Trumpet voluntary

I bumped into an old friend the other week, and we asked each other about our jobs. When I said that I worked in the voluntary sector, he said: “Oh, that’s nice, but what do you do for money?”

Most of my colleagues in the sector will be able to recount similar tales. Also, most would know that working in the voluntary sector does not automatically mean giving your time for free. So what does come to mind when you think of the voluntary sector? Small organisations working out of dingy offices with ancient computers and almost entirely staffed by volunteers? Or highly efficient, professional services that are driven by strong commitment and have extensive grass-roots connections?

Although I would argue for the latter, I expect most of you think of the former. Why is that? There may be quite a few voluntary sector organisations lacking basic resources but, as a whole, the sector is changing and improving at a tremendous pace. Yet we still struggle for recognition and respect at every turn.

Some housing providers are technically a part of the voluntary sector, especially when we redefine it as the not-for-profit sector, so perhaps you too get the sort of negative perceptions I’ve just described. But somehow, and please tell me if I’m wrong, I don’t think so.

Unlike the term “not-for-profit”, the label of “voluntary” is too often read as “amateur”. This is why organisations such as mine are forever being asked to prove their professionalism. The idea seems to be that you can only carry out your work professionally if you are paid to do it.

Now that sort of demarcation may come in useful when classifying sportsmen and women, but is that really a fair measure to employ in the workplace? We can all think of examples from the statutory and private sectors where paid staff have shown a distinct lack of professionalism. So what makes my sector so prone to such slights? Perhaps we ought to look at the sort of people who offer their time for free, to find the root of this discrimination.

It may have been true years ago that most volunteers were unemployed, retired or unable to secure paid employment, but that demographic has radically changed. Nearly all of our volunteers are in full-time jobs in related vocations. Yes, we have people who do fall into the former categories, but then their contribution is as valuable as anybody else’s.

I remember being taught about the Good Samaritan at school. The goodness of his deed was based on the fact that he didn’t have to help. However, in recent years the term “do-gooder” has become a derogatory one. In today’s world, “doing good” doesn’t seem to be enough. While the voluntary sector must continue to improve the way in which it measures its impact in order to secure the trust of fundholders, we must not allow this to obscure some of the real qualities it has. We instinctively understand the quality in the actions of the Good Samaritan – we do not need him to have to quantify the outcomes he achieves against nationally agreed baseline figures in order to award him the “Good Deed” kitemark.

Voluntary acts are invariably driven by principled commitment. Working to make a difference to peoples’ lives is at the foundation of any good quality service. The voluntary sector supports, nurtures and develops these attributes so that society can harness the tremendous amount of goodwill that is out there. That alone deserves the recognition and respect that too often we are unjustly denied.