Benchmarks / SurveyBench / Why Riverside Food Network is losing volunteers / Particle-1

Measured by Spring Prompt

Particle-1: 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
86 of 100
Analysis rating
1,193
Head to head, this task
won 9 of 14

Why it is not sound

The survey

  • Answer bands that overlap or leave gaps

The analysis

  • 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.
  • 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

  • A targeted travel scheme for under-25s is supported by the lapsed data, but the evidence base is very small and should be piloted rather than assumed city-wide.The descriptive percentages and small-base warning are supported, but 11 lapsed under-25 respondents do not establish that an age-targeted travel scheme is justified. The result supports further investigation, not selecting under-25s for a scheme on this evidence.

Scorecard

Numbers 12 of 12 right

QuestionIts answerTrue
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)✓NoNo
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 points9.17 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?✓1.5531.55
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)?✓3734
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?✓429429

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

Do both at a smaller scale, with online booking/part-time coordinator as the core investment and a capped, targeted travel-reimbursement pilot alongside it. The evidence does not support spending all £45,000 on universal travel reimbursement: scheduling is the largest main reason lapsed volunteers give for stopping (42.9%), and online booking is attractive to 60.4% of scheduling-main lapsed respondents. However, travel is the most commonly reported difficulty (38.2%) and is especially salient for under-25 lapsed volunteers, so a ring-fenced travel pilot for under-25s and high-travel-cost volunteers is justified. Answering the stakeholders directly: the operations lead should not treat 'most mentioned' as 'main reason'; the chair should expect a meaningful but unproven return from online booking, not a guaranteed 40%; the volunteer manager should test a targeted under-25 travel scheme because the signal is strong but based on only 11 lapsed under-25s.

What would change it

A costed pilot would change the recommendation if actual travel reimbursement produces substantially higher retention or return per pound than online booking/coordinator support, or if online booking is adopted by few volunteers or costs more than the available budget. Better evidence from under-25 non-respondents or lapsed follow-up showing travel is a much larger main reason than this survey suggests would also justify shifting more money to travel support.

Findings

  1. Scheduling is the strongest main reason lapsed volunteers give for stopping, ahead of travel cost. This argues against spending all £45,000 on travel reimbursement.

    Medium confidenceBase 112

    Q3: 42.9% of lapsed volunteers chose a scheduling reason as their main reason (29.5% shifts changed at short notice plus 13.4% hard to arrange shifts); only 11.6% chose travel cost. Base 112 lapsed respondents.

  2. Travel cost is the most commonly reported difficulty overall, but it is a broad barrier rather than the main reason most lapsed volunteers left.

    High confidenceBase 327

    Q2: 38.2% of all respondents chose cost of travelling (37.2% active, 40.2% lapsed). The active-lapsed difference is not statistically significant at 95% (3.0pp difference; approximate SE 5.7pp). Base 327.

  3. Online shift booking would likely appeal to a meaningful minority of lapsed volunteers, especially those whose main reason was scheduling, but stated intent is not a guarantee of return.

    Medium confidenceBase 112

    Q4: 40.2% of lapsed respondents are likely to return if they can arrange shifts online (17.0% very likely). Among scheduling-main lapsed, 60.4% are likely; among travel-main lapsed, only 14.3%. Bases: 112 lapsed; 48 scheduling-main; 14 travel-main.

  4. A targeted travel scheme for under-25s is supported by the lapsed data, but the evidence base is very small and should be piloted rather than assumed city-wide.

    Low confidenceBase 11

    Among lapsed under-25s, 81.8% selected travel cost as a difficulty and 72.7% gave it as their main reason for stopping. But this rests on only 11 lapsed under-25 respondents. Across all under-25 respondents, 74.1% selected travel cost (base 27).

  5. The lapsed respondent sample is older than the lapsed population, so unweighted lapsed travel figures probably understate travel difficulty; weighting to the lapsed age mix raises travel-cost difficulty from 40.2% to about 47.4%.

    Medium confidenceBase 112

    Lapsed respondents: 9.8% under 25 and 39.3% 65+; lapsed population: 22% under 25 and 25% 65+. Weighted Q2 travel-cost estimate using lapsed age mix: 47.4%. Base 112.

  6. Active volunteers also experience travel and scheduling friction, so support should not be designed only around lapsed volunteers.

    High confidenceBase 215

    Q2 active: 37.2% travel cost, 14.4% shifts changed at short notice, 11.6% no easy way to arrange shifts. Base 215 active respondents.

  7. If the lapsed respondents were representative, about 429 of the 1,000 lapsed volunteers would give a scheduling reason as their main reason for stopping; actual returns will be lower than stated intentions.

    Medium confidenceBase 112

    Q3 scheduling main reason: 42.9% of 112 lapsed respondents; applied to 1,000 gives about 429. Q4 indicates 60.4% of scheduling-main lapsed are likely to return if online booking existed, but this is stated likelihood.

  8. Open-text comments reinforce scheduling as a practical pain point: booking, swapping, rota changes, cancellations and poor notice are frequently raised.

    Medium confidenceBase 109

    37 of 109 open-text answers mention shift scheduling, booking/swapping, last-minute changes, cancellations or notice. This is a self-selected text sample, not a representative rate.

Caveats

  • The tables are unweighted. Lapsed respondents are older than the lapsed population, so unweighted lapsed results under-represent under-25s and probably understate travel difficulty; weighting raises lapsed travel-cost difficulty to about 47.4%.
  • Lapsed response is low: 112 of 1,000 invited completed (11.2%). Non-response bias is a serious risk because lapsed volunteers who are more dissatisfied or more mobile may be less likely to answer.
  • Several key bases are very small: under-25 lapsed respondents n=11, travel-main lapsed n=14, scheduling-main lapsed n=48. Treat subgroup results as indicative, not definitive.
  • Q4 and Q5 measure stated likelihood to return, not actual behaviour. Real return rates after online booking or travel reimbursement will probably be lower.
  • Q2 is multi-select and measures difficulties mentioned, not priority. Q3 is a better guide to why lapsed volunteers stopped, but it is asked only of lapsed respondents.
  • The survey does not include cost, capacity or operational feasibility data for reimbursing travel, funding a coordinator or buying an online booking system. Budget allocation cannot be optimised from these data alone.
  • Open-text answers are from 109 of 327 respondents and are not a representative sample; theme counts indicate salience, not prevalence.

Next steps

  • decisionApprove a split budget: majority to part-time volunteer coordinator plus online shift booking, with a smaller ring-fenced travel-reimbursement pilot for under-25s and high-travel-cost volunteers.
  • experimentRun a 4-6 month travel-reimbursement pilot for under-25s and volunteers facing high fares, parking or mileage costs.
  • experimentImplement online booking/swapping and monitor actual use, shift fill rates, cancellations and lapsed volunteer return.
  • researchDo a short follow-up with lapsed non-respondents, especially under-25s, to test non-response bias.
  • researchBuild a cost model for travel reimbursement, coordinator time and online booking before final spend.
  • monitorMonitor site-level shift changes, cancellation notice and travel-claim patterns monthly.

Open-text themes it coded

Shift scheduling: booking/swapping, rota changes, cancellations and notice 37Travel burden: cost, fares, fuel, parking, distance, journey time or site location 31Parking availability or parking cost 6Nothing further / fine as it is 38Training 1Recognition / feeling thanked or valued 2

The survey it planned

2 screening questions and 9 questions, as the model wrote them.

  1. S1

    In the last 12 months, have you volunteered at Riverside Food Network at least once — for example, sorting donations or handing out food parcels?

    One answer
    • Yes
    • No
    • Not sure

    Continues if Yes

  2. S2

    When was your most recent volunteer shift at Riverside Food Network?

    One answer
    • In the last 3 months
    • More than 3 months ago but within 6 months
    • More than 6 months ago but within 12 months
    • More than 12 months ago
    • Not sure

    Continues if In the last 3 months; More than 3 months ago but within 6 months; More than 6 months ago but within 12 months

  3. Q1

    Which Riverside Food Network distribution site did you most recently volunteer at?

    One answer
    • Site 1
    • Site 2
    • Site 3
    • Site 4
    • Site 5
    • Site 6
    • Site 7
    • Site 8
    • Site 9
    • Don't know
    • Prefer not to say
  4. Q2

    What is your age?

    One answer
    • 16–24
    • 25–34
    • 35–44
    • 45–54
    • 55–64
    • 65–74
    • 75 or older
    • Prefer not to say
  5. Q3

    In the last 12 months, which of these, if any, made it harder for you to volunteer at Riverside Food Network? Please select all that apply. If you select 'None of these' or 'Prefer not to say', please do not select any other option.

    Any that apply
    • The cost of travel to and from the site
    • The time or difficulty of travelling to and from the site
    • Booking or changing shifts (for example, having to phone or message the site lead)
    • The physical demands of the role
    • Other commitments (work, study or family)
    • Health or mobility issues
    • Caring responsibilities
    • Not feeling supported or welcomed
    • None of these
    • Prefer not to say
  6. Q4

    On a typical volunteer shift, about how much do you spend on travel to and from the site — for example, bus fares, parking or fuel?

    One answer
    • £0 / I do not pay for travel
    • £1–£2
    • £3–£5
    • £6–£10
    • £11–£15
    • More than £15
    • Don't know
    • Prefer not to say
  7. Q5

    What was the main reason you stopped volunteering at Riverside Food Network?

    One answer
    • The cost of travel to and from the site
    • The time or difficulty of travelling to and from the site
    • Booking or changing shifts
    • The physical demands of the role
    • Other commitments (work, study or family)
    • Health or mobility issues
    • Caring responsibilities
    • Not feeling supported or welcomed
    • The shifts or opening hours no longer suited me
    • Other reason
    • Prefer not to say

    Routing Shown only if S2 is: More than 3 months ago but within 6 months; More than 6 months ago but within 12 months

    Judges: assumptive

    Having no shift in the last three months does not establish that someone has stopped volunteering. Respondents taking a temporary break or volunteering infrequently must nevertheless give a reason for stopping. Conversely, recent volunteers who have stopped are not shown this question.

    It assumes anyone who hasn't volunteered in 3+ months considers themselves to have 'stopped', whereas they might just volunteer infrequently.

  8. Q6

    If Riverside Food Network reimbursed reasonable travel costs to and from the site, how likely would you be to return to volunteering in the next 6 months?

    Scale

    Scale 1-5: Not at all likely to Extremely likely

    Routing Shown only if S2 is: More than 3 months ago but within 6 months; More than 6 months ago but within 12 months

    Judges: assumptive, ambiguous

    The routing does not establish that respondents have stopped volunteering, although the question assumes they would be returning. 'Reasonable travel costs' leaves the reimbursement coverage undefined, so respondents may rate materially different offers.

    Assumes infrequent volunteers see themselves as needing to 'return'. 'Reasonable travel costs' is also undefined and subjective.

  9. Q7

    If Riverside Food Network introduced online shift booking — so you could book, change or cancel shifts yourself without phoning or messaging your site lead — how likely would you be to return to volunteering in the next 6 months?

    Scale

    Scale 1-5: Not at all likely to Extremely likely

    Routing Shown only if S2 is: More than 3 months ago but within 6 months; More than 6 months ago but within 12 months

    Judges: assumptive

    The routing assumes that everyone whose last shift was more than three months ago has stopped volunteering and would need to return. It also excludes people who stopped after a more recent shift.

    Assumes infrequent volunteers (3+ months without a shift) consider themselves to have left and thus need to 'return'.

  10. Q8

    To help us check the quality of responses, please select 'Rarely' in this question.

    One answer
    • Always
    • Often
    • Sometimes
    • Rarely
    • Never
  11. Q9

    Is there anything else that would make it easier for you to keep volunteering with Riverside Food Network, or to start volunteering again?

    Open text
Sample plan

Invite all 1,410 people on the volunteer database who did at least one shift in the last 12 months: 410 active volunteers and about 1,000 with no shift in the last 3 months. Use both email and text-message invitations, with reminders, and remove duplicates. Target 330 completes. Because the brief requires each of 9 sites to ±7 percentage points at 95% confidence, 330 completes is not sufficient: with about 35–37 completes per site, the expected per-site margin is roughly ±14–16 percentage points for a 50% estimate. To meet ±7 points per site, plan for about 790 completes (about 88 per site, allowing for the finite site database) or about 1,760 completes without finite-population correction. If 330 remains fixed, advise trustees that site-level results will be indicative and should not be used for precise per-site budget allocations. Quotas within the 330: minimum 35 completes per site, minimum 100 active and 150 lapsed volunteers, and monitor age group coverage. Weight to database site and active/lapsed profile if response differs.