Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Submitted to:

AmeriCorps 

250 E St., SW

Washington, DC 20024

Submitted by:

ICF Incorporated, LLC

9300 Lee Highway

Fairfax, VA 22031

https://www.icf.com

September 21, 2022

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

under Contract # GS00Q14OADU209 and Order # 5332A20R0013. Information in this 

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

Lily Zandniapour at lzandniapour@cns.gov and Sarah Yue at syue@cns.gov. Cite 

this report as follows: Voigt, G., Borgida, J., Clark, D., Kulka, L., Miller, B., Modicamore, 

D., Pershing, J., Thompson, P., & Sarwana, M. (2022). Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps. ICF.
i 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

CONTENTS 

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

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

Overview of Benefits and Costs .....................................................................................ES-1

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

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

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

Population Served................................................................................................................2

NCC Evaluation History........................................................................................................3

Selection of NCC for the AmeriCorps ROI Project.............................................................4

Comparable ROI Estimates................................................................................................. 4

ROI Methodology......................................................................................................................7

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

Costs......................................................................................................................................9

ROI Study Limitations..........................................................................................................18

Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Cost), Program Costs, and ROI Results19

Program Benefits ................................................................................................................19

Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs)...............................................................................21

Program Funding................................................................................................................22

ROI Results...........................................................................................................................23

Recommendations for Further Research...............................................................................26

Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................28

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

Calculations.............................................................................................................................29

Appendix B: Additional Information on the Methodology ..................................................36

Methodology Overview.....................................................................................................36

Measuring Program Benefits..............................................................................................37

Measuring Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs)............................................................54

Measuring Program Costs..................................................................................................58

Calculating ROI ..................................................................................................................59

Appendix C: Results by Year .................................................................................................62

References ..............................................................................................................................67
ii

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Benefits Among Stakeholder Groups From NCC ................................................... 8

Figure 2. Program Benefits by Stakeholder Group...............................................................20

Figure 3. Program Cost by Funding Source ..........................................................................22

Figure 4. Unemployment Status Results from Friedman et al. (2016)..................................38

Figure 5. Compound Interest Formula Used to Calculate Investment Opportunity 

Cost..........................................................................................................................................57

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1. ROI Results .........................................................................................................ES-2 

Table 1. NCC AmeriCorps Member Demographics............................................................. 2

Table 2. Adjusted and Unadjusted Intervention Means and Variability for PostIntervention FRCC With Pre-Intervention FRCC as a Covariate........................................... 4

Table 3. Relevant ROI, Willingness to Pay, and Bridge Studies and Their Findings.............. 6

Table 4. Benefits Realized From NCC by Stakeholder Group .............................................10

Table 5. Value of Ecosystem Services Preserved Through Fuel Reduction Treatments 

(2020$) .....................................................................................................................................14

Table 6. Value of Human Health Benefits From Reduced Air Particulates From Smoke 

(2020$) .....................................................................................................................................15

Table 7. Value of Benefits From Reduced Carbon Dioxide Equivalents Emissions 

(2020$) .....................................................................................................................................15

Table 8. Total Value of Ecosystem Restoration Services (2020$).........................................16

Table 9. Total Value of Trail Maintenance and Creation Services (2020$)........................16

Table 10. NCC Program Costs, 2018–2019 Program Year....................................................18

Table 11. Benefits by Recipient..............................................................................................20

Table 12. Forgone Benefits From Professional Opportunity Cost.........................................21

Table 13. Investment Opportunity Cost by Scenario and Funding Stream........................21

Table 14. Program Funding by Source for NCC ...................................................................22

Table 15. Program Benefits, Net Benefits and Program Costs by ROI Scenario.................23

Table 16. ROI Results for NCC ................................................................................................25

Table 17. Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Costs Included in ROI 

Calculations............................................................................................................................29

Table 18. NCC AmeriCorps Member Benefits From the Living Allowance and Education 

Award......................................................................................................................................38

Table 19. Additional Pre-Tax Earnings for NCC AmeriCorps Members From Reduced 

Unemployment Based on NCC AmeriCorps Member Demographics..............................39
iii

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Table 20. Cumulative Additional Post-Tax Earnings Derived From Reduced 

Unemployment Due to Serving With NCC by Scenario ......................................................40

Table 21. Average Total Cost of Education and Portion Attributable to Education 

Award by Degree Type..........................................................................................................41

Table 22. Estimates of the Number of Postsecondary Degrees Pursued Using the 

Education Award by Degree Type .......................................................................................42

Table 23. Additional Earnings From AmeriCorps Members’ Use of the Education Award

.................................................................................................................................................43

Table 24. Government Costs by Educational Attainment Level per Individual’s Lifetime48

Table 25. 2020 Tax Rates and Ratio of Taxable Expenditures for NCC AmeriCorps 

Members’ Earnings, Living Allowances, and Education Awards........................................49

Table 26. State/Local and Federal Government Benefits by Stakeholder Group and 

by Scenario .............................................................................................................................50

Table 27. Societal Benefits by Impact Category and by Scenario ....................................54

Table 28. Forgone Earnings of NCC AmeriCorps Members for a Service Term.................55

Table 29. Forgone Taxes Associated With the Forgone Earnings of NCC AmeriCorps 

Members for a Service Term ..................................................................................................56

Table 30. Forgone Benefits From Investment Opportunity Cost Calculation by Scenario 

and Funding Stream...............................................................................................................58

Table 31. Funding Sources and Amounts for NCC (2018–2019) ..........................................58

Table 32. ROI Calculations for Short-Term Scenario.............................................................60

Table 33. ROI Calculations for Medium-Term Scenario .......................................................60

Table 34. ROI Calculations for Long-Term Scenario.............................................................61

Table 35. NCC Benefits and Costs per Year .........................................................................63

AUTHORS

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

• George Voigt, ICF, Economics Analyst

• Julia Borgida, ICF, Public Policy Researcher

• Danny Clark, ICF, Research Analyst 

• Lisa Kulka, BCT Partners, Research and Evaluation Analyst

• Benjamin Miller, ICF, Senior Director

• Dominic Modicamore, ICF, Lead Economist

• Janet Pershing, ICF, Vice President

• Miriam Sarwana, BCT Partners, Research and Evaluation Manager

• Phylicia Thompson, BCT Partners, Research and Evaluation Analyst
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

ES-1 

Executive Summary 

Program Description

Nevada Conservation Corps (NCC) is an 

environmental service program of the 

Great Basin Institute dedicated to 

promoting field research and direct 

conservation service. 

NCC has utilized AmeriCorps support for its 

conservation work since 1999. NCC

supports Nevada’s communities and public 

lands by deploying forestry teams to 

mitigate fire threats, reduce the spread of 

invasive species, and restore and redesignate trails. In addition, monitoring and 

assessment teams capture critical data on 

the condition of forest and rangeland 

health.

To better understand the impact of the 

program in relation to costs, AmeriCorps 

commissioned a return on investment (ROI) 

analysis by ICF, an independent research firm. ROI analyses of national service 

programs estimate the monetary value of benefits that a program generates per dollar 

invested. Due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the most recent regular 

service year was used; in this case it was the 2018–20191 program year. 

Benefits resulting from this program are expected to accrue over an extended period. 

For that reason, ROI estimates may be low or even negative in the short-term, but 

positive in the medium- and long-terms. 

Overview of Benefits and Costs

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

to the program’s costs. This ROI study advances novel strategies for monetizing 

outcomes associated with preserved ecosystem services, for reduced carbon dioxide 

equivalents2 emissions from reduced wildfire acres burned, and for discounting 

ecosystem benefits over regrowth periods. Benefits of NCC include:

1 The 2018–2019 program year spans September 2018–August 2019.

2 Carbon dioxide equivalents refers to the total greenhouse gas warming impact from varied sources of 

emissions represented as an estimate of the comparable tonnage of carbon dioxide necessary to 

generate the same greenhouse gas warming effect. For example, 1 ton of methane has a carbon dioxide 

equivalent value over 100 years of 21 tons of carbon dioxide. (Schimel et al., 1995). 

AmeriCorps, the federal agency for 

volunteerism and national service, 

provides opportunities for Americans 

to serve their country domestically, 

address the nation’s most pressing 

challenges, improve lives and 

communities, and strengthen civic 

engagement. Each year, the agency 

invests more than $800 million in grants 

for local nonprofit, community, tribal, 

and state organizations; places more 

than 250,000 AmeriCorps members 

and AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers in 

intensive service roles; and empowers 

millions more to serve as long-term, 

short-term, or one-time volunteers. 

Learn more at AmeriCorps.gov. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

ES-2 

• Benefits to various stakeholders of reduced wildfire damage, environmental 

improvements, and greater trail access. NCC uses AmeriCorps members to 

perform fuel reduction treatments3 on at-risk sites to reduce severity of wildfires, 

remove invasive species to increase benefits to society from ecosystems, and 

build and maintain trails that provide health and recreational benefits. 

The societal benefits of NCC can be attributed to three key functions of the 

organization: wildfire mitigation, habitat improvements, and maintenance of trail 

systems. 

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

increased wages and reduced unemployment post-national service through skill 

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

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

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

Segal AmeriCorps Education Award after successful completion. 

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

receive more income tax revenue from increased AmeriCorps member earnings 

post-service, as well as additional sales tax revenue related to those earnings. 

Federal and state governments also realize tax revenue from the taxable living 

allowances, stipends, and education awards provided to AmeriCorps members. 

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

insurance. Because of the increase in secondary and postsecondary educational 

attainment for AmeriCorps members, federal and state governments spend less 

on these items. 

In addition, federal government funding of NCC serves as a catalyst for other funding, 

specifically that from state and local governments. This additional funding allows NCC

to operate at a larger scale than otherwise would have been possible under the 

federal funding alone. Though it may not impact the ROI, because it is a per-unit 

metric, match funding leads to greater investment in NCC and thus to greater impact.

The analysis uses a combination of estimates from NCC and peer-reviewed literature to

quantify the reduction of burned acres from wildfires. The peer-reviewed literature and 

NCC estimates are used to:

• Calculate values of ecosystem benefits that are preserved. This is accomplished 

by using literature estimates for ecosystem services per acre based on ecosystem 

type and the characteristics of the treated acres.

• Estimate how benefits decline over time as flammable material regrows following 

treatment. This is accomplished using literature estimates on the regrowth of 

plants following wildfire reduction treatments.

3 NCC’s fuel reduction treatments include mechanical thinning where potential fuel for wildfires is removed 

to increase ecosystems’ resilience to wildfires. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

ES-3 

There are also a few limitations to the analysis that should be noted. Following some

wildfires, FEMA (and private) funds are spent to aid in recovery efforts. NCC’s efforts on 

wildfire reduction treatments could result in the mitigation of those severe wildfires and

lead to subsequent saving of those funds. However, the current literature lacks the 

linkages to establish causality between treated acres and the saving of federal (and 

private) funds. We acknowledge that there may be some additional savings as a result 

of NCC’s activities that are not quantified in this model.

Lastly, due to the regrowth of plant matter over time following fuel reduction 

treatments, carbon sequestration will occur. Future work on the wholistic benefits of 

these treatments should examine the potential for additional reductions over time of 

ecosystem benefits due to carbon sequestration from regrowth. 

Program costs for the NCC program totaled $1,921,647 and came from the following 

sources:

• Federal government (AmeriCorps)

• Federal government (Non-AmeriCorps)

• State and local government

• Tribal governments

• Private

• Other

ROI Results

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

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

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

The analysis used three different scenarios to estimate benefits under different 

assumptions. Specifically, the study assumed that increased earnings attributable to the 

programs last for 1 year (short-term scenario), 15 years (medium-term scenario), or 

30 years (long-term scenario).

For the portion of the benefits analysis that measured ecosystem benefits, this study 

used low, average, and high estimates of those benefits based on the literature. 

Doing so allowed for the uncertainty involved in monetizing ecosystem benefits. 

The ROIs are presented as dollars returned for every dollar of investment. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

ES-4 

Table ES-1. ROI Estimates

ROI calculation

ROI scenario

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Total benefits per federal dollar*

With low ecosystem benefits $1.17 $8.35 $11.48 

With average ecosystem benefits $2.58 $24.02 $32.02 

With high ecosystem benefits $6.57 $68.46 $90.28 

Total benefits per funder dollar*

With low ecosystem benefits $0.98 $7.08 $9.75 

With average ecosystem benefits $2.20 $20.66 $27.55 

With high ecosystem benefits $5.66 $59.17 $78.04 

Federal government benefits

per federal dollar

$0.04 $0.17 $0.23 

*These ROI estimates are provided based on low, average, and high estimates of ecosystem benefits to 

society.

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

benefits to AmeriCorps members, program participants, and state/local governments 

are included. This is indicated by the results of the total benefits per federal dollar and 

the total benefits per funder dollar ROI calculations for these two scenarios. In the 

short-term scenario—which only includes benefits for 1 year post-program—the ROI of 

$0.98 for the total benefits per funder dollar calculation with the low set of ecosystem 

benefit estimates is just below the break-even point on funding invested. All other total 

benefit scenarios and ecosystem benefit levels show positive returns.

The federal government benefits per federal dollar calculations estimate losses for all 

three scenarios. NCC is a program that is intended primarily to generate benefits to 

society, rather than benefits to the federal government, so these results are consistent 

with the design of NCC. In addition, existing data and literature on the causal 

relationships between acres burning and the expense of federal funds are lacking and

do not make it possible to attribute post-wildfire recovery savings to the federal 

government, but to the extent that a wildfire that leads to FEMA assistance is avoided, 

there would be added savings from reduced government expenditures by FEMA.4

Including FEMA expenditure savings resulting from a reduction in wildfires would lead to 

a higher ROI for the federal government than this analysis estimates. 

4 The potential for these federal savings would also extend to private funds (from private insurance 

companies or individuals), and the same limitations apply to those savings. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

ES-5 

The magnitude of the positive ROI estimates in the medium- and long-term scenarios is 

driven by the following factors:

• Reduction in wildfire-related costs. Societal benefits from reduced severity of 

wildfires accrue but diminish over time as vegetation regrows and generates 

more potential fuel.

• Increased benefits from ecosystems from reduced invasive species. Societal 

benefits accrue but diminish over time as invasive species return.

• Benefits from trail maintenance and creation. Societal benefits from access and 

use of trails accrue over time but diminish as trails naturally deteriorate.

• Educational attainment outcomes of AmeriCorps members. After serving in the 

AmeriCorps program, AmeriCorps members receive an education award, which 

is used by a portion of members to help pay for postsecondary degrees 

post-service. The additional educational attainment resulting from the use of the 

education award generates additional earnings for AmeriCorps members. 

• Employment outcomes of AmeriCorps members. Past studies establish that 

AmeriCorps members experience increased employment and increased earnings 

post-service.
1 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

AmeriCorps programming to relevant stakeholders. 

This project began with a comprehensive literature review and preliminary assessments 

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

feasibility studies included thorough reviews of these programs’ recent evaluations, 

detailed logic models, proposed ROI analysis methodologies for each program, and a 

scorecard mechanism that determined the viability of conducting an ROI analysis for 

each selected program. 

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

subjects of ROI studies for fiscal year 2022: Breakthrough Central Texas’s Austin program, 

Nevada Conservation Corps (NCC), SBP, and Washington State Department of 

Veterans Affairs Vet Corps. This ROI study measures the benefits of NCC’s activities 

against costs. 

This study is organized into five sections:

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

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

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

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

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

estimates for programs that are similar to NCC. 

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

monetize benefits derived from NCC activities, describes its associated program 

costs, and explains how opportunity costs were calculated. 

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

provides a detailed description of the program benefits, forgone benefits 

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

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

• Recommendations for Further Research explores ways AmeriCorps and others 

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

including how to address limitations of this study.

• Conclusion summarizes key points from the ROI study overall.
2 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Program Description

The Great Basin Institute (GBI) is an interdisciplinary field studies organization that 

promotes environmental research, education, and conservation throughout the West. 

NCC, a program of GBI, is an environmental service program dedicated to promoting 

field research and direct conservation service. NCC has utilized AmeriCorps support for 

its conservation work since 1999. AmeriCorps funds for NCC are awarded through 

Nevada Volunteers, the state service commission for allocating AmeriCorps funds to 

meet needs throughout the state. NCC supports Nevada’s communities and public 

lands by deploying forestry teams to mitigate fire threats, reduce the spread of invasive 

species, and restore and re-designate trails. 

NCC’s program activities include crew-based services that reduce wildland fire threat 

through fuel reduction. NCC members treat and abate noxious weeds and perform 

tasks such as post-fire re-seeding and native plant reintroduction. Corps members also 

perform trail management and creation to provide recreational value to the public. To 

support agency decision-making, NCC’s assessment, inventory, and monitoring teams 

evaluate and characterize forest and range health conditions and provide data to 

determine restoration efficacy. 

Due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the most recent regular service year 

was used; in this case it was the 2018–20195 program year.

Population Served

From 1999 to 2019, NCC successfully placed 1,934 AmeriCorps members in the field, 

serving some 453,268 volunteer hours. In addition, NCC’s service-learning efforts have 

mobilized approximately 10,963 students in one-time or ongoing volunteer projects. 

GBI’s International Conservation Volunteer Exchange program has led 436 international 

volunteers in 51,230 hours of environmental service, providing a global exchange of

Nevada volunteers and volunteers worldwide. Currently, more than 320 NCC volunteers 

are engaged in environmental and community service across Nevada. Table 1 shows

NCC AmeriCorps member demographic data for September 2018 through August 

2019, the program year studied in this ROI analysis.6

Table 1. NCC AmeriCorps Member Demographics

Demographic category Percentage of NCC AmeriCorps members

Gender

Male 54.3% 

Female 43.3% 

Gender queer 2.4% 

5 The 2018–2019 program year spans September 2018–August 2019.

6 Scott Scherbinski, NCC contact, personal communication, February 10, 2022. Hereafter, all instances 

of NCC referenced as a data source were retrieved from this communication.
3 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Demographic category Percentage of NCC AmeriCorps members

Race/Ethnicity

White 78.7% 

Hispanic 9.1% 

Asian 5.5% 

Two or more races 3.7% 

Other 3.0% 

Age

20–24 62.4% 

25–29 26.1% 

30 and older 11.4.% 

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

NCC Evaluation History

This section provides an overview of NCC’s evaluation history. NCC’s program 

evaluations do not quantify per-acre reductions in burn likelihoods for treated areas, 

ecosystem benefits from activities, or benefits to society from trail maintenance and 

creation. Rather, this analysis uses administrative data from NCC and other sources to 

estimate those and other benefits.

Great Basin Institute – Nevada Conservation Corps – Evaluation Report 

2019-20207

This evaluation studied the efficacy of the NCC fuel reduction treatments to reduce the 

fire regime condition class (FRCC) at 210 sites over the course of 2019 and 2020. Fuel 

reduction treatments were characterized as silvicultural treatments aimed at increasing 

within-stand heterogeneity (Reinhardt et al., 2008), thereby increasing the resilience to 

potential disturbance of the stand by prioritizing a diversity of species, sizes, and age 

classes (Stephens et al., 2018). The study evaluated mean FRCC rating at 35 treatment 

and control sites during each of three sampling periods (once during 2019 and twice 

during 2020). 

To evaluate the effectiveness of the treatments, treatment sites were matched to a 

comparison group and FRCC values were measured before and after the treatment 

period using the Brown’s Planar Intercept Method (Center for Program Evaluation, 

2020). Comparison sites were selected based on their slope aspect, plant species, and 

plant density. To normalize the measured values and increase comparability between 

7 Center for Program Evaluation. (2020). Great Basin Institute – Nevada Conservation Corps – Evaluation 

Report 2019 – 2020. Reno, NV. https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document

/GreatBasinInstitute.21ES231073.Evidencedoc3_EDITED_508.pdf
4 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

sites, the mean FRCC value for pre- and post-treatment was adjusted to account for 

the pre-treatment FRCC during the statistical analysis.

The study found that, due to fuel reduction efforts, FRCC ratings on treated plots 

decreased compared to the untreated sites (Table 2). The result of the ANCOVA 

statistical test was that the treatment sites had a mean difference in FRCC of -0.386, 

which was statistically significant with a p-value of less than 0.001.

Table 2. Adjusted and Unadjusted Intervention Means and Variability for 

Post-Intervention FRCC With Pre-Intervention FRCC as a Covariate

Unadjusted Adjusted

N M SD M SE

Treatment 105 2.10 .31 2.06 .03 

Comparison 105 2.39 .55 2.44 .03 

Note: N = number of participants, M = mean, SD = standard deviation, SE = standard error 

Selection of NCC for the AmeriCorps ROI Project

ICF recommended making NCC’s program the subject of an ROI study based on a 

recent evaluation that documented outcomes related to wildfires and on NCC 

administrative data and conservation literature that could be used to monetize 

program impacts. Notably, this ROI study pioneers strategies for monetizing outcomes 

associated with reduced carbon dioxide equivalents emissions and for discounting

ecosystem benefits over regrowth periods. 

Comparable ROI Estimates

ROI studies of programs that offer similar services provide context for NCC ROI 

estimates. Table 3 summarizes information across studies.

Mason et al. (2006) estimated the ROI of mitigation efforts in moderate-risk8 areas to be 

$1.04 and high-risk9 areas to be $2.42 for every dollar spent. The study estimated the ROI 

of fuel reduction treatments based on reduced firefighting costs, fatalities avoided, 

facility losses avoided, and reduced loss of timber resources. 

Jones (2021) analyzed the costs and benefits of wildfire mitigation treatments related to 

preserving municipal watersheds and the societal benefits they provide. These 

treatments were classified as general canopy treatments (in which potential fuels were 

mechanically thinned and clear cut)10 and surface fuel treatments (such as prescribed 

8 Moderate-risk areas are defined in Mason et al. (2006) as areas where a wildfire is expected to burn in the 

next 60 years.

9 High-risk areas are defined in Mason et al. (2006) as areas where a wildfire is expected to burn in the next 

30 years.

10 Canopy treatments of mechanical thinning and clear cutting are treatments where potential wildfire fuel 

is removed from the area by cutting off branches or cutting down trees.
5 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

burns, lop and scatter, and mastication).11 To assess the benefits of the program, Jones 

modeled wildfire behavior pre- and post-treatment. The analysis found that every dollar 

invested yielded between $0.67 and $3.88 in benefits. The analysis estimated benefits 

that included reduced property loss, reduced recovery and rehabilitation costs, 

reduced suppression costs, increased recreation, and conservation of endangered 

species. 

A number of additional studies measure the ROI for programs that focus on reducing 

invasive species and trail maintenance and creation efforts: 

• Zavaleta (2000) estimated the ecosystem services12 lost as a result of invasive 

species presence. The study estimated the ROI of protecting these ecosystem 

services to be between $1.36 and $2.12. 

• The Watershed Company (2015) conducted an effectiveness study on 

Washington Conservation Corps, an AmeriCorps-supported program similar to 

NCC. Their findings suggested that the treatments increased native tree and 

shrub presence by 9.2 percent and decreased noxious weed presence by 

14.2 percent after 1 year. 

• ICF (2021) conducted an ROI study of Washington Conservation Corps, finding

an ROI of $1.80 (short-term) to $29.13 (long-term) for every federal dollar spent

and an ROI of $0.52 (short-term) to $8.36 (long-term) for every total funder dollar 

spent. 

Other studies measure the social benefits derived from the maintenance of trail systems: 

• Wang et al. (2005) conducted a cost–benefit analysis of trail use in Nebraska and 

its relationship with health costs associated with inactivity. Per-capita annual 

costs of trail use included trail maintenance and creation, equipment, and 

travel, while per-capita annual direct benefit examined the medical benefit of 

using the trails. The study found that every dollar of investment in trails for physical 

activity led to $2.94 in direct medical benefit. 

• Oh and Hammitt (2010) derived other use benefits of trails at a state park in 

South Carolina. Benefits were calculated based on the community’s willingness

to pay for park services using the double-bounded contingent valuation 

method. The study found that the economic benefit characterized by willingness

to pay for entry to the recreation area was $4.76 per visit. Oh and Hammitt 

11 Surface treatments of prescribed burns, lop and scatter, and mastication are methods whereby potential 

wildfire fuel at ground level is removed from the area by burning it, lowering density of fuel loads, and 

reducing fuel to small pieces, thereby increasing the health of remaining trees.

12 Ecosystems are dynamic environments housing plants, animals, microorganisms, and the nonliving 

interacting as a single unit. Services rendered naturally by an ecosystem can benefit humans who 

ultimately value these services. Some ecosystem service values are directly tied to market activity, such as 

extractive activities (e.g., timber production, mining, food, etc.). Other values may be indirectly, or not at 

all, tied to market activity. Values of goods and services that fall outside of market activity are called 

non-market values. See de Groot, Fisher, and Christie (2010).
6 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

compared the estimated value of visitor benefits to park costs, estimating the 

ROI for trail maintenance to be between $1.15 and $1.72.

Table 3. Relevant ROI, Willingness to Pay, and Bridge Studies and Their Findings

Study

Forest 

treatments/ 

study area

Benefits/cost 

savings 

evaluated

Net benefits/cost 

savings per acre ROI estimate*

Mason et al. 

(2006) 

Wildfire fuel 

reduction 

through forest 

thinning

Reductions in 

firefighting, 

fatalities, facility 

losses, loss of 

timber; 

willingness to

pay for fire risk 

reduction

Benefits: 

$1,401/acre 

(high risk), 

$606/acre 

(moderate risk), 

Costs: $580/acre 

$2.42 in benefits 

per unit of 

investment in 

high-risk forest

$1.04 in benefits 

per unit of 

investment in 

moderate-risk

forest

Jones et al. 

(2021) 

General canopy 

treatments (e.g., 

mechanical 

thinning) and 

surface fuel 

treatments (e.g., 

prescribed fire)

Source water 

protection; 

reduced

property loss, 

recovery and 

rehabilitation 

costs, and fire 

suppression 

costs; increased 

recreation and 

endangered 

species values

Benefits: $670–

$3,880 per acre 

Costs: $1,000 per 

acre

$0.67 to $3.88 in 

benefits per unit 

of investment

Zavaleta (2000) Ecosystem 

services lost as a 

result of noxious 

weed presence

Avoided loss of

ecosystem 

services 

Benefits: $4,317– 

$6,728 per acre 

Costs: $3,174 per 

acre

$1.36 to $2.12 in 

benefits per unit 

of investment

The Watershed 

Company (2015) 

Efficacy of 

restoration 

efforts to restore 

native plants 

and remove 

noxious weeds

9.2% increase in 

native 

vegetation and 

14.2% decrease 

of noxious 

weeds following 

treatment

N/A N/A
7 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Study

Forest 

treatments/ 

study area

Benefits/cost 

savings 

evaluated

Net benefits/cost 

savings per acre ROI estimate*

ICF (2021) Restoring native 

plants and 

removing 

noxious weeds

Increased 

ecosystem 

services; 

AmeriCorps 

member living 

allowances and 

education 

awards, 

additional 

earnings from 

reduced 

unemployment, 

and increased 

educational 

attainment; 

reduced 

spending on 

corrections, 

public 

assistance, and 

social insurance

$8.7 million to 

over $505 million 

$1.80 to $8.84 in 

benefits per 

funder dollar

Wang et al. 

(2005) 

Health benefits

of trails

Direct medical 

benefit of trails

$2.94 of health 

benefit for $1 

invested

$2.94 in benefits 

per unit of 

investment

Oh and Hammitt 

(2010) 

Recreational 

value of trails

Willingness to

pay for 

recreational use 

of trails

$4.76 per visit 

N/A

*The ROI estimate was not complete in each analysis, but rather done by the team using the ROI formula: 

ROI = total net benefits / total net costs.

ROI Methodology 

The methodology for estimating NCC’s ROI study consisted of the following 

components: 

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

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

determine the benefits to NCC AmeriCorps members; federal, state, and local

governments; and society. 

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

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

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

could have earned more pay by doing other work. The second was the 
8 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

investment opportunity cost for NCC AmeriCorps program funding that could 

have been used for other purposes. 

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

September 2018–August 2019. NCC costs for the 2018–2019 program year 

include operating costs, AmeriCorps member expenses, non-AmeriCorps 

member expenses, and other indirect costs. AmeriCorps member expenses 

included the living allowance amounts received during service.

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

assessed under three scenarios representing different assumptions about the 

persistence of program outcomes: 

• Total benefits per federal dollar

• Total benefits per funder dollar13 

• Federal government benefits per federal dollar

This analytical framework includes only those benefits that could be reasonably 

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

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

AmeriCorps members; federal, state, and local governments; and society. 

Figure 1. Benefits Among Stakeholder Groups From NCC

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

result of serving with NCC. However, the data do not establish the duration of those 

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

includes three scenarios:14

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

(i.e., AmeriCorps) and match funding from state and local governments.

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

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

stem from NCC. For example, lifetime benefits in terms of decreased public assistance, social insurance, 

and corrections costs result from NCC AmeriCorps members’ higher educational attainment post-service. 

The analysis estimates lifetime benefits differently in the three scenarios. Specifically, the net present value 

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

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

short-term scenario.
9 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

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

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

also assumes no lifetime benefits are realized.

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

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

applied each year to represent net present value in 2020 dollars.15 This scenario 

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

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

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

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

present value in 2020 dollars. This scenario also assumes the entire net present 

value of lifetime benefits is realized.

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

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

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

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

earnings benefits) represents the midpoint between these two scenarios. 

Monetizing Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs), 

and Program Costs

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

expected opportunity costs—all in 2020 dollars—to assess the ROI of NCC. Additional 

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

in Appendix B. 

Program Benefits 

Outcomes of NCC result in monetizable benefits to NCC AmeriCorps members; federal, 

state, and local governments; and society. Table 4 summarizes these benefits and data 

sources by stakeholder group.

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

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

discount rate, see Office of Management and Budget (2003).
10 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Table 4. Benefits Realized From NCC by Stakeholder Group

Stakeholder group Benefits

NCC AmeriCorps members • Additional earnings from reduced unemployment 

• Post-tax living allowances 

Federal, state, and local 

governments 

• Tax revenue from increased earnings by NCC

AmeriCorps members post-program and sales tax 

revenue from the induced increased economic activity

• Tax revenue from living allowances 

• Reduced lifetime spending on corrections, public 

assistance, and social insurance from increased 

educational attainment by NCC AmeriCorps members 

• There are likely other benefits to FEMA/HUD from 

reduced spending on wildfire disaster relief funding; 

however, limitations exist to incorporating those benefits 

currently. 

Society • Wildfire reduction benefits, including: 1) ecosystem 

services preserved, 2) reduced human health impacts, 

and 3) reduced carbon dioxide emissions

• Increased benefits from ecosystem services due to 

unburned areas as well as ecosystem restoration 

activities

• Increased health outcomes from reduced particulate 

matter and access to trails

• There may be other benefits to private 

insurers/individuals from reduced spending on recovery 

following wildfire disasters; however, limitations exist to 

incorporating those benefits currently.

ICF conducted a multi-step methodology for estimating the ROI for NCC, beginning 

with estimation of program benefits, forgone benefits (opportunity costs), and program 

costs. Program benefits include benefits to society, as well as benefits to AmeriCorps 

members and federal, state, and local governments. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 

NCC experienced disruptions to their program activities in the most recent program 

years. Therefore, ICF used 2019 data to complete the ROI calculation.
11 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Benefits to AmeriCorps Members

NCC AmeriCorps members benefit from increased likelihood of employment postnational service and from living allowances.16 

Post-Tax Living Allowances (Benefits to NCC AmeriCorps Members)

NCC AmeriCorps members receive living allowances during their national service. The 

living allowances are taxable income and thus result in increased government 

revenue.17 The post-tax living allowance was included in the ROI analysis as a direct 

one-time benefit to NCC AmeriCorps members. 

Additional Earnings From Reduced Unemployment (Benefit to NCC AmeriCorps 

Members)

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

increased educational attainment, and higher income from increased employment 

post-national service.18 Freidman et al. (2016) found that unemployment among 

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

points lower compared to 6 months before serving.19 To monetize this decrease in 

unemployment, the analysis first collected data on the demographic distribution of 

NCC AmeriCorps members who served during the most recent program year in terms of 

race/ethnicity, gender, and age pre-service using data provided by NCC. The analysis 

then proceeded to:

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

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

Survey’s Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement for 2020 (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2020)

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

(2016) by the number of NCC AmeriCorps members who served during the most 

recent program year to estimate the number of additional NCC AmeriCorps 

members employed post-service

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

the number of additional NCC AmeriCorps members employed to estimate the 

total increased earnings attributable to national service 

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

2016.

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

Segal AmeriCorps Education Award. https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorpseducation-award/find-out-more 

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

2016.

19 See page 56 of Friedman et al. (2016).
12 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

The earnings metrics for NCC AmeriCorps members were applied and discounted 

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

present 2020 dollars. The post-tax NCC AmeriCorps members’ projected earnings 

represent the additional income earned by AmeriCorps members attributable to 

serving with the NCC program.

Benefits to Government

The benefits to NCC AmeriCorps members result in benefits to the various levels of 

government.

Tax Revenue From Increased Earnings by NCC AmeriCorps Members

State, local, and federal governments benefit from increased earnings by NCC

AmeriCorps members. Those benefits include:

• Income tax revenue from increased earnings by NCC AmeriCorps members 

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

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

AmeriCorps members based on 2019 rates. For both federal and state income 

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

earnings paid in taxes. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

AmeriCorps members may disperse to various locations nationwide following 

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

years.

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

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

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

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

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

This analysis applied that rate to the estimated taxable expenditures of NCC

AmeriCorps members based on their post-service pre-tax earnings using 

Consumer Expenditure Survey data (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021).20 The 

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

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

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

used from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021). This table lists the annual expenditure means by pre-tax 

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

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

https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-average-standard-error.htm#cu-income
13 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Tax Revenue From Living Allowances Received by NCC AmeriCorps Members

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

taxable income. This analysis applied a proportional federal income tax rate as well as 

Medicare and Social Security tax rates to the pre-tax living allowance amount received 

by NCC AmeriCorps members for the most recent program year. The analysis also 

applied a sales tax rate to the estimated taxable expenditures of NCC AmeriCorps 

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

and local government revenue.

Benefits to Society 

The societal benefits of NCC can be attributed to three key functions of the 

organization: wildfire mitigation, habitat improvements, and maintenance of trail 

systems. 

Wildfire Reduction Benefits Attributable to NCC

Evaluations and peer-reviewed literature show that fuel reduction treatments like those 

conducted by NCC reduce the likelihood of an area burning by 7 percent (Cochrane 

et al., 2012; Center for Program Evaluation, 2020). To monetize this reduced likelihood of 

burning, the analysis first determined the number and composition of acres treated 

based on NCC data. 

The analysis estimated the number of acres prevented from burning each year using 

the number of acres treated by NCC and multiplying them by the estimates of burn 

reduction from Cochrane et al. (2012). The analysis then calculated societal benefits 

related to those preserved acres using various other literature that establishes 

ecosystem services values, avoided health damages, and avoided carbon dioxide 

equivalents emission costs from wildfires on a per acre basis:

1. Ecosystem services preserved through fuel reduction treatments. The Rim Fire 

report (Batker et al., 2013) establishes a range of ecosystem services that are lost 

from each acre burned during a wildfire, which range in aggregate value from 

$392.76 to $2,890.25. To reflect that burned acres regrow following wildfires, the 

analysis reduced ecosystem service benefits incrementally with the estimated 

amount of regrowth (Bartels et al., 2016). The analysis assumes that the value of 

this benefit decreases by 84 percent by the end of the study period (roughly 

1.2 percent per year for the first 10 years and roughly 3.7 percent per year 

thereafter).21

2. Human health benefits from reduced air particulates from smoke. Moeltner et al. 

(2013) estimated that the health impacts from wildfires range from $51 per acre 

to $708 per acre based on location and severity of the burn. This analysis uses 

their estimate of $467 per acre for zone 3 based on the similar geographic 

21 Bartels et al. (2016) found that areas burned have 10 percent regrowth by year 10 and 84 percent

regrowth by year 30. This analysis used constant values of roughly 1.2 percent per year for the first 10 years 

and roughly 3.7 percent per year thereafter to reach those regrowth values in years 10 and 30. This method 

was applied to all three wildfire reduction benefits outlined in this section.
14 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

location to NCC’s activities. To reflect that fuel reduction treatment effectiveness 

decreases over time as fuel accumulates naturally, the analysis reduced health 

benefits with the estimated amount of regrowth (Bartels et al., 2016). The analysis 

assumes that the value of this benefit decreases by 84 percent by the end of the 

study period (roughly 1.2 percent per year for the first 10 years and roughly 

3.7 percent per year thereafter). 

3. Benefits from reduced carbon dioxide equivalents emissions. Carbon dioxide 

equivalents emissions result in costs to society measured by the social cost of 

carbon of $47.76 in 2020 dollars (Interagency Working Group, 2013), which 

estimates the value of lost benefits to global society from the emission of 1 ton of 

carbon dioxide equivalents. (These lost benefits include impacts to agricultural 

productivity, human health, property damage from flood risk, and ecosystem 

services due to climate change.) Total carbon dioxide equivalents emissions

were estimated from a range of values based on varying assumptions of the 

ground cover and ecosystem type, from 0.023 tons of carbon per acre burned 

(Guo et al., 2019) to 1.75 tons of carbon per acre burned (Arora and Melton, 

2018). For example, a forest has significant potential emissions and a desert less

potential emissions. Using a set of low, average, and high estimates of carbon 

dioxide emissions per acre allows this analysis to incorporate uncertainty about 

the specific mix of land types treated by NCC. To reflect that the fuel reduction 

treatment effectiveness decreases over time as fuel accumulates naturally, the 

analysis reduced benefits from avoided carbon dioxide equivalents emissions

with the estimated amount of regrowth (Bartels et al., 2016). The analysis assumes 

that the value of this benefit decreases by 84 percent by the end of the study 

period (roughly 1.2 percent per year for the first 10 years and roughly 3.7 percent

per year thereafter).

Table 5 presents the discounted benefits of ecosystem services to society over the three 

scenarios and three environmental impact levels due to wildfire reduction treatments 

during the 2018–2019 program year. 

Table 5. Value of Ecosystem Services Preserved Through Fuel Reduction Treatments

(2020$)

Value of ecosystem 

services Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Low $79,884 $694,234 $709,110 

Average $323,955 $2,815,328 $2,875,653 

High $587,854 $5,108,743 $5,218,211 

Table 6 presents the discounted health benefits to society over the three scenarios due 

to wildfire reduction treatments during the 2018–2019 program year. 
15 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Table 6. Value of Human Health Benefits From Reduced Air Particulates From Smoke

(2020$)

Value of health benefits Short-term Medium-term Long-term

All impact levels* $94,984 $825,459 $843,147 

*This benefit is estimated based on a single value per acre, rather than low, average, and high per-acre 

impact levels.

Table 7 presents the discounted benefits from reduced carbon dioxide equivalents

emissions over the three scenarios and three potential carbon dioxide equivalent 

emission levels due to wildfire reduction treatments during the 2018–2019 program year. 

Table 7. Value of Benefits From Reduced Carbon Dioxide Equivalents Emissions (2020$)

Value of emission 

reduction benefits Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Low* $222 $1,933 $1,975 

Average* $8,611 $74,834 $76,437 

High* $17,000 $147,734 $150,900 

*These impact levels represent low, average, and high estimates of the amount of carbon released per 

acre from wildfires. 

Habitat Improvement Benefits Attributable to NCC

Restoration of habitats, which reduces invasive species presence and increases native 

species presence, increases ecosystem services to society (Zavaleta, 2000; The 

Watershed Company, 2015). To monetize the increase in ecosystem services due to 

NCC programming, the analysis first determined the number and composition of acres 

restored based on NCC-provided data. The analysis then proceeded to:

1. Estimate the value per acre of various ecosystem types by including varying 

ranges of ecosystem services in each of the low, average, and high estimates 

(ESSRTI, 2021) 

2. Multiply the estimated value per acre by the NCC-provided ecosystem acres 

treated

3. Discount the stream of benefits based on regrowth estimates (Bartels et al., 

2016). The cumulative decrease is 84 percent by the end of the study period 

(roughly 1.2 percent per year for the first 10 years and roughly 3.7 percent per 

year thereafter)

Table 8 presents the discounted benefits to society over the three scenarios and three 

environmental impact levels generated by the ecosystem restoration activities during 

the 2018–2019 program year.
16 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Table 8. Total Value of Ecosystem Restoration Services (2020$)

Value of ecosystem 

services Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Low $944,483 $10,528,732 $13,803,733 

Average $3,390,172 $37,792,323 $49,547,763 

High $10,770,788 $120,068,557 $157,416,320 

Trail Maintenance and Creation Benefits Attributable to NCC

Trails are associated with increased health (Wang et al., 2005) and enjoyment (Oh and 

Hammitt, 2010) for individuals who use them. To monetize this aspect of NCC’s work, the 

analysis first determined the number of miles of each trail and the state in which those 

trails were located based on NCC-provided data. The analysis then proceeded to:

1. Estimate per-mile total benefits for trails using health outcome values (Wang et 

al., 2005) and recreational use values (Oh and Hammitt, 2010)

2. Estimate per-year maintenance costs for backcountry hiking and biking trails 

(Echelberger and Plumley, 1986) to be used as a flat discount rate for benefits 

accrued following the maintenance or construction year to generate a net 

benefit value

3. Multiply the number of miles of trail in each state maintained or created by the 

net benefits

Table 9 presents the discounted benefits to society from trail maintenance and creation

activities during the 2018–2019 program year over the three scenarios. 

Table 9. Total Value of Trail Maintenance and Creation Services (2020$)

Source of benefit Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Health benefits $1,626 $11,031 $17,603 

Recreation benefits $182 $1,238 $1,976 

Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs)

The analysis incorporated two forgone benefits (opportunity costs) into each of the 

three ROI calculations for NCC: a professional opportunity cost to NCC AmeriCorps 

members and an investment opportunity cost to funders. The forgone benefits are 

subtracted from the program benefits to calculate the net benefits of the program. 

Those net benefits are then compared to program cost to calculate the ROI. These 

forgone benefits are referred to as the professional and investment opportunity costs. 

Professional Opportunity Cost to NCC AmeriCorps Members

The first forgone benefit (opportunity cost) was the professional opportunity cost to NCC

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

otherwise be working and earning higher pay. To calculate this, this analysis estimated 

what NCC AmeriCorps members would have earned if they did not serve in NCC. 
17 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Specifically, this analysis estimated the weighted average annual earnings of this group 

as well as their weighted unemployment rate using ASEC data and the demographic 

distribution of NCC AmeriCorps members for the 2018–2019 program year. The 

demographics included were gender, age, race/ethnicity, and pre-service highest 

level of education. The weighted average annual earnings represent the expected 

earnings of the NCC AmeriCorps members if they were employed, not serving in NCC. 

The weighted unemployment rate represents how many of the NCC AmeriCorps 

members would have been unemployed if they did not serve in NCC. These weighted 

metrics were first used to estimate the portion of NCC members who would have been 

employed and then to calculate the aggregate earnings those employed individuals 

would have made without serving in NCC. Namely, they are used to calculate the 

aggregate post-tax earnings this population would forgo due to serving with NCC for 

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

To appropriately allocate opportunity costs between NCC AmeriCorps members and 

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

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

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

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

these individuals decide to serve in NCC instead of working for higher pay. The 

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

members is called the total professional opportunity cost. 

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

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

federal components of the professional opportunity cost are subtracted from all federal 

government benefits (i.e., forgone federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes) 

realized as a result of NCC in this ROI calculation. The parts of the professional 

opportunity cost removed from these total federal government benefits include the 

federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes forgone due to NCC AmeriCorps 

members forgoing earnings during their service year. The summation of these forgone 

federal taxes is called the federal professional opportunity cost. 

Investment Opportunity Cost to Funders 

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

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

2018–2019 program year were invested in U.S. Treasury bonds instead. To calculate this, 

the analysis matched the 2018 real interest rates provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (2020) to each of the scenarios leveraged in this ROI 

analysis: short-term, medium-term, and long-term.22 The rates of return for U.S. Treasury 

bonds provide a market-based estimate of return for low-risk investments. The real 

interest rate for the 3-year maturity is used for the short-term scenario, the average 

between the 10-year and 20-year maturity rates is used as the rate for the medium-term 

scenario, and the 30-year maturity rate is used for the long-term scenario. These real 

22 The analysis used 2018 real interest rates for U.S. Treasury bonds because the NCC AmeriCorps program 

year analyzed began in 2018. 
18 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

interest rates are 0.6 percent, 0.8 percent, and 1.0 percent, respectively (Office of 

Management and Budget, 2020). Also, the number of time periods elapsed on these 

bonds is equal to the number of years the short-term, medium-term, and long-term 

scenarios assume NCC AmeriCorps members’ employment and earnings gains are 

sustained: 1 year, 15 years, and 30 years, respectively. These bonds compound 

biannually, according to the U.S. Department of the Treasury (2019). The forgone 

accrued interest was calculated for each of the three scenarios if the funding amount 

used to support NCC was instead invested (U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2019). Note 

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

total benefits per federal dollar ROI calculation, the investment opportunity cost 

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

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

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

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

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

accrued interest from investing all NCC funds (both federal and non-federal) into these 

U.S. Treasury bonds. This is called the total investment opportunity cost. See Appendix B 

for details.

Program Costs

The costs used in this analysis are specific to the 2018–2019 NCC program year. NCC 

costs for the 2018–2019 program year include operating costs, AmeriCorps member 

expenses, and other costs (shown in Table 10). Operating costs capture the majority of 

expenses, which include construction-related expenses, in-kind labor, and other 

program staff costs. AmeriCorps member expenses include the living allowance and 

other benefits members receive during service. Other costs are indirect costs incurred 

by NCC from engaging volunteers not associated with AmeriCorps. 

Table 10. NCC Program Costs, 2018–2019 Program Year

Cost category Value

Operating $318,415 

AmeriCorps member expenses $1,172,164 

Other $431,068 

Total $1,921,647

Source: NCC (2022)

ROI Study Limitations

Study limitations include the inability to capture all benefits that stem from NCC due to 

the lack of data to demonstrate robust causal relationships between the treatments 

and damages that would result in private costs (homeowner and private insurer) or 

costs to the federal government (FEMA or HUD funds used following a wildfire disaster). 
19 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Approximate Federal/Non-Federal Cost Split

Due to the program structure of NCC, the organization tracks costs by the 

organization’s fiscal year, making it challenging to determine the federal/non-federal 

split for a given AmeriCorps grant year. Based on information provided by NCC, the 

analysis assumed 80 percent federal funding and 20 percent non-federal funding 

based on review of workweeks from the abutting fiscal years. This approximation may 

differ slightly from the actual cost structures for the program over the 2018–2019 

program year.

Insufficient Data to Attribute Post-Wildfire Recovery Savings to Government and PrivateSector Entities 

Post-wildfire recovery is typically funded by a combination of federal, state, and local 

government sources. These sources could include private costs to homeowners, costs to 

private insurance firms, and costs to FEMA and HUD that result from their activities 

following a severe wildfire. The relative amounts differ by wildfire event. In addition, 

there is insufficient data to determine the per-acre cost of recovery funding by funding

source. This is due to a lack of data defining the causal relationship between the acre 

prevented from burning by NCC and savings to the federal government on disaster

relief. Because of these limitations, the analysis could not break out federal government 

savings on post-wildfire recovery due to NCC’s work. To provide conservative ROI 

estimates for the federal government benefits per federal dollar calculation, the 

analysis assumed none of the government savings on post-wildfire recovery were to the 

federal government. The resulting ROI calculation is likely an underestimate given the 

exclusion of that benefit. 

Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Cost), Program 

Costs, and ROI Results

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

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

Program Benefits

Table 11 shows NCC benefits by stakeholder group for each of the three scenarios. 

Benefits to society are provided based on low, average, and high estimates of 

ecosystem benefits.
20 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Table 11. Benefits by Recipient

Recipient

Benefits by scenario

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

AmeriCorps members $1,059,168 $2,805,903 $4,563,965 

Federal government $74,382 $331,383 $437,632 

State & local governments -$76,990 $63,983 $209,979 

Low* $1,121,382 $12,492,846 $16,382,284 

Society Average* $3,819,530 $42,570,752 $55,816,033 

High* $11,472,433 $127,882,344 $167,664,106 

Total

Low* $2,177,942 $15,694,115 $21,593,861

Average* $4,876,090 $45,772,021 $61,027,609

High* $12,528,993 $131,083,613 $172,875,683

*These benefit estimates include ecosystem benefits based on low, average, and high estimates from the

literature.

Figure 2, Program Benefits by Stakeholder Group, shows the breakdown of program 

benefits by stakeholder group over the three time scenarios examined in this report. 

As a result of the large ecosystem service benefits to society that accrue over time, 

a majority of benefits for the medium- and long-term scenarios are attributed to society.

Figure 2. Program Benefits by Stakeholder Group

Note: Values for federal government and state/local government are not displayed. The percentages of 

total benefits realized by each of those stakeholders is below 1 for all ecosystem service ranges.

1% 7% 9% 2%

25% 32%

7%

74%

97%

1% 2% 3%

1%

2%

3%

1%

2%

3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Short-term

Medium-term

Long-term

Short-term

Medium-term

Long-term

Short-term

Medium-term

Long-term

Low ecosystem services Average ecosystem services High ecosystem services

Society NCC AmeriCorps members Federal government State and local government
21 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs)

Table 12 shows the breakdown of the forgone benefits from the professional opportunity 

cost to NCC AmeriCorps members and state and federal governments in net present

2020 dollars. It provides the amount of post-tax earnings that members forgo to serve 

with NCC, along with the associated taxes forgone. This is called the total professional 

opportunity cost. For the federal government benefits per federal dollar ROI 

calculation, the forgone federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes were 

subtracted from the total federal benefits that are realized due to the NCC program. 

Table 12. Forgone Benefits From Professional Opportunity Cost

Forgone category

Professional opportunity 

cost amount across all scenarios (2020$)

Post-tax earnings $246,861 

Federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes $97,917 

State income taxes $43,396 

State sales taxes $95,867 

Total $484,040

Table 13 lists the forgone benefits from the investment opportunity cost incurred by 

scenario. The table shows two versions of the investment opportunity cost, based on: 

a) Total NCC program funds invested in U.S. Treasury bonds. This version was used in

the total benefits per federal dollar and total benefits per funder dollar ROI

calculations.

b) Only federal NCC program funds (both program and education award funding)

invested in U.S. Treasury bonds. This version was used in the federal government

benefits per federal dollar ROI calculation.

Table 13 column headers list the 2019 real interest rates and the number of years 

elapsed (with two payments a year). These values were used to calculate the forgone 

accrued interest value for each scenario. 

Table 13. Investment Opportunity Cost by Scenario and Funding Stream

Funding stream

Forgone accrued interest by scenario

Short-term

(1.30% interest rate 

and 1 year elapsed)

Medium-term

(1.45% interest rate 

and 15 years 

elapsed)

Long-term

(1.50% interest rate 

and 30 years 

elapsed)

Total NCC program 

funding $13,312 $281,854 $772,829 

Federal NCC program 

funding only $11,535 $244,231 $669,669 
22 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Program Funding

Table 14 shows the funding sources of NCC for the 2018–2019 program year. NCC is 

partly funded through fees charged to federal agencies other than AmeriCorps and 

other non-federal groups for its services, and funding does not directly match costs in a 

given program year. During the 2018–2019 program year, NCC ran a small surplus. 

Table 14. Program Funding by Source for NCC 

Funder

Funding provided 

for the program year

AmeriCorps $443,078

Project revenue (federal and non-federal) $1,511,489 

Other revenue (rental income from lease of office space) $72,619 

Total $2,027,185

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Figure 3, Program Cost by Funding Source, shows the breakdown of program funding 

by source shown in Table 14.

Figure 3. Program Cost by Funding Source

22%

74%

4%

AmeriCorps

Project revenue (federal and non-federal)

Other revenue (rental income)
23 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Due to the program structure of NCC, the organization tracks costs by the 

organization’s fiscal year, making it challenging to determine the federal/non-federal 

split for a given AmeriCorps grant year. After consultation with NCC, the analysis 

assumed 80 percent federal funding and 20 percent non-federal funding based on 

review of workweeks from the abutting fiscal years. Based on that assumption, federal 

funding for NCC was approximately $1.6 million, including AmeriCorps grant funds and 

the fees for service projects paid by federal agencies other than AmeriCorps. This 

federal funding estimate was used in the federal government benefits per federal dollar 

ROI calculation.

ROI Results

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

medium-term, and long-term). As noted above, the ROI calculations compare the net 

benefits of NCC activities with program costs to calculate the ROI. Table 15 shows the 

program gross benefits, forgone benefits, net benefits, and costs of NCC programming

that are used in three ROI calculations.

Table 15. Program Benefits, Net Benefits and Program Costs by ROI Scenario

ROI scenario

Costs/benefit Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Program cost $2,215,361 $2,215,361 $2,215,361

Federal government cost $1,919,647 $1,919,647 $1,919,647 

Non-federal government cost $295,714 $295,714 $295,714 

Total program gross benefits $17,467,298 $186,542,577 $245,721,610 

Environmental benefits to society – low $1,121,382 $12,492,846 $16,382,284 

Environmental benefits to society – 

medium

$3,819,530 $42,570,752 $55,816,033 

Environmental benefits to society – high $11,472,433 $127,882,344 $167,664,106 

Member benefits $1,056,560 $3,201,269 $5,211,576 

Federal government benefits $74,382 $331,383 $437,632 

State/local government benefits -$76,990 $63,983 $209,979 

Total forgone benefits (opportunity costs) -$497,351 -$765,892 -$1,256,868

Forgone benefits to members (forgone

earnings post-taxes)

-$246,859.86 -$246,859.86 -$246,859.86 

Forgone tax revenue from members’ 

earnings 

-$237,178.76 -$237,178.76 -$237,178.76 

Forgone tax revenue federal government -$97,916.50 -$97,916.50 -$97,916.50 

Forgone tax revenue state/local 

government 

-$139,262.25 -$139,262.25 -$139,262.25 
24 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

ROI scenario

Costs/benefit Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Forgone benefits from total investment 

interests/returns (all funders)

-$13,312 -$281,854 -$772,829 

Forgone benefits from federal 

government investment/returns 

-$9,770 -$206,863 -$567,207 

Total program net benefits (total program gross benefits – total forgone benefits)

Net benefits members (member benefits 

– forgone benefits members)

$1,056,560 $3,201,269 $5,211,576 

Net benefits federal (federal government 

benefits – forgone tax revenue federal 

government – forgone benefits from 

federal government investment/returns)

$74,382 $331,383 $437,632 

Net benefits state/local government and 

other funders (state/local government 

benefits – forgone tax revenue 

state/local government)

-$76,990 $63,983 $209,979 

ROI for total benefits per federal dollar ([net benefits federal government + environmental 

benefits] / federal government cost)* 

With low ecosystem benefits $1.17 $8.35 $11.48

With average ecosystem benefits $2.58 $24.02 $32.02

With high ecosystem benefits $6.57 $68.46 $90.28

ROI for total benefits per funder dollar ([total program net benefits + environmental benefits] / 

program cost)*

With low ecosystem benefits $0.98 $7.08 $9.75

With average ecosystem benefits $2.20 $20.66 $27.55

With high ecosystem benefits $5.66 $59.17 $78.04

Federal government benefits per federal 

dollar (net benefits federal government / 

federal government cost) 

$0.04 $0.17 $0.23

*These ROI estimates are provided based on low, average, and high estimates of ecosystem benefits to

society.

Table 16 shows the ROI results. Each row represents a different ROI calculation 

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

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

For the portion of the benefits analysis that measured ecosystem benefits, this study 

used low, average, and high estimates of those benefits based on the literature. 

Doing so allowed for the uncertainty involved in monetizing ecosystem benefits. 
25 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

The analysis used three different scenarios to estimate benefits under different 

assumptions. Specifically, the study assumed that increased earnings attributable 

to the programs last for 1 year (short-term scenario), 15 years (medium-term scenario), 

or 30 years (long-term scenario).

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

Table 16. ROI Results for NCC

ROI calculation

ROI scenario

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

ROI for total benefits per federal dollar ([net benefits federal government + environmental 

benefits] / federal government cost)*

With low ecosystem benefits $1.17 $8.35 $11.48 

With average ecosystem benefits $2.58 $24.02 $32.02 

With high ecosystem benefits $6.57 $68.46 $90.28 

ROI for total benefits per funder dollar ([total program net benefits + environmental benefits] / 

program cost)* 

With low ecosystem benefits $0.98 $7.08 $9.75 

With average ecosystem benefits $2.20 $20.66 $27.55 

With high ecosystem benefits $5.66 $59.17 $78.04 

Federal government benefits per federal dollar 

(net benefits federal government / federal 

government cost) 

$0.04 $0.17 $0.23 

*These ROI estimates are provided based on low, average, and high estimates of ecosystem benefits to

society.

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

benefits to AmeriCorps members, program participants, and state/local governments 

are included. This is indicated by the results of the total benefits per federal dollar and 

the total benefits per funder dollar ROI calculations for these two scenarios. In the 

short-term scenario—which only includes benefits for 1 year post-program—all of the 

ROI results indicate a positive return on funding invested in the program. The ROI of 

$0.98 for the total benefits per funder dollar calculation with the low set of ecosystem 

benefit estimates is just below the break-even point on funding invested. All other

scenarios and ecosystem benefit levels show positive returns. 

The federal government benefits per federal dollar calculations estimate losses for all 

three scenarios. NCC is a program that is intended primarily to generate benefits to 

society, rather than benefits to the federal government, so these results are consistent 

with the design of NCC. In addition, existing data do not make it possible to attribute 

post-wildfire recovery savings to the federal government, such as savings in FEMA 

disaster recovery expenditures. (See ROI Study Limitations on page 18.) Including these 

potential savings in expenditures would lead to a higher ROI for federal government 

than this analysis estimates. 
26 

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

The magnitude of the positive ROI estimates in the medium- and long-term scenarios is 

driven by the following factors:

• Reduction in wildfire-related costs. Societal benefits from reduced severity of 

wildfires accrue but diminish over time as potential fuel reaccumulates.

• Increased ecosystem service values from reduced invasive species. Societal 

benefits from increased ecosystem services accrue but diminish over time as 

invasive species return.

• Benefits from trail maintenance and creation. Societal benefits from access and 

use of trails accrue over time but diminish as trails naturally deteriorate.

• Educational attainment outcomes of AmeriCorps members. After serving in the 

AmeriCorps program, AmeriCorps members receive an education award, 

which is used by a portion of members to help pay for postsecondary degrees 

post-service. The additional educational attainment resulting from the use of the 

education award generates additional earnings for AmeriCorps members. 

• Employment outcomes of AmeriCorps members. Past studies establish that 

AmeriCorps members experience increased employment and increased earnings 

post-service.

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

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

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

contributed to the magnitude of outcomes. Federal government funding of NCC serves 

as a catalyst for other funding, specifically that from state and local governments. 

This additional funding—amounting to about $386,064 for NCC for the studied program 

year—allowed NCC to operate at a larger scale than otherwise would have been 

possible under the federal funding alone. Though it may not impact the ROI because it 

is a per-unit metric, match funding leads to greater investment in NCC and thus to 

greater impact. 

Recommendations for Further Research 

Future ROI studies for national and community service programs, such as the NCC 

program, can be strengthened in several ways. 

Recommendation 1: Determine the persistence of short- and long-term impacts for 

program participants and AmeriCorps members. The persistence of impacts, such as 

earnings or employment, is often not measured in evaluations because it requires 

long-term tracking. Although a scenario-based approach that accounts for variations 

in the persistence of impacts can be used, as was completed in this ROI analysis,

rigorous research on the long-term impact of programming will enable AmeriCorps to 

determine a single value for ROI calculations and avoid relying on the scenario-based 

approach. For example, Friedman et al. (2016) reported the unemployment status of 

AmeriCorps member alumni 6 months before service, 6 months after service, and during 

the summer of 2016. The authors indicate that data for the latter timepoint was 

collected anywhere from 3 to 11 years after service completion, depending on the 
27

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

AmeriCorps member alumni cohort (i.e., 2005, 2010, or 2013). The varying data 

collection periods for the cohorts makes it difficult to measure the duration of benefits. 

Thus, instead of collecting outcome measures at a time that varies by AmeriCorps 

member or program participant, studies should track outcomes of interest at the same 

intervals, multiple times after program or service completion, to provide greater insight 

into the duration and consistency of benefits.

Recommendation 2: Document outcomes using third-party data sources. Using 

third-party data, along with or in place of self-reported data, can also improve the 

accuracy of program outcome measurements. While self-reported data are easier to 

obtain—especially via the use of survey instruments—they have several disadvantages. 

Some answers may be exaggerated, respondents may not answer honestly, and 

response biases could affect results. AmeriCorps programs should—where possible—

leverage data from third-party sources either to provide data for their program 

evaluation or to corroborate findings from self-reported data. For example, if 

employment and earnings outcomes are of interest, unemployment insurance data—

which are submitted by employers—could be used to verify members’ wages or 

employment status post-service. Additionally, if degree completion data are of interest, 

such as in the case of this ROI analysis, data from the National Student Clearinghouse 

(NSC) could be used to verify what portion of NCC AmeriCorps members pursued 

higher education and which degrees were completed post-program with the help of 

the education award. Were degree or employment outcomes data available from 

third-party data sources (like NSC), those data may make more precise ROI estimates 

possible. 

Recommendation 3: Quantify ripple effects. Earnings impacts on program participants 

and AmeriCorps members likely have positive benefits for those individuals’ families and 

surrounding communities. Rigorous research on those potential ripple effects would 

enable AmeriCorps to capture a broader array of benefits of this and other programs, 

which would be expected to result in an increased ROI. Specifically, the longitudinal 

impacts on program participants could be collected alongside the ripple effects their 

outcomes have on their families and communities to determine how long these indirect 

impacts are sustained after program participation or completion. For instance, studying 

how NCC program participation impacts parents’ employment status, educational 

attainment, substance or alcohol use, as well as mental and physical health would 

result in a more comprehensive ROI estimate. 

Recommendation 4: Quantify federal disaster funding from wildfire. FEMA has funded 

significant recovery efforts following wildfires in recent years. These funds are primarily 

allocated for temporary and recovery housing for individuals whose homes were 

destroyed. Additional research on the relationship between federal disaster funding 

and wildfire characteristics (such as acreage burned and proximity to population 

centers) would allow researchers to estimate the extent to which NCC’s wildfire 

reduction results in federal cost savings in the form of reduced FEMA spending. 
28

Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps 

Recommendation 5: Quantify the change in value of regrowth due to carbon sinks. 

As forests and other ecosystems regrow following a wildfire, the carbon consumed in

plant growth is drawn out of the atmosphere. Currently, this analysis assumes that after 

a full period of regrowth, there would be a net-zero impact on carbon dioxide 

equivalents emissions in the atmosphere. Future additions to this methodology should 

examine the nuances of regrowth carbon storage to determine if this assumption 

is valid.

Recommendation 6: Quantify private funds used for wildfire restoration. Private funds 

from property owners and insurance companies are used to restore property damage 

caused by wildfires. Additional research on the relationship between private funding 

and wildfire characteristics (such as population density near wildfire locations, as well as 

causal links from specific acres burning to property damage occurring) would allow 

researchers to estimate the impact of NCC’s activities on private funds spent on wildfire 

recovery efforts. 

Conclusion 

Based upon these findings, investment in the NCC program results in favorable impacts, 

especially under the medium- and long-term scenarios as benefits to government and 

society accumulate. 
Return on Investment Study: 

NCC AmeriCorps Program

29 

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

Calculations 

In Table 17, the three columns on the right indicate by an “X” if the program benefits, forgone benefits (opportunity cost), 

or program cost is included in the numerator or denominator of a return on investment (ROI) calculation.

Table 17. Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Costs Included in ROI Calculations

Benefit or cost

Total benefits per 

federal dollar

Total benefits per 

funder dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Benefit Stakeholder group Data sources X indicates inclusion in the ROI numerator

Avoided costs to 

society from wildfires

Society • NCC

• Cochrane et al. 

(2002) 

X X 

Avoided costs to 

government from 

wildfires

Federal, state, and 

local governments

• NCC

• Batker et al. 

(2013) 

• Moeltner et al. 

(2013) 

X X 

Increased ecosystem 

services 

Society • Dodds et al. 

(2008) 

• The Watershed 

Company (2015) 

X X 

Health and 

recreational benefits 

of trails

Society • Oh et al. (2010) 

• Wang et al. 

(2005) 

X X 
Return on Investment Study: 

NCC AmeriCorps Program

30 

Benefit or cost

Total benefits per 

federal dollar

Total benefits per 

funder dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Increased earnings of 

national service 

members due to 

increased 

employment and 

education of 

AmeriCorps members 

AmeriCorps members • NCC

• Friedman et al. 

(2016) 

• U.S. Census 

Bureau 

(2019-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 

(2019-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 

(2019-b) 

X X 

Increased federal 

and state income tax 

revenue due to 

increased earnings of 

AmeriCorps members

Federal and state 

governments 

• NCC

• Friedman et al. 

(2016) 

• U.S. Census 

Bureau 

(2019-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 

(2019-a) 

• Tax rate data on 

Bankrate.com 

and Loughead 

(Tax Foundation, 

2020) 

X X X 
Return on Investment Study: 

NCC AmeriCorps Program

31 

Benefit or cost

Total benefits per 

federal dollar

Total benefits per 

funder dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Increased Social 

Security and 

Medicare tax 

revenue due to 

increased earnings of 

AmeriCorps members

Federal government • NCC

• Friedman et al. 

(2016) 

• U.S. Census 

Bureau 

(2019-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 

(2019-a) 

• Social Security 

Administration 

(2020) 

X X X 

Increased sales tax 

revenue due to 

increased earnings of 

AmeriCorps members

State and local 

governments 

• NCC

• Friedman et al. 

(2016) 

• U.S. Census 

Bureau 

(2019-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 

(2019-a)

• U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 

(2021) 

• Loughead 

(Tax Foundation, 

2020) 

X X 

AmeriCorps member 

living allowances and 

education awards

AmeriCorps members • NCC

X X 
Return on Investment Study: 

NCC AmeriCorps Program

32 

Benefit or cost

Total benefits per 

federal dollar

Total benefits per 

funder dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Reduced spending 

on lifetime public 

assistance, 

corrections, and 

social insurance due 

to increased 

educational 

attainment of 

AmeriCorps members

Federal, state, and 

local governments 

• Trostel (2015) 

• Zeidenberg et al. 

(2016) 

• U.S. Census 

Bureau 

(2019-a) 

X X X

Forgone benefits

(opportunity costs) Stakeholder group Data sources X indicates inclusion in the ROI denominator

Opportunity costs of 

forgone market 

wages for 

AmeriCorps members

AmeriCorps members • NCC

• U.S. Census 

Bureau 

(2019-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 

(2019-b)

X X X 
Return on Investment Study: 

NCC AmeriCorps Program

33 

Benefit or cost

Total benefits per 

federal dollar

Total benefits per 

funder dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Opportunity costs of 

federal taxes on 

forgone market 

wages for 

AmeriCorps members 

(e.g., federal income 

and Social Security 

taxes)

Federal government • NCC

• U.S. Census 

Bureau 

(2019-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 

(2019-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 

(2019-b) 

• Tax rate data on 

Bankrate.com 

and Loughead 

(Tax Foundation, 

2020) 

• Social Security 

Administration 

(2020)

X X X 
Return on Investment Study: 

NCC AmeriCorps Program

34 

Benefit or cost

Total benefits per 

federal dollar

Total benefits per 

funder dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Opportunity costs of 

state and local taxes 

on forgone market 

wages for 

AmeriCorps members 

(e.g., state income 

and state/local sales 

taxes)

State and local 

government 

• NCC

• U.S. Census 

Bureau 

(2019-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 

(2019-a)

• U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 

(2019-b) 

• U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics 

(2021) 

• Loughead (Tax 

Foundation, 

2020) 

X X X 

Opportunity costs of 

federal funders

Federal government • AmeriCorps 

• U.S. Department

of the Treasury 

(2019) 

X X X 

Opportunity costs of 

other program 

funders

Non-government 

funders

• NCC

• U.S. Department

of the Treasury 

(2019) 

X 
Return on Investment Study: 

NCC AmeriCorps Program

35 

Benefit or cost

Total benefits per 

federal dollar

Total benefits per 

funder dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Program cost Payer Data sources X indicates inclusion in the ROI denominator

AmeriCorps grant 

costs (excluding 

living allowances and 

education awards 

provided to 

AmeriCorps 

members) 

Federal government 

(AmeriCorps) 

• AmeriCorps 

X X X 

AmeriCorps member 

living allowances and 

education awards

Federal government 

(AmeriCorps) 

• AmeriCorps 

X X X 

Nevada

Conservation Corps 

costs

NCC • NCC

X 

Other federal 

government funding 

(not provided by 

AmeriCorps) 

Federal government • NCC

X X X 

State and local 

government funding

State and local 

government 

• NCC X 

Other nongovernment costsNon-government 

funders

• NCC X 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

36 

Appendix B: Additional Information on the Methodology 

This appendix provides additional details on the methodology used for this study, as a 

supplement to the methodology section in the main report. It describes the steps used 

to calculate the return on investment (ROI), the results of interim calculations that 

contribute to the ROI calculations, and assumptions that underlie the analysis. 

Methodology Overview 

Calculating the ROI for NCC included the following steps: 

• Measuring and monetizing program benefits to NCC program participants, NCC

AmeriCorps members, and the different levels of government 

• Estimating forgone benefits (opportunity costs) 

• Assessing program costs 

• Calculating the ROI 

This ROI analysis included only those benefits that could be reasonably monetized given 

the available data and that likely would not have occurred without NCC. 

Although NCC AmeriCorps members experience positive benefits from NCC in terms of 

increased employment and earnings (described below), available data do not 

establish how long these specific impacts are sustained over time. To address a range 

of possible durations for those benefits, three scenarios were developed for this ROI 

study: 

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

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

also assumes no lifetime benefits are realized. 

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

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

applied each year to represent net present value in 2020 dollars.23 This scenario 

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

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

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

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

present value in 2020 dollars. This scenario also assumes the entire net present 

value of lifetime benefits is realized. 

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

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

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

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

37 

There are some differences between the three scenarios. One is the length of time that 

increased employment—and earnings associated with that employment—are 

sustained. The other is what portion of lifetime benefits, when applicable, are realized.24

For each ROI calculation, three estimates using the three scenarios were developed, 

which is shown in greater detail in the Calculating ROI section. 

Measuring Program Benefits

The first step in calculating the ROI for NCC is to measure and monetize the program 

benefits. NCC program participants, NCC AmeriCorps members, and various levels of 

government benefit from NCC activities. These benefits were identified through an 

extensive literature review and data collection process. The methods used to measure 

benefits for each of these stakeholder groups are described below. 

Benefits to the NCC AmeriCorps Members 

The NCC AmeriCorps members who provide services as part of NCC experience 

benefits due to their national service. This analysis estimated the following benefits: 

• Living allowance

• Increased earnings due to reduced unemployment

Living Allowance and Education Award 

Living allowances are given to AmeriCorps members during their 1-year service term to 

pay for various living expenses—such as housing and groceries—and they sometimes 

include members’ workers’ compensation and health insurance when applicable.

Regarding education awards, according to Friedman et al. (2016), a significant portion 

(i.e., 46 percent) of AmeriCorps State and National member alumni use them to pay for 

additional postsecondary education at colleges, graduate schools, and 

technical/vocational schools, while others (i.e., 33 percent) use them to pay off 

outstanding student loans. The remaining 21 percent do not use their education 

awards.

Both the living allowances and education awards (considered one-time benefits that 

are not discounted or spread over time) are taxable and represent member benefits. 

However, only the portion of education awards used by members to pay off existing 

student loans is considered a direct member benefit. The portion that is utilized to 

pursue further postsecondary education is only used in calculating members’ additional 

lifetime earnings due to the increased educational attainment they experience postservice from using the education award. This is done to avoid double counting. This 

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

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

stem from NCC. For example, lifetime benefits in terms of decreased public assistance, social insurance, 

and corrections costs result from NCC AmeriCorps members’ higher educational attainment post-service. 

The analysis estimates lifetime benefits differently in the three scenarios. Specifically, the net present value 

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

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

short-term scenario.
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

38 

analysis included the post-tax values of the living allowance and the portion of the 

education award used to repay student loans as NCC AmeriCorps member benefits, 

which are listed in Table 18. The portion of the education award used to fund additional 

postsecondary education is discussed in the following section.

Table 18. NCC AmeriCorps Member Benefits From the Living Allowance and Education 

Award

Benefit Post-tax value Notes

Living allowance $989,185 Post-tax living allowances members 

receive during service 

Education award used to 

pay off student loans $101,988 Post-tax education award amount used 

to pay off outstanding student loans

Total $ 1,091,173

Sources: Friedman et al. (2016) and NCC (2022)

Increased Earnings Due to Reduced Unemployment 

According to Friedman et al. (2016), the percentage of AmeriCorps members 

unemployed was 5 percentage points lower 6 months after serving in AmeriCorps 

compared to 6 months before serving. The study did not provide actual employment 

rates for AmeriCorps members pre- and post-service but instead provided the 

unemployment rates shown in Figure 4 (17 percent vs. 12 percent) in which the change 

between them represents a 5-percentage-point decrease. 

Figure 4. Unemployment Status Results from Friedman et al. (2016) 

Source: Friedman et al. (2016)25

25 “Currently” refers to the summer 2016 survey. Respondents were from the 2005, 2010, and 2013 

AmeriCorps cohorts, so respondents varied in how much time had elapsed since their AmeriCorps service.

 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

39 

A direct member benefit from being employed post-service is additional income 

earned. To monetize this 5-percentage-point decrease in unemployment, ICF 

requested that NCC provide the gender, age, pre-service educational attainment, and 

race/ethnicity distribution of AmeriCorps members who served with the NCC program 

for the most recent program year. Based on those demographics, the analysis used 

annual average earnings data from the Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and 

Economic (ASEC) Supplement for March 2019 to estimate NCC AmeriCorps members’ 

additional earnings due to the reduced unemployment (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019-b). 

Specifically, the analysis used ASEC data to calculate the per-person pre-tax average 

annual earnings for 18- to 34-year-olds weighted by the demographic distribution of 

NCC AmeriCorps members who served during the 2018–2019 program year. This value 

was $28,982 as shown in Table 19. The analysis then multiplied the 5-percentage-point 

decrease in unemployment from Friedman et al. (2016) by the number of NCC

AmeriCorps member full-time equivalents (FTEs) who served during the most recent 

program year (i.e., 61). This estimated the number of additional NCC AmeriCorps 

member FTEs employed due to national service (i.e., 2). To estimate the additional 

pre-tax earnings that stemmed from the reduced unemployment, the $88,032 annual 

earnings amount was multiplied by the additional number of NCC AmeriCorps 

members employed post-service. This represents the additional income earned by NCC 

AmeriCorps members due to serving with NCC. 

Table 19. Additional Pre-Tax Earnings for NCC AmeriCorps Members From Reduced 

Unemployment Based on NCC AmeriCorps Member Demographics

Metric Value (2020$)

Average per-person pre-tax annual earnings of employed 18- to 34-year-olds 

weighted by NCC AmeriCorps member demographics (e.g., gender, 

race/ethnicity, and pre-service education level)

$28,982 

Reduction in AmeriCorps members’ unemployment 5% 

Total expected increase in earnings, per member $1,449 

NCC AmeriCorps Member FTEs 61 

Cumulative additional pre-tax earnings $88,032*

Cumulative additional post-tax earnings $73,178

*This value is undiscounted; thus, the values do not sum in the table.

Sources: NCC (2022), Friedman et al. (2016), and U.S. Census Bureau (2019-b) 

To avoid double counting, the additional post-tax earnings are used to calculate the 

direct benefit to NCC AmeriCorps members, rather than the additional pre-tax

earnings. The post-tax annual earnings in Table 19 excludes payroll taxes (e.g., federal 

and state income, Social Security, and Medicare). The payroll tax rates used are 

described in more detail in the Benefits to Government section. 

Based on these calculations, the cumulative additional post-tax earnings for NCC 

AmeriCorps members for the three different scenarios—discounted to 2020 dollars using 

data from the Office of Management and Budget (2003)—are shown in Table 20. These 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

40 

monetary amounts represent the additional post-tax earnings realized due to the 

employment gain that is solely attributed to NCC. 

Table 20. Cumulative Additional Post-Tax Earnings Derived From Reduced 

Unemployment Due to Serving With NCC by Scenario

Scenario

Cumulative additional post-tax earnings 

due to serving with NCC (2020$)

Short-term $1,056,560 

Medium-term $3,201,269 

Long-term $5,211,576 

Sources: NCC (2022), Friedman et al. (2016), U.S. Census Bureau (2019-b), and Office of Management and 

Budget (2003)

Increased Lifetime Earnings Due to Increased Postsecondary Education Derived 

From the Use of Education Awards 

The AmeriCorps education award pays 

for some portion of members’ increased 

postsecondary educational attainment, 

and the future earnings derived from that 

educational attainment are treated as a 

direct benefit to NCC AmeriCorps 

members. To calculate the portion of 

members’ increased educational 

attainment that is attributable to NCC, 

this analysis used cost data from the 

National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES). Table 21 details the average total 

cost for each degree type and the 

portion of the cost that the post-tax 

education award amount represents 

(i.e., $5,234 represents $6,155 before 

taxes26). The analysis used these 

percentages to estimate the lifetime 

benefits of postsecondary educational 

attainment that can be attributed to the 

education award. For instance, 

according to NCES (2020), the average 

annual cost of a public, in-state, 4-year 

academic institution during the 2018–2019 

academic year was $24,869. This amounts 

26 This analysis used the 2020 to 2021 AmeriCorps education award amount ($6,345) but discounted it to net 

present 2020 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. For more information about this education award, 

please see https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorps-education-award/find-out-more. 

Additional earnings derived from NCC 

AmeriCorps members’ reduced 

unemployment were calculated 

annually and then discounted based 

on the short-term, medium-term, and 

long-term scenarios in net present 

2020 dollars. 

For additional earnings derived from

NCC AmeriCorps members’ increased 

postsecondary educational 

attainment—due to using education 

awards—Trostel (2015) did not provide 

data on how earnings accrue over 

time. Therefore, this analysis treated 

the increases in earnings as lifetime 

values expressed in 2020 dollars. The 

analysis assumed 100 percent of those 

lifetime earnings accrued by year 30 

(i.e., in the long-term scenario), 50 

percent accrued by year 15 (i.e., in 

the medium-term scenario), and 

nothing accrued 1 year post-program 

(i.e., in the short-term scenario). 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

41 

to more than $100,000 for 4 years if expressed in 2020 dollars. The $4,857 post-tax 

education award only represents 5 percent of the cost of that degree, so NCC, 

accordingly, could only be credited with 5 percent of the completion of NCC

AmeriCorps members’ bachelor’s degrees post-service.

Table 21. Average Total Cost of Education and Portion Attributable to Education Award 

by Degree Type

Degree type27 Average cost (2020$)

Percentage of degree total 

cost covered by post-tax 

education award

Some college $30,824 15.8% 

Bachelor’s degree $101,948 4.8% 

Graduate degree $24,342 20.0% 

Sources: AmeriCorps (n.d.), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019-a), NCES (2019), and NCES (2020) 

To determine the future lifetime earnings (and later, the associated lifetime taxes, which 

are described in the Benefits to Government section) realized due to the use of the 

education award post-service, the analysis first determined the number of additional 

postsecondary degrees estimated to be completed by degree type. The 61 NCC

AmeriCorps member FTEs who served during the 2018–2019 program year were 

distributed by the education award use findings listed in Friedman et al. (2016) across 

the degree types. Specifically, Friedman et al. (2016) reported 46 percent of 

AmeriCorps State and National member alumni used their education award to pursue 

postsecondary degrees after program completion. This makes the number of NCC

AmeriCorps member FTEs expected to use the education award to pursue additional 

postsecondary education roughly equal to 28. Specifically, Friedman et al. (2016) 

indicated that the 46 percent comprises 2 percent using the education award to 

attend a technical or vocational training program, 21 percent using it to obtain a 

bachelor’s degree, and 23 percent using it for graduate school.28 This results in the 

number of NCC AmeriCorps members estimated to pursue—due to using the 

education award—an associate degree, a bachelor’s degree, or a graduate degree 

post-service to be roughly 1, 13, and 14, respectively. These values are shown in 

Table 22. 

27 Costs for an associate degree include tuition, required fees, books, and supplies for a public, in-state, 

2-year program; costs for a bachelor’s degree include tuition, required fees, books, supplies, and 

on-campus housing for a public, in-state, 4-year program; costs for a graduate degree include tuition and 

required fees for a public, in-state, 2-year program. 

28 This analysis considers the use of the education award to attend a technical or vocational training 

program from Friedman et al. (2016) to be synonymous with using it to pursue an associate degree.
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

42 

Table 22. Estimates of the Number of Postsecondary Degrees Pursued Using the 

Education Award by Degree Type

Degree type

Total NCC

AmeriCorps 

member FTE count

Percentage estimated to 

pursue postsecondary 

education according to 

Friedman et al. (2016)

Number of 

degrees pursued 

using the 

education award

Associate degree 61 2% 1 

Bachelor’s degree 61 21% 13 

Graduate degree 61 23% 14 

All degrees — 46% 28

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Sources: AmeriCorps (n.d.), NCC (2022), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019-a), Friedman et al. (2016), NCES 

(2020), and NCES (2019)

Next, the difference in the additional lifetime pre-tax earnings from one degree type to 

the subsequent degree type was estimated using data provided by Trostel (2015), 

which is shown in the fifth column of Table 23.29 For instance, using Trostel (2015) data, 

the lifetime earnings of someone with an associate degree is about $875,000, while that 

of someone with a bachelor’s degree is almost $1.3 million. The difference between 

these two metrics (roughly $417,000, as show in Table 23) represents the additional 

lifetime earnings realized as a result of gaining a bachelor’s degree if an associate 

degree was already completed. This process was completed for all postsecondary 

degree types to conservatively estimate the additional lifetime earnings realized by 

NCC AmeriCorps members due to an increase in postsecondary educational 

attainment. Trostel (2015) also included data on lifetime taxes paid, which was then 

used to estimate the post-tax lifetime earnings that would be realized per additional 

postsecondary degree received. Specifically, the lifetime taxes paid were subtracted 

from the pre-tax additional lifetime earnings amounts to estimate the additional posttax lifetime earnings, a direct benefit to NCC AmeriCorps members.

29 For an associate degree, comparisons were made between metrics for a high school diploma and those 

for an associate degree. For a bachelor’s degree, comparisons made were between metrics for an 

associate degree and those of a bachelor’s degree. For a graduate degree, comparisons made were 

between metrics for a bachelor’s degree and those of a master’s degree. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

43 

Table 23. Additional Earnings From AmeriCorps Members’ Use of the Education Award

Degree type

Percentage

of NCC

AmeriCorps 

members 

expected 

to pursue 

post 

secondary 

education 

FTE NCC

AmeriCorps 

members 

Percentage

of degree 

tuition 

covered by 

education 

award 

Additional 

lifetime 

earnings of 

the degree 

(pre-tax)

Additional 

lifetime 

earnings 

from 

education 

award 

(pre-tax)

Additional 

lifetime 

earnings 

from 

education 

award 

(post-tax)

Expected to not 

use award for 

postsecondary 

education

54% 33 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Associate 

degree

2% 1 15.8% $170,286 $32,749 $16,660

Bachelor’s 

degree

21% 13 4.8% $526,201 $321,269 $173,282

Graduate 

degree

23% 14 20.0% $467,083 $1,308,105 $813,511

Total 100% 61 — — $1,662,123 $1,003,453 

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Sources: AmeriCorps (n.d.), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019-a), NCC (2022), Friedman et al. (2016), 

NCES (2020), NCES (2019), and Trostel (2015)

To isolate the increase in additional lifetime earnings specific to members using the 

education award, the number of NCC AmeriCorps members who used the education 

award for this purpose by degree type was reduced by the percentage of the degree 

cost that can be covered by the post-tax education award received post-service, 

displayed in the fourth column of Table 23. Then, this amount is applied to the 2019 

additional lifetime earnings by degree type to calculate the additional lifetime earnings 

realized by AmeriCorps members from their increase in postsecondary educational 

attainment that is credited to the use of the education award post-service. The 

additional lifetime earnings amount is roughly $1.66 million across the FTE NCC

AmeriCorps members. Of note, these lifetime earnings are in addition to the earnings 

derived from NCC AmeriCorps members’ gains in employment as delineated in the 

subsequent section. To reiterate, the earnings from NCC AmeriCorps members’ 

reduced unemployment differs depending on the scenario (i.e., short-term, mediumterm, and long-term) since it is uncertain how long these earnings will persist. For the net 

lifetime earnings—and all lifetime benefits in this ROI analysis—the entire amount is 

realized in the long-term, half of it is realized in the medium-term, and no amount is 

realized in the short-term.
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

44 

Benefits to Government 

State and Local Government 

State and local governments benefit from: 

• Additional state income tax 

revenue from NCC AmeriCorps 

members’ increased earnings

due to reduced unemployment

• Additional lifetime state and 

local taxes due to NCC 

AmeriCorps members’ increased 

postsecondary educational 

attainment30

• Additional lifetime state and 

local taxes due to NCC program 

participants’ increased 

secondary educational 

attainment31

• Additional state and local taxes 

from the living allowance and 

education award received by 

these members 

• Additional state and local sales 

tax revenue from NCC

AmeriCorps members’ increased 

consumption due to reduced 

unemployment

• Reduced lifetime spending on social insurance and corrections32 due to NCC 

AmeriCorps members’ increased postsecondary educational attainment

State income tax revenue: To measure income tax revenue generation that stems from 

reduced unemployment for state governments (any local income taxes are not 

included), the additional pre-tax earnings of NCC AmeriCorps members that are solely 

attributed to NCC are taxed by a weighted, estimated proportional state income tax 

rate. This tax rate considers state-specific progressive tax brackets and standard 

deduction amounts. Based on the taxable income, the analysis estimated the 

30 This benefit was calculated using lifetime tax revenue data from Trostel (2015). These values summed 

lifetime state income taxes, lifetime property taxes, and lifetime sales taxes by education level. 

31 Ibid.

32 Reduced spending on public assistance due to NCC AmeriCorps members’ increased postsecondary 

educational attainment is included as a federal government benefit, not a state and local government 

benefit. This is because public assistance includes programs funded at the federal level (e.g., TANF, etc.).

Additional tax revenue derived from NCC 

AmeriCorps members’ reduced 

unemployment, living allowances, and 

education awards was calculated using 

tax rates specific to each per-person 

monetary amount. 

For additional tax revenue derived from 

NCC AmeriCorps members’ increased 

postsecondary educational attainment—

due to using education awards—as well 

as from NCC program participants’ 

increased secondary educational 

attainment, Trostel (2015) did not provide 

specific tax rates. Therefore, this analysis 

treated the increases in tax revenue as 

lifetime values expressed in 2020 dollars. 

The analysis assumed 100 percent of 

those lifetime tax revenues accrued by 

year 30 (i.e., in the long-term scenario), 

50 percent accrued by year 15 (i.e., in 

the medium-term scenario), and nothing 

accrued 1 year post-program (i.e., in the 

short-term scenario).
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

45 

proportional state income tax for each state as the amount of state income taxes paid 

per NCC AmeriCorps member divided by their pre-tax earnings. This analysis then 

calculated the weighted average of these state-specific tax rates—using these states’ 

populations from the 5-year estimates of the 2019 American Community Survey—to 

estimate a weighted national tax rate (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019-a). A weighted 

national tax rate was used because NCC AmeriCorps members may disperse to various 

locations nationwide following their service terms and continue to migrate over the 

course of their working years.

Lifetime state income tax revenue values are also provided by Trostel (2015) by 

education level. Based on the number of postsecondary degrees estimated to be 

obtained due to the use of the education award received after serving with the NCC

program, additional lifetime state income taxes are realized. Thus, the additional 

lifetime state income taxes paid values—informed by data from Trostel (2015)—were 

first converted to 2020 dollars. The analysis then multiplied them by the inferred number 

of degrees obtained using the education award. 

State governments also receive state income taxes from the education awards NCC

AmeriCorps members receive post-service. The analysis estimated the pre-tax 

education award amount in 2020 dollars (i.e., $6,120).33 Then the analysis multiplied it by 

the number of NCC AmeriCorps member FTEs expected to redeem the award and use 

it to pursue postsecondary education or to repay outstanding student loans, based on 

findings from Friedman et al. (2016). The result represents the pre-tax cumulative 

education award amount expected to be received by NCC AmeriCorps members. 

The portion of this value taxed by state income taxes was estimated using a weighted 

state income tax rate specific to the per-person education award amount. 

Additionally, state income taxes were estimated for the living allowance amount 

received by NCC AmeriCorps members during their service term using tax rates specific 

to the per-person value. The different rates used for these member benefits are 

enumerated in Table 25. 

State and local sales tax revenue: To measure sales tax revenue generation for state 

and local governments that stems from reduced unemployment, a weighted state and 

local sales tax rate was applied to the amount of NCC AmeriCorps members’ 

cumulative additional post-tax earnings that are available to be spent on taxable 

goods. To establish a weighted state and local sales tax, this analysis first summed the 

state sales tax rate and the average local sales tax rate for each state using data from 

Cammenga (2020). Then using 2019 data from the American Community Survey 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2019-a), these state-level combined state and local sales tax rates 

were weighted based on the population of each state. The resulting weighted average 

sales tax rate used in this analysis was 7.34 percent. 

33 This analysis used the 2020 to 2021 AmeriCorps education award amount ($6,345) but discounted it to net

present 2020 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. For more information about this education award, 

please see https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorps-education-award/find-out-more. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

46 

To estimate the additional post-tax earnings as a result of reduced unemployment that 

was spent on taxable goods, data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (U.S. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, 2021) were used. These data show the amount of spending on a 

number of different goods and services by national consumers across several different 

pre-tax income brackets.34 The proportion of earnings that is spent on taxable goods 

(such as alcoholic beverages, housekeeping supplies, apparel, etc.) was then 

calculated for consumers with incomes that matched the per-person average pre-tax 

earnings of NCC AmeriCorps members. This value was 41.3 percent. This proportion was 

then applied to NCC AmeriCorps members’ cumulative additional post-tax earnings to 

calculate the post-tax monetary amount they spend on taxable goods. Then the sales 

tax rate (i.e., 7.43 percent) was applied to estimate the resulting sales tax revenues that 

go to state and local governments due to NCC AmeriCorps members’ reduced 

unemployment post-service. 

Trostel (2015) also provides additional lifetime state and local sales tax values by 

education level. Using these values, the analysis calculated the additional sales tax 

revenue realized by state and local governments as a result of NCC AmeriCorps 

members using their education award to achieve higher postsecondary educational 

attainment post-service. These values represent a direct benefit to state and local 

governments in the form of increased tax revenue. 

State and local government cost savings: State and local governments also benefit 

from NCC programming through lifetime savings in social insurance and corrections—as 

reported in Trostel (2015)—due to the increase in NCC AmeriCorps members’ 

postsecondary educational attainment after program exit. Of note, social insurance 

includes unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation. To calculate these 

lifetime non-federal government savings, the analysis first calculated the decrease in 

social insurance and corrections costs (and thus, savings) from one education level to 

the subsequent education level using data from Trostel (2015) and then multiplied these 

monetary amounts by the number of additional postsecondary degrees estimated to 

be obtained due to the use of the education awards. 

To determine what portion of this differential represents lifetime cost savings to state or 

local governments versus the federal government, a different method was employed 

for each of these cost savings areas. For social insurance, 50 percent of lifetime 

unemployment insurance cost savings and all the lifetime cost savings for workers’ 

compensation are apportioned to state and local governments (Oswald, 2018). 

Regarding reductions in lifetime corrections spending, the portion between the federal 

and state or local governments was determined based on data from Hyland (2015). 

Specifically, this report found that 8.4 percent of U.S. corrections costs is paid by the 

federal government and the remaining 91.6 percent is paid by state and local 

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

used from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021). This table lists the annual expenditure means by pre-tax 

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

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

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

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

47 

governments. Therefore, almost 92 percent of the lifetime cost savings in corrections 

due to NCC AmeriCorps members experiencing an increase in postsecondary 

educational attainment post-service are allocated to state and local governments.

Federal Government 

The federal government benefits from: 

• Additional federal income, Social Security, and Medicare tax revenue from NCC 

AmeriCorps members’ increased earnings due to reduced unemployment

• Additional federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes from the living 

allowance and education award received by these members

• Additional lifetime federal taxes due to NCC AmeriCorps members’ increased 

postsecondary educational attainment

• Additional lifetime federal taxes due to NCC program participants’ increased 

secondary educational attainment

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

corrections due to NCC AmeriCorps members’ increased postsecondary 

educational attainment

Federal income tax revenue: To measure federal income tax revenue that stems from 

reduced unemployment, the additional pre-tax earnings of NCC AmeriCorps members 

that are solely attributed to NCC—as well as the pre-tax living allowance and 

education award amounts received by NCC AmeriCorps members—are taxed by a 

federal income tax rate. The rates used are estimated proportional tax rates that 

consider the standard deductions and progressive tax brackets specific to federal 

income taxes as provided by El-Sibaie (2019). To reiterate, an estimated proportional 

tax rate equals the total amount of taxes estimated to be paid divided by the pre-tax 

amount of the value to be taxed (e.g., per-person average pre-tax earnings). The 

specific federal income tax rates used for these different benefits are enumerated in 

Table 25. Of note, different tax rates were used because they were specific to the perperson pre-tax earnings, living allowance, and education award amounts.

For the additional lifetime earnings of NCC AmeriCorps members that are based on 

their increase in postsecondary educational attainment—fueled by the use of the 

education award—Trostel (2015) provides additional lifetime federal income tax values. 

Social Security and Medicare tax revenue: Social Security and Medicare tax revenue 

are measured as fiscal gains as a result of the additional pre-tax earnings of NCC 

AmeriCorps members from their reduced unemployment and as a result of the pre-tax 

living allowances and education awards amounts received by members. However, tax 

rates specific to each revenue source are used. Social Security and Medicare use flat 

tax rates, 6.2 percent and 1.45 percent, respectively; thus, these rates are applied to 

the additional pre-tax earnings of NCC AmeriCorps members to calculate the 

additional amount of revenue the federal government receives. These same rates are 

also applied to the living allowance and education award amounts received by NCC 

AmeriCorps members to calculate additional tax revenue. Moreover, additional lifetime 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

48 

Social Security tax revenue realized for the federal government—as a result of NCC 

AmeriCorps members using their education award to complete a higher education 

degree type post-service—is provided by Trostel (2015). 

Federal government cost savings: The federal government realizes cost savings in public 

assistance, social insurance, and corrections due to the increased postsecondary 

educational attainment of NCC AmeriCorps members after program exit. Specifically, 

the number of additional postsecondary degrees estimated to be earned by NCC 

AmeriCorps members post-service as well as data from Trostel (2015) were used to 

estimate the federal government portion of lifetime cost savings on social insurance 

(which is composed of workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance, as noted 

earlier), public assistance (e.g., SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, etc.), and corrections. 

Table 24 shows the lifetime costs to the federal versus the state and local governments 

for each of these areas—where applicable—by education level in 2012 dollars as 

presented in Trostel (2015). The differences in these lifetime costs from one education 

level to the next represent cost savings per degree obtained. 

Table 24. Government Costs by Educational Attainment Level per Individual’s Lifetime

Source of government cost

Associate degree 

(2012$)

Bachelor’s degree 

(2012$)

Graduate degree 

(2012$)

Public assistance $38,617 $14,480 $9,394

Social insurance $8,897 $5,863 $4,732

Federal $3,652 $2,660 $2,090 

State/local $5,246 $3,204 $2,643 

Corrections $4,055 $1,190 $725

Federal $341 $100 $61 

State/local $3,714 $1,090 $664 

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Source: Trostel (2015) 

As mentioned earlier in this appendix, as a result of NCC, the analysis estimated an 

additional 28 NCC AmeriCorps members would redeem the education award to 

pursue additional postsecondary education. Based on the portion of degree costs 

covered by the post-tax education award, this analysis calculated that an additional 

associate degree, bachelor’s degree, and graduate degree would be obtained due 

to NCC. To conservatively calculate the federal government’s lifetime savings 

associated with these education gains, the differences between the public assistance, 

federal social insurance, and federal corrections lifetime costs for these education 

levels and those that precede them are calculated and then expressed in 2020 dollars. 

These values are then multiplied by the number of additional postsecondary degrees 

estimated to be obtained—where appropriate—to represent the total cost savings 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

49 

realized by the federal government due to the NCC program. As previously mentioned 

where discussing the state and local governments’ allocation of the reduction in 

lifetime social insurance and corrections expenditures, the federal government receives 

50 percent of the lifetime cost savings in unemployment insurance (part of social 

insurance; Oswald, 2018), and more than 8 percent of the lifetime cost savings in 

corrections (Hyland, 2015). These federal government savings are shown in Table 24.

Table 25 shows the tax rates applied to NCC AmeriCorps members’ additional pre-tax 

and post-tax earnings (derived from reduced unemployment), depending on the type 

of revenue being calculated. It also enumerates the tax rates used for the pre-tax living 

allowance and education award amounts received by NCC AmeriCorps members 

during their service term or upon service completion, respectively. 

Table 25. 2020 Tax Rates and Ratio of Taxable Expenditures for NCC AmeriCorps 

Members’ Earnings, Living Allowances, and Education Awards

Metric

Rate for 

additional 

earnings & 

education 

award* 

Rate for living 

allowance & 

education 

award** Notes

Estimated 

proportional 

federal 

income tax

6.55% 3.68% • Tax rates are used that consider the 

progressive tax brackets and standard 

deductions specific to federal income 

taxes. 

• These rates are dependent on and 

applied to the pre-tax value of each 

metric being taxed.

Estimated 

proportional 

state 

income tax

2.67% 2.20% • Tax rates are used that consider the 

progressive tax brackets and standard 

deductions specific to each state’s 

income taxes. Each state’s tax rate is 

weighted based on the state’s 

population and summed to estimate a 

weighted national average. 

• These rates are dependent on and 

applied to the pre-tax value of each 

metric being taxed.

Social 

Security tax

6.20% 6.20% • Social Security tax rate for employees 

and employers.

• These rates are applied to the pre-tax 

value of each metric being taxed.

Medicare 

tax

1.45% 1.45% • Medicare tax rate for employees and 

employers.

• These rates are applied to the pre-tax 

value of each metric being taxed.
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

50 

Metric

Rate for 

additional 

earnings & 

education 

award* 

Rate for living 

allowance & 

education 

award** Notes

Sales tax 7.34%; N/A to 

the 

education 

award 

6.39%; N/A to the 

education award 

• The combined state and average local 

tax rate for each state was summed 

and weighted based on states’ 

populations to calculate a national 

weighted average sales tax rate. 

• The rate is applied to the additional 

post-tax earnings of members as well 

as their post-tax living allowance 

amount.

Ratio of 

taxable 

expenditures 

per national 

consumer

41.29%; N/A 

to the 

education 

award 

57%; N/A to the 

education award

• Percentage of post-tax earnings spent 

on taxable goods and services that is 

used to calculate sales tax from posttax earnings.

• Ratio is dependent on the pre-tax 

value of members’ additional earnings 

or the pre-tax living allowance amount.

*These rates are only used for the portion of the education award used to repay outstanding student loans. 

**These rates are only used for the portion of the education award used for additional schooling. 

Sources: Cammenga (2020), Social Security Administration (2020), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021), 

and El-Sibaie (2019)

Summary of Benefits to Government 

Table 26 shows the amount of tax revenue generated and savings in expenditures for 

state and local versus federal government that are solely credited to NCC and 

calculated using the methods described above. These government revenue and 

savings amounts are benefits that are included in the three ROI calculations, and they 

are derived from NCC program impacts.

Table 26. State/Local and Federal Government Benefits by Stakeholder Group and by 

Scenario

 

Benefit type

Benefit

Long-term Medium-term Short-term

State/local government 

benefits $384,828 $199,508 $15,163

State income tax revenue $77,622 $42,333 $9,396 

State and local sales tax 

revenue $173,015 $86,508 $5,767 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

51 

 

Benefit type

Benefit

Long-term Medium-term Short-term

State income, sales, and 

property taxes from 

postsecondary 

educational attainment 

(lifetime) 

$134,191 $67,095 $0 

State savings in reduced 

social insurance and 

corrections spending from 

postsecondary 

educational attainment 

(lifetime)

$7,144 $3,572 $0 

Federal government 

benefits

$1,106,083 $653,931 $191,693 

Federal income, Social 

Security, and Medicare 

tax revenue from living 

stipend and education 

award*

$169,568 $169,568 $169,568 

Federal income, Social 

Security, and Medicare 

tax revenue from 

employment

$375,049 $187,525 $12,502 

Federal income, Social 

Security, and Medicare 

tax revenue from 

postsecondary 

educational attainment 

(lifetime) 

$3,327 $17,769 $9,624 

Federal savings in 

reduced social insurance, 

corrections, and public 

assistance spending from 

postsecondary 

educational attainment 

(lifetime) 

$558,139 $279,070 $0 

Total $1,490,911 $853,439 $206,856 

*Living allowances and education awards are one-time taxable payments. The resulting tax revenue does 

not vary by scenario.

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Benefits to Society

Society benefits from NCC’s activities in the form of these distinct benefits:

• Wildfire reduction benefits attributable to NCC

• Habitat improvement benefits attributable to NCC
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

52 

• Trail maintenance and creation benefits attributable to NCC

Wildfire Reduction Benefits Attributable to NCC 

Society benefits from the reduction in wildfires resulting from NCC’s fuel reduction 

treatments in three distinct ways: 

• Ecosystem services preserved through fuel reduction treatments

• Human health benefits from reduced air particulates from smoke

• Benefits from reduced carbon dioxide equivalents emissions 

Using the 7.2 percent estimate in burn reduction from fuel reduction treatments 

presented in Cochrane et al. (2012) and the 2,825 acres treated from NCC (2022), this 

analysis estimated that in the first year 203.39 acres are prevented from burning as a 

result of NCC’s efforts.

Ecosystem services preserved through fuel reduction treatments

The literature provides varying estimates of the value of ecosystem services. This analysis 

used low, average, and high estimates of those benefits to allow for the uncertainty 

involved in monetizing ecosystem benefits. For the low ecosystem value estimate, an 

estimated $393 per acre (Batker et al., 2013) was multiplied by the 203.39 acres

preserved to generate an annual benefit of $79,883 per year. For the average 

ecosystem value estimate, an estimated $1,593 per acre (Batker et al., 2013) 

was multiplied by the 203.39 acres preserved to generate an annual benefit of 

$323,951 per year. For the high ecosystem value estimate, an estimated $2,890 per acre 

(Batker et al., 2013) was multiplied by the 203.39 acres preserved to generate an annual 

benefit of $587,848 per year. These annual estimates were then reduced using the 

Bartels et al. (2016) regrowth metrics (10 percent regrowth during the first 10 years and 

84 percent total regrowth over 30 years). These values were then discounted with other 

streams of benefits to generate the net present values presented in Table 5 of the 

main report. 

Human health benefits from reduced air particulates from smoke

Using the per-acre health costs from wildfire burning of $467 per acre (Moeltner et al., 

2013) and the 203.39 acres preserved, this analysis estimated annual health benefits

from reduced air particulates from smoke to be $94,983. These annual estimates were

then reduced using the Bartels et al. (2016) regrowth metrics (10 percent regrowth 

during the first 10 years and 84 percent total regrowth over 30 years). These values were 

also discounted with other streams of benefits to generate the net present values 

presented in Table 6 of the main report. 

Benefits from reduced carbon dioxide equivalents emissions

The literature provides varying estimates of the quantity of carbon dioxide equivalents

emissions produced when an acre of similar composition to those NCC treats is burned. 

Carbon dioxide equivalents emissions are avoided due to 203.39 acres not burning as a 

result of NCC’s efforts. This analysis used low, average, and high estimates from the 

literature to allow for the uncertainty involved in monetizing those avoided costs. 

To place a dollar value on these benefits, this analysis multiplies the variable carbon 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

53 

dioxide equivalents emissions under each scenario by the social cost of carbon. 

(This analysis adjusted the $43 in 2013 dollars reported in the Interagency Working Group 

[2013] to $47.76 in 2020 dollars). For the low carbon impact estimate, an estimated 

$1 per acre (Guo et al., 2019) is used, which results in $203 per year. For the average 

carbon impact estimate, an estimated $42 per acre (Guo et al., 2019; Arora and 

Melton, 2018) is used, which results in $8,542 per year. For the high carbon impact

estimate, an estimated $93 per acre (Arora and Melton, 2018) is used, which results in 

$17,084 per year. These annual estimates are then reduced using the Bartels et al. 

(2016) regrowth metrics (10 percent regrowth during the first 10 years and 84 percent

total regrowth over 30 years). These values are then discounted with other streams of 

benefits to generate the net present values presented in Table 7 of the main report. 

Habitat Improvement Benefits Attributable to NCC 

Society benefits from the ecosystem service values resulting from NCC’s ecosystem 

restoration activities. Using NCC’s reported treatment acres of 83 acres in forested 

mountains and 1,866 acres of other ecosystem designations, this analysis applied them

to the value per acre for each of those types of ecosystems for each of the three 

ecosystem levels. For the low ecosystem level, forested mountains are given $7,697 

per acre (ESSRTI, 2021) of ecosystem services, and other ecosystem designations are 

given $6,687 per acre (ESSRTI, 2021), which aggregate to $944,483 per year. For the 

average ecosystem level, forested mountains are given $18,150 per acre (ESSRTI, 2021) 

of ecosystem services and other ecosystem designations are given $24,419 per acre

(ESSRTI, 2021), which aggregate to $3,390,172 per year. For the high ecosystem level, 

forested mountains are given $35,151 per acre (ESSRTI, 2021) of ecosystem services and 

other ecosystem designations are given $78,571 per acre (ESSRTI, 2021), which 

aggregate to $10,770,788 per year. These annual estimates are then discounted using 

the Bartels et al. (2016) regrowth metrics (10 percent regrowth during the first 10 years 

and 84 percent total regrowth over 30 years). These values are then discounted with 

other streams of benefits to generate the net present values presented in Table 8.

Trail Maintenance and Creation Benefits Attributable to NCC 

Society enjoys health and recreational benefits from NCC’s trail maintenance and 

creation. Using NCC’s reported 552.91 miles of trails created or maintained and the sum 

of the health and recreation value per mile of trails ($3.27 per mile35), this analysis 

calculates annual benefits of $1,808. This estimate is reduced in subsequent years by 

the annual maintenance cost of $822 for backcountry trails (Echelberger and Plumley, 

1986). These values are then discounted with other streams of benefits to generate the 

net present values presented in Table 9.

Summary of Benefits to Society 

Table 27 shows the benefits to society that are solely credited to NCC and calculated 

using the methods described in the main report. 

35 $2.94 per mile in health benefits (Wang et al., 2005); $0.33 per mile in recreation benefits (Oh and Hammitt, 2010).
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

54 

Table 27. Societal Benefits by Impact Category and by Scenario

Benefit type

Benefit

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Wildfire reduction

With low ecosystem 

benefits

$175,091 $1,521,626 $1,554,231 

With average 

ecosystem benefits

$427,550 $3,715,620 $3,795,237 

With high ecosystem 

benefits

$699,838 $6,081,936 $6,212,257 

Ecosystem restoration

With low ecosystem 

benefits

$944,483 $10,528,732 $13,803,733 

With average ecosystem 

benefits

$3,390,172 $37,792,323 $49,547,763 

With high ecosystem 

benefits

$10,770,788 $120,068,557 $157,416,320 

Trail access

Health benefits $1,626 $11,031 $17,603 

Recreation benefits $182 $1,238 $1,976 

Total – with low

ecosystem benefits

$1,121,382 $12,492,846 $16,382,284

Total – with medium 

ecosystem benefits

$3,819,530 $42,570,752 $55,816,033

Total – with high 

ecosystem benefits

$11,472,433 $127,882,344 $167,664,106

Measuring Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs)

The analysis included two types of forgone benefits, referred to as opportunity costs, 

in each of the three ROI calculations to conservatively estimate the return of NCC: 

forgone benefits from a professional opportunity cost to NCC AmeriCorps members and 

forgone benefits from an investment opportunity cost to funders. Each of these forgone 

benefit (opportunity cost) types is subtracted from the total program benefits—that 

stem from NCC—to calculate net benefits. Net benefits are then compared to the 

program cost to calculate each ROI. The methodologies used to calculate these two 

forgone benefits (opportunity costs) are described below. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

55 

Forgone Benefits From Professional Opportunity Cost to NCC AmeriCorps Members

There is a professional opportunity cost to NCC AmeriCorps members for their period of 

national service, during which they could have otherwise been working. This includes 

both the forgone earnings of NCC AmeriCorps members for their service term and the 

forgone taxes associated with those lost earnings. To calculate this, the analysis first 

used the demographic distribution of NCC AmeriCorps members for the 2018–2019 

program year—in terms of gender, age, race/ethnicity, and pre-service education 

level—and ASEC data to estimate the weighted unemployment rate for this population 

(i.e., 4.2 percent). This represents how many of these NCC AmeriCorps members would 

have been unemployed if they did not serve with NCC. Using the weighted 

unemployment rate and the number of NCC AmeriCorps member FTEs who served 

during the 2018–2019 program year (i.e., 61), the analysis estimated the number of 

members who would have been unemployed without serving with NCC based on their 

demographic characteristics (i.e., 2). Then the analysis multiplied this value by the 

weighted post-tax annual earnings. This is derived from the pre-tax annual earnings 

listed in Table 19. The methodology used to calculate this latter monetary amount is 

described in the previous Increased Earnings Due to Reduced Unemployment section. 

The post-tax amount subtracts all applicable payroll taxes (e.g., federal income, state 

income, Medicare, and Social Security). The product of multiplying 2 by the weighted 

post-tax annual earnings represents what NCC AmeriCorps members would have 

earned in total if they did not serve with NCC. Separately, the analysis then multiplied 

the number of NCC AmeriCorps member FTEs who served by the amount they earned 

during their national service in the form of a post-tax living allowance (i.e., $19,295 per 

person). This represents the aggregate amount NCC AmeriCorps members earned 

during their service term. The difference between what they would have earned if they 

did not serve and what they did earn because they served equals the total post-tax 

earnings forgone due to serving with NCC. These values and the formula used to 

calculate the forgone post-tax earnings are shown in Table 28.

Table 28. Forgone Earnings of NCC AmeriCorps Members for a Service Term

Row Component Value Source

A NCC AmeriCorps member FTEs 61 NCC (2022) 

B Weighted unemployment rate 5.9% U.S. Census Bureau (2019-b) & 

NCC

C Weighted post-tax annual earnings per 

person (2020$) $28,982 

U.S. Census Bureau (2019-b), 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(2019-a), & NCC

D Post-tax living allowance per person $19,295 AmeriCorps (2020) 

E Total post-tax earnings forgone (2020$) $484,039 [A x (1 – B) x C] – (A x D)

Note: Numbers may note sum due to rounding. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

56 

The second portion of this professional opportunity cost was the forgone taxes 

associated with the earnings of NCC AmeriCorps members lost for this year of service. 

Federal income, state income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes specific to the perperson weighted pre-tax earnings amount were calculated. Specifically, the estimated 

proportional federal and state income tax rates used were 7.3 percent and 2.8 percent, 

respectively. The analysis also estimated the sales taxes lost based on the per-person 

post-tax earnings forgone by the NCC AmeriCorps members. Using data from the 

Consumer Expenditure Survey (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021), the analysis 

estimated that based on the per-person weighted pre-tax earnings of NCC AmeriCorps 

members (i.e., $35,687), 44.9 percent of their income would have been spent on 

taxable goods, as opposed to 53.1 percent of the living allowance. Then the weighted 

combined state and local sales tax rate (i.e., 7.43 percent)—used earlier in this analysis 

to calculate government benefits—was applied to the difference in expected 

spending on taxable goods to represent the resulting sales tax revenue lost due to 

individuals serving with NCC instead of working for higher pay. The totals for these taxes 

are listed in Table 29. 

Table 29. Forgone Taxes Associated With the Forgone Earnings of NCC AmeriCorps 

Members for a Service Term

Forgone taxes

Taxes without 

service term

(2020$)

Taxes realized 

from living 

allowance

(2020$)

Net taxes 

forgone

(2020$)

Federal forgone taxes (i.e., federal 

professional opportunity cost) $230,689 $132,772 $97,917

Federal income taxes $103,989 $43,101 $60,888 

Social Security and Medicare taxes $126,700 $89,671 $37,029 

Non-federal forgone taxes $93,614 $45,649 $47,965

State income taxes $43,396 $0 $43,396 

Sales taxes $50,218 $45,649 $4,569 

Total taxes $324,302 $178,421 $145,881 

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

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

government (not total) benefits are included. Because of this, only federal components 

of the professional opportunity cost are subtracted from all federal government 

benefits—realized due to NCC—in this ROI calculation. The parts of the professional 

opportunity cost subtracted from these total federal government benefits include the 

forgone net federal income taxes (i.e., $60,888) and the net forgone Social Security and 

Medicare taxes (i.e., $37,029). The sum of these two values is called the federal 

professional opportunity cost. The sum of all the values listed in Table 29 and the 

forgone post-tax earnings of NCC AmeriCorps members is called the total professional 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

57 

opportunity cost. These naming conventions are referenced in the Calculating ROI

section.

Forgone Benefits from the Investment Opportunity Cost to Funders

The investment opportunity cost estimates the expected forgone return if funds used to

support the activities and positions of NCC AmeriCorps members during the most

recent program year were invested in U.S. Treasury bonds instead. An investment

opportunity cost is calculated for two different funding streams: 1) all NCC program

funding for the 2019–2020 program year and 2) only federal funding for the same 

program year. This is done because two of the three ROI calculations only have federal

(not total) program costs included. Thus, for 1) the federal government benefits per

federal dollar and 2) the total benefits per federal dollar ROI calculations, the 

investment opportunity cost subtracted from the benefits in these calculations is the

forgone accrued interest from investing only the federal funds into these U.S. Treasury

bonds. For the other ROI calculation, the investment opportunity cost subtracted from

the benefits realized is the forgone accrued interest from investing all NCC program

funds (both federal and non-federal) into these U.S. Treasury bonds. Therefore, the 

analysis estimated forgone accrued interests across all three scenarios when 1) all NCC

program funds and 2) only federal NCC program funds are invested in U.S. Treasury

bonds. 

To calculate these forgone accrued interest values, the analysis first matched 2019 real 

interest rates provided by the Office of Management and Budget (2020) to each of 

the scenarios included in this ROI analysis. The analysis used 2019 real interest rates for 

U.S. Treasury bonds because the NCC program year analyzed began in 2019. The real 

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

between the 10-year and 20-year maturity rates was used as the rate for the mediumterm scenario, and the 30-year maturity rate was used for the long-term scenario. These 

real interest rates were 0.6 percent, 0.8 percent, and 1.0 percent, respectively (Office of 

Management and Budget, 2020). Also, the number of years elapsed on these U.S. 

Treasury bonds was equal to the number of years the different scenarios assumed NCC 

AmeriCorps members’ employment and earnings gains were sustained. These values 

are 1 year, 15 years, and 30 years for the short-term, medium-term, and long-term 

scenarios, respectively. Given that U.S. Treasury bonds compound biannually, 

according to the U.S. Department of the Treasury (2019), the formula used to calculate 

the forgone accrued interest for each of the three scenarios for the two funding streams 

is listed in Figure 5, where A equals the forgone accrued interest (e.g., the investment 

opportunity cost), P equals the amount of one of the funding streams, r equals the 2019 

real interest rate, and t equals the number of years elapsed. 

Figure 5. Compound Interest Formula Used to Calculate Investment Opportunity Cost 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

58 

Based on this formula, the forgone benefits from the investment opportunity cost 

calculated by scenario and funding stream are listed in Table 30, along with their 

associated inputs. The forgone accrued interest amounts for all funding are called the 

total investment opportunity costs while that for federal funding only are called the 

federal investment opportunity costs. These naming conventions are referenced in the 

Calculating ROI section. 

Table 30. Forgone Benefits From Investment Opportunity Cost Calculation by Scenario 

and Funding Stream

Metric

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

All funding

Federal 

funding 

only All funding

Federal 

funding 

only All funding

Federal 

funding 

only

Real 

interest 

rate

0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 

Years 

elapsed 1 15 30 

Funding 

amount $2,215,361 $1,919,647 $2,215,361 $1,919,647 $2,215,361 $1,919,647 

Forgone 

return 

(accrued 

interest) 

$436,193 $377,969 $281,854 $244,231 $772,829 $669,669 

Note: The real interest rates used are the 2018 real interest rates because the NCC program year 

commenced in 2018.

Measuring Program Costs

Table 31 shows the costs of NCC by funding source.

Table 31. Funding Sources and Amounts for NCC (2018–2019) 

Funding Source Amount Percentage of total 

Cost categories $1,921,647 

Operating $318,415 20.4% 

AmeriCorps member expenses $1,172,164 0.4% 

Non-AmeriCorps member expenses $431,068 1.6% 

Funding sources $2,027,185 

AmeriCorps $443,078 22% 

Project revenue (federal and non-federal) $1,511,489 75% 

Other* $72,619 4% 

*The “Other” funding identified above includes revenue from rental of an office space.

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Source: NCC (2022)
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

59 

Calculating ROI

To complete the three ROI calculations for NCC, the sum of applicable program

benefits is reduced by the forgone benefits, or the professional and investment 

opportunity costs (where appropriate), and then compared to the cost of the program. 

As described previously, these three ROI calculations are calculated for each of the 

three scenarios: short-term, medium-term, and long-term.

Since two of the calculations include benefits to society (e.g., NCC AmeriCorps 

members, children of NCC program participants, etc.), the results are expressed as 

cost–benefit ratios, while maintaining the ROI terminology. Specifically, these ratios take 

the form of the sum of monetized benefits over the sum of applicable program costs. 

The ROIs expressed as cost–benefit ratios in this study can be interpreted as the amount 

of dollars returned for every dollar of investment (or program cost).36 

The formulas used to calculate each of the three ROIs are shown below:37

Table 32, Table 33, and Table 34 show the total benefits; opportunity costs; program 

costs; and ROI results for the short-, medium-, and long-term scenarios, respectively. 

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

the results, the ROIs in this study show the amount of return for every dollar invested. 

37 Non-government stakeholders in this ROI analysis include NCC AmeriCorps members and the children of 

NCC program participants. 

Total 

Benefits per

Federal 

Dollar

= 

(Benefits to Non-Government Stakeholders + Benefits to Government) – 

(Forgone Benefits From Total Professional Opportunity Cost + Forgone Benefits 

From Federal Investment Opportunity Cost)

(AmeriCorps Federal Funding) 

Total 

Benefits 

per Funder 

Dollar

= 

(Benefits to Non-Government Stakeholders + Benefits to Government) – 

(Forgone Benefits From Total Professional Opportunity Cost + Forgone Benefits 

From Total Investment Opportunity Cost)

(AmeriCorps Federal Funding + Non-Federal Match Funding) 

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

= 

(Benefits to the Federal Government) – (Forgone Benefits From Federal 

Professional Opportunity Cost + Forgone Benefits From Federal Investment 

Opportunity Cost)

(AmeriCorps Federal Funding) 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

60 

Table 32. ROI Calculations for Short-Term Scenario

Components

Total costs and 

benefits per 

federal dollar

(2020$)

Total costs and 

benefits per 

funder collar

(2020$)

Federal government 

costs and benefits 

per federal dollar

(2020$)

Total benefits by range of impact

With low ecosystem 

benefits $2,252,325 $2,177,942 

$74,382 With average ecosystem 

benefits $4,950,473 $4,876,090 

With high ecosystem 

benefits $12,603,376 $12,528,993 

Total forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) -$107,687 -$497,351 -$107,687

Total program costs $1,919,647 $2,215,361 $1,919,647 

ROI

Result – low $1.17 $0.98 

Result – average $2.58 $2.20 $0.04 

Result – high $6.57 $5.66 

Table 33. ROI Calculations for Medium-Term Scenario

Components

Total costs and 

benefits per 

federal dollar

(2020$)

Total costs and 

benefits per 

funder dollar

(2020$)

Federal government 

costs and benefits 

per federal dollar

(2020$)

Total benefits by range of impact

With low ecosystem 

benefits $16,025,497 $15,694,115 

$331,383 With average ecosystem 

benefits $46,103,404 $45,772,021 

With high ecosystem 

benefits $131,414,995 $131,083,613 

Total forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) -$304,779 -$765,892 -$304,779

Total program costs $1,919,647 $2,215,361 $1,919,647 

ROI

Result – low $8.35 $7.08 

Result – average $24.02 $20.66 $0.17 

Result – high $68.46 $59.17 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

61 

Table 34. ROI Calculations for Long-Term Scenario

Components

Total costs and 

benefits per

 federal dollar

(2020$)

Total costs and 

benefits per

 funder dollar

(2020$)

Federal government 

costs and benefits 

per federal dollar

(2020$)

Total benefits by range of impact

With low ecosystem 

benefits $22,031,493 $21,593,861 

$437,632 With average ecosystem 

benefits $61,465,241 $61,027,609 

With high ecosystem 

benefits $173,313,315 $172,875,683 

Total forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) -$665,123 -$1,256,868 -$665,123

Total program costs $1,919,647 $2,215,361 $1,919,647 

ROI

Result – low $11.48 $9.75 

Result – average $32.02 $27.55 $0.23 

Result – high $90.28 $78.04 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

62 

Appendix C: Results by Year

Table 35 shows the breakdown of costs and benefits over a 30-year period. Program 

activities create a stream of benefits over time for AmeriCorps members, the federal 

government, state and local governments, and society. Opportunity costs that occur 

from participation in the program apply to the first year, and forgone benefits to funders 

accrue over time. Program costs are expended in the first year only. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

63 

Table 35. NCC Benefits and Costs per Year

Benefits and costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8

Benefits – low $2,582,081 $1,147,725 $1,079,815 $1,016,709 $958,101 $903,710 $853,267 $806,526 

Benefits – medium $5,280,229 $3,662,730 $3,423,812 $3,201,043 $2,993,380 $2,799,848 $2,619,532 $2,451,580 

Benefits – high $12,933,132 $10,796,175 $10,072,218 $9,396,590 $8,766,152 $8,177,966 $7,629,285 $7,117,537 

AmeriCorps member benefits $1,260,197 $90,673 $93,393 $96,195 $99,081 $102,054 $105,115 $108,269 

Federal government benefits $145,274 $5,940 $6,118 $6,302 $6,491 $6,686 $6,886 $7,093 

State and local government 

benefits

$55,229 $6,659 $6,859 $7,064 $7,276 $7,495 $7,719 $7,951 

Society benefits – low $1,121,382 $1,044,453 $973,445 $907,147 $845,253 $787,476 $733,546 $683,214 

Society benefits – medium $3,819,530 $3,559,458 $3,317,442 $3,091,482 $2,880,532 $2,683,614 $2,499,811 $2,328,268 

Society benefits – high $11,472,433 $10,692,902 $9,965,847 $9,287,028 $8,653,303 $8,061,733 $7,509,564 $6,994,224 

Forgone benefits (opportunity 

costs) 

$742,535 $32,239 $32,239 $32,239 $32,239 $32,239 $32,239 $32,239 

Forgone benefits to members $484,039 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone tax revenue $237,179 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal taxes $97,917 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

State/local taxes $139,262 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone benefits from total 

investments (all funders)

$11,547 $17,463 $17,463 $17,463 $17,463 $17,463 $17,463 $17,463 

Forgone benefits from federal 

investments

$9,770 $14,776 $14,776 $14,776 $14,776 $14,776 $14,776 $14,776 

Program costs $1,921,647 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal government costs $1,535,582 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Non-federal costs $386,064 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

64 

Table 35, cont. NCC Benefits and Costs per Year

Benefits and costs Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16

Benefits – low $763,254 $723,235 $670,217 $621,902 $577,955 $538,065 $501,941 $469,317 

Benefits – medium $2,295,194 $2,149,625 $1,959,452 $1,785,028 $1,625,203 $1,478,905 $1,345,139 $1,222,983 

Benefits – high $6,640,316 $6,195,371 $5,616,179 $5,084,067 $4,595,568 $4,147,460 $3,736,747 $3,360,646 

AmeriCorps member benefits $111,517 $114,862 $118,308 $121,857 $125,513 $129,278 $133,157 $137,151 

Federal government benefits $7,306 $7,525 $7,751 $7,983 $8,223 $8,469 $8,723 $8,985 

State and local government 

benefits

$8,189 $8,435 $8,688 $8,949 $9,217 $9,494 $9,779 $10,072 

Society benefits – low $636,243 $592,413 $535,470 $483,113 $435,002 $390,823 $350,283 $313,109 

Society benefits – medium $2,168,182 $2,018,802 $1,824,705 $1,646,239 $1,482,250 $1,331,663 $1,193,481 $1,066,775 

Society benefits – high $6,513,304 $6,064,549 $5,481,432 $4,945,277 $4,452,615 $4,000,219 $3,585,089 $3,204,437 

Forgone benefits (opportunity 

costs)

$32,239 $32,239 $32,239 $32,239 $32,239 $32,239 $52,415 $52,415 

Forgone benefits to members $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone tax revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

State/local taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone benefits from total 

investments (all funders)

$17,463 $17,463 $17,463 $17,463 $17,463 $17,463 $28,392 $28,392 

Forgone benefits from federal 

investments

$14,776 $14,776 $14,776 $14,776 $14,776 $14,776 $24,023 $24,023 

Program costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal government costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Non-federal costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

65 

Table 35, cont. NCC Benefits and Costs per Year

Benefits and costs Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24

Benefits – low $439,943 $413,588 $390,039 $369,096 $350,576 $334,310 $320,139 $307,918 

Benefits – medium $1,111,577 $1,010,125 $917,887 $834,175 $758,354 $689,832 $628,062 $572,535 

Benefits – high $3,016,569 $2,702,114 $2,415,050 $2,153,305 $1,914,957 $1,698,220 $1,501,440 $1,323,081 

AmeriCorps member benefits $141,266 $145,504 $149,869 $154,365 $158,996 $163,766 $168,679 $173,739 

Federal government benefits $9,255 $9,532 $9,818 $10,113 $10,416 $10,729 $11,050 $11,382 

State and local government 

benefits

$10,374 $10,685 $11,006 $11,336 $11,676 $12,027 $12,387 $12,759 

Society benefits – low $279,049 $247,867 $219,346 $193,282 $169,488 $147,789 $128,022 $110,038 

Society benefits – medium $950,682 $844,403 $747,193 $658,361 $577,266 $503,311 $435,945 $374,655 

Society benefits – high $2,855,674 $2,536,392 $2,244,357 $1,977,491 $1,733,868 $1,511,699 $1,309,323 $1,125,200 

Forgone benefits (opportunity 

costs)

$52,415 $52,415 $52,415 $52,415 $52,415 $52,415 $52,415 $52,415 

Forgone benefits to members $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone tax revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

State/local taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone benefits from total 

investments (all funders)

$28,392 $28,392 $28,392 $28,392 $28,392 $28,392 $28,392 $28,392 

Forgone benefits from federal 

investments

$24,023 $24,023 $24,023 $24,023 $24,023 $24,023 $24,023 $24,023 

Program costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal government costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Non-federal costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

66 

Table 35, cont. NCC Benefits and Costs per Year

Benefits and costs Year 25 Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30

Benefits – low $297,514 $288,800 $281,664 $275,999 $271,709 $268,702

Benefits – medium $522,781 $478,364 $438,881 $403,958 $373,251 $346,439 

Benefits – high $1,161,719 $1,016,034 $884,804 $766,896 $661,261 $566,928 

AmeriCorps member benefits $178,952 $184,320 $189,850 $195,545 $201,411 $207,454 

Federal government benefits $11,723 $12,075 $12,437 $12,811 $13,195 $13,591 

State and local government benefits $13,142 $13,536 $13,942 $14,360 $14,791 $15,235 

Society benefits – low $93,697 $78,869 $65,435 $53,283 $42,311 $32,423 

Society benefits – medium $318,964 $268,433 $222,652 $181,242 $143,853 $110,160 

Society benefits – high $957,902 $806,103 $668,575 $544,180 $431,864 $330,649 

Forgone benefits (opportunity costs) $52,415 $52,415 $52,415 $52,415 $52,415 $52,415 

Forgone benefits to members $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone tax revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

State/local taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone benefits from total investments 

(all funders)

$28,392 $28,392 $28,392 $28,392 $28,392 $28,392 

Forgone benefits from federal 

investments

$24,023 $24,023 $24,023 $24,023 $24,023 $24,023 

Program costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal government costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Non-federal costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

67 

References 

AmeriCorps. (n.d.). Education Award find out more. AmeriCorps. 

https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorps-educationaward/find-out-more

Arora, V. K., Melton, J. R. (2018). Reduction in global area burned and wildfire emissions 

since 1930s enhances carbon uptake by land. Nature Communications. 9. 

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03838-0 

Bartels, S. F., Chen, H. Y.H., Wulder, M. A., White, J. C. (2016). Trends in post-disturbance 

recovery rates of Canada’s forests following wildfire and harvest. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 361,194–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.11.015 

Batker, D., Christin, Z., Schmidt, R., de la Torre, I. (2013). The economic impact of the 

2013 Rim Fire on natural lands. Earth Economics. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grantsfunding/docs/earth_economics_rim_fire_report_11.27.2013.pdf

Cammenga, J. (2020, January 15). State and local sales tax rates, 2020. Tax Foundation. 

https://taxfoundation.org/2020-sales-taxes/

Center for Program Evaluation. (2020). Great Basin Institute – Nevada Conservation 

Corps – Evaluation Report 2019 – 2020. Reno, NV. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/GreatBasinInstitute.21ES231073.

Evidencedoc3_EDITED_508.pdf

Cochrane, M. A., Moran, C. J., Wimberly, M. C., Baer, A. D., Finney, M. A., Beckendorf, K. 

L., Eidenshink, J., Zhu, Z. (2012). Estimation of wildfire size and risk changes due to 

fuels treatments. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 

https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11079

De Groot, R., B. Fisher, and M. Christie. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and 

biodiversity, ecological and economic foundations. United Nations Environment 

Programme, Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.teebweb.org/wpcontent/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Ecological%20and%20Economic

%20Foundations/TEEB%20Ecological%20and%20Economic%20Foundations%20report

/TEEB%20Foundations.pdf

Dodds, W. K., Wilson, K. C., Rehmeier, R. L., Knight, G. L., Wiggam, S., Falke, J. A., 

Dalgleish, H. J., Bertrand, K. N. (2008). Comparing ecosystem goods and services 

provided by restored and native lands. Bioscience. 58(9), 837–845. 

https://doi.org/10.1641/B580909

Eastern Sierra Sustainable Recreation and Tourism Initiative (ESSRTI). (2021). A changing 

climate: Vulnerability in California’s Eastern Sierra. 

https://mltpa.org/images/downloads/703_02_AChangingClimate_2021-05-

13_FINAL.pdf
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

68 

Echelberger, H. E., Plumley, H. J. (1986). Anatomy of backcountry management costs. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Research Paper NE-575. 

https://doi.org/10.2737/NE-RP-575

El-Sibaie, A. (2019, November 14). 2020 tax brackets. Tax Foundation.

https://taxfoundation.org/2020-tax-brackets/ 

Friedman, E., Freeman, B., Phillips, B., Rosenthal, L., Robinson, D., Miller, H., & Porowski, A. 

(2016). AmeriCorps alumni outcomes: Final survey technical report. Corporation for 

National and Community Service (now AmeriCorps). 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_AmeriCorpsAlumni

OutcomesFinalTechReport_1.pdf

Guo, M., Li, J., Wen, L., Huang, S. (2019). Estimation of CO2 emissions from wildfires using 

OCO-2 data. Atmosphere. 10(1), 581. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10100581 

Hyland, S. S. (2015). Justice expenditure and employment extracts, 2015 - Final. 

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/justice-expenditure-and-employmentextracts-2015-final

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. 

(2013). Technical support document – technical update of the social cost of carbon 

for regulatory impact analysis – under Executive Order 12866. 

Jones, K. W. (2021, November 24). Estimating the societal benefits from wildfire 

mitigation activities in a payments for watershed services program in Colorado. 

https://doi.org/10.32942/osf.io/z9skm

Loughead, K. (2020, February 4). State individual income tax rates and brackets for 

2020. Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/state-individual-income-tax-ratesand-brackets-for-2020/ 

Markovitz, C., Schneider, G., Jastrzab, J. A., & Frumkin, P. (2008, April). Improving lives 

and communities: Perspectives on 40 years of VISTA service. Corporation for 

National and Community Service (now AmeriCorps). 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_Imprv_LivesComm

_40YrsVISTASvc_2008_1.pdf

Mason, C. L., Lippke, B. R., Zobrist, K. W., Bloxton Jr, T. D., Ceder, K. R., Comnick, J. M., ... 

& Rogers, H. K. (2006). Investments in fuel removals to avoid forest fires result in 

substantial benefits. Journal of Forestry, 104(1), 27–31.

Moeltner, K., Kim, M. K., Zhu, E., Yang, W. (2013). Wildfire smoke and health impacts: 

A closer look at fire attributes and their marginal effects. Journal of Environmental 

Economics and Management. 66(3), 476–496. 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2013.09.004

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2019). Digest of education statistics. 

Table 330.50. Average and percentiles of graduate tuition and required fees in 

degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by control of institution: 1989-90 

through 2018-19. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_330.50.asp
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

69 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2020). IPEDS Data Explorer. Average 

costs (in constant 2019 dollars) associated with attendance for full-time, first-time 

degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates at Title IV institutions operating on an 

academic year calendar system, and percentage change, by level of institution, 

type of cost, control of institution, residency, and student housing: United States, 

academic years 2017–18 and 2019–20. 

https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Search?query=&query2=&resultType=all&page=1&sortBy

=date_desc&overlayTableId=27425 

Office of Management and Budget. (1992, October 29). Circular A-94: Guidelines and 

discount rates for benefit–cost analysis of federal programs, transmittal memo no. 

64. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb

/circulars/A94/a094.pdf

Office of Management and Budget. (2003, September 17). Circular A-4. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb

/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf

Office of Management and Budget. (2020, November 19). Budget assumptions. 

Nominal treasury interest rates for different maturities (from annual budget 

assumptions for the first year of the budget forecast). 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/discount-history.pdf

Oh, C. & Hammitt, W. (2010). Determining economic benefits of park trails: 

Management implications. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 28(2), 

94–107. 

Oswald, J. (2018, March 29). What does an unemployment claim cost an employer?

Unemployment Insurance Services. https://www.unemployment-services.com

/unemployment-claim-cost-employer/

Reinhardt, E.D., Keane, R.E., Calkin, D.E., & Cohen, J.D. (2008). Objectives and 

considerations for wildland fuel treatment in forested ecosystems of the interior 

western United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 256, 1997–2006. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORECO.2008.09.016

Schimel, D., Alves, D., Enting, I., Heimann, M., et al. (1995). Radiative forcing of climate 

change. In Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, (pp. 65-132). 

Contribution of Working Group I. Second Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report

/ar2/wg1/ 

Social Security Administration. (2020). Fact sheet: 2020 Social Security changes.

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/colafacts2020.pdf

Spera, C., Ghertner, R., Nerino, A., & DiTommaso, A. (2013). Volunteering as a pathway 

to employment: Does volunteering increase odds of finding a job for the out of 

work? https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange

/FR_2013_VolunteeringasaPathwaytoEmployment_1.pdf
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

70 

Stephens, S.L., Collins, B.M., Fettig, C.J., Finney. M.A., Hoffman, C.M., Knapp, E.E., North, 

M.P., Safford, H., & Wayman, R.B. (2018). Drought, tree mortality, and wildfire in 

forests adapted to frequent fire. Bioscience 8, 77–88. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/BIOSCI/BIX146

Trostel, P. (2015). It’s not just the money: The benefits of college education to individuals 

and to society. Lumina Foundation. 

https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-just-the-money.pdf

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019-a). Consumer Price Index. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019-b). Occupational employment and wage statistics. 

https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021, May 27). Consumer Expenditure Surveys tables 

(CE). https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-averagestandard-error.htm#cu-income

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019-a). American Community Survey (ACS). 

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019-b). Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic 

(ASEC) Supplement for March 2019. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/timeseries/demo/cps/cps-asec.2019.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019-c). 2019 Current Population Survey (CPS). 

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

U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic 

(ASEC) Supplement for 2020. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/timeseries/demo/cps/cps-asec.2020.html

U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2019). Interest rate statistics. 

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financing-the-government/interest-ratestatistics

Wang, G., Macera, C. A., Scudder-Soucier, B., Schmid, T., Pratt, M., & Buchner, D. (2005). 

A cost-benefit analysis of physical activity using bike/pedestrian trails. Health 

Promotion Practice. 6(2), 174-179. 

The Watershed Company. (2015). Impact evaluation 2014–2015: Washington 

Conservation Corps restoration sites. https://americorps.gov/evidenceexchange/impact-evaluation-2014-2015-washington-conservation-corps-restorationsites

Zavaleta, E. (2000). Valuing ecosystem services lost to Tamarix invasion in the United 

States. In H. A. Moody and R. J. Hobbs (Eds), Invasive Species in a Changing World

(Chapter 12). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hCoJiTo7I3wC&oi=fnd&pg=PA261&

ots=OOnnz0GwJt&sig=4DJXDAwE6bREcfxiSrjOzZv_6ss#v=onepage&q&f=false
Return on Investment Study: 

Nevada Conservation Corps Program

71 

Zeidenberg, M., Freeman, B., Friedman, E., & Porowski, A. (2016). Results from the 

National Student Clearinghouse data match: New methods for assessing 

AmeriCorps alumni outcomes. Abt Associates. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_NatlStudent_Cleari

nghouseMatch_AlumniOutcomes_2016_1.pdf