The Urban Institute

Volunteer Management 

Practices and Retention

of Volunteers

Mark A. Hager

Jeffrey L. Brudney

June 2004
Volunteer Management Capacity Study Series

1 Volunteer Management Capacity in America’s Charities and Congregations

The Urban Institute

February 2004

2 Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers

The Urban Institute

June 2004

3 Volunteer Management in America’s Religious Organizations

Corporation for National and Community Service

June 2004

Copyright © 2004. The Urban Institute. All rights

reserved. Conclusions or opinions expressed in Institute

publications are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of staff members, officers or trustees

of the Institute, advisory groups, or any organizations

that provide financial support.
Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers 1

This report is the second in a series of briefs reporting on

findings from a 2003 survey of volunteer management

capacity among charities and congregations. The findings in this report are based on conversations with a

systematic sample of charities about their practices,

challenges, and aspirations for their volunteer programs.

We focus on charities’ adoption of nine recommended

practices for volunteer management. Further, we explore

the relationship between adoption of these practices, 

other organizational characteristics, and the retention of

volunteers. The practices under study are supervision and

communication with volunteers, liability coverage for volunteers, screening and matching volunteers to jobs, regular

collection of information on volunteer involvement, written policies and job descriptions for volunteers, recognition activities, annual measurement of volunteer impact,

training and professional development for volunteers, and

training for paid staff in working with volunteers. 

The findings provide new insight into volunteer

management capacity and retention:

Adoption of Volunteer Management Practices Not

Widespread. Of the nine practices, only regular

supervision and communication with volunteers has been

adopted to a large degree by a majority of charities. We

were surprised to learn, for example, that only one-third

of charities have adopted to a large degree the practice of

publicly recognizing the work of their volunteers. Over

60 percent have adopted each of the practices to at least

some degree, however. This finding suggests that the

practices for volunteer management are known, if not

always fully implemented, in America’s charities.

Likelihood of Adoption Depends on Characteristics

of the Charity. The likelihood that a charity adopts a

particular management practice depends on its specific

needs and characteristics, such as its size, level of volunteer involvement, predominant role for volunteers, and

industry. For example, charities that emphasize episodic

volunteer use adopt different management practices than

Volunteer Management Practices and the 

Retention of Volunteers

charities that emphasize more sustained use of

volunteers. Charities operating in the health field have

generally adopted more of the practices as well. Larger

charities are more likely to have adopted most, but not

all, of the management practices under study.

Some Practices Tied to Greater Retention of

Volunteers, Some Not. Charities interested in increasing

retention of volunteers should invest in recognizing

volunteers, providing training and professional development for them, and screening volunteers and matching

them to organizational tasks. These practices all center

on enriching the volunteer experience. Management

practices that focus more on the needs of the organization, such as documentation of volunteer numbers and

hours, are unrelated to retention of volunteers, even

though they help the program to realize other benefits.

Charities Can Do Others Things as Well to Maximize

Volunteer Retention. Volunteer management practices

are only part of the picture. In addition to adopting certain

management practices, charities can provide a culture that

is welcoming to volunteers, allocate sufficient resources

to support them, and enlist volunteers in recruiting other

volunteers. All of these practices help charities to achieve

higher rates of retention.

The research shows that adoption of volunteer

management practices is important to the operations 

of most charities. By investing in these practices and by

supporting volunteer involvement in other ways, charities

enhance their volunteer management capacity and their

ability to retain volunteers.

Executive Summary

“Charities interested in increasing 

retention of volunteers should invest in

recognizing volunteers, providing training

and professional development for them, 

and screening volunteers and matching 

them to organizational tasks.”
2 Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers

In 2003, with the backing of the UPS Foundation, the

Corporation for National and Community Service, and

the USA Freedom Corps, the Urban Institute undertook

the first national study of volunteer management capacity. One purpose of the study was to document the extent

to which charities use various practices in managing

volunteers. The field of volunteer administration has 

long promoted a range of best practices, including supervision, data collection, recognition, and training.1 However, until we undertook systematic research, we did not

know the extent to which these practices have taken root

in the nonprofit sector or their influence on retaining

volunteers.

We drew a sample of nearly 3,000 charities that had filed

Form 990 with the IRS in 2000, which excludes charities

with less than $25,000 in annual gross receipts. We conducted telephone interviews with volunteer administrators or executive managers in most of these charities,

asking them about their volunteer activities and management practices, and the challenges and benefits that volunteers bring to their operations. We learned that four out

of five charities use volunteers in their activities, either in

service to others or in helping to run the organization.

The results we present are based on those charities that

engage volunteers; we exclude charities that do not use

volunteers.

Adoption of Volunteer Management Practices by Charities

Introduction: What Management Practices Have Charities Adopted?

What Practices or Characteristics Explain Volunteer Retention?

Why focus on volunteer management? The prevailing

wisdom is that unless organizations pay attention to

issues of volunteer management, they will not do a good

job of recruiting, satisfying, and retaining volunteers.

The importance is underscored by the findings of a study

commissioned by the UPS Foundation in 1998.2 That

study revealed that two-fifths of volunteers have stopped

volunteering for an organization at some time because 

of one or more poor volunteer management practices.

Reasons included the organization not making good use

of a volunteer’s time or good use of their talents, or 

that volunteer tasks were not clearly defined. The study

warned, “Poor volunteer management practices result 

in more lost volunteers than people losing interest

because of changing personal or family needs.”

Administrators of volunteer programs are not without

tools to recruit and retain volunteers. As volunteer

administration has become more professionalized, 

public and nonprofit leaders, agency managers, and 

field experts have turned their attention to improving 

the capacity of host organizations to accommodate

volunteers. In a report prepared in cooperation with the

Points of Light Foundation and the Association for

Volunteer Administration, the UPS Foundation advocated

adoption of 23 volunteer management practices.3 In

general, the practices center on providing funding to

support volunteer involvement, especially for a designated leader or manager to oversee volunteers, and

“One purpose of the study was to document

the extent to which charities use various

practices in managing volunteers. Until we

undertook systematic research, we did not

know the extent to which these practices

have taken root in the nonprofit sector.”

“We learned that four out of five charities

use volunteers in their activities, either in

service to others or in helping to run the

organization.”
Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers 3

having a set of appropriate practices and procedures 

to administer the volunteer program.

Other studies echo these views on effective means for

supporting and retaining volunteers. Grossman and

Furano identify three elements as crucial to the success

of any volunteer program: screening potential volunteers

to ensure appropriate entry and placement in the organization; orientation and training to provide volunteers

with the skills and outlook needed; and management and

ongoing support of volunteers by paid staff to ensure that

volunteer time is not wasted.4 They conclude, “No matter

how well intentioned volunteers are, unless there is an

infrastructure in place to support and direct their efforts,

they will remain ineffective at best or, worse, become

disenchanted and withdraw, potentially damaging recipients of services in the process.”

A research report on volunteer service and community

engagement in selected state agencies and organizations

in Texas focuses on many of these same practices and

procedures, including screening of volunteers and matching them to positions, training and orientation, management and communication, and recognition and

evaluation.5 In another study, paid staff time allocated 

to the volunteer program, as well as an array of recommended practices for volunteer management, were

related statistically to the benefits these programs realized from volunteer involvement.6 The accumulating

evidence suggests that volunteer management capacity 

is a function of both staff support of volunteering and

adoption of administrative practices necessary for the

management of volunteers.

The current trend in the charitable sector is for organizations to adopt the efficiencies of management that have

been developed in the business sector. Although many

charities resist the culture of becoming more businesslike, funders and board members often demand 

that charities adopt modern management methods. As

evidenced by the number of charities that are adopting

volunteer management practices at least to some degree,

the professionalization of volunteer management is

clearly underway. The costs, benefits, and consequences

of adoption of volunteer management practices should be

a subject for managers and policymakers alike. 

The next five pages document the degree of adoption of

volunteer management practices by charities with different characteristics. Following that, we confront the issue

of retention of volunteers. Although observers have been

quick to advocate the adoption of volunteer management

practices, little research to date has examined the relationship between these practices and the retention of

volunteers. In this report, we present an analysis of the

relationship between volunteer management capacity 

and retention.

1See, for example, Susan Ellis (1996) From the Top Down: The Executive

Role in Volunteer Program Success, and Steve McCurley and Rick Lynch

(1996) Volunteer Management: Mobilizing all the Resources in the Community. 

2UPS Foundation (1998) Managing Volunteers: A Report from United

Parcel Service. Available at http://www.community.ups.com.

3UPS Foundation (2002) A Guide To Investing In Volunteer Resources

Management: Improve Your Philanthropic Portfolio. Available at 

http://www.community.ups.com.

4Jean Baldwin Grossman and Kathryn Furano (2002) Making the Most of

Volunteers. Public/Private Ventures. Available at http://www.ppv.org.

5Sarah Jane Rehnborg, Catherine K. Fallon, and Benjamin J. Hinerfeld

(2002) Investing in Volunteerism: The Impact of Service Initiatives in

Selected Texas State Agencies. Austin, TX: LBJ School of Public Affairs.

6Jeffrey L. Brudney (1999) “The Effective Use of Volunteers: Best

Practices for the Public Sector.” Law and Contemporary Problems.

“Volunteer management capacity is a

function of two things. One is staff support.

The other is the adoption of relevant

administrative practices necessary for 

the effective management of volunteers.”
4 Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers

The nine management practices listed in Figure 1 are the

ones that we presented to survey respondents who told 

us they involve volunteers in their operations. We asked

them if they have adopted each practice to a large degree,

to some degree, or not at all. The bars indicate the percentage of charities that say they have adopted to a large

or some degree. The most striking finding is that only

one practice, regular supervision and communication

with volunteers, has been adopted to a large degree by

more than half of charities. Large degree adoption of

training for either volunteers or for paid staff in working

with volunteers is particularly rare; these practices are

more likely to have been adopted only to some degree, 

if at all.

The likelihood that a charity adopts a particular management practice depends on its specific needs and characteristics. Not all practices can or should be adopted by all

charities. While the practice of screening volunteers and

matching them with appropriate tasks is important 

when volunteers are mentoring or tutoring children, 

such screening and matching may be unnecessary when 

a neighborhood association mobilizes residents to clean 

up a local park. Training paid staff in how to work effectively with volunteers may be a fruitful practice for many

organizations, but it is not relevant to those charities that

have no paid staff. The critical question is whether charities that should be adopting a particular practice have the

resources and other institutional support necessary to put

the practice in place.

The following four pages document how adoption of

these nine practices vary by important organizational

characteristics, such as the size of the organization or the

way they use volunteers. These differences provide some

clues into which conditions make certain practices particularly relevant, and suggest other kinds of circumstances

that inhibit charities from adopting these practices.

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

Training for paid staff in 

working with volunteers

Training and professional development 

opportunities for volunteers

Annual measurement of 

the impacts of volunteers

Recognition activities, such as award 

ceremonies, for volunteers

Written policies and job descriptions 

for volunteer involvement

Screening procedures to 

identify suitable volunteers

Regular collection of information on 

volunteer numbers and hours

Liability coverage or insurance 

protection for volunteers

Regular supervision and 

communication with volunteers 67%

46%

30%

26%

45%

45%

32%

42%

44%

35%

37%

47%

30% 32%

25%

19%

49%

46%

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

■ Adopted to large degree ■ Adopted to some degree

Volunteer Management Practices

Key Finding: Charities Are Receptive to Best Practices in Volunteer

Management, but Commonly Adopt Them Only to Some Degree
Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers 5

Management Practices and Size of the Charity

Key Finding: Adoption Most Likely among Largest Charities

Figure 2 illustrates the average level of adoption of management practices by charities of different sizes. For each practice, we assign a value of 0 if a particular charity has not

adopted the practice, a value of 1 if the charity has adopted

the practice to some degree, and a value of 2 if the charity

has adopted the practice to a large degree. We then calculate

the average for all of the charities in a particular group.

As we might expect, the size of a charity matters in

whether most practices have been adopted or not. The

largest charities (those with over $5 million in annual

expenditures, denoted ▲) consistently fall furthest to the

right on the scale, indicating highest average levels of

adoption. In contrast, the smallest charities (those with less

than $100,000 in annual expenditures, denoted ◆) tend to

fall furthest to the left, indicating lowest levels of adoption. 

The bunching of symbols indicate little or no difference

between charities of different size classes, while greater

spreads indicate greater differences. For example, liability coverage or insurance protection for volunteers is

about equally likely for organizations in the top two size

classes, but both are substantially more likely than the

smallest charities to have adopted this practice. 

On the other hand, the rare practice of training paid staff

in working with volunteers is not influenced by organization size. That is, despite our expectation that this practice would be practiced more often by larger charities

than by smaller ones, we observe no differences across

size classes.7 All other management practices display

differences in adoption level across categories of organization size. Even the apparent bunching of symbols on

“regular supervision and communication with volunteers” represents a difference between the smallest and

largest charities. This practice is by far the most commonly adopted practice among small charities, but the

largest charities are still more likely to have adopted it.

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

no adoption small degree adoption large degree adoption

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

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

Training for paid staff in 

working with volunteers

Training and professional development 

opportunities for volunteers

Annual measurement of 

the impacts of volunteers

Recognition activities, such as award 

ceremonies, for volunteers

Written policies and job descriptions 

for volunteer involvement

Screening procedures to 

identify suitable volunteers

Regular collection of information on 

volunteer numbers and hours

Liability coverage or insurance 

protection for volunteers

Regular supervision and 

communication with volunteers

7Claims about the differences or similarities between organizations with

different characteristics are based on an analysis of variance, a statistical 

test that indicates whether the observed differences are large enough to be

considered greater than chance (p < 0.05).

We divided charities into size groups depending on how much total money they say they spent in a year. This figure is taken from Forms

990 reported to the IRS in 2000 by charities in the study.
6 Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers

We divided charities into four groups based on their

scope of volunteer use. Our groups are based on both the

numbers of volunteers that charities engaged in the past

year, as well as the number of hours that volunteers

collectively worked in a typical week. If a charity

engaged at least 50 volunteers over the course of the

year, we defined them as having “many volunteers”;

otherwise, we defined them as having “few volunteers.”

If volunteers collectively worked at least 50 hours in 

a typical week, we defined a charity as representing

“many hours”; otherwise we considered them to

represent “few hours.”

The cross-classification results in four categories of charities. The group with “few volunteers, few hours” is the

largest group, and we expect that they are least likely to

have adopted most volunteer management practices.

“Many volunteers, few hours” includes those charities

that engage many volunteers for predominantly shortterm or episodic assignments; in contrast, “few volunteers, many hours” includes those charities that use

volunteers in more sustained ways. “Many volunteers,

many hours” is the smallest group, but represents those

charities with the largest scope of volunteer involvement.

Figure 3 shows how adoption of management practices

varies across scope of volunteer use. As expected,

charities with large scope of volunteer involvement 

are significantly more likely to have adopted the various

practices when compared to charities that engage

comparatively fewer volunteers for fewer hours. 

Comparisons of the two middle categories show that

charities that use episodic volunteers (“many volunteers,

few hours”) have the edge in recognition activities,

collection of information on volunteer numbers and

hours, and measuring the impacts of volunteer activities.

In contrast, charities with more sustained use of fewer

volunteers (“few volunteers, many hours”) are more

likely to have liability coverage or insurance protection,

training and professional development for volunteers,

screening and matching procedures, and regular supervision and communication. These practices indicate a

greater investment in volunteers.

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

no adoption small degree adoption large degree adoption

few volunteers, few hours few volunteers, many hours 

many volunteers, few hours many volunteers, many hours

Training for paid staff in 

working with volunteers

Training and professional development 

opportunities for volunteers

Annual measurement of 

the impacts of volunteers

Recognition activities, such as award 

ceremonies, for volunteers

Written policies and job descriptions 

for volunteer involvement

Screening procedures to 

identify suitable volunteers

Regular collection of information on 

volunteer numbers and hours

Liability coverage or insurance 

protection for volunteers

Regular supervision and 

communication with volunteers

Management Practices and Scope of Volunteer Use

Key Finding: Adoption of Different Management Practices Depends 

on How Volunteers Are Used
Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers 7

Management Practices and Primary Use of Volunteers

Key Finding: Charities that Primarily Use Volunteers in Direct Service

Roles Are More Likely to Have Adopted Most Practices

The work that volunteers do also influences adoption of

management practices. We asked survey respondents to

describe the main role that volunteers perform, the one 

to which the organization devotes the most time, money,

and other resources. Based on these descriptions, we

organized charities into four categories based on their

primary use of volunteers. 

Most charities use volunteers primarily in direct service

activities, such as mentoring or tutoring. Some use

volunteers in carrying out services, but not in ways that

usually bring them into contact with others; we describe

these activities as “indirect service.” The other two categories include volunteers who are primarily working to

make the charity run rather than providing services. 

One is an internal administrative role, including such

activities as filing, copying, or answering phones. The

other is an external administrative role, including such

activities as fundraising, lobbying, or public relations.

Charities that primarily use volunteers in direct service

roles are furthest to the right on all nine management

practice scales, indicating that they are far more likely 

to have adopted each practice. The result makes sense

because charities that use volunteers for direct client

contact must be more careful about how these services

are handled. Failure to follow accepted practices for

volunteer management may jeopardize service quality,

the reputation of the organization, or the quality of the

volunteer experience.

In contrast, the average adoption scores for charities

that use volunteers primarily in indirect service, internal

administration, or external administration tend to group

together, indicating that these uses of volunteers do not

distinguish adopters from non-adopters. To the extent

that there are differences, charities that involve volunteers primarily in internal administration tend to be

second-most likely to adopt most practices. However,

these charities are least likely to evaluate the impacts 

of their volunteers, not surprising given that their

volunteer tasks are primarily administrative rather 

than service-oriented.

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

no adoption small degree adoption large degree adoption

direct service indirect service internal administration external administration

Training for paid staff in 

working with volunteers

Training and professional development 

opportunities for volunteers

Annual measurement of 

the impacts of volunteers

Recognition activities, such as award 

ceremonies, for volunteers

Written policies and job descriptions 

for volunteer involvement

Screening procedures to 

identify suitable volunteers

Regular collection of information on 

volunteer numbers and hours

Liability coverage or insurance 

protection for volunteers

Regular supervision and 

communication with volunteers
8 Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers

Management Practices and Subsector

Key Finding: Health Charities Are Most Active in Adoption

of Volunteer Management Practices

The charities in this study represent the broad array of

nonprofit organizations in the United States. Charities are

involved in our daily lives in a rich variety of ways, and

their missions touch on almost all issues of public interest. The industry, or subsector, in which a charity works

might be related to how it engages volunteers, or which

practices it has adopted in managing its volunteers. 

We placed our study organizations into categories based

on their primary purpose. Three-fourths of them could be

placed in one of four major categories: human services;

education; health; or arts, culture, and humanities (Figure

5). The remaining one-fourth consists of either charities

that support the work of other charities, or charities that

operate in smaller subsectors (such as environmental or

animal related). The figure below is based only on the

three-fourths that we classified into the major groups

indicated.

Charities operating in the health subsector are more

likely to have adopted most practices. On average, health

charities are more likely to have liability coverage or

insurance protection for volunteers, hold recognition

activities for volunteers, and to screen and match volunteers to appropriate assignments. This likely reflects the

greater number of resources, the higher level of professionalization, and (in some cases) the greater urgency of

volunteer performance in the health field. 

Human service charities rival health charities on

adoption of most items, but charities operating in the

education and arts fields tend to lag on most practices.

Charities operating in the education and arts fields are

substantially less likely to have liability coverage, to

regularly collect information on volunteer numbers and

hours, to measure the impacts of volunteers, or to screen

and match volunteers to assignments. Arts organizations

are notably less likely to hold award or other recognition

activities for their volunteers.

The only practice that does not vary by subsector is 

the popular practice of supervision and communication

with volunteers, practiced equally by human service,

education, health, and arts organizations.

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

no adoption small degree adoption large degree adoption

human services education health arts, culture, and humanities

Training for paid staff in 

working with volunteers

Training and professional development 

opportunities for volunteers

Annual measurement of 

the impacts of volunteers

Recognition activities, such as award 

ceremonies, for volunteers

Written policies and job descriptions 

for volunteer involvement

Screening procedures to 

identify suitable volunteers

Regular collection of information on 

volunteer numbers and hours

Liability coverage or insurance 

protection for volunteers

Regular supervision and 

communication with volunteers
Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers 9

In this section, we explore the relationship between the

adoption of volunteer management practices, various

organizational characteristics, and the reported rate of

volunteer retention among the charities in our study.

Retention is a goal for most charities, as well as an indication of the success of its volunteer program. For charities that engage volunteers mainly in episodic or short

term assignments, retention may not be quite so high a

priority. Even in these cases, however, most charities

would likely prefer to have their volunteers take on new

tasks as assignments are completed. Recruiting volunteers is an expensive and time-consuming job, so charities generally like to maximize retention. Retention is

also important because volunteers often become loyal

financial donors to the organization as well.

To measure retention, we asked respondents “Of the

volunteers that worked with your organization one year

ago, approximately what percentage would you say are

still involved as volunteers?” Nearly 3 percent said zero,

and 17 percent said all were retained, but most fell

somewhere in between. The median charity reported 

an 80 percent retention rate. 

Our analysis considers how a variety of organizational

practices and characteristics are related to the reported

retention rate. A key feature of our approach is that all 

of the factors are considered at the same time, so the

influence of one practice or characteristic takes into

account all of the other factors in the analysis. The

factors are divided into four categories: management

practices, investments in volunteer resources, the value

that volunteers bring to charities, and various other

organizational characteristics.

Management Practices8

As Figure 6 shows, four of the eight management practices have an effect on volunteer retention. Charities that

say they have adopted to a large degree the practice of

hosting recognition activities for volunteers have a higher

rate of retention, as do those that offer training and

professional development opportunities for volunteers,

and those that use screening procedures to identify suitable volunteers and to match them with appropriate jobs

or tasks. These volunteer management practices all

center on making the experience worthwhile for the

volunteer. Other practices, such as liability coverage 

or insurance protection, regular collection of information

on the number of volunteers and hours, training for paid

staff in working with volunteers, and written policies and

job descriptions, may generate other benefits, but they

center on what is important to the charity rather than

what is important to volunteers. Not surprisingly, adoption of these practices is unrelated to retention. Retention

appears to be very much a product of what charities do

directly for their volunteers.

Sometimes a practice that is good for the charity may not

be popular with individual volunteers. A curious finding

is that regular supervision and communication with

volunteers is associated with lower levels of retention.

This management practice is the most widely adopted

among charities, with two-thirds of the charities adopting

it to a large degree, and virtually all of them adopting 

it to at least some degree. We do not suggest that

charities stop supervising and communicating with their

volunteers! However, some charities may supervise and

communicate in a way that volunteer experiences feel 

too much like the grind of their daily jobs rather than an

enjoyable avocation, thereby diminishing the experience

for volunteers and reducing their desire to continue

volunteering. Of course, increased support and

communication may be a response to poor retention.

Thus, organizations that encounter retention problems

may take steps to alleviate their problems by engaging

volunteers more directly.

Retention of Volunteers

What Factors Explain Whether Charities Can Keep Their Volunteers

Coming Back?

8The variables in this section are eight of the nine management practices

discussed on the preceding pages; “annual measurement of impacts” is

excluded because it overlaps substantially with “regular collection of

information.” This set of variables separates charities that say they have

adopted practices to a large degree from those that do not make this

claim.
10 Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers

Investment in Volunteer Resources9 

Charities that feel challenged by the lack of funds allocated to support volunteers have lower retention rates

than charities that report fewer such challenges. Surprisingly, however, retention rates do not vary according to

the percentage of time a paid staff member devotes to

managing the volunteer program. Although having a paid

staff volunteer coordinator is related to adoption of management practices (as well as other benefits), this support

does not necessarily translate into greater retention of

volunteers. 

The final issue in the category of investment in volunteer

resources concerns organizational culture. That is, has

the leadership of the charity invested in creating the kind

of climate that welcomes and encourages volunteers? No

surprise, the results indicate that charities that experience

resistance or indifference toward volunteer involvement

are less able to retain volunteers.

Value that Volunteers Bring to Charities10

The value of volunteer participation to the charity affects

retention. Charities that use volunteers to recruit other

multiple regression, model adjusted R2 = 0.247; magnitudes of bars are standardized betas for variables statistically significant at p <0.10; 

◆ indicates that variable has no effect on retention (p >0.10).

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

Retention of Volunteers

Management practices adopted to large degree

Investment in volunteer resources

Value that volunteers bring to charities

Organizational characteristics

Negative influences Positive influences

recruitment problems index

ratio: number of staff/number of volunteers

percentage of volunteers under age 24

size of charity

volunteers absent, unreliable, poor work quality

volunteer benefits index

volunteers recruit others one-on-one

staff or board members indifferent toward volunteers

time that paid staffer spends on volunteer management

lack of funds for supporting volunteers

regular collection of volunteer numbers and hours

liability coverage and insurance protection

training for paid staff in working with volunteers

written policies and job descriptions

supervision, communication with volunteers

screening volunteers, matching to assignments

training, professional development for volunteers

recognition activities .09

.06

.06

–.13

–.06

–.05

–.08

.11

.11

–.36

–.06

–.05
Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers 11

volunteers one-on-one are better able to retain volunteers.

Enlisting volunteers as “spokespersons” for the charity in

this manner implies a level of trust in these participants,

evidence of both a supportive organizational culture and

confidence that the charity provides a worthwhile experience to volunteers. The value that charities place on

volunteers pays dividends in retention. Figure 6 shows

that the greater the number of benefits charities feel they

realize from volunteer involvement, the higher their rate

of volunteer retention. Conversely, to the extent that

charities perceive that volunteer service is costly to 

them in the form of absenteeism, unreliability, or poor

work habits, they have lower reported rates of volunteer

retention. Charities that do not have this perception do 

a better job of keeping their volunteers.

Organizational Characteristics11

We anticipated that larger charities would be better able

to retain volunteers due to their greater adoption of

various volunteer management strategies, but the results

in Figure 6 suggest the opposite: smaller charities have

higher rates of volunteer retention. The survey results

cannot tell us why this is the case, but it is easy to

imagine several possible reasons for this finding. Since

smaller charities tend to have fewer volunteers, they can

devote more attention to them as individuals. Or, with

less budget to pursue organizational missions, volunteer

assistance (and retention) is more critical for them. On

9The first variable in this section reflects the percentage of time that a

paid staff member spends on volunteer management; for charities with no

staff or no paid staff member in the role of volunteer administrator, the

value is 0. The two other measures come from a series of questions about

challenges that charities might face. We asked respondents if lack of adequate funds for supporting volunteer involvement was a big problem, a

small problem, or not a problem at all. We similarly asked whether indifference or resistance on the part of paid staff or board members was a

problem. 

10Our first variable indicates whether the charity uses volunteers to recruit

volunteers one-on-one to a great extent, to some extent, or to no extent.

The second is a Benefits Index, a sum of the reported values that volunteers bring to charities in the form of increased service quality, cost savings, public support, or specialized skills; higher values reflect greater

reported benefits. The third item is another of the challenges that we

asked respondents about; in this case, we asked if absenteeism, unreliability, or poor work habits or work quality on the part of volunteers was a

big problem, a small problem, or not a problem. 

11Size of charity is indicated by the five size groupings used on page 7.

Percentage of volunteers under age 24 is the reported percentage of total

volunteers in this age category. The ratio of staff to volunteers is calculated by dividing the reported number of staff members by the number of

volunteers in the past year. A high value on this ratio reflects an organization where most work is done by paid staff; a low value indicates an

organization where most work is done by volunteers. The final measure,

the Recruitment Problems Index, is a sum of three recruitment challenges

that we asked about. High values indicate problems with recruiting sufficient numbers of volunteers, recruiting volunteers with the right skills or

expertise, or recruiting volunteers during the workday; low values indicate

few reported recruiting problems.

the other hand, another measure of the importance of

volunteers to the charity, the ratio of paid staff to

volunteers, is not related to retention. 

The strongest effect in the analysis pertains to the

predominant age of the volunteers in a given charity.

Figure 6 indicates that charities with a larger percentage

of volunteers under age 24 have lower rates of retention.

Again, we can imagine the circumstances that might

explain this finding. Young people are newer to work 

life, their life circumstances often change seasonally and

rapidly, and their roots in the community are less deep

than older volunteers. Consequently, they are less likely

to maintain relationships with the charities in which they

volunteer.

Finally, the analysis shows that charities that have

problems recruiting volunteers also encounter difficulties

in retaining them. Steps toward alleviating one of these

shortcomings should also help to address the other.

“Charities that use volunteers to recruit

other volunteers have higher retention 

rates. Having volunteers represent the

charity implies trust, evidence of a positive

organizational culture, and confidence 

that the charity provides a worthwhile

experience for volunteers.”
12 Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers

Charities adopt volunteer management practices for

reasons that go beyond the question of whether they 

can afford them or not. While the resources available to 

a given charity no doubt play a part in adoption of the

management practices under study, the roles that

volunteers play in the organization and tradeoffs between

satisfying organizational and volunteer needs are also

important in understanding which charities adopt which

practices.

Scope and Nature of Volunteer Use Influences

Management Choices. Different volunteer management

practices have different underlying purposes. While all

volunteers like to be recognized for their contributions to

the organization or community, this kind of external

motivation may not be necessary for charities that have

made long-term commitments to their volunteers, a practice that appeals to the intrinsic motivations of individuals. Long-term commitments are exemplified by training

and professional development opportunities, regular

communication and supervision, and liability coverage.

These are precisely the kinds of practices more likely 

to be adopted by those charities that use volunteers in

sustained ways, characterized by having relatively few

volunteers who spend a lot of hours working for the

charity. Charities that cater to episodic volunteers adopt

different strategies, such as providing external validation

through public recognition of volunteers.

Charities Must Balance Individual and Organizational Needs. To sustain the participation of volunteers,

charities must create a good experience for them. Charities must be equally concerned with implementing practices designed to make sure that they involve volunteers

wisely and well, and commit sufficient support resources

to this endeavor. Our study shows that charities that

adopt the practices most directly concerned with satisfying volunteers reap the highest rates of retention. Practices that cater more to the needs of the charity than the

needs of volunteers are unlikely to motivate volunteers

and, in fact, are not related to retention of volunteers over

time. Nonetheless, these practices may be critical for the

charity to oversee volunteer involvement in an accountable manner, and to generate resources necessary to keep

the charity running.

Retention of Volunteers Involves More Than

Management Techniques. Adoption of volunteer

management practices can help organizations to retain

volunteers, but charities interested in retaining volunteers

should not stop there. They should also allocate sufficient funds to support volunteer involvement, cultivate 

an organizational climate that is welcoming to volunteers, give their volunteers an experience worth sharing,

and enlist volunteers in recruiting other volunteers oneon-one. However, neither volunteer management techniques nor these other steps alone will maximize

retention. Charities that want to retain these essential

human resources should adopt relevant volunteer

management practices and invest in the infrastructure,

culture, and volunteer experience that will keep

volunteers coming back.

Volunteers are valuable human resources. Four out of

five charities use volunteers to help them meet organizational needs for service and administration. Most charities could not get by without their volunteers, and they

certainly would be less productive and responsive without them. Turnover of volunteers can disrupt the operation of the charity, threaten the ability to serve clients,

and signal that the volunteer experience is not as rewarding as it might be. Charities cannot be expected to keep

every volunteer, but building volunteer management

capacity to involve and retain them makes sense for both

charities and the volunteers upon whom they rely.

“Some volunteer management practices 

are important to the operations of charities

and some are important for providing good

experiences for volunteers. The ones that

focus on volunteers are the ones that keep

volunteers interested and involved.”

Concluding Observations

Implications for Practice
Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers 13

About the Authors

Mark A. Hager, Ph.D., is a senior research associate in

the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban

Institute. He is the principal investigator for the Volunteer

Management Capacity Study. His other work focuses on

administrative and fundraising costs among nonprofit

organizations, data collection in the field of the performing arts, and the financial stability of nonprofits.

Jeffrey L. Brudney, Ph.D., is professor of public administration and policy at the School of Public and International Affairs, University of Georgia. He is the foremost

research expert on volunteer management programs and

community volunteer centers in the United States.

Among numerous other publications, he is author of the

“Volunteer Administration” entry in the International

Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration.

About the Project Sponsors

The volunteer management capacity study was launched

by the USA Freedom Corps. The project is supported 

by the Corporation for National and Community Service

and The UPS Foundation. The research was conducted

by the Urban Institute. For additional information 

on these sponsors, consult Volunteer Management 

Capacity in America’s Charities and Congregations: 

A Briefing Document, or visit our joint website at

http://www.volunteerinput.org.

Methodology

The volunteer management capacity study is based on

surveys of separate populations of U.S. charities and

congregations. The current report focuses only on the

charities sample. A sample of 2,993 charities was drawn

within expenditure and subsector strata from 214,995

charities that filed Form 990 with the IRS in 2000. 

From August to November 2003, the Urban Institute and

Princeton Survey Research Associates called organizations to verify their existence, check mailing addresses,

and obtain the name of an appropriate contact; they

completed precalls with 80 percent of charities. After

contact, they mailed a letter that explained the motivations of the study and invited participation, and then

called each organization up to 30 times to collect study

information. Interviews averaging 20 minutes were

conducted with organizational representatives familiar

with volunteer management. In the final weeks of the

study, interviewers offered $50 donations to organizations that were reluctant to participate; 11 percent of

interviews were completed with an incentive. 

Adjusting for sampled organizations that were defunct 

or could not be verified as “working organizations,” 

our response rate was 69 percent. Our unweighted data

includes 1,753 cases, including 1,354 that use volunteers

in their operations and do not primarily recruit and refer

volunteers to other organizations (volunteer centers).

Responding charities were weighted to represent the

expenditure and subsector strata from which they were

sampled. Weights were further adjusted to account for

organizations unreachable in the precall. Because these

weights help ensure that our respondents reflect the

characteristics of the working population from which

they were drawn, the results of the study reported in 

this report are based on the weighted responses. For 

more details on methodology, consult the FAQ at

http://www.volunteerinput.org.
14 Volunteer Management Practices and Retention of Volunteers

The Urban Institute

2100 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20037

202-261-5709

paffairs@ui.urban.org

www.urban.org