Working in the world of voluntourism, I am often wondering how to do it "right".  If the benefits of volunteer tourism, as is often the case, are more for the travelers than the communities, is it still "good"? Is orphanage tourism ok?  Do child rights change for kids are "poor"? If you give your time, but not your money, is that ok? When is it ok? If you are painting a school fence that doesn't need to be painted and the $50 towards paint could have been used to pay another month of a teacher's salary, is that "good"? Or, if you are painting a school fence that might not need to be painted, but you are also funding a years worth of the teacher's salaries, is that good? Is the funding what makes it "good", or the time? How do you decide?

The questions tend to revolve around one core question, “If volunteers are unskilled or getting involved in unnecessary or low priority work, and they themselves are getting a lot out of the experience, are they really doing good?”

As I was thinking about this and trying to put my ideas into words, an image popped into my head: a spectrum of “positive impact” that ranges from 100% financial contribution to 100% volunteer contribution.  This implies that if your volunteer time is:

a) necessary and high priority for the organization or community,

b) introducing locally unavailable skilled labor or

c) providing volunteer services that would otherwise be costly to the organization,

then financial support in addition may not be necessary. However, if none of the above applies, then there should be a donation requirement offsetting the costs of hosting volunteers. In either case, financial contributions help sustain ongoing project needs, thereby making the volunteer trip valuable beyond the activities taking place during short-term volunteer projects.

Does that make sense?  If it doesn’t, perhaps this chart will illustrate the point.  Based on my experiences, if volunteer tour operators or traveler philanthropy projects fall on or above the dotted line, they will positively impact their partner projects through the introduction of skilled and necessary labor on one end of the spectrum, significant funding on the other end of the spectrum, or a combination falling somewhere between the two. 

At PEPY, participants volunteer time to a short-term project with the understanding that the most significant part of their contribution is the funds they provide to sustain ongoing projects. Additionally, they receive on-site education which, ideally, translates into future involvement.  We believe that everyone, even “unskilled laborers”, has the ability to contribute. Even if volunteers lack knowledge about the issue or program, they can contribute by learning more and promoting awareness to others, and by providing financial support.

For me, the essentials for successful volunteer tourism are honest marketing (ie: being open about what portion of participant fees are going to the projects they visit and the relationships involved), setting clear expectations both for the communities/programs visited and the travelers, and an understanding of the diagram above. If volunteers are not contributing resources otherwise unavailable (i.e. high-skilled labor), then funding is needed to maintain an overall positive impact.  Those organizations operating in the red area have a tendency to focus more on the needs/wants of the travelers, often conveying a false sense that their impact is extremely positive and necessary, without following through on the commitment to make that statement true. 

I would love to hear your thoughts on this. What do you think about this chart and these ideas?  Please comment below.

* If you are a voluntourism operator and would like to contribute to the creation of a self-check tool on Volunteer Tourism Effective Practices, please contact ' ); document.write( addy_text4683 ); document.write( '' ); //-->\n