Abstract
Extensive research has examined how family status, composition and dynamics affect volunteering, but not how family members volunteer as a group. This research note explores family volunteering – two or more members of a family volunteering together. Using diary data from the United Kingdom Time Use Survey, it examines some essential facts about family volunteering – the extent and patterns of family volunteering, and how family volunteers differ from individuals who volunteer but not together with members of their family and from non-volunteers. The results suggest that family volunteering constitutes a substantive proportion of formal volunteering and nearly half of family volunteers are two adult partners. The findings also indicate that while family volunteering shares some predictors of volunteering with formal volunteering without one’s family members, it is also a sufficiently different volunteering phenomenon that warrants further theoretical explanation and empirical investigation.
Introduction
Many studies indicate that household composition, marital status and parental status can influence whether an individual volunteers or not (Wilson, 2012). However, family volunteering – broadly defined as two or more of the same family volunteering together – remains an under-researched volunteering type. Very little is known about how and why individuals volunteer together with other family members, who is more or less likely to do it and what their experiences are. Yet, this knowledge is essential – potential volunteers in Canada, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) think that there are insufficient volunteering opportunities for families, especially for those with children (Hegel and McKenchnie, 2003; Evergreen, 2006; Haski-Leventhal et al, 2016; Jochum, 2019). This research note addresses this gap and advocates for developing the family volunteering research debate. It demonstrates that family volunteering constitutes a significant proportion of formal volunteering and that family volunteers are sufficiently different from other formal volunteers who are not involved in family volunteering. Therefore, family volunteering, an empirically and theoretically underexplored and under-explained, yet interesting and important, aspect of volunteering, deserves further exploration.
The next section identifies the gap in current knowledge. It is followed by a description and justification of the methodology used in this study. The results section presents the findings, which are discussed in the final section of this research note.
Family volunteering research so far
Volunteering is not an exclusively individual activity – some family members might volunteer not only on their own but also together with other family members. As Stuart (2019), in her review of 232 academic and practice papers, has pointed out, previous research has mostly explored how family status and composition influence individual volunteering rather than family members volunteering together. Family volunteering has been examined in some small-scale family volunteering programme evaluations and surveys, and case studies (Littlepage et al, 2003; Reilly and Vesic, 2010; Bird, 2011; Germann Molz, 2016), mostly conducted in Canada and the US, and a multi-method and multi-case study by Ellis Paine et al (2020) has examined how families get involved with voluntary organisations and how these organisations involve families in the UK. Thus, very scarce statistical data are available on the extent, patterns and correlates of family volunteering. It is possible that the relative scarcity of research on family volunteering can be explained by the implicit assumption that family volunteering is relatively rare and/or is not significantly different from other formal volunteering and thus does not require a separate theoretical and empirical investigation. This research note tests this assumption and addresses the following research questions:
What is the extent of family volunteering in the UK?
How do family members engage in volunteering together?
How do family volunteers differ from individuals who volunteer but not with their family members and from non-volunteers?
The research note focuses in particular on differences in household predictors of family and formal volunteering, such as the presence of children of different ages, as families can provide the motivation and resources for family volunteering as well as present barriers to it (Ellis Paine et al, 2020). It also explores the differences in well-established individual-level predictors of volunteering such as gender, age, education, employment, marital status and health status (Wilson, 2012).
Methods
Data
This study analyses data from the United Kingdom Time Use Survey (UKTUS) 2014–15 (Gershuny and Sullivan, 2017) – a large-scale, nationally representative household survey of the time use of people aged eight years and older.1 It measures who is present when an individual is engaged in an activity, such as volunteering.
Sample and sampling strategy
The UKTUS used a multi-stage stratified probability sampling strategy (see details in NatCen, 2016). The response rate was 40.4 per cent for households and 32.8 per cent for time diaries (NatCen, 2016). This study used a sample of 4,216 households and 8,274 individuals who had completed household and individual interviews and at least one diary day. Household and individual weights (Centre for Time Use Research, 2016) were applied.
Measurements
Dependent variables
Volunteering status: family volunteer, other formal volunteer and non-volunteer. Formal volunteering in the UKTUS was defined as ‘working as a volunteer free of charge or for a minor fee’ for or through an organisation (NatCen, 2016: 128). For examples of specific activities, see NatCen (2016: 128–33).
Individuals who had at least one formal volunteering episode involving the presence of another household member were classified as ‘family volunteers’.2 ‘Other formal volunteers’ were individuals who engaged only in formal volunteering that did not involve the presence of another household member. Individuals with no formal volunteering episodes were classified as ‘non-volunteers’.
All households where nobody had a volunteering episode were coded as ‘non-volunteering households’; all households with only formal volunteering episodes were coded as ‘other formal volunteering households’; and all households with at least one family volunteering episode were coded as ‘family volunteering households’.
Family volunteering patterns. Pre-set UKTUS co-presence categories were used to identify the following patterns of family volunteering: family volunteering with (1) a spouse/partner (that is, two partners volunteering together); (2) with a mother; (3) with a father; (4) with a child aged 0–7 years old; (5) with another person from the same household (including a child aged eight or older) – each coded as 0 = ‘no’; 1 = ‘yes’.
Predictor variables
Household-level variables
The number of adults in the household: 1 = ‘one’; 2 = ‘two’; 3 = ‘three or more’.
The presence of children/young people in the household in age groups 0–4, 5–10, 11–15 and 16–19 (corresponding to the key stages in the UK education system): 0 = ‘no children of this age in the household’; 1 = ‘at least one child/young person of this age in the household’.
Three types of household income – income from wages and/or self-employment, benefits and investments – were coded as dummy variables: 0 = ‘no income from this source’; 1 = ‘income from this source’.
The total household monthly income before tax – measured in hundreds of British pounds (£).
Individual-level variables
All sample members
Age: 0 = ‘under 16’; 1 = ‘16–25’; 2 = ‘26–45’; 3 = ‘46–59’; 4 = ‘60+’. All participants aged under 16 were coded as children.
Gender: 0 = ‘male’; 1 = ‘female’.
Adults
Education: 0 = ‘no university degree’; 1 = ‘university degree or higher’.
Self-reported general health status: 0 = ‘bad/very bad’; 1 = ‘fair’; 2 = ‘good/very good’.
Economic activity (the International Labour Organization classification): 0 = ‘economically inactive’; 1 = ‘unemployed’; 2 = ‘in employment’.
Marital status: 1 = ‘single, never married’; 2 = ‘married/cohabitating’; 3 = ‘divorced/widowed’.
Multivariate data analysis methods
For multivariate analyses on the adult sample, this study used multi-level mixed-effects random intercept logistic regression models for the dichotomous dependent variables (Robson and Pevalin, 2015), including the individual- and household-level predictor variables mentioned earlier.
Results
The extent of family volunteering in the UK
Family (household) level
On a hypothetical average day in 2014/2015, in 9 per cent (n = 387 or 2.4 million households) of all UK households, at least one household member engaged in formal volunteering. In around 3 per cent (n = 132 or 810,000 households based on estimates using population statistics for 2015; ONS, 2015) of all households in the UK, two or more family members volunteered formally as a family – that equates to approximately a third of all formal volunteering at the household level.
Individual level
At the individual level, approximately 5 per cent (n = 453) of individuals reported formal volunteering on an average day. Around 40 per cent of them (2 per cent of the sample, n = 172) were involved in family volunteering.
Children (aged under of 16) were slightly less likely than adults to engage in other formal volunteering but equally as likely to volunteer as a family – 2 per cent (n = 30) / 3 per cent (n = 248) and 2 per cent (n = 28) / 2 per cent (n = 144), respectively.
Family volunteering patterns
If we look at all possible combinations of family members, nearly half (49 per cent) of family volunteering episodes involved two adult partners volunteering together. Nearly seven out of 10 couples who volunteered together were older adults aged 60 or older. The second most common combination of family volunteering was a parent volunteering with at least one child under the age of 16. This was reported by nearly a quarter (23 per cent) of adult family volunteers. Two parents volunteering with at least one child under the age of 16 was the third most common family volunteering type (19 per cent).
A comparison between family volunteers, other formal volunteers and non-volunteers
As can be seen in Table 1, there were statistically significant bivariate relationships between nearly all predictor variables and volunteering status. Family volunteering was significantly more common among individuals living in two-adult households with children aged between 0 and 15, and with the household income coming from wages/self-employment or investments. Family volunteers were significantly more likely to be children under the age of 16 and adults aged 60 or older, economically inactive, employed/self-employed and married/cohabiting.
Bivariate relationships between household- and individual-level characteristics and volunteering status
| Predictor variables | Volunteering status | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Family volunteers (%) |
Other formal volunteers (%) |
Non-volunteers (%) |
p value | ||
| Household-level characteristics | ||||||
| Number of adults in household | ||||||
| 1 | 1,491 | 0.4 | 5 | 94 | ***A | |
| 2 | 4,560 | 3 | 3 | 94 | ||
| 3+ | 2,200 | 1 | 2 | 96 | ||
| Presence of children in household | ||||||
| Aged 4 or younger | No | 7,081 | 2 | 3 | 95 | **A |
| Yes | 1,170 | 3 | 2 | 96 | ||
| Aged 5–10 | No | 6,621 | 2 | 3 | 95 | ***A |
| Yes | 1,630 | 3 | 2 | 95 | ||
| Aged 11–15 | No | 6,536 | 2 | 3 | 94 | ***A |
| Yes | 1,715 | 3 | 2 | 95 | ||
| Presence of young people aged 16–19 in household | ||||||
| No | 6,887 | 3 | 3 | 95 | A | |
| Yes | 1,364 | 2 | 3 | 96 | ||
| Source of household income | ||||||
| Wages/self-employment | No | 2,160 | 2 | 5 | 93 | ***A |
| Yes | 6,087 | 3 | 3 | 97 | ||
| Pension | No | 5,492 | 2 | 2 | 96 | ***A |
| Yes | 2,751 | 2 | 5 | 93 | ||
| Benefits | No | 4,663 | 2 | 4 | 94 | *A |
| Yes | 3,575 | 2 | 2 | 96 | ||
| Investments | No | 6,147 | 2 | 3 | 96 | ***A |
| Yes | 2,088 | 3 | 6 | 91 | ||
| Gross monthly household income (£) | 3,292 | M = 3,339, SD = 676 | M = 2,674; SD = 407 | M = 3,904; B SD = 678 |
||
| Individual-level characteristics | ||||||
| Age | ||||||
| Under 16 | 909 | 3 | 2 | 95 | ***A | |
| 16–25 | 964 | 1 | 3 | 96 | ||
| 26–45 | 2,347 | 2 | 2 | 97 | ||
| 46–59 | 1,781 | 1 | 3 | 95 | ||
| 60+ | 2,250 | 3 | 5 | 92 | ||
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 3,821 | 2 | 3 | 96 | ** | |
| Female | 4,430 | 2 | 4 | 94 | ||
| Education | ||||||
| No degree | 6,224 | 2 | 3 | 95 | A | |
| Degree | 1,855 | 2 | 4 | 94 | ||
| Health status | ||||||
| Bad/very bad | 486 | 1 | 2 | 96 | A | |
| Fair | 1,366 | 2 | 3 | 95 | ||
| Good/very good | 6,398 | 2 | 3 | 95 | ||
| Economic activity | ||||||
| Economically inactive | 2,854 | 2 | 5 | 93 | ***A | |
| Unemployed | 231 | 1 | 7 | 92 | ||
| In employment/self-employment | 4,232 | 2 | 2 | 96 | ||
| Marital status | ||||||
| Single, never married | 1,622 | 1 | 3 | 97 | ***A | |
| Married/cohabiting | 4,570 | 3 | 3 | 95 | ||
| Divorced/widowed | 1,148 | 1 | 6 | 94 | ||
Notes: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. A = Chi-square test for independence; B = one-way between-groups ANOVA test.
Formal volunteering other than family volunteering was significantly more common among individuals living in single-person households, with no children of any age, with the household income coming from a pension and/or investments but not from employment/self-employment or benefits. Formal volunteers were also most likely to be female, aged 60 or older, unemployed or economically inactive, single, divorced or widowed.
Table 2 examines the differences between family and other formal volunteers, and non-volunteers, while controlling for their household and individual characteristics. As can be seen in model 1, there were some significant differences between family volunteers and individuals engaged in other formal volunteering activities on their own. These differences were at the household, not the individual, level. People who had children aged four or younger or children aged 11–15 were more likely to be family than other formal volunteers. Other differences between family and other formal volunteers were not statistically significant.
Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression estimates
| Volunteering status | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
| Family versus other formal volunteers Coefficient (SE) | Family volunteers versus non-volunteers Coefficient (SE) | Other formal volunteers versus non-volunteers Coefficient(SE) | |
| Household characteristics | |||
| Number of adults in household (one) | |||
| Two | 1.35 (1.00) | 0.93 (0.64) | –0.49 (0.30) |
| Three or more | 0.79 (1.26) | 0.54 (0.81) | –0.61 (0.38) |
| Children aged 0–4 (yes) | 2.11* (0.96) | 0.53 (0.44) | –0.50 (0.37) |
| Children aged 5–10 (yes) | 0.92 (0.79) | 0.62 (0.39) | –0.13 (0.34) |
| Children aged 11–15 (yes) | 2.95*** (0.86) | 1.42*** (0.39) | –0.37 (0.31) |
| Young people (aged 16–19) (yes) | –0.32 (0.93) | 0.25 (0.56) | 0.27 (0.34) |
| Sources of household income | |||
| Wages/self-employment (yes) | –1.48 (0.80) | –0.44 (0.48) | 0.34 (0.26) |
| Benefits (yes) | –0.24 (0.59) | 0.0074 (0.36) | 0.012 (0.22) |
| Pension (yes) | 0.25 (0.89) | –0.071 (0.43) | 0.18 (0.27) |
| Investments (yes) | –0.96 (0.57) | 0.37 (0.34) | 0.68*** (0.17) |
| Monthly household income in £100s | 0.003 (0.005) | –0.001 (0.002) | –0.0006 (0.001) |
| Individual characteristics | |||
| Female (male) | –0.12 (0.39) | 0.45* (0.22) | 0.43** (0.16) |
| Age (60+) | |||
| 16–25 | –0.14 (1.35) | –1.05 (0.71) | –0.14 (0.47) |
| 26–45 | –1.10 (1.17) | –1.58** (0.58) | –0.56 (0.35) |
| 46–59 | –1.14 (1.01) | –1.65** (0.57) | 0.055 (0.29) |
| Degree or higher (no degree) | –0.01 (0.49) | 0.44 (0.29) | 0.41* (0.18) |
| Marital status (single, never married) | |||
| Married/cohabitating | 1.09 (0.90) | 0.95 (0.57) | 0.22 (0.34) |
| Divorced/widowed | –1.44 (1.11) | –0.25 (0.74) | 0.37 (0.29) |
| Health status (bad/very bad) | |||
| Fair | –0.44 (1.02) | 0.67 (0.67) | 0.43 (0.39) |
| Good/very good | –1.15 (0.98) | 0.40 (0.68) | 0.61 (0.37) |
| Economic status (economically inactive) | |||
| Unemployed | –2.82 (1.70) | –1.13 (1.11) | 0.93* (0.39) |
| In employment | 1.21 (0.64) | 0.13 (0.41) | –0.71* (0.28) |
| Intercept | –0.94 (1.71) | –7.70*** (1.08) | –4.67*** (0.58) |
| Var (_cons[householdl]) | 3.53 (2.35) | 4.27*** (1.21) | 0.48 (0.35) |
| N | 312 | 5,327 | 5,417 |
| ICC | 0.52 | 0.56 | 0.13 |
| ICC (null model) | 0.63 | 0.64 | 0.25 |
Notes: ICC = interclass correlation coefficient. Standard errors in parentheses. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Model 2 compares family volunteers to non-volunteers. The results suggest that, again, people living in households with children aged between 11 and 15 were significantly more likely to be family volunteers than to be non-volunteers. But there were also two individual-level characteristics that distinguished family volunteers from non-volunteers: gender and age. Women were more likely to volunteer with their family than not volunteer. Individuals aged between 26 and 59 were less likely to volunteer with their family than people aged 60 or older.
Model 3 compares other formal volunteers to non-volunteers. Similar to family volunteers, women were more likely than men to be formal volunteers than non-volunteers. However, there were other characteristics too that distinguished formal volunteers from non-volunteers, but which were not significant for family volunteers in model 2. People with a degree were more likely than people without a degree to be formal volunteers than non-volunteers. Unemployed individuals were more likely, but those in paid work less likely, to volunteer formally than economically inactive individuals.
Finally, the interclass correlation coefficients suggest that 56 per cent, 53 per cent and 13 per cent of the variation in family versus formal variables, family versus non-volunteering variables and formal versus non-volunteering variables, respectively, could be attributed to differences in households but the rest to individuals or other groupings.
Discussion and conclusion
The aim of this research note was to examine the extent and patterns of family volunteering in the UK and to compare family volunteers to other formal volunteers and non-volunteers. The results suggest, first, that family volunteering constitutes a substantive proportion of formal volunteering – on an average day, every four out of 10 formal volunteers engage in volunteering together with their family member(s). This study is likely to underestimate the extent of family volunteering in general because these figures do not cover all types of family volunteering identified by Ellis Paine et al (2020), for example volunteering for the same organisation but not at the same time. They also exclude family members living in different households (for example, separated parents and a child; and grandparents and grandchildren).
Second, the findings also indicate that nearly half of family volunteering episodes involve two adult partners – most commonly older adults – volunteering together, with no children present. This highlights the importance of further research on adult couples’ volunteering, which would complement the large body of evidence on older adults’ volunteering (for example, Morrow-Howell et al, 2003; Tang et al, 2009).
Third, the results suggest that while family volunteers share some household and individual characteristics with individuals involved in other formal volunteering, there are some significant differences. Most importantly, they indicate that household-level characteristics explain a considerably larger proportion of the variation between whether somebody is a family volunteer, another formal volunteer or a non-volunteer than they do the variation between whether somebody is a formal volunteer or a non-volunteer. These findings imply that household context (and possibly changes in it) can differentiate whether somebody who does not volunteer engages in formal volunteering and whether they volunteer with their family. More specifically, adults who live in a household with children aged four or younger or children aged 11–15 are more likely to be family volunteers than other formal volunteers. The presence of children aged between 11 and 15 also significantly distinguishes family volunteers from non-volunteers but does not significantly differentiate between formal volunteers and non-volunteers. These findings align with the finding from previous studies that adults with school-age children are most likely to volunteer, often through schools and sports (Caputo, 2009). Although some studies suggest that time spent looking after pre-school children can reduce formal volunteering (Gray et al, 2012), this study indicates that this might not be the case for family volunteering, most likely because, unlike other formal volunteering, it can involve both parents and children.
Finally, this study found some significant differences in the individual characteristics of family volunteers, formal volunteers and non-volunteers. For example, compared with individuals aged 26–59, adults aged 60 and older are more likely to engage in family volunteering than to be non-volunteers. This indicates that family volunteering might be one of ‘the pathways’ for older adults to volunteer (Brodie et al, 2011).
Theoretical implications
The findings suggest that family volunteering is not a niche volunteering type and it has a significant presence in the world of volunteering. It therefore warrants further theoretical and empirical exploration. First, we need to investigate and theorise the predictors of family volunteering. For example, how does motivation for family volunteering differ from motivation for other formal volunteering? How do individual volunteering histories interact to predict engagement in family volunteering? How does involvement in family volunteering change over the course of the volunteer’s lifetime? Who are constant, serial or ‘trigger’ volunteers (Hogg, 2016)? Second, building on existing work (for example, Ellis Paine et al, 2020), we need to examine family volunteering experiences and how organisations engage with family volunteers. Third, family volunteering is unlikely to be exclusively formal volunteering and therefore further debates and research on other forms of family volunteering, such as informal family volunteering, are essential. Fourth, we need to investigate family volunteering outside of the UK context, especially in countries with different social norms related to family relationships and volunteering. Finally, what are the outcomes of family volunteering, for example in terms of: satisfaction with relationships; children’s involvement in civic activities; and individual and family wellbeing? How can volunteer-engaging organisations ensure that some possible negative effects of family volunteering – such as conflicts and tensions, and the ‘costs’ of volunteering in terms of time and money (Littlepage et al, 2003; Reilly and Vesic, 2010) – do not deter families from volunteering together?
Implications for policy and practice
Families have been described as a ‘largely untapped demographic’ of volunteers (Volunteer Canada, 2010) and a ‘rich vein only just beginning to be explored’ (Saxton et al, 2015) – an assertion confirmed by this study. There seems to be a desire for more family volunteering opportunities – nearly one in five adults who never volunteer said that they would be interested in volunteering together with their family (McGarvey et al, 2019) and many voluntary sector organisations who do not offer family volunteering schemes are interested in developing them (Jochum, 2019). The evidence from this study suggests that there are two likely target groups for volunteer-involving organisations: families with children and (older) couples. Families with children aged four or younger, families with children aged between 11 and 15 and older couples are already most likely to volunteer as a family and the key focus of volunteer management here might be how to retain them. In contrast, there is a need to examine why families with children aged between five and 10 are less likely to engage in family or even formal volunteering and what the barriers to their involvement are.
To conclude, this research note has identified a significant evidence gap and suggests that family volunteering is a substantive, sufficiently distinctive aspect of volunteering warranting further theoretical explanation and empirical investigation.
Notes
Although at the time of writing, the UKTUS dataset is around eight years old, to our knowledge it is the only nationally representative dataset in the UK and internationally that measures with whom individuals are volunteering and thus enables an identification of engagement in family volunteering.
According to population statistics (ONS, 2015), only 0.9 per cent of households in the UK were the households of unrelated adults. Our preliminary analysis indicated that these households did not engage in family volunteering. Therefore, we have used the terms ‘household’ and ‘family’ interchangeably.
Acknowledgements
This research builds on previous work already published as Ellis Paine, A., Chan, O., Jochum, V., Kamerāde, D., McGarvey, A. and Stuart, J. (2020) Volunteering: A Family Affair? London: National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Partial financial support for the research presented in this research note was received from Sport England, Greater London Authority, the Pears #iwill Fund and the Scouts Association. I thank two anonymous reviewers and the editors of Voluntary Sector Review for their constructive feedback.
Conflict of interest
The author of this research note is a co-editor of Voluntary Sector Review.
References
Bird, C. (2011) Family Volunteering Pilot – Evaluation Report: Getting Families More Actively Involved in the National Trust’s Work, Swindon: National Trust.
Brodie, E., Hughes, T., Jochum, V., Miller, S., Ockenden, N. and Warburton, D. (2011) Pathways Through Participation: What Creates and Sustains Active Citizenship, London: Involve, https://www.involve.org.uk/resources/publications/project-reports/pathways-through-participation.
Caputo, R.K. (2009) Religious capital and intergenerational transmission of volunteering as correlates of civic engagement, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(6): 983–1002. doi: 10.1177/0899764008323990
Centre for Time Use Research (2016) United Kingdom Time Use Survey, Oxford: University of Oxford.
Ellis Paine, A., Chan, O., Jochum, V., Kamerāde, D., McGarvey, A. and Stuart, J. (2020) Volunteering: A Family Affair?, London: NCVO.
Evergreen, L.L. (2006) Family Volunteering in Environmental Stewardship Initiatives, Toronto, Canada: Imagine Canada.
Germann Molz, J. (2016) Making a difference together: discourses of transformation in family voluntourism, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 2(6): 805–23. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2015.1088862
Gershuny, J. and Sullivan, O. (2017) United Kingdom Time Use Survey, 2014–2015: Centre for Time Use Research, Oxford: University of Oxford.
Gray, E., Khoo, S.E. and Reimondos, A. (2012) Participation in different types of volunteering at young, middle and older adulthood, Journal of Population Research, 29(4): 373–98. doi: 10.1007/s12546-012-9092-7
Haski-Leventhal, D., Metz, E., Hogg, E., Ibrahim, B., Smith, D.H. and Wang, L. (2016) Volunteering in three life stages, in D. Horton-Smith, R.A. Stebbins and J. Grotz (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Volunteering, Civic Participation, and Nonprofit Associations, New York, NY: Springer, pp 682–701.
Hegel, A. and McKenchnie, A.J. (2003) Family Volunteering: The Final Report, Toronto, Canada: Volunteer Canada, https://volunteer.ca/vdemo/EngagingVolunteers_DOCS/Family_Volunteering_Final_Report.pdf.
Hogg, E. (2016) Constant, serial and trigger volunteers: volunteering across the lifecourse and into older age, Voluntary Sector Review, 7(2): 169–90. doi: 10.1332/204080516X14650415652302
Jochum, V. (2019) Exploring the links between family and volunteering, NCVO blog, https://blogs.ncvo.org.uk/2019/07/03/exploring-the-links-between-family-and-volunteering.
Littlepage, L., Obergfell, E. and 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 University-Purdue University Indianapolis.
McGarvey, A., Jochum, V., Davie, J., Dobbs, J. and Hornung, L. (2019) Time Well Spent: A National Survey on the Volunteer Experience, London: NCVO, https://www.ncvo.org.uk/policy-and-research/volunteering-policy/research/time-well-spent.
Morrow-Howell, N., Hinterlong, J., Rozario, P.A. and Tang, F. (2003) Effects of volunteering on the well-being of older adults, Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 58B(3): S137–S145.
NatCen (2016) The UK Time Use Study 2014–2015: Technical Report, London: NatCen.
ONS (Office for National Statistics) (2015) Families and Households: 2015, London: ONS, https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2015-11-05.
Reilly, R.C. and Vesic, V. (2010) Family volunteering: making a difference together, Leisure/Loisir, 27(3–4): 305–32. doi: 10.1080/14927713.2002.9651308
Robson, K. and Pevalin, D. (2015) Multilevel Modeling in Plain Language, London: Sage.
Saxton, J., Harrison, T. and Guild, M. (2015) The new alchemy: how volunteering turns donations of time and talent into human gold, NFP Synergy, https://nfpsynergy.net/free-report/new-alchemy-how-volunteering-turns-donations-time-and-talent-human-gold-part-1.
Stuart, J. (2019) The Links Between Family and Volunteering: A Review of Evidence, London: NCVO, https://publications.ncvo.org.uk/the-links-between-family-and-volunteering-a-review-of-the-evidence.
Tang, F., Morrow-Howell, N. and Hong, S. (2009) Inclusion of diverse older populations in volunteering: the importance of institutional facilitation, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(5): 810–27. doi: 10.1177/0899764008320195
Volunteer Canada (2010) Building the Bridge to Family Volunteers, Toronto, Canada: Volunteer Canada, https://volunteer.ca/vdemo/EngagingVolunteers_DOCS/Building_the_bridge_to_Family_Volunteers.pdf.
Wilson, J. (2012) Volunteerism research: a review essay, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(2): 176–212. doi: 10.1177/0899764011434558
