Jean Baldwin GrossmanKathryn Furano

July 2002

Making the Most ofVolunteers

B r i e f s

Making the Most ofVolunteers

Jean Baldwin GrossmanKathryn Furano

July 2002

B r i e f sB r i e f s

Public/Private Ventures is anational nonprofit organiza-tion that seeks to improve theeffectiveness of social policiesand programs. P/PV designs,tests and studies initiatives thatincrease supports, skills andopportunities of residents oflow-income communities;works with policymakers to seethat the lessons and evidenceproduced are reflected in pol-icy; and provides training,technical assistance and learn-ing opportunities to practi-tioners based on documentedeffective practices.

Board of Directors

Siobhan Nicolau, ChairPresidentHispanic Policy Development Project

Gary WalkerPresidentPublic/Private Ventures

Amalia BetanzosPresidentWildcat Service Corporation

Yvonne ChanPrincipalVaughn Learning Center

Mitchell S. FromsteinChairman EmeritusManpower Inc.

Susan FuhrmanDean, Graduate School of EducationUniversity of Pennsylvania

Christine L. James-BrownPresidentUnited Way of Southeastern

PennsylvaniaJohn A. Mayer, Jr.

Retired, Chief Financial OfficerJ.P. Morgan & Co.

Matthew McGuireInvestment OfficerOffice of the New York State Comptroller

Milbrey W. McLaughlinDavid Jacks Professor of Education and

Public PolicyStanford University

Maurice Lim MillerDirectorFamily Independence Initiative

Anne Hodges MorganConsultant to Foundations

Marion PinesSenior Fellow, Institute for Policy StudiesJohns Hopkins University

Isabel Carter StewartExecutive DirectorChicago Foundation for Women

Cay StrattonDirectorNational Employment Panel,

London U.K.

Research AdvisoryCommittee

Jacquelynne S. EcclesChairUniversity of Michigan

Ronald FergusonKennedy School of Government

Robinson HollisterSwarthmore College

Alan KruegerPrinceton University

Reed LarsonUniversity of Illinois

Katherine S. NewmanKennedy School of Government

Laurence SteinbergTemple University

Thomas WeisnerUCLA

1

The call for volunteers is getting louder.During President Bush’s 2002 State of theUnion address, he asked every American to give at least two years to serving others.He is not the first president to stress civicengagement, but is offering concreteencouragement—expanding volunteeropportunities, enhancing incentives for vol-unteering and adding the use of volunteersas a criteria in many government grants.

While the need for—and value of—volun-teers is self-evident, making good andappropriate use of volunteers’ time can be challenging for organizations whoseresources are already stretched to the limit.Recruiting and managing volunteers is timeconsuming but essential. Without a sturdyinfrastructure to provide ongoing supportand direction, volunteers’ time and talentsare squandered, and their enthusiasmdampened. And because volunteers them-selves are often in short supply—and mayleave if they are dissatisfied—it is essentialthat procedures are developed to ensurethat volunteers are clear about what isexpected of them and how they fit in.

This essay discusses the elements that expe-rience has shown need to be in place toallow volunteers to be most effective. Ourinsights come from studying hundreds ofprograms that use volunteers heavily—men-toring programs, service programs andlocal community change initiatives. We pre-sent both research findings and practicalfield examples that highlight the impor-tance of screening, training and volunteermanagement. Across the different pro-grams we have visited and studied, theextent to which they included these proce-dures varied tremendously. Some programs

included virtually no volunteering infra-structure, while others were highly struc-tured. From our observations, we believethat these three practices are vitally impor-tant to the success of any program that usesvolunteers. Without adequate infrastruc-ture, the hours of labor contributed bywell-intended individuals can be wasted, oreven cause damage.

Introduction1

2

Every year, over 90 million Americans con-tribute more than 20 billion hours of theirtime to providing services that range fromcoaching Little League teams to restoringcommunities after natural disasters.2 Thesevolunteers organize fundraising events,lead museum tours, teach adults to read,act as coaches and mentors for youth, andprovide countless other services. Withoutvolunteers’ donated labor, these organiza-tions would not reach nearly the number ofpeople or provide the level of service thatthey do.

Voluntarism not only helps the recipientsof services; it often benefits the volunteersthemselves. Talk to volunteers and most willtell you how much they get out of theirinvolvement. For some, it rekindles a senseof community and bridges the gulfs thatexist within American society. Individualstend to move within relatively smallspheres, stratified by age, race, class andlocation. Volunteering, especially in organi-zations to which one does not belong, is apowerful way of reconnecting people withreality outside their own worlds. Volunteerprograms, for example, bring the middle-class public into the classrooms of low-income children and open the volunteers’eyes to the challenges faced by teachersand children in poor schools. Similarly,mentors of low-income children learn on aregular basis about the difficulties of grow-ing up poor. For many volunteers, servicemakes them feel useful. For isolated adults,such as the elderly, it can provide neededsocial connections. Volunteering can even provide physical benefits. A 25-yearNational Institute of Mental Health studyfinds, for example, that “highly organizedactivity [such as regular volunteering] is thesingle strongest predictor, other than not

smoking, of longevity and vitality.”3 Resultsfrom a recent senior service demonstration,Experience Corps, found that while 30 per-cent of its volunteers (who were primarilyin their 50s and 60s) reported they were in“excellent” or “very good” health beforethey started volunteering, 42 percent ofthem felt this way after their volunteeringexperience. Similarly, after volunteering fora year, these participants reported less diffi-culty in reading a map, driving, taking med-ications, using a calculator and shoppingfor groceries than they did at the begin-ning of the program.4

Citing the many good outcomes that canresult from volunteering, politicians fromboth parties advocate voluntarism. FormerPresident Bush set up a White House officeto promote voluntarism and supported thecreation of the Points of Light Foundation,a private foundation dedicated to advanc-ing voluntary efforts to solve social prob-lems. During his administration, Congresspassed legislation that created the Commis-sion for National Service. During PresidentClinton’s administration, Congress reautho-rized the National Service legislation andset up the Corporation for National Servicethat would oversee his newly createdAmeriCorps program as well as overseeother existing service/volunteer programs,such as Foster Grandparents and VISTA.Most recently, President George W. Bushestablished the USA Freedom Corps to fos-ter a culture of service and has repeatedlycalled on every American to volunteer. In1997, the four living presidents backed acall for voluntarism and charity to helpAmerica’s youth.5

Background

3

But not everyone is sanguine about volun-tarism’s ability to address major social prob-lems. Historically, there is little evidencethat volunteers choose to donate theirlabor to human services. Only 8.4 percentof the 93 million volunteers work in“human services”—aiding the homeless,staffing crisis hot lines or working with theelderly.6 The Institute for Policy Studiesestimates that only 7 to 15 percent of thevolunteering done through churches(which one would expect to be moresocially minded) goes outside the walls ofthe church into the community. Other crit-ics fear that governmental backing of vol-untarism is motivated only by a desire tocut the federal budget. They ridicule thenotion that volunteers can solve serioussocial problems. One such critic likenedcalls for voluntarism to “putting the war onpoverty in the hands of vigilantes.”7

Thus, one segment of America sees volun-tarism, if widely adopted, as a way of eradi-cating poverty, while another segment seesit an inefficient way of addressing thenation’s social problems. Reality lies in themiddle. Some social problems are too com-plex or acute to be adequately addressedsolely by volunteers; but there are also manysocial needs that volunteers can respondto—providing disadvantaged youth withmentors or tutors, staffing domestic abuseand rape hot lines, immunizing childrenand rehabilitating homes, to name a few.

Indeed, volunteering is in a time of transi-tion. Not only is society asking volunteersto coach youth and organize fundraisingevents but, increasingly, more complextasks. This trend is particularly apparent inthe social service arena, as the responsibilityfor delivering a range of services devolves tothe local level. Rather than supplementingand supporting the efforts of paid staffmembers, volunteers in more organizationsnowadays are being asked to play more staff-like roles in order to control costs.

As a result, organizations that rely on vol-unteers realize that many of the same issuesthey address for their staffs—pay, workingconditions, training—apply to volunteerswho play critical roles or make major timecommitments. In the past, whether volun-teers personally benefited was not reallyconsidered; today, if volunteers areexpected to be dependable and providemore of their time, programs do need tothink about the personal benefits availableto their unpaid workforce. Similarly, asmore service delivery is done by volunteers(for example, there was a 50 percentincrease in the number of mentors who vol-unteered with Big Brothers Big Sisters ofAmerica between 1996 and 1997),8 themore an organization’s reputation isaffected by the quality of their volunteers’work. Thus, just as effective companiestrain and manage their staffs, organizationsthat wish to use volunteers effectively needto pay more attention to training and man-aging them than ever before.

Based on our studies of programs that usevolunteers in major ways (mentoring pro-grams, service programs and community-based initiatives), we have concluded thatthree areas are vitally important to theirsuccess: screening, training, and ongoingmanagement and support. The screeningprocess provides organizations the oppor-tunity to select those adults most likely tobe successful as volunteers by finding indi-viduals who already have the appropriateattitudes or skills needed to succeed.Orientation and training ensure that vol-unteers build the necessary skills and haverealistic expectations of what they canaccomplish. Management and ongoingsupport of volunteers by staff is critical for ensuring that volunteer hours are not squandered, that weak skills arestrengthened and that the volunteers aremaximally effective.

4

Operating a successful volunteer effortbegins with the selection of volunteers. Notevery well-intended person makes a goodvolunteer for every task. Programs do wellto screen applicants with their intendedtasks in mind, considering such factors assafety, skills and commitment.

First and foremost, the safety of those receiv-ing services must be taken into account,especially if they are in vulnerable popula-tions, such as children, the mentallyretarded and the fragile elderly. Many mentoring and other volunteer programsoperating in schools, for example, requirereferences and conduct police backgroundchecks. Similarly, if the volunteer’s role willbe driving others, the driving record shouldbe checked. All AmeriCorps programs thatprovide services to vulnerable populationsare required to conduct criminal historybackground checks on AmeriCorps members.9

A second, equally important screening criterion should be the level of skill theapplicant brings. The volunteers can playsignificant roles in more complex jobs, butnot without the appropriate skills. Programscan teach volunteers needed skills (whichcan be both costly and time consuming),10

screen for those who already have the skills(which limits the pool of volunteers), or doa bit of both—which is what most programsdo. If the mixed strategy is chosen, though,programs need to be explicit about whatskills or attitudes applicants need to bringwith them. For example, mentoring pro-grams have learned that it is difficult toteach volunteers who want to “fix” a childhow to spend sufficient time building therelationship so the child will be receptive tothe mentor’s efforts. This type of volunteeris more appropriately a tutor or instructor

who can teach skills, often to groups ofyouth, rather than a mentor who isexpected to develop a solid one-to-one rela-tionship, typically with a single youth.

Understanding how great a time commitmenta volunteer is able to make is essential.Some volunteer opportunities require littletime or skill—one-day clean-up or beautifi-cation activities, for example. However,activities that are most likely to have endur-ing impacts require persistence. It is a wasteof time and resources for a program todevote the training and supervision neededto bring a volunteer up to speed only tohave her leave soon after starting. It wastesthe program’s resources and the volun-teer’s time, and can also seriously damage avolunteer program’s relationship with ahost organization.

Selecting volunteers who can realisticallykeep their time commitments is particularlyimportant when the volunteer’s job is pri-marily, or even secondarily, to form a rela-tionship with others. Terminations maytouch on vulnerabilities that other, less personal interventions do not. Vulnerableindividuals, such as youth or the elderly, can be damaged when good-hearted volun-teers who start befriending them decidethey really do not have the time to con-tinue. This may be particularly true for chil-dren living in single-parent households whoare referred to relationship-based interven-tions. These children have already sustainedthe loss of regular contact with a nonresi-dential parent and often feel particularlyvulnerable to, and responsible for, problemsin subsequent adult relationships.11 Feelingsof rejection and disappointment, in turn,may lead to a host of negative emotional,behavioral and academic outcomes.12

Screening

5

Studying the effects of volunteer mentoringover time, Grossman and Rhodes found thatyouth who were in matches that terminatedwithin the first three months had signifi-cantly lower levels of global self-worth andperceived scholastic competence than didthe randomly selected control group youthwho did not receive a mentor (Table 1).13

The findings regarding early terminationsare consistent with previous work, that hasdemonstrated the particular vulnerabilitiesof youth to relationship disruption.14 Still, itis unclear whether these negative effectsstemmed from youth’s feelings of rejectionand disappointment or from other self-selection processes or contextual influences.15

Inconsistency may also damage the youth’sfuture ability to trust. Therefore, programstaff should review volunteers’ life commit-ments and discuss how they intend to fittheir volunteering responsibilities into theiroverall schedules. Individuals whose othercommitments indicate they will have diffi-culty serving on a consistent basis shouldbe screened out of mentoring or other rela-tionship-intensive roles. Instead, as dis-cussed below, these individuals may beuseful to programs in other roles.

Table 1: Estimated Impacts of Big Brothers Big Sisters by the Length of Match

Outcome <3 Months 3-6 Months 6-12 Months 12+ Months

Self-Worth -2.24** 0.30 0.08 0.76*

Perceived Scholastic Competence -1.83* 0.58 0.53 0.93*

Value of School -1.16 0.58 -1.15 1.85**

Hitting Someone -1.28 -2.08* -1.06 0.17

Frequency of Drug Use 0.21 0.39 -0.40** -0.34

Frequency of Alcohol Use 0.29 0.18 -0.12 -0.57*

Source: Grossman and Rhodes, 1999.

* p≤ .05

** p≤ .01

6

No program can expect volunteers to justwalk “on the job” without any instruction.The need for training is obvious for someprograms, such as crisis phone centers ormedically related tasks. But a mistake thatfar too many programs make is to underes-timate the training needs of their volun-teers. For example, at first blush one wouldthink that mentors do not need training.They are just asked to meet with a child afew hours a week and be a friend. Yet,forming a relationship between a child andan adult stranger is actually quite difficultand often frustrating for the adult.16

Years of study have shown that without atleast some training (at the beginning or,better yet, on an ongoing basis), most men-toring matches will not work.17 Volunteers’initial understanding of program goals andtheir role in achieving those goals shapesthe way in which they interact with youthand, in turn, the type of relationships thatform and the overall effectiveness of thementoring experience.18 In addition, men-tors greatly benefit from learning aboutbasic youth development (what an 8-year-old is like), communications, building trustand handling common challenges. Asshown in Table 2, mentors who received agood orientation and training (includingthe provision of information about theyoung person with whom they would be

matched, general youth development prin-ciples, expectations about the nature andcontent of mentoring activities, and lessonsfrom the experiences of other mentors inthe program) were much more likely toform “developmental” relationships, a typeof relationship that was found to be partic-ularly helpful to the children. These rela-tionships tended to last longer and thesementors ultimately provided their youthwith more guidance and advice than did“prescriptive” mentors who, unlike thedevelopmental mentors, viewed their goalsfor the match, rather than those of theyouth, as primary.

In a study of a career preparation/careermentoring program, McClanahan foundthat volunteers who received more hours offormal training at the beginning of theirinvolvement with a youth increased thelength of the youth’s and volunteer’s pro-gram involvement and encouraged thementors to engage in more types of activi-ties that were encouraged by the pro-gram—career mentoring, social activitiesand career preparatory activities.19 Table 3illustrates the extent to which hours of for-mal training are positively correlated withdesirable features of the mentoring rela-tionships that McClanahan studied—matchlength, and engagement in social andcareer preparatory activities.

Training and Skills

Table 2: Match Type by Training

Developmental Prescriptive

Training 75% (n=45) 25% (n=15)

No Training 41% (n=9) 59% (n=13)

Source: Morrow and Styles, 1995 p.111

Characteristics Formal Training

Length of match .28***

Engage in career mentoring (mentor report) .16**

Engage in social activities (mentor report) .23***

Engage in career preparatory activities (mentor report) .18***

Engage in work activities (mentor report) .01

Source: McClanahan, 1998.

** Indicates that the correlation is statistically different from zero at the 0.05 level of significance.

***Indicates that the correlation is statistically different from zero at the 0.01 level of significance.

Two types of training have proven to bevaluable for volunteers:

• Content-focused training in how to do thetasks, such as tutoring; and

• Process-focused training in how to work wellin the host environment, such as a school orhospital.

While volunteer organizers may underesti-mate the breadth of content-focused train-ing needed, all too often the need forprocess-oriented training is completelyoverlooked. Tutoring programs, for exam-ple, may train volunteers in how to readwith a child, but the effectiveness of thevolunteers also critically depends on howwell they “fit in” to the school.20 For exam-ple, when a volunteer tutor arrives, doesshe know where she is supposed to go? Isthere a location set aside for her to meetwith the young person she is scheduled totutor? More generally, do teachers andadministrators perceive volunteers as inter-lopers or as valuable assets for the schooland its students? In addition, being awareof the school culture and rules can make orbreak a program. Volunteers need to knowabout rules for “checking in,” using school

equipment, honoring the dress code,understanding when and how to accessteachers.21

When volunteers are well-prepared, theynot only know what is expected of themand what they are likely to face on-site, theycan also be confident that their work willbe meaningful and have value for the stu-dents they serve. At a minimum, volunteersneed to be thoroughly briefed about therules and procedures of the program. Ifvolunteers are working within an institution(school, library, hospital), they should bemade aware of the institution’s rules. Theyneed to know how and with whom to com-municate if they have a problem—they can-not make it or there is a problem on thejob, for example. Such training not onlymakes the volunteer more effective on the“job,” but also provides trainees with moreinformation about what the environmentwill be like—allowing them to drop out ifthey discover they are not up to the requiredtasks. A practical, effective way of deliveringthis latter type of information is to have acurrent volunteer come to the orientationor training sessions and describe and answerquestions about their experience.

7

Table 3: Mentor Training And Relationship Characteristics

Relationship Hours of

8

Just as the quality of management makes orbreaks a business, management is essentialfor effective volunteering. We discuss threeaspects of management: volunteer assign-ment, supervision and communications.

The Right Person for the Right Task

Having well-defined tasks laid out and com-municated to the volunteer (and to thosewith whom the volunteer will work) is thefirst step in attracting and retaining effec-tive volunteers. Ill-defined tasks, like “Helpthe teacher,” communicates to both the vol-unteer and the teacher that their workreally is not critical. Volunteer jobs shouldbe carefully designed to provide the volun-teer with meaningful work in which bothhe or she and paid staff who may workbeside them know how the volunteer’s con-tributions help to achieve the mission ofthe organization.

It is useful for programs to provide a rangeof well-defined tasks from which volunteerscan choose.22 While not all volunteer pro-grams can do this (for example some men-toring programs only provide one type ofmentoring opportunity), many programscan provide volunteers with a wide selectionof opportunities. It is advantageous if tasksrange widely in terms of both the kind ofservice the volunteers are performing andthe amount of time they are expected tocommit to that service. Many programsdevelop a hierarchy of volunteer positionsthat leaves room for several levels of involve-ment and that also appeals to a range ofinterests and strengths. For example, volun-teers in Lincoln Nebraska’s ComprehensiveSchool Health Initiative (CSHI) provideyouth with language arts, science, fine artsand social skills, and physical activities, aswell as special interest clubs and classes.

This range of activities provides niches toaccommodate the interests of the childrenwho attend and of the volunteers whoserve.23 Similarly, Experience Corps beganby requiring volunteers to make a minimum15-hour per week commitment. However, asthe project evolved, it opened itself up tovolunteers who could not make such largetime commitments. By blending full-, half-and part-time volunteers, the program wasable to continue to use volunteers as theirinterests and life circumstances changed.24

Providing a range of opportunities caninclude more than consideration of volun-teers’ time and interests. Some programsthat recruit volunteers from poor commu-nities—including people who have limitedexperience with either work or service—aretaking particular care to craft opportunitiesin which novice service providers can besuccessful. Many of the parents of CSHIyouth (who were expected to volunteer inthe program) are examples of these noviceservice providers. Their roles in the after-school program have been carefullydesigned both to take advantage of theirindividual strengths and to help them buildparenting skills. Similarly, a program inDenver uses parents of Head Start childrenas volunteers. Parents provide various childcare services, and all receive the trainingand support they need to fulfill their duties.

Providing a range of opportunities and lev-els of commitment can help programsattract volunteers from a variety of eco-nomic, educational, and racial and ethnicbackgrounds, who offer different skills,expertise and life experiences. TempleUniversity’s Experience Corps, which mobi-lizes older adult volunteers to help schoolsachieve their stated educational objectives

Ongoing Management and Support

9

by fostering literacy skills among elemen-tary school students, has partnered withresidential facilities as a means of recruit-ing volunteers who may not otherwise par-ticipate in service programs. By targetingthese facilities in particular neighborhoods,Experience Corps staff can solicit volun-teers who may not typically consider doingso (or who may not typically be asked). Forexample, a team of Spanish-speaking olderadults from a senior center created a story-telling troupe that regularly visits a Phila-delphia elementary school to help bilingualchildren gain a greater appreciation oftheir cultural heritage. In New York state,the West Seneca AmeriCorps programrecruits and maintains a large, diverse poolof volunteers and then has the flexibility tolink them to activities where their back-grounds contribute to their effectiveness.

Linking the right volunteer to the right jobis also a critical step in making a successfulprogram. Just as any corporate executivewill tell you that hiring the right people isthe key to profitability, so “hiring” the rightvolunteers is critical to the effectiveness ofa volunteer program. The volunteer coordi-nator needs to understand the require-ments of volunteer jobs, as well as thequalifications and characteristics of the vol-unteer applicants, well enough to knowwhich assignments to give to which volun-teers. While some of this information couldbe obtained in writing, most effective coor-dinators talk to both the volunteers andthose who will use them in order to makethe best match. In most mentoring pro-grams, for example, the coordinator ofteninterviews both the youth and the volun-teer applicants to get a sense of their inter-ests and personalities. By doing so, pro-grams can both contribute to the develop-ment of effective relationships and preventyouth from “voting with their feet”—that is,failing to show up for meetings or with-drawing from the relationship altogether.25

In other programs, volunteer coordinatorsinterview applicants to learn more abouttheir level of commitment, skills, and com-peting time obligations to ensure a “goodfit” between the volunteer and the job.

Host agencies are asked about the extent towhich they already use (and therefore areaccustomed to working with) volunteers,whether there is dedicated staff assigned tomanage them, and the nature and contentof the work the volunteer will be expectedto perform. By gathering the most completeinformation available, organizations thatprovide volunteers can identify a “good fit,”which will help ensure the satisfaction ofboth the volunteer and the host agency.

Support and Supervision

Regular supervision or monitoring is cru-cial to ensure that volunteers are beingeffective. When professional staff spendmore time interacting with volunteers, thevolunteers have better “attendance” and doa better job than do volunteers withoutsupervision. Especially early in the volun-teers’ assignments, they need substantialassistance and guidance. Access to eitherprofessional staff or other experienced vol-unteers can help volunteers get throughthe rough spots that might otherwise leadto frustration and departure.

The most systematic research on supervi-sion examines its effect on volunteer men-tors. This research shows that ongoingsupervision is the most important programelement in achieving a high rate of interac-tion among pairs. In 1992, P/PV conductedan implementation study of Big BrothersBig Sisters, examining matches in eightcities.26 A telephone survey was conductedwith a randomly selected subset of the men-tors (821 of the 2,948 actively matched withyouth in 1992). Table 4 shows that agenciesproviding staff-initiated professional super-vision—which a staff member, rather thanthe volunteer, initiates as a means of super-vising the progress of the match—had alower percentage of failed matches. Inanother mentoring program, in whichsupervision was grafted onto existing staff’sjobs with no reduction in other responsibil-ities, only 26 percent of the matches meton a regular basis for a minimum of sixmonths (a one-year commitment wasexpected).27 Programs in which mentors arenot regularly contacted by program staff

Table 4: Meeting Variables During the Four Weeks Prior to Survey (by Supervision Factors)

Supervision Match Not Meeting (%) Failed Matches (%)

## ###Caseworker initiates contact 10.4 12.8Volunteer initiates contact 19.2 42.9

### #Caseworkers have hands-on role 9.7 12.7Caseworkers use referrals 17.3 27.6

###Caseworkers supervise 10.6 10.9Supervision done by interns 12.4 27.0

# ##Face-to-face caseworker contact 9.3 10.3Contact by phone 13.3 22.6

Source: Furano et al., 1992. p.51.

# Indicates that the percentage or averages of the two numbers listed below that symbol differ with respect to this

variable at a0.10 level of significance.

## Indicates that the percentages or averages of the two numbers listed below that symbol differ with respect to this

variable at a 0.05 level of significance.

###Indicates that the percentages or averages of the two numbers listed below that symbol differ with respect to this

variable at a 0.01 level of significance.

reported the most “failed” matches—thosethat did not meet consistently and, thus,never developed into relationships.28 Ingeneral, the research shows that mentoringpairs in programs that provide regularsupervision were the most likely to meetfrequently for the longest periods—andregular meetings over an extended periodof time are essential if the relationship is tobe a “success.”29 Supervisors help mentorsdeal with situations in which youth fail toshow up for scheduled meetings, do nottalk about personal issues or are not inter-ested in the activities the mentor hasplanned.

Research on volunteer mentoring programsalso finds that supervisors can be instru-mental in helping mentors do a better joband forge appropriate roles.30 Mentors oftenneed to be reminded to be patient and takethe youth’s interests into account ratherthan to push their own goals, agenda and

values onto the youth. Regular interactionbetween volunteers and staff not onlyensures that pairs are meeting, but canhelp promote the development of positiveand lasting relationships.

In a study of 266 mentors and 376 studentsin 13 hospital-based career mentoring pro-grams, McClanahan found that volunteerswho attended more of the mentor supportgroups were more likely to take a develop-mental approach to the relationship. Table5 illustrates the correlation between desir-able match features and the number ofongoing support meetings that mentorsattend with their peers.

As the tables indicate, volunteers (and con-sequently those they serve) considerablybenefit from the advice and guidance theyreceive from both program staff and theirpeers (e.g., matches are longer and thekinds of activities engaged in are those

10

11

intended by the program and desired bythe youth). Most volunteers experiencesome frustration, especially early on thejob as they learn the role. Access to eitherprofessional staff or other more experi-enced volunteers, through a volunteer sup-port group, can help volunteers getthrough the rough spots.

Similarly, ongoing staff support can greatlyleverage the value of volunteers’ time byensuring that they spend their limited timedoing their primary job—which tends to bedirect contact with people. Staff should dothe background work, such as orderingmaterials, or tasks that require more spe-cialized knowledge, such as preparing indi-vidualized lesson plans for one-on-onetutoring sessions.31

Some programs that do not employ suffi-cient staff to maintain regular contact withand provide support to volunteers havedeveloped program structures (e.g.,preestablished regular meetings betweenmentors and mentees, and transportationassistance) that partially compensate forlack of staff. For volunteers with busyschedules, having a specific time to meethelps build their volunteering obligationsecurely into their overall commitments.The programs that relied on these programstructures found that “attendance” by vol-unteers improved with these structural sup-ports.32 However, reliance on structuralprogram features does little to foster thedevelopment of or improvement in volun-teers’ skills. Thus, while set volunteer timesand transportation assistance are usefulpractices, they are less effective than theprovision of regular, ongoing support fromprofessional staff.

Table 5: Mentor Training and Relationship Characteristics

Relationship Characteristics Number of Meetings with Other Mentors

Length of match .35***

Developmental style .16*

Youth input .02

Mentor support -.08

Engage in career mentoring (mentor report) .24***

Engage in social activities (mentor report) .40***

Engage in career prep activities (mentor report) .27***

Engage in work activities (mentor report) -.04

Source: McClanahan, 1998.

* Indicates that the correlation is statistically different from zero at the 0.10 level of significance.

** Indicates that the correlation is statistically different from zero at the 0.05 level of significance.

***Indicates that the correlation is statistically different from zero at the 0.01 level of significance.

Another supervision strategy some pro-grams have tried is using long-term or moreexperienced volunteers to supervise others.For example, in the late 1990s, The FordFoundation funded the Spectrum of Serviceproject, a national demonstration of sevenservice programs that explored ways of com-bining stipended long-term volunteers withunpaid service providers.33 In many of theseprograms, the AmeriCorps members (whohad committed to serve for a year) pro-vided a cohesive structure and supervisionfor hundreds of volunteer tutors. Similarly,some mentoring programs operated mentorsupport groups headed by a long-term men-tor. While this strategy is cheaper than astaff-supervision model, care must be takento ensure that the senior volunteer who isproviding the supervision is adequatelytrained. While it is unclear how frequentlythis occurs within volunteer programs, sup-port groups and volunteer supervisors canend up being “the blind leading the blind,”reinforcing unproductive practices or fail-ing to identify or adequately deal with prob-lems. Providing volunteer labor withoutsufficient resources to support and super-vise this work is likely to be ineffective andpossibly damaging.

Many institutions take on volunteers, suchas mentors, as a way to extend services with-out allocating any additional resources.Existing employees are expected to take onsupervision of the volunteers or the men-tor-youth matches without any reduction intheir other responsibilities. Not surpris-ingly, the institutionally based programs westudied that did not devote specializedresources to supervising volunteers were,for the most part, not successful. For exam-ple, in two such mentoring programs,located in residential institutions for juve-nile offenders, only 38 percent of matchesmet for longer than six months, while theremainder lasted six months or less (28 per-cent lasted between four and six months,and 34 percent lasted three months or less).Even among those matches that lasted sixmonths or more, about 30 percent metonly sporadically; that is, less than twice amonth, on average, across the life of therelationship.34

Employees given the responsibility for over-seeing volunteers were often hampered byseveral factors. First and foremost was theaddition of volunteer supervision to theirexisting responsibilities—this is a phenome-non not only evident in juvenile facilities,but in a variety of cash-strapped agenciesthat recognize the value of volunteers butare often ill-equipped to manage them.Second, supervisors often felt they had noauthority over volunteers and were thusreluctant to follow up with those who failedto keep meeting with their youth. Finally,volunteers’ roles within the institution werenot clearly defined. In the juvenile institu-tion example, supervisors did not know ifthe mentoring program was part of ayouth’s treatment plan or an activity thatwas simply an add-on and therefore notsubject to formal oversight or tracking.Those supervisors who saw the program asextraneous (an add-on) provided mentorswith far less information and support thandid supervisors who saw the program as anintegral part of the youth’s treatment.

Failure to allocate additional resources tofund the supervision necessary for effectivementoring brought the downfall of thesementoring efforts. Other institutions needto avoid this mistake if efforts to developvolunteer components are to succeed.Setting aside dedicated staff time for therelated tasks of volunteer orientation, train-ing and supervision is essential and oftenoverlooked, especially by those organiza-tions for which effective program imple-mentation is familiar but volunteermanagement (or mentoring) is not.

Communication

Another critical element of an effectiveprogram’s infrastructure is good communi-cation, both internal and external. One ofits most important areas of internal com-munication is on scheduling. Volunteersneed to have advance notice of when andwhere they are needed. If they are notneeded on a particular day (perhaps be-cause the youth they meet with is sick, theschool is closed or materials that are neededfor their project have not arrived), they

12

13

also need to know. Volunteers express frus-tration when they arrive at the appointedtime and are unable to do the work assignedthem.35 Similarly, if a volunteer cannot showup because of work or sickness, the student,work crew or teacher who expects the vol-unteer needs to know about it in advanceso they can readjust their plans. Withoutadvance warning (and the more the better), both volunteers and the servicerecipients get frustrated, and the volunteerprogram gets marginalized by both.

Another type of communication that isoften underemphasized by volunteer pro-grams is the need for good external rela-tions. To foster collaboration, volunteerprograms need both initial “buy-in” andongoing support from the partner agencieswhere volunteers are placed. Large institu-tions, such as schools, can present particu-lar challenges because they are traditionallyhierarchical and somewhat insular. Pro-grams we have studied have taken a varietyof approaches to meeting these challenges.For example, the Providence Summerbridgeprogram, one of P/PV’s Spectrum ofService demonstration sites, met with offi-cials from the city’s Board of Educationprior to program implementation to pro-vide information about what the programsought to accomplish, who it would helpand how, and, most important, what theoutcomes had been for program partici-pants elsewhere in the country.36

Many factors affect buy-in. One of the mostimportant is that the staff of the host orga-nization clearly understand how the volun-teers will help it better achieve its mission.When the volunteer program’s objectivesalign with an institution’s goals, administra-tors and staff are more likely to work con-structively with the volunteer program.Programs seeking access to schools, forexample, need to illustrate how they willcontribute to student success—what ser-vices the volunteers will deliver, who willbenefit and what the outcomes will be.

Even prior to approaching the schools withwhom programs seek to work, many of themore successful programs we have studiedidentify the ways their program designsmight contribute to existing educationalplans or priorities.37 The sites articulate this“fit” on several administrative and opera-tional levels, from state departments ofeducation to individual school buildings.For example, Providence’s Summerbridgeprogram designed its initiative both toenhance educational outcomes and to bein line with Rhode Island’s school reformefforts. Volunteer Maryland initiated itsoutreach to schools at the state level aswell, ensuring buy-in at the top, and count-ing on the fact that schools would be morelikely to pay attention to information com-ing from a source they recognize andrespect than they would to informationfrom an outside entity.

Sites in the Spectrum of Service demonstra-tion in schools have devoted significant timeto providing information and materials toprospective school partners. In Philadelphia,prior to program implementation, staff metwith the principal, reading specialist and allthe teachers whose students will be tutored,to explain not only the structure and con-tent of the programming, but also the recruit-ment and training process for the serviceproviders and volunteers. Similarly, in Boston,staff from Generations, Incorporated, aprogram that seeks to improve the literacyskills of second- and third-grade students,met with school personnel prior to programimplementation and explained what theysought to accomplish and exactly what theresponsibilities would be for each player,including the volunteers, paid serviceproviders, youth and school personnel.

Philadelphia’s Experience Corps gotschool-level buy-in by involving teachersand administrators in project planning anddeveloping individualized frameworks forintegrating volunteers into each school’senvironment. Leaps in Literacy similarlymeets with school principals before theschool year begins to “iron out” potentialproblems, a process that school administra-tors feel is extremely useful. Similarly,

14

Volunteer Maryland staff lay groundworkfor the program through an extensiveprocess of service site preparation thatincludes the development of a written plan,site visits by Volunteer Maryland staff andpreservice training. As a result, program-matic goals and objectives, as well as eachpartner’s roles and responsibilities, areclear to all involved.38

The effort to address issues specific to indi-vidual schools—such as scheduling, staffmeetings and the level of in-school supportthat can be provided for volunteers—is anessential step toward earning school “buy-in.” In the absence of “buy-in,” programsrun the risk of having to work with schooladministrators and teachers who are unin-terested in, or in the worst cases, hostiletoward, the support they seek to providethrough the work of their volunteers. Thiscan translate into an environment that thevolunteer perceives as inhospitable. Whenthe volunteer abandons her or his commit-ment, he or she is disillusioned, the schoolis disappointed (and, perhaps, somewhatmore resistant to the next volunteer whoappears), and the young people do notreceive the services intended for them.

15

To close the gap between rhetoric and real-ity, effective volunteer programs need toincorporate the critical elements of infra-structure into their regimen. While volun-teering has long been a staple of Americanproductivity, the kinds of things that volun-teers are asked to do are becoming increas-ingly complex, particularly as the federalgovernment devolves responsibility fordelivering a range of social services to statesand localities. Volunteers can address manyof these tougher issues, as P/PV’s reportson mentoring show.39 But benefits are notautomatically bestowed when volunteersshow up. No matter how well intentionedvolunteers are, unless there is an infrastruc-ture in place to support and direct theirefforts, they will remain ineffective at bestor, worse, become disenchanted and with-draw, potentially damaging recipients ofservices in the process.

Our research indicates that three elementsare vitally important to the success of anyvolunteer program:

1. The screening process provides programswith an opportunity to select adults mostlikely to be successful as volunteers by look-ing for individuals who have the appropriateattitudes, time and skills needed to succeed.

2. Orientation and training ensure that volun-teers have the specific skills needed to beeffective, and realistic expectations of whatthey can accomplish.

3. Management and ongoing support of volun-teers by staff ensure that volunteer hours arenot squandered and that the volunteers areas effective as possible.

Unfortunately, this infrastructure is not free.Staff time and program resources must be

Summary and Cost Implications

explicitly devoted to these tasks. There is rel-atively little information on the cost of goodquality infrastructure, but inferring from astudy conducted by Fountain and Arbretonon the cost of mentoring, infrastructure islikely to cost a program approximately $300per year per volunteer.40 This study exam-ined in detail the costs of 52 mentoring pro-grams that had, on average, 178 volunteers.They found that, on average, staff spent 52hours per week screening and training vol-unteers, and 28 hours per week supervisingthose 178 volunteers. This suggests thatapproximately 23 hours per volunteer peryear was devoted to screening, training andmanagement. Valuing this time using thetypical staff pay in the sample ($23,000 ayear plus benefits), the infrastructure costcomes to approximately $300 per volunteer.41

(Obviously, in more expensive labor mar-kets, the cost would be more; if volunteersprovide some of the supervision, costs wouldbe less—but paid staff would have to spendextra time training the volunteer managers.)

Program staff of effective volunteering pro-grams reside at the junction where busyadministrators and overworked employees(such as teachers, hospital staff), dedicatedvolunteers and service recipients (such aspatients and students who need academichelp and individual attention) intersect.Staff ensure that qualified volunteers showup consistently when they are expected todo meaningful tasks that accomplish themission of the program, without burdeningemployees of the host organization.Programs with the necessary structure canachieve this goal.

As Marc Freedman has written, “Without[infrastructure], all that remains is fervor.And fervor alone is not only evanescent andinsufficient, but potentially treacherous.”42

1 This article was commissioned for the Schoolof Law, Duke University. A similar versionmay also be found in Law and ContemporaryProblems, Vol. 62:4 pp. 199-218 or athttp://www.law.duke.edu.journals/621LCPGrossman or at http://www.ppv.org. Theauthors thank Charles Clotfelter for hispatience and persistence in making this abetter paper.

2 Virginia A. Hodgkinson and MurrayWeitzman, Giving and Volunteering in theUnited States. Washington, D.C.: IndependentSector, 1996.

3 Marc Freedman, Seniors in National andCommunity Service. Philadelphia:Public/Private Ventures, 1994.

4 Marc Freedman and Linda Fried, LaunchingExperience Corps. Oakland, Calif.: CivicVentures, 1999. Experience Corps seeks tomobilize a cadre of older adult volunteers tohelp elementary school children improvetheir reading skills, and aims both toenhance childhood literacy and engageelders in meaningful activity.

5 The President’s Summit for America’sFuture, held in Philadelphia in April 1997,called on philanthropies, corporations, non-profits, individuals and entire communitiesto expand the reach and impact of five essen-tial features of effective youth developmentprogramming: caring adults; safe places andstructured activities; a healthy start for ahealthy future; marketable skills; and oppor-tunities to give back through service to one’scommunity.

6 Virginia A. Hodgkinson et al., Giving andVolunteering in the United States, Volume II.Washington, D.C.: Independent Sector, 1995.

7 Brent Staples, “Editorial Notebook: Mr.Bush’s Voodoo Urban Policy, Nobless ObligeAlone Dooms Our Children.” The New YorkTimes, April 25, 1991.

8 Business Growth Plan for Big Brothers Big Sistersof America. Philadelphia: Replication andProgram Strategies, Inc., June, 1998.

9 Protecting service recipients from harm is aresponsibility of all service providers.Beginning in 1996, the Corporation forNational Service (the entity that administersthe AmeriCorps program, among others)attached a special condition related to crimi-nal history record checks to its grant awards,noting that all programs where there is sub-stantial, direct contact with children arerequired to conduct criminal record checks,to the extent permitted by state and local law,as part of the screening process. While by nomeans a panacea, criminal record checks arean essential tool that helps to ensure thesafety of service recipients, as well as the rep-utation of service providers.

10 Depending on the nature of the tasks to beperformed and the skills and experience thatthe volunteer brings, training can be ratherinformal or quite intensive. In mentoring pro-grams, volunteers receive anywhere from twoto eight hours of pre-match training, plus on-going support from peers or staff. AmeriCorpsmembers, regardless of the type of service per-formed, participate in weekly training sessionsduring their tour of service, with many alsospending from several days to an entire weekengaged in relatively intensive pre-servicetraining.

11 Judith S. Wallerstein and Joan B. Kelly,Surviving the Breakup: How Children andParents Cope with Divorce. New York: BasicBooks, 1980.

16

Endnotes

12 G. Downey et al., “Rejection Sensitivity andChildren’s Interpersonal Difficulties.” ChildDevelopment, 69, 1998.

13 Jean Baldwin Grossman and Jean E. Rhodes,“The Test of Time: Predictors and Effects ofDuration in Youth Mentoring Relationships.”American Journal of Community Psychology, 2000.

14 See endnote #12.

15 When Grossman and Rhodes statisticallyadjusted for the possibility of self-selectionbias through two-stage least squares (2SLS),they had to combine the less than three-month group with the three- to six-monthgroup. The 2SLS investigation found thatmost of the early termination estimates (0 to6 months) were insignificant, but the patternof impacts still primarily held. There were nosignificant, positive effects for short matcheslasting less than six months and, in fact, theonly significant finding for this group was anincrease in alcohol use. The largest numberof significant, positive effects emerged in the12-month or longer group, an increase inperceived scholastic competence and reduc-tions in substance use.

16 Kristine V. Morrow and Melanie B. Styles,Building Relationships With Youth in ProgramSettings: A Study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters.Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures, 1995;Melanie B. Styles and Kristine V. Morrow,Understanding How Youth and Elders FormRelationships: A Study of Four Linking LifetimesPrograms. Philadelphia: Public/PrivateVentures, 1992.

17 Cynthia L. Sipe, Mentoring: A Synthesis ofP/PV’s Research: 1988-1995. Philadelphia:Public/Private Ventures, 1996.

18 See endnote #16.

19 Wendy McClanahan, Relationships in a CareerMentoring Program: Lessons Learned From theHospital Youth Mentoring Program. Philadelphia:Public/Private Ventures, 1998. This studyinvolved interviewing 266 mentors and 376students in 13 hospital-based career mentor-ing programs.

20 Barbara Wasik, “Volunteer TutoringPrograms: Do We Know What Works?” PhiDelta Kappan, December 1997; Barbara Wasik,“Using Volunteers as Reading Tutors:Guidelines for Successful Practices.” TheReading Teacher, 1998.

21 Kathryn Furano and Corina Chavez,Combining Paid Service and Volunteerism:Strategies for Effective Practice in School Settings.Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures, 1999.

22 Id.

23 Id.

24 See endnote #4.

25 See endnote #16.

26 Kathryn Furano et al., Big Brothers/Big Sisters:A Study of Program Practices. Philadelphia:Public/Private Ventures, 1992. There aremore than 500 BBBS agencies across theUnited States. P/PV solicited the participa-tion of a group of agencies that would reflectvariations in the BBBS operation. Staff visited26 agencies and 15 were selected for fourstudies based on their willingness to partici-pate in the research, size, geographic distrib-ution, gender of participants served andvariation in program characteristics.

27 Crystal A. Mecartney et al., Mentoring in theJuvenile Justice System: Findings from Two PilotPrograms. Philadelphia: Public/PrivateVentures, 1994.

28 Id.

29 Amy W. Johnson, An Evaluation of the Long-Term Impacts of the Sponsor-A-Scholar Program onStudent Performance. Final Report to TheCommonwealth Fund. Princeton, N.J.:Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 1998;David E. VanPatten, Team Works EvaluationProject Report. Portsmouth, N.H.: Dare MightyThings, Inc.,1997; Leonard LoSciuto et al.,“An Outcome Evaluation of Across Ages: AnIntergenerational Mentoring Approach toDrug Prevention.” Journal of AdolescentResearch, 11, 1996; Cynthia Sipe, “MentoringAdolescents: What Have We Learned,” in

17

Contemporary Issues in Mentoring (Jean BaldwinGrossman, ed). Philadelphia: Public/PrivateVentures, 1999, Mentoring: A Synthesis ofP/PV’s Research 1988-1995. Philadelphia:Public/Private Ventures, 1996.

30 Kathryn Furano et al., Big Brothers/Big Sisters:A Study of Program Practices. Philadelphia:Public/Private Ventures, 1993; Cynthia Sipe,Mentoring: A Synthesis of P/PV’s Research: 1988-1995. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures,1996; Wendy McClanahan, Relationships in aCareer Mentoring Program: Lessons Learned Fromthe Hospital Youth Mentoring Program.Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures, 1998.

31 See endnote #21.

32 Evaluation of the Mentoring Center and Bay AreaMentoring Efforts. First Evaluation Report.Redwood City, Calif.: Network Training andResearch Group, 1996.

33 The stipended volunteers are eitherAmeriCorps or Experience Corps members.Experience Corps members are adults aged55 and older.

34 See endnote #23.

35 See endnote #21.

36 Providence Summerbridge provides acade-mic and social support to motivated middle-school students in the Providence publicschool system and helps those students enterand succeed in college preparatory highschools. Providence Summerbridge also pro-vides opportunities for talented high schooland college students to teach and contributeto community empowerment. Summerbridgeoperates in more than 40 cities nationwide,and receives funding from the Corporationfor National Service.

37 See endnote #21.

38 Id.

39 Jean Baldwin Grossman and Joseph P.Tierney, “Does Mentoring Work? An ImpactStudy of the Big Brothers Big SistersProgram.” Evaluation Review, Vol. 22:3, June1998, 402-425. This article reports that BBBSparticipants, after 18 months in the program,were less likely to start using drugs and alco-hol or hit someone than were control groupyouth, and had improved school attendanceand performance, felt better about school,and had improved relationships with peersand family.

40 Douglas L. Fountain and Amy J.A. Arbreton,“The Cost of Mentoring,” in ContemporaryIssues in Mentoring (Jean Baldwin Grossman,ed.). Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures,1999.

41 The cost of screening, training and manage-ment is likely to be fairly constant across pro-grams of different size: Fountain andArbreton found that the unit cost of theseprograms did not diminish as the size of theprogram grew.

42 Marc Freedman, The Kindness of Strangers:Reflections on the Mentoring Movement.Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures, 1992,p.60.

18

Des

ign:

Mal

ish

& P

agon

is -

ww

w.m

alis

hand

pago

nis.

com

Public/Private Ventures2000 Market StreetSuite 600Philadelphia, PA 19103Tel: 215-557-4400Fax: 215-557-4469Url: http://www.ppv.org