Corporation for National and 

Community Service 

2017 State of the Evidence

Annual Report
Table of Contents

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

CNCS‐sponsored research has established national trend data on volunteering and its economic

benefits ........................................................................................................................................................ 2

National Volunteering and Civic Engagement Statistics....................................................................... 2

Employment, Volunteering and Service................................................................................................ 3

CNCS programs impact communities .......................................................................................................... 5

Improved Civic Health........................................................................................................................... 6

Increased Organizational Capacity ....................................................................................................... 6

Effective Programs................................................................................................................................ 7

CNCS programs impact those who serve .................................................................................................. 11

AmeriCorps ......................................................................................................................................... 11

Senior Corps........................................................................................................................................ 13

Civic engagement and service within specific populations ................................................................ 15

Veterans......................................................................................................................................... 15

Opportunity Youth ......................................................................................................................... 15

Latino Populations ......................................................................................................................... 14

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 17

References ................................................................................................................................................. 18

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................ 20
1

Corporation for National and Community Service 

2017 State of the Evidence Annual Report 

Introduction

The Corporation for National and 

Community Service is the federal 

agency for volunteering, service, 

and civic engagement. The agency 

1 To learn more about the Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) and related resources visit 

https://www.americorps.gov/about/our-impact/evidence-exchange. If you have questions about this report 

or other research related questions, contact ORE at evaluation@cns.gov. 

2

Information available as of June 30, 2017 is included in this report. The report includes studies funded with 

FY15-FY17 appropriations. The one exception is the CNCS Volunteering and Employment study which was 

conducted by Office of Research and Evaluation staff in FY13.

CNCS Mission: To improve lives, strengthen 

communities, and foster civic engagement 

through service and volunteering. 

Corporation for National and Community Service 

engages millions of Americans in 

citizen service through its 

AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and 

Volunteer Generation Fund programs, and leads the nation's volunteering and service efforts. 

For more information, visit AmeriCorps.gov. 

These programs both create national service and volunteering opportunities for millions of 

Americans and support nonprofit and faith-based organizations nationwide. The CNCS 

Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE)1 has built a portfolio of evidence around the 

agency’s mission and its programs. This State of the Evidence report synthesizes results2 from 

research and evaluation activities conducted between fiscal years 2015 and 2016. Specifically, 

findings from research studies conducted by university-based scholars, program evaluations 

conducted by independent third parties, agency performance metrics, and analyses of 

nationally representative statistics are summarized. In addition, the report includes key 

metrics (see Appendix A) that reflect the agency’s use of evidence in its budget, management, 

and policy decisions during the same time period. 
2 

CNCS-sponsored research has established national trend data on 

volunteering and its economic benefits 

National Volunteering and Civic Engagement Statistics 

The Serve America Act of 2009 tasked the Corporation for National and Community Service 

(CNCS) with facilitating “the establishment of a Civic Health Assessment....”3 Among the 

recommendations made for accomplishing this task, the Act highlighted the consideration of 

the Current Population Survey (CPS) conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. CNCS has 

funded the fielding of two CPS supplements: the Volunteering Supplement and the Civic 

Engagement Supplement.4 The data from these two supplements are made public and are 

used by CNCS primarily in the creation of the annual Volunteering and Civic Life in America

report. 

Trends in volunteering at a national level 

have been consistent (Figure 1). Important 

partners like the Congressionally-chartered 

National Conference on Citizenship as well as 

our Governor-appointed State Commissions 

rely on these data to track the civic health of 

states and local communities and inform 

decisions about which issues to tackle 

through volunteering. 

The Serve America Act also recommended 

partnering with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to help determine how best to 

develop the Civic Health Assessment. In 2010, CNCS commissioned NAS to convene a panel 

of experts for the purposes of studying and defining concepts pertinent to assessing civic 

health, reviewing existing methodologies and data sources for measuring indicators of civic 

health, and ultimately providing recommendations for how to best design the Civic Health 

Assessment, including redesigning the CNCS-funded CPS supplements. The result was a 

report released in 2014 entitled, Civic Engagement and Social Cohesion: Measuring Dimensions of 

Social Capital to Inform Policy,

5 hereafter referred to as the NAS Report. 

3 Text of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, H.R. 1388: 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1388/text

4 Current Population Survey (CPS) Technical Documentation: 

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/complete.html

5 Civic Engagement and Social Cohesion: Measuring Dimensions of Social Capital to Inform Policy (the NAS 

Report): http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18831/civic-engagement-and-social-cohesion-measuring-dimensions-ofsocial-capital 
 3 

Principal among the recommendations of the NAS Report was to combine the two 

supplements into one, recognizing the high costs of supporting multiple surveys and the 

increased constraints on federal agency budgets in recent years. The report also takes into 

account the most up-to-date research and proliferation of pertinent data sources, 

recommending further that a combined supplement be designed with the understanding that 

it will only speak to certain indicators and sub-indicators of civic health rather than assess the 

concept in its entirety. 

In FY16, CNCS worked with the U.S. Census Bureau to redesign these surveys into a single 

instrument with the goal of improving the country’s ability to accurately measure the 

nation’s civic behavior. To achieve this goal, CNCS and the Census Bureau conducted a 

literature review, psychometric analyses, and cognitive testing as part of the redesign efforts. 

CNCS and the Census Bureau expect to administer the new survey supplement in September 

of 2017. 

The CNCS Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) also decided to sponsor a research grant 

program for scholars and dissertators at institutions of higher education to further explore 

the ideas underlying civic health. In addition, a community-based project designed to explore 

the various ways in which citizens define civic health at a local level was piloted and a report 

summarizing findings will be available in October of 2017. 

Employment, Volunteering and Service 

A 2013 CNCS ORE analysis of the relationship between volunteering and employment found 

that volunteers have 27 percent higher odds of finding a job after being out of work than nonvolunteers (Figure 2). Volunteers without a high school diploma as well as those living in 

rural areas experience even greater economic benefits. Volunteers without a high school 

diploma have 51 percent higher odds of finding employment after being out of work than 

non-volunteers. Volunteers living in rural areas have 55 percent higher odds of finding 

employment after being out of work than non-volunteers. 

Figure 2. Volunteering and Employment
 4 

More recently, CNCS-supported scholars have found positive links between serving in 

AmeriCorps and employment opportunities. A team of scholars at Tufts University 

conducted a resume-based experiment to test whether a record of national service 

(AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps VISTA) on an applicant’s resume has a significantly positive 

impact on the prospect of getting a job. The study defined a “positive impact” as getting an 

offer for a job interview (Table 1). The researchers found that college graduates with 

AmeriCorps experience on a resume had a positive and significant effect on the likelihood of 

getting an interview offer: 24 percent of college graduates who were national service alumni

received an interview offer, compared to 17 percent of college graduates without a service 

record. 

Table 1. For Applicants with 4-year College Degrees 

Outcome of Submitted Application 

No interview offered Interview offers 

Service Resume No service 83.5% 16.5% 

Service 76.0% 24.0% 

Total 80.2% 19.8% 

 The difference between “service” and “no service” resumes’ interview offer rates is statically significant, at p. < .05 

level, using Gamma ordinal coefficient, which is 0.23.

The Tufts research team is conducting additional research over the summer of 2017 to take a 

closer look at the preferences of organizations in hiring decisions. Hiring managers will be 

interviewed for their insights on how candidates with AmeriCorps experience are perceived. 

In addition, a CNCS-sponsored research team at Arizona State University is exploring both 

individual employment pathways of AmeriCorps members and job creation within 

organizations that host AmeriCorps programs. Preliminary findings from a pilot project in 

Arizona found that 82.7 percent of organizations surveyed hired at least one AmeriCorps 

member since 2012. Among organizations that hired members, 57.8 percent hired members 

from their own sites. Of the positions, 64.3 percent were full-time and over half of the 

positions were newly created. The study has expanded to five other states and organizations. 

Alumni and former supervisors will be surveyed and interviewed during the summer of 

2017. 

Another CNCS-sponsored study at George Mason University is conducting a study of 

college-educated immigrants across six cities and analyzing associations between civic 

engagement, social network and economic success. This study includes follow-up interviews 
 5 

with 4000 immigrant respondents. Preliminary analysis demonstrates that there are different 

volunteering rates across cities. In addition, economic success for immigrants was higher 

among individuals who volunteered (Figure 5). Building professional networks is a key 

factor facilitating civic involvement and both formal and informal professional networks 

appear to be a critical link between civic engagement and economic success. 

 

CNCS programs impact communities

Research shows that civic engagement promotes the quality of life in a community (Ehrlich, 

2000; Sampson 2001). Communities with strong citizen participation enjoy positive economic, 

social and health outcomes.6 Communities with strong civic infrastructure, robust networks 

amongst its residents, and between its residents and community partners (e.g. nonprofits, 

businesses, local government, universities) can come together to resolve challenges and 

become more sustainable and vibrant places to live (Berger 2009). Indeed, recent economic 

research shows that living in good neighborhoods contributes to upward mobility later in life 

(Chetty and Hendren 2015).7 Research supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation at 

Virginia Commonwealth University’s Center on Society and Health shows that opportunities 

to lead a long and healthy life can vary dramatically by neighborhood.8

6

 For benefits of social capital see Putnam 2000, 2002; for political engagement and democratic governance see Tavits 

2006; for bridge to employment see Granovetter, 1983; for public safety see Sampson 2001, and for health of a community 

see Ziersch, et al., 2005. 

7 http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/images/nbhds_paper.pdf 

8 http://www.societyhealth.vcu.edu/work/the-projects/mapping-life-expectancy.html
6 

Improved Civic Health 

One CNCS research grantee has generated the most compelling evidence to date of the 

agency’s contributions to the nation’s civic health. A team of researchers at the University of 

Texas at Austin developed two new county-level measures; one for civic engagement and 

one for subjective well-being. Statistical models were used to analyze these datasets to test 

whether or not national service programs strengthen the overall health of communities across 

the United States. This team of researchers found that the presence of AmeriCorps programs 

(i.e. AmeriCorps State and National and VISTA) from 2005–2010 is significantly associated 

with levels of subjective well-being. More specifically, the AmeriCorps programming within 

a community buffers those communities so that citizens report fewer negative aspects of 

subjective well-being such as disengagement or negative relationships. The study also found 

that the presence of a VISTA member predicts engagement at the county level. The research 

team expects to release a white paper on these findings in July of 2017. 

Increased Organizational Capacity 

In one of the agency’s most rigorous assessments of its impact on strengthening 

organizational capacity,9 a quasi-experimental design study found promising evidence of 

improved organizational capacities among Social Innovation Fund (SIF) grantees10. SIF 

grantees experienced greater increases in capacity for 1) conducting rigorous evaluations of 

their programs; 2) using evaluation findings to improve programs; and 3) using evaluation 

findings to demonstrate and communicate effectiveness of programs funded by the 

organization. SIF grantees attributed many organizational changes to their participation in 

the SIF program and the technical assistance they received from CNCS. 

In addition, initial findings from twelve in-depth case analyses show that VISTA members 

build the capacity of organizations to serve communities, even within their first year of 

service. For example, VISTA members develop systems for increasing organizational 

efficiency, engage in outreach and partnership development to expand the organization’s 

9 See also a 2012 study of the AmeriCorps Volunteer Infrastructure Program that found positive impacts on 

organizational capacity, https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/

FR_CaliforniaVolunteers_CalSERVES-NCOE_AmeriCorpsVIP_1.pdf.

10The Social Innovation Fund (SIF) was a program of the Corporation for National and Community Service that 

received funding from 2010 to 2016. Using public and private resources to find and grow community-based 

nonprofits with evidence of results, SIF intermediaries received funding to award subgrants that focus on 

overcoming challenges in economic opportunity, healthy futures, and youth development. Although CNCS made its 

last SIF intermediary awards in fiscal year 2016, SIF intermediaries will continue to administer their subgrant 

programs until their federal funding is exhausted. 
7 

reach, and generate resources such as funding, volunteers, and in-kind donations. Final 

analyses will be completed in September 2017. 

Effective Programs 

CNCS also invests in high-capacity organizations committed to evidence-based programs 

and practices. In 2015 and 2016, CNCS funded 67 grants across 50 unique organizations that 

demonstrated rigorous evidence of program effectiveness. These partner organizations also 

help CNCS generate studies that establish causal impact and/or are generalizable to more 

diverse geographies and populations. This contributes to the strength of evidence and allows 

grantees to move higher along the “evidence continuum”.

11

Figure 3 shows the tiered-evidence framework that CNCS has been using to categorize the 

strength of evidence among its grantees and supported interventions. The three main levels 

of evidence are preliminary, moderate, and strong with the strength of evidence increasing 

through studies with positive findings using designs which establish that program impact is,

in fact, attributable to the intervention (typically using quasi-experimental and experimental 

study designs), and/or studies that demonstrate program effectiveness and also establish that 

positive results of the intervention are generalizable across different target groups or 

different geographies, or both (diverse and expansive scope of study sites and groups). In 

technical terms, strength of evidence increases when studies are designed to address threats 

to internal validity (in order to establish causal impact) and external validity (in order to 

demonstrate generalizability of results). 

Figure 3. Investing in an Evidence Framework

11 The evidence continuum demonstrates how the infusion of progressively rigorous evaluation and 

measurement into every phase of a program’s lifecycle builds a cumulative evidence base for a program. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzF08edFXmc. 
8 

In the past few years, CNCS has engaged 

third-party research and evaluation 

experts to conduct evidence reviews for 

grant applicants and evaluations 

conducted or sponsored by agency 

grantees. A body of evidence emerging 

from impact evaluations suggests that 

CNCS programs produce measurable 

results at a reasonable cost to taxpayers by 

investing in community-based 

organizations that offer residents 

evidence-based and evidence-informed 

programs. In return for their investments, 

taxpayers and partner institutions benefit 

from cost-effective solutions to train and 

employ the nation’s workers, to support 

families and communities impacted by 

disasters and help them rebuild their lives, 

to educate the country’s children, and to 

improve health outcomes. (See the recent 

National Service Synthesis, Social 

Innovation Fund Meta-Analysis, and 

Evidence Exchange to access full research 

reports). Examples of funded programs 

with promising evidence of effectiveness 

are listed in the adjacent text box. 

The agency’s increased focus on 

evaluation and evidence has produced 

lessons learned and surfaced important 

considerations with regard to quality and 

strength of evidence. For example, 

evidence of effectiveness for a program 

can come from one study or report or from 

multiple studies conducted over time that 

form a body of evidence for that program. 

Consistently positive evidence of impact 

from multiple studies over time increases 

confidence in program results and 

demonstrates stronger evidence of 

Training and Employing Workers 







Increased employment and earnings

(Saint Paul Neighborhood Network,

Mayors Fund Work Advance,

REDF Social Enterprises)

Increased financial literacy and stability

(SaveUSA, LISC, Family Rewards)

Increased access to college and careers

(College Possible, Blue Engine NY, Edna

McConnell Clark Foundation SEED,

Citizen Schools, Jobs for the Future

National Fund for Workforce Solutions,

Latin American Youth Center Promotor

Pathway Program, Venture

Philanthropy Partners Urban Alliance)

Building Infrastructure 

 Increased affordable housing stock

(Habitat for Humanity)

Educating our Children 







Improved school-readiness (Reading

Corps Pre-K, Jumpstart, HippyCorps)

Improved reading and math

achievement (Reading Corps K-3,

Reading Partners, Teach for America,

BELL Summer Program, Mile High

United Way Jefferson Foundation)

Improved school attendance and

behavior (City Year, Communities in

Schools, WINGS for kids, Playworks,

AARP Experience Corps, Notre Dame

Mission Volunteers Program)

Improving our Health 

 Improved health behaviors (AIDS

United, U.S. Soccer Foundation Soccer

for Success (SfS) program), Up2Us

Coach Across America, Birth and

Beyond.

(unlinked reports are still being processed)

Funded Programs with Promising 

Evidence of Effectiveness 
 9 

effectiveness. In addition, the study design and the extent to which it is well-implemented 

affect the quality (reliability and validity) and strength of evidence produced. The choice of 

evaluation design is typically based on the research question(s) that the study seeks to 

answer (e.g. confirmatory and/or exploratory) as well as other technical, contextual, and 

logistical factors including the resources available and allocated to the study. It is also 

important to carefully examine findings from evaluations because most studies answer 

multiple questions and it is not uncommon for an impact study, for example, to demonstrate 

mixed (positive, null, negative) results. CNCS has drawn on lessons learned and insights 

generated from its efforts to date in order to refine our approach to evidence assessment, to 

develop a more nuanced understanding of what constitutes promising and effective 

programs, and to identify interventions with the strongest evidence that are poised and 

perhaps ready to be considered for scale up. 

Effective CNCS programs increase the return on taxpayer investment12 as the examples on 

the following page illustrate. 

 

12 The concept of ROI analysis is straightforward: calculate the ratio between what the program costs and the 

benefits that accrue, and see how they compare. Conducting such a study can be complex. On the cost side, a 

program may have a fixed level of funding. But accounting for costs that do not show up in an account ledger—

like in-kind contributions, expenses covered by a parent organization, externalities, or opportunity costs lost, is 

challenging. On the benefits side, some gains are readily measurable, but difficult to measure or monetize 

intangibles may accrue over decades. 

Conducting a detailed ROI study accounting for the full range of costs and benefits is a labor-intensive endeavor 

that places substantial demands on programs and participants. ROI literature provides extensive and creative 

approaches to calculating and monetizing both costs and benefits including the “ingredients approach” which 

identifies all resources, or ingredients (e.g., personnel, facilities, materials, and equipment), in an intervention 

with a cost estimate for each (McEwan, 2012). 
10 

Independent return on investment (ROI) analyses conducted on a series of nine 

sectoral employment training programs funded within the economic opportunity 

portfolio of the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) conservatively estimated an average of 

$2.02 return to the federal and state government for every dollar invested by federal 

government and match funders over a ten-year period in this public-private 

partnership model. 

Reading Partners (AmeriCorps and SIF) demonstrated a $980 cost-saving per student 

compared to schools operating other similar reading programs ($710 per student 

cost borne by school for Reading Partners, compared to average of $1690 per 

student for other similar programs). 

AIDS United (SIF and AmeriCorps). The AIDS United Access to Care initiative 

expanded access to high-quality, life-extending care to over 5,000 people living with 

HIV, exceeded national viral suppression rates by 27 percent and saved up to $8.83 in 

future HIV-related medical care for every $1 spent. This innovative model puts client 

health first and moves communities closer to achieving the goals and progress 

indicators in the National HIV/AIDS Strategy (2020). 

Birth and Beyond (AmeriCorps) – Findings from the Birth and Beyond Home 

Visitation program study show that the children of the parents served were 41% less 

likely to have a substantiated referral to child protection services and were 18% less 

likely to be referred to CPS at all. Moreover, four independent audits show that 

“Birth and Beyond” has essentially eliminated child abuse in the homes served.

Tobacco Cessation Counseling Intervention in Primary Care (Office of Research and 

Evaluation and AmeriCorps State and National) – Cigarette smoking is the leading 

cause of preventable disease and death in the U.S. and related illnesses account for 

nearly 170 billion in medical care costs and an additional 156 billion in lost 

productivity. In Ohio, less than 10% of adults who smoke receive counseling and 

pharmacotherapy to help them quit due largely to provider time constraints. With 

the AmeriCorps tobacco cessation coaching program, AmeriCorps members have 

coached 846 smokers over the past two years, and the quit rates are 72% at 3 

months and 39% at 6 months. A CNCS research grantee, Case Western Reserve 

University School of Medicine is currently studying this model. 

 Return on Investment for Individual CNCS-Funded Organizations 










11 

CNCS programs impact those who serve

Through AmeriCorps and Senior Corps, CNCS directly engages 324,000 Americans in 

intensive service each year at more than 50,000 locations across the country, from large cities 

to small towns and rural areas. These dedicated Americans serve in tough conditions to meet 

local needs, all while recruiting millions of other volunteers to serve alongside them and 

multiply their impact.13 In return for their service, they enjoy various economic, social and 

health benefits. 

AmeriCorps 

According to recent member exit survey data, 70 percent of AmeriCorps members are 24 

years of age or younger. These young adults are in “emerging adulthood” when optimism is 

high and they are open to opportunities for transforming their lives (Arnett 2006). During 

this period, exposure to new ideas and experiences can enhance young adults’ abilities to 

work successfully in diverse groups and they may have their first consequential exposure to 

preparing, planning, executing, and assessing an endeavor (Allport, 1954; Brown and 

Hewstone, 2005; Heath, 1999; Martin and Vaughn, 2007). These young adults report gaining 

critical educational, employment, and civic benefits through service. A recent survey of 

nearly 4,000 AmeriCorps alumni from the 2005, 2010, and 2013 cohorts found positive results 

(Figure 414). Questions were based on the AmeriCorps member exit survey and focused on 

long-term civic participation, career pathways, education outcomes, and skill acquisition of 

AmeriCorps alumni. AmeriCorps is a personally and professionally defining experience. 

For example, eight out of ten alumni say AmeriCorps benefited their career path and 79 

percent are, or plan to become, actively involved in their community after service, compared 

to 47 percent prior to service. 

13 https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CNCS_FY2016_AFR_508Compliant.pdf

14 AmeriCorps Alumni Outcomes Study - https://americorps.gov/evidence-exchange/AmeriCorpsAlumni-Outcomes-Study
12 

Figure 4. AmeriCorps Alumni Outcomes

As with the G.I. Bill, AmeriCorps members earn education awards following their civilian 

national service term to help them advance their educational attainment. From the beginning 

of their use in 1995, through FY16, nearly 580,000 AmeriCorps alumni have used these 

awards to put over $2 billion towards higher education.15 

Recent analyses conducted by the Hamilton Project concluded the work-life earnings of a

typical bachelor’s degree graduate is $1.19 million, twice that of a typical high school 

graduate. Similarly, estimates of work-life earnings reported by the U.S. Census Bureau 

illustrate that each successively higher education level is associated with an increase in 

15 Segal Award dataset - https://data.americorps.gov/National-Service/Segal-AmeriCorps-Education-AwardPayments-by-State/dz6i-y5ak
 13 

earnings. As the survey findings reported here indicate, participating in AmeriCorps and 

other national service programs, increases educational opportunities and the likelihood for 

getting an interview offer by employers (Table 1). Employment translates into increased 

individual earnings and important tax revenue for the country. 

Education awards can also be used to pay off student loan debt. Given that recent reports 

indicate the average Class of 2016 graduate has $37,172 in student loan debt and the student 

loan delinquency rate is 11 percent, this is an important benefit to both members and 

taxpayers. 

Senior Corps 

Research shows positive cognitive, physical, and psychosocial health benefits are associated 

with active life styles and volunteering among older adults. Remaining active later in life is 

also associated with reduced incidence of disability, 

increased generativity, and prolonged life 

expectancy (Gruenewald, et al., 2015). Alternatively, 

studies on loneliness and social isolation (Cacioppo, 

et al., 2011) of older adults demonstrate that fewer 

social interactions can accelerate cognitive decline 

(Carlson, et al., 2009), and isolated individuals are 

twice as likely to die prematurely as those with 

more robust social interactions (Holt-Lunstad et al., 

2010). Thus, finding opportunities for older adults to 

remain active and socially connected can positively 

impact their health (Hong & Morrow-Howell, 2010). 

Older adults serving as Senior Corps volunteers also 

experience health benefits compared to similar 

seniors who don’t volunteer. A 2013-2014 CNCSsponsored study of a representative sample of 8,000 

Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions was 

drawn from 30,860 respondents and compared to a 

matched sample of volunteers and non-volunteers 

from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions 

were 88% female with a mean age of 72, 40% were African American, and 12% were Latino. 

The study used descriptive and propensity score matching analyses to answer the research 

questions. Relative to the matched sample, Senior Companions reported a 16 percent 

prevalence of poor/fair health compared to a 49 percent prevalence of poor/fair health among 

HRS non-volunteers (p <.0001). In comparison to the matched sample, Foster Grandparents 

reported a 40 percent prevalence of excellent/very good health and a 43 percent prevalence of 

Senior Corps volunteers support 

aging in place which can 

translate into healthcare savings 

for both Medicare and private 

insurance companies (see 

Measuring the Cost Savings to

Aging in Place; States Seek to

Keep Seniors Out of Nursing 

Homes).

An economic impact survey of 

elder Maine residents receiving 

regular visits by the University of 

Maine Cooperative Extension’s 

Senior Companion Program has 

concluded that the program 

saved at least $4.6 million in 

2011 by supporting elders 

choosing to remain in their own 

homes. 
 14 

 

good health compared to a 22 percent prevalence of 

excellent/very good health and a 32 percent prevalence of 

good health for the matched HRS non-volunteers (p 

<.0001) 

In 2015, Senior Corps began a longitudinal study of both 

its Foster Grandparent Program (FGP) and Senior 

Companion Program (SCP) volunteers and the caregivers 

of its Senior Companion Program clients. The volunteer 

study examined the health and psycho-social effects of 

serving as a Foster Grandparent or Senior Companion. 

The study measures a sample of 987 senior national 

service volunteers at initial entry into FGP/SCP and at 

one and two year follow-up points. Recent findings from 

the first follow-up demonstrate positive effects on 

volunteers’ self-rated health, loneliness, social 

connectedness, and symptoms of depression and anxiety 

within one year after starting service. 

Findings from caregivers served in the Senior 

Companion Program are also positive. Approximately 

50–60 percent of those with critical need reported that 

Senior Companion services helped them ‘a lot’ or ‘a great 

deal’ to become more involved in social and 

entertainment activities, manage requests or demands 

from family and friends, organize time to pay bills or do paperwork, and enjoy time with 

their friends or relatives.16 Additionally, within one year following the start of respite 

support, approximately 40 percent of caregivers reported improvement in their health and 

functional limitations. This indicates that having a Senior Companion can result in an 

improvement in overall perceived health. 

Final survey data and analysis is expected in October 2018. 

 

16 These findings are from a working paper, Health Effects of Volunteering as a Foster Grandparent or Senior 

Companion May 2017, by researchers from JBS International, Inc., Annie Georges, Ph.D., Senior Research 

Associate Wenson Fung, Ph.D., Research Associate Jenée Smith, B.A., Research Assistant Jenny Liang, B.A., 

Research Assistant Donald Pratt, Ph.D., Research Associate Carmen Sum, M.B.A., Senior Research Associate 

Claudia Birmingham, M.A., Research Associate Susan Gabbard, Ph.D., Vice President. 

Almost half (46 percent) of 

new volunteers measured at 

the baseline reported 

improvement in health and 

well-being at the one year 

follow-up. Additionally, 63 

percent of volunteers who 

reported that they ‘often’ felt 

alone at the baseline, 

reported decreases in feelings 

of isolation at the one year 

follow-up. Over two-thirds (70 

percent) of those who 

reported five or more 

symptoms of depression at 

baseline and stayed in the 

program, reported fewer 

symptoms at follow-up. This 

also held true for 63 percent 

of volunteers who reported 

three or four symptoms at 

baseline. These positive 

effects do not appear to be 

due to healthier individuals 

staying in the program. 
15 

Civic engagement and service within specific populations 

CNCS programs seek to engage specific populations in service because of the belief that 

national service may have a particularly transformative effect. The evidence supporting this 

theory is still emerging. Studies designed to examine how veterans, opportunity youth, and 

immigrant populations may benefit from participating in national service programs are 

described briefly. 

Veterans. CNCS has recruited more than 27,000 veterans to serve as AmeriCorps and Senior 

Corps members across 200 American communities. Veteran members help other veterans 

and military families access benefits and services; obtain job training and conduct job 

searches; find safe and affordable housing; and mentor and tutor children of service 

members.17 Service is innate to military personnel and veterans. The 2015 Veterans Civic 

Health Index report18 indicates that veterans tend to volunteer more hours annually than 

nonveterans and are more likely than nonveterans to be regular volunteers. Young veterans, 

or veterans aged 20–49, are reported to have the highest rate of volunteering among all 

Americans.18 Several CNCS programs involving veterans and military families are currently 

proposing evaluation studies. For a complete list of programs and studies, see the CNCS 

research brief National/Community Service and Veterans and Military Families: Programs, 

Evidence, and Possibilities.

Opportunity Youth (OY). CNCS is sponsoring a study that examines if opportunity youth19

engaged as AmeriCorps members improve, relative to a comparison group of similar OY not 

participating in AmeriCorps programs, on measures of educational attainment, employment 

attainment, and community engagement. For some young adults, participating in national 

service programs can be an even more critical catalyst for becoming a successful citizen. 

There are 272 opportunity youth engaged as AmeriCorps members participating in the study 

(there are 320 comparison youth). At baseline, the majority of OY in both the treatment and 

comparison groups report being non-white (72.5 percent), non-Hispanic (82.9 percent), male 

(60.5 percent), and receiving some form of government assistance (52.4 percent). Most 

participants are not limited due to physical, mental, or emotional problems (89.4 percent), are 

not the parent or primary caregiver of a child (74.2 percent), and do not have a criminal 

history (67.7 percent). 

17 https://www.americorps.gov/about/what-we-do/veterans

18 https://www.ncoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2017-Veterans-Civic-Healh-Index.pdf

19 From the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014: Opportunity youth, or disconnected youth, are 

“individuals between the ages of 14 and 24 who are low income and either homeless, in foster care, involved in 

the juvenile justice system, unemployed, or not enrolled in or at risk of dropping out of an educational 

institution.”
 16 

Early results from sites that have completed pre/post-test survey activities indicate that in 

several programs, particularly those emphasizing educational attainment, more OY 

AmeriCorps members report achieving a high-school diploma/GED or enrolling in an 

educational program (e.g. technical program, vocational training, or community college) than 

at baseline. At several sites, more members report full-time employment, and completing 

critical job search activities (e.g. resume writing) than at baseline. Many youth report 

engaging in civic activities, such as volunteering or donating money to a cause they support, 

more frequently. 

Importantly, the results from pre-/post-tests indicate that many youth are reassessing their 

level of preparation and planning for the future: self-reported measures of employment and 

educational skills and preparation have fallen since pre-test. Rather than indicating that the 

programs are causing harm to members, it seems to indicate (almost across the board) that 

members may be realizing the extent of their preparation and skills gaps, though they remain 

confident in their abilities to overcome these gaps. Final results are expected in the spring of 

2018. 

Latino populations. A CNCS-sponsored research team based at California State University San 

Marcos is conducting a study that seeks to understand the effectiveness of a culturally 

appropriate civic engagement curriculum (Cultivando Liderazgo, Nurturing Leadership). The 

eight-week civics course was designed to be multi-generational so that entire families could 

learn about civic engagement together. While the curriculum had been used in the 

community for several years, specific outcomes for participants had never been formally 

assessed. Participants include individuals as well as families. A total of 300 participants, 75 

percent of whom are immigrants, have completed the course and the baseline survey. 

Participants are asked questions about their civic knowledge and participation after 

completing the course and again three months later. Oral histories and photo-elicitation 

interviews are also conducted to learn more about how participants experience community 

involvement and are civically engaged. Preliminary analyses are expected in the fall of 2017. 
 17 

Conclusion 

Integrating quality evidence into budget, management, and policy decisions has allowed the

agency to test promising programs and practices to see if they are effective and capable of 

replication. During the past 3 fiscal years CNCS programs made significant investments in 

research, evaluation and evidence. Indicators of this investment include preference points for 

evidence in grant award decisions, resources allocated to building the evaluation capacity of 

grantees, and evaluation requirements for grantees (See Appendix A for additional 

indicators). CNCS also invested in making data and evidence publicly available so that 

taxpayers have access to findings. This report reflects this commitment to transparency. 

Building, sharing, and using evidence has helped CNCS achieve better results and create 

greater returns for American citizens. 
 18 

References 

Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature Of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley. 

Arnett, J. J. (2006). Emerging Adulthood: Understanding The New Way Of Coming Of Age. Emerging 

Adults In America: Coming Of Age In The 21st Century, 22, 3‐19. 

Berger, B. (2009). Political Theory, Political Science and The End Of Civic Engagement. Perspectives on

Politics, 7(02), 335‐350. 

Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Contact. Advances in 

Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255‐343. 

Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Norman, G. J. and Berntson, G. G. (2011), Social Isolation. Annals of the 

New York Academy of Sciences, 1231: 17–22. doi:10.1111/j.1749‐ 6632.2011.06028.x

Carlson, M.C., et al. (2009). Evidence For Neurocognitive Plasticity In At‐Risk Older Adults: The

Experience Corps Program. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences, doi: 10.1093/Gerona/glp117.

Chetty, R., & Hendren, N. (2015). The Impacts Of Neighborhoods On Intergenerational Mobility: Childhood 

Exposure Effects And County‐Level Estimates. Harvard University and NBER, 1‐144. 

Ehrlich, T. (2000). Preface. Pp. vi‐x in T. Ehrlich (Ed.), Civic Responsibility And Higher Education. 

Westport, CT: The American Council on Education and The Orynx Press. 

Granovetter, Mark (1983) “The Strength of Weak Ties Revisited.” Sociological Theory 1, pp. 201‐233. 

Gruenewald, T.L., et al. (2015), The Baltimore Experience Corps Trial: Enhancing Generativity Via 

Intergenerational Activity Engagement In Later Life. Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological 

Sciences and Social Sciences, doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbv005 

Heath, S. B. (1999, February). Dimensions of Language Development: Lessons From. In Cultural 

Processes In Child Development: The Minnesota Symposia On Child Psychology (Vol. 29, p. 59). 

Psychology Press. 

Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB (2010) Social Relationships and Mortality Risk: A Meta-analytic 

Review. PLoS Med 7(7): e1000316. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316 

Hong, S. & Morrow‐Howell, N. (2010). Health Outcomes of Experience Corps: A High Commitment 

Volunteer Program. Social Science and Medicine, 71, 414‐420. 

Martin, M., & Vaughn, B. (2007). Strategic Diversity & Inclusion Management” magazine. Retrieved, 

11(02), 2008. 
 19 

McEwan, P. (2012). Cost-effectiveness analysis of education and health interventions in developing 

countries. Journal of Development Effectiveness, Vol. 4, No. 2: 189–213 

Putnam, Robert D. (2000) Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Shuster. 

Putnam, Robert D. (2002) Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society. 

Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Sampson, Robert. J (2001) “Crime and Public Safety: Insights from Community‐Level Perspectives on 

Social Capital,” in Social Capital and Poor Communities, edited by Susan Saegert, J. Phillip 

Thompson, and Mark R. Warrren, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 89‐114. 

Tavits, Margit (2006) Making Democracy Work More? Exploring the Linkage between Social Capital 

and Government Performance,” Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 211‐ 225. 

Ziersch, A. M., Baum, F. E., MacDougall, C., & Putland, C. (2005). Neighborhood life and social 

capital: the implications for health. Social Science & Medicine, 60(1), 71‐86. 
 20 

Appendix A 

Indicators of the Agency’s Investment in Evidence

This appendix highlights a few key internal indicators of CNCS’s investments in research, 

evaluation and evidence. CNCS shares information with external organizations that monitor 

other indicators that highlight the agency’s use of research, evidence and evaluation in grant 

making and program improvement such as Results for America.20 CNCS programs and 

grantees are at different points in building evidence and integrating evaluation in their work.

Availability of Evaluation Resources, Reports, and Data 







ORE expanded evaluation resources for grantees to strengthen grantees’ evidencebuilding efforts and their capacity. The importance of providing these resources to 

CNCS’s partner organizations is confirmed by national studies conducted on the 

nonprofit sector (see Innovation Network’s State of Evaluation Project and 2016 State of 

Evaluation Report).

The Evidence Exchange, an electronic repository for reports, was launched in September 

2015. Since it launched, a total of 79 research reports have been made available to the 

public (eight in FY15; 43 in FY16; and 28 in FY17 thus far). 

CNCS Open Data platform was launched in November 2016. Since it launched, three 

datasets have been released to the public with 460 charts/graphs and 55 maps produced 

by the agency. 

Allocating Points for Providing Evidence or Strong Evaluation Plans in the Grant 

Application Process 

• AmeriCorps State and National: Applicants are awarded points for providing evidence from 

prior studies and evaluations that demonstrate the proposed intervention will lead to 

outcomes identified in the theory of change. Points allocated to evidence in grant 

applications: 

o

o

o

FY15: 25 points of 100 (17 points include Theory of Change and Logic Model and 8 

points include Evidence Base). 

FY16: 27 points of 100 (15 points include Theory of Change and Logic Model and 12 

points include Evidence Base). 

FY17: 31 points of 100 (19 points include Theory of Change and Logic Model and 12 

points include Evidence Base). 

 

20 See Results for America (http://results4america.org/tool/index/) 
 21 

•

•

Social Innovation Fund: Percentage allocated to the evaluation portion for grant applications: 

o

o

o

o

o





o



FY12 to FY16: 30 percent of 100. 

Senior Corps: 

o FY17: Used evidence more as a threshold for eligibility for Senior Corps Augmentation 

Grants. 

Dollars Invested through Grants for Research, Evidence, and Evaluation 







Office of Research and Evaluation: 

FY15, National Service and Civic Engagement Grant Competition, $923,100.00 dollars. 

FY16, National Service and Civic Engagement Grant Competition Continuation and 

Supplemental, Total: $1,436,003.00 dollars (Continuation: $1,061,003.00; Supplemental: 

$375,000.00). 

FY17, AmeriCorps State and National Evidence-Based Planning Grants: $489,978.00 

dollars [funded by ORE and co-managed with ASN].

AmeriCorps State and National: 

FY16 and FY17: Commission Investment Fund grants, focuses on performance 

measurement and evaluation capacity building. Priority Area 3 focuses on evaluation 

capacity building. 

FY16: 38 Commissions included Priority Area 3 in their CIF grants and have an 

allocation of $4,382,187 dollars. 

FY17: 38 Commissions included Priority Area 3 in their CIF grants and have an 

allocation of $5,391,705. 

Senior Corps: 

In total in FY17, Senior Corps plans to spend $3.14 million21 (representing 1.6 percent 

of Senior Corps’ $202.11 million budget in FY17) in evaluation and evidence building 

activities. 

These evaluation and evidence building activities include: new evidence-based 

programming augmentation grants22; program evaluation of JumpStart; reviews 

of grantee evaluation plans and reports; longitudinal survey of volunteers who 

participate in Senior Corps programs that examines health and well-being 

outcomes over time; researching the implementation of programming models; 

 

21 This figure does not include any grantees already doing evidence-based programming that did not apply for 

an augmentation grant. This figure is not available at this time. 

22 In FY 17, Senior Corps augmentation grants allocated $1,200,000 dollars (RSVP: $500,000, Foster Grand Parent, 

$400,000 and Senior Companion P: $300,000). For augmentation funding, Senior Corps grantees seek funding 

through the administrative renewal process and are encouraged to implement new or expanded volunteer 

service activities in support of an evidence-based program. 
 22 

and, conducting focus group with senior Corps program directors to inform 

policy development. 

Dollars Invested for Evaluation Capacity Building for Grantees 



o



o



o

AmeriCorps State and National: 

FY16, AmeriCorps State and National Opportunity Youth Evaluation Bundling,

$482,566.79. 

This program is both an evaluation study and a capacity building project. 

Technical assistance and coaching is provided to grantees as they design and 

implement an evaluation. 

FY17, Evaluation Capacity Building and AmeriCorps State and National Opportunity 

Youth Evaluation Bundling, $1,000,797.70 (Evaluation Capacity Building: $535,164.02; 

and Bundling: $ 465,633.68). 

Social Innovation Fund: 

FY16, SIF Evaluation Review and Monitoring Project, $408,643. 

Funding Rigorous Evidence 

Rigorous evidence is generally defined as positive findings obtained from research studies 

that use an experimental or quasi-experimental design. These designs allow for scientifically 

credible cause-effect attributions between program activities and results. 



o

i

AmeriCorps State and National: 

The percentage of funded AmeriCorps State and National applicants with rigorous 

evidence increased from 19 percent in 2015, to 26 percent in 2016, with a noticeable 

ncrease in the most rigorous evidence tier from 7 percent to 17 percent (Figure 6). 
 23 



o

Social Innovation Fund: 

The percentage of SIF grantee evaluations targeting moderate or strong levels of 

evidence increased from 67 percent in the 2010 and 2011 cohorts to 100 percent in the 

2014 and 2015 cohorts (Figure 7). 

o Rigorous evaluations for Social Innovation Fund interventions have increased. In the 

2010- 2011 cohorts, 82 percent of program evaluations were using experimental or 

quasi-experimental designs and in the 2014-2015 cohorts, 96 percent were using 

rigorous evaluation designs (Figure 8). 
 24 



o



VISTA 

FY16: VISTA Qualitative Analysis, $90,000. 

This study measures the concurrence of service activities between VISTA 

project applications, VISTA member position descriptions, and VISTA project 

reports. The report will be finalized fall of 2017. 
   

250 E Street SW

Washington, D.C. 20024

202-606-5000 TTY 800-833-3722

www.NationalService.gov