Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987 DOI 10.1007/s11266-017-9855-z ORIGINAL PAPER
Advocacy Recruits: Demographic Predictors of Volunteering for Advocacy-Related Organizations Rebecca Nesbit1
Published online: 15 March 2017 Ó International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2017
Abstract Empirical studies of volunteering assume that the similar individuals are drawn equally to different kinds of volunteer-using organizations. The purpose of this article is to explore the demographic predictors of volunteering for several types of advocacy-related organizations, including political parties, labor and business organizations, immigrant/refugee-serving groups, civic organizations, and environmental/animal organizations. Data from the Current Population Survey’s volunteering supplement (pooled 2006–2012) indicate that the demographic profiles of volunteers drawn to advocacy-related organizations differ in specific ways from the demographic profile of those volunteering for other types of organizations. In particular, veterans are more likely than non-veterans to volunteer for political/ advocacy groups and civic organizations. Being a minority veteran is associated with volunteering for immigrant organizations and environmental/animal-related organizations. Foreign-born individuals—both US citizens and non-citizens—are more likely to volunteer for immigrant/refugee organizations than the native born. The demographic profiles of volunteers for advocacy-related organizations vary in some ways from the demographic profiles of those who volunteer for service delivery organizations. Re´sume´ Des e´tudes empiriques portant sur le be´ne´volat pre´sument que les individus qui se ressemblent sont uniforme´ment attire´s par diffe´rents types d’organismes ayant recours a` des be´ne´voles. Le pre´sent article a pour but d’explorer les facteurs de pre´diction de´mographique du be´ne´volat pour plusieurs types d’organismes de de´fense, y compris des partis politiques, organismes d’ouvriers et commerciaux, groupes d’aide aux re´fugie´s/immigrants et organismes civils et & Rebecca Nesbit
[email protected] 1
Department of Public Administration and Policy, University of Georgia, 203C Baldwin Hall, Athens, GA 30602-1615, USA
123
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
959
environnementaux/de de´fense des animaux. Les donne´es du comple´ment be´ne´vole du Current Population Survey (enqueˆte sur la population actuelle) recueillies de 2006 a` 2012 de´montrent que les profils de´mographiques des be´ne´voles attire´s par les organismes de de´fense diffe`rent pre´cise´ment de ceux des be´ne´voles œuvrant pour d’autres types d’organismes. Les ve´te´rans auront ainsi plus tendance a` faire du be´ne´volat pour des groupes politiques/de de´fense et organismes civils que les nonve´te´rans. Le fait d’eˆtre un ve´te´ran appartenant a` une minorite´ est associe´ a` des activite´s be´ne´voles axe´es sur l’immigration et l’environnement/la de´fense des animaux. Les citoyens et non citoyens ne´s en dehors des E´.-U. auront plus tendance a` œuvrer pour des organismes d’aide aux immigrants/re´fugie´s que ceux qui sont originaires du pays. Les profils de´mographiques des be´ne´voles d’organismes de de´fense varient d’une certaine fac¸on de ceux des be´ne´voles œuvrant pour des organismes prestataires de services. Zusammenfassung Empirische Studien zur ehrenamtlichen Arbeit gehen davon aus, dass sich a¨hnliche Personen gleichermaßen von verschiedenen Arten von Organisationen, die sich auf Ehrenamtliche stu¨tzen, angezogen werden. Zweck dieses Beitrags ist die Untersuchung der demographischen Pra¨diktoren fu¨r eine ehrenamtliche Arbeit fu¨r mehrere Arten von Interessen vertretenden Organisationen, einschließlich politischer Parteien, Arbeits- und Unternehmensorganisationen, Gruppen fu¨r Einwanderer/Flu¨chtlinge, Bu¨rgerorganisationen und Umwelt-/Tierorganisationen. Daten aus der erga¨nzenden Umfrage zur ehrenamtlichen Arbeit im Rahmen der Current Population Survey (gepoolt 2006–2012) zeigen, dass sich die demographischen Profile der Ehrenamtlichen, die von Interessen vertretenden Organisationen angezogen werden, auf spezifische Weise von dem demographischen Profil von Ehrenamtlichen anderer Organisationen unterscheiden. Im Einzelnen tendieren Kriegsveteranen eher zu einer ehrenamtlichen Ta¨tigkeit bei politischen/Interessen vertretenden Gruppen und Bu¨rgerorganisationen als andere Personen. Es gibt eine Verbindung zwischen Veteranen, die einer Minderheit angeho¨ren, und einer ehrenamtlichen Arbeit bei Einwandererorganisationen sowie Umwelt-/Tierorganisationen. Im Ausland geborene Personen—sowohl U.S.Staatsangeho¨rige als auch Personen ohne die amerikanische Staatsangeho¨rigkeit— tendieren eher dazu, fu¨r Einwanderer-/Flu¨chtlings-organisationen ehrenamtlich ta¨tig zu sein als Personen, die in den USA geboren wurden. Die demographischen Profile der Ehrenamtlichen bei Interessen vertretenden Organisationen unterscheiden sich in einigen Punkten von den demographischen Profilen der Ehrenamtlichen bei Dienstleistungen erbringenden Organisationen. Resumen Los estudios empı´ricos del voluntariado asumen que los individuos similares se ven atraı´dos igualmente por diferentes tipos de organizaciones que utilizan voluntarios. El propo´sito del presente artı´culo es explorar los predictores demogra´ficos del voluntariado para varios tipos de organizaciones relacionadas con la defensa, incluidos los partidos polı´ticos, las organizaciones empresariales y de los trabajadores, los grupos que atienden a inmigrantes/refugiados, las organizaciones cı´vicas y las organizaciones medioambientales/animalistas. Los datos del suplemento sobre voluntariado de la Encuesta de Poblacio´n Actual (agrupados
123
960
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
2006–2012) indican que los perfiles demogra´ficos de los voluntarios atraı´dos por organizaciones relacionadas con la defensa difieren en formas especı´ficas del perfil demogra´fico de aquellos que realizan voluntariado para otros tipos de organizaciones. En particular, es ma´s probable que los veteranos realicen voluntariado en grupos de defensa/polı´ticos y organizaciones cı´vicas que los no veteranos. Ser un veterano de una minorı´a se asocia al voluntariado en organizaciones de inmigrantes y organizaciones medioambientales/animalistas. Es ma´s probable que los individuos nacidos en el extranjero—tanto ciudadanos estadounidenses como no ciudadanos— realicen voluntariado en organizaciones de inmigrantes/refugiados que los nativos estadounidenses. Los perfiles demogra´ficos de los voluntarios en organizaciones relacionadas con la defensa varı´an en algunas formas de los perfiles demogra´ficos de aquellos que realizan voluntariado en organizaciones que entregan servicios. Keywords Volunteering Advocacy Volunteers
Introduction Volunteerism research has documented a host of individual and family demographic characteristics that drive volunteering. For instance, the typical volunteer is white, female, married with children, middle-aged, with higher levels of education and socioeconomic status (Boraas 2003; Hayghe 1991; Musick and Wilson 2008; Musick et al. 2000; Smith 1994; Wilson 2012). Theoretical and empirical volunteerism studies have also highlighted how volunteering is related to psychological dispositions, values, and traits (Bekkers 2007; Brady et al. 1999; Penner 2004; Wuthnow 1998); individual motivations (Hwang et al. 2005; Okun 1994; Snyder et al. 2000; Stukas et al. 2007; Wuthnow 2012); and volunteer recruitment (Becker and Dhingra 2001; Bryant et al. 2003; Putnam et al. 2012). Indeed, there is a healthy and growing body of the literature depicting how individual characteristics are associated with the decision to volunteer. Still, all of this research tends to operationalize volunteering as whether or not an individual volunteers or the number of hours the volunteer donates—and is little concerned with the volunteering outlet. This is problematic in three ways. First, most studies investigate volunteering as a general behavior without reference to the type of organization that the person volunteers for, meaning that empirical studies of volunteerism assume that individuals are drawn equally to different kinds of volunteer-using organizations. Second, the studies that consider organization type either take an extremely broad view of type (e.g., comparing religious and secular volunteering) or their samples comprise individuals who volunteer for only one specific type of organization, such as hospitals or sport organizations, which makes it difficult to make useful comparisons of volunteers across organization types (e.g., because of different samples, control variables, or measures of volunteering). Third, these studies tend to neglect volunteering for certain types of nonprofit organizations (e.g., civic organizations). Most studies of volunteerism in the USA tend to look at volunteers in the human services, education, and arts and other expressive organizations. Because of this, we know very little about how the demographic
123
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
961
characteristics of volunteers vary across broad nonprofit industries, especially based on large datasets comparing multiple organizations at the same time. In particular, volunteering for advocacy, civic, and political nonprofit organizations has been neglected in the volunteerism research. To an extent, some of these issues are addressed by political science and sociology scholars who research predictors of participation in political activities and social movements—often including volunteering for a politically oriented or social movement organization as a component of the dependent variable (Beck and Jennings 1982; Brady et al. 1999; McAdam 1986; McAdam and Paulsen 1993; Schlozman et al. 1994; Schussman and Soule 2005). However, the study design, research questions, and focus of these studies preclude investigation of variation in demographic predictors of volunteering across nonprofit subsectors. Nonprofit subsectors are defined by using a nonprofit’s major economic activity—the good or service that it spends the bulk of its resources to provide (Salamon and Anheier 1996). Unfortunately, some nonprofit subsectors receive more academic attention than others (e.g., human services and education). The relative neglect of civic, political, advocacy, and similar organizations is unfortunate given that advocacy and civic engagement are touted as important nonprofit roles in society (Eikenberry and Kluver 2004; Moulton and Eckerd 2011; Smith 1983). To address the above issues, this study examines individual and household predictors of volunteering for advocacy-related organizations, compared to predictors of volunteering for other types of organizations (e.g., social service delivery, education, and expressive organizations). This analysis helps to unpack variations in volunteer demographics across different types of nonprofit organizations. The results have implications for future research on volunteerism and the importance of considering volunteering for different organization types.
What is Advocacy-Related Volunteering? Most volunteerism research is based on a fairly broad definition of volunteering. Musick and Wilson’s (2008) seminal book used a definition of volunteering that incorporates unpaid, voluntary work for socially oriented organizations (but not caregiving to family members or informal helping). This study also employs this definition for general volunteering behavior. In contrast, for the purposes of this article, a unique subset of general volunteering is also under consideration—namely advocacy-related volunteering. Advocacy organizations are organizations that operate in policy fields to achieve specific policy goals (Prakash and Gugerty 2010). Advocacy-related volunteering will be construed as volunteering for organizations whose primary good or service pertains to advocacy-related activities, such as influencing the political system, civic affairs, or public policy. Because this article’s research question pertains to how individuals sort themselves out across volunteerusing organizations, this definition of advocacy-related volunteering encompasses volunteering for broad organization types that more directly seek to affect policy goals and outcomes rather than primarily deliver services to clients. Certainly, one could conceive of advocacy volunteering in terms of the type of volunteer work
123
962
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
done (such as educating the public, canvassing, or speaking to policy-makers), but this conceptualization of volunteering falls outside the scope and purpose of this investigation. This study casts a broad net to investigate advocacy-related volunteering. Many nonprofit organizations engage in advocacy activities of some type (Bass et al. 2007; Ried 1999). However, participation in advocacy activities is not consistent across nonprofit subsectors, due to organizational factors (Child and Grønbjerg 2007; Moulton and Eckerd 2011; Neumayr et al. 2013) and the different institutional and policy environments that different nonprofit subsectors operate in (Salamon 2012). This study focuses on several distinguishable nonprofit subsectors that exhibit higher levels of advocacy work—political parties, labor unions and business/professional associations, immigrant and refugee assistance organizations, civic organizations, and environmental/animal organizations. Political and civic organizations are included because their missions focus on political activities, advocacy, and civic engagement. Environmental/animal groups and labor/professional groups are included because prior research shows they tend to be involved in advocacy at higher rates than many other types of nonprofits (Child and Grønbjerg 2007; Zullo 2007, 2012). Finally, the analysis also includes immigrant and refugee assistance organizations because one of the four main purposes of immigrant organizations is political and advocacy activities on behalf of the particular community represented (Hung 2007). These five major types of organizations comprise advocacy-related organizations for the purposes of this study.
Why Might Advocacy-Related Organizations Attract Different Volunteers? Although the research on advocacy-related volunteering is sparse, prior studies hint at potential demographic differences in volunteers across nonprofit subsectors. First, the distribution of volunteers across organizations is uneven—only 5.4% of all volunteers in the USA volunteer for a civic organization, compared to 34% who volunteer for religious organizations, 26% for education, and 15% for social services (www.volunteeringinamerica.gov). Second, some research has indicated different challenges in nonprofit marketing, recruitment, and management of volunteers across organization types (Bussell and Forbes 2002; Hager and Brudney 2011; Macduff et al. 2009; Meijs and Hoogstad 2001; Rochester 2007; Snyder et al. 1999). Third, a handful of studies find demographic differences in volunteers across a few broad organization types (Beerli et al. 2004; Garcia-Mainar and Marcuello 2007; Sundeen 1992; Wilson and Pimm 1996; Wymer Jr 1997). Based upon this small literature, it is reasonable to believe that an investigation of whether different organizations might attract different volunteers is warranted. Due to the lack of research comparing volunteer demographics across nonprofit subsectors, the research on participation in political activity and social movements/ activism provides some helpful hints at potential demographic predictors of advocacy-related volunteering. In general, political participation increases with socioeconomic status, age, participation in other organizations, being employed,
123
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
963
being married, and religious attendance (Barkan et al. 1995; Brady et al. 1995, 1999; Campbell 2013; Leighley and Vedlitz 1999; McAdam 1986; McAdam and Paulsen 1993; Verba and Nie 1972)—similar to the predictors of general volunteering. However, men are more likely to participate in political activity than women (Schlozman et al. 1994). The political participation literature also highlights the importance of social networks for participation—for recruitment, socialization, support, and the acquisition of political knowledge and skills (Brady et al. 1999; Campbell 2013; La Due Lake and Huckfeldt 1998; McAdam 1986; McAdam and Paulsen 1993). Interestingly, the determinants of conventional political participation are different than the predictors of protest activities. Younger people are more likely to engage in political protest activities than older people—which is opposite to the relationship between age and voting or more ‘‘orthodox political participation’’ (Bean 1991; Marsh and Kaase 1979; Schussman and Soule 2005; Wiltfang and McAdam 1991). Other factors associated with more protest-type activities are being a student and not having children (Schussman and Soule 2005). While many of the predictors of political participation also predict general volunteering (e.g., socioeconomic status), the fact that the demographic predictors of political participation varies somewhat with the type of participation lends credence to the idea that demographic predictors of volunteering could vary across nonprofit subsectors. This idea is summed up in Fig. 1. One of the main theoretical drivers for these relationships is a resource-based perspective on volunteering. This theory is based on the observation that those in dominant status groups are more likely to volunteer than their counterparts (i.e., those with more education, higher incomes, racial majorities, males) (Lemon et al. 1972). Individuals in dominant status groups have greater skills and resources that they can devote to volunteer work, thus overcoming one of the three main barriers to volunteering—that people cannot volunteer due to lack of resources or practical support (Brady et al. 1995). Empirical evidence supports the fact that many of these
Fig. 1 Conceptual model for volunteering for advocacy-related organizations
123
964
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
resource-related variables are important predictors of volunteering (Musick and Wilson 2008). In particular, education is a robust predictor of volunteering behaviors (Berger 2000). The argument in this paper is that resources do indeed matter for volunteering, but that perhaps a different array of resources enables volunteering for the organizations under consideration in this paper. Beyond the general idea that the demographic predictors of advocacy-related volunteering might vary somewhat from the demographic predictors of general volunteering, other less-considered demographic variables might also be important considerations for advocacy-related volunteering because they represent a different set of resources that might enable volunteering for less common organizations. People from atypical backgrounds might be attracted to volunteer work at these types of advocacy-related organizations and might arrive at volunteering through non-traditional pathways. Beyond looking at general patterns in traditional predictors of volunteering, this study also focuses on three main characteristics of interest—prior military service, being born in a foreign country, and race. Individuals with these characteristics might have a different perspective on domestic and international issues because of their background and experience. Attitudes toward social and political issues influences activities designed to influence the policy process, especially higher-risk activities (Barkan et al. 1995; Bean 1991; McAdam 1986). Therefore, it is expected that these variables will be associated with volunteering for advocacy-related volunteering. The subsequent sections of this article review relevant literature discussing how and why veterans, the foreign born, and racial/ethnic minorities might be involved in advocacy-related volunteering. Each section highlights potential mechanisms, including resources to volunteer, that might link each concept with advocacy-related volunteering, reviews related (although sparse) empirical research that links the concept with volunteering (or political participation), and finally includes any literature supporting a possible connection with advocacy-related volunteering.
Military Service and Advocacy Volunteering Two potential mechanisms link veteran status with volunteering—increasing socioeconomic status and inculcating supportive motivations/values. Military service can increase social mobility, particularly for minority individuals and individuals from lower socioeconomic groups (Moskos and Butler 1997). Minority veterans typically have higher educational and occupational outcomes compared to minority non-veterans (Angrist 1993; Butler 1991), due in large part to the skills and personal development accrued during military service. Similar processes can propel veterans into volunteering activity after their military service. Serving in the military can increase the capacity to volunteer through the development of supportive civic skills and increases in income and free time—resources necessary overcome obstacles to volunteering (Brady et al. 1995). Military service can also increase communication and organizational skills and provide experience working with others to achieve a common goal.
123
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
965
The second way that military service can increase volunteering is by instilling values and attitudes that support volunteering. The military, like other institutions, can influence what actions individuals consider to be important. In this case, military service develops feelings of the necessity and pride of serving one’s country. Military socialization processes also develop values of duty, honor, and loyalty to the country (Lovell and Stiehm 1989)—values that are supportive of democratic behaviors, such as volunteering. Indeed, a common terminology used to describe those serving in the military is ‘‘citizen-soldier,’’ pulling from the idea that the military teaches and reinforces good citizenship behaviors (Cohen 1985). Thus, military service can alter an individual’s desire to volunteer—another way to serve one’s country. Empirical evidence supports the fact that military service is related to political and civic behaviors. Military service in general is positively associated with voting (Buyer 2001; Sherman 2000; Teigen 2006, 2007). Military service is also related to other forms of political participation among minority veterans, such as contacting public officials or donating to a political campaign (Ellison 1992; Leal 1999). Empirical studies investigating the relationship between volunteering and military service are rare. One exception is Nesbit and Reingold’s (2011) study that finds that minority veterans and married veterans were more likely to volunteer than their non-veteran counterparts. While the empirical research linking military service to any kind of political, civic, or volunteering behavior is limited, the existing literature supports the notion that military service can potentially lead to volunteering. Indeed, it is possible that military service not only leads to more volunteering, but also supports volunteering in advocacy-related organizations. Several studies have indicated that among minorities, military service can lead to advocacy work. For example, Enloe (1980) found that minorities who serve in the military are more likely to challenge the status quo after leaving military service. Black veterans were active in the civil rights movement, spurred on by the education benefits they received from the GI Bill (Mettler 2005). Parker (2009) found that minority veterans were 14% more likely than non-minority veterans to vote and 7% more likely to participate in other non-voting forms of civic activism. He explains that serving overseas and observing other cultures gave minority veterans a new perspective on race, a greater sense of entitlement to equal treatment, and greater confidence and efficacy to pursue more equal treatment. Parker concludes that: ‘‘Military service indeed served as a springboard from which many black veterans pursued equality’’ (Parker 2009, p. 127). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that not only will military service lead to future volunteering, but that veterans’ volunteering choices might cluster around advocacy and civic organizations—at least for minorities.
Immigrants and Advocacy Volunteering One potential mechanism that might animate volunteering among immigrants is acculturation. Acculturation is the process by which immigrants learn and adopt (and often modify) aspects of the new culture and combine it with aspects of their
123
966
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
old culture (Sundeen et al. 2009). For many immigrants, the values and norms of their home countries support informal giving and helping among their extended family and closer friends and eschews giving and volunteering to strangers (Smith et al. 1999; Sundeen et al. 2007). However, this can change with time in the new community. Through the acculturation process, immigrants might exchange their traditional informal helping behaviors for more formal volunteering activities common in the USA. Indeed, empirical studies show that immigrants’ volunteer activities do tend to increase with time spent living in their new country (Handy and Greenspan 2009; Lasby 2011). Many immigrants begin their formal volunteer work through religious institutions (Carabain and Bekkers 2011; Handy and Greenspan 2009). In particular, ethnic religious congregations can provide a supportive environment for immigrants to develop the skills for volunteering and adopt motivations supportive of volunteering (Handy and Greenspan 2009). Many immigrants indicate that they volunteer in order to increase their social connections or to develop job skills (Handy and Greenspan 2009; Yap et al. 2010). Thus, volunteering can also be used as a pathway to help immigrants acculturate and assimilate into a new society. A growing body of research has helped to illuminate immigrants’ volunteering behaviors. In general, the empirical research demonstrates that those who are foreign born are less likely to volunteer than native-born individuals (Foster-Bey 2008; Gesthuizen and Scheepers 2010; Lopez and Marcelo 2008; Sundeen et al. 2007), possibly due to social, cultural, and language barriers (Handy and Greenspan 2009; Lee and Moon 2011; Scott et al. 2006). Empirical studies of immigrant volunteers have also shown that the typical demographic predictors of volunteer work (i.e., gender, marital status) exhibit different patterns across different immigrant groups. For example, while many studies find that females are more likely to volunteer than males (Musick and Wilson 2008), Sundeen et al. (2009) found that gender does not predict volunteering among Asian immigrants. Similarly, education does not predict volunteering among Asian Indian immigrants (Sundeen et al. 2007). It is beyond the scope of this article to review all the demographic differences between immigrant and non-immigrant volunteers from the empirical literature. For the purposes of this article, it is important only to note that not all immigrant volunteers will fit the demographic profile of the typical volunteer. This empirical research also helps us to understand which types of volunteer organizations tend to draw volunteer labor from immigrant communities. Immigrants often begin their volunteering within ethnically based organizations— both religious and secular—because they directly work to meet the needs of those ethnic communities and because cultural and language barriers are lower (Ecklund 2005; Lee and Moon 2011; Moua 2010). Improved language skills and education then set the stage for volunteering in other types of organizations (Lee and Moon 2011). By developing volunteering skills and having positive volunteering experiences in ethnically oriented organizations, immigrants eventually add in volunteering for other types of organizations (Handy and Greenspan 2009; Weisinger and Salipante 2005). Empirical research does not seem to link immigrant status with any particular kind of advocacy or civic volunteering, except perhaps for ethnically oriented organizations. Based on prior research, we expect that
123
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
967
immigrants will be less likely to volunteer for all kinds of advocacy organizations except those that are ethnically based, such as immigrant/refugee assistance organizations. Immigrant and refugee organizations often target ethnic and immigrant communities for volunteer recruitment (Behnia 2007). We therefore expect immigrants to be drawn to these types of organizations, particularly when they, their family, or their friends have received services from these organizations.
Race and Advocacy Volunteering Two competing mechanisms might underlie volunteering decisions among racial minorities. The first potential explanation is that racial minorities, especially blacks, lack the resources necessary for volunteering due to systematically lower levels of education and socioeconomic status (Musick et al. 2000). Lower human capital is one of the reasons that minorities are both less likely than whites to be asked to volunteer and less likely to accept the invitation when it is offered (Musick and Wilson 2008; Musick et al. 2000). A second mechanism that might affect minority volunteering pertains to social networks and social resources. Extended kin networks and religious networks are associated with philanthropic behaviors among Hispanics and African-Americans (Joseph 1995; Smith et al. 1999). While minorities might lack the human capital that supports volunteering, they can potentially compensate for that with social and cultural capital derived from their social networks and participation in religious organizations (Musick et al. 2000). For example, religious attendance has a stronger effect on volunteering by blacks than it does on whites—evidence that the social networks and values established within religious institutions support minorities’ volunteer efforts (Musick et al. 2000). The social network mechanism can also potentially work against volunteering. Perceptions of volunteering and even terminology used to describe volunteering vary across cultures (Boyle and Sawyer 2010; Dekker and Halman 2003; Kerr et al. 2001). For example, the values and traditions of communities of color tend to support philanthropic behaviors through informal, rather than formal, channels (Smith et al. 1999; Sundeen et al. 2007). Because in some communities, social resources might not increase formal volunteering, this second mechanism of volunteering might not always compensate for lack of personal resources and human capital. The empirical evidence tends to support the first mechanism. Empirical studies of volunteering in the USA have documented that racial minorities are less likely to volunteer than whites (Boraas 2003; Foster-Bey 2008; Musick and Wilson 2008; Musick et al. 2000; Rotolo et al. 2010; Wilson 2012). However, when minorities do volunteer, they tend to donate comparable volunteer hours to whites (Musick and Wilson 2008; Taniguchi 2012). The relationship between race and volunteering is somewhat complicated. Wilson (2012) pointed out that the effect of race on volunteering in empirical studies is conditioned by the nature of the sample, how volunteering is measured, and the control variables employed. One thing that might help tease out the relationship between race and volunteering is to look at more specific volunteering outlets.
123
968
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
The question in this particular article is what effect race might have on volunteering for advocacy-type organizations. While racial minorities might be less likely than whites to volunteer overall, it is possible that the effect of race on the likelihood of volunteering might diminish or disappear when looking at specific types of organizations. However, because so few studies look at volunteering for different types of organizations, it is difficult to know whether this is the case. Using the Independent Sector data, Musick and Wilson (2008) found that blacks were more likely to volunteer for their church than whites, unless they controlled for church attendance. They also found that blacks were less likely to volunteer for political organizations (measured as political parties, nonpartisan political groups, and community groups) than whites. However, Sundeen (1992) found that blacks were more likely than whites to volunteer for community-action groups, workrelated organizations, and political organizations (measured as political party clubs). Additionally, Kohut’s (1997) research on individuals in the Philadelphia area indicated that blacks are more likely than whites to volunteer for their church, youth development programs, community organizations, and organizations targeting services to the poor. Empirical evidence also supports potential differences in choice of volunteer organization by Hispanics. Musick and Wilson (2008) compared Hispanics to whites and found that Hispanics were less likely than whites to volunteer for environmental, adult recreation, youth development, and health organizations. They did not find any statistically meaningful difference between Hispanics and whites in the likelihood of volunteering for other types of organizations. This provides some evidence that race might affect the sorting of volunteers among different types of organizations. In particular, much of the empirical evidence cited above indicates that the effect of race might diminish when considering advocacy organizations. One reason for this is that African-Americans tend to center their volunteer efforts on issues that that they see as most pressing in their communities, such as crime and the provision of human services (Ferree et al. 1998; Gallagher 1994b; Portney and Berry 1997; Sundeen 1992). Another reason might be that civil rights and social change are also important issues for marginalized minorities, which can attract them to volunteering for advocacy and civic organizations that champion activism on behalf of their community. Therefore, it is possible that minorities might favor volunteer activities in political, civic, and advocacy organizations compared to volunteering in other types of organizations.
Data and Methodology The data for this paper come from the Current Population Survey’s (2006–2012) volunteering supplement. The CPS is a national probability sample of households in the USA designed to collect information about labor force participation. It is a multistage, stratified sample composed of 792 sample areas. In the first stage, geographical primary sampling units are selected. In the second stage, households are randomly selected within the chosen geographical sampling units. In general, around 57,000 households are interviewed per month, and data are collected on all
123
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
969
non-institutionalized household members above the age of 15—either by self- or proxy report—for a final sample size around 150,000 individuals each year. The CPS data are collected monthly, and each month’s survey contains supplementary questions on different topics. Since 2002, the September CPS supplement has included questions about the incidence and intensity of volunteering for all household members over the age of 15. Approximately 93,000 CPS participants respond to the volunteering questions in any given year. CPS respondents name the organizations that they volunteer for, identify the organization type, and report the number of hours volunteered. The analysis in this article uses a pooled dataset of the September 2006 through September 2012 data (N = 591,938). The advantage of the pooled dataset is that it increases the sample size for important subgroups (e.g., those who volunteer for immigrant and refugee organizations), which enables greater precision in estimation. Dependent Variables The dependent variables for this paper are a set of six binary variables representing different types of organization that a person can volunteer for. Although the CPS data include seventeen different types of volunteer-using organizations, this analysis focuses on those organization types that are most directly related to advocacy work, as discussed earlier in the paper. The five primary advocacy-related organizations for the purpose of this analysis are: (1) political party or advocacy group, (2) labor union, business, or professional association, (3) immigrant/refugee assistance organization, (4) civic organization, and (5) environmental or animal care organization. The sixth binary variable captures whether or not the person volunteered for any other type of organization, including such organizations as religious, cultural, educational, health, and other organizations. When creating these variables, the type of organization under consideration is the organization to which the individual donated the most volunteer hours if he or she volunteered for more than one organization. Thus, these six groups are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive of all organization types in the CPS dataset. Independent Variables The independent variables in this analysis include a dummy variable indicating whether or not the person has ever served in the US armed forces. This variable does not capture those who are currently serving in the US armed forces; the CPS methodology does not allow active military members to respond to the volunteering questions. The next two independent variables are dummy variables indicating whether or not the individual was born outside of the USA—one for those who are US citizens and another for those who are not US citizens. Three binary variables representing racial and ethnic minorities are also included as independent variables—black, Hispanic, or Asian. The excluded category for race is white. The Hispanic ethnicity dummy variable is not mutually exclusive from the race (black, Asian) dummy variables.
123
970
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
For some analyses, the models also include two interaction terms. The first is an interaction between veteran status and being a minority (either black, Hispanic, or Asian). The second is an interaction between being a foreign-born non-citizen and arriving in the USA since the year 2000 (the lower order binary term of arriving in the USA since the year 2000 is also included in the models, but the results for this variable are not shown in the tables for the sake of parsimony and focus). This interaction term captures newer immigrants who might not have had time to assimilate into mainstream culture or learn the language. Control Variables The analysis also includes several control variables. The first two variables are the log of household income and highest grade of education completed. Education is a robust predictor of volunteering (Huang et al. 2009; Smith 1994; Syvertsen et al. 2011). Household income is a proxy for socioeconomic status. People from higher socioeconomic groups tend to volunteer more than people from lower socioeconomic groups (Musick and Wilson 2008). Next, the models include a dummy variable indicating that the person is employed. An individual’s employment circumstances also affect volunteering decisions (Wilson and Musick 1997). The next control variable is a dummy variable indicating whether or not the respondent is male. Empirical research in general substantiates gender differences in the likelihood of volunteering, volunteer roles, and volunteer motivations (Blackstone 2009; Brudney 1989; Fletcher and Major 2004; McClintock 2000; Messner and Bozada-Deas 2009; Musick and Wilson 2008; Okun et al. 1998; Petrzelka and Mannon 2006; Rotolo and Wilson 2007). Another dummy variable captures homeownership, which has been empirically linked to volunteering (Rotolo et al. 2010). Next, a series of variables capture different aspects of a person’s family situation. This includes a dummy variable for whether the respondent is married, an indicator of the number of children living in the home, and a dummy variable indicating whether there are preschool children in the home. These indicators of family status are related to various types of volunteering behaviors. Parents are often drawn into volunteer work that benefits their children, like education and youth-orientated organizations (Boraas 2003; Carlin 2001; Janoski and Wilson 1995; Kohut 1997; Romero 1986; Rossi 2001), so in general having children is positively related to volunteering. However, having young (preschool) children at home decreases the likelihood of volunteering and the number of hours volunteered because of the caregiving demands of having young children (Musick and Wilson 2008). The final control variables are a person’s age and age squared. Age plays an important role in sorting volunteers among nonprofit subsectors and across different types of volunteering activities or tasks because volunteering motivations and behaviors vary across the life course (Musick and Wilson 2008; Omoto et al. 2000; Sundeen 1990; Tang 2006; Van Willigen 2000). For example, one study found that younger volunteers focused on volunteering in sports and recreation organizations, middle-aged individuals volunteered more in educational organizations, and older adults volunteered for social and human services (Gaskin and Smith 1995). The
123
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
971
squared term is included because the likelihood of volunteering in general (and presumably for different types of organizations) is not related to age in a strictly linear way (Musick and Wilson 2008). Methodological Approach The regressions are estimated using a logistic regression analysis because of the binary dependent variables. Odds ratios are reported in the tables. The primary analysis includes six separate regressions on the six primary types of organizations (based on the pooled 2006–2012 data), using robust standard errors. The tables include three separate models. The first is a base model that only includes the control variables. The second model includes the control variables and the basic independent variables without the two interaction terms. The third model includes all the independent and control variables. All three models are run for each of the six types of volunteer organizations. Part of the analysis also includes predicted probabilities of volunteering for different types of organizations based upon the independent variables of interest. These predicted probabilities are calculated using the prvalue command in Stata (Long and Freese 2014). A correlation matrix (not shown) indicates that highest correlation between any two variables is 0.74— between the number of children in the home and the presence of preschool children. The variance inflation factors do not indicate any problems with multicollinearity.
Results Table 1 shows the distribution of volunteers across the six different types of organizations. Of the 591,938 individuals in the sample, 170,505 reported volunteering during the previous year, or 28.8%. Of these volunteers, 1616 individuals indicated that they volunteered for a political party or advocacy group. This represents 0.95% of all the volunteers (170,505) in this sample. Labor unions and professional groups
Table 1
Volunteering by type of organization 2006–2012 pooled data Number
Percent
Political party or advocacy group
1616
0.95
Labor union, business, or professional organization
1401
0.82
Immigrant/refugee assistance Civic organization Environmental or animal care organization
186
0.11
6641
3.89
4059
2.38
All other organizations
156,602
91.85
Total
170,505
100
123
972
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
attracted 0.82% of volunteers. Immigrant and refugee assistance organizations attract only 0.11% of all the volunteers in the sample. Almost 4% of the sample volunteered for civic organizations, and 2.38% volunteered for environmental and animal care organizations. The remaining 91.85% volunteered for some other type of organization. Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for the independent and control variables. Table 3 depicts descriptive statistics on the control variables by the major independent variables. Approximately 10% of sample are veterans and 1% of the sample are minority veterans. Six percent of individuals in the sample are US citizens who were born in a foreign country. Another 7% are non-US citizens who were born in a foreign country. Four percent of the sample are non-US citizens who have immigrated to the USA since the year 2000. The racial and ethnic breakdown of the sample is 9% black, 11% Hispanic, and 5% Asian. The log of household income ranges from 7.8 to 11.9 with a mean of 10.7. This mean log of household income (10.7) roughly corresponds to an income of $44,355. The number of years of school completed by the respondents ranges from 0 to 22. The mean number of years of school completed is 13.3, meaning that the average respondent has completed some college. Sixty-one percent of respondents are employed, and 72% own their own home. Males represent 48% of the sample. Fifty-four percent of respondents are married. The mean number of children under the age of 18 in the home ranges from 0 to 12 with a mean of 0.52. Sixteen percent of households have preschool children in the home.
Table 2 Descriptive statistics on independent and control variables Min
Max
Mean
SD
Veteran
0
1
0.10
0.29
Minority veteran
0
1
0.01
0.11
Foreign born—citizen
0
1
0.06
0.23
Foreign born—non-citizen
0
1
0.07
0.25
Non-citizens immigrated since 2000
0
1
0.04
0.19
Black
0
1
0.09
0.29
Hispanic
0
1
0.11
0.32
Asian
0
1
0.05
0.20
Log of household income
7.8
11.9
10.7
0.91
Highest grade completed
0
22
13.3
3.03
Employed
0
1
0.61
0.49
Owns home
0
1
0.72
0.45
Male
0
1
0.48
0.50
Married
0
1
0.54
0.50
Number of children
0
12
0.52
0.98
Presence of preschool children in home
0
1
Age
18
85
123
0.16 45.5
0.37 18.33
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
973
Table 3 Descriptive statistics on control variables by major independent variables Veterans
Foreign born— citizens
Foreign born—noncitizens
Minorities
Mean log of household income
10.74
10.76
10.40
10.43
Mean highest grade completed
13.69
13.22
11.51
12.27
Percent employed
49.71
62.41
63.39
57.64
Percent owns home
81.84
71.49
43.09
55.11
Percent male
93.09
45.77
49.30
46.19
Percent married
68.99
66.87
61.08
45.72
Mean number of children
0.28
0.65
0.86
0.63
Percent with preschool children in home
7.52
18.76
29.59
20.38
60.51
50.30
39.01
41.12
Mean age
Respondents’ ages range from 18 to 85 with a mean of 45.5. Table 3 indicates how the major independent variables—being a veteran, foreign-born citizens, foreignborn non-citizens, and minorities—affect the mean values of the control variables. The logistic regression results are reported in Tables 4 and 5 for all of the six main types of organization under consideration in this paper. The regression results are reported as odds ratios—the change in the log-odds of the dependent variable occurring while holding all the other variables constant. An odds ratio [1 indicates that a one-unit change in the independent variable increases the odds of the dependent variable happening (e.g., volunteering for a particular type of organization). For example, in the second column of Table 4, the odds ratio on the veteran dummy variable is 1.47 (p \ 0.001). This means that being a veteran increases the odds of volunteering for a political party or advocacy organization by a factor of 1.47 (or a 47% increase in the odds), relative to non-veterans. An odds ratio between 0 and 1 decreases the odds of the dependent variable occurring (e.g., volunteering for a particular type of organization). For example, in the second column of Table 4, the odds ratio for being a foreign-born citizen is 0.51 (p \ 0.01). This means that being a US citizen born in a foreign country decreases the odds of volunteering for a political party or advocacy organization by a factor of 0.51 (or a 49% decrease in the odds), relative to those individuals who are born in the USA. The effects of the independent variables on the six dependent variables are considered first, starting with volunteering for political parties/advocacy groups. Veterans are more likely to volunteer for political parties/advocacy groups compared to non-veterans (p \ 0.001). Being a minority veteran is not statistically related to volunteering for political parties/advocacy groups—they are neither more nor less likely to volunteer for these types of organizations compared to others. Being foreign born decreases the odds volunteering for political parties/advocacy groups—both among citizens (p \ 0.01 in model 2 and p \ 0.001 in model 3) and non-citizens (p \ 0.001 in model 2 and p \ 0.05 in model 3). The interaction between being a foreign-born non-citizen and immigrating since 2000 is not
123
123
1.03***
0.99**
591,938
1129.17***
Age
Age squared
N
Wald v2
?
0.51**
0.0460
1189.34***
591,938
0.99**
1.03***
1.08
0.71***
0.68***
0.90*
0.77***
0.91
1.20***
1.28***
0.67*
0.64**
0.93
–
0.33***
p \ 0.10; * p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01; *** p \ 0.001
McFadden’s R
0.0395
1.06
Preschool children
2
0.66***
0.98
Male
0.71***
0.83**
Own home
Number of children
0.92
Employed
Married
1.29***
1.20***
–
Asian
Highest grade completed
–
Hispanic
Log of household income
–
–
Black
Foreign born—non-citizen
Non-citizens immigrated since 2000
–
–
Foreign born—citizen
–
1.43***
0.0464
1189.14***
591,938
0.99**
1.03***
1.09
0.71***
0.68***
0.90*
0.76***
0.91*
1.20***
1.27***
0.67*
0.62**
0.90
0.38
0.52*
0.52***
1.29
–
0.0612
1223.51***
591,938
0.99***
1.06***
1.09
0.85***
1.02
1.26***
1.02
2.21***
1.19***
1.46***
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
1.16 1.13
0.75*
1.43***
0.0647
1262.46***
591,938
0.99***
1.06***
1.11
0.85***
1.04
1.23***
0.94
2.18***
1.19***
0.0648
1267.92***
591,938
0.99***
1.06***
1.11
0.85***
1.04
1.23***
0.94
2.18***
1.19***
1.43***
1.05
0.77? 1.06
0.74*
0.71
0.47**
0.61**
1.34
0.77*
–
0.37***
0.60**
–
Model 3
1.47***
–
–
Veteran
Minority veteran
?
Model 2
Model 1
Model 2
Model 1
Model 3
Labor union, business, or professional association
Political party or advocacy group
Table 4 Logistic regression results part 1, odds ratios
0.0460
162.20***
591,938
1.00
0.0549
254.44***
591,938
1.00
0.98
0.60?
0.60? 0.98
1.19
0.64*
0.59**
0.69*
1.06
1.29***
1.02
1.33
0.76
1.11
–
1.60
2.98***
–
0.90
Model 2
1.19
0.69*
0.58***
0.65**
1.02
1.30***
1.03
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Model 1
0.0584
258.07***
591,938
1.00
0.97
0.59?
1.19
0.65*
0.60**
0.69*
1.05
1.29***
1.02
1.28
0.68
0.95
0.22*
2.44*
2.69***
6.40**
0.51
Model 3
Immigrant or refugee assistance
974 Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
1.18***
1.50***
Employed
Own home
2090.57***
Wald v2
?
0.0370
2447.73***
591,938
p \ 0.10; * p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01; *** p \ 0.001
McFadden’s R
0.0276
591,938
N
2
1.00
Age squared
0.99
1.01*
1.01?
Age
0.93*** 0.87*
0.92***
0.86**
Preschool children
1.14***
1.12***
1.33***
1.17***
1.09***
1.18***
0.52***
0.52***
0.56***
–
0.39***
0.59***
–
1.32***
Number of children
1.20***
1.09***
Highest grade completed
1.14***
1.20***
Log of household income
Married
–
Asian
Male
–
–
Hispanic
–
Non-citizens immigrated since 2000
Black
–
–
Foreign born—non-citizen
–
Minority veteran
Foreign born—citizen
–
Veteran
0.0370
2446.54***
591,938
0.99
1.01*
0.88*
0.93***
1.14***
1.12***
1.33***
1.17***
1.09***
1.18***
0.52***
0.52***
0.56***
1.13
0.40***
0.60***
0.99
1.32***
0.0383
2140.93***
591,938
0.99***
1.03***
0.77**
0.66***
0.92*
0.75***
1.24***
1.00
1.17***
1.18***
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
– 1.07
0.53***
0.0543
2426.45***
591,938
0.99***
1.03***
0.78**
0.66***
0.90**
0.72***
1.09*
0.96
1.17***
1.14***
0.36***
0.41***
0.15***
–
0.62***
0.0547
2424.62***
591,938
0.99***
1.03***
0.78**
0.66***
0.91*
0.72***
1.09*
0.96
1.17***
1.14***
0.35***
0.39***
0.14***
0.77
0.0715
42,467.71***
591,938
1.00***
0.97***
0.59***
1.44***
1.25***
0.66***
1.48***
1.03***
1.15***
1.23***
–
–
–
–
– –
0.54***
–
–
Model 1
0.0812
44,822.65***
591,938
1.00***
0.98***
0.60***
1.46***
1.28***
0.67***
1.35***
1.01
1.14***
1.22***
0.68***
0.71***
0.79***
–
0.52***
0.59***
–
0.96**
Model 2
All other organizations
0.75?
2.42***
1.12? –
Model 3
Model 2
Model 1
Model 3
Model 1
Model 2
Environmental or animal organization
Civic organization
Table 5 Logistic regression results part 2, odds ratios
0.0815
44,899.99***
591,938
1.00***
0.98***
0.60***
1.46***
1.29***
0.67***
1.34***
1.01
1.14***
1.22***
0.68***
0.69***
0.77***
0.99
0.60***
0.60***
1.24***
0.94***
Model 3
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987 975
123
976
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
statistically significant. Being black is also not statistically related to volunteering for political parties or advocacy groups, while being Hispanic (p \ 0.01) or Asian (p \ 0.05) decreases the odds of volunteering for this organization type. Veteran status increases the odds of volunteering for a labor union, business, or professional association in model 2 (p \ 0.1), but when the minority veteran interaction term is entered into the model, neither variable is statistically related to the outcome variable. Being foreign-born decreases the odds of volunteering for labor unions, with the effect being stronger for non-citizens (p \ 0.001 in model 2 and p \ 0.01 in model 3) than it is for citizens (p \ 0.01). The foreign-born interaction term is not statistically significant. Being black (p \ 0.05) or Hispanic (p \ 0.10 in model 2 and p \ 0.05 in model 3) decreases the odds of volunteering for labor unions, but being Asian is unrelated to the outcome variable. Veteran status is not related to volunteering for immigrant or refugee assistance organizations. However, being a minority veteran is strongly, positively related to volunteering for this organization type (p \ 0.01). Being a foreign-born US citizen also strongly increases the odds of volunteering for immigrant/refugee organizations (p \ 0.001). In model 2, being a foreign-born non-citizen is not related to volunteering; however, in model 3 being a foreign-born non-citizen increases the odds of volunteering for immigrant/refugee organizations (p \ 0.05), while being a more recent immigrant decreases the odds (p \ 0.05). None of the race and ethnicity variables were statistically significantly related to volunteering for immigrant/refugee organizations. When considering the outcome of volunteering for civic organizations, veteran status is positively related to the outcome (p \ 0.001). Being a minority veteran is statistically unrelated to volunteering for civic organizations. Foreign-born citizens (p \ 0.001) and non-citizens (p \ 0.001) are less likely to volunteer for civic organizations than those born in the country. The interaction term is not statistically significant. The race and ethnicity variables are all associated with a decrease in the odds of volunteering for civic organizations (p \ 0.001). Veterans are more likely to volunteer for environmental and animal organizations than non-veterans in model 2 (p \ 0.10), but the veteran status is not statistically significant in model 3, however. In this model, being a minority veteran increases the odds of volunteering for environmental/animal organizations (p \ 0.001). Being foreign born decreases the odds of volunteering for this organization type, both for citizens (p \ 0.001) and non-citizens (p \ 0.001 in model 2 and p \ 0.10 in model 3). The interaction term is not statistically significant. Being black (p \ 0.001), Hispanic (p \ 0.001), and Asian (p \ 0.001) all decrease the odds of volunteering for environmental and animal-related organizations. The final set of models pertains to volunteering for all other types of organizations. In these regressions, veterans are less likely to volunteer than nonveterans (p \ 0.01 in model 2 and p \ 0.001 in model 3), but minority veterans are more likely to volunteer compared to non-veterans (p \ 0.001). Being foreign born also decreased the odds of volunteering (p \ 0.001 for citizens and non-citizens). The foreign-born interaction term is not statistically significant. All minorities are less likely to volunteer compared to whites (p \ 0.001) in these models.
123
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
977
While the previous paragraphs were devoted to considering the effects of the independent variables on the six dependent variables, there are some noteworthy differences in the behavior of the control variables across the six dependent variables. Being employed is positively related to volunteering for most types of organizations, but in these results being employed was unrelated to volunteering for immigrant/refugee organizations and environmental/animal organizations. Owning a home is positively related to volunteering for most of the organizations under considering, but it is negatively related to volunteering for political parties/advocacy groups and immigrant/refugee organizations and unrelated to volunteering for labor unions and professional associations. Males are typically less likely to volunteer compared to females, but males were more likely than females to volunteer for labor unions/professional associations and civic organizations. For most organization types, those who are married are more likely to volunteer than those who are single. However, marriage decreases the odds of volunteering for political/advocacy groups, immigrant/refugee organizations, and environmental/animal organizations. Being married is statistically unrelated to volunteering for labor unions and professional associations. The number of children in the home is negatively related to volunteering for political/advocacy organizations, labor unions/professional associations, civic organizations, and environmental/animal organizations. The number of children is unrelated to volunteering for immigrant/refugee organizations. In general, the presence of preschool children in the home decreases the odds of volunteering, but it is unrelated to volunteering for political/advocacy groups and labor/professional groups. The final part of the analysis is presented in Table 6—the predicted probability of volunteering for each of the six types of organizations by the major independent variables. The probability of volunteering for all other organizations is 0.2406. The probability of volunteering for the five types of advocacy-related organizations under consideration in this article is noticeably low—0.0074 for political/advocacy, 0.0014 for labor/professional, 0.0002 for immigrant/refugee, 0.0088 for civic, and 0.0045 for environment/animal. This is because volunteering for these types of organizations is comparatively rare to volunteering for more ‘‘popular’’ organizations, such as religious, education, and human service organizations. Still, the predicted probabilities show that the independent variables do have an effect on volunteering for advocacy-related organizations. While the overall probability of volunteering for political/advocacy groups is 0.0074, the predicted probability for veterans is 0.0103 and for minority veterans is 0.0116. In the case of volunteering for immigrant/refugee groups and environmental/animal groups, being a minority veteran more than doubles the probability of volunteering for that organization type. Consistent with the regression results, being foreign born decreases the predicted probability of volunteer for all organization types except for immigrant/refugee organizations. In this case, being a foreign-born citizen increases the (albeit small) predicted probability of volunteering by two and half times its size and being a foreign-born non-citizen doubles the predicted probability of volunteering. The predicted probabilities associated with the race and ethnicity variables are also
123
123
0.0024
Foreign-born noncitizens
Foreign born immigrated since 2000
0.0063
0.0065
Hispanic
Asian
0.0016
0.0011
0.0011
0.0004
0.0009
0.0009
0.0021
0.0016
0.0014
Labor union, business, or professional association
0.0003
0.0001
0.0002
0.0002
0.0004
0.0005
0.0007
0.0001
0.0002
Immigrant or refugee assistance
0.0054
0.0053
0.0058
0.0035
0.0039
0.0058
0.0113
0.0113
0.0088
Civic organization
0.0022
0.0024
0.0009
0.0026
0.0036
0.0026
0.0114
0.0047
0.0045
Environmental or animal organization
0.1902
0.1927
0.2100
0.1328
0.1673
0.1694
0.2702
0.2302
0.2406
All other organizations
The predicted probabilities in this table are based on Model 3 from Tables 4 and 5. All other variables are held constant at their mean value for the analysis in this table
0.0081
Black
Minority status
0.0058
0.0062
Foreign-born citizens
Foreign-born status
0.0103
0.0116
Minority veterans
0.0074
All veterans
Military status
Overall probability of volunteering
Political party or advocacy group
Table 6 Predicted probability of volunteering for each type of organization by the independent variables
978 Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
979
generally lower than the overall predicted probability of volunteering, consistent with the decreased odds of volunteering in the regression results.
Discussion This article investigated how three specific demographic conditions—military service, immigrant status, and race—affect advocacy-related volunteering. This study indicates that veterans are drawn to volunteer for different types of organizations than non-veterans. When all organizations are pooled together, veteran status decreases the likelihood of volunteering. When we look at different types of advocacy-related organizations, however, prior military service is positively related to volunteering for political parties/advocacy groups and civic organizations. Being a minority veteran substantially increases the likelihood of volunteering for immigrant/refugee organizations and environmental/animal organizations (and general volunteering). Few studies consider the relationship between veteran status and volunteering, so it is challenging to relate this finding to prior research. In Nesbit and Reingold’s (2011) final model, veteran status was negatively related to volunteering, but minority (black and Hispanics) and married veterans were more likely to volunteer than non-veterans. This study helps to unpack Nesbit and Reingold’s findings by showing the importance of organization type. Veterans in general are drawn to a couple of nonprofit subsectors (political and civic), and minority veterans are drawn to other nonprofit subsectors (immigrant, environmental, and general). This finding also fits with prior work showing a relationship between military service and political participation (Buyer 2001; Ellison 1992; Leal 1999; Sherman 2000; Teigen 2006, 2007) and linking minority veterans with civic activism (Enloe 1980; Mettler 2005; Parker 2009). Veterans, particularly minority veterans, tend to volunteer for advocacy-related organizations. This study also found that being born outside the USA—whether a US citizen or not—is negatively related to volunteering for almost every single type of organization, which corroborates prior research (Enloe 1980; Foster-Bey 2008; Gesthuizen and Scheepers 2010; Lopez and Marcelo 2008; Mettler 2005; Sundeen et al. 2007). The exception is that foreign-born citizens and foreign-born noncitizens who have been in the USA for at least five years are more likely than the native born to volunteer for immigrant and refugee assistance organizations. The finding that being in the USA for more than five years increases volunteering of foreign-born non-citizens supports the acculturation mechanism as a pathway to volunteering. Foreign-born individuals are valuable recruits for immigrant and refugee organizations because of their knowledge of the language and culture of their home region. Indeed, immigrant and refugee organizations specifically target ethnic communities for volunteer recruitment (Behnia 2007). This finding also makes sense given that the philanthropy of immigrant communities tends to center on individuals within the community rather than outsiders (Smith et al. 1999; Sundeen et al. 2007)—so foreign-born individuals might be more naturally drawn to volunteering that benefits people from their home country or ethnic group. Given that several of the traditional determinants of volunteering, such as income,
123
980
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
employment status, race, and age, were not associated with volunteering for immigrant/refugee organizations, it is helpful to see that there are other demographic factors that might be better predictors of volunteering within this nonprofit subsector. The findings also yielded some interesting relationships between race and advocacy-related volunteering. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians were all less likely than whites to volunteer for civic and environmental organizations. While Hispanics and Asians were less likely to volunteer for political parties/advocacy groups than whites, being black was not related to volunteering in this domain. Similarly, blacks and Hispanics are less likely than whites to volunteer for labor unions/business organizations, but being Asian was not statistically related to the outcome variable. Finally, none of the race/ethnicity variables were significantly related to volunteering for immigrant/refugee organizations. These results are far from conclusive, but they do raise interesting questions for future research given the typically strong relationship between race and volunteering in most of the empirical research: Are certain types of volunteer-using organization more racially representative than others? Are minorities more drawn to some types of advocacy-related organizations than to general volunteering? To the extent that these organizations might be working on issues that are pressing in minority communities (De la Garza et al. 1994; Ferree et al. 1998; Gallagher 1994a; Portney and Berry 1997), they might be more successful at recruiting minority volunteers than other types of organizations. The empirical work in this area is limited (Kohut 1997; Sundeen 1992), so these questions need to be explored in greater depth. The political participation literature indicates that the variables underlying participation by different racial and ethnic groups vary across the group (De la Garza et al. 1994; Hero and Campbell 1996; Hritzuk and Park 2000). Is the same true for volunteering for advocacy-related organizations? Beyond the primary variable under consideration, other demographic differences appeared when investigating advocacy-related volunteering. Volunteers for political parties/advocacy groups were less likely to own a home, less likely to be married, and less likely to have children compared to volunteers in other nonprofit subsectors. This is interesting because the political participation literature that finds that those who participate in riskier political activities, such as protest, also tend to have fewer attachments (i.e., students, those who are younger) (Bean 1991; Marsh and Kaase 1979; Schussman and Soule 2005; Wiltfang and McAdam 1991). Again, this evidence is not conclusive, but it does raise more questions for future research. For example, how are volunteers for political organizations different from volunteers for other types of organizations? How closely do the predictors of political participation match the predictors of volunteering for political and advocacy organizations? Unions and professional organizations also attract a somewhat different set of volunteers compared to general volunteering. Males are more likely than females to volunteer for union and professional organizations, even after controlling for employment status, which could be explained by differences in employment circumstances (Musick and Wilson 2008) or the use of volunteering for career advancement (Clary et al. 1996; Fletcher and Major 2004). Interestingly, family
123
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
981
characteristics have some surprising relationships with volunteering for union and professional organizations. Marital status is not statistically related to volunteering for union or professional organizations, similar to findings by Nesbit and Gazley’s (2012) study of volunteering for professional associations. Contrary to Nesbit and Gazley, this study finds that the number of children is negatively related to volunteering for union and professional organizations. Interestingly, the presence of preschool children is positively related to volunteering for union and professional organizations. Family status, therefore, does not seem to be major conditioning factor for volunteering for this type of organization. It is likely that occupational, employment-related characteristics, and varying motivations are stronger predictors of volunteering for union and professional organizations. Research on volunteering in (professional) associations is generally insufficient to engage in much discussion of these results (Knoke 1986; O’Neill 2001; Tschirhart 2006; Webb and Abzug 2008). Future volunteerism research needs to incorporate organization type as an important dimension of volunteering choices. While this study only considers demographic factors as predictors of advocacy-related volunteering, there are other important determinants of volunteer behaviors, such as volunteer motivations. The political participation research highlights other important concepts that should be included in future research on advocacy-related volunteering. These include such concepts as ideology (Barkan et al. 1995; Bean 1991), political efficacy (Beck and Jennings 1982; Brady et al. 1999; Paulsen 1991), and social networks and recruitment (Campbell 2013; McAdam 1986; McAdam and Paulsen 1993; Schussman and Soule 2005). It is possible that these concepts are also relevant for those volunteering in advocacy, political, or civic organizations. Future research can help to unpack the relative importance of psychological, personality, motivational, and social factors for advocacy-related volunteering.
Limitations and Future Research One limitation of this paper is that we know which type of organization an individual volunteers for, but we know little about the individual’s relationship with the organization (e.g., membership) or the person’s motivations for volunteering. This limits our investigation to merely sorting out volunteers based on demographics rather than motivations, attitudes, or membership in the organization. Future research can investigate how membership might be related to volunteering for these five broad types of advocacy-related organizations or how motivations to join might affect volunteering behaviors. It would also be interesting to compare the mix of volunteer motivations for these types of organizations relative to motivations to volunteer for other types of organizations. Another limitation of this research is that some of the nonsignificant findings might be an issue of power—because so few people volunteer for advocacy-related organizations relative to other organization types. Indeed, this is the reason that the analysis uses several years of pooled CPS data. Future research is necessary to further clarify the demographic differences between people who volunteer for
123
982
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
different types of volunteer-using organizations. It would be helpful if in the future researchers gather data on volunteers by oversampling volunteer organizations that tend to attract or use fewer volunteers, such as political and immigrant organizations.
Conclusion One of the purposes of this study has been to highlight the need for more research on how demographic predictors of volunteering vary across nonprofit subsectors. The conceptual, theoretical, and empirical volunteerism literature that considers organization type is thin and limited. This study has shown that some of the demographic predictors of volunteering for advocacy-related organizations are different than the standard predictors of general volunteering. It also supports the relevance of additional demographics, such as prior military service, when investigating advocacy-related volunteering. While the results in this article are not conclusive, they indicate that investigating volunteering by organization type is a fruitful and interesting endeavor. Future research can also help us to build stronger theory about why certain types of individuals are drawn to volunteer for specific types of organizations and what pathways they take to get there.
References Angrist, J. D. (1993). The effect of veterans benefits on education and earnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 46(4), 637–652. Barkan, S. E., Cohn, S. F., & Whitaker, W. H. (1995). Beyond recruitment: Predictors of differential participation in a national antihunger organization. Sociological Forum, 10(1), 113–134. Bass, G. D., Arons, D. F., Guinane, K., & Carter, M. (2007). Seen by not heard: Strengthening nonprofit advocacy. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Bean, C. (1991). Participation and political protest: A causal model with Australian evidence. Political Behavior, 13(3), 253–283. Beck, P. A., & Jennings, M. K. (1982). Pathways to participation. American Political Science Review, 76(01), 94–108. Becker, P. E., & Dhingra, P. H. (2001). Religious involvement and volunteering: Implications for civil society. Sociology of religion, 62(3), 315–335. Beerli, A., Dı´az, G., & Martı´n, J. D. (2004). The behavioural consequences of self-congruency in volunteers. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9(1), 28–48. Behnia, B. (2007). An exploratory study of befriending programs with refugees: The perspective of volunteer organizations. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 5(3), 1–19. Bekkers, R. (2007). Intergenerational transmission of volunteering. Acta Sociologica, 50(2), 99–114. Berger, G. (2000). Factors explaining volunteering for organizations in general, and for social welfare organizations in particular. Ph.D. Dissertation. Brandeis University. Blackstone, A. (2009). Doing good, being good, and the social construction of compassion. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38(1), 85–116. Boraas, S. (2003). Volunteerism in the United States. Monthly Labor Review, 126, 3. Boyle, M. P., & Sawyer, J. K. (2010). Defining volunteering for community campaigns: An exploration of race, self perceptions, and campaign practices. Journal of Community Practice, 18(1), 40–57. Brady, H. E., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (1999). Prospecting for participants: Rational expectations and the recruitment of political activists. American Political Science Review, 93(01), 153–168.
123
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
983
Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(02), 271–294. Brudney, J. L. (1989). The use of volunteers by local governments as an approach to fiscal stress. Research in Urban Policy, 3, 109–121. Bryant, W. K., Jeon-Slaughter, H., Kang, H., & Tax, A. (2003). Participation in philanthropic activities: Donating money and time. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(1), 43–73. Bussell, H., & Forbes, D. (2002). Understanding the volunteer market: The what, where, who and why of volunteering. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(3), 244–257. Butler, J. S. (1991). The military as a vehicle for social integration: The Afro-American experience as data. Ethnicity, integration, and the military, 3, 27–50. Buyer, S. (2001). The military vote. Armed Forces Journal International, 138(January), 10–11. Campbell, D. E. (2013). Social networks and political participation. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 33–48. Carabain, C. L., & Bekkers, R. (2011). Religious and secular volunteering: A comparison between immigrants and non-immigrants in the Netherlands. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(1), 23–41. Carlin, P. S. (2001). Evidence on the volunteer labor supply of married women. Southern Economic Journal, 67(4), 801–824. Child, C. D., & Grønbjerg, K. A. (2007). Nonprofit advocacy organizations: Their characteristics and activities*. Social Science Quarterly, 88(1), 259–281. Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. (1996). Volunteers’ motivations: Findings from a national survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(4), 485–505. doi:10.1177/ 0899764096254006. Cohen, E. A. (1985). Citizens and soldiers: The dilemmas of military service. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. De la Garza, R. O., Menchaca, M., & DeSipio, L. (1994). Barrio ballots: Latino politics in the 1990 elections. Boulder, CO: Westview. Dekker, P., & Halman, L. (2003). The values of volunteering: Cross-cultural perspectives. Berlin: Springer. Ecklund, E. H. (2005). Models of civic responsibility: Korean Americans in congregations with different ethnic compositions. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44(1), 15–28. Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140. Ellison, C. G. (1992). Military background, racial orientations, and political participation among Black adult males. Social Science Quarterly, 73(2), 360–378. Enloe, C. H. (1980). Ethnic soldiers: State security in divided societies. Georgia: University of Georgia Press. Ferree, G. D., Barry, J., & Manno, B. (1998). The national survey of philanthropy and civic renewal. Washington, DC: National Commission on Philanthropy and Civic Renewal. Fletcher, T. D., & Major, D. A. (2004). Medical students’ motivations to volunteer: An examination of the nature of gender differences. Sex Roles, 51(1–2), 109–114. Foster-Bey, J. (2008). Do race, ethnicity, citizenship and socio-economic status determine civicengagement? CIRCLE working paper no. 62. Medford, MA: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). Gallagher, S. K. (1994a). Doing their share: Comparing patterns of help given by older and younger adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56(3), 567–578. Gallagher, S. K. (1994b). Older people giving care: Helping family and community. Westport, CT: Auburn House. Garcia-Mainar, I., & Marcuello, C. (2007). Members, volunteers, and donors in nonprofit organizations in Spain. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 100–120. doi:10.1177/0899764006293179. Gaskin, K., & Smith, J. D. (1995). A new civic Europe? A study of the extent and role of volunteering. London: Volunteer Centre UK. Gesthuizen, M., & Scheepers, P. (2010). Educational differences in volunteering in cross-national perspective: Individual and contextual explanations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(1), 58–81. Hager, M. A., & Brudney, J. L. (2011). Problems recruiting volunteers: Nature versus nurture. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 22(2), 137–157. doi:10.1002/nml.20046. Handy, F., & Greenspan, I. (2009). Immigrant volunteering a stepping stone to integration? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(6), 956–982.
123
984
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
Hayghe, H. V. (1991). Volunteers in the US: Who donates the time? Monthly Labor Review, 114(2), 17–23. Hero, R. E., & Campbell, A. G. (1996). Understanding Latino political participation: Exploring the evidence from the Latino national political survey. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(2), 129–141. Hritzuk, N., & Park, D. K. (2000). The question of Latino participation: From an SES to a social structural explanation. Social Science Quarterly, 81(1), 151–166. Huang, J., Van den Brink, H. M., & Groot, W. (2009). A meta-analysis of the effect of education on social capital. Economics of Education Review, 28(4), 454–464. Hung, C.-K. R. (2007). Immigrant nonprofit organizations in US metropolitan areas. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(4), 707–729. Hwang, M., Grabb, E., & Curtis, J. (2005). Why get involved? Reasons for voluntary-association activity among Americans and Canadians. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(3), 387–403. Janoski, T., & Wilson, J. (1995). Pathways to voluntarism: Family socialization and status transmission models. Social Forces, 74(1), 271–292. Joseph, J. A. (1995). Remaking America: How the benevolent traditions of many cultures are transforming our national life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kerr, L., Savelsberg, H., Sparrow, S., & Tedmanson, D. (2001). Celebrating diversity. Experiences and perceptions of volunteering in Indigenous and non-English speaking background communities. Australian Journal on Volunteering, 6(2), 117–127. Knoke, D. (1986). Associations and interest groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 12(1), 1–21. Kohut, A. (1997). Trust and citizen engagement in metropolitan Philadelphia: A case study. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. La Due Lake, R., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Social capital, social networks, and political participation. Political psychology, 19(3), 567–584. Lasby, D. (2011). The giving and volunteering of the Foreign-born in Canada. The Philanthropist, 24(1), 65–69. Leal, D. L. (1999). It’s not just a job: Military service and Latino political participation. Political Behavior, 21(2), 153–174. Lee, Y., & Moon, S.-G. (2011). Mainstream and ethnic volunteering by Korean immigrants in the United States. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22(4), 811–830. Leighley, J. E., & Vedlitz, A. (1999). Race, ethnicity, and political participation: Competing models and contrasting explanations. The Journal of Politics, 61(04), 1092–1114. Lemon, M., Palisi, B. J., & Jacobson, P. E. (1972). Dominant statuses and involvement in formal voluntary associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 1(2), 30–42. Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2014). regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation. Lopez, M. H., & Marcelo, K. B. (2008). The civic engagement of immigrant youth: New evidence from the 2006 Civic and Political Health of the Nation Survey. Applied Development Science, 12(2), 66–73. Lovell, J. P., & Stiehm, J. H. (1989). Military service and political socialization. In R. S. Sigel (Ed.), Political learning in adulthood: A sourcebook of theory and research (pp. 172–202). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Macduff, N., Netting, F. E., & O’Connor, M. K. (2009). Multiple ways of coordinating volunteers with differing styles of service. Journal of Community Practice, 17(4), 400–423. doi:10.1080/ 10705420903300488. Marsh, A., & Kaase, M. (1979). Background of political action. In S. H. Barnes, et al. (Eds.), Political action: Mass participation in five Western countries (pp. 97–136). Sage: Beverly Hills. McAdam, D. (1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92(1), 64–90. McAdam, D., & Paulsen, R. (1993). Specifying the relationship between social ties and activism. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 640–667. McClintock, N. (2000). Volunteering numbers: Using the National Survey of giving, volunteering and participating for fundraising. Toronto: Canadian Centre for Philanthropy. Meijs, L. C., & Hoogstad, E. (2001). New ways of managing volunteers: Combining membership management and programme management. Voluntary Action-London-Institute for Volunteering Research, 3(3), 41–62.
123
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
985
Messner, M. A., & Bozada-Deas, S. (2009). Separating the men from the moms the making of adult gender segregation in youth sports. Gender & Society, 23(1), 49–71. Mettler, S. (2005). ‘‘The only good thing was the GI Bill’’: Effects of the education and training provisions on African-American Veterans’ political participation. Studies in American Political Development, 19(01), 31–52. Moskos, C. C., & Butler, J. S. (1997). All that we can be: Black leadership and racial integration the army way. New York: Basic Books. Moua, M. (2010). Relationships matter: Volunteerism in immigrant communities. Maplewood, MN: Minnesota Association for Volunteer Administration. Moulton, S., & Eckerd, A. (2011). Preserving the publicness of the nonprofit sector: Resources, roles, and public values. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(4), 656–685. doi:10.1177/ 0899764011419517. Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Musick, M. A., Wilson, J., & Bynum, W. B. (2000). Race and formal volunteering: The differential effects of class and religion. Social Forces, 78(4), 1539–1570. Nesbit, R., & Gazley, B. (2012). Patterns of volunteer activity in professional associations and societies. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(3), 558–583. Nesbit, R., & Reingold, D. A. (2011). Soldiers to citizens: The link between military service and volunteering. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 67–76. Neumayr, M., Schneider, U., & Meyer, M. (2013). Public funding and its impact on nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(2), 297–318. O’Neill, M. (2001). Research on giving and volunteering: Methodological considerations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 505–514. Okun, M. A. (1994). The relation between motives for organizational volunteering and frequency of volunteering by elders. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 13(2), 115–126. Okun, M. A., Barr, A., & Herzog, A. (1998). Motivation to volunteer by older adults: A test of competing measurement models. Psychology and Aging, 13(4), 608. Omoto, A. M., Snyder, M., & Martino, S. C. (2000). Volunteerism and the life course: Investigating agerelated agendas for action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(3), 181–197. Parker, C. S. (2009). When politics becomes protest: Black veterans and political activism in the postwar South. The Journal of Politics, 71(01), 113–131. Paulsen, R. (1991). Education, social class, and participation in collective action. Sociology of Education, 64(2), 96–110. Penner, L. A. (2004). Volunteerism and social problems: Making things better or worse? Journal of Social issues, 60(3), 645–666. Petrzelka, P., & Mannon, S. E. (2006). Keepin’ this little town going gender and volunteerism in rural America. Gender & Society, 20(2), 236–258. Portney, K. E., & Berry, J. M. (1997). Mobilizing minority communities social capital and participation in urban neighborhoods. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 632–644. Prakash, A., & Gugerty, M. K. (2010). Advocacy organizations and collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Putnam, R. D., Campbell, D. E., & Garrett, S. R. (2012). American grace: How religion divides and unites us. New York: Simon and Schuster. Ried, E. (1999). Nonprofit advocacy and political participation. In E. Boris & C. Steurle (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (pp. 291–327). Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Rochester, C. (2007). One size does not fit all: Four models of involving volunteers in voluntary organizations. In J. D. Smith & M. Locke (Eds.), Volunteering and the test of time: Essays for policy, organization and research (pp. 47–59). London: Institute for Volunteering Research. Romero, C. J. (1986). The economics of volunteerism: A review. In Committee on an aging society, productive roles in an older society (pp. 23–51). Washington, DC: Nations’ Academy Press. Rossi, A. S. (2001). Caring and doing for others: Social responsibility in the domains of family, work, and community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rotolo, T., & Wilson, J. (2007). Sex segregation in volunteer work. The Sociological Quarterly, 48(3), 559–585. Rotolo, T., Wilson, J., & Hughes, M. E. (2010). Homeownership and volunteering: An alternative approach to studying social inequality and civic engagement. Sociological Forum, 25(3), 570–587.
123
986
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
Salamon, L. M. (2012). The state of nonprofit America (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Salamon, L. M., & Anheier, H. K. (1996). The international classification of nonprofit organizations: ICNPO-Revision 1. Working papers of the Johns Hopkins comparative nonprofit sector project, no. 19. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies. Schlozman, K. L., Burns, N., & Verba, S. (1994). Gender and the pathways to participation: The role of resources. The Journal of Politics, 56(04), 963–990. Schussman, A., & Soule, S. A. (2005). Process and protest: Accounting for individual protest participation. Social Forces, 84(2), 1083–1108. Scott, K., Selbee, K., & Reed, P. (2006). Making connections: Social and civic engagement among Canadian immigrants. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Social Development. Sherman, J. (2000). Does military experience count? Armed Forces Journal International, 137(February), 8–10. Smith, D. H. (1983). The impact of the volunteer sector on society. In B. O’Connell (Ed.), America’s voluntary spirit: A book of readings (pp. 331–344). New York: Foundation Center. Smith, D. H. (1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volunteering: A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(3), 243–263. Smith, B., Shue, S., Vest, J. L., & Villarreal, J. (1999). Philanthropy in communities of color. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Snyder, M., Clary, E. G., & Stukas, A. A. (2000). The functional approach to volunteerism. In G. R. Maio & J. M. Olsen (Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 365–393). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Snyder, M., Omoto, A. M., & Crain, A. L. (1999). Punished for their good deeds stigmatization of AIDS volunteers. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(7), 1175–1192. Stukas, A. A., Worth, K. A., Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (2007). The matching of motivations to affordances in the volunteer environment: An index for assessing the impact of multiple matches on volunteer outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(1), 5–28. doi:10.1177/ 0899764008314810. Sundeen, R. A. (1990). Family life course status and volunteer behavior: Implications for the single parent. Sociological Perspectives, 33(4), 483–500. Sundeen, R. A. (1992). Differences in personal goals and attitudes among volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 21(3), 271–291. doi:10.1177/089976409202100306. Sundeen, R. A., Garcia, C., & Raskoff, S. A. (2009). Ethnicity, acculturation, and volunteering to organizations a comparison of African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and Whites. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(6), 929–955. Sundeen, R. A., Garcia, C., & Wang, L. (2007). Volunteer behavior among Asian American groups in the United States. Journal of Asian American Studies, 10(3), 243–281. Syvertsen, A. K., Wray-Lake, L., Flanagan, C. A., Wayne Osgood, D., & Briddell, L. (2011). Thirty-year trends in US adolescents’ civic engagement: A story of changing participation and educational differences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(3), 586–594. Tang, F. (2006). What resources are needed for volunteerism? A life course perspective. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 25(5), 375–390. Taniguchi, H. (2012). The determinants of formal and informal volunteering: Evidence from the American Time Use Survey. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 920–939. Teigen, J. M. (2006). Enduring effects of the uniform: Previous military experience and voting turnout. Political Research Quarterly, 59(4), 601–607. Teigen, J. M. (2007). Veterans’ party identification, candidate affect, and vote choice in the 2004 US Presidential election. Armed Forces & Society, 33(3), 414–437. Tschirhart, M. (2006). Nonprofit membership associations. The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, 2, 523–541. Van Willigen, M. (2000). Differential benefits of volunteering across the life course. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55(5), S308–S318. Verba, S., & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America. New York: Harper & Row. Webb, N. J., & Abzug, R. (2008). Do occupational group members vary in volunteering activity? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(4), 689–708. Weisinger, J. Y., & Salipante, P. F. (2005). A grounded theory for building ethnically bridging social capital in voluntary organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 29–55.
123
Voluntas (2017) 28:958–987
987
Wilson, J. (2012). Volunteerism research: A review essay. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(2), 176–212. doi:10.1177/0899764011434558. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 694–713. Wilson, A., & Pimm, G. (1996). The tyranny of the volunteer: The care and feeding of voluntary workforces. Management Decision, 34(4), 24–40. Wiltfang, G. L., & McAdam, D. (1991). The costs and risks of social activism: A study of sanctuary movement activism. Social Forces, 69(4), 987–1010. Wuthnow, R. (1998). God and mammon in America. New York: Simon and Schuster. Wuthnow, R. (2012). Acts of compassion: Caring for others and helping ourselves. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wymer, W. W., Jr. (1997). Segmenting volunteers using values, self-esteem, empathy, and facilitation as determinant variables. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 5(2), 3–28. Yap, S. Y., Byrne, A., & Davidson, S. (2010). From refugee to good citizen: A discourse analysis of volunteering. Journal of Refugee Studies, 24(1), 157–170. Zullo, R. (2007). Labor’s divided house: Contextual and theoretical terms of the US divorce. Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations, 15, 333–358. Zullo, R. (2012). Organized labor’s civic niche. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(4), 781–802.
123
