Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteerswebarchive.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411005_VolunteerManagement.pdfto which charities use various practices in managing volunteers

The Urban Institute

Volunteer Management

Practices and Retention

of Volunteers

Mark A. HagerJeffrey L. Brudney

June 2004

Volunteer Management Capacity Study Series1 Volunteer Management Capacity in America’s Charities and Congregations

The Urban InstituteFebruary 2004

2 Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of VolunteersThe Urban InstituteJune 2004

3 Volunteer Management in America’s Religious OrganizationsCorporation for National and Community ServiceJune 2004

Copyright © 2004. The Urban Institute. All rightsreserved. Conclusions or opinions expressed in Institutepublications are those of the authors and do not necessar-ily reflect the views of staff members, officers or trusteesof the Institute, advisory groups, or any organizationsthat provide financial support.

Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers 1

This report is the second in a series of briefs reporting onfindings from a 2003 survey of volunteer managementcapacity among charities and congregations. The find-ings in this report are based on conversations with asystematic sample of charities about their practices,challenges, and aspirations for their volunteer programs.

We focus on charities’ adoption of nine recommendedpractices for volunteer management. Further, we explorethe relationship between adoption of these practices, other organizational characteristics, and the retention ofvolunteers. The practices under study are supervision andcommunication with volunteers, liability coverage for vol-unteers, screening and matching volunteers to jobs, regularcollection of information on volunteer involvement, writ-ten policies and job descriptions for volunteers, recogni-tion activities, annual measurement of volunteer impact,training and professional development for volunteers, andtraining for paid staff in working with volunteers.

The findings provide new insight into volunteermanagement capacity and retention:

Adoption of Volunteer Management Practices NotWidespread. Of the nine practices, only regularsupervision and communication with volunteers has beenadopted to a large degree by a majority of charities. Wewere surprised to learn, for example, that only one-thirdof charities have adopted to a large degree the practice ofpublicly recognizing the work of their volunteers. Over60 percent have adopted each of the practices to at leastsome degree, however. This finding suggests that thepractices for volunteer management are known, if notalways fully implemented, in America’s charities.

Likelihood of Adoption Depends on Characteristicsof the Charity. The likelihood that a charity adopts aparticular management practice depends on its specificneeds and characteristics, such as its size, level of volun-teer involvement, predominant role for volunteers, andindustry. For example, charities that emphasize episodicvolunteer use adopt different management practices than

Volunteer Management Practices and the Retention of Volunteers

charities that emphasize more sustained use ofvolunteers. Charities operating in the health field havegenerally adopted more of the practices as well. Largercharities are more likely to have adopted most, but notall, of the management practices under study.

Some Practices Tied to Greater Retention ofVolunteers, Some Not. Charities interested in increasingretention of volunteers should invest in recognizingvolunteers, providing training and professional develop-ment for them, and screening volunteers and matchingthem to organizational tasks. These practices all centeron enriching the volunteer experience. Managementpractices that focus more on the needs of the organiza-tion, such as documentation of volunteer numbers andhours, are unrelated to retention of volunteers, eventhough they help the program to realize other benefits.

Charities Can Do Others Things as Well to MaximizeVolunteer Retention. Volunteer management practicesare only part of the picture. In addition to adopting certainmanagement practices, charities can provide a culture thatis welcoming to volunteers, allocate sufficient resourcesto support them, and enlist volunteers in recruiting othervolunteers. All of these practices help charities to achievehigher rates of retention.

The research shows that adoption of volunteermanagement practices is important to the operations of most charities. By investing in these practices and bysupporting volunteer involvement in other ways, charitiesenhance their volunteer management capacity and theirability to retain volunteers.

Executive Summary

“Charities interested in increasing retention of volunteers should invest inrecognizing volunteers, providing trainingand professional development for them, and screening volunteers and matching them to organizational tasks.”

2 Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers

In 2003, with the backing of the UPS Foundation, theCorporation for National and Community Service, andthe USA Freedom Corps, the Urban Institute undertookthe first national study of volunteer management capac-ity. One purpose of the study was to document the extentto which charities use various practices in managingvolunteers. The field of volunteer administration has long promoted a range of best practices, including super-vision, data collection, recognition, and training.1 How-ever, until we undertook systematic research, we did notknow the extent to which these practices have taken rootin the nonprofit sector or their influence on retainingvolunteers.

We drew a sample of nearly 3,000 charities that had filedForm 990 with the IRS in 2000, which excludes charitieswith less than $25,000 in annual gross receipts. We con-ducted telephone interviews with volunteer administra-tors or executive managers in most of these charities,asking them about their volunteer activities and manage-ment practices, and the challenges and benefits that vol-unteers bring to their operations. We learned that four outof five charities use volunteers in their activities, either inservice to others or in helping to run the organization.The results we present are based on those charities thatengage volunteers; we exclude charities that do not usevolunteers.

Adoption of Volunteer Management Practices by Charities

Introduction: What Management Practices Have Charities Adopted?What Practices or Characteristics Explain Volunteer Retention?

Why focus on volunteer management? The prevailingwisdom is that unless organizations pay attention toissues of volunteer management, they will not do a goodjob of recruiting, satisfying, and retaining volunteers.The importance is underscored by the findings of a studycommissioned by the UPS Foundation in 1998.2 Thatstudy revealed that two-fifths of volunteers have stoppedvolunteering for an organization at some time because of one or more poor volunteer management practices.Reasons included the organization not making good useof a volunteer’s time or good use of their talents, or that volunteer tasks were not clearly defined. The studywarned, “Poor volunteer management practices result in more lost volunteers than people losing interestbecause of changing personal or family needs.”

Administrators of volunteer programs are not withouttools to recruit and retain volunteers. As volunteeradministration has become more professionalized, public and nonprofit leaders, agency managers, and field experts have turned their attention to improving the capacity of host organizations to accommodatevolunteers. In a report prepared in cooperation with thePoints of Light Foundation and the Association forVolunteer Administration, the UPS Foundation advocatedadoption of 23 volunteer management practices.3 Ingeneral, the practices center on providing funding tosupport volunteer involvement, especially for a desig-nated leader or manager to oversee volunteers, and

“One purpose of the study was to documentthe extent to which charities use variouspractices in managing volunteers. Until weundertook systematic research, we did notknow the extent to which these practiceshave taken root in the nonprofit sector.”

“We learned that four out of five charitiesuse volunteers in their activities, either inservice to others or in helping to run theorganization.”


having a set of appropriate practices and procedures to administer the volunteer program.

Other studies echo these views on effective means forsupporting and retaining volunteers. Grossman andFurano identify three elements as crucial to the successof any volunteer program: screening potential volunteersto ensure appropriate entry and placement in the organi-zation; orientation and training to provide volunteerswith the skills and outlook needed; and management andongoing support of volunteers by paid staff to ensure thatvolunteer time is not wasted.4 They conclude, “No matterhow well intentioned volunteers are, unless there is aninfrastructure in place to support and direct their efforts,they will remain ineffective at best or, worse, becomedisenchanted and withdraw, potentially damaging recipi-ents of services in the process.”

A research report on volunteer service and communityengagement in selected state agencies and organizationsin Texas focuses on many of these same practices andprocedures, including screening of volunteers and match-ing them to positions, training and orientation, manage-ment and communication, and recognition andevaluation.5 In another study, paid staff time allocated to the volunteer program, as well as an array of recom-mended practices for volunteer management, wererelated statistically to the benefits these programs real-ized from volunteer involvement.6 The accumulatingevidence suggests that volunteer management capacity is a function of both staff support of volunteering andadoption of administrative practices necessary for themanagement of volunteers.

The current trend in the charitable sector is for organiza-tions to adopt the efficiencies of management that havebeen developed in the business sector. Although manycharities resist the culture of becoming more busi-nesslike, funders and board members often demand that charities adopt modern management methods. Asevidenced by the number of charities that are adopting

volunteer management practices at least to some degree,the professionalization of volunteer management isclearly underway. The costs, benefits, and consequencesof adoption of volunteer management practices should bea subject for managers and policymakers alike.

The next five pages document the degree of adoption ofvolunteer management practices by charities with differ-ent characteristics. Following that, we confront the issueof retention of volunteers. Although observers have beenquick to advocate the adoption of volunteer managementpractices, little research to date has examined the rela-tionship between these practices and the retention ofvolunteers. In this report, we present an analysis of therelationship between volunteer management capacity and retention.

1See, for example, Susan Ellis (1996) From the Top Down: The ExecutiveRole in Volunteer Program Success, and Steve McCurley and Rick Lynch(1996) Volunteer Management: Mobilizing all the Resources in the Com-munity.

2UPS Foundation (1998) Managing Volunteers: A Report from UnitedParcel Service. Available at http://www.community.ups.com.

3UPS Foundation (2002) A Guide To Investing In Volunteer ResourcesManagement: Improve Your Philanthropic Portfolio. Available at http://www.community.ups.com.

4Jean Baldwin Grossman and Kathryn Furano (2002) Making the Most ofVolunteers. Public/Private Ventures. Available at http://www.ppv.org.

5Sarah Jane Rehnborg, Catherine K. Fallon, and Benjamin J. Hinerfeld(2002) Investing in Volunteerism: The Impact of Service Initiatives inSelected Texas State Agencies. Austin, TX: LBJ School of Public Affairs.

6Jeffrey L. Brudney (1999) “The Effective Use of Volunteers: BestPractices for the Public Sector.” Law and Contemporary Problems.

“Volunteer management capacity is afunction of two things. One is staff support.The other is the adoption of relevantadministrative practices necessary for the effective management of volunteers.”


The nine management practices listed in Figure 1 are theones that we presented to survey respondents who told us they involve volunteers in their operations. We askedthem if they have adopted each practice to a large degree,to some degree, or not at all. The bars indicate the per-centage of charities that say they have adopted to a largeor some degree. The most striking finding is that onlyone practice, regular supervision and communicationwith volunteers, has been adopted to a large degree bymore than half of charities. Large degree adoption oftraining for either volunteers or for paid staff in workingwith volunteers is particularly rare; these practices aremore likely to have been adopted only to some degree, if at all.

The likelihood that a charity adopts a particular manage-ment practice depends on its specific needs and charac-teristics. Not all practices can or should be adopted by allcharities. While the practice of screening volunteers and

matching them with appropriate tasks is important when volunteers are mentoring or tutoring children, such screening and matching may be unnecessary when a neighborhood association mobilizes residents to clean up a local park. Training paid staff in how to work effec-tively with volunteers may be a fruitful practice for manyorganizations, but it is not relevant to those charities thathave no paid staff. The critical question is whether chari-ties that should be adopting a particular practice have theresources and other institutional support necessary to putthe practice in place.

The following four pages document how adoption ofthese nine practices vary by important organizationalcharacteristics, such as the size of the organization or theway they use volunteers. These differences provide someclues into which conditions make certain practices partic-ularly relevant, and suggest other kinds of circumstancesthat inhibit charities from adopting these practices.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Training for paid staff in working with volunteers

Training and professional development opportunities for volunteers

Annual measurement of the impacts of volunteers

Recognition activities, such as award ceremonies, for volunteers

Written policies and job descriptions for volunteer involvement

Screening procedures to identify suitable volunteers

Regular collection of information on volunteer numbers and hours

Liability coverage or insurance protection for volunteers

Regular supervision and communication with volunteers 67%

46%

30%

26%

45%

45%

32%

42%

44%

35%

37%

47%

30% 32%

25%

19%

49%

46%

Figure 1: Management Practices that Charities Say They Practice to a Large Degree or to Some Degree

■ Adopted to large degree ■ Adopted to some degree

Volunteer Management Practices

Key Finding: Charities Are Receptive to Best Practices in VolunteerManagement, but Commonly Adopt Them Only to Some Degree


Management Practices and Size of the Charity

Key Finding: Adoption Most Likely among Largest Charities

Figure 2 illustrates the average level of adoption of manage-ment practices by charities of different sizes. For each prac-tice, we assign a value of 0 if a particular charity has notadopted the practice, a value of 1 if the charity has adoptedthe practice to some degree, and a value of 2 if the charityhas adopted the practice to a large degree. We then calculatethe average for all of the charities in a particular group.

As we might expect, the size of a charity matters inwhether most practices have been adopted or not. Thelargest charities (those with over $5 million in annualexpenditures, denoted ▲) consistently fall furthest to theright on the scale, indicating highest average levels ofadoption. In contrast, the smallest charities (those with lessthan $100,000 in annual expenditures, denoted ◆ ) tend tofall furthest to the left, indicating lowest levels of adoption.

The bunching of symbols indicate little or no differencebetween charities of different size classes, while greaterspreads indicate greater differences. For example, liabil-ity coverage or insurance protection for volunteers is

about equally likely for organizations in the top two sizeclasses, but both are substantially more likely than thesmallest charities to have adopted this practice.

On the other hand, the rare practice of training paid staffin working with volunteers is not influenced by organiza-tion size. That is, despite our expectation that this prac-tice would be practiced more often by larger charitiesthan by smaller ones, we observe no differences acrosssize classes.7 All other management practices displaydifferences in adoption level across categories of organi-zation size. Even the apparent bunching of symbols on“regular supervision and communication with volun-teers” represents a difference between the smallest andlargest charities. This practice is by far the most com-monly adopted practice among small charities, but thelargest charities are still more likely to have adopted it.

Figure 2. Average Level of Adoption of Volunteer Management Practices, by Size of Charity

no adoption small degree adoption large degree adoption

less than 100,000 $100,000–$500,000 $500,000–$1 million

$1 million–$5 million more than $5 million









Regular supervision and communication with volunteers

7Claims about the differences or similarities between organizations withdifferent characteristics are based on an analysis of variance, a statistical test that indicates whether the observed differences are large enough to beconsidered greater than chance (p< 0.05).

We divided charities into size groups depending on how much total money they say they spent in a year. This figure is taken from Forms990 reported to the IRS in 2000 by charities in the study.


We divided charities into four groups based on theirscope of volunteer use. Our groups are based on both thenumbers of volunteers that charities engaged in the pastyear, as well as the number of hours that volunteerscollectively worked in a typical week. If a charityengaged at least 50 volunteers over the course of theyear, we defined them as having “many volunteers”;otherwise, we defined them as having “few volunteers.”If volunteers collectively worked at least 50 hours in a typical week, we defined a charity as representing“many hours”; otherwise we considered them torepresent “few hours.”

The cross-classification results in four categories of char-ities. The group with “few volunteers, few hours” is thelargest group, and we expect that they are least likely tohave adopted most volunteer management practices.“Many volunteers, few hours” includes those charitiesthat engage many volunteers for predominantly short-term or episodic assignments; in contrast, “few volun-teers, many hours” includes those charities that usevolunteers in more sustained ways. “Many volunteers,

many hours” is the smallest group, but represents thosecharities with the largest scope of volunteer involvement.

Figure 3 shows how adoption of management practicesvaries across scope of volunteer use. As expected,charities with large scope of volunteer involvement are significantly more likely to have adopted the variouspractices when compared to charities that engagecomparatively fewer volunteers for fewer hours.

Comparisons of the two middle categories show thatcharities that use episodic volunteers (“many volunteers,few hours”) have the edge in recognition activities,collection of information on volunteer numbers andhours, and measuring the impacts of volunteer activities.In contrast, charities with more sustained use of fewervolunteers (“few volunteers, many hours”) are morelikely to have liability coverage or insurance protection,training and professional development for volunteers,screening and matching procedures, and regular super-vision and communication. These practices indicate agreater investment in volunteers.

Figure 3. Average Level of Adoption of Volunteer Management Practices, by Scope of Volunteer Use


few volunteers, few hours few volunteers, many hours

many volunteers, few hours many volunteers, many hours










Management Practices and Scope of Volunteer Use

Key Finding: Adoption of Different Management Practices Depends on How Volunteers Are Used


Management Practices and Primary Use of Volunteers

Key Finding: Charities that Primarily Use Volunteers in Direct ServiceRoles Are More Likely to Have Adopted Most Practices

The work that volunteers do also influences adoption ofmanagement practices. We asked survey respondents todescribe the main role that volunteers perform, the one to which the organization devotes the most time, money,and other resources. Based on these descriptions, weorganized charities into four categories based on theirprimary use of volunteers.

Most charities use volunteers primarily in direct serviceactivities, such as mentoring or tutoring. Some usevolunteers in carrying out services, but not in ways thatusually bring them into contact with others; we describethese activities as “indirect service.” The other two cate-gories include volunteers who are primarily working tomake the charity run rather than providing services. One is an internal administrative role, including suchactivities as filing, copying, or answering phones. Theother is an external administrative role, including suchactivities as fundraising, lobbying, or public relations.

Charities that primarily use volunteers in direct serviceroles are furthest to the right on all nine management

practice scales, indicating that they are far more likely to have adopted each practice. The result makes sensebecause charities that use volunteers for direct clientcontact must be more careful about how these servicesare handled. Failure to follow accepted practices forvolunteer management may jeopardize service quality,the reputation of the organization, or the quality of thevolunteer experience.

In contrast, the average adoption scores for charitiesthat use volunteers primarily in indirect service, internaladministration, or external administration tend to grouptogether, indicating that these uses of volunteers do notdistinguish adopters from non-adopters. To the extentthat there are differences, charities that involve volun-teers primarily in internal administration tend to besecond-most likely to adopt most practices. However,these charities are least likely to evaluate the impacts of their volunteers, not surprising given that theirvolunteer tasks are primarily administrative rather than service-oriented.

Figure 4. Average Level of Adoption of Volunteer Management Practices, by Primary Use of Volunteers


direct service indirect service internal administration external administration











Management Practices and Subsector

Key Finding: Health Charities Are Most Active in Adoptionof Volunteer Management Practices

The charities in this study represent the broad array ofnonprofit organizations in the United States. Charities areinvolved in our daily lives in a rich variety of ways, andtheir missions touch on almost all issues of public inter-est. The industry, or subsector, in which a charity worksmight be related to how it engages volunteers, or whichpractices it has adopted in managing its volunteers.

We placed our study organizations into categories basedon their primary purpose. Three-fourths of them could beplaced in one of four major categories: human services;education; health; or arts, culture, and humanities (Figure5). The remaining one-fourth consists of either charitiesthat support the work of other charities, or charities thatoperate in smaller subsectors (such as environmental oranimal related). The figure below is based only on thethree-fourths that we classified into the major groupsindicated.

Charities operating in the health subsector are morelikely to have adopted most practices. On average, healthcharities are more likely to have liability coverage or

insurance protection for volunteers, hold recognitionactivities for volunteers, and to screen and match volun-teers to appropriate assignments. This likely reflects thegreater number of resources, the higher level of profes-sionalization, and (in some cases) the greater urgency ofvolunteer performance in the health field.

Human service charities rival health charities onadoption of most items, but charities operating in theeducation and arts fields tend to lag on most practices.Charities operating in the education and arts fields aresubstantially less likely to have liability coverage, toregularly collect information on volunteer numbers andhours, to measure the impacts of volunteers, or to screenand match volunteers to assignments. Arts organizationsare notably less likely to hold award or other recognitionactivities for their volunteers.

The only practice that does not vary by subsector is the popular practice of supervision and communicationwith volunteers, practiced equally by human service,education, health, and arts organizations.

Figure 5. Average Level of Adoption of Volunteer Management Practices, by Subsector


human services education health arts, culture, and humanities











In this section, we explore the relationship between theadoption of volunteer management practices, variousorganizational characteristics, and the reported rate ofvolunteer retention among the charities in our study.Retention is a goal for most charities, as well as an indi-cation of the success of its volunteer program. For chari-ties that engage volunteers mainly in episodic or shortterm assignments, retention may not be quite so high apriority. Even in these cases, however, most charitieswould likely prefer to have their volunteers take on newtasks as assignments are completed. Recruiting volun-teers is an expensive and time-consuming job, so chari-ties generally like to maximize retention. Retention isalso important because volunteers often become loyalfinancial donors to the organization as well.

To measure retention, we asked respondents “Of thevolunteers that worked with your organization one yearago, approximately what percentage would you say arestill involved as volunteers?” Nearly 3 percent said zero,and 17 percent said all were retained, but most fellsomewhere in between. The median charity reported an 80 percent retention rate.

Our analysis considers how a variety of organizationalpractices and characteristics are related to the reportedretention rate. A key feature of our approach is that all of the factors are considered at the same time, so theinfluence of one practice or characteristic takes intoaccount all of the other factors in the analysis. Thefactors are divided into four categories: managementpractices, investments in volunteer resources, the valuethat volunteers bring to charities, and various otherorganizational characteristics.

Management Practices8

As Figure 6 shows, four of the eight management prac-tices have an effect on volunteer retention. Charities thatsay they have adopted to a large degree the practice ofhosting recognition activities for volunteers have a higherrate of retention, as do those that offer training and

professional development opportunities for volunteers,and those that use screening procedures to identify suit-able volunteers and to match them with appropriate jobsor tasks. These volunteer management practices allcenter on making the experience worthwhile for thevolunteer. Other practices, such as liability coverage or insurance protection, regular collection of informationon the number of volunteers and hours, training for paidstaff in working with volunteers, and written policies andjob descriptions, may generate other benefits, but theycenter on what is important to the charity rather thanwhat is important to volunteers. Not surprisingly, adop-tion of these practices is unrelated to retention. Retentionappears to be very much a product of what charities dodirectly for their volunteers.

Sometimes a practice that is good for the charity may notbe popular with individual volunteers. A curious findingis that regular supervision and communication withvolunteers is associated with lower levels of retention.This management practice is the most widely adoptedamong charities, with two-thirds of the charities adoptingit to a large degree, and virtually all of them adopting it to at least some degree. We do not suggest thatcharities stop supervising and communicating with theirvolunteers! However, some charities may supervise andcommunicate in a way that volunteer experiences feel too much like the grind of their daily jobs rather than anenjoyable avocation, thereby diminishing the experiencefor volunteers and reducing their desire to continuevolunteering. Of course, increased support andcommunication may be a response to poor retention.Thus, organizations that encounter retention problemsmay take steps to alleviate their problems by engagingvolunteers more directly.

Retention of Volunteers

What Factors Explain Whether Charities Can Keep Their VolunteersComing Back?

8The variables in this section are eight of the nine management practicesdiscussed on the preceding pages; “annual measurement of impacts” isexcluded because it overlaps substantially with “regular collection ofinformation.” This set of variables separates charities that say they haveadopted practices to a large degree from those that do not make thisclaim.


Investment in Volunteer Resources9

Charities that feel challenged by the lack of funds allo-cated to support volunteers have lower retention ratesthan charities that report fewer such challenges. Surpris-ingly, however, retention rates do not vary according tothe percentage of time a paid staff member devotes tomanaging the volunteer program. Although having a paidstaff volunteer coordinator is related to adoption of man-agement practices (as well as other benefits), this supportdoes not necessarily translate into greater retention ofvolunteers.

The final issue in the category of investment in volunteerresources concerns organizational culture. That is, hasthe leadership of the charity invested in creating the kindof climate that welcomes and encourages volunteers? Nosurprise, the results indicate that charities that experienceresistance or indifference toward volunteer involvementare less able to retain volunteers.

Value that Volunteers Bring to Charities10

The value of volunteer participation to the charity affectsretention. Charities that use volunteers to recruit other

multiple regression, model adjusted R2 = 0.247; magnitudes of bars are standardized betas for variables statistically significant at p <0.10; ◆ indicates that variable has no effect on retention (p >0.10).

Figure 6. The Influence of Management, Investments, Volunteer Value, and Other Organizational Characteristics onRetention of Volunteers

Management practices adopted to large degree

Investment in volunteer resources

Value that volunteers bring to charities

Organizational characteristics

Negative influences Positive influences

recruitment problems index

ratio: number of staff/number of volunteers

percentage of volunteers under age 24

size of charity

volunteers absent, unreliable, poor work quality

volunteer benefits index

volunteers recruit others one-on-one

staff or board members indifferent toward volunteers

time that paid staffer spends on volunteer management

lack of funds for supporting volunteers

regular collection of volunteer numbers and hours

liability coverage and insurance protection

training for paid staff in working with volunteers

written policies and job descriptions

supervision, communication with volunteers

screening volunteers, matching to assignments

training, professional development for volunteers

recognition activities .09

.06

.06

–.13

–.06

–.05

–.08

.11

.11

–.36

–.06

–.05


volunteers one-on-one are better able to retain volunteers.Enlisting volunteers as “spokespersons” for the charity inthis manner implies a level of trust in these participants,evidence of both a supportive organizational culture andconfidence that the charity provides a worthwhile experi-ence to volunteers. The value that charities place onvolunteers pays dividends in retention. Figure 6 showsthat the greater the number of benefits charities feel theyrealize from volunteer involvement, the higher their rateof volunteer retention. Conversely, to the extent thatcharities perceive that volunteer service is costly to them in the form of absenteeism, unreliability, or poorwork habits, they have lower reported rates of volunteerretention. Charities that do not have this perception do a better job of keeping their volunteers.

Organizational Characteristics11

We anticipated that larger charities would be better ableto retain volunteers due to their greater adoption ofvarious volunteer management strategies, but the resultsin Figure 6 suggest the opposite: smaller charities havehigher rates of volunteer retention. The survey resultscannot tell us why this is the case, but it is easy toimagine several possible reasons for this finding. Sincesmaller charities tend to have fewer volunteers, they candevote more attention to them as individuals. Or, withless budget to pursue organizational missions, volunteerassistance (and retention) is more critical for them. On

9The first variable in this section reflects the percentage of time that apaid staff member spends on volunteer management; for charities with nostaff or no paid staff member in the role of volunteer administrator, thevalue is 0. The two other measures come from a series of questions aboutchallenges that charities might face. We asked respondents if lack of ade-quate funds for supporting volunteer involvement was a big problem, asmall problem, or not a problem at all. We similarly asked whether indif-ference or resistance on the part of paid staff or board members was aproblem.

10Our first variable indicates whether the charity uses volunteers to recruitvolunteers one-on-one to a great extent, to some extent, or to no extent.The second is a Benefits Index, a sum of the reported values that volun-teers bring to charities in the form of increased service quality, cost sav-ings, public support, or specialized skills; higher values reflect greaterreported benefits. The third item is another of the challenges that weasked respondents about; in this case, we asked if absenteeism, unreliabil-ity, or poor work habits or work quality on the part of volunteers was abig problem, a small problem, or not a problem.

11Size of charity is indicated by the five size groupings used on page 7.Percentage of volunteers under age 24 is the reported percentage of totalvolunteers in this age category. The ratio of staff to volunteers is calcu-lated by dividing the reported number of staff members by the number ofvolunteers in the past year. A high value on this ratio reflects an organiza-tion where most work is done by paid staff; a low value indicates anorganization where most work is done by volunteers. The final measure,the Recruitment Problems Index, is a sum of three recruitment challengesthat we asked about. High values indicate problems with recruiting suffi-cient numbers of volunteers, recruiting volunteers with the right skills orexpertise, or recruiting volunteers during the workday; low values indicatefew reported recruiting problems.

the other hand, another measure of the importance ofvolunteers to the charity, the ratio of paid staff tovolunteers, is not related to retention.

The strongest effect in the analysis pertains to thepredominant age of the volunteers in a given charity.Figure 6 indicates that charities with a larger percentageof volunteers under age 24 have lower rates of retention.Again, we can imagine the circumstances that mightexplain this finding. Young people are newer to work life, their life circumstances often change seasonally andrapidly, and their roots in the community are less deepthan older volunteers. Consequently, they are less likelyto maintain relationships with the charities in which theyvolunteer.

Finally, the analysis shows that charities that haveproblems recruiting volunteers also encounter difficultiesin retaining them. Steps toward alleviating one of theseshortcomings should also help to address the other.

“Charities that use volunteers to recruitother volunteers have higher retention rates. Having volunteers represent thecharity implies trust, evidence of a positiveorganizational culture, and confidence that the charity provides a worthwhileexperience for volunteers.”


Charities adopt volunteer management practices forreasons that go beyond the question of whether they can afford them or not. While the resources available to a given charity no doubt play a part in adoption of themanagement practices under study, the roles thatvolunteers play in the organization and tradeoffs betweensatisfying organizational and volunteer needs are alsoimportant in understanding which charities adopt whichpractices.

Scope and Nature of Volunteer Use InfluencesManagement Choices. Different volunteer managementpractices have different underlying purposes. While allvolunteers like to be recognized for their contributions tothe organization or community, this kind of externalmotivation may not be necessary for charities that havemade long-term commitments to their volunteers, a prac-tice that appeals to the intrinsic motivations of individu-als. Long-term commitments are exemplified by trainingand professional development opportunities, regularcommunication and supervision, and liability coverage.These are precisely the kinds of practices more likely to be adopted by those charities that use volunteers insustained ways, characterized by having relatively fewvolunteers who spend a lot of hours working for thecharity. Charities that cater to episodic volunteers adoptdifferent strategies, such as providing external validationthrough public recognition of volunteers.

Charities Must Balance Individual and Organiza-tional Needs. To sustain the participation of volunteers,charities must create a good experience for them. Chari-ties must be equally concerned with implementing prac-

tices designed to make sure that they involve volunteerswisely and well, and commit sufficient support resourcesto this endeavor. Our study shows that charities thatadopt the practices most directly concerned with satisfy-ing volunteers reap the highest rates of retention. Prac-tices that cater more to the needs of the charity than theneeds of volunteers are unlikely to motivate volunteersand, in fact, are not related to retention of volunteers overtime. Nonetheless, these practices may be critical for thecharity to oversee volunteer involvement in an account-able manner, and to generate resources necessary to keepthe charity running.

Retention of Volunteers Involves More ThanManagement Techniques. Adoption of volunteermanagement practices can help organizations to retainvolunteers, but charities interested in retaining volunteersshould not stop there. They should also allocate suffi-cient funds to support volunteer involvement, cultivate an organizational climate that is welcoming to volun-teers, give their volunteers an experience worth sharing,and enlist volunteers in recruiting other volunteers one-on-one. However, neither volunteer management tech-niques nor these other steps alone will maximizeretention. Charities that want to retain these essentialhuman resources should adopt relevant volunteermanagement practices and invest in the infrastructure,culture, and volunteer experience that will keepvolunteers coming back.

Volunteers are valuable human resources. Four out offive charities use volunteers to help them meet organiza-tional needs for service and administration. Most chari-ties could not get by without their volunteers, and theycertainly would be less productive and responsive with-out them. Turnover of volunteers can disrupt the opera-tion of the charity, threaten the ability to serve clients,and signal that the volunteer experience is not as reward-ing as it might be. Charities cannot be expected to keepevery volunteer, but building volunteer managementcapacity to involve and retain them makes sense for bothcharities and the volunteers upon whom they rely.

“Some volunteer management practices are important to the operations of charitiesand some are important for providing goodexperiences for volunteers. The ones thatfocus on volunteers are the ones that keepvolunteers interested and involved.”

Concluding Observations

Implications for Practice


About the AuthorsMark A. Hager, Ph.D., is a senior research associate inthe Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the UrbanInstitute. He is the principal investigator for the VolunteerManagement Capacity Study. His other work focuses onadministrative and fundraising costs among nonprofitorganizations, data collection in the field of the perform-ing arts, and the financial stability of nonprofits.

Jeffrey L. Brudney, Ph.D., is professor of public admin-istration and policy at the School of Public and Interna-tional Affairs, University of Georgia. He is the foremostresearch expert on volunteer management programs andcommunity volunteer centers in the United States.Among numerous other publications, he is author of the“Volunteer Administration” entry in the InternationalEncyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration.

About the Project SponsorsThe volunteer management capacity study was launchedby the USA Freedom Corps. The project is supported by the Corporation for National and Community Serviceand The UPS Foundation. The research was conductedby the Urban Institute. For additional information on these sponsors, consult Volunteer Management Capacity in America’s Charities and Congregations: A Briefing Document..

MethodologyThe volunteer management capacity study is based onsurveys of separate populations of U.S. charities andcongregations. The current report focuses only on thecharities sample. A sample of 2,993 charities was drawnwithin expenditure and subsector strata from 214,995charities that filed Form 990 with the IRS in 2000.

From August to November 2003, the Urban Institute andPrinceton Survey Research Associates called organiza-tions to verify their existence, check mailing addresses,and obtain the name of an appropriate contact; theycompleted precalls with 80 percent of charities. Aftercontact, they mailed a letter that explained the motiva-tions of the study and invited participation, and thencalled each organization up to 30 times to collect studyinformation. Interviews averaging 20 minutes wereconducted with organizational representatives familiarwith volunteer management. In the final weeks of thestudy, interviewers offered $50 donations to organiza-tions that were reluctant to participate; 11 percent ofinterviews were completed with an incentive.

Adjusting for sampled organizations that were defunct or could not be verified as “working organizations,” our response rate was 69 percent. Our unweighted dataincludes 1,753 cases, including 1,354 that use volunteersin their operations and do not primarily recruit and refervolunteers to other organizations (volunteer centers).

Responding charities were weighted to represent theexpenditure and subsector strata from which they weresampled. Weights were further adjusted to account fororganizations unreachable in the precall. Because theseweights help ensure that our respondents reflect thecharacteristics of the working population from whichthey were drawn, the results of the study reported in this report are based on the weighted responses. For more details on methodology, consult the FAQ athttp://www.volunteerinput.org.


The Urban Institute2100 M Street, NWWashington, DC 20037

[email protected]

Documents

Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteerswebarchive.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411005_VolunteerManagement.pdfto which charities use various practices in managing volunteers