Last year, we shared how Catapult Insights partnered with Dog Aide on a pro bono research project to better understand their volunteer experience. We dug into what was working, what wasn't, and what Dog Aide could do to keep their volunteers engaged and coming back. The research surfaced some clear opportunities, particularly around how they were communicating and engaging with volunteers, and we left them with a concrete set of recommendations to act on.
So, what happened next?
We recently caught up with Rachel, Dog Aide's Director of Operations, to hear directly from her about what it was like to take those findings and actually put them into practice.
Let's start with a quick refresher. Before the research, what was the volunteer communication situation like at Dog Aide?
Rachel: Honestly, it was a little scattered. We were using one main channel to get the word out about volunteer opportunities, and we just assumed everyone was seeing it. We didn't really have a reason to think otherwise... until the research showed us that a meaningful chunk of our volunteers weren't checking that platform regularly. Some people were missing opportunities entirely, not because they didn't want to show up, but because they simply never saw the message in time.
That was one of the key findings — that different volunteers preferred different communication channels. How did you respond to that?
Rachel: We expanded our approach pretty significantly. Instead of relying on one channel, we started meeting people where they actually are. That meant diversifying. Using email for some volunteers, leaning into text reminders for others, and being more intentional about timing so people actually had enough notice to plan around an opportunity.
It sounds simple, and in some ways it is, but making that shift required us to be a lot more organized on the front end. We had to actually think about our volunteers as different segments with different habits, which wasn't something we'd done before in a formal way.
That's a pretty meaningful mindset shift, going from "we send one message" to "we meet people where they are." Did you see results from that change?
Rachel: Yeah, we did. Volunteer turnout became a lot more consistent, and we heard a lot less of the ‘oh, I didn’t know about that one’ comments from people who were already interested and engaged. That was encouraging because it showed us the problem wasn’t enthusiasm. People cared, they just weren’t always seeing the message. The research really helped us separate awareness from engagement.
The research also found that volunteers across the board, current, lapsed, even prospective, wanted to hear about the impact of their work. How did you act on that?
Rachel: That one really stuck with us. It was one of those findings where you read it and think, "of course — why weren't we doing this already?" People give their time and energy to Dog Aide because they care about the dogs and the mission. But we weren't consistently closing the loop and telling them what their effort actually accomplished.
We made it a priority to share outcomes more regularly. That might look like a quick update after a volunteer event — how many dogs were helped, what a specific initiative made possible — or just a more intentional thank-you that speaks to the difference they made, not just the time they gave. The feedback from volunteers on that shift has been really positive.
And has that translated into retention?
Rachel: Definitely. We’ve seen more volunteers come back and stay involved. I wouldn’t frame it like some huge overnight transformation, but the difference has been noticeable. People feel more connected to what we’re doing, and that really matters when you’re asking someone to give up part of their weekend to show up and help.
Looking back, what surprised you most about going through a formal research process?
Rachel: Probably how actionable it was. I think there can be an assumption that research is something big companies do, that it's slow, expensive, and ends up in a report that sits on a shelf. This felt like the opposite of that. The recommendations were specific, they made sense in context of who our volunteers actually are, and we could start acting on them quickly. It didn't require a huge overhaul; it required paying attention to the right things.
Any advice for other non-profits — or really any organization — that's curious about research but on the fence?
Rachel: Start with a real and clearly defined question you want answered. For us, it was "are our volunteers having a good experience, and how do we get more of them?" That was specific enough to actually study. If you go in with a genuine problem to solve, the research gives you something meaningful to work with. You don't have to have a big budget or a big team. You just have to be willing to listen to what you find out — even when it challenges what you thought you knew.
What Rachel described is exactly what good research is supposed to do – it gives people a platform to share their wants and needs in the hope of a better experience. It doesn't just validate what you already believe, it shows you where the gap is between your assumptions and reality, and then gives you a path forward. For Dog Aide, that gap was in communication: they thought they were reaching their volunteers, but the data showed otherwise. Once they knew that, the fix was straightforward. The hard part was knowing where to look.
Whether you're running a non-profit, launching a new product, or trying to understand why your customers aren't coming back, the principle is the same: the answers are usually already out there with your audience. Research just gives you a structured way to find them and the confidence to act on what you learn.
If Dog Aide's story resonates with you, we'd love to talk about what a research program could look like for your organization. Drop us a note at hello@catapultinsights.com.
ANDRE BARROSO
DIRECTOR, INSIGHTS & INNOVATION
CATAPULT INSIGHTS
