Return on Investment Study:

AmeriCorps Urban Safety 

Program Detroit

Submitted to:

AmeriCorps 

250 E St., SW

Washington, DC 20024

Submitted by:

ICF Incorporated, LLC

1902 Reston Metro Plaza

Reston, VA 20190

https://www.icf.com

September 20, 2023

This report was commissioned by AmeriCorps’ Office of Research and Evaluation 

under Contract # GS00Q14OADU209 and Order # 95332A20F0068. Information in this 

report is in the public domain. Please, direct communications related to this report to 

Lily Zandniapour at lzandniapour@cns.gov and Emily McDonald at

emcdonald@cns.gov. Cite this report as follows: Clark, D., Borgida, J., Miller, B., 

Modicamore, D., Pershing, J., Thompson, P., & Voigt, G. (2023). Return on Investment 

Study: AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit. ICF.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

i

CONTENTS

Executive Summary...............................................................................................................ES-1

Program Description .........................................................................................................ES-1

Overview of Benefits and Costs.......................................................................................ES-2

ROI Results..........................................................................................................................ES-3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

Program Description...................................................................................................................2

Demographics of Youth Members and Others Served by AMUS .....................................2

AMUS Program Evaluation History ........................................................................................4

Comparable ROI Estimates...................................................................................................7

ROI Methodology .......................................................................................................................9

Monetizing Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs), and Program 

Costs ......................................................................................................................................11

ROI Study Limitations............................................................................................................22

Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs), Program Costs, and ROI 

Results ........................................................................................................................................23

Program Benefits ..................................................................................................................23

Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs)................................................................................24

Program Costs ......................................................................................................................25

ROI Results .............................................................................................................................26

Recommendations for Further Research................................................................................29

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................31

Appendix A: Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Costs Included in 

Return on Investment Calculations.........................................................................................32

Appendix B: Additional Information on the Methodology...................................................38

Methodology Overview ......................................................................................................38

Measuring Program Benefits...............................................................................................39

Measuring Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs).............................................................63

Measuring Program Costs ...................................................................................................67

Calculating ROI ....................................................................................................................67

Appendix C: Results by Year...................................................................................................70

References ................................................................................................................................75
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Benefits Among Stakeholder Groups From AMUS .................................................10

Figure 2. Program Benefits by Stakeholder Group................................................................23

Figure 3. Program Cost by Funding Source ...........................................................................26

Figure 4. Percentage of AmeriCorps Alumni Seeking Work, Providing Caregiving, or 

Occupied Outside of the Workforce From Friedman et al. (2016) .....................................43

Figure 5. Compound Interest Formula Used to Calculate Investment Opportunity Cost 66

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1. ROI Estimates ......................................................................................................ES-3

Table 1. Selected Demographic Characteristics of AmeriCorps Members Participating 

in the AMUS Summer Youth Program During Fiscal Year 2021–2022..................................... 3

Table 2. Selected Demographic Characteristics of Detroit and Wayne County ............... 4

Table 3. Relevant ROI Studies.................................................................................................... 8

Table 4. Benefits Realized From AMUS by Stakeholder Group ............................................11

Table 5. Program Benefits by Recipient .................................................................................23

Table 6. Forgone Benefits From Professional Opportunity Cost...........................................24

Table 7. Investment Opportunity Cost by Scenario and Funding Stream..........................25

Table 8. Program Cost by Funding Source for AMUS............................................................25

Table 9. Program Benefits, Net Benefits, and Program Costs by ROI Scenario..................26

Table 10. ROI Results for AMUS ................................................................................................28

Table 11. Benefits and Costs Included in the AMUS ROI Calculation ................................. 32

Table 12. Estimated Number of Program Beneficiaries Who Received a Water Filter 

and Are Children Under the Age of 6 With Elevated Blood Lead Levels...........................40

Table 13. Estimated Avoided Income Loss for AMUS Program Beneficiaries Who Are 

Children Under the Age of 6 ...................................................................................................41

Table 14. AMUS AmeriCorps Member Benefits From the Living Allowance and 

Education Award .....................................................................................................................42

Table 15. Additional Pre-Tax Earnings for AMUS AmeriCorps Members From Reduced 

Unemployment Based on AMUS AmeriCorps Member Demographics.............................44

Table 16. Cumulative Additional Post-Tax Earnings Derived From Reduced 

Unemployment due to Serving With the AMUS Program by Scenario ...............................44

Table 17. Average Total Cost of Education and Portion Attributable to Education 

Award by Degree Type............................................................................................................46

Table 18. Estimates of the Number of Postsecondary Degrees Pursued Using the 

Education Award by Degree Type.........................................................................................47
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

iii

Table 19. Additional Earnings From AmeriCorps Members’ Use of the Education 

Award ........................................................................................................................................48

Table 20. Estimates of the Number of Bachelor’s Degrees Pursued due to Summer 

Program Participation ..............................................................................................................49

Table 21. Additional Earnings From Summer Program Members’ Increased 

Education ..................................................................................................................................49

Table 22. Avoided Costs to Society due to Reduced Costs to Victims by Type of Crime 

due to AMUS’s Crime Reduction Activities............................................................................50

Table 23. Benefits to Society due to Increased Employment From Reduced 

Incarceration by Type of Crime due to AMUS’s Crime Reduction Activities.....................50

Table 24. Annual Avoided Costs to Society due to Victim Costs by Type of Crime due 

to AMUS’s Summer Employment Program.............................................................................51

Table 25. Annual Benefits to Society due to Increased Employment From Reduced 

Incarceration by Type of Crime due to AMUS’s Summer Employment Program..............51

Table 26. Avoided Costs to State/Local Governments by Type of Crime due to Crime 

Reduction Activities..................................................................................................................53

Table 27. Annual Avoided Costs to State/Local Governments by Type of Crime due 

to the Summer Youth Program................................................................................................53

Table 28. Avoided Costs to State/Local Governments by Type of Crime due to Crime 

Reduction Activities..................................................................................................................57

Table 29. Annual Avoided Costs to Federal Government by Type of Crime due to the 

Summer Youth Program...........................................................................................................57

Table 30. Government Costs by Education Attainment Level per Individual's Lifetime...59

Table 31. 2021 Tax Rates and Ratio of Taxable Expenditures for AMUS AmeriCorps 

Members’ Earnings, Living Allowances, and Education Awards ........................................60

Table 32. State/Local and Federal Government Benefits by Stakeholder Group and 

by Scenario ...............................................................................................................................61

Table 33. Forgone Earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps Members for a Service Term................64

Table 34. Forgone Taxes Associated With the Forgone Earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps 

Members for a Service Term....................................................................................................65

Table 35. Forgone Benefits From Investment Opportunity Cost Calculation by Scenario 

and Funding Stream.................................................................................................................67

Table 36. Funding Sources and Amounts for AMUS (2021–2022).........................................67

Table 37. ROI Calculations for Short-Term Scenario..............................................................68

Table 38. ROI Calculations for Medium-Term Scenario........................................................69

Table 39. ROI Calculations for Long-Term Scenario..............................................................69

Table 40. AMUS Benefits and Costs per Year.........................................................................71
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

iv

AUTHORS 

This study was conducted by researchers from ICF and BCT Partners: 

• Danny Clark, ICF, Research Analyst 

• Julia Borgida, ICF, Public Policy Researcher

• Benjamin Miller, ICF, Senior Director

• Dominic Modicamore, ICF, Lead Economist

• Janet Pershing, ICF, Vice President

• Phylicia Thompson, BCT Partners, Research and Evaluation Analyst

• George Voigt, ICF, Economics Analyst
ES-1

Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

Executive Summary 

Program Description

Founded on a unique crime reduction model, 

the AmeriCorps Urban Safety (AMUS) 

Program works to improve public health and 

safety in the City of Detroit and Wayne 

County, Michigan. AmeriCorps members with 

service terms of up to a year work to increase 

public safety through: 

• Using community mapping and 

statistical software to identify crime 

“hot spots” 

• Organizing neighborhood block clubs 

and community patrols

• Providing outreach and support to 

survivors of intimate partner violence

• Implementing safe routes for youth 

walking or biking to neighborhood 

schools

• Securing vacant and open structures

• Providing resources to residents to help reduce property crime, such as home 

safety assessments and anti-theft auto devices1 

Recently, AMUS AmeriCorps members have expanded their efforts to include public 

health activities, such as:

• Installing water filtration resources and sharing information with residents to 

increase the use of filtered water and reduce blood lead levels

• Distributing air purifiers and HEPA filters to help residents improve home indoor air 

quality, reducing the presence of asthma triggers and other irritants

AMUS also has a summer youth program in which AMUS hires youth as members. 

These youth members work on the activities discussed above. Additionally, these 

members build skills and participate in weekly seminars to prepare for college and 

future careers. Youth members are AmeriCorps members with shorter terms of 

national service. 

1 AMUS Detroit, https://amusdetroit.org/our-services/

AmeriCorps, the federal agency for 

national service and volunteerism, 

provides opportunities for Americans 

to serve their country domestically, 

address the nation's most pressing 

challenges, improve lives and 

communities, and strengthen civic 

engagement. Each year, the 

agency places more than 200,000 

AmeriCorps members and 

AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers in 

intensive service roles; and 

empowers millions more to serve as 

long-term, short-term, or one-time 

volunteers. Learn more at 

AmeriCorps.gov. 
ES-2

Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

To better understand the impact of the program in relation to costs, AmeriCorps 

commissioned a return on investment (ROI) analysis by ICF, an independent research 

firm. ROI analyses of national service programs estimate the monetary value of benefits 

that a program generates per dollar invested. 

Overview of Benefits and Costs

To calculate the ROI, the program benefits were identified, quantified, and compared 

to the program’s costs. Benefits of AMUS that can be monetized based on the available 

data and research include: 

• Reduced costs and increased economic benefits to society from reduced 

criminal activity in neighborhoods served by AMUS. Because of reduced criminal 

activity in the neighborhoods served by AMUS and by youth members, society 

avoids related costs. For example, potential victims of crime avoid property loss

and medical costs. In addition, society benefits from increased employment as a 

result of reduced incarceration. 

• Reduced lifetime spending on the criminal justice system due to AMUS’s summer 

youth program. AmeriCorps youth members are less likely to commit violent or 

property crimes than their peers due to their participation in the summer youth 

program. This results in less federal, state, and local government expenditure on 

policing, legal services, and corrections.

• Additional societal benefits from increased employment by participants in

AMUS’s summer youth program. AmeriCorps youth members benefit from 

increased employment as a result of reduced incarceration. This benefit is postprogram, based on research that establishes that similar summer youth programs 

reduce criminal activity by participants after the program has ended.

• Additional lifetime earnings resulting from decreased lead exposure. Because of 

the program, households with children under age 6 that received water filters will 

have reduced lead exposure, which leads to a higher intelligence quotient (IQ), 

and, as a result, those children will have higher lifetime earnings.

• Additional earnings by AmeriCorps members. Serving in AmeriCorps leads to 

increased wages and reduced unemployment post-national service through skill 

acquisition, as well as increased educational attainment post-service.

• Living allowances, stipends, and education awards. AmeriCorps members 

receive living allowances and stipends during their national service and receive a 

Segal AmeriCorps Education Award after successful completion. 

• Additional lifetime earnings for youth members. AmeriCorps youth members are 

more likely to enroll in bachelor’s programs than their peers due to their 

participation in the summer youth program and, as a result, will have higher 

lifetime earnings. 
ES-3

Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

• Increased tax revenue for government. Federal, state, and local governments 

receive more income tax revenue from increased AmeriCorps member earnings 

post-service and from water filter recipients once they enter the workforce. State 

and local governments also realize additional sales tax revenue related to those 

earnings. Federal and state governments also realize tax revenue from the 

taxable living allowances, stipends, and education awards provided to 

AmeriCorps members. 

• Reduced lifetime spending on corrections, public assistance, and social 

insurance. Because of the increase in postsecondary educational attainment for 

AmeriCorps members, federal and state governments spend less on these items. 

The estimated annual cost for the AMUS program from 2021 to 2022 is $3,699,768, of 

which $1,559,497 is estimated to be funded by the federal government, or roughly 

42 percent. 

ROI Results

Table ES-1 shows the ROI results. Each row represents a different ROI calculation 

depending on which benefits are considered (all benefits or only benefits to the federal 

government) and which funding is considered (federal funding only or all funding). 

The ROIs are presented as dollars returned for every dollar of investment. The analysis 

used three different scenarios to estimate benefits under different assumptions. 

Specifically, the study assumed that increased earnings attributable to the program

and reduction in crime due to AMUS’s summer youth program lasted for 1 year (shortterm scenario), 15 years (medium-term scenario), or 30 years (long-term scenario).

The ROI analysis estimated the AMUS program’s ROI to be between $1.63 and $3.07 per 

funder dollar, depending on how long program beneficiaries and AmeriCorps members 

experience increased earnings as a result of the program. The return on each dollar of 

federal support for the program is between $3.86 and $7.28. These results are driven by 

favorable employment and education outcomes for AmeriCorps members following 

their service.

Table ES-1. ROI Estimates

ROI calculation

ROI scenario

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Total benefits per federal dollar $3.86 $6.00 $7.28

Total benefits per funder dollar $1.63 $2.53 $3.07

Federal government benefits per federal dollar $0.41 $0.89 $1.16

The program produces strong returns in the short-, medium-, and long-term for total 

benefits per federal dollar and total benefits per funder dollar. The federal government 

benefits per federal dollar calculations estimate losses for the short- and medium-term 

scenarios and modest returns in the long-term scenario. Most criminal justice 

expenditures are at the state and local levels, so these results are consistent with the 
ES-4

Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

design of AMUS. The magnitude and direction of the results of the ROI calculations are 

driven by several factors, including: 

• Increased economic benefits and reduced costs due to reduced criminal 

activity. AMUS’s work to reduce criminal activity leads to less property damage, 

additional community member earnings from reduced incarceration, and less 

spending on the criminal justice system. 

• Additional earnings by AmeriCorps members. Serving in AmeriCorps leads to 

increased wages and reduced unemployment post-national service through skill 

acquisition, as well as increased educational attainment post-service.

• Reduced lifetime spending on corrections, public assistance, and social 

insurance. Because of the increase in postsecondary educational attainment for 

AmeriCorps members, federal and state governments spend less on these items. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

1

Introduction 

AmeriCorps contracted with ICF Incorporated, LLC (hereafter ICF) to research and 

quantify the return on investment (ROI) of several programs that rely on national 

service—specifically AmeriCorps—as a major resource to sustain operations. ROI 

analyses measure the performance of programs and build the base of evidence 

for future resource allocation decisions. ROI study results demonstrate the value of 

AmeriCorps programming to relevant stakeholders. 

This project began with a comprehensive literature review and preliminary 

assessments of whether ROI analyses were feasible for five national service programs. 

These feasibility studies included thorough reviews of these programs’ recent 

evaluations, detailed logic models, proposed ROI analysis methodologies for each 

program, and a scorecard mechanism that determined the viability of conducting an 

ROI analysis for each selected program. 

Upon completion of five feasibility studies, AmeriCorps selected four programs to be the 

subjects of ROI studies for fiscal year 2022: AmeriCorps Urban Safety (AMUS) Program, 

Montana Conservation Corps, Green City Force, and the Parent Possible HIPPY 

program. This ROI study measures the benefits of the AMUS program against costs. 

This study is organized into five sections:

• Program Description describes the program’s design, activities, and objectives, 

along with the role that national service (specifically AmeriCorps) plays in its 

operation. This section also provides a brief history of past evaluations, outlines 

the factors that made this program a strong selection for an ROI study, 

underscores the population this program serves, and identifies a set of ROI 

estimates of other programs that have similarities to the AMUS program. 

• ROI Methodology outlines how this analysis used various data sources to 

monetize benefits derived from AMUS, describes its associated program costs, 

and explains how opportunity costs were calculated.

• Benefits, Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Cost), Program Costs, and ROI Results

provides a detailed description of the program benefits, forgone benefits 

(opportunity cost), and program costs that are inputs into the ROI analyses and 

presents the results of the three ROI calculations across different assumptions.

• Recommendations for Further Research explores ways AmeriCorps and others 

could further build the evidence base for this program and similar programs, 

including how to address limitations of this study.

• Conclusion summarizes key points from the ROI study overall.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

2

Program Description 

Founded on a unique crime reduction model, the AMUS program works to improve 

public health and safety in the City of Detroit and Wayne County, Michigan. AMUS 

partners with the local police to facilitate a crime mapping and analysis (CompStat) 

program in conjunction with AmeriCorps neighborhood organizing. AmeriCorps 

members with service terms of up to a year work to increase public safety through: 

• Creating partnerships with community stakeholders to identify crime “hot spots” 

• Organizing neighborhood block clubs and community patrols

• Providing outreach and support to survivors of intimate partner violence

• Implementing safe routes for youth walking or biking to neighborhood schools

• Securing vacant and open structures

• Providing resources to residents to help reduce property crime, such as home 

safety assessments and anti-theft auto devices2 

Recently, AMUS AmeriCorps members have expanded their efforts to include public 

health activities, such as: 

• Installing water filtration resources and sharing information with residents to 

increase the use of filtered water and reduce blood lead levels

• Distributing air purifiers and HEPA filters to help residents improve home indoor air 

quality, reducing the presence of asthma triggers and other irritants

AMUS also has a summer youth program in which AMUS hires youth as members. 

These youth members build skills and participate in weekly seminars to prepare for 

college and future careers. Summer youth program participants are AmeriCorps 

members, with shorter terms of national service.

Demographics of Youth Members and Others Served by AMUS

AMUS AmeriCorps Members in the Summer Youth Program 

Youth members are young men and women ages 17–24, 98 percent of whom are 

Detroit residents. Since 2010, AMUS has enrolled 535 members who have completed 

nearly 900,000 service hours. 

Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the AmeriCorps members in the 

summer youth program.3 The youth served by the program are diverse in terms of race, 

gender, location, and other background characteristics. The majority of members 

identify as non-white. Sixty-six students participated in the program from 2021 to 2022. 

2 AMUS Detroit, found here: https://amusdetroit.org/our-services/

3 Ramona Rodriguez-Washington, AMUS contact, personal communication, January 18, 2023. Hereafter, all 

instances of AMUS referenced as a data source were retrieved from this communication.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

3

Table 1. Selected Demographic Characteristics of AmeriCorps Members Participating in 

the AMUS Summer Youth Program During Fiscal Year 2021–20224

Characteristic Percentage

Race/ethnicity 

Black/African American 77% 

White 5% 

American Indian or Alaska Native 2% 

Multiracial 12% 

Gender

Female 58% 

Male 42% 

Source: AMUS

Others Served by AMUS Activities 

Households in low-income communities throughout Detroit and Wayne County are 

served by AMUS efforts to improve public health and safety. Detroit has a majority-Black 

population and a relatively high poverty rate of 32 percent in 2022. Wayne County, 

which includes Detroit and surrounding suburbs, has a majority white population and a 

large minority of Black residents. The median income for Wayne County was $52,830 in 

2022 and the poverty rate was 19.6 percent, while in Detroit itself they are $34,762 and 

32 percent, respectively. AMUS concentrates their efforts in specific neighborhoods with 

low income and high poverty, so the median income of households served is likely 

lower than the those shown below and poverty rates are likely higher.

4 This fiscal year was representative of the most recent data available regarding the population served.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

4

Table 2. Selected Demographic Characteristics of Detroit and Wayne County

Characteristic Detroit Wayne County

Race/ethnicity 

American Indian or Alaska Native 0.4% 0.5%

Black/African American 78% 38%

Hispanic 8% 7%

Multiracial 3% 3%

White 10% 49%

Income

Median income $34,762 $52,830

Poverty rate 32% 20%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2021-c) 

AMUS Program Evaluation History

There has been one evaluation completed for the AMUS program, described below. 

Impact Evaluation of the AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program 2019–2020

This evaluation (Moss, 2021) studied the efficacy of AMUS’s effort to reduce criminal 

activity from 2019 to 2020. The study evaluated the difference in crime report trends 

in precincts where AMUS was implemented compared to those without AMUS 

implementation. Prior to implementation, there was no difference in reported crime 

trends between treatment and comparison precincts. The authors used both regression 

point displacement design and interrupted time series analysis to estimate the impact 

of AMUS on local crime. The study found reported crime was reduced below levels of 

comparison groups for select precincts. The author used simple year-over-year changes 

in reported crimes to estimate the economic impact of AMUS, so if the reported 

number of robberies fell from one year to the next, that decrease was attributed to 

AMUS. The study concluded that, since implementation, AMUS has saved society about 

$250 million, including reductions in costs to crime victims and reductions in 

expenditures for different levels of government. This study did not examine the impact 

of AMUS’s other services. 

While Moss’s evaluation relates directly to the AMUS program, the present ROI 

methodology used other literature to estimate benefits from AMUS’s crime reduction 

work. This ROI analysis did not attempt to validate or reproduce Moss’s crime reduction 

estimates because the data necessary to update these findings for the 2021–2022 

program year was unavailable for analysis. Additionally, Moss evaluated an overall 

reduction in crime but did not estimate the impact of AMUS on particular types of 

crime. As referenced below, other literature finds that similar programs have different 

impacts on different types of crime. Rather than assuming a uniform impact on crime, 

this analysis relied on findings in the literature on the implementation of CompStat and 

similar programs. This analysis also includes other program activities and benefits of 

AMUS that could be monetized—specifically, mitigating lead exposure and reducing 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

5

crime by engaging youth as AmeriCorps members in their summer youth program. 

These new benefits, which had not previously been monetized, produce benefits 

beyond the value of crime reduction as identified by Moss. 

Other Data Sources 

In addition to the AMUS evaluation described above, the following sources are also 

used for the ROI analysis: 

A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Community Policing on Crime Reduction 

This study (Ekici et al., 2022) examined the literature on community policing and its 

impacts on criminal activity. The authors included 32 studies in their evaluation, finding 

that the outcomes analyzed by the studies had a 16 percent reduction in any criminal 

activity. The authors then analyzed specific outcomes, such as burglaries, and found 

that community policing reduced robberies, burglaries, drug/gun crimes, and fear of 

crime. This analysis uses the findings on reduced burglaries, 

an 11 percent reduction, because it was the only outcome that 1) was statistically 

significant and 2) had a monetizable benefit. 

These findings are reinforced by Jang’s evaluation of Fort Worth’s CompStat program

(Jang et al., 2010), which found that property crime decreased after their 

implementation of CompStat. It is worth noting that both of these programs were 

implemented by police departments rather than community groups. The impact of 

AMUS’s work in the community may differ from that implemented by the police.

However, without AMUS, the police department would not have implemented 

CompStat, so this study attributes the full benefit of reduced burglaries to AMUS’s 

proactive work to get these special crime reduction measures implemented in selected 

Detroit neighborhoods.

What’s in a Job? Evaluating the Effect of Private Sector Employment Experience 

on Student Academic Outcomes 

This study (Modestino, 2022) estimated the impacts on enrollment in bachelor’s 

programs from a summer youth employment program (SYEP) in Boston. The author 

evaluated administrative records from the National Student Clearinghouse and 

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education from 2014 to 2016 

for youth who participated in Boston’s Summer Youth Employment Program and a 

matched group of non-participants. The author found increased enrollment in 

bachelor’s programs for students who participated in the SYEP. 

The program analyzed in this study is similar to AMUS’s summer youth program. Both 

provide job readiness training, such as resume writing and interview practice, among 

other skills. Boston’s program either places the youth in positions with a local nonprofit or 

city agency or it connects youth with private-sector employment. AMUS is similar in that 

members engage in AMUS’s program activities, which should be similar to other 

nonprofit environments. While there are likely some differences in implementation and 

experience, Heller (2021) argued that summer youth employment programs have been 

analyzed enough that the benefits accrue regardless of variation in implementation.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

6

How Do Summer Youth Employment Programs Improve Criminal Justice Outcomes, and 

for Whom?

This study (Modestino, 2019) estimated the impact of Boston’s SYEP on arrest rates for 

participants. The author used the random assignment of youth into the program to 

create a randomized controlled trial to estimate the program’s impact. The study used 

data from the Massachusetts Department of Criminal Justice and Office of 

Commissioner of Probation for records of criminal charges in the 17 months after the 

program’s conclusion. Results showed that program participants had 0.031 fewer 

violent crime criminal arraignments per youth and 0.022 fewer property crime 

arraignments per youth. Again, while there are likely some differences in program 

implementation, there is strong evidence that SYEPs produce these impacts across 

programs. 

The Cost of Crime to Society: New Crime-Specific Estimates for Policy and Program 

Evaluation

This study (McCollister et al., 2010) attempted to quantify the costs of different crimes to 

society on a per-offense basis. The authors identified four primary types of losses: victim 

costs, criminal justice costs, reduced employment activity related to incarceration, and 

intangible costs. For victim costs, the authors compiled data from the U.S. Department 

of Justice (DOJ) on costs incurred by victims of crime and divided by the number of 

offenses to calculate the per-crime costs. Criminal justice system costs incorporated 

expenditures on legal and adjudication costs, corrections costs, and police protection 

costs. For reduced employment activity related to incarceration, the authors used DOJ 

data on the person-years of inmates incarcerated by type of offense. They assumed 

the earnings potential of individuals incarcerated was equal to the national minimum 

wage. The person-years served was multiplied by the yearly earnings of the national 

minimum wage to calculate the per-offense productivity loss. Since the SYEP evaluation

did not state which type of criminal arraignments were impacted, the analysis used 

cost estimates of the least costly crimes to avoid overstating benefits: robbery for violent 

crime and larceny/theft for property crime. 

Costs of Lead Exposure and Remediation in Michigan: Update 

An assessment of the economic impact of childhood lead exposure of Michigan 

children (Swinburn, 2016) provides data relevant to measuring the impact of installation 

of lead filters by AMUS members. The analysis studied the different impacts of lead 

exposure to children based on existing literature. The study identified several studies that 

connected lead exposure to negative health, employment, and other outcomes. The 

CDC reports that two primary health costs of lead exposure are the immediate 

treatment and increased probability of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). 

The authors identified several studies in the United States that found childhood lead 

exposure increases the probability of juvenile and adult crime. The authors also 

identified studies that connect lead exposure with decreased lifetime earnings. Other 

studies have identified a connection between childhood lead exposure and reduced 

IQ, reduced academic performance in elementary and middle school, and increased 

likelihood of needing special education in school.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

7

Selection of AMUS for the AmeriCorps ROI Project 

ICF recommended the AMUS AmeriCorps program for a feasibility study to explore 

monetizing benefits and costs of an urban safety program. The availability of data 

related to the program’s documented activities and outcomes—particularly related to 

the summer youth program and installation of lead filters—made it a strong candidate 

for estimating ROI. An ROI study of these outcomes complements ongoing work by 

AMUS to estimate the crime reduction impacts of program activities. 

Comparable ROI Estimates

ROI studies of other programs that offer similar services provide context for a potential 

set of ROI estimates for AMUS. Table 3 summarizes information across studies. 

Environmental Exposure

The economic impact of lead exposure among children in Michigan due to lead paint

was evaluated by Swinburn (2016). Children exposed to lead typically have an 

increased need for healthcare and special education support. To estimate societal 

costs of lead exposure, the author relied on previous literature that found childhood 

lead exposure increases juvenile and adult crime along with reduced lifetime earnings. 

The estimated benefit of lead paint remediation for Michigan was $190 million annually

and the cost was approximately $600 million. 

Gould et al. (2009) also studied the return on lead hazard control measures. The analysis 

noted that lead exposure increases special education needs, causes cognitive 

damage, and leads to increased criminal activity. The study estimated conservative 

and optimistic benefits and costs of household lead paint hazard control, with an 

overall return ranging from $17 to $221. 

Note that both Swinburn (2016) and Gould et al. (2009) include outcomes this ROI 

analysis did not capture. Both studies assumed that the interventions they studied 

entirely eliminated lead exposure, which allowed them to capture benefits of avoiding 

all lead exposure. AMUS only addresses one source of potential lead exposure—

drinking water—making it inappropriate to apply this same approach. AMUS’s 

installation of water filters reduces overall lead exposure but does not eliminate 

exposure from other sources. 

In 2019, the Minnesota Department of Health estimated the costs and benefits of lead 

pipe removal for the State of Minnesota. The study used the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) 2018 estimate that 20 percent of childhood lead exposure is derived 

from drinking water (2023) to estimate the increased lifetime earnings due to increased 

IQ as a result of eliminating lead exposure through drinking water. The estimated 

increased market productivity is approximately $3 billion to $6 billion, including

increased tax revenue of $900 million to $1.8 billion. However, removing lead pipes 

would cost about $1.5 billion to $4 billion, resulting in a ROI range of $0.75 to $4.00. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

8

Table 3. Relevant ROI Studies

Study Study area

Benefits/

cost savings 

evaluated

ROI estimate*

(return in dollars 

for every $1 in cost)

Swinburn (2016) Environmental 

exposure intervention

Benefits: Improved 

health and wellbeing of children and 

families

Costs: Blood lead 

treatment, treatment 

of lead-related 

ADHD, increase in 

special education 

costs, reduction in 

lifetime earnings, 

increased crime, 

juvenile incarceration 

related to childhood 

lead, adult crimes 

related to childhood 

lead

$9.50 over 30 years

Minnesota 

Department of Health 

(2019)

Environmental 

exposure intervention

Benefits: Increased 

lifetime earnings due 

to greater IQ resulting 

from reduced lead 

exposure from 

drinking water

Costs: Remediating 

lead pipes 

$0.75 to $4.00

Gould et al. (2009) Environmental 

exposure intervention

Benefits: Reduced 

potential exposure of 

lead to other 

individuals

Costs: Cognitive 

damage, increase in 

the use of special 

education services, 

increased risk for 

committing a crime

$17 to $221

*Where studies did not report ROIs, they were calculated based on the net benefits and net 

costs, where available
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

9

ROI Methodology 

The methodology for estimating the ROI for AMUS consisted of the following 

components: 

1. Measuring and monetizing program benefits. This included using program data 

provided by AMUS, publicly available data, and other third-party sources to 

determine the benefits to program beneficiaries, AmeriCorps members, and the 

government. 

2. Estimating forgone benefits (opportunity costs). This ROI analysis estimated two 

types of forgone benefits. The first was the professional opportunity cost to AMUS

AmeriCorps members for their period of national service, during which they 

could have earned more pay by doing other work. The second was the 

investment opportunity cost for AMUS program funding that could have been 

used for other purposes. 

3. Assessing program costs. AMUS provided program costs for the program year of 

September 2021 through August 2022. AMUS costs for the 2021–2022 program 

year included operating costs, AmeriCorps member expenses, and other indirect 

costs. AmeriCorps member expenses included the living allowance amounts 

received during service and the expected education awards received postservice. 

4. Calculating the ROI. The ROI analysis includes three ROI calculations, each 

assessed under three scenarios representing different assumptions about the 

persistence of program outcomes: 

• Total benefits per federal dollar

• Total benefits per funder dollar5 

• Federal government benefits per federal dollar

This analytical framework includes only those benefits that could be reasonably 

monetized given the available data and that likely would not have occurred without 

the AMUS program. Figure 1 shows how AMUS program activities can result in benefits to 

program beneficiaries who receive services provided by AMUS; AmeriCorps members 

(including members who serve short terms in the summer youth program and members 

who serve longer terms); society; and federal, state, and local governments.

5 The different funder groups whose investment is in this calculation include the federal government 

(i.e., AmeriCorps) and match funding from state and local governments.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

10

Figure 1. Benefits Among Stakeholder Groups From AMUS

Available data establish that AMUS AmeriCorps members enjoy earnings impacts as a 

result of serving in the program and that AMUS’s summer youth program results in a 

reduction in crime after the end of that program. However, the data do not establish 

the duration of those benefits. To address a range of possible durations for those 

benefits, the analysis includes three scenarios:6 

• Short-term. This scenario assumes short-term earnings impacts. The assumption is 

that earnings impacts are limited to a single year after program exit. This scenario 

also assumes no lifetime benefits are realized.

• Medium-term. This scenario assumes a longer duration of earnings impacts. The 

assumption is that earnings impacts last 15 years. A 3 percent discount rate is 

applied each year to represent net present value in 2022 dollars.7 This scenario 

also assumes only half of the net present value of lifetime benefits is realized.

• Long-term. This scenario assumes sustained earnings impacts throughout AMUS 

AmeriCorps members’ working years. The assumption is that earnings impacts 

last 30 years. A 3 percent discount rate is applied each year to represent net 

present value in 2022 dollars. This scenario also assumes the entire net present 

value of lifetime benefits is realized.

6 These three scenarios consider varying durations of how long increased employment and earnings 

benefits last for AmeriCorps members. They also consider varying durations for lifetime benefits that stem 

from AMUS. For example, lifetime benefits in terms of decreased public assistance, social insurance, and 

corrections costs result from AmeriCorps members’ higher educational attainment post-service. The analysis 

estimates lifetime benefits differently in the three scenarios. Specifically, the net present value of the entire 

lifetime benefit is realized for the long-term scenario, half of the net present value of the lifetime benefit is 

realized for the medium-term scenario, and no lifetime benefit amount is realized for the short-term 

scenario.

7 The Office of Management and Budget (1992) defines a discount rate as, “The interest rate used in 

calculating the present value of expected yearly benefits and costs” (p. 18). Regarding the 3 percent 

discount rate, see Office of Management and Budget (2003).
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

11

The long-term scenario (i.e., 30 years of sustained employment and earnings benefits) 

represents roughly a lifetime of working years for a given person while the short-term 

scenario assumes benefits for only the year after program participation or service is 

completed. The medium-term scenario (i.e., 15 years of sustained employment and 

earnings benefits) represents the midpoint between these two scenarios. 

Monetizing Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs), and 

Program Costs

This analysis monetized an array of benefits and included AMUS program costs and 

expected opportunity costs—all in 2022 dollars—to assess the ROI of AMUS. Additional 

details on the methodology employed and the calculations used for this analysis are in 

Appendix B. Data on costs and benefits are from the 2021–2022 program year, for 

which the most recent program year data were available. 

Outcomes of the AMUS program result in monetizable benefits to AMUS beneficiaries; 

AMUS AmeriCorps members; and federal, state, and local governments. Table 4 

summarizes these benefits and data sources by stakeholder group.

Table 4. Benefits Realized From AMUS by Stakeholder Group

Stakeholder group Benefits

AMUS program beneficiaries 

who are children under the age 

of 6 who receive lead water 

filters 

• Additional lifetime earnings from increased IQ as a 

result of avoided lead exposure

Benefits to society • Reduced economic losses suffered by crime victims, 

including medical care costs, lost earnings, and 

property loss/damage due to AMUS’s crime prevention 

work

• Increased productive employment from reduced 

incarceration due to AMUS’s crime prevention work

• Reduced economic losses suffered by crime victims, 

including medical care costs, lost earnings, and 

property loss/damage due to AMUS’s summer youth

program

• Increased productive employment from reduced 

incarceration due to AMUS’s summer youth program

AMUS AmeriCorps members

(longer-term members and 

short-term youth members) 

• Additional earnings from reduced unemployment 

• Additional lifetime earnings from increased educational 

attainment as a result of education awards

• Additional lifetime earnings from increased educational 

attainment as a result of the summer youth program

• Post-tax living allowances and education awards 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

12

Stakeholder group Benefits

Federal, state, and local 

governments 

• Tax revenue from increased earnings by AMUS

AmeriCorps members post-program and sales tax 

revenue from the induced increased economic activity

• Tax revenue from living allowances and education 

awards 

• Lifetime tax revenue from increased earnings from 

increased educational attainment by AMUS

AmeriCorps members as a result of education awards

and by AMUS AmeriCorps members as a result of the 

summer youth program

• Reduced lifetime spending on corrections, public 

assistance, and social insurance from increased 

educational attainment by AMUS AmeriCorps members 

as a result of education awards and by AMUS 

AmeriCorps members as a result of the summer youth 

program

• Reduced costs of police protection, legal and 

adjudication services, and corrections programs due to 

reduced criminal activity as a result of the summer 

youth program

• Lifetime tax revenue from increased earnings by 

beneficiaries under the age of 6 as a result of avoided 

lead exposure due to water filters

Benefits to AMUS Program Beneficiaries Who Receive Water Filters 

Additional Lifetime Earnings From Increased IQ as a Result of Reduced Lead 

Exposure (Benefit to AMUS Water Filter Recipients) 

Using census data, the analysis estimated the number of children under age 6 in 

households that received water filters. Then, using Michigan Department of Health and 

Human Services lead exposure data, the authors calculated the estimated number of 

children under 6 years old who would have elevated blood lead levels in these 

households. The analysis assumed that children would have the minimum blood lead 

level (3.5 micrograms per deciliter of blood )8 since more precise data were 

unavailable. The analysis then applied the EPA’s finding that approximately 20 percent 

of lead exposure is due to drinking water to estimate the amount of lead that would 

have been avoided due to the water filters. 

The analysis used the following finding from Canfield et al. (2003) that, for children 

under age 6, 1 μg/dL of blood results in a 1.37 IQ point reduction for blood lead levels 

below 10 μg/dL . The authors measured blood lead concentration every 6 months, 

starting at 6 months old through 4 years old in 172 children. The authors administered 

8 Going forward, micrograms per deciliter of blood will be referred to as μg/dL. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

13

the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale at 3 years old and 5 years old. The authors 

conducted regression analysis, controlling for maternal IQ, home environment, and 

other potential confounding factors. The finding was significant at the 0.01 level. While 

several other studies have found IQ reductions due to blood lead level,9 Canfield et al.

is the most relevant to the ROI analysis since the majority of Detroit children have blood 

lead concentrations between 3.5 and 5 μg/dL.10

The analysis then used Salkever (1995) to estimate the impact of reduced IQ on lifetime 

earnings. Salkever used the 1979 National Longitudinal Study of Youth to identify the 

relationship between Armed Forces Qualifying Test (standardized on the same 100-point 

scale as IQ) and earnings over time. A 1-point score reduction resulted in a 2.39 percent 

reduction in annual earnings. Note that since the benefit is accrued by children, there 

are no short-term benefits and limited medium-term benefits.

While other ROI estimates for reducing blood lead levels use other outcomes—such as 

reduced ADHD, reduced criminal activity, and reduced special education 

expenditures—this analysis was unable to use those outcomes. These ROI studies 

estimate the impact of the entire elimination of lead exposure for all children. Since this 

ROI analysis estimates a reduction in lead exposure for a subset of children, the analysis 

can only use the impact of lead on IQ as a benefit. 

Benefits to AmeriCorps Members 

Post-Tax Living Allowances and Education Awards (Benefits to AMUS AmeriCorps 

Members) 

Some member-specific benefits realized due to AmeriCorps members serving in AMUS

include the post-tax living allowances AmeriCorps State and National members are 

allotted during their national service and the post-tax education awards they receive 

after service completion. All are considered taxable income and thus result in 

increased government revenue.11 The post-tax living allowance and the education 

award amount that was used to repay student loans were included in the ROI analysis 

as direct one-time benefits to AMUS AmeriCorps members. These benefits were 

calculated for both short-term AmeriCorps members participating in the summer youth 

program as well as AmeriCorps members who serve for longer periods since both 

received living allowances and education awards. 

9 See Zhou, Y. & Grosse, S. D. (2019) for a comprehensive review of these studies. 

10 While distributional data is not available from Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services, 

they provide the percentage of children with elevated blood levels below 3.5 and below 5 μg/dL. From 

this, the analysis calculated that more than half of Detroit children have blood lead levels between 3.5 and 

5 μg/dL. 

11 The tax implications of the AmeriCorps member education award are stated here: AmeriCorps. (n.d.). 

Segal AmeriCorps Education Award. https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorpseducation-award
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

14

Additional Earnings From Reduced Unemployment (Benefit to AMUS AmeriCorps 

Members) 

Evaluations have shown that serving in AmeriCorps fosters higher skill acquisition, 

increased educational attainment, and higher income from increased employment 

post-national service.12 Freidman et al. (2016) found that unemployment among 

AmeriCorps members 6 months after their period of national service was 5 percentage 

points lower compared to 6 months before service.13 To monetize this decrease in 

unemployment, the analysis first determined the demographic distribution of AMUS

AmeriCorps State and National members who served during the most recent program 

year in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, age, and education level pre-service using 

data provided by AMUS. The analysis then proceeded to: 

1. Estimate AMUS AmeriCorps members’ per-person average annual earnings 

(weighted by the above demographics) using data from the Current Population 

Survey’s Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement for 2021 (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2021-b) 

2. Multiply the 5-percentage-point reduction in unemployment from Freidman et al. 

(2016) by the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) AMUS AmeriCorps members 

who served during the most recent program year to estimate the number of 

additional AMUS AmeriCorps members employed post-service 

3. Multiply the demographically weighted per-person average annual earnings by 

the number of additional AMUS AmeriCorps members employed to estimate the 

total increased earnings attributable to national service 

The earnings metrics for AMUS AmeriCorps members were applied and discounted 

based on the short-term, medium-term, and long-term scenarios to represent net 

present 2022 dollars. The post-tax AMUS AmeriCorps members’ projected earnings 

represent the additional income earned by AmeriCorps members attributable to 

serving with AMUS. 

This benefit was calculated for both short-term AmeriCorps members participating in 

the summer youth program as well as AmeriCorps members who serve for longer 

periods. It may be unreasonable to expect short-term AmeriCorps members to accrue 

this full benefit. Members with service terms of less than a year were attributed an 

employment benefit proportional to the amount of the year they served, so the analysis 

does not attribute the full benefit of unemployment reduction for short-term members. 

Members currently enrolled in high school were excluded from this benefit. 

12 Relevant studies include Markovitz et al., 2008; Spera et al., 2013; Friedman et al., 2016; Zeidenberg et al., 

2016.

13 See page 56 of Friedman et al. (2016).
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

15

Additional Lifetime Earnings From Increased Educational Attainment as a Result 

of Education Awards (Benefit to AMUS AmeriCorps Members) 

Another benefit derived from national service is the higher educational attainment of 

AmeriCorps members. AmeriCorps members in general—as documented in Friedman 

et al. (2016)—can use their education awards to pay for additional postsecondary 

educational attainment or to repay student loans. 

Friedman et al. (2016) reported that 46 percent of AmeriCorps State and National 

members used their education award to pursue additional postsecondary education 

while 33 percent used it to repay student loans.14 The analysis only applied these 

findings to long-term AMUS AmeriCorps members. 

This analysis estimated the expected increase in lifetime earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps 

members attributable to the use of education awards to pay for additional 

postsecondary schooling. Based on the findings from Friedman et al. (2016), this ROI 

analysis estimated the amount in post-tax education awards that AMUS AmeriCorps 

members used to pay for additional educational attainment. The analysis then 

estimated the value of the additional educational attainment attributable to the 

education awards in terms of lifetime earnings using data from Trostel (2015). These 

estimated additional post-tax lifetime earnings were included as a benefit to AMUS

AmeriCorps members.

Additional Lifetime Earnings From Increased Educational Attainment as a Result 

of Summer Youth Program Participation (Benefit to AMUS AmeriCorps Members) 

Modestino (2022) found that a similar summer program for youth increased enrollment 

in bachelor’s programs by 8 percentage points. The analysis applies these findings to 

AmeriCorps members who participated in the summer youth program. The analysis then 

estimated the value of the additional educational attainment attributable to the 

summer youth program in terms of lifetime earnings using data from Trostel (2015). These 

estimated additional post-tax lifetime earnings were included as a benefit to AMUS 

AmeriCorps members.

Benefits to Society

Benefits to Society From Reduced Criminal Activity due to AMUS’s Crime 

Reduction Work 

AMUS facilitates a CompStat program for the police, organizes neighborhood groups, 

implements safe routes to schools, and assists community members in training on home 

safety and installing crime prevention tools. Using the finding of Ekici et al. (2022), this 

analysis estimates that burglaries would be 11 percent higher in neighborhoods AMUS 

operates in if not for CompStat program and AMUS’s crime prevention work. 

McCollister et al. (2010) estimated the costs of different crimes to society. 

14 Friedman et al. (2016). op. cit. Exhibit VIII-6.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

16

• Reduced costs to victims of crime. Victims of crime incur various types of losses 

from criminal activity, including medical expenses, property damage, lost 

earnings from injury, and other monetary losses. McCollister’s estimates for costs 

to victims of crime were multiplied by the estimated reduction in criminal 

arraignment calculated by Modestino (2022). 

• Increased benefit of productive labor from reduced incarceration. Society loses 

productivity if someone chooses to engage in criminal activities rather than 

employment. Rather than being incarcerated, the community members can 

engage in the labor market, which generates economic benefits to the 

individual; federal, state, and local governments; and society at large. The 

analysis used McCollister’s estimated benefits of increased employment from 

reduced incarceration. 

These benefits accrued during the 2021–2022 program year; therefore, this analysis 

considers this a one-time benefit not extending beyond the program year. 

Benefits to Society From Reduced Criminal Activity by AMUS Youth Members due 

to AMUS’s Summer Youth Program 

Society benefits from reduced criminal activity by youth members. Modestino (2019) 

established that participants in similar summer youth programs have a reduced number 

of criminal arraignments in the 17 months after their program ends. AMUS’s youth 

members are less likely to commit violent or property crimes after participating in the 

program. The analysis annualized these findings to obtain the number of reduced 

arraignments by year. Then, the analysis applied findings of the costs of crime from 

McCollister et al. (2010) to the expected reduction in criminal arraignments. The analysis 

assumed the reduction in criminal arraignments is equal to the reduction in criminal 

activity. Estimates for the lowest-cost crimes were used for violent and property crimes. 

McCollister et al. (2010) estimated the costs of different crimes to society. 

• Reduced costs to victims of crime. Victims of crime incur various types of losses 

from criminal activity, including medical expenses, property damage, monetary 

losses, and lost earnings from injury. McCollister’s estimates for costs to victims of 

crime were multiplied by the estimated reduction in criminal arraignment 

calculated by Modestino (2022). 

• Increased benefit of productive labor from reduced incarceration. Society loses

productivity if someone chooses to engage in criminal activities rather than 

employment. Rather than being incarcerated, the youth can engage in the 

labor market, which generates economic benefits to the individual; federal, 

state, and local governments; and society at large. The analysis used 

McCollister’s estimated benefits of increased employment from reduced 

incarceration. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

17

These estimates were applied and discounted based on the short-term, medium-term, 

and long-term scenarios to represent net present 2022 dollars.

Benefits to Government

Benefits to government include tax revenue generation and reduced spending on 

public assistance, social insurance, and corrections, resulting from increased earnings 

and educational attainment from AMUS AmeriCorps members and program 

beneficiaries who receive lead water filters. 

Benefits to Government From Increased Earnings due to Reduced Lead Exposure 

by Water Filter Recipients 

Federal and state governments benefit from the lifetime increase in tax revenue from 

increased educational attainment by water filter recipients who are children under the 

age of 6. The ROI analysis estimated additional lifetime tax revenue resulting from 

beneficiaries’ increased IQ due to lower blood lead levels. Here, the estimated increase 

in earnings was multiplied by relevant tax rates. This tax revenue includes federal 

income, state income, property, Social Security, Medicare, and sales taxes.

Benefits to Government From Increased Earnings by AMUS AmeriCorps Members 

Federal, state, and local governments benefit from increased earnings by AMUS

AmeriCorps members due to lower unemployment as a result of service. Those benefits 

include:

• Income tax revenue from increased earnings by AMUS AmeriCorps members 

post-service. Federal income taxes, state income taxes, Medicare taxes, and 

Social Security taxes were estimated for the additional pre-tax earnings of AMUS

AmeriCorps members based on 2021 rates. For both federal and state income 

taxes, the analysis estimated proportional tax rates representing the share of 

earnings paid in taxes. 

To estimate proportional tax rates that reflect federal- and state-level progressive 

tax brackets and standard deductions, the amount of total taxes paid was 

divided by the pre-tax earnings per AMUS AmeriCorps member. For the state 

income tax rate, the analysis weighted individual state-level rates by their 

respective state populations to estimate a weighted national tax rate to apply 

program-wide. A weighted national tax rate was used because AMUS

AmeriCorps members may disperse to various locations nationwide following 

their service terms and continue to migrate over the course of their working 

years. 

• Sales tax revenue from the increased economic activity that results from 

increased earnings by AMUS AmeriCorps members post-service. To estimate the 

additional sales tax revenue generated due to the additional post-tax earnings 

of AMUS AmeriCorps members, the combined state and average local sales tax 

rate for the United States—weighted by states’ populations—was calculated. This 

analysis applied that rate to the estimated taxable expenditures of AMUS

AmeriCorps members based on their post-service pre-tax earnings using 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

18

Consumer Expenditure Survey data (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022).15 The 

resulting product was then applied to the share of post-tax earnings attributable 

to serving with AMUS to estimate state and local government sales tax revenue.

Benefits to Government From Reduced Criminal Activity due to AMUS’s Crime 

Reduction Work 

Federal and state governments spend less on criminal justice as a result of AMUS’s work 

to reduce criminal activity in the communities they serve. The meta-analysis conducted 

by Ekici et al. (2022) found that programs similar to AMUS’s work reduce burglaries by 11 

percent. The analysis applied findings of the costs of crime from McCollister (2010) to 

the expected reduction in criminal arraignments. The analysis assumed the reduction in 

criminal arraignments is equal to the reduction in criminal activity.

These benefits accrued during the 2021–2022 program year; therefore, this analysis 

considers this a one-time benefit not extended beyond the program year. 

Benefits to Government From Reduced Criminal Activity by AmeriCorps 

Members Participating in the Summer Youth Program 

Federal and state governments spend less on criminal justice because of reduced 

criminal activity by AmeriCorps members in the summer youth program. Modestino 

(2019) established that participants in similar summer youth programs have a reduced 

number of criminal arraignments in the 17 months after their program ends. AMUS’s 

youth members are less likely to commit violent or property crimes after participating in 

the program. This ROI analysis annualized these findings to obtain the number of 

reduced arraignments by year and then applied findings of the costs of crime from 

McCollister (2010) to the expected reduction in criminal arraignments. This ROI analysis 

assumed the reduction in criminal arraignments is equal to the reduction in criminal 

activity. Estimates for the lowest cost crimes were used for violent and property crimes. 

These estimates were applied and discounted based on the short-term, medium-term, 

and long-term scenarios to represent net present 2022 dollars.

Benefits to Government From Increased Earnings due to Educational Attainment 

by AMUS AmeriCorps Members 

Federal and state governments benefit from increased postsecondary educational 

attainment by AMUS AmeriCorps members from education awards and summer youth 

program participation. Those benefits include:

• Tax revenue from education awards. Education awards provided to AMUS

AmeriCorps members upon service completion are subject to taxes, resulting in 

15 To calculate the estimated taxable expenditures, Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) Table 1203 was 

used from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022). This table lists the annual expenditure means by pre-tax 

income tax brackets. Thus, the pre-tax earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps members were used instead of their 

post-tax earnings to calculate this metric. Please visit this site for more details: 

https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error.htm#cu-income. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

19

additional government revenue.16 This ROI analysis applied federal income, state 

income, Social Security, and Medicare tax rates to the expected total amount of 

education awards to be given to AMUS AmeriCorps members to estimate these 

additional taxes. Both estimated proportional federal and state income tax rates 

were used. Sales taxes were not estimated for education awards because they

cannot be used for consumer purchases. 

• Reduced lifetime spending on corrections, public assistance, and social 

insurance from increased educational attainment as a result of education 

awards. Higher educational attainment is associated with less dependence on 

government assistance programs and lower incarceration rates (Blagg and 

Blom, 2018; Harlow, 2003). Because of AMUS AmeriCorps members’ increased 

postsecondary educational attainment due to the use of the education award

and summer youth program, federal and state governments spend less. For the 

monetization of these benefits, the analysis paired the expected increase in 

postsecondary educational attainment of AMUS AmeriCorps members with the 

expected difference in per-person lifetime government cost savings from 

Medicaid, SNAP, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, and 

corrections for individuals with different levels of educational attainment. The 

latter values were provided by Trostel (2015).

• Lifetime tax revenue from increased educational attainment as a result of 

education awards. Another benefit related to AMUS AmeriCorps members 

captured in this ROI study is the lifetime tax revenue generated from members’ 

higher postsecondary educational attainment due to the summer youth 

program and use of the education award. Here, the estimated increase in AMUS

AmeriCorps members’ postsecondary educational attainment was paired with 

the expected difference in per-person lifetime taxes for individuals with different 

levels of education as provided by Trostel (2015). This lifetime tax revenue 

includes federal income, state income, property, Social Security, Medicare, and 

sales taxes derived from use of the education award.

Benefits to Government From Living Allowances Received by AMUS AmeriCorps 

Members 

The living allowance provided to AMUS AmeriCorps members during their service term is 

considered taxable income. This analysis applied a proportional federal income tax 

rate as well as Medicare and Social Security tax rates to the pre-tax living allowance 

amount received by AMUS AmeriCorps members for the most recent program year. The 

analysis also applied a sales tax rate to the estimated taxable expenditures of AMUS

AmeriCorps members based on their post-tax living allowance amount to estimate 

additional state and local government revenue. 

16 The tax implications of the AmeriCorps member education award are stated here: AmeriCorps. (n.d.). 

Segal AmeriCorps Education Award. https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorpseducation-award
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

20

Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs) 

The analysis estimated forgone benefits of both members and funders because of their 

participation and investment in AMUS. These forgone benefits were subtracted from the 

program benefits (shown above) to calculate the net benefits of the program. Those 

net benefits were then compared to program cost to calculate the ROI. These forgone 

benefits are referred to as the professional and investment opportunity costs, described 

below. 

Professional Opportunity Cost to AMUS AmeriCorps Members 

The forgone benefit was the professional opportunity cost to AMUS AmeriCorps 

members for their period of national service, during which they could otherwise be 

working and earning higher pay. Opportunity costs for members that served for a full 

year and for the summer were calculated, but members still enrolled in high school 

were excluded. To calculate the opportunity cost, this analysis estimated what AMUS

AmeriCorps members would have earned if they did not serve with AMUS. Specifically, 

this analysis estimated the weighted average annual earnings of this group as well as 

their weighted unemployment rate using ASEC data and the demographic distribution 

of AMUS AmeriCorps members for the 2021–2022 program year. The demographics 

included were gender, age, race/ethnicity, and the highest level of education preservice. The weighted average annual earnings represent the expected earnings of the 

AMUS AmeriCorps members if they were employed but not serving with AMUS. The 

weighted unemployment rate represents how many of the AMUS AmeriCorps members 

would have been unemployed if they did not serve with AMUS. These weighted metrics 

were first used to estimate the portion of AMUS AmeriCorps members who would have 

been employed and then to calculate the aggregate earnings those employed 

individuals would have made without serving with AMUS. Namely, they are used to 

calculate the aggregate post-tax earnings this population would forgo due to serving 

with AMUS for 

1 year. 

Some of the forgone earnings would have been paid in the form of taxes. To 

appropriately allocate opportunity costs between AMUS AmeriCorps members and 

federal and state governments, the analysis estimated the reduced tax revenue for 

federal income, state income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes. The analysis also 

estimated the reduction in sales tax from reduced consumption. Combined, these 

taxes represent what the various levels of government are forgoing in tax revenue when 

these individuals decide to serve with AMUS instead of working for higher pay. The 

summation of all forgone taxes and the forgone post-tax earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps 

members is called the total professional opportunity cost. 

It is important to note that in the federal government benefits per federal dollar ROI 

calculation, only federal government (not total) benefits are included. Given this, only 

federal components of the professional opportunity cost were subtracted from all 

federal government benefits (e.g., tax revenue and cost savings) realized as a result of 

AMUS in this ROI calculation. The parts of the professional opportunity cost removed 

from these total federal government benefits included the federal income, Social 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

21

Security, and Medicare taxes forgone due to AMUS AmeriCorps members forgoing 

earnings during their service year. The summation of these forgone federal taxes is 

called the federal professional opportunity cost. 

Investment Opportunity Cost to Funders 

The second forgone benefit used in this ROI analysis is an investment opportunity cost. It 

estimates the expected forgone return if all funds used to support AMUS during the 

2021–2022 program year were invested in U.S. Treasury bonds instead. This opportunity 

cost applies to all funders, including but not limited to AmeriCorps. To calculate this, the 

analysis matched 2021 real interest rates provided by the Office of Management and 

Budget (2022) to each of the scenarios leveraged in this ROI analysis: short-term, 

medium-term, and long-term.17 The rates of return for U.S. Treasury bonds provide a 

market-based estimate of return for low-risk investments.

The real interest rate for the 3-year maturity was used for the short-term scenario, the 

average between the 10-year and 20-year maturity rates was used as the rate for the 

medium-term scenario, and the 30-year maturity rate was used for the long-term 

scenario. These real interest rates were -1.8 percent, -0.8 percent, and -0.3 percent, 

respectively (Office of Management and Budget, 2022). Also, the number of time 

periods elapsed on these bonds was equal to the number of years the short-term, 

medium-term, and long-term scenarios assume AMUS AmeriCorps members’ 

employment and earnings gains are sustained, 1 year, 15 years, and 30 years, 

respectively. These bonds compound biannually, according to the U.S. Department of 

the Treasury (2022). The forgone accrued interest was calculated for each of the three 

scenarios if the funding amount used to support AMUS was instead invested.

Note that for 1) the federal government benefits per federal dollar and 2) the total 

benefits per federal dollar ROI calculations, the investment opportunity cost subtracted 

from the benefits in these calculations is the forgone accrued interest from investing 

only the federal funds into these U.S. Treasury bonds. This is called the federal investment 

opportunity cost. This is because these ROI calculations only include federal 

government (not total) program costs. For the other ROI calculation estimated in this 

analysis, the investment opportunity cost subtracted from the benefits realized is the 

forgone accrued interest from investing all AMUS program funds (both federal and nonfederal) into these U.S. Treasury bonds. This is called the total investment opportunity 

cost. See Appendix B for details. 

Program Costs 

The costs for AMUS, used for this ROI analysis, include federal and required match 

funding and any other funding used to support program operations. The match and 

any additional funding can come from state/local governments and private entities. 

17 The analysis used 2021 real interest rates for U.S. Treasury bonds because the program year analyzed 

began in 2021. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

22

The program costs are specific to funding the activities and positions of AMUS

AmeriCorps members whose outcomes are measured in this analysis. 

ROI Study Limitations

The study had limitations that prevented the analysis from capturing the full benefits 

that likely derive from the AMUS program. The limitations include the following:

• While this analysis included the benefits of AMUS’s work to reduce criminal 

activity in the communities they serve, not all types of crime were included. The 

analysis used the findings of a meta-analysis on community policing (Ekici et al., 

2022) and a study of Fort Worth’s CompStat program (Jang et al., 2010) to 

estimate AMUS’s impact on crime. The meta-analysis allowed this analysis to 

confidently estimate how community engagement would affect burglaries but 

did not have sufficient studies to estimate the impact on other types of crime. For 

example, the two studies in the meta-analysis that included robberies as an 

outcome found a 38 percent reduction in robberies; however, given the small 

sample size, this figure was statistically insignificant and, therefore, not used in this 

analysis. If the reduction in other types of crime was included in this analysis, the 

AMUS program would likely produce a higher ROI. 

Additionally, these studies looked at the implementation of these programs by 

police, rather than service-oriented groups. While, without AMUS, the police 

department likely would not have implemented a CompStat program, the effect

of AMUS’s engagement in the community may be different from community 

policing, even if the activities are similar. Given that AMUS has a smaller scope, 

the reduction in burglaries due to their intervention may be overstated, even if 

confined to the neighborhoods AMUS works in.

• The analysis did not include benefits from AMUS’s distribution of HEPA filters to 

community members. The health benefits could include reduced asthma triggers 

and reduced allergen presence due to reduced indoor air pollution by HEPA

filters. However, quantifiable outcome data were not available related to this 

activity. 

• Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services only provides data on the 

number of children under age 6 who have elevated blood lead levels. Since 

there are not more precise data on the distribution of those blood lead levels, 

this analysis makes the conservative assumption that children with elevated 

blood lead levels have the floor levels of measured blood lead. Additionally, this 

study is evaluating a reduction in lead exposure from only drinking water for 

some children while most ROI and cost–benefit studies estimate the benefit of 

eliminating lead exposure from all sources. AMUS’s work results in an incremental 

reduction in lead exposure rather than complete elimination. Therefore, the 

analysis was unable to monetize benefits related to reduced criminal activity, 

ADHD, and special education, for which data are only available when lead 

exposure is completely eliminated. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

23

Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs), 

Program Costs, and ROI Results 

This section provides estimates of program benefits, forgone benefits (opportunity 

costs), and program costs, along with the ROI results.

Program Benefits 

Table 5 shows the estimates of monetized benefits of AMUS by stakeholder group for 

each of the three scenarios. Figure 2 shows the estimates broken out into percentages.

Table 5. Program Benefits by Recipient

Recipient

Benefits by scenario (2022$)

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Water filter recipients $0 $54,746 $109,493

AMUS AmeriCorps members $970,384 $2,526,976 $3,734,661

Federal government $741,648 $1,331,237 $1,801,934

State and local governments $3,121,467 $3,588,618 $3,859,700

Society $1,735,368 $2,050,710 $2,150,214

Total $6,568,867 $9,552,288 $11,656,002

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Figure 2. Program Benefits by Stakeholder Group

*Percentages for AMUS program beneficiaries: short-term, 0%; medium-term, 1%; long-term, 1%.

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

24

Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs)

Table 5 shows the breakdown of the forgone benefits from the professional opportunity 

cost to AMUS AmeriCorps members and government in net present 2022 dollars. It 

provides the amount of post-tax earnings that members forgo—and the associated 

taxes forgone—to serve with AMUS. This is called the total professional opportunity cost. 

For the federal government benefits per federal dollar ROI calculation, only the forgone 

federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes were subtracted from the total 

federal benefits that are realized due to AMUS. The summation of these forgone federal 

taxes is called the federal professional opportunity cost. 

Table 6. Forgone Benefits From Professional Opportunity Cost

Forgone category

Professional opportunity 

cost amount across all scenarios (2022$)

Post-tax earnings $451,488

Federal income taxes $80,367

State income taxes $21,823

Social Security and Medicare taxes $47,007

Sales taxes $13,790

Total $614,475

Table 7 lists the forgone benefits from the investment opportunity cost incurred by 

scenario and for when:

a) Total AMUS program funds for the program year are invested in U.S. Treasury 

bonds 

b) Only federal AMUS Michigan program funds (both program and education 

award funding) are invested in these bonds 

Table 7 also lists the 2021 real interest rates and the number of years elapsed (with two 

payments a year) that were used as inputs to calculate the forgone accrued interest 

value for each scenario. The analysis used 2021 real interest rates for U.S. Treasury bonds 

because the AMUS program year analyzed began in 2021. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

25

Table 7. Investment Opportunity Cost by Scenario and Funding Stream

Funding stream

Forgone accrued interest by scenario (2021$)

Short-term

(-1.80% interest 

rate and 1 year 

elapsed)

Medium-term

(-0.80% interest 

rate and 15 years 

elapsed)

Long-term

(-0.30% interest 

rate and 30 years 

elapsed)

Total AMUS program 

funding -$66,296 -$419,158 -$318,663

Federal AMUS program 

funding only -$27,945 -$176,680 -$134,320

Program Costs

Table 8 shows the cost of AMUS for the 2021–2022 program year by funding source, and 

the percentage from each source is shown in Figure 3. Total program cost amounted to 

$3,699,768, 42 percent of which is funded by AmeriCorps and approximately 58 percent 

of which is funded by other entities, such as state and local governments and private 

funders. The federal funds include the AmeriCorps State and National grant and the 

education award amounts granted to AMUS AmeriCorps members once they have 

completed their service term. Funds provided by state/local governments and private 

funds represent the match funding and other funding received by AMUS to support 

program activities for the program year. This match and other funding provide AMUS

with the resources to offer more services and support to students than would otherwise

be available only under the AmeriCorps federal funds. That translates into increased 

aggregate benefits realized across stakeholder groups. 

Table 8. Program Cost by Funding Source for AMUS

Funder Funding provided for the program year 

AmeriCorps (federal government) $1,559,497

State and local governments $1,089,404

Private $1,050,867

Total $3,699,768
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

26

Figure 3. Program Cost by Funding Source

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

ROI Results

This analysis developed three ROI estimates using the three scenarios (short-term, 

medium-term, and long-term). The ROI calculations compare the net benefits of AMUS 

with the program cost to calculate the ROI. As noted above, this analysis did not 

include the impact of many AMUS activities. 

Table 9 shows the program gross benefits, forgone benefits, net benefits, and cost of 

AMUS, and each of the components that are used to calculate the three ROIs.

Table 9. Program Benefits, Net Benefits, and Program Costs by ROI Scenario

Benefits and costs

ROI scenario (2022$)

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Total program gross benefits $6,568,867 $9,552,288 $11,656,002 

Program beneficiaries (water filter 

recipients under the age of 6) $0 $54,746 $109,493

Member benefits $970,384 $2,526,976 $3,734,661

Federal government benefits $741,648 $1,331,237 $1,801,934

State and local government/other funder 

benefits $3,121,467 $3,588,618 $3,859,700

Societal benefits $1,735,368 $2,050,710 $2,150,214

Total forgone benefits (opportunity cost) $548,179 $195,317 $295,812

Forgone benefits to members (forgone 

earnings post-taxes) $451,488 $451,488 $451,488
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

27

Benefits and costs

ROI scenario (2022$)

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Forgone tax revenue from members’ 

earnings $162,987 $162,987 $162,987

Forgone tax revenue federal 

government $127,374 $127,374 $127,374

Forgone tax revenue state/local 

governments $35,613 $35,613 $35,613

Forgone benefits from total investment (all 

funders) -$66,296 -$419,158 -$318,663

Forgone benefits from federal 

government investment -$27,945 -$176,680 -$134,320

Forgone benefits from state/local 

government investment -$38,352 -$242,478 -$184,343

Total program net benefits (total program 

gross benefits – total forgone benefits) $6,020,688 $9,356,971 $11,360,190

Program beneficiaries (participant 

benefits)

$0 $54,746 $109,493

Net benefits members (member benefits – 

forgone benefits members) $518,896 $2,075,488 $3,283,173 

Net benefits federal government (federal 

government benefits – forgone tax 

revenue to federal government – forgone 

benefits from federal government 

investment)

$642,219 $1,380,543 $1,808,880 

Net benefits state/local governments and 

other funders (state/local government 

benefits – forgone tax revenue to 

state/local governments – forgone 

benefits from state/local governments 

and other funder investment)

$3,124,206 $3,795,483 $4,008,430

Net benefits society (society benefits) $1,735,368 $2,050,710 $2,150,214

Program cost $3,699,768 $3,699,768 $3,699,768

Federal government cost $1,559,497 $1,559,497 $1,559,497

Non-federal government cost $2,140,271 $2,140,271 $2,140,271

ROI for total benefits per federal dollar 

(Total program net benefits / federal 

government cost)

$3.68 $6.00 $7.28

ROI for total benefits per funder dollar 

(Total program net benefits / program 

cost)

$1.63 $2.53 $3.07
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

28

Benefits and costs

ROI scenario (2022$)

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Federal government benefits per federal 

dollar (Net benefits federal government / 

federal government cost) 

$0.41 $0.89 $1.16

Table 10 summarizes the ROI results for AMUS across the short-term, medium-term, and 

long-term scenarios. Three different ROI results are calculated for each scenario. 

Specifically, these ratios take the form of the sum of monetized benefits over the sum of 

applicable program costs. The ROIs expressed as cost–benefit ratios in this study can be 

interpreted as the amount of dollars returned for every $1 of investment (or program 

cost).18 See Appendix B for the formulas used to calculate each ROI calculation.

Table 10. ROI Results for AMUS

ROI calculation

ROI scenario

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Total benefits per federal dollar $3.68 $6.00 $7.28

Total benefits per funder dollar $1.63 $2.53 $3.07

Federal government benefits per federal dollar $0.41 $0.89 $1.16

The program produces strong returns for the short-, medium-, and long-term scenarios 

when benefits to AmeriCorps members, program beneficiaries, and state/local 

governments are included. This is indicated by the results of the total benefits per 

federal dollar and the total benefits per funder dollar ROI calculations. The federal 

government benefits per federal dollar calculations estimate losses for the short- and 

medium-term scenarios and positive returns in the long-term scenario. Reduction in 

crime primarily benefits society and state and local governments, rather than the 

federal government, so these results are consistent with the design of AMUS. The 

magnitude and direction of the ROI results are driven by several factors, including: 

• Increased economic benefits and reduced costs due to reduced criminal 

activity. AMUS’s work to reduce criminal activity leads to less property damage, 

additional community member earnings from reduced incarceration, and less 

spending on the criminal justice system. 

• Additional earnings by AmeriCorps members. Serving in AmeriCorps leads to 

increased wages and reduced unemployment post-national service through skill 

acquisition, as well as increased educational attainment post-service.

18 ROIs can be expressed in percentages or as ratios, such as in this study. Although not shown as a ratio in 

the results, the ROIs in this study show the amount of return for every $1 invested. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

29

• Reduced lifetime spending on corrections, public assistance, and social 

insurance. Because of the increase in postsecondary educational attainment for 

AmeriCorps members, federal and state governments spend less on these items. 

Government funding serves as a catalyst for private funding of evidence-based social 

services programs. For the ROI calculations of 1) total benefits per federal dollar and 

2) total benefits per funder dollar, AmeriCorps’s requirement of match funding also 

contributed to the magnitude of outcomes. Federal government funding of AMUS

serves as a catalyst for other funding. This additional funding allows AMUS to serve more 

youth than otherwise would have been served under the federal funding alone. Though 

it may not impact the ROI, because it is a per-unit metric, match funding leads to 

greater investment in AMUS and thus to a greater impact as more individuals are 

served. 

Recommendations for Further Research 

Future ROI studies for national and community service programs, such as AMUS, can be 

strengthened in several ways. 

Recommendation 1: Determine the persistence of short- and long-term impacts for 

AmeriCorps members. The persistence of impacts, such as earnings or employment, is 

often not measured in evaluations because it requires long-term tracking. Although a 

scenario-based approach that accounts for variations in the persistence of impacts 

can be used, as was completed in this ROI analysis, rigorous research on the long-term 

impact of programming will enable AmeriCorps to determine a single value for ROI 

calculations and avoid relying on the scenario-based approach. For example, 

Friedman et al. (2016) reported the unemployment status of AmeriCorps member 

alumni 6 months before service, 6 months after service, and during the summer of 2016. 

The authors indicate that data for the latter timepoint was collected anywhere from 3 

to 11 years after service completion, depending on the AmeriCorps member alumni 

cohort (i.e., 2005, 2010, or 2013). The varying data collection periods for the cohorts 

makes it difficult to measure the duration of benefits. Thus, instead of collecting 

outcome measures at a time that varies by AmeriCorps member or program 

participant, studies should track outcomes of interest at the same intervals, multiple 

times after program or service completion, to provide greater insight into the duration 

and consistency of benefits.

Recommendation 2: Document outcomes using third-party data sources. Using thirdparty data, along with or in place of self-reported data, can also improve the accuracy 

of program outcome measurements. While self-reported data are easier to obtain—

especially via the use of survey instruments—they have several disadvantages. Some 

answers may be exaggerated, respondents may not answer honestly, and response 

biases could affect results. AmeriCorps programs should—where possible—leverage 

data from third-party sources either to provide data for their program evaluation or to 

corroborate findings from self-reported data. For example, if employment and earnings 

outcomes are of interest, unemployment insurance data—which are submitted by 

employers—could be used to verify members’ wages or employment status post-
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

30

service. Additionally, if degree completion data are of interest, such as in the case of 

this ROI analysis, data from the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) could be used to 

verify what portion of AMUS AmeriCorps members pursued higher education and which 

degrees were completed post-program with the help of the education award. Were 

degree or employment outcomes data available from third-party data sources (like 

NSC), those data may make more precise ROI estimates possible. 

Recommendation 3: Document outcomes prior to and after HEPA filter installation. 

Indoor air pollution is associated with worse asthma and allergy symptoms and can be 

addressed with HEPA filters. However, the benefits of HEPA filters are limited compared 

to more intense interventions like new HVAC systems (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 2018). To capture the benefits of HEPA filters in the future, surveying 

homeowners on the presence of respiratory or lung illness prior to installation and how 

their condition changed in subsequent weeks could be used. Subsequent analysis can 

use medical expense data to quantify the benefits of reduced symptoms. Absent thirdparty data, collection of survey data on health outcomes can provide a more 

complete estimate of program benefits. 

Recommendation 4: Identify appropriate control groups for outcome comparisons 

across AMUS activities. To measure impacts of the AMUS program, we relied on 

outcomes from similar activities in other programs. Although impacts of similar programs 

can reasonably estimate the impact of specific AmeriCorps programs, program 

implementation, participant population, or broader socio-economic context may differ 

in meaningful ways. For some AMUS activities, a more robust approach to tracking 

outcomes would be developing a control group, either through random assignment or 

propensity score matching, which could provide higher-quality estimates of impacts 

specific to the program. It may be necessary to develop control groups for each 

individual activity to accurately measure impact. 

Recommendation 5: Research the per-unit impact of lead exposure. Lead exposure is a 

well-documented public health concern. However, most of the literature is focused on 

the elimination of lead and identifying the total impact of lead exposure. This makes it 

difficult to monetize programs that have partial reductions in lead exposure. Future 

researchers should identify the impacts on reduction in lead exposure to understand 

how mitigation of specific types of exposure can lead to economic benefits. 

Recommendation 6: Research the impact of crime reduction programs. The literature 

has gaps for the impact of crime reduction programs on different types of crime. A 

recent meta-analysis (Ekici et al., 2022) found positive outcomes for several types of 

crimes, but not all were statistically significant because few studies included specific 

types of crimes. Examination of how these programs impact different types of crime, 

especially robberies, would allow more precise and complete ROI estimates. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

31

Conclusion 

The program produces modest returns for the medium-term scenarios and strong returns 

for long-term scenarios when all stakeholders are included as indicated by the results of 

the ROI calculations for these two scenarios. The federal government does not have a 

positive ROI from AMUS, but strong benefits to AmeriCorps members, state/local 

governments, and society demonstrate the AMUS program has strong program 

impacts. In the short-term scenario—which only includes benefits for 1 year postprogram—the ROI results indicate that there is a short-term loss on funding invested in 

the program.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

32

Appendix A: Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Costs Included in 

Return on Investment Calculations 

In Table 11, the three columns on the right indicate by an “X” if the program benefits, forgone benefits (opportunity cost), 

or program cost is included in the numerator or denominator of an ROI calculation.

Table 11. Benefits and Costs Included in the AMUS ROI Calculation

Benefit or cost

Total 

benefits 

per federal 

dollar

Total benefits 

per funder 

dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Benefits Stakeholder group Data sources X indicates inclusion in the ROI denominator

Increased lifetime earnings due 

to water filters for program 

beneficiaries who are children 

under age 6 

Lead filter 

recipients

• AMUS

• Canfield et al. (2003)

• Landigran et al. (2002)

• Zhou & Grosse (2019)

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• Michigan Department 

of Health & Human 

Services (2023)

X X 

Increased lifetime income tax 

revenue due to increased IQ 

for program beneficiaries who 

are children under age 6 who 

receive lead filters

Federal 

government

• AMUS

• Canfield et al. (2003)

• Landigran et al. (2002)

• Zhou & Grosse (2019)

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• Michigan Department 

of Health & Human 

Services (2023)

X X X 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

33

Benefit or cost

Total 

benefits 

per federal 

dollar

Total benefits 

per funder 

dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Increased lifetime Social 

Security tax revenue due to 

increased IQ for program 

beneficiaries who are children 

under age 6 who receive lead 

filters

Federal 

government

• AMUS

• Canfield et al. (2003)

• Landigran et al. (2002)

• Zhou & Grosse (2019)

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• Michigan Department 

of Health & Human 

Services (2023)

X X X 

Increased lifetime sales tax 

revenue due to increased IQ 

for program beneficiaries who 

are children under age 6 who 

receive lead filters

State and local 

governments

• AMUS

• Canfield et al. (2003)

• Landigran et al. (2002)

• Zhou & Grosse (2019)

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• Michigan Department 

of Health & Human 

Services (2023)

X X 

Reduced costs to society due 

to reduced criminal activity by 

community members due to 

AMUS’s crime reduction work

Society • AMUS

• Ekici et al. (2022)

• McCollister (2010) X X 

Increased productive 

employment of community 

members from reduced 

incarceration due to AMUS’s 

crime prevention work

Society • AMUS

• Modestino (2019)

• McCollister (2010) X X 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

34

Benefit or cost

Total 

benefits 

per federal 

dollar

Total benefits 

per funder 

dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Reduced spending on criminal 

justice system due to reduced 

criminal activity by community 

members due to AMUS’s crime 

reduction work

Federal, state, and 

local governments

• AMUS

• Ekici et al. (2022)

• McCollister (2010) X X X 

Reduced costs to society due 

to reduced criminal activity by 

AmeriCorps youth members 

due to AMUS’s summer youth 

program

Society • AMUS

• Modestino (2019)

• McCollister (2010) X X 

Increased productive 

employment of AmeriCorps 

youth members due to AMUS’s 

summer youth program

Society • AMUS

• Modestino (2019)

• McCollister (2010) X X 

Reduced spending on criminal 

justice system due to reduced 

criminal activity by AmeriCorps 

youth members due to AMUS’s 

summer youth program

Federal, state, and 

local governments • AMUS

• Modestino (2019)

• McCollister (2010) X X X 

Increased earnings of national 

service members due to 

increased employment and 

education of AmeriCorps 

members 

AmeriCorps 

members

• AMUS

• Friedman et al. (2016)

• Modestino (2022)

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2021-a)

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2021-b)

X X 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

35

Benefit or cost

Total 

benefits 

per federal 

dollar

Total benefits 

per funder 

dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Increased income tax revenue 

due to increased earnings of 

AmeriCorps members 

Federal, state, and 

local governments

• Friedman et al. (2016)

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2021-a)

• Tax rate data on 

Bankrate.com and 

Loughead (Tax 

Foundation, 2021)

X X X

Increased Social Security and 

Medicare tax revenue due to 

increased earnings of 

AmeriCorps members 

Federal 

government

• Friedman et al. (2016)

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2021-a)

• Social Security 

Administration (2022)

X X X 

Increased sales tax revenue 

due to increased earnings of 

AmeriCorps members 

State and local 

governments

• Friedman et al. (2016)

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2021-a)

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2021)

• Loughead (Tax 

Foundation, 2021)

X X 

AmeriCorps member living 

allowances and education 

awards

AmeriCorps 

members 

• AMUS

X X 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

36

Benefit or cost

Total 

benefits 

per federal 

dollar

Total benefits 

per funder 

dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Reduced spending on lifetime 

public assistance, corrections, 

and social insurance due to 

increased educational 

attainment of AmeriCorps 

members

Federal, state, and 

local governments 

• Trostel (2015)

• Zeidenberg et al. (2016)

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) X X X

Forgone benefit 

(opportunity cost) Stakeholder group Data source X indicates inclusion in the ROI denominator

Opportunity costs of forgone 

market wages for AmeriCorps 

members

AmeriCorps 

members 

• AMUS

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2021-b)

X X X

Opportunity costs of federal 

taxes on forgone market wages 

for AmeriCorps members (e.g., 

federal income and Social 

Security taxes)

Federal 

government

• AMUS

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2021-a)

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2021-b) 

• Tax rate data on 

Bankrate.com and 

Loughead (Tax 

Foundation, 2021) 

• Social Security 

Administration (2022)

X X X
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

37

Benefit or cost

Total 

benefits 

per federal 

dollar

Total benefits 

per funder 

dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Opportunity costs of state and 

local taxes on forgone market 

wages for AmeriCorps 

members (e.g., state income 

and state/local sales taxes)

State and local 

governments 

• AMUS

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2021-a)

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2021-b) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2021)

• Loughead (Tax 

Foundation, 2021)

X X X

Opportunity costs of federal 

funders

Federal 

government

• AMUS

• U.S. Department of the 

Treasury (2022)

X X X 

Opportunity costs of program 

funders

Non-government 

funders

• AMUS

• U.S. Department of the 

Treasury (2022)

X X 

Program cost Payer Data sources X indicates inclusion in the ROI denominator

AmeriCorps grant costs 

(excluding living allowances 

and education awards 

provided to AmeriCorps 

members)

Federal 

government 

(AmeriCorps)

• AmeriCorps

X X X

AmeriCorps member living 

allowances and education 

awards

Federal 

government 

(AmeriCorps)

• AmeriCorps

X X X

AMUS costs AMUS • AMUS X

Other federal government 

funding (not provided by 

AmeriCorps)

Federal 

government

• AMUS

X X X
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

38

Benefit or cost

Total 

benefits 

per federal 

dollar

Total benefits 

per funder 

dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

State and local government 

funding

State and local 

governments

• AMUS X

Other non-government costs Non-government 

funders

• AMUS X
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

38

Appendix B: Additional Information on the Methodology 

This appendix provides additional details on the methodology used for this study, as a 

supplement to the methodology section in the main report. It describes the steps used 

to calculate the ROI, the results of interim calculations that contribute to the ROI 

calculations, and assumptions that underlie the analysis. 

Methodology Overview 

Calculating the ROI for the AMUS program included the following steps: 

• Measuring and monetizing program benefits to AMUS program beneficiaries, 

AMUS AmeriCorps members, and the different levels of government 

• Estimating forgone benefits (opportunity costs)

• Assessing program costs 

• Calculating the ROI 

This ROI analysis included only those benefits that could be reasonably monetized given 

the available data and that likely would not have occurred without the AMUS program. 

Available data establish that AMUS AmeriCorps members enjoy earnings impacts as a 

result of serving in the program and that AMUS’s summer youth program results in a 

reduction in crime after the end of that program. However, the data do not establish 

the duration of those benefits. To address a range of possible durations for those 

benefits, three scenarios were developed for this ROI study: 

• Short-term. This scenario assumes short-term earnings impacts. The assumption is 

that earnings impacts are limited to a single year after program exit. This scenario 

also assumes no lifetime benefits are realized. 

• Medium-term. This scenario assumes a longer duration of earnings impacts. The 

assumption is that earnings impacts last 15 years. A 3 percent discount rate is 

applied each year to represent net present value in 2022 dollars.19 This scenario 

also assumes only half of the net present value of lifetime benefits is realized. 

• Long-term. This scenario assumes sustained earnings impacts throughout AMUS 

AmeriCorps members’ working years. The assumption is that earnings impacts 

last 30 years. A 3 percent discount rate is applied each year to represent net 

present value in 2022 dollars. This scenario also assumes the entire net present 

value of lifetime benefits is realized. 

There are some differences between the three scenarios. One is the length of time that 

increased employment—and earnings associated with that employment—are 

19 The Office of Management and Budget (1992) defines a discount rate as, “The interest rate used in 

calculating the present value of expected yearly benefits and costs” (p. 18). Regarding the 3 percent 

discount rate, see Office of Management and Budget (2003).
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

39

sustained. The other is what portion of lifetime benefits, when applicable, are realized.20

For each ROI calculation, three estimates using the three scenarios were developed, 

which is shown in greater detail in the Calculating ROI section. 

Measuring Program Benefits 

The first step in calculating the ROI for the AMUS program is to measure and monetize 

the program benefits. AMUS program beneficiaries, AMUS AmeriCorps members, and 

various levels of government benefit from the AMUS program. These benefits were 

identified through an extensive literature review and data collection process. The 

methods used to measure benefits for each of these stakeholder groups are described 

below. 

Benefits to the AMUS Program Beneficiaries Who Received AMUS Water Filters 

AMUS members distribute water filters to prevent exposure to lead in drinking water in 

the communities they serve. Lead exposure is linked with numerous negative health and 

neurological effects, including ADHD, learning disabilities, and aggression. Additionally, 

lead exposure has been linked to reduced IQ. Canfield et al. (2003) estimated the 

association between childhood lead exposure and IQ as blood lead level increases 

from 1 to 10 μg/dL. The authors controlled for several potentially confounding factors, 

such as maternal IQ and home environment quality. The study found a 1.37-point 

reduction in IQ per 1 μg/dL increase in blood lead level as exposure increased from 1 to 

10 μg/dL. 

This analysis only captured benefits from increased IQ due to avoided lead exposure. 

Other studies that evaluate the benefits of reduced lead exposure assume the entirety 

of lead exposure was avoided for a select population. This analysis captures a partial 

reduction of lead exposure, which limits the outcomes that can be quantified. 

For example, Swinburn (2016) estimated the impact of remediating lead exposure for all 

children in Michigan. The author used estimates that 20 percent of ADHD cases and 10

percent of juvenile crime were attributable to elevated blood lead levels to quantify 

healthcare and state and local government savings, respectively. These findings are 

based on studies that do not identify a level of risk for ADHD or juvenile crime for an 

individual child given a certain level of lead exposure. The author was able to assume 

avoiding 20 percent of ADHD cases and 10 percent of juvenile crime since the ROI 

analysis was for the entire elimination of lead exposure. Additionally, the author

identified a study that found 20 percent of children with a blood lead level of 25 μg/dL

or more required special education services for 3 years. However, this analysis relied on 

20 These three scenarios consider varying durations of how long increased employment and earnings 

benefits last for AMUS AmeriCorps members. They also consider varying durations for lifetime benefits that 

stem from the AMUS program. For example, lifetime benefits in terms of decreased public assistance, social 

insurance, and corrections costs result from AMUS AmeriCorps members’ higher educational attainment 

post-service. The analysis estimates lifetime benefits differently in the three scenarios. Specifically, the net 

present value of the entire lifetime benefit is realized for the long-term scenario, half of the net present 

value of the lifetime benefit is realized for the medium-term scenario, and no lifetime benefit amount is 

realized for the short-term scenario.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

40

the percentage of children with more than 3.5 μg/dL blood lead level exposures since

more detailed data were unavailable. Without data on the percentage of children with 

a blood lead level of 25 μg/dL, estimating the number of children who avoid special 

education costs is not feasible.

To estimate the impact of the water filters on childhood lead exposure, the analysis first 

estimated the number of children in the households that received a lead water filter. 

To do so, the analysis used 2021 American Community Survey data on the percentage

of households in Detroit and Wayne County with related children under age 18, along 

with the percentage of children under the age of 6 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021-a). The 

analysis assumed that each household with children under the age of 6 only had one 

child in that age range, which may underestimate the actual impact. 

Each year, the State of Michigan releases the results of lead tests that show the 

percentage of children with elevated blood lead levels by locality. The average 

percentage of children under age 6 with elevated blood lead levels for 2017–2021 was 

10 percent in Detroit and 3.5 percent in the remainder of Wayne County. 

Table 12. Estimated Number of Program Beneficiaries Who Received a Water Filter and

Are Children Under the Age of 6 With Elevated Blood Lead Levels

Locality 

Water filters 

distributed 

Percentage 

of

households 

with children

Percentage 

of

households 

with at least 

one child

under age 6 

Estimated 

households 

with at least 

one child 

under age 6 

Percentage 

of children 

under age 

6 with 

elevated 

blood lead 

levels

Estimated 

children 

with 

elevated 

blood 

lead 

levels

Detroit 151 62% 35% 33.0 10.5% 3.5

Harper 

Woods 

City

297 60%* 33%* 58.2 3.5% 2.0

Inkster 21 60%* 33% 4.2 3.5% 0.2

Total 469 N/A N/A 95.4 N/A 5.6

*The Wayne County figure was used because American Community Survey data were not collected for 

this locality.

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2021-a), Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (2023), AMUS 

The EPA (2023) estimates that about 20 percent of lead exposure is attributable to 

drinking water. Since data on the distribution of these blood levels were not available, 

the analysis assumes all children with elevated blood lead levels have a 3.5 μg/dL

blood lead level. So, the analysis estimates that about 0.7 μg/dL of blood lead level is 

due to drinking water. With the installation of the water filters, this lead exposure would 

not occur. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

41

As discussed above, an increase of 1 μg/dL of blood lead level is associated with a 

decline of 1.37 IQ points, and a decline of 1 IQ point is associated with a 2.39 percent 

decline in lifetime income. Below is the calculation for the expected reduction in 

lifetime income for a child with an elevated blood level: 

 3.5 μg

 dL ∗ 20% ∗

1.37 IIII PPPPPPPPPP

μg/dL ∗ (2.39 %/IIII ∗ $1,139,593) = $26,120

Table 13. Estimated Avoided Income Loss for AMUS Program Beneficiaries Who Are

Children Under the Age of 6 

Locality 

Estimated children 

with elevated blood 

lead levels 

Estimated increase in 

lifetime income

Estimated pre-tax 

lifetime income

Detroit 3.5 $26,120 $90,290

Harper Woods City 2.0 $26,120 $52,939

Inkster 0.2 $26,120 $3,835

Total 5.7 N/A $147,063

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Sources: AMUS, U.S. Census Bureau (2021-a), Canfield et al. (2003)

Benefits to AMUS AmeriCorps Members 

The AMUS AmeriCorps members who provide services as part of the AMUS program 

experience benefits due to their national service. This analysis estimated the following 

benefits: 

• Living allowance and education award

• Increased earnings due to reduced unemployment

• Increased lifetime earnings due to increased postsecondary education derived 

from the use of education awards

Living Allowance and Education Award 

Living allowances are given to AmeriCorps members during their service term to pay 

for various living expenses—such as housing and groceries—and they sometimes 

include members’ workers’ compensation and health insurance when applicable. 

Regarding education awards, according to Friedman et al. (2016), a significant portion 

(i.e., 46 percent) of AmeriCorps State and National member alumni use them to pay 

for additional postsecondary education at colleges, graduate schools, and 

technical/vocational schools, while others (i.e., 33 percent) use them to pay off 

outstanding student loans. The remaining 21 percent do not use their education 

awards. Living allowances and education awards are prorated based on the service 

terms of members, including those participating in the summer youth programs with 

especially short service terms.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

42

Both the living allowances and education awards (considered one-time benefits that 

are not discounted or spread over time) are taxable and represent member benefits. 

However, only the portion of education awards used by members to pay off existing 

student loans is considered a direct member benefit. The portion that is utilized to 

pursue further postsecondary education is only used in calculating members’ additional 

lifetime earnings due to the increased educational attainment they experience 

post-service from using the education award. This is done to avoid double counting. This 

analysis included the post-tax values of the living allowance and the portion of the 

education award used to repay student loans as AMUS AmeriCorps member benefits, 

which are listed in Table 14. The portion of the education award used to fund additional 

postsecondary education is discussed in the following section.

Table 14. AMUS AmeriCorps Member Benefits From the Living Allowance and Education 

Award

Benefit Post-tax value (2022$) Notes

Living allowance $809,695 Post-tax living allowances members 

receive during service

Education award used to 

pay off student loans $103,521 Post-tax education award amount used to pay off outstanding student loans

Total $913,216

Sources: AMUS and Friedman et al. (2016)

Increased Earnings due to Reduced Unemployment 

According to Friedman et al. (2016), the percentage of AmeriCorps members 

unemployed was 5 percentage points lower 6 months after serving in AmeriCorps 

compared to 6 months before serving. The study did not provide actual employment 

rates for AmeriCorps members pre- and post-service, but instead provided the 

unemployment rates shown in Figure 4 (17 percent vs. 12 percent) in which the change

between them represents a 5-percentage-point decrease. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

43

Figure 4. Percentage of AmeriCorps Alumni Seeking Work, Providing Caregiving, 

or Occupied Outside of the Workforce From Friedman et al. (2016)

*“Currently” refers to the summer 2016 survey. Respondents were from the 2005, 2010, and 2013 AmeriCorps 

cohorts, so respondents varied in how much time had elapsed since their AmeriCorps service.

A direct member benefit from being employed post-service is additional income 

earned. To monetize this 5-percentage-point decrease in unemployment, ICF 

requested that AMUS provide the gender, age, pre-service educational attainment, 

and race/ethnicity distribution of AmeriCorps members who served with AMUS for the 

most recent program year. Based on those demographics, the analysis used annual 

average earnings data from the Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and 

Economic (ASEC) Supplement for March 2021 to estimate AMUS AmeriCorps members’ 

additional earnings due to the reduced unemployment (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021-b). 

Specifically, the analysis used ASEC data to calculate the per-person pre-tax average 

annual earnings for 18- to 34-year-olds weighted by the demographic distribution of 

AMUS AmeriCorps members who served during the 2021–2022 program year. This value 

expressed in 2022 dollars was $35,358 as shown in Table 15. The analysis then multiplied 

the 5-percentage-point decrease in unemployment from Friedman et al. (2016) by the 

number of AMUS AmeriCorps member (including summer program participants) FTEs 

who served during the most recent program year (i.e., 52). This estimated the number of 

additional AMUS AmeriCorps member FTEs employed due to national service (i.e., 0.5). 

To estimate the additional pre-tax earnings that stemmed from the reduced 

unemployment, the $35,358 annual earnings amount was multiplied by the additional 

number of AMUS AmeriCorps members employed post-service. This represents the 

additional income earned by AMUS AmeriCorps members due to serving with AMUS. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

44

Table 15. Additional Pre-Tax Earnings for AMUS AmeriCorps Members From Reduced 

Unemployment Based on AMUS AmeriCorps Member Demographics

Metric

Value 

(2022$)* 

Average per-person pre-tax annual earnings of employed 18- to 34-year-olds 

weighted by AMUS AmeriCorps member demographics (e.g., gender, 

race/ethnicity, and pre-service education level)

$35,358

Reduction in AmeriCorps members’ unemployment 5%

Total expected increase in earnings, per member $1,768

AMUS AmeriCorps member FTEs 45.8

Cumulative additional pre-tax earnings $80,883

Cumulative additional post-tax earnings $57,168

*This value is undiscounted; thus, the values do not sum in the table. 

Sources: AMUS (2023), Friedman et al. (2016), and U.S. Census Bureau (2021-b)

To avoid double counting, the additional post-tax earnings is used to calculate the 

direct benefit to AMUS AmeriCorps members, rather than the additional pre-tax

earnings. The post-tax annual earnings for the additional AMUS AmeriCorps member 

FTEs employed in Table 16 excludes payroll taxes (e.g., federal and state income, Social 

Security, and Medicare). The payroll tax rates used are described in more detail in the 

Benefits to Government section. 

Based on these calculations, the cumulative additional post-tax earnings for AMUS

AmeriCorps members for the three different scenarios—discounted in 2022 dollars using 

data from the Office of Management and Budget (2003)—are shown in Table 16. 

These monetary amounts represent the additional post-tax earnings realized due to the 

employment gain that is solely attributed to the AMUS program. 

Table 16. Cumulative Additional Post-Tax Earnings Derived From Reduced 

Unemployment due to Serving With the AMUS Program by Scenario

Scenario

Cumulative additional post-tax earnings 

due to serving with the AMUS program (2022$)

Short-term $57,168

Medium-term $566,924

Long-term $727,774

Sources: AMUS, Friedman et al. (2016), U.S. Census Bureau (2021-b), and Office of Management 

and Budget (2003)
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

45

Increased Lifetime Earnings due to 

Increased Postsecondary Education 

Derived From the Use of Education 

Awards

The AmeriCorps education award pays 

for some portion of members’ increased 

postsecondary educational attainment, 

and the future earnings derived from that 

educational attainment are treated as a 

direct benefit to AMUS AmeriCorps 

members. To calculate the portion of 

members’ increased educational 

attainment that is attributable to the 

AMUS program, this analysis used cost 

data from the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES). Table 17

details the average total cost for each 

degree type and the portion of the cost 

that the post-tax education award 

amount (i.e., $5,622) represents ($7,015

before taxes21). The analysis used these 

percentages to estimate the lifetime 

benefits of postsecondary educational 

attainment that can be attributed to the 

education award. For instance, 

according to NCES (2021-a), the average annual cost of a public, in-state, 4-year 

academic institution during the 2020–2021 academic year was $28,029. This amounts to 

more than $100,000 for 4 years if expressed in 2022 dollars. The $5,622 post-tax 

education award only represents 4.8 percent of the cost of that degree, so the AMUS

program could only be credited with 5 percent of the completion of AMUS AmeriCorps 

members’ bachelor’s degrees post-service. 

21 This analysis used the 2021 to 2022 AmeriCorps education award amount ($6,495) but adjusted it to 

net present 2022 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021-a). For more 

information about this education award, please see https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segalamericorps-education-award/find-out-more. 

Additional earnings derived from 

AMUS AmeriCorps members’ reduced 

unemployment were calculated 

annually and then discounted based 

on the short-term, medium-term, and 

long-term scenarios in net present 

2022 dollars. 

For additional earnings derived from 

AMUS AmeriCorps members’ 

increased postsecondary educational 

attainment—due to using education 

awards—Trostel (2015) did not provide 

data on how earnings accrue over 

time. Therefore, this analysis treated 

the increases in earnings as lifetime 

values expressed in 2022 dollars. The 

analysis assumed 100 percent of those 

lifetime earnings accrued by year 30 

(i.e., in the long-term scenario), 50 

percent accrued by year 15 (i.e., in 

the medium-term scenario), and 

nothing accrued 1 year post-program 

(i.e., in the short-term scenario). 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

46

Table 17. Average Total Cost of Education and Portion Attributable to Education Award 

by Degree Type

Degree type22 Average cost (2022$)*

Percentage of degree total cost 

covered by post-tax education award

Associate degree $28,029 20.1%

Bachelor’s degree $116,275 4.8%

Graduate degree $35,872 15.7%

*Costs were provided for the 2020 to 2021 academic year by NCES (2021-a) for associate degree, 

bachelor’s degree, and graduate degree types.

Sources: AmeriCorps (n.d.) and NCES (2021-a) 

To determine the future lifetime earnings realized due to the use of the education 

award post-service (and, later, the associated lifetime taxes, which are described in the 

Benefits to Government section), the analysis first determined the number of additional 

postsecondary degrees estimated to be completed by degree type. The 29.9 AMUS

AmeriCorps member FTEs who served during the 2021–2022 program year and were not 

a part of the summer youth program were distributed by the education award use 

findings listed in Friedman et al. (2016) across the degree types. The analysis did not 

include AMUS youth members to avoid double counting benefits. 

Specifically, Friedman et al. (2016) reported 46 percent of AmeriCorps State and 

National member alumni used their education award to pursue postsecondary degrees 

after program completion. This makes the number of AMUS AmeriCorps member FTEs

expected to use the education award to pursue additional postsecondary education

roughly equal to 10. Specifically, Friedman et al. (2016) indicated that the 46 percent 

comprises 2 percent using the education award to attend a technical or vocational 

training program, 21 percent using it to obtain a bachelor’s degree, and 23 percent 

using it for graduate school.23 This results in the number of AMUS AmeriCorps members 

estimated to pursue—due to using the education award—an associate degree, a 

bachelor’s degree, or a graduate degree post-service to be roughly 0.6, 6.3, and 6.9, 

respectively, for a total of 14. These values are shown in Table 18. 

22 Costs for an associate degree include tuition, required fees, books, and supplies for a public, in-state, 

2-year program; costs for a bachelor’s degree include tuition, required fees, books, supplies, and 

on-campus housing for a public, in-state, 4-year program; costs for a graduate degree include tuition and 

required fees for a public, in-state, 2-year graduate program. 

23 This analysis considers the use of the education award to attend a technical or vocational training 

program from Friedman et al. (2016) to be synonymous with using it to pursue an associate degree.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

47

Table 18. Estimates of the Number of Postsecondary Degrees Pursued Using the 

Education Award by Degree Type

Degree type

Total AMUS

AmeriCorps 

member FTE count

Percentage estimated to 

pursue postsecondary 

education according to 

Friedman et al. (2016)

Number of 

degrees pursued 

using the

education award

Associate degree 29.9 2% 0.6 

Bachelor’s degree 29.9 21% 6.3

Graduate degree 29.9 23% 6.9

All degrees — 46% 13.7

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Sources: AmeriCorps (n.d.), AMUS, Friedman et al. (2016), NCES (2021-b) 

Next, the difference in the additional lifetime pre-tax earnings from one degree type to 

the subsequent degree type was estimated using data provided by Trostel (2015), 

which is shown in the fifth column of Table 19 and expressed in 2022 dollars.24 For 

instance, using Trostel (2015) data, the lifetime earnings in 2022 dollars of someone with 

an associate degree is about $1 million, while that of someone with a bachelor’s 

degree is almost $1.5 million. The difference between these two metrics (roughly 

$483,000 as show in Table 19) represents the additional lifetime earnings realized as a 

result of gaining a bachelor’s degree if an associate degree was already completed. 

This process was completed for all postsecondary degree types to conservatively 

estimate the additional lifetime earnings realized by AMUS AmeriCorps members due to 

an increase in postsecondary educational attainment. Trostel (2015) also included data 

on lifetime taxes paid, which was converted to 2022 dollars and then used to estimate 

the post-tax lifetime earnings that would be realized per additional postsecondary 

degree received. Specifically, the lifetime taxes paid amounts were subtracted from 

the pre-tax additional lifetime earnings amounts to estimate the additional post-tax 

lifetime earnings, a direct benefit to AMUS AmeriCorps members. 

24 For an associate degree, comparisons were made between metrics for a high school diploma and those 

for an associate degree. For a bachelor’s degree, comparisons made were between metrics for some 

college and those of a bachelor’s degree. For a graduate degree, comparisons made were between 

metrics for a bachelor’s degree and those of a master’s degree. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

48

Table 19. Additional Earnings From AmeriCorps Members’ Use of the Education Award

Degree type

Degrees 

pursued 

using the 

education 

award

Percentage 

of degree 

total cost 

covered by 

post-tax 

education 

award

Degrees 

obtained 

using the 

edu-cation 

award

Additional 

pre-tax 

lifetime 

earnings 

per degree 

type 

Additional 

lifetime 

taxes paid 

per degree 

type 

Additional 

post-tax 

lifetime 

earnings 

per degree 

type 

Total 

post-tax 

lifetime 

earnings 

using the 

education 

award

Associate 

degree 0.6 20.1% 0.1 $194,929 $95,763 $99,166 $11,959

Bachelor’s 

degree 6.3 4.8% 0.3 $602,351 $289,747 $312,604 $94,531

Graduate 

degree 6.9 15.7% 1.1 $534,678 $202,162 $332,516 $360,215

Total 13.7 — 1.5 — — — $466,705

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Sources: AmeriCorps (n.d.), AMUS, Friedman et al. (2016), NCES (2021-b), and Trostel (2015)

To isolate the increase in additional lifetime earnings specific to members using the 

education award, the number of AMUS AmeriCorps members who used the education 

award for this purpose by degree type was reduced by the percentage of the degree 

cost that can be covered by the $5,622 post-tax education award received postservice, displayed in the third column of Table 19. As a result, the analysis estimated that 

the use of the education award among AMUS AmeriCorps members produced roughly 

0.1 additional associate degree, 0.3 additional bachelor’s degree, and 1.1 additional 

graduate degrees post-service. Then, the number of additional degrees obtained was 

applied to the 2022 additional post-tax lifetime earnings by degree type. This calculates

the additional lifetime post-tax earnings realized by AMUS AmeriCorps members from 

their increase in postsecondary educational attainment that is credited to the use of 

the education award post-service. The total additional lifetime post-tax earnings 

amount was roughly $466,705 across AMUS AmeriCorps members. Of note, these 

lifetime earnings are in addition to the earnings derived from AMUS AmeriCorps 

members’ gains in employment as delineated in the previous section. To reiterate, the 

earnings from AMUS AmeriCorps members’ reduced unemployment differs depending 

on the scenario (i.e., short-term, medium-term, and long-term) since it is uncertain how 

long these earnings will persist. For the post-tax lifetime earnings—and all lifetime 

benefits in this ROI analysis—the entire amount is realized in the long-term, half of it is 

realized in the medium-term, and no amount is realized in the short-term. 

Youth members are approximately 8 percentage points more likely to enroll in 

bachelor’s degree programs (Modestino, 2022). To estimate the number of additional 

bachelor’s degrees attained due to the summer youth program, the analysis selected 

the number of members in the program with a high school degree or less (42) and 

applied the increased enrollment finding. Then, the analysis applied the number of 

enrolled students by the national graduation rate of 4-year institutions (64 percent). 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

49

Table 20. Estimates of the Number of Bachelor’s Degrees Pursued due to Summer Youth 

Program Participation

Degree type

Youth members

with high school 

degree or less

Increased 

likelihood of 

college 

enrollment

National 

graduation rate

Number of 

degrees 

obtained using 

the education 

award

Bachelor’s 

degree

42 8.1% 64% 2.2

Sources: AMUS, Modestino (2022), and NCES (2021-b) 

Next, the difference in the additional lifetime pre-tax earnings from one degree type 

to the subsequent degree type was estimated using data provided by Trostel (2015), 

which is shown in the fifth column of Table 19 and expressed in 2022 dollars. Trostel 

(2015) also included data on lifetime taxes paid, which was converted to 2022 dollars 

and then used to estimate the post-tax lifetime earnings that would be realized per 

additional postsecondary degree received. Specifically, the lifetime taxes paid 

amounts were subtracted from the pre-tax additional lifetime earnings amounts to 

estimate the additional post-tax lifetime earnings, a direct benefit to AMUS AmeriCorps 

members who participated in the summer youth program. 

Table 21. Additional Earnings From Summer Youth Program Members’ Increased 

Education

Degree type

Number of 

degrees 

pursued using 

the education 

award

Additional 

pre-tax 

lifetime 

earnings per 

degree type 

Additional 

lifetime taxes 

paid per 

degree type 

Additional 

post-tax 

lifetime 

earnings per 

degree type 

Total 

post-tax 

lifetime 

earnings 

using the 

education

award

Bachelor’s 

degree

2.2 $602,351 $289,747 $312,604 $680,626

Benefits to Society 

Avoided Costs and Increased Productivity From AMUS’s Crime Reduction Activities:

Society at large benefits from reduced costs to victims and increased productivity due 

to AMUS’s crime reduction efforts. A meta-analysis conducted by Ekici et al. (2022) 

based on 20 studies found that community policing efforts, which include activities 

similar to AMUS, reduced burglaries by 11 percent. The analysis assumes that, without 

AMUS, burglaries in the neighborhoods they operate in would have been 11 percent 

higher. The analysis used data from Moss’s evaluation regarding the number of 

burglaries in 2019 in precincts that AMUS was operating in and used data from 2019

because it was the most recent year available. The analysis relied on McCollister’s 

estimate for the per-offense cost of crime to estimate the costs to the criminal justice 

system. The two forms of costs of crime to society are 1) direct costs to victims and 2) 

lost economic productivity due to incarceration. The authors estimated the cost of one 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

50

burglary to a victim was $1,851 and the productivity loss associated with incarceration 

was $926 per burglary. The total cost of burglary to society is $2,777 per offense (in 2022 

dollars). Table 22 and Table 23 show the calculations used to estimate this benefit.

Table 22. Avoided Costs to Society due to Reduced Costs to Victims by Type of Crime

due to AMUS’s Crime Reduction Activities

Source 

of 

societal 

cost

Percentage

reduction in 

crimes 

Number of 

burglaries in 

neighborhoods 

with AMUS

Number of 

avoided 

burglaries

Cost to 

government 

per offense 

(2022$)

Cost to 

society

Burglary 11% 5,630 612 $1,851 $1,133,335

Table 23. Benefits to Society due to Increased Employment From Reduced Incarceration 

by Type of Crime due to AMUS’s Crime Reduction Activities

Source 

of 

societal 

cost

Percentage

reduction in 

crimes 

Number of 

burglaries in 

neighborhoods 

with AMUS

Number of 

avoided 

burglaries

Cost to 

government 

per offense 

(2022$)

Cost to 

society

Burglary 11% 5,630 612 $926 $566,668

Since this impact is sustained for the program year and not subsequent years, the 

benefit is not extrapolated to accrue beyond the first year. 

Avoided Costs and Increased Productivity From AMUS’s Summer Youth Program: Society 

at large also benefits from the reduced costs to victims and increased productivity by 

youth members due to avoided criminal activity from their participation. Modestino 

(2019) found that participants in Boston’s SYEP had 0.022 and 0.016 fewer violent and 

property criminal arraignments per participant per year, respectively. The analysis used 

McCollister’s estimate for the per-offense cost of crime to estimate the costs to the 

criminal justice system. To avoid overstating the benefits of the program, the analysis 

used the type of crime with the lowest estimated cost in each category. The two forms 

of costs of crime to society are 1) direct costs to victims and 2) lost economic 

productivity due to incarceration. For violent crime, robbery was the lowest cost and for 

property crime larceny/theft was the lowest. The authors estimated the direct costs to 

victims was $4,484 per robbery and $652 per larceny/theft (in 2022 dollars). The authors 

estimated the lost economic activity was $5,807 per robbery and $222 per 

larceny/theft. Table 24 and Table 25 show the calculations used to estimate this benefit. 

A 3 percent discount was applied to the annual benefit for the short-, medium- and 

long-term scenarios.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

51

Table 24. Annual Avoided Costs to Society due to Victim Costs by Type of Crime due to 

AMUS’s Summer Youth Program

Source of 

cost

Number of 

avoided crimes 

per youth Youth members

Cost to society 

per offense 

(2022$)

Annual 

avoided cost 

to society

Robbery 0.022 66 $4,484 $6,476

Theft/larceny 0.016 66 $652 $669

Source: AMUS, Modestino (2019), McCollister (2010)

Table 25. Annual Benefits to Society due to Increased Employment From Reduced 

Incarceration by Type of Crime due to AMUS’s Summer Youth Program

Source of 

cost

Number of 

avoided crimes 

per youth Youth members

Benefit to society 

per offense 

(2022$)

Annual 

benefit to 

society

Robbery 0.022 66 $5,807 $8,386

Theft/larceny 0.016 66 $222 $227

Source: AMUS, Modestino (2019), McCollister (2010)

Benefits to Government 

State and Local Governments 

State and local governments benefit from: 

• Additional state income tax revenue from AMUS AmeriCorps members’ 

increased earnings due to reduced unemployment

• Additional lifetime state and local taxes due to AMUS AmeriCorps members’

increased postsecondary educational attainment25

• Additional lifetime state and local taxes due to AMUS water filter recipients’

increased earnings26

• Additional state and local taxes from the living allowance and education award 

received by these members

25 This benefit was calculated using lifetime tax revenue data from Trostel (2015). These values summed 

lifetime state income taxes, lifetime property taxes, and lifetime sales taxes by education level. 

26 This benefit was calculated using lifetime tax revenue data from Trostel (2015) for postsecondary 

education. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

52

• Additional state and local sales 

tax revenue from AMUS 

AmeriCorps members’ increased 

consumption due to reduced 

unemployment

• Reduced lifetime spending on 

public assistance, social 

insurance, and corrections27 due 

to AMUS AmeriCorps members’ 

increased postsecondary 

educational attainment 

• Reduced spending on the 

criminal justice system from

reduced criminal activity due to 

AMUS’s crime reduction work 

• Reduced spending on the 

criminal justice system from

reduced criminal activity by 

AMUS youth members due to 

AMUS’s summer youth program 

State and local government criminal 

justice system cost savings due to crime 

reduction activities: State and local 

governments avoid spending on police, 

legal services, and corrections programs 

due to AMUS’s crime reduction efforts. A 

meta-analysis conducted by Ekici et al 

(2022) based on 20 studies found that

community policing efforts, which 

include activities similar to AMUS, 

reduced burglaries by 11percent. The 

analysis assumes that without AMUS, burglaries in the neighborhoods they operate in 

would have been 11 percent higher. The analysis used data from Moss’s evaluation 

regarding the number of burglaries in 2019 in precincts that AMUS was operating in and 

used data from 2019 because it was the most recent year available. The analysis also 

used McCollister’s estimate for the per-offense cost of crime to estimate the costs to the 

criminal justice system. The analysis based findings on an estimated cost of burglary to 

the criminal justice system of $5,610 per offense (in 2022 dollars). To calculate the costs 

specific to state and local governments, 

27 Reduced spending on public assistance due to AMUS AmeriCorps members’ increased postsecondary 

educational attainment is included as a federal government benefit, not a state and local government 

benefit. This is because public assistance includes programs funded at the federal level (e.g., TANF, etc.).

Additional tax revenue derived from 

AMUS AmeriCorps members’ reduced 

unemployment, living allowances, and 

education awards was calculated using 

tax rates specific to each per-person 

monetary amount. 

For additional tax revenue derived from 

AMUS AmeriCorps members’ increased 

postsecondary educational 

attainment—due to using education 

awards—Trostel (2015) did not provide 

specific tax rates. Therefore, this analysis 

treated the increases in tax revenue as 

lifetime values expressed in 2022 dollars. 

The analysis assumed 100 percent of 

those lifetime tax revenues accrued by 

year 30 (i.e., in the long-term scenario), 

50 percent accrued by year 15 (i.e., in 

the medium-term scenario), and nothing 

accrued 1 year post-program (i.e., in the 

short-term scenario).

Tax revenue derived from AMUS 

beneficiaries’ increased educational 

attainment assumes a federal marginal 

income tax rate of 12 percent, the state 

income tax rate for Michigan (4.25 

percent), the Medicare tax rate (1.45 

percent), and the Social Security tax 

rate(6.2 percent). The assumed Michigan 

sales tax, state and local, is 6.00 percent. 

The analysis applied these tax rates to 

the estimated earnings in each scenario.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

53

the analysis relied on Sawyer and Wagner’s estimate that 87 percent of people who 

are incarcerated are in state and local prisons (2023). 

Since this impact is sustained for the program year and not subsequent years, 

the benefit is not extrapolated to accrue beyond the first year. 

Table 26. Avoided Costs to State/Local Governments by Type of Crime due to Crime 

Reduction Activities

Source of 

government 

cost

Percentage

reduction in 

crimes

Number of 

burglaries in 

neighborhood

s with AMUS

Number of 

avoided 

burglaries

Cost to 

government 

per offense 

(2022$)

State/local 

government 

proportion 

of costs

Cost to 

state/local 

governments

Burglary 11% 5,630 612 $5,610 87% $2,974,332

State and local government criminal justice system cost savings due to the summer 

youth program: State and local governments avoid spending on police, legal services, 

and corrections programs due to AMUS’s summer youth program. Modestino (2019) 

found that participants in Boston’s SYEP had 0.031 and 0.022 fewer violent and property 

criminal arraignments per participant, respectively, in the 17 months after the program. 

To calculate the benefits over the course of a year, the analysis calculated these 

findings on an annual basis (0.022 and 0.016 fewer violent and property crimes per 

youth, respectively). The analysis used McCollister’s estimate for the per-offense cost of 

crime to estimate the costs to the criminal justice system. To avoid overstating the 

benefits of the program, the analysis used the type of crime with the lowest estimated 

cost in each category. For violent crime, robbery was the lowest cost at $29,086 per 

offense (in 2022 dollars) and for property crime larceny/theft was the lowest at $4,789 

per offense. The costs to the criminal justice system for robbery and larceny/theft were 

$18,795 and $3,913 respectively. To calculate the costs specific to state and local 

governments, the analysis relied on Sawyer and Wagner’s estimate that 87 percent of 

people who are incarcerated are in state and local prisons (2023). A 3 percent discount 

was applied to the annual benefit for the short-, medium- and long-term scenarios. 

Table 27. Annual Avoided Costs to State/Local Governments by Type of Crime due to 

the Summer Youth Program

Source of 

government 

cost 

Number of 

avoided 

crimes 

per youth

Youth 

members

Cost to 

government 

per offense 

(2022$)

State/local 

government 

proportion 

of costs

Annual cost 

to state/local 

governments 

Robbery 0.022 66 $18,795 87% $23,743

Theft/larceny 0.016 66 $3,913 87% $3,595

Source: AMUS, Modestino (2019), McCollister (2010)

State income tax revenue: To measure income tax revenue generation that stems from 

reduced unemployment for state governments (any local income taxes are not 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

54

included), the additional pre-tax earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps members that are solely 

attributed to AMUS are taxed by a weighted estimated proportional state income tax 

rate. This tax rate considers state-specific progressive tax brackets and standard 

deduction amounts. Based on the taxable income, the analysis estimated the 

proportional state income tax for each state as the amount of state income taxes paid 

per AMUS AmeriCorps member divided by their pre-tax earnings. This analysis then 

calculated the weighted average of these state-specific tax rates—using these states’ 

populations from the 5-year estimates of the 2021 American Community Survey (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2021-a)—to estimate a weighted national tax rate (i.e., 2.2 percent). A 

weighted national tax rate was used because AMUS AmeriCorps members may 

disperse to various locations nationwide following their service terms and continue to 

migrate over the course of their working years.

Lifetime state income tax revenue values are also provided by Trostel (2015) by 

education level. Based on the number of postsecondary degrees estimated to be 

obtained due to the use of the education award received after serving with AMUS, 

additional lifetime state income taxes are realized. Thus, the additional lifetime state 

income taxes’ paid values—informed by data from Trostel (2015)—were first converted 

to 2022 dollars. The analysis then multiplied them by the inferred number of degrees 

obtained using the education award (which are listed in the fourth column of Table 18). 

State governments also receive state income taxes from the education awards that 

AMUS AmeriCorps members receive post-service. The analysis estimated the pre-tax 

education award amount in 2022 dollars (i.e., $7,015).28 Then the analysis multiplied it by 

the number of AMUS AmeriCorps member FTEs expected to redeem the award and use 

it to pursue postsecondary education or to repay outstanding student loans, based on 

findings from Friedman et al. (2016). The result represents the pre-tax cumulative 

education award amount expected to be received by AMUS AmeriCorps members. 

The portion of this value taxed by state income taxes was estimated using a weighted 

state income tax rate specific to the per-person education award amount. 

Additionally, state income taxes were estimated for the living allowance amount

received by AMUS AmeriCorps members during their service term using tax rates 

specific to the per-person value. The different rates used for these member benefits are 

enumerated in Table 31. 

State and local sales tax revenue: To measure sales tax revenue generation for state 

and local governments that stems from reduced unemployment, a weighted state 

and local sales tax rate was applied to the amount of AMUS AmeriCorps members’ 

cumulative additional post-tax earnings that are available to be spent on taxable 

goods. To establish a weighted state and local sales tax, this analysis first summed the 

state sales tax rate and the average local sales tax rate for each state using data from 

Fritts (2021). Then using 2022 data from the American Community Survey (U.S. Census 

28 This analysis used the 2021 to 2022 AmeriCorps education award amount ($6,495) but adjusted it to 

net present 2022 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021-a). For more 

information about this education award, please see https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segalamericorps-education-award/find-out-more. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

55

Bureau, 2021-a), these state-level combined state and local sales tax rates were 

weighted based on the population of each state. The resulting weighted average sales 

tax rate used in this analysis was 7.44 percent. 

To estimate the additional post-tax earnings as a result of reduced unemployment and 

program participation that was spent on taxable goods, data from the Consumer 

Expenditure Survey (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022) were used. These data show 

the amount of spending on a number of different goods and services by national 

consumers across several different pre-tax income brackets.29 The proportion of 

earnings that is spent on taxable goods (such as alcoholic beverages, housekeeping 

supplies, apparel, etc.) was then calculated for consumers with incomes that matched 

the per-person average pre-tax earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps members. This value was 

63 percent. This proportion was then applied to AMUS AmeriCorps members’ 

cumulative additional post-tax earnings to calculate the post-tax monetary amount 

they spend on taxable goods. Then the sales tax rate (i.e., 7.44 percent) was applied to 

estimate the resulting sales tax revenues that go to state and local governments due 

to AMUS AmeriCorps members’ reduced unemployment post-service. 

Trostel (2015) also provides additional lifetime state and local sales tax values by 

education level. Using these values, the analysis calculated the additional sales tax 

revenue realized by state and local governments as a result of youth members’ 

increased college enrollment and AMUS AmeriCorps members using their education 

award to achieve higher postsecondary educational attainment post-service. 

These values represent a direct benefit to state and local governments in the form of 

increased tax revenue. 

State and local government public assistance, social insurance, and corrections cost 

savings: State and local governments also benefit from AMUS through lifetime savings 

in public assistance, social insurance, and corrections—as reported in Trostel (2015)—

due to the increase in AMUS AmeriCorps members’ postsecondary educational 

attainment after program exit. Of note, social insurance includes unemployment 

insurance and workers’ compensation. To calculate these lifetime non-federal 

government savings, the analysis first calculated the decrease in public assistance, 

social insurance, and corrections costs (and thus, savings) from one education level to 

the subsequent education level using data from Trostel (2015) and then multiplied these 

monetary amounts by the number of additional postsecondary degrees estimated to 

be obtained due to the use of the education awards and summer youth employment

program participation. 

To determine what portion of this differential represents lifetime cost savings to state 

or local governments versus the federal government, a different method was employed 

29 To calculate the estimated taxable expenditures, Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) Table 1203 was 

used from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022). This table lists the annual expenditure means by pre-tax 

income tax brackets. Thus, the pre-tax earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps members were used instead of their 

post-tax earnings to calculate this metric. Please visit this site for more details: 

https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error.htm#cu-income. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

56

for each of these cost savings areas. For social insurance, 50 percent of lifetime 

unemployment insurance cost savings and all the lifetime cost savings for workers’ 

compensation are apportioned to state and local governments (Oswald, 2018). 

Regarding reductions in lifetime corrections spending, the portion between the federal 

and state or local governments was determined based on data from Hyland (2015). 

Specifically, this report found that 8.4 percent of U.S. corrections costs are paid by the 

federal government and the remaining 91.6 percent is paid by state and local 

governments. Therefore, almost 92 percent of the lifetime cost savings in corrections 

due to AMUS AmeriCorps members experiencing an increase in postsecondary 

educational attainment post-service are allocated to state and local governments. 

Federal Government 

The federal government benefits from: 

• Additional federal income, Social Security, and Medicare tax revenue from 

AMUS AmeriCorps members’ increased earnings due to reduced unemployment

• Additional federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes from the living 

allowance and education award received by these members 

• Additional lifetime federal taxes due to AMUS AmeriCorps members’ increased 

postsecondary educational attainment

• Additional lifetime federal taxes due to AMUS water filter recipients’ increased 

lifetime earnings

• Reduced lifetime spending on public assistance, social insurance, and 

corrections due to AMUS AmeriCorps members’ increased postsecondary 

educational attainment

• Reduced spending on the criminal justice system from reduced criminal activity

due to AMUS’s crime reduction work 

• Reduced spending on the criminal justice system from reduced criminal activity 

by AMUS youth members due to AMUS’s summer youth program 

Federal government criminal justice system cost savings due to crime reduction 

activities: The federal government avoids spending on police, legal services, and 

corrections programs due to AMUS’s crime reduction efforts. A meta-analysis 

conducted by Ekici et al. (2022) based on 20 studies found that community policing 

efforts, which include activities similar to AMUS, reduced burglaries by 11 percent. The 

analysis assumes that without AMUS, burglaries in the neighborhoods they operate in 

would have been 11 percent higher. The analysis used data from Moss’s evaluation 

regarding the number of burglaries in 2019 in precincts that AMUS was operating in and 

used data from 2019 because it was the most recent year available. The analysis also 

used McCollister’s estimate for the per-offense cost of crime to estimate the costs to the 

criminal justice system. The analysis based findings on an estimated cost of burglary to 

the criminal justice system of $5,610 per offense (in 2022 dollars). To calculate the costs 

specific to the federal government, the analysis relied on Sawyer and Wagner’s

estimate that 13 percent of people who are incarcerated are in federal prisons. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

57

Since this impact is sustained for the program year and not subsequent years, the 

benefit is not extrapolated to accrue beyond the first year. 

Table 28. Avoided Costs to State/Local Governments by Type of Crime due to 

Crime Reduction Activities

Source of 

government 

cost 

Percentage 

reduction 

in crimes 

Number of 

burglaries in 

neighborhoods 

with AMUS 

Number 

of 

avoided 

burglaries 

Cost to 

government 

per offense 

(2022$) 

Federal 

government 

proportion 

of costs 

Cost to 

federal 

government 

Burglary 11% 5,630 612 $5,610 13% $459,790

Federal government criminal justice cost savings due to the summer youth program: 

The federal government avoids spending on police, legal services, and corrections 

programs due to AMUS’s summer youth program. Modestino (2019) found that 

participants in Boston’s SYEP had 0.031 and 0.022 fewer violent and property criminal 

arraignments per participant, respectively, in the 17 months after the program. To 

calculate the benefits over the course of a year, the analysis calculated these findings 

on an annual basis (0.022 and 0.016 fewer violent and property crimes per youth, 

respectively). The analysis used McCollister’s estimate for the per-offense cost of crime 

to estimate the costs to the criminal justice system. To avoid overstating the benefits of 

the program, the analysis used the type of crime with the lowest estimated cost in each 

category. For violent crime, robbery was the lowest cost at $29,086 per offense (in 2022 

dollars) and for property crime larceny/theft was the lowest cost at $4,789 per offense. 

The costs to the criminal justice system for robbery and larceny/theft were $18,795 and 

$3,913, respectively. 

To calculate the costs specific to the federal government, the analysis relied on Sawyer 

and Wagner’s estimate that 13 percent of people who are incarcerated are in federal 

prisons (2023). A 3 percent discount was applied to the annual benefit for the short-, 

medium- and long-term scenarios. 

Table 29. Annual Avoided Costs to Federal Government by Type of Crime due to the 

Summer Youth Program

Source of 

government 

cost 

Number 

of avoided 

crimes 

per youth 

Youth 

members 

Cost to 

government 

per offense 

(2022$) 

Federal 

government 

proportion 

of costs 

Annual cost 

to federal 

government 

Robbery 0.022 66 $18,795 13% $3,548

Theft/larceny 0.016 66 $3,913 13% $537

Source: AMUS, Modestino (2019), McCollister (2010)

Federal income tax revenue: To measure federal income tax revenue that stems from 

reduced unemployment, the additional pre-tax earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps members 

that are solely attributed to the AMUS program—as well as the pre-tax living allowance 

and education award amounts received by AMUS AmeriCorps members—are taxed by 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

58

a federal income tax rate. The rates used are estimated proportional tax rates that 

consider the standard deductions and progressive tax brackets specific to federal 

income taxes as provided by El-Sibaie (2020). To reiterate, an estimated proportional 

tax rate equals the total amount of taxes estimated to be paid divided by the pre-tax 

amount of the value to be taxed (e.g., per-person average pre-tax earnings). The 

specific federal income tax rates used for these different benefits are enumerated in 

Table 31. Of note, different tax rates were used because they were specific to the perperson pre-tax earnings, living allowance, and education award amounts.

For the additional lifetime earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps members that is based on their 

increase in postsecondary educational attainment—made possible by the use of the 

education award—Trostel (2015) provides additional lifetime federal income tax values. 

These values were used to calculate the additional income tax revenue realized by the 

federal government due to members’ postsecondary education gains.

For water filter recipients, the analysis estimated the increase in lifetime income due to 

reduced lead exposure. The analysis then estimated an increase in earnings for each 

group pre-income tax. Then, the analysis applied a marginal tax rate (12 percent) to 

determine the increase in federal income tax attributable to additional program 

participant education.

Social Security and Medicare tax revenue: Social Security and Medicare tax revenue 

are measured as fiscal gains as a result of the additional pre-tax earnings of AMUS

AmeriCorps members from their reduced unemployment and as a result of the pre-tax 

living allowances and education awards amounts received by members. However, tax 

rates specific to each revenue source are used. Social Security and Medicare use flat 

tax rates, 6.2 percent and 1.45 percent, respectively; thus, these rates are applied to 

the additional pre-tax earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps members to calculate the 

additional amount of revenue the federal government receives. These same rates are 

also applied to the living allowance and education award amounts received by AMUS

AmeriCorps members to calculate additional tax revenue. 

Moreover, lifetime Social Security tax values are provided by Trostel (2015) by education 

level. The analysis used these values to estimate the additional lifetime Social Security 

tax revenue realized by the federal government as a result of AMUS AmeriCorps 

members using their education award to complete different postsecondary education 

degree types post-service. 

For water filter recipients, the analysis estimated the increase in lifetime income due to 

reduced lead exposure. Then the analysis applied the Social Security and Medicare 

taxes (6.2 percent and 1.45 percent, respectively) to determine the increase in federal 

income tax attributable to additional program participant education.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

59

Federal government public assistance, social insurance, and corrections cost savings:

The federal government realizes cost savings in public assistance, social insurance, 

and corrections due to the increased postsecondary educational attainment of AMUS

AmeriCorps members after program exit. Specifically, the number of additional 

postsecondary degrees estimated to be earned by AMUS AmeriCorps members 

post-service as well as data from Trostel (2015) were used to estimate the federal 

government portion of lifetime cost savings on social insurance (which is composed 

of workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance, as noted earlier), public 

assistance (e.g., SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, etc.), and corrections. 

Table 30 shows the lifetime costs to the federal versus the state and local governments 

for each of these areas—where applicable—by education level in 2012 dollars as 

presented in Trostel (2015). The differences in these lifetime costs from one education 

level to the next represent cost savings per degree obtained. 

Table 30. Government Costs by Education Attainment Level per Individual's Lifetime

Source of government 

cost

Associate degree 

(2012$)

Bachelor’s degree 

(2012$)

Graduate degree 

(2012$)

Public assistance $31,803 $14,480 $9,394

Social insurance $8,209 $5,863 $4,732

Federal $3,570 $2,660 $2,090

State/local $4,639 $3,204 $2,643

Corrections $4,055 $1,190 $725

Federal $341 $100 $61

State/local $3,714 $1,090 $664

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Source: Trostel (2015) 

As mentioned earlier in this appendix, as a result of AMUS, the analysis estimated an 

additional 14 long-term AMUS AmeriCorps members would redeem the education 

award to pursue additional postsecondary education along with two AmeriCorps youth 

members who would pursue a bachelor’s degree. Based on the portion of degree costs 

covered by the post-tax education award, this analysis calculated that an additional 

associate degree, bachelor’s degree, and graduate degree would be obtained due 

to AMUS. To conservatively calculate the federal government’s lifetime savings 

associated with these education gains, the differences between the public assistance, 

federal social insurance, and federal corrections lifetime costs for these education 

levels and those that precede them are calculated and then expressed in 2022 dollars. 

These values are then multiplied by the number of additional postsecondary degrees 

estimated to be obtained—where appropriate—to represent the total cost savings 

realized by the federal government due to AMUS. As previously mentioned where 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

60

discussing the state and local governments’ allocation of the reduction in lifetime social 

insurance and corrections expenditures, the federal government receives 50 percent of 

the lifetime cost savings in unemployment insurance (part of social insurance; Oswald,

2018), and more than 8 percent of the lifetime cost savings in corrections (Hyland, 

2015). These federal government savings are shown in Table 32.

Table 31 shows the tax rates applied to AMUS AmeriCorps members’ additional pre-tax 

and post-tax earnings (derived from reduced unemployment), depending on the type 

of revenue being calculated. It also enumerates the tax rates used for the pre-tax living 

allowance and education award amounts received by AMUS AmeriCorps members 

during their service term or upon service completion, respectively. 

Table 31. 2021 Tax Rates and Ratio of Taxable Expenditures for AMUS AmeriCorps 

Members’ Earnings, Living Allowances, and Education Awards

Metric

Rate for 

additional 

earnings & 

education 

award*

Rate for living 

allowance & 

education 

award** Notes

Estimated 

proportional

federal 

income tax 

7.39% 3.42% • Tax rates are used that consider the 

progressive tax brackets and standard 

deductions specific to federal income 

taxes. 

• These rates are dependent on and 

applied to the pre-tax value of each 

metric being taxed.

Estimated 

proportional 

state 

income tax 

2.79% 2.21% • Tax rates are used that consider the 

progressive tax brackets and standard 

deductions specific to each state’s 

income taxes. Each state’s tax rate is 

weighted based on the state’s 

population and summed to estimate a 

weighted national average. 

• These rates are dependent on and 

applied to the pre-tax value of each 

metric being taxed.

Social 

Security tax 

6.20% 6.20% • Social Security tax rate for employees 

and employers.

• These rates are applied to the pre-tax

value of each metric being taxed.

Medicare 

tax 

1.45% 1.45% • Medicare tax rate for employees and 

employers.

• These rates are applied to the pre-tax

value of each metric being taxed.
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

61

Metric

Rate for 

additional 

earnings & 

education 

award*

Rate for living 

allowance & 

education 

award** Notes

Sales tax 7.44%; N/A to 

the education 

award 

7.44%; N/A to 

the education 

award 

• The combined state and average local 

tax rate for each state was summed 

and weighted based on states’ 

populations to calculate a national 

weighted average sales tax rate. 

• The rate is applied to the additional 

post-tax earnings of members as well 

as their post-tax living allowance 

amount.

Ratio of 

taxable 

expenditures 

per national

consumer

44.7%; N/A to 

the education 

award

63%; N/A to the 

education 

award

• Percentage of post-tax earnings spent 

on taxable goods and services that is 

used to calculate sales tax from posttax earnings.

• Ratio is dependent on the pre-tax 

value of members’ additional earnings

or the pre-tax living allowance amount.

*These rates are only used for the portion of the education award used to repay outstanding student loans. 

**These rates are only used for the portion of the education award used for additional schooling. 

Sources: Fritts (2021), Social Security Administration (2022), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022), 

and El-Sibaie (2020) 

Summary of Benefits to Government 

Table 32 shows the amount of tax revenue generated and savings in expenditures for 

state and local versus federal government that are solely credited to AMUS and 

calculated using the methods described above. These government revenue and 

savings amounts are benefits that are included in the three ROI calculations, and they 

are derived from AMUS impacts. 

Table 32. State/Local and Federal Government Benefits by Stakeholder Group and by 

Scenario

Benefit type

Benefit (2022$)

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

State/local government benefits $3,121,467 $3,588,618 $3,859,700 

State income tax revenue from education 

awards, living allowances,* and 

employment

 $62,073 $80,769 $86,668 

State and local sales tax revenue from 

living allowances and employment $55,514 $89,681 $100,462 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

62

Benefit type

Benefit (2022$)

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

State income, sales, and property taxes 

from AmeriCorps member educational 

attainment (lifetime)

 $0 $105,729 $211,459 

State income, sales, and property taxes 

from increased income of program 

beneficiaries who are young children and

receive lead filters (lifetime)

 $0 $4,336 $8,673

Savings in reduced public assistance,

social insurance, and corrections 

spending from member postsecondary 

educational attainment (lifetime)

 $0 $70,818 $141,636 

Savings in reduced criminal justice 

spending from program activities $2,974,332 $2,974,332 $2,974,332

Savings in reduced criminal justice 

spending from avoided criminal activity

due to the summer program

$26,198 $259,796 $333,506

Federal government benefits $741,648 $1,331,237 $1,801,934 

Federal income tax revenue education 

awards and living allowances* $141,121 $141,121 $141,121

Social Security and Medicare tax revenue 

from education awards and living 

allowances*

 $107,958 $107,958 $107,958

Federal income tax revenue from 

employment $9,423 $93,448 $119,962 

Social Security and Medicare tax revenue 

from employment $6,007 $59,573 $76,476 

Federal income and Social Security tax 

revenue from postsecondary educational 

attainment (lifetime)

 $0 $368,303 $736,605 

Federal income and Social Security tax 

revenue from increased income of 

program beneficiaries who are young 

children (lifetime)

 $0 $14,449 $28,898 

Savings in reduced social insurance, 

corrections, and public assistance 

spending from member postsecondary 

educational attainment (lifetime)

 $0 $32,943 $65,885

Savings in reduced criminal justice 

spending from program activities $459,790 $459,790 $459,790

Savings in reduced criminal justice 

spending from avoided criminal activity

due to the summer program

$4,050 $40,161 $51,555
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

63

Benefit type

Benefit (2022$)

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Total $3,863,115 $4,919,855 $5,661,634 

*Living allowances and education awards are one-time taxable payments. The resulting tax revenue does 

not vary by scenario.

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Measuring Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs)

The analysis included two types of forgone benefits, referred to as opportunity costs, 

in each of the three ROI calculations to conservatively estimate the return of the AMUS

program: forgone benefits from a professional opportunity cost to AMUS AmeriCorps 

members and forgone benefits from an investment opportunity cost to funders. Each of 

these forgone benefit (opportunity cost) types is subtracted from the total program 

benefits—that stem from AMUS—to calculate net benefits. Net benefits are then 

compared to the program cost to calculate each ROI. The methodologies used to 

calculate these two forgone benefits (opportunity costs) are described below. 

Forgone Benefits From Professional Opportunity Cost to AMUS AmeriCorps 

Members 

There is a professional opportunity cost to AMUS AmeriCorps members for their period of 

national service, during which they could have otherwise been working. This includes 

both the forgone earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps members for their service term and the 

forgone taxes associated with those lost earnings. To calculate this, the analysis first 

used the demographic distribution of AMUS AmeriCorps members for the 2021–2022 

program year—in terms of gender, age, race/ethnicity, and pre-service education 

level—and ASEC data to estimate the weighted unemployment rate for this population 

(i.e., 9.2 percent). This represents how many of these AMUS AmeriCorps members would 

have been unemployed if they did not serve with AMUS. Using the weighted 

unemployment rate and the number of AMUS AmeriCorps member FTEs who served 

during the 2021–2022 program year (i.e., 46), the analysis estimated the number of 

members who would have been employed without serving with AMUS based on their 

demographic characteristics (i.e., 42). Then the analysis multiplied this value by the 

weighted post-tax annual earnings per-person, shown in Table 33. The methodology 

used to calculate this latter monetary amount is described in the previous Increased 

Earnings due to Reduced Unemployment section. The post-tax amount subtracts all 

applicable payroll taxes (e.g., federal income, state income, Medicare, and Social 

Security). The product of multiplying 42 by the weighted post-tax annual earnings 

represents what AMUS AmeriCorps members would have earned in total if they did not 

serve with AMUS. Separately, the analysis then multiplied the number of AMUS

AmeriCorps member FTEs who served by the amount they earned during their national 

service in the form of a post-tax living allowance (i.e., $17,729 per person). This 

represents the aggregate amount AMUS AmeriCorps members earned during their 

service term. The difference between what they would have earned if they did not 

serve and what they did earn because they served equals the total post-tax earnings 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

64

forgone due to serving with AMUS. These values and the formula used to calculate the 

forgone post-tax earnings are shown in Table 33.

Table 33. Forgone Earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps Members for a Service Term

Row Component Value Source

A AMUS AmeriCorps member FTEs 46 AMUS

B Weighted unemployment rate 9.2% U.S. Census Bureau (2021-b) & 

AMUS

C Weighted post-tax annual earnings per 

person (2022$)

$30,392 U.S. Census Bureau (2021-b), 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(2021-c), & AMUS

D Post-tax living allowance per person $17,729 AMUS

E Total post-tax earnings forgone (2022$) $451,488 [A x (1 – B) x C] – (A x D)

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

The second portion of this professional opportunity cost was the forgone taxes 

associated with the earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps members lost for this year of service. 

Federal income, state income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes specific to the 

per-person weighted pre-tax earnings amount were calculated. Specifically, the 

estimated proportional federal and state income tax rates used were 7.2 percent and 

2.7 percent, respectively. The analysis also estimated the sales taxes lost based on the 

per-person post-tax earnings forgone by the AMUS AmeriCorps members. Using data 

from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022), the 

analysis estimated that based on the per-person weighted pre-tax earnings of AMUS

AmeriCorps members (i.e., $35,358), 47 percent of their income would have been spent 

on taxable goods, as opposed to 63 percent of the living allowance. Then the 

weighted combined state and local sales tax rate (i.e., 7.44 percent)—used earlier in 

this analysis to calculate government benefits—was applied to the difference in 

expected spending on taxable goods to represent the resulting sales tax revenue lost 

due to individuals serving with AMUS instead of working for higher pay. The totals for 

these taxes are listed in Table 34. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

65

Table 34. Forgone Taxes Associated With the Forgone Earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps 

Members for a Service Term

Forgone taxes

Taxes without 

service term

(2022$)

Taxes realized 

from living 

allowance

(2022$)

Net taxes 

forgone

(2022$)

Federal forgone taxes (i.e., federal 

professional opportunity cost) $234,947 $107,939 $127,008

Federal income taxes $113,580 $33,580 $80,000

Social Security and Medicare taxes $121,367 $74,359 $47,008 

Non-federal forgone taxes $100,905 $60,496 $35,614

State income taxes $43,289 $21,465 $21,824 

Sales taxes $45,641 $31,851 $13,790 

Total taxes $323,877 $161,255 $162,622 

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

For the federal government benefits per federal dollar ROI calculation, only federal 

government (not total) benefits are included. Because of this, only federal components 

of the professional opportunity cost are subtracted from all federal government 

benefits—realized due to AMUS—in this ROI calculation. The parts of the professional 

opportunity cost subtracted from these total federal government benefits include the 

forgone net federal income taxes (i.e., $80,000) and the net forgone Social Security and 

Medicare taxes (i.e., $47,008). The sum of these two values is called the federal 

professional opportunity cost. The sum of all the values listed in Table 34 and the 

forgone post-tax earnings of AMUS AmeriCorps members is called the total professional 

opportunity cost. These naming conventions are referenced in the Calculating ROI 

section. 

Forgone Benefits From the Investment Opportunity Cost to Funders 

The investment opportunity cost estimates the expected forgone return if funds used to 

support the activities and positions of AMUS AmeriCorps members during the most 

recent program year were invested in U.S. Treasury bonds instead. An investment 

opportunity cost is calculated for two different funding streams: 1) all AMUS program 

funding for the 2021–2022 program year and 2) only federal funding for the same 

program year. This is done because two of the three ROI calculations only have federal 

(not total) program costs included. Thus, for 1) the federal government benefits 

per federal dollar and 2) the total benefits per federal dollar ROI calculations, the 

investment opportunity cost subtracted from the benefits in these calculations is the 

forgone accrued interest from investing only the federal funds into these U.S. Treasury 

bonds. For the other ROI calculation, the investment opportunity cost subtracted from 

the benefits realized is the forgone accrued interest from investing all AMUS program 

funds (both federal and non-federal) into these U.S. Treasury bonds. Therefore, the 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

66

analysis estimated forgone accrued interests across all three scenarios when 1) all 

AMUS program funds and 2) only federal AMUS program funds are invested in U.S. 

Treasury bonds.

To calculate these forgone accrued interest values, the analysis first matched 2021 real 

interest rates provided by the Office of Management and Budget (2022) to each of the 

scenarios included in this ROI analysis. The analysis used 2021 real interest rates for U.S. 

Treasury bonds because the AMUS program year analyzed began in 2021. The real 

interest rate for the 3-year maturity was used for the short-term scenario, the average 

between the 10-year and 20-year maturity rates was used as the rate for the mediumterm scenario, and the 30-year maturity rate was used for the long-term scenario. These 

real interest rates were -1.8 percent, -0.8 percent, and -0.3 percent, respectively (Office 

of Management and Budget, 2022). Also, the number of years elapsed on these U.S. 

Treasury bonds was equal to the number of years the different scenarios assumed AMUS

AmeriCorps members’ employment and earnings gains were sustained. These values 

are 1 year, 15 years, and 30 years for the short-, medium-, and long-term scenarios, 

respectively. Given that U.S. Treasury bonds compound biannually, according to the 

U.S. Department of the Treasury (2022), the formula used to calculate the forgone 

accrued interest for each of the three scenarios for the two funding streams is listed in

Figure 5, where A equals the forgone accrued interest (e.g., the investment opportunity 

cost), P equals the amount of one of the funding streams, r equals the 2021 real interest 

rate, and t equals the number of years elapsed. 

Figure 5. Compound Interest Formula Used to Calculate Investment Opportunity Cost

Based on this formula, the forgone benefits from the investment opportunity cost 

calculated by scenario and funding stream are listed in Table 35, along with their 

associated inputs. The forgone accrued interest amounts for all funding are called the 

total investment opportunity costs while that for federal funding only are called the 

federal investment opportunity costs. These naming conventions are referenced in the 

Calculating ROI section. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

67

Table 35. Forgone Benefits From Investment Opportunity Cost Calculation by Scenario 

and Funding Stream

Metric

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

All funding

Federal 

funding 

only All funding

Federal 

funding 

only All funding

Federal 

funding 

only

Real 

interest 

rate 

-1.8% -0.8% -0.3% 

Years 

elapsed 1 15 30

Funding 

amount $3,699,768 $1,559,497 $3,699,768 $1,559,497 $3,699,768 $1,559,497

Forgone 

return 

(accrued 

interest) 

-$38,352 -$27,945 -$242,478 -$176,680 -$184,343 -$134,320

Measuring Program Costs

Table 36 shows the costs of AMUS by cost category and funding source. AmeriCorps 

funds roughly 42 percent of the program through their AmeriCorps State and National 

grant while other funders contribute approximately 58 percent. 

Table 36. Funding Sources and Amounts for AMUS (2021–2022) 

Funding source Amount Percentage of Total 

Cost categories $3,699,678

Operating $1,520,625 41%

AmeriCorps member expenses $2,179,143 59%

Funding source $3,699,678

AmeriCorps $1,559,497 42%

Other $2,140,271 58%

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Source: AMUS (2023) 

Calculating ROI 

To complete the three ROI calculations for AMUS, the sum of applicable program 

benefits is reduced by the forgone benefits, or the professional and investment 

opportunity costs (where appropriate), and then compared to the cost of the program. 

As described previously, these three ROI calculations are calculated for each of the 

three scenarios: short-term, medium-term, and long-term. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

68

Since two of the calculations include benefits to society (e.g., AMUS AmeriCorps 

members, federal government, etc.), the results are expressed as cost–benefit ratios, 

while maintaining the ROI terminology. Specifically, these ratios take the form of the 

sum of monetized benefits over the sum of applicable program costs. The ROIs 

expressed as cost–benefit ratios in this study can be interpreted as the amount of dollars 

returned for every $1 of investment (or program cost).30 

The formulas used to calculate each of the three ROIs are shown below:31

Table 37, Table 38, and Table 39 show the total benefits, opportunity costs, program 

costs, and ROI results for each scenario. 

Table 37. ROI Calculations for Short-Term Scenario

Components

Total benefits per 

federal dollar 

(2022$)

Total benefits per 

funder dollar 

(2022$)

Federal government 

benefits per federal 

dollar (2022$)

Total program benefits $6,568,867 $6,568,867 $741,648

Total forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) $548,179 $548,179 $99,430

Total program costs $1,559,497 $3,699,768 $1,559,497

Result $3.86 $1.63 $0.12

30 ROIs can be expressed in percentages or as ratios, such as in this study. Although not shown as a ratio in 

the results, the ROIs in this study show the amount of return for every $1 invested. 

31 Non-government stakeholders in this ROI analysis include society, AMUS AmeriCorps members, and 

program beneficiaries. 

Total 

Benefits per 

Federal 

Dollar

=

(Benefits to Non-Government Stakeholders + Benefits to Government) –

(Forgone Benefits From Total Professional Opportunity Cost + Forgone 

Benefits From Federal Investment Opportunity Cost)

(AmeriCorps Federal Funding) 

Total 

Benefits 

per Funder 

Dollar

=

(Benefits to Non-Government Stakeholders + Benefits to Government) –

(Forgone Benefits From Total Professional Opportunity Cost + Forgone 

Benefits From Total Investment Opportunity Cost)

(AmeriCorps Federal Funding + Non-Federal Match Funding) 

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

=

(Benefits to the Federal Government) – (Forgone Benefits From Federal 

Professional Opportunity Cost + Forgone Benefits From Federal Investment 

Opportunity Cost)

(AmeriCorps Federal Funding) 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

69

Table 38. ROI Calculations for Medium-Term Scenario

Components

Total benefits per 

federal dollar 

(2022$)

Total benefits per 

funder dollar 

(2022$)

Federal government 

benefits per federal 

dollar (2022$)

Total program benefits $9,552,288 $9,552,288 $1,331,237

Total forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) $195,317 $195,317 -$49,306

Total program costs $1,559,497 $3,699,768 $1,559,497

Result $6.00 $2.53 $0.89

Table 39. ROI Calculations for Long-Term Scenario

Components

Total benefits per 

federal dollar 

(2022$)

Total benefits per 

funder dollar 

(2022$)

Federal government 

benefits per federal 

dollar (2022$)

Total program benefits $11,656,002 $11,656,002 $1,801,934

Total forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) $295,812 $295,812 -$6,946

Total program costs $1,559,497 $3,699,768 $1,559,497

Result $7.28 $3.07 $1.16
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

70

 Appendix C: Results by Year 

Table 40 shows the breakdown of costs and benefits over a 30-year period. Program 

activities create a stream of benefits over time to program beneficiaries, AmeriCorps 

members, the federal government, state and local governments, and society. 

AmeriCorps members’ forgone benefits from professional opportunity cost apply to the 

first year. Funders’ forgone benefits from investment opportunity cost accrue over time. 

Program costs are expended in the first year only. Program benefits are shown in 

nominal dollars. 
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

71

Table 40. AMUS Benefits and Costs per Year

Benefits and costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8

Benefits $6,290,787 $227,165 $227,694 $228,385 $229,236 $230,246 $231,415 $232,743

Program 

beneficiaries $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

AmeriCorps members $831,270 $124,271 $126,112 $128,007 $129,960 $131,971 $134,043 $136,177

Federal government $662,949 $39,466 $39,908 $40,362 $40,830 $41,312 $41,808 $42,320

State and local 

governments $3,061,200 $30,123 $30,340 $30,564 $30,795 $31,033 $31,278 $31,530

Society $1,735,368 $33,305 $31,335 $29,451 $27,651 $25,930 $24,287 $22,717

Forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) $548,179 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940

Forgone benefits to 

members $451,488 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone tax revenue $162,987 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal taxes $127,374 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

State/local taxes $35,613 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone benefits 

from total 

investments (all 

funders) -$66,296 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940

Forgone benefits 

from 

federal investments -$27,945 -$12,620 -$12,620 -$12,620 -$12,620 -$12,620 -$12,620 -$12,620

Program costs $3,391,469 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal government $1,251,199 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Non-federal $2,140,271 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

72

Benefits and costs Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16

Benefits $234,228 $235,871 $237,671 $245,546 $249,485 $251,760 $254,194 $256,788

Program beneficiaries $0 $0 $0 $5,918 $5,918 $5,918 $5,918 $5,918

AmeriCorps members $138,374 $140,638 $142,970 $145,371 $147,845 $150,393 $153,017 $155,720

Federal government $42,846 $43,389 $43,948 $44,523 $46,482 $47,093 $47,722 $48,370

State and local 

governments $31,790 $32,057 $32,333 $32,617 $33,365 $33,667 $33,977 $34,296

Society $21,217 $19,786 $18,420 $17,118 $15,875 $14,690 $13,561 $12,485

Forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 $6,700 $6,700

Forgone benefits to 

members $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone tax revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

State/local taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone benefits from 

total investments (all 

funders) -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 -$29,940 $6,700 $6,700

Forgone benefits from 

federal investments -$12,620 -$12,620 -$12,620 -$12,620 -$12,620 -$12,620 $2,824 $2,824

Program costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal government $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Non-federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

73

Benefits and costs Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24

Benefits $259,544 $262,462 $265,544 $268,792 $272,207 $275,791 $279,546 $283,475

Program beneficiaries $5,918 $5,918 $5,918 $5,918 $5,918 $5,918 $5,918 $5,918

AmeriCorps members $158,504 $161,372 $164,325 $167,368 $170,501 $173,729 $177,053 $180,477

Federal government $49,037 $49,724 $50,432 $51,161 $51,912 $52,686 $53,482 $54,303

State and local 

governments $34,625 $34,964 $35,313 $35,673 $36,043 $36,425 $36,818 $37,223

Society $11,460 $10,484 $9,556 $8,672 $7,832 $7,034 $6,275 $5,555

Forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700

Forgone benefits to 

members $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone tax revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

State/local taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone benefits from 

total investments (all 

funders) $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700

Forgone benefits from 

federal investments $2,824 $2,824 $2,824 $2,824 $2,824 $2,824 $2,824 $2,824

Program costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal government $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Non-federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

74

Benefits and costs Year 25 Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30

Benefits $287,580 $291,864 $296,330 $300,980 $305,818 $310,848

Program beneficiaries $5,918 $5,918 $5,918 $5,918 $5,918 $5,918

AmeriCorps members $184,004 $187,636 $191,378 $195,232 $199,201 $203,290

Federal government $55,148 $56,019 $56,916 $57,839 $58,791 $59,770

State and local governments $37,639 $38,069 $38,511 $38,967 $39,436 $39,919

Society $4,871 $4,223 $3,608 $3,025 $2,473 $1,951

Forgone benefits (opportunity 

costs) $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700

Forgone benefits to members $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone tax revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

State/local taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone benefits from total 

investments (all funders) $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700 $6,700

Forgone benefits from 

federal investments $2,824 $2,824 $2,824 $2,824 $2,824 $2,824

Program costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal government $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Non-federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
75

Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

References 

AmeriCorps. (n.d.). Education Award find out more. AmeriCorps. 

https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorps-educationaward/find-out-more

Blagg, K., & Blom, E. (2018, September). Evaluating the return on investment in higher 

education: An assessment of individual- and state-level returns. Urban Institute. 

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99078/evaluating_the_return_

on_investment_in_higher_education.pdf

Canfield, R. L., Henderson, C. R., Cory-Slechta, D. A., Cox, C., Jusko, T. A. & 

Lanphear, B. P. (2003). Intellectual impairment in children with blood lead 

concentrations below 10 microg per deciliter. New England Journal of Medicine, 

348(16), 1517–1526. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa022848

El-Sibaie, A. (2020, October 27). 2021 tax brackets. Tax Foundation.

https://taxfoundation.org/2021-tax-brackets/

Ekici, N., Akdogan, H., Kelly, R. & Gultekin, S. (2022). A meta-analysis of the impact of 

community policing on crime reduction. Journal of Community Safety and WellBeing, 7(3), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.35502/jcswb.244 

Friedman, E., Freeman, B., Phillips, B., Rosenthal, L., Robinson, D., Miller, H., & Porowski, A. 

(2016). AmeriCorps alumni outcomes: Final survey technical report. Corporation for 

National and Community Service (now AmeriCorps). 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_AmeriCorpsAlumni

OutcomesFinalTechReport_1.pdf

Fritts, J. (2021, January 6). State and local sales tax rates, 2021. Tax Foundation. 

https://taxfoundation.org/2021-sales-taxes/

Gould, E. (2009). Childhood lead poisoning: Conservative estimates of the social and 

economic benefits of lead hazard control. Environmental Health Perspectives,

117(7), 1162–1167. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/epdf/10.1289/ehp.0800408

Harlow, C. (2003, April 15). Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: Education and 

correctional populations. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf

Heller, S. (2021). When scale and replication work: Learning from summer youth 

employment experiments. NBER working paper 28705. National Bureau of Economic 

Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w28705

Jang, H., Hoover, L. T., & Joo, H. (2010). An evaluation of Compstat’s effect on crime: 

The Fort Worth experience. Police Quarterly, 13(4), 387–412. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611110384085
76

Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

Landigran, P. J., Schechter, C. B., Lipton, J. M., Fahs, M. C. & Schwartz, J. (2002). 

Environmental pollutants and disease in American children: Estimates of morbidity, 

mortality, and costs for lead poisoning, asthma, cancer, and developmental 

disabilities. Children’s Health, 110(7), 721–728. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.02110721 

Loughead, K. (2021, February 17). State individual income tax rates and brackets for 

2021. Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-income-taxrates-2021/

Markovitz, C., Schneider, G., Jastrzab, J. A., & Frumkin, P. (2008, April). Improving lives 

and communities: Perspectives on 40 years of VISTA service. Corporation for 

National and Community Service (now AmeriCorps).

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_Imprv_LivesComm

_40YrsVISTASvc_2008_1.pdf

McCollister, K. E., French, M. T., & Fang, H. (2010). The cost of crime to society: New 

crime-specific estimates for policy and program evaluation. Drug and Alcohol 

Dependence, 108(1–2), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.12.002

Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. (2023). Michigan Environmental 

Public Health Tracking. State of Michigan. https://mitracking.state.mi.us/

Minnesota Department of Health. (2019). Lead in Minnesota water: Assessment of 

eliminating lead in Minnesota drinking water. Minnesota Department of Health 

https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/docs/leadreport.p

df

Modestino, A. S. (2019). How do summer youth employment programs improve criminal 

justice outcomes, and for whom? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 38(3), 

600–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22138

Modestino, A. S. (2022). What’s in a job? Evaluating the effect of private sector 

employment experience on student academic outcomes. AEA Papers and 

Proceedings, 112, 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20221035

Moss, B.G. (2021). Impact evaluation of the AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program. Wayne 

State University. https://americorps.gov/evidence-exchange/impact-evaluationamericorps-urban-safety-program-2018

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2021-a). Digest of education statistics. 

Table 330.50. Average and percentiles of graduate tuition and required fees in 

degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by control of institution: 1989-90 through 

2020-21. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_330.50.asp
77

Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2021-b). IPEDS Data Explorer. Average 

costs (in constant 2021 dollars) associated with attendance for full-time, first-time 

degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates at Title IV institutions operating on an 

academic year calendar system, and percentage change, by level of institution, 

type of cost, control of institution, residency, and student housing: United States, 

academic years 2019-20 and 2021-22. 

https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Search?query=&query2=&resultType=all&page=1&sortBy

=date_desc&overlayTableId=32463

Office of Management and Budget. (1992). Circular A-94: Guidelines and discount rates 

for benefit–cost analysis of federal programs, transmittal memo no. 64. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb 

/circulars/A94/a094.pdf

Office of Management and Budget. (2003). Circular A-4. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb 

/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf

Office of Management and Budget. (2022). Budget assumptions. Nominal treasury 

interest rates for different maturities (from annual budget assumptions for the first 

year of the budget forecast). https://www.whitehouse.gov 

/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/discount-history.pdf

Oswald, J. (2018). What does an unemployment claim cost an employer? 

Unemployment Insurance Services. https://www.unemploymentservices.com/unemployment-claim-cost-employer/

Salkever, D. S. (1995). Updated estimates of earnings benefits from reduced exposure of 

children to environmental lead. Environmental Research, 70(1), 1–6. 

https://doi.org/10.1006/enrs.1995.1038

Sawyer, W. & Wagner, P. (2023). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2023. Prison Policy 

Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html

Social Security Administration. (2022). Fact sheet: 2022 Social Security changes.

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/colafacts2022.pdf

Spera, C., Ghertner, R., Nerino, A., & DiTommaso, A. (2013). Volunteering as a pathway 

to employment: Does volunteering increase odds of finding a job for the out of 

work?

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_2013_Volunteering

asaPathwaytoEmployment_1.pdf

Swinburn, T. (2016). Cost of lead exposure and remediation in Michigan: Update. 

Ecology Center & Michigan Network for Children’s Environmental Health. 

https://www.michigan.gov/egle/-/media/Project/Websites/egle/Documents/ 

Programs/DWEHD/Community-Water-Supply/Lead-Copper/cost-of-lead-exposureand-remediation-in-michigan.pdf?rev=1298f421ff9346a2843b7f5fd9a44f85&hash=

234BE184B4C2F651A81F80FDD5B250C8
78

Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program Detroit

Trostel, P. (2015). It’s not just the money: The benefits of college education to individuals 

and to society. Lumina Foundation. 

https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-just-the-money.pdf

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021-a). Consumer Price Index. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021-b). Occupational employment and wage statistics. 

https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021-c). Consumer Expenditure Surveys tables (CE). 

https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-averagestandard-error.htm#cu-income

U.S. Census Bureau. (2021-a). American Community Survey (ACS). 

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

U.S. Census Bureau. (2021-b). Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic 

(ASEC) Supplement for March 2021. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/timeseries/demo/cps/cps-asec.2021.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2021-c). 2021 QuickFacts: Wayne County, Michigan; Detroit City, 

Michigan. 

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/waynecountymichigan,detroitcitymi

chigan/PST045222

U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2022). Interest rates statistics. https://home 

.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financing-the-government/interest-rate-statistics

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2018). Residential air cleaners: A technical 

summary. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-

07/documents/residential_air_cleaners_-_a_technical_summary_3rd_edition.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). Basic information about lead in drinking 

water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/ground-waterand-drinking-water/basic-information-about-lead-drinking-water 

Zeidenberg, M., Freeman, B., Friedman, E., & Porowski, A. (2016). Results from 

the National Student Clearinghouse data match: New methods for assessing 

AmeriCorps alumni outcomes. Abt Associates. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_NatlStudent_Cleari

nghouseMatch_AlumniOutcomes_2016_1.pdf

Zhou, Y. & Grosse, S. D. (2019). Valuing the benefits of reducing childhood lead 

exposure—human capital, parental preferences, or both? Prepared for the Harvard 

Center for Risk Analysis “Risk Assessment, Economic Evaluation, and Decisions” 

workshop. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/wpcontent/uploads/sites/1273/2019/09/Zhou-Grosse-2019.pdf