The distribution of voluntary resources, sarah bulloch, sra seminar, march 2013
•Descargar como PPT, PDF•
1 recomendación•472 vistas
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (10)
Destacado
Destacado (6)
Similar a The distribution of voluntary resources, sarah bulloch, sra seminar, march 2013
Similar a The distribution of voluntary resources, sarah bulloch, sra seminar, march 2013 (20)
Más de Third Sector Research Centre
Más de Third Sector Research Centre (20)
Último
Último (20)
The distribution of voluntary resources, sarah bulloch, sra seminar, march 2013
- 1. The Third Sector in Transition: The distribution of voluntary resources 20 March 2013
- 2. Context of the research Professor John Mohan Deputy director of the Third Sector Research Centre J.Mohan@tsrc.ac.uk Presented by Sarah L. Bulloch: sarahlouisebulloch@gmail.com
- 3. Schedule for the day 2.00 Welcome and introduction- Ceridwen Roberts SRA Chair 2.10 Context of the research- John Mohan Deputy Director, TSRC 2.15 Volunteering - Sarah Bulloch & Matthew Bennett Research Fellows TSRC, University of Southampton 2.45 Q & A 3.15 Tea& coffee 3.35 Introduction - Chair 3.40 Community capacity and distribution of voluntary organisations - Rose Lindsey & David Clifford Research Fellows, TSRC, University of Southampton 4.10 Reflections on challenges for the future - John Mohan 4.15 Q & A 4.45pm close Presented by Sarah L. Bulloch: sarahlouisebulloch@gmail.com
- 4. Volunteering – sources of information • Importance of evidence base • Sources - Population surveys - bespoke qualitative sources (e.g. Pathways through Participation) - data from organisations (e.g. Charity commission reporting) Presented by Sarah L. Bulloch: sarahlouisebulloch@gmail.com
- 5. Comparing estimates (Staetsky & Mohan, TSRC Working Paper 6) • Focus on the individual not the organisation • Consistency of estimates within surveys (trends over time) • Significant differences between surveys (also Tarling 2000) 20-50% annual, 10-30% in last month • ‘Topical’ surveys provide higher estimates relative to the ‘general purpose’ surveys. Presented by Sarah L. Bulloch: sarahlouisebulloch@gmail.com
- 6. Survey evidence on volunteering • Seeking consistency • Reality of diversity across surveys - Diversity of definition: Voluntary? Reward? Context (formal/ informal)? Beneficiaries? - Rates vs. levels - Diversity of time frames - Diversity of wording - Implications? ‘True’ estimates? Best practice. Presented by Sarah L. Bulloch: sarahlouisebulloch@gmail.com
- 7. Beyond rates: Levels of engagement and the formal civic core Volunteering Civic associations Charitable giving = 1.3% of the population…. …They do 13.7% of all volunteering = 10.5 times ‘their share’ And 9.5% of all charitable giving = 7.3 times ‘their share’ And 4.7% of participation in different civic associations = 3.6 times ‘their share’ Citizenship Survey 2009-10 Presented by Sarah L. Bulloch: sarahlouisebulloch@gmail.com
- 8. Distribution of the civic core by deprivation Presented by Sarah L. Bulloch: sarahlouisebulloch@gmail.com
- 9. References • Brodie E., Hughes T., Jochum V., Miller S., Ockenden N. and Warburton D., 2011. Pathways through participation: What creates and sustains active citizenship?. London: NCVO, IVR, and Involve • Cnaan, R. A., Handy, F., & Wadsworth, M. (1996). Defining who is a volunteer: Conceptual and empirical considerations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 364. • Mohan J. and Bulloch S. 2012. ‘The idea of a ‘civic core’: what are the overlaps between charitable giving, volunteering, and civic participation in England and Wales?’ TSCR Working Paper 73. Southampton: TSRC • Staetsky & Mohan, ‘Individual voluntary participation in the United Kingdom: an overview of survey information’ TSRC Working Paper 6 • Tarling, R. 2000. Statistics on the voluntary sector in the UK, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 163: 255-261. Presented by Sarah L. Bulloch: sarahlouisebulloch@gmail.com
- 10. References • Brodie E., Hughes T., Jochum V., Miller S., Ockenden N. and Warburton D., 2011. Pathways through participation: What creates and sustains active citizenship?. London: NCVO, IVR, and Involve • Cnaan, R. A., Handy, F., & Wadsworth, M. (1996). Defining who is a volunteer: Conceptual and empirical considerations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 364. • Mohan J. and Bulloch S. 2012. ‘The idea of a ‘civic core’: what are the overlaps between charitable giving, volunteering, and civic participation in England and Wales?’ TSCR Working Paper 73. Southampton: TSRC • Staetsky & Mohan, ‘Individual voluntary participation in the United Kingdom: an overview of survey information’ TSRC Working Paper 6 • Tarling, R. 2000. Statistics on the voluntary sector in the UK, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 163: 255-261. Presented by Sarah L. Bulloch: sarahlouisebulloch@gmail.com
Notas del editor
- consistency of annual estimates of involvement in volunteering within sets of selected surveys
- Cnaan 1996 – content analysis – four dimensions common to most definitions. Dimensions range from broad to pure definitions. context: formal or informal organisational set up. Beneficiaries: known to individual or not? Then a study of people ’ s perceptions of what counts as a volunteer showed that the higher the net cost of the action and the purer the action (i.e. totally voluntary, no reward, formal context and beneficiaries unknown to individual) the more likely someone is to be seen as a volunteer. Also, the lower the social status of the individual the more likely they are to be ranked as a volunteer. INTERESTING – formal volunteering is done by more advantaged people – is this a self-selection issue?
- Identifying the highest contributors. Threshold: smallest grouping of the population who, collectively, accounted for 66% of all efforts in a particular sphere of activity.
- Regions in the UK have different compositions in terms of levels of deprivation. This has been shown to be a strong predictor of engagement. This figure shows the distribution of the core, engaged non-core and non-engaged groups arranged by the index of deprivation (IMD) for the Census output area in which individuals live. There is a strong gradient, with 45% of those living in the most prosperous 10% of localities being part of the core, (about the same proportion being engaged although not to the extent necessary to be considered core engagers, and only 11% being recorded as non-engaged on these formal dimensions.) Conversely, less than a fifth of individuals living in the most disadvantaged areas are part of the core, and the non-engaged constitute a third of the population in these areas.