I can't speak for museums, but in general volunteers should never be expected to pay for anything in order to be "allowed" to volunteer.

I always thought that the first rule for volunteer recruitment was to make it as easy as possible for people to volunteer? Making people pay to volunteer? I've never heard of that.

It's an accepted approach, though not universal. Volunteering in museums can certainly be seen as a privilege, not a right. No one is inherently entitled to be a volunteer; volunteer programs are run at the group's discretion and require plenty of policy and management.

Volunteers consume institutional effort, time, and money and come at a cost. Yes, they do give back tremendously, but their relationship isn't one of simple giving - it's a two-way relationship that needs to be mutually beneficial. It's imperative to pay close attention to your volunteer corps - a bad, unprepared, or poorly trained volunteer can do a drastic amount of damage to an instution in a short time. I've seen it happen and have some horror stories.

Things are quite different in different museums. Requiring membership to volunteer is something I see a lot more in the art-museum-docent world and sometimes in natural history, science, or history museums that have great stature. But a common problem in art museums, and sometimes high-end historical societies, is that people choose (or used to choose) to volunteer for reasons of social status, wanting to 'get out of the house,' be seen as an authority, etc. People with the wrong set of motivations don't make the greatest volunteers, and they can actually be more difficulty than their help is worth. Particularly when volunteers are in a public role, acting as the face of the organization, they need to meet the needs of the organization for which they do work. Setting requirements isn't out of the question.

Requiring membership means the museum is asking for a strong commitment on the part of the volunteer to the institution. This tends to weed out people who would choose to volunteer for dilettantish reasons, or who really aren't sure whether it's for them and are just dabbling in an unfocused way. Because these volunteers have made a financial investment, they may generally be a more committed group of people who try harder to meet the institution's needs.

The idea that an institution needs to accept all comers as volunteers is not a given. In fact that's true in many volunteer capacities, such as Big Brothers, Big Sisters, Boys and Girls Club, Doctors Without Borders, etc. There is no requirment in the tax code or elsewhere that anyone who wants to volunteer has a right to. In many cases in today's museums, you may have to apply to volunteer, get a background check ($), pass a test, or take training courses with museum staff($). Some museums ask volunteers to make a commitment to serve for the whole year or season, take a regular weekly or biweekly shift, and be supervised and evaluated like a staffer ($). Most programs involve thank-you gifts or award ceremonies, museum store discounts, and other perks. All this requires a commitment of staff time and funding on the part of the institution, and the museum isn't in a good position if it spends those resources on people with a low level of committment or ability who then do not become useful - or, even, who become detrimental.

In general, more structured volunteer programs actually keep volunteers longer, have a superior quality volunteer corpse, and use volunteers more and more meaningfully than looser programs where anyone can show up and jump in.

There is a trend toward realizing that being able to volunteer in a strong institution is a privilege - you get special access, training, knowledge, contacts, experience, and status by being a volunteer. It is worth something, and if you support the institution enough to volunteer, it's likely you support it enough to make a small contribution for membership.

Still, there are plenty of museums who have not embraced this method. Each institution is different and needs to consider its own needs and mission and profile. My institution does not require membership -- but we do have an application process, we log and report on volunteer hours, and do a fair amount of training. Volunteers need a certain number of hours logged to be eligible for the discount.

There is a good argument that people who don't have the means to become a member should still have an avenue toward volunteering. I definitely embrace that and think there should always be a means to use nonmember support (we do a lot with City Year and various programs at the local college, none of whom would likely become members but whose help we welcome). I personally would think that this could happen - indeed, might be happening in the museum you went to - on a case-by-case basis. That is, the museum might not state as policy that nonmembers can be volunteers, but if you called them up and said "I legitimately can't afford the $30 membership, but I want to help - what can I do to pay for my membership in kind?" I would be very surprised if there weren't a way to work that out.

It does bother me when well-heeled people nickel-and-dime our institution like this, insisting that a contribution is too much to ask. Our $30 membership is nothin' to these folks. It's for a whole year and gives reduced cost at events and a store discount. I see people spending $30 a day on things that enrich their lives far less. I strongly believe in removing barriers to access for people who really can't afford it - but for most of our constituency, they can easily afford it, they just have an odd set of priorities that tells them museum activities should be a bargain or even free, while their shoes, bags, belts, phones, jewelry, adorable outfits for children, SUV strollers, and a $30 lunch in the museum caf for the group are apparently investments in society that are well worth the price.

I see that you might be excluding a pool of people who might volunteer but can't pay the money, but it's probably an overstated problem. In practice, there are a million ways to handle it. If these volunteers are terribly concerned that there is a groundswell of people who would volunteer but can't afford the fee, then they could band together as volunteers and raise funds to pay the fee for, say, 5 people a year. Or ask the institution to establish such a program and recruit those people. Or waive the requirement upon request with a statement outlining hardship. Or set up the possibility of in-kind payment for membership in a codified way. Or establish different volunteer tracks for member volunteers and nonmember volunteers (like high schoolers or special event volunteers). The needs of both the volunteer corps and the institution can be met easily with just a little effort into making it so. Whether the museum wants to has everything to do with institutional culture - art museums, I'm afraid, are generally the most rigid, but they're also the 'sexiest,' so they also have to fend off the most interest by people who don't have much to offer and just want to be associated with the art world. So it doesn't surprise me that their requirements are often the most stringent.

But no - it's not wrong or all that unusual, and there are good reasons for handling volunteerism this way.

have a superior quality volunteer corpse

Ha! I just saw that. At my last job we had a couple volunteer corpses, or so it seemed some days.

Awesome reply, miko, and parallels closely with my experience volunteering to work with the disabled.

Clarity check: no membership fee but an actual background check and training and probation periods.

Thanks, that's another good example where skill and training matter.

Ah, Miko and Ariril: your responses seems much more sensible to me than the director's discussion of how it elevated the museum's status. The status part was what I couldn't get. You guys add important points that weren't part of the public discussion I heard.

Thanks for the good responses. I've always been involved in small grass-roots groups where we were glad to have any help whatsoever!

Thanks Miko, that does make some sense. I'm used to dealing with volunteers and volunteering at a smaller scale in community groups and churches where time and enthusiasm are the only requirements.

Everything Miko said with the addition that it is in fact pretty standard. Every museum where I've worked - I'm on number three - has required or at least strongly suggested membership and they have all had an application process, etc, as detailed above.

Also, hee, volunteer corpse!! I've totally had some of those and also, wait until you read my best selling novel, Death at the Gala, in which a whole bunch of volunteers are killed off in various inventive ways by disgruntled staff. ;-)

Similarly, I read yesterday of a women's hotline agency that was losing funding for their volunteer coordinator. This is one where screening (of males anyway) is crucial.

I knew Miko would have a great response as soon as I saw the subject of this post. My thought was much like mightshould's - pay to be a volunteer?! Many thanks for explaining the other side of the coin.

wait until you read my best selling novel, Death at the Gala,

Ha! I can't wait...and for the movie version, too. Christopher Guest to direct?

There may also be a simpler explanation - the Museum's public liability insurance may be restricted to covering employees or members. On the few occasions where I have helped out with my daughters' Scout events, I have had to be made an "honorary leader" for the day so that their insurance covers me.

In Australia, there are particular restrictions on volunteering (and working) where children are involved - you have to have a "blue card", which involves a police check to make sure you don't have a history of child abuse (or at least, that you haven't been caught).

Liability insurance here wouldn't cover members, though.