Content uploaded by Robert W Strack
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert W Strack
Content may be subject to copyright.
Teaming Up for Inclusive Volunteering: A Case Study of a Volunteer Program for Youth with and
without Disabilities
By: Kimberly D. Miller, Stuart J. Schleien, Heather C. Kraft, Dawn Bodo-Lehman, Annie M. Frisoli, and
Robert W Strack
Miller, K., Schleien, S., Kraft, H., Bodo-Lehman, D., Frisoli, A., & Strack, R. (2004). Teaming up for inclusive
volunteering: A case study of a volunteer program for youth with and without disabilities. Leisure/Loisir,
28 (1-2), 115-136.
Made available courtesy of Taylor and Francis: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/RLOI
***Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from
Taylor and Francis. This version of the document is not the version of record. Figures and/or pictures
may be missing from this format of the document.***
Abstract:
Volunteerism is a recreational activity that may hold the key to greater social inclusion for individuals with
disabilities into our communities. Facilitating inclusive volunteering opportunities for youth with and without
disabilities has a potential scope of impact that must not be ignored, including benefits to the youth and our
communities. A case study of an inclusive youth volunteer program is described. Out-comes for participants
included increased knowledge of volunteerism, increased social interaction, and psychosocial outcomes such as
increased belief in self and increased sense of responsibility. The feasibility and sustainability of inclusive
volunteer programs, as well as future programming and research needs are also discussed.
Keywords: benefits, community, visability, inclusion, leisure, volunteerism
Article:
In the quiet hours when we are alone and there is nobody to tell us what fine fellows we are, we come
sometimes upon a moment in which we wonder, not how much money we are earning, nor how famous
we have become, but what good we are doing. —A.A. Milne
During the past two decades, legislation has been enacted (e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act; Ontarians with
Disabilities Act, 2001) that mandates that individuals with disabilities have the same access to their
communities as their peers without disabilities. Consequently, a large number of individuals with disabilities
have moved out of institutional settings and into our communities. Within the recreation profession, community
recreation providers are being urged to adopt more inclusive practices within their agencies (Hutchison &
McGill, 1998; Schleien, Ray, & Green, 1997; Smith, Austin, & Kennedy, 2001). While advances are being
made, more efforts are needed to weave citizens with disabil-ities into the social fabric of our communities
(Walker, 1999).
"A community exists when individuals share locale and engage in patterned social interaction, share common
identity, participate in inter-dependent activity, and work toward shared goals and collective action" (Kang,
1997, p. 224). Individuals with disabilities are often excluded from opportunities to contribute to community
goals and collective action. As a result, despite the fact that people with disabilities are in the community, they
are often forced into dependent rather than interdependent relationships. Scholars have eloquently argued the
importance and value of individuals with disabilities being not only in the com-munity, but part of the
community as the end goal (Bogdan & Taylor, 1999; Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993; Schleien, 1993). As
Bogdan and Taylor (1999) pointed out, "Being in the community points only to physical presence; being part of
the community means having the opportunity to interact and form relationships with other community
members" (pp. 1-2).
If communities are built through the collective efforts of community structures and individuals (McKnight,
1997), it seems logical to also enlist the skills of individuals with disabilities in a manner that benefits their
communities. As Schleien (1993) stated, "The time has come to adapt a new way of thinking, one founded on
the premise that the community belongs to everyone, and everyone—regardless of level and type of ability—
belongs to the community" (p. 67). A principle foundation of inclusive volunteering is its potential to provide
people with and with-out disabilities with opportunities to develop social connections with neighbours and
fellow citizens based on reciprocity. This article demonstrates that a key component to helping individuals with
disabilities become part of their community may lie in inclusive volunteerism.
Volunteerism and Leisure
Volunteering can be broadly defined as a freely chosen activity benefiting others with no expectation of
remuneration (Cnaan, Handy, & Wadsworth, 1996). Arguments have been presented for the qualification of
volunteer activity as leisure (Henderson, 1981) and/or serious leisure (Parker, 1992; Stebbins, 1996). These
arguments are based on the parallel nature of the benefits and motivations associated with both volunteering and
leisure. Researchers have indicated that volunteers benefit psychosocially through increased self-esteem
(Johnson, Beebe, Mortimer, & Snyder, 1998; Omoto & Snyder, 1990; Primavera, 1999), positive attitudinal
changes (Hamilton & Fenzel, 1988; Moore & Allen, 1996), improved self-concept (Moore & Allen, 1996;
Omoto, Snyder, & Berghuis, 1992; Primavera, 1999), reduced alienation (Calabrese & Shumer, 1986),
increased feelings of helpfulness (Omoto, Snyder, & Berghuis, 1992), greater sense of social responsibility
(Hamilton & Fenzel, 1988; Johnson et al., 1998; Primavera, 1999), development of civic identity (Nieme &
Chapman, 1998; Youniss &Yates, 1997), reduction in problem behaviours (Allen, Philliber, & Hoggson, 1990;
Calabrese & Shumer, 1986), and increased sense of purpose (Weinstein, Xie, & Cleanthous, 1995). Similar
benefits of volunteering for individuals with disabilities are expected. Research conducted on the benefits of
volunteerism specific to people with disabilities, although limited, suggests additional benefits including:
increased amounts of appropriate behaviour, raised levels of maturity and responsibility, improved socialization
and relationship skills, increased sensitivity to the needs of others, a sense of agency or the ability to act upon
and influence the world, development of social networks, and practical and work skills development (Brill,
1994; Miller et al., 2002; Roker, Player, & Coleman, 1998). Given the potential significance and breadth of
these outcomes, volunteerism by people with disabilities could significantly impact their levels of
independence, employability, and quality of life. While participation in volunteer activities can lead to gains in
work skills, program emphasis should be on volunteerism as a leisure activity, and never a substitute for
competitive employment or for the primary purpose of attempting to gain employment.
The benefits of volunteering align well with the benefits sought for participants by recreation professionals.
Despite the fact that most recreational professionals agree that volunteering is a form of recreation and/or
leisure, there has been little effort on behalf of the profession to facilitate volunteer experiences. Considering
the broad impact that volunteering could have, we are compelled to facilitate and evaluate inclusive
volunteering further.
Scope of Impact
While we are focused on the benefits that individuals with disabilities could reap through inclusive community
volunteerism, we recognize that our local communities have a great deal to gain as well, Broadening the
diversity and increasing the numbers of those who volunteer will also impact the functioning of our
communities' volunteer sectors. According to Statistics Canada, 6.5 million Canadians volunteered through a
charitable or non-profit organization in 2000. These individuals volunteered a total of 1.05 billion hours, or the
equivalent of 549,000 full-time jobs (Hall, McKeown, & Roberts, 2001). In the US, 83.9 million adults formally
volunteered 15.5 billion hours in 2000, or the equivalent of 9 million full-time employees (Independent Sector,
2001). Simply put, volunteers enable organizations to maximize their resources in pursuit of their missions
(Darling & Stavole, 1992).
Yet, most non-profit organizations indicate that maintaining and replenishing a pool of talented volunteers is an
ongoing and often difficult process (Wysocki, 1991). "Although statistics show that over half of all U.S. citizens
are involved in volunteer activity, most organizations which involve volunteers indicate that the need for
volunteers is greater than the current supply and can only see that need growing in the future" (Hostad, 1993, p.
32). This reality is one of the driving forces behind the volunteer administration profession's call to diversify
their volunteer forces (Rodriguez, 1997; Zimmer, 1990). Hostad (1993) concluded that the greatest challenge
for the non-profit sector in the twenty-first century will be to tap the other half of U.S. citizens who are
currently not volunteering. As the prevalence data on volunteering indicate, those who are not volunteering
include people with disabilities and other disenfranchised groups.
State-of-the-Art in Inclusive Volunteering
An extensive amount of information is available on the prevalence of volunteers without disabilities in our
communities, but little is known about volunteering by people with disabilities. To our knowledge, only three
assessments of the prevalence of volunteers with disabilities have been conducted. Graff and Vedell (2000)
sampled volunteer coordinators in the Waterloo Region of Ontario, Canada and found that 85% of the
respondents involved people with disabilities as volunteers within the past year. However, data were not
available concerning what proportion of the volunteer pool was comprised of individuals with disabilities.
A needs assessment conducted in Greensboro, North Carolina found that only 2.4% of the total number of
volunteers in Greensboro had an identified disability (Phoenix, 2000). A national needs assessment revealed
that only 5.4% of all volunteers in the United States had an identified disability, and only 1.1% had a
developmental disability (Miller, Schleien, & Bedini, 2003). Considering that approximately 19% of the
population is disabled, and approximately 3% have a developmental disability (Kraus, Stoddard, & Gilmartin,
1996), a disparity between the number of people with disabilities currently volunteering and the potential
numbers of volunteers signifies a viable opportunity to engage more of our citizens in the community process.
A few Canadian organizations are currently working on helping communities develop the necessary attitudes
and skills for including volunteers with disabilities. "Ready ... Get Set ...Volunteer!" is a project launched by
Opportunities for All (www.k-wvolcentre.on.ca/rgsv.htm) and is housed at the Volunteer Action Centre of
Kitchener-Water-loo & Area of Ontario, Canada. This program assists individuals who want to volunteer and
the agencies that engage volunteers to provide more opportunities for individuals with disabilities to make a
contribution to their community. In partnership with the Ministry of Citizenship and the Ontario Network of
Independent Living Centres, the Volunteer Centre of Toronto has implemented the "Ready & Able" program to
assist volunteer coordinators with resource materials, recruitment, interviewing, and working with volunteers
with disabilities (www .volunteertoronto.on.ca/vct-indexpage.asp).
Likewise, in the U.S., some efforts have been made to develop and understand methods for creating inclusive
volunteering projects. "Project SUCCESS" was developed by United Cerebral Palsy in Washington, DC to
build an inclusive service-learning program that pairs youth with and without disabilities together to
independently research, plan, and execute local service projects (www. ucpa.org) . "Partnership FIVE.
(Fostering Inclusive Volunteer Efforts)" is a program being implemented by the Department of Recreation,
Parks, and Tourism at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG) designed to prepare individuals
with disabilities to become volunteers in their community. In addition, efforts are made to support family
members and careproviders in helping their sons and daughters access volunteer opportunities. Other activities
include preparing community non-profit agencies to support these individuals in their volunteer efforts, creating
a network of support mechanisms for inclusive volunteering, and creating a paradigm shift where individuals
with disabilities are seen as contributing to the building of community capacity.
Building on previous efforts, the inclusive volunteer program described next attempted to foster an inclusive
volunteer environment for youth with and without disabilities, through which everyone's talents and abilities
could shine. The program description and results attempt to recognize and accommodate the challenges specific
to facilitating inclusive volunteer efforts.
Teaming Up for Inclusive Volunteering: A Case Study
'This case study was implemented through a collaboration of five agencies: Kids Korps USA, UNCG, Lifespan
(out-of-school-time program for youth with disabilities), Boys & Girls Club of Greater High Point, and a
neighbourhood Home Depot. Based on the vision of Kids Korps USA, this program was designed to help youth
with and without disabilities become actively involved in their communities through volunteering. The
emphasis was on volunteerism as a leisure activity. Over an eight-month period, three groups of youth
participated in the program. Each group met weekly for 1 1/2 hours and participated for eight consecutive
weeks. During weekly sessions, youth participated in team-building activities, learned about volunteerism (i.e.,
individual benefits of volunteering, its importance to the community, how to become involved in volunteer
activities), and completed a volunteer activity.
Participants
Youth were recruited from the Boys & Girls Club and Lifespan. Program staff visited each agency and
addressed youth and parents about the program and allowed interested youth to sign up. A total of 12 youth with
disabilities (ages 10 to 16 years), 38 youth without disabilities (ages 10 to 17 years), and 2 junior leaders (ages
19 and 20 years) choose to participate in the program. Youth with disabilities displayed a wide range of
ability levels. Their disabilities included mild to severe developmental delays (e.g., autism, Down syndrome,
mental retardation), traumatic 'brain injury, sensory impairments (e.g., visual impairments), minor hemiporesis,
and gross motor deficits requiring the use of a wheelchair (e.g., cerebral palsy). Twenty-five percent of the
youth did not communicate verbally, and instead, regularly used facial expressions, pointing, touching, eye
contact, clapping, and other gestures.
Roles and Responsibilities
The program plan was based on a curriculum inspired by Kids Korps USA. Kids Korps USA is a youth
volunteer organization that engages young people, ages 5 to 18, in charitable activities and community-based
service. Its mission is to instill in youth the spirit of giving while providing valuable education in leadership and
responsibility.
Kids Korps programs promote respect for, and service to, communities; family togetherness; healthy peer
relationships; and teamwork. These programs are based on the premise that volunteerism is a pro-active method
for tapping into a youth's unique strengths to build capacities for dealing with crises, meeting needs, and solving
problems. It creates opportunities for youth to develop personal and social skills, become more aware of their
social and physical environment, feel that the community values them and their efforts, and experience
increased self-esteem—all of which are essential to healthy development.
Collaboration was a key factor in implementing the program plan since Kids Korps USA did not have the
necessary resources or know-how to execute an inclusive volunteering program. Therapeutic recreation staff
from the Department of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism at UNCG provided ongoing technical support to Kids
Korps. Examples of support included restructuring activities from an individualistic to a cooperative design;
facilitation of the division of participants into small heterogeneous groups that included youth with and without
disabilities; physical and rule adaptations for ensuring participant success; and creating a socially inclusive and
supportive environment. Lifespan and Boys & Girls Club staff collaborated to facilitate the program by
providing transportation to and from inclusive volunteering activities, encouraging acceptance and social
interactions between all participants, and providing hands-on assistance during program sessions. Hands-on
assistance included holding materials steady while youth hammered or glued objects together, giving additional
verbal instruction, and providing full physical prompts for youth with and without disabilities as they learned
how to use new tools. Home Depot's collaborative contribution consisted of providing woodworking and
environmental projects as well as knowledgeable staff.
Program Plan/Setting
The volunteer program took place in a variety of settings, including Lifespan, Boys & Girls Club, Home Depot,
a nursing home, and a community bowling alley. Program plans were based on curriculum developed by Kids
Korps USA. During program sessions, a recreation professional and a therapeutic recreation graduate student at
UNCG served as program leaders by implementing team-building activities, discussions about volunteering,
project activities, and debriefing sessions. A brief description of each of the eight sessions follows:
Session 1. The initial session focused on educating participants about what a volunteer is, why people volunteer,
the various roles that volunteers could play in the community, and the overall importance of volunteerism to
youth and community. Youth participated in icebreaker and team-building activities, and watched a Kids Korps
video in order to establish the concepts of volunteerism and full social inclusion.
Session 2. The goals of this session were to help participants establish an understanding of the needs of older
adults. They also learned about the many diverse roles volunteers could play in meeting those needs. There
were multiple objectives used to help meet these goals. Initially, individuals participated in a team-building
activity to reinforce the concept of teamwork and to foster an accepting and inclusive environment. Program
leaders discussed the needs of older adults in the community and assisted participants in identifying ways that
volunteers could help meet their needs. The volunteers made greeting cards, posters, and beaded bracelets and
necklaces to deliver to older adults at a local nursing home.
Session 3. This session took place at the local Home Depot. The goal of this session was to work as a team to
complete woodworking projects that would be delivered to nursing home residents. Participants engaged in an
initial team-building activity to emphasize teamwork and completed several woodworking projects (e.g., bug
houses that were later filled with potpourri and decorated with butterflies).
Session 4. A nursing home was the location of this fourth session. The goal was for youth to serve as formal
volunteers and meet the needs of older adults in their community. They visited a local nursing home and gave
the products they produced in prior sessions to the residents. Participants also interviewed the residents in order
to interact and not merely hand over the items without any discussion. The following questions were asked
during the one-on-one interviews: "How are you doing? What do you like to do? What are your favourite
foods? Do you have any family in town?"
Session 5. The goals of this session were to help youth volunteers understand the issues of recycling as it related
to the environment and the roles they could play in recycling. The session commenced with a team-building
activity. Then the participants received a packet of information about recycling and its importance to the
community. Program leaders facilitated an interactive discussion about recycling and volunteering. The youth
identified ways in which they could help meet the recycling needs of their community and completed a project
related to recycling (i.e., egg carton caterpillars, milk carton flower vases, milk jug piggy banks). Participants
were encouraged to share their finished products with neighbours and friends as a way of extending the
concepts of both volunteerism and recycling.
Session 6. The goal of this session was to work as a team at Home Depot to build wooden flower boxes or paint
clay pots in which pansies were placed, that would enhance their community. The participants discussed ways
that volunteers could help make the environment a better place in which to live.
Session 7. The goal for participants during this session was to beautify their community's environment by
planting a flower garden. Across the three groups of youth, two flower gardens were developed at two different
Boys & Girls Clubs and one at the church where the Lifespan program was housed. Home Depot, once again,
generously provided the necessary supplies and instruction. After completing the garden, the youth discussed
many ways that volunteers could assist to enhance their neighbourhoods.
Session 8. The final session was used to review what the volunteers learned during the eight-week program and
to celebrate the group's accomplishments. To create a social atmosphere, the youth met at a bowling alley, an
activity selected by a Lifespan staff member. Multiple activities were used to meet the session's objectives.
Youth with and without disabilities formed inclusive teams and bowled as a celebration of their
accomplishments. After bowling, program leaders reviewed the basic principles of volunteerism; ways in which
volunteers are important in helping to meet the needs of older adults; and how volunteers address their
community's environmental needs. They also identified ways in which they could volunteer in the future. At the
program's conclusion, each volunteer received a certificate of participation and completed a program evaluation.
Program Evaluation
Data were collected through pre- and post-participation interviews and through naturalistic observations. Pre-
and post-participation interviews were conducted using semistructured interview guides. Interviews were audio-
taped and later transcribed. Youth with and without disabilities participated in both pre- and post-participation
interviews designed to assess their knowledge of volunteerism and their perceptions on participation in an
inclusive program. Post-participation interviews were conducted with the staff of the partnering agencies (i.e.,
Boys & Girls Club, Lifespan, Kids Korps) that were designed to assess the perceived benefits to youth
participants and the sustainability of these initiatives. Tables 1 and 2 list the questions asked during pre- and
post-participation interviews.
Each week, immediately following the session, program staff recorded their observations. They were asked to
address the following probes within their observation notes: (a) a general description of the program; (b)
description of the social structure of activities; (c) description of any social interaction; (d) roles that program
leaders played in program implementation; (e) strategies that program leaders implemented to attempt to
include all participants in activities; (f) strategies that volunteers used to attempt to include everyone in
activities; (g) specific modifications or adjustments made to the program, activities, and equipment to enhance
success; (h) roles that other adults played to assist with the program; (i) perceived outcomes for volunteers (e.g.,
learned new skill; became more social; made new friend; product development; became more comfortable with
the environment and peers; inappropriate behaviour reduced); and (j) barriers that interfered with the success of
the program and strategies implemented to overcome them.
Data Analysis
The transcribed interviews were analyzed for emerging themes relating to program outcomes that re-occurred
across interviews (Stainback & Stainback, 1988). These themes were then compared to the observation notes
for supporting evidence. For social validation of the themes, "member checks" (Henderson, 1991) were
conducted by presenting the themes to the partnering agencies for their analyses. Representatives from each of
the partnering agencies reviewed the themes and a consensus was reached on the validity of the program
outcomes identified through the themes.
Program Outcomes
A multitude of positive outcomes from this program were identified. 'These outcomes are organized according
to the themes that arose from the data analysis. Outcomes for participants included an increased understanding
of volunteerism, increased social interaction, and psychosocial outcomes such as increased belief in self and
increased sense of responsibility. An evaluation of the feasibility and sustainability of inclusive volunteer
programs is also presented.
Increased Understanding of Volunteerism
Prior to and following each volunteer activity, the participants reflected on the reasons for, and benefits
accruing from their services. This led to the youth understanding the concepts of what a volunteer is, how
people volunteer, and the importance of teamwork to get things accomplished. While all participants stated that
they had learned more about volunteerism— staff of the partnering agencies reiterated this --the qualitative data
did not clearly demonstrate this for the youth without disabilities. When youth were asked what they.
accomplished specifically as volunteers, the common response was "helped people." Although this is often-
times an important component to volunteering, participants required repeated prompts from program leaders to
verbalize what else they had accomplished during the program (e.g., made projects for older adults; planted
flowers to beautify the environment) and the impact that these activities had on their community.
For youth with disabilities, the increased understanding of volunteerism was more evident. For example, one
youth with a moderate developmental delay stated that he did not know what a volunteer was during the pre-
participation interview. During the post-interview, he stated, "Good help out." Another youth with a
developmental disability defined a volunteer prior to participation as, "Somebody who works in the
community." During the post-participation interview, this same youth stated, "A person who helps out and stuff,
like, helping out with stuff with not asking and not getting paid."
It is interesting to note that the youth without disabilities were more focused on the assistance they provided to
their peers with disabilities than to the other ways in which they had given to their community. When asked
who and how they had helped, almost all of them cited a situation in which they had provided assistance to a
peer with a disability.
Increased Social Interaction
Early on, several of the youth with and without disabilities expressed fear related to becoming friends with
strangers with visibly different backgrounds. The volunteers without disabilities were "scared" that they would
not do or say the right things. Observation notes demonstrated that by the program's conclusion, communication
flowed between the two groups as if they were beginning to establish their own language.
Observation notes identified several participants with disabilities who did not socialize during the initial weeks
of the program, but interacted often with others by program's end. For example, a participant with a disability
who rarely smiled or held his head up early on, smiled, looked ahead, and spoke to program leaders by the final
program session by answering questions using two- to three-word phrases. He also smiled regularly at other
participants. As the weeks progressed, the volunteers with disabilities appeared to be enjoying the activities and
their new partners with greater intensity. This was evidenced by increased verbal communication (e.g.,
addressing their peers by name, laughter, lengthier one-on-one and group discussions) and non-verbal
communications (e.g., hand-holding, hugging, working together, taking pictures of each other). Also, by the
final session, several participants with disabilities verbalized that they liked their peers without disabilities and
began to initiate group games independently and verbally and/or physically communicated with their peers.
Similar outcomes were observed with volunteers without disabilities. Observation notes demonstrated that as
the program progressed, participants without disabilities initiated social interactions and provided assistance to
their peers with disabilities with greater frequency. Initially, non-disabled participants only sought out program
leaders for assistance and socialization. When this occurred, program leaders would redirect them to interact
with their peers. By program's end, participants were socializing and helping each other on a regular basis. For
example, one non-disabled participant stated during the post-participation interview, "In the beginning I was
shy, but now that I'm used to seeing them [peers with disabilities] and being around them, I'm used to it now.
It's just like being with a regular friend." Another participant, stated, "At first I felt like, 'Oh my goodness,' but
then I got interested in it and it was okay." Even staff of the Boys & Girls Club stated that the youth had never
been around "disability kids," and that they were now more comfortable, and even felt confident, in their ability
to interact with youth with disabilities.
Psychosocial Outcomes
Youth with and without disabilities often discussed the joy that they experienced through volunteering. They all
stated that volunteering made them, "feel good," as is the common sentiment of volunteers in general. In
addition, staff of the partnering agencies perceived that youth with and without disabilities had increased their
belief in self and sense of responsibility through participation in the program. A staff member with the youth
with disabilities stated, "here [Lifespan] we deal a lot with working with the children to basically believe in
themselves .... And I saw a lot of that." The staff member with the youth without disabilities offered an example
of a participant who had not been around peers with disabilities before, and how he was unsure of whether he
would be able to interact with them. She stated that this participant's belief in self had been greatly impacted
when he discovered that he not only could interact with them, but was good at it. In addition, staff from the
partnering agencies identified examples of how they perceived an increased sense of responsibility in the youth.
For example, a staff' member serving the youth with disabilities stated that two of the volunteers had a high
sense of responsibility for maintaining the garden that had been planted by the group at their facility. She stated
that the youth watered the flowers daily without prompting.
Feasibility
Partnering agencies admitted that they were apprehensive about the feasibility of an inclusive volunteering
program when they were first approached with the concept. Reflecting back on her thoughts prior to program
implementation, a staff member serving the youth without dis-abilities stated:
At first, I thought it was going to be a whole big mess. So I didn't know how it was going to work out
and how everything was going to come out. But every time we left, our kids talked about them [their
peers with disabilities] the whole way home. I mean, they liked working with the Lifespan kids. They
really liked it!
Similarly, a staff member responsible for the youth with disabilities stated:
I was really surprised how quickly the kids seemed to really take to each other. I did not necessarily
have concerns, but I just questioned our guys just jumping in. So I learned that children in that age range
really do mix well together, regardless of their abilities or disabilities.
Staff members serving the youth with disabilities also noted that the inclusive volunteering program made them
more aware of the importance of providing opportunities for their constituents to participate in inclusive
environments. They gained an emergent interest in developing additional inclusive opportunities. Without
prompting from program coordinators, staff members from their respective agencies voiced interest in
continuing inclusive outings and activities beyond volunteering. In fact, they made arrangements for their
participants to get together for a pizza lunch.
Participant reactions were even more revealing. The youth overwhelmingly stated that they enjoyed the
inclusive environment and would unequivocally choose to volunteer in groups that included youth with and
without disabilities in the future. One volunteer without a disability stated, "It wouldn't be the same [without the
kids with disabilities] ... so, I think it's better with kids, working with kids with disabilities."
Sustainability
All partnering agencies and participants were clearly interested in continuing the inclusive volunteering
program. However, the program's sustainability, without the support from UNCG program staff, is not as clear.
When asked what strategies they would use to facilitate inclusive volunteer programs in the months and years
ahead, none of the staff from the partnering agencies cited strategies that UNCG program staff believed were
essential to the success of the inclusive nature of the program (i.e., use of team-building activities to promote an
atmosphere of teamwork and to allow participants to become more familiar with each other in a relaxed and
enjoyable atmosphere; small heterogeneous groups working on co-operatively structured activities; and using
behaviour-specific positive reinforcement to support co-operative efforts). Instead, the response of one staff
member serving the youth with disabilities gave the representative response, "I'd call Kim Miller [project
coordinator from UNCG] and ask her what she did."
Broader Community Impact
Older adults received social visits and gifts from young, smiling volunteers. Three flower gardens were built
that helped beautify the community where the youth lived. Trash was recycled into gifts that were offered to
neighbours. From a longer-term and more significant perspective, it is hopeful that lifelong volunteers were
created who might benefit their communities for years to come. Research indicates that youth who volunteer are
twice as likely to mature into adult volunteers, and that 60% of adults who currently volunteer began so by the
age of 14 years (Hamilton & Hussain, 1998).
It is also worthy to note the program's impact on its corporate partner, Home Depot. Community service is
highly valued at Home Depot, and this program complemented company values. Home Depot associates
involved in this program enjoyed teaching the children how to make wooden gift items for others (e.g., flower
boxes), and expressed a strong interest in continuing this inclusive volunteer program throughout the year.
Discussion and Implications
A multitude of positive outcomes for the youth volunteers were identified. These outcomes included an
increased understanding of volunteerism, increased social interaction, and psychosocial outcomes such as
increased belief in self and increased sense of responsibility. Outcomes of increased social interaction, belief in
self, and sense of responsibility are consistent with the literature addressing the benefits of community service
to volunteers (Hamilton & Fenzel, 1998; Johnson et al., 1998; Omoto & Snyder, 1990; Primavera, 1999). These
outcomes are also consistent with those associated with volunteerism specific to individuals with disabilities
(Brill, 1994; Miller et al., 2002; Roker, Player, & Coleman, 1998).
Kids Korps has had much success in teaching the concept of volunteerism to its mainstream audience. However,
staff learned that additional work is needed to engage a wider range of volunteers. Further development of
supporting materials to address the abstract concept of volunteerism to diverse ability groups is needed. Greater
preparation and development of visual materials, exercises, and activities that more clearly illustrate volunteer
service activities and their benefits (e.g., to seniors, animals, environments) need to occur. In addition, further
development of curriculum materials that connect volunteer actions with community needs is warranted.
Participants without disabilities did not communicate clearly that they comprehended the primary purpose of the
program; that is, to create one unified volunteer group to make a difference in the community by serving others.
They identified the assistance they had provided to their peers with disabilities, and not what they had given
back to the broader community (e.g., older adults, environment) when asked who they had helped and what they
had accomplished. This may have been due to several programming approaches that were used, including the
(over) emphasis on the importance of teamwork and including peers with disabilities in every activity, structure
of the debriefings, and the nature of the evaluation. Firstly, program leaders continuously emphasized the
importance of teamwork between participants with and without disabil-ities. Social and helpful behaviours were
the targets of the staff's behaviour-specific positive reinforcement. Secondly, debriefings following each
program session highlighted what it was like to work as a team of people of varying abilities. Program leaders
praised individuals and co-operative work teams that adapted to the needs of its members with disabilities.
Thirdly, the nature of the evaluation protocol may have over-emphasized the disability aspect of the program
(e.g., pre-participation interview questions that asked the nondisabled youth about their feelings toward
volunteering with youth with disabilities). These program approaches appeared to have led to the development
of peer tutor roles versus peer companion roles. Rynders and Schleien (1991) have recommended that a more
balanced approach to these two roles is warranted in most inclusive community programs.
Despite attempts to schedule training by UNCG program staff for the partnering agencies on the inclusion
strategies that would be implemented, such training was never completed due to various scheduling issues.
Instead, brief discussions were held with the staff of the partnering agencies about fulfilling the various roles of
a trainer advocate, as implied in the literature (Heyne, Schleien, & McAvoy, 1993; Rynders & Schleien, 1991;
Schleien, Ray, & Green, 1997) during program implementation. These discussions emphasized the need for
staff members to avoid providing assistance to the participants with disabilities exclusively, but instead,
providing assistance to inclusive groups. This included providing verbal prompts to the participants without
disabilities on how best to engage the participants with disabilities when needed. While staff performed their
trainer advocacy roles effectively, the lack of training on inclusion strategies may have had a detrimental impact
on the sustainability of the inclusive volunteer program. It is possible that without further support from UNCG
program staff, it is unlikely that this program will be sustained. This is consistent with previous findings on
sustainability of inclusive initiatives (Germ & Schleien, 1997).
Recommendations for Future Programming
Based on these implications, the following recommendations arc made to more successfully engage youth
volunteers of varying abilities. Alternatives to the support materials and presentation of curriculum, the
addition of more diverse roles for volunteers with and without disabilities, and clarification of program goals for
volunteers are warranted.
Volunteer activities need to be identified and developed that arc of interest and flexible enough to accommodate
participants with a wider range of abilities. Ideally, youth could elect to participate in a small component of a
larger volunteer assignment that is of greater interest, as well as a good match, for the individual's chronological
age and abilities. This approach could enable a greater number of volunteers to be active in the community.
It is necessary that volunteers understand clearly their dual roles as volunteers and peer companions. It may be
helpful for volunteers to understand the potential multitude of benefits to inclusive volunteering; that is, serving
as peer partners to others with disabilities, as well as accomplishing important community work. It is possible
that a better balance between civic responsibility and social inclusion could help serve as a beneficial
framework for more inclusive and healthier communities, as well as more effective volunteers.
Finally, a more substantial effort by inclusion facilitators to provide partnering agency staff with training on
best professional practices for inclusive volunteering is essential if inclusive volunteer programs are to become
more prevalent and sustainable throughout our communities.
At this time, we still know little about engaging people with disabilities in community service. Although we
believe that having a sense of responsibility to the local community is a necessary quality-of-life ingredient for
individual citizens, to date, it remains unclear whether we can accomplish this. The "early research" described
in this article provides modest, yet growing evidence that inclusive volunteering can be very beneficial. A
multitude of positive outcomes at the individual and community levels were observed that encourage us to
continue to pursue these initiatives. We also continue to learn that a collaborative effort is needed to create a
well-conceived and carefully designed program. Do we believe there is an important role for recreation
professionals to play as facilitators of inclusive volunteering? Absolutely! With a genuine concern for building
healthy and inclusive communities, an understanding of the leisure aspects of volunteerism, and prepared with a
strong skill set to successfully engage individuals of varying abilities, it is very possible that recreation
professionals are in the best position to make volunteering a reality for a greater number of citizens.
Tapping into the unique skills and abilities of all citizens makes a community a better place to live for everyone.
Now is the time for every individual, including people with disabilities, to have the opportunity to "live the
good life" by volunteering and performing community service. All people must have opportunities to give of
themselves to their communities, to do things of public value, by keying into their personal interests and
strengths to make our communities more powerful, and in turn, better places to live.
References
Allen, IP., Philliber, S., & Hoggson, N. (1990). School-based prevention of teenage pregnancy and school
dropout: Process evaluation of the national replication of the Teen Outreach Program. American Journal of
Community Psychology, /8(4), 505-524.
Bogdan, R. & Taylor, S.J. (1999, February). Building stronger communities for all: Thoughts about community
participation for people with developmental disabilities. Paper presented at the meeting of the President's
Committee on Mental Retardation's Forgotten Generations Conference, Washington, DC.
Brill, C.L. (1994). The effects of participation in service-learning on adolescents with disabilities. Journal of
Adolescence, 17, 369-380.
Calabrese, R., & Shumer, H. (1986). The effects of service activities on adolescent alienation. Adolescence,
21(83), 675-687.
Cnaan, R.A., Handy, F., & Wadsworth, M. (1996). Defining who is a volunteer: Conceptual and empirical
considerations. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 364-383.
Darling, L.L., & Stavole, R.D. (1992). Volunteers: The overlooked and under-valued asset. The Journal of
Volunteer Administration, 11(1), 27-35.
Germ, P.A. & Schleien, S.J. (1997). Inclusive community leisure services: Responsibilities of key players.
Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 31(1), 22-37.
Graff, L.L., & Vedell, J.A. (2000). Opportunities for all: The potential for supported volunteering in community
agencies. The Journal of Volunteer Administration, /8(2), 10-16.
Hall, M., McKeown, L., Roberts, K. (2001). Caring Canadians, involved Canadians: Highlights from the 2000
national survey of giving, volunteering, and participating (Catalogue No. 71-542-X1E). Ottawa: Ministry of
Industry.
Hamilton, M., & Hussain, A. (1998). America's teenage volunteers. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.
Hamilton, S.F., & Fenzel, L.M. (1988). The impact of volunteer experience on adolescent social development:
Evidence of program effects. Journal of Adolescent Research, 3(1), 65-80.
Henderson, K. (1981). Motives and perceptions of volunteerism as a leisure activity. Journal of Leisure
Research, 13, 208-218.
Henderson, K.A. (1991). Dimensions of choice: A qualitative approach to recreation, parks, and leisure
research. State College, PA: Venture.
Heyne, L., Schleien, S., & McAvoy, L. (1993). Making friends: Using recreation activities to promote
friendships between children with and without dis-abilities. Minneapolis: School of Kinesiology and Leisure
Studies, College of Education, University of Minnesota.
Hostad, C. (1993). Diversity in volunteerism. The Journal of Volunteer Administration, 11(3), 32-37.
Hutchison, R, & McGill, J. (1998). Leisure, integration, and community (2nd ed). Toronto: Leisurability.
Independent Sector. (2001). Giving and volunteering in the United States 2001: Key findings [On-line].
Available: http://www.independentsector.org /PDFs /GVOlkeyfind.pdf.
Johnson, M.K., Beebe, T., Mortimer, J.T., & Snyder, M. (1998). Volunteerism in adolescence: A process
perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8(3), 309-322.
Kang, R. (1997). Building community capacity for health promotion: A challenge for public health nurses. In
B.W. Spradley & J.A. Allender (Ed.s.) Readings in community health nursing. (5th ed., pp. 221-232).
Philadelphia: Lippincott.
Krause, L.E., Stoddard, S., & Gilmartin, D. (1996). Chartbook on disability in the United States, 1996. An
InfoUse Report. Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
Kretzmann, J.P. & McKnight, J.L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding
and mobilizing a community’s assets. Chicago: ACTA Publications.
McKnight, J.L. (1997). A 21st century map for healthy communities and families. Families in Society, 78, 117-
127.
Miller, K.D., Schleien, S.J., & Bedini, L.A. (2003). Barriers to the inclusion of volunteers with developmental
disabilities. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 21(1), 25-30.
Miller, K.D., Schleien, S.J., Rider, C., Hall, C., Roche, M., & Worsley, J. (2002). Inclusive volunteering:
Benefits to participants and community. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 36(3), 247-259.
Moore, C.W, & Allen, J.P. (1996). The effects of volunteering on the young volunteer. The Journal of Primary
Prevention, 17(2), 231-258.
Niemi, R.G., & Chapman, C. (1998). The civic development of 9th- through 12th-grade students in the United
States: 1996 (NCES 1999-131). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Center for Education
Statistics.
Omoto, A.M., & Snyder, M. (1990). Basic research in action: Volunteerism and society's response to AIDS.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 152-165.
Omoto, A.M., Snyder, M., & Berghuis, J.P. (1992). The psychology of volunteerism: A conceptual analysis and
a program of action research. In J.B. Pryor and G.D. Reeder (Eds.), The Social Psychology of HIV Infection.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Parker, S. (1992). Volunteering as serious leisure. Journal of Applied Recreation, 17(1), 1-11.
Phoenix, T.L. (2000, January/February). Building community through inclusive volunteering. Centerline.. A
Newsletter of the Volunteer Center of Greensboro, p. 4.
Primavera, J. (1999). The unintended consequences of volunteerism: Positive outcomes for those who serve.
Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 18(112), 125-140.
Rodriguez, S. (1997). Diversity in volunteerism: Deriving advantage from difference. The Journal of Volunteer
Administration, 15(3), 18-20.
Roker, D., Player, K., & Coleman, J. (1998). Challenging the image: The involvement of young people with
disabilities in volunteering and campaigning. Disability & Society, 13(5), 725-741.
Rynders, J.E., & Schleien, S.J. (1991). Together successfully: Creating recreational and educational programs
that integrate people with and with-out disabilities. Arlington, TX: ARC-USA.
Schleien, S.J. (1993). Access and inclusion in community leisure services. Parks. and Recreation, 28(4), 66-72.
Schleien, S.J., Ray, M.T., & Green, F.P. (1997). Community recreation and people with disabilities: Strategies
for inclusion (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Smith, R.W, Austin, D.R., & Kennedy, D.W (2001). Inclusive and special recreation: Opportunities for persons
with disabilities (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Stainback, S., & Stainback, W (1988). Understanding and conducting qualitative research. Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt.
Stebbins, R.A. (1996). Volunteering: A serious leisure perspective. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
25, 211-224.
Walker, P. (1999). From community presence to sense of place: Community experiences of adults with
developmental disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24(1), 23-32.
Weinstein, L., Xie, X., & Cleanthous, C.C. (1995). Purpose in life, boredom, and volunteerism in a group of
retirees. Psychological Reports, 76 (2), 482.
Wysocici, LK. (1991). An untapped volunteer resource: People with HIV disease, ARC, or AIDS. The Journal
of Volunteer Administration, 9 (3), 8-11.
Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1997). Community service and social responsibility in youth. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Zimmer, L.A. (1990). People with disadvantages: A source for innovative recruitment. The Journal of
Volunteer Administration, 8(3), 39-41.
