Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences logoLink to The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
. 2014 Apr 10;71(1):129–140. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbu033

Grandparenting Roles and Volunteer Activity

Jennifer Roebuck Bulanda 1,✉, Margaret Platt Jendrek 1
PMCID: PMC4861250  PMID: 24721748

Abstract

Objectives.

We examine whether grandparenting roles are related to formal volunteering among older adults.

Method.

Logistic regression is used to examine the likelihood of volunteering based on grandchild care using data from the 2004 wave of the Health and Retirement Study (n = 13,785). Longitudinal analyses utilize treatment effects models to examine changes in volunteering for grandparents who begin nonresidential grandchild care between the 2004 and 2008 waves (n = 10,811).

Results.

Results show that grandparents raising coresidential grandchildren have lower odds of volunteering than grandparents providing no regular grandchild care. However, grandparents who provide nonresidential grandchild care are more likely to volunteer than grandparents not providing grandchild care and those raising a coresidential grandchild. Grandparents who provide nonresidential care for grandchildren engage in more volunteering before assuming grandchild care, and their volunteerism increases after becoming a caregiver for a grandchild.

Discussion.

Consistent with resource theory and the accumulation of roles, providing nonresidential grandchild care may draw grandparents into formal volunteer activity. The lower human capital resources evidenced by grandparents raising coresidential grandchildren may play a role in their lower likelihood of formal volunteering.

Key Words: Civic engagement, Grandchildren, Grandparents, Volunteerism

Recent initiatives by the American Society on Aging, the National Council on Aging, and the Gerontological Society of America, as well as public policies such as the Edward Kennedy Serve America Act, seek to encourage civic engagement among older adults (Cullinane, 2007). In an effort to better understand who volunteers, a number of recent studies examine factors that promote or deter civic engagement. Whereas some research indicates that caring for one’s child(ren) or parent increases volunteerism (e.g., Burr, Choi, Mutchler, & Caro, 2005; Butrica, Johnson, & Zedlewski, 2009), other studies find that caregiving responsibilities detract from formal volunteering (Choi, Burr, Mutchler, & Caro, 2007; McNamara & Gonzales, 2011). However, to our knowledge, no study examines the link between grandparenting roles and formal volunteerism.

Grandparents serve as the day care providers for almost a quarter of American children younger than 5 years of age living with their mothers (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) and this figure increases to more than 30% for those with working mothers (Laughlin, 2013). The 2011 American Community Survey data indicate that more than 7 million grandparents (3.8%) live with their grandchildren and that more than 2.7 million of these grandparents have primary responsibility for their grandchild’s needs (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Nonresidential grandchild care may expand grandparents’ social networks and volunteer opportunities through involvement with their grandchildren’s activities. Grandparents raising their grandchildren, on the other hand, are engaged in a more time-demanding and emotionally intensive form of care; although this care may expose them to more volunteer opportunities, it may also limit their ability to take on formal volunteer work. Using data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), we examine formal volunteerism based on the grandparent’s grandchild care role.

Background

Alexis de Tocqueville’s (1835/1956) descriptions of the civic nature of American society, combined with Putnam’s (2000) examination of social and civic life in American communities, form a historical and theoretical backdrop for current discussions about volunteerism among older adults (e.g., Martinson & Minkler, 2006; Rozario, 2006). Whereas de Tocqueville was impressed by the civic associations formed by Americans of all ages, Putnam laments the decline in civic participation in all but one age group: “Who are these new volunteers, sailing so boldly against the tide of civic disengagement? … people aged sixty and over” (Putnam, 2000, p. 129). Today, over one quarter of Americans engage in volunteer activity, including more than 24% of people aged 65 and older (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). As part of what has been called a general cluster of productive activities (e.g., Burr, Mutchler, & Caro, 2007) or helping activities (e.g., Wilson, 2000), formal volunteer activity refers to “…unpaid work chosen by the individuals themselves; it is carried out within the framework of an organization to individuals to whom they owe no familial or contractual obligation” (Jegermalm & Grassman, 2009, p. 356).

Although formal volunteering is often undertaken to benefit others, it may also benefit the volunteer. Volunteering is associated with greater health, life satisfaction, self-esteem and sense of control, lower levels of depressive symptoms, and reduced mortality (Lum & Lightfoot, 2005; Morrow-Howell, Hinterlong, Rozario, & Tang, 2003; Thoits & Hewitt, 2001; Van Willigen, 2000), and these benefits appear particularly strong for older adults (Musick & Wilson, 2003; Van Willigen, 2000). The benefits of volunteering, combined with the increasingly lengthy and healthy period between retirement and the onset of disability, have led to initiatives to increase volunteer opportunities and participation from older adults (Cullinane, 2007; Morrow-Howell, 2010).

The increased attention to volunteering has spurred a number of studies examining factors that promote or constrain civic engagement. Although some studies have examined how family caregiving affects volunteering (e.g., Butrica et al., 2009; McNamara & Gonzales, 2011; Putnam, 2000; Wilson & Musick, 1997), we are surprised by the absence of studies examining the effect of raising a grandchild or providing nonresidential grandchild care on formal volunteering. Demographic trends and cultural shifts emphasizing emotional closeness between grandparents and grandchildren have led grandparents to assume active roles in their grandchildren’s lives, and many provide significant forms of care (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1986; Uhlenberg, 2004). Thus, it is important to better understand the ways in which grandchild care may be related to formal volunteering.

Although providing childcare to a grandchild is common, there is heterogeneity in the type and amount of childcare that grandparents provide. Nonresidential grandparents provide care for their grandchildren but do not live with them. These grandparents provide regular care to approximately 23.7% of children younger than 5 years who live with their mother (Laughlin, 2013). Jendrek (1994) defined custodial grandparents as those who raise their coresident grandchild without the presence of the grandchild’s parent(s) in the household. However, some grandparents assume responsibility for raising their grandchild even when the grandchild’s parent lives in the household. We use the term grandparent raising a grandchild regardless of whether the grandchild’s parent(s) is or is not present in the household. More than 2.7 million U.S. grandparents have primary responsibility for their grandchildren (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).

Grandparents typically assume the primary caregiving role for a grandchild because of parental drug and/or alcohol abuse, child abuse or neglect on the part of the grandchild’s parent, or parental death, incarceration, deployment, or mental health problems (Jendrek, 1994; Rubin, 2013; Ruiz, 2008; Williams, 2011). Thus, grandparents who raise their grandchildren are often “drafted volunteers”; they assume the role of parent because they must (Jendrek, 1993; Thomas, Sperry, & Yarbrough, 2000) and they do so under stressful circumstances. The care these grandparents provide is often long term; almost 1 million grandparents have had primary responsibility for the care of their grandchildren for 5 or more years (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).

Theoretical Perspectives on Volunteering

Early theoretical models of caregiving and volunteering often utilized role theory. These models suggested that assuming too many roles can produce role strain—a sense of being overwhelmed and burdened by multiple roles (Goode, 1960; Scharlach, 2001)—which may decrease volunteerism. Thus, individuals engaged in caregiving may be less likely to volunteer due to role overload, a hypothesis with some empirical support. Caro and Bass (1995), for example, found that family obligations inhibited volunteering, and Choi and colleagues (2007) found reduced volunteerism among older women who had caregiving responsibilities for their husbands. However, other researchers find little support for role strain (Wilson, 2000) and instead suggest that role accumulation benefits the individual (e.g., Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Nordenmark, 2004; Sieber, 1974).

Sieber (1974, p. 569), for example, noted four types of positive outcomes to role accumulation, “1) role privileges, 2) overall status security, 3) resources for status enhancement and role performance, and 4) enrichment of the personality and ego gratification.” Thus, instead of paid work or caregiving work competing with volunteer work, these roles may confer resources that encourage individuals to assume and maintain roles. Several studies support the idea that these roles function in a complementary fashion (Burr et al., 2007; Hank & Stuck, 2008; Mutchler, Burr, & Caro, 2003), and other studies show that caregivers are more likely to volunteer and spend more time volunteering than noncaregivers (e.g., Burr et al., 2005; Butrica et al., 2009; Wilson & Musick, 1997).

Gaining increasing support as a theoretical paradigm for understanding volunteerism, the resource perspective suggests that volunteerism increases with greater amounts of human capital (e.g., individual-level resources such as income, education, and health), social capital (e.g., social ties/networks such as friendships and familial relationships), and cultural capital (e.g., religious beliefs and moral obligation; McNamara & Gonzales, 2011; Putnam, 2000; Tang, 2006; Wilson, 2000; Wilson & Musick, 1997). Thus, employment or caregiving roles—rather than detracting from formal volunteering as role strain would predict—may accumulate to confer resources that make volunteerism more likely.

Indeed, there is growing evidence that familial caregiving may function as a form of social capital, drawing individuals into volunteering by increasing their social networks and interactions with organizations that need volunteers (Burr et al., 2005; Mutchler et al., 2003). Childcare—unlike care for an ailing spouse or parent—may complement formal volunteering rather than competing with it (Butrica et al., 2009), and research using the resource perspective consistently links childcare to increased volunteerism. For instance, number of children is positively related to formal volunteering (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013; Wilson & Musick, 1997). Longitudinal studies find that those who begin caring for a child are more likely to begin volunteering, and those with children in the household are more likely to remain volunteers (Butrica et al., 2009; McNamara & Gonzales, 2011; Wilson & Musick, 1999). Consistent with the idea that childcare may spur volunteering through increased opportunities, having a school-aged child is predictive of a greater likelihood of volunteering than having a preschool child or no child (Rotolo & Wilson, 2007).

However, what about childcare for a grandchild? Grandchild care may increase social capital by drawing a grandparent into volunteer activities via the grandchild’s school or extracurricular activities, as is the case for parents. However, grandchild care may also decrease human capital resources. Whereas providing nonresidential childcare may not strain a grandparent’s finances or health, grandparents raising a grandchild may face financial constraints or be forced to alter their work hours (Pruchno & McKenney, 2009). In fact, research suggests that grandparents raising grandchildren tend to have higher levels of stress, depression, and financial strain, and lower levels of physical health and economic well-being (e.g., Baker & Silverstein, 2008b; Hayslip & Kaminski, 2005; Jendrek, 1994; Pebley & Rudkin, 1999; Thomas et al., 2000).

The resource perspective also suggests that other types of social, cultural, and human capital affect volunteering; education, income, wealth, employment, religiosity, having a spouse, functional ability, psychological wellbeing, and self-rated health are all positively related to volunteering (Choi, 2003; Choi & Chou, 2010; McNamara & Gonzales, 2011; Tang, 2006; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013; Wilson, 2000). In addition, gender and race influence volunteerism. In the United States, women and whites tend to volunteer at a higher rate (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013), and women and African Americans are more likely to provide coresidential care for grandchildren (Fuller-Thomson, Minkler, & Driver, 1997; Luo, LaPierre, Hughes, & Waite, 2012; Simmons & Dye, 2003).

In sum, this study contributes to the existing literature by being the first to examine how the caregiving role a grandparent assumes is related to volunteerism. Based on the studies reviewed earlier, we have two main hypotheses. First, consistent with resource theory and role accumulation, we expect that grandparents who provide nonresidential care for a grandchild will be more likely to volunteer than those who do not provide care for a grandchild or those raising a grandchild. Resource theory suggests that assuming a grandparent caregiver role increases social capital by expanding grandparents’ social networks and that these expanded networks provide grandparents with volunteer opportunities. The longitudinal research on volunteerism among parents, previously discussed, provides support for the directionality of this hypothesized relationship (Butrica et al., 2009; McNamara & Gonzales, 2011; Wilson & Musick, 1999). Second, we expect that those raising a grandchild are less likely to volunteer than those providing nonresidential or no grandchild care. Consistent with resource theory and the literature discussed earlier, we expect their lower likelihood of volunteering may be due to their decreased levels of human capital (i.e., health, socioeconomic status).

Method

Data for this study come from the 2004 wave (n = 20,129) of the HRS, a biennial, nationally representative study of U.S. older adults and their spouses/partners, and the RAND HRS. RAND produces a user-friendly, merged data set with a number of cleaned and constructed variables from the original HRS (RAND, 2011). We use the 2004 wave because it incorporates a cohort of early Baby Boomers and provides an adequately large sample of grandparents raising grandchildren for statistical analysis. For the purposes of this study, we exclude respondents younger than 50 years (n = 857), those who are not grandparents (n = 4,193), those missing data on the dependent variable (n = 34), those who do not provide information on grandchildren (n = 257), those who report residing with a grandchild but do not state that they are raising the grandchild or whose coresident grandchild is over age 18 (n = 883), and those providing nonresidential grandchild care who do not report the number of hours spent caring for the grandchild (n = 120). The final sample for analysis includes 13,785 individuals.

Respondents are divided into four categories based on level of grandchild care: grandparents raising a grandchild, grandparents providing substantial nonresidential care, grandparents providing limited nonresidential care, and grandparents not providing regular grandchild care. The HRS explicitly asks grandparents who have a grandchild currently residing in their household whether they are raising the grandchild. Among those who indicate that they are, we limit our focus to grandchildren who are younger than 18 years (n = 428). This is similar to the method used by Baker and Silverstein (2008a, 2008b) to determine grandparents raising grandchildren with HRS data. Nonresidential grandchild care is determined by a series of questions that ask whether respondents spent 100hr or more caring for a grandchild in the previous 2 years and, for those who do, how many hours were provided. Those who report providing 1,000hr or more of care in the previous 2 years (which equates to an average of at least 10hr per week over a 2-year period) are hereafter termed grandparents providing substantial nonresidential care. Those who report 100–1,000hr of care (which equates to an average of 1–9hr of care per week over a 2-year period) are termed grandparents providing limited nonresidential care. Supplemental sensitivity analyses examined different cut points for this variable. Trends were similar regardless of the break point used, and those doing 1,000hr or more of grandchild care evidenced the greatest differences in odds of volunteering (results available upon request). Those who have not provided at least 100hr of grandchild care in the previous 2 years we term grandparents not providing care for a grandchild. Those providing multiple types of care (e.g., raising a grandchild but also providing nonresidential care for another grandchild) are coded into the most time-intensive category.

Measures

The dichotomous dependent variable, formal volunteering, is measured by a question asking, “Have you spent any time in the past 12 months doing volunteer work for religious, educational, health-related or other charitable organizations?” It is coded (1) for those who volunteered and (0) for those who did not. The primary independent variables, grandparent roles, are described earlier. Other independent variables include measures of human capital (education, income, assets, work hours, activities of daily living [ADL] limitations, subjective health, and depressive symptoms, a measure of psychological well-being) and social and cultural capital (own children younger than 18 years in the household, relatives in the neighborhood, religious attendance). All multivariate analyses include sociodemographic controls for gender, race, age, and marital status. The coding strategy for each of these variables is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Definitions and Coding Strategies for All Independent Variables

Independent variable Definition and coding strategy
Grandchild carea
 Raising grandchild Raising a coresidential grandchild under 18 years old (1 = yes, 0 = no)
 Substantial nonresidential grandchild care Provided 1,000 or more hours of care in the previous 2 years for a grandchild who does not reside in the household (1 = yes, 0 = no)
 Limited nonresidential grandchild care Provided between 100 and 1,000hr of care in the previous 2 years for a grandchild who does not reside in the household (1 = yes, 0 = no)
 Not providing care for grandchild Has not provided at least 100hr of care in the previous 2 years and is not raising a coresidential grandchild (1 = yes, 0 = no)
Sociodemographic controls
 Age Age in years
 Female Gender (1 = female, 0 = male)
 Whiteb Non-Hispanic white (1 = yes, 0 = no)
 Black Non-Hispanic black (1 = yes, 0 = no)
 Other race-ethnicity Race-ethnicity other than non-Hispanic white or black (1 = yes, 0 = no)
 Partnered Self-reported marital status (1 = married or cohabiting, 0 = not partnered)
Human capital
 Education Years of completed education, ranging 0 (none) to 16 (16 or more years)
 Income Total household income, in dollars (logged for use in multivariate analysis)
 Assets Total assets, in dollars (logged for use in multivariate analysis)
 Work hours Total weekly work hours
 ADL limitations Index of six items indicating whether respondent has difficulty with walking, dressing, eating, bathing, toileting, getting in or out of bed (index ranges 0–6)
 Subjective health Self-report of overall health, ranging 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent)
 Depressive symptoms Eight-item CES-D scale (α = 0.79) indicating how many depressive symptoms the respondent reports; ranges from 0 (no symptoms) to 8 (eight symptoms)
Social and cultural capital
 Own child <18 in household Own child under age 18 residing in household (1 = yes, 0 = no)
 Relatives in neighborhood Relative(s) living in neighborhood but not in household (1 = yes, 0 = no)
 Religious service attendance Religious service attendance, ranging 1 (never) to 5 (>once a week)
Open in a new tab

Notes. ADL = activities of daily living; CES-D = Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression. Data source: 2004 Health and Retirement Study (HRS).

aVariables for grandchild care are a set of mutually exclusive dichotomous variables.

bWhite, black, and other race-ethnicity are a set of mutually exclusive dichotomous variables.

Plan of Analysis

We use the RAND HRS imputations for missing data on income and wealth. Less than 3% of respondents are missing data on any other independent variable. For these cases, we use multiple imputation techniques to assign values based on the other independent variables in the analysis with the “impute” command in Stata. We use the “survey” commands in SAS to apply the cluster and primary sampling unit weights in all analyses to correct for the complex sampling design of the HRS. We first examine means for all variables and test for significant differences by grandparent role. Logistic regression analysis is then used to examine variations in volunteerism according to grandparent role, controlling for sociodemographics and human, social, and cultural capital resources. We assessed the possibility of multicollinearity problems in the multivariate analysis by estimating variance inflation factor (VIF) values in SAS; results show all VIF values are less than 1.7, well within the acceptable range (DeMaris, 2004).

Results

Table 2 shows the mean for each dependent and independent variable by grandparent caregiver group. Tests for statistically significant differences between groups compare the means for each grandparent caregiver group with grandparents not providing care (denoted in the table by asterisks), for grandparents raising grandchildren or providing substantial nonresidential care with those providing limited nonresidential care (superscript “a”), and for grandparents raising grandchildren with those providing substantial nonresidential care (superscript “b”). The results in Table 2 show significant differences in formal volunteering between all groups. A lower percentage of grandparents raising grandchildren engage in formal volunteer work than the other groups; about 23% of grandparents raising grandchildren engage in formal volunteering, compared with 32% of grandparents who do not provide care for a grandchild, 37% of grandparents providing limited nonresidential care, and 47% of grandparents providing substantial nonresidential care for a grandchild.

Table 2.

Weighted Means of All Variables by Grandparent Caregiver Status

Raising grandchild Substantial nonresidential care (1,000+ hr) Limited nonresidential care (<1,000hr) Not providing care for a grandchild
Any volunteering 0.23**a,b 0.47***a 0.37* 0.32
Sociodemographic controls
 Age 61.09***a 61.73*** 62.34*** 67.86
 Female 0.62***b 0.71***a 0.60*** 0.54
 Black 0.34***a,b 0.11 0.09 0.09
 Other race-ethnicity 0.19***a,b 0.07 0.08 0.08
 White 0.46***a,b 0.82 0.83 0.84
 Partnered 0.63a,b 0.79*** 0.78*** 0.66
Human capital
 Education 11.08***a,b 12.74* 12.77*** 12.40
 Income 40,927***a,b 63,545 70,567*** 57,155
 Assets 188,599***a,b 468,842 474,561 442,442
 Work hours 17.94* 17.91* 18.59*** 14.18
 ADL limitations 1.38a,b 1.08***a 1.16*** 1.25
 Subjective health 2.83***a,b 3.16 3.29*** 3.12
 Depressive symptoms 1.79*a,b 1.18* 1.29** 1.43
Social and cultural capital
 Own child <18 in household 0.07*a,b 0.02 0.03 0.04
 Relatives in neighborhood 0.28a,b 0.39** 0.34*** 0.29
 Religious service attendance 2.79 3.06* 2.94*** 2.79
n 428 358 2,939 10,060
% of analytic sample 3.1% 2.6% 21.3% 73.0%
Open in a new tab

Notes. n = 13,785. ADL = activities of daily living.

aSignificantly different from grandparents providing limited nonresidential care (p < .05).

bSignificantly different from grandparents providing substantial nonresidential care (p < .05).

Significantly different from grandparents not providing care: *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 2 also shows that grandparents raising grandchildren or providing nonresidential care are younger and more likely to be women than those not providing grandchild care, on average. A higher percentage of grandparents raising their grandchildren have their own children younger than 18 years in the household and are black or other race-ethnicity than those not providing care for a grandchild. In addition, grandparents raising grandchildren have significantly higher depressive symptoms, work more hours, and report lower education, income, assets, and health than grandparents not providing grandchild care. Compared with grandparents not providing grandchild care, a higher percentage of grandparents providing nonresidential care are partnered and have relatives in their neighborhood. Nonresidential grandparent caregivers have, on average, fewer depressive symptoms and ADL limitations and greater education, work hours, and religious service attendance than grandparents not providing care.

There are also significant differences between grandparents providing nonresidential care and those raising a grandchild. A higher percentage of grandparents raising grandchildren have their own children in the household and are black or of other race-ethnicity, and a lower percentage are partnered or have relatives in their neighborhood. In addition, grandparents raising grandchildren have more depressive symptoms and ADL limitations and have lower average education, income, assets, and subjective health than grandparents providing nonresidential care, on average. In general, grandparents providing substantial nonresidential care and grandparents providing limited nonresidential care do not differ significantly on the independent variables, with two exceptions: Those providing substantial nonresidential care are more likely to be women and have fewer ADL limitations, on average.

Main Analysis: The Relationship Between Grandparent Role and Volunteering

Table 3 shows the logistic regression of volunteering on grandparent role. Model 1 includes the variables for grandparent status and the sociodemographic controls in order to adjust for differences between groups in terms of age, gender, and race-ethnicity. The first model shows that, net of these controls, grandparents raising a grandchild have 32% lower odds of volunteering versus grandparents not providing grandchild care. In contrast, those providing substantial nonresidential care have 68% higher odds of volunteering and those providing limited nonresidential care have 27% higher odds of volunteering than grandparents not providing grandchild care. Several of the sociodemographic factors are related to volunteerism; women and those who are partnered have higher odds of volunteering, and those who are older or of other race-ethnicity have lower odds of volunteering. However, controlling for these factors does not account for the trends found at the bivariate level of analysis (shown in Table 2): Older adults raising grandchildren have lower odds of volunteering than grandparents not providing grandchild care, whereas older adults providing nonresidential grandchild care have higher odds of volunteering. Of all the groups, grandparents providing substantial nonresidential care for a grandchild have the highest odds of volunteering.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression of Any Volunteering, by Type of Grandchild Care

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
b Odds ratio b Odds ratio b Odds ratio
Grandchild care
 Raising grandchild −0.391**a,b 0.68 −0.204a,b 0.82 −0.215a,b 0.81
 Substantial nonresidential care 0.519***a 1.68 0.477**a 1.61 0.454**a 1.58
 Limited nonresidential care 0.237*** 1.27 0.164** 1.18 0.063 1.07
Sociodemographic controls
 Age −0.011*** 0.99 −0.007** 0.99 −0.017*** 0.98
 Female 0.181*** 1.20 0.209*** 1.23 −0.010 0.99
 Black −0.029 0.97 0.424*** 1.53 −0.059 0.94
 Other race-ethnicity −0.793*** 0.45 −0.120 0.89 −0.363*** 0.70
 Partnered (married or cohabiting) 0.438*** 1.55 0.145** 1.16 0.020 1.02
Human capital
 Education 0.152*** 1.16 0.166*** 1.18
 Income (logged) 0.061* 1.06 0.082** 1.09
 Assets (logged) 0.031*** 1.03 0.026*** 1.03
 Work hours −0.006*** 0.99 −0.005*** 0.99
 ADL limitations −0.224*** 0.80 −0.199*** 0.82
 Subjective health 0.254*** 1.29 0.214*** 1.24
 Depressive symptoms −0.083*** 0.92 −0.053*** 0.95
Social and cultural capital
 Own child under 18 in household 0.224 1.25
 Relatives in neighborhood 0.045 1.05
 Religious service attendance 0.649*** 1.91
Constant −0.356* −3.780*** −5.130***
Likelihood ratio X 2 413.1*** 1734.48*** 3572.7***
Open in a new tab

Notes. n = 13,785. ADL = activities of daily living.

aSignificantly different from grandparents providing limited nonresidential care (p < .05).

bSignificantly different from grandparents providing substantial nonresidential care (p < .05).

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Model 2 adds the human capital variables. This model examines whether variations in socioeconomic status, health, and psychological well-being between the groups (shown in the bivariate analysis in Table 2) account for the differences in volunteerism among the groups. After controlling for the human capital variables in Model 2, the coefficient for raising a grandchild reduces to nonsignificance. However, there is no change in the significance of the coefficients for nonresidential care; grandparents providing nonresidential care have higher odds of volunteering than older adults providing no grandchild care, and those providing substantial nonresidential care have higher odds of volunteering than those providing limited nonresidential care. The coefficient for black, which was not significant in Model 1, is positive and significant in Model 2; once the lower levels of socioeconomic status and health evidenced by blacks is held constant, blacks have higher odds of volunteering than whites. All of the human capital factors included in Model 2 are significant correlates of volunteerism and are consistent with previous research indicating that education, income, assets, and higher levels of physical and mental health are associated with higher odds of volunteering, whereas ADL limitations are related to lower odds of volunteering (e.g., Tang, 2006; Wilson, 2000).

These results suggest two important trends. First, the lower socioeconomic status and poorer health, on average, evidenced by grandparents raising grandchildren may account for their lower likelihood of volunteering. Second, even when comparing those with similar levels of socioeconomic status and health, grandparents providing nonresidential care for a grandchild have higher odds of volunteering than either grandparents raising grandchildren or grandparents who provide no grandchild care.

Model 3 adds the social and cultural capital variables. One of these variables is significant: Higher religious service attendance is associated with higher odds of formal volunteering. The full model (Model 3) shows that grandparents raising grandchildren have significantly lower odds of volunteering than grandparents providing nonresidential care; when controlling for all variables in the full model, grandparents raising grandchildren have 49% lower odds of volunteering than those who provide substantial nonresidential care and 24% lower odds than those who provide limited nonresidential care (calculated by changing the reference category in the regression model; results not shown). Model 3 also shows that, after controlling for the social and cultural capital variables, those who provide limited nonresidential care for a grandchild do not have significantly different odds of volunteerism than grandparents providing no grandchild care. Supplemental analyses added the social and cultural capital variables individually in separate models (results not shown) and reveal that controlling specifically for religious attendance reduces the coefficient to nonsignificance. This suggests that the higher religious service attendance, on average, evidenced by grandparents providing limited nonresidential care may play a role in their greater likelihood of volunteering when compared with those not providing grandchild care.

We also explored potential gender interactions in supplemental analyses (results available upon request from the authors), given that the literature suggests gender differences in grandparenting and the consequences of grandchild care (e.g., Hayslip & Kaminski, 2005; Luo et al., 2012). We first examined interactions between type of grandchild care and gender. None of these interactions are significant. Thus, it appears the relationship between grandchild care and volunteering is similar for grandmothers and grandfathers. We also examined interactions between gender and the independent variables. There are no significant gender interactions for any of the independent variables among grandparents raising grandchildren. However, among those providing nonresidential care, education has a stronger positive association and depressive symptoms have a stronger negative association with odds of volunteering for grandmothers than grandfathers.

In sum, even after controlling for all variables in Model 3, those who provide substantial nonresidential care for a grandchild have approximately 58% higher odds of volunteering than grandparents providing no childcare for a grandchild, 48% higher odds than those providing limited nonresidential care, and almost 2 times greater odds of volunteering than those raising a grandchild (calculated by changing the reference category in the regression model; results not shown). Those raising a grandchild have lower odds of volunteering than any of the other groups.

Auxiliary Analyses: The Super Helper Explanation

It is important to note that the analysis in Table 3 is cross-sectional. Several studies (e.g., Burr et al., 2007; Jegermalm & Grassman, 2009) suggest that some individuals are “super helpers,” who have a “high commitment to helping others in both the private and public domains” (Burr et al., 2005, p. S255). It is possible that the increased volunteerism evident among grandparents providing nonresidential grandchild care (see Table 3) is reflective of this; that is, older adults who are already more engaged in formal volunteering may also be more likely to undertake care for a grandchild. In order to explore this possibility, we utilize longitudinal data from the 2004 and 2008 waves of the HRS to examine change in volunteering over the transition to grandchild care. Although 127 respondents begin raising a grandchild between 2004 and 2008, very few evidence a change in volunteering, precluding an analysis of those who transition to raising a grandchild. However, the sample is large enough to examine change in volunteerism over the transition to nonresidential grandchild care, which allows us to address our primary concern: that the higher volunteerism evidenced by grandparents providing nonresidential care may not be due to the volunteer opportunities provided by their grandchild care or higher levels of resources, but may instead reflect “super helpers” already engaged in more volunteer work.

We limit our analysis to older adults not providing grandchild care in 2004, and examine the 10,811 respondents who were not lost to death or attrition by 2008, who provided data on volunteerism and for whom we could determine grandparent status in 2008, and who either began providing nonresidential care by 2008 or who were not providing any grandchild care in either 2004 or 2008 (the reference group). Volunteerism in both 2004 and 2008 is coded as a three-category variable (1 = no volunteering, 2 = 100hr or less of volunteering, 3 = more than 100hr of volunteering), and change in volunteering is then calculated by subtracting the 2004 value from the 2008 value, yielding a five-category change score ranging from −2 (largest decrease in volunteering) to 2 (largest increase in volunteering).

An examination of mean differences shows that those who begin nonresidential care by 2008 have significantly higher mean volunteering at baseline than those who do not transition to care (1.57 vs 1.47, respectively, p < .01) and at follow-up (1.61 vs 1.44, respectively, p < .001). Notably, those who transition to providing nonresidential grandchild care have a positive mean change in volunteering (0.05), which is significantly different from the negative mean change in volunteering (−0.05) for those who do not begin care for a grandchild (results available on request). We use the “svy etregress” command in Stata 13 to estimate an endogenous treatment effects model using full maximum likelihood (StataCorp, 2013). The treatment effects model estimates the relationship between beginning nonresidential grandchild care and change in volunteering while simultaneously accounting for endogeneity in grandchild care. Results in Table 4 show that transitioning to providing nonresidential care for a grandchild is positively associated with change in volunteerism versus remaining in the noncaregiving category. Thus, although bivariate results suggest that those who begin providing nonresidential care for a grandchild were doing more volunteer work before assuming grandchild care, their volunteerism increases once they assume nonresidential care for a grandchild. This is particularly notable because bivariate results indicate that their noncaregiving counterparts evidence the opposite pattern, with their volunteerism tending to decline over time.

Table 4.

Estimates from the Treatment Effects Regression of Change in Volunteering (2004–2008)

Begin nonresidential grandchild care Change in volunteering
b SE b SE
Grandchild care transition (2004–2008)
 Begin nonresidential grandchild care — — 0.135** 0.049
Sociodemographic controls (2004)
 Age −0.442*** 0.003 −0.002*** 0.001
 Female 0.095** 0.026 0.007 0.012
 Black 0.038 0.070 −0.005 0.025
 Other race-ethnicity 0.114 0.068 0.001 0.024
 Partnered (married or cohabiting) 0.153* 0.060 −0.002 0.017
Human capital (2004)
 Education 0.024* 0.009 −0.005* 0.002
 Income (logged) 0.022 0.025 −0.006 0.007
 Assets (logged) 0.012* 0.005 −0.000 0.001
 Work hours −0.000 0.001 0.001* 0.000
 ADL limitations −0.012 0.030 0.013* 0.006
 Subjective health 0.011 0.018 0.005 0.007
 Depressive symptoms −0.016 0.011 −0.005 0.004
Social and cultural capital (2004)
 Own child under 18 in household −0.471*** 0.095 −0.028 0.032
 Relatives in neighborhood 0.073 0.049 −0.023 0.014
 Religious service attendance 0.069*** 0.012 −0.034*** 0.005
Any grandchild (2004) 0.684*** 0.052 — —
Constant 0.203 0.311 0.333** 0.102
Rho −0.038
F 14.70***
Open in a new tab

Notes. n = 10,811. ADL = activities of daily living; SE = standard error.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The grandparent role is not monolithic. A growing number of grandparents are raising their grandchildren (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). Some grandparents provide nonresidential care for their grandchild and, while they operate as a parent for part of the day, either the grandchild or the grandparent returns to his/her home at night. Other grandparents provide no care; some supply the grandchild with hugs and kisses when they see them and others rarely, if ever, see their grandchild (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1986). Although studies find that raising a grandchild is related to a variety of outcomes such as health status, financial well-being, and social integration (e.g., Baker & Silverstein, 2008b; Hayslip & Kaminski, 2005; Minkler & Fuller-Thomson, 1999; Pebley & Rudkin, 1999), none have considered how different types of grandparenting may be related to formal volunteering.

Results of this study show that although caregiving for a grandchild is related to formal volunteerism, the relationship differs depending on the type of role the grandparent assumes. Consistent with our first hypothesis, providing nonresidential care for a grandchild is associated with a greater likelihood of volunteering. This type of grandchild care may expand grandparents’ social networks, thereby increasing volunteer opportunities. This is consistent with resource theory, which suggests that greater social capital may draw individuals into volunteer roles, and with role accumulation, which suggests that engaging in multiple roles generates both social resources and increased opportunities for volunteering.

We find mixed support for our second hypothesis. Grandparents raising grandchildren are less likely to volunteer than those providing no care or grandparents providing nonresidential care. Whereas early role theory suggests that this disparity may be due to the stress of assuming primary care for a grandchild in later life, the resource perspective suggests that the disparity may be due to the lower levels of resources. Consistent with the resource perspective and our second hypothesis, our results show that grandparents raising grandchildren have lower income, assets, education, and health than those not providing grandchild care, and controlling for these variables reduces the difference in volunteering between grandparents raising grandchildren and grandparents not providing grandchild care to nonsignificance. However, we are not able to completely account for the significant difference in volunteerism between grandparents raising grandchildren and the other groups. In fact, whereas providing nonresidential care is associated with increased odds of volunteering, raising a coresidential grandchild has the opposite association with volunteering. This suggests that role accumulation may be beneficial for civic engagement only up to a certain point. When a grandparent assumes responsibility for raising a grandchild who is living in their home, resources may be taxed to a point that the individual no longer reaps the benefits of role accumulation and instead experiences role overload (Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Nordenmark, 2004; Scharlach, 2001).

This study has several limitations. First, HRS data do not include information about the nature of the respondent’s volunteer work. Second, the volunteering measure gauges whether respondents have volunteered over the past year, and the question about nonresidential grandchild care asks about care over the previous 2 years. These different metrics mean that some respondents may have done volunteer work before assuming care for a grandchild or may no longer have been caring for a grandchild at the time of the survey. Third, although those who spend any time volunteering are asked a series of questions to determine if they spent more or less than 50, 100, and 200hr volunteering, the low number of grandparents raising grandchildren who do any volunteering leads to few respondents in each category, precluding a detailed analysis of amount of time spent volunteering.

Fourth, our main analysis is cross-sectional. We can document differences in volunteering between grandparent groups, but we cannot make causal inferences about the reasons for these differences. It is possible that there is a third factor, such as some shared personality characteristic (e.g., self-efficacy, self-esteem, perceived moral obligation), that we are unable to measure that makes individuals both more likely to volunteer and more likely to assume nonresidential grandchild care. Although sample size limitations prevent us from examining the volunteerism of grandparents raising grandchildren longitudinally, our auxiliary analyses utilize treatment effects models with longitudinal data to show that beginning nonresidential care for a grandchild is associated with increased volunteerism. This lends some support to our contention that nonresidential grandchild care may increase resources such as social capital, drawing older adults into volunteer work through their caregiving. Finally, the HRS does not ask grandparents why they are raising their grandchild(ren). Therefore, we could not examine whether or how grandparents’ reasons for raising their grandchildren relate to volunteerism. We do, however, speculate that the stressful nature of their reasons (e.g., parental substance abuse, incarceration, abuse or neglect of the grandchild) found in prior research (e.g., Jendrek, 1994; Rubin, 2013) may negatively affect grandparents’ ability to volunteer.

Results of this study show that although providing nonresidential care for a grandchild is related to a higher likelihood of volunteering, raising a grandchild has the opposite relationship with volunteerism. These findings contribute to the existing literature in two main ways. First, they add to the burgeoning literature on consequences of grandchild care. Previous studies find that although custodial grandparents experience benefits stemming from their grandchild care, there are also costs (Hayslip & Kaminski, 2005; Jendrek, 1994; Minkler & Fuller-Thomson, 1999; Pebley & Rudkin, 1999; Thomas et al., 2000). We find that ability to participate in formal volunteering may be one such cost. As a number of studies show positive effects of formal volunteering on health and well-being, grandparents raising grandchildren may not reap these benefits. On the other hand, less intensive, nonresidential day care for a grandchild may draw grandparents into volunteer work.

Second, this study contributes to the literature on correlates of civic engagement among older adults. Previous studies suggest that childcare increases formal volunteering and that the effects are greater with increasing number of children (Butrica et al., 2009; Rotolo & Wilson, 2007; Wilson & Musick, 1997, 1999). Our results show that providing nonresidential childcare for a grandchild has a similar relationship; odds of volunteering are higher for those who spend more time caring for nonresidential grandchildren. However, this is not the case for grandparents raising grandchildren, who are less likely to volunteer than those providing nonresidential care and grandparents not providing care to a grandchild. This is consistent with a limited number of previous studies showing that family obligations or caregiving for a spouse can inhibit volunteering (Caro & Bass, 1995; Choi et al., 2007; McNamara & Gonzales, 2011). Thus, our results add to a small and growing literature suggesting that familial care may have a complex relationship with formal volunteering, promoting volunteerism in some cases and inhibiting it in others.

Results of this study are relevant for the growing number of policies seeking to increase volunteerism among older adults. Some gerontologists have critiqued these policies as valuing only certain types of civic engagement in which some groups of older adults may be unable to participate (Martinson and Minkler, 2006). Our finding that grandparents raising grandchildren are less likely to volunteer, coupled with results from other studies showing reduced volunteering among those with family caregiving responsibilities (Choi et al., 2007; McNamara & Gonzales, 2011), suggests that older adults with intensive caregiving responsibilities may be one such group. Our results also suggest that the lower human capital resources evidenced by grandparents raising grandchildren may account for their lower likelihood of volunteering. This finding indicates potential barriers to programs designed to promote civic engagement among older adults and reflects an important need for policies designed to address the poorer health and lower socioeconomic status among this group.

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the North Central Sociological Association, April 1, 2010, Chicago, IL. This study uses data from the Health and Retirement Study (2004 and 2008 data files), a public use dataset produced and distributed by the University of Michigan with funding from the National Institute on Aging (grant number NIA U01AG009740).

References

  1. Baker L. A., Silverstein M. (2008a). Preventive health behaviors among grandmothers raising grandchildren. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63, 304–311. doi:10.1093/geronb/63.5.S304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker L. A., Silverstein M. (2008b). Depressive symptoms among grandparents raising grandchildren: The impact of participation in multiple roles. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 6, 285–304. doi:10.1080/15350770802157802 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnett R. C., Hyde J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family. An expansionist theory. The American Psychologist, 56, 781–796. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.56.10.781 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Burr J. A., Choi N. G., Mutchler J. E., Caro F. G. (2005). Caregiving and volunteering: Are private and public helping behaviors linked? The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60, 247–256. doi:10.1093/geronb/60.5.S247 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Burr J. A., Mutchler J. E., Caro F. G. (2007). Productive activity clusters among middle-aged and older adults: Intersecting forms and time commitments. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62, 267–275. doi:10.1093/geronb/62.4.S267 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Butrica B. A., Johnson R. W., Zedlewski S. R. (2009). Volunteer dynamics of older Americans. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 64, 644–655. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbn042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Caro F. G., Bass S. A. (1995). Increasing volunteering among older people. In Bass S. A. (Ed.), Older and active: How Americans over 55 are contributing to society (pp. 71–96). New Haven, CT: Yale University. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cherlin A. J., Furstenberg F. F., Jr (1986). The new American grandparent: A place in the family, a life apart. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Choi L. H. (2003). Factors affecting volunteerism among older adults. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 22, 179–196. doi:10.1177/0733464803022002001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Choi N. G., Burr J. A., Mutchler J. E., Caro F. G. (2007). Formal and informal volunteer activity and spousal caregiving among older adults. Research on Aging, 29, 99–124. doi:10.1177/0164027506296759 [Google Scholar]
  11. Choi N. G., Chou R. J. (2010). Time and money volunteering among older adults: The relationship between past and current volunteering and correlates of change and stability. Ageing & Society, 30, 559–581. doi:10.1017/S0144686X0999064X [Google Scholar]
  12. Cullinane P. (2007). Promoting purposeful lives for greater good: Civic engagement programs of aging organizations. Generations, 30, 109–111. [Google Scholar]
  13. DeMaris A. (2004). Regression with social data: Modeling continuous and limited response variables. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. [Google Scholar]
  14. De Tocqueville A. (1956). Democracy in America. In Heffner R. D. (Ed.), Democracy in America. New York, NY: The New American Library; (Original work published 1835). [Google Scholar]
  15. Fuller-Thomson E., Minkler M., Driver D. (1997). A profile of grandparents raising grandchildren in the United States. The Gerontologist, 37, 406–411. doi:10.1093/geront/37.3.406 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Goode W. J. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483–496. doi:10.2307/2092933 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hank K., Stuck S. (2008). Volunteer work, informal help, and care among the 50+ in Europe: Further evidence for ‘linked’ productive activities at older ages. Social Science Research, 37, 1280–1291. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hayslip B., Kaminski P. L. (2005). Grandparents raising their grandchildren: A review of the literature and suggestions for practice. The Gerontologist, 45, 262–269. doi:10.1093/geront/45.2.262 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Jendrek M. P. (1993). Grandparents who parent their grandchildren: Effects on lifestyle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 609–621. doi:10.2307/353342 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jendrek M. P. (1994). Grandparents who parent their grandchildren: Circumstances and decisions. The Gerontologist, 34, 206–216. doi:10.1093/geront/34.2.206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jegermalm M., Grassman E. J. (2009). Caregiving and volunteering among older people in Sweden- prevalence and profiles. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 21, 352–373. doi:10.1080/08959420903167066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Laughlin L. (2013). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: Spring 2011 (Current Population Reports, P70-135). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lum T. Y., Lightfoot E. (2005). The effects of volunteering on the physical and mental health of older people. Research on Aging, 27, 31–55. doi:10.1177/0164027504271349 [Google Scholar]
  24. Luo Y., LaPierre T. A., Hughes M. E., Waite L. (2012). Grandparents providing care to grandchildren: A population-bases study of continuity and change. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 1143–1167. doi:10.1177/0192513X12438685 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Martinson M., Minkler M. (2006). Civic engagement and older adults: A critical perspective. The Gerontologist, 46, 318–324. doi:10.1093/geront/46.3.318 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. McNamara T. K., Gonzales E. (2011). Volunteer transitions among older adults: The role of human, social, and cultural capital in later life. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 66, 490–501. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbr055 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Minkler M., Fuller-Thomson E. (1999). The health of grandparents raising grandchildren: Results of a national study. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1384–1389. doi:10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1384 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Morrow-Howell N. (2010). Volunteering in later life: Research frontiers. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65, 461–469. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbq024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Morrow-Howell N., Hinterlong J., Rozario P. A., Tang F. (2003). Effects of volunteering on the well-being of older adults. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58, 137–145. doi:10.1093/geronb/58.3.S137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Musick M. A., Wilson J. (2003). Volunteering and depression: The role of psychological and social resources in different age groups. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 259–269. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00025-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Mutchler J. E., Burr J. A., Caro F. G. (2003). From paid worker to volunteer: Leaving the paid workforce and volunteering in later life. Social Forces, 81, 1267–1293. doi:10.1353/sof.2003.0067 [Google Scholar]
  32. Nordenmark M. (2004). Multiple social roles and well-being. Acta Sociologica, 47, 115–126. doi:10.1177/0001699304043823 [Google Scholar]
  33. Pebley A. R., Rudkin L. L. (1999). Grandparents caring for grandchildren: What do we know? Journal of Family Issues, 20, 218–242. doi:10.1177/019251399020002003 [Google Scholar]
  34. Pruchno R., McKenney D. (2009). Grandmothers raising grandchildren: The effects of work disruptions on current work hours and income. In Hayslip B., Patrick J. H., Jr (Eds.), Custodial grandparenting: Individual, cultural, and ethnic diversity (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  35. Putnam R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. [Google Scholar]
  36. RAND. (2011). RAND HRS data, version L. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Center for the Study of Aging. [Google Scholar]
  37. Rotolo T., Wilson J. (2007). The effects of children and employment status on the volunteer work of American women. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 487–503. doi:10.1177/0899764006296848 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rozario P. A. (2006). Volunteering among current cohorts of older adults and baby boomers. Generations, 30, 31–36. [Google Scholar]
  39. Rubin M. (2013). Grandparents as caregivers: Emerging issues for the profession. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23, 330–344. doi:10.1080/10911359.2013.763711 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ruiz D. S. (2008). The changing roles of African American grandmothers raising grandchildren: An exploratory study in the Piedmont region of North Carolina. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 32, 62–71. [Google Scholar]
  41. Scharlach A. E. (2001). Role strain among working parents: Implication for workplace and community. Community, Work & Family, 4, 215–230. doi:10.1080/713658929 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sieber S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567–578. doi:10.2307/2094422 [Google Scholar]
  43. Simmons T., Dye J. L. (2003). Grandparents living with grandchildren: 2000 (Census 2000 Brief). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. [Google Scholar]
  44. StataCorp. (2013). Stata treatment effects reference manual: Release 13. College Station, TX: Author. [Google Scholar]
  45. Tang F. (2006). What resources are needed for volunteerism? A life course perspective. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 25, 375–390. doi:10.1177/0733464806292858 [Google Scholar]
  46. Thoits P. A., Hewitt L. N. (2001). Volunteer work and well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, 115–131. doi:10.2307/3090173 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Thomas J. L., Sperry L., Yarbrough M. S. (2000). Grandparents as parents: Research findings and policy recommendations. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 31, 3–22. doi:10.1023/A:1001969920389 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Uhlenberg P. (2004). Historical forces shaping grandparent-grandchild relationships: Demography and beyond. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 24, 77–97. [Google Scholar]
  49. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2013, February). Volunteering in the United States, 2012, Economic News Release, 1–4 Retrieved from http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/print.pl/news.release/volun.nr0.htm
  50. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Child care arrangements of preschoolers under 5 years old living with mother, by employment status of mother and selected characteristics: Spring 2010. Table 1A Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/childcare/data/sipp/ 2010/tables.html
  51. U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). American FactFinder: Grandparents living with own grandchildren under 18 years by responsibility for own grandchildren by length of time responsible for own grandchildren for the population 30 years and over. Table B10050 Retrieved October 22, 2012, from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_1YR_B10050&prodType=table
  52. Van Willigen M. (2000). Differential benefits of volunteering across the life course. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 55, 308–318. doi:10.1093/geronb/55.5.S308 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Williams M. N. (2011). The changing roles of grandparents raising grandchildren. Journal Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 21, 948–962. doi:10.1080/10911359.2011.588535 [Google Scholar]
  54. Wilson J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.215 [Google Scholar]
  55. Wilson J., Musick M. (1997). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62, 694–713. doi:10.2307/2657355 [Google Scholar]
  56. Wilson J., Musick M. A. (1999). Attachment to volunteering. Sociological Forum, 14, 243–272. doi:10.1023/a:1021466712273 [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES