I was at first not sure what to make of this rather negative take on volunteers, which essentially says that many people volunteer because they are hard to employ, and others – or those same ones – may enjoy whatever power they come to wield in a volunteer position. As such, not only are they difficult to work with but they are also hard to get rid of; you can fire or “run out of funding” for a hired worker, but it’s harder to find a good reason to get rid of a volunteer.

First of all, this is directed more at standard “at home” volunteers than at those traveling to volunteer, and while I can see the overall point, and wouldn’t say it’s completely off base, I don’t think that these cases are common. However it does raise an important point about volunteering – by its nature, volunteers are often less accountable than paid workers. If they don’t show up, or don’t do a good job, that’s that. The cause – or other volunteers or staff – may suffer as a result, but if that’s not enough of an incentive to do well, then there probably isn’t another one.

Given this, why use volunteers at all? I suspect many organizations do find it more effective and perhaps even more cost-effective to hire qualified staff who are accountable for the work they do; they can train one staff member once as opposed to three or four volunteers separately – and then another three or four when those leave. But certainly volunteers who stick around and demonstrate their commitment make an enormous contribution, and short-term volunteers who show responsibility are also valuable.

Finally, I think there’s an important community aspect of volunteering: the community benefits when people living in a place make an effort to give back, even when it’s just over the course of a few hours a week. The organization they volunteer for and the cause that benefits is not just an organization doing work, it becomes a part of the community – and this is important for the sustainability or “lastingness” of the work as a whole.