Volunteering in America

2007 City Trends and Rankings
Authors

From the Office of Research and Policy Development, 

Corporation for National and Community Service

Robert Grimm, Jr., Director and Senior Counselor to the CEO

Kevin Cramer, Deputy Director

Nathan Dietz, Research Associate and Statistician

John Foster-Bey, Senior Advisor to the Director

LaMonica Shelton, Senior Policy Analyst

Lillian Dote, Policy Analyst

Carla Manuel, Policy Analyst

Shelby Jennings, Research Communications Specialist

The suggested citation is: Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Research and Policy 

Development. Volunteering in America: 2007 City Trends and Rankings, Washington, DC 2007. 

The mission of the Corporation for National and Community Service is to improve 

lives, strengthen communities, and foster civic engagement through service and 

volunteering. Each year, the Corporation provides opportunities for approximately 

2 million Americans of all ages and backgrounds to serve their communities and 

country through Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America.

Corporation for National and Community Service 

1201 New York Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20525 

202-606-5000 • TTY: 202-606-3472 

info@cns.gov • www.nationalservice.gov

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. Upon request, this 

material will be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities.

July 2007
 Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

For the past two years, the Corporation for National and Community Service has reported on state-by-state 

volunteer trends, allowing all 50 states to better understand who is serving in their communities and how, when, 

and why they serve. Following the release of our second annual state volunteering report in April 2007, the 

Corporation continues to deliver increasingly detailed reports on the trends and habits in volunteering across 

the country. 

Volunteering in America: 2007 City Trends and Rankings takes us to the next level, highlighting the diversity 

of volunteering habits and trends in America’s largest cities. This report can help local leaders from the 

government, nonprofit, and private sectors develop volunteer growth strategies unique to their cities—together 

building a stronger America. 

While the city-by-city information is fascinating, this report reinforces one of the findings highlighted in 

previous reports. Although volunteering in America remains at historically high levels, the number of adults 

who volunteer has dipped recently—primarily because more than one-third of volunteers in 2005 dropped 

from the ranks in 2006. Our failure to retain more volunteers from one year to the next is cause for concern 

and should serve as a wake-up call to all those individuals, groups, and organizations that care deeply about 

addressing the nation’s most pressing needs through volunteering. 

Indeed, we at the Corporation believe volunteering is not just a nice thing to do, but a necessary part of solving 

social ills that have the greatest impact on our most vulnerable populations: the 37 million people who live 

in poverty, the 3.5 million people who are homeless, the 15 million children and youth in desperate need of a 

mentor or caring adult in their life, the tens of millions of students nationwide who struggle each day to improve 

academically, and the countless communities preparing for, responding to, and rebuilding after disasters. 

The volunteer rate of a community also is an important indicator of its well-being and quality of life. That is why 

our agency is working with nonprofits across the country to increase the number of American adult volunteers 

to 75 million by the year 2010. If we succeed in reaching these numbers and deepening each community’s 

commitment to engaging citizens in solving our most pressing challenges, there’s no telling what America can 

achieve in the years ahead. 

In Service,

David Eisner, Chief Executive Officer 

Corporation for National and Community Service

ceo message
 Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

Communities with high levels of citizen engagement will come closer to solving some of the key challenges 

facing our society today. Volunteers who serve as tutors and mentors can help increase test scores and 

graduation rates among youth from disadvantaged circumstances; children whose parents are incarcerated 

can be less likely to go to prison themselves if they meet with a mentor once a week; and volunteers who serve 

populations re-entering society after incarceration can help ease the transition to society. Across the spectrum, 

mobilizing people to serve others is key to promoting more effective communities. 

Volunteering in America: 2007 City Trends and Rankings supports our efforts to increase volunteering in 

communities by providing a first-time analysis of volunteer trends among major metropolitan (metro) areas. 

This report ranks and presents detailed profiles 

of volunteering for 50 of the largest metro 

areas in the United States (referred to as the 

50 major metro areas).1 The information on 

volunteering at the local level can help local 

governments, community leaders, service 

organizations, and volunteers nationwide 

develop a volunteer growth strategy, set goals 

to increase the level of individual engagement 

in volunteer activities, and build the 

infrastructure of nonprofits and communities 

to support more volunteer opportunities. 

Volunteering is an essential component of the 

attitude, spirit, and willingness of Americans 

to help others and a key indicator of what is called a community’s “social capital.” In fact, research has shown 

a relationship between communities with high levels of social capital—our social connectedness or social 

networks and the related norms of trust and reciprocity—and a community’s quality of life as measured by such 

indicators as higher levels of parental engagement in schools, stronger local economies, less crime, and lower 

incidence of illnesses.2

 Communities with high levels of neighbors working with and helping each other are 

more healthy and vibrant places to live and work. 

Over the past two decades, a growing number of national studies have also established a relationship between 

volunteering and individual well-being. On average, volunteers appear to live longer and have greater 

functional ability and lower rates of depression later in life than those who do not volunteer.3

 The studies show 

that these results hold even when researchers control for other factors such as age, gender, socioeconomic 

Volunteering in america: 

2007 city trends and Rankings

While volunteer rates vary considerably, many top-ranked 

metro areas are in the central part of the country.

Suburbs and rural areas have similar volunteer rates (29%), 

while central cities lag behind (24%).

Metro areas with high levels of community attachment, as 

demonstrated by higher homeownership rates, tend to 

have higher volunteer rates.

Longer commuting times to work may limit opportunities 

for volunteering.

The prevalence of nonprofits and their ability to retain 

volunteers may affect a community’s volunteer rate.

Key Findings

INTRODUCTION
 Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

status, education, and ethnicity.4 Volunteering and good health tend to form a positive, self-reinforcing 

cycle for individuals and also appear to provide benefits for communities.5 For example, a study of Chicago 

neighborhoods found that residents of neighborhoods with high levels of social capital reported better physical 

health than residents of low social capital neighborhoods, controlling for other factors.6 However, it is important 

to note that individuals could experience more emotional and mental distress if overwhelmed by their volunteer 

work (such as substantial care-giving) or if they are among a handful of people trying to do all the volunteering 

for an area.7

 Nonetheless, existing research largely suggests that regular volunteering benefits not only the 

volunteer but the community. 

Since volunteering is valuable for communities and individuals, why isn’t it even more prevalent? And why is 

there such variation in volunteer rates across the country? In some cases, certain aspects of a city may make it 

easier or harder to get volunteers involved. One obstacle is that local civic leaders have not had effective data to 

see how they are doing over time and how they compare to their peer cities. This report aims to eliminate this 

obstacle by giving major metro areas volunteer information that they can use as a yardstick to plan and track 

their future progress. 

Analysis: Why Do Metro Areas Have Different Volunteer Rates?

Since 1989, volunteering in metro areas has lagged behind volunteering in non-metropolitan areas by 2 to 3 

percentage points. In 2006, more than 26 percent of metro residents volunteered, compared to approximately 

28 percent of people in non-metropolitan 

areas. There is considerable diversity in the 

volunteering rates of metropolitan areas. For the 

50 major metro areas, volunteer rates ranged 

from 14.4 percent to as high as 40.5 percent. 

Within metro areas, volunteer rates tend to 

vary between the urban areas and the suburban 

and rural areas. In general, there is a large gap 

in volunteering between the large metro urban 

areas and their surrounding suburban and rural 

The findings in this report are based on data from the 2004, 2005, and 2006 annual volunteer supplements 

to the Current Population Survey (CPS). Since 2002, the Corporation has partnered with the U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau (Census), and the USA Freedom Corps to add the annual volunteer 

surveys to the CPS, a monthly survey of about 60,000 households (100,000 individuals). The Census 

administers the CPS volunteer supplement in September of each year to collect data on volunteering for 

or through an organization, the frequency and intensity of volunteering, the types of organizations where 

individuals volunteer, and the volunteer activities performed.23

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Urban Suburban Rural 23.7 29.3 29.8

Figure 1: Urban Areas Have Lower Volunteer Rates

than Suburban and Rural Communities (2004-2006)

Volunteer Rate
 Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

areas. While nearly 30 percent of the population of both suburban and rural areas volunteered between 2004 

and 2006, only around 24 percent of residents of urban areas did the same (see Figure 1). 

Although calculating and ranking volunteer rates and volunteer activities is fairly straightforward, explaining 

the differences among communities is more challenging. We found four themes that seemed to influence 

variations in volunteering among metro areas: (1) residents’ attachment to the community, (2) commuting 

times, (3) socioeconomic characteristics such as education levels, and (4) the capacity of a community’s nonprofit organizations. For the remainder of this chapter, we illustrate the relationship between volunteer rates in 

metro areas and these various themes using a special graph called a scatter-plot. Scatter-plot graphs show the 

relationship between two variables—e.g., volunteering and home ownership rates. A scatter-plot graph provides 

a visual sense of how much of the differences in metro area volunteering can be explained by the presence 

of a particular characteristic, such as homeownership or commuting times. Each graph has a solid line that 

represents the general trend for volunteer rates compared to other factors. The graphs also contain dots that 

show how accurately this general trend describes the data for each of the 50 major metro areas. The stronger the 

relationship, the closer the dots are to the trend line. 

Greater Attachment to the Community Encourages Volunteering

The research literature on social capital indicates that it is more challenging to build citizen engagement in 

communities where residents do not have a long-term commitment to the community, where densely populated 

communities create a sense of anonymity making it difficult to know one’s neighbors, and where there is a large 

influx of newly arrived residents. Indicators such as homeownership, population density, and the number of 

multiunit dwellings, help determine whether residents have a long-term commitment and attachment to their 

communities. Given that volunteering is one key indicator of social capital, we would expect that indicators 

of community attachment and long-term commitment might also be related to volunteering.8 Understanding 

the role these play in encouraging or depressing volunteering may help policymakers and community leaders 

promote greater volunteering. 

We measured the effect of homeownership on volunteering because owning a home tends to signify a personal 

and financial interest and commitment to the long-term success of the community. We would expect that 

communities with high levels of homeownership would have higher levels of community attachment and 

therefore more social capital.9

 This higher social capital should translate into higher volunteering rates. 

We found that there was a strong positive relationship between homeownership rates and metro volunteer 

rates—showing that where community attachment is high as measured by homeownership, volunteering is high 

(see Figure 2). For example, in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, 70 percent of families own their own homes. It 

also had one of the nation’s highest volunteer rates at over 40 percent. At the same time, Honolulu, Hawaii, with 

a homeownership rate of 49 percent, had a volunteer rate of 23 percent. For the 50 major metro areas profiled 

in this report, the median homeownership rate was about 60 percent. If the average homeownership rate 
 Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

increased to 65 percent, we would expect to 

see an increase of 2.8 percentage points in the 

volunteer rate.10

On the other hand, communities with a large 

percentage of multiunit housing, such as 

apartment buildings, are more likely to attract 

a more transient population and are expected 

to have lower volunteer rates. For example, 

57 percent of New York’s housing units are in 

multiunit buildings and its volunteer rate was 

just under 19 percent. Roughly 30 percent of 

Minneapolis-St. Paul’s housing is multiunit, 

and the volunteer rate is over 40 percent. The average percentage of multiunit housing for the 50 major metro 

areas was about 34 percent. In a metro area where the percentage of multiunit housing is high, we would 

expect volunteering to be lower than in a metro area with less multiunit housing. In fact, it appears that if the 

percentage of multiunit housing were to increase from 34 percent to 40 percent, volunteer rates might be lower 

by about 2 percentage points. 

High population density can also reduce attachment to the community by increasing the level of anonymity 

among residents and making community bonding more difficult.11 The median population density for the 50 

major metro areas in 2005 was approximately 550 residents per square mile. If this number increased by 100 

residents per square mile (from 550 to 650 residents per square mile), we would expect average volunteer rates 

to be lower by 0.3 percentage points. 

Long Commutes Can Curtail Opportunities to Volunteer

Contrary to expectations, busy individuals 

are the most likely to volunteer. Time devoted 

to activities that create opportunities for 

developing relationships and social networks—

such as work and raising a family—are actually 

related to a higher propensity to volunteer. On 

the other hand, activities that tend to promote 

solitude are more likely to reduce social capital 

and lead to lower volunteer rates. For example, 

driving back and forth to work alone provides 

few opportunities to engage others and to 

build positive social networks.12 Long solitary 

High

Low

Low High

High

Low

Low 

40 50 60 70 80 10

20

30

40

50

Figure 2: Metro Areas with More Home Ownership

Have Higher Volunteer Rates

Volunteer Rate

Home Ownership Rate

High

Low

Low High

50

Figure 3: Metro Areas with Long Commuting Times

Have Lower Volunteer Rates

Volunteer Rate

Commuting Time
Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

commutes can be expected to reduce the time and opportunity individuals have to connect to other people and 

organizations in their communities, reducing average volunteer rates. 

Figure 3 shows that metro areas with longer commutes to work also tend to have lower volunteer rates. For 

example, the average commute to work in Los Angeles is around 28 minutes, and the volunteer rate is slightly 

above 22 percent. In contrast, the average commute to work in Kansas City, Missouri, is about 22 minutes, and 

the volunteer rate is almost 35 percent. Across all of the 50 major metro areas, the average commuting time is 

approximately 26 minutes. The effect of commuting is so strong that if average metro area commuting times 

increased by only three minutes, from 26 to 29 minutes, we would expect volunteer rates to decrease by 2.3 

percentage points.

Volunteering Rises with Education and Is Less Common in High Poverty Areas

Education is one of the most important contributors to a community’s volunteer rate. The literature on 

volunteering shows that as education levels increase, the likelihood of volunteering also rises. Increased 

education as a form of human capital appears to produce resources that raise an individual’s access and 

potential contribution to volunteering.13 Education fosters organizational and communication skills necessary 

for successful civic engagement and leadership. Because more educated individuals also tend to have higher 

incomes, they often have more opportunities to practice and hone their civic skills in a variety of settings, 

including their place of employment. The result is that communities with a large percentage of educated 

individuals have more civic resources available to contribute to volunteering and other forms of social capital.14

These residents often provide the leadership to assist a community in offering greater opportunities for all 

residents to participate in volunteering and other forms of civic engagement, including those residents with low 

levels of education.15

This report found that average education levels are a strong predictor of volunteering. Metro areas like Portland, 

Oregon, with approximately 87 percent of its residents 25 years and older having completed high school, also 

had a high volunteer rate (35.8%). In contrast, 

Riverside, California, with only 75 percent of 

its residents 25 years and older with at least a 

high school degree, had an average volunteer 

rate of just under 21 percent. On average, 

in the 50 major metro areas profiled in this 

report, approximately 83 percent of residents 

25 years and older completed at least high 

school and approximately 28 completed at 

least a four-year college degree. If the share of 

a metro area’s population who completed at 

least high school increased from 83 percent 

High

Low

Low High

40

50

Figure 4: Metro Areas with More Residents with at Least

a High School Education Have Higher Volunteer Rates

Volunteer Rate

Education Level
 Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

to 87 percent, we would expect the volunteer rate to be higher by 4.1 percentage points. If the share of residents 

with at least a four-year college degree increased from 28 percent to 33 percent, we would expect volunteer rates 

to be higher by 2 percentage points (see Figure 4). 

Poverty is another socioeconomic characteristic that tends to be strongly associated with lower volunteering. 

However, it is difficult to determine whether high poverty rates reduce the overall propensity to volunteer, 

whether high volunteering in a community leads to a reduction in poverty, or if both effects occur. In some 

metro areas, high concentrations of people living in poverty might discourage volunteering by creating the type 

of economic stress that places great demands on individuals and families. People living in poverty also tend to 

be more isolated from society. Many low-income individuals may feel less connected to the institutions that 

provide volunteer opportunities and have less discretionary time to spend on activities like volunteering.16

Low-income individuals often live in communities where there may be fewer opportunities to become involved. 

For example, recent research finds that youth from low-income households are less likely to encounter service 

experiences in school or be involved in youth organizations that engage teenagers in volunteering.17 Nonetheless, 

recent economic research underscores why it is important to engage all citizens in their community.18

As expected, we found that communities with higher poverty rates tend to have lower volunteer rates. Metro 

areas with high poverty rates such as Los Angeles, California, with approximately 16 percent of the metro 

area living in poverty, had a below-average volunteer rate of just over 22 percent. In comparison, Kansas City, 

Missouri, with its low metro poverty rate of approximately 8 percent, had a volunteer rate of almost 35 percent. 

The average poverty rate was 10.3 percent for the 50 major metro areas.19 If a metro area’s poverty rate decreased 

by 2 percentage points, from 10.3 to 8.3 percent, we would expect the volunteer rate to be 2.9 percentage points 

higher. Again, we cannot claim that changes in poverty cause changes in volunteering. However, there does 

appear to be a strong relationship between economic disadvantage and the community’s social capital and level 

of volunteering.

The Capacity of a Community’s Associations and Organizations Expands or

Limits Volunteering Opportunities

The supply of volunteers in a metro area is the result of factors that encourage or discourage individuals to 

volunteer or not. Up to this point, this report has only examined community characteristics that directly or 

indirectly influence an individual’s decision to volunteer. However, in order to volunteer successfully there 

must be an infrastructure that can recruit, place, and manage prospective volunteers. Communities with fewer 

nonprofits per capita (such as Las Vegas, Nevada; Riverside, California; or Orlando, Florida) are likely to have 

lower volunteer rates. If this is so, one question may be whether the types of nonprofits in a community affect 

the average volunteer rate. 

For this report, we analyzed the relationship between volunteer rates and the per capita number of large and 

small nonprofit organizations. On average, in the 50 major metro areas, there were 200 large and 271 small 
 Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

nonprofits per 100,000 residents. For this report, we defined large nonprofits as organizations with annual 

revenues equal to or above $25,000. In contrast, small nonprofits were defined as nonprofit organizations with 

annual revenues below $25,000. Examples of small nonprofits would be neighborhood civic associations or local 

community sports clubs. 

While communities with more nonprofit organizations per capita tend to have higher volunteer rates, our 

research suggests that having more small nonprofit organizations in the community may have a greater impact 

on volunteering. For example, if the number of large nonprofit organizations in a metro area increased from 200 

to 260 per 100,000 residents, we would expect 

that volunteer rates would be higher by 2.8 

percentage points. The same increase in the 

number of small nonprofit organizations per 

100,000 residents would generate an increase 

of 3.4 percentage points (see Figure 5). One 

possible explanation for why large and small 

nonprofit organizations have different effects 

on volunteering is that large nonprofits are 

more likely to use professional paid staff, while 

smaller nonprofits are more dependent on 

volunteers. 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin illustrates the effect of having above-average numbers of large and small nonprofit 

organizations on the volunteer rate. In the Milwaukee metro area there are 320 large and 293 small nonprofit 

organizations for every 100,000 residents, and the volunteer rate is over 34 percent—one of the highest in the 

nation. In comparison, the Phoenix, Arizona metro area has considerably fewer nonprofit organizations (115 

large and 163 small nonprofits per 100,000 residents), and its volunteer rate is less than 24 percent.

The ability of communities to keep volunteers engaged year after year (volunteer retention) is strongly related 

to the volunteer rate. The right types of volunteer opportunities and management of volunteers can encourage 

an individual to continue volunteering. On the other hand, as with paid employment, a poor fit between a 

volunteer and a nonprofit increases the probability that a volunteer will not be retained. Turnover is not just the 

concern of individual volunteers. High turnover also has a negative impact on a community’s overall volunteer 

rate. For nonprofits that depend on volunteers, turnover results in the need to incur substantial additional costs 

associated with recruiting, orienting, and managing new volunteers. Turnover also reduces the experienced 

resources available to address community needs. On average nationally, one out of three volunteers dropped 

out of volunteering after one year of service.20 Communities able to reduce their volunteer turnover tended to 

maintain higher overall volunteer rates and were more effective in addressing community issues. 

High

Low

Low High

100 200 300 400 500 10

20

30

40

50

Figure 5: Metro Areas with More Small Nonprofit

Organizations Per Capita Have Higher Volunteer Rates

Volunteer Rate

Small Nonprofit Organizations
10 Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

Among the 50 major metro areas profiled in this report, there is a strong positive relationship between volunteer 

retention and the volunteer rate. On average, 65 percent of volunteers in one year continue to volunteer in the 

next year. Increasing volunteer retention rates from 65 percent to 71 percent would increase the volunteer rate 

by 3.2 percentage points. This increase could have a substantial effect on building the overall level of social 

capital and social efficacy in a community. The effects of an increase in volunteer retention on the average metro 

volunteer rate are illustrated by examining the Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Virginia Beach, Virginia, metro areas. 

Tulsa’s volunteer retention rate was 73 percent, while Virginia Beach had a 60 percent volunteer retention rate. 

The average volunteer rates for Tulsa and Virginia Beach were 34 percent and 19 percent, respectively. 

Conclusion

This report identifies several factors that might help explain the differences in volunteer rates between metro 

areas. Some of these factors can be thought of as challenges to growing volunteering. That is, just like being 

overweight or not exercising increases an individual’s risk of developing serious health problems such as heart 

disease, certain factors may work against a community’s volunteering potential. 

Long average commutes to work, high poverty rates, lower education levels, low volunteer retention rates, 

lower numbers of local nonprofit associations and groups, a high percentage of multiunit housing, and high 

population density all tend to increase a community’s chance of having low volunteer rates. On the other hand, 

there are other factors that protect or promote growth in volunteering. These factors tend to build social capital 

and to directly or indirectly encourage volunteering. Volunteering seems to be higher in communities with 

shorter commutes to work, high average education levels, high levels of homeownership, high rates of volunteer 

retention, and many nonprofit organizations in the community. 

Analyzing the factors that affect volunteering can help metro areas create plans and strategies to grow civic 

engagement. Volunteer retention, for example, has a potentially substantial payoff with relatively modest costs. 

Communities can work with their policymakers, residents, and nonprofits to identify how to improve the 

volunteer experience. What are some ways of increasing volunteer retention? First, keep volunteers engaged 

in volunteer organizations. Volunteers actually thrive on being asked to do more for an organization they 

care about. Second, reach out to volunteers who are already involved with another organization. It appears 

that committed volunteers work with multiple organizations. Third, research shows that different volunteers 

have preferences for different volunteer activities. We need to see volunteers as important community and 

organizational assets and try to make the best use of their time and commitment by trying to ensure the best fit 

between the volunteer and the volunteer organization and volunteer activity.21

Meanwhile, many of the most challenging factors to change are associated with building social relationships 

across boundaries of economic, geographic, and racial-ethnic difference. For example, it may be worthwhile 

to create what Robert Putnam calls “bridging social capital”—the social capital that develops and nurtures the 

types of connections that bring together people with different backgrounds, values, and perspectives.22
11 Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

We hope this report will increase individuals’ desire to raise their community’s level of volunteering and thereby 

collectively raise a locale’s stock of social capital. This goal can be achieved in a number of ways, including: 

• Having leaders in a community talk about why volunteering is so important.

• Flexible work schedules that reduce the effect of commuting times on volunteering. 

• Working with schools and other groups to spur greater community engagement among youth and adults 

through activities such as service-learning. 

• Encouraging nonprofits to reinvent and expand the roles volunteers can play in an organization. 

One might also appeal to potential volunteers by noting that service to others may help them be happier and 

healthier in addition to addressing key community interests. How they spend their leisure time and whether 

they connect with their neighbors could help determine the level of crime on their street, how well their 

schools work, and how responsive their government is. While opportunities and efforts to build greater citizen 

engagement need to fit local needs and culture, communities that work to enhance and expand the range of 

volunteering among residents will make their community an even better place to live. 
12 Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

DC

Seattle

Portland

Tulsa

Charlotte

Austin

Omaha

Kansas City

Milwaukee

Salt Lake City

MinneapolisSt. Paul

VOLUNTEER RATES BY METROPOLITAN AREA

This map shows metropolitan areas with the top volunteer rates from across the nation. The volunteer rates 

and rankings are based on a three-year average of data from 2004, 2005, and 2006. Between 2004 and 2006, the 

average volunteer rate for the nation was 28.1%, while volunteering rates in metropolitan areas ranged from 

14.4% to 40.5%.

1. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN

2. Salt Lake City, UT

3. Austin, TX

4. Omaha, NE

5. Seattle, WA

6. Portland, OR

7. Kansas City, MO

8. Milwaukee, WI

9. Charlotte, NC

10. Tulsa, OK

Top Metro Areas
13 Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

VOLUNTEER RATES BY METROPOLITAN AREA

The volunteer rates and rankings in the table below are based on a three-year average of data from 2004, 2005 

and 2006. Metropolitan areas varied greatly in their average volunteer rates ranging from 14.4%.to 40.5%.

Rank Metro Area Rate Rank Metro Area Rate Rank Metro Area Rate

1 MinneapolisSt. Paul, MN 40.5%

17 Denver, CO 31.5% 34 Detroit, MI 27.0%

18 St. Louis, MO 30.9% 35 San Antonio, TX 26.7%

2 Salt Lake City, UT 38.4% 19 Nashville, TN 30.5% 36 Philadelphia, PA 26.6%

3 Austin, TX 38.1% 20 Dallas, TX 30.3% 37 Sacramento, CA 26.5%

4 Omaha, NE 37.8% 20 Oklahoma City, OK 30.3% 38 Atlanta, GA 26.1%

5 Seattle, WA 36.3% 22 New Haven, CT 30.2% 39 Houston, TX 25.8%

6 Portland, OR 35.8% 23 Hartford, CT 29.6% 39 Tampa, FL 25.8%

7 Kansas City, MO 34.9% 23 San Francisco, CA 29.6% 41 Phoenix, AZ 23.5%

8 Milwaukee, WI 34.4% 25 San Diego, CA 29.2% 42 Honolulu, HI 23.3%

9 Charlotte, NC 34.3% 26 Baltimore, MD 28.6% 42 Providence, RI 23.3%

10 Tulsa, OK 33.7% 27 Albuquerque, NM 27.8% 44 Los Angeles, CA 22.3%

11 Cincinnati, OH 33.4% 28 Indianapolis, IN 27.7% 45 Orlando, FL 22.2%

12 Columbus, OH 33.3% 29 Richmond, VA 27.6% 46 Riverside, CA 20.6%

13 Pittsburgh, PA 32.6% 30 Boston, MA 27.5% 47 Virginia Beach, VA 19.3%

14 Bridgeport, CT 32.3% 30 Cleveland, OH 27.5% 48 New York, NY 18.7%

15 Washington, DC 31.9% 32 Chicago, IL 27.4% 49 Miami, FL 16.1%

16 Louisville, KY 31.6% 32 San Jose, CA 27.4% 50 Las Vegas, NV 14.4%

The metro areas listed above are geographic regions classified as Metropolitan Statistical Areas which are used by the U.S. Census 

Bureau in collecting and publishing federal statistics.
14 Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

Portland

Seattle

Tulsa

Washington, DC

New Haven

Austin

Charlotte

Indianapolis

Salt Lake City

Kansas City

MinneapolisSt. Paul

VOLUNTEER HOURS BY METROPOLITAN AREA

This map shows metropolitan areas with the highest number of average volunteer hours served annually per 

resident. The volunteer hours and rankings reflect a three-year average of volunteering hours per resident 

from 2004, 2005, and 2006. Over this three-year period, the nation had an average of 36.5 volunteer hours per 

resident, and the metropolitan areas’ average volunteer hours per 

resident ranged from 20.5 hours to 60 hours.

1. Tulsa, OK

2. Charlotte, NC 

3. Salt Lake City, UT

4. Seattle, WA

5. Portland, OR

6. Kansas City, MO

7. Austin, TX

8. Washington, DC

9. Indianapolis, IN

10. MinneapolisSt. Paul, MN

10. New Haven, CT

Top Metro Areas
15 Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

VOLUNTEER HOURS BY METROPOLITAN AREA

This table displays a comparison of volunteer hours per metropolitan area resident. To compare across metro 

areas, volunteer hours and rankings in the table below are calculated as the total volunteer hours served divided 

by the population of the metro area based on data from 2004, 2005, and 2006. Median hours per volunteer are 

presented in the metropolitan area profiles. Hours reported varied greatly across metropolitan areas ranging 

from 20.5 hours to 60 hours.

Rank Metro Area hours Rank Metro Area hours Rank Metro Area hours

1 Tulsa, OK 60.0 17 Louisville, KY 40.2 34 Dallas, TX 33.7

2 Charlotte, NC 57.1 18 Denver, CO 39.8 35 San Jose, CA 33.6

3 Salt Lake City, UT 53.8 19 San Diego, CA 39.5 36 San Francisco, CA 33.2

4 Seattle, WA 53.5 20 Houston, TX 38.4 37 Tampa, FL 32.9

5 Portland, OR 51.0 21 Pittsburgh, PA 37.9 38 Philadelphia, PA 32.5

6 Kansas City, MO 49.4 22 Columbus, OH 37.8 39 Los Angeles, CA 30.5

7 Austin, TX 49.2 23 St. Louis, MO 37.6 40 Cincinnati, OH 30.1

8 Washington, DC 47.0 24 Atlanta, GA 37.5 41 Virginia Beach, VA 29.7

9 Indianapolis, IN 45.9 25 Oklahoma City, OK 37.0 42 Chicago, IL 28.3

10 MinneapolisSt. Paul, MN 45.7

26 Richmond, VA 36.9 43 Boston, MA 28.1

27 Milwaukee, WI 36.8 44 Detroit, MI 27.8

10 New Haven, CT 45.7 28 Nashville, TN 36.4 45 Orlando, FL 27.3

12 Omaha, NE 43.6 29 Phoenix, AZ 35.4 46 Cleveland, OH 25.9

13 Sacramento, CA 43.3 30 Honolulu, HI 35.3 47 Miami, FL 25.3

14 San Antonio, TX 42.8 31 Hartford, CT 34.7 48 Providence, RI 24.3

15 Bridgeport, CT 42.2 32 Albuquerque, NM 34.3 49 New York, NY 23.3

16 Baltimore, MD 41.3 33 Riverside, CA 34.0 50 Las Vegas, NV 20.5

The metro areas listed above are geographic regions classified as Metropolitan Statistical Areas which are used by the U.S. Census 

Bureau in collecting and publishing federal statistics.
16 Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

Category National Average

Hours per volunteer % who volunteer

Area of Residence

Nation 50 28.1%

Urban 51 23.7%

Suburban 50 29.3%

Gender

Male 52 24.3%

Female 50 31.6%

Age

16 - 24 years 39 23.4%

25 - 34 years 37 24.7%

35 - 44 years 48 33.3%

45 - 54 years 52 32.2%

55 - 64 years 60 29.3%

65 - 74 years 96 27.5%

75+ years 100 20.9%

 The nation had an average volunteer rate of 28.1% per year 

between 2004 and 2006.

 In 2006, 61.2 million volunteers dedicated 8.1 billion hours 

of service. 

 For more detailed information on volunteering, 

go to www.nationalservice.gov.

50 Major Metro Areas U.S.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2004 2005 2006 28.8 27.0 27.6 25.4 28.8 26.7

Trends and Highlights

Other

6.6%

Sport, hobby,

cultural or arts

3.6%

Social or

community service

13.1%

Religious

35.3%

Hospital or

other health

7.9%

Educational or

youth service

27.0%

Civic, political,

professional or international

6.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Tutor or teach

Engage in

general labor

Collect, prepare, distribute,

or serve food

Fundraise or sell items

to raise money 28.8

22.0

20.9

25.2

U.S.

Volunteer Rate

Where People in the Nation Volunteer

Top Four Volunteer Activities in the Nation

The above profile represents Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) information on volunteer trends and activities, based on a three-year average from 

2004, 2005, and 2006. MSAs are geographic regions used by the U.S. Census Bureau in collecting and publishing Federal statistics. 

National Volunteer Trends

United States
3 Volunteering in america 

Cities 2007

Acknowledgments

The report’s authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of many individuals to this study. We are thankful 

to the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics for providing data on volunteering. We especially 

want to recognize the members of our State Service Commissions and national service programs who provided 

valuable feedback and helped shape the development of this report, including Paula Vaughn, Greg Webb, Scott 

Kimmell, Kathleen Joy, David Muraki, John Gomperts, and Michelle Hynes. Their thoughtful comments and 

recommendations contributed to improving the quality of the report. We thank Bob Putnam, Tom Sanders, 

and John Bridgeland for their help in the concept development of the report and ongoing expertise in civic 

life. Finally, this report would not be possible without the valuable support of our colleagues. We thank the 

staff members at the Corporation for National and Community Service, who provided thoughtful advice and 

participated in the development and production of this report. 

The Office of Research and Policy Development

The Office of Research and Policy Development (RPD) is part of the CEO’s Office within the Corporation for 

National and Community Service. RPD’s mission is to develop and cultivate knowledge that will enhance the 

mission of the Corporation and of volunteer and community service programs. 
Related Research Reports on Volunteering

Volunteering in America: 2007 State Trends and Rankings in Civic Life (2007). Provides data on volunteering and 

civic life at the national, regional and state levels. State level rankings and individual state profiles are 

also included. 

Volunteering in America: State Trends and Rankings (2006). Presents a national, regional, and state-by-state 

analysis of volunteering trends, and provides state rankings for key measures of volunteering.

The Health Benefits of Volunteering: A Review of Recent Research (2007). Documents some of the major research 

findings on the relationship between health and volunteering. It has been shown that better health leads to 

continued volunteering, but these studies also show that volunteering leads to improved physical and mental 

health. Thus they are part of a self-reinforcing cycle.

Volunteer Growth in America: A Review of Trends Since 1974 (2006). Provides an in-depth look at volunteering 

over the past 30 years, with particular attention paid to changing historical volunteer patterns by select 

age groups.

College Students Helping America (2006). Identifies key trends in volunteering among college students, discusses 

future implications for volunteering given the changing college environment, and provides state rankings for 

volunteering among college students.

Volunteers Mentoring Youth: Implications for Closing the Mentoring Gap (2006). Provides a greater 

understanding of the characteristics and traits that distinguish individuals whose volunteering includes 

mentoring youth from volunteers who do not mentor.

Keeping Baby Boomers Volunteering (2007). Describes volunteering trends for Baby Boomers and projections for 

older Americans. Also provides strategies to harness Baby Boomer’s experience and energy and identifies the 

factors likely to impact their decision to volunteer.

Youth Helping America Series. Leveling the Path to Participation: Volunteering and Civic Engagement Among 

Youth from Disadvantaged Circumstances (2007). Examines the attitudes and behaviors of young people from 

disadvantaged circumstances including volunteering and other forms of civic engagement.

Volunteer Management Capacity Study (2003). Explores various issues around volunteer management, 

recruitment and ways to improve volunteer management capacity.

To read or download our reports, visit www.nationalservice.gov 
Volunteering in America

2007 City Trends and Rankings