 | Table of Contents |
 | LRB Studies |
In an attempt to obtain data relating to liability issues regarding volunteers, nonprofit organizations and government agencies and their employees that rely on the services of volunteers, the Bureau sent out separate surveys to nonprofit organizations that use volunteers and to the Attorney General and to the respective county attorney or corporations counsel. Part I of this chapter discusses the responses from the nonprofit organizations. Part II presents the responses from the State and counties.
PART I: SURVEY RESULTS OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
A total of forty nonprofit organizations in Hawaii were identified for the Bureau's survey. A copy of the survey sent to these nonprofit organizations appears as Appendix C. An attempt was made to select a variety of nonprofit organizations, such as those focusing on health, the indigent, children, education, social services, social, civic activities, and sports. However, emphasis for the most part was on the larger or well-known nonprofit organizations to ensure sufficient reliance on volunteers. Twenty-seven of the nonprofit organizations contacted responded to the Bureau's survey. Of these, two indicated they do not use volunteers in any capacity. A summary of the responses of the remaining twenty-five nonprofit organizations follows. One caveat should be made. In some cases, the number of responses for a particular question do not add up to twenty-five because some questions were inapplicable to or were otherwise left unanswered by a respondent.
(1) The number of employees per nonprofit organization broke down as follows:
No. of Respondents No. of Employees
1 no response 1 none 2 between 1 and 10 5 between 11 and 20 4 between 21 and 30 2 between 31 and 40 1 between 41 and 50 4 between 50 and 100 2 between 100 and 200 2 between 200 and 300 1 between 3,000 and 4,000
(2) The number of volunteers per nonprofit organization broke down as follows:
No. of Respondents No. of Volunteers
2 one 3 between 5 and 20 1 up to 50 1 between 50 and 100
57
VOLUNTEER LIABILITY ISSUES
No. of Respondents No. of Volunteers
4 between 100 and 200 3 between 200 and 300 2 between 300 and 400 1 between 400 and 500 2 between 700 and 800 1 approximately 900 1 between 1,000 and 2,000 3 between 2,000 and 3,000 1 between 5,000 and 6,000
(3) The nature and scope of activities performed by volunteers included the following: fundraising; serving as an officer or member of a board of directors; policy making; program planning; administrative duties, including developing and implementing policy and procedures; clerical duties, including copying and bulk mailings; telephoning; newsletter production, including editing and layout; sorting, stocking and distribution of donations; food services; hotline educators; special projects or special events; teaching skills or classes; one to one mentoring; contributing skills or sharing specific services; child care; financial assistance; driving or delivery; theater production and live theater activities, including box office and ushering; assistance to elderly; light patient care or respite; companionship; animal care and adoption counseling; animal-assisted therapy; general household chores, cleaning, and maintenance; staffing information desks, gift shops, book carts, libraries, classrooms; guest relations; staffing thrift-type shop and storeroom work; working with children and young people.
(4) Volunteers are supervised by a variety of individuals, including: director of volunteers or a volunteer coordinator; department head or manager; director of operations; area supervisor; business manager; program coordinator, manager or director; paid or professional staff member; board member; committee chairperson; or other volunteers. In addition, several respondents, particularly those affiliated with a national organization, noted that they have written policies, procedures or guidelines in place to help train and guide volunteers. A few respondents noted that volunteers are not directly supervised, but are expected to operate independently within established or written guidelines.
(5) Thirteen nonprofit organizations reported having a risk prevention or safety program in place; ten indicated they have no such program in effect.
(6) Twenty-two nonprofit organizations responded that they have never been sued or threatened with suit because of an action of a volunteer. Three answered in the affirmative.
(7) These three indicated the nature of the suit and outcome as follows:
(a) "Dealing with children"
(b) Plaintiff injured by elevator door while being pushed in wheelchair by volunteer. Ended in settlement.
(c) Plaintiff injured while setting-up for a special event. Still pending.
(8) Twenty-three nonprofit organizations indicated they know of no organization in Hawaii that has been sued or threatened with suit because of the action of a volunteer. Two did not answer the question.
(9) Eighteen nonprofit organizations replied they have liability insurance that applies to the actions of their volunteers. Seven reported they do not have liability insurance applicable to their volunteers; however, of these, four are self-insured. One organization that has neither liability coverage for volunteers nor is self insured reported that "we can no longer afford to carry it; we used to have it but with current cuts in budgets we dropped it out of necessity." Another organization indicated coverage was not necessary because the organization relied upon only one volunteer and has no employees. (This organization was the only one to indicate, in response to a later question that, for three same reasons, it carries no liability insurance whatsoever.)
(10) Fourteen nonprofit organizations responded that their liability policy covers injuries to a volunteer, as distinct from actions by a volunteer. Seven responded that injuries to volunteers are not covered under their liability policy; but four of these indicated that such injuries are covered under a separate accident policy, workers' compensation policy, or the volunteers' personal policy.
(11) Twelve nonprofit organizations replied that there are no major exclusions to their liability policy. Of the ten nonprofit organizations that answered in the affirmative, they reported the following exclusions: employment related and workers' compensation claims; professional services; non-owned auto; limited contractual liability; off-site accidents; fire; medical payments; products liability/completed operations.
(12) Seven of the nonprofit organizations indicated that all, most or some of these exclusions are covered under another type of insurance policy in effect for the organization.
(13) Twenty-two nonprofit organizations replied that they have directors and officers liability coverage. Of the two that confirmed they did not, one indicated it is not needed and the other stated that it is not necessary in view of the expense.
(14) Although several organizations responded that they had experienced a large increase in insurance premiums during the last five years, only two were referring to a significant increase in general liability premiums. One of these reported that premiums for both general liability and workers' compensation had increased 25 percent. While the other did not indicate the amount of increase, its concern was obviously, as evidenced by its comments. "[W]e pay approximately $14,000 a year for the privilege [of having liability insurance] and another $12,000 for workmens compensation.... [M]ost of us realize that the State could if they got their act together do something about it." Two respondents indicated they were unsure whether the organization had experienced any significant increase in the cost of premiums. Judging from their comments, a number of nonprofit organizations were clearly concerned with the high cost of insurance, especially for workers' compensation coverage, and seven reported a large increase in workers' compensation premiums. In addition, two indicated they had experienced an increase only in property insurance premiums (one stated the increase was a result of Hurricane Iniki); one reported an increase for a special event cancellation policy (this also was attributed to Hurricane Iniki); and one indicated an increase for directors and officers liability insurance. Ten nonprofit organizations answered that they had experienced no significant increase in the cost of liability insurance.
(15) Twenty nonprofit organizations responded that they have never had their insurer refuse to renew a policy. Of the three that replied yes to this question, the reasons given for the refusal to renew were as follows: one said the insurer was "going under"; one cited the financial instability of the nonprofit organization four years ago; and one explained that their insurer discontinued carrying workers' compensation policies.
(16) Only one nonprofit organization reported that an insurer had reduced coverage, in this case by excluding "wind coverage." Twenty-three responded no to this question.
(17) Twenty-one nonprofit organizations indicated that they have never had an insurance claim filed because of the action of a volunteer. Two responded that they have each had one claim filed. In both cases, the nature of the claim was personal injury; and one indicated the claim was for medical costs only and was for a "small amount."
(18) Only two indicated they are members of a risk retention group; one of these was referring to a workers' compensation high risk pool.
(19) Only seven nonprofit organizations responded that they are familiar with the concept of a risk retention group. Of these, five reported that they have not considered joining such a group for one of the following reasons: no risk retention group exists in Hawaii under which the organization would fit; funds not available; insufficient number of nonprofits in Hawaii to make it worthwhile, especially given that insurance policies are available; have not sufficiently investigated the possibility; organization is self- insured and prefers commercial carriers for excess coverage needed.
(20) Eight nonprofit organizations responded that they are self-insured for liability purposes.
(21) In response to the question whether the organization has ever been unable to obtain insurance coverage, one nonprofit organization indicated it had to look for a new carrier when its insurer "bailed out of the market," but was eventually able to find another carrier. Twenty-four nonprofit organizations answered no.
PART II: RESPONSES FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE COUNTIES
Copies of the questionnaires sent to the Attorney General and to the county attorney or corporations counsel appear as Appendices D and E, respectively. Only the Attorney General, the Corporation Counsel for Hawaii County and the County Attorney for Kauai County provided written responses to the Bureau's questionnaires. Their responses are summarized in the remainder of this part.
The Attorney General reported that state agencies routinely comply with the requirement to report the number of volunteers that are working for the agency. Kauai County has a similar reporting requirement; Hawaii County does not.
According to the Governor's Office of State Volunteer Services latest report, which covers fiscal year 1993-1994, a total of 255,638 volunteers provided services to various state agencies. See Appendix F. Kauai County reported one volunteer in the Prosecuting Attorney's Office. Hawaii County had no information available on the number of volunteers used by county agencies.
Both the State and Kauai County have a risk prevention or safety program that includes minimizing risk with volunteers. Hawaii County has a risk prevention or safety program, but no part of the program is designed to minimize risk with volunteers.
Both the State and Kauai County have written requirements or guidelines concerning supervision of agency volunteers. These are contained in Appendices C and H.
The Kauai County Attorney reported the following limits on the nature and scope of activities performed by volunteers: "Volunteers cannot be used to supplement regular workers. Volunteers can be used only in departments/agencies where no vacant positions exist under the County's volunteer utilization program."
The Attorney General replied that, although she is aware of no instance in which a state agency has ever been sued or threatened with suit because of an action of a volunteer, a volunteer has sued the State for an injury incurred when the volunteer fell from a tower maintained by the University of Hawaii.281
The Hawaii County Corporation Counsel reported that a claim recently has been filed because of the alleged action of volunteers at a Halloween event run by the Parks department. It is alleged that the volunteers became intoxicated and harassed minors present at the event. A lawsuit is anticipated and potential liability is projected at $10,000.
The Attorney General reported that a deputy attorney general has had occasion to advise a seminar audience of the state policy concerning use by state agencies of volunteers, including that departments should have a register of volunteers, should train them, and should supervise them just as closely as employees. The Kauai County Attorney responded that county agencies have been advised concerning the limits on the use of volunteers noted previously. The Hawaii County Corporation Counsel indicated that agencies have been advised concerning use of volunteers, but that it would be "too time-consuming to look for opinions" and that the "attorney-client privilege may bar disclosure anyway."
Finally, the Attorney General noted the following concern over the use of volunteers by state agencies: "State departments may not be registering, training, and supervising volunteers as well as they should be." The Hawaii County Corporation Counsel also acknowledged concern over the use of volunteers by county agencies, including whether the County would "owe them County- provided counsel if they are sued."
|
| Table of Contents |
| LRB Studies |