Senior Center Participants as Volunteers
Patrick E. Fontane, Ph.D.
St. Louis College of Pharmacy
This is an original manuscript. No segment has been previously published,
nor is it currently under review in any editorial offices.
Senior Center Participants as Volunteers
Patrick E. Fontane, Ph.D.
St. Louis College of Pharmacy
Abstract
Older persons value public acknowledgement for their volunteer activities. Social aspects of volunteering are more important than personal factors whether they volunteer at a senior center, or in the larger community. Volunteers improve the community by putting their time to good use. They demonstrate good health and want public recognition for doing so. Women have more volunteer opportunities in senior centers than men, and derive more social satisfaction from their contributions at the centers. Women want their friends to be proud of their volunteering, while men are more interested in being an example to their peers.
KEYWORDS: Volunteers; older persons; self-efficacy; senior centers
Introduction
Volunteering is the assumption of responsibility for assisting others to achieve their goal(s). Volunteers are celebrated and honored as purveyors of charity. Formal volunteering benefits the mission of an organization while informal volunteering benefits other individuals (e.g. Donnelly and Hinterlong, 2009). Wuthnow (1991) identified the literal “struggle” of volunteers who must resolve their values of individualism with the importance of altruism at the community level. Wilson (2000) was one of many who observed that volunteers may benefit from their own effort.
Although some concern has been raised that statistics may be nominally inflated (Abraham, Helms, Presser, 2009), volunteering by persons 65 years and older increased from 14.3% in 1974 to 23.6% in 2010 (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2007: p. 3; and Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011, p.2). Good health, increased income and education, are positively associated with this growth of volunteering among seniors (Corporation for National and Community Service, 2006, pp 7-8). Seniors may volunteer for purely altruistic or individualisticmotives, or some combination of these. One conceptual constant, however, is that all models of voluntary behavior find the volunteer serving someone, or something, as a recipient of thevolunteering. In reality though, there are organizations, such as senior citizens centers, dependent upon volunteer services provided from beneficiaries. In other words, volunteer behavior is necessary for the organization to provide programs and services from which volunteers will also benefit. Do seniors who benefit, either directly or indirectly, from their volunteering differ in some way(s) from senior citizens whose volunteering clearly benefits others? Or, are all volunteers cut from the same cloth?
Characteristics of Older Volunteers
Active Role Replacement
Activity Theory (e.g. Chambre, 1984) asserts that older persons volunteer as compensation for role-loss caused by retirement from full-time work. A deep research tradition has established that obligations of work roles, no longer appropriate, are replaced with opportunities for retirees to “fill their time” with useful “work” according to their own schedules (e.g. Modern Maturity, 1984). Older persons have long been encouraged to seek responsibilities in the community and accept social opportunities of purposeful activities (Sainer and Zander, 1971; Chambre, 1987; Pearce, 1993; Greenfield and Marks, 2004; Kaskie, et. al. 2008; Caro, et. al., 2009) to maintain the socially desirable value of “being busy” (Ekerdt, 1986). Formalized social norms, such as HR.1388, the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act (2009), calling for active community engagement as retirement roles (Kaskie, et. al. 2008) appeared early in the 21st century. “Resource centers,” such as The National Volunteer Resource Center for Engaging Volunteers in the Aging Network ( catalog programs that have successfully attracted and maintained senior volunteers. Concurrently, a growing body of research to determine how older persons can access volunteer roles (e.g. Tang, Morrow-Howell, 2008; Paik, Navarre-Jackson, 2011) establishes a theoretical foundation for these volunteer opportunities.
The work-substitute function of volunteering occurs most frequently among retired persons who had volunteered during their working years (Dye, et. al., 1973; Chambre’, 1984; Caro, Bass, 1997; Kincade, et. al. 1999) and is more common among persons retired from professional than from blue collar occupations (Chambre, 1987; Wilson, 2000). It is consistent with the long-standing, direct relationship between education and volunteering (Hayghe, 1991; Kincade, et. al. 1999; Bradley, 1999 Chambre, 1993; Choi, 2003). In this way, retirement is an opportunity to increase time allotted to those volunteer activities (Chambre, 1984) and maintain prestige in the community by being “busy.”
Available Time
The simple availability of time to volunteer is not a determinant of whether a person will, or will not, volunteer. For example, Unger (1987) found people who reported having the least amount of available time were most likely to volunteer. Income is directly related to the number of volunteer positions (Hayghe, 1991; Kincade, et. al., 1999; Bradley, 1999) a person assumes. However, economic resources are not associated with either the amount of time, or frequency of volunteering (Wilson, 2000; Tang, 2008a; Lopez, 2009).
Gender
Through the last part of the 20th century, data revealed that older women were more likely volunteers than were older men (Hayghe, 1991; Wilson, 2000). However, this assertion may be overstated because religious organizations have been the most frequent settings for volunteering and there are more women (active and members) in religious congregations than men (Hayghe, 1991; Chambre, 1993; Ruiter and DeGraf, 2006). More recent data suggests that women are no more likely to volunteer than men are (Kincade, et. al., 1999; Morrow-Howell, et. al., 2003; Choi, 2003). The relationship between gender and volunteering, especially among women, requires more study (Manning, 2010).
Social Support
Married people are more likely to volunteer than non-married persons (Chambre, 1984; Hayghe, 1991; Choi, 2003). This “marriage factor” seems to be stronger among men than among women (Chambre, 1987). The implication is that married persons volunteer together. However, the opposite could also be true ---married persons may be more likely to volunteer as a way to avoid their spouses.
General Health
Regardless of economic resources, education, time availability, gender, or social support, the primary determinant of whether or not an older person will volunteer is his/her general state of health. Health has been more closely related to volunteering than age or working status (Chambre, 1987; Caro and Bass, 1997; Kincade, et. al., 1999; Choi, 2003; Morrow-Howell, et. al., 2003; Tang, 2008b). Although working elders are more likely to volunteer than non-working elders (Chambre, 1984; Choi, 2003) health may be the intervening variable since some retirements are precipitated by poor health, while maintaining employment is associated with good health. The relationship between health and volunteering is elaborated as a reciprocal health benefit (cf.Borgonovi, 2008; Baron, et. al., 2009). However, Tang, Choi, and Morrow-Howell (2010) presented evidence that “organizational support” provided both socio-emotional and self-reported health benefits to volunteers, especially lower socio-economic status volunteers. Economic value produced by older volunteers mirrors health benefits they receive for their community activities (Oman, et. al., 1999; Fernandez-Ballesteros, et. al. 2011). The Corporation for National and Community Service (2007) concluded that volunteers live longer, have higher rates of functional ability, less psychological depression, and less heart disease. However, these benefits may accrue from social integration within the local community rather than volunteering, per se which may result from this integration. Quite significantly, Musick, Herzog, and House (1999) and Piliavin and Siegl (2007) found a negative relationship between frequency of informal social interaction and benefits from volunteering. More time volunteering is not necessarily advantageous as lower well-being scores were associated with non-volunteers and high-time volunteers rather than volunteers contributing their time at a more moderate level (Windsor, Ansley, Rodgers, 2008).
As a corollary to the age/health relationship, voluntary behavior definitively declines beginning at approximately age 77 when even those in good health begin to decrease their social activities (Chambre, 1987; Kincade, et. al., 1999; Choi, 2003).
These characteristics may help determine which older persons are more likely to volunteer, but they do not explain why these people choose to volunteer. An environment conducive to volunteering within an organization may very well be a determinant of the decision to volunteer, and remain a volunteer (Morrow-Howell, Hong, Tang, 2009). On the other hand, Wilson (2000) calls attention to the difference between volunteering and participating by members of a voluntary association. He distinguishes between members who work “for their organization” [and the benefit of all] and “program volunteers, who are members working on behalf of their organization” [for their own benefit] (p.216; emphasis added).
Reasons for Volunteering
A person may volunteer as an expression of altruism, the belief their actions will benefit the conditions of others. Someone else may volunteer as an expression of egoism, to derive personal reward from the behavior that benefits others (c.f. Horton-Smith, 1981; Okun, 1994). The distinction between altruism and egoism has been associated with gender differences. For example, both elderly men and women volunteered for altruistic reasons but women developed, and found benefit from, social relationships with other women during volunteering. On the other hand, men identified more instrumental associations and reported no personal benefits from their volunteering (Morrow-Howell and Mui, 1989; Gallagher, S., (1994).
Altruismandegoism represent opposite motives. But Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen refer to the “motivation to volunteer [as] a unidimensional phenomenon” between altruism and egoism (1991, p. 281). In this way, persons may volunteer for altruistic reasons, however they remain volunteers because of the egoistic (personal) rewards they receive (Rubin and Thorelli, 1984; Okun, 1994). Furthermore, Cnaan and Goldbert-Glen (1991) found that volunteers in a community-based AIDS service program became involved for a number of specific reasons. As they continued serving, their reasons would change, shift, and even return to their initial form (see also Omoto and Snyder, 2002). Morrow-Howell, Hong and Tang (2009) found structural influences of organizations created variable “volunteer experiences” associated with reported benefits of volunteering.
Volunteers do not consciously differentiate between altruistic and egoistic reasons for their decisions to volunteer. However, the decision to remain a volunteer depends upon rewards that affect both dimensions (Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen, p. 281). Older persons who volunteered for several years report increased self-esteem, self-confidence, and greater life-satisfaction (Harlow and Cantor, 1996; Wheeler, Gorey, Greenblatt, 1998; Omoto, Snyder, 2002; Morrow-Howell, et. al., 2003 and 2009), all egoistic benefits. Conversely, former volunteers reported they ceased volunteering because they believed their work was not recognized as important by program sponsors. (Gora, Nemerowicz, 1985; Hong, Morrow-Howell, Tang, Hinterlong, 2009).
Formal volunteering occurs in two venues reflecting this theoretical pair of motives. In the first, benefits a person seeks from an association could not be obtained if people did not formally volunteer. Such an organization is dependent for maintenance and stability upon the work of volunteers who derive direct benefits from their own volunteering activities. Second is the association that brings benefits to persons outside [active] membership. In this case volunteers are not intended beneficiaries of their behaviors which provide resources to benefit others. Examples of the former include religious congregations or senior citizens centers, and of the latter include behaviors such as “visiting nursing homes,” “providing home-delivered meals,” and “tutoring elementary school students.”
The research literature has identified general characteristics that differentiate volunteers from non-volunteers. However, are people who volunteer similar to one another, regardless of volunteer venue? Or, do people who benefit from their own volunteering identify different reasons for their volunteering?
This report is a secondary analysis of survey data from regular participants at thirteen senior citizens centers. It provides a hint of an answer about similar or different reasons for volunteering. While one-third of the respondents volunteered, an equal number of those volunteers did so only at the senior center (46.46%) or only at a variety of venues in the community (47.88%). The former volunteers benefited from their volunteering by maintaining senior center programs, the latter served others (as determined by roles and associations identified).
The Senior Citizens Center
There is substantial variation from one senior center to another. Days and hours a center is accessible to senior citizens is a major variation; as are the variety of activities and programs offered to participants, and the number of people who attend on any given day. Demographic variation among attendees reflects the social community served by a center. Some centers are privately founded, sponsored by a Masonic lodge, church, department store, or special-interest group such as a local AARP. Privately funded centers can control accessibility and may even offer “memberships” requiring “dues,” and payment for specific activities. Other centers, such as those sponsored by a municipality, or Area Agency on Aging, are funded by public monies such as local tax revenue and Older Americans Act funds. These publicly funded centers cannot restrict accessibility to any person 60 years of age, or older, and their spouse.
Seniors attend the center every day, several days a week, or occasionally. The number and range of services such as congregate & home-delivered meals, and transportation vary. Some centers provide direct services, such telephone reassurance or health screenings, to older persons while others link elderly persons to services such as in-home health care or minor home repair. Still other centers mix direct, and referred services. Activities offered within centers range from informal visiting, card playing, and exercise programs to formal art or photography classes, great books groups, and scheduled programs of enrichment opportunities, and travel events.
The senior center as volunteer dependent . . .
Most centers have a paid director, some part-time staff such as cook (if meals are prepared), and possibly an information and referral specialist. Center attendees, referred to as “participants,“ occupy elected positions on the center advisory board, others agree to serve on numerous planning and activity committees (e.g. decorations, nutrition, program, welcoming). Committees coordinate “special events” such as holiday celebrations, art and exercise classes, and speakers. These are characteristics of associations ---wherein membership is voluntary, and all members benefit from the contributedactivities of some members.
Everyday operation of the senior center is dependent upon volunteer effort by participants who are among the beneficiaries of services and programs of the center. When meals are provided, kitchen help, servers, home meal delivery, and set-up and clean-up personnel are “participant” volunteers. If a senior center provides transportation services, volunteers provide these services unless skilled assistance (e.g. severe handicapped rider) is required. Most clerical chores such as reservations for meals and data entry, are provided by volunteers Center activities are dependent upon participants to set-up and take-down games such as bingo, to “call numbers” or “call dances,” and to bring out supplies for craft programs and put them away. Volunteer activities within a senior center do not require specialized skills. Most participants who attend the center could perform them if they so chose although a majority do not do so. Many day-to-day volunteer activities are shared among participants because the same people do not attend every day. Some senior citizens centers are gateways to additional formal volunteer opportunities such as Green Thumb, Retired Seniors Volunteer Program (RSVP), and friendly visiting.
The Survey
This study was initiated by an Area Agency on Aging (AAA) to learn about community activities of people attending senior citizen centers. A self-administered survey was developed to solicit information regarding community involvement, leisure activities, specific interests, demographic, and health-related information, of participants. This information was to generate a database for center activities planning. Senior center directors, their site councils, and AAA resource persons, would use this information to strengthen current programs and develop initiatives to attract persons to individual centers. Consequently, senior centers would offer unique resources and support specific senior activities while minimizing duplication of center programs with opportunities and programs available in the community.
Thirteen Senior Citizens Centers were identified in June 2001 as representative of centers monitored by Metropolitan Area Agency on Aging (MAAA; a pseudonym). They varied by size, rural/urban, minority participants, and range of sponsored programs. All offered a noon congregate meal five days a week. The PI met with these site directors in July to discuss the desirability of a survey to learn more about center participants. “Building” data-gathering with site directors gave them some “ownership” of the project and enthusiasm for it. However, it did compromise the amount and eventual usefulness of information available for this report. Participant behavior outside the centers and programming information would be invaluable for the site directors, but learning about participants’ reasons for volunteering was not as important. Site directors identified information they wanted to know and made suggestions about effective data gathering at their specific centers. Site directors were concerned about askingparticipants to delay their noon meal until they had completed a questionnaire. They predicted low interest, and active resentment. This issue was resolved by awarding a “party” to each of five centers completing and returning the highest percentage of surveys. Participants valued “parties” and this was an effective incentive. The MAAA determined the number of surveys appropriate for each center based upon monthly attendance reports of site directors for the preceding month.
The researchers wanted to offer respondents a number of possible motives for participation in volunteer activities such as those provided from the 1991 Marriott Senior Volunteer Study (Okum, 1994), or alternatively focusing upon egoistic/altruistic motives suggested by Morrow-Howell and Ada (1989). However, the term “motive” was a red-flag to site directors. Ultimately, volunteering was re-defined as a “choice.” Respondents who reported volunteer activity were directed to ten reasons for personal choice behaviors and asked to indicate the degree of importance of each reason for their volunteering. (Please refer to Figure 1.) Each of these items is associated with a characteristic of discretionary behavior. They evolved from research among people who physically exercise (e.g. Fontane, 1996) to describe