8th April 2009, 07:44 AM
Some of the requirements for volunteers are over the top, but some of them are entirely justified. It just depends on the situation.
There has been a shift in the not-for-profit volunteer "industry" towards increasing levels of professionalism in volunteer management over the past five to ten years. There are two significant components to this;
- First, a move away from the concept that the simple act of volunteering makes a volunteer inviolate from rules, regulations etc. Previously there was this idea that you couldn't tell a volunteer what to do, that the selfless act of giving their time meant that they were treated differently from employees. Under the new framework the question has been asked "how is a volunteer different from an employee when they are at a workplace?". They still need to be managed, they are at the same risk of hurting themselves etc, but the fact that they don't get paid changes that how?
- Second, there has been a move towards acknowledging the rights of organisations that use volunteers to put rules, regulations, screening processes etc in place. This is based on the idea that volunteering is a reciprocal relationship, where the organisation has a responsibility towards the rights of the volunteer, but that the volunteer also has a responsibility towards the organisation to help it meet its aims, to protect its reputation etc.
Some people have great difficulty accepting this shift away from the old model of volunteering, but having been involved in volunteer organisations for the past 20 years, both as a volunteer, and as a volunteer manager, I would suggest that the new model provides a balance of outcomes that are best for both volunteers and volunteer organisations. Volunteers are not all sweetness and light, and there are plenty of people out there who volunteer, who have an agenda entirely contrary to that of the organisations they volunteer for. Protecting the organisation, and other volunteers from such people is just as important as recognising the rights of individual volunteers.
What has come from this new model is a requirement for criminal checks, health checks, selection criteria for volunteers etc. However, instead of being applied appropriately dependent on circumstance, they are often just applied as a blanket approach regardless of whether they are needed or not. Often these checks are entirely appropriate, often they are not.
In this case the question is whether they are appropriate or not, and without knowing the circumstances of the actual dig, I wouldn't want to make comment.
Final comments: criminal checks are not just to protect children, they protect everyone. A person with a history of theft is no real danger to children, but is pretty hazardous for the organisation and other volunteers. Additionally, common sense should be applied to criminal checks. Obviously if a person has a single conviction from 20 years ago, you would ignore it in most cases. Finally, health checks don't just protect the organisation, they protect the volunteer as well. A health check on a prospective volunteer in the volunteer fire brigade I am a member of, discovered an unknown heart defect that would have killed him the first time he responded to a fire.
There has been a shift in the not-for-profit volunteer "industry" towards increasing levels of professionalism in volunteer management over the past five to ten years. There are two significant components to this;
- First, a move away from the concept that the simple act of volunteering makes a volunteer inviolate from rules, regulations etc. Previously there was this idea that you couldn't tell a volunteer what to do, that the selfless act of giving their time meant that they were treated differently from employees. Under the new framework the question has been asked "how is a volunteer different from an employee when they are at a workplace?". They still need to be managed, they are at the same risk of hurting themselves etc, but the fact that they don't get paid changes that how?
- Second, there has been a move towards acknowledging the rights of organisations that use volunteers to put rules, regulations, screening processes etc in place. This is based on the idea that volunteering is a reciprocal relationship, where the organisation has a responsibility towards the rights of the volunteer, but that the volunteer also has a responsibility towards the organisation to help it meet its aims, to protect its reputation etc.
Some people have great difficulty accepting this shift away from the old model of volunteering, but having been involved in volunteer organisations for the past 20 years, both as a volunteer, and as a volunteer manager, I would suggest that the new model provides a balance of outcomes that are best for both volunteers and volunteer organisations. Volunteers are not all sweetness and light, and there are plenty of people out there who volunteer, who have an agenda entirely contrary to that of the organisations they volunteer for. Protecting the organisation, and other volunteers from such people is just as important as recognising the rights of individual volunteers.
What has come from this new model is a requirement for criminal checks, health checks, selection criteria for volunteers etc. However, instead of being applied appropriately dependent on circumstance, they are often just applied as a blanket approach regardless of whether they are needed or not. Often these checks are entirely appropriate, often they are not.
In this case the question is whether they are appropriate or not, and without knowing the circumstances of the actual dig, I wouldn't want to make comment.
Final comments: criminal checks are not just to protect children, they protect everyone. A person with a history of theft is no real danger to children, but is pretty hazardous for the organisation and other volunteers. Additionally, common sense should be applied to criminal checks. Obviously if a person has a single conviction from 20 years ago, you would ignore it in most cases. Finally, health checks don't just protect the organisation, they protect the volunteer as well. A health check on a prospective volunteer in the volunteer fire brigade I am a member of, discovered an unknown heart defect that would have killed him the first time he responded to a fire.