Contents:I.
Introduction to the Basic Feedback System
II. How to Use the Basic Feedback System
III. Uses of New Checklist for Voluntary Action Centers and
Volunteer Bureaus
IV. Scorecard for Volunteer Coordinators and Directors
V. Top Management Checklist
VI. Volunteer Feedback Form
VII. Staff Reactions to Volunteer Programs
VIII."You Have A Volunteer – What Do you Think?"
Feedback form for one-to-one clients
IX. Checklist for Board Members
X. Checklist for Voluntary Action Centers and Volunteer
Bureaus
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE BASIC FEEDBACK SYSTEM
Developed by Dr. Ivan B. Scheier and the Operations Analysis Unit of the National
Information Center On Volunteerism, the Basic Feedback System (BFS) is a structured
self-assessment process designed especially for volunteer programs. The purpose of this
self-assessment process is to increase the effectiveness of the volunteer program at a
minimum cost of time and money, with maximum input from a wide selection of people
involved with the volunteer program.
The Basic Feedback System cannot substitute for an outside professional evaluation. It
can, however, offer a process of gauging or roughly measuring the function, performance,
commitment, and satisfaction levels of those involved with the volunteer program. When
used on a regular, on-going basis, the volunteer director can identify small problems as
they emerge, and take action to resolve them.
A special advantage of this system is the development of individual forms for six of
the volunteer program constituencies: the director or coordinator, volunteers, paid staff
working with volunteers, top administration, one-to-one clients, and board members. In
addition, this publication introduces the final version of a new programmatic form
designed for directors of Voluntary Action Centers and Volunteer Bureaus.
In addition to roughly taking the "temperature" of a volunteer program, a
number of unforeseen benefits can occur with the use of this system. Administering the
feedback forms to everyone in the program can act as a consciousness-raising device in
itself, giving the program visibility and serious consideration it may have lacked
previously. Often individuals will be more willing to articulate frustrations in writing
and anonymously, than through direct personal contact. And the conclusions the volunteer
coordinator deduces can help in formulating objectives for a professional outside
evaluation. Tabulations from previously administered forms, even though they are
self-reported, can serve as useful background information for an outside consultant; often
the consultant can record impressions on the same forms, as a validity check on the
self-assessment process.
The Basic Feedback System and the national comparative norms are designed only as
guides, to be incorporated with other impressions, evidence, and data on hand. They should
be viewed as flexible, as feedback for discussion and even training. Whenever possible,
BFS should be used as an adjunct or stimulus to outside, professional evaluation.
A. A WORD ON NATIONAL NORMS
This publication presents the latest and largest base for BFS national norms. National
norms for the older forms have been established over the past four years. However, NICOV
does not, have a sufficient number of sectional and total scores to compile norms for some
of the newer forms. No norms exist for the new VAC Checklist or the revised one-to-one
client form, and only very general estimates are presented for the new Board Members
Checklist. All norms appearing in this publication are at best approximations, and it is
important to note that much in these forms is valuable, though not scoreable and entered
with the norms.
The norms show the distribution of all scores NICOV has received from a wide range of
volunteer programs: public schools, hospital programs, youth service organizations, Red
Cross, criminal justice agencies, RSVP, JRWCA, and other human service programs.
Percentiles (or the estimated percentage of the total population) are used to standardize
the scores. If a raw score falls in the fiftieth percentile, then it is fair to say that
the raw score is an average score with approximately half of all raw scores above the
score and half below.
NICOV has a system for the development of new self-assessment forms and is interested
in contracting to create forms for specialized key areas and key functions in
volunteerism. Your completed forms and your input on a system which is still developing
will be very welcome.
CHAPTER II
HOW TO USE THE BASIC-FEEDBACK SYSTEM
There are many ways to apply BFS, but most volunteer program directors elect to
administer the forms regularly, perhaps every three months, to each of the six
constituencies. Often, a director will decide to adapt the forms to the specific
conditions of the individual community or program. We strongly suggest that questions be
added on to the end of the forms, rather than changing the forms themselves. In this way,
the forms can be scored as per instructions, the national norms can be used, and responses
to the special added questions can be analyzed separately.
Whenever possible, BFS forms should be administered in a face-to-face setting, either
to individuals or to groups, rather than mailed. Ordinarily, it helps to offer anonymity
and confidentiality. It is also possible to use the structured interview approach, where
the interviewer records the responses. If you decide to administer the BFS forms, the
following suggestions may be helpful.
1.Scorecard is designed for the volunteer coordinator or director. It can be
self-administered at the very beginning of the program as a useful "standard
setter" and every subsequent quarter for gauging development and potential problem
areas.
2.If at all possible, administer the Top Management Checklist before the program
begins. Designed for the high level administrator or policy-maker in the agency or major
unit, this form asks questions concerning specific agency commitments to the volunteer
program. The program should not proceed until the administrator has an understanding and
acceptance of basic necessary commitments.
3.As we all know, an effective volunteer program must have continual input and
cooperation from paid staff. The Staff Reactions form provides important attitude
indicators, as well as demonstrating to staff that their feedback is essential. Be sure to
follow-up with a report on findings and a discussion with staff and, later,
staff/volunteers.
4.The other forms (Volunteer Feedback, Board Members, and one-to-one client) can be
administered in groups or individually. Ask for frankness, with the assurance of
confidentiality. The most effective administration of the one-to-one client form (You Have
A Volunteer--What Do You Think?) has been for the interviewer to read each question aloud,
allowing for some explanation or discussion, with the response recorded by the
interviewer.
5.Instructions for scoring the forms, and existing national norms are presented with
each form.
6.As mentioned above, in addition to assessing the program, response tabulations from
BFS can serve as a springboard for discussion among the several constituencies; also these
people deserve to know how the program is doing.
Perhaps the following fictitious example will illustrate one general approach to the
use of the Basic Feedback System.
Project Proof Positive is a volunteer program working within the Division of Social
Services in an urban area. The part-time volunteer coordinator is funded by a federal
grant with some county support. This program involves volunteers working with families who
have alcohol related problems; of course, volunteers are dependent upon the cooperation of
the paid case, workers for much of their information and success with clients.
The program has been operating for over a year, long enough to seem somewhat organized,
but Ms. Sharp, the Volunteer Coordinator, has noticed that the volunteer turn-over rate
appears to remain rather high. Upon checking the attendance and resignation records she
becomes convinced that the situation needs some attention, but her observations of the
volunteers do not yield any tangible clues. She decides to try the Basic Feedback System
to see if any patterns emerge within the different groups involved in the program.
She completes the Volunteer Coordinator Scorecard herself, and discovers upon
comparison to national norms, that her program's score for the section on Orientation and
Training of volunteers and staff is below the national average; the scores for sections on
Motivation and Incentive, and Record-Keeping and Evaluation are also somewhat low.
However, she's pleased to see that her hard work in Public Relations and Recruitment
compare extremely well on a national scale. Knowing that it's crucial to get the
perspective of everyone involved with the volunteers, she proceeds with the rest of the
process, after adding some open questions which pertain specifically to local conditions.
After giving a brief orientation to the purpose of the system, Ms. Sharp asks the
division's top administrator to take ten minutes to complete the "Top Management
Checklist." In the next two weeks she is able to personally contact all the paid case
workers to ask them to complete the "Staff Reactions to Volunteer Programs"
form. At the next group meeting for volunteers, she explains the purpose of the
"Volunteer Feedback" form, asks them to be very frank in completing the form,
and explains that they need not sign the forms. Board members are asked to complete the
new "Checklist for Board Members." And, with the help of some caseworkers, she
administers "You Have A Volunteer--What Do You Think" to a selection of
receptive clients, whose responses will be anonymous.
Upon tabulation of the six different forms, some patterns do emerge; the scoring
patterns point to several possible causes for loss in volunteer motivation and the
open-ended questions reveal "between the lines" some significant attitudes. For
instance, top management and paid staff have professed from the beginning to be committed
to the volunteer program; however, their commitment apparently does not uniformly extend
to specific, organized management, time, and resource investment. Volunteer satisfaction
level is low, with a decided lack of real direction and cooperation from staff, which
seems to be reflected in uncertain and inconsistent feedback from clients.
Of course, none of this came as a complete surprise to Ms. Sharp, but the written
feedback gave her something tangible to work with, and the general perspective of the
forms helped her to step back from the daily workings of the program with a balanced
long-term outlook. She was able to take heart from the positive feedback: for instance,
Ms. Sharp has the good fortune to have a "working" board. She brought her main
findings to the board and together they developed from all the feedback a plan of action
that included among other things heavy staff input and participation on inservice
training, a public statement and resource commitment from top management, regular
volunteer/staff meetings, and a volunteer recognition plan. Ms. Sharp has decided to
administer the forms regularly every three months to a random selection of the six main
constituencies of the program.
CHAPTER III..
USES OF NEW CHECKLIST FOR VOLUNTARY ACTION CENTERS AND VOLUNTEER
BUREAUS
When using a special program form such as the VAC/VB checklist, insights can be gained
by administering the form to a wide variety of people involved with the VAC. In addition
to the Director, responses from staff, volunteers, the board, the funder, clientele
agencies, and an outside observer can prove valuable. Not only does the VAC Director gain
a perspective on how others view the various functions of the VAC, but consistency of
perceptions between the groups can be revealing, too.
What does it mean when the responses of all those people agree? A consensus could mean
confirmation. Or it could mean a misperception common among the groups, in which case, the
role of the outside evaluator becomes even more crucial. In other words, the VAC form can
serve as an instrument for inside-outside verification. What if there is wide disagreement
in certain sections between the involved groups? At this point it is interesting to lay
out a matrix or profile showing who disagrees on which programmatic areas, and take a
closer look. Again, the administration of the form to such diversely involved individuals
conserve as a basis for dialogue on program development.
This form and several of the other BFS forms can be applied as a rather unusual
training technique. Participants can complete the form and break into small discussion
groups according to low scored sections. For example, VAC participants who find they rate
their programs low in the area of "Agency Relations and Assistance" can group
together for problem solving or brainstorming discussions.
Since this is a new form, NICOV does not have a sufficient number of sectional and
total scores from which to develop national norms. If you are a VAC or VB Director
intending to utilize this form, please send copies of your completed forms to NICOV to be
entered anonymously into the new norms. This system can only be effective if a wide range
of programs participate. Of course, NICOV administers the form at every opportunity, too.
