The
Characteristics
of
Volunteers
in
Crisis
Intervention
Centers
RUTH
C.
ENGS,
RN,
EdD,
and
ROBERT
H.
KIRK,
HSD
AN
INTEGRAL
PART
of
community
health
care
is
the
increasingly
common
use
of
non-
professional
volunteer
workers
in
a
variety
of
organizations.
For
years,
agencies
such
as
the
Planned
Parenthood
Federation
of
America,
Inc.,
have
staffed
local
clinics
with
volunteers
who
serve
as
intake
counselors
or
lecturers
on
family
plan-
ning
in
the
community.
Many
nonprofessional
volunteers
staff
the
street
clinics
and
the
crisis
intervention
telephone
and
drop-in
centers
that
have
sprung
up
recently
to
aid
youths
who
are
reluctant
to
take
their
increased
problems
related
to
venereal
disease,
unwanted
pregnancies,
and
contraceptives
to
"establishment"
agencies
(1-3).
Many
crisis
intervention
services,
originally
estab-
lished
to
deal
with
suicide
prevention
or
emo-
tional
crises,
receive
requests
for
help
or
referral
concerning
health
areas
that
have
traditionally
been
regarded
as
the
realm
of
public
clinics
and
private
practitioners
(2-4).
The
special
usefulness
of
the
crisis
intervention
service
is
its
ability
to
provide
emotional
support
and
factual
information
across
a
broad
range
of
human
problems.
The
flexibility
of
these
agencies,
enabling
them
to
adapt
from
day
to
day
in
re-
sponse
to
social
changes,
and
their
independence
from
the
rules
and
regulations,
governing
boards,
and
funding
agencies,
which
so
greatly
restrict
the
issuance
of
immediate
help
in
many
establishment
clinics,
place
the
crisis
intervention
services
in
the
unique
position
they
occupy
in
our
society.
Thus
their
staffs,
whether
professionals
or
volun-
teers,
must
continually
be
aware
of
and
well
informed
about
the
diverse
problems
people
in
their
communities
are
facing.
According
to
Toffier
in
"Future
Shock"
(5),
as
our
society
becomes
more
complex,
many
insti-
tutions
in
our
communities
will
depend
more
on
voluntary
assistance.
Very
little,
however,
is
known
about
the
volunteers,
particularly
those
working
for
organizations
dealing
with
mental
health
and
general
health
care
crises.
It
has
been
found
that
volunteers
for
community
agencies
tend
to
be
white,
upper
middle-class,
and
more
socially
Dr.
Engs
is
an
assistant
professor,
Department
of
Health
and
Safety
Education,
Indiana
University.
Dr.
Kirk
is
chairman
of
the
Department
of
Health
and
Safety,
University
of
Tennessee.
Tearsheet
requests
to
Dr.
Ruth
C.
Engs,
Department
of
Health
and
Safety
Education,
School
of
Health,
Physical
Education,
and
Recreation,
HPER
Build-
ing,
Indiana
University,
Bloomington,
Ind.
47401.
September-October
1974,
Vol.
89,
No.
5
459
oriented
than
nonvolunteers
(6).
College
students
who
volunteered
to
be
companions
for
the
mentally
ill
were
found
to
be
more
morally
con-
cerned,
introverted,
nurturing,
and
less
economic-
minded
than
nonvolunteers
(7).
Another
study
revealed
that
college
students
were
volunteering
primarily
to
help
someone
or
to
gain
experience
(8).
Hersch
and
co-workers
(9)
reported
that
male
college
students
volunteering
to
work
with
the
mentally
ill
were
less
socially
oriented,
had
more
self-control,
were
more
intent
on
giving
a
good
impression,
had
a
need
for
achievement
through
independence,
and
were
more
flexible
and
nurturing
than
nonvolunteers.
Female
volun-
teers
in
the
same
study
had
significantly
more
self-control,
tolerance,
and
flexibility,
and
were
more
psychologically
minded
than
nonvolunteers.
The
majority
of
people
staffing
these
centers
were
found
to
be
nonprofessionals
(in
the
fields
related
to
health
or
the
helping
professions),
are
in
their
early
twenties,
and
usually
indicate
they
are
volunteering
to
help
other
people.
They
are
recruited
by
word-of-mouth,
through
the
mass
media,
or
from
notices
on
bulletin
boards
at
churches,
colleges,
and
industries.
Screening
procedures
usually
involve
inquiries
as
to
current
and
past
emotional
and
physical
health,
reason
for
volunteering,
and
attitudes
toward
youth
and
its
problems.
Sometimes
psy-
chological
tests,
such
as
the
Minnesota
Multi-
phasic
Personality
Test,
are
used.
Personal
inter-
views
with
the
director
or
the
clinic
psychologist
are
commonly
part
of
the
screening
procedure.
The
training
programs
for
these
volunteers
usually
consist
of
about
30
hours
of
role
playing,
lectures
on
health
problems
by
community
members,
group
discussions,
and
on-the-job
training
(2).
If
volunteers
continue
to
be
an
important
cog
in
community
health
care,
especially
in
crisis
intervention
functions
in
which
they
often
dis-
pense
health
information
as
well
as
provide
emo-
tional
support
for
troubled
persons,
some
further
questions
need
to
be
answered.
First,
why
do
people
volunteer
for
this
type
of
community
service
and
do
their
reasons
for
volunteering
have
any
bearing
upon
their
length
of
service
to
the
agency?
How
adequate
is
the
general
level
of
health
knowledge
of
nonprofessional
volunteers
compared
with
the
volunteer
with
a
background
in
the
helping
or
health
professions?
Is
there
a
difference
between
the
personality
characteristics
of
professional
and
nonprofessional
volunteers?
It
is
essential
to
determine
these
factors
so
that
training
and
screening
procedures
can
be
better
planned
and
administered.
The
purpose
of
this
investigation
was
to
deter-
mine
the
personality
characteristics
and
health
knowledge
of
volunteers
working
in
crisis
inter-
vention
services
to
determine
some
possible
answers
to
these
questions.
Procedures
To
carry
out
this
investigation,
all
crisis
inter-
vention
centers
manned
by
volunteers
in
the
State
of
Tennessee
were
contacted.
Of
seven
existing
centers,
five
agreed
to
participate
in
the
study.
All
volunteers
who
had worked
for
at
least
a
month
were
asked
to
complete
the
California
Psychological
Inventory
(CPI) and
the
Kilander-
Leach
Health
Knowledge
Test
(KLHKT)
(10,
11).
They
were
asked
their
reasons
for
volunteer-
ing,
sex,
age,
months
of
volunteer
service,
and
occupation.
Seventy-four
volunteers
completed
all
questionnaires.
The
directors
of
the
agencies
were
asked
about
the
type
and
length
of
procedures
for
training
and
screening.
Standard
procedures
for
administration
of
both
the
CPI
and
the
KLHKT
were
used.
Statistical
analysis
of
the
data
involved
percentage
computation,
t
tests,
analysis
of
vari-
ance,
and
the
Duncan
Multiple
Range
Test
to
determine
where
differences
occurred
in
the
analy-
sis
of
variance.
The
0.05
level
of
confidence
was
selected
as
the
level
of
significance
upon
which
to
base
interpretations.
Findings
The
demographic
information
indicated
that
55
percent
of
all
volunteers
were
females
and
45
percent
were
males.
The
percentages
of
volun-
teers
seemed
to
peak
at
two
age
groups-the
20-
to
24-year
group
had
24.3
percent
and
the
40
and
over
group
had
36.5
percent,
with
the
mean
age
being
34.7.
Seventy-two
percent
of
all
volunteers
gave
"to
help
others"
as
their
reason
for
volunteering,
while
the
remaining
28
percent
indicated
"self-growth,"
"experience,"
or
"course
credit"
as
reasons.
It
was
found
that
14.9
percent
of
the
volunteers
were
professionals
(practicing
physicians,
nurses,
clergy,
social
workers,
psy-
chologists,
and
students
in
these
disciplines,
while
85.1
percent
were
nonprofessionals.
The
74
volunteers
served
a
mean
of
19.51
months.
Those
indicating
they
were
volunteering
to
help
others
had
a
mean
of
22.13
months
of
460
Public
Health
Reports
service,
while
those
volunteering
for
reasons
of
self-growth,
experience,
or
course
credit
had
a
mean
of
13.14
months.
Volunteers
with
pro-
fessional
backgrounds
had
volunteered
for
a
mean
of
20.55
months
and
nonprofessionals,
for
19.14
months.
Agency
directors
indicated
that
they
used
role
playing,
lectures
from
community
experts,
and
large
and
small
group
discussions
for
both
their
pre-
and
inservice
training
programs.
The
mean
hours
per
month
of
preservice
training
for
all
agencies
was
28
and
for
inservice
training,
5.
The
screening
procedures
for
all
five
agencies
con-
sisted
of
completion
of
a
personal
data
form,
a
statement
of
the
reason
for
volunteering,
and
a
personal
interview
with
the
agency
director
or
a
committee
consisting
of
both
professionals
and
volunteers
associated
with
the
organization.
The
mean
score
for
all
volunteers
on
the
total
health
knowledge
test
was
73.55.
The
national
norms
for
college
students
on
this
test
was
70.
There
was
a
significant
difference
between
pro-
fessionals
and
nonprofessionals
in
total
health
knowledge
(table
1)
but
no
significant
difference
between
volunteers
by
reason
for
volunteering,
although
volunteers
who
worked
to
help
others
scored
significantly
lower
than
those
who
volun-
teered
for
other
reasons
in
the
content
area
of
drugs
(table
2).
Table
3
shows
there
were
few
significant
differences
on
CPI
scores
among
women
by
reason
for
volunteering;
this
was
also
true
for
the
men.
There
was
little
significant
difference
in
CPI
scores
of
male
and
female
professional
and
nonprofessional
volunteers
(table
4)
(12).
Table
1.
Mean
scores
on
the
Kilander-Leach
Health
Knowledge
Test
of
profes-
sional
and
nonprofessional
volunteers
Professional
Nonprofessional
Content
area
t-value
Probability
Mean
S.
D.
Mean
S.
D.
Nutrition
.........................
10.36
1.69
9.32
2.05
1.60
.11
Personal
health
....................
28.00
6.34 25.78
6.12
1.11
.27
Consumer
health
..........
........
8.09
1.76
7.44
3.30
.63
.53
Safety
and
first
aid
.................
6.55
.82
6.19
1.59
.72
.47
Family
life
........................
5.36
.92
5.94
1.27 1.07
.29
Community
health
.................
11.82
1.08
9.16
2.35
6.05
1.001
Mental
health
.....................
3.91
1.04
3.56
1.43
.78
.44
Drugs
...........................
6.55
1.21
5.95
1.60
1.17
.25
Total
health
score
..............
80.64
9.03
72.34
11.81
2.22
1.03
1
Significant
at
P<.05.
NOTE:
S.
D.-standard
deviation.
Table
2.
Volunteers'
mean
scores
on
the
Kilander-Leach
Health
Knowledge
Test,
by
reason
for
volunteering
To
help
others
Other
reasons
Content
area
t-value
Probability
Mean
S.
D.
Mean
S.
D.
Nutrition
.......................
9.51
2.09
9.38
1.88
.24
.81
Personal
health
..................
26.17
6.67
25.95
4.78
.14
.89
Consumer
health
................
7.74
3.51
7.05
1.75
.85
.40
Safety-and
first
aid..-
6.17
1.59
6.43
1.25
-.67
.51
Family
life
.......................
5.04
1.28
4.90
1.09
.42
.68
Community
health
...............
9.59
2.44
9.52
2.36
.07
.95
Mental
health
...................
3.62
1.48
3.57
1.12
.14
.89
Drugs
.........................
5.72
1.64
6.81
.98
-3.45
1.001
Total
health
score
............
73.56
12.91
73.61
8.49
-0.03
.98
1
Significant
at
P<.001.
NoTE:
S.
D.-standard
deviation
September-October
1974,
Vol.
89,
No.
5
461
Discussion
and
Recommendations
The
results
of
this
investigation
corroborated
some
findings
of
other
studies.
The
majority
of
volunteers
were
youthful
female
nonprofessionals
who
were
volunteering
to
help
other
people.
The
volunteers
were
screened
through
personal
data
sheets
and
interviews.
Their
training
consisted
of
lectures,
role
playing,
and
discussion.
The
results
indicate
that
there
were
more
similarities
than
differences
between
the
pro-
fessional
and
the
nonprofessional
volunteer.
However,
since
the
nonprofessional
volunteers
greatly
outnumbered
the
professionals,
the
statisti-
cal
tests
of
difference
must
be
viewed
with
caution.
Both
professional
and
nonprofessional
volun-
teers
had
worked
almost
the
same
amount
of
time.
Professionals
had
significantly
higher
health
knowledge
than
nonprofessionals.
The
CPI
scores
were
very
similar
for
both
groups
with
the
excep-
tion
of
the
flexibility
score,
which
consistently
yields
a
trend.
Both
male
and
female
professionals
were
significantly
higher
on
this
scale
than
non-
professionals.
Females
indicating
they
were
volun-
teering
to
help
others
were
significantly
higher
on
the
flexibility
scale.
However,
men
who
volun-
teered
for
this
purpose
were
significantly
lower
on
this
scale
than
men
who
volunteered
for
self-
growth,
course
credit,
or
experience.
This
differ-
ence
might
be
explained
by
the
fact
that
virtually
Table
3.
Volunteers'
mean
scores
on
the
California
Psychological
Inventory
(CPI),
by
reason
for
volunteering
To
help
others
Other
reasons
CPI
scales
t-value
Prob
ability
Mean
S.
D.
Mean
S.
D.
Men
Dominance
............................
29.32
4.88
29.17
4.61
.09
.93
Capacity
for
status
.....................
20.05
4.77
20.75
3.25
-.46
.65
Sociability
.............................
25.45
4.18
24.58
5.25
.53
.60
Social
presence
........................
36.27
6.48
37.00
8.01
-.29
.77
Self-acceptance
........................
22.18
3.00
23.00
3.74
-.70
.49
Sense
of
well-being
.....................
36.18
4.77
36.58
4.94
-.23
.82
Responsibility
.........................
31.41
4.95
28.08
5.53
1.80
.08
Socialization
...........................
33.05
5.08
31.33
5.20
.66
.51
Self-control
............................
28.27
7.92
29.58
6.27
-.49
.62
Tolerance
.............................
22.41
5.84
22.75
4.43
-.18
.86
Good
impression
.......................
17.32
5.71
18.00
4.07
-.37
.72
Communality
..........................
24.82
4.19
25.08
2.06
-.20
.84
Achievement
via
conformance
.....
......
27.77
5.01
27.00
4.04
.46
.65
Achievement
via
independence
...........
21.18
4.67
22.25
3.79
-.68
.50
Intellectual
efficiency
...................
38.32
4.49
38.92
5.87
.33
.74
Psychological
mindedness
.......
........
12.05
2.72
12.17
2.41
-.13
.90
Flexibility
.............................
10.14
3.14
13.50
4.34
-2.61
1.01
Femininity
............................
18.00
2.62
17.75
2.86
.26
.80
Women
Dominance
............................
28.81
6.71
32.11
4.88
-1.37
.18
Capacity
for
status
.....................
21.26
2.84
20.78
2.86
.43
.67
Sociability
.............................
24.65
4.96
26.22
3.35
-.89
.38
Social
presence
........................
34.87
5.94
40.44
4.25
-2.62
1.01
Self-acceptance
........................
21.32
3.51
24.89
3.55
-2.68
1.01
Sense
of
well-being
.....................
35.45
5.95
35.89
3.10
-.21
.83
Responsibility
.........................
33.55
4.44
29.44
3.74
2.52
1.02
Socialization
...........................
35.03
6.57
34.11
4.31
.39
.69
Self-control
............................
30.42
8.83
25.11
6.21 1.68
.10
Tolerance
.............................
24.10
4.90
23.89
3.98
.12
.9
Good
impression
.......................
17.29
5.83
13.56
3.13
1.83
.07
Communality
..........................
24.90
4.96
26.44
1.01
-.92
.36
Achievement
via
conformance
.........
.
27.55
5.00
28.56
5.43
-.52
.60
Achievement
via
independence
...........
21.68
3.55
23.11
4.46
-1.01
.32
Intellectual
efficiency
...................
38.58
5.10
41.78
4.74
-1.68
.10
Psychological
mindedness
.......
........
12.61
2.19
14.11
3.37
-1.59
.12
Flexibility
.............................
19.81
3.90
14.00
3.97
-2.93
1.01
Femininity
............................
23.45
3.34
21.56
3.13
1.52
.14
1
Significant
at
P<.05,
NOTE:
S.
D.-Standard
deviation.
462
Public
Health
Reports
all
of
the
men
working
for
self-growth
and
experi-
ence
were
university
students
in
the
helping
pro-
fessions
and
may
be
exhibiting
a
personal
profile
similar
to
that
of
the
professionals.
Many
of
the
women
working
for
self-growth
or
experience
were
students,
but
not
in
the
helping
professions.
In
view
of
the
results,
it
is
recommended
that
nonprofessional
volunteers
be
afforded
more
in-
tensive
training
in
health
knowledge
so
they
can
be
more
knowledgeable
in
answering
general
questions
pertaining
to
health.
Since
the
non-
professionals
were
significantly
lower
on
the
CPI's
flexibility
scale,
it
is
recommended
that
more
intensive
training
be
afforded
nonprofessional
volunteers
to
help
them
gain
more
insight
and
become
more
adaptable
to
a
variety
of
client
situations.
The
results
indicated
that
volunteers
working
to
help
others
worked
almost
twice
as
many
months
as
volunteers
working
for
course
credit,
self-growth,
or
experience.
It
would
appear
that
the
group
volunteering
to
help
others
was
more
dedicated
to
the
organization
and
more
enthu-
siastic
than
volunteers
attempting
to
meet
their
own
needs.
It
is
recommended
that,
to
help
pre-
vent
staff
attrition,
persons
volunteering
for
self-
growth,
credit,
or
training
experience
be
inter-
viewed
in
depth
as
to
the
possible
length
of
their
commitment
to
the
organization
before
they
begin
their
service.
Table
4.
Mean
scores
on
the
California
Psychological
Inventory
(CPI)
of
professional
and
nonprofessional
volunteers
Professional
Nonprofessional
CPI
scales
t-value
Probability
Mean
S.
D.
Mean
S.
D.
Men
Dominance
............................
32.00
4.36
28.79
4.69
1.43
.16
Capacity
for
status
.....................
22.00
2.00
20.00
4.49
.97
.34
Sociability
.............................
25.80
3.83
25.03
4.69
.34
.73
Social
presence
........................
38.60
5.37
36.17
7.20
.72
.48
Self-acceptance
.......................
23.80
2.28
22.24
3.37
.99
.33
Sense
of
well-being
.....................
38.40
.89
35.97
5.07
2.36
1.02
Responsibility
..........................
31.80
5.97
29.97
5.28
.71
.49
Socialization
...........................
32.60
6.11
32.62
5.01
-.01
.99
Self-control
............................
34.60
4.61
27.72
7.26
2.03
1.50
Tolerance
.............................
25.20
4.21
22.07
5.41
1.23
.23
Good
impression
.......................
20.00
4.80
17.14
5.15
1.16
.26
Communality
................
..........
26.00
1.23
24.72
3.80
.74
.47
Achievement
via
conformance
...........
31.20
3.96
26.86
4.51
2.02
1.05
Achievement
via
independence
...........
24.60
2.79
21.03
5.39
1.74
.09
Intellectual
efficiency
....................
41.20
4.15
38.07
4.98
1.32
.1
Psychological
mindedness
...............
13.80
2.39
11.79
2.53
1.65
.11
Flexibility
.............................
14.20
1.30
10.83
3.99
3.58
1.002
Femininity
............................
19.20
2.39
17.69
2.69
1.19
.25
Women
Dominance
............................
29.83
5.04
29.50
6.72
.12
.91
Capacity
for
status
..........
...........
22.00
2.76
21.00
2.93
.78
.44
Sociability
.............................
25.67
3.39
24.88
4.88
.38
.71
Social
presence
........................
39.33
5.99
35.56
5.94
1.43
.16
Self'-acceptance
........................
23.33
4.72
21.91
3.64
.85
.40
Sense
of
well-being
.....................
35.17
3.92
35.62
5.67
-.19
.85
Responsibility
..............
...........
29.50
5.58
33.18
4.25
-1.87
.07
Socialization
...........................
34.50
5.39
34.88
6.28
-.14
.89
Self-control
............................
25.50
6.56
29.88
8.76
-1.16
.25
Tolerance
.............................
24.33
2.81
24.00
4.95
.16
.87
Good
impression
.......................
14.00
2.45
16.88
5.83
-
1.18
.24
Communality
..........................
25.67
1.51
25.18
4.76
.25
.81
Achievement
via
conformance
...........
28.50
2.43
27.65
5.39
.38
.71
Achievement
via
independenze
...........
24.33
2.87
21.59
3.78
1.69
.10
Intellectual
efficiency
....................
42.67
3.27
38.71
5.22
1.79
.08
Psychological
mindedness
...............
15.17
2.64
12.56
2.34
2.47
1.02
Flexibility
.............................
13.83
5.60
10.21
3.82
2.04
1.(5
Femininity
............................
21.83
3.97
23.99
3.26
-.94
.35
1
Significant
at
P<.05.
NOTE:
S.
D.-standard
deviation.
September-October
1974,
Vol.
89,
No.
5
463
Conclusions
For
this
sample
of
crisis
intervention
volunteers
in
the
State
of
Tennessee,
it
was
concluded
that
there
were
more
similarities
than
differences
be-
tween
volunteers
with
backgrounds
in
the
helping
professions
and
nonprofessionals.
Both
groups
had
similar
personality
traits
as
measured
by
the
CPI.
Both
appeared
equally
dedicated,
as
-'measured
by
the
amount
of
time
they
had
volunteered
-at
their
respective
agencies.
The
professional
volua:
teers,
however,
had
greater
general
health
knowl-
edge
than
nonprofessional
volunteers.
It
was
found
that
most
volunteers
in
this
sample
worked
to
help
others
and
that
these
volunteers
had
worked
about
twice
as
long
as
those
working
for
course
credit,
self-growth,
or
experience.
There
was
little
difference
in
the
health
knowledge
or
personality
characteristics
between
these
two
groups.
It
was
concluded
that
training
and
screening
procedures
of
the
five
participating
agencies
were
similar
to
those
employed
by
crisis
intervention
agencies
in
other
areas.
REFERENCES
(I)
Corner,
R.,
Carlyle,
M.
K.,
Bunce,
H.,
III,
and
Michs,
D.
W.:
Appraisal
of
health
care
delivery
in
a
free
clinic.
Health
Serv
Rep
87:
727-733,-Octo-
ber
1972.
(2)
Fisher,
S.:
The
voice
of
hope-to
people
in
crisis:
suicide
prevention
and/or
crisis
services,
a
national
survey.
Available
from
Fisher,
Canton,
Ohio,
1972.
(3)
Henry,
M.:
Medical
services
for
sexually
active
teenagers
[Editorial].
Am
J
Public
Health
63:
285-
287,
April
1973.
(4)
Garell,
D.:
A
hotline
telephone
service
for
young
people.
Children
15:
177-180
(1969).
(5)
Toffler,-A.:
Future
shock.
Bantam
Books,
Inc.,
New
York,
1971.
(6)
Scott,
J.:
Membership
and
participation
in
volun-
tary
associations.
--Am
Sociol
Rev
22:
528-533
(1957).
(7)
Knapp,
R.
H.,
and
Holtzberg,
J.
D.:
Characteristics
of
college
students
volunteering
for
service
to
men-
tal
patients.
J
Counseling
Psychol
38:
82-85
(1964).
(8)
Shaver,
P.
R.,
and
Scheibe,
K.
E.:
Transformation
of
social
identity:
a
study
of
chronic
mental
pa-
tients
and
college
volunteers
in
a
summer
camp
setting.
Gen
Psychol
66:
19-38
(1967).
(9)
Hersch,
P.
D.,
Kulik,
J.
A.,
and
Scheibe,
K.
E.:
Personal
characteristics
of
college
volunteers
in
mental
hospitals.
J
Counseling
Clin
Psychol
33:
30-34
(1969).
(J0)
Gough,
H.:
Manual
for
the
California
psychologi-
cal
inventory.
Consulting
Psychological
Press,
Palo
Alto,
Calif.,
1969.
(11)
Leach,
G.:
Kilander
health
knowledge
test:
norms
and
information.
Wagner
College,
Staten
Island,
N.Y.,
1972.
(12)
Engs,
R.
C.:
The
personality
traits
and
health
knowledge
of
crisis
intervention
volunteers
in
the
State
of
Tennessee.
Doctoral
dissertation,
Univer-
sity
of
Tennessee,
Knoxville,
August
1973.
ENGS,
RUTH
C.
(Indiana
University),
and
KIRK,
ROBERT
H.:
The
characteristics
of
volun-
teers
in
crisis
intervention
centers.
Public
Health
Reports,
Vol.
89,
September-October
1974,
pp.
459-464.
Nonprofessional
volunteers
staffing
community
health
agen-
cies
have
become
more
prevalent.
However,
little
is
known
about
these
persons.
Volunteers
staffing
five
crisis
intervention
agencies
in
the
State
of
Tennessee
were
sur-
veyed
in
the
winter
of
1972-73.
Of
74
volunteers,
55
percent
were
female.
About
15
percent
had
had
professional
training
in
the
health
or
helping
professions.
Seventy-two
percent
gave
"to
help
others"
as
their
reason
for
volunteering.
The
mean
age
of
the
volunteers
was
34.7
years,
with
the
majority
being
between
the
ages
of
20
and
24
or
over
40.
The
mean
score
(73.6)
for
all
volunteers
on
the
Kilander-Leach
Health
Knowledge
Test
was
slightly
higher
than
the
national
norm
(70.0)
for
college
students.
The
volunteers
with
profes-
sional
backgrounds
scored
signifi-
cantly
higher
than
the
nonpro-
fessionals
on
the
total
health
knowledge
test.
However,
in
gen-
eral,
there
were
more
similarities
than
differences
between
these
types
of
volunteers,
as
indicated
by
such
factors
as
personality
characteristics,
measured
by
the
California
Psychological
Inven-
tory,
and
length
of
service
to
their
agency.
Volunteers
working
to
help
others
had
worked
about
twice
as
long
for
their
agency
compared
with
volunteers
work-
ing
for
self-growth
or
experience.
However,
there
was
little
differ-
ence
in
personality
traits
or
health
knowledge
according
to
reason
for
volunteering.
It
is
recommended
that
pro-
spective
volunteers
be
asked
the
reason
for
volunteering
to
help
eliminate
volunteer
attrition
and
that
volunteers
without
back-
grounds
in
the
helping
professions
be
afforded
more
intensive
train-
ing
in
general
health
knowledge.
464
Public
Health
Reports
