Improve Volunteer Retention

Proof required

Submit: (1) a volunteer roster from initiative 1 with return status for initiative 2 — a table: volunteer name/alias, participated in initiative 1 (yes/no), participated in initiative 2 (yes/no), and if they did not return, the reason given or your best evidence-based assessment of why; (2) a calculated baseline return rate (number who returned ÷ number from initiative 1, expressed as a percentage); (3) a 150-word honest diagnosis of the 2–3 most likely causes of your current retention rate, based on conversations, feedback, or observation — not speculation.

What gets checked

• Return rate is calculated correctly from real data — the calculation must be shown, not just stated; a 'high retention' claim with no numbers does not satisfy this standard
• Non-returning volunteers' reasons are documented specifically — 'some people got busy' does not satisfy the diagnosis standard; each non-returning volunteer should have a specific stated or inferred reason based on real evidence
• Diagnosis identifies causes the leader can act on — 'people have busy lives' is not actionable; 'the briefing process was unclear and volunteers did not know what they were committing to' is

Common mistakes

• Calculating return rate from a different volunteer pool — if initiative 2 recruited new volunteers rather than re-inviting initiative 1 volunteers, the baseline comparison is not valid; the roster must track the SAME individuals across both initiatives
• Over-optimistic diagnosis — attributing all attrition to external factors ('they were just busy', 'the timing was bad') and none to the volunteer experience itself suggests the diagnosis has not been done honestly
• Having only 2–3 volunteers in the baseline pool — a retention rate calculated from 2–3 volunteers is not meaningful; if initiative 1 had fewer than 5 volunteers, the baseline should note this limitation explicitly

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Roster completeness: the roster should include every volunteer from initiative 1, not only those who returned — selective tracking of only active volunteers inflates the apparent retention rate
• Diagnosis honesty: ask the submitter to name one thing they themselves did that might have made returning less likely — a diagnosis that attributes all attrition to external factors should be probed
• Pool size: if the initiative 1 pool was fewer than 5 people, note this; a 2/3 return rate (67%) from 3 volunteers is not meaningful evidence of a 67% retention pattern

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) a pre-initiative change log listing the 2+ specific changes made, each with: the cause it addresses from the M1 diagnosis, the specific change (not 'better communication' but 'a 30-minute briefing call with each volunteer 3 days before initiative 3, with a role card emailed after'), and how you will know each volunteer experienced the change; (2) initiative 3 volunteer roster, showing which initiative 1 volunteers were re-invited and which returned; (3) evidence from initiative 3 execution that the changes were implemented — a photo of the role cards, a screenshot of the briefing call invitation, or a coordination log showing the changed process.

What gets checked

• Changes are specific and pre-committed — 'better communication' and 'more appreciation' are not specific changes; 'each volunteer receives a written role card with a defined end time 48 hours before the event' is
• Each change is linked to a specific diagnosis root cause from M1 — changes not connected to the M1 diagnosis may be valuable but do not satisfy the improvement cycle requirement
• Evidence from initiative 3 shows the changes were actually implemented — intent documented before the initiative plus implementation evidence from the initiative satisfies this; intent alone does not

Common mistakes

• Making changes that address the leader's preference, not the volunteers' experience — switching from email to Slack for the leader's convenience is not a retention improvement unless volunteers identified communication friction as a departure reason
• Documenting changes after initiative 3 to match what happened — the change log is supposed to be pre-committed, not retrofitted; a change log with a date before initiative 3 and implementation evidence from initiative 3 are both required
• Recruiting a different volunteer pool for initiative 3 — retention improvement requires re-engaging people who previously left; if initiative 3 uses entirely new volunteers, no retention comparison is possible

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Change log pre-commitment: check the date on the change log — a log written after initiative 3 describes what was done, not what was pre-committed; pre-commitment is what distinguishes intentional improvement from post-hoc rationalisation
• Change specificity: ask the submitter to explain in one sentence exactly what a volunteer experienced differently in initiative 3 compared to initiative 1 — if they cannot answer specifically, the change is not concrete enough
• Implementation evidence: a screenshot of a briefing call invitation proves the call was scheduled; an attendance record proves it happened; higher-quality evidence means stronger proof the change was experienced by volunteers

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) a before/after comparison table — baseline return rate (M1, initiative 1→2) vs. post-change return rate (initiative 2→3 or initiative 1→3, clearly specified), with the calculation shown; (2) for each volunteer who returned for initiative 3 who had not returned for initiative 2, a one-sentence account of what you attribute their return to (specific change, personal conversation, or observation); (3) a 400-word honest assessment: what improved, what did not improve despite your changes, and what you believe would need to change further to increase retention in future initiatives.

What gets checked

• Return rate comparison is calculated correctly and the comparison is valid — the same pool of volunteers must be tracked in both calculations; comparing a smaller baseline pool to a larger post-change pool is not a valid comparison
• Attribution for returning volunteers is based on evidence — what the volunteer said, what the specific change was, or what the leader observed — not general optimism
• Honest assessment addresses both successes and failures — a 400-word assessment that only describes improvement is not honest; what specific change did not produce the expected effect and why?

Common mistakes

• Claiming improvement without showing the calculation — 'retention improved significantly' without a before/after percentage comparison does not satisfy this standard
• Attributing all retention improvement to one change and ignoring confounding factors — if initiative 3 coincided with a different season, a smaller scope, or a more engaged subject matter, these factors should be acknowledged alongside the intended changes
• Declaring the improvement cycle complete without acknowledging remaining gaps — if the initiative 3 return rate is still below 50%, the assessment should address this directly rather than treating a 5-point improvement as a resolved problem

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Calculation validity: confirm the same volunteer pool is used in both the baseline and post-change calculations; ask the submitter to confirm whether any volunteers in the post-change pool were not in the baseline pool (new recruits who never had the chance to leave do not improve retention metrics)
• Attribution evidence: 'I think X returned because of the role card' is an inference; 'X said they returned because they finally understood what they were committing to before they agreed' is evidence — ask the submitter whether their attributions are based on what volunteers said or on inference
• Honest assessment quality: achieving a 70% return rate (up from 40%) and calling the improvement complete without addressing the remaining 30% is incomplete — the assessment should address what the remaining attrition is attributed to and what, if anything, could address it

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.