Hot
Topic Archive
July
2005
Print version
Is
it time we redefined volunteering?
By
Andy
Fryar
Some
months ago, I came across a very interesting
and 'out of the box' concept called the '10,000
Hours Show' - www.10000hours.org
that I really liked on a number of levels
- but which challenged me in many other ways.
It's
basically a 'concert with a catch'.
The
'concert' part of the equation is straight forward.
An organising committee host a major rock concert
in the US state of Iowa each year with major
headlining bands such as Ben Folds and Guster.
The
'catch' is that you can't buy tickets! |
|
Rather,
tickets can only be gained by contributing at least
10 hours of volunteer work to a local community agency.
Now in its third year, the original concept was to
encourage 1,000 people to contribute 10 hours of volunteer
time each, hence the figure 10,000 hours. This year
the event actually 'raised' just over 20,000 hours
of volunteer effort for the local community, and involved
some 1,684 volunteers who contributed time to 138
volunteer agencies.
Here's
what I like about the idea.
Firstly,
it is innovative. The concert offers a great incentive
for many people, who may not have previously tried
volunteering, to join a community group and 'give
it a go'. It seems there would also be a particular
attraction in all of this to entice younger people
to become involved in volunteer work. In fact, the
concept could easily be duplicated to encourage the
involvement of different community groups through
offering concerts featuring different styles of music.
The
other thing I really like about the project is that
it clearly has a core goal to build the capacity of
the Iowa community through increased volunteer involvement.
However,
there were two other issues that the whole idea really
got me thinking about which is what I wanted to share
as a matter of debate through this month's hot topic.
Incentives
and rewards
I
can already hear the purists amongst you thinking
'hold on, this example does not reflect 'true' volunteering,
as the volunteers involved are receiving a payment
of sorts (ie concert tickets) for their participation'.
While I personally have no problems with the concept
of the 10,000 hours show, it does raise a number of
questions about just where and when incentives and
rewards become something more than that.
As
fate would have it, Susan Ellis has written her Energize
hot topic this month on this very subject. So rather
than waxing lyrical abut this particular point, I
would rather encourage you all to visit the Energize
site and read Susan's very comprehensive thoughts
for yourself.
See
http://www.energizeinc.com/hot/2005/july05.phpl
A
redefinition of volunteering?
The
second point I wanted to raise involves the way we
define volunteering.
One
of the things I particularly like about the '10,000
hours show' is the way it pushes the boundaries in
encouraging and attracting new recruits to volunteer
in local community activities.
I
think I've said before that I am no great fan of any
definition of volunteering. For me, it always winds
up being prohibitive in one aspect or another. Now
before I get lynched, let me make it clear that I
do think we should try and define the boundaries in
which volunteering can and should operate, however
my frustration continues to stem from the fact that
volunteering bodies the world over create hard and
fast definitions which then become 'gospel' for the
following decade or more.
The
reality is that volunteerism is moving and changing
at a pace much faster than we are reviewing the way
that we define what volunteering actually is, or has
become. In brief, I wonder if we are being held back
from truly recognising potential new forms of volunteer
involvement simply by sticking rigidly to antiquated
definitions?
Imagine
if we still defined the role of women in society in
the same way we did in the 1950's. Consider the ramifications
if we had never debated and redefined laws on divorce,
child abuse, the welfare system or the treatment of
our indigenous populations?
My
point is that volunteerism, like everything else,
is evolutionary, and I wonder if we have the ability
to challenge ourselves and the 'powers that be' to
continue to change with the times.
Recent
developments such as the increased role of government
in volunteering initiatives such as Australia's 'voluntary
work initiative' (VWI), where the long term unemployed
can undertake 32 hours of volunteer work a fortnight
in lieu of seeking paid work (and still be eligible
to receive unemployment benefit) have helped pave
the way for us to start defining volunteering differently.
I clearly remember at the time VWI was first introduced,
that there was considerable debate about whether or
not this did actually constitute 'true' volunteering.
This debate quickly died down and in Australia this
initiative is now a part of our volunteering vocabulary.
Similarly terms such as vacationer volunteers, virtual
volunteers, episodic volunteering and family volunteer
involvement were hardly even thought of a decade ago,
yet today they offer a integral avenue to involving
volunteers in a whole range of new and exciting opportunities.
So
what about initiatives like the 10,000 hour show?
Where and how does this event fit into standard volunteering
definitions which clearly state that volunteering
must occur without any payment, other than out-of-pocket
expenses? Do we discount the many community benefits
that have obviously been derived from this musical
extravaganza for the sake of standing our high moral
ground, or do we acknowledge that at the end of the
day (or concert) the benefits derived from the process
justify the means? Would the dynamics change if each
volunteer got two tickets - or ten, valued at a much
higher price?
Using
the Volunteering Australia definition as an example
(this is quite similar to definitions used the world
over) , here are some of the questions I believe need
to be asked and considered:
- Why do we continually have
to define volunteering only within the constraints
of 'formal' volunteering?
- Why can't we create a definition
that covers all types of volunteer involvement?
- What is the rationale for
this 'formal' volunteering only needing to occur
through not-for-profit organisations?
- Where do 'for profit' agencies
(such as private nursing homes for example) fit
into this scenario?
- How do we define 'without
coercion'?
- Does 'without financial
payment' cover the whole gamut of payment types
(such as concert tickets)?
- How do we describe 'benefit
to the community'? Whose community and to what benefit?
- Do we, by definition, prohibit
ourselves from using innovative methods of incentive
to recruit new volunteers to our programs?
Of course having
served as the President of Volunteering Australia,
I do know the rationale behind all of these arguments
and I am playing the devil's advocate here to a degree,
but I truly believe this is a continuing debate that
needs to occur. We need to challenge convention and
think outside the square - there is no room inside
a box. We need to look upon new volunteering initiatives
not so much as 'the enemy' but rather as a new member
of the family, who we should perhaps take some time
to get to know before making a judgement about their
genetic makeup.
Most
of all, we need to remember that the way volunteering
will be defined and valued in the future, begins with
all of us today!
Now
let's hear from you?
It's
not too late to...
Respond
to this month's Hot Topic
(Be
sure to add your name, title and organisation to your
message)
Should
this link not open your regular email browser, simply
send your reply to response@ozvpm.com
Read
other people's responses
Print
version
The
contents of this Hot Topic are copyright © 2003
- 04 OzVPM.
You may reproduce this Hot Topic in part or in full
on the condition that the author, source and website
address (www.ozvpm.com)
are quoted. OzVPM copyright
policy
Visit
this month’s ‘Hot
Topic’ on the Energize web site.
|
