I was interviewed for a paid contractor position as a group leader. The interview was fine.
I have over fifteen years of experience working with children and families in a variety of settings. I have a degree in early childhood education.
I was not accepted for this position because they were looking for someone "more direct experience in group facilitation and group management. "
Though a lack of experience was cited as the reason I was not accepted for this position, it was stated that I would be eligible for essentially the same position as a volunteer.
There were some differences in the volunteer job (training was required, the hours were less and you may or may not be paired with a co-leader while you gain experience.) A much lower level of experience was required for the volunteer position, However, the jobs had essentially the same functions and duties (leading/facilitating a parent support group.)
I believe that this sends mixed messages about what they value in their group leaders. It seems to be that they prioritize free labor over having experienced/educated leaders.
I question whether or not it is ethical to offer essentially the same position both paid and unpaid and to have two different sets of requirements.
Participants of the parent groups pay a fee of approximately $200 to participate in a twelve week session. On their website, there is a page titled "Understanding our Program Fees" with a heading "Where Does My Money Go?"
This page states the following:
"Group leaders facilitate more than 277 Newborn Groups – and lead over 3,200 meetings – each year. That’s an average of 9.5 meetings each day in our community."
Because they seem to be prioritizing unpaid labor for the group leader role, it seems a bit misleading that this is the first thing listed under "Where Does My Money Go?"
While I think that PEPS has a great mission and is very helpful for new parents in many ways, I would recommend that they re-examine their hiring and volunteer policies.
Many of the group leaders are parents (specifically moms) who were former participants in the groups. Statistically, women take a hit to their earning potential after they have children. To see an organization whose mission is to support parents go out of their way to obtain free labor from women/moms who are historically underpaid (or not paid) for their labor or skills is unsettling to say the least.
