One of the most distinctive features of the nonprofit sector is its ability to harness the productive labor of literally millions of citizens in service to organizational goals, without benefit of remuneration. Government organizations at the federal, state, and local levels also rely on substantial volunteer labor to pursue their public purposes. This remarkable achievement does not just happen spontaneously as a consequence of compelling agency missions, although, certainly, the desire to help people through donating time to a worthwhile cause is a powerful motivation for most volunteers. The credit belongs, instead, to the volunteer program, which allows citizens to realize the helping impulse as well as a variety of other motives through work activities designed by the organization with the volunteer in mind to meet its needs and objectives. The volunteer program may be part of an organization that also has paid staff, or it may consist of a group or organization staffed entirely by volunteers.

An organized volunteer program provides a structure for meeting certain requisites: volunteers must be recruited; they must be screened and given orientation to the agency; they must be assigned to positions and afforded necessary training; they must be supervised, motivated, and accorded appropriate recognition; and they should be evaluated to assess the efficacy of their placement for themselves, as well as for the organization. This inventory focuses too narrowly on the volunteer, however, and overlooks the groundwork the organization must first lay for an effective program. The agency must determine its reasons for enlisting voluntary assistance and how it plans to involve and integrate citizen participants. Based on that philosophy, it must develop job descriptions for volunteer positions and arrange for orientation and training for employees expected to work with nonpaid staff. The agency should make clear the importance of collaborating with volunteers and hold these employees accountable for doing so. Given the infrastructure that must be created to have an effective volunteer program, an agency must exhibit or reach a certain state of preparation or readiness (Brudney, 2012).

The volunteer program is a vehicle for facilitating and coordinating the work efforts of volunteers and paid staff toward the attainment of organizational goals. The core program functions that make this achievement possible can be grouped as follows:

• Establishing the rationale for volunteer involvement
• Involving paid staff in volunteer program design
• Integrating the volunteer program into the organization
• Creating positions of program leadership
• Preparing job descriptions for volunteer positions
• Meeting the needs of volunteers
• Recruiting and retaining volunteers
• Managing volunteers
• Evaluating and recognizing volunteer effort

This chapter elaborates the essential components of the volunteer program and offers suggestions for increasing their effectiveness. Two caveats with respect to coverage are in order. First, one might reasonably add risk management for volunteers and volunteer programs to the listing above, since it has become a concern to many host organizations (Herman and Jackson, 2001). Resources on this topic are provided in the Internet resource web site for this Handbook and will not be covered here (for a treatment of risk management and legal holdings in relation to volunteers in the United States, see Groble and Brudney, 2015).

Second, this chapter concentrates on “service” volunteers, individuals who donate their time to help other people directly, rather than on “policy” volunteers (citizens who assume the equally vital role of sitting on boards of directors or advisory boards of nonprofit organizations). The aspects of volunteer service that are unique to boards are discussed in Chapter Five of this volume. Although the demands of managing the performance and incorporating the benefits into the agency of these two types of volunteer activity are quite distinct, some overlap does exist. Service volunteers can bring a wealth of practical experience and knowledge that might prove a great asset to a governing or advisory board. Similarly, experience in direct service might usefully shape or sharpen the observations and insights of board members. Yet service volunteers may not always possess the breadth of perspective and background important to effective policymaking, or an interest in this pursuit, whereas board members may lack the immediate skills or motivation to perform well in a service capacity. As a result of such trade-offs, a great variety of practices governs the relationship between service and policy volunteering across the nonprofit sector. Some organizations encourage service volunteers to become board members, others permit the interchange, and still others prohibit it. The term “volunteer program” conventionally refers to the organization and management of service volunteers for best results. This topic forms the core of this chapter.

Establishing the Rationale for Volunteer Involvement

No matter how overburdened an agency, constrained its human and financial resources, eager for fresh input and innovation, and enthusiastic about the potential contribution of citizens, organizational efforts to incorporate volunteers should not begin with recruitment. Unfortunately, well-intentioned but premature calls for (undifferentiated) “help” can breed apprehension among paid staff and frustration among volunteers, and exacerbate the very problems volunteerism was intended to solve. Because this scenario would reinforce negative stereotypes about volunteers and undermine their credibility as a vital service resource, it must be avoided. In fact, Susan J. Ellis (1994) begins The Volunteer Recruitment Book with the admonition (and chapter) “Recruitment Is the Third Step.” The first step, treated in this section, is to determine why the organization wants volunteers; the second, discussed in a section below, is to design valuable work assignments for them (Ellis, 1994, pp. 5–6). The agency must resist the temptation to “call in the volunteers” until the groundwork for their sustained involvement has been put in place. “Throwing people at a problem” (rather than money) is no way to solve it. The foundation for an effective volunteer program rests, instead, on a serious consideration by the agency of the rationale for citizen involvement and the development of a philosophy or policy to guide this effort. The initial step in planning the program should be to determine the purposes for introducing the new participants into the organization. For what reasons are volunteers sought?

Especially in times of fiscal exigency, top organizational officials will often express “cost-savings” as the primary reason for enlisting volunteers. Yet the claim is misleading (Brudney, 2016). In the first place, although the labor of volunteers may be “free” or donated, a volunteer program requires expenditures, for example, for orientation, training, reimbursement, promotion, materials, and so forth. In the second, for volunteers to finance cost-savings (rather than extend agency resources), cutbacks must be exacted somewhere in the agency budget. If cutbacks are to be visited on paid staff, officials risk the kind of resentments and antagonisms that have scuttled many a volunteer program.

A more accurate description of the economic benefits that volunteers can bring to an agency is “cost-effectiveness.” When a volunteer program has been designed to supplement or complement the work of paid staff with that of citizens, volunteers can help an agency to hold costs down in achieving a given level of service or to increase services for a fixed level of expenditure (Brudney, 1990, 2016; Karn, 1982–1983–1983; Moore, 1978). From the perspective of organizational efficiency, what volunteers offer is the capacity to make more productive application of existing funds and person-power. With a relatively small investment of resources, volunteers have the potential to increase the level and quality of services that an agency can deliver to the public. Although costs are not spared in this situation, to the degree that volunteers improve the return on expenditures, they extend the resources available to an agency to meet pressing needs for assistance and services.

Additional or different purposes may drive a volunteer program. The leadership of a nonprofit organization may decide to enlist volunteers to interject a more vibrant dimension of commitment and caring into its relationships with clients. Or the goal may be to learn more about the community, nurture closer ties to citizens, and strengthen public awareness and support. Volunteers may be needed to reach clients inaccessible through normal organizational channels, that is, to engage in “outreach” activities (for example, Dorwaldt, Solomon, and Worden, 1988; May, McLaughlin, and Penner, 1991; Young, Goughler, and Larson, 1986). They may be called upon to provide professional skills not readily available to an agency, such as computer programming, legal counsel, or accounting expertise. The purpose may be to staff an experimental or pilot program otherwise doomed to fiscal austerity. Enhancing responsiveness to client groups or establishing a community perspective internally offer still other rationales for volunteer involvement.

Volunteers also make excellent fundraisers. Because the public tends to perceive them as neutral participants who will not directly benefit from monetary donations to an agency, organizations very frequently enlist citizens for this task. In fact, in a 1989 national survey nearly half (48 percent) of the volunteers reported assignments in fundraising (Hodgkinson, Weitzman, Toppe, and Noga, 1992, p. 46). More recent survey research on volunteers shows that fundraising ranked first by frequency of mention as a volunteer assignment in surveys conducted in 1996 and 1994 (tied in 1994 with assisting the elderly, handicapped, social service recipients, or homeless not as part of an organization or group), although the percentages are much more modest (7.3 percent and 4.8 percent, respectively), probably due to differences in question wording (Hodgkinson and Weitzman, 1996, p. 34).

That the list of possible purposes for establishing a volunteer program is lengthy attests to the vitality of the approach. Before seeking volunteers, agency leaders should agree on the results to be achieved for their organization. An explicit statement of goals advances several important facets of program design and functioning. First, it begins to define the types of volunteer positions that will be needed and the number of individuals required to fill these roles. McCurley (2005) strongly cautions against over-recruitment. Such information is at the core of eventual recruitment and training of volunteers. Second, it aids in delineating concrete objectives against which the program might be evaluated once in operation. Just as in any organized effort, evaluation results are instrumental to strengthening and improving the program.

Finally, a statement of the philosophy underlying volunteer involvement and the specific ends sought through this form of participation can help alleviate possible apprehensions of paid staff that the new participants may intrude on professional prerogatives or threaten job security. Clarifying the goals for voluntary assistance can dampen idle, typically negative speculation and begin to build a sense of program ownership on the part of employees—especially if they are included in planning for the volunteer program (see next section).

It should be acknowledged that simply stating the mission or goals for volunteer involvement (or for other organizational endeavors) is insufficient. Without follow-through or commitment, even the most laudable purposes can fall easy victim to failure and frustration. Worse, rhetorical support (alone) can breed cynicism and lack of trust that can be particularly difficult to overcome. In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, for example, President Bush seemed to have the moment and the oratory to galvanize the citizenry toward greater volunteerism, self-sacrifice, and responsibility for common purposes. Approximately one year later, editorialists began to question whether the social, moral, and political capital that grew out of that terrible day had already evaporated. “Mr. Bush continues to extol the virtues of voluntary service, and this is admirable. But it is hardly enough to resist the erosion in the level of public engagement as people return to everyday routines” (New York Times, 2002).

Involving Paid Staff in Volunteer Program Design

The support of top-level organizational officials is crucial to the establishment and vitality of a volunteer program (for example, Ellis, 1996; Farr, 1983; Scheier, 1981; Valente, 1985). Yet they are not the only ones who should be involved in defining the mission, philosophy, and procedures of the program. Paid staff, and if they are already known to the agency or can be identified, volunteers, should also be included in relevant meetings and discussions.

A precept in the field of organizational development is to include groups to be affected by a new policy or program in its design and implementation. Involvement adds to the knowledge base for crafting policy and inculcates a sense of ownership and commitment that can prove very beneficial in gaining acceptance for innovation. Because the incorporation of volunteers into an agency can impose dramatic changes in work life, the participation of paid staff is especially important (Graff, 1984, p. 17). The sharing of needs, perspectives, and information among agency leadership, employees, and prospective volunteers that ensues plays a pivotal role in determining how the volunteer program might be most effectively designed, organized, and managed to further attainment of agency goals. At the same time, the process helps to alleviate concerns of paid staff regarding volunteer involvement and its implications for the workplace.

A primary purpose of the planning meetings and discussions is to develop policies and procedures governing volunteer involvement endorsed by all parties. Agency guidelines need not be lengthy, but they should address all major aspects of volunteer participation (see McCurley and Lynch, 1996, pp. 24, 195–202). Important aspects include

• Definition of volunteer
• Screening procedures
• Orientation and training
• Probationary period
• Assignment of volunteers
• Performance evaluation
• Benefits of service
• Length or term of service
• Grievance procedures
• Reimbursement policies
• Use of agency equipment and facilities
• Confidentiality requirements
• Disciplinary procedures
• Record-keeping requirements

In all areas these policies should be as comparable as possible to pertinent guidelines for paid staff.

Although some may lament the formality of conduct codes for volunteers as somehow inimical to the spirit of help freely given, this device is associated with positive results. Explicit policies for volunteers demonstrate that the agency takes their participation seriously and values their contribution to goal attainment. By setting standards as high for volunteers as for paid staff, an agency builds trust and credibility, increased respect and requests for volunteers from employees, a healthy work environment, and, perhaps most important, high-quality services (Deitch and Thompson, 1985; Goetter, 1987; McCurley and Lynch, 1989, 1996; Wilson, 1984). A seasoned volunteer administrator advises, “One should not have different qualifications for staff than one has for volunteers doing the same work” (Thornburg, 1992, p. 18). These guidelines and expectations greatly facilitate organizing the volunteer program, handling problem situations, protecting rights, and managing for consistent results.

Some authorities go further to argue that “Non-profits should treat volunteers as if they were paid employees” (Stoolmacher, 1991). They contend that the standard elements of volunteer administration in the United States, which have counterparts in paid employment—for example, interview, screening, placement, job description, orientation, supervision, ongoing training, performance review, maintenance of records, recognition, and fair and professional treatment—reduce the possibility for confusion and frustration on the part of volunteers that can result in an unsuccessful experience for both them and the organization. The “volunteers as unpaid staff” model is not without detractors (for example, Ilsley, 1990), and the approach should be amply leavened to take into account the needs, perspectives, and circumstances of volunteers so that volunteers are matched to missions and jobs for which they have interest, ability, skills, and input (Meijs and Brudney, 2007). Other scholars maintain that this “programme” [program] model of volunteer management may work well in certain circumstances (for example, in a larger volunteer program or in a program operated by a government agency or large nonprofit), but not in all, such as in a membership-based organization or a small cooperative (Meijs and Hoogstad, 2001).

Explicit policies for the volunteer program help solidify the “psychological contract” linking volunteers to the agency and, thus, may reduce withdrawal and turnover. In one study Jone L. Pearce (1978, pp. 276–277) found that those organizations most successful in clarifying the volunteer-agency relationship suffered the lowest rates of turnover. These agencies distributed notebooks with all written policies, formal job descriptions, and training manuals to citizen participants. By contrast, the organization with the highest turnover in Pearce's sample provided none of this information to volunteers.

In another study Steven M. Farmer and Donald B. Fedor (1999) investigated the effects of the psychological contract in a survey of 451 executive committee volunteers working in the chapters of a large, national, nonprofit fundraising health advocacy organization. Similar to the results of Pearce's study, Farmer and Fedor found that fulfillment (or violation) of the psychological contract affected the level of volunteer participation. Volunteers who reported that the organization had met their expectations participated more in the organization and perceived greater levels of organizational support for their involvement. In turn, perceived organizational support not only increased levels of participation but also reduced volunteers' turnover intentions. In another study, Matthew Liao-Troth (2001) found the attitudes of paid workers and volunteers holding similar jobs in a single hospital setting to be quite similar, including the psychological contract (with the exception of psychological contracts regarding benefits). Liao-Troth (2001, p. 437) concludes: “Volunteers may believe that they have made certain agreements with the organization as to what they will provide the organization and what the organization will provide them. If a manager is not aware of her or his volunteers' psychological contracts, then he or she may unintentionally violate the volunteers' psychological contracts, which can have negative consequences in terms of job performance.”

Although volunteers may not be involved in initial discussions concerning volunteer program planning and design (at this stage they may not be known to the agency), once this effort is launched and in operation, they need to have input into major decisions affecting the program. Just as for paid employees, citizens are more likely to invest in and commit to organizational policies, and provide useful information for this purpose, if they enjoy ready access to the decision-making process. Participation in decision making is a key element of “empowerment” in volunteer administration, which is thought to result in increased ownership of the volunteer program by participants and, hence, greater commitment and effectiveness (for a full discussion, see Naylor, 1985; Scheier, 1988a, 1988b, 1988–1989). Formerly, this term seemed to center on citizen volunteers and expressed the idea that they should enjoy greater say in these programs, as well as greater recognition for the time, skills, and value they contributed. More recently, the term seems to have shifted to a focus on the administrators of these programs and expresses the conviction that they should have positions (and prerequisites), influence, authority, and status in host organizations commensurate with performing a very difficult but highly productive managerial task (Ellis, 1996; McCurley and Ellis, 2003).

Integrating the Volunteer Program into the Organization

As these comments suggest, the volunteer program must be organized to respond to the motivations and requirements of volunteers and employees. With respect to volunteers, the program should have mechanisms for determining the types of work opportunities sought and meeting those preferences, and for engendering an organizational climate in which volunteers can pursue their goals, with the acceptance if not always the avid endorsement of paid personnel. From the perspective of staff, the program must have structures and procedures in place to assume the task of volunteer administration and to generate a pool of capable citizens matched to the tasks of participating offices and departments.

To accomplish these goals, the volunteer program must be linked to the structure of the nonprofit or government host organization. A small nonprofit may accommodate volunteers with a minimum of structural adaptation, but larger agencies need to consider alternative structural configurations for integrating volunteers into their operations (Brudney, 2012; Valente and Manchester, 1984, pp. 56–57). In order of increasing comprehensiveness, these arrangements consist of ad-hoc volunteer efforts, volunteer recruitment by an outside organization with the agency otherwise responsible for management, decentralization of the program to operating departments, and a centralized approach. Each option presents a distinctive menu of advantages and disadvantages.

Volunteer efforts may arise spontaneously in an ad hoc fashion to meet exigencies confronting an organization, especially on a short-term basis. Normally, citizens motivated to share their background, training, skills, and interests with organizations that could profit by them are the catalyst. Fiscal stress, leaving an agency with few options, may quicken the helping impulse. The Service Corps of Retired Executives (SCORE), an association of primarily retired businesspersons who donate their time and skills to assist clients of the U.S. Small Business Administration, began in this way in the early 1960s; retired business executives approached the SBA to offer assistance with its huge constituency (Brudney, 1986, 1990). The responsiveness and alacrity with which an ad hoc effort can be launched and operating are inspiring. Within six months of its inception, SCORE supplied two thousand volunteers to the SBA. Crisis and emergency situations can provoke an even more spectacular response, mobilizing huge numbers of volunteers in a remarkably short time.

Spontaneous help from citizens can infuse vitality (and labor) into an agency and alert officials to the possibilities of volunteerism. Offsetting these benefits, however, is the fact that only selected parts or members of the organization may be aware of an ad hoc citizen effort and, thus, be able to take advantage of it. In addition, because energy levels and zeal wane as emergencies are tamed or fade from the limelight of publicity or attention, the ad hoc model of volunteer involvement is very vulnerable to the passage of time. A volunteer program requires not only a different type of ongoing rather than sporadic commitment from citizens, but also an organizational structure to sustain their contributions and make them accessible to all employees. Unless the agency takes steps to institutionalize participation, it risks squandering the long-term benefits of the approach.

The history of the U.S. Small Business Administration and its volunteer SCORE program offers an example of an organization-volunteer partnership that understood and surmounted this hurdle to sustainability. Almost from the start the SBA and the SCORE volunteers worked to develop an appropriate structure (Brudney, 1990). In 1989 they celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of a partnership that has brought a continuous stream of volunteers to the agency (thirteen thousand volunteers in 1989 alone) and assistance to an estimated 2.5 million small businesspersons (National SCORE Office, 1989). In 2014, through 348 chapters located in urban, suburban, and rural communities, SCORE (2016) volunteers donated more than 1.2 million hours of their time to help start 56,079 businesses, create 47,187 jobs, mentor and train 148,800 small business owners and entrepreneurs, and increase revenue for 107,201 clients. Working on behalf of the U.S. Small Business Administration (2016), since its inception in 1964 SCORE volunteers have assisted nearly ten million Americans.

A second option sometimes open to nonprofit agencies is to rely on the expertise and reputation of an established organization, such as the United Way and its affiliates, or a volunteer center or clearinghouse, to assist in the recruitment of volunteers, but to retain all other managerial responsibilities internally. Since recruitment is the most fundamental program function and, arguably, the most problematic, regular, professional assistance with this task can be highly beneficial, particularly for an agency just starting a volunteer program. Some private business firms seeking to develop volunteer programs for their employees have extended this model: They find it advantageous to contract with local volunteer centers not only for help with recruitment but also other primary program functions, such as volunteer placement and evaluation (Haran, Kenney, and Vermilion, 1993). A large national network of volunteer centers and affiliates of the Points of Light Institute–HandsOn Network offers these services to nonprofit organizations and government agencies (Brudney and Kim, 2003).

When this model is used, quality control presents a necessary caution, just as it does in the delegation of any organizational function. Recruiters must be familiar with the needs of the nonprofit agency seeking voluntary assistance, lest volunteers be referred who do not meet the desired profile of backgrounds, skills, and interests. A recruiter may also deal with multiple client organizations so that the priority attached to the requests of any one of them is unclear. More important, trusting recruitment to outsiders is a deterrent to developing the necessary capacity in-house, which is an essential aspect of a successful volunteer program. By all means, organizations should nurture positive relationships with agencies in the community to attract volunteers and for other purposes. But they must avoid total dependence on external sources and endeavor to implement recruitment mechanisms of their own.

The volunteer program can also be decentralized in individual departments within a larger nonprofit organization. The primary advantage offered by this approach is the flexibility to tailor programs to the needs of specific organizational units and to introduce volunteers where support for them is greatest. Yet duplication of effort across several departments, difficulties in locating sufficient expertise in volunteer management to afford multiple programs, and problems in coordination—particularly, restrictions on the ability to shift volunteers to more suitable positions or to offer them opportunities for job enrichment across the organization—are significant liabilities.

In the public sector the selective approach can unwittingly generate disincentives for managers to introduce volunteers (Brudney, 1989, p. 117). Top agency officials may mistakenly equate nonpaid work with “unimportant” activities to the detriment of a department's (and a manager's) standing in the organization, or they may seize upon the willingness to enlist volunteers as an excuse to deny a unit essential increases in budget and paid personnel. Such misunderstandings must be ameliorated prior to the introduction of volunteers.

Despite the limitations, the decentralized approach may serve an agency quite well in starting a pilot or experimental program, the results of which might guide the organization in moving toward more extensive volunteer involvement. Alternatively, a lack of tasks appropriate for volunteers in some parts of the agency or, perhaps, strong opposition from various quarters may confine voluntary assistance to selected departments. Among larger organizations that enlist volunteer assistance, the decentralized approach is likely most common.

The final structural arrangement is a centralized volunteer program serving the entire agency. With this approach a single office or department is responsible for management and coordination of the volunteer program. The volunteers may serve exclusively in this unit, or they may be deployed and supervised in line departments throughout the organization. The office provides guidelines, technical assistance, screening, training, and all other administration for volunteer activity throughout the agency. The advantages of centralization for averting duplication of effort, assigning volunteers so as to meet their needs as well as those of the organization, and producing efficient and effective voluntary services are considerable. However, the program demands broad support across the organization, especially at the top, to overcome issues that may be raised by departmental staff and any limitation in resources. When such backing is not forthcoming, the other structural arrangements may serve the nonprofit agency quite well. Although it may be tempting to conceive of the various structural arrangements as a progression from less to more “organized” volunteer involvement, they should instead be seen as corresponding to differences among agencies in acceptance and uses of volunteers.

Creating Positions of Program Leadership

Regardless of the structural arrangement by which the volunteer program is integrated into agency operations, the program requires a visible, recognized leader. All program functions, including those discussed earlier (developing a rationale, involving paid staff in program planning and design, housing the volunteer program), benefit from the establishment and staffing of a position bearing overall responsibility for management and representation of the volunteers. Such positions go by a variety of names (for example, “volunteer coordinator”); in this chapter, we label it the “director of volunteer services” (DVS) to signify the importance of the role.

James C. Fisher and Kathleen M. Cole (1993, pp. 15–18) elaborate two approaches that organizations typically take in designing the volunteer management function: personnel management and program management. The personnel management approach is most common in organizations in which volunteers are deployed in several or many units or departments and have numerous responsibilities throughout the organization. In this configuration the volunteer program manager works with the line departments in all facets of volunteer administration and supports the line departments. However, the principal accountability of the volunteer is to the paid staff (or other) supervisor in the unit where the volunteer is housed. The volunteer administrator does not directly supervise the volunteer or provide training or evaluation.

By contrast, in the program management approach the volunteer administrator normally supervises the volunteers, who are housed in a single unit under her or his leadership. As Fisher and Cole (1993, p. 18) explain, “In the program management approach, the volunteer administrator is a program developer as well as the leader of volunteer efforts integral to the organization's program delivery. In the personnel management approach, the volunteer administrator recruits, selects, and places volunteers and trains paid staff to work with them. In both approaches, the responsibilities of the volunteer administrator usually include job design, recruitment, interviewing, orientation, and recognition.”

The manner by which the office of the director of volunteer services is staffed sends a forceful message to employees regarding the significance of the volunteer program to the agency and its leadership. Organizations have experimented with an assortment of staffing options for the post, including volunteers, personnel with existing duties, and employee committees. None so manifestly demonstrates a sense of organizational commitment and priorities as does a paid DVS position. Establishing the office as close to the apex of the agency's formal hierarchy as feasible conveys a similar message of resolve and purposefulness. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that agencies do not always attend to supports for such positions (for a review, see Brudney, 1992, pp. 272–273).

Based on a nationally representative sample of charities, the Urban Institute (2004) found that only about three out of five charities (62 percent) report that they have a paid staff person whose work responsibilities include management of volunteers. The presence of a paid staff coordinator does not mean that this official spends much time on volunteer administration, or that she or he has training in the field. Consistent with other research (Brudney, 1990, 2016), the paid staff coordinators of volunteers in the Urban Institute study devote about one-third of their time on the job to the volunteer function; the median paid staff volunteer coordinator in charities spends 30 percent of her or his time on this task. Full-time managers of volunteers are especially rare. In the sample of 1,753 charities, among those charities with a paid staff volunteer coordinator, only one in eight has a staff member who devotes 100 percent of her or his time to volunteer management. Across the sample of 541 religious congregations in the Urban Institute study, only one congregation said that it has a full-time volunteer coordinator for its social service outreach activities.

Support for training of administrators of volunteers was somewhat better. About two-thirds of the paid staff coordinators in the charities (66 percent) reported receipt of a minimum level of training, defined as any formal training in volunteer administration such as coursework, workshops, or attendance at conferences that focus on volunteer management. Support for the volunteer administrator increased with organizational size or resources. Based on these findings the Urban Institute (2004, p. 9) reported that the use of staff to manage volunteers by charities lags behind their parallel need and use of staff for fundraising, and concluded:

These findings point to the ongoing need to press for greater organizational support for the director of volunteer services (DVS) positions. For example, the DVS should enjoy prerogatives and responsibilities commensurate with positions at the same level in the agency hierarchy, including participation in relevant decision making and policymaking and access to superiors. In this manner the incumbent can represent the volunteers before the relevant department(s) or the organization as a whole, promote their interests, and help prevent officials from taking their contributions for granted. A part-time or full-time (as necessary) paid position lodges accountability for the program squarely with the DVS, presents a focal point for contact with the volunteer operation for those inside as well as outside the organization, implements a core structure for program administration, and rewards the office-holder in relation to the success of the volunteers.

In addition to these roles, the DVS has important duties that further substantiate the need for a dedicated position (Ellis, 1996, pp. 45–49). The DVS is responsible for volunteer recruitment and publicity, a critical function requiring active outreach in the community and highly flexible working hours. The incumbent must communicate with department and organizational officials to ascertain workloads and requirements for voluntary assistance. Assessing agency needs for volunteers, enlarging areas for their involvement, and educating staff to the approach (see earlier) should be seen not as a one-time exercise but as an ongoing responsibility of the DVS. The DVS interviews and screens all applicants for volunteer positions, maintains appropriate records, places volunteers in job assignments, provides liaison supervision, and monitors performance. The office must coordinate the bewildering variety of schedules and backgrounds brought by volunteers to the agency. The DVS also bears overall responsibility for orientation and training, as well as evaluation and recognition, of volunteers. Since employees may be unfamiliar with the approach, training may be appropriate for them as well; the DVS is the in-house source of expertise on all facets of volunteer involvement and management. Finally, as the chief advocate of the program, the DVS endeavors not only to express the volunteer perspective but to allay the apprehensions of paid staff and facilitate collaboration.

Positions of leadership for the volunteer program require extensive interaction with new and continuing volunteers. Thus, as volunteer programs increase in size, the DVS will likely need to share leadership duties with designated volunteers and/or paid staff. Given the scope of the job tasks, clerical and other support for the leadership positions is highly advisable.

Preparing Job Descriptions for Volunteer Positions

The essential building block of a successful volunteer program is the job description. Paradoxically, no intrinsic basis exists to create (or classify) a position as “paid” or “volunteer.” Even among agencies that have the same purpose or mission, or that work in the same substantive or policy domain, a given position can be classified differently (for example, business counselor, computer programmer, day-care provider, receptionist, ombudsperson). Within an agency, moreover, job definitions are dynamic so that volunteers can give way to paid service professionals in some areas (Becker, 1964; Ellis and Campbell, 2005; Park, 1983; Schwartz, 1977) and gain responsibility from them in others (Brudney, 1986).

Handy, Mook, and Quarter (2008) present an analysis documenting the interchangeability of some jobs performed by paid staff and volunteers in nonprofit organizations. Based on two national surveys of nonprofit organizations and case studies of two hospitals in Canada, they find evidence that volunteers were replacing paid staff, and that paid staff were replacing volunteers, sometimes in the same organization. About two-thirds of the organizations in their study agreed that interchangeability of tasks between paid staff and volunteers occurred, although their data indicate that it was limited to about 12 percent of tasks.

Without an intrinsic basis to designate a task or position as “volunteer” or “paid,” the process by which work responsibilities are allocated assumes paramount importance. As explained above, the most enduring basis for an effective volunteer program is for top agency officials and employees (and if possible, volunteers) to work out in advance of program implementation explicit understandings regarding the rationale for the involvement of volunteers, the nature of the jobs they are to perform, and the boundaries of their work (Brown, 1981; Ellis, 1996; Graff, 1984; Wilson, 1976). This agreement should designate (or provide the foundation for distinguishing) the jobs assigned to volunteers and those held by paid staff.

The second critical step in the job design process consists of a survey of employees, or perhaps personal interviews with them, to ascertain key factors about their jobs, and to make them aware of the potential contributions of volunteers. At a minimum, a survey should seek to identify those aspects of the job that employees most enjoy performing, those that they dislike, and those for which they lack sufficient time or expertise. The survey should also ascertain any activities or projects that employees would like to do but cannot find time to perform. Since employees may lack information regarding the assistance that volunteers might lend to them and to the agency, the survey or interview (or alternatively, in-service training) should provide resource materials regarding volunteers, such as a listing of the jobs or functions that unpaid staff are already performing in their agency or in similar organizations, new initiatives undertaken by volunteers beyond the time or expertise of paid staff, and skills and descriptions of available volunteers (compare McCurley and Lynch, 1996, pp. 25–26; McCurley and Lynch, 1989, pp. 27–28).

Popular stereotypes to the contrary, not all volunteer positions need be in supportive roles to employee endeavors. In some Maryland counties, for instance, paid staff have facilitated and supported the activities of volunteers in delivering recreation services, rather than the reverse (Marando, 1986). In certain Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) and Big Brothers and Big Sisters programs, paid staff also facilitate and support the core work performed by volunteers. Many organizations rely on donated labor for highly technical, professional tasks, such as accounting, economic development, and computer applications, not provided by employees and which they otherwise could not afford or obtain. For example, organized into 364 chapters across the United States, the 12,400 volunteers of SCORE (2016) provide business advice and counseling to the clients of the Small Business Administration well beyond the means and paid personnel of the SBA. Most important is that the delegation of tasks takes into account the unique capabilities that paid staff and volunteers might bring toward meeting organization needs.

To allocate work responsibilities among employees and volunteers, Ellis (1996) suggests that an agency reassess the job descriptions of the entire staff, paid and unpaid. Prime candidates for delegation to volunteers are tasks with the following characteristics:

• Those that might be performed periodically, such as once a week, rather than on a daily or inflexible basis
• Those that do not require the specialized training or expertise of paid personnel
• Those that might be done more effectively by someone with specialized training in that skill
• Those for which the position occupant feels uncomfortable or unprepared
• Those for which the agency possesses no in-house expertise
• Those which might be performed “episodically,” that is, on an occasional basis using very short time intervals
• Those which might be performed “virtually” or through computer technology such as the Internet, e-mail, or online applications

The culmination of the task analysis should be a new set of job descriptions for employees and a second set for volunteers who are sensitive to prevailing organization conditions. Paid staff are primarily assigned to the most important daily functions, whereas volunteers handle work that can be done on a periodic basis or that makes use of the special talents for which the volunteers have been recruited (Ellis, 1996). The intent is to achieve the most effective deployment of both paid and nonpaid personnel. The respective tasks should be codified in formal job descriptions not only for paid but also nonpaid workers, with the stipulation that neither group will occupy the positions reserved for the other.

A pioneer in the field, Harriet H. Naylor insisted, “Most of the universally recognized principles of administration for employed personnel are even more valid for volunteer workers, who give their talents and time” (1973, p. 173, emphasis in original). Her insight into the parallels between the administration of paid staff and volunteers is especially pertinent with respect to job specifications, placement, and orientation. Studies undertaken by the International City/County Management Association on volunteer programs in local governments indicate that “Volunteer job descriptions are really no different than job descriptions for paid personnel. A volunteer will need the same information a paid employee would need to determine whether the position is of interest” (Manchester and Bogart, 1988, p. 59). Specifications for volunteer positions should include (McCurley and Lynch, 1996, p. 30)

• Job title and purpose
• Benefits to the occupant
• Qualifications for the position
• Time requirement (for example, hours per week)
• Proposed starting date (and ending date, if applicable)
• Job responsibilities and activities
• Authority invested in the position
• Reporting relationships and supervision
• Evaluation
• Probationary period (if necessary)

The parallels to paid administration noted by Naylor (1973) and others continue beyond the job description to other key functions of the volunteer program. Applicants for volunteer positions should be screened for relevant competencies and interests, as well as pertinent background and qualifications. Especially for positions that call for contact with vulnerable populations such as youth and the infirm, reference or background checks should be conducted for volunteers (in many states, such checks are required by law and agencies are responsible for compliance). Volunteers should be interviewed by officials from the volunteer program, the agency, or both to ensure a suitable fit of citizen and organizational needs. These new members will require an orientation to the agency and its volunteer component. Among the topics that orientation activities should address are the overall mission and specific objectives of the organization, its traditions and philosophy, its operating rules and procedures, the rationale and policies of the volunteer program, and the roles and interface of paid and nonpaid staff members. Finally, as needed, training should be provided to volunteers to assume the organizational tasks assigned to them.

Meeting the Needs of Volunteers

To this point, my analysis has focused primarily on the demands of nonprofit and public organizations for attracting, structuring, and managing volunteer labor. Agency needs constitute only half of the equation for a successful volunteer program, however. The other half consists of meeting the needs of volunteers. An effective volunteer program marries organizational demands for productive labor with the disparate motivations that volunteers bring for contributing their time.

The theme of voluntary action gives to the study of nonprofit institutions much of its characteristic identity. Most nonprofit organizations are vitally dependent on volunteers to carry out missions and reach objectives. Accordingly, voluminous research has been concerned, directly or indirectly, with the motivations that spur volunteers. A basic conclusion emanating from this research is that these motivations are complex and multifaceted, and that they may serve a variety of functions for the individual volunteer, including values, understanding, career, social, esteem, and protective dimensions (Clary, Snyder, and Ridge, 1992; Clary, Snyder, and Stukas, 1996). As Clary and his colleagues point out, an understanding of volunteer motivations and the functions that they perform for individuals will assist nonprofit and government organizations in recruiting and retaining volunteers—as well as lead to more satisfying experiences for these citizen participants (Clary, Snyder, and Stukas, 1996, pp. 502–503).

Although the reasons for volunteering are rich and diverse, several large, national surveys extending over more than a quarter of a century reveal a markedly consistent pattern of professed motivations. Table 24.1 displays the reasons for involvement in volunteer work as expressed most often by representative samples of Americans over time in seven surveys (the earliest taken in 1965 and the latest in 1991). Other, more recent surveys of volunteers' professed motivations have been conducted; however, they are based on different items. The survey results summarized in Table 24.1 offer the most comprehensive and consistent set of items available regarding volunteer motivation. The length of the series reinforces the reliability of the responses.

Note: The percentages do not sum to 100 because respondents were permitted multiple responses. A dash indicates that this option was not presented to respondents (not that 0.0 percent gave this response). In the 1965 and 1974 surveys, volunteers were asked about the reason for doing their first “nonreligious” volunteer work. In the 1981, 1985, 1987, 1989, and 1991 surveys, the motivations also pertain to “informal” volunteer work, that is, work that does not involve a private-sector association or formal organization.

^a In the 1965 survey, the question of motivations for volunteering was presented to respondents as open-ended. The responses were coded into the categories shown in the table. In the other surveys, the respondents were presented with a listing of possible motivations for volunteering and were asked which were motivations for them (see Department of Labor, 1969, p. 9).

^b In 1974, this category referred exclusively to respondents' children; in 1989, this category stated that a family member or friend would benefit.

^c In the 1974 survey, this category referred to the idea that volunteer work can lead to a paid job.

Sources: The data are adapted from U.S. Department of Labor (1969); ACTION (1974); Gallup Organization (1981); and Hodgkinson and Weitzman (1986, 1988, 1990, 1992).

As presented in Table 24.1, the most common stimulus for volunteering is to “do something useful to help others” (or to “help people”), manifested by nearly a majority and often substantially more of the respondents in each survey. In addition, approximately one in four people mention “religious concerns.” About 10 percent of volunteers, rising to 17 percent in 1991, state as a motivation that they had previously benefited from the activity; perhaps their volunteer work is motivated by a desire to “give something back” for the services or attention they had earlier received. Even allowing for the possibility of some socially desirable responses, the attention that such altruistic motivations seem to command is impressive. Although such altruistic motivations appear to drive a great amount of volunteering, more instrumental motivations are common as well. For example, in the survey findings summarized in Table 24.1, approximately 30 to 40 percent of the volunteers gave as reasons that they “enjoy doing volunteer work” or that they “had an interest in the activity or work.” A substantial number of volunteers (22 to 29 percent) also said that they have a friend or relative either involved in the activity in which they volunteer or who would benefit from it.

In the surveys conducted in the 1980s, another 8 to 11 percent of respondents identified volunteering as a “learning experience” (16 percent in the 1991 survey). The educational or training benefits afforded by this opportunity are especially important to individuals who seek entry or reentry into the job market but lack requisite competencies or experience. According to one volunteer coordinator and consultant, “Any marketable skills can be strengthened and brought up to date in a well-structured volunteer setting” (O'Donald, 1989, p. 22; emphasis in original).

The data in Table 24.1 suggest that many people seem to hold both other-directed and self-directed motivations for volunteering simultaneously. In order to capture some of the richness of these motivations, the national surveys allowed multiple responses and, indeed, in each survey the cumulative percentages surpass 100 percent. Volunteering, thus, appears to spring from a mixture of altruistic and instrumental motivations. Volunteers can—and most likely do—pursue both types of rewards simultaneously. One can certainly help others, derive strong interest and satisfaction in the work, learn and grow from the experience, and enjoy the company of friends and co-workers in the process. These rewards emanate from the quality and meaning of the volunteer experience. As Jon Van Til (1988, pp. 1–9) observes, volunteering is helping behavior deemed beneficial by participants, even though this action “may contribute to individual goals of career exploration and development, sociability, and other forms of personal enhancement.” Thus, volunteering is “pro-social” rather than self-sacrificial—that is, activity intended to benefit others but not restricting possible benefits to the volunteers as well.

It is also worth noting from Table 24.1 what the volunteering impulse is not: very few citizens apparently engage in this activity with the motivation to spare organizational funds or the conviction that their “work would keep taxes down.” Only 3 to 5 percent of volunteers profess these motivations. Although, organizational pleas to “save money” with volunteers may be compelling to agency leaders, they apparently resonate with few volunteers.

How might these motivations evolve as individuals join organizations and engage in volunteer work? Strong altruistic or service motivations could reasonably lead individuals to seek productive outlets for donating their time. As might be expected, however, once they have begun to assist an organization, the immediate rewards of the work experience—such as the social aspects of volunteering and the characteristics of the job they are asked to perform—tend to rise in salience.

For example, based on a study of diverse work settings, Pearce (1983) discovered that volunteers stated that they joined the organization for predominantly service reasons, but that friendships and social interaction became more influential in their decision to remain with it. Although the long-range rewards of helping others, supporting organizational goals, and making a contribution decreased in importance to them (albeit the scores remained at high levels), the rewards of meeting people and enjoying the company of friends and co-workers increased. Similarly, in a study of volunteers to local government, the importance attached by participants to doing something useful or benefiting a family member or friend diminished over time, but interest in or enjoyment of the work grew as a motivation (Sundeen, 1989).

Pearce concludes (1983, p. 148): “The rewards individuals expected from volunteering are often not the rewards most salient to them once they have become volunteers.” If not anticipated and addressed, this shift in the expected rewards from the experience can result in rapid and ruinous turnover of volunteers. The volunteer program must be designed to counteract this possibility; fortunately, many options are open.

To reinforce volunteers' initial emphasis on service motivations, they might be placed in positions in which they can contribute directly to organizational goals, for example, through contact with clients or participation in policy activities. Additionally, agencies should offer entry-level advisement and careful placement to assist volunteers in reaching their personal goals and attempt to foster a work environment conducive to their efforts. Training programs and orientation sessions should present an accurate picture of the rewards of volunteering, so that citizens—and the organizations they serve—do not fall prey to unrealistic expectations of the experience.

Agencies also need to respond to changes in the motivations of volunteers over time. While an organization may have a standard set of activities designed to recruit volunteers, retaining them is a dynamic process of reviewing performance, growth, and aspirations with the volunteer and modifying work assignments accordingly (McCurley and Lynch, 2005). In addition to the methods discussed above, to motivate the continued involvement of volunteers, organizations may offer a variety of inducements depending on individual circumstances. These include a series of steps toward greater responsibilities (volunteer career ladders), participation in problem solving and decision making, opportunities for ongoing training, supportive feedback and evaluation, and letters of recommendation documenting work performed and competencies gained. I discuss volunteer recruitment and retention in more depth in the following section.

Recruiting and Retaining Volunteers

McCurley (2005, pp. 595–596) distinguishes three types of volunteer recruitment approaches used by nonprofit and public organizations: concentric circles recruitment, warm body recruitment, and targeted recruitment. Concentric circles recruitment is the most subtle and the most endemic, by some estimates practiced by as many as 94 percent of agencies. It is intended to provide host organizations with a small but steady flow of volunteers; “turning up the heat” can yield more.

Underlying concentric circles recruitment is stakeholder interaction with the organization. An agency maintains daily contact with a variety of constituent populations or stakeholders, such as clients and their families, volunteers and their friends, staff members, people in the surrounding community, suppliers, vendors, and others. The stakeholders are aware of the existence of the agency, and many have experience with it either directly or indirectly (for example, through a relative or co-worker). Their familiarity makes them more receptive to the agency than those who do not know the organization and its work, thus facilitating volunteer recruitment. In addition, this form of recruitment “makes use of the personal appeal factor by having individuals who already know the potential volunteer convey the recruitment message, thus piggybacking on their individual credibility” (p. 596). Volunteer recruitment proceeds in concentric circles, with the agency reaching out first to its stakeholders, who then carry the recruitment message to their networks, and so forth.

The other forms of volunteer recruitment identified by McCurley (2005) are more overt. “The warm-body recruitment campaign is used when the agency needs a relatively large supply of volunteers for tasks that can be easily taught to most people in a short period of time” (p. 595). Jobs of this nature might include staffing an event, such as a clean-up campaign, a fundraising gathering, or an awards luncheon or dinner; various “thons” (bike-a-thons, walk-a-thons, and so on) also use this technique to recruit volunteers. Although detailed job descriptions are not generally necessary for warm-body recruitment, screening, orientation, and training as necessary should be provided.

The final method of attracting volunteers is targeted recruitment, which “operates in exactly the opposite fashion as the warm-body campaign” (McCurley, 2005, p. 595). Whereas warm-body recruitment seeks large numbers of volunteers with undifferentiated talents and expertise, targeted recruitment is designed to attract fewer, select volunteers for jobs that require particular skills or interests or are appropriate for specific age or cultural groups (p. 596). According to McCurley, three questions guide the targeted recruitment campaign:

1. What skills or aptitudes are needed to perform the job? This aspect considers the characteristics of the persons sought for the job.
2. Where and how can the organization find people with the requisite skills and interests? This aspect considers connections to these people, including work settings, educational attainment, leisure organizations and activities, relevant publications, and areas of the community.
3. What motivations might appeal to the persons sought? This aspect considers the psychological and other needs to be met through the job.

The intent of shaping and limiting the recruitment message and information dissemination process is to generate a small but sufficient number of suitable volunteer applicants.

Brudney (2016, pp. 121–122) has elaborated the various strategies organizations can use to attract volunteers. The first set of strategies pertains to the motivations of volunteers. Job design strategies concentrate on meeting the needs and motivations of volunteers for interesting and meaningful work, including opportunities for advancement. Closely related, human capital strategies enable participants to raise their market value for paid employment through acquiring contacts, training, and references in the volunteer environment. Ceremonial strategies allow volunteers to join groups and organizations that are important to them, work with like-minded individuals, meet policymakers and other dignitaries, and receive public recognition for service. Similarly, policy strategies, such as service on boards of directors, organizational commissions, task forces, and panels, afford volunteers the opportunity to participate actively in organizational governance.

The second set of strategies focuses on making the volunteer job and setting more attractive to volunteers. Organizational change and development strategies center on building an agency culture receptive to volunteers. This relationship begins at the outset of volunteer contact with the agency. Research suggests that many host organizations do not routinely attend to welcoming or even informing volunteers very well (Hobson and Malec, 1999). Facilitation strategies aim to make volunteer opportunities more readily available through such means as extending hours to volunteer beyond traditional (agency) work hours, reimbursing volunteers' out of pocket expenses, and providing child care as needed. Similarly, flexibility strategies broaden the nature of volunteer work to make it more convenient, and often enjoyable, to the volunteer. Examples include jobs that can be performed outside the agency (for example, at home or in an automobile), or by groups of people the volunteer knows and values (for example, the family, religious congregation, work unit, or organization), or by electronic means, such as the Internet. Finally, outreach strategies encompass publicizing the agency volunteer program both more widely and strategically to stakeholders (see earlier), to other groups and organizations (workplace, school, religious institutions, neighborhood groups, civic and other associations), and to electronic media.

The strategies to attract volunteers are, fortunately, rich and varied. However, the competition among nonprofit, government, and even for-profit organizations for them is intense (Brudney, 2016), and the rate of volunteering in the United States has not increased. It has remained relatively stable at between 25 and 28 percent since annual surveys of volunteering by the Current Population Survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016) began in 2002. Moreover, Eisner, Grimm, Maynard, and Washburn (2009) report: “Of the 61.2 million people who volunteered in 2006, 21.7 million—more than one-third—did not donate any time to a charitable cause the following year. Because these volunteers gave about 1.9 billion hours in 2006, and the value of their donated time was about $20 per hour—that calculates to about $38 billion in lost volunteer time in one year.”

Hager and Brudney (2013) understand these statistics a bit differently. Because the percentage of volunteers in the United States remained nearly constant between 2006 (26.7 percent) and 2007 (26.2 percent), the trend suggests replacement of volunteers rather than absolute loss. Since historically the annual rate of volunteering has been steady, organizations seem to be replenishing the stock of volunteers who leave over time. Hager and Brudney (2013, p. 264) observe, “Some change and churn is natural and to be expected,” and nonprofit organizations in the aggregate seem to have adjusted to these societal forces by bringing in new volunteers. Thus, evidence suggests that organizations are succeeding in the volunteer “recruitment wars.”

Retaining volunteers, though, is another matter. Confronted with the attrition in volunteering reported in the U.S. study, former Corporation for National and Community Service Chief Executive Officer David Eisner warned: “This report is a wakeup call for any group that uses volunteers. If you want to keep them, you need to give them serious and meaningful work that affects change in your community, and you have to remember to train, manage, and thank them the way you would any valued colleague” (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2007, p. 1). Far less is known—and published—about retaining volunteers than recruiting them (Brudney and Meijs, 2009).

Based on a nationally representative sample of charities, Hager and Brudney (2008) found that retaining volunteers is positively associated with organizations adopting recommended practices for managing volunteers, especially offering recognition activities and training and professional development opportunities for them, and using effective screening procedures to identify suitable volunteers and to match them with appropriate jobs or tasks in the agency. “These volunteer management practices all center on making the experience worthwhile for the volunteer” (Hager and Brudney, 2008, p. 20). Adoption of the volunteer management practices was not widespread among the charities, however: fewer than half of them reported that they had eight of nine recommended volunteer management practices in place “to a large degree” (cf. Urban Institute, 2004). Hager and Brudney (2008) report other steps that charities can take to increase volunteer retention and their “volunteer management capacity,” including creating a culture that is welcoming to volunteers, allocating sufficient resources to support them, providing a worthwhile and productive volunteer experience that citizens will want to repeat and share, and enlisting volunteers in recruiting other volunteers.

In Keeping Volunteers, Steve McCurley and Rick Lynch (2005) corroborate these findings. They also provide many more guidelines for retaining volunteers. They recommend, for example, seeing to the motivational needs of volunteers (see earlier), letting volunteers do the work they want to do consistent with organizational needs, thanking volunteers, making sure that volunteers feel connected to the organization and are invested in its mission, setting high standards for volunteers, listening carefully to volunteers and providing feedback especially concerning accomplishments and goal achievement, instilling organizational values, detecting and ameliorating volunteer burnout, encouraging incremental commitment for short-term volunteers, and developing career ladders for volunteers to offer them new and expanded opportunities.

Given the mismatch between the recruitment strategies most commonly employed by host organizations and what volunteers want and need once they join an organization, it is little wonder then that host organizations encounter difficulties in retaining volunteers.

Managing Volunteers

Managing volunteers is different from managing employees. Volunteers are much less dependent on the organization to which they donate their time than are paid staff members, who must earn their livelihood from it. Volunteers can usually leave the organization and find comparable opportunities for their labor with far less effort and inconvenience than can employees. As a result, nonprofit managers and supervisors do not have as much control over volunteer workers.

These differences in control help explain some oft-noted characteristics of volunteers in the workplace. Volunteers can afford to be more selective in accepting assignments. They may insist on substantial flexibility in work hours. They may not be as faithful in observance of agency rules and regulations, particularly those they regard as burdensome or “red tape.” Part of the reason may stem from the fact that nearly all who volunteer do so on a part-time basis and, thus, may have less information about organizational policies and procedures. Further, many consider these aspects of the job and agency as inimical to the spirit and practice of help freely given, and choose to evade or even ignore them. Social interaction is part of the fun and spark of volunteering, and participants may place high value on this feature of the experience (as noted earlier).

Given the relative autonomy of volunteers, a heavy-handed approach to supervision can be expected to elicit antagonism and turnover rather than productivity and compliance. Standard organizational inducements for paid employees, such as pay, promotion, and perquisites, are not operative for volunteers. Conventional organizational sanctions are likely to prove unsuccessful. For example, referring a problem to hierarchical superiors for resolution or disciplinary action (or threatening to do so) is far less apt to sway volunteers than employees.

These considerations may leave the impression that volunteers cannot be “managed,” but that conclusion is unfounded. In reviewing certain “myths” (as he calls them) that people sometimes have about volunteers, Brudney (2016, pp. 122–123) debunks this notion, as well as the equally popular view that volunteers cannot be terminated or “fired.” There is a reasonable course for the manager to take should a serious problem arise and persist with a volunteer: ascertain the facts of the situation, be firm in explaining both the problem and the consequences of further violation, and follow through according to agency policy if the problem continues. Eminent management authority Peter F. Drucker (1990, p. 183) agrees that in cases of egregious misconduct, volunteers “must be asked to leave.” Countenancing the transgression sends the wrong message to employees, other volunteers, and agency clients that staff (nonpaid or paid) are free from organizational direction and oversight.

The message for management is decidedly more positive: the foundation for effective management of volunteers rests on applying different techniques and incentives than commonly used for paid employees to motivate and direct volunteers' work behaviors toward agency goals. Managerial investment in building trust, cooperation, teamwork, challenge, growth, achievement, values, excitement, and commitment are much more effectual strategies. In their highly influential study In Search of Excellence, Thomas J. Peters and Richard H. Waterman (1982) maintain that “America's best-run companies” use the same approach for paid employees—with enviable results. Although a common admonition in the volunteer management literature is to manage volunteers as if they were employees (for example, Stoolmacher, 1991), other research suggests that it is equally persuasive to recommend “managing employees as if they were volunteers” (Smith and Green, 1993).

Based on a careful examination of a volunteer program servicing a large, urban public library system, Virginia Walter (1987, p. 31) found that administrators who embraced this style of “management-by-partnership” enjoyed greater success in dealing with volunteers and meeting objectives than did those officials intent on control. In a major study of the volunteer SCORE program operated by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), Brudney arrives at a similar conclusion (1990, pp. 112–114). The volunteer business counselors who assisted the SBA sometimes fit the stereotypes attributed to volunteer workers. For example, they displayed low tolerance for necessary government paperwork and “bureaucracy,” uneven knowledge of SBA rules and procedures, and keen interest in deciding what cases they would accept (or reject) for counseling. Yet SBA staff rated the performance of the volunteers as comparable to their own on signal dimensions, including quality and timeliness of services to clients and dependability in work commitments. Brudney, like Walter (1987), attributes these beneficial results to the partnership approach to managing the volunteer program practiced by the SBA and SCORE.

A successful volunteer program must do more than advance changes in managerial style. It must also institute a framework or infrastructure to facilitate successful volunteer integration and involvement in the organization. To channel volunteer talents and energies productively, agencies must elucidate the behaviors expected from them. Probably no factor aids more in supervising volunteers (and paid staff) than placing them in positions where they can put their strongest motivations and best skills to work. The procedures discussed earlier in this chapter offer a viable means to elaborate and promote mutual understanding of the volunteer-agency relationship. Developing a coherent philosophy for volunteer involvement, preparing guidelines for the volunteer program, creating formal positions for volunteers, preparing the relevant job descriptions, interviewing and screening applicants and placing them in mutually satisfactory work assignments, and presenting orientation and training are potent means to define what volunteer service means to the agency and to citizens, and to coordinate the needs and motives of both parties. Jean Baldwin Grossman and Kathryn Furano (2002, p. 15) focus on three elements as “vitally important to the success of any volunteer program”: screening potential volunteers to ensure appropriate entry and placement in the organization; orientation and training to provide volunteers with the skills and outlook needed; and management and ongoing support of volunteers by paid staff to ensure that volunteer time is not wasted but used as productively as possible.

Thus, effective management of volunteers calls for more than changes in managerial style, although such adjustments are certainly important. The volunteer program must also provide an infrastructure to impart a shared conception of volunteer service. Absent such a framework, managerial adaptations in themselves are likely to prove insufficient. As Grossman and Furano (2002, p. 15) aptly summarize, “No matter how well intentioned volunteers are, unless there is an infrastructure in place to support and direct their efforts, they will remain ineffective at best or, worse, become disenchanted and withdraw, potentially damaging recipients of services in the process.”

Evaluating and Recognizing Volunteer Effort

Researchers contend that the evaluation function is carried out less often and less well than the other central elements of a volunteer program (Allen, 1987; Utterback and Heyman, 1984). Survey research on volunteer programs in government bears this out. In a study of 534 cities that enlisted volunteers in the delivery of services, Sydney Duncombe (1985, p. 363) found that just a handful (sixty-two, or 11.6 percent) had made an evaluation study. A study of 189 state agencies reported a comparable rate (13.6 percent) (Brudney and Kellough, 2000, p. 123). Understandably, organizations that rely on the assistance of volunteers may be reluctant to appear to question through evaluation the worth or impact of well-intentioned helping efforts. In addition, officials may be apprehensive about the effects of an evaluation policy on volunteer recruitment and retention—and on public relations. Nevertheless, for individual volunteers and the paid staff who work with them, as well as for the volunteer operation as a whole, evaluation and recognition activities are essential program functions.

Summary and Conclusion

According to the 2001 Survey of Giving and Volunteering in the United States, one of the most in-depth studies of giving and volunteering ever conducted in the United States (conducted for Independent Sector by Toppe, Kirsch, and Michel in 2002), 44 percent of adults over the age of twenty-one volunteered with a formal organization in the year 2000. On average, they had volunteered fifteen hours in the preceding month. Of these formal volunteers, 69 percent reported they volunteered on a regular basis, monthly or more often. In all, an estimated 83.9 million adults formally volunteered in 2000, donating approximately 15.5 billion hours. This formal volunteer workforce represented the equivalent of over nine million full-time employees, with an estimated dollar value of $239 billion. More recently, we know from the Bureau of Labor Statistics/Current Population Survey, 62.6 million people volunteered through or for an organization at least once between September 2014 and September 2015, which is a volunteer rate of just one-quarter of the U.S. population (24.9 percent). Americans volunteered nearly 7.9 billion hours, at an attributed value for this volunteer service of nearly $184 billion (based on the estimated value of a volunteer hour provided by Independent Sector [Corporation for National and Community Service, 2016]). The level and impact of volunteering in America is amazing!

The key to integrating this staggering volume of talent and energy into nonprofit and government organizations is the volunteer program. Using the information presented in this chapter, a nonprofit leader will be able to develop and implement the central elements that are essential to a successful organizationally based volunteer program. These key elements are

• The program should begin with the establishment of a rationale or policy to guide volunteer involvement.
• Paid staff must have a central role in designing the volunteer program and creating guidelines governing its operation.
• The volunteer program must be integrated structurally into the nonprofit organization.
• The program must have formally designated leadership positions to provide direction and accountability.
• The organization must prepare job descriptions for the positions to be held by volunteers, and effectively implement the functions of screening, orientation, placement, and training.
• The volunteer program must attend to the motivations that inspire volunteers and attempt to address to them, with the goal of meeting both their needs and the needs of the organization.
• Volunteers must be attracted and recruited to the organization and retained for service.
• The organization must adapt traditional hierarchical approaches to managing volunteers, including use of teamwork and collaboration, to obtain the best results.
• All components of the volunteer effort—citizens, employees, and the program itself—will benefit from the use of appropriate evaluation and recognition activities.

This list is ambitious, yet well within the reach of most nonprofit and government organizations. So, too, are the advantages to be derived from delivering an effective volunteer program.

References

1. ACTION. Americans Volunteer, 1974. Washington, DC: ACTION, 1974.
2. Allen, N. J. The Role of Social and Organizational Factors in the Evaluation of Volunteer Programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 1987, 10(3), 257–262.
3. Anderson, P. M., and Zimmerer, M. E. Dollar Value of Volunteer Time: A Review of Five Estimation Methods. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 2003, 21(2), 39–44.
4. Becker, D. G. Exit Lady Bountiful: The Volunteer and the Professional Social Worker. Social Service Review, 1964, 38(1), 57–72.
5. Brown, E. Assessing the Value of Volunteer Activity. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 1999, 28(1), 3–17.
6. Brown, K. What Goes Wrong and What Can We Do About It? Voluntary Action Leadership, 1981, Spring, 22–23.
7. Brudney, J. L. The SBA and SCORE: Coproducing Management Assistance Services. Public Productivity Review, 1986, 40, Winter, 57–67.
8. Brudney, J. L. The Use of Volunteers by Local Governments as an Approach to Fiscal Stress. In T. N. Clark, W. Lyons, and M. R. Fitzgerald (eds.), Research in Urban Policy, Volume 3. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1989.
9. Brudney, J. L. Fostering Volunteer Programs in the Public Sector: Planning, Initiating, and Managing Voluntary Activities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.
10. Brudney, J. L. Administrators of Volunteer Services: Their Needs for Training and Research.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 1992, 2, Spring, 271–282.
11. Brudney, J. L. Preparing the Organization for Volunteers. In T. D. Connors (ed.), The Volunteer Management Handbook: Leadership Strategies for Success (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2012, 55–80.
12. Brudney, J. L. Supplanting Common Myths with Uncommon Management: The Effective Involvement of Volunteers in Delivering Public Services. In R. C. Kearney and J. D. Coggburn (eds.), Public Human Resource Management: Problems and Prospects (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press, 2016, 118–131.
13. Brudney, J. L., and Kellough, J. E. Volunteers in State Government: Involvement, Management, and Benefits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 2000, 29, March, 111–130.
14. Brudney, J. L., and Meijs, L.C.P.M. It Ain't Natural: Toward a New (Natural) Resource Conceptualization for Volunteer Management. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 2009, 38, August, 564–581.
15. Brudney, J. L., and Meijs, L.C.P.M. Models of Volunteer Management: Professional Volunteer Program Management in Social Work. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership, and Governance, 2014, 38(3), 297–309.
16. Brudney, J. L., and Sink, H. K. Volunteer Management: It All Depends. In J.K.A. Word and J. E. Sowa (eds.), The Nonprofit Resource Handbook: From Theory to Practice. New York: Taylor and Francis, in press.
17. Brudney, J. L., with Kim, D. The 2001 Volunteer Center Survey: A Report on Findings And Implications. Washington, DC: Points of Light Foundation, 2003.
18. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Volunteering in the United States, 2015. Available at www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm. Retrieved March 9, 2016.
19. Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., and Ridge, R. Volunteers' Motivations: A Functional Strategy for the Recruitment, Placement, and Retention of Volunteers. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 1992, 2(4), 333–350.
20. Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., and Stukas, A. A. Volunteers' Motivations: Findings from a National Survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 1996, 25(4), 485–505.
21. Cravens, J., and Ellis, S. J. The Last Virtual Volunteering Guidebook: Fully Integrating Online Service into Volunteer Involvement. Philadelphia, PA: Energize, 2014.
22. Corporation for National and Community Service. New Federal Report Shows Volunteering Strong in America, but 1 in 3 Volunteers Dropped Out in 2006., 2007. Available at www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-federal-report-shows-volunteering-strong-in-america-but-1-in-3-volunteers-dropped-out-in-2006-58355842.html. Retrieved January 29, 2016.
23. Corporation for National and Community Service. Volunteering in America. Available at www.nationalservice.gov/impact-our-nation/research-and-reports/volunteering-in-america. Retrieved February 10, 2016.
24. Corporation for National and Community Service. The State of Volunteering in America, 2015. Available at www.volunteeringinamerican.gov/infographic.cfm. Retrieved March 9, 2016.
25. Deitch, L. I., and Thompson, L. N. The Reserve Police Officer: One Alternative to the Need for Manpower. Police Chief, 1985, 52(5), 59–61.
26. Dorwaldt, A. L., Solomon, L. J., and Worden, J. K. Why Volunteers Helped to Promote a Community Breast Self-Exam Program. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 1988, 6(4), 23–30.
27. Drucker, P. F. Managing the Non-Profit Organization: Practices and Principles. New York: HarperCollins, 1990.
28. Duncombe, S. Volunteers in City Government: Advantages, Disadvantages and Uses. National Civic Review, 1985, 74(9), 356–364.
29. Eisner, D., Grimm, R. T., Maynard, S., and Washburn, S. The New Volunteer Workforce. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2009, Winter. Available at http://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_new_volunteer_workforce. Retrieved February 9, 2016.
30. Ellis, S. J. The Volunteer Recruitment Book. Philadelphia, PA: Energize, 1994.
31. Ellis, S. J. From the Top Down: The Executive Role in Volunteer Program Success (rev. ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Energize, 1996.
32. Ellis, S. J., and Campbell, K. H. By the People: A History of Americans as Volunteers. New Century Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Energize, 2005.
33. Farr, C. A. Volunteers: Managing Volunteer Personnel in Local Government. Washington, DC: International City Management Association, 1983.
34. Farmer, S. M., and Fedor, D. B. Volunteer Participation and Withdrawal: A Psychological Contract Perspective on the Role of Expectations and Organizational Support. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 1999, 9(4), 349–367.
35. Fisher, J. C., and Cole, K. M. Leadership and Management of Volunteer Programs: A Guide for Volunteer Administrators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
36. Gallup, Inc. Americans Volunteer, 1981. Princeton, NJ: Gallup Organization, 1981.
37. Gaskin, K. Valuing Volunteers in Europe: A Comparative Study of the Volunteer Investment and Value Audit. Voluntary Action, 1999a, 2(1), 35–49.
38. Gaskin, K. VIVA in Europe: A Comparative Study of the Volunteer Investment and Value Audit. London, UK: Institute for Volunteering Research, 1999b.
39. Gaskin, K. VIVA in Europe: A Comparative Study of the Volunteer Investment and Value Audit. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 2003, 21(2), 45–48.
40. Goetter, W.G.J. When You Create Ideal Conditions, Your Fledgling Volunteer Program Will Fly. American School Board Journal, 1987, 194(6), 34–37.
41. Graff, L. L. Considering the Many Facets of Volunteer/Union Relations. Voluntary Action Leadership, 1984, Summer, 16–20.
42. Groble, P., and Brudney, J. L. When Good Intentions Go Wrong: Immunity Under the Volunteer Protection Act. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 2015, 6(1), 3–24.
43. Grossman, J. B., and Furano, K. Making the Most of Volunteers. 2002. Available at Public/Private Ventures, http://ppv.issuelab.org/resource/making_the_most_of_volunteers. Retrieved February 2, 2016.
44. Hager, M. A., and Brudney, J. L. Management Capacity and Retention of Volunteers. In M. Liao-Troth (ed.), Challenges in Volunteer Management. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, 2008, 9–28.
45. Hager, M. A., and Brudney, J. L. Sustaining Volunteer Involvement. In K. Seel (ed.), Volunteer Administration: Professional Practice (2nd ed.). Markham, Ontario, Canada: LexisNexis Canada, 2013, 243–279.
46. Hager, M. A., and Brudney, J. L. In Search of Strategy: Universalistic, Contingent, and Configurational Adoption of Volunteer Management Practices. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2015, 25(3), 235–254.
47. Hall, M. H., McKeown, L., and Roberts, K. Caring Canadians, Involved Canadians: Highlights from the 2000 National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Industry, 2001.
48. Handy, F., Mook, L., and Quarter, J. The Interchangeability of Paid Staff and Volunteers in Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 2008, 37, March, 76–92.
49. Haran, L., Kenney, S., and Vermilion, M. Contract Volunteer Services: A Model for Successful Partnership. Leadership, 1993, January–March, 28–30.
50. Herman, M. L., and Jackson, P. M. No Surprises: Harmonizing Risk and Reward in Volunteer Management. Washington, DC: Nonprofit Risk Management Center, 2001.
51. Hobson, C., and Malec, K. Initial Telephone Contact of Prospective Volunteers and Nonprofits: An Operational Definition of Quality and Norms for 500 Agencies. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 1999, 17(4), 21–27.
52. Hodgkinson, V. A., and Weitzman, M. S. The Charitable Behavior of Americans: A National Survey. Washington, DC: Independent Sector, 1986.
53. Hodgkinson, V. A., and Weitzman, M. S. Giving and Volunteering in the United States: Findings from a National Survey. Washington, DC: Independent Sector, 1988.
54. Hodgkinson, V. A., and Weitzman, M. S. Giving and Volunteering in the United States: Findings from a National Survey. Washington, DC: Independent Sector, 1990.
55. Hodgkinson, V. A., and Weitzman, M. S. Giving and Volunteering in the United States: Findings from a National Survey. Washington, DC: Independent Sector, 1992.
56. Hodgkinson, V. A., and Weitzman, M. S. Giving and Volunteering in the United States: Findings from a National Survey. Washington, DC: Independent Sector, 1996.
57. Hodgkinson, V. A., Weitzman, M. S., Toppe, C. M., Noga, S. M. Nonprofit Almanac, 1992–1993: Dimensions of the Independent Sector. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992.
58. Hyde, M. K., Dunn, J., Bax, C., and Chambers, S. K. Episodic Volunteering and Retention: An Integrated Theoretical Approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 2016, 45, February, 45–63.
59. Ilsley, P. Enhancing the Volunteer Experience. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.
60. Independent Sector. Giving and Volunteering in the United States 2001: Findings from a National Survey. Washington, DC: Independent Sector, 2002.
61. Karn, G. N. Money Talks: A Guide to Establishing the True Dollar Value of Volunteer Time, Part I. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 1982–1983, 1, Winter, 1–17.
62. Karn, G. N. Money Talks: A Guide to Establishing the True Dollar Value of Volunteer Time, Part II. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 1983, 1, Spring, 1–19.
63. Kirsch, A. D., Hume, K. M., and Jalandoni, N. T. Giving and Volunteering in the United States: Findings from a National Survey 1999 Edition. Washington, DC: Independent Sector, 2000.
64. Liao-Troth, M. A. Attitude Differences Between Paid Workers and Volunteers. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 2001, 11(4), 423–442.
65. Macduff, N. Episodic Volunteering. In T. D. Connors (ed.), The Volunteer Management Handbook. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 1995, 9–28.
66. Macduff, N. Principles of Training for Volunteers and Employees. In R. D. Herman (ed.), The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005, 703-730.
67. Manchester, L. D., and Bogart, G. S. Contracting and Volunteerism in Local Government: A Self-Help Guide. Washington, DC: International City Management Association, 1988.
68. Marando, V. L. Local Service Delivery: Volunteers and Recreation Councils. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 1986, 4(4), 16–24.
69. May, K. M., McLaughlin, R., and Penner, M. Preventing Low Birth Weight: Marketing and Volunteer Outreach. Public Health Nursing, 1991, 8(2), 97–104.
70. McHenry, C. A. Library Volunteers: Recruiting, Motivating, Keeping Them. School Library Journal, 1988, 35(8), 44–47.
71. McCurley, S. Keeping the Community Involved: Recruiting and Retaining Volunteers. In R. D. Herman (ed.), The Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005, 587–622.
72. McCurley, S., and Ellis, S. J. Thinking the Unthinkable: Are We Using the Wrong Model for Volunteer Work?” e-Volunteerism, 2003, 3(1). Available at https://www.e-volunteerism.com/node/662. Retrieved February 3, 2016.
73. McCurley, S., and Lynch, R. Essential Volunteer Management. Downers Grove, IL: VM Systems and Heritage Arts Publishing, 1989.
74. McCurley, S., and Lynch, R. Keeping Volunteers. Olympia, WA: Fat Cat Publications, 2005.
75. McCurley, S., and Lynch, R. Volunteer Management: Mobilizing All the Resources in the Community. Downers Grove, IL: Heritage Arts Publishing, 1996.
76. McHenry, C. A. ‘Library Volunteers: Recruiting, Motivating, Keeping Them. School Library Journal, 1988, 35(8), 44–47.
77. Meijs, L.C.P.M., and Brudney, J. L. Winning Volunteer Scenarios: The Soul of a New Machine. International Journal of Volunteer Administration, 2007, 24, Oct., 68–79.
78. Meijs, L.C.P.M., and Hoogstad, E. New Ways of Managing Volunteers: Combining Membership Management And Programme Management. Voluntary Action, 2001, 3(3), 41–61.
79. Mook, L.; Quarter, J.; and Richmond, B. J. What Counts: Social Accounting for Nonprofits and Cooperatives (2nd ed.). London: Siegel Press, 2007.
80. Moore, N. A. The Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis to Volunteer Programs. Volunteer Administration, 1978, 11(1), 13–22.
81. Murray, V., and Harrison, Y. Virtual Volunteering: Current Status and Future Prospects. 2002a. Available at the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy, https://www.onlinevolunteering.org/resources/documents/murray_sr2_english_web.pdf. Retrieved February 3, 2016.
82. Murray, V., and Harrison, Y. Virtual Volunteering in Canada. 2002b. Available at http://sectorsource.ca/sites/default/files/resources/files/Murray_FS_English.pdf. Retrieved February 3, 2016.
83. Murray, V., and Harrison, Y. Virtual Volunteering. In J. Brudney (ed.), Emerging Areas of Volunteering (2nd ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action, 2005, 33–50.
84. National SCORE Office. This Is SCORE. Washington, DC: National SCORE Office, 1989 (NSO-86002 [4/89]).
85. Naylor, H. H. Volunteers Today—Finding, Training and Working with Them. Dryden, NY: Dryden Associates, 1973.
86. Naylor, H. H. Beyond Managing Volunteers. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 1985, 14(2, 3), 25–30.
87. New York Times. An Uncertain Trumpet. Editorial. Sept. 8, 2002.
88. Nunn, M. Building the Bridge from Episodic Volunteerism to Social Capital. Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, 2000, 24(2), 115–127
89. O'Donald, E. Re-Entry Through Volunteering: The Best Jobs that Money Can't Buy. Voluntary Action Leadership, 1989, Fall, 22–27.
90. Park, J. M. Meaning Well Is not Enough: Perspectives on Volunteering. South Plainfield, NJ: Groupwork Today, 1983.
91. Pearce, J. L. Something for Nothing: An Empirical Examination of the Structures and Norms of Volunteer Organizations. Doctoral dissertation, New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1978.
92. Pearce, J. L. Participation in Voluntary Associations: How Membership in a Formal Organization Changes the Rewards of Participation. In D. H. Smith and J. Van Til (eds.), International Perspectives on Voluntary Action Research. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1983.
93. Peters, T. J., and Waterman, R. H. Jr. In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies. New York: Warner Books, 1982.
94. Scheier, I. H. Positive Staff Attitude Can Ease Volunteer Recruiting Pinch. Hospitals, 1981, 55(3), 61–63.
95. Scheier, I. H. Empowering a Profession: What's in Our Name? Journal of Volunteer Administration, 1988a, 6(4), 31–36.
96. Scheier, I. H. Empowering a Profession: Seeing Ourselves as More than Subsidiary. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 1988b, 7(1), 29–34.
97. Scheier, I. H. Empowering a Profession: Leverage Points and Process. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 1988–1989, 7(2), 50–57.
98. Schwartz, F. S. The Professional Staff and the Direct Service Volunteer: Issues and Problems. Journal of Jewish Communal Service, 1977, (2), 147–154.
99. Senior Corps. #IAmSeniorCorps. Available at www.nationalservice.gov/programs/senior-corps. Retrieved February 5, 2016.
100. SCORE. Our Impact. Available at https://www.score.org/our-impact. Retrieved January 29, 2016.
101. Small Business Administration. More About SCORE. Available at https://www.sba.gov/offices/headquarters/oed/resources/148091. Retrieved January 29, 2016.
102. Smith, A. C., and Green F. B. Managing Employees as If They Were Volunteers. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 1993, 58 3), 42–46.
103. Smith, J. D., and Ellis, A. Valuing Volunteering. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 2003, 21(2), 49–52.
104. Stoolmacher, I. S. Non-Profits Should Treat Volunteers as If They Were Paid Employees. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 1991, July 16, 3(19), 34–35.
105. Studer, S., and von Schnurbein, G. Organizational Factors Affecting Volunteers: A Literature Review on Volunteer Coordination. Voluntas, 2013, 24(2), 403–440.
106. Sundeen, R. A. Citizens Serving Government: Volunteer Participation in Local Public Agencies. In Working Papers for the Spring Research Forum. Washington, DC: Independent Sector, 1989.
107. Thornburg, L. What Makes an Effective Volunteer Administrator? Viewpoints from Several Practitioners. Voluntary Action Leadership, 1992, Summer, 18–21.
108. Toppe, C. M., Kirsch, A. D., and Michel, J. Giving and Volunteering in the United States 2001: Findings from a National Survey. Washington, DC: Independent Sector, 2002.
109. Urban Institute. Volunteer Management Capacity in America's Charities and Congregations: A Briefing Report. Washington, DC: Author, 2004. Available at www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/410963-Volunteer-Management-Capacity-in-America-s-Charities-and-Congregations.pdf. Retrieved February 3, 2016.
110. U.S. Department of Labor. Americans Volunteer. Washington, DC: Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, 1969.
111. Utterback, J., and Heyman, S. R. An Examination of Methods in the Evaluation of Volunteer Programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 1984, 7(3), 229–235.
112. Valente, M. G. Volunteers Help Stretch Local Budgets. Rural Development Perspectives, 1985, 2(1), 30–34.
113. Valente, C. F., and Manchester, L. D. Rethinking Local Services: Examining Alternative Delivery Approaches. Washington, DC: International City Management Association Information Service Special Report (12), 1984.
114. Van Til, J. Mapping the Third Sector: Voluntarism in a Changing Social Economy. New York: Foundation Center, 1988.
115. VolunteerMatch. At-a-Glance VOLUNTEERMATCH. Available at http://cdn.volunteermatch.org/www/about/volunteermatch_fact_sheet.pdf. Retrieved February 5, 2016.
116. Walter, V. Volunteers and Bureaucrats: Clarifying Roles and Creating Meaning. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 1987, 16(3), 22–32.
117. Weber, M. A. What Can Be Learned About Episodic Volunteers from a National Survey of Giving and Volunteering? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. Montreal, Quebec, Canada, November 14–16, 2002.
118. Wilson, M. The Effective Management of Volunteer Programs. Boulder, CO: Johnson Publishing, 1976.
119. Wilson, M. The New Frontier: Volunteer Management Training. Training and Development Journal, 1984, 38(7), 50–52.
120. Young, C. L., Goughler, D. H., and Larson, P. J. Organizational Volunteers for the Rural Frail Elderly: Outreach, Casefinding, and Service Delivery. Gerontologist, 1986, 26(4), 342–344.