Local governments often rely on volunteers to perform certain tasks. The economic downturn that began in 2007 has, however, significantly tightened local government budgets and, at least in Arizona, encouraged many cities and towns to rely more heavily on volunteers in order to continue to provide certain services (League of Arizona Cities and Towns, 2010). A brief (and unscientific) survey of the websites of several cities in the Phoenix metropolitan area showed that, while these cities are using their websites to publicize volunteer opportunities, they are not yet leveraging the kinds of technologies and strategies discussed in module 3 to facilitate relationships between volunteers and government.
Currently, local governments in the Phoenix area tend to recruit volunteers by posting opportunities on their websites, providing a phone number and an email link to the contact person in charge of the opportunity, and providing a downloadable application for potential volunteers that generally needs to be filled out and returned to the city. This approach is problematic for several reasons. First, if a potential volunteer does not see an opportunity on the website that meets his or her skills or interests, the individual may decide not to fill out an application. Second, the process for applying to volunteer, though not overly cumbersome, requires downloading, printing, filling out and mailing the application. Third, someone at the city must sort through the applications, vet the potential volunteers and pass the information on to the relevant departments.
This process could be significantly improved to encourage more citizens to volunteer and to promote more use of volunteers in local government using the following strategy:
· Local governments should frame volunteer opportunities as evolving and constantly arising, encouraging people to register to become a volunteer whether they have a specific opportunity in mind or not.
· Registration should be online and similar to creating a profile on a social networking site. It should also include information for vetting purposes, such as references.
· Registration should include the ability to link one’s volunteer profile to a Facebook, LinkedIn or other social networking profile. Such links allow the city to publicize the “good deeds” of the volunteer to his or her professional and personal networks.
· Registration should include certain categorical data about the skills and interests of the individual that an automated recommendation system (a la Amazon.com) could use to match the volunteer with available opportunities within the city as they arise.
· Anyone within the local government should be able to browse this network of volunteer profiles when in need of a volunteer. These users should also be able to input categorical data about the opportunity to allow automatic recommendation of volunteers, and to search by keyword for profiles that meet their needs.
· Local government employees who work with these volunteers should be able to rate the volunteers after their service in order to provide a “reputation” for the volunteers that other employees in the city can use to assess the quality of volunteers. This information should remain internal to the city to protect the privacy of volunteers.
· Any volunteer who linked to a social networking profile during registration should automatically receive a post on that profile from the city celebrating their service to the community after each volunteer activity.
· Volunteers should also earn “points” for volunteer hours and should earn “badges” or some other awards for certain levels and types of service (for example a special badge for volunteering for multiple departments within the city) similar to the way Foursquare rewards people for “check-ins” at various locations and times. This information should be heavily publicized on the city website.
This approach aims to influence three of the four constraints of behavior outlined by Lessig (2006): architecture (by creating a new volunteer registration system that eases the process of connecting volunteers and volunteer seekers), the market (by lowering the opportunity costs of volunteering for citizens and city workers, by creating a new “currency” or reward structure for volunteers, and by giving volunteer seekers a way to judge the value of potential volunteers) and norms (by attempting to alter the community or societal view of volunteering to help city government such that more individuals see it as an acceptable and even desirable activity). As such, this approach follows Lessig’s recommendation that any attempt to regulate behavior should address multiple constraints in order to be successful.
This approach also applies the views of Shirky (2010) who, drawing on the previous work of Granovetter (1973) and Christakis and Fowler (2008), argues that social networks (including, but not limited to the digital kind) can be an important method of spreading both positive and negative behavior, and that even loose social networks can be influential. This argument specifically speaks to the importance of linking volunteer profiles to profiles on other social networking platforms and using those connections to praise volunteers for their efforts.
References
Christakis, N., & Fowler, J. (2008). Social networks and happiness. Edge. Retrieved from http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/christakis_fowler08/christakis_fowler08_index.html
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), pp. 1360-1380.
League of Arizona Cities and Towns. (2010). Collaboration: Cities and towns leveraging resources to better serve citizens. Arizona City and Town (Winter 2011). Retrieved from www.azleague.org
Lessig, L. (2006). Code version 2.0. New York, NY: Basic Books. Kindle edition.
Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive surplus: Creativity and generosity in a connected age. New York, NY: The Penguin Press. Kindle edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment