NSCB - Statistically Speaking... VOLUNTEERISM IN THE PHILIPPINES: DEAD OR ALIVE? by Dr. Romulo A. Virola

VOLUNTEERISM IN THE PHILIPPINES: DEAD OR ALIVE?
by Dr. Romulo A. Virola ¹
Secretary General, NSCB

VOLUNTEERISM IN THE PHILIPPINES: DEAD OR ALIVE? With Wikileaks and all that DDOS ² stuff, it is refreshing to hear that Facebook founders Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moscovitz have joined a campaign of close to 60 other billionaires spearheaded by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet that encourages the wealthiest Americans to channel at least half of their money to help others. The twentysomething Zuckerberg alone has donated $100m to improve public education in New Jersey. Indeed, greed has been found to be good by many; but it warms the heart to be reminded every now and then that yes, Virginia, man is by nature good. Especially during the season of Advent.

Helping others and civic engagement including volunteer work build social capital and create a social cohesiveness that has been found to be directly correlated with the efficient functioning of democratic societies. Volunteerism is in fact, an intrinsic part of social capital; conversely, volunteerism fosters and enhances social capital. For example, if you find NGOs, church groups, self-help groups, youth organizations, etc. conducting volunteer work in one geographical area, it can motivate and inspire others to participate in the activities. The existence of volunteer infrastructures and networks provides individuals with varied areas of interest, the opportunities for civic engagement. Despite less than noble reasons in some cases for its existence, philanthropy may be considered as falling under the realm of volunteer work, which aside from its direct economic contribution, has a variety of broader social impact and multiplier effects that deliver significant added benefits to society and to the volunteers themselves. Volunteer work provides important employment training and a pathway into the labor force; it enhances social solidarity, social capital, political legitimacy, quality of life, social inclusion and integration; and it provides a sense of personal satisfaction, fulfillment, well-being, and belongingness to persons who volunteer. Where there are high levels of voluntary participation, there are also high levels of trust in others, lower levels of violent crime, lower mortality levels, and better educational outcomes ³. In fact, in 2001, the UN passed a Resolution that identified volunteering as “an important component of any strategy aimed at poverty reduction, sustainable development, health, disaster prevention and management”.

In the Philippines, volunteerism has had a long, rich, diverse, cultural tradition. Under its many cultural names, guises, and dimensions, volunteerism remains embedded in the tradition of sharing, of helping. Notions of Filipino volunteerism employ various indigenous meanings such as Bayanihan; Damayan; Kawanggawa; Pahinungod; and Bahaginan ⁴ which can translate into various types of volunteering such as academe-based volunteering, corporate volunteering, government-supported volunteering, nongovernmental organization volunteering and foreign-supported volunteering. Whether understood ⁵ as tulong (help), pakikipagkapwa-tao (a shared sense of one’s humanity), pagbabahagi (sharing) or paghahandog (offering), volunteerism can bring significant benefits to individuals and communities in the Philippines and can help nurture and sustain a rich social texture and a strong sense of mutual trust and cohesion, essential to the stability of Philippine society. Participation in groups and organizations provides opportunities to learn about others, builds trusting relationships and decreases prejudices against others. People get to know more people and the willingness to engage and to support each other broadens the social information network. Relatedly, social capital can motivate “outsiders” to participate in volunteer work and might form new relationships which will bring collective action toward common goals of the community or groups. Overall, the act of volunteering demonstrates a balance between an individual’s self-interest and the public interest ⁶. Against such a backdrop and with an appreciation of the cultural context of Philippine society, one might expect a fairly developed level of volunteering in the Philippines. But is this true? Is volunteerism in the Philippines dead, or alive?

In the recent past, many Filipinos have been successfully championing volunteerism. In 2009, Efren Peñaflorida Jr., a young Filipino who voluntarily contributes his time to educating underprivileged children in the slum areas of Cavite through “pushcart classes” diverting the youth’s attention away from street gangs, was named the 2009 CNN Hero of the Year. The Gawad Kalinga originated in the Philippines in 1995 with a vision to build 700,000 homes in 7,000 communities and is now known across the globe for its pioneering initiatives to develop communities by providing low-cost-housing for the informal settlers and the marginalized Filipinos. And there are many other success stories. So certainly, volunteerism in the Philippines is not dead. The more appropriate question then is, is it sufficiently alive? To be able to answer this question, we need information, we need statistics.

The Philippine National Volunteer Service Coordinating Agency (PNVSCA) is the government agency mandated with the promotion of volunteerism in the country. Thru the efforts of the PNVSCA, the services of local and international volunteers are mobilized to benefit society. It would be useful if the PNVSCA were to be given the resources so that it could generate relevant statistics needed for decision making and policy formulation on volunteerism. It would be wise if a statistical unit or statistician positions were to be created in the organizational structure of PNVSCA! And it could be strategic if we knew enough statistics about volunteerism in the Philippines. We hope the PNVSCA, the DBM, and Congress agree.

Aside from the PNVSCA, there are of course many other organizations concerned with volunteer work. But despite the presence of institutional mechanisms to promote volunteer work and notwithstanding the recognition by the international community of its importance, the fact is, currently there is a dearth of information on volunteerism. There is no available reliable measure of the economic contribution of volunteer service in the Philippines, and for that matter, in most other countries. Efforts to understand better this sector and to fashion vital policy decisions supportive of its further development have been impeded by the absence of a framework for systematically generating information about volunteerism, which in turn is caused by a lack of appreciation for and understanding of the role of statistics in decision-making.

This is not to say that no efforts have been exerted in the past. In fact, some information on Filipino volunteerism is available in a number of sources: (a) Studies by the University of the Philippines National College of Public Administration and Governance like the 1998 Organizational Survey of Non Profit Organizations, the 1999 Survey on Giving and Volunteering ⁷ and “Volunteering as Pakikipagkapwa” ⁸ (b) the Pilot Time Use Survey of the National Statistics Office (NSO) (c) the NSCB JHU-Non Profit Institution Project ⁹and (d) Administrative Records from agencies like the PNVSCA, Caucus of Development NGO Network, United Nations Volunteers Philippines (UNV), University of the Philippines – Ugnayan ng Pahinungod; Jesuit Volunteers Philippines Foundation; Philippine Business for Social Progress; and League of Corporate Foundations.

In the international scene, data on volunteerism have been generated by the Johns Hopkins University (JHU) Comparative Non Profit Sector Project in 37 countries. According to JHU, in these countries, approximately 140 million people representing approximately 12 percent of their adult population engage in some form of volunteer activity in a typical year ¹⁰.

In December 2003, the United Nations Statistical Division published the “United Nations Handbook on Non Profit Institutions in the System of National Accounts”. It is the first internationally accepted guidelines on capturing information about non profit institutions (NPI) and the volunteer work they harness. The UN Handbook includes (a) a detailed definition of NPIs, which makes it possible to identify them as a group, (b) a methodology for the valuation of volunteer work, which is significant in the activities of NPIs and (3) a detailed classification of NPIs by function. While the NPIs serving households constitute one of the institutional sectors in the SNA framework, volunteer work is not explicitly articulated within the framework ¹¹.

Notwithstanding these international guidelines, currently available information on volunteerism is definitely limited. Given the importance of volunteering in national development, efforts must therefore continue towards more accurate measurement of the economic contribution of volunteer work.

In line with this, the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), as the highest policy making body on statistical matters in the country, is laying the groundwork for a system of generating information on volunteerism. In 2008, the NSCB undertook a collaborative project with Johns Hopkins University on the measurement of the economic contribution of non-profit institutions and volunteer work in the Philippine economy. The objective is to formulate a statistical framework for measuring the contribution of volunteer work via a satellite account on non profit institutions within the context of the Philippine System of National Accounts (PSNA).

Based on the project, the NSCB has proposed to define volunteerism as an act that denotes a service or work activity to promote a cause or help someone; performed by an individual or an organization/entity/enterprise, wherein monetary reward is not the principal motivating factor; undertaken as non-compulsory and non-obligatory; and for the benefit of persons outside the volunteer’s household. When Richard Gutierrez rode a speedboat to rescue Christine Reyes from the floods caused by Ondoy, his heroism would satisfy this definition of volunteerism but philanthropy does not seem to be covered. What about praying for someone, or lending money without interest? Are they forms of volunteering too? If we remember that the value of volunteer work lies also in its intangible but difficult to measure benefits such as love and affection, respect, trust, and greater sense of responsibility to the society, we probably have to revisit this proposed conceptual definition and revise it if necessary.

Quantifying the contribution of volunteerism, like that of unpaid housework ¹², is not going to be easy under the present capacity and capability of most national statistical systems, including in the Philippine Statistical System. The data requirements for an accurate measurement are not generally available. For this purpose, Time-Use Surveys (TUS) are useful, if not necessary. A TUS collects information on how we spend our day doing various activities, such as paid work, childcare, volunteering, shopping, socializing, etc. In 2000, the NSO conducted a pilot TUS which made some of this information available, and allowed a quantification, inchoate though it may be, of the economic contribution of volunteer work ¹³.

Current approaches in measuring volunteer work need information on three key variables: (a) Number of volunteers; (b) Number of hours volunteers render during a specific period; and (c) Wages at which to value those hours. The NSCB has been able to make heroic assumptions on these variables.

Last 4 - 5 October 2010 during the 11th National Convention on Statistics, we presented a paper ¹⁴ about the NSCB efforts towards the formulation of a conceptual and statistical framework for the measurement of the contribution of volunteer work in the Philippines. The paper was aimed primarily to illustrate the feasibility/viability of the valuation methodologies suggested in the UN NPI Handbook. Subject to the limitations of the pilot Time Use Survey and the heroic assumptions we made, the paper illustrates the methodology and provides the following insights on the contribution of volunteer work in the Philippines.

In 2000, volunteers rendered an estimated 312.3 million hours of volunteer service.

In 2009, the total value of volunteer work reached Php 44.5 billion, from Php 20.1 billion in 2000. On the average, the value of volunteer work increased annually by 10.2 percent at current prices and by 6.4 percent at constant prices, during the 9-year period from 2000-2009.

Volunteer work constituted about 0.6 percent of GDP from 2000-2009 ¹⁵.

The above figures on the magnitude of volunteerism in the Philippine context certainly do not impress but studies elsewhere cited by Mayer ¹⁶ support the idea that modest gains in social capital and increased levels of voluntary participation can translate into large social and economic gains; that raising social capital can be more effective development strategies than direct policy interventions. This is something to seriously think about as we are now deep into crafting our next Medium Term Development Plan. Surely, we have formulated policies and conceptualized and implemented programs geared towards the sustainable development of our nation, towards poverty reduction. But considering where we are at present, compared with our neighbors, and where we stood fifty years ago, we should genuinely believe and act with greater passion that indeed, it is time for change, for real and meaningful change. Why, our strategies and how we implemented them do not seem to have worked at all! Or at least not as well as they should, if we are to be able to compete with the knowledge-based economies of the Third Millennium. The stars of some of our neighbors have definitely risen; and those of our other neighbors are now rising; while ours continue to flicker faintly in the dark. Mindsets must therefore change; paradigms must therefore shift. Indeed, a big challenge to our political leaders, our decision makers, our planners, our civil society, our citizenry, all of us. But despite these challenges, we must continue to dream. As Albay Gov. Joey S. Salceda says, it is never too late to love our country. Developing volunteerism is certainly an option.

Just got back from AHSOM11 ¹⁷ hosted excellently by Hanoi where we discussed the statistical development of ASEAN. While we agreed on some key statistical activities to be pursued in the region, it was most distressing to realize the lack of appreciation for statistics by ASEAN leaders. Like many other decision makers, they ask for this and that statistics, but they are not about to give top priority to investments on statistics. In fact, they have refused to expand the manpower resources of ASEANstats¹⁸! Successful ASEAN integration by 2015, building a genuine, efficient, progressive, and competitive ASEAN community by 2015 just will not and cannot happen unless our leaders appreciate better and understand better how to use better statistics. So sad, because ASEAN has such great potentials!

But aside from enjoying the warm hospitality of the people of Vietnam last week, we heard about the miracle of that 2-0 victory by the Philippines over Vietnam in soccer. Nasobrahan yata ang kanilang pagiging hospitable sa atin! For the first time we are in a semifinal of a football tournament so congratulations and thank you to all our boys. We are sure you worked hard for these great moments, so Go Philippines and Merry Christmas to all!

Reactions and views are welcome through email to the author at ra.virola@nscb.gov.ph

________________________

¹ Secretary General of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) and Chairman of the Statistical Research and Training Center (SRTC). He holds a Ph. D. in Statistics from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, U.S.A. and has taught mathematics and statistics at the University of the Philippines. He is also a past president of the Philippine Statistical Association. This article was co-written by Christopher M. Reyes, UNV Specialist for National Accounts, United Nations Volunteers – United Nations Development Programme Philippines. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSCB and/or UNV & UNDP. The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Mark C. Pascasio, Candido J. Astrologo, Jessamyn O. Encarnacion, Noel S. Nepomuceno, Ma. Libertie Masculino, Albert A. Garcia, and Jeffrey E. Enrado in the preparation of the article.

² “Distributed denial of service”

³ See Mayer, P. “The Wider Economic Value of Social Capital and Volunteering in South Australia” (November 2003). Politics Department, University of Adelaide, South Australia and Office for Volunteers, Government of South Australia. It cites the pioneering studies of Robert D. Putnam on Italian and American societies: Making Democracy Work (Princeton, 1993) and Bowling Alone (New York, 2000).

⁴ Baesca, J. (2004). Strategic Review of the Volunteer System in the Philippines. Manila, Philippines: United Nations Volunteers, United Nations Development Program, German Development Agency, Philippine National Volunteer Service Coordinating Agency.

⁵ Aguiling-Dalisay, G. H., Yacat, J. A., & Navarro, A. (2004). Extending the self: Volunteering as Pakikipagkapwa. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Center for Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy.

⁶ See “Discussion Paper on Social Capital and Social Well Being” (August 2002). Australian Bureau of Statistics.

⁷ Carino, Ledivina V. (ed) 2002. Between the State and the Market: The Non Profit Sector and Civil Society in the Philippines. Quezon City: Center for Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy, National College of Public Administration and Governance University of the Philippines and Fernan, Ramon L. (ed) 2004. Beyond the Household: Giving and Volunteering in Six Areas in the Philippines. Quezon City: Center for Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy, National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines.

⁸ Aguiling-Dalisay, G. H., Yacat, J. A., & Navarro, A. (2004). Extending the self: Volunteering as Pakikipagkapwa. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Center for Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy.

⁹ An NPI Advisory Committee was created by the NSCB-JHU project to provide technical guidance.

¹⁰ Salamon, Lester M. et al (2004) Wojciech Sokolowski, and Associates. Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector. (Greenwich, CN: Kumarian Press, 2004).

¹¹ The latest SNA framework is the 2008 SNA, an update of the 1993 SNA, which took off from the 1968 UNSNA

¹² The NSCB has also been pursuing the agenda of measuring the contribution of women to the economy, one of the statistical advocacies of Mareng Winnie Monsod. See: 1) Virola, Romulo A. et.al. Do Women Contribute Less Than Men to Nation Building? 10th National Convention on Statistics. National Statistical Coordination Board. 1-2 October 2007 (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ncs/10thNCS/papers/invited%20papers/ips-21/ips21-03.pdf); and 2) Virola, Romulo A. et.al. Improving the Way We Measure the Increasing Contribution of Women in Nation-Building. 11th National Convention on Statistics. National Statistical Coordination Board. 4-5 October 2010 (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ncs/11thNCS/papers/invited%20papers/ips-13/01_Improving%20the%20way%20we%20measure%20the%20increasing%20contribution.pdf)

¹³ Based on the findings of the NSCB-JHU project, volunteer organizations and regulatory bodies have no or very incomplete records. Also, the register of NPIs compiled under the project does not have information on number of volunteers or hours of volunteer work. There is also no nationwide survey that collects information on volunteer work. Due to resource constraints, the NSO has not conducted a national TUS. But the Labor Force Survey, the Census of Philippine Business and Industry (CPBI) and the Annual Survey of Philippine Business and Industry (ASPBI) conducted by the NSO can be used.

¹⁴ Romulo A. Virola, Vivian R. Ilarina, Christopher M. Reyes and Corazon R. Buenaventura. (2010). Secretary General and Statistical Coordination Officer VI of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), UNV Specialist for National Accounts, United Nations Volunteers – United Nations Development Programme Philippines, and Consultant, respectively. “Volunteerism in the Philippines: Dead or Alive? On Measuring the Economic Contribution of Volunteer Work”. See 11th NCS paper (www.nscb.gov.ph)

¹⁵ Benchmark estimates of the contribution of volunteer work were derived for the year 2000. From 2001 to 2009, the contributions were derived by extrapolating the benchmark estimate using the growth rate of GVA for Other Services under Private Services.

¹⁶ See Mayer, P. “The Wider Economic Value of Social Capital and Volunteering in South Australia” (November 2003). Politics Department, University of Adelaide, South Australia and Office for Volunteers, Government of South Australia. It cites the pioneering studies of Robert D. Putnam on Italian and American societies: Making Democracy Work ( Princeton, 1993) and Bowling Alone (New York, 2000)

¹⁷ 11th ASEAN Heads of Statistical Offices Meeting.

¹⁸ ASEANstats is the statistical unit in the ASEAN Secretariat.

Posted: 13 December 2010