Time Use Survey Data .

The second type of data available for estimating the amount of volunteer work is that generated through Time Use Surveys (TUS).[1] These surveys, conducted by national statistical offices in many countries, collect

Table 2.1 Full-time equivalent (FTE) organization-based volunteers as a share of the total economically active population (EAP), 43 countries (CNP)

Country

FTE Volunteers as % of EAP

Western Developed

Australia

2.9

Austria

5.6

Belgium

3.4

Canada

3.2

Denmark

3.9

Finland

3.1

France

3.1

Germany

3.0

Ireland

2.3

Italy

1.8

Netherlands

5.8

New Zealand

6.4

Norway

4.5

Portugal

1.3

Spain

1.5

Sweden

7.0

Switzerland

2.6

United Kingdom

5.8

United States

3.0

Eastern Europe and Russia

Czech Republic

0.3

Hungary

0.4

Poland

0.2

Romania

0.4

Russia

0.4

Slovakia

0.3

Latin America

Argentina

2.7

Brazil

0.6

Chile

2.4

Colombia

0.5

Mexico

1.5

Peru

0.8

Asia

India

0.8

Japan

1.5

Pakistan

0.4

Philippines

1.2

Korea, Republic of

1.7

Africa and Middle East

Egypt

0.1

Israel

1.5

Table 2.1 (continued)

Country

FTE Volunteers as % of EAP

Kenya

0.8

Morocco

0.8

South Africa

1.7

Tanzania

1.4

Uganda

1.4

Average

2.2

Standard deviation

1.8

Skewness

1.10

Source : Johns Hopkins University, Center for Civil Society Studies

information on the amount of time people allocate to their everyday life activities. TUSs use a very rigorous methodology to record the exact duration of a wide range of well-defined activities and reconcile these reports with the 24-h time frame, which provides a powerful “reality check” guarding against overreporting activities that may put the respondents in a favorable light (such as helping others or volunteering). Survey respondents are asked to compile a diary of their daily activities by relatively short, 30-min time intervals over the course of an entire week to capture both workday and weekend activities.[2] [3]

Of particular interest to us is the TUS activity category titled “Community services and help to other households,” which includes volunteering for organizations, various forms of community work, informal help to other households, as well as auxiliary activities (i.e., travel and waiting).11 For our purposes here, we included as forms of “direct volunteering” all activities listed in this category except for “volunteering with or for an organization,” “travel related to community services,” and “waiting for community services.” This embraces a wide assortment of different types of activity that could conceivably be considered to be direct volunteering. As just one example, in the time use survey used by the Pakistan statistical office, the following activities were separately listed under the category of “community services and help to other households”: “community organized construction and repairs”; “cleaning of classrooms”; “community work such as cooking for collective celebrations”; “cooking for school nutrition programs”; “involvement in civic activities, rallies”; “caring for nonhousehold children”; “caring for nonhousehold sick, disabled, or elderly adults”; “other informal help to other households”; and “other community services not elsewhere classified.”[4] (For further detail and for a parallel list from the South Africa Time Use Survey, see Annex A).

With the help of documents compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the website of the Harmonised European Time Use Survey, and individual country web sites, we were able to identify 33 countries reporting TUS results in which direct volunteering as defined here was separately reported and could thus be measured.[5] Table 2.2 records the data that emerged from this search. What this table shows is that the scale of direct volunteering, measured here as the average minutes per day of direct volunteering per person in the country, varies considerably across regions, but that, like organization-based volunteering, it seems to be more pronounced in the more developed regions than in the less developed ones.

  • [1] Alternative data sources include opinion surveys, such as the Gallup World Giving Index, theInternational Social Survey Programme, or the Eurobarometer (for a review see Einolf, 2011).However, we believe that existing opinion surveys are far less reliable than TUS for the reasonsexplained earlier in this chapter.
  • [2] For further details about the methodological approaches and range of activities measured by TUSs
  • [3] see the United Nations Statistics Division website:http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/timeuse/tus-resource.htm, and http://unstats.un.org/UNSD/demographic/sconcerns/tuse/default.aspx“Annex A shows typical details of “Community services and help to other households” activitiesused in TUS methodology.
  • [4] Government of Pakistan, Statistics Division, Federal Bureau of Statistics, Time Use Survey 2007,Islamabad, 2009.
  • [5] Although a far greater number of countries conducted time use surveys, the results are eitherunavailable, inaccessible, or lacking sufficient detail. For further information on sources of data,see: OECD http://www.oecd.org/gender/data/OECD_1564_TUSupdatePortal.xls; HarmonisedEuropean Time Use Survey, https://www.h5.scb.se/tus/tus/Statistics.html; Government of Pakistan,Statistics Division, Federal Bureau of Statistics, Islamabad, 2009.
 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >