1. Surveying Volunteering: Giving in the Netherlands René Bekkers Center for Philanthropic Studies VU University Amsterdam

2. Giving in the Netherlands A biennial survey among a preselected pool of potential respondents recruited by polling institute TNS/NIPO Conducted since 1996 Repeated cross-sectional survey until 2000 Panel study since 2002 Funded by several ministries of the Dutch national government

3. Aims of GINPS 1.“Who gives what and when?” Estimate the volume and composition of charitable giving by households and volunteering by individuals 2.“How is it changing?” Describe trends in giving and volunteering sources and destinations 3.“Why do people give?” Analyze predictors and how they are changing over time

4. Trends in volunteering

5. “Methodology is Destiny” How many questions, which questions, and how you ask them determines the responses people give in a survey. Who asks, who you ask and how you ask people determines whether they respond to the survey at all.

6. 6 What is the major source of error? Respondents, interviewers, survey designers or data-analists? The survey in the interview situation. Social desirability is not a personality characteristic; it is strongly dependent on the situation. People are more honest in private situations such as a written questionnaire or an online survey than in a phone/personal interview.

7. Modules in GINPS 1.Prosocial values 2.Charitable giving 3.Individual helping and attitudes to nonprofit organizations 4.Volunteering 5.Socio-demographics

8. The volunteering module First we define volunteering for the respondents: work without pay (at best a compensation) for an organization. We give a few examples. We mention participation in activities and membership as not being volunteering because it is not work. We do not mention social support and informal helping as not being volunteer work – people could do this as volunteers.

9. Area – Method module AREA: first we list 18 different sectors of organizations. METHOD: then we list 12 different tasks. A method – Area module could further increase the proportion of volunteers if it improves respondents recollections. The respondents’ employer is not identified in the module.

10. The Dutch volunteer profile Older, smaller towns Higher educated More wealthy, own home Religious: Catholic or Protestant Social pressure in social context Altruistic values, responsibility, trust Confidence in charities

11. Volunteer motives Current volunteers complete a shortened version of the Volunteer Function Inventory (Clary et al.), Pride and Respect scales (Boezeman & Ellemers) and Ownership. Frequency of volunteering, hours, supervision of others Retrospective question for current non- volunteers: have you ever volunteered?

12. Motivation and motivated cognition If you ask volunteers ‘Why do you volunteer’ they may come up with all sorts of nice post hoc rationalizations. These reasons often refer to intrinsic motivations. If you ask non-volunteers ‘Why do you not volunteer’ they cite external circumstances. It is hard to tell how accurate these reasons are, but a positive social image bias is likely.

13. Who becomes a volunteer? All respondents should answer questions on predictors of entry and exit out of the volunteer work force. Mobilization: have you ever been asked to volunteer? Social norms: how self-evident is volunteering for people around you? Prosocial values: altruism, trust

14. Development of generalized social trust Bron: GINPS Bekkers, R. (2012). ‘Trust and Volunteering: Selection or Causation? Evidence From a 4 Year Panel Study’. Political Behaviour, 32 (2): 225-247. DOI 10.1007/s11109-011-9165-x. (open access) 14

15. Careers in volunteering If you ask all repondents retrospective questions about volunteer activities you can map life history careers in volunteering. Comparisons with other careers can show how they are intertwined. Does achieving a higher level of education make people volunteer more? Does volunteering improve employability?

16. Volunteering and education Proportion of respondents in the Family Survey of the Dutch Population reporting volunteer work at earlier ages by the highest level of education achieved in the year 2000(Bekkers & Ruiter, 2008) 16

17. Two sources of bias Civic duty “Social desirability” Lying

18. 18 Total survey error Sampling error: Volunteers are more likely to participate in surveys Measurement error: Respondents exaggerate volunteer activity OVERESTIMATE of amounts donated Or are volunteers ‘better’ respondents?

19. 19 Accuracy of self-reports Not reportedReported Not volunteering in reality True negativeFalse positive, overestimate Volunteering in reality False negative, underestimate True positive, under- or overestimate

20. 20 Errors in three phases Irregular or episodic volunteering activity is not reported Short survey is less likely to make respondents remember everything Volunteer acts that did not occur (or occurred earlier) are reported, or the level of real volunteering activity is exaggerated Underestimate Overestimate Net result?

21. The civic duty of survey response The lower the response rate, the higher the proportion of respondents saying they volunteer (Abraham, Helms & Presser, AJS 114(4): 1129-65, 2009). Post hoc solution: weight the data. Include measures of civic duty behaviors for which true population values are known, such as voting, charitable deduction, blood donation, organ donation

22. Volunteering and other helping

23. Contact ‘Giving in the Netherlands’, Philanthropic Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, VU University Amsterdam: www.giving.nlwww.giving.nl René Bekkers, r.bekkers@vu.nlr.bekkers@vu.nl Blog: renebekkers.wordpress.comrenebekkers.wordpress.com Twitter: @renebekkers