The Use of Full-Time Volunteers and Interns by Natural-Resource Professionals

The natural-resource profession relies on volunteers and interns—who are typically compensated at levels far below minimum wage—to carry out many research, management, and conservation activities. In some cases these positions involve part-time or short-term service, during which an individual need not forego outside opportunities for paid work. Such experiences can be rewarding and educational and are filled by students, retirees, vacationers, individuals working full time in other professions, and amateur naturalists. Because these individuals usually have an outside source of income and their time commitment is limited, their service is unlikely to lead to financial hardship. Many other volunteer and internship positions require that individuals live in remote areas and work 40 hours per week, effectively denying them the opportunity to earn outside wages. Most often these full-time positions are filled by aspiring natural-resource professionals ( e.g., students or recent graduates ) who need workplace experience if they are to advance to graduate school or more lucrative jobs. Consequently, employers often consider work experience adequate compensation for wage shortfalls. This latter group—entry-level professionals in full-time positions—is the focus of this essay. I believe that our widespread use of volunteers and interns to compensate for budget shortfalls does our profession more harm than good. In many cases this approach is in conflict with labor law, hinders the development of new professionals, undermines our profession’s credibility, and is an impediment to achieving our conservation goals. Evidence that I am not alone in my concern was provided by a recent debate on this topic on The Wildlife Society’s email discussion list (TWS-L@listserv.vt.edu; October 25–30, 2001; 70 postings by 50 members). Although a minority of contributors spoke out in defense of the status quo, many more were sharply critical of our current use of volunteers and interns. How extensive is our use of subminimum-wage positions? As an example, I reviewed all positions offered on Texas A&M University’s on-line fish and wildlife job board on 14 November 2001 (Table 1 ), which is currently considered the most complete job listing for fisheries and wildlife professionals in North America. Thirtythree percent of the 267 entry-level positions offered were listed as internship or volunteer opportunities, and only three internships offered stipends exceeding minimum wage (Table 1). Many other positions, typically referred to as “technicians,” also paid less than minimum wage, meaning that 40% of entry-level positions listed paid below this standard (Table 1). These positions were offered by a diverse group of organizations, including federal and state agencies, national parks, universities, branches of the military, private companies, and nonprofit conservation groups. Many included some nonmonetary benefits such as housing or academic credit, but stipends were generally so low that even with this support compensation did not approach minimum wage. Employers receive obvious monetary benefits when paying less than minimum wage, whereas workers can benefit by gaining workplace experience, professional exposure, and satisfaction from service. But do these benefits come at a price? Starting at the level of the individual and moving outward, several important costs can be incurred by our current treatment of volunteers and interns, including (1) undue personal hardship, (2) exclusion of potentially valuable individuals based on economic class, (3) failure to meet society’s legal and ethical expectations, and (4) devaluation of natural resources and impedance of conservation.