Engaging Volunteers: 

A Comprehensive Literature 

Review

 VOLUNTEER GENERATION FUND BUNDLED EVALUATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECT 

Prepared by ICF for the AmeriCorps 

Office of Research and Evaluation

January 2024
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Produced and published at U.S. taxpayer expense. i 

Acknowledgements 

The ICF evaluation team would like to acknowledge the many members of the AmeriCorps 

Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE), the Technical Working Group, and others who 

provided insights and guidance on this literature review and the evaluation of the Volunteer 

Generation Fund. In particular, the evaluation team would like to thank Dr. SarahJane 

Rehnborn, Kayla Paulson, Michelle Raymer, Sarajane Foltz, and other staff from Points of Life 

and AL!VE for their contributions to this literature review. They provided valuable 

information and feedback regarding various volunteer management and engagement 

models. The evaluation team looks forward to continued collaboration with ORE on highquality evaluation work that can inform policy and practice regarding how national service 

may be used to address national priorities.

Contributing Authors 

Samantha Spinney, PhD

Yvette Clinton, PhD

Suggested Citation

Spinney, S., & Clinton, Y. (2024). Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review. ICF.

Photo Credit

AmeriCorps

This report was commissioned by AmeriCorps’ Office of Research and Evaluation under Contract # 

GS00Q14OADU209 and Order # 95332A20F0068. Information in this report is in the public domain. 
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

ii

Table of Contents

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

The State of Volunteerism in the United States and Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic........................................................2

Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3

Review Findings................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5

Volunteer Generation Fund Grantee Models and Practices .....................................................................................................................5

Literature on Volunteer Management Models.....................................................................................................................................................7

Human Resources Management (HRM) Model..............................................................................................................................................7

Service Enterprise...............................................................................................................................................................................................................8

AmeriCorps VISTA In-Service Training Adapted Model..........................................................................................................................11

Evidence on Volunteer Management Practices ...............................................................................................................................................13

Engagement...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................13

Recruitment...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................15

Retention..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................16

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18

References .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................19
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

1 

Introduction

Volunteering brings out the best of America (AmeriCorps, n.d.-a). According to the most recent federal data, 

23.2 percent of Americans or 60.7 million people formally volunteered with organizations between September 

2020 and September 2021, serving an estimated 4.1 billion hours with an economic value of $122.9 billion 

(AmeriCorps, n.d.-b). In addition, nearly 51 percent of Americans or 124.7 million people informally volunteered 

by helping others (e.g., by exchanging favors with their neighbors) during that same period (AmeriCorps, n.d.-

b). The data show that service to others continues to be a priority for millions of Americans, and organizations 

need to be ready to engage those who want to give back (AmeriCorps, n.d.-a).

In the context of formal volunteering, or volunteering through an organization, volunteer engagement

traditionally refers to a broader strategy to leverage volunteers to accomplish an organization’s mission. 

Volunteer management traditionally refers to organizational practices used to recruit and retain volunteers. 

Volunteer engagement spans many contexts in which volunteers mobilize, from large volunteer mobilization 

organizations (i.e., volunteer connector organizations such as Points of Light or United Way), to nonprofit 

organizations, to faith-based or community-based entities, to institutes of higher education. Volunteer 

management can also require vastly different practices depending on whether volunteers are episodic (such 

as those volunteering through an organization to respond to a crisis or volunteer for an event) compared to 

those who are continuing or permanent. 

As an independent federal agency, AmeriCorps1 plays a vital role in supporting the American culture of 

citizenship, service, and responsibility and is the nation’s largest grantmaker in support of many forms of 

service and volunteering. AmeriCorps engages more than 5 million Americans in service through its 

AmeriCorps, AmeriCorps Seniors, and Volunteer Generation Fund (VGF) programs. 

The VGF program, which was authorized by the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act in 2009, supports 

organizations in enhancing the impact of volunteers on critical community needs. Through grants to state 

service commissions and nonprofit organizations, VGF invests in volunteer management practices that 

increase volunteer recruitment and retention. To learn more about how VGF grants have been implemented 

and the outcomes of those grants in improving volunteer recruitment and retention, the AmeriCorps Office of 

Research and Evaluation contracted with ICF to conduct an evaluation of the VGF grant program based on the 

work of participating grantees awarded in fiscal year (FY)2020. 

1 AmeriCorps is the operating name of the Corporation for National and Community Service, or CNCS.
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

2 

As part of the evaluation of the VGF grant program, ICF conducted a comprehensive literature review in 2021 

of volunteer management practices identified in external literature. Recent literature and research about 

volunteer management models and strategies were reviewed and the evidence (e.g., relationships to volunteer 

outcomes) that supports these models was examined. While there is exhaustive literature on the individual 

characteristics of volunteers and their relationship to volunteer outcomes, the literature on how organizationlevel factors affect volunteer outcomes is more limited, with fewer studies examining how volunteer 

recruitment and management practices expand and strengthen volunteering mechanisms, and even fewer of 

these studies taking place in the United States. The purpose of this literature review was to provide an 

overview of knowledge and the evidence base for volunteer management practices.

In 2023, an updated literature review was conducted that incorporates recent data on the effects of the 

coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on volunteerism in the United States as well as supplemental 

research to build upon the evidence base regarding volunteer management and engagement. This report 

presents the findings from this updated review.

The State of Volunteerism in the United States and Effects of the 

COVID-19 Pandemic

As has been broadly documented, the COVID-19 pandemic has had far-reaching effects on all aspects of 

American life—interrupting in-person participation across social sectors—which greatly affected volunteerism. 

According to the 2021 Current Population Survey Civic Engagement and Volunteering Supplement, between 

2019 and 2021, formal volunteering declined from 30 percent to 23.2 percent, a decrease of 7 percentage 

points. This represents the largest decline since the supplement was first administered in 2002, according to 

a research summary reflecting analysis completed by AmeriCorps (n.d.-b). Many factors may have 

contributed to the decline, including social distancing measures that complicated the ability of organizations 

to engage volunteers. Nevertheless, volunteers made important contributions to their communities during the 

pandemic, including supporting COVID-19 testing and vaccination, conducting wellness checks on isolated 

seniors, supporting food banks, assisting other public health efforts, and helping students stay on track in 

school (AmeriCorps, n.d.-b). In a survey conducted by Points of Light at the start of the pandemic, in May 

2020, 73 percent of respondents believed that volunteering will be more important than ever after the

pandemic and 95 percent said they will maintain their current level of involvement or do more to get involved 

and make a difference after the pandemic passes (Points of Light, 2020). Survey data suggest that the 

declines in volunteerism documented by the civic engagement and volunteering supplement may be 

temporary.

Meanwhile, despite declines in formal volunteering at the height of the pandemic there was a simultaneous 

increase in demand for services. In 2022, nearly two-thirds (64.4 percent) of nonprofits reported an increase 

in demand for their organizational services (Dietz & Grimm, 2023). Nearly half (46.8 percent) of nonprofit 

CEOs reported that recruiting sufficient volunteers was a “big problem” for their organization (Dietz & Grimm, 

2023). Given these challenges, Dietz and Grimm (2023) argue that nonprofits reported being “more convinced 

of the benefits of volunteer engagement” than in the past, pointing to data showing increases in the 

percentage of nonprofit CEOs reporting that they believe “to a great extent” that volunteers allow the 

organization to provide more detailed attention to the people served (37 percent in 2019 vs. 65.6 percent in 

2022) and that volunteers increase the organization’s return on its resource investments (43 percent in 2019 

vs. 68.4 percent in 2022).
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

3 

As volunteer organizations look to reengage volunteers in a post-pandemic world, they should also consider 

the changes that were already taking place in volunteerism just before the pandemic. Hager and Brudney 

(2021) surveyed over 600 nonprofit organizations in 2019 to determine the status of volunteer management 

capacity at that time, and compared the results to those from a survey they administered two decades 

earlier. Their study provided evidence that the landscape of volunteerism had already begun to change prior 

to the pandemic in three major ways: (1) volunteers are more interested in episodic, short-term assignments; 

(2) electronic tools and social media are rearranging how organizations interact with volunteers; and (3) 

volunteers will be on the front lines for reestablishing trust and human interaction in a post-pandemic civil 

society and nonprofits will need to engage volunteers in innovative ways to meet this challenge (p. 18). This 

context sets the stage for the following review of volunteer management models and evidence on volunteer 

management practices.

Methodology

The following research questions guided the literature review:

• What does the current literature and research tell us about volunteer management models/volunteer 

programs and the evidence base behind them?

• What are volunteer management (including recruitment, support, and retention) models, and what are the 

characteristics and components of these models?

• What are the different volunteer recruitment strategies? What evidence or outcomes on volunteers 

support these strategies? 

• What are the different volunteer management, support, and retention strategies? What evidence or 

outcomes on volunteers support these strategies?

Literature from 2010 to the present was scanned to identify any scholarly research on volunteer management 

models or approaches of volunteer management practices. In the literature scan, inclusion criteria were that 

literature be recent (2010–present) and include literature relevant to AmeriCorps, such as evaluations of 

AmeriCorps-funded programs that examine organization-level factors and their effects on volunteer

outcomes.2 External literature was identified using the EBSCO online library database, Google search, and the 

AmeriCorps Evidence Exchange. Recommendations and further evidence from practitioners were also 

included, and in this case, time restrictions were not imposed on literature included in the review.3 

A 2018 literature review by Einolf (2018) identified evidence-based volunteer management strategies. While 

some of the same studies were included in this review, the inclusion criteria used for this review typically 

excluded older studies (prior to 2010). However, because the literature on empirically-supported strategies in

2 Literature relevant to AmeriCorps was included in this literature review because the purpose of the review is to guide an 

evaluation of AmeriCorps VGF grants. It is important to note that AmeriCorps service resembles volunteer activities but is 

distinct from volunteerism. See Maki, A., Dwyer, P. C., & Snyder, M. (2015). Understanding AmeriCorps service: Perspectives 

from psychological theory and research on volunteerism. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 15(1), 253–281. 3 Searches were conducted using Google Scholar. A majority of article abstracts indicated that studies examined 

individual characteristics of volunteers and their relationships to volunteer outcomes and were thus excluded from our 

review. Additional resources were found on the AmeriCorps Evidence Exchange by reviewing publications in the CNCS 

focus area “Capacity Building.” Finally, AmeriCorps, Points of Light, and the Association of Leaders in Volunteer 

Engagement (AL!VE) provided several additional resources for this review.
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

4 

volunteer recruitment was scarce, three studies predating the years set for the inclusion criteria were kept in 

the review.4 In total, this review includes theoretical and empirical work from 18 publications.

Literature on Service Enterprise, a program model for volunteer engagement and management often used by 

VGF grantees, was also sought out and reviewed. Other documents that include volunteer management best 

practices, including Volunteer Management Training for AmeriCorps VISTA grantees on the foundations of 

volunteer management, were also included.5 

Finally, VGF grant applications for all 14 grants awarded during FY2020 were reviewed to learn about volunteer 

management models and practices used by VGF grantees as well as key focus areas of grantees. Exhibit 1 

presents the list of FY2020 grantees.

EXHIBIT 1.—FY2020 VGF grantees

State Commission Federal Funding Amount

Florida Volunteer Florida $658,401

Illinois Serve Illinois Commission $378,522

Iowa Iowa Commission on Volunteer Service (Volunteer Iowa) $331,976

Kansas Kansas Volunteer Commission $172,176

Maine Maine Commission for Community Service $132,958

Massachusetts Massachusetts Service Alliance $352,173

Michigan Michigan Community Service Commission $740,937

Minnesota

Minnesota Commission on National and Community 

Service (ServeMN) with partner Minnesota Alliance for 

Volunteer Advancement (MAVA)

$266,000

Nevada Nevada Volunteers $216,810

New Hampshire Volunteer NH $360,109

New Jersey New Jersey Commission on National Community Service 

(NJ Commission) $250,860

North Carolina North Carolina Commission on Volunteerism & Community 

Service (VolunteerNC) $270,875

Utah Utah Commission on Service & Volunteerism (UServeUtah) $185,000

Wisconsin Wisconsin National and Community Service Board (Serve 

Wisconsin) $235,917

Note. ServeMN is the fiscal agent of the VGF grant and responsible for grant compliance, though it sub-granted all aspects of VGF grant 

implementation to MAVA. ServeMN and MAVA consider themselves grant partners.

4 Searches were conducted using Google Scholar and combinations of the terms “volunteer,” “AmeriCorps,” and 

“Corporation for National and Community Service” or “CNCS” with terms such as “management,” “recruitment,” “retention,” 

“support,” “engagement,” or “satisfaction.” A majority of article abstracts indicated that studies examined individual 

characteristics of volunteers and their relationships to volunteer outcomes and were thus excluded from our review. 

Additional resources were found on the AmeriCorps Evidence Exchange by reviewing publications in the CNCS focus area 

“Capacity Building.” Finally, AmeriCorps provided several additional resources for this review. 5 The foundations provided in this training are adapted from Volunteer Management: All the Resources of the Community, 

3rd Edition (2011) by Steve McCurley and Rick Lynch. 
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

5 

Review Findings

The following sections present findings from the literature review. First, findings from a review of the FY2020 

VGF grantee applications are presented, which describe volunteer management and engagement models and 

practices used by the VGF grantees. Next, volunteer management and engagement models discussed in the 

literature are presented—some of which are the same as those used by the FY2020 VGF grantees. Finally, 

research to understand how volunteer management strategies impact volunteer outcomes is discussed.

Volunteer Generation Fund Grantee Models and Practices

The FY2020 VGF grantees primarily set out to use program funds to support community-based entities on 

volunteer engagement and management efforts, including via training and capacity building to organizations in 

their state. 

Based on the review of grantee applications, 10 of the 14 FY2020 VGF grantees described using a particular 

volunteer engagement and/or management model to support training and capacity building (see exhibit 2). 

Nine grantees described planning to use Service Enterprise, a widely used program to build organizational 

capacity and train community-based entities in volunteer engagement and management best practices 

(more details on this model are presented in the following section). One of those nine grantees described 

using both Service Enterprise and the Human Resources Management model, a theoretical model of 

implementation of volunteer management practices (it is discussed in more detail in the following section). 

One grantee cited the Stanford Pathways of Public Service and Civic Engagement model—which is not 

explicitly focused on volunteer management or engagement but on civic engagement more broadly. 

EXHIBIT 2.—FY2020 VGF grantees

State Grantee Service 

Enterprise

Stanford 

Pathways

Human 

Resources 

Management

Not Specified

Florida Volunteer 

Florida blank blank blank ✓

Illinois Serve Illinois 

Commission ✓ blank blank blank

Iowa Volunteer Iowa ✓ blank blank blank

Kansas

Kansas 

Volunteer 

Commission 

✓ blank blank blank

Maine

Maine 

Commission for 

Community 

Service 

✓ blank blank blank

Massachusetts Massachusetts 

Service Alliance ✓ blank blank blank

Michigan

Michigan 

Community 

Service 

Commission 

blank blank blank ✓

Minnesota ServeMN/MAVA ✓ blank blank blank
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

6 

State Grantee Service 

Enterprise

Stanford 

Pathways

Human 

Resources 

Management

Not Specified

Nevada Nevada 

Volunteers ✓ blank ✓ blank

New 

Hampshire Volunteer NH blank blank blank ✓

New Jersey NJ Commission ✓ blank blank blank

North Carolina VolunteerNC ✓ blank blank blank

Utah UServeUtah blank ✓ blank blank

Wisconsin

Wisconsin 

National and 

Community 

Service Board

blank blank blank N/A

Total 9 1 1 3 

Note. The Wisconsin National and Community Service Board is not providing volunteer management and engagement training or 

capacity-building services as part of this VGF grant but did so as part of their FY2020 VGF grant.

In addition to using VGF funds to strengthen volunteer recruitment and retention through training and 

capacity building, grantees implement additional approaches to support volunteerism and community 

engagement for community-based entities. These include enhancing mechanisms to leverage volunteerism in 

disaster or crisis response, developing networks of organizations and staff, creating online tools for volunteer 

recruitment and/or management, and advertising.

Volunteer Management in Crisis, Disaster, and COVID-19 Response. At least five grantees structured their 

VGF grant program model entirely or in part around supporting volunteer management in disaster or crisis 

response, including some grantees who specifically address the COVID-19 pandemic, a unique contextual 

factor for the FY2020 grantees. 

Organizational Networks. Several grantees planned to use their VGF grants to support community-based 

entities in building relationships with other individuals and entities and to strengthen volunteer management 

through supporting coordination and collaboration among organizations. These grantees developed networks 

aimed at strengthening connections across stakeholders in the volunteerism space and facilitating 

opportunities for resource sharing and peer learning. 

Volunteer Recruitment and Management Tools and Systems. Volunteer recruitment and management tools 

and systems (most commonly referred to in grantees’ VGF applications as platforms or portals) function to 

connect organizations to the community, allow volunteers to find volunteer positions, facilitate volunteer

training, allow volunteers to track hours, and/or facilitate other ways in which organizations can connect with 

and manage volunteers. At least 10 of the grantees’ applications described creating or expanding volunteer 

platforms or portals. Some grantees also described providing training to organizations on how to use the 

management tools. 

Advertising. Volunteer recruitment can also be targeted through other advertising and marketing efforts. In 

addition to developing or expanding a volunteer platform, at least four states are using VGF funds for 

additional marketing efforts to recruit volunteers. For example, Volunteer NH is using VGF funds to conduct an 

blank
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

7 

outreach campaign that includes public service announcements, Google advertisements, and conducting 

outreach to organizations already registered on the state volunteer platform to update their information.

Specific Populations. Beyond strengthening and supporting volunteer recruitment and retention practices for 

all volunteers, several grantees’ VGF applications include other approaches intended to focus on specific 

populations of volunteers in their states. Three grantees noted in their applications that they would use their 

grant to expand access to volunteer opportunities beyond populations that are currently serving as 

volunteers. At least eight grantees include a youth focus as part of their VGF-funded activities. Grantees 

engage youth through work with community-based youth organizations and schools to provide servicelearning initiatives (e.g., courses, service-learning projects), engage youth in volunteer opportunities, create 

youth volunteer recognition programs and honors programs, and provide youth camps and retreats focused 

on volunteering. Two grantees include programs that market volunteer opportunities specifically to older 

adults. Three grantees referenced corporate volunteer programs to enhance corporate engagement with 

volunteerism. And two grantees cited focusing on recruitment of skills-based volunteers or individuals who 

can leverage their specialized skills and talents to strengthen the infrastructure of nonprofits. 

Literature on Volunteer Management Models 

Three volunteer management models were identified in the literature: the Human Resources Management 

model, Service Enterprise, and AmeriCorps’s in-house model used for training VISTA members.

6 As 

documented in the previous section, both Human Resources Management and Service Enterprise were also 

cited by the FY2020 VGF grantees in their program applications. Details regarding each of these models are 

provided in this section.

The Human Resources Management Model

The Human Resources Management (HRM) model of volunteer management applies classic human resource 

management workplace practices to the volunteer work environment (Brudney & Meijs, 2014). According to a 

literature review of volunteer management practices by Einolf (2018), most literature from both academic and 

practitioner perspectives on volunteer management models focus on this model, which treats volunteers as 

unpaid employees. 

HRM is considered a top-down, “business-based” approach, and many of the components of the model for 

managing volunteers are similar to those for managing employees in a company or other organization of paid 

employees. The characteristic components of the HRM model include successive, functional phases of 

planning, recruitment, orientation, training, supervision/monitoring, recognition, and separation; the 

recommended practices for volunteer management align with employee management.

This model is often discussed as having two different approaches to engaging in practices: 1) a universal or 

“one-size-fits-all” approach in which practices are meant to be applied to volunteer management across 

diverse contexts and organizations, regardless of the type of organization, and 2) a contingency approach, in 

6 Another model, the Pathways of Public Service and Civic Engagement framework, developed by Stanford University, was 

also considered for inclusion as one state service commission is using this framework in their VGF grant to strengthen 

volunteerism in their state. Given that the focus of this framework is on civic engagement broadly for higher education 

institutions, not volunteer management and engagement, the framework was excluded from this review. For more 

information on this framework, please visit https://haas.stanford.edu/about/our-approach/pathways-public-service-andcivic-engagement#:~:text=The%20Pathways%20of%20Public%20Service,working%20toward%20the%20common%20 

good.
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

8 

which some practices that are part of the HRM model should be applied depending on contextual factors 

such as the presence of paid staff and organization size. 

Brudney and Meijs’ (2014) review of volunteer management models determined that much of the literature on 

HRM models forwards a universalistic approach. Although empirical evidence is limited, the researchers argue 

that theoretically, contingency approaches to implementing the practices of HRM may be better for 

responding to the uniqueness of organizations, volunteers, and their relationships, particularly for situations in 

which volunteers do not perform the same or similar tasks as paid staff. These approaches focus on 

characteristics such as volunteer relationships with paid staff or organization goals to determine which 

practices might be most effective in these settings. 

A quasi-experimental study of the AmeriCorps Volunteer Infrastructure Program (VIP) examined the effects of 

implementing volunteer management practices by analyzing differences in the volunteer management 

capacity of VIP and non-VIP programs (which did not implement any specific management practices) (JBS 

International, 2012). The VIP program model includes implementing many volunteer management practices 

recommended as part of HRM, including developing volunteer roles/position descriptions, developing systems 

for recruitment and placement, providing training and curriculum, providing supervision, developing and 

implementing recognition and reward systems, and clarifying and promoting the role of volunteers within the 

organization. Researchers examined the management capacity of VIP and non-VIP programs before and after

these management practices were implemented by VIP programs. The researchers found that, compared to 

non-VIP programs, implementation of these volunteer management practices had a positive impact on the 

organizational capacity of VIP programs. 

However, research on volunteers has shown that not all HRM practices are appropriate for volunteer 

management (Studer, 2016). In a study of the adaptation of HRM to volunteer management, Studer examined 

the extent to which HRM practices apply to volunteers, how unique volunteers are from paid staff, and how 

management can respond to this uniqueness. Studer’s examination of HRM showed that several principles of 

the model do contribute toward effective volunteer management (e.g., a statistically significant relationship 

with a volunteer outcome), but that desired outcomes could be improved by focusing on aspects such as the 

relationship between the volunteer and the volunteer manager (e.g., through the application of psychological 

theories). Einolf (2018) notes that using the HRM model of volunteer management and other theoretically and 

empirically supported practices are not mutually exclusive, and that organizations can integrate all of these 

practices for effective volunteer administration. 

Service Enterprise 

Service Enterprise is a program model for strengthening nonprofit capacity through the fundamental and 

strategic use of volunteers (Association of Leaders in Volunteer Engagement [AL!VE], 2022). According to 

AL!VE, the operator of Service Enterprise, it is defined “an organization that strategically leverages volunteers 

and their skills to successfully deliver on its social mission” (AL!VE, 2022, p. 2). Service Enterprise 

Administrator Kayla Paulson (2023) described it as a “catalyst for fundamental organizational culture change,” 

noting that it “brings together a cross-functional team that is committed to your organization’s mission and 

maximizing the human capital of the organization.” Service Enterprise focuses on volunteer engagement, 

though it touches on specific volunteer management practices (e.g., onboarding volunteers).

Exhibit 3 (reprinted with permission from AL!VE) provides an overview of 12 key characteristics of 

organizations classified as Service Enterprises, which fall under 3 domains. 
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

9 

EXHIBIT 3.—Service Enterprise domains and characteristics

The Service Enterprise model involves providing training, support, and resources to nonprofits either through 

local training hubs or national trainers. As of January 2024, there were 19 local training Service Enterprise Hubs 

or national trainers across the United States (AL!VE, 2024). As of October 2023, 775 organizations had 

become certified as Service Enterprises since 2010 (K. Paulson, personal communication, October 13, 2023).

The Service Enterprise program training model involves the following seven-part process (AL!VE, 2022): 

1. Organizations complete an application to the Service Enterprise program. 

2. Participants complete a 2-hour orientation that provides an overview of the basic concepts of Service 

Enterprise (such as those presented in exhibit 3). 

3. Participants complete a diagnostic, an online assessment tool that measures the degree to which an 

organization is a Service Enterprise.

4. Participants complete a diagnostic debrief with their hub, which is used to review the results of the 

diagnostic and discuss next steps. 

5. Participants complete 12–16 hours of classroom training with sessions providing participants with tools 

to help them operate as a Service Enterprise. Training topics include building board support, 

determining the return on volunteer investment, defining strategic roles of volunteers, and identifying 
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

10

ways to institutionalize the changes. Alongside and following the training, participants also receive 

coaching or consulting by the Service Enterprise Hub.

6. After completing training and coaching, participants have the opportunity to apply for a Service 

Enterprise Accreditation. The accreditation process involves a site visit to the organization by a 

representative from the hub to observe volunteer engagement practices and/or interview those 

involved. In addition, the organization applying for certification will provide evidence that it is achieving 

excellence in nine of the twelve characteristics. Accreditation remains valid for 3 years and then 

organizations must renew their accreditation.

7. Organizations work toward continuous improvement, an ongoing part of the process.

Research has been used to drive the development of the Service Enterprise program since its inception. In 

2009, the TCC Group analyzed results from 652 nonprofit organizations that completed the Core Capacity 

Assessment Tool (CCAT).7 The CCAT is a 145-question online survey to measure nonprofit organizational 

effectiveness across 4 core capacities (i.e., leadership, adaptability, management, technical) and their 

organizational culture (TCC Group, 2009).8 Analysts created five subgroups based on the number of 

volunteers engaged by the organization and scores on the volunteer management scale portion of the CCAT. 

One of the subgroups, which represented eleven percent of the total number of organizations that completed 

the CCAT, was labeled as a Strong Service Model (SSM) in that they had equal to or greater than 50 volunteers 

and scored equal to or greater than 240 on the volunteer management scale of the CCAT. Compared to the 

other four subgroups, the SSM organizations had significantly stronger measures for all core organizational 

capacities; led and managed their organizations better; were significantly more adaptable, sustainable, and 

better resourced; and had stronger human resource management practices (TCC Group, 2009). Moreover, 

any organizations that engaged 10-50 volunteers were as statistically “effective” as those that did not engage 

volunteers, but at half the median annual budget (TCC Group, 2009). Ultimately, those organizations that 

represented the SSM in the TCC study we referred to as Service Enterprises (AL!VE, 2022). 

Building from the TCC study, Deloitte (2010) conducted interviews with eight high-functioning nonprofit 

organizations (including six organizations identified by the TCC Group as falling into the SSM category) to 

validate and refine the definition of a nonprofit Service Enterprise. Their study found the following key findings 

of Service Enterprises: (1) volunteers enabled the organizations to achieve their mission and key objectives; (2) 

nonprofits provided significantly more services with fewer resources by effectively using their volunteers; and 

(3) strong volunteer management programs used by these organizations included recruiting, setting 

expectations of volunteers, training, matching volunteers with opportunities, and retention (Deloitte, 2010, p. 

4). 

Following this research to build out an understanding of Service Enterprises, California Volunteers, the state 

service commission from California, applied for a VGF grant from AmeriCorps in fall 2010 to create the 

California Volunteers Service Enterprise Initiative, which piloted a model for supporting nonprofits in becoming 

Service Enterprises (AL!VE, 2023b). In June 2012, California Volunteers partnered with Points of Light and 

7 The CCAT tool is distinct from the Service Enterprise Diagnostic (SED) that was eventually used as part of the Service 

Enterprise program. That said, in the early development stages of the SED, researchers who had been involved in analyzing 

CCAT data helped with the development of the SED. As a result, early versions of the SED contained some questions from 

the CCAT tool, however most of those questions were related to demographics. Eventually, however, these questions were 

dropped (S. J. Rehnborg, personal communication, October 11, 2023). 8 TCC Group referred to the instrument as being valid and reliable but did not provide findings on the validity and reliability 

measures.
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

11

Reimagining Service to support the second year of California Volunteers Service Enterprise Initiative

implementation. This partnership yielded a revised curriculum, research-based assessment tools, and other 

resources (AL!VE, 2023b). The following year, in fall 2013, Points of Light scaled the pilot initiative to 11 states 

(17 Service Enterprise Hubs with over 60 organizations certified as Service Enterprises).

With a larger data set available through Service Enterprise from the pilot initiative, Points of Light, Algorhythm, 

and the RGK Center for Philanthropy and Community Service at the University of Texas at Austin updated the 

set of characteristics of Service Enterprises in 2014 (AL!VE, 2022). Between 2014 and 2021, the pilot project 

concluded and Points of Light scaled the Service Enterprise program to 31 states (certifying over 640 

organizations) (AL!VE, 2023b.). 

In 2021–2022, Points of Light and the RGK Center revised the Service Enterprise Diagnostic—renamed as the 

Index of Volunteer Engagement—as well as the characteristics of Service Enterprises (AL!VE, 2022). The 

resulting Service Enterprise model is what was used at the time of this report’s publication by AL!VE, the new 

Service Enterprise program licensee as of October 2022 (AL!VE, 2023c).

AmeriCorps VISTA In-Service Training Adapted Model 

AmeriCorps VISTA members are often tasked with volunteer management in their positions. AmeriCorps 

offers a VISTA campus for members that includes in-service training modules on volunteer management. 
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

12

The volunteer management framework used in the training is adapted from McCurley and Lynch’s (2006) 

model of the volunteer management cycle.9

McCurley and Lynch’s (2006) book envisioned 

volunteer management as a means to effectively 

utilize community resources and provided in-depth 

information on the multidimensional landscape of 

volunteering and a guiding framework for 

organizations to navigate the needs of volunteers 

with the overall goal of retention. Acknowledging 

the differences in volunteer motivation, 

organization infrastructure, and the needs of those 

served by organization volunteers, McCurley and 

Lynch emphasized the need to organize and tailor a 

volunteer management style that fits the culture of 

the organization. 

While specific descriptions of each activity and 

considerations according to the organizational 

settings were provided in the volunteer management framework, generally the approach aligned to the 

organization, supports, and processes required to recruit and retain paid staff in the workplace (which is 

related to the HRM model discussed previously). Expanding upon a typical HRM approach, the framework 

contends that in order for volunteer involvement to be effective, the organization must have adequate 

systems in place to determine volunteer needs, identify ideal volunteers, and create motivational supports for 

volunteers (McCurley & Lynch, 2006, p. 22). The framework also necessitates that volunteer managers 

acknowledge the lack of pay when navigating a management system similar to typical practices for paid 

employees; in lieu of considering wages/salaries, McCurley and Lynch suggest that volunteer managers 

consider the motivations of each volunteer (e.g., altruism, skill building, family experiences) and how they can 

align with the needs of the organization throughout the management cycle and volunteer tenure (p. 13). 

The key activities in the management cycle are presented in exhibit 4 and described as follows:

1. Plan. Research trends in the use of volunteers; identify clear volunteer needs; establish clear internal 

processes for how volunteers will be guided, evaluated, and recognized. 

2. Recruit. Create position descriptions that identify qualifications, activities, benefits, time commitment, 

and other expectations. Develop a targeted recruitment plan and market volunteer opportunities to 

targeted volunteers. 

3. Screen and Match. Use volunteer applications to gather information needed to place volunteers; use 

a standard process to determine whether volunteers are a good fit; interview volunteers and match 

volunteers with opportunities that fit their motivations, interest, and skills. 

4. Train and Support. Orient volunteers to the organization and train volunteers on specific tasks they 

need to be able to perform. Ensure volunteers have ongoing guidance and support and create ways to 

recognize volunteer efforts. Train staff on how to effectively work with volunteers.

9 The written training materials did not include evidence associated with each of these practices. 

EXHIBIT 4.—Volunteer management cycle
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

13

5. Monitor and Evaluate. Implement recordkeeping and communication to assess how things are going. 

Gather input on volunteer performance and outcomes and provide feedback to volunteers. Implement 

a process for reviewing and responding to input from volunteers. 

6. Sustain. Identify ways to keep volunteers involved, and secure staff or volunteer resources to 

continue the program with revised and documented processes, policies, procedures, communication 

systems, and evaluation data. 

The framework is intentionally cyclical because the key activities often interact with each other in a nonlinear 

way, requiring regular attention to how alterations to one activity may affect others (e.g., addition of new 

volunteers, areas of volunteer usage). To implement and support each of these key activities, upper 

management and staff in contact with volunteers must be involved throughout the management process, 

suggesting a top-down approach, while maintaining the framework’s dedication to adequately recruit, match, 

and train volunteers in order to maintain their motivation to continue volunteering (McCurley & Lynch, 2006, 

p. 22). 

This dedication can be seen through the framework’s description of how to manage or supervise volunteers in 

a style that maximizes their performance. One of the main tenets of effective volunteer management focuses 

on empowering volunteers to become more autonomous, allowing them to decide how they will achieve 

results for which they are responsible (McCurley & Lynch, 2006, p. 97). Through this approach, volunteer 

management becomes less controlling on the part of volunteer supervisors, advances the capability of 

volunteers, and aims to sustain their motivation to produce good results given the added element of their 

self-direction. In addition to increasing the self-motivated interest in volunteer work, this approach allows 

supervisors to focus on identifying overarching strategies to improve volunteer involvement as opposed to 

managing the day-to-day operations of volunteers (McCurley & Lynch, 2006, p. 97). At a high level, McCurley 

and Lynch emphasize that effective volunteer management includes cyclical engagement between the six key 

activities of the management cycle and maintains a mission to retain motivated volunteers through a 

supportive supervisory framework, similar to a healthy workplace environment. 

Evidence on Volunteer Management Practices 

The 2018 literature review by Einolf (2018) identifies evidence-based volunteer management practices. For 

this external literature review, we examined those empirical articles included in Einolf (2018) and published in 

the past 11 years (2010–present) as well as original research published since Einolf (2018) on volunteer 

management practices. 

Engagement

The bulk of the research found on volunteer engagement relevant to research and evaluation related to 

Service Enterprise. Given the widespread use of Service Enterprise across the United States, evaluations of 

this program present some evidence about how the volunteer engagement training program affects 

organizational outcomes. 

According to AL!VE (2022), nonprofits that become Service Enterprises “more effectively serve the 

community through increased organizational capacity; improve networking opportunities (with people who are 

enthusiastic about an organization’s mission and value); realize operational and infrastructure efficiencies 

through volunteer engagement; and recognize opportunities to grow organizational revenues by leveraging the 

time and talent of paid staff and volunteers alike in new and creative ways” (p. 7). 
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

14

Based on a 2013 Points of Light blog post, for every $1 nonprofits invest in effective volunteer engagement 

(such as by following a Service Enterprise model), they can expect up to $6 in return (Thompson, 2013). Points 

of Light described how one organization, Catholic Big Brothers Big Sisters in Los Angeles County, California, 

said that Service Enterprise helped staff at the organization realize new ways to engage volunteers. The 

organization credited Service Enterprise with increasing its network of young, skills-based volunteers by about 

20 percent (Thompson, 2013).

Points of Light has conducted at least three evaluations of Service Enterprise since 2017.10 The most recent 

findings, from a 2021 evaluation report (Foltz et al.) are presented here (a review of findings from past reports 

revealed that the trends across the reports are generally consistent). Data sources for the 2021 evaluation 

included survey data, focus groups, case studies, and a literature review. This descriptive outcomes-based 

evaluation primarily relied on self-reported outcomes from nonprofit organization staff who had participated 

in the Service Enterprise program. There was no counterfactual included in the design, so the findings are 

descriptive and not indicative of an impact analysis of Service Enterprise.

Key findings are as follows: 

• Survey respondents were highly satisfied with the Service Enterprise program, with 88 percent believing it 

was worth the investment and 90 percent recommending the program to others. In addition, 91 percent of 

respondents reported that their organization was better equipped to engage volunteers at their 

organization. Qualitative data supported these findings, with participants noting both the 

intraorganizational and interorganizational value of the program.

• Respondents viewed themselves as more routine and advanced users of Service Enterprise strategies than 

others in their organization.

• Survey data show that Service Enterprise is effective in “developing individual ability to affect change 

related to volunteer engagement, especially in how organizations engage volunteers and the processes in 

place to support volunteer engagement” (p. 3) 

• A majority of survey respondents reported that Service Enterprise was “effective in increasing their 

organization’s ability to implement consistent volunteer engagement processes, invest more resources in 

volunteer engagement, institutionalize best practices beyond a single leader, and measure return on 

volunteer investment” (p. 3).

• Survey data suggest that Service Enterprise “has at least some impact on establishing partnerships that 

improve services (67 percent) and increase services (65 percent)” (p. 3).

• At the beneficiary level, survey data suggest that Service Enterprise “was at least somewhat effective in 

increasing most respondents’ ability to extend reach into targeted communities (65 percent), offer deeper 

services to beneficiaries (61 percent), offer more types of services to beneficiaries (58 percent) and serve 

more beneficiaries (57 percent)” (p. 3). Open ended responses suggested that Service Enterprise “helped 

organizations to be nimbler in responding to COVID-19 and extended reach into new communities” (p. 3).

• Using pre-test and post-test assessments, the evaluation found perceived growth on all Service Enterprise 

characteristics, with the greatest magnitude of perceived change on effective training, tracking and 

evaluation as well as planning and development (p. 4). Further, approximately three-fourths of respondents 

saw their organization as “very to extremely effective in demonstrating an executive commitment to 

volunteer engagement; matching volunteers to appropriate positions, clarifying roles, and orienting and 

supporting them throughout their service tenure; and developing a strategy and infrastructure for missiondriven volunteer engagement” (p. 4). 

10 The evaluation reports are not public-facing but were provided to ICF by staff from Points of Light.
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

15

• Service Enterprise was found to be “very or extremely helpful in shaping the volunteer engagement 

response to COVID-19 by 42 percent of survey respondents and moderately so by about 80 percent” (p. 

4).

The Points of Light evaluation therefore provides evidence that participation in Service Enterprise 

programming and organizational alignment with the Service Enterprise characteristics may enable 

organizations to better engage volunteers, institutionalize best practices, and measure return on investment. 

Recruitment 

The literature search yielded no empirical studies on the relationship between an organization’s volunteer 

recruitment practices and an individual’s actual decision to volunteer. The studies included in this review that 

have examined recruitment practices for volunteer organizations include presenting marketing materials for 

hypothetical volunteer organizations to assess whether participants would join the organization using proxy 

measures for recruitment. These measures include perceptions of the organization as being attractive to 

volunteer for and interest in volunteering for the organization. The subsequent sections list evidence-based 

recruitment practices and the findings from studies supporting each of them.

Communicate the Organization’s Investment. A series of experiments conducted by Boezeman and 

Ellemers (2008) in the Netherlands demonstrated that using marketing materials to convey that an 

organization invests in—and cares for—its volunteers impacted participants’ perceptions of the volunteer 

organization’s attractiveness. Researchers created leaflets that did or did not describe organizations that 

would provide support for its volunteers. Results indicated that marketing materials intended to induce 

participants’ anticipation of respect as a volunteer led to participants’ perceptions that volunteering for the 

organization would be attractive. The researchers suggested that based on these findings, volunteer 

organizations may be able to effectively recruit volunteers by communicating both task-oriented and 

emotion-oriented support for volunteers in recruitment materials. 

Align Recruitment Messaging to Volunteering Motives. Two studies listed in Einolf’s (2018) review of 

volunteer management practices found that matching recruitment messages to potential volunteers’ motives 

made them more likely to volunteer with a hypothetical organization. In the first experiment, Clary et al. (1994) 

assessed participants for their self-rated importance of reasons to volunteer; after these assessments were 

subtly scored, participants were presented with videotaped public service advertisements that either 

matched or didn’t match what they indicated they valued in their assessment as reasons to volunteer. 

Participants then answered questions about the advertisement’s appeal, such as how appealing, effective, 

influential, and good it was. Overall, participants who saw matched and mismatched messages did not differ in 

their perceptions of the advertisement messages themselves, but there was a positive, significant difference 

in the number of participants in the matched condition who said they would volunteer for the organization 

compared to the mismatched condition.11 

In the second study, Clary et al. (1998) developed and tested an inventory of volunteer motivations and, 

through a series of studies, examined whether matching these motivations to volunteer opportunity 

messaging predicted participants’ evaluation of the message’s effectiveness to get them to volunteer with a 

hypothetical organization. Volunteers were more likely to say that the message was effective at motivating 

them to volunteer when the message matched their motivations, as measured by the inventory.

11 This research did not include examining actual increases in volunteers based on the advertisements.
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

16

Explicitly Invite Different Populations of Interest. Another practice for recruiting volunteers involves 

explicitly signifying a desire to recruit from specific populations in recruitment materials. In one experiment 

conducted in the Netherlands, Boezeman and Ellemers (2014) tested emphasizing the need for young male 

volunteers at a childcare center, compared to a control condition (that did not emphasize the need for young 

male volunteers) on a group of young male participants.12 Both recruitment materials noted that current staff 

were mostly comprised of older women; however, the experimental condition noted that young male 

volunteers would complement women as important role models to the children. Emphasizing this need for 

young men in recruiting materials caused more young male participants to perceive the hypothetical 

nonprofit organization as an attractive place to work and to be more inclined to indicate their interest to 

volunteer for the organization. The researchers argued that these findings showed that potential volunteers of 

a different demographic (in this study, young males) were more interested in joining an organization when its 

recruitment messages emphasized that the demographic groups have a unique added value for the 

organization, and that volunteer organizations may want to consider using such messaging in recruitment 

materials. 

Retention

The research on volunteer management shows several different organization-level factors that are associated 

with volunteer outcomes; those factors associated with positive volunteer outcomes may promote the 

likelihood that volunteers remain with an organization. In the following subsections, volunteer retention 

practices and how these practices are associated with volunteer outcomes is discussed. 

While one goal of prior research on volunteerism has been to understand volunteer retention, we only 

identified two studies that met our inclusion criteria: focused on the impacts of organization-level factors (and 

not individual characteristics of volunteers) and used a longitudinal survey design to measure the relationship 

between an organization’s management practices and participant retention (McBride & Lee, 2012; Tang et al., 

2010). Many of the studies described below used proxy measures to understand retention through questions 

about volunteer intent to remain, volunteer intent to quit, volunteer engagement, and volunteer satisfaction.

13,14

Therefore, studies that used one or more of these variables as volunteer outcome variables of interest have 

been included in our evidence base of practices described below. 

Match Volunteers to Roles Based on Interest. Matching volunteers to their roles based on career goals has 

been empirically supported as a best practice for volunteer management. In a longitudinal examination of 

AmeriCorps members, McBride and Lee (2012) found that members who perceived their AmeriCorps activities 

to be aligned with their long-term career or job interests were more likely to complete their service term. 

Based on these findings, the researchers suggested that organizations survey new volunteers to understand 

their interests at the beginning of the volunteer-organization relationship to best match volunteers with roles 

based on those interests.

Provide Task-Oriented and Emotional Support. Several studies on the impact of organizational support 

show that volunteers’ perceptions of both task-oriented (i.e., concrete forms of support to assist volunteers 

during the performance of volunteer work) and emotion-oriented organizational support (i.e., forms of support 

that elicit positive feelings and are not already included among task-oriented supports) were related to 

12 This study has not been published. Details were obtained via email with Dr. Boezeman.

13 Einolf (2018) provides a brief review of correlations among several of these variables, including the correlation between 

satisfaction and intent to remain.

14 An evaluation of the AmeriCorps Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion programs showed that dissatisfaction 

drives members to leave programs.
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

17

positive volunteer outcomes. In an examination of volunteers’ general perceptions of task-oriented and 

emotion-oriented organization support by a wildlife charity in the United Kingdom, Alfes et al. (2016) 

discovered that volunteers’ perceptions of each type of support equally enhanced engagement with their 

voluntary work. This, in turn, was positively correlated with volunteers’ happiness and perceived social worth 

(or how one sees oneself as valued in interpersonal relationships) and negatively correlated with volunteers’ 

intent to leave. 

Clearly Define Roles. One practice for volunteer management is to clearly define volunteers’ roles. A study by 

Allen and Mueller (2013) investigated how feelings of burnout by volunteers at an animal shelter can help 

explain volunteers’ intention to quit. Role ambiguity, which was used as one of the antecedents to burnout, 

was found to be related to feelings of burnout and increased endorsement of intentions to quit. Based on 

these findings, the researchers suggest using practices such as forming written guidelines formally outlining 

volunteers’ roles to decrease the likelihood that volunteers will feel burnout and therefore want to quit.

Provide Training and Learning Opportunities. Another practice for volunteer management is providing 

orientation and training for volunteers, which not only prepares volunteers for their role but has been 

correlated with volunteers’ sense of belonging in volunteer organizations. In a longitudinal examination of older 

adult volunteers at 14 programs, Tang et al. (2010) discovered that those volunteers who felt they had 

adequate training and support from their organization were more likely to stay. In another study conducted by 

Huynh et al. (2012) in Australia, volunteer access to training provided by the organization related to volunteers’ 

feelings of connectedness, defined as a positive emotional sense of well-being that results from a strong 

sense of belonging with other workers and the recipients of one’s service, which correlated with positive 

volunteer outcomes including volunteer satisfaction and determination to continue. And in another study by 

Newton et al. (2014) of more than two thousand volunteers from five nonprofit organizations in Australia 

showed that volunteer perceptions of learning and development opportunities are significantly related to 

organizational commitment (feeling a strong sense of belonging to an organization) and an intention to stay in 

the organization. 

Encourage Volunteers to Voice their Opinions. Research has also shown that volunteers who perceive that 

they can provide input into volunteer decision-making processes is associated with positive volunteer 

outcomes. Allen and Mueller’s (2013) study of volunteers at an animal shelter showed how a lack of voice, or 

the lack of ability to provide input in decision-making processes is associated with greater feelings of burnout 

(through depleting volunteers’ cognitive and emotional resources); burnout was associated with an increased 

likelihood to endorse an intention to quit volunteering. According to the researchers, an implication of these 

findings is that volunteer organizations that promote ways for volunteers to voice their opinions to leadership 

may promote retention and mitigate any intentions of quitting.

Promote Autonomy Within the Organization. Some studies have found that volunteer autonomy and 

decision-making are related to volunteer service completion and retention. In the longitudinal examination of 

AmeriCorps members conducted by McBride and Lee (2012), researchers found that members who were

highly involved in planning volunteer service activities were more likely to complete their service term. In a 

recent survey of volunteers in China by Cho et al. (2020), volunteer perceptions of empowerment (ability to 

engage in leadership opportunities) and schedule flexibility (ability to be flexible with volunteering hours) both 

related positively to volunteer satisfaction and intent to continue volunteering. Another survey of active 

volunteers with a large volunteer connector organization by Dwyer et al. (2013) found that volunteers were 

more satisfied when their volunteer team leaders involved them in decisions, although this was not linked to 

volunteer retention measures. These studies show that for volunteers, decision-making correlates to 
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

18

measures of retention and that volunteer management practices that promote volunteer autonomy could 

promote volunteer retention. 

Facilitate Relationship Building with Others in the Organization. Research has shown a positive correlation 

between volunteer relationships with their peers, mentors, and supervisors, and other positive volunteer 

outcomes (e.g., intent to remain, satisfaction). In a study by Garner and Garner (2011), volunteers’ self-reported 

satisfaction with integration into the organization—or how happy volunteers were with the relationships they 

formed as a result of their volunteer work—was positively related to their intention to remain. In the 

longitudinal examination of AmeriCorps members by McBride and Lee (2012), researchers found that 

members who developed a relationship with a mentor were more likely to complete their service term. In the 

study by Huynh et al. (2012), volunteers’ access to social support related to volunteers’ feelings of 

connectedness, which was also correlated with positive volunteer outcomes including volunteer satisfaction 

and determination to continue. Another study by Nencini et al. (2016) of volunteers at four different nonprofit 

organizations in Italy showed that relational bonds created with other volunteers in an organization have an 

important role in sustaining motivation and volunteer retention. Therefore, to improve the retention rate of 

volunteers, the researchers across these studies have suggested that organizations promote activities that 

reinforce bonds among volunteers and between volunteers and management. 

Provide Feedback and Recognition. Research shows that volunteers who perceive that their organizations 

provide them with feedback and show them appreciation are more likely to endorse an intent to continue 

volunteering with an organization. In the study by Cho et al. (2020) of street parade volunteers, volunteers’ 

responses to survey items showed that rewards and recognition positively and significantly related to 

volunteer satisfaction and intent to continue volunteering. In the study by Huynh et al. (2012), volunteers who 

received performance feedback were associated with a greater sense of connection to the organization; 

connection to the organization was associated with volunteer satisfaction and determination to continue 

volunteering. Huynh et al. (2012) argue that volunteer managers should support individual volunteers through 

co-volunteer and supervisor support in order to promote connectedness in the workplace, which may then 

lead to positive volunteer outcomes.

Conclusion 

While there is scholarly literature that supports specific volunteer engagement, recruitment, and retention 

practices, we identified very few research or evaluation studies that are randomized controlled trials or have a 

quasi-experimental design. Additionally, we were only able to identify a limited number of evaluation studies 

of AmeriCorps programs that include different recruitment and retention practices. Nevertheless, volunteer 

management practices such as matching volunteers to roles based on interest, supporting volunteers, and 

providing training opportunities are positively associated with retention and other positive volunteer 

outcomes (e.g., volunteers’ happiness). And volunteer engagement practices promoted by Service Enterprise 

may enable organizations to better leverage the use of volunteers, institutionalize best practices, and measure 

return on investment. Additional research and evaluation efforts measuring the effects of volunteer 

management practices on volunteer outcomes will be helpful as volunteer organizations work to reengage 

volunteers in a post-pandemic world.
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

19

References

Alfes, K., Shantz, A., & Bailey, C. (2016). Enhancing volunteer engagement to achieve desirable outcomes: What 

can non-profit employers do? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit 

Organizations, 27(2), 595–617.

AL!VE. (2022, December). Introduction to Service Enterprise participant materials. 

https://www.volunteeralive.org/docs/Info_Session_Participant_Materials_Virtual_ALVE.pdf 

AL!VE. (2023b). Service Enterprise program history.

https://www.volunteeralive.org/service_enterprise_program_his.php 

AL!VE. (2023). Service Enterprise program overview. https://www.volunteeralive.org/serviceenterprise.php 

AL!VE. (2024). Service Enterprise program overview: Service Enterprise training hubs & accredited 

organizations. https://www.volunteeralive.org/serviceenterprise.php

Allen, J. A., & Mueller, S. L. (2013). The revolving door: A closer look at major factors in volunteers’ intention to 

quit. Journal of Community Psychology, 41(2), 139–155.

AmeriCorps. (n.d.-a). Bringing out the best of America. https://www.americorps.gov/

AmeriCorps. (n.d.-b). Volunteering and civic life in America research summary. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/volunteering-civic-life-america-researchsummary.pdf 

Boezeman, E. J., & Ellemers, N. (2008). Volunteer recruitment: The role of organizational support and 

anticipated respect in non-volunteers' attraction to charitable volunteer organizations. Journal of 

Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1013–1026.

Boezeman, E. J., & Ellemers, N. (2014). Diversifying the non-profit volunteer organization: The role of 

organizational openness to diversity in recruiting new volunteers. Unpublished Manuscript.

Brudney, J. L., & Meijs, L. C. (2014). Models of volunteer management: Professional volunteer program 

management in social work. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 

38(3), 297–309.

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998). Understanding and 

assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, 74(6), 1516–1530.

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Miene, P. K., & Haugen, J. A. (1994). Matching messages to motives in 

persuasion: A functional approach to promoting volunteerism 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 

24(13), 1129–1146.

Deloitte. (2010, April). Reimagining service – Nonprofit Service Enterprise: Research summary. Points of Light. 

https://www.pointsoflight.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Researchsummary_Deloitte_2010.pdf

Dietz, N., & Grimm, R. T. (2023). The state of volunteer engagement: Insights from nonprofit leaders and 

funders. University of Maryland School of Public Policy Do Good Institute. 

https://dogood.umd.edu/sites/default/files/2023-

02/TheStateofVolunteerEngagement_DGI2023_0.pdf 
Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review

20

Dwyer, P. C., Bono, J. E., Snyder, M., Nov, O., & Berson, Y. (2013). Sources of volunteer motivation: 

Transformational leadership and personal motives influence volunteer outcomes. Nonprofit 

Management and Leadership, 24(2), 181–205.

Einolf, C. (2018). Evidence-based volunteer management: A review of the literature. Voluntary Sector Review, 

9(2), 153–176.

Foltz, S., Lato-Smith, T., & Mackey, C. K. (2021). Service Enterprise annual survey results. Points of Light. 

Garner, J. T., & Garner, L. T. (2011). Volunteering an opinion: Organizational voice and volunteer retention in 

nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 813–828.

Hager, M.A., & Brudney, J.L. (2021). Volunteer management capacity in America’s charities: Benchmarking a 

pre-pandemic field and assessing future directions. Arizona State University. 

https://www.volunteeralive.org/docs/Hager_Brudney_VMC2_2021_brief.pdf

Huynh, J. Y., Metzer, J. C., & Winefield, A. H. (2012). Engaged or connected? A perspective of the motivational 

pathway of the job demands-resources model in volunteers working for nonprofit 

organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 870–

898.

JBS International, Inc. (2012). AmeriCorps VIP volunteer capacity study. AmeriCorps. 

McBride, A. M., & Lee, Y. (2012). Institutional predictors of volunteer retention: The case of AmeriCorps national 

service. Administration & Society, 44(3), 343–366.

Nencini, A., Romaioli, D., & Meneghini, A. M. (2016). Volunteer motivation and organizational climate: Factors that 

promote satisfaction and sustained volunteerism in NPOs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of 

Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(2), 618–639.

Newton, C., Becker, K., & Bell, S. (2014). Learning and development opportunities as a tool for the retention of 

volunteers: A motivational perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 24(4), 514–530.

Paulson, K. (2023, January 27). Volunteer engagement professionals: Take your program to the next level [Blog]. 

Points of Light. https://www.pointsoflight.org/blog/volunteer-engagement-professionals-take-yourprogram-to-the-next-level/

Points of Light. (2020). Civic Life today: A look at American civic engagement amid a global pandemic. 

https://www.pointsoflight.org/resources/civic-life-today-civic-engagement-research/ 

Rehnborn, S. (2023, May). Unpublished internal memo. University of Texas, Austin. 

Studer, S. (2016). Volunteer management: Responding to the uniqueness of volunteers. Nonprofit and 

Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(4), 688–714.

Tang, F., Morrow-Howell, N., & Choi, E. (2010). Why do older adult volunteers stop volunteering? Ageing and 

Society, 30(5), 859–878.

TCC Group (2009, December). Reimagining service – National Core Capacity Assessment Tool dataset: 

“Positive deviants” in volunteerism and service. https://s3.amazonaws.com/polwebsite/media/reimaginingservice/u2/TCC%20Group%20Positive%20Deviant%20Research.pdf 

Thompson, T. (2013, October 22). Where should nonprofits use volunteers? Everywhere [Blog]. Points of Light. 

https://www.pointsoflight.org/blog/where-should-nonprofits-use-volunteers-everywhere/
About AmeriCorps 

AmeriCorps, the federal agency for national service and volunteerism, provides opportunities for Americans to 

serve their country domestically, address the nation’s most pressing challenges, improve lives and 

communities, and strengthen civic engagement. Each year, the agency places more than 200,000 

AmeriCorps members and AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers in intensive service roles and empowers millions 

more to serve as long-term, short-term, or one-time volunteers. Learn more at AmeriCorps.gov. 

About the Office of Research and Evaluation 

The AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation assists AmeriCorps and its partners in collecting, analyzing, 

and disseminating data and insights about AmeriCorps programs and civic life in America. 

About ICF 

ICF (NASDAQ:ICFI) is a global consulting and digital services company with over 7,000 full- and part-time 

employees, but we are not your typical consultants. At ICF, business analysts and policy specialists work 

together with digital strategists, data scientists and creatives. We combine unmatched industry expertise with 

cutting-edge engagement capabilities to help organizations solve their most complex challenges. Since 1969, 

public and private sector clients have worked with ICF to navigate change and shape the future. Learn more at 

icf.com.

For additional information about ICF, please contact: 

ICF 

1902 Reston Metro Plaza

Reston, VA 20190 

Phone: 703-934-3603 or 1-800-532-4783 

Fax: 703-934-3740 

Email: info@icf.com 

icf.com

linkedin.com/company/icf-international

facebook.com/ThisIsICF

#thisisicf