The Multifaceted Nature of Civic Participation: A Literature Review

Brill Research Perspectives 1 (2016) 173
brill.com/brp
The Multifaceted Nature of Civic Participation:

A Literature Review
Ram A. Cnaan
University of Pennsylvania, USA
Sohyun Park
Yonsei University, South Korea
Abstract
Our aim in this article is to demonstrate the complexity, scope and diversity of civic
participation. The quality of life in a society depends, to a certain degree, on the gov-
ernments ability to offer security, order, and services. Equally important, if not more
important, are the many activities that residents voluntarily, or not so voluntarily, do
for the benefit of others outside their household and immediate family, and often for
the collective welfare or public good/benefit/interest. Numerous studies since the
early 1990s focus on social capital and the decline in civic participation. In this review
article, we claim that most studies of civic participation focus on small and narrow
definitions of civic participation. Furthermore, scholars from one discipline rarely
measure aspects of civic participation from the perspective of other disciplines.
After discussing the problem of disciplinary perspectives in civic participation and
the lack of a comprehensive measure of civic participation, we show how the various
definitions and attempts at measuring social participation are inadequate. We con-
trast civic participation with the popular concept of social capital. The former focuses
on both individual and organizational activities while the latter focuses on group
activities only. To overcome the narrow approach of studying civic participation, we
demonstrate that many activities are omitted from most studies.
* The authors want to thank Amnon Boehm, Daniela Castejon, David Horton Smith, Trina
Isakson, Eunice Kim, Kate Samuelson, and Jo Anne Schneider for helpful comments on ear-
lier drafts of this article. We also want to thank the 2014 participants in the ARNOVA con-
ference in Denver and the 2015 participants of the ANSER-ARES conference in Ottawa who
provided us with encouragement, helpful comments, and suggestions as to what we missed.
Ram A. Cnaan and Sohyun Park, 6|doi 10.1163/24054933-12340001

2 Cnaan and PARK
We list a long and varied set of activities that individuals can do on their own or in
groups that enhance the quality of life of others. We organize these activities into six key
sub-groups: (1) association participation, (2) giving, (3) volunteering, (4) environment-
friendly behaviors, (5) political and social behaviors, and (6) supporting-helping indi-
viduals. The six categories are not offered as a typology of civic behaviors, but, rather,
as a preliminary way to organize our enlarged list of pro-social behaviors. In each of
these six sub-groups, we attempt to list as many activities as possible that exemplify
different modes of civic participation. We start by naming the behavior or activity, and
then give examples of its various forms. Where data are available, we provide data that
relate to the specific behavior, how it was measured, and what existing findings tell us
about the behaviors frequency. We attempted, where possible, to use U.S.-based data.
In our discussion, limitations, and conclusions, we acknowledge that more concep-
tual work is to be done. Yet we call for the first comprehensive and inter-disciplinary
study of civic participation. We envision this topic being taken up by a large number of
scholars as well as future initiatives to compare communities and countries based on
a comprehensive set of civic participation activities.
Keywords
Civic participator civic engagement social participation social engagement

pro-social behavior association participation volunteering giving helping
political participation environment-friendly behaviors social capital
1 Introduction
The literature on civic participation/engagement (also known as pro-social

behavior) predominately focuses on three pillars:1 (1) giving and volunteering;
(2) political engagement; and (3) environment-friendly behaviors. Indeed, the
majority of studies in the nonprofit literature and presentations at ARNOVA
1 In this article we use civic participation, civic engagement, social participation, social
engagement, and pro-social behavior interchangeably. The term volunteering also
overlaps with many of the foregoing terms, as does the term individual voluntary action.
Although in some publications these terms are depicted as somewhat distinct, we argue that
their similarities are too many. They all describe human behaviors that are inherently non-
egotistical and that are attempting to contribute to the quality of life of others in the actors
community and outside ones household. For a more formal definition of civic participation
see the following pages.

The Multifaceted Nature of Civic Participation 3
(www.arnova.org) conferences focus on the first pillar. This focus was insti-
tutionalized by the Independent Sector series of studies on giving and vol-
unteering (see for example Hodgkinson & Weitzman, 1986), as well as the
Philanthropy Panel Studies on giving and volunteering that were carried out
by the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at the University of Indiana (Center
on Philanthropy Panel Study, 2006). Additional nonprofit scholars have exam-
ined civic aspects of grassroots organizations, participation in member benefit
organizations, and civic involvement in community and family foundations
(see Smith, Stebbins, & Grotz, 2016; Van Til, 2000).
Political scientists, on the other hand, measure civic engagement primar-
ily by political participation: activities that are aimed at influencing policies,
power balance, and political processes with minimal or no focus on volunteer-
ing and giving (see Adler & Goggin, 2005; Teorell, Torcal, & Montero, 2007).
For example, an attempt to measure civic engagement in a comprehensive
manner by Mondak and colleagues (2010) was limited to only ten behaviors,
six that involve social interaction (such as contacting members of Congress or
working on campaigns) and four that focus on behaviors that require little or
no face-to-face interaction with others (such as voting or displaying yard signs
and bumper stickers). All ten activities focused on political involvement. In
a later and more comprehensive attempt to measure civic participation, Talo
and Mannarini (in press) used a 28-item scale. Of these 28 items, 22 are directly
related to the political sphere and only five are related to giving and volunteer-
ing. As comprehensive as these two attempts to measure civic participation
might be, these scales omit many forms of social contributions people make to
their community, such as volunteering time and expertise to advance nonpo-
litical causes or to assist those in need.
Environmental science scholars are mostly concerned with individuals
activities that support the environment from recycling to buying organic food,
and from donating to environmental organizations to planting trees. Most
studies from this line of research include items relating to giving, volunteer-
ing, and political engagement but only if they directly support environmental
causes (Stern, 2000).
Accepting these most commonly documented forms of civic participation
as important, this article seeks to identify and highlight a wider range of pro-
social behaviors that are less frequently discussed in nonprofit, political science,
and environmental science research. By identifying the numerous pro-social
behaviors and assessing the extent to which they are practiced in the United
States, the article demonstrates the complexity and multi-faceted nature of
civic engagement. Our contribution to the literature and discourse of civic
participation is through providing an inventory of ways in which community

4 Cnaan and PARK
members contribute to civic life. The aim here is to identify numerous pro-
social behaviors, and assess, if possible, the extent to which they are practiced
in the United States. In addition, we group and categorize these many forms of
civic participation, enabling scholars to see them both discretely and as clus-
ters. We outline and group the many forms of civic participation/engagement
as a first step toward studying the field in a comprehensive manner. We hope
that other scholars will join us in future research that distills and identifies
additional forms of civic engagement, so as to gain a better picture of civic
participation as a comprehensive whole.
We define civic participation/engagement as any activity of any individual,
alone or with others, that is performed outside the boundaries of the family and
household that directly or indirectly attempts to promote the quality of life of
others, and that may make the community or society a better place to live. Civic
engagement covers a wide range of activities, from buying a coffee for a stranger
to running for a political office. Our definition parallels that of Mirazchiyski,
Caro, and Sandoval-Hernandez (2014) who stated that Civic participation
refers to activities in the local community, politics or general society within the
local country context and includes formal and informal group or organization
membership, individual actions, voluntary activities, political activities aimed
to bring improvement to the local, societal or country-wide settings (p. 1034).
There are also many instances in which people act with no intention of con-
tributing to others quality of life or of impacting the community, but in fact,
are doing so. Activities that people do with no intention of influencing some
political outcome and with no expectation of return can still be essential for
the quality of life of any community or society.
Individuals can promote the quality of life for others in many ways. Boles
(2009) claimed to offer 330 such ways for making a difference in her book
How to be an everyday philanthropist. Similarly, the website www.dailygood
.orgNews that Inspires provides quotidian activities of civic engagement
from donating old laptops to remote African villages to giving messages of hope
to complete strangers. No one person can do them all, and the majority of the
330 ideas in Boles (2009) book are not surprising or revolutionary. However,
when combined, they demonstrate the nuances that exist in maintaining civic
engagement and reveal how civic engagement is diverse and multi-faceted.
Members of a society can contribute to their community in many ways.
Some peoples contributions go unnoticed. Nevertheless, these uncoordinated
and unrecognized contributions are important, as they come together to form
a larger collective tapestry of pro-social behavior. Analyzing the pro-social
behaviors that contribute to this tapestry will enhance our understanding of
civic engagement and will allow us to view civil society with a more holistic

perspective. In this respect, we advance the notion of pluralization of involve-

ment (Hustinx et al., 2011). This idea is not new. In 1979, Barnes and Kaase
noted that both conventional participation and emerging non-institution-
alized types of involvement did not need to be mutually exclusive, but were
(somewhat) convergent (p. 152). In the same vein, informal and unorganized
volunteering has recently gained more attention as contrasted with formal
volunteering through some organization or association (e.g., Amato, 1990;
Einolf et al., 2016).
Viewing the many forms of civic participation individually or a few at a time,
as is the practice in most studies, prevents a fuller and more contextual picture
of peoples pro-social behaviors. The fabric of activities that produce healthy
communities may start with giving and volunteering but stretches far wider
and deeper. The same goes for political participation. To understand the level
of civic engagement in a given area, scholars need to unravel all the modes of
pro-social behaviors. However, prior to undertaking this task, we need to clar-
ify the definition of civic engagement/participation, and then assess in what
way this discussion extends the conceptual and practical boundaries offered
by the rich body of literature on social capital.
a What is Civic Participation?

A survey of the literature on civic engagement and civic participation uncov-
ered many differing definitions. Talo, Mannarini, and Rochira (2014) con-
ducted a meta-analysis on the relationship between sense of community and
community participation. They found that in 85.3% of the 35 reviewed studies,
the authors used ad hoc scales when measuring community participation. This
is an indication of inconsistency and an absence of consensus on the defini-
tion of community participation. Hoskins and Mascherini (2009) introduced
the notion of active citizenship within a European context and defined it as
participation in civil society, community and/or political life, characterized
by mutual respect and non-violence and in accordance with human rights and
democracy (p. 462). According to this definition, active citizenship ranges
from participatory democracy, including actions that hold governments
accountable, to representative democracy, including actions such as voting,
and also to participation in everyday life of the communities. The definition is
inclusive towards new forms of active citizenship, such as one-off issue politics
and responsible consumption, as well as the more traditional forms of mem-
bership in political parties and non-governmental organizations (p. 462).
Both Mondak and colleagues (2010) and Jennings and Zeitner (2003) per-
ceived civic engagement as including both behaviors and attitudes with
respect to political and quasi-political processes and institutions. They used

6 Cnaan and PARK
14 behaviors in their analysis, all related to the political arena. Shah (1998)
extended the scope of civic engagement to include behaviors and attitudes
that involve engagement in ones community. However, the definition was
operationalized by only five measures: whether or not respondents consid-
ered themselves influential in their neighborhood, went to a club meeting,
attended church, did volunteer work, and worked on a community project.
While this definition extends the scope of civic engagement from the pure
political sphere to include social behaviors, it is quite limited in its coverage.
Adler and Goggin (2005) suggested that civic engagement refers to the ways
in which citizens participate in the life of a community in order to improve
the living conditions of disadvantaged groups or to shape the communitys
future (see also Cicognani et al., 2008; Gamble & Weil, 1995). Similarly, Ehrlich
(2000) noted that civic engagement means working to make a difference in
the civic life of our communities and developing the combination of knowl-
edge, skills, values and motivation to make that difference. It means promot-
ing the quality of life in a community, through both political and non-political
processes (p. vi). This definition is important, as Ehrlich acknowledged
that civic engagement is linked with promoting the quality of life in a given
community.
The American Psychological Association (2014) defined civic engage-

ment as follows:
Civic engagement can take many forms, from individual voluntarism to

organizational involvement to electoral participation. It can include
efforts to directly address an issue, work with others in a community to
solve a problem or interact with the institutions of representative democ-
racy. Civic engagement encompasses a range of specific activities such as
working in a soup kitchen, serving on a neighborhood association, writ-
ing a letter to an elected official or voting. Indeed, an underlying principle
of our approach is that an engaged citizen should have the ability, agency
and opportunity to move comfortably among these various types of
civic acts.
The American Psychological Associations definition is still limited in its cover-

age of what we mean by civic participation (see above). As such, our definition
expands beyond the current definitions, which focus on volunteering, giving,
and political participation, to any act that enhances the community. As a com-
munity building activity, civic engagement is related to but not identical to
social capital.

b Civic Participation and Social Capital

The academic focus on civic engagement was widely influenced by the popu-
larization of social capital as a communal concept, following Putnams (1995,
2000) seminal work on this topic. Putnam (2000) perceived both civic engage-
ment and social capital declining as individuals shifted from face-to-face par-
ticipation in social groups such as bowling leagues and service organizations,
like Lions and Rotary clubs, to passive civic involvement through memberships
in professional interest groups, such as the Sierra club or AARP. His later works
highlight initiatives to build social capital (Putnam, Feldstein, & Cohen, 2003)
by enhancing civic participation across social boundaries.
Putnam defines social capital as social networks, norms of reciprocity,
mutual assistance and trustworthiness (Putnam, Feldstein, and Cohen, 2003,
p. 2). Labeled neo-Toquevillian (Edwards et al., 2001) or neo-Durkheimian
(Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999) in critiques, Putnam sees social capital as founda-
tional to civic engagement, because people learn the value of civic behaviors
and activities through the networks that spawn social capital (Schneider,
2007). While Putnam sees social capital and civic engagement as separate con-
cepts, many of his followers use the two terms interchangeably (Schneider,
2006, p. 574). The majority of writing and thinking on civic engagement fol-
lows Putnams lead, exploring ways that civic engagement flows from the trust,
reciprocity, information, and cooperation associated with social networks.
Debate among political scientists regarding the links between civic engage-
ment and social capital highlight that, in many cases, political activism stems
not from generalized trust and citizens working together as in Putnams vision,
but from the cooperation between small groups of citizens acting to improve
social life by addressing the needs of those excluded from the political or
economic assets of a community (Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999; Edwards, Foley,
and Diani, 2001). In the social sciences, social capital is perceived differently
as sharing among a clearly defined network and is defined as relationships
based on reciprocal, enforceable trust that enable people and institutions to
gain access to resources like services, volunteers, or funding (Schneider, 2009,
p. 644). This definition, which draws on the works of Coleman (1988), Bourdieu
(1986), and Portes (1998), differentiates social capital from most definitions of
civic engagement because social networks benefit the individual rather than
the collective. However, the activities of these kinds of social capital networks
would qualify as civic engagement in our expanded definition.
Internationally, scholars at the World Bank (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000)
and in Australia (Onyx & Bullen, 2000) have fused the definitions provided
by Putnam and the social sciences to focus on both the initiatives that benefit
the common good and those that benefit specific individuals through social

8 Cnaan and PARK
networks and civic engagement. Discussion of these international initiatives

is beyond the scope of this study, but provides another model for an expanded
view of civic engagement.
Almost all approaches to social capital, including Putnam (2000), see social
networks as an important base for civic engagement. As such, they define civil
society as the network of ties and groups through which people connect to
one another and get drawn into community and/or political affairs (Skocpol &
Fiorina, 1999, p. 2). However, there are numerous behaviors that are private or
outside social networks that still contribute to community members quality
of life. There are also communal behaviors that many social capital scholars
ignore as they are difficult to measure. It is our contention that civic engage-
ment is a complex phenomenon that should be comprehensively discussed
and assessed, irrespective of any current measurement limitations.
Some of the pro-social behaviors we discuss in this article were included
in prior attempts to measure and quantify social capital in the United States,
especially in the work leading to the Saguaro Seminar and the Social Capital
Community Benchmark Survey (Brown & Ferris, 2005).2 The Saguaro Seminar
made an impressive effort toward our goal by producing 66 questions that
measured trust levels, perceptions of ones community, community and politi-
cal involvement, and charitable giving of respondents (Van Beuningen &
Schmeets, 2012).
In this article, we focus only on behaviors that we think improve the quality
of life of people in the relevant community or society. We do not include atti-
tudes or emotions, although it is possible to argue that they also impact a given
communitys quality of life. Furthermore, in social capital there is always the
implicit assumption that the behavior is instrumentally beneficial to the actor
even if the actor is not cognizant of it. According to Hoskins and Mascherini
(2009), social capital refers to the power or social advantage (Baron, Field, &
Schuler, 2000) that an individual gains through their social networks and, in par-
ticular, the reciprocal relationships developed within social networks (p. 463).
However, these authors suggest that, active citizenship does not refer to the
networks created through participation but refers to actual engagement and
the societal gain through this action such as accountable governance (p. 463).
We elected to focus on the set of behaviors that make the broadly defined com-
munity a better place to live, whether or not these behaviors also contribute
to the actors interests. The motivation behind our paper is not to enhance the
social capital discussion, but to enhance our understanding of the many forms
of pro-social behaviors.
2 Robert Putnam and his colleagues were a major force behind this initiative.

This is not a criticism of social capital. The study of social capital is impor-
tant and has significantly advanced our knowledge of human relationships and
modern living in contemporary society. Our goal involves looking at aspects of
civic participation that include but also go beyond those fostered by participa-
tion in social networks.
c Measuring Civic Participation

Before outlining forms of pro-social behaviors, we discuss a few notable
attempts to categorize and list all forms of civic engagement. Our list certainly
builds on these efforts. Adler and Goggin (2005) viewed civic engagement as
a continuum, ranging from the private sphere to the formal or public sphere.
In this definition, private engagement refers to an individual action, such as
assisting a neighbor, while public engagement refers to a collective action,
such as joining a movement or a nonprofit organization. Ekman and Amna
(2012) criticized Adler and Goggin for being too diverse and suggested a differ-
ent typology that has two broad categories, manifest and latent. They then
juxtaposed these two categories with two levels of political behaviors that are
individually or collectively focused. From the perspective of political science,
these authors suggested that the literature tended to ignore
latent forms of political participation, the kind of engagement that may

be regarded pre-political or on standby. This notion of latency is based
on the simple observation that citizens actually do a lot of things that
may not be directly or unequivocally classified as political participation,
but at the same time could be of great significance for future political
activities of a more conventional type. (pp. 287288)
Manifest participation includes activities intended to influence actual politi-

cal outcomes by targeting relevant political or societal elites. These authors
refer to political participation as manifest and to civic engagement and social
involvement as latent. We do not accept this distinction, as many activities
of civic engagement can be manifest and vice versa. Regardless, Ekman and
Amna listed more forms of civic participation than any previous source. The
typology of Ekman and Amna received empirical support in an Italian sample
(Talo & Mannarini, 2014).
Hoskins and Mascherini (2009) developed a framework for measuring active
citizenship comprised of four dimensions: protest and social change, commu-
nity life, representative democracy, and democratic values. Protest and social
change is divided into four components: protest activities, engagement in
human rights organizations, engagement in trade unions, and engagement

10 Cnaan and PARK
in environmental organizations. The community life dimension is measured by

seven components. Six of these are engagement in community organizations
such as religious, business, cultural, social, sport, and parentteacher organi-
zations, and the seventh component measures unorganized ways of helping
others. The representative democracy dimension is comprised of three sub-
dimensions: engagement in political parties, voter turnout, and participation
of women in political life. The dimension of democratic values consists of
three sub-dimensions: democracy, intercultural understanding, and human
rights. While we applaud these efforts to identify dimensions of civic partici-
pation, we believe they are incomplete until a full list of pro-social behaviors
can be identified and measured.
In the following section, we outline a broad array of forms of civic engage-
ment, but do not attempt to assess each pro-social activitys level of impact, as
it is beyond this articles scope. Our list is necessarily incomplete and empha-
sizes behaviors often overlooked in the current literature on civic engagement.
Some pro-social behaviors are very simple, done ad hoc, and do not require
much effort, while others are very demanding. We do not attempt to assess
each behaviors level of impact. If the intention of any behavior is to improve
the quality of life, we accept the behavior as relevant here.
Further, we do not focus on the motivation behind the various activities
and their possible rewards. Volumes have been written on the issues of moti-
vation and rewards, as what influences people to act altruistically has puzzled
scholars for generations (Musick & Wilson, 2008). This was best illustrated in
Mancur Olsons (1965) magisterial book The logic of collective action.
Trying to focus on what motivates some people to be generous and pro-
social, and what allows others to be free ridersthose who benefit from the
activities of others without making any contribution themselvescan obfus-
cate our attempt to provide the fullest picture of all modes of civic engagement
and to group them conceptually. Thus, we focus on what some people do that
creates a better functioning society, rather than attempt to understand why
some people are more active, or who is more active in certain forms of pro-
social behaviors. This more complex view of civic engagement may be a topic
for future research.
We encourage readers to suggest other forms of civic engagement beyond
those outlined here, so that a fuller map of civic engagement modes can be
developed. We hope that this article will serve as a springboard for a schol-
arly campaign to distill and identify all possible modes of civic engagement. In
the future, local, regional, and national surveys may be able to provide a more
accurate and comprehensive picture of civic participation.

In the following section, we present a discussion on the variety of pro-social

activities. We start by naming the behavior or activity, and then give examples
of the various forms it can take. Where data are available, we provide data that
relate to the specific behavior, how it was measured, and what existing findings
tell us about the behaviors frequency. We conclude with discussion, limita-
tions, and conclusions.
2 The Many Faces of Civic Participation
This section outlines a variety of forms of pro-social behavior that should be

included in an expanded understanding of civic engagement. This list is by no
means exhaustive, but is meant to describe many key types of civic engage-
ment and highlight forms of civic participation often overlooked in the lit-
erature. The discussion is divided into six general categories: (1) association
membership, (2) giving, (3) volunteering, (4) environment-friendly behaviors,
(5) political and social behaviors, and (6) supporting-helping individuals. We
acknowledge that this categorization is arbitrary and that there are many over-
laps. For example, various forms of volunteering are listed under membership,
political behavior, and supporting-helping individuals, as well as under volun-
teering. While giving is listed as a separate category in order to highlight forms
of financial support often overlooked in the literature, all these categories
involve some form of giving or philanthropy.
The six categories are not meant as a typology of civic behaviors, but, rather,
as a preliminary way to organize our enlarged list of pro-social behaviors.
We hope other scholars will contribute additional forms of civic participa-
tion under each of these six types and add other categories. Ultimately, an
expanded list of pro-social behaviors could be used to collect comprehensive
statistics on all of these various forms of civic engagement. Once data on this
tapestry of pro-social behaviors are collected, sophisticated analysis (e.g., fac-
tor analysis) could determine the underlying dimensions of civic engagement
and ways that civic participation varies depending on a variety of factors. As
such, this section provides a first step toward our vision of fully understanding
civic participation.
a Association Participation
Membership in voluntary associations has been seen as the cornerstone of
civic engagement in the United States since de Toquevilles (1835/1990) semi-
nal observations of civic life in the United States. The levels of active member-
ships are debated and cause some scholars to suggest a worrisome decline.

12 Cnaan and PARK
Putnam (2000), for example, observed that active, face-to-face participation in

voluntary organizations has declined in recent decades in the USA. He linked
drops in social capital and civic engagement to shifts from active to more
passive memberships in various forms of civic organizations. Other scholars
dispute this view of civic engagement (Andersen, Curtis, & Grabb, 2006; Baer,
Curtis, & Grabb, 2001; Dekker & Van Den Broek, 2005; Edwards, Foley, & Diani,
2001; Skocpol & Fiorina, 2000). While a complete discussion of the literature on
organizational memberships is beyond the scope of this article, we affirm that
membership in various civic organizations is a key form of civic engagement.
We view all forms of membership, both active and passive, as contributing to
civic engagement.
i Active Participation
Active participation in membership associations can take many forms, from
participation in service organizations such as Rotary, Lions, Masons, Elks,
and many ethnic and religious membership organizations, to youth organi-
zations such as Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, and Campfire Girls, to unions, sports
leagues, and a wide variety of formally chartered organizations that hold reg-
ular activities. Active membership involves regularly attending meetings or
events sponsored by the organizations and contributing to its activities in any
number of ways. Service organizations such as Rotary and their ethnic and
religious equivalents such as the African American fraternities and sorori-
ties, or the Jewish Federations and Catholic St. Vincent de Paul Societies, have
shaped the local scene and implemented many social and civic projects in
U.S. communities for over a century. Putnam (2000) claimed that these insti-
tutionalized and well-structured organizations with fixed membership have
significantly diminished. However, many people worldwide still participate in
these organizations.
While the above-mentioned organizations are formal, other informal organi-
zations provide members with opportunities for joint projects, mutual support,
and informal advice. Informal organizations include grassroots associations,
hiking groups, block clubs, theatre groups, choirs, and so on (see, Smith, 2000).
In some casescommunity theatre groups or choirs, for examplethese
activities can be performed through formally incorporated groups requiring
auditions and setting mandatory activities. Theatre and music groups can also
be informal, as an after work orchestra at a large company or informal groups
that get together to perform a holiday talent show to raise funds for local orga-
nizations. We include informal groups with a stated purpose, not simply regu-
lar gatherings of friends.
Data from the General Social Survey (Social Science Research Center at the
University of Chicago, 2014) show that people in the USA belong to a wide

TABLE 1 U.S. group memberships (2004 General Social Survey)
Type of Organization % Respondents who

Reported to be Members
Religiously Affiliated Groups 35.7

Sports Clubs 20.0
Professional or Academic Societies 14.5
School Service Groups 14.2
Labor Unions 13.7
Youth Groups 10.5
Service Groups 9.9
Fraternal Groups 9.5
Hobby or Garden Clubs 9.5
Literary or Art Groups 8.9
Veterans Groups 7.1
School Fraternities or Sororities 4.7
Political Clubs 4.0
Farm Organizations 3.9
Nationality Groups 3.4
Any Other Group 9.8
variety of groups. As Table 1 demonstrates, religiously affiliated organizations

draw the most members, followed by sports groups. According to this survey,
only 30% of respondents reported that they belong to no groups at all, while
70% reported that they are a member of at least one organization.
A report from the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)
Civic Life in America Survey (CNCS, 2010) details statistics regarding the nature
of civic life in communities using government statistics collected primarily
through surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S.
Census Bureau. According to this source, 15.4% of Americans participate in
school groups, 6.8% participate in service or civic associations, 10.3% partici-
pate in sports or recreation associations, and 5.6% participate in other groups.
This report shows that more than 35% of Americans are participating in one or
more groups. An earlier version of the CNCS study (Diller, 2001) suggested that
22% of the adult population were active or members of PTA (Parent Teacher
Assocation), PTO (Parent Teacher Organization) or school or service groups,
and 25% were active or members of professional, trade, farm, or business asso-
ciations. Only 12% reported a formal association with a labor union.

14 Cnaan and PARK
The stark contrast of the foregoing CNCS data to the General Social Survey,
which reports double the percentage of U.S. residents as organizational mem-
bers, may be partly explained by the fact that government surveys leave out
religious organizations. However, given that the CNCS also shows half as many
Americans belonging to sports groups, it suggests that either membership was
defined differently or the two surveys drew from significantly different samples.
This wide variation in the results of national studies suggests a need to clarify
forms of membership and standardize data collection activities. The provision
of a list of association types to aid the recall of respondents usually enhances
the reporting of association membership and activity (e.g., Cnaan et al., 2011;
Rooney, Steinberg, & Schervish, 2004; Steinberg, Rooney, & Chin, 2002).
ii Congregational Membership
Congregational membership is another form of civic engagement that can
lead to greater involvement in local communities and a wide array of regional
or national civic activities. Cnaan (2002, p. 62) found that 93% of congrega-
tions participated in some form of social or community service, while Chaves
(2004) reported 57% of congregations engaged in social service activities.
Congregations participate in a wide array of other civic activities, from choirs
and youth groups to political activities. Putnam and Campbell (2010) note that
while not all congregation members participate in activities beyond worship,
those drawn into faith community social networks tend to also participate in
non-religious civic activities and generally appear more community-minded
in a variety of ways. In the United States, people attend congregations in large
numbers, support their congregations financially, and participate in a variety
of community and social projects through their congregations. Furthermore,
congregations serve as hubs of informal support and information sharing that
help many people when they need guidance or assistance.
The Social Science Research Center at the University of Chicago (SSR)
(2014) reported that 41% of respondents belong to a church or other religious
organizations and actively participate, while 22% belong to religious organiza-
tions but do not actively participate. Similar findings are reported from the
Philadelphia Census of Congregations, where Cnaan and his colleagues (2006)
found that 45% of the citys residents are active members of congregations.
These authors defined active membership in congregations as at least monthly
attendance. Using a more stringent criterion, the Pew Research Center (2013)
reported that The share of people who say they attend services at least once a
week has remained relatively steady: 37% say they attend at least weekly today,
compared with 39% a decade ago. Additionally, 34% of respondents reported
to attend anywhere between monthly and yearly.

TABLE 2 U.S. leadership roles and contributing members (2004 General Social Survey)
Type of Organization % Members = Leaders or Contributors
Religiously Affiliated Groups 83.3

Sports Clubs 66.7
Professional or Academic Societies 69.6
School Service Groups 75.5
Labor Unions 45.3
Youth Groups 89.0
Service Groups 83.2
Fraternal Groups 79
Hobby or Garden Clubs 62.8
Literary or Art Groups 61.6
Veterans Groups 54.4
School Fraternities or Sororities 81.5
Political Clubs 88.3
Farm Organizations 64.2
Nationality Groups 75
Any Other Group 67.8
iii Acting as a Leader in Either a Membership Organization

or a Congregation
In both religious and secular organizations, opportunities for leadership roles
(president, vice president, other officer [e.g. secretary or treasurer], board mem-
ber) are available. Serving on organization committees also provides leadership
opportunities either through active participation or committee chairmanships.
The Civic Life in America Survey (CNCS, 2010) shows that 10.1% of Americans
are acting as a group officer or a committee member in a religious organiza-
tion. Table 2 uses data from the General Social Survey (SSR, 2014) that reveals
the percentage of respondents who have ever been leaders, helped organize
meetings, served as officers, or given time or money to various groups.
iv Inactive/Passive Membership
Inactive/Passive membership in organizations is a broad and diverse category
that spans from what is known as a card-carrying membership to membership
in consumption organizations such as museum memberships or co-op member-
ships. A decision to join organizations often involves simply paying m
embership

16 Cnaan and PARK
dues and very limited social engagement with others. People who join organiza-
tions not intending to be active in them still join to show support for the basic
cause, derive benefits from it, and to enable certain organizations to survive.
Groups like the American Automobile Association (AAA) or the huge American
Association of Retired Persons (AARP), as well as museums and others art groups,
sustain themselves through small membership fees. The fact that they reach so
many people gives them power vis--vis government and private donors.
Statistics over time in the USA regarding formal membership come mostly
from the General Social Survey (SSR, 2014). Accordingly, 28.7% of respondents
belong to a political party but dont actively participate, and 9.6% belong to a
trade union, business, or professional association but dont actively participate.
Further, 22.0% of respondents answered that they belong to a church or other
religious organization but dont actively participate. Putnam (1995) reported that
the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) grew exponentially from
400,000 card-carrying members in 1960 to 33 million in 1993 (p. 71). Putnam
also reported the Sierra Club, the American Automobile Association (AAA), the
American Jewish Committee, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) are orga-
nizations with millions of members who are not engaged in the organizations
activities and do not have any serious face-to-face contact with other members
of the organization. While Putnam sees this growth as a sign of declining social
capital, one cannot deny that it is still an impressive show of the commitment by
millions of Americans who, through their support, have enabled such organiza-
tions to become powerful policy lobbying organizations.
v Participation in Arts and Culture Activities

One type of membership or civic participation that can be part of this category,
but that overlaps with many other categories, is arts and cultural consumption.
While arts and cultural consumption can be performed without membership;
many activities of cultural consumption are carried out in groups, and as such
we list them in this section.
The value of arts and culture to society is well established (Arts Council
England, 2014; Jeannotte, 2003). Most notably, arts participation has economic
contributions, enhances educational success, stresses common values, con-
tributes to social cohesion and sustainable communities, and provides joint
experiences to participants that can be shared outside the sphere of the arts
(NEAAH, 2014). However, art and culture consumption can be an individual
endeavor, as in watching a football game on TV in ones basement, or a group
experience, as in watching a dance performance in an auditorium, and by
doing so, meeting other attendees and supporting the performance artists.
Arts participation can take many forms, from producing art to attending an
event. It can be informal or formal. The events themselves are many and varied.

Regardless, any active arts participation enhances the quality of life of people
in a given community (NEAAH, 2014).
In the USA, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has collaborated
with the U.S. Census Bureau since 1982 to measure adults arts participation
rates over various 12-month periods. According to the NEAAH (2013) data, the
percentage of U.S. adults who participated in various forms of the arts at least
once during a recent 12-month period includes the following: movie going
(59%), art making or art sharing (50%), visual or performing arts attendance
(49%), arts learning through classes or lessons (7%). The report includes other
forms of arts participation like book reading, that is done individually (58%),
yet it also reports participation in book clubs as an important civic participa-
tion vehicle (3.6%). Similarly, 3.2% of the adult population sang choral music,
or in a glee club or choir.
TABLE 3 Summary of U.S. membership data
Behavior Explanation Statistics and Source
Active Regularly attending 70% are a member of at least

participation meetings or events one organization (Social Science
in membership sponsored by the Research Center at the University
organizations organizations and of Chicago (SSR), 2014)
contributing to its activities 35.7% are a member of
in any number of ways religiously affiliated groups,
Organizations can have 20.0% are a member of sports
formal or informal clubs, 14.5% are a member
structures (service of professional or academic
organization, ethnic or societies (SSR, 2014)
religious organization, More than 35% are
clubs, labor unions, etc.) participating in one or more
group (Corporation for
National and Community
Service(CNCS, 2010)
15.4% are participating
in school groups, 10.3%
are participating in sports
or recreation association
(CNCS, 2010)

18 Cnaan and PARK
TABLE 3 Summary of U.S. membership data (cont.)
Congregational Attending congregations, 41% belong to a church

membership supporting their or religious organizations
congregations financially, and actively participate,
and participating in a 22% belong to religious
variety of community and organizations but do not
social projects through actively participate (SSR, 2014)
congregations 45% are active members of
Congregations serve as congregations (Cnaan et al.,
hubs of informal support 2006)
and information 37% attend religious service at
least weekly, and 34% attend
anywhere between monthly
and yearly (Pew Research
Center, 2013)
Acting as a Performing leadership roles 10.1% are acting as a group

leader in either (president, vice president, officer or a committee member
a membership other officer, board (CNCS, 2010)
organization or member, or committee 89.0% have experienced a
a congregation member) in religious or leadership role in youth groups.
secular organizations 88.3% in political clubs, 83.3% in
religiously affiliated groups, 83.2
% in service groups, and 66.7%
in sports clubs (SSR, 2014)
Inactive/ Card-carrying but inactive 28.7% belong to a political

passive membership, membership party but dont actively
membership in in consumption participate
organizations organizations such as 22.0% belong to a religious
museum or co-op organization but dont actively
People join organizations to participate (SSR, 2014)
show support for the basic 33 million card-carrying
cause, to get benefits from members in American
it, and/or to enable certain Association of Retired Person
organizations to survive in 1993 (Putnam, 1995)

Participation Joining groups of arts and 59% reported going to a movie;

in arts and culture in the community 50% art making or art sharing;
culture as well as spending money 49% visual or performing
activities to support arts and culture arts attendance. (National
production or consumption Endowment for the Arts [NEA],
activities. 2013)
7% participated in arts
learning through classes or
lessons. 3.6% participated
in book clubs and 3.2%
participated in an organized
singing, choral music,
or in a glee club or choir
(NEAAH, 2013)
b Giving
The giving of money and in-kind objects is an ancient form of caring for oth-
ers (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011; Wiepking, & Bekkers, 2012). In this section, we
discuss many different forms of giving, ranging from donations to charities to
giving household items to neighbors.
i Donations of Money
One of the primary modes of community civic participation is the donation
of money to a cause or nonprofit organization. By doing so, people sustain the
causes they believe in, enable many groups and organizations to be active, and
contribute to activities not supported by government or sold by businesses.
This seemingly simple topic is complex and difficult to measure. The Center
on Philanthropy at Indiana University (2014) reported that 65.4% of house-
holds give to charity and that the average annual household contribution in
the year 2008 was $2,321.00. An earlier study on giving by the Independent
Sector revealed that in 2000, 89% of households gave charitable contribu-
tions (Toppe, Kirsch, & Michel, 2001). Based on six waves of internet studies
conducted by the Harris Interactive, Cnaan and colleagues (2011) found that
the percentage of households reporting donations ranged from 71% to 79%.
While these percentages are not uniform, it is evident that the overwhelming
majority of American households have engaged in charitable giving as a form

20 Cnaan and PARK
of civic engagement in the past year. This section describes several types of giv-
ing often ignored in the vast literature on this topic.
A new form of donation is emerging. Crowdfunding allows community
organizations and causes to fund specific projects and individuals to fund per-
sonal needs, such as medical expenses and tuition, creative projects like books
or films, or business and social enterprise ventures (Isakson, 2013, p. 19). While
no accurate statistics exists for the U.S., Burma (2015) estimated that world-
wide in 2014 there were 536 active crowdfunding platforms. Combined these
platforms raised $5.1 billion.
ii Supporting Charity Competition Events

This sub-type of donation is based on social networks and often not reported
when people are asked about their donative behaviors. Annually, in many
communities there are various types of competitive events, ranging from run-
ning races to eating festivals, in which an active person commits to perform a
certain task (running, swimming, jumping, dancing, eating, fasting, etc.). Also,
family, friends, and acquaintances commit to donate an amount on behalf of
the active person. Race for the Cure is probably the most famous example (or
Terry Fox in Canada), but hundreds of other events raise money for various
causes. For example, the Polar Bear Plunge in Maryland and Chicago raises
money for the Special Olympics by having participants gather pledges from
their networks to plunge into the Chesapeake Bay or Lake Michigan in the
middle of winter. The actively involved person usually asks relatives, neighbors,
and friends to commit a certain sum of money if they run, swim, jump, dance,
eat, fast, an so on. Not only are funds raised for a worthy cause, but also a large
group of people support a cause that may have otherwise been unknown to
them. According to the Civic and Political Health of the Nation: National Civic
Engagement Survey (Keeter et al., 2002), 14% of respondents have participated
in a walk, run, or bicycle event for charity during the prior year.
iii In-kind Donations

This is another sub-type of donating that often goes unnoticed (and unre-
corded) in civic society studies. The donation of clothing and household goods
to thrift stores and to large charitable nonprofits, like the Salvation Army or
Goodwill Industries, is a pro-social activity worth studying. Smaller organiza-
tions also accept in-kind donations that are either shipped overseas, donated
to the communitys needy, or sold in thrift stores. Many people across America
donate used items. Thrift stores and other organizations sort donations and
sell them inexpensively to those in need. Many organizations also sponsor

holiday or seasonal in-kind giving events that usually involve donating new
or almost new items. For example, Toys for Tots collects new toys during the
Christmas season to distribute to underprivileged children in the community.
These efforts depend on the generosity of people who are willing to donate
goods to others who they will likely never meet.
For the 2011 tax year, more than 22 million individual taxpayers reported
a total of $43.6 billion in deductions for noncash charitable contributions
(IRS, 2014; Liddell & Wilson, 2014).3 These numbers underestimate the scope
of noncash giving, as many people who donate in-kind do not itemize or
do not keep accurate records, and are not included in these statistics. Others
who itemize may include receipts of noncash contributions as cash contribu-
tions. Regardless, the data (Liddell & Wilson, 2014) show that 214,827 house-
holds claimed tax deductions for donating food with an average value of
$460 per year; 5,695,243 households donated clothing with an average value
of $1,458 per year; and 179,831 households donated cars and other motor vehi-
cles with an average value of $1,642 per year. The report also includes other
noncash donations such as land, real estate, conservation easements, art and
collectibles, electronics, household items, air tickets and miles, and more.4 It
should be noted that these numbers are the lowest possible, as they include
only households that claimed tax-deductions for these purposes. The over-
whelming majority of people do not claim food in their taxes even if they
donate food. The real magnitude of donating food in the U.S. may be esti-
mated from Canadian survey data. In Canada, Turcotte (2012) found that in
2010, In addition to financial donations, many people gave clothing, toys or
household items to charitable or non-profit organizations (79%) and others
gave food (62%) (p. 18). Financial donations were reported by 84% of respon-
dents. Among Canadians 15 years and older, 94% reported at least one type
of donation.
Most statistics on clothing donations report the volume of clothing donated
but not how many individuals or families provided the clothing. For example,
according to Goodwill Industries International (2014), the donations of 2013
helped more than 9.8 million people access the career, family and financial
support services they needed to succeed, and through the programs made
possible by donations, more than 261,000 people earned jobs in 2013 (www
.goodwill.org/donate-and-shop/donate-stuff). Moreover, since 2012, donations
3 This figure is based on data reported on Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return;
Schedule A, Itemized Deductions; and Form 8283, Noncash Charitable Contributions.
4 For the full list and the prevalence and values see Figure B in Liddell & Wilson (2014).

22 Cnaan and PARK
helped keep billions of pounds of clothing and household items out of land-
fills (www.goodwill.org/donate-and-shop/donate-stuff).
iv Charitable Bequests
A bequest is the act of giving estate property or money after ones death. One
can make the bequests while alive in an estate document, such as a will or
trust, but the donation is not made until after ones death. This form of chari-
table giving is becoming increasingly common, and many nonprofit organiza-
tions work with people while they are alive to guarantee bequests. However,
bequests are rarely mentioned when civic engagement is discussed. Giving
USA (2015) reported that in 2014, $28.13 billion was given to charitable orga-
nizations through bequests and these bequests amounted to 8% of all chari-
table giving. This source also estimated that between $6.6 trillion and $27.4
trillion in charitable bequests will be made between 1998 and 2052. It is hard
to know how many people at any given time plan to bequeath money and to
what degree. What is clear is that even when people are thinking of end-of-life
planning, many make decisions that influence others quality of life.
v Assistance to Relatives or Friends

This sub-type of donative behavior is also outside of what is regularly reported
as donations. In some ways, it is equivalent to, or a kind of, informal volunteer-
ing. Both are done outside the auspices of nonprofit/charitable organizations
and are done between individual actors. When one financially assists a relative
or a friend, this type of donation is not tax-deductible, yet it can be essential to
the recipient. Many people would not even call such a minor gift a donation,
but only financial assistance. Still, the point is that people take from their own
wealth and offer it for the benefit of others outside their own household. When
people are aware that others in their immediate social network are willing to
assist them in times of need, their quality of life improves and their willing-
ness to reciprocate intensifies. For most Americans, such helping is a form of
good will and a means to help someone they care for when they are in need
(Jacobs, 2011).
In some cases, the support is a one-time transaction to cover a designated
expense (such as a credit card debt or one months rent), and in other cases, the
support is given on an ongoing basis to subsidize rent or pay health insurance
for an adult relative or friend who is unemployed or employed in a low-income
job. According to the General Social Survey (SSR, 2014), 46.3% of respondents
(or members of their family or household) gave money, food, or clothing to a
needy neighbor, 26.0% gave support to a needy relative, and 32.0% gave sup-
port to a needy friend during the last year.

TABLE 4 Summary of U.S. giving
Donations of Donating money to a cause 65.4% of households

money or organization give to charity, and the
By donating, people sustain average annual household
the causes they believe in contribution is $2,321.00
and enable many groups (Center on Philanthropy at
and organizations to be Indiana University, 2014)
active 89% of households gave
charitable contributions
in 2000 (Toppe, Kirsch, &
Michel, 2001)
The percentage of households
reporting donations ranged
from 71% to 79% (Cnaan
et al., 2011)
Support Based on social networks 14% have participated in a

charity and often not reported walk, run, or bicycle event for
competition when people are asked charity during the last year
events about donations (Keeter et al., 2002)
Actively involved person
asks relatives, neighbors,
and friends to commit a
certain sum of money if s/
he perform a certain task in
race events, eating festivals,
and other competitions
In-kind Donation of clothing or In 2011, more than 22 million

donations household goods to thrift individual taxpayers reported
stores or nonprofits a total of $43.6 billion in
Predicated on the deductions for noncash
generosity of people who charitable contributions (IRS,
are willing to donate goods 2014; Liddell & Wilson, 2014)
to others who they will 214,827 households claimed
likely never meet tax deductions for donating
food with an average value of

24 Cnaan and PARK
TABLE 4 Summary of U.S. giving (cont.)
$460 per year; 5,695,243

households donate clothing
with an average value of
$1,458 per year (IRS, 2014;
Liddell & Wilson, 2014).
In Canada, 79% of adults
donated household items
to charitable or nonprofit
organizations and 62% gave
food (Turcotte, 2012)
Charitable Giving estate property or In 2014, $28.13 billion

bequests money after ones death was given to charitable
form of giving is
This organization through
becoming more common bequests and these bequests
and many nonprofits work amounted to 8% of charitable
with people while they giving (Giving USA, 2015)
are alive to arrange their Estimated that between $6.6
bequests trillion and $27.4 trillion in
charitable bequests will be
made between 1998 and
2052 (Giving USA, 2012)
Assistance to Individual support to needy 46.3% gave money, food, or

relatives or friends or relatives clothing to a needy neighbor;
friends Done outside the auspices of 26.0% gave to relative; 32.0%
nonprofit organizations and gave to friend during the last
done between individuals year (SSR, 2014)
c Volunteering
Volunteering is the act of freely doing something without remuneration that is
intended to improve others quality of life directly or indirectly, with the recipi-
ent being outside ones own household (Wilson, 2012). There are numerous
definitions of volunteering, but we use the definition by Cnaan, Handy, and
Wadsworth (1996) that asserts that volunteering is an act that has to meet the

following four criteria: (a) no or little remuneration, (b) free will, (c) little or no
personal contact with the beneficiaries, and (d) working within or outside a
formal nonprofit organization.
Volunteering takes many forms and it can be organized into many sub-types
(e.g., Smith, Stebbins, & Grotz, 2016: Chapter 3). Some typologies of volunteer-
ing look at the agency or field in which one volunteers. Others look at the level
of commitment and duration of volunteering. Many look at the motivation to
volunteer. Indeed, the possibilities are copious as the term volunteer is com-
plex and involves many different activities (Cnaan & Amrofell, 1995). In the
following pages, we outline a variety of forms of volunteering to indicate how
vast and nuanced this behavior can be. We do not include volunteer-tourism,
stipended domestic or international volunteering (e.g., VISTA or the Peace
Corps, in the USA), missionary work, parentteacher volunteering, and many
other forms of volunteering in the present discussion. We do so as these are
only examples of the many specific types of volunteering. Rather, we include
here only regular formal volunteering. Other forms of volunteering, such as a
board membership in organizations, are listed elsewhere in this article.
i Regular Formal Volunteering

Regular formal volunteering is a category that includes all forms of volun-
teering done to benefit others under the auspices of a formal organization
(see, Smith, Stebbins, & Grotz, 2016: Chapters 15, 51, 52; also Parts II and III).
This is the behavior that most people have in mind when they use the term
volunteering. Snyder and Omoto (1992) defined volunteer work as consisting
of: freely chosen and deliberate helping activities that extend over time, are
engaged in without expectation of reward or other compensation and often
through formal organizations, and that are performed on behalf of causes or
individuals who desire assistance (p. 3). This definition omits the important
criterion that the volunteer work by definition must be aimed at people out-
side of ones immediate family and household. The desire for assistance is not
necessary, as, for instance, when a volunteer is helping injured but unconscious
people. Also, volunteer work for the environment involves nobody specifically
desiring assistance. Hence, that last clause is not needed in our definition.
There are many ways to measure formal volunteering. The U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS, 2013) focused only on formal volunteering. The BLS reported that
between 2012 and 2013, the volunteer rate declined by 1.1 percentage points to
25.4 percent. Based on the Center on Philanthropys Panel Study (COPPS, 2006)
data, 31% of the adult population engaged in volunteer work in the United States
in 2005. Based on the Harris Interactive Survey, Cnaan et al. (2011) found that
volunteering ranged from 54% in 2006 to 44% in 2007. The latter two sources also
include informal volunteering, which is discussed below.

26 Cnaan and PARK
ii Informal Volunteering
Informal volunteering is a generic term that encompasses a wide variety of
activities that are done to benefit others outside the auspices of any organiza-
tion (Einolf et al., 2016; Reed and Selbee, 2001). Informal volunteering consists
of activities that individuals do on their own and often to assist neighbors,
colleagues, friends, or the community. Often, members of lower status groups
are less engaged in formal volunteering but are more active in informal vol-
unteering (Boddie, 2004; Latting, 1990; Williams, 2004). Similarly, religious
communitieswhere face-to-face interactions are frequentare known to
produce higher levels of informal volunteering (Van Tienen et al., 2011).
Unfortunately, the Current Population Survey (U.S. Bureau of Labor Sta-
tistics, 2014) defines volunteering only as an activity done for, or within, a
formal organization and as such, omitted informal volunteering from its
statistics. However, the 2001 Giving and Volunteering Study (Toppe, Kirsch,
& Michel, 2001) reported that About 61 percent of all respondents said that
they had done some informal volunteering in the past month, while 77 per-
cent of those who had informally volunteered in the past 12 months had
also volunteered [formally] in the past month. Those who informally volun-
teered in the past month spent about 26 hours, on average, on these activities
(p. 40). Salamon, Sokolowski, and Haddock (2011) estimated that worldwide,
there are about 971 million volunteers, including both formal and informal
volunteers. They estimated that two-thirds of these volunteers were informal
volunteers, indicating 647 million informal volunteers and about 324 million
formal volunteers. Similarly, Gavelin and Svedberg (2011) estimated the scope
and magnitude of volunteering in the world, based on a Gallup World Poll
in 2010. They concluded that 39% of the adult population (adjusted for the
population size of countries) was engaged in informal volunteering in the 153
countries studied.
Some scholars, however, contend that the distinction between formal and
informal volunteering is misleading since many people perform both types of
volunteering or switch between them. Other scholars simply accept that indi-
viduals may perform either or both types of volunteering in any specific time
period, and that the two types are positively correlated at both the individual
and aggregate levels (Einolf et al., 2016). Einolf (2011) found that nationally
aggregated data on formal volunteering and helping a stranger (one form of
informal volunteering) correlated with a Pearsons r = .48 (<.001 level of statisti-
cal significance) in the Gallup World Poll data for 2010.
iii Episodic Volunteering

Episodic volunteering is, in many ways, the easiest version of formal volunteer-
ing. Although the literature is rife with disagreements as to what constitutes

episodic volunteering, there is agreement that the most basic criterion in defin-
ing episodic volunteering is frequency of volunteering. In this case, episodic
volunteering is a one-time impulse of formal volunteering (i.e., ad hoc formal
volunteering). People commit to do a one-time activity, such as cleaning a
creek, organizing a holiday party, handing out water in a charity race (Macduff,
2004). The length of one-time volunteering can range from a few hours to a few
days or even longer, as in the case of volunteer-tourism. However, insignificant
as episodic volunteering may seem, these volunteers sustain many commu-
nity projects that are organized and carried out by more committed volunteers
(Handy, Brudeur, & Cnaan, 2006).
The U.S. Department of Labor (2004) found that 28.8% of the civilian non-
institutional population ages 16 and over volunteered for organizations at least
once between September 2003 and September 2004. These 64.5 million indi-
viduals spent a median of 52 hours on volunteer activities during the period
studied. The study also found that 21.3% of the volunteers provided between
1 and 14 hours of volunteer service annually. While we do not know the exact
number of episodic volunteers, volunteering one to fourteen hours per year
suggests that these people likely volunteered episodically. This indicates a high
frequency of episodic volunteering; 13,738,500 individuals or 6.1% of the popu-
lation. This is clearly the lowest possible estimate.
iv Virtual Volunteering
Virtual volunteering is a new, internet-based, kind of formal volunteering in
which a volunteer can serve a cause or an organization at a convenient time
without leaving his or her residence or workplace (see Smith, Stebbins & Grotz,
2016: Chapter 13). This is also known as online volunteering and cyber service.
Many organizations use virtual volunteers who work independently. Some
individuals are involved in virtual volunteering episodically while others are
more committed and provide ongoing virtual volunteer work. These volunteers
can write or sign petitions, raise money, tutor online, and provide counseling
(Cravens & Ellis, 2014). There are virtual communities, moderated by people
who volunteer to own a list or chat room, that provide personal and profes-
sional support to members. Some of these communities are self-help groups
and some are information sharing sites. In one study, the majority of virtual
volunteers (70%) chose assignments requiring one to five hours a week, and
nearly half chose assignments lasting 12 weeks or less (Dhebar & Stokes, 2008).
One notable example of virtual volunteering is the upkeep of Wikipedia, the
worlds largest encyclopedia, which is composed and edited online by approxi-
mately 100,000 volunteer authors who also translate the articles into over 265
languages. Individual contributors are known as Wikipedians. The numbers
of Wikipedians has dropped dramatically since 2007, and in 2013 there were

28 Cnaan and PARK
about 31,000 active volunteer editors (Cravens & Ellis, 2014; Wikipedia, 2015).
This makes Wikipedia/Wikimedia the worlds largest online volunteering
endeavor.
v Board Volunteering
Board volunteering (policy or governance volunteering) is a form of volunteer
work that involves service on a board of directors of a nonprofit, and that often
goes hand in hand with donating money (Seel, 2012). Most nonprofit organiza-
tions, from small community groups to national organizations, have a board
that serves as the highest policy decision-making body. A board is a body of
elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the policy-making and
monitoring activities of a nonprofit organization. Boards of nonprofit organi-
zations assure that nonprofit organizations, both nonprofit agencies and vol-
untary associations, adhere to their mission, function within the confines of
state and federal laws, and operate in a financially responsible manner. Unlike
their counterparts in private companies, board members of nonprofit organi-
zations, with a few notable exceptions (e.g., private foundation boards), are
not paid for their participation (Peterson & Brown, 2004).
It is difficult to assess the full extent of participation in board volunteering
because data on this activity are rarely gathered in national surveys. The follow-
ing will provide a base estimate. Considering that there are 1.5 million nonprofit
organizations registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and many oth-
ers not registered, and that the average size of a U.S. nonprofit board is 16.2 voting
members, it is reasonable to assume that between 10 and 20 million Americans
serve as board members (BoardResource, 2013). Board membership is a serious
and time-consuming form of volunteering. A 2007 study found that the average
number of board meetings per year is 6.9 and that the average board meeting
lasts 3.3 hours. Board members were also required to meet with subcommittees,
read reports, and engage in conference calls (Bohse & Associates, 2007).
vi Workplace and CSR Volunteering

Workplace and CSR volunteering are types of formal group volunteering, a vol-
unteer phenomenon where people who know each other or are sharing the
same employer connect or are encouraged to carry out a specific volunteer
task (Haski-Leventhal & Cnaan, 2009). Many employers have realized that
organized employee volunteering is beneficial for improving their company
image and for keeping employees loyal. Hence, many larger companies are
promoting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and are encouraging employ-
ees to jointly or individually take on volunteer efforts. Furthermore, such vol-
unteering gives the workers a sense of meaningfulness that is often missing

in the workplace. With the advent of CSR, many companies encourage and
even support (through paid time or just a sense of appreciation) employees
to jointly take on any volunteer efforts. For example, the Canadian Imperial
Bank of Commerce (CIBC) and its employees are planning and organizing
Run for the Curea national fund-raising event for breast cancer research
and services. In 2015, more than 15,000 bank employees helped raise almost $3
million for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation (PRNewswire, 2014). The
CIBC bank is identified with this worthy cause and employees are in charge
of planning and executing the event with employer support. COMCAST, the
communication giant, is another example of a company that encourages work-
ers to volunteer. Accordingly, in 2014, a record 95,000 volunteers contributed
570,000 hours to improve more than 820 parks, schools, beaches, senior centers
and other vital community sites around the world (COMCAST, 2015).
vii Disaster Volunteering

Disaster volunteering (or crisis/emergency volunteering) is a subset of volun-
teering for people who are either trained in this specialty or lay people who
can immediately assist the victims of a disaster (Smith, Stebbins, & Grotz,
2016: Chapter 14). The former are people with specific expertise and skills for
disaster response, and the latter are often simply good-intentioned people who
learn about a disaster and spontaneously try to help the victims, who are often
neighbors or co-workers. In many cases, governmental agencies and for-profit
organizations lack the ability to provide immediate, first-responder, assistance
and support. Informal volunteers and formal volunteers in voluntary orga-
nizations are often better equipped to respond quickly, especially if they are
located in the affected area. For example, a substantial part of post-Katrina vol-
unteer efforts came from local religious organizations and congregations that
delivered trucks full of supplies to where they were needed (Michel, 2007; Pant
et al., 2008; Tierney, Lindell, & Perry, 2001). After hurricane Sandy, the Red Cross
deployed 5,300 helpers, most of whom were volunteers (Red Cross, 2014b). On
a less dramatic front, the Red Cross estimates that every nine minutes, the
organization responds to a home fire and provides if needed: shelter, mate-
rial support, health and mental health services, and meals, a lot of which are
provided by trained volunteers (Red Cross, 2014a). In general, disaster volun-
teers tend to be younger, more frequent churchgoers, of higher socioeconomic
status, and more socially connected (Beyerlein & Sikkink, 2008; Rotolo & Berg,
2011). While it impossible to fully assess the scope of spontaneous disaster
volunteering, Rotolo and Berg (2011) found that 1.6% of the adult population is
actively engaged in emergency preparedness volunteering, based on a national
large sample conducted by the Current Population Survey.

30 Cnaan and PARK
viii Service Learning

Service learning is a unique form of formal volunteering that has gained popu-
larity in the past three decades (Jacoby, 2003; Jacoby & Associates, 2009). In its
simplest form, service learning involves educational institutions (mostly high
schools and universities) that encourage or even require students to volunteer
off-campus for a group or a cause. In many cases, a certain amount of volun-
teering is a prerequisite for successful graduation. The theory behind this
approach is that mandatory volunteering at a young age will prepare students to
become more caring and responsible citizens. In addition, it is hoped that those
who experience volunteering as part of their education will keep volunteering
throughout their lives. Studies suggest modest success in this respect (Clayton,
Bringle, & Hatcher, 2012; Conway, Amel, & Gerwien, 2009; Kahne & Sporte, 2008).
Critics argue that this is not a real form of volunteering as the students do not
have free will and that the appetite for volunteering may actually be spoiled by
forced (and at times meaningless) school experiences. Regardless, through this
process students provide many hours of care and support to their communities.
Griffith (2012) provides an indication of the importance of college ser-
vice learning. Griffith found that the percentage of U.S. college students
who reported that community service was required by their study program
increased from 7% in 1996 to 19% in 2008. Furthermore, required or not,
from 1996 to 2008, proportionally more students reported having performed
community service, from 39% in 1996 to 47% in 2008 (p. 786). Skinner and
Chapman (1999) found that 64% of all U.S. public schools had students partici-
pating in community service activities, while 83% of high schools had service
learning programs.
TABLE 5 Summary of U.S. volunteering
Regular formal Includes all forms of Volunteering rate declined by 1.1

volunteering volunteering that are done percentage points to 25.4 percent
to benefit others under between 2012 and 2013 (U.S.
the auspices of a formal Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014)
organization 31% of the adult population engage
The behavior that most in volunteer work (including
people have in mind informal volunteering) in the
when they use the term of U.S. (Center on Philanthropy Panel
volunteering Study, 2006)

Volunteering (including informal

volunteering) ranged from 44% in
2007 to 54% in 2006 (Cnaan et al.,
2011)
Informal Generic term that 61% had done some informal

volunteering encompasses a wide variety volunteering in the past month,
of activities that are done to while 77% of those who had
benefit others outside the informally volunteered in the past
auspices of any organization 12 months had also volunteered in
Activities that individuals the past month (Toppe, Kirsch, &
do on their own and often to Michel, 2001)
assist neighbors, colleagues, Worldwide, there were about 971
friends, or their community million volunteers (circa 2005),
including both formal and informal
volunteers, and two-thirds of these
volunteers are estimated to be
informal volunteers (Salamon,
Sokolowski, & Haddock, 2011)
39% of the adult population was
engaged in informal volunteering
in the 153 countries (Gavelin &
Svedberg, 2011)
Episodic formal The easiest and shortest It is estimated that at least
volunteering version of formal volunteering 13,738,500 individual Americans or
A one-time impulse of 6.1% of the population are involved
volunteerism, and it can range in episodic volunteering (U.S.
from a few hours to a few days Department of Labor, 2004).
or longer
Sustains many community
projects that are organized
and carried out by more
committed, regular formal
volunteers

32 Cnaan and PARK
TABLE 5 Summary of U.S. volunteering (cont.)
Virtual Known as online 70% of the virtual volunteers chose

volunteering volunteering and cyber assignments requiring one to five
service hours a week, and
A volunteer can serve a nearly half chose assignment lasting
cause or an organization at 12 weeks or less (Dhebar & Stokes,
a convenient time without 2008)
leaving ones residence or Wikipedia, the most notable
workplace example of virtual volunteering,
Writing petitions, raising is composed and edited by
money, tutoring online, approximately 100,000 volunteer
providing counseling, etc. authors, and these authors create
articles and translate them into over
265 languages (Wikipedia, 2015).
Board (policy) A form of volunteer work

It is assumed that between 10 to 20
volunteering on a nonprofit board that million Americans serve as board
often goes hand in hand members (BoardResource, 2013)
with donating money
The average number of board
A board is a body of elected meetings per year is 6.9, and the
or appointed members who average board meeting lasts 3.3
jointly oversee the policy- hours (Bohse & Associates, 2007)
making activities of a nonprofit
organization
Mostly, board members of
nonprofits are not paid for their
participation on boards
Workplace and A volunteer phenomenon Only anecdotal data exist.

CSR volunteering where people who know
each other and are otherwise
socially or employer
connected carry out volunteer
tasks together or individually

Organized volunteering by
employees is beneficial in both
improving the company image
and in motivating workers to
be loyal
Disaster (or crisis, A subset of volunteerism After hurricane Sandy, the Red Cross
emergency) for those who have specific deployed 5,300 helpers, most of
volunteering expertise and skills or whom were volunteers (Red Cross,
those who spontaneously 2014b)
try to help victims and The Red Cross estimates that every 9
communities in crisis minutes, the organization responds
Volunteers and voluntary to a home fire and provides shelter,
organizations are often material support, health and mental
better equipped to respond health services, and meals, a lot
faster than government or of which are provided by trained
for-profits volunteers (Red Cross, 2014a)
1.6% of the adult population is
actively engaged in emergency
preparedness volunteering (Rotolo
& Berg, 2011)
Service learning A unique form of The percentage of U.S. college

volunteering that has gained students who reported that
popularity in the past three community service was required by
decades their study program increased from
Educational institutions, 7% in 1996 to 19% in 2008 (Griffith,
mostly high schools and 2012)
universities, allow or require From 1996 to 2008, more students
students to serve a group reported having performed
or a cause through formal community service, from 39% in
volunteering off-campus 1996 to 47% in 2008 (Griffith, 2012)
64% of U.S. public schools had
students participating in community
service activities while 83% of
high schools have service leaning
programs (Skinner & Chapman,
1999)

34 Cnaan and PARK
d Environment-friendly Behaviors
Since the early 1960s, public awareness and concern for environmental issues
has reached very high levels. This trend is witnessed through increased politi-
cal efforts to address climate change (Keohane & Victor, 2011), the growth of
environmental organizations worldwide (Longhofer & Schofer, 2010), and
growing media attention to environmental messages (Andrews & Caren, 2010).
Concerns regarding water and air pollution, destruction of natural habitats,
species extinction, contaminated food, and waste disposal are nowadays para-
mount. Environment-friendly behaviors can be carried out individually or in
groups and are designed to sustain our ecosystem in various ways. This type of
civic engagement can range from personally recycling to actively participating
in environmental campaigns and joining environmental organizations.
The classification of environment-friendly behaviors proposed by Stern
(2000) has several categories. It first lists Committed environmental activ-
ism (e.g., active involvement in environmental organizations and demonstra-
tions) is a major focus of research on social movement participation (p. 409).
However, these behaviors along with environmental donations are not covered
in this section as they were discussed under the broad categories of giving and
volunteering. For brevitys sake, we also omit Sterns second category in this
section. These environmental activities are categorized as non-activist behav-
ior in the public sphere. They involve pro-environmental activities such as
signing petitions or voting for a green party that demonstrate individuals civic
engagement but are less public or present less risk than engaged activism.
i Private-sphere Environment-friendly Behaviors

Private-sphere environment-friendly behaviors are those that individuals
undertake with consideration for the environment in their daily decisions
to purchase, consume, and dispose of products (Stern, 2000). Some activi-
ties include turning appliances and lights off, recycling at home, recycling at
work, taking public transit, walking and/or biking instead of using a car, using
energy efficient light bulbs, and reusing shopping bags. Using this repertoire
of private-sphere behaviors, Katz-Gerro and colleagues (2015) found that most
students in five studied countries reported performing between 2.82 (Israel)
and 3.20 (Canada) of these activities on a regular basis.
The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation (NEETF) &
Roper ASW (2002) reported that 89% of respondents frequently turn off lights
and electrical appliances when not in use, and 65% lower the thermostat in the
winter to conserve energy. The report points out that both saving energy and
saving money are probably motivating forces, but either way, the nations envi-
ronment and energy independence benefit (p. 30). Over half of Americans
(51%) reduce the use of air conditioning in the summer to conserve energy,

and 47% purchase lamps and appliances that are energy efficient. Moreover,
41% accelerate slowly to conserve gasoline when driving, and 13% use other
types of transportation, such as a bus or bike instead of driving their own car.
Also, GfK Roper Consulting & SC Johnson (2011) reported that 18% of respon-
dents have cut back on their automobile usage on a regular basis.
ii Other Environmentally Significant Behaviors

Other environmentally significant behaviors are the last of Sterns (2000) types
of environment-friendly behaviors. These are behaviors that influence the
actions of organizations; for example, introducing workplace recycling, orga-
nizing a school to cleanup garbage from streams, or for a company to adopt
a highway. While we could not find statistics for most other environmentally
significant behaviors, we found data on adopt-a-highway from a few states. In
Missouri, for example, the state DOT (Missouri DOT, 2014) reported that about
3,700 groups adopted over 5,200 miles of highway. This source also reported
that if MoDOT did the work of the Adopt-A-Highway volunteers, it would
cost about $1.5 million per year. In California, more than 120,000 Californians
have cleaned and enhanced over 15,000 shoulder-miles of roadside. There
are approximately 2,693 active groups representing an estimated 12,670 par-
ticipants. [Some] 70% of the groups are volunteers who perform the services
themselves, and 30% are sponsors who hire a contractor (See California
Department of Transportation, 2014; Schudson, 1996).
iii Recycling Behaviors

While recycling behaviors are listed as part of private-sphere environmen-
tal behavior, we contend that these behaviors are significant and common
enough to merit special mentioning. The National Environmental Education
& Training Foundation (NEETF) & Roper ASW (2002) reported that 60% of
Americans frequently recycle newspapers, cans, and glass. According to results
of The Environment: Public Attitudes and Individual Behavior Survey (GfK
Roper Consulting & SC Johnson, 2011), 58% of respondents sort trash to sepa-
rate garbage from recyclable materials on a regular basis, and 29% buy prod-
ucts made from or packaged in recycled materials on a regular basis.
iv Buying Organic Food

Buying organic food and community-supported agriculture (CSA) is a sub-type
of environmental behavior that has elements of political consumerism. The
Organic Trade Association (OTA, 2014) reported that, eight out of ten American
families have bought organic products one or more times in the past two years.
Furthermore, ninety percent of parents report that they choose organic food
products for their children at least sometimes, with almost a quarter of those

36 Cnaan and PARK
parents saying they always buy organic. Also, according to OTA, organic sales
in the United States in 2013 amounted to $35.1 billion, and OTA expected the
organic sales during 2014 to increase by 12% or more. Additionally, according to
the U.S. Department of Agricultures Agricultural Marketing Service (2014), the
national count of farmers markets in 2014 was 8,268, which was a 1.5% increase
from 2013. And according to LocalHarvest (2014), there are over 4,000 CSAs in
operation in the United States.
CSA includes those who subscribe to one of the many local arrangements
committed to buying a certain quantity of locally grown, and often organic,
fruits and vegetables. Some CSAs also supply locally raised meat and eggs.
People who take the trouble and accept the cost to subscribe to a CSA are
using their resources to help local growers prosper and support environmental
practices. People who join a CSA help sustain a network of local small-scale
farming that otherwise would be overcome by commercial agriculture.
v Planting Trees and Growing Food

This line of pro-social behavior is an important off-shoot of environment-friendly
behaviors. The key difference is that traditional environment-friendly behaviors
are usually done in groups and one becomes a member of a collective action,
usually a formal association. Planting trees and cultivating vegetable or flower
gardens are private acts that may give the actor personal benefits (such as pride,
aesthetic excitement, organic food, and leisure time activity), but also contribute
environmentally to the society at large. The people who are willing to spend the
money, time, and effort to plant and maintain trees and/or gardens are adding to
the quality of life of neighbors and others in their communities.
The National Gardening Association (2013) reported that total sales for all
types of do-it-yourself lawn and gardening activities increased by 1% in 2012
to $29.451 billion from $29.097 billion in 2011, and the number of households
that participated in lawn and garden activities last year increased 2% from 83
million households in 2011 to 85 million households in 2012 (p. 12). Also, the
NGA reported that the nation-wide average amount spent on all lawn and gar-
den activities in 2012 was $347 compared with $351 in 2011 (p. 12).
e Political and Social Behaviors

While political science scholars focus on political participation, this kind of
civic engagement is often ignored by scholars of nonprofit studies. The simplest
form of civic engagement is attending a candidate forum and learning what the
candidate stands for. Many people on Election Day volunteer to drive voters
from their homes to the voting stations and back. They do so to enhance the
cause or the party they support. Others serve as volunteers in voting stations.

TABLE 6 Summary of U.S. environment-friendly behaviors
Private-sphere Personal behaviors 89% frequently turn off

environment- undertaken with electrical appliances when
friendly consideration for the not in use; 65% lower the
behaviors environment in daily thermostat in the winter to
decisions conserve energy; 51% reduce
Turning appliances and the use of air conditioning
lights off, recycling at home to conserve energy; 47%
or at work, taking public purchase energy efficient
transit or walking, using appliances; 41% accelerate
energy efficient light bulbs, slowly to conserve gasoline
and reusing shopping bags when driving; 13% use public
transportation or bike instead
of driving their own car
(NEETF & Roper ASW, 2002)
18% cut back on their
automobile usage on a regular
basis (GfK Roper Consulting &
SC Johnson, 2011)
Other The behaviors influencing About 3,700 groups adopted

environmentally the actions of organizations over 5,200 miles in Missouri
significant to which individuals belong as part of the adopt-a-highway
behaviors or for a company to adopt a program (Missouri DOT, 2014)
highway In California, more than
Introducing workplace 120,000 people have cleaned
recycling or organizing a and enhanced over 15,000
school to cleanup garbage shoulder-mile of roadside.
from streams There are approximately 2,693
active groups representing an
estimated 12,670 participants
(see California Department of
Transportation, 2014)

38 Cnaan and PARK
TABLE 6 Summary of U.S. environment-friendly behaviors (cont.)
Recycling A part of private-sphere 60% frequently recycle

behaviors environmental behavior, newspapers, cans, and glass
but significant and (NEETF & Roper ASW, 2002)
common enough to 58% sort trash for recycling
mention separately on a regular basis; 29%
buyproducts made from
or packaged in recycled
materials on a regular basis
(GfK Roper Consulting &
SC Johnson, 2011)
Buying organic A sub-type of 80% of families have bought

food environmental behavior organic products one or more
that has elements of times in the past year; organic
political consumerism sales in 2013 amounted
Buy locally grown food, $35.1 billion (Organic Trade
help local growers prosper, Association, 2014)
and support environmental The national count of
practice through CSA farmers markets in 2014 is
8,268 (U.S. Department of
Agricultures Agricultural
Marketing Service, 2014)
Planting trees An important off-shoot Total sales for all type of do-it-
and growing of environment-friendly yourself lawn and gardening
food behaviors activities are $29.451 billion
Private acts that may in 2012 (National Gardening
give the actor personal Association (NGA), 2013)
benefits (pride, aesthetic 85 million households
excitement, leisure participated in lawn and
time activity), but garden activities in 2012
are also contributing (NGA, 2013)
environmentally to the The nation-wide average
society at large amount spent on all lawn and
garden activities in 2012 was
$347 (NGA, 2013)

They start volunteering weeks before the election, working throughout the
election and beyond. More committed volunteers make phone calls or home
visits on behalf of the candidates they support. There are other means of get-
ting involved politically that include serving on committees, organizing a fun-
draising event, and organizing online campaigns. While a full discussion of
political activity is beyond the scope of this paper, we outline several key forms
of political behaviors that are highlighted in political science discussions of
civic engagement but are often ignored in nonprofit studies.
i Joining a Political Forum

Joining a political forum is not common in the United States. According to
the Social Science Research Center at the University of Chicago (SSR, 2014),
the proportion of the respondents who have joined an Internet political forum
or discussion group is only 7.5%, whereas more than 90% of respondents
(92.6%) have not joined these kinds of political activities. Similarly, CNCS
(2010) reported that only 10.3% of Americans have attended a meeting where
political issues were discussed.
ii Public Commentaries
Some people also participate in political activity by contacting or appearing
in the media to express their own views. However, the number of people who
actually do this is quite small. According to the same source (SSR, 2014), only
14.6% of respondents have conducted or appeared in the media to express
their ideas, while 85.4% have never done this before. Keeter and colleagues
(2002) also reported that 10% of respondents have contacted a newspaper or
magazine to register an opinion, and 8% have tried to contact a TV or radio talk
show in the past year.
iii Donating or Fundraising for Political Activity

Donating or fundraising for political activity is another form of political par-
ticipation. The Social Science Research Center at the University of Chicago
(SSR, 2014) reported that among 1,466 respondents in a national representative
sample, 50% of respondents have donated money or raised funds for a social
or political activity. Data from the Civic and Political Health of the Nation:
National Civic Engagement Survey (Keeter et al., 2002) showed that fewer peo-
ple have donated money for political activities, with 13% contributing money
to a political party, organization, or candidate in the year leading to the study.
iv Showing Support for a Party or Candidate

Showing support for a party or candidate can be done by wearing buttons, put-
ting up yard signs, applying political bumper stickers, or actively encouraging

40 Cnaan and PARK
acquaintances to vote for a particular cause, candidate, or party. CNCS (2010)

reported that 14.8% of Americans have shown such support for a party or can-
didate. According to the Civic and Political Health of the Nation: National Civic
Engagement Survey (Keeter et al., 2002), one-third (33%) of respondents gener-
ally talk to people and try to show them why they should vote for or against a
candidate or party and one-quarter (26%) say they demonstrate their support
through posting a house sign, wearing a campaign button or putting a sticker
on their car in the past year (p. 8). In addition, 3% of respondents have gone
canvassing door-to-door for political reasons in the past year (Keeter et al., 2002).
v Rallies and Protests

Rallies and protests are forms of civic engagement that can be done without
formal participation in any group or political party. These types of activism
may come out of long established community networks that are activated for a
cause (Milofsky, 2008), or may involve community members engaged in activ-
ism for the first time. We argue that rallies and protests are important forms of
civic engagement, as they are necessary for major social and political change.
The Social Science Research Center at the University of Chicago (SSR, 2014)
reported that about 32% of respondents have attended a political meeting or
rally; 12.8% have attended one in the past year, and 19.1% have attended one in
the more distant past.
Regarding participation in a protest or demonstration, the same source (SSR,
2014) reported that 18.7% of respondents have taken part in a demonstration
at least once. The respondents who have not participated in a demonstration
account for 81.3%. Interestingly, two-fifths (42.9%) who have not taken part in
a demonstration said they might participate in one in the future.
However, CNCS (2010) reported that only 3.1% of Americans have taken part
in a march, rally, protest, or demonstration. Keeter and colleagues (2002) also
reported a low rate of participation in protests and demonstrations: only 4%
of respondents had taken part in a protest or demonstration in the past year
according to this study.
vi Writing Letters (Postal Mail or Electronic Mail) to Elected Officials

This active mode of influencing formal policies and trying to affect elected rep-
resentatives votes takes time and commitment toward a cause. In many cases,
the letters are form-letters written by others, and the person either copies or
reproduces them. In addition to writing letters to elected officials, the Social
Science Research Center at the University of Chicago (SSR, 2014) reported that
43.2% of respondents have contacted, or attempted to contact, a politician or
a civil servant to express their own views; 22.3% have done it in the past year,
and 20.9% have done it in the more distant past.

As with rallies and protests, other surveys indicate much lower participa-
tion rates. In the CNCS report (2010), only 10.4% of Americans have contacted
a public official to express their opinion. Keeter and colleagues (2002) found
that 17% of respondents have contacted a public official in the last year.
vii Signing Petitions

Signing petitions is an old act of civic engagement. Candidates running for
office, social campaigns, referendums, and other efforts to influence govern-
ment need a large number of signatures to achieve their goals. By signing a
petition, the person involved provides an act of civic engagement even if only
for a short time. Petitions can be accessed through special dedicated websites
(see, for example, Care2.com), direct solicitation through door-to-door cam-
paigns or approaching people in public places, or through word of mouth.
reported that about 67% of respondents have signed a petition at least once.
35.2% of the respondents have done this in the past year, while 31.7% have done
this in the more distant past. The respondents who have not signed a petition
in the past account for 33%. Specifically, 23.1% have not done this but might do
it, while 10% have not done this and would never do it. Keeter and colleagues
(2002) reported that 23% of respondents have signed a written petition, and
12% have signed an e-mail petition on behalf of some interest or cause.
viii Voting
Voting is still the most fundamental form of civic engagement in democra-
cies. While voting is mandatory in a few countries, it is an optional act in most
countries. The U.S. Census Bureau (2013) reported that, Overall voting rates
have fluctuated in recent presidential races, from a low of 58.4% of the citizen
population in 1996 to a high of about 64.0% in both 2004 and 2008. In 2012,
the overall voting rate was 61.8% (p. 1). According to the report, the number
of citizens eligible to vote has increased in every U.S. presidential election
since 1996, from 179,935,000 in 1996 to 215,081,000 in 2012, as has the number
of citizens who have reported voting: 105,017,000 in 1996 to 132,948,000 in 2012.
Interestingly, in every presidential election since 1996, women have voted at
higher rates than men, and the gap in 2012 was about four percentage points.
Also, voting rates have tended to increase with the age of the voters since 1996.
In the 2012 election, the voting rate of 18 to 24 year olds was 41.2%, whereas the
voting rate of those 65 years and older was 71.9%.
CNCS (2010) reported that the voter registration rate for the 2008 elec-
tion was 64.9%, but the actual voting rate was 57.1%. According to Keeter
and colleagues (2002), 79 percent of those over 18 say they are registered
to vote, but only 51 percent of those old enough to have experienced an

42 Cnaan and PARK
election (age 20 and older in this survey) say they always vote in local and
national elections (p. 8). These statistics suggest that voting is in decline.
If one views civic participation only or mostly through the lens of political
involvement, indeed the picture is troubling. However, as we suggest in this
article, voting is only one of many modes of civic participation and without
viewing all forms of civic participation, the gloomy picture regarding youth
voting is incomplete.
ix Paying Full Taxes

Many scholars do not consider paying taxes in full a form of civic engagement.
However, given the many ways one can avoid paying taxes and the low chance
of being caught, we contend that paying taxes in full is a form of civic engage-
ment that supports the collective welfare.
Brown and Mazur (2003) reported that the IRS estimates that the Voluntary
Payment Compliance Rate (VPCR) for all taxpayers in the tax year 2000 was
98.7%. According to the 2013 Taxpayer Attitude Survey of the IRS Oversight
Board (2014), 86% of taxpayers said that it is not at all acceptable to cheat
on your income taxes, while 12% expressed some tolerance for tax cheating
(whether a little here and there or as much as possible); 2% were non-
respondents. Moreover, the report shows that people consider paying taxes
to be civic engagement, as 74% of taxpayers completely agree that it is every
Americans civic duty to pay his or her fair share of taxes and an additional 21%
agree with this sentiment for a total of 95%. Also, 93% of taxpayers believe that
anyone who cheats on his or her taxes should be held accountable, including
64% who completely agree. In this survey, 94% of taxpayers indicate that per-
sonal integrity has the greatest influence on whether they honestly report and
pay their taxes. The influence of audits (60%), third-party information report-
ing to IRS (59%), and the belief that friends and associates are paying honestly
(53%) were much less important reasons for paying taxes. This surveys results
suggest that people regard reporting and paying taxes as a form of civic engage-
ment and a moral activity as a member of U.S. society.
x Political Consumerism
Political consumerism is an individual form of civic engagement in which a
person or a family purchases items that support certain values or political
agendas. Such behavior shows keen civic engagement that is often under-
recognized but can yield great results. Buying only organic products, buy-
ing only fair trade products, boycotting products that come from tobacco
companies or from companies that support certain values, boycotting
products from certain countries based on political ideologies, and so forth,

are means of civic engagement that are rarely studied (Stolle, Hooghe, &
Micheletti, 2005).
One way this behavior can be performed is through dedicated websites. For
example, EcoPerks.com allows users to shop for environmentally sound prod-
ucts and gain points that can be redeemed toward supporting environmen-
tal causes. Some companies produce quality items that may cost more, but
are made well and have no negative impact on the environment. Such people
may choose, for instance, to purchase hiking gear from Patagonia, a company
that is dedicated to quality clothing and environmental activism, rather than
from another producer who is environmentally suspect. The same can be said
about buying conflict-free diamonds.
According to the Civic and Political Health of the Nation: National Civic
Engagement Surveysconducted in spring and fall of 2002 to investigate
the civic and political engagement of American citizensone-third of U.S.
citizens have engaged in political consumer behavior (Keeter et al., 2002). In
this survey, political consumerism was measured by two types of behavior
boycotting and buycotting. Boycotting indicated a behavioral decision not to
buy something because of conditions under which the product is made, or
because the respondent dislikes the conduct of company that produces it.
Buycotting, on the other hand, indicated the consumer behavior of buying a
certain product or service because the respondent likes the social or political
values of the company that produces or provides it (Baek, 2010, pp. 10701071).
In the case of boycotting, 38% and 35% (spring and fall, respectively) of citi-
zens have experienced it before, while a slightly lower number of people have
experienced buycotting: 35% and 32%, respectively (Baek, 2010).
The 2006 United States Citizenship, Involvement, Democracy (CID) survey,
which is conducted by the Center for Democracy and Civil Society at George-
town University (Howard, Gibson, & Stolle, 2006) reported, that 18 percent of
respondents have boycotting experience and 23 percent of those engaged in
political purchases (buycotting).
Among those who engaged in at least one act, 48 percent engaged in both
acts, 17 percent engaged in boycotting a product only, and 35 percent engaged
in political purchasing only. The percentage of individuals engaging in politi-
cal purchasing is just 12 percent among those who did not engage in a prod-
uct boycott, yet this percentage jumps up to 73 percent among those who did
engage in a product boycott (Newman & Bartels, 2011, p. 814). In the report of
the Civic Life in America Survey (CNCS, 2010), the rate of participation in buy-
ing or boycotting a product is less than the research results mentioned above:
10.7% of Americans have bought or boycotted a product or service because of
the producers political values.

44 Cnaan and PARK
xi Civil Disobedience
Civil disobedience includes activities that a person or a group does to influ-
ence policies and practices, but that are illegal or contrary to established rules.
People who wish to prevent a forest being cut have chained themselves to
trees. One of the most celebrated forms of civil disobedience was the sit-ins of
African-Americans in white-only establishments in the South during the civil
rights era. Similarly, many Americans participated in the Sanctuary Movement,
which hosted, aided, and hid illegal immigrants who faced deportation to a
country that intended to harm them (Coutin, 1993). Gibson (1990) noted that
since the inception of the Sanctuary Movement in 1980, the movement has
grown to include over 400 sanctuary churches and 2000 support congregations
throughout the United States. In each of these congregations, about 200 adult
members and probably another 100 supporters were active in the movement.
The movement saw a decline in size and involvement in the first decade of the
21st century, but has since been on the rise again with the immigration crisis
(Dale, 2014).
Another type of civil disobedience is squatting in buildings that are unoc-
cupied to help homeless people find a home (Neuwirth, 2004). In addition, the
activities of Guerilla Gardening, in which people plant flowers or vegetables
in neglected private or public properties (Reynolds, 2008), are also included
under civil disobedience. Some people assume leadership roles in these activi-
ties, while others aid, provide resources, and assist in planning these activities.
Similarly, yarn bombing is a form of unauthorized city beautifying. Yarn art-
ists knit long pieces of wool and cover famous sculptures or objects such as
trees, bike stands, or even building facades. Usually, the knitted yarn is whim-
sical and sends a message of harmony. Unlike graffiti, this form of art can be
easily removed, and it makes people smile. Tree hugging is another form of
civil disobedience, where activists and concerned citizens literally hug trees to
stand in the way of tractors that are trying to push them down. We did not find
statistics on the prevalence of this activity, but did find a few interesting case
studies (North, 1998; Walter, 2007).
Assessing the prevalence of civil disobedience is very difficult. For example,
it is hard to assess how many people participate in Guerilla Gardening. This
type of activity does not need the approval of any organization, and some who
engage in this activity may not even know that they are a part of this move-
ment or that they broke the law by participating in it. An indication of the
size of involvement in Guerilla Gardening activities can be obtained from
the website guerrillagardening.org. According to the websites statistics, it has
41,926 members.

According to the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the

George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (2013),
Many Americans (24%) would support an organization that engaged in non-
violent civil disobedience against corporate or government activities that
make global warming worse and one in eight people (13%) say they would be
willing to personally engage in non-violent civil disobedience against corpo-
rate or government activities that make global warming worse (p. 5). We are
cognizant that some of the above mentioned activities are viewed by some or
many segments of the community as negative or even destructive. We do not
assign value to these activities, but instead focus on the actors intention to
improve the general quality of life as they see best.
xii Formal Complaints Regarding Bad Service or Fraudulent Practices

The act of pressing formal complaints, when one experiences bad service or
a fraudulent practice, is an important one in any civil society. Most people
either accept these negative practices or complain informally until their own
circumstance is corrected. When a rude or racist statement is made by a
service provider, it is easy to ignore it or accept a half-hearted apology. The
same goes when one finds out that a service provider added charges that were
not agreed upon. These examples rarely lead to formal complaints. However,
in order for society to be truly civil, residents have to be active and submit
official complaints so that others will not face similar negative practices. While
we highlight the art of complaining, it can also be supplemented by praising.
When a service is exceptional, a note of appreciation or a formal letter of rec-
ommendation can serve to encourage better service, compassion, and mutual
understanding and respect.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) (2014) reported that,
between April 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014, the CFPB received approximately
192,200 consumer complaints. Approximately 60 percent of all consumer
complaints were submitted through the CFPBs website and 11 percent via
telephone calls. Referrals accounted for 19 percent of all complaints received,
with the remainder submitted by mail, email, and fax (p. 21). Moreover, CFPB
reported that since launching Consumer Response operations on July 21, 2011
through March 31, 2014, the CFPB received approximately 332,300 consumer
complaints (p. 21). Additionally, CFPB have aided in efforts to refund more
than $867 million for consumers who fell victim to various violations of con-
sumer financial protection laws and have deposited over $119 million into Civil
Penalty Fund, which is used to compensate wronged consumers and provide
financial education (p. 2). Similarly, the Better Business Bureau (BBB, 2014)

46 Cnaan and PARK
TABLE 7 Summary of U.S. political and social behaviors
Joining a Attending a candidate 7.5% have joined an internet

political forum forum and learning what political forum or discussion
the candidate stands for group (SSR, 2014)
Not common in the U.S. 10% have attended a meeting
where political issues were
discussed (CNCS, 2010)
Public Contacting a newspaper, 14.6% have contacted or

commentaries magazine, or TV to express appeared in the media to
their own opinions express their idea (SSR, 2014)
10% have contacted a
newspaper or magazine to
register an opinion, and 8%
have tried to contact a TV or
radio talk show in the past year
(Keeter et al., 2002)
Donating or Organizing fundraising 50% have donated money

fundraising events, donating money to or raised funds for a social or
for political a political party political activity (SSR, 2014)
activity 13% have contributed money
to a political party, organization,
or candidate in the past year
(Keeter et al., 2002)
Showing Wearing buttons, putting 14.8% have shown support for

support for up yard signs, applying party or candidate (CNCS, 2010)
a party or political bumper stickers, 33% talk to people and try to
candidate or actively encouraging convince them to vote for or
acquaintances to vote for against a candidate or party;
a particular candidate or 26% demonstrate their support
party by posting a house sign, wearing
a button, or putting a sticker
on their car; 3% have gone
canvassing door-to-door in the
past year (Keeter et al., 2002)

Rallies and Can be done without 32% have attended a political

protests formal participation in any meeting or rally; 12.8% have
group or political party attended it in the past year
May come out of long (SSR, 2014)
established community 18.7% have participated in a
networks that can be protest or demonstration at
activated for a cause, or least once (SSR, 2014)
may involve community 3.1% have taken part in
members in activism for a march, rally, protest, or
the first time demonstration (CNCS, 2010)
An important form of civic 4% have participated in a
engagement necessary for protest or demonstration in the
major social and political past year (Keeter et al., 2002)
change
Writing letters The active mode of 43.2% have contacted, or

(postal mail influencing formal policies attempted to contact, a
or electronic and trying to affect elected politician or a civil servant to
mail) to representatives votes express their own views at least
elected or Contacting officials to once; 22.3% did it in the past
appointed express their views via year (SSR, 2014)
officials letters or electronic mail 10.4% have contacted a public
official to express their opinion
(CNCS, 2010)
17% have contacted a public
official in the last year (Keeter
et al., 2002)
Signing Can be accessed through 67% have signed a petition at

petitions special dedicated websites, least once; 35.2% did so in the
direct solicitation through past year (SSR, 2014)
door-to-door campaigns, 23% have signed a written
approaching people in petition; 12% have signed an
public e-mail petition on behalf of
some interest or cause (Keeter
et al., 2002)

48 Cnaan and PARK
TABLE 7 Summary of U.S. political and social behaviors (cont.)
Voting Fundamental form or Overall voting rates in recent

civic engagement in presidential races have fluctuated
democracies from 58.4% in 1996 to 64.0%
In most countries, voting in both 2004 and 2008; overall
is optional voting rate in 2012 was 61.8%
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2013)
The voting rate in the 2008
election was 57.1%; the voter
registration rate in 2008 was
64.9% (CNCS, 2010)
Paying full Paying full taxes is a form IRS estimates that the Voluntary
taxes of civic engagement that Payment Compliance Rate for
supports the collective all taxpayer in Tax Year 2000 was
welfare 98.7% (Brown & Mazur, 2003)
86% of taxpayers say that it is
not at all acceptable to cheat
on your income taxes; 74%
completely agree that it is a civic
duty to pay his or her fair share
of taxes (2013 IRS Oversight
Board, 2014)
Political An individual form of 38% have experience

consumerism civic engagement in boycotting, 35% engaged in
which a person or a family boycotting (political purchase)
purchases items that (Keeter et al., 2002)
support certain values or 18% have boycotting
political agendas experience, 23% engaged in
Buying organic products, political purchase (Howard,
buying fair trade products, Gibson, & Stolle, 2006)
boycotting certain 10.7% have bought or boycotted
products a product or service because of
the producers political values
(CNCS, 2010)

Civil Illegal activities that a 24% would support an

disobedience person or a group does organization that engaged in
to influence policies and non-violent civil disobedience
practices against corporate or government
Chaining themselves activities that make global
to trees, squatting in warming worse; 13% would be
buildings, or hugging trees willing to personally engage in
civil disobedience against these
activities (Yale Project, 2013)
Formally Pressing formal There were 192,200 consumer

complain complaints when one complaints between April
regarding experiences bad service or 2013 and March 2014; 60%
bad service a fraudulent practice of complaints were submitted
or fraudulent By submitting official through the website (Consumer
practices complaints, others will Financial Protection Bureau,
not face similar negative 2014)
practices There were 885,845 registered
Can also be supplemented complaints in 2013, and two
by praising thirds of them were settled
satisfactorily (Better Business
Bureau, 2014)
reported that in 2013, there were 885,845 registered complains. About two
thirds of them were settled satisfactorily. Given that there are numerous
other avenues through which one can complain, and that most complaints
go directly to the involved organizations, the real number of consumer com-
plaints is likely to be significantly higher.
f Supporting or Helping Other Individuals

Most scholars of civic engagement envision communal activities, often involv-
ing face-to-face interactions (e.g., Putnam, 2000). However, people can contrib-
ute to others quality of life with individual acts that benefit other individuals.
These activities contribute to civic engagement in three ways. First, the activ-
ity benefits another person in the community. Second, by participating in an

50 Cnaan and PARK
activity like a blood drive or organ donation, an individual contributes to a pool

of publically available human bodily materials that allow any person in need
to benefit based on medical necessity, not on ability to pay. These materials
become a public good that are available to the community as a whole. Third, by
doing random acts of kindness or befriending a stranger, an individual draws
marginalized or temporarily needy people into the wider community. This sec-
tion outlines several forms of supporting individuals that are often left out of
surveys to understand civic engagement.
i Blood Donation
Blood donation is another form of civic participation that is rarely included in
general surveys. Since the seminal work of Titmuss (1970) that explained blood
donation as a social exchange between people in a certain ecology, blood
donation has been understood as a means of caring for others, especially strang-
ers (see Steele et al., 2008). According to the World Health Organization (2010),
The Melbourne Declaration on 100% Voluntary Non-remunerated Donation
of Blood and Blood Components called for action by governments to support
the achievement of this goal by 2020. Analysis also shows that countries with
100% voluntary donation have a higher proportion of regular donors and that
this has been maintained over a number of years (World Health Organization,
2010). They recommend that all blood donations should be voluntary and non-
remunerated and that no coercion should be applied to the potential donor.
Voluntary donations are assumed to be the safest, as the motivation is altruis-
tic and not self-serving (Bednall & Bove, 2011; Sass, 2013; Snelling, 2012).
The American Red Cross, the U.S. repository for blood donations, accepts
blood donations only from volunteers, making all such blood donations in the
United States voluntary and uncompensated. Data from the Red Cross (2014a)
website show that in 2013, the number of blood donations collected in the
USA in a year was 15.7 million and the number of blood donors in the USA
in a year was 9.2 million (http://www.redcrossblood.org/learn-about-blood/
blood-facts-and-statistics). Some likely donate hoping to be assisted in their
time of need, but they would be assisted regardless of whether they donated
blood. Not surprisingly, the website also reports, The number one reason
donors say they give blood is because they want to help others (http://www
.redcrossblood.org/learn-about-blood/blood-facts-and-statistics).
reported that only 17.2% of respondents had participated in blood donation in
the past year. Among the 17.2% of those who donated blood, 9.6% had done it
once in the past year, and 6.9% had done it at least 2 or 3 times in the past year.
The respondents who participated in blood donation once a month or more
than that in the past year are less than 1%. Similarly, data from the United States

Citizenship, Involvement, and Democracy Survey (Howard, Gibson, & Stolle,

2006) showed that 28.1% of respondents had donated blood in the last five years.
ii Organ Donation
Organ donation is another form of biological generosity. Organ transplantation
has become an important life-saving medical intervention for end-stage organ
failure. People can also donate biological materials such as oocytes (eggs) to
infertile women, or bone marrow, in addition to organs to save someone elses
life. People sign on to become organ donors in case of sudden emergencies.
Less frequently seen, but becoming quite common in recent years, is the prac-
tice of donating ones body after death.
The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2014) reports, Each
day, an average of 79 people receive organ transplants. However, an average
of 18 people die each day waiting for transplants that cant take place because
of the shortage of donated organs (http://www.organdonor.gov/about/data
.html). The same official source reported that in 2013, 28,953 people received
organ transplants. Interestingly, more women are live donors but more men
are involved in organ donation post-mortem. Currently, the most relevant sta-
tistic may be that, more than 120 million people in the USA are signed up to be
a donor (http://www.organdonor.gov/about/data.html).
Another form of biological donation is egg donation. Egg donation is a pro-
cess by which a woman donates eggs for purposes of assisted reproduction
such as in-vitro fertilization technology, where the eggs are fertilized in a labo-
ratory. Egg donation can be purely voluntary or it can be a service provided
for a fee. In fact, there are companies that specialize in finding egg donors for
couples who cannot conceive. These companies offer thousands of dollars for
donated eggs. Nevertheless, there are people who willingly donate without
remuneration. Kawwass and colleagues (2013) found that fertilization attempts
using donor eggs increased from 10,801 in 2000 to 18,306 in 2010, an increase of
59%. However, we cannot assess how many of the donors were volunteers and
how many were paid.
iii Other Forms of Biological Support

Blood and organ donations are the most well-known forms of biological pro-
social behaviors. However, there are other less dramatic forms of biological con-
tributions that make a difference and enhance others quality of life. One such
example is cutting ones long hair (1012 inches or more) and donating it to orga-
nizations like Locks of Love, Pantene Beautiful Lengths, or Wigs for Kids. The
hair is used to produce wigs for cancer patients or other people in need of hair.
Pantene Beautiful Lengths (2014), one of the main organizations that
accepts hair donations, reports, more than 500,000 ponytails donated so far

52 Cnaan and PARK
and growing and that, Pantene has donated 24,000 free real-hair wigs to the
American Cancer Societys wig bank, which distributes wigs to cancer patients
across the country (http://pantene.com/en-us/brandexperience/about-the-
program). Goldberg (2013) reported that, Locks of Love, a nonprofit that makes
hairpieces for needy kids with medical issues that lead to hair loss, only pro-
duced 317 hairpieces in 2011, but should have had enough strands to produce
2,080, according to a report conducted by Nonprofit Investor (NPI) (http://
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/locks-of-love-controversy_n_3269078
.html). While it is not clear how many people donated hair to Locks of Love,
the number is in the thousands since each hairpiece is made of six to ten hair
donations. By September 2006, Locks of Love had provided about 2,000 wigs to
recipients for free or at a reduced price, which amounts to about 16,000 indi-
vidual donors.
Another example is women who breast-feed and donate their excess milk
so that other women locally (Human Milk Banking Association of North
America) or internationally (International Breast Milk Project, 2012) can use
it for their babies. The former also serves as an exchange system for travelling
mothers who are forced to leave their baby behind. Jones (2003) reported that,
current North American banks have more than 100 donors annually, each with
daily collections per donor ranging from approximately 4 to 10 oz (p. 313). The
100 donor statistic listed above is likely per site. Other breast milk donation
organizations, such as the Human Milk Banking Association of North America,
reported that in 1999, their seven centers processed 770 potential donors (Tully,
2000).
iv Random Acts of Charity

Random acts of charity include unplanned altruistic behaviors that help
strangers in their time of need (which can also be categorized as informal vol-
unteering). We read in the newspaper about a person who saw a man falling
into the subway tracks. He jumped after her and waved to the driver to stop.
The person risked his own life and saved the life of a woman he had never
met (http://www.karmatube.org/videos.php?id=3899). This dramatic example
is only one of many that occur in various places. Other random acts of charity
include helping people find a difficult address or helping motorists with flat
tires. When places and people face adverse circumstances, strangers provide
material as well as emotional support. Often, a group sponsors such behaviors,
as in a religious congregation or a membership association, but at times, indi-
viduals are moved to help and do so alone and at their own expense.
Random acts of charity can also be part of, or a derivation of, the popular
pay-it-forward campaign/movement (Pay it Forward Foundation, 2014). The
idea is that by helping strangers (as in paying for a strangers turnpike toll charges

or paying for a strangers coffee), the recipient will be inspired, in turn, to show
kindness to another stranger, and thus a series of positive exchanges will ensue.
According to the report of Social Science Research Center at the University
of Chicago (SSR, 2014), 88.8% of respondents have given directions to a
stranger in the past year and 88.2% have allowed a stranger to go ahead of
them in line in the past year. Furthermore, 46.5% of respondents have helped
carry a strangers belongings, like groceries, a suitcase, or shopping bags in the
past year, and 47.1% have offered their seat on a bus or in a public place to a
stranger who was standing.
v Lending an Item or Commodity to Others

This form of pro-social behavior was, in generations past, the hallmark of good
neighborly relationships. Neighbors in suburbs loaned lawn mowers or other
garden tools to each other, and it was common to ask a neighbor for eggs, flour,
milk, etc. in apartment buildings and residential areas. Lending an item or a
commodity to a neighbor still takes place in America, signifying face-to-face
relationships and a willingness to assist when someone expresses a need. In
many cases, such behaviors are reciprocated, but regardless, the people in the
exchange know that they can turn to a neighbor and ask for a needed item
or commodity and be supported. According to the Social Science Research
Center at the University of Chicago (SSR, 2014), the proportion of respondents
who had an experience of letting someone they didnt know well borrow an
item of some value like dishes or tools in 2003 was 41.7%.
vi Befriending Lonely People

People who have experienced moving to a new locality recall the alienation
and boredom that result from not knowing people in a new place. These iso-
lated people lack access to sources of informal support and guidance. To add
a new person to ones social network is often a conscious and difficult task. Yet
befriending isolated neighbors or co-workers is an important aspect of civic
society and helps people who are at the margins of society to assimilate. This
type of pro-social behavior can be done one-on-one, by an invitation to come
and visit, or by an organized outing, like encouraging someone to attend a
community picnic. Regardless, efforts to reach out to lonely people and help
them integrate into ones social network are an important pro-social behavior.
This type of pro-social behavior can also include reabsorbing friends who were
away and are returning home.
Befriending Networks (2014), UKs leading resource on befriending, reported
that there are more than 4,000 befrienders in Scotland and more than 32,000
hours of befriending take place each month. Also, the same source reported that
there are more than 170 befriending projects in Scotland that exist for d ifferent

54 Cnaan and PARK
groups, including children and young people, older people, adults with mental
health problems, and people with learning disabilities, addictions, or a specific
health condition such as epilepsy. According to the Mentoring and Befriending
Foundation (2011), over 3,000 mentoring and befriending projects have been
mapped across England, and 21% of people surveyed in the 200809 Citizenship
Survey have been involved as mentoring and befriending volunteers.
In some states of the USA, especially in southern Florida, there are
Senior Friendship Centers that befriend lonely seniors/elderly. For instance,
the Friendship Centers, based in Sarasota, with branches in other cities, offers
friendship and social activities for the lonely, especially older people, in six
Florida counties (www.friendshipcenters.org).
TABLE 8 Summary of supporting or helping U.S. individuals
Blood A social exchange The number of blood donations

donation between people in a collected in the U.S. in 2013 was
certain ecology 15.7 million; the number of blood
A means of caring donors in the U.S. in 2013 was
for others, especially 9.2 million (Red Cross, 2014a)
strangers 17.2% had participated in
blood donation in the past year
(SSR, 2014)
28.1% had donated blood in the
last five years (Howard, Kirsch, &
Stolle, 2006)
Organ Another form of biological Each day, an average of 79 people

donation generosity receive organ transplants;
Donation of biological 28,953 people received organ
materials (oocytes/eggs), transplants in 2013; more than
bone marrow, or organs) 120 million people in the U.S.
Organ transplantation are signed up to be a donor
has become an accepted (U.S. Department of Health &
medical treatment and Human Services, 2014)
an important life-saving Fertilization attempts using donor
intervention eggs increased from 10,801 in 2000
to 18,306 in 2010, an increase of
59% (Kawwass et al., 2013)

Other forms Less dramatic forms of More than 500,000 ponytails

of biological biological contributions donated so far (Pantene Beautiful
support that make a difference Lengths, 2014)
and enhance the quality Locks of Love (a nonprofit that
of life of others makes hairpieces for needy kids)
Cutting ones long had provided about 2,000 wigs,
hair and donating it to which amount to about 16,000
organizations, or donating individual donors by 2006
human milk for needy (Goldberg, 2013)
babies North American milk banks have
more than 100 donors per site
annually (Jones, 2003)
Other breast milk donation
organizations processed 770
potential donors in 1999
(Tully, 2000)
Random acts Unplanned altruistic 88.8% have given directions to

of charity or behaviors that help a stranger in the past year (SSR,
kindness strangers in their time 2014)
of need 88.2% have allowed a stranger to
Helping people find an go ahead of them in line in the past
address or paying for a year (SSR, 2014)
strangers toll charge or 46.5% have carried a strangers
coffee (pay-it-forward belongings like groceries, a
campaign) suitcase, or shopping bags in the
past year (SSR, 2014)
47.1% have offered their seat on a
bus or in a public place to a stranger
in the past year (SSR, 2014)
Lending This form was a hallmark 41.7% had an experience of letting

an item or of good neighborly someone borrow an item of some
commodity relationships in the past value like dishes or tools during the
to others Signifying face-to-face last year (SSR, 2014)
relationships and a
willingness to assist when
someone expresses a need

56 Cnaan and PARK
TABLE 8 Summary of supporting or helping U.S. individuals (cont.)
Befriending A way of helping people There are more than 4,000

lonely people who are at the margins of befrienders in Scotland; more
society to assimilate than 32,000 hours of befriending
Can be done one-on-one take place each month; there
by invitation to come and are more than 170 befriending
visit, or by an organized projects in Scotland (Befriending
outing like encouraging Networks, 2014)
someone to attend a Over 3,000 mentoring and
community picnic befriending projects across
England (Mentoring and
Befriending Foundation, 2011)
g Other Pro-social Behaviors?

We outlined a long list of pro-social behaviors that, while not new, are rarely,
if ever, listed together. But even a comprehensive list like the one we have pro-
vided above is only a sample of the many ways people can act pro-socially.
Could the following behaviors be considered examples of civic participation?
For example, people can contribute to the environment by organizing and par-
ticipating in car pools; people can look after a plant or an animal while a neigh-
bor/friend is travelling; people can pick up anothers mail while they are away;
people may send/sign a get well or happy event card; people may allow
another driver to merge into traffic; people who find lost property can actively
search and find the person who lost the item; people can return money if given
too much change; and so forth. Employers can subscribe to social hiring. They
can decide, for example, to hire people with disabilities or new immigrants
and help them merge into society. Indeed, there are numerous ways in which
civic engagement takes place, and a serious treatment of these important
social phenomena requires comprehensive and systematic studying.
3 Conclusion
Our aim in this article has been to demonstrate the complexity and the many
and varied manifestations of civic participation. The quality of life in a s ociety

depends, to a significant degree, on the governments ability to offer security,

order, and services. Equally important, if not more important, are the many
activities that residents do voluntarily, or not so voluntarily, for the benefit of
others outside their household and immediate family, and often for the col-
lective welfare or public good/benefit/interest. As Hunter and Milofsky (2007)
have noted, A civil society is not a product, but a process. It is not a goal to be
achieved, nor a project to be completed. Rather, it is a continuously emergent
value, created and recreated in the everyday actions of its citizens (p. 174).
There are many theories that discuss the role of citizens in running their
local communities (e.g., Smith, Stebbins, & Grotz, 2016: Chapter 2). From
Communitarianism to Neo-federalism, scholars and ideologists call for resi-
dents to be active and in command of their surroundings. However, broad
theories and ideologies do not tell us how civic participation takes place.
It has been recently argued that many aspects of civic participation are on the
decline. In many Western democracies, and especially in the United States, it is
argued that political participation has been decreasing (Dalton, 2006; Norris,
1999; Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999) and social capital is declining (Putnam, 2000).
Not everyone agrees with this pessimistic assessment. Other scholars, looking
beyond the U.S. data, see no change or increasing association membership
and activity as civic participation in many nations (Andersen, Curtis, & Grabb,
2006; Baer, Curtis, & Grabb, 2001; Dekker & Van Den Broek, 2005). According to
Smith and Robinson (2016), These same studies also show Putnams second-
ary thesis about declining association activity (intensity) among association
members in the USA do not hold generally elsewhere. Some scholars contend
that means of civic and political participation are changing and that we mea-
sure civic and political participation unsystematically (Berger, 2009; Schudson,
1996; Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999; Stolle & Hooghe, 2005).
We do not have a firm answer regarding the decline of civic and political
participation, but we agree that the way we measure participation is limited
and inconsistent. Unless we can map the many modes of civic and political
participation, we cannot begin to answer the debate about its decline. We
agree with Ekman and Amna (2012) that, we certainly need to be more clear
about what it is that is actually declining or what exactly it is that we so desper-
ately need as much of as we can possibly get (p. 284).
Viewing civic participation from a wider angle that includes many subtle
forms of contributions to the quality of life of people also allows us to include
activities performed by the less privileged members of society. Many people
with limited resources are unable to support candidates or donate money, yet
they can help in many ways that often go under the radar screen. Including
these subtle contributions will allow us to be more democratic and inclusive

58 Cnaan and PARK
in future studies and can enhance the dignity of a great many underprivileged
people whose various means of civic participation are too often ignored.
Most would agree that citizenship at home is not a traditional expression of
patriotism, though it has the same characteristics: the willingness to give for
the preservation of the collective welfare, so that the general public will be safe
and ones community will be a good place to live. Whenever people interact
with one another outside their homes, there is room for civic participation.
Giving blood to the Red Cross is rarely labeled as civic participation, but most
donors see it as an act of civic engagement. Such giving is voluntary, enhances
the quality of life of others, and contributes to the tally of good deeds that
ripple throughout our communities. In this respect, we agree with Hunter and
Milofskys (2007) statement that:
The sentiments of community within a civil society are rooted in the

overarching fact and reality of interdependence. Just as with the ecologi-
cal web, here too, this means that my altruism will feed into a system of
networks that will rebound and reverberate until the harmonic waves
cascade back in goods and the good life that, not with a certainty but a
probability, will enhance my own life and the lives of those close to me.
The penumbra of equality that surrounds and governs citizen to citizen
interactions permits diversity and difference to be mitigated and even
celebrated within the shadows of a civil society. Within the civil society
the fearful infantilism of selfishness and the anxious adolescence of envy
must give way to the magnanimous maturity of mutuality. (p. 186)
Fowler and Christakis (2010) performed a laboratory public-goods game in

which they showed that giving is also enhanced when others are known to
give. They showed that when one subject gives money to help others, if people
have the opportunity to cooperate with each other, the recipients are more
likely to give their own money away to other people in later games. As such, an
act of generosity that helps another person is not an end but a beginning in a
chain of generous behaviors. When people see or experience pro-social behav-
iors as models, they are more likely to emulate them. The richer the network of
contributions, the more likely others are to participate civically.
The world offers people many opportunities for civic engagement. Peterson
referred to this variety of options as cultural omnivore (Peterson, 1993;
Peterson & Kern, 1996). People are creative and resourceful in combining dif-
ferent forms of participation la carte (Hooghe & Dejaeghere, 2007; Stolle,
Hooghe, & Micheletti, 2005). Talo and Mannarini (2014) argued that, In the
literature, there has been a continual expansion of the list of participatory

methods, without an adequate theoretical support or a more elaborate refer-

ence model to explain the emergence of these modes of expression (p. 4).
We agree that the list is expanding, but argue that it is still not complete, and
that before we can have a comprehensive list of civic participation activities,
attempts at classification are interesting but premature. In this article, we have
started to map all civic engagement options, so that we will be able to study
them in a comprehensive manner. We believe that the work in this line of
inquiry is only beginning. As such, this paper has many limitations.
a Limitations
In attempting to systematically unravel the complexity and diversity of modes
of civic participation, we undertook a massive task. And though we believe
that we have performed an important service by mapping out this complex
idea, we are aware that this contribution is not without many limitations. We
wanted to acknowledge as many modes of civic participation as possible so
that future research could benefit from our current understanding. However,
implications should be drawn with caution.
Some of the behaviors that were presented in this article overlap, making it
difficult to place them only in a single category. For example, inactive member-
ship in organizations can overlap with environmental activism when one joins
Greenpeace. Still, we elected to accept such ambiguities for two reasons. First,
we assumed that the actor should decide in which category his or her behavior
better fits. Second, people often forget to mention certain pro-social behav-
iors and having a behavior that possibly fits two or more categories serves as a
prompt to enhance the actors recollection.
We do not provide methodological guidance as to how to measure the vari-
ous civic activities jointly or individually. We cite, as much as possible, sources
that have attempted to measure many detailed aspects of pro-social activities.
These sources are not all alike. Some are more rigorous than others. Some are
locally focused, while others are national, usually American. We used them
to provide a rough assessment of each pro-social behaviors scope. However,
we failed to find suitable statistics about the prevalence of certain pro-social
behaviors, such as episodic volunteering. We have systematically under-
reported non-USA research and data on civic participation because of time
and other resource limitations (e.g., the World Values Survey data, as reported
by Inglehart, 1997, and Inglehart et al., 2010, and many other non-U.S. data
sources, as in Leigh et al., 2011; Smith, 1974; and Smith, Stebbins, & Grotz, 2016).
For many of the pro-social activities that are the foundation of civic engage-
ment, different surveys report varying and even contradictory results. This is
even more likely when all multi-national data are considered. We clearly did

60 Cnaan and PARK
not collect all possible statistics, but even the reported statistics indicate that
there is disagreement regarding the prevalence of various pro-social behaviors.
It was not our intent to provide definitive estimates for these behaviors, but
only to highlight them and to demonstrate that civic participation is often
widespread. It will be a major challenge to survey the American population
and the population of other nations to assess the prevalence of all of these
types of pro-social behaviors.
We intentionally did not discuss factors that are known to enhance or
reduce the magnitude of helping behaviors. Some pro-social behaviors are
known to be more frequent in areas with low population size, low popula-
tion density, and higher economic well-being (see Levine, Reysen, & Ganz,
2008). This kind of variation is even more likely when the full range of nations
is considered. We assumed that geographical differences exist regarding civic
engagement, but determining these differences must come after scholars have
identified a full range of civic engagement elements and have assessed their
prevalence. Understanding geographical and national variations is a worthy
goal for future research.
Some of these activities are more difficult to carry out than others. For the
purpose of having a comprehensive list, we treated them all as equal. Future
research may aim to assess various levels of difficulty that mirror levels of
engagement and contribution.
In some instances, we took a Pollyanna (overly optimistic) worldview to
civic engagement. In the course of studying civic participation, we may have
tended towards a positive bias. We discussed all acts of civic participation as
positive and contributing to the community and society. Some acts of civic
participation may actually be controversial, if not adversarial in nature. For
example, organizing neighbors for a Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY)-type joint
effort is a controversial form of civic participation. Joining a hate group and
supporting it financially may also be viewed as a form of civic participation
that is ethically negative and socially harmful (see Eng et al., 2016). Later works
in this field will have to discern which acts of civic participation have negative
consequences, intended or unintended.
We acknowledge that many prosocial behaviors could have been included
in this article but we have missed them. Yet we have no clear lower limit as
to what is nice to do but is not contributing to civic participation. Being civil
in society is not always an act of civic participation. For example, nodding or
saying hello in an elevator is polite but rarely can be labeled civic participa-
tion. Future work may set the threshold of what is a mere civil act and what
contributes to civic participation. Our examples are all within the boundaries
of civic participation.

Although our definition of civic participation states that such activity

attempts to promote the quality of life of others, scholars assess this from
the personal viewpoints of the actors participating, not by some absolute stan-
dard, nor by immediate positive outcomes (see, Smith, 2016). Such personal
perspectives on helping others or the whole world may be insane, delusional,
chauvinistic, or simply ignorant (e.g., KKK groups).
Finally, we view civic participation solely from the vantage point of the
individuals who contribute to the collective welfare through their actions. We
have hardly touched on the tapestry of local organizations (mostly nonprofits,
especially voluntary associations; Smith, 2000) that foster and encourage such
behaviors. We also did not discuss the public sector response to such activities
and its support of these pro-social behaviors. Again, these are challenges for
future research.
b The Way Forward

Civic participation is the underpinning of civil society and of the nonprofit sec-
tor more broadly, and such activity impacts the quality of life of any societys
members. It is our belief that the more people are engaged in carrying out
pro-social activities, the more other people will be engaged in similar or other
pro-social behaviors. When actively engaged in activities that improve others
quality of life, intentionally or not, people support the fabric of communal life
and the general welfare. This is nothing new. Social scientists have known for
a long time that the more a person helps others, the more people further help
others, and so on. We contend that civic participation is a complex and multi-
faceted phenomenon and we have attempted to present here as many aspects
of this phenomenon as possible. However, more work is still needed.
We need to know in a given society, and across societies, the amount of pro-
social behaviors that exists, their actors, their beneficiaries, and their inter-
relationships. Do small numbers of people carry out many pro-social behaviors
or is the production of pro-social behaviors evenly distributed? What is the rel-
ative importance of each of the many pro-social behaviors? Are some of them
more important than others? Are these civic participation activities enhanc-
ing social inclusion, especially of marginalized groups? The list of unanswered
questions is long. Our goal was to stimulate a discussion that will help solidify
the many faces of civic participation and lead to a discussion of uniform ways
to measure civic engagement in an expanded form.
We believe that in the near future, communities will be able to compare
themselves to others locally and far away as to their level of civic participation.
If the premise of the scientifically based research presented here is accepted
and furthered, the quality of life in a community will be enhanced through more

62 Cnaan and PARK
civic involvement and pro-social behavior. An ideal that people from all politi-
cal persuasions agree upon may become more concrete and applicable.
4 References
Adler, R. P. & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by civic engagement? Journal of

Transformative Education, 3(3), 236253.
Amato, P. R. (1990). Personality and social network involvement as predictors of help-
ing behavior in everyday life. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 3143.
American Psychological Association (2014). Civic engagement. Retrieved from: http://
www.apa.org/education/undergrad/civic-engagement.aspx.
Andersen, R., Curtis, J., & Grabb, E. (2006). Trends in civic association activity in four
democracies: The special case of women in the United States. American Sociological
Review, 71, 376400.
Andrews, K. T. & Caren, N. (2010). Making the news: Movement organizations, media
attention, and the public agenda. American Sociological Review, 75(6), 841866.
Arts Council England (2014). The value of arts and culture to people and society: An evi-
dence review. London: Author. Retrieved from http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/
media/uploads/pdf/The-value-of-arts-and-culture-to-people-and-society-An-
evidence-review-Mar-2014.pdf.
Baek, Y. (2010). To buy or not to buy: Who are political consumers? What do they think
and how do they participate? Political Studies, 58(5), 10651086.
Baer, D., Curtis, J., & Grabb, E. (2001). Has voluntary association activity declined?
Cross-national analyses for fifteen countries. Canadian Review of Sociology &
Anthropology, 38, 249274.
Barnes, S. & Kaase, M. (1979). Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western
Democracies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Baron, S., Field, J., & Schuler, T. (2000). Social Capital: Critical Perspectives. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Bednall, T. C. & Bove, L. L. (2011). Donating blood: A meta-analytic review of self-
reported motivators and deterrents. Transfusion Medicine Review, 25, 317334.
Befriending Networks (2014). Fact and figures. Retrieved from: http://www.befriend-
ing.co.uk/befriendingstatistics.php.
Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. (2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of chari-
table giving. Part one: Religion, education, age, and socialisation. Voluntary Sector
Review, 2(3), 337365.
Berger, B. (2009). Political theory, political science, and the end of civic engagement.
Perspectives on Politics, 7(2), 335350.

Better Business Bureau (2014). 2013 Complaint and Inquiry Statistics. Retrieved from:
http://www.bbb.org/Global/Council_113/Complaint-Stats/US%20Stats%20
%28Complaints%29-%202013.pdf.
Beyerlein, K. & Sikkink, D. (2008). Sorrow and solidarity: Why Americans volunteered
for 9/11 relief efforts. Social Problems, 55, 190215.
BoardResurce (2013). Nonprofit governance index 2012: Data report 1, CEO survey of
BoardSource members. Retrieved from: http://www.thenonprofitpartnership.org/
files/board-source-governance-2012.pdf.
Boddie, S. C. (2004). The social services of African-American congregations in the wel-
fare reform era. African American Research Perspectives, 10(1), 3643.
Bohse & Associates (2007). Non-profit board statistics. Retrieved from: http://bohse.
com/images/file/Board_of_Director_Series/Non-Profit_Board_Statistics.pdf.
Boles, N. B. (2009). How to be an everyday Philanthropist: 330 ways to make a difference
in your home, community, and worldat no cost. New York: Workman.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In: G. Richardson (Ed.) and J. R. Nice (trans).
Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241258). New
York: Greenwood Press.
Brown, E. & Ferris, J. (2005). Making Social Capital Work. Los Angeles, CA: Center on
Philanthropy and Public Policy, University of Southern California.
Brown, R. E. & Mazur, M. J. (2003). IRSs comprehensive approach to compliance mea-
surement. Retrieved from: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/mazur.pdf.
Burma, D. (2015). Crowdfunding statistics. Retrieved from http://www.crowdmapped
.com/crowdfunding-trends-and-statistics/.
California Department of Transportation (2014). The Adopt-A-Highway (AAH) pro-
gram. Retrieved from http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/maint/adopt/.
COPPS (Center on Philanthropy Panel Study) (2006). Average and Median Amounts of
Household Giving & Volunteering in 2002. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University
Purdue University.
Chaves, M. (2004). Congregations in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Cicognani, E., Pirini, C., Keyes, C., Joshanloo, M., Rostami, R., & Nosratabadi, M. (2008).
Social participation, sense of community and social wellbeing: A study on American,
Italian and Iranian university students. Social Indicators Research, 89(1), 97112.
Clayton, P. H., Bringle, R. G., & Hatcher, J. A., eds. (2012). Research on Service Learning.
London, UK: Stylus Publishing.
Cnaan, R. A. (2002). The Invisible Caring Hand: American Congregations and the
Provision of Welfare. New York: New York University Press.
Cnaan, R. A. & Amrofell, L. M. (1995). Mapping volunteer activity. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23(4), 335351.

64 Cnaan and PARK
Cnaan, R. A., Handy, F., & Wadsworth, M. (1996). Defining who is a volunteer:
Conceptual and empirical considerations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
25, 364383.
Cnaan, R. A., Jones, K., Dickin, A., & Salomon, M. (2011). Estimating giving & volunteer-
ing: New ways to measure the phenomena. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
40(3), 497525.
Cnaan, R. A., with Boddie, S. C., McGrew, C. C., & Kang, J. (2006). The Other Philadelphia
Story: How Local Congregations Support Quality of Life in Urban America.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
CNCS (Corporation for National and Community Service) (2010). Civic life in America:
Key findings on the civic health of the nation. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from: http://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet_cha
.pdf.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94, S95S120.
COMCAST (2015). COMCAST cares day: Employees driving change. Retrieved from:
http://corporate.comcast.com/our-values/community-investment/community-
service#accordion-0.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2014). Semi-Annual Report of the Con-
sumer Financial Protection Bureau. Retrieved from: http://files.consumerfinance
.gov/f/201405_cfpb_semi-annual-report.pdf.
Conway, J. M., Amel, E. L., & Gerwien, D. P. (2009). Teaching and learning in the social
context: A meta-analysis of service learnings effects on academic, personal, social,
and citizenship outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 36(4), 233245.
Coutin, S. B. (1993). The Culture of Protest: Religious Activism and the U.S. Sanctuary
Movement. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Cravens, J. & Ellis, S. J. (2014). The LAST Virtual Volunteering Guidebook: Fully Integrating
Online Service Into Volunteer Involvement. Philadelphia, PA: Energize.
Dale, M. (2014). Movement to shelter immigrants spreads to 24 churches. The
Republic. Retrieved from: http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigra-
tion/2014/09/24/movement-shelter-immigrants-spreads-churches/16161417/.
Dalton, R. J. (2006). Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced
Industrial Democracies. Washington: CQ Press.
de Tocqueville, A. (1990; originally published in 1835). Democracy in America. New York:
Vintage.
Dekker, P. & Van Den Broek, A. (2005). Involvement in voluntary associations in North
America and Western Europe: Trends and correlates 19812000. Journal of Civil
Society, 1, 4559.
Dhebar, B. B. & Stokes, B. (2008). A nonprofit managers guide to online volunteering.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 18(4), 497506.

Diller, E. C. (2001). Citizens in Service: The Challenge of Delivering Civic Engagement

Training to National Service Programs. Washington, DC: Corporation for National
and Community Service.
Edwards, B., Foley, M., & Diani, M. (2001). Beyond Tocqueville: Civil Society and the
Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective. Hanover, MA: Tufts University
Press.
Ehrlich, T. (2000). Civic Responsibility and Higher Education. Westport, CT: Oryx Press.
Einolf, C. (2011). Informal and non-organised volunteerism. Bonn, Germany: UN
Volunteers, State of the Worlds Volunteerism Report Project, Unpublished External
Paper E3.
Einolf, C. J., Prouteau, L., Ibrayeva, A., & Nezhina, T. (2016). Informal, unorganized
volunteering. In: D. H. Smith, R. A. Stebbins, & J. Grotz (Eds.), Palgrave Handbook
of Volunteering, Civic Participation, and Nonprofit Associations (Chapter 9).
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ekman, J. & Amna, E. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a
new typology. Human Affairs, 22, 283300.
Eng, S., Smith, D. H., Al-Ekry, A., Brilliant, E. L., Farruggia, G., Faulkner, L., &
Subianto, B. 2016. Crime, misconduct, and dysfunctions in or by associations. In: D.
H. Smith, R. A. Stebbins, & J. Grotz (Eds), Palgrave Handbook of Volunteering, Civic
Participation, and Nonprofit Associations (Chapter 53). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Fowler, J. H. & Christakis, N. A. (2010). Cooperative behavior cascades in human social
networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(12), 53345338.
Gamble, D., & Weil, M. (1995). Citizen participation. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.-in-Chief),
Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed. Vol. 1, pp. 483494). Washington, DC: NASW
Press.
Gavelin, K. & Svedberg, L. (2011). Estimating the Scope and Magnitude of Volunteerism
Worldwide. Bonn, Germany: United Nations Volunteers, External Paper BP1, State of
the Worlds Volunteerism Report Project.
GfK Roper Consulting & S. C. Johnson (2011). The Environment: Public Attitudes and
Individual BehaviorA Twenty-Year Evolution. Retrieved from: http://www.scjohnson
.com/Libraries/Download_Documents/SCJ_and_GfK_Roper_Green_Gauge.sflb
.ashx.
Gibson, M. L. (1990). Public goods, alienation and public protest: The sanctuary move-
ment as a test of the public goods model of collective rebellious behavior. Retrieved
from http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/full_text_search/AllCRCDocs/90-5.htm.
Giving USA (2015). Giving USA 2015: The annual report on philanthropy for the year
2014. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.
Giving USA: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2013 (2014). Chicago: Giving
USA Foundation.

66 Cnaan and PARK
Goldberg, E. (May 14, 2013). Locks of Love has more than $6 million worth of
donated hair that is unaccounted for: Report. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/locks-of-love-controversy_n_3269078.
html.
Goodwill Industries International, Inc. (2014). Donate stuff. Retrieved from: http://
www.goodwill.org/donate-and-shop/donate-stuff/.
Griffith, J. (2012). A decade of helping: Community service among recent high
school graduates attending college. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5),
786801.
Handy, F., Brudeur, N., & Cnaan, R. A. (2006). Summer in the island: Episodic volun-
teering. Voluntary Action, 7(3), 3146.
Haski-Leventhal, D. & Cnaan, R. A. (2009). Group processes and volunteering:
Enhancing recruitment and retention. Administration in Social Work, 33(1), 6180.
Hodgkinson, V. & Weitzman, M. (1986). The charitable behavior of Americans: A
national survey, Volume 1. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.
Hooghe, M. & Dejaeghere, Y. (2007). Does the Monitorial Citizen exist? An empirical
investigation into the occurrence of postmodern forms of citizenship in the Nordic
countries. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 249271.
Hoskins, B. L. & Mascherini, M. (2009). Measuring active citizenship through the
development of a composite indicator. Social Indicators Research, 90(3), 459488.
Howard, M. M., Gibson, J. L., & Stolle, D. (2006). United States Citizenship, Involvement,
Democracy Survey. Washington, DC: Center for Democracy and Civil Society,
Georgetown University. Retrieved from: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/
ICPSR/studies/04607.
Hunter, A. & Milofsky, C. (2007). Pragmatic Liberalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hustinx, L., Meijs, L. C., P. M., Handy, F., & Cnaan, R. A. (2011). Monitorial citizens or
civic omnivores? Repertoires of civic participation among university students.
Youth & Society, 44, 95117.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and
Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R., Basaez, M., Caterberg, G., Diez-Medrano, J., Moreno, A., Norris, P.,
Siemienska, R., & Zuasnabar, I. (Eds.) (2010). Changing Human Beliefs and Values,
19812007: Across-cultural Sourcebook Based on the World Values Surveys and
European Values Studies. Mexico: Sigo XXI Editores.
International Breast Milk Project (2012). U.S.-based international breast milk project
donates milk to HIV/AIDS-stricken babies in South Africa. Retrieved from: http://
breastmilkproject.org/news/press-releases/press_jul2012.php.
IRS (2014). Spring 2014 statistics of income bulletin now available. Retrieved from:
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Spring-2014-Statistics-of-Income-Bulletin-
Now-Available, June 2.

IRS Oversight Board (2014). IRS oversight 2013 taxpayer attitude survey. Retrieved from:
http://www.treasury.gov/IRSOB/reports/Documents/IRSOB_TAS%202013.pdf.
Isakson, T. (2013). Beyond giving and volunteering: How and why individuals are
exploring new ways to advance social good. Ottawa, Canada: Human Resources and
Skills Development Canada.
Jacobs, D. L. (2011). 6 ways to give family and friends financial aid. Forbes Magazine.
Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljacobs/2011/08/22/6-ways-
to-give-family-and-friends-financial-aid/.
Jacoby, B. (2003). Building Partnerships for Service Learning. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Jacoby, B., & Associates (2009). Civic Engagement in Higher Education: Concepts and
Practices. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jeannotte, M. S. (2003). Singing alone? The contribution of cultural capital to social
cohesion and sustainable communities. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 9(1),
3549.
Jennings, M. K. & Zeitner, V. (2003). Internet use and civic engagement. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 67(3), 311334.
Jones, F. (2003). History of North American donor milk banking: One hundred years of
progress. Journal of Human Lactation, 19(3), 313318.
Kahne, J. E. & Sporte, S. E. (2008). Developing citizens: The impact of civic learn-
ing opportunities on students commitment to civic participation. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 738766.
Katz-Gerro, T., Greenspan, I., Handy, F., Lee, H.-Y., & Frey, A. (2015). Environmental
philanthropy and environmental behavior in five countries: Is there convergence
among youth? Voluntas, 26, DOI: 10.1007/s11266-014-9496-4.
Kawwass, J. F., Monsour, M., Crawford, S., Kulkarni, A., Session, D. R., Kissin, D. M.,
& Jamieson, D. (2013). Donor oocyte: Trends and predictors of good perinatal out-
come. Journal of the American Medical Association, 310(22), 24262434.
Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkins, K. (2002). The Civic and Political Health
of the Nations: A Generational Portrait. Medford, MA: The Center for Information
& Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Retrieved from: http://www.civic
youth.org/research/products/Civic_Political_Health.pdf.
Keohane, R. O. & Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change.
Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 723.
Latting, J. K. (1990). Motivational differences between Black and White volunteers.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 19(2), 121136.
Leigh, R., Smith, D. H., Giesing, C., Leon, M. J., Haski-Laventhal, D.,...Strassburg, S.
(2011). 2011 State of the Worlds Volunteerism Report: Universal Values for Global Well-
being. Bonn, Germany: United Nations Volunteers.

68 Cnaan and PARK
Levine, R. V., Reysen, S., & Ganz, E. (2008). The kindness of strangers revisited: A com-
parison of 24 U.S. cities. Social Indicators Research, 85, 461481.
Liddell, P. & Wilson, J. (2014). Individual noncash contributions, 2011. Retrieved from:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/14insprbulnoncash.pdf.
LocalHarvest (2014). Community supported agriculture. Retrieved from: http://www
.localharvest.org/csa/.
Longhofer, W. & Schofer, E. (2010). National and global origins of environmental
association. American Sociological Review, 75(4), 505533.
Macduff, N. (2004). Episodic Volunteering: Organizing and Managing the Short-term
Volunteer Program. Walla Walla, WA: MBA Publishing.
Mentoring and Befriending Foundation (2011). What is mentoring and befriend-
ing? An overview which includes our definition, delivery models and methods
and the role of volunteers. Retrieved from: http://www.mandbf.org/wp-content/
uploads/2011/03/What-is-mentoring-and-befriending-18.4.111.pdf.
Michel, L. (2007). Personal responsibility and volunteering after a natural disaster: The
case of Hurricane Katrina. Sociological Spectrum, 27, 633652.
Milofsky, C. (2008). Smallville: Institutionalizing Community in 21st Century America.
Medford, MA: Tufts University Press.
Mirazchiyski, P., Caro, D. H., & Sandoval-Hernandez, A. (2014). Youth future civic par-
ticipation in Europe: Differences between the East and the rest. Social Indicators
Research, 115(3), 10311055.
Missouri DOT (Department of Transportation) (2014). Adopt-A-Highway facts. Retrieved
from http://www.modot.org/services/community/adoptahighwayfacts.htm.
Mondak, J. J., Hibbing, M. V., Canache, D., Seligson, M. A., & Anderson, M. R. (2010).
Personality and civic engagement: An integrative frame-work for the study of trait
effects on political behavior. American Political Science Review, 104, 85110.
Musick, M. & Wilson, J. (2008). Volunteers: A Social Profile. Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press.
NEAAH (National Endowment for the Arts the Arts & and Humanities) (2013). How a
Nation Engages with Art: Highlights from the 2012 Survey of Public Participation in
the Arts. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/
highlights-from-2012-sppa-revised-jan2015.pdf.
NEAAH (National Endowment for the Arts and the Arts & Humanities) (2014).
Measuring Cultural Engagement: A Quest for New Terms, Tools, and Techniques.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/measur-
ing-cultural-engagement.pdf.
NRRTF (National Environmental Education & Training Foundation) & Roper ASW
(2002). Americans low Energy IQ: A risk to our energy future; The tenth annual
national report card: Energy knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from: http://www.neefusa.org/pdf/roper/Roper2002.pdf.

National Gardening Association (2013). National gardening association reports: 2013

national gardening association annual report. Williston, VT: Author. Retrieved from:
http://assoc.garden.org/reports/.
Neuwirth, R. (2004). Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, a New Urban World. London:
Routledge.
Newman, B. & Bartels, B. (2011). Politics at the checkout line: Explaining political con-
sumerism in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 64(4), 803817.
Norris, P., ed. (1999). Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
North, P. (1998). Save our Solsbury!: The anatomy of an anti-roads protest.
Environmental Politics, 7(3), 125.
Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Onyx, J. & Bullen, P. (2000). Measuring social capital in five communities. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 36(1), 2342.
OTA (Organic Trade Association) (2014). 2014 Press releases: More parents choosing
organic for their kids, says new study. Retrieved from: http://www.organicnews
room.com/2014/06/more_parents_choosing_organic.html.
Pant, A. T., Kirsch, T. D., Subbarao, I. R., Hsieh, Y. H., & Vu, A. (2008). Faith-based orga-
nizations and sustainable sheltering operations in Mississippi after Hurricane
Katrina: Implications for informal network utilization. Prehospital and Disaster
Medicine, 23(1), 4854.
Pantene Beautiful Lengths (2014). About the program. Retrieved from: http://pantene
.com/en-us/brandexperience/about-the-program.
Pay it Forward Foundation (2014). About us. Retrieved from: http://www.payitforward
foundation.org/about-us/.
Peterson, J. B. & Brown, W. A. (2004). Commitment and performance of nonprofit
board members. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(2), 221238.
Peterson, R. A. (1993). Understanding audience segmentation: From elite and mass to
omnivore and univore. Poetics, 21, 243258.
Peterson, R. A., & Kern, R. M. (1996). Changing highbrow taste: From snob to omnivore.
American Sociological Review, 61, 900907.
Pew Research Center (2013). What surveys say about worship attendanceand
why some stay home? Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.pew
research.org/fact-tank/2013/09/13/what-surveys-say-about-worship-attendance-
and-why-some-stay-home/.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology.
Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 124.
PRNewswire (2014). Team CIBC raises almost $3 million in the Canadian Breast Cancer
Foundation CIBC Run for the Cure. Retrieved from: http://www.prnewswire.com/

70 Cnaan and PARK
news-releases/team-cibc-raises-almost-3-million-in-the-canadian-breast-cancer-
foundation-cibc-run-for-the-cure-278267271.html.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: Americas declining social capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6(1), 6578.
(2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Putnam, R. D. & Campbell, P. (2010). American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites
Us. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Putnam, R. D., Feldstein, L., & Cohen, D. J. (2003). Better Together: Restoring the
American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Red Cross (2014a). Blood Facts and Statistics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from:
http://www.redcrossblood.org/learn-about-blood/blood-facts-and-statistics.
(2014b). Sandy response statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.redcross.org/nj/
tinton-falls/about-us/sandy-response-statistics.
Reed, P. B. & Selbee, L. K. (2001). The civic core in Canada: Disproportionality in chari-
table giving, volunteering and civic participation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 30(4), 761780.
Reynolds, R. (2008). On Guerrilla Gardening: A Handbook for Gardening Without
Boundaries. London: Bloomsbury.
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, 628654.
Rotolo, T. & Berg, J. (2011). In times of need: An examination of emergency prepared-
ness and disaster relief service volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
40, 740750.
Salamon, L. M., Sokolowski, S., W. & Haddock, M. A. (2011). Measuring the economic
value of volunteer work globally: Concepts, estimates, and a road-map to the future.
Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 82, 217252.
Sass, R. G. (2013). Toward a more stable blood supply: Charitable incentives, donation
rates, and the experience of September 11. The American Journal of Bioethics, 13(6),
3845.
Schneider, J. A. (2006). Small nonprofits and civil society: Civic engagement and social
capital. In: R. A. Cnaan & C. Milofsky, Handbook of Community Movements and Local
Organizations (pp. 7488). New York: Springer.
(2007). Connections and disconnections between civic engagement and social
capital in community based non-profits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
36(4), 572597.
(2009). Organizational social capital and nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 38(4), 643662.
Schudson, M. (1996). What if civic life didnt die? American Prospect, 25, 1720.

See California (2014). California Adopt-a-highway. Retrieved from: http://www.see

california.com/highways/adopt-a-highway.html.
Seel, K. (2012). Digital A: Volunteer management of governance volunteers. In
T. D. Connors (Ed.), The Volunteer Management Handbook (2nd ed., A1A13). New
York: Wiley.
Shah, D. V. (1998). Civic engagement, interpersonal trust, and television use: An indi-
vidual-level assessment of social capital. Political Psychology, 19(3), 469496.
Skinner, R. & Chapman, C. (1999). Service-learning and community service in K-12 public
schools: Statistics in brief. Rockville, MD: National Center for Education Statistics.
Skocpol, T., & Fiorina, M. P., eds. (1999). Civic Engagement in American Democracy.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Smith, D. H., ed. (1974). Voluntary Action Research: 1974. The Nature of Voluntary Action
Around the World. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
(2000). Grassroots Associations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(forthcoming, 2016). The Dark Energy of the Nonprofit Sector: Noxious,
Dissenting, and Eccentric Types of Deviant Voluntary Associations, Their Impacts, and
How They Work. Bradenton, FL: David Horton Smith International.
Smith, D. H. & Robinson, J. P. (forthcoming, 2016). Recent volunteering and member-
ship rates and trends in North America and elsewhere: Data contradicting Putnams
two decline theses. Chestnut Hill, MA: Department of Sociology, Boston College.
Unpublished paper under editorial review.
Smith, D. H., Stebbins, R. A., & Grotz, J., eds. (In press, 2016). Palgrave Handbook of
Volunteering, Civic Participation, and Nonprofit Associations. Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Snelling, P. C. (2012). Challenging the moral status of blood donation. Health Care
Analysis, 126.
Snyder, M. & Omoto, A. (1992). Who helps and why? The psychology of AIDS volun-
teerism. In S. Spacapan & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Helping and Being Helped (pp. 213219).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
SSR (Social Science Research Center at the University of Chicago) (2014). General
Social Surveys, 19722006 Cumulative File. Retrieved from: http://www3.norc.org/
GSS+Website/Data+Analysis/.
Steele, W. R., Schreiber, G. B., Guiltinan, A., Nass, C., Glynn, S. A., Wright, D. & Garratty,
G. (2008). The role of altruistic behavior, empathetic concern, and social responsi-
bility motivation in blood donation behavior. Transfusion, 48, 4354.
Steinberg, K. S., Rooney, P. M., & Chin, W. (2002). Measurement of volunteering:
A methodological study using Indiana as a test case. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 31, 484501.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.
Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407424.

72 Cnaan and PARK
Stolle, D. & Hooghe, M. (2005). Inaccurate, exceptional, one-sided or irrelevant? The

debate about the alleged decline of social capital and civic engagement in Western
societies. British Journal of Political Science, 35, 149167.
Stolle, D., Hooghe, M., & Micheletti, M. (2005). Politics in the supermarket: Political
consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science
Review, 26, 245269.
Talo, C. & Mannarini, T. (in press, 2015). Measuring participation: Development and
validation the participatory Behaviors Scale. Social Indicators Research. DOI 10.1007/
s11205-014-0761-0.
Talo, C., Mannarini, T., & Rochira, A. (2014). Sense of community and community par-
ticipation: A meta analytic review. Social Indicators Research, 117(1), 128.
Teorell, J., Torcal, M., & Montero, J. R. (2007). Political participation: Mapping the
terrain. In J. W. van Deth, J. R. Montero, & A. Westholm (Eds.), Citizenship and
Involvement in European Democracies: A Comparative Analysis (pp. 334357).
London: Routledge.
Tierney, K. J., Lindell, M., & Perry, R. (2001). Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness
and Response in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Titmuss, R. M. (1970). The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy. London:
Allen & Unwin.
Toppe, C. M., Kirsch, A. D., & Michel, I. (2001). Giving and Volunteering in the United
States 2001. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.
Tully, M. R. (2000). A year of remarkable growth for donor milk banking in North
America. Journal of Human Lactation, 16(3), 235236.
Turcotte, M. (2012). Charitable giving by Canadians. Retrieved from: http://www
.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2012001/article/11637-eng.pdf.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014). Volunteering in the United States, 2013. Retrieved
from: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm.
U.S. Census Bureau (2013). The diversifying electorate -voting rates by race and
Hispanic origin in 2012 (and other recent elections). Retrieved from: http://www.
census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/index.html.
U.S. Department of Agricultures Agricultural Marketing Service (2014). Farmers
markets and local food marketing: National count of farmers market directory
listing graph: 19942014. Retrieved from: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams
.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateS&navID=WholesaleandFarmersMark
ets&leftNav=WholesaleandFarmersMarkets&page=WFMFarmersMarketGrowth&
description=Farmers%20Market%20Growth&acct=frmrdirmkt.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2014). About donation & transplan-
tation: The need is real: Data. Retrieved from: http://www.organdonor.gov/about/
data.html.

U.S. Department of Labor (2004). Volunteering in the United States, 2004. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.t02.htm.
Van Beuningen, J. & Schmeets, H. (2012). Developing a social capital index for the
Netherlands. Social Indicators Research, 113(3), 859886.
Van Tienen, M., Scheepers, P., Reitsma, J., & Schilderman, H. (2011). The role of religios-
ity for formal and informal volunteering in the Netherlands. Voluntas, 22, 365389.
Van Til, J. (2000). Growing Civil Society: From Nonprofit Sector to Third Space.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Walter, P. (2007). Adult learning in new social movement: Environmental protest and
the struggle for the Clayoquot Sound rainforest. Adult Education Quarterly, 57(3),
248263.
Wiepking, P. & Bekkers, R. (2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of chari-
table giving. Part two: Gender, marital status, income, and wealth. Voluntary Sector
Review, 3(2), 217245.
Wikipedia (2015). Wikipedia community. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wikipedia_community.
Williams, C. C. (2004). Informal volunteering: Some lessons from the United Kingdom.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(3), 613616.
Wilson, J. (2012). Volunteerism research: A review essay. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 41, 176212.
Woolcock, M. & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development
theory, research and policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2): 225249.
World Health Organization (2010). Towards 100% voluntary blood donation: A
global framework for action. Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/bloodsafety/
publications/9789241599696/en/.
Yale Project on Climate Change Communication & George Mason University Center
for Climate Change Communication (2013). How Americans communicate about
global warming. Retrieved from: http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/
sites/default/files/reports/Communication-April-2013.pdf.

The Multifaceted Nature of Civic Participation: A Literature Review

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Multifaceted Nature of Civic Participation: A Literature Review

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Brill Research Perspectives 1 (2016) 173