The Future of Volunteer Management: What We Risk Losing When Infrastructure Disappears
- Roseanna Galindo, CCBA, CAVS
- 4 hours ago
- 6 min read
The future of volunteer management is being shaped by decisions most people aren’t even noticing. Last December, an unassuming email announcement arrived in my inbox signaling something much bigger than a single organizational change.
A state-level decision was made to eliminate a long-standing hospital volunteer leadership function—along with the conference and community that had supported it for decades. It was framed, understandably, as a matter of focus and resources. But for those of us who have spent our careers in volunteer leadership, it raised a more important question:
What does this mean for the future of volunteer management?
Because this wasn’t an isolated event. It was part of a pattern.
That pattern came into sharper focus for me recently while attending a webinar hosted by the Association of Leaders in Volunteer Engagement, where the conversation centered on the evolution of communities of practice and the changing landscape of professional associations.
The discussion echoed what many of us have been experiencing firsthand: traditional models of connection and leadership are fading, but what replaces them—and how we support that transition—remains an open question.
This Didn’t Happen Overnight
I’ve been watching this unfold over nearly two decades.
When I first started working in hospital volunteer services in 2006, statewide conferences brought together 500 leaders. Over time, that number declined—500 to 400, then to 300. After COVID, the shift accelerated. Multi-day conferences became one-day events. Hotel venues became regional facilities. Eventually, even those disappeared.
At the same time, regional councils—like the now defunct Mount Shasta Area Council (MSAC) in the North State—faded away. Participation dropped. Leadership pipelines thinned. The structure that once connected volunteer leaders across organizations quietly dissolved.
And this isn’t new. Even at the national level, we’ve seen shifts. The American Hospital
Association moved away from housing its professional volunteer leadership community and its credentialing structure several years ago. Fortunately, the Beryl Institute stepped in to welcome the volunteer professionals community into their broader patient experience movement —an important and forward-thinking move that helped preserve and elevate the role of volunteer leadership in a new context. This relationship supports the strategic use of healthcare volunteers.
But taken together, these changes point to something deeper.
This didn’t happen overnight. And it’s not just about budgets.
What This Really Signals About the Future of Volunteer Management
When organizations eliminate volunteer leadership infrastructure, they aren’t simply reducing costs—they’re reducing capacity.
That may sound counterintuitive. But it’s exactly what’s happening.
Volunteer programs are not just operational add-ons. They are systems of collaboration. When they are well-supported, they extend the reach of an organization far beyond what paid staff alone can accomplish. They bring in community voice, increase visibility, and create pathways for engagement that no marketing campaign can replicate.
And yet, too often, these programs—and the infrastructure that sustains them—are viewed as expendable.
The Value We’re Still Not Measuring
Part of the problem is that we haven’t told this story well enough.
For years, we’ve relied on a narrow definition of value: volunteer hours, cost savings, and wage replacement. Those metrics are easy to calculate. They’re easy to report.
But they don’t capture what volunteers actually do.
Research has consistently shown that the impact of volunteers is multidimensional. Volunteers don’t just provide services—volunteers influence perceptions, shape experiences and build trust. In one study, nearly all clients reported that interactions with volunteers had a positive effect, not only on their experience, but on their perception of the organization and their willingness to engage in the future. There's more than meets the eye when it comes to the value of volunteers.
That matters.
Because volunteers function as more than service providers. They are ambassadors. They signal to the community that an organization is worthy of trust. They create what researchers describe as a “community of caring”—something that cannot be replicated through paid labor alone .
And importantly, organizations know this intuitively. Even when funding is available, leaders are often reluctant to replace volunteers with paid staff—not because of cost, but because something essential would be lost.
That “something” is exactly what we struggle to measure.
If we’re serious about the future of volunteer management, we have to get better at measuring—and communicating—what actually matters.
We already know that experience drives outcomes. In healthcare, we see this clearly in patient experience data. But we rarely connect that insight to volunteer programs.
-What if we did?
-What if we intentionally measured the volunteer experience—and correlated it with outcomes like patient satisfaction, likelihood to recommend, or community perception?
-What if we treated volunteer engagement as part of a broader data strategy, rather than a separate, anecdotal story?
Because what gets measured gets managed. And right now, we’re measuring the wrong things.
I’ve written previously about the importance of a data strategy in volunteer programs—particularly in healthcare settings, where volunteers play a direct role in shaping the patient experience.
And this is also where tools like the Volunteer Satisfaction Index begin to matter—not as standalone surveys, but as part of a larger effort to understand how volunteer experience drives organizational outcomes.
When volunteers feel supported, valued, and connected, they don’t just stay—they advocate. They influence. They extend your organization’s reach in ways that no budget line can fully capture.
A Field in Transition, Not in Decline
The broader sector is starting to recognize this moment.
Organizations like Points of Light are actively working to develop a national strategy for volunteerism, acknowledging both the decline in formal volunteering and the need for new models of engagement.
At the same time, industry research points to shifting trends in how people engage—toward more flexible, episodic, and decentralized forms of volunteering.
Only these aren’t just trends. They’re signals.
In fact, recent discussions in the field prompted an Engage journal article being shared through the Association of Leaders in Volunteer Engagement (AL!VE) that highlights this exact tension: declining participation in traditional association models alongside growing interest in more flexible, decentralized forms of engagement.
The challenge isn’t a lack of interest—it’s a misalignment between how we’ve structured participation and how professionals can realistically engage today.
The question isn’t whether volunteer leadership is changing. It is.
The question is whether we are adapting our infrastructure to support that change—or dismantling it.
Because that’s the risk. In the absence of intentional investment, infrastructure doesn’t evolve—it disappears.
And when it does, we lose more than conferences or committees. We lose shared learning. We lose leadership pathways. We lose the connective tissue that helps volunteer leaders see beyond their individual organizations and into the broader impact of their work.
We lose capacity.
What Leaders of Volunteers Must Do Next
But I'm a glass half full kind of person. I see every challenge as an opportunity.
The decline of traditional association models doesn’t have to mean the decline of the field. It can be a turning point—a chance to rethink how we build, support, and sustain volunteer leadership in a changing environment.
That starts with us.
It starts with leaders of volunteers—and nonprofit leaders more broadly—advocating for the role that volunteer infrastructure plays in organizational success.
It means rethinking how we invest in volunteer programs—not as cost centers, but as strategic assets.
And it means committing to telling a better story—one that is grounded not just in hours and outputs, but in experience, influence, and impact.
Summary
The future of volunteer management is not predetermined.
As these conversations continue across the field—from national strategy efforts to evolving communities of practice—the question isn’t whether change is happening. It’s how we respond to it.
It will be shaped by the decisions we make now—about what we measure, what we value, and what we choose to sustain.
If we don’t tell the story of volunteer impact, decisions will continue to be made as if that impact doesn’t exist.
And that’s a risk we can’t afford to take.
Want more tips on how to communicate data effectively? Browse our latest data communication and storytelling articles or explore the Data Storytelling Essentials on-demand programs for hands-on learning tools you can use today.
If you have found this article insightful, please share on social to help other like-minded business leaders to find their way here.
Comment. Share. Like. Subscribe. Thank you!
Roseanna Galindo is Principal at Periscope Business Process Analysis, specializing in organizational learning and development. She is dedicated to advancing data literacy, enhancing healthcare experiences, and empowering nonprofit leaders.
Explore Roseanna’s expertise and insights on her blog, The Periscope Insighter, starting with the opening post.
Roseanna offers a range of professional development services, including training workshops, keynote speaking, and executive coaching.