SRDR+

1. Review ID

(surname of first author and year first full report of study was published e.g. Smith 2001)


	Hoing 2016

2. Review title


	Helping Sex Offenders to Desist Offending: The Gains and Drains for CoSA Volunteers—A Review of the Literature

3. Date form completed


	05/08/2022

4. Initials of person extracting


	BN

5. Review funding source


	The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

6. Possible conflicts of interest


	The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

7. Aim of review


	The objective of this literature review is to provide an overview to support CoSA providers in the development of adequate volunteer policies and selection criteria. This overview will also indicate relevant concepts for future effect studies in this field. (volunteers working with medium to high risk sex offenders)

8. Number of databases searched


	5

9. Names of databases searched; date ranges of databases searched


	Sage journals online; Academic Search Elite, Eric, Science Direct, Springer link, Wiley Interscience; BSL Vakbibliotheek.

10. Date of last search


	from 1999 through October 2012

11. Number of included studies


	50

12. Exclusion criteria for participants

(e.g age, comorbidities) 


	For sex offenders: • The professionals are working exclusively (or almost so) with sex offenders. • The professional work implies face-to-face contact with the sex offender. • The professional work implies engagement in a therapeutic relation with the aim of reducing the offending behavior.

13. Exclusion criteria for volunteering

(e.g type of volunteering, for a specific organistion/purpose)


	Volunteering in general, and volunteering for sex offenders.

14. Exclusion criteria for study type


	Included reviews and articles

15. Exclusion criteria for outcome measures


	health, quality of life, vicarious traumatization, compassion fatigue, secondary traumatization, burnout, secondary traumatic growth.

16. Outcomes studied

(select all that apply)


	Psychological Physical Social General

17. Primary reported outcomes


	Literature review of the effects of volunteering in general, and literature review of the effects of volunteering when working with sex offenders.

18. Secondary reported outcomes (if applicable)


	Comparing and contrasting the results.

19. Number of participants included in the review

20. Review’s included study type (% of quant studies)


	6 reviews and 27 research articles for general volunteering. 2 studies about working with offenders, 1 qual 1 quant, and 3 qual studies of impact of volunteering for sex offenders specifically.

21. Included studies countries of publication


	No information

22. Range of included studies years of publication


	1999-2012

23. Review’s population

(age, ethnicity, SES)


	Two reviews and almost half (13) of the original studies involved samples of elderly people (55+), while four reviews and 11 original studies were based on adult population samples (18+). Only three original studies focused on a younger (student) population.

24. Social outcomes reported


	Volunteering in general: more social support and interaction (1), and improved quantity and quality of the volunteer’s social network (2). Volunteering with sex offenders: improved feelings of connectedness (1), an increased social network (2), and enjoyment of receiving support from other volunteers (42). Prevalence rates; three quarters (75%) of the 57 volunteers felt more connected to society; 70% reported an increased sense of belonging due to volunteering in a circle; 30% felt an increased emotional attachment to others; and 25% had developed new friendships among CoSA volunteers and staff (1).

25. Social outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)

26. Physical outcomes reported


	Volunteering in general: In many reviews and original studies, volunteering helped to maintain good health, but did not improve bad health (12). delayed onset of serious illness and functional disability (2), and less mortality (6)

27. Physical outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)

28. Psychological outcomes reported


	Volunteering in general: Studies on mental health effects showed mixed findings. Volunteering was associated with more self-reported happiness (2), an increased life satisfaction and quality of life (6), and less negative affect and depression (7). An improved sense of purpose and accomplishment (2), empowerment and self-esteem (5). negative effects (depression, emotional problems) when volunteering involved empathic over-arousal (e.g., in HIV— caregiving) (1). Volunteers for sex offenders: volunteers who witnessed the core member changing for the better were more satisfied and felt more rewarded (1).

29. Psychological outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant)


	As most studies rporting a positive effect on mental health had a cross-sectional design, the direction of causality remained unclear. A drop in life satisfaction (1), overburdening and strain depending on the number of hours volunteering (1), Emotional exhaustion and burnout symptoms (6), although these were generally not alarming symptoms (3). Volunteering with sex offenders: Stress, rumination, worries of risk and feeling unsafe (1). Volunteers for sex offenders: Doubts about the motivation and effort of the core member produced emotional stress, irritation, frustration, and hopelessness (1).

30. General outcomes reported

(i.e general health and wellbeing)

31. General outcomes not supported

(e.g cited as non-significant) 


	Volunteering in general: No differences in wellbeing pre and post measurement (1).

32. Interactions reported

(i.e between each other or demographic variables)


	International comparison showed positive correlations between volunteering and selfreported health in all countries, even when age, marital status, education, and other background variables were controlled (1). Volunteering in general: The effects of volunteering were influenced by characteristics of the job, the volunteer, and the context. In several reviews and cross-sectional studies with large samples, positive health effects were linked to volunteering as a lifestyle. Volunteers who started volunteering early in life, who spent more hours volunteering and over longer periods of time, experienced more positive effects (4). A moderate frequency (1-2 hr per week) had the most positive impact, less volunteering had no effect, and too much volunteering was associated with negative effects like burnout and exhaustion (8). volunteer work that generates social capital (providing social services or public safety involving face-to-face contact), or religious volunteering, produced the most beneficial effects (6). More disadvantaged people benefitted more from volunteering (1); lower SES (1), elderly people (8), people with suboptimal health (3), retired people (2). Females see more social capital benefit (1). intrinsically and altruistically motivated volunteers benefited more in terms of life satisfaction than extrinsically motivated volunteers (4), although this may be due to this being a female trait (1). Self-efficacy and more positive self-awareness predicted happiness (1) and less burnout (1). Emotional intelligence predicted less burnout (1). Neuroticism predicted lower levels of well-being (1). Volunteers, with more social support and connectedness to others (1) or had more friends (1), benefited more. A positive organizational and team climate saw more benefits and less burnout (6). Volunteering with sex offenders: Dealing with core members who have committed a less intrusive offense was viewed by some volunteers as less stressful (1).

International comparison showed positive correlations between volunteering and selfreported health in all countries, even when age, marital status, education, and other background variables were controlled (1).
Volunteering in general: The effects of volunteering were influenced by characteristics of the job, the volunteer, and the context. In several reviews and cross-sectional studies with large samples, positive health effects were linked to volunteering as a lifestyle. Volunteers who started volunteering early in life, who spent more hours volunteering and over longer periods of time, experienced more positive effects (4). A moderate frequency (1-2 hr per week) had the most positive impact, less volunteering had no effect, and too much volunteering was associated with negative effects like burnout and exhaustion (8). volunteer work that generates social capital (providing social services or public safety involving face-to-face contact), or religious volunteering, produced the most beneficial effects (6). More disadvantaged people benefitted more from volunteering (1); lower SES (1), elderly people (8), people with suboptimal health (3), retired people (2). Females see more social capital benefit (1). intrinsically and altruistically motivated volunteers benefited more in terms of life satisfaction than extrinsically motivated volunteers (4), although this may be due to this being a female trait (1).
Self-efficacy and more positive self-awareness predicted happiness (1) and less burnout (1). Emotional intelligence predicted less burnout (1). Neuroticism predicted lower levels of well-being (1). Volunteers, with more social support and connectedness to others (1) or had more friends (1), benefited more. A positive organizational and team climate saw more benefits and less burnout (6).
Volunteering with sex offenders: Dealing with core members who have committed a less intrusive offense was viewed by some volunteers as less stressful (1).

33. Was a meta-analysis performed?

34. Number of included studies in the meta-analysis

35. Heterogeneity

(e.g I squared)

36. Pooled estimates

37. Confidence intervals (95%)

38. Key conclusions from study authors


	Based on what is known about effects of volunteering in general, effects of volunteering in the criminal justice field and CoSA, and the specific effects of working with sex offenders as a professional, we conclude that CoSA volunteers will encounter both the gains and drains of their work, as positive and negative effects appear to coincide. The results of our review show that CoSA volunteers most likely will benefit in terms of health, as there is strong and convincing evidence from all over the globe that volunteering helps to maintain physical health and mental well-being and improves one’s quality of life. In general, volunteers are less depressed, happier, and more satisfied with their lives than non-volunteers, and these characteristics are both cause and consequence of volunteering.

39. Review limitations


	Our conclusions about positive and negative effects of being a CoSA volunteer and risk and protective factors are tentative, as empirical research is almost completely missing in this area.

40. AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal rating


	-7

41. Quality appraisal tool used by review (if applicable)


	None

42. Quality of included studies (if applicable)


	N/A

43. Publication bias reported (if applicable)


	N/A

44. Was correspondence required for further study information?

45. What further correspondence was required, and from whom?

46. What further study information was requested (from whom, what and when)?

47. What correspondence was received (from whom, what and when)?

Extraction form for project: The effect of volunteering on the health and wellbeing of volunteers: an umbrella review

Design Details