Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on the
Charitable Sector
Issue No. 4 - Evidence - June 4, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, June 4, 2018
The Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector met this day at 4 p.m. to examine the impact of federal and provincial laws and policies governing charities, nonprofit organizations, foundations, and other similar groups; and to examine the impact of the voluntary sector in Canada.
Senator Terry M. Mercer (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I welcome you to this meeting of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector. I am Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia, chair of the committee.
I would like to start by asking senators to introduce themselves, beginning with the deputy chair.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar from Ontario.
Senator R. Black: Rob Black from Ontario.
Senator Frum: Linda Frum from Ontario.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh from Ontario.
The Chair: As you can see, I will be holding up the rest of the country while we have these four from Ontario. Other honourable senators are on their way as well. That will help me fight the hordes from Ontario. Thank you, colleagues.
Today the committee will continue its study to examine the impact of federal and provincial laws and policies governing charities, non-profit organizations, foundations and other similar groups and to examine the impact of the voluntary sector in Canada. For this meeting, we will focus on volunteering — a very important part of the study.
As our witnesses today we have, from Statistics Canada, Pamela Best, Assistant Director, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division; and this is her second straight appearance, going for the frequent flyer points for this committee. So far, you are in the lead. With her is Patric Fournier-Savard, Survey Manager and Analyst, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division. It is good to see both of you again. From Service Canada, we have Alan Bulley, Director General, Labour Market and Social Development Program Operations; and Brent Bauer, Director, Canada Service Corps. Finally, we have Debra Basil, Professor, Marketing, University of Lethbridge. Thank you for accepting our invitation to appear.
I would like to invite the witnesses to make their presentations, and I would like to remind everyone to be succinct in your answers to the questions. Senators, I will be monitoring our time so that we can all get our questions in and have a fair and open discussion.
Pamela Best, Assistant Director, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, Statistics Canada: Thank you to the honourable senators for our third appearance here at this committee. My second.
The first time Statistics Canada was here was to present the economic importance of the not-for-profit sector and its contribution to Canada’s gross domestic product. Last week we described the behaviour of individual Canadians in making charitable donations.
Today, I will summarize the main findings of the reports that accompanied Statistics Canada’s recent release of data on volunteering. These statistics are mainly from the 2013 General Social Survey: Giving, volunteering and participating. We will begin collecting data on the next phase of this survey in the fall, and the new data will be released in 2019.
I will begin my presentation with an overview of the main findings of the survey, the number and proportion of volunteers as well as the number of hours volunteered. I will also present a demographic and socio-economic profile of the volunteers and the evolution of this in recent years. I will then paint a portrait of the main types of charitable and non-profit organizations for which Canadians do volunteer work, and I will conclude with an examination of the reasons why people do or do not volunteer.
[Translation]
Before I begin with the results and statistics, I would like to say a few words about the definitions and concepts used in the General Survey on Giving, Volunteering and Participating.
There can be confusion at times as to the definition of volunteering. Some people mistakenly think that helping a neighbour do maintenance work around the house is volunteering. In the General Survey, we gave respondents a list of fourteen activities they could participate in, such as being a spokesperson, doing fundraising or serving on a committee or a board. A person is considered a volunteer as soon as they reply that they have done at least one such activity without being paid, for the benefit of a group or organization.
[English]
In 2013, 12.7 million Canadians, or 44 per cent of those aged 15 and over, did some form of volunteer work on behalf of a group or organization. Women were more likely than men to volunteer, with 45 per cent of women compared with 42 per cent of men.
As illustrated in the infographic that you should have in your package, Canadians spent approximately 1.96 billion hours volunteering in 2013, which is the equivalent of 1 million full-time, full-year jobs.
The most frequently mentioned activities in which volunteers took part were in organization, supervision or coordination of events with fundraising for an organization or group as the second-most common volunteer activity, followed by participation in a committee or council. Many volunteers, however, engaged in more than one type of activity.
The types of activities also vary by gender. Women were more involved in fundraising and event organization and health care delivery, while men were twice as likely to offer coaching and maintenance or repair services.
Many volunteers offer their services to carry out activities for which they already have expertise or experience. However, we also see that people feel that volunteering allows them to develop skills or upgrade existing skills.
The most frequently mentioned skills that people sought to upgrade or develop were interpersonal skills followed by communication skills and organization and management skills.
Now that we have a sense of how much time volunteers contribute to organizations and what activities they perform, I would like to look at the patterns of volunteering between 2004 and 2013.
In general, it is difficult to identify a clear trend in the evolution of the proportion of volunteers during this period. We saw the rate of volunteering increasing every year the survey was conducted from 45 per cent in 2004 to a peak of 47 per cent in 2010.
This proportion, however, fell back to 44 per cent in 2013. We will have to wait until the results from the upcoming cycle of the survey are available to determine whether this decrease in the proportion of volunteers from 2010 to 2013 is a fluctuation or whether it signals the beginning of a new trend.
Last week, we discussed the impact of an aging population, a profile of donors and the amounts they donate, with charitable contributions of those aged 75 and older being $300 more than those aged 35 to 44 in 2013.
We see this age difference reflected to a degree in the voluntary sector as well. Although seniors are less likely to volunteer in general, they provide more volunteer hours. You can see this, as well, in the infographic. In 2013, 38 per cent of people aged 65 to 74 volunteered, compared with 48 per cent of those aged 35 to 44. On the other hand, those aged between 65 and 74 volunteered an average of 231 hours, almost double the number of hours of the 35 to 44 age group.
How does this affect the trends we are seeing? With the aging of the population, the share of all volunteer hours provided by older Canadians is also increasing. Fewer than 10 years ago, those aged 35 to 44 were the demographic segment providing the most hours of volunteer work. In 2013, it was mostly people aged 55 and over. Specifically, the proportion of total volunteer hours provided by people over 55 increased from 31 per cent to 39 per cent in 2013.
As you can also see in your infographic, the proportion of volunteers aged 35 to 55 remained relatively stable between 2004 and 2013.
The data don’t permit us to do a true cohort analysis, but if you look at the percentage of volunteers broken down by smaller age groups over the 11 years the survey was conducted, we see that as these groups get slightly older, the rate of volunteering decreases. For example, 65 per cent of those aged 15 to 19 in 2004 volunteered, and 37 per cent of those aged 24 to 28 volunteered. But if you look across the 11 years of the survey, the percentage of volunteers 15 to 19 is steady, between 65 and 66 per cent. We see more variability, though, in the population aged 24 to 29, with a low of 35 per cent of this age group volunteering in 2004 to a high of 41 per cent in 2010.
We can also examine the effect of volunteering in high school in promoting volunteering behaviour in the future. About 52 per cent of those aged 18 and over in 2007 said they volunteered in high school compared with 37 per cent of those who had not.
I will now address the types of organizations or groups for which Canadians are most likely to volunteer. While there are some similarities, the types of organizations that Canadians are most likely to volunteer with are not always the same as organizations they will give the most money to. An example of this is in the area of sports and recreation. Such organizations receive less than $200 million in donations, which is much less than other types of organizations. However, from a volunteer perspective, sports and recreation organizations, along with those in social services, were the ones that benefited the most from the voluntary participation of Canadians. For example, in 2013, 18 per cent of all volunteer hours provided during the year were for the benefit of sports and recreation organizations.
On the other hand, while only 2 per cent of Canadians volunteered for international organizations, they were the fourth-largest type of organization in terms of donor dollars.
I will turn now to the reasons people do not volunteer. In 2013, we saw that both men and women cited lack of time as the main obstacle to volunteering, with 66 per cent citing this reason. Even among those who did volunteer, lack of time was the main reason they did not provide more hours. More than half of the non-volunteers chose to donate money to a group or charity rather than doing volunteer work.
Barriers to volunteering change over time. Among people under the age of 55, lack of time was by far the biggest barrier to volunteering, being cited by three quarters of non-volunteers in this age group. People over 55 were less likely to report lack of time but were more likely to report health problems or that they preferred to give money rather than time.
The most common barriers to volunteering have remained relatively constant over time, although the proportion of non-volunteers reporting a lack of interest in volunteering has increased from 23 per cent in 2004 to 29 per cent in 2013. In addition, there was an increase in the proportion of non-volunteers indicating that no one had invited them to volunteer, from 40 per cent in 2004 to 49 per cent in 2013.
[Translation]
Close to half of all Canadians volunteer. In doing so, they help preserve and improve the quality of community life. In addition to making a considerable economic contribution, volunteering can help strengthen social capital, meaning trust, reciprocity and a sense of belonging in Canadian communities.
In addition to benefitting the community, volunteering can also contribute to the well-being of the volunteers themselves by giving them an opportunity to improve their skills and knowledge and expand their work experience. For all these reasons, the Statistics Canada General Survey will continue to track the evolution of Canadians’ volunteer work. As you know, the next data will be collected this coming September.
Thank you. My colleague, Patric Fournier-Savard, and I will be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Alan Bulley, Director General, Labour Market and Social Development Program Operations, Service Canada: Thank you for inviting us and for the opportunity to inform your important work on the charitable and voluntary sectors.
[English]
As Director General of Labour Market and Social Development Program Operations at ESDC, I co-lead with my policy colleagues on the implementation of the Canada Service Corps on behalf of my minister, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour, the Honourable Patty Hajdu; and the Prime Minister and Minister of Youth, the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau.
I am accompanied by Brent Bauer, Director of the Canada Service Corps. I’m pleased we’re appearing before the committee alongside representatives from StatsCan and Volunteer Canada, two of our partners in designing and implementing the Canada Service Corps.
I would like to use my time today to outline how the Canada Service Corps is being designed to address some of the trends and challenges in youth volunteerism and the voluntary sector that you may have heard at this committee in your previous sessions and which my colleague from Statistics Canada, Pamela Best, outlined for you earlier.
The development of a youth service program was included in the mandate letter of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour in collaboration with the Minister of Youth. The Government of Canada is committed to promoting a vision of Canada where youth are actively engaged with communities and society and carry this through into later stages of life, supporting a culture of service, civic engagement and global citizenship.
Budget 2016 proposed a financial commitment for youth service, and Budget 2017 confirmed the launch of the Youth Service Initiative, including a call for proposals. The YSI was later rebranded to the Canada Service Corps, or CSC.
On January 16 of this year, the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Youth), the Honourable Peter Schiefke, launched an 18-month design phase for the Canada Service Corps in dialogue with youth service leaders across the country via an Instagram live event. This design phase is meant to engage young Canadians in exploring and testing innovative approaches to expand the visibility and accessibility of youth service opportunities. This is a program that is being shaped by youth for youth to ensure it is aligned with the needs of young people. To date, we have directly engaged approximately 500 youth, with many more to come, on what they want to see in the Prime Minister’s flagship program.
The Canada Service Corps is about creating a culture of service where young Canadians have access to meaningful service opportunities. The Prime Minister’s vision for the Canada Service Corps is that all youth wanting to serve their country should be offered the opportunity to do so. Because not every young Canadian has an equal opportunity to serve in their community, the Canada Service Corps will focus on youth who have traditionally faced barriers to participation: Indigenous youth, youth with disabilities, rural and remote youth, newcomer youth and LGBTQ2 youth.
I would like to pause here to make an important distinction between the terms “volunteering” and “service.” The Prime Minister has been clear that his vision for the Canada Service Corps is about service. By this he means that young Canadians have an intensive experience with diverse groups of peers of a sufficient duration, often over 6 to 12 months, to foster understanding, form long-lasting relationships, nurture reflective learning and to ensure that communities benefit from youth service.
In this way, service opportunities can help promote reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth, for example, or give rural youth the chance to appreciate the challenges faced by urban youth and vice versa, and so on.
This is not to say that volunteering, a more punctual and perhaps short-term opportunity, does not have great value. Volunteering can certainly be a valuable part of a young person’s longer service journey leading to transition through adulthood.
I would now like to give you a brief overview of the three major elements of the design phase of CSC announced in January.
The first is a youth service portal, a one-stop shop for youth service that includes an electronic sign-up for youth to share their views and a link to a national matching service delivered by Volunteer Canada. Volunteer Canada’s matching service now has some 80,000 opportunities across the country, and it is still growing. This could be the entry point for youth to start their service journey. Since January, over 300 youths have provided us feedback through our web portal on what service means to them. This is invaluable feedback to shape the program design.
The second major element of the design phase is the pilot projects. We are funding large and small organizations to undertake projects that will allow youth to serve and benefit communities across Canada, testing innovative ways to bring youth, especially more vulnerable youth, into service.
Our 10 national partner organizations have over 300 youths now working on service projects across the country as part of the first cohort of what will be over 3,000 youth over the next 18 months. And our department received over 500 applications from local partner organizations in our recent call for proposals, which closed in April. We will have up to another 100 projects under way this fall.
The third major element of the design phase for the Canada Service Corps is microgrants. We also fund youth with microgrants in the amounts of $250, $500 and $1,500 via a third-party convenor, TakingITGlobal, to start projects in their own community. This could be the first opportunity to get a young person excited about service or to reinforce and reward an existing commitment. The first 300 grants have been awarded, and TakingITGlobal has worked with youth to produce videos on their service ideas.
ESDC continues to gather lines of evidence based on the three elements of the design phase and by other means. We will continue to hear from our national and local partners, as well as TakingITGlobal and Volunteer Canada. And youth participants are being surveyed before and after their projects on their experience and their views about service. We are proud to develop, with our partner Statistics Canada, a longitudinal survey to track the impact on CSC youth participants and trends in communities for the national signature program to be implemented in 2019. We are consulting and establishing a research agenda with national and international experts, including provinces and territories, as well as the post-secondary education sector. And we have engaged other national youth program leads, like AmeriCorps or the European Solidarity Corps, to leverage best practices and lessons learned.
In sum, together with the results from your co-creation sessions with youth, we will have rich data from the design phase to inform ongoing development of the Canada Service Corps.
Thank you for your attention. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bulley.
Debra Basil, Professor, Marketing, University of Lethbridge, as an individual: Thank you for inviting me here today. I appreciate being here. I have been asked to present a research study conducted with my colleague Dr. Mary Runte, also from the University of Lethbridge, and with Dr. Cathy Barr of Imagine Canada and Mr. Easwaramoorthy, formerly of Imagine Canada.
What I am presenting today is the study entitled “Company Support for Employee Volunteering: A National Survey of Companies in Canada,” which was published in the Journal of Business Ethics in 2009.
I want to gratefully acknowledge the funding we received from Imagine Canada for this work.
For this company study, we examined how companies support their employees’ volunteering efforts. Telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of 990 size-stratified businesses across Canada, which represented a 25 per cent response rate. Our results showed that companies support volunteering in a wide variety of ways. Almost half of the companies surveyed encouraged employees to volunteer on their own time. Over half indicated that they attempt to accommodate employees volunteering on work time or even encourage it, although some do actively discourage it. About three quarters of the companies that we surveyed indicated some level of support for employee volunteerism, some large, some small. For those who do support in some way, in any way, most companies indicated that they allow employees to take some time off without pay to volunteer, and to adjust their work schedules to accommodate volunteering.
A sizeable minority also allowed some paid time off for volunteering. Most allowed employees to use company facilities and equipment such as meeting rooms and photocopiers. Most of the companies don’t officially recognize employees for their volunteering, and less than a third make employee volunteering information available.
When we consider the strategies used by companies and their level of formalization, we see that a majority target certain causes. The most commonly cited of these were health-related causes. Some companies also specifically exclude certain causes.
The top benefits that companies perceive are improving their public image and boosting employee morale. Fewer than half of the companies noted any challenges with supporting their employees’ volunteering efforts, but when they did note challenges, the most commonly cited was covering workload.
Few said they actually have a formal volunteer program, and only 3 per cent indicated that had they have a written policy surrounding their employee volunteerism. A majority do not evaluate their support overall for employee volunteerism, nor do they track it. A sizeable minority indicated that they link at least some of their charitable donations and non-profit donations to their volunteering support, so the same organizations are benefiting in this way.
Generally, we see that larger companies tended toward greater formalization and strategic use of employee volunteer programs, with a greater likelihood of having the formalized programs having a written policy, targeting and excluding causes and linking donations to volunteerism programs.
We did a follow-up study as well because we wanted to look a bit at the other side, at the employees. We surveyed a nationally representative sample of more than 2,000 Canadians from an online research panel to assess their participation and attitudes regarding company-involved volunteering. We found that the context of volunteering, and who coordinates it, impacts how these employee individuals view their volunteering behaviour. Specifically, respondents indicated that they viewed volunteering as somewhat less of a volunteer activity and somewhat more of a work activity when their employer was involved in any way.
We also found that those who are less involved with the cause tended to see company-involved volunteering as something different from personal volunteering, whereas those who were more involved with the cause itself viewed them both simply as volunteering.
When individuals saw the two as different forms of behaviour rather than just volunteering, to a certain extent they indicated they might be inclined to reduce their personal volunteering if they were to increase work time volunteering. However, those who were more involved with the cause and saw them all just as the same thing did not indicate this tendency towards reduction.
We also examined employees’ motives for personal and company volunteering. In both personal and company-involved volunteering, we found that the desire to help a worthy cause was the primary motivator in both instances. However, and not surprisingly, we found that for company-involved volunteering, helping one’s career ranked more highly than it did for personal volunteering, which didn’t surprise us. We found that employees remain motivated to volunteer largely for the same reasons, regardless of whether the company is involved. However, we also found that, overall, the motivations for volunteering were somewhat muted when the company was involved. So the ordering of motivations remained the same, but the level was somewhat lower when the company became involved.
Finally, we conducted a small qualitative study to examine one particular aspect of company-supported employee volunteerism. Since consumers expect companies to participate in socially responsible behaviour — and a good deal of research has shown this — companies may use their support of employee volunteerism to demonstrate their commitment to social responsibility.
In this small study, we examined whether employees felt resentment toward companies for basically taking credit for their volunteerism. We conducted depth interviews with 25 participants from the employee study that I just mentioned. These results suggested that employees consider the quantity and the nature of the company’s contribution, and they desire an equitable balance if the company is going to take some credit for their volunteer work.
Perceptions of inequitable credit attribution can lead to negative employee perceptions, even creating alienation and animosity. This can then potentially turn the employee away from volunteering.
The main conclusions from our research indicate that Canadian companies support employee volunteering efforts in a wide variety of ways. This can offer an avenue for additional volunteering assistance for Canadian non-profits and charities. It may also suggest some privileging of causes that are more publicly palatable and better known.
Thank you very much for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that presentation. I also want to thank you for this study. It’s been long overdue for many of us, and I wanted to know the answers to your questions. That 990 businesses and 2,000 Canadians participated in your research is a terrific start.
Senator Omidvar: I have questions for each of our panellists. My first question is for Ms. Best. You’re becoming well known to us. Thank you for taking the time. Thank you, all of you, for taking the time.
Ms. Best, my question is about your data sources and analysis based on the General Social Survey. I want to go back to the discontinuation of the satellite account for not-for-profit institutions and volunteering. What are you not able to tell the country as a result of that satellite account being discontinued?
Ms. Best: Thank you very much for your question. In fact, my expertise is with the data we gather in the Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, so I’m afraid the business data is outside the scope of what I can provide today. I’m afraid I don’t have a good answer to your question with regard to the discontinuation of the satellite accounts.
Senator Omidvar: I see. Maybe we can get someone else to answer that question. That is an important question for us, because many stakeholders have said to us that the data source was rich and was done every year, so we have lost the baseline information we need in order to understand volunteering in a more robust manner. Maybe we can note that and get back to it later.
Mr. Bulley, thank you for your presentation. I noticed with some interest that you said that by the end of 2020, the Canada Service Corps initiative will have brought 2,000 young people into the fold. That is an interesting number, but there are 2.2 million Canadians who are 15 to 19 years old. I wonder if you think 2,000 is a start that will grow. Is it too modest? Should we reach higher? What can we do to encourage more young people to join volunteering as opposed to your 2,000 benchmark?
Mr. Bulley: Thank you very much for your question. The quickest way to get to an answer to your question, which is an excellent one around scale, has to do with the fact that we’re currently in the design phase for Canada Service Corps. We had an 18-month period when we had the opportunity to test approaches to see what works for recruitment of Canadian youth, to examine the incentives that draw them toward service in their communities and to look at how they understand themselves, the services they need, how they see themselves participating in those services and in designing very much a by-youth, for-youth program.
The quickest answer would be, yes, this is the beginning. This is a design. We’re testing concepts. It’s a pilot phase, in that sense. We’re looking forward to the full-blown launch of the initiative in 2019 at some point, where there would be greater opportunity to expand, based on the types of things we are learning during this design phase.
So yes, you’re quite right: The numbers are limited for now. That is by design during the design phase.
Senator Omidvar: I noted with some interest your presentation talked about building on information and best practices from outside of Canada.
Who do you think does it better than us, and what can we take from them?
Mr. Bulley: The examples I mentioned — AmeriCorps in the United States and the European groups — have been at this for some time. AmeriCorps, in particular, has a very long history of several decades. I would like to turn to Mr. Bauer, who has greater familiarity with those organizations.
Brent Bauer, Director, Canada Service Corps, Service Canada: We’ve very much engaged AmeriCorps for the past several months to learn what they are doing right.
Your question is very timely, because we just learned today that President Trump has issued an executive or presidential directive to shut down AmeriCorps. They have a 25-year history that dates back to the establishment of the organization under President Clinton in 1993.
They have had 25 years to build up a brand identity and their program delivery structure to what it is today. AmeriCorps is a very good brand now in the U.S. They engage approximately 80,000 youth per year, with a budget of just over $1 billion per annum.
They were smart in terms of their foundation during the Clinton years. Like us, they work directly with not-for-profits to deliver the volunteer or service opportunities in the field. They have a national coalition of partners like we have established under the Canada Service Corps. But, interestingly, President Clinton established a set-aside for state governors so that part of the funding is directed to all 50 states for governors to allocate to not-for-profits in their backyards and neighbours. That has gotten both Republican and Democratic support over the years and has been a good way to ensure its sustainability.
It will be very interesting to see what happens with the executive order that was just issued.
The second thing they do well — and we will go down to visit them this summer —
Senator Omidvar: Before they close.
Mr. Bauer: Yes. They established a governance structure that has an independent organization deliver the opportunity. AmeriCorps is part of a corporation of national voluntary service that reports directly to the White House. They established that, so they have a quasi-independent role, much like a Crown corporation or a separate agency would be implemented in the Canadian context.
That’s a very intriguing governance model we might wish to think about.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
The Chair: You should know that AmeriCorps deals with governors across the United States.
I attended the annual meeting of the conference of the National Governors Association. This is a major part of their conference. They talk about the success of whatever programs they’ve been engaged in. It’s a terrific way to engage that segment of American leadership in talking about this. I, for one, am sorry it’s gone, and I’m sure many others are.
Senator R. Black: Ms. Best, the survey used to be more regular than it is now. Is there a need to survey more often to get a sense of where we’re at on an annual, twice-annual or whatever basis other than every five to seven years?
Ms. Best: I’m sorry I wasn’t able to speak to the national accounts part of it. I never wanted to be a national accountant before in my life, but I if I could have been one five minutes ago, it would have been helpful.
Thank you for the question. The survey on giving, volunteering and participating has evolved over time, and the way Statistics Canada has collected that data has changed. Initially, it was a stand-alone program sitting in the Special Surveys Division of StatsCan, and then it was enclosed in the greater General Social Survey program in order to place it in a more robust statistical setting.
As I mentioned last week, we are re-examining the General Social Survey data and looking at all the information we gather in that program to be able to better respond to the timeliness questions. The frequency with which we conduct the data now is every five or six years. Is that sufficient to be able to monitor the trends? As I mentioned last week, some trends change more quickly over time and others are less variable. Those are the hard questions that we are asking ourselves in the context of our modernization program.
Senator R. Black: With respect to the Canada Service Corps, which I think is a tremendous initiative — and you’ve involved 4-H Canada, which is one of my passions, so that’s good — the timeline is a three-year program, is it not? So 18 months for a pilot, 18 months to do some things on top of the pilot, and then do we have any plans or any knowledge of what’s beyond three years?
Mr. Bulley: We take our marching orders from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Youth, and the minister of our own department. Certainly the intent has been to have this design phase in preparation for a subsequent announcement, which would require, obviously, development of a memorandum to cabinet and a Treasury Board submission. So we are doing everything we can to ensure there is a solid evidence base, that we’ve engaged as many youths as possible, that we understand their motivations and incentives, and then prepare for the next phase, whatever that might be.
Senator R. Black: Right now it’s a three-year program or thereabouts?
Mr. Bulley: Correct.
Senator R. Black: Just as a side point, the microgrants are a wonderful opportunity for communities. In my community, I know of a couple that have been granted, and they are timely, useful, and wonderful grants.
With respect to company volunteer efforts, Ms. Basil, with the numbers and the statistics you provided — both in this and in some of the material we received — is it feasible, probable, possible, to improve those numbers, or are they as good as we’re going to see for companies engaging with their employees and volunteerism? Are we about the highest we will get? Do you think there is a possibility to improve them?
Ms. Basil: Thank you for your question. Of course, this would be speculation, but I think there is room for improvement, and I believe that improvement exists. I want to note that our research is a bit dated at this point. It’s time to update it. I was looking at other researchers’ works, and I haven’t seen updated information for Canada. However, if I look at the U.S. and the U.K., I see that it seems the trend is increasing in those countries, and I presume that the same would be true here. I think that it is on the upswing and that companies will continue to do this and even increase it because they feel pressure to demonstrate their corporate social responsibility. I also believe we’ll see more formalization of these programs.
Senator Oh: Thank you, panel, for the very good information. I think that all of us sitting here have volunteered in our lives, and in volunteerism there is no lifespan limit. That’s the beauty of it. We can keep on going and doing the best we can.
What are the key factors that contribute to a positive volunteering experience? Instead of regular volunteering in the community, how can we provide good-quality volunteering for young people? Because we are shaping their future.
Ms. Best: I will refer to a Winnipeg Free Press article that used our data last week. They talk about volunteering as being a mechanism for people to be able to empower themselves, especially in areas where they might have felt that they didn’t have as much control, for example, if they had lost a loved one to a disease, or something had happened in their life where they felt they could gain control over that situation by volunteering their time, especially in circumstances where they may not have been able to contribute money.
[Translation]
Patric Fournier-Savard, Survey Manager and Analyst, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, Statistics Canada: As Pamela was giving her answer, I remembered an important detail about the survey. The motivations for doing volunteer work differ greatly for young people as opposed to older people. I think that might answer your question in part.
For the younger age groups, the desire to gain unpaid work experience with a view to securing gainful employment thereafter seems to be stronger than among the older age groups, who want to share their experience and serve as mentors or teachers. That could be part of the answer of interest to us today, that is, the different motivations according to age group. Some motivations are shared by all volunteers who want to contribute to the community.
[English]
Mr. Bulley: I’m very pleased to hear the comments from our colleagues from StatsCan, because they align very much with what we’re hearing from youth, that often it’s simply the opportunity; or, as I think someone mentioned earlier, often young people feel they have never been asked. Sometimes it’s simply the possibility of being taken seriously and being given the opportunity to make a difference in one’s community — so that notion of engagement, alignment with values as well. These are things that are important to me; these are the things that I like to contribute to in my own community.
Mr. Fournier-Savard mentioned the opportunity for mentoring. We’ve seen that that’s an important element of the type of work that we’re trying to put together — service opportunities for youth; the chance to learn, and to learn leadership as well; the chance to be mentored by someone who is a bit further along the life path. We’ve seen as well the opportunities for personal growth. Although this is not a labour market program, there’s still the opportunity to learn those types of life skills that will benefit a young person in the labour force. We’re seeing that sort of thing: the sense of giving back, simply making a contribution to one’s community, being taken seriously, and the potential to participate in something that is very much for youth and by youth. Those are some of the major elements that we have seen, and they align well with the comments just made.
Senator Oh: I truly see volunteering as cross-border, like Doctors Without Borders. Nowadays I see young Canadians travelling everywhere. My son travelled to Guatemala to build schools. In the summer he spent three weeks there helping to build schools. I see a lot of young people from here travelling to Asia, to the rural areas of China, to teach young people in school for a few months before they come back. That’s great. Thank you.
Senator Frum: Mr. Bulley, I want to talk a bit more about the microgrants. I see you gave out 300. You say the amounts vary between $250 and $1,500, so it’s hard to get a sense of the budget. Do you know what the number is, the annual budget?
Mr. Bauer: It’s $3 million overall that we’ve allocated to TakingITGlobal to deliver the microgrant stream of programming.
Senator Frum: I want to hear more about TakingITGlobal, who you say is a third-party convenor. What is TakingITGlobal? Can we extrapolate anything from their name? I presume we can. Are there published criteria for how they choose the grantees? I ask this in the context of the Canada Summer Jobs grant program, where there was an ideological test that had to be passed by applicants. Is there a similar expectation for the applicants for TakingITGlobal?
Mr. Bauer: TakingITGlobal is a not-for-profit firm based in Toronto with just over 20 years of experience in youth service and volunteerism, including a microgrant program that they run themselves. They have a history of creating and delivering programs directly to youth that is all about civic engagement.
They’re also very digital savvy, so the department was pleased that they were available to deliver this on our behalf to test the microgrants in varying amounts. There is an established application process to TakingItGlobal in which the youth apply directly to them via the website that is advertised through the Canada Service Corps website, as well as TakingItGlobal’s own social media channels and direct outreach.
So there are established criteria to apply for a microgrant, including the fact that it has to involve peers in the youth’s community, there has to be a bit of a budget included of how they will allocate money and the general criteria around the Canada Summer Jobs attestation. It’s not an attestation, but the general criteria still apply, and the youth signs a letter of agreement with TakingItGlobal that specifies respecting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the $250 level, and for the $750 and $1,500 level it’s more of a formal contract that TakingItGlobal works with the youth directly.
Senator Frum: Ms. Basil, staying focused on the youth, is there any application for your study on the feelings people have about in effect mandatory volunteering that happens in the workplace and what that does to people’s feelings about volunteering? In terms of youth and school volunteering, we all have experience, if we have children, with mandatory volunteering with kids. As parents, with schools, we want to teach them about it, but does it undermine their long-term affection for the action if it’s mandatory?
Ms. Basil: Our work didn’t directly address that, so some of this is my own speculation and extrapolation. In terms of some of the things we saw in our work, the first thing that you mentioned regarding forced volunteerism in the workplace, it certainly does engender resentment from what we saw with our open-ended responses, and it can certainly backfire, leading employees to be less inclined to volunteer.
Our research didn’t address youth and required volunteerism. I have read a bit of that literature. I think it’s a bit conflicting in the literature, but I’ve seen some cases that suggested individuals would do this volunteering and it would not necessarily carry over, probably particularly if it was in their later years, whereas perhaps if they were volunteering at a much younger age and it became a life pattern, it had a greater chance of staying with them as they grew.
Senator Frum: I read in the notes the Library of Parliament provided that Prince Edward Island experimented with giving bursaries or incentives to students who volunteer.
I would open this up to the panel: Given the feedback about your experience with that, again, does it undermine the principles of volunteerism?
Mr. Bulley: I’d be happy to pick that up. One of the things we found is that there has been a real concern to ensure that volunteering or service opportunities weren’t simply available to the well-heeled. There is often a cost to taking time out, whether it’s a disadvantaged young person who may be disadvantaged to the point of not being entirely sure if he or she can participate if there is no lunch available or, “How might I get to that opportunity if it’s across town and I don’t have a bus ticket?” or other types of compensation that are available.
It’s not so much reimbursement for the act of performing service. It’s more an opportunity for us to help level the playing field to ensure that every young Canadian, as in the Prime Minister’s vision, who wants to serve is afforded the opportunity to do so.
The Chair: Mr. Bulley, could you expand on that? The only actual group that was mentioned by Senator Black was 4-H Canada. What are the other groups?
Mr. Bulley: We have 10 national partners. 4-H Canada is one of them, along with Apathy is Boring, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada, Chantiers jeunesse in Quebec, the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, Katimavik, mindyourmind, Ocean Wise and the YMCA.
That’s at the national level, and under that we have a number of regional partners. We’re working through the results of a proposal right now where there will be partners at other levels across the country to ensure we have good coverage both geographically and in terms of interest.
The Chair: Is there a description online of the projects they have undertaken and the results?
Mr. Bulley: That is correct.
Senator Duffy: Mr. Bulley, you mentioned that your work we’re talking about today isn’t related to labour force development, but it seems to me that in addition to what this committee is studying — charity and volunteerism — we also have a problem with motivation for young people. The dropout rate in high school is worrying. Is any thought being given to how you could marry the youth services corps with a means of getting young people to stay in school and continue their education?
When Mr. Chrétien was first elected, they did a study about how to motivate young boys and young men in particular, and there was talk at that time about having camps. Not punishment camps, but places where kids could go. They would spend part of their day on academics and another part of their day on athletics and all kinds of physical activity so they would not be bored. Listening to the work that you have been telling us about, I’m a little concerned that maybe the kids who are volunteering are the kids who are already motivated, already have some discipline in their lives and are probably good students.
How do we get to that group that are drifting and get them involved? Has your group in the government considered of ways of doing that?
Mr. Bulley: That is an excellent question. Thank you very much for it. It goes straight to the heart of this initiative. As I had mentioned in response to Senator Frum’s question about the notion of incentives, that’s part of the issue: How can we help level the playing field so that anyone who wants to participate can? We have found in the past that volunteering or performing service often can, if we’re not careful, become that type of activity where those who are best placed or are already doing well or highly motivated will be the ones to do it.
What we found, though, is that if we go a little beyond that, it’s often an issue of opportunity. We’re coming at that notion of opportunity from a couple of ways. One is by simply asking young people to be involved or providing opportunities for them to do it themselves. The other is levelling the playing field.
Your other question about the connection with the labour force or market touches upon the interests of my minister, the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour. This is not a labour market program in disguise, but a recognition that the types of skills learned through volunteering or service are often directly relevant to the labour market, such as notions of discipline, the opportunity to work with others; there are many skills to be learned that way.
We also have an interest in our department in not simply the labour market side but also the social development side: What is the nature of citizenship or of an individual’s participation in their community that might also be shaped by opportunities for service? We’re looking at things like what sort of impact this would have on long-term giving. Will someone like this continue to serve in their communities through their life course? It’s a rich set of areas of interest we’re looking at that do touch on the types of questions that you have raised.
Senator Duffy: Is there the future possibility that these things could be merged with an educational component so that for those who are in danger of dropping out, they spend part of the day doing one thing and part of the day doing another?
Mr. Bauer: I think, senator, they’re in this design phase, as Alan mentioned in his opening remarks. We have specifically built into the program design with our national and local partners that at least 25 per cent and hopefully up to 50 per cent of the participants that they are recruiting into these service projects are from five disadvantages groups. These include Indigenous youth, newcomers, LGBTQ, rural and remote. I am forgetting the fifth, but they are in the opening remarks.
Certainly our national local partners have a long history of reaching out to these more disadvantaged youth. That is what is happening now.
As we move toward the Prime Minister’s national signature program, we are exploring ways with the post-secondary education sector to look at the linkages with their service learning programs, accreditation and ways we can reinforce our service learning universe there.
Senator Duffy: Excellent; thank you.
Senator Omidvar: I have a question for Ms. Basil. Thank you for your excellent work. Does your analysis and research lead you to a conclusion about an appropriate federal role in encouraging corporate volunteerism?
Ms. Basil: Yes. Thank you for your question. My own interpretation here, as well as some research that has come out of the U.K. which I agree with, suggests that in some way it would be wonderful to have infrastructure to help in the connection of company, non-profit and charitable sectors and best practice communication, particularly for smaller charities and non-profits, for example, who are perhaps missing out on this opportunity, some guidance in terms of making these connections, best practice and how to negotiate program structure so it will work for them. Sometimes what companies want to do are things that look good in the press and aren’t as good for the charity or non-profit. Some guidance on how to appropriately design those volunteer experiences so that they actually work for the charity would be wonderful. This would be some sort of advocate to work as a go-between and to guide the charities.
Senator Omidvar: A connector. I am curious about what you said, that some companies have exclusions.
Ms. Basil: Yes. Some do.
Senator Omidvar: Can you share what some of these exclusions to volunteering would be?
Ms. Basil: There were a variety. But, for example, religious organizations, political organizations and international organizations were, at times, excluded.
The Chair: Before we continue, I wanted to relate an anecdote that might be helpful in understanding the last series of questions.
In the small village where I live in Nova Scotia, about 10 years ago an energetic municipal councillor and a retired lieutenant-commander in the Royal Canadian Navy thought one of the things that would help the community with young people would be to have a Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps in the community. So he started it and began to develop it. It is now thriving in the community. I was president, and my son at one time was the commanding officer. He is no longer doing that now.
In my research, I spoke to the local RCMP who police the community. I asked them what effect that had on the community. They said it took 45 to 65 per cent of the nuisance calls away. That is, the loitering and graffiti and the things that young people tend to get into when they have nothing else to do.
The second phase that I want to report is the principal of the school — there is only one school in the community; it is a small community — uses it to help young people who are having some difficulty and perhaps causing some trouble. She suggests to them that maybe they should get involved in the Sea Cadet Corps. Many of those young people have gone to the Sea Cadet Corps and have flourished. It has changed them, and the principal says that the school doesn’t have problems with anyone who is involved in the Sea Cadet Corps, which is sort of volunteering, particularly the ones they had had problems with before. So there are some really good stories.
I want to thank all of you for being here this afternoon. It has been very informative. Thank you for your work.
Ms. Best, we will see you next week, I assume. I think that is her chair down there.
We would like to thank all of you for your work on behalf of Canadians and for the research you are doing.
We will now hear from our next witnesses. With us by video conference from Durham, North Carolina is Dr. Femida Handy, Professor at the University of Pennsylvania. I also understand she is a Canadian, so we have covered a lot of bases here. In the room with us, we have Paula Speevak, President and CEO of Volunteer Canada. She is a familiar face to many of us on Parliament Hill.
We will start with Ms. Handy. After both presentations, we will have a series of questions. I would ask everyone to keep their questions and answers as succinct as possible.
Dr. Handy, please go ahead.
Femida Handy, Professor, University of Pennsylvania, as an individual: Thank you for inviting me to present to your committee. I am honoured. I have studied philanthropy and volunteering across international and local perspectives for 20 years.
I want to give you a bit of background. I arrived in Canada some three and a half decades ago. I am a proud immigrant to Canada and a graduate of York University. I was a faculty member of York University before I moved to the United States. I only left Toronto because of my husband; I would not have left Toronto otherwise.
I am now a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and it is one of the first universities in the U.S. to offer a program on non-profit studies, in particular. Until recently — and I believe Susan Phillips has testified before you — I was also the Editor-in-Chief of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. So I come from that background, but my study area is philanthropy and volunteering.
As I understand it, your committee is putting forth recommendations on the non-profit policy to the Canadian Parliament, and I am happy to have this opportunity to share what I have learned over the last 20 years from my research and teaching.
Canada has changed rapidly in the last three decades. Those changes have been demographic, technological, economic and many other changes that have made the traditional forums of philanthropy, the giving of time and money, very different today. For instance, there are trends in volunteering that did not exist when I first came to Canada, such as virtual volunteering, which refers to tasks that are done online, very much like what I am doing for you today in terms of teleconferencing. It also includes website development — all kinds of things that are done online and don’t need to be on site or face to face.
There are other trends that have happened because life has been changing for families with two parents working. That is episodic volunteering. The traditional forms of volunteering are disappearing, where someone was available four hours a week. They say, “Give me whatever you need me to do” versus “I am only available on Tuesdays from three to five, and I would like to work with X, Y and Z.”
There are lots of things that have changed in the ways we volunteer and also the kinds of people who volunteer. For example, older people are undergoing what gerontologists refer to as productive aging. They are very productive and healthy and want to have a role in society. They are retired and want to find options to actualize their lifestyles and to have some roles. They are seeking opportunities to engage in activities that are meaningful and contribute to society.
There is another cohort, the Millennials, who are not content to practise philanthropy as the baby boomers did. They want it in their everyday lives as part of their working lives, careers and families. They seek purpose in their consumption activities, as well as networking, and very often they volunteer with their colleagues and friends, make online donations, volunteer online, and engage in online and initiatives promoted by their employers. Millennials often want to engage in volunteering activities in their workplace.
Another trend we have seen that we have only begun to notice but that has existed for millennia is the idea that volunteering can only happen through organizations. We have missed a large part of volunteering that happens informally and not within organizations. All the accounts and statistics we have on volunteering generally refer to that which happens through a formal organization. That’s the one that has been valued and legitimized.
But there is the one-to-one help afforded to the “other” — and I don’t mean that to your family members or relatives but really to the “other.” The question is, do we want to value this in the same way we value formal volunteering? Sometimes we do. We give awards to private acts of heroism for saving people’s lives or something unusual, but not for the everyday acts that are the glue of our society.
Informal volunteering, whether it is giving change to the homeless or helping the elderly across the street are taken for granted, but not so for the recipients who receive that help. In fact, the old scouting motto of “doing a good deed a day” is relevant for us today, I would argue, as are the “random acts of kindness” that people provide and that are now being recorded.
As many demographic, technological and other changes take place, I have no doubt that the human imagination will also invent new ways of giving and volunteering. I think philanthropy is firmly rooted in our DNA, often waiting for the opportunity, either through organizations or other ways, to actualize itself. This is a point I will return to at the end of my presentation.
We need to be clear in our minds about what we are promoting. If it is a healthy, happy society for all of us, then what are the kinds of priorities for policy and regulatory reform that concern the voluntary sector, whose outcome will promote the collective well-being? We need to face the reality of how much government policy can make it happen. Can we mandate certain behaviours?
Recently in India, they mandated corporate social responsibility, and they mandated large companies to give 2 per cent to society.
Government can support it, and we can incentivize it through fiscal policies, taxes and other incentives. We can facilitate it by supporting intermediaries, like non-profits, to offer training for volunteering and so on. And we can also legitimize it by recognizing it, celebrating it and counting it. Putting policies in place is often not costly as choices will have to be made, and we need to understand the reasons behind these choices.
Before choices can be made, we need hard evidence on what kinds of policies will be effective and what might be simply a drain on resources.
Here, I would like to point out some of the research I have done on incentives that might promote both volunteering and philanthropy.
For example, would fiscal incentives or any kind of incentives crowd out the very intrinsic motivations and thereby have unintended consequences in the field of volunteering? I can remember my own kids at home. We would do all our work at home because we are part of a family, and I as an economist thought, “I have a bright idea. We should pay them to do the dish washing or lawn mowing,” and suddenly the quarter or dollar was meaningless. They would walk away and say, “We don’t need the dollar or quarter,” or whatever I was offering them. Then I could no longer promote the value of being a family and everyone doing their own share because I had incentivized it and had completely crowded out intrinsic motivations.
This is a personal example, but there is a lot of research that backs it up. It says that giving incentives might sometimes crowd out the very things that we are trying to promote.
Having said that, I want to remind you about community service. I think you already spoke about the community service that was mandated in some of the provinces in Canada where students had to do 40 hours of community service before they could graduate. The research is on both sides of the fence. Some shows it did promote pro-social behaviours after they graduated; some shows it did not.
One of the factors that is relevant is what was the experience for the students who were doing community service? Clearly if it was a positive one they continued doing it, but not in all cases was it a positive one.
I have two daughters. One was stuffing envelopes at a non-profit and she never took to it; the other worked at a children’s theatre and she loved it and she continues to do community service. So when we mandate it, we need to be careful about what kinds of experiences our young people are having when we are incentivizing or mandating it.
The other piece of research I would like to share with you is a book we just published on the culture of philanthropy in 26 different countries. We hold the idea that philanthropy is something in our DNA. Human beings all over the world want to practise philanthropy. What was it that made some countries appear more philanthropic than others? In our book, we looked at 26 different countries, and I will give you the eight things we found that promoted philanthropy. Generally, we were speaking of money donations, but it applies to volunteering as well.
The first one was the culture of philanthropy. We found that in those countries where philanthropy was celebrated, for example, if there was a celebration of philanthropy and volunteers, it was very visible and they discussed it openly. The presence of visible major volunteers and donors in a country motivates other people to follow their example. Making the culture of asking more professionalized was also a way to get people to give and contribute, both time and money.
The second was public trust, issues of transparency, accountability and effectiveness. We found that in countries with stronger government regulation for non-profits, it increased the trust in non-profit organizations, made them more effective and made people more willing to contribute time and money to these organizations. The regulatory and legislative frameworks were very important as well, for example, the role of paid and unpaid employees, the union treatment of volunteers versus paid labour, how organizations treat their volunteers. When was it considered exploitation, and when was it considered a volunteering role?
Fiscal incentives was the other one, but for volunteering that didn’t make sense. Basically, they found that creating more philanthropic talk, making it something commonplace, encouraged and was more effective than giving any kind of incentive, also making it sustainable for future giving.
Number five was the state of the non-profit sector and the professionalization of volunteer management in non-profits, good relations between the state and the non-profit sector. People typically would be more inclined to volunteer when there were good relations with the organization, when volunteers are managed professionally. It is not ad hoc and we will find something for you to do, but the way volunteers are trained, recruited, retained, appreciated and all of that.
There was a question of immigrant volunteering that has often come up as a way to integrate new immigrants into society. We did this research across Canada some years ago. We found that most immigrants had a hard time finding a place to volunteer. You can imagine that if I didn’t speak the language, I couldn’t walk up to the Art Gallery of Ontario and offer my services because it is intimidating. The way most immigrants found to volunteer was through their religious congregations. That was a stepping stone to learn about volunteering and their culture, and step out and volunteer for organizations.
The challenge, and what was missing, was finding organizations that were welcoming for immigrants to volunteer in secular organizations and not necessarily religious organizations. So it is having opportunities to volunteer.
The Chair: Ms. Handy, we have a bit of a time constraint here. We have another witness here.
Ms. Handy: Okay. I will leave the rest of my things to whatever questions come up.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Speevak, the floor is yours.
[Translation]
Paula Speevak, President and CEO, Volunteer Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As the chair said, I am from Volunteer Canada.
[English]
I will be sharing some ideas about how to promote volunteering, starting with some trends in volunteering, following up on what Ms. Handy has already shared.
First, I will start with a story because it relates to some of the questions earlier. What constitutes a meaningful volunteer opportunity, particularly for youth?
In a focus group when we were researching youth engagement, a youth shared with us that he had seen somebody finding food in a garbage can on his way to go shopping one day. He became very concerned about the fact that people did not have food. He found out there was a meal program at a local community centre, and he volunteered there. He was put in a room beside the kitchen and asked to fold tea towels in a certain way where the floral pattern was outside.
After about two hours of this, with someone coming in once in a while to take some out of the pile because they weren’t folded exactly the way they should be, he came out. All the guests from the meal program had already gone, and they were cleaning up. He felt so disheartened.
I offer this example because, very often, ageism is involved in youth engagement. While people think of things for youth to do, they have no idea of the great energy, insight and compassion we all have, regardless of our age.
I will start with a little bit on Volunteer Canada. Some of you might know us. We provide national leadership and expertise on volunteering to enhance participation, quality and diversity of volunteering. That relates to some of the things that have been discussed.
We don’t do this alone. We work with 220 local volunteer centres around the country. You may know the Volunteer Centre of St. Lawrence-Rideau, the Community Sector Council NL, Volunteer Victoria and so on. We also work with the Corporate Council on Volunteering, which is a leadership group of businesses that encourage their employees to volunteer and create some of the resources to ensure we have a reciprocal relationship between what communities need and what businesses are looking for. We work with the Canadian Alliance for Community Service-Learning and a number of government departments, including Statistics Canada, from whom you’ve heard; Employment and Social Development Canada; Public Safety Canada around screening issues; and, of course, recently Canada Service Corps, as you heard.
Incidentally, around the numbers you were asking, in May, there were 12,000 visitors to the Canada Service Corps button that leads to “looking for volunteer opportunities.” It’s really picking up.
I know you also heard from Statistics Canada about an overview of volunteering in Canada, but I wanted to highlight a couple of things. One of them is that, as you know, in 2010, 47 per cent of Canadians 15 years of age and older volunteered. When I was in my office — because I was on the steering committee with the folks from Statistics Canada, waiting for the advanced statistics for 2013 — I was definitely expecting it to be over 50 per cent. It was down to 44 per cent and I couldn’t believe it, because my sense was that so many people are doing great things.
As many of you have discussed in previous sessions, a lot is changing. I was concerned but also curious: Is it a blip or something to be concerned about?
First, this a question of demographics. If the population is aging and older people have a lower volunteer rate, maybe that could explain it. Is it possibly all the caregiving responsibilities many people find, or is it a matter of people volunteering in different ways that are not being captured? I know Professor Handy already mentioned that many statistics only capture formal volunteering.
With respect to youth, everyone is quick to say that the high volunteer rate among youth, which is exceptional, is because they have to do mandatory community service, but 80 per cent of youth volunteer because they want to. It is separate from. The other thing to note is that the average is 110 hours every year, not just the 40 hours you need to do over four years. It is important we recognize that and not belittle the great compassion that’s happening.
Enough of my editorializing regarding youth engagement.
A few years ago, we were concerned about the gap between what people were looking for in volunteering and how organizations were organizing volunteer opportunities. We came up with five gaps.
The first one is that many people are looking for group volunteering activities. We’re sociable beings, but few organizations are set up to engage people in groups.
Second, many people have professional experience, and maybe some of them want to give that professional experience and skill, but many people say the last thing they want to do is what they have done all day at work.
Another gap is that organizations are expected to be well organized, clearly define the roles and make that volunteer experience very effective. However, many people say, “We want to come into an organization and create our own opportunity. We know what you need,” and that’s very typical among many age groups because of our autonomous nature.
The fourth gap is that organizations are still looking for long-term commitments, and many people are looking for shorter terms.
The last gap is the fact that organizations often focus on what they need from volunteers whereas, as you’ve heard, many of us have personal goals when we volunteer. In addition to helping in the community, we may want to prevent being isolated, develop skills, et cetera. Developing a culture where it is a reciprocal relationship is important.
That’s on trends.
The other thing is the expanding nature of volunteering. Again, Professor Handy touched on the idea of informal volunteering. What we’re finding around the world is that many folks who follow the trends in volunteering are finding that formal volunteering is either plateauing or decreasing, and informal volunteering is actually increasing. I’m talking about things like if you want to raise funds for a neighbour whose child is disabled in order to renovate their van, there are platforms you can use for that. If you want to mobilize people to go and celebrate International Human Rights Day, you can do that outside of an organization; you just mobilize through social media. People are raising awareness, raising funds, organizing events and making a difference outside of organizations. It behooves us to say that all of that counts.
There is a lot going on. Also, this is something we’re seeing around the world.
In terms of what we call “volunteering,” whether we call it “citizen engagement,” many people have said the word “volunteering” is a little outdated. However, through Volunteer Canada’s lens, we’re feeling that we’re best off rebranding and expanding people’s notion of volunteering rather than trying to think of a new word every few years. At the same time, we have to recognize that language does matters.
When we think about corporate social responsibility, it refers to a business’s practices of hiring and their purchasing, as well as donating and employees volunteering.
The same applies to individuals. We can call it individual social responsibility. Look at all the ways we express our values, from composting our banana peels, to buying our coffee from a socially responsible coffee shop, to carpooling. Those are decisions we make throughout the day that directly impact on the community and could connect to the way in which we want to make a difference. Again, all of that counts.
In terms of the value of volunteering, I wanted to say that many people probably have come to you and said, “Oh, it’s worth $56 billion, contributes 2.5 per cent to the GDP” in terms of what the nature of volunteering is worth, and I think that’s true. On the other hand, I would say the real value of volunteering is not in quantifying the hours and coming up with an economic value; it’s really in the impact. I wanted to take a few minutes to look at that.
First, look at volunteering and its impact on organizations. When you think about the value of a board member opening up doors, raising a profile, raising funds and having an impact on the strategic direction of an organization, it’s way beyond the number of hours they took to read the material and attend a board meeting. Similarly, if you look at the value to neighbourhoods, we know that in neighbourhoods where there is a high level of citizen engagement, the neighbourhoods are more resilient and safer. Again, the value is beyond the number of hours or the number of burgers flipped at a barbecue — not to diminish those efforts, because they are vitally important.
Similarly, you heard that businesses find value in their employees volunteering in terms of morale, retention, team building and so on. In society, when you think about the great public policy changes that have been made, whether it’s impaired driving or wearing seatbelts, volunteers were at the heart of those. Saving lives has a greater impact than, say, the number of letters written to MPs and so on.
I would encourage us to think broader about the value of volunteering.
Finally, you asked us to reflect on how to promote and facilitate volunteering. First, as you’ve heard from others, a main barrier to volunteering is not knowing what the opportunities are. In terms of promoting and connecting people, local volunteer centres are doing that. As you heard, we’re working with the Canada Service Corps on this pan-Canadian volunteer matching system. That’s one thing that can help.
The second thing is expanding our definition of volunteering and letting people know they can do anything from making costumes for a theatre to counting tadpoles in a stream during certain hours and reporting it online. There are lots of interesting things people can do, and they can make up their own ideas.
Skills-based volunteering is another thing you may have heard about. It is the transfer of skills: either I give the skills I have, I learn and develop skills through volunteering, or somebody with experience mentors me to offer and develop my skills. In any case, we need to make a better link between skills developed through volunteer experience and the paid workforce.
For example, if I tell you that I have experience running a bake sale, you might not know what that necessarily involves. But if I told you that I did promotion, logistical planning, training shift workers to cover a three-day event, purchasing supplies and display, you might relate that to core competencies from the National Occupational Classification system and relate that to employment positions. I think that by encouraging organizations to describe the volunteer opportunities in those ways and encouraging employers to see and recognize that volunteer experience, we can do a better job really helping with that.
Screening is an issue, as you may have heard. There are 10 steps of screening, one of which involves vulnerable sector checks and police record checks. They are expensive, take a lot of time, are inconsistent around the country and are very important in certain cases. We need to figure out a way to make it more consistent and accessible.
Finally, I think that when we look at the 17 sustainable development goals and how much volunteers are already contributing to those, I think we can make a compelling and exciting argument to recruit more people. Who would not want to volunteer to eliminate hunger or promote clean water? I think as global citizens it excites us to think about being part of something broader. When Canada reports on how we’re doing with respect to the sustainable development goals, wouldn’t it be great if we really understood the contributions of volunteers and understood how to promote?
With that, I will say thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for a detailed presentation. We will go to questions now.
Senator Omidvar: I have so many questions for both of you, but in the interest of time, because we all want to get a question in, I will ask one question and hopefully both of you can get a short answer to me. Canada does not currently have a national strategy for volunteerism. We have a Youth Employment Strategy, which we have heard of, but we do not have a national strategy.
We had one in 1999 with the Voluntary Sector Initiative and the launch in 2001 — I’m forgetting the names but I remember the timing — and then, of course, in 2006 it was all done away with.
If we were to recreate a national volunteerism strategy, given the changes in trends that both of you have noted, what would it look like? What would the federal government’s role be?
Ms. Speevak: One great thing is that a number of the provinces and territories do have some form of strategy. Quebec has a great voluntary action strategy they developed over the last couple of years, and I think that’s an excellent model. In Quebec, they recognize what’s called autonomous community action and mutual support, and it’s really quite comprehensive. I would say hats off to Quebec for that and a good model.
What I think is important is a strategy that recognizes all forms of expression of values and that helps people find opportunities, helps people leverage those opportunities and provides an opportunity to reflect. I think that especially with younger volunteers, it’s one thing to have an experience, but it’s really essential to have an opportunity to reflect on what you’re learning about yourself, your community and your place in society.
Ms. Handy: I think that it’s such a diverse country from coast to coast with people from all over the world, and I think that a lot of people get left out of the volunteering, so I think a federal strategy might be one that promotes opportunities for different people in different parts of the country to be able to volunteer. That might be some strategy to help non-profits reach out to diverse populations, ages, ethnicities and races and have everyone work together so that we can have some kind of citizenship that people are very proud to be part of to bring diverse people together.
The actual workings will have to be thought of, but it would be some way to get non-profits incentivized to have diversity in their volunteer pool rather than have only young people, only old people or only females. It’s important to have a policy that promotes diversity and volunteering both in the people who do it and in the kinds of opportunities they get.
Senator Omidvar: Ms. Speevak, can you help me figure out the answer that StatsCanada was not able to give me? Would you recommend that the satellite account of non-profit institutions and volunteering be reinstated?
Ms. Speevak: My understanding is that the satellite account looked at calculating the contribution of the sector to the GDP from the point of view of employment, purchasing and so on. It was very important, so I would agree that it’s very important for us to have a sense, as a sector, of our contribution. It also included a calculation of the contributions of volunteer time. I think that that is certainly important.
I think the information we’re getting from the General Social Survey on giving, volunteering and participating is probably more pertinent for organizations in terms of understanding patterns of volunteering, motivations, barriers and so on. Both are important, but in terms of organizations and engaging volunteers, the General Social Survey on giving, volunteering and participating is probably more pertinent, but for the sector at large, yes.
Senator Duffy: I want to thank both of our witnesses for their testimony today.
What do you think about the idea of creating a minister responsible for charities and volunteerism? A champion who could go across the country and synthesize, with a small secretariat, the issues, barriers and things that are impediments to the sector and then become a champion for that sector, not only in cabinet but across the country. They would travel the country and remind people of the importance of the sector and encourage people to get involved.
Ms. Handy: I think that really reaches the point of creating a bigger culture of volunteering, and I think to have a larger number of people aware of what’s going on is a fabulous idea. I also believe we need data and evidence before we put policies in place. Regarding the earlier question about getting data, that is very important as well.
Senator Duffy: Which particular data are you referring to?
Ms. Handy: The GSS, as well as the national satellite accounts. We need that data to understand what our policies will be because we need to base our policy on evidence and not just make it sound good.
I also like the idea of having a commissioner or minister of charities and volunteering. Unless we celebrate it, acknowledge it and say it out loud, we will not get a lot of people involved, and I think we need to let everyone know to participate and engage.
Ms. Speevak: I think it’s a great idea to have a focal point and an individual who really is driven and is identified with promoting, volunteering and raising the profile of the sector. The caution I would suggest is that it needs to be done in collaboration with the sector. I’m a fan of joint initiatives, so if there is a body that is made up of leaders in the sector as well as public officials and those responsible, I think that will have the most effective impact because it will be understood to be authentic, and I think that would be very important.
Senator Frum: I look at the chart that Statistics Canada gave us about the percentage rate of volunteering in various age groups. It ranges from 66 per cent from the youngest age group to 38 per cent for the oldest in terms of hours of volunteering.
In your professional experience, for a healthy society, what participation rates do you look for to know that a society is doing well? What’s the standard? Are these numbers good or not good? What do you think?
Ms. Speevak: I think these numbers are great; in terms of comparison to other places around the world, we’re at least on par and, in most cases, greater.
I do want to say something controversial, though. You could make the argument that in a community where people have natural social ties, where generations live together and neighbours help one another, there is not the same reliance on formal volunteering and organizations. You could make the argument that, in some cases, a lower rate of volunteering actually reflects a closer community, and you do see that in certain places when you look at the data.
So I would suggest that it’s not that more volunteering means a healthier society. However, I think that over 40 per cent is certainly something we could feel really good about.
Ms. Handy: Yes, I think it really matters. If you look at Europe, much of the volunteering that happens does not happen in the kinds of non-profits that we’re used to. It happens more in sports associations and other kinds of associations. The idea is that if the government provides a lot of social services, non-profits do not exist in a form that requires food banks or health organizations or immigrant-based organizations because a lot of it is already provided by the government.
I agree with Ms. Speevak that just having a large number of volunteers doesn’t really mean anything; it matters what they do. My own feeling is that having people engage with the other and having those social bridging ties makes us healthier, because if something happens, we’re much more resilient when we have the kinds of bridging ties between one another than if we are in our own little worlds doing our own little things. Communities may be healthy with those ties without going through formal volunteering, if you will. It matters what kind of society. This prefaces my earlier comments: What are your goals in having engaged people in society? Whether it’s through sports clubs or food banks, it doesn’t matter. You have people who believe in a public good.
The Chair: Colleagues, thank you very much for your questions.
Ms. Speevak and Ms. Handy, thank you very much for your participation. It has been very informative. As I try to tell all the witnesses, if you think of something we forgot to ask or you forgot to say, don’t hesitate to send us something via the clerk, and he will distribute it to us. I know you’re probably both paying attention to what we’re doing as we go along this process. We appreciate your input. I’m sure that, as we go through this process, we will be hearing from you again. Thank you again.
(The committee adjourned.)