What Money Cannot Buy: The Distinctive and Multidimensional Impact of Volunteers

This article was downloaded by: [Macquarie University]On: 24 July 2011, At: 16:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Community PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcom20

What Money Cannot Buy: The Distinctiveand Multidimensional Impact ofVolunteersDebbie Haski-Leventhal a , Lesley Hustinx b & Femida Handy ca Centre for Social Impact, Australia School of Business, Kensington,Australiab Centre for Social Theory, Department of Sociology, GhentUniversity, Ghent, Belgiumc School of Social Policy & Practice, University of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Available online: 19 May 2011

To cite this article: Debbie Haski-Leventhal, Lesley Hustinx & Femida Handy (2011): What MoneyCannot Buy: The Distinctive and Multidimensional Impact of Volunteers, Journal of CommunityPractice, 19:2, 138-158

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2011.568930

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcom20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2011.568930

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Community Practice, 19:138–158, 2011Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1070-5422 print/1543-3706 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10705422.2011.568930

What Money Cannot Buy: The Distinctive andMultidimensional Impact of Volunteers

DEBBIE HASKI-LEVENTHALCentre for Social Impact, Australia School of Business, Kensington, Australia

LESLEY HUSTINXCentre for Social Theory, Department of Sociology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

FEMIDA HANDYSchool of Social Policy & Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, USA

Although it is assumed that volunteers make an extremely impor-tant contribution to organizations and the community, studiesthat examine their direct impact are scarce. Using quantitativeand qualitative data collected from clients, volunteers and staff atthe Philadelphia Ronald McDonald House, examined is the impactof volunteers on the organization, the clients and on themselves.Volunteers had a high direct and indirect impact on recipients,including on their attitudes toward volunteering and their futurebehavior. Volunteers gained intrinsic and extrinsic benefits and,as expected, their participation had a positive impact on the orga-nization. The study contributes to the body of knowledge on socialimpact and volunteering.

KEYWORDS volunteering, impact, community, clients, recipi-ents, Ronald McDonald House

Volunteers make a significant contribution to societies around the world.Each year, about one-half of all American adults volunteer in some capacity.Of this estimated 84 million adults, 25 million volunteer 5 or more hours per

This study would not have happened without the generous support of the staff at thePhiladelphia Ronald McDonald House, in particular Susan Campbell, Linda Parry, Lori-AnneMiller, and Doug Metcalfe. We are also grateful to all those many families and volunteers whotook time to fill out the surveys. Abigail Emerson provided excellent research assistance.

Address correspondence to Debbie Haski-Leventhal, Centre for Social Impact, Level6 East, Australian School of Business, UNSW, Kensington, NSW 2033 Australia. E-mail:[email protected]

138

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

What Money Cannot Buy 139

week and generate services worth more than $239 billion annually (Bureauof Labor Statistics, 2010). Based on data collected in 35 countries, Salamon,Sokolowski, and List (2003) concluded that the nonprofit sector in the late1990s represented 5.1% of the combined gross domestic product (GDP)of these countries and employed 39.5 million full-time equivalent (FTE)workers in the sector. The authors estimated that there were 190 millionvolunteers in these 35 countries, which amounts to over 20% of the adultpopulation in these countries.

Studies on the multidimensional impacts that volunteers make arescarce. Many studies use volunteer hours as a proxy for impact; they assumea positive correlation with the hours contributed by volunteers with theimpact on the organization, the clients (recipients), the society and commu-nity, and the volunteers themselves. The value of the volunteer work is thenimputed in terms of the economic value of the number of hours contributedusing a variety of methods (Handy & Srinivasan, 2004). However, otherimpacts, not directly related to the hours volunteered, such as being goodwillambassadors for the organization, enhancing the organization’s reputation,and advancing its mission are often acknowledged, but not accounted for ineconomic terms (Handy & Brudney, 2007).

It is very difficult to assess the impact of volunteers on these variousaspects due to the complexity of the issues and lack of defined measures.Existing methods have a number of important limitations. First, the impactof volunteer labor is often studied at the macro level, for example, in termsof its contribution to the national GDP (Salamon & Sokolowski, 2004), andnot as an organizational resource. In addition, available research is mainlyfocused on assessing the economic impact of volunteers, calculating thenet worth of volunteer labor at the organizational level using value-addedsocial accounting methods and cost-benefit analysis (Handy & Mook, forth-coming). However, these studies have calculated the impact of volunteersmerely in terms of volunteer hours donated and direct economic costs, andhave not focused on the more qualitative and presumably subjective impactthat volunteers may have on the organization and its clients or on volun-teers themselves. Instead, it is often assumed that the tasks performed bypaid labor and volunteer labor would have an identical impact—hence thatvolunteer labor is interchangeable with paid labor. However, Handy andSrinivasan (2005) found that CEOs of hospitals were not keen to replacevolunteers with paid staff, even if they had the money to do so, in largepart due to the unique contributions of the volunteers. Thus, there appearsto be something distinctive about volunteers and their contributions thatcannot be easily formulated in quantitative terms from a single stakeholderperspective.

The unique impact of volunteers, compared to the paid workers ofan organization, needs to be examined and understood in more qualitativeterms and from the perspective of the different stakeholders involved. Such

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

140 D. Haski-Leventhal et al.

an approach will better explain why organizations choose to engage vol-unteers, even when financial resources are available to acquire the servicesof paid staff. In addition, because there is a shift from collective and orga-nized volunteering toward more individualized and episodic volunteering(Hustinx, Haski-Leventhal, & Handy, 2008; Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003), thedifferent impacts of traditional and emerging types of volunteering may needto be assessed separately.

This article examines the impact of volunteer services at the Phila-delphia Ronald McDonald House (PRMH) on the organization, its clientsand the volunteers themselves, based on two sets of surveys: those con-ducted with PRMH volunteers and with the clients of PRMH (families ofseriously ill children).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Only a handful of studies have examined the impact of volunteer services onvolunteer service recipients. Ronel, Haski-Leventhal, Ben-David, and York(2009) investigated the impact of volunteers on clients of at-risk youth indrop-in centers in Israel. They concluded that the youth clients could differ-entiate between services received by paid staff and volunteers and perceivedvolunteers to be altruistic people who really care for them, showed themthere exists good in the world and inspired them to become volunteersthemselves. The at-risk youth preferred to receive services from volunteersthan from paid workers. The results showed volunteers provided successfulintervention services for the at-risk youth and that their unique contributionpositively affected services as a whole.

Grossman and Tierney (1998) evaluated the impact of volunteers in theBig Brother/Big Sister project on the 10- to 16-year-old clients of the service.They found mentoring by volunteers had a significant positive effect onthe young people participating in the program: they were significantly lesslikely to start using alcohol or illegal drugs, hit someone, or skip schoolthan those who were not in the program. They were also more confidentabout their school performance and got along better with their families.Baker, Gersten, and Keating (2000) showed that volunteers can also have adirect impact on students such as helping them to learn how to read. Edgar,Remmer, Roserbger, and Rapkin (1996) concluded that volunteers had apositive impact on cancer patients with respect to helping them manageside effects, handle medical treatment, and know which questions to asktheir physician.

By helping others, knowingly or unknowingly, volunteers also helpthemselves and there is a significant literature on the benefits of volunteer-ing to the volunteer. Noting a variety of potential benefits to the volunteer,Cnaan and Amrofell (1994) divided volunteering benefits into five categories:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011


tangible or material rewards; internal rewards such as good feeling aboutoneself; social interaction; norms and social pressure (relieved); and avoid-ance rewards. Volunteers report both intrinsic and extrinsic benefits fromvolunteering (Chinman & Wandersman, 1999). Musick and Wilson (2008)provided an excellent review of the literature on the positive impacts of vol-unteering to the volunteer, including self esteem, better physical and mentalhealth, their ability to address social problems (for example antisocial behav-ior of youth), and development of social capital. Volunteering is also relatedto life satisfaction (Wilson & Musick, 2000). This can be explained throughtheories of positive psychology. According to Seligman, Parks, and Steen(2004), the pursuit of happiness involved deploying one’s strengths andabilities, particularly when using these strengths to service something biggerthan ourselves, such as society or goodness.

Volunteers also have a unique impact of particular importance tonot-for-profits that continue to face budgetary constraints due to eco-nomic recessions or government cutbacks (Haski-Leventhal & Cnaan, 2009).Volunteers are regarded as important human resources that help save, aswell generate financial resources. One standard way to assess the financialimpact of volunteers to the organization is to multiply estimated hours by theaverage hourly compensation rate estimated for volunteer labor (Handy &Srinivasan, 2004). Several studies have tried to assess the financial valueof volunteers either in a specific organization (Vitner, Shalom, & Yodfat,2005) or in society as a whole (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009; Salamon &Sokolowski, 2004).

However, volunteers can bring additional benefits, such as enhancingthe organization’s reputation and legitimacy. These assets may help, in turn,to raise awareness, and attract more financial resources and volunteers. Manydonors and clients perceive the number of volunteers in an organization asa signal of its trustworthiness. Additionally, volunteers may bring a less for-mal atmosphere to an organization and help promote organizational change(McDonald & Warburton, 2003). Organizations using volunteer labor findthese tradeoffs of additional costs worthwhile when weighing them againstthe benefits; Handy and Srinivasan (2004) documented significant net bene-fits in their study of hospitals. Volunteers provide free labor and often makea financial impact by donating money and in-kind donations. Knowing andworking for the organization fosters a trusting relationship, this makes iteasier for volunteers to donate money and in-kind resources to the organi-zation. Indeed, the Institute for Volunteering Research (2008) found that 63%of people donated time as well as money, and frequently to the same orga-nization. A very high proportion of individuals who volunteer also donatemoney in the United States; Independent Sector (2001) reported that, amongvolunteers, only 2% do not donate.

According to MacNeela (n.d., p. 146), “volunteers were described asbringing something special to the organization, involving the helping/giving

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011


ethos.” Employing volunteers in a service ipso facto introduces the valuesof altruism to the organizational image and contribute to the organization’spositive image and to marketing its services. The positive attitudes towardthe altruistic volunteer may often be transferred to an overall positive per-ception of the organization (Ronel et al., 2009). Our study, premised on theliterature, is unique in simultaneously assessing the multidimensional impactof volunteers. It assesses the impact of volunteering on the volunteers, onthe organization, and on the clients of these services.

METHOD

This article is based on study conducted at the Philadelphia RonaldMcDonald House (PRMH). The House was established in 1974, and by 2007RMHC had local chapters in 51 countries and regions with 271 Housesin 30 countries. Volunteers provide nearly all the services and the coreprograms at these Houses; each year some 30,000 individuals volunteerto improve the lives of nearly 3.7 million children around the world(Ronald McDonald House Charities, 2009). Volunteers undertake severalroles, including serving the day-to-day needs of families at the House, serv-ing on boards and committees, fundraising and program development, andevent planning. Although many tasks involved in serving the families aredone by ongoing volunteers, PRMH also has successful programs staffed pri-marily by volunteers who come in only occasionally—from once a year toonce a month on an ad hoc or episodic arrangement. For example, episodicvolunteers work in the Guest Chef program that provides daily meals for80–90 guests all year round. They plan a menu, shop, cook, serve, andclean up (Philadelphia Ronald McDonald House, 2009).

A self-administered, paper and an on-line survey was used that tar-geted all volunteers at the PRMH. It was designed to cover demographics,volunteering habits, frequency of volunteering and number of hours given(to asses if they were ongoing or episodic volunteers), motivations to andrewards from volunteering, and their satisfaction with volunteer services.The demographic section included questions about the respondents’ fam-ily status, gender, age, and employment status, number of children, currentliving situation, and income. The volunteering habits section asked respon-dents to describe their role in PRMH, length and frequency of service,willingness to volunteer more and the level of importance of volunteeringrelative to other tasks. The survey included the motivation to volunteer sur-vey fielded by Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen (1991) and frequently used in theliterature, which included 24 items rated on five-point scales, from stronglyagree to strongly disagree, and an additional 10 items questions specificallygeared to PRMH. The benefits questionnaire included 8 common benefits ona five-point scale, from very important to not important at all. Respondents

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011


were also asked to indicate their satisfaction with different aspects of theirwork, from very satisfied to not satisfied on a five-point scale (1–5) Finally,respondents were asked whether or not they donated money to the PRMH,and additionally to give their best estimate of a monetary value of their workand the costs incurred from volunteering. Many questions allowed respon-dents an open-ended option where they could elaborate. The online surveywas sent out in 2007 by the Director of Volunteer Services at PRMH to all vol-unteers with e-mail addresses. However, to include many older volunteersand episodic volunteers who did not have e-mail contacts, paper surveyswere given to these volunteers when they arrived at PRMH to volunteer.

Additionally, between March 2007 and December 2008, questions wereadded regarding volunteer services to the exit survey regularly conductedby the PRMH. This survey is completed by a family member at the end oftheir stay and has a high response rate (95%). The survey included ques-tions regarding the guests’ satisfaction with their stay and the services theyreceived from both volunteers and paid workers at the PRMH. In addition,guests were asked questions regarding their interactions with volunteers andabout the importance of the services they received and to indicate whetherthe services were provided by volunteers, paid workers, or both. The surveyasked whether it made a difference whether volunteers or paid staff pro-vided services, and if and how their attitude toward volunteering changedsince meeting volunteers in PRMH. Finally, there were questions regardingtheir willingness to receive further information regarding the PRMH, includ-ing information on how they could assist. Issues of privacy did not permitcollecting social-demographic data from the families, except for the citywhere they lived and the length of their stay and number of visits to PRMH.In addition to the surveys, the researchers paid several visits to PRMH,including a tour of the premises; volunteered in the Guest Chef program;met volunteers; and conducted several informal interviews with the directorand assistant manager of volunteer services, as well as the House manager.This information was documented and used to portray the organizationalcontext in which the volunteer study occurred.

The quantitative data from both questionnaires were analyzed. Thisincluded frequencies of all variables and cross-tabulations to examine theresearch questions. Open-ended answers for each question were coded intocommon categories and grouped. The quotes throughout the article are mostrepresentative of the open-ended responses.

RESPONDENTS

Two hundred and fifty-eight responses from volunteers at the PRMH werereceived during the 10 weeks of the study. PRMH provided a list of approx-imately 250 ongoing volunteers and 305 episodic volunteers with e-mail

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011


addresses. The response rate was 56% for ongoing volunteers and 27% forepisodic volunteers. Therefore, this does not reflect the actual distribution ofongoing volunteers to episodic volunteers in PRMH. The respondents rangedin age from 18 to 89 years, with a mean of 45.4 years (SD = 15.9). The overallmajority was female (81%). The largest group reported a household incomeabove $100,000 (50%), whereas only just over 5% reported being in the low-est annual income category of below $20,000. The majority of respondentswere married or lived with their partners (52%) and the majority of themreported having children (54.8%), with a third (33.7%) having children livingwith them.

Of guests living at the PRMH during the 18-month period from March2007 through December 2008, 1011 completed exit surveys. Almost one-halfof the guests (45.5%) reported this visit to the PRMH as their first, 12.9%reported it to be their second, and 41.6% reported it to be at least their thirdvisit, which included 27.5% who reported this to be their 6th visit or more.Most of the guests (57.3%) stayed in the House for 3 or fewer days, and only14.4% stayed 10 days or longer.

FINDINGS

Impact of Volunteering on Clients

The results from guest surveys indicate a generally positive impact of vol-unteers on the guest families. Overall, 86.7% reported their interactions withthe volunteers to be excellent, and an additional 10.3% rated it very good.Less than 1% (only three respondents) rated their interaction with the vol-unteers as unsatisfactory. When asked if they had any negative experienceswith volunteers during their stay, almost all guests (98.3%) reported that theydid not. People who did have a negative experience with volunteers wereasked to elaborate, but their comments actually expressed complaints aboutthe work of the cleaners or security, generally done by paid staff, or prob-lems related to the comfort of the room. Many more guests expressed theirsatisfaction with the volunteers. “PMRH volunteers have been very pleasantand willing to share in conversations too. We appreciate them.” “The volun-teers were kind, compassionate, and helpful. Staff seemed a little superiorand condescending and patronizing.” Many wrote that the volunteers theymet were “nice,” “wonderful” or “kind.” However, one guest wrote: “Whatthere was, made me feel like a charity case. I am educated, employed, andof equal status, and made to feel uncomfortable.”

Most guests (89.4%) found the PRMH staff helpful, and a similar number(89.2%) found the volunteers helpful. Many guests gave names of one or twoparticularly helpful volunteers; others commented that all were very help-ful. When specifically asked if it made any difference to them to know thatvolunteers provided many of the services in the House, almost all (98.7%)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011


said that it made a positive difference to have volunteers doing the ser-vices rather than paid staff. As one guest put it, “The fact that volunteersprovide the services, shows us that we are surrounded by a communityin which people care for us when we are dealing with our sick children.”Most guests (78.2%) reported that volunteers made them feel that peoplein the community cared. The kindness of strangers moved the recipients.The general tone of comments is captured by this quote: “I am shocked andhumbled that so many people that don’t know me graciously reach out tome when I am drained and physically and emotionally spent with nothingto give.” The guests were extremely grateful for the volunteers. As one ofthem wrote: “They’re all wonderful! Thank you all, for a new room, goodfood, wonderful play area. For your smiling faces, words of encouragement,and being extra hands for me and the baby. God bless you and keep you!”Another said: “We are very grateful to everyone for helping our family andfeel blessed to be so fortunate for all of the support, help and love thatwas bestowed toward our family! All the thanks will never be enough! GodBless!”

Being exposed to voluntary work can alter recipients’ attitudes towardvolunteering. Some guests (15.2%) reported that they now think more pos-itively about volunteers; 14.2% said they might even start volunteeringthemselves as a result of their interaction with the volunteers, and 19.0% saidthey already volunteered. When asked if they would like to receive informa-tion on how they could assist the House, 72.2% of those who replied marked“yes.” Additionally, some respondents wrote down specific suggestions onhow they could help PRMH. Among these practical suggestions was an offerto sponsor the PRMH web site, a list of chores that the guests can do, and tooffer information on how guests could receive free passes to museums etc.

Guests were asked to rate the different types of services they receivedfrom volunteers, and to indicate whether or not they knew that the volunteersdelivered these particular services. Overall, the services were highly valuedby the guests. The most valued service was the reception desk (92.5% foundit extremely important or very important); followed by meals provided bythe guest chef program (83.1%); playroom areas (80.2%); and availability ofcomputer/internet services (76.8%). The least important services were theevening activities (only 57.7% found it extremely or very important) and thebreakfast (59.9%). It should be noted that all respondents highly valued theservices delivered by volunteers, some by ongoing volunteers (e.g. receptiondesk) and some by episodic volunteers (e.g. breakfast, dinner).

When asked if volunteers provided the services or paid staff, most peo-ple identified correctly, with a tendency to believe most services, with theexception of social workers, were provided by volunteers only. In reality,however, sometimes the services are provided by staff and volunteers. Forexample, 58.9% thought that the reception desk services are provided byvolunteers only; 25.3% thought it was paid staff only; and just 15.6% thought

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011


it was provided by both, which is correct—although volunteers are, indeed,the major providers. Although the quantitative data show that volunteerswere more highly perceived than paid workers, some guests’ commentsimplied that they found no differences:

During my short stay I only interacted with reception desk staff. Not sureif they were paid or volunteers. But very nice and helpful—doesn’t makea difference to me. All services were greatly appreciated . . . regardlessof who provided.

Respondents who reported their visit to the PRMH to be their thirdone or more tended to rate their interaction with the volunteer as morepositive, and to have less negative experience with volunteers than the first-and second-time visitors, but not significantly so. However, it was the firsttime visitors who were significantly more likely to say they would like tostart volunteering, themselves, more than the other groups (17.9% of thefirst-time visitors, vs. 11.1% of second-time visitors and 10.9% of third-time-or-more, p < .05). Yet, the third-time-and-more visitors agreed more oftenthat volunteers make them feel that people in the community care (80.3%agreed, vs. 78.6% of second-timers and 76.3% of first-timers, p < .05).

As for the importance of different services provided and identifyingwhether volunteers or paid workers delivered it, there were some significantdifferences according to the number of visit and length of stay. For example,79.9% of families visiting the house for the first time found van services tobe very or extremely important, compared to 74.8% of those visiting forthe second time and 71.2% of third-timers ( p < .05). However, third timevisitors rated the evening activities (64.9% vs. 52% of first-timers, p < .001),and social workers (78.8% vs. 68.9%, p < .05) higher. Dinner and playroomareas were more important for people visiting for the second and the thirdtime, more than for first-time visitors.

More frequent visitors knew better than first-time visitors which ser-vices are provided by volunteers. For example, 67.4% of third-time visitorsidentified the people at the reception desk as volunteers versus only 51.7%of first-time visitors ( p < .05). Although 23% of first-time visitors wronglyidentified social workers as volunteers, only 8.5% of second-time visitorsdid so ( p < .05). Identifying service provider correctly was not significantlycorrelated to the length of the visit.

Impact of Volunteering on Volunteers

The impact of volunteering on volunteers was examined through severalvariables: the levels of satisfaction and the benefits derived from volunteer-ing, their relationship with other volunteers, and the importance they attachto their volunteering. These variables were also examined in relation to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011


volunteer type (episodic vs. ongoing), the length of volunteer service andgender. The findings are summarized in Table 1.

Although people volunteer to help others, it is quite natural that theyreceive positive outcomes from volunteering. These are reflected in their rat-ings of the different benefits and levels of personal satisfaction. Volunteerswere asked, “How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your vol-unteer experience in PRMH?” and listed six different aspects of volunteering.As shown in Table 2, the strongest source of satisfaction was the appreci-ation the volunteers received from the families (98.2% somewhat to fullyagreed), followed by satisfaction with work (96.3%), appreciation of thestaff (94.5%), and relationship with other volunteers (92.1%). No significantdifferences occurred between ongoing volunteers and episodic volunteers.These answers suggest high levels of satisfaction among volunteers; this isnot surprising as volunteers who are dissatisfied can easily quit with no costto themselves.

When asked to elaborate, some volunteers expressed their satisfactionwith the volunteer management at PRMH as this example indicates:

Compared to other service/volunteer organizations that I have beenexposed to, the volunteer operation at PRMH is exceptionally well run.The director has a difficult job (recruiting and managing the volunteers)and she does it very well. Much of the credit for the ongoing success ofPRMH belongs to her !

The appreciation toward the volunteer director was expressed in other com-ments as well. Some volunteers expressed gratitude with the opportunity tovolunteer, as captured in the following quote:

I believe in giving back because I’ve been so blessed and is what isexpected of me and is what in my heart I want to do. PRMH has madethat possible and I am very grateful for the opportunity.

The least satisfying aspect reported by volunteers was the trainingreceived, especially training for the episodic volunteers. These were signifi-cant differences ( p < .001), with 86.6% of ongoing volunteers who reportedbeing satisfied versus 59.3% of episodic volunteers. This may be explainedby the greater numbers of ongoing volunteers (68%) who reported receiv-ing training as compared to only 14.6% of episodic volunteers ( p < .001).Likewise, ongoing volunteers were more likely to be satisfied with the levelof flexibility in their volunteering (94.4 %) than episodic volunteers (73.3 %).Some volunteers expressed dissatisfaction with the volunteer managementpractices, for example: “I think some of the volunteer tasks could potentiallybe better documented and standardized.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

TAB

LE1

Findin

gsRel

ated

toth

eIm

pac

tofVolu

nte

erin

gon

Volu

nte

ers

and

on

the

Org

aniz

atio

n

Freq

uen

cies

/ra

ting

for

allvo

lunte

ers

By

volu

nte

erty

pe

By

gender

By

lengt

hofse

rvic

e

Satis

fact

ion

Hig

hes

tsa

tisfa

ctio

nder

ived

from

:1.

Appre

ciat

ion

from

fam

ilies

2.Volu

nte

erw

ork

3.A

ppre

ciat

ion

ofth

est

aff

Sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her

for

OV

than

EV

1.Sa

tisfa

ctio

nw

ithtrai

nin

g2.

Satis

fact

ion

with

flex

ibili

tyof

volu

nte

eras

sign

men

ts

Wom

enw

ere

sign

ifica

ntly

more

satis

fied

than

men

.

Long

term

volu

nte

ers

(≥5

year

s)w

ere

more

satis

fied

with

rela

tionsh

ips

and

flex

ibili

tyB

enefi

tsM

ost

importan

tben

efits

:1.

Appre

ciat

ion

by

staf

fan

dfa

mili

es2.

Free

par

king

3.A

ppre

ciat

ion

even

ts

Sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her

for

OV

than

EV

1.A

ppre

ciat

ion

by

staf

fan

dfa

mili

es2.

Free

par

king

3.A

ppre

ciat

ion

even

ts

Wom

enva

lued

free

par

king

sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her

than

men

No

sign

ifica

ntdiffe

rence

s

Rel

atio

nsh

ipw

ithoth

ervo

lunte

ers

70.6

%ofvo

lunte

ers

reported

a(s

om

ewhat

)cl

ose

rela

tionsh

ipw

ithoth

ervo

lunte

ers

OV

wer

esi

gnifi

cantly

hig

her

than

EV

inre

portin

gto

hav

ecl

ose

or

som

ewhat

close

rela

tionsh

ips

with

oth

ervo

lunte

ers

No

sign

ifica

nt

diffe

rence

sLo

ng

term

volu

nte

ers

(≥5

year

s)fe

elth

ecl

ose

stto

oth

ervo

lunte

ers

Importan

ceof

volu

nte

erin

g17

.3%

reported

volu

nte

erin

gto

be

more

importan

tth

anpai

dw

ork

(15.

6%);

33.2

%as

more

importan

tth

anoth

erle

isure

activ

ities

Sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her

among

EV

than

OV

No

sign

ifica

nt

diffe

rence

sPer

sons

who

volu

nte

ered

for

2–4

year

sfo

und

volu

nte

erin

gm

ore

importan

tth

ansp

endin

gtim

ew

ithfa

mily

/fr

iends

Impac

ton

the

org

aniz

atio

nEst

imat

edFi

nan

cial

contrib

utio

n1.

$347

,870

per

year

usi

ng

estim

ates

by

volu

nte

ers

for

the

valu

eof

volu

nte

erhour

2.$6

20,3

79per

year

usi

ng

stan

dar

des

timat

esfo

rth

eva

lue

of

volu

nte

erhour

Sign

ifica

ntly

hig

her

among

OV

than

EV

1.O

Vm

ore

likel

yto

donat

em

oney

:63

%ve

rsus

22%

ofEV

2.O

Vva

lued

the

hourly

valu

esof

thei

rw

ork

as$1

2ve

rsus

$8fo

rEV

No

sign

ifica

nt

diffe

rence

sSi

gnifi

cantly

hig

her

among

longe

r-te

rmin

volv

ed(m

oney

and

in-k

ind)

Not

e.O

V=

Ongo

ing

Volu

nte

ers.

EV

=Epis

odic

Volu

nte

ers.

148

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

TAB

LE2

Ove

rall

Rat

esofSa

tisfa

ctio

nRep

orted

(Som

ewhat

or

Fully

Satis

fied

)

Volu

nte

erty

pe

Gen

der

Lengt

hofse

rvic

e

Ongo

ing

Epis

odic

Up

toone

More

than

Satis

fact

ion

with

Ove

rall

volu

nte

ers

volu

nte

ers

Wom

enM

enye

ar2–

4ye

ars

5ye

ars

Satis

fact

ion1_

Satis

fact

ion

96,3

%98

,0%

92,8

%96

,0%

97,4

%94

,3%

95,8

%98

,8%

with

work

(N=

219)

(N=

150)

(N=

69)

(N=

177)

(N=

39)

(N=

88)

(N=

48)

(N=

80)

Satis

fact

ion2_

Appre

ciat

ion

98,2

%99

,3%

95,7

%10

0,0%

90,0

%∗∗

∗95

,4%

100,

0%10

0,0%

offa

mili

es(N

=21

8)(N

=14

8)(N

=70

)(N

=17

5)(N

=40

)(N

=87

)(N

=48

)(N

=79

)Sa

tisfa

ctio

n3_

Appre

ciat

ion

94,5

%94

,6%

94,4

%96

,0%

87,5

%∗

96,6

%93

,8%

92,5

%ofst

aff

(N=

220)

(N=

149)

(N=

71)

(N=

177)

(N=

40)

(N=

88)

(N=

48)

(N=

80)

Satis

fact

ion4_

Rel

atio

nsh

ip92

,1%

93,9

%88

,2%

94,8

%82

,1%

∗∗86

,0%

93,6

%97

,4%

∗

with

oth

ervo

lunte

ers

(N=

215)

(N=

147)

(N=

68)

(N=

173)

(N=

39)

(N=

86)

(N=

47)

(N=

78)

Satis

fact

ion5_

Tra

inin

g79

,1%

86,6

%59

,3%

∗∗∗

83,6

%61

,8%

∗∗71

,8%

82,5

%85

,3%

and

exper

ience

(N=

196)

(N=

142)

(N=

54)

(N=

159)

(N=

34)

(N=

78)

(N=

40)

(N=

75)

Satis

fact

ion6_

Flex

ibili

tyof

88,2

%94

,4%

73,3

%88

,6%

91,2

%80

,0%

90,2

%96

,0%

∗∗

when

Ica

nvo

lunte

er(N

=20

4)(N

=14

4)(N

=60

)∗∗∗

(N=

167)

(N=

34)

(N=

85)

(N=

41)

(N=

75)

∗ p<

.05.

∗∗p

<.0

1.∗∗

∗ p<

.001

.

149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011


There were significant gender differences regarding satisfaction withdifferent aspects of their work, and in general, females were much moresatisfied than males. Female volunteers were more satisfied with the appre-ciation from the families than men (100% vs. 90% respectively, p < .001); aswell as appreciation from staff (96.0% vs. 87.5%, p < .05); the relationshipwith other volunteers (94.8% vs. 82.1%, p < .01) and the training received(83.6% vs. 61.8%, p < .01). Length of service was correlated significantly withonly two aspects of satisfaction. Relationship with other volunteers (97.4%of persons who volunteered for 5 years or more were somewhat or fullysatisfied vs. 86.0% of persons who volunteered up to a year, p < .05), andlevel of flexibility (96.0% of persons who volunteered 5 years or more weresomewhat or fully satisfied vs. 90.2% of persons who volunteered 2–4 years,and 80.0% of persons who volunteered up to a year, p < .01).

Table 3 examines are the benefits the volunteers gain from their workin PRMH. Receiving acknowledgment and appreciation from the staff andfamilies was rated as the top benefit by all volunteers, but particularly byongoing volunteers, with no significant gender differences. Second highestwas a very practical benefit of free parking, particularly by ongoing volun-teers and women. This was followed by volunteer appreciation events (with31.3% of ongoing volunteers vs. only 4.6% of episodic volunteers, p < .001,and no significant gender differences). Last, volunteers appreciated getting athank you note, with no significant differences by volunteer type or gender.The benefits not important to volunteers were receiving a certificate of anaward (2.4%), or being recognized publicly at special events (3.4%). Therewere no significant differences according to the length of service. Most vol-unteers in their written comments suggested that the benefit of volunteeringwas the opportunity to help others. This is captured in the following quote:

Volunteering is not completely selfless because there is such a feeling ofsatisfaction and reward helping others. . . . I am proud to say I volunteerat PRMH and to be a small part of such a large and wonderful groupof people who have experienced the PRMH in some way. What couldbe more rewarding than helping someone feel safe, comfortable and athome when they are away from home?

Given that nearly half the volunteers (44.9%) reported that they came tovolunteer at the PRMH by themselves, building social networks with othervolunteers is an important outcome for many. Indeed, a large percentage ofthe volunteers (70.8%) reported to have a close or somewhat close relation-ship with other volunteers. When asked to elaborate, one of the volunteerswrote: “I have only been volunteering there a few times so far, but I reallylike the people who work there and the volunteers. You get close quicklywith these people because we all have the same purpose.” This capturesthe gist of many comments along the same lines of building social ties with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

TAB

LE3

Importan

ceofD

iffe

rentTyp

esofB

enefi

ts(I

mportan

tor

Ver

yIm

portan

t)

Volu

nte

erty

pe

Gen

der

Lengt

hofse

rvic

e

Ongo

ing

Epis

odic

Up

toone

More

than

Ben

efits

Ove

rall

volu

nte

ers

volu

nte

ers

Wom

enM

enye

ar2–

4ye

ars

5ye

ars

Ben

efit1

_aw

ard

2,4%

2,8%

1,5%

1,8%

5,1%

3,5%

2,3%

1,3%

(N=

209)

(N=

142)

(N=

67)

(N=

166)

(N=

39)

(N=

85)

(N=

44)

(N=

77)

Ben

efit2

_rec

ogn

ized

3,4%

2,8%

4,5%

3,0%

5,1%

5,9%

2,3%

1,3%

atan

EVen

tpublic

ly(N

=20

8)(N

=14

1)(N

=67

)(N

=16

5)(N

=39

)(N

=85

)(N

=43

)(N

=77

)B

enefi

t3_V

olu

nte

er23

,0%

31,3

%4,

6%∗∗

∗24

,1%

20,5

%14

,6%

24,4

%30

,8%

Appre

ciat

ion

even

ts(N

=20

9)(N

=14

4)(N

=65

)(N

=16

6)(N

=39

)(N

=82

)(N

=45

)(N

=78

)B

enefi

t4_t

han

kyo

u17

,8%

17,7

%17

,9%

15,8

%25

,6%

16,5

%16

,7%

17,9

%note

(N=

208)

(N=

141)

(N=

67)

(N=

165)

(N=

39)

(N=

85)

(N=

42)

(N=

78)

Ben

efit5

_fre

em

ealat

10,1

%13

,4%

3,0%

∗9,

6%13

,2%

10,7

%11

,1%

9,2%

PRM

H(N

=20

8)(N

=14

2)(N

=66

)(N

=16

6)(N

=38

)(N

=84

)(N

=45

)(N

=76

)B

enefi

t6_F

ree

36,8

%43

,7%

22,7

%∗∗

42,5

%13

,5%

∗∗∗

28,0

%40

,9%

41,8

%par

king

(N=

201)

(N=

135)

(N=

66)

(N=

166)

(N=

37)

(N=

75)

(N=

44)

(N=

79)

Ben

efit7

_Ref

eren

ce11

,1%

13,8

%6,

1%11

,5%

10,5

%15

,5%

5,4%

9,2%

letter

(N=

189)

(N=

123)

(N=

66)

(N=

148)

(N=

38)

(N=

84)

(N=

37)

(N=

65)

Ben

efit8

_Appre

ciat

ion

59,0

%65

,3%

45,7

%∗∗

60,3

%52

,6%

57,5

%59

,6%

60,0

%by

staf

fan

dfa

mili

es(N

=21

7)(N

=14

7)(N

=70

)(N

=17

4)(N

=38

)(N

=87

)(N

=47

)(N

=80

)

∗ p<

.05.

∗∗p

<.0

1.∗∗

∗ p<

.001

.

151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011


like-minded people. The more years people volunteered, the closer relation-ships they had with other volunteers. The majority (85.4%) of people whovolunteered for 5 years or more had closer or somewhat close social tieswith other volunteers, compared to 77.1% of people who volunteered for2 to 4 years, and only 54.1% of those who volunteered for 1 year or less( p < .001). These findings suggest an increase in social capital as an ongo-ing benefit of volunteering. Ongoing volunteers (84.1%) had closer socialties with other volunteers than episodic volunteers (44.6%, p < .001), whichis not surprising, given the infrequency of contact for the latter. There wereno significant differences according to gender.

The high levels of satisfaction among volunteers could explain whyone-third (33.2%) found volunteering to be more important than their leisureactivities, and only 7.2% found it less important (see Table 4). In comparisonto paid work, 37.3% found volunteering to be of less importance, but fewer(17.3%) found their volunteering to be more important. More than one-half(54.6%) found their volunteering in PRMH to be of equal importance tospending time with family and friends. There were no significant differencesin the responses of ongoing and episodic volunteers or by gender. Therewere no significant differences according to length of volunteering whenvolunteering was compared to work or leisure, but differences were statis-tically significant when compared to spending time with family and friends.Although only 3.6% of people who volunteered up to a year found it moreimportant than time with family/friends, 14.0% of people who volunteered2 to 4 years did, but then it dropped again to 2.9% among people whovolunteered for 5 years or longer ( p < .05).

Impact of Volunteers on the Organization

According to PRMH data, volunteers gave an estimated 31,798 hr in theyear of the study, which amounts to just over 15 FTEs paid staff. Volunteersaccount for more FTEs than paid staff at the PRMH. Volunteers, one mayargue, are essential in providing many of the services offered by PRMH.If volunteer labor were not available, many of the services targeted tothe families and children would not have been available for free or atminimal cost.

To get an estimate of the value of the volunteer work, volunteers wereasked if someone had to be hired to do their volunteer work, how muchthey thought that person should be paid. The perceived average hourlyvalue volunteers put on their work was $10.94. Ongoing volunteers placedmore value to their work than episodic volunteers, or $12.06 per hr vs. $8.10(independent samples test, t = –3.407, df = 174, p = .001). Thus, accordingto the volunteers, their value their financial contribution to the organizationat $347,870 per year. Using standard estimates for the value of volunteer hourfor 2007, the year of the study, which is $19.51 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

TAB

LE4

Oth

erVar

iable

s

Volu

nte

erty

pe

Gen

der

Lengt

hofse

rvic

e

Ongo

ing

Epis

odic

Up

toone

More

than

Ove

rall

volu

nte

ers

volu

nte

ers

Wom

enM

enye

ar2–

4ye

ars

5ye

ars

Clo

sere

latio

nsh

ipw

ithoth

er70

,8%

84,1

%44

,6%

∗∗∗

72,0

%66

,7%

54,1

%77

,1%

85,4

%∗∗

∗

volu

nte

ers

(N=

219)

(N=

145)

(N=

74)

(N=

175)

(N=

39)

(N=

85)

(N=

48)

(N=

82)

Donat

ion1_

donat

edm

oney

50,5

%63

,9%

22,5

%∗∗

∗50

,6%

53,8

%24

,4%

58,3

%75

,0%

∗∗∗

PRM

H(N

=21

8)(N

=14

7)(N

=71

)(N

=17

8)(N

=39

)(N

=86

)(N

=48

)(N

=80

)D

onat

ion2_

donat

edoth

erth

an56

,7%

60,1

%49

,3%

57,9

%52

,6%

35,3

%70

,8%

68,8

%∗∗

∗

money

toPRM

H(N

=21

7)(N

=14

8)(N

=69

)(N

=17

8)(N

=38

)(N

=85

)(N

=48

)(N

=80

)Im

portan

ce_v

s_W

ork

_DU

M:

17,3

%14

,4%

22,1

%17

,5%

23,5

%12

,3%

24,3

%19

,6%

(som

ewhat

)m

ore

importan

t(N

=17

9)(N

=11

1)(N

=68

)(N

=13

7)(N

=34

)(N

=81

)(3

7)(N

=56

)Im

portan

ce_v

s_Le

isure

_DU

M33

,2%

29,9

%39

,7%

34,6

%30

,8%

34,9

%25

,0%

38,6

%(N

=20

2)(N

=13

4)(N

=68

)(N

=15

3)(N

=39

)(N

=83

)(N

=44

)(N

=70

)Im

portan

ce_v

s_Fr

iends

5,5%

4,6%

7,4%

6,0%

5,3%

3,6%

14,0

%2,

9%∗

Fam

ily_D

UM

(N=

199)

(N=

131)

(N=

68)

(N=

151)

(N=

38)

(N=

83)

(N=

43)

(N=

68)

Not

e.H

ourly

valu

eof

volu

nte

erla

bor.

Indep

enden

tSa

mple

sTe

st(T

-tes

t)es

timat

ion

:B

yvo

lunte

erty

pe:

OV

:$1

2.06

on

aver

age

for

OV,

$8.1

0on

aver

age

for

EV

(t=

–3.4

07,

df

=17

4,p

=.0

01);

By

gender

:$1

0.27

on

aver

age

for

mal

es,

$11.

14on

aver

age

for

fem

ales

(T-tes

tnot

sign

ifica

nt)

.Pea

rson’s

corr

elat

ion

Lengt

hofse

rvic

ean

dhourly

valu

evo

lunte

erin

g=

.119

(p<

.01)

.∗ p

<.0

5.∗∗

p<

.01.

∗∗∗ p

<.0

01.

153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011


2010), the value to the organization of 31,798 hr is $620,379, nearly dou-ble of the value volunteers perceive giving to the organization. There wereno significant differences according to gender. The Pearson’s correlation oflength of service and hourly value volunteering was .119 ( p < .01)

In addition to the indirect contribution to the PRMH through giving time,volunteers also donated money. One-half of the PRMH volunteers (50.5%)reported to have donated money to PRMH. Additionally, 56.7% had givenin-kind donations such as clothes, toys, and food. It is important to notethat episodic volunteers who came to prepare the meals also brought thefood ingredients with them, thus further contributing to PRMH. Ongoing vol-unteers were more likely to donate money more than episodic volunteers(63.9% vs. 22.5%; p < .001). Furthermore, long-term volunteers, 5 years andmore, were significantly more likely to donate (75%) than people who vol-unteered 2 to 4 years (58.3%) or those who had volunteered for less than ayear (24.4%, p < .001). However, the 2 to 4 year volunteers donated morein-kind donations (70.8%) than people who volunteered 5 years or more(68.8%) or less than a year (35.3%, p < .001). There were no significantdifferences in donating patterns among men and women, both for moneyor in-kind donations. Nor were there any significant differences among dif-ferent types of volunteers, ongoing or episodic volunteers regarding in-kinddonations.

These findings have some limitations. They are based on a single casestudy, so the ability to generalize results to other types of organizations islimited. There is a need for further research on the impacts of different kindsof volunteer services in different types of organizations. The study relied onthe existing guest survey with a few modifications, and for reasons of privacyand respect for their vulnerability, complete socio-economic personal datawas not obtained. This created a limitation in carrying out a multivariateanalysis to control for relationships among independent variables. Furtherresearch should try using different populations where data gathering maynot invade privacy or raise issues of vulnerability. In spite of these limita-tions, this is the first study of the multidimensional impact of volunteerismand the findings offer certain insights and suggest fruitful paths for futureresearch on the multilevel impact of volunteers.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

PRMH represents a home away from home. The voluntary work takes placein a highly domestic and intimate atmosphere and is in sharp contrast to therather sterile and stressful clinical environment of hospitals where the fami-lies spend most of their time. The anguish experienced by families dealingwith their seriously ill children may explain the strong impact volunteeringhas on both the clients and the volunteers. The personal contact with helpful

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011


volunteers in such a situation may be more likely to generate positive feel-ings toward the organization, the volunteers, and their services—as reflectedin the remarkably high levels of satisfaction among the clients in our sample.PRMH was able to build a program to take advantage of the new trend involunteering whereby individuals choose to volunteer for very short timesand often on a very ad hoc basis. Using hundreds of available episodicvolunteers to its advantage, PRMH was able to engage them creatively inmeeting a critical need for PRMH clients.

The findings show that volunteers have an extremely positive impacton the guest families in three aspects: tangible impact (providing services),attitudes (satisfaction and perceived altruism), and future behavior (willing-ness to volunteer). Volunteers have an important tangible impact on theclients’ well-being by providing highly valued services; such as reception,transportation, activities, and meals. The guests were not only highly sat-isfied with the services, but also it was important for them to know thatvolunteers provided the services. They expressed a certain satisfaction inknowing there is a community of caring individuals who were willing tocome to PRMH and volunteer to help strangers with sick children. The pos-itive attitudes held toward volunteers may have had an impact toward theoverall satisfaction the guests had with PRMH. Furthermore, this satisfactionalso translated into many family members willingness to receive informationon how to help PRMH, and for some, particularly first time visitors, greaterwillingness to volunteer, thereby increasing the community of caring indi-viduals. This need to reciprocate is common among volunteers’ reasons forvolunteering (Musick & Wilson, 2008). Families who were at PRMH on asecond or third visit were less likely to volunteer in the future; this may bethe result of having more seriously ill children who required frequent visitsto the hospital and, thus, more care and attention, leaving them less timeto reciprocate by volunteering. It seems that the longer the guests used thePRMH services, the higher their appreciation of the volunteers. Not only didthey know better which services were provided by the volunteers, but theyalso were more satisfied with the volunteers and less likely to report anynegative interactions.

Second, volunteering was also found to have a positive impact on thevolunteers. From the volunteers’ perspective, although their tasks are rela-tively easy and often of a short-term nature, the fact that they do these tasksfor people in such desperate need may make them feel good about them-selves through the warm glow of giving. By providing these basic services,the volunteers are able to offer direct relief to families, through personalcontact and everyday interaction. This renders their efforts into immedi-ate gratifying experiences, and volunteers are appreciated, which, in turn,makes them satisfied and happy. Indeed, this accords well with the theo-retical explanation that doing something worthwhile is augmented throughthe positional advantage the volunteer enjoys, particularly in comparison to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011


the health of one’s own children which is very likely better than that of thefamily one is helping. A volunteer feels blessed, as compared to the fami-lies at PRMH, thereby augmenting feelings of satisfaction among volunteers(Handy & Mook, forthcoming). These findings have similarities with a studyconducted by Ronel et al. (2009) on volunteers who help at-risk youth. Thegreater the need of the client, the greater the impact of the volunteers wason both the clients and on their level of satisfaction and feeling of worth.The personal contact and the need to develop trust result in changing clients’behavior and attitudes.

The results indicate that volunteers in PRMH, especially women, mostvalued intrinsic benefits such as being acknowledged and appreciated, fol-lowed by tangible benefits such as parking, attending special events, andthank you notes. Comments offered by respondents reflected the intrin-sic motivations that volunteers felt knowing they were helping others. Notsurprisingly, the tangible benefit of parking was highly rated, as parkingaround the PRMH is scarce. However, rather than a benefit, a lack of parkingshould be considered a barrier to volunteering that volunteers need to over-come. It is interesting that volunteers were not highly satisfied with trainingthey received, particularly the episodic volunteers. Although episodic volun-teers only come occasionally, they, too, seek some guidance. The fact thatonly 14% of them received any training, can explain their low satisfaction.Indeed, studies show that formal training is very important to volunteersand may decrease anxiety and increase performance (Haski-Leventhal &Bargal, 2008).

Finally, as expected, the services provided by volunteers had a positiveimpact on the organization. It allowed PRMH to provide its services to theeligible families at minimal prices or for free because volunteers providedlabor and in-kind donations needed for the programs. According to the vol-unteers, their labor to PRMH is worth is more than over $300,000 a year, andthis value would be double if measured using official volunteer hourly valueestimates. Volunteers also gave financial and in-kind donations to PRMH.Volunteers, moreover, were goodwill ambassadors for the organization andsent positive signals to donors and others on the trustworthiness of PRMH.PRMH thus received human, in-kind, and financial resources, as well aspublicity that aided in fundraising in the community. Using episodic vol-unteers increases the number of individuals who interact with PRMH. This,alone, increases the number of goodwill ambassadors from PRMH, whichenhances the word-of-mouth type marketing for PRMH. This is essential toits legitimacy and ability to attract resources. The positive impact of volun-teers on the clients’ inclination to volunteer may facilitate the organization’srecruitment efforts to mobilize future volunteers and possible donations.Furthermore, the results confirm that a kind of perceived altruism exists forclients in their views of volunteers. Volunteers bring this unique value toorganizations and clients are not indifferent towards the services received

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011


from volunteers in comparison to paid workers. Regardless of the obviouseconomic value of their services, volunteer presence adds to the distinctive-ness of nonprofits, and the strengthening of a community of reciprocity andconcern. Clients recognize the unique ethos that caring volunteers give, andtheir word-of-mouth publicity contributes to the organization’s legitimacy.Thus, volunteers have a unique contribution, far beyond the reduction inorganizational costs. Their contribution is valued on at least the three pri-mary agents involved: clients, the institution, and the volunteers themselves.They help create a better image of the organization and the community.

REFERENCES

Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Keating, T. (2000). When less may be more: A 2-year longi-tudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal training.Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 494–519.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Volunteering in the United States, 2009 (US Dept.of Labor USDL-10-0097). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm

Chinman, M. J., & Wandersman, A. (1999). The benefits and costs of volunteeringin community organizations: Review and practical implications. Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 46–64.

Cnaan, R. A., & Amrofell, L. (1994). Mapping volunteer activity. Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(4), 335–351.

Cnaan, R. A., & Goldberg-Glen, R. S. (1991). Measuring motivation to volunteer inhuman services. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(3), 269–284.

Edgar, L., Remmer, J., Roserbger, Z., & Rapkin, B. (1996). An oncology volunteersupport organization: The benefits and fit within the health care system. Psycho-oncology, 5, 331–341.

Grossman J. D., & Tierney, J. P. (1998). Does mentoring work? An impact study ofthe big brothers big sisters program. Evaluation Review, 22, 403–426.

Handy, F., & Brudney, J. (2007). When to use volunteer labor resources? An orga-nizational analysis for nonprofit management. Vrijwillige Inzet Onderzocht, 4,91–100.

Handy, F., & Mook, L. (2010). Volunteering and volunteers: Benefit-cost analy-sis. Research in Social Work Practice. Retrieved from http://rsw.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/11/01/1049731510386625.full.pdf+html

Handy, F., & Srinivasan, N. (2004). Valuing volunteers: An economic evaluationof the net benefits of hospital volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorQuarterly, 33, 28–54.

Handy, F., & N. Srinivasan. (2005). The demand for volunteer labor: A study ofhospital volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 34(4), 491–509.

Haski-Leventhal, D., & Bargal, D. (2008). The volunteering stages and transitionsmodel: Organizational socialization of volunteers. Human Relations, 61(1),67–102.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011


Haski-Leventhal, D., & Cnaan, R. A. (2009). Group processes and volunteering:Enhancing recruitment and retention. Administration in Social Work, 33, 1–20.

Hustinx, L., Haski-Leventhal, D., & Handy, F. (2008). One of a kind? Comparingepisodic and regular volunteers at the Philadelphia Ronald McDonald House.IJOVA: International Journal of Volunteer Administration, 25(3), 50–66.

Hustinx, L., & Lammertyn, F. (2003). Collective and reflexive styles of volunteering:A sociological modernization perspective. Voluntas, 14(2), 167–187.

Independent Sector. (2001). Giving and volunteering in the United States (2001).Retrieved July 2, 2010 from http://www.cpanda.org/pdfs/gv/GV01Report.pdf.

Institute for Volunteering Research. (2008). Valuing time and money: The real andperceived value of volunteering and giving. London, England: Author.

MacNeela, P. (n.d.). Individuals and organizations: An exploration of the volun-teering process in health and social care groups. Final Report to the ThirdSector Research Program, Royal Irish Academy. Retrieved from http://www.ria.ie/committees/pdfs/tsrp/macneela.pdf.

McDonald, C., & Warburton, J. (2003). Stability and change in nonprofit organiza-tions: The volunteer contribution. Voluntas, 14, 381–399.

Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington, IN:Indiana University Press.

Philadelphia Ronald McDonald House. (2009). Volunteer. Retrieved fromhttp://www.philarmh.org/volunteer

Ronald McDonald House Charities. (2009). History of Ronald McDonald Housecharities. Retrieved from http://www.rmhc.com/who-we-are/our-history/

Ronel, N., Haski-Leventhal, D., Ben-David, B. & York, A. (2009). Perceivedaltruism—A neglected factor in intervention and research. International Journalof Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 53, 191–210.

Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, S. W. (2004). Global civil society: Dimensions of thenonprofit sector (Volume 2). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.

Salamon, L. M., Sokolowski, S. W., & List, R. (2003). Global civil society: An overview.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.

Seligman, M. E. P., Parks, A. C., & Steen, T. (2004). A balanced psychology and afull life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 359, 1379–1381.

Vitner, G., Shalom, V., & Yodfat, A. (2005). Productivity of voluntary organizations:The case of Counselling Services for the Elderly (CSE) of the National InsuranceInstitute (NII) in Israel. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18,447– 462.

Wilson, J., & Musick M. A. (2000). The effects of volunteering on the volunteer. Lawand Contemporary Problems, 62, 141–168.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mac

quar

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

53 2

4 Ju

ly 2

011

What Money Cannot Buy: The Distinctive and Multidimensional Impact of Volunteers

Documents

Transcript of What Money Cannot Buy: The Distinctive and Multidimensional Impact of Volunteers