D645 Task 1 Audience Research Report Example

Why Volunteers Come Once: Audience Research on Volunteer Engagement for a Composite Regional Food Bank and What It Means for Communication

Student Name

School of Business, Western Governors University

D645: Crafting a Communications Strategy Through Research and Data Insights, Task 1

Course Instructor

Month Day, Year

Why Volunteers Come Once: Audience Research on Volunteer Engagement for a Composite Regional Food Bank and What It Means for Communication

The Communication Problem

Heartland Harvest, a composite food bank serving 14 counties around Kansas City, relies on volunteers to sort and pack about 60% of the food it distributes. Last year, 4,200 people signed up for at least one volunteer shift, but 61% came only once. Each first shift requires a staff orientation, so one-time volunteers are costly, and shifts go unfilled during summer and after the holidays. The communications team asked a focused question: who volunteers, why do most not return, and what should communication do differently?

Data Sources

The research combined three sources. Internal records from the volunteer scheduling system for the past two years showed sign-ups, attendance, repeat visits, how people heard about the food bank and basic demographics. A survey sent to everyone who volunteered in the past year received 380 responses, a 9% response rate, and asked about motivations, experiences and reasons for returning or not. Published research on volunteer motivation and retention provided a framework for interpreting the results.

The survey was anonymous, told respondents how the results would be used and asked no questions about income or health, since some volunteers are also food bank clients. Scheduling data were analyzed in aggregate, and no volunteer's individual record was shared outside the volunteer office. Handling the audience's information with care matters for a nonprofit whose volunteers are also its donors and neighbors.

What Research Says About Volunteer Motivation

A widely used functional approach holds that people volunteer to meet different psychological needs, and that the same activity can serve different purposes for different people. Clary and colleagues identified six functions: expressing values such as concern for others, gaining understanding and new skills, strengthening social relationships, advancing a career, protecting oneself from negative feelings and enhancing self-esteem. In their studies, volunteers whose experiences matched their main motivations were more satisfied and more likely to say they would continue (Clary et al., 1998).

Research on retention adds that continued volunteering depends heavily on what happens inside the organization. A study of volunteers at a national charity found that positive organizational experiences, such as feeling appreciated and seeing the difference their work made, helped build a volunteer role identity, and that this identity predicted continued volunteering (Grube & Piliavin, 2000). Reviews of the research also show that who volunteers varies by life stage, with patterns differing among students, working parents and retirees (Wilson, 2000).

What Heartland Harvest's Data Show

Who volunteers: the largest groups were college students, 34% of first-time volunteers, often completing service hours; employees on corporate team days, 27%; and adults aged 55 and older, many recently retired, 19%. The remaining 20% were families and other individuals.

Who returns: return rates varied sharply. Only 12% of corporate team volunteers and 28% of students came back on their own, compared with 58% of volunteers aged 55 and older.

Why they came: in the survey, the most common motivations were expressing values, 71% rating it very important; social connection, 48%; and, among students, gaining experience for a résumé, 44%.

Why they did not return: among one-time volunteers who responded, the top reasons were not knowing when help was needed, 41%; the shift feeling like assembly-line work with no sense of impact, 36%; and not being thanked or contacted afterward, 33%. Records confirm that the food bank currently sends no follow-up after a first shift.

Audience Segments

Three segments emerge. Purpose-seeking retirees volunteer to express values and find company, return at the highest rate and are most likely to become regulars and shift leads. Students volunteer for values and experience, return when shifts fit their schedules and when they can show what they learned. Corporate groups come for a team event and rarely return individually, but they bring many first-time volunteers and are a pipeline for individual volunteering if followed up.

Pain Points in the Current Communication

The food bank's communication ends when the shift ends. Recruitment messages are generic, asking people to help fight hunger, and do not speak to the different motivations of each segment. There is no thank-you, no report of what the shift accomplished and no invitation to return. Volunteers learn about needed shifts only by checking the website. Measured against the research, Heartland Harvest does little to create the positive organizational experiences that build a volunteer identity.

Implications for Communication

First, follow up within 48 hours of every first shift with a thank-you and a concrete measure of impact, such as the number of meals the shift packed, which addresses the missing sense of impact and appreciation. Second, tailor recruitment and return messages to segment motivations: company and purpose for retirees, experience and flexible scheduling for students, and a personal invitation to return for corporate volunteers. Third, tell volunteers when help is needed, through a short text alert for low-staffed shifts that volunteers can opt into. Fourth, make shift leads part of the communication strategy, since the moment of thanks at the end of a shift is the most personal channel the food bank has. These implications will shape the persona and strategy in the next stage.

Limits of the Research

The survey's 9% response rate means respondents may differ from the full population; people who had a poor experience may be less likely to answer. Demographics in the scheduling system are self-reported and incomplete for 15% of volunteers. The published research was conducted with other organizations and volunteer populations, so its findings are applied here as a guide rather than a certainty. A small follow-up round of interviews with one-time volunteers from each segment would test whether the reasons in the survey hold.

Conclusion

Heartland Harvest does not have a recruitment problem; it has a return problem. Most volunteers come for good reasons and leave because no one thanks them, shows them their impact or tells them when they are needed. Research on volunteer motivation and retention explains why this matters and points to communication that matches each segment's motives and continues after the first shift.

References

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516-1530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1516

Grube, J. A., & Piliavin, J. A. (2000). Role identity, organizational experiences, and volunteer performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1108-1119. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002611007

Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215-240. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.215