Page 1 of 108 

Longitudinal Study of Foster 

Grandparent and Senior 

Companion Programs: Service 

Delivery Implications and Health 

Benefits to the Volunteers
i

Longitudinal Study of Foster Grandparent and Senior 

Companion Programs: Service Delivery Implications and 

Health Benefits to the Volunteers 

September 2018 

Authors 

This report was prepared by JBS International, Inc., 5515 Security Lane, Suite 800, North 

Bethesda, MD, 20852, pursuant to a contract with the Corporation for National and Community 

Service (CNCS), a U.S. government agency.

Annie Georges, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate

Wenson Fung, Ph.D., Research Associate

Jenée Smith, B.A., Research Assistant

Jenny Liang, B.A., Research Assistant 

Carmen Sum, M.B.A., Senior Research Associate

Susan Gabbard, Ph.D., Vice President

Acknowledgements 

We would like to thank all the grantees, staff, and volunteers who made this study 

possible. We also thank the Field Working Group and Technical Working Group 

members for their valuable insights and feedback through the development 

questionnaires, implementation of the survey, and analysis.

Citation 

Georges, A., Fung, W., Smith, J., Liang, J., Sum, C., & Gabbard, S. (2018). 

Longitudinal Study of Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion Programs: 

Service Delivery Implications and Health Benefits to the Volunteers. North 

Bethesda, MD: JBS International, Inc.
ii

Longitudinal Study of Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion 

Programs: Service Delivery Implications and Health Benefits to the 

Volunteers

Contents 

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... vi

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

Overview of the Current Evaluation ............................................................................................... 2

Previous Reports............................................................................................................................. 3

Objectives and Research Questions................................................................................................ 5

Study Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 6

Participants...................................................................................................................................... 7

Survey Development and Testing................................................................................................. 10

Approach to Analysis.................................................................................................................... 10

Findings......................................................................................................................................... 12

Portrait of First-time FGP and SCP Volunteers............................................................................ 12

Characteristics of the Volunteers.............................................................................................. 12

Sources Used to Learn About National Service ....................................................................... 19

Motivations for Volunteering ................................................................................................... 21

Summary................................................................................................................................... 27

Retention, Satisfaction and Engagement ...................................................................................... 28

Retention in Service.................................................................................................................. 29

Satisfaction and Experience with Training and Support........................................................... 38

Service Activities and Level of Engagement............................................................................ 43

Individual and Organizational Predictors of Retention ............................................................ 47

Summary................................................................................................................................... 50

Health and Well-being .................................................................................................................. 52

Health and Well-being Among Stayers and Leavers................................................................ 53

Comparison to the General Population ..................................................................................... 60

Factors Affecting Health and Well-being ................................................................................. 65

Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 67
iii

Recommendations......................................................................................................................... 72

Appendix A: Propensity Score Matching ..................................................................................... 74

Appendix B: Multiple Imputation................................................................................................. 77

Appendix B: Comparison of Key Variables Before and After Imputation .................................. 79

Appendix C: Retention Rate by Program Type ............................................................................ 83

Appendix D: Reasons for Leaving National Service .................................................................... 85

Appendix E. Factors Associated with Retention .......................................................................... 86

Appendix F: Hours of Service and Retention ............................................................................... 90

Appendix G: Regression Results for Health and Well-being Outcomes, FGP and SCP Volunteers

....................................................................................................................................................... 92

Appendix H: Regression Results for Health and Well-being Outcomes, FGP/SCP and HRS Nonvolunteers...................................................................................................................................... 94
iv

List of Figures 

Figure 1 Survey Administration Timeline ...................................................................................... 6

Figure 2 Participants by Program Type and Participation Status ................................................... 8

Figure 3 Final Analytic Sample ...................................................................................................... 9

Figure 4 Labor Force Participation, Retirement and Disability at the Start of Service ................ 16

Figure 5 Top Six Occupations Among First-time Volunteers...................................................... 18

Figure 6 Occupations Among First-time Volunteers.................................................................... 19

Figure 7 Sources Used to Learn about FGP SCP National Service.............................................. 20

Figure 8 Primary Motivation for Volunteering............................................................................. 23

Figure 9 Multiple Motivations for Volunteering .......................................................................... 24

Figure 10 Retention in Service ..................................................................................................... 29

Figure 11 Retention Rate by Education ........................................................................................ 32

Figure 12 Reasons for Leaving National Service ......................................................................... 33

Figure 13 Change in Employment, Retirement and Disability Status from Baseline to Second 

Follow-up: Looking for Work ...................................................................................................... 35

Figure 14 Change in Employment, Retirement and Disability Status from Baseline to Second 

Follow-up: Working...................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 15 Change in Employment, Retirement and Disability Status from Baseline to Second 

Follow-up: Disabled...................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 16 Change in Employment, Retirement and Disability Status from Baseline to Second 

Follow-up: Retired ........................................................................................................................ 37

Figure 17 Overall Satisfaction with Volunteering, Stayers and Leavers...................................... 38

Figure 18 Likelihood of Continuing with FGP and SCP, Stayers and Leavers............................ 39

Figure 19 Likelihood Would Recommend FGP and SCP, Stayers and Leavers.......................... 40

Figure 20 Differences in Perception of the Volunteer Experience, Stayers and Leavers............. 41

Figure 21 Perception of Volunteer Training, Support, Flexibility and Stipend............................ 42

Figure 22 Service Activities Reported among First-time Volunteers........................................... 44

Figure 23 Distribution in Number of Hours in Service Per Day .................................................. 46

Figure 24 Predicted Probability of Retention based on Self-rated Health at Sample Mean......... 49

Figure 25 Predicted Probability of Retention, a Typical Volunteer ............................................. 50

Figure 26 Average Self-rated Health Score, Stayers and Leavers................................................ 55

Figure 27 Average Life Satisfaction Score, Stayers and Leavers................................................. 56

Figure 28 Average Social Isolation/Loneliness Score, Stayers and Leavers................................ 58

Figure 29 Average Number of Symptoms of Depression, Stayers vs Leavers............................. 59

Figure 30 Average Self-Efficacy Score, Stayers and Leavers...................................................... 60

Figure 31 Average Self-rated Health, FGP/SCP Stayers and HRS Volunteers............................ 62

Figure 32 Average Self-rated Health, FGP/SCP and HRS Non-volunteers................................. 63

Figure 33 Average Number of Symptoms of Depression, FGP/SCP Stayers and HRS Nonvolunteers...................................................................................................................................... 64
v

List of Tables 

Table 1 Characteristics of the First-time Volunteers.................................................................... 14

Table 2 Age Differences in Employment, Retirement and Disability Status at the Start of Service

....................................................................................................................................................... 17

Table 3 Comparison of Employment Status of FGP and SCP...................................................... 17

Table 4 Differences in How FGP and SCP Learned about National Service ............................... 21

Table 5 Definition of Types of Motivations ................................................................................. 22

Table 6 Characteristics of Volunteers, by Motivation .................................................................. 25

Table 7 Demographic Differences in Retention ........................................................................... 31

Table 8 Retention by Employment, Retirement and Disability Status ......................................... 34

Table 9 Distribution of Responses on Self-rated Health, Stayers and Leavers ............................ 54

Table 10 Average Self-rated Health Score and Effect-size, Stayers and Leavers........................ 55

Table 11 Differences in Self-rated Health, FGP/SCP Stayers and HRS Volunteers.................... 62

Table 12 Differences in Self-rated Health, FGP/SCP and HRS Non-volunteers ......................... 63

Table 13 Number of Reported Symptoms of Depression, FGP/SCP Stayers and HRS 

Volunteers/Non-volunteers........................................................................................................... 65
vi

Executive Summary 

As the federal agency for volunteering and service, the Corporation for National and Community 

Service (CNCS) is one of the nation’s largest grant makers for service and volunteering, and 

plays a critical role in strengthening America’s nonprofit sector by addressing social and 

economic challenges through service. Through AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and other programs, 

CNCS engages millions of Americans of all ages and backgrounds in results-driven service at 

50,000 locations across the country. Senior Corps, one of the agency’s signature programs, 

provides national service opportunities for Americans aged 55 and over, leveraging their skills 

and experience while addressing some of the nation’s most pressing challenges. 

CNCS conducted a longitudinal evaluation of two of the Senior Corps programs, Foster 

Grandparent Program (FGP) and Senior Companion Program (SCP), to build the evidence base 

of these programs’ effectiveness. The evaluation was designed to assess how to strengthen and 

expand national service programs to support overall adult health and well-being. 

Senior Corps volunteers who serve in the Foster Grandparent Program serve as one-on-one tutors 

and mentors to young people. Their service goes beyond academic support. As role models in the

community, Foster Grandparent volunteers help reinforce values, teach parenting skills to young 

parents, and care for premature infants and children with disabilities. Senior Companions help 

elderly, homebound seniors and other adults maintain independence and remain in the their own 

homes. Senior Companions help clients with daily living tasks such as grocery shopping,

transportation to medical appointments, and alerting doctors and family members to potential 

problems. 

The study, launched in 2014, collected data from more than 1,200 first-time Foster Grandparent 

and Senior Companion volunteers on their social, demographic, and economic backgrounds; 

their interest in and motivation for volunteering; their experience with the program’s training and 

support; and health and well-being outcomes. The final report used data from three time points of 

data collection (baseline and two follow-ups) to achieve three objectives:

Objective 1: Describe the demographic profile, knowledge of national service, and 

motivation for volunteering among first-time FGP and SCP volunteers.

Objective 2: Assess retention, satisfaction, and engagement with FGP and SCP.

Objective 3: Examine how participation in national service contributed to changes in 

self-rated health and well-being.

The longitudinal study recruited first-time volunteers with FGP or SCP between July and 

November 2015. The participants were enrolled in the study after they completed the program’s 

application and security clearance process. All individuals who had not previously volunteered 

with FGP or SCP were eligible to enroll. Participants completed a baseline survey prior to the 
vii

start of their service and two follow-up surveys during a two-year period. The analysis sample 

for the final report consists of the 841 volunteers who completed the three surveys. 

The full sample was used to examine each of the three objectives, and the analysis compared 

outcomes for several subgroups. For each objective, the analysis specifically compared FGP and 

SCP volunteers. The second objective also compared differences between those who remained in 

service (stayers) and those who left their program (leavers) during the study period. The third 

objective examined change in health outcomes for FGP and SCP stayers and leavers. In addition, 

the analysis compared FGP/SCP volunteers to similar adult volunteers and non-volunteers in the 

general population. 

Highlights of Results 

Objective 1: Portrait of first-time volunteers 

The first-time Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions were primarily female and racially 

and ethnically diverse. Most were retired but some remained active in the labor force by either 

looking for work or working. Most (91 percent) were female; more than half (51 percent) were 

65 years old or younger; 40 percent were between 66 and 75 years old; and 9 percent were 76 

years old or older. Most (80 percent) reported total annual household income of less than 

$20,000; 15 percent reported household income between $20,000 and $29,999; 5 percent 

reported income of $30,000 and higher. About one-third (34 percent) reported a disability such 

as a long-lasting condition like severe vision or hearing impairment or a condition that limits 

basic physical activities. The volunteers, though of retirement age, continued to be active in the 

labor force by either looking for work or working. Nine percent were currently working; 14 

percent were unemployed and looking for work; 6 percent were homemakers; more than onefourth (28 percent) reported their employment status as disabled; and 43 percent were fully 

retired (neither working nor looking for work). FGP and SCP volunteers were similar in 

characteristics, but notably different in some areas. A higher proportion of SCP volunteers 

reported their employment status as disabled compared to FGP volunteers (30 percent for SCP 

versus 27 percent for FGP), and a higher proportion of FGP volunteers reported they were 

working compared to SCP volunteers (10 percent for FGP versus 8 percent for SCP).

The recruitment strength of the programs is generated and sustained by the volunteers 

themselves. The primary mode of recruitment is through informal networks such as friends and 

word of mouth. The success of this informal recruitment network rests on ensuring that those in 

service have an overall positive experience, which can translate to positive feedback about FGP 

and SCP to friends and family. How individuals learned about Senior Corps national service was

comparable for FGP and SCP volunteers with one notable difference. A significantly higher 

proportion of Foster Grandparents (70 percent) were “told by a friend” about their program 

compared to Senior Companions (59 percent).
viii

The volunteers’ expectations were not solely altruistic (e.g., a desire to impact their community, 

to help other people/children). The volunteers also sought to learn new skills, get more 

experience, keep busy, and gain a sense of accomplishment. For some of the volunteers, the 

stipend was also an important factor. Approximately 31 percent had an underlying financial 

reason for volunteering.

Objective 2: Retention, satisfaction, and engagement 

FGP and SCP volunteers who persisted in service were among the most vulnerable in terms of 

risk factors associated with poorer health outcomes. The adults who remained in service (stayers)

had the lowest income (reporting income under $20,000), had a disability that could limit 

employment, and had attained at most a high school diploma or had not graduated from high 

school. 

Stayers were highly engaged with their program, contributing more than 900 hours of service 

during the year. Almost two-thirds (64 percent) reported five to six hours per day of service in 

the month. FGP volunteers reported an average of five hours of service compared to 4.7 hours 

for SCP volunteers.

Overall satisfaction and perception of the volunteer experience, such as feeling that their 

assignment was a match for their skills and that the assignment was interesting, were high.

Although the volunteers who left their program (leavers) were less positive about their overall 

satisfaction and their experience with training and support, 94 percent of stayers and 74 percent 

of leavers reported being completely satisfied or very satisfied. Between volunteers in FGP and 

SCP, there were no significant differences in overall satisfaction, willingness to recommend the 

program, the overall volunteer experience, and the training and support received. Although not 

statistically significant, lower proportions of SCP leavers reported they would recommend the 

program to a friend, agreed that their supervisors provided them with the support and 

information they need to serve successfully, affirmed that the support from people in the 

program was helpful, and mentioned that the flexibility to manage their time was helpful. These 

perceptions of their satisfaction and experience would tend to weaken SCP volunteers’ retention, 

which is lower than FGP retention.

One effective management practice for promoting retention is to rely on volunteers as recruiters. 

Those who left their program were sufficiently satisfied with their experience that they continued

to demonstrate a strong willingness to be an ambassador for their program – 85 percent of those 

who left reported they were “extremely likely or very likely” to recommend FGP/SCP to a 

friend. This finding is consistent with the high overall satisfaction with volunteering in FGP and 

SCP among both stayers and leavers. The volunteers who left tended to do so because of 

personal health or having to help family or friends. However, about 6 percent to 14 percent of 

volunteers did leave because their expectations and motives for volunteering were not met. For 

example, 14 percent reported they were not getting the experience they wanted, not learning (6
ix

percent), not helping other people/children (12 percent), and not making a difference (11

percent).

Flexibility to manage time and overall satisfaction emerged as the two main barriers that 

contributed to lower retention. A logistic regression model was estimated to predict the 

contribution of individual characteristics and organizational factors to the probability the 

volunteer would remain in service. Overall satisfaction with the program and feelings about the 

flexibility to manage their time had the greatest impact on the odds of staying in service. 

Volunteers who reported higher satisfaction and felt they had flexibility to manage their time 

were almost three times more likely to remain in service than those who were less satisfied or 

those who felt their ability to manage their time time was not flexible. 

There is not one static reason that drives retention over time. The volunteers who ended their 

service in the first year were generally more dissatisfied with their experience than those who 

remained in service. The volunteers might have left because they realized their service activities 

and necessary commitment did not permit them enough flexibility. Beyond the first year, it is 

possible that retention could have been affected by declining personal health or having to help a 

family member.

Objective 3: Health and well-being 

Health and well-being were measured through five outcomes: self-rated health, which is a 

subjective perception of one’s general health; life satisfaction; social isolation and loneliness;

symptoms of depression; and self-efficacy. Volunteers’ perceptions of their health improved 

among stayers, but leavers perceived a decline in their health. A higher proportion of stayers 

reported improved self-rated health, a decrease in perception of social isolation/loneliness, and 

fewer symptoms of depression in their first two years of service. 

The improvement in health and well-being was observed among volunteers with more risk 

factors associated with poor health outcomes. It would therefore be expected that these high-risk 

individuals would show declines in overall health, on average. Given these health benefits, 

service with FGP and SCP has the potential to help adults at high risk of poorer health outcomes 

to maintain their health longer. 

FGP/SCP stayers also reported significant improvement in how they perceived their health as 

compared to reporting by other adult non-volunteers in the general population. The health and 

well-being outcomes of FGP/SCP stayers were compared to a matched sample of adult 

volunteers and non-volunteers with similar income levels in the general population who 

participated in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). Self-rated health for FGP/SCP stayers 

did not significantly differ from that of HRS volunteers. Self-rated health was significantly 

higher for both FGP/SCP stayers and HRS volunteers compared to HRS non-volunteers at both 

baseline and second follow-up. At baseline, the percentage difference in average self-rated health 

between FGP/SCP stayers and HRS non-volunteers was 11 percent, which increased to 22 
x

percent at second follow-up. The increase in average self-rated health was due to both an 

increase in the average self-rated health among FGP/SCP volunteers and a decrease among HRS 

non-volunteers. The size of the difference in perception of health, life satisfaction, social 

isolation/loneliness, and symptoms of depression between stayers and leavers – and between 

stayers and other volunteers and non-volunteers – falls within the moderate range.

Beyond documenting the health benefits associated with volunteering, it is also important to 

identify and understand the characteristics of the volunteering experience that contribute to these 

benefits. These characteristics can inform policy decisions to strengthen these programs. The 

analysis examined the effects of service activities, service hours, and motivation for volunteering 

on changes in self-rated health, life satisfaction, and social isolation/loneliness. Service activities 

were measured based on whether the volunteer served with FGP or SCP, because each program 

offers distinct volunteer service activities. FGP stayers were more likely than SCP stayers to 

report improvement in self-rated health. But SCP stayers reported higher average scores on life 

satisfaction and scored lower on the social isolation/loneliness scale than FGP stayers. In changeof-life satisfaction, however, FGP and SCP stayers did not differ significantly. 

Number of hours served was not a significant contributor to health outcomes, though the 

association between the number of hours served and the volunteers’ report about their health was 

positive. Upon joining FGP and SCP, there is an expectation of commitment to serve 15 to 40 

hours per week. Individuals who persist in the program through the first two years have clearly 

demonstrated this commitment. In the context of FGP and SCP, once a volunteer commits to 

service, a change in hours does not have a large effect on health outcomes.

Motivation appeared to be important in understanding the health benefits associated with 

volunteering. The volunteers who were motivated by personal growth (e.g., to learn, get more 

experience) and had self-oriented goals (e.g., keeping busy, feeling better, having a sense of 

accomplishment), as well as financial incentive motives for volunteering, had higher odds of 

improvement in self-rated health. The odds that self-rated health improved were 68 percent 

higher for volunteers motivated by personal growth. The odds that self-rated health improved 

were 10 percent higher for volunteers who had self-oriented, personal growth, and financial 

incentive motives than for other volunteers. There was a positive association between life 

satisfaction and self-oriented and personal growth motives; at the same time, altruistic and 

financial motives were negatively associated with life satisfaction. 

The findings from this evaluation provide insights for advancing agency and program priorities. 

Through Senior Corps, CNCS is providing opportunities to adults with low-incomes who would 

otherwise not have the opportunity to serve and improve their community. This program is a 

valuable addition to the national service portfolio because volunteers found their community 

service satisfying and meaningful, and they reported having opportunities for personal growth, a 

sense of accomplishment, and making friends. They also kept busy and earned extra money.

There are health benefits associated with national service. Stayers reported improvement in 
xi

general health and greater life satisfaction; they felt less socially isolated, and had fewer 

symptoms of depression.

The programmatic structure of FGP and SCP incorporates several management practices found 

to promote recruitment and retention. One of these is relying on volunteers as recruiters for the 

organization. Senior Corps does this exceptionally well. The primary mode for recruitment is 

through informal networks where volunteers serve as the primary ambassadors for recruiting new 

volunteers. More than two-thirds of the first-time volunteers learned about FGP and SCP from a 

friend. The volunteers who left the program were satisfied with their experience and had a strong 

willingness to be an ambassador for the program – 85 percent of leavers reported they were 

“extremely likely or very likely” to recommend FGP/SCP to a friend.

Recommendations 

While this study examined Senior Corps’ effect on self-perception of physical health and wellbeing of its FGP and SCP volunteers, two additional areas for research can guide future policy 

directions and strengthen management practices. Specifically, research efforts could examine 

whether volunteering with national service leads to improved physical health through selfreporting and biometric screening. Research also could examine the characteristics of 

volunteering that improve mental and physical health. This research could strongly position 

Senior Corps to promote its national service program as a public health intervention leading to

healthier lifestyles for low-income adults and those with little education, who generally have 

poorer health and lower participation in volunteering.

Physical health benefits of volunteers 

• The research on mental health benefits is well-documented among Senior Corps and adult 

volunteers in general. There is limited research on the effects of volunteering on physical 

health. The current study did not examine the volunteers’ physical health, only their selfrated health. A future study could address this limitation and examine how Senior Corps 

national service participation might promote better physical health measured through 

self-reporting and biometric screening. These physical health measures might include 

blood pressure, blood cholesterol, blood glucose, aerobic fitness test, weight, height, and 

body mass index. Longevity is another physical health measure that has been examined in 

the literature. An integrated mixed methods approach of both quantitative and qualitative 

data from volunteers could more deeply explore the complex and multiple ways that 

volunteering activities promote better physical health. 

Characteristics of volunteering that lead to improved health and well-being 

• Volunteering might lead to improvement in physical and mental health. An emerging 

focus of research is to understand which characteristics of volunteering lead to improved 

physical and mental health. The current study began to explore these characteristics of 
xii

volunteering in a limited way. A future mixed methods study should more explicitly 

measure and analyze characteristics of volunteering and how they affect physical and 

mental health. Characteristics of volunteering that could be examined in future research 

might include hours in service, types of service activities, volunteer training prior to 

service and continued support through the term of service, and motivation for 

volunteering. 

•

•

•

Future research could examine how length of service, as well as consistency and amount 

of service hours, affect organizational capacity and volunteers’ physical and mental 

health. A unique characteristic of FGP and SCP is the commitment to a minimum number 

of service hours. FGP and SCP do not impose a minimum length of service for its 

volunteers, however it is reasonable to assume each sponsoring organization potentially 

seeks to maximize volunteers’ length of service to reduce recruitment and training costs 

and minimize service gaps to the community. Future research could directly assess this 

policy to minimize organizational costs in building capacity with a stable volunteer corps 

and whether length of service and stability of service hours maximize health benefits for 

the volunteers. Besides costs to the sponsoring organization, the current study’s findings 

suggest potential personal costs to the volunteers themselves in that a reduction in time 

commitment or ending volunteer service could reduce the health benefits associated with 

volunteering. 

Given the health benefits associated with volunteering, a follow-up mixed methods study 

could delve deeper into the complex factors contributing to leaving. For example, the 

results showed that volunteers who reported they did not have enough flexibility to 

manage time were three times more likely to leave national service. A future study might 

examine how policy and practice around service commitment might be adjusted to allow 

those volunteers to continue to meet the required hours of service with enough flexibility 

that will allow them to remain in service and thereby attain the health benefits associated 

with service.

A future study could examine the effect of the stipend on recruitment, retention and 

health outcomes. Senior Corps makes provision to remove economic barriers to serve 

through a modest stipend of $2.65 per hour intended to defray the cost of volunteering. 

The study design did not set out to test the impact or effectiveness of the stipend. 

However, the questionnaire included two questions to begin to understand whether the 

stipend was a factor in the decision to volunteer. One question asked whether earning 

extra money was an important consideration in deciding to volunteer. Another question 

asked whether the stipend was helpful or not. The exploratory analysis of both questions 

suggests that the financial aspect of the decision to volunteer should be more closely 

examined in future research. Close to one-third of the first-time volunteers; and more 

than 80 percent of first-time volunteers reported the stipend was “extremely or very 

helpful.”
1

Introduction 

As the federal agency for volunteering and service, the Corporation for National and Community 

Service (CNCS) is one of the nation’s largest grantmakers for service and volunteering and plays 

a critical role in strengthening America’s nonprofit sector by addressing social and economic 

challenges through service. Through AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and other programs, CNCS 

engages millions of Americans of all ages and backgrounds in results-driven service at 50,000 

locations across the country. Senior Corps, one of the agency’s signature programs, provides 

national service opportunities for Americans aged 55 and over, leveraging their skills and 

experience while addressing some of the nation’s most pressing challenges. 

Senior Corps provides opportunities for individuals ages 55 and over to serve their community. 

Senior Corps comprises three national service programs that are authorized under Title II of the 

Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973. In 2017, the three programs – Foster Grandparent 

Program (FGP), Senior Companion Program (SCP), and RSVP – matched approximately 

220,000 individuals ages 55 and older with service opportunities addressing critical needs in

their communities. 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. SCP engages adults in providing supportive, 

individualized services to help other adults with special needs maintain their dignity and 

independence. SCP provides direct services to homebound clients to support independent living 

as well as services to caregivers of family or friends who are having difficulty with daily living. 

Some of the 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 and caregivers. RSVP engages individuals 55 and older 

in volunteer service in a variety of activities to meet critical community needs such as disaster 

response and recovery, tax preparation services, and meal delivery services. FGP and SCP are 

means tested programs and volunteers are have incomes below 200% of the poverty level.

CNCS carries out the Senior Corps programs (FGP, SCP, and RSVP) by making grants to nonfederal entities. Senior Corps encompasses approximately 1,100 sponsoring organizations,

known as “projects,” all of which are locally administered. The sponsoring organizations 

receiving grants include national and local nonprofits, schools, government agencies, faith-based 

and community organizations, and other groups committed to strengthening their communities 

through volunteering. Within the broad framework of Senior Corps legislation, service activities 

grow out of agreements among the participants, projects, and the community as represented by 

community advisory groups and volunteer-hosting organizations known as “stations.” As a 

result, Senior Corps activities reflect a mix of needs unique to each community. In 2017, Senior 
2

Corps volunteers provided independent living services to more than 364,000 individuals and 

provided educational support, such as mentoring and tutoring, to more than 217,000 children. 

The Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973, as amended (Public Law 93–113), directs CNCS

to assess the impact and effectiveness of Senior Corps programs at least once every three years

[Sec. 416(a)]. The reauthorization of CNCS through the 2009 Edward M. Kennedy Serve 

America Act provided for an expansion of CNCS-supported programs and enhanced CNCS’s

role in strengthening America's nonprofit sector and addressing the nation's challenges through 

evidence-based practices. In addition, the agency has outlined a commitment to building an

evidence base to inform decision-making and the allocation of resources in subsequent strategic 

planning documents. The evidence base is built on several research activities, including the

implementation of uniform, outcome-based performance measures; rigorous, national

evaluations of national service program models; grantee program evaluations; and policy and

management studies.

Overview of the Current Evaluation 

Within the Serve America Act framework, Senior Corps developed a research agenda with 

integrated short- and long-range objectives incorporating four goals from the 2011–2015 CNCS 

Strategic Plan – Goal 1: Increase the impact of national service on community needs in 

communities served by CNCS-supported programs; Goal 2: Strengthen national service so 

participants engaged in CNCS-supported programs consistently find satisfaction, meaning, and 

opportunity; Goal 3: Maximize the value added to grantees, partners, and participants; and Goal 

4: Fortify management operations and sustain a capable, responsive, and accountable 

organization. In 2014, CNCS launched a longitudinal evaluation of Senior Corps’ FGP and SCP 

programs, which consisted of a study of FGP and SCP volunteers and a study on caregivers 

receiving respite services. Both studies were intended to assess progress in advancing goals 1, 2,

and 4 of the 2011–2015 Strategic Plan. The results of the Caregiver Study are discussed in 

separate reports, Senior Corps Longitudinal Evaluation: A Profile of Senior Companion 

Caregiver Respite Clients1and Does the Senior Companion Respite Service Matter for the 

Health and Well-being of Caregivers?2 The current report provides the results for the study of 

FGP and SCP volunteers. 

This is the second national evaluation of FGP and SCP volunteers. The first evaluation, 

completed in 2013, was a cross-sectional study of all FGP and SCP volunteers in service at the 

time the data were collected. The cross-sectional study examined volunteers’ health, self-

 

1 Georges, A., Uppal, H., Fung, W., Pratt, D., Birmingham, C., Sum, C., ... Gabbard, S. (2016). Senior Corps 

Longitudinal Evaluation: A Profile of Senior Companion Caregiver Respite Clients North Bethesda, MD: JBS 

International Inc.

2 Georges, A., Fung, W., Liang, J., Smith, J., Pratt, D., Sum, C., ... Gabbard, S. (2017). Does the Senior Companion 

respite service matter for the health and well-being of caregivers? North Bethesda, MD: JBS International Inc.
3

efficacy, perceived social ties, and social support; it also compared health outcomes to those of 

similar adult volunteers and non-volunteers in the general population.

3 The cross-sectional study 

did not measure retention, motivation, or satisfaction and experience with national service. Due 

to its cross-sectional nature, the first study also did not measure whether or how participation 

with FGP or SCP may be associated with changes in the volunteers’ health and well-being. 

Although the cross-sectional study found the average length of volunteering as a Foster 

Grandparent or Senior Companion was six years, it was not possible to examine whether the 

volunteers who left national service early might differ in satisfaction and experience with the 

program or whether the individuals who left early differed in health and well-being outcomes. 

The current study collected the data to address these limitations.

The longitudinal study builds on findings from the previous cross-sectional study as well as 

evidence from the research literature on the health benefits of volunteering. The study focuses on 

increasing the levels of evidence for FGP and SCP and on progress made in meeting goals 1, 2 

and 4 of the 2011–2015 CNCS Strategic Plan. The study provides information on how CNCS

accomplished its commitment to strengthen national service participation as indicated by 

volunteer satisfaction and retention, self-rated health, and overall well-being (e.g., psychological 

distress and loneliness). The study collected data that directly examined program effectiveness 

such as satisfaction, experience with training and support, and change in health, including change 

in health among volunteers who remained in service as well as among those who began but 

subsequently ended their service. 

Previous Reports 

Two previous reports from the longitudinal study are available. The first report, Senior Corps 

Longitudinal Evaluation: A Profile of New Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion 

Volunteers,

4 provided a descriptive portrait of the first-time FGP and SCP volunteers who began 

national service between July and November 2015. The results in the first report showed a high 

proportion of adults who began national service were low-income earners, unmarried, racially 

diverse females with some college or associate’s degree, but many did not attain a bachelor’s 

degree. This is a group of adults who have fewer volunteer opportunities compared to adults in 

higher income groups and those with higher levels of education (McNamara & Gonzalez, 2011).

5

 

3 Tan, E., Georges, A., Gabbard, S., Pratt, D., ,Nerino, A, Roberts, A., Wrightsman, S.... Hyde, M. (2016). The 

2013–2014 Senior Corps Study: Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions. Public Policy & Aging Report, 26(3), 

88–95. doi: 10.1093/ppar/prw016

4 Georges, A., Uppal, H., Fung, W., Pratt, D., Birmingham, C., Sum, C., Smith, J. & Gabbard, S. (2016). Senior 

Corps Longitudinal Evaluation: A Profile of New Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion Volunteers. North

Bethesda, MD: JBS International Inc.

5 McNamara, T. K., & Gonzales, E. (2011, July). 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
4

Consistent with the literature,

6 most Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion volunteers were 

motivated to volunteer for altruistic reasons. There was often more than one motivating factor 

influencing the decision to volunteer. Volunteers who were highly motivated by altruistic 

reasons in their decision frequently reported also being motivated for personal growth (e.g., 

learning something new), and some reported self-oriented motives (e.g., having a sense of 

accomplishment, keeping busy/filling time). The FGP and SCP programs both offer incomeeligible volunteers a tax-free hourly stipend to help cover volunteering costs. To be considered 

income eligible, the volunteers’ total income must be at or below 200 percent of the federal 

poverty level. The volunteers also receive supplemental accident, and liability insurance while in 

service. The stipend was a motivating factor; 12 percent of first-time volunteers reported their 

primary motivation was to “earn extra money.” A higher proportion of volunteers between ages

55 and 65, and African Americans, reported altruistic motivations as reason for volunteering than

other volunteers surveyed. A higher proportion of Hispanic volunteers and those with less than a 

high school education reported both self-oriented and personal growth motivations. First-time 

volunteers learned about national service opportunities from friends, word of mouth, or through 

church. First-time volunteers also learned about volunteering opportunities from printed 

brochures or posters and community outreach talks.

The second report, Health Effects of Volunteering as a Foster Grandparent or Senior 

Companion,

7

examined retention in service among the first-time volunteers who were surveyed 

in the first report, their experience as volunteers, and change in their health and well-being one 

year after beginning their service. This second report summarized the proportion of the 

volunteers who remained in service and the differences between those who stayed in service and 

those who left in sociodemographic characteristics, satisfaction, and experience with the training 

and support received. Results from regression models were used to examine differences in health

and well-being between volunteers who stayed in service and those who left.

The results discussed in the second report showed fewer than one-fourth (22 percent) of firsttime volunteers ended their service within six months, reporting either personal health problems 

or health problems of a family member/friend, lack of time to fulfill their volunteer service 

obligations, and/or insufficient financial incentives as reasons for ending their service. Retention 

rates were higher among FGP than SCP. Neither the volunteers’ initial rating of health and wellbeing at the start of their service, nor their motivation for volunteering were significant 

contributors to the odds of remaining in service. Overall satisfaction was generally high among 

first-time volunteers, but the volunteers who left within their first year were somewhat less 

satisfied with the overall experience of national service than those who remained. 

 

6 Chen, H. & Morrow-Howell, N. (2015). Antecedents and outcomes of older adults’ motivations to volunteer with 

Experience Corps. Research in Human Development, 12 (1-2), 118–132. doi: 10.1080/15427609.2015.1010352

7 Georges, A., Fung, W., Smith, J., Liang, J., Pratt, D., Sum, C., Birmingham, C., & Gabbard, S. (2017). Health 

Effects of Volunteering as a Foster Grandparent or Senior Companion. North Bethesda, MD: JBS International Inc.
5

The results discussed in the second report also showed that in the first year of service, FGP and 

SCP volunteers reported improvement in how they felt about their overall health. A higher 

proportion of volunteers who remained in service (stayers) reported their health as having 

improved, a decrease in perception of loneliness, and fewer symptoms of depression within one 

year of national service. After accounting for initial health status at the time the volunteers 

started national service as well as changes in their personal health or health of a family member 

or friend that could impact their ability to remain in the program, a higher proportion of the 

volunteers who left rated their health as declining. The odds of reporting a rating of excellent or 

very good health in the first year decreased for those who left compared to those who stayed. A 

similar pattern of difference favoring stayers over leavers was also seen in volunteers’ perception 

of social connectedness (i.e., perception of loneliness) and in the number of symptoms of 

depression. 

Objectives and Research Questions

The final report uses data from all three time points of data collection (baseline and two followups) to achieve three objectives. The first objective was to describe the demographic profile, 

knowledge of national service, and motivation for volunteering among the first-time volunteers. 

The specific research questions addressed in the first objective were:

1. What are the social and economic characteristics of FGP and SCP volunteers? 

2. What sources did the volunteers use to learn about FGP and SCP service opportunities? 

3. What motivates adults to volunteer with FGP and SCP? 

The second objective was to assess retention in service, reasons that contributed to leaving 

national service, differences between the volunteers who stayed and those who left in terms of 

satisfaction and experience with the training and support received to serve, service activities, and 

level of engagement. These questions are intended to shed light on areas where national service 

can be improved and to inform programmatic discussions. The specific research questions under 

the second objective were:

1. What is the retention rate? What is the difference in retention rate between FGP and SCP 

volunteers?

2. What are the differences between volunteers who remain in service and those who leave? 

a. What are the differences in demographic characteristics and motivation for 

volunteering? What are the personal reasons contributing to volunteer retention?

b. What are the differences in satisfaction, volunteer experience, motivation, and 

types of training and support received between those who remain and those who 

leave? 

3. What is the level of engagement among first-time volunteers? What types of service 

activities do they report? What is the association between retention, service hours, and 

service activities for volunteers who remain in service?

4. Which individual characteristics, motives, and types of training and support received are 

the most important contributors to volunteer retention? 
6

The third objective examined how participation in national service contributed to changes in selfrated health and well-being. The specific research questions for the third objective were:

1. How do health and well-being change among volunteers who remain in service and those 

who leave?

2. Do health and well-being differ over time between FGP/SCP volunteers and similar adult 

volunteers and non-volunteers in the general population?

3. Do service activities, service hours, and motivation for volunteering contribute to the 

health and well-being outcomes of volunteers who remain in service?

Study Procedure 

The longitudinal study recruited adults enrolling for the first time as volunteers with FGP or SCP 

between July and November 2015. The participants were recruited after they completed the 

program’s application and security clearance process. All individuals who had not previously 

volunteered with Senior Corps were eligible to enroll in the study. The initial enrollment 

occurred in two stages. In the first stage, JBS International staff provided technical assistance to 

grantees on how to enroll participants into the study. In the second stage, grantees explained the 

study to eligible participants. Those who agreed to participate received a survey packet that

included a consent form and the survey. Participants were provided a prepaid envelope to return 

their surveys directly to JBS.8 Figure 1 shows the survey administration timeline. 

Figure 1 Survey Administration Timeline

In 2015, all 523 active Senior Corps grantees were contacted to participate in the study. Of these

grantees, 236 had at least one eligible volunteer who completed the baseline survey in 2015. In 

2016, of the 236 grantees from the baseline survey, 230 grantees had at least one volunteer who 

completed the first follow-up survey. In 2017, 223 of the grantees from the first follow-up had at 

 

8 The study’s data manual, Volunteer Study Users’ Manual for First Follow Up, provides more details on the data 

collection administration procedures. The survey development is described later in this report.

Baseline 

Survey #1

July–November 

2015

 First Follow-up 

Survey #2

April–December 

2016

Second Follow-up 

Survey #3

April–November 

2017
7

least one volunteer who completed the second follow-up survey. At the baseline survey, the 

number of eligible volunteers range from 1 to 21 per grantee.

The baseline survey was distributed and completed before the volunteers began their service, 

typically when they attended their program’s orientation. The same volunteers who completed 

the baseline surveys were contacted two additional times for follow-up surveys. The first followup survey was administered nine months after the volunteers completed the baseline survey. All 

participants were contacted for the first follow-up whether they were still volunteering or not. 

The second follow-up with the final survey was administered at 21 months after the baseline 

survey. The second follow-up was administered to all first follow-up respondents whether the 

individual had left the program or not. Each participant received a $20 honorarium for 

completing each survey. Grantees received a $10 honorarium for each participant who completed 

a survey.

A federally-qualified Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversees JBS’s research and evaluation 

studies. The research protocol for this study received an IRB exemption on June 15, 2015 (IRB 

approval number AG15-01). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cleared the survey 

and data collection plan on June 24, 2015 (OMB control number: 3045-09173).

Participants 

During the enrollment phase, 1,424 volunteers completed the baseline survey. A total of 191 

surveys from 104 grantees were determined to be ineligible for the following reasons: 165 were 

excluded because they were identified as returning volunteers based on their responses to survey 

questions, 21 were determined to have begun service prior to the study enrollment window, and 

5 volunteers completed the survey but did not provide informed consent to participate. This 

yielded a sample of 1,233 volunteers completing the baseline survey and eligible to participate in 

the first follow-up survey. Of these 1,233 volunteers, 1,089 completed the first follow-up survey, 

representing an 88 percent response rate. At the second follow-up, 917 of the 1,089 first followup respondents completed the second follow-up survey, representing an 85 percent response rate. 

At baseline, FGP volunteers comprised 71 percent of the participants, which is representative of 

the distribution of volunteers across these two programs. At each of the subsequent follow-up 

surveys, the distribution of volunteers remained proportionally the same, with FGP volunteers 

comprising 72 and 73 percent of the respondents. Figure 2 shows the distribution of FGP and 

SCP participants, including the number of respondents who had left national service, at each time 

point. At the first follow-up, 237 respondents had left national service, and at the second followup, an additional 112 respondents had left national service. 
8

Figure 2 Participants by Program Type and Participation Status

First Follow-up

1089 volunteers

FGP: 782 SCP: 307

In Service

852 volunteers

FGP: 624 SCP: 228

Left Service

237 volunteers

FGP: 158 SCP: 79

Second Follow-up

917 volunteers

FGP: 670 SCP: 247

In Service

619 volunteers

FGP: 464 SCP: 155

Left Service at 

Second Follow-up

112 volunteers

FGP: 78 SCP: 34

Left Service at 

First Follow-up

186 volunteers

FGP: 128 SCP: 58

Baseline Enrollment

1233 volunteers

FGP: 873 SCP: 360

Previous research demonstrates that volunteering has health benefits. However, it is unknown 

how long it takes for these benefits to be manifested. For the current analysis, we excluded 108 

volunteers who had a gap of more than one month between their start date and the date the 

baseline survey was completed on the assumption that if volunteering impacted health, then these 

benefits might be noticeable within that time gap; the baseline data point would therefore not be 

a true baseline prior to service. The final sample in the current report, shown in Figure 3,

consisted of 841 respondents – 567 participants who remained in national service through the 

study period and completed the baseline and both follow-up surveys, 171 respondents who had 
9

left national service at the time of the first follow-up survey, and 99 respondents who left 

national service at the time of the second follow-up survey.

9

Figure 3 Final Analytic Sample 

In Service

567 volunteers

FGP: 424 SCP: 143

Left Service at 

Second Follow-up

99 volunteers

FGP: 67 SCP: 32

Left Service at 

First Follow-up

172 volunteers

FGP: 117 SCP: 54

Second Follow-up

841 volunteers

FGP: 610 SCP: 231

Note: Four volunteers had missing status (i.e., unknown whether they are still volunteering).

This sample size for comparing two groups – those who remained in service (N = 567) compared 

to those who left (N = 270) – would detect mean differences of an effect size of 0.20 within the 

survey with a power of 0.85 and alpha value of 0.05. A sensitivity analysis shows this sample 

size should allow the analysis to detect mean differences between the two groups of effect size of 

about 0.17. A comparison of the mean differences between those who remained (N = 567) and 

those who left at the first follow-up survey (N = 171) would detect difference of an effect size of 

0.22 with a power of 0.81; and a comparison with those who left at the second follow-up (N = 

99) would detect mean difference of an effect size of 0.28 with a power of 0.82. The analysis that

used only the sample of the volunteers who remained in service (N = 567) would detect an effect 

size of 0.11 with a power of 0.83.

Characteristics of Non-respondents 

The non-response rate was 12 percent at first follow-up and 15 percent at second follow-up. 

Overall chi-square tests were conducted to determine whether there were significant differences 

between responders and non-responders at each of the follow-up surveys. If the overall chisquare tests were significant and the variable had more than two levels (e.g., education), dummy 

variables were created, and chi-square tests were conducted to examine the differences at each 

level. At the first follow-up, differences between responders and non-responders were found in 

program type (FGP versus SCP), ethnicity, and gender. SCP, males and Hispanic volunteers 

were significantly over-represented among non-respondents relative to their proportion in the 

9

It was not possible to determine participation of four respondents who had completed all three surveys. Three of 

the participants were actively in service at the first follow-up, but it could not be determined if these three 

participants were still active at the second follow-up. One of the participants had left service at the time of the first 

follow-up but it could not be determined if that participant, at the time of the second follow-up, had returned to be an 

active volunteer or not. 
10

overall sample. A similar analysis was conducted for non-responders at the second follow-up 

survey. The differences between responders and non-responders at the second follow-up were 

found in program type and ethnicity. At the second follow-up survey, SCP and Hispanic 

volunteers were significantly over-represented among non-responders. 

Survey Development and Testing 

The survey questions were adopted from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), developed by 

the University of Michigan. The HRS data is the only longitudinal panel study of a national 

representative sample of non-institutionalized adults ages 50 and older, collecting a diverse set of 

information on health care, housing, assets, pensions, employment, and disability, all of which 

are intended to inform a broad discussion about retirement. The HRS is well-suited to construct a 

comparative sample because its broad national representation permits for analysis of the older 

population in general, as well as the great diversity and variability of aging; and drawing 

questions from the HRS allows for comparison of variability with a national sample of adults. 

Questions were also drawn from previous Senior Corps surveys. The survey’s organization and 

content were reviewed by the CNCS Office of Senior Corps, the CNCS Office of Research and 

Evaluation, the Field Working Group (FWG) comprised of FGP and SCP grantees, and the 

Technical Working Group (TWG) comprised of experts in gerontology, longitudinal surveys and 

evaluation design, psychometrics, and the measurement of stress and symptoms of depression. 

These internal and external reviews were used to revise and modify the survey questions. The 

survey was pilot-tested with eight volunteers and modified based on the feedback from the pretesters. The baseline and both follow-up surveys were adapted into Spanish and Chinese, and the 

accuracy of translation was reviewed by native speakers of each language. 

Approach to Analysis 

Prior to analysis, the data were reviewed for out-of-range responses, coding, skip edits, missing 

values and consistency. The users’ manuals for the baseline,10 first follow-up,11 and second 

follow-up12 provide additional details on data preparation. The report used descriptive statistics,

bivariate analysis, correlation analysis, regression (logistic for dichotomous outcomes, multiple 

regression, and repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA)), and propensity score 

matching. Repeated measures analyses of the three time points (baseline, first follow-up, and 

second follow-up) were conducted to examine changes over time. Only volunteers with 

 

10 Georges, A., Uppal, H., Pratt, D., Birmingham, C., Sum, C., Smith, J. & Gabbard, S. (2016). Senior Corps 

Longitudinal Evaluation Volunteer Study Baseline Data Collection Users’ Manual. North Bethesda, MD: JBS 

International Inc.

11 Georges, A., Smith, J., Fung, W., Pratt, D., Sum, C., Birmingham, C., & Gabbard, S. (2017). Senior Corps 

Longitudinal Evaluation Volunteer Study First Follow-up Data Collection Users’ Manual. North Bethesda, MD: 

JBS International Inc.

12 Georges, A., Fung, W., Smith, J., Liang, J., Sum, C., & Gabbard, S. (2018). Senior Corps Longitudinal Evaluation 

Volunteer Study Second Follow-up Data Collection Users’ Manual. North Bethesda, MD: JBS International Inc.
11

outcomes data at all time points were used in the ANOVA analysis. Prior to examining the 

results, the assumption of sphericity was examined. If violation of sphericity was found, the 

severity of departure from sphericity was assessed, and the Greenhouse-Geisser or Huynh-Feldt 

corrections were used for the p-values. Contrasts were then conducted to determine whether 

significant differences existed between baseline and first follow-up, first follow-up and second 

follow-up, and baseline and second follow-up. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to 

examine the differences between stayers and leavers at baseline and the two follow-ups. Prior to 

examining the results, the assumption of equality of variances was examined. If violation of 

equality of variance was found, the Satterthwaite Approximate was used to determine 

significance. 

Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to construct a sample of FGP and SCP volunteers 

with a sample of volunteer and non-volunteer participants in the Health and Retirement Study 

(HRS). The comparative analysis was conducted to assess how FGP/SCP volunteers differed

from similar adult volunteers and non-volunteers in the general population. The 2012 and 2014 

HRS data, which are the most recent available data at the time of this report, were used to 

construct the matched samples. PSM reduces bias in estimates due to confounding variables in 

circumstances where random assignment is not feasible; when correctly specified, PSM provides

groups that are equivalent on baseline characteristics, and PSM can substantially reduce threats 

to a study’s internal validity.

13 Appendix A describes the propensity score method and results of 

the matched sample.

Missing data were typically limited, except for income and service hours, where 13 percent did 

not respond to the question about income and 52 percent did not answer the question about 

service hours. For the analysis under the first objective, which describes the volunteers’ 

demographic characteristics, missing values on income were imputed using the “hot deck”

imputation method, a nonparametric approach used to impute missing values by creating a 

contingency table of respondents with no missing values on items associated with the item to be 

imputed.

14 In the logistic regression model that included income and service hours as predictors, 

all missing values were imputed using the fully conditional specification (FCS) method, which 

uses a separate conditional distribution for each imputed variable. This specification is used for 

imputing a variable that takes specific values such as a binary outcome for a logistic model. For 

multiple regression models, missing values were imputed using the Markov chain Monte Carlo 

(MCMC) multiple imputation method. The health and well-being outcome measures were not 

imputed. Appendix B describes the multiple imputation and the results.

 

13 Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 

25(1), 1–21. doi: 10.1214/09-STS313

14 Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
12

Findings 

The findings from the analysis are organized into three sections, one for each of the three 

objectives. The report concludes with a discussion of the main results and a set of 

recommendations for future research.

Portrait of First-time FGP and SCP Volunteers 

This section presents findings for the first objective, to describe the demographic profile, 

knowledge of national service, and motivation for volunteering among the first-time volunteers. 

The following research questions guided the analysis:

1. What are the social and economic characteristics of the FGP and SCP volunteers? 

2. What sources did the volunteers use to learn about FGP SCP service opportunities? 

3. What motivates adults to volunteer with FGP and SCP? 

The analysis used the baseline survey responses. We used descriptive statistics and tested for

differences between FGP and SCP volunteers. Type of motivation was measured based on the

results of a factor analysis (a method for identifying groups of variables that measure the same 

underlying concept). The factor analysis was conducted on 11 items to determine which of the 

items could be grouped together for types of motivation. 

Characteristics of the Volunteers

To serve as a Foster Grandparent or Senior Companion volunteer, an individual must be at least 

55 years old and meet an income eligibility, which is that their income must be at or below 200 

percent of the national federal poverty level guidelines. At the time of the first survey, when the 

volunteers were about to begin service, 200 percent of the national poverty level for a household 

of one was $23,540, for a household of two was $31,860, for a household of three was $40,180, 

and for a household of four was $48,500.

15 Given the income eligibility criteria, FGP and SCP

provide service opportunities to adults who are potentially in the high-risk group for poorer 

health and other health disparities.16 Looking at the volunteers’ demographic composition, they

were typically unmarried women with an average age of 65 who had completed some college

(Table 1). Approximately 91 percent were female; more than half (51 percent) were 65 years old 

or younger; 40 percent were between 66 and 75 years old; and 9 percent were 76 years old or 

older. The majority (80 percent) reported total annual household income of less than $20,000; 15

percent reported household income between $20,000 and $29,999; and 5 percent reported 

 

15 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. 

(2015). 2015 Poverty guidelines. Retrieved from https://aspe.hhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines; Georgetown 

University Health Policy Institute, Center for Children and Families. 2015 Federal poverty guidelines. Retrieved 

from https://ccf.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2015-Federal-Poverty-Guidelines.pdf

16 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics. (2017). Health, United States, 

2016: With chartbook on long-term trends in health. Hyattsville, MD. Retrieved from 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus16.pdf.
13

income $30,000 and higher.17 The volunteers’ average income was closer to 100 percent of the 

national poverty level guideline rather than the 200 percent eligibility guideline to serve as FGP 

and SCP volunteers. 

 

17 Approximately 13.3 percent of the respondents did not answer the question on household income. The missing 

income values were imputed using the “hot deck” imputation method, which is a nonparametric method to impute 

missing values by creating a contingency table using respondents with no missing values on items that are associated 

with the item to be imputed. The variables used to create the contingency table were age, education level, marital 

status, and employment status. Without imputation, among respondents that reported household income: 69.2

percent reported total annual household income that was less than $20,000; 13.3 percent reported household income 

between $20,000 and $29,999; 1.6 percent reported between $30,000 and $39,999; 2.4 percent reported income 

above $40,000; and 0.2 percent reported greater than $20,000 but did not specify the amount. The remaining 13.3 

percent of respondents did not report their household income.
14

Table 1 Characteristics of the First-time Volunteers 

All FGP SCP p-value

Age

55-65 years 51.4 50.3 54.3 0.31

66-75 years 39.7 40.6 37.1 0.36

76 years or older 8.9 9.1 8.6 0.84

Gender

Male 8.9 8.2 10.8 0.23

Female 91.1 91.8 89.2 0.23

Race

Native American Alaska Native 1.6 1.5 1.8 0.76

Asian 3.0 2.9 3.2 0.84

Black or African American 45.1 46.3 42.1 0.29

Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.07

White 47.3 45.9 51.1 0.18

More than one race 2.7 3.4 0.9 0.05

Ethnicity

Not Hispanic 90.1 90.9 87.9 0.20

Hispanic 9.9 9.1 12.1 0.20

Education

Less than HS 10.5 10.4 10.7 0.90

HS or GED 30.3 29.9 31.3 0.71

Less than BA 43.1 43.0 43.3 0.94

BA or higher 16.1 16.6 14.7 0.51

Income

Less than $20,000 80.1 77.3 87.3 0.001

$20,000-$29,999 15.4 17.4 10.0 0.008

$30,000 and higher 4.5 5.3 2.6 0.10

Marital Status

Married/Partner 25.1 27.6 18.7 0.009

Separated/Divorced 40.1 37.0 48.0 0.004

Widowed 23.4 23.8 22.2 0.63

Never Married/Other 11.5 11.6 11.1 0.83

Veteran Status

Active duty or veteran 3.4 3.2 3.7 0.73

Military family or family of veteran 17.4 17.7 16.7 0.74

Not a veteran 75.0 74.8 75.5 0.85

More than one answer 4.3 4.3 4.2 0.94

Disability

Long lasting conditions or any 

condition that substantially limits 

basic physical activities

33.9 34.0 33.6 0.92

Note: Significant differences between FGP and SCP (i.e., p-values less than 0.05) are in bold. 

In terms of education level, 11 percent did not have a high school diploma; 30 percent graduated 

from high school; 43 percent had some college or an associate degree but did not attain a 
15

bachelor’s degree; and 16 percent graduated from college or earned an advanced degree. About

one-fourth of the volunteers were currently married; the remaining three-fourths were separated 

or divorced (40 percent), widowed (23 percent), or never married (12 percent). About one-fourth 

had a family member who was a veteran or were veterans themselves. In terms of racial 

composition, more than 90 percent were White (47 percent) or African American (45 percent). 

Approximately 10 percent were Hispanic or Latino. About one-third (34 percent) reported 

having a disability, such as a long-lasting condition like severe vision or hearing loss, or a 

condition that limits basic physical activities. 

Labor Force Participation, Retirement, and Disability 

Labor force participation rate among seniors has risen since the late 1990s, with a marked 

reversal to full-time employment over time.

18 This trend of working or seeking employment was 

noticeable among FGP/SCP volunteers. As previously noted, about half of the volunteers were 

65 years old or older, yet most were not fully retired. When asked about their retirement and

employment status, almost three-fourths (74 percent) reported they were retired. A closer 

examination of their responses showed more than half of these retirees reported they were also 

working or looking for work. Figure 4 shows the employment status of the volunteers at the start 

of their service after accounting for the proportion of retirees who were still in the labor force. 

The results show 14 percent were unemployed and looking for work; 9 percent were currently 

working, more than one-fourth (28 percent) reported they were disabled, and 43 percent were 

fully retired (neither working nor looking for work).

 

18 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008, Aug. 6). More seniors working full time. TED: The Economics Daily. 

Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2008/aug/wk1/art03.htm
16

Figure 4 Labor Force Participation, Retirement, and Disability at the Start of Service

Homemaker

6%

Working now

9%

Unemployed

14%

Disabled

28%

Retired

43%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Percentage of Volunteers

There was a significant difference in employment status by age, particularly between volunteers 

age 65 and younger and those older than 65. As would be expected, a higher proportion of 

volunteers age 65 and younger were working, and that number was significantly different from 

volunteers age 66 and older. About 11 percent of volunteers age 65 and under were working, 

compared to 7 percent of those between ages 66 and 75 and 3 percent of those age 76 and older. 

The older volunteers, however, reported being active in the labor force. A significantly higher 

proportion of volunteers age 76 and older reported looking for work compared to the volunteers 

age 65 and younger. About one-fifth of the volunteers age 76 and older reported looking for 

work compared to 10 percent of volunteers age 65 and younger (Table 2). These age differences 

among those volunteers looking for work is consistent with the trend of increasing labor force 

participation among individuals over age 65. In addition to remaining active in the labor force, 

for FGP/SCP volunteers, a greater proportion of those under age 66 reported being disabled

(Table 2).
17

Table 2 Age Differences in Employment, Retirement, and Disability Status at the Start of 

Service

p-value p-value p-value

All 55–65 66–75 76 or older

55–65 

vs. 

66–75

55–65 

vs. 

76

66–75 

vs.

76

Working now 9.2 11.4 7.3 2.7 0.05 0.02 0.22

Unemployed and Looking for Work 14.3 10.4 17.7 20.6 0.01 0.02 0.52

Disabled 28.0 44.9 12.0 9.6 <.0001 <.0001 0.66

Retired 43.0 25.4 59.9 65.8 <.0001 <.0001 0.33

Homemaker 5.5 7.9 3.2 1.4 0.01 0.02 0.54

Note: Significant differences (i.e., p-values less than 0.05) are in bold.

Table 3, which compares the employment, retirement, and disability status of FGP and SCP 

volunteers, shows there were two notable differences between the two volunteer groups. A

higher proportion of SCP volunteers reported being disabled compared to FGP volunteers (30 

percent for SCP versus 27 percent for FGP); and a higher proportion of FGP volunteers reported 

they were working compared to SCP volunteers (10 percent for FGP versus 8 percent for SCP).

Table 3 Comparison of Employment Status of FGP and SCP 

Occupation 

An individual’s occupation provides some information about the nature of their work, required 

education and training to perform the work, potential earnings, and job outlook. Occupation 

reflects the type of jobs and pay the volunteers could garner if still active in the labor force. 

Occupation was measured from an open-ended question in the baseline survey. The written 

responses were reviewed then coded into occupation codes based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics’ guidelines. There is diversity in the volunteers’ occupations, where some occupations

potentially required a bachelor’s degree, while most of the occupations did not. Figure 5 shows 

the six occupations volunteers described most frequently. These were Office and Administrative 

Support (15 percent); Education, Training, and Library (12 percent); Healthcare Support (10 

percent); Food Preparation and Serving (6 percent); Management (5 percent); and Production (5

percent). 

All FGP SCP p-value

Working now 9.2 9.7 7.9 0.43

Unemployed and looking for work 14.3 14.4 14.0 0.88

Disabled 28.0 27.3 29.8 0.48

Retired 43.0 43.3 42.1 0.76
18

Figure 5 Top Six Occupations Among First-time Volunteers

 

The remaining 47 percent (Figure 6) of the volunteers described occupations in sales, healthcare

and technical fields, cleaning and maintenance, community and social service, and 

transportation. More than 8 percent of volunteers indicated they had more than one occupation, 

and 7 percent were unable to be classified into one of the major occupation codes. Overall, the 

average earnings in the occupations identified are low to moderate. The estimated salary for 

these occupations was below $30,000.19

 

19 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). May 2017 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates 

United States. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#53-0000
19

Figure 6 Occupations Among First-time Volunteers (%)

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

1.3

1.6

1.7

2.0

3.1

3.6

3.9

3.9

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Installation, Maintenance, and Repair

Farming, Fishing, and Forestry

Computer and Mathematical

Life, Physical, and Social Science

Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media

Protective Service

Legal

Architecture and Engineering

Construction and Extraction

Business and Financial Operations

Personal Care and Service

Transportation and Material Moving

Community and Social Service

Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance

Healthcare Practitioners and Technical

Sales and Related

Percentage of Volunteers

Sources Used to Learn About National Service 

How first-time volunteers learned about service opportunities with Senior Corps is important 

because it can inform how to plan and strengthen recruitment. The volunteers primarily learned 

of FGP and SCP through informal networks, which suggests the most effective recruitment 

methods are active, and former volunteers sharing their experience with friends and family. As 

shown in Figure 7, approximately 67 percent learned about FGP and SCP service opportunities

from a friend, or other informal communication through word of mouth (32 percent). 

Approximately 15 percent learned about FGP and SCP from a printed brochure or poster, and 10

percent indicated community outreach talks were their primary source. Eight percent learned 

about FGP and SCP from their church.
20

Figure 7 Sources Used to Learn About FGP SCP National Service

Church

8%

Community outreach 

talks

10%

Printed brochure or 

poster

15%

Word of mouth

32%

Told by a friend

67%

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

Percentage of Volunteers

About one-third (34 percent) learned about the FGP and SCP from more than one source. Being 

told by a friend and word of mouth was the most frequent combination of sources reported (41 

percent) followed by a combination of a friend and printed brochure or poster (8 percent). 

As shown in Table 4, the sources used were mostly comparable for FGP and SCP volunteers 

with one notable difference. A significantly higher proportion of Foster Grandparents (70

percent) were “told by a friend” compared to SCP (59 percent). There were no significant 

differences between Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions in their use of printed 

brochures, attending community outreach talks, and information obtained from church as their 

sources for learning about national service opportunities.
21

Table 4 Differences in How FGP and SCP Learned About National Service

Type of Sources Percent 

Total

Percent 

FGP

Percent 

SCP

pvalue

Told by a friend 66.8 69.8 58.9 .004

Word of mouth 32.3 31.5 34.6 .39

Printed brochure or poster 14.5 14.7 13.9 .78

Community outreach talks 10.3 9.7 12.1 .39

Church 8.2 8.5 7.4 .59

Note: Significant differences between FGP and SCP (i.e., p-values less than 0.05) are in bold, based on a Rao-Scott 

Chi-Square Test.

Motivations for Volunteering

There are many reasons that could spur an individual to volunteer. Some individuals could be 

concerned for others or their community (altruistic), have an interest in feeling good about 

themselves, or simply enjoy that activity or have an inherent interest. Others could be motivated 

by extrinsic factors, external influences often described as perceptions of social norms.20

Understanding individuals’ motives for volunteering is informative for recruitment. Studies show 

recruitment can be more effective if the appeals to the individual match the motives; matching 

motives to assignment is also important for retention.21 Many first-time FGP and SCP volunteers 

had expectations beyond the goal of impacting and improving their community. Some volunteers 

wanted to achieve personal growth such as learning new skills or getting more experience; some 

wanted to keep busy or make new friends; and some wanted to earn extra money as a volunteer. 

The measure of motivation was based on responses to 11 items asking participants to rank how 

much certain factors influenced their decision to volunteer. The response to each item was on a 

5-point scale from 1 (“not at all”) to 5 (“a great deal”). Factor analysis was used to group the 11 

items into types of motivation. The responses to these 11 items were grouped into four types of 

motivations as summarized in Table 5. For example, if the volunteer’s response to the items,

“help another person/children,” and, “improve community,” was, “a lot,” or, “a great deal,” the 

motivation was coded as altruistic. For personal growth and self-oriented motivations, the 

volunteer had to respond, “a lot,” or, “a great deal,” to at least three of the four items. Financial 

incentive consisted of only one item – “earn extra money.”

 

20 Geiser, C., Okun, M. A., & Grano, C. (2014). Who is motivated to volunteer? A latent profile analysis linking 

volunteer motivation to frequency of volunteering. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 56(1), 3-24.

21 Ibid.
22

Table 5 Definitions of Types of Motivations

Type of motivation Consisting of the following 

items

Answered “a lot” or “a 

great deal” to:

Altruistic A1. Help another

A2. Improve community

Both items

Personal growth P1. Learn something new

P2. Learn new skill

P3. Get more experience

P4. Learn about myself

Three of the four items

Self-oriented S1. Keep busy

S2. Make me feel better

S3. Make new friends

S4. Sense of accomplishment

Three of the four items

Financial incentive Earn extra money One item

Figure 8 shows more than two-thirds (67 percent) reported their motivation for volunteering was 

to help another person or a child and improve their community. The altruistic motivation is 

distantly followed by the potential to earn extra money (12 percent). The remaining 11 percent 

joined national service for personal growth (2 percent), for self-oriented goals (3 percent), and a 

combination of self-oriented and personal growth (6 percent). Ten percent of the volunteers 

reported no primary motivation for joining national service.22

 

22 Volunteers identified as “no primary motivation” include those who did not respond “a lot” or “a great deal” to 

any of the 11 items. 
23

Figure 8 Primary Motivation for Volunteering

Personal growth

2%

Self-oriented

3%

Self-oriented and 

personal growth

6%

No primary motivation

10%

Financial

12%

Altruistic

67%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Percentage of Volunteers

A closer examination of the responses revealed altruism was not a sole motive for volunteering.

23

About 11 percent were only motivated for altruistic reasons; more than three-fourths had reasons 

beyond altruism in deciding to serve. As shown in Figure 9, about 30 percent expressed personal 

growth and self-oriented goals as motivating factors in their decision. As previously noted, 12 

percent were motivated for financial reasons; notably, an additional 19 percent who expressed 

personal growth and self-oriented goals were also motivated for financial reasons. In all, about 

31 percent had an underlying financial reason for volunteering. 

 

23 The overlapping motivations are defined as: “Altruistic only” category includes respondents whose motivation is 

only altruistic; respondents do not have any other motivation for volunteering. “Self-oriented” category includes 

respondents who have altruistic and self-oriented motivations. “Personal growth” category includes respondents who 

have a combination of altruistic and personal growth motivations. “Self-oriented, personal growth” category 

includes respondents who have a combination of altruistic, self-oriented, and personal growth. “Self-oriented, 

personal growth, financial” category includes respondents who have a combination of altruistic, self-oriented, 

personal growth, and financial motivations. “No primary motivation” indicates having none of the primary 

motivations for volunteering.
24

Figure 9 Multiple Motivations for Volunteering

Personal growth

7%

No primary motivation

10%

Self-oriented

11%

Altruistic only

11%

Financial

12%

Self-oriented, 

personal growth, 

financial

19%

Self-oriented,

personal growth

29%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Percentage of Volunteers

Bivariate test results show there were no significant differences in motivation by age, gender, or 

living arrangement (Table 6). However, as shown in Table 6, motivation for volunteering did 

vary significantly by race, ethnicity, and education. A lower proportion of Whites reported selforiented goals and personal growth motives; and a higher proportion of these volunteers had 

financial motives. A higher proportion of volunteers who were Hispanic reported self-oriented, 

personal growth, and financial incentive as factors that mattered in their decision to volunteer. A 

higher proportion of volunteers with a college degree reported being solely motivated for 

altruistic reasons; a lower proportion of them reported self-oriented and personal growth as a 

motivation for joining national service, and a higher proportion also reported financial incentive 

as a motivating factor.
25

Table 6 Characteristics of Volunteers, by Motivation

Altruistic 

only

(%)

Selforiented

(%)

Personal 

growth

(%)

Selforiented, 

personal 

growth

(%)

Self-oriented, 

personal 

growth, 

financial 

incentive

(%)

Financial 

only

(%)

No 

primary 

motivation

(%)

Total

(%)

Chisquare

p-value

df = 6

Age

55–65 13.1 9.1 7.9 30.7 18.3 11.7 9.3 100 0.27

66–75 9.6 11.7 5.9 28.4 21.3 12.4 10.8 100 0.64

76 or older 8.2 15.1 6.9 24.7 17.8 16.4 11.0 100 0.68

Gender

Male 12.0 4.0 4.0 30.7 17.3 14.7 17.3 100 0.18

Female 11.2 11.4 7.3 29.0 19.5 11.9 9.8 100 0.18

Race

White 11.0 10.5 5.2 26.4 20.7 16.0 10.2 100 0.0495

African 

American

11.0 10.4 8.0 31.9 19.8 8.5 10.4 100 0.09

Other 7.7 12.8 5.1 30.8 23.1 12.8 7.7 100 0.97

Ethnicity

Not 

Hispanic

11.7 10.8 7.0 27.7 19.3 12.6 11.0 100 0.0128

Hispanic 3.8 8.9 3.8 43.0 25.3 11.4 3.8 100 0.0128

Note: Significant differences (i.e., p-values less than 0.05) are in bold. The overlapping motivations are defined as: “altruistic only” category, which includes 

respondents who are altruistic motivation only, respondents do not have any other motivation for volunteering. The “self-oriented” category includes respondents 

who have altruistic and self-oriented motivations. The “personal growth” category includes respondents who have a combination of altruistic and personal 

growth motivations. “Self-oriented, personal growth” category includes respondents who have a combination of altruistic, self-oriented, and personal growth. 

“Self-oriented, personal growth, financial” category includes respondents who have a combination of altruistic, self-oriented, personal growth, and financial 

motivations. “No primary motivation” includes respondents who do not have any of the primary motivations for volunteering.
26

Table 6 (Cont.) Characteristics of Volunteers, by Motivation 

Altruistic 

only

SelforientedPersonal 

growth

Selforiented, 

personal 

growth

Selforiented, 

personal 

growth, 

financial 

incentive

Financial

only

No primary 

motivation Total

Chisquare

p-value

df = 6

Education

Less than HS 4.7 8.1 11.6 33.7 20.9 8.1 12.8 100 0.14

HS or GED 8.9 8.9 5.2 31.9 23.0 11.7 10.5 100 0.22

Less than BA 12.2 11.6 8.2 28.3 17.6 11.1 11.1 100 0.67

BA or higher 17.4 13.6 5.3 22.0 16.7 18.9 6.1 100 0.04

Living 

Arrangement

Live alone 10.7 11.3 6.9 26.6 18.5 15.7 10.3 100 0.05

Live with 

others 11.8 10.5 7.0 32.4 21.3 7.9 9.2 100 0.05

Note: Significant differences (i.e., p-values less than 0.05) are in bold.
27

Summary 

Senior Corps has met its goal to provide service and community-improving opportunities to lowincome earning adults. As shown by the data, the majority of volunteers are low-income earning, 

educated with at least a high school diploma and some college, unmarried females, many of 

whom are still active in the labor force either working or looking for work. The high percentage 

of volunteers over age 65 still active in the labor force underscores their financial strains, but 

follows a national trend that began more than 20 years ago among older adults who remained

active in the labor force past the legal retirement age. 

The recruitment strength of the programs is the volunteers themselves. The primary mode of 

recruitment is through informal networks such as friends and word of mouth. The success of this 

informal recruitment network rests on ensuring that those in service have an overall positive 

experience that can translate to positive feedback about FGP and SCP to friends and family. This 

informal recruitment also speaks to the need to strengthen and promote the facets of the 

programs in which service with FGP and SCP could facilitate and support adults’ expectations 

for ongoing opportunities to learn new skills, get more experience, keep busy, and have a sense 

of accomplishment. In fact, motivation for volunteering is complex and multifaceted.24 Most 

altruistic volunteers reported their motives encompassed the desire to make friends, stay busy, 

learn, and get more experience. A source of supplemental income could also be important for 

this low-income earning group who may be seeking financial security. Senior Corps does make 

provision to remove economic barriers to serve through a modest stipend of $2.65 per hour 

intended to defray the cost of volunteering. The evaluation design did not set out to test the 

impact or effectiveness of the stipend. However, these results on the financial aspect of the 

decision to volunteer can inform future studies intended to more closely examine the effect of a 

stipend on recruitment, retention, and – potentially – health outcomes. 

Some volunteers under age 65 reported having a disability. About one-third of the volunteers 

reported having a long-lasting condition such as severe vision or hearing impairment, or a 

condition that limits basic physical activities. Close to half of the volunteers self-identified as 

disabled workers when asked about their employment status. The survey did not ask about 

sources of income, therefore it cannot be known whether the disabled workers were receiving 

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The nature 

of the disability could not be ascertained; this could be a severe mental or physical impairment 

preventing the individual from performing past relevant work. The onset of the disability also 

could not be determined.

 

24 Chen, H., & Morrow-Howell, N. (2015). Antecedents and outcomes of older adults’ motivations to volunteer with 

Experience Corps. Research in Human Development, 12, 118-132.
28

Retention, Satisfaction, and Engagement 

This section presents findings for the second objective, to assess retention in service, reasons that 

contributed to leaving national service, differences between the volunteers who stayed and those 

who left in terms of satisfaction and experience with the training and support received to serve, 

service activities, and level of engagement. 

Retention is a challenge for volunteer programs in general. The rate of volunteering has declined,

while at the same time, those who volunteer serve for a shorter period.25 Studies have noted the 

recruitment costs as well as the financial and service delivery implications of losing a volunteer 

before the end of their service. Although Senior Corps does not impose a minimum length of 

service for its volunteers, ideally each sponsoring organization seeks to maximize volunteers’ 

length of service to reduce recruitment and training costs and minimize service gaps to the 

community. Besides costs to the sponsoring organization, other studies have noted personal costs 

to the volunteers themselves. For example, studies have consistently shown there are health 

benefits associated with volunteering. Therefore, a reduction in time commitment or ending 

volunteer service could reduce the health benefits for those volunteers who leave early. The 

policy goal is to minimize costs while allowing for the opportunity to maximize benefits. Doing 

so entails understanding and identifying malleable organizational factors that maximize 

retention. Based on existing research, these organizational factors include training and support 

provided to volunteers, the level of engagement such as hours devoted to service, and service 

activities. The analysis in this section is guided by these research questions:

1. What is the retention rate? What is the difference in retention rate between FGP and SCP

volunteers?

2. What are the differences between volunteers who remain in service and those who leave? 

a. What are the differences in demographic characteristics and motivations for 

volunteering? What are the personal reasons contributing to volunteer retention?

b. What are the differences in satisfaction, the volunteer experience, motivations, 

and types of training and support received between those who remain and those 

who leave? 

3. What is the level of engagement among first-time volunteers? What types of service 

activities do they report? What is the association between retention, service hours, and 

service activities for volunteers who remain in service?

4. Which individual characteristics, motives, and types of training and support received are 

the most important contributors to volunteer retention? 

We used descriptive statistics and tested for significant differences between FGP and SCP. The 

analysis on retention examined differences between volunteers who remain in service (stayers) 

and those who left their program (leavers). We also examined differences between FGP and SCP 

stayers and leavers. A logistic regression model was estimated to answer the third research 

 

25 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016, Feb. 25). Volunteering in the United States, 2015 [Press release]. U.S.

Department of Labor. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm
29

question, which examined factors that contribute to volunteer retention. Missing data were 

typically limited, except for income and service hours, with 13 percent of the respondents not 

responding to the question about income and 52 percent not responding to the question about 

service hours. In the logistic regression model, which included income and service hours as 

predictors, all missing values were imputed using the fully conditional specification (FCS) 

method which uses a separate conditional distribution for each imputed variable. This 

specification is used for imputing a variable that takes specific values such as a binary outcome 

for a logistic model. Appendix B describes the multiple imputation.

Retention in Service 

The overall retention rate was higher among FGP/SCP volunteers compared with national 

estimates. As shown in Figure 10, 78 percent of the volunteers remained in service through the 

first year. The most recent national estimate showed 66 percent of volunteers remain in service 

through their first year.26 Among FGP/SCP volunteers who remained for a second year, the 

retention rate was 68 percent; approximately 12 percent left national service in the second year. 

A small proportion (4 percent) of volunteers who had left returned to their program the following 

year. 

Figure 10 Retention in Service 

 

26 Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Research and Policy Development. (2007, April). 

Volunteering in America: 2007 State Trends and Rankings in Civic Life. Washington, DC.

Baseline

1125 volunteers

In Program

771 volunteers

78%

Left Program

218 volunteers

22%

In Program

567 volunteers

68%

Left Program

99 volunteers

12%

Returned

30 volunteers

4%

Out of Program

141 volunteers

17%

First Follow-up

•

•

Respondents: 989

Non-respondents: 16

Second Follow-up

•

•

•

Respondents: 841

Non-respondents: 148

Missing status: 4

Note: Percentage based on number of respondents at each follow-up
30

Retention was higher among FGP volunteers. Approximately 79 percent of FGP and 74 percent 

of SCP volunteers remained in service through the first year. Among volunteers who remained 

for a second year, the disparity increased; the retention rate was 70 percent for FGP and 62 

percent for SCP. A higher proportion of FGP volunteers than SCP volunteers returned to service. 

Of the 4 percent of adults who returned to national service, 70 percent were FGP volunteers.

Demographic Differences in Retention 

There were no significant differences in age, gender, race and ethnicity, income, household 

structure, and family composition (i.e., the number of children) between participants who 

remained (stayers) with the program and those who left (leavers). Table 7 compares and tests for 

differences in demographic characteristics between stayers and leavers. The retention rate was 

lower for volunteers age 76 years and older, which could be due to health. The retention rate was 

60 percent among volunteers age 76 and older, 70 percent among ages 65 to 75, and 69 percent 

among those younger than age 65. Although fewer than 10 percent of the volunteers were men, 

once in service, the retention rate among men was not significantly different from women (Table 

7). 

Retention rates also varied based on education. FGP and SCP attract a diverse group of lowincome earning adults with varying levels of education. Most (73 percent) completed a high 

school diploma, and more than half (58 percent) completed either an associate degree or 

bachelor’s degree. Contrary to previous studies, the retention rate among FGP and SCP 

volunteers with less education was higher than among those with more education. Fewer than 

half (43 percent) of leavers had some college education or an associate degree, and 16 percent

had attained a bachelor’s degree. By contrast, 44 percent of stayers either did not complete high 

school or had a high school diploma or GED, and 15 percent had attained a bachelor’s degree

(Table 7).
31

Table 7 Demographic Differences in Retention

All Stayers Leavers p-value Retention 

rate

Age N % N % N %

55–65 years 418 51.3 289 51.7 129 50.39 0.73 69.1%

66–75 years 324 39.8 227 40.61 97 37.89 0.46 70.1%

76 years or older 73 9.0 43 7.69 30 11.72 0.06 58.9%

Gender

Male 75 8.9 47 8.29 28 10.33 0.33 62.7%

Female 763 91.1 520 91.71 243 89.67 0.33 68.2%

Race

Native American 

Alaska Native 13 1.6 10 1.84 3 1.15 0.56 76.9%

Asian 24 3.0 19 3.49 5 1.92 0.22 79.2%

Black or African 

American 362 45.0 246 45.22 116 44.62 0.87 68.0%

Native Hawaiian 

Pacific Islander 2 0.2 0 0 2 0.77 -- --

White 381 47.4 255 46.88 126 48.46 0.67 66.9%

More than one race 22 2.7 14 2.57 8 3.08 0.68 63.6%

Ethnicity

Not Hispanic 713 90.0 477 89.16 236 91.83 0.24 66.9%

Hispanic 79 10.0 58 10.84 21 8.17 0.24 73.4%

Education

Less than HS 86 10.5 68 12.25 18 6.9 0.02 79.1%

HS or GED 247 30.3 179 32.25 68 26.05 0.07 72.5%

Less than BA 351 43.0 224 40.36 127 48.66 0.03 63.8%

BA or higher 132 16.2 84 15.14 48 18.39 0.24 63.6%

Income

Less than $20,000 667 80.0 453 80.18 214 79.55 0.83 67.9%

$20,000–$29,999 129 15.5 90 15.93 39 14.5 0.59 69.8%

$30,000 or higher 38 4.6 22 3.89 16 5.95 0.18 57.9%

Marital Status

Married/Partner 203 25.2 140 25.55 63 24.32 0.71 69.0%

Separated/Divorced 323 40.0 212 38.69 111 42.86 0.26 65.6%

Widowed 188 23.3 141 25.73 47 18.15 0.02 75.0%

Never Married/Other 93 11.5 55 10.04 38 14.67 0.05 59.1%

Veteran Status

Active duty or veteran 26 3.4 17 3.28 9 3.54 0.85 65.4%

Military family or 

family of veteran 134 17.3 91 17.53 43 16.93 0.83 67.9%

Not a veteran 580 75.0 387 74.57 193 75.98 0.67 66.7%

More than one answer 33 4.3 24 4.62 9 3.54 0.49 72.7%

Disability

Condition that limits 

basic physical 

activities 280 33.9 185 22.4 95 11.5 0.48 66.1%

Note: Significant differences between stayers and leavers (i.e., p-values less than 0.05) are in bold.
32

Figure 11 illustrates that the retention rate among volunteers with less than a high school

diploma (79 percent) or those who had completed high school or GED (73 percent) was higher 

than the retention rate among volunteers with a bachelor’s degree or with some college (64 

percent). These differences are statistically significant (see Table 7). 

Figure 11 Retention Rate by Education 

79%

72%

64%

64%

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

Less than HS

HS or GED

Less than BA

BA or higher

Percentage of Volunteers

We also examined retention for FGP and SCP separately. Appendix C shows the full results. 

Among FGP, the lowest retention rate was among volunteers age 76 and older (59 percent), 

those with income at $30,000 or higher (59 percent), and those who were single (60 percent). 

The retention rate among FGP volunteers was highest for those under age 66 (73 percent), with 

less than high school or with a high school diploma or GED (82 and 75 percent, respectively), 

and who were widowed (73 percent).

Among SCP, the lowest retention rate was among volunteers who had completed a bachelor’s

degree (55 percent), those under age 66 (60 percent), older than 76 years old (58 percent), were 

married or had a partner (55 percent), or had reported a disability (58 percent). The highest 

retention rate was for SCP volunteers who were widowed (80 percent).

Reasons for Leaving National Service 

The volunteers who left were asked about their reasons for leaving FGP and SCP. There were 10 

items that asked how much certain factors influenced the decision to stop volunteering (i.e., 

leave the program). The items covered reasons related to health, time constraints, and whether 

expectations for volunteering were met. The response to each item was on a 5-point scale from 1

(“not at all”) to 5 (“a great deal”). There was one additional question where participants could 

write freely their reason for leaving. All written responses were coded and analyzed. Each item 

was dichotomized to simplify interpretation. Responses of “not at all” were coded as “no,” which 
33

indicated that this factor did not matter in the decision to leave. Responses of “a little,”

“somewhat,” “a lot,” or “a great deal,” were coded as “yes,” indicating that this factor mattered 

in the decision to leave.27

There were a multitude of reasons that some individuals ended their volunteer role. Personal 

health or the health of a family member/friend was the main reason for most of those who left. 

Figure 12 shows the distribution of responses to each of the items. Among participants who left, 

44 percent reported personal health and 19 percent reported “need to care for a sick or frail 

family member or friend” as a reason. Besides health, the other most frequent reason for leaving 

was, “not having enough time” (18 percent). Some participants left because they were

disillusioned with the program or their expectations for joining were not met, while for some, the 

financial incentive was insufficient or their expectation for personal growth was not met. Figure 

12 shows specifically not earning enough extra money (15 percent), not getting the experience 

they wanted (14 percent), and not learning (6 percent) as reasons for ending their service. Some 

participants also reported their altruistic motivation for joining was not met – they reported not 

helping other people/children (12 percent) and not making a difference (11 percent) as their 

reason for leaving. 

Figure 12 Reasons for Leaving National Service 

 

4%

6%

7%

11%

12%

14%

15%

18%

19%

44%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

I was not meeting new friends

I was not learning

I moved

I was not making a difference

I did not feel I was helping other

I was not getting the experience

I was not earning extra money

I did not have enough time

I need to care for a sick/frail family

I developed some health problems

Percentage of Volunteers Who Responded 'Yes'

Many volunteers reported multiple reasons for leaving national service. More than half (51

percent) of volunteers had one reason, 18 percent had two reasons, 13 percent had three reasons,

27 Appendix D shows the distribution of responses for each of the five response categories.
34

and 3 percent had four reasons. Approximately 8 percent of leavers did not provide a reason that

they stopped volunteering. 

Retention and Employment Status 

Volunteers who, at the start of service, were looking for work had the lowest retention rate; 

retirees had the highest retention rate (Table 8). As previously discussed, almost one-fourth of 

the first-time volunteers were still active in the labor force, either working or looking for work, 

and close to 30 percent reported their employment status as disabled. Labor force status

following entry into national service is of particular interest for those volunteers who were 

looking for work or were disabled because previous studies suggest a positive association 

between volunteering and subsequent employment.28

Table 8 Retention by Employment, Retirement, and Disability Status

All Stayers Leavers p-value Retention Rate

N % N % N % %

Working now 74 9.2 46 8.3 28 10.7 0.28 62.2

Unemployed and 

looking for work 117 14.3 70 12.7 47 17.9 0.045 59.8

Disabled 228 28.0 156 28.3 72 27.5 0.82 68.4

Retired 351 43.0 249 45.1 102 38.9 0.10 70.9

Homemaker 44 5.5 31 5.6 13 5.0 0.70 70.5

Note: Significant differences between stayers and leavers (i.e., p-values less than 0.05) are in bold.

There is no support from this analysis of a significant positive association between staying in 

service and subsequent employment. The change from unemployment to work, or even a change 

to retirement, is complex for both leavers and stayers. Figures 13–16 show the change in 

employment, retirement, and disability status for stayers and leavers from baseline to second 

follow-up. A separate comparison is made for the volunteers who at baseline were looking for 

work (Figure 13), were working (Figure 14), reported their status at baseline as disabled (Figure 

15), or were retired (Figure 16). For stayers who at baseline were looking for work (Figure 13), 

more than one-third (38 percent) of stayers reported that they transitioned to working at the 

second follow-up; another 35 percent transitioned to retirement; and 13 percent reported they 

were still looking for work. The transition for leavers who at baseline were looking for work was 

similar to stayers (Figure 13), and the difference between them was not statistically significant. 

As shown in Figure 13, about one-third (33 percent) of leavers reported they had transitioned 

from looking for work to working, while 30 percent transitioned to retirement. Notably, a higher 

proportion of leavers (23 percent) reported they were still looking for work at the second followup.

 

28 Spera, C., Ghertner, R., Nerino, A., & DiTommaso, A. (2013, June). Volunteering as a pathway to employment: 

Does volunteering increase odds of finding a job for the out of work? CNCS, Office of Research and Evaluation: 

Washington, DC.
35

Figure 13 Change in Employment, Retirement, and Disability Status from Baseline to 

Second Follow-up: Looking for Work

38%

33%

13%

23%

3%

12%

35%

30%

10%

2%

S t a y e r s

L e a v e r s

Looking For Work at Baseline

Working Looking for Work Disabled Retired Homemaker

Figure 14 shows the change in employment, retirement, and disability status for volunteers who 

were initially working at baseline. Among these volunteers, an equal proportion (40 percent and 

41 percent) continued to work whether they stayed in service or left. At the same time, a higher 

proportion of leavers who were initially working reported their status as disabled (30 percent) at 

the second follow-up compared to those who stayed (23 percent). 
36

Figure 14 Change in Employment, Retirement, and Disability Status from Baseline to 

Second Follow-up: Working 

40%

41%

7%

4%

23%

30%

23%

22%

7%

4%

S t a y e r s

L e a v e r s

Working at Baseline

Working Looking for Work Disabled Retired Homemaker

Some portion of the volunteers who reported a disabled status (Figure 15) or reported being 

retired (Figure 16) at baseline also transitioned into the labor force at the second follow-up. For 

example, as shown in Figure 15, 22 percent of the stayers who reported a disabled status at 

baseline reported transitioning to work at the second follow-up. A smaller proportion 

transitioned to retirement. 

Figure 15 Change in Employment, Retirement, and Disability Status from Baseline to 

Second Follow-up: Disabled 

22%

14%

1%

3%

66%

71%

11%

10%

S t a y e r s

L e a v e r s

Disabled at Baseline

Working Looking for Work Disabled Retired Homemaker
37

Employment transition among the retirees is consistent with our previous discussion that 

retirement was a gradual movement out of labor force, and that older adults have remained in the 

labor force over a longer period and did not necessarily exit the labor force permanently. 

Volunteers who reported being retirees at baseline also returned to the labor force whether they 

had stayed in service or left. At the second follow-up, 15 to 17 percent of retirees reported they 

were working and another 10 percent of leavers who were retired at baseline reported they were 

looking for work (Figure 16). 

Figure 16 Change in Employment, Retirement, and Disability Status from Baseline to 

Second Follow-up: Retired 

17%

15%

2%

10%

6%

9%

74%

66%

S t a y e r s

L e a v e r s

Retired at Baseline

Working Looking for Work Disabled Retired Homemaker

Organizational Factors and Retention 

Research posits management practices that provide training and support, screening procedures to 

identify and match volunteers to assignments, using volunteers to recruit others one-on-one, and 

recognition activities such as awards for volunteers matter for promoting retention.29 The 

programmatic structure of FGP and SCP incorporates several of these practices. Volunteers 

receive training before they begin their assignment. They are matched to a beneficiary in their 

community, and there are monthly in-service meetings for active volunteers. The primary mode 

of recruitment is through informal networks where volunteers serve as the primary ambassador 

for recruiting new volunteers. More than two-thirds (67 percent) of first-time volunteers learned

about FGP and SCP from a friend, and through informal communication like word of mouth (32

percent).

 

29 Hager, M. A. & Brudney, J. L. (2004, June). Volunteer management practices and retention of volunteers. 

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from https://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/Management_Brief.pdf
38

Satisfaction and Experience with Training and Support 

The study explicitly asked respondents about their overall satisfaction with their volunteer 

experience, their experience with training and support, the flexibility to manage their time as a 

volunteer, and the stipend. This section describes differences between stayers and leavers in 

overall satisfaction, experience with the program, and the training and support the volunteers felt 

they received. 

Overall satisfaction with FGP and SCP was high for both stayers and leavers; however, overall 

satisfaction was higher among stayers compared to leavers, with 94 percent of stayers and 74 

percent of leavers reporting being “completely satisfied” or “very satisfied” (Figure 17).

30 The 

high overall satisfaction is consistent with earlier discussions of the reasons volunteers gave for 

leaving service. The difference in overall satisfaction between stayers and leavers was 

statistically significant. A higher proportion of leavers reported being “not very/not at all 

satisfied” (10 percent for leavers, 0 percent for stayers) or “somewhat satisfied” (16 percent for 

leavers, 6 percent for stayers) with their national service experience (p-value < .0001). We also 

examined differences in retention rate based on the volunteers’ overall satisfaction. Among 

volunteers who reported being “completely/very satisfied,” the retention rate was 74 percent, 

much higher than the 54 percent retention rate among volunteers who reported being 

“somewhat” or “not very/not at all satisfied.”

Figure 17 Overall Satisfaction with Volunteering, Stayers and Leavers 

74

93

16

6

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Leavers

Stayers

Percentage of Volunteers

Completely/very satisfied Somewhat satisfied Not very/not at all satisfied

 

30 The latest surveys for stayers and leavers were used to examine volunteers’ satisfaction and experience with 

training and support received to serve. That is, stayers are participants who stayed with the program throughout the 

entire study period, and the second follow-up survey data were used. Leavers are those who left at the first follow-up 

(first follow-up survey data) or the second follow-up (second follow-up survey data).
39

Almost all (95 percent) stayers reported they were “extremely likely/very likely” to continue 

with the program (Figure 18). More than half (57 percent) of leavers reported they were 

“extremely likely/very likely” to continue with the program; 24 percent reported they were “not 

likely” or “not at all likely” to continue. There is a possible association between likelihood of 

continuing with the program and retention. Volunteers who felt strongly about continuing with 

the program had a higher retention rate than those who reported they were unlikely to continue 

with the program. Some leavers returned to their program. As previously discussed (see Figure 

10), about 4 percent of volunteers returned to their program within a year. Those who returned 

noted personal health problems, needing to care for a sick family or friend, or moving as among 

their primary reasons for having left service. 

Figure 18 Likelihood of Continuing with FGP and SCP, Stayers and Leavers 

57

95

19

5

24

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Leavers

Stayers

Percentage of Volunteers

Extremely likely/very likely to contiue Somewhat likely to continue Not likely/not likely at all to continue

Note: Volunteers who left at the second follow-up were not asked this question. 

One of the effective management practices for promoting retention is to rely on volunteers as 

recruiters for the organization. The reason for the strong influence of this practice on retention is 

that it shows, “the organization provides a worthwhile experience.”

31 Leavers were sufficiently 

satisfied with their experience that their responses to the question, “How likely are you to 

recommend the Foster Grandparent/Senior Companion Program to a friend?” indicated strong 

willingness to be ambassadors for the program they left – 85 percent of leavers reported they 

were “extremely likely or very likely” to recommend FGP/SCP to a friend (Figure 19). Almost 

all stayers (95 percent) reported they were “extremely likely or very likely” to recommend the 

program to a friend. This is consistent with the earlier discussion that personal health of a family 

or friends were the most frequent answers provided for leaving service. However, some 

volunteers left because their expectations and motives for volunteering were not met. 

 

31 Hager & Brudney, 2004.
40

Notwithstanding, leavers appeared to appreciate the value of the program to the community as 

evidenced in their willingness to be ambassadors and recommend it to others.

Figure 19 Likelihood Would Recommend FGP and SCP, Stayers and Leavers 

85

95

9

4

6

75 80 85 90 95 100

Leavers

Stayers

Percentage of Volunteers

Extremely/very likely

to recommend

Somewhat likely

to recommend

Not likely/not at all likely

to recommend

FGP and SCP volunteers reported positive experiences with the training and support they needed 

to serve. There were significant differences between stayers and leavers in their perception of the 

volunteer experience such as “feeling good about the match,” the “service is interesting,” and 

“having the support needed to serve.” More than 95 percent of stayers agreed with those 

statements (Figure 20). Most (83–92 percent) of the volunteers who left felt positive about the 

match between their skills and their volunteer service, that the service was interesting, and that 

they received the support and information to succeed as a volunteer. A comparison of stayers and 

leavers showed that the higher proportion of leavers who disagreed or felt negative about their 

training and support was significantly different from stayers (all p-values < .0001). Overall, 

leavers did not perceive their training and support as “helpful.”
41

Figure 20 Differences in Perception of the Volunteer Experience, Stayers and Leavers

83

97

92

98

87

97

17

3

8

2

13

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Leavers

Stayers

My supervisor provides me with the support

and information I need to serve successfully

Leavers

Stayers

My volunteer service is interesting

Leavers

Stayers

My volunteer experience is

a good match for my skills

Percentage of Volunteers

Agree Disagree

Similarly, as demonstrated in Figure 21, most participants reported that the training and support 

they received to serve, the flexibility to manage time, and the stipend were “extremely or very 

helpful.” At least 86 percent of stayers reported that the training, support and flexibility to 

manage time were “extremely or very helpful.” The ranking among leavers was lower. Among 
42

leavers, fewer than 80 percent reported that the training, support, and flexibility were “extremely 

or very helpful.”

Figure 21 Perception of Volunteer Training, Support, Flexibility, and Stipend 

62

72

72

93

75

89

78

86

34

27

25

7

20

11

18

13

4

3

5

4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Leavers

Stayers

The stipend from volunteering is...

Leavers

Stayers

The flexibility to manage my time is...

Leavers

Stayers

Support from people in the program is...

Leavers

Stayers

My volunteer training is...

Percentage of Volunteers

Extremely or very helpful Somewhat or little helpful Not at all helpful
43

Differences Between FGP and SCP 

There were no significant differences between FGP and SCP in overall satisfaction, willingness 

to recommend the program, overall experience with volunteering, and training and support 

received. Although not statistically significant, there were notable differences between FGP and 

SCP volunteers. Lower proportions of SCP leavers reported they would recommend the program 

to a friend, agreed with the statements that their supervisor provided them with the support and 

information they need to serve successfully, identified the support from the people in the 

program as helpful, and found the flexibility to manage their time was helpful. These perceptions

of their satisfaction and experience would tend to weaken SCP volunteers’ retention if, as the

research suggests, those factors matter for SCP volunteer retention, which is lower (62 percent) 

than the retention rate for FGP (70 percent).

Service Activities and Level of Engagement 

Foster Grandparents primarily mentor and serve as role models to children and young people,

and Senior Companions serve as companions to homebound individuals, helping with daily 

living tasks such as grocery shopping, providing transportation to medical appointments, and 

alerting doctors and family members to potential problems. The service activities the volunteers 

reported aligned with these expectations. Most Foster Grandparents reported working with 

children or young people, or providing support to young people. Similarly, most Senior 

Companions reported providing companionship to adults in their home, helping adults with 

errands, or assisting adults with transportation (Figure 22). 
44

Figure 22 Service Activities Reported Among First-time Volunteers 

8%

18%

21%

45%

61%

70%

9%

13%

2%

6%

4%

5%

10%

7%

66%

85%

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

Delivering meals/Meals on Wheels

Collecting food/food pantry support

Provide companionship to adults in a

nursing home/group home

Assisting adults with

transportation/drive them places

Helping other adults with errands

Provide companionship to adults

in their own home

Provide support for children

Work with children or young people

Percentage of Volunteers

FGP SCP

A small percentage of the volunteers reported activities that appear incongruent with their 

program. For example, about 17 percent of Foster Grandparents reported they provided

companionship to adults or helped other adults;

32 about 22 percent of Senior Companions 

reported they worked with or provided support for children. It is unclear whether these 

respondents counted hours for other volunteer organizations in which they engaged outside their 

service as Foster Grandparents or Senior Companions. About 21 percent of respondents 

 

32 The children assigned to Foster Grandparents must be under 21 years old. However, there are some exceptions 

that might account for some Foster Grandparents reporting companionship to adults as part of their volunteer 

activities. Specifically, when a Foster Grandparent is assigned to a child with a disability, the assignment may 

continue beyond the child's 21st birthday, provided certain conditions specified in 45 CFR 2552.82 are met. 
45

volunteered with other organizations. Some of the differences among Foster Grandparents who 

reported providing companionship was explained by other volunteer service activities. Similarly, 

some of the differences among Senior Companions who reported mentoring children and youth 

were explained by other volunteer service activities. 

The second follow-up survey included questions on volunteers’ level of engagement measured 

by the number of hours and days in service in the month prior to the survey.

33 Senior Corps

requires 15 to 40 hours of service per week, which is approximately 780 to 2,080 hours of 

service per year. Due to the required commitment of hours, FGP and SCP volunteers engaged in 

more hours of service than other adult volunteers. This level of service requirement is greater 

than the median number of volunteer service hours older adults typically reported in national 

surveys. For example, volunteers ages 55 to 64 years reported a median 52 hours of service a 

year, and volunteers age 65 and older reported a median of 86 hours a year of service.

34 The third 

and final survey asked respondents to report on the number of hours per day and the number of 

days they engaged in national service in the month prior to taking the survey.35 FGP and SCP 

volunteers who remained in service through their second year were highly engaged with their 

programs, contributing about 900 hours of service during the year. Senior Corps volunteers spent

on average five hours per day in the month prior to the survey serving their communities. Almost 

two-thirds (64 percent) reported five to six hours per day of service in the month prior to the 

survey (Figure 23). FGP volunteers reported an average of five hours of service compared to 4.7 

hours for SCP volunteers.

 

33 Fifty-two percent of volunteers did not answer the question on number of service hours, and 42 percent did not 

answer the question on number of days of service. The analysis of the distribution of hours and days devoted to 

service was conducted with an imputed dataset. Appendix B describes the multiple imputation.

34 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Volunteering in the United States, 2013. Washington, DC. Retrieved 

from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/volun_02252014.pdf

35 The questions on hours of service was asked of respondents who had remained in service through the end of the 

data collection period when the third and final survey was administered. As shown in Figure 2, a total of 771 

participants were in service at the time of the second follow-up; of those, 567 were in service, and 99 participants 

reported they were no longer serving with their program. 
46

Figure 23 Distribution in Number of Hours in Service per Day 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1–3 4 5 6 More than 6

Percentage of Volunteers

Number of Hours in Service

In terms of number of days spent in service, the volunteers reported 14 days of service to their 

community during the month prior to the survey. The two most commonly reported sets of days 

spent in service were 1–11 days or more than 20 days, with 26 percent of volunteers in each of 

these two categories. About 25 percent reported 12–15 days, and 23 percent reported 16–19 days 

of national service. An average of 15 days per month and 5 hours per day translates to an average 

of 900 hours per year. 
47

Individual and Organizational Predictors of Retention 

This section discusses the results from the logistic regression model predicting the contribution 

of individual characteristics and organizational factors to retention. Volunteers withhigher odds 

of staying in service had low education (less than high school or high school diploma), reported 

their health as “fair/poor” when they began service, had income below $20,000, or were with a 

disability. Adults with these characteristics were more likely to be at higher risk of poorer health 

outcomes. We estimated two models. The first model controlled for background characteristics

(age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, income, marital status, whether the volunteer lived alone, 

had children), health characteristics (self-rated health at baseline, functional limitations, medical 

conditions, whether the volunteer reported a disability), motivation for volunteering, and type of 

program (FGP or SCP). In the first model, the odds of staying in service were 83 percent higher 

(OR = 1.83, p-value = 0.04) for volunteers who did not complete high school and 44 percent 

higher (OR = 1.44, p-value = 0.04) for volunteers with some college or a bachelor’s degree. The 

odds of staying in service did not significantly differ based on the volunteers’ self-rated health, 

medical conditions, motivation for volunteering, disability status, or program type, all else being 

equal.

We estimated a second model which expanded the first model to include employment status at 

baseline, volunteers’ overall satisfaction with the program, and their experience with the training 

and support they receive to serve. The results from the second model differs from the first in that 

after controlling for organizational predictors, education was no longer a significant predictor of 

the odds of staying in service; volunteers’ overall satisfaction and their perception of the ability 

to manage their time significantly predicted the odds of staying of service. The odds of staying in 

service were 37 percent higher (OR = 1.37, p-value = 0.30) for volunteers who did not complete

high school and 24 percent higher (OR = 1.24, p-value = 0.25) for volunteers who completed 

high school than for those with some college or a bachelor’s degree. In other words, the odds of 

staying with the program among volunteers with less than a high school education was 1.4 times 

higher than among those who had some college or a bachelor’s degree. The odds of staying in 

service were 15 percent lower (OR = 0.85, p-value = .75) for volunteers with income over 

$40,000 compared to volunteers with income lower than $20,000. The odds of staying in service 

were 22 percent higher (OR = 1.22, p-value = .50) for volunteers who rated their health as 

“fair/poor” at the start of their service compared to volunteers who rated their health as “very 

good/excellent.” Volunteers who had a disability had 19 percent higher odds (OR = 1.19, pvalue = .44) of staying in service than those who did not have a disability. As with the first 

model, the odds of staying in service did not significantly differ based on the volunteers’ selfrated health, medical conditions, motivation for volunteering, whether they had a disability, and 

whether they served in the FGP or SCP, all else being equal. Appendix E shows the regression 

coefficients and odds ratios for all predictors.

Volunteers’ overall satisfaction with the program and feelings about the flexibility to manage 

their own time had the greatest impact on the odds of staying in service. Volunteers who were 
48

“completely/very/somewhat satisfied” with the overall volunteer experience at the first follow-up 

were almost three times more likely (OR = 2.94, p-value = .0001) to remain in service compared 

to those who were less satisfied. Volunteers who reported the flexibility to manage their time as 

“extremely/very/somewhat helpful” were almost three times more likely to stay (OR = 2.68, pvalue = .0002) compared to those who reported flexibility to manage their time as a “little/not at 

all helpful.” The odds of staying in service were 31 percent lower for volunteers who reported 

their experience was interesting. That is, leavers were more likely to report their volunteer 

experience as interesting. As previously discussed, an effective management practice is reliance 

on volunteers to recruit for the program. The findings that leavers felt their experience was 

interesting could help with recruitment as the leavers share their experience with their family and 

friends. 

An alternative interpretation of the logistic regression coefficients is to translate the effects of 

odds into the effects of probabilities for a subgroup of volunteers or a typical volunteer. Figure 

24 shows the predicted probabilities of retention based on the volunteers’ self-rated health 

relative to the mean probability of retention. The probability of retention for FGP volunteers who 

reported their health as “fair/poor” at the start of their service was 0.72; that is, volunteers who 

began their service feeling their health was “fair/poor” had a 0.04 higher probability of retention 

at the sample mean than volunteers who felt their health was “excellent or very good.” There was 

no difference in the probability of retention between volunteers who reported their health as 

“very good” and those who reported their health as “excellent or very good”; both groups had a 

probability of retention of 0.68, which was the same as the mean retention. SCP volunteers had a 

lower probability of retention than FGP volunteers. However, the pattern was the same in that 

the SCP volunteers who reported their health as “fair/poor” had a higher probability of retention 

at the sample mean than SCP volunteers who reported their health as “good.”
49

Figure 24 Predicted Probability of Retention Based on Self-rated Health at Sample Mean

0.68 0.68

0.62

0.72

0.66

0.56

0.58

0.6

0.62

0.64

0.66

0.68

0.7

0.72

0.74

Mean Retention FGP SCP

Predicted Probability at Sample Mean

Good health Fair/poor health

Note: The measure of self-rated health is from the volunteers’ report at the start of their service.

Based on findings presented in the previous sections, a typical volunteer is a 66-year-old retired,

married female with a high school diploma, and an income of less than $20,000, who is not 

living alone, has no disability, and had a positive experience with training and support. Retention 

did not significantly differ on self-rated health at the start of their service, and health outcomes 

are known to be important benefits post-volunteering. The probability of retention for a typical 

volunteer was compared for two subgroups based on self-rated health at the start of service

(Figure 25). A typical volunteer who rated their health as “fair/poor” at baseline had a higher 

probability of retention compared to a volunteer who rated their health as “excellent/very good”

or “good.” For a typical FGP volunteer who rated their health as “fair/poor” at baseline, the 

probability of retention was 0.86, and for a similar typical SCP volunteer, the probability of 

retention was 0.82. For a typical FGP volunteer who rated their health as “good,” the probability 

of retention was 0.83; for a similar SCP volunteer, the probability of retention was 0.79. 
50

Figure 25 Predicted Probability of Retention, a Typical Volunteer

0.83

0.79

0.86

0.82

0.76

0.78

0.80

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

FGP SCP

Predicted Probability

Good health Fair/poor health

Note: The measure of self-rated health is from the volunteers’ report at the start of their service.

Hours of Service and Retention 

There is scant research on volunteers’ engagement and the likelihood of continuing to serve. One 

national study using the 2004–2006 Current Population Survey Volunteer Supplement showed a 

positive association between hours of service and the propensity to remain in the volunteer role 

for another year.36 This observed positive association was premeditated on offering volunteers 

challenging and multiple activities centered on enriching their experience. A logistic regression 

model was estimated for the sample of volunteers who remained in service through their first 

year. The full results are shown in Appendix F. All else being equal, hours of service were not a 

statistically significant predictor of a volunteer remaining in service. The possible explanation is 

that there is a commitment at the outset on the number of hours of service as an FGP and SCP 

volunteer. For volunteers who commit to the program through their first year and beyond, these 

findings show that the requirement on number of hours of service is not the significant 

contributor to leaving the program. Other factors affect retention once the volunteers make it 

through a one-year commitment to the program; these include potentially declining health or 

onset of medical conditions that contribute more to retention the longer the volunteer remained in 

the program. 

Summary 

Senior Corps provides opportunities for low-income earning adults to serve and strengthen their 

community through service as Foster Grandparents who mentor, tutor, and serve as role models 

to children and youth, or as Senior Companions who provide companionship to those who are 

 

36 CNCS, Office of Research and Policy Development. (2007). Volunteering in America: 2007 State trends and 

rankings in civic life. Washington, DC.
51

homebound. During the first two years of service, the retention rate, at 68 percent, was higher 

than national estimates among the general population of adult volunteers. The first-time 

volunteers who also persisted with serving their community were among the most vulnerable in 

terms of risk factors associated with poorer health outcomes. The adults who remained in service 

had the lowest income (reported income under $20,000), had a disability that could limit 

employment, and had attained at most a high school diploma or had not graduated high school. 

The volunteers who remained in service, though they exhibited the risk factors associated with 

poorer health outcomes, did not differ from those who left on self-rated health, medical 

conditions, and motivation.

Even volunteers who left the program reported overall satisfaction and a positive perception of 

the volunteer experience, such as feeling that their assignment was a match for their skills and 

that the assignment was interesting. These positive experiences bode well for future recruitment. 

In fact, 85 percent of those who left reported they would continue to recommend the program 

and were more likely to find their experience interesting than those who stayed. This again is a 

boost for future recruitment given that most eligible adults who join the program do so based on 

information obtained from their friends and other informal communication.

The volunteers who left did so for myriad reasons, with personal health as one reason most 

frequently cited. Two barriers emerged as significant contributors to retention: flexibility to 

manage time and overall satisfaction. However, there is not one static reason driving retention 

over time. The volunteers who ended their service in the first year might have done so because 

they realized their service activities and commitment did not permit them enough flexibility; they 

were generally more dissatisfied with their experience than volunteers who stayed with the 

program (Figure 17). Though these barriers contributed to retention, those who left actually 

reported the experience was interesting and that they would recommend it to a friend. Beyond 

the first year, declining personal health or having to help a family member could affect retention.

The level of service commitment for Senior Corps is 15 to 40 hours per week, far greater than 

the median number of service hours among adult volunteers in the general population. This 

required service engagement does not seem to negatively impact retention. One possible 

explanation for the non-significant association between service hours and retention is that the 

question about hours of service was asked of respondents who remained in service. At the outset,

there is a clear expectation on service hours. The findings showed, therefore, that hours of 

commitment do not significantly contribute to retention for those who remained committed to 

their program. Because only a subset of the respondents were asked about service hours, it was 

not possible to assess whether service hours contributed to retention in the first year of service. 
52

Health and Well-being 

This section presents findings from the third objective, which is to examine whether changes in 

health and well-being were associated with participation in national service. The specific health 

and well-being measures included self-rated health, life satisfaction, social isolation and 

loneliness, symptoms of depression, and self-efficacy. 

The results presented in the previous section showed that first-time volunteers who remained in 

service had more risk factors than those who left. A higher proportion of the volunteers who 

remained in service had income below $20,000 with low education levels, and at the time they 

began their service, a higher proportion of those who stayed reported their health as “fair/poor.”

Many more stayers reported having a disability, and many identified as disabled workers. The 

fact that these volunteers are in the lowest income category puts them at risk for both physical 

and mental health problems. Income is not necessarily the cause of poorer health and well-being; 

rather, income reflects the individual’s social and economic circumstances, which in turn affect

access to those resources leading to healthy lifestyles and experiences.37 Although income could 

facilitate better health outcomes, the reverse is also true in that poor health or having a disability 

could make it more difficult to secure and retain a job, thus resulting in lower income. 

Research shows that volunteering is a protective factor that mitigates the effects of income on 

health and well-being among adults. A previous study using cross-sectional data on FGP and 

SCP volunteers also documented greater health and well-being outcomes when compared to 

similar adults in the general population.38 The current longitudinal study, which collected health 

outcomes at multiple times from first-time volunteers, can document whether the health and 

well-being outcomes and the specific characteristics of volunteering promote health benefits. The 

findings presented in this chapter replicate previous studies on the health benefits of 

volunteering. The analysis also contributes new knowledge by examining whether there are 

characteristics of volunteering that promote improvement in health and well-being. The specific 

research questions were as follows:

1. How do health and well-being change among volunteers who remain in service and those 

who leave?

2. Do health and well-being differ over time between FGP/SCP volunteers and similar adult 

volunteers and non-volunteers in the general population?

3. Do service activities, service hours, and motivation for volunteering contribute to the 

health and well-being outcomes of volunteers who remain in service?

For the first research question, repeated measures ANOVA analyses (baseline, first follow-up, 

and second follow-up) were conducted to examine changes over time. Only participants whose 

health and well-being measures were not missing at any of the three points were included in the 

analysis. We examined whether significant differences existed between baseline and first follow-

 

37 Hager & Brudney (2004).

38 Tan, Georges, Gabbard, et al. (2016).
53

up, first follow-up and second follow-up, and baseline and second follow-up. Independent 

sample t-tests were conducted to examine whether changes observed since baseline were

statistically significant. We examined changes for stayers and leavers as well as by program type. 

For the second research question, PSM was used to construct a matched sample of FGP/SCP 

volunteers to volunteers and non-volunteers from the HRS 2012–2014 data. The analysis 

compared changes in health and well-being of FGP/SCP stayers and HRS volunteers and nonvolunteers separately. For the third research question, a logistic regression model was estimated 

to predict whether self-rated health improved from baseline to second follow-up for stayers. A 

separate regression model was estimated for life satisfaction and social isolation/loneliness at the 

second follow-up. Each regression model controlled for baseline characteristics, service 

activities, service hours, and motivation for volunteering as predictors. The effect of service 

activities was captured by whether the volunteer served with FGP or SCP, because controlling 

for program type also captures differences in service activities. Appendix A describes the 

propensity score method and results of the matched sample. 

This section of the report has three subsections, one for each research question.

Health and Well-being Among Stayers and Leavers

This subsection presents findings related to the first research question, how do health and wellbeing change among volunteers who remain in service and among those who leave?

Self-rated Health 

Self-rated health is the subjective perception of one’s general health condition, which has been 

found to be a consistent objective and a good global measure of health.39 Self-rated health is 

typically based on a single item, which has been found to be a valid and reliable measure of 

subjective health.40 The study included one self-rated health item asking the participants to rate 

their health at baseline and both follow-ups. The responses to the self-rated health item were on a 

Likert scale ranging from 1 = excellent, to 5 = poor. The five response categories were collapsed 

into three categories because the distribution of responses on either end of the scale was sparse;

then the scale was reverse-coded so that higher scores would indicate feeling better about one’s 

health in general (1 = fair or poor, 2 = good, and 3 = excellent or very good). 

Over time, stayers continued to feel better about their health. By contrast, leavers showed a 

decline in how they rated their health. Table 9 shows the distribution of responses in health for 

those who stayed and those who left at each of the three time points. At baseline, 38 percent of 

those who stayed and 36 percent of those who left rated their health as “excellent/very good.” At 

the second follow-up, the distribution of responses differed between the two groups; 43 percent 

 

39 Wu, S., Wang, R., Zhao, Y., Ma, X., Wu, M., Yan, X., & He, J. (2013). The relationship between self-rated health 

and objective health status: A population-based study. BMC Public Health, 13, 320. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-320

40 Bombak, A. E. (2013). Self-rated health and public health: A critical perspective. Frontiers in Public Health, 1, 

15. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2013.00015
54

of stayers and 32 percent of leavers rated their health as “excellent/very good,” whereas 16 

percent of stayers and 27 percent of leavers rated their health as “fair/poor.”

Table 9 Distribution of Responses on Self-rated Health, Stayers and Leavers

Baseline First

follow-up

Second

follow-up

Stayers N % N % N %

 Excellent/Very good 213 38.1 274 48.5 241 43.4

 Good 253 45.3 220 38.9 224 40.4

 Fair/Poor 93 16.6 71 12.6 90 16.2

 Total 559 565 555

Leavers

 Excellent/Very good 96 35.7 110 41.5 85 32.2

 Good 129 48.0 97 36.6 107 40.5

 Fair/Poor 44 16.4 58 21.9 72 27.3

 Total 269 265 264

An average self-rated health score was calculated for each time point (Figure 26). Over time, the 

average self-rated health score increased for stayers and decreased for leavers. Among stayers, 

there was a significant increase in the average self-rated health score from baseline to the first 

follow-up (p-value < .0001), and a decrease from the first to the second follow-up (p-value = 

.0004). Overall, among stayers, there was an increase in the average self-rated health score from 

baseline to second follow-up (p-value = .04). Among stayers, the percent increase in the average 

self-rated health score was 4.5 percent from baseline to second follow-up. This reflects an 

average change from a rating of “fair/poor” to “good,” or from a rating of “good” to 

“excellent/very good” health. Among those who left, their average self-rated health score 

decreased from baseline to the second follow-up (p-value = .0004). Among leavers, there was a 9

percent decline in the average self-rated health score from baseline to second follow-up. This 

reflects an average change from a rating of “excellent/very good” to “good,” or a rating of 

“good” to “fair/poor.”
55

Figure 26 Average Self-rated Health Score, Stayers and Leavers

There was no significant difference in the average self-rated health score between stayers and 

leavers at baseline (p-value = .94). At both follow-ups, stayers had significantly higher average 

self-rated health scores than leavers. As shown in Table 10, these differences reflect an effect 

size ranging from .01 to .31 between stayers and leavers. The effect size between the two groups 

is 0.01 at baseline and increases at each follow-up. An effect size of 0.30 indicates the average 

self-rated score for stayers is at the 62nd percentile, or a 12 percentile gain for stayers over 

leavers.

Table 10 Average Self-rated Health Score and Effect Size, Stayers and Leavers

Stayers Leavers Effect 

size

Variable N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev d 95% CI

Baseline 545 2.2 0.71 256 2.2 0.69 0.01 -0.14 – 0.15

First follow-up 545 2.4 0.70 256 2.2 0.77 0.24 0.09 – 0.39

Second follow-up 545 2.3 0.73 256 2.0 0.77 0.31 0.16 – 0.46

Life Satisfaction 

Life satisfaction was measured from five items asking participants about their satisfaction with 

the city/town they live in, daily life and leisure activities, family life, financial situation, and life

as a whole. The response categories ranged from 1 (“completely satisfied”) to 5 (“not at all 

satisfied”). These categories were collapsed then reverse-coded so higher scores would indicate 

greater satisfaction (1 = “not at all satisfied,” 2 = “not very or somewhat satisfied,” and 3 = “very 
56

or completely satisfied”). The responses were then summed to create a life satisfaction score for 

each participant, ranging from 5 to 15. The maximum score of 15 means that the respondent was 

“very or completely satisfied” on all five life satisfaction items. A score of 12 frequently 

occurred for respondents who reported “not very or somewhat satisfied” on three of the five 

items (city or town they live in, daily life and leisure activities, and present financial situation)

and “very or completely satisfied” on two of the items (family life and life as a whole). A score 

of 11 frequently occurred for respondents who reported “not very or somewhat satisfied” on four 

of the five items (life and leisure activities, family life, present financial situation, and life as a

whole) and “very or completely satisfied” on one of the items (city or town they live in). The 

average life satisfaction score increased over time for those who remained in service (Figure 27).

Among stayers, there was a significant change in the life satisfaction score from baseline to the 

first follow-up (p-value < .0001); the average score changed from 12 to 13. There was no 

significant change from first follow-up to the second follow-up (p-value = .08). Overall, among 

stayers, there was an increase in life satisfaction from baseline to the second follow-up (p-value 

< .0001), increasing from an average score of 12 to 13. Among leavers, the average score on life

satisfaction was relatively lower at an average of 12, and it remained flat across the three time 

points (p-value = .15). The percent increase from baseline to second follow-up was 4 percent for 

stayers and 2 percent for leavers.

Figure 27 Average Life Satisfaction Score, Stayers and Leavers 

Change in the life satisfaction score differed between stayers and leavers. At baseline, stayers

reported, on average, a significantly higher life satisfaction score than leavers. At each time 

point, on average, stayers’ average life satisfaction score was higher (baseline p-value = .001, 

first follow-up p-value < .0001, second follow-up p-value < .0001) than leavers’ average life 
57

satisfaction score. The difference in percent increase between stayers and leavers at the second 

follow-up reflects an effect size of 0.45, which is approximately the 68th percentile, or 18 

percentiles higher for stayers than leavers.

Social Isolation and Loneliness 

Social isolation and loneliness are important parts of health. The survey included six items 

assessing participants’ perception of being socially isolated or their perceived loneliness. The six 

items were: How much of the time do you feel “that you are alone,” “that you lack 

companionship,” “left out,” “isolated from others,” “there are people you feel close to,” and 

“there are people you can turn to.” Each item was based on a scale of 1 (“hardly ever or never”) 

to 3 (“often”). They were summed to obtain a social isolation/loneliness score, where a higher 

number indicated a higher degree of self-reported isolation/loneliness. The maximum score of 18 

indicated the respondent “often” felt disconnected, isolated, or lonely. An average score of 9 was 

most frequent among respondents who reported “some of the time” on three of the six items (felt 

alone, lacked companionship, and felt left out), reported “hardly ever or never” for one of the 

items (felt isolated from others), and reported “often” for two of the items (felt there are people 

they feel close to and felt there are people they can turn to). An average score of 8 was frequent 

among respondents who reported “hardly ever or never” on four of the items (felt alone, lacked

companionship, felt left out, and felt isolated from others) and reported “some of the time” on 

two of the items (felt there are people they feel close to and felt there are people they can turn 

to). Stayers’ social isolation/loneliness scale decreased over time, whereas it increased for 

leavers (see Figure 28). For example, stayers reported lower degrees of loneliness than leavers at 

the first follow-up (p-value = .003) and second follow-up (p-value < .0001). The reduction in the

loneliness score among stayers reflects that this group perceived an improvement in their level of 

social and emotional connection to their community, whereas leavers did not perceive any 

change in their connection to their community. The percent difference between stayers and 

leavers at the second follow-up reflects an effect size of 0.39, or 16 percentiles lower for stayers 

than leavers.
58

Figure 28 Average Social Isolation/Loneliness Score, Stayers and Leavers 

Symptoms of Depression 

Symptoms of depression are indicative of challenges to health and well-being. The survey 

included the nine-item version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD) from the HRS to measure change in symptoms of depression or anxiety. The participants

reported whether they experienced any of nine symptoms in the past week: “I felt depressed,” “I 

felt that everything I did was an effort,” “My sleep was restless,” “I was happy,” “I felt lonely,” 

“I enjoyed life,” “I felt sad,” “I could not get going,” “I had a lot of energy.” Some items were 

reverse-coded so that a higher score indicated the symptom was present. The nine items were 

summed to create a single score for each participant. The maximum score of 9 indicates the 

respondent experienced all nine symptoms. Figure 29 shows the average number of symptoms of 

depression for stayers and leavers. Leavers, on average, reported more symptoms from baseline 

to the second follow-up (p-value = .03). Stayers reported significantly fewer symptoms of 

depression at all three time points (baseline p-value = .01, first follow-up p-value < .0001, 

second follow-up p-value < .0001). The percentage difference between stayers and leavers at the 

second follow-up in the number of symptoms reflects an effect size of 0.44.
59

Figure 29 Average Number of Symptoms of Depression, Stayers and Leavers

Self-efficacy 

There were two items that measured self-efficacy: “I can do just about anything I really set my 

mind to,” and “I can do the things that I want to do.” Each item was based on a scale of 1

(“strongly disagree”) to 6 (“strongly agree”). The items were summed to create a self-efficacy

score, with a range of 2 to 12. Self-efficacy, as measured, declined for stayers and leavers. 

However, though the change across the three time points within each group was not statistically 

significant (stayers p-value = .25, leavers p-value = .11; see Figure 30) there was a smaller 

decrease for stayers than for leavers. At each of the follow-ups, stayers reported higher levels of 

self-efficacy (p-value < 0.01) than leavers. The percentage difference between stayers and 

leavers at the second follow-up reflects an effect size of 0.23.
60

Figure 30 Average Self-efficacy Score, Stayers and Leavers

Comparison to the General Population 

The results in the previous section showed self-rated health and symptoms of depression of

stayers continuously improved over time. This subsection compares self-rated health and 

symptoms of depression of FGP/SCP stayers to a matched sample of similar low-income earning 

adult volunteers and non-volunteers in the general population who participated in the HRS. The 

comparison to a national sample helps ascertain whether over a two-year period the first-time 

FGP/SCP volunteers benefited more from volunteering compared to a similar group of adults in 

the general population. The comparison in self-rated health and symptoms of depression between 

FGP/SCP volunteers and the HRS used independent samples t-tests to test for differences. 

Logistic regression was conducted to examine factors associated with a change in self-rated 

health; linear regression was conducted to examine factors associated with a change in the 

number of symptoms of depression. 

Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to obtain a matched sample of Senior Corps 

volunteers and HRS volunteers and non-volunteers. The propensity score was estimated by 

accounting for factors that might affect the probability of being in the intervention group, in this 

case FGP/SCP volunteers, and the outcomes of interest. Two basic criteria were necessary to 

implement the PSM with the HRS. The questions in the Senior Corps survey of first-time FGP 

and SCP volunteers were adopted from the HRS, making it possible to compare these volunteers 

with a national sample of adults who participated in the HRS. The sample that was used to 

conduct the match consisted of participants of similar income eligibility criteria as the FGP/SCP 

respondents. The HRS sample used for the match consisted of respondents whose household 
61

income was at or below 200 percent of the national federal poverty level, who were age 55 and 

older, who were not in a nursing home, and who completed the survey on their own. The analysis 

used the 2012 and 2014 HRS data, which are the most recent available data at the time of this 

report, and this two-year time frame is comparable to the FGP/SCP baseline and two-year 

follow-up. Two separate matches were conducted: FGP/SCP stayers with a matched sample of 

HRS volunteers and FGP/SCP stayers with a matched sample of HRS non-volunteers. The final 

matched sample of HRS and FGP/SCP stayers consisted of 360 pairs of volunteers (180 HRS 

volunteers and 180 FGP/SCP stayers). The final matched HRS non-volunteers and FGP/SCP 

stayers consisted of 534 pairs of participants (267 HRS non-volunteers and 267 FGP/SCP 

stayers). To determine how well the HRS and FGP/SCP samples were matched, we examined the 

distribution of propensity scores before and after matching. The distribution of propensity scores 

was similar and overlapped after matching. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in 

observed demographic characteristics between the HRS and FGP/SCP samples after matching. 

Appendix A describes the steps to implement the PSM. 

Self-rated Health 

Figure 31 and Table 11 show the average self-rated health score at baseline and second followup for the matched sample of HRS volunteers and FGP/SCP stayers. FGP/SCP stayers have 

similar perceptions about their general health as other low-income adult volunteers in the HRS. 

For the comparative analysis to the HRS, the five response categories of the self-rated health 

item (1 = excellent, to 5 = poor) were collapsed into three categories then reverse-coded so that 

higher scores indicated better health (1 = fair or poor, 2 = good, and 3 = excellent or very good). 

As shown in Figure 32 the comparison of the average score showed there were no significant 

differences in self-rated health between FGP/SCP stayers and HRS volunteers. There were also 

no significant changes in average scores from baseline to second follow-up among FGP/SCP 

stayers (p-value = 0.58) and HRS volunteers (p-value = 0.42). The effect size between FGP/SCP 

stayers and HRS volunteers were -0.02 at baseline and 0.08 second follow-up. 
62

Figure 31 Average Self-rated Health, FGP/SCP Stayers and HRS Volunteers

Table 11 Differences in Self-rated Health, FGP/SCP Stayers and HRS Volunteers

Wave FGP/SCP 

Stayers

HRS 

Volunteers

FGP/SCP vs. HRS 

Volunteers

p-value

Effect Size

D 95% CI

Baseline 2.2 2.2 0.83 -0.02 -0.23 –

0.18

Second followup

2.2 2.1 0.47 0.08 -0.14 –

0.30

Note: Analysis was conducted using a matched sample of FGP/SCP stayers and HRS volunteers. The sample 

consisted of 360 pairs of respondents (180 FGP/SCP stayers and 180 HRS volunteers).

Figure 32 shows the average score in self-rated health at baseline and second follow-up with the 

matched sample of HRS non-volunteers. Both FGP/SCP stayers and HRS volunteers had 

significantly higher average scores in self-rated health compared to HRS non-volunteers at both 

baseline and second follow-up (Table 12). At baseline, the percent difference between FGP/SCP 

stayers and HRS non-volunteers was 11 percent, which increased to 22 percent at second follow-
63

up. The increase in average self-rated health scores was due to both an increase in the average 

score among FGP/SCP stayers and a decrease among HRS non-volunteers. 

Figure 32 Average Self-rated Health, FGP/SCP and HRS Non-volunteers 

Table 12 Differences in Self-rated Health, FGP/SCP and HRS Non-volunteers

Wave FGP/SCP 

Stayers

HRS 

Non-volunteers

FGP/SCP vs. HRS 

Non-volunteers

p-value

Effect Size

D 95% CI

Baseline 2.1 1.9 <.0001 0.37 0.19 – 0.54

Second follow-up 2.2 1.8 <.0001 0.55 0.37– 0.74

Note: Analysis was conducted using a matched sample of FGP/SCP stayers and HRS non-volunteers. The sample 

consisted of 534 pairs of respondents (267 FGP/SCP stayers and 267 HRS non-volunteers). 

A logistic regression model was estimated to examine the odds that self-rated health improved 

for FGP/SCP stayers compared to HRS non-volunteers. The model controlled for an average 

self-rated health score at baseline because volunteers and non-volunteers differed in how they 

perceived their health at baseline. Compared to HRS non-volunteers, the odds that self-rated 

health improved were 52 percent higher for FGP/SCP stayers (OR = 1.52, p-value <.0001). 

Further, stayers who initially rated their health as fair/poor had 55 percent higher odds of 
64

improving compared to HRS non-volunteers (OR = 1.55, p-value = 0.004). Appendix H shows 

all regression results.

Symptoms of Depression 

The items for symptoms of depression were summed to create a scale, representing the number 

of reported symptoms. The total score was 8 because one of the items (“you had a lot of energy”) 

was not asked in the 2014 HRS. Figure 33 shows there were no significant differences in the 

average number of symptoms of depression between FGP/SCP stayers and HRS non-volunteers. 

Figure 33 Average Number of Symptoms of Depression, FGP/SCP Stayers and HRS Nonvolunteers 

FGP/SCP stayers and HRS volunteers both reported significantly fewer symptoms compared to 

HRS non-volunteers (Figure 33, Table 13). The HRS non-volunteers reported one additional 

symptom compared to the volunteers, and the gap in number of symptoms did not change over 

time (Table 13). Over time, the average number of reported symptoms increased 10 percent for 

FGP/SCP stayers, increased 36 percent for HRS volunteers, and increased 5 percent for HRS 

non-volunteers (Table 13).
65

Table 13 Number of Reported Symptoms of Depression, FGP/SCP Stayers and HRS 

Volunteers/Non-volunteers

Wave FGP/SCP 

Stayers

(Matched 

with HRS 

Volunteers)

HRS 

Volunteers

FGP/SCP 

Stayers

(Matched with 

HRS Nonvolunteers)

HRS 

Nonvolunteers

FGP/SCP vs. 

HRS 

Volunteers

p-value

FGP/SCP vs. 

HRS 

Nonvolunteers

p-value

Baseline 1.0 1.1 1.1 2.2 0.48 <.0001

Second followup1.1 1.5 1.2 2.3 0.09 <.0001

Note: Analysis was conducted using a matched sample of FGP/SCP stayers and HRS volunteers (180 FGP/SCP 

stayers and 180 HRS volunteers), and a matched sample of FGP/SCP stayers and HRS non-volunteers (267

FGP/SCP stayers and 267 HRS non-volunteers). Significant differences between FGP/SCP and HRS (i.e., p-values 

less than 0.05) are in bold.

Factors Affecting Health and Well-being 

This subsection presents findings related to the third research question: Do service activities, 

service hours, and motivation for volunteering contribute to the health and well-being outcomes 

of volunteers who remain in service? The previous analysis examined the health and well-being 

outcomes among stayers and leavers, and it compared stayers to similar adult volunteers in the 

HRS. These results replicated previous studies on the health benefits associated with 

volunteering. The analysis showed marked improvement in health and well-being for FGP/SCP 

stayers and adult volunteers in the HRS compared to similar adults in the general population who 

were not volunteers.

41 The health benefits for stayers was not due to differences in perceived 

health at the start of the volunteers’ service. The fact that their self-reporting on health is much 

more positive than their risk factors suggests more in-depth analysis of the factors that contribute 

to this positive outcome.

Although the health benefits of volunteering are well-documented, the specific characteristics of 

volunteering that promote these benefits are not yet well understood. Recent studies have tested 

some hypotheses of what factors contribute most to these health benefits. For example, intensity 

of volunteering – how much time should a volunteer spend in service, and how much time is 

enough, or could there be a threshold that no longer yields benefits? Some studies suggest as 

little as 100 hours of service will yield benefits; others suggest at least 200 hours per year. Types 

of activities have been examined as potential contributors to health benefits of volunteering. 

Activities such as tutoring and reading are assumed to be more beneficial for mental health 

outcomes, whereas physical activities are thought to be more helpful for physical health. Studies 

have also examined motivation as a source of volunteering characteristics that yield health 

 

41 Self-rated health is a measure of the individual’s perception of their general health; it is not a measure of the 

presence or absence of medical health conditions.
66

benefits. These studies seem to suggest being purely altruistic yielded greater health benefits to 

the volunteer.

42

The analysis examined whether service activities, service hours, and motivation for volunteering

contributed to change in self-rated health, life satisfaction, and social isolation/loneliness of 

stayers. Self-rated health was measured as a dichotomous variable to indicate whether there was 

improvement from baseline to second follow-up. A value of 1 was defined as either a change 

from a rating of “good” to “excellent/very good” health, or a rating of “fair/poor” to “good” or 

“excellent/very good.” Ratings that remained at “good” or “excellent/very good” health were 

coded as zero. Both life satisfaction and social isolation/loneliness were measured as continuous 

variables. Higher values for the life satisfaction score indicated greater satisfaction with life; 

higher values for the social isolation/loneliness indicated higher degree of feeling isolated or 

loneliness. Appendix G shows full regression results for all three outcomes.

Self-rated Health 

Three quarters (75 percent) of volunteers reported no change or rated their health as having 

improved from baseline to the second follow-up. FGP volunteers who remained in service were 

more likely to report improvement in self-rated health than SCP volunteers. The odds of a report 

of improvement in self-rated health were 11 percent higher for the FGP than for SCP volunteers 

(OR = 0.89, p-value = 0.62). This is consistent with previous studies that suggest activities 

involving tutoring or reading could be beneficial for mental health outcomes, and FGP 

volunteers are fully engaged in those activities. Self-rated health, being a subjective perception 

of general health, seems to be impacted more for FGP volunteers than SCP volunteers. Unlike 

previous studies that showed a decreasing return in health benefits as hours of service increased, 

the data from the current study showed that additional hours of service increased the odds of 

reporting improvement in self-rated health by about 4 percent. The volunteers whose motives 

were personal growth (e.g., to learn, get more experience) and those whose motives were 

intertwined with self-oriented (e.g., keeping busy, feeling better, having a sense of 

accomplishment), personal growth, and financial incentives had higher odds of improvement in 

self-rated health. The odds that self-rated health improved were 68 percent higher for volunteers 

with personal growth motives than for other volunteers. The odds self-rated health improved 

were 10 percent higher for volunteers who expressed a combination of self-oriented, personal 

growth and financial incentives motives than for other volunteers. 

Life Satisfaction 

Life satisfaction scores were not significantly different between FGP and SCP volunteers, though 

the average was slightly higher among SCP volunteers. Volunteers who had both self-oriented 

 

42 Konrath, S., Fuhrel-Forbis, A., Lou, A., & Brown, S. (2012). Motives for volunteering are associated with 

mortality risk in older adults. Health Psychology, 31(1), 87-96.
67

and personal growth motives had higher life satisfaction scores than other volunteers. An 

additional hour of service per week was also negatively associated with life satisfaction. 

Social Isolation/Loneliness 

SCP volunteers and those who served more hours scored lower on the social isolation/loneliness 

scale, indicating that volunteers with these characteristics reported a lower degree of social 

isolation/loneliness. The difference in perception of isolation/loneliness was about half a point 

lower for SCP volunteers. The volunteers who had both self-oriented and personal growth 

motives also had lower scores on the social isolation/loneliness scale compared to other 

volunteers.

Discussion 

CNCS launched the longitudinal evaluation of its Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion 

programs to build the evidence base of these programs’ effectiveness as well as to assess how to 

strengthen and expand national service programs to support the overall health and well-being of 

adults. Data were collected over two years from more than 1,200 first-time Foster Grandparent 

and Senior Companion volunteers on their social, demographic, and economic backgrounds; 

their interest and motivation for volunteering; their experience with the program’s training and 

support to serve successfully; and their health and well-being outcomes. 

The final report used data from three time points of data collection (baseline and two follow-ups) 

to describe the demographic profile, knowledge of national service, and motivation for 

volunteering; to assess differences in retention, satisfaction, and engagement in service; and to 

examine the health benefits of volunteering as well as the characteristics of volunteering that 

contribute to health benefits. 

First-time Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions were primarily female and racially and 

ethnically diverse; many were retired, but remained active in the labor force by either looking for 

work or working. Consistent with prior literature, they were highly motivated by altruistic 

reasons in their decision; however, their motives went beyond impacting and making a difference 

in their community. The volunteers were also motivated to achieve personal growth (e.g., 

learning something new) and had other motives such as self-oriented (e.g., having a sense of 

accomplishment, keeping busy/filling time) and being able to earn extra money. Once they began 

their service, most of them remained in service. Retention among these volunteers was higher 

than the estimated national average. The most frequently reported reasons for leaving national 

service were personal health problems or health problems of a family member/friend, lack of 

time to fulfill service obligations, and insufficient financial incentives for volunteering. 

Flexibility to manage time and overall satisfaction emerged as the two primary barriers to 

retention. The importance of flexibility and satisfaction might come into play at different times 

than factors like declining health. The volunteers who ended their service in the first year were 
68

also generally more dissatisfied with their experience compared to stayers. They might have left 

because they realized their service activities and the necessary commitment did not permit them 

enough flexibility. Though these barriers contributed to retention, those who left reported the 

volunteering experience was interesting and would recommend it to a friend. Beyond the first 

year, retention could be affected by declining personal health or having to help a family member.

Volunteers reported that their experience with the training and support they received from their 

respective program was positive. A successful volunteering experience, even among leavers, can 

be beneficial for recruitment of future volunteers. Most of the volunteers who left reported they 

would continue to recommend the program, which again is a boost for future recruitment 

because eligible adults typically learned about FGP and SCP service opportunities through a 

friend or by word of mouth. 

FGP and SCP offer service opportunities for low-income earning adults. The income eligibility is 

currently set at or below 200 percent of the national federal poverty level guidelines. Retention 

was higher among FGP, volunteers with the lowest income (reported income under $20,000), 

those who had a disability, and those who had attained at most a high school diploma or had not 

graduated high school. Stayers possess the characteristics known to be associated with greater 

risk for health disparities, yet FGP and SCP stayers reported improved self-rated health, a 

decrease in perception of social isolation/loneliness, and fewer number of symptoms of 

depression in their first two years of service. The size of the difference in perception of health, 

life satisfaction, social isolation/loneliness, and symptoms of depression between stayers and 

leavers, and between stayers and other volunteers and non-volunteers falls within the moderate 

range. Health and well-being outcomes of stayers were comparable to those of similar lowincome earning adult volunteers in the general population. There were no differences in selfrated health and symptoms of depression between FGP/SCP stayers and the HRS volunteers; the 

changes in average score between both groups were similar and remained unchanged for the 

period examined. Both FGP/SCP stayers and HRS volunteers reported higher average self-rated 

health scores compared to HRS non-volunteers, who showed both a decrease in self-rated health 

and an increase in the number of symptoms of depression.

Leavers generally felt worse about their health, felt socially isolated/lonely, were less satisfied 

with their life, and indicated an increase in number of symptoms of depression. As previously 

stated, there are myriad and heterogeneous reasons that may have contributed to the decline in 

health and well-being among leavers. For some leavers, the end of service coincided with a 

possible decline in personal health or the need to care for a sick family member or friend. 

However, not all leavers exit national service due to health issues. Some organizational barriers 

could also be contributing to the decision to end their service. Leavers were overall less satisfied 

with their program and felt they had insufficient flexibility to manage their time. Some leavers 

may have entered national service during a transition phase of their life and may return to 

national service as that transition stabilizes. The study was unable to address these complex and 

multifaceted contributors to leavers’ health and well-being. 
69

To inform policy decisions that strengthen these programs, it is also important to understand and 

identify the characteristics of the volunteer experience that contribute to improve health and 

well-being. Previous research that examined this issue has focused on service activities, service 

hours, and motivation as important sources of volunteering characteristics that yield health 

benefits. Of the two types of service activities studied here, FGP volunteers who remained in 

service were more likely to report improvement in self-rated health compared to SCP volunteers, 

but SCP volunteers reported higher life satisfaction scores and scored lower on the social 

isolation/loneliness scale compared to FGP volunteers. Service hours were not a significant 

contributor to health outcomes. Contrary to previous studies’ findings, there was a positive 

association between hours in service and health. The possible explanation is that there is an 

expectation of service hour commitment upon joining FGP and SCP. Individuals who persist in 

the program through the first two years have clearly made this commitment in the number of 

hours they will serve. In this context, once a volunteer commits to service, changes in hours do 

not affect retention or contribute to health outcomes. Motivation contributed to the health 

benefits associated with volunteering. The volunteers who were motivated by personal growth 

(e.g., to learn, get more experience), self-oriented goals (e.g., keeping busy, feeling better, 

having a sense of accomplishment), and financial incentives had higher odds of improvement in 

self-rated health. The odds that self-rated health improved were 68 percent higher for volunteers 

motivated by personal growth. The odds that self-rated health improved were 10 percent higher 

for volunteers who had self-oriented, personal growth, and financial incentive motives than for 

other volunteers. There was a positive association between life satisfaction and self-oriented and 

personal growth motives. At the same time, altruistic and financial motives were negatively 

associated with life satisfaction.

There are some limitations with the analysis to understanding how volunteer characteristics 

contribute to change in health and well-being. Specifically, the analysis could not examine how 

these characteristics or their interaction with change in employment status might have affected 

the poorer health outcomes among leavers. The analysis could not shed light on the reverse 

causation of poor health on the ability to continue to volunteer. In other words, we did not learn 

how poor physical and mental health might impede an individual’s ability to engage in volunteer 

activities.

The Senior Corps research agenda incorporated three goals from the 2011–2015 CNCS Strategic 

Plan. The findings from this evaluation provide insights for advancing these goals. 

Goal 1: Increase the impact of national service on community needs in communities served by 

CNCS-supported programs. 

• Senior Corps has met its goal to provide opportunities to low-income earning adults who 

would otherwise not have the opportunity to serve their community. The volunteers were 

overwhelmingly low-income earners, educated, and unmarried females, many of whom 

were still active in the labor force either working or looking for work. The volunteers 
70

must meet the program’s income eligibility criteria set at 200 percent of the federal 

poverty guidelines. In practice, the volunteers who serve had an average income that was 

closer to 100 percent of the national poverty level guideline. The majority (80 percent) 

reported total annual household income of less than $20,000; 15 percent reported 

household income of between $20,000 and $29,999; and 5 percent reported income of 

$30,000 and higher. Many of the volunteers had attained at least some college, associate 

degree or bachelor’s degree, with 43 percent having some college or an associate degree,

but not attaining a bachelor’s degree, and 16 percent having graduated from college or 

earned an advanced degree. Another 30 percent graduated from high school, and 11 

percent did not have a high school diploma.

•

•

About one-third (34 percent) reported a disability such as a long-lasting condition like 

severe vision or hearing impairment, or a condition that limited basic physical activities.

More than half of the volunteers who were retired continued to be active in the labor

force, either working or looking for work. Less than one-fifth (14 percent) were 

unemployed and looking for work, 9 percent were currently working, more than onefourth (28 percent) reported they were disabled, and 43 percent were fully retired (neither 

working nor looking for work).

Goal 2: Strengthen national service so that participants engaged in CNCS-supported programs 

consistently find satisfaction, meaning, and opportunity.

• The volunteers found their service to the community to be satisfying and meaningful, and 

they reported having opportunities for personal growth and feeling a sense of 

accomplishment. They also reported making friends, keeping busy, and earning extra 

money. Overall satisfaction and perception of the volunteer experience, such as feeling 

that their assignment was a match for their skills and that the assignment was interesting,

were positive. In fact, 85 percent of those who left reported they would continue to 

recommend the program, which could boost future recruitment given that eligible adults 

who joined the program do so based on information obtained from their friends. The 

volunteers had complex and multifaceted motives for volunteering; altruism was not their 

sole motive. More than three-fourths had reasons beyond altruism in deciding to serve. 

About 30 percent expressed personal growth and self-oriented goals as motivating factors 

in their decision; 12 percent were motivated by the stipend; and, notably, an additional 20 

percent who expressed personal growth and self-oriented goals were also motivated by 

the stipend. In all, close to one-third had an underlying financial reason, due to the 

stipend, for volunteering. Retention among the volunteers was not significantly 

associated with motives, suggesting that, on average, the volunteers fulfilled their 

altruistic expectations of serving their community. Senior Corps, through the FGP and 

SCP programs, provides service opportunities intended to offer professional, educational,

and life benefits to participants. Persisting in service is associated with health benefits. 

Stayers reported improvement in their health and well-being. The health and well-being 
71

outcomes of FGP/SCP stayers were comparable to a matched sample of adult volunteers 

and non-volunteers with similar income levels in the general population who participated 

in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). It is also the case that FGP/SCP stayers 

reported significant improvement in how they perceived their health compared to adult 

non-volunteers in the general population.

Goal 4: Fortify management operations and sustain a capable, responsive, and accountable 

organization.

•

•

•

The programmatic structure of FGP and SCP incorporates several management practices 

found to promote retention. Specifically, volunteers receive training before they begin 

their assignment; they are matched to a beneficiary in their community; and they attend 

monthly in-service meetings for active volunteers. The overall retention rate was higher 

among FGP/SCP volunteers compared with national estimates. More than three-fourths 

(78 percent) of the volunteers remained in service through the first year. The most recent 

national estimate showed 66 percent of volunteers remain in service through their first 

year. Among FGP/SCP volunteers who remained for a second year, the retention rate was 

68 percent; approximately 12 percent left national service in the second year.

Another effective management practice for promoting retention is to rely on volunteers as 

recruiters for the organization. The primary mode for recruitment is through informal 

networks where volunteers serve as the primary ambassadors for recruiting new 

volunteers. The findings demonstrate that more than two-thirds of the first-time 

volunteers learned about FGP and SCP from a friend. The volunteers who left the 

program were satisfied with their experience and had a strong willingness to be an 

ambassador for the program – 85 percent of leavers reported they were “extremely likely 

or very likely” to recommend FGP/SCP to a friend. Almost all stayers (95 percent) 

reported they were “extremely likely or very likely” to recommend the program to a 

friend. This finding is consistent with the high overall satisfaction with volunteering in 

FGP and SCP among both stayers and leavers, and it bodes well for future recruiting. 

There were no statistically significant differences between FGP and SCP in overall 

satisfaction, willingness to recommend the program, the overall experience with 

volunteering, and the training and support received to serve. Although not statistically 

significant, there were some notable differences between FGP and SCP volunteers. 

Lower proportions of SCP leavers reported they would recommend the program to a 

friend, agreed that their supervisor provided them with the support and information they 

needed to serve successfully, indicated that the support from the people in the program 

was helpful, and mentioned that the flexibility to manage their time was helpful. These 

perceptions of their satisfaction and experience would tend to weaken SCP volunteers’ 

retention, relative to FGP, if, as the research suggests, those factors matter for volunteer 

retention.
72

• Flexibility to manage time and overall satisfaction emerged as the two factors 

contributing to retention. Volunteers who were “completely/very/somewhat satisfied”

with the overall volunteer experience were almost three times more likely to remain in 

service than those who were less satisfied. Volunteers who reported the flexibility to 

manage their time as being “extremely/very/somewhat helpful” were almost three times 

more likely to stay compared to those who reported flexibility to manage their time as 

“little/not at all helpful.”

Recommendations

While this study examined Senior Corps’ effect on self-perception of physical health and wellbeing of its FGP and SCP volunteers, two additional areas for research can guide future policy 

directions and strengthen management practices. Specifically, research efforts could examine 

whether volunteering with national service leads to improved physical health through selfreporting and biometric screening, and they could examine the characteristics of volunteering 

that promote mental and physical health. This research could strongly position Senior Corps to 

promote its national service program as a public health intervention leading to healthier lifestyles

for low-income adults and those with little education, who generally have poorer health and 

lower participation in volunteering.

Physical Health Benefits of Volunteers 

• The research on mental health benefits are well-documented among Senior Corps and 

adult volunteers in general. There is limited research on the effects of volunteering on 

physical health. The current study did not examine the volunteers’ physical health, only 

their self-rated health. A future study could address this limitation and examine how 

Senior Corps national service participation might promote better physical health 

measured through self-report and biometric screening. These physical health measures 

might include, for example, blood pressure, blood cholesterol, blood glucose, aerobic 

fitness test, weight, height, and body mass index. Longevity is another physical health 

measure that has been examined in the literature. An integrated mixed methods approach 

of both quantitative and qualitative data from volunteers could more deeply explore the 

complex and multiple ways that volunteering activities promote better physical health. 

Characteristics of Volunteering That Lead to Improved Health and Well-being 

• Volunteering might lead to improvement in mental and physical health. An emerging 

focus of research is to understand which characteristics of volunteering lead to improved 

physical and mental health. The current study began to explore these characteristics of 

volunteering in a limited way. A future mixed methods study should more explicitly 

measure and analyze characteristics of volunteering and how they impact mental and 

physical health. Characteristics of volunteering that could be examined in future research 
73

might include hours in service, types of service activities, volunteer training prior to 

service and continued support through the term of service, and motivation for 

volunteering. 

•

•

•

Future research could examine how length of service, consistency and amount of service 

hours impact on organizational capacity and volunteers’ mental and physical health. A 

unique characteristic of FGP and SCP is the commitment to a minimum number of 

service hours. FGP and SCP do not impose a minimum length of service for their

volunteers, however it is reasonable to assume each sponsoring organization seeks to 

maximize volunteers’ length of service to reduce recruitment and training costs and 

minimize service gaps to the community. Besides costs to the sponsoring organization, 

the current study’s findings suggest potential personal costs to the volunteers themselves 

in that a reduction in time commitment or ending volunteer service could reduce the 

health benefits associated with volunteering. Future research could directly assess this 

policy to minimize organizational costs in building capacity with a stable volunteer corps 

and whether length of service and stability of service hours maximize health benefits for 

the volunteers.

Given the health benefits associated with volunteering, a follow-up mixed methods study 

could delve deeper into the complex factors contributing to leaving. For example, the 

results showed that volunteers who reported they did not have enough flexibility to 

manage time were three times more likely to leave national service. A future study might 

examine how policy and practice around service commitment might be adjusted to allow 

those volunteers to continue to meet the required hours of service with enough flexibility 

that would allow them to remain in service and thereby attain the health benefits 

associated with service.

A future study could examine the effect of the stipend on recruitment, retention, and 

health outcomes. Senior Corps makes provision to remove economic barriers to serve 

through a modest stipend of $2.65 per hour intended to defray the cost of volunteering. 

The study design did not set out to test the impact or effectiveness of the stipend. 

However, the questionnaire included two questions to begin to understand whether the 

stipend was a factor in the decision to volunteer. One question asked whether earning 

extra money was an important consideration in deciding to volunteer. Another question 

asked whether the stipend was helpful or not. The exploratory analysis of both questions 

suggests that the financial aspect of the decision to volunteer should be more closely 

examined in future research. Close to one-third of the first-time volunteers reported the 

stipend was “extremely helpful” and more than 80 percent of first-time volunteers 

reported the stipend was either “extremely or very helpful.”
74

Appendix A: Propensity Score Matching 

Propensity score matching (PSM) is one possible statistical method of reducing bias in estimates 

when the intervention and control samples occurred naturally, and random assignment was not 

possible.43 Reduced bias in estimates are achieved by matching individuals in the intervention 

sample with similar individuals in the control sample using a propensity score. The propensity 

score is estimated by accounting for factors that might affect probability of being in the 

intervention group and the outcomes of interest. PSM was used to obtain a matched sample of 

FGP/SCP (intervention) and Health and Retirement Study (HRS) volunteers and non-volunteers 

(control). The steps in implementation of PSM are described below.

Overview 

The questions in the volunteer survey were adopted from the HRS, making it possible to 

compare the health and well-being of FGP and SCP volunteers with a national sample of adults 

who participated in the HRS. The sample identified from the HRS consisted of participants 

whose household income was at or below the 200 percent of the national federal poverty level, 

who were age 55 and older, were not in a nursing home, and who completed the survey on their

own. The analysis used the 2012 and 2014 HRS data, which were the most recent available data 

at the time of this report. To reduce bias in estimates due to confounding variables, propensity 

score matching (PSM) was used to identify a matched sample of HRS and FGP and SCP

volunteers. First, a logistic regression was conducted to estimate each HRS and FGP/SCP

participant’s propensity score. The covariates in the model included age, gender, race/ethnicity, 

veteran status, education, marital status, income, employment status, and functional limitation 

(difficulty getting up from a chair after sitting for long periods). The model also included 

interactions between gender, race, and veteran status. The final matched sample of HRS and 

FGP/SCP volunteers consisted of 360 pairs of volunteers (180 HRS volunteers and 180 

FGP/SCP volunteers). The final matched HRS non-volunteers and FGP/SCP volunteers 

consisted of 534 pairs of participants (267 HRS non-volunteers and 267 FGP/SCP volunteers). 

To determine how well the HRS and Senior Corps samples were matched, we examined the 

distribution of propensity scores before and after matching. The distribution of propensity scores 

was similar and overlapped after matching. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in 

observed demographic characteristics between the HRS and FG/SC samples after matching.

Data Cleaning 

We identified covariates that might be related to the outcomes of interest. These included age, 

gender, race/ethnicity, veteran status, education, marital status, income, employment status, and 

functional limitation (e.g. difficulty getting up from a chair after sitting for long periods). All 

 

43 Brewer, D. J., & Picus, L. O. (Eds.). (2014). Encyclopedia of education economics and finance (Vol. 2). Sage 

Publications.
75

covariates were recoded so they were measured in the same way across both HRS and FGP/SCP 

samples. For example, race/ethnicity was coded White, African American, Latino, and Other for 

both HRS and FGP/SCP samples. Dummy variables were created for each level of all covariates 

(except reference levels), which were entered in the next step as covariates in the logistic 

regression model to estimate each individual’s propensity score. Finally, a subset of the HRS 

sample was obtained by retaining only individuals whose household income was at or below the 

200 percent of the national federal poverty level, who were age 55 and older, who were not in a 

nursing home, and who completed the survey on their own. This sample of HRS individuals was 

further divided into volunteers (N = 1,170) and non-volunteers (N = 3,351) using the HRS survey 

item, “Have you spent any time in the past 12 months doing volunteer work for religious, 

educational, health-related or other charitable organizations?” 

Estimating the Propensity Score 

We performed logistic regression to estimate each individual’s propensity score. The covariates 

included in the model were age, gender, race/ethnicity, veteran status, education, marital status, 

income, employment status, and functional limitation. The interactions between gender, 

race/ethnicity, education, and marital status were also included in the model. 

Performing the Match 

We used the one-to-one matching method to match individuals in the HRS volunteer and nonvolunteer samples to individuals in the FGP/SCP sample. The algorithm makes a best match first 

(i.e., the highest number of digits on propensity score), then the next best match (the next highest 

number of digits on propensity scores), in a hierarchical sequence. For example, in the first 

iteration, individuals were matched using eight digits of their propensity score. Individuals who 

did not match go through the second iteration, where they are matched using seven digits, and so 

on until the fifth iteration (matched using four digits of their propensity score). We did not match 

using three digits or lower because examination of the descriptive statistics of the matched 

samples revealed these were not ideal matches. See Parsons (2004)44 for a detailed explanation 

of the matching algorithm and the macro. 

Evaluating the Quality of the Match 

The matching procedure resulted in 360 pairs of volunteers (180 HRS volunteers and 180 

FGP/SCP volunteers) and 534 pairs of non-volunteers (267 HRS non-volunteers and 267 

FGP/SCP volunteers). Several steps were taken to assess the quality of the matches. Comparison 

of the distribution of propensity scores of the HRS and FGP/SCP samples before and after 

matching using means, variances, and histograms showed that the propensity scores were 

 

44 Parsons, L. S. (2004, May). Performing a 1:N case-control match on propensity score. Proceedings of the 29th 

Annual SAS Users Group International Conference. SAS Institute.
76

similar. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between HRS and FGP/SCP samples 

in observed demographic characteristics after matching (all p > .05). Similarity in the distribution 

of propensity across the samples and non-significant differences in the covariates across the 

samples indicate high-quality matches. 45, 46

 

45 Lanehart, R. E., de Gil, P. R., Kim, E. S., Bellara, A. P., Kromrey, J. D., & Lee, R. S. (2012, April). Propensity 

score analysis and assessment of propensity score approaches using SAS procedures. In SAS Global Forum: 

Statistics and Data Analysis.

46 Ibid. 
77

Appendix B: Multiple Imputation 

The questions on annual household income and service hours had the highest percentage of nonresponse, where 13 percent of volunteers did not respond to the question about their household 

income and 52 percent did not respond to the question about the number of service hours. These 

missing data may lead to bias estimates, improper inferences, and misinterpretations of the 

results. 

Multiple imputation is a series of statistical techniques to analyze missing data and impute (i.e., 

fill in) the missing information using the distribution of non-missing data of the same variable 

and other available information in the dataset. The purpose of using multiple imputation is to 

reduce bias, which will result in more accurate results and inferences. 

Multiple imputation consists of three general steps: (1) imputation, (2) analysis, and (3) pooling. 

The imputation step involves filling in the missing data with estimated values. This process is 

repeated multiple times, creating multiple datasets of imputed values. The analysis step involves 

analyzing each set of data using typical statistical methods, such as logistic regression or 

multiple regression. The pooling step involves combining the results (i.e., parameter estimates) 

from the previous step into one set of results. 

Different algorithms are used for imputation depending on the distribution of the variables and 

missing data patterns. For multiple regression models, missing values for service hours were 

imputed using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) multiple imputation method. For the 

logistic regression model predicting the odds of retention, missing values were imputed using the 

fully conditional specification (FCS) method, which uses a separate conditional distribution for 

each imputed variable. The FCS assumes a separate conditional distribution for each imputed 

variable and is used to impute a variable that takes specific values such as a binary or ordinal 

variable for a logistic model. 

The PROC MI procedure in SAS was used. The following variables were included in the 

imputation model: age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, living arrangement, has children or 

not, functional limitations, number of medical conditions, disability, motivation, satisfaction and 

experience, employment status, program type (FGP or SCP), program status (leaver or stayer), 

income, volunteer activities, number of days of service in the past month, service hours per day, 

and self-rated health. The literature provides a rule of thumb for determining the number of 

imputed datasets to produce. These recommendations range from 5 to 20 datasets when the 

fraction of missing values is low, and as many as 50 datasets when the fraction of missing values 
78

is high.47 Thirteen percent of the respondents did not respond to the income question. We 

reviewed the results for different numbers of imputed datasets when imputing income. We 

imputed 15 datasets for the logistic regression model because we found that higher values of 

imputed values beyond 15 did not improve the efficiency and parameter estimates. We imputed 

45 datasets for the multiple regression models. In these models, one of the important predictors 

was hours of service, which had 52 percent of the respondents with missing values. The table 

below shows the variables before and after imputations. 

The multiple datasets generated by the imputation process represent a range of possible values 

for the missing data. Each dataset was analyzed using logistic regression and multiple regression 

depending on the outcome of interest. The results represent a range of possible results had there 

been no missing values. The results using multiple datasets were then pooled into a single set of 

results using the PROC MIANALYZE procedure. 

 

47 UCLA, Statistical Consulting Group. Multiple imputation in SAS Part 1. Retrieved from 

https://stats.idre.ucla.edu/sas/seminars/multiple-imputation-in-sas/mi_new_1/
79

Table B-1: Comparison of Key Variables Before and After Imputation 

Before 

imputation

Before 

imputation

After 

imputation 

(FCS)

After 

imputation 

(MCMC)

N Percent Percent Percent

Gender

Male 75 8.9 8.9 8.2

Female 766 91.1 91.1 91.8

Race

Native American Alaska Native 13 1.6 2.1 1.5

Asian 24 3.0 3.0 3.1

Black or African American 364 45.1 43.7 43.0

Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander 2 0.3 2.0 1.5

White 382 47.3 46.1 48.0

More than one race 22 2.7 3.2 2.9

Ethnicity

Not Hispanic 716 90.1 90.1 88.8

Hispanic 79 9.9 9.9 11.2

Education

Less than high school 86 10.5 11.0 11.9

High school or GED 248 30.3 30.1 32.0

Less than BA 353 43.1 42.9 40.9

BA or higher 132 16.1 16.0 15.2

Marital Status

Married/Partner 203 25.1 24.8 25.3

Separated/Divorced 324 40.1 39.9 39.1

Widowed 189 23.4 23.3 24.9

Never married/Other 93 11.5 12.0 10.7

Living Arrangement

Live alone 477 60.2 59.8 59.7

Live with others 315 39.8 40.2 40.3

Children

Have no children 107 13.4 13.7 14.1

Have children 691 86.6 86.3 85.9

Self-rated Health (Baseline)

Excellent 58 7.0 7.0 6.5

Very good 252 30.3 30.2 29.8

Good 384 46.2 45.8 47.3

Fair 130 15.6 15.5 15.7

Poor 7 0.8 1.5 0.6

Note: After imputation N = 841. 
80

Before 

imputation

Before 

imputation

After 

imputation 

(FCS)

After 

imputation 

(MCMC)

N Percent Percent Percent

Difficulty walking one block

No 724 88.3 87.8 88.5

Yes 96 11.7 12.2 11.5

Difficulty getting up from a chair after sitting for 

long periods

No 620 76.3 75.8 75.5

Yes 193 23.7 24.2 24.5

Difficulty climbing several flights of stairs without 

resting

No 434 54.9 54.9 55.5

Yes 357 45.1 45.1 44.5

Long-lasting conditions like blindness, deafness, or 

a severe vision or hearing impairment?

No 767 93.7 93.0 93.3

Yes 52 6.4 7.0 6.7

Condition that substantially limits basic physical 

activities like walking, climbing stairs, reaching, 

lifting, or carrying?

No 544 68.1 67.8 67.1

Yes 255 31.9 32.2 32.9

Motivation

Altruistic only 95 11.3 11.3 10.6

Self-oriented 90 10.7 10.7 10.2

Personal growth 59 7.0 7.0 7.3

Self-oriented, personal growth 245 29.1 29.1 29.4

Self-oriented, personal growth, financial 162 19.3 19.3 20.0

Financial 102 12.1 12.1 12.3

No primary motivation 88 10.5 10.5 10.2

Overall Satisfaction

Not very or not at all satisfied 17 2.1 3.4 0.1

Somewhat satisfied 74 9.1 9.4 7.1

Completely or very satisfied 725 88.9 87.2 92.7

Note: After imputation N = 841. 
81

Before 

imputation

Before 

imputation

After 

imputation 

(FCS)

After 

imputation 

(MCMC)

N Percent Percent Percent

Experience – Good match for my skills 

Disagree 73 9.0 9.9 7.2

Agree 741 91.0 90.1 92.8

Experience – Interesting 

Disagree 52 6.4 7.4 5.6

Agree 763 93.6 92.6 94.4

Experience – Supervisor provides support and 

information

Disagree 72 8.9 9.8 6.9

Agree 739 91.1 90.2 93.1

Experience – Training 

Not at all helpful 9 1.1 1.9 0.6

Somewhat or a little helpful 88 10.6 10.7 9.1

Extremely or very helpful 731 88.3 87.4 90.3

Experience – Helpfulness of people in the program

Not at all helpful 12 1.4 2.0 0.7

Somewhat or a little helpful 91 10.9 10.9 8.7

Extremely or very helpful 729 87.6 87.1 90.6

Experience – Flexibility to manage time

Not at all helpful 10 1.2 2.6 0.6

Somewhat or a little helpful 88 10.7 10.8 7.1

Extremely or very helpful 722 88.1 86.6 92.3

Experience – Helpfulness of the stipend

Not at all helpful 9 1.1 3.2 0.2

Somewhat or a little helpful 187 23.2 23.0 21.6

Extremely or very helpful 610 75.7 73.7 78.2

Employment Status

Working now 75 9.2 9.4 8.3

Unemployed 117 14.3 14.3 13.0

Disabled 229 28.0 27.9 28.8

Retired 351 43.0 42.7 44.1

Homemaker 45 5.5 5.8 5.9

Note: After imputation N = 841. 
82

Before 

imputation

Before 

imputation

After 

imputation 

(FCS)

After 

imputation 

(MCMC)

N Percent Percent Percent

Program Type

SCP 231 27.5 27.5 26.5

FGP 610 72.5 72.5 73.5

Leavers

Not leaver 567 67.7 67.6 85.1

Leaver 271 32.3 32.4 14.9

Income

Less than $20,000 582 69.2 71.1 78.0

$20,000–$29,999 112 13.3 14.1 17.4

$30,000–$39,999 13 1.6 4.2 2.2

$40,000 and higher 20 2.4 4.7 2.1

$20,000 – Amount not specified 2 0.2 5.9 0.3

Not specified 112 13.3 --- ---

Age (Mean) 817 65.8 65.8 65.8

Number of Medical Conditions (Mean) 835 1.7 1.7 1.7

Hours per Day 320 4.9 --- 4.9

Note: After imputation N = 841. 
83

Appendix C: Retention Rate by Program Type

All FGP FGP All SCP SCP

Stayers Leavers pvalueReten

tion 

rate

Stayers Leavers pvalueReten

tion 

rate

N % N % N % % N % N % N % %

Age

55–65 years 299 50.3 218 51.9 81 46.3 0.21 72.9% 119 54.1 71 51.1 48 59.3 0.24 59.7%

66–75 years 242 40.7 170 40.5 72 41.1 0.88 70.2% 82 37.3 57 41.0 25 30.9 0.13 69.5%

76 years or older 54 9.1 32 7.6 22 12.6 0.06 59.3% 19 8.6 11 7.9 8 9.9 0.62 57.9%

Gender

Male 50 8.2 33 7.8 17 9.2 0.56 66.0% 25 10.9 14 9.8 11 12.8 0.48 56.0%

Female 559 91.8 391 92.2 168 90.8 0.56 69.9% 204 89.1 129 90.2 75 87.2 0.48 63.2%

Race

Native American 

Alaska Native 9 1.5 6 1.5 3 1.7 - 66.7% 4 1.8 4 2.9 - - -

100.0

%

Asian 17 2.9 14 3.4 3 1.7 0.25 82.4% 7 3.2 5 3.7 2 2.4 0.71 71.4%

Black or African 

American 270 46.2 192 47.2 78 43.8 0.45 71.1% 92 42.0 54 39.4 38 46.3 0.31 58.7%

Native Hawaiian 

Pacific Islander - - - - - - - - 2 0.9 0 0 2 2.4 - 0.0%

White 269 46.0 182 44.7 87 48.9 0.35 67.7% 112 51.1 73 53.3 39 47.6 0.41 65.2%

More than one 

race 20 3.4 13 3.2 7 3.9 0.65 65.0% 2 0.9 1 0.7 1 1.2 - 50.0%

Ethnicity

Not Hispanic 519 90.9 358 90.4 161 92.0 0.54 69.0% 194 87.8 119 85.6 75 91.5 0.20 61.3%

Hispanic 52 9.1 38 9.6 14 8.0 0.54 73.1% 27 12.2 20 14.4 7 8.5 0.20 74.1%

Education

Less than HS 62 10.4 51 12.3 11 6.2 0.03 82.3% 24 10.8 17 12.2 7 8.4 0.38 70.8%

HS or GED 178 30.0 133 32.0 45 25.3 0.10 74.7% 69 31.1 46 33.1 23 27.7 0.40 66.7%

Less than BA 255 42.9 166 39.9 89 50.0 0.02 65.1% 96 43.2 58 41.7 38 45.8 0.56 60.4%

BA or higher 99 16.7 66 15.9 33 18.5 0.42 66.7% 33 14.9 18 13.0 15 18.1 0.30 54.5%
84

All FGP FGP All SCP SCP

Stayers Leavers pvalueRetent

ion 

rate

Stayers Leavers pvalueRetent

ion 

rate

Income

Less than $20,000 469 77.3 333 78.5 136 74.3 0.25 71.0% 198 87.2 120 85.1 78 90.7 0.22 60.6%

$20,000–$29,999 106 17.5 72 17.0 34 18.6 0.63 67.9% 23 10.1 18 12.8 5 5.8 0.09 78.3%

$30,000 and higher 32 5.3 19 4.5 13 7.1 0.18 59.4% 6 2.6 3 2.1 3 2.1 0.68 50.0%

Marital Status

Married/Partner 161 27.6 117 28.7 44 25.1 0.38 72.7% 42 18.8 23 16.4 19 22.6 0.25 54.8%

Separated/Divorce

d 216 37.0 149 36.5 67 38.3 0.69 69.0% 107 47.8 63 45.0 44 52.4 0.28 58.9%

Widowed 138 23.7 101 24.8 37 21.1 0.35 73.2% 50 22.3 40 28.6 10 11.9 0.004 80.0%

Never 

Married/Other 68 11.7 41 10.1 27 15.4 0.06 60.3% 25 11.2 14 10.0 11 13.1 0.48 56.0%

Veteran Status

Active duty or 

veteran 18 3.2 13 3.4 5 2.9 0.77 72.2% 8 3.7 4 3.0 4 4.9 0.47 50.0%

Military family or 

family of veteran 98 17.5 66 17.1 32 18.5 0.69 67.3% 36 16.8 25 18.8 11 13.6 0.32 69.4%

Not a veteran 419 75.0 288 74.6 131 75.7 0.78 68.7% 161 75.2 99 74.4 62 76.5 0.73 61.5%

More than one 

answer 24 4.3 19 4.9 5 2.9 0.27 79.2% 9 4.2 5 3.8 4 4.9 0.73 55.6%

Disability

Condition that 

limits basic 

physical activities 203 33.9 140 33.6 63 34.6 0.80 69.0% 77 33.9 45 31.7 32 37.7 0.36 58.4%

Note: Significant differences between stayers and leavers (i.e., p-values less than 0.05) are in bold.
85

Appendix D: Reasons for Leaving National Service

Not at 

all

Not at 

all

A 

little A little Somewhat Somewhat A lot A lot

A 

great 

deal

A great 

deal

Did not 

respond

Did not 

respond

n Percent n Percent n Percent n Percent n Percent n Percent

A. I developed 

some health 

problems

36 13.3 120 44.3 11 4.1 25 9.2 25 9.2 54 19.9

B. I moved 43 15.9 209 77.1 2 0.7 4 1.5 3 1.1 10 3.7

C. I did not feel I 

was helping others 35 12.9 206 76.0 5 1.8 8 3.0 9 3.3 8 3.0

D. I was not 

earning extra 

money

35 12.9 194 71.6 12 4.4 21 7.7 4 1.5 5 1.8

E. I did not have 

enough time 39 14.4 187 69.0 14 5.2 13 4.8 6 2.2 12 4.4

F. I was not 

learning 38 14.0 216 79.7 3 1.1 10 3.7 2 0.7 2 0.7

G. I was not 

meeting new 

friends

34 12.5 225 83.0 5 1.8 2 0.7 4 1.5 1 0.4

H. I was not 

getting the 

experience

37 13.7 199 73.4 6 2.2 13 4.8 7 2.6 9 3.3

I. I was not making 

a difference 44 16.2 196 72.3 6 2.2 12 4.4 4 1.5 9 3.3

J. I need to care 

for a sick/frail 

family member 

44 16.2 176 64.9 5 1.8 11 4.1 11 4.1 24 8.9
86

Appendix E. Factors Associated with Retention

Model 

1B

Model 

1B

Model 

1B

Model 

1B

Model 

2B

Model 

2B

Model 

2B

Model 

2B

Odds of 

staying (% 

change)

Odds of 

staying (% 

change)

Predictor B SE Odds 

ratio

p-value B SE Odds 

ratio

pvalueModel 1B Model 2B

Age -0.10 1.24 0.91 0.94 0.20 1.56 1.22 0.90 -9% 22%

Gender (Ref = Male) 0.26 0.28 1.30 0.34 0.09 0.31 1.10 0.76 30% 10%

African American (Ref = 

White)

-0.05 0.17 0.95 0.78 0.00 0.19 1.00 0.99 -5% 0%

Other race (Ref = White) 0.05 0.28 1.05 0.85 0.24 0.30 1.28 0.42 5% 28%

Hispanic/Latino (Ref = 

Non-Hispanic/Latino)

0.09 0.29 1.10 0.75 -0.02 0.31 0.98 0.94 10% -2%

Education - Less than high 

school (Ref = Less than 

BA or BA)

0.60 0.29 1.83 0.04 0.32 0.30 1.37 0.30 83% 37%

Education - High school 

(Ref = Less than BA or 

BA)

0.37 0.18 1.44 0.04 0.22 0.19 1.24 0.25 44% 24%

Married (Ref = Not 

married)

0.02 0.24 1.02 0.94 -0.08 0.26 0.92 0.76 2% -8%

Live alone (Ref = Live with 

Others)

0.00 0.21 1.00 0.98 -0.03 0.23 0.97 0.91 0% -3%

Have children (Ref = Does 

not have children)

-0.03 0.23 0.97 0.91 -0.20 0.25 0.82 0.43 -3% -18%

Income $20,000-39,000 

(Ref = Less than $20,000)

0.10 0.21 1.11 0.64 0.30 0.24 1.36 0.20 11% 36%

Income more than $40,000 

(Ref = Less than $20,000)

-0.29 0.50 0.75 0.57 -0.17 0.52 0.85 0.75 -25% -15%

Self-rated health – Good 

(Ref = Excellent/very 

good)

-0.05 0.18 0.95 0.79 0.00 0.20 1.00 0.99 -5% 0%

Self-rated health – Fair or 

poor (Ref = Excellent/very 

good)

0.18 0.27 1.20 0.51 0.20 0.29 1.22 0.50 20% 22%
87

Disability (Ref = Does not 

have disability)

0.14 0.21 1.16 0.48 0.17 0.22 1.19 0.44 16% 19%

Difficulty walking one block 

(Ref = No difficulty)

-0.37 0.26 0.69 0.16-0.30 0.29 0.74 0.30-31%-26%

Difficulty getting up from a 

chair after sitting for long 

periods (Ref = No 

difficulty)

-0.04 0.22 0.96 0.85-0.01 0.23 0.99 0.97-4%-1%

Difficulty climbing several 

flights of stairs without 

resting (Ref = No difficulty)

-0.38 0.20 0.69 0.06-0.38 0.22 0.68 0.08-31%-32%

Number of medical 

conditions

0.04 0.07 1.04 0.53 0.02 0.07 1.02 0.75 4% 2%

Motivation – Altruistic 

(Ref = Self-oriented and 

personal growth)

-0.15 0.27 0.86 0.59-0.10 0.29 0.90 0.73-14%-10%

Motivation – Self-oriented 

(Ref = Self-oriented and 

personal growth)

-0.38 0.27 0.69 0.16-0.25 0.29 0.78 0.39-31%-22%

Motivation – Personal 

growth 

(Ref = Self-oriented and 

personal growth)

0.22 0.34 1.24 0.53 0.26 0.37 1.30 0.48 24% 30%

Motivation – Self-oriented, 

personal growth, financial 

(Ref = Self-oriented and 

personal growth)

0.11 0.23 1.11 0.65 0.13 0.25 1.14 0.60 11% 14%

Motivation – Financial

(Ref = Self-oriented and 

personal growth)

-0.32 0.26 0.73 0.22-0.05 0.29 0.96 0.88-27%-4%

Motivation – No primary 

motivation

(Ref = Self-oriented and 

personal growth)

-0.43 0.27 0.65 0.11-0.24 0.30 0.79 0.42-35%-21%

Program type – SCP (Ref 

= FGP)

-0.32 0.17 0.73 0.06-0.25 0.19 0.78 0.18-27%-22%
88

Employment status –

Working (Ref = Retired)

-0.56 0.31 0.57 0.07-43%

Employment status –

Unemployed (Ref = 

Retired)

-0.41 0.26 0.66 0.11-34%

Employment status –

Disabled (Ref = Retired)

0.00 0.26 1.00 0.99 0%

Employment status –

Homemaker (Ref = 

Retired)

-0.17 0.40 0.84 0.67-16%

Overall satisfaction –

Completely/very/somewhat 

satisfied (Ref = Not at all 

satisfied) 

1.08 0.28 2.94 0.0001 194%

Experience – Good match 

for my skills (Ref = 

Disagree)

0.35 0.45 1.42 0.44 42%

Experience – Interesting 

(Ref = Disagree)

-0.36 0.56 0.69 0.51-31%

Experience – Supervisor 

provides support and 

information (Ref = 

Disagree)

0.54 0.45 1.71 0.23 71%

Experience – Training 

(Ref = Not at 

all/somewhat/a little 

helpful) 

0.26 0.28 1.30 0.35 30%

Experience – Helpfulness 

of people in the program

(Ref = Not at 

all/somewhat/a little 

helpful)

0.33 0.29 1.39 0.25 39%

Experience – Flexibility to 

manage time

(Ref = Not at 

all/somewhat/a little 

helpful)

0.99 0.26 2.68 0.0002 168%
89

Experience – Helpfulness 

of the stipend

(Ref = Not at 

all/somewhat/a little 

helpful)

0.34 0.20 1.40 0.09 40%

Note: Significant predictors (i.e., p-values less than 0.05) are in bold. Ref = Reference category. 
90

Appendix F: Hours of Service and Retention

Predictor B SE Odds 

ratio

pvalueOdds of 

staying 

(% 

change)

Hours per day 0.30 0.16 1.35 0.06 35%

Age -

2.21

2.33 0.11 0.34 -89%

Gender (Ref = Male) -

0.61

0.50 0.54 0.22 -46%

African American (Ref = White) 0.19 0.28 1.21 0.50 21%

Other race (Ref = White) 1.20 0.67 3.32 0.07 232%

Hispanic/Latino (Ref = Non-Hispanic/Latino) -

0.24

0.41 0.79 0.56 -21%

Education – Less than high school (Ref = Less than BA or BA) -

0.09

0.41 0.92 0.84 -8%

Education – High school (Ref = Less than BA or BA) 0.10 0.28 1.11 0.72 11%

Married (Ref = Not married) -

0.67

0.39 0.51 0.08 -49%

Live alone (Ref = Live with Others) -

0.27

0.35 0.76 0.43 -24%

Have children (Ref = Does not have children) 0.26 0.34 1.29 0.46 29%

Income $20,000-39,000 (Ref = Less than $20,000) 0.56 0.41 1.76 0.17 76%

Income more than $40,000 (Ref = Less than $20,000) -

0.58

0.75 0.56 0.44 -44%

Self-rated health – Good (Ref = Excellent/very good) -

0.60

0.29 0.55 0.04 -45%

Self-rated health – Fair or Poor (Ref = Excellent/very good) -

0.01

0.44 0.99 0.98 -1%

Disability (Ref = Does not have disability) 0.05 0.32 1.05 0.88 5%

Difficulty walking one block (Ref = No difficulty) -

0.28

0.40 0.76 0.49 -24%

Difficulty getting up from a chair after sitting for long periods (Ref = No 

difficulty)

-

0.18

0.33 0.83 0.58 -17%

Difficulty climbing several flights of stairs without resting (Ref = No 

difficulty)

-

0.08

0.32 0.93 0.81 -7%

Number of medical conditions 0.02 0.11 1.02 0.83 2%

Motivation – Altruistic 

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth)

0.11 0.47 1.12 0.82 12%

Motivation – Self-oriented 

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth)

-

0.37

0.42 0.69 0.38 -31%

Motivation – Personal growth 

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth)

-

0.08

0.56 0.93 0.89 -7%

Motivation – Self-oriented, personal growth, financial (Ref = Selforiented and personal growth)-

0.04

0.38 0.96 0.92 -4%
91

Note. Significant predictors (i.e., p-values less than 0.05) are in bold. Ref = Reference category.

Predictor Odds of 

Motivation – Financial

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth)

-

0.68

0.40 0.51 0.09 -49%

Motivation - No primary motivation

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth)

-

0.73

0.41 0.48 0.08 -52%

Program type – SCP (Ref = FGP) -

0.18

0.27 0.83 0.50 -17%

Employment status – Working (Ref = Retired) -

0.11

0.49 0.90 0.83 -10%

Employment status – Unemployed (Ref = Retired) -

0.04

0.40 0.96 0.91 -4%

Employment status – Disabled (Ref = Retired) -

0.20

0.36 0.82 0.58 -18%

Employment status – Homemaker (Ref = Retired) 0.22 0.64 1.25 0.73 25%

Overall satisfaction – Completely/very/somewhat satisfied (Ref = Not at 

all satisfied) 

0.82 0.45 2.26 0.07 126%

Experience – Good match for my skills (Ref = Disagree) 0.02 0.78 1.02 0.98 2%

Experience – Interesting (Ref = Disagree) -

0.92

1.10 0.40 0.40 -60%

Experience – Supervisor provides support and information (Ref = 

Disagree)

0.48 0.78 1.61 0.54 61%

Experience – Training 

(Ref = Not at all/somewhat/a little helpful) 

0.53 0.41 1.70 0.20 70%

Experience – Helpfulness of people in the program

(Ref = Not at all/somewhat/a little helpful)

0.30 0.41 1.35 0.46 35%

Experience – Flexibility to manage time

(Ref = Not at all/somewhat/a little helpful)

-

0.08

0.47 0.92 0.87 -8%

Experience – Helpfulness of the stipend

(Ref = Not at all/somewhat/a little helpful)

0.26 0.31 1.30 0.39 30%

change)

staying 

pvalueOdds 

ratio

B SE

(% 
92

Appendix G: Regression Results for Health and Well-being Outcomes, 

FGP and SCP Volunteers

Self-rated Health – Unchanged or Improved from Baseline to Second Follow-up

Predictor B SE Odds 

ratio

pvaluePercent

change

Program type - SCP (Ref = FGP) -

0.12

0.23 0.89 0.62 -11%

Hours of service per day 0.04 0.12 1.04 0.72 4%

Motivation – Altruistic 

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth)

-

0.39

0.34 0.68 0.25 -32%

Motivation – Self-oriented 

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth)

-

0.07

0.36 0.93 0.84 -7%

Motivation – Personal growth 

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth)

0.52 0.45 1.68 0.25 68%

Motivation – Self-oriented, personal growth, financial (Ref = Selforiented and personal growth)0.10 0.29 1.10 0.74 10%

Motivation – Financial

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth)

-

0.52

0.33 0.59 0.11 -41%

Motivation – No primary motivation

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth)

-

0.02

0.37 0.98 0.96 -2%

Ref = Reference category

Life Satisfaction at Second Follow-up

Predictor B SE pvalue

Life satisfaction (baseline) 0.45 0.04 <.0001

Program type – SCP (Ref = FGP) 0.07 0.16 0.64

Hours of service per day -

0.03

0.09 0.72

Motivation – Altruistic 

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth)

-

0.57

0.24 0.02

Motivation – Self-oriented 

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth)

-

0.45

0.24 0.06

Motivation – Personal growth 

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth)

-

0.06

0.27 0.82

Motivation – Self-oriented, personal growth, financial (Ref = Selforiented and personal growth)-

0.28

0.19 0.14

Motivation – Financial

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth)

-

0.54

0.24 0.02

Motivation – No primary motivation

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth)

-

0.38

0.25 0.13

Note. Significant predictors (i.e., p-values less than 0.05) are in bold. Ref = Reference category.
93

Social Isolation/Loneliness at Second Follow-up

Predictor B SE pvalue

Social isolation/loneliness (Baseline) 0.51 0.04 <.0001

Program type – SCP (Ref = FGP) -

0.43 0.20 0.03

Hours of service per day -

0.02 0.11 0.84

Motivation – Altruistic 

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth) 0.71 0.30 0.02

Motivation – Self-oriented 

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth) 1.10 0.31 0.00

Motivation – Personal growth 

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth) 0.57 0.35 0.10

Motivation – Self-oriented, personal growth, financial (Ref = Selforiented and personal growth) 0.88 0.24 0.00

Motivation – Financial

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth) 0.68 0.30 0.02

Motivation – No primary motivation

(Ref = Self-oriented and personal growth) 0.39 0.32 0.23

Note. Significant predictors (i.e., p-values less than 0.05) are in bold. Ref = Reference category.
94

Appendix H: Regression Results for Health and Well-being Outcomes, 

FGP/SCP and HRS Non-volunteers 

Predictor B SE Odds 

ratio

pvalueOdds of 

improved 

self-rated 

health

Entire sample

Senior Corps volunteers vs. HRS non-volunteers 0.42 0.08 1.52 <.0001 52%

Self-rated health (baseline) 0.78 0.00 2.17 <.0001 55%

Senior Corps volunteers who rated their health as fair/poor 

at baseline

Senior Corps volunteers vs. HRS non-volunteers 0.44 0.15 1.55 0.004 55%
95