Details

Published: 30 November 2011

Payment

The question of payment is a complicated issue that arouses many debates: should peer workers get paid or not?

There are arguments for both points of view, although, over time, most agencies and peers have come out in favour of decent compensation or  a salary for peer work.

“In any case, we think that the heart of this principle lies not so much in the realm of dollars as sense and sensibility. We’re talking about equality as a matter of point of view, attitude, approach and how we communicate with constituent”
Annie Madden, in ‘A framework for peer education by drug-user organisations’, AIVL

“Like anyone who works we want to be compensated.  Withholding wages - money to consumers or drug users based upon assumptions they will spend it on drugs is prejudicial and absurd.  What you or any worker spends their earned wages on is thier business.  The only concern an employer should have is if the employee is capable of providing or conducting assigned tasks to satisfactory standards.  Furthermore compensating drug users with items other than cash goes against the principles of harm reduction.  Many, not all will be subjected to endure additional hardships to sell or trade what was given to them for cash. That's not a nice way to say thanks for the work they have provided.”

Jason Farrell, AIDS activist and harm reduction consultant, United States/The Netherlands

Arguments in favour of payment

• Fair compensation. Peer work is different from a regular job, but takes time, and time is money.  Peers’ time is as valuable as anyone else’s and compensation should be a standard practice.  A salary might give them the financial opportunity to take another step in stabilising their life, rent a house, travel to see their family, and so on.  Compensation for peer work is a general rule in most agencies, although many (also) still use voluntary peer workers.  An agency that involves peers may compensate them in similar ways to other contractors:
  • An honorarium can be used to pay for one-off, part-time or short- term work.  The requirements and activities for the work need to be described in a job description.
  • For long-term work, a salary and a contract describing roles and responsibilities are needed.
• General interest. The contribution of peer workers is in the general interest.  As other health or social workers get paid for their work, why not pay drug users for the same work?
• Sound employment practice. Especially in case of peer support embedded in a professional organisation, it seems fair that drug users should be paid for their work.  If an organisation chooses to employ a drug user to perform (part of) the organisation's health/social task, the drug users are then employees.
• Sustainability. Paying drug users for peer support can have positive effects:  payment can be of importance for the desired continuity of peer workers’ work. Payment can also be seen as an acknowledgement of drug users as competent and professional workers.

Arguments against payment
While the vast majority of agencies (and peers) prefer a regular payment, there are others who prefer contributions to be voluntary.  The main reasons for this are:

• Self-interest. Peer support is in the interest of drug users themselves, so why pay drug users in situations where the work of other interest groups is not paid?
• Undermines credibility. Paying peers for their involvement can change other people’s perception of a peer’s role and status.  It can have negative effects:  it can complicate relations and undermine the credibility (instead of making it more clear and transparent) in the sense that drug users who are paid for their work are no longer seen as trustworthy by their peers.  Their position has changed.
• Loss of independence. Payment can mean that peers lose their independence.  A paid peer might have to conform to the dictates of a funding organisation, and, for example, not be allowed to plea for the decriminalisation of drug use.
• Financing drug use. Money might be spent on drugs. Which is not necessarily a problem, depending on the attitude and expectation of the hiring agency, but still might give issues if not addressed well. In any case it should be communicated well that the agency is not liable or otherwise responsible for the spending of the payment on illicit drugs.
• Can affect State benefits. Payment for small amounts of work can affect state unemployment other other allowances.
• Requires additional support. Payment exposes drug users to bank accounts, income tax etc, which they may not have dealt with for a long time, and they may need support to deal with it all.
• Burden of costs. Payment can make a project expensive.