Werth-It Fundraising Blog

When would it be appropriate to hire a volunteer to fill a need within a nonprofit?  That’s the question my friend, EH, emailed to four of us in the nonprofit world.  Here is his question, our responses, and his clarification.  It’s a bit long, but if you’re faced with this situation, I think you’ll find it helpful.

I am a member of the leadership team of a volunteer led organization that
stagnating as a group that is almost completely volunteer led, with only 2
paid staff who are working overtime and still not meeting all the needs of
the organization.

The organization needs to grow its programs and offerings and some of the
volunteers are reaching a frustration that not enough is getting done.
The board and the volunteer leadership team are discussing when it might be
appropriate to pay a volunteer leader who is playing a key role on a project
to manage that project or a key aspect of it.

The question that is causing a lot of commotion is when is it appropriate
for a volunteer to become a paid part time employee or contractor for a
project.

I have developed my own thesis of criteria, but would like to know if there
is any more formal guidance out there.  My criteria would include:
- The program is tied to funding ( either the program will raise funds or it
is funded by a source other than general operating funds)
- The person in question brings a specific skill essential to program
execution.  Such skill is not generally available for free
- The person will be required to work much longer hours than is generally
expected for a volunteer to work (As a shot in the dark- more than 8
hours/week?)
- The person specifically requests the pay as being important to their
participation at the level required to execute
- Their pay is no more (and likely less than) the market rate for the
activities performed
- All transactions are transparent
- Pay is based on a contracted, hourly or flat rate, and not a % of money
raised or contingent on the amount raised.
- A contributing (but not required) factor is that the person develops the
idea or takes the idea and brings it significantly forward in the planning
or execution before they request to be paid.

I look forward to any thoughts, feedback or guidance that you can provide

Thanks

I responded:

I think everything you have laid out is fine.  I’d add:

* The job opening is posted and made public and all volunteers are invited to apply.

* The hiring criteria is clear.

* The new volunteer is treated as staff and expects to be treated as staff — no special privileges.

I’d also make sure that anyone hired gets the same training as an outsider: an orientation to the policies and practices of the organization.

My concern would be: why is all this a big deal?  Are some volunteers upset about it?  Do they feel that someone might have special privileges?  Does the volunteer in question alienate some people or staff?

We have this weird thing in nonprofits where people are expected to work for free or cheap.  I have a situation now where I have 20 new volunteers and I’m coordinating 10 returning volunteers, and someone said, “Why do we have to pay a public relations specialist?  Can’t we get a volunteer to do it?”  I replied, “I’m already working with 30 volunteers, and no, I don’t have someone with those skills, and I don’t have time to draft someone, and this woman will do more work than a volunteer can and already knows what to do without needing training.”  (Shaking my head; stunned)  So, sometime we tend to want to avoid paying people, but as professional speaker and coach Ed Tate says, “You can’t cheap your way to the top.”

Sounds like there are politics going on.  If I was the volunteer, I might be hesitant to take it.

Thinking about it, I’d also add:

Have a contract.

Be clear on what kind of output or outcome happens in order to be paid.  Personally, I get paid on output, not on outcome.  You can’t guarantee outcome, only effort.

The next person to respond was MJB, who wrote:

Tricky situation. I think you’re very wise to proceed cautiously and with well-crafted criteria, given perceptions … by other volunteers, funders, and perhaps even the IRS. I’m copying my favorite heard-it-all/know-it-all colleague at BoardSource, too. She may have some additional thoughts. I agree with Katherine’s bulleted points, and I’ll add a few of my own:

·         As much as possible, structure the paid work as implementation of a board-approved plan/strategy/activity to help keep the lines clear between staff work and board work

·         Create job description, lines of accountability, expectations, etc. all in writing.

·         Bid it out, post an RFP, etc. to make sure you get the best deal for the organization in terms of fees (and have the results documented about the decision being made, to protect the organization and the individual, a la intermediate sanctions)

·         Try to price it as a fixed price contract based on deliverables, rather than hourly

·         Have the board hold the person accountable for progress reports, deadlines, etc. – Maybe even designate another board member to as the so-called supervisor (I realize it might be awkward, but it would add a check-and-balance function)

Lastly, I wonder, is there a reason why you can’t hire a part-time person or consultant to manage this project? The organization seems to be growing, there are probably folks out there who need some work, etc. Or, is there internal politics as play, as Katherine suggested?

OF then responded:

EH wrote back:

Thanks for your feedback.

In retrospect, I probably should have been clearer about is that this is not about hiring full time staff, but rather, hiring or contracting an existing volunteer to staff a limited time position to execute a project.

Accordingly, I am not sure it is always appropriate to publically post the position, especially if the volunteer brought the project or arranged for the funding.

However, we do have a split on the board and on the leadership committee (A committee of the various working group and project leaders) between people who feel that volunteers should always be volunteers and some more entrepreneurial types who feel that if there is a need and funding, a volunteer can be hired or contracted to help.

Accordingly, the proposed compromise was to identify or develop specific and transparent standards as to when a volunteer can be hired for a specific project.  After that project (and potentially on other efforts during the project length) that person would revert to being a volunteer.

An example of this would be the fact that while I am a Red Cross disaster volunteer, I have also written preparedness grants for the Red Cross where I am contracted to manage those grants.  So work on the grant is paid (Fixed rate each month + deliverable payments) and other work is volunteer.

Let me know if this prompts any additional thoughts or feedback

I finished by writing: