Volunter Retention in the Nonprofit Sector

Running Header: VOLUNTEER RETENTION IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR 1
Understanding the Impact of Volunteer Management Practices on Volunteer
Retention within the Nonprofit Sector
Ashley N. Trick
Human Services and Social Justice Program
Columbian College of Arts and Sciences
The George Washington University

VOLUNTEER RETENTION IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR 2

Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................3

Chapter
1:
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................4

Problem ...................................................................................................................................................................................................5

Purpose
Statement .............................................................................................................................................................................6

Research
Questions............................................................................................................................................................................7

Theoretical
Foundation....................................................................................................................................................................8

Potential
Significance
of
the
Study ..............................................................................................................................................9

Subjectivity
Statement......................................................................................................................................................................9

Chapter
2:
Literature
Review..................................................................................................................................... 12

The
Value
of
Volunteer
Retention.............................................................................................................................................12

Barriers
to
Volunteer
Retention................................................................................................................................................17

Volunteer
Management
Capacity ..............................................................................................................................................20

Impact
of
Best
Practices
in
Volunteer
Management.........................................................................................................23

Gaps........................................................................................................................................................................................................27

Chapter
3:
Methodology............................................................................................................................................... 29

Research
Method..............................................................................................................................................................................29

Procedures ..........................................................................................................................................................................................30

Study
Participants............................................................................................................................................................................33

Expert
Consultation.........................................................................................................................................................................38

Data
Analysis......................................................................................................................................................................................40

Chapter
4:
Findings........................................................................................................................................................ 42

Eight
Best
Practices:
Where
Do
Organizations
Stand?.....................................................................................................42

Volunteer
Coordinator
Impact ...................................................................................................................................................46

Organizational
Factors:
What
Impacts
Volunteer
Management
Practices?............................................................48

Purpose.................................................................................................................................................................................................51

Funding.................................................................................................................................................................................................53

Supervision .........................................................................................................................................................................................55

Implications
of
Language..............................................................................................................................................................56

Recognition.........................................................................................................................................................................................58

Chapter
5:
Discussion
and
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 60

Impact
of
Volunteer
Management
Practices ........................................................................................................................60

Organizational
Factors
and
Under-‐Utilized
Practices......................................................................................................63

Limitations ..........................................................................................................................................................................................65

Implications........................................................................................................................................................................................66

Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................................................................69

References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 71

Appendix
A:
8
Practices
in
Volunteer
Management ........................................................................................... 75

Appendix
B:
Request
for
Participation ................................................................................................................... 76

Appendix
C:
Volunteer
Management
Practices
Survey ..................................................................................... 77

Appendix
D:
Interview
Protocal................................................................................................................................ 88

Appendix
E:
Sample
Interview
Transcript............................................................................................................. 90


Abstract

Volunteer retention, defined as the proportion of volunteers who return the next year to
volunteer with the same organization, has steadily remained a problem in the nonprofit sector.
Data shows that approximately one third of volunteers drop out of service each year. To address
volunteer retention, focus is needed on the process of volunteer management in an effort to
effectively recruit, satisfy, and retain volunteers within the nonprofit sector. However, little
research has been able to identify the impact of these practices. The purpose of this study is to
demonstrate how the implementation of best practices for volunteer management affects
volunteer retention. In order to address this purpose, a mixed methods approach was designed.
First, 294 nonprofit organizations around the U.S. completed a self-audit survey. Data analysis
identified trends within current volunteer management practices. To explore the discovered
trends, six survey respondents whose organizations had a volunteer coordinator, participated in
qualitative interviews. These interviews were then coded for various themes in the data. Findings
revealed themes relating to the beneficial role of the volunteer coordinator and how different
organizational factors impact a nonprofit’s ability to manage volunteers. Findings also highlight
that nonprofits struggle with two primary best practices (1) Strategic Planning with the Board of
Directors and (2) Measuring Outcomes and Evaluating the Process. Such results can be utilized
to not only highlight the significance of best practices in the context of volunteer retention, but to
further develop these best practices to better serve the diverse nonprofit field.


Chapter 1: Introduction
The rate of growth within the nonprofit sector has steadily increased both in size and
financial impact for more than a decade (Urban Institute, 2012). In the last ten years, nonprofits
have surpassed the growth rates of both the business and government sectors and increased
roughly 25 percent from 1,259,764 million to 1,574,674 million nonprofit organizations
presently (2012). Today, more than 64.5 million Americans in the U.S., or roughly 27 percent,
volunteer through nonprofit organizations and another five million Americans find ways to help
outside any formal group (Volunteering in America, 2007).
Volunteers demonstrate a strong commitment to the nation, offering almost 7.7 billion
hours of service to their communities in 2013 (Corporation for National and Community Service
[CNCS], 2013). Using the Independent Sector’s estimate of the average value of a volunteer
hour, $22.55, the average estimated value of volunteer service in the U.S. in 2013 was
approximately $175 billion (CNCS, 2013). Currently, the nonprofit sector contributes products
and services that add approximately $805 billion to the nation’s gross domestic product and also
serves as a major employer accounting for 10 percent of jobs in the U.S. in 2009 (Urban
Institute, 2012). These figures help to explain how integral nonprofits, and their volunteers, can
be to improve lives, strengthen communities, foster civic engagement, and enhance the overall
functioning of the nation’s economy.
While most nonprofit organizations rely on volunteers in varying degrees for the services
they provide, some nonprofits view the recruitment and retention of volunteers to be more work
than they are worth (Volunteering in America, 2007). Since 1990, the Corporation for National
and Community Service, henceforth called CNCS, has been one of the largest contributors to and
leaders in volunteer management best practices within the nonprofit sector. The Corporation has


concluded, “to grow and adapt in today’s continuously changing society, a nonprofit
organization must recognize the value and contribution of both its paid staff and volunteers”
(CNCS, 2007, p. 2). Simply recruiting large numbers of volunteers, however, does not
necessarily translate into success for the nonprofit sector or the community at large (Leete,
2006). Successful results are achieved when an organization is able to support, mobilize, and
manage its volunteer resources for the greatest possible impact on a problem or need (Leete,
2006).
Despite volunteers serving as one of the most powerful and plentiful resources of all,
CNCS has continued to find that volunteers receive insufficient attention from nonprofit
leadership as volunteers are seen as more “disposable” than paid staff (Ellis, 2003). The
significant role of volunteers in the nonprofit sector draws attention to whether or not
organizations are finding the right match between volunteer skills and organizational needs.
Therefore, evaluating volunteer management capacity within the nonprofit sector is necessary.
Problem
Volunteer retention, defined as the proportion of first time volunteers who also perform
volunteer service in the following year, suffers a loss of about one third of volunteers each year
(CNCS, 2013). According to the most recent data, 35 percent of 2013 volunteers, or 22.8 million
people overall, did not volunteer again in 2013; this is an increased volunteer attrition rate of
500,000 volunteers between 2012 and 2013 across the country (Volunteering in America, 2013).
The high turnover rates for volunteers hinders the productivity of nonprofit organizations as they
focus on replacing volunteers rather than maximizing impact.
This issue is not a recent phenomenon. In fact, nearly a decade ago, of the 61.2 million
citizens who volunteered their time in 2006, 21.7 million of the same group did not donate time


to any charitable cause the following year (Eisner, Grimm, Maynard, & Washburn, 2009). These
numbers represent a loss of one-third of the nation’s volunteers, reflecting a $38 billion worth of
lost labor (Eisner et al., 2009). These figures suggest a relatively weak and inconsistent set of
volunteer management practices within the nonprofit sector. This is evidenced by the
inconsistent language used in describing practices, and furthermore, the lack of formal evaluation
in analyzing these practices (Ellis, 2010). In fact, there is not even a universal understanding of
what a “volunteer” is because there is no uniform definition (Ellis, 2010). In order to analyze
why volunteer retention is suffering, an assessment of how, and to what extent nonprofits are
currently observing volunteer management best practices is needed.
Furthermore, the last study on volunteer management capacity in America’s nonprofits
was conducted over a decade ago in Fall 2003 (Urban Institute, 2004). While the study,
Volunteer Management Capacity in America’s Charities and Congregations, was beneficial in
producing a strong platform for future research, the nonprofit sector has undergone continuous
growth as new and updated resources have gone into volunteer management capacity in the last
ten years since the study was conducted. Given this dated research, an updated volunteer
management capacity study is needed in order to analyze if it continues to wane, and if so, why
volunteer retention is waning.
Purpose Statement
The focus of this research sought to address current issues facing the nonprofit sector by
examining volunteer retention, inconsistent practices, and the lack of current, up-to-date data. As
volunteer management practices are intimately connected to volunteer retention, it is important
to understand how, and to what extent, nonprofits are effectively exercising volunteer
management best practices. Such measures can help mitigate volunteer attrition rates. Therefore,


a revised analysis on volunteer management that draws on representative samples of current
nonprofits was needed in order to get a better understanding of the current state of volunteer
management capacity in America. When nonprofits are aware of what factors prohibit an
organization from effectively managing volunteers, and what practices best strengthen retention,
nonprofits can work to address issue areas within their organization to enhance volunteer
retention.
This research also served to address the outdated findings on volunteer management
capacity, to examine how organizations can best utilize their volunteers, and to explore current
trends within the nonprofit sector. Such efforts could go a long way in maximizing volunteer
impact and retention. Ultimately, the purpose of this mixed methods study was to describe and
understand how, and to what extent, volunteer management practices impact volunteer retention.
Research Questions
This study sought to answer the following primary research question:
• How does the implementation of volunteer management best practices affect
volunteer retention?
By addressing the above question, I also hoped to answer the following research questions:
• How do the organizational factors of a nonprofit impact their best practices?
• Why are certain best practices under-utilized within the nonprofit sector?
Through this study, the findings were analyzed to not only identify what volunteer management
practices are being under-utilized within the nonprofit sector, but also how these practices impact
volunteer retention.
In order to answer these questions, this study used a survey distributed to all the Catholic
Volunteer Network, henceforth called CVN, partner programs. CVN partner programs are spread


across the country and have a wide array of organizational budgets, populations served, and
religious affiliations. The survey included an audit of the eight best practices in volunteer
management as outlined by CNCS in 2007 (see Appendix A for list of standards). Findings were
used in identifying to what extent nonprofits within this sample are currently executing volunteer
management best practices.
This study also incorporated interviews of a stratified sample of survey respondents with
volunteer coordinators. These interviews focused on how these coordinators viewed current
volunteer management trends in their respective organizations. By coding these interview for
recurring themes, this study tried to address the gap in the research pertaining to current
volunteer management capacity in the nonprofit sector relative to CVN partner programs.
Theoretical Foundation
The CNCS, a federal agency dedicated to providing vital leadership, training,
coordination, and resources in order to make the nonprofit sector more effective, published eight
best practices in volunteer management in 2007. For the sake of my research, the assessment of
volunteer management practices within the nonprofit sector focused on these eight standards.
Currently, there is no consistent or systematic resource to audit best practices in volunteer
management within U.S. nonprofits. An audit was created using the Canadian Code for
Volunteer Involvement as a framework to understand how current nonprofit organizations,
specifically CVN partner programs, actually implement the eight best practices in volunteer
management, . Survey questions were adapted from Volunteer Canada’s “The Canadian Code for
Volunteer Involvement: An Audit Tool” that integrates a self-audit of 60 volunteer management
practices using a scale of “currently in place to a large degree”, “currently in place to some
degree”, “not currently being done”, or “not applicable/not relevant”.


Potential Significance of the Study
This study explored why, and to what extent, volunteer retention is suffering in
America’s nonprofits. Though many studies have aimed to understand volunteer management
practices in the nonprofit sector, few have distinguished nonprofits apart from one another based
off of their unique attributes (Boezeman et al., 2014; Manetti et al., 2014; Paco et al., 2013).
These attributes can include, but are not limited to: organizational budgets, number of paid staff
members, religious affiliation, and populations served. As different organizational attributes can
impact an organization’s volunteer management capacity, it becomes exceedingly important to
understand how organizations can combat poor volunteer retention rates within their own means
(Haski-Leventhal & Meijs, 2011). Furthermore, additional studies have found that many
nonprofits are either not aware that volunteer retention is suffering or they do not understand the
financial impact within the sector (Ellis, 2003; Salamon & Spence, 2009).
As the nonprofit sector becomes increasingly diverse, it is important to gain an
understanding of how volunteers are being managed so that nonprofit organizations can
strengthen volunteer retention and learn how to offer the most effective training, resources, etc.,
to all of their volunteers (Leete, 2006). This study has the potential to be used for further
development of nonprofit volunteer management audits and can help organizations address issue
areas or weaknesses within their volunteer management to strengthen volunteer retention.
Finally, this research served to not only highlight how and why volunteer retention is a concern,
but also the implications and possible solutions to address it.
Subjectivity Statement
As a graduating senior at The George Washington University majoring in Human
Services and Social Justice, I have had the opportunity to consistently engage within the DC


nonprofit sector through service-learning and internships throughout my undergraduate career.
Given this, I come into this research with my own experiences and biases towards how to
effectively retain and manage volunteers within the nonprofit sector. Having had the opportunity
to work intimately with dozens of nonprofits, I have seen first hand the successes and failures of
volunteer management within the sector. These experiences may help me gain a richer, more
nuanced understanding of what is happening within these organizations and can help me better
indentify and interpret findings.
It is also important to note that this research is an extension of an undergraduate research
award I received the summer of my junior year. I was working in conjunction with Karyn
Cassella, the AmeriCorps coordinator of CVN. With this research award, I designed an audit that
assessed the need for AmeriCorps volunteer coordinators in CVN partner programs. Because of
my personal experiences and the original scope of this research, I do bring my own bias as to
what impacts volunteer retention within the nonprofit sector. Despite these concerns, I worked
diligently to ensure that this research is protected from individual bias. My faculty advisor for the
undergraduate award reviewed and edited my survey before distribution and my thesis advisor
and peer-evaluator coded parts of different interview transcripts to draw out new interpretations
that I may not have found on my own. With these measures in place, I believe that this study
accurately portrays the sampled nonprofit organizations as they are, and not only as I see them.
Ultimately, as DC is home to over 7,000 nonprofits with over 200,000 positions within
them, this research is deeply important to me as an upcoming graduate, ready to dedicate her life
to the nonprofit sector within the DC Metropolitan area. I believe that this research will be an
invaluable tool to help better understand what impacts volunteer retention in order to get one step
closer to utilizing volunteers to their fullest capacity.


In the upcoming chapters, I will outline this work to ensure the credibility and
trustworthiness of my research. This will be done with (a) a literature review to address the
existing research and relevance of my study; (b) an outline of the methodology and justifications
for their use; (c) a summary of key findings; and (d) a discussion and conclusion that connects
the findings with literature, while recognizing the implications for future research and practice.


Chapter 2: Literature Review
In order to better understand how, and to what extent, volunteer retention is impacted by
volunteer management best practices within the nonprofit sector, a literature review is needed to
provide background information and context. I will do this by (a) addressing the value of
volunteer retention within the nonprofit sector; (b) exploring the barriers that make it difficult to
retain volunteers; (c) analyzing key findings from the latest volunteer management capacity
study; (d) exploring the impact that current best practices have on volunteer retention; (e) and
identifying the gaps within this research.
The Value of Volunteer Retention
Nonprofits often have unlimited demands with very limited resources. This challenge
makes working efficiently and utilizing existing resources vitally important in maximizing
impact—specifically within volunteer management (Leete, 2006). Many nonprofits lack the
funds to effectively carry out their missions, which creates difficult decisions about where to cut
corners to make ends meet (Hager & Brudney, 2004). Such functions as “accounting,
fundraising, and service delivery are judged as essential to the organization’s operations, whereas
volunteer management may be viewed as incidental to operations. Nonprofits employ
accountants and fundraisers before they employ someone to manage volunteers” (Liao-Troth,
2008, p. 9). In other words, a lack of funding can often impact an organization’s ability to
allocate resources to volunteer management.
With this financial understanding, it comes as no surprise that many U.S. nonprofits
possess rudimentary and underdeveloped volunteer management structures (Hager & Bradley,
2004). The collection of these management structures are comprised of both professional staff
and the adoption of a range of management practices collectively referred to as volunteer


management capacity (Urban Institute, 2004). A nonprofit’s ability to effectively manage
volunteers is related to a host of outcomes, including the productivity, happiness, and success of
volunteers (Liao-Troth, 2008). For this reason, volunteer management capacity and volunteer
retention are directly and intimately connected; an organization’s volunteer management
capacity directly impacts their ability to retain volunteers over time (Hager & Bradley, 2004).
For some nonprofits, especially those that engage volunteers in episodic or short-term
projects, volunteer retention may not be the highest priority. However, even in these cases, most
nonprofits would prefer having their volunteers start new projects as assignments are completed
(Liao-Troth, 2008). Having current volunteers consistently engage in projects is important
largely because recruiting volunteers is an extensive and expensive job; therefore nonprofits
generally attempt to maximize their retention (Grigoryan, 2002). The following sections serve to
explain the significance of volunteer retention within the nonprofit by assessing how strong
volunteer retention can help volunteers become loyal financial donors, alleviate executive
director burnout, and enlist volunteers as “spokespersons” to recruit future volunteers.
Furthermore, this section will close by explaining how resources are “wasted” when
organizations have low levels of volunteer retention.
Financial donors. Community members that volunteer their time tend to donate more
money to nonprofits than those who do not (Ellis, 2003). Moreover, high levels of volunteer
retention within an organization may lead to higher levels of monetary donations as “evidence
points to a new generation of donors who value volunteer involvement prior to making a
financial gift” (DeVos, 2014, p.2). Additional studies have shown that annual donors can lose
interest in the organization over time, but sharing their time and talent by volunteering within the
organization can help to revitalize their commitment (Vesterlund, 2006).


Philanthropic endeavors within the nonprofit sector do not rest on the shoulders of large
business titans, but are instead the shared responsibility of everyday American citizens. Of the
$286.91 billion dollars donated to support causes in the United States in 2010, $211.77 billion of
these donations came from individuals (Giving USA, 2010). The Frey Chair for Family
Philanthropy program conducted a study on the next generation of donors and described the
strong correlation between volunteers and donors saying, “Giving without significant, hands-on
engagement feels like a hollow investment with little assurance of impact. They want to develop
close relationships with the organizations they support…all in order to solve problems together
with those whom they [financially] support” (#nextgendonors, 2013). The study was conducted
in 2012 and was based on first-of-its kind data from 310 online surveys and 30 in-depth
interviews. The report focused on the next generations of major donors, aged 21 to 40. This
research shows the emphasis financial donors place on having a personal connection with the
organization to which they donate; by retaining volunteers, nonprofits sustain relationships that
leads to more financial support.
Alleviating burnout. Burnout is described by researchers as the chronic pattern of
negative affective responses that can result in reduced job satisfaction, decreased productivity,
increased absenteeism, or heightened turnover (Maslach & Schaufeli, 2001). Burnout is said to
be higher in individuals that are employed in human services professions because such positions
often require a large degree of emotional and physical investment (Scott, 2011). As professionals
in the nonprofit sector are constantly addressing the issues of others, they sometimes fail to
address their own issues of health and wellbeing (CNCS, 2014). While professionals in the field
are capable of self care, the sensitive nature of working with marginalized communities can put


self care on the “back burner” until these professionals are no longer able to make such a
commitment due to emotional, physical, and mental exhaustion (Maslach et al., 2001).
Even under ideal circumstances, serving as a professional in the nonprofit sector is a
challenge. For example, executive directors are expected to have programmatic expertise,
fundraising skills, and financial insight. While advocating tirelessly for a cause, executive
directors must also manage an organization’s internal operations, implement strategic plans, and
support and work in partnership with the board of directors. They accomplish these
responsibilities while also representing the organization to the public (Scott, 2011). The report
Daring to Lead 2011 found that the majority of nonprofit executive directors are planning to
leave their jobs within the next five years because of extreme workload placed on executive
directors. Of the survey respondents, 7 percent had given notice of leave and 67 percent
anticipated leaving within five years. However, these rates may be because slightly less than half
of respondents were approaching retirement age. Nonetheless, retention rates can be telling of
the successes, or weaknesses, within an organization. Of the executives surveyed, almost half
said their organizations had operating reserves of less than three months of expenses, 45 percent
said their boards had not reviewed their performance within the past year, and 80 percent felt like
they had inadequate resources to execute their position effectively (Scott, 2011). Furthermore,
the report concluded that many professionals within nonprofits experience high burnout and
turnover due to a lack of sound management practices.
However, researcher Kathleen Herbert (2004) found that if nonprofits were able to devote
additional resources to volunteer retention, they could consequently alleviate paid staff burnout.
In other words, having consistent and reliable volunteers that hold established roles within an
organization can offset the overworked professional paid staff (Maslach & Schaufeli, 2001). At


the same time, some volunteers believe that paid staff should do the work they do. Therefore,
nonprofits must be careful to balance the needs of their organization and the needs of their
volunteers (Hager & Brudney, 2004). Nevertheless, volunteers offer a potential redistribution of
work. Therefore, retaining and strengthening volunteers through proper communication,
planning, and delegation help to sustain an organization rather than depleting it (Scott, 2011). By
enhancing volunteer retention, organizations are not only fostering higher levels of retention
amongst paid staff members, but also mitigating burnout (Fisher & Cole, 1993).
Becoming spokespersons. Nonprofits whose volunteers recruit other volunteers are
better equipped and more likely to retain volunteers (Hager & Brudney, 2004). Having
volunteers serve as spokespersons for the organization implies a higher level of trust and
confidence in volunteers. Furthermore, having volunteers represent their nonprofit can be a
testimony to its positive organizational culture and instills confidence that the nonprofit is able to
provide a meaningful and worthwhile experience for volunteers (McCurley & Lynch, 2010). In
this sense, nonprofits are often able to receive free recruitment through word of mouth from the
volunteers they are currently retaining (Hager & Brudney, 2004).
Wasted resources. One in four Americans volunteer each year and their collective 7.7
billion hours of service is estimated to be worth $175 billion (CNCS, 2013). With wide and
growing participation across all states and generations, this reflects a considerable national
resource in sustaining a civil society. However, as briefly addressed in the previous chapter,
much of this resource is “wasted” when nonprofits are ill equipped to use volunteers effectively
(Volunteering in America, 2007). In fact, approximately one-third of the nation’s volunteers do
not return to perform any service the following year, reflecting approximately $38 billion dollars
worth of lost labor each year that could have been leveraged to meet community needs (Eisner et


al., 2009). Although nonprofits can reasonably expect some level of volunteer attrition, losing
more than one out of three volunteers from one year to the next is a problem (Eisner et al., 2009).
While a high level of volunteer retention has been shown to benefit many nonprofits as
highlighted above, the sector faces both external and internal obstacles in retaining their
volunteers (Liao-Troth, 2008). If nonprofits are under financial strain, they have less time,
energy, and money to spend on retaining volunteers, These barriers to strong volunteer retention
are explored in more detail in the following section.
Barriers to Volunteer Retention

While high levels of volunteer retention have countless benefits within the sector, there
are various external and internal factors that prevent nonprofits from retaining volunteers. These
factors not only impact retention, but also the overall functioning of volunteer management
(Liao-Troth, 2008). The following sections will explore the roles that insufficient allocation,
imbalanced needs, and supervision can have in hindering an organization’s ability to retain their
volunteers.
Suffering economy. Fiscal stress is defined as the inability of an entity to generate
enough revenues within the current fiscal period to meet its expenditures (Michigan Nonprofit
Association [MNA], 2011). The recent 2008 economic crisis subjected America’s nonprofit
organizations to considerable fiscal stress (Salamon & Spence, 2009). A recent CNCS study
revealed that 80 percent of responding organizations experienced some level of fiscal stress
between September 2008 and March 2009. In response, nearly a quarter of nonprofits reported
decreasing staff hours, a third reported eliminating staff positions, and 40 percent reported
postponing the filling of new positions (CNCS, 2009). A similar study by the Nonprofit Finance
Fund surveyed 6,500 mid-sized nonprofits throughout the United States and found 52 percent of


respondents were expecting the recession to have a long term (two or more years) or permanent
negative financial impact on their nonprofits. Furthermore, 31 percent of these organizations did
not have enough operating cash to cover more than one month of expenses (NFF, 2012).
Insufficient allocation. While nonprofits certainly cannot control external factors such as
a recession, their internal responses can often further impact volunteer retention. For example,
organizations that do not view volunteers as necessary for organization functionality have lower
rates of retention (Hager & Brudney, 2004). Conversely, the greater the number of benefits
nonprofits feel they gain from volunteer involvement, the higher their rate of volunteer retention
(Hager & Brudney, 2004). Despite the deep cut in staff described in the aforementioned CNCS
study, nearly three-fourths of organizations reported they had maintained or increased the
number of people their organization served (Salamon & Spence, 2009). While that may seem
impossible due to budget restraints, the study revealed that one out of every three organizations
reported increasing their reliance on volunteers to cope with the economic downturn.
Furthermore, organizations that increased their reliance on volunteers were 34 percent more
likely to report being “somewhat” or “very” financially successful as of March 2009 than
organizations that did not increase their reliance on volunteers (Salamon & Spence, 2009).
In other words, while a suffering economy can make volunteers less of a priority than
other situations within an organization, “volunteers provide an important unpaid workforce in
many countries of the world and contribute significantly to sectors as diverse as health, welfare,
arts and environment. Volunteers are vital to social services, particularly when organizations are
equipped to manage them effectively” (Stirling, Kilpatrick, & Orpin, 2011, p. 332). In short,
effectively managing volunteers has been proven to alleviate some of the fiscal stress that comes
with surviving in an economy in crisis.


Imbalanced needs. Nonprofits that adopt practices concerned with satisfying volunteers
hold the highest rates of retention (Hager & Brudney, 2004). In the same way, practices that
cater to the needs of the nonprofit more than the needs of the volunteers are not likely to
motivate or retain volunteers (Fisher & Cole, 1993). Simply put, researchers show that
organizations that are not sensitive to the needs of their volunteers will have higher levels of
volunteer attrition and lower levels of satisfaction (Liao-Troth, 2008). “Dissatisfiers” such as
poor interpersonal relations, inadequate supervision, and unsatisfactory working conditions all
increase job dissatisfaction and feed into the concept of imbalanced needs between the nonprofit
and the volunteers that serve them (Fisher & Cole, 1993).
While imbalanced needs can hinder retention, organizations can address this barrier by
being conscious of their volunteers’ needs, “recruitment of volunteers from diverse groups
requires a sensitivity to their dominant needs and a presentation of the volunteer experience in
ways that indicate how those needs will be met” (Fisher & Cole, 1993, p. 60). Scholars Stirling,
Kilpatrick, and Orpin (2011) identified some of the diverse needs of volunteers. While stipends,
transportation, and childcare are all common ways to fulfill physiological needs, these incentives
have little appeal to volunteers whose needs are for socialization, self-esteem, or self-
actualization. Given this, nonprofits can overcome the barrier of imbalanced needs by providing
diverse incentives for the varying needs of their volunteers.
Supervision. Hager and Brudney’s 2004 study on volunteer retention found that
supervising volunteers is the most widely adopted practice amongst nonprofits with two-thirds
adopting it to a large degree, and almost all nonprofits adopting it to at least some degree.
Despite this, regular supervision and communication with volunteers was actually associated
with higher levels of volunteer attrition. This is not to suggest that nonprofits should stop


communicating and supervising their volunteers. Rather, some nonprofits may be supervising in
such a way that volunteers feel like they are participating in a regular job rather than an
avocation (Manetti et al., 2014). If supervision makes volunteering feel like a chore, it can
diminish the experience for volunteers and, in turn, reduce their desire to continue with the
organization (Hager & Brudney, 2004).
With both a greater understanding of the value of volunteer retention and of the factors
that serve as barriers to effectively retaining volunteers, the following section will analyze the
latest volunteer management capacity study. This will not only serve to assess how managing
volunteers relates to their retention, but also to identify the key findings of the largest national
volunteer management study in the last decade.
Volunteer Management Capacity

A 1998 UPS Foundation study indicated that volunteers do not always feel their
volunteer experiences make best use of their skills and interests. The study revealed that two-
fifths of volunteers stopped volunteering with the organizations they were once a part of because
of poor volunteer management practices (Volunteering in America, 2007). Because of these
findings, the Corporation for National and Community Service, the UPS Foundation, and USA
Freedom Corps organized the first national study on volunteer management capacity, “Volunteer
Management Capacity in America’s Charities and Congregations”, to better understand the scope
of issues confronting nonprofits in 2003. This section serves to analyze this study in an effort to
better understand the direct relationship between volunteer management capacity and volunteer
retention.
Design. In the Fall of 2003, a national study of the practices, challenges, and benefits of
volunteer management was conducted the Urban Institute. The study was based on a


representative sample of 2,993 of the 214,995 501c3 organizations that filled their annual
paperwork with the IRS in 2000. It is important to note, however, that because nonprofits with
less than $25,000 in annual gross receipts are not required to file with the IRS, smaller
organizations were not represented in the sampling frame. The study results were based on the
four out of five nonprofits that utilize volunteers in their operations. The study also
acknowledged that survey respondents almost universally identified the significance of best
practices in volunteer management, but the critical question became whether a nonprofit that
should be adopting a particular practice has the necessary institutional support and resources
necessary to execute the practice. The findings concluded that:
Investments in volunteer management and the benefits from volunteers feed on one
another. Investments bring benefits and these benefits justify greater investment. The
value that volunteers provide to the organizations they serve should make the effective
management of volunteers a key priority. (Urban Institute, 2004, p. 21)
While the study highlighted the value of formally executing volunteer management practices, the
Urban Institute report also found that one of the greatest challenges nonprofits face is the
inability to dedicate staff resources to adopting strong volunteer management practices.
Ultimately, the study briefing identified two practices organizations can execute to improve their
volunteer management: (1) having a volunteer coordinator and/or (2) having stipend volunteers.
The benefits of both of these practices are often able to offset the financial strain of the extra paid
positions within a nonprofit (Manetti, Belluccu, & Como, 2014).
Volunteer Coordinator. The Urban Institute report also expressed that a nonprofit with
a volunteer coordinator that meets the needs of the organization through recruiting, placing, and
managing volunteers is more likely to be able to effectively retain volunteers. For example,
recruiting and retaining volunteers with the “right sets of skills” was seen to be a big problem for
18 percent and a small problem for 44 percent of nonprofits; these numbers significantly dropped


as the time spent on volunteer management in a coordinator position rose (Urban Institute, 2004).
This is suggested to be because volunteer coordinators are seen to foster greater leadership,
create higher levels of satisfaction, and instill a sense of pride amongst volunteers (Boezeman &
Ellemers, 2014).
Even though having a volunteer coordinator was tied to the highest levels of volunteer
retention within the 2004 Urban Institute study, only three out of five secular nonprofits and one
out of three faith-based nonprofits reported having a volunteer coordinator. Moreover, one in
three of these volunteer coordinators had not received any training in volunteer management and
half of the coordinators spent less than thirty percent of their time on volunteer coordination
(Urban Institute, 2004). Furthermore, only one in eight nonprofits had someone who devoted 100
percent of their time to volunteer coordination. The briefing suggested that not having trained
volunteer coordinators might help to explain why “less than half of charities and congregations
that manage volunteers have adopted most volunteer management practices advocated by the
field” (Urban Institute, 2004, p. 3).
Stipend Volunteers. In addition to nonprofits self-reporting the significant role volunteer
coordinators have played in their ability to manage and retain volunteers, respondents also
supported the use of a full-time stipend volunteer that could assist in strengthening volunteer
management capacity. Volunteers with stipends have “higher perceived benefits than nonstipend
volunteers and stipends may leverage wider inclusion, increase retention, and contribute to other
benefits” (McBride, Gonzales, Morrow-Howell & McCrary, 2011, p. 850). Volunteers of this
type are attractive to nonprofits because they could bolster efforts to better recruit, manage, and
retain other volunteers (Urban Institute, 2004).


While these two practices were highlighted as beneficial practices throughout the sector,
organizations continue to build volunteer programs on minimal resources (Urban Institute, 2004)
Taken together, these findings point to a low professionalization and capitalization of volunteer
administration and management throughout the United States (Renz, 2010). However, the small
amount of time spent of volunteer management may suggest that nonprofits simply do not have
the resources available to allocate towards effectively manage volunteers (Urban Institute, 2004).
While this section of the literature review served to identify the key findings in the most recent
volunteer management capacity study, the following research will address how current best
practices impact volunteer management, and in turn, volunteer retention.
Impact of Best Practices in Volunteer Management

The field of volunteer management has long promoted a range of commonly accepted
practices including, but not limited to, supervision, training, recognition, and data collection.
(Ghosh et al., 2011; Kotler, 1979 & Stirling et al., 2011). However, similar to many areas of
inquiry within the nonprofit sector, the extent to which these practices have been adopted, and
furthermore, affected volunteer management has not attracted much research attention (Hager &
Brudney, 2004). Scholars Grossman and Furano (2002) explored how to make the most of
volunteers and concluded that:
No matter how well intentioned volunteers are, unless there is an infrastructure in place
to support and direct their efforts, they will remain ineffective at best or, worse, become
disenchanted and withdraw, potentially damaging recipients of services in the process (p.
15).
While there is dissent amongst scholars as to what practices most impact volunteer management,
volunteerism is an important resource for nonprofit organizations, “determinants of volunteer
management are significant underpinnings of the ability of nonprofit organizations to supply a


whole range of goods and services” (Leete, 2006, p. 23). Put simply, effective volunteer
management can enhance the efficiency and functionality of a nonprofit.
The following sections will explore how current best practices impact an organization’s
ability to manage volunteers, and in turn, retain them. As this can by no means be an exhaustive
exploration of best practices, I will analyze the three management practices that were shown to
have an effect on volunteer retention in the most recent Urban Institute briefing on retention of
volunteers: training, professional development, and screening procedures (Hager & Brudney,
2004).
Training. In evaluating the effectiveness of training programs, researchers found that
“training and development aid a nonprofit in optimizing the utilization of human resources which
further helps volunteers to achieve organizational goals as well as their individual goals” (Ghosh
et al., 2011, p. 248). While training has been seen as one of the most effective practices to retain
volunteers it is considerably rare for organizations to train volunteers or their volunteer
coordinators. In fact, training was likely to have been adopted to a small degree, if at all, within
the nonprofit sector (Hager & Brudney, 2004).
One of the most universally accepted training methods for volunteers is the “learning by
doing method” (Deslandes et al., 2008; Manetti et al., 2014 & Yin-Che et al., 2010). Through
learning by doing, volunteers and organizations alike gain positive outcomes. These outcomes
include acquisition of new technical and relational skills for volunteers and greater efficiency of
programs within the nonprofit (Manetti et al., 2014). Additional research suggested training new
volunteers is much easier when information is shared through written methods; written policies,
position descriptions, and procedures are all effective tools to effectively train and communicate
with volunteers (Fisher & Cole, 1993). A written element of training helps to standardize the


training process and ensures that all volunteers receive the same information (Deslandes et al.,
2008).
While training volunteers is seen to help retain them, volunteer/volunteer coordinator
relations are one of the foremost problems in volunteerism (Fisher & Cole, 1993). This problem
is likely because, “volunteers are frequently managed or supervised by persons who have no
training in how to work with volunteers” (Fisher & Cole, 1993, p. 122). Because the success of
the volunteer program relies greatly on the supervisory abilities of volunteer coordinators, their
training is critical. Hager and Brudney (2004) explored the need for volunteer coordinators to be
trained and share:
The first need to be addressed in the training is the need to recognize and appreciate the
unique characteristics of volunteer staff. Volunteers are not dependent on the
organization for pay and they require supervisors who recognize these characteristics.
Such supervisors communicate respect for the volunteer as a colleague working to
achieve an organization’s mission (p.13).
Ultimately, these findings suggested that training is an important aspect for not only volunteers
within an organization, but also the volunteer coordinators. These multifaceted trainings
enhanced retention as they not only made volunteers better equipped to perform their projects,
but also helped to make them feel recognized and appreciated (Leete, 2006).
Professional development. Volunteering is a considerable way to develop both personal
and professional skills (Volunteering in America, 2007). Volunteers can develop skills ranging
anywhere from interpersonal communication to teamwork, problem solving, cultural sensitivity,
and creativity (Boezeman & Ellemers, 2014). However, as outlined by their motivational theory,
psychologists McClelland and Atkinsons (1961) identified that volunteering can also meet
motivational needs. Regardless of gender, culture, and age, McClelland and Atkinson believed
that everyone has three motivating drivers: Affiliation, Achievement, and Power.


An affiliation-motivated volunteer thrives within personal interaction, likes group
projects, and needs to be recognized as a “good” person. Achievement-motivated persons want
goals to work towards, appreciate responsibility, and see problems as challenges to be
conquered. Finally, power-motivated people want to be able to influence those around them and
tend to keep an eye on the overall goals of the agency (McClelland & Atkinson, 1961).
The motivational theory depicts the myriad forms of personal development that may
empower people within a volunteer position. As there are so many unique ways for volunteers to
cultivate personal development, organizations that are most successful in retaining volunteers
establish a range of practices to foster personal growth (Hager & Brudney, 2004). While
professional development is found to positively impact volunteer retention, it is important to note
that organizations that benefit the most from this practice also have long term commitments with
their volunteers more so than nonprofits that cater to short, episodic volunteers (Hager &
Brudney, 2004).
Screening Procedures. Screening is the process performed by nonprofits to ensure that a
right match is made between the projects to be done and the volunteer that will do it (Urban
Institute, 2012). Even though it may be costly and takes time, nonprofits that recruit volunteers,
particularly those that work with vulnerable populations, according to public safety, should have
policies and procedures in place on screening to protect participants and the general community
(Public Safety Canada, 2008). Vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, and people who
are disabled require special care, and initial screening processes can help mitigate high turn-over
rates because of poor volunteer placements (Hager & Brudney, 2004).
Susan Ellis, President of Energize, Inc., an international training, consulting and
publishing firm specializing in volunteerism, drew from these screening concerns and stressed


that nonprofits must stay focused on making the right match between the organization’s priorities
and the volunteer’s skills (2003). Moreover, for specialized projects, nonprofits must utilize the
quality of volunteers over quantity by making serious assessments on whether volunteers can
effectively do the job (Ellis, 2003). While screening volunteers may seem like an extra cost,
according to the U.S. Small Business Administration, every dollar invested in background
screening can result in a return on investment of five to sixteen dollars (Klein, 2014). Screening
often leads to more reliable and dedicated volunteers that will stay with the organization longer,
lowering financial burdens (Klein, 2014).
Gaps
This chapter highlighted the positive factors associated with high levels of volunteer
retention, the barriers that hinder an organization’s ability to effectively retain volunteers, an
analysis of the most recent volunteer management capacity study, and an examination of the
impact that current best practices have on volunteer management. The accumulating literature
surrounding volunteer retention suggests that volunteer management is a function of both staff
support of volunteering and adoption of administrative practices necessary for the management
of volunteers (Hager & Brudney, 2004). However, research is currently lacking a national and
systematic study of volunteer management practices in the United States representative of a
variety of organizations (Liao-Troth, 2008). Even the most recent volunteer management
capacity study in 2004 was completed before the Corporation for National and Community
Service developed the eight best practices in volunteer management in 2007.
As the last volunteer management capacity study was done before the eight practices
were published, we now have a limited understanding of the prevailing conditions in the field.
Moreover, current literature focuses on the nonprofit sector as a whole and often fails to


differentiate management practices based on varying organizational factors amongst nonprofits
(Ellis, 2010). Size, organizational budgets, religious affiliation, and populations served all play
important roles in an organization’s ability to manage volunteers, and in turn, retain them (e.g.,
Hager & Brudney 2004; Liao-Troth, 2008). The inconsistent language used in describing
practices, and furthermore, the lack of formal evaluation in analyzing these practices as outlined
throughout this chapter express a need to reassess how, and to what extent, nonprofits are
currently observing volunteer management best practices. The upcoming chapter will address the
methodology used to address these gaps within the current research.


Chapter 3: Methodology
The purpose of this stud is to explore how volunteer retention is suffering within the
nonprofit sector. This problem suggests a relatively weak and inconsistent set of volunteer
management practices amongst organizations in the field. In order to analyze why, and to what
extent, volunteer retention is an issue, an assessment is needed of how nonprofits are currently
observing volunteer management best practices. In order to explore this problem, the following
research question was used to guide this study:
• How does the implementation of volunteer management best practices affect
volunteer retention?
By addressing the above question, I also seek to answer the following secondary research
questions:
• How do the organizational factors of a nonprofit impact their best practices?
• Why are certain best practices under-utilized within the nonprofit sector?
The following sections will further describe (a) the research method; (b) the procedure; (c) the
participants; (d) the expert consultation; and, (e) the data analysis for this study.
Research Method
I designed a mixed methods approach in order to address the research problem. To
validate one form of data with the other form, to transform the data for comparison, and to
provide pragmatic advantages when exploring complex research questions, I employed
concurrent mixed method data collection strategies.(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007). First, 294
nonprofit organizations around the U.S. completed a self-audit survey. Data analysis identified
trends within current volunteer management practices. To explore the trends, six survey
respondents, whose organizations had a volunteer coordinator, participated in qualitative


interviews. These interviews provided access to the context of an organization’s behavior and
thereby allowed a way for me to understand the meaning of these trends (Seidman, 2005) These
interviews were then coded for various themes in the data. This mixed methodology combined
elements of qualitative and quantitative research approaches for the broad purposes of breadth
and depth of understanding and corroboration; the qualitative data of the individual interviews
provided a deeper understanding of survey responses, and statistical analysis of the surveys
provided a detailed assessment of patterns of responses.
Procedures
Survey. Karyn Cassella, AmeriCorps Coordinator, and I, a CVN Research Fellow,
produced a self-audit survey for Catholic Volunteer Network partner programs. The survey was
developed to help community groups, nonprofits, and charitable organizations assess their
volunteer management practices. The survey was distributed to all program supervisors of CVN
partner programs using OnCorps Reports, a software strategically designed as a service to help
staff and members excel at the specialized reporting and communication needs of AmeriCorps
and VISTA programs. The survey appeared on the site supervisor login page for thirty days after
its original submission. Additionally, program supervisors were also sent two follow-up emails
reminding them to complete the survey and were notified that responses to the survey would not
impact or influence the status of any CVN AmeriCorps sub grantee application or agreement. By
informing respondents that their responses would not impact any potential funding, I addressed
aspects of the research that might influence willingness to participate and answer all inquiries
that might have adverse effects or consequences; a principle of ethical research (McMillan &
Schumacher, 2009). If any program supervisor had specific questions about the survey, they
were provided with contact information for both Cassella and myself, the producers of the


survey. Along with direct contact with the program supervisors in charge of completing the
survey, the director of each partner program was notified of the survey via email (see Appendix
B) with a PDF version of the survey attached, (see Appendix C). This, in turn, made program
directors aware of the survey their employees were in charge of completing.
The self-audit survey was divided into two primary sections: (1) a section that asked
participants to recount demographic information, staff and volunteer statistics, and brief
information about populations served; and, (2) an audit of the eight best practices in volunteer
management as outlined by the Corporation for National and Community Service in 2007. The
first section collected demographic information from each supervisor that included: (a) their title;
(b) whether the organization constitutes as a faith-based or secular organization; (c) the
organizational budget, average number of volunteers, and paid staff members within their
organization; (d) what issue area the organization serves; and, (e) whether or not they have a
volunteer coordinator. These questions were asked in order to gain a better understanding of their
role within the organization and to get a sense of the size and outreach of their nonprofit.
The subsequent section of the survey focused on gathering data relevant to best practices
in volunteer management. These questions were adapted from Volunteer Canada’s “The
Canadian Code for Volunteer Involvement: An Audit Tool” that integrates a self-audit of 60
volunteer management practices using a scale of “currently in place to a large degree”, “currently
in place to some degree”, “not currently being done”, or “not applicable/not relevant”. This
section enabled a more detailed evaluation and review of the Corporation for National and
Community Service’s eight best practices in volunteer management (CNCS, 2007). Respondents
were asked to rate the effectiveness of their volunteer management using the same four-point


scale mentioned above. Responses allowed CVN to identify strong components for each of the
standards and areas where management improvement might be required.
Interviews. To explore the trends found in the survey, six survey respondents, whose
organizations had a volunteer coordinator that dedicates 90-100 percent of their time to volunteer
management, participated in qualitative interviews. Interviews were semi-structured following a
protocol that included an introductory script and a set of open-ended questions that were
supported by follow-up questions (see Appendix D). Interviews were conducted over the phone
and lasted approximately fifty minutes each. All interviews were recorded on a computer using
QuickTime with the permission of each person being interviewed, and additional notes were
written on a notepad.
Participants were given the option to not answer a question if they so desired, and were
given the opportunity to withdraw from the interview at any point. Participants were additionally
notified that responses to these questions would not impact or influence the state of any CVN
AmeriCorps sub grantee application or agreement. Once provided with this information, consent
for participation was verbally requested at the beginning of each interview. This was a part of the
process of gaining informed consent, which is achieved by “providing subjects with an
explanation of the research, an opportunity to terminate their participation at any time with no
penalty, and full disclosure of any risks associated with the study,” (McMillan & Schumacher,
2009, p. 197). Finally, at the end of the interview, participants were given the option to use their
real name or to use a pseudonym for the presentation of results and findings of this research. It
was clarified that my research will not be presented or published outside of the George
Washington University in an effort to make participants feel safer about what they revealed in
the interview.


The interview was broken into three distinct sections: (1) a section that explored the two
best practices organizations performed the least: (a) Strategic Planning with the Board of
Directors and (b) Measuring Outcomes and Evaluating the Process; (2) an analysis of the role of
the volunteer coordinator; and (3) an assessment of what organizational factors impact volunteer
management capacity. No additional demographic information was collected during the
interview as all relevant demographic information was already drawn from the completed
surveys. Finally, interview participants were given the opportunity to offer any additional
insights about what they believe impacts volunteer retention in broad, concluding questions. At
the end of the interview, participants were thanked for their time and were sent a full transcript of
the phone call. With a hard copy of the transcript, participants were given the opportunity to
made edits and additions to their previous responses, though no respondents chose to make any
further edits. Furthermore, I recorded a brief reflection after each interview in order to make note
of initial reactions and key concepts that stuck out during the phone call. These interviews
ultimately served to provide qualitative detail to supplement the quantitative survey responses.
Study Participants
Survey. All program supervisors for CVN AmeriCorp members (691 agencies) were sent
the self-audit survey on the OnCorps Reports portal and given my CVN Research Fellow email
address if they had any questions or concerns while completing the survey. Of the 691 agencies
that were sent the survey, a total of 294 supervisors completed the survey: a 43 percent response
rate. Survey participants were chosen within the Catholic Volunteer Network partner programs
because they represent a diverse population of nonprofits around the United States from coast to
coast with differing sizes, organizational budgets, issue areas, etc. The following graphs display


information about the organizational budgets, religious affiliation, issue area, and volunteer
coordinator status of the 294 survey respondents.
Graph 1. Organizational Budget
Each survey respondent identified within one of the five different organizational budget
categories. Respondents used their latest 990, or an annual reporting return that federally
tax-exempt organizations must file with the IRS. This was the most universal way to collect
financial information about each of the different organizations.
3.67%

17.14%

20.82%

42.45%

15.92%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

Less
than

$100,000

$100,000
to

$500,000

$500,000
to
$1

Million

$1
Million
to
$5

Million

More
than
$5

Million

%
of
CVN
Partner
Programs

Organizational
Budgets

Organizational
Budget
(using
last
990)

n
=
294


Graph 2. Faith-based vs. Secular
Each survey respondent self-identified as either a faith-based or secular organization using
the following definition of “faith-based” as outlined in the survey:
The Corporation for National and Community Service defines faith-based
organizations to include: (1) a religious congregation; (2) an organization, program or
project sponsored/hosted by a religious congregation; (3) a nonprofit organization
founded by a religious congregation or religiously motivated incorporators that clearly
states its name or mission statement that is a religiously motivated institutions or (4) a
collaboration of organizations that clearly and explicitly includes organizations from
the previously described categories.
While the Catholic Volunteer Network is a religiously affiliated organization, only
slightly over half of its survey respondents were faith-based.
59.04%

40.96%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Faith-‐Based
Secular

%
of
CVN
Partner
Programs

Religious
AfZiliation

Faith-Based
vs.
Secular

n
=
294


Graph 3. Issue Area
Survey respondents identified all issue areas in which their organizations were involved. It
is important to note that “economic opportunity” included adult education, employment,
housing, and anti-poverty work. Furthermore, “healthy futures” included mental and
physical health, nutrition, and meal/food programs. The remaining four categories were
left as self-explanatory within the survey. Responses show that approximately 50 percent of
organizations were involved with either economic opportunities or healthy futures.
4.08%

48.57%

42.04%

10.20%

47.76%

5.31%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Disaster

Services

Economic

Opportunity

Education

(K-‐12)

Environmental

Stewardship

Healthy
Futures
Veterans
and

Military

Families

%
of
CVN
Partner
Programs

Issue
Area

In
What
Areas
Do
Your
Volunteers
Serve?
(Check
all
that
apply)

n
=
294


Graph 4. Volunteer Coordinator
Slightly over half of survey respondents reported having a paid coordinator dedicated to
volunteer management responsibilities. As there are currently many different titles to
describe the role of a volunteer coordinator, it was important to provide a very clear
explanation of the position.
Interviews. Of the 294 survey respondents, six survey respondents who self-identified as
having a volunteer coordinator who dedicates 90-100 percent of their time to volunteer
management, participated in qualitative interviews. I randomly selected these respondents from
the 47 respondents that had a volunteer coordinator that dedicated 90-100 percent of their time to
volunteer management. I selected survey respondents that had a volunteer coordinator because of
their potential ability to reflect on the role of volunteer coordination within an organization.
Because participants were able to choose to stay on or off the record after their interview, the
following table displays actual names and pseudonyms for each participant and organization:
55.51%

44.49%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Yes
No

%
of
CVN
Partner
Programs

Volunteer
Coordinator
Status

Does
your
organization
have
a
paid
coordinator
dedicated
to

volunteer
management
responsibilities
(Volunteer

Coordinator)?

n
=
294


Table 1.Participant Demographic Information
Name Organization Title City
Faith-Based
Organization
(Y/N?)
Volunteer
Coordinator
Training
(Y/N?) Issue Area
Amy Scavezze
La Puente Home
Inc
Director of
Volunteer
Coordination Alamosa, CO Yes Yes
Economic
Opportunity
Amy Schill
Christian
Appalachian
Project
Volunteer
Recruitment
Coordinator
Mt. Vernon,
KY Yes Yes
Healthy
Futures
Derek Morris
Habitat For
Humanity
Volunteer
Coordinator Pittsburgh, PA Yes Yes
Disaster
Services
Greg
Rockwell Thrive DC
Volunteer and
Communications
Coordinator Washington DC Yes No
Healthy
Futures
Robert
Bowery
Compass Housing
Alliance Program Manager Seattle, WA No No
Economic
Opportunity
Shannon Foto Sarah's Inn
Volunteer
Coordinator Richmond, VA No No
Veterans and
Military
Families
Expert Consultation
Karyn Cassella, AmeriCorps Coordinator for CVN, was consulted for assistance in
ensuring the legitimacy of the survey questions, the quality of the interview protocol, and the
data analysis throughout. At the time of consultation, she was currently working as an adjunct
professor at the George Washington University in addition to working for CVN. As The Catholic
Volunteer Network’s AmeriCorps Program Coordinator, Cassella managed the AmeriCorps
Education award that supports more than 1,000 AmeriCorps members in placements serving
across the country through Catholic Volunteer Network’s member organizations.
Additionally, her past experience as the Community Service Center Director at American
University and her role as Program Manager at Community of Hope made her an invaluable
asset to this research. She was able to provide an insider’s perspective on the purposes of
volunteer management capacity building and the significance of why this research matters. As a


student at the George Washington University, I have learned about her work in the National
Service as she manages a large-scale full-time, faith-based service program that engages
participants in a wide range of human service settings.
One insight gained from discussions with her was the need to effectively gauge how well
organizations embody the eight best practices in volunteer management in order to identify why
volunteer retention is suffering. As the United States does not currently have a universal audit in
place, she advised that an adaptation of the Canadian Code of Volunteer Management be made.
She also provided insight concerning the wording of the follow-up questions within the
interviews to avoid asking questions that were leading or that were unclear in meaning. The final
suggestion she made was to ensure that my bias did not impact how I went about analyzing the
data. Consulting with a professional in the field over the methodology and data analysis of the
research helped me to triangulate how the results were interpreted and improved the
trustworthiness of the process (Merriam, 2002).
In addition to Karyn Cassella’s contribution, Professor Emily Morrison, the Director of
the Human Services & Social Justice Program, housed within the Department of Sociology,
served as my thesis advisor and offered guidance throughout the process of my research. She
holds a doctorate in education from the George Washington University and directed GW’s
Neighbors Project where she initiated the Service-Learning Advisory Board to develop service-
learning at GW. Her expertise in nonprofit management, qualitative research, and data analysis
were essential to my research and development. Finally, it was her discourse on silence that
helped me learn to employ pauses in the conversations. These silences gave participants ample
time to associate and reflect and then break the silence themselves with significant information.


Data Analysis
I imported survey results using SurveyMonkey software and interpreted the data relative
to the Urban Institute’s 2004 Study on Volunteer Management Capacity in America’s Charities
and Congregations. I then analyzed responses to see if organizational attributes such as the
presence of a volunteer coordinator have changed between the two sets of data. Original data
analysis of the survey responses also helped to identify respondents that were diverse in nature to
provide a more well-rounded and inclusive representation of current Catholic Volunteer Network
partner programs through interviews. I then used the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) to determine statistical significance within all of my findings. I used SPSS for
hypothesis testing, to determine Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and to find means within each
sub category. SPSS is a reliable, comprehensive, and flexible statistical analysis and data
management solution.
I then transcribed six interviews verbatim from recorded phone calls using QuickTime on
my computer. I documented any hesitation, pause, laughter, or other verbal utterances as well as
any interruptions during the interview. Before the interviews were coded, I sent the transcribed
interviews to each of the participants where they were given a week to provide additional
comments and edits before I began coding. I coded each transcription using the In Vivo approach
of qualitative data analysis to capture and represent the essence of entire answers – a broad
brush-stroke representation called Holistic Coding (Saldana, 2003). Common words, concepts,
and phrases were grouped and categorized to facilitate analysis. I was able to limit my biases and
selectivity by using In Vivo coding and grouping words and phrases together despite their
potential irrelevancy. The culmination of these coded interviews and the survey interpretations
allowed me to construct my final analysis and answer my research questions.


Finally, I have taken several measures to ensure the credibility of my findings. In order to
promote credibility and reliability in the analysis of my interviews, my peer thesis-writing
partner coded an original transcription with no previous coding to ensure the validity of my data
interpretation. Additionally, my thesis advisor reviewed a fully coded transcription and my
codebook to ensure validity and thoroughness. Furthermore, by recording reflections
immediately after each interview, I was able to better self-analyze any bias I saw in myself
during the interviews. The results of the codes, trends, themes, and research conclusions are
presented in Chapter 4 and discussed in Chapter 5.


Chapter 4: Findings
As volunteer retention is such a far-reaching issue within the nonprofit sector, the
following section will first analyze the 294 survey responses followed by the six interviews. The
data from the mixed method approaches provides insight not only how volunteer management
best practices impact volunteer retention, but how different organizational factors impact a
nonprofit’s ability to carry out these best practices. The first section of this chapter will reveal
four major findings from the surveys: (a) which volunteer management best practices
organizations struggle to perform the most; (b) the impact of the volunteer coordinator; (c) what
organizational factors most impact a nonprofit’s ability to execute these best practices; and (d)
how the key findings from the survey helped shape the interview questions. The second section
of my findings will explore the several themes that emerged from the six interviews: (a) purpose;
(b) funding; (c) supervision; (d) implications of language; and (e) recognition.
Eight Best Practices: Where Do Organizations Stand?
Of the eight best practices in volunteer management, two standards were executed almost
universally while an additional two standards were often neglected amongst the nonprofits
surveyed. The two strongest standards were standard 5: Orienting and Training Volunteers and
standard 7: Recognition and Volunteer Development. Furthermore, the two weakest standards
were standard 2: Strategic Planning to Maximize Volunteer Impact and standard 8: Measuring
Outcomes and Evaluating the Process. The following sections will briefly explore each of these
standards.
Standard 5. Orienting and training volunteers was the most universally practiced
standard. Of the nonprofits surveyed, roughly 70 percent of respondents answered “currently in
place to a large degree” to every question within standard 5. Furthermore, approximately 95


percent of organizations reported having at least some level of orientation and training within
their volunteer program. The following graph highlights they key findings within this standard.
Graph 4. Standard 5: Key Findings
Standard 7. Recognition and volunteer development is the second standard that
nonprofits self-reported performing to a large degree. While informal methods of recognition
were used 20 percent more than formal methods of recognition, over 90 percent of nonprofits
reported having at least some level of volunteer recognition within their organization.
Furthermore, 94 percent of nonprofits reported that volunteers are not only encouraged to grow
within their organization, but are also included as equal members of the team. Graph 5 highlights
the key findings within this standard.
0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

Volunteers
receive

information
of
the

history
and
mission

Volunteers
receive

information
on
the

policies
and

procedures
relative

to
their
role

Volunteers
are
given

adequate
training
for

their
assignment

Volunteers
receive

ongoing
training
and

support

%
of
CVN
Partner
Programs

Organization's
Self
Evaluation

Standard
5:
Orienting
and
Training
Volunteers

n
=294

Currently
in
place
to
a

large
degree

Currently
in
place
to

some
degree

Not
currently
being

done

Not
Applicable


Standard 2. Standard two was performed the least among the organizations in this study.
Approximately 1 in 3 nonprofits do not carry out strategic planning to maximize volunteer
impact, specifically within board of director involvement. In fact, when the surveyed nonprofits
were asked if the board of directors evaluated volunteer involvement goals, approximately 36
percent stated that it was not currently being done at all. The following graph highlights the key
findings within this standard.
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Senior
management

publicly
acknowledges

the
efforts
of
volunteers

Input
from
volunteers
is

welcomed
for
your

planning
and
evaluation

Volunteers
are
included

as
equal
members
of
the

team

%
of
CVN
Partner
Programs

Organization's
Self
Evaluation

Standard
7:
Recognition
and
Volunteer
Development

n
=294

Currently
in
place
to
a

large
degree

Currently
in
place
to

some
degree

Not
currently
being
done

Not
Applicable


Standard 8. The other standard that organizations struggled with involved utilizing
volunteer information. Measuring and evaluating the outcomes of volunteer management simply
means effectively keeping and analyzing records. While approximately 90 percent of nonprofits
self-reported keeping records on volunteers to some degree, roughly one in five nonprofits
struggle with utilizing the information once recorded. For example, approximately 30 percent of
the surveyed nonprofits do not share statistical information about the volunteer program with
staff and volunteers within the organization. Furthermore, an additional 20 percent of nonprofits
in this sample do not use these records to establish performance goals for their volunteer
program each year. Graph 7 highlights the key findings within this standard.
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

The
BOD
adopts
a

statement
declaring
the

vital
role
of
volunteers
in

achieving
your
mission

The
BOD
has
approved
the

overall
goals
of
volunteer

involvement

Volunteer
involvement

goals
are
evaluated
by
the

BOD

%
of
CVN
Partner
Programs

Organization's
Self
Evaluation

Standard
2:
Strategic
Planning
with
the
Board
of
Directors

n
=
294

Currently
in
place

to
a
large
degree

Currently
in
place

to
some
degree

Not
currently

being
done

Not
Applicable


Volunteer Coordinator Impact

Of the 294 nonprofits surveyed, 136 reported having a paid staff member dedicated to
volunteer management responsibilities (frequently, and for the purpose of this research, referred
to as a volunteer coordinator). Meaning 46 percent, or approximately half of all surveyed
nonprofits, have a volunteer coordinator position within their organization. When comparing
nonprofits with a volunteer coordinator to those without a volunteer coordinator, there are a few
distinct findings worth noting.
To begin, 49 percent of organizations with a volunteer coordinator reported having a
computer or web-based volunteer management system while only 12 percent of organizations
without a volunteer coordinator reported having similar systems. In other words, organizations
with a volunteer coordinator are four times more likely to have some form of a computer or web-
based volunteer management system that tracks information about individual volunteers.
0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Records
are
kept

for
each
volunteer

respecting
the

privacy
of
personal

information

Statistical

information
about

the
volunteer

program
is
shared

with
staff
and

volunteers

Achievement
of

performance
goals

is
assessed
on
an

annual
basis

Testimonials
about

volunteer

involvement
are

shared
within
the

organization

%
of
CVN
Partner
Programs

Organization's
Self
Evaluation

Standard
8:
Measuring
Outcomes
and
Evaluating
the
Process

n
=
294

Currently
in
place
to
a

large
degree

Currently
in
place
to

some
degree

Not
currently
being

done

Not
Applicable


Additionally, on average, organizations with a volunteer coordinator had 604 volunteers
within the last year. In contrast, organizations without a volunteer coordinator had an average
number of 135 volunteers who served within the last year. Furthermore, organizations with a
volunteer coordinator were almost two times more likely to use various techniques to recruit
volunteers and 20 percent more likely to have realistic and clear messages about volunteer
assignment expectations compared to organizations without a volunteer coordinator. Likewise,
organizations with a volunteer coordinator were also 20 percent more likely to have their
selection of volunteers based on actual requirements and predetermined screening measures.
Furthermore, the more time a volunteer coordinator spent on volunteer management, the
larger the contrast was between organizations with and without a volunteer coordinator. For
example, when compared to an organization without a volunteer coordinator, an organization
with a volunteer coordinator that dedicates over 90 percent of their time to volunteer
management is over 50 percent more likely to consider the screening of volunteers an essential
process that continues throughout the volunteer’s involvement.
Using SPSS for hypothesis testing between two large samples of proportions, it is
important to note that these results point to statistically significant between organizations with
and without a volunteer coordinator. A two-tailed Z test with an Alpha of .05 yields a Z-critical
of 1.96. Therefore, any Z-obtained higher than 1.96 suggests a statistically significant difference
between proportions. Table 2 highlights the key differences between organizations with and
without a volunteer coordinator and includes the statistical significance within each category.


Table 2. Volunteer Coordinators at a Glance
Volunteer
Coordinator
No Volunteer
Coordinator
Statistical
Significance with
95% certainty
(z-obtained)
Organization’s average
number of volunteers
managed per year
604 135 ____
Organization has a
computer or web-based
volunteer management
system
49% 12% 7.87
Organization uses
various techniques to
recruit volunteers
54% 23% 6.60
Organization provides
realistic and clear
messages about
volunteer assignment
62% 41% 4.47
Organization’s selection
of volunteers is based
on requirements and
predetermined
screening
70% 50% 4.44
Note. n = 294 respondents
These results show that there is a statistically significant difference between an
organization with a volunteer coordinator and without in their ability to utilize a web-
based volunteer management system, use various techniques to recruit volunteers, provide
clear and realistic messages, and select volunteers based on requirements and
predetermined screening.
Organizational Factors: What Impacts Volunteer Management Practices?
As every nonprofit has unique organizational factors, this section examines how different
organizational attributes impact an organization’s volunteer management capacity within the


following categories: (a) faith-based vs. secular; (b) organizational budget; (c) number of paid
staff and; (d) the issue areas served.
Faith-based vs. secular. The surveys revealed little difference in an organization’s
volunteer management capacity between faith-based and secular nonprofits. However, it is
notable that boards of directors within faith-based organizations were 20 percent more likely to
adopt a statement declaring the vital role of volunteers and to assess the overall goals of
volunteer involvement. Similarly, faith-based organizations had, on average, 20 percent more
volunteers within the last year. Finally, when asked to describe any additional practices an
organization has in place, faith-based organizations were three times more likely to stress the
significance of reflection and personal growth for their volunteers.
For example, one faith-based survey respondent spoke of the role of reflection within
their organization:
We gather together for spiritual reflections on the local environment and how we might
better respond to them from a faith-based perspective. There are a number of orientations
provided on a national level that are attended by all of our volunteers.
This was one of 39 responses amongst faith-based organizations that focused on the notions of
reflection and personal development when asked what other volunteer management practices
(outside of the eight standards) their organization employs.
Organizational budget. Nonprofits with different organizational budgets face several
distinctions. Nonprofits with a budget of more than $5 million are two times more likely to have
more than 500 volunteers in a given year than organizations with budgets under $5 million.
However organizations with a budget under $100,000 have higher levels of supervision amongst
their volunteers and are twice as likely to evaluate the performance of their volunteers on a
regular basis as organizations with budgets over $100,000.


Number of paid staff. The survey revealed a few differences amongst organizations with
different numbers of paid staff members. Organizations with 100-250 paid staff members are 20
percent more likely than organizations with any other amount of staffers to have processing
capabilities allowing them to track information about their individual volunteers. Additionally,
organizations with over 100 paid staff members are 25 percent more likely to practice
interviewing and screening in their volunteer management compared to organizations with fewer
than 100 paid staff members
Issue areas served. Although disaster services and veteran and military services were the
two least represented issue areas within the survey respondents, they were more likely than any
other issue area to have an organizational budget of over $1 million a year. Moreover, disaster
services organizations were twice as likely to have over 100 paid staff members as an
organization with any other issue area. Finally, veteran and military services within the survey
respondents were 15 percent more likely to screen their volunteers than any other issue area.
Identifying Key Findings of Survey to Develop Interviews
The conclusions from the survey allowed me to develop an interview protocol with three
distinct sections. The first section of the interview served to evaluate why the survey revealed
that nonprofits struggle the most with standards two and eight. Additionally, because there was
such a statistically significant difference between organizations with a volunteer coordinator and
those without, the next portion of the interview explored how the volunteer coordinator position
impacts volunteer management capacity. Finally, because there were many differences between
nonprofits with varying organizational factors such as budget, issue area, and number of paid
staff members, the last segment of the interview offered participants the opportunity to reflect on
what factors impact volunteer management within their organization.


As mentioned previously, several themes arose from the coding of the six interviews that
provide insight on what impacts volunteer retention. Five themes emerged that include: (a)
purpose; (b) funding; (c) supervision; (d) implications of language; and (e) recognition.
Purpose
Throughout all of the interviews, each of the participants expressed a need for volunteers
“to get something out of” their volunteer experience. When discussing what makes volunteers
want to return, all six participants discussed creating a mutual relationship where volunteers
work with the organization, each benefiting from the relationship. This desire to create a
symbiotic or purposeful experience manifested itself in many different ways throughout each of
the interviews.
For Bowery, the program manager of Compass Housing Alliance, his personal
background in clinical psychology helped him understand the significance of volunteers
benefiting from their service:
I understand the importance of personal development because of my background, so
that’s why I feel like I work extra hard to make sure that my volunteers are doing well at
home and finding out where they want to go after this position and asking them if there
are things we can integrate into this position that will help them obtain those future goals.
I think having that willingness and that personal responsibility and that one-on-one
feeling of really being supported—that’s what’s going to make or break it—that’s what’s
going to make people happy.
Bowery described the merit of personal development in this quote and went on to summarize his
feelings by stating, “I think it comes down to that one-on-one personalization of their
involvement and why their involvement contributes to the organization. If you can bridge that,
then you’ve retained that volunteer”. Bowery’s responses show how volunteers want to feel like
they are making a difference within the organization. By taking the time to identify what

Volunter Retention in the Nonprofit Sector

Volunter Retention in the Nonprofit Sector

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Volunter Retention in the Nonprofit Sector

Similar to Volunter Retention in the Nonprofit Sector (20)

Volunter Retention in the Nonprofit Sector