The volunteer rate in the United States varies from a high of 44% in Utah to a low of 18% in a bordering state, Nevada. Hierarchical nonlinear modeling techniques are used to test various theories such as demographic, institutional and cultural theory to explain general, religious, and secular volunteering with a nationally representative sample of nearly 300,000 respondents in 50 states. Household composition, race heterogeneity, and the density of nonprofit organizations influence the general volunteering rate. Religious volunteering is influenced by household composition, race heterogeneity, the density of religious congregations, and the religiosity of the residents of the state. The secular volunteer rate is influenced by household composition, race heterogeneity, and the density of nonprofit organizations.
AlesinaA.La FerraraE. (2000). Participation in heterogeneous communities. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 847-904.
2.
AnheierH.SalamonL. (1999). Volunteering in cross-national perspective: Some initial comparisons. Law and Contemporary Problems, 65, 43-78.
3.
BayerleinK.HippJ. (2006) From pews to participation: The effect of congregation activity and context on bridging civic engagement. Social Problems, 53, 97-117.
4.
BlauP. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York, NY: Free Press.
5.
BrykA. S.RaudenbushS. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
6.
CampbellD. (2004). Community heterogeneity and participation. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
7.
CampbellD. (2009). Civic engagement and education: An empirical test of the sorting model. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 771-786.
8.
CoffeH. (2009). Social capital and community heterogeneity. Social Indicators Research, 91, 155-170.
9.
CostaD. L.KahnM. E. (2003). Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: An economist’s perspective. Perspectives on Politics, 1(1), 103-111.
10.
EcksteinS. (2001). Community as gift-giving: Collectivist roots of volunteerism. American Sociological Review, 66, 829-851.
11.
FinkeR.ScheitleC. (2005). The uncounted: Computing correctives for the 2000 RCMS data. Review of Religious Research, 47, 5-22.
12.
GesthuizenM.van der MeerT.ScheepersP. (2008). Ethnic diversity and social capital in Europe. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32, 121-142.
13.
HalpernD. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
HavensJ.SchervishP. (2007). Geography and giving: The culture of philanthropy in New England and the nation. Boston, MA: The Boston Foundation.
15.
HealyK. (2004). Altruism as an organizational problem: The case of organ procurement. American Sociological Review, 69, 387-404.
16.
KemmelmeierM.JamborE.LetnerJ. (2006). Individualism and good works: Cultural variation in giving and volunteering across the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 327-344.
17.
MusickM.WilsonJ. (2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
18.
NannestadP. (2008). What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything?Annual Review of Political Science,11, 413-436.
19.
National Center for Charitable Statistics. (2007). The nonprofit sector in brief. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
20.
PutnamR. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
PutnamR. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Siman & Schuster.
22.
PutnamR. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. Scandinavian Political Studies,30, 137-174.
23.
RaudenbushS.BrykA.CheongY.CongdonR.du ToitM. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
24.
RotoloT. (2000). Town heterogeneity and affiliation: A multilevel analysis of voluntary association membership. Sociological Perspectives,43, 271-289.
25.
RuiterS.De GrafN. D. (2006). National context, religiosity, and volunteering: Results from 53 countries. American Sociological Review, 71, 191-210.
26.
RupasinghaA.GoetzS.FreshwaterD. (2006). The production of social capital in US counties. Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 83-101.
27.
SagerRebecca. (2010). Faith, Politics, and Power: The Politics of Faith- Based Initiatives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
SalamonL.SokolowskiW. (2003). Institutional roots of volunteering. In DekkerP.HalmanL. (Eds.), The values of volunteering: A cross-cultural perspective (pp.71-90). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
29.
SampsonR.RaudenbushS.EarlsF. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.
30.
SmithD. H. (1975). Voluntary action and voluntary groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 1, 247-270.
31.
UslanerE. (2003). Varieties of trust. European Political Science, 2, 43-48.
32.
UslanerE.BrownM. (2005). Inequality, trust, and civic engagement. American Politics Research, 33, 868-894.
33.
WilkensonR.PickettK. (2009). Income inequality and social dysfunction. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 493-5111.
34.
WilsonJ.JanoskiT. (1995). The contribution of religion to volunteer work. Sociology of Religion,56, 137-152.
35.
WollebaekD.StromsnesK. (2007). Voluntary associations, trust, and civic engagement: A multilevel approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 249-263.
