To reference or not to reference… that is the question

I’ve been having this conversation a lot recently with volunteer managers, and I’m not convinced there is one right answer.

Whether you collect references will depend on your organisation, your volunteers and, most importantly, the role they will be doing. So, in this little blog, I’m going to argue the toss and leave you to decide whether references are really worth your team’s time and capacity.

To reference…

New volunteers are strangers to our organisation. Yes, a stranger is just a friend we haven’t met yet—but we still need to think carefully about who we welcome into our communities, particularly when they will be spending time with children, adults at risk or other service users.

References can give us another piece of information about someone. They may help us confirm where they have worked or volunteered, the responsibilities they held and how they approached things like reliability, boundaries and feedback.

For some higher-risk or specialist roles, a relevant referee may also be able to tell us something useful about whether the person has the experience, values or conduct the role requires.

References can contribute to safeguarding too. They cannot prove that somebody is safe, but they may help us build a fuller picture alongside applications, conversations, checks, training and observation.

Finally, they can demonstrate that we have followed a considered recruitment process. If something does go wrong, we need to show that we assessed the risks, carried out appropriate checks and acted on the information available to us.

Or not to reference…

Here comes the counterargument.

Firstly, how much do we really know about the reference we receive? It could have been written by the applicant, a helpful friend or somebody with only a limited understanding of what the volunteer will actually be doing.

Some organisations insist on professional references—but what does someone’s day job necessarily tell us about their ability to support a young person, welcome people at an event or care for an animal?

Many employers will only confirm job titles and employment dates anyway. After three weeks of chasing, we might receive two sentences that tell us absolutely nothing useful.

References can also be exclusionary. Not everybody has a professional or community network to call upon. This could be someone’s first time in years—or ever—reaching out to get involved, and our reference requirements can shut them out before they have even made it through the door.

This can particularly affect:

• young people
• refugees and people who have recently arrived in the UK
• people who have been out of work for a long time
• disabled people and those with caring responsibilities
• stay-at-home parents
• retirees
• people with experience of the criminal justice system
• people who have had a difficult or unsafe relationship with a previous employer

References can introduce bias too. Words such as “professional,” “reliable” and “a good fit” are highly subjective and can be influenced by racism, ableism, classism and other forms of discrimination.

And, of course, it is a lot of bloody work. Chasing multiple referees—who may be on leave, ignoring their inbox or simply too busy—is often the thing that slows an otherwise enthusiastic volunteer journey to a grinding halt.

So, what do we do instead?

This isn’t necessarily about abandoning references altogether. It is about making them one possible part of a wider, more proportionate safer-recruitment process.

Start by assessing the role. Who will the volunteer be supporting? Will they be working alone? What access, influence or responsibility will they have? A trustee, an unsupervised befriender and a volunteer welcoming people at a one-off event do not automatically need the same checks.

If references are necessary, make them relevant. Accept alternatives such as tutors, support workers, volunteer coordinators, mentors or community leaders. Ask specific questions about things the referee has genuinely observed rather than asking them to declare that somebody is “safe and suitable.”

Other parts of safer recruitment can include:

• clear role descriptions and honest advertising
• short, accessible applications
• structured, values-based onboarding conversations
• role-appropriate DBS checks
• transparent and individualised conversations about criminal-record disclosures
• safeguarding and boundaries training
• clear codes of conduct
• supervised settling-in periods with planned reviews
• regular check-ins and ongoing support
• safe ways for volunteers, staff and service users to raise concerns

Remember: a DBS check is not a certificate of good character, and it does not tell us everything about somebody’s background. The September 2026 change means some regularly supervised roles involving children will become regulated activity; it does not mean every volunteer suddenly needs a DBS check. Organisations should review which roles are actually affected.

All onboarding is an opportunity to understand someone better. Applications, conversations, training and those important first few months can tell us far more about a person’s motivations, attitudes, boundaries and support needs than a generic email from an accountancy firm ever could.

So perhaps the real question isn’t “to reference or not to reference?”

It’s: what do we genuinely need to know—and what is the fairest, most useful way to find it out?

Read More: How to Balance Safer Recruitment with Accessible & Inclusive Volunteering