Evidence of AmeriCorps 

NCCC’s Impact on 

Strengthening Communities 

FINAL REPORT 

December 29, 2023 

Submitted to: 

Melissa Gouge, Ph.D. 

Research Analyst 

Office of Research & Evaluation 

AmeriCorps 

250 E St SW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20024 

Submitted by: 

JBS International, Inc. 

155 Bovet Avenue 

Burlingame, CA 94010 
Evidence of AmeriCorps NCCC’s Impact on Strengthening 

Communities 

December 29, 2023 

This report was prepared by JBS International, Inc. 155 Bovet Road, Suite 210, San Mateo, CA, 

94402, pursuant to a contract with AmeriCorps, a U.S. government agency. The report was 

produced and published at taxpayer expense. 

Authors 

Annie Georges, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate 

Robert Shannon, M.D.P., Research Associate 

Carmen Sum, M.B.A., Senior Research Associate 

Stephanie J. Smith, M.S., Research Associate 

Erika Tait, M.A., Technical Expert Lead 

Jaslean LaTaillade, Ph.D., Technical Expert Lead 

Casey McHugh, M.A., Research Associate 

Colleen Mackey, M.A., Consultant 

Acknowledgements 

We thank all the participants and staff. We also thank the Field Working Group and Technical 

Working Group members for their valuable insights and feedback through the development of 

questionnaires and analysis. 

Citation 

Georges, A., Shannon, R., Sum, C., Smith, S.J., Tait, E., LaTaillade, J., McHugh, C.., & Mackey, 

C.. (2023). Evidence of AmeriCorps NCCC’s Impact on Strengthening Communities. San 

Mateo, CA: JBS International, Inc. 
i 

Evidence of AmeriCorps NCCC’s Impact on Strengthening

Communities

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. iii 

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

Chapter 1 Conceptual Framework and Logic Model ................................................................. 2 

Chapter 2 Defining Strengthening Community.......................................................................... 5 

Chapter 3 Evidence of Impact .................................................................................................. 12 

Chapter 4 Summary of Findings .............................................................................................. 38 

Chapter 5 Lessons Learned and Future Research .................................................................... 40 

Appendix A. Study Objectives and Research Questions ......................................................... 47 

Appendix B. AmeriCorps NCCC Logic Model for Strengthening Communities ................... 48 

Appendix C: Geographic Distribution and Characteristics of Service Projects....................... 51 

Appendix D. Data Sources to Develop Indicators of Strengthened Communities .................. 56 

Appendix E. AmeriCorps Covid-19 Services Social Economic Impact Analysis ................... 64 

References .............................................................................................................................. 109 
ii 

List of Figures 

Figure 3.1 Number of projects resulting in tangible and intangible benefits at the individual level, 

2012-2022 ..................................................................................................................................... 14 

Figure 3.2 Percent of projects resulting in tangible and intangible benefits at the individual level, 

2012-2022 ..................................................................................................................................... 15 

Figure 3.3 Direct benefits accruing to individuals........................................................................ 16 

Figure 3.4 Indirect benefits accruing to individuals ..................................................................... 16 

Figure 3.5 The most recurring benefits at the organizational level are improvement to physical 

infrastructure, enhancement to the organization’s ability to expend its services ......................... 18 

Figure 3.6 Percent of projects resulting in tangible and intangible benefits at the organizational 

level, 2012-2022 ........................................................................................................................... 19 

Figure 3.7 Sponsor organizations helped more people because of the service AmeriCorps 

members provided ........................................................................................................................ 22 

Figure 3.8 The most recurring impacts at the community level are enhancement and creation of 

public spaces and housing, community gardens, and community camps..................................... 29 

Figure 3.9 Percent of projects benefitting communities at large, 2012-2022 ............................... 30 

Figure 3.10 According to sponsors, flexibility and adaptability are vital characteristics for 

members to possess to accomplish their project’s goals............................................................... 34 
iii 

Executive Summary 

The Corporation for National and Community Service (dba AmeriCorps) is the federal agency 

connecting individuals and organizations through service and volunteering to tackle the nation's 

most pressing challenges. AmeriCorps engages and provides opportunities for more than five 

million individuals to serve their communities and address local needs through its core programs 

AmeriCorps State and National, AmeriCorps NCCC, AmeriCorps VISTA, and AmeriCorps 

Seniors. The service that members and volunteers provide through the core programs is 

embodied in AmeriCorps’s mission statement: To improve lives, strengthen communities, and 

foster civic engagement through service and volunteering. Operating under the AmeriCorps 

umbrella and mission is the AmeriCorps NCCC program, with its own, related, mission 

statement: To strengthen communities and develop leaders through direct, team-based national 

and community service. 

AmeriCorps retained JBS International (JBS) to design a mixed-methods longitudinal evaluation 

consisting of three studies: (1) measure the impact of service on leadership skills among 

members; (2) define and gauge how AmeriCorps NCCC strengthens the communities in which 

its members serve; and (3) evaluate the factors affecting retention of members. 

This report discusses the evidence of how AmeriCorps NCCC strengthens the communities in 

which its members serve. AmeriCorps promotes community building through service and 

demonstrates the capacity of government and nonprofit partnerships to improve communities and 

serve the most vulnerable. This report uses a wealth of quantitative and qualitative data that 

AmeriCorps NCCC collected for more than 10 years on the outputs and outcomes of completed 

service projects and a survey of sponsor organizations, which is supplemented with 3 case 

studies. The mixed methods approach provides insight into the impact of AmeriCorps NCCC on 

individuals, organizations and the communities members served. The mixed methods approach 

permits exploration of multiple sources of data to clarify the connection between quantified 

outputs and meaningful outcomes to support the evidence of the impact of AmeriCorps NCCC 

on the communities it serves. 

Objectives 

This study achieves three primary objectives: 

1. Define what strengthening communities means in the context of AmeriCorps NCCC. 

2. Assess the evidence of how AmeriCorps NCCC strengthens communities where its 

members serve. 

3. Calculate the social return on investment of AmeriCorps’ response to the COVID-19 

pandemic. 

The core mission for AmeriCorps NCCC is to develop leaders and to strengthen communities 

through the service projects that support local community needs. This is AmeriCorps’ first 

systematic effort to define what “strengthening communities” means in the context of service

with AmeriCorps NCCC, nor has there been a national assessment of the impact of service 

projects on the communities where AmeriCorps members served. The main results of the study 

are noted below. 
-

Evidence of AmeriCorps NCCC’s 

Impact on Strengthening Communities 

AmeriCorps NCCC mobilizes different resources to support 

organizations and communities meet local needs. 

These resources are Social » Network of relationships and connections between 

people 

Natural » Natural environments and humanmade infrastructures 

Institutional » Institutional structures and processes within 

the community 

Human » Build skills, knowledge and capacity of residents 

to access resources 

The evidence of the mobilization of these resources 

» Communities feel 

more connected 

and purposeful 

» Increase agency, 

amplify 

community voices 

» Revitalize 

recreational spaces, 

parks, housing 

» Support ecological 

restoration 

» Build confidence, 

knowledge, & 

awareness 

» Empower 

individuals 

» Enhance outreach, 

productivity, & 

efficiency 

» Grow connections & 

partnerships 

AmeriCorps NCCC service activities support community 

strengthening at multiple levels. 

Individuals Organizations Communities 

Community as a 

whole benefit 

because the projects 

are tailored to the 

community’s own 

unique needs. 

Members 

Individuals in the Organizations expand AmeriCorps members 

community receive their capacity and develop leadership 

direct and indirect enhance their skills, develop 

benefits from services, capacity to serve their professional network, 

resulting in increased constituents. gain cultural 

personal well being competence. 

and quality of life. 

Produced and published at US taxpayer expense. Produced and published at US taxpayer expense. 
AmeriCorps NCCC creates short-term, long-term as well as tangible and intangible 

benefits that strengthen communities’ well-being and resilience. 

Short-term 

benefits 

Tangible 

benefits 

» Expand organization’s 

capacity and ability to 

redirect resources 

» Infuse organization with 

skills, ideas, & innovation 

» Create resources that 

enhance organizational 

infrastructure 

» Support individuals with 

disaster assistance, 

recovery, and preparation 

» Support individuals’ basic 

needs (access to food, 

housing, water, health 

care) 

» Improve organization’s 

physical infrastructure 

» 

Long-term 

benefits » 

» 

Intangible 

benefits 

Create sustainable documents, 

tools, & processes for the 

organization 

Increase community’s 

resilience & disaster 

preparedness 

Upgrade community’s 

emergency evacuation plans 

» Support special 

populations (veterans, 

people in crisis such as 

disaster) 

» Improve mental health 

related to disaster recovery 

» Enhance organization 

efficiency to expand 

services 

Benefits accruing to individuals, organizations and communities 

are quantified through AmeriCorps members service activities 

48%

Members contributed skills to strengthen communities.

AmeriCorps 

NCCC’s impact 

can be counted 

Communities through specific 

indicators. 

Organizations 

Individuals 

Special Populations 

Psychosocial Benefits 

Physical Health & Safety - General 

Physical Health & Safety - COVID 

Human Capital 

Disaster Assistance 

Basic Needs 

COVID Adjacent Services 

COVID Direct Services 

Organizational effectiveness 

Infrastructure 

Disaster readiness 

Expected economic benefit 

Disaster mitigation 

Special events 

Built & natural capital 

636 

675 

956 

106 

949 

1118 

1789 

208 

122 

1932 

2526 

160 

206 

384 

632 

3185 

No. of project impacts reported 2012-2023 

Georges, A., Shannon, R., Sum, C., Smith, S.J., Tait, E., LaTaillade, J., McHugh, C., & Mackey, C.. (2023). 

Evidence of AmeriCorps NCCC’s Impact on Strengthening Communities. San Mateo, CA: JBS International, 

Inc. 
The social return on the investment to use AmeriCorps members for 

the COVID-19 public health emergency 

$6.22 

for each dollar invested, the return 

over a period of 10 years is $6.22. 

55% 

Of sponsors agreed it would have taken 

longer to accomplish their community’s 

goals without AmeriCorps NCCC. 

“There’s a wide range of talents already 

comprised in this team...basically having a 

whole crew where I can say, ‘Who’s got 

experience with this?’” 

“They were all pretty driven, all pretty 

motivated. They all wanted to do something, 

and they all wanted to be hands-on – 

sometimes that’s kind of rare to find.” 

“The energy and the selflessness that 

they put into it, I think that’s not seen so 

much.” 

“They give you a lot more insight into some 

things that you haven’t even thought of. 

They’ve been very innovative with the way 

maybe information would be set up from a 

tracker standpoint.” 

AmeriCorps members contribute a range of skills that 

strengthen communities. 

» Professional skills AmeriCorps members’ flexibility, work ethic, engagement and 

(e.g., work ethic, team dynamics helped accomplish organizational goals 

self-motivation) 

Team Building or Dynamics 8% » Prosocial skills 

(e.g., sharing, 

helping, Level of Team Engagement collaborating) 

Team Work Ethic or 

» Life skills (e.g., Dedication 

energy, openmindedness, desire 

Flexibility & Adaptability to be of service) 

21% 

25% 

35% 

Georges, A., Shannon, R., Sum, C., Smith, S.J., Tait, E., LaTaillade, J., McHugh, C., & Mackey, C.. (2023). 

Evidence of AmeriCorps NCCC’s Impact on Strengthening Communities. San Mateo, CA: JBS International, 

Inc
55%

Of sponsors agreed it would

have taken longer to

accomplish goals without

AmeriCorps NCCC

-

AmeriCorps NCCC creates a lasting positive impact on 

communities’ overall well-being and resilience In 

collaboration with sponsor organizations. 

Impact 

Project Initiation 

Develop a project; 

plan & prepare for 

members 

Bring flexibility, open 

mindedness, & eagerness 

to tackle the assignment 

Form strong 

relationships in 

communities 

Sponsor 

organizations 

AmeriCorps 

members 

AmeriCorps 

NCCC 

Provide comprehensive 

training & supervision 

Use participatory 

methods, tangible & 

Highlight stories of 

impact, focusing on 

host sites 

Offer refresher trainings & 

Key 

members 

members 

members 

Maximize visibility of networking/mentorship Promote positive intangible indicators to members to drive experiences with capture breadth of interest & engagement members impact 

Georges, A., Shannon, R., Sum, C., Smith, S.J., Tait, E., LaTaillade, J., McHugh, C., & Mackey, C.. (2023). 

Evidence of AmeriCorps NCCC’s Impact on Strengthening Communities. San Mateo, CA: JBS International, 

“The intent for us with these AmeriCorps teams 

is [to] build some sustainability. We know we 

can't have them year round, so [we try] to 

leverage what they're able to do while they're 

with us; I think that is working. We've had a 

number of volunteers this year work on large 

tree plantings and that's all a function of what 

they're seeing: Everybody wants to be part of 

good things happening; they see all this new 

work and I think they're much more inclined to 

participate.” 

Inc
1 

Introduction 

The Corporation for National and Community Service (dba AmeriCorps) is the federal agency 

that connects individuals and organizations through service and volunteering to tackle the 

nation's most pressing challenges. Throughout its history, AmeriCorps has engaged and provided 

opportunities for more than five million individuals to serve their communities and address local 

needs through its core programs – AmeriCorps State and National, AmeriCorps NCCC, 

AmeriCorps VISTA, and AmeriCorps Seniors. The service that members and volunteers provide 

through the core programs is embodied in AmeriCorps’s mission statement: To improve lives, 

strengthen communities, and foster civic engagement through service and volunteering. 

Operating under the AmeriCorps umbrella and mission is the AmeriCorps NCCC program, with 

its own, related, mission statement: To strengthen communities and develop leaders through 

direct, team-based national and community service. 

The Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE), as the principal office for research activity within 

AmeriCorps, relies on multiple sources of scientific inquiry to provide credible and reliable 

evidence to support the agency’s mission, drive the agency’s business decisions, allocate 

resources strategically, and grow effective national service programs. AmeriCorps NCCC and 

ORE embarked on a collaboration to evaluate how AmeriCorps NCCC promotes leaderships 

skills among its members and how the service projects strengthen the communities in which the 

members served. This national evaluation is closely linked to AmeriCorps’ strategic plan, which 

the agency developed in accordance with the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act 

(FEBP) of 2018, Pub. L. 115-435. The strategic plan provides the agency a roadmap for 

generating credible, relevant, and actionable information for strategic learning and decisionmaking to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of AmeriCorps and its programs. 

In September 2018, AmeriCorps retained JBS International (JBS) to design a longitudinal 

evaluation consisting of three studies: (1) measure the impact of service on leadership skills 

among members; (2) define and gauge how AmeriCorps NCCC strengthens the communities in 

which its members serve; and (3) evaluate the factors affecting retention of members. In January 

2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the data collection (OMB Control 

Number 3045-0189) for the three studies. This report discusses the findings how AmeriCorps 

NCCC strengthens the communities in which its members serve. Two accompanying reports 

discuss the findings on the impact of service on members’ leadership skills 1 and on the factors 

that affect member retention 2 . 

Study Objectives 

AmeriCorps promotes community building through service and demonstrates the capacity of 

government and nonprofit partnerships to serve the most vulnerable and to improve 

communities. The core mission for the AmeriCorps NCCC program is to develop leaders and to 

1 Georges, A., Smith, S.J., Hussain, B., Shannon, R., Sum, C., Tait, E., LaTaillade, J., Alvarado, A., & Krauss, J. 

(2023). Leadership through Service: AmeriCorps NCCC Impact’s on Members. San Mateo, CA: JBS International, 

Inc. 

2 Georges, A., Smith, S.J., Shannon, R., Hussain, B., Sum, C., Tait, E., LaTaillade, J., Alvarado, A., & Krauss, J. 

(2023). Exploring Demographics, Motivation, Interpersonal and Group Cohesion Factors in Retaining Members 

through their Term of Service: A National Study of AmeriCorps NCCC. San Mateo, CA: JBS International, Inc. 
2 

strengthen communities through the service projects that support local community needs. To 

assess how AmeriCorps NCCC meets its core mission to strengthen communities, there must 

first be a definition of the concept of community strengthening. This is AmeriCorps’ first 

systematic effort to define what “strengthening communities” means in the context of service 

with AmeriCorps NCCC, nor has there been a national assessment of the impact of service 

projects on the communities where AmeriCorps members served. This report utilizes the wealth 

of quantitative and qualitative data AmeriCorps NCCC collected for more than 10 years on the 

outputs and outcomes of completed service projects and a satisfaction survey of sponsor 

organizations, which we supplemented with 3 case studies to achieve 3 primary objectives: 

1. Define strengthening communities in the context of AmeriCorps NCCC. 

2. Assess the evidence of AmeriCorps NCCC’s impact on the communities where its 

members serve. 

3. Calculate the social return on investment of AmeriCorps response to the COVID-19 

pandemic. 

Appendix A outlines the associated research questions that guided the development of the 

study’s data collection instruments and the analysis to address the objectives. The study’s 

exploratory mixed methods approach provides insight into the impact of Traditional Corps and 

FEMA Corps teams on individuals, sponsor organizations, and the communities at large where 

members serve. The mixed methods approach clarifies the connection between quantified 

outputs and meaningful outcomes of AmeriCorps NCCC’s service projects on strengthening 

communities. 

Organization of the report 

The report is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 describes the conceptual framework and 

logic model that guided the evaluation. Chapter 2 defines what strengthening communities 

means in the AmeriCorps NCCC context. Chapter 3 describes evidence of AmeriCorps NCCC’s 

impact on the communities where its members serve and the social return on investment of 

AmeriCorps response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Chapter 4 summarizes the body of evidence. 

Chapter 5 outlines the lessons learned and future areas of research. 

Chapter 1 Conceptual Framework and Logic Model 

AmeriCorps NCCC is a full-time, residential, team-based program for young adults aged 18-26, 

with a focus on achieving the dual purposes of developing leaders and strengthening the 

communities that are served. AmeriCorps NCCC combines practices of civilian service with 

aspects of military service, including short-term on-site deployments, leadership development, 

and team building. AmeriCorps NCCC teams are assigned to three rounds of service, each of 

which includes one or more projects. All AmeriCorps NCCC projects fit into one or more of 

these primary issue areas: Energy Conservation (EC), Environmental Stewardship and 

Conservation (ENV), Infrastructure Improvement (INF), Natural and Other Disasters (DIS), 

Urban and Rural Development (URD), FEMA and Populations Assisted and Engaged (VAR). 

AmeriCorps NCCC maintains the Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps programs. In Traditional 

Corps, members perform service projects such as leading youth development activities, 

constructing and rehabilitating low-income housing, performing environmental clean-up, helping 
3 

communities develop emergency plans, and addressing other pressing local needs. The FEMA 

Corps program is a partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In 

FEMA Corps, members gain professional skills in emergency management while serving with 

FEMA on disaster response and recovery efforts. The FEMA Corps program works solely on 

emergency management and long-term recovery projects within FEMA and helps coordinate 

services for disaster survivors. FEMA Corps projects may involve indirect assignment in FEMA 

offices that support FEMA’s overall mission or direct assignment in disaster sites, such as 

helping survivors in remote regions sign up for Disaster Survivor Assistance. 

AmeriCorps members in Traditional Corps serve for 10 months; those in FEMA Corps serve for 

12 months 3 . Each team has a team leader and consists of 8 to 12 members. Team leaders are 

enrolled through a separate selection process and are on average similar in age; but there is no 

age limit for team leaders. Team leaders are responsible for team performance in fulfilling the 

mission. Team leaders work closely with sponsors or FEMA points of contact (POCs) and have 

ongoing communication with NCCC Unit Leaders4. 

There are three target participants in the AmeriCorps NCCC program. Participants who serve are 

between the ages of 18-26 and have demonstrated strong interest and commitment to national 

service; team leaders have no age restrictions and can be older than 26. Sponsors are public 

agencies or nonprofits, local branches of large nonprofits such as Habitat for Humanity, or small 

independent nonprofits. State and local governments may also sponsor AmeriCorps NCCC 

projects. Community beneficiaries are wide-ranging and include disaster survivors; older adults 

and people with disabilities; people in low-income communities facing housing or food 

insecurity; and veterans and military families. 

AmeriCorps NCCC’s theory of change is to contribute to the creation of empowered and 

prepared citizens who will be more civically engaged, will work to strengthen their communities, 

and will be dedicated to improving the lives of those in their community. The root of the 

pathway to achieving this vision lies in the service placements that enable members to personally 

experience the challenges and needs of communities and provide members opportunities to 

develop and engage in solutions to address these problems. 

The core intervention is the training and professional development combined with service 

assignments in different communities. The training and service assignments ensure members’

success in the program and enhance their personal and professional development. The 

components of the intervention include community and member development activities such as: 

• Conduct needs assessments and asset-based community development planning. 

• Complete Corps Member Training Institute (CTI), which lasts 31⁄2 weeks; CTI 

begins at the start of service when members arrive on campus. CTI provides a 

foundation of necessary skills and knowledge to become a successful member. 

The learning objectives include a strong understanding of the value of service, 

3 FEMA Corps recently adjusted their term of service to 10-months. 4 NCCC Unit Leaders are AmeriCorps staff with leadership and coordination responsibilities, who oversee a group 

of AmeriCorps members, providing guidance, support, and direction to ensure service projects are carried out 

effectively. 
4 

service learning, team dynamics, leadership skills, civic engagement, 

professionalism, customer service, project skills, and strengthening communities. 

• Complete FEMA Academy for members who will serve with FEMA Corps. 

FEMA Academy occurs after CTI and is in addition to the 31⁄2 weeks of CTI. This 

is an opportunity for FEMA Corps members to receive their FEMA positionspecific training before deployment. 

• Complete Team Leader Training (TLT) which provides the foundation for team 

leaders to develop leadership and management skills necessary to guide a team of 

8-10 members. TLT’s learning objectives include supervisory skills, diversity 

awareness, project preparation and management, policies and procedures, 

management and leadership, and administrative responsibilities. 

• Complete in-service training: 

o Pre-project and project training that focuses on the hard skills needed to 

complete a given project. The training typically takes place at the project 

site upon arrival, coordinated by the sponsor organization. 

o Transition training is the period of time after teams end one project and 

before they begin another. 

o Life after AmeriCorps Training (LAA) is provided to all members 

throughout their service year. The focus of LAA occurs during transitions 

throughout the service period. 

• Service Learning underpins the Service Leadership goals and is fully integrated 

throughout the service experience. Service learning is a methodology through 

which members acquire the knowledge and skills needed to perform community 

service projects and gain an understanding of the value and impact of their 

assignment. 

• Disaster Training includes American Red Cross training during CTI for all 

Traditional Corps members and wildland firefighting training provided to at least 

two teams at each campus. 

These activities contribute to the core mission of strengthening communities via two pathways: 

• Training expands members’ ability to contribute to strengthening communities 

during and after their service by increasing members’ skills, understanding, and 

commitment to strengthening communities. 

• Training and the service experience help members develop hard skills (e.g., 

construction) and soft skills (e.g., professionalism), which then allow teams to 

directly impact communities by engaging in activities such as construction and 

infrastructure development, assistance to disaster survivors, long-term disaster 

recovery, public land improvement and community beautification, and volunteer 

management. 

Appendix B shows the logic model that guided the evaluation. It illustrates how members 

successfully complete the training and their service projects and receive the support and 

mentoring from staff, team leaders and sponsors. The outcomes are members’ civic participation 

and leadership that indirectly affect their future activities. Communities experience short-term 

benefits such as increases in built and natural capital, improvements in community safety and 

livability, more effective and efficient recovery from disaster, and improved capacity to use 
5 

community volunteers. They also experience long-term benefits including: 1) disaster resilience; 

2) economic development; 3) improved health; 4) increased trust and sense of community; and 5) 

increased engagement and empowerment to address community needs. Appendix C provides an 

overview of the geographic characteristics and distribution of service projects. 

Chapter 2 Defining Strengthening Community 

This chapter focuses on the first objective: to define strengthening communities in the context of 

AmeriCorps NCCC. The definition of “strengthening community” has two parts. The first part is 

what service is done that leads to increased strength. The second part is the community where the 

activity or the service occurs. Community is a complex term used in a variety of ways 

throughout the literature. Much of the literature differentiates between communities of location 

or geographical communities, which are spatially bound, and communities of interest or 

functional communities (Black & Hughes, 2001b; Fraser, 2005; Lovell, Gray, & Boucher, 2015; 

Ohmer, Coulton, Freedman, Sobeck, & Booth, 2019; Shaver & Tudbull, 2002). 

AmeriCorps NCCC targets individuals, organizations, and communities at large to affect change. 

Both geographic locations and communities of interest are relevant to AmeriCorps’ mission. The 

specification of what constitutes communities varies based on the context of the service projects. 

The most common occurrence of communities is defined by the physical address where members 

conduct their service. These place-based or geographic communities may be as large as a city or 

town, and as small as a census tract or a lot within a block. The communities may also be activity 

spaces such as parks or other recreational places where individuals spend time. 

AmeriCorps NCCC also serves communities of interest or special populations that are not bound 

by place or a specific location. These communities of interest could be veterans, military 

families, people with physical challenges, youth organizations, summer camp children, houseless 

or unhoused individuals, older adults, limited-English speakers, political refugees, or crisis 

survivors. Our case studies identified these communities of interest. For example, when talking 

with sponsors and site supervisors with the Girl Scouts, respondents shared that safe places for 

children to interact was a vital component of community. Another respondent shared that their 

work in park cleanup helped to create space for “people visiting at Waubedonia County Park 

with recreational experience in mind, camping and so forth.” 

In several instances, members identified the organizations with which they served as 

communities in and of themselves; as one respondent explained, “If we were to deploy with 

IMAT, I think the community that we’re really serving is the National IMAT community.” 

Another said, “The other community would be the community of FEMA people and personnel, 

that includes everybody that works for FEMA and even the other federal agencies and the 

partners.” AmeriCorps members themselves are a community of interest. Training and 

development are intended to shape members as leaders who will continue to serve their 

communities beyond their term of service. 

Individuals who benefit from AmeriCorps NCCC service projects may experience a plurality of 

community if they identify with multiple communities (Black & Hughes, 2001b). Assessing how 

well-being is improved through this “mosaic of communities” may be critical to understanding 

community strengthening (Black & Hughes, 2001a). In addition, Draper, Hewitt, and Rifkin 
6 

(2010) emphasize the need to differentiate between community-based interventions that focus on 

achieving change in individuals (aka community-based interventions focused on, for example, 

offering food or educational services to individuals) and community-level interventions that 

focus on achieving change in the community itself (e.g., interventions that engage community 

members in participatory decision-making and transformation). 

The components of strong communities include sustainability, resiliency, capacity, development, 

and health (Black & Hughes, 2001b). The concept of capital is vital to community strength, and 

includes social, natural, institutional, economic, and human capital; in particular, a community’s 

social capital – the ability of members to work together in concert – has important implications 

for the strength of that community (Beckley, Martz, & Nadeau, 2008; Black & Hughes, 2001a; 

Nitzberg, 2005). Community vitality is also an aspect of community strength; Scott (2010) 

characterizes vital communities as those that include active and inclusive relationships between 

members of the community, the private and public sectors, and civil society organizations where 

these actors work together to foster well-being at the collective and individual levels and adapt to 

changes. 

Building from the identified components of strong communities, Black and Hughes (2001b) 

proposed that: “Community strength refers to the extent to which resources and processes within 

a community maintain and enhance both individual and collective well-being in ways consistent 

with the principles of equity, comprehensiveness, participation, self-reliance, and social 

responsibility” (p. 7). Strong communities can advocate effectively, can respond to disasters, and 

are able to absorb change (Lovell, Gray, & Boucher, 2015). Community building can refer to a 

comprehensive approach to community strengthening and renewal, describing investment by 

people and development of relationships and structures that work together to sustain those 

investments to improve conditions; outcomes of such a process are an improved capacity to 

accomplish tasks and goals and a heightened sense of community (Nitzberg, 2005). From the 

literature, three common themes of the definition of community strengthening emerge: 

• Enhanced collective and individual well-being, 

• Strengthened social ties and relationships, 

• Increased capacity to improve conditions and adapt to change. 

In a comprehensive review of the literature, Ohmer and colleagues (2019) outline four ecological 

settings (individual, collective, community, and societal) that interact with each other and have 

different spheres of direct and indirect influences on individual and collective well-being. The 

individual level includes skills, community participation and engagement, attitudes, and 

cognition. The collective level evaluates actions of collectives such as community organizing 

groups, grassroot organizations, and neighborhood associations. The community level includes 

three aspects that Ohmer and colleagues (2019) describe as built and natural environments that 

shape communities and neighborhoods, availability of resources and amenities that are accessible 

to residents, and inclusivity. Societal level factors include all levels of policies that support or 

hinder communities. 
7 

Through partnerships, AmeriCorps NCCC operates within three distinct environments to 

strengthen communities; each distinct environment incorporates elements of social, natural, 

institutional, and human capital that interact directly and indirectly to foster community growth 

and resilience in both the short and long term. 

The three distinct environments in which AmeriCorps NCCC affect change are individual, 

organization, and community. The individual is the beneficiary within the communities that 

AmeriCorps NCCC teams serve through the sponsors’ projects. The individual directly or 

indirectly benefits from the team’s service, which results in positive impacts on individuals’ 

personal well-being and quality of life. The organization involves entities like FEMA and other 

sponsor organizations that collaborate with the teams to provide service to their constituents. In 

this capacity, AmeriCorps NCCC is a conduit that assists and supports broader networks beyond 

individual communities. Within the community, AmeriCorps NCCC’s involvement is initiated 

through a sponsor that requests support based on the community’s unique needs, objectives, and 

goals. The approach to assisting the community is tailored to align with the sponsor’s assessment 

and definition of the community’s requirements.

A data-driven definition of how AmeriCorps NCCC contributes to 

community strength 

AmeriCorps NCCC harnesses social, natural, institutional, and human capital to 

support organizations and communities in addressing unique local needs. 

Through service and in partnership with individuals, organizations, and 

communities, AmeriCorps NCCC creates short-term and long-term positive 

impacts on community well-being and resilience. AmeriCorps members, through 

their service, experience personal benefits evidenced in strong leadership skills 

and civic engagement. 

Social 

Natural 

Human 

Institutional 

» Network of relationships and 

connections between people 

» Natural environments and humanmade infrastructures 

» Institutional structures and processes within 

the community 

» Build skills, knowledge, and capacity of 

residents to access resources 
8 

By recognizing the unique needs of communities and collaborating with sponsor organizations to 

benefit individuals, AmeriCorps NCCC creates a lasting positive impact on communities’ overall 

well-being and resilience. AmeriCorps members are also a community of interest that is 

strengthened by the range of personal and developmental benefits they experience such as skill 

development, leadership opportunities, networking and relationship building, collaboration and 

exposure to different organizations and institutions, cultural competence from interacting with 

diverse communities, and personal satisfaction and fulfilment gained from witnessing positive 

changes to communities because of their service. 

Definition of strengthened communities by different stakeholders 

Stakeholders’ definition of AmeriCorps NCCC success in strengthening communities can be 

categorized under the four types of capital: social, natural, institutional, and human capital 

(Beckley, Martz, & Nadeau, 2008; Black & Hughes, 2001a; Nitzberg, 2005a). 

Social Capital. Social capital can be produced strategically by individuals or by collective actors 

through participation in institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition 

(Portes, 1998). Social capital is the sum of actual or potential resources (and power) linked to 

possession of a durable network of relationships (Bourdieu, 1986). 

The concept of a strong community is greater than the sum of its parts; it is not just a collection 

of individuals but an entity where there are strong 

ties, mutual support, relationship building, and 

collective action among those individuals. One of 

the defining features of strengthened communities 

identified through our case studies was an 

increased sense of social connectedness, which 

arises out of shared purpose and goals. For 

example, one respondent said that they define 

community as a “group of people that come 

together with a united sense of purpose.” Another

respondent noted that, “What would make a strong 

community is a group of people that are working together towards the same goal.” More

broadly, respondents described strong communities as “collective spaces where people are able 

to share life experiences, bring themselves into a bigger collective” and “bring yourself within a 

space where other people can rely on you.” One case study respondent explained, “The outcome 

is....the interaction that you see from our veterans with the community and with each other.”

The importance of “third spaces”5 – non-home, non-work spaces in which individuals can 

connect with others – in building community is reinforced through our case studies 6 . 

5 “Third spaces” is a coin termed by Ray Oldenburg; it refers to places where people spend time between home (aka 

“first place”) and work (aka “second place). These are locations where individuals can “exchange ideas, have a good 

time, and build relationships” (Butler & Diaz, 2016). 6 Butler, S.M., & Diaz, C. (2016). “Third places” as community builders. Brookings. Retrieved from 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2016/09/14/third-places-as-community-builders/ ; Jeffres, L.W., Bracken, 

C.C., Jian, G., & Casey < M.F. 

Examples of Social Capital 

» Communities feel more 

connected and 

purposeful 

» Increase agency, amplify 

community voices 
9 

Respondents described the presence of safe “third spaces” for connection and growth for 

members of the community as an essential element of strong communities. For example, one 

respondent shared, “Being able to have that opportunity to create a different space outside of the 

home I think is very important.” Another respondent shared, “Now it’s built into kind of a routine 

of all these kids coming together and working on art in the art room. [That] is something that 

they’ll continue to do because we were there to reorganize their room and give life to this part of 

Boys and Girls Club that really wasn’t being utilized when we showed up.”

Another respondent shared, “The team helped to – we created Friday Family Fun Night and once 

a month on a Friday night the team would be there and they would play outside and play 

activities with the kids and sporting events and we’d show a movie. It was amazing the activities 

that they were able to do there.” Respondents spoke to the importance of camp as a place for 

connection and community: “Creating this space where we can have camp and kids can build 

character is important in that long-term growth of our community;” “What strengthening the 

community means is making camp accessible to as many people as possible...because the more 

girls we can accept, the more girls we reach, the stronger that community is.”

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic challenged individuals’ and communities’ sense of safety 

and security with regard to work, health, house, and home. Respondents from the COVID-19 

case studies mentioned the creation of safe spaces and increasing access to necessary services 

that foster a sense of safety and promote positive health and well-being. One respondent noted 

being able to have the necessary staffing to facilitate implementation of and access to mobile 

vaccination sites was an important outcome for the health and safety of the community during 

the pandemic: “In the later stages, people were really listening to their trusted friends, and 

trusted family members, and trusted community members, and then making a decision to go seek 

out vaccine. So, having [a vaccination mobile] unit in place for, you know, a week or two, so that 

word could kind of circulate around the community ‘This is a good place to go.’” Another 

respondent also noted the value of having welcoming spaces in the hospital setting: “Like those 

windows probably haven’t been washed for a year and a half because we’re focusing our 

cleaning efforts on our patient care spaces, so you are directly benefiting not only [hospital] 

employees but the, you know, the visitors, anybody that walks through this space and sees a 

clean, inviting environment.”

Respondents also described the importance of community empowerment as a component of 

strengthening communities. When asked how they would define strengthening communities, one 

respondent shared, “If I had to give a flat definition it would be allocating resources for creating 

a system in which the members of community feel empowered.” Respondents described the role 

of increasing agency, such as the inclusion of community member voices in decision-making and 

collective action taken by communities. One respondent shared, “Strengthening communities is

making sure that the people who are living in those communities know that they’re being listened 

to.” Another respondent, pointing out that community voices must be centered in project 

decisions, emphasized, “You need to find the things that are most important and most vital to 

community. You’ve gotta strengthen the things that really affect people.” Similarly, another 

respondent said that strengthening communities occurred “when the community identifies what it 

wants done and you help them achieve those goals, not the goals you come in with.” Another 

respondent said that strengthening communities requires “ensuring that people feel that their 

voice is being heard and that action is being taken to address their concerns.”
10 

Respondents described strong communities as places where those in need receive assistance, 

there is access to safe and affordable homes, and there are educational opportunities. These 

generally accepted metrics of healthy communities are enriched by including social 

connectedness, access to safe spaces, fostering collective empowerment, and robust outreach to 

community members. 

Natural Capital. Natural capital, a term first coined in the 1980s by economist David W. 

Pearce, describes natural resources and services; and it recognizes that human well-being relies 

on the well-being of the rest of nature 

(Missemer, 2018; Costanza, 2020). As noted 

above in reference to social capital, safe “third 

spaces” are a vital component of strong 

communities. Natural areas – such as parks –

can provide these third spaces. The profound 

impact of natural capital on communities is 

evident through the creation and preservation of 

high-quality parks that serve as vital 

recreational spaces and communal meeting points. These parks, with their diverse range of 

programs, education initiatives, and preservation efforts, offer a shared green space where people 

can connect, engage in activities, and interact with one another. Respondents described parks and 

other green and recreational spaces as critical to strong communities: “providing access to public 

purpose parks with free and low-cost programs, recreation, education, and preservation;” 

“public parks are a great place for communities to meet up and meet people and talk to each 

other;” “having high quality natural areas in parks, public green space is really important to the 

community.”

The benefits of natural capital to communities are vividly illustrated through initiatives such as 

long-term ecological restoration and the creation of accessible parks for both residents and 

visitors. These endeavors profoundly impact individuals with varying abilities, making outdoor 

spaces inclusive and enriching. One case study respondent shared an example from a past 

experience working with the Girl Scouts, where a young girl faced challenges due to a spinerelated disability, recalling “To see her not be able to participate in the camp activities was 

really hard. So NCCC... went through and rebased all those trails for us.” AmeriCorps NCCC 

played an instrumental role by embarking on a trail-rebasing project, specifically catering to 

individuals with disabilities. “They went through and uh, regroomed all those trails that are– are 

designated for individuals with those type of uh, disabilities. And I mean, it– it looks amazing, 

and they did a great job, and I know that many other community members will benefit.” Another 

respondent shared, “When they’ve done restoration at different sites, that’s something that’s 

visible to the public. The natural area is healthier. It has more diversity with plants and animals 

but also...the site looks better because of the work that the crew has done here.” Efforts like 

these extend beyond the individual case, radiating positive effects throughout the community, 

promoting inclusivity and well-being. 

Institutional Capital. Institutional capital refers to the different institutional structures and 

processes within a community. The three most identified types of institutional structures include 

the public sector, the private enterprise sector, and a third sector composed of non-governmental, 

not-for-profit organizations, and institutions. Direct engagement with institutions uses tactics that 

Examples of Natural Capital 

» Revitalize recreational 

spaces, parks, housing 

» Support ecological 

restoration 
11 

tap into the resources, expertise, and networks available to integrate knowledge and collective 

efforts to enhance community well-being and address its needs effectively. 

When exploring the concepts of harnessing institutional capital for community enhancement, 

respondents frequently detailed the establishment of connections between the served community 

and both public and private sectors, as well as 

governmental bodies. In one case study, a 

respondent illustrated the role of AmeriCorps 

members in cultivating these relationships to 

bolster community members through 

engagement with state and federal institutions. 

The respondent affirmed, “They are 

strengthening the community by having that 

direct engagement with them and having the 

knowledge that they can bring from what they learned with Blue, and through FEMA, and from 

their prior service and projects. And they’re bringing that in. And then, all of – I think, as a 

result, we all kind of come together as one to be able to support the community in one effort, one 

unity of effort.”

Throughout our case studies, participants’ responses demonstrate the pivotal role of institutional 

capital in service provided by AmeriCorps NCCC. These efforts translate to an enhanced scope 

of outreach, productivity, efficiency, confidence, and an amplified level of community backing. 

Respondents discussed their observation of an increase in outreach directed towards community 

members, encompassing endeavors to enhance awareness, disseminate information, and allocate 

resources regarding veteran issues. These initiatives are geared toward facilitating access to 

support services and vital resources, encompassing aspects such as COVID-19 measures and 

emergency protocols. The suite of services offered extends to referrals, directing individuals to 

external agencies, partners, or organizations for comprehensive assistance and support. As a 

respondent stated, “...It’s not only about us. It’s about awareness for the need and telling it in a 

way that sometimes is positive; sometimes is sad; sometimes in the middle. And so, the more 

people we reach and the more people any organization reaches, the more impact they have.”

Respondents underscored the collaborative efforts among institutions within communities. These 

organizations are engaging in strategic partnerships aimed at coalescing towards a common 

objective. 

For the subset of COVID-19 and related case studies, institutional capital is reflected in the 

collaboration between community organizations and state agencies to ensure access to 

vaccination and testing. One respondent noted: “It was making sure that throughout the duration 

of eight weeks, we didn’t want to let our partners with the State Police down...We wanted to 

make sure, in this case, that volunteerism would not impede the community’s way of getting in 

and getting vaccinated. And, we wanted to make sure there were no barriers for anyone to 

receive access. So, that was a big success. And, I don’t know. It would’ve been so much harder 

to – next to impossible, I mean, for us to do that without NCCC. So, in that way, that is success.”

Human Capital. Human capital is the “skills and abilities of residents as well as the capacity to 

access outside resources and knowledge in order to increase understanding and to identify 

promising practices (education, health, skills, and youth).” Human capital also addresses 

Examples of Institutional Capital 

» Enhance outreach, 

productivity, & efficiency 

» Grow connections & 

partnerships 
12 

leadership's ability “to lead across differences, to focus on assets, to be inclusive and 

participatory, and to be proactive in shaping the future of the community or group.”7 

Sponsors identified ways in which AmeriCorps 

NCCC service helped to foster greater awareness 

of community resources. As one respondent said, 

“Building knowledge and awareness goes a long 

way towards kind of making an impact on the 

community, if not today then in the future.”

Another shared a meaningful experience in which 

AmeriCorps members supported individuals: “The 

ladies realized that the resource tables down 

below, that there was housing and jobs being offered...They were talking amongst each other 

saying... ‘You go down and get yourself some help.’”

In some cases, respondents also provided support through mentorship and building up confidence 

and knowledge among community members. As one respondent in a restricted case study shared, 

“The youth really did individualize attention to our kids...They really felt like they can reach this 

mentor, knew that this person was going to be there the next day and the next day and the next 

day.” In an in-depth case study with Habitat for Humanity, stakeholders described the impact of 

AmeriCorps NCCC service as helping to build confidence among homeowners. A respondent 

shared that it was moving to work with Afghan refugees and “see them grow week by week and 

learn things week by week.” Other respondents said that the service provided by AmeriCorps 

NCCC “empowered” individuals to cope with challenges. 

Chapter 3 Evidence of Impact 

This chapter focuses on the second objective. It presents the evidence of how AmeriCorps 

NCCC strengthens communities. The indicators to assess this evidence are taken from 

AmeriCorps NCCC Service Projects Database (SPD), the primary source of information 

describing the activities of the service projects as well as the impact on the individuals, 

organizations, and communities. Each project has narrative texts that reflect the team’s 

perceptions of the project’s impact and what the team gained by working on the project. The

evidence of how AmeriCorps NCCC strengthens communities is from coding narrative texts of 

more than 6,700 completed projects since 2012, supplemented with a wealth of data from three 

types of case studies. Appendix D describes the data sources to identify the connection between 

quantified outputs and meaningful outcomes to support the evidence of AmeriCorps NCCC’s 

impact on communities it serves. 

The impacts of AmeriCorps NCCC occur at the individual, organization, and community levels, 

as well as distinguishing tangible and intangible benefits at each of these three levels. In most 

cases, AmeriCorps NCCC projects focus on communities in the geographic sense, facilitating 

7 Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Agricultural Economics: Cornhuskers Economics. (2015, 

September 2). Community Capitals Framework as a Measure of Community Development. 

https://agecon.unl.edu/cornhusker-economics/2015/community-capitals-framework 

Examples of Human Capital 

» Build confidence, 

knowledge, & awareness 

» Empower individuals 
13 

improvements in infrastructure, organizational capacity, and social connectedness among 

residents of a particular geographic area. In some cases, the projects serve communities of 

interest, such as veteran or refugee populations. Across these communities, AmeriCorps 

members provide the infusion of support to strengthen human, social, institutional, and natural 

capital. The findings from the focus groups, interviews, site visits, analysis of the SPD, and 

sponsor survey illustrate how AmeriCorps NCCC strengthens the skills and conditions of 

individuals residing within communities, organizations that support and serve these 

communities, and the community-level conditions themselves. 

Individual Level Impact 

The most impacts at the individual level include disaster assistance and preparedness, support of 

basic needs, and psychosocial benefits. Figure 3.1 shows the trends in the number of projects that 

resulted in tangible and intangible benefits accruing to individuals. During this period, the 

highest number of projects supported individuals with disaster assistance, recovery, and 

preparedness, followed by support of basic needs which includes access to food, water, and 

clothing as well as affordable housing. The intangible benefits to individuals include increased 

knowledge on recovering from a natural disaster and preparing for a natural disaster. Individuals’ 

psychosocial well-being includes enhanced mental health and trust within the community. In 

2020 with the onset of the pandemic, AmeriCorps NCCC projects recorded impacts on physical 

health and safety specific to COVID-19. These projects involved promoting testing services and 

vaccinations to individuals in communities where AmeriCorps NCCC teams served. As the 

COVID-19 response waned, there is a decline in the number of projects with these individual 

level benefits. 
14 

Figure 3.1 Number of projects resulting in tangible and intangible benefits at the individual 

level, 2012-2022 

The fluctuation in the tangible and intangible benefits accruing to individuals is reflective of the 

trends in number and type of projects and not a decline in the benefits that results from the 

members’ service. Figure 3.2 shows the trends in tangible and intangible benefits as a percent of 

total completed projects in that year. 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 

NUMBER OF PROJECTS 

Basic needs 

Disaster assistance / recovery /preparedness 

Human capital and learning 

Physical health and safety - COVID 
15 

Figure 3.2 Percent of projects resulting in tangible and intangible benefits at the individual 

level, 2012-2022 

From 2012 to 2022, 1,118 service projects yielded direct benefits to individuals in the 

communities served. These projects resulted in increased access to food, water, and shelter 

(Figure 3.3). About eight percent of service projects from 2012 to 2022 supported affordable 

housing. Often, members did this through direct, physical labor, such as aiding in construction, 

mucking and gutting, and restoration. Nearly one-fifth of service projects from 2012 to 2022 

focused on housing assistance related to disaster, including aiding in the rebuilding and 

refurbishing process (5%), improving the livability of a home after disaster (6%), and increasing 

disaster preparedness knowledge (5%). 

A member working with Habitat for Humanity in Colorado explained that their work mattered, 

“because the housing costs are so high, it’s just giving more people an opportunity to live here

that wouldn’t have had that opportunity before.” Particularly with FEMA, members ensure 

communities could access the federal funding they needed to rebuild after disasters. As one 

member shared, “I probably spent 500 to 600 hours looking at pictures of debris piles to 

determine eligibility. Then going down to Mayfield a couple months later and being able to 

recognize the areas we were driving through and being like, ‘Oh I remember there being a huge 

pile of debris here.’”

0% 

5% 

10% 

15% 

20% 

25% 

30% 

35% 

40% 

45% 

50% 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 

PERCENT OF PROJECTS 

Basic needs Disaster assistance / recovery /preparedness 

Human capital and learning Physical health and safety - COVID 

Physical health and safety Psychosocial benefits 

Special populations 
16 

Figure 3.3 Direct benefits accruing to individuals 

Measures of indirect benefits to individuals include greater trust in government and local 

organizations, enhanced diversity of background and experience, and increased personal growth 

and self-esteem (Figure 3.4). The presence of NCCC teams increased trust and appreciation for 

government and other organizational services. For example, one member shared, “One benefit is 

at least people are seeing that teams are going out and trying to preserve some of their parks. 

The public is seeing that, so they know at least one action is being taken, someone is doing 

something, which I think helped a lot of the community put trust in their parks department.”

Another shared that service was, “showing people that are on Pine Island or in a disaster area, 

that there’s still an effort to help people. I think that gives some hope to people.” A member 

noted that the impact of their project on the community was “giving others hope. Us going in is 

giving them a glimmer of hope in what would otherwise be a bleak environment.” FEMA Corps 

members noted that, “when you wear your FEMA uniform out, we’re more associated with 

FEMA....so the response is based on how they see FEMA.”

Figure 3.4 Indirect benefits accruing to individuals 

Indirect support to 

people in crisis 

Indirect Benefits 

Increase 

psychosocial 

benefits 

Increase trust in 

government 

(FEMA) 

Improve mental 

health related to 

disaster recovery 

Support special 

populations 

Indirect support to 

veterans 

Direct Benefits 

Support basic 

needs 

Increase access to 

affordable housing 

Improve food 

security 

Disaster assistance 

Improve home 

livability after 

disaster 
17 

Other respondents described the ways in which members’ service helped instill self-esteem, 

pride, and hope to individuals in the communities. For example, respondents described service 

provided to refugees and the value of AmeriCorps’ contributions in helping these individuals 

rebuild their lives. Another respondent, whose organization supported disaster recovery, shared, 

“We empowered them to tackle this themselves...It’s the whole community and giving them a 

sense of direction in how to tackle this.”

Beneficiaries described ways in which AmeriCorps members affected long-term welfare of 

communities by helping them get back on their feet financially, gain access home ownership, or 

maintain their homes. For example, one respondent described the ways in which members 

created long-term outcomes for survivors of disaster, “I think it means to help them get back on 

their feet, and if they are back on their feet, to reinforce those ties, reinforce the resources 

available for them, making sure there’s long-term success in place.” Another shared that the 

project helped by, “bringing them into the homeownership world, that’s a very huge and longterm impact.” Another shared that, “the long-term impact for her is that the project will help her 

conserve her property better – better yards, windows, conserve energy.”

Members working on food distribution projects discussed visible accomplishments, including 

packing boxes, picking up donations, interacting with recipients, creating recipe cards to 

introduce meal kits, and creating social media posts and healthy food advertisements. Other 

tangible outcomes members produced include cleaning up a space for a café style co-working 

area and adding a mural, painting and fixing drywall, clearing out a storeroom to keep a 

warehouse organized and safe, recreating workforce development materials and lesson plans to 

support volunteers, developing a presentation in which certain slides were shared with the 

governor’s office, and much more. 

Members’ service supporting COVID-19 and related projects had widespread community impact 

and lasting effects on communities. From giving hospital patients a smooth experience and 

proper care to supporting area nonprofits and providing a service to families, members 

contributed to communities’ safety and served as a vital tool to expand programs and offerings 

during peak unpredictability. 

Community stakeholders interviewed as part of the in-depth case studies described having 

positive impressions of AmeriCorps members, specifically noting that they were “genuinely

good people,” who were energetic, polite and pleasant to work with. Interviewee highlights 

indicated they were “grateful and appreciative” of the work performed and that the work itself 

was impressive, as was the willingness of members to “give back.” A respondent shared, “You 

know, that's a very selfless kind of act, so maybe that's not seen. They see that stuff going up and 

it's like, ‘Yeah that's cool, they helped build those houses.’ But like, you know, the energy and the 

selflessness that they put into it, I think maybe that's not seen so much.”

Respondents noted that they thought it was a great program and went on to describe AmeriCorps 

members as being empathetic, with a good work ethic. As one respondent shared, “They’re

definitely gonna come out of this with more heart and their work ethic was already pretty 

impressive. I just think the program is awesome. I think it really shows people how fortunate we 

really are for what we have.” Another respondent shared, “I can remember one community 

neighbor coming and saying that she actually had a negative...her persona on young adults was 
18 

very negative to meeting the NCCC team. And then seeing them in the community...helped her to 

realize that the world needs young people and that they’re our future leaders. She was able to 

take a negative impression of young people and turn it into something positive.”

Beneficiaries who participated in the COVID-19 case studies also described positive impressions 

of AmeriCorps members, specifically describing the meaningful connections that members made 

within hospitals. Interviewees noted that “just those connections mean something to people, and 

I really didn't think it meant much, but [it did].” AmeriCorps members also commented on the 

connections their team formed with individuals in the community, with one member stating, “It's 

been a very eye opening and learning experience for me because of creating that network and 

that trust and that open communication.”

Organizational Level Impact 

At the organizational level, the most recurring benefits of members’ service are improvements to 

the organization’s infrastructure and effectiveness. Figure 3.5 shows the trends in the number of 

projects that resulted in tangible and intangible benefits to projects’ sponsoring organizations. 

Over a period of 10 years, service through AmeriCorps NCCC improved sponsoring 

organizations’ infrastructure; these improvements include physical infrastructures like buildings 

or office equipment, as well as data, reports or materials, and policies or procedures. Beyond the 

ability to expand services, the overall benefits of the members’ service increased efficiency in 

these organizations. 

Figure 3.5 The most recurring benefits at the organizational level are improvement to physical 

infrastructure, enhancement to the organization’s ability to expend its services

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

400 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 

NUMBER OF PROJECTS 

Disaster readiness Infrastructure Organizational effectiveness 

COVID Adjacent services COVID Direct services 
19 

The fluctuation in the tangible and intangible benefits accruing to organizations is reflective of 

the trends in number and type of projects as well as being a function of the activities required to 

successfully complete the project. The trend is not reflective of a decline in the benefits that 

results from the projects. Figure 3.6 shows the trends in tangible and intangible benefits as a 

percent of total completed projects in that year. 

Figure 3.6 Percent of projects resulting in tangible and intangible benefits at the organizational 

level, 2012-2022 

Three themes emerged from an 

analysis of multiple data sources 

that include case studies data, the 

SPD, and a survey of sponsors. The 

emerging themes of how members’

service affects sponsor 

organizations’ ability to serve and 

strengthen communities are: 1) 

expand capacity for staff and ability to redirect resources; 2) infuse the organization with 

additional skills, ideas, and energy; and 3) enhance the organization’s infrastructure, and 

resource creation. 

Expand capacity for staff and ability to redirect resources. The most common responses 

when asked about how AmeriCorps members contribute to sponsor organizations are the ways in 

which the members expand capacity for staff at these organizations and free organizations’ 

ability to direct resources elsewhere. The term “force multiplier” was used to describe the 

benefits of AmeriCorps NCCC teams on partner organizations. Respondents described ways in 

which members accomplished tasks that might otherwise not have been completed, either due to 

limited staff capacity or limited volunteer resources. At a Girl Scout camp involved in a case 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

90% 

100% 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 

PERCENT OF PROJECTS 

Disaster readiness Infrastructure Organizational effectiveness 

COVID Adjacent services COVID Direct services 

The analysis of responses from the sponsor survey 

supports these sentiments as 55 percent of 

surveyed sponsors agreed that it would have taken 

them significantly longer to accomplish their goals 

if AmeriCorps NCCC had not been involved. 
20 

study, the site supervisor shared that his work would have taken him “six times longer” without

AmeriCorps NCCC’s support. 

Another respondent shared that the team was helpful in “building organizational capacity to do 

work and more projects especially during winter when the volunteer pool is very low.” Similarly, 

in a case study interview, a respondent shared, “The major thing that it did was change the 

capacity...We wouldn’t be able to be where we’re at in the camp if it were not for the

contributions of the NCCC teams...that jump started us and got us to where we are now being 

able to bring kids in.” An organizational partner shared, “Had they not been there, things 

[would] go slower because they added to the workforce...more than doubled our capacity.” 

Another said, “The fact that you could have an AmeriCorps team with 8 to 12 people who are 

consistent can't hurt. We’re capable of getting a lot more done than they could’ve with maybe

just two people.”

Other respondents described times in which the addition of AmeriCorps members freed staff to 

focus on new or different tasks that they would otherwise not have had the time or energy to 

pursue. One FEMA Corps member shared that, “CMs [Corps members] act as a ‘force

multiplier’ that allows staff to redirect their time to other tasks while obtaining important

professional skills.” Another respondent shared, “That really helps free up all our staff time. We 

can get more done having that consistent representation onsite.” A member shared, “We were 

going and being there, where originally they would have one staff member to host these events, 

talk to parents, and entertain the kids...So, us being there kind of allowed that one staff member 

to really communicate with the parents...while we did the activity with the kids.” Finally, a 

respondent from a sponsor organization shared, “Having extra people to do those tasks so that 

I’m not out there stacking firewood and I can be trying to hire camp staff. It helps us be able to 

focus on what our jobs should be.”

AmeriCorps NCCC teams strengthened staff capacity at sponsor organizations coping with staff 

shortages during the pandemic. For example, one respondent from the COVID-19 case studies 

noted: “If it had not been for them, literally with this person leaving, if they had not been here

and this person was leaving, I don't know that I would have stayed in this position. It, it would be 

overwhelming. And with what I had to do. So, they brought me back to an okay, I'm in a good 

place; I've got all this done. I can stay and I can find another person to pick up. And it's giving 

me breathing time to be able to, to do it.” Given continued staff shortages throughout the 

pandemic, organizational staff were working longer than expected hours over extended periods 

and were at risk of burnout as well as illness. The presence of AmeriCorps helped to support a 

healthy staff workforce. One respondent stated: “When we brought them [the NCCC team] on 

board and I don’t have the current numbers now, they’re probably even worse, we’re about 600 

positions vacant out of about 4,000 positions in our entire portfolio. So, a big chunk, right? And 

we have brought in a lot of [travel] nursing staff but we didn’t really have a lot of those options 

for some of our service delivery departments like food services, environmental services. And so, 

what we’re seeing is staff working a lot of long hours, extra days, we were feeling burnout, 

people were leaving. We-we still are very challenging hiring environment, and so, their overall 

goal was to provide some relief to those staff um, so that we can provide the patient care support 

that we need to for our community.”
21 

Respondents who participated in the COVID19 case studies also homed in on the different ways 

that members expanded capacity for staff at these organizations, which allowed for more time for 

organizations (e.g., hospitals, COVID-19 clinics, food distribution centers) to redirect resources. 

Many respondents described the variety of ways in which members helped to accomplish tasks 

that took significant staff time or might otherwise not have been completed due to limited staff 

capacity or limited volunteer resources. These tasks included food distribution, support at 

COVID-19 vaccination sites (e.g., check-ins, screenings, traffic control), staffing COVID-19 

clinics (e.g., contact tracing, information distribution), PPE distribution, support conducting nonclinical work at hospitals (e.g., sitting with patients, meal tray delivery, transportation of 

equipment and supplies, building maintenance, stocking nurse cabinets, stocking lab carts, 

collecting trash, and visitor, patient, and staff screenings), arranging an organization’s open 

house, and tabling at an emergency preparedness disaster readiness campaign. 

At a hospital, one site supervisor reported, “Directly across all departments they served in 

impacted our capacity... These are the departments that really allow our patient care to happen, 

so those folks can focus on the patient.” Another noted, “They were just a Godsend to support

staffing.” A food distribution supervisor described, “I think something that a lot of AmeriCorps 

teams have an effect on is that when they go into a place and all of a sudden, they get a lot of 

things done, then whoever is in charge of making decisions at that place like, has some leeway in 

asking for things [referring to ability to hold open house].” A team leader explained the teams’ 

work, “Having multiple people interested in working every now and then really goes a long way

in taking stress off the staff members or taking responsibilities off their shoulders;” while a 

supervisor simply stated, “Many hands make light work of things like distributions.”

AmeriCorps NCCC teams enhanced the services of the sponsor organizations in multiple ways, 

as is supported through a survey of sponsor organizations. As shown in Figure 3.7, nearly half 

(48%) of responding sponsors indicated that they were able to provide services to a greater 

number of individuals because of the service of AmeriCorps members. Nearly one-third of 

sponsors agreed that they were able to provide services quicker as well as offer new or higher 

quality services to the individuals in their community. Most organizations experienced an 

increase in community perception. A quarter of surveyed sponsors indicated that the community 

showed a great deal more awareness of the organization and its missions (26%), while 44 percent 

of sponsors indicated there was somewhat more awareness. 
22 

Figure 3.7 Sponsor organizations helped more people because of the service AmeriCorps 

members provided 

Source: AmeriCorps NCCC Sponsor Survey, N=884 

Respondents described ways in which 

members’ service allowed them to 

redirect resources or save money. For 

example, one organization explained 

that there were “economic benefits of 

having volunteers do this extensive work 

free of charge and quicker than other 

contractors.” A member shared that the 

work the team did helped the organization avoid “spending money in ordering a new [tent] –

that is a lot of money. We definitely saved them some time, money, and effort in that space.” 

Another organization shared that the “teams help to save the park system money.”

Respondents described positive aspects of AmeriCorps members’ participation in their

organizations and noted the opportunity cost to invest time and energy into onboarding, training, 

supervision, and guidance. Some respondents noted that, while there were time commitments 

required to support NCCC teams, there were benefits to having these more extended volunteer 

commitments as opposed to one-off volunteers. One organization involved in a case study shared 

that they were “able to lean on the team a little more than on regular volunteers and not have to 

repeat safety speeches or train on a daily basis as with new volunteers.” A member shared, 

“They can always use more hands, but having more consistent people there that pick up on 

things and learn things so next time they don’t have to reteach it – I think that definitely helps.” 

Some partner organizations noted that the ability to rely on an NCCC team coming every year 

was an asset as they knew they could depend on this capacity injection at key moments. Given 

the amount of work that teams accomplish, multiple sponsors emphasized the importance of 

organizations being prepared with tasks to keep teams busy. 

Infusion of skills, ideas, and energy. Respondents described AmeriCorps members’ technical 

skills as a valuable addition to their organizations. One site supervisor noted that members had 

useful skills related to nursing and carpentry. In another case, a respondent described members 

Sponsors reported increased leadership skills because 

of their involvement with NCCC teams. Three-fourths 

of surveyed sponsors indicated that they grew as a 

leader at least to a moderate extent (45%) or large 

extent (31%) by working with AmeriCorps members. 
23 

with training in fields like photography and environmental science that were relevant to the tasks 

assigned to the team. Respondents also described computer and technology skills that members 

brought to bear to their service activities. Others described data collection and analysis skills, 

which, in some cases, were closely related to skills in particular software and technology 

platforms. For example, one respondent shared that, “One CM created the Microsoft forms and 

links used to track attendees, made pivot tables in Excel, and compiled information.” 

Respondents also described interpersonal skills such as communication, collaboration, 

leadership, and relationship building members leveraged in their assignment. 

Respondents described AmeriCorps members’ contribution of new and diverse ideas, energy, 

and innovation into the organizations. As one respondent shared, “They have no fear when it 

comes to trying something new and innovative, and they are quick to learn.” One respondent 

explained, “Having the variety, having the teams be diverse as they are, we can utilize them in 

different departments,” and another described the benefit of having “a fresh set of eyes” on their 

work. Others simply shared that the NCCC teams are “fun to have around,” bringing youthful 

energy to organizations that may otherwise be lacking. 

Respondents who participated in the COVID-19 case study interviews reported on the valuable 

skills members brought to their organizations. One site supervisor noted the technology skills 

members had saying, “The generation of people that were on those teams, they’re young folks. 

They understand the technology a lot better than people my age. They just catch onto it really 

quick.” Another supervisor at a hospital stated, “I’m finding NCCC really, really come, and 

while they all have different skill levels, as a group, it is much more productive and helpful to 

me.” A food distribution supervisor reported that a member was able to secure a virtual reality 

training course for them at a discount with their ability to negotiate. That member shared, “I was 

able to get Beans and Rice a really solid deal for the next five years with $2000.00 off of the 

original cost of what the course would be.” Also of note, one respondent shared their 

appreciation of the painting skills a member brought, who single-handedly painted a mural. 

Respondents shared their delight for the youthful perspective, vibrant energy and positive 

outlook AmeriCorps team members brought, with one stating, “They were young and vibrant. 

They were energetic and 

enthusiastic.” As one site 

supervisor noted, 

“There’s just kind of a 

lack of young people in 

this area; it’s a lot of 

retired people. So, 

something that they’ve 

been really grateful for is, 

like, having younger 

voices.” Another 

described the appreciation 

of their staff for 

AmeriCorps members, “I 

know the staff has been appreciative of the ideas we’ve brought into and the energy, I guess, that 

we have.” AmeriCorps members’ youthful energy motivated community members – as one 

A sponsor shared: “Remember how you had to get two 

vaccines? We had people coming back from the beginning that 

were coming to get them. So, we had to know the difference. 

That wasn’t written in the policy or anything in the procedures. 

And so... [the NCCC team members] quickly realized okay, we

need this. And then, they quickly would ask people, and they 

quickly put that process into place.... I wouldn’t have done it

any different than they did. It was perfect.”
24 

supervisor explained, “A younger demographic of people who are helping out and motivated in 

the community was really great for just bringing new people in who hadn’t been to Red Lodge

before.” 

A hospital supervisor noted the effect members 

had on patients saying, “When we have our 

NCCC folks that can boost morale, it can go 

further than just our department given that they 

interact with patients as well. They can boost our 

patients’ days.” The ability to leverage the 

perspectives of AmeriCorps members was 

helpful for engaging certain populations in the 

community. As noted by one respondent from 

the COVID-19 case studies: “The insights that 

they’ve given have been very helpful because a 

lot of our programs, we’re working with, 

individuals their age. And so, we really want to 

draw in individuals that are of their age and into 

our community. So, one of the things that was 

very helpful was hearing, having their voice in 

the materials that were being developed.”

Enhance organizational infrastructure and resource creation. AmeriCorps members 

completed several tasks that enhanced organizational infrastructure such as organizing inventory 

and supplies; preparing standard operating procedures (SOPs); creating and implementing tools 

related to data collection and analysis; drafting tools, reports, and communications; leading 

trainings and explaining policies and regulations to partners; conducting site inspections; 

updating policies, procedures, guidelines, and other documents; and archiving, tracking, and 

reviewing information. Several organizations noted they would continue to use the systems put 

in place by NCCC teams. One member explained. “I think we kind of filled some gaps of making 

their community whole and helping them out, doing things that they might not have the time or 

resources to do like creating a standard operating procedure.” Another shared, “One thing that 

I’ve done was helping them track the trainings. It helps them figure out what trainings they need 

to continue doing more to help the applicant better.” 

One member explained “As a program, we tend to fill the gaps that FEMA doesn’t even know

that they have. For example, a lot of times we create whiteboards that really help with 

situational awareness.”

Other tasks AmeriCorps members completed include organizing food distribution inventory and 

PPE supplies; conducting community outreach to support organizations; and using social media 

skills. As one site supervisor explained, “I think also with our community outreach, it, I think it 

looks good for them to have these young people going around helping and like, being invested in 

their mission as well.” NCCC teams also contributed to policies and procedures to support 

vaccinations. For example, one respondent described how the NCCC team helped create a 

procedure for tracking persons in need of their second COVID-19 vaccination. 

A FEMA point of contact 

shared, “They give you a lot 

more insight into some things 

that you haven’t even thought 

of. They’ve been very

innovative with the way maybe 

information would be set up 

from a tracker standpoint.”
25 

AmeriCorps members also helped build and expand cultural awareness within organizations by 

offering different perspectives, speaking multiple languages, and highlighting different cultures 

(e.g., with the creation of recipe cards representing different cultures that listed ingredients that 

were affordable), and educating organizations on the different dietary preferences and needs of 

community members. A food distribution site supervisor also noted, “Their connection to 

different communities, their backgrounds, their diversity that made them up as a team. 

Sometimes they have easier accessibility to different communities and understanding like, ‘Hey, 

we shouldn’t do this in this area because... they need low sodium [or]...they’re vegetarians.’” 

Sponsors appreciate the different perspectives that team members brought, and their diversity of 

their backgrounds. One supervisor noted, “So, how does that translate into what the rest of us 

and what we’re currently doing 

in...To me, it says, you know, 

how do we need to change? Just 

because we’ve always done it

this way doesn’t mean it’s the

best way to do it. They bring an 

insight from their perspectives.”

A FEMA supervisor reported, 

“They all give us a new view of

how to see things, how to see a 

problem. If they were in a 

disaster, what would they need 

or what will they value more in 

those types of scenarios? So, I 

think they’re able to bring that different culture with them. And really FEMA needs a wide 

diversity of an inclusion to help support our customers, which are the American people.”

Respondents expressed their appreciation of AmeriCorps members’ ability to assimilate, 

specifically citing their ability to work in rural areas and integrate themselves seamlessly into a 

variety of organizational structures. As one site supervisor explained, “It took a load off my plate

because if I knew that they were handling certain geographic areas, certain target markets or 

whatever that I could focus then the rest of my resources on others as opposed to me having to 

birddog that for them. And so, I entrusted that to them, and they got it done – especially when 

they were out in geographically isolated areas, like either foothill regions or rural, like farm 

communities.” Another supervisor reported, “They did come in and just a seamless mesh with 

our process, and seemed to understand our process, and worked well within it.”

AmeriCorps members expanded organizations’ community knowledge by “just bringing more

attention to the work that Beans and Rice does and expanding the community’s knowledge of the

nonprofit.” Respondents reported that members improved community opinions of their 

organizations, with one hospital supervisor explaining, “I think that it will definitely show the, 

the culture, I guess, here at [hospital name], of how we’re willing to try to help, get any support 

in that we can to help support our team; and show for the long term that, for the community and 

As one member explained, “The focus 

that we came up with, it was 

highlighting different cultures. Kind of 

giving people an idea of things outside 

of this area; but the recipes, they were 

created on canvas, so they exist in an 

online space that can be printed onto a 

card.”
26 

for our staff and the patients that we serve, that we really want to provide the best level care that 

we can.”

Some respondents described the documents, tools, and processes that NCCC teams created as 

having the potential for long-term effects on the organizations and communities. For example, 

one respondent shared, “The long-term effects of these projects is everything they worked on. 

They’re going to be living documents that we’ll continue to update.” Beyond individual products 

created, respondents described how members helped generate awareness of organizational 

services in the community, encouraging others to access and trust in these services. As one 

respondent shared of an NCCC team’s work with Habitat for Humanity: “I think once they see a 

house done with new windows or a new fence homeowners will be like, ‘Hey, how did that 

happen?’. And it’s word of mouth – where the homeowner’s like, ‘I applied for Habitat, they

approved me, they came and assessed my house, and they did all this for us. I think that’s the 

way it’ll help the community and strengthen the community because, you know, neighbors talk to 

neighbors.” In some cases, this awareness might also inspire other community members to serve 

their communities and to join in efforts sponsored by these organizations. 

In the COVID-19 case study projects, members and site supervisors described the long-term 

implications, including supporting the supply chain network, upgrading emergency evacuation 

plans, formulating an emergency response team, simplifying a hospital workflow, opening 

clinical staff to focus on patients, revamping processes that will carry forward, and much more. 

After witnessing the success of these projects, the promise and potential of AmeriCorps members 

have also spread to other local organizations, who are reported to be applying for and already 

hosting teams. 

Intangible and tangible accomplishments. Members recognized the value of “fulfilling labor

shortages” and alleviating stress created by the pandemic (e.g., relieving staff members to do 

other work or take breaks and helping them avoid having to take on so much). Mirroring this 

recognition, site supervisors expressed gratitude for the “supplemental staffing” AmeriCorps 

NCCC provided, which allowed their employees to stick to tasks within their assigned roles, 

work an appropriate number of hours, and preserve their passion for serving and helping people. 

One supervisor commented, “It is huge because... there would be a lot of services that we may

have to cut, or we might not be able to provide. So, without their support or assistance, we may 

have to – we would cut.” Another supervisor talked about how the presence of AmeriCorps 

members strengthened their department and uplifted the moods during a challenging time when 

they were stretched thin. 

Besides site supervisors, beneficiaries and those being served expressed gratitude to members for 

their personal time and efforts, and the thoughtfulness in their service. Hospital patients during 

COVID-19 felt cared for with human contact from members, a feeling amplified by the absence 

of visitors. On another project with non-visible benefits, a site supervisor commented on 

members obtaining information about vulnerable residents and providing them with resources to 

educate them about preparedness and resilience with the goal of future behavior change. For 

instance, at projects where members supported COVID-19 vaccination, members provided 

community outreach to businesses, letting them know where their employees could get the 

vaccine, and equitable access (making it easier for those living in rural areas) to receive the 

vaccine in a stress-free environment. 
27 

Members supported registration, logistics, and organization for vaccine clinics. One supervisor 

commented: “For the Covid vaccination clinics, although they weren’t allowed to do direct 

service, they helped with set up, tear down, clean up, directing traffic...Nuts and bolts of event 

management. We wouldn’t have been able to host that many people...without their help,” and 

another echoed saying: “We would not have been able to launch those Covid vaccination clinics 

without NCCC’s help. And, as soon as they left...it became a free-for-all. We were much less 

organized.” One supervisor talked about the value a team added by having vehicles, enabling 

them to distribute N95 masks during purple air days to farm workers in harvest season. In 

addition, some members who spoke Spanish or Indigenous languages were able to provide 

information to the farm workers as they handed out masks, which was “immediately impactful in 

the communities,” according to this supervisor. 

The analysis of the case studies data revealed that, through service, AmeriCorps members 

demonstrate the development of leadership skills and experience personal benefits evidenced in 

strong leadership skills and civic engagement. We organized these skills in two themes: initiative 

and ability to achieve tasks. 

Initiative. Community stakeholders (from in-depth case studies) observed that AmeriCorps 

members demonstrated great initiative and leadership qualities. One respondent described, “They 

had something that’s called initiative. And once they learned what had to be done, you didn’t 

have to tell them what they’d do. When they saw something that needed to be done, they did it. I 

didn’t have to – by the time they left here, I didn’t have to tell them anything except, “That’s our 

house.” One respondent admired the leadership roles women had on job sites. “The leadership 

roles of women on the jobsite, like, that was clear and evident. And they were really the 

champions. They were really the leaders out there. And they were the bearers of most of the 

knowledge. So, I really appreciated that.”

Interviewees (from COVID-19 case studies) reported on their observations of members’ 

initiative, describing both positive leadership qualities and an eagerness to jump in. As one key 

stakeholder described the leadership they shared, “Having that strong team leader, the strong 

counterpart at NCCC was very helpful.” Another key stakeholder noted, “They jumped right in 

where they were needed, as needed, and took the direction, and started work...and in some

cases, they were the first face of the state-sponsored clinic, to help direct folks on their path 

forward.”

Ability to achieve tasks. Community stakeholders (from in-depth case studies) described their 

perception of AmeriCorps members as “fearless” workers, who never hesitated to do the “dirty 

work,” and kept things moving along. One respondent reported, “As far as actual physical labor, 

I mean, they're huge and instrumental in being, you know, keeping the whole construction track 

on schedule. They get a lot of tasks. They're here – you know, they have been here a lot of hours, 

so yeah, they definitely keep things moving along. Without them, I think there would be a deficit 

for sure.” Another interviewee noted, “One house, in particular – and I think you might have 

been out there at the one house – particularly nasty. And, uh, those four of them, you know, as I 

say, they just weren’t afraid of anything. I told everybody going in is that place was optional. 

And those kids, they didn’t hesitate. They followed me right on in there. And I really admire that

in young people, you know. I got a lot of respect for that.”
28 

Respondents described their appreciation of how AmeriCorps members used resources properly, 

in particular finding tasks that members can excel at, outside of just hard labor. As one 

community stakeholder described, “One of the members on that first team, for example, really

wasn’t worth anything in the field as far as doing labor. But they ended up putting her to do 

some administrative tasks and she was fantastic at it. So, uh, it’s all about utilizing your 

resources properly. You know, you kind of give them an opportunity to experience new things, 

but when you see they don’t wanna experience them, then you try to find what they’re best at.”

Another interviewee noted, “From the specific point, the team, like all things, there was a 

handful of them that were very, extremely hard workers. And a handful of them that didn’t work

extremely hard, but they had uses in other areas other than doing physical labor that, uh, they 

excelled at.”

Interviewees (from COVID-19 case studies) also described their perceptions of AmeriCorps 

members and their ability to achieve tasks in different community locations that required support 

during COVID-19, including hospitals and vaccination sites. As one interviewee reported, “The

community itself, I mean there were some people who didn’t necessarily want to get vaccinated 

or didn’t believe in the vaccines, so we ran into a few people like that who kinda passed through 

the site.” Interviewees described how NCCC teams supported hospital staff during difficult 

times and dealt with difficult situations at vaccine sites (e.g., anti-vax events). As one key 

stakeholder noted, “The community, we’d have some people drive by and like give us the finger 

type thing.” Interviewees noted that AmeriCorps team members were able to roll with resistance 

and remain non-judgmental when faced with challenges, qualities that they appreciated. 

Community Level Impact 

At the community level, the most recurring impact is improvement to natural capital and built 

capital. These impacts include enhancement of resources, creation of new public spaces or 

private residences as well as the addition of community gardens or community camps. Figure 3.8 

shows the trends in the number of projects coded as improvement to built and natural capital 

fluctuated with the total number of completed projects. From 2012 to 2022, 4,169 service 

projects increased the built and natural capital across communities. 
29 

Figure 3.8 The most recurring impacts at the community level are enhancement and creation of 

public spaces and housing, community gardens, and community camps 

The fluctuation of the impact on communities at large reflects the trends in number and type of 

projects and not a decline in the benefits that results from the projects. Figure 3.9 shows the 

impacts on communities as a percent of total completed projects in that year. Service projects 

that focus on creating or improving community public spaces make up half of completed projects 

from 2012 to 2022. Nearly one-fifth of these service projects focused on the maintenance of 

camps (18%), and 12 percent of them resulted in the addition or improvement to community 

gardens and farms. Figure 3.9 shows various community impacts, underscoring the consistent 

contributions in special event, disaster mitigation, and expected economic benefits. Notably, the 

impact to special events, encompassing contributions and assistance to community events, 

experienced a significant decline in 2020 most likely due to emergency shelter in place and a 

reduction in special events projects. Conversely, disaster mitigation as a community impact 

demonstrated an increase that same year. 
30 

Figure 3.9 Percent of projects benefitting communities at large, 2012-2022 

During the research team’s site visit, sponsors identified the structures that the NCCC teams 

created (e.g., nature-inspired play structure), cleaned up (e.g., yurts at a camp), and constructed 

(e.g., structures for disaster response). One member shared, “We were building a playground and 

some features were completed before other features. We were able to see kids playing on this 

playground we had half-finished, and we were like, ‘This is not done yet but it’s still cool to see

kids playing in it.’” Another respondent shared that the NCCC team had “contributed 

enormously to the safety and the security of the camp itself.” Finally, a team leader shared that 

one of their proudest accomplishments was “The trails...There’s a huge difference ‘cause

they’ve had a lot of overgrowth in the trails. So visually seeing the trails that are now clean – the 

past three years they haven’t been maintenance [sic.] ‘cause no one was using them.”

Long-term effects. Respondents described several long-term effects of the service that members 

provided to the communities. One of these is increasing resiliency and preparedness for future 

disasters. One member shared that their work was helping to, “build the resiliency of the

impacted communities, whether that’s by mitigation measures or being able to provide them 

funding to do their own work. We don’t want to just go in and tell people what to do or how to 

live their lives; we’re just providing the resources and the tools for them to help themselves.”

Other members shared that the work they did in restoring and preserving the environment had 

long-term effects, including the ways that the environment was linked to disaster resiliency. One 

member stated, “I think in terms of long term...ecological restoration is clearly strengthening the 

communities, especially tying into the potential for disasters.”

Impact. Beneficiaries perceived AmeriCorps’ presence as “hugely beneficial” to the community. 

Respondents described feeling a sense of community with members, with shared goals. One 

respondent shared, “I think they were like a subset of the AmeriCorps. My experience was great. 

I mean, I think just being out there on kind of the Habitat jobsite, there’s a sense of community 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

90% 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 

PERCENT OF PROJECTS 

Built and natural capital Special events Disaster mitigation Expected economic benefit 
31 

within there, as well. And just, you know, the shared goal of creating affordable housing. But 

also, just being part of something that’s mission driven and value focused, is always fun.”

Community stakeholders also described how AmeriCorps members touched people’s lives in the

community, with one hurricane disaster relief respondent noting, “These people down here, I 

don’t think, will forget the work that those kids did. I mean, they touched the lives. I told them, I 

told them all, I said, ‘You can’t change the world, but you can change one person’s view of the 

world.’” A community member from a Habitat for Humanity project explained, “Better housing, 

improves the neighborhood, makes houses prettier, and people happier. That is very positive. 

NCCC do a lot of good things and we are grateful. I miss the group now that they are gone.”

Respondents also shared the impact that AmeriCorps members made on the lives of people in the 

community, noting that they provided hope to community members. One hurricane disaster relief 

interviewee shared, “Some – most of them, you know – were in their 70’s or 80’s that we were

dealing with. And, to them, it’s like they can’t do it, you know. They were stuck. They were 

helpless. And along come our group with these kids. And they, you know, give them some kind of 

hope again.” Another respondent reported, “They had an impact on a lot of people down here. 

In fact, not – not just the people they helped. Everybody on this island is just, like, so grateful for 

what, you know, the volunteers have been doing. And, uh, so, I think it will stay with them 

forever.”

Respondents who participated in the COVID-19 case study interviews also described positive 

perceptions of the impact NCCC teams had in their communities. Beneficiaries shared stories of 

the gratitude of community members, including positive feedback they received from their 

communities. One key stakeholder noted, “From the feedback that we got in the community 

people were really pleased to have that type of outreach. We definitely saw a return on 

investment using that approach.” A member described the appreciation they heard from 

community members, “I’d probably say the gratefulness of just individuals, you know. Like there 

are people who thanked us. I don’t know if you can have a spreadsheet of how many people did 

that, but we’re getting that personal time with them...it’s their gratitude for us being here.” The 

value and impact of NCCC members was also noted, with one beneficiary reporting, “I believe

that in the long term...these volunteers are greatly valued, and their impact really makes a huge

difference within the, anywhere in the hospital.”

Reflection on contributors to success and ability of AmeriCorps NCCC to strengthen 

communities. Sponsor organizations had clearly defined goals and gauged success based on 

whether or not the AmeriCorps NCCC was able to meet those goals. As one case study 

respondent noted, “Some of the times they exceeded a goal because of what the group before us 

had done.” In other cases, success was intangible, and the sponsor described things such as the 

attitudes of members, changed perspectives of community members, and a sense of connection 

between AmeriCorps members and the community. These types of relationships fostered deep 

connections between the AmeriCorps members, the organizations, and communities they served, 

with some returning to work in the communities where they served. One respondent shared that 

they felt a project had been successful when it garnered positive sentiment within a community: 

“We went to eat at such-and-such place and people came and hugged us and thanked us for 

being in the community.”
32 

For some respondents, the impact on AmeriCorps members themselves was a component of 

project success: “A successful project for me would be hearing that more than half of NCCC 

members felt that the project moved them in some way.” Similarly, another respondent shared, 

“It’s not the number of hours. It’s not how many trees they planted. It’s not that they painted a 

house. It’s, did this really impact these young peoples’ lives enough to where they felt they had a 

mark on our community when they left?” Another respondent shared, “I define that [project 

success] when they’ve been able to gain new knowledge or skills based upon the work that

they’ve done.”

Case studies respondents described the characteristics of members who strengthened 

communities. These characteristics are professional skills, prosocial skills, and life skills. 

The most common professional skills respondents 

described as a contributor to strengthening the 

community were work ethic and a general 

willingness to “get the job done;” self-motivation and 

the ability to direct oneself; and effective 

communication skills. While members contributed technical skills, respondents seemed to value 

self-motivation, self-direction, commitment, hard work, and communication. For example, at one 

site, a supervisor noted that “the team was self-motivated and had the ability to identify the 

things that needed to be done and accomplished.” A member shared, “Our reputation is just 

getting right to it and getting things done and working hard.” A sponsor organization shared, 

“They were all pretty driven, all pretty motivated. They all wanted to do something, and they all 

wanted to be hands-on – sometimes that’s kind of rare to find.”

The teams that accomplished tasks and understood when and from whom to ask for assistance, 

were perceived as highly effective. Respondents noted that teams with diverse skillsets and 

experiences were strong as they could lean on one another’s expertise; as one member shared, 

“There’s a wide range of talents already comprised in this team...basically having a whole crew

where I can say, ‘Who’s got experience with this?’”

Respondents also described prosocial skills such as a 

sincere desire to do good, that help support the 

community and help those in need. A respondent 

shared, “They had a lot of initiative, they went after 

it. They weren’t afraid of anything; they’d follow me

into any mess I went into. They were just super 

impressive as far as their willingness to engage in the physical labor and to get dirty and to do 

the work to help people out here.” Respondents described the empathy, understanding, and 

compassion that members contributed to the organization. A hurricane disaster relief respondent 

shared an example in which the mucking and gutting crew that they had worked with was trying 

to wrap up work quickly, discarding items out a window that “were very important to him [the

homeowner];” recognizing this, the AmeriCorps crew stayed behind and “got on our hands and 

knees and went through it one item at a time. The empathy and understanding of losing 

everything...these people need hope right now...The AmeriCorps kids helped me go through the 

closet with Mr. John.” 

Professional skills are qualities, abilities, 

knowledge, or personal characteristics that 

enable a person to succeed in their job. 

Prosocial skills are behaviors purposed to 

assist other people-- for example sharing, 

helping, encouraging, and collaborating. 
33 

Finally, respondents described members as cooperative, collaborative, responsive, flexible, and 

supportive. One respondent shared, “The ability for the NCCC team to be flexible and adaptable 

and go to whatever site is needed during the week is probably the most important characteristic 

I’ve seen because we’re really able to place them at those sites where we have the most need.”

Finally, respondents described the life skills that 

helped members contribute to the organizations, 

projects, and communities they served. Specifically, 

respondents described energy, enthusiasm, 

engagement, and excitement as critical characteristics 

for members to bring to their service. One respondent said, “The energy and the selflessness that 

they put into it, I think that’s not seen so much.” Another respondent shared, “We know that the 

work can be really hard...so just having a positive attitude, their interest in things always makes 

it a lot easier when they ask a lot of questions and show that they are really engaged.” 

Respondents described open-mindedness and a willingness to learn as highly important. One 

respondent explained, “My experience with the team was that was kind of an added bonus for 

me; I loved being able to work with those kids and see them grow. They’re learning, they’re

doing something that other kids aren’t doing.” 

Respondents described being personable and easy to interact with as beneficial characteristics of 

members. One respondent shared of the team that they worked with, “They are very personable. 

They are very easy to talk to and I think they have great people-to-people skills and personalities 

that make it very easy for them to interact with me and the rest of the camp directors as well as 

my staff and the rest of the community.”

Some respondents noted that a general desire to be of service is highly beneficial for NCCC 

teams; as one respondent shared, “I think it is 100 percent about the attitude of the team...They

have to have the desire to serve, and this team had that 100 percent. It’s a great program but it’s 

dependent on the team members.” Respondents also described high levels of commitment as a

beneficial characteristic of NCCC teams with one respondent stating that it is helpful to have 

“volunteer corps that are committed and do the work for free.” Strong relationships within the 

team and a lack of conflict also help teams find success. A respondent shared that the team 

serving their organization “was a well-bonded team that was joking. While all communications 

were not verbal, they worked together long enough that they were seamless in their work.” 

Another respondent shared, “The team just being a unit together – they worked so well on how 

they communicated with each other and, also, I saw how they communicated with different 

members on the team throughout the duration of their projects. That is definitely a characteristic 

that I would like to see [on] every single FEMA Corps team in the future.”

Figure 3.10 shows the distribution of sponsors’ responses of team characteristics that contribute 

to the impact on the organizations and communities. More than one-third (35%) of surveyed 

sponsors reported flexibility and adaptability as their team's greatest strength. A quarter of 

surveyed sponsors highlighted team work ethic and dedication, followed by high team 

engagement (21%) and positive team dynamics (8%). 

Life skills are behaviors that enable 

people to effectively manage the demands 

and challenges encountered in daily life. 
34 

Figure 3.10 According to sponsors, flexibility and adaptability are vital characteristics for 

members to possess to accomplish their project’s goals 

Respondents described characteristics of projects, the partner organizations, or communities that 

influenced the ability of NCCC teams to strengthen communities. For example, respondents 

noted the importance of organizations having open communication with communities that they 

are serving and focusing on the people being served. Involving community members in solutions 

was seen as particularly impactful. One member shared, “Working with homeowners, I heard a 

mom say that she had someone take a picture of her and she said, ‘I want my kids to know how 

hard I worked for this home.’ That was pretty moving – her sense of confidence in what she’s 

doing and pride that she wanted to share.”

The structure and support the organizations provide determine the success of the projects. Some 

respondents suggested that organizations should have clear standard operating procedures 

(SOPs) and structures for their programs, and others noted that sponsor organizations 

experienced in hosting NCCC teams provided a favorable experience. In general, respondents 

described the “dedication and loyalty of sponsoring organizations” as important to the success 

of projects and teams. Sponsor organizations ensure project success by providing comprehensive 

training and supervision as well as a clear plan for keeping NCCC teams busy during their 

service period. For example, at a Habitat for Humanity site, a member noted that the site 

supervisor “provided instructions on power tools at the beginning of the day and checked in with 

members during the course of their work. Other supervisors worked side-by-side with members 

and provided guidance as they were working.”

One volunteer/stakeholder noted that sponsoring organizations who made it relatively easy to 

join were appealing: “I looked their [sponsoring organization’s] websites up. They all wanted to 

do background checks, which was fine by me. But Cajun Navy just said turn in your information 

Sources: AmeriCorps NCCC sponsor survey, N=772 
35 

and get down here; we need your help. The others wanted to wait two or three days and I wasn’t 

waiting...so I signed up with the Cajun Navy.”

In some cases, respondents noted that visibility and awareness of AmeriCorps NCCC in the 

community was important. As one respondent shared, “A lot of people have recognized us and 

they’ve said that they worked for AmeriCorps years ago and they said it makes them very happy

seeing other people in the program and just continuing to do the work.” Community members 

expressed sincere gratitude for the service of AmeriCorps NCCC. One member shared, “After my 

service term ended, I got a card from another person. She mailed us all cards saying thank you 

for the work that you did in my home. There was also another time where I was working a 

vaccine site and a woman came and just cried and said thank you because she was so desperate 

for this Covid vaccine.”

Repeatedly, supervisors of COVID-19 projects commented on members’ positive attitudes and 

commitment to serve, which contributed to profound benefits to the organizations. Even in a 

challenging and ever-changing environment, members were consistently looking at how to 

contribute to communities, often above and beyond what some might consider their job 

description. Some examples include one member putting their car up for sale and contributing 

$3,000 of the proceeds to a feeding program, and the site supervisor recalling how, during a 

“huge snowstorm,” “[the team] stayed...on site at the hospital just to make sure that the goal 

and task...to feed our patients safely...And there is no possible way we would have been able to 

deliver all of the patient trays that we needed to if they were not here for that project, to help and 

support us.”

Across COVID-19 projects, members gained leadership skills and stretched across all 

stakeholders. Team leaders, for example, noted learning how to work as a unit, effectively 

disseminate information, delegate, and direct to ensure task completion. One respondent noted: 

“It’s great for us to see [NCCC team members] – see the next generation of leaders, how they, 

you know, build the team. How they ended up working together, you find everybody from that 

team is from a different part of the US. And they all come together, and they start making some 

great relationships. Or at least learn how to be civil and polite with each other. And, you know, 

to get the job done.”

In the hospital projects, members reflected on being directly part of the solution, while learning 

valuable information and having powerful experiences they “wouldn’t have otherwise been 

exposed to,” which, many will carry into the future. One member shared that serving on a Covid19 project was a “really eye-opening and...cool experience, to be able to take on the 

responsibilities of the actual full-time staff and do what they do on a daily basis.” Other 

One member statement provides a concise summary of organizational benefits of COVID-19 

projects, including alleviating staff shortages and related overwhelming stress, as well as 

longer-term member development: “In short term, it shows that...young adults from 

anywhere in the country can come together and really get a lot of things done...This is only 

temporary but it really shows that we are already helping alleviate some of those staff 

shortage numbers and the stress and overwhelming...Long term...we are coming in with a 

different mindset and be a part of what we can do to make things better for the areas we are 

serving in.”
36 

members talked about building empathy and interpersonal skills, gaining perspective, increasing 

maturity, and learning flexibility in scheduling due to their time in service. Organizational staff 

had a chance to grow through the experience of hosting members at their site. One site 

supervisor’s statement illuminates the “give and take” or reciprocal benefits of intentionally 

developing members while also inherently developing staff: “It really motivated those that

permanently work here to...be a good teacher...to help them understand...help them along their 

journey to their career paths to where they want to be. So, I always see that in the staff that are 

here when the FEMA Corps team comes...Opportunities to mentor the leaders on that and their 

ability to counsel the members and provide them guidance. So, there was – it was a good amount 

of give and take from that aspect.” A few site supervisors noted that they would look to hire 

AmeriCorps members and were helping some members make connections for future jobs and 

learn more about their career plans. 

Outside of the hospital, task variation led to variation in project quality. Whereas some COVID19 projects allowed members to take part in an array of tasks that provided both certifications 

and experience, others were assigned more menial tasks. In richer experiences, some members 

had the opportunity to revamp materials and conduct research, become certified on forklifts, gain 

experience in warehouse operations and inventory management, become trained in preparedness, 

and much more. Many members were required to balance multiple tasks – acting as both publicfacing volunteers and in physical roles behind the scenes. 

In contrast, some members requested more opportunities for skill- and resume-building through 

their service, noting that they were given menial tasks that did not need training. One member 

commented, for example, “Having more variety in the work and more skill building. ‘Cause I 

think that was also one of the bigger issues that I’ve had with this project is that it just not only

was there no work, the work that was there had zero skill building, whatsoever.” Thus, 

highlighting the varied roles and projects that were available considering the pandemic and the 

need to pivot that was present. 

Site supervisors reported that members include a younger diverse population, who arrive with 

energy, optimism, and motivation to support the community. The “excited exuberance” and 

positivity members bring helps to boost morale and strengthen departments as well as the 

organizational community. Staff saw the value and were appreciative and uplifted by teams 

supporting their mission and helping them with their jobs. One supervisor commented: “When 

they first got here, they had great attitudes. They still do. And they boosted my team’s 

morale...They’re just friendly, bright faces that...come in and they light up the room. And I feel 

that is an accomplishment for them. Especially, because they may not know, but they have 

brought a lot of light to my team.”

Another supervisor went on to say that members’ work ethic and attitude is “contagious...it also 

sets a tone for the rest of my team.” Members not only motivate the staff, acting as a “spark of 

life to the rest of the workforce that are here,” as one supervisor stated; they also bring their 

consciousness and perspectives, which gives organizations “a new view of how to see things.”

Members not only improved the morale of staff, but also motivated them to support these young 

people in their learning and along their career paths. 
37 

Social Return on the investment to use AmeriCorps to respond to the COVID-19 public 

health emergency 

An analysis of the social return on investment of AmeriCorps NCCC’s support to communities 

to address the COVID-19 pandemic allows us to measure and value the social, economic, 

environmental impact of COVID 19-related service projects. The range of COVID-19 service 

projects include vaccines distribution mission assignments, COVID-19-adjacent projects such as 

services in hospitals, food banks, mobile vaccine distribution, and other community-based 

projects related to COVID-19. The primary objective of the social return on investment is to 

measure the cost savings of using AmeriCorps NCCC for the COVID-19 pandemic response. 

These values are the social return accrued to the community, FEMA, the sponsoring 

organizations, and the individuals in the communities. Appendix E describes the social return on 

investment calculation. 

The direct economic impacts are the actual costs of the services provided by AmeriCorps NCCC 

compared to the costs that would have been incurred if these services were not provided by 

AmeriCorps NCCC. The fair market value costs used for the calculation are based on the average 

hourly rate of a U.S. Census Bureau surveyor in 2020. The type of COVID-19 activities the 

AmeriCorps NCCC teams performed 

include contact tracing calls, wellness 

check calls with older adults, 

supporting services for COVID-19 

vaccination sites and COVID-19 

testing sites, distributing PPE, and 

scheduling or confirming vaccination 

appointments. The COVID-19 support projects occurred from 2020 to 2021. 

Accrued benefits occur beyond the initial period of service. To project the long-term impact, the 

calculation accounts for the fact that some of the benefits would have occurred without the 

services provided by AmeriCorps NCCC teams. Long-term impact takes years to materialize, 

and the return is not one-to-one. For example, many individuals were vaccinated regardless of 

the efforts of AmeriCorps NCCC teams, but many were eventually vaccinated at least in part by 

having been contacted by a member to schedule a vaccine appointment. Another example is that 

many of the individuals did wear, or would have worn, masks even if NCCC teams did not 

distribute them. 

Consequential impacts are the longer-term effects (also known as “outcomes”) that actions or 

events have on economic factors. These impacts can include changes in medical care, 

community social support costs, governmental benefit programs, personal income, and other 

areas. These effects are projected over a period of 10 years. 

Same year return on investment is $2.83 --; that 

is, for each dollar invested to deploy a NCCC 

team, the social return is worth $2.83 during the 

same year the investment is made. 
38 

The analysis also compares the cost of using AmeriCorps NCCC services to Department of 

Defense and FEMA personnel costs. The projected costs that would have been incurred by using 

Department of Defense personnel for the level of services AmeriCorps NCCC provided are 

greater. The projected costs of AmeriCorps NCCC members are $1,251,000. The projected costs 

for Department of Defense personnel are $4,705,000. This yields a total saving of $3,454,000. 

The projected costs for Department of Defense personnel are based on the wage and health 

benefits of an E-2 Private Second Class. The projected costs that would have been incurred by 

using FEMA personnel are significantly greater. The projected costs for FEMA personnel are 

$7,603,000, yielding a total saving of $6,352,000 when compared to the cost of AmeriCorps 

NCCC members. The projections for FEMA personnel are based on the wage and health benefits 

of a Customer Service representative. 

Chapter 4 Summary of Findings 

This report provides a data-driven and NCCC-specific definition of strengthening communities 

grounded in more than ten years of data collected from completed service projects, and in 

primary research conducted with AmeriCorps staff, members, and sponsor organization: 

AmeriCorps NCCC harnesses social, natural, institutional, and human capital to support 

communities and organizations in addressing unique local needs. Through service and in 

partnership with communities, organizations, and individuals, AmeriCorps NCCC creates shortterm and long-term positive impacts on community well-being and resilience. AmeriCorps 

members, through their service, experience personal benefits evidenced in strong leadership 

skills and civic engagement. 

This definition focuses on the ways in which AmeriCorps NCCC leverages four types of capital 

(i.e., resources) to strengthen communities in which members serve. This includes leveraging 

social capital – the value derived from the network of relationships and connections between 

people – to help communities feel more connected and purposeful and to increase the agency of 

community members, amplifying voices from within these communities in decision-making 

processes. AmeriCorps NCCC leverages and builds natural capital – which refers to both 

natural environments and human-made infrastructure – by revitalizing recreational spaces, parks, 

and housing and supporting ecological restoration. AmeriCorps NCCC leverages and fosters 

institutional capital – the structures and processes of institutions and service providers 

operating within communities – by enhancing an organization’s productivity, outreach, and 

efficiency and by growing connections and partnerships between agencies. Finally, AmeriCorps 

The projected net consequential dollar-impact of the services is $3.78 -- that 

is, for each dollar invested, the return over a period of 5 years is $3.78. 

The total net direct and consequential dollar-impact of the COVID-19 

services provided by AmeriCorps NCCC is $6.22; that is, for each dollar 

invested, the return over a period of 10 years is $6.22. 
39 

NCCC leverages and builds human capital, such as building skills, knowledge, confidence, and 

awareness of and capacity to access resources and empowering individuals within communities. 

The harnessing of these four types of capital generates benefits both in the short-term and longterm for individuals, sponsor organizations, and the communities that members serve. Individual 

community members receive both direct and indirect benefits from members’ services, resulting 

in benefits on their personal well-being and quality of life. Sponsor organizations benefit by 

collaborating with AmeriCorps NCCC to provide services to their clients and to strengthen their 

own organizational capacity. Communities as a whole benefit as well because AmeriCorps’

approach is tailored to align with community-defined needs. Finally, AmeriCorps members 

themselves experience a range of benefits including skill building, opportunities to practice and 

develop leadership skills, networking opportunities, opportunities to gain cultural competence, 

and overall satisfaction with the program and experience. 

The benefits AmeriCorps NCCC generates short-term – such as expanded organizational 

capacity for near-term needs and the ability for organizations to redirect staff and financial 

resources, injections of skills, ideas, and energy at critical moments, and enhanced infrastructure 

(e.g. construction, equipment set up, resource creation, data organization) – as well as longerterm benefits, which include the creation of sustainable tools, documents, and processes, 

increased community resilience and preparedness for disasters, and upgraded emergency 

evacuation plans, processes, and teams. The benefits are tangible (e.g., access to food, water, 

healthcare; physical infrastructure) and intangible (e.g., mental health care; learning; increased 

efficiency; faster project completion). 

The wealth of existing data permitted the categorization of benefits into discrete indicators at the 

individual, organization and community levels as well as facilitated quantification of results and 

comparison over time. For projects that members completed between 2012 and 2022, the most 

frequently occurring project impacts include: built and natural capital improvements (20% of 

total impacts recorded), infrastructure enhancements (16% of total impacts recorded), improved 

organizational effectiveness (12% of total impacts recorded), and disaster assistance provided 

(11% of total impacts recorded). 8 

The body of evidence of the ways in which AmeriCorps NCCC contributes to strengthening 

communities includes both perceptions of staff, community members, and sponsors as well as 

calculated social return on investment (SROI). Fifty-five percent of surveyed sponsors, for 

instance, agreed that it would have taken their organizations longer to accomplish their goals if 

they had not had AmeriCorps NCCC support. Sponsors said things like, “The energy and the 

selflessness that they put into it – I think that’s not seen so much,” and, “They were all pretty 

driven, all pretty motivated. Sometimes that’s kind of rare to find.” The SROI analysis 

demonstrated that for each dollar invested to deploy a NCCC team, the return over a 10-year 

period is $6.22. 

Members contributed their professional skills (e.g., work ethic), prosocial skills (e.g., 

collaboration), and life skills (e.g., energy, open-mindedness) to strengthen communities. 

8 N (total impacts recorded) = 15,584 
40 

Sponsors indicated that the top qualities and skills of members contributing to the achievement 

of organizational goals were flexibility and adaptability; work ethic and dedication; high levels 

of team engagement; and strong team dynamics. 

Chapter 5 Lessons Learned and Future Research 

AmeriCorps NCCC leverages social, natural, institutional, and human capital to strengthen 

communities where its members serve. AmeriCorps NCCC considers each community’s unique 

needs and collaborates with a diverse group of sponsor organizations to benefit individuals and 

create a lasting positive impact on communities’ overall well-being and resilience. As they serve, 

members increase capacity, efficiency, and effectiveness of organizations to support and serve 

their constituents; individuals who reside in these communities receive increased support and 

access to community resources to meet their basic needs and enhance overall health and wellbeing and trust in the community. 

Members restore and revitalize housing, public parks, and recreational spaces. This restoration 

and revitalization strengthens social connection, purposefulness, and agency among community 

members. Members’ service strengthen the organizations and the communities, and members 

gain a range of leadership skills as a result of their service, such as development of professional, 

prosocial and life skills, leadership opportunities, networking and relationship building, 

collaboration and exposure to different organizations and institutions, increased cultural 

competence from interacting with diverse communities, and personal satisfaction and fulfilment 

gained from witnessing positive changes to the communities they serve. 

Drawing from the case studies analysis, we provide the following recommendations for 

sustaining the benefits of members’ service. 

Use the visibility of members to increase local interest in AmeriCorps, and in, potentially, 

longer-term community engagement. A shared takeaway from interviews with community 

members and sponsor organizations is that member visibility in the community contributes to an 

increased interest in both AmeriCorps and the project; and, perhaps more importantly, members’

presence sparks an interest in longer-term engagement from the community with the sponsor 

organization and the issue more broadly. Multiple respondents from sponsor organizations noted 

that having young people in uniform and engaging in service is a good way to advertise projects 

where community members can get involved. In addition, “a lot of business owners” and other 

nonprofits have seen the members and “inquired with us about how [they] would go about 

getting a crew.” For example, one respondent recalled how when “core volunteers,” who 

regularly serve at a site, saw young AmeriCorps NCCC members serving, it encouraged them to 

get more involved and increased their work production. 

The presence of AmeriCorps members increases trust and appreciation for government and other 

organizational services and agencies within the community. Consistent with AmeriCorps 

NCCC’s theory of change, the increased visibility of Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps 

members enthusiastically working side-by-side with community constituents to help them 

recover from disasters and achieve a sense of safety and livability, and preserve and revitalize 

public recreational spaces, assists beneficiaries with accessing resources and can serve as a 
41 

catalyst for community interest in AmeriCorps in promoting long-term civic and community 

engagement. 

Encourage sponsor organizations and community members to promote their experiences 

with AmeriCorps. Respondents from sponsor organizations described how AmeriCorps 

members benefited their ability to serve and strengthen communities by increasing their 

efficiency, expanding their staff capacity, giving them the ability to redirect staff and other 

resources; infusing their organizations with members’ professional skills, energy, and innovative 

ideas; enhancing their organizational infrastructure; and creating resources. Having sponsor 

organizations and community members share their positive experiences with AmeriCorps NCCC 

could prompt continued interest in AmeriCorps from other organizations. In fact, a few site 

supervisors indicated they were “spreading the word” about AmeriCorps NCCC, and interest in 

obtaining a team is growing, “especially with the nonprofits” in certain community geographic 

areas. As noted by one interviewee, “So there are other small business owners and even some of 

the larger general contractors that we work with have kind of been “oh, that's really cool that 

they do that for you and that you can get a crew out there,” so yeah. ... people are getting to 

know a little bit more about it, specifically up here.”

Toward that end, some site supervisors underscored their use of social media coverage to both 

“bring in more volunteers” and grow interest in AmeriCorps NCCC from other nonprofits. For 

one organization, using social media to share AmeriCorps NCCC stories of service is valuable 

for reaching younger and broader audiences, while building “momentum” around volunteer 

engagement. Another interviewee talked about how the mention of AmeriCorps NCCC 

partnership in a news story raised awareness to other local organizations as well. Such efforts 

could also be used to facilitate recruitment for AmeriCorps. 

Leverage visible improvements from service projects (especially improvements in public 

recreational spaces, parks, housing) to pique community interest and increase community 

engagement. Given their cohesive team dynamics and predictable volunteer hours, AmeriCorps 

members have the unique ability to contribute to visible changes in the community. Similarly, an 

undercurrent noted in the data is to consciously place members in projects with high visibility 

and frequent consumer touchpoints. While this consideration cannot be universally applied to 

ensure projects are responsive to community needs (some of the most necessary projects will not 

meet this criterion), case studies respondents indicate that such projects, often those that focus on 

built and natural capital, generate excitement and inspiration because of witnessing progress both 

in the short- and long-term. 

As noted by one respondent, “...that's always the intent for us with these AmeriCorps teams – is 

build some sustainability and stuff. We know we can't have them year-round, so it's you know to 

leverage what they're able to do while they're with us with the community and I think that is 

working. I think we've had a number of volunteers this year work on a large tree plantings. We 

had some corporate groups and that's all a function of what they're seeing. So everybody wants 

to be part of success and part of good things happening. So they see all this new work and tree 

planting and invasive species work that's going on and I think they're much more inclined to 

participate....”
42 

Urge site supervisors to encourage members to engage with community residents to further 

the positive work they are doing, even beyond the scope of the service project. When 

residents see energized AmeriCorps members serving the community and have a chance to learn 

about who they are and what they are doing, a sense of care and belonging is fostered. This 

finding was particularly prevalent in the home repair and building projects, where a site 

supervisor reflected on how beneficial it is for members and the homeowners with whom they 

are working to meet and interact. As one respondent stated, “Sometimes they make connections 

and get to know the homeowner in special ways,” and another described how when homeowners 

“see that there are folks willing to come out and dedicate months of their time to building or 

repairing homes,” “it has an impact on strengthening our community.”

Use both tangible and intangible indicators to measure project success and 

sustainability. Although most respondents centered on immediately measurable outputs and 

process measures (such as whether project goals were met, the quality of members’ experiences, 

and community benefits observed), the results highlight the importance of several non-visible or 

intangible indicators of strengthened communities, such as improved mental health, increased 

resilience, changed perspectives of community members, increased social connections, gains in 

knowledge, and preparedness to support future behavior change. Given the relevance of these 

indicators to strengthening communities, assessment of these indicators at the close of projects 

would provide critical information on the impact of AmeriCorps’ presence on strengthening the 

communities they serve. 

Respondents described several factors at the individual, organization, and community levels that, 

once in place, would increase the likelihood of AmeriCorps NCCC strengthening communities. 

Preparation, thoughtful planning, adequate resources, and collaboration. The responsibility 

for meaningful, full-bodied projects designed to actively engage AmeriCorps members rests with 

the sponsor organizations, including establishing on-the-ground partnerships, good project 

planning, having tools and equipment at the ready, and identification of contingency projects. 

Respondents noted the structure and support organizations provide help determine the success of 

the projects. Adequate preparation allows the organization to leverage members’ presence to 

strengthen the organization and the community being served. AmeriCorps members bring 

energy, skills, and knowledge, which increase the efficiency of the work done on their projects. 

As such, it is imperative that organizations have a clear plan for keeping members busy and 

engaged in their tasks. Sponsors discussed different aspects of scoping, including the need to be 

accurate in applications, the difficulty of forecasting project needs and workloads, and 

collaborating with NCCC staff to structure successful projects. The following bubbled up as 

implementation facilitators: 

• Collaboration with local partners 

• Thoughtful assignment of teams and tasks that considers team members’ interests and 

skills 

• Recognition of the role of larger systems and structures, such as poverty or external 

organizations temporarily coming in to serve a community, in addressing the project 

issue area. 
43 

Providing comprehensive training, ongoing supervision, and mentorship. Critical to members’

ability to successfully complete the projects is the extent to which they acquire the knowledge 

and skills needed to perform these service projects. Training expands members’ ability to 

contribute to strengthening communities during and after their service by increasing members’

skills, understanding, and commitment to strengthening communities. Training and development 

are intended to shape members as leaders who will continue to serve their communities beyond 

their term of service. It is generally expected that sponsors and site supervisors will, at the start 

of the project, onboard teams to project tasks, train members on the skills needed, and orient 

them to the communities to be served. 

As projects progress, members noted it was helpful when sponsors and/or site supervisors also 

provided ongoing training and check-ins and worked with them side-by-side, providing guidance 

as they complete tasks. When the organization makes a point to have members see their clients 

and programming in action and build skills, it provides them with an experience that lasts beyond 

the term of service. In some cases, members channeled the training and guidance received to 

provide mentorship, guidance, and knowledge and build the confidence of the community 

members they served through their projects. 

For team leaders, mentorship and working closely with sponsors and/or site supervisors helped 

them learn how to work as a unit, effectively disseminate information to members, and delegate 

and direct to ensure task completion. Some organizational staff grew through the experience of 

hosting members at their site. One site supervisor’s statement illuminates the “give and take” or 

reciprocal benefits of intentionally developing members while also inherently developing staff. 

Additionally, some sponsors reported positive impacts on their own leadership skills because of 

their mentorship and personal involvement with NCCC team members. 

Additional facilitators discussed critical paths to effectiveness, including: 

• Variation in task complexity, allowing members to learn and gain experience with tasks 

that foster development of multiple professional, leadership, prosocial, and life skills 

• Availability of sponsors and site supervisors to provide ongoing training and support 

throughout the duration of the project 

• Having clear standard operating procedures (SOPs) that team leaders and members can 

reference and use a resource to supplement their training and task completion 

Facilitating close and positive connections through mentorship and networking. Analysis of 

the case studies data suggests that strong linkages to the organization help members connect 

tasks to the project’s purpose and context, effectively implement tasks, and develop networks 

and the knowledge needed to successfully complete the project. Some respondents mentioned 

that their staff connects with members to learn more about them personally and provide positive 

support in their lives by helping “them with thinking about what they want to do in the future....”

When staff and members have a chance to connect, the organization can learn about new 

resources for their programming, and the members can network and gain some perspective and 

guidance for their lives after AmeriCorps. 
44 

Many sponsors conveyed that they had positive relationships with the teams, with one calling 

them “godsends.” The development of such close relationships, often through mentorship, 

sometimes led to organizations looking toward, if not actually, hiring AmeriCorps members as 

well as helping some members make connections for future jobs that support civic and 

community engagement. Similarly, it is beneficial for organizations to have open communication 

with communities that they are serving and focus on the people being served. Involving 

community members in solutions was seen as particularly impactful towards strengthening 

communities. Overall, it is the mutual benefits that make these relationships and partnerships 

successful and play a role in strengthening communities. 

Members, sponsors, and site supervisors described several factors that affect the ability of 

AmeriCorps members to be successful in serving their communities. Members bring flexibility, 

open-mindedness, and excited energy to projects. In addition, their youth, histories, and 

experiences enhance interaction with community members, beneficiaries, and staff. These 

characteristics were also cited to shape the project activities, and their feedback was repeatedly 

mentioned as important for improvement. Sponsors recounted that the teams' energy 

reinvigorated their staff and lifted the spirits of the communities they served at a time often 

characterized by high stress and burnout. 

Members’ initiative, positive leadership qualities, and an eagerness to jump in are seen as critical 

to successfully complete the project. Community stakeholder respondents observed that 

AmeriCorps members took charge and demonstrated great initiative and leadership qualities. In 

addition, members were able to achieve project tasks and served as “force multipliers” to 

complete work that the sponsor could not do previously due to limited staff or more pressing 

tasks; alleviated burnout; and enabled the organizations to serve the community and 

exponentially increase their efficiency to do so. Sponsors view AmeriCorps members as 

“fearless” and hard workers who never hesitate to do the “dirty work,” and keep things moving 

along. Respondents also described their appreciation of how AmeriCorps members used 

resources properly, finding tasks that members can excel at, outside of just hard labor. 

The ability of members to form positive impressions and relationships with an organizations’

staff was also seen as critical to success and contributed to AmeriCorps members being viewed 

by respondents as “hugely beneficial” to the community. Demonstrating a heartfelt dedication to 

service and a willingness to “give back” to community members helped engender a sense of 

hope among the communities the members served. In addition, their age, histories, and 

experiences enhance interaction with community members, beneficiaries, and staff. These 

characteristics were also cited to shape the project activities, and their feedback was repeatedly 

mentioned as important to obtain for improvement. Residents in the community who directly 

interacted with members conveyed positive impressions of AmeriCorps, often describing teams 

as energetic, dedicated, and hard-working. Some interviewees focused on how AmeriCorps 

members comprise a younger cohort, which may contribute to softening the negative rhetoric 

around young people's work and community ethics. Respondents noted that visibility and 

awareness of AmeriCorps NCCC in the community was important towards engaging and 

strengthening communities. Both staff and community members described how seeing 
45 

AmeriCorps members in action may inspire others to serve and build trust in the government as 

embodied representatives. 

Future Research 

The current study was exploratory; future research investigating project, sponsor, and 

community-level predictors of community strengthening might consider examining how such 

predictors vary by project type, as well as the extent to which the project was effective in 

achieving their goals. It might also be helpful to examine the extent to which some projects 

might lead to community benefits. Below we offer some methodological recommendations to 

strengthen and guide future impact research on strengthening communities. 

Consider changing the unit of analysis to be the host sites. Host site stakeholders admitted 

difficulty recalling issues when responding to some of the questions, especially when they hosted 

multiple teams since the project in question occurred. It may be the accumulation of efforts put 

forth by multiple teams that has the potential for lasting change, even when each project is 

distinct. For example, one park’s tree planting project helped the host site to refine systems for 

large group volunteer projects (both AmeriCorps and otherwise) and forced supervisors to get 

into the field, making them aware of needs that otherwise would not have been accounted for and 

creating a needs inventory for future large group volunteer projects (both NCCC and otherwise), 

while also providing long-term ecological impacts that accumulate alongside other such smallscale activities. 

By not limiting the respondent group to projects, the pool to draw perspectives on potential 

impact would be widened. For this to occur successfully, we recognize that study participants 

should be incentivized. This would allow members to move beyond their team’s interpersonal 

dynamics and broaden the conversation to focus on how members view impact more broadly. 

This would also widen the pool of residents who can be invited to comment on how projects may 

have affected the community, including those who may not have had direct involvement with a 

particular team but have benefited from infrastructure changes, for example. 

An additional enhancement that may be derived from a more expansive unit of analysis is that 

the windshield tours can be detached from any particular team and selected by project goal 

instead, which would need to be purposefully selected to fit the potential of a windshield tour or 

walking survey. More considerations for windshield tours or walking surveys include: 

• How much time needs to have passed for a change to be detectable in space or services? 

• Can prior community needs assessments or visual documentation of the landscape be 

utilized to make comparisons both before and after work by AmeriCorps members? How 

do we document change without a capture of the before (or if a longer-term study, can 

researchers document the before and then come back at various increments)? 

• Can community residents provide narrative on how the use of the space or service has 

shifted over time and, if compensated, contribute to the research activities as coresearchers? 
46 

Longer-term outcomes are complex to measure. To get a more nuanced and deeper perspective 

in some areas, it is important to use methods such as: photovoice, community engagement 

studio, world cafe, or mapping to include diverse voices into the evaluative learning process. 
47 

Appendix A. Study Objectives and Research Questions 

The table states the research questions that guided the data collection and analysis 

Objective Research questions 

Define strengthening communities 

in the context of AmeriCorps 

NCCC. 

a. What is meant by strengthening communities? 

b. How is success in strengthening communities defined 

by different stakeholders? 

c. How do sponsor organizations perceive project 

success? 

Assess the evidence of AmeriCorps 

NCCC’s impact on the 

communities where its members 

serve. 

a. What are the indicators of how AmeriCorps NCCC 

strengthens communities? How do AmeriCorps 

NCCC projects strengthen communities? 

b. How do AmeriCorps members affect sponsor 

organizations’ ability to serve and strengthen 

communities? 

c. What do members, sponsors and site supervisors, and 

community stakeholders believe are the most 

important factors influencing the ability for 

AmeriCorps NCCC to strengthen communities? 

d. What are the direct, indirect, unintended, and longterm effects of AmeriCorps NCCC’s service on 

communities? 

e. How do community members perceive AmeriCorps 

NCCC and FEMA Corps? 

Calculate the social return on 

investment of AmeriCorps 

response to the Covid-19 pandemic 

a. What is the return on investment of AmeriCorps’

response to the Covid-19 pandemic? What are the 

cost savings of using AmeriCorps to respond to the 

pandemic? 
48 

Appendix B. AmeriCorps NCCC Logic Model for Strengthening Communities 

INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS 

OUTCOMES 

Short Term Intermediate Long Term 

• AmeriCorps 

NCCC funding 

• FEMA Staff 

• NCCC Members 

and potential 

members 

• Funding 

• Sponsors and 

partners 

• Venues 

• Technical 

Assistance 

• Accommodations 

for NCCC 

members 

• Laws and 

regulations 

• Curriculum for 

training members 

on strengthening 

communities 

NCCC Community & Member Development Activity Member Level 

• Developing the strengthening communities’ plan/model

• Conducting needs assessments 

• Training members in strengthening communities, 

including how to: 

o Recruit, train and coordinate volunteers 

o Build relationships with community-based 

organizations and coalitions 

o Work with community members to solve community 

problems 

• Training team leaders to support members in 

community activities 

• Supervising and coaching team leaders and Corps 

Members in strengthening communities 

• Evaluating and assessing member development and 

community activities 

• Corps members and team 

leaders trained in 

strengthening communities 

• Members and leaders receive 

supervision 

• Increased knowledge about 

strengthening communities; how to: 

o Recruit, train and coordinate 

volunteers 

o Build relationships with 

community-based organizations 

and coalitions 

o Work with community members 

to solve community problems 

• Increased desire to take action to 

strengthen communities 

• Increased self-efficacy regarding 

ability to lead others to strengthen 

communities 

• Increased civic participation and 

volunteerism 

• Increased leadership in local 

community strengthening initiatives 

• Indirect effects on dimensions of 

strengthening communities in 

members’ and leaders’ future home 

and work communities 

Corps Members Activities in the Community 

(Short-term, team-based projects) Community/Beneficiary Level 

Building Community and Organizational Capacity Building Community and 

Organizational Capacity 

Building Community and Organizational 

Capacity 

Building Community and 

Organizational Capacity 

Building Community and Organizational 

Capacity 

• Recruiting, registering, and coordinating volunteers 

• Fostering collaborations or partnerships between 

organizations 

• Increasing community engagement and participation by 

supporting events, partnerships, and collaborative 

projects 

• Integrating into communities and working alongside 

community members and project beneficiaries 

• Assisting in building or renovating physical spaces used 

by community and government agencies to serve 

community members 

• Creating or enhancing systems or tools (e.g., 

databases) to be used by community and government 

agencies to serve community members 

• Increased number of 

volunteers 

• Increased partnerships 

between organizations 

• Improved physical 

infrastructure for communityserving agencies 

• Increased volunteer engagement 

• Help to establish connections, or 

increase connections, between 

community-serving organizations 

• Ability to serve more beneficiaries 

• Increased efficiency and 

effectiveness of community-led 

volunteer efforts 

• Increased ability of community 

serving organizations to leverage 

community assets 

• Increased capacity of community 

and government agencies to serve 

community members, including 

ability to serve greater numbers of 

clients, to serve the needs of 

existing clients more holistically, 

and/or to deliver existing services 

more efficiently effectively 

• Increased organizational and 

interorganizational capacity to serve 

community needs 

• Increased community member 

health and well-being (e.g., due to 

ability to use trails, reduced 

exposure to mold) 

Community Improvement 

• Constructing, renovating, and rebuilding homes and 

public buildings 

• Restoring public fixtures and beautifying community 

(e.g., painting streetlamps, boarding up abandoned 

houses) 

• Improving public lands including parks and historic sites 

(e.g., removing exotic vegetation, creating or modifying 

hiking trails, creating irrigation systems) 

• Building or improving community farms and gardens 

• Supporting infrastructure development and capacity 

building of small nonprofits 

• Providing direct assistance for vulnerable individuals 

(e.g., seniors, veterans, people who are homeless, 

people facing food insecurity, people with disabilities) 

Community Improvement 

• Public land improvements 

made, including: 

o Hiking trails established or 

fixed 

o Exotic vegetation 

removed 

o Community gardens or 

farms created or 

supported 

• Construction, restoration, or 

renovation of private homes 

and public buildings 

o Houses built 

o Houses restored or 

renovated 

Community Improvement 

• Increased number of people with 

access to public lands and trails 

• Increased access to safe and 

affordable housing for direct project 

beneficiaries 

• Reduced food insecurity 

• Improved short-term well-being of 

vulnerable community members 

• Reduced perceptions of 

neighborhood physical disorder 

Community Improvement 

• Increased number of people using 

public lands and trails 

• Increased ability of people 

experiencing housing or food 

instability to focus on higher order 

needs (e.g. education, work) 

• Increased community member 

sense of safety and livability 
49 

INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS 

OUTCOMES 

Short Term Intermediate Long Term 

o Public buildings restored 

or renovated 

• Community beautification 

o Houses, streetlamps, or 

other fixtures painted 

o Abandoned properties 

boarded up 

• Vulnerable individuals 

supported 

Disaster Preparation, Mitigation and Recovery 

• Supporting FEMA Corps activities (e.g., performing 

assessments, mapping) to improve efficiency of 

planning and targeting of resources 

• Providing direct support to individuals affected by 

disaster (e.g., helping them to obtain aid) 

• Educating community members on disaster preparation 

and recovery, including conducting trainings and 

distributing publications and other materials 

• Improving physical structures or environments to 

prevent or mitigate future disasters (e.g., installing 

smoke detectors) 

• Supporting short-term recovery from disaster by 

addressing immediate health and safety hazards (e.g., 

removing debris) 

• Supporting long-term recovery from disaster by 

addressing potential threats to long-term health and 

safety (e.g., mucking out and gutting homes) 

Disaster Preparation, Mitigation 

and Recovery 

• Infrastructure improvements 

made, including: 

o Houses mucked and gutted 

o Pounds of debris cleared 

o Smoke detectors installed 

• Assessments or maps created 

• Publications created or 

distributed 

• Trainings conducted / people 

trained in disaster preparation 

and response 

• Volunteers registered or 

managed 

• Individuals affected by disaster 

who receive assistance 

• Individuals contacted (or made 

contact with) to provide 

disaster information 

assistance, such as finding 

shelter and other support 

services 

• Individuals registered to 

receive disaster assistance, 

such as filing for FEMA 

assistance paperwork 

• Individuals received disaster 

assistance 

Disaster Preparation, Mitigation, and 

Recovery 

• Increased community member 

knowledge of disaster preparation 

and recovery 

• Reduced time before businesses 

open 

• Reduced time before disaster 

survivors can move into their homes 

and/or go back to work 

• Reduced mold in homes of disaster 

survivors 

• Increased data and infrastructure for 

FEMA of the needs and 

characteristics of current and 

potential disaster survivors 

Disaster Preparation, Mitigation, and 

Recovery 

• Increased steps taken by 

community members to follow 

disaster preparation 

recommendations 

• Increased ability of community 

members and businesses to gain 

steady income 

• Reduced health issues caused by 

mold and other disaster-related 

challenges 

• Increased ability of FEMA to target 

resources effectively 

Disaster Preparation, Mitigation, and 

Recovery 

• Increased disaster resilience—

preventing disasters, mitigating their 

effects, and enhancing efficiency of 

recovery 
50 

INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS 

OUTCOMES 

Short Term Intermediate Long Term 

Potential indirect or unintentional 

outcomes 

• Increased trust, hope, and sense of 

community 

• Increased pride in community and 

desire to care for community 

resources 

• Increased positive sentiment about 

the community and hopefulness for 

the future among community 

members, volunteers, and project 

beneficiaries 

• Improved perceptions of youth 

among elder community members 

• Possibility of unintentional negative 

effects or consequences 

Potential indirect or unintentional 

outcomes 

• Increasing trust, hope, and sense 

of community 

• Increased action taken by 

community members to care for 

community resources 

• Possibility of unintentional negative 

effects or consequences 

Potential indirect or unintentional 

outcomes 

• Increased trust, hope, and sense of 

community 

• Increased community 

empowerment and perceived ability 

of community members to 

collectively serve their own needs 

• Improved intergenerational 

relationships 

• Increased built and natural capital 

• Improved economic development in 

low-income and/or disaster affected 

regions 

• Possibility of unintentional negative 

effects or consequences 
51 

Appendix C: Geographic Distribution and Characteristics of Service 

Projects 

This section describes the geographic distribution of AmeriCorps NCCC projects. Figure C.1 

shows the geographic distributions of service projects from 2012-2022. Each dot on the map 

represents the site where an AmeriCorps NCCC team was deployed at least once and completed 

a service project. Between 2012 and 2022, AmeriCorps completed 6,753 service projects, 

serving multiple locations in each of the 48 contiguous states, Alaska, Hawai’i, Puerto Rico, and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands. During this period, 29 percent of the projects took place in the Southern 

region, 28 percent in the Pacific region, 24 percent in the North Central region, and 19 percent in 

the Southwest region. 

Figure C.1: Communities served by AmeriCorps NCCC service, 2012-2022 
52 

Community beneficiaries are wide-ranging and include disaster survivors, children and youth, 

older adults, veterans and family members of veterans, people with disabilities, and people in 

low-income communities facing housing or food insecurity. Figure C.2 shows the distribution of 

projects that had an impact on what is considered a ‘special population.’ These projects provided 

direct and indirect support to special populations, such as individuals with disabilities, older 

adults, immigrants or refugees, non-English language speakers, disadvantaged youth, and 

projects with tribal communities and indigenous peoples. From 2012 to 2022, 242 projects 

served special populations. 
53 

Figure C.2: Distribution of Special Population Projects 2012-2022 

Since 2012, projects where at least some of the outcome addressed disaster (i.e., disaster 

prevention, preparedness, and mitigation, disaster recovery, disaster response) remain the most 

prevalent types of projects for AmeriCorps NCCC teams. Figure C.3 shows the geographic 

distribution of project outcomes that focused on disaster. Of the 6,753 projects, 2,012 had a 

disaster prevention preparedness and mitigation outcome; 2,142 had a disaster recovery outcome; 

and 1,312 had a disaster response outcome. 
54 

Figure C.3: The most prevalent outcomes of AmeriCorps NCCC disaster service projects 

Figure C.4: Percentage of disaster projects over the years 

For every year 

between 2012 and 

2022, the 

distribution of 

disaster focused 

project outcomes 

remained in the 

range of 27 to 35 

percent (Figure 

C.4) 

As previously 

mentioned, from 

the outset, 

AmeriCorps NCCC 

served and 

supported 

communities through the Covid-19 pandemic. Between January 2020 and August 2022, of the 

1,401 projects, 194 (14%) percent were pandemic related disaster projects. In addition to 

AmeriCorps NCCC’s response to the Covid-19 public health emergency during this period, the 

teams completed 434 projects that had a disaster recovery outcome, which makes up 31 percent 
55 

of the projects completed from 2020-2022; 422 projects had a disaster prevention, preparedness, 

and mitigation outcome (30%), and 274 projects had a disaster response outcome (20%). 

Despite the pandemic, the distribution of projects across the focus areas remained consistent over 

time. 

The distribution of project outcomes is consistent with the distribution of projects’ primary focus 

areas (Table C.5). About half of the projects are in the Natural and Other Disaster primary issue 

area. 

Table C.5: Distribution of projects’ primary issue area, 2017-2019 compared to 2020-2022 

Primary Focus Area 2017-2019 2020-2022 

Natural and Other Disasters (DIS) 51% 50% 

Urban and Rural Development 

(URD) 

28% 25% 

Environmental Stewardship and 

Conservation (ENV) 

16% 19% 

Infrastructure Improvement (INF) 4% 5% 

Energy Conservation (EC) 1% 1% 

N = 2,013 projects in 2017-2019 and 1,401 projects in 2020-August 2022. 
56 

Appendix D. Data Sources to Develop Indicators of Strengthened 

Communities 

The use of multiple data sources to identify the connection between quantified outputs and 

meaningful outcomes to support the evidence of AmeriCorps NCCC’s impact on communities it

serves. The sources include thematically coded data on more than 6,700 completed service 

projects between 2012 and 2022, three types of case studies, and data from a yearly survey of 

sponsors administered by AmeriCorps NCCC. The mixed methods approach provides insight 

into the impact of Traditional NCCC and FEMA Corps on the communities that members serve. 

The AmeriCorps NCCC Service Projects Database (SPD) is the primary data source that 

provides quantitative indicators of the impact of projects on the communities served. The 

variables in the SPD are issue areas, project accomplishments, project characteristics, disaster 

type (when applicable), type of sponsor, and sponsor and site locations. Each project has 

narrative texts that reflect the team’s narrative of the project’s outcomes and what the team 

gained from working on the project. 

The research team developed a framework that coded the narrative texts written by each team for 

each service project (Sum, Shannon, Birmingham, et.al., 2020). These codes identify the primary 

types of impacts reported for the project. The coding framework distinguishes the unit where the 

impact occurred (i.e., individual, organization, community), the tangible impacts, and the 

intangible impacts. Tangible impacts capture outcomes that are clear to observers, such as 

providing food and clothing to survivors of a disaster. Intangible impacts capture outcomes that 

are not concrete or clear to observers, such as providing emotional support to survivors after a 

crisis or listening to people in the community who are struggling with addiction. 

Although the SPD quantifies the breadth of measurable community benefits observed or 

predicted by the teams, the SPD does not provide information about the projects’ deeper impacts 

on sponsor organizations and communities as observed or inferred by the organizations and 

community stakeholders, including the long-term and unexpected effects. To bridge the gap, the 

quantitative data are supplemented with three case studies. 

Restricted Case Studies. The restricted case studies consist of 12 service projects, including 

both active and past projects. These case studies include review of selected documentation about 

the projects and phone interviews with sponsors and site supervisors to gain insight about 

projects that might be too difficult or impractical to be the subjects of a comprehensive in-depth 

case study. For the restricted case studies, we analyzed the SPD to select a sample of 12 service 

projects. The selection criteria were projects that serve less clearly defined communities or large 

geographic regions, projects that were new or being conducted with a new partner, projects that 

had less clearly predicted outcomes, or projects where a site visit would be disruptive or harmful. 

We also sampled projects deemed less successful, allowing for an exploration of whether and 

how AmeriCorps NCCC continues to have a lasting impact after its presence has ceased. 

In-Depth Case Studies. The in-depth case studies include six active projects, four active 

Traditional Corps projects from each campus representing different issue areas and two active 

FEMA Corps projects, including one steady-state project and one active or formerly active 

disaster site. These case studies included an in-person site visit to an active project site; remote 

focus groups with members; and remote interviews with the team leaders, sponsors and site 
57 

supervisors, and community stakeholders. During the site visit, the research team incorporated a 

walking/windshield observation of a nearby service project. One year after the initial site visit, 

we completed follow-up phone interviews with sponsors and site supervisors to obtain additional 

insight into the long-term impacts of studied projects. 

The selection of the six in-depth case studies was a collaboration between region staff and the 

research team. The selection of the six projects occurred on an ongoing basis as each region 

deployed new teams to various communities throughout the U.S. From January 2022 through 

October 2022, each region provided the research team their upcoming project docket for each 

new round of classes deployed within the region. The research team reviewed the dockets then 

selected a short-list of six case study projects generated using the following criteria: project type 

Traditional Corps versus FEMA Corps, issue area, and inclusion of special populations. The data 

collection for each in-depth case study, which occurred between April and November 2022, 

consisted of four major components: document review, site visits and observations, windshield 

tours, and remote interviews with sponsors, site supervisors, team leaders, and community 

members. For FEMA Corps projects, the research team interviewed the FEMA points of contact 

(POCs). AmeriCorps members serving in each project participated in a remote focus group. 

The data collection for the in-depth case studies was delayed by almost two years because of the 

public health emergency due to the coronavirus (Covid-19). Starting in March 2020, AmeriCorps 

paused campus arrival of new members, which lasted through June 2020. The pause in arrival 

necessitated a concomitant pause in the start of the in-depth case studies. Data collection for the 

in-depth case studies began in January 2022. Although there was a pause to on-site arrival to the 

campuses, members continued to serve their communities. Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps 

members pivoted to supporting local communities during this public health emergency. 

AmeriCorps NCCC classifies each service project with one or more outcome: basic needs, 

community well-being, disaster prevention, preparedness, and mitigation, disaster recovery, 

disaster response, energy and environmental practices, housing, natural resources, public space 

and infrastructure, and special populations. 

In-Depth Case Study Data Collection. Each in-depth case study included four major data 

collection activities: 

• Document review. Prior to the start of the case study, two researchers reviewed 

background documents and materials on each project to familiarize themselves with its 

objectives and accomplishments. The researchers reviewed the project’s application, 

service project reports, and other extant materials specific to the project. 

• Site visits. The two researchers conducted site visits as part of each case study. These site 

visits lasted two to three days and provided the researchers with real-time observations of 

the project’s team in the “field,” be it in a green space planting trees or in an office

drafting a PowerPoint presentation. The researchers utilized an observation form to 

capture objective and subjective notes and direct quotations. The researchers also 

conducted windshield tours at recently completed project sites when possible. 

• Interviews. The researchers completed 28 interviews with 29 respondents using a 

structured interview protocol that allowed for organic probes. The interview respondents 
58 

include sponsors, site supervisors, FEMA points of contact (POCs), team leaders, and 

community members. 

o Twenty-eight interviews were complet ed across six projects. The 29 

respondents consisted of 12 sponsors/POCs/site supervisors, 11 community 

stakeholders, and 6 team leaders. Two interviewees were on one community 

stakeholder interview for the Disaster Response Hurricane Ian project. 

NCCC Project Interviews 

completed 

Disaster Response Hurricane Ian 6 

Girl Scouts of Alaska 4 

Habitat for Humanity Metro Denver 9 

Ozaukee County Planning and Parks 3 

FEMA Kentucky Tornadoes PA/OPS 2 

FEMA National IMAT Blue 4 

Total 28 

• Focus groups. AmeriCorps members from each of the six NCCC teams participated 

in a virtual focus group. Two researchers facilitated each focus group using a 

structured protocol that allowed for organic probes. Thirty-five AmeriCorps members 

participated in six virtual focus groups. 

NCCC Project Actual number of 

participants per 

focus group 

Disaster Response Hurricane Ian 6 

Girl Scouts of Alaska 7 

Habitat for Humanity Metro Denver 5 

Ozaukee County Planning and Parks 6 

FEMA Kentucky Tornadoes PA/OPS 7 

FEMA National IMAT Blue 4 

Total 35 

Covid-19 Case Studies. A third type of case study included projects focused on AmeriCorps’

response to Covid-19. The Covid-19 case studies included 13 service projects. Four of the 

projects were active at the time of the data collection between January and April 2022. In 

subsequent months, none of the regions had new Covid-19 projects. Therefore, in October 2022, 

we identified six Covid-19-related projects completed between 2020 and 2021 using available 

data from the SPD. Three projects supported Covid-19 vaccination distribution sites or Covid-19 

testing sites; two projects from the group of projects provided Covid-19 direct services but did 

not include support of vaccination or testing sites; and one project from the subset of projects 

was not explicitly identified as Covid-19-related, but based on the project narrative, it was 

determined that the project supported Covid-19 direct services. Since these projects were 

completed for at least a year prior to data collection, these case studies were treated as 

“restricted” case studies, meaning we conducted remote interviews with sponsors supplemented 

by information from the SPD and project documents provided by NCCC staff. We did not 
59 

conduct interviews with team leaders or focus groups with members. In addition to assessing the 

contribution of Covid-19 to supporting communities, AmeriCorps conducted an analysis of the 

social return on investment (SROI) of AmeriCorps NCCC’s support to communities to address 

the Covid-19 pandemic. SROI measures and values the social, economic, environmental impact 

of Covid-19-related service projects. 

Covid-19 Case Study Data Collection. Data collection included 10 Covid-19 case studies 

consisting of 13 projects. While four of the case studies involved data collection while the 

projects were still active, projects were closed for 1.5 – 2 years at the time of data collection for 

six of the case studies. Each Covid-19 Case Study included two or three data collection 

components: document review, interviews and focus groups. 

• Document review. Before starting the case study, two researchers reviewed 

background documents and materials on the associated case study project(s) to 

familiarize themselves with its objectives and accomplishments, including reviewing 

the service project application and other extant materials specific to the project. For 

completed projects, the review also included project portfolios or project completion 

reports, as well as key information from the NCCC Service Project Database (SPD), 

particularly around the project’s impact on the AmeriCorps members, team leaders, 

and communities served. 

• Interviews. The researchers completed 18 interviews with 19 respondents using a 

structured interview protocol that allowed for organic probes. Interview respondents 

included sponsors, site supervisors, FEMA points of contact (POCs), and team 

leaders. Researchers also interviewed team leaders for the four case studies with 

active projects during data collection. 

• Eighteen interviews were conducted across ten NCCC Covid -19 

Case Studies. Researchers interviewed 19 respondents for the case studies, 

including 14 sponsors/POCs or site supervisors and five team leaders from active 

project sites. One interview included two sponsors. 

NCCC Covid-19 Disaster Case Study # Projects 

included 

Interviews 

completed 

Beans & Rice Food Distribution 1 2 

COVID-19 Containment Response 

Corps (CCRC) Contact Tracing 

1 1 

Creek Fire Response 1 1 

Four Seasons Town Center Vaccination 

Site 

1 1 

Kentucky Hospitals 2 5 

Kootenai Health 1 2 

FEMA Oregon Vaccination Missions 3 3 

FEMA Pre-Stage for Hurricane Season 

Commodities Distribution 

1 1 

Constructing Affordable Housing, 

Volunteer Relief 

1 1 

Supporting COVID-19 Vaccination at 

Ford Field Community Clinic 

1 1 

Total 13 18 
60 

• Focus groups. Researchers conducted virtual focus group discussions with 

AmeriCorps members for the four case studies with active projects during data 

collection. Two researchers facilitated each focus group using a structured protocol 

that allowed for organic probes. Twenty-four AmeriCorps members 

participated in four virtual focus groups. 

NCCC Covid-19 Disaster Case Study # Projects 

included 

Actual number 

of participants 

per focus 

group 

Beans & Rice Food Distribution 1 7 

Kentucky Hospitals 2 7 

Kootenai Health 1 7 

Oregon Vaccination Missions 2 3 

Total 7 24 

Table D.1. Number and Types of Interviewees by Case Study 

Case Study 

Type 

Number of 

Interviews 

Number of 

Focus Groups 

Number of 

Sites/Projects 

Number & Types of 

Interviewees* 

Restricted 16 N/A 14 Sponsors (14) 

Site Supervisors/POCs (3) 

Team Leaders (2) 

In-Depth 28 6 6 Sponsors (6) 

Site Supervisors/POCs (6) 

AmeriCorps members (35) 

Team Leaders (6) 

Community Stakeholders (11) 

Covid-19 18 7 13 Site Supervisors/POCs (14) 

Team Leaders (5) 

AmeriCorps members (24) 

Total 62 10 33 91 

Note: Some interviews had more than one participant, so total may not match the number of interviewees 

Table D.2 shows the range of community level indicators across the projects. These indicators 

are community wide impacts such as if the service project resulted in a community asset. An 

example of the text coded as community impact: "The team assisted in starting 10 raised garden 

beds for the community to use to plant vegetables. Cedar 4 worked together to install 15,000 feet 

of an irrigation system to the farm area. Finally, the team relocated 185 bales of hay in order to 

prevent animals from getting into the garden and eating the plants." 

Table D.2: Indicators of impact at the community level 

Indicator Definition of Indicator 

Built and natural 

capital 

Increased built and natural capital though the creation of new public 

spaces or private residences, or the enhancement of existing 
61 

resources. Includes producing a community asset, such as 

community gardens, farms, and camps. 

Special events Contribution to community events, including assistance in preparing 

for, setting up, and cleaning up and/or working directly with event 

staff, volunteers, or attendees. 

Disaster mitigation Prevention or mitigation of future disasters on public lands, typically 

through changes to the physical environment. 

Expected economic 

benefit 

Actual and potential economic benefits gained by the community 

through project activities, such as economic recovery after a disaster, 

increased tourism revenue due to enhanced trails, facilities, etc. 

Some service projects also impacted the community’s economy, which is captured in the

expected economic benefit indicator. An example of this indicator: "In plugging the cattleformed gully within Little Hunter’s Meadow, Silver Seven was part of an effort to preserve the 

water so that it will eventually channel into rivers holding key species. Without water, John 

Day’s forests will decay, and its citizens will lose their main source of income. As a result, Silver 

Seven’s service not only impacts the health of the Malheur National Forest, but also that of John 

Day’s economy." 

Table D.3 shows the range of organizational level indicators across the projects. These indicators 

include projects specifically focused on Covid-19. An example of text coded as organizational 

level impact: “After the Team's arrival, the site's one day vaccination high was 9,545 and the 

average per day was 7,326. The Team was partly responsible for this improvement. In 

particular, they reorganized the section of the site where cars were directed out of the 

vaccination center, immediately mitigating backlog and reducing delays due to their efforts.”

Table D.3: Indicators of impact at the organizational level 

Indicator Definition of Indicator 

Disaster readiness Organizations or groups have increased readiness to respond to disasters 

because of disaster simulations, drills, and related activities that provide 

opportunities for first responders and others who will be expected to 

respond to disasters to practice and improve response. 

Infrastructure Increased data or infrastructure for organizations including physical 

infrastructure (e.g., buildings, computers) or changes are made inside 

buildings (e.g., constructing bookcases), and organizational infrastructure 

(e.g., procedures, protocols); 

Organizational 

effectiveness 

Increased organizational efficiency and effectiveness, including increased 

capacity of community and government agencies to serve community 

members. This may include the ability to serve more people, offer more or 

better services, or to finish projects faster than they would be done 

otherwise. 

Covid adjacent 

services 

Increased organizational efficiency and infrastructure support to support 

the normal operations of the sponsor organization that have been impacted 

by the Covid-19 pandemic, e.g., fixing trails that saw a big increase in 
62 

visitation during Covid-19, or setting up equipment to assist during staff 

shortages. 

Covid direct services Increased organizational efficiency and infrastructure support specifically 

in responding to the Covid-19 pandemic, such as providing relief to staff 

working on testing/vaccination, assisting in hospitals dealing with staffing 

shortages, or increasing awareness of testing, safety procedures, and 

vaccinations. 

Table D.4 shows the range of individual level indicators across the projects. Indicators at the 

individual level focus on impacts on individuals in the communities served by the project, they 

include the tangible impact, such as with basic needs, which includes food, clothing, and 

housing, and intangible impact. An example of text coded as tangible impact: "The clothing, 

food, and supplies distributed to the community members aided them and supplied their needs 

temporarily as disaster recovery began. " 

Table D.4: Indicators of impact at the individual level 

Indicator Definition of Indicator 

Basic needs People have increased access to food, water, clothing, shelter, health 

care or other basic needs that they would not have otherwise. Needs 

that are more immediate, crucial, to be addressed very soon. 

Disaster assistance / 

recovery / preparedness 

Increased knowledge of or access to funding, labor, or other resources 

that can assist in long-term recovery from disaster, including 

rebuilding homes. Increased community member knowledge related 

to disaster preparation or the creation of materials that can aid in 

increasing knowledge of disaster preparedness. Disaster recovery 

includes activities in support of the rebuilding process. 

Human capital and 

learning 

Enhanced human capital achieved by teaching new skills to 

community members, community volunteers, students, or others, 

including tutoring, mentoring, or teaching in a school or after-school 

program. 

Physical health and 

safety 

People have or are expected to have better physical health outcomes 

in the future including reduced disease, accidental injury due to safety 

hazards or disasters or death. 

Physical health and 

safety - Covid 

Individuals receive health benefits related to Covid-19, such as 

receiving testing services, health services, or vaccination. 

Psychosocial benefits Increased psychosocial well-being including enhanced mental health, 

trust, hope, and/or sense of community. 

Special populations Direct and indirect support provided to special populations, such as 

individuals with disabilities, senior citizens, immigrants or refugees, 

non-English language speakers, and disadvantaged youth; could 

include work with tribal communities. 

Another tangible indicator is physical health and safety, which means the project results in better 

physical health outcomes. There is a specialized indicator for Covid-19 health impacts as well: 
63 

“The team has been assigned to contact tracing and case investigating in Larimer County and 

other northeast counties of Colorado, but with the team's help, the case count has consistently 

gotten lower and lower. Thus, the team has been able to move on to assist other regions of the 

state and now contact traces and case investigates in counties all across Colorado.”

One example of intangible impact is human capital and learning, which indicates a project 

increased human capital: "Blue Two served at a community event in which they taught children 

how to plant trees. This educational experience may impact the mindset of these children as they 

grow older to bolster a more environmentally conscious generation." 

Another intangible impact is psychosocial benefits, which indicates the improvement of mental 

health in the community: "The residents of the Laurel Shelter and the employees were very 

pleased by the painting that had been completed by Delta 2 and felt that it ‘lifted spirits around 

the home’’" 
64 

Appendix E. AmeriCorps Covid-19 Services Social Economic Impact 

Analysis9 

Executive Summary of the AmeriCorps COVID-19 services Social Economic 

Impact Analysis 

This is a summary of the Social Return on Investment from the activities provided by 

AmeriCorps NCCC teams that are related to Covid-19. Based on the service projects database 

(SPD) these activities include vaccines distribution mission assignments, Covid-adjacent projects 

such as services in hospitals, food banks, mobile vaccine distribution and other communitybased projects related to Covid-19. The primary objective is to measure the cost savings of using 

AmeriCorps NCCC for the COVID-19 pandemic response. These values are the social return 

accrued to the community, FEMA, the sponsoring organizations, and the individuals in the 

communities. 

The direct economic impacts are the actual costs of the services by AmeriCorps NCCC 

compared to the costs that would have been incurred if these services were not provided by 

AmeriCorps NCCC. The fair market value costs used for the 

calculation are based on the average hourly rate of a U.S. Census Bureau surveyor in 2020. The 

type of Covid-19 activities performed by AmeriCorps NCCC teams include contact tracing calls, 

wellness check calls with seniors, supporting services for Covid vaccination sites and Covid 

testing sites, distribute PPE, and scheduling or confirming vaccination appointments. The Covid19 services occurred from 2020 – 2021. 

The calculated return in the year the services occurred is $2.83 -- $2.83:$1.00; that is for each 

dollar invested to deploy a NCCC team, the social return is $2.83. 

There are accrued benefits that occur beyond the initial period of service. To project the longterm impact, the calculation accounts for the fact some of the benefits would have occurred 

without the services provided by AmeriCorps NCCC teams. Long term impact takes years to 

materialize, and the return is not 1-to-1. For example, many individuals were vaccinated regardless 

of the efforts of AmeriCorps NCCC teams, including the individuals the teams contacted by phone 

to schedule a vaccine appointment. Another example is that many of the individuals did wear, or 

would have worn, masks even if NCCC teams did not distribute them. 

Consequential impacts are the longer-term effects (also known as “outcomes”) that actions or 

events have on economic factors. These impacts can include changes in medical care, community 

social support costs, governmental benefit programs, personal income, and other areas. and are 

calculated over a period of 10 years. 

The projected net consequential impact of the services is $3.78 -- $3.78:$1.00; that is for each 

dollar invested the return over a period of 5 years is $3.78. 

9 Community Services Analysis LLC conducted and authored the social economic impact and return on investment 

analysis (www.csaco.org). 
65 

The total net direct and consequential impact of the Covid-19 services provided by AmeriCorps 

NCCC is $6.22:$1.00; that is for each dollar invested the return over a period of 10 years is 

$6.22. 

What is Social Return on Investment? 

In normal financial analysis, Return on Investment is the ratio of money gained or lost relative to 

the money invested. In social service organizations, Social Return on Investment measures the 

financial value created by the organization through delivery of services to the community. 

Social Return on Investment (SROI) is an approach to measuring and understanding the financial 

impact of a social services organization. While SROI is built on the logic of cost/benefit analysis, 

it is different in that it measures the comparable value of organizations whose results cannot be 

easily measured in money. In the same way that a business plan contains more information than 

simply financial projections, SROI provides information about actual and long- term results of 

services, and the qualitative, quantitative, and financial information on which to base decisions 

about the delivery of social services by organizations. 

A standardized SROI analysis methodology has been developing since the 1960’s, primarily

based on a detailed multi-year study conducted by Social Value International, The New 

Economics Foundation, New Philanthropy Capital, the National Council on Voluntary 

Organization, and the Government of Scotland. 

Many additional organizations are continually contributing to the SROI body of knowledge, 

including the Global Impact Investing Network, the International Financial Reporting Standards 

Foundation, the Global Reporting Initiative, and the United Nations Organization for Economic 

Co-Operation and Development. 

There are two separate phases of SROI: 

Phase 1 is the measurement of the value delivered to the community by the services currently 

being delivered by the organization (the “Outputs”). The most accurate and understandable 

measurement basis for these outputs is the Fair Market Value of the services being delivered - 

what it would cost the community to acquire the same services that a social service provider 

delivers if that provider did not exist - plus the value of benefits received during the immediate 

period under study. This result is a measurement of the comparative efficiency of the 

organization in delivering or providing the services. 

Phase 2 is the measurement of the long-term value of the results of these output services 

delivered - known as the “Outcomes”. These measurements may take years to realize. For 

example, people with disabilities who receive training on independent living skills and how to 

more fully integrate within the community and require significantly less financial support from 

the community over the course of their lives. 
66 

By way of another example, people who receive assistance in finding and retaining employment 

require less future financial support from their communities, plus their future demands on the law 

enforcement and legal systems are less, their future needs for community-based medical 

assistance are less, and their future tax payments are greater. 

A SROI analysis can fulfill a range of purposes. It can be used as a tool for strategic planning, as 

a basis for funding and investment decisions, as a basis for communicating impact and financial 

results to stakeholders, and as a methodology for comparative evaluation of an organization’s 

long-term effectiveness. 

While not the only basis for funding and investment decisions, the SROI results provide the most 

accurate and comprehensible answer to three of the important questions asked by funding decision 

makers: 

• What are the long-term economic impacts from these services? 

• What are the financial benefits we receive for our funding? 

• What is the measurable “bang for the buck”?

•

• The History of Social Return on Investment and the Development of An Internationally 

StandardizedValuation Methodology 

Social Return on Investment has existed as a conceptual research area for over 60 years. 

• The First True Comprehensive Social Economic Impact Measurement Process: 

• The Government of Scotland – 1990’s. The results: 

• Developmentof a Standardized Methodology: 

• The establishment of the SROI Network 

• Release of the initial SROI Methodology paper 2001 

• Release of the first SROI Methodology Framework draft 2004 

• Release of finalized SROI Methodology Framework 2005 

• Measuring Value – 2 nd Edition Published 2008 

• Updated SROI Methodology Framework 2012 

• Consolidation of the SROI Network and 

• Social Industry Analysts Association into 2014 

Social Value International 

• Updated SROI Methodology Framework 2017 

• Updates SROI Methodology Framework 2022 

• Currently, the SROI International economic impact/social return on investment model is the 

internationally accepted and accredited standard in over 30 countries including the U.K., Canada, 

France, Japan, Russia, Australia, Italy, Sweden, South Africa, and many others. 

Social Value – United States is the U.S. Affiliate of Social Value International. 
67 

ABOUT COMMUNITY SERVICES ANALYSIS LLC 

Community Services Analysis LLC (CSACO) is a leading provider of Social Return on 

Investment Analysis in the United States. Since 2007, CSACO has completed over 300 Social 

Economic Impact and SROI studies for individual organizations, social services membership 

associations, and local and state governmental agencies around the country, including such 

clients as the State of Pennsylvania Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, 

the State of California Department of Rehabilitation, the City of Philadelphia, United Way, 

United Cerebral Palsy, Habitat for Humanity, the State of Arizona Library and Public Archives, 

IEEE (the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) Humanitarian Foundation, the 

Community Investment Corporation, multiple educational institutions, and over 250 Civil Legal 

Aid organizations nationwide. 

CSACO was the first organization in the United States to be a member of The SROI Network 

(now Social Value International), the international Social Return on Investment standards and 

accreditation organization, and has been recognized by many national social services 

organizations such as ANCOR (the American Network of Community Options and Resources), 

ACCSES (the American Congress of Community Support and Employment Services), NFSN ( the 

National Family Support Network), and NLADA (the National Legal Aid and Defender 

Association). CSACO is also a founding board member of Social Value – United States and is a 

member of the American Evaluation Association. 

In 2013, following a detailed analysis of multiple Cost Benefit/Return on Investment methodologies 

and providers, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association selected CSACO as their SROI analysis 

national partner. 

In 2018, CSACO was named the national economic impact analysis partner for the National 

Family Support Network. 

John Byrnes (Founder and Principal of CSACO) has also been named the Evaluation Expert of the 

Year for 2021 in Finance Monthly’s annual Global Awards.
68 

Project Summary Results 

AmeriCorps Covid-19 Services 

The services performed by AmeriCorps team members during 2021-22 for Covid-19 related 

projects covered the following specific areas: 

Performing Contact Tracing calls 

Performing Wellness Check calls with seniors 

Performing Disaster Preparedness calls 

Providing supporting services for Covid vaccination sites 

Providing support for Covid testing sites 

Personal protection equipment processing and distribution 

Scheduling or confirming vaccination appointments 

Planning immunization programs 

Answering registration and helpline calls 

Distributing informational documents 

It is important to realized that although the AmeriCorps team members had received basic 

training in public health and contact tracing, they were not trained professionals in these areas 

and did not provide direct health care services such as performing vaccinations or providing 

specific advice on health care issues. 

The Direct Economic Impacts and Cost Benefits 

The direct economic impacts are the actual costs of the AmeriCorps team member services as 

compared to the costs that would have been incurred if these services were not provided by 

AmeriCorps and had to be supplied on either a Fair Market Value replacement cost basis or on 

some other governmentally subsidized basis. 

The fair market value costs used in these Social Return on Investment calculations were based on 

the average costs for a comparable technical level of services: the hiring of outside workers for 

the U.S. Census Bureau efforts in 2020. 
69 

The Consequential Outcomes Economic Impacts and Cost Benefits 

The determination of consequential outcomes and the valuing of these outcomes for the Covid19 epidemic is still an evolving process. While there are many published studies on the causes 

and impacts of the epidemic (approximately 20,000!), there are still many factors and 

consequences being investigated and measured – a specific example being the impacts and 

outcomes of Long Covid. 

The economic impacts of the outcomes are based on the body of knowledge existing at this time. 

The values and basis for valuations are listed in the Valuation Schedules for each activity are in 

this report. 

The Social Impact Value Map: 

The following Impact Map shows in detail the direct and consequential economic impacts for the 

AmeriCorps services. 

Note that there is a significant difference between the “Gross” consequential impacts and the

“Net” impacts. While the Gross impacts are the full value of the outcomes, there are other factors 

that reduce the gross impact. They are: 

eight: How much of the impact would have happened regardless of the services provided 

Attribution: How much of the impact is attributable to other causes. 

Off How much of the impacts will not be realized due to outside causes (i.e., death). 

The Net impact valuations are the economic impacts that will actually be realized and are the 

values used in the Social Return on Investment calculation results. 

The process of determining and measuring the longer-term consequential results of the services 

provided involves several steps: 

1. Mapping Outcomes: Identify the different outcomes that result from the activities or 

interventions of the organization or project. 

2. Evidencing Outcomes: Collect data and evidence to support the identified outcomes, 

using a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods. 

3. Valuing Outcomes: Assign monetary values to the outcomes, either through market 

prices, willingness-to-pay estimates, or other valuation techniques. 

4. Establishing Impact: Calculate the social return on investment by comparing the total 

value of the outcomes to the resources invested. 
70 

AMERICORPS SERVICES 

PERFORMED 

Quantity 

Direct 

Economic 

Impact (000's) 

Net Consequential 

Economic Impact 

(000's) 

Contact Tracing Calls (hours) 9,118 $191,000 N/A 

Senior Wellness Check Calls (hours) 

7,905 $166,000 

Included in Individuals 

Reached 

Individuals Reached (hours) 1,452 $30,000 N/A 

Contact Tracing Trainings (hours) 5,529 $116,000 N/A 

Public Health Trainings (hours) 18,636 $391,000 N/A 

Disaster Preparedness Calls (hours) 2,449 $51,000 N/A 

Vaccination Sites Supported (Hours) 88,893 $1,867,000 Included in Persons 

Receiving 

Immunizations 

Testing Sites Support (sites) Included 106 in Persons Supported at Testing Sites 

People Supported at Testing Sites 876 $9,000 N/A 

PPE Processing and Distribution (hours) 4,311 $91,000 $1,846,000 

Vaccinations Scheduled or Confirmed (hours) 28,865 $606,000 $2,838,000 

Vaccination Calls Made (hours) 3,649 $77,000 N/A 

Immunization Programs Planned/Conducted 

(hours) 

7,647 $161,000 N/A 

Persons Receiving Immunization (hours) 10,288 $216,000 $23,000 

Registration/Helpline Calls Answered (hours) 1,359 $29,000 N/A 

Informational Documents Distributed (hours) 2,872 $60,000 N/A 

TOTAL NET SOCIAL ECONOMIC 

IMPACTS $4,061,000 $4,707,000 

TOTAL SOCIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS $8,768,000 

TOTAL AMERICORPS SERVICES 

COST BASIS 

$1,242,680 

TOTAL SOCIAL RETURN ON 

FUNDING INVESTMENT 

622% 
71 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

COVID-01 

CONTACT TRACING CALLS 

DIRECT SOCIAL 

VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTITY VALUATI 

ON 

SOCIAL 

EFFECT 

TERM 

Hours spent making calls 1 9,118 $21 Current Year 

(Number of traces made: 

983) 

BASIS FOR VALUATION 

Valuation 1 FMV replacement cost of outside services based 

on average US Census Bureau 

temporary services hourly pay during 2020 

census. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. No reasonable basis for measurement of 

long-term economic impact due to the relative 

low level (5%) of new COVID cases being from 

contacts known through tracing and that 

published contact tracing performance 

indicators are not well correlated 

with the effective transmission rates and 

multiple infection sources of the virus. 

National Library of Medicine "Successful Contact 

Tracing Systems for COVID-19 Rely on Effective 

Quarantine and Isolation" 2021 and NPR analysis 

of public COVID -A( contact tracing data from 14 

states in 2020. 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A N/A 

A N/A 

A N/A 
72 

Valuation 

$21 

Total Direct Values Per Category 

$1 

91,478 

TOTAL CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

$0 

Quantity Direct Value 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

Hours of service provided 

9,118 $191,478 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Support Costs 

Other Community Consequential Cost Effects 

Total Consequential Value Per Category 

VALUATION QUANTITY 
73 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

COVID-02 

WELLNESS CHECK CALLS WITH 

SENIORS 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE 

EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTIT 

Y 

VALUATIO 

N 

SOCIAL 

EFFECT TERM 

Hours spent making calls 1 7,905 $21 Current Year 

(Number of wellness checks completed: 12,079) 

BASIS FOR VALUATION 

Valuation 1 FMV replacement cost of outside services 

based on average US Census Bureau 

temporary services hourly pay during 2020 

census. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. Projected long-term economic impact is 

based on the number of individuals reached 

(Schedule 3) rather than the gross number of 

calls made. 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A 
74 

Total Direct Values Per Category $166,005 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

Hours of service provided 

Valuation Quantity Direct Value 

$21 7,905 $166,005 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Support Costs 

Other Community Consequential Cost Effects 

Total Consequential Value Per Category 

VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

N/A N/A 

N/A N/A 

N/A N/A 

TOTAL CONSEQUENTIAL 

SOCIAL VALUE 

$0 
75 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

COVID-03 

NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS REACHED 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE 

EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTIT 

Y 

VALUATIO 

N 

SOCIAL 

EFFECT TERM 

Hours spent making calls 1 1,452 $21 Current Year 

(Number reached: 20) 

BASIS FOR VALUATION 

Valuation 1 FMV replacement cost of outside services 

based on average US Census Bureau 

temporary services hourly pay during 2020 

census. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. No reasonable basis for projection of longterm economic impacts based on the very low 

quantity of individuals reached and the high 

rates of vaccinations 

(95%) among elderly and other persons with 

health problems. 

Centers for Disease Control COVID Data 

Tracker database 2023) 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Economic Impacts 

Community Social Support Economic Impacts 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A N/A 

A N/A 

A N/A 
76 

Total Direct Values Per Category $30,492 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

Hours of service provided 

Valuation Quantity Direct Value 

$21 1,452 $30,492 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Support Costs 

Other Community Consequential Cost Effects 

Total Consequential Value Per Category 

VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

TOTAL CONSEQUENTIAL 

SOCIAL VALUE 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

$0 
77 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

COVID-04 

CONTRACT TRACING TRAININGS 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE 

EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTIT 

Y 

VALUATION SOCIAL 

EFFECT TERM 

Hours spent in training 1 5,529 $21 Current Year 

(Trainings completed : 370) 

BASIS FOR VALUATION 

Valuation 1 FMV replacement cost of outside services based 

on average US Census Bureau 

temporary services hourly pay during 2020 

census. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. No reasonable basis for measurement of longterm economic impacts due to unknown results of 

disaster preparedness calls and probability of 

experiences 

AmeriCorps volunteers leaving upon completion 

of their service period. 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A N/A 

A N/A 

A N/A 
78 

Total Direct Values Per Category $116,109 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

Hours spent in training 

Valuation Quantity Direct Value 

$21 5,529 $116,109 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Support Costs 

Other Community Consequential Cost Effects 

Total Consequential Value Per Category 

VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

$0 N/A 

$0 N/A 

$0 N/A 

TOTAL CONSEQUENTIAL 

SOCIAL VALUE 

$0 
79 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

COVID-05 

PUBLIC HEALTH TRAININGS 

DIRECT SOCIAL 

VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTIT 

Y 

VALUATIO 

N 

SOCIAL 

EFFECT TERM 

Hours spent in training 1 18,636 $21 Current Year 

(Public Health Trainings Completed: 1,246) 

BASIS FOR VALUATION 

Valuation 1 FMV replacement cost of outside services 

based on average US Census Bureau 

temporary services hourly pay during 2020 

census. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. No reasonable basis for measurement of 

long-term impacts based on probability of 

persons in training leaving AmeriCorps and 

entering fields other than health care. 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A N/A 

A N/A 

A N/A 
80 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Total Direct Values Per Category $391,356 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

Hours spent in training 

Valuation Quantity Direct Value 

$21 18,636 $391,356 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Support Costs 

Other Community Consequential Cost Effects 

Total Consequential Value Per Category 

VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

$0 

$0 

$0 

TOTAL CONSEQUENTIAL 

SOCIAL VALUE 

$0 
81 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

COVID-06 

DISASTER PREPAREDNESS CALLS 

DIRECT SOCIAL 

VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTIT 

Y 

VALUATIO 

N 

SOCIAL 

EFFECT TERM 

Hours spent making calls 1 2,449 $21 Current Year 

(Number of calls 

completed: 2,112) 

BASIS FOR VALUATION 

Valuation 1 FMV replacement cost of outside services 

based on average US Census Bureau 

temporary services hourly pay during 2020 

census. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. No reasonable basis for measurement of 

long-term economic impacts due to 

unknown results of disaster preparedness 

calls. 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A N/A 

A N/A 

A N/A 
82 

Total Direct Values Per Category $51,429 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

Hours spent making calls 

Valuation 

Valuation 

$21 

Quantity Direct Value 

2,449 $51,429 

TOTAL CONSEQUENTIAL 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM SOCIAL VALUE 

Community Health Costs N/A N/A 

Community Support Costs N/A N/A 

Other Community Consequential Cost Effects N/A N/A 

Total Consequential Value Per Category $0 
83 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

COVID-07 

VACCINATION SITES SUPPORTED 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE 

EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTITY VALUATIO 

N 

SOCIAL 

EFFECT TERM 

Hours spent supporting sites 1 88,893 $21 Current Year 

(Number of vaccination sites supported: 136) 

BASIS FOR VALUATION 

Valuation 1 FMV replacement cost of outside services 

based on average US Census Bureau 

temporary services hourly pay during 2020 

census. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. Consequential long-term social economic 

impacts are based on the number of people 

receiving vaccinations (code DIS-23). These 

impact values are included in 

Schedule 14. 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A N/A N/A 

A N/A N/A 

A N/A N/A 
84 

Total Direct Values Per Category $1,866,753 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

Hours spent supporting sites 

Valuation 

$21 

Quantity Direct Value 

88,893 $1,866,753 

$0 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Support Costs 

Other Community Consequential Cost Effects 

Total Consequential Value Per Category 

VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

See Schedule 14 

See Schedule 14 

See Schedule 14 

TOTAL 

CONSEQUENTIAL 

SOCIAL VALUE

$0 
85 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

COVID-08 

TESTING SITES SUPPORTED 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE 

EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTIT 

Y 

VALUATION SOCIAL 

EFFECT TERM 

Testing Sites Supported 1 106 N/A Current Year 

BASIS FOR VALUATION 1. No measurement of hours spent available. See 

Schedule 9 (persons supported at 

testing sites) for hours spent and direct impacts. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. Consequential long-term social economic 

impacts are based on the number of 

people receiving testing services (code COV09). These impact values are included in 

Schedule 9. 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A N/A N/A 

A N/A N/A 

A N/A N/A 
86 

Valuation 

Total Direct Values 

Per Category 

$0 

TOTAL 

CONSEQUEN 

TIAL 

SOCIAL 

VALUE (10 

yrs.) 

Total Consequential Value Per Category $0 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

Quantity Direct Value 

$0 

$0 

$0 

$0 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Community Support Costs 

VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT 

TERM 

See Schedule 9 

See Schedule 9 

See Schedule 9 
87 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

COVID-09 

PEOPLE SUPPORTED AT TESTING 

SITES 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE 

EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTITYVALUATION SOCIAL 

EFFECT TERM 

People supported at testing sites 1 876 $10 Current Year 

BASIS FOR VALUATION Estimated average of .5 hours assistance time 

per supported person. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. No accurately long-term consequential 

economic impacts due to the unknown types 

of assistance provided and the results of these 

assistance services. 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A N/A 

A N/A 

A N/A 
88 

Total Direct Values Per Category $8,760 

Total Consequential Value Per Category 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY Valuation Quantity Direct Value 

$10 876 $8,760 

TOTAL CONSEQUENTIAL 

SOCIAL VALUE (10 yrs.) 

$0 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Support Costs 

VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

N/A N/A 

N/A N/A 

N/A N/A 
89 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

COVID-10 

PERSONAL PROTECTION 

EQUIPMENT PROCESSING AND 

DISTRIBUTION 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE 

EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTIT 

Y 

VALUATION SOCIAL 

EFFECT TERM 

Hours of support provided 1 4,311 $21 Current Year 

(Pounds of PPE processed: 

9,750) 

BASIS FOR VALUATION 

Valuation 1 FMV replacement cost of outside services 

based on average US Census Bureau 

temporary services hourly pay during 2020 

census. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. See Other Calculation worksheet 

Hospitalization costs based on National 

Library of Medicine "Inpatient Hospital 

Costs for COVID-19 Patients in the United 

States - 2021" 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A $3,691,000 One Year 
90 

Total Direct Values Per Category $90,531 

$3,691,000 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

Hours of support provided 

Valuation Quantity Direct Value 

$21 4,311 $90,531 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Support Costs 

Other Community Consequential Cost Effects 

Total Consequential Value Per Category 

VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

See worksheet 1 Year 

TOTAL CONSEQUENTIAL 

SOCIAL VALUE 

$3,691,000 
91 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

COVID-11 

VACCINATIONS SCHEDULED OR 

CONFIRMED 

DIRECT SOCIAL 

VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTIT 

Y 

VALUATIO 

N 

SOCIAL 

EFFECT TERM 

Hours of support provided 1 28,865 $21 Current Year 

(Vaccinations schedules/confirmed: 65,309) 

BASIS FOR VALUATION 

Valuation 1 FMV replacement cost of outside services 

based on average US Census Bureau 

temporary services hourly pay during 2020 

census. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. Effectivity of appointments scheduled and 

reminder calls made in having persons 

receive vaccinations. 

National Institute of Health "Appointment Reminder 

Systems are Effective But Not Optimal" 2016 

National Library of Medicine Cost of COVID 

Hospitalization 2021 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A $14,942,678 1 Year 

N/A 

N/A 
92 

Total Direct Values Per 

Category 

$606,165 

TOTAL 

CONSEQUENTIAL 

SOCIAL VALUE 

$14,942,678 

VALUATION SOCIAL 

EFFECT 

$14,942,678 TERM 1 Year $14,942,678 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

Hours of support provided 

Valuation Quantity Direct Value 

$21 28,865 $606,165 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Support Costs 

Other Community Consequential Cost Effects 

Total Consequential Value Per Category 
93 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

COVID-12 

VACCINATION CALLS MADE 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE 

EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTIT 

Y 

VALUATION SOCIAL 

EFFECT TERM 

Hours spent making calls 1 3,649 $21 Current Year 

(Number of vaccination calls completed: 2,880) 

BASIS FOR VALUATION 

Valuation 1 FMV replacement cost of outside services based 

on average US Census Bureau 

temporary services hourly pay during 2020 

census. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. No accurately measurable long-term 

economic impact due to the unknown 

immediate and consequential results of 

making vaccination calls. A more accurate 

measurement are the impact results of 

accomplishment code COV-11 (Number of 

vaccinations scheduled or confirmed), 

which are covered in Schedule 11. 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A N/A N/A 

A N/A N/A 

A N/A N/A 
94 

Total Direct Values 

Per Category 

$76,629 

TOTAL 

CONSEQUEN 

TIAL 

SOCIAL 

VALUE 

Total Consequential Value Per Category $0 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

Hours spent making calls 

Valuation Quantity Direct Value 

$21 3,649 $76,629 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Support Costs 

Other Community Consequential Cost Effects 

VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

See Schedule 11 

See Schedule 11 

See Schedule 11 
95 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

DIS-22 

IMMUNIZATION PROGRAMS PLANNED 

OR CONDUCTED 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE 

EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTIT 

Y 

VALUATION SOCIAL 

EFFECT TERM 

Hours of service provided 1 7,647 $21 Current Year 

(Immunization programs planned/conducted: 8) 

BASIS FOR VALUATION 

Valuation 1 FMV replacement cost of outside services based 

on average US Census Bureau 

temporary services hourly pay during 2020 

census. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. No valid basis for consequential impacts due 

to the low number of immunization programs 

planned or conducted and lack of information on 

completion of programs. 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A N/A 

A N/A 

A N/A 
96 

Total Direct Values Per Category $160,587 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

Hours of service provided 

Valuation Quantity Direct Value 

$21 7,647 $160,587 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Support Costs 

Other Community Consequential Cost Effects 

Total Consequential Value Per Category 

VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

TOTAL CONSEQUENTIAL 

SOCIAL VALUE 

$0 
97 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

DIS-23 

PERSONS RECEIVING 

IMMUNIZATIONS 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE 

EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTIT 

Y 

VALUATION SOCIAL 

EFFECT TERM 

Hours of service provided 1 10,288 $21 Current Year 

(Number of persons receiving immunizations: 50,240) 

BASIS FOR VALUATION 

Valuation 1 FMV replacement cost of outside services 

based on average US Census Bureau 

temporary services hourly pay during 2020 

census. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. Impact of AmeriCorps general services 

at vaccination sites including crowd 

control, parking assistance, information 

services, and general assistance. 

See Other Calculation Schedules for 

calculation detail 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A $22,534 1 Year 
98 

Total Direct Values Per Category $216,048 

$22,534 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

Hours of service provided 

Valuation Quantity Direct Value 

$21 10,288 $216,048 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Support Costs 

Other Community Consequential Cost Effects 

Total Consequential Value Per Category 

VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

$22,534 1 Year 

TOTAL CONSEQUENTIAL 

SOCIAL VALUE 

$22,534 
99 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

DIS-52 

REGISTRATION OR HELPLINE CALLS 

ANSWERED 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE 

EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTIT 

Y 

VALUATION SOCIAL 

EFFECT TERM 

Hours spent receiving calls 1 1,359 $21 Current Year 

(Registration or helpline calls answered: 2,675) 

BASIS FOR VALUATION 

Valuation 1 FMV replacement cost of outside services based on 

average US Census Bureau 

temporary services hourly pay during 2020 census. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. No reasonable measurement of long-term 

economic impact of registration and helpline 

calls due to the unknown results of any call. 

Note: This as also based on the impact 

evaluations of over 100,000 legal helpline 

calls covering 100 different legal 

problem areas investigated by CSACO for 

nationwide legal aid organizations. 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A N/A N/A 

A N/A N/A 

A N/A N/A 
100 

Total Direct Values 

Per Category 

$28,539 

TOTAL 

CONSEQUEN 

TIAL 

SOCIAL 

VALUE 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

Hours spent receiving calls 

Valuation Quantity Direct Value 

$21 1,359 $28,539 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Support Costs 

Other Community Consequential Cost Effects 

Total Consequential Value Per Category 

VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

N/A N/A 

N/A N/A 

N/A N/A 
101 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

(ACCOMPLISHMENT CODE) 

DIS-60 

INFORMATIONAL DOCUMENTS 

DISTRIBUTED 

DIRECT SOCIAL 

VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY VALUATION BASIS QUANTIT 

Y 

VALUATIO 

N 

SOCIAL 

EFFECT TERM 

Hours of service provided 1 2,872 $21 Current Year 

(Number of information documents distributed: 

7,636) 

BASIS FOR VALUATION 

Valuation 1 FMV replacement cost of outside services based on 

average US Census Bureau 

temporary services hourly pay during 2020 census. 

BASIS FOR VALUATION A. No reasonable basis for a measurement longterm economic impact projections based on lack 

of knowledge on use of distributed information 

plus the relative importance of this source vs. 

the other sources (T.V., newspapers, social 

media, radio, 

Internet, etc.). 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Social Support Costs 

Other Community Cost Changes 

BASIS REFERENCE VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

A $0 N/A 

A $0 N/A 

A $0 N/A 
102 

Total Direct 

Values Per 

Category 

$60,312 

TOTAL 

CONSEQUEN 

TIAL 

SOCIAL 

VALUE 

DIRECT SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

SERVICE CATEGORY 

Hours of service provided 

Valuation Quantity Direct Value 

$21 2,872 $60,312 

CONSEQUENTIAL SOCIAL VALUE EFFECTS 

Community Health Costs 

Community Support Costs 

Other Community Consequential Cost Effects 

Total Consequential Value Per Category 

VALUATION SOCIAL EFFECT TERM 

N/A N/A 

N/A N/A 

N/A N/A 
103 

SCHEDULE 10 - PPE EQUIPMENT CONSEQUENTIAL IMPACTS: 

Lbs of PPE processed: 9,750 

% of PPE that were Masks 80% Note: No impact from gowns or gloves 

Average weight of N-95 Mask 1 oz. 

Projected number of masks 124,800 Assumption: 1 mask per person 

% of persons who caught COVID 50% COVID States Project nationwide survey 

% who consistently wore masks 25% COVID States Project nationwide survey 

% of persons hospitalized 2.10% National Library of Medicine 2021 

Average cost of hospitalization $11,267 National Library of Medicine 2021 

TOTAL PPE COST PREVENTION 

####### 

DAILY ACCRUED CASH STIPEND EXPENSES 

Total number of AmeriCorps COVID service hours: 

Number of service hours/day: 

Number of service day equivalents: 

Daily End of Service Cash Stipend Accrual* 

*Source: AmeriCorps Website 

169,823 

8 

21,228 

TRAVEL and LIVING EXPENSES 

Number of service day equivalents: 

Daily AmeriCorps Lodging Reimbursement Rate: 

Daily AmeriCorps Meals Reimbursement Rate: 

Supplemental travel/supplies (actual) 

Total Daily T&E Expense Rate: 

21,228 

$37.50 

$6.10 

$10.00 

$53.60 
104 

SCHEDULE 11 - APPOINTMENTS MADE OR CONFIRMED 

CONSEQUENTIAL IMPACTS: 

Appointments made or confirmed 65,309 

Anticipated rate of no-shows 5% -3,265 NIH Appt. 

Reminder" 

study 2016 

Anticipated completions 62,044 

Reminder effectivity 34% 34% NIH Appt. 

Reminder" 

study 2016 

Net completions 63,154 

% of persons hospitalized 2.10% 1,326 National 

Library of 

Medicine 2021 

Average cost of hospitalization $11,267 National 

Library of 

Medicine 2021 
105 

TOTAL APPOINTMENTS MADE/CONFIRMED COST PREVENTION $14,942,678 

SCHEDULE 14 - PERSONS RECEIVING IMMUNIZATIONS 

CONSEQUENTIAL IMPACTS 

Persons receiving immunizations 50,240 

Projected crowd flow throughput increase 

due to AmeriCorps crowd control, 

information services, and general 

assistance (10%). 

500 

Effectivity rate of vaccinations 

Infection impact of AmeriCorps services 90 

% of persons hospitalized 2.10% 2 1,326 National Library of 

Medicine 2021 

Average cost of hospitalization $11,267 National Library of 

Medicine 2021 

TOTAL PERSONS RECEIVING VACCINATIONS COST PREVENTION $22,534 

82% Average rate of Moderna and J&J Alpha and 

Ancestral Infection Rates Healthdata.org 2022 
106 

NEGATIVE FACTORS WORKSHEET 

Definitions 

Deadweight: How much of the impact would have happened any 

regardless of the efforts. 

Attribution: How much of the impact is attributable to other cau 

Drop-Off: How much of the impact will not be realized due to 

causes (i.e. death). 

Service Category: Deadweight: Attribution: Drop-Off: 

PPE processing and distribution 0% 50% 0% 

Source: Average of Surveys from Pew Research, the New York Times, and the CDC on 

continued participation in PPE usage. 

Vaccinations scheduled or confirmed 81% 0% 0% 

Source: 

Covid States report (Harvard, Northwestern, and Rutgers combined national study) 

on immunization, PPE usage, and immunity 2022. 
107 

COMPARISON OF AMERICORPS NCCC SERVICES COSTS TO FEMA COSTS 

For the basic level services provided by AmeriCorps NCCC personnel during COVID-19, the 

projected expenses that would have been incurred by using FEMA personnel are significantly 

greater. 

The FEMA wage cost category most closely aligned with the level of expertise needed for the 

services provided would be that of a basic Customer Service representative. Based on the 

prevailing national wage rates for that category, the comparative daily direct wage costs would 

be: 

AmeriCorps personnel FEMA personnel 

$4.94 Daily Stipend $167.16 Daily Wage 

In addition, FEMA personnel are entitled to a range of full employment benefits, including 

Health, Dental, and Life insurance, Retirement and Survivor payments, and 

Vacation/Holiday/Sick Leave payments, while AmeriCorps volunteers are offered either a limited 

Healthcare Allowance or enrollment is the VISTA Health Care Plan, which covers restricted 

eligible benefits. This plan does not include any dependent coverage. 

There is also a significant difference is the costs for housing and travel expenses while on 

assignments: 

AmeriCorps personnel FEMA personnel 

$54/day allowance $191/day allowance 

Note: AmeriCorps personnel are frequently quartered in local homes, while FEMA employees 

typically are not. The number of days where this happened is not available. 

Given these costs and the total of 21,228 days of AmeriCorps service provided the cost 

differential between these two alternatives would be (in 000’s):

Wage Costs Travel Costs Total Costs 

AmeriCorps NCCC personnel $105,000 $1,146,000 $1,251,000 

FEMA personnel $3,548,000 $4,055,000 $7,603,000 

The total cost savings from using AmeriCorps NCCC personnel was $6,352,000. 
108 

COMPARISON OF AMERICORPS NCCC SERVICES COSTS TO USING DEPARTMENT 

OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL COSTS 

For the basic level services provided by AmeriCorps NCCC personnel during COVID-19, the 

projected expenses that would have been incurred by using DoD personnel are significantly 

greater. 

The DoD wage cost category most closely aligned with the level of expertise needed for the 

services provided would be that of a basic E-2 Private Second Class. Based on the prevailing 

national wage rates for that category, the comparative daily direct wage costs would be: 

AmeriCorps personnel DOD personnel 

$4.94 Daily Stipend $70.65 Daily Wage 

In addition, DOD personnel are entitled to a range of full benefits coverage, including Health, 

Dental, and Life insurance, Retirement and Survivor payments, and Vacation/Holiday/Sick Leave 

payments, while AmeriCorps volunteers are offered either a limited Healthcare Allowance or 

enrollment is the VISTA Health Care Plan, which covers restricted eligible benefits. This plan 

does not include any dependent coverage. 

There is also a significant difference is the costs for housing and travel expenses while on 

assignments: 

AmeriCorps personnel DOD personnel 

$54/day allowance $151/day allowance 

Note: AmeriCorps personnel are frequently quartered in local homes, while DOD employees 

typically are not. The number of days where this happened is not available. 

Given these costs and the total of 21,228 days of AmeriCorps service provided the cost 

differential between these two alternatives would be (in 000’s):

Wage Costs Travel Costs Total Costs 

AmeriCorps NCCC personnel $105,000 $1,146,000 $1,251,000 

DOD personnel $1,500,000 $3,205,000 $4,705,000 

The total cost savings from using AmeriCorps NCCC personnel was $3,454,000. 
References 

Ahari, S.S., Habibzadeh, S., Yousefi, M., Amani, F., & Abdi, R. (2012). Community based needs 

assessment in an urban area: A participatory action research project. BMC Public Health, 

12(161). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-161 

Bartle, P. (1998). Measuring progress; Evaluating the strengthening of communities. 

Evaluation.Reflection, 12. 

Beckley, T.M., Martz, D., Nadeau, S., Wall, E., & Reimer, B. (2008). Multiple capacities, 

multiple outcomes: Delving deeper into the meaning of community capacity. Journal of 

Rural and Community Development, 3(3), 56-75. 

Black, A., & Hughes, P. (2001a). The identification and analysis of indicators of community 

strength and outcomes. Canberra, Australia: Department of Family and Community 

Services. 

Black, A., & Hughes, P. (2001b). What is meant by ‘community strength’? TASA 2001 

Conference, The University of Sydney. 

Blanke, A.S., & Walzer, N. (2013). Measuring community development: What have we learned? 

Community Development, 44(5), 534-550. 

Brose, D.A. (2015). Developing a framework for measuring community resilience: Summary of 

a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

Brower, R.S., & Berry, F.S. (2006). On the success of AmeriCorps programs in strengthening 

communities: Evidence from Florida. International Journal of Public Administration, 

29(10-11), 849-871. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690600770587 

Butterfoss, F.D., Goodman, R.M., & Wandersman, A. (1996). Community coalitions for 

prevention and health promotion: Factors predicting satisfaction, participation, and 

planning. Health Education Quarterly, 23(1), 65-79. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819602300105 

Center for Community Health and Development, University of Kansas. (2018). Assessing 

community needs and resources. In Community Toolbox. Manhattan, KS: University of 

Kansas. Retrieved from https://ctb.ku.edu/en/assessing-community-needs-and-resources 

Community Science. (2018). Sense of Community Index (SCI). Community Science. 

Corporation for National and Community Service. (n.d.). Performance measure G3-3.6. 

Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service. Retrieved from 

https://www.nationalservice.gov/resources/performance-measurement/g3-36 

Corporation for National and Community Service. (2013). 2013 National Performance Measures 

Instructions (Goal 3 Capacity Building Measures): Definitions, Suggestions Regarding 

109 
Data Collection, and Additional Notes. Washington, DC: Corporation for National and 

Community Service. 

Costanza, R. (2020). Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of 

efficiency, fairness, and sustainability. Ecosystem Services, 43. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101096 

Creative Cities, LLC. (2012). The Vitality Index: Ranking of 35 Cities: Executive Report. New 

York, NY: Creative Cities, LLC. 

Dorius, N. (2011). Measuring community development outcomes: In search of an analytical 

framework. Economic Development Quarterly, 25, 267–276. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242411409207 

Draper, A.K., Hewitt, G., & Rifkin, S. (2010). Chasing the dragon: Developing indicators for the 

assessment of community participation in health programs. Social Science & Medicine, 

71, 1102-1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.05.016 

Dwyer, C., & Horney, J. (2014). Validating indicators of disaster recovery with qualitative 

research. PLOS Current Disasters, Ed. 1. 

10.1371/currents.dis.ec60859ff436919e096d51ef7d50736f 

Emery, M., & Flora, C. (2006). Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with 

Community Capitals Framework. Community Development, 37(1), 19-35. 

Etuk, L.E., & Acock, A. (2017). Toward a rural community vitality measurement practice. 

Community Development, 48(1), 141-153. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2016.1251480 

Flora, J. L., & Flora, C. B. (2004). Building community in rural areas of the Andes. In R. Atria & 

M. Siles (compilers), Social capital and poverty reduction in Latin America and the 

Caribbean: Towards a new paradigm(pp. 523–542). Santiago Chile: Economic 

Commission for Latin America, Caribbean University, & Michigan State University. 

Foster-Fishman, P.G., Berkowitz, S.L., Lounsbury, D.W., Jacobson, S., & Allen, N.A. (2001). 

Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative 

framework. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010378613583 

Fraser, H. (2005). Four different approaches to community participation. Community 

Development Journal, 40(3), 286-300. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsi037 

Frey, B.B., Lohmeier, J.H., Lee, S.W., & Tollefson, N. 383-392. (2006). Measuring 

collaboration among grant partners. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 383-392. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400629035 

Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Adolescent Health. (n.d.). Levels of Collaboration. 

Washington, DC: HHS. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/resources-and110 
training/tpp-and-paf-resources/community-mobilization-and-sustainability/tools/levelsof-collaboration.html 

Hofner, D., & Levy, M. (2010). Measuring community wealth. Report for the Wealth Creation in 

Rural Communities project of the Ford Foundation. St. Albans, VT: Yellow Wood 

Associates. 

Hogue, T. (1994). Community Based Collaborations – Wellness Multiplied. Chandler Center for 

Community Leadership. 

Horney, J., Dwyer, C., Aminto, M., Berke, P., & Smith, G. (2017). Developing indicators to 

measure post-disaster community recovery in the United States. Disasters, 41(1), 124-

149. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12190 

James, L.A., Stevens, E., & Ram, D. (2015). Development of a three-factor psychological sense 

of community scale. Journal of Community Psychology, 43(8), 973-985. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21726 

JBS International, Inc. (2015). National Service Systematic Review and Synthesis of National 

Service Literature. Burlingame, CA: JBS International, Inc. 

Kibel, B.M. (2012). The Arizona AmeriCorps Experience Evaluation Report 2011-2012. 

Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Governor’s Commission on Service and Volunteerism. 

Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service. 

Kwok, A.H., Paton, D., Becker, K., Hudson-Doyle, E.E., & Johnston, D. (2018). A bottom-up 

approach to developing a neighbourhood-based resilience measurement framework. 

Disaster Prevention and Management: An Intentional Journal, 27(2), 255-270. 

Lempa, M., Goodman, R.M., Rice, J., & Becker, A.B. (2008). Development of scales measuring 

the capacity of community-based initiatives. Health Education & Behavior, 35(3), 298-

315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198106293525 

Liberato, S.C., Brimblecombe, J., Ritchie, J., Ferguson, M., & Coveney, J. (2011). Measuring 

capacity building in communities: A review of the literature. BMC Public Health. 

Loitz, C.C., Stearns, J.A., Fraser, S.N., Storey, K., & Spence, J.C. (2017). Network analysis of 

inter-organizational relationships and policy use among active living organizations in 

Alberta, Canada. BMC Public Health, 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4661-5 

Lovell, S.A., Gray, A.R., & Boucher, S.E. (2015). Developing and validating a measure of 

community capacity: Why volunteers make the best neighbours. Social Science & 

Medicine, 133, 261-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.049 

Lowe, M., Whitzman, C., Badland, H., Davern, M., Hes, D., Aye, L., Butterworth, I., & GilesCorti, B. (2013). Liveable, healthy, sustainable: What are the key indicators for 

Melbourne neighborhoods? Melbourne, Australia: Place, Health and Liveability 

Research Program, University of Melbourne. 

111 
Maclellan-Wright, M.F., Anderson, D., Barber, S., Smith, N., Cantin, B., Felix, R., & Raine, K. 

(2007). The development of measures of community capacity for community-based 

funding programs in Canada. Health Promotion International, 22(4), 299-306. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dam024 

Martin, E., Nolte, I., & VItolo, E. (2016). The four Cs of disaster partnering: Communication, 

cooperation, coordination, and collaboration. Disasters. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12173 

Mattero, M. (2009). Measuring the impact of youth voluntary service programs: Summary and 

conclusions of the International Experts’ Meeting. Washington, DC: World Bank. 

McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal 

of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. 

McMillan, D.W. (1996). Sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), 315-

325. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(199610)24:4<315::AID-JCOP2>3.0.CO;2-

T 

Missemer, A. (2018). Natural capital as an economic concept., history and contemporary issues. 

Ecological Economics, 143, 90-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.011 

Nitzberg, J. (2005). The meshing of youth development and community building. New 

Directions for Student Leadership: Special Issue: Putting Youth at the Center of 

Community Building, 2005(106), 7-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.114 

Ohio University’s Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs. (2012). HarvestCorps 

Evaluation Report. 

O’Meara, P., Chesters, J., & Han, G. (2004). Outside-looking in: Evaluating a community 

capacity building project. Rural Society, 14(2), 126-141. 

https://doi.org/10.5172/rsj.351.14.2.126 

Oxford, C. (2014). Capacity building using volunteers. Vermillion, SD: Center of Academic and 

Global Engagement, The University of South Dakota. 

Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance 

innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 

Perry, J.L., Thomson, A.M., Tschirhart, M., Mesch, D., & Lee, G. (1999). Inside a Swiss Army 

knife: An assessment of AmeriCorps. Journal of Public Administration Research and 

Theory, 9(2), 225-250. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024409 

Petit, F.D., Bassett. G.W., Black, R., Buehring, W.A., Collins, M.J., Dickinson, D.C., Fisher, 

R.E., Haffenden, R.A., Huttenga, A.A., Klett, M.S., Phillips, J.A., Thomas, M., Veselka, 

S.N., Wallace, K.E., Whitfield, R.G., & Peerenboom, J.P. (2013). Resilience 

Measurement Index: An Indicator of Critical Infrastructure Resilience. Lemont, IL: 

Argonne National Laboratory. 

112 
Raymond, C.M., & Cleary, J. A tool and process that facilitate community capacity building and 

social learning for natural resource management. Ecology and Society, 18(1). 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269271 

Rey Thomas, L., Donovan, D.M., Sigo, R.L.W. (2010). Identifying community needs and 

resources in a Native community: A research partnership in the Pacific Northwest. 

International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction, 8, 362-373. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-009-9233-1 

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2018). County Health Rankings & Roadmaps. Princeton, NJ: 

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved from www.countyhealthrankings.org 

Scott, K. (2010). Community Vitality: A Report of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing. Kanata, 

Canada: Canadian Council on Social Development. 

Shaver, S., & Tudball, J. (2002). Literature Review on Factors Contributing to Community 

Capabilities. Sydney, Australia: Social Policy Research Centre. 

Sherrieb, K., Norris, F.H., & Galea, S. (2010). Measuring capacities for community resilience. 

Social Indicators Research, 99(2), 227-247. 

Simpson, D.M., & Strang, W. (2006). Volunteerism, disasters and homeland security: The 

AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) and Community Preparedness. 

Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 1(4). 

https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1061 

Smit, B., and Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability. Global 

Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions, 16, 282-292. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008 

Stoecker, R. (2005). Research methods for community change: A project-based approach. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Sum, C., Shannon, R., Birmingham, C., Phan, T., Fung, W., Georges, A., & Pratt, D., (2020). 

Analysis of the AmeriCorps NCCC Service Project Database: How NCCC Service 

Projects Strengthen Communities and Impact Members. North Bethesda, MD: JBS 

International, Inc. 

Thomson, A.M. (1998). Collaboration: Meaning and Measurement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana 

University. 

Thomson, A.M., & Perry, J.L. (1998). Can AmeriCorps build communities? Nonprofit and 

Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27(4), 399-420. 

United Way of America. (1999). Achieving and Measuring Community Outcomes: Challenges, 

Issues, Some Approaches. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America. 

113 
VanGenderen, H., Norris, T., AtKisson, A., Besleme, K., Mullin, M., Rixford, C., Palmer, K., 

Conlin, R., Hatcher, L., & Aalfs, M. (1997). The Community Indicators Handbook: 

Measuring Progress Toward Healthy and Sustainable Communities. Washington, DC: 

Urban Institute Library. 

Viswanathan, M., Ammerman, A., Eng, E., Garlehener, G., Lohr, K.N., Griffith, D., Rhodes, S., 

Samuel-Hodge, C., Maty, S., Lux, L., Webb, L., Sutton, S.F., Swinson, T., Jackman, A., 

& Whitener, L. (2004). Community-based participatory research: Assessing the evidence: 

Summary. AHRQ Evidence Report Summaries. 

Ward, K.D., Epstein, D., Varda, D., & Lane, B. (2017). Measuring performance in interagency 

collaboration: FEMA Corps. Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 8(3), 172-199. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12114 

Weaver, L., Born, P., & Whaley, D.L. (2010). Approaches to Measuring Community Change 

Indicators. Waterloo, Canada: Tamarack. 

Western, J., Stimson, R., Baum, S., & Van Gellecum, Y. (2005). Measuring community strength 

and social capital. Regional Studies, 39(8), 1095-1109. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400500328222 

Zautra, A., Hall, J., & Murray, K. (2009). Community development and community resilience: 

An integrative approach. Community Development, 39(3), 130-147. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330809489673 

114