Volunteer Competence and Emergency Preparedness: Findings from the Vol-Prep study of Nordic Red Cross National Societies

This report summarizes the cross-case findings of the Vol-Prep study on volunteer competence and emergency preparedness in the Finnish, Swedish, and Danish Red Cross National Societies. It is written for the people who contributed to the research and is intended to support participant validation before the academic manuscript is finalized for submission to the journal.
The analysis draws on 31 semi-structured interviews with volunteers and staff working across preparedness, logistics, emergency operations, volunteer management, learning and development, health and social activities, local development, second-hand operations, and voluntary rescue services. Organizational and practitioner documents were used to provide context.
The main finding is not simply that volunteers need more training. Across the interviews, preparedness emerged as a challenging process, as relevant competence already exists in everyday volunteering and in volunteers' professional backgrounds, but it does not automatically translate into deployable emergency capacity for large-scale operations. It becomes usable when four conditions come together: competence is visible and appropriate for the task; the volunteer remains willing and available; the organization can activate and place the person; and the role sits within clear operational, legal, and accountability boundaries.
Everyday activities are therefore part of the preparedness process. First aid, psychological support, community services, second-hand operations, donation handling, distribution, transport, language support, voluntary rescue work, and short-term assignments all provide experience that can be useful in emergencies. The link to preparedness, however, is often implicit rather than systematically recorded in volunteer profiles or role pathways.
A second finding is the distinction between qualification and practical readiness. A professional background, license, or completed course or certificate is relevant evidence of competence but does not, by itself, show that a volunteer can perform a particular Red Cross role under emergency conditions and in high-stress environments. Practical readiness also depends on confidence, familiarity with Red Cross principles and procedures, ability to work within role boundaries, and opportunities to practice.
Finally, the interviews show that opportunity is often the limiting factor. Competent and motivated volunteers can remain underused when onboarding is slow, task availability is unclear, coordinators lack time, data cannot be shared, system access is restricted, daytime availability is low, or responsibilities between the Red Cross and public authorities are not sufficiently explicit. For this reason, volunteer preparedness should be treated as an organizational and interorganizational capability, not only as an individual training issue. The findings therefore suggest that preparedness capacity should not be assessed primarily through registered volunteer numbers or completed training, but through competence that can realistically be identified, activated, and deployed when needed.