Strengthening Families Through Volunteerism

Marriage & Family Review, 48:689–710, 2012 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0149-4929 print/1540-9635 online DOI: 10.1080/01494929.2012.700909

Strengthening Families Through Volunteerism: Integrating Family Volunteerism and Family Life Education AMANDA R. LEWTON and M. ANGELA NIEVAR

Downloaded by [Amanda Lewton] at 13:22 09 October 2012

Department of Educational Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

This article builds on increasing interest in family volunteering by presenting it as a family life education tool for strengthening relationships and family functioning. In this context, family volunteering is similar to service learning in which families learn together while giving back to their community. Informed by a discussion on bioecological systems theory, psychosocial development theory, and select studies on volunteering, this article seeks to discover how family volunteering benefits individual and family growth. Existing research indicates that, due to its rich resources, it can deepen relationships, reinforce effective interpersonal skills, and help individuals overcome life’s crises. Implications for family life educators and future research are presented, including the need for collaboration and stronger data on which to base flexible and fun volunteer opportunities for families. KEYWORDS family life education, family volunteering, psychosocial development, service learning, systems theory

INTRODUCTION In our fast-paced society, shared family time has been pushed aside by demanding schedules, new obligations, and structural and role changes in the family. Whether there is a real or perceived lack of time, the way in which families spend time together has changed (Daly & Beaton, 2005). For some families watching television has become the main source of interaction Address correspondence to Amanda R. Lewton, Department of Educational Psychology, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311335, Denton, TX 76203, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 689


690

A. R. Lewton and M. A. Nievar

(Crosnoe & Trinitapoli, 2008); other families do not have time to eat together (Doherty, 2005). Even 20 years ago rapid changes in our society had left families without support systems or direction on preparing their children for the real world (Small & Eastman, 1991). Families, especially in a time of economic uncertainty, need inexpensive and flexible opportunities to create meaningful experiences and connect with their communities. Family volunteering can fill that need and may be a useful prevention or intervention tool for family life educators and other professionals who work with families across the life span. The concept of family volunteerism is not new. The 2001 Independent Sector report found that over half of all volunteers had volunteered with a family member (Toppe, Kirsch, & Michel, 2001). The field of volunteer administration has seen a positive trend toward formal family volunteering with initiatives such as the Points of Light Foundation’s Family Matters project (Littlepage, Obergfell, & Zanin, 2003) and Volunteer Canada’s Building Blocks for Family Volunteering tools (Volunteer Canada, 2011). Yet, much of the academic literature on volunteerism in relation to families has derived from the perspective of the organization, focusing on organizational benefits and recruitment strategies based on volunteers’ family characteristics (e.g., Bussell & Forbes, 2002; Taniguchi, 2006). Multiple database searches on the key phrase family volunteering yielded only two peer-reviewed academic articles that discussed family volunteering in depth (see Palmer, Freeman, & Zabriskie, 2007; Reilly & Vesic, 2002). Although few, other valuable articles and commissioned reports explore the impact on and benefits for families who volunteer together. The benefits that volunteers should receive are widely debated among proponents of purely altruistic volunteerism and those that believe in a mutually beneficial relationship (Bussell & Forbes, 2002; Wilson, 2000; Wilson & Musick, 2003; Wolfe, 2001). However, as we discuss in this article, volunteers can receive psychological and social rewards that can be beneficial to themselves, their families, and their communities. The time has come for family life educators and other family professionals to recognize the potential of volunteerism for not only the families they serve but the communities in which they serve. This article aims to reignite the dialogue on volunteerism from the perspective of the family through a theoretical discussion and review of selected studies on the psychosocial benefits of family volunteerism at various stages throughout the lifespan. Family volunteerism could reinforce the purpose of family life education, which is to strengthen families by developing knowledge and skills (Myers-Walls, Ballard, Darling & Myers-Bowman, 2011). Although this review takes an educational perspective, some of the suggested activities may be useful for counselors or therapists who work with individuals and families. Before moving forward, however, family volunteerism must be defined. The word volunteering itself has several meanings and forms as later sections address. For the purposes of this article, volunteering can be defined as “any activity in which time is given freely to benefit another person, group, or organization” (Wilson, 2000, p. 215). The structures, functions, roles, and values

Strengthening Families Through Volunteerism

691


associated with families have changed over time and in different contexts, which makes the word family equally if not more difficult to define. The definition of family in the context of volunteerism varies in the literature from the traditional nuclear family to any group, including coworkers, with which a person volunteers (Brennan & Larson, 2003; Hegel & McKechnie, 2003). However, others point out that a family is more intimate and heterogeneous than a work family (Gill, 2006). To complicate matters, a family can come in several different combinations, such as two or more adult siblings or a nonfamilial legal guardian and children. Considering these issues and past definitions, family volunteerism could be defined as the willing participation in activities that ultimately benefits others by a group of two or more people who consider themselves family but are not, primarily, in a business relationship.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND At minimum, volunteering provides social connectedness because, as defined earlier, it involves interaction with others. Various studies found that volunteering has the potential to provide other intrinsic and extrinsic benefits, such as improved health, increased self-esteem, interpersonal skills, job skills, and material rewards (Briggs, Peterson, & Gregory, 2010; Bussell & Forbes, 2002). This article proposes that the connections and benefits may grow in complexity and significance if family units replace individual volunteers. Families can enrich the experience and the experience can enrich families. This line of thinking has its roots in two socially grounded and interrelated theories: Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory and Erikson’s psychosocial development theory.

Bioecological Theory Common to all of its revisions, Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of development suggests that an individual develops through active reciprocal exchanges with his or her internal and external environment (Tudge, Mokrova, Hatfield, & Karnik, 2009). According to Bronfenbrenner’s early works (1979), four dynamic and interconnected systems represent the external environments surrounding an individual: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. The microsystem consists of structures and actors that directly affect and interact with the individual such as close family members, friends, and classmates. The mesosystem is the middle ground made up of connections between microsystem actors. The exosystem contains structures and other systems within which micro-level actors interact and the individual indirectly interacts. Examples include the extended family, family members’ places of work, and social services. Underlying forces in society such as culture, values, and ideologies make up the macrosystem, which dictates the actions of the other systems. Bronfenbrenner’s (1986) later work recognized that all these systems operate within time, or the chronosystem.


692


Proponents of this theoretical perspective typically seek to understand individuals and families within their different systems and social contexts. To give an example of ideal family volunteering from this perspective, the individual could be a child volunteering with his or her family members who are actors within the microsystem. Through the mesosystem the family connects with others (e.g., a volunteer administrator or family life educator) and takes the opportunity to help an organization or their community, which exist in the exosystem. The child’s culture, part of the macrosystem, may value shared family time, nurturing parenting practices, and helping others. Macrosystem laws allow the establishment of nonprofit and voluntary organizations and, subsequently, the volunteer opportunities. Through the very nature of volunteerism, individuals and their families expand social networks and gain valuable resources. These resources give families the ability to strengthen themselves and improve their surroundings. In later versions of the theory, culminating in the process-person-context-time (PPCT) model, Bronfenbrenner proposed that individuals need increasingly complex interactions—called proximal processes—formed through experiences within the systems to achieve healthy development (Bronfenbrenner, 1990; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Tudge et al., 2009). The proximal processes vary depending on the characteristics of the people, contexts, and time involved. Although this article does not specifically use the PPCT model, the bioecological theory provides a good foundation for exploring the effects of family volunteerism. For instance, in a new and stimulating environment, a child from a volunteering family may form secure attachments with their parents, which then become a springboard for individual psychosocial development as they age (Pittman, Keiley, Kerpelman, & Vaughn, 2011; Swick & Williams, 2006). From a bioecological perspective, family volunteering could lead to the healthy development of individuals, their families, and eventually their communities.

Psychosocial Development Theory Erikson’s view that the lifelong development process requires interpersonal interactions in various social contexts complements Bronfenbrenner’s theory described above. The psychosocial development theory suggests that individuals achieve positive psychological health by successfully navigating through eight stages and the crisis contained in each (Erikson, 1950, 1968). The degree of success in one stage affects subsequent stages. Individuals can confront an earlier crisis later in life to balance the effects. Success also hinges on the support, resources, and opportunities found in an individual’s environment (Pittman et al., 2011). During the first year of life, or stage 1, infants are faced with the crisis of trust versus mistrust. Caregivers must provide consistent support for infants to believe they are safe; otherwise, they may mistrust the world around them (Sternberg & Williams, 2010). The corollary indicates that if infants trust



693

everyone indiscriminately, they can be unsafe. Stage 2, autonomy versus shame and doubt, entails gaining independence in terms of one’s behaviors and thoughts. Sternberg and Williams (2010) recommended providing opportunities that allow children to make their own decisions and explore their abilities. From approximately age 3 to 5, children must cope with the third stage, initiative versus guilt. If the environment does not permit or encourage the child to become responsible for his or her actions, he or she may feel guilty inappropriately. Lack of self-control, however, can result in an appropriate sense of guilt. In stage 4, industry versus inferiority, children achieve a degree of self-efficacy when they experience success in various tasks. As the name suggests, challenges in this stage may lead to a sense of inferiority. The focal point of Erikson’s theory and several studies is the fifth stage, identity versus role confusion. Via opportunities in their systems, adolescents explore their identities and discover a sense of self. During this time they may try out multiple roles. After establishing an identity (Pittman et al., 2011), young adults move into stage 6, intimacy versus isolation. They are tasked with creating intimate relationships with others while at the same time feeling comfortable in their own space. This is a crucial time for individuals to build their social networks and establish long-term support systems. In the literature, volunteerism has been particularly relevant for the seventh stage, generativity versus stagnation (Piercy, Cheek, & Teemant, 2011). Individuals feel the need to contribute to their society and younger generations. If an individual is unable to produce offspring or share their resources with others, they may feel unfulfilled. Finally, in late adulthood, the eighth stage presents a crisis between integrity and despair. At this point in life individuals reflect on their past to determine whether their life was meaningful and to gain wisdom. If the individual did not successfully resolve past stages, he or she may succumb to depression and hopelessness. As Bronfenbrenner and Erikson implied, individuals need a variety of experiences and connections with others to develop to their full potential. Volunteerism, a social activity that can be accomplished in many different contexts, can provide such experiences. For example, many volunteer positions expose volunteers to new skills or knowledge about an area in which they may be interested. Volunteerism may even be a manifestation of generativity in the seventh stage (Piercy et al., 2011). Although volunteering alone can benefit an individual and indirectly impact his or her family as the bioecological perspective suggests, volunteering as a family could potentially magnify the effects of psychosocial growth because it brings in the necessary microsystem resources for successful development.

FAMILY VOLUNTEERISM AS A TOOL In the early 19th century Alexis de Tocqueville noted the tendency of Americans to form associations for the greater good (Thoits & Hewitt, 2001).


694


As volunteers serve and care for others they form connections between individuals, families, and communities (Reilly & Vesic, 2002). In other words, volunteering opens pathways within and between an individual’s various systems and serves as a rich context for development. Family volunteerism potentially multiplies this effect by expanding the number of systems and resources available. An application of systems theory to families experiencing stress urged educators and other professionals to empower families by helping them get in touch with resources within their environment (Swick & Williams, 2006). Because volunteering provides opportunities to interact with others, access resources, and expand on skills and experiences, it may be a useful tool for working with families, not just a tool for organizations to expand their volunteer base. As family volunteering increases in popularity and is integrated into existing formal volunteer programs (McCurley & Lynch, 2011), professionals can make use of existing volunteer positions or be an integral part in the creation of future positions. The following subsections cover general and family-specific types, benefits, and uses of volunteering.

Types of Volunteering Volunteer positions vary in duration, flexibility, extent of contact with recipients, subject area, and intensity. Episodic or short-term volunteering, for example, gives individuals the flexibility to volunteer when they are able and to quit at any time. When applied to family volunteering, these positions can give families the flexibility they need to work around each member’s daily schedule. Short-term commitments may also be best for families that are facing difficult challenges or do not have a set routine. Furthermore, shortterm opportunities allow families to ease into volunteering (McCurley & Lynch, 2011), which may make the experience less stressful and may even encourage them to volunteer in the future. A study of volunteer management capacity found that volunteer activities can be divided into four categories: direct service, indirect service, internal administration, and external administration (Hager & Brudney, 2004). Families can engage in any category. Direct service, as the name implies, involves direct contact with the recipients of the activities and could include tutoring, mentoring, counseling, and hospice care. Indirect service positions help the organization or direct service volunteers in providing service to clients. For example, a family group could volunteer to prepare meals for other volunteers, help set up mentoring activities, assemble educational brochures, run thrift stores, or participate in clean-up activities. The remaining two categories help to operate the charitable organization. Internal administrative activities equate to office work such as filing, copying, accounting and budgeting, and organizing office space. Families may be able to more easily break up projects into manageable tasks and share responsibility with this



695

type of volunteering. It may also be a good way to view family dynamics and how members interact with each other because the tasks are relatively easy. External administrative activities entail spreading awareness of a cause or fundraising. Unlike internal administrative tasks, external administrative tasks may give the family unit more flexibility and creativity in how tasks are carried out. For instance, family groups with children may raise awareness by creating posters or theatrical plays for a neighborhood. Volunteer opportunities can be further tailored to family needs in terms of subject area. Families can explore interests as a whole or explore interests of individuals within the family. The Urban Institute noted four general industries of charitable organizations: human services; education; health; and arts, culture, and humanities (Hager & Brudney, 2004). Specific interests include charities for animal welfare, civic engagement, disaster relief, environmental issues, human rights, poverty, religion, sexuality, and youth development (Bussell & Forbes, 2002). Families may also wish to volunteer for philanthropic foundations that help other organizations operate through grants. A suitable volunteer activity depends on the desired amount of intensity. Virtual volunteering involves activities accomplished partially or completely through the use of the Internet. Because virtual volunteering can be done at home on a computer, this type is relatively less intense, gives added flexibility, and may appeal to younger audiences (McCurley & Lynch, 2011). Family groups could be responsible for fundraising campaigns via e-mail, maintaining websites and social networking pages, or conducting research. At the other end of the spectrum, those with sufficient financial resources may opt for more intense volunteer activities such as vacation volunteering or international service expeditions. Vacation volunteering is typically short term, such as cleaning up a national park. Service expeditions, or missions, require more time, financial resources, and psychological resources to adjust to a different culture. As is the case for many other volunteer activities, these opportunities can fit a variety of preferences from secular to church-sponsored events (Musick & Williams, 2003). Virtual and vacation volunteering require financial resources and equipment (e.g., computers, Internet access, or travel expenses); other volunteering activities may be completely free or reimbursed at a later date.

Benefits of Volunteering Several research studies have sought to discover the motivations, or perceived benefits, of volunteering to make more effective recruitment and marketing campaigns. A review of this literature found that volunteers are motivated by incentives outside of just pure altruistic motives (Bussell & Forbes, 2002). These incentives may be psychological or material. For example, volunteering in a certain industry allows individuals to express their


696


interests and values, have a sense of belonging, gain skills related to the industry, and contribute to a cause. Other individuals may be motivated by physical items such as plaques, awards, certificates, t-shirts, or free meals. Of particular interest to this article are reports that have looked specifically at the benefits and use of volunteerism for strengthening families. After conducting numerous interviews, focus groups, and surveys, Littlepage et al. (2003) found that the benefits of family volunteering include general volunteering benefits (e.g., increased self-esteem, acquisition of new skills, socialization, and the opportunity to give back) in addition to benefits exclusive to the families that volunteer. From the mere act of interacting with each other, volunteering together allows families to strengthen relationships, share experiences and values, socialize with each other and other families, and have fun. Family members may also be able to practice skills, including positive parenting practices. At the same time, children benefit from exposure to real world experiences and career information. Furthermore, all members gain access to social, emotional, physical, and financial resources including resources provided by the services for which they volunteer (e.g., educational information). Opportunities for parents to bond with their children can promote healthy development (Family Strengthening Policy Center, 2006; Littlepage et al., 2003; Small & Eastman, 1991). Today’s children face intensifying dangers and temptations that threaten their chances of leading successful lives if they do not have strong relationships with their families. F or instance, adolescents who lack positive role models are more likely to engage in drug and alcohol use (Komro & Stigler, 2000). The Family Strengthening Policy Center (2006) reported that, through family volunteering, parents can model values and bond with their children to combat this trend. A family volunteering pilot program described the positive effects of volunteerism (Reilly & Vesic, 2002). The authors interviewed two families who participated in the 3-month project that consisted of organizing and operating visiting programs and special events at a community center for seniors. Like most volunteer programs, the families received training before and during the activities. In this particular case, however, the training was conducted by a family life educator to facilitate the internalization of shared experiences and values. The results indicate that the families valued and benefited greatly from the activities and training. Reported benefits included increased marital and family satisfaction, strengthened support networks, acceptance of diverse cultures, shared experiences and values, and fun quality time. More intense and involved volunteer activities produce enhanced benefits. For instance, Palmer et al. (2007) explored the effects of families’ international service expeditions to developing countries. Their analysis revealed that the volunteer experience did not simply enhance family strengths but positively affected the families’ long-term identities. The authors described


697

this as the family deepening process, which involves shared experiences in activities that purposefully provide challenges as well as sacrifice of family resources for the assistance of others (Palmer et al., 2007). Family life education similarly provides structured and active learning experiences to strengthen families.


Volunteerism and Education Educational and volunteering processes complement each other well. Volunteers learn about the cause, their communities, and themselves. Schools have capitalized on the educational aspects of volunteering through service learning projects. Service learning is a combination of service, or volunteer work, and learning (Kraft, 1996). By providing services to an organization or directly to recipients, students apply knowledge gained in the classroom to real situations. Ideal projects balance the teachers’ objectives, the students’ interests, and the organizations’ needs. For example, a student or an entire class could volunteer to clean up a park to learn about the environment and help the community. Marketing students could create advertisement campaigns to apply their skills and aid local nonprofit organizations. Students typically reflect and report on their project to share and internalize the experience. Through service learning, students engage in active learning and build a sense of civic responsibility (Kraft, 1996; Smith, 2008). Students also enjoy many of the same benefits of general volunteering activities. In a 1989 report the Johnson Foundation put forth principles of effective service learning projects which state that activities must clearly define roles; meet the needs of the organization and the volunteer; be structured, challenging, and flexible; and contribute to the common good (as cited in Kraft, 1996). These principles are similar to Palmer et al.’s (2007) family deepening requirements in which the shared activities must be purposive and challenging. Although outside the typical educational setting, family life educators could use volunteering activities as tools to produce family deepening effects through educational experiences in nontraditional settings. Family-based learning through volunteerism has great potential. The extent to which volunteering activities are used could vary depending on the needs of the family and the community. On one end of the spectrum, family life educators could simply direct families toward volunteering opportunities or work with volunteer administrators to create well-rounded projects. Family life professionals could also train family volunteers. According to Reilly and Vesic (2002), the inclusion of family life educators in training sessions enhanced the family members’ interactions and improved their skills. The authors also revealed that the experience helped one family reconnect with a member who had previously struggled with alcohol abuse. Because volunteering can prevent risky behavior, organizations can use it to augment client treatments (Littlepage et al., 2003). For example, an organization for troubled

698



youth could enlist the clients and their families for volunteer activities to learn about each other, foster interpersonal skills, and strengthen relationships (Family Strengthening Policy Center, 2006). Family life educators can use volunteer activities to observe families in action and help families apply their knowledge and skills. To use family volunteering as a learning tool, one must consider the needs of the organizations in the community, the needs of the families at each stage, and the costs involved in volunteering. The needs of the organization vary from small to large projects, unskilled to skilled workers, and from fundraising projects to community development. Organizational needs are outside the scope of this article. The remainder of the article instead examines family and cost considerations.

FAMILY VOLUNTEERING THROUGHOUT THE LIFE SPAN Recent studies have found that individuals benefit, or perceive benefits, differently as they age and their roles change, which supports Bronfenbrenner’s PPCT model (Oesterle, Johnson, & Mortimer, 2004; Shannon, 2009; Tang, 2006). It is therefore essential that family life educators adapt volunteer learning activities to the needs of individuals within the family. This article follows Erikson’s psychosocial development stages described above to illustrate how family volunteerism can help families and individual family members navigate through life stages. Volunteering is essentially a psychosocial activity. A search for existing studies of psychosocial benefits of volunteerism at different stages of life was conducted via databases and search engines including EBSCOhost, ERIC, and Google Scholar. Studies of stages 5 through 8 were more readily available than stages 1 through 4. Thus, for the first four stages we synthesize practitioner experiences and reports.

Stage 1: Trust Versus Mistrust Although infants may not be able to directly volunteer, their psychosocial needs can be met through family volunteering simply by tagging along. Family volunteering opportunities that permit infants to attend allow families to continue giving consistent care to the growing infant and build trust. Families can also establish a routine of volunteering together early on (Friedman, 2003). For instance, a couple who volunteers to provide child care for clients in therapy may wish to bring along their infant, who could eventually help the family at a later time. The presence of infants may have a negative effect on volunteering parents. According to Rotolo and Wilson’s (2007) study on the effects of children on volunteer activities of American women, parents of very young children are actually less likely to volunteer. This can be due in part to the


699

time needed to care for infants. However, through a group service activity where infants are welcomed, parents may discover other parents that can give emotional support. Thus, the parents are able to establish new connections within their systems (Littlepage et al., 2003). Family life educators could apply this concept by having a group of parents volunteer together to form bonds.


Stage 2: Autonomy Versus Shame and Doubt Toddlers need opportunities to try new things on their own as they develop autonomy. Although there are no studies on this particular age group, one can speculate on the benefits. Because volunteerism can expose one to diverse experiences and environments (Reilly & Vesic, 2002), children in this stage can explore developing sensorimotor skills and language to gain a sense of competency. For example, older family members and caregivers may encourage toddlers to practice grasping objects and walking by helping sort clothing at a volunteer-based thrift store. Toddlers can practice new language skills by talking with the elderly in nursing homes or senior citizen centers. Family volunteering projects, especially those for groups with young children, may be a prime opportunity for family life educators to teach effective parenting practices. Volunteering can make the learning experience more meaningful for the parents as they actively implement lessons. For example, many research studies have concluded that authoritative parenting is best for facilitating optimal development from infancy to adulthood (Henricson & Roker, 2000; Steinberg, 2001). In this case, family life educators could help parents provide appropriate praise and instruction while they guide their child through a shared activity.

Stage 3: Initiative Versus Guilt Although adults often discredit the abilities and ideas of children, Ellis, Weisbord, and Noyes’s (2003) extensive interviews revealed that children can think of ideas that may never occur to adults. Children do not have years of learned rules and limitations. After gaining a sense of self-efficacy in stage 2, children in stage 3 need to be encouraged to make decisions and reassured that their choices are valued. Volunteering, with such a variety of choices, is a great place to allow children to make decisions. They can contribute to the decision on where to volunteer or how to go about the project. Parents can give small tasks to children to complete on their own. According to one study, the most effective volunteer positions encourage ownership of the task and require some self-direction. Children can begin to learn responsibility and cause-and-effect if given ownership over their tasks. Even office work can be turned into something fun if children are allowed to pick the order and the method for completing tasks.

700


Much like the previous stages, parents may benefit from family volunteering because it allows them to practice appropriate parenting strategies and expand their social networks. Parents may also begin to learn more about their child’s personality and interests.


Stage 4: Industry Versus Inferiority Similar to stage 3, children in stage 4 determine self-worth and capacity to succeed via opportunities in their environment. Family volunteerism allows for supervised activities and built-in encouragement from parents, older siblings, or other caregivers who volunteer alongside the children. A study on the effects of service learning on college students found that volunteer opportunities foster self-confidence by providing safe and accepting environments to practice, make mistakes, and learn (Santilli, Falbo, & Harris, 2002). The opportunity to work in such an environment can translate into benefits for much younger children. For example, 8- to 12-year-olds in Boys and Girls Club of Canada were motivated by and benefited from the personal satisfaction of completing tasks, mutual support from everyone involved, and having fun (Shannon, 2009). Even at such a young age, children can organize and execute events, participate in fundraising projects, mentor others, and participate on advisory councils (Shannon, 2009). Training and encouragement can help children by allowing them to make mistakes, practice, and succeed at tasks in a variety of settings. Furthermore, volunteer opportunities are flexible enough to meet particular interests of children to motivate them to succeed. Family life educators can aid parents by teaching them how to set small, successive goals with children and build a positive and supportive relationship. Strong, established support systems in childhood can promote adjustment in later life (Small & Eastman, 1991). It may also be a useful tool for families who are experiencing stress. Patterson (2002) suggested that families who can manage daily stresses are more likely to adapt to future crises. Therefore, by working with children and the whole family to adapt to new situations and celebrate successes and strengths, family life educators can promote continued adaptation.

Stage 5: Identity Versus Role Confusion Studies of adolescents in stage 5 have dominated the literature in hopes of discovering how adolescents form their identities and the best environments for doing so. Several studies have indicated that adolescents need opportunities to explore different identities, values, beliefs, and ways of accomplishing tasks (Komro & Stigler, 2000; Romer, 2001; Small & Eastman, 1991). The identity formed in this stage generally remains stable and influences future behaviors, including altruistic acts ( Johnson, Beebe, Mortimer, & Snyder,



701

1998; Reilly & Vesic, 2002; Wilson, 2000). This is a great time for parents to pass on their own values, foster civic responsibility, and help adolescents form their identities as well as set career and life goals. Romer (2001) demonstrated how volunteering can meet the psychosocial needs of adolescents through a discussion of a service learning program at a Florida hospice. Adolescents, who were forming their own identities, interacted with elderly individuals, who shared their experiences and wisdom. The author concluded that the program provided the outlet necessary for adolescents to gain experiences, skills, and new perspectives. The volunteer experience also allowed them to be part of something and give back to their communities. In his discussion of volunteering in general, Wilson (2000) pointed out that the flexible nature of volunteering allows volunteers to pick positions that interest them and can benefit them the most in terms of skills and networking. Furthermore, through social learning, adolescents learn altruistic values that, as studies show, may make them more likely to volunteer as adults. As adolescents develop their own identity and cognitive abilities, they begin to test boundaries, which may create conflicts (Komro & Stigler, 2000). Although conflicts are a part of every relationship, misunderstandings and stress can lead to communication breakdowns that only exacerbate the problem. Parents may also find it hard to share control and responsibilities as the child becomes more independent (Montemayor, 1983; Small & Eastman, 1991). These issues can put a strain on the parent–adolescent relationship and impede the parents’ ability to positively influence their adolescent’s development. With guidance and structured opportunities, family life educators can help families through this stage by providing additional training (e.g., communication skills) and encouraging families to practice their skills while volunteering.

Stage 6: Intimacy Versus Isolation Erikson’s sixth stage entails developing and maintaining intimate relationships. Studies on the transition to adulthood indicate that strong support systems within the family context can lead to better adjustment to adult life (Aquilino & Supple, 2001; Small & Eastman, 1991). Volunteerism in the young adult stage may strengthen family networks between parents, adult siblings, and younger children while providing additional benefits. Through their review of literature and subsequent study, Reilly and Vesic (2002) found that family volunteering allows members to develop and practice communication skills, conflict resolution strategies, and other prosocial skills that promote positive relationships within the family and with other families. Volunteering also allows adult members to reestablish relationships that may have been marred by previous conflict. Volunteering together gives adults opportunities to discuss and balance

702



their roles in the family, understand each other, and deepen relationships, which may then increase marital and family satisfaction (Family Strengthening Policy Center, 2006; Piercy et al., 2011; Reilly & Vesic, 2002). It is clear that by interacting and working toward a goal, adult family members create connections and expand their social support base. Adult couples can also use the time to strengthen relationships that may otherwise go without maintenance. For example, they can go on a date night by volunteering together at a special event, organizing and filing in an office, donating blood, or buying and wrapping presents for children from low socioeconomic status families. In the process they can talk with each other, learn something new, and bond without interruptions.

Stage 7: Generativity Versus Stagnation Adults in midlife need a sense of purpose and want to contribute to future generations (Okun & Michel, 2006; Piercy et al., 2011; Warburton, McLaughlin, & Pinsker, 2006). According to Jirovec (2005), volunteering allows older adults to continue or restore their caregiving roles. By interacting with youth, older adults have the opportunity to articulate and demonstrate their culture, beliefs, and values (Musick & Wilson, 2003; Romer, 2001; Warburton et al., 2006). While adults engage in their own development, they can also help children face their crises and overcome obstacles by transmitting knowledge and providing resources. Mentoring opportunities, whether as a family (i.e., adult members mentor at the same time for the same organization) or with family members (i.e., adults volunteer with their child to mentor them), are ideal for this stage. Many studies on volunteerism focus on “giving back,” whereas some specifically mention its use for generativity. For example, Piercy et al. (2011) explored the challenges and benefits of volunteering in their study on older adults engaged in intensive volunteering activities away from home. From a psychosocial development perspective, the authors observed that volunteering promoted a sense of caring, compassion, and empathy. The participants became more aware of others’ needs rather than their own and were able to find meaning in their lives. As they were confronted with new situations and cultures, the participants learned to adapt while also sharing their own experiences with the recipients of the voluntary acts. Warburton et al. (2006) also examined generativity via focus group interviews with 184 older Australians who were involved with their families or communities. The qualitative analysis revealed that participants believed being involved in one’s family and community later in life allowed them to reflect and act on the need to give back by way of sharing experiences, knowledge, and other resources. Participants who were grandparents noted that involvement fostered reciprocal relationships in that they cared for their children and grandchildren who would then care for them as the


703

descendants gained more resources. As one can see, family volunteering allows for families to share experiences within and outside of their family unit, allowing for bonding at the individual, family, and community levels as well as between generations.


Stage 8: Integrity Versus Despair As individuals enter old age, they evaluate previous stages and attempt to find meaning in their lives. Smith (2008) suggested that volunteering can be useful for successfully navigating the final stage and a manifestation of its success. In other words, volunteering allows individuals to make their lives meaningful by giving back and assign personal meaning by reflecting on the experience. Piercy et al. (2011) supported this by stating that volunteering helped participants find existential meaning and a sense of purpose, particularly after synthesizing past experiences. Family life educators or life coaches could promote reflection as a means of internalizing the lessons learned during the volunteer activities. Adding family members enhances the experience. Based on their analysis of data on volunteers over 65, Musick and Wilson (2003) proposed that sustained volunteering increases the benefits, specifically mental well-being. Volunteering with family can help individuals in the eighth stage sustain volunteering by making the experience positive and creating an environment in which members reinforce altruistic activities (Warburton et al., 2006; Wilson, 2000). Family life educators can be instrumental in family volunteering by providing structured reflection with family members and training for sharing these experiences within and outside the family unit.

CONSIDERING THE COSTS As we have explored thus far, family volunteering can be tremendously beneficial to the family as a whole and its individual members. However, family volunteerism does have disadvantages. Family life educators and other professionals must consider the financial and social costs associated with volunteering. Lack of time is a catalyst and a barrier for family volunteers. With so many demands from work, school, and other organizations, family members may not have time to develop strong relationships, let alone volunteer at the same time (Reilly & Vesic, 2002). Family life educators, in conjunction with volunteer administrators, must therefore create flexible, short-term volunteer positions that acknowledge busy schedules yet are also fun and allow family members to interact (McCurley & Lynch, 2011). Friedman (2003) recommended tasks such as cooking, working with the elderly, caring for pets, office work, and fundraising. Existing projects can be adapted to allow families to work at night or on weekends. For example, families could create informational packets,


704


prepare direct mail campaigns, or fold brochures at home. Adding in an element of competition can bring excitement to “boring” positions too. Littlepage et al. (2003) found that volunteering comes with financial costs such as child care and transportation. Low-income families, single parents, and those with very young children have even less time and resources (Brennan & Larson, 2003; Li & Ferraro, 2006; Oesterle, Johnson, & Mortimer, 2004). These families are less likely to volunteer even though they may receive the most benefit from service activities (Family Strengthening Policy Center, 2006). Because low socioeconomic status families are often targets of family life education programs, family volunteering may be a useful tool to expose families to resources, social support, and a wide range of health and psychosocial benefits. Moreover, studies have shown that parent involvement at home or in school, including volunteering, can combat the negative effects of environments with inadequate resources (Dearing, Kreider, Simpkins, & Weiss, 2006). Family life educators may need to consider these issues and seek financial support to provide transportation and child care. They may also use family volunteering in conjunction with classes that promote educational and social resources. Even though family volunteering positions are designed for the whole family group, some members may stay at home such as working fathers or preschool-aged children. Personal costs (e.g., more housework for the nonvolunteer) have been cited as barriers (Littlepage et al., 2003). Young children and adolescents have specifically cited personal costs related to the social stigma of volunteering with parents (Littlepage et al., 2003). Advertisements for family life education courses may then wish to emphasize the opportunity to share values and strengthen relationships to parents and emphasize socialization, fun, participating in “grown up” activities, and learning new skills to children. Santilli et al. (2002) suggested that the mandatory nature of required volunteerism as part of a class or project can weaken the beneficial effects. Therefore, it is essential that families are given as many opportunities as possible to choose and structure the volunteer experience to their needs to create buy-in (Reilly & Vesic, 2002). If family volunteering is used as an educational tool, family life educators must keep in mind that it requires a balance between service goals and learning goals. Although family life education classes can use family volunteering as an advantage, the activity must ensure that the recipient of the voluntary act benefits as well. This requires extensive planning on the part of the family life educator and the organizations that provide the volunteer positions, but it will be well worth the hard work.

SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS Research studies in the volunteer administration field have found tremendous psychological, social, and general well-being benefits for volunteering



705

in the community. These benefits include increased self-esteem, acquisition of new skills, socialization, and the opportunity to give back. Studies and reports specifically on family volunteerism have revealed that volunteering as a family can strengthen and deepen relationships, increase marital satisfaction, improve parenting and conflict resolution strategies, and renew lost connections with family members. Although these studies ultimately sought to improve recruitment and retention strategies, family life educators can take advantage of the findings to strengthen families. To promote positive development from a bioecological systems perspective, one must consider the individuals, the family unit, the internal and external influences, as well as the proximal processes between the elements. The challenge, then, is to meet the desires and needs of the family as a whole and the individual family members. This article discussed how family life educators and other concerned professionals can use volunteering to enrich the lives of families and give back to the community. As a social activity that involves several actors, family volunteering can put individuals and families in touch with new resources (e.g., education, social support, family services, and financial assistance) and opportunities to influence the world around them. For instance, Doherty, Jacob, and Cutting (2009) found that the community engaged parent education model, which connects discussion topics to public issues, increased participants’ awareness of community issues and how they may influence those issues. Family volunteering takes the model a step further by placing families in direct contact with the community. In fact, service activities empower families to advocate for issues that are important to them and take action. Volunteering not only provides chances to bond within the family unit and with other families, it also allows professionals to observe families in action. Service activities present a window into how families balance roles, adapt to new situations, and work toward goals. Smith (2008) also suggested reflection activities to internalize the lessons of the experience. Family life educators may even wish to use reflection to point out strengths, modify instruction, or facilitate problem solving for issues that may have occurred during the activities. Family life educators can work with volunteer administrators to offer volunteer opportunities in conjunction with classes or therapy, or they may develop family volunteer programs exclusive to an organization. Either way, it is helpful to know how volunteering can be adapted to family members of different developmental stages to maximize the positive impact and recognize members as active actors in the process. Using Erikson’s psychosocial development theory as a framework, we examined how volunteerism affects individuals during the eight stages and accompanying crises. Individuals in the first four stages, before adolescence, require occasions for exploring the world around them and developing mastery and confidence over their thoughts, behaviors, and decisions. As a flexible and interdisciplinary activity, family volunteering lends itself to these stages well. Parents or adult


706


caregivers may also help children through these stages as they develop their own parenting and communication skills. As children transition into adolescence, or stage 5, studies have shown that volunteering can boost self-esteem, decrease risky behavior, and aid in identity development. Parents are vital in this process and should be invited to volunteer together to model and share values and positive behaviors. As individuals face the last stages, they need intimate relationships and a sense of purpose. Volunteering with families puts individuals in contact with others, deepens and strengthens relationships, allows adults to contribute to others’ development, and provides opportunities to reflect. To make this all possible, family life educators need to keep in mind a few guidelines. First, volunteer activities need to be flexible and accessible for families with limited resources such as time constraints, lack of transportation, or other financial issues. Families also need flexibility in choosing the area, tasks, and how to accomplish goals to create buy-in and meet their needs. The activities should be fun and engaging to keep families interested and overcome stigmas. Finally, the activities must balance service with learning to benefit the families as well as recipients as much as possible. Although the potential may seem attractive, there were limitations to this discussion. The database search returned few studies specifically on family volunteering (see Palmer et al., 2007; Reilly & Vesic, 2002). The findings of those studies must also be taken with caution because they were based on limited samples. Our review had to then draw on select articles in volunteering, service learning, and family life education. The final findings, therefore, are theoretical rather than research based. Nonetheless, this article may serve to spur future research on the potential of family volunteering as a tool for family life education. Larger and more representative samples would help strengthen the findings. As evidenced by the lack of articles in the database searches, the field would also benefit from more studies on family volunteerism, specifically in relation to its uses at different stages of a family’s and individual family member’s development. It may also be useful to specifically research the effects of volunteering on young children and how that may subsequently affect families. The culmination of these studies would aid in the development and evaluation of family volunteer programs for use in prevention and intervention. Program developers should not only incorporate the topics discussed here but also seek help from volunteer administrators in terms of recruiting, training, and retention. Furthermore, because it is evident that creating healthy families takes time, policies and practices that give families more time to spend with their children would support family functioning and family-friendly policy principles (National Council on Family Relations, 2000). Employers, for instance, may institute procedures for taking time off to volunteer with families or provide volunteer opportunities that may also engage family members.


707

Volunteering can be rewarding and highly beneficial to individuals. Volunteering with family can be even more rewarding in that it makes experiences more meaningful and engaging while strengthening relationships. Family volunteering as a tool for family life education can be challenging, but the potential benefits outweigh the costs. Volunteer experiences have the potential to strengthen family ties, to enrich and educate individual family members, and to create a family tradition of working together toward a greater good.


REFERENCES Aquilino, W. S., & Supple, A. J. (2001). Long-term effects of parenting practices during adolescence on well-being outcomes in young adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 289–308. doi:10.1177/019251301022003002 Bowen, P., & McKechnie, A. (2001). Family volunteering: A discussion paper. Ottawa: Volunteer Canada. Retrieved from http://volunteer.ca/files/FamilyEng.pdf Brennan, N., & Larson, R. S. (2003, January). Developing agency capacity to promote and support family volunteerism. e-Volunteerism, 3. Retrieved from http:// www.e-volunteerism.com/print/quarterly/03jan/03jan-brennanlarson Briggs, E., Peterson, M., & Gregory, G. (2010). Toward a better understanding of volunteering for nonprofit organizations: Explaining volunteers’ pro-social attitudes. Journal of Macromarketing, 30, 61–76. doi:10.1177/0276146709352220 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments in nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Recent advances in research on the ecology of human development. In R. K. Silbereisen, K. Eyferth, & G. Rudinger (Eds.), Development as action in context: Problem behavior and normal youth development (pp. 287–309). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1990). Discovering what families do. In D. Blankenhorn, S. Bayme, & J. B. Elshtain (Eds.), Rebuilding the nest: A new commitment to the American family. Retrieved from http://www.montana.edu/www4h/ process.html Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 993–1023). New York, NY: Wiley. Bussell, H., & Forbes, D. (2002). Understanding the volunteer market: The what, where, who, and why of volunteering. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7, 244–257. doi:10.1002/nvsm.183 Crosnoe, R., & Trinitapoli, J. (2008). Shared family activities and the transition from childhood into adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18, 23–48. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2008.00549.x Daly, K. J, & Beaton, J. (2005). Through the lens of time: How families live in and through time. In V. L. Bengston, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 241–262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


708


Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in school and low-income children’s literacy performance: Longitudinal associations between and within families. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 654–664. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.653 Doherty, W. J. (2005). Overscheduled kids, underconnected families: The research evidence. Retrieved from http://www.shouldertoshoulderminnesota.org/?q=node/7 Ellis, S. J., Weisbord, A., & Noyes, K. H. (2003). Children as volunteers: Preparing for community service (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Energize. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York, NY: Norton. Family Strengthening Policy Center. (2006). Family volunteering: Nurturing families, building community. Washington, DC: National Human Services Assembly. Friedman, J. (2003). The busy family’s guide to volunteering: Doing good together. Beltsville, MD: Robins Lane Press. Gill, Z. (2006). Family volunteering. Adelaide: Government of South Australia, Office for Volunteers. Retrieved from http://www.ofv.sa.gov.au/pdfs/research_family_ volunteering_06.pdf Hager, M. A., & Brudney, J. L. (2004, June). Volunteer management practices and retention of volunteers. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/ UploadedPDF/411005_VolunteerManagement.pdf Hegel, A., & McKechnie, A. (2003). Family volunteering: The final report. Volunteer Canada. Retrieved from http://volunteer.ca/files/FamVol_FinalReportEN.pdf Jirovec, R. L. (2005). Differences in family functioning and health between older adult volunteers and non-volunteers. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 46, 23–35. Johnson, M. K., Beebe, T., Mortimer, J. T., & Snyder, M. (1998). Volunteerism in adolescence: A process perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 309– 332. doi: 10.1207/s15327795jra0803_2 Komro, K. A., & Stigler, M. H. (2000, July). Growing absolutely fantastic youth: A review on the research on “best practices.” Retrieved from http://www. shouldertoshoulderminnesota.org/?q=node/7 Kraft, R. J. (1996). Service learning: An introduction to its theory, practice, and effects. Education and Urban Society, 28, 131–159. doi:10.1177/0013124596028002001 Li, Y., & Ferraro, K. F. (2006, September). Volunteering in middle and later life: Is health a benefit, barrier or both? Social Forces, 85, 497–519. doi:10.1353/ sof.2006.0132 Littlepage, L., Obergfell, E., & Zanin, G. (2003). Family volunteering: An exploratory study of the impact on families. Indianapolis, IN: Center for Urban Policy and the Environment, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana UniversityPurdue University. Retrieved from http://www.pointsoflight.org/sites/default/ files/FamilyVolunteering.pdf McCurley, S., & Lynch, R. (2011). Volunteer management: Mobilizing all the resources of the community (3rd ed.). Plattsburgh, NY: Interpub Group. Montemayor, R. (1983). Parents and adolescents in conflict: All families some of the time and some families most of the time. Journal of Early Adolescence, 3, 83–103. doi: 10.1177/027243168331007 Moore, K. A., Guzman, L., Hair, E. C., Lippman, L., & Garrett, S. B. (2004). Parent– teenrelationship and interactions: Far more positive than not. Washington, DC: Child Trends.



709

Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. (2003). Volunteering and depression: The role of psychological and social resources in different age groups. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 259–269. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00025-4 Mustillo, S., Wilson, J., & Lynch, S. M. (2004, May). Legacy volunteering: A test of two theories of intergenerational transmission. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 530–541. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00036.x Myers-Walls, J. A., Ballard, S. M., Darling, C. A., & Myers-Bowman, K. S. (2011). Reconceptualizing the domain and boundaries of family life education. Family Relations, 60, 357–372. National Council on Family Relations. (2000). A checklist for assessing the impact of policies and programs on families. Madison, WI: Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Oesterle, S., Johnson, M. K., & Mortimer, J. T. (2004, March). Volunteerism during the transition to adulthood: A life course perspective. Social Forces, 82, 1123–1149. doi: 10.1353/sof.2004.0049 Okun, M. A., & Michel, J. (2006). Sense of community and being a volunteer among the young-old. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 25, 173–188. doi:10.1177/ 0733464806286710 Palmer, A. A., Freeman, P. A., & Zabriskie, R. B. (2007). Family deepening: A qualitative inquiry into the experience of families who participate in service expeditions. Journal of Leisure Research, 39, 438–458. Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 349–360. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00349.x Piercy, K. W., Cheek, C., & Teemant, B. (2011). Challenges and psychosocial growth for older volunteers giving intensive humanitarian service. The Gerontologist, 51, 550–560. doi:10.1093/geront/gnr013 Pittman, J. F., Keiley, M. K., Kerpelman, J. L., & Vaughn, B. E. (2011). Attachment, identity, and intimacy: Parallels between Bowlby’s and Erikson’s paradigms. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 3, 32–46. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010. 00079.x Reilly, R. C., & Vesic, V. (2002). Family volunteering: Making a difference together. Leisure/Loisir, 27, 305–332. doi:10.1080/14927713.2002.9651308 Romer, A. L. (2001). Mutual developmental benefits for teen volunteers and persons at the end of life. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 4, 113–116. doi:10.1089/ 109662101300052167 Rotolo, T., & Wilson, J. (2007). The effects of children and employment status on the volunteer work of American women. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 487–503. doi:10.1177/0899764006296848 Santilli, N. R., Falbo, M. C., & Harris, J. T. (2002). Does volunteering and community service facilitate psychosocial development? In F. Aquila (Ed.), Service-learning research K–16: Innovation and change in American education (pp. 9–14). Learn and Serve America Ohio. Shannon, C. S. (2009). An untapped resource: Understanding volunteers aged 8 to 12. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 828–845. doi:10.1177/ 0899764008319624 Small, S. A., & Eastman, G. (1991). Rearing adolescents in contemporary society: A conceptual framework for understanding the responsibilities and needs of parents. Family Relations, 40, 455–462.


710


Smith, M. C. (2008). Does service learning promote adult development? Theoretical perspectives and directions for research. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 118, 5–15. doi:10.1002/ace Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent-adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11, 1–19. doi: 10.1111/1532-7795.00001 Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). Educational psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Sundeen, R. A., Raskoff, S. A., & Garcia, M. C. (2007). Differences in perceived barriers to volunteering to formal organizations: Lack of time versus lack of interest. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 17, 279–300. doi:10.1002/nml.150 Swick, K. J., & Williams, R. D. (2006). An analysis of Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological perspective for early childhood educators: Implications for working with families experiencing stress. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 371–378. doi: 10.1007/s10643-006-0078-y Tang, F. (2006). What resources are needed for volunteerism? A life course perspective. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 25, 375–390. doi:10.1177/0733464806292858 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, 83–101. doi:10.1177/0899764005282481 Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, 115–131. Toppe, C. M., Kirsch, A. D., & Michel, J. (2001). Giving and Volunteering in the United States. Retrieved from http://www.independentsector.org/giving_volunteering Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B. E., & Karnik, R. B. (2009). Uses and misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of human development. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 1, 198–210. doi:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00026.x Volunteer Canada. (2011, August 11). New family volunteering tools launch today. Retrieved from http://volunteer.ca/media-centre/news-releases/new-familyvolunteering-tools-launch-today Warburton, J., McLaughlin, D., & Pinsker, D. (2006). Generative acts: Family and community involvement of older Australians. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 63, 115–137. Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.215 Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (2003). Doing well by doing good: Volunteering and occupational achievement among American women. Sociological Quarterly, 44, 433–450. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-8525.2003.tb00540.x Wolfe, A. (2001). What is altruism? In J. S. Ott (Ed.), The nature of the nonprofit sector (pp. 320–330). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.