On the safe sideRisk, risk management and volunteering

Katharine Gaskin

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to all the organisationswhich contributed their experiences and viewsto the research, especially those which co-operated in the case studies. Thanks too toLinda Graff, Martin Farrell, members of theForum on Risk and Volunteering, and JustinDavis Smith for their support and advice.

Katharine Gaskin MA (LSE) MA PhD (Michigan)Gaskin Research and Consultancy

Published by Volunteering Englandand The Institute for Volunteering Research

May 2006

ISBN 1 897708 33 5

Contentspage

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

1 INTRODUCTION 71.1 The context 71.2 What is in this report? 7

2 RISK IN THE VOLUNTARY AND COMMUNITY SECTOR 8

2.1 What do we mean by risk? 82.2 The importance of risk 82.3 Types of risk in the VCS 82.4 Types of liability in volunteer organisations 92.5 Types of insurance for volunteer organisations 10

3 THE GROWTH OF RISK CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE VCS 11

3.1 The changing role of the sector 113.2 Insurance increases and restrictions 113.3 Incidents and claims 123.4 The ‘compensation culture’ 13

4 RISK MANAGEMENT 144.1 Risk management in the VCS 144.2 The practice of risk management 144.3 What are the benefits of risk management? 15

5 THE PROCESS OF RISK MANAGEMENT 165.1 The principles of risk management 165.2 A risk management model 165.3 Screening 165.4 Induction and training 175.5 Risk assessment 175.6 Insurance 185.7 Record-keeping and documentation 195.8 Monitoring and review 19

6 SUCCESS IN RISK MANAGEMENT 206.1 Getting expert help 206.2 Devising plans and systems 206.3 Taking a positive and realistic view 206.4 Strong motivation and context 216.5 Implementation 216.6 Staff and resources 22

7 PROBLEMS IN RISK MANAGEMENT 237.1 Paperwork and bureaucracy 237.2 Time and resources 237.3 Keeping up with new legislation and regulation 237.4 The cost of insurance 247.5 External pressure towards risk aversion 247.6 Ensuring compliance 24

8 THE IMPACT ON VOLUNTEERING 268.1 Volunteer numbers 268.2 Screening and risk management responsibility 268.3 Organisational changes 278.4 Cancelling activities and events 278.5 Charges and closures 278.6 Fear of being sued 28

9 ACTIONS AND INITIATIVES 299.1 Volunteer Protection Acts 299.2 Recent UK initiatives 299.3 New UK bills 319.4 Recommendations for action 32

10 CONCLUSION 34

REFERENCES 36

pag

e 3

// C

onte

nts

Executive summary

pag

e 4

The subject of risk and volunteering has become amajor focus in the past few years. This reportpresents a summary of findings from research fundedby the Home Office, comprising a literature review,surveys and case studies.

Although risk is technically a statistical concept, ithas increasingly become a synonym for hazard ordanger, with the positive side of risk overlooked. Theevaluation of everything from a perspective of risk is adefining characteristic of contemporary society.

One of the most important messages about risk isthat it cannot be completely eliminated. A secondequally important principle is that it shouldn’t be. Riskis a fact of life and risk-taking is a vital element of ahealthy and innovative volunteer sector, particularly inthe areas of social care, sport and adventure.However, our survey of volunteer-involvingorganisations revealed a predominantly negative viewof risk.

Risks in the voluntary and community sector (VCS)include injuries to clients, employees, volunteers andthe public; damage to property; employmentpractices; fraud; and legal requirements andcompliance. Volunteer-related risks include exceedingboundaries and authority, substandard performanceand abuse, breach of confidentiality, andmisrepresenting the organisation. The main concernsof organisations in the research focused on adherenceto health and safety rules and possible harm toclients, the public and volunteers. This has opened upareas of liability for voluntary organisations, includingthe legal status of volunteers, ‘at fault’ and ‘no fault’liability for negligence.

Risk consciousness in the VCS has seen adramatic increase in the past five to ten years. This isdue to seven interlinked factors: the changing role of

the sector and an increased reliance on volunteers;greater emphasis on the rights and protection ofvulnerable people; increased legislation andregulation; greater pressure from funders and localauthorities; the professionalisation of the sector;insurance increases and restrictions; legal claims andthe wider context of the compensation culture.

A major stimulus to risk awareness was thesizeable increase in insurance premiums between2001 and 2003. Among our survey organisations,three quarters have experienced increases in theirinsurance costs, many by a substantial amount. Somehave been refused insurance or had cover withdrawnand more than one in ten have had to renegotiatetheir insurance. Smaller organisations, one-off events,care work, youth work and outdoor activities havebeen particularly affected. Just five per cent of oursample had been required by the insurer to develop arisk management plan for volunteers.

Another major factor has been an increase inlawsuits against volunteers, especially in the US, butalso to a lesser degree in the UK. Nearly five per centof our survey have had insurance or legal claimsagainst volunteers or trustees and several courtjudgements for negligence have been made. Evenwhen not pursued, complaints and claims can have adevastating effect on volunteers and organisations.Although numbers remain small, a few well-publicisedcases have an impact way beyond their particularcontext and the threat of being sued continues tohaunt organisations.

Developments in the public sector resonate withthe voluntary sector. Fear of litigation has led toextreme measures to remove any element of risk inlocal authorities, education and other areas despite avery low incidence of accidents and claims. The

broader context for the issue of risk in volunteering isthe so-called compensation culture, which refers tothe blame and claim mentality where there is no suchthing as an accident. British politicians are attemptingto dismiss the myth of the compensation culture, butninety per cent of the organisations in our survey saidit was a reality for them. Despite statistics to thecontrary, it creates the impression of a deluge ofclaims and a sense of widespread vulnerability.

Risk management in the VCS presents specialchallenges because of the enormous range ofactivities and the limited resources and staffing of themajority of organisations. It is defined both by its aimand its methods. Its central aim is dealing withuncertainties and minimising their negative impactand, as a discipline, it comprises strategies,techniques and processes to recognise and controlany threat or danger.

The growth of risk management in the VCS hasbeen dramatic over the past decade and particularlythis century. Our survey findings show that eighty-fiveper cent of organisations now have a written riskmanagement plan and/or carry out risk assessmentsfor volunteering. While smaller organisations are lesslikely to have these, many are risk-conscious andhave a number of measures to ensure safety, such asscreening, health and safety policies and childprotection policies. Their ability to adopt full-blownrisk management is seriously affected by a lack ofresources and thus they tend to be ultra careful inhow they nurture their volunteers and users, andorganise and plan their work.

Most organisations recognise that risk managementhas significant benefits in strengthening their assets,services and accountability. It is an integral part ofgood organisational management and has itself

helped stimulate more professional managementpractices, including leadership and training forvolunteers. Having safe practices and precautions inplace reassures members, users, users’ families,volunteers, staff and the public, as well as protectingorganisations’ reputations and maintainingsponsorship and funding. It can also be an importantfactor in getting insurance.

Risk management is not a one-off event but aprocess that infuses every aspect of the running of anorganisation. It is most effective when built into theculture of the organisation, covering policydevelopment, programme and service planning,partnership and service agreements, financialmanagement, governance, and personnel and facilitymanagement. It has three central aims: prevention,minimisation of harm and liability reduction.

Risk management systems are unique to theirorganisations and the particular issues and risks theyhave to deal with in their area of work. However, fromthe literature and the practice of organisations in theresearch, there is a basic six step model: screening,induction and training, risk assessment, insurance,record-keeping and review. This model is describedin the full report.

A central element of risk management is riskassessment. Organisations risk assess volunteer rolesand placements, volunteers themselves, tasks andactivities, environments and events. Assessmenttakes into account risk to people, property, income,goodwill and liability. All risk assessment works onthe basis of likelihood of occurrence and severity ofimpact and the interplay between them. These twokey aspects are graded either qualitatively orquantitatively. Evaluating risks establishes whether arisk is of concern, can be tolerated or requirescontrol.

While insurance helps transfer liability and mayalso minimise harm by reducing financial loss, itshould never be seen as the first line of defenceagainst risk, but as a back-up when other precautions

have failed. Organisations in the research regularlyreview and upgrade their insurance to ensurecoverage of liability and are increasingly taking outnew policies in areas such as trustee indemnity andbusiness interruption.

It is vitally important that risk management isthoroughly documented and kept under constantreview. Keeping good records enables organisationsto demonstrate their practice to funders, umbrellabodies, local authorities and insurers, and helps coverthem in the event of an allegation or claim, whilemonitoring ensures systems are up to date and reflectnewly emerging risks.

The research revealed that there is much goodpractice and expertise in identifying and managingrisk in volunteer organisations. Successful riskmanagement has a number of elements whichcontribute to effectiveness. They include gettingexpert help from the wide range of statutory andvoluntary sources that provide guidance, and devisingplans and systems in a collaborative way to bring inmultiple perspectives and ensure ownership.

It also helps when organisations present riskmanagement in a positive and realistic light,emphasising benefits and the fact that it is not analien discipline but merely a formalised version ofprevious common sense practice and, above all, thatrisk cannot be completely eliminated and thereforerisk management is not about trying to do theimpossible. Having a bad experience related to risk oroperating in a context, such as health, where riskmanagement is non-negotiable provides particularmotivation.

The approach taken in implementing riskmanagement can influence how successful it is. Thisincludes developing systems and procedures that areefficient and easy to use and the way in which riskmanagement is explained to staff and volunteers.Changing the organisational culture around risk isessential to success, so that awareness becomessecond nature and is embedded in all operations.

Having sufficient staff and resources to take on theadditional bureaucracy is clearly helpful in ensuringits success.

The quantity of paperwork and bureaucracy is amajor problem for organisations, one of six identifiedby the research. The others are the time andresources needed, keeping up with new legislationand regulations, the cost of insurance, externalpressures towards excessive risk aversion, andensuring compliance.

The amount of bureaucracy in risk managementputs a heavy burden on organisations and manysmaller ones find it very onerous, both for any paidstaff they have and for volunteers. It affects screeningprocedures and the completion of risk assessmentforms for any and every activity. This is in large partdue to the climate of risk aversion in the public sectorand, with sixty per cent of our survey organisationsunder contract to local authorities, many are subjectto extreme requirements. Organisations commentthat local authorities tend to stick to the letter andrequire them to be over-cautious rather than lookingat what legislation really intends in relation to safetyand making it work for them. Funders provide furtherpressure by reinforcing bureaucratic requirementsand hampering innovation and enterprise.

The research confirms that fears of a deterrenteffect on volunteering are well-founded. In more thanhalf the organisations in the survey volunteers haveexpressed anxiety about risk and around a fifth saythat potential volunteers have been deterred fromjoining them. A similar percentage have lost existingvolunteers for these reasons. Trustees have also beenaffected, but at a somewhat lower level. More than aquarter of all volunteers worry about risk and one intwenty have considered stopping because of this –nationally, this amounts to about one millionvolunteers.

Around a third of organisations have found itincreasingly difficult to recruit volunteers and trustees.One in five have seen their volunteer numbers

pag

e 5

// E

xecu

tive

sum

mar

y

pag

e 6 decline, although they acknowledge that risk is not

the only factor. Smaller organisations are worstaffected by risk fears and declining numbers. Amongsports and adventure organisations, around sixty percent are finding it harder to recruit volunteers andforty per cent trustees

Volunteers are put off by stringent recruitmentprocedures, the responsibility of upholding riskmanagement standards and the fear of being sued.This can seem to be too much pressure in what somevolunteers view as a leisure activity or the expressionof altruism. Risk management also has opportunitycosts by distracting staff time from hands-on workand volunteer development; in the restriction ofvolunteer roles and the range of activities on offer; thecancellation of activities and events; increases incharges; and closures. As a result, existing volunteerroles may be less attractive and new ones are lesslikely to be created, both limiting the potential appealof volunteering. One area in which these impacts maybe particularly felt is youth volunteering, putting riskmanagement and risk aversion at odds with thegovernment’s aim of recruiting one million new youngvolunteers.

In this country and abroad, a number of actionshave been taken to address the situation of risk in thevoluntary and community sector, as well as the widercontext of the compensation culture. The reportreviews Volunteer Protection Acts in the United Statesand Australia, UK attempts at legislation including thenew Compensation Bill, and recent initiatives by theBritish government and other bodies. These areattempting particularly to address the insurancesituation, moderate extreme risk aversion, control‘claims farmers’ and develop alternative mechanismsfor redress.

A number of ideas and proposals emerged fromthe research to improve the situation for volunteerorganisations. They include influencing the sector’soperating environment, the dissemination of goodpractice, and various measures to help smaller

organisations such as a ‘favoured group status’scheme and a risk management development fund.Changes to the CRB system are also proposed, andbroader measures endorsed that would influence thecompensation culture.

This research, which for the first time gives acomprehensive picture of risk and risk managementin volunteer-involving organisations in England,reveals a number of positives but also some warningsabout the way the situation is going. On the positiveside, risk management is being widely practised andgenerally welcomed as an integral part of goodmanagement. But it is not without its costs.

There are widespread concerns that the sector isbogged down in bureaucracy and that measures arenot proportionate to the level of risk. Organisationssay that there is no flexibility in the system and that itis not an evidence-based system. People arebecoming less willing to volunteer and exposethemselves to risk, and are being deterred by riskmanagement procedures and responsibility. There areserious anxieties about the future of volunteerinvolvement if strictures become increasingly rigidand volunteer roles continue to narrow. Whileaccepting that old-style volunteering may be a thingof the past, there is real concern that applying to be avolunteer is becoming like job recruitment and theinstinct to help out will be stifled by precaution andpaperwork.

The overall assessment of the state of risk and riskmanagement in volunteering in England is that thereis concern but not a crisis. But there may be one ifthe drift to risk aversion continues. We need to carryout a risk assessment of risk management itself anddecide which is the bigger risk.

Do we stand to lose more if the sector carries ondown the route of excessive caution, in which riskmanagement bureaucracy increases, enterprise isdiscouraged, volunteer roles become regimented andhomogenised, and the gulf between large and smallorganisations widens? Or do we risk too much if we

reassert the vital role of the sector in tackling difficultsocial problems and providing challenging activities,and moderate our demands that chances shouldnever be taken? The choice seems to be between asector that does things just to be on the safe sideand one that is allowed to take certain risks toimprove the quality of life for individuals and society.We have to decide which is the bigger risk to thefuture of a thriving, innovative and well-supportedvolunteer sector in this country.

1 Introduction

1.1 The contextThe subject of risk and volunteering has become amajor focus in the past few years. In response toconcerns within the volunteer-involving sector, thegovernment and other bodies have attempted toaddress the issue with a variety of initiatives.

In 2005 the Home Office funded an extensiveresearch project by the Institute for VolunteeringResearch at Volunteering England, to include amapping and consultation exercise, a Volunteeringand Risk Forum of key stakeholders, and thedevelopment and dissemination of good practice.This report presents a summary of the findings andconclusions from the research.

The focus on risk and volunteering has beenstimulated by several related but slightly differentissues:

> concern within the voluntary and community sector(VCS) about the perceived increase in insurancepremiums over recent years, especially in relationto public liability cover for volunteers

> concern within the VCS about the perceivedincrease in negligence claims for personal injurybeing brought against volunteers, especially in thesports and outdoor recreation field

> concern within the VCS that the apparent increasein such claims is negatively affecting thewillingness of people to volunteer and exposethemselves to this element of risk

> evidence from the Better Regulation Task Forceand others that the so-called compensation culture

is in fact a myth and that there has been noincrease in recent years in negligence claims forpersonal injury

> recognition that many organisations within theVCS, especially smaller agencies, have been slowto embrace the need to develop appropriate riskmanagement systems and procedures

> recognition that much good practice on managingrisk exists within the VCS and that much could beachieved through wider dissemination.

The research programme addressed these issuesacross the whole volunteering sector, including publicand private bodies which involve volunteers. Itrecognises that there are wider issues to do with riskand the VCS, which go beyond volunteering, butwhich fall outside its scope. Both the researchprogramme and this report therefore focus onvolunteering, but are expected to feed into broaderdebates on risk within the sector.

This report draws on three reports coveringdifferent elements of the research programme and the reader is referred to these for more in-depthfindings. They are Getting a Grip, a literature review of around 200 UK, North American andAustralian sources; Reasonable Care? which reports the findings of surveys of over 500organisations and more than 1,000 volunteers and non-volunteers; and Cautionary Tales, casestudies of risk management in twelve volunteer-involving organisations. These reports are availableon: www.volunteering.org.uk/missions.php?id=1262

1.2 What is in this report?The report begins, in Chapter 2, by establishing whatrisk means, the importance of risk-taking, and typesof risk, liability and insurance in the VCS. Chapter 3explains the growth of risk consciousness in the VCSarising from its changed role, increases in legalclaims and insurance costs and the wider context ofthe compensation culture.

The report then focuses on risk management.Chapter 4 reviews definitions, practice and benefits,while Chapter 5 is devoted to principles andprocesses. Chapters 6 and 7 examine respectivelyfactors contributing to success in risk management,and problems implementing it. Chapter 8 assessesthe impact of risk management on volunteers.

In Chapter 9, recent developments are discussed,including volunteer protection laws abroad, UKgovernment initiatives and proposed new legislation.This chapter also presents recommendations forfurther action which emerged from the research.Chapter 10 presents conclusions.

pag

e 7

// In

trod

uctio

n

pag

e 8 2 Risk in the voluntary and community sector

2.1 What do we mean byrisk? Although risk is technically a precise statisticalconcept that defines ‘the product of a degree ofprobability and a degree of consequence’, it has‘increasingly turned into a synonym for hazard ordanger, linked to a politicised approach to blame’(Hood, 2005). The evaluation of everything from aperspective of risk is a ‘defining characteristic ofcontemporary society’ with risk acting as ‘a prismthrough which any activity is judged’ (Landry, 2005).

Risks are ‘possibilities that human activities ornatural events lead to consequences that affect whathumans value. This can involve negative (adverse)consequences as well as positive ones(benefits/opportunities)’ (Kloman, 2001). In thecontext of the voluntary, community and charitysector, risk describes ‘the uncertainty surroundingevents and their outcomes that may have asignificant effect, either enhancing or inhibiting:operational performance; achievement of aims andobjectives; or meeting expectations of stakeholders’(Charity Commission, 2005a).

While both of these sources acknowledge the goodand bad sides of risk, many definitions emphasise thedanger element of risk rather than its potentiallyenhancing effect. Risk is ‘any uncertainty about afuture event that threatens your organisation’s abilityto accomplish its mission’ (Alliance for NonprofitManagement, 2004b) and ‘a potentially damagingoutcome of an event or situation’ (NCVO, 2001). As aresult ‘the opportunity side of risk-taking begins todisappear. There seem to be no more good risks; allrisks appear bad’ (Landry, 2005).

2.2 The importance of riskOne of the most important messages about risk inthe literature is that it cannot be completelyeliminated. A second equally important principle isthat it shouldn’t be. Risk is a fact of life: ‘We all face it– as individuals in our daily lives, businesses, andvoluntary and community groups’ (Association ofBritish Insurers, 2005).

And volunteer organisations ‘are natural risk takers’(Herman and Jackson, 2004). They ‘embrace riskwhen the potential reward is the opportunity toimprove the quality of life in a community. … effectivevolunteer programs can’t operate without taking risks’(ibid).

Moreover, volunteers are ‘on the cutting edge ofchange … usually responding to needs before formalinstitutions even acknowledge the problem’: ‘in manycases, no one else wants to tackle the problem orreach out to a particular client group exactly becausethe work is hard, perhaps still unsolvable, and withmany unknowns’ (Ellis, 1996). AIDS campaigning andsupport, needle exchanges, women’s shelters,hospice development, and environmental action areall areas which have grown through taking risks andin which an ‘over-focus on risk avoidance would shutdown the greatest majority of volunteering’ (Graff,2003).

Choosing to take a risk can sometimes be thebetter, or only, option: ‘if we want to change andgrow, take advantage of new opportunities, orundertake some types of activity, we have toacknowledge that there will be risks involved’ (NCVO,2001). In some areas of the VCS, for exampleadventure, sport and play, ‘elements of risk areessential’; there is ‘inherent risk in giving people the

opportunity for adventure and taking responsibility’(All Party Parliamentary Group, 2004).

Despite this widely accepted view, only half theorganisations in our survey agreed that risk-taking isan integral part of the VCS and eight out of tenthought that risk management strategies should focuson avoiding or eliminating risk. The Health and SafetyExecutive, however, stresses that ‘the law does notexpect you to eliminate all risk’ but requiresorganisations to protect people as far as is‘reasonably practicable’ (HSE, 2006b). Anorganisation in the survey observed that ‘voluntaryorganisations do have a culture of risk taking butlegislation and liability dictate that this has tochange’. The survey results show the growingacceptance of a predominantly negative view of risk,the level of anxiety about it and, perhaps, resistanceto the view that the volunteer sector is particularlyrisk-prone.

2.3 Types of risk in the VCSThe Charity Commission outlines five categories ofpotential risk: governance, operational, financial,external and compliance with law and regulation(Charity Commission, 2005a). The most commonrisks identified by the US Alliance for NonprofitManagement are: injuries to clients, employees,volunteers and the public; damage to property;employment practices; fraud; and legal requirementsand compliance (Alliance for Nonprofit Management,2004b).

Volunteer-related risks include exceedingboundaries and authority, substandard performanceand abuse, breach of confidentiality, and

misrepresenting the organisation (Graff, 2003). Theconsequence of error ‘can be large, if notcatastrophic’ (ibid). Volunteers have the potential todamage both an organisation’s finances, throughpayoffs or legal claims, and its reputation. This canmean the loss of its ‘most valuable asset’ – publictrust – which has already undergone a serious declineand ‘does not allow for complacency’ according toNCVO and the Charity Commission (Griffith et al.,2005; Opinion Leader Research, 2005).

Organisations in the survey were conscious of allthese risks. Their main concerns in relation tovolunteers focused on adherence to health and safetyrules and possible harm to clients, the public andvolunteers. They emphasised that they have alwaysbeen mindful of their duty of care and most havebeen conscientious about safety, but the newelement in the mix is the risk of being sued. This hasbecome the greatest fear because of the financialcosts and potential liability, particularly as they affecttrustees, and, above all, the damage to theirreputation, income and ability to function (ThirdSector, 2005a). All of these outcomes would havenegative impacts on recruitment, retention andmaintenance of volunteer programmes.

2.4 Types of liability involunteer organisationsUntil relatively recently, the liability of charitable andvoluntary organisations was very limited and generallyuntested. But over the past decade in the US ‘a widevariety of legal issues’ has been examined in thecourts including ‘tort liability, wrongful employmentpractices, personal injury, membership discrimination,breach of fiduciary duty, director liability, and liabilityof parent organisation’ (Oshinsky and Dias, 2002).

The most common, constituting over seventy-fiveper cent of all claims against US nonprofits, relate to

employment law – wrongful terminations, sexualharassment and discrimination – while allegations ofnegligence are the most frequent under civil law(Alliance for Nonprofit Management, 2004b). In thiscountry, the main causes of claims and legal actionare negligence and personal accident, although thenumber of cases is small.

This section briefly reviews the major concepts of‘at fault’ and ‘no fault’ liability. First, a look at thecontentious issue of the legal status of volunteers.

The legal status of volunteersThe legal status of volunteers has raised particularconcerns chiefly because it is unclear and has a hostof ramifications for volunteers’ rights andorganisations’ responsibilities and liability (Adirondackand Taylor, 2001; Adirondack, 2005).

Volunteering England, NCVO and ACEVO warn that‘organisations have to be careful that the volunteersdon’t become employees in the eyes of the law’ andcaution against creating arrangements that could beconstrued as a contract (NCVO, 2005a; ACEVO,2005; Volunteering England, 2004a). USorganisations are increasingly drawing up agreementswith volunteers to avoid being taken to anemployment tribunal (Third Sector, 2005d) andACEVO has urged the government to bring in a legaldistinction between employees and volunteers (ThirdSector, 2005e).

Precedents have been set in successful claims forunfair dismissal or discrimination brought byvolunteers against major volunteer-involvingorganisations including RNLI, the Scout Association,Relate and Citizens Advice (Home Office, 2004;Adirondack, 2005). Although some tribunals haveruled against volunteer claimants or cases have beendropped, a few volunteers have won the right to betreated as employees (Home Office, 2004;Adirondack, 2005). Many organisations remainconfused about their legal responsibilities tovolunteers and the issue continues to bubble under

with potentially ‘catastrophic’ consequences (Restall,2005).

Organisations in our research did not see the legalstatus of volunteers as a major risk area. One casestudy organisation which makes token payments tovolunteers felt their professionalism and dedication tothe organisation’s aims would preclude any conflictover employment status. Only one case study, avolunteer centre, recognised the problem; itsmanager warned of the risks of paying honoraria tovolunteers and feared the tightening of employmentlegislation could pose a ‘nightmare’ for voluntaryorganisations.

NegligenceNegligence is enshrined in law and is less subject tointerpretation than legal status. If an organisation hasdone something wrong, or failed to do something itshould have done, and an injury or loss has occurredas a result, this constitutes ‘at fault’ liability fornegligence. For negligence to exist, the organisationmust have a ‘duty of care’ towards the injured party.Duty of care is the tort of negligence and requiresproof of three factors: proximity, reasonableforeseeability and fault.

Duty of care is, however, ‘a fluid concept’ (Graff,2003), which can vary ‘with the situation, the peopleinvolved, and the community in which the incidenttakes place’ (Alliance for Nonprofit Management,2004b). The fluidity of the concept is recognised inthe new UK Compensation Bill, with its provision forchanging how a breach of the duty of care isestablished, allowing for the wider social value of anactivity to be taken into account (see Chapter 9). Thishas yet to become law.

Vicarious liabilityVicarious liability is ‘no fault’ liability. Defined as‘indirect legal responsibility’, it rests on the conceptof agency. An organisation may be found liable for theactions or inactions of its agents or subordinates

pag

e 9

// R

isk

in th

e vo

lunt

ary

and

com

mun

ity s

ecto

r

pag

e 10

although the organisation itself may be faultless.Liability is justified on the grounds that the entity thatdirects and benefits from an individual’s actionsshould bear the costs of any resulting harm. The factthat an agent’s action is expressly forbidden by theorganisation does not absolve it from responsibility(Risk Management Research Center, 1999a; CharityCommission, 2004).

In the US and Canada, legal precedents haveestablished that unpaid workers are agents andtherefore an organisation can be held vicariously liablefor the wrongful acts of its employee/volunteer, evenwhen it has fulfilled its duty of care (Graff, 2003). Abenchmark Canadian case found an organisationvicariously liable for the sexual misconduct of avolunteer because the ‘employer’s enterprise createdand fostered the risk that led to the ultimate harm (and)created and managed the risk’ (Bazley v. Curry, 1999).

Although the UK ‘relies heavily’ on American andCanadian test cases and ‘precedents are set farbeyond the borders of our own communities’ (Graff,2005), organisations in this country do not seevicarious liability as a big threat. They sometimesexplicitly warn volunteers, in handbooks and projectprotocols, that any task they undertake that is notagreed to or authorised is at their own risk, but thisdoes not actually remove the potential for vicariousliability. It may take a high profile test case in thiscountry to bring the issue onto the sector’s radar.

2.5 Types of insurance forvolunteer organisationsThere are several types of insurance which might beneeded by a volunteer-involving organisation. Theseshould be determined by an assessment of the typesof exposure and losses that may occur. The maintypes of liability insurance for the voluntary andcommunity sector in the UK are described below

(ABI, 2005 and see also Charity Commission, 2003,and NICVA, 2004).

> Employers’ liability (EL) insurance is compulsory bylaw for employers and covers all staff, permanentand temporary; ‘trustees are advised to regardvolunteers as being employees for insurancepurposes and to ensure that they are appropriatelycovered’ (Charity Commission, 2003 and see alsoHealth and Safety Executive, 1999).

> Public liability (PL) insurance provides cover forinjuries to the public or damage to or loss of theirproperty caused by the negligence of theorganisation, which includes the actions ofemployees and volunteers. The term ‘public’means anyone other than an employee andincludes volunteers, participants, spectators,visitors and clients.

Organisations in the survey generally have PL andEL (the latter even when they do not actually employanyone, but to cover volunteers). The followingpolicies are also taken out by some:

> Contents and buildings insurance covers premises.

> Professional indemnity insurance protects againstfinancial loss to clients arising from theorganisation’s negligence in providing professionalservices, including advice and information.

> Product liability insurance covers personal injuryand property damage caused by a fault in thedesign or production of a product.

> Trustee indemnity insurance provides cover forappointed trustees against the risk of personalliability arising from any breach of trust, removing theobligation to meet the cost from their own pocket.

> Directors and Officers (D & O) insurance coversclaims against an individual with managementresponsibility, who can be held personallyresponsible for lack of care and skill in carrying outtheir duties.

> Business continuity insurance (loss ofrevenue/increased cost of working) provides for theorganisation to continue operating in the event ofdamage to premises or similar interruption.

> Fidelity insurance is ‘theft by employee’ insurance,covering fraud or dishonesty by employees, andlegal expenses insurance covers costs in the eventof legal proceedings.

Other policies such as motor insurance, equipmentinsurance and medical malpractice are held by someorganisations, depending on the nature of their work.It is notable that many organisations in the surveyhave recently reviewed their policies and some havebolstered their cover by taking out new policies suchas trustee indemnity or business continuity insurance.

The VCS’s insurance is provided by a clutch ofcompanies who tend to specialise in the sector.Zurich Municipal is described as the only player in thegame for small voluntary organisations. Royal andSunAlliance and Allianz Cornhill also figure strongly,with some organisations using Norwich Union andEcclesiastical. Many work through brokers PerkinsSlade, Marsh Ltd. and AON Ltd.

pag

e 11

// T

he g

row

th o

f ris

k co

nsci

ousn

ess

in th

e VC

S

Risk consciousness in the voluntary and communitysector has seen a dramatic increase in the past five toten years. This is due to seven interlinked factors: thechanging role of the sector and an increased relianceon volunteers; greater emphasis on the rights andprotection of vulnerable people; increased legislationand regulation; greater pressure from funders andlocal authorities; the professionalisation of the sector;insurance increases and restrictions; legal claims andthe wider context of the compensation culture.

3.1 The changing role of thesectorThe rise of risk consciousness in the VCS issignificantly due to the greater exposure of the sectorcaused by changes in the delivery of services. In theUS, Canada, the UK, Australia and other countries,the withdrawal of government from services and thepromotion of a vastly expanded role for the voluntarysector has led to increased reliance on volunteers onthe front lines of service delivery, often with lesssupervision and support (Graff, 2003). Volunteers aretherefore being asked to perform work that is ‘morecomplex, more sophisticated and more responsible’as well as more visible (ibid).

In tandem with the contracting out of services hasbeen the development of regulatory regimes toensure protection and performance in ‘arms-lengthproviders’ (Bolton, 2004) and growingprofessionalisation of organisations’ practice. Thishas been prompted by increased awareness of therights of vulnerable people, a greater demand forpublic accountability, and a lower tolerance of risk

among the public in general and by funders and thepublic sector in particular (ibid).

In the UK, the introduction of SORP 2000(Accounting and Reporting by Charities – Statementof Recommended Practice) ‘placed the reporting ofrisk management on the agenda of many charities forthe first time’ (Charity Commission, 2005a). SORP2005 strengthens the requirement on charities toreview and plan for risks (Third Sector, 2005a; CharityCommission, 2005b).

Organisations are very conscious of the higherprofile they have in the pattern of service delivery andthe fact that their volunteers are working with morevulnerable people and in higher risk situations. Theyare also aware that the shift in funding regimes haschanged their relationship with statutory authorities.Sixty per cent of the organisations in the surveyprovided services under contract, bringing themunder the authority of local government and subjectto the greater risk aversion of the public sector.

Many trace the origins of their modern riskmanagement to the introduction of legislation andregulatory frameworks which accompanied this shift,and keeping up with changes in these is one of theirbiggest challenges. Professional risk management isalso part of the general professionalisation of theway organisations are run, and many see this as agood thing.

3.2 Insurance increases andrestrictionsA major stimulus to risk awareness in relation tovolunteers was the increase in liability insurance

premiums which occurred between 2001 and 2003.That time period saw a considerable hardening of theinsurance market, with increases in premiums causedby personal injury claims inflation, higher damagesawards, the introduction of no win no feearrangements and lower discount rates. This was ashock to the system for many VCS organisations and,although the rate of increase slowed considerably by2004 and fewer businesses were being denied cover(ABI, 2004; OFT, 2003/2005), the experience put riskand risk management high on the sector’s agenda.

Research conducted at the time showed that thecost of insurance cover rose sharply for mostorganisations, sometimes by several hundred percent (Z/Yen, 2003; Alison Millward Associates, 2003;Hill, 2004; Charity Commission, 2003). This wasparalleled in the US and, particularly, Australia where‘exorbitant increases in premiums (regardless ofclaims history)’ and ‘inability to find insurance at anyprice’ have had a ‘huge impact on organisations’capacity’ (Australian Senate Economics ReferenceCommittee into Insurance, quoted in Verity, 2005;Graff, 2005). As a result fees have been increasedand services cut, ‘community events are cancelled[and] community groups are disbanding’ (OurCommunity, 2003; Verity, 2005).

Among our survey organisations, three quartershave seen their insurance costs go up in recentyears, a third of them by a substantial amount. Thesmallest organisations and those in sports, adventureand exercise, were the hardest hit. Althoughincreases had stabilised for most organisations in thelast couple of years, some are still experiencing steeprises. Previous research showed that nearly one fifthof organisations were unable to get the full cover theyrequired (Z/Yen, 2003). From our survey, three per

3 The growth of risk consciousness in the VCS

pag

e 12

cent had been refused insurance or had coverwithdrawn. Exclusions sometimes relate to age, withinsurance not available for young or senior volunteersfor certain activities, though upper age thresholds arevery variable. More than one in ten organisationshave had to renegotiate insurance in relation tovolunteers.

Organisations had experienced withdrawals ofcover at very short notice, an increasing number ofexclusions particularly affecting care work, youthwork and outdoor activities, and the scaling downand cancellation of volunteer activities (AlisonMillward Associates, 2003). Small groups andorganisers of one-off events found it increasinglydifficult to get insurance at all (Hill, 2004; CCPR,2004). In response to our survey of insurers, Royaland SunAlliance maintains that ‘any refusal will bespecific to the actual risk, usually because of poorrisk management standards or a poor claims record’and asserts ‘we have never attempted to restrict anyactivity, our main interest is that the risk is properlycontrolled’.

Past research provided evidence of ‘inconsistentpricing’ by insurers and little relationship between riskmanagement activities and insurance increases(Z/Yen, 2003). Most organisations had steep premiumincreases despite having no incidents or claims,suggesting the lack of a relationship between theirsafety record and the cost of cover. In general, theVCS has a claims-to-premium ratio significantly lowerthan the market as a whole, but this is not reflected inthe insurance industry’s treatment of it (Z/Yen, 2003).Royal and SunAlliance points out that ‘the wholesystem of insurance depends on the mutualisation ofrisk’ and the VCS cannot be given ‘preferentialtreatment’. However, premiums ‘should be adjustedto reflect actual claims record and risk managementto differentiate between a "good" risk and a "bad"one’.

Just five per cent of our sample said they had beenrequired by the insurer to develop a risk management

plan for volunteers. Royal and SunAlliance notes thata problem only arises ‘if there is inadequate or no riskmanagement’ and the Association of British Insurersstresses that an insurer is more likely to be interestedin the overall approach to risk management ratherthan focusing specifically on volunteers. According toABI, a company would only charge a higher premiumor be reluctant to quote for a risk if an organisationdid not comply with legal requirements to undertakerisk assessments. ABI and individual insurers havebeen involved in a number of initiatives to easemarket conditions and improve access and mutualunderstanding in relation to the VCS. Although theinsurance situation has improved, it is still a source ofmajor worry to many organisations, and there is quitea widespread feeling that a communication gap existsbetween the industry and the VCS.

3.3 Incidents and claimsAn increase in lawsuits against volunteers becameapparent in the US from the mid 1980s, although‘there has not been an overwhelming number of legalactions, even in America’ (Graff, 2003; Alliance forNonprofit Management, 2004a). Legal cases againstvoluntary organisations have been fairly rare in theUK, but have been a growing cause for concern.

The survey of organisations revealed that nearlyfive per cent have had insurance or legal claimsagainst volunteers or trustees, while one in ten ofThird Sector’s readership had been involved in risk-related litigation in the past year (Third Sector, 2005a).Several court judgements of negligence byorganisations have been made, with criticism levelledagainst the judiciary for its poor grasp of the nature ofvolunteering (All Party Parliamentary Group onAdventure and Recreation in Society, 2004).

Evidence from the ‘high-risk’ sports and adventuresectors, while showing ‘a very low overall rate ofoccurrence’ of incidents and claims (CTBS, 2004),

highlights the disproportionate impact a complaint orclaim can have. The Central Council for PhysicalRecreation (CCPR) observes that ‘litigation, evenwhen dismissed, places increased strains upon analready fragile voluntary system and manyorganisations choose to make settlements rather thanface the additional costs of pursuing cases throughthe courts, even when innocent of wrong-doing’(CCPR, 2004).

Developments in the public sector resonate withthe voluntary sector. Wide publicity is given to pre-emptive actions or ‘extreme measures to remove anyelement of risk’ such as cancelling school sportsdays, cutting down conker trees, and removinghanging baskets or play apparatus from playgrounds(Home Office, 2005). The Disability RightsCommission claims that risk aversion is ‘literallypreventing disabled people from participating fully insociety’ because in many local authorities ‘fear oflitigation is replacing sensible action’ (Matthews,2006).

In education, the NASUWT called for teachers tostop supervising extra-curricular activities ‘to avoidthe danger of being sued’ (Reynolds, 2004), althoughthere is actually a ‘very low incidence of seriousaccidents on school trips’ and the fear of accidentsand of litigation is ‘entirely out of proportion to thereal risks’ (Education and Skills Select Committee,2005). Over the past ten years and thousands ofschool trips, only eight individual teachers have beenprosecuted (Hunt, 2006).

The Health and Safety Executive has compiled alibrary of examples of risk aversion in various fields,identifying the primary reason as ‘fear of being sued’(HSE, 2006a). Its definition of ‘disproportionate riskmanagement’ includes demands for absolute safety(nil risk) that are not required in standards or law,banning activities with no real evidence of significantrisk or without considering the social, educational oreconomic benefits of the activity, and concentratingresources on low risk hazards (ibid).

3.4 The ‘compensation culture’The broader context for the issue of risk involunteering is the so-called compensation culture, aconcept which has gained wide currency in recentyears. It originates in the United States and refers tothe litigious nature of modern society and the blameand claim culture where there is no such thing as anaccident.

British politicians are attempting to dismiss andcheck its development (Better Regulation Task Force,2004; HM Government, 2004; Blair, 2005), but ninetyper cent of the volunteer-involving organisations inour survey said it was a reality for them. Its growth isdue particularly to the media, the introduction of nowin, no fee lawsuits and the ubiquitous advertising ofpersonal injury claims companies, while culturalchanges have placed greater focus on rights anddecreased emphasis on personal responsibility.

These factors create the impression of a deluge ofclaims and a sense of widespread vulnerability. Mostorganisations believed, for example, that personalaccident and injury claims in the UK had increasedmarkedly in the past four years, while they have infact stayed more or less static. Perceptions, however,are creating a climate of fear in the sector, which is areflection of the larger culture of fear in society. Theconcept of the risk-society, dominated by theprecautionary principle and suspicion of scientific andindustrial developments (Beck, 1992; Furedi,2001/2002/2005; Coker, 2002; O’Neill, 2004; Monbiot,2004), is more fully examined in Getting a Grip.

pag

e 13

// T

he g

row

th o

f ris

k co

nsci

ousn

ess

in th

e VC

S

pag

e 14 4 Risk management

4.1 Risk management in theVCS Voluntary organisations and nonprofits face ‘specialrisk management challenges’ for two main reasons:one, the enormous range of activities they provideand oversee; and two, the limited resources andstaffing of the majority of organisations (Herman andJackson, 2004). This is in contrast to largecompanies, government agencies and even somelarge voluntary organisations, which can afford toemploy a full-time professional risk manager or riskmanagement consultants.

Risk management in the VCS is defined both byits aim and its methods. Its central aim is ‘dealingwith uncertainties’ (Graff, 2003), minimising ‘thechance that bad surprises will occur’ and increasing‘the chance of good surprises’ (Herman andJackson, 2004). It focuses on ‘dealing with thepossibility that some future event will cause harm’(Alliance for Nonprofit Management, 2004c) and‘learning to identify, control and minimise the impactof uncertain events’ (Division of Public and NonprofitAdministration, 2004).

As a discipline, risk management ‘providesstrategies, techniques and an approach to recogniseand confront any threat or danger that may hinderthe organisation from fulfilling its mission’ (Alliancefor Nonprofit Management, 2004c). It is defined as‘the culture, processes and structures directedtowards the effective management of potentialopportunities and adverse effects’ (Government ofWestern Australia, 2004).

4.2 The practice of riskmanagementWhile risk management has rapidly burgeoned into anindustry with its own associations, centres andexperts, the formal application of risk managementsystems is ‘a relatively new concept to manynonprofit organisations’ (Graff, 2003). It is onlyrecently that the voluntary sectors in North America,Australia and the UK have ‘begun to respond to theincreasingly litigious nature of society and thegrowing public and legal accountability which arecombining to create higher standards for all’ (Ibid).

The growth of risk management in the UK hasbeen dramatic. From surveys conducted in 2002 -'managing risk is a new but growing area' (O'Byrne,2003) - and 2003 - nine in ten charities were usingrisk management (PFK, 2003) - to the currentresearch in 2005/6, it is clear that its adoption hasproceeded at a very rapid pace.

Large organisations and umbrella bodies,particularly those in ‘high-risk’ sectors such assports, adventure and play, rescue and first aid, andenvironmental action, have tended to lead the way inadopting extensive risk management policies andquality systems. Smaller organisations were lesslikely to have formal risk management (O’Byrne,2003). A Third Sector poll of its readership found ‘astaggering forty-eight per cent have no specific risktraining in place’ (Third Sector, 2005a). However, theVCS is not alone in this; other sectors are ‘equallyblasé’ with risk management training in just over halfof commercial organisations (ibid) and nintey-five percent of new teachers receiving no risk assessmenttraining (RoSPA, 2004).

Our survey findings show that risk management isnow carried out in a large majority of organisations.Eighty-five per cent have a written risk managementplan and/or carry out risk assessments forvolunteering (a third of all organisations have awritten plan). Ninety per cent have a health andsafety policy covering volunteers’ activities and threequarters a child/user protection policy, bothimportant elements of risk management.

Smaller organisations are less likely to have awritten plan or to carry out risk assessments.However, this does not necessarily indicate a cavalierattitude to risk. On further investigation, many arerisk-conscious and have a number of measures toensure safety, such as screening, health and safetypolicies and child or vulnerable adult protectionpolicies. Their ability to adopt full-blown riskmanagement is seriously affected by their level ofresources and thus they tend to be ultra careful inhow they nurture their volunteers and users, andorganise and plan their work.

The fact that they do not construe this as ‘riskmanagement’ indicates the somewhat obfuscatingeffect of jargon and underlines the finding from thesurvey that over a third of organisations find thelanguage and terminology of risk managementbaffling. Similarly, two thirds of organisations say thatunderstanding risk and how to reduce it is the mostchallenging aspect of risk management (Third Sector,2005a).

Third Sector’s poll found that, despite theapparent lack of risk management plans and trainingin some VCS organisations, ninety-six per cent thinktheir preparation for the risks they face is excellent orgood (Third Sector, 2005a). The results of ourresearch suggest that this is not over-optimistic and

that the vast majority of organisations are veryconscientious about ensuring the safety andprotection of volunteers, users and the public.

4.3 What are the benefits ofrisk management?Most organisations recognise that risk managementhas significant benefits. Experts stress that riskmanagement is ‘responsible and contemporary bestpractice’ and an ‘integral part of good organisationaland volunteer management’ (Graff, 2003). It ‘shouldbe viewed not as a bit of unpleasant housekeepingbut rather as an opportunity to achieve yourorganisation’s full potential’ and provides‘opportunities to strengthen the organisation’s assets,offer more meaningful services to individuals of awider community, and attract a steadily growingconstituency of donors, supporters, and volunteers’(Nonprofit Risk Management Center, 2005).

Ninety-three percent of UK charities identifybenefits from risk management in planning, decision-making, and avoiding or responding to problems(PKF, 2004). Organisations in our survey agreed.Almost all feel that risk management strengthensorganisations’ assets, services and accountability andmany take the view that risk awareness is simply oneaspect of good volunteer management. As a hospitaltrust’s voluntary service manager expresses it in acase study, ‘good risk management is goodmanagement, full stop’.

Risk management has itself helped stimulate bettermanagement practices. A second hospital VSM notedthat ‘risk management has helped identify and put inplace better leadership and training for volunteers’. ARoyal Mencap Society group’s volunteer managercommented that the new climate of risk awareness‘has kickstarted a drive to ensure best practice withinorganisations and has given a reason for people to

put policies, etc. into place. They shouldn’t need this,but it’s worked!’.

Organisations in the research felt that having safepractices and precautions in place reassuredmembers, users, users’ families, volunteers and staff.The message is, in the words of Royal MencapSociety, ‘we care about our membership, we want toprotect them and be professional in what we do’. Anational sports body said it was important for peopleinvolved in the game to feel safe, to reassure familiesand put a ‘positive light’ on risk management toattract people to the game.

NCVO stresses the benefits of staying true to thebenevolent ethos of the sector, protectingorganisations’ reputations, and maintainingsponsorship and funding (NCVO, 2001).Organisations in the research agreed thatdemonstrating good risk management practice isoften necessary in the funding market. Fundingbodies increasingly require this before they make anaward and local authorities are generally vigilant thatorganisations receiving grants and contracts are nottaking what they consider to be unnecessary risk.‘How will funders view us’ exclaimed one surveyrespondent ‘if we aren’t as risk-free as we canpossibly be!’.

Having risk management in place is also animportant factor in getting insurance. This affectsorganisations negotiating insurance directly and thosewho join parent bodies’ block insurance schemes.The Association of British Insurers stresses that ‘goodrisk management will not only help your organisationto develop, but will help keep down the costs ofliability insurance protection’ (ABI, 2005). Thisconnection is not strongly borne out by the research.However, not having risk management will certainlydamage the insurance position and in somesituations make cover unattainable. These keyinfluences on an organisation’s survival, and the factthat a negative incident or claim can seriouslyjeopardise its reputation, underline the conclusion

that ‘a strong risk management program is essentialto an organisation’s sustainability’ (Division of Publicand Nonprofit Administration, 2004).

pag

e 15

// R

isk

man

agem

ent

pag

e 16 5 The process of risk management

5.1 The principles of riskmanagementRisk management is not a one-off event but aprocess that infuses every aspect of the running of anorganisation. It is most effective when ‘built into theculture of the organisation’ and is ‘continual andcyclical’ (Volunteering Australia, 2003). The Australiaand New Zealand Risk Management StandardAS/NZS 4360 describes it as ‘holistic’ in that it shouldcover the whole organisation. Risk managementinvolves ‘integrating precautionary measures intoday-to-day operations’ and should include policydevelopment, programme and service planning,partnership and service agreements, financialmanagement, governance, and personnel and facilitymanagement (Graff, 2003).

The approach to risk management planningdepends on the size, activities, internal environmentand management structure of an organisation(Volunteering Australia, 2003). Experts stress that riskmanagement is neither technical nor complicated: ‘infact, its principles are simple and straightforward’(Graff, 2003). It has three central aims:

> prevention: ‘the first priority’; it is ‘clearly preferableto keep things from going wrong in the first place’

> minimisation of harm: ‘minimise the magnitude ofharm that accrues in the event that a riskmaterialises’

> liability reduction: ‘a well-documented riskmanagement system constitutes tangible proof ofdue diligence… and can substantially reduce thelikelihood of successful legal action’ (Graff, 2003)

5.2 A risk management modelThere are ‘several models that can be used to identifyand manage risk’ but they all include key measureswhich the Charity Commission outlines as:establishing a risk policy; identifying risks; assessingrisks; evaluating what action needs to be taken;selecting risk controls; and periodic monitoring andassessment (Charity Commission, 2005a).

These are all common to the risk managementprocess recommended by NCVO (2001), the CharityCommission (2005a), Graff (2003), Herman andJackson (2004), the Alliance for NonprofitManagement (2004d), and Australian bodies(Volunteering Australia, 2003; Government of WesternAustralia, 2004; Parliament of South Australia, 2002b).

Risk management systems are unique to theirorganisations and the particular issues and risks theyhave to deal with in their area of work. However, fromthe risk management practice of organisations in theresearch, there is a basic six step model thatincludes: screening, induction and training, riskassessment, insurance, record-keeping, and review.

5.3 ScreeningScreening focuses on ensuring that volunteers aresuitable, safe and fit for their role. Guides on riskmanagement emphasise that ‘the degree of risk andtrust required of volunteers will determine what levelsof screening should be used’ (Volunteering Australia,2005; Patterson, 2003; Graff, 1999).

The first step is to develop a ‘volunteer positiondescription’ and assess the level of risk for each roleplayed by volunteers (Graff, 2003; Herman and

Jackson, 2004). Many of the case study organisationshave mechanisms to risk assess a placement orvolunteering opportunity. Market Harborough VolunteerCentre has devised its own form which records thedegree of contact with children and vulnerable adults,while BT’s employer-supported volunteering team donot use a proforma but examine the placement fromthe perspective ‘how can this go wrong?’.

The next step is to ensure the volunteer is suitablefor the position. This includes detailed applicationforms, taking up references, CRB checks, otherdocumentation checks (such as licence, MOT andinsurance for drivers) and interview procedures whichassess the individual for their character andsuitability. Medical screening is routinely carried out inthe health field and sometimes elsewhere, forexample on older volunteer drivers.

In the UK, Criminal Records Bureau checks havebecome increasingly common and are often requiredwhere volunteers will be working with vulnerableclients. Standard checks show information held onthe Police National Computer and may besupplemented by searches of the Protection ofChildren Act (POCA) list, Protection of VulnerableAdults (POVA) list and information held under theEducation Act 2002 (formerly known as List 99).Enhanced checks additionally search any relevantand proportionate information held by local policeforces and are available for anyone involved inregularly caring for, training, supervising or being insole charge of children or vulnerable adults, or forcertain licensing purposes and judicial appointments.

In our survey, fewer than a fifth of organisations didnot carry out CRB checks; a third checked all theirvolunteers and half checked some of them. Someorganisations carry them out ‘inappropriately out offear .. to protect the organisation against litigation’

rather than from ‘any real belief that checks areeffective’, in the view of a volunteer centre manager.Some insurers and funders are insisting on CRBchecks when not required by law. However, if theCRB detects potentially ineligible requests it workswith the registered organisation to clarify eligibilityand provide support and advice, and may ultimatelytake sanctions against non-compliant organisations.Organisations recognise that CRB checks have value– nearly two thirds thought they reduced the risks ofinvolving volunteers – but know they are no substitutefor good volunteer management. A local RoyalMencap Society in the case studies commented thata check ‘doesn’t reduce the risk, what reduces therisk is the training/appropriate placement/support’.However, information gained from a check ‘ensuresthese are in place’ thereby ‘indirectly reducing risk’.

Police and criminal records checks ‘should neverbe used as the sole means of screening applicants’(Volunteering Australia, 2005; Herman and Jackson,2004; Graff, 1999). Graff asserts that ‘it is nothingshort of dangerous to assume that risks end when acandidate has been screened, even when thescreening has been rigorous’ (Graff, 1999).Mechanisms such as ‘buddy systems, on-siteperformance, close supervision, performance reviews,program evaluations, unannounced spot checks,discipline and dismissal policies and procedures are,in effect, ongoing screening mechanisms’ (Graff,1999). Many organisations in the research recognisethis and have a number of these measures in place.

Screening may be particularly difficult for certaintypes of volunteers, including on-line volunteers, andthose who are episodic or short-term, work on one-off events, who are recruited hastily for emergency ordisaster response, and who are borrowed from a thirdparty organisation, whether voluntary or corporate(Graff, 2003; Herman and Jackson, 2004). It is stillimportant to screen as much as is practical and toensure other risk management procedures areapplied, including determining who is responsible forand has authority over the volunteers (ibid).

5.4 Induction and training

Increasingly, organisations are introducing moreformal induction procedures to ensure volunteersknow exactly what to expect and what is expectedof them. Induction involves a comprehensiveorientation to the organisation and the volunteerrole, and is often accompanied by a volunteerhandbook. Areas covered include volunteerresponsibilities and boundaries, health and safetyrequirements, and the need for risk awareness in allthe volunteer does.

Following induction, training is essential to ensurethat volunteers have sufficient practical skills for thework, and also understand the need for riskmanagement and can carry out risk assessments ifneeded. Nearly three quarters of the organisations inour survey covered issues of risk and liability andlegal responsibilities in their volunteer training andnearly sixty per cent did this for trustees. However, athird don’t provide trustee training and one in tendon’t train volunteers.

For some, it is not necessary to train volunteers,but the issue of training (and screening) trustees ismore complex. Some organisations find it difficult toview trustees as in need of training or to impose it, ahangover from an earlier era where trusteeship was aprivileged role and not seen as the exercise ofstringent legal responsibilities. However, most donow require and engineer risk awareness in theirtrustees, which is partly responsible for trusteerecruitment difficulties, particularly in smallorganisations.

Organisations also provide ongoing training inwhich volunteers are reminded and updated on rulesand requirements in relation to safety and risk. Theydo this through regular training seminars, volunteerget-togethers and newsletters. Some also provideaccess to external training, for example in first aid orfood hygiene, enabling volunteers to take on newroles.

5.5 Risk assessment

This involves pre-emptive assessment of potentialproblems and hazards in a wide variety of aspects ofthe organisation’s functioning. The distinctionbetween ‘hazard’ and ‘risk’, so often taken asvirtually synonymous, is carefully made by the Healthand Safety Executive: a hazard is ‘anything that maycause harm’, while risk is ‘the chance, high or low,that somebody could be harmed by the hazard’(Health and Safety Executive, 2006b). First identifyingthe hazard and then estimating the degree of risk thatit poses is the essence of risk assessment.

Risk assessment is, in Royal Mencap Society’swords, ‘simply a careful examination of what cancause harm to people... the aim is to make sure thatno one gets hurt or becomes ill’. Girlguiding UKstresses that the process ‘unlike many of theapproaches to risk assessment’ should begin byestablishing the benefits of the activity in order to‘assess the risks in context’ (Girlguiding UK, 2003).

The process should ideally be carried out by ateam or be a participative process involvingmanagement committee, staff, volunteers and users(Graff, 2003; NCVO, 2001). Larger organisations inthe research often shared the task, under the overallmanagement of the head of volunteers, with healthand safety staff and department or team leaders. StBarnabas Hospice, for example, has recentlydecentralised its risk assessments, devolving them tounit managers to ensure better ownership throughoutthe organisation. In smaller organisations, the overalldirector or manager is generally responsible,sometimes aided by the management committee ortrustees. Ultimate responsibility for risk managementin a registered charity lies with the board of trustees(NCVO, 2001; Charity Commission, 2001/2005a).

NCVO recommends conducting a SWOT analysis,supported by research on: user satisfaction andperspectives; organisational performance in meetingtargets and standards; performance in relation to

pag

e 17

// T

he p

roce

ss o

f ris

k m

anag

emen

t

pag

e 18

similar or ‘rival’ organisations; statistics on health andsafety, and complaints and grievances; and newlegislation and regulatory guidelines (NCVO, 2001).

Organisations in the research risk assess volunteerroles and placements, volunteers themselves, tasksand activities, environments and events. Analysingrisks is a ‘sifting and sorting process’ (NCVO, 2001)which can take into account risk to people, property,income, goodwill and liability (Graff, 2003).

All risk assessment works on the basis of likelihoodof occurrence and the consequences/severity ofimpact/magnitude of harm and the interplay betweenthem (Charity Commission, 2005a; Graff, 2003;Volunteering Australia, 2003). These two key aspectsare graded either qualitatively or quantitatively.Organisations use a three or five categoryclassification such as ‘rare/occasional/frequent’ or‘rare/unlikely/moderate/likely/almost certain’ forlikelihood and ‘trivial/minor/moderate/substantial/intolerable’ for consequences.

Case study organisation Youth Voice designed itsown risk assessment form which shows five degreesof likelihood – impossible/remote/possible/probable/likely – and four degrees of injury – minor/multiple/major/fatal - by which risks are graded from 1-No riskto 5-Complete risk. Another case study, St BarnabasHospice, examines all activities and events for ‘whatcan happen and how it can happen’ and scoreslikelihood and severity on a five point scale –insignificant/minor/moderate/ major/catastrophic.Each is assigned a score and a 5 x 5 risk matrix isproduced, which determines ‘risk priority’.

Evaluating risks establishes whether a risk is ofconcern, can be tolerated, or is subject to sufficientcontrols. Every organisation has a ‘different level ofuncertainty that it can tolerate’, must find its own‘comfort level’ (Alliance for Nonprofit Management,2004e) and establish its own ‘risk tolerance zone’(Graff, 2003). ‘Inevitably’ notes NCVO ‘there will haveto be judgements and trade-offs’ (NCVO, 2001) and

the Charity Commission comments that ‘the cost ofmitigating a risk needs to be proportional to thepotential impact’ (Charity Commission, 2003). TheHealth and Safety Executive says a risk assessmentneed not be ‘perfect’ but it must be ‘suitable andsufficient’ (HSE, 2006b).

There are four basic approaches to controlling risk:avoid it by stopping the activity; eliminate the risk;accept the risk but minimise the harm; or transfer theliability (Graff, 2003). Eliminating the risk focuses onthe four Ps – position, person, physical environmentand performance management – and how they canbe changed to prevent something going wrong.Organisations in the research used all of thesestrategies: stopping activities, increasing training andsupervision, amending the task, modifying theenvironment, and changing volunteer conduct.

BTCV, for example, adapted some of its projectsinvolving children or disabled people to remove therisk elements – such as working at height or withmachinery – but still allow them to be involved. RoyalMencap Society’s club leader’s resource guideborrows HSE advice on control strategies, suggesting‘try a less risky option’, ‘prevent access to thehazard’ and ‘organise the work to reduce exposure’(HSE, 2003). Organisations whose volunteers workwith children stipulate that a parent, teacher or otherauthorised person should always be present.

To minimise harm in the event of an accident,organisations have developed procedures such assafety and incident protocols, regular maintenanceand upgrading of equipment, and the back-up ofsensitive and vital data. First aid kits and training,mobile phones, and access for emergency vehiclesare all required at activities and events.

Transference of liability, in which the organisationmoves at least some of its residual liability to anotherparty, is carried out through waivers, indemnificationclauses and disclaimers or by contracting out, mutualaid agreements or inter-agency partnerships. It is

important to note these are not watertight liabilityexcluders and should be checked for their legality(Charity Commission, 2003). It is ‘nearly impossible totransfer away all liability’ and when an organisationtransfers a liability ‘it retains an obligation to havedone so responsibly’ (Graff, 2003).

5.6 InsuranceInsurance is the final option for liability transfer and itmay also minimise harm by reducing the secondaryharm of financial loss. Insurance helps cover lossesand the cost associated with investigating ordefending allegations. A full review of theorganisation’s insurance requirements and provisionshould be an ‘integral component’ of risk control.However, it is ‘a serious and potentially costlymistake to assume that buying insurance is the firstline of defence against risk … insurance is merely afinancial bandaid that is applied after the harm hasoccurred’ (Graff, 2003).

This is because insurance does not covereverything, coverage may be voided if a court findsnegligence proven, payouts may not cover all theloss, and future coverage may be cancelled orpremiums increased if a claim is made. Moreover, itcan never compensate for negative media attentionand the loss of capable volunteers, reputation andpublic trust (Graff, 2003; Risk Management ResearchCenter, 1999b; Alliance for Nonprofit Management,2004d/e).

Organisations in the research regularly review andupgrade their insurance policies to ensure coverageof liability for volunteers, trustees and theorganisation. They are increasingly extending the limitof cover from existing policies like public liability andtaking out new insurance for areas such as trusteeindemnity and business continuity.

5.7 Record-keeping anddocumentationDocumentation is ‘a critical component of riskmanagement’. It may help reduce liability: ‘proof ofdue diligence may be the deciding factor betweenprevailing in a legal action, and having to deal with adevastating settlement’ (Graff, 2003).

Documenting risk management includes theproduction of a risk register and risk plan; writtenevidence of volunteer management, including policiesand procedures on screening, training, supervision,performance management, discipline and dismissal;service agreements and protocols outlining whatvolunteers are and are not allowed to do; andcompleted risk assessment forms.

The organisations in the research were veryconscious of the need for documentation and manykept incident records, had computerised databasesand maintained an audit trail of the measures taken toprotect against risk. Royal Mencap Societyemphasises that records ‘can be used for futurereference or use and can help to prove, if necessary,what precautions you have taken’. Keeping recordsenables organisations to demonstrate their practiceto funders, umbrella bodies, local authorities andinsurers, and helps cover them in the event of anallegation or claim.

5.8 Monitoring and reviewRisk management ‘is a process [which] never ends’(Graff, 2003). It is therefore essential to keep it underreview. Many organisations in the research areinvolved in a constant process of monitoring their riskmanagement and the external environment.

Monitoring involves establishing systems of datacollection and analysis, and encompasses not onlyhow well procedures are working but also takes

account of changed conditions or newly emergingrisks, such as changes in the client population, newvolunteer roles, new technology, new facilities andnew legislation. This enables organisations tointroduce improvements and refinements to theirpractice so that small gaps are plugged and systemsstreamlined. Many of the case study organisationshad just introduced new policies or methods, or werein the process of reviewing aspects of their riskmanagement.

pag

e 19

// T

he p

roce

ss o

f ris

k m

anag

emen

t

pag

e 20 6 Success in risk management

The research revealed that there is much goodpractice and expertise in identifying and managingrisk in volunteer-involving organisations. It is notablethat organisations are adapting to the risk climate andsafety codes in their particular field and finding anoperating space. Most are having to accommodatenew safety and regulatory standards and beaccountable to funders and authorities, and aremanaging to do this while retaining their centralfocus.

The successful practice of risk management has anumber of elements which contribute toeffectiveness. We review six factors that emergedfrom the literature and the research.

6.1 Getting expert helpThere is a large number of sources on riskmanagement which organisations consult indeveloping their own systems. Our survey showedthat nearly half of organisations had sought adviceand help from external sources, although the samenumber had not. One in ten, and more of the smallestorganisations, said they hadn’t sought help andwould not know where to go. This is not just a factorin deficient risk management, but also a cause ofexcessive risk aversion where inadequate informationon risk leads to ‘inadequacy of competence’ (HSE,2006a).

Organisations have drawn on a variety of sourcesto help them develop their risk managementstrategies. A common source was the Health andSafety Executive and organisations also usedNEBOSH (National Examination Board onOccupational Safety and Health) and IOSH (Institute

of Occupational Safety and Health) training guidesand courses. A number of organisations used localauthority guidelines, whether generic or in specificareas such as social services, education or youthservice, and local police and fire services were alsoconsulted. Organisations working in health and socialwelfare used the Department of Health guidance andPrimary Care Trust standards and systems. Otherauthorities which were helpful included theEnvironment Agency, DfES, the British Safety Counciland the Millennium Volunteers Government Office orlocal programme.

Voluntary bodies were a major source of help toorganisations. Organisations used a combination ofwritten guides and on-line information or attendedtraining courses. The most frequently mentionedvoluntary source was Volunteering England, butorganisations also used guidance from NCVO and theCharity Commission, and quality standards schemeslike PQASSO. Umbrella bodies such as theAssociation of Voluntary Service Managers, YouthAction Network, NCVYS, Sport England, BTCV,RoSPA, the Adventurous Activities LicensingAuthority, the Football Association and the RFU wereuseful sources in specific fields of work. At the locallevel, several organisations had been helped by theircouncil for voluntary service or volunteer centre.

6.2 Devising plans andsystemsGuides on risk management stress the value ofhaving a team or collective, participative process fordevising plans and systems. This has the advantage

of sharing the load, bringing in as many perspectiveson risk as possible and ensuring a sense ofownership across the organisation.

In the research, many larger organisations used acombination of senior management/trustees andvolunteer manager/project co-ordinators to producetheir risk management plan, although in some thehuman resources manager or health and safetymanager was primarily responsible. In practice, thereis often a senior person with overall responsibility towhom department heads or project managers report.Several consulted organisations similar to themselvesand shared information on risk and risk managementin their field. Only a handful said they sourced advicefrom their insurer or used insurance checklists.

In smaller organisations, most of the responsibilityfor developing risk management falls on the directoror chief officer. Ultimate responsibility for riskmanagement in a registered charity lies with theboard of trustees, and small organisations often try toappoint someone with health and safety expertise totheir management committee or board. However,some groups find that their trustees are not assupportive of risk management as the contextrequires.

6.3 Taking a positive andrealistic viewTaking a positive and realistic view of riskmanagement helps organisations embrace andimplement it effectively. This includes emphasisingthe benefits and opportunities, and promoting theview that it makes the organisation safer and more

accountable and improves practice overall.Organisations that promote risk management as anenhancement of their volunteer programme generallyget a positive response. Royal Mencap Societystresses that implementation should be ‘proactiverather than reactive’ and not be a ‘stick-wieldingexercise’ but give a ‘more positive message’ aboutmanaging risk.

It is also important to present risk management notas a new discipline alien to the organisation but as‘what we’ve always done, only formalised’. Luton andDunstable Hospital’s voluntary services managerobserved that a few years ago ‘taking risk as aseparate entity seemed daunting’ but she thenrealised ‘we’re already doing it’. This characterisationof risk management occurred repeatedly in theresearch: by Royal Mencap Society – ‘formalisingwhat you do normally’ – and by a volunteer-runsports club – ‘commonsense … formalising whatwe’ve always done’.

Anyone organising an activity, for example, checksthe room or site on arrival for any potential dangersand makes sure participants will be safe. Completinga risk assessment checklist or proforma and thinkingahead a little more than in the past ensures that thisis done in a way which is transparent andaccountable. This kind of approach helps challengethe view that risk management is another practiceimported from the private sector which inhibitsvoluntarism, which one in ten organisations in thesurvey agreed with.

Taking a realistic view of what risk managementcan and should achieve is vitally important. Manyorganisations emphasise that risk cannot becompletely eliminated and therefore risk managementis not about trying to do the impossible. Even whenreasonable precautions have been taken ‘some risksusually remain’ states Royal Mencap Society in itsguide to club leaders, but the aim is ‘to make all riskssmall’. Youth Voice’s guide on residentials for youngpeople similarly stresses that ‘Youth Voice accepts

that these activities cannot be entirely risk free ...there will always be issues and incidents of variouskinds’. Or as the voluntary services manager at ahospital trust said ‘it is not possible to avoid oreliminate risk’. Organisations can only minimise riskbut should not set themselves the unattainable goalof banishing it altogether.

6.4 Strong motivation andcontextOrganisations that have had a bad experience relatedto risk or that operate in a context where riskmanagement is non-negotiable have particularmotivation to implement it effectively. An experienceof insurance difficulties, allegations, claims or threatsof loss of funding is a strong stimulus to get things inorder to prevent future risks to the organisation.BTCV’s insurance crisis, detailed in the case studies,undoubtedly provoked the development of its modernday risk management infrastructure.

As in BTCV, many small groups that are membersof parent bodies or part of an affiliation scheme arerequired to have risk management in place in order togain accreditation and, often, to be entitled tobenefits such as block insurance. While smallerorganisations are frequently conscientious in their riskawareness – and sometimes feel that they are aheadof the parent body in their practices – theseframeworks have encouraged some to implementpolicies and practices to a certain standard.

Local authorities and funders provide particularmotivation (not always constructively) because oftheir tendency to avoid risk. Operating in anenvironment with a strong emphasis on safety andrisk avoidance, such as the health service orconservation, also ensures proper attention is paid torisk management, or the organisation cannot continueto function. This involves integrating volunteer risk

issues into larger frameworks whose focus is clinicalrisk or environmental health and safety. It is the job oforganisations to find ‘a workable compromise’, saysBTCV, so that safety guidelines are ‘made feasible ina volunteering context’.

6.5 ImplementationThe approach taken in implementing riskmanagement can influence how successful it is. Thisincludes developing systems and procedures that areas efficient and easy to use as possible and the wayin which they are implemented with staff and,particularly, volunteers.

NCVO stresses that all who need to comply with arisk management plan should be fully informed aboutit and trained to implement it. A communicationstrategy should include: managers, staff andvolunteers; members and users and potential futuremembers and users; grant and contract bodies;regulatory bodies; and the local community andgeneral public (NCVO, 2001). The communicationstrategy may include policy development, directives,bulletins and newsletter articles, changes to jobdescriptions, contracts and performancemanagement systems, staff meetings and one-to-onebriefings.

Existing induction and training for paid and unpaidstaff may need updating, and additional training orcertification standards established. It is especiallyimportant to ensure that the board of trustees ormanagement committee is fully informed about therisks identified in the organisation and the strategiesto control them, and support if not lead on theprocess.

Taking the time to inform and reassure volunteers,training and supporting them well, and being preparedto sanction non-compliance all contribute to smoothimplementation in volunteer management. Manyorganisations in the research stressed the value of

pag

e 21

// S

ucce

ss in

ris

k m

anag

emen

t

pag

e 22

talking issues through with volunteers, explaining CRBchecks, and giving volunteers reasons – both externaland internal – why risk management procedures werenecessary. As the hospice VSM said in the case study‘it’s all in how you tell them’. And the director of NorthEast Yorkshire Geology Trust emphasised that the wayto embed risk management is ‘to develop a culture, anatmosphere, and a belief in why we do things the waywe do them’.

The literature on risk management, andorganisations in the research, agree that changing theorganisational culture around risk is absolutely vital toits success, so that awareness becomes secondnature and is integrated into all aspects ofmanagement. NCVO emphasises the value of astrategic approach in which risk is incorporated intomission statements, policies, business plan,management and supervision, practice andprocedures, and the culture and ethos of theorganisation. Taking ‘a more holistic, top-to-toeapproach to risk management’ helps establish thisethos or culture, which is more effective than ‘a largerule-book which has to be heavily policed’ (NCVO,2001).

Organisations achieve change in the organisationalculture through an education and training process forstaff and volunteers, so that everyone understandsexactly why it is important and is equipped with theskills to implement it, and through spreadingresponsibility for risk assessment rather than keepingit as a centralised and specialist activity.

Embedding risk management in organisationalculture can take time, particularly in a largeorganisation with diffused volunteer responsibilities.Smaller organisations and new ones that are growingup in a risk management culture may have anadvantage in this respect. Youth Voice, from itsfounding a few years ago, has evolved its policiesand practices with an inbuilt awareness of risk andhas not had to tackle entrenched systems orattitudes.

6.6 Staff and resourcesIt is clear that risk management consumes staff timeand resources and that these issues have a bearing inthis area as in so many affecting the voluntary andcommunity sector. Having the capacity to take on theadditional work and implications of risk managementdefinitely helps organisations to be successful at it.This came up over and over again in the research,particularly in relation to the bureaucracy involved inrisk management. Larger organisations are better ableto absorb the extra workload and costs, while smallerones with a few or no paid staff and limited reservesstruggle to keep up and lose precious time fromhands-on work. This does not mean that smallorganisations have not been successful inimplementing risk management, but it is an additionalburden on their workload.

The factors that contribute to success in riskmanagement have their negative reflections in manyof the problems that emerged from the research.These focus on six areas: the amount of paperworkand bureaucracy, the time and resources needed, theeffort to keep up with new legislation and regulations,the cost of insurance, external pressures towardsexcessive risk aversion, and ensuring compliance.

7.1 Paperwork andbureaucracyThe amount of bureaucracy in risk management putsa heavy burden on organisations. Large organisationsgenerally take this in their stride but smaller onesoften find it onerous. One survey respondentcommented on the ‘increased office time in writingpolicies, risk assessments, etc. … heavy-handedanswers to simple almost riskless activities’, adding‘we are all too afraid to lift a finger without three riskassessments having to be written, duplicated andpassed via trustees before you can act!’. Anotherobserved ‘we have noted that increased bureaucracyis hindering decision-making and slowing ourresponse times’ citing ‘numerous occasions when wedecided not to proceed with activities because of theadditional administrative costs’.

The problem of excessive bureaucracy affects bothstaff and volunteers. The deterrent effect of having tocomplete paperwork both on entry into volunteeringand as part of volunteer responsibilities is animportant issue. ‘It is becoming more difficult tointerest volunteers’ observed one survey respondent‘when you ask them to jump through hoops to

volunteer’. Another warns of the impact of increasedbureaucracy on existing volunteers who are reluctantto undergo the additional training considerednecessary ‘or to have to change the way they havebeen doing their work considering it has beenworking fine for years’.

The smallest organisations, often volunteer-runand with incomes below £10,000 per year,sometimes minimise their risk managementrequirements by calculated avoidance of risk. Theyeliminate areas of their work, such as involvementwith vulnerable groups or public events, in order notto have to manage the potential risks. As AgeConcern Okehampton says in the case studies, ifthey identify ‘an element of risk’ the decision is made‘not to go there – if we can’t minimise the risk, wedon’t do it’.

Organisations are increasingly finding ways tostreamline procedures such as that involved incarrying out CRB checks, but still find completing riskassessment forms for ‘any and every activity’ to beburdensome. In addition, some organisations areimplementing unnecessary bureaucracy not becauseit’s really needed but to cover themselves.

7.2 Time and resourcesThis is a major problem, already identified in thereview of success factors. Volunteer-run clubs orgroups, or those with few paid staff, have difficultyfinding the time to complete risk assessments andother procedures, and to implement formalrecruitment, training and management of volunteers.And they simply don’t have the spare cash to set upcomputer systems, purchase training, pay outside

experts, or meet rising insurance premiums. Onesurvey respondent, commenting on the lack of riskmanagement in the organisation, succinctly explains‘not enough resources to implement, full stop’.

Many of the smaller organisations complain thatparent bodies, policy makers and programmemanagers are out of touch, imposing grand schemesand quality frameworks with little awareness of theprohibitive resource implications for those who areexpected to deliver at grassroots level. Theyadvocate the establishment of systems and fundsthat provide support to small organisations todevelop risk management (see Chapter 9).

7.3 Keeping up with newlegislation and regulationThis is a constant task for organisations, both largeand small, although it is more easily accommodatedin large ones. The case study volunteer centre cites‘keeping up to date with new legislation’ as the mainchallenge in risk management. Another case study,the North East Yorkshire Geology Trust, observesthat even if organisations are aware of newlegislation, there can sometimes be problemsunderstanding what it means for them. When itsdirector sought legal advice on employment law,‘every lawyer consulted gave a differentinterpretation’.

Youth Voice, which has thorough and efficient riskmanagement, nevertheless speaks for manyorganisations when it says ‘there seems to be somuch out there’ in terms of new legislation andregulations and ‘we have to ensure we are

7 Problems in risk management

pag

e 23

// P

robl

ems

in r

isk

man

agem

ent

pag

e 24

compliant’. Organisations are fearful of missing somenew rule or prohibition which they will find out toolate exposes them to accusations of negligence,either operationally or legally.

It can also be challenging to integrate volunteer-related risk management with regulation frameworks.In the health field, for example, risk awarenessfocuses on issues not always relevant to volunteeringand volunteer-related aspects have to be effectivelymeshed with clinical risk standards. VSMs often findthere is little guidance on how to do this.

7.4 The cost of insuranceThis is an issue for many organisations, althoughlarger ones don’t suffer as much as small onesbecause they are better able to absorb increases.Smaller ones which subscribe to schemes set up bytheir umbrella body often benefit from lower costs,but free-standing groups and those requiringadditional policies find the insurance situationsomething of a minefield. They are often unsure howextensive their cover should be and there is anincreasing tendency to enhance insurance provisionwhich adds to the cost.

Insurers’ guidance on or requirements formanaging risk appear very variable and thereforeorganisations often do not know what they can do tokeep premium costs down. As we have seen, someorganisations simply avoid areas of activity whereinsurance will be needed.

There is also criticism of the actions of insurers infostering a compensation culture through its ‘pay-up-and-cut-the-costs mentality’ (HSE, 2006a). Insurersare said to be ‘reluctant to defend claims’, therebycontributing to public perceptions about the ease ofclaiming and also increasing their payouts and hencepremium costs (ibid).

7.5 External pressure towardsrisk aversionMost of the organisations in the research felt thispressure. The case studies provide several examplesof smaller organisations having to restrict or cancelactivities because of external requirements. Theending of a Christmas dinner delivery service byMarket Harborough Volunteer Centre is a classicexample of ‘over egging the pudding’, as themanager described it. For twenty-three incident-freeyears, volunteers had cooked an extra dinner anddelivered it to an elderly or housebound person.Social Services decided that food hygiene was a riskand that all volunteers’ kitchens would needinspecting. This was not feasible for the Centre andas a result this ‘very popular’ service was scrapped.

The Centre would prevent something like thishappening in the future by not even considering itand other organisations have similarly learned toavoid areas like public events and working in certainsituations so they do not come up against risk issues.Other organisations comment that local authoritiesdemonstrate a lack of understanding of thelegislation. BTCV reports problems with localauthorities which tend to ‘stick to the letter’ and beover-cautious rather than looking at what thelegislation really intends in relation to safety and‘making it work for them’.

Funders are becoming more risk averse andrequiring increasingly rigorous measures, includinginsisting on CRB checks when not legally required.Youth Voice’s chief executive commented thatfunders often didn’t understand small voluntaryorganisations and were ‘not flexible’. The Director ofthe Geology Trust cites Awards for All as an exampleof a funder which was ‘at first great in its simplicity’but which has increasingly bureaucratised. The BigLottery Fund is described as having ‘a public sector

mentality’ and as being ‘incredibly risk averse’.Funders are demanding ‘increasing amounts ofbumph’ in return for funding, and are obsessed withtargets, ‘measurable and achievable objectives’ and‘thousands of forms’, practices which have ‘seepedinto the voluntary sector from the private sector’.

Other organisations highlight the Catch 22 offunders ostensibly promoting innovation yet shyingaway at the prospect of taking any risks. Tried andtested approaches are replicated because they havea track record, while anything that pushes theboundaries is deemed too risky. Funding strategiesare therefore reinforcing risk aversion and hamperingenterprise and creativity in the sector.

7.6 Ensuring complianceThis affects large and small organisations in differentways. Large ones need compliance across the wholeorganisation and sometimes have difficulties ensuringa consistent approach across different departmentsand staff. Umbrella organisations have the task ofmaintaining compliance among their membershipsand affiliates. They do this through questionnairesand affiliation partnership agreements but theresource implications of sustained policing of groups’practices tend to put active monitoring out of theframe.

BTCV says while there is generally no resistance tothe idea of risk management in its affiliated groups,smaller groups have difficulty finding the time andresources to carry it out. Royal Mencap Society findssome long-established groups are reluctant tochange from ‘the way we’ve always done things’ andcan ‘still be ad hoc in how they run things’.

Long-serving volunteers can be resistant to theformalisation of their involvement. Many organisationshave lost a few older volunteers particularly wheninstituting CRB back checks. People feel offended

that the organisation is casting aspersions anddespite efforts to persuade them of the reasons,including the dangers of a false accusation,sometimes leave or delay completing paperwork sothat in the end the organisation has to let them go.Ensuring ongoing compliance with rules andprocedures can also be an issue.

Organisations sometimes have problems withpartners, referral or placement bodies recognising theimportance of risk management. Referral organisations‘often refer clients who are too high risk for statutorybodies’ and expect voluntary organisations to copewith the additional risk implications. A few NHS trustshad difficulties ‘getting partners (such as WRVS,League of Friends) to understand the importance ofrisk management’. An organisation which takescorporate volunteers notes that some companies havepulled out of involvement ‘because we insisted theyhad to cover their employees whilst volunteering’.However, most large companies with employer-supported volunteering programmes have thoroughand effective risk management systems includinginsurance cover under corporate policies.

Risk management guides, and organisations in theresearch, stress the importance of ensuring riskmanagement standards in any partnershiparrangement. It is vital, as Age ConcernOkehampton’s experience shows, that organisationsare not caught up in a bad situation through anotherorganisation’s neglect of procedures. Organisationsthat work closely with others find that they sometimeshave to pull out of arrangements if they are notconfident that the partner will observe the rules.

A further frustration over compliance emerged fromone of the small sports clubs in the case studies.Springfield Cricket Club is very conscientious over itsrisk management but finds that other clubs, schoolsand parents do not have the same standards. Theydo not, for example, ensure separate changing roomsor adult escorts for the children. This adds to theclub’s own risk concerns and procedures.

pag

e 25

// P

robl

ems

in r

isk

man

agem

ent

pag

e 26 8 The impact on volunteering

The focus on risk has had significant effects onvolunteers, both directly and indirectly throughimpacts on organisations. Greater caution inprogramme planning and volunteer role development,and the increased burden of bureaucracy, limitorganisations’ capacity to engage and retainvolunteers. Volunteers themselves worry about riskand being sued, and some are put off by paperworkand the level of responsibility. The evidence from theresearch suggests that fears that people are beingput off volunteering are well-founded.

8.1 Volunteer numbersIn more than half the organisations in the surveyvolunteers have expressed anxiety about risk andaround a fifth say that risk, liability and fear oflitigation have deterred potential volunteers fromjoining them. A similar percentage have lost existingvolunteers for these reasons. They report thattrustees have also been affected, but at a somewhatlower level: around one in ten organisations have losttrustees or feel they have been deterred from gettinginvolved.

Overall, a significant minority of organisations –around a third – have found it increasingly difficult torecruit volunteers and trustees. One in five says theirvolunteer numbers have declined, although theyacknowledge that risk is not the only deterrent.Smaller organisations are worst affected by declinesin numbers and by risk fears on the part ofvolunteers. Sports, adventure and recreationorganisations are severely affected, with around sixtyper cent finding it harder to recruit volunteers andforty per cent trustees.

The survey of individuals revealed that more than aquarter worried about risk in their volunteering andone in twenty have considered stopping because ofthis. Nationally, this percentage amounts to about onemillion volunteers. People over the age of forty-fivewere more concerned about risk than youngerpeople.

Loss of volunteers reflects what has happenedelsewhere. The insurance crunch in the US led tocutbacks in services and insurance protection in thenonprofit sector and raised volunteers’ apprehensionand reduced their willingness to serve. Manyorganisations suffered board resignations andvolunteer recruitment difficulties (Alliance forNonprofit Management, 2004a).

8.2 Screening and riskmanagement responsibilityThe recruitment procedures required of manyorganisations are off-putting to some volunteers.Even if they do not have to undergo a CriminalRecords Bureau check (and increasing numbers do)the process is formal and often ‘very rigid’, makingbecoming a volunteer ‘feel like a job, like jobrecruitment’ as one volunteer centre managerdescribed it. The length of time which volunteershave to wait before clearance comes back from theCRB (between four weeks and four months) meansthey can lose interest or find a different opportunitywith less stringent screening.

The adoption of tighter screening procedures tominimise risk may be at odds with the aim ofinclusiveness and diversity in volunteering.

Volunteering England warns that ‘over-formalrecruitment and selection procedures’ are ‘off-putting’to some people, including those whose first languageis not English, and those with visual impairment orlow levels of literacy (Institute for VolunteeringResearch, 2003).

Moreover, the documentation requirements for theCRB can exclude groups such as refugees andasylum seekers, new immigrants, people in supportedaccommodation or with mental health problems. Evensome young or older people who do not fall intothese categories may have trouble producing all thenecessary identification documents. In addition, someorganisations say they do not know what to do if acheck comes back positive and may err on the sideof safety by rejecting an applicant even when theoffence is old or has no relation to the volunteer work.

Because ‘it now takes much longer (and muchmore bureaucracy) to become a volunteer, theopportunity to volunteer in a casual “come along andhelp out” kind of way has been lost’ warns avolunteer centre manager. This transformation ofvolunteering into something much more like a job isoff-putting to both older people and young people.

Once recruited, the volunteer is warned thatdeviating from health and safety rules may haveserious consequences and is charged with upholdingrisk management standards. This can seem to be toomuch pressure in what some volunteers still view as aleisure activity or the expression of altruism.

The level of responsibility can act as a deterrent;small sports organisations in the case studies foundthat the amount of paperwork needed and theadditional training in risk management required ofvolunteers tend to put people off getting involved:‘there is too much risk to them personally and too

much unnecessary work’. One organisation,commenting on the difficulty of getting people tovolunteer at club level, said ‘people think, with all therisks, why the hell bother?’.

8.3 Organisational changesMost organisations have introduced new proceduresand policies to cope with risk management and arebecoming bogged down in bureaucracy, filling informs and risk assessments for any and everyactivity. This places a major burden on those with fewor no staff and limited resources, and has significantopportunity costs through distracting time and effortfrom hands-on work and volunteer support.

Organisations are also limiting opportunities forvolunteers. Partly as a result of insurance diktats andpartly from their own fears, they are restrictingvolunteer roles to remove any element of risk and arewithdrawing from or not venturing into areas wherethey feel exposed. Several organisations in theresearch have said no to some role development onthe grounds of it being too risky and now turn downwork which they might previously have undertaken,because of risk. Others ‘just don’t go there’ ifsomething looks potentially risky.

Some organisations that wanted to expandvolunteer roles found it required too muchbureaucracy or prohibitive insurance cover to make itviable. For example, this good idea never got off theground:

‘We were hoping to set up volunteering activitiesfor trainees of one of our projects (a DIY and homemaintenance training project for homeless people).We envisaged that we could create meaningfulvolunteer activity for our trainees to help out theelderly with small jobs… We investigated and foundthe insurance costs too high.’

As a result, existing volunteer roles may be lessattractive and new ones are less likely to be created,

both limiting the potential appeal of volunteering. Anexperienced volunteer centre manager commentedthat there are now ‘very few opportunities tovolunteer with children or young people’ and ‘almostnothing’ available for short term volunteers,particularly younger people and students on summerholiday. In a number of organisations, the extraprecautions they have had to put in place whenworking with young people, either as clients orvolunteers, have narrowed the possibilities forstimulating and interesting activities.

8.4 Cancelling activities andeventsOrganisations increasingly feel their only option is tocall off events and activities that are deemed to posetoo much risk. Seven per cent of the surveyorganisations had done this, often pulling out of anevent because the insurance was beyond their meansor would negate any income generated. Eventsinvolving the public and children’s playschemes andoutings are particularly difficult to insure. TheAssociation of British Insurers stresses that marketconditions in 2006 are more conducive to flexibility,wider coverage and more capacity for insuring one-off events, but some organisations still find it difficultto obtain or pay for insurance for these kinds ofactivities.

The increased bureaucracy and additionaladministrative costs of risk management haveprevented organisations from proceeding withactivities on numerous occasions. In the survey ofindividuals, fifteen per cent, and more among thoseaged under twenty-four, had not been able to do aparticular activity because of the insurance risk. Oneorganisation commented that ‘it is better to donothing than take a risk – so we do nothing’.

Some volunteer projects have also fallen by the

wayside, even after running without incident for manyyears. Two volunteer centres, featured in the casestudies, pulled the plug on long-standing in-houseprojects – the Christmas dinner service, alreadymentioned, and a gardening and decorating schemerun by Cambridge and District Volunteer Centre. Thiswas stopped, after running for over ten years,because the insurer demanded levels of supervisionthat the centre could not provide. The centre hadalready instituted CRB checks at the insurers’insistence but, under threat of withdrawal of cover,decided ‘the risks were too high’. Both centres wouldavoid a similar situation in the future by not evenconsidering it.

8.5 Charges and closuresIncreasing charges is another course taken byorganisations to cover the higher cost of insuranceand risk management. Most are very reluctant to doso, but six per cent of organisations in the surveyhave already raised charges and a number of otherssay it is something they will have to consider. Thisaffects membership fees and charges to users, bothof which may reduce volunteering by limiting thepotential pool of volunteers among members and thescale of activities.

This particularly affects sports and recreationgroups, many of which ‘are passing additional costsonto participants and thus potentially limiting thenumber of people who can afford to participate’(CCPR, 2004). For example, equestrian organisationshave ‘particular difficulties with insurance as they areperceived to be risk sports (and) have had to increasecharges’ as one survey respondent reported. If thiscontinues, ‘the number of activities available in theUK will decline and participation in physical activitywill decrease’ (CCPR, 2004). The All PartyParliamentary Group on Adventure and Recreation inSociety emphasised that ‘changes in the law are

pag

e 27

// T

he im

pact

on

volu

ntee

ring

pag

e 28

needed to prevent the slow strangulation of risk-taking and adventure in sport and recreation’ (AllParty Parliamentary Group, 2004).

More extremely, a number of small groups in ‘highrisk’ sports and adventure fields have closed downbecause they can no longer afford the insurancecosts. The rate of closures across the sector as awhole is not known, but many organisations reportcases of groups disbanding because they can nolonger afford to operate. This removes opportunitiesboth for participation and for volunteering.

8.6 Fear of being suedPrevious research has identified ‘the worry oflitigation as a principal disincentive to volunteers’ andclaimed that ‘the motivation of volunteers is beingseverely undermined’ (Alison Millward Associates,2003; CCPR, 2004; Third Sector, 2005c). Third Sectornotes that ‘reports that would-be helpers are beingput off becoming involved with charities because of afear of being sued are certainly true’ (Third Sector,2005c). In 2003, it was claimed that action is needed‘before people withdraw their time from, andcommitment to, the VCS‘ (Alison Millward Associates,2003).

Organisations in the survey refer to volunteersfearing the possibility of disgrace through error andtrustees being not willing to take the chance thatsomething will go wrong and that they will be leftcarrying the can. Accusations and claims have adisastrous effect on volunteers and trustees, evenwhen proved groundless. One victim of a failed courtcase comments that ‘the volunteers involved foundthe whole experience very difficult and have notvolunteered for us since’.

An organisation which was sued unsuccessfullydescribed their management committee as ‘living infear for months’ and Age Concern Okehampton saidaccusations and lengthy investigations were ‘very

traumatising for trustees’ and had made it almostimpossible to recruit new members to the board,even though the organisation was exonerated.

In this country and abroad, a number of actions havebeen taken to address the situation of risk in thevoluntary and community sector, as well as the widercontext of the compensation culture. They includeinitiatives by the British government and legislationpassed in the United States and Australia. Thischapter briefly reviews these – they are covered indetail in Getting a Grip. This review is followed byproposals for action which emerged from thisresearch.

9.1 Volunteer Protection ActsIn 1997, the United States federal governmentpassed a Volunteer Protection Act (VPA) and all statelegislatures now have statutes on the legal liability ofvolunteers. The VPA provides immunity for volunteersserving in nonprofit organisations or governmentalentities for harm caused by their acts or omissions aslong as the volunteer was acting within the scope ofhis or her responsibilities and the harm was notcaused by wilful, criminal or reckless misconduct orgross negligence (Herman and Jackson, 2004).

In Australia, similar laws were brought in from2001 as a hasty response to the ‘enormous andunanticipated premium rises’ for voluntaryorganisations and the need to halt a reported declinein volunteer numbers (Volunteering Australia, 2003).The South Australia Volunteers Protection Act, forexample, states that a volunteer ‘incurs no personalcivil liability for an act or omission done or made ingood faith and without recklessness…’ (Parliament ofSouth Australia, 2002a).

The American VPA has been accused ofgenerating ‘widespread confusion’ in the nonprofit

sector and creating ‘a false impression thatvolunteers are immune from lawsuits’ (Alliance forNonprofit Management, 2004a). It does not limit thepotential liability of organisations – ‘ironically, theopposite may be true’ (ibid). Other possible negativeconsequences of this kind of law include relaxationof volunteer standards and accountability, ‘overconcentration on liability’ and reduction of themotivation for effective risk management (Alliance forNonprofit Management, 2004a; Herman andJackson, 2004).

The UK attempted to pass a similar law throughthe Promotion of Volunteering Bill (the Brazier Bill) in2004. It proposed reducing the risk of litigation forvolunteers and included a ‘statement of inherentrisk’ which would be presented to people involved inactivities and could be taken into account inproceedings for negligence. The Act fell underopposition from major volunteering bodies whofeared it would create unnecessary bureaucracy,deter volunteers and, by singling out volunteering,‘reinforce negative stereotypes that volunteeringequals amateurishness’ (BTCV, 2004; VolunteeringEngland, 2004b). It was also feared that it wouldshift responsibility for insurance from theorganisation to the volunteer, a trend which hasalready taken hold in the US (Third Sector, 2005d;Shifrin, 2004).

9.2 Recent UK initiativesThe government and other stakeholders havelaunched a number of measures and initiatives tomitigate the impact of risk, insurance and thecompensation culture in this country. They include:

The Better Regulation Task Force/CommissionThe BRTF is an independent advisory groupestablished by government in 1997, now renamedthe Better Regulation Commission. It set out to‘explode the urban myth’ that the UK ‘is in the grip ofa “compensation culture”’ in its report Better Routesto Redress (BRTF, 2004). The report cited legalreasons why the UK ‘could not follow the US litigiousroute’ and acknowledged some positive impacts ofrisk awareness in public services. However, it alsohighlighted negative effects including the trendtowards risk aversion and the ‘enormous drain’ onresources of financing liability claims.

Government’s responseThe government established a Ministerial SteeringGroup to take forward issues in Better Routes toRedress and an Action Group, both co-ordinated bythe Department for Constitutional Affairs. It produceda paper entitled Tackling the “Compensation Culture”which proposed measures such as self-regulation ofclaims management companies and their advertising(and formal regulation if self-policing fails), improvedconsumer guidance, raising the limit for personalinjury claims through the small claims track, and moreconsideration of mediation and rehabilitation (HMGovernment, 2004).

The Programme of ActionThe government’s Programme of Action appointedthe minister responsible for the voluntary sector tochampion the cause of insurance for voluntaryorganisations by creating an ongoing dialogue withthe insurance sector. It also pledged to take intoaccount voluntary sector interests in ongoing work on

9 Actions and initiatives

pag

e 29

// A

ctio

ns a

nd in

itiat

ives

pag

e 30

employers’ liability insurance and legal costs (HomeOffice, 2005).

The Programme included ongoing developmentssuch as the production of a Framework for VocationalRehabilitation, improved guidance on liabilityinsurance by the Small Business Service, and thelaunch of a pilot scheme to look at how to makeclaims quicker, fairer and more cost-effective,allowing insurers to predict the likely cost of claimsand therefore reduce premiums. It advocated drawingtogether practical advice and expertise to increasethe sector’s capacity to deal with insurance issuesand placed fresh emphasis on mediation to resolvedisputes at an early stage (Home Office, 2004/2005).

Insurance and sporting, recreational andadventurous activities In 2004, the government set up an All-PartyParliamentary Group on Adventure and Recreation inSociety. It commissioned a research and consultationprocess which proposed an agenda for change,including: more collaboration between keystakeholders; new models of insurance provision andbetter communication between the VCS and theinsurance industry; more mediation mechanisms; no-fault rehabilitation; training of the judiciary; regulationof claims management companies; and possiblelegislation to establish the principle of ‘recklessdisregard’ (Farrell, 2004).

Education and Skills Select Committee onEducation outside the ClassroomThis Committee concluded in its 2005 report onextra-curricular activities that the fear of accidentsand possible litigation is ‘entirely out of proportion tothe real risks’. It criticised the amount of‘cumbersome bureaucracy’ entailed in public sectorrisk assessment, maintaining that this is in itself adeterrent to schools (Education and Skills SelectCommittee, 2005).

The Office of Fair Trading The OFT conducted reviews of the liability insurancemarket, showing how the market had hardened in theearly years of this century with steep rises across theboard. Its follow-up report in 2005 found somestabilisation of premium increases and fewercompanies being denied cover (OFT, 2003/2005).

Prime Minister’s ‘Compensation Culture’speechThe Prime Minister delivered a speech in May 2005which attempted to dismiss the notion of acompensation culture and explain the perpetuation ofthe myth. He condemned excessive risk aversion inpublic bodies (such as removing hanging baskets orseesaws, despite no history of accidents), fearing it‘will stifle creativity’. He urged replacement of thecompensation culture by a common sense culture onthe premise that ‘we cannot eliminate risk.Sometimes we have to accept: no one is to blame’.The speech introduced new bills planned by thegovernment – a Better Regulation Bill, the NHSRedress Bill and the Compensation Bill (Blair, 2005).

The Constitutional Affairs CommitteeThis Committee conducted an enquiry which resultedin a report entitled Compensation Culture(Constitutional Affairs Committee, 2006). It warns thatrisk aversion is ‘a concerning modern phenomenonthat has an adverse effect on both individuals and theeconomy as a whole’ and cites ‘ample evidence thatrisk assessment is becoming an insidious problem’.

The Regulatory Impact UnitThis unit, within the Cabinet Office, has investigatedthe impact of regulation on school and communitysport in order to ‘remove bureaucratic burdens (and)unnecessary paperwork or processes’. One of itsrecommendations is that the Home Office, DfES andDepartment for Culture, Media and Sport will work

with the Association of British Insurers to producesport-specific risk assessments for the VCS, coveringgeneric activity rather than each individual event ormatch, a measure that would cut paperwork and timeconsiderably (Cabinet Office, 2005).

The Health and Safety ExecutiveThe Health and Safety Executive has researchedspecific areas of risk and produced a number ofguides, it posts risk management advice on itswebsite and published in 1999 a widely-used bookletFive Steps to Risk Assessment, reprinted in 2003(HSE, 2003). This is being revised for republication in2006. In July 2005 the HSE launched a debate on thecauses of risk aversion, including a web forum andinvolving key opinion formers such as the media, CBIand Local Government (HSE, 2006b).

The Department of HealthThe Department of Health recently produced a greenpaper Independence, Well-being and Choice and awhite paper Our Health, Our Care, Our Say whichemphasise the importance of people having morechoice and control over their lives and the servicesthey receive. It is developing a framework for acommon approach to social care, an importantelement of which is helping service providers to takerisks in a context of sensible and effective riskmanagement (Department of Health, 2005a/2006).

Insurance initiativesThe Association of British Insurers has been active ininitiatives to improve the insurance situation for theVCS through representation on various committees,such as the Insurance Cover Working Group, and itsown publications. It has assisted in introducing acode of practice to allow customers a minimumtwenty-one days’ notice of renewal terms, workedwith the HSE on its health and safety indicator, andhelped the equestrian sector to improve its recordkeeping to aid the successful defence of claims.

pag

e 31

// A

ctio

ns a

nd in

itiat

ives

In 2005, ABI published Living with Risk: RiskManagement and Insurance Advice for the Voluntaryand Community Sector (ABI, 2005). This followed thelaunch of its successful Making the Market Workinitiative in 2003 which allowed trade associations orumbrella groups, including those in the VCS, tosubmit their risk management schemes forassessment and certification (ABI, 2003). Sixteenschemes have been assessed to date. ABI stresses inits 2005 guide that ‘good risk management will notonly help your organisation to develop, but will helpkeep down the costs of liability insurance protection’(ABI, 2005).

The main insurers of the VCS provide productswhich are tailored to the sector’s needs, and otherpolicies have been produced by brokers (for example,Morton Michel’s Group Policy) and VCS infrastructurebodies (such as NCVO’s Encompass InsurancePolicy).

Charity Logistics has proposed insurance schemessuch as a charity insurance trust or mutual that woulduse collective purchasing power to reduce insurancecosts (Charity Logistics, 2004). Previous researchshowed that three quarters of organisations wereinterested in developing group insurance schemes(Z/Yen, 2003) and nearly a fifth of organisations in oursurvey supported the idea.

Voluntary sector initiativesAs well as government and insurers’ action,infrastructure and umbrella bodies in the voluntarysector, such as NCVO, Volunteering England and theCharity Commission have taken the initiative toexamine risk issues and produce guidance. Forexample, NCVO and the Third Sector ForesightConsortium held a seminar ‘Changing regulation andperceptions of risk’ in September 2005, posing thequestion ‘What are the implications for the working ofinstitutions when “defensive management” dominatesthe government of risk?’ (NCVO, 2005c).

Guidance has been produced by a wide range ofvoluntary umbrella organisations such as the NSPCC,St John Ambulance, Youth Action Network, NCVYS,BTCV, the Scout Association, Girlguiding UK, RoSPA,the Play Safety Forum, the Central Council for Playand Recreation and parent bodies in a variety ofsports. Overseas bodies have also published guidesor posted advice on their websites, much of which isrelevant to the UK situation (see, for example, Graff,1999 and 2003; Herman and Jackson, 2004; Alliancefor Nonprofit Management, 2004b/c/d/e; theNonprofit Risk Management Center, 2005;Volunteering Australia, 2003/2005).

9.3 New UK billsThe government recently introduced two new bills toParliament: the Compensation Bill and the NHSRedress Bill. The NHS Redress Bill, published inOctober 2005, is aimed at ‘preventing a US-stylelitigation culture’ (Department of Health, 2005b). Itwould give quicker, earlier redress to patients in lowmonetary value clinical negligence cases and offer ‘areal alternative to litigation’. The NHS LitigationAuthority would oversee the scheme, establishingliability and the level of compensation or non-financialredress (ibid). However, the Constitutional AffairsCommittee found a number of flaws in the Scheme,which is expected to come into force in 2007/8,including insufficient costings and operational details(CAC, 2006).

The Compensation Bill, published in November2005, aims to do two things: limit and regulate thework of claims management companies or ‘claimsfarmers’ and clarify the existing common law onnegligence ‘to make clear that there is no liability innegligence for untoward incidents that could not beavoided by taking reasonable care or exercisingreasonable skill’ (Blair, 2005).

The key clause of the Bill says that in determiningwhether a defendant should have taken particularsteps to meet the standard of care, a court shouldconsider ‘whether a requirement to take those stepsmight prevent an activity which is desirable fromtaking place (either at all, to a particular extent, or in aparticular way), or might discourage persons fromundertaking functions in connection with the activity’(Department for Constitutional Affairs, 2005).Therefore ‘what amounts to reasonable care in anyparticular case will vary according to thecircumstances’. In some cases, what would berequired to prevent injury of the kind suffered ‘may besuch that to demand it of the defendant would be todemand more than is reasonable’ (ibid).

While the regulation of claims managementcompanies has been welcomed, many commentatorsand organisations in our research are sceptical aboutthe effectiveness of changing the law on negligence.Some voluntary bodies have tentatively welcomed theprovision to ‘take into account the wider social valueof the activity’ and ‘consider the inherent risk in sportand recreational activities’ (CCPR, 2005), but lawyersmaintain that primary legislation is not the mostappropriate way of tackling the issue. The Act wouldinevitably prompt satellite litigation on how the lawshould be interpreted (APIL, 2005; Marshall, 2005).The Constitutional Affairs Committee agreed,concluding that changing the law ‘is unnecessary andmay prove harmful’ (CAC, 2006).

Another legal development which may have animpact on risk in the public and voluntary sectors isthe new corporate manslaughter legislation. Thisallows individuals to be prosecuted and may affectthe VCS directly and indirectly. A few organisations inthe research expressed concern about it and theAssociation of Local Authority Risk Managers(ALARM) believes that, ironically, it may ‘increase thetendency of many authorities to be risk averse’(Matthews, 2006).

pag

e 32 9.4 Recommendations for

actionA number of ideas and proposals emerged from theresearch to improve the situation concerning risk andrisk management in volunteer-involving organisations.These include the sector’s operating environment, thedissemination of good practice, and variousmeasures to help smaller organisations such as a‘favoured group status’ scheme and a riskmanagement development fund. Changes to the CRBsystem are also proposed, and broader measuresendorsed that would influence the compensationculture.

The sector’s operating environmentThe actions of key players in the sector’s operatingenvironment strongly influence how it deals with riskand risk management. There is a need for greatercommunication, co-ordination and flexibility amongstakeholders such as the government, localauthorities, funding bodies, regulatory bodies,insurance industry, legal profession and judiciary.Better communication between these and the VCSitself may help educate them about volunteering, thereal level of risk, and the importance of proportionaterisk management that upholds some types of risk-taking as essential to a vibrant and forward-lookingsector.

A case study organisation points out that thepublic sector will inevitably be more risk averse butthat ‘it would help if both sides recognised this’ andfound a way to ‘balance bureaucracy with the goalsof the voluntary sector’. Work is also needed toresolve the contradiction between the promotion ofinnovation and a precautionary mindset that baulks atsupporting work which ventures into unchartedterritory because of the risks. These contradictionsneed to be examined and discussed, and actiontaken to reverse damaging trends.

InsuranceInsurance companies are a major influence in theoperating environment and the research shows thatthe industry’s practice towards the volunteer sectorhas many inconsistencies. While a few insurersappear informed about volunteering and proactive inassisting with risk management, most seem to applyblanket standards and criteria which do not alwayshave a great deal to do with what a volunteer-involving organisation actually does, what it needs, orwhat its incident or claims history is.

More communication between the VCS and theinsurance industry, both at infrastructural levels andbetween individual organisations, may help improvemutual understanding. Organisations could becomebetter informed about insurance options andcompanies could take account of current riskmanagement and respond appropriately. The sectorcould also be proactive for example in lobbying forgovernment to underwrite voluntary organisations’insurance, or investigating the establishment of acharity insurance mutual, which would help it regainsome control over the cost of financing loss andliability.

Dissemination of good practiceWhile many organisations have accessed advice onrisk management, significant numbers do not knowwhat they should do and what constitutes goodpractice. There is therefore scope for the productionand/or wider dissemination of jargon-free, easy touse guidance and models of good practice. Ninety-eight per cent of the organisations in our surveywere interested in a good practice guide and thisresearch will produce a risk management toolkitwhich synthesises good advice and practicalmeasures for assessing and managing risk. Thiswould ideally be underpinned with a support anddevelopment programme to enable access by thesmaller end of the sector where help is mostneeded.

Better communication within the sectorThere is scope for better communication andinformation exchange within the sector andparticularly between grassroots volunteerorganisations and bodies charged with administeringor overseeing them. This would help parent bodies togain confidence in members’ practice and not be, asmany small groups felt, out of sync with what is beingdone and the best ways of doing it. Ideally, umbrellabodies would consult their membership for goodpractice and model policies which they canincorporate and disseminate to others.

A development and support systemA development and support system is needed to helpthe cash-poor adopt and implement riskmanagement. This could be administered throughregional or area level bodies which would providetraining, templates and practical support inestablishing an appropriate system of riskmanagement. Training would focus both on paid staffand on volunteers and would be tailored to theparticular area of work, rather than generic. Rollingvolunteer training programmes, centralised butdelivered locally, would relieve the training burden onindividual organisations.

Favoured group statusSome organisations advocate the introduction of atiered system through which smaller groups couldachieve ‘favoured group status’ or accreditation as awell-managed, risk-aware organisation. This wouldprovide them with a certificate or seal of approvalwhich would be recognised by local authorities andfunders and may help lower their insurance costs. Itwould operate nationally but be administeredregionally and locally. This would clearly be a majorundertaking but would considerably ease thesituation for small groups which feel they haverepeatedly to validate their viability as safe andtrustworthy organisations.

pag

e 33

// A

ctio

ns a

nd in

itiat

ivesRisk management development fund

Financial help for smaller groups through theestablishment of a fund dedicated to riskmanagement and health and safety would be avaluable practical measure. This is especiallyimportant in the light of the increasing trend towardspolarisation of resources between ‘super-charities’and the vast majority of small organisations (NCVO,2006). Small groups could gain grants to risk assesstheir organisation and implement a risk managementsystem. This kickstart fund would enable manyorganisations to get up to speed on risk managementand, ideally, would provide a small amount of ongoingsupport to maintain and monitor systems.

The Criminal Records BureauOrganisations had a number of proposals for changesin the CRB system, although some acknowledge thesystem has improved, and the CRB is itself planningfurther changes. Suggestions included modernisingforms to remove obsolete sections (already in handby the CRB), more guidance to organisations in theevent of a positive check, a leaflet to give tovolunteers, and computerisation to increase speedand efficiency. Organisations also want the CRB toreview the issues of portability (done and rejected inFebruary 2006) and documentation requirements, inthe light of exclusionary effects on many groups ofpeople. There are concerns about proposals to makeCRB checks even more rigorous and to change theregistration threshold, which will exclude manysmaller organisations (NCVO, 2005b).

Other measuresThe research endorses the recommendations ofvarious bodies to tackle aspects of the compensationculture that would ease pressure on organisations inboth the public and voluntary sectors. They includeestablishing a new cultural understanding of risk andwhat risk management should aim to achieve. TheConstitutional Affairs Committee says that what is

needed is ‘clear leadership by the government’including ‘an educational programme making clearthat risk management does not equate to theavoidance of all risk, and active engagement by theHealth and Safety Executive to ensure it adopts anapproach which is proportionate, does not over-regulate vulnerable sectors and instead offersappropriate advice and support’ (CAC, 2006).

The Health and Safety Executive has revised itsguide to risk assessment to stress these points. Itencourages organisations to ‘focus on the risks thatreally matter – the ones with the potential to causereal harm’ and gives advice on how to do this ‘with aminimum of fuss’ (HSE, 2006b).

Further measures include establishing mandatorymediation mechanisms and a much strongeremphasis on rehabilitation.

pag

e 34 10 Conclusion

This research, which for the first time gives acomprehensive picture of risk and risk managementin volunteer-involving organisations in England,reveals a number of positives but also some warningsabout the way the situation is going.

The past decade has been a very steep learningcurve for much of the volunteer sector. Riskmanagement is being widely practiced and generallywelcomed. The findings are impressive in revealingthe adaptability, initiative and resilience of volunteerorganisations in responding to the new risk climate.Risk management is seen as ‘formalising what we doanyway’ and as an integral part of goodmanagement. But it is not without its costs. Theseparticularly affect small organisations, although thedeterrent effect of risk and risk management canaffect volunteers in any type of organisation.

Organisations agree that regulation and risk fearsare here to stay and have to be accommodated, butthere are widespread concerns that the sector isbogged down in bureaucracy. Risk management hasopportunity costs through distracting time and effortfrom hands-on work – particularly damaging in smallorganisations – and by limiting opportunities forvolunteers. Strictures are based on fear not need, andare not proportionate to the real situation of risk involunteer organisations. Organisations feel that thereis no flexibility in the system and that it is not anevidence-based system. This survey respondenttakes a measured view:

‘I feel that sometimes risk management is relatedto fear of litigation rather than as a way of promotingan environment where volunteers and clients can feelconfident about the service provided, in a way whichis positive and that indicates the organisation takesseriously its responsibility to those involved. No risks

can be entirely eliminated, but an organisation canonly do its best to ensure that risk is as low aspossible.’

Almost no organisation believes risk and riskmanagement are things they can afford to ignore. Butthere are unique sensitivities in a sector which reliesheavily on unpaid people to deliver much of its work.This comment is particularly relevant:

‘As an organisation we realise that we can notignore the need to take appropriate action torecognise and minimise risk, but do not want toalienate our core of volunteers by doing this. It will bea very fine balance to strike and the implementationof any change will need to be carried out in a delicateand measured way.’

The issues which stimulated the research arelargely confirmed. People are becoming less willing tovolunteer and expose themselves to this kind of risk.Volunteers are put off by stringent recruitmentprocedures, the responsibility of upholding riskmanagement standards and the fear of being sued.Organisations’ actions in restricting volunteer rolesand cancelling activities limit opportunities andreduce the potential appeal of volunteering.

Increases in insurance premiums are not justperceived but real, and have major costs for someorganisations in limiting their capacity. Legal claimsagainst volunteer-involving organisations haveincreased, but started from virtually zero and are stillnot by any means of epidemic proportions.Nevertheless, a few cases can have an impact waybeyond their particular context and the threat ofbeing sued continues to haunt organisations. Whilethe government may assert that the compensationculture is a myth, it is certainly perceived in thevolunteer sector as a real threat.

Most of the organisations in the research think thatrisk aversion will continue to dominate. There areencouraging signs, however, that this trend is beingchallenged. The Association of Local Authority RiskManagers (ALARM) which represents local authorities,healthcare trusts, the police service and otherpublicly funded bodies, believes ‘the switch from riskavoidance to risk management is already starting tohappen’ and commits itself to further decreasing the‘over-controlling of risk’ (Matthews, 2006).

There are serious concerns for the future of theVCS and for volunteer involvement if stricturesbecome increasingly rigid and organisations continueto overcompensate for risk. While accepting that old-style volunteering may be a thing of the past, they areconcerned that applying to be a volunteer isbecoming like job recruitment and the volunteeringinstinct to help out will be stifled by precaution andpaperwork. As the volunteer centre manager said,there is a ‘fine line between helping people volunteerand putting in safeguards that discourage them – it’sa difficult balance to maintain, but we have to’. Oneof the areas affected is youth volunteering, whichputs risk aversion at odds with the government’s aimof recruiting one million new young volunteers.

While organisations are working hard to get thebalance right, they shouldn’t have to do it in isolation.There is further scope for influencing key figures intheir operating environment – policy makers, localauthorities, funders, regulators, insurers, lawyers andthe judiciary – towards greater awareness, co-operation and flexibility in their dealings with thevolunteer-involving sector. A number of influentialreports and initiatives are already making progress insome of these areas, but there is still much to do toresolve the contradictions which the research has

highlighted, for example between the adoption ofnational schemes and standards and the capacity ofgrassroots organisations to administer them, andbetween the encouragement of innovation and riskaverse funding regimes.

The overall assessment of the state of risk and riskmanagement in volunteering in England is that thereis concern but not a crisis. This is an excellent time toexamine the pressures and trends that have got us tothis point and decide whether we want to continuethe drift to risk aversion.

The Minister for Communities and LocalGovernment warned in March 2006 against‘strangling creativity, innovation and risk-taking’ involuntary service providers and hailed the VCS’s roleas ‘advocates, campaigners and protesters – thethorn in the side of Government and theestablishment’ (Milliband, 2006). His challenge to thesector to create ‘disruptive innovations’ and develop‘a genuine culture of social enterprise’ (ibid) will proveto be a hollow one if risk aversion cannot becontrolled.

The research shows that the vast majority ofvolunteer-involving organisations are on the side ofsafety and have always had risk awareness. The newelement in the mix is liability awareness and there isno doubt that the prospect of being accused or takento court is terrifying much of the sector. But it is timeto carry out a risk assessment of risk managementitself and decide which is the bigger risk.

Do we stand to lose more if the sector carries ondown the route of excessive caution, in which riskmanagement bureaucracy increases, enterprise isdiscouraged, volunteer roles become regimented andhomogenised, and the gulf between large and smallorganisations widens? Or do we risk too much if wereassert its vital role in tackling difficult socialproblems and providing challenging activities, andmoderate our demands that chances should never betaken? The choice seems to be between a sector thatdoes things just to be on the safe side and one that is

allowed to take certain risks to improve the quality oflife for individuals and society. We have to decidewhich is the bigger risk to the future of a thriving,innovative and well-supported volunteer sector in thiscountry.

pag

e 35

// C

oncl

usio

n

pag

e 36 References

ACEVO, ‘Newsflash – acevo seeks clarification of volunteerrole’ (Acevo NoticeBoard, April, 2005).

Adirondack S, ‘Updated Information for Chapter 35:Voluntary Sector Legal Handbook’, www.sandy-a.co.uk/vslh/35vols.htm, retrieved 20/10/05 (2005).

Adirondack S and Taylor JS, Voluntary Sector LegalHandbook, 2nd edition (London: Directory of SocialChange, 2001).

Alison Millward Associates, Research into Insurance Coverfor the VCS in England. Report for the Active CommunityUnit (Birmingham: AMA, 2003).

All Party Parliamentary Group on Adventure and Recreationin Society, ‘Paper in response to Martin Farrell’spresentation’, supplied by Martin Farrell (London, 3 November, 2004).

Alliance for Nonprofit Management, ‘What effect will theVolunteer Protection Act of 1997 have on the potentialliability of our nonprofit and our volunteers?’,www.allianceonline.org/faq, retrieved 06/09/05 (2004a).

Alliance for Nonprofit Management, ‘What are the mostcommon risks facing nonprofit organisations?’,www.allianceonline.org/faq. retrieved 06/09/05 (2004b).

Alliance for Nonprofit Management, ‘What are the mostdangerous myths about nonprofit liability (or riskmanagement)?’, www.allianceonline.orf/faq, retrieved06/09/05 (2004c).

Alliance for Nonprofit Management, ‘Developing a riskmanagement program’, www.allianceonline.org/faq,retrieved 06/09/05 (2004d).

Alliance for Nonprofit Management, ‘What is riskmanagement?’, www.allianceonline.org/faq, retrieved06/09/05 (2004e).

Association of British Insurers, Making the Market Work:Initiative for the Assessment of Trade Association Healthand Safety Schemes (London: ABI, 2003).

Association of British Insurers, ABI evidence to theEducation and Skills Select Committee inquiry intoeducation outside the classroom (London: ABI, 2004).

Association of British Insurers, Living with Risk: RiskManagement and Insurance Advice for the Voluntary andCommunity Sector (London: ABI, 2005).

Association of Public Injury Lawyers, ‘The CompensationBill’, supplied by Martin Farrell (APIL presentation to theAPPG on Insurance and Financial Services, 12 July, 2005).

Bazley v. Curry (1999) S.C.J. No. 35, Para.52. CanadianSupreme Court, cited in Graff L (2003).

Beck U, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (London:Sage Publications, 1992).

Better Regulation Task Force, Better Routes to Redress(London: BRTF, 2004).

Blair T, ‘Compensation Culture Speech’, given at Instituteof Public Policy Research, 26 May, 2005. www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7562.asp, retrieved 01/07/05 (2005).

Bolton M, ‘The impact of regulation on voluntaryorganisations’, www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/?id=1281, retrieved08/09/05 (London: NCVO, 2004).

British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, ‘Threat posed byVolunteering Bill’, letter on behalf of six charities concerningthe Promotion of Volunteering Bill, 20 June (2004).

Cabinet Office (with DCMS), ‘Making a Difference:Reducing burdens in school and community sport’,www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/documents/regulatory_reform/pdf/sportsum.pdf, retrieved 05/04/06 (London:Cabinet Office, 2005).

CCPR, Straw poll of members on insurance and litigation,internal document supplied by CCPR (CCPR, 2004).

CCPR, ‘Briefing note E-Politix on the Compensation Bill’(CCPR, 3 November, 2005).

Charity Commission, ‘CC62 – Charities SORP 2000: Whathas changed?’, www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/cc62.asp, retrieved 09/07/05 (London: Charity Commission, 2001).

Charity Commission, ‘CC49 – Charities and Insurance’,www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/cc49.asp,retrieved 09/07/05 (London: Charity Commission, 2003).

Charity Commission, ‘Vicarious Liability of a Charity or itsTrustees’, www.charity-commission.gov.uk/supportingcharities/vicarious.asp, retrieved 11/11/05(London: Charity Commission, 2004).

Charity Commission, ‘Charities and Risk Management’,www.charity-commission.gov.uk/investigations/charrisk.asp, retrieved 09/07/05 (London: CharityCommission, 2005a).

Charity Commission, ‘SORP 2005: What has changed?’,www.charity-commission.gov.uk/investigations/sorp/sorp05change.asp, retrieved 02/10/05 (London:Charity Commission, 2005b).

Charity Logistics, ‘Charity Insurance Trust’ and ‘CharitiesPCC’ in VCS Risk Management – 22 October MeetingConclusions, email sent by George Cook to HM Treasuryand Home Office, www.charitylogistics.org/newsrelease/insurance/module_index.php?id=123, retrieved10/09/05 (10 November, 2004).

Coker C, ‘Risk management goes global’, paper given atthe Goodenough-Chevening Conference on Risk, 12 April2002, Adelphi Paper No 345 Globalisation and Security,www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000006D8BB.htm,retrieved 07/09/05 (International Institute for StrategicStudies, 2002).

Constitutional Affairs Committee, 'Compensation Culture:Third Report of Session 2005-06 Volume 1 (London: Houseof Commons, 2006).

CTBS, Survey of AALA Licensed Activity Providers (CTBSand Adventure Activities Licensing Authority, 2004).

Department for Constitutional Affairs, The CompensationBill – Explanatory Notes (London: DCA, 2005).

Department of Health, Independence, Well-being andChoice: Social Care Green Paper (London: Department ofHealth, 2005a).

Department of Health, ‘Better NHS response for patientsharmed by healthcare’, press release, 13 October,www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/PressReleases,retrieved 14/10/05 (London: Department of Health, 2005b).

Department of Health, Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: anew direction for community services (London: Departmentof Health, 2006).

Division of Public and Nonprofit Administration, Connect!(University of Memphis School of Urban Affairs and PublicPolicy, Spring issue, 2004).

Education and Skills Select Committee, Education outsidethe Classroom, Second Report (London: United KingdomParliament, 2005).

Ellis S, ‘Volunteering is inherently risky’, ‘On Volunteers’column, The NonProfit Times, www.energizeinc.com/art/nprisk.html, retrieved 10/07/05 (1996).

Farrell M, A good dose of reality (London: Get2thePoint,2004).

Furedi F, ‘You can’t ban accidents’, Spiked, www.spiked-online.com, retrieved 07/09/05 (24 August, 2001).

Furedi F, Culture of Fear: Risk-taking and the Morality ofLow Expectation (London: Continuum, 2002).

Furedi F, ‘When fear leaves us paralysed’, The Observer,www.guardian.co.uk/katrina/story/0,,1562464,00.html,retrieved 07/09/05 (04 September, 2005).

Girlguiding UK, Being Prepared: An Introduction to RiskAssessment (London: The Guide Association, 2003).

Government of Western Australia, ‘Can you risk it? Anintroduction to risk management for communityorganisations’, www.ozvpm.com/resourcebank/resource_riskmgt.htm, retrieved 10.09.05 (Government ofWestern Australia, 2004).

Graff LL, Beyond Police Checks: The Definitive Volunteerand Employee Screening Guidebook (Ontario: Linda Graffand Associates, 1999).

Graff LL, Better Safe… Risk Management in VolunteerPrograms and Community Service (Ontario: Linda Graff andAssociates, 2003).

Graff LL, ‘Australian observations: An interview with LindaGraff’, www.ozvpm.com/pasthottopics/november04.htm,retrieved 10/09/05 (2004).

Graff LL, Personal communication in interview and by email(September/October 2005).

Griffith M, Wilding K and Jochum L, Voluntary SectorStrategic Analysis 2005/06 (London: NCVO, 2005).

Health and Safety Executive, Employers’ Liability(Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969: A Guide for Employers,www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse40.pdf, retrieved 13/09/05(London: HSE, 1999).

Health and Safety Executive, Five Steps to RiskAssessment (London: HSE, 2003).

Health and Safety Executive, ‘We need a common senseapproach to risk management – Hunt’, press release, (13 July, 2005).

Health and Safety Executive, 'Evidence based evaluation ofthe scale of disproportionate decisions on risk assessmentand management. Work in progress: Media reports andassociations interviews', prepared by Greenstreet BermanLtd. (London: HSE, 2006a).

Health and Safety Executive, Five Steps to RiskAssessment (draft) (London: HSE, 2006b).

Herman ML and Jackson PM, No Surprises: HarmonizingRisk and Reward in Volunteer Management (WashingtonDC: Nonprofit Risk Management Center, 2004).

Hill N, ‘Risky business’, Voluntary Sector, (October, 2004).

HM Government, ‘Tackling the “Compensation Culture”:Government Response to the Better Regulation Task ForceReport: Better Routes to Redress’ (London HMGovernment,10 November, 2004).

Home Office, Insurance Cover and the Voluntary andCommunity Sector: Programme of Action (London: HomeOffice, 2004).

Home Office, Paper summarising government action toaddress risk and insurance issues in the VCS (London:Home Office, 2005).

Hood C, ‘Where “Social Risk” meets Risk of Blame: TheArchitecture of Blame Avoidance’, Third Sector ForesightSeminar ‘Changing Regulation and Perceptions of Risk’,seminar report, www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/3s4, retrieved15/10/05 (2005).

Hunt Lord, ‘Lord Hunt dispels “myth” surrounding schoolactivities’, speech at Safe Schools, Healthy Schoolsconference, press release (London: Department for Workand Pensions, 02 March, 2006).

Institute for Volunteering Research, Volunteering for All?Exploring the link between volunteering and socialexclusion, Research Bulletin (London: VolunteeringEngland/Institute for Volunteering Research, 2003).

Kloman F (ed.), ‘Draft Consensus Report: Proposal towardsa Project on the Development of a Compass for RiskAnalysis’, www.riskreports.com/compass.html, retrieved10/09/05 (Risk Management Reports and Seawrack Press,Inc., 2001).

Landry C, ‘Risk and the creation of liveable cities’ in Whatare we scared of? (London: CABE Space, 2005).

Marshall D, 'Proposed Compensation Bill',www.anthonygold.co.uk/page.cfm/link=203, retrieved20/07/05 (Anthony Gold Solicitors, 2005).

Matthews V, ‘Disability rights: the dangers of risk aversion’The Independent, www.education.independent.co.uk/careers_advice/article342319.ece, retrieved 15/02/06 (02 February, 2006).

Milliband D, ‘Speech on voluntary sector partnership’,NCVO Annual Conference ‘Putting people in control’ (21February, 2006).

Monbiot G, ‘The Myth of Compensation Culture’, TheGuardian (16 November, 2004).

NCVO, Managing Risk: Guidelines for medium-sizedvoluntary organisations (London: NCVO, 2001).

NCVO, The legal status of volunteers (London: NCVO,2005a).

NCVO, ‘Calls for participation in CRB consultation’,www.ncvo-vol.org.uk, retrieved 10/11/05 (27 July, 2005b).

NCVO, ‘Changing regulation and perceptions of risk’, ThirdSector Foresight Consortium seminar report, www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/3s4riskseminar, retrieved 10/11/05 (London:NCVO, 2005c).

NCVO, ‘The UK Voluntary Sector Almanac 2006: The Stateof the Sector’, (summary), www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/research/index.asp?id=2380&fID=158, retrieved 28/02/06 (London:NCVO, 2006).

NICVA, Advice Note 12: Insurance, www.nicva.org, retrieved10/09/05 (Belfast, NICVA, 2004).

Nonprofit Risk Management Center, Managing Risk inNonprofit Organizations, http://nonprofitrisk.org/pubs/mngrisk.htm, retrieved 01/07/05 (John Wiley, 2004).

O’Byrne J, ‘Balancing risks and rewards – an investment inthe future’, (London: PKF/CFDG, 2003).

Office of Fair Trading, An analysis of current problems in theUK liability insurance market (London: OFT, 2003).

pag

e 37

// R

efer

ence

s

pag

e 38

Office of Fair Trading, ‘Studies – Liability insurance marketfollow-up review’, http://www.oft.gov.uk/business/market+studies/insurance2.htm, retrieved 03/08/05(London: OFT, 2005).

O’Neill B, ‘More sorry than safe’, Spiked, www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CA592.htm, retrieved 07/09/05(16 June, 2004).

Opinion Leader Research, ‘Report of findings of a survey ofpublic trust and confidence in charities’, www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/spr/pdfs/surveytrustrpt.pdf,retrieved 11/11/05 (London, Opinion Leader Research, 2005).

Oshinsky J and Dias GM, ‘Liability of Not-for-ProfitOrganisations and Insurance Coverage for Related Liability’,International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, Volume 4 Issues2/3, www.icnl.org/JOURNAL/vol4iss23/oshinsky1.htm,retrieved 07/11/05 (May, 2002).

Our Community, ‘Submission to the Inquiry into publicliability insurance and professional indemnity insurance’,www.communityinsurance.com.au (Victoria, 2003).

Parliament of South Australia, The Volunteer Protection Act2001, www.parliament.sa.gov.au/catalog/legislation/acts/v/2001.65.htm, retrieved 10/09/05(Adelaide: Parliament of South Australia, 2002a).

Parliament of South Australia, Risk management forcommunity organisations: reference manual,www.ofv.sa.gov.au/pdfs/Risk%20Mgt%20-%20The%20Manual.pdf, retrieved 10/09/05 (Adelaide:Parliament of South Australia, 2002b).

Patterson JC, ‘Does Liability for negligent hiring apply tovolunteers?’, from Staff Screening Tool Kit,www.energizeinc.com /art/asta.html, retrieved 10/09/05(2003).

PKF, ‘Reaping the rewards – is risk management proving itsworth – 2003 survey results’, retrieved 18/10/05 (London:PKF/CFDG, 2004).

Restall M, The legal status of volunteers: Consequences forvolunteer-involving organisations, (London: VolunteeringEngland, 2005).

Reynolds M, ‘End of School Trips’, Daily Express (October,2004).

Risk Management Research Center, ‘Liability Basics forNonprofit Organizations’, http://eriskcenter.org/ erisk.htm?pid=107, retrieved 06/10/05 (Arlington, RMRC, 1999a).

Risk Management Research Center, ‘Myths about NonprofitLiability and Risk Management’, http://eriskcenter.org/erisk.htm?pid=106, retrieved 06/10/05 (Arlington, RMRC,1999b).

RoSPA, ‘RoSPA on course for Teacher Risk Assessmentawareness’, press release (Birmingham: RoSPA, 10 August,2004).

Shifrin T, ‘Volunteer bill “could be deterrent”’, TheGuardian/Society, http://society.guardian.co.uk/volunteering/story/0,,1163058,00.html, retrieved 20/09/05(London, 5 March, 2004).

Third Sector, ‘Risk Management: Occupational Hazards’,Third Sector (27 July, 2005a).

Third Sector, ‘Insurance: Driving a hard bargain’, ThirdSector (27 July, 2005b).

Third Sector, ‘Opinion: Hot issue – are legal concernsaffecting volunteer numbers?’, Third Sector (17 August,2005c).

Third Sector, ‘UK charities “may have to follow USinsurance lead”’, Third Sector (16 February, 2005d).

Third Sector, ‘Acevo urges Government to clarify volunteerrole’, Third Sector (02 March, 2005e).

Verity F, Insurance and Risk Management: Unravelling CivilSociety? (Adelaide: Department of Social Administrationand Social Work, Flinders University, 2005).

Volunteering Australia, Running the Risk: a RiskManagement Tool for Volunteer Involving Organisations,information sheet (Volunteering Australia, 2003).

Volunteering Australia, ‘Screening and the VolunteerRecruitment Process’, information sheet (February, 2005).

Volunteering England, ‘Volunteering England statement onthe legal status of volunteers’, www.volunteering.org.uk,retrieved 01/03/05 (2004a)

Volunteering England, ‘Volunteering England response to Julian Brazier’s Private Members Bill’,www.volunteering.org.uk, retrieved 08/07/05 (2004b).

Z/Yen, Risk Management Club for the VCS – Feasibility –Management Summary, a report for Charity Logistics(London: Z/Yen, 2003).

Birmingham

Volunteering EnglandNew Oxford House16 Waterloo StreetBirmingham B2 5UG

Fax: 0121 633 4043

London

Volunteering EnglandRegent’s Wharf8 All Saints StreetLondon N1 9RL

Fax: 020 7520 8910

Tel: 0845 305 6979

E-mail: volunteering@volunteeringengland.orgWeb site: www.volunteering.org.uk