

Low confidenceBase 112

Forty-five of 112 lapsed respondents, or 40.2%, said they would be fairly or very likely to return with online booking. This was 60.4% (29/48) among those whose main reason was one of the first two scheduling options. Travel reimbursement attracted 26.8% (30/112) overall. These are hypothetical intentions, not observed behaviour. The conditional projection of about 429 out of 1,000 concerns scheduling as the main reason for stopping, not the number who would return.
Volunteer manager: the under-25 result is a strong signal for further investigation and accessible travel support, but too small and selective to justify an under-25-only scheme.

Low confidenceBase 11

Nine of 11 lapsed under-25 respondents (81.8%) selected travel cost as a difficulty, and eight (72.7%) named it as their main reason for stopping. One respondent changes this subgroup's percentage by 9.1 points. Under-25s comprise only 9.8% of lapsed respondents versus 22% of the lapsed database. Travel cost also affected 17/36 lapsed respondents aged 45–64 and 10/44 aged 65 or over. Open answers include a pensioner struggling with bus fares.
Travel need may be understated by the unweighted lapsed results. Include travel assistance in the decision, but do not treat age weighting as a cure for nonresponse.

Medium confidenceBase 112

Applying the database age shares to the lapsed age-specific travel selections gives 22%×9/11 + 30%×9/21 + 23%×17/36 + 25%×10/44 = 47.4%, compared with 40.2% unweighted. This adjustment uses just 112 respondents and relies heavily on the small younger groups.
Treat volunteer support as a set of distinct needs rather than a single universal problem. Reimbursement addresses expense, not long journeys, inaccessible parking or unstable shifts.

Medium confidenceBase 327

Respondents selected an average of 1.55 difficulties in Q2: approximately 508 selections across 327 people, excluding 'None of these'. Among the 109 open answers, 22 mention travel expense or ways to reduce it, nine mention journey time or distance, and two specifically mention parking availability or access. Themes overlap. Suggestions include bus fares, parking reimbursement, lift sharing and assignment to a closer site.
Keep working arrangements for satisfied volunteers and retain a phone or message route alongside online booking. Introduce a simple service improvement, not a compulsory digital-only system.

Medium confidenceBase 327

In Q2, 28.4% of active respondents (61/215) selected 'None of these'. Thirty-eight of the 109 open answers offered no change or expressed satisfaction. Other answers request recurring bookings, clear confirmation, self-service swaps and access to shifts across all nine sites. Several older volunteers explicitly request online tools; age alone is not a reliable indicator of digital preference.
The survey supports setting priorities, but cannot support a precise population-wide return estimate or an exact budget split.

High confidenceBase 327

Reported completion rates are 215/410 = 52.4% for active volunteers and 112/1,000 = 11.2% for lapsed volunteers. Respondents aged 65 or over account for 45.1% of the active sample versus 30% in the database, and 39.3% of the lapsed sample versus 25%. No intervention costs, travel expenditure totals, actual return behaviour or combined-option results were supplied.

Caveats

This was an attempted census with voluntary response, not a probability sample. Low lapsed participation and uneven participation by age leave substantial scope for nonresponse bias; the direction of that bias is unknown.
The reported completion rates divide the supplied active and lapsed completes by the corresponding invitation totals. Invitation status was defined by database activity, whereas analytical status was defined by S1. Reconcile these classifications before treating the rates as exact within-invitation-cohort response rates.
Active volunteers are overrepresented in the combined sample: 65.7% of respondents versus 29.1% of the invited population. The total Q2 percentages therefore should not be interpreted as population-wide prevalence.
The 47.4% weighted travel estimate corrects the lapsed age distribution only. It assumes respondents resemble nonrespondents within each age group and does not correct other selection differences. Younger subgroup estimates are particularly unstable.
The significance test and ±9.2-point margin of error use conventional independent-binomial/simple-random-sample calculations without a finite-population correction. They describe sampling uncertainty under those assumptions, not uncertainty caused by nonresponse or measurement bias. A nonsignificant travel gap does not prove the groups are identical.
Q2 allows multiple difficulties, while Q3 forces one main reason. Do not add overlapping Q2 percentages or interpret reported difficulties and retrospective reasons as proven causes of leaving.
Scheduling in the numerical answers means only the first two Q3 options. The separate communication reason is included only in the explicitly labelled broader 55.4% operational total.
Q4 and Q5 measure stated intention under hypothetical conditions, not actual return or sustained participation. Their fixed order may affect comparisons. Respondent-level overlap is unavailable, so the likely percentages cannot be added to estimate the effect of doing both.
No intervention question was asked of active volunteers, so the survey does not estimate how reimbursement or booking changes would affect retention of current volunteers.
The 109 open answers are a self-selected subset. Theme counts are qualitative coding counts, not population prevalence. Each respondent is counted once within a theme and may appear in multiple themes.
The scheduling open-text count includes booking, swaps, rota stability and notice of shift changes. V308 is coded as communication about a venue change, not shift scheduling; references to travel or parking alone are not scheduling mentions.
Site results show where respondents volunteered most often, not site-specific difficulty rates. Some answers describe another site, so they should not be used to rank sites without follow-up.
There are no data on salary and software costs, travel claims per shift, shift frequency, implementation capacity, or the return from a combined intervention. The survey cannot determine a defensible exact allocation of £45,000.

Next steps

decisionCost the minimum viable operational package and alternative travel schemes before approving the final allocation.
researchReconcile survey records with invitation status and produce age-by-status weighted sensitivity analyses from respondent-level data.
researchContact a purposive sample of nonresponding lapsed volunteers, particularly under-45s, and investigate cancellation workflows with site leads.
experimentPilot coordination, self-service booking and direct change notifications through a staggered rollout across comparable sites.
experimentRun a capped travel-support pilot across ages, testing reimbursement and an upfront-fare route; use a fair comparison or phased allocation where feasible.
monitorInvite lapsed volunteers to actual bookable shifts and track return through attendance and repeat participation, not expressions of interest.
decisionReview the combined programme at three and six months and reallocate the remaining discretionary budget.

Open-text themes it coded

Shift scheduling: booking, swapping, rota stability and notice of shift changes 36Direct, timely communication about changes 16Travel expense: fares, fuel, parking charges and cost-sharing 22Journey time, distance and access to a closer site 9Parking availability and physical access, rather than parking price 2Training and induction 1Recognition and feeling valued 2No suggested change or satisfied with current arrangements 38

The survey it planned

1 screening question and 10 questions, as the model wrote them.

S1
Riverside Food Network is asking about volunteers’ experiences to help decide how to use next year’s volunteer-support budget. This survey takes about 5–6 minutes. Taking part is voluntary and will not affect your opportunities to volunteer. When did you most recently do a volunteer shift with Riverside Food Network?
One answer
- Within the last 3 months
- More than 3 months ago, but within the last 12 months
- More than 12 months ago
- I have never done a shift
- I cannot remember
Continues if Within the last 3 months; More than 3 months ago, but within the last 12 months
Q1
Which best describes your volunteering with Riverside Food Network at the moment?
One answer
- I still volunteer, even if I do not have a shift booked
- I am taking a break from volunteering
- I have stopped volunteering
- I am not sure
Q2
In your own words, what are the main reasons you have stopped volunteering or are taking a break? Please mention anything that mattered to your decision.
Open text

Routing Shown only if Q1 is: I am taking a break from volunteering; I have stopped volunteering
Q3
Think about the last three months during which you volunteered with Riverside Food Network, or your whole time volunteering if it was shorter. Which, if any, of these made volunteering difficult for you? Select all that apply. Select ‘None of these’ or ‘I cannot remember’ on its own.
Any that apply
- Paying for travel to and from shifts
- The time or difficulty involved in getting to the site
- Finding available shifts at times that suited me
- Booking a shift by phone or message
- Changing or cancelling a shift
- Not having clear or timely information about my shifts
- Paid work or study commitments
- Caring or family responsibilities
- My health, disability or energy levels
- The physical or emotional demands of the work
- Not getting enough training or support
- Not feeling welcomed, included or appreciated
- Problems with internet access or confidence using online services
- Something else
- None of these
- I cannot remember
Q4
During that same period, about how much did you personally spend on travel for a typical volunteer shift, for the whole journey there and back? Include fares, fuel and parking that you paid for yourself. Enter an amount in pounds, for example 4.50. Enter 0 if you had no travel costs. Leave this blank if you cannot estimate.
Number
Q5
Which Riverside Food Network distribution site did you do the most shifts at during that period? Please enter its name or location. If you did the same number at more than one site, enter the one where you volunteered most recently.
Open text
Q6
What is your age group?
One answer
- Under 18
- 18–24
- 25–34
- 35–44
- 45–54
- 55–64
- 65 or over
- Prefer not to say
Q7
If travel costs continued to be paid by volunteers and shifts continued to be arranged by phoning or messaging the site lead, how likely would you be to do at least one Riverside Food Network shift in the next three months?
Scale

Scale 1-5: Very unlikely to Very likely
Q8
The next three questions describe possible changes, not promises. Consider each separately and assume everything else stays the same. If Riverside Food Network paid back all your actual travel costs for each shift, but shifts were still arranged by phoning or messaging the site lead, how likely would you be to do at least one shift in the next three months?
Scale

Scale 1-5: Very unlikely to Very likely
Q9
If Riverside Food Network provided online shift booking, where you could see available shifts and book or request changes, plus a part-time volunteer coordinator to help with arrangements, but you still paid your own travel costs, how likely would you be to do at least one shift in the next three months? You could still ask for help by phone or message.
Scale

Scale 1-5: Very unlikely to Very likely
Q10
If Riverside Food Network paid back half your actual travel costs for each shift and provided online shift booking, plus a part-time volunteer coordinator with fewer available hours than in the previous option, how likely would you be to do at least one shift in the next three months? You could still ask for help by phone or message.
Scale

Scale 1-5: Very unlikely to Very likely

Sample plan

Invite everyone on the database recorded as having completed at least one shift in the last 12 months: approximately 1,410 people, comprising 410 active volunteers and 1,000 with no shift in the last three months. Use email and text messages, with a unique survey link to prevent duplicate responses; send reminders only to nonrespondents. Target about 330 eligible completes, requiring approximately a 23% response rate. Use soft monitoring targets of approximately 96 database-active and 234 database-lapsed respondents, and allocate site targets in proportion to each site's eligible volunteer population. Monitor site-by-activity response and direct reminders towards underrepresented groups rather than closing participation when targets are reached. Reconcile database activity with S1 and use Q1 to distinguish continued volunteering, a break and stopping. Code Q5 responses to the nine actual sites; do not invent site names. Conduct a small mobile usability and timing pilot within the target population before launch, checking completion within six minutes. Keep all substantive questions optional. The requested ±7 percentage-point precision for each of nine sites cannot generally be delivered with 330 completes. At 95% confidence and a worst-case proportion of 50%, a large site population requires about 196 responses per site. With finite-population correction, the planning requirement for a site with N eligible volunteers is ceiling(196N/(N+195)), assuming simple random sampling without replacement. For illustration, if the 1,410 eligible volunteers were evenly distributed, each site would require about 88 responses, or about 792 overall; 330 responses would average only about 37 per site. Obtain actual site population counts and calculate the required total before fieldwork. Trustees must either increase the target and recruitment effort or accept wider site-level intervals. A database-wide invitation does not remove nonresponse bias, and these calculations do not guarantee representative results.