Every charity has its own ghosts. The one I meet most often, haunting inclusive volunteering up and down the country, is "the insurance".
It tends to appear when I'm trying to understand why a particular group of people seems to be missing from a volunteer programme, or why volunteers aren't trusted with a certain task. It sounds something like this:
"We can't involve under-18s, because of the insurance."
"We can't let volunteers hold keys, because of the insurance."
"We can't involve disabled people, because of the insurance."
"We can't give local groups more autonomy, because of the insurance."
"We can't let volunteers use the database, because of the insurance."
Like the Candyman, say "because of the insurance" five times and an organisational urban legend becomes a firmly held belief.
What volunteers are trusted with elsewhere
As a volunteer, at various points in my life I've been trusted to operate a chainsaw, look after large sums of money, look after small children (a different kind of responsibility altogether) and buy a building. So when I hear that volunteers, or certain groups of people, can't do something, I'm naturally curious to find out why.
In my research with organisations developing volunteer strategies, this myth comes up again and again. When it does, I call its bluff. I ask to see the policy wording, or I phone the insurer myself to understand what cover options exist.
Nine times out of ten, the restriction isn't in the policy at all, or it could easily be adjusted. It's very rare for a policy to rule out volunteers of a particular age, or to exclude specific tasks or responsibilities. Where it does, and there's no strong reason for it, it's usually straightforward to change the policy or change provider.
Questions to ask your insurer
If "the insurance" is haunting your organisation, these are the questions I'd start with:
Are volunteers covered by our policy, and under which section?
Are there any age limits for volunteers, at either end?
Are any activities or tasks excluded for volunteers specifically?
Does cover depend on things like training, supervision or a risk assessment being in place?
If we wanted to extend cover to a group or activity that isn't included, what would that involve and cost?
Can you confirm all of this in writing?
That last one matters. Having the answer in writing is what stops the myth coming back next year when someone new joins the team.
If the restriction really is there
Occasionally the wording does say what everyone feared. When that happens, it's worth asking whether the restriction makes sense for your organisation, talking it through with your broker, and getting quotes from providers who are used to insuring charities with large volunteer programmes. A restriction in a policy is a starting point for a conversation, not the end of one.
Its sister spectre: "because of GDPR"
"The insurance" has a close relative that I meet almost as often. "We can't share that with volunteers because of GDPR" usually turns out to be a question about how information is handled, rather than a rule that volunteers can never see it. The same approach helps: ask what exactly the concern is, and check it with your data protection lead [Laura: add a link to ICO guidance for charities if useful].
The real barrier
So it's rarely the insurance itself that holds organisations back. It's the practice around it: the time, space and confidence needed to design more inclusive, flexible volunteer roles.
That's a very real challenge in such a tough climate for charities. If an organisation can't currently balance ambition on inclusion with shrinking resources, I think it's OK to be honest about that. Being honest is much more useful than blaming a policy that doesn't say what we think it says.
This Halloween, let's do some myth-busting and finally lay "the insurance" to rest.
If you've found a ghost like this in your own organisation, I'd love to hear about it.