Here's what we know about the support Australians really need

This is a worry, because non-government non-commercial activities are the foundation of communities, and we're all going to need the support of a community at some stage in our lives.

As an isolated observation, though, that doesn't tell us much, because averages are uninformative, and there's more than one Australian.

Our Community - my company, a service organisation for the volunteer sector - has just commissioned a cracking survey, and I can confirm that there are at least six kinds of Australians.

Our research team, led by Dr Rebecca Huntley, has identified three groups that are broadly supportive of community activity, and three groups that have severe reservations.

The "enthusiastic engaged" (20 per cent of us) are active contributors to community organisations.

They hold broadly progressive values (or, if you're not in this group, air-quotes "progressive" values) and believe in equal opportunity and caring for others.

They believe that we have a responsibility to others, and they strongly support community organisations receiving more government funding. Another 16 per cent of us would be those people if we could.

The "positive preoccupied" are broadly supportive of the community sector in the abstract but themselves are juggling work and raising children and just can't muster the time and energy to contribute regularly.

They still believe the community sector is a force for good, though, and that it deserves government funding.

Next along we come to the group at the pointy end - the most economically and socially vulnerable segment.

The "isolated believers" (16 per cent) know, none better, that the sector fills critical gaps left by government and the private sector, and believe it deserves more government funding, but value personal security and safety above all else and believe the focus should be on individual service delivery (though they're not against community organisations speaking out on social issues).

They'd like to be more involved, but just because they're socially isolated they face discouraging barriers.

You are, I hope, already assessing which group includes you. Let's give you a wider choice.

Some 17 per cent of us are "active traditionalists".

They're right in there with the volunteering and supporting their local community, more than most, and would support more government funding - provided that it went to help those in need, tightly defined, rather than towards contentious social issues.

They feel socially connected themselves , but worry that other people are becoming less connected to their communities.

The "indifferent uninvolved group (20 per cent of us) are, more or less, what the traditionalists are worried about.

They don't see the community sector as relevant to people like them, and they see their own individual development as their central priority.

They're not actively against community - who could be? - but they have no real engagement beyond tangential activities such as one-off donations or signing online petitions.

If you haven't put your hand up yet, how about the "begrudging bygones"?

This group contribute to their community, certainly, but (based on their volunteering experience?) have a more pessimistic view of the sector and of society as a whole, meaning that unlike the traditionalists they don't really favour government funding of anything.

Whichever group you fall into, it's important to understand the point of view of the others, and to empathise with their concerns.

It's also, confoundingly, important to take into account the looseness of the concepts surrounding the sector, and the enormous contribution made to all these attitudes by simple misunderstanding.

About 20 per cent of us are all in with the community sector, about 20 per cent couldn't really give a toss, but at least 60 per cent of us don't know what counts as community.

People think that government activities such as local government (61 per cent), public schools (59 per cent), public hospitals (54 per cent) or even just governments (21 per cent) are in the community sector.

A third of us (36 per cent) apparently think businesses are.

The sector, plainly, has a branding problem.

That said, 71 per cent of us - just about everybody, that is, except the indifferents - think that community groups make a positive difference in the world while 62 per cent see the role of the sector as filling the gaps left by governments and business.

And an impressive 59 per cent of us think that community groups should get more government funding.

On the other hand, when the question is put the other way round - should community organisations be able to fund themselves without government assistance? - our preference is less marked: 26 per cent say cut the cord, 40 per cent aren't sure, and only 34 per cent boldly support these transfers.

Again, your response seems to rest to a large extent upon whatever your general views on life are.

If there's one general takeaway, it'd be that most Australians are in favour of the community sector and would like to contribute more themselves, but can't do as much as they'd like, and if we want to build community, we should try and reduce those barriers.

Wherever we're starting from, there are ways to improve our outcomes without having to disturb the self-satisfied solipsism of the unreachable indifferents.

And as for the enthusiastic engaged, check out www.givenow.com.au and help any way you can.