Responses
to July 2007 Hot Topic
Have
we got it wrong?
Response
posted on November 3rd 2007 by Jennie Holdom, Australia
I think the
Census was the wrong way to go about this issue of
how many people volunteer. It would be better if the
number of people formal volunteering was capture through
the organisations they volunteer with. E.g once every
say 12 months on a set date all organisations engaging
volunteers submitted the number of volunteers they
currently had registered, and the category they fall
into. There would be issues of some sporting groups
etc only running for part of the year, for them it
would be the number of volunteers they had for the
season. Volunteer organisations need to have insurance
this may be a way of collecting this data, volunteer
referral centres may be able to play a role in this
collection of data I guess there would be a lot of
issues with this method but it would also have a lot
of benefits. Just putting a thought out there!
Response
posted on July 9th 2007 by Margaret Guy, Australia
Yes,I agree
that the questions on the census are exclusive and
confusing.
Why cannot corporate volunteering and mandatory volunteering
be included with the census figures?It is still contributing
to VOLUNTEERING
Also there are numerous examples of volunteers re
school tuck shops,taking children for reading/sport
etc,also volunteering to contribute in any way to
a church/school community.I agree with you that there
are numerous occasions of volunteering re neighborhood
contributions of mowing lawns,doing shopping,bringing
in mail,garbage and caring for elderly/disabled.
I
suggest a good test.
Let
all the volunteers in the country go on a holiday
for 1 week and see how the country copes.
Response
posted on July 5th 2007 by Jonathon Cushing, UK
The primary
concern about the topic appears to be the inconsistency
between the survey results. The general attack has
been on the actual survey question. What appears to
be interesting is that the same survey question was
asked in both surveys, however they received significantly
different results. If we assume that both populations
had equal understanding of the survey question, than
we should seek to answer this difference.
I suspect the culprit for these differences is the
sampling strategies used in both surveys. These should
be compared and can possible explain away the difference
due to sampling of different populations, which introduced
a sampling bias.
If
we have a valid survey question and the sampling strategies
are representative of the population, then the generalization
that overall there is a decline in volunteering in
Australia, but South Australia is experiencing a rise
in volunteering. Both surveys can show accurate results.
These results are particularly interesting because
a number of regions would have to loose an even greater
percentage of volunteers to compensate for the increase
in South Australia.
If
this is true, we really need to explain the difference
using two mechanisms. The first mechanism to explain
why there is a general decline in Australian volunteering.
The second mechanism is to explain why there is an
increase in South Australia or why South Australia
is unaffected by the first mechanism.
Is
there any other evidence out there to support why
other regions show a significant decline in volunteering,
while South Australia increased its volunteering?
Response
posted on July 3rd 2007 by Lynn Fisher, CEO, Volunteering
WA, Perth
Those who are so called 'corporate
volunteers' and those fulfilling 'mutual benefits'
for a Centrelink payment are not 'volunteers' in the
sense of doing work without any financial payment.
They
are all being 'paid' directly or indirectly to do
'community service' so they are not volunteering.
The ATO's question does select 'out' these people,
as it should do.
Response
posted on July 3rd 2007 by Michelle Hodshon, Volunteer
Services Coordinator, City of Salisbury, South Australia
A very interesting
article. My initial thoughts are that the person(s)
who developed the question really did not understand
the current nature of volunteering. I recognise that
the data does identify a particular group, however
overwhelmingly I feel that it has been a missed opportunity.
Response
posted on July 3rd 2007 by Brian Dubois
I would like
to refer to the supposed increase in the South Australian
statistics.
It was interesting in that one week the volunteering
rate was in the forties and it was estimated that
it would take several years to reach the magical 50%
figure. A couple of weeks later it reached the 51%.
This was not an increase in the number of people volunteering
but the number of people on record as volunteering.
These can be two different things.
Why can't people treat statistics like a hand grenade
with the safety pin removed. They can hurt of lot
of people if not handled with extreme care.
"There are lies, there are damned lies , there
are statistics and then there are political statements".
Let's
hear what you think!
Return
to current month's Hot
Topic
Visit
this month’s ‘Hot
Topic’ on the Energize web site
The
contents of this Hot Topic are copyright © 2003
- 2006 OzVPM.
You may reproduce this Hot Topic in part or in full
on the condition that the author, source and website
address (www.ozvpm.com)
are quoted.
|
