Are We Designing Volunteering for the Way People Live?

The Future of Volunteering

Exploring how volunteering is changing and what it could look like next.

For decades, the traditional volunteer role has been relatively predictable: turn up at the same place, on the same day, for a set number of hours, and commit for the foreseeable future.

For many organisations, this model still works. Regular volunteers provide continuity, develop expertise, build relationships and become deeply connected to the communities they serve.

But there is an important question for organisations that rely on volunteers: are we designing volunteering around the way people live today – or around the way volunteering has traditionally been organised?

The latest evidence from Aotearoa suggests it is time to ask the question.

The numbers tell a changing story

More than half of New Zealanders – 53% – volunteered in the previous four weeks according to the latest Stats NZ data. That is encouraging. But beneath the headline is a significant shift: only 27.6% volunteered through an organisation, down from 30.2% in 2021, while 40.8% volunteered directly to help another person outside their household.

The amount of time people contribute is changing too. The most common commitment is now less than five hours over four weeks, while just 20.3% of volunteers contribute more than 25 hours. Volunteering New Zealand's State of the Decade of Volunteering identifies a clear movement towards more flexible, episodic and shorter-term volunteering.

This doesn't mean people have stopped caring.

It may mean they are finding different ways to care.

People are balancing employment, study, whānau, parenting, caring responsibilities, commuting, rising living costs and increasingly complex lives. Their willingness to contribute may be strong, while their ability to commit to every Tuesday afternoon for the next 12 months is considerably weaker.

The weekly role isn't dead – but it shouldn't be the default

There is a danger in interpreting flexibility as meaning that everyone wants to volunteer for only an hour here and there.

They don't.

Some people actively want regularity. A weekly role can provide purpose, friendship, routine, belonging and the opportunity to develop meaningful skills. For organisations, committed volunteers can provide stability and continuity that short-term participation cannot always replace.

The challenge is not to abandon the traditional volunteer.

It is to stop assuming that the traditional volunteer is the only volunteer worth designing for.****

A more useful question might be: What contribution could this person make, given the time and circumstances they actually have?

That opens up a much bigger design space.

From roles to contributions

Imagine an organisation that needs volunteers to help with administration.

Instead of advertising one six-hour weekly role, it might offer:

• a two-hour weekly role for someone who wants regular connection
• a monthly administration session
• a one-off project to update a database
• a three-hour event-based opportunity
• a remote task that can be completed in an evening
• a micro-volunteering task that takes 15–30 minutes
• a short-term role for six weeks while a project is completed.

The work hasn't changed dramatically. The architecture of participation has.

Volunteering New Zealand's research into episodic volunteering highlights the importance of roles being clearly defined, meaningful, flexible and designed with discrete completion points. It also identifies options such as flexible hours and job sharing as attractive to people who cannot make longer-term commitments.

This is role design, not simply recruitment.

Think about life stages, not just volunteer categories

A person's capacity to volunteer can change dramatically throughout their life.

A university student may have plenty of energy but an unpredictable timetable. A parent may have limited evening availability but be able to volunteer during school hours. Someone working full-time may prefer a Saturday project. A person approaching retirement may be looking for a regular role and opportunities to share decades of experience. Someone between jobs may want to build skills and networks.

And people's circumstances change.

A volunteer who cannot commit today may become a highly committed volunteer in two years. Conversely, someone who has volunteered weekly for ten years may suddenly need to reduce their hours because of work, family or other responsibilities.

If our volunteer programmes only recognise people who can make a long-term commitment, we risk losing people whose capacity is temporary – and potentially losing them altogether.

Flexibility needs to work for organisations too

There is a legitimate concern here.

Flexible volunteering isn't simply a matter of making every role optional. Organisations still need reliability, appropriate supervision, safeguarding, training and people who can deliver essential services.

Poorly designed episodic volunteering can create more work rather than less.

That is why the answer is not “let volunteers do whatever they want.”

The answer is intentional flexibility.

Start with the organisation's genuine needs. Break work into meaningful tasks. Identify what requires continuity and what doesn't. Consider which activities can be shared, completed remotely, delivered in short bursts or packaged as projects. Then determine what level of training, supervision and communication each option requires.

The strongest organisations may increasingly have a portfolio of volunteer roles, rather than one standard model.

The opportunity for leaders of volunteers

A changing volunteering landscape can feel like a problem: How do we get people to commit?

Perhaps a better question is:

How can we make it easier for people to contribute?

New Zealand's volunteering participation remains remarkably strong, and 2026 – the International Year of the Volunteer – provides an ideal moment to think beyond simply attracting more volunteers.

For leaders of volunteers, this is an opportunity to review every role and ask:

Does this role genuinely need to be weekly?

Could the work be divided into smaller contributions?

What could someone do once, occasionally or remotely?

Are we making our expectations clear enough for someone who has limited time?

Could we welcome someone into the organisation without immediately asking for a long-term commitment?

And perhaps the most important question:

If someone wants to contribute, but cannot volunteer in the way we have traditionally expected, are we finding a way for them to belong?

The future of volunteering may not be about replacing committed volunteers with casual ones. It may be about creating more ways for people to contribute – so that volunteering fits more naturally into the lives people actually live.

Because the question isn't whether people still want to volunteer.

The evidence suggests they do.

The question is whether our volunteer roles are keeping up with them.