|

From Duty to Difference: How Volunteering Has Changed Across the Generations

ByJohn May

From Baby Boomers to Generation Alpha: changing expectations, changing communities and the future of volunteering in Britain

I have been volunteering for more than fifty years. My earliest experiences were not particularly glamorous. As a young Scout, I spent cold, wet afternoons clearing rubbish from the Stroudwater Navigation. At fourteen, I visited an old people’s home as part of my Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, drinking tea with residents and discovering, although I probably did not appreciate it at the time, something about the importance of listening. A few years later, I became a volunteer Cub Scout leader in Bristol, beginning an involvement with Scouting that has continued throughout my adult life.

Since then, volunteering has taken me into schools, communities, boardrooms, youth organisations and countries around the world. I have worked alongside volunteers, led them, supported them and, as the chief executive of several charities, occasionally had the unenviable task of persuading them that changes to the organisations they care about might actually be necessary. I have also continued to volunteer myself, and I hope that has helped me understand the experience from both sides.

Over those decades, I have watched the relationship between people, their communities and the organisations through which they volunteer change considerably. In the early years of my involvement, volunteering generally meant joining something. You became a Scout leader, a member of a charitable committee, a hospital volunteer or a school governor. You accepted a defined responsibility, attended meetings, followed established procedures and often expected to remain involved for years.

Today, somebody might contribute to a crowdfunding campaign, organise a community clean-up through WhatsApp, mentor a young person online, join a climate campaign, use their professional skills for a short project or volunteer regularly in precisely the traditional way that their grandparents did. All are legitimate expressions of voluntary action, but they reflect different expectations about commitment, institutions, personal identity and the relationship between individual and collective responsibility.

It is tempting to explain these changes by suggesting that each generation volunteers differently. There is some truth in that, although the reality is considerably more complicated. The Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, Generation Z and Generation Alpha have encountered remarkably different economic, technological and social environments. They have inherited different expectations about work, authority, citizenship and belonging, and these experiences inevitably influence how they choose to contribute.

My own view is that the willingness to contribute has proved much more enduring than the structures we have created to organise that contribution. The future of volunteering in Britain may therefore depend less upon persuading younger generations to behave like older ones and more upon understanding how voluntary action can flourish in the circumstances of modern life.

Is volunteering really in decline?

Before considering the generations individually, it is worth examining whether volunteering really is declining, or whether we are measuring an increasingly diverse activity through definitions developed for a different era.

The evidence gives us grounds for concern. According to the government’s Community Life Survey for England, the proportion of adults undertaking formal volunteering at least once a month fell from 27% in 2013/14 to 17% in 2024/25. Formal volunteering means giving unpaid help through a group, club or organisation. Informal volunteering, involving unpaid help to individuals outside one’s family, has also declined, with 24% of adults participating at least monthly in 2024/25.

Across both categories, 33% of adults reported volunteering at least monthly, while 54% had volunteered in some capacity during the preceding year. These are figures for England rather than the United Kingdom as a whole, an important distinction when considering the future of volunteering across all four nations.

Source: DCMS, Community Life Survey 2024/25.

The longer-term decline in regular formal volunteering suggests a genuine weakening of participation through established organisations, rather than simply a temporary disruption caused by the pandemic. COVID-19 undoubtedly accelerated some of these changes, but the underlying trend predates it.

Yet the figures do not demonstrate that people have stopped caring about their communities. Nor do they capture every form of mutual aid, digital campaigning, neighbourliness or collective action. The boundaries between volunteering, active citizenship, social action and informal community support have become increasingly difficult to define.

There is also an important methodological difficulty with any generational analysis. Sociologists distinguish between age effects, which arise because people behave differently at different stages of life; period effects, which arise because everyone is affected by events such as a pandemic or recession; and cohort effects, which reflect the particular circumstances in which people grew up.

An older person may volunteer more regularly because they are retired, rather than because they belong to a generation that is intrinsically more committed. A younger person may prefer occasional volunteering because they are balancing insecure employment, education and housing costs, rather than because they lack an appetite for sustained responsibility.

Generational labels can help us understand changing social circumstances, but they become much less useful when treated as fixed descriptions of human character. With that qualification in mind, it is worth exploring how five generations have encountered volunteering, and how their experiences may have reshaped it.

The Baby Boomers: volunteering as duty, membership and belonging

Born approximately 1946–1964

The Baby Boomer generation grew up in a Britain still profoundly shaped by the Second World War and its aftermath. The establishment of the welfare state, expanding prosperity, the growth of mass education and powerful local institutions created a distinctive environment for civic participation.

Many grew up surrounded by organisations that were woven into community life: churches, trade unions, women’s organisations, Scouts and Guides, voluntary youth clubs, sports associations, political parties and local charities. Participation was frequently embedded in relationships and a sense of collective obligation. People volunteered because their parents had done so, because their church or community expected it, because an organisation mattered to their family, or because somebody they respected asked them to help.

Volunteering was often closely connected to membership. Joining an organisation involved accepting its traditions, responsibilities, leadership structures and social expectations. Committee meetings were not an inconvenient addition to volunteering; they were part of the way collective responsibility was exercised.

There were considerable strengths in this approach. It encouraged continuity, cultivated specialist expertise and created deep networks of trust. A volunteer who spent twenty years leading a Scout Group, running a charity shop or serving on a village committee developed a degree of local knowledge that no induction programme could reproduce. Many of Britain’s voluntary institutions still depend upon precisely this accumulated commitment.

However, we should be cautious about romanticising the past. The established voluntary sector often reflected the inequalities of wider society. Leadership could be socially exclusive, gender determined which roles people were expected to occupy, and access to volunteering depended upon having sufficient time, money, confidence and personal connections. Committee procedures could sometimes become more important than the outcomes they were intended to achieve.

Nor should we overlook the fact that the Baby Boomer generation also helped transform volunteering. Its formative years included environmental activism, civil rights movements, women’s liberation and forms of community campaigning that explicitly challenged traditional institutions. The growth of campaigning charities and participatory movements demonstrated that voluntary action could be a means of questioning established authority as well as supporting it.

Nevertheless, the dominant organisational assumption was that people would adapt themselves to the institution they joined. The organisation established the responsibilities, procedures and expectations, and volunteers generally accepted them as part of the commitment they were making.

As the Baby Boomers entered retirement, many became the dependable volunteers sustaining local charitable activity, often taking on responsibilities previously carried by older generations. Their contribution remains extraordinary, but an arrangement that suited somebody with a stable working life, strong local connections and predictable retirement cannot automatically be assumed to suit everybody who follows.

Generation X: volunteering becomes a choice as well as a duty

Born approximately 1965–1980

Generation X came of age during a period of significant economic and social restructuring. Deindustrialisation, changing employment patterns, rising individualism, the expansion of consumer choice and increasing geographical mobility altered the relationship between individuals and the institutions around them.

Established sources of identity, such as class, religion, occupation and locality, became less reliable predictors of people’s affiliations. Volunteering did not disappear, but for many people it became less automatically connected to membership of a particular institution. There was a gradual shift towards choosing causes and activities that reflected personal interests, values and circumstances.

I find this particularly interesting because my own life sits on the boundary between the Baby Boomer and Generation X labels. I was born in 1964, which places me in the final Baby Boomer birth cohort under the commonly used definition, yet much of my professional and voluntary life has been shaped by the changing expectations associated with Generation X.

In December 2011, I wrote an article called On volunteering in which I reflected upon precisely this tension. I acknowledged that my volunteering was partly motivated by a sense of duty and the desire to improve the world, but also by enjoyment, friendships, personal development and professional opportunities. I wondered whether this willingness to recognise personal benefit was a generational characteristic.

Fifteen years later, I am more convinced that the important change was not a sudden emergence of selfishness, but a greater willingness to acknowledge that altruism and personal fulfilment can coexist. Volunteering can benefit the volunteer without diminishing the value of what they contribute, and indeed that reciprocity may be one of its greatest strengths.

This recognition has been central to several developments in youth work and education. The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, work-related mentoring programmes and youth leadership initiatives recognise that service to others can simultaneously develop confidence, competence, resilience and employability.

My experiences with Young Enterprise, Career Ready, Scouting and The Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award repeatedly demonstrated the potential of that relationship. Young people could make a significant contribution to others while developing skills and attitudes that would remain with them throughout their lives.

Generation X also encountered a growing professionalisation of charitable organisations. As charities became larger and more complex, expectations surrounding safeguarding, regulation, financial accountability and professional management increased. Paid employees assumed responsibilities that had previously rested almost exclusively with volunteers.

This improved many aspects of governance and service quality, but it also changed the distribution of authority. Some volunteers welcomed professional support, while others felt that organisations they had helped to build were becoming less responsive to their judgement and local knowledge.

The tension between volunteer autonomy and institutional accountability has continued into the present day. I suspect that finding a better balance between the two will be one of the most important challenges facing larger charities over the coming decade.

Millennials: purposeful volunteering in a less predictable world

Born approximately 1981–1996

The Millennial generation grew up alongside the internet, globalisation and a significant transformation in education and employment. Many entered adult life during or after the financial crisis of 2008, facing rising housing costs, greater educational debt and increasingly uncertain career pathways.

These economic pressures matter because volunteering requires resources, even when the contribution itself is unpaid. Time, transport, childcare, suitable technology and financial security all influence somebody’s ability to participate. It is easy for an organisation to advertise a supposedly flexible volunteering opportunity while overlooking the costs that participation transfers to the individual.

Millennials also experienced the rapid expansion of digital connectivity. For earlier generations, participation had often depended upon physical proximity and established institutional relationships. Increasingly, people could discover causes, organise collectively and contribute beyond their immediate communities.

A person concerned about homelessness, climate change, international development or animal welfare no longer necessarily needed to join a local branch before becoming active. Crowdfunding, online advocacy, digital fundraising and skills-based volunteering expanded the range of available contributions.

This helped accelerate a shift from organisation-centred participation towards cause-centred participation. A traditional charity might recruit volunteers by asking them to fill a vacant position on an existing committee. A prospective Millennial volunteer might instead ask what problem needed solving, what skills were required and what tangible result would follow.

These are not mutually exclusive questions, but they approach the relationship from different directions. Millennials have also become trustees, Scout leaders, regular charity shop volunteers, school governors and long-serving members of community associations. It would be wrong to suggest that familiarity with digital technology produces only fleeting commitment.

Nevertheless, charities increasingly encountered people who were willing to contribute significant effort without necessarily wanting to enter a permanent organisational relationship. For some organisations, this challenged assumptions that had operated successfully for decades.

The Millennial experience helped expose a weakness in much traditional volunteer management. Organisations were sometimes better at identifying vacant roles than at understanding the people who might fill them.

It also brought greater attention to the quality of the volunteering experience. If people are being asked to contribute their time freely, the opportunity should be meaningful, well managed, inclusive and respectful of their circumstances. I regard this as a valuable challenge to the sector, because the generosity of volunteers should never be used as an excuse for poor organisation.

Generation Z: participation, activism and a different relationship with authority

Born approximately 1997–2012

Generation Z is the first generation to have grown up with smartphones, social media and almost continuous digital connectivity as ordinary features of daily life. Its formative years have included the climate emergency, debates about identity and equality, the COVID-19 pandemic, significant geopolitical instability and increasing anxiety about economic opportunity.

These experiences have helped create new forms of public participation, particularly in campaigning, advocacy and community mobilisation. The distinction between volunteering and activism is increasingly difficult to maintain. A young person organising a community climate project, mobilising support for a social cause or helping others through a digital network may not describe themselves as a volunteer, even though they are contributing time and effort to public benefit.

This raises an important question about the way the voluntary sector defines success. If our only measure is the number of people registering for conventional volunteering roles, we risk overlooking substantial forms of civic participation.

Government research provides a useful corrective to claims that younger generations are disengaged. The Youth Matters: State of the Nation report records that 44% of young people aged 10–19 had volunteered during the preceding twelve months, while 47% had participated in social action. Common forms included improving local areas, petitions and campaigning.

These figures are not directly comparable with adult formal-volunteering rates because the populations, activities and survey definitions differ. Nevertheless, they challenge any suggestion that young people have simply abandoned the idea of collective responsibility.

Source: DCMS, Youth Matters: State of the Nation.

There are, however, reasons for concern about the experience young people have when they volunteer. NCVO’s Time Well Spent 2023 research found that 82% of volunteers aged 18–24 were satisfied with their volunteering experience, compared with 96% of volunteers aged 55 and over. Only 59% of the younger group expected to continue volunteering, compared with 86% of the older group. Younger volunteers were also less likely to feel adequately recognised.

Source: NCVO, Time Well Spent 2023.

These findings should concern voluntary organisations. Young people are not simply the potential volunteers of tomorrow. They are contributing now, and the evidence suggests that many are not receiving an experience that encourages them to remain involved.

There is also an important issue of power. The #iwill movement’s 2024 Can You See Us? research highlighted persistent negative stereotypes about young people and a mismatch between some young people’s social priorities and those of older generations.

I have spent much of my working life arguing that young people should be given meaningful responsibility, rather than merely invited to offer opinions that adults are free to ignore. This was one of the themes of my year as High Sheriff of Oxfordshire, when I sought to hear from young people whose experiences and perspectives are too often overlooked.

Volunteering is no exception. If we genuinely want Generation Z to contribute, we must be prepared to share authority, welcome challenge and accept that their understanding of the world may differ from our own. That may require organisations to reconsider not only how they recruit young volunteers, but also how decisions are made and who has the opportunity to influence them.

Generation Alpha: the volunteers we have yet to understand

Born approximately from 2010 to the mid-2020s

Generation Alpha is still largely made up of children and young teenagers. It would therefore be intellectually careless to make confident claims about how its members will behave as adult volunteers. We can, however, consider the circumstances likely to shape their expectations.

Generation Alpha is growing up in an environment characterised by artificial intelligence, algorithmic recommendation systems, digital entertainment, significant environmental uncertainty and rapidly changing patterns of communication. Its members are also experiencing the consequences of the pandemic’s disruption to education and childhood socialisation, alongside increasing debate about mental health, screen time and the importance of physical community spaces.

These circumstances could produce contradictory effects. Digital technologies may make it easier than ever to discover causes, organise activity, translate information, collaborate internationally and contribute specialist knowledge. At the same time, the growing importance of digital life may increase the value of face-to-face relationships, practical experience, outdoor activity and a sense of belonging to a local community.

I would be surprised if Generation Alpha’s volunteering were entirely digital. Indeed, one plausible outcome is that opportunities offering genuine human connection become increasingly attractive precisely because so much else in life is mediated through technology.

This is where organisations such as Scouting, the Guides, youth clubs, sports associations and community groups have an extraordinary opportunity. They provide experiences that cannot be fully replicated by a screen: learning to work with others, making decisions, taking responsibility, encountering people from different backgrounds and discovering that one’s contribution matters.

In my recent article, A love letter to Scouting, I reflected upon the way Scouting has shaped my own understanding of responsibility and service. The most important lessons were rarely announced as lessons. They emerged through ordinary shared experiences, practical challenges and adults who were prepared to trust young people with responsibility.

The same principle will matter for Generation Alpha. If young people learn through experience that they have agency, that cooperation is rewarding and that communities improve when people contribute, those attitudes may endure well beyond childhood.

There is, however, a danger that volunteering becomes simply another compulsory requirement, another assessment or another activity designed to enhance a future university application. If we want the experience of service to have lasting value, we need to ensure that young people understand its purpose and have some influence over what they are being asked to do.

This may require us to rethink the relationship between citizenship education and voluntary action. Learning about democracy is important, but experiencing responsibility within a community may be even more powerful.

Why has volunteering changed?

The generational story provides a useful framework, but it cannot by itself explain the transformation of volunteering. The deeper causes lie in changes to British society that have affected successive generations in different ways.

The decline of automatic membership

Perhaps the most important development has been the weakening of the assumption that belonging to a community necessarily involves belonging to its established institutions.

For much of the twentieth century, membership of churches, unions, political parties, youth movements and local associations provided a ready-made route into voluntary action. People frequently inherited their civic affiliations through family, workplace, faith or neighbourhood.

As those affiliations weakened, charities increasingly had to persuade people to participate rather than assume that participation would follow from membership. This does not necessarily represent a decline in social responsibility. It may represent a change in how responsibility is expressed.

However, it does mean that organisations can no longer rely upon an inherited supply of willing committee members, officers and regular volunteers. They must develop more imaginative ways of identifying people who want to contribute and helping them find a role that suits their circumstances.

Economic insecurity and the changing value of time

The economic circumstances in which people volunteer have also changed dramatically. Dual-income households, longer working lives, irregular employment, caring responsibilities and housing costs all influence the time and energy available for unpaid activity.

The impact is not evenly distributed. NCVO’s research found that concerns about out-of-pocket expenses had become more common among non-volunteers, rising from 9% in 2019 to 14% in 2023. Among 18–24-year-olds, 20% identified such concerns.

The implications are significant. We sometimes speak as though volunteering is free, but participation almost always requires resources that some people can afford more easily than others. There is a danger that volunteering becomes increasingly dominated by those who possess the greatest financial security and freedom over their time.

This inequality can begin young. Earlier National Youth Social Action Survey findings identified meaningful participation rates of 41% among more affluent young people, compared with 29% among their less affluent peers.

A serious national strategy for volunteering must therefore also be a strategy for inclusion. Reimbursing expenses, providing accessible opportunities, accommodating caring responsibilities and offering genuinely flexible participation should be regarded as essential elements of good volunteer management rather than optional extras.

Technology has changed how people participate

Digital technology has transformed the speed at which people can discover a cause, organise others and contribute. It has reduced some of the practical barriers that once made volunteering dependent upon physical proximity, formal membership and established organisational contacts.

NCVO found that 31% of recent volunteers undertook at least some volunteering online or by telephone, while 18% volunteered exclusively through remote means. This has created substantial opportunities for people with disabilities, caring responsibilities, limited transport or specialist skills that can be contributed remotely.

Technology has also enabled new forms of civic action that do not fit easily within traditional organisational definitions. Online campaigning, remote mentoring, digital fundraising and the contribution of specialist technical skills have become established parts of the voluntary landscape.

However, we need to recognise the limitations of digital participation. Technology can make volunteering easier to access while reducing the repeated personal encounters through which communities develop trust and belonging. A digital campaign may mobilise thousands of people rapidly, but it does not automatically create the relationships that develop when people work alongside each other over months or years.

The challenge is therefore not simply to digitise volunteering, but to use technology in ways that strengthen human relationships rather than replace them.

A different relationship with institutions and authority

Modern volunteers may be less willing to accept institutional authority simply because it has traditionally existed. They expect organisations to explain decisions, demonstrate impact, use resources responsibly and respond to challenge.

I regard this as healthy, although I recognise that it can make life uncomfortable for those of us who lead institutions. We should remember that many charities were themselves founded by people dissatisfied with established arrangements. Voluntary action has a long history of challenging authority, not merely working within it.

The emergence of more participatory expectations should encourage charities to distinguish between governance responsibilities that genuinely require central control and those decisions that could appropriately be made closer to communities.

There is an important difference between asking volunteers to implement an organisational strategy and inviting them to help shape it. The latter may be essential if charities are to remain relevant to the generations now entering adult life.

The professionalisation of volunteering

Professionalisation has brought substantial benefits to the voluntary sector. Safeguarding, accountability, consistency, evidence-based practice and sound financial management matter enormously, particularly when volunteers are working with vulnerable people or carrying out activities involving significant risk.

But every additional process places a demand upon somebody’s time. At a gathering of voluntary-sector leaders in September 2026, which I subsequently reflected upon in Volunteering should be part of Britain’s DNA, I suggested that charities sometimes create unnecessary barriers to the generosity they are trying to attract.

We have developed increasingly sophisticated systems for volunteer management, yet in doing so we may occasionally have made volunteering more complicated than it needs to be.

This is not an argument against appropriate checks or training. It is an argument for proportionality. The person offering a few hours to support a community event should not necessarily face the same administrative requirements as somebody undertaking a long-term role with significant safeguarding or financial responsibilities.

There is some evidence that volunteers are becoming increasingly conscious of these demands. NCVO found that between its 2019 and 2023 studies, the proportion of volunteers who felt their activity was too much like paid work increased from 19% to 26%.

If volunteering becomes increasingly bureaucratic, it risks losing some of the spontaneity, enjoyment and sense of personal ownership that originally attracted people to it.

What might volunteering look like in Britain by 2040?

I do not expect one model of volunteering to replace another. Rather, I anticipate a more diverse landscape in which several different forms of contribution operate alongside one another.

There are, however, some important choices for policymakers, charities, employers and communities.

Volunteering will become less dependent upon joining an organisation

I expect a continued movement towards opportunities built around causes, projects, communities and particular outcomes. Some people will remain lifelong members of organisations, while others will contribute to a succession of causes without developing a lasting affiliation to any one institution.

Charities will need to become comfortable with both relationships. The distinction between a supporter, campaigner, donor, volunteer, activist and community organiser may become progressively less useful.

A person who raises money, shares specialist knowledge, mobilises others and occasionally helps deliver a service may move between these activities without thinking of themselves as occupying separate organisational categories. Our systems and attitudes will need to become better at recognising the full range of contribution.

We need to make it easier to move from occasional involvement to sustained responsibility

I have become increasingly concerned about a tendency to frame modern volunteering as though short commitments are inherently more attractive, and long-term volunteering is somehow a relic of the past.

In July 2026, I wrote In Praise of Old-Fashioned Volunteering, reflecting upon the people who sustain local communities through years of dependable service. My argument was not that volunteering should resist change, but that flexibility and long-term commitment should reinforce one another.

Many longstanding volunteers began by agreeing to help just once. They discovered that they enjoyed the experience, made friends, developed skills and found a sense of belonging. Eventually, a modest initial contribution became an important part of their lives.

We should design volunteering experiences that make this progression possible without assuming that everybody must follow it. A short contribution can be worthwhile in its own right, but it can also be the beginning of a relationship lasting decades.

The future will need both occasional and sustained volunteering. Our responsibility is to make it easy for people to begin contributing and attractive for them to continue.

Intergenerational volunteering could become one of Britain’s greatest civic strengths

We often discuss generations as though they are competing groups, with fundamentally incompatible attitudes and expectations. I think this is a mistake, and it risks obscuring the considerable benefits that can arise when people of different ages work together.

One of the most attractive possibilities for future volunteering is creating more opportunities for intergenerational contribution. Imagine a community project in which retired professionals share technical expertise, working-age adults provide practical and organisational support, young people lead digital engagement, and children participate in suitable activities alongside their families.

Each contributes something distinctive, and each has the opportunity to learn from the others. Such activities could also help challenge the isolation and social fragmentation that concern us increasingly.

The UK’s ageing population represents an extraordinary reservoir of experience, but we should not view older people simply as a convenient supply of unpaid labour. Similarly, we should avoid treating young people merely as the beneficiaries of older volunteers’ generosity.

Good intergenerational volunteering creates reciprocal relationships in which everyone has something valuable to offer.

There is also growing research interest in the relationship between volunteering, wellbeing and age. A study using British longitudinal data found positive associations between volunteering and some mental-health measures among older cohorts, although not consistently among younger ones. It did not establish that volunteering caused those improvements.

This is another reminder that the quality and circumstances of participation matter as much as the activity itself.

We will need to rethink the governance of volunteer-led organisations

This question is particularly relevant to established charities with extensive branch, group or committee structures.

At Cats Protection, we are fortunate to work with around 10,000 volunteers, whose contribution ranges from fostering and rehoming cats to fundraising, retail, education, campaigning and specialist support. Many of our local branches have deep roots in their communities, and the expertise accumulated by their volunteers is an enormous organisational asset.

But the structures through which that contribution is organised need not remain fixed indefinitely.

A traditional committee-based branch may continue to be precisely right for one community. Elsewhere, a group of volunteers might want to concentrate on neutering, local campaigning, fostering, community education or supporting people to care for their cats, without assuming every responsibility associated with a conventional branch.

The challenge is to preserve local ownership and collective responsibility while allowing greater diversity in how people organise.

This also means reconsidering the balance of authority between volunteers and professional staff. We need strong safeguarding, clear accountability and consistent standards, but those requirements do not mean that every decision must be made centrally or that professional judgement should automatically take precedence over local knowledge.

I suspect that the most successful future organisations will be those that can combine professional support with meaningful volunteer autonomy, allowing local communities to shape their contribution while benefiting from the resources and expertise of a larger organisation.

Artificial intelligence could substantially change how volunteering is organised

Over the next decade, artificial intelligence may become an important part of volunteer administration, training, communications and matching.

It could help charities identify opportunities that fit people’s interests and availability, make learning more accessible, translate materials into multiple languages and reduce repetitive administration. Small voluntary organisations, which have traditionally lacked access to sophisticated technological support, may benefit particularly if appropriate tools become affordable and easy to use.

But we should distinguish between removing administrative effort and removing human contact. I would welcome a future in which a volunteer spends less time completing forms because an intelligent system has simplified the process. I would be much less enthusiastic about a future in which the volunteer’s principal relationship with an organisation is with an automated platform.

Technology ought to give us more time for building trust, exercising judgement, showing compassion and creating community. We will also need to address digital exclusion, privacy, transparency and the risk of technological systems reproducing existing inequalities.

The objective should be more accessible volunteering, rather than simply more technologically sophisticated volunteering.

Volunteering could become an established part of the whole life course

One of the strongest arguments emerging from recent discussions about volunteering is that we should stop treating it as an activity people discover only when they have spare time.

Instead, we could create opportunities for contribution at every stage of life. Children might first experience service through schools, families and youth organisations. Teenagers could develop responsibility through youth-led projects, sports coaching and community action. Students and apprentices could combine learning with civic participation, while employers could make it easier for staff to contribute during their busiest working years.

Later life could offer opportunities to share accumulated knowledge, mentor others and sustain community organisations.

Such an approach would acknowledge that the capacity to volunteer changes over time, without assuming that a temporary reduction in availability represents a permanent withdrawal from civic life. It might also strengthen participation at important transitions, when people move from school to employment, become parents, relocate or retire.

In this respect, I believe we have much to learn from youth organisations. Scouting taught me that volunteering is not simply something we do once we have become established adults. The habits of contribution, cooperation and responsibility can begin very young and become part of our understanding of citizenship.

I would like to see that insight placed much closer to the centre of national thinking about volunteering.

What should government do?

The future of volunteering is not solely the responsibility of charities. Government influences participation through education policy, local government funding, transport, employment regulation, public-sector partnerships and the wider conditions in which community organisations operate.

The Civil Society Covenant, launched in July 2025, offers a potentially useful framework. It recognises the importance of civil society as an independent partner and emphasises recognition, collaboration, participation and transparency.

Similarly, the sector-led Vision for Volunteering describes a future built around appreciation, power, equity and inclusion, collaboration and experimentation.

Both approaches recognise that strengthening volunteering involves much more than recruiting additional people. They acknowledge the importance of relationships, opportunities, organisational culture and the wider environment in which voluntary action takes place.

But government should resist the temptation to turn volunteering into another centrally administered programme measured primarily by hours contributed. The greatest contribution government can make may be to create favourable conditions rather than prescribe a particular model.

That means sustaining community infrastructure, supporting voluntary-sector independence, reducing avoidable administrative burdens, addressing practical barriers and recognising the importance of local relationships.

It also means acknowledging that volunteering is not a substitute for properly funded public services. Volunteers can enhance public services, strengthen community resilience and bring forms of knowledge and connection that statutory organisations may struggle to reproduce. But if volunteering becomes primarily a mechanism for filling gaps left by inadequate public funding, we risk damaging both civic participation and public confidence.

A flourishing voluntary sector should be regarded as an important characteristic of a healthy society, rather than simply a response to the failure of other institutions.

From volunteering to a culture of contribution

In September 2026, I attended a gathering in London that had been given the rather ambitious title of Volunteering Davos. I subsequently wrote about the discussion, and particularly about the possibility of making contribution a more normal part of British life.

It left me wondering whether we have sometimes made volunteering too much of a formal activity.

We have created volunteer strategies, managers, agreements, policies, recruitment systems, induction programmes and performance measures. Many serve essential purposes, particularly where organisations have significant responsibilities for safeguarding, public accountability and the quality of their services.

But perhaps we have also made volunteering sound like a specialist activity undertaken by a particular category of person.

The young person helping to coach a football team may not think of themselves as a volunteer. Nor might the neighbour checking regularly on somebody living alone, the parent organising a school activity or the group of friends raising money for a cause they care about. They may simply see themselves as helping, participating or contributing to something that matters to them.

This distinction has implications for how we think about the future. If our ambition is to recruit more people into existing volunteering structures, our response will probably involve better publicity, recruitment campaigns and volunteer management systems.

If our ambition is to make contribution a normal part of life, the questions become more fundamental.

We need to consider how children are given early opportunities to help others, how young people experience genuine responsibility and how employers can support participation during working life. We should ask how communities can become more welcoming to newcomers, how charities can adapt to the time and talent people actually have, and how we can ensure that participation is possible regardless of income, background, disability or personal circumstances.

These questions should not be left exclusively to the voluntary sector. They concern the kind of society we want Britain to become.

What must not be lost

There is one final argument I want to make, because I think it is in danger of disappearing beneath our understandable enthusiasm for innovation.

We should not confuse changing forms of participation with the disappearance of the qualities that made traditional volunteering valuable.

Commitment, reliability, relationships, experience, trust and institutional memory still matter. Some of the most valuable forms of volunteering depend upon sustained relationships, developed over months and years.

A child benefits from having a Scout leader who turns up every week. A person experiencing loneliness may benefit from knowing that the same volunteer will visit again. A charity benefits from trustees who understand its history and challenges, while a community benefits from people who have accumulated the knowledge and relationships required to get things done.

I am reminded of the volunteers I have known throughout my life who have quietly kept organisations going through difficult periods. They have not necessarily been the most visible, fashionable or technologically confident contributors. They have simply been dependable, and their willingness to continue giving their time has enabled countless other people to benefit.

Their contribution cannot readily be reproduced through a platform, campaign or one-off volunteering event. But this is not an argument for requiring every volunteer to make the same commitment.

It is an argument for recognising that a healthy voluntary sector needs sustained responsibility alongside accessible opportunities for occasional contribution. It needs organisations capable of welcoming people who want to help for a few hours, while also nurturing the relationships that encourage others to remain involved for years.

A future in which a young person can volunteer for an afternoon is a good thing. A future in which that young person is welcomed, develops confidence, discovers friendships and decides to remain involved for many years offers something additional. Equally, somebody who chooses to volunteer just once, makes a meaningful contribution and leaves with a positive experience has still done something worthwhile.

We should value each of these contributions on its own terms, rather than assuming that there is a single ideal model of volunteering.

Conclusion: the next generation of generosity

Looking back over half a century of volunteering, I find myself increasingly reluctant to accept the suggestion that one generation was more generous, more public-spirited or more committed than another.

The Baby Boomers did not possess a monopoly on duty. Generation X did not invent self-interest. Millennials are not uniquely concerned with personal development. Generation Z is not necessarily impatient or disloyal. And we know far too little about Generation Alpha to make confident judgements about its future behaviour.

Every generation has responded to the opportunities, constraints and expectations of its time. What has changed is the context in which generosity is expressed.

The traditional model of volunteering assumed that people would join institutions and adapt to their requirements. An emerging model increasingly expects institutions to accommodate the circumstances, aspirations and abilities of individuals.

Neither approach is entirely sufficient on its own. Volunteering requires individual agency, but it also requires collective organisation. It depends upon enthusiasm, but also upon responsibility. It benefits from flexibility, but it is sustained by relationships that develop over time.

In June 2026, I published Seven Steps to Building the Volunteer Movement of the Future, arguing that charities need to be clearer about purpose, more imaginative about roles, better at welcoming people and more attentive to the experiences that encourage them to remain involved.

I continue to believe that these are fundamental responsibilities of organisations that depend upon volunteers. But I now think the challenge is broader.

If we want volunteering to flourish in Britain over the coming decades, we must create a society in which contribution is accessible, valued and encouraged, without becoming compulsory or exclusive.

We must celebrate those who have served for decades, while welcoming people whose circumstances allow them to contribute for only a few hours. We must make better use of technology, without losing the relationships that give volunteering much of its value. And we must trust younger generations to shape the future of the organisations they inherit, rather than expecting them simply to preserve the structures we have created.

When I think back to those wet afternoons clearing the Stroudwater Navigation, I cannot pretend that I recognised the significance of what I was doing. It was simply part of being a Scout. I was expected to turn up, do my bit and get on with it. I certainly did not imagine that volunteering would help shape almost every aspect of my adult life.

Yet that is what happened. Over the years, volunteering has given me friendships, opportunities, experiences and responsibilities that I could never have anticipated. It has also influenced how I understand leadership, community and my own responsibilities as a citizen.

I suspect that one of the most important tasks facing those of us who lead voluntary organisations is to make that same discovery possible for others, even if the circumstances in which they make it are entirely different from our own.

The real test of volunteering’s future will not be whether Generation Alpha becomes willing to sit through committee meetings like its grandparents. It will be whether its members grow up believing that they have the opportunity, the confidence and the responsibility to make a contribution to the communities of which they are part.

And whether we have created organisations and opportunities that make it possible for them to do so.

Research and further reading

This article draws upon published research, government statistics and my own writing about volunteering, youth participation and charitable leadership.

National research and sector evidence

My earlier reflections

Research note: The generational categories used in this article are broad historical frameworks, not fixed descriptions of everyone born within a particular period. Much of the quantitative evidence relates specifically to England rather than the United Kingdom as a whole. Predictions about volunteering in 2040 represent my interpretation of current trends rather than formal statistical forecasts.

Similar Posts