1

Metadata Glossary

AmeriCorps Evidence Exchange

September 2021

This document was developed by the Office of Research and Evaluation to serve as a guide for navigating the 

search categories in the Evidence Exchange. It also provides authoritative definitions for frequently used terms 

in research and evaluation at the agency (as of September 2021).
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

1

Contents

About AmeriCorps ....................................................................................................................................................................................................2

Criteria for Posting Evaluation Reports.................................................................................................................................................................2

Notes on the Metadata........................................................................................................................................................................................2

Metadata ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................3

Program/Intervention............................................................................................................................................................................................3

Implementing Organization..................................................................................................................................................................................3

Grantee/Intermediary(s).......................................................................................................................................................................................3

AmeriCorps Program(s).........................................................................................................................................................................................4

AmeriCorps Focus Area(s) ....................................................................................................................................................................................6

Outcome Category(s)...........................................................................................................................................................................................8

Age(s) Studied .......................................................................................................................................................................................................9

Focus Population(s)/Community(s)......................................................................................................................................................................9

Study Type............................................................................................................................................................................................................10

Study Design(s).....................................................................................................................................................................................................12

Level of Evidence ................................................................................................................................................................................................13

Researcher/Evaluator .........................................................................................................................................................................................17

Year Published .....................................................................................................................................................................................................17

Report Citation.....................................................................................................................................................................................................17

Study Site Location (City/ County).....................................................................................................................................................................17

Study Site Location (State)..................................................................................................................................................................................17

Date Posted Online .............................................................................................................................................................................................17
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

2

About AmeriCorps

AmeriCorps, formerly known as the Corporation for National and Community Service, improves lives, strengthens communities, and 

fosters civic engagement through service and volunteering. As the nation's largest grant-maker in support of service and volunteering, 

AmeriCorps engages Americans of all ages and backgrounds in service to their communities each year through AmeriCorps Seniors, 

AmeriCorps, the Social Innovation Fund, the Volunteer Generation Fund, and other programs.

The AmeriCorps Evidence Exchange is a digital repository of research, evaluation reports, and data. This evidence-based research 

focuses on national service, social innovation, civic engagement, and volunteering, and this repository builds our agency’s evidencebase.

Criteria for Posting Evaluation Reports

The grantee program evaluation reports included in the Evidence Exchange were conducted to meet specific program evaluation 

requirements (see AmeriCorps State and National Evaluation Guidance and Evidence Evaluation for the Social Innovation Fund) and 

were assessed by independent, third-party evaluators. Program requirements also determine whether a report is posted.

The methodology and quality of any report posted to the Exchange may be determined through the reading of that report.

This repository does not include reports of performance measures (see AmeriCorps National Performance Measures), which collect 

information on a program's ongoing progress but, unlike evaluations, do not assess the impact of a program

Notes on the Metadata

• Prior to 2020, AmeriCorps operated as the Corporation for National and Community Service (or CNCS). Most reports published 

prior to August 2020 are cited as such.

• Prior to 2020, AmeriCorps Seniors operated as Senior Corps. Most reports published prior to August 2020 are cited as such. 

Searchable metadata has been updated to reflect the name change.
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

3

Metadata

Metadata is information that describes one or more aspects of the broader piece of data in the research and evaluation report. It is an 

essential part of identifying report characteristics, filtering through documents, and searching the Evidence Exchange. This glossary 

outlines all available options for metadata submission.

If you have any questions about metadata, please reach out to the Office of Research and Evaluation at evaluation@cns.gov.

Program/Intervention

The name of the program or intervention being evaluated. This meta-field can also denote if the program/intervention is a funded 

award type like RSVP, Senior Companion, or Foster Grandparent award.

Implementing Organization

The name of the organization that is conducting the research or implementing the program being assessed.

For reports internally produced or contracted by the Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE), use one of the below in place of 

organization name:

• AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation – Reports internally produced by AmeriCorps staff conducting assessments.

• AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation Commissioned – Reports produced through a contractual agreement.

Grantee/Intermediary(s)

The name of any organization(s) or State Commission(s) that provides sub-grants to and/or places service participants with other 

organizations.
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

4

AmeriCorps Program(s)

AmeriCorps VISTA 

(Volunteers in 

Service to America)

Taps the skills, talents, and passion of more 

than 7,000 Americans annually to support 

community efforts to overcome poverty. 

The program's nationwide corps of VISTAs 

commits full-time for a year at nonprofit 

organizations or local government 

agencies to build the capacity of these 

organizations to carry out programs that 

tackle poverty.

AmeriCorps State 

and National

Supports a wide range of local service 

programs that engage thousands of 

Americans in intensive community 

service each year. It provides grants to a 

network of local and national 

organizations and agencies committed 

to using national service to address 

critical community needs in education, 

public safety, health, and the 

environment.

AmeriCorps NCCC 

(National Civilian 

Community Corps)

Strengthens communities and develops 

leaders through direct, team-based 

national and community service. In 

partnership with non-profits— secular and 

faith based—local municipalities, state 

governments, federal government, 

national and state parks, Indian tribes, and 

schools, members complete service 

projects throughout the region they are 

assigned.

Volunteer 

Generation Fund

Strengthens the role of volunteers in 

tackling pressing problems by 

expanding the capacity of state service 

commissions and volunteer connector 

organizations to recruit, manage, 

support and retain individuals to serve in 

high-quality volunteer assignments.
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

5

AmeriCorps Program(s) continued

Social Innovation 

Fund (SIF)

Targets public and private dollars to 

expand effective solutions across three 

issue areas: Economic Opportunity, Healthy 

Futures and Youth Development. The SIF 

was a competitive grant program that 

invested in innovative solutions with 

evidence of impact and that were ready 

to grow to meet the needs of more 

communities. This work created a catalog 

of evidence-based approaches that can 

be replicated in communities across the 

country.

Office of 

Research and 

Evaluation (ORE)

Furthers the mission of AmeriCorps by 

producing accurate and timely research 

on national service, social innovation, 

volunteering, and civic engagement. 

ORE conduct original and sponsored 

research and evaluations, support 

evaluations of grantees’ research and 

programs, and promote evidencebased service models – all of which 

infuses data into AmeriCorps programs 

and contributes to the public 

understanding of national service.

AmeriCorps Seniors

(Formerly known as 

Senior Corps)

Consists of programs that use the 

experience, skills and talents of more than 

450,000 volunteers age 55 and older to 

serve at-risk youth, help seniors live 

independently and meet other community 

needs. AmeriCorps Senior volunteers serve 

through more than 65,000 local nonprofits, 

public agencies, faith-based and other 

community organizations.
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

6

AmeriCorps Focus Area(s)

AmeriCorps utilizes focus areas identified in the Serve America Act. The Serve America Act of 2009 reauthorized and expanded 

national service programs administered by AmeriCorps by amending the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the 

Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973. The agency’s previous priorities can be found on the next page.

While focus areas do not appear as a filter on the Evidence Exchange, typing them into the search bar will display results tied to the 

associated outcome categories defined on page 8.

Disaster 

Services

Build the capacity of national service 

network organizations to help their states 

and localities prepare, respond, recover, 

and mitigate disasters and increase 

community resiliency

Economic 

Opportunity

Provide, support and/or facilitate access to services 

and resources that contribute to the improved 

economic well-being and security of economically 

disadvantaged people

Education Provide, support and/or facilitate access 

to services and resources that contribute 

to improved educational outcomes for 

economically disadvantaged people, 

especially children

Environmental 

Stewardship

Provide direct services that contribute to increased 

energy and water efficiency, renewable energy 

use, or improving at-risk ecosystems, and support 

increased citizen behavioral change leading to 

increased efficiency, renewable energy use, and 

ecosystem improvements particularly for 

economically disadvantaged households and 

economically disadvantaged communities

Healthy Future Provide direct services that enable seniors 

to remain in their own homes with the 

same or improved quality of life for as long 

as possible; increase physical activity and 

improve nutrition in youth with the 

purpose of reducing childhood obesity; 

and improve access to primary and 

preventive health care

Veterans and 

Military 

Families

Demonstrate the potential for AmeriCorpssupported national service interventions to 1) 

positively impact the quality of life of veterans and 

2) improve military family strength
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

7

Prior Agency Focus Areas 

Capacity 

Building

Provide, support and/or facilitate access 

to services and resources that contribute 

to improved educational outcomes for 

economically disadvantaged people, 

especially children

Native 

Americans

Support Native American culture of service by 

addressing concerns around cultural preservation, 

as well as traditional language and lands 

preservation. Also includes assistance to elders, 

children, and youth; education, health, and 

wellness; job training; economic development for 

veterans and families; environmental stewardship; 

and disaster preparedness. 

Youth 

Development 

(SIF)

Preparing youth for success in school, 

active citizenship, productive work, and 

healthy and safe lives.

Faith-based & 

Community 

Organizations

Strengthen the relationship between the federal 

government and secular- and faith-based nonprofit 

organizations to better serve Americans in need.

Service Projects 

& Initiatives

Support for additional national service 

and volunteering programs that benefit 

communities, but don’t fall within the 

existing focus areas.

Colleges & 

Universities

Collaborate with other federal agencies, 

educational and nonprofit organizations to 

encourage student volunteerism and to promote a 

culture of service on college campuses across the 

country and after graduation.
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

8

Outcome Category(s)

Derived from the AmeriCorps Performance Measurement framework and dependent on the preceding Focus Area.

Disaster Services Economic 

Opportunity Education Environmental Stewardship Healthy Futures Veterans & Military Families

No Focus 

Area/Other

Assistance 

Provided

Financial 

Literacy

School 

Readiness Energy Efficiency Aging in Place

Veterans and 

Military Families 

Served

Benefit to 

National Service 

Members/ 

Volunteers

Housing K-12 Success At-Risk 

Ecosystems

Obesity and 

Food

Non-Profit 

Development

Employment

Post-Secondary 

Educational

Support

Awareness of 

Environmental 

Issues

Access to Care Improving 

AmeriCorps

Green Jobs Other
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

9

Age(s) Studied

• 0-5 (Early childhood)

• 6-12 (Childhood)

• 13-17 (Adolescent)

• 18-25 (Young adult)

• 26-55 (Adult)

• 55+ (Older adult)

Focus Population(s)/Community(s)

This is not an exhaustive list. The selections below represent specific funded initiatives. 

Opportunity

Youth

Sometimes referred to as "disconnected

youth" – defined as people between the ages 

of 16 and 24 who are neither in school nor 

working

Schools Institutions in the United States that have the

primary function of educating (K-12 public, 

private, charter schools; colleges and 

universities)

Non-profits 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, which are 

the primary recipients of AmeriCorps grants 

and resources

Tribes American Indian and Alaska Native people 

represented by federally recognized tribal 

governments

Veterans and 

Military 

Families

Wounded warriors, veterans, military spouses, 

and their families

Rural Communities in the United States with fewer 

than 50,000 residents and not adjacent or 

peripheral to larger communities

Suburban Communities in the United States immediately 

adjacent/peripheral to metropolitan 

communities

Urban Metropolitan communities in the United States, 

typically with more than 50,000 residents

Low-Income Communities where the average income is 

below the federal poverty level
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

10

Study Type

Case Study or

Descriptive

An intensive study of one set (or unit) of

something, based on a comprehensive 

understanding accumulated from an 

extensive description and analysis of the 

set (or unit) taken as a whole and in its 

context.

Cost-Benefit or

Cost Effectiveness 

Study

A study to determine the costs and benefits of 

a program or the implications of a programrelated decision. The study documents the 

costs and benefits, and calculates monetary 

values for each. It may or may not include 

monetary value to costs and benefits that are 

difficult to quantify.

Feasibility A type of analysis to assess the feasibility 

of implementing and operating an 

intervention.

Outcomes A study that identifies the results or effects of a 

program and measures program beneficiaries’ 

changes in knowledge, attitude(s), and/or 

behavior(s) that result from a program over a 

specific period of time.

Impact An impact study aims to provide a 

quantitative estimate of the causal 

effects of programs or policies. The 

preferred method for impact evaluations 

are randomized experiments, but other 

comparison group designs (quasiexperimental) are also appropriate for 

impact evaluations. Impact evaluations 

may be accompanied by process 

analysis or implementation analysis to 

document specific details of the

intervention.

Review or MetaAnalysis

A scientifically disciplined approach to 

searching literatures, assembling studies for 

review, and analyzing, interpreting and 

reporting the results. The goal of the scientific 

approach is to reduce bias in the evaluation 

(ideological or theoretical preference). Other 

terms are systematic review, meta-analysis, 

and evaluation synthesis.
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

11

Study Type continued

Industry 

Publication

Published academic papers that 

report on research or evaluation 

findings.

Summary Briefs Condensed version of a longer body of work 

that provides an overview of report findings. Also 

called a synopsis or digest. 

Published

Articles

Published article appearing in an 

academic journal, organization or 

university website, or industry trade 

outlet.

General Research Research that is focused on building a body of 

knowledge for a field of study, practices and 

approaches.

Implementation An implementation (process) study

evaluates the implementation 

practices surrounding the intervention. 

This usually includes reviewing 

documents, administrative data, 

surveys, interviews, and/or focus 

groups. The study can also describe 

the organization, management, and 

service delivery procedures of the 

intervention, as well as identify policy, 

bureaucratic, and political factors that 

influence the way the intervention is 

structured and managed.

Other Other evaluation products.
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

12

Study Design(s)

Dependent on Study Type; meta-field could be left blank.

Experimental (RCT) A randomized control trial (RCT) aims to identify the results or effects of a program and attribute those 

results or effects directly to the program. RCTs that utilize a control group require quantitative data and 

advanced statistical methods. The group receiving the intervention is called the treatment group. The 

control group is a group of individuals not participating in the program or receiving the intervention. 

The control group is necessary to determine if the program, rather than some other factor, is causing 

the observed changes. New eligible program applicants are randomly assigned to either the 

treatment group or the control group, and outcomes are compared between the two groups.

Quasi-Experimental 

(QED)

A quasi-experimental design (QED) also aims to identify the results or effects of a program and 

attribute those results or effects directly to the program. QEDs utilize a comparison group, require 

quantitative data, and advanced statistical methods. The group receiving the intervention is called 

the treatment group. A QED uses statistical matching procedures to form a comparison group from a 

similar population of individuals (e.g., similar participants from another program, extra applicants, etc.),

and outcomes are compared between the two groups. The comparison group is necessary to 

determine if the program, rather than some other factor, is causing the observed changes. The QED is 

considered less rigorous than the RCT.

Non-Experimental A non-experimental study is purely observational, and the results are intended to be purely descriptive. 

(Non-QED or Non-RCT). Examples include:

• Single group post design: Examines outcomes for program beneficiaries after they receive 

program services

• Single group pre-post design: Provides a comparison of outcomes for program beneficiaries 

before and after they receive program services

• Retrospective pretest: Respondents are asked about their level of understanding or skill after an 

intervention occurs and are then asked to think back to their understanding prior to the 

intervention.
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

13

Level of Evidence

Determination of the program’s cumulative body of evidence along the evidence continuum. If the intervention was not assessed per 

the terms and conditions by a third-party evaluator, the field is left blank.

Level of Evidence is assessed at the program-level for AmeriCorps programs. For SIF evaluations, Level of Evidence is assessed by a 

third-party evaluator using programmatic evaluation documentation.

AmeriCorps (for FY 2016) Social Innovation Fund (for FY 2016)

No Evidence The applicant has not provided evidence that they have 

systematically collected any qualitative or quantitative 

data to date.

No comparable category.

Preliminary The applicant has described up to two outcome studies 

about the intervention that yielded promising results for the 

proposed intervention or a similar intervention that the 

applicant will replicate with fidelity to the evaluated 

program model. The ways to demonstrate preliminary level 

of evidence are as follows: 1) The applicant must describe 

at least one outcome study that was conducted of their 

own intervention. This must include a detailed description of 

the outcome study data from pre and post-tests without a 

comparison group or post-test comparison between 

intervention and comparison groups. An outcome study 

includes data beyond that which is collected as part of 

routine performance measurement.; OR 2) The applicant 

must describe at least one random control trial study or 

quasi-experimental evaluation (e.g. propensity score 

matching) that found positive results for the same...

Evidence that is based on a reasonable hypothesis 

supported by credible research findings. Thus, research that 

has yielded promising results for either the program model or 

a similar program model will meet AmeriCorps’ criteria. 

Examples of research that meet the standards include: 1)

outcome studies that track participants through a program 

and measure participants’ responses at the end of the 

program; and 2) third-party pre- and post-test research that 

determines whether participants have improved on an 

intended outcome.
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

14

Level of Evidence continued

AmeriCorps (for FY 2016)

Preliminary

continued

intervention that the applicant plans to replicate.; OR 3) The 

applicant may submit evidence from both bullets listed 

above. In this case, the applicant must provide data from an 

outcome study of an intervention it has previously 

implemented (see above) and also proposes to modify their 

program by replicating another random control trial study or 

quasi-experimental evaluation. The description should include 

details about how the intervention studied and the 

applicant’s proposed approach are the same and how the 

applicant will replicate the intervention with fidelity to the

program model.
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

15

Level of Evidence continued

AmeriCorps (for FY 2016) Social Innovation Fund (for FY 2016)

Moderate The applicant has submitted up to two well-designed and 

well-implemented studies that evaluated the same 

intervention described in this application and identified 

evidence of effectiveness on one or more key desired 

outcomes of interest as depicted in the applicant’s logic 

model. Evidence of effectiveness (or positive findings) is 

determined using experimental design evaluations (i.e., 

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT)) or quasi- experimental 

design evaluations (QED) with statistically matched 

comparison (i.e., counterfactual) and treatment groups. The 

ability to generalize the findings from the RCT or QED 

beyond the study context may be limited (e.g., single-site). 

The studies were conducted by an independent entity 

external to the organization implementing the intervention.

Evidence from previous studies on the program, the 

designs of which can support causal conclusions (i.e., 

studies with high internal validity) but have limited 

generalizability (i.e., moderate external validity). This also 

can include studies for which the reverse is true— studies 

that only support moderate causal conclusions but have 

broad general applicability. The following would 

constitute moderate evidence: 1) At least one welldesigned and well-implemented experimental or quasiexperimental study supporting the effectiveness of the 

practice strategy, or program, with small sample sizes or 

other conditions of implementation or analysis that limit 

generalizability; 2) at least one well-designed and wellimplemented experimental or quasi- experimental study 

that does not demonstrate equivalence between the 

intervention and comparison groups at program entry 

but that has no other major flaws related to internal 

validity; or 3) correlational research with strong statistical 

controls for selection bias and for discerning the 

influence of internal factors.
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

16

Level of Evidence continued

AmeriCorps (for FY 2016) Social Innovation Fund (for FY 2016)

Strong The applicant has demonstrated that the intervention has 

been tested nationally, regionally, or at the state- level (e.g., 

multi-site) using a well-designed and well- implemented QED 

or RCT. Alternatively, the proposed intervention’s evidence 

may be based on multiple (up to two) well-designed and 

well-implemented QEDs or RCTs in different locations or with 

different populations within a local geographic area. The 

overall pattern of study findings is consistently positive. 

Findings from the RCT or QED studies may be generalized 

beyond the study context. The studies were conducted by an 

independent entity external to the organization 

implementing the intervention.

Evidence from previous studies on the program, the 

designs of which can support causal conclusions (i.e., 

studies with high internal validity), and that, in total, 

include enough of the range of participants and settings 

to support scaling up to the state, regional, or national 

level (i.e., studies with high external validity). The 

following are examples of strong evidence: 1) More than 

one well-designed and well-implemented experimental 

study or well-designed and well- implemented quasiexperimental study that supports the effectiveness of the 

practice, strategy, or program; or 2) one large, welldesigned and well-implemented randomized controlled, 

multi-site trial that supports the effectiveness of the 

practice, strategy, or program.
Evidence Exchange

Metadata Glossary

17

Researcher/Evaluator

Name of researcher(s) of general research, commissioned research organization, or evaluator(s) of a program/intervention.

Year Published

The year the report was published.

Report Citation

The format for citing this report in other documents.

Study Site Location (City/ County)

A listing of one or more cities/counties where the study/intervention took place.

Study Site Location (State)

A listing of one or more states where the study/intervention took place.

Date Posted Online

The date materials were made publicly available on the AmeriCorps Evidence Exchange.