Get documents about "THE VOLUNTEER CENTER SURVEY A REPORT ON FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS
Document Sample
THE 2001 VOLUNTEER CENTER SURVEY:
A REPORT ON FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS*
Jeffrey L. Brudney, Ph.D.
With the Assistance of
Daehwan Kim, DPA
University of Georgia
School of Public and International Affairs
Department of Public Administration and Policy
104 Baldwin Hall
Athens, GA 30602-1615
706.542.2057 (voice)
706.542.4421 (fax)
*This report is dedicated to the memory of Daehwan Kim, whose commitment and
professionalism are reflected in its pages. The authors thank Emily Kirby for assistance at the
earlier stages of the survey and this research, Eungha (Jay) Ryu and SoonWook Bae for help
later in the project, and David Styers and Stephanie Jackson for ongoing assistance. Finally, we
are especially grateful to Rennie Dutton, Ph.D., for her help, guidance, and support on the 2001
Volunteer Center Survey and this report.
1
Introduction
Beginning in 1993 and continuing through 2001, the Points of Light Foundation has
conducted a biennial survey of Volunteer Centers. The purpose of these surveys has been to
obtain and share information about Volunteer Centers and to provide an internal yardstick or
benchmark for informal comparisons by individual Centers. This report on the 2001 Volunteer
Center Survey adds a new perspective to those earlier reports intended to:
• Examine the Volunteer Centers as a system or “network” for collaboration and effective
service delivery;
• Document the scope and reach of the network as well as the integration of certain “core
competencies” expected of network members; and
• Provide important information to stakeholders about the work and accomplishments of
the Volunteer Center Network in the context of these core competencies
This perspective places a premium on the generation and dissemination of credible data
and analysis concerning Volunteer Centers that can be aggregated to the national level. It also
led to certain changes in the design and administration of the 2001 Volunteer Center Survey.
Changes in the 2001 Volunteer Center Survey
To accommodate these goals, a number of changes were made in the administration of
the 2001 Volunteer Center Survey as compared to earlier surveys. The first change was a switch
from a paper-based survey to a web-based survey in 2001 intended both to ease the response
burden on Volunteer Centers and to increase the cost-efficiency of data collection. Second, in
2001 only those Volunteer Centers that were members of the Points of Light Foundation were
included in the survey. In prior years, both member and non-member Centers were invited to
1
2
participate in the process. Given the emphasis on a national network of Volunteer Centers in the
2001 survey and in the current environment, it was important to identify and describe a
recognizable set of Volunteer Centers committed to common standards and a shared vision.
Finally, satellite offices of Volunteer Centers were not surveyed in 2001. Because information
from the satellite offices is already captured by the parent Centers, and including them tends to
inflate the number of Volunteer Centers reporting, they were excluded from the 2001 Volunteer
Center Survey.
Although these changes complicate longitudinal comparisons with earlier surveys of
Volunteer Centers, we believe that they will yield an accurate picture of the Volunteer Center
National Network. As the network strives for greater recognition, attention, and support for the
valuable work and service performed by Volunteer Centers, the 2001 Volunteer Center Survey
should provide the type of data needed to inform policy makers, Volunteer Center leaders, and
other stakeholders.
Response Rate to the 2001 Volunteer Center Survey
On February 15, 2002, the Points of Light Foundation sent an email message to its roster
of 426 member Volunteer Centers informing them that the 2001 Volunteer Center Survey had
been posted to a secure website for their response. Because the survey is retrospective soliciting
Volunteer Center characteristics, activities, and performance for the previous year, we refer to it
as the “2001 Volunteer Center Survey.” During the course of the survey, it was discovered that
2
3
408 Volunteer Centers were actually eligible to complete the survey.1 Of this total, 286
Volunteer Centers returned completed surveys, yielding a response rate of 70%.
Although 70% is a highly respectable response rate, our first task was to evaluate whether
the sample of reporting Volunteer Centers appears representative of the population of Volunteer
Centers as a whole. This evaluation is central as we endeavor to use these data to conceive and
describe the characteristics and activities of a national service-delivery network comprising all
Volunteer Centers. To address the representativeness question, survey researchers will
sometimes contact a small sample of nonrespondents to see if they differ systematically in
background from respondents. Here, we can do much better: As part of the membership
function, the Points of Light Foundation collects information on organizational structure,
expense budget, and regional location in the United States for all Volunteer Centers -- whether
responding to the 2001 survey or not -- that allow us to compare respondents with the total
population to evaluate the representativeness of the sample.
Basic Background and Representativeness of the Sample
As shown in Table 1, the sample of responding Volunteer Centers closely resembles the
entire population with respect to organizational structure. In both the sample and the population,
the largest group of Volunteer Centers is independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations (about
43%), followed by a division or internal program of the United Way (34% of the sample, 38% of
the total population). These categories account for about 80% of all Volunteer Centers. The
remaining organizational structures are far less common: division or program of another
1
Between February 15 and March 29, 2002, it was discovered that 18 Volunteer Centers were ineligible to complete the survey.
Reasons for ineligibility varied. Because Volunteer Center membership fluctuates, for the purposes of this presentation we have
chosen to report Volunteer Center membership as of March 29, 2002, the closing date of the survey (N=408).
3
4
nonprofit organization (12% of the sample, 9% of the population), division or program of a
city/county government (about 7%), division or program of a university/college (3%), and
division or program of state government (.7%). The sample of Volunteer Centers appears quite
representative of the national network by organizational structure.
Table 1
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF VOLUNTEER CENTERS
Responding Total
Organizational Structure Volunteer Centers Volunteer Centers
(N=286) (N=408)
Independent 501(c)(3) 43.0% 42.7%
Division or Internal Program of 33.9 37.7
the United Way
Division or Program of a 3.2 3.2
University/College
Division or Program of Another 11.9 9.1
Nonprofit
Division or Program of a 7.3 6.4
City/County Government
Division of Program of State 0.7 0.7
Government
Unknown 0.0 0.2
Percent 100% 100%
Table 2 presents data on the expense budgets of the sample and population of Volunteer
Centers. The table shows that the largest group of Volunteer Centers in both the sample (40%)
and the population (48%) falls into the most modest expense budget category, less than $75,000,
and that this group is under-represented in the sample by about 8%. We should also note that of
the Volunteer Centers in this budget category three-fourths (75.4%) are internal to another
organization, rather than an independent 501(c)(3) organization (see Table 1); as part of another
organization such as the United Way, these “internal” Volunteer Centers may have no separate
budget to report. Table 2 indicates that in the more robust budget categories, the sample and
population percentages of the Volunteer Centers are much more similar with roughly one-fifth
4
5
reporting an expense budget of $75,000 to $149,999, and another one-fifth in the $150,000 to
$349,999 range. Many fewer Volunteer Centers have an expense budget of $350,000 to
$1,000,000 (10% of the sample, 8% of the population), or a budget surpassing $1,000,000 (about
4%). In general, consistent with their organizational structure as autonomous entities, the
independent 501(c)(3) Volunteer Centers have the larger expense budgets: nearly 80% of them
(77.2%) have budgets of at least $75,000, and 60% (59.3%) have budgets of $150,000 or more.
Table 2
EXPENSE BUDGET OF VOLUNTEER CENTERS
Responding Total
Volunteer Centers Volunteer Centers
Expense Budget (N=286) (N=408)
Less than $75,000 39.9% 48.0%
$75,000 to $149,999 23.8 22.3
$150,000 to $349,999 22.0 18.4
$350,000 to $1,000,000 10.1 7.9
Over $1,000,000 4.2 3.4
Percent 100% 100%
Finally, Table 3 reveals virtually no difference in the regional composition of the sample
of Volunteer Centers versus the population. The largest discrepancy between the sample and the
population by region is just 1.3% (the South Atlantic region), thus attesting that the sample is
very representative geographically of the Volunteer Center National Network. No regional
biases in response are evident.
5
6
Table 3
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF VOLUNTEER CENTERS
Responding Total
Geographic Region Volunteer Centers Volunteer Centers
(N=286) (N=408)
South Atlantic 22.0% 23.3%
East North Central 22.7 21.8
Pacific 11.9 12.0
Middle Atlantic 10.5 10.3
West North Central 9.8 8.6
Mountain 7.7 6.9
West South Central 5.6 5.9
New England 5.2 5.6
East South Central 4.6 5.6
Percent 100% 100%
In sum, about 80% of Volunteer Centers are constituted as either an independent
501(c)(3) nonprofit organization or a division or internal program of the United Way. Most
Volunteer Centers operate on a limited expense budget -- well over one-half report an expense
budget of less than $150,000 -- although as noted above the preponderance of Centers in the
lower budget categories are internal to other entities, rather than autonomous 501(c)(3)
organizations that would be expected to have larger budgets. The comparison of the sample and
the population of Volunteer Centers shown in Tables 1-3 suggests that with respect to
organizational structure, expense budget, and geographic region respondents to the 2001 Survey
seem generally representative of the Volunteer Center National Network. The sample may
under-represent somewhat Volunteer Centers with the smallest expense budgets (less than
$75,000), however. With this caveat, conclusions drawn based on the sample should correspond
to the population of Volunteer Centers.
Some characteristics of the Volunteer Center national network are more important to
policy makers than others. Examples of such elements include the total number of volunteer
opportunities made available throughout the network and the number of connections of
6
7
individuals with these opportunities to serve. Based on the population information presented in
Tables 1 and 2 for Volunteer Center organizational structure and expense budget, we can use
extrapolation procedures to estimate the total number of volunteer opportunities and connections
for the entire network. Since extrapolations attempt to extend knowledge beyond the limits of
the sample information (which is known) to the population (which is not known), they are
inherently risky. We explain the methodology for extrapolation below. First, however, we
describe the management of Volunteer Centers.
Volunteer Center Management
For the most part Volunteer Centers have a small number of staff. The average Volunteer
Center responding to the 2001 survey employed 3 people full-time (mean = 3.3) and another two
people part-time (mean = 1.8). Further indication of their small size is shown by the survey
results that one-half or more of the responding Volunteer Centers had one or fewer full-time
employees (median = 1) and one or fewer part-time employees (median = 1). Together, the
sample of 286 Volunteer Centers employed just 945 people on a full-time basis and another 504
part-time.
Because the typical Volunteer Center has very few staff, the director plays an especially
critical role. In many if not most cases, the director is the sole paid employee. Table 4 presents
information on the job status (paid versus volunteer) of the Volunteer Center directors in the
sample. Commensurate with the responsibilities of this office, nearly four out of five reporting
Centers (78%) employ a paid, full-time director. Nineteen percent, however, have a part-time,
paid director, and nine Centers (3%) have a volunteer serving in this position. Because as will be
seen below (in Table 5) the smallest Volunteer Centers are more likely to have directors who are
7
8
part-time employees or volunteers, these statistics are very likely underreported for the network
or population of Volunteer Centers as a whole. (Recall from Table 2 that the smallest Volunteer
Centers by expense budget are under-represented in the sample).
Table 4
DIRECTOR POSITION
Director Position Frequency Percent
Full-time Paid 223 78.0%
Part-time Paid 54 18.9%
Volunteer (PT, FT) 9 3.1%
Total 286 100%
Figure 1 presents the salary range of all Volunteer Center directors who responded to the
2001 survey. Consistent with the information in Table 4, Figure 1 shows that nine Center
directors receive no salary (volunteer). For the entire sample of directors (volunteer, part-time
paid, and full-time paid), the middle or median salary is $35,000; half the directors earn more
than this amount and half make less. The largest group of Volunteer Center directors (28%) earn
between $25,000 and $34,999, followed closely by the next highest income category, those
earning between $35,000 and $44,999 (24%). Thus, just over half of the reporting Volunteer
Center directors (52%) earn between $25,000 and $44,999. The salary range is the same for
Volunteer Center directors whether their Center is constituted as an independent 501(c)(3) entity
or part of another organization. However, the directors of the former tend to receive greater
compensation: About 35% of them earn $45,000 or more (34.9%), compared to 18.4% of their
counterparts in Volunteer Centers internal to other organizations.
Although Figure 1 includes salary information for all Volunteer Center directors in the
sample, it can be misleading because it ignores job status. Figure 2 corrects these data by
8
9
FIGURE 1: SALARY RANGE FOR ALL VOLUNTEER CENTER DIRECTORS
Median
90
28%
80 24%
79
of Volunteer Center Directors
70
69
60
Number and %
50
12%
12%
40
30 7% 35 33
6% 4%
20 3% 4%
21
10 16
12 12
9
0
No <$15K $15K- $25K- $35K- $45K- $55K- $65K- $75K+
salary 24,999 34,999 44,999 54,999 64,999 74,999
Salary
restricting the analysis to full-time paid Volunteer Center directors (excluding the volunteer and
part-time directors). As expected, compared to Figure 1 the income distribution in Figure 2 and
the median are pushed modestly to the right, toward the higher incomes earned by those who
occupy the director position on a full-time basis. The median cannot be estimated precisely (the
survey obtained salary information only for the gross categories depicted in the Figure), but
interpolation procedures suggest that it is about $39,000 for this group (up from $35,000 for the
entire sample to $38,793). Although the compensation may seem low for this key administrative
post (almost 40% of the full-time Volunteer Center directors earn less than $35,000 annually),
many of the directors are not heads of independent agencies but department managers within
larger organizations. These salary results are consistent with other surveys of nonprofit
administrators.
9
10
FIGURE 2: SALARY RANGE FOR FULL TIME PAID VOLUNTEER CENTER
DIRECTORS
Median
80
of Full Time Paid Volunteer Center Directors
31% 29%
70
70
60 64
Number and %
50
14%
40
30 32
7% 7% 5% 5%
20
1%
15 16
10 12 12
2
0
<$15K $15K- $25K- $35K- $45K- $55K- $65K- $75K+
24,999 34,999 44,999 54,999 64,999 74,999
Salary
Figure 3 presents the number of years the Volunteer Center directors have held this
important position. Both the mean and the median tenure are close to three years, a finding which
suggests that many directors are relatively new to the job. Forty-four percent have occupied the
position for two years or less.
10
11
FIGURE 3: TENURE OF VOLUNTEER CENTER DIRECTORS
Median Mean
70
21%
of Volunteer Center Directors
60 19% 19%
59
50 53 54
Number and %
40 12%
10%
30 9% 33
6% 29
20 25
18 3%
10 2%
8 7
0
Less 1 2 3 4 5-10 11-15 16-20 21-25
than 1
year
Number of Years
In sum, most Volunteer Centers employ few people. The key staff member is the Center
director. In the following section, we examine the relationship between the expense budget of
the Volunteer Center and the director position to see how the budget may affect the director’s
status, pay, and tenure.
Volunteer Center Expense Budget and the Center Director
Since the Points of Light Foundation collects information on the expense budget of all
Volunteer Centers, directors can readily see how their Centers compare to others in the same
budgetary category. As one would expect, the expense budget categorization shown in Table 2
is strongly correlated (related statistically) with the income of the Volunteer Center when this
variable has been recoded into deciles to correct for extreme scores or outliers (r = .859).
Table 5 explores the relationship between the expense budget of the Volunteer Center
and the director’s job status, that is, whether the position is unpaid (volunteer), part-time paid, or
11
12
full-time paid. Not surprisingly, the table shows that the Volunteer Centers with larger budgets
are much more likely to employ full-time paid directors: While just 55% of the smallest Centers
(expense budget less than $75,000) and 85% of the Volunteer Centers with an expense budget in
the range of $75,000 to $149,999 employ a full-time paid director, about 98% or nearly all of the
Volunteer Centers with larger expense budgets ($150,000 or greater) do so. Since the
independent 501(c)(3) Volunteer Centers tend to have larger expense budgets, it is also the case
that they are somewhat more likely to employ full-time paid directors than Volunteer Centers
internal to other organizations, by a margin of 82.9% to 74.2%.
Table 5
VOLUNTEER CENTER DIRECTOR POSITION BY CENTER EXPENSE BUDGET*
Volunteer Center Expense Budget
Director Position Less than $75,000 to $150,000 to $350,000 to Over
$75,000 $149,999 $349,999 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Full-time Paid 55.3% (63) 85.3% (58) 98.4% (62) 96.6% (28) 100.0% (12)
Part-time Paid 36.8% (42) 14.7% (10) 1.6% (1) 3.4% (1) 0% (0)
Volunteer (PT, FT) 7.9% (9) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0)
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N=114) (N=68) (N=63) (N=29) (N=12)
* Each table cell shows the percentage and the number (in parenthesis) of Center directors.
Table 6 displays the relationship between the expense budget of the Volunteer Center and
the salary earned by the Center director. The table reinforces the findings of Table 5: As would
be expected, directors of the larger Centers more likely to be full-time employees (Table 5), and
they are generally paid more. For example, six of the twelve directors heading Volunteer
Centers with the largest expense budgets (surpassing $1,000,000) earn at least $75,000 annually,
and all but one of them makes at least $55,000. Similarly, 69% of the directors of Centers with
expense budgets in the next highest category ($350,000 to $1,000,000) earn at least $55,000 per
12
13
annum. By contrast, across all Volunteer Centers that operate on a more limited budget (less
than $350,000 annually), only nine directors are paid $55,000 or more, less than 4%.
Table 6
VOLUNTEER CENTER DIRECTOR SALARY BY CENTER EXPENSE BUDGET*
Volunteer Center Expense Budget
Volunteer Center Less than $75,000 to $150,000 to $350,000 to Over
Director Salary $75,000 $149,999 $349,999 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
No salary 7.9% (9) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
<$15K 17.5 (20) 1.5 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
$15K-24,999 27.2 (31) 4.4 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 8.3 (1)
$25K-34,999 29.8 (34) 45.6 (31) 20.6 (13) 3.4 (1) 0 (0)
$35K-44,999 12.3 (14) 36.8 (25) 46.0 (29) 3.4 (1) 0 (0)
$45K-54,999 3.5 (4) 8.8 (6) 25.4 (16) 24.1 (7) 0 (0)
$55K-64,999 .9 (1) 1.5 (1) 4.8 (3) 27.6 (8) 25.0 (3)
$65K-74,999 .9 (1) 1.5 (1) 3.2 (2) 20.7 (6) 16.7 (2)
$75K+ 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 20.7 (6) 50.0 (6)
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N=114) (N=68) (N=63) (N=29) (N=12)
* Each table cell shows the percentage and the number (in parenthesis) of Center directors.
The last analysis in this series, Table 7 concentrates on the relationship between the
expense budget of the Volunteer Center and the tenure of the Volunteer Center director. In
general, longer tenure for a chief administrative officer is to be preferred because it is associated
with increased knowledge base, work experience, networking skills, and community linkages.
Across the bottom row of Table 7, which denotes Volunteer Center directors with more than
seven years on the job, the trend is apparent that the Centers with larger expense budgets are
better able to keep their directors in place, and to reap the resulting benefits. The percentage of
directors with at least seven years tenure climbs steadily from just 15% in the smallest Volunteer
Centers by budget category (less than $75,000) to nearly 60% (58.3%) in the best funded Centers
(expense budget surpassing $1,000,000). Again, since the independent 501(c)(3) Volunteer
13
14
Centers tend to have larger expense budgets, they are more likely to gain the benefits of longer
director tenure.
Table 7
VOLUNTEER CENTER DIRECTOR TENURE BY CENTER EXPENSE BUDGET*
Volunteer Center Expense Budget
Volunteer Center Less than $75,000 to $150,000 to $350,000 to Over
Director Tenure $75,000 $149,999 $349,999 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
1 year or less 29.8% (34) 29.4% (20) 22.2% (14) 6.9% (2) 8.3% (1)
More than 1 year to 3 years 33.3 (38) 22.1 (15) 30.2 (19) 31.0 (9) 16.7 (2)
More than 3 years to 7 years 21.9 (25) 26.5 (18) 20.6 (13) 24.1 (7) 16.7 (2)
More than 7 years 14.9 (17) 22.1 (15) 27.0 (17) 37.9 (11) 58.3 (7)
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N=114) (N=68) (N=63) (N=29) (N=12)
* Each table cell shows the percentage and the number (in parenthesis) of Center directors.
The obvious interpretation of these analyses is that the Volunteer Centers with greater
expense budgets can offer their Center directors more attractive positions. It is most likely that
for this reason, the larger Volunteer Centers are able to retain the director over a longer period
and realize the advantages that greater tenure and more stable leadership can bring. As we have
pointed out, these Volunteer Centers are more often independent 501(c)(3) agencies, rather than
internal units of other organizations. The job situation in the Volunteer Centers with more
modest expense budgets (less than $150,000) is more tenuous: All directors who are volunteers
and all but two who serve on a part-time, paid basis staff the smaller Volunteer Centers by
budget, in which remuneration and tenure are corresponding less. The group of volunteer
Centers with the smallest expense budgets (less than $75,000) accounts for 40% of all Volunteer
Centers in the sample (39.9%) and yet under-represents the population, so that they are even
more numerous in the national network of Volunteer Centers (see Table 2).
14
15
Below, we assess whether the apparent effects of the expense budget may carry over into
two key performance indicators: the total number of volunteer opportunities made available by a
Volunteer Center and the number of connections reported with these opportunities to serve.
First, though, we use extrapolation techniques to project the numbers of volunteer opportunities
and connections based on the sample of 286 Centers responding to the 2001 Volunteer Center
Survey to the full population of 408 Volunteer Centers, the National Network.
Volunteer Opportunities and Connections: Network Projections
The Points of Light Foundation regards volunteer opportunities and connections as two of
the most important performance indicators of the Volunteer Center National Network. Although
the 2001 Volunteer Center Survey did not specifically define volunteer opportunities, the term is
generally understood by the Network to mean opportunities with community organizations
actively seeking individuals with the requisite knowledge, skills and experience willing to offer
their services on a full- or part-time basis without remuneration on projects or in positions that
benefit the organization itself or the people it serves. For the purposes of the survey, we have
defined volunteer connections as any process used by a Volunteer Center to recruit, manage,
mobilize, refer, or place volunteers.
By these definitions, the sample of 286 Volunteer Centers that responded to the 2001
survey reported a total of 939,443 volunteer opportunities made available in 2001. Over the
same period, responding Volunteer Centers indicated that they had connected 1,636,531
individual volunteers with these opportunities to serve. Many more volunteers may have been
connected, whose numbers were not captured through formal record-keeping processes (for
example, episodic volunteers engaged in national day of service projects). These numbers may
15
16
seem large; in fact, as measures of the performance of the entire network of Volunteer Centers
they should be even larger, for they represent only the 70% of Volunteer Centers that
participated in the 2001 Volunteer Center Survey (286 responding ÷ 408 total population = .70
response rate).
We can extrapolate from the survey sample to provide estimates for the full Volunteer
Center national network in two ways. First and most simply, we can correct the sample
estimates of volunteer opportunities and connections by adjusting them to reflect what the 30%
of non-reporting Centers would likely have produced, based on the data obtained from the 70%
of Centers that did respond to the 2001 survey. By that extrapolation method, we estimate a total
of 1,342,061 volunteer opportunities (939,443 ÷ .70 = 1,342,061) and 2,337,901 connections
with opportunities to serve (1,636,531 ÷ .70 = 2,337,901) registered by the Volunteer Center
National Network in 2001.
A second, more nuanced extrapolation procedure is to make the projections from the
sample of responding Volunteer Centers to the population within important classifications of the
Volunteer Centers and to sum the results. We use this method for two sets of classifications,
organizational structure of the Volunteer Center (see Table 1) and expense budget (Table 2).
Rather than making a single aggregate extrapolation from sample to population as in the first
procedure above, in this method we form the projections within each category of the Volunteer
Center structure, and within the expense budget categories, and sum the respective results.
Tables 8 through 11 show the details.
Table 8 estimates total volunteer opportunities in the population or National Network of
Volunteer Centers based on the organizational structure of the Centers. We first calculate the
mean or average number of volunteer opportunities for each type of organizational structure.
16
17
This is the best estimate available from the sample data of the number of opportunities this type
of Volunteer Center will typically produce. For example, Table 8 shows that the mean or
average number of volunteer opportunities generated by Volunteer Centers constituted as
501(c)(3) organizations based on the sample is 3158. It is then a simple matter to multiply this
mean score by the number of 501(c)(3) Volunteer Centers in the population, N = 174, to yield
549,488 opportunities projected for the 501(c)(3) Volunteer Centers in the population. (For
comparative purposes, we perform the analogous calculation in Table 8 for the sample; since the
sample contains only 123 reporting 501(c)(3) Volunteer Centers, the number of volunteer
opportunities produced by this type of Center is less, a total of 388,431). We repeat this
procedure for each type of Volunteer Center organizational structure and then sum the results
across the different structures to yield a total number of volunteer opportunities projected for the
Volunteer Center national network of 1,263,636 (compared to 939,443 opportunities in the
sample).
Using this same method, Table 9 projects the number of volunteer opportunities made
available in the population of Volunteer Centers based on the categories of the Center expense
budget. For example, the table shows that the average or mean number of volunteer
opportunities for Volunteer Centers in the smallest category of expense budget, less than
$75,000, is 735.7; multiplying the average by the number of Volunteer Centers in the population
in this budgetary category (n = 196) yields a total number of projected opportunities in the
national network of 144,189. The number of volunteer opportunities yielded by Volunteer
17
18
Table 8
PROJECTED VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES BASED ON ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE
Organizational Sample Mean Total Opportunities Population Projected Total
Structure N=286 Opportunities (Sample N x Mean) N=408* Opportunities (Population
and Percent N x Mean) and Percent
501(c)(3) 123 3,158 388,431 (41.3%) 174 549,488 (43.5%)
United Way internal 97 1,238 120,040 (12.8%) 154 190,579 (15.1%)
Other nonprofit 34 2,824
96,013 (10.2%)
internal 37 104,485 (8.3%)
City/county internal 21 15,050 316,059 (33.6%) 26 391,311 (31.0%)
College internal 9 1,153 10,380 (1.1%) 13 14,993 (1.2%)
State internal 2 4,260 8,520 (0.9%) 3 12,780 (1.0%)
Total 286 3,285 939,443 (100.0%) 407 1,263,636 (100.0%)
* There is 1 unknown case.
Centers in this budgetary category are substantially greater than the number shown for the
sample (83,865) because many fewer Centers responded to the 2001 Volunteer Center Survey (n
= 114). Repeating this procedure across all categories of the Volunteer Center expense budget
yields a total number of projected volunteer opportunities for the Volunteer Center national
network of 1,206,050 (compared to 939,443 for the sample).
Table 9
PROJECTED VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES BASED ON EXPENSE BUDGET
Total
Opportunities Projected Total
Sample Mean Population
Expense Budget (Sample N x Opportunities (Population
N=286 Opportunities N=408
Mean) and N x Mean) and Percent
Percent
Less than $75,000 114 736 83,865 (8.9%) 196 144,189 (12.0%)
$75,000 to $149,999 68 5,604 381,081 (40.6%) 91 509,976 (42.3%)
$150,000 to $349,999 63 2,278 143,495 (15.3%) 75 170,827 (14.2%)
$350,000 to
29 2,788 80,858 (8.6%) 32 89,223 (7.4%)
$1,000,000
Over $1,000,000 12 20,845 250,144 (26.6%) 14 291,835 (24.2%)
Total 286 3,285 939,443 (100.0%) 408 1,206,050 (100.0%)
18
19
In the same way, based on the sample of Centers responding to the 2001 Volunteer
Center Survey, Tables 10 and 11 make projections of volunteer connections to the population or
National Network of Volunteer Centers. Table 10 demonstrates that the number of connections
of volunteers with opportunities to serve based on Center organizational structure is projected to
be 2,328,459 for the national network. Table 11 shows that the projected number of volunteer
connections based on the Center expense budget for the network is 2,059,802. The
extrapolations presented in Tables 8 and 10, respectively, suggest that across the Volunteer
Center National Network the independent 501(c)(3) Volunteer Centers account for over 40% of
volunteer opportunities (43.5%) and more than half of all volunteer connections (53%).
Table 10
PROJECTED VOLUNTEER CONNECTIONS BASED ON ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE
Total Connections Projected Total
Organizational Sample Mean Population
(Sample N x Mean) Connections (Population
Structure N=286 Connections N=408*
and Percent N x Mean) and Percent
501(c)(3) 123 7,087 871,712 (53.3%) 174 1,233,154 (53.0%)
United Way internal 97 4,841 469,576 (28.7%) 154 745,512 (32.0%)
Other nonprofit
34 3,866 131,451 (8.0%) 37 143,050 (6.1%)
internal
City/county internal 21 6,981 146,592 (9.0%) 26 181,495 (7.8%)
College internal 9 1,103 9,927 (0.6%) 13 14,339 (0.6%)
State internal 2 3,637 7,273 (0.4%) 3 10,910 (0.5%)
Total 286 5,722 1,636,531 (100.0%) 407 2,328,459 (100.0%)
* There is 1 unknown case.
19
20
Table 11
PROJECTED VOLUNTEER CONNECTIONS BASED ON EXPENSE BUDGET
Total Connections Projected Total
Sample Mean Population
Expense Budget (Sample N x Mean) Connections (Population
N=286 Connections N=408
and Percent N x Mean) and Percent
Less than $75,000 114 1,593 181,566 (11.1%) 196 312,166 (15.2%)
$75,000 to $149,999 68 5,135 349,156 (21.3%) 91 467,253 (22.7%)
$150,000 to $349,999 63 6,820 429,667 (26.3%) 75 511,508 (24.8%)
$350,000 to
29 10,886 315,686 (19.3%) 32 348,343 (16.9%)
$1,000,000
Over $1,000,000 12 30,038 360,456 (22.0%) 14 420,532 (20.4%)
Total 286 5,722 1,636,531 (100.0%) 408 2,059,802 (100.0%)
As discussed earlier in this report, projections from a sample of data to the population are
risky, because information from the entire population is not available. Instead, extrapolations are
made based on the data collected. For this reason, we have formed the extrapolations of
Volunteer Center opportunities and connections in three ways: based on the ratio of sample size
(n) to population size (N), the organizational structure of the Volunteer Centers, and the expense
budget. Although each is a credible projection to the Volunteer Center national network based
on the best information available, we have chosen to calculate and present several projections to
reflect the inherent uncertainty in extrapolating from the sample of Volunteer Centers to the
population. Table 12 summarizes the results: The table shows that the projections are close,
averaging about 1,270,000 volunteer opportunities and 2,240,000 connections of volunteers with
opportunities to serve across the population of Volunteer Centers. These figures constitute the
best estimates of the performance of the National Network of Volunteer Centers in this important
domain.
20
21
Table 12
SUMMARY: PROJECTED NUMBER OF VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES
AND CONNECTIONS BASED ON RATIO OF SAMPLE SIZE TO POPULATION SIZE,
VOLUNTEER CENTER ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE AND EXPENSE BUDGET
Projections Projections Based On:
to National
Ratio of Sample
Network of (Sample) Organizational Expense
n to Population
Volunteer Structure Budget
N
Centers
Volunteer
(939,443) 1,342,061 1,263,636 1,206,050
Opportunities
Volunteer
(1,636,531) 2,337,901 2,328,459 2,059,802
Connections
Volunteer Center Expense Budget, Performance,
And Populations Targeted for Volunteer Service
Above, we speculated that the expense budget of a Volunteer Center may be related to its
performance, as indicated by the number of volunteer opportunities made available through a
Center and the number of connections realized with these opportunities to serve. Tables 9 and
11 shed some light on these speculations. With one exception (Centers with expense budgets in
the range of $75,000 to $149,999), they demonstrate that the mean or average number of
volunteer opportunities extended by Volunteer Centers steadily increases with the size of the
expense budget from 736 for Centers with a budget less than $75,000, to 20,845 for Centers with
a budget surpassing $1,000,000 (Table 9). The relationship is even closer for volunteer
connections (Table 11): From the lowest to the highest categories of expense budget, the
average number of connections increases progressively and dramatically from 1,593 to 30,038.
Expense budget is not the total explanation for Volunteer Center activity, nor are
volunteer opportunities and connections the sole indicators of performance. Nevertheless, one
21
22
implication of this analysis is that these measures might be increased across the national network
by generating and investing greater budgetary resources in the Volunteer Centers.
Perhaps equally important as the numbers of opportunities and connections are the
populations that the Volunteer Centers choose to “actively engage or recruit as volunteers” -- as
a question asked in the 2001 Volunteer Center Survey. Figure 4 displays the findings from a
closed-ended item that listed nine population groups. Volunteer Centers are required to serve a
diversity of constituencies (The Points of Light Foundation Volunteer Center National Network
Assessment Tool, p. 3). According to the survey responses, the most common population,
targeted for volunteer service is youth (ages 6-18), identified by nearly 90% of responding
Volunteer Centers. Corporate and business employees are the next most frequent targets,
actively engaged or recruited as volunteers by about 80% of reporting Centers. Seven in ten
Volunteer Centers report that they target older adults (age 50 and above) and families as
volunteers. A majority of the Volunteer Centers stated that they engage or recruit members of
faith-based organizations (58%) and individuals with disabilities (55%) as volunteers.
Some of the results in Figure 4 suggest that Volunteer Centers have expanded their
activities in low income and inner city communities. For example, nearly half of the Volunteer
Centers in the sample reported that they actively engage or recruit as volunteers low income
individuals (45%) and members of grassroots organizations (44%). Finally, one-third of the
Volunteer Centers said that they engage or recruit virtual/online volunteers (34%), defined in the
22
23
FIGURE 4: TARGET POPULATIONS ENGAGED OR RECRUITED AS VOLUNTEERS BY
VOLUNTEER CENTERS IN 2001
Youth (6-18 Year-olds) 89%
254
Corporate/Business Employees 81%
233
Older Adults (Age 50 and above) 72%
205
Target Populations
Families 71%
202
Members of Faith-based Organizations 58%
167
Individuals w ith Disabilities 55%
157
Low -Income Individuals 45%
130
Members of Grassroots Organizations 44%
126
Virtual/Online Volunteers 34%
97
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of Volunteer Centers
survey as “volunteers who serve electronically or through the Internet.” Given the recent
emergence of “virtual volunteering,” the attention that this group has already received from the
Volunteer Centers is remarkable.
In sum, a linkage may exist between the expense budget of the Volunteer Centers and
their level of activity, as indicated by the number of volunteer opportunities and connections
reported in the 2001 Volunteer Center Survey. Given the survey responses concerning the
groups engaged or recruited as volunteers, the Centers appear to seek out a variety of
constituencies in posting volunteer opportunities and making connections.
Volunteer Center Core Competencies
According to The Points of Light Foundation Volunteer Center National Network
Assessment Tool, Volunteer Centers that belong to the Volunteer Center National Network share
a common vision: “Volunteer Centers mobilize people and resources to deliver creative
23
24
solutions to community problems” (p. 2). Volunteer Centers seek to achieve their vision by
achieving excellence in four “Core Competencies:” 1) connecting people with opportunities to
serve, 2) building the capacity for effective local volunteering, 3) promoting volunteering, and 4)
participating in strategic initiatives that mobilize volunteers to meet local needs. Volunteer
Centers that are members of the National Network are required to meet certain program
standards in each of these core competencies (pp. 2-3).
Although the importance of carrying out activities within these competency areas has not
been questioned, a rigorous study on the “Validation of the Volunteer Center National
Assessment Tool: A Report to the Outcomes Measures Taskforce” by Laura Littlepage, James
L. Perrry, and Robert Christensen, conducted after administration of the 2001 Volunteer Center
Survey, finds that building capacity for effective local volunteering and promoting volunteering
do not stand up as distinct factors. In empirical analysis, these factors cluster together, indicating
that they measure the same concept (Littlepage, Perrry, and Christensen, pp. 3-4). Such a
finding points to the need to re-examine and refine the core competencies in further research.
However, it does not mean that the constituent factors are insignificant or can be overlooked --
only that it is difficult to separate them with current measurement tools. We will not attempt to
do so in the pages below.
With this caveat, Figures 5 and 6 present the average percentage of time Volunteer
Center directors report that they spend on the various core competencies and their assessment of
the progress they have registered in each one. Perhaps the most interesting result is that the
Volunteer Center directors perceive that they spend the most time -- and achieve the greatest
progress -- in connecting people with opportunities to serve. By these data (and the data
presented above on extrapolations to the National Network of Volunteer Centers), the efforts of
24
25
Volunteer Center leaders to emphasize the importance of posting volunteer opportunities and
connecting people with them seems to resonate in the sample.
FIGURE 5: AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF TIME SPENT ON EACH CORE COMPETENCY
BY VOLUNTEER CENTERS
19%
40%
21%
20%
Connect People with Opportunities to
Serve
Build Capacity for Effective Local
Volunteering
Promote Volunteering
Partcipate in Strategic Initiatives that
Mobilize Volunteers to Meet Local
Needs
FIGURE 6: PERCEIVED PROGRESS MADE IN EACH CORE COMPETENCY BY
VOLUNTEER CENTERS
10
9
7.9
8 7.2
Perceived Progress Rating*
6.6 6.4
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Connect People Promote Build Capacity for Partcipate in
with Opportunities Volunteering Effective Local Strategic
to Serve Volunteering Initiatives that
Mobilize
Volunteers to
Core Competencies
Meet Local Needs
Figures 7 and 8 turn to another key performance indicator of the Volunteer Centers in the
realm of building capacity for effective local volunteering: providing training for volunteer
25
26
service. Figure 7 shows the types of individuals trained by the Volunteer Centers responding to
the 2001 survey. In total, the network of Volunteer Centers represented by the sample reported
that they trained considerably more “individual volunteers” (about 92,000) than any other group.
The next most frequent response was training provided for nonprofit staff (36,075) and corporate
volunteers (27,192), followed by training for individuals from the public sector: national service
volunteers (10,167) and government volunteers (7,030). Figure 7 also demonstrates that the
Volunteer Centers have not neglected their own training needs, offering training to Volunteer
Center staff (4,978) and start-up Volunteer Center staff (1,434). Finally, the Volunteer Centers
report training a large number of individuals not otherwise classified (14,549).
FIGURE 7: TYPES OF INDIVIDUALS TRAINED
BY VOLUNTEER CENTERS IN 2001
Individual Volunteers 91,936
Nonprofit Staff 36,075
Types of Individuals Trained
Corporate Volunteers 27,192
National Service Volunteers 10,167
Government Volunteers 7,030
Volunteer Center Staff 4,978
Start-Up Volunteer Center Staff 1,434
Other 14,549
- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
Number of Individuals Trained by Volunteer Centers in 2001
Figure 8 displays the top ten substantive areas (by frequency) in which Volunteer Centers
offered training to the various groups. Consistent with national trends that show volunteers
serving shorter, more focused assignments, in this sample of Volunteer Centers the training
attended by most participants was in “episodic volunteering” -- presented to a reported 34,880
individuals. Training in all other areas attracted substantially fewer participants: For example,
26
27
orientation for new volunteers was next in frequency with 20,077 individuals, about 60% as
many. Training in general volunteer management came next (16,128). The Volunteer Centers
conducted training in other areas such as service learning (14,151), group-based volunteering
(11,996), mentoring (9,557), and diversity (7,910). Rounding out the list of top ten areas of
training (by frequency) are: nonprofit management (12,505), leadership (11,355), and board
development (11,071).
FIGURE 8: TOP TEN AREAS (BY FREQUENCY) IN WHICH VOLUNTEER CENTERS
OFFERED TRAINING IN 2001
Episodic Volunteering 34,880
Volunteer Orientation 20,077
Areas of Volunteer Training
Volunteer Management 16,128
Service Learning 14,151
Nonprofit Management 12,505
Group Volunteering 11,996
Leadership 11,355
Board Development 11,071
Mentoring 9,557
Diversity 7,910
- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
Number of Individuals Trained by Volunteer Centers in 2001
The fourth core competency required of Volunteer Centers is to participate in strategic
initiatives that mobilize volunteers to meet local needs. The Points of Light Foundation
Volunteer Center National Network Assessment Tool elaborates, “The Volunteer Center seeks
collaborative opportunities to involve volunteers in addressing community issues” (p. 3).
Several items in the 2001 Volunteer Center Survey attempted to tap this competency.
First, did the Volunteer Centers work with a large number and variety of organizations?
The responses of the sample of Volunteer Centers displayed in Figure 9 reflect the top ten types
27
28
of organizations (by frequency) with which the Volunteer Centers said that had worked in 2001.
Not surprisingly, the network of Volunteer Centers represented by the sample reported that they
had worked with nonprofit organizations most often, about 55,000 in all (54,096 nonprofit
organizations); they worked with many fewer corporations, approximately 14,000 (13,915). The
Volunteer Centers reported that they worked with a total of about 6,000
schools/colleges/universities (6,376), faith-based organizations (5,760), and civic organizations
(5,542), and somewhat fewer DOVIAs (Directors of Volunteers in Agencies, 4,943), other
Volunteer Centers (4,110), and community/grassroots organizations (4,044). The last two
organizations in the top ten (by frequency) were local governments (2,568) and hospitals (2,369).
Care must be taken in interpreting these results for several reasons: the meaning of “working
with” an organization as specified by the survey is open to interpretation, the duration of the
relationship was not queried, and the categories of organizations overlap (nonprofit-civic-
grassroots, etc.).
Figure 10 probes the extent of collaboration between the Volunteer Centers and state
and/or regional organizations, likewise an aspect of the core competency of participating in
strategic initiatives that mobilize volunteers to meet local needs. As the Figure demonstrates, the
Volunteer Centers in the sample were very active in this arena, with 94% of them reporting that
they had entered into such collaborations. Eighty percent of the Centers said that they
collaborated with Volunteer Center state/regional associations, and just over half (52%) reported
that they collaborated with their State Service Commission or the State Office On Volunteerism.
28
29
FIGURE 9: TOP TEN TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS (BY FREQUENCY) WITH WHICH
VOLUNTEER CENTERS WORKED IN 2001
Nonprofit Agencies 54,096
Corporations 13,915
Schools / Colleges / Universities 6,376
Types of Organizations
Faith-Based Organizations 5,760
Civic Organizations 5,542
DOVIAs 4,943
Other Volunteer Centers 4,110
Grassroots Organizaitons 4,044
Local Governments 2,568
Hospitals 2,369
- 20,000 40,000 60,000
Number of Organizations w ith w hich Volunteer Centers Worked in 2001
FIGURE 10: VOLUNTEER CENTER COLLABORATIONS WITH STATE AND/OR
REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS IN 2001
State/Regional 80%
Associations 228
Types of Organizations
State Service 52%
Commissions 150
State Offices of 52%
Volunteerism 149
6%
None
17
0 50 100 150 200 250
Number of Volunteer Center Collaborations w ith State and/or Regional
Organizations
The 2001 Volunteer Center Survey also asked if the Volunteer Centers worked with
government officials “to promote and advocate volunteering.” This activity might be
understood to fall within the core competencies of promoting volunteering, building the capacity
29
30
for effective local volunteering, or equally well as a highly strategic initiative intended to
mobilize volunteers -- and government support for volunteerism. Figure 11 shows that large
proportions of the sample of Volunteer Centers engage in this activity. Nearly 90% of
responding Centers indicated that they work with local government officials (89%), and two-
thirds with state officials (66%). However, a sizeable decline in these efforts occurs at the
national level, where the reported rate of working with governmental officials drops to just 32%.
As Volunteer Centers are increasingly called upon to act and present themselves as a national
network, reaching out to government officials at all levels, especially the national, will become
more crucial.
FIGURE 11: TYPES OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WITH WHOM VOLUNTEER
CENTERS WORKED TO PROMOTE AND ADVOCATE VOLUNTEERING IN 2001
89%
Local
254
Types of Government Officials
66%
State
188
32%
National
92
8%
None
22
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of Volunteer Centers that Worked w ith Each Type of Government
Official
Another way in which Volunteer Centers fulfill strategic initiatives is through
involvement in disaster preparedness, mitigation, and/or response. In light of the tragedy of
September 11, 2001, participation in these activities is a particularly important way in which
30
31
Volunteer Centers can demonstrate their commitment to participating in strategic initiatives that
mobilize volunteers to meet local needs. The data in Figure 12 explore this topic.
FIGURE 12: VOLUNTEER CENTER INVOLVEMENT IN DISASTER PREPAREDNESS,
MITIGATION, AND/OR RESPONSE IN 2001
Serve as Liason 37% 107
34%
Activities of Volunteer Centers
Manage Unaffiliated Volunteers 96
Active in Response 33% 93
Lead Referrals 29% 82
Active in Preparedness 28% 79
VOAD Member 23% 67
Manage Donations 17% 49
Active in Mitigation 14% 39
Provide Training 9% 26
Involved in Other Ways 38% 109
No Involvement 22% 64
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Number of Volunteer Centers Involved in Disaster Preparedness, Mitigation,
and/or Response
Perhaps the most arresting finding of Figure 12 is that over three-fourths of the
responding Volunteer Centers (78%) are involved in disaster preparedness, mitigation, and/or
response in some way. This area invites a breadth of participation. More than a third of the
Volunteer Centers reported that they participate by serving as a liaison between disaster
organizations and other organizations (37%), managing unaffiliated volunteers (those not trained
or affiliated with specific disaster response organizations, 34%), or by generally being active in
disaster response (33%). Nearly as many stated that they lead volunteer referral efforts for
disasters in their community (29%), are generally active in disaster preparedness (28%), or
belong to a “VOAD” (Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster, 23%). Finally, several
Volunteer Centers say that they manage monetary and/or in-kind donations (17%), are generally
31
32
active in disaster mitigation (14%), or provide community training in disaster preparedness,
mitigation, or response (9%). In addition, about four in ten Volunteer Centers say that they are
active in other ways in this policy domain (38%).
President Bush has established new volunteer programs such as Freedom Corps and
Citizen Corps to assist with disaster preparedness, mitigation, and response. To the degree that
the Volunteer Centers can demonstrate that they are already active in these areas and form a
national network of volunteers, training, collaborations, and expertise to underwrite their
involvement, they can legitimately press for a leadership role in this critical public policy
domain.
Conclusion
This report has presented and examined a wealth of data concerning Volunteer Centers
based on the 2001 Volunteer Center Survey. It seeks to view the Volunteer Centers from a new
perspective, as a National Network for collaboration and effective service delivery. It also
describes the scope and reach of the network as well as the integration of “core competencies”
expected of network members. The goal has been to provide useful, reliable information to
stakeholders and other decision makers concerning the management, practices, activities, and
accomplishments of the Volunteer Center National Network.
Given the network perspective, the report departs from earlier surveys of this population
in its methodology. To facilitate clear identification of the network, the 2001 Volunteer Center
Survey was administered via a web-based design only to Volunteer Centers that were members
of the Points of Light Foundation, and excluding satellite offices to avoid problems of “double-
counting.” In all, 70% of these Volunteer Centers participated in the survey. Extensive analyses
were performed by Volunteer Center structure, expense budget, and regional location to ensure
32
33
the representativeness of the sample to the population of Volunteer Centers in the National
Network.
The first set of conclusions emanating from this report pertains to important substantive
findings. In general, the findings show reasonable strides made by the Volunteer Centers in
becoming a national network. Estimates based on careful projections of the sample data to the
population suggest that the 408 Volunteer Centers that are members of the Points of Light
Foundation posted approximately 1,270,000 volunteer opportunities and 2,240,000 connections
of volunteers with opportunities to serve in 2001. Although the risk inherent in using sample
data to make extrapolations to the population have been duly noted, these statistics constitute the
best estimates available of the performance of the National Network of Volunteer Centers on this
important dimension. Other data analyzed in this report attest to substantial involvement by the
Volunteer Centers in volunteer training, working and collaborating with other organizations, and
participation in disaster preparedness, mitigation, and response.
Some caveats regarding the National Network of Volunteer Centers should be noted as
well. A large proportion of the Volunteer Centers surveyed are very small with respect to
personnel and expense budget, and likely strapped for resources. As a result, they may not be
able to pay their director very well or to retain her or him over a lengthy period, thus, sacrificing
the advantages of tenure in the position. Other analyses in this report intimate that these
difficulties in the expense budgets of the smaller Volunteer Centers may well be reflected in key
activity areas, such as the number of volunteer opportunities and connections registered.
Firm conclusions in this area must await further research to determine more closely the
types of Volunteer Centers involved. In general, those Volunteer Centers operating internal to
other organizations such as the United Way were more prone to this problem; the independent
33
34
501(c)(3) Volunteer Centers in the sample tended to have larger expense budgets. One might
expect that as units or departments of a parent organization, the former group of Volunteer
Centers would pay the director less and function with fewer personnel and other resources. It is
also possible that location, especially urban vs. rural, may play a role. For example, the larger,
better-funded Volunteer Centers may be located in predominantly urban regions, where
population density affords not only more volunteer opportunities and connections but also a
larger expense budget. Additional research may show further that these Volunteer Centers are
predominantly independent 501(c)(3) organizations, thus, lending support to both explanations.
A second set of conclusions emanating from this report pertains to suggestions for future
administration of the Volunteer Center Survey. In this sphere the major recommendation is to
move the Volunteer Center survey to an annual administration: To assist and guide decision
makers, stakeholders, and the Volunteer Centers themselves, timely, reliable data regarding the
National Network must be readily available. These data must be updated at least yearly to
monitor trends as well as the effects of program initiatives and other changes.
Second, a higher response rate to the survey should be secured. The present report had to
rely on projections in certain instances to compensate for the response rate to the 2001 survey.
Better survey design can facilitate a higher response, but Volunteer Centers must also come to
realize that it is in their own best interest to respond quickly and accurately to an annual survey.
Third and related, the survey itself should be shortened, and more items linked to validated core
competencies and performance measures of the Volunteer Centers -- a recommendation echoed
by Littlepage, Perry, and Christensen in their “Validation of the Volunteer Center National
Assessment Tool: A Report to the Outcomes Measures Taskforce.” Meetings with Volunteer
Center leaders and directors or design teams comprising them (some of which might be
34
35
coordinated with the annual Community Service Conference) could be convened for this
purpose.
In sum, conducting more frequent surveys, securing a higher response rate to them, and
obtaining more vital information from them would help decision makers and other stakeholders
to recognize both the existence and the contributions of the National Network constituted by the
Volunteer Center members of the Points of Light Foundation.
35
Related docs
