The Impact of Student Volunteering

Edwards et al.

Who Is Being Served? The Impact of Student

Volunteering on Local Community Organizations

Bob Edwards
Linda Mooney
East Carolina University
Carl Heald
North Carolina State University

This research investigated how local community-based and nonprofit organizations ben-
efit from cooperation with community-based learning (CBL) initiatives such as service
learning, internships, and volunteering. By examining data from local organizations
that cooperate with a campus-based student volunteer program, the authors empirically
assessed the extent to which local organizations benefit from cooperation with CBL initia-
tives. The data enabled comparisons of the relative contributions of university student
volunteers and off-campus volunteers recruited from the larger community. The authors
found that student volunteers constitute a substantial pool of volunteer labor for local
organizations, yet they play different roles than community volunteers, roles that vary by
organizational form. Student volunteers are generally the least likely to provide or help
plan and coordinate services compared with community volunteers. These differences
can be offset by a modest amount of training for student volunteers. The findings do not
support the notion that students are used exclusively for routine tasks.

The rapid pace of change currently under way in America’s colleges and uni-
versities has sparked a wide-ranging and often heated public debate about the
social role and responsibilities of higher education in American society and
how best to prepare students to meet the challenges ahead. Eleven years ago,
in his influential Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professorate, Boyer
(1990) called on American colleges and universities to rethink the priorities of
the professorate and reorient faculty reward structures to facilitate a broad-
ened definition of scholarship and increased attentiveness to undergraduate
Note: We wish to thank Judy Baker, director of the Student Volunteer Program, for her cooperation
and assistance in making this project possible. Robert Daglish, Ellis George, and Henry Parker
also contributed to this project as students in Sociology 4201: Seminar in Applied Social Research
during the spring 1996 semester. We also thank the three anonymous reviewers for their construc-
tive criticism and helpful suggestions. Correspondence concerning this article should be directed
to Bob Edwards, Department of Sociology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 3, September 2001 444-461
© 2001 Sage Publications

444
The Impact of Student Volunteering 445

education. From small, private, liberal arts colleges in economically distressed

urban areas to state-supported land grant and research institutions, schools
nationwide are tackling these challenges head-on (cf. Edwards & Marullo,
1999).
An increasing number of universities are responding to this situation by
pursuing a variety of community-based learning (CBL) initiatives. CBL refers
to any pedagogical tool in which the community becomes a partner in the
learning process (Mooney & Edwards, 2001), including service learning
(Bringle, Games, Ludlum, Osgood, & Osborne, 2000; Hinck & Brandell, 2000;
Marullo, 1996; Marullo & Edwards, 2000). Proponents of CBL initiatives fre-
quently claim that an exclusive reliance on traditional classroom pedagogies
cannot address the problems educators face and that the preparation of col-
lege students must include more practical and experience-based learning. Yet,
research assessing the effectiveness of service learning and other CBL options
often lacks the systematic evidence required of more rigorous evaluation
research (Buchen & Fertman, 1994; Waterman, 1997). Moreover, the growing
research on the impact of service learning and CBL programs focuses almost
exclusively on programs’ effects on students. The impacts on communities,
clients, and the nonprofit organizations under whose direction students per-
form much of their service have been neglected (Bringle et al., 2000; Ward &
Wolf-Wendell, 2000).
Thus, our research had a modest but important goal: to determine to what
extent and how off-campus constituencies benefit from cooperation with CBL
initiatives. We focused on one type of off-campus CBL partner: community
organizations that cooperate with a campus-based student volunteer pro-
gram. By examining data from a sample of local organizations, we empirically
assessed the extent to which they benefit from their employment of student
volunteers. Moreover, our data enabled some comparisons of the different
roles played by student volunteers and other volunteers recruited from the
larger community.

LITERATURE REVIEW

STUDENTS AS VOLUNTEERS

Over 100 million Americans volunteered in 1998, representing a 13.7%

increase over the previous year. This volunteer workforce devoted over 19 bil-
lion hours of unpaid labor to the nation, the highest recorded level of volun-
teering to date (Independent Sector, 2000). Not surprisingly, the number of
college students who volunteer has also increased, in part as a consequence of
the growing involvement of universities in CBL initiatives (Bringle et al., 2000;
Chapin 1998; Gray, Ondaatje, Fricker, & Geschwind, 2000; Hinck & Brandell,
2000; Ward & Wolf-Wendell, 2000). Experiential learning stems from Dewey’s
(1938) educational emphasis on “do, do, do” and was popularized in the 1960s
446 Edwards et al.

as student activism spilled over to such government programs as the Peace

Corps, Volunteers in Service to America, and Headstart. The National Center
for Public Service Internship Programs was founded in 1971, and, in 1985,
Campus Compact was formed. Today, Campus Compact has over 600 institu-
tional members offering over 12,000 college courses in which student volun-
teering is an integral component (Bringle et al., 2000; Rothman, Anderson, &
Schaefer, 1998).
Despite the popularity of such initiatives, the volunteer activities of college-
aged students are relatively underresearched (Rosenthal, Feiring, & Lewis,
1998). This is particularly surprising given that in 1999, 46% of people aged 18
to 24 volunteered (Independent Sector, 2000), 75.3% of college freshmen
reported performing volunteer work in the previous year, and 51.1% reported
performing community service as part of a class requirement (Astin, 2000).
Although some evidence suggests that the “typical” service-learning student
is under the age of 26 (Gray et al., 2000), the likelihood of volunteering “tends
to fall during the transition from adolescence to young adulthood” (Wilson,
2000, p. 229) and peak later in the life course between the ages of 35 and 55
(Independent Sector, 2000; Tschirhart, 1998).
Age is related not only to the likelihood of volunteering but also to the spe-
cific roles volunteers play within organizations. For example, volunteers most
often participate in direct services such as serving food or providing transpor-
tation services (Independent Sector, 2000). However, in a study of hospice vol-
unteers, Black and Kovacs (1999) found that the most senior volunteers (those
over the age of 75) were significantly more likely to be assigned to nondirect
services (e.g., clerical functions, fund-raising) compared with younger partici-
pants. Noting that “the roles that volunteers perform appeared to be the one
clear characteristic that distinguished volunteers by age,” Black and Kovacs
(p. 495) concluded that the relationship between age and volunteer roles war-
rants further investigation.

INATTENTION TO OFF-CAMPUS OUTCOMES

The body of literature on the curricular benefits of CBL programs and their
impacts on students is growing rapidly and has been reviewed elsewhere (see
Mooney & Edwards, 2001). However, comparatively little research examining
the impact of CBL programs on off-campus constituents exists, especially
among the community organizations through which students perform their
service. As Ward and Wolf-Wendell (2000) commented,

The research literature on the effects of service learning offers an interest-

ing view of what researchers value. The emphasis in this literature is
almost exclusively on outcomes (mostly positive) that service learning
has on and for students. . . . Although the community stands to benefit
from community service, these benefits are not described in the litera-
ture. (p. 771)
The Impact of Student Volunteering 447

Possible benefits to participating community organizations include an ex-

panded pool of uncompensated labor, the preemployment opportunity to
evaluate and train potential staff members, access to college or university re-
sources, increased publicity, enhanced public awareness of organizational or
constituent needs, improved organization-community relations, and en-
hanced organizational capacity (Bowman, 1998; Driscoll, Holland, Gelmon, &
Kerrigan, 1996; Gray et al., 2000; Prentice & Garcia, 2000; RAND Education,
1999). The importance of empirically assessing the mix of organizational costs
and benefits bears directly on the continuation of partnerships between uni-
versities and community organizations. For service-learning and other CBL
programs to continue to find willing community partners, campus-based pro-
grams must

provide benefits to communities and community agencies that exceed

the cost of their participation in the program. . . . If the problems associ-
ated with hosting or coordinating the work of student volunteers out-
weigh the benefits, community agencies will lose interest in working
with students and service-learning programs will languish for lack of a
client base. (Gray et al., 2000, p. 32).

The studies that do examine the impact of CBL programs on community or-
ganizations often rely on anecdotal evidence. For example, Brandon and
Knapp (1999) speculated on the effectiveness of preprofessional collabora-
tions (i.e., internships), observing that many such programs “make modest
contributions in the form of service projects, [and] offer temporary internship
assistance for discrete tasks,” many of which “culminated in valuable prod-
ucts for the community” (p. 876). Roschelle, Turpin, and Elias (2000), com-
menting on the lack of research on CBL student contributions to community
organizations, assessed student impact “by using examples from student pa-
pers and field-journals” (p. 842). They concluded that students make “lasting
contributions” to the organizations they serve. Some authors have simply
stated effects, for example, “The organization benefits from the student’s
work,” with little or no evidence to support their conclusions (Tucker, McCar-
thy, Hoxmeier, & Lenk, 1998, p. 88). Others use logic. Waterman (1997) argued
that “it is not likely that positive outcomes in other categories could be
achieved in the absence of evidence that the student’s efforts result in contri-
butions to the community” (p. 5).
We have found one notable and quite recent exception to the pattern of inat-
tention to off-campus outcomes. Using RAND Education data collected over a
3-year period, Gray and colleages (2000) investigated the impact of Learn and
Serve America, Higher Education (LSAHE) programs on students and the
organizations in which they volunteered. Organization staff members
reported that they were extremely satisfied with the contributions of student
volunteers, ranking LSAHE volunteers as more effective than nonstudent vol-
unteers and volunteers from non-LSAHE schools. In fact, LSAHE volunteers
448 Edwards et al.

were thought to be as effective as paid staff members. The strengths of LSAHE

student volunteers included enthusiasm and interpersonal skills; weaknesses
included a lack of availability and scheduling difficulties because of the con-
flicting demands of jobs, extracurricular activities, and classes.
Although each of these studies has made a valuable contribution to the
understanding of the effects of CBL programs on cooperating organizations,
continued investigation of these questions must follow the lead of the RAND
Education (1999) study. To better understand the activities and effectiveness of
student volunteers compared with other service groups such as organization
staff members and community volunteers, researchers must collect system-
atic data from participating organizations. In this investigation, we used sur-
vey data from a sample of community and nonprofit organizations (N = 39) to
do just that. In contrast to the RAND Education study of LASHE programs,
the research presented here did not focus exclusively on student volunteers
affiliated with a large national service program. Rather, it explored the impact
of student volunteers on community organizations in a typical college town.

METHOD

BACKGROUND

Situated on the predominantly rural, coastal plain of a mid-Atlantic state,

Emerald City (population 55,000) is the hub of Emerald County (population
110,000), which contains seven much smaller municipalities. Emerald City is a
regional center for commerce, culture, health care, education, and a range of
social services for the surrounding 29-county rural region, which is the poor-
est and most economically distressed part of the state. Mid-Atlantic Univer-
sity (MAU) enrolls approximately 18,000 students and is the city’s largest
employer. Originally founded as a teachers’ college, MAU has a long track
record of service to the region, which has intensified since the founding of its
medical school in the 1970s. This spurred rapid institutional expansion during
the 1980s and 1990s, especially among professional schools and vocational
programs, which has led to increased on-campus demand for internships,
practicums, and other CBL initiatives. Recently, an increasing number of
MAU students have provided voluntary services to community organiza-
tions, and, since 1988, many of these efforts have been facilitated by the MAU
Student Volunteer Program (SVP).
In 1994, MAU formalized funding for the SVP, providing a regular budget
for a part-time faculty coordinator and two part-time graduate assistant sup-
port staff members. The SVP facilitates student volunteering in a variety of
ways. First, the SVP is a clearinghouse for volunteer opportunities. Each year,
the SVP publishes a pamphlet entitled SVP Volunteer Opportunities, which lists
the names, addresses, and phone numbers of cooperating community organi-
zations as well as descriptions of volunteer opportunities and the extent of any
The Impact of Student Volunteering 449

required training. However, MAU students who want to volunteer are not
limited to these options. Many students find their own volunteer opportuni-
ties independent of the SVP. Second, a university group liability policy covers
all students who do register with the SVP. Third, the SVP also offers faculty
members a way of documenting that students have fulfilled any class-related
volunteer obligations. Finally, students who work through the SVP can, on
graduation, obtain letters confirming their cumulative volunteer activities
over the course of their college careers. By the time of this study, the SVP had
become well established at MAU and in the community at large, coordinating
1,915 student volunteers for a total of 10,341 hours in 56 different agencies dur-
ing the semester preceding the collection of the data used here. Despite a
growing profile on campus, the SVP does not coordinate all volunteering done
by MAU students. In a separate study of volunteering among MAU students,
it was found that approximately 77% of MAU students who volunteered dur-
ing the fall 1996 semester had registered with the SVP.

THE SAMPLE AND SURVEY

At the time of this research, no comprehensive directory of local commu-

nity organizations or listing of volunteer opportunities was available. Cur-
rently, the local volunteer coordinating center has identified 75 organizations
in Emerald City and Emerald County seeking to recruit volunteers, but the
center makes no claim that this is a comprehensive enumeration of all such
opportunities. During the spring of 1996, questionnaires were mailed to the
directors of all 56 organizations listed in the then-current issue of SVP Volun-
teer Opportunities. Follow-up letters were sent to nonresponding directors
within 2 weeks of the initial distribution. Thirty-nine questionnaires were
returned for a 70% response rate, which is rather high for organizational sur-
veys (Smith, 1997) and comparable to the RAND Education (1999) study dis-
cussed above. A comparison of respondent and nonrespondent organizations
using independent data derived from organizational attributes listed in SVP
Volunteer Opportunities found no systematic nonresponse bias that was judged
capable of invalidating the data (Smith, 1997). Significant differences (p ≤ .10)
were found on only 4 of 23 variables. Most notably, groups located further
from the university, especially those in outlying parts of Emerald County,
were less likely to respond than organizations closer to campus.
Increasingly, researchers use surveys as a means of gathering organiza-
tional data. Recently, McPherson and Rotolo (1995) used a triangulated data
collection strategy to research the same population of 128 face-to-face volun-
tary associations to assess the relative reliability of organizational surveys,
interviews with group officials, and canvasses of group members. They found
that surveys completed by a knowledgeable organizational representative
provided equally reliable data as either of the other sources they examined.
People responding on behalf of the organizations examined in this study held
varying positions in the organizations. Respondents were directors (69%),
450 Edwards et al.

coordinators (17%), and administrators (14%). Although a multisource data

collection strategy would have undoubtedly provided more thorough and
fine-grained data, the survey design used in this study was adequate for the
exploratory purposes of this research.

FINDINGS

PROFILE OF COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS

More than half of the 39 organizations sampled were described by their

directors as independent, local, or regional organizations (see Table 1). Just
over one quarter (26%) are local or regional affiliates of statewide or national
organizations (e.g., the American Cancer Society), and the remaining groups
are publicly funded either by their affiliations with MAU, public schools, or
local government. Surprisingly, the data include no churches or religious
organizations despite the presence of at least 250 places of worship in Emerald
City and Emerald County (see Chapin, 1998). The Salvation Army was the
only such organization listed on the SVP roster of participating organizations
and was among the 17 groups that did not complete the survey. Table 2 pres-
ents demographic attributes of the organizations examined. On the basis of
median values, the typical organization was about 10 years old in 1996 and
was formally incorporated with 501(C3) tax-exempt status. The typical orga-
nization had a 16-member board of directors, 4 paid staff members, 3 interns
or volunteer staff members, and had raised just less than $31,000 in cash and
in-kind support during its most recent fiscal year (M = $78,000). Table 3 pro-
files the typical sources of funding for the groups sampled. The mean percent-
age of revenue derived from each of nine distinct sources is listed. Slightly
more than half (53%) of the organizations’ funding comes from a combination
of grants from government agencies, grants from private sources including
foundations and the United Way, and donations from local businesses.

WHAT PROPORTION OF
VOLUNTEERS WERE STUDENTS?

Directors were asked to estimate the total number of volunteers their orga-
nizations had employed between August 1995 and December 31, 1995,
roughly corresponding with the university semester. The bottom rows of
Table 2 display these results. The 39 respondent groups estimated a total of
9,932 volunteers, with a mean of 255 per organization and a median of 100. On
average, 51% (SD = 36) of all volunteers were MAU students. Using these
reports, we estimated that 5,065 students (roughly 28% of all MAU students)
The Impact of Student Volunteering 451

Table 1. Types of Cooperating Organizations

Type of Organization Frequency Percentage

Independent local or regional organization 22 58

Local or regional affiliate of a statewide or national organization 10 26
University-based organization 3 8
Local government agency or public school 3 8
Total 38 100

Table 2. Attributes of Cooperating Community Organizations

Percentage Percentage
Attribute Yes No Mean Median

Age of organization (years) — — 14 10

Formally incorporated 84 16 — —
501(C3) status 78 22 — —
Has board of directors (number of board members) 82 15 19.6 16
Has paid staff members (number of employees) 87 13 22.3 4
Has interns or unpaid staff members (number
of volunteer staff members) 72 28 9.3 3
Has members (number of members) 44 56 545.4 40
Total funds raised last year — — $49,534 $20,700
Total in-kind contributions last year — — $28,403 $10,000
Total volunteers in past 6 months — — 255 100
Percentage of students among total volunteers — — 51 50

Table 3. Percentage of Funding by Source

Type of Funding Percentage From Source

Grants from government agencies 23

Grants from private foundations 20
Donations from churches or religious organizations 4
Donations from local business 10
Donations from individuals 9
Membership dues 3
Special fund-raising events (walk-a-thons, etc.) 18
Merchandise sales (T-shirts, coupon books, etc.) 1
Other sources 12
Total (N = 31) 100

volunteered in the 39 responding organizations during the fall 1995 semester.

Clearly, student volunteers constitute a substantial labor pool for the commu-
nity groups sampled and make roughly equal contributions as community
volunteers.
452 Edwards et al.

Table 4. Evaluations of Student Volunteers by Organization Directors

a
Student Volunteers Mean Score

Have been respectful to our staff and clients 4.74

Are important to the operations of our organization 4.59
Provide a valuable service to our organization 4.51
Have been reliable in completing their responsibilities 4.36
Have reported to assignments promptly 4.17
Make an important contribution to our organization’s ability to provide services 3.80
Make an important contribution to our organization’s fund-raising activities 2.66

Note: Data reported here apply to only students volunteering through the Student Volunteer Pro-
gram.
a. 1 = definitely false, 5 = definitely true.

THE IMPORTANCE OF STUDENT CONTRIBUTIONS,

TASKS DONE, AND CLIENT POPULATIONS SERVED

Do students and community volunteers make equally substantive contri-

butions to host organizations? Table 4 presents mean responses to a bank of
questions whereby directors evaluated the impacts of student volunteers on
their organizations. Two general assessments stand out. First, student volun-
teers received high marks for being reliable and respectful. Respondents rated
students highly for providing valuable services to their organizations and for
being important to organizational operations. However, directors were some-
what less favorable when asked about student contributions of service provi-
sion capacity and fund-raising. Student volunteers made important but
apparently not critical contributions to these community organizations. To
explore this further, we compared the kinds of tasks performed by student
volunteers, community volunteers, and organization staff members. We also
examined the types of client populations served.
Respondents were asked to indicate which of the three service groups typi-
cally performed four organizational tasks: office work, information dissemi-
nation, recruiting, and training new volunteers. They were also asked
whether staff members, community volunteers, or student volunteers pro-
vided services to six different client populations: preschoolers, grade school
students, teens, adults, seniors, and people with disabilities. Table 5 presents
these results. Across the board, organizations were most likely to use paid staff
members and least likely to use student volunteers to accomplish these orga-
nizational tasks. This same general pattern held for providing assistance to the
six client populations. Without exception, staff members were also most likely
to provide assistance to all client groups. Students were more likely than com-
munity volunteers to provide services to preschoolers and equally likely to
assist grade school students, but they were less likely to work with the other
four client populations.
The Impact of Student Volunteering 453

Table 5. Services Provided by Staff Members,

Community Volunteers, and Student Volunteers

Percentage Percentage Percentage

Staff Community Student
a a a
Type of Service Provided Members Volunteers Volunteers

Office work 90 53 45
Information dissemination 86 61 31
Teaching volunteer training sessions 88 28 0
Recruiting other volunteers 92 54 32
Working with preschool children 80 53 67
Working with grade school students 75 70 70
Working with teens 86 64 82
Working with adults 91 57 39
Working with seniors 77 68 55
Working with people with disabilities 87 70 61

a. Percentage of organizations providing such services in which staff members, community vol-
unteers, and student volunteers provided each type of service.

LEVEL OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT COMPARED

WITH STAFF MEMBERS AND COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS

Directors were also asked to indicate whether each of the three service
groups (staff members, community volunteers, and student volunteers) usu-
ally participated in providing six types of services: fund-raising, recreation,
education, health, social, and transportation services. Column 1 of Table 6 dis-
plays these results. Staff members were most likely to provide all six types of
services, with the exception of transportation services, for which community
volunteers predominated. Student volunteers were most likely to be involved
in fund-raising activities and recreational service provision. Community
organizations employed student volunteers even less frequently in more sub-
stantive and responsible activities such as planning and coordinating the pro-
vision of services. Column 2 of Table 6 displays these results. The gap between
student and community volunteer involvement in planning and coordinating
was substantially more pronounced than the gap between student and com-
munity volunteer provision of services, with the exception of planning trans-
portation activities, in which neither group played much of a role.
To further examine the mix of activities and services undertaken by the
three service groups, 14 scales were created to measure the extent to which
each service group participated in planning and coordinating activities, rou-
tine office work, providing various types of services (educational, recre-
ational, social, health, etc.), and serving different client populations (adults
and seniors, children, and teens). The resulting 14 scales were correlated with
one another. Table 7 presents the resulting matrix.
The results suggest that an apparent division of labor existed between the
planning of organizational activities and office work among local
454 Edwards et al.

Table 6. Level of Involvement and Type of Service

Participated in Participated in
a a
Activity Providing Services Planning and Coordinating

Fund-raising
Student volunteers 72 34
Community volunteers 94 74
Staff members 97 88
Recreational services
Student volunteers 70 57
Community volunteers 70 74
Staff members 87 87
Educational services
Student volunteers 48 25
Community volunteers 55 47
Staff members 90 97
Health-related services
Student volunteers 27 24
Community volunteers 54 44
Staff members 96 96
Social services
Student volunteers 41 19
Community volunteers 41 50
Staff members 88 81
Transportation services
Student volunteers 18 6
Community volunteers 41 12
Staff members 36 94

a. Percentage of organizations providing such services in which student volunteers, community

volunteers, and staff members participated in and/or planned or coordinated each type of ser-
vice.

organizations. First, we noted that community and student volunteers tended

not to perform routine office work in the same organizations (–.41, p < .05).
Second, the correlations between planning activities and office work suggest
that community volunteers did such work under the direction of staff mem-
bers, whereas students played supportive roles under the direction of com-
munity volunteers. When organization staff members planned activities,
community volunteers were less likely to also plan (–.30, p ≤ .10) but more
likely to perform routine office tasks (.64, p ≤ .05). By contrast, when commu-
nity volunteers planned activities, they were also less likely to do office work
(–.31, p ≤ .10), but student volunteers were more likely to do so (.70, p ≤ .05).
Moreover, when staff members provided broader varieties of service types,
community volunteers were less likely to do office work (–.33, p ≤ .10), and stu-
dents were more likely to do so (.31, p ≤ .10), whereas when community volun-
teers provided broader ranges of services, they were also more likely to do
office work (.31, p ≤ .10). The same pattern held for student volunteers as well
(.40, p ≤ .05).
The Impact of Student Volunteering 455

The relationship between planning and service provision suggests the con-
tours of a similar division of labor. When staff members were more involved in
the planning of activities, community volunteers were less likely to plan activ-
ities (–.30, p ≤ .10) but more likely to provide broader ranges of service types
(.42, p ≤ .05) and more likely to provide services to children and teens (.35, p ≤
.10). The positive relationships between community volunteer involvement in
planning and student provision of both broader ranges of services (.37, p ≤ .10)
and services to adults and seniors (.38, p ≤ .10) suggests that students often
worked under the direction of community volunteers. When students were
involved in planning and coordinating, it tended to be in organizations where
staff members were also involved directly in service provision: range of ser-
vices (.35, p ≤ .05), adults and seniors (.41, p ≤ .10), and children and teens (.34,
p ≤ .10). By contrast, community volunteers apparently planned and coordi-
nated services provided by students independent of direct staff member
involvement.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The increasing popularity of CBL initiatives among institutions of higher

education raises pertinent questions about who benefits, and to what extent,
from the generalized promotion of student volunteering. A growing body of
research indicates that such initiatives have positive effects on students and
the quality of learning (for a review and synthesis, see Mooney & Edwards,
2001). Yet, researchers have paid scant attention to the off-campus impacts of
such initiatives, especially on the community organizations that employ uni-
versity student volunteers (Giles, Honnet, & Migliore, 1991). In the explor-
atory research presented here, we sought to help establish a baseline for fur-
ther discussion and research into how community organizations use student
volunteers and the benefits derived from cooperative relationships with campus-
based programs. Our discussion is organized around three issues: (a) differ-
ences in costs and benefits to local community organizations of using student
volunteers, (b) differences in the roles and activities of student versus commu-
nity volunteers, and (c) differences between organizational forms (affiliated
versus nonaffiliated organizations) in the use of volunteers.

DIFFERENCES IN COSTS AND BENEFITS

OF STUDENT VOLUNTEERS

The impact on community organizations raises the important issue of

whether the opportunity costs of employing student volunteers exceed the
benefits provided by them. Simply stated, are student volunteers worth the
trouble? If not, CBL initiatives will encounter difficulty recruiting community
partners for student volunteer initiatives. Emerald City nonprofit directors
viewed student volunteers in a rather positive light as respectful, prompt,
456

Table 7. Correlations of Service Group, Type, and Client Population Among Emerald City Community Organizations

Planning and Supportive Range of Service

Coordinating Office Work Types Provided Service for Specific Client Groups
Service Group, Type, and Clients 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Planning and coordinating

1. Staff plans activities —
2. Community volunteers
plan activities –.30* —
3. Student volunteers plan
activities –.10 .16 —
Supportive office work
4. Community volunteers work
in office .64** –.31* –.14 —
5. Student volunteers work in
office –.43** .70** –.06 –.41** —
Range of service types provided
6. Staff members provide service
types (educational, recreational,
social, etc.) –.03 –.02 .35** –.33* .31* —
7. Community volunteers provide
service types (educational,
recreational, social, etc.) .42** –.20 –.17 .31* –.26 –.20 —
8. Students provide services
(educational, recreational,
social, etc.) –.01 .37* –.01 .01 .40** .12 –.10 —
Service for specific client groups
9. Staff members provide services
to adults and seniors .16 –.01 .41** –.14 –.22 .33* –.06 .30 —
10. Community volunteers
provide services to adults and
seniors .25 .23 –.09 .37* .04 .07 .70* .06 –.04 —
 11. Students provide services to
adults and seniors .14 .38* .04 .16 –.01 –.13 .00 .51** .26 .39** —
12. Staff members provide services
to children and teens .35* –.21 .34* .09 –.31 .17 .16 .20 .49** –.01 .44** —
13. Community volunteers provide
services to children and teens –.08 .22 .12 –.07 .19 .25 –.34 .30 .06 –.11 .12 –.02 —
14. Students provide services to
children and teens .02 .06 .03 –.17 .06 .12 .10 .41** .43** –.02 .15 .19 .50**

*p ≤ .10. **p ≤ .05.

457
458 Edwards et al.

reliable, and important to and valuable in providing services to their organiza-

tions. Indeed, 92% of these organizations reported that they would “defi-
nitely” use student volunteers in the coming school year. Apart from the direct
and immediate benefits to participating organizations, there may be subse-
quent indirect benefits to the broader nonprofit sector. Preliminary analyses of
data on 1st-year MAU students indicate that a prior history of volunteering in
high school was one of the strongest predictors of volunteering during their
first semester at MAU. Thus, students who volunteer in college may well
become community volunteers later in their life courses. Despite the relatively
high turnover, part-year residence, and scheduling difficulties characteristic
of college students, they clearly constitute a substantial volunteer labor pool
for participating community organizations. Students provide an infusion of
volunteer labor that helps sustain the local nonprofit sector and enables the
provision of services that might not otherwise be possible.

DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT
AND COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS

Black and Kovacs (1999, p. 495) called for greater attention to age-related
patterns in volunteering. We found that university students were more likely
to provide services to client populations younger than themselves: preschool-
ers, grade school students, and teens. In fact, they served younger client popu-
lations more often than their community counterparts (Table 5). Students
most frequently participated in fund-raising activities and providing recre-
ational services. These were also the two activities that students were more
likely to help plan and coordinate.
As Rubin (1996) noted, there has been some concern that “community orga-
nizations fail to acknowledge the important roles they could play in educating
students, instead using students to do menial and repetitive tasks” (p. 305).
Although this research clearly indicates that student volunteers less fre-
quently plan and coordinate service delivery than their community counter-
parts, we found no evidence that students participate exclusively in
unchallenging or menial tasks. Moreover, we found evidence that any ten-
dency to channel students into less substantive tasks because of perceived
inexperience can largely be overcome by required training. Two thirds (68%)
of organizations required students to complete some form of training prior to
volunteering. The length of such training ranged from 30 minutes to 56 hours,
with a median of 2 hours being more typical. The length of required training
was positively related to increased student involvement in providing services
to children and teens (.53, p ≤ .05) and to adults and seniors (.61, p ≤ .05). More-
over, the length of training also predicts increased involvement in planning
and coordinating services (.44, p ≤ .05) and doing office work (.27, p ≤ .05). Our
research indicates that student volunteers are usually assigned to less sub-
stantive roles than their community volunteer counterparts. However, that
The Impact of Student Volunteering 459

gap narrows markedly when organizations invest in a modest amount of

required training.

DIFFERENCES IN ORGANIZATIONAL FORM

Overall, the results presented here sketch two somewhat distinct patterns
in how community organizations use student volunteers. The first describes a
staff-run organization in which volunteers fill service gaps not fully covered
by paid staff members. In such organizations, staff members plan and coordi-
nate various service activities. The services are then provided either directly
by staff members, who sometimes work with the assistance of student volun-
teers, or by community volunteers working under the general direction of
staff members. In the second arrangement, community volunteers plan and
coordinate activities carried out by either community volunteers with the
assistance of students or students working under the general direction of com-
munity volunteers. A key variable differentiating between these two patterns
in how community organizations use student volunteers is whether commu-
nity volunteers are involved in planning and coordinating organizational
activities.
We found some evidence that the local affiliates of national nonprofit orga-
nizations are more likely than their nonaffiliated counterparts to rely on com-
munity volunteers to plan activities and coordinate student volunteers.
Compared with nonaffiliates, the local affiliates were 2.6 times as likely (p ≤
.05) to plan and coordinate health services, 2.3 times as likely (p ≤ .05) to plan
and coordinate educational services, and 1.6 times as likely (p ≤ .05) to plan
and coordinate fund-raising activities. Affiliation provides local organiza-
tions access to resources enabling them to supply accessible leadership oppor-
tunities for potential volunteers more readily than their nonaffiliated counter-
parts, which may well have greater needs for volunteer leaders. For example,
national organizations such as the Special Olympics or the Red Cross often
coordinate special events, including fund-raising activities, nationwide on an
annual basis. The national offices provide local affiliates with ample materials
to guide local planners and coordinators who may well have had the opportu-
nity to learn the event “from the ground up” by volunteering in prior years.
Such cultural and experiential resources facilitate the endeavors of affiliated
organizations in ways not as readily available to nonaffiliated organizations,
which must organize such events and build community awareness of them
from scratch.
In conclusion, the contributions of university student volunteers more than
offset any opportunity costs incurred by participating organizations.
Although student volunteers typically play supportive roles assisting staff
members and community volunteers or working under their general supervi-
sion, students make important contributions to cooperating organizations
and the constituencies they serve. In organizations that provide modest
amounts of training, students have increased opportunity to gain experience
460 Edwards et al.

planning and coordinating activities. Students volunteering in local affiliates

of national organizations are more likely to have their work planned and coor-
dinated by community volunteers because affiliates appear to be more effec-
tive than nonaffiliated organizations in recruiting volunteer leaders from the
wider community. Finally, leaders of campus-based service initiatives should
consider the local nonprofit sector as a community with needs to be met. In
doing so, researchers and proponents of CBL initiatives should not be content
with simply documenting beneficial off-campus effects. Researchers would
do well to assess just how far off campus those effects extend and to remain
mindful that those groups most effective at making their needs known may
not be the groups with the greatest organizational needs.

References

Astin, A. (2000). The American freshmen: National norms for fall 1999. Los Angeles: University of Cal-
ifornia at Los Angeles, Higher Education Research Institute.
Black, B., & Kovacs, P. (1999). Age-related variation in roles performed by hospice volunteers.
Journal of Applied Gerontology, 18(4), 479-497.
Bowman, K. (1998). Volunteering 101. Nonprofit World, 16(6), 42-45.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brandon, R. N., & Knapp, M. S. (1999). Interprofessional education and training: Transforming
professional preparation to transform human services. American Behavioral Scientist, 45,
876-893.
Bringle, R., Games, R., Ludlum, C., Osgood, R., & Osborne, R. (2000). Faculty fellows program:
Enhancing integrated professional development through community service. American Behav-
ioral Scientist, 45, 882-894.
Buchen, I., & Fertman, C. I. (1994). Service-learning and the dilemmas of success. NSEE Quarterly,
20(2), 14-21.
Chapin, J. R. (1998). Is service learning a good idea? Data from the National Longitudinal Study of
1988. The Social Studies, 89(5), 205-212.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier.
Driscoll, A., Holland, B., Gelmon, S., & Kerrigan, S. (1996). An assessment model for service-learning:
Comprehensive case studies of impact on faculty, students, community and institutions. Mich-
igan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3, 66-67.
Edwards, B., & Marullo, S. (Eds.) (1999). Universities in troubled times: Institutional responses.
American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 743-901.
Giles, D., Honnet, E. P., & Migliore, S. (Eds.). (1991). Research agenda for combining service and learn-
ing in the 1990s. Raleigh, NC: National Society for Experiential Educations.
Gray, M. J., Ondaatje, E. H., Fricker, R. D., Jr., & Geschwind, S. A. (2000). Assessing service-
learning: Results for a survey of Learn and Serve America, Higher Education. Change, 32(2),
30-39.
Hinck, S. S., & Brandell, M. E. (2000). The relationship between institutional support and campus
acceptance of academic service-learning. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 868-881.
Independent Sector. (2000). 1999 national survey [Online]. Washington, DC: Author. Available:
http://www.independentsector.org
Marullo, S. (1996). The service-learning movement in higher education: An academic response to
troubled times. Sociological Imagination, 33, 117-137.
The Impact of Student Volunteering 461

Marullo, S., & Edwards, B. (2000). From charity to justice: The potential of university-community
collaboration for social change. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 895-912.
McPherson, J. M., & Rotolo, T. (1995). Measuring the composition of voluntary groups: A
multitrait, multimethod analysis. Social Forces, 73(3), 1097-1115.
Mooney, L., & Edwards, B. (2001). Experiential learning in sociology: Service-learning and other
community based learning initiatives. Teaching Sociology, 19, 1-14.
Prentice, M., & Garcia, R. M. (2000). Service learning: The next generation in education. Commu-
nity College Journal of Research and Practice, 24(1), 19-27.
RAND Education. (1999). Combining service and learning in higher education: Summary report.
In RAND Education (Ed.), Combining service learning and higher education: Evaluation of the Learn
and Serve America, Higher Education Program (MR-998-EDU). Washington, DC: Author.
Roschelle, A., Turpin, J., & Elias, R. (2000). Who learns from service learning? American Behavioral
Scientist, 43, 839-847.
Rosenthal, S., Feiring, C., & Lewis, M. (1998). Political volunteering from late adolescence to
young adulthood: Patterns and predictors. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 477-493.
Rothman, M., Anderson, E., & Schaefer, J. (1998). Service matters: Engaging higher education in the
renewal of America’s communities and American’s democracy. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.
Rubin, S. (1996). Institutionalizing service-learning. In B. Jacoby (Ed.), Service-learning in higher
education (pp. 297-316). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, J. (1997). Nonresponse bias in organizational surveys: Evidence from a survey of groups
and organizations working for peace. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26, 359-368.
Tschirhart, M. (1998). Understanding the older stipended volunteer: Age related differences
among AmeriCorps members. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22, 35-48.
Tucker, M. L., McCarthy, A. M., Hoxmeier, J. A., & Lenk, M. M. (1998). Community service learn-
ing increases communication skills across the business curriculum. Business Communication
Quarterly, 61(2), 88-99.
Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2000). Community-centered service learning: Moving from doing
for to doing with. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 767-781.
Waterman, A. S. (Ed.). (1997). Service-learning: Applications from the research. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215-240.

Bob Edwards is a graduate director in the Department of Sociology at East Carolina University in
Greenville, North Carolina. He received his Ph.D. in sociology in 1995 from the Catholic University of
America. His research interests center on social movements and advocacy organizations and their relation-
ship to political participation and social change. His work has appeared in American Sociological
Review, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Sociological Forum, the Journal of Democracy,
the Journal of Public Policy, Environmental Hazards, American Behavioral Scientist, and Teaching
Sociology. He is a coeditor (with Michael W. Foley and Mario Diani) of Beyond Tocqueville: Civil Soci-
ety and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective (University Press of New England,
2001).

Linda A. Mooney is an associate professor of sociology at East Carolina University in Greenville, North
Carolina. Her research and teaching areas include the sociology of law, criminology, social problems, and
mass media. She has published articles in Social Forces, Sociological Inquiry, Sex Roles, and Sociologi-
cal Quarterly. She is presently working on the third edition of Understanding Social Problems.

Carl “Chip” Heald received his B.S. (1997) and M.A. (1999) in sociology from East Carolina University
after a 20-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps. He has been an adjunct instructor of sociology at Pitt Com-
munity College and East Carolina University, and he has been a visiting instructor in the Department of
Sociology and Anthropology at North Carolina State University since 2000.