The Journey of Volunteer Onboarding; Benchmarking

Starting in September, a perfect storm of issues came together to create a backlog of volunteer onboarding. The volume of applicants increased as programs were re-opened up after being closed due to COVID, management changed, and the supervisor position became vacant. This issue had been building all year long, but everything came to a head at this time. The onboarding process was not designed to handle the increased volume and reduced staffing and as a result the structure and flow of onboarding reverted to a focus on putting out fires, rather than advancing steps (completion of one step should trigger the next action). The process did not take into account the volunteer onboarding journey and redundancies bogged down the process. Having just been onboarded as a new employee, the new Supervisor compared the process with HR to the volunteers. The team immediately recognized that onboarding should not take 6+ weeks to accomplish. Brainstorming session led to the identification of the following issues: Leadership change created delays, open supervisor position for several months reduced staffing, re-opening programs created a flood of applicants, Putting out fires replaced the process resulting in steps missed and the workflow interrupted. Conclusion: Continue tracking length of time for each step. Ask for feedback from applicants and Program Champions

The Journey of Volunteer Onboarding Department of Support Services Volunteer Services: Allyson Tanner, Maria Jorges, and Patrick Becker INTRODUCTION METHODS FOR IMPROVEMENT Starting in September, a perfect storm of issues came together to create a backlog of volunteer onboarding. The volume of applicants increased as programs were re-opened up after being closed due to COVID, management changed, and the supervisor position became vacant. This issue had been building all year long, but everything came to a head at this time. The onboarding process was not designed to handle the increased volume and reduced staffing and as a result the structure and flow of onboarding reverted to a focus on putting out fires, rather than advancing steps (completion of one step should trigger the next action). The process did not take into account the volunteer onboarding journey and redundancies bogged down the process. Through the process of training the new supervisor, steps were questioned and either justified or eliminated. Redundancies were identified and removed. An assembly line approach was tested and implemented with onboarding tasks divided and split between two employees. Each task was worked until the process could not advance further (action needed from applicant or information needed outside of our control). Instead of being viewed as a task, onboarding became viewed as a journey from start to finish for both the volunteers being onboarded and the Program Champions. This holistic approach helped to evaluate each step of the process and the impact of those steps. Along the way, questions were asked: • What is this step for, what does it accomplish? • What do we do with the information? • Is it our rule or another group? • How does this step in the journey impact the next step? • How does this process appear to our volunteers and champions? • How does HR onboard employees? Can we benchmark from them? Problem Investigation RESULTS Having just been onboarded as a new employee, the new Supervisor compared the process with HR to the volunteers. The team immediately recognized that onboarding should not take 6+ weeks to accomplish. Brainstorming session led to the identification of the following issues: • Leadership change created delays • open supervisor position for several months reduced staffing • re-opening programs created a flood of applicants • Putting out fires replaced the process resulting in steps missed and the workflow interrupted “ “ “Improve the experience and everybody wins” -Dharmesh Shah 1. With redundancies removed and the process streamlined, we were able to get the same results in less time. 2. While no data on how long onboarding took was captured we know it was in excess of six weeks. Currently onboarding is 13-18 calendar days. 3. Using logical steps and focusing on a workflow system for the process has allowed employee stress to be reduced and overtime eliminated. DISCUSSION In December ’22 and January ’23, we paused the accepting of new applications to focus on processing the existing applicants. With over 130 applicants to review and process, our pause stretched to 45 days. During this pause, the evaluation and streamlining of the process occurred. When the pause was lifted, the list of pending applicants was down to 18. Since then, we have managed to maintain an average of 20 applicants that we are actively onboarding. Communication has been increased with both the applicant as well as the Program Champion. This keeps all parties involved, engaged, and updated. Response time from the applicant has improved which also has an impact on the onboarding time. Limitations & Barriers • Changes to the process were limited to those steps we had control over. Things such as response time and organizational requirements could not be controlled. • While we cannot control response time from the applicant, we could influence it through improved communication. Valuable Lessons Learned • A quicker response to the applicant helped move the onboarding process along faster. Initiating the application immediately while the interest to volunteer was high and the motivation was strong has reduced our onboarding times. • Looking at the entire onboarding process as a journey and understanding the impact each action has on the next step of the journey helped make a faster more cohesive experience for all. CONCLUSION • Continue tracking length of time for each step • Ask for feedback from applicants and Program Champions References: [DELETE IF NA] Wellness Champions Project Sponsored by the Resiliency Center