A few years ago I joined a travel-related website while researching a trip to Panama. Some of you know will know it as Travellerspoint.com. I have spent quite a bit of my online time over there and one of the common questions posed in the forums deals with volunteerism. “This company charges $X,XXX for a 2 month program. Is that cheap?” or “Is this company on the up & up?” or “Shouldn’t volunteering be free as long as I get there? I’m volunteering, after all.” All good questions. Ones that make me think daily as I remember volunteerism as something you did not pay for, except your transportation to get where you were needed.
I was reminded of this, once again, when my husband and I introduced a close friend to an organization that is a sanctuary for injured and displaced wolves. At the time, the sanctuary offered room and board for a day’s work. BUT, they were considering charging fees “because most other volunteer organizations were doing it and raking in a profit”. Understandable when you are working at a loss. The sanctuary is still on a “room & board for work performed” basis. Combining my personal experience with the ones on Travellerspoint, I could not help but ask the “synonymous?” question.
So, I’m done pontificating and here are your replies:
Dave
This is a topic really hits me hard. I’ve worked as both a volunteer and as a staff member in a number of countries.
I’ve seen these two terms merge over the years and truly; I don’t like it. In practice, I have no issue with someone paying to go out and help somewhere. If they are qualified to do so, and if the organization is also as qualified.
There are thousands of organizations that come under the “NGO” banner that are merely set up to make money. This holds true for many non-NGOs too.
I’ve also seen college graduates leave, with great intentions, to help build houses and teach. For the former; manpower in many developing organizations is not an issue. Many are not qualified to teach, and end up doing more harm than good. Though, more often than not they will return feeling on top of the world for helping.
At the heart of this, I do not blame the volunteers. I blame the corrupt NGO’s and Government departments that allow them to run, and to an extent the parents paying for all this.
One such incident occurred in Nepal, where an English girl paid 7,000 USD to volunteer for 6 weeks at a monastery through an NGO. She was clueless before leaving. Once she arrived she discovered the Monastery takes anyone, for free. It was the NGO’s fees that she was paying.
Research your placement, country and job criteria before going. Ask non-profits for their account income & expenditure details. The really good ones will supply them to you for transparency reasons.
Yes, there are good volunteer organizations out there, but the criteria to get in is high. Another option is simply to go to a country you wish to help, knock on doors of agencies and see for yourself before truly volunteering.
Matthew Kepnes
No, you shouldn’t have to pay a fee to volunteer. Sites like i to i are just taking a middleman fee and pocketing most of the money anyway. True volunteer organizations don’t make you pay. You pay for your way there but you trade your time for room and board. There are no hidden fees. I recommend programs like Hands On Disaster Relief. I would never volunteer with an organization that made me pay. I’d rather just donate directly to the community than pay towards one of these programs.
Hannah Barth
Most diehard travelers are loathe to be called ‘tourists’. To me, the word ‘tourism’ denotes a disconnection with the world one is traveling in. Voluntourism, then, seems to be a way to feel good and do good, but not necessarily connect with the people or the place you’re traveling to. When you pay a fee to volunteer, you are, in essence, paying for the tourism aspect of your trip. You’re paying an agent to choose how to put you in contact with the local population as you’ve chosen not to do it for yourself.
Volunteering, on the other hand, can be done anywhere; in your hometown, home country, or abroad.
Volunteering, on the other hand, can be done anywhere; in your hometown, home country, or abroad. Because volunteering is less location-specific – down the street from where you live, for instance, where you probably wouldn’t travel on holiday – it’s always seemed like a very different thing than ‘voluntouring’. One may choose to travel and volunteer at the same time, but it’s self-guided. Volunteering while traveling then is more of an activity, like going to a museum or seeing a famous landmark. I, personally, strongly prefer the latter.
Jason Batansky
Tough question. I don’t think volunteerism and voluntourism should hold the same meaning because the experiences differ so much. While generalizations are never ideal, it’s appropriate to make some in comparing the two terms. Voluntourism is a vacation. The participants pay for the short-term (one week to a few months) experience of interacting with people they might not ordinarily meet. Their money used to fund the vacation helps the cause more than their personal efforts. In contrast, volunteers traveling abroad either donate an in demand skill (e.g. doctors) or their abundance of time (e.g. unskilled workers caring for children). They don’t pay for the opportunity to help because the organization they work with actually needs their help and not just their money. I have nothing against voluntourism nor volunteering. Some great opportunities can be found at http://www.Idealist.org.
Daniel Roy
It takes time to train a high-skilled volunteer, so what’s left for most of the kind-hearted tourists out there usually has more in common with a feel-good guided tour than real volunteer work. There’s nothing wrong with lending a hand on a trip, but for longer-lasting volunteer work with a profound effect, consider looking for longer-term placement – such as through Volunteer Services Oversea (UK), or the Peace Corps (US).
If you’re up for the task, get involved in social justice and help at home – there’s plenty of people in need there too!
Nora Dunn
Voluntourism (from my understanding) combines a volunteer experience with a tourism one. Tourists will pay for something along the lines of an all-inclusive vacation, which includes sightseeing as well as volunteering for a good cause. It is these sorts of organized volunteer tourism adventures that also cost a pretty penny.
Volunteerism technically simply refers to the act of volunteering, which we can do at home or abroad, with no reference in the definition to travel.
Despite popular opinion, there are still lots of ways to volunteer your services and not have to pay hefty fees for that privilege. In some cases, accommodation can be subsidized or even paid for in return for your volunteer work. However you’ll have to hunt around for these opportunities; the big businesses promoting voluntourism adventures often have better search results rankings.
Steve Shoppman
With the many organizations charging fees to volunteer, I believe they are doing the right thing as they are providing a service to tourists looking for a different experience. Anyone who is really making a difference needs to spend considerable time there to even begin to help the people. For those tourists volunteering, they are reaping far more benefits from their time than the people they are helping.
This is not to say this is a bad thing, if more people were paying to volunteer I think they would certainly get more out of their travel experiences as they would be spending quality time directly interacting with the people in the country they are visiting. The organizations that allow this really are providing a service to the tourist rather than the other way around, and the tourist should be happy to pay money for an experience that is most certainly worth more than the lame tours you might pay for on a vacation.
Carl Beien
Having been on both sides of the “voluntourism” experience, we can only hope that the practice continues to grow. While pay-to-play “volunteer” positions may seem at first disingenuous, run well, the practice can be highly beneficial for all parties involved.
Anyone having spent time volunteering abroad knows how little impact a short stint can have.
Anyone having spent time volunteering abroad knows how little impact a short stint can have. A few days, weeks, or even months, especially without being fluent in the local language, is not nearly enough time for an individual to accomplish much of a lasting change. It is enough time, however, for a person to develop a lasting connection to a place – more than just, “they were a friendly people with good food”.
Furthermore, tourists looking for a more satisfying experience can bring well-needed dollars to organizations trying to do good work, but strapped for cash. Instead of hopping around a country putting money into often dubious pockets, encouraging behaviors like false hospitality and helping build stereotypes of Westerners as rich party seekers, “voluntourism” allows tourists to get a deeper, more intimate look at a culture, all the while ensuring their foreign dollars go to a good cause.
Wade Shepard
If a person has to pay money to work, then their work must not be of enough value to stand on its own. Paid volunteering is tourism, you are paying to have an experience: rather than going on a rafting trip or a pub crawl you are shown poor people and provided with the feeling that you helped them. I don’t know what else an unskilled person from a rich country really has to offer anybody besides their money anyway.
If your help was really needed you would be invited to share your skills and knowledge based on their own merit, not the money in your pocket. This is called volunteering.
It is my impression that voluntourism is a very frightening industry that is essentially transforming poverty into a commodity that can be sold to tourists for thousands of dollars. The leeway for scams and con artists is very wide. If you think your money is going to the people you are trying to help, guess again — see past the flowery websites and the pictures of smiling poor children — this is a business, and the poor are the commodities (the meeker the better). Where there is money to be made you will find profiteers making it.
Volunteers that really have something to offer are only worth the value of what they have to teach.
Volunteers that really have something to offer are only worth the value of what they have to teach. Unfortunately, the profiteers have found that the droves of unskilled tourists willing to pay money for the title of “volunteer” are worth far more money that the real volunteers themselves. If someone demands that you pay money to help them, then your help is not what they are after.
Derek Turner
Hmm, let’s see… soapbox or no soapbox? To volunteer is simply to offer a service without a price. A person can do that in their own neighborhood. Voluntourism, however, can be more industry than service. The two are related, but they are certainly not synonymous.
I left my career to sail around and “change” the world, and didn’t know what to expect. I started with a website to raise funds, 100% of which went towards helping meet needs I saw along the way. When I made efforts to contact “volunteer” organizations, ready and willing to help, I realized for the price tag attached the money could go much further if I did it myself.
I guess the bottom line is if “voluntouring” actually makes a difference in the life of someone less fortunate, then I’m for it. If someone is going to spend a fortune on vacation, but decides instead to “rough it” for a week or two, and do some voluntouring to make a difference, then why not? But… I have to admit there is something deep down inside that cringes when a company tries to capitalize on a person really wants to volunteer his or her time or skill to truly help.
UK bookies Paddy Power doesn't have much faith in the state of console gaming. After the 
People have been thinking long and hard for well over a month now whether they'll buy the Wi-Fi version which is available this month, or wait for next month's 3G model. AT&T isn't arguing their case well here.
Nokia's picked the beta version of the Skype app up off the floor, dusted it off, and granted it a shiny new spot in its 
