Journal of Community Practice

ISSN: 1070-5422 (Print) 1543-3706 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcom20

What Money Cannot Buy: The Distinctive and

Multidimensional Impact of Volunteers

Debbie Haski-Leventhal , Lesley Hustinx & Femida Handy

To cite this article: Debbie Haski-Leventhal , Lesley Hustinx & Femida Handy (2011) What
Money Cannot Buy: The Distinctive and Multidimensional Impact of Volunteers, Journal of
Community Practice, 19:2, 138-158

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

Published online: 19 May 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 642

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wcom20

Download by: [Universidad del Rosario] Date: 02 March 2016, At: 07:33
 Journal of Community Practice, 19:138–158, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1070-5422 print/1543-3706 online
DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2011.568930

What Money Cannot Buy: The Distinctive and

Multidimensional Impact of Volunteers

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

LESLEY HUSTINX
Centre for Social Theory, Department of Sociology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

FEMIDA HANDY
School of Social Policy & Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, USA

Although it is assumed that volunteers make an extremely impor-

tant contribution to organizations and the community, studies
that examine their direct impact are scarce. Using quantitative
and qualitative data collected from clients, volunteers and staff at
the Philadelphia Ronald McDonald House, examined is the impact
of volunteers on the organization, the clients and on themselves.
Volunteers had a high direct and indirect impact on recipients,
including on their attitudes toward volunteering and their future
behavior. Volunteers gained intrinsic and extrinsic benefits and,
as expected, their participation had a positive impact on the orga-
nization. The study contributes to the body of knowledge on social
impact and volunteering.

KEYWORDS volunteering, impact, community, clients, recipi-

ents, Ronald McDonald House

Volunteers make a significant contribution to societies around the world.

Each year, about one-half of all American adults volunteer in some capacity.
Of this estimated 84 million adults, 25 million volunteer 5 or more hours per

This study would not have happened without the generous support of the staff at the
Philadelphia Ronald McDonald House, in particular Susan Campbell, Linda Parry, Lori-Anne
Miller, and Doug Metcalfe. We are also grateful to all those many families and volunteers who
took time to fill out the surveys. Abigail Emerson provided excellent research assistance.
Address correspondence to Debbie Haski-Leventhal, Centre for Social Impact, Level
6 East, Australian School of Business, UNSW, Kensington, NSW 2033 Australia. E-mail:
Debbiehl@unsw.edu.au
138
 What Money Cannot Buy 139

week and generate services worth more than $239 billion annually (Bureau
of Labor Statistics, 2010). Based on data collected in 35 countries, Salamon,
Sokolowski, and List (2003) concluded that the nonprofit sector in the late
1990s represented 5.1% of the combined gross domestic product (GDP)
of these countries and employed 39.5 million full-time equivalent (FTE)
workers in the sector. The authors estimated that there were 190 million
volunteers in these 35 countries, which amounts to over 20% of the adult
population in these countries.
Studies on the multidimensional impacts that volunteers make are
scarce. Many studies use volunteer hours as a proxy for impact; they assume
a positive correlation with the hours contributed by volunteers with the
impact on the organization, the clients (recipients), the society and commu-
nity, and the volunteers themselves. The value of the volunteer work is then
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

imputed in terms of the economic value of the number of hours contributed

using a variety of methods (Handy & Srinivasan, 2004). However, other
impacts, not directly related to the hours volunteered, such as being goodwill
ambassadors for the organization, enhancing the organization’s reputation,
and advancing its mission are often acknowledged, but not accounted for in
economic terms (Handy & Brudney, 2007).
It is very difficult to assess the impact of volunteers on these various
aspects due to the complexity of the issues and lack of defined measures.
Existing methods have a number of important limitations. First, the impact
of volunteer labor is often studied at the macro level, for example, in terms
of its contribution to the national GDP (Salamon & Sokolowski, 2004), and
not as an organizational resource. In addition, available research is mainly
focused on assessing the economic impact of volunteers, calculating the
net worth of volunteer labor at the organizational level using value-added
social accounting methods and cost-benefit analysis (Handy & Mook, forth-
coming). However, these studies have calculated the impact of volunteers
merely in terms of volunteer hours donated and direct economic costs, and
have not focused on the more qualitative and presumably subjective impact
that volunteers may have on the organization and its clients or on volun-
teers themselves. Instead, it is often assumed that the tasks performed by
paid labor and volunteer labor would have an identical impact—hence that
volunteer labor is interchangeable with paid labor. However, Handy and
Srinivasan (2005) found that CEOs of hospitals were not keen to replace
volunteers with paid staff, even if they had the money to do so, in large
part due to the unique contributions of the volunteers. Thus, there appears
to be something distinctive about volunteers and their contributions that
cannot be easily formulated in quantitative terms from a single stakeholder
perspective.
The unique impact of volunteers, compared to the paid workers of
an organization, needs to be examined and understood in more qualitative
terms and from the perspective of the different stakeholders involved. Such
 140 D. Haski-Leventhal et al.

an approach will better explain why organizations choose to engage vol-

unteers, even when financial resources are available to acquire the services
of paid staff. In addition, because there is a shift from collective and orga-
nized volunteering toward more individualized and episodic volunteering
(Hustinx, Haski-Leventhal, & Handy, 2008; Hustinx & Lammertyn, 2003), the
different impacts of traditional and emerging types of volunteering may need
to be assessed separately.
This article examines the impact of volunteer services at the Phila-
delphia Ronald McDonald House (PRMH) on the organization, its clients
and the volunteers themselves, based on two sets of surveys: those con-
ducted with PRMH volunteers and with the clients of PRMH (families of
seriously ill children).
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

LITERATURE REVIEW

Only a handful of studies have examined the impact of volunteer services on

volunteer service recipients. Ronel, Haski-Leventhal, Ben-David, and York
(2009) investigated the impact of volunteers on clients of at-risk youth in
drop-in centers in Israel. They concluded that the youth clients could differ-
entiate between services received by paid staff and volunteers and perceived
volunteers to be altruistic people who really care for them, showed them
there exists good in the world and inspired them to become volunteers
themselves. The at-risk youth preferred to receive services from volunteers
than from paid workers. The results showed volunteers provided successful
intervention services for the at-risk youth and that their unique contribution
positively affected services as a whole.
Grossman and Tierney (1998) evaluated the impact of volunteers in the
Big Brother/Big Sister project on the 10- to 16-year-old clients of the service.
They found mentoring by volunteers had a significant positive effect on
the young people participating in the program: they were significantly less
likely to start using alcohol or illegal drugs, hit someone, or skip school
than those who were not in the program. They were also more confident
about their school performance and got along better with their families.
Baker, Gersten, and Keating (2000) showed that volunteers can also have a
direct impact on students such as helping them to learn how to read. Edgar,
Remmer, Roserbger, and Rapkin (1996) concluded that volunteers had a
positive impact on cancer patients with respect to helping them manage
side effects, handle medical treatment, and know which questions to ask
their physician.
By helping others, knowingly or unknowingly, volunteers also help
themselves and there is a significant literature on the benefits of volunteer-
ing to the volunteer. Noting a variety of potential benefits to the volunteer,
Cnaan and Amrofell (1994) divided volunteering benefits into five categories:
 What Money Cannot Buy 141

tangible or material rewards; internal rewards such as good feeling about

oneself; social interaction; norms and social pressure (relieved); and avoid-
ance rewards. Volunteers report both intrinsic and extrinsic benefits from
volunteering (Chinman & Wandersman, 1999). Musick and Wilson (2008)
provided an excellent review of the literature on the positive impacts of vol-
unteering to the volunteer, including self esteem, better physical and mental
health, their ability to address social problems (for example antisocial behav-
ior of youth), and development of social capital. Volunteering is also related
to life satisfaction (Wilson & Musick, 2000). This can be explained through
theories of positive psychology. According to Seligman, Parks, and Steen
(2004), the pursuit of happiness involved deploying one’s strengths and
abilities, particularly when using these strengths to service something bigger
than ourselves, such as society or goodness.
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

Volunteers also have a unique impact of particular importance to

not-for-profits that continue to face budgetary constraints due to eco-
nomic recessions or government cutbacks (Haski-Leventhal & Cnaan, 2009).
Volunteers are regarded as important human resources that help save, as
well generate financial resources. One standard way to assess the financial
impact of volunteers to the organization is to multiply estimated hours by the
average hourly compensation rate estimated for volunteer labor (Handy &
Srinivasan, 2004). Several studies have tried to assess the financial value
of volunteers either in a specific organization (Vitner, Shalom, & Yodfat,
2005) or in society as a whole (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009; Salamon &
Sokolowski, 2004).
However, volunteers can bring additional benefits, such as enhancing
the organization’s reputation and legitimacy. These assets may help, in turn,
to raise awareness, and attract more financial resources and volunteers. Many
donors and clients perceive the number of volunteers in an organization as
a signal of its trustworthiness. Additionally, volunteers may bring a less for-
mal atmosphere to an organization and help promote organizational change
(McDonald & Warburton, 2003). Organizations using volunteer labor find
these tradeoffs of additional costs worthwhile when weighing them against
the benefits; Handy and Srinivasan (2004) documented significant net bene-
fits in their study of hospitals. Volunteers provide free labor and often make
a financial impact by donating money and in-kind donations. Knowing and
working for the organization fosters a trusting relationship, this makes it
easier for volunteers to donate money and in-kind resources to the organi-
zation. Indeed, the Institute for Volunteering Research (2008) found that 63%
of people donated time as well as money, and frequently to the same orga-
nization. A very high proportion of individuals who volunteer also donate
money in the United States; Independent Sector (2001) reported that, among
volunteers, only 2% do not donate.
According to MacNeela (n.d., p. 146), “volunteers were described as
bringing something special to the organization, involving the helping/giving
 142 D. Haski-Leventhal et al.

ethos.” Employing volunteers in a service ipso facto introduces the values

of altruism to the organizational image and contribute to the organization’s
positive image and to marketing its services. The positive attitudes toward
the altruistic volunteer may often be transferred to an overall positive per-
ception of the organization (Ronel et al., 2009). Our study, premised on the
literature, is unique in simultaneously assessing the multidimensional impact
of volunteers. It assesses the impact of volunteering on the volunteers, on
the organization, and on the clients of these services.

METHOD

This article is based on study conducted at the Philadelphia Ronald

Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

McDonald House (PRMH). The House was established in 1974, and by 2007
RMHC had local chapters in 51 countries and regions with 271 Houses
in 30 countries. Volunteers provide nearly all the services and the core
programs at these Houses; each year some 30,000 individuals volunteer
to improve the lives of nearly 3.7 million children around the world
(Ronald McDonald House Charities, 2009). Volunteers undertake several
roles, including serving the day-to-day needs of families at the House, serv-
ing on boards and committees, fundraising and program development, and
event planning. Although many tasks involved in serving the families are
done by ongoing volunteers, PRMH also has successful programs staffed pri-
marily by volunteers who come in only occasionally—from once a year to
once a month on an ad hoc or episodic arrangement. For example, episodic
volunteers work in the Guest Chef program that provides daily meals for
80–90 guests all year round. They plan a menu, shop, cook, serve, and
clean up (Philadelphia Ronald McDonald House, 2009).
A self-administered, paper and an on-line survey was used that tar-
geted all volunteers at the PRMH. It was designed to cover demographics,
volunteering habits, frequency of volunteering and number of hours given
(to asses if they were ongoing or episodic volunteers), motivations to and
rewards from volunteering, and their satisfaction with volunteer services.
The demographic section included questions about the respondents’ fam-
ily status, gender, age, and employment status, number of children, current
living situation, and income. The volunteering habits section asked respon-
dents to describe their role in PRMH, length and frequency of service,
willingness to volunteer more and the level of importance of volunteering
relative to other tasks. The survey included the motivation to volunteer sur-
vey fielded by Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen (1991) and frequently used in the
literature, which included 24 items rated on five-point scales, from strongly
agree to strongly disagree, and an additional 10 items questions specifically
geared to PRMH. The benefits questionnaire included 8 common benefits on
a five-point scale, from very important to not important at all. Respondents
 What Money Cannot Buy 143

were also asked to indicate their satisfaction with different aspects of their
work, from very satisfied to not satisfied on a five-point scale (1–5) Finally,
respondents were asked whether or not they donated money to the PRMH,
and additionally to give their best estimate of a monetary value of their work
and the costs incurred from volunteering. Many questions allowed respon-
dents an open-ended option where they could elaborate. The online survey
was sent out in 2007 by the Director of Volunteer Services at PRMH to all vol-
unteers with e-mail addresses. However, to include many older volunteers
and episodic volunteers who did not have e-mail contacts, paper surveys
were given to these volunteers when they arrived at PRMH to volunteer.
Additionally, between March 2007 and December 2008, questions were
added regarding volunteer services to the exit survey regularly conducted
by the PRMH. This survey is completed by a family member at the end of
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

their stay and has a high response rate (95%). The survey included ques-
tions regarding the guests’ satisfaction with their stay and the services they
received from both volunteers and paid workers at the PRMH. In addition,
guests were asked questions regarding their interactions with volunteers and
about the importance of the services they received and to indicate whether
the services were provided by volunteers, paid workers, or both. The survey
asked whether it made a difference whether volunteers or paid staff pro-
vided services, and if and how their attitude toward volunteering changed
since meeting volunteers in PRMH. Finally, there were questions regarding
their willingness to receive further information regarding the PRMH, includ-
ing information on how they could assist. Issues of privacy did not permit
collecting social-demographic data from the families, except for the city
where they lived and the length of their stay and number of visits to PRMH.
In addition to the surveys, the researchers paid several visits to PRMH,
including a tour of the premises; volunteered in the Guest Chef program;
met volunteers; and conducted several informal interviews with the director
and assistant manager of volunteer services, as well as the House manager.
This information was documented and used to portray the organizational
context in which the volunteer study occurred.
The quantitative data from both questionnaires were analyzed. This
included frequencies of all variables and cross-tabulations to examine the
research questions. Open-ended answers for each question were coded into
common categories and grouped. The quotes throughout the article are most
representative of the open-ended responses.

RESPONDENTS

Two hundred and fifty-eight responses from volunteers at the PRMH were
received during the 10 weeks of the study. PRMH provided a list of approx-
imately 250 ongoing volunteers and 305 episodic volunteers with e-mail
 144 D. Haski-Leventhal et al.

addresses. The response rate was 56% for ongoing volunteers and 27% for
episodic volunteers. Therefore, this does not reflect the actual distribution of
ongoing volunteers to episodic volunteers in PRMH. The respondents ranged
in age from 18 to 89 years, with a mean of 45.4 years (SD = 15.9). The overall
majority was female (81%). The largest group reported a household income
above $100,000 (50%), whereas only just over 5% reported being in the low-
est annual income category of below $20,000. The majority of respondents
were married or lived with their partners (52%) and the majority of them
reported having children (54.8%), with a third (33.7%) having children living
with them.
Of guests living at the PRMH during the 18-month period from March
2007 through December 2008, 1011 completed exit surveys. Almost one-half
of the guests (45.5%) reported this visit to the PRMH as their first, 12.9%
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

reported it to be their second, and 41.6% reported it to be at least their third

visit, which included 27.5% who reported this to be their 6th visit or more.
Most of the guests (57.3%) stayed in the House for 3 or fewer days, and only
14.4% stayed 10 days or longer.

FINDINGS
Impact of Volunteering on Clients
The results from guest surveys indicate a generally positive impact of vol-
unteers on the guest families. Overall, 86.7% reported their interactions with
the volunteers to be excellent, and an additional 10.3% rated it very good.
Less than 1% (only three respondents) rated their interaction with the vol-
unteers as unsatisfactory. When asked if they had any negative experiences
with volunteers during their stay, almost all guests (98.3%) reported that they
did not. People who did have a negative experience with volunteers were
asked to elaborate, but their comments actually expressed complaints about
the work of the cleaners or security, generally done by paid staff, or prob-
lems related to the comfort of the room. Many more guests expressed their
satisfaction with the volunteers. “PMRH volunteers have been very pleasant
and willing to share in conversations too. We appreciate them.” “The volun-
teers were kind, compassionate, and helpful. Staff seemed a little superior
and condescending and patronizing.” Many wrote that the volunteers they
met were “nice,” “wonderful” or “kind.” However, one guest wrote: “What
there was, made me feel like a charity case. I am educated, employed, and
of equal status, and made to feel uncomfortable.”
Most guests (89.4%) found the PRMH staff helpful, and a similar number
(89.2%) found the volunteers helpful. Many guests gave names of one or two
particularly helpful volunteers; others commented that all were very help-
ful. When specifically asked if it made any difference to them to know that
volunteers provided many of the services in the House, almost all (98.7%)
 What Money Cannot Buy 145

said that it made a positive difference to have volunteers doing the ser-
vices rather than paid staff. As one guest put it, “The fact that volunteers
provide the services, shows us that we are surrounded by a community
in which people care for us when we are dealing with our sick children.”
Most guests (78.2%) reported that volunteers made them feel that people
in the community cared. The kindness of strangers moved the recipients.
The general tone of comments is captured by this quote: “I am shocked and
humbled that so many people that don’t know me graciously reach out to
me when I am drained and physically and emotionally spent with nothing
to give.” The guests were extremely grateful for the volunteers. As one of
them wrote: “They’re all wonderful! Thank you all, for a new room, good
food, wonderful play area. For your smiling faces, words of encouragement,
and being extra hands for me and the baby. God bless you and keep you!”
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

Another said: “We are very grateful to everyone for helping our family and
feel blessed to be so fortunate for all of the support, help and love that
was bestowed toward our family! All the thanks will never be enough! God
Bless!”
Being exposed to voluntary work can alter recipients’ attitudes toward
volunteering. Some guests (15.2%) reported that they now think more pos-
itively about volunteers; 14.2% said they might even start volunteering
themselves as a result of their interaction with the volunteers, and 19.0% said
they already volunteered. When asked if they would like to receive informa-
tion on how they could assist the House, 72.2% of those who replied marked
“yes.” Additionally, some respondents wrote down specific suggestions on
how they could help PRMH. Among these practical suggestions was an offer
to sponsor the PRMH web site, a list of chores that the guests can do, and to
offer information on how guests could receive free passes to museums etc.
Guests were asked to rate the different types of services they received
from volunteers, and to indicate whether or not they knew that the volunteers
delivered these particular services. Overall, the services were highly valued
by the guests. The most valued service was the reception desk (92.5% found
it extremely important or very important); followed by meals provided by
the guest chef program (83.1%); playroom areas (80.2%); and availability of
computer/internet services (76.8%). The least important services were the
evening activities (only 57.7% found it extremely or very important) and the
breakfast (59.9%). It should be noted that all respondents highly valued the
services delivered by volunteers, some by ongoing volunteers (e.g. reception
desk) and some by episodic volunteers (e.g. breakfast, dinner).
When asked if volunteers provided the services or paid staff, most peo-
ple identified correctly, with a tendency to believe most services, with the
exception of social workers, were provided by volunteers only. In reality,
however, sometimes the services are provided by staff and volunteers. For
example, 58.9% thought that the reception desk services are provided by
volunteers only; 25.3% thought it was paid staff only; and just 15.6% thought
 146 D. Haski-Leventhal et al.

it was provided by both, which is correct—although volunteers are, indeed,

the major providers. Although the quantitative data show that volunteers
were more highly perceived than paid workers, some guests’ comments
implied that they found no differences:

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

Respondents who reported their visit to the PRMH to be their third

one or more tended to rate their interaction with the volunteer as more
positive, and to have less negative experience with volunteers than the first-
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

and second-time visitors, but not significantly so. However, it was the first
time visitors who were significantly more likely to say they would like to
start volunteering, themselves, more than the other groups (17.9% of the
first-time visitors, vs. 11.1% of second-time visitors and 10.9% of third-time-
or-more, p < .05). Yet, the third-time-and-more visitors agreed more often
that volunteers make them feel that people in the community care (80.3%
agreed, vs. 78.6% of second-timers and 76.3% of first-timers, p < .05).
As for the importance of different services provided and identifying
whether volunteers or paid workers delivered it, there were some significant
differences according to the number of visit and length of stay. For example,
79.9% of families visiting the house for the first time found van services to
be very or extremely important, compared to 74.8% of those visiting for
the second time and 71.2% of third-timers ( p < .05). However, third time
visitors rated the evening activities (64.9% vs. 52% of first-timers, p < .001),
and social workers (78.8% vs. 68.9%, p < .05) higher. Dinner and playroom
areas were more important for people visiting for the second and the third
time, more than for first-time visitors.
More frequent visitors knew better than first-time visitors which ser-
vices are provided by volunteers. For example, 67.4% of third-time visitors
identified the people at the reception desk as volunteers versus only 51.7%
of first-time visitors ( p < .05). Although 23% of first-time visitors wrongly
identified social workers as volunteers, only 8.5% of second-time visitors
did so ( p < .05). Identifying service provider correctly was not significantly
correlated to the length of the visit.

Impact of Volunteering on Volunteers

The impact of volunteering on volunteers was examined through several
variables: the levels of satisfaction and the benefits derived from volunteer-
ing, their relationship with other volunteers, and the importance they attach
to their volunteering. These variables were also examined in relation to the
 What Money Cannot Buy 147

volunteer type (episodic vs. ongoing), the length of volunteer service and
gender. The findings are summarized in Table 1.
Although people volunteer to help others, it is quite natural that they
receive positive outcomes from volunteering. These are reflected in their rat-
ings of the different benefits and levels of personal satisfaction. Volunteers
were asked, “How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your vol-
unteer experience in PRMH?” and listed six different aspects of volunteering.
As shown in Table 2, the strongest source of satisfaction was the appreci-
ation the volunteers received from the families (98.2% somewhat to fully
agreed), followed by satisfaction with work (96.3%), appreciation of the
staff (94.5%), and relationship with other volunteers (92.1%). No significant
differences occurred between ongoing volunteers and episodic volunteers.
These answers suggest high levels of satisfaction among volunteers; this is
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

not surprising as volunteers who are dissatisfied can easily quit with no cost
to themselves.
When asked to elaborate, some volunteers expressed their satisfaction
with the volunteer management at PRMH as this example indicates:

Compared to other service/volunteer organizations that I have been

exposed to, the volunteer operation at PRMH is exceptionally well run.
The director has a difficult job (recruiting and managing the volunteers)
and she does it very well. Much of the credit for the ongoing success of
PRMH belongs to her !

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

I believe in giving back because I’ve been so blessed and is what is

expected of me and is what in my heart I want to do. PRMH has made
that possible and I am very grateful for the opportunity.

The least satisfying aspect reported by volunteers was the training

received, especially training for the episodic volunteers. These were signifi-
cant differences ( p < .001), with 86.6% of ongoing volunteers who reported
being satisfied versus 59.3% of episodic volunteers. This may be explained
by the greater numbers of ongoing volunteers (68%) who reported receiv-
ing training as compared to only 14.6% of episodic volunteers ( p < .001).
Likewise, ongoing volunteers were more likely to be satisfied with the level
of flexibility in their volunteering (94.4 %) than episodic volunteers (73.3 %).
Some volunteers expressed dissatisfaction with the volunteer management
practices, for example: “I think some of the volunteer tasks could potentially
be better documented and standardized.”
 Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

TABLE 1 Findings Related to the Impact of Volunteering on Volunteers and on the Organization

Frequencies/rating
for all volunteers By volunteer type By gender By length of service

Satisfaction Highest satisfaction derived from: Significantly higher for OV Women were Long term volunteers
1. Appreciation from families than EV significantly (≥5 years) were more
2. Volunteer work 1. Satisfaction with training more satisfied with
3. Appreciation of the staff 2. Satisfaction with flexibility of satisfied than relationships and
volunteer assignments men. flexibility
Benefits Most important benefits: Significantly higher for OV Women valued No significant differences
1. Appreciation by staff and families than EV free parking
2. Free parking 1. Appreciation by staff and significantly
3. Appreciation events families higher than
2. Free parking men
3. Appreciation events
Relationship 70.6% of volunteers reported a OV were significantly higher No significant Long term volunteers
with other (somewhat) close relationship than EV in reporting to have differences (≥5 years) feel the

148
volunteers with other volunteers close or somewhat close closest to other
relationships with other volunteers
volunteers
Importance of 17.3% reported volunteering to be Significantly higher among EV No significant Persons who volunteered
volunteering more important than paid work than OV differences for 2–4 years found
(15.6%); 33.2% as more important volunteering more
than other leisure activities important than spending
time with family/friends
Impact on the Estimated Financial contribution Significantly higher among OV No significant Significantly higher among
organization 1. $347,870 per year using estimates than EV differences longer-term involved
by volunteers for the value of 1. OV more likely to donate (money and in-kind)
volunteer hour money: 63% versus 22% of EV
2. $620,379 per year using standard 2. OV valued the hourly values of
estimates for the value of their work as $12 versus $8
volunteer hour for EV
Note. OV = Ongoing Volunteers. EV = Episodic Volunteers.
 Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

TABLE 2 Overall Rates of Satisfaction Reported (Somewhat or Fully Satisfied)

Volunteer type Gender Length of service

Ongoing Episodic Up to one More than

Satisfaction with Overall volunteers volunteers Women Men year 2– 4 years 5 years

Satisfaction1_Satisfaction 96,3% 98,0% 92,8% 96,0% 97,4% 94,3% 95,8% 98,8%

with work (N = 219) (N = 150) (N = 69) (N = 177) (N = 39) (N = 88) (N = 48) (N = 80)
Satisfaction2_Appreciation 98,2% 99,3% 95,7% 100,0% 90,0%∗∗∗ 95,4% 100,0% 100,0%
of families (N = 218) (N = 148) (N = 70) (N = 175) (N = 40) (N = 87) (N = 48) (N = 79)

149
Satisfaction3_Appreciation 94,5% 94,6% 94,4% 96,0% 87,5%∗ 96,6% 93,8% 92,5%
of staff (N = 220) (N = 149) (N = 71) (N = 177) (N = 40) (N = 88) (N = 48) (N = 80)
Satisfaction4_Relationship 92,1% 93,9% 88,2% 94,8% 82,1%∗∗ 86,0% 93,6% 97,4%∗
with other volunteers (N = 215) (N = 147) (N = 68) (N = 173) (N = 39) (N = 86) (N = 47) (N = 78)
Satisfaction5_Training 79,1% 86,6% 59,3%∗∗∗ 83,6% 61,8%∗∗ 71,8% 82,5% 85,3%
and experience (N = 196) (N = 142) (N = 54) (N = 159) (N = 34) (N = 78) (N = 40) (N = 75)
Satisfaction6_Flexibility of 88,2% 94,4% 73,3% 88,6% 91,2% 80,0% 90,2% 96,0%∗∗
when I can volunteer (N = 204) (N = 144) (N = 60)∗∗∗ (N = 167) (N = 34) (N = 85) (N = 41) (N = 75)
∗ ∗∗ ∗∗∗
p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.
 150 D. Haski-Leventhal et al.

There were significant gender differences regarding satisfaction with

different aspects of their work, and in general, females were much more
satisfied than males. Female volunteers were more satisfied with the appre-
ciation from the families than men (100% vs. 90% respectively, p < .001); as
well as appreciation from staff (96.0% vs. 87.5%, p < .05); the relationship
with other volunteers (94.8% vs. 82.1%, p < .01) and the training received
(83.6% vs. 61.8%, p < .01). Length of service was correlated significantly with
only two aspects of satisfaction. Relationship with other volunteers (97.4%
of persons who volunteered for 5 years or more were somewhat or fully
satisfied vs. 86.0% of persons who volunteered up to a year, p < .05), and
level of flexibility (96.0% of persons who volunteered 5 years or more were
somewhat or fully satisfied vs. 90.2% of persons who volunteered 2–4 years,
and 80.0% of persons who volunteered up to a year, p < .01).
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

Table 3 examines are the benefits the volunteers gain from their work
in PRMH. Receiving acknowledgment and appreciation from the staff and
families was rated as the top benefit by all volunteers, but particularly by
ongoing volunteers, with no significant gender differences. Second highest
was a very practical benefit of free parking, particularly by ongoing volun-
teers and women. This was followed by volunteer appreciation events (with
31.3% of ongoing volunteers vs. only 4.6% of episodic volunteers, p < .001,
and no significant gender differences). Last, volunteers appreciated getting a
thank you note, with no significant differences by volunteer type or gender.
The benefits not important to volunteers were receiving a certificate of an
award (2.4%), or being recognized publicly at special events (3.4%). There
were no significant differences according to the length of service. Most vol-
unteers in their written comments suggested that the benefit of volunteering
was the opportunity to help others. This is captured in the following quote:

Volunteering is not completely selfless because there is such a feeling of

satisfaction and reward helping others. . . . I am proud to say I volunteer
at PRMH and to be a small part of such a large and wonderful group
of people who have experienced the PRMH in some way. What could
be more rewarding than helping someone feel safe, comfortable and at
home when they are away from home?

Given that nearly half the volunteers (44.9%) reported that they came to
volunteer at the PRMH by themselves, building social networks with other
volunteers is an important outcome for many. Indeed, a large percentage of
the volunteers (70.8%) reported to have a close or somewhat close relation-
ship with other volunteers. When asked to elaborate, one of the volunteers
wrote: “I have only been volunteering there a few times so far, but I really
like the people who work there and the volunteers. You get close quickly
with these people because we all have the same purpose.” This captures
the gist of many comments along the same lines of building social ties with
 Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

TABLE 3 Importance of Different Types of Benefits (Important or Very Important)

Volunteer type Gender Length of service

Ongoing Episodic Up to one More than

Benefits Overall volunteers volunteers Women Men year 2–4 years 5 years

Benefit1_award 2,4% 2,8% 1,5% 1,8% 5,1% 3,5% 2,3% 1,3%

(N = 209) (N = 142) (N = 67) (N = 166) (N = 39) (N = 85) (N = 44) (N = 77)
Benefit2_recognized 3,4% 2,8% 4,5% 3,0% 5,1% 5,9% 2,3% 1,3%
at an EVent publicly (N = 208) (N = 141) (N = 67) (N = 165) (N = 39) (N = 85) (N = 43) (N = 77)
Benefit3_Volunteer 23,0% 31,3% 4,6%∗∗∗ 24,1% 20,5% 14,6% 24,4% 30,8%
Appreciation events (N = 209) (N = 144) (N = 65) (N = 166) (N = 39) (N = 82) (N = 45) (N = 78)

151
Benefit4_thank you 17,8% 17,7% 17,9% 15,8% 25,6% 16,5% 16,7% 17,9%
note (N = 208) (N = 141) (N = 67) (N = 165) (N = 39) (N = 85) (N = 42) (N = 78)
Benefit5_free meal at 10,1% 13,4% 3,0%∗ 9,6% 13,2% 10,7% 11,1% 9,2%
PRMH (N = 208) (N = 142) (N = 66) (N = 166) (N = 38) (N = 84) (N = 45) (N = 76)
Benefit6_Free 36,8% 43,7% 22,7%∗∗ 42,5% 13,5%∗∗∗ 28,0% 40,9% 41,8%
parking (N = 201) (N = 135) (N = 66) (N = 166) (N = 37) (N = 75) (N = 44) (N = 79)
Benefit7_Reference 11,1% 13,8% 6,1% 11,5% 10,5% 15,5% 5,4% 9,2%
letter (N = 189) (N = 123) (N = 66) (N = 148) (N = 38) (N = 84) (N = 37) (N = 65)
Benefit8_Appreciation 59,0% 65,3% 45,7%∗∗ 60,3% 52,6% 57,5% 59,6% 60,0%
by staff and families (N = 217) (N = 147) (N = 70) (N = 174) (N = 38) (N = 87) (N = 47) (N = 80)
∗ ∗∗ ∗∗∗
p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.
 152 D. Haski-Leventhal et al.

like-minded people. The more years people volunteered, the closer relation-
ships they had with other volunteers. The majority (85.4%) of people who
volunteered for 5 years or more had closer or somewhat close social ties
with other volunteers, compared to 77.1% of people who volunteered for
2 to 4 years, and only 54.1% of those who volunteered for 1 year or less
( p < .001). These findings suggest an increase in social capital as an ongo-
ing benefit of volunteering. Ongoing volunteers (84.1%) had closer social
ties with other volunteers than episodic volunteers (44.6%, p < .001), which
is not surprising, given the infrequency of contact for the latter. There were
no significant differences according to gender.
The high levels of satisfaction among volunteers could explain why
one-third (33.2%) found volunteering to be more important than their leisure
activities, and only 7.2% found it less important (see Table 4). In comparison
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

to paid work, 37.3% found volunteering to be of less importance, but fewer

(17.3%) found their volunteering to be more important. More than one-half
(54.6%) found their volunteering in PRMH to be of equal importance to
spending time with family and friends. There were no significant differences
in the responses of ongoing and episodic volunteers or by gender. There
were no significant differences according to length of volunteering when
volunteering was compared to work or leisure, but differences were statis-
tically significant when compared to spending time with family and friends.
Although only 3.6% of people who volunteered up to a year found it more
important than time with family/friends, 14.0% of people who volunteered
2 to 4 years did, but then it dropped again to 2.9% among people who
volunteered for 5 years or longer ( p < .05).

Impact of Volunteers on the Organization

According to PRMH data, volunteers gave an estimated 31,798 hr in the
year of the study, which amounts to just over 15 FTEs paid staff. Volunteers
account for more FTEs than paid staff at the PRMH. Volunteers, one may
argue, are essential in providing many of the services offered by PRMH.
If volunteer labor were not available, many of the services targeted to
the families and children would not have been available for free or at
minimal cost.
To get an estimate of the value of the volunteer work, volunteers were
asked if someone had to be hired to do their volunteer work, how much
they thought that person should be paid. The perceived average hourly
value volunteers put on their work was $10.94. Ongoing volunteers placed
more value to their work than episodic volunteers, or $12.06 per hr vs. $8.10
(independent samples test, t = –3.407, df = 174, p = .001). Thus, according
to the volunteers, their value their financial contribution to the organization
at $347,870 per year. Using standard estimates for the value of volunteer hour
for 2007, the year of the study, which is $19.51 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
 Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

TABLE 4 Other Variables

Volunteer type Gender Length of service

Ongoing Episodic Up to one More than

Overall volunteers volunteers Women Men year 2–4 years 5 years

Close relationship with other 70,8% 84,1% 44,6%∗∗∗ 72,0% 66,7% 54,1% 77,1% 85,4%∗∗∗
volunteers (N = 219) (N = 145) (N = 74) (N = 175) (N = 39) (N = 85) (N = 48) (N = 82)
Donation1_donated money 50,5% 63,9% 22,5%∗∗∗ 50,6% 53,8% 24,4% 58,3% 75,0%∗∗∗
PRMH (N = 218) (N = 147) (N = 71) (N = 178) (N = 39) (N = 86) (N = 48) (N = 80)
Donation2_donated other than 56,7% 60,1% 49,3% 57,9% 52,6% 35,3% 70,8% 68,8%∗∗∗
money to PRMH (N = 217) (N = 148) (N = 69) (N = 178) (N = 38) (N = 85) (N = 48) (N = 80)

153
Importance_vs_Work_DUM: 17,3% 14,4% 22,1% 17,5% 23,5% 12,3% 24,3% 19,6%
(somewhat) more important (N = 179) (N = 111) (N = 68) (N = 137) (N = 34) (N = 81) (37) (N = 56)
Importance_vs_Leisure_DUM 33,2% 29,9% 39,7% 34,6% 30,8% 34,9% 25,0% 38,6%
(N = 202) (N = 134) (N = 68) (N = 153) (N = 39) (N = 83) (N = 44) (N = 70)
Importance_vs_Friends 5,5% 4,6% 7,4% 6,0% 5,3% 3,6% 14,0% 2,9%∗
Family_DUM (N = 199) (N = 131) (N = 68) (N = 151) (N = 38) (N = 83) (N = 43) (N = 68)
Note. Hourly value of volunteer labor. Independent Samples Test (T-test) estimation : By volunteer type: OV: $12.06 on average for OV, $8.10 on
average for EV (t = –3.407, df = 174, p = .001); By gender: $10.27 on average for males, $11.14 on average for females (T-test not significant).
Pearson’s correlation Length of service and hourly value volunteering = .119 (p < .01).
∗
p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
 154 D. Haski-Leventhal et al.

2010), the value to the organization of 31,798 hr is $620,379, nearly dou-

ble of the value volunteers perceive giving to the organization. There were
no significant differences according to gender. The Pearson’s correlation of
length of service and hourly value volunteering was .119 ( p < .01)
In addition to the indirect contribution to the PRMH through giving time,
volunteers also donated money. One-half of the PRMH volunteers (50.5%)
reported to have donated money to PRMH. Additionally, 56.7% had given
in-kind donations such as clothes, toys, and food. It is important to note
that episodic volunteers who came to prepare the meals also brought the
food ingredients with them, thus further contributing to PRMH. Ongoing vol-
unteers were more likely to donate money more than episodic volunteers
(63.9% vs. 22.5%; p < .001). Furthermore, long-term volunteers, 5 years and
more, were significantly more likely to donate (75%) than people who vol-
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

unteered 2 to 4 years (58.3%) or those who had volunteered for less than a
year (24.4%, p < .001). However, the 2 to 4 year volunteers donated more
in-kind donations (70.8%) than people who volunteered 5 years or more
(68.8%) or less than a year (35.3%, p < .001). There were no significant
differences in donating patterns among men and women, both for money
or in-kind donations. Nor were there any significant differences among dif-
ferent types of volunteers, ongoing or episodic volunteers regarding in-kind
donations.
These findings have some limitations. They are based on a single case
study, so the ability to generalize results to other types of organizations is
limited. There is a need for further research on the impacts of different kinds
of volunteer services in different types of organizations. The study relied on
the existing guest survey with a few modifications, and for reasons of privacy
and respect for their vulnerability, complete socio-economic personal data
was not obtained. This created a limitation in carrying out a multivariate
analysis to control for relationships among independent variables. Further
research should try using different populations where data gathering may
not invade privacy or raise issues of vulnerability. In spite of these limita-
tions, this is the first study of the multidimensional impact of volunteerism
and the findings offer certain insights and suggest fruitful paths for future
research on the multilevel impact of volunteers.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

PRMH represents a home away from home. The voluntary work takes place
in a highly domestic and intimate atmosphere and is in sharp contrast to the
rather sterile and stressful clinical environment of hospitals where the fami-
lies spend most of their time. The anguish experienced by families dealing
with their seriously ill children may explain the strong impact volunteering
has on both the clients and the volunteers. The personal contact with helpful
 What Money Cannot Buy 155

volunteers in such a situation may be more likely to generate positive feel-

ings toward the organization, the volunteers, and their services—as reflected
in the remarkably high levels of satisfaction among the clients in our sample.
PRMH was able to build a program to take advantage of the new trend in
volunteering whereby individuals choose to volunteer for very short times
and often on a very ad hoc basis. Using hundreds of available episodic
volunteers to its advantage, PRMH was able to engage them creatively in
meeting a critical need for PRMH clients.
The findings show that volunteers have an extremely positive impact
on the guest families in three aspects: tangible impact (providing services),
attitudes (satisfaction and perceived altruism), and future behavior (willing-
ness to volunteer). Volunteers have an important tangible impact on the
clients’ well-being by providing highly valued services; such as reception,
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

transportation, activities, and meals. The guests were not only highly sat-
isfied with the services, but also it was important for them to know that
volunteers provided the services. They expressed a certain satisfaction in
knowing there is a community of caring individuals who were willing to
come to PRMH and volunteer to help strangers with sick children. The pos-
itive attitudes held toward volunteers may have had an impact toward the
overall satisfaction the guests had with PRMH. Furthermore, this satisfaction
also translated into many family members willingness to receive information
on how to help PRMH, and for some, particularly first time visitors, greater
willingness to volunteer, thereby increasing the community of caring indi-
viduals. This need to reciprocate is common among volunteers’ reasons for
volunteering (Musick & Wilson, 2008). Families who were at PRMH on a
second or third visit were less likely to volunteer in the future; this may be
the result of having more seriously ill children who required frequent visits
to the hospital and, thus, more care and attention, leaving them less time
to reciprocate by volunteering. It seems that the longer the guests used the
PRMH services, the higher their appreciation of the volunteers. Not only did
they know better which services were provided by the volunteers, but they
also were more satisfied with the volunteers and less likely to report any
negative interactions.
Second, volunteering was also found to have a positive impact on the
volunteers. From the volunteers’ perspective, although their tasks are rela-
tively easy and often of a short-term nature, the fact that they do these tasks
for people in such desperate need may make them feel good about them-
selves through the warm glow of giving. By providing these basic services,
the volunteers are able to offer direct relief to families, through personal
contact and everyday interaction. This renders their efforts into immedi-
ate gratifying experiences, and volunteers are appreciated, which, in turn,
makes them satisfied and happy. Indeed, this accords well with the theo-
retical explanation that doing something worthwhile is augmented through
the positional advantage the volunteer enjoys, particularly in comparison to
 156 D. Haski-Leventhal et al.

the health of one’s own children which is very likely better than that of the
family one is helping. A volunteer feels blessed, as compared to the fami-
lies at PRMH, thereby augmenting feelings of satisfaction among volunteers
(Handy & Mook, forthcoming). These findings have similarities with a study
conducted by Ronel et al. (2009) on volunteers who help at-risk youth. The
greater the need of the client, the greater the impact of the volunteers was
on both the clients and on their level of satisfaction and feeling of worth.
The personal contact and the need to develop trust result in changing clients’
behavior and attitudes.
The results indicate that volunteers in PRMH, especially women, most
valued intrinsic benefits such as being acknowledged and appreciated, fol-
lowed by tangible benefits such as parking, attending special events, and
thank you notes. Comments offered by respondents reflected the intrin-
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

sic motivations that volunteers felt knowing they were helping others. Not
surprisingly, the tangible benefit of parking was highly rated, as parking
around the PRMH is scarce. However, rather than a benefit, a lack of parking
should be considered a barrier to volunteering that volunteers need to over-
come. It is interesting that volunteers were not highly satisfied with training
they received, particularly the episodic volunteers. Although episodic volun-
teers only come occasionally, they, too, seek some guidance. The fact that
only 14% of them received any training, can explain their low satisfaction.
Indeed, studies show that formal training is very important to volunteers
and may decrease anxiety and increase performance (Haski-Leventhal &
Bargal, 2008).
Finally, as expected, the services provided by volunteers had a positive
impact on the organization. It allowed PRMH to provide its services to the
eligible families at minimal prices or for free because volunteers provided
labor and in-kind donations needed for the programs. According to the vol-
unteers, their labor to PRMH is worth is more than over $300,000 a year, and
this value would be double if measured using official volunteer hourly value
estimates. Volunteers also gave financial and in-kind donations to PRMH.
Volunteers, moreover, were goodwill ambassadors for the organization and
sent positive signals to donors and others on the trustworthiness of PRMH.
PRMH thus received human, in-kind, and financial resources, as well as
publicity that aided in fundraising in the community. Using episodic vol-
unteers increases the number of individuals who interact with PRMH. This,
alone, increases the number of goodwill ambassadors from PRMH, which
enhances the word-of-mouth type marketing for PRMH. This is essential to
its legitimacy and ability to attract resources. The positive impact of volun-
teers on the clients’ inclination to volunteer may facilitate the organization’s
recruitment efforts to mobilize future volunteers and possible donations.
Furthermore, the results confirm that a kind of perceived altruism exists for
clients in their views of volunteers. Volunteers bring this unique value to
organizations and clients are not indifferent towards the services received
 What Money Cannot Buy 157

from volunteers in comparison to paid workers. Regardless of the obvious

economic value of their services, volunteer presence adds to the distinctive-
ness of nonprofits, and the strengthening of a community of reciprocity and
concern. Clients recognize the unique ethos that caring volunteers give, and
their word-of-mouth publicity contributes to the organization’s legitimacy.
Thus, volunteers have a unique contribution, far beyond the reduction in
organizational costs. Their contribution is valued on at least the three pri-
mary agents involved: clients, the institution, and the volunteers themselves.
They help create a better image of the organization and the community.
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

REFERENCES

Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Keating, T. (2000). When less may be more: A 2-year longi-
tudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program requiring minimal training.
Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 494–519.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Volunteering in the United States, 2009 (US Dept.
of Labor USDL-10-0097). Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/
volun.nr0.htm
Chinman, M. J., & Wandersman, A. (1999). The benefits and costs of volunteering
in community organizations: Review and practical implications. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 46–64.
Cnaan, R. A., & Amrofell, L. (1994). Mapping volunteer activity. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(4), 335–351.
Cnaan, R. A., & Goldberg-Glen, R. S. (1991). Measuring motivation to volunteer in
human services. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(3), 269–284.
Edgar, L., Remmer, J., Roserbger, Z., & Rapkin, B. (1996). An oncology volunteer
support organization: The benefits and fit within the health care system. Psycho-
oncology, 5, 331–341.
Grossman J. D., & Tierney, J. P. (1998). Does mentoring work? An impact study of
the big brothers big sisters program. Evaluation Review, 22, 403–426.
Handy, F., & Brudney, J. (2007). When to use volunteer labor resources? An orga-
nizational analysis for nonprofit management. Vrijwillige Inzet Onderzocht, 4,
91–100.
Handy, F., & Mook, L. (2010). Volunteering and volunteers: Benefit-cost analy-
sis. Research in Social Work Practice. Retrieved from http://rsw.sagepub.com/
content/early/2010/11/01/1049731510386625.full.pdf+html
Handy, F., & Srinivasan, N. (2004). Valuing volunteers: An economic evaluation
of the net benefits of hospital volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 33, 28–54.
Handy, F., & N. Srinivasan. (2005). The demand for volunteer labor: A study of
hospital volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 34(4), 491–509.
Haski-Leventhal, D., & Bargal, D. (2008). The volunteering stages and transitions
model: Organizational socialization of volunteers. Human Relations, 61(1),
67–102.
 158 D. Haski-Leventhal et al.

Haski-Leventhal, D., & Cnaan, R. A. (2009). Group processes and volunteering:

Enhancing recruitment and retention. Administration in Social Work, 33, 1–20.
Hustinx, L., Haski-Leventhal, D., & Handy, F. (2008). One of a kind? Comparing
episodic and regular volunteers at the Philadelphia Ronald McDonald House.
IJOVA: International Journal of Volunteer Administration, 25(3), 50–66.
Hustinx, L., & Lammertyn, F. (2003). Collective and reflexive styles of volunteering:
A sociological modernization perspective. Voluntas, 14(2), 167–187.
Independent Sector. (2001). Giving and volunteering in the United States (2001).
Retrieved July 2, 2010 from http://www.cpanda.org/pdfs/gv/GV01Report.pdf.
Institute for Volunteering Research. (2008). Valuing time and money: The real and
perceived value of volunteering and giving. London, England: Author.
MacNeela, P. (n.d.). Individuals and organizations: An exploration of the volun-
teering process in health and social care groups. Final Report to the Third
Sector Research Program, Royal Irish Academy. Retrieved from http://www.
Downloaded by [Universidad del Rosario] at 07:33 02 March 2016

ria.ie/committees/pdfs/tsrp/macneela.pdf.
McDonald, C., & Warburton, J. (2003). Stability and change in nonprofit organiza-
tions: The volunteer contribution. Voluntas, 14, 381–399.
Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.
Philadelphia Ronald McDonald House. (2009). Volunteer. Retrieved from
http://www.philarmh.org/volunteer
Ronald McDonald House Charities. (2009). History of Ronald McDonald House
charities. Retrieved from http://www.rmhc.com/who-we-are/our-history/
Ronel, N., Haski-Leventhal, D., Ben-David, B. & York, A. (2009). Perceived
altruism—A neglected factor in intervention and research. International Journal
of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 53, 191–210.
Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, S. W. (2004). Global civil society: Dimensions of the
nonprofit sector (Volume 2). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
Salamon, L. M., Sokolowski, S. W., & List, R. (2003). Global civil society: An overview.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies.
Seligman, M. E. P., Parks, A. C., & Steen, T. (2004). A balanced psychology and a
full life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 359, 1379–1381.
Vitner, G., Shalom, V., & Yodfat, A. (2005). Productivity of voluntary organizations:
The case of Counselling Services for the Elderly (CSE) of the National Insurance
Institute (NII) in Israel. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18,
447– 462.
Wilson, J., & Musick M. A. (2000). The effects of volunteering on the volunteer. Law
and Contemporary Problems, 62, 141–168.