You may find it more cost-effective to offer volunteering projects
as a thank you to your corporate sponsors, once they have already
committed to a sponsorship programme.
Submitted on 27Oct1997 by Lori Lucier,
Manager of Volunteers, Development Department, AIDS Committee of
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
It is interesting timing that I have come across this essay, as
I have just returned from a National Conference here in Canada called
Many Visions, One Future: the 1997 Canadian forum on volunteerism.
One of the topics of discussion for the weekend was something we
call Workfare. For the purposes of our discussion, we defined it
to be based on the Ontario model, which is "the welfare recipient
is obliged to participate in a volunteer program or they will lose
their basic benefits." The government, without having consulted
the voluntary sector, decided that the volunteer centres and their
member agencies would be the main administrators of this program.
The discussion group that I participated in came to the conclusion
that when government ties obligation to the activity of volunteering,
we are no longer talking about volunteering. Since we would then
not be referring to "workfare participants" as volunteers,
the voluntary sector should not be responsible for administering
the programs; the government should be. There are many others reasons
that many of us around the table felt that concept was inherently
flawed, and could not be supported. I wont go into those.
You bring up an interesting point though. Perhaps this could be
proposed as a government initiative, administered through the Social
Service Sector. I am sure that the voluntary sector would be willing
and interested in sitting down with government and business to talk
about new thinking around corporate voluntarism. I am equally sure
that the voluntary sector should not be responsible for massive
training, placement and evaluation programs that would be necessary
to make something like the program you described work.
I think that it is definitely time that business got directly involved
in job creation, although that is contrary to what many profitable
companies are doing right now. Indeed, many companies that are gaining
profits, have been shedding jobs as they post their quarterly profits.
It is my opinion that until the voluntary sector draws the line,
and states that we are not in the market to perform either the government
or big business' jobs for them, we will continually be pushed to
pick up the slack.
Response from Bob DeHaan, Retired
Your essay on corporate volunteerism regarding hiring people who
had been on welfare is one of the best analyses I have read or heard.
I agree that more jobs must be created to make it possible for people
to get off welfare. That's one key. Another is that employers need
to offer the supportive services you listed because people recently
on welfare face many obstacles to being successfully employed. That
will be a hard one to sell to prospective employers, I would guess.
Jim Lehrer's News Hour of Friday, Oct. 10 reported on a project
(I forget the name of the outfit) that brought prospective employers
together who had job openings for ex-welfare people. The latter
would come in to this circle of prospective employers and present
themselves and their skills. One or more of the prospective employers
would then offer a position. But they did not have the supportive
services that these people needed. The project had to do that. So
again, your emphasis on the necessity of supplying these supportive
services is of the essence, I believe.
Keep up your good work.
