The Determinants of Formal and Informal Volunteering: Evidence from the American Time Use Survey

Original Paper

Abstract

Using data from the 2009 American Time Use Survey, this study examines to what extent time spent in major life domains such as education, paid work, domestic work, and religion is associated with individuals’ decisions to volunteer formally and informally. Consistent with earlier studies of volunteering behavior, this study finds that time spent on market and domestic works is significantly and negatively associated with both formal and informal volunteering, though in slightly different ways. Meanwhile, time spent on educational and religious activities is significantly and positively associated with only formal volunteering but not informal volunteering. Moreover, the study finds that the two forms of volunteering are complements rather than substitutes. Implications of these and other-related findings for integrating the literatures on decisions about formal and informal volunteering are discussed.

Keywords

Formal volunteering Informal volunteering Time allocation The American Time Use Survey 

Résumé

Mobilisant les données de l’enquête emploi du temps américaine (American Time Use Survey) de 2009, cette étude examine la relation entre le temps consacré aux activités principales de la vie telles que l’éducation, le travail rémunéré, les tâches domestiques et la religion, et les décisions individuelles d’engagement bénévole formel et informel. En cohérence avec les études précédentes concernant les comportements de bénévolat, cette étude démontre que le temps consacré au travail rémunéré et aux tâches domestiques affecte négativement et de manière importante l’engagement bénévole formel et informel, bien que de manière légèrement différente pour l’un et l’autre. D’autre part, le temps consacré aux activités éducatives et religieuses est corrélé de manière significativement positive au bénévolat formel, mais pas au bénévolat informel. Cette étude constate également que les deux formes de bénévolat sont complémentaires plutôt que substituables. Sont enfin discutées les conséquences de ces constatations, en vue d’une intégration à la littérature portant sur les décisions liées au bénévolat formel et informel.

Zusammenfassung

Die vorliegende Studie untersucht anhand von Daten der in 2009 durchgeführten Amercian Time Use Survey, einer Studie zur Zeitverwendung, in welchem Umfang die in wichtigen Lebensbereichen, wie Bidlung, bezahlte Arbeit, Hausarbeit und Religion, aufgebrachte Zeit mit der Entscheidung einzelner Personen, formale oder informale ehrenamtliche Tätigkeiten zu leisten, in Verbindung steht. In Übereinstimmung mit früheren Studien zu Verhaltensweisen ehrenamtlich Tätiger zeigt diese Studie, dass die Zeit, die mit bezahlten und häuslichen Tätigkeiten verbracht wird, bedeutend und negativ mit sowohl formalen als auch informalen ehrenamtlichen Tätigeiten in Verbindung gebracht wird, wenn auch auf etwas unterschiedliche Weise. Währenddessen wird die Zeit, die für Tätigkeiten in den Bereichen Bildung und Religion aufgebracht wird, bedeutend und positiv mit lediglich formalen, nicht aber informalen ehrenamtlichen Tätigkeiten in Verbindung gebracht. Weitherhin ergibt die Studie, dass sich die beiden Formen ehrenamtlicher Tätigkeiten vielmehr ergänzen, als dass sie sich ersetzen. Die Folgerungen dieser und weiterer ähnlicher Ergebnisse zur Integration der Literaturen bei der Entscheidung über formale und informale ehrenamtliche Tätigkeit werden diskutiert.

Resumen

Utilizando datos del American Time Use Survey de 2009 (encuesta americana sobre el uso del tiempo), este estudio examina en qué medida el tiempo dedicado a campos importantes de la vida, tales como la educación, el trabajo remunerado, el trabajo en el hogar y la religión está asociado a las decisiones de los individuos de realizar voluntariado formal o informalmente. Coherente con estudios anteriores sobre el comportamiento del voluntariado, este estudio encuentra que el tiempo dedicado al trabajo de mercado y al trabajo en el hogar se asocia de manera significativa y negativa tanto al voluntariado formal como al informal, aunque de modos ligeramente diferentes. En cambio, el tiempo dedicado a actividades educativas y religiosas se asocia de manera significativa y positiva solamente al voluntariado formal y no al voluntariado informal. Asimismo, el estudio encuentra que las dos formas de voluntariado son complementos más que sustitutos. Se tratan las implicaciones de éstos y otros hallazgos relacionados para integrar los materiales publicados sobre decisiones sobre el voluntariado formal e informal.

摘要

利用2009美国时间利用调查的数据,本研究了主要生活领域(如教育、有酬工作、家务劳动和宗教)的时间花费与正式和非正式的个人志愿服务行为之间关系。与以往的志愿服务行为研究结果相同,本研究发现市场工作和家务劳动的时间花费与正式和非正式的志愿服务时间是显著负相关的,尽管方式略有不同。同时,教育和宗教活动的时间花费仅与正式的志愿活动显着正相关;这一结论对非正式志愿服务不成立。此外,研究发现两种形式的志愿服务更接近于互补关系,而非替代。本文对这些以及其他正式和非正式志愿对决定影响的文献结论进行了讨论。.

要約

本研究では2009年度のアメリカ国民生活時間調査報告書のデータを用いて、教育、賃金労働、国内労働、宗教などの主要な人生のドメインで費やされる時間が、公式・非公式のボランティアを行う際の個人の決定と関連するかを調査する。ボランティアの行動に関する先行研究と一致して、本研究ではマーケット・ワークと国内労働で費やされる時間が、方法は異なるにしても、公式・非公式のボランティアと非常にマイナスの関連性を持つことがわかった。その一方で、教育活動および宗教活動に費やされる時間は非公式のボランティアではなく、公式のボランティアのみと非常にプラスの関連性を持つことがわかった。さらに研究より、2つのボランティアの形式は代理ではなく補足であることが明らかである。公式・非公式のボランティアの決定における文献を統合する本研究と他の関連結果について議論する。.

ملخص

بإستخدام بيانات من إستطلاع الرأي 2009 لإستخدام الوقت الأمريكي، هذه الدراسة تفحص إلى أي مدى قضاء الوقت في مجالات الحياة الرئيسة مثل التعليم، العمل بأجر، العمل المنزلي، و الدين يرتبط مع قرارات الأفراد للتطوع الرسمي و الغير رسمي. هذه الدراسة تتفق مع الدراسات السابقة للسلوك التطوعي، ووجدت الوقت الذي يقضيه الأفراد في عمل السوق و العمل المنزلي يرتبط بشكل ملحوظ و سلبي بكل من العمل التطوعي الرسمي و الغير رسمي، و مع ذلك بطرق مختلفة قليلاً. في الوقت نفسه، الوقت المستغرق في الأنشطة التعليمية و الدينية يرتبط بشكل ملحوظ و إيجابي بالعمل التطوعي الرسمي فقط و ليس العمل التطوعي الغير رسمي. علاوة على ذلك، الدراسة وجدت أن شكلين العمل التطوعي يكملان بعضهما بدلاً أن يكونا بدائل. تمت مناقشة الآثار المترتبة على هذه النتائج، والأخرى ذات الصلة لإدماج الآداب في القرارات حول العمل التطوعي الرسمي و الغير رسمي.

References

  1. Abraham, K., Helms, S., & Presser, S. (2009). How social processes distort measurement: The impact of survey nonresponse on estimates of volunteer work in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 114(4), 1129–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abraham, K., Maitland, A., & Bianchi, S. (2006). Nonresponse in the American Time Use Survey: Who is missing from the data and how much does it matter? Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 676–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, P. E., & Hofmeister, H. (2000). Work hours and community involvement of dual-earner couples: Building social capital or competing for time? Bronfenbrenner Life Course Center Working Paper #00-04. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Careers Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor. (2011). Volunteering in the United States, 2010. [News release USDL-11-0084]. Retrieved on October 10, 2011, from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm.
  5. Freeman, R. (1997). Working for nothing: The supply of volunteer labor. Journal of Labor Economics, 15(1), 140–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gesthuizen, M., Van der Meer, T., & Scheepers, P. (2008). Education and dimensions of social capital: Do educational effects differ due to educational expansion and social security expenditure? European Sociological Review, 24(5), 617–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goss, K. A. (1999). Volunteering and the long civic generation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4), 378–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Hank, K., & Stuck, S. (2008). Volunteer work, informal help, and care among the 50+ in Europe: Further evidence for ‘linked’ productive activities at older ages. Social Science Research, 37(4), 1280–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hodgkinson, V. A., & Weitzman, M. S. (1990). Giving and volunteering in the United States: Findings from a national survey. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.Google Scholar
  11. Jackson, E., Bachmeier, M., Wood, J., & Craft, E. (1995). Volunteering and charitable giving: Do religious and associational ties promote helping behavior? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 24(1), 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jacobs, J., & Gerson, K. (1998). Who are the overworked Americans? Review of Social Economy, 56(4), 442–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kornwitz, J. (2008). Blogging brings ‘passion’ to coursework. The Northeastern Voice 1(27). Accessed May 17, 2011, from http://www.northeastern.edu/voice/evoice/080806/service_learning.html.
  14. Lee, Y. J., & Moon, S. G. (2011). Mainstream and ethnic volunteering by Korean immigrants in the United States. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations (Online first: 5 January 2011).Google Scholar
  15. Lemon, M., Palisi, B. J., & Jacobson, P. E. (1972). Dominant statuses and involvement in formal voluntary associations. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 1(2), 30–42.Google Scholar
  16. Martinez, I. L., Crooks, D., Kim, K. S., & Tanner, E. (2011). Invisible civic engagement among older adults: Valuing the contributions of informal volunteering. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 26(1), 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McAdam, D., & Paulsen, R. (1993). Specifying the relationship between social ties and activism. American Journal of Sociology, 99(3), 640–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Midlarsky, E., & Kahana, E. (1994). Altruism in later life. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Park, J. Z., & Smith, C. (2000). To whom much has been given: Religious capital and community voluntarism among churchgoing Protestants. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(3), 272–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rossi, A. S. (2001). Domains and dimensions of social responsibility: A sociodemographic profile. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Caring and doing for others: Social responsibility in the domains of family, work, and community (pp. 97–134). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, W. (2001). Volunteering in cross-national perspective: Evidence from 24 countries. Working Paper of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, 40. The Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies: Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, D. H. (1975). Voluntary action and voluntary groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 247–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stewart, J. (2009). Tobit or not Tobit? BLS Working Paper 432 Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, US Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of LaborGoogle Scholar
  24. Taniguchi, H. (2006). Men’s and women’s volunteering: Gender differences in the effects of employment and family characteristics. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tienen, M. van, Scheepers, P., Reitsma, J., & Schilderman, H. (2010). The role of religiosity for formal and informal volunteering in the Netherlands. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations (Online first: 5 October 2010).Google Scholar
  26. Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. US Census Bureau (2010). American Time Use Survey User’s guide: Understanding ATUS 2003 to 2009, 2010 July http://www.bls.gov/tus/atususersguide.pdf.
  28. Wilensky, H. L. (1961). Orderly careers and social participation: The impact of work history on social integration in the Middle Mass. American Sociological Review, 26(4), 521–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997a). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 694–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997b). Work and volunteering: The long arm of the job. Social Forces, 76(1), 251–272.Google Scholar
  32. Wuthnow, R. (1991). Acts of compassion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Wuthnow, R. (1994). God and mammon in America. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wuthnow, R. (1999). Mobilizing civic engagement: The changing impact of religious involvement. In T. Skocpol & M. P. Fiorina (Eds.), Civic engagement in American democracy (pp. 331–363). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations