1. Relation and treatment of institutions toward volunteers

2. The enquiry processed on oriented sample of 30 public institutions, shosen as target – by location, job description and activities interesting for volunteering. Beside that, research took place also among local administrations, in order to get picture of openness of these institutions toward volunteer’s engagement.

3. By percentage, sample looks like this: To answer on questions mainly were responsible persons of highest status within institution. In 29% directors, in 51,6% deputy directors, and under 5% public relation officers.

4. Openness of institutions toward volunteer’s engagement

5. Based on results of enquiry the impression is that there is enough of understanding of general concept of volunteerism and, at the same time, interest of institutions and readiness for inclusion of volunteers in their work.

7. About 51% of them are expressed readiness to give opportunity to volunteers to spend some of their time and to volunteer within institutions, and 41% of them is ready to let volunteers to help in minor tasks within everyday jobs. Characteristic is that institutions are open for volunteering in general, but important is to add that 70% of institutions does know the way of volunteers engaging.

8. So, the conclusion is that openness to volunteering is just declarative gesture. Reasons should be seeing from more than one angle… One of the main reasons of that this attitude could be of economic nature, because we are talking about budget institutions with very bad economic standards of employment people and volunteering for them are more like abstract concept.

9. The other reason could be a general society picture described as depressive, as well as lack of initiative about volunteerism. If we add to all this internal position or rule of institution, 47% of enquiring claims previous job experience for engaging volunteers as a base condition, it is obvious that this is declarative attitude, when openness toward volunteers are in focus.

10. Relationship and treatment of institutions toward volunteers

12. In general relationship and information level about volunteerism is about to be satisfied. Positive indicator is that 54,8% of enquiring institutions means that volunteerism contribute stabile and cohesion able society.

13. Majority of enquiries, 87,1% of them, means that volunteerism is a result of free will expression, and 82% of them looks at volunteerism as on work which contributes to better cooperation between people. By opinion of enquiries popularization of volunteerism could contribute to better stability of society, because for them volunteers are not persons with no better idea of how to use their lives – by enquiries opinion volunteer is stabile and mature person willing to work.

14. Differences, demonstrated among enquiries, shows misunderstanding of activities of volunteerism. It is noticed that enquiries did not make difference between humanitarian work and helping friend and similar…

15. Treatment of volunteer’s engagements within institutions is an index of level of knowledge about volunteers and volunteerism in general, too. Here we are talking about ways of awarding of volunteers during they are engaged in institutions – 30,5% mentioned participation of planning within institution as a sort of awarding, and different educational programme and trainings confirmed 25% of enquiries.

16. Indicative fact is that 30% of institutions does not compensate nor awarding volunteer’s work at all. The reason of this situation could be found in lack of legal regulative, as well as internal ordinance, and absence of communication between institution and NGO or volunteer’s services.

17. Volume, needs and engaging of volunteers

18. For engaging volunteers within their work, positive answers gave 51,6% of enquiries.

19. 41.9% of institutions wants to include volunteers within minor jobs within their activities, but the problem is that they do not know how to do it.

20. 38.7% of enquiries has a need for volunteer’s work, and 48,4% expressed partly interest for that.

21. Previous experiences about scope with engaging of volunteers are modest. In earlier years institutions had some volunteers from time to time, but today that is rare case. Today, mainly, engaging of volunteers are present in minor jobs and administration. Although need for volunteers are relatively big inclusion of volunteers is at small scale. Several factors are the reason for this situation.

22. Firstly, lack of knowledge about existing of volunteer’s services or organizations which could make easier contact with potential volunteers (even the wish of getting know about those services is present), contribute to poor inclusion of volunteers in institutions. Secondly, absence of person who will take care about volunteers within institutions, what means that volunteer’s management not exist.

23. 36.5% of institutions have no any information about existence of volunteer’s services or centers, and 32.3% did not answer on this question.

24. Although large number of inquiries claims great need for volunteers engagement, number of jobs which volunteers could do within institutions is small and limited.

26. The way of processing engagement or recruiting of volunteers is very problematic. It is to be Način na koji se vrši angažovanje, odnosno regrutovanje volontera je vrlo problematičan. Upseting facts are that 38,7% of inquiries did not answer on the question « how to recruit volunteers? », 25.8% of them did not recruiting volunteers at all, and in 19,4% institutions volunteers enlisted by them lesves. Indicative fact is that in 12,9% of cases institutions recruiting volunteers trough personal contacts.

27. Engaging volunteers based on previous experience, what is in internal rules of institution, answered in 47% cases, significantly minimized selection of volunteers, what should be a negative trend. Considering fact that great deal of institutions means that engaging volunteer is the same thing as engaging in expert’s advancing studies, previous information get powerful intensity. Contribution to this position certainly gives the fact that within institutions there is no person who will be specially responsible for volunteers and there is no volunteer’s management at all in general.

28. Conclusion

29. Declarative openness, need of experiences as condition for engagement, limited knowledge about scope and sort of works and jobs for volunteers, as well as nonexistence of volunteer’s management in general, leads to conclusion that relationship between volunteer and director of institution is basic relationship within volunteerism. Centralization of relationships between volunteers and institutions are visible in facts that 29% of answers was given by directors and 51,9% their deputies.

30. Also, it should not be forget that majority of enquiries are members of so called budget institution, so internal managing and policy reflects political will of their employers from competent ministries (human resources policy and priorities), where policy toward volunteerism or lack of it are not exception.