Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America 2016. 

This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.

1

Public Policy & Aging Report

cite as: Public Policy & Aging Report, 00, Vol. 00, No. 00, 1–9

doi:10.1093/ppar/prw016

Article

The 2013–2014 Senior Corps Study: Foster Grandparents 

and Senior Companions

Erwin J. Tan, MD1, Annie Georges, PhD2, Susan M. Gabbard, PhD2, Donald J. Pratt, PhD2, 

Anthony Nerino, MA3, Angela S. Roberts, MSW3, Stephanie M. Wrightsman, MPH3, and 

Mary Hyde, PhD3

1

AARP, Washington, DC 2JBS International, Inc., Burlingame, California 3Office of Research and Evaluation, Corporation for 

National and Community Service, Washington, DC

*Addres correspondence to Mary Hyde PhD, Office of Research and Evaluation, Corporation for National and Community Service, 250 E Street, 

SW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20525. E-mail: mhyde@cns.gov

Manuscript received April 22, 2016; accepted April 27, 2016

Decision Editor: Robert B. Hudson, PhD

Keywords: Volunteerism & civic engagement, Diversity and ethnicity, Self-rated health, intergenerational relationships, Community-based 

programs

Introduction

Volunteering has been associated with better health outcomes, such as lower mortality, better self-rated health, 

lower disability, and greater life satisfaction. The observed 

beneficial health outcomes may be because older adults 

who volunteer are often better educated, wealthier, and less 

likely to identify as a racial or ethnic minority than nonvolunteers (Choi & Kim, 2011; Lee, Steinman, & Tan, 2011; 

Luoh & Herzog, 2002; Morrow-Howell, Hinterlong,

Rozario, & Tang, 2003; Musick, Herzog, & House, 1999). 

There is evidence from one analysis that “individuals with 

lower income systematically reported more benefit from 

volunteering” (Morrow-Howell, Hong, & Tang, 2009). 

Yet, there is also evidence that “those with low human capital are excluded from volunteering and consequently do 

not gain potential health and social benefits. This exclusion 

may lead to greater disparities in later life” (McNamara & 

Gonzales, 2011). This supports the need for volunteer programs that are designed to be both attractive and accessible 

to low-income minority older adults.

The Corporation for National and Community Service 

(CNCS) administers Senior Corps, which engages adults 

55 and older in national service with incomes at or below 

200% of the poverty level. The Foster Grandparent Program 

(FGP) and Senior Companion Program (SCP) require 15 to 

40 hr a week of service (780 to 2,080 hr of service a year). 

By contrast volunteers age 55 to 64 years report a median 

52 hr of service a year and volunteers age 65 and older 

report a median 86 hr a year of service (USDL-14-0314, 

2014). FGP is an intergenerational national service model 

that began in 1965 (Reagan & Wilkie, 1982) and provided 

over $103.8 million in fiscal year 2013 to support Foster 

Grandparents serving primarily in school readiness, K–12 

academic achievement, and school engagement. SCP is an 

intragenerational national service model that began in 1974 

(Lee & Gray, 1992) and provided over $43.6 million in 

fiscal year 2013 to support Senior Companions serving adults through instrumental activities of daily living, 

companionship, and caregiver respite. Research has also 

shown that few retirees are willing to serve more than 

10 hr/week without financial support (Fried et  al., 2004; 

Morrow-Howell et  al., 2003). Both programs provide 

a small stipend of $2.65/hr of service, which defrays the 

cost of volunteering and may address the concerns about 

volunteer expenses. Gonzales, Matz-Costa, and MorrowHowell (2015) have hypothesized that “Senior Companion 

and Foster Grandparents are important as they are specifically geared for lower socioeconomic status older adults.” 

However, until now, there has been no data to test whether 

these programs have achieved the goal of providing access 

Public Policy & Aging Report Advance Access published July 21, 2016

 by guest on October 27, 2016 http://ppar.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from 
2 Tan et al.

to a diverse group of low-income adults to volunteers or 

how the self-reported health, functional status, and life 

satisfaction of Foster Grandparents or Senior Companions 

compare with other volunteers and nonvolunteers.

The 2013–2014 Senior Corps Study (Senior Corps 

Study) provides, for the first time ever, a census of Foster 

Grandparents and Senior Companions. First, the paper 

examines the income, race, and ethnic composition of 

Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions to test 

whether both FGP and SCP have successfully recruited and 

retained a diverse group of low-income volunteers. Second, 

the paper compares the demographic and socioeconomic 

characteristics between volunteers in FGP and SCP. Third, 

the instrument used in the Senior Corps Study replicated 

survey questions from the Health and Retirement Study 

(HRS) making it possible to compare the self-reported 

health, functional status, and life satisfaction of Foster 

Grandparents and Senior Companions to similar adult volunteers and nonvolunteers in the general population.

Method

The Senior Corps Study was a census of all FGP and SCP 

grantees with active grants during the data collection 

period. This study included an FGP or an SCP grantee in 

every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands. JBS International (JBS) provided data 

collection activities and technical assistance to grantees to 

administer the survey (JBS IRB protocol number SG13-01). 

CNCS cleared the volunteer survey on January 23, 2013, 

in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 

(Office of Management and Budget control # 3045-0146).

Grantees instructed individual Foster Grandparents and 

Senior Companions that their “participation is voluntary 

and will not affect their involvement with the program.” 

Technical assistance included step-by-step instructions 

for collecting the survey. All surveys were anonymous; 

respondents did not include any personal identifying information when returning their survey. The last survey was 

received on September 17, 2013.

There were 334 FGP and 214 SCP active grants when 

data collection began. Grantees that were in the process of 

relinquishing their grants were excluded from the study. Of 

the 330 eligible FGP grantees, 328 (99%) administered the 

survey to their volunteers. Of the 210 eligible SCP grantees, 202 (96%) administered the survey to their volunteers. 

There were 30,860 respondents, for an 84% response rate 

for both Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions 

serving at the time of the study (see Figure 1).

An initial descriptive analysis was conducted using data 

from all FGP and SCP respondents (N = 30,860). For the 

comparative analysis between FGP and SCP, we excluded 

144 respondents who could not be identified as either a 

Foster Grandparent or a Senior Companion. For the 

comparative analysis between FGP and SCP respondents 

and HRS respondents, we excluded an additional 1,897 

respondents who completed the questionnaire in languages 

other than English or Spanish.

For the comparative analysis of Senior Corps and HRS 

respondents, we used data from the 2010 HRS Core. The 

HRS sample consisted of respondents aged 55  years and 

older with annual income at or below 200% of the federal 

poverty level. Consequently, of the 22,039 HRS respondents, 

17,243 respondents were excluded because their income 

was above 200% of the federal poverty level or information 

about whether they volunteered in the past year had missing 

values. We further excluded an additional 503 HRS respondents who were younger than 55  years of age, in nursing 

homes or whose survey was completed by a proxy. The final 

HRS sample for the analysis consisted of 4,136 respondents: 

3,122 non-volunteers and 1,014 volunteers (see Figure 1).

Measures

The survey for the Senior Corps Study was identical to the 

English or Spanish versions of the 2010 HRS instruments 

with the exception of the question regarding veteran status. 

In the HRS data, volunteer status was ascertained from the 

question “Have you spent any time in the past 12 months 

doing volunteer work for religious, educational, healthrelated, or other charitable organizations?” HRS respondents who answered “yes” were coded as volunteers.

Outcome Variables—Our comparative analysis of Senior 

Corps and HRS respondents consisted of three outcome 

variables: self-rated health, mobility-associated disability, 

and life satisfaction. Respondents of the Senior Corps Study 

and the HRS were asked “Would you say your health is 

excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” Self-rated health 

was recoded to take on three values: (1) excellent or very 

good health, (2) good health, and (3) fair or poor health.

For mobility-associated disability, the following question was asked: “Because of a health problem do you have 

any difficulty with walking one block?” The response categories included “yes,” “no,” “can’t do,” “don’t do,” and “I 

don’t know.” Mobility-associated disability was recoded to 

take on three values: (1) “yes,” “can’t do,” and “don’t do,” 

(2) “no,” and (3) “I don’t know.”

For life satisfaction, the following question was asked: 

“Please think about your life-as-a-whole. How satisfied are 

you with it? Are you satisfied or not satisfied?” The response 

categories were “not satisfied,” “not very satisfied,” “somewhat satisfied,” “very satisfied,” and “completely satisfied.” 

Life satisfaction was recoded to take on three values: (1) 

“not satisfied,” (2) “somewhat satisfied” and “not very satisfied,” and (3) “completely satisfied” and “very satisfied.”

Covariates—The questions from which these variables 

were derived were identical in the Senior Corps Study and 

the HRS surveys. The exception was in determining veteran status. The demographic variables were: sex, age, race, 

ethnicity, educational status (less than high school, high 

school diploma or General Educational Development certificate [GED], associate degree or some college but not a 

bachelor’s degree, bachelor’s degree or higher), and marital 

 by guest on October 27, 2016 http://ppar.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from 
Public Policy & Aging Report 3

status (married or have a partner, separated or divorced, 

widowed, and never married or other).

Figure 1. Sample selection for the FGP/SCP & HRS cohorts.

Total FGP/SCP population 

540 eligible grantees

(N = 36,792)

Volunteers in 530 participating grantees

(n = 35,995)

Volunteers in 10 non-participating grants

(n = 797)

Excluded: 

FGP/SCP volunteers who did not respond to the 

questionnaire (n = 5,135)

Table 1.

Full census for descriptive analyses

(N = 30,860)

FGP (n =20925)

SCP (n = 9821)

FGP vs. SCP status unclear (n = 114)

Table 2. 

Random samples for PSMa analyses

FGP (n =4,000)

SCP (n = 4,000)

Excluded those who responded in a language

other than English or Spanish

Table 3 and 4. 

Final PSMa Matched Pairs: 

FGP/SCP matched to HRS non-volunteers 

FGP (n = 1,356)

SCP (n = 1,409)

FGP/SCP matched to HRS volunteers 

FGP (n = 621)

SCP (n = 603)

a PSM = Propensity Score Matching

Excluded:

> 200% of the poverty level or missing income

data (n=17,243)

Age 54 or younger (n = 187)

In nursing home (n = 37)

Proxy respondents (n = 280)

Table 2. 

HRS sample for PSMa analysis:

N = 4,136

Non-volunteers under 200% poverty (n= 3,122)

Volunteers under 200% poverty (n = 1,014)

Table 3 and 4. 

Final PSMa Matched Pairs:

HRS non-volunteers matched to FGP/SCP 

FGP (n = 1,356)

SCP (n = 1,409)

HRS volunteers matched to FGP/SCP 

FGP (n = 621)

SCP (n = 603)

2010 HRS cohort 

(N = 22,039)

Volunteers and non-Volunteers

(N = 21,883)

Excluded:

HRS participants who did not respond to the 

volunteer question (n = 156)

 by guest on October 27, 2016 http://ppar.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from 

Analyses

A descriptive analysis describing the Foster Grandparents 

and Senior Companions and a comparative analysis of the 

two programs were conducted using data from all respondents in the Senior Corps Study (see Figure  1). The first 

two objectives were to examine characteristics of Foster 

Grandparents and Senior Companions and to compare 

differences between participants in the two programs. To 

achieve these two objectives, we examined whether the 

demographic characteristics of the Foster Grandparents 

differed significantly from the Senior Companions using 

Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney rank-sum test for continuous 

variables (e.g., age and years volunteering) and chi-squared 

test for the binary data.

The third objective was to compare the health status 

of Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion volunteers with similar adult volunteers and nonvolunteers in 

the HRS. This analysis utilized propensity score matching (PSM) to determine whether Foster Grandparents and 

Senior Companions differed in self-rated health, mobilityassociated disability, or life satisfaction, when compared 

with HRS respondents with similar characteristics. This 

analysis was not designed to determine causality; rather 

the analysis sought to compare Foster Grandparents and 

Senior Companions to a similar group of volunteers and 

nonvolunteers using observational data.

PSM is designed to reduce inherent bias due to confounding variables that could be found in an estimate that 

simply compares the health status of Foster Grandparents 
4 Tan et al.

and Senior Companions with similar HRS respondents 

(who are assumed not to be participating in FGP or SCP). 

It is especially important to account for confounding factors given that previous research has observed differences 

in self-rated health across gender, race, and ethnicity (Case 

& Paxson, 2005; Su, Wen, & Markides, 2013). For the 

comparative analysis with the HRS, differences between 

matched pairs were evaluated using the McNemar’s test 

for binary variables.

Since the number of respondents in the Senior Corps 

Study was substantially larger than the HRS sample, we 

drew a random sample of 4,000 Foster Grandparents 

and 4,000 Senior Companions. We did this to ensure that 

samples used in the comparative analysis had a sufficient 

number of observations with characteristics similar to 

each other so that adequate matches were possible even 

if the average unmatched characteristics are very different 

(Heinrich, Maffioli, & Vazquez, 2010).

We performed a logistic regression to estimate each participant’s propensity score (the probability of being a Foster 

Grandparent or Senior Companion given observed covariates). The covariates used in the logistic regression model 

included sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, 

and veteran status. The model also included interaction 

terms between the covariates. Once the propensity score 

was calculated for each participant, the second step was 

to implement the matching method. We used a one-to-one 

nearest neighbor matching which is based on the smallest 

distance in propensity score. To avoid poor matches, we 

used comparison cases that are the best match based on the 

propensity score values within a 5 years age range. Using 

this approach, we improved the likelihood of finding exact 

matches. The drawback is that fewer observations are 

matched that could lead to reduced power. However, the 

research suggests that the likely reduction in power is minimal (Stuart, 2010). This approach avoided poor matches, 

which might have biased the estimates of the potential 

effect size of FGP or SCP participation. We performed the 

one-to-one matching without replacement, meaning for 

each Foster Grandparent or Senior Companion, we found 

the closest comparison case in the HRS. If there were more 

than one possible match cases, one match was selected at 

random.

We performed several steps to assess whether the propensity score balanced the characteristics across each of 

the groups that were matched. We examined the distribution of the propensity scores using histograms, mean, and 

variance of the propensity scores, before and after matching. This analysis showed the distributions for each of the 

matched pairs overlapped and were similar after matching. We also compared differences in mean value of each 

covariate, before and after matching. After matching, the 

differences between each covariate were not statistically 

significant. A joint test for equality of mean values for all 

covariates showed that balance was achieved across all 

covariates.

We formed matched pairs of Foster Grandparents and 

Senior Companions to respective HRS volunteers and nonvolunteers. The matched pairs for Foster Grandparents 

consisted of 621 respondents for the comparative analysis 

with HRS volunteers and 1,356 respondents for the comparative analysis with HRS nonvolunteers. The matched 

pairs for Senior Companions consisted of 603 respondents 

for the comparative analysis with HRS volunteers, and 

1,409 respondents for the comparative analysis with HRS 

nonvolunteers (See Figure 1).

Results

Table 1A and Supplementary Table 1B present the results 

for the first two objectives to examine the characteristics 

of the Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions and to 

compare differences between the two groups of participants. 

The Senior Corps Study respondents were 55–104 years of 

age, with a mean age of 72 years. The Senior Corps Study 

respondents were 45% white, 40% African American, 2% 

Native American or Alaskan Native, 3% Asian American, 

Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander, and 6% other or 

more than one race selected.

Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion participants differ in the proportion of women, African 

American, length of service, and educational attainment. 

About 90% of Foster Grandparents and 83% of Senior 

Companions (p ≤ .0001) were women. About 41% of 

Foster Grandparents were African American compared 

with 38% of Senior Companions (p ≤ .0001). About 21% 

of Foster Grandparents did not graduate from high school 

or did not have a GED compared with 26% of Senior 

Companions (p ≤ 0.0001). Foster Grandparents reported 

an average of 6.4 years in service compared with 6.1 years 

for Senior Companions (p ≤ 0.0001). Foster Grandparents 

and Senior Companions were similar in terms of marital 

status, self-rated health, and mobility-associated disability.

Table  2 shows the demographic variables used in the 

logistic regression to create the propensity score and the 

outcome variables to compare Foster Grandparents and 

Senior Companions, to HRS nonvolunteers and volunteers. 

There were significant demographic differences between 

the Senior Corps Study respondents and the HRS respondents (both volunteers and nonvolunteers) before matching 

using the propensity score. The HRS volunteers and nonvolunteers reported mean ages of 71 and 73 years, respectively, which were similar to the mean age of 72 reported 

by both Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions. 

Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions were 42% 

and 38% African American (non-Latino), respectively, 

compared with 26% of HRS volunteers and 22% of HRS 

nonvolunteers (p ≤ 0.0001 for all comparisons). Foster 

Grandparents and Senior Companions were 11% and 

14% Latino (of all races), respectively, compared with 9% 

among HRS volunteers and 20% among the HRS nonvolunteers (p ≤ 0.0001 for all comparisons).

 by guest on October 27, 2016 http://ppar.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from 
Public Policy & Aging Report

5

enior Companions oster Grandparents and S Characteristics of F Table 1A:

FGP/SCP a (N = 30860) FGP (N = 20925) SCP (N = 9821) FGP vs SCP

n Percent unless specified as years n Percent unless specified as years N Percent unless specified as years p Value b

Age in years Mean (SE c) 29476 71.9 (.05) 19959 71.9 (.05) 9413 71.9 (.08) 0.40

 Range 55 to 104 55 to 101 55 to 104 –

 Age - missing 1384 4.70 966 4.84 408 4.33 –

Gender Female 26954 87.34 18739 89.55 8115 82.63 <.0001

 Male 3297 10.68 1789 8.55 1496 15.23 <.0001

 Gender - missing 609 1.97 397 1.9 210 2.14 –

Race White/ Caucasian 13908 45.07 9333 44.6 4468 45.49 0.23

 Black/ African American 12429 40.28 8654 41.36 3774 38.43 <.0001

 American Indian or Alaskan Native 583 1.89 398 1.90 184 1.87 0.98

 Asian Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander 872 2.83 539 2.58 333 3.39 <.0001

Other 1518 4.92 925 4.42 590 6.01 <.0001

 More than one race selected 396 1.28 272 1.30 123 1.25 0.71

 Race - missing 1154 3.74 804 3.84 349 3.55 –

Ethnicity Not Hispanic or Latino 22734 73.67 15523 74.18 7169 73.00 <.0001

 Hispanic or Latino 3684 11.94 2316 11.07 1308 13.32

 Don’t know 802 2.60 526 2.51 276 2.81 –

 Hispanic or Latino - missing 3640 11.80 2560 12.23 1068 10.87 –

Education Less than HS 6934 22.47 4376 20.91 2521 25.67 <.0001

 High School or GED 10572 34.26 7474 35.72 3050 31.06 <.0001

 Less than BA 8961 29.04 6173 29.50 2769 28.19 0.02

 BA Degree or Higher 3858 12.50 2536 12.12 1313 13.37 0.002

 Missing Education 535 1.73 366 1.75 168 1.71 –

Marital Status Married/Partner 6270 20.32 4271 20.41 1972 20.08 0.52

 Separated/Divorced 8764 28.40 5725 27.36 3010 30.65 <.0001

 Widowed 12584 40.78 8755 41.84 3786 38.55 <.0001

 Single / Other 2638 8.55 1769 8.45 856 8.72 0.43

 Missing Marital Status 604 1.96 405 1.94 197 2.01 –

a full census for descriptive analysesb p Values for Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank-sum test and chi-squared testc SE = Standard Errord there were no responses using the Arabic, German, Hindi, Italian, Polish or Portuguese language versions of the surveye values between 1–4 respondents were censored

 by guest on October 27, 2016 http://ppar.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from 
6 Tan et al. enior Companions and the HRS Comparison Group (all variables used in the logistic regression) oster Grandparents and S Characteristics of F Table 2. Volunteers in the Nonvolunteers in the FGP random sample SCP random sample FGP to HRS FGP to HRS SCP to HRS SCP to HRS HRS sample for PSMa HRS sample for PSMa for PSMa analysis for PSMa analysis volunteers nonvolunteers volunteers non-volunteers analysis analysis n 1,014 3,122 4,000 4,000 Percent unless specified as years p Valueb Age in years Mean (SE) 71.4 (0.29) 72.7 (0.17) 71.8 (0.12) 71.8 (0.12) .09 .0004 .10 .0002 Range 55–98 55–101 55–98 55–104 Gender Female 71.34 66.17 92.05 84.98 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Male 28.66 33.83 7.95 15.03 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Race and ethnicity White/Caucasian (non-Latino) 61.36 55.90 41.35 39.90 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Black/African American 26.28 21.78 41.8 38.35 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 (non-Latino) Latino (any race) 8.89 19.56 10.75 14.48 .08 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Other race (non-Latino) 3.46 2.67 6.10 7.28 .001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Education Less than high school 21.84 42.27 20.95 26.33 .54 <0.0001 .0034 <0.0001 High school or GED 39.72 35.69 37.60 32.25 .21 .0973 <0.0001 .002 Less than BA 24.41 16.09 29.60 28.28 .00 <0.0001 .0138 <0.0001 BA or higher 14.03 5.94 11.85 13.15 .06 <0.0001 .4610 <0.0001 Veteran 12.75 15.16 5.40 6.98 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Marital status Married/partner 40.02 39.03 20.73 19.13 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Separated/divorced 21.25 20.46 28.30 32.30 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Widowed 34.78 35.01 41.93 39.30 <0.0001 <0.0001 .0083 .0002 Single/other 3.95 5.49 9.05 9.28 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001

 by guest on October 27, 2016 http://ppar.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from 
Public Policy & Aging Report 7

Supplementary Table 3 compares health status of Foster 

Grandparents and Senior Companions to HRS volunteers. 

Foster Grandparents have a 14% prevalence of fair/poor 

health compared with a 24% prevalence of fair/poor health 

among matched HRS volunteers (p  <  0.0001). Similarly, 

Senior Companions have a 13% prevalence of fair/poor 

health compared with a 25% prevalence of fair/poor health 

among matched HRS volunteers (p < 0.0001). There was 

no statistical difference between the prevalence of excellent/very good health between the matched pairs for the 

Foster Grandparents (p = .36) and the Senior Companions 

(p = .77) compared with matched HRS volunteers. Foster 

Grandparents and Senior Companions reported a higher 

prevalence of problems walking or inability to walk oneblock compared with matched HRS volunteers (p < 0.0001). 

Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions reported 

higher life satisfaction (completely/very satisfied with their 

life) compared with matched HRS volunteers (p < 0.0001).

Supplementary Table  4 compares the health status of 

Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions to HRS nonvolunteers. Foster Grandparents compared with matched 

HRS nonvolunteers shows a 16% prevalence of fair/poor 

health for the Foster Grandparents compared with a 46% 

prevalence of fair/poor health for the matched HRS nonvolunteers (p < 0.0001). Similarly, the matched pairs for 

the Senior Companions reported a 16% prevalence of fair/

poor health compared with a 49% prevalence of fair/poor 

health among HRS nonvolunteers (p  <  0.0001). Foster 

Grandparents reported a 40% prevalence of excellent/very 

good health and a 43% prevalence of good health compared with a 22% prevalence of excellent/very good health 

and a 32% prevalence of good health for the matched HRS 

nonvolunteers (p < 0.0001). The analysis similarly shows 

that the Senior Companions reported a 41% prevalence 

of excellent/very good health and a 43% prevalence of 

good health compared with a 21% prevalence of excellent/very good health and a 30% prevalence of good 

health for the matched HRS nonvolunteers (p < 0.0001). 

Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions reported 

a lower prevalence of problems walking or inability to 

walk one-block (mobility-associated disability) compared 

with matched HRS nonvolunteers (p  <  0.0001). Foster 

Grandparents and Senior Companions also reported higher 

life satisfaction (completely/very satisfied with their life) 

compared with matched HRS nonvolunteers (p < 0.0001).

Discussion

The Foster Grandparent Program and the Senior Companion 

Program engage a diverse corps of low-income adults age 

55 and older in high-intensity volunteer activity; this supports the hypothesis that FGP and SCP are important as they 

are specifically geared for lower socioeconomic status older 

adults (Gonzales, Matz-Costa, & Morrow-Howell, 2015). 

The representation of African American and Latino participants in both FGP and SCP further demonstrate the broad 

appeal of both intergenerational and intragenerational 

national service models. Men were underrepresented in both 

FGP and SCP; further program development and research 

will be required to ensure the accessibility and appeal of 

national service opportunities for low-income older men.

Although the differences found between the health status of 

Foster Grandparent and Senior Companions compared with 

matched nonvolunteers in the HRS were expected given the 

results of previous studies (Choi, 2003; Lee, Steinman, & Tan, 

2011; Musick et al., 1999), the differences observed between 

Foster Grandparent and Senior Companions compared with 

matched volunteers in the HRS are notable. A lower proportion of Foster Grandparent and Senior Companions reported 

fair/poor self-rated health compared with matched volunteers 

in the HRS. It is possible that the lower prevalence of fair/poor 

health among Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions 

is due to a possible health benefit associated with national 

service. At least one prior analysis of the Experience Corps 

model suggested that AmeriCorps members with fair or poor 

health experienced greater health benefits from service than 

other volunteers (Barron et al., 2009). An alternative explanation is that the lower prevalence of fair/poor health is due to 

additional selection bias not accounted for by the analysis, in 

that individuals with fair/poor self-rated health are either not 

recruited or not retained in either the Foster Grandparent or 

Senior Companion program.

The Foster Grandparent Program and the 

Senior Companion Program engage a 

diverse corps of low-income adults age 

55 and older in high-intensity volunteer 

activity; this supports the hypothesis 

that FGP and SCP are important as they 

are specifically geared for lower socioeconomic status older adults

It is possible that the lower prevalence of fair/poor health among Foster 

Grandparents and Senior Companions is 

due to a possible health benefit associated with national service.

 by guest on October 27, 2016 http://ppar.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from 

The Foster Grandparent and the Senior Companion 

Programs are able to engage individuals with mobility-associated disability. While it is possible that national service is a 

risk factor for mobility-associated disability, we propose two 

alternate explanations. First, it is possible that the physical 

requirements of national service may make individuals more 

aware that they may have “difficulty with walking one block.” 

Second, the prevalence of mobility-associated disability among 
8 Tan et al.

Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions (which is higher 

than the prevalence among volunteers and lower than the 

prevalence in nonvolunteers in the comparison group) may 

provide initial evidence that the FGP and SCP are able to 

accommodate participants with mobility-associated disability.

A higher proportion of Foster Grandparent and the Senior 

Companion reported higher levels of life satisfaction compared 

with a similar population of volunteers and nonvolunteers in 

the HRS comparison group. This contrasts to a prior analysis 

that showed a decrease in life satisfaction among those volunteering more than 140 hr a year (Van Willigen, 2000).

This study has several limitations. The information was 

obtained from self-report. Although the questions asked of 

the Senior Corps Study and HRS respondents were similar, the 

methodology for collecting the data was different. It is possible 

that the observed differences in health status are due to programmatic requirements, such as a criminal background check 

and the minimum of 15 hr a week service requirement, which 

may appeal to individuals with lower risk factors. The current analysis does not differentiate the national service activity 

and the monetary benefits of being a Foster Grandparent and 

Senior Companion, such as the $2.65 an hour stipend (which 

can amount to between $2,000 and $5,500 a year).

Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions represent 

a distinctly diverse group of low-income adults age 55 and 

older that differ from a comparison group of volunteers 

from the HRS in terms of the self-rated health, mobility disability, and life satisfaction. Future studies should explore 

whether the observed differences in health status may be 

due to unmeasured volunteer characteristics or if there is a 

health benefit associated with national service. The Senior 

Corps Study data are available to researchers for further 

analyses. The CNCS invites independent research to conduct additional analyses on the Senior Corps Study data 

that were collected but not analyzed; this includes additional psychosocial questions in the HRS.

Supplementary Material

Please visit the article online at http://ppar.oxfordjournals.org/ to 

view supplementary material.

References

Barron, J. S., Tan, E. J., Yu, Q., Song, M., McGill, S., & Fried, L. 

P. (2009). Potential for intensive volunteering to promote the 

health of older adults in fair health. Journal of Urban Health, 

86(4), 641–653. doi:10.1007/s11524-009-9353-8

Case, A., & Paxson, C. (2005). Sex differences in morbidity and mortality. Demography, 42(2), 189–214. doi:10.1353/dem.2005.0011

Choi, L. H. (2003). Factors affecting volunteerism among older 

adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 22(2), 179–196. 

doi:10.1177/0733464803251814

Choi, N. G., & Kim, J. (2011). The effect of time volunteering 

and charitable donations in later life on psychological wellbeing. Ageing and Society, 31(4), 590–610. doi:10.1017/

S0144686X10001224

Fried, L. P., Carlson, M. C., Freedman, M., Frick, K. D., Glass, T. A., 

Hill, J., ...Zeger, S. (2004). A social model for health promotion 

for an aging population: Initial evidence on the Experience Corps 

model. Journal of Urban Health, 81(1), 64–78. doi:10.1093/

jurban/jth094

Gonzales, E., Matz-Costa, C., & Morrow-Howell, N. (2015). 

Increasing opportunities for the productive engagement of older 

adults: A  response to population aging. The Gerontologist, 

55(2), 252–261. doi:10.1093/geront/gnu176

Heinrich, C., Maffioli, A., & Vazquez, G. (2010). A primer for applying propensity score matching (Impact-Evaluation Guidelines 

Technical Notes No. IDB-TN-161). Washington, DC: InterAmerican Development Bank.

Lee, C. F., & Gray, L. C. (1992). Respite service to family caregivers by the senior companion program: An urban-rural comparison. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 11(4): 395–406. 

doi:10.1177/073346489201100402

Lee, S. J., Steinman, M., & Tan, E. J. (2011). Volunteering, driving status, and mortality in U.S. retirees. Journal of American 

Geriatrics Society, 59(2):274–280. doi:10.1111/j.1532-

5415.2010.03265.x

Luoh, M. C., & 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), 490–509. 

doi:10.2307/3090239

McNamara, T. K., & Gonzales, E. (2011). Volunteer transitions 

among older adults: The role of human, social, and cultural 

capital in later life. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B: 

Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 66(4), 490–501. 

doi:10.1093/geronb/gbr055

Morrow-Howell, N., Hinterlong, J., Rozario, P. A., & Tang, F. 

(2003). Effects of volunteering on the well-being of older 

adults. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B: Psychological 

Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(3), S137–S145. doi:10.1093/

geronb/58.3.S137

Morrow-Howell, N., Hong, S. I., & Tang, F. (2009). Who benefits from volunteering? Variations in perceived benefits. 

Gerontologist, 49(1), 91–102. doi:10.1093/geront/gnp007

Musick, M. A., Herzog, A. R., & House, J. S. (1999). Volunteering 

and mortality among older adults: Findings from a national 

sample. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B: Psychological 

Science and Social Sciences, 54(3), S173–S180. doi:10.1093/

geronb/54B.3.S173

Reagan, N., & Wilkie, J. (1982). To Love a Child. Indianapolis/New 

York: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc.

Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: 

A  review and look forward. Statistical Science, 25(1), 1–21. 

doi:10.1214/09-STS313

Su, D., Wen, M., & Markides, K. S. (2013). Is self-rated health 

comparable between non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics? 

Evidence from the health and retirement study. The Journals 

of Gerontology. Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social 

Sciences, 68(4), 622–632. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbt037

Tan, E. J., Rebok, G. W., Yu, Q., Frangakis, C. E., Carlson, M. C., 

Wang, T., ... Fried, L. P. (2009). The long-term relationship 

between high-intensity volunteering and physical activity in 

older African American women. The Journals of Gerontology. 

Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 64(2), 304–

311. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbn023

 by guest on October 27, 2016 http://ppar.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from 
Public Policy & Aging Report 9

Tang, F., & Morrow-Howell, N. (2008). Involvement in voluntary organizations: How older adults access volunteer roles? 

Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 51(3–4), 210–227. 

doi:10.1080/01634370802039494

USDL-14-0314. (2014). Volunteering in the United States, 

2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/

volun_02252014.pdf

Van Willigen, M. (2000). Differential benefits of volunteering 

across the life course. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B: 

Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55(5), S308–S318. 

doi:10.1093/geronb/55.5.S308

 by guest on October 27, 2016 http://ppar.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from