VOLUNTEER RECRUITMENT & RETENTION
11/9/2012
Survey of Volunteer and Combination Fire Departments and Rescue Squads in the Washington DC Metropolitan Area A survey of volunteer recruitment and retention practices in fire departments and rescue squads in Arlington, Prince William and Loudoun Counties in Virginia; Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties in Maryland and The City of Alexandria in Virginia.
Volunteer Recruitment & Retention
Š 2013 Rafael Estrada. This work may be reproduced and redistributed, in whole or in part, without alteration and without prior written permission, provided all copies contain the following statement or appropriate academic citation: "Š 2013 Rafael Estrada. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of the author." Please direct any inquires or comments to: estradar@gwmail.gwu.edu
Page 1
Volunteer Recruitment & Retention
Volunteer Recruitment & Retention S U RV E Y O F VO L U N T E E R A N D C O M B I N AT I O N F I R E D E PA R T M E N T S A N D R E S C U E S Q U A D S I N T H E WA S H I N G T O N D C M E T RO P O L I TA N A R E A
INTRODUCTION A 2009 study conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, on behalf of the Fireman’s Fund, suggested that more than eight in every ten (84%) of the surveyed fire and rescue departments in the United States feel that recruitment and retention, especially of volunteers, is somewhat challenging; including three in ten (30%) who feel that this is an extremely challenging issue. The same study surveyed 45 Washington, D.C., metropolitan area departments, of which nearly all were volunteer departments or used volunteers in combination with career firefighters, found 85 percent are finding staffing and recruitment at least somewhat challenging. Although the study cites mostly recession and economics as the main culprits for the alarming trend, others, like the US Fire Administration, as stated in their publication number FA-310 of May 2007, also blame other factors. Some of these factors include: Increased time and training requirements; Demographic and sociological changes; Intra-organizational conflicts and problems with leadership. The US Fire Administration publication, however, also paints an optimistic picture for those organizations that seek solutions and are able to adapt to changing environments. They highlight the fact that individuals are still willing to give their time to emergency services organizations provided these organizations ensure the following: • • • • • •
The experience is rewarding and worth their time. The training requirements are not excessive. The time demands are adaptable and manageable. Volunteers are rewarded with a personal sense of value. There is good leadership minimizing conflict. There is ample support for the organization.
It is evident that emergency services organizations are facing some serious challenges in the area of recruitment and retention. However, some volunteer organizations have been successful in sustaining adequate volunteer staffing levels. This is a clear indicator that a clear understanding of existing conditions combined with a realistic and viable retention and recruitment plan will ensure the continued existence of volunteers in emergency services. Volunteer and combination fire and rescue organizations in the DC Metropolitan Area, just like many across the United States, are left with the task of taking a look inside their organizations to identify and quickly act upon any situation that may have a negative impact on their recruitment and retention practices. To provide some insight into the recruitment and retention practices of volunteer/combination fire and rescue departments in the Washington DC Metropolitan Area, a survey was sent to the leadership of 51 volunteer fire departments and rescue squads from Arlington, Prince William and Loudoun Counties in Virginia; Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties in Maryland and The City of Alexandria in Virginia on October 24, 2012. The purpose of the survey was to identify trends specific to the geographical region and to see how these trends either benefit or negatively affect the organizations’ recruitment and/or retention practices.
Page 2
Volunteer Recruitment & Retention
The survey was designed to gather information on practices affecting retention and recruitment of volunteers, such as: • Leadership and Governance • Marketing and Advertising • Benefits and Incentives • Initial Orientation and Training • Awards and Recognition The survey was delivered online to the leadership of 51 volunteer fire departments and rescue squads. The organizations were provided 16 days to submit their responses. The survey closed on November 9, 2012. Of the organizations invited to participate, a total of seventeen (or 33%1) responded to the survey2. This report summarizes the findings of the survey. This document groups the surveyed organizations in three groups:
Combined fire departments or rescue squads with a mostly career workforce; Combined fire departments or rescue squads with a mostly volunteer workforce; and Fire departments or rescue squads with an all-volunteer workforce.
Additionally, this report takes a comparative look at the organizations’ recruitment and retention practices. This report, however, offers little analysis and issues no recommendations to participating organizations. Instead, it provides organizations with a basis to conduct their own analysis of recruitment and retention practices.
1 2
Above acceptable response rate for online surveys per University of Texas at Austin, Instructional Assessment Resources. Accuracy rate of 95% within ±20 percent margin of error
Page 3
Volunteer Recruitment & Retention
PROFILE OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS Sixty percent (60%) of responding organizations provide fire, rescue and/or emergency medical services in suburban communities with populations between ten and fifty thousand residents. Twenty-seven percent (27%) provide services in mostly urban environments while only seven percent (7%) serve rural communities. Three (or18%) of the participating organizations identified themselves as all-volunteer fire departments or rescue squads. The majority, or eighty-two percent (82%), of those participating in the survey identified themselves as combined or combination (staffed with paid and volunteer personnel) fire departments or rescue squads. Of those identified as combined organizations, fifty-four percent (54%) indicated that their workforce was composed mostly of volunteers that share operational duties with career staff. In almost seventy percent (70%) of combined organizations, volunteers provide coverage of frontline units during night hours and on weekends. Most combined departments (77%) required that volunteers complete the same or equivalent training requirements as those of their career staff. However, only thirty-one (31%) of the organizations require volunteers to meet the same or comparable requirements for progression through their operational leadership rank structure. Half of the responding organizations (50%) indicated that their administration and management aspects are handled by elected members that compose the organization’s board of directors, or similar body; operationally, all activities are led by an elected chief (or similar title). The elected chief appoints all other operational officers. Only thirteen percent (13%) claimed to have a robust community education program or to sponsor community preparedness initiatives like CERT (Community Emergency Response Team).
Employed Full-Time (81%)
23 to 29 years old (69%)
Graduated College (50%)
Outside First-Due (38%
Male (34%)
Fig. 1: Volunteer Workforce (not to scale)
Page 4
Volunteer Recruitment & Retention
Fifty-six percent (56%) of the organizations assign volunteers to crews responsible for proving coverage during specific time periods. The rest do not assign volunteers to duty-crews; instead volunteers schedule themselves for shift coverage. The average number of volunteers at each surveyed fire department or rescue squads is 69, with the number of volunteers per volunteer organization ranging from 30 to 150. When asked to describe their volunteer workforce3, by selecting any applicable characteristic from a list, representatives of the responding organizations provided the following responses (by percentages): mostly between the ages of 23 to 39 years old (69%); most employed full-time outside the organization (81%); racially and ethnically diverse (69%); mostly males (34%); majority are college graduates (50%) and live and work outside the organization’s response area (38%) [Figure 1].
Organization’s representatives were asked: Which statement or statements best describe your organization's volunteer workforce? (Check all that apply) 3
Page 5
Volunteer Recruitment & Retention
SURVEY FINDINGS Overall, fifty percent (50%) of the organizations reported experiencing a steady decline in the number of new volunteers during the five years prior to taking the survey. Sixty-nine percent (69%), however, denied experiencing higher attrition rates in the number of volunteers during the same period. None of the participating organizations rated4 their recruitment or their retention practices as “unacceptable” or as “excellent”. Thirty-five percent (35%) however, rated their recruitment and retention practices as “poor”. The following paragraph breaks down how each of the three groups views their recruitment and retention practices by whether they are mostly combined/career, combined/volunteer, or all volunteer:
Rating of Recruitment Practices
Overall
Combination (Mostly Volunteer)
Combination (Mostly Career)
All-Volunteer
Excellent
0%
0%
0%
0%
Good
38%
43%
17%
67%
Acceptable
31%
14%
66%
0%
Poor
31%
43%
17%
33%
Unacceptable
0%
0%
0%
0%
Table 1: Rating of recruitment practices by type of organization (by percentage of responding organizations within each group) Seventeen percent (17%) of combination fire and rescue organizations mostly composed of career personnel rated their recruitment practices as “good” with another seventeen percent (17%) rating their practices as “poor”. While sixty-six percent (66%) rated their recruitment practices as “acceptable”. In comparison, forty-three percent (43%) of combination organizations with a mostly volunteer workforce rated their recruitment practices as “good” with, again, another forty-three (43%) rating their practices as “poor”; while fourteen percent (14%) rated their efforts as “acceptable”. Of the all-volunteer organizations surveyed sixty-seven percent (67%) rated their recruitment practices as “good”. The same percentage (67%) of allvolunteer organizations rated their retention practices as “acceptable” and thirty-three percent (33%) rated retention as “good”. Thirty-three percent (33%) of all-volunteer organizations rated their recruitment practices as “poor”. [Tables 1 and 2]
4
Rating choices were: excellent, good, acceptable, poor and unacceptable.
Page 6
Volunteer Recruitment & Retention
Rating of Retention Practices
Overall
Combination (Mostly Volunteer)
Combination (Mostly Career)
All-Volunteer
Excellent
0%
0%
0%
0%
Good
25%
14%
33%
33%
Acceptable
62%
72%
50%
67%
Poor
13%
14%
17%
0%
Unacceptable
0%
0%
0%
0%
Table 2: Rating of retention practices by type of organization (by percentage of responding organizations within each group)
Collectively, forty-one percent (41%) of survey respondents rated their organization’s recruitment and retention efforts as “good.” Of this percentage, fifty-seven (57%) identified their organization website as their most important recruitment tool. In second place, forty-three percent (43%) listed referrals and word of mouth as their second most important recruitment tool. Social media (i.e. Facebook, twitter, etc.), other websites (i.e. county, fire and rescue association, volunteer referral services, etc.), and other recruitment tactics (i.e., community outreach events, printed media ads, open houses, etc.) were tied for the third place [Figure 2]. This is significant in that it leads to the inference that this group utilizes a diversified portfolio of marketing methods for volunteer recruitment. This group also responded significantly higher (86%) to the question of racial and ethnical diversity within their organizations.
Recruitment Tools 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Website
Referrals
Social Media/Others
Figure 2: Recruitment tools rankings based per organization that rated their recruitment and retention practices as “good”
Page 7
Volunteer Recruitment & Retention
Table 3 (below) compares the responses (in terms of percentages) to specific organizational aspects or recruitment and retention tactics. The responses are divided in two groups: those that rated their recruitment and retention practices as “good” and those that rated their practices as “poor”. The intent of the table is to provide a side-by-side breakdown of the percentage of organizations within each of the two groups that reported utilizing the tactic or organizational aspect described on the first column (far left). The table provides information as to what specific tactics or aspect of the organization has worked or not worked in favor of recruitment or retention practices at responding organizations. For example, given that all of those that rated their practices as “good” indicated having specific recruitment and retention plans and that only two thirds of those that rated their practices as “poor” indicated the same; it can be assume that having a retention and recruitment plan may be favorable to recruitment and retention.
Rated Practices as “Good”
Rated Practices as “Poor”
Use uniforms that differentiate volunteers from paid staff*
60%
100%
Require volunteers to complete most, if not the same, training requirements as paid staff*
100%
80%
Utilize separate organizational structures for volunteer staff*
40%
100%
Indicated that recruitment was based on current and future recruitment needs, as identified in a recent needs assessment or similar process
57%
20%
Indicated having specific recruitment and retention plans
100%
66%
Employ the use of recruiters
57%
33%
Indicated that a generic ad in their organization’s website accounts for most of their recruitment efforts
14%
83%
Offer length of service award programs (LOSAP) or similar benefits
100%
83%
Offer tax deductions or similar tax benefits
100%
33%
Offer scholarships or tuition reimbursement
71%
33%
Offer transportation benefits or allowances
43%
17%
Offer uniforms or uniform allowances
86%
83%
Offer meals or meals reimbursement
43%
0%
Page 8
Volunteer Recruitment & Retention
Provide housing (live-in program) or similar housing benefits
86%
50%
Assign a “coach or sponsor” to new applicants
57%
17%
Have an “EMS Only” Program
57%
33%
Indicated not having an award and recognition program
0%
17%
Introduce new members at meetings and post their picture and information on website or newsletter
57%
33%
Post pictures of all members at their stations and/or website
43%
0%
Conduct award ceremonies on a yearly basis (minimum)
71%
67%
Award ceremonies are inclusive of career and volunteer personnel*
27%
0%
Family members are invited to award ceremonies
71%
17%
Awards include uniform accessories such as ribbons or decorations
14%
0%
Reported experiencing a decline in the number of new volunteers during the last 5 years
27%
67%
Experienced higher attrition rates (loss of volunteers) in the last 5 years
27%
33%
*denotes combination (paid/volunteer) fire departments and/or rescue squads Table 3: Comparison of recruitment and retention tactics by response groups.
Page 9