See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235923819

The Benefits and Costs of Volunteering in Community Organizations: Review

and Practical Implications

Article  in  Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · March 1999

DOI: 10.1177/0899764099281004

CITATIONS READS
97 754

2 authors:

Matthew Chinman Abraham Wandersman

RAND Corporation University of South Carolina
132 PUBLICATIONS   4,473 CITATIONS    183 PUBLICATIONS   11,490 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Preparing to Run Effective Prevention View project

EQUIPS: Enhancing Quality Interventions Promoting Healthy Sexuality (Getting to Outcomes) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Matthew Chinman on 05 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly
http://nvs.sagepub.com

The Benefits and Costs of Volunteering in Community Organizations: Review and Practical Implications
Matthew J. Chinman and Abraham Wandersman
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 1999; 28; 46
DOI: 10.1177/0899764099281004

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://nvs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/1/46

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action

Additional services and information for Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://nvs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://nvs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://nvs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/28/1/46

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

Chinman, Wandersman Benefits and Costs

RESEARCH NOTE

The Benefits and Costs of Volunteering

in Community Organizations: Review
and Practical Implications

Matthew J. Chinman
Yale School of Medicine
Abraham Wandersman
University of South Carolina

The authors reviewed the literature of the benefits and costs associated with participation
in voluntary organizations. The literature shows that benefits and costs can be measured,
are related to participation, and can be managed by voluntary organization leaders.
Therefore, understanding benefits and costs is important because they can be used to en-
hance participation in voluntary groups. Membership, activity level, and different or-
ganization types are ways in which researchers have examined benefits and costs. Re-
searchers have also collapsed benefit and cost items into factors and constructed a direct
ratio of benefits to costs. Practical implications of the research are discussed, and recom-
mendations are given to refine future research efforts.

RATIONALE FOR STUDYING BENEFITS

AND COSTS IN VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS

Local block or neighborhood organizations, substance abuse prevention

community coalitions, and AIDS volunteer groups are all efforts to take ad-
vantage of the great voluntary human capital that exists in this country to ad-
dress a variety of social problems. Participating in crime watch programs, pre-
venting substance abuse, and helping those with AIDS are all efforts that
benefit the community, but why do people volunteer, and what do they get
out of it? Like any organization, volunteer groups need to continually replen-
ish their supply of resources to remain viable. The most important resource
these organizations have is the volunteers themselves and the effort they put

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 1, March 1999 46-64
© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.

46

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

Benefits and Costs 47

forth. Thus, increasing volunteer membership and volunteer participation

would provide these organizations with more resources to achieve their goals.
One potential way to increase participation is to maximize the benefits and
minimize the costs volunteers experience as a result of their participation.
In this article, we review the various studies that involve benefits and costs
associated with voluntary participation to first answer the question, “Is there
a coherent benefit-cost literature that can be used to answer the question of
why people volunteer and what they get out of it?” We demonstrate that by di-
rectly assessing the benefits and costs of participation, this information can be
used to promote organizational viability across several types of groups. In ad-
dition, we hope that by organizing these studies in this way we will facilitate
research conducted in this area. Second, we will examine the practical impli-
cations of using a benefit/cost approach to promote organizational viability
(called incentive/cost management) and provide several examples of this ap-
proach. We conclude with a discussion of methodological improvements that
will enhance the study of benefits and costs and point out themes that emerge
from the review that would be appropriate for future study.
We would like to provide a caveat about the scope of this review. This arti-
cle focuses on how benefits and costs relate to participation. The benefit and
cost approach is based on theories from several disciplines: social exchange
(psychology), resource mobilization (sociology), and political economy (po-
litical science). The benefit and cost framework is not the only approach to un-
derstanding voluntary participation. For example, this study does not include
the social psychological perspective on this subject (e.g., Clary et al., 1998) but
attempts to present an additional approach that is face valid, easy to under-
stand and implement, and has demonstrated practical utility.

BACKGROUND ON BENEFITS AND COSTS

Olson (1965) introduced several ideas that facilitated research on benefits,

costs, and participation (Moe, 1980). Olson challenged the idea that individu-
als joined and participated in large voluntary organizations only because they
believed in the goals of those organizations. He also proposed that people join
and contribute to obtain certain economic benefits. Olson argued that organi-
zations that only provide collective goods will yield suboptimal participation in
many members. Collective goods are benefits that people obtain that are not
contingent on the participation needed to generate the collective goods. For
example, community residents can benefit from the creation of a public park
(a collective good) even if they did not help build the park. Providing only col-
lective goods leads to suboptimal participation because people are interested
in maximizing their benefits. When members of a volunteer organization have
the opportunity to reap collective goods from others’ work without participat-
ing themselves, Olson argued that it is in their economic self-interest not to
participate. This phenomenon is called the free-rider problem. One of Olson’s

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

48 Chinman, Wandersman

solutions to this problem was to provide selective incentives, which are contin-
gent on members’ participation and may not even relate to the goals of the or-
ganization. For example, an individual who may not be concerned about the
right to bear arms may participate in the National Rifle Association because it
offers reduced insurance.
Providing incentives serves as a type of social control mechanism that
prompts volunteers to give their own personal resources to the collective or-
ganization (Kanter, 1968; Knoke & Wood, 1981). It is an exchange: The leaders
provide certain benefits to the members, and in return, members donate a
share of their own personal resources (financial or participatory) that are used
by the organization to pursue its own goals (Knoke, 1990). According to Clark
and Wilson (1961), the incentive system is the primary variable affecting or-
ganizational behavior.

BENEFIT AND COST CATEGORIES

Using several benefit and cost items in other analyses can become un-
wieldy, and reducing the number of items to a smaller set of factors through
factor analysis and principal component analysis helps to more concisely link
benefits and costs with other variables of interest, such as participation. The
term factors refers to when individual items (in this case, benefit or cost items)
are grouped together based on a common theme. Many authors discuss bene-
fit and cost factors that have similar content despite having different names. In
general, however, the three primary divisions of benefits and costs of partici-
pation remain consistent with three factors proposed by Clark and Wilson
(1961).
Clark and Wilson (1961) grouped benefits into three categories: material,
solidary, and purposive. Material benefits are tangible rewards that are asso-
ciated with a monetary value (e.g., receive information about community
services, events, county government, etc.). Solidary benefits are the intangible
social rewards of group membership (e.g., gain personal recognition and re-
spect from others). Purposive benefits are also intangible, derived from the
goals of the organization, and members receive these rewards when they per-
ceive themselves as striving to reach their goals through their participation in
the organization (e.g., makes the community a safer place to live). Clark and
Wilson did not empirically test their three benefits model. Subsequent re-
search has tested the benefit model and has extended the three-benefit catego-
ries to the costs as well (with mixed results).
Consistent with Clark and Wilson’s (1961) efforts, several other research-
ers have also categorized the benefit and cost items into more concise factors.
Tables 1 and 2 use Clark and Wilson’s framework to organize the benefit and
cost literature to reduce the potential confusion generated by the various
names given to benefit and cost factors by these researchers. Unlike Clark and
Wilson however, these researchers used empirical methods (either principle

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

 Table 1. Organization of Benefit Factors

Factor Types
a a
Authors Material Solidary Solidary + Purposive Purposivea Specific

Butterfoss (1993) at Time 1 — — — — One factor with all items

Butterfoss (1993) at Time 2
Clarke, Price, Stewart, and
Krause (1978)
Friedmann, Florin,
Wandersman, and Meier (1988)
Knoke (1988); Knoke and
Adams (1987)
Norton, Wandersman, and
Goldman (1993)
Omoto and Snyder (1992a);
Omoto and Snyder (1992b);
Snyder (1993)
Prestby, Wandersman,
Florin, Rich, and Chavis (1990)
Rich (1980)
Schmitz and Schomaker (1994)
— —
Personal-Instrumental
Personal Gains
Material, Information,
Occupational
Personal
Esteem Enhancement;
Personal Development;
Understanding of AIDS Issues
Personal
Protect Property Values
Material, Personal Growth
— — One factor with all items
Social — Democratic-Political Partisan
— — Helping Others —
Social — Normative Lobbying
— Social-Purposive — —
— Community Concerns; — —
Acting on Personal Values
— Social-Communal — —
Obligation — Civic Duty, —
to Friends Devotion to Neighbor
— Social and Political Goal Attainment/ —

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

and Development Consequences Mission Support
Wandersman, Florin, Personal — Helping Others — —
Friedman, and Meier (1987)
a. From the original work of Clark and Wilson (1961).

49
 50
Table 2. Organization of Cost Factors

Factor Types
Authors Material Solidary Solidary + Purposive Purposive Specific

Butterfoss (1993) at Time 1 Personal — Social-Organizational — —

Butterfoss (1993) at Time 2 Personal Social — Purposive —
Friedmann, Florin, Wandersman, Personal — — Organizational Frustration —
and Meier (1988)
Norton, Wandersman, and Personal — Social-Organizational — —
Goldman (1993)
Prestby, Wandersman, Florin, Rich, Personal — Social-Organizational — —
and Chavis (1990)
Rich (1980) — — — Production, Maintenance —
Schmitz and Schomaker (1994) Material Potential Conflict Social and Political — —
Consequences
Wandersman, Florin, Friedman, and Personal — — Organizational Frustration —
Meier (1987)

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

Benefits and Costs 51

component analysis or factor analysis) and found factors similar in content,

combined the three factors discussed by Clark and Wilson, or found factors
that relate to more specific activities (e.g., lobbying).
Despite the similarities in names among the benefit and cost factors, it is dif-
ficult to definitely determine the reason for the differences between the stud-
ies that found different numbers of factors because most did not state how
they generated their final number of factors or components (Butterfoss, 1993;
Clarke, Price, Stewart, & Krause, 1978; Friedmann, Florin, Wandersman, &
Meier, 1988; Knoke & Adams, 1987; Prestby, Wandersman, Florin, Rich, &
Chavis, 1990; Wandersman, Florin, Friedman, & Meier, 1987). Instead, these
studies discussed the factor loadings and how there was little overlap among
the factors. The only study to mention any strategy was Norton, Wanders-
man, and Goldman (1993), who examined one-, two-, three-, and four-
component solutions and chose the two component solution because it had
the lowest interfactor correlations. We are unaware of this strategy as being a
widely used method for component or factor retention (Zwick & Velicer,
1986).
Also, there is a general trend in which the studies that conducted a factor
analysis on a greater number of items found a greater number of factors.
Knoke and Wright-Isak (1982), Clarke et al. (1978), and Knoke and Adams
(1987), who found the presence of Clark and Wilson’s (1961) three types of
benefits (along with other factors), all used a greater number of items than
Friedmann et al. (1988), Norton et al. (1993), Prestby et al. (1990), and Wan-
dersman et al. (1987), who found only two factors. Statistically, the lower
number of items included in a factor analysis reduces the likelihood that a
three-factor solution would be produced.
Differences may also be related to the type of organization studied in the
previous literature. For example, coalitions differ from block and neighbor-
hood associations in that they are usually larger, involve a wider range of con-
stituents, and focus on a more diverse set of issues. Although the literature
consistently points to two or three factors or components for smaller associa-
tions, the results of Butterfoss (1993) suggest that a more global assessment of
benefits (i.e., one overall benefit factor was found) is more relevant for coali-
tion members.

RESEARCH ON BENEFITS

An important perspective on benefits can be gained by assessing whether

different types of voluntary organizations offer different types of benefits (see
Table 3 for the details of this review). Most of the research suggests that mem-
bers cite Social and Normative benefits as the most important. This means
members are reporting that the benefits of socializing with others in the group
(e.g., gain personal recognition and respect from others) and the rewards of
(text continues on p. 55)

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

 52
Table 3. Empirical Evaluation of Benefits

Study Factor Name Examples of Items Results Type of Organization

Bailey (1986) No factors—observational Funding, publicity, learn new ideas, All items needed for successful National network of high
case study professional development collaboration school/college collabo-
rative projects
Butterfoss (1993) One factor with all the items Learn new skills, gain support by Higher benefits predict more Anti-alcohol and other
working with others, receive participatory roles, more drug volunteer coalition
satisfaction by being involved in satisfaction with committee
an important project work and committee plans;
Solidary/Purposive items
were most viewed as benefits
Clarke, Price, (1) Personal-Instrumental, (1) Building a personal position in Although unrelated to Canadian political party
Stewart, and (2) Democratic-Political, politics, (2) policy concerns, participation, the most
Krause (1978) (3) Social, (4) Partisan (3) friendships and social contacts, important sustaining benefits
(4) strong attachment to my are social and friendships
political party contacts, closeness to those
doing important things;
partisanship motives were
positively related to participation
Friedmann, Florin, (1) Personal Gains, (1) Increases status or prestige, Both leaders and members view Neighborhood
Wandersman, (2) Helping Others (2) increased sense of responsibility helping others more than association
and Meier (1988) personal gains; no significant

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

difference between the two
groups
Knoke (1988) (1) Normative, (2) Social, (1) Enhance prestige of organization, Benefits related to more external Professional societies,
(3) Occupational, (2) offer social activities, (3) help and internal participation, recreational clubs,
(4) Lobbying, (5) Information, with job search, (4) influence donations of time and money, women’s associations
(6) Material legislation, (5) publish periodicals, and congruent with interest in
(6) offer group insurance the organization; Normative
benefits are among the strongest
in motivating involvement
 Knoke and (1) Normative, (2) Social, (1) Include prestige of organization, Most groups offer Material, Professional societies,
Adams (1987) (3) Occupational, (2) offer social activities, (3) help Solidary, and Purposive trade associations,
(4) Lobbying, (5) Information, with job search, (4) influence incentives; incentive systems recreational groups,
(6) Material legislation, (5) publish periodicals, tend to be congruent with the labor unions, and other
(6) offer group insurance goals of the group types
Kaplan (1986) No factors—case study Participation helped groups reach Involvement is related to need A coalition of 30+ neigh-
goals, fund-raise, develop skills, fulfillment; benefits related to borhood housing
communicate with other groups, positive attitude, participation groups
feel pride related to tangible benefits
Norton, (1) Personal, (2) Social/ (1) Information, (2) feel important Active members saw more Members and nonmem-
Wandersman, Purposive among friends benefits than less active and bers of the Alliance for
and Goldman nonmembers; knowledge was the Mentally Ill
(1993) received the most by all members
and activity levels
Prestby, (1) Personal, (2) Social/ (1) Learning new skills, (2) sense of Most active members receive Block associations
Wandersman, Communal support; helping others more of both benefit factors; least
Florin, Rich, and active members receive less
Chavis (1990) Personal benefits
Rich (1980) (1) Civic Duty, (2) Devotion Answers to the question of why the Most leaders reported mostly Six voluntary neighbor-
to Neighborhood, respondents became a leader deference benefits (act on hood association, two
(3) Obligation to Friends, personal values, do community neighborhood corpora-
(4) Protect Property Values service, pleasure of leadership tions formed under
role) federal programs, two
municipal corporations,
one contractual home-

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

owners association
Roberts-DeGennaro No factors—case study Availability of insurance plans Members reported health 35 member organizations
(1986) insurance, information from of the Community
legislative analyses, and funding Congress (community-
were the most important benefits based organizations

(continued)

53
 54
Table 3 Continued

Study Factor Name Examples of Items Results Type of Organization

Schmitz and (1) Material, (2) Personal (1) Personal support staff, (2) led to Members reported mostly Seven Community-Based
Schomaker (1994) Growth and Development, consulting work, (3) new friends, Personal, Social/Political, and Public Health Consortia
(3) Social and Political networking opportunities, Goal Attainment benefits; and their member
Consequences, (4) Goal (4) building community capacity perceptions of benefits varied by organizations
Attainment/Mission Support group; the strongest organiza-
tional benefits were Social,
Political, and Mission related;
organization leaders and
members reported more benefits
than costs
Snyder and Omoto Motives for joining: (1) Values, (1) Humanitarian obligation to help People volunteer to fulfill certain AIDS volunteers
(Omoto & Snyder, (2) Understanding, others, (2) to learn about how people needs and leave when not met;
1992a, 1992b; (3) Community Concern, cope, (3) concern and worry about after 1 year, personal benefits
Snyder, 1993) (4) Personal Development, the gay community, (4) to challenge predicted those who remained
(5) Esteem Enhancement myself, (5) to feel better about myself and costs (time, embarrassment,
stigma) distinguished quitters
from stayers
Wandersman and No factors—case study Appreciation, community contacts Most incentives offered were A state division of the
Alderman (1993) assessing incentives offered personal; 73% reported offering American Cancer
recognition (awards), 33% offered Society
appreciation, others reported
offering skill development,

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

chance to make community
contacts
Wandersman, (1) Personal, (1) Increased status and prestige, Both members and nonmembers Israeli neighborhood
Florin, Friedman, (2) Helping Others (2) increased sense of responsibility; report that the Helping Others association
and Meier (1987) friendship with other members items were the greatest benefits;
nonmembers reported more
Personal benefits and less
Helping Others benefits
Benefits and Costs 55

striving to reach the goals of the organization (e.g., make the community a
safer place to live) are most important to them.
When comparing members by activity level, it seems that more active
members experience more of all types of benefits than less active members
(Norton et al., 1993; Prestby et al., 1990), suggesting that there may be truth to
the old axiom “the more you put in, the more you get out.” The results of com-
paring members to nonmembers is more mixed. Studies show that members
experience more Personal benefits (Norton et al., 1993), more Helping Others
benefits (Wandersman et al., 1987), and more Purposive benefits based on the
type of organization in which members belong (Knoke, 1988; Knoke & Wood,
1981). However, conducting research on the member versus nonmember dis-
tinction may be problematic for two reasons: One can be a member but still
participate very little, and nonmembers will report either their barriers and in-
centives to becoming members or their perceptions of what the benefits and
costs might be (in contrast to what is experienced as a result of actual partici-
pation). Therefore, the activity level variable may be a more sensitive measure
than simply using membership.
The literature on benefits offered by different types of organizations is also
mixed; some research found that leaders provide Normative and Social bene-
fits (Prestby et al., 1990), whereas other research concluded that Personal
benefits are provided most often (Wandersman & Alderman, 1993). This dis-
crepancy highlights an important issue: The type of organization may affect
how members perceive the benefits of their participation. For example, neigh-
borhood organizations, economic interest groups, national voluntary associa-
tions (e.g., American Cancer Society), AIDS groups, self-help groups, and
community coalitions have different goals. Because goals tend to be congru-
ent with the incentives offered (Knoke, 1988), it is likely that these organiza-
tions will offer different incentives. In addition, certain groups (e.g., neighbor-
hood organizations, economic interest groups) may attract members who are
more interested in Personal benefits (e.g., improve the value of one’s home),
whereas groups such as community coalitions may have members who are in-
terested in Normative benefits (e.g., prevent alcohol and other drug abuse).

RESEARCH ON COSTS

Less research has been conducted on the costs of participation. Similar to

the research on benefits, researchers have assessed participation costs by com-
paring members versus nonmembers and more active members versus less
active members. Reviewing the cost literature from different organizations
further demonstrates that the concept is robust across organizations and can
be used to answer why people volunteer and what they get out of it (see Table 4
for the details of this review). For example, across the two studies (Norton
et al., 1993; Wandersman et al., 1987) that compared members’ and nonmem-
bers’ perceptions of the costs (or barriers) of their participation, both studies

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

 56
Table 4. Empirical Evaluation of Costs

Study Factor Name Examples of Items Results Type of Organization

Butterfoss (1993) At Time1: Personal and Social/ Personal and Material—demands too Less costs predicts more Anti-alcohol and other
Organizational; at Time2: much time; Social/Organizational satisfaction with committee work drug volunteer coalition
Material, Social, Purposive and Social—feel unwelcome; and committee plans; Material
Purposive—disagree with goals (time/added responsibility) and
Purposive (low expectations)
were greatest costs
Friedmann, Florin, (1) Personal Costs, (1) Amount of time, (2) lack of Leaders see more Personal costs Neighborhood
Wandersman, and (2) Organizational Frustration progress than members; leaders see the association
Meier (1988) benefit/cost ratio as equal,
members see more benefits
Norton, (1) Personal, (2) Social/ (1) Need to attend meetings, Nonmembers see more Social/ Members and nonmem-
Wandersman, and Organizational (2) not feeling welcome/frustrated Organizational costs; more active bers of the Alliance for
Goldman (1993) with lack of accomplishments members see more Social/ the Mentally Ill
Organizational costs (frustration,
disagree with goals) and more
Personal costs (total, energy
drain)
Prestby, (1) Personal, (2) Social/ (1) Time, child care, (2) disagree Less active members experienced Block associations
Wandersman, Organizational with goals more Social/Organizational and
Florin, Rich, and total costs than more active
Chavis (1990) members
Rich (1980) (1) Production, (1) Organizing service projects, Voluntary organizations spend Six voluntary neigh-

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

(2) Maintenance (2) raising funds more time on maintenance
activities than organizations
that use coercive power
borhood associations,
two neighborhood
corporations formed
under federal programs,
two municipal corpora-
tions, one contractual
homeowners association
 Rogers et al. (1993) (1) Participation Costs (1) Coalition participation is difficult,
Low participation and Anti-tobacco community
(Organizational), (2) coalition management is difficult maintenance costs, in part, coalition
(2) Maintenance Costs contribute to member and
(organizational) staff satisfaction, respectively
Schmitz and (1) Material, (2) Potential (1) Out-of-pocket-expenses, Interpersonal conflict was the Seven Community-Based
Schomaker (1994) Conflict, (3) Social and (2) conflict over goals, (3) excluded most prevalent cost for Public Health Consortia
Political Consequences from policy arenas because of individuals; perceptions varied and their member
consortium participation by consortium organizations
Snyder and Omoto No factors Items include taking up too much After 1 year, the costs (time, AIDS volunteers
(Omoto & Snyder, time, causing embarrassment, feeling embarrassment, stigma)
1992a, 1992b; stigmatized distinguished quitters from
Snyder, 1993) stayers
Wandersman and No factors—case study Time, lack of appreciation 80% said time involved, 27% A state division of the
Alderman (1993) assessing costs of said lack of appreciation, 27% American Cancer
Volunteering said energy required Society
Wandersman, (1) Personal (opportunity), (1) The need to participate in meetings, On an absolute level, members Israeli neighborhood
Florin, Friedman, (2) Organizational Frustration (2) frustration from lack of progress and nonmembers view costs associations
and Meier (1987) the same; however, nonmembers
see the need to participate, effort
required, and interpersonal
conflict significantly more than
members

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

57
58 Chinman, Wandersman

found that nonmembers perceived more interpersonal conflict than did

members.

BENEFITS AND COSTS PREDICTING PARTICIPATION

Researchers have employed multiple regression analyses to investigate the

benefit and cost variables’ explanatory power of participation (Butterfoss,
Goodman, & Wandersman, 1996; Clarke et al., 1978; Knoke, 1988; Knoke &
Wood, 1981; Omoto & Snyder, 1992a). Participation can take a variety of forms
(e.g., doing work for the organization outside of meetings, representing the
organization to other bodies) but is usually conceptualized as the attendance
at the regular meetings of the organization. Clarke et al. (1978) found that
members who cited the initiating (i.e., why they joined) benefit factor of Parti-
sanship (“political work is part of my way of life” and “strong attachment to
my political party”) were more likely to participate than those who did not cite
this benefit. Knoke and Wood (1981) found that the Purposive and Solidary in-
centives offered were significant predictors of an aggregate commitment in-
dex (a precursor to participation). Knoke (1988) found that Normative or Pur-
posive incentives produce more commitment than any other type of incentive.
Butterfoss et al. (1996) found that higher benefits and lower costs predicted
greater participatory roles assumed by committee members. Omoto and Sny-
der (1992a) found that Personal motives predicted continued participation 1
year after they began volunteering. Because it can be assumed that these vol-
unteers received the benefits that corresponded to their initial motives for
joining (or else they would have dropped out), Personal benefits tended to
predict their continued participation.

BENEFIT/COST RATIO

Prestby et al. (1990) concluded that a member’s internal benefit/cost ratio

affects the relationship between the degree to which they experience benefits
and costs and their level of participation. According to Rich (1980), volunteers
must perceive the benefits of their participation as outweighing the costs to
continue contributing their time and energy. One way to assess if this occurs is
to ask respondents to directly compare the benefits and costs they have experi-
enced as a result of their participation.
Research using a benefit and cost ratio has been done with members of dif-
ferent types of organizations and has yielded mixed results based on organi-
zation type. Research that involved the Alliance for the Mentally Ill (AMI)
(Norton et al., 1993) concluded that one’s estimation of this ratio is related to
their membership (member vs. nonmember) and not related to activity level.
Research involving neighborhood groups stated that membership does not
distinguish respondents’ perceptions of this ratio (Wandersman et al., 1987)

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

Benefits and Costs 59

but that activity level does (Prestby et al., 1990). Also, perceptions of the benefit/
cost ratio have been found to be influenced by the community sector in which
the members belong (Schmitz & Schomaker, 1994).

DISCUSSION

This review demonstrates that a direct assessment of the benefits and the
costs is related to participation in many types of organizations, albeit differ-
ently in different organizations. For example, whereas the cost research in-
volving neighborhood groups shows that less active members and nonmem-
bers perceive more costs or barriers (Prestby et al., 1990; Wandersman et al.,
1987), active members of the AMI report more costs (Norton et al., 1993). Per-
haps participating in a self-help organization is more draining and frustrating
than being active in one’s local neighborhood association.
Although differing across different organizations, some general conclu-
sions can be drawn. In general, a relationship between participation and bene-
fits exists across several types of organizations. More specifically, (a) Norma-
tive and Social benefits seem to be the most important benefits experienced by
voluntary members, (b) greater participation is associated with members ex-
periencing greater benefits, and (c) activity level is a more accurate measure of
participation than membership (member vs. nonmembers). Similarly, a rela-
tionship between participation and costs also exists across several types of or-
ganizations; however, the relationship is more complex. Costs are associated
with greater participation in some organizations and are associated with less
participation in others. Although it seems counterintuitive to think that a
member would participate more because of experiencing more costs, it is
probable that with greater participation comes more frustrations and there-
fore more costs. Although members who participate a great deal may experi-
ence costs, we would argue that they experience a greater amount of benefits,
as evidenced by the studies using the benefit and cost ratio.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Another result of this review is that although the relationship between par-
ticipation and specific benefits and costs differs for different organizations,
the relationships can be used to promote organizational viability within their
own organizations. The relationship between benefits and costs and partici-
pation is a powerful tool that leaders of these voluntary groups can use to in-
crease the level of participation through incentive/cost management, thereby
enhancing organizational viability.
One example of incentive/cost management is a process that we used with
a coalition organized to prevent substance abuse, similar to the Block Booster
process used in Florin, Chavis, Wandersman, & Rich (1992). This group
formed several committees of volunteers from different sectors of the

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

60 Chinman, Wandersman

community (criminal justice, parents, youth, religious leaders, teachers, etc.)

to address this problem and was supported by a small paid staff funded by the
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. First, we conducted a survey feed-
back process for the staff and the chairpersons of the committees. After we
surveyed committee members, we arranged the data into tabular form for
each committee, called committee profiles. These profiles contained various
graphs and tables that covered a wide range of committee characteristics (e.g.,
linkages/resource exchange, team spirit, attendance, etc.), including benefits
and costs. We then gave the staff The Committee Profiles Handbook, which con-
tained explanations of the data and suggested activities the committees could
implement to improve their functioning within each dimension, depending
on where they fell on that dimension. For example, if a committee profile
showed that the members were not experiencing many benefits, the staff and
the chairperson could then look at the benefits section in the handbook and
implement the suggested activities found there. Finally, we conducted a
workshop for project staff to train them to feedback the committee profile in-
formation to their respective committees. The staff and voluntary chairper-
sons then used this information to enhance member participation.
In addition to the process just described, there are several other ways to use
the benefit and cost approach to improve the participation of volunteers. For
example, when recruiting volunteers, emphasize all types of benefits to be
gained by joining, not just the ones gained by working on the goals of the
group (e.g., “We also have fun while trying to create a neighborhood watch
program”). After people join, repeatedly assess the benefits that will keep
them participating and then assign them tasks that are consistent with those
benefits (e.g., John was interested in networking, so the coalition placed him in
charge of working with the Chamber of Commerce). If one group cannot pro-
vide all the benefits that members desire, linking with other groups can be a
way to supplement the available benefits. Compromising efficiency on work-
ing toward the stated goals to provide other benefits (e.g., time for socializing
and networking) can strengthen the organization, enhancing its ability to
achieve its goals in the future.
In addition to providing benefits to individuals, organizations can obtain
benefits and experience costs through their members’ or employees’ volun-
teer efforts. An organization can gain influence, power, and prestige by join-
ing a high-profile coalition. Emphasizing this point can be an important mar-
keting strategy for recruiting member organizations. Of course, an
organization’s participation can engender costs as well, for example, taking
employee time away from organization activities.
Finally, organizations may have less success in retaining volunteer mem-
bers for longer periods of time, especially after the completion of a specific
project (e.g., blocking the construction of a highway through the neighbor-
hood). If members leave at this point, within our framework it can be argued
that these members have stopped receiving the Normative benefits that kept
them participating. If the organization is still interested in remaining intact, to

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

Benefits and Costs 61

retain these members organization leaders ought to provide other types of

benefits (i.e., Social, Material) or pursue additional goals that will yield Nor-
mative benefits that interest members (e.g., establishing a neighborhood
watch).

SOME FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Benefits, costs, and demographic characteristics. Often, voluntary organiza-

tions would like to attract a diverse membership (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity).
It may be instructive to examine the benefits and costs that different demo-
graphic groups perceive about volunteering in community organizations and
their relationship to participation. Benefits and costs may be mediating vari-
ables between demographic variables and participation. Therefore, volunteer
organization leaders may be able to improve participation by providing the
benefits a specific group wants most and by minimizing the effects of the costs
that a specific group dislikes the most. This type of information may also aid
volunteer organizations to bring together diverse individuals and organiza-
tions who may have different desires and agendas for participating.
Focus on the importance of benefits and costs. Much of the research on benefits
and costs asks respondents to rate the degree to which they experience various
benefits and costs. It is important to know which benefits and costs are experi-
enced, but this strategy should also be combined with asking respondents
how important each item is in their decision to participate. In the previous
research, it is assumed that the items that respondents experience most are
also the items that influence the respondents’ decision to participate the most;
however, this may not be true. Respondents may be influenced by a benefit or
a cost that they do not experience that much, or conversely, they may be influ-
enced very little by a benefit or a cost that they experience a great deal. In
future research, it may be helpful to ask both types of questions at the same
time to clarify which benefits and costs are the most influential.
Methodological issues. While exploring new issues, some of the shortcom-
ings of the current literature can be rectified. Agreeing on a consistent set of
items that can be used in a variety of settings would be helpful to benefit and
cost research. This would allow researchers to compare items and categories
of items across groups and determine which ones are relevant for different
types of organizations. Similarly, using the same set of items would allow
researchers to better answer questions about the number of factors that would
best represent the benefit and cost items. As elaborated above, better report-
ing of extrapolation techniques would also help to clarify the factor questions.
Most studies reviewed assessed organizations at one point in time. How-
ever, voluntary organizations are fluid entities, with members and leaders
constantly joining and quitting. In addition, organizations go through phases
in which different tasks are the focus of the members’ efforts at different

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

62 Chinman, Wandersman

points in time of the development of the organization. For example, research-

ers have recently focused on the stages of development for a specific type of
voluntary organization, a coalition (Butterfoss, Goodman, & Wandersman,
1993; Chinman, Anderson, Imm, Wandersman, & Goodman, 1996; Florin,
Mitchell, & Stevenson, 1989). Butterfoss et al. (1993) discussed the stages of
coalition development called formation, implementation, maintenance, and
outcomes. Future research should assess how members’ perceptions of the
benefits and costs, and their relationship to participation and empowerment,
change as an organization matures. Gaining a longitudinal perspective would
allow leaders to adjust their incentive/cost management approaches over
time.
Also, more work could be done investigating the utility of the benefit/cost
ratio. The benefit and cost ratio is an easy-to-understand index of members’
satisfaction and willingness to participate. Although more research has been
conducted assessing the direct link between benefits, costs, and participation,
future research should explore the role the benefit/cost ratio plays as a medi-
ating variable. How does the overall perception of benefits to costs relate to in-
dividual benefit and cost items? Can this item better predict participation than
using the individual items? Because the benefit/cost ratio is an easy, face-
valid measure, its usefulness should be further explored.
In conclusion, the research and practical value of benefits and costs has
been established. We cannot comment about the relative effectiveness of this
approach compared to other theories of volunteering, because there have not
been any direct comparisons. However, because the benefit and cost approach
is straightforward and easily understood by organization leaders and by
members and has empirical support, it clearly can augment other strategies.
Future research and practice will help refine and improve the recruiting and
retention of volunteers. There are several examples that demonstrate how the
benefit and cost approach can be used by practitioners in the field. In all the ex-
amples, we draw upon a benefit and cost framework to enhance organization
viability rather than rely on the specific findings of previous literature.

References

Bailey, A. (1986). More than good intentions: Building a network of collaboratives. Education and
Urban Society, 19(1), 7-23.
Butterfoss, F. D. (1993). Coalitions for alcohol and other drug abuse: Factors predicting effectiveness. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Butterfoss, F. D., Goodman, R. M., & Wandersman, A. (1993). Community coalition for preven-
tion and health promotion. Health Education Research, 8(3), 315-330.
Butterfoss, F. D., Goodman, R. M., & Wandersman, A. (1996). Community coalitions for preven-
tion and health promotion: Factors predicting satisfaction, participation, and planning. Health
Education Quarterly, 23(1), 65-79.

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

Benefits and Costs 63

Chinman, M., Anderson, C., Imm, P., Wandersman, A., & Goodman, R. M. (1996). The perception
of costs and benefits of high active versus low active groups in community coalitions at differ-
ent stages in coalition development. The Journal of Community Psychology, 24(3), 263-274.
Clark, P. B., & Wilson, J. Q. (1961). Incentive systems: A theory of organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 6, 129-166.
Clarke, H. D., Price, R. G., Stewart, M. C., & Krause, R. (1978). Motivational patterns and differen-
tial participation in a Canadian party: The Ontario liberals. American Journal of Political Science,
22(1), 130-151.
Clary, E. G., Ridge, R. D., Stukas, A. A., Snyder, M., Copeland, J., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998).
Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of
personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516-1530.
Florin, P., Chavis, D., Wandersman, A., & Rich, R. (1992). A systems approach to understanding
and enhancing grassroots organizations. In R. Levine & H. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Analysis of dy-
namic psychological systems. New York: Plenum.
Florin, P., Mitchell, R., & Stevenson, J. (1989). Rhode Island Substance Abuse Prevention Act. Uni-
versity of Rhode Island, Department of Psychology, Providence.
Friedmann, R. R., Florin, P., Wandersman, A., & Meier, R. (1988). Local action on behalf of local
collectives in the U.S. and Israel: How different are leaders from members in voluntary asso-
ciations? Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 17, 36-54.
Kanter, R. M. (1968). Commitment and social organizations: A study of commitment mechanisms
in utopian communities. American Sociological Review, 33(4), 499-517.
Kaplan, M. (1986). Cooperation and coalition development among neighborhood organizations:
A case study. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 15(4), 23-34.
Knoke, D. (1988). Incentives in collective action organizations. American Sociological Review, 53,
311-329.
Knoke, D. (1990). Organizing for collective action: The political economies of associations. New York:
Aline de Grunter.
Knoke, D., & Adams, R. E. (1987). The incentive systems of associations. Research in the Sociology of
Organizations, 5, 285-309.
Knoke, D., & Wood, J. R. (1981). Organized for action: Commitment in voluntary organizations. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Knoke, D., & Wright-Isak, C. (1982). Individual motives and organizational incentive systems. Re-
search in the Sociology of Organizations, 1, 209-254.
Moe, T. M. (1980). The organization of interests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Norton, S., Wandersman, A., & Goldman, C. R. (1993). Perceived costs and benefits of member-
ship in a self-help group: Comparisons of members and nonmembers of the Alliance for the
Mentally Ill. Community Mental Health Journal, 29(2), 143-160.
Olson, M., Jr. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1992a). AIDS volunteers and their motivations: Theoretical issues
and practical concerns. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kansas and University of
Minnesota.
Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1992b). Sustained help without obligation: Motivation, commitment, and
longevity of service among AIDS volunteers. Manuscript in preparation, University of Kansas and
University of Minnesota.
Prestby, J. E., Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Rich, R., & Chavis, D. (1990). Benefits, costs, incentive
management and participation in voluntary organizations: A means to understanding and
promoting empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 117-149.
Rich, R. (1980). The dynamics of leadership in neighborhood organizations. Social Science Quar-
terly, 60(4), 570-587.
Roberts-DeGennaro, M. (1986). Cooperation and coalition development among neighborhood
organizations: A case study. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 15(4), 23-34.

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

 64 Chinman, Wandersman

Rogers, T., Howard-Pitney, B., Feighery, E. C., Altman, D. G., Endres, J. M., & Roeseler, A. G.
(1993). Characteristics and participant perceptions of tobacco control coalitions in California.
Health Education Research, 8(3), 345-357.
Schmitz, C. C., & Schomaker, P. (1994). Survey of individual members and member organizations on the
costs and benefits of belonging to a community-based public health (CBPH) consortium. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota.
Snyder, M. (1993). Basic research and practical problems: The promise of a “functional” personal-
ity and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(3), 251-264.
Wandersman, A., & Alderman, J. (1993). Incentives, costs, and barriers for volunteers: A staff per-
spective on volunteers in one state. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 8(1), 67-76.
Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Friedman, R., & Meier, R. (1987). Who participates, who does not, and
why? An analysis of voluntary neighborhood organizations in the United States and Israel. So-
ciological Forum, 2(3), 534-555.
Zwick, W. R., & Velicer, W. F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of
components to retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99(3), 432-442.

Matthew J. Chinman, Ph.D., is currently an associate research scientist at the Yale School of Medicine in
the Department of Psychiatry where he conducts research on the effectiveness of various psychosocial inter-
ventions for those with serious mental illnesses and coordinates quality assurance efforts of a local mental
health network of rehabilitation agencies in the Greater New Haven, Connecticut area. He also conducts re-
search on the benefits and costs of participation in voluntary organizations. He serves as the Innovative Pro-
gram column editor for the Community Psychologist and serves on the planning committee for the sev-
enth biennial conference of the Society for Community Research and Action and on several committees at
the Connecticut Mental Health Center. His interests include psychosocial interventions and the social net-
works of those with serious mental illnesses, benefits and costs experienced by volunteers, self-help and mu-
tual support, and program evaluation.
Abraham Wandersman, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at the University of South Carolina, Columbia.
He was interim codirector of the Institute for Families in Society at the University of South Carolina. He
performs research and evaluation on citizen participation in community organizations and coalitions and
on interagency collaboration. He is a coauthor of Prevention Plus III, coeditor of Empowerment Evalua-
tion: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability, and author and editor of many
other books and articles. He serves or has served on a number of advisory committees for prevention includ-
ing the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Advisory Committee on HIV Community Prevention Planning, Tech-
nical Assistance Committee of the National Evaluation of Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP),
Community Partnerships, Technical Support Group for the CSAP Evaluation of Training and Technical
Assistance, and the Prevention Working Group of the Center for Mental Health Services.

Downloaded from http://nvs.sagepub.com at RAND LIBRARY on February 3, 2010

View publication stats