604739

research-article2015
NVSXXX10.1177/0899764015604739Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector QuarterlyBenenson and Stagg

Article
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly
2016, Vol. 45(1S) 131S­–149S
An Asset-Based Approach © The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
to Volunteering: Exploring sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0899764015604739
Benefits for Low-Income nvsq.sagepub.com

Volunteers

Jodi Benenson1 and Allison Stagg2

Abstract
Research demonstrates that volunteering provides many benefits for individuals
and communities. However, research has not adequately addressed the potential
significance of volunteering as a mechanism for low-income individuals to improve their
own lives and support their communities. To account for the benefits volunteering
could generate, research must shift from an emphasis on what low-income volunteers
lack to an approach that uncovers the strengths and wealth present among low-
income volunteers and their communities. The purpose of this article is to present
a theoretically informed asset-based framework for analyzing volunteerism research.
Through an examination of four nonfinancial assets—social capital, human capital,
cultural capital, and political capital—we illustrate how an asset-based approach
offers an opportunity to explore the ways low-income individuals could build and
leverage assets through volunteering. Implications for future research that frames
volunteering as an asset-building strategy are considered.

Keywords
volunteering, assets, asset-building, capital, low-income

Research demonstrates that volunteering provides many benefits at the individual and
community levels (Borgonovi, 2008; Wilson, 2000, 2012; Wilson & Musick, 1999).
Volunteering is positively related to health (Grimm, Spring, & Dietz, 2007; Thoits &
Hewitt, 2001), academic learning (Melchior, 1998), and coping with life events

1Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA

2Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, USA

Corresponding Author:
Jodi Benenson, Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service, Tufts University, Lincoln
Filene Hall, Medford, MA 02155, USA.
Email: Jodi.Benenson@tufts.edu
132S Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45(1S)

(Midlarsky, 1991). However, the benefits accrued from volunteering are not dis-
tributed equally; research identifies a persistent gap in volunteer participation by
income. Indeed, the likelihood of volunteering increases with income (Corporation
for National and Community Service [CNCS], 2011; Toppe, Kirsch, & Michel,
2002; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995), mirroring other “dominant status” social
and economic characteristics (D. H. Smith, 1994).
Despite the increasing evidence of the benefits accrued from voluntary participation,
the literature has not adequately addressed the potential benefits of volunteering for
low-income individuals. When low-income volunteers are predominantly characterized
by income deficits that deter volunteering, these approaches obfuscate other forces
undermining participation and overlook existing nonmonetary resources. As such,
research fails to recognize the ways that low-income volunteers could build and lever-
age a broad array of resources for individual and community well-being.
An asset-based approach moves beyond what low-income volunteers lack and
instead draws on the resources present within low-income volunteers and their
communities. Assets are typically viewed as stocks of wealth in households and
communities that sustain economic security and provide a foundation for upward
mobility, and also include a range of intangible and nonfinancial resources (Sherraden,
1991). Understanding the ways volunteering could serve as a mechanism for low-
income individuals to build and leverage assets can inform the significance of volun-
teering as a way for low-income individuals to improve their own lives and support
their communities.
This article contributes to the literature on low-income volunteers by presenting a
theoretically informed asset-based framework for examining volunteerism research.
First, we suggest that although existing scholarship provides important insights into
volunteering, we require new research approaches to advance our understanding of
volunteerism among lower income individuals. We next define assets and describe
asset-based policy approaches to poverty alleviation. Then, we apply the four nonfinan-
cial assets featured in our framework—social capital, human capital, cultural capital,
and political capital—to volunteering. Finally, conclusions address how the concept
of assets can be further developed to advance research on volunteerism among lower
income individuals.

Approaches to Volunteerism Research

In this section, we highlight two dominant approaches to volunteerism research based
on the definition and determinants of volunteer participation, and contrast these with
alternative perspectives. Based on this foundation, we then propose a theoretically
informed framework for examining the potential benefits accrued through volunteer-
ing while accounting for the multidimensional and contextual nature of volunteering
among lower income individuals.

Defining and Conceptualizing Volunteering

The term volunteer generally connotes unpaid service within the formal structure of a
nonprofit organization. Based on a review of common definitions of volunteering in
Benenson and Stagg 133S

the literature, Cnaan, Handy, and Wadsworth (1996) identify several shared character-
istics: Volunteering is an action that is undertaken by free will or choice, provides a
benefit to others, and involves lack of payment. While each of these elements is
nuanced and contextual, these themes are consistent in definitions of voluntary work
endorsed around the world (Dekker & Halman, 2003; Paine, Hill, & Rochester, 2010).
In addition, volunteerism research in the United States generally circumscribes partici-
pation according to a fourth characteristic: that voluntary work takes place in a formal
or organized context.
However, the last element of this four-pronged definition may discount volunteers
from low-income populations who volunteer informally. Informal volunteering is
broadly defined as engagement outside the context of a formal service organization
(Carson, 1999), and encompasses activities such as babysitting children of friends
(Toppe et al., 2002), attending public meetings, and working with neighbors to fix
community problems (CNCS & National Conference on Citizenship, 2010). Research
on the extent and impact of informal volunteering has received more attention out-
side of the United States (J. D. Smith, 2000; United Nations [UN] Volunteers, 2011;
Williams, 2008).
Limiting what “counts” as volunteering excludes the rich legacy of informal helping
and mutual aid that sustains well-being in many marginalized communities. Indeed,
research highlights voluntary acts that are not always recognized as volunteering,
including neighboring in rural and urban communities (Conley, 2005; Shrestha &
Cihlar, 2004), long-standing helping traditions in communities of color (Martin &
Martin, 1985; B. Smith, Shue, Vest, & Villarreal, 1999; Stack, 1974), and care work
(Fuller, Kershaw, & Pulkingham, 2008; Herd & Meyer, 2002). Sundeen, Raskoff, and
Garcia (2007) note that “rather than being misanthropic, these groups [accustomed to
informal care giving and mutual aid among relatives and friends] frequently engage in
informal ways that are not detected by survey instruments focusing on volunteering to
formal organizations” (p. 295). These themes that fall outside of the traditional definition
of volunteering may understate the contributions of individuals engaging in informal
helping. In sum, the term volunteering as traditionally applied in scholarly research is
limited in its ability to reflect the full dimensions of voluntary participation in diverse
communities.

Individual and Structural Determinants of Volunteering

In recent decades, a central task of social scientists has been to understand who engages
in volunteering and why (Clary, Snyder, & Stukas, 1996; Snyder, Clary, & Stukas,
2000). To understand volunteer behavior, a significant body of research has been
devoted to understanding the personality traits, motives, and values that predict volun-
teerism (Hodgkinson, 1995; Wilson, 2005). In fact, attitudinal variables were cited as
the most frequently investigated determinant of participation from 1975 to 1992 (D. H.
Smith, 1994).
Although person-centered factors provide insight into the determinants of volunteer-
ing, these attributes have limited applicability to structurally organized disparities in
volunteering. This is not to suggest that motives or attitudes do not play a meaningful
134S Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45(1S)

role in volunteerism behavior. Rather, an overemphasis on individual attributes with-

out considering the systemic barriers to and contextual supports for volunteerism may
underestimate the reality of participatory exclusion and implicitly suggest that individual-
level deficiencies explain differences across groups. Research that examines the struc-
ture and context of volunteering may reveal avenues to participation overlooked by
traditional, person-centered conceptualizations.
Structural approaches provide an alternative perspective on individual behavior as
situated within a broader context, demonstrating why low-income individuals may be
underrepresented in volunteerism research. Structural factors, for instance, determine
who is recruited or invited to participate in a volunteer opportunity. Receiving “the ask”
is the strongest indicator that a person will volunteer (Sundeen et al., 2007); while
approximately three fourths of volunteers participate because they were recruited, less
than one third of individuals who were not asked volunteered (CNCS, 2009; Musick &
Wilson, 2008). However, recruitment is not uniform across population groups (Hyman
& Levine, 2008; Toppe et al., 2002). Wealthy individuals (incomes above $75,000) are
three times more likely to be asked to volunteer than individuals with incomes below
$10,000 (Hodgkinson, 1995). Dominant status signals such as cars, clothes, or neigh-
borhoods might affect “recruitment due to ability signaling” (Musick & Wilson, 2008,
p. 127). Disparities in recruitment, as one aspect of the structure of volunteering, suggest
that access and opportunities for volunteering advantage some groups over others.
The community context in which volunteering takes place also mediates access
and opportunity for participation. Communities with more nonprofit organizations
have higher volunteer rates (CNCS, 2010), whereas disadvantaged neighborhoods
often have insufficient infrastructure and resources to create and maintain voluntary
associations, which results in fewer opportunities for formal participation (Musick &
Wilson, 2008; Stoll, 2001; Wilson, 2012). Living in higher poverty areas may also tax
volunteering because of the greater stressors on individuals and families (CNCS,
2010). An unequal distribution of opportunities between disadvantaged and advan-
taged neighborhoods could therefore have a disproportionate impact on volunteer
activities. In sum, a structural perspective considers not only who engages in volun-
teering and why, but also the extent to which disparities in access and opportunity
may systematically impede participation.

Toward an Asset-Based Framework

The dominant themes in volunteerism research reflect a formal definition of volunteer-
ing and emphasize individual over structural determinants of volunteering. However,
what remains largely absent from the literature is an approach that considers the ways
volunteerism research can draw on the wealth of low-income volunteers and their
communities. An analytical framework that incorporates the strengths and wealth
of low-income individuals and communities could move research beyond a deficit-
focused perspective on low-income volunteers and consider what volunteers can bring
to and gain from a volunteer experience. In this section, we briefly introduce asset-
based approaches to poverty alleviation, which demonstrate a promising opportunity
Benenson and Stagg 135S

to improve individual and community well-being. We suggest that a framework

grounded in an asset-based approach can contribute to our understanding of how
volunteering can more equitably provide benefits to low-income volunteers and
support an active and engaged citizenry.

What Are Assets?

Assets are typically viewed as stocks of wealth in a household, community, or other
unit that sustain economic security and provide a foundation for upward mobility
(Shapiro, Oliver, & Meschede, 2009; Sherraden, 1991). Assets can be acquired, accu-
mulated, and leveraged throughout the life course (Moser, 2007; Sherraden, 1991) and
serve as a mechanism for the transmission of socioeconomic status across generations
(Shapiro, 2004; Sherraden, 2001). Unlike income, which is largely spent on basic
consumption needs, assets are stocks of resources which people accumulate and hold
over time and that provide for future consumption (Ratcliffe et al., 2007). Assets
encompass all of the potential resources in the community, including financial
resources as well as people, connections, institutions, and land (Moser, 2007; Page-
Adams & Sherraden, 1997; Thomas & Shapiro, 2009). Although Sherraden’s (1991)
seminal analysis focuses primarily on tangible and financial assets, he also notes the
relevance of intangible and nonfinancial assets, including social, human, cultural, and
political forms of capital.1

Asset-Based Policy Approaches

Asset-building approaches to poverty reduction, spearheaded in the United States in the
1990s in welfare policy (Oliver & Shapiro, 1990; Sherraden, 1991, 2001) and com-
munity development (Ford Foundation, 2004; Green & Haines, 2012; Kretzmann &
McKnight, 1993), serve as a complement to traditional income-based social programs
(Gamble & Prabhakar, 2005).2 Asset-based approaches, which build on the capabilities,
strengths, and skills of lower income individuals and their neighborhood institutions,
share a common strengths-based emphasis with related human development frame-
works, including the capabilities approach (Nussbaum, 2011; Sen, 1999) and sustain-
able livelihoods framework (Hulme, Moore, & Shepherd, 2001; Rakodi, 1999).
Asset-based policies demonstrate a range of economic and social benefits. A primary
benefit includes financial self-sufficiency; assets cushion households in economic
emergencies and improve family economic development (Carroll, 1997). In addition,
as invested flows of capital, accumulated assets can become the basis for building and
transferring other assets. According to Sherraden’s (1991) explanation of the “welfare
effects” of assets, financial asset accumulation is hypothesized to generate other spill-
over benefits including promoting the development of other forms of capital. Research
confirms that financial assets generate additional personal, social, familial, and economic
benefits for long-term household well-being, particularly among economically vul-
nerable populations (Lerman & McKernan, 2008; Page-Adams & Sherraden, 1997,
2001; Scanlon & Page-Adams, 2001; Sherraden, 1991). Moreover, because assets may
136S Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45(1S)

be complementary and/or substitutable with one another, the dynamic process of asset
accumulation may involve the exchange or transfer of resources among various forms of
nonfinancial capital (Rakodi, 1999). Asset-based policy approaches thus acknowledge
the interplay of dynamic and context-specific diverse capital resources and present an
opportunity to explore the role of nonfinancial assets in the context of volunteering.

Assets and Volunteering

In recent years, discussions of human, social, and cultural capital have emerged in the
context of volunteering (Forbes & Zampelli, 2014; Greenspan, 2014; UN Volunteers,
2011; Wilson & Musick, 1997). Although previous scholarship examines these forms
of capital as determinants of volunteering, these capital types have not been sufficiently
extended into a conversation about the ways low-income individuals could build and
leverage assets through participation in volunteering. Indeed, although scholarship
demonstrates that lower income volunteers do in fact experience a variety of psycho-
logical, social, and economic benefits (Cohen, 2009; CNCS, 2008; Messias, De Jong,
& McLoughlin, 2005), research has yet to develop a framework that considers the ways
volunteering may serve as a mechanism for low-income individuals to improve their
own lives and support their communities. Conceptualizing volunteering through an
asset lens could shape policy development to meet the needs of and create opportunities
for low-income volunteers.
In this section, we illustrate the ways volunteerism could provide benefits to low-
income individuals and their communities through building and leveraging social,
human, cultural, and political capital. Our propositions about the application of these
capital types to volunteerism research represent an initial step toward developing a
multidimensional framework. We suggest that an asset-based framework offers an
opportunity for volunteerism researchers to analyze the ways low-income individuals
could build and leverage assets, as well as how building and leveraging assets may
benefit low-income volunteers.

Social Capital
Social capital in the context of the assets framework refers to the value of social rela-
tionships with others and the range of connections that people draw from in their
daily lives. Definitions of social capital initially appeared to encourage community
involvement (Hanifan, 1920), and contemporary scholars emphasize trust, norms of
reciprocity, networks, and participation in their definitions (Portes, 2000). Depending
on the theoretical approach, social capital may be the aggregate of the actual or potential
resources linked to a network of relationships (Bourdieu, 1986), particular features of
social structure and the benefits mediated by existing social features in communities
(Coleman, 1988), or stocks of capital in communities via networks, norms, and trust
(Putnam, 1993, 2000). Lin (2001) and Granovetter (1973) demonstrate the manifestation
of social capital through networks and the strength of network connections.
Benenson and Stagg 137S

Social capital considers the role volunteering can play in strengthening existing ties
and forming new ones. Granovetter (1973) finds that most people secure jobs through
acquaintances rather than close friends or family. Volunteering can serve as a prime
venue for low-income volunteers to access information about employment opportunities,
which may provide advantages in the labor market. Former AmeriCorps members
report that service introduced them to job connections and made them aware of job
opportunities (CNCS, 2008). Formal and informal organizations can also serve as sites
for building social capital (Isham, Kolodinsky, & Kimberly, 2006; Warren, Thompson,
& Saegert, 2001).
Low-income volunteers could leverage social capital assets in their communities to
strengthen ties with members of the same race/ethnicity, income, or other group (bond-
ing social capital) or connect with others across social and economic divisions (bridging
social capital; Brisson & Usher, 2005; Gittell & Vidal, 1998; Putnam, 2000). Bridging
social capital is often much harder for individuals to create as it requires people who may
not otherwise interact to come together regularly, a problem intensified in the United
States by widespread residential segregation along lines of race and socioeconomic
status (Shapiro, 2004). However, bridging ties can bring greater resources and opportu-
nities into poorer communities (Warren et al., 2001).
A final element of social capital is the idea that people invest in social relation-
ships with the expectation of some return (Lin, 2001). Forming trusting relationships
by volunteering in an organization, club, or religious congregation comes with the
expectation that one’s investment will be reciprocated (Putnam, 2000). According to
Moser (2007), people access valuable resources through their formal and informal
connections with others (e.g., serving as a tutor through an organization, doing a
favor for a neighbor), and norms of reciprocity arise when trust exists in these social
networks. Building trust and cooperation across communities via volunteering can
help low-income volunteers accrue social capital and help strengthen the social fabric
of society (Warren et al., 2001).

Human Capital
Human capital reflects the assets embodied in humans (Morgan & Duncan, 1982;
Schultz, 1971). Human capital encompasses skills, competencies, and knowledge that
facilitate personal, social, and economic well-being (Rosenbaum, 1986). The defini-
tion may also include health, energy, vision, hope, and imagination (Beeferman, 2002;
Forbes & Zampelli, 2012; Sherraden, 1991). Individuals begin acquiring human capital
at birth, and have the ability to invest in human capital over time through education,
training, and other types of work (Becker, 1964; Bryant, 1990; Mincer, 1974). Becker
(1993) argues that education and training are the most important investments in human
capital and can occur through formal education, family and child care settings, work-
place training, informal learning in employment, and civic participation. Importantly,
our conceptualization of human capital does not assert that lower income people lack
education, training, or job skills; rather, we recognize that population groups face
138S Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45(1S)

structural barriers to human capital development (Jennings, 2007), such as low-wage

employment or job availability, which may affect opportunities to accrue human
capital assets.
Volunteering serves as one venue for low-income individuals to develop and
leverage skills and knowledge (Long & Pask, 2005; Sagawa, Connolly, & Chao,
2008; Wilson, 2000). Nylund (1999) suggests that Associations for Unemployed
People (AUPs) can not only aid in moral support but also help with skill develop-
ment and enhance employability. Day and Devlin (1998) find that volunteering
increases individuals’ earnings, which suggests that the volunteer experience can
signal the presence of certain skills or abilities to future employers (Ziemek, 2006).
Considering occupational skills when integrating volunteers into an organization is
also important, and volunteers must be paired with specific opportunities that match
their interests, goals, and motivations (CNCS, 2008).
Combined with job search or other welfare-to-work activities, volunteering can
provide opportunities for learning specific work-related skills (Herr, Wagner, &
Halpern, 1996). Workplace-based volunteer opportunities can be expanded to include
hourly and low-wage workers, not just major corporations (Zaff, Youniss, & Gibson,
2009). In addition, stipends can provide incentives to volunteering for low-wage earn-
ers (McBride, Gonzales, Morrow-Howell, & McCrary, 2011). Education subsidies
could be offered in exchange for volunteering, modeling federally funded corps-based
service programs such as AmeriCorps (Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement
[PACE], 2010). National service also provides a unique opportunity to facilitate
pathways to careers in fields experiencing shortages by targeting grants for member
placements to organizations in under-staffed fields (Karasik, 2003). Because this evi-
dence suggests that volunteer experience may help individuals find jobs, the public,
private, and nonprofit sectors have a further incentive to encourage volunteer work,
perhaps through modifications of existing employment-related systems.

Cultural Capital
Cultural capital refers to assets in group-based consciousness, identity, history, and
tradition, which can be deployed for the development of one’s own capabilities and the
advancement of one’s group (Yosso, 2005; Yosso & Garcia, 2007). Traditionally, cul-
tural preferences and tastes have been examined relative to high-status social groups,
where cultural capital represents the acquisition and use of resources, lifestyles, and
values consistent with upper- and middle-class culture (Bourdieu, 1986; Sherraden,
1991). However, a broader interpretation of cultural capital recognizes the resources
and values acquired within the intimacy of homes and communities (Emery & Flora,
2006; Wilson & Musick, 1997; Yosso, 2005; Yosso & Garcia, 2007), rather than deval-
uing local communities relative to societally advantaged groups. Such “nondominant
cultural capital” signals group membership, fosters social inclusion and support
(Small, Harding, & Lamont, 2010), and reflects culturally based understandings of the
world and how to act within it (Emery & Flora, 2006). Cultural capital thus empha-
sizes the maintenance of productive cultural resources to challenge social inequality,
Benenson and Stagg 139S

while also rejecting the oppression of capabilities through the internalization of

relative cultural inferiority.
Low-income volunteers may bring a range of cultural knowledges, abilities, and
traditions to a volunteer experience. The concept of “community cultural wealth”
identifies a spectrum of often-unrecognized cultural resources possessed and utilized
in communities of color to resist oppression (Yosso, 2005; Yosso & Garcia, 2007).
Through kinship ties that connect individuals around communal bonds and cultural
memory, familial capital inspires beliefs about maintaining connection to one’s com-
munity and a commitment to its well-being (Yosso, 2005). In addition, aspirational
capital or “the capacity to aspire” (Appadurai, 2004) supplies strategies for maintain-
ing a culture of possibility, hope, and resiliency in the face of barriers, often through
family stories and advice about overcoming challenges. These and other cultural
resources serve as assets that can be mobilized through volunteer experiences. The
arts, historically significant landmarks, local celebrations and traditions, and the cre-
ative economy, all serve as prime cultural venues through which volunteerism may
build cultural capital (Green & Haines, 2012).
To adequately address the cultural capital assets of low-income populations, volunteer
opportunities should allow for cultural and contextual variation. Meaningful opportu-
nities for volunteerism are informed by and inclusive of the variety of expressions of
prosocial behavior and informal helping (Lukka & Ellis, 2001), and recognize the wide
variation that exists in the meanings ascribed to volunteering (Menon, McBride, &
Sherraden, 2003; UN Volunteers, 2011). Certain volunteer experiences may seem inad-
equate or irrelevant to the challenges of most concern to low-income communities, so
preferences for volunteering (as traditionally defined) may be weaker in these commu-
nities (Hyman & Levine, 2008). Contextually relevant volunteer opportunities, which
focus on grassroots-level needs for well-being based on local realities, are particularly
important for asset-building in marginalized communities (PACE, 2010). Local funds
of communal knowledge derived from cultural experiences and traditions serve as a
productive cultural asset that contributes to personal and social transformation (Yosso,
2005). Inviting potential volunteers and local institutions to be partners in identifying
needs and defining opportunities for volunteering supports sustainable community
impact (Points of Light Foundation, 2000; Sundeen et al., 2007).

Political Capital
Political capital emphasizes assets through participation, power, and influence in the
public sphere, which serve as resources for ensuring the responsiveness and account-
ability of the government and its representatives (Emery & Flora, 2006; Sherraden,
1991). Political capital serves as a “promotional asset” (Moser, 2007) or an asset for
“getting ahead,” a sustainable route for individuals and communities to move out of
poverty through political mobilization. To change and control their political circum-
stances, individuals engage material resources such as access to leaders, the opportunity
for a voice in the process, and political networks and memberships, as well as knowl-
edge, beliefs, and attitudes about the political system.
140S Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45(1S)

Political capital as an asset uniquely provides a route to equitable political repre-

sentation and the distribution of political resources, which supplements the work of
volunteers with material and symbolic political support for community well-being.
Political capital characterizes the state and its institutions not simply as an autono-
mous provider of resources and rules, but rather a collective political space for nego-
tiation and claims-making that is shaped by the voices participating in the discourse.
Unequal power relations among differentially endowed social groups in the political
sphere fundamentally affect the struggle for state recognition and resources (Ferguson,
Moser, & Norton, 2007). Because political choices ultimately constrain or enable the
life chances of various social groups, low-income volunteers who engage in political
negotiation about the inequitable distribution of public resources can substantively
affect life conditions in low-income communities (Moser, 2004). The political mobi-
lization of low-income volunteers and their advocates generates collective claims for
more equitable policy decisions, which in turn can motivate government institutions
to represent the needs of low-income families and communities. Community-based
organizations have historically played an important role in defending the rights of and
advancing the claims of disadvantaged groups. Volunteerism that generates and lever-
ages political capital among low-income populations may thus draw resources and
recognition from local power brokers to the community issues that these groups seek
to impact.
As a resource acquired through relationships and organizations, participation in
volunteering can support political capital accumulation (Baines & Hardill, 2008).
Importantly, the organizational context of volunteerism mediates its politically
mobilizing potential. The explicitly political nature of memberships and social ties
in voluntary associations—including dialogue about political issues and politically
oriented forms of participation—uniquely supports political mobilization and incor-
poration (Fuchs, Shapiro, & Minnite, 2001). Because economically and other disad-
vantaged groups tend to participate in nonpolitical organizations, however, these
participatory benefits accrue to the affluent and others who are already more likely
to exercise their political voice (Sobieraj & White, 2007). Volunteer opportunities
through nonprofit organizations with political in addition to social agendas may
build critical assets for low-income groups through links to the power structure.

Further Research Implications and Conclusions

Our perspective in favor of an asset-based framework emerges from the recognition
that most research on volunteering does not fully consider the ways low-income vol-
unteers could build and leverage assets to simultaneously improve their own lives and
support their communities. This oversight is particularly problematic given that existing
policies targeting lower income individuals are primarily deficit-based. While poverty
is generally addressed using income-based solutions focused on what the poor lack,
assets must also be considered when developing ways to improve opportunities for low-
income individuals. Recognizing the role of social, human, cultural, and political capital
in volunteering improves our understanding of the ways low-income individuals derive
Benenson and Stagg 141S

benefits from volunteer experiences. This article represents an initial step toward
developing a multidimensional framework; future examinations may also consider
other capital assets. We suggest two areas through which an asset-based framework
can be applied and further developed in volunteerism research.
First, future research that examines the timing, sequencing, clustering, and context-
specific effects of assets can inform our understanding of the way assets are effectively
accumulated and leveraged within volunteer experiences. Asset accumulation is a
dynamic and context-specific process (Elmelech, 2006; Moser, 2007). In practice,
asset types may interact with each other and operate synergistically as interconnected
clusters (Emery & Flora, 2006). The reciprocal effects of asset accumulation are also
hypothesized to flow both ways, such that relationships between assets and outcomes
(e.g., economic effects, social well-being, health) may simultaneously affect and inter-
act with each other (Lerman & McKernan, 2008). The codependency of various forms
of assets on one another further necessitates considering the sequence in which assets
are acquired and the timing of specific asset development strategies at different life
stages (Lerman & McKernan, 2008; Rank, 2008).
Because of the interconnectedness of asset types, a volunteer opportunity targeted
to building one asset in isolation may be misleading in terms of its potential effect on
the well-being of lower income individuals (Moser, 2007). Recent efforts at the federal
level to support active volunteering among the unemployed illustrate a multidimen-
sional approach, recognizing that volunteering can help expand opportunity for unem-
ployed individuals by helping to develop employment-related skills (human capital)
and expand professional networks (social capital; U.S. Department of Labor, 2012).
Future research can further explore which combinations of assets are most effectively
targeted for asset-building among low-income volunteers within varying contexts and
at different stages of the life course.
Second, an asset-based framework enables researchers to generate different kinds
of questions and hypotheses when considering low-income volunteers, which may
yield new policy-based findings. Whereas previous research has focused on the merits
and challenges of using national data sets to examine volunteering (Brudney & Gazley,
2006; Carson, 1999; Nesbit, 2010; Rooney, Steinberg, & Schervish, 2004; Toppe,
2005; Wilson, 2005), much of the recent dialogue on volunteerism measurement
addresses dependent variable issues (e.g., volunteerism prompts) more than the
strengths that are brought to bear on these outcomes. Robust data sets that measure
formal volunteer status alongside questions about informal volunteering and neighboring
(e.g., Independent Sector’s Survey of Giving & Volunteering) represent an important
step toward acknowledging the contributions of low-income volunteers. Nevertheless,
attempts to quantify the informal dimensions of helping behavior are still framed in
the context of volunteering and thus likely understate estimates.
In addition, future analyses of volunteering can explore available variables to
represent social, human, cultural, political, and other types of capital. Variations in
survey design and content can shape potential findings about the relationship between
assets and volunteering, so researchers should consider trade-offs in the strengths and
weaknesses that come with the decision to use a particular data set (Stagg & Benenson,
142S Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45(1S)

2012). We are concerned that many data sets employed by volunteerism researchers
lack robust indicators that capture the types of nonfinancial capital present in low-
income families and communities, which can have profound implications for the evi-
dence produced and thus our interpretation of volunteerism. Indicators must extend
beyond basic demographic information to capture the ways low-income volunteers
build and leverage various assets. The way we measure and model variables ultimately
affects the ways assets inform volunteering policies, such as whom policies benefit
and what supports are provided for volunteering. Approaching the study of volun-
teerism in this way yields not only new insights but also complexities, as nonfinancial
assets can be challenging to measure (Lerman & McKernan, 2008; Page-Adams &
Sherraden, 2001; Ratcliffe et al., 2007). In sum, robust conceptualization, measurement,
and operationalization of asset-based resources enables researchers to address new
questions that inform policy development to meet the needs of and create opportunities
for low-income volunteers.
Viewing volunteerism through an asset-based framework provides much-needed
insight into how low-income volunteers build and leverage assets to simultaneously
help themselves and support their communities. Volunteering is not currently framed
as an asset-building strategy, but theories of social, human, cultural, and political capital
inform the important role volunteering could play for low-income individuals, families,
and communities. This multidimensional conceptualization of volunteering that draws
on the strengths of volunteers is capable of recognizing, counting, and celebrating the
work that occurs in low-income communities. We suggest that applying an asset lens
to the study of volunteering is particularly important for marginalized communities,
which moves us beyond a reductionist view of what voluntary participation looks like
so that social policies can be shaped to meet the needs of and create opportunities for
low-income volunteers. Opportunities that invite low-income individuals into the
voluntary sector as recipients and participants could positively affect asset-building
and upward mobility.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank participants at the 2011 Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations
and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) annual conference in Toronto, Ontario, for their feedback
and encouragement to pursue this topic further. Earlier drafts of this manuscript also benefited
from helpful comments by members of Brandeis University’s Department of Sociology
pro-seminar workshop and the Heller School for Social Policy and Management’s Assets and
Inequalities doctoral seminar, as well as the useful suggestions of three anonymous Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly (NVSQ) reviewers. The authors also wish to acknowledge
colleagues at the Institute for Assets and Social Policy at Brandeis University for their generous
support over the course of this project.

Authors’ Note
An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2011 Association for Research on
Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) annual conference in Toronto,
Ontario.
Benenson and Stagg 143S

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Notes
1. The five major capital assets of “the poor” are typically defined as financial, physical,
natural, human, and social capital (Beeferman, 2002; Moser, 2007). In fields such as com-
munity development, physical and environmental capital are considered alongside human,
social, cultural, political, and financial capital to comprise a set of seven assets (Green &
Haines, 2012). In other literatures, scholars have considered assets such as psychological
(Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004), productive (Moser, 2007), navigational, linguistic,
and resistant (Yosso, 2005), among others. Multidimensional frameworks addressing the
role of such diverse capital resources offer an important avenue for advancing scholarship
on low-income individuals (see Emery & Flora, 2006; Hulme & McKay, 2005; Hulme,
Moore, & Shepherd, 2001; Yosso, 2005; Yosso & Garcia, 2007).
2. Individual Development Account (IDA) programs encourage savings among low-income
families through matched savings accounts that support asset ownership (Boshara, 2003;
Boshara, Cramer, & Sherraden, 2007; Sherraden, 1991, 2009). Asset-based community
development (ABCD) encourages policies that are based on the capabilities of lower
income individuals and their neighborhood institutions (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993).
Participatory approaches to asset-based policy, which use ground-up strategies to analyze
asset accumulation programs, are prevalent internationally (Moser, 2007).

References
Appadurai, A. (2004). The capacity to aspire: Culture and the terms of recognition. In
R. Vijayendra & M. Walton (Eds.), Culture and public action (pp. 59-84). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Baines, S., & Hardill, I. (2008). “At least I can do something”: The work of volunteering in a
community beset by worklessness. Social Policy and Society, 7, 307-317.
Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital. New York, NY: Bureau of Economic Research.
Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special refer-
ence to education (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Beeferman, L. W. (2002). The asset index: Assessing the progress of states in promoting
economic security and opportunity. Waltham, MA: The Heller School for Social Policy and
Management, Brandeis University.
Borgonovi, F. (2008). Doing well by doing good: The relationship between formal volunteering
and self-reported health and happiness. Social Science & Medicine, 66, 2321-2334.
Boshara, R. (2003). Federal policy and asset building (Working Paper No. 03-03). St. Louis,
MO: Center for Social Development, Washington University.
Boshara, R., Cramer, R., & Sherraden, M. (2007). The politics of aspirations: Creating inclusive
asset-based policies in the U.S. In J. Robson & P. Nares (Eds.), Wealth and well-being: New
144S Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45(1S)

directions for social policy in Canada (pp. 1-18). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Social and
Enterprise Development Innovations.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood.
Brisson, D. S., & Usher, C. L. (2005). Bonding social capital in low income neighborhoods.
Family Relations, 54, 644-653.
Brudney, J. L., & Gazley, B. (2006). Moving ahead or falling behind? Volunteer promotion and
data collection. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 16, 259-276.
Bryant, W. K. (1990). The economic organization of the household. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Carroll, C. D. (1997). Buffer-stock saving and the life cycle/permanent income hypothesis.
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12, 1-55.
Carson, E. D. (1999). On defining and measuring volunteering in the United States and abroad.
Law and Contemporary Problems, 62(4), 67-71.
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. (1996). Volunteers’ motivations: Findings from a
national survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 485-505.
Cnaan, R. A., Handy, F., & Wadsworth, M. (1996). Defining who is a volunteer: Conceptual
and empirical considerations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 364-383.
Cohen, A. (2009). Welfare clients’ volunteering as a means of empowerment. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 522-534.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Conley, M. (2005). Connecting rural communities: Volunteering and neighboring. Washington,
DC: Points of Light Foundation.
Corporation for National and Community Service. (2008). Still serving: Measuring the eight-
year impact of AmeriCorps on alumni. Washington, DC: Author.
Corporation for National and Community Service. (2009). Pathways to service: Learning from
the potential volunteer’s perspective. Washington, DC: Author.
Corporation for National and Community Service. (2010). Volunteering in America 2010:
National, state, and city information. Washington, DC: Author.
Corporation for National and Community Service. (2011). Civic life in America: Key findings
on the civic health of the nation (Fact Sheet). Washington, DC: Author.
Corporation for National and Community Service & National Conference on Citizenship.
(2010). Civic life in America: Key findings on the civic health of the nation (Issue brief).
Washington, DC: Author.
Day, K. M., & Devlin, R. A. (1998). The payoff to work without pay: Volunteer work as an
investment in human capital. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 31, 1179-1191.
Dekker, P., & Halman, L. (Eds.). (2003). The values of volunteering: Cross-cultural perspec-
tives. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
Elmelech, Y. (2006). Determinants of intragroup wealth inequality among Whites, Blacks, and
Latinos. In J. Nembhard & N. Chitejl (Eds.), Wealth accumulation and communities of
color in the United States: Current issues (pp. 91-111). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Emery, M., & Flora, C. (2006). Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with com-
munity capitals framework. Community Development, 37(1), 19-35.
Ferguson, C., Moser, C., & Norton, A. (2007). Claiming rights: Citizenship and the politics of
asset distribution. In C. Moser (Ed.), Reducing global poverty (pp. 273-288). Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Benenson and Stagg 145S

Forbes, K. F., & Zampelli, E. M. (2014). Volunteerism: The influences of social, religious, and
human capital. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(2), 227-253.
Ford Foundation. (2004). Building assets to reduce poverty and injustice. New York, NY:
Author.
Fuchs, E. R., Shapiro, R. Y., & Minnite, L. C. (2001). Social capital, political participation, and
the urban community. In S. Saegert, J. P. Thompson, & M. R. Warren (Eds.), Social capital
and poor communities (pp. 290-324). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Fuller, S., Kershaw, P., & Pulkingham, J. (2008). Constructing “active citizenship”: Single
mothers, welfare, and the logics of voluntarism. Citizenship Studies, 12, 157-176.
Gamble, A., & Prabhakar, R. (2005). Assets and poverty. Theoria, 52(107), 1-18.
Gittell, R., & Vidal, A. C. (1998). Community organizing: Building social capital as a develop-
ment strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,
1360-1380.
Green, G. P., & Haines, A. (2012). Asset-building & community development. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Greenspan, I. (2014). How can Bourdieu’s theory of capital benefit the understanding of advo-
cacy NGOs? Theoretical framework and empirical illustration. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 43, 99-120.
Grimm, R., Spring, K., & Dietz, N. (2007). The health benefits of volunteering: A review of
recent research. Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service.
Hanifan, L. J. (1920). The community center. Boston, MA: Silver Burdett.
Herd, P., & Meyer, M. H. (2002). Care work: Invisible civic engagement. Gender & Society,
16, 665-688.
Herr, T., Wagner, S., & Halpern, R. (1996). Making the shoe fit: Creating a work-prep
system for a large and diverse welfare population. Chicago, IL: Project Match, Erikson
Institute.
Hodgkinson, V. A. (1995). Key factors influencing care, involvement, and community. In P.
Schervish, V. A. Hodgkinson, & M. Gates (Eds.), Care and community in modern society:
Passing on the tradition of service to future generations (pp. 21-50). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Hulme, D., & McKay, A. (2005). Identifying and measuring chronic poverty: Beyond monetary
measures (Working Paper No. 30). Manchester, UK: Chronic Poverty Research Centre.
Hulme, D., Moore, K., & Shepherd, A. (2001, November). Chronic poverty: Meanings and
analytical frameworks (Working Paper No. 2). Manchester, UK: Chronic Poverty Research
Centre.
Hyman, J. B., & Levine, P. (2008, December). Civic engagement and the disadvantaged:
Challenges, opportunities, and recommendations (Working Paper No. 63). Medford, MA:
The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Isham, J., Kolodinsky, J., & Kimberly, G. (2006). Effects of volunteering for nonprofit orga-
nizations on social capital formation: Evidence from a statewide survey. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 367-383.
Jennings, J. (2007). Social capital, race, and the future of inner city neighborhoods. In
J. Jennings (Ed.), Race, neighborhoods, and the misuse of social capital (pp. 87-108).
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Karasik, J. (2003). National and community service: Ten years of national service. In
Innovations in Civic Participation (Ed.), The impact of national service on critical social
issues (pp. 80-96). Washington, DC: Innovations in Civic Participation.
146S Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45(1S)

Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path
toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Chicago, IL: ACTA Publications.
Lerman, R., & McKernan, S. M. (2008). Benefits and consequences of holding assets.
In S. M. McKernan & M. Sherraden (Eds.), Asset building and low-income families
(pp. 175-206). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Long, A., & Pask, A. (2005). What motivates low-income volunteers? A report on low-income
volunteers in Vancouver and Prince George, British Columbia. Toronto, Ontario: Imagine
Canada, Knowledge Development Centre.
Lukka, P., & Ellis, A. (2001). An exclusive construct? Exploring different cultural concepts of
volunteering. Voluntary Action, 3(3), 87-110.
Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond
human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47(1), 45-50.
Martin, J. M., & Martin, E. P. (1985). The helping tradition in the black family and community.
Washington, DC: National Association of Social Workers.
McBride, A. M., Gonzales, E., Morrow-Howell, N., & McCrary, S. (2011). Stipends in vol-
unteer civic service: Inclusion, retention, and volunteer benefits. Public Administration
Review, 71, 850-858.
Melchior, A. (1998). National evaluation of Learn and Serve America. Waltham, MA: Center
for Human Resources, Brandeis University.
Menon, N., McBride, A., & Sherraden, M. (2003). Understanding “service”: Words in the con-
text of history and culture. In H. Perold, S. Stroud, & M. Sherraden (Eds.), Service enquiry:
Service in the 21st century (Vol. 1, pp. 149-156). Johannesburg: Global Service Institute
and Volunteer and Service Enquiry Southern Africa.
Messias, D. K. H., De Jong, M. K., & McLoughlin, K. (2005). Being involved and making a dif-
ference: Empowerment and well-being among women living in poverty. Journal of Holistic
Nursing, 23, 70-88.
Midlarsky, E. (1991). Helping as coping. In M. C. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social
psychology (pp. 238-264). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Mincer, J. (1974). Schooling, experience, and earnings. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Morgan, J. N., & Duncan, G. J. (1982). Making your choices count: Economic principles for
everyday decisions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Moser, C. (2004). Rights, power and poverty reduction. In R. Alsop (Ed.), Power, rights and
poverty: Concepts and connections (pp. 29-50). Washington, DC: World Bank.
C. Moser (Ed.). (2007). Reducing global poverty: The case for asset accumulation. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Nesbit, R. (2010). A comparison of volunteering data in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics
and the Current Population Survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 753-761.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Nylund, M. (1999). Action and togetherness: Volunteers in associations of unemployed people.
Voluntary Action, 1(4), 51-64.
Oliver, M., & Shapiro, T. (1990). Wealth of a nation: A reassessment of asset inequality in
America shows at least one third of households are asset-poor. American Journal of
Economics and Sociology, 49, 129-151.
Benenson and Stagg 147S

Page-Adams, D., & Sherraden, M. (1997). Asset building as a community revitalization strategy.
Social Work, 42, 423-434.
Page-Adams, D., & Sherraden, M. (2001). Assets, health, and well-being: Neighborhoods,
children, families, and youth (Research Background Paper 01–9). St. Louis, MO: Center
for Social Development, Washington University.
Paine, A. E., Hill, M., & Rochester, C. (2010). “A rose by any other name.” Revisiting the
question: “What exactly is volunteering?” (Working Paper No. 1). London, England:
Institute for Volunteering Research.
Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement. (2010). Civic pathways out of poverty and into
opportunity. Denver, CO: Author.
Points of Light Foundation. (2000). A matter of survival: Volunteering by, in, and with low-
income communities. Washington, DC: Author.
Portes, A. (2000). The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15, 1-12.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New
York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Rakodi, C. (1999). A capital assets framework for analyzing household livelihood strategies:
Implications for policy. Development Policy Review, 17, 315-342.
Rank, M. R. (2008). Asset building across the life course. In S. McKernan & M. Sherraden
(Eds.), Asset building and low-income families (pp. 67-87). Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute Press.
Ratcliffe, C., Chen, H., Shanks, T. R. W., Nam, Y., Schreiner, M., Zhan, M., & Sherraden, M.
(2007). Assessing asset data on low-income households: Current availability and options
for improvement. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Rooney, P., Steinberg, K., & Schervish, P. G. (2004). Methodology is destiny: The effect of
survey prompts on reported levels of giving and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 33, 628-654.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1986). Institutional career structures and the social construction of ability.
In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education
(pp. 139-171). New York, NY: Greenwood.
Sagawa, S., Connolly, A., & Chao, T. (2008). Leaders for every sector: National service
as a strategy for leadership and workforce development. Washington, DC: Center for
American Progress.
Scanlon, E., & Page-Adams, D. (2001). Effects of asset holding on neighborhoods, families,
and children: A review of research. In R. Boshara (Ed.), Building assets: A report on
the asset-development and IDA (pp. 25-50). Washington, DC: Corporation for Enterprise
Development.
Schultz, T. W. (1971). Investment in human capital: The role of education and of research. New
York, NY: The Free Press.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York, NY: Random House.
Shapiro, T. M. (2004). The hidden cost of being African American: How wealth perpetuates
inequality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Shapiro, T. M., Oliver, M. L., & Meschede, T. (2009). The asset security and opportunity index
(Research and Policy Brief). Waltham, MA: Institute on Assets and Social Policy, Brandeis
University.
Sherraden, M. (1991). Assets and the poor: A new American welfare policy. Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
148S Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 45(1S)

Sherraden, M. (2001). Asset-building policy and programs for the poor. In T. M. Shapiro &
E. N. Wolff (Eds.), Assets for the poor: The benefits of spreading asset ownership
(pp. 302-356). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Sherraden, M. (2009). Individual development accounts and asset-building policy: Lessons and
directions. In R. M. Blank & M. Barr (Eds.), Insufficient funds: Savings, assets, credit, and
banking among low-income households (pp. 191-217). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Shrestha, B., & Cihlar, C. (2004). Volunteering in under-resourced rural communities.
Washington, DC: Points of Light Foundation.
Small, M. L., Harding, D. J., & Lamont, M. (2010). Reconsidering culture and poverty.
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 629, 6-27.
Smith, B., Shue, S., Vest, J. L., & Villarreal, J. (1999). Philanthropy in communities of color.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Smith, D. H. (1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volunteering:
A literature review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23, 243-263.
Smith, J. D. (2000). Volunteering and social development. Voluntary Action, 3(1), 9-24.
Snyder, M., Clary, E. G., & Stukas, A. A. (2000). The functional approach to volunteerism.
In G. R. Maio & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 365-394).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sobieraj, S., & White, D. (2007). Could civic engagement reproduce political inequality?
In S. Ostrander & K. E. Portney (Eds.), Acting civically: From urban neighborhoods to
higher education (pp. 92-110). Lebanon, NH: Tufts University Press.
Stack, C. (1974). All our kin: Strategies for survival in a Black community. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Stagg, A., & Benenson, J. (2012, November). Measuring intangible assets: Implications for
volunteering. Paper presented at the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations
and Voluntary Action, Indianapolis, IN.
Stoll, M. A. (2001). Race, neighborhood poverty, and participation in voluntary associations.
Sociological Forum, 16, 529-557.
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.
Thoits, P. A., & Hewitt, L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 42, 115-131.
Thomas, H., & Shapiro, T. (2009). Assets and community. In R. Clay Jr. & S. R. Jones (Eds.),
Building healthy communities: A guide to community economic development for advocates,
lawyers, and policymakers (pp. 303-322). Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
Toppe, C. M. (2005, December). Measuring volunteering: A behavioral approach (Working
Paper No. 43). College Park, MD: The Center for Information and Research on Civic
Learning and Engagement.
Toppe, C. M., Kirsch, A. D., & Michel, J. (2002). Giving and volunteering in the United States:
Findings from a national survey. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.
United Nations Volunteers. (2011). State of the world’s volunteerism report: Universal values
for global well-being. Bonn, Germany: Author.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2012). Payment of unemployment compensation to individuals who
are volunteers (Advisory: Unemployment insurance program letter No. 16-12). Retrieved
from http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/UIPL/uipl_16_12_acc.pdf
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in
American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Benenson and Stagg 149S

Warren, M. R., Thompson, J. P., & Saegert, S. (2001). The role of social capital in combating
poverty. In S. Saegert, J. P. Thompson, & M. R. Warren (Eds.), Social capital and poor
communities (pp. 1-28). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Williams, C. C. (2008). Developing a culture of volunteering: Beyond the third sector approach.
Journal of Voluntary Sector Research, 1(1), 25-43.
Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215-240.
Wilson, J. (2005). Some things social surveys don’t tell us about volunteering. In A. M. Omoto
(Ed.), Processes of community change and social action (pp. 11-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Wilson, J. (2012). Volunteerism research: A review essay. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 41, 176-212.
Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work.
American Sociological Review, 62, 694-713.
Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1999). The effects of volunteering on the volunteer. Law and
Contemporary Problems, 62(4), 141-168.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8, 69-91.
Yosso, T. J., & Garcia, D. G. (2007). “This is no slum!” A critical race theory analysis of com-
munity cultural wealth in Culture Clash’s Chavez Ravine. Aztlán: A Journal of Chicano
Studies, 32(1), 145-179.
Zaff, J. F., Youniss, J., & Gibson, C. M. (2009). An inequitable invitation to citizenship:
Non-college-bound youth and civic engagement. Washington, DC: Philanthropy for Active
Civic Engagement.
Ziemek, S. (2006). Economic analysis of volunteers’ motivations: A cross-country study.
Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 532-555.

Author Biographies
Jodi Benenson is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship
and Public Service at Tufts University. Her research interests include civic engagement, non-
profit organizations, inequality, and social policy.
Allison Stagg is a doctoral student pursuing a joint PhD in social policy and sociology at
Brandeis University. Her research interests include youth civic engagement, political inequality,
and neighborhood opportunity.