Ethics

In March 2011, 10News in San Diego, California, ran a story with the following headline: “Habitat For Humanity Charging Local Volunteers: Group Forcing Local Volunteers To Pay Before Helping Build Homes.” The resulting controversy revealed both facts and opinions about “passing along” the costs of supporting volunteers to the volunteers themselves. This practice occurs more often than many realize, and can include expenses for extra supervision for a group project, background check inquiries, special training, or even membership dues. In this Points of View, Susan J. Ellis and Steve McCurley question whether it’s reasonable to levy fees on volunteers, when the expense of hiring paid staff is seen as a budget item. They analyze all of the issues involved, and offer an unusual proposal from a different perspective.

We often think of well-functioning volunteer programs as happy little families, systems in which people get along so well that they resemble the idyllic picture of family relationships portrayed in U.S. television shows from the 1950s. And while this is often true, occasionally we run into situations where the family more resembles the Ozzy Osbournes.

The notion of families volunteering together is one that has a lot of intrinsic appeal and a lot of value. In this Points of View, however, we look at things from a slightly different perspective: the potential conflicts that arise when individuals with close outside relationships – spouses, siblings, relatives, close friends, co-workers, fellow church members – are volunteering “inside” the same organization but those “outside” relationships, either positive or negative, begin to affect volunteering behavior.

We examine what happens when volunteer programs actually involve those with family-like relationships in volunteering together, analyze what is likely to happen in these scenarios (and why), and offer some tips for what to do if you encounter problems or to prevent them in the first place.

The Samaritans are a UK-based charity that provides confidential emotional support to those who are depressed or suicidal. Volunteers provide this service through 24-hour crisis-lines and e-mail response centers. One of the keystones of The Samaritans philosophy is that their service is absolutely confidential. Their belief is that clients will be more likely to seek Samaritan services and freely express their state of mind if they feel that their conversation is protected from disclosure. In October 2003, a volunteer for the UK branch of The Samaritans, encountered a difficulty in keeping to this promise of confidentiality.

One of his callers confessed to a murder of a young girl.

He reported this to police, who then, with the cooperation of The Samaritans, tapped further conversations between the volunteer and his caller and eventually arrested James Ford for the murder of Amanda Champion.

The Samaritans then terminated the volunteer, citing his breach of the Samaritan confidentiality policy.

As you might expect, when this became public knowledge it ignited a bit of a debate in the UK over whether asking volunteers to remain silent about such matters is a good idea. After all, allowing confessed murderers to run around free doesn’t seem like the best service to the public.

While this is clearly a worst-case scenario, this situation prompted us to make a few comments about client confidentiality, volunteers, organizational responsibility, and the implications of the debate.