Hot Topics
Sign up for:
5 Ways to Stay Connected!
Free monthly
e-newsletter (includes a Quick Tip)
Follow us on Twitter
Get podcast of Hot Topic
Access our news feedResponses to:
The
Missing Link: Where are Volunteers at the National Level?
Submitted on
25Sept02 by Jayne Cravens, Online Volunteering Specialist, Germany
Not involving volunteers at a national office,
but encouraging the involvement of volunteers at the local level,
is hypocritical! If the national office is telling its affiliates
that they should be involving volunteers, then it had better be doing
it too! Here at UN Volunteers, we do just that! Our mantra lately
is "Walk the Talk." We've also started an employee volunteer
program -- how can we approach corporations and encourage them to
allow their employees to volunteer if we don't have such a program
ourselves? I'm really taken aback by the statements from some of the
people on the response board here that say they would not involve
volunteers at the national office. Saddened and amazed. Hope they
will all reconsider the reasons that involving volunteers are so important
to an organization's credibility.
Submitted on
02Sept24 by Paul Bryant, retired Volunteer Manager
As a retired Volunteer Manager (and a current
volunteer!) I must admit to some surprise at the debate on the use
of volunteers. Mr Restall's opinion is certainly less hardline than
the National Association of Volunteer Bureaux guidelines on job substitution.
NAVB refuse to involve volunteers in their office at all. This goes
beyond Mr Restall's rather tentative suggestion that there MAY be
good reasons why SOME organisations choose not to involve volunteers.
I don't think there's an easy line to be drawn here, but I think it
is true that to not pay someone to do a job that the money's there
to pay for means: 1 - effectively keeping someone out there unemployed,
and 2 - exploiting the unpaid worker. Organisations wishing to help
introduce people into the workplace should by all means set up work
placements, but don't muddy the waters by calling it volunteering.
And what about equal opportunities? When some organisations are attempting
to involve asylum seekers, people with learning difficulties etc,
how does this square with others seeking only to involve white collar
graduates who can afford to devote the time these 'volunteer' roles
demand? And of course there are the legal issues. Organisations blurring
the lines between paid and unpaid workers face changing their volunteer's
legal status. I couldn't demand the time commitments these 'volunteer'
roles need from my volunteers for fear of making them employees. I
imagine the danger's worse now that we have a minimum wage in force.
Posted on 18Sept02 by Udeni Salmon, Head of Volunteer
Support, London, United Kingdom
In July 2002 I left a major consultancy to find my dream
job in the voluntary sector. To test the waters, I was a volunteer
for 2 months in the Head Office of a charity. I did a 4-week strategic
consultancy project for them and produced a report. If they had hired
me as a consultant, the report would have cost £50,000. OneWorld
were pleased with my work and acted as a referee on my CV. I am now
the Head of Volunteer Support at Leonard Cheshire (www.leonard-cheshire.org.uk),
responsible for our 2000 volunteers nationally.
As my experience of strategic, national volunteering was so successful,
I am introducing a volunteering program at Leonard Cheshire head office,
whereby skilled professionals perform short-term, projects.
Posted on 15Sept02 by Lou Culafroy, Manager LBP Volunteer
Centre, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Having worked in an agency placing volunteers in organisations, I
would agree with Mark Restall (below). National
offices often seem to involve volunteers for the sake of it rather
than because they really need to or because there are really appropriate
volunteering opportunities. I have found that in a lot of cases volunteers
placed in national offices of organisations find themselves in ill-thought
out, unmotivating roles with little support - most, often they seem
to be used as office dogsbodies. Of course there are exceptions, of
which RNIB may well be one, but I would argue that organisations should
involve volunteers because of a genuine need and committment to volunteer
support rather than as a cosmetic exercise.
Submitted on 23Aug02 by Miriam Leslie, Volunteer Coordinator,
Kids Kottage Foundation, Alberta, Canada
Thank you for this article. While my organization is locally based,
I can relate to your insight that people misconstrue the role of working
with volunteers. It is not a "bottom of the ladder" position
at all. What a privilege to meet people with generous hearts who donate
their skills with excellence to our causes. How can we help correct
this myth? I'd love to hear other responses.
Submitted on 23Aug02 by Mark Rollé, Human Resources
Development Manager - Oxfam GB
In response to the hot topic I would say that my organisation
actively seeks volunteers to work in our Head Office, as well as throughout
the organization. They are a vital part of the network and support
systems which could not be funded by means of paid employees. As far
as what can they do.. well they can do anything you want them to -
or they often come prepared with 'an offer'. I think that the 'V'
word can be often misconstrued as meaning that an individual is perhaps
'Less functional or committed' than their paid counterpart. My experience
is that often volunteers provide the 'icing on the cake' in terms
of solutions that the paid part of the organisation is struggling
with. They do not leave their brains at the door when they come to
volunteer - as some people seem to percieve. We do have a Volunteering
Manager as well!
Submitted on 23Aug02 by John Urban, Volunteer Coordinator /
Americorps National Service Member, Prescott, AZ
I do believe that volunteering on the national level is important,
not only for work support, but to set precedence for the "local"
chapters. (Otherwise known as the bottom feeders) If our national
programs don't use volunteers and use excuses like "we have nothing
for them to do" then they have simply sold out to the typical
corporate attitude. It comes down to staff training and volunteer
training. If your paid staff is afraid of loosing their jobs, train
and orientate them to the idea of using volunteers. This is not a
'one size fits all' comment, (there are always exceptions) but in
general you do not recruit volunteers you create them. It takes time,
effort, (and YES) sometimes money to train a quality volunteer. I
think that national organizations want something for nothing if they
use the excuses I heard in Mr. Restall's article (see below)
. Volunteers are not free, they cost.
When it comes down to it, volunteers are there to help. They want to give you their service (whatever it may be) for FREE. I bet national organizations could always find room in their budgets for a little FREE money. Why then would you not find room for a volunteer?
Submitted on 26Aug02 by Rob Jackson, Volunteering Development
Manager, RNIB, London, England
Just so people don't think Mark Restall's opinion (see below)
reflects practice across England I want to outline the roles volunteers
are involved with at the national office of the Royal National Institute
of the Blind here in London.
In my part of the organisation (External Relations) we have volunteers editing an internal staff newsletter on community fundraising and leading on a project to promote the contrbution of volunteers to our agency's work. In the past we have had researchers, administration staff and envelope stuffers who have been volunteers too.
We have also recently engaged a volunteer in writing our organisation's
corporate publishing strategy - oh and our trustees are volunteers
as well and they meet and work here at the national office too.
Submitted on 23Aug02 by Jean Strating, Volunteer Program Specialist,
Library District, Florida, USA
I just read the response by Mr. Restall (see the response below)
and it was rather discouraging. National offices do many of the same
tasks as regional and local offices do, and use volunteers, so why
not have volunteers working in a national office? His reasoning had
no logic but did have excuses. Any good business plan should have
the number of employees needed and the same for volunteers. Employees
should be assured that their position would not be replaced by a volunteer
position and the volunteer should feel equally valuable if they are
stuffing envelopes or planning an annual event.
Submitted on 13Aug02 by Sheri Wilensky, Director, Volunteer
Management & Learning, American Lung Association, New York, NY
Thanks, Susan for highlighting what I've already learned firsthand!
My position here at the American Lung Association was newly created
almost 6 years ago. In addition to having the primary responsibility
for our volunteer program nationwide, I do recruit volunteers and
coordinate the volunteer program here at our national office but before
I came on board there were no volunteers, other than leadership level
volunteers working with the national office.
I attended the summit in Toronto last year and will be at the summit
in Denver as well. I, like you, was surprised last year when I realized
that we are one of the few national offices that have volunteers helping
us out here in the office as well as virtually.
Before coming to the American Lung Association, I worked for the
local chapter in New York for Volunteers of America. Imagine my surprise
when I discovered that there was no national director of volunteers
at that organization. Denny Barnett, who is now the President of AVA,
had pulled together a network of the local volunteer directors at
VOA so we could share ideas and communicate with one another.
Maybe I'm just too idealistic but I really do not know how anyone
working in a non-profit organization -- be it a national or a field
office -- can say that there are no roles for volunteers at their
offices.
Submitted on 12Aug02 by Mark Restall,
Information Officer, National Centre for Volunteering, London, England
I think there can be good reasons why national offices have
less
volunteers. National offices often do not have roles that are appropriate
for volunteers. Most tasks in such offices can and should be paid
for. It's fair enough for organisations not to use volunteers if they
wish to avoid job substitution or 'envelope stuffing syndrome'.
Blurring the boundaries between paid work and volunteering can be
ethically tricky, cause paid workers to fear for their jobs, create
friction between paid and unpaid staff and even resentment amongst
volunteers (hang on, why aren't you paying me for this work?!).
Another reason for not involving volunteers could be a lack of resources
- space, money, time, management personnel.
Submitted on 10Aug02 by Jan Masaoka, CompassPoint Nonprofit
Services, California, USA
Absolutely right on all counts, as usual.
Submitted on 9Aug02 by Sarah Elliston, Sr. Volunteer Resource
Associate, United Way Volunteer Center, (Cincinnati) Ohio, USA
Susan has been able to speak to the right group, for sure. I hope
they heard. Excellent article.
A new approach that I have taken in talking about volunteer involvement
at all levels of an organization is to say, "Volunteers are NOT
temporary employees." I think sometimes we have done a disservice
to volunteers in our effort to have them treated like paid staff,
and they have been considered and treated like temporary staff. I
ask my audience what projects they have that require professional
skills and then describe how a volunteer with those skills could assist
them. If I know of a situation where a volunteer team has done the
work somewhere, I cite that story. If not, I ask the group to imagine
a team of professionals who are willing to help for 4 hours, and then
I ask the group to design a project that would assist them in their
jobs.
Sometimes it is the suggestion that a professional will donate time
that opens up the eyes of paid staff to the idea that volunteers have
skills and can help at all levels.
Submitted on 7Aug02 by Margo Ashmore, Consultant, several organizations,
Minnesota, USA
I exclaimed "yes!" upon reading Susan's logic that if there
were more ways to volunteer at the policy /national level there would
be fewer do-nothing board members. Friends and I have noticed that
on some boards, people applied because they want to learn something
about (whatever field); they don't always get elected, but many do.
Those who volunteer doing the day-to-day work often don't have leftover
energy to do policy work. We have opinions and answers, but we're
put off by the realization that we would have to also educate these
newcomers and keep them from hurting things. The stewardship requirements
of being a board member make this a dicey use of time.
It takes special effort to convince people who are expert enough
to get paid, to volunteer - but it can and should be done. Find people
who don't want a full-time job, or to be distracted by office politics,
and it will happen.
Submitted on 2Aug02 by anonymous
I just received a notice to read this article. Yes, it is a very important
message, a well written article and a forum to explore how to reach
the top levels of organizations.
People either see a place for most to fit in and volunteer or they don't want even the most talented and capable person working unpaid next to them. Is it fear? I was once told that a volunteer wasn't needed in their department because they only have experts. They went on to say that it would look bad to have someone 'walk in off the street' and work beside them. Obviously, they did not understand the screening process which matches abilities. A match is also important with the paid staff working directly with the volunteers. The process of good volunteer management is too lengthy for this note.
What are others' thoughts?
Let's Hear What You Think
An international online journal to keep you current on trends, research, successes...
Learn more | Subscribe
Online training for individuals, organizations or corporations to work successfully with volunteers. Learn more
