HomeFundingProjectsOpen Ceremonies

Open Ceremonies

Volunteer Scotland
Grantholder

Volunteer support pot to enable completion of roles at the XX Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in summer 2014

Project information

£197,000

Grant amount

September 2015

Date awarded

January 2014 – March 2015

Project duration

Glasgow / UK-wide

Location

In partnership with:
Voluntary Arts Scotland, Commonwealth Games Organising Committee, Big Lottery Fund Scotland

Project Detail

Open Ceremonies was a volunteer support pot which sat alongside funding from the Big Lottery Fund in Scotland which was used as a  to enable to completion of their roles as Clyde-siders or as Ceremonies volunteers at the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games.

Originally the grant was awarded to the Organising Committee of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games to fund volunteers to take part in the open and closing ceremonies of the Games. Within months of awarding the funding the Committee asked that all further payments be made to Volunteer Scotland who were administering the support pot and a second set of terms and conditions was issued to them.

It went on to fund pathways to ongoing volunteering opportunities for the Open Ceremonies volunteers and Clyde-siders more generally. This was delivered in partnership between Volunteer Scotland and Voluntary Arts Scotland. The aim of this was to help recruit a more diverse group of volunteers and lower barriers to participation for volunteering at the Games.

Impact & Learning

Key achievements

  • 280 volunteers supported
  • 7 groups comprising 49 young people and 26 adults
  • 30 non-Scottish residents
  • 175 Scottish residents

Key learning

  • General satisfaction with the scheme, with 90% of participants saying it was convenient to access and 85% found the communication with the team effective.
  • Participants liked that they were trusted to spend the funding in ways that would help them to volunteer – though the high levels of trust may also increase the proportion of funding going to those who had less need for it
  • In the second phase, a desire to give almost all applicants at least some contribution to their costs, spread the funding too thinly, and did not cover the majority of the costs involved in volunteering.
  • There may be an argument for more targeted funding in the future, as well as more transparency about how sums would be awarded.
  • It would have been useful to have more data about the profile of volunteers to understand their barriers, and to be able to categorise the ways in which the funding was spent. However asking for this information may have undermined trust or created barriers in itself.

Related content