A Systematic Review of 

Senior Corps’ Impact on

Volunteers and Program 

Beneficiaries 

September 2019

SUBMITTED TO:

Anthony Nerino

Corporation for National and Community Service

250 E Street, SW

Washington, DC 20525

anerino@cns.gov 

SUBMITTED BY: 

JBS International, Inc.

5515 Security Lane, Suite 800

North Bethesda, MD 20852

A Systematic Review of Senior 

Corps’ Impact on Volunteers 

and Program Beneficiaries

This report was prepared by JBS International, Inc., 

5515 Security Lane, Suite 800, North Bethesda, MD, 

20852, pursuant to a contract with CNCS, a federal 

agency of the United States Government.

Authors:

Rebecca S. Frazier, Claudia Birmingham, Victoria

Wheat and Annie Georges. 

Acknowledgements: 

The report authors would like to thank the many current and former 

Senior Corps volunteers and staff who made this report possible. We 

are especially grateful for those who spoke with us during the 

preparation of this report to share their perspectives on the Senior 

Corps program’s history, goals, and future directions. Additionally, we 

would like to thank and acknowledge the following talented research 

assistants who contributed to the project: Amelia Conrad, Amanda 

Gold, and Deisy Solis Perez.

Suggested Citation:

Frazier, R.S., Birmingham, C., Wheat, V., and Georges, A. 

(2019). A Systematic Review of Senior Corps’ Impact on 

Volunteer and Program Beneficiaries. Report prepared for the 

Corporation for National and Community Service. North 

Bethesda, MD: JBS International, Inc. 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 1 of 68

Table of Contents

Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 3

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 4

Introduction and Background ......................................................................................................... 5

History and Goals of Senior Corps ............................................................................................. 5

What are the Senior Corps programs? .................................................................................... 5

Why are Senior Corps Programs Needed Now? ..................................................................... 8

Research Questions and Contribution of this Report .................................................................. 9

Methods and Procedures ............................................................................................................... 10

Phase 1: Searching for Senior Corps Research Reports and Documentation ........................... 10

Phase 2: Systematically Reviewing Senior Corps Research Reports ....................................... 12

Descriptive Results from the Systematic Review ......................................................................... 13

Senior Corps Effectiveness - Results from the Systematic Review ............................................. 21

What is the strength of the evidence base for Senior Corps? ................................................... 21

What is the impact of Senior Corps service on volunteers and beneficiaries? ..................... 24

What is the effectiveness of specific Senior Corps models or interventions? ...................... 27

How do the findings from research about Senior Corps compare to findings from the research 

on volunteering among older adults more generally? ............................................................... 31

Physical Health and Mortality Benefits for Older Volunteers .............................................. 31

Psychosocial Benefits for Older Volunteers ......................................................................... 31

Benefits of Intergenerational Connections ............................................................................ 32

Benefits to People Served by Volunteers.............................................................................. 33

Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 35

Learnings and Key Findings ..................................................................................................... 35

Limitations of the Evidence Base ............................................................................................. 36

Directions for Future Research ................................................................................................. 37

References ..................................................................................................................................... 38

Appendix A: Senior Corps Timeline ............................................................................................ 41

Appendix B. Study Review Form ................................................................................................. 42

Section I. Study Characteristics ................................................................................................ 42

I.A. Report Information ........................................................................................................ 42

I.B. Program Information ...................................................................................................... 42

I.C. Study Design .................................................................................................................. 44
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 2 of 68

Section II. Methodological Quality........................................................................................... 45

II.A. Study Participant Characteristics.................................................................................. 45

II.B. Data Collection and Analysis Methods ........................................................................ 45

II.C. Lessons Learned ........................................................................................................... 46

Section III. Extraction of Study Results - Outcomes ................................................................ 46

Appendix C: Annotated Bibliography of Senior Corps Reports Considered for Review ............ 51

Appendix D: Bibliography of Research on Volunteering among Older Adults ........................... 65

Systematic Reviews .................................................................................................................. 65

Meta-Analyses .......................................................................................................................... 65
Page 3 of 68

Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis

Abstract

The Senior Corps Program, administered by the Corporation for National and Community 

Service (CNCS), engages adults 55 years and older in national service that benefits both local 

communities and the volunteers themselves. This report systematically reviews 27 evaluation 

studies completed between 1980 and 2019 on the effectiveness of the Senior Corps to (1) identify 

the strength of the evidence base for Senior Corps, (2) contextualize these findings within the 

larger literature on the impacts of volunteering for older adults, and (3) offer recommendations 

and lessons learned from this review. Findings show a positive impact of Senior Corps 

participation (75% of the outcomes studied having positive results) on both volunteers and 

beneficiaries. The majority of the evaluations reviewed examined psychosocial and physical 

health outcomes; consequently, the majority of the positive outcomes observed for volunteers are 

in these two domains. The majority of these positive findings (78%) are from non-experimental 

designs, and most did not directly test for statistical significance, so more rigorous evaluation 

will help address selection bias and further strengthen the evidence base. 

Keywords: Systematic Review; Seniors; Volunteering; Health; Aging
Page 4 of 68

Executive Summary

The Senior Corps Program, administered by the Corporation for National and 

Community Service (CNCS), engages adults 55 years and older in national service that provides 

benefits both to local communities and to the volunteers themselves. This report briefly describes 

the history and goals of the three Senior Corps programs (the Foster Grandparent Program 

[FGP], the Senior Companion Program [SCP], and the Retired and Senior Volunteers Program 

[RSVP]), then systematically reviews the literature on the effectiveness of these programs to (1) 

identify the strength of the evidence base for Senior Corps, (2) contextualize these findings 

within the larger literature on the impact of volunteering for older adults, and (3) offer 

recommendations and lessons learned from this review. 

To identify the literature on the impact of Senior Corps and the impact of volunteering in 

older adults more generally, we searched academic databases for published reports and searched 

the gray literature from the National Archives, CNCS archives, and the library collections 

documented by WorldCat. Of the 67 studies identified, 27 met the inclusion criteria for the 

systematic review. These studies included a total of 110 individual outcomes or results (e.g.- 

volunteer physical health, depression). For each outcome, we documented study characteristics, 

the quality of study methodology, and key findings. 

The findings from the systematic review show evidence of the positive impact of Senior 

Corps participation on the volunteers’ health, particularly physical and psychosocial health 

outcomes. Specifically, 75% of the outcomes studied showed positive results, with about 22% of 

these positive outcomes being evaluated using QED or RCT design and 32% of these positive 

outcomes being statistically significant. 

The majority of the positive outcomes were observed for volunteers (65%, with 42% of 

these positive volunteer outcomes being physical or psychosocial health outcomes), with only 

35% of the positive outcomes being observed for program beneficiaries. We found no studies 

that examined impact on communities. 

The majority of positive findings (78%) were from non-experimental designs and most 

did not directly test for statistical significance. More rigorous evaluation will help address 

selection bias and further strengthen the evidence base. 
Page 5 of 68

Introduction and Background

The Senior Corps Program, administered by the Corporation for National and Community 

Service (CNCS), engages adults 55 years and older in national service that provides benefits both 

to local communities and to the volunteers themselves. Senior Corps consists of three primary 

programs: the Foster Grandparent Program (FGP), the Senior Companion Program (SCP), and 

the Retired and Senior Volunteers Program (RSVP). Senior Corps volunteers commit their time 

to address critical community needs including, for example, academic tutoring and mentoring, 

elderly care, and disaster relief support. In this report, we systematically review the literature on 

the effectiveness of these programs to identify the strength of the evidence base for Senior Corps, 

contextualize these findings within the larger literature on the impacts of volunteering for older 

adults, and offer recommendations and lessons learned from this review. 

History and Goals of Senior Corps

Before reviewing the literature on the effectiveness of Senior Corps, we first summarize the 

history of the three programs (including changes in program administration and policy) both in 

text and in a brief timeline highlighting major programmatic events and evaluation studies (see 

Figure 1 below). We then review the literature supporting the growing relevance and need for 

Senior Corps programs. 

What are the Senior Corps programs? 

The Senior Corps is a federal national service program that engages older adults (those 55 years 

or older) in meaningful community service and volunteer work. Within Senior Corps, there are 

three flagship programs:

Foster Grandparent Program (FGP). First initiated in 1965 as a part of President 

Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty through the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), the 

FGP was originally designed as an anti-poverty employment program that would provide lowincome senior citizens (those within 150% of the federal poverty limit) with a modest stipend 

and small benefits (transportation reimbursement, an annual physical exam) in exchange for 

caring for and building relationships with children in institutions (such as hospitals, orphanages, 

and homes for children with disabilities). The program was designed to have a dual benefit by 

providing older adults with meaningful employment (roughly 20 hours a week) and addressing 

the unmet needs of children. In the 1970s, the program was incorporated into the newly created 

ACTION agency, and its Congressionally-mandated mission was expanded to include services 

for children in a much wider range of settings including those in day care centers, the Head Start

program, and schools. Under ACTION, the FGP was no longer defined as an employment 

program, but became a community service program for older adults. FGP volunteers continued to 

receive a small tax-free stipend, but the stipend was no longer linked to the minimum wage. In 

1993, the FGP was incorporated into CNCS. Presently, the FGP engages adults in providing 

supportive services to children and youth through local schools and community-based programs 

such as youth facilities, early childhood education, and day care centers. Foster Grandparent 

volunteers help children learn to read, provide one-on-one tutoring, mentor troubled teenagers 

and young mothers, and care for premature infants or children with disabilities. In 2018, close to 

(30,000 volunteers served more than 170,000 children). Current FGP volunteers serve an average 
Page 6 of 68

of 20 hours a week (with the option to serve between 5-20 hours) and those volunteers making 

less than 200% of the federal poverty limit receive a tax-free stipend of $2.65 per hour.

Senior Companion Program (SCP). First initiated in 1974 under the ACTION agency, 

the SCP was modeled after FGP but designed to serve older adults instead of children. SCP 

engages adults in providing supportive, individualized services to help adults with special needs 

maintain their dignity and independence. SCP provides direct services to homebound clients to 

support independent living and provides support services to caregivers caring for family or 

friends having difficulty with daily living. Some of the types of services SCP volunteers provide 

include transporting clients to medical appointments, helping shop for food and necessities, 

providing companionship to offset isolation, and offering respite to family members, caregivers, 

and homebound clients. In 1993, the program was incorporated into CNCS. In 2018, more than

14,000 volunteers served more than 38,600 clients each year. Presently, SCP volunteers serve an 

average of 20 hours a week (with the option to serve between 5-20 hours.) and those volunteers 

making less than 200% of the federal poverty limit receive a tax-free stipend of $2.65 per hour. 

Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). First initiated in 1971 under the 

ACTION agency, the RSVP engages older adults in volunteer service in a variety of activities to 

meet critical community needs such as, for example, disaster response and recovery, tax 

preparation services; and meal delivery services. RSVP is designed to provide older adults with 

flexible opportunities to use their skills and expertise to help solve problems affecting their local 

communities. In 1993, the program was incorporated into CNCS. In 2018, more than 174,000 

volunteers served approximately 700,000 clients each year. RSVP does not have an income 

eligibility requirement, and the volunteers do not receive a stipend; they serve anywhere from 4-

40 hours a week (to allow greater flexibility) and can choose their service placement from a wide 

range of settings such as crisis hotlines, literacy programs, job training programs, teen pregnancy 

and support services, drug abuse prevention and treatment centers, refugee support services, and

disaster relief services. 

Figure 1 on page 7 of this report provides a brief visual overview of the history of the three 

Senior Corps programs. Appendix A includes a detailed, interactive timeline of the history of the 

three programs. 
Page 7 of 68

Figure 1. Brief Timeline of Senior Corps Programmatic and Evaluation History from 1965-Present
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 8 of 68

Why are Senior Corps Programs Needed Now? 

Senior Corps may be particularly relevant now because, as the U.S. population over 65 grows, 

lives and works longer, there is increased need to address the health challenges faced by older 

adults. Volunteer service opportunities such as those provided through Senior Corps may be one 

way to combat and support the aging process. We summarize data trends and the literature 

supporting each of these reasons why Senior Corps programs are needed now. 

The proportion of the U.S. Population over 65 is growing rapidly. According to the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s 2017 National Population Projections, by 2060, the number of Americans 

who are 65 or older is projected to more than double from 46 million today to more than 98 

million; and their share of the population will rise from 15% to nearly 24% (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2018). In 2035, for the first time in U.S. history, there will be more older people than children 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). Declines in fertility and immigration during the Great Recession 

have contributed to increases in the proportion of the population over 65 relative to other age 

groups, so as the number of older adults increases, the working population available to support 

them is projected to decline. 

Adults are living longer than ever before and working longer. In 1950, the average life 

expectancy in the United States was 68 years old; by 2016 that number had risen to almost 79 

years (World Bank, 2018). These increases in life expectancy, along with declines in illness, have 

increased the duration of “healthy old age” (Fries, 1980), and, with this change, adults are 

staying in the workforce longer than in prior generations. According to a recent national survey 

(Benz, Sedensky, Tompson, and Agiesta, 2013), the average retirement age has shifted from 57 

for those who retired prior to the Great Recession (December 2007 or earlier) to 62 for those 

who retired after (2008 or later). Furthermore, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2017), 

estimates that the labor force participation rate (the proportion of the population working or 

actively looking for work), is expected to increase faster for the oldest segments of the 

population—most notably, people ages 65 and older—through 2024. This increase is being 

fueled by the aging baby-boomer generation, individuals born between 1946 and 1964. By 2024, 

baby boomers will have reached ages 60 to 78, and many of them are expected to continue 

working even after they qualify for Social Security retirement benefits. 

Older adults have increasing needs for health care. As adults are living longer and 

waiting longer to retire, they are also experiencing increased health care needs. According to a 

recent report from the Population Reference Bureau, “the aging of the baby boom generation 

could fuel a 75 percent increase in the number of Americans ages 65 and older requiring nursing 

home care, to about 2.3 million in 2030 from 1.3 million in 2010. Demand for elder care will 

also be fueled by a steep rise in the number of Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease, which 

could nearly triple by 2050 to 14 million, from 5 million in 2013.” Additionally, increases in 

obesity rates and divorce rates and declines in birth rates are all contributing to an increasing 

number of older adults living alone and needing health care (Mather, Jacobsen, and Pollard, 

2015). Senior Corps is a potential resource to support the increasing needs for health care for the

volunteers (who, as this systematic review will show, often report an increased social connection, 

financial stability, and a sense of purpose) and for the older adults served by the Senior 

Companion program. 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 9 of 68

Older adult volunteers contribute to the economy. According to the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2016), in 2015, almost 1 in 4 adults older than 65 reported volunteering during the 

prior year, and, in 2018, adults over age 55 contributed nearly 3 billion hours of service at an 

estimated value of more than $73.5 billion (Corporation for National Community Service, 2018). 

Another study (Johnson & Schaner, 2005) suggests that the estimated total economic 

contribution of adult volunteer service may be more than $160 billion if contributions associated 

with unpaid family caregiving are also included. 

Volunteer service may be one way to combat health challenges and provide support to 

other aging adults. The high rates of volunteer service among older adults (BLS, 2016) are 

promising given that a recent review found that older adults who volunteer frequently live longer 

and report fewer disabilities than those who do not volunteer (Von Bonsdorff & Rantanen, 2011). 

Volunteering may enhance the health of older adults and has been linked to self-reported health 

improvements (Luoh and Herzog 2002; Piliavin and Siegl 2007; Krause 2009; Haski-Leventhal 

2009), objective improvements in physical health (Lum and Lightfoot 2005; Tan et al. 2006), 

improvements in cognitive functioning (Carlson et al. 2008 and 2009; Burr, Tavares, and 

Mutchler, 2010), improvements in mental health and psychological well-being (Piliavin and 

Seigl, 2007, Musick and Wilson, 2008; Li and Ferraro 2006), and increased longevity (Mussick 

et al 1999; Luoh and Herzog 2002; Piliavin and Siegl 2007). Furthermore, the benefits of 

volunteering have been shown to be amplified among those with limited access to other social 

supports (e.g., those who cannot drive and those living in more rural areas, Lee et al. 2010).

Research Questions and Contribution of this Report 

As Figure 1 above demonstrates, evaluation has been a core component of Senior Corps 

from the start of the Foster Grandparent Program in 1965 to the present day. In the 1960s, the 

Office of Economic Opportunity funded evaluations of FGP from the very first year of operation, 

and these evaluation efforts continued under funding from ACTION in the 1970s. Most of these 

evaluations included unmatched comparison groups consisting of individuals waiting to 

participate in the program and children from comparable institutions. These early evaluations 

showed positive impacts of FGP on older adults’ financial well-being, sense of purpose, mental 

health, and physical health. They also demonstrated positive impacts on children’s intelligence 

and social competency (Greenleigh Associates, 1966; Saltz, 1968; Takacs, 1970; Gray and 

Kasteler, 1970; Saltz, 1971; Saltz, 1973). 

The primary objective of this report is to systematically review the evaluation literature 

on Senior Corps programs from 1980 to the present to determine what the academic literature 

and research says about the impact of Senior Corps on those who volunteer in its programs and 

on those served by Senior Corps volunteers. The specific research questions are: 

1. What is the strength of the evidence base for Senior Corps? 

a. What is the impact of Senior Corps service on volunteers and beneficiaries? 

b. What is the effectiveness of specific Senior Corps service models or 

interventions? 

2. How do findings from the research on volunteering among older adults generally 

compare to the findings from research about Senior Corps specifically? 

3. What are the learnings, best practices and key resources that can inform the work of 

CNCS, its grantees, and other stakeholder groups? 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 10 of 68

Methods and Procedures

Our approach consists of two phases. First, we conducted a systematic search of the literature on 

Senior Corps and on volunteering in older adults; second, we conducted a detailed systematic 

review of Senior Corps outcome and impact studies between 1980 and the present. Methods and 

procedures for each of these phases are described below. The study review form for the 

systematic review (phase 2) is available in Appendix B. 

Phase 1: Searching for Senior Corps Research Reports and Documentation

We conducted a three-step search process consisting of: 1) initial search; 2) inclusion 

assessments for the systematic review; and 3) selection of up to 35 research reports for full 

systematic review. The initial search process was broad in scope and included reviewing both 

research reports and historical documentation on the Senior Corps program by searching 

EBSCO, Google Scholar, PsychInfo, the CNCS archives, and the National Archives. We 

supplemented our search by conducting key informant interviews with current and past Senior 

Corps staff. We read the abstract or executive summary for each research report to assess each

report’s relevance to the research questions, report date, study design, and study methodology. 

Systematic Review Inclusion 

Criteria. We considered five criteria to 

determine which evaluation reports would 

be systematically reviewed. Reports had to 

be conducted between 1980 and the 

present, had to be focused on Senior Corps 

volunteers or beneficiaries specifically, 

had to be research reports with findings 

(theory, review, and design papers were 

excluded), and had to be relevant to this 

report’s research questions. For the reports 

that met these criteria, we selected those 

that were impact or outcome evaluations. 

We excluded implementation-only reports.

Results of the Initial Search and Inclusion Assessments for the Systematic Review. Our 

search of the academic and gray literature yielded 67 reports on Senior Corps participants or 

beneficiaries that could be considered for inclusion in our systematic review (see Figure 2 

below). These reports (including their date, author, abstract, and study design) are listed in the 

full annotated bibliography in Appendix C. From these 67 reports, we ultimately selected 27 

reports (39%) for inclusion in the systematic review. We excluded 40 reports because 27 were 

implementation or output studies only, 8 were conducted prior to 1980, and 5 were not program 

evaluations (i.e.- they were theory or review papers, research papers that happened to use Senior 

Corps volunteers as participants, or were design reports with no findings). 

Inclusion Criteria for the Systematic Review

• Conducted 1980 – present

• Evaluation report with findings (no theory, 

review, or design papers)

• Focused specifically on Senior Corps 

volunteers or beneficiaries

• Relevant to the report’s research questions

• An impact or outcome evaluation (no 

implementation-only reports)
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 11 of 68

Figure 2. Number of Reports Included vs. Excluded in the Systematic Review

Timing of Reports Selected for Inclusion in the Systematic Review. Of the 27 reports 

selected for inclusion in the systematic review, 10 reports (37%) were released prior to 1990 (see 

Figure 3 below). These reports were predominately evaluations funded by the ACTION agency. 

In the 1990s, as FGP, SCP and RSVP were incorporated into CNCS (founded in 1993), the 

number of reports declined to a low of three reports (11%) but began to rise again in the 2000s. 

In subsequent decades, the number of reports continued to rise, reaching up to eight evaluation 

reports (30%) completed between 2011 and 2019. 

Figure 3. Number of Included Reports by Year

           The largest number of reports were released prior to 1991. The number of reports

in the 1990s, then rose again since the 2000s.

Roughly 4 of every 10 reports considered were ultimately included in the systematic 

review, and among the reports excluded, the majority were implementation-only reports.
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 12 of 68

Search and Inclusion Criteria for the Review of the Literature on the Impact of 

Volunteering among Older Adults. In addition to our systematic review of the literature on 

Senior Corps, we also conducted a brief review of the literature on the impacts of volunteering 

among older adults. Given the large body of research on the impact of volunteering on older 

adults, we prioritized the most prominent articles (those most widely cited) and prioritized 

published meta-analysis or meta-synthesis reports (e.g.- Anderson et al., 2014). Our review of the 

broader literature is based on twelve meta-analyses and meta-syntheses that provided a 

comprehensive summary of the current state of the research on the impacts of volunteering in 

older adults (see Appendix D for a listing of reports included in this review). The results of our 

review are used to address the research question examining how findings from the research on 

volunteering among older adults compare to the findings from research about Senior Corps. 

Phase 2: Systematically Reviewing Senior Corps Research Reports 

As described above, a total of 27 reports on Senior Corps were ultimately selected for 

inclusion in the systematic review. In Phase 2, we coded these studies into an Access database 

that tracked study characteristics, methodology, and findings. A copy of the review form is in 

Appendix B. Study characteristics included basic information (e.g., report title, date, and author) 

and information about the program and intervention being studied (e.g., program name, CNCS 

focus area, community need, intervention, intervention topic area, and target population). Study 

methodology included characteristics of 

study participants such as sample size, race, 

age, and study locations, all of which may 

impact the generalizability of findings, data 

collection and data analysis methods, and 

lessons learned. Under study 

implementation and findings, we coded key 

findings for each report’s outcome and 

characterized the study design implemented 

(e.g.- RCT, QED with propensity score 

matching), outcome type (e.g., physical 

health benefits for the volunteer), a brief 

narrative summary of results, the statistical significance of the results, and the effect size of the 

results (when noted). Since study design was used as a proxy for study validity, study designs 

were coded based on how the study was actually implemented-- regardless of what the authors 

may have claimed the design to be. For example, if a report claimed to use a matched sample, 

but did not use statistical matching methods and/or did not demonstrate baseline equivalency, 

then the report was coded as a non-experimental design with a comparison group rather than as a 

QED with a matched comparison group.1

1 Four of the studies in the systematic review were authored by JBS. CNCS had these studies reviewed by two 

independent reviewers not affiliated with JBS. Each independent reviewer was given two studies and asked to 

comment on the studies’ methodology rigor, including any observed weaknesses or strengths. The independent 

reviewers’ assessments confirmed that JBS’s classification of these studies’ methodology and study design are 

appropriate. One independent reviewer noted that an alternate statistical test than the one used in one of the studies 

might have provided more reliable evidence of the relationship being tested.

Data Extracted for Systematic Reviews 

• Study Characteristics (Title, date, author, 

program being studied, etc.)

• Study Methodology (data collection and 

data analysis methods, characteristics of 

study participants, etc.)

• Study Implementation and Findings 

(results, effect sizes, statistical significance, 

design used, and outcome area, etc.)
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 13 of 68

Descriptive Results from the Systematic Review

During the systematic review phase (described as Phase 2 above), detailed information from 27 

reports was entered into an Access database, and individual results for 110 outcomes were 

recorded. Reports often contained multiple outcomes (e.g.- physical health, depression, 

economic stability), so results for each study outcome were coded and analyzed separately (with 

an average of 4.1 outcomes per report and a range of 1-14 outcomes per report). Throughout this 

report, we present results at the outcome level rather than the report level since study designs and 

results within a given report often vary by outcome. The following breakdowns describe all 110 

outcomes we coded from our systematic review. 

Outcomes by Program and Year. As shown in Figure 4 below, the majority of the 110 

Senior Corps outcomes that have been evaluated are for SCP (59 outcomes from 13 studies, or 

54% of all outcomes) and FGP (30 outcomes from 10 studies, or 27% of all outcomes). Three 

studies looked at outcomes for both FGP and SCP volunteers; those outcomes are included in the 

total count for FGP and SCP totals. Fewer outcomes were evaluated for RSVP (21 outcomes 

from 7 studies, or 19% of all outcomes). 

Figure 4. Number of Outcomes by Program
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 14 of 68

Figure 5 shows that the number of SCP and FGP outcomes studied increased since the 1990s and 

for RSVP, since 2001. 

Figure 5. Number of Outcomes by Program and Year

Outcomes by Study Design. Most of the 110 outcomes evaluated used a nonexperimental design, with 49 outcomes (44.5%) using a non-experimental with comparison 

group design such as a waiting list, a national sample, program dropouts, participants’ pre-test 

scores (in which participants serve as their own comparison group), or some other counterfactual 

(such as another type of intervention). Additionally, 34 outcomes (31%) used a non-experimental 

(NE) post-test-only study design. Twenty-seven outcomes (24.5%) were evaluated using a quasiexperimental design (QED) with a matching comparison group or an experimental design (RCT) 

(see Figure 6)2. 

2 As noted earlier in the report, studies were coded based on the design implemented rather than the intended design. 

As such, studies that were not able to successfully implement their intended design and those that did not adequately 

address threats to internal validity were coded according to the design actually implemented. For example, if a study 

intended to be a QED with PSM matching but was not ultimately able to match comparison and treatment 

individuals and demonstrate baseline equivalency, then the study was coded as a non-experimental design with a 

comparison group rather than as a QED. This means that studies in the QED or RCT category adequately address 

threats to internal validity. 

 

 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 15 of 68

Figure 6. Number of Outcomes Studied by Study Design Type
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 16 of 68

Outcomes by Study Design and Year. Figure 7 shows that, since the 1990s, an increasing 

number of outcomes were evaluated using QED or RCT designs, and outcomes from nonexperimental studies with comparisons increased in the 2000s after decreasing since 1981. Since 

2011, there is an approximately equal number of outcomes from each of the three study types. 

Most of the outcomes from non-experimental studies with a comparison were studied in the 

1980s. 

Figure 7. Number of Outcomes Studied by Study Design Type and Year

Outcomes by Study Design and Program. Figure 8 shows that, across all three programs, 

there were consistently fewer outcomes evaluated using QED or RCT designs compared to nonexperimental designs with a comparison group and outcome-only designs. However, a larger 

proportion of outcomes for SCP were evaluated using QED or RCT. For SCP, 16 of 59 outcomes 

(27%) were evaluated using QED or RCT compared to 9 of 40 outcomes (23%) for FGP, and 2 

of 21 outcomes (10%) for RSVP. 

Figure 8. Number of Outcomes by Study Design and Program

 

 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 17 of 68

Outcomes by Generalizability. Of the 110 outcomes studied, 71 (65%) were evaluated

with a high degree of generalizability because the sample was drawn from multiple sites and

states (see Figure 9). Of the 27 outcomes evaluated with a QED or RCT design, 21 outcomes 

(78%) were measured in multiple sites and states. Of the 49 outcomes evaluated with nonexperimental designs using a comparison, 35 outcomes (71%) were measured in multiple sites 

and states. Among the 34 outcomes evaluated with post-tests only, 15 (44%) were based on 

samples drawn from multiple sites and states. Together, these findings suggest that results from 

this review can generally be considered generalizable across Senior Corps programs in multiple 

states and sites.

Figure 9. Number of Outcomes by Generalizability

Outcomes by Study Participant. Overall, 64 of the 110 outcomes (58%) focused on 

impacts to the volunteer, followed by 28 outcomes (25%) that looked at impacts to elderly 

clients3 (see Figure 10). Eight outcomes (7%) focused on program beneficiaries who were 

caregivers who received respite or other assistance (predominately from SCP volunteers). Ten 

outcomes (9%) looked at children ranging in ages from toddlers to high school youth, usually 

with special needs, that FGP volunteers serve in preschools, K-12 schools, and other institutions. 

Figure 10. Number of Outcomes Studied by Study Participant and Program 

3 As shown in Figure 10, 25 of the 28 client outcomes were based on samples of SCP beneficiaries.
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 18 of 68

Outcomes for volunteers. Of the 64 outcomes on volunteer impacts, 27 outcomes (42%) 

focused on Senior Companion volunteers, 20 (31%) on Foster Grandparents, and 17 outcomes 

(27%) on RSVP volunteers. The most frequently evaluated volunteer outcomes were 

psychosocial health outcomes; 40 of the 64 outcomes (63%) involved psychosocial health 

outcomes such as life satisfaction and social connectedness. Physical health, functioning, and 

economic resources were less frequently evaluated; 14 outcomes (22%) examined physical 

health improvements for volunteers. Six outcomes (9%) looked at “functioning,” which typically

referred to volunteers’ self-reported overall economic resources, mental health, social resources, 

and physical health. Economic resources outcomes were studied among SCP and FGP volunteers 

because these volunteers receive small stipends for their service (see Figure 11). 

Figure 11. Number of Volunteer Outcomes Studied by Outcome and Program 

Outcomes for client (older adult) beneficiaries. Clients were older adults receiving 

assistance or meeting regularly with the volunteer, usually in the client’s home. Twenty-eight 

client outcomes were studied. Of these, 25 outcomes (89%) focused on Senior Companion 

clients, and 3 outcomes (11%) were based on RSVP clients. Sixteen of the 28 outcomes (57%)

involved psychosocial health outcomes related to social isolation, such as depression and social 

connectedness, topics that are of special concern for homebound seniors. Six outcomes (21%) 

looked at the client’s “functioning,” which typically referred to activities of daily living, such as 

managing basic household and physical needs. A few of the client outcomes looked at physical 

health and improvements in access to health-related community services for these clients (see 

Figure 12).

 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 19 of 68

Figure 12. Number of Client Beneficiary Outcomes Studied by Outcome and Program

Outcomes for caregiver beneficiaries. Caregivers were family or friends responsible for 

the care of an older person receiving support from an SCP volunteer. Eight caregiver outcomes 

were studied. Seven of the 8 outcomes (88%) focused on caregivers assisted by the Senior 

Companion volunteers; one outcome (12%) measured caregiver benefits from an intervention 

where RSVP volunteers delivered a three-session reminiscence and creative activity to palliative 

care patients and their caregivers. Like client beneficiaries, the most frequently evaluated were 

psychosocial health outcomes; specifically, five of the eight outcomes (63%) looked at 

depression and social connectedness. One outcome examined improvements in the caregiver’s 

self-reported health; another looked at self-efficacy, and a third looked at “functioning,” which, 

in this case, was related to lessening demands on the caregiver (see Figure 13).

 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 20 of 68

Figure 13. Number of Caregiver Beneficiary Outcomes Studied by Outcome and Program 

Outcomes for child beneficiaries. The 10 outcomes, all based on samples of Foster 

Grandparent beneficiaries, looked at children ranging from toddlers to high school youth. The 

most commonly evaluated outcomes (6 of the 10) were social, emotional, and behavioral 

development, and these measures looked for changes in self-esteem, respect for others, and 

relationships with other children. Another four outcomes (40%) looked at K-12 success such as 

improved academic performance, school attendance, and study habits, although these studies also 

included behavioral aspects such as conflict resolution and avoidance of risky behaviors (see 

Figure 14). 

Figure 14. Number of Child Beneficiary Outcomes Studied for FGP 

 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 21 of 68

Senior Corps Effectiveness - Results from the Systematic Review

This section presents key findings from our systematic review to assess the strength of 

the evidence base for Senior Corps’ impact on the volunteers, the beneficiaries whom the 

volunteers serve, and the local communities where service occurs. We count the number of 

outcomes with positive results and then analyze these counts by study design for each of the 

three Senior Corps separately. For outcomes evaluated using QED or RCT, a positive outcome 

typically indicates a statistically significant result (p<.05). However, for outcomes evaluated 

using non-experimental designs with a comparison group and outcome-only designs, we count 

positive outcomes even when the statistical significance of the result is not noted. We use the 

count of positive outcomes to describe trends in evaluation findings across each of the three 

programs and outcome areas. We also compare findings from the Senior Corps literature to 

findings from the research on volunteering among older adults more generally. 

What is the strength of the evidence base for Senior Corps?

Overall Positive, Null, and Negative Findings. Of the total of 110 outcomes, 75% (82 

out of 110) showed positive impacts of Senior Corps participation (see Figure 15). Each of the 

three programs had a high percentage of positive outcomes. Specifically, 71% of SCP outcomes 

were positive (42 out of 59), 77% of FGP outcomes were positive (23 out of 30), and 81% of 

RSVP outcomes were positive (17 out of 21). 

Across the three Senior Corps programs, there were fewer outcomes evaluated using 

QED or RCT designs; as such, it may not be surprising that fewer positive outcomes were from 

this type of design. Specifically, as shown in Figure 15, of the 82 positive outcomes, 41% (N=33) 

were found in outcome-only studies, 38% (N=31) were in non-experimental studies with a 

comparison group, and 22% (N=18) were in RCT or QED studies. 

Figure 15 also shows the number of null or negative results by program. Of the 110 

outcomes studied, 23% of outcomes (N=25) had null results. These null results almost all arose 

in situations where Senior Corps volunteers or beneficiaries were not doing any better or worse 

than individuals in a comparison group (typically a waiting list)4

. The number of null outcomes 

ranged from 4 to 17 within each program, with the highest proportion of null outcomes in the 

SCP program (24%, 14 out of 59); 23% of the FGP outcomes were null (7 out of 30), and 19% of 

RSVP results were null (4 out of 21). 

Of the 110 outcomes studied, only 3% (N=3) had negative results, and these negative 

findings should be interpreted with caution because all of these came from non-experimental 

studies and were not tested for statistical significance. All three negative findings were from 

studies of SCP beneficiaries. The first negative result was from a 2017 study that found that SCP 

caregivers had higher levels of depression than caregivers from a nationally representative (HRS) 

sample, but since the two groups were not matched this could be a reflection of differences in the 

4 The majority of these null results came from non-experimental studies (N=16, 62%) in which Senior Corps 

volunteers and beneficiaries may not have been equivalent at baseline. Additionally, individuals in the comparison 

groups in these studies might have received additional outside services. Together, these two trends could weaken 

these studies’ ability to detect the impact of Senior Corps services and may suggest that null findings do not 

necessarily indicate a lack of positive Senior Corps impact.
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 22 of 68

background and demographic characteristics of the two groups. The second negative result was 

from a 1990 study that found that SCP clients showed declines in their ability to perform 

activities of daily living over the study period while comparison clients did not. However, the 

study did not control for baseline differences between the groups or assess whether the decline 

over time significantly differed for SCP clients relative to comparison clients. Finally, the third 

negative result was from a 2006 study that found that SCP clients were more depressed, fatigued, 

and confused than a national sample of adults of all ages. While this is a negative finding, it is 

not necessarily a negative impact of Senior Corps services given that the comparison sample 

included adults of all ages and health statuses while SCP services are restricted to clients who 

have greater than average needs for support. Because of the low number of negative findings and 

the limitations of these findings, throughout the rest of the report (everything after Figure 15), we 

present these negative results along with the null results under the heading of “null” results. 

Figure 15. Number of Outcomes with Positive, Null, and Negative Results by Program and 

Study Design

Positive and statistically significant findings. Of the 110 outcomes, 35% were tested for 

statistical significance (38 out of 110). Figure 16 shows the number of outcomes tested for 

statistical significance by program and the number of outcomes that were positive and 

statistically significant. Of the outcomes tested for statistical significance, 71% (27 out of 38) 

were positive, and most of these were from studies that used either a QED or RCT (N=15) or 

from non-experimental studies with a comparison group (N=12). For SCP, most of the positive 

statistically significant outcomes were from QED or RCT designs (7 out of 8), whereas for FGP, 

positive statistically significant outcomes were more evenly split between study designs; four 

were in non-experimental studies, and six were in RCTs or QEDs. For RSVP, positive 

statistically significant outcomes were mostly from non-experimental studies with a comparison 

group designs (7 out of 9). 

Figure 16 also shows the number of outcomes tested for statistical significance and found 

to be null. There were no statistically significant negative outcomes. Of 38 outcomes for which 

statistical significance was tested, 32% (12 out of 38) were found to be null. Specifically, none of 

the SCP outcomes were null; 41% of the FGP outcomes (7 out of 17) tested for statistical 

 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 23 of 68

significance were null; and 4 of the 13 RSVP outcomes tested for statistical significance were 

null (see Figure 16). 

Figure 16. Number of Outcomes with Positive and Null Results Tested for Statistical 

Significance by Program

Positive findings by generalizability. As previously noted, 74% (81 out of 110) of the 

overall outcomes studied were positive. Of those positive results, 62% (50 out of 81) were from 

studies that were at least somewhat generalizable— in other words, samples were drawn from 

both multiple states and sites. Most positive generalizable results were from non-experimental 

studies with a comparison group; fewer of the positive results were from outcome-only studies or 

studies that used a QED or RCT. Specifically, almost half (21 out of 50) of the positive outcomes 

from generalizable studies were from non-experimental studies; 15 were from outcome-only 

studies; and 14 were from QEDs or RCTs. Studies conducted in multiple states and multiple sites 

or in multiple states with multiple sites and multiple populations were most likely to use a QED 

or RCT. Figure 17 also shows the number of null results by type of outcomes from generalizable 

studies. Among all generalizable studies, 30% (21 out of 71) of outcomes were null. 

Figure 17. Number of Outcomes with Positive and Null Results by Study Generalizability and 

Study Design

 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 24 of 68

What is the impact of Senior Corps service on volunteers and beneficiaries?

To answer this question, we analyzed count of positive results by types of outcomes evaluated. 

This section first presents results on volunteer outcomes followed by outcomes for beneficiaries 

including clients and caregivers. We did not find any evaluation studies that examined impact on 

communities.

Volunteer outcomes. The types of volunteer outcomes evaluated include physical health, 

functioning, economic resources, and psychosocial health such as life satisfaction, depressive 

symptoms/mental health, social connectedness/social isolation, and self-efficacy. The majority

(81%) of these volunteer outcomes (52 out of 64 outcomes) had positive results. Physical health 

was the most frequent positive volunteer outcome evaluated in RCT or QED designs; 6 of the 11 

RCT or QED designs with positive impacts were on volunteers’ physical health outcomes (see 

Figure 18). It is also notable that volunteer life satisfaction outcomes were most consistently 

found to be positive across all study designs compared to the other types of volunteer outcomes; 

12 of the 52 positive outcomes were life satisfaction outcomes. 

Figure 18 also shows the number of null results by type of outcomes. Of the 64 volunteer 

outcomes studied, only 17% (11 out of 64 outcomes) were found to be null. The number of null 

results ranged from 0 to 3 within each type of outcome, with the largest number of null results 

found in social connectedness. Specifically, 3 of the 11 social connectedness outcomes studied 

(27%) were null (see Figure 18). 

Figure 18. Number of Volunteer Outcomes with Positive and Null Results by Type of Outcome 

and Study Design 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 25 of 68

Client outcomes. Evaluation studies examined 28 outcomes for elderly adult clients

(predominately those served by SCP volunteers), of which 57% (16 out of 28) had positive 

results5

. As shown in Figure 19, 9 of the positive outcomes (56%) were found in outcome-only 

studies, 3 in non-experimental studies (19%), and 4 in QED or RCTs (25%). Social 

connectedness was the most frequent positive client outcome (9 out of 16 positive outcomes), but 

only from outcome-only or non-experimental studies. Overall functioning and depression/mental 

health had the only positive impacts from QEDs or RCTs, each with two such positive outcomes. 

Figure 19 also shows the number of null or negative results by type of outcomes. Of the 

28 client outcomes studied, 43% (12 out of 28 outcomes) were found to have null or negative 

results; ten were null results, and as previously mentioned, two of the client outcomes had 

negative results in the areas of functioning and depression/mental health. The number of null 

results ranges from 0 to 3 per outcome type, with the largest number of null results in overall 

functioning, with 3 out of the 6 overall functioning outcomes being null (50%).

Figure 19. Number of Client Outcomes with Positive and Null Results by Type of Outcome and 

Study Design 

5 As illustrated in Figure 10 above, 25 of the 28 client outcomes came from studies of SCP while 3 of the outcomes 

came from studies of RSVP. 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 26 of 68

Caregiver outcomes. Caregiver outcomes were measured predominately for SCP, except 

for one QED/RCT outcome where RSVP volunteers delivered an intervention to palliative care 

patients and their caregivers with the goal of reducing symptoms of depression for both (see the 

note in Figure 20 below). Evaluation studies examined eight caregiver outcomes, of which 63% 

(5 out of 8) had positive results. Most positive results were from outcome-only evaluation 

studies or from non-experimental studies with a comparison group; fewer of the positive results 

were from studies that used a QED or RCT. As shown in Figure 20, three positive outcomes were 

found in outcome-only studies, one in a non-experimental study, and one in a QED or RCT 

study. Five outcome areas had just one positive outcome each (overall functioning, physical 

health, social connectedness, depression/mental health, and self-efficacy). The positive overall 

functioning, social connectedness, and self-efficacy outcomes were from outcome-only studies; 

the positive physical health outcome was from a non-experimental study; and the only positive 

outcome from a QED or RCT was depression/mental health. It is important to note that the single 

depression/mental health outcome from a QED or RCT was also the only RSVP caregiver 

outcome while all other caregiver outcomes were SCP. 

Figure 20 also shows the number of null or negative results by type of outcome. Of the 8 

caregiver outcomes studied, 38% (3 out of 8 outcomes) were found to have null or negative 

results. As previously mentioned, the single negative caregiver outcome was in the area of social 

connectedness. Two out of the five caregiver outcomes types had null results: social 

connectedness and depression/mental health. The number of null results ranges from 0 to 2 per 

outcome type, with the largest number of null results in depression/mental health. Specifically, 

two out of the three depression/mental health outcomes were null (67%). 

Figure 20. Number of Caregiver Outcomes with Positive and Null Results by Type of Outcome 

and Study Design

 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 27 of 68

Child outcomes (from FGP). Evaluation studies examined 10 child outcomes from FGP 

beneficiaries, of which 80% (8 out of 10) were positive. Most positive results were from 

outcome-only evaluation studies or from non-experimental studies with a comparison group; 

fewer of the positive results were from studies that used a QED or RCT. Specifically, as shown in 

Figure 21, five positive outcomes were found in outcome-only studies, two in non-experimental 

studies, and one in a QED or RCT. Both outcomes types, K-12 success and development (social, 

emotional, behavioral) had four positive outcomes. All the K-12 success positive outcomes were 

from outcome-only studies. Of the positive development outcomes, one was from an outcomeonly study, two were from non-experimental studies, and one was from a QED or RCT. 

Figure 21 also shows the number of null results by type of outcomes. Of the 10 child 

outcomes studied, 20% (2 out of 10 outcomes) were found to have null results. Development had 

more diversity in types of studies and types of results and had the only null outcomes. Two out of 

six development outcomes had null results (see Figure 21). 

Figure 21. Number of Child Outcomes with Positive and Null Results by Type of Outcome and 

Study Design

1

4

Development 2 1 2

K-12 success

+Outcome only (N=5) +NE w/ comp (N=2) +QED/RCT (N=1) Null (N=2)

Overall, most of the child outcomes studied had positive results, although only one of these 

outcomes was evaluated with a rigorous QED or RCT design.

What is the effectiveness of specific Senior Corps models or interventions?

To answer this question, we examine the effectiveness of each of the three Senior Corps 

programs by counting the number of positive volunteer outcomes for each program and 

separating these findings by type of outcomes evaluated.6

 Next, we expand the definition of 

Senior Corps models and interventions to determine whether any research exists to show how 

Senior Corps impacts vary based on programmatic elements such as dosage/hours (e.g., weekly

volunteer hours and hours of support to beneficiaries), stipend amounts, other programmatic 

elements (e.g., different types of tutoring or support services). 

6 Program-specific results are presented at the volunteer-level but not the beneficiary level because most beneficiary 

outcomes are already program-specific. In particular, as noted above, Figures 19-20 show caregiver and client 

outcomes that are largely drawn from SCP, while Figure 21 shows child outcomes that are exclusively from FGP. 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 28 of 68

Effectiveness of the Senior Corps Programs for Volunteers

Senior Companion Program volunteer impacts. Senior Corps evaluations examined 27 

SCP volunteer outcomes, of which 93% were positive (25 out of 27). Most positive volunteer 

results were from outcome-only evaluation studies or from non-experimental studies with a 

comparison group; fewer of the positive results were from studies that used QED or RCT. 

Specifically, as shown in Figure 22, 10 outcomes were from outcome-only studies; 9 were from 

non-experimental studies with a comparison group or pre-to-post designs; and 6 were from 

QEDs or RCTs. Physical health was the most frequent positive volunteer outcome from RCT or 

QED studies; 3 of the 6 RCT or QED studies with positive impacts were on volunteers’ physical 

health outcomes (see Figure 22). However, the outcome type with the most positive outcomes in 

total was depression/mental health (6 out of 25). In fact, most of the positive outcomes for 

volunteers were in psycho-social health (18 out of 25), but only two positive outcomes were 

from QEDs or RCTs, one each in depression/mental health and life satisfaction.

Figure 22 also shows the number of null results by type of outcome. Of the 27 SCP 

volunteer outcomes studied, only 7% (2 out of 27) had null results. Only two categories had null 

results, physical health and overall functioning. None of the psycho-social health outcomes, 

which had the highest number of positive outcomes, had null results. 

Figure 22. Number of SCP Volunteer Outcomes with Positive and Null Results by Type of 

Outcome and Study Design

 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 29 of 68

FGP volunteer outcomes. Of the 20 FGP volunteer outcomes studied, 70% (14 out of 20) 

had positive results. Most positive FGP volunteer results were from non-experimental studies 

with a comparison group or from a QED or RCT, and only one of the positive results was from 

an outcome-only study. Specifically, as shown in Figure 23, one positive outcome was from an 

outcome-only study; eight positive outcomes were from non-experimental studies; and five were 

from QEDs or RCTs. Physical health was the most frequent positive volunteer outcome in QED 

or RCT studies; 3 of the 4 positive outcomes from QED or RCT studies were volunteers’ 

physical health outcomes (see Figure 23). Two psycho-social health outcomes, life satisfaction 

and depression/mental health, each had one positive outcome in a QED or RCT, but life 

satisfaction had more positive results overall (4 out of 4). 

Figure 23 also shows the number of null results by type of outcomes. Of the 20 FGP 

volunteer outcomes, 25% (5 out of 20) had null results. The number of null results ranges from 0 

to 2 per outcome type, with the largest number of null results in the psycho-social outcomes of 

depression/mental health. 

Figure 23. Number of FGP Volunteer Outcomes with Positive and Null Results by Type 

of Outcome and Study Design

RSVP volunteer outcomes. Of the 17 RSVP volunteer outcomes studied, 76% (N=13) 

had positive results. All of the positive volunteer results were from outcome-only evaluation 

studies or from non-experimental studies with a comparison group; none of the positive results 

were from studies that used a QED or RCT. For volunteers, the most positive outcomes were in 

the areas of physical health and life satisfaction. Specifically, physical health had four positive 

outcomes, three of which were from non-experimental studies with a comparison group. In 

addition, life satisfaction had three positive outcomes, two of which were from non-experimental 

studies with a comparison group. The psycho-social outcomes of depression/mental health and 

 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 30 of 68

social connectedness had the fewest positive outcomes (one each), both of which were from 

outcome-only studies. 

Figure 24 also shows the number of null results by type of outcomes. Of the 17 RSVP

outcomes, 24% (4 out of 17) had null results. The number of null results ranges from 0 to 2 per 

outcome type, with social connectedness having the highest number of null outcomes as well as

the highest number of null outcomes relative to positive outcomes (two out of three). Though 

physical health and life satisfaction also had one null outcome each, they also had more positive 

outcomes than other categories (Figure 24). 

Figure 24. Number of RSVP Volunteer Outcomes with Positive and Null Results by Type of 

Outcome and Study Design 

Effectiveness of Specific Senior Corps Programmatic Elements

In addition to determining how Senior Corps impacts vary across the three programs, we were 

also interested in identifying studies that showed how Senior Corps impacts vary based on 

programmatic elements such as dosage/hours (e.g., weekly volunteer hours and hours of support 

to beneficiaries), stipend amounts, or other programmatic elements (e.g., different types of 

tutoring or support services). Although some studies compared Senior Corps program dropouts 

to those who stayed in the program, these studies did not investigate whether or not there was an 

ideal dosage (e.g., number of hours served) in order for program benefits to occur. Additionally, 

there were no outcome or impact evaluations showing how the impact of the Senior Corps 

program directly varied based on programmatic elements. 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 31 of 68

How do the findings from research about Senior Corps compare to findings from the 

research on volunteering among older adults more generally?

To answer this question, we reviewed 12 published articles (see Appendix D), including 

6 meta-analyses that provided a comprehensive summary of the current state of the research on 

the impacts of volunteering among older adults and 6 systematic reviews that were widely cited 

in the literature. Our analytic approach to this question is a qualitative synthesis of the general 

research literature; we then compare the findings from this qualitative synthesis to the results 

presented in the current report. 

Physical Health and Mortality Benefits for Older Volunteers

Overview of the literature. The research literature consistently shows that volunteering 

is associated with physical health benefits for older adults such as self-rated health and physical 

functioning (e.g., walking up stairs) (Anderson et al, 2014; Okun et al, 2013; Von Bonsdorff, M. 

& Rantanen, T., 2011; Population Reference Bureau, 2011; Grimm et al, 2007; Onyx, J., & 

Warburton, J., 2003) as well as reduced mortality risk (Anderson et al, 2014; Jenkinson et al, 

2013; Okun et al, 2013; Population Reference Bureau, 2011; Grimm et al, 2007; Onyx, J., & 

Warburton, J., 2003). The literature suggests a threshold effect where physical health benefits are 

evident at moderate but not at high-intensity volunteer service commitments (Anderson et al, 

2017; Von Bonsdorff, M. & Rantanen, T., 2011), where high-intensity is defined at 

approximately 100 annual hours (2 to 3 hours per week); Anderson and colleagues suggests this 

this threshold is similar for physical benefits.

Findings from our review. Our synthesis of the Senior Corps literature shows similar 

findings to the broader literature. Senior Corps national service is associated with physical health 

benefits. This was true for volunteers in all three Senior Corps programs although more 

outcomes were evaluated with RCT/QED designs for SCP and FGP volunteers than for RSVP 

volunteers. Overall functioning, which usually included some aspect of self-reported physical 

health, improved for volunteers in all three program types and was most frequently evaluated 

using non-experimental designs. None of the Senior Corps evaluations examined mortality risk

outcomes. 

Psychosocial Benefits for Older Volunteers

Overview of the literature. The general literature shows volunteering is associated with 

psychosocial benefits for older adults. These psychosocial benefits include reduced symptoms of 

depression (Anderson et al, 2014; Population Reference Bureau, 2011; Von Bonsdorff, M. & 

Rantanen, T., 2011; Grimm et al, 2007; Onyx, J., & Warburton, J., 2003), improvements in life 

satisfaction and sense of well-being (Anderson et al, 2014; Von Bonsdorff, M. & Rantanen, T., 

2011; Morrow-Howell, N., 2010; Grimm et al, 2007; Onyx, J., & Warburton, J., 2003; Wheeler 

et al, 1998), and self-esteem (Anderson et al, 2014; Onyx, J., & Warburton, J., 2003). One review 

also found evidence for improved cognitive functioning among older adult volunteers 

(Population Reference Bureau, 2011).

Findings from our review. Our synthesis of the Senior Corps literature shows similar 

results in that national service is associated with positive psychosocial health benefits for 

volunteers. Our synthesis shows Senior Corps volunteers in all three programs had reduced 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 32 of 68

symptoms of depression although there was more evidence of benefits to SCP volunteers. FGP 

studies showed mixed results, and there was only one (outcome-only) outcome that looked at 

depression among RSVP volunteers. Of the nine positive outcomes for depression/mental health, 

two were evaluated using RCT/QED design; another three were evaluated using nonexperimental designs with a comparison group; and four were evaluated using outcome-only 

designs. 

Social connectedness was measured as perceived social support, availability of a social 

network or social resources, or feelings of loneliness or isolation. Here again, there is more 

evidence of benefits to SCP volunteers; social connectedness outcomes for FGP and RSVP 

volunteers showed mixed results. However, none of the social connectedness outcomes were 

measured with rigorous designs. 

Volunteer life satisfaction was measured frequently and defined in various ways (e.g., 

perceived sense of purpose, self-esteem, overall quality of life); all three programs consistently

showed benefits. Two of these outcomes, for FGP and SCP volunteers, were measured using a 

rigorous design; another five were non-experimental designs with a comparison group. Selfefficacy outcomes were positive across programs, but there was less data in this area, and all 

outcomes were measured with non-experimental designs.

Benefits of Intergenerational Connections 

Overview of the literature. We found two articles that specifically examined the benefits 

of intergenerational programs aiming to bring young and old together through interventions 

designed to encourage interaction. One of the articles is a meta-analysis that examined the 

benefits to older adults; the second is a review that examined the benefits to both older adults and 

children. 

Yan Su (2017) examined the effectiveness of intergenerational programs for older adults 

through a meta-analysis of 15 studies using pre-post assessments conducted between 2000 and 

2016. Two programs involved younger participants serving elderly participants; four were 

elderly participants serving younger ones; and ten of the programs involved mutual support. 

Activities included reminiscence, learning English, picture book reading, listening to music, 

excursions, and other leisure activities. Younger participants ranged from preschool-aged 

children to college-aged youth. 

The meta-analysis found that, overall, intergenerational programming was effective for 

older adults’ psychological well-being (enhanced life satisfaction and self-esteem; reduced 

depressive symptoms), but the effectiveness varied. The meta-analysis found that the younger 

participants’ age was significantly related to higher program effectiveness for older adults. 

Intergenerational programming was most effective for the older participants when the younger 

participants were college aged. 

In their review, Haber, E.A., & Short-DeGraff, M.A. (1989) found that most 

intergenerational programs are reported by staff and participants to be successful. The review 

considered intergenerational programs that aim to bridge the gap between young and old and 

challenge stereotypes that each generation may have about the other. These include 

intergenerational volunteer programs, nursery schools, and childcare that may be incorporated 

into a retirement home or adult day care facility. The review found reports of positive findings of 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 33 of 68

school age children’s attitudes toward the elderly, but findings were not consistent across studies. 

For example, one study found that preschoolers seemed to hold more negative attitudes after a 

year of visiting a nursing home. The review found little information on how intergenerational 

programs affect elderly participants’ attitudes toward children although it noted other benefits for 

the elderly. One systematic study found cognitively impaired elderly participants at an 

intergenerational nursery school program showed enhanced social interaction. Another study 

found participants reported improved self-esteem, life satisfaction, and health that appeared to be 

related to their participation in an intergenerational volunteer program. 

Findings from our review. Although RSVP volunteers may participate in activities that

serve children, in our research, only the Foster Grandparent Program was an intergenerational 

model. We did not find research that looked at older adults’ changes in attitude toward children, 

or children’s change in attitude toward elders; however, we did find evidence for better physical 

health outcomes and life satisfaction for Foster Grandparents. Four outcomes, including three 

measured with RCT/QED designs, showed Foster Grandparents reported better physical health 

than a comparison group. Four outcomes, including one RCT/QED, showed Foster Grandparents 

reported higher life satisfaction ratings. Our research did not find consistent results on how 

participation in FGP affects older adults’ social connectedness or symptoms of depression. 

Benefits to children receiving support from Foster Grandparents are noted below.

Benefits to People Served by Volunteers

Overview of the literature. While most reviews and meta-analyses focused on benefits to 

older adult volunteers, two discussed positive effects for those served by volunteers. Wheeler et 

al (1998) conducted a meta-analysis that included nine studies focusing on benefits to people 

served by volunteers; clients were older people and their families (seven studies) and children 

with disabilities (two studies). The meta-analysis found that 85% of clients who received service 

from an older volunteer did better (e.g., less isolated or depressed) than the average person in 

comparison conditions did. In addition, the meta-analysis found that clients as well as volunteers 

benefited most when the service involved face-to-face assistance.

Siette, J. et al (2017) reviewed studies on “befriending” interventions involving one-onone support from volunteers that aim to alleviate loneliness and provide social support, much 

like SCP, for individuals with physical or mental health impairments. They found moderate 

quality evidence to support the intervention – an overall improvement benefit in patient-reported 

outcomes – though a small effect size.

Findings from our review. While there were more Senior Corps studies that focused on 

volunteers than beneficiaries of services, we did find 10 studies that focused on older adult 

clients and 5 studies that looked at caregivers receiving respite services from Senior Companion 

or RSVP volunteers. SCP beneficiaries studied showed improvement in social connectedness, 

client functioning, and symptoms of depression. There were three RSVP client and caregiver 

outcomes that showed decreased caregiver depression and clients increasing access to care. 

Clients were older adults at risk of social isolation due to becoming frail or homebound. 

Like the Wheeler et al (1998) and Siette, J. et al (2017) publications, our research showed mostly 

positive results on psychosocial benefits. Two RCT/QED outcomes showed improvement in 

mental health indicators and symptoms of depression, and there were positive results for 

increased social connectedness. 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 34 of 68

Our research did not show positive physical health benefits for clients receiving 

assistance; however, this may be a reflection on the clients’ needs rather than the service itself. 

Research was mixed on clients’ improvement in functioning (i.e. activities of daily living), with 

three of the six outcomes showing benefits. The two outcomes, based on a non-experimental

with comparison design, showed positive results on clients’ increased access to care. 

For caregivers who are responsible for homebound or frail adults, respite services may 

show benefits related to reduced stress and time constraints such as improved social 

connectedness, physical and mental health. There was some data supporting psychosocial 

benefits; one RCT/QED showed some initial postintervention gains for palliative caregivers who 

reported increased meaning in life; another outcome-only study found increased social 

connectedness. Additionally, one non-experimental comparison outcome showed positive 

physical health benefits. 

Our systematic review included five studies (10 outcomes) that focused on the benefits to 

children served by Foster Grandparent volunteers (including many children with special needs 

and disabilities). Although the meta-analysis conducted by Wheeler et al (2017) did not specify 

how children with disabilities benefit from their time with volunteers, our research found 

positive results for 8 of the 10 outcomes studied, especially children’s social/emotional or 

behavioral development. However, like the client and caregiver results, most outcomes were not 

evaluated using a rigorous design; only one was studied using an RCT/QED, and two used nonexperimental with comparison group designs. 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 35 of 68

Discussion

This final section of this report synthesizes the findings of our systematic review to 

address the third research question: “What are the learnings, best practices and key resources that 

can inform the work of CNCS, its grantees, and other stakeholder groups?” We explore learnings 

and key findings from our review, identify the potential limitations of our review, and then 

conclude with recommendations for future research that may inform the work of CNCS, its 

grantees, and other key stakeholders. 

Learnings and Key Findings 

Strength of the evidence base for Senior Corps. Results suggest that national service 

with Senior Corps is associated with positive physical and psychosocial health outcomes, with 

75% of outcomes having positive results. However, the evidence base of this research could be 

strengthened since only 22% of these positive results used rigorous QED or RCT designs, and 

only 32% of these positive results were shown to be statistically significant. As such, evaluation 

studies that employ designs that address selection bias and use inferential statistics to test for 

statistical significance will be helpful in strengthening the evidence base over time. 

Impacts on volunteers and the communities they serve. Senior Corps’ impact was most 

commonly measured for the volunteer rather than the beneficiary or the community. We found 

81% of the volunteer outcomes had positive results, largely in the domains of physical health and 

life satisfaction, with the most rigorous evidence being found for physical health. There was also 

evidence of Senior Corps impacts on older adult clients (primarily among beneficiaries of SCP 

services); this evidence was also predominately based on findings from non-experimental

designs and concentrated in the area of social connectedness. There were few outcomes 

examining Senior Corps’ impacts on caregivers (N=8) or children (N=10). Finally, there were no 

studies at all examining community-level impacts of Senior Corps services. These results suggest 

the need for additional research looking at beneficiary impacts, especially among caregivers and 

children, as well as community-level impacts. These results also indicate the need to use designs 

that address selection bias. 

Strength of the evidence for SCP. There were far more outcomes looking at the impact 

of SCP compared to FGP and RSVP. Most of the SCP outcomes studied did have positive 

results, and this was particularly pronounced among volunteer outcomes, where 93% of the 

outcomes were positive and 3 positive physical health outcomes came from QED or RCT 

designs. SCP also showed evidence of potential impacts on volunteer’s psychosocial health. In 

addition to showing benefits to the volunteer, there were also promising findings suggesting 

benefits to SCP clients and caregivers as well. The majority of the studies of client impacts were 

from SCP evaluation studies, with results suggesting that SCP benefits clients’ social 

connectedness. Studies of caregiver impacts were also largely based on SCP beneficiaries, but 

none of these caregiver outcomes were examined with a QED or RCT design. 

Strength of the evidence for FGP. Outcomes from FGP were less common than SCP 

outcomes. The majority of FGP outcomes studied looked at impacts on the volunteer, and 70% 

of volunteer outcomes had positive results. The most common positive impacts were for physical 

health and life satisfaction, with the most rigorous evidence found in the physical health domain 

(3 QED/RCT results). Although there were very few outcomes examining FGP impacts on 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 36 of 68

children (N=10), those included showed evidence of K-12 success and improvement on 

development outcomes, with 80% of the results being positive. This suggests that future research 

may be warranted to further demonstrate the positive impact of FGP both on volunteers and the 

children they serve. 

Strength of the evidence for RSVP. Findings for RSVP almost exclusively looked at 

impacts on volunteers, with 76% of the outcomes having positive results. The most common 

positive impacts were in physical health and life satisfaction. There was only one outcome 

evaluated using QED/RCT design, so the additional use of these designs would strengthen the 

evidence base for RSVP. 

Findings in comparison to the literature on volunteering in older adults. The findings 

from our current review of the Senior Corps literature generally align with the broader research 

on the impact of volunteering among older adults. Like the findings in the general literature, our 

systematic review of the Senior Corps literature found physical health and psychosocial health 

benefits for the volunteers. In general, our review found relatively few outcomes looking at 

benefits to the people being served by the Senior Corps volunteers. However, the outcomes that 

were evaluated showed improvement on clients’ sense of social connectedness. There were only 

a handful of outcomes looking at impacts for SCP caregivers and children served by FGP, and

these outcomes generally aligned with the positive findings from the broader literature. Finally, 

although the larger literature suggested that volunteering may have benefits to the volunteers’ 

mortality and could facilitate intergenerational connections, these outcomes have not been 

evaluated in the Senior Corps literature. 

Limitations of the Evidence Base

This review shows positive evidence of the impact of Senior Corps programs on 

volunteers and beneficiaries. There are three main limitations to the current evidence base: the 

rigor of the designs, the timing of study data collections, and the limited availability of Senior 

Corps reports. The majority of the outcomes were evaluated using non-experimental design 

without a comparison, and only one in four outcomes were evaluated with a design that 

addressed selection bias (e.g. an RCT or QED) and had a high level of internal validity. That 

being said, the majority of findings were based on samples pulled from multiple sites and 

multiple states, so they could be considered to have a high degree of external validity or 

generalizability. Second, even though our review was based on studies from 1980 to the present, 

42% of the outcomes included in our review were collected prior to the year 2000 (more than 20 

years ago). While the core components of the Senior Corps program have not changed 

significantly between 1980 and the present, as changes to program administration and policy are 

implemented, the findings from the current evaluation studies may become less applicable. 

Ongoing rigorous evaluation is needed to determine whether and how the evidence base from the 

existing body of studies may differ under new program administration and policy. Finally, 

although our systematic review identified 67 Senior Corps evaluation reports to consider for 

inclusion (see Appendix C for a full annotated bibliography of all reports identified), we did see 

references to several other large evaluations of Senior Corps programs in the 1980s (under the 

ACTION agency) that were unable to be located. Since we could not confirm the existence of 

these reports, we could not include them in our systematic review; since we can’t determine the 

extent to which the findings of our review would or would not align with the findings of these 

lost evaluation reports, we consider this a limitation. 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 37 of 68

Directions for Future Research

The findings of our review speak to several directions of future research including the need for: 

1. More rigorous evaluation of SC programs overall 

2. Additional beneficiary studies 

3. Additional studies on the impact of RSVP 

Need for more rigorous evaluation overall. The evidence base of the impact of Senior 

Corps national service could be strengthened. There are few outcomes evaluated with QED or 

RCT designs (N=27 outcomes, 24.5%) that account for selection bias. There is a substantial 

number of non-experimental evaluations with a comparison group (N=49, 44.5%), but these 

evaluations do not address selection bias. Consequently, it is not possible to document how 

significantly different the findings are for Senior Corps participants and beneficiaries in 

comparison to similar eligible adults who do not participate in or benefit from Senior Corps. 

Furthermore, only 35% of the outcomes were tested for statistical significance, so it is not 

feasible to conduct a meta-analysis at this time (please see the meta-analysis feasibility memo for 

additional information on this). To address this, future studies will need to apply more rigorous 

designs that better address threats to internal validity and clearly demonstrate the unique impact 

of Senior Corps. 

Additionally, future studies should expand the health outcomes to go beyond self-report 

and consider how Senior Corps participation may impact objective measures such as biometric 

markers of physical health (e.g.- cholesterol levels, body mass index, HB1Ac levels, or blood 

pressure) or standardized assessments of mental health (for example the Geriatric Depression 

Scale). Longevity is another physical health measure that has been examined in the literature but 

was not included in any of the Senior Corps studies in our review. An integrated mixed methods 

approach of more rigorous quantitative and qualitative data from volunteers could more deeply 

explore the complex and multiple ways that volunteering activities promote better physical 

health. 

Need for beneficiary studies. Only 42% of the outcomes included in our review 

examined impacts on program beneficiaries, and when the beneficiary subpopulation was 

specified (clients, caregivers, children), this number was even smaller. For example, there were 

only eight outcomes looking at impacts on caregivers and ten outcomes looking at impacts on 

children. These results suggest that it would be helpful for CNCS to consider investing in 

additional beneficiary studies, particularly for SCP caregivers and children served by FGP, in 

order to determine the program’s unique impact on these populations. 

Need for more research on RSVP. Finally, our review included relatively few studies

and outcomes of RSVP (N=21, 19% of all outcomes), and almost all of these outcomes focused 

on benefits to the volunteer. Additionally, only 10% of the RSVP outcomes studied were 

examined using a QED or RCT design, so there is a need for more RSVP evaluation overall and 

particularly more evaluation of RSVP beneficiaries (at both the individual and community-level) 

and more rigorous evaluation. 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 38 of 68

References

Anderson, N.D., Damianakis, T., Kroger, E., Wagner, L.M., Dawson, D.R., Binns, M. A., 

Bernstein, S., Caspi, E., & Cook, S.L. (2014). The Benefits Associated with Volunteering 

Among Seniors: A Critical Review and Recommendations for Future Research. 

Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), pp. 1505-1533. 

Benz, J.K., Sedensky, M., Tompson, T.N., & Agiesta, J. (2013). Working longer: Older 

Americans’ attitudes on work and retirement. Chicago, Illinois: The Associated PressNORC Center for Public Affairs Research. 

Burr, J.A., Tavares, J., & Mutchler, J.E. (2010). Volunteering and Hypertension in Later Life. 

Journal of Aging and Health, 23(1), pp. 24-51. 

Carlson, M.C., Saczynski, J.S., Rebok, G.W., Seeman, T., Glass, T.A., McGill, S., Tielsch, J., 

Frick, K.D., Hill, J., & Fried, L.P. (2008). Exploring the Effects of an “Everyday” 

Activity Program on Executive Function and Memory in Older Adults: Experience 

Corps®, The Gerontologist, 48(6), pp. 793-801. 

Carlson, M.C., Erickson, K.I., Kramer, A.F., Voss, M.W., Bolea, N., Mielke, M., McGill, S., 

Rebok, G.W., Seeman, T., & Fried, L.P. (2009). Evidence for Neurocognitive Plasticity 

in At-Risk Older Adults: The Experience Corps Program. Journal of Gerontology: 

MEDICAL SCIENCES, 64 (12), pp. 1275–1282. 

Corporation for National and Community Service. (2018). Volunteering in U.S. Hits Record 

High; Worth $167 Billion [Press release]. Retrieved from 

https://www.nationalservice.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/volunteering-us-hitsrecord-high-worth-167-billion 

Fries, J.F. (1980). Aging, Natural Death and the Compression of Morbidity. New England 

Journal of Medicine, 303(3), pp. 130-135. 

Gray, R., & Kasteler, J.R. (1970). An evaluation of the effectiveness of a Foster Grandparent 

Project. Sociology & Social Research, 54, pp. 181-189. 

Greenleigh Associates. (1966). An evaluation of the Foster Grandparent Program. Report 

prepared for the Administration on Aging. Department of Health, Education, and 

Welfare. New York, NY: Greenleigh Associates.

Grimm, R., Spring, K., & Dietz, N. (2007). Health Benefits of Volunteering: A Review of Recent 

Research. Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service. 

Haber, E.A., & Short-DeGraff, M.A. (1989). Intergenerational Programming for an Increasingly 

Age-Segregated Society. Activities, Adaptation, & Aging, 14(3), pp. 35-50. 

Haski-Leventhal, D. (2009). Altruism and Volunteerism: The Perceptions of Altruism in Four 

Disciplines and their Impact on the Study of Volunteerism. Journal for the Theory of 

Social Behaviour, 39(3), pp. 271-279. 

Jenkinson, C.E., Dickens, A.P., Jones, K., Thompson-Coon, J., Taylor, R.S., Rogers, M., 

Bambra, C.L., Lang, I., & Richards, S.H. (2013). Is Volunteering a Public Health 

Intervention? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Health and Survival of 

Volunteers. BMC Public Health 2013, 13:773. 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 39 of 68

Johnson, R.W., & Schaner, S.G. (2005). Many Older Americans Engage in Caregiving 

Activities. Perspectives on Productive Aging. Retrieved from 

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/42866/311203-Many-OlderAmericans-Engage-in-Caregiving-Activities.PDF

Krause, N. (2009). Meaning in Life and Mortality. The Journals of Gerontology, 64B(4), pp. 

517-527. 

Lee, S.J., Steinman, M.A., & Tan, E.J. (2010). Volunteering, Driving Status and Morality in US 

Retirees. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 59(2), pp. 274-280. 

Li, Y., & Ferraro, K.F. (2006). Volunteering in Middle and Later Life: Is Health a Benefit, 

Barrier or Both? Social Forces, 85(1), pp. 497-519. 

Lum, T.Y. and Lightfoot, E. (2005). The Effects of Volunteering on the Physical and Mental 

Health of Older People. Research on Aging, 27(31), pp. 31-55. 

Luoh, M. and Herzog, A.R. (2002). Individual Consequences of Volunteer and Paid Work in Old 

Age: Health and Mortality. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(4), pp. 490-509. 

Mather, M., Jacobsen, L.A., and Pollard, K.M. (2015). Aging in the United States, Population 

Bulletin, 70(2), pp. 1-21. Retrieved from: https://www.prb.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/aging-us-population-bulletin-1.pdf

Morrow-Howell, N. (2010). Volunteering in Later Life: Research Frontiers. The Journals of 

Gerontology, 65B(4), pp. 461-469. 

Musick, M.A., & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A Social Profile. Bloomington, Indianapolis: 

Indiana University Press. 

Musick, M.A., Herzog, A.R., & House, J.S. (1999). Volunteering and Mortality Among Other 

Adults: Findings from a National Sample. The Journals of Gerontology, 54B(3), pp. 

S173-S180. 

Okun, M.A., Yeung, E.W., & Brown, S. (2013). Volunteering by Older Adults and Risk 

Mortality: A Meta-Analysis. Psychology and Aging, 28(2), pp. 564-577. 

Onyx, J., & Warburton, J. (2003). Volunteering and health among older people: A review. 

Australian Journal on Ageing, 22(2), pp. 65-69.

Piliavin, J.A., & Siegl, E. (2007). Health Benefits of Volunteering in the Wisconsin Longitudinal 

Study. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48(4), pp. 450-464. 

Population Reference Bureau. (2011). Volunteering and Health for Aging Populations. Today’s 

Research on Aging, 21, pp. 1-7. Retrieved from

https://assets.prb.org/pdf11/TodaysResearchAging21.pdf

Saltz, R. (1968). Foster-grandparents and institutionalized young children: two years of a fostergrandparent program. Report prepared for the Administration on Aging. Department of 

Health, Education, and Welfare. Detroit, Michigan: Merrill Palmer Institute.

Saltz, R. (1971). Aging Persons as Child-care Workers in a Foster-Grandparent Program: 

Psychosocial effects and work performance. The International Journal of Aging and 

Human Development, 2(4), pp. 314-340. 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 40 of 68

Saltz, R. (1973). Effects of Part-time "Mothering" on IQ and SQ of Young Institutionalized 

Children. Child Development, 44(1), pp. 166-170. 

Siette, J., Cassidy, M., & Priebe, S. (2017). Effectiveness of befriending interventions: A 

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMJ Open, 7(4), pp. 1-12. 

Su, Y. (2017). Impacts of Intergenerational Programs on Older Adults’ Psychological WellBeing: A Meta-Analysis (MS). Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 

Takacs, K.B. (1970). Foster grandparents: A unique contribution to the mentally retarded (MS). 

University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 

Tan, E.J., Xue, Q., Li, T. Carlson, M.C., & Fried, L.P. (2006). Volunteering: A Physical Activity 

Intervention for Older Adults—The Experience Corps Program in Baltimore, Journal of 

Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 83(5), pp. 954-969. 

U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). Older People Projected to Outnumber Children for First Time in 

U.S. History [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2018/cb18-41-population-projections.html

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). Older workers: Labor force trends and career options. 

Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2017/article/older-workers.htm 

Von Bonsdorff, M. B. & Rantanen, T. (2011). Benefits of formal voluntary work among older 

people. A review. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 23(3), pp. 162-169. 

Wheeler, J.A., Gorey, K.M., & Greenblatt, B. (1998). The Beneficial Effects of Volunteering for 

Older Volunteers and the People They Serve: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of 

Aging & Human Development, 47(1), pp. 69-79. 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 41 of 68

Appendix A: Senior Corps Timeline
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 42 of 68

Appendix B. Study Review Form 

Section I. Study Characteristics 

I.A. Report Information 

Report Title: __

Date published: (Month/Year): _____ 

Report Source: ____ 

Data collection date: (free response) ____ 

The date range should include baseline through final data collection. It is not necessary to 

describe the range for different waves of data collection.

Author/Evaluator Name: ____ 

Author/Evaluator Type: 

 Internal evaluator 

 External evaluator 

 Unclear

Study description (or abstract if available): (free response)

Please paste in the study abstract here or include a brief (2-3 sentence) description of the study 

design and key findings if an abstract is not available. 

I.B. Program Information 

Grantee Name: (free response) _________ 

Name of legal applicant or other organizational entity that holds the current or most recent

CNCS grant for the project or program (if known)

Program Name: (free response) __________

Name of the program being evaluated (e.g.- Foster Grandparents of Washington, DC)

CNCS Focus Area(s): (select all that apply)

 Capacity Building/Non-profit organizational capacity

 Disaster Services

 Economic Opportunity 

 Education 

 Environmental Stewardship 

 Healthy Futures 

 Veterans and Military Families

 Other community priorities (specify under ‘CNCS Focus Area Other’): ___

Community Need: (free response)

Brief description of community need or challenge that the evaluated intervention seeks 

to address (1-2 sentences).
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 43 of 68

Intervention name and description: (free response)

Please specify the name of the specific program model or intervention (e.g.- America Reads) 

being implemented and provide a brief (1-2 sentence) description of the intervention.

Intervention Topic Area: (select all that apply)

The intervention refers to what programs are doing and not just what they are evaluating. 

 Access to health care

 After school program

 At-risk ecosystems

 Awareness and stewardship

 College readiness

 Creating green spaces

 Employability

 Energy efficiency

 Financial education or financial management counseling 

 Financial literacy

 Housing 

 Independent Living 

 K-12 Success

 Legal assistance for veterans

 Mentoring/tutoring 

 Non-profit organizational capacity 

 Obesity and food 

 Other: ESL education

 Participation in a volunteer program

 Post-High School Education Support 

 Respite Care

 School readiness 

 Summer programs

 Supportive family environments

 Teacher preparation or development

Other (free response): _________

Target Population/Community: (select all that apply) 

Target population refers to the intervention target as well as the subjects of the evaluation. 

 Opportunity youth 

 Non-profits 

 Veterans and Military Families

 Low-income communities

 Rural communities

 Suburban communities 

 Urban communities 

 Schools (children in schools) 

 Senior volunteers 

 Tribes

 Home-bound adults

 Other (please specify in ‘Target Population Other’): __________________
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 44 of 68

I.C. Study Design

Type of Evaluation (select all that apply)

 Cost-Benefit or Cost Effectiveness

 Feasibility - Is it feasible to do an evaluation of this in the future? 

o Feasibility studies are designed to provide information on what types of evaluation 

strategies might work well with the program as it currently operates and any barriers that 

have been found that might need to be overcome for the impact evaluation to be 

conducted, such as time, human resources, and/or budget constraints.

 Implementation (Process) – What is my program about? How does my program work? Is it 

working in the way that I think it should? 

o Assesses the extent to which the program or intervention was implemented as 

intended. The intention usually is expressed through the program theory and logic 

model. Can include evaluation of the following:

 Fidelity to program design (or Adherence) – the extent to which program 

components are delivered as prescribed by the model (the proportion of program 

components delivered compared to the number prescribed, e.g.- only 14 of the 28 

key components of the program were administered)

 Program exposure (or dosage) – the amount of program delivered in relation to 

the amount prescribed by the program model (e.g.- the number of sessions or 

contacts, attendance, and the frequency and duration of sessions) 

 Program participant responsiveness – the manner in which participants react to 

or engage in a program (e.g.- level of interest in the program, perceptions of the 

relevance and usefulness of a program, level of engagement, enthusiasm, and 

willingness to engage in discussion or activities)

 Program differentiation – the degree to which the critical components of a 

program are distinguishable from each other and from other programs. Can also 

refer to the process of identifying the critical components of a program that are 

essential for producing positive outcomes (i.e., component analysis). 

 Participant satisfaction

 Quality of delivery – the manner in which a program is delivered (e.g.- provider 

preparedness, use of relevant examples, enthusiasm. Interaction style, 

respectfulness, confidence, and ability to respond to questions and communicate 

clearly)

o Outputs only (how many served) 

 Outcomes – Does my program work? 

o Assesses the extent to which the program achieved its outcome-oriented 

objectives.

o Identifies the results or effects of a program 

o Measures program beneficiaries’ change in knowledge, attitude(s), and/or behaviors that 

result from a program (e.g.- Senior’s life satisfaction, improvements over time without an 

external comparison group) 

 Impact – Does my program work better than nothing or the usual alternative? What is the valueadded of your program? 

o This is a study which includes a comparison group or other counterfactual (e.g., 

RCT/QED). 

o An impact evaluation is designed to determine if the outcomes observed among program 

participants are due to having received program services/ the intervention. Compares 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 45 of 68

findings in the treatment group to what would have happened in the absence of the 

program (which usually involves a counterfactual)/ 

 Review or Meta-Analysis

A quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar studies. 

 Other: ___

Section II. Methodological Quality

II.A. Study Participant Characteristics

Participants – total N: (free response) __ 

Describe participant(s) N(s), including comparison groups if applicable. 

Gender (if a primary focus of the intervention):

 Male

 Female

 Not a primary focus of the intervention

Race / Ethnicity (select all that apply and that comprise at least 25% of the sample):

 American Indian or Alaska Native

 Asian

 Black or African American

 Hispanic or Latino

 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

 White

Ages of Beneficiaries Studied (select all apply):

 No beneficiaries studied

 0-5 (Early childhood) 

 6-12 (Childhood) 

 13-17 (Adolescent) 

 18-25 (Young adult)

 26-55 (Adult)

 55+ (Older adult) 

Study Location(s): (free response) ___________________ List study locations (city and state).

II.B. Data Collection and Analysis Methods 

Data Type (select all that apply):

 Administrative

 Self-report survey 

 Third party survey or observation 

 Interview

 Focus group 

 Case study

 Other: __
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 46 of 68

Analysis Methods (select all that apply):

 Descriptive statistics: Mean, Median, Mode, and/or Standard Deviations 

 Inferential statistics: Associations/correlations (Pearson’s R, Spearman’s Rho)

 Inferential statistics: Differences between two groups on an interval-ratio or ordinal variable (Ttests, Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxin)

 Inferential statistics: Differences between two groups on a categorical variable (Chi-squared) 

 Inferential statistics: Differences between multiple groups (ANOVA, ANCOVA, MANOVA)

 Inferential statistics: Regression 

 Other (please specify): ________________ 

II.C. Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned (Free response)

Key lessons learned from the evaluation, intervention modifications to improve effectiveness, 

inform future evaluations, and use findings for continuous program improvement. In particular, 

this section will highlight any learnings, best practices, and resources that might inform the work 

of CNCS, its grantees, or other stakeholder groups. 

Section III. Extraction of Study Results - Outcomes 

Add outcomes in separate Forms. If including more than four outcomes, they should be 

confirmatory. 

Study: ___ (Pull from dropdown)

Program Type: 

 Experience Corps 

 Foster Grandparent Program 

 Senior Companion Program 

 RSVP

Participants Type: 

 Program participants

 Program beneficiaries 

Study Participant

 Caregiver

 Client

 Child

 Volunteer 

 Other
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 47 of 68

Outcomes (select all that apply)

 Access to care

 Aging in place - functioning, ADL 

 Aging in place - Other

 Aging in place - physical health

 Aging in place - psycho-social health, life satisfaction

 Aging in place - psycho-social health, self-efficacy

 Aging in place - psycho-social health, social isolation and loneliness, social well-being 

 Aging in place - psycho-social health, symptoms of depression, mental health

 Awareness of environmental issues

 Benefit to national service member of volunteer - psycho-social health, self-efficacy

 Benefit to national service member or volunteer - other (specify below)

 Benefit to national service member or volunteer - physical health

 Benefit to national service member or volunteer - psycho-social health, life satisfaction

 Benefit to national service member or volunteer - psycho-social health, social isolation and 

loneliness

 Benefit to national service member or volunteer - psycho-social health, symptoms of depression 

 Disaster assistance provided

 Energy efficiency

 Financial literacy

 Green jobs

 Housing 

 Improving CNCS 

 K-12 success

 Non-profit development 

 Obesity and food 

 Other

 Post-secondary education support 

 School readiness (Pre-K)

 Unemployment

 Veterans and military families served

 Other (specify under Other Outcome: __) 

Results summary: (Free response) __ 

1-2 sentence summary of key findings for each outcome including group means, standard 

deviations, and exact p-values for any inferential results. Refer to a table in the report if needed.

Statistical significance of findings (select one):

 No statistically significant findings 

 Statistical significance not noted - negative 

 Statistical significance not noted - null

 Statistical significance not noted - positive

 Statistically significant negative findings (p<.01) 

 Statistically significant negative findings (p<.05) 

 Statistically significant negative findings (p<.10) 

 Statistically significant positive findings (p<.001)

 Statistically significant positive findings (p<.01)

 Statistically significant positive findings (p<.05)

 Statistically significant positive findings (p<.10) 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 48 of 68

Effect sizes (if noted): (Free response) __ 

Provide the name of the effect size statistic being reported and result observed (e.g. – Cohen’s d 

= 0.02) if provided.

Effect size type

 Cohen’s d 

 Hedges’ g 

 Pearson r (correlation coefficient)

 Cohen’s f-squared 

 r-squared

 Partial eta-squared 

 Cohen’s f 

 Eta-squared 

 Cramer’s V

 Odds Ratio 

Study Design (select all that apply—see chart on next page for more detailed information) 

 Experimental (RCT)

 Non-experimental: Comparison group - dropouts 

 Non-experimental: Comparison group - national 

 Non-experimental: Comparison group - similar program

 Non-experimental: Comparison group -other

 Non-experimental: Comparison group -wait list

 Non-experimental: Post-test (outcome) only

 Non-experimental: Single group - Pre-test/multiple post-tests (longitudinal, time series)

 Non-experimental: Single group - Pre-test/post-test only

 Other

 QED: Differences in Differences (DID)

 QED: Groups formed by cutoff score, Regression discontinuity design (RDD) 

 QED: Groups formed by matching - non PSM 

 QED: Groups formed by matching - propensity score matching or weighting 

 QED: Interrupted time series (ITS) with comparison group 

 QED: Single group interrupted time series (ITS)

 Other (specify under Study Design Other): ___ 

Study Generalizability (select all that apply) 

 Conducted in multiple sites 

 Conducted in multiple states 

 Conducted with multiple populations 
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 49 of 68

Study Design Descriptions

Category Design type Description

Experimental

– Impact 

Randomized controlled 

trial (RCT)

An experimental design where participants are randomly assigned to 

receive or not receive an intervention. It typically provides the 

strongest level of evidence for causality

QuasiExperimental

- Impact

Groups formed by 

matching - PSM

Design in which a comparison group is formed by matching study 

participants, or clusters of study participants, on a set of preintervention measures of the program outcome (i.e., pre-test scores for 

an academic program, pre-participation employment status for a jobrelated program) and/or pre-intervention measures that are likely 

correlated with the program outcome, and/or other characteristics using 

propensity score matching (nearest neighbor, radius, etc.) or weighting 

techniques

Groups formed by 

matching – non-PSM

Design in which a comparison group is formed by matching study 

participants, or clusters of study participants, on a set of preintervention measures of the program outcome (i.e., pre-test scores for 

an academic program, pre-participation employment status for a jobrelated program) and/or pre-intervention measures that are likely 

correlated with the program outcome, and/or other characteristics using 

some other method than propensity score matching (e.g.- exact 

matching).

Groups formed by 

cutoff score

(also known as 

regression 

discontinuity design)

Design in which a comparison group is formed based on a well-defined 

and quantifiable cutoff score; differences in outcomes for participants 

just above and just below the cutoff score can be attributed, with some 

reservations, to program participation

Single group -

interrupted time series

Design in which multiple measures are taken both before and after an 

intervention

Interrupted time series 

with comparison group

Design in which several waves of observation in both treatment and 

comparison groups occur before and after an intervention

Difference in 

differences

Design that calculates the effect of a treatment on an outcome by 

comparing the average change over time in the outcome variable for 

the treatment group, compared to the average change over time for the 

control group. Although it is intended to mitigate the effects of 

extraneous factors and selection bias, depending on how the treatment 

group is chosen, this method may still be subject to certain biases (e.g., 

mean regression, reverse causality and omitted variable bias). In 

contrast to a time-series estimate of the treatment effect on subjects 

(which analyzes differences over time) or a cross-section estimate of 

the treatment effect (which measures the difference between treatment 

and control groups), difference in differences uses panel data to 

measure the differences, between the treatment and control group, of 

the changes in the outcome variable that occur over time.

NonexperimentalComparison group –

Impact

Design in which a comparison group is used, but is not formed by 

matching or cutoff scores; these have additional limits on validity and 

generalizability, as there may be many explanations for why outcomes 

for comparison group members differ from intervention recipients

Single group–pretest/post-test only - 

Outcome

Design in which there is a single pre-test and a post-test, or a single

pre-test and multiple post-tests (reflexive control design)
Senior Corps Research Review and Synthesis 

Page 50 of 68

Category Design type Description

Single group – Pretest/multiple post-tests 

(longitudinal, time 

series) - outcome

Design in which there is a single pre-test and multiple post-tests 

measuring the same individual over time

Single group–outcome 

(post-test) only - 

outcome

Outcomes are measured at only one time point for one or more 

programs, with no comparisons

Other Includes implementation studies, feasibility studies, purely qualitative 

studies, and in-depth case studies without any quantitative information 

about outcomes
Page 51 of 68

Appendix C: Annotated Bibliography of Senior Corps Reports Considered for Review

The following table includes citations for all Senior Corps reports that we were able to locate and consider for inclusion in our 

review. Please note that a more detailed and searchable version of this bibliography (including abstracts) is available in a separate 

Excel document. Additionally, an Access database containing detailed information (as specified in Appendix B) on each of the studies 

ultimately included in the systematic review (indicated in shaded rows below) is also available. 

Citation 

(Shaded rows are impact and outcome studies selected 

for inclusion in the review)

RSVP SCP FGP Type of Evaluation 

(Select all: Impact, 

implementation, 

outcomes)

Study Design 

(RCT, QED, 

etc.)

Included in 

review? (Y/N) 

If no, reason 

for exclusion? 

Greenleigh Associates. (1966). An evaluation of the 

Foster Grandparent Program. Report prepared for the 

Administration on Aging. Department of Health, 

Education, and Welfare. New York, NY: Greenleigh 

Associates. 

X Implementation/ 

Outcome

Nonexperimental:

Unmatched 

comparison 

group 

N - Too old, 

prior to 1980 

Saltz, R. (1967). Evaluation of a foster-grandparent 

program findings of the foster-grandparent research 

project. Report prepared for the U.S Office of Economic 

Opportunity. 

X Impact Nonexperimental: 

Unmatched 

comparison 

group 

N - Too old, 

prior to 1980 

Saltz, R. (1968). Foster-grandparents and 

institutionalized young children: two years of a fostergrandparent program. Report prepared for the 

Administration on Aging. Department of Health, 

Education, and Welfare. Detroit, Michigan: Merrill 

Palmer Institute.

X Implementation/ 

Outcome

Nonexperimental: 

Unmatched 

comparison 

group 

N - Too old, 

prior to 1980 

Nash, B. (1968). Foster Grandparents in Child-care 

settings. Report prepared for the Administration on Aging. 

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. 

X Implementation N - Too old, 

prior to 1980 
Page 52 of 68

Citation 

(Shaded rows are impact and outcome studies selected 

for inclusion in the review)

RSVP SCP FGP Type of Evaluation 

(Select all: Impact, 

implementation, 

outcomes)

Study Design 

(RCT, QED, 

etc.)

Included in 

review? (Y/N) 

If no, reason 

for exclusion? 

Gray, R., & Kasteler, J.R. (1970). An evaluation of the 

effectiveness of a Foster Grandparent Project. Sociology 

& Social Research, 54, pp. 181-189. 

X Impact NonexperimentalComparison 

group 

N - Too old, 

prior to 1980 

Takacs, K.B. (1970). Foster grandparents: A unique 

contribution to the mentally retarded (MS). University of 

Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 

X Outcome NonexperimentalSingle group - 

outcome (pretest/post-test)

N - Too old, 

prior to 1980 

Saltz, R. (1971). Aging Persons as Child-care Workers in 

a Foster-Grandparent Program: Psychosocial effects and 

work performance. The International Journal of Aging 

and Human Development, 2(4), pp. 314-340. 

X Impact QED - groups 

formed by 

matching - nonPSM

N - Too old, 

prior to 1980 

Saltz, R. (1973). Effects of Part-time "Mothering" on IQ 

and SQ of Young Institutionalized Children. Report 

prepared for U.S Office of Economic Opportunity. 

X Impact NonexperimentalComparison 

group 

N - Too old, 

prior to 1980 

Kornblum, S.F. (1981). Impact of a Volunteer Service 

Role Upon Aged People (PhD). Bryan Mawr College, 

Bryan Mawr, Pennsylvania. 

X Impact NonexperimentalComparison 

group 

Y 

Ziegler, S., & King, J. (1982). Evaluating the Observable 

Effects of Foster Grandparents on Hospitalized Children.

Public Health Reports, 97(6), pp. 550-557. 

X Impact NonexperimentalComparison 

group 

Y 
Page 53 of 68

Citation 

(Shaded rows are impact and outcome studies selected 

for inclusion in the review)

RSVP SCP FGP Type of Evaluation 

(Select all: Impact, 

implementation, 

outcomes)

Study Design 

(RCT, QED, 

etc.)

Included in 

review? (Y/N) 

If no, reason 

for exclusion? 

Trammel-Seck, E. (1983). National Intergenerational 

Research and Dissemination Project: Final Report on 

Opportunities for Older Workers in the Children's 

Preschool Network. Report prepared for the 

Administration on Aging and Administration for Children, 

Youth, and Families. 

X X Implementation Implementation: 

Case studies, 

surveys, 

interviews

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Fengler, A.P. (1984). Life Satisfaction of Subpopulation of 

Elderly: The Comparative Effects of Volunteerism, 

Employment, and Meal Site Participation. Report 

prepared for AARP Andrus Foundation. Thousand Oaks, 

California: Sage Publications, Inc. 

X Impact NonexperimentalComparison 

group 

Y 

Litigation Support Services. (1984). Impact evaluation of 

the foster grandparent program on the foster 

grandparents: Final report. Report prepared for 

ACTION. Evaluation Division. Washington, DC: 

ACTION. 

X Impact NonexperimentalComparison 

group 

Y 

Arella, L.R. (1984). The Green County RSVP: A case 

study. Report prepared for ACTION. 

X Implementation Implementation: 

case study, 

Impact: Nonmatched 

comparison 

group 

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

ACTION. (1984). The Effect of Foster Grandparents on 

Juvenile Offenders in Georgia Youth Development 

Centers. Washington, DC: ACTION. 

X Impact NonexperimentalComparison 

group 

Y 
Page 54 of 68

Citation 

(Shaded rows are impact and outcome studies selected 

for inclusion in the review)

RSVP SCP FGP Type of Evaluation 

(Select all: Impact, 

implementation, 

outcomes)

Study Design 

(RCT, QED, 

etc.)

Included in 

review? (Y/N) 

If no, reason 

for exclusion? 

Brummel, S. W. (1984). Senior Companions: An 

unrecognized resource for long term care. Report 

prepared for New York: Pride Institute. 

X Implementation N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Booz, Allen, & Hamilton Inc. (1985). National Retired 

Senior Volunteer Program Participant Impact Evaluation: 

Final report. Report prepared for ACTION. Office of 

Compliance/Evaluation Division. Washington, DC: 

ACTION. 

X Impact QED: Groups 

formed by 

matching - nonPSM 

(longitudinal) 

Y 

SRA Technologies. (1985). Senior Companion Program 

impact evaluation: Final report. Report prepared for 

ACTION. Evaluation Division. Washington, DC: 

ACTION.

X Impact Nonexperimental: 

comparison 

group- Impact

Y 

Keller, K.L., Flattend, E.K., & Wilhite, B.C. (1988). 

Friendly Visiting as a Means of Informing Homebound 

Senior Citizens of Health-Related Community Services.

Report prepared for the Administration on Aging and 

Office of Human Development Services. Department of 

Health, Education, and Welfare. New York, New York: 

Human Sciences Press.

X Impact RCT Y 

Saltz, R. (1989). Research Evaluation of Foster 

Grandparent Program. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The 

Haworth Press, Inc. 

X Impact Pretest/multiple 

post-tests 

(longitudinal) 

with 

comparison 

group 

Y 
Page 55 of 68

Citation 

(Shaded rows are impact and outcome studies selected 

for inclusion in the review)

RSVP SCP FGP Type of Evaluation 

(Select all: Impact, 

implementation, 

outcomes)

Study Design 

(RCT, QED, 

etc.)

Included in 

review? (Y/N) 

If no, reason 

for exclusion? 

ACTION Office of Policy and Planning: Evaluation 

Division. (1990). Volunteers as Care Givers: ACTION's 

National Long-term Care Demonstration Research 

Project - Volume III Final Impact Evaluation Report.

Washington, DC: ACTION.

X Impact NonexperimentalComparison 

group 

Y 

Cook, A.F. (1991). The Foster Grandparent Program: An 

analysis of changing trends. Graduate Student Theses, 

Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 8908. 

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/8908 

X Implementation Implementation: 

Cross-sectional 

design looking 

at program 

participant 

characteristics 

over time, 

longitudinal 

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

The Alzheimer's Association Patient and Family Services. 

(1991) Senior Companion Program Alzheimer's 

Association In-home Respite Care Demonstration. Report 

prepared for ACTION. Chicago, Illinois: Alzheimer's 

Disease and Related Disorders Association, Inc.

X Implementation/

Outcome

Nonexperimental: 

Single group - 

post-test 

(outcome) 

Y 

Lee, C.F., & Gray, L.C. (1992). Respite service to family 

caregivers by the senior companion program: an urbanrural comparison. Report prepared for ACTION. 

X Implementation Implementation: 

Surveys 

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Research Triangle Institute [RTI]. (1992). Retired Senior 

Volunteer Program activities in alcohol and drug abuse 

prevention and education. Report prepared for ACTION. 

X Implementation Implementation: 

Surveys, site 

visits

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Freedman, M. (1994). Seniors in National and Community 

Service: A Report prepared for the Commonwealth Fund's 

Americans over 55 at Work Program. 

X X X Review/theory 

paper/implementation

N - 

Implementation 

only study (TP)
Page 56 of 68

Citation 

(Shaded rows are impact and outcome studies selected 

for inclusion in the review)

RSVP SCP FGP Type of Evaluation 

(Select all: Impact, 

implementation, 

outcomes)

Study Design 

(RCT, QED, 

etc.)

Included in 

review? (Y/N) 

If no, reason 

for exclusion? 

Griffith, J.D., Powers, L.L., Rist, L.M., & Matheson, J.L. 

(1994). Evaluation of the SCP/AoA Joint Initiative for the 

Vulnerable Elderly Program. Report prepared for the 

Corporation for National and Community Service. Office 

of Evaluation and Policy Coordination. Washington, DC: 

Corporation for National and Community Service. 

X Implementation/

Outcome

Nonexperimental: 

outcome only

Y 

ACTION. (1994). An evaluation report on the Foster 

Grandparent Program. Report prepared for the 

Corporation for National and Community Service. 

Washington, DC: ACTION. 

X Implementation/

Outcome

Nonexperimental: 

Single Groupoutcome (post 

test)

Y 

Carrocio, J., Marks, L.N., Nippes, J.K., Pryor, J. (1996). A 

senior volunteer/home care agency national 

collaboration: assessment of the partnership. Report 

prepared for 

X Implementation Implementation: 

case studies

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Strang, W., Von Glatz, A., & Stolzberg, S. (1997). Retired 

and Senior Volunteer Program, Summer Evaluation 

Report. Report prepared for the Corporation for National 

Service. 

X Implementation Implementation: 

Surveys 

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Achatz, M. (1998). Effective practices of foster 

grandparents in Head Start Centers: Benefits for children, 

classrooms, and centers. Report prepared for the 

Corporation for National and Community Service. 

Washington, DC: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

X Implementation/

Outcome

Implementation: 

case studies, 

Nonexperimental: 

outcome only

N - 

Implementation 

only study 
Page 57 of 68

Citation 

(Shaded rows are impact and outcome studies selected 

for inclusion in the review)

RSVP SCP FGP Type of Evaluation 

(Select all: Impact, 

implementation, 

outcomes)

Study Design 

(RCT, QED, 

etc.)

Included in 

review? (Y/N) 

If no, reason 

for exclusion? 

Aguirre International. (1999). Retired and Senior 

Volunteer Program Accomplishment Report. Report 

prepared for the Corporation for National Service. 

X Other: Outputs Other: Outputs 

– Surveys 

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Aguirre International. (1999). Senior Companion Program 

Accomplishment Report. Report prepared for the 

Corporation for National Service. 

X Other: Outputs Other: Outputs 

– Surveys 

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Aguirre International. (1999). Foster Grandparent 

Program Accomplishment Report. Report prepared for the 

Corporation for National Service. 

X Other: Outputs Other: Outputs 

– Surveys 

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Thomas, C., & Silva, P. (2002). Senior Corps Futures 

Study Final Report. Report prepared for the Corporation 

for National and Community Service. 

X X X Implementation Implementation: 

Interviews, 

focus groups 

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

McGowan, T. G. (2002). The National Study of Foster 

Grandparent Program Directors: Identifying Effective 

Practices, Project Barriers and Needs. Report prepared 

for the National Association of Foster Grandparent 

Program Directors. 

X Implementation Implementation: 

Survey, 

interviews, 

focus groups 

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Dulin, P.L., & Hill, R.D. (2003). Relationships between 

Altruistic Activity and Positive and Negative Affect 

among Low-Income Older Adult Service Providers. Aging 

& Mental Health, July 2003. 7(4): 294-299. 

X X Outcome Nonexperimental: 

Single group - 

post-test 

(outcome) 

N - Not an 

evaluation

Rook, K.S., & Sorkin, D.H. (2003). Fostering social ties 

through a volunteer role Implications for older-adults' 

psychological health. Report prepared for the National 

X Impact Experimental 

(RCT)

Y 
Page 58 of 68

Citation 

(Shaded rows are impact and outcome studies selected 

for inclusion in the review)

RSVP SCP FGP Type of Evaluation 

(Select all: Impact, 

implementation, 

outcomes)

Study Design 

(RCT, QED, 

etc.)

Included in 

review? (Y/N) 

If no, reason 

for exclusion? 

Institute on Aging. Amityville, New York: Baywood 

Publishing Co., Inc. 

RTI International. (2003). Final Report of Senior 

Companion Quality of Care Evaluation. Report prepared 

for the Corporation for National and Community Service. 

Washington, DC: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

Y Implementation/

Outcome (station 

study); Impact (client 

and family member 

studies)

Nonexperimental: 

Single grouppost-test 

(outcome) 

(station study); 

QED: Groups 

formed by 

matching - nonPSM (client and 

family member 

studies)

Y 

ETR Associates. (2003). Profile of Senior Corps FaithBased Partnerships. Report prepared for Corporation for 

National and Community Service. 

X X X Descriptive or 

Implementation

Implementation: 

survey, 

interviews

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Westat. (2005). Technical Report of the Foster 

Grandparent Mentoring Service Recipient Study. Report 

prepared for the Corporate for National and Community 

Service. Washington, DC: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

X Implementation/

Outcome

Implementation: 

Interviews. 

Outcome: Nonexperimental: 

Single group - 

post-test 

(outcome) 

Y 
Page 59 of 68

Citation 

(Shaded rows are impact and outcome studies selected 

for inclusion in the review)

RSVP SCP FGP Type of Evaluation 

(Select all: Impact, 

implementation, 

outcomes)

Study Design 

(RCT, QED, 

etc.)

Included in 

review? (Y/N) 

If no, reason 

for exclusion? 

Westat. (2005). DRAFT: Public Report on the Results of 

the 2005 Independent Living Survey of the Senior 

Companion Program. Report prepared for the Corporate 

for National and Community Service. Washington, DC: 

Corporation for National and Community Service. 

X Outcome Nonexperimental: 

Single group - 

post-test 

(outcome) 

Y 

Pigatti, L.A. (2005). Retired Senior Volunteers AARP Tax 

Aide Program evaluation, Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 

29:3, 21-31, DOI: 10.1300/J016v29n03_02. 

X Implementation Implementation: 

interviews

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Peacock, J.R., & O'Quin, J. (2006). Higher Education and 

Foster Grandparent Programs: Exploring Mutual Benefits. 

X Other: theory N - 

Implementation 

only study 

(Theory Paper) 

Peacock, J.R., & Flythe, M.K., & Jones, K. (2006) A 

Service-learning collaboration: A graduate gerontology 

program and a foster grandparent program, Educational 

Gerontology, 32: 335–349, DOI: 

10.1080/03601270600564096. 

X Other: theory N - 

Implementation 

only study 

(Theory Paper) 

Butler, S. S. (2006). Evaluating the Senior Companion 

Program: A Mixed-Method Approach. Journal of 

Gerontological Social Work, 47:1-2, 45-70, DOI: 

10.1300/J083v47n01_05. 

X Outcome Nonexperimental: 

Single group - 

post-test 

(outcome) 

Y 

Butler, S. S., MSW, & Eckart, D. (2007). Civic 

Engagement Among Older Adults in a Rural Community, 

Journal of Community Practice, 15:3, 77-98, DOI: 

10.1300/J125v15n03_05. 

X Implementation Implementation: 

case studies

N - 

Implementation 

only study 
Page 60 of 68

Citation 

(Shaded rows are impact and outcome studies selected 

for inclusion in the review)

RSVP SCP FGP Type of Evaluation 

(Select all: Impact, 

implementation, 

outcomes)

Study Design 

(RCT, QED, 

etc.)

Included in 

review? (Y/N) 

If no, reason 

for exclusion? 

Shelton, L., Dietz, N., Nicholas, B., & Jennings, S. (2008). 

Senior Corps Reports. Report prepared for the 

Corporation for National and Community Services. 

Washington, DC: Corporation for National and 

Community Services. 

X X X Implementation/

Outcome

Outcome: Nonexperimental - 

single group -

outcome (posttest). 

Implementation: 

Surveys 

Y 

Evans, G., & Carnegie, L. (2009). New York City's Foster 

Grandparent Program: A Model of Older Volunteer 

Management. Report prepared for New York: Springer 

Publishing Company. 

X Implementation Implementation: 

case study or 

descriptive

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Tan, E., Harding, V., Spera, C., & DeGraff, K.M. (2012). 

Senior Corps -- RSVP: Disaster Services and Community 

Resilience During 2012 Colorado Wildfires, Public Policy 

& Aging Report, 2016, Vol. 00, No. 00, 1–4 

doi:10.1093/ppar/prw011. 

X Implementation Implementation: 

case study or 

descriptive

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Van Orden, K.A., Stone, D.M., Rowe, J., McIntosh, W.L., 

Podgorski, C., & Conwell, Y. (2013). The Senior 

Connection: Design and rationale of a randomized trial of 

peer companionship to reduce suicide risk in later life, 

Contemporary Clinical Trials, 117-126, DOI: 

10.1016/j.cct.2013.03.003. 

X Impact RCT N – Not an 

evaluation --

Design report 

with no findings 

Nerino, A. (2013). Senior Corps RSVP 2013 GARP: 

Exploring Why Some Organizations Did Not Apply. 

Report prepared for the Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

X Implementation Implementation: 

survey 

N - 

Implementation 

only study 
Page 61 of 68

Citation 

(Shaded rows are impact and outcome studies selected 

for inclusion in the review)

RSVP SCP FGP Type of Evaluation 

(Select all: Impact, 

implementation, 

outcomes)

Study Design 

(RCT, QED, 

etc.)

Included in 

review? (Y/N) 

If no, reason 

for exclusion? 

McDonald, T.W., Chown, E.L., Tabb, J.E., Schaeffer, 

A.K., & Howard, E.K.M. (2013). The Impact of 

Volunteering on Seniors' Health and Quality of Life: An 

Assessment of the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program. 

Psychology, 4, 283-290. DOI: 

10.4236/psych.2013.43A042. 

X Outcome Nonexperimental: 

Single group - 

post-test 

(outcome) 

Y 

Pratt, D., Lovegrove, P., Birmingham, C., Lombas, L., 

Vicinanza, N., Georges, A., & Gabbard, S. (2014). SCP 

Independent Living Performance Measurement Survey: 

Process, Rationale, Results, and Recommendations. 

Report prepared for the Corporation for National and 

Community Service. North Bethesda, MD: JBS 

International, Inc. 

X Outcome Nonexperimental: 

Single group - 

post-test 

(outcome) 

Y 

Allen, R. S., (2014). Can Senior Volunteers Deliver 

Reminiscence and Creative Activity Interventions? 

Results of the Legacy Intervention Family Enactment 

Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Pain and 

Symptom Management, 48, 590-601. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.11.012. 

X Impact RCT Y 

Georges, A., Gabbard, S., & Kranjac, A.W. (2015). First 

Report of the National Evaluation of RSVP. Report 

prepared for the Corporation for National and 

Community Service. North Bethesda, MD: JBS 

International, Inc. 

X Outcome Nonexperimental: 

Single group - 

post-test 

(outcome) 

N - 

Implementation 

only study 
Page 62 of 68

Citation 

(Shaded rows are impact and outcome studies selected 

for inclusion in the review)

RSVP SCP FGP Type of Evaluation 

(Select all: Impact, 

implementation, 

outcomes)

Study Design 

(RCT, QED, 

etc.)

Included in 

review? (Y/N) 

If no, reason 

for exclusion? 

Ulsperger, J. S., McElroy, J., Robertson, H., & Ulsperger, 

K. (2015). Senior Companion Program Volunteers: 

Exploring Experiences, Transformative Rituals, and 

Recruitment/Retention Issues. The Qualitative Report, 

20(9), 1458-1475. Retrieved from 

https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss9/9 

X Implementation Other: 

interviews

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

JBS International. (2015). Type of Service Activity and 

Perceived Health Benefits from Volunteering: Preliminary 

Evidence from the National Evaluation of RSVP 

Volunteers. Report prepared for the Corporation for 

National and Community Service. North Bethesda, MD: 

JBS International, Inc. 

X Implementation/

Outcome

Nonexperimental: 

Single Group 

outcome (posttest)

Y 

Azuero, C.B., Durkin, D.W., Kvale, E., Csikai, E.L., Shin, 

H.J., Burgio, L.D., Parmelee, P.A., & Allen, R.S. (2016). 

"It Was Very Rewarding for Me...": Senior Volunteers' 

Experiences With Implementing a Reminiscence and 

Creative Activity Intervention, Gerontologist, 2016, Vol. 

56, No. 2, 357–367, DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnu167 

X Implementation Implementation: 

Descriptive, 

participatory 

research

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Tan, E.J., Georges, A., Gabbard, S.M., Pratt, D.J., Nerino, 

A., Roberts, A.S., Wrightsman, S.M., & Hyde, M. (2016). 

The 2013-2014 Senior Corps Study: Foster Grandparents 

and Senior Companions. Public Policy & Aging Report,

2016, Vol. 26, No. 3, 88–95, DOI: 10.1093/ppar/prw016. 

X X Impact QED: Groups 

formed by 

matching - PSM

Y 
Page 63 of 68

Citation 

(Shaded rows are impact and outcome studies selected 

for inclusion in the review)

RSVP SCP FGP Type of Evaluation 

(Select all: Impact, 

implementation, 

outcomes)

Study Design 

(RCT, QED, 

etc.)

Included in 

review? (Y/N) 

If no, reason 

for exclusion? 

Georges, A., Fung, W., Liang, J., Smith, J., Pratt, D., Sum, 

C., Birmingham, C., & Gabbard, S. (2017). Does the 

Senior Companion Respite Service Matter for the Health 

and Well-being of Caregivers? Report prepared for the 

Corporation for National and Community Service. North 

Bethesda, MD: JBS International, Inc. 

X Impact QED: 

Difference in 

Differences

Y 

Guardians of Honor, LLC. (2017). Senior Corps Focus 

Groups Thematic Analysis Report. Report prepared for the 

Corporation for National and Community Service. 

X X X Implementation Implementation: 

Focus groups 

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

Hood, S., Lu, Y.Y., Jenkins K., Brown, E.R., Beaven, J., 

Brown, S.A., Hendrie, H.C., & Austrom, M.G. (2018). 

Exploration of Perceived Psychosocial Benefits of Senior 

Companion Program Participation Among UrbanDwelling, Low-Income Older Adult Women Volunteers. 

Innovation in Aging, 2(2). 

https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igy018. 

X Outcome Nonexperimental: 

Single group - 

outcome (posttest)

Y 

ICF. (2018). Comparative Analysis and Case Studies of 

RSVP and SCP Grantees Implementing Evidence Based 

Programs Task 10. Report prepared for the Corporation 

for National and Community Service. 

X X Implementation Implementation: 

Case studies

N - 

Implementation 

only study 

ICF. (2018). Comparative Analysis and Case Studies of 

RSVP and SCP Grantees Implementing Evidence Based 

Programs Task 3. Report prepared for the Corporation for 

National and Community Service. 

X Implementation Implementation: 

Case studies

N - 

Implementation 

only study 
Page 64 of 68

Citation 

(Shaded rows are impact and outcome studies selected 

for inclusion in the review)

RSVP SCP FGP Type of Evaluation 

(Select all: Impact, 

implementation, 

outcomes)

Study Design 

(RCT, QED, 

etc.)

Included in 

review? (Y/N) 

If no, reason 

for exclusion? 

Georges, A., Fung, W., Liang, J., Sum, C., & Gabbard, S. 

(2018). Longitudinal Study of Foster Grandparent and 

Senior Companion Programs: Service Delivery 

Implication and Health Benefits to the Volunteers. Report 

prepared for the Corporation for National and Community 

Service. North Bethesda, MD: JBS International, Inc. 

X X Impact QED: Groups 

formed by 

matching - 

PSM, 

longitudinal 

Y 

Crittenden, J.A. (2019). Juggling Multiple Roles: An 

examination of role conflict and its relationship to older 

adult volunteer satisfaction and retention (PhD). The 

University of Maine. 

X Implementation Implementation: 

Survey 

N - 

Implementation 

only study 
Page 65 of 68

Appendix D: Bibliography of Research on Volunteering among 

Older Adults

Systematic Reviews

Anderson, N.D., Damianakis, T., Kroger, E., Wagner, L.M., Dawson, D.R., Binns, M. A., 

Bernstein, S., Caspi, E., & Cook, S.L. (2014). The Benefits Associated with Volunteering 

Among Seniors: A Critical Review and Recommendations for Future Research. 

Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), pp. 1505-1533. 

Grimm, R., Spring, K., & Dietz, N. (2007). Health Benefits of Volunteering: A Review of Recent 

Research. Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service. 

Haber, E.A., & Short-DeGraff, M.A. (1989). Intergenerational Programming for an Increasingly 

Age-Segregated Society. Activities, Adaptation, & Aging, 14(3), pp. 35-50. 

Morrow-Howell, N. (2010). Volunteering in Later Life: Research Frontiers. The Journals of 

Gerontology, 65B(4), pp. 461-469.

Onyx, J., & Warburton, J. (2003). Volunteering and health among older people: A review. 

Australian Journal on Ageing, 22(2), pp. 65-69.

Population Reference Bureau. (2011). Volunteering and Health for Aging Populations. Today’s 

Research on Aging, 21, pp. 1-7. Retrieved from 

https://assets.prb.org/pdf11/TodaysResearchAging21.pdf

Von Bonsdorff, M. B. & Rantanen, T. (2011). Benefits of formal voluntary work among older 

people. A review. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research, 23(3), pp. 162-169. 

Meta-Analyses 

Jenkinson, C.E., Dickens, A.P., Jones, K., Thompson-Coon, J., Taylor, R.S., Rogers, M., 

Bambra, C.L., Lang, I., & Richards, S.H. (2013). Is Volunteering a Public Health 

Intervention? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Health and Survival of 

Volunteers. BMC Public Health 2013, 13:773. 

Okun, M.A., Yeung, E.W., & Brown, S. (2013). Volunteering by Older Adults and Risk 

Mortality: A Meta-Analysis. Psychology and Aging, 28(2), pp. 564-577. 

Siette, J., Cassidy, M., & Priebe, S. (2017). Effectiveness of befriending interventions: A 

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMJ Open, 7(4), pp. 1-12. 

Su, Y. (2017). Impacts of Intergenerational Programs on Older Adults’ Psychological WellBeing: A Meta-Analysis (MS). Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. 

Wheeler, J.A., Gorey, K.M., & Greenblatt, B. (1998). The Beneficial Effects of Volunteering for 

Older Volunteers and the People They Serve: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of 

Aging & Human Development, 47(1), pp. 69-79.