In 2009, Ohio ranked 22nd among states for its rate of volunteering with 29.4% of state residents volunteering, slightly up from last year's rate of 29.1%, but still below the pre–recession rate of 30.6% in 2005. Last year, we reported that, as often happens during economic downturns, many Ohioans turned inward and decreased the number of hours they volunteered in formal settings. Volunteering rates fell one full percentage point — a large decrease — between 2007 and 2008 during the worst months of the recession. This year's increase of a third of a percentage point suggests progress in working for the common good together.

In Ohio, we nd some demographic distinctions among those who are giving their time in service to others. Women are more likely to volunteer than men, giving their time at a rate of 31.8% compared to men's rate of 26.8%. We also nd members of the Millennial Generation (born after 1981) volunteered at a lower rate than members of all other generations, reecting trends in civic engagement that Robert Putnam identied as part of the lifespan: civic engagement activities peak in the years of middle age. 22 Ohioans volunteered according to similar generational trends:
Millennial Generation (born 1981 or after) 23.7%
Generation X (born 1965 – 1980) 33.3%
Baby Boomers (born 1946 – 1964) 33.6%
Silent Generation (born 1930 – 1945) 27.2%

The national data on volunteering provides a useful frame for understanding volunteering rates in Ohio and for considering ways to increase the number of Ohioans who volunteer. According to Volunteering in America, a study conducted by the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), the national volunteering rate increased from 2008 to 2009, from 26.4% to 26.8%, the largest single increase since 2003. The study nds that this growth was driven by the upsurge in volunteer rates among women (especially women aged 45–54), among married people (especially married women), among those who identied themselves as African Americans/Black (especially women) and among those who were employed (especially those working full–time). The highest rate of volunteering remained among people with children under 18 living in the home. 23

Communities with greater numbers of nonprofit organizations (per capita) have higher rates of volunteering, too. We can account for this relationship by pointing to the infrastructure required to manage volunteers, which is part of an organization's capacity to meet its mission. The larger number of nonprofit organizations may also explain the most common reason people give for volunteering with a particular organization: because someone asked them to. Nonprots provide opportunities, reasons, and networks to support and promote volunteering. 24

We also nd a strong correlation between volunteering rates and educational attainment. Education, in fact, is one of the most important predictors of a community's volunteer rate. As the education level of a community increases, the likelihood of volunteering also increases. Americans (age 25 and above) with a bachelor's degree or more had the highest volunteer rate at 42.8% in 2009, compared to 18.8% percent for those with only a high school diploma or GED and 8.6% percent for those without a high school diploma or GED. If a strong volunteering rate reects the civic health of a community or a state, and if educational attainment correlates positively with volunteering, then Ohio potentially faces a future of failing civic health because of its low rates of educational attainment, which we describe below.

The national data also reveal that difcult economic times have a profound impact on the volunteering rates—and thus the civic health—of our communities. First, in states with higher unemployment rates, the volunteer rate is lower. We nd that employed Ohioans volunteer at a higher rate than the Ohio state average: 32.9% of employed Ohioans volunteer. Second, cities with higher foreclosure rates also had a lower rate of volunteerism. It may be that community ties become loosened by the trauma and displacement of foreclosure, and the social capital of a community's residents similarly dissipates. Third, as home ownership rates decrease, so do volunteering rates. Research on social capital suggests that citizen engagement can be difcult to build in communities where residents do not have a long–term commitment to the community. Finally, people living in poverty are less likely to volunteer. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Ohio ranks 21st in the nation for the number of people living in poverty, with a three–year composite poverty rate of 13.3% (2007–2009). What we don't know is whether higher poverty rates reduce the propensity to volunteer or whether volunteering activities actually reduce poverty. 25

We can celebrate the fact that despite the continuation of the recession Ohioans have not decreased their volunteering again this year as they did at its beginning. On the other hand, we can also point to the fact that Ohio's volunteer rate—like the national rate—has not returned to the levels we saw after the attacks of September 11, 2001. From this perspective, we believe that we still have not achieved a statewide culture of volunteering that would bring together Ohioans from every community and within every community to identify and then resolve the problems facing Ohio in the recession, in the post–industrial economy, and in the knowledge economy of the 21st century.