My short(ish), reasonable response to Scott Gilmore’s volunteer hate rant

My friend Claire Bryant  (not a White in Shining Armor)
with my coworker/friend Basu Karki. Claire blogs here.

Scott Gilmore is the founder of the Peace Dividend Trust and he recently wrote a rant called "Down With People" about why volunteers bug him. In my response below, I do a lot of blaming NGOs for problems with volunteers. So I want to note that Gilmore's organization is expressly trying to help make NGOs more efficient (thereby solving some problems discussed below) and for that I respect him and his org.

Scott’s Point: “Volunteer staff are never as effective as paid employees”
My response: Fair enough. If volunteers were good enough at what they do that they could get paid for it, they probably would. However, organizations that recruit or accept volunteers because they need skilled staff are going down the wrong path in the first place. The motivation for an org taking volunteers is rarely that they “need good staff and just can’t afford to pay for it.”  Relationship building, cross cultural interaction, providing experience in NGO work...these are legitimate reasons for orgs to support volunteerism. If organizations don’t know how to use volunteers well, why take ‘em? Gilmore’s argument depends on a massive oversimplification of circumstances.

Scott: “Volunteers are actually expensive.”
Me: If organizations are spending money to get volunteers, it’s because they want volunteers for some reason. If individuals are spending money on self-support while they volunteer, it’s their money! If orgs don’t want people participating in costly and maybe pointless volunteer experiences, orgs should stop offering those experiences.

Scott: “Don’t tell me it’s about the kids.”
Me: This is a legitimate complaint about the motives of many confused volunteers. If someone says “it’s about the kids,” when they go volunteer at an orphanage, they are oversimplifying their own motives. It is also a massive oversimplification to use this as an argument against volunteerism in general. Volunteers should probably get some kind of counseling before they start working, so that they, and the org they work for, have a clear idea of “the why” from both of their perspectives. Both volunteers and orgs need realistic ideas of what they’re getting into, and why. Getting worked up about the cliché of “whites in shining armor” posting pictures of themselves “helping children” isn’t getting us any nearer to meeting the needs of organizations while creating volunteer opportunities for those who want them.

Scott: “There’s a good chance you’re taking a job away from someone who needs it.”
Me: Also legitimate, also overblown. Organizations who offer volunteer positions are creating the situation of locals getting muscled out of jobs by volunteers. NGOs want to help local people? They should hire local people. Volunteers don’t show up banging on the doors of orphanages, demanding to be allowed to work for free. They go through channels that have been created by the organizations.

Scott’s Caveat: “If you actually have a unique skill that is actually needed and there is no one there who could deliver it, then yes go....Doctors, engineers, and eye surgeons, for example.”
Me: Short term medical volunteerism/voluntourism can actually do more damage than other kinds. Medical treatment requires lots of follow-up, and people who are getting serious medical treatment, like eye surgery, often want to be able to contact their doctor later with followup questions. A doc who parachutes in, does some operations, and then flies back to their busy life at home, likely will not provide the necessary follow-up care. Of course there are exceptions to this…but there’s a caveat for everything.

Scott: “I’m afraid I just came off like an angry ranting maniac. Which is fine. Because on this point I am.”
Me: Angrily discoursing on this subject (and most) grinds away the nuances that make it worth discussing. By cashing in (and raging against) volunteerism clichés, Gilmore has diminished the validity of his arguments. The qualms are legitimate, but this type of discourse solves nothing.