This Month's Responses
March 1999
The Money Factor in Volunteer Management
By Susan J. Ellis
It’s income tax season in the United States and I’ve been
busy with financial reporting. So it seems appropriate to devote this
month’s Hot Topic to money. Certain financial questions
seem to surface all the time, so I'm going to air the two big ones
here:
1. What should a director of volunteers be paid?
If you look at any of the salary surveys done in recent years for
the nonprofit field (and I’m sure there are similar ones for
government and for-profits, too), you’ll immediately notice one
of two things: either the position of director of volunteers is not
even included in the study, or we are at the bottom of the list in
salary averages. The real problem with these sorts of surveys is that
they perpetuate inequities. So an executive who is uncertain as to
what to offer to a new coordinator of volunteers looks at the study
and, with relief, offers a low figure because “that’s what
this field earns.”
In truth, all the figures are open to question. As has been noted
many times before, it is hard--and probably foolish--to draw conclusions
from a survey of so many disparate types of organizations. Hospitals
will pay all staff members more than a rape crisis center ever can.
A neighborhood drop-in center will have a pay scale far lower than
a major museum. This is true for every position, across the board.
Which is why, in my opinion, the only valid criterion for determining
the appropriate pay for a director of volunteers is whether his or
her salary is equivalent to the salary of other similar-level managers
in that specific agency. So the real question is not one of dollars.
It's at what level of administration is this position valued? If the
director of development earns twice what the director of volunteers
is paid, or if volunteer leadership is paid on a par with clerical
staff, there’s a clear message sent. But if the
director of volunteers receives a salary on the level of other managers,
department heads, or other essential staff, then the amount is right--whatever
that amount is, for everyone.
2. Should volunteers be given money as an incentive?
I want to go on record as saying that I do not believe it is necessary
to use money as an “incentive” to get people to volunteer.
In fact, in most cases, I find this to be a cop-out approach used
by people who never tried to recruit volunteers, but assumed it to
be impossible because they couldn’t imagine anyone (especially
young or poor) would be willing to help.
Please understand: I DO favor reimbursement for any out-of-pocket
expenses and any type of support that allows people to give their
time as a donation but not to also have to spend money they may not
have for the privilege of volunteering. I am speaking here of approaches
such as “we give everyone $25 a week” or some other very
low pay.
First, be aware that this sort of scheme is not seen by the IRS as
reimbursement for expenses. Because it is pre-determined, paid to
everyone, and given regardless of proof of expenses, this type of
payment must be reported as taxable income to the volunteer.
Second, the amount offered is usually so low it verges on the insulting
and begins to cause confusion in their role with employees.
If you have the cash, buy something meaningful with it--or pay for
conference registrations and travel, or some work-related type of
perk. In fact, the real question is why so few organizations budget
for the continuing education of its volunteers. It is possible to
have an arrangement with a volunteer that, in exchange for the cost
of sending her or him to a state or national conference, s/he will
promise to continue as a volunteer for at least a year or will reimburse
the agency for the expense. After all, this is routinely
done with employees for their college or graduate school costs.
For those of you who are in an all-volunteer setting, by the way,
this is not necessarily one of those ”us and them” topics
that divides agency-based program leaders from volunteer officers.
Your big question is: Why do we think it’s “skimming off
the top” to allocate funds to support our volunteer members?
It is my opinion that something as simple as paying for some hourly
clerical help would make the recruitment of volunteer chairpeople
so much easier. It is not a defeat to acknowledge that it may be harder
to get someone to do the “grunt work” as a volunteer than
to do the jobs with higher status. Or what about paying for qualified
child care while members are doing their volunteer work? The expense
of these kinds of outlays would leverage service of far greater monetary
value.
Now I’m going to make a suggestion that will seem contradictory.
Sometimes a “token” honorarium allows a great volunteer
to justify accepting an extremely time-consuming position. For example,
if the volunteer registrar for all organization activities logs ten
to twenty hours a week for six months, offering $500 towards expenses
does not begin to “pay” for the time, but acknowledges the
extraordinary effort. (Yes, this will probably have to reported as
taxable income by the volunteer.) The difference between this approach
and money to all volunteers as a sweetening of the pot to convince
them to sign up is that this sort of honorarium would only be offered
for those accepting major responsibilities requiring extensive work--and
where being a volunteer may actually make holding a full-time job
difficult. Ivan Scheier discusses this idea creatively in his book,
When Everyone’s a Volunteer.
OK. Your turn. What do you think about these and other money issues?
And may all your returns bring refunds....!
Read People's Responses
