1 

Leadership through Service: 

AmeriCorps NCCC’s Impact 

on Members 

FINAL REPORT 

December 29, 2023 

SUBMITTED TO: 

Melissa Gouge 

Contracting Officer Representative 

AmeriCorps 

250 E Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20525 

SUBMITTED BY: 

JBS International, Inc. 

155 Bovet Road, Suite 210 

San Mateo, CA 94402 
Leadership through Service: AmeriCorps NCCC’s Impact on 

Members 

December 29, 2023 

This report was prepared by JBS International, Inc. 155 Bovet Road, Suite 210, San Mateo, CA, 94402, pursuant to 

a contract with AmeriCorps, a U.S. government agency. The report was produced and published at taxpayer 

expense. 

Authors 

Annie Georges, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate 

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

Belayeth Hussain, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate 

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

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

Erika Tait, M.A., Technical Expert Lead 

Jaslean LaTaillade, Ph.D., Technical Expert Lead 

Arianna Alvarado, B.A., Research Assistant 

Jacob Krauss, B.A., Research Assistant 

Acknowledgements 

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

members for their valuable insights and feedback through the development of questionnaires and analysis. The 

survey would not have been possible without the participants who engaged in the data collection activities. We 

thank Cris Dorr, Jazmin Ledesma Duque, and Juan Garcia-Cardenas for administering the survey. 

Citation 

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

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

Inc. 
Leadership through Service: AmeriCorps NCCC’s Impact on 

Members 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ v 

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1 

Chapter 1 Developing Leadership Skills through Service .............................................................. 2 

Chapter 2 AmeriCorps NCCC’s Theory of Change and Logic Model........................................... 4 

Chapter 3 Research Design............................................................................................................. 7 

Participants ................................................................................................................................ 10 

Differences in Characteristics Between Traditional Corps & FEMA Corps ............................ 14 

Differences in Characteristics between Members and Comparison Participants...................... 14 

Chapter 4 Impact of Service on Leadership Skills........................................................................ 19 

Professional Skills..................................................................................................................... 19 

Self-Efficacy and Life Skills ..................................................................................................... 21 

Ability to Solve Community Problems ..................................................................................... 22 

Communication Skills ............................................................................................................... 23 

Collaborative Practices.............................................................................................................. 24 

Appreciation for Varied Perspectives ....................................................................................... 26 

Community and Civic Efficacy................................................................................................. 28 

Comparability of Leadership Skills Between Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps................. 29 

Facilitators of leadership skills.................................................................................................. 31 

Barriers to leadership skills ....................................................................................................... 32 

Chapter 5 Service Experience and Leadership Skills ................................................................... 36 

Participant and Project Level Impacts on Leadership Development ........................................ 38 

Differences Between Teams and Regions................................................................................. 38 

Chapter 6 Summary and recommendations .................................................................................. 39 

Appendix A: AmeriCorps NCCC Logic Model for Leadership Development ............................ 42 

Appendix B: Survey Non-Response Bias Analysis ...................................................................... 43 

Appendix C: Socioeconomic Status Construct ............................................................................. 49 

Appendix D: Composite Measure of Motivation for Service ....................................................... 54 

Appendix E: Results from Multilevel Model Predicting the Odds of Service ............................. 56 

Appendix F: Composite Measures of Leadership Skills............................................................... 58 

ii 
Appendix G: Results from Latent Growth Curve Analysis .......................................................... 60 

Appendix H: Results from Multilevel Model of the Association between Service Projects and 

Leadership Skills........................................................................................................................... 64 

References..................................................................................................................................... 67 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 2.1: Communities affected by AmeriCorps NCCC service, 2012-2022 ............................. 6 

Figure 4.4: AmeriCorps members were less confident in their ability to communicate but gained 

Figure 4.5: AmeriCorps members perceived they were less confident in their ability to 

Figure 4.7: AmeriCorps members perceived they were less engaged in activities that demonstrate 

appreciation of varied perspectives during service, but gained confidence post service to close 

Figure 2.2: Types of sponsoring organizations, 2012-2022 ........................................................... 7 

Figure 3.1: Distribution of AmeriCorps NCCC service projects focused on disaster, 2017-2019 9 

Figure 3.2: Distribution of AmeriCorps service projects focused on disaster, 2020-2022............ 9 

Figure 3.3: Types of motivation to serve members (treatment) and comparison group.............. 15 

Figure 3.4: Factors contributing to the odds of opting into service ............................................. 18 

Figure 4.1 AmeriCorps members closed the gap in professional skills:....................................... 20 

Figure 4.2: AmeriCorps members closed the self-efficacy and life skills gap ............................. 21 

Figure 4.3: AmeriCorps members gained skills in solving community problems ....................... 22 

confidence within one year post service ....................................................................................... 24 

collaborate, but closed the gap within one year post service ........................................................ 25 

Figure 4.6: AmeriCorps NCCC team dynamics ........................................................................... 26 

the gap........................................................................................................................................... 27 

Figure 4.8: AmeriCorps members’ sense of community and civic efficacy decreased................ 28 

Figure 4.9: AmeriCorps members showed deep understanding of community challenges.......... 29 

Figure 4.10: FEMA and Traditional community efficacy ............................................................ 30 

Figure 4.11 Impact of COVID-19................................................................................................. 35 

Figure 5.1: Examples of the coded projects’ impacts as described by teams assigned to the

projects.......................................................................................................................................... 37 

iii 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 3.1: Survey response rate .................................................................................................... 10 

Table 3.2: FEMA Corps survey response rate .............................................................................. 11 

Table 3.3: Highest level of education completed.......................................................................... 13 

Table 3.4: Distribution of AmeriCorps members socio-economic status by race and ethnicity .. 13 

Table 3.5: Reasons comparison participants declined to serve..................................................... 17 

Table 4.1: Factors that impacted AmeriCorps members’ leadership skill development .............. 31 

Table 5.1: Distribution by region.................................................................................................. 37 

Table 5.2: Impacts of service project type on leadership development ........................................ 38 

Table 5.3: Impacts of teams and region placement on leadership development .......................... 38 

iv 
Executive Summary 

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

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

most pressing challenges. AmeriCorps has engaged and provided opportunities for more than 

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

programs – AmeriCorps State and National, AmeriCorps NCCC, AmeriCorps VISTA, and 

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

programs is embodied in AmeriCorps’ mission statement: To improve lives, strengthen 

communities, and foster civic engagement through service and volunteering. Operating under the 

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

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

national and community service. 

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

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

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

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

This report discusses the findings on whether and how service impacts members’ leadership 

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

18-26. AmeriCorps NCCC maintains two programs, Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps. In 

Traditional Corps, members’ service assignments include leading youth development activities; 

constructing and rehabilitating low-income housing; helping communities develop emergency 

plans and respond to emergencies such as flood, hurricanes, and public health emergencies such 

as COVID-19; performing environmental clean-up; constructing and rehabilitating low-income 

housing, coordinating volunteers; and addressing other local needs. FEMA Corps is a partnership 

with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) where members gain professional 

skills in emergency management while serving with FEMA on disaster response and recovery 

efforts. FEMA Corps works solely on emergency management and long-term recovery activities 

within FEMA, helping coordinate services for disaster survivors. FEMA Corps projects may 

involve indirect assignments in the FEMA offices that support FEMA’s overall mission or direct 

assignments in disaster sites, such as helping survivors in remote regions sign up for Disaster 

Survivor Assistance. 

The current study provides evidence supporting AmeriCorps NCCC’s mission to develop leaders 

through team-based national and community service. AmeriCorps NCCC’s theory of change sets 

forth the core outcomes of leadership through service: 1) gain professional skills; 2) develop life 

skills; 3) teamwork; and 4) engagement in civic life. 

Objectives 

The current study accomplishes two primary objectives: 

1. Estimate the impact of service on members’ leadership skills.

2. Examine the association between service project assignments and members' leadership 

skills. 

v 
Methods 

The study draws data from the national longitudinal quasi-experimental design (QED) evaluation 

of AmeriCorps NCCC. The QED identified comparable individuals drawn from the pool of 

accepted applicants who declined to serve and a treatment group of accepted applicants who 

served and completed their term of service with AmeriCorps NCCC. The survey administration 

timeline is the same for members and comparison participants. All participants completed the 

same questionnaire at three time points. The impact of service on leadership skills is assessed by 

comparing leadership outcomes of members (treatment group) to the outcomes of comparison 

participants who are observationally equivalent to members (comparison group). In addition to 

survey responses, we coded emerging themes from interviews and focus groups with a sample of 

members, team leaders, NCCC staff, sponsors, and FEMA points of contact. Of the 2,241 

participants who enrolled in the study, 1,252 were AmeriCorps members and 989 were 

comparison participants. 

vi 
Leadership Through Service: 

AmeriCorps NCCC’s Impact on Members 

Members’ average age is 21 years old, about 50% are female, and 

56% identified as White. More than two-thirds are from low or 

average SES households. 

22% 

37% 

41% 

18 

19-21

 22 and older 

Age 

Male 

48% Female 

50% 

Non-Binary 

2% 

Gender 

Almost two-thirds have a high school diploma/GED or some 

college. About one-third have at least a bachelor’s degree. 

1% 38% 2% 26% 33% 

Some high 

school 

High school 

degree or GED 

Technical 

school 

Some college or 

Associate 

degree 

Higher education 

degree 

55% 

26% 

9% 

5% 

4% 

1% 

1% 

Race & Ethnicity 

White 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 

Native American or Alaska Native 

Asian 

Multi-Race 

Black or African American 

Hispanic or Latino 

30% 

38% 

32% 

Low SES Average/Middle 

SES 

High SES 

Socio-Economic Status 

Produced and published at US taxpayer expense. 
AmeriCorps members are motivated to serve because they are 

altruistic, looking for the experience to travel and make friends, and 

they seek career and professional opportunities. 

Georges, A., Smith, S.J., Hussain, B., Shannon, R., Sum, C., Tait, E., LaTaillade, J., Alvarado, A., & Krauss, J. (2023). Leadership 

Through Service: AmeriCorps NCCC Impact’s on Members. San Mateo, CA: JBS International, Inc. 

Motivation to serve and demographic characteristics affect the 

likelihood of opting into service. 

Do Good 

Career 

Financial 

» 64% of members say making a difference, 

serving their country, and reducing social 

and economic inequality were very or 

quite important in their decision. 

» 3% of members say they want to serve 

because they need a job, need to pay off 

student loans, and want stable housing 

and benefits. 

» 43% of members say they want to serve 

to gain leadership and professional skills, 

network with professionals, and find a 

direction in their career. 

More likely to opt into service Less likely to opt into service 

Altruistic motivation 

Likely to vote in future election 

Identify as multi-race 

Financial motivation 

Motivated to travel and make 

new friends Has at least a bachelor’s 

degree 

Identify as Asian 

Identify as female or non-binary 

Has a physical or mental 

impairment 

Explore 

» 57% of members say they want to serve 

to meet people, make friends and travel 

the country. 
AmeriCorps members, through their service, experience personal 

benefits evidenced in strong leadership skills. 

Comparison 

group 

Life skills 

Professional skills 

Communication 

skills 

Collaborative 

practices 

Community 

problem-solving 

abilities 

Appreciation for 

varied 

perspectives 

Civic efficacy 

AmeriCorps 

members 

This is evident in members’ 

increasing confidence in their life 

skills, professional skills, 

communication skills, collaborative 

practices skills, community 

problem solving skills, and 

appreciation for varied 

perspectives. 

Facilitators to Skill Development 

» In-depth training & practice 

opportunities 

» Mentorship 

» Positive team leader experience 

» Clarity of purpose of service 

assignments 

» Team building 

Barriers to Skill Development 

» Insufficient training 

» Lack of support from sponsors or 

administration 

» Team conflicts 

» Disconnect between personal 

development and perceived 

impact of service assignment 

» Limited hands-on experiences 

Growth at the one 

year after service 

Decline at the one 

year after service 

Georges, A., Smith, S.J., Hussain, B., Shannon, R., Sum, C., Tait, E., LaTaillade, J., Alvarado, A., & Krauss, J. (2023). Leadership 

Through Service: AmeriCorps NCCC Impact’s on Members. San Mateo, CA: JBS International, Inc. 
Members’ project assignments foster leadership skills and 

professional development beyond the term of service 

Tangible benefits Intangible benefits Disaster aid benefits 

» Mental health care 

» Learning 

» Enhanced efficiency 

» Expanded services 

» Disaster preparation 

» Disaster recovery 

» Disaster prevention and 

mitigation 

» Life skills 

» Professional skills 

» Civic efficacy 

» Community problemsolving abilities 

» Collaborative practices 

» Communication skills 

» Access to food, water, 

health care 

» Physical infrastructure 

» Economic and financial 

benefits 

Lead to members’ increase confidence in 

» Provide comprehensive training, ongoing 

supervision, and mentorship. Training expands 

members’ members’ skills, and when combined with the 

opportunity to apply this training, it shapes them as 

leaders during and beyond their term of service. 

» Expose members to a range of projects. Satisfaction 

with the project assignment is a vital predictor of a 

successful volunteer experience. Participation in a wide 

range of projects increases the opportunities for members 

to apply and practice different leadership skills. 

» Ensure quality sponsorship with durable workloads. 

Members apply and gain leadership skills through the 

service projects. Clear communication and training from 

sponsors are vital in promoting leadership skills. To ensure 

satisfaction for both sponsors and members, there should 

be transparency in the expectations of the depth of 

training a sponsor can provide, as well as the teams can 

be expected to provide. 

Activities in service projects that yield these benefits 

Training combined with opportunities to apply skills through service 

helps members develop leadership and professional skills 

Georges, A., Smith, S.J., Hussain, B., Shannon, R., Sum, C., Tait, E., LaTaillade, J., Alvarado, A., & Krauss, J. (2023). Leadership 

Through Service: AmeriCorps NCCC Impact’s on Members. San Mateo, CA: JBS International, Inc. 
Background 

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

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

most pressing challenges. AmeriCorps has engaged and provided opportunities for more than 

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

programs – AmeriCorps State and National, AmeriCorps NCCC, AmeriCorps VISTA, and 

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

programs is embodied in AmeriCorps’ mission statement: To improve lives, strengthen 

communities, and foster civic engagement through service and volunteering. Operating under the 

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

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

national and community service. The Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE), as the principal 

office for research activity within AmeriCorps, relies on multiple sources of scientific inquiry to 

provide credible and reliable evidence to support the agency’s mission, drive the agency’s 

business decisions, allocate resources strategically, and grow effective national service programs. 

AmeriCorps NCCC and ORE embarked on a collaboration to evaluate how service in 

AmeriCorps NCCC promotes leaderships skills among its members and how the service projects 

strengthen the communities in which the members serve. This national evaluation is closely 

linked to AmeriCorps’ strategic plan developed by the agency in accordance with the 

Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (FEBP) of 2018, Pub. L. 115-435. The 

strategic plan provides the agency a roadmap for generating credible, relevant, and actionable 

information for strategic learning and decision-making to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness 

of AmeriCorps and its programs. 

In September 2018, AmeriCorps retained JBS International (JBS) to design a mixed-methods 

longitudinal evaluation consisting of three studies to (1) measure the impact of service on 

leadership skills among members; (2) define and gauge how AmeriCorps NCCC strengthens the 

communities in which its members serve; and (3) evaluate the factors affecting member 

retention. In January 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the data 

collection (OMB Control Number 3045-0189) for the three studies. 

The current study provides the evidence supporting AmeriCorps NCCC’s mission to develop 

leaders through team-based national and community service. AmeriCorps NCCC’s theory of 

change sets forth the core outcomes of leadership through service: 1) gain professional skills; 2) 

develop life skills; 3) teamwork; and 4) engagement in civic life. 

This report discusses the findings from the study measuring the impact of service on leadership 

skills among members. Two accompanying reports discuss the findings on member retention and 

the impact of the service projects on strengthening the communities in which the members 

serve 1 . AmeriCorps NCCC is a full-time, residential, team-based program for young adults aged 

18-26. At the time of the study’s implementation, AmeriCorps NCCC maintained two programs, 

Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps. In Traditional Corps members’ service assignments include 

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

Evidence of AmeriCorps NCCC in Strengthening Communities. San Mateo, CA: JBS International, Inc.; 

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

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

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

1 
leading youth development activities; constructing and rehabilitating low-income housing; 

helping communities develop emergency plans and respond to emergencies such as flood, 

hurricanes, and public health emergencies such as COVID-19; performing environmental cleanup; constructing and rehabilitating low-income housing; coordinating volunteers; and addressing 

other local needs. FEMA Corps is a partnership with the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) where members gain professional skills in emergency management while 

serving with FEMA on disaster response and recovery efforts. FEMA Corps works solely on 

emergency management and long-term recovery activities within FEMA, helping coordinate 

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

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

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

The current study accomplishes two primary objectives: 

1. Estimate whether and how service impacts members’ leadership skills.

2. Examine the association between service project assignments and members' leadership 

skills. 

Organization of the report 

This report is organized into 6 chapters. Chapter 1 summarizes the literature on how national 

service fosters leadership skills; this chapter also identifies the evidence gap in the literature to 

which this evaluation contributes. Chapter 2 summarizes AmeriCorps NCCC’s theory of change

to develop and strengthen members’ leadership skills through the service term and beyond. 

Chapter 3 describes the research design, including the analysis approach, data sources and 

measures of leadership. Chapter 4 presents the results on the first objective to estimate the impact 

of service on members’ leadership skills; and chapter 5 presents the results on the second 

objective to examine the association between service project assignments and members’

leadership skills. Chapter 6 summarizes the findings. 

Chapter 1 Developing Leadership Skills through Service 

The existing literature defines leadership as a process of expanding the capacity of individuals to 

assume leadership roles and engage in the leadership process (Houghton & DiLiello, 2010). 

Leadership is not a fixed trait; it is a complex set of competencies that can be cultivated through 

appropriate interventions (Karagianni & Montgomery, 2018). While the theories on how to 

cultivate and engage in developing leadership skills among young adults have not been wellresearched, the extant research indicates that community service can be an effective intervention 

to develop leadership competencies. The two implications of the existing research on leadership 

are: (1) leadership can be learned and cultivated through practice, and (2) young adults need 

opportunities to learn and practice leadership. We summarize the existing evidence on the four 

leadership skills at the core of AmeriCorps NCCC’s mission: professional skills, life skills, 

teamwork, and civic engagement. The evidence on how young adults develop each of these 

leadership skills is uneven, with more research around civic engagement and relatively less 

around the impact of service on professional skills, life skills, and teamwork. 

The studies on professional skills suggest that experience in national service enhances members’

employment aptitude, particularly in basic work skills (Friedman et al., 2016; Jastrzab et al., 

2004), with weaker evidence to suggest that national service may impact participants’ 

2 
employment, employability, and career goals. Some studies describe factors that enhance the 

connection between national service and professional skill development, such as the opportunity 

to explore new career paths, member attitudes, and participation in hands-on work (Epstein 

2009). The research on life skills outcomes among national service participants is also limited. 

The evidence from this research suggests that national service may have positive effects on the 

development of certain life skills, such as problem-solving and social and emotional intelligence 

(Mattero, 2009; Yerace, 2017). Some evidence also suggests that participation in service learning 

and national service can have a positive effect on members’ self-efficacy (Friedman et al., 2016). 

Further, there is evidence that experiential learning and mentorship contribute to life skills 

(Yerace, 2017). 

Several studies demonstrate that national service with AmeriCorps in general--and AmeriCorps 

NCCC service specifically--encourage civic engagement, including among those who entered 

national service without high levels of civic engagement (JBS International, 2015; Metz & 

Youniss, 2005). The evidence suggests a positive effect of national service on several forms of 

civic engagement, such as volunteer engagement and political engagement (CIRCLE, 2013; 

Epstein, 2009; Markovitz et al., 2008). 

Analysis conducted by Stafford, Boyd, and Lindner (2003) did not find significant impacts of 

service on youths’ effective team skills, and a study by Jastrzab et al. (2004) found a statistically 

significant negative effect on appreciation of cultural and ethnic diversity among members 

serving in AmeriCorps NCCC. The authors hypothesized this may have been due to short-term 

disillusionment with the concept of working in diverse groups and living and working in close 

proximity to their teammates, which may lead to interpersonal conflicts (Jastrzab et al., 2004). In 

a follow-up analysis with the same participants, Frumkin et al. (2009) found the statistically 

negative effect disappeared, which suggests that members’ perceptions of diversity change over 

time. Epstein (2009) also found that members who reported living or serving in a community 

culturally different from where they grew up had decreased scores in team behavior. 

One member quoted in Epstein (2009) described the challenges of communication with team 

members and how the AmeriCorps experience provided an opportunity to work on 

communication skills. Gifted team leaders were seen as critical to successful programs, and some 

members expressed appreciation for team-building activities (Epstein, 2009). In Epstein’s study, 

AmeriCorps members described the benefit of being placed into team-based settings with those 

who differed from themselves and having to learn how to work together; despite the negative 

findings related to appreciation for diversity as noted above in prior studies, these qualitative 

findings suggest that some members may find benefits to the diverse teams they work with in 

addition to the associated challenges (Epstein, 2009). In general, however, there is a need for 

substantial research into factors that may either enhance teamwork among AmeriCorps members 

or negatively affect appreciation of cultural and ethnic diversity among members. 

A study conducted by Hudson-Flege (2018) suggests that while interpersonal challenges during 

the year of service may limit members’ short-term growth in positive group behavior and 

appreciation of diversity, these challenging experiences might also facilitate long-term 

development in these areas relative to comparison group members. Post service, members 

experience significant changes in “constructive personal behavior in groups” and “appreciation 

for ethnic and cultural diversity.” Consequently, challenging experiences might also facilitate 

3 
long-term development in these areas relative to comparison group members (Hudson-Flege, 

2018). 

In summary, the research suggests there is a positive impact of national service experience on 

professional skills such as employment aptitude, employment outcomes, employability and 

career goals, and civic engagement. Despite these positive findings, there are some areas of 

leadership process among national service participants that merit further research. For example, 

Jastrzab et al.’s (2004) findings of a significant negative impact among members’ appreciation of 

cultural and ethnic diversity warrants a better understanding of the reasons behind this finding 

and their long-term implications on leadership skills. Appreciation of cultural and ethnic 

diversity and their long-term implications are areas of leadership that require more in-depth 

analysis. The dearth of evidence on the impact of service on life skills, teamwork, and certain 

aspects of professional skill development also merit further exploration. Furthermore, for many 

other aspects of leadership development, studies have focused on short-term outcomes around 

knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Few studies have examined the impact of service on life skills, 

teamwork, and professional development. 

Chapter 2 AmeriCorps NCCC’s Theory of Change and Logic Model 

AmeriCorps NCCC is a full-time, residential, team-based program with a dual purpose of 

supporting and developing leadership skills for those who serve and strengthening the 

communities where members serve. The program engages young adults aged 18-26 in structured 

training and service activities designed to enhance personal development, promote professional 

development, and foster leadership skills that shape its members for a lifetime. It combines 

practices of civilian service with aspects of military service, which includes short-term on-site 

deployments, leadership development and team building. During the term of service, 

AmeriCorps members receive training in leadership, team building, disaster services, and civic 

engagement. 

At the time of the study’s implementation, AmeriCorps NCCC maintained two programs: 

Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps. In Traditional Corps, AmeriCorps members perform 

service projects in one or more focus areas, such as helping communities develop emergency 

plans and respond to emergencies, constructing and rehabilitating low-income housing, 

performing environmental clean-up, coordinating volunteers, and addressing other local needs. 

FEMA Corps is a partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) where 

members gain professional skills in emergency management while serving with FEMA on 

disaster response and recovery efforts. FEMA Corps works solely on emergency management 

and long-term recovery activities within FEMA, helping coordinate services for disaster 

survivors. FEMA Corps projects may involve indirect assignments in the FEMA offices that 

support FEMA’s overall mission or direct assignments in disaster sites, such as helping survivors 

in remote regions sign up for Disaster Survivor Assistance. 

For both Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps, AmeriCorps members are assigned to one of four 

regional campuses and placed into teams of approximately 8 to 12 members. Teams perform a 

variety of projects throughout their term of service and engage in a minimum of three different 

projects. The projects often last six to eight weeks and support local community needs in every 

contiguous state, Alaska, Hawai’i, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. Territories. 

4 
There are two types of assignments at each regional campus: team leaders or members. In 

Traditional Corps, team leaders and members serve for 10 months (FEMA Corps serve for 12 

months 2) on teams of 8 to 12 members. Team leaders are enrolled through a separate selection 

process. Team leaders are over the age of 18, with no upper age limit, and have demonstrated a 

strong interest in and commitment to national service. Team leaders are responsible for team 

performance in fulfilling the AmeriCorps NCCC mission. Members may take on the role of 

assistant team leader, or one of five other specialty roles within a team. However, the assistant 

team leader role is not consistent within or across campus, and there is no specific training 

provided to assistant team leaders. 

AmeriCorps members and team leaders live in dormitory-like and barracks-like facilities when 

based at the NCCC campus. Teams eat, live, serve, and travel together to project sites. Some 

projects may require a team to temporarily establish a base of operation in another community 

away from the campus; and these projects can be in a wide variety of settings from remote rural 

areas to the inner city. Campuses may also have projects that are in the same community where 

the NCCC campus is based. 

Figure 2.1 shows the geographic distributions of AmeriCorps NCCC service projects from 2012-

2022. Each dot on the map represents the site location where a team was deployed at least once 

and completed a service project between 2012-2022. There were 6,753 completed service 

projects between 2012-2022. AmeriCorps NCCC served multiple geographic locations in each 

contiguous state, Alaska, Hawai’i, Puerto Rico, and other U.S. Territories, with 29 percent taking 

place in the Southern region, 28 percent in the Pacific region, 24 percent in the North Central 

region, and 19 percent in the Southwest region. 

2 During the course of this study, FEMA Corps adjusted their term of service to 10-months. 

5 
Figure 2.1: Communities affected by AmeriCorps NCCC service, 2012-2022 

6 
Sponsors are typically non-profit organizations that apply for support in a specifically designed 

project that can benefit from the addition of a team. Sponsors provide in-kind resources, assist 

teams in obtaining housing, and meet basic needs during their service. Sponsors supervise the 

team during their service projects. Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of the type of organizations 

that have sponsored AmeriCorps NCCC teams since 2012. Over this period, some sponsors may 

have had recurring teams while others may have sponsored only one team during that period. 

More than half (53%) of sponsors are non-profit organizations. This includes both larger national 

non-profits and smaller local non-profit organizations. Over a quarter (29%) are projects 

sponsored by the Federal government, including FEMA Corps. A smaller percentage of sponsors 

were either the state government or local county/municipal government each at 7 percent. 

Figure 2.2: Types of sponsoring organizations, 2012-2022 

Community beneficiaries of service projects are wide-ranging and include, for example, disaster 

survivors, older adults, people with disabilities, and people in low-income communities facing 

housing or food insecurity. 

Chapter 3 Research Design 

The primary objective is to measure whether and how service impacts members’ leadership

skills. The following research questions guided the evaluation: 

1. Does service impact members’ leadership skills (professional skills, life skills, 

teamwork, and civic engagement)? 

2. What is the growth trajectory of members’ leadership skills through service and 

beyond? 

3. How do members’ service project assignments contribute to their leadership skills? 

7 
This study draws from the national longitudinal quasi-experimental design (QED) evaluation of 

AmeriCorps NCCC. The QED identified comparable individuals from a pool of accepted 

applicants who declined to serve. The treatment group consists of accepted applicants who 

served and completed their term of service. The survey administration timeline is the same for 

members and comparison participants. All participants completed the same questionnaire at three 

time points. The service year for AmeriCorps NCCC is divided into three cycles; the Fall cycle 

begins in October, the Winter cycle in February, and the Summer cycle in July. Incoming 

members from February 2020 through March 2021 enrolled in the study. Comparison 

participants from the corresponding enrollment cycles during that same period enrolled in the 

study. 

The data collection began with the Winter cycle in February 2020. Enrollment into the study 

occurred as members reported to their campus for training and to begin their service. March 2020 

marks the official start of the public health emergency due to the coronavirus (COVID-19). As a 

result, AmeriCorps paused campus arrival of new members, which lasted through June 2020. 

The pause in arrival necessitated a concomitant pause in the baseline data collection. Data 

collection resumed once AmeriCorps began to bring members to the campuses. 

Although there was a pause to on-site arrival to campuses, members continued to serve their 

communities. Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps members pivoted to supporting local 

communities during the COVID-19 public health emergencies through projects such as food 

distribution, support at Covid vaccination sites (e.g., check-ins, screenings, traffic control), 

staffing Covid clinics (e.g., contact tracing, information distribution), PPE distribution, and 

support conducting non-clinical work at hospitals. Of the 1,401 projects completed from January 

2020 through August 2022, the latest month for which data are available, 194 (14%) percent 

were pandemic related disaster projects. In addition to AmeriCorps NCCC’s response to the 

COVID-19 public health emergency, during this period, teams completed 434 projects that had a 

disaster recovery outcome, which makes up 31 percent of the projects completed from 2020-

2022; 422 projects had a disaster prevention, preparedness, and mitigation outcome (30%), and 

274 projects had a disaster response outcome (20%). 

The pandemic did not alter AmeriCorps’ continued commitment to serve communities through 

disaster response and recovery. In fact, these types of projects constitute close to 50 percent of 

AmeriCorps NCCC projects. Despite the pandemic, there was no significant drop in the number 

of specific project outcomes. The proportion of disaster prevention, recovery, and response 

projects for the years 2020-2022 is consistent with the proportion of disaster projects in 2017-

2019. There was a large increase in the proportion of projects that had outcomes focused on 

community well-being (from 35% to 44%) as well as an increase in the proportion of projects 

that had outcomes focused on basic needs (from 23% to 37%), which may be attributed to the 

increase of COVID-19 projects. The pandemic impacted both the treatment and comparison 

group equally. The study’s response rate is very strong; a non-response bias analysis showed 

none to minimal bias (Appendix B). 

8 
Figure 3.1: Distribution of AmeriCorps NCCC service projects focused on disaster, 2017-2019 

Figure 3.2: Distribution of AmeriCorps service projects focused on disaster, 2020-2022 

9 
Participants 

The baseline survey was administered immediately prior to the start of service to each of 10 

AmeriCorps NCCC classes that began service between February 2020 and March 2021. The 

second survey was administered from October 2020 to March 2022, as these members completed 

their term of service (10 months for Traditional Corps, 12 months for FEMA Corps). The 

administration of the second survey began three to four weeks prior to members’ end of service 

term. The third survey was administered from November 2021 to April 2023, which is 12 

months post service. Concurrent with each survey administration with members, participants in 

the comparison group completed the same survey as members. Table 3.1 shows the number of 

participants for each wave of survey administration. Of the 1,252 AmeriCorps members who 

completed the baseline survey, 1,011 members completed their service term and responded to the 

second survey. Of those, 765 members completed the third survey. Of the 989 comparison 

participants who completed the baseline survey, 738 participants completed the second survey. 

Of those, 593 comparison participants completed the third survey. From the second survey to the 

third survey, the response rate is 76 percent for the treatment group, and 80 percent for the 

comparison group. Of the 1,252 participants in the treatment group at baseline, 344 exited early 

and did not complete their service term. A separate report analyzes the characteristics of exit 

early members 3 . 

Table 3.1: Survey response rate 

Total Contacted Respondents Response Rate 

Baseline 

survey 

AmeriCorps 

members 

1,617 1,252 77% 

Comparison 1,622 989 61% 

Second 

survey 

AmeriCorps 

members 

1,252 1,011 81% 

Comparison 989 738 75% 

Third survey 

AmeriCorps 

members 

1,011 765 76% 

Comparison 738 593 80% 

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

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

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

Smith, S.J., Alvarado, A., Shannon, R., Georges, A., Garcia-Cardenas, J., & Hussain, B. (2023). Profile of 

AmeriCorps NCCC Members That Do Not Remain in Service San Mateo, CA: JBS International, Inc. 

10 
During the enrollment period, FEMA enrolled two FEMA Corps classes consisting of 297 

FEMA Corps members, both in the Southern region. Table 3.2 shows the response rate for each 

survey for FEMA Corps members. The baseline response rate among FEMA Corps is 78 percent 

for the treatment group and 85% for the second survey. The third survey response rate for FEMA 

Corps treatment group members was 74%. 

Table 3.2: FEMA Corps survey response rate 

Total Contacted Respondents Response Rate 

Baseline 

survey 

AmeriCorps 

members 

297 232 78% 

Comparison 371 211 57% 

Second 

survey 

AmeriCorps 

members 

232 198 85% 

Comparison 211 149 71% 

Third survey 

AmeriCorps 

members 

198 147 74% 

Comparison 149 117 78% 

Non-Response Bias Analysis 

Non-response bias can occur when individuals who chose not to take part in the study or who 

dropped out of the study, are systematically different from those who participated fully. For each 

wave of the survey administration, a non-response bias analysis showed none to minimal bias. 

The non-response bias analysis determined that there were no significant systematic differences 

in characteristics between those who responded to the survey and those who did not respond, 

indicating that the sample is representative of the members that served during the data collection 

period. Appendix B provides a full list of the variables and a full description of the three nonresponse analyses for each survey administration. 

Qualitative data 

We conducted focus groups with a sample of members at the time of the second survey near the 

end of the service term. We also interviewed the same members who participated in the focus 

groups approximately two months following their service term. In addition, AmeriCorps NCCC 

regional staff participated in focus groups. We also contacted a sample of sponsors to interview 

them about their experience with their AmeriCorps NCCC teams. 

We sampled members for the focus groups and interviews from the baseline survey responses 

using a random sample stratified on gender, education, race/ethnicity, and prior volunteer 

11 
experience. Each campus provided a list of 10 to 12 sponsors and FEMA Corps points of contact 

(POC) who were willing to be interviewed about their experience with AmeriCorps NCCC 

teams. AmeriCorps NCCC staff from each region participated in focus groups to share their 

insights and experiences on their campus. 

We completed 41 focus groups with members, team leaders and staff. Two researchers 

conducted each focus group between October 2020 and June 2022. Each focus group lasted 

approximately 90 minutes. We completed 181 semi-structured interviews with members, team 

leaders, sponsors, and FEMA Corps POC. We completed the semi-structured interviews about 

two months following the end of the term of service with members and team leaders who 

participated in the focus groups. Two researchers conducted the interviews via video conference 

calls or telephone calls between November 2020 and June 2022. Each semi-structured interview 

lasted approximately 45 minutes. 

Member Characteristics. A separate report 4 describes members’ demographic characteristics, 

sources to learn about NCCC, motivations for serving, and perception of the experience prior to 

the start of their service. The same report describes members’ initial leadership skills as they 

began their service. It also compares Traditional Corps, FEMA Corps, and comparison 

participants. This section is a synopsis of the results described in the previous report 5 . 

Members’ average age is 21 years old. The comparison group skews slightly older with an 

average age of 22 years old. A higher proportion of members is female, which comprises 50 

percent of members and 67 percent of comparison participants. More than half of members 

identified as White (56% compared to 48% among comparison participants). The next largest 

group is members who identified as Hispanic or Latino (26% compared to 28% of comparison 

participants), followed by Black or African American (9% compared to 13% among comparison 

participants). The race and ethnic distribution of the treatment and comparison group participants 

reflects the U.S. population for this age group. However, White, and Hispanic or Latino 

members are over-represented in the treatment group; Black or African American, and Asian are 

under-represented in the treatment group. 

For efficiency, since 90 percent of participants identify as White, Hispanic or Latino, or Black or 

African American, Table 3.3 shows the interaction of education and race and ethnicity for these 

three groups. More than half (59%) of members have either achieved a high school diploma or 

GED (38%) or some college (21%). About one-third (32%) have a bachelor’s degree. Among 

members who identified as White, 40 percent have completed a bachelor’s degree; one third of

Hispanic and Latino members and one quarter (26%) of Black or African American have 

completed a bachelor’s degree. Among Black or African American members, nearly half (43%) 

have completed high school or obtained a GED (43%). 

4 Georges, A., Smith, S.J., & Fung, W. (2021). Profile of AmeriCorps NCCC Members at the Start of Service. San 

Mateo, CA: JBS International, Inc. 

5 Ibid. 

12 
Table 3.3: Highest level of education completed 

Level of Education Completed Overall 

Sample 

White Hispanic or 

Latino 

Black or African 

American 

Middle school 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Some high school, I do not have a 

diploma 

1% 1% 1% 1% 

High school diploma or GED 38% 32% 34% 43% 

Technical school / Apprenticeship 

certificate 

2% 1% 2% 7% 

Some college 21% 19% 23% 16% 

Associate degree 5% 5% 6% 6% 

Bachelor's degree 32% 40% 33% 26% 

Graduate degree 1% 2% 1% 1% 

The socio-economic status (SES) construct is derived from a factor analysis using the 

participants’ household structure, parent employment status, and parent education. The SES 

score is then divided to a scale from 1 to 3, where a score of ‘1’ indicates low socio-economic 

status, a score of ‘2’ indicates medium socio-economic status, and a score of ‘3’ indicates high 

socio-economic status. Factors that contribute to a lower SES score include if no parent or 

guardian in the household is employed, if no parent or guardian has at least a college degree, or if 

a participant lives in a single parent household or no parent household. While factors that 

contribute to a higher SES score include if all parents/guardians in the household are employed, 

if all parents/guardians have a college degree, or if the participant comes from a two biological 

parent household. Appendix C describes the development of the SES construct. 

For the overall sample, 30 percent are low SES, 38 percent are average SES, and 32 percent are 

high SES. Members who identified as Black or African American or Hispanic or Latino are overrepresented in the low SES category and under-represented in the high SES. Members who 

identified as White are under-represented in the low SES and over-represented in the average and 

high SES (Table 3.4). 

Table 3.4: Distribution of AmeriCorps members socio-economic status by race and ethnicity 

SES Score Overall Sample White Hispanic or Latino Black or 

African 

American 

1 – Low SES 30% 21% 39% 60% 

2 – Average/Middle SES 38% 41% 34% 33% 

3 – High SES 32% 38% 27% 7% 

Among members who identified as White, 21 percent are in the low SES category and 38 percent 

are in the high SES category. Among members who identified as Black or African American, 60 

percent are in the low SES category and 7 percent are in the high SES category. Among 

13 
members who identified as Hispanic or Latino, 39 percent are in the low SES category and 27 

percent are in the high SES category. 

Differences in Characteristics Between Traditional Corps & FEMA Corps 

Of the 1,252 participants in the treatment group, 81 percent began their service in Traditional 

Corps and 19 percent in FEMA Corps. The characteristics of both groups were similar, with the 

following notable differences in age, gender, education, and employment activity: 

• FEMA Corps members were older, with an average age of 22 compared to 21 for 

Traditional Corps members. 

• A higher percentage of FEMA Corps members identified as male, at 52 percent, 

compared to 47 percent for Traditional Corps members. 

• A higher percentage of FEMA Corps members completed an associate degree or a 

bachelor’s degree, at 41 percent, compared to 36 percent for Traditional Corps. 

• A higher percentage of FEMA Corps members were motivated to serve to find a new 

career direction, at 81 percent, compared to 71 percent for Traditional Corps members. 

• A higher percentage of FEMA Corps members believe they get to work in an office 

doing administrative duties, at 42 percent, compared to 5 percent for Traditional Corps 

members. 

• The average SES is higher for Traditional Corps members (2.04) than FEMA Corps 

members (1.92). A higher proportion of FEMA Corps members have an SES indicator of 

‘1,’ at 35 percent, compared to Traditional Corps members at 29 percent. 

Differences in Characteristics between Members and Comparison Participants 

The matched QED design identified the comparison participants from a pool of accepted 

applicants who declined to serve. To estimate the causal impact of service in a QED design, 

comparison participants should be as similar as possible to members in terms of background 

characteristics and other relevant observable measures that could affect the likelihood of service 

as well as leadership skills. Overall, comparison participants were older, had a higher level of 

education, and were more likely to be employed. 

• More than half (62%) of comparison participants were at least 22-years old compared to 

42 percent of members. 

• A higher proportion of the comparison participants identified as female, at 67 percent, 

compared to 50 percent of members. 

• A higher percentage of comparison participants identified as Black or African American 

(13%), Asian (5%), and Hispanic or Latino (28%) compared to members who identified 

as Black or African American (9%), Asian (4%), and Hispanic or Latino (26%). 

• A higher percentage of comparison participants completed a bachelor’s degree, at 55 

percent, compared to 32 percent for members. 

• A higher percentage of comparison participants were attending college prior to what 

would have been the start of their service (41% compared to 35% for members). 

• Comparison participants have a slightly lower average SES score, at 1.97, compared to a 

2.04 for members. 

14 
 

Given those differences between members and comparison participants, prior to the analysis that 

examines the impact of service on leadership, we identified a matched sample of members and 

comparison participants using propensity score. The propensity score is based on a regression 

model that controlled for participants' characteristics to match members to comparison 

participants using nearest neighbor matching. The regression model uses the matched sample and 

controls for baseline leadership score, and demographic characteristics. 

Motivation to apply and serve. Consistent with prior studies, there is not just a single reason for 

wanting to serve, members decide to serve for more than one reason. Members who serve with 

AmeriCorps NCCC are both altruistic, and they desire to explore through travel and make 

friends, as well as seeking career and professional opportunities. Drawing on the literature of 

motivation for volunteering, the survey included 24 statements that members rated on a scale of 

“Not Relevant” to “Very Relevant.” The 

comparison participants were asked Figure 3.3: Types of motivation to serve members 

how important these same 24 statements (treatment) and comparison group 

were in their decision to apply to 

serve. The survey included an openended option where members could 

describe their motivation in their own 

words. We coded the open-ended 

responses to determine overlap and 

redundancy with the initial 

statements. We analyzed the pattern 

of responses of members’ motivation 

to serve using a principal component 

analysis (PCA) technique, which 

allows for a meaningful interpretation 

of all the data by reducing the list of 

24 items to a few linear combinations 

of the data. Each linear combination 

corresponds to a principal 

component. Appendix D describes 

the PCA analysis and provides a 

complete list of the original survey 

items. The first seven principal 

components explained 52 percent of 

the variance. Based on the results 

from the PCA, we determined there 

are seven types of motivation to serve 

among members. We then used factor 

analysis, a data reduction method, to 

interpret the seven types of 

motivation, as shown in Figure 3.36 . 

6 One statement ‘I want to take a break while enrolled in college’ did not unto any of the six factor loadings, 

suggesting that none of the members dropped out of college to serve with AmeriCorps NCCC. 

15 
There are three primary types of motivators. The statements members frequently chose as ‘very 

important’ or ‘quite important’ in their decision show they are altruistic, seek opportunities to 

explore by traveling and making new friends, and career opportunities. Almost two thirds (62%) 

of members are altruistic, and more than half are looking for opportunities to travel and make 

new friends. Less than half (43%) are motivated for reasons related to professional and 

leadership opportunities. Few members have a financial reason for serving (3%), seeking 

experience to serve in another program (2%), external factors that affected their decision (1%), 

and taking a break from school (0.01%). As noted, the comparison participants were asked about 

their motivation to apply to serve. Like members, comparison participants were altruistic (54%), 

sought opportunities to explore (45%), wanted to develop career opportunities (47%) and had 

financial reasons (9%). The comparison participants differ from members in that a higher 

proportion of them had financial reasons for applying to serve, and a higher proportion of them 

were motivated to apply due to a gap year. 

Reasons comparison participants opt out of service. The survey included a question that asked 

comparison participants their reason for declining to serve. The question included a list of 

response options based on prior studies as well as an open-ended option for respondents to 

provide details on reasons not listed or to expand on their response option. Participants may have 

more than one reason for opting out of service. Table 3.5 lists the percentage of comparison 

participants who responded ‘yes’ to each statement. Almost two-thirds (64%) found a job and 

started working. This is followed by 48 percent who thought they would not be earning enough 

money as a member, “I didn't join NCCC because I needed to save up money for a vehicle and 

also I wouldn't be earning much.” and 36 percent who stated they were going back to school, “I 

decided to go back to school instead of taking another gap year.”

More than one-third (36%) of comparison participants described their reasons for declining to 

serve. Out of the 201 write-in responses, 35 (17%) referenced COVID-19 as something that 

impacted their decision to not serve, mainly because they were not satisfied with the safety 

protocols AmeriCorps NCCC put in place, “I was concerned that I would be exposed to COVID19 during my service year,” or they needed to stay close to their family and friends during the 

pandemic, “My mother owns and runs a small business. I'm going to work part-time and up to 

full-time at her office until things stabilize. I would have loved to participate in NCCC, but 

because of the pandemic situation, I'm really needed here.”

16 
Table 3.5: Reasons comparison participants declined to serve 

Reason declined to serve Percentage that 

said ‘yes’

I found a job / I am working 64% 

I will not be earning enough money as a NCCC member 48% 

I am going back to school 36% 

There were other reasons I decided not to join NCCC 30% 

I am going to serve with another AmeriCorps program 27% 

I need to care for a family member or close friend 12% 

NCCC has too much structure / too strict 11% 

I have difficulty doing some activities because of a physical, mental, or 

emotional condition 

10% 

I am concerned about my ability to do some of the physical activities 9% 

I am going to serve with Peace Corps 3% 

I am joining the military 1% 

Sample size: 989 

A small proportion of comparison participants expressed concerns about the relocation process 

and costs, as eight respondents (4%) indicated that relocating to another state is financially 

difficult. The perception of the health insurance AmeriCorps NCCC provided was a factor for a 

minority of participants as well (N = 4; 2%). 

Factors contributing to the likelihood to serve. We estimated a multi-level regression model to 

investigate which factors are associated with the likelihood of opting into service upon 

acceptance. The model controlled for SES, age, education, race and ethnicity (e.g., Asian, Black 

or African American, Hispanic or Latino, White), gender, physical or mental impairment, prior 

volunteer experience, likelihood of voting in future elections, and motivation to serve; we 

considered the top three types of motivations: 1) altruistic, 2) network/travel and 3) selfdevelopment and career. 

Figure 3.4 displays the odds ratio from the regression estimates that are statistically significant. 

Appendix E presents the full results from the regression model. The model indicates that 

motivation, gender, race and ethnicity, having a college degree, and a physical or mental 

impairment are significantly associated with the odds of opting into service. All else equal, 

female and non-binary applicants have s significantly lower odds of opting into service. 

Applicants who identify as Asian have a significantly lower odds of opting into service, whereas 

applicants who identify as multi-race have significantly higher odds of opting into service. Once 

other factors are accounted for, the likelihood of opting into service for applicants who identify 

as Black or African American, and Hispanic or Latino are not significantly different than that of 

applicants who identify as White. 

Motivation influences the decision to serve. Applicants who are altruistic or seek opportunities to 

travel and make friends have significantly higher odds of opting into service, whereas financial 

reasons for applying (e.g., want to earn money/needed to get a job, earn money to pay off student 

or for future college tuition, want stable housing and other benefits) significantly reduces the 

odds of opting into service. 

17 
Figure 3.4: Factors contributing to the odds of opting into service 

Note: The chart illustrates odds ratio with statistically significant regression estimates. Appendix E presents the full 

results from the regression model 

18 
Chapter 4 Impact of Service on Leadership Skills 

This chapter discusses the findings for the following research questions: 

1. Does service impact members’ leadership skills (professional skills, life skills, 

teamwork, and civic engagement)? 

2. What is the growth trajectory of members’ leadership skills through service and 

beyond? 

A latent growth curve analysis (LGCA) model estimates the causal impacts of service with 

AmeriCorps NCCC using data from the three time periods (baseline, first-follow up, and second 

follow up). The model uses a matched sample of members and comparison participants using 

propensity score. The propensity score is based on a regression model that controlled for 

participant’s characteristics, then members and comparison participants are matched on their 

propensity score using nearest neighbor. LGCA measures change and determines the group’s 

growth trajectory. The LGCA model measures the growth trajectory in leadership skills from 

baseline through one year post service among members compared to comparison participants, 

controlling for gender, race and ethnicity, SES, age, and education level. We then use the 

regression results to estimate the average change of each leadership score at each time point. 

Appendix G describes the model and presents the full regression results. 

Measures of leadership. All three surveys included the same questions that measure leadership 

skills. A principal component analysis (PCA), a technique of dimensionality reduction, identified 

relevant scale items to create constructs of leadership. The survey included 50 Likert scale 

questions used to measure leadership skills. Each response is based on a scale of 1 (no 

confidence at all) to 5 (complete confidence). Appendix F describes the PCA analysis and 

provides a complete list of the original survey items. Based on the PCA results, seven types of 

leadership skills emerged. For each type, we computed an average composite score. A higher 

average score is interpreted to mean the respondent has greater confidence in that leadership 

skill. 

• Professional skills 

• Self-efficacy and life skills 

• Solve community problems 

• Communication skills 

• Collaborative practices 

• Appreciation for varied perspectives 

• Community and civic efficacy 

Professional Skills 

Professional skills consists of six statements that measure specific work-related abilities such as 

the respondent gathers and analyzes information, manages projects, and completes assigned 

tasks. Each statement is rated on a scale of ‘no confidence’ to ‘complete confidence.’ 

AmeriCorps members have a positive trajectory in their professional skills compared to those 

who had not served. At the start of service, comparison participants had higher levels of 

confidence in their professional skills than incoming members by an estimated 0.21 points. Over 

time, members have a faster growth trajectory, which reduced the gap between the two groups by 

19 
0.10 points each period (Figure 4.1). All else equal, the regression results indicate that 

AmeriCorps members are projected to maintain their growth trajectory and surpass comparison 

participants in professional skills by two years after completing service. 

Figure 4.1 AmeriCorps members closed the gap in professional skills: 

Members participate in service projects that offer many opportunities to develop and strengthen 

technical (e.g., professional certifications, construction skills) and soft skills (e.g., time 

management, networking) that align with strengthening professional skills. Consequently, 

members experience an increase in confidence. Focus groups and in-depth interviews with 

members, team leaders, sponsors, and staff revealed the different professional skills members 

acquired through the service experience, which include both technical skills and soft skills. The 

most common was construction-related skills, followed by skills related to the use of computers, 

technology, and specific software platforms. As one member explained, 

“I’m able to work lots of machinery now. I have confidence in things like forklifts and things like

that, which I never would have imagined. I’m able to work most tools. Beforehand I didn’t really 

know much about even like the difference between a screw and a nail!”

Another common technical skill area where members gained through their service experiences 

was environmentally focused skills, such as trail building and being trained to use different tools. 

Additionally, members gained “soft” skills and experiences related to their own career 

development, including resume writing, networking, interviewing, and gaining insights into 

various career types. A team leader explained, 

“Just getting to meet so many different people in their fields and seeing how they interact and 

how they move through their jobs and their careers – it was really helpful. I’ve gotten to see a lot

of different environments and what it looks like to be a professional in many different fields.”

20 
In the post service survey, 93 percent of members agreed that service helped them gain 

professional skills and helped build their resumes, and 65 percent of members agreed that service 

helped them understand the next steps needed for their career and professional goals. 

Self-Efficacy and Life Skills 

Self-efficacy and life skills measure how strongly participants agreed or disagreed (1= strongly 

disagree, 5 = strongly agree) with seven statements broadly covering the ability to deal with 

problems and overcome unexpected situations. Some of the statements reflect perceived ability 

to exert control over own behavior and environment. 

Prior to service, AmeriCorps members had an average self-efficacy and life skills score that was 

lower than comparison participants. Figure 4.2 shows a faster growth trajectory for AmeriCorps 

members across the three time periods. By one year post service, AmeriCorps members felt 

strongly about their coping abilities to handle unforeseen situations; by contrast, the expected 

self-efficacy and life skills score remained essentially flat among comparison participants. 

Figure 4.2: AmeriCorps members closed the self-efficacy and life skills gap 

AmeriCorps members have an expected increase of 0.036 points each period. Although 

comparison participants started off more confident, they lost confidence in their self-efficacy 

over time. The comparison participants have a slower growth rate of 0.04 points than members, 

meaning the gap between the two groups is reduced by 0.04 points each period. At one year post 

service, members have higher average life skills scores than their counterparts. 

In interviews and focus groups, members described examples such as interpersonal relationship 

building, personal growth, resilience and adaptability, and time management. In those 

conversations, members frequently reflected on how their service affected their personal growth, 

such as humility, self-awareness, and courage. One member explained, 

“Learning that I don’t have to be right in every scenario.” Another shared, “I definitely learned 

how to be a more assertive individual.” Finally, another member said, “I was able to better cope

21 
with my anxieties. I was able to try and adapt when something wouldn’t go my way or the

schedule would change or something bad would happen.”

They also reflected on how they created and maintained interpersonal relationships and felt more 

resilient and adaptable due to the service experience. As one member shared, 

“Being adaptable and having a growth mindset – I learned in NCCC and will apply in the 

future,” and another shared, “I’m way more confident in my ability to act in resiliency and be

super flexible and super adaptable.”

Members’ responses to survey questions reflect increased confidence in the ability to endure 

difficult situations. From the survey responses, 75 percent of members agreed they did things 

they never thought they could do. Members reported more confidence in their overall leadership 

abilities, with 85 percent of members agreeing that service helped them improve their leadership 

skills. Some life skills members acquired included time management and personal responsibility; 

conflict resolution; budgeting; setting boundaries; patience; skills related to cooking and 

nutrition; and home maintenance. Additionally, 75 percent of members agreed service helped 

them to further understand their own personal goals. 

Ability to Solve Community Problems 

The response scale for the eight statements that comprise solving community problem ranges 

from 1 (‘I definitely could not do this’) to 5 (‘I definitely could do this’). Some examples of 

these statements are organizing and running a meeting, expressing views in front of a group of 

people, and contacting people to get their help. 

AmeriCorps members’ confidence in their ability to solve community problems increased during 

the term of service by 0.018 points at each time period (Figure 4.3). The increase in average 

score is due to a greater proportion of members responding to more statements that they could 

‘definitely’ solve community problems.

Figure 4.3: AmeriCorps members gained skills in solving community problems 

22 
The estimated baseline score was 0.12 points higher for comparison participants, but they had a 

slower growth trajectory of 0.021 points per period relative to members. The gap between 

members and comparison participants shrank by 0.04 points each period; however, the gap 

remained. 

During interviews and focus groups, members and staff described how service is relevant to 

problem solving abilities. Members had the opportunity to practice problem solving skills by 

leading volunteers and managing other members. This was especially true for team leaders but 

was also described as a benefit for other members, including members who assumed the role of 

assistant team leaders. Respondents described exercising patience and empathy and learning to 

earn respect from those they managed. 

The qualitative interview data revealed that members acquired skills in conflict resolution, 

persuasion and influence, and strategic thinking, as well as stating, 

“I feel just really confident in my ability to manage conflicts, to listen to other people, and to 

kind of advocate for people.” 

Another explained skills acquired in motivating team members: “understanding people, what 

makes them tick, how to get them motivated, how to get them to do what you need them to do.”

The conversations revealed that members applied their leadership skills rather than simply 

learning about them in a training or classroom setting. As one staff member explained, 

“Other ways that members can gain leadership is directly on their project sites, whether that’s 

leading their teammates on something that they’re more familiar with or something that they

picked up quickly because the site supervisor can’t lead everyone and everything, or whether it’s 

leading a group of volunteers that showed up for the day.”

Communication Skills 

Communication skills touch upon communication style, listening abilities, and skills in conflict 

resolution through dialogue. There were six statements rated on a scale of how much they agree 

or disagree (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Members self-reported responses lagged 

behind comparison group participants in communication skills (Figure 4.4). At the end of 

service, however, both groups’ average scores decreased, with members reporting a lower 

average score below that of the comparison group. The interviews and focus groups provide 

insights to unfamiliar challenging situations that members faced during service that may have 

required developing, adjusting to, and learning different communication strategies. An additional 

context is that members who were in service in the early phase of the pandemic served when 

most or all communication channels shifted to virtual modes. These changes may have 

exacerbated communication challenges to complete project assignments. Comparison 

participants have a slower growth trajectory in communication skills whereas members have a 

faster growth trajectory (Figure 5.4). Despite losing ground during service, the trajectory shows 

members gained confidence showing a faster growth trajectory in their perceived communication 

skills within a year post service. 

23 
Figure 4.4: AmeriCorps members were less confident in their ability to communicate but gained 

confidence within one year post service 

In the interview and focus group discussions, members described multiple facets of 

communication with internal organizations, the sponsors and sponsor organizations, and fellow 

teammates. Members perceived the communication structures and hierarchies within 

AmeriCorps as unclear or overly complicated, as illustrated by this quote from a member: 

“To get the information for the next person in the chain of command, you had to get it from the

person before them....To get our unit leader’s information to complain about our team leader, 

we’d ask our team leader for it.”

Members sometimes faced challenging interpersonal communication, often as a result of 

personal conflict due to differing communication styles. A member reported, 

“Some people don’t like it being directly approached. And I’m a very direct person. And so, um, 

I wish I kind of understood how they worked better without feeling I was fighting to get to know 

them the entire year. So, yeah, I guess just having more ways of communication under my belt I 

feel like in this program would have been nice.”

Additionally, members described the lack of clear communication when dealing with internal 

and external organizations, such as interactions between unit leaders (internally) and interactions 

between AmeriCorps and sponsoring organizations (externally). 

Collaborative Practices 

Collaboration is an important skill in the workplace and socially. The collaboration measure is 

based on seven statements on abilities to work with people from different backgrounds and 

diverse viewpoints, with an emphasis on encouraging different viewpoints and participation of 

all people. The response to each statement is on a scale of one to five (where 1 = strongly 

disagree, and 5 = strongly agree). Figure 4.5 shows members and comparison participants started 

with similar average scores in collaborative practices. At the end of service, both groups had a 

slow growth trajectory, with members experiencing a much slower growth than comparison 

24 
 

participants. Post service, members demonstrated a faster growth trajectory relative to 

comparison participants, with an expected increase of 0.124 points per period. 

Figure 4.5: AmeriCorps members perceived they were less confident in their ability to collaborate, but 

closed the gap within one year post service 

The data from the focus groups and interviews provide some insights into the factors that may 

have affected the slower pace of change in perceived confidence to collaborate. This allowed for 

a more nuanced look into the attitudes and behaviors of members when put into group situations. 

The focus group conversations revealed examples of members describing issues that arose as a 

byproduct of living in a team environment, such as feelings of having no work/life separation, 

personal conflict, issues with sharing space with others, and feelings of disconnect from fellow 

members. Most prevalent among these was the feeling that the separation between their work 

and personal lives was nonexistent, leaving respondents feeling this was a detriment to the 

program. One member explained, 

“...it’s not like you’re saying hello to your team in the morning and then goodbye to them after 

5:00. You’re living with them. And their problems are now your problems. Whether they know

they have a problem or not, it is now your problem. And so, it’s not for everybody.”

Members faced personal conflict while working and living in a team environment, including 

issues with detachment, unresolved team conflict, and team members not meshing. Additionally, 

respondents described personal space as a barrier encountered due to living in a team 

environment. One team leader discussed, 

“Some people aren’t built for traveling that often, especially when you have to live in a very like 

small amount of personal rooms, which just people aren’t that comfortable in. Some people like 

the creature comfort. I think also the whole team living, some people are very independent, and 

they don’t like all those rules and all those – the same people for 10 months just is not their 

thing.”

25 
Despite the reported issues of conflict in the team settings, 74 percent of members agreed that 

they felt accepted by their fellow teammates, and 61 percent of members felt valued by the 

people in their team. Figure 4.6 showcases different aspects of the team dynamics members 

faced. More than 60 percent of members reported that they often or very often discussed 

problems and shared ideas with their teams. It was also reported that most teams involved all 

members and were able to avoid favoritism; however, 15 percent of members surveyed stated 

that their teams rarely or never involved everyone. Additionally, 17 percent of members were on 

teams that rarely took time to work out conflicts. 

Figure 4.6: AmeriCorps NCCC team dynamics 

Sample size is 758 

Appreciation for Varied Perspectives 

The measure of appreciation for varied perspectives is similar to previous studies (Jastrzab et al., 

2004) and is based on responses to five statements on how often the individual engages in 

understanding other people’s ideas and opinions; encourages the participation of other people; 

encourages different points of view; and considers all points of view or possible options before 

forming an opinion or making a decision. This leadership skill complements communication 

skills and collaborative work practices skills. Prior to service, there were no differences between 

members and comparison participants, with both registering an average score of 4.30. At the end 

of the term of service, the average score for comparison participants increased slightly, while 

AmeriCorps members had a slower trajectory that widened the gap. Post service, members have 

a stronger growth trajectory relative to comparison participants. The stronger growth trajectory 

yields an increase in the frequency with which members reported engaging in activities that 

demonstrate appreciation of varied perspectives, closing the gap with comparison participants. 

26 
Figure 4.7: AmeriCorps members perceived they were less engaged in activities that demonstrate 

appreciation of varied perspectives during service, but gained confidence post service to close the gap 

During the term of service, members are exposed to different people. Almost all members agree 

(96%) that their service experience gave them the opportunity to interact with people who were 

different from them. One member highlighted, 

“I mean I grew up in, ha, a suburb in Alabama. So, I wasn’t around a lot of diversity. So, I was 

immersed in AmeriCorps. And everybody was super different from all over the country. And I’ve

been able to apply that at home a lot because I see things differently. I – AmeriCorps really 

opened my eyes to all the differences we have and how it works together, it coincides. Um, and 

I’ve been able to apply that in the workplace as well. And just realize like, living with so many

different people, um, you do need to watch your words and you do need to be mindful and 

respectful. And that’s also been a huge role in my life after AmeriCorps.”

Through their service, 89 percent of members agreed they were exposed to new ideas and ways 

of seeing the world, and 77 percent confirmed they re-examined their own beliefs and attitudes 

about other people. Living and serving in different communities can bring both positive and 

negative experiences in terms of diversity. One member recalled, 

“You know, it’s – and because unfortunately, for my team, thank goodness it wasn't within the 

team, but we did experience some very racist things going on throughout the year. Um, not our 

sponsors, but, uh, civilians that we were serving. And, you know, because of that, they said they 

wish they would have had better training in like how the team could help members who were 

attacked in that manner.”

The pattern in members’ appreciation for varied perspectives during and post service is 

supported by empirical evidence (Epstein, 2009; Frumkin et al., 2009; Hudson-Flege, 2018; 

Jastrzab et al., 2004;). As with prior studies, there may be short-term disillusionment with the 

concept of working in diverse groups due to living and working in close proximity to their 

teammates, which may result in interpersonal conflicts, which then restrains the ability for shortterm growth. Post service, these challenges may have facilitated long-term positive behavior and 

27 
engaging in activities that more frequently appreciate varied perspectives. Similar to the 

qualitative data Epstein (2009) analyzed, the themes that emerged from the focus groups and 

interviews with members suggest that the members find benefits to the diversity of their teams, 

despite the short-term challenges they experienced. 

Community and Civic Efficacy 

The community and civic efficacy measure is based on how strongly participants agreed or 

disagreed (1= strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) with five statements about whether they feel 

obligated to contribute to their communities, if they feel they can make a difference in their 

communities, and if they currently are or are planning to find the time to contribute to their 

communities in a positive manner. 

Prior to service, comparison participants indicated higher levels of community and civic efficacy 

than AmeriCorps members, an estimated 0.16 points higher. Both comparison participants and 

AmeriCorps members have a downward trajectory in community and civic efficacy. AmeriCorps 

members’ trajectory occurred at a slower rate than comparison participants. 

Figure 4.8: AmeriCorps members’ sense of community and civic efficacy decreased

Exploring members’ responses reveals how the service experience positively impacted 

community and civic efficacy. Overall, members demonstrated a deeper understanding of 

community engagement. Figure 4.9 shows that nearly 80 percent of members agreed that they reexamined their beliefs about community challenges and are able to recognize solutions to 

community challenges. 

28 
 

Figure 4.9: AmeriCorps members showed deep understanding of community challenges 

Sample size is 760 

As one member said, “It definitely taught me how to be more involved and basically to just come

up with solutions to problems that are in the community.” Another member said, “It taught me to 

think critically about the community and the status quo, and it’s helped me to have an even more

open mind....That taught me how to get involved with the community because once I got back

from AmeriCorps I started looking into volunteer organizations.”

Unlike life skills and professional skills, the focus group and interview questions did not 

explicitly ask members to discuss how they engage with their community post service. In the 

data, we found instances where members described the types of skills needed for community 

engagement. There are four areas in which members’ community and civic efficacy might have 

been affected by their service experience: general exposure to various types of and the 

importance of service; skills and awareness of volunteerism; awareness of political processes; 

and nonprofit management. One member explained, 

“We learned a little more about the specific nonprofit that we were working with and what they

do and what a community agency is. I’m interested in kind of the social work aspect of

community so being able to learn how the nonprofit world works a little bit....figuring out how

they maneuver those agencies, those skills were important.”

Comparability of Leadership Skills Between Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps 

Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps differ in the length of the term of service and the type of 

projects. FEMA Corps members’ assignments include emergency management and disaster 

response and recovery efforts. The sample size for the third survey consists of 617 members, of 

which 504 are Traditional Corps members, and 113 are FEMA Corps members. Sample sizes are 

proportional to the size of the two programs. We conducted separate analysis for Traditional 

Corps and FEMA Corps samples using the same statistical methods to examine whether there are 

29 
differences in leadership skills between the two programs given term length and program type 

differences. 

The biggest differences between Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps members are seen in their 

community and civic efficacy levels as seen in Figure 4.10. While both Traditional Corps and 

FEMA Corps members show a slower trajectory in community and civic efficacy, FEMA Corps 

members’ trajectory was slower at a rate of 0.12 compared to 0.04 for Traditional Corps. 

Figure 4.10: FEMA and Traditional community efficacy 

Interview and focus group respondents shared insights about the FEMA Corps training and 

service that supported leadership skills. Specifically, the two ways that FEMA Corps members 

thought their training facilitated leadership skills were clarity of expectations and direct 

relevance to the service experience. FEMA Corps members also shared ways in which their 

training provided opportunities for professional development; one FEMA Corps team leader 

said, 

“Some of the things that really helped them [members] out were taking some sort of classes in 

terms of making sure that they appropriately empathize with what they’re [evacuees] going 

through and just socializing with these evacuees because a lot of them are coming from 

traumatic situations.”

FEMA Corps training provided awareness of specific resources, was highly engaging and handson, and provided opportunities to acquire certificates. All three were beneficial for leadership 

skills. FEMA Corps members highly valued the hands-on experience because it provides the 

benefit of practicing the use of tools and professional skills in real-world settings. One member 

explained, 

“The tangible sort of computer skills I gained working regularly in things like Excel and 

Microsoft Power BI...Those were opportunities offered through FEMA that I was able to use and 

learn from.”

30 
 

FEMA Corps members report that working with sponsors who provided direct opportunities to 

practice their skills and offered mentorship and support were key to professional and leadership 

skills. 

Factors affecting leadership skills 

AmeriCorps members named many facilitators and barriers to developing leadership skills, 

summarized in Table 4.1. 

Table 4.1: Factors that impacted AmeriCorps members’ leadership skill development 

Facilitators Barriers 

In-depth training Insufficient training 

Practice opportunities Limited hands-on experiences 

Mentorship Lack of support from administration or sponsor 

Positive team leader experience Team conflicts 

Receiving feedback Lack of clarity 

Team building Poor diversity/sexual harassment training 

Development of coping strategies Lack of interactivity 

Clear communication Unprepared sponsors 

Clarity/explanation on purpose of work Disconnect between development and output 

Adaptability/flexibility Dealing with the bureaucracy of NCCC 

Facilitators of leadership skills 

Members shared examples of ways in which the training helped to prepare them for their service 

experience: 

“I think all of the training that was about the specific project processes that we were going to be 

doing were really good. It was good to be able to have some kind of idea of how the year was 

going to look and how each project was going.”

They also built interpersonal skills and conflict resolution skills. One member recalled, 

“I think the biggest, the most useful trainings that I got...was definitely conflict management.”

Training also strengthened teamwork: 

“I think the most helpful training was the Hands of Peace training...They just told you about 

how to communicate with others, team building exercises.”

Members frequently highlighted the benefits of hands-on experiences in developing skills. 

Members focused on opportunities to apply professional skills and techniques. A Traditional 

Corps team leader explained, 

“I think anytime the sponsor is willing to show us something hands-on or make an example of 

something in real-time it was really helpful for my members, whether that was how to hammer a 

nail better when I was at my Habitat site or how to deal with the customer better when we were 

doing taxes.”

31 
Interview and focus group respondents described the importance of personal support and 

mentorship provided to members as a facilitator of leadership skills. Respondents emphasized 

the value of supportive sponsors. As one Traditional Corps member shared, 

“I think the quality of the sponsor is huge...The foodbank we worked at really took an interest in 

developing our skills in the food warehouse and making sure we understood why we were doing 

what we were doing and emphasized if we had any questions to speak up...Definitely the quality 

of the sponsors plays a big role in what skills we can develop.”

Opportunities to converse with professionals in fields of interest were seen as a major benefit to 

members: 

“It was very good for me to speak with sponsors who’ve had that kind of experience as well as 

staff who can have the higher-end discussion that I’m looking for.”

Members also shared ways in which team leaders had a positive impact on member skill 

development. Good team leaders balanced their role as an authority figure with empathy for and 

alignment with member experiences. As one Traditional Corps member shared, 

“My second team leader has taken a lot more time to make sure that we’re doing all right as

people and not just getting the most work done possible.” 

Members also described good team leaders as providing mentorship and prioritizing professional 

development among their members: 

“Sometimes you have team leaders who are amazing at delegating, empowering, and being able

to give up that control so that their members can gain that leadership experience.”

Barriers to leadership skills 

AmeriCorps members who participated in the interview and focus group described frustrations 

and challenges related to training. Members described a need for training in specific topical areas 

for skill building and experience. This included a desire for training on: 

1. Specific AmeriCorps resources and tools that members might use during their service 

experience; 

“I would have liked having some more training on member management and helping support

people...The situations I dealt with ended up being a lot more complex than that [what team 

leaders were trained on.]” – Traditional program team leader 

2. Conflict resolution; 

“Being able to handle those conflict situations or high conflict living arrangements in a way that

is sustainable in the long-term wouldn’t been really helpful. I would’ve liked to see a bit more

focus on that.”

3. Mental health; 

“We did need to have more training when it came to mental health issues and some more 

specific examples of how to deal with those situations. A lot of our training had to do with more 

punitive behavioral management issues, which works when you have 18-year-olds who are 

32 
blatantly breaking policies and procedures but is a lot less applicable when you have members 

who have mental health crises or are dealing with more emotional issues.”

4. Diversity 

“Instead of just covering both areas rather than rules and policies...members definitely could 

have used further help with communication and understanding diversity and other people.”

Beyond training that was described as entirely missing, some existing training was described as 

unsatisfactory in its current form. Members mentioned the training on diversity and sexual 

harassment as inadequate, outdated, and even inappropriate. 

“We had one training that was like an hour on how to not sexually assault somebody, and it’s 

clear that they don’t take it very seriously, and that’s become an issue multiple times and not just

on our campus.”

AmeriCorps members described the Corps Training Institute (CTI) as “information overload”

and lacking in interactivity or hands-on practice. Finally, members highlighted a desire for more 

training on interpersonal skills and team-building exercises as a Traditional Corps team leader 

shared, 

“I think bringing in expert facilitators and doing structured team-building activities and 

activities that are really focused on building connections; more of active learning and not 

listening so much.”

In some cases, members and team leaders described limited hands-on experience as a barrier to 

skills development. Interview and focus group respondents described a lack of variety in their 

service experiences as a barrier to skill development: 

“Sometimes there’s a tradeoff between doing that [getting things done] and developing the 

members’ skills because sometimes it’s like, okay, if we put this person who’s already good at 

this specific task on this task all the time they can get more done, but sometimes that comes at the 

expense of this one person who needs to develop that skill but might be a little slower and might 

be less productive.”

Interview and focus group respondents described a lack of support – from sponsors, NCCC staff, 

and team members/leaders – as a major barrier to skill development. This manifested as a general 

sense of disconnection, which heightened pressures on team leaders as illustrated by this quote 

from a team leader: 

“I wish there was some more support for the members. My members had me, but they felt kind of 

distant from our unit leader. I felt like when they had issues, when I couldn’t solve them, they

were just at a loss.... I wish there were just some more resources in general specifically for the 

members.”

Respondents noted a lack of structure designed to foster a supportive system: 

“Unit leaders don’t have to do one-on-ones.”

“It might be nice to have like a housing sponsor debrief.”

33 
“The biggest impact for the team was that – from comparing the pre-pandemic to the postpandemic team – there was much less interaction with the staff as a group. They didn’t develop 

relationships with any staff people.”

Interview and focus group respondents highlighted negative impacts that NCCC team leaders 

sometimes had on their members’ skill development and well-being. When members and team 

leaders had a contentious relationship, this made the service experience far more challenging: 

“With the members that I had on my team, I don’t know if I helped them at all. I tried and they 

kind of like rejected the ideas.” “I think that the challenge of working with the team that I was 

with was that I didn’t receive a lot of feedback that was very constructive. It was very critical.”

“I know another team member left because of their mental health and then they weren’t feeling 

connected as well. They weren’t connecting with the team lead.”

Adapting Under COVID-19. AmeriCorps members were on emergency leave from March 2020 

through June 2020 due to the COVID19 pandemic. When they resumed service, NCCC deployed 

Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps members to projects in response to the pandemic. This 

section explores the impact COVID-19 had on members, sponsors, and the program. 

Impact of COVID-19 on AmeriCorps members 

Participants in the interview and focus group described how the pandemic affected their overall 

service experience. As illustrated in Figure 4.11, members, NCCC staff, and sponsors described 

the primary areas in which the COVID-19 pandemic impacted their service, such as skill 

development, team impact, and sponsor impact, while also describing detailed impacts on 

socialization, training, growth opportunities, nature of project work, programmatic adjustments 

during their service year, AmeriCorps NCCC policies, and interaction with communities served. 

34 
Figure 4.11 Impact of COVID-19 

The most common impact was a reduction in opportunities related to socialization with peers, 

communities, sponsors, and program administration. As one member explained, 

“Most teams were separated and so they couldn’t interact with other people or hear different 

options or answer questions.”

The pandemic decreased personal, professional, and leadership growth opportunities for 

members. A shortage of volunteers during the pandemic impacted the projects and the nature of 

the work for members, which led to fewer opportunities to build skills. One NCCC staff member 

discussed, 

“Especially this year, the pandemic where a lot of our sponsors were without volunteers for 

almost a full year and were really behind on the work, probably contributed more to our 

members just getting the work done, than taking that time to have that development.”

One member offered further support for this by stating, 

“I think [the pandemic] has impacted our service experience by – because I feel like we're doing 

a lot of work that's not as beneficial to gain skills. It's more like organizing stuff, cleaning a shed 

– at a state park, we've cleaned the shed and organized crafts and sanitize it because they don't 

35 
have as many workers. So, we're basically considered free workers in a way on very easy tasks 

and not actually tasks to learn.”

Covid-19 impacted the accessibility of sponsor organizations, which led to abbreviated trainings, 

virtual trainings, unengaging trainings, and canceled trainings. Communication between sponsors 

and AmeriCorps NCCC teams became more difficult as well due to the lack of in-person 

meetings. Respondents also described the impact the pandemic and the Covid rules and 

regulations implemented by AmeriCorps had on their abilities to interact with the communities 

they served, causing them to feel disconnected from their work. 

Members had to adapt to programmatic adjustments ranging from program structure to length of 

service as well as changes in policies, including COVID restrictions. One respondent recalled, 

“They had to do a lot of virtual projects. They just sat in the same room all day every day. They 

never really got to go out and do things.”

Finally, members cited health concerns related to the pandemic and issues surrounding 

quarantining as negative impacts of Covid-19 on their service experiences. 

Chapter 5 Service Experience and Leadership Skills 

This chapter discusses findings from the third research question: How do members’ service

project assignments contribute to their leadership skills? The results are from a multi-level 

logistic regression model that accounts for the clustering of members within region and focuses 

on the association between service projects and leadership skills, controlling for member 

characteristics. 

The measures on the characteristics of the service projects are from the AmeriCorps NCCC 

Service Projects Database (SPD), which contains information on more than 6,7000 service 

projects completed between 2012 and 2022. The SPD is the primary source of information 

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

organizations, and communities. The variables in the SPD are issue areas, project 

accomplishments, project characteristics, disaster type (when applicable), type of sponsor, and 

sponsor and site locations. Each project has narrative texts that reflect the team’s perceptions of 

the project’s impact and what the team gained by working on the project. These codes identify 

the primary types of impacts from the narrative text. There are three types of impacts: disaster, 

tangible and intangible. Tangible impacts capture outcomes that are clear to observers, such as 

providing food and clothing to survivors of a disaster. Intangible impacts capture outcomes that 

are not concrete or clear to observers, such as providing emotional support to survivors after a 

crisis or listening to people in the community who are struggling with addiction. The coding 

framework also distinguishes the unit where the impact occurred (i.e., individual, organization, 

community), but the analysis does not differentiate the unit where the impact occurred. Each 

member is linked to each of the projects they were assigned during their service. For the analysis, 

the data on service projects are limited to those projects for members in the sample. For the 

analysis, we focus on three types of impact within the SPD. Figure 5.1 provides examples of the 

three types of impacts coded from the narrative text. 

36 
Figure 5.1: Examples of the coded projects’ impacts as described by teams assigned to the projects

Disaster 

Increased community 

knowledge related to 

disaster preparation 

Aided in disaster 

recovery; Reduced the 

time before disaster 

survivors were able to 

move into their homes 

Aided in the 

prevention or 

mitigation of future 

disasters on public 

lands 

Tangible 

Increased access to 

food, water, clothing 

and shelter to 

individuals 

Improved physical 

health outcomes of 

individuals 

Increased data and 

infrastructure of 

organizations 

Intangible 

Enhanced human capital 

by improving mental 

health, trust and hope to 

individuals 

Increased Corps 

member's ability to 

communicate, selfefficacy and confidence 

Increased the 

capacity in which 

organizations can 

serve community 

members 

We created a sum composite variable for each of the three types of impact in Figure 5.1. These 

are our main explanatory variables in the model that examines the effect of service projects on 

members’ leadership skills. 

To capture differences within teams as well as between teams, we reconstructed a ‘teams’ 

variable using Project ID information and Project Round information. Of the 1,657 applicants 

who began their service during the study’s enrollment window, 77 percent (N = 1,252)

participated in the study. The reconstruction of teams uses the sample of members who 

participated in the study and completed all three surveys. In the final sample, 652 members were 

grouped into 175 separate teams. The number of participants on a team ranged from three 

members to nine members with the average team size being made up of six participants. 

Table 5.1 shows the distribution of teams by region, with the highest proportion of teams being 

placed in the Southern region at 29 percent, followed by Pacific at 25 percent and North Central 

and Southwest both at 23 percent. 

Table 5.1: Distribution by region 

Region Percent 

North Central 23% 

Pacific 25% 

Southern 29% 

Southwest 23% 

Sample size: 652 

37 
Participant and Project Level Impacts on Leadership Development 

Our analysis utilized a multi-level model with three levels. Level-1 includes participant level 

predictors (gender, race/ethnicity, SES, baseline leadership scores), and level-2 includes project 

level predictors (number of disaster impacts, number of tangible impacts, number of intangible 

impacts). The third level is the NCCC region. Table 5.2 shows estimated impacts of project 

characteristics on each of the seven predefined leadership metrics. Appendix H shows and 

summarizes the full regression results. 

Table 5.2: Impacts of service project type on leadership development 

Collaborative 

Practices 

Comm. 

Skills 

Life 

Skills 

Prof. 

Skills 

Civic 

Efficacy 

Problem 

Solving 

Varied 

Perspectives 

Disaster impacts 0.05** 

(0.02) 

0.04* 

(0.02) 

0.00 

(0.02) 

0.01 

(0.02) 

0.02 

(0.02) 

0.01 

(0.02) 

0.03 

(0.02) 

Intangible impacts 0.004 

(0.01) 

-0.001 

(0.01) 

0.01 

(0.01) 

0.01 

(0.01) 

0.01 

(0.01) 

0.02** 

(0.01) 

0.00 

(0.01) 

Tangible Impacts -0.001 

(0.02) 

0.00 

(0.03) 

0.05* 

(0.03) 

0.04* 

(0.02) 

0.05** 

(0.03) 

0.01 

(0.02) 

0.01 

(0.03) 

Note: *p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.001; Standard errors in parenthesis. Explanatory variables SES and baseline score, as well as all seven outcome variables have been 

standardized (z-score). 

As shown in Table 5.2, projects that have tangible impacts are positively associated with life 

skills, professional skills, and community and civic efficacy skills. Projects where members 

mitigate disaster (e.g., focus on disaster recovery, mitigation, prevention, or preparedness) are 

positively associated with members’ ability to communicate as well as collaborate with others. 

The analysis shows that AmeriCorps members’ problem-solving abilities are positively 

associated with projects that have intangible impacts (Table 5.2). 

Differences Between Teams and Regions 

The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimates how much variation in leadership 

development exists between teams as well as regions. The team ICC expresses the correlation 

between members in the same team, or alternatively informs us of how much of the total 

variation in leadership skills exists between teams. The region ICC expresses the correlation 

between teams within the same region. Table 5.3 shows the team ICC and region ICC for all 

outcome variables. 

Table 5.3: Impacts of teams and region placement on leadership development 

Collaborative 

Practices 

Comm. 

Skills 

Life 

Skills 

Prof. 

Skills 

Civic 

Efficacy 

Problem 

Solving 

Varied 

Perspectives 

Team ICC 1% 4% 3% 5% 2% 5% 3% 

Region ICC 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 

Both the team ICC and region ICC are five percent or lower. For example, 2 percent of the 

variation in civic efficacy skills exists between teams and 3 percent exists between regions, 

leaving 95 percent of the variance in civic efficacy existing between members themselves. 

Professional skills and problem-solving abilities both have a team ICC of 5 percent, meaning that 

5 percent of the variation is accounted for by the team. The region ICC indicates that the region 

is not causing significant variation in members’ leadership development, as placement in a 

specific region will not result in higher or lower leadership abilities. In examining team ICC, we 

38 
see that while it is possible for members’ team placement to impact their leadership 

development, it is still relatively low, as no more than 5 percent of the variation in leadership 

development is explicitly explained by a members team placement. 

Chapter 6 Summary and recommendations 

These findings are based on an analysis of the longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation during 

which data were collected at three time points: a baseline survey administered prior to the start of 

service, a second survey administered when members were completing their term of service, and 

a third and final survey administered one year post service. In addition to participants’ survey 

responses, we coded emerging themes from interviews and focus groups with a sample of 

members, team leaders, NCCC staff and project sponsors. The retention rate for participation 

was high, and there is minimal to no effect of non-response bias. These are indicators of the 

validity and robustness of the data itself. 

Leadership is an ongoing process of expanding one’s capacity to assume certain leadership roles. 

It is clear from the literature that leadership is not a fixed trait; it is a complex set of 

competencies that can be cultivated through not just appropriate interventions but through lived 

experiences to learn and grow as leaders. Service with AmeriCorps NCCC emphasizes seven 

skills intended to give its members the opportunity to learn and practice leadership: professional 

skills, life skills, communication skills, collaborative practices, appreciation for varied 

perspectives, community problem solving abilities, and civic efficacy. As with prior studies on 

young adults’ development of leadership skills, the growth trajectory of leadership skills is

uneven (Jastrzab et al., 2004, Frumkin et al., 2009, Metz et al., 2005). Through interviews and 

focus groups, AmeriCorps members expressed that their training, team dynamics, and hands-on 

work experience were all key to their leadership development skills. AmeriCorps members 

remained on a positive trajectory in their professional skills, life skills, and problem-solving 

skills. While members were consistently on a positive trajectory for professional, life and 

problem-solving skills, some leadership skills would initially slow down in trajectory. Examples 

of these were: communication skills, collaboration, and appreciation for varied perspectives. 

However, within one year, post service members’ growth trajectory in those skills surpassed 

those of the comparison group participants. There is support in the literature that an initial slower 

growth is followed by a course correction yielding stronger growth trajectory (Jastrzab et al., 

2004). 

Members as well as comparison participants both had a slower growth trajectory of their civic 

efficacy during the study period. This slower growth trajectory is unexpected based on prior 

studies. This is one skill set for both members and comparison participants that might have been 

more impacted by Covid-19 both during and post service because both groups had to contend 

with communications disruption. During service, the pandemic may have limited members’

access to opportunities to learn and practice these skills. As this cohort completed their service in 

2021, the pandemic health emergency was still active for most countries and may have further 

limited opportunities to civically engage and support their communities. Several prior studies 

found a significant negative impact on members’ leadership skills during their term of service 

(Jastrzab et al., 2004; Frumkin et al., 2009; Epstein, 2009; Hudson-Flege, 2018). 

Consistent with these previous studies, the current analysis also found an initial negative impact 

on members’ communication skills, collaborative practices, and appreciation for varied 

perspectives in the time period from baseline to first follow-up, and then a positive trajectory in 

39 
 

the time period of first follow-up to second follow-up. As with the analysis conducted by Epstein 

(2009) and Hudson-Flege (2018), AmeriCorps members reported a decrease in these skills at the 

end of their service compared to what they reported before their service. However, when 

surveyed a year after graduation, AmeriCorps members reported a higher level of confidence in 

these skills compared to what was reported directly after the end of their service. Previous 

authors (Epstein, 2009; Hudson-Flege, 2018) hypothesized this may have been due to short-term 

disillusionment, or a gush of wisdom, with the concept of working in diverse groups and living 

and working in close proximity to their teammates, which may lead to interpersonal conflicts. 

We also contend that at mid-point when members completed the first follow-up survey they were 

still participating in the program with little free time for self-reflection. After graduation and 

time for reflection, they report how well their service experience prepared them. 

In summary, the research suggests there is a positive impact of national service experience on 

professional skills such as employment aptitude, employment outcomes, employability and 

career goals, and civic engagement. Despite these positive findings, there are some elements of 

the leadership building process among national service participants that merit further research. 

For example, Jastrzab et al.’s (2004) findings of a significant negative impact among members’

appreciation of cultural and ethnic diversity warrants a better understanding of the reasons 

behind this finding and their long-term implications on leadership skills. Appreciation of cultural 

and ethnic diversity and their long-term implications are elements of leadership development that 

require more in-depth analysis. The lack of evidence on the impact of service on life skills, 

teamwork, and certain aspects of professional skill development also merit further exploration. 

Furthermore, for many other aspects of leadership development, studies have focused on shortterm outcomes around knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Few studies have examined the impact of 

service on life skills, teamwork, and professional development. 

We refer to Chapter 4, Table 4.1 which categorizes the themes that emerged from focus groups 

and interviews on the facilitators and barriers to members’ development of leadership skills. 

Table 4.1: Factors that impacted AmeriCorps members’ skill development

Facilitators Barriers 

In-depth training Insufficient training 

Practice opportunities Limited hands-on experiences 

Mentorship Lack of support from administration or sponsor 

Positive team leader experience Team conflicts 

Receiving feedback Lack of clarity 

Team building Poor diversity/sexual harassment training 

Development of coping strategies Lack of interactivity 

Clear communication Unprepared sponsors 

Clarity/explanation on purpose of work Disconnect between development and output 

Adaptability/flexibility Dealing with the bureaucracy of NCCC 

From these themes we developed the following recommendations. 

Provide comprehensive training, ongoing supervision, and mentorship. Members’ ability to 

successfully complete their projects requires knowledge and skills. Training expands members’ 

skills, and understanding, combined with the opportunity to apply this training, shapes them as 

40 
leaders during and beyond their term of service. As we noted in a separate report 7 ongoing 

training and check-ins at the projects’ site was helpful with the sponsor and site supervisor

because it provides members an experience that lasts beyond the term of service. In some cases, 

members channeled the training and guidance received to provide mentorship, guidance, and 

knowledge and build their confidence. 

Additional facilitators discussed critical paths to effective leadership skills: 

• Variation in task complexity, allowing members to learn and gain experience with tasks 

that foster development of multiple professional, leadership, prosocial, and life skills 

• Availability of sponsors and site supervisors to provide ongoing training and support 

throughout the duration of the project 

• Having clear standard operating procedures (SOPs) that team leaders and members can 

reference and use a resource to supplement their training and task completion 

Expose members to a wide range of service projects to ensure personal development and 

increase perceived impact. Satisfaction with the project assignment is a predictor of a 

successful volunteer experience. Volunteers tend to experience satisfaction when they are given 

activities that support and relate to their interest in making a difference while at the same time 

supporting self-development and career development, as well as having some autonomy (Alfes, 

Shantz, & Bailey, 2016). Our analysis corroborates this sentiment and shows that the types of 

service projects are significantly associated with leadership skills. Participation in a wide range 

of projects increases the opportunities for members to apply and practice different leadership 

skills. 

Ensure quality sponsorship with durable workloads. AmeriCorps NCCC may need to ensure 

sponsor organizations have the right amount of work needed to sustain a team for the duration of 

a service term since members apply and gain leadership skills through the service projects. Clear 

communication and training from sponsors are vital in promoting leadership skills. To ensure 

satisfaction for both sponsors and members, there should be transparency in the expectations of 

the depth of training a sponsor can provide, as well as what the program can be expected to 

provide. 

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

Evidence of AmeriCorps NCCC Impact in Strengthening Communities. San Mateo, CA: JBS International, Inc. 

41 

7 
Appendix A: AmeriCorps NCCC Logic Model for Leadership Development 

INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS OUTCOMES 

Medium Term Long Term 

(1 year after completing NCCC (3 to 5 years after completing 

service) NCCC service) 

Short Term 

(upon completion of the NCCC 

service, at 10 months) 

• AmeriCorps NCCC funding • Members participate in Corps • Members complete 10 Professional skills Professional skills Professional skills 

Training Institute (CTI), and months of service (1700 • Increased hard skills needed to • Informed career choices, affirmed or • Engaged in activities related to 

physical resources 

• AmeriCorps NCCC facility and 

FEMA Academy for FEMA Corps hours), including 80 succeed in the workplace (e.g., changed career interests as a result of education or career goals, or 

members Independent Service Project computer literacy, public speaking, service experiences (e.g., able to demonstrate general career 

materials 

• NCCC curriculum and training 

• Members participate in disaster hours (ISPs) for Traditional industry certifications). clearly define career goals and advancement.

• NCCC program staff trainings NCCC members and 10 • Increased soft skills needed to aspirations, interest in public sector Life skills 

ISPs for FEMA members. succeed in the workplace (e.g., career or community serving • Improved ability to demonstrate 

organizations, knowledge and skills • Sponsors and partners • Teams Leaders participate in 

leadership, consensus building, fluent confidence to accomplish goals, 

Training Institute (CTI), and 

AmeriCorps NCCC Team • Members complete Corps • Sponsor site housing Leader Training (TLT) communication). related to workplace success). deal efficiently with unexpected 

FEMA Academy (if • On site supervision • Members participate in In- • • Increased ability to demonstrate events and handle unforeseen Increased desire to pursue continuing applicable). • AmeriCorps NCCC education service Training (pre-project & professional skills. situations. and service awards (college education 

credits, certificate in non-profit project training, transition • Team Leaders complete • Increased applications to continuing Work as a team • Earned education and service awards. 

management, Presidential training, Life after AmeriCorps AmeriCorps NCCC Team education. • Improved ability to work with Life skills 

training (LAA)). In-service Leader Training (TLT). • Increased usage of education diverse populations. Service Award, Congressional • Increased knowledge of strategies and 

Award) training incorporates activities on • Members complete In- • Improved ability to employ positive skills needed to plan, prepare, awards. 

leadership, soft skills, civic service training (pre-project team behavior in their workplaces, execute, and assess an endeavor. • Members who lacked a high school literacy. & project training, Life after civic organizations and religious • Increased attitude of action or change diploma or GED successfully • AmeriCorps training (LAAA)) organizations. orientation to the world. • Members participate in • Members complete specialty complete their education Civic engagement • Increased positive self-orientation and Independent Service Project role activities. requirements • Improved ability of responsible sense of self-efficacy. (ISP). • Members complete Life skills citizenship and positive attitudes Work as a team • Members participate in specialty leadership development • regarding the value of lifelong Increased belief in positive self- • Practice effective communication role activities. activities. orientation and sense of self active citizenship and service for -efficacy. strategies to resolve conflict in a • Members receive leadership • Members complete training Work as a team the common good, meet constructive manner 

skills support and mentoring and activities to develop soft community needs, integrate into • Increased ability to demonstrate from NCCC Unit Leaders and • Increased awareness, attitude, skills. the community. positive team behavior in workplace, 

Team Leaders, NCCC staff and knowledge, and skills in dealing with • Members complete service • Took leadership positions within civic and religious organizations 

sponsors. people different from oneself. learning activities and ISPs, civic organizations. • Members formed meaningful • Increased ability in dealing with • Members practice technical skills connections with leaders and people different from oneself. and acquire hands-on sponsoring organizations, and people Civic engagement experience . in the community they served. • Increased belief in the ability to affect • Members participate in • Increased awareness to employ change through civic action. community service projects over positive team behavior in workplace, • Increased belief in civic participation a 10-month period. civic and religious organizations. and civic orientation and attitudes. • Members participate in Civic engagement residential and team-based • Increased knowledge related to civic activities participation (e.g., ability to lead a 

successful community-based 

movement, ability to collaborate with 

other members of the community to 

solve community problems). 

• Increased level of civic orientation and 

civic attitudes, knowledge of civic 

opportunities and outlets. 

•

42 
Appendix B: Survey Non-Response Bias Analysis 

The purpose of the non-response analysis is to identify the potential for bias and, if any bias is 

present, describe its direction and magnitude. A non-response bias analysis determines if the 

non-response is random or if there are systematic differences in characteristics between 

respondents and non-respondents. The non-response bias analysis examines whether, at baseline, 

respondents differed systematically from the target population. We used the relative nonresponse bias formula as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The relative 

non-response bias formula is: 

nnr B(Y̅

r) = Y̅r − Y̅t = ( ) (Y̅r − Y̅nr)

n

where: 

Y̅ = the mean based on all sample cases; t

Y̅

r = the mean based only on respondent cases; 

Y̅

nr = the mean based only on nonrespondent cases; 

n = the number of cases in the sample; and 

nnr= the number of nonrespondent cases. 

We used available AmeriCorps NCCC administrative data on all eligible individuals. The 

administrative data contained observed characteristics on all participants whether they responded 

to the survey or not. For the non-response bias analysis at first and second follow-up, we used 

several variables that were included in the baseline survey, as all participants included in the first 

follow-up analysis were respondents to the baseline survey. 

Respondents and non-respondents can have similar demographic distributions, and significant 

bias may still exist. On the other hand, differences between respondents and non-respondents on 

a few demographic characteristics may suggest that non-respondents are not “missing at 

random,” and there may be similar differences on key survey variables. There may be little or no 

bias after all if the key variables are not related to those demographics. In each instance, we 

compare differences between respondents and non-respondents to assess the presence or absence 

of response bias and calculate the size and direction of the bias by applying the OMB formula. 

The administrative data contained the following variables: age, any prior employment when the 

participants applied to serve with AmeriCorps NCCC, number of previous jobs reported on their 

AmeriCorps NCCC application, if the participant is an immediate family member of active duty, 

National Guard or Veteran, and the application assessment score. Variables used from the 

baseline survey included: gender, whether the participant had an associate’s degree or higher 

(college degree or graduate degree), if at least one of the participant’s parents had at least a 

college degree, whether the participant identified as a Non-Hispanic White, whether the 

participant identified as Hispanic or Latino, whether the participant lived in a single-parent or 

no-parent household, and whether the participant indicated they worked in the six months prior 

to their service. 

Using these defined variables, we conducted relative non-response bias using OMB’s formula 

for non-response bias. JBS calculated non-response for all respondents combined (Table B1), 

43 
then separately for members (Table B3) and comparison group (Table B5). Bias was low for all 

variables, which indicates that there were only small differences between respondents and nonrespondents. 

Non-Response Bias in the Full Sample. We assessed the differences in response patterns for all 

respondents. Table B1 shows the relative bias for each variable. No variable has a relative bias 

greater than 5 percent. The variable with the largest relative bias is the ‘Comparison’ variable at -

0.05. This indicates that individuals in the comparison group were less likely to participate in the 

study. 

Table B1. Non-Response Bias—All Respondents 

Variable Mean -

all 

Mean -

respondents 

Mean -

nonrespondents 

Total Total 

respondents 

Total 

nonrespondents 

Difference 

in means 

Relative 

Bias 

Type –

Comparison 

0.44 0.42 0.51 2241 1749 492 -0.09 -0.05 

Female 0.58 0.58 0.58 2241 1749 492 0.00 0.00 

Age 21.49 21.53 21.33 2200 1720 480 0.20 0.00 

Prior 

employment 

0.91 0.91 0.92 2241 1749 492 -0.01 0.00 

Number of 

jobs 

2.79 2.83 2.63 2040 1588 452 0.20 0.02 

Prior 

volunteer 

experience 

0.82 0.83 0.79 2241 1749 492 0.04 0.01 

Veteran status 0.18 0.17 0.19 2214 1728 486 -0.01 -0.01 

NCCC 

application 

score 

66.69 66.75 66.51 2087 1621 466 0.24 0.00 

College 

degree 

0.51 0.53 0.46 2241 1749 492 0.07 0.03 

Parent college 

degree 

0.74 0.73 0.76 1691 1352 339 -0.03 -0.01 

Non-Hispanic 

White 

0.54 0.52 0.60 2155 1683 472 -0.07 -0.03 

Hispanic or 

Latino 

0.26 0.27 0.22 2234 1745 489 0.06 0.04 

Single or no 

parent 

household 

0.35 0.35 0.36 2101 1675 426 -0.01 0.00 

Working 

Participant 

0.62 0.63 0.61 2241 1749 492 0.02 0.01 

To examine the effects of each variable on non-response when all other variables tested were 

held constant, we ran a logistic regression model (Table B2). Individuals in the treatment group, 

participants with prior volunteer experience, and participants with at least a college degree were 

44 
all significantly more likely to participate in the first follow-up survey. Non-Hispanic White 

individuals had significantly higher odds of non-response. No other variable exhibited 

statistically significant differences. 

Table B2. Likelihood of Non-Response Based on Participant Characteristics—All Respondents 

Variable B S.E. Wald Df Sig. Exp(B) 

Type – Treatment -0.2114 0.0558 14.3449 1 0.0002 0.655 

Female 0.0131 0.054 0.0587 1 0.8085 1.027 

Age -0.0576 0.2537 0.0515 1 0.8205 0.944 

Prior employment 0.1479 0.0974 2.3073 1 0.1288 1.344 

Prior volunteer 

experience -0.1363 0.0686 3.9424 1 0.0471 0.761 

Veteran status 0.00532 0.0678 0.0062 1 0.9375 1.011 

NCCC application score 0.0134 0.0333 0.1631 1 0.6863 1.014 

College degree -0.2047 0.0653 9.8213 1 0.0017 0.664 

Parent college degree 0.0682 0.0741 0.8454 1 0.3578 1.146 

Non-Hispanic White 0.1414 0.0713 3.9284 1 0.0475 1.327 

Hispanic or Latino -0.0602 0.0803 0.5625 1 0.4533 0.887 

Non-Response Bias in the Treatment-Only Sample. We performed non-response bias analysis for 

the treatment group only (Table B3). Relative bias was low in the treatment group, in part 

because of the higher response rate in this group. The relative bias for the variables age, prior 

employment status, application assessment score, parent has college degree, and working 

participant were all zero, indicating no level of bias. In this treatment-only analysis, the variable 

that had the highest relative bias was for individuals who identified as Hispanic or Latino with a 

relative at five percent (0.05), which indicates they were more likely to participate in the first 

follow-up. 

45 
Table B3. Non-Response Bias—Treatment Members 

Variable Mean -

all 

Mean -

respondents 

Mean -

nonrespondents 

Total Total 

respondents 

Total 

nonrespondents 

Difference 

in means 

Relative 

Bias 

Female 0.51 0.51 0.49 1252 1011 241 0.02 0.01 

Age 21.03 21.09 20.78 1252 1011 241 0.30 0.00 

Prior 

employment 

0.89 0.89 0.90 1252 1011 241 -0.02 0.00 

Number of 

jobs 

2.63 2.68 2.43 1114 896 218 0.26 0.02 

Prior 

volunteer 

experience 

0.81 0.83 0.75 1252 1011 241 0.07 0.02 

Veteran status 0.18 0.18 0.15 1241 1001 240 0.03 0.03 

NCCC 

application 

score 

66.57 66.75 65.83 1158 928 230 0.92 0.00 

College 

degree 

0.42 0.44 0.36 1252 1011 241 0.08 0.03 

Parent college 

degree 

0.74 0.74 0.73 998 806 192 0.01 0.00 

Non-Hispanic 

White 

0.57 0.55 0.62 1241 1000 241 -0.07 -0.02 

Hispanic or 

Latino 

0.25 0.27 0.20 1251 1010 241 0.06 0.05 

Single or no 

parent 

household 

0.31 0.32 0.28 1183 965 218 0.04 0.02 

Working 

Participant 

0.60 0.60 0.61 1252 1011 241 -0.01 0.00 

We ran a logistic regression model to predict non-response within the treatment group. When 

examining the treatment group only, we found that participants who had some form of 

employment prior to their service were significantly less likely to respond to the first follow-up. 

Participants who had previous volunteer experience were significantly more likely to be a 

respondent (Table B4). Both the logistic regression and the relative bias analysis indicate that 

there is no bias due to non-response in the treatment group. 

46 
Table B4. Likelihood of Non-Response Based on Participant Characteristics—Treatment 

Variable B S.E. Wald Df Sig. Exp(B) 

Female -0.013 0.0737 0.031 1 0.8602 0.974 

Age -0.1901 0.4158 0.2091 1 0.6475 0.827 

Prior employment 0.2324 0.1279 3.3008 1 0.0692 1.592 

Prior volunteer 

experience -0.2461 0.0913 7.2761 1 0.007 0.611 

Veteran status -0.1317 0.0999 1.7373 1 0.1875 0.768 

NCCC application score -0.0116 0.0462 0.0631 1 0.8017 0.988 

College degree -0.133 0.0978 1.8491 1 0.1739 0.766 

Parent college degree -0.0572 0.0953 0.3601 1 0.5485 0.892 

Non-Hispanic White 0.0973 0.0993 0.9599 1 0.3272 1.215 

Hispanic or Latino -0.1421 0.1156 1.511 1 0.219 0.753 

Non-Response Bias in the Comparison-Only Sample. We performed non-response bias analysis 

on the comparison group only. The relative bias was low, but as high as eight percent (-0.08) for 

participants with an immediate family member of active duty, National Guard or Veteran, which 

indicates these individuals were less likely to participate in the study in the comparison group. 

Relative bias for non-Hispanic White participants was 5 percent (-0.05), indicating that, in the 

comparison group, non-Hispanic White individuals were less likely to participate (Table B5). All 

other variables had a relative bias of zero to four percent, once again indicating that non-response 

rates would not bias the results. 

47 
Table B5. Non-Response Bias—Comparison Members 

Variable Mean -

all 

Mean -

respondents 

Mean –

nonrespondents 

Total Total 

respondents 

Total 

nonrespondents 

Difference 

in means 

Relative 

Bias 

Female 0.66 0.66 0.66 989 738 251 0.00 0.00 

Age 22.09 22.16 21.88 948 709 239 0.28 0.00 

Prior 

employment 

0.94 0.94 0.93 989 738 251 0.01 0.00 

Number of 

jobs 

2.97 3.02 2.82 926 692 234 0.20 0.02 

Prior 

volunteer 

experience 

0.84 0.84 0.83 989 738 251 0.01 0.00 

Veteran status 0.18 0.16 0.22 973 727 246 -0.05 -0.08 

NCCC 

application 

score 

66.85 66.74 67.17 929 693 236 -0.42 0.00 

College 

degree 

0.63 0.66 0.55 989 738 251 0.11 0.04 

Parent college 

degree 

0.73 0.72 0.80 693 546 147 -0.09 -0.03 

Non-Hispanic 

White 

0.50 0.48 0.57 914 683 231 -0.09 -0.05 

Hispanic or 

Latino 

0.27 0.28 0.23 983 735 248 0.05 0.04 

Single or no 

parent 

household 

0.41 0.40 0.44 918 710 208 -0.04 -0.02 

Working 

Participant 

0.66 0.67 0.61 989 738 251 0.06 0.02 

We also ran a logistic regression model to determine which variables were significant predictors 

of non-response within the comparison-only sample. Within the comparison-only group, 

participants with at least a college degree or higher had significantly lower odds of being a nonrespondent. Participants who have at least one parent with a college degree or higher were 

significantly more likely to be a non-respondent (Table B6). 

48 
Table B6. Likelihood of Non-Response Based on Participant Characteristics—Comparison 

Variable B S.E. Wald Df Sig. Exp(B) 

Female 0.0607 0.0813 0.5584 1 0.4549 1.129 

Age -0.1319 0.3219 0.1679 1 0.682 0.876 

Prior employment 0.0757 0.1549 0.239 1 0.6249 1.164 

Prior volunteer 

experience -0.0134 0.1064 0.0159 1 0.8997 0.974 

Veteran status 0.1344 0.0958 1.9668 1 0.1608 1.308 

NCCC application 

score 0.0465 0.049 0.9001 1 0.3428 1.048 

College degree -0.2715 0.0914 8.8288 1 0.003 0.581 

Parent college degree 0.2444 0.1203 4.1293 1 0.0421 1.63 

Non-Hispanic White 0.1518 0.104 2.1312 1 0.1443 1.355 

Hispanic or Latino -0.0137 0.1137 0.0146 1 0.9038 0.973 

Appendix C: Socioeconomic Status Construct 

We constructed a socioeconomic status (SES) variable using multiple questions from the 

baseline survey. SES can be defined broadly as one’s access to financial, social, cultural, and 

human capital resources. Traditionally, a student’s SES has included, as components, parental 

educational attainment, parental occupational status, and household or family income, with 

appropriate adjustment for household or family composition (Cowen, 2012). The history of SES 

measurement and the identification of possible explanatory correlates show that SES is defined 

as a broad construct, ideally measured with several diverse indicators. In the construction of the 

SES variable, we follow the guidelines set by a panel of experts convened for the National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The panel concluded that the components of a core 

student SES measure were the “big 3” variables (family income, parental educational attainment, 

and parental occupational status). Table C1 shows the original baseline survey questions we used 

to construct the SES variable. 

49 
Table C1: Baseline Survey Questions Used for SES 

Variable Question Response Options 

BQ29 If you live in more than one household, 

answer about the parent or guardians you 

live with most of the time. Please choose 

one parent to begin. 

What is this parent’s or guardian’s 

relationship to you? 

Biological Mother 

Biological Father 

Adoptive Mother 

Adoptive Father 

Stepmother 

Stepfather 

Foster Mother 

Foster Father 

Female Partner of your Parent 

or Guardian 

Male Partner of you Parent of 

Guardian 

Grandmother 

Grandfather 

Other Female Relative 

Other Male Relative 

Other Female Guardian 

Other Male Guardian 

No Parent 

BQ30 What is the highest level of education 

completed by the parent/guardian? 

Less than high school 

completion 

Completed a high school 

diploma, GED, or alternative 

high school credential 

Completed a certificate or 

diploma from a school that 

provides occupational training 

Completed an Associate degree 

Completed a Bachelor’s degree

Completed a Master’s degree 

Completed a Ph.D., or other 

high level professional degree 

Don’t know

BQ31 Does this parent/guardian currently hold a 

job for pay? 

Yes 

No 

Don’t’ know

BQ33 Do you have another parent or guardian in 

the same household? 

Yes 

No 

50 
Table C1 continued 

Variable Question Response Options 

BQ34 What is this parent’s or guardian’s 

relationship to you? 

Biological Mother 

Biological Father 

Adoptive Mother 

Adoptive Father 

Stepmother 

Stepfather 

Foster Mother 

Foster Father 

Female Partner of your Parent 

or Guardian 

Male Partner of you Parent of 

Guardian 

Grandmother 

Grandfather 

Other Female Relative 

Other Male Relative 

Other Female Guardian 

Other Male Guardian 

No Parent 

BQ35 What is the highest level of education 

completed by the parent/guardian? 

Less than high school 

completion 

Completed a high school 

diploma, GED, or alternative 

high school credential 

Completed a certificate or 

diploma from a school that 

provides occupational training 

Completed an Associate degree 

Completed a Bachelor’s degree

Completed a Master’s degree

Completed a Ph.D., or other 

high level professional degree 

Don’t know

BQ36 Does this parent/guardian currently hold a 

job for pay? 

Yes 

No 

Don’t’ know

Based on the questions in Table C1, we created three additional variables that aggregate the 

individual’s parent employment, parent education and family structure. The variables are shown 

in Table C2. 

51 
 

 

Table C2: Aggregated Parent Characteristics 

Variable Indicator Assignment Options 

Parent_employed Is at least one parent/guardian in 

the household employed? 

0 = no one in the household is 

employed 

1 = one parent/guardian is 

employed but not all 

2 = all parents/guardians in the 

household are employed (this 

includes single parent houses) 

. = Participant does not know/no 

answer 

Parent_degree Does at least one parent/guardian 

in the household have a college 

degree or higher? 

0 = No parent in the household has 

a college degree or higher

1 = Yes, at least one 

parent/guardian has a college 

degree or higher but not all

2 = all parents/guardians in the 

household have a college degree or

higher (this includes single parent

houses)

. = Participant does not know/no 

answer

Parent_structure How many parent/guardians in the 

household? 

0 = Participant said no parent in 

household 

1 = There are no biological 

parent/adoptive parent in the 

household, but there are either 1 

or 2 guardians (step parent, 

foster parent, grandmother, 

family friend) 

2 = Single parent household: 

There is one biological 

parent/adopted parent 

3 = New partner household: 

There is one biological 

parent/adopted parent and one 

other guardian that is not a 

biological parent or adoptive 

parent 

4 = Nuclear family: There are 

two biological parents or 

adoptive parents in household 

. = Participant did not want to 

answer 

52 
A composite score was then created using the three variables (parent_employed, parent_degree, 

and parent_structure). Per the panel, there are reporting and interpretation advantages and 

disadvantages for treating SES as a single measured variable, as several single measured 

variables, or as a composite of several measured variables. The advantages of a composite 

variable over the use of single variables outweigh the disadvantages. The composite variable was 

constructed using principal component analysis. As SES is treated as a latent variable with 

reflective indicators. A rationale for treating SES as a latent variable with reflective indicators is 

that the components correlate. Treating SES as a latent variable with reflective indicators implies 

that changing SES would result in a change in income, parental education, and parental 

occupational status, which seems implausible. The use of PCA resulted in a single SES 

composite variable for each participant. We then scaled the composite variable to be in a range 

of one to three: 1 – low SES, 2 – medium SES, 3 – high SES. 

53 
Appendix D: Composite Measure of Motivation for Service 

We use Principal Component Analysis (PCA), a data reduction which allows for a meaningful 

interpretation of the data by reducing the number of items that measure motivation to a few 

linear combinations of the data. Each linear combination corresponds to a principal component. 

We performed the PCA on the 24 items included in the baseline and first follow-up using the 

prior communality estimates (Eigenvalue = 1.00). We use the principal axis method and varimax 

rotation to identify the parsimonious items. The PCA revealed seven principal components with 

an eigenvalue greater than 1.0. Combined, these seven principal components account for a total 

variation of 52 percent (Table D1). 

Table D1: Eigenvalues and the proportion of variation are explained by the principal components 

Principal 

component 

Eigenvalue Difference Proportion of 

variation explained 

Cumulative proportion 

explained 

1 3.914879 1.858897 0.1631 0.1631 

2 2.055982 0.28587 0.0857 0.2488 

3 1.770113 0.42794 0.0738 0.3225 

4 1.342173 0.06144 0.0559 0.3785 

5 1.280733 0.141057 0.0534 0.4318 

6 1.139676 0.117081 0.0475 0.4793 

7 1.022595 0.042275 0.0426 0.5219 

8 0.98032 0.039351 0.0408 0.5628 

9 0.940969 0.042802 0.0392 0.602 

10 0.898168 0.040239 0.0374 0.6394 

11 0.857929 0.049715 0.0357 0.6751 

12 0.808214 0.027069 0.0337 0.7088 

13 0.781145 0.050781 0.0325 0.7414 

14 0.730364 0.035416 0.0304 0.7718 

15 0.694948 0.063397 0.029 0.8008 

16 0.631552 0.023712 0.0263 0.8271 

17 0.60784 0.027685 0.0253 0.8524 

18 0.580155 0.011614 0.0242 0.8766 

19 0.568541 0.027026 0.0237 0.9003 

20 0.541515 0.030434 0.0226 0.9228 

21 0.511081 0.030509 0.0213 0.9441 

22 0.480571 0.032307 0.02 0.9641 

23 0.448264 0.035992 0.0187 0.9828 

24 0.412273 0.0172 1 

Total 24 

We then used factor analysis, a data reduction method, to interpret the seven types of motivation. 

An item loads into a factor if the loading was 0.40 or greater for that item and less than 0.40 for 

54 
the other factor. We set the number of factors to seven based on the PCA results. Using this 

criterion there are seven groups of motivations to serve, defined as: 1) altruistic 2) network / 

travel, 3) professional and career development, 4) financial, 5) commitment to service, 6) 

external factors and 7) gap year. Table D2 shows the original survey item. 

Table D2. Original Survey Item List and Corresponding Factor 

Factor 

Altruistic 

I want to make a difference/serve my country 

I want to reduce social or economic inequality 

NCCC will give me a sense of purpose 

Network / Travel 

I want to meet new people / make friends 

I want to travel the country / I want to leave the town that I am living in right now 

Professional and Career Development 

To try something new to find what direction I want to take in my career 

To gain leadership skills 

To gain professional skills / carpentry or construction skills / build resume 

I want the opportunity to network with professionals in my field of interest 

Financial 

I want to earn money/I needed to get a job 

NCCC was my only employment option 

There are not enough jobs where I live 

I wanted to have stable housing and other benefits 

I want to earn money to pay off student loans 

Commitment to Service 

I want to gain experience to serve in other AmeriCorps programs 

I want to gain experience to join the Peace Corps 

I want to gain experience to join the military 

External Factors 

I have a friend or family member who was applying or participating 

My parents/guardians wanted me to join NCCC 

An AmeriCorps organization or one like it helped you or a loved one in the past 

Gap year 

I want to take a break before college 

I want to take a break between college/grad school 

55 
Appendix E: Results from Multilevel Model Predicting the Odds of Service 

To analyze the odds of participants opting in to join AmeriCorps NCCC after being accepted into 

the program, we utilized a multilevel mixed linear model. Multilevel models (MLMs) have been 

developed to properly account for the hierarchical (correlated) nesting of data (Bell, 2013). 

Research has shown that ignoring a level of nesting can affect estimated variances and the 

available power to detect treatment or covariate effects (Donner & Klar, 2000; Julian, 2001; 

Moerbeek, 2004; Murray, 1998; Shadish, Cook & Campbell, 2002), can seriously inflate Type I 

error rates (Wampold & Serlin, 2000), and can lead to substantive errors in interpreting the 

results of statistical significance tests (Goldstein, 2003; Nich & Caroll, 1997). 

Multilevel models can be conceptualized as regression models occurring at different levels. In 

this case, we are utilizing participant level characteristics (level-1) of both the treatment group 

(members) and the comparison group to model the likelihood of a participant choosing to serve 

in AmeriCorps NCCC after being admitted into the program. We take into account the nesting of 

data by cluster within NCCC classes (level-2). 

56 
Table E1: Multilevel Analysis of the likelihood of opting into service 

Variable B SE p-value Odds 

ratio 

95% 

Confidence 

Interval –

Upper limit 

95% 

Confidence 

Interval –

Lower limit 

SES -0.039 0.083 0.635 0.961 0.817 1.131 

Age -0.078 0.035 0.025 0.925 0.864 0.99 

Female (Ref=Male) -0.754 0.130 <.0001 0.47 0.365 0.606 

Non-Binary (Ref=Male) -0.941 0.373 0.012 0.39 0.188 0.811 

Black or African American (Ref = 

White) 

-0.399 0.224 0.075 0.671 0.432 1.041 

American Indian or Alaska Native 

(Ref = White) 

-0.598 0.706 0.398 0.55 0.138 2.198 

Asian (Ref=White) -0.788 0.269 0.004 0.455 0.268 0.771 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander (Ref = White) 

1.099 1.448 0.448 3.001 0.175 51.404 

Multi-racial (Ref = White) 1.358 0.462 0.003 3.889 1.572 9.62 

Hispanic or Latino (Ref= White) -0.256 0.139 0.065 0.774 0.589 1.017 

Physical or Mental impairment 

(Ref = No) 

-0.878 0.326 0.007 0.416 0.219 0.788 

Definitely will not vote in future 

elections (Ref = Definitely will 

vote in future elections ) 

0.139 0.327 0.670 1.149 0.605 2.183 

Probably will not vote in future 

elections (Ref = Definitely will 

vote in future elections ) 

0.149 0.306 0.627 1.16 0.637 2.114 

Probably will vote in future 

elections (Ref = Definitely will 

vote in future elections ) 

0.712 0.189 0.0002 2.039 1.408 2.951 

Motivated by career development -0.024 0.103 0.816 0.976 0.797 1.195 

Motivated by finances -0.623 0.105 <.0001 0.536 0.437 0.659 

Motivated by travel 0.271 0.094 0.004 1.311 1.092 1.576 

Motivated by altruism 0.416 0.097 <.0001 1.516 1.254 1.833 

Has a college degree (Ref = No 

college degree) 

-0.518 0.157 0.001 0.596 0.438 0.811 

In FEMA Corps (Ref = Not in 

FEMA Corps) 

0.382 0.159 0.016 1.465 1.073 2.001 

Volunteer experience (Ref= No) -0.125 0.148 0.401 0.883 0.66 1.181 

57 
Table E1 shows the MLM results including the coefficients, standard errors, p-values, odds ratio 

estimates and the 95% confidence intervals. The interpretation of the odds ratio depends on 

whether the predictor is categorical or continuous. Odds ratios that are greater than 1 indicate 

that the event is more likely to occur as the predictor increases for continuous variables. Odds 

ratios that are less than 1 indicate that the event is less likely to occur as the predictor increases. 

For categorical predictors, the odds ratio compares the odds of the event occurring at category of 

the predictor. Odds ratios that are greater than 1 indicate that the event is more likely to happen 

at event 1 (i.e. if a participant is female compared to the reference of male). Odds ratios that are 

less than 1 indicate that the event is less likely at event 1. The independent variables include SES 

level, age, level of educational attainment, gender, race & ethnicity, physical or mental 

impairments, motivations to apply, likelihood of voting in future election, and prior volunteer 

experience. 

Appendix F: Composite Measures of Leadership Skills 

We use Principal Component Analysis (PCA), a technique of dimensionality reduction, to 

identify relevant scale items to create each construct of leadership development. We performed 

the PCA on the 50 survey items included in all three surveys using the prior communality 

estimates (Eigenvalue = 1.00). We use the principal axis method and varimax rotation to identify 

the parsimonious components. The PCA revealed seven components with eigenvalues greater 

than 1.00. We also reviewed the screen plot test, which suggests the seven components are 

meaningful. Therefore, seven components are retained for the rotation pattern. Combined, these 

seven components account for a total variation of 60.0 percent (baseline control group), 57.3 

percent (baseline treatment group), 61.0 percent (follow-up control group), and 65.0 percent 

(first follow-up treatment group). 

An item loads on a given component if the factor loading was 0.40 or greater for that component 

and less than 0.40 for the other components. Using this criterion, the corresponding items of each 

construct comprise seven components. We defined these seven major constructs as Professional 

Skills, Life Skills, Communication Skills, Appreciation for Varied Perspectives, Collaborative 

Practices, Community and Civic Efficacy, and Solving Community Problems. 

We computed average scores for each of the seven leadership development constructs. We used 

these average scores to calculate the impacts of service on members at the first follow-up survey 

compared to comparison participants at the same stage. Table F1 lists the original survey items 

from both the baseline and first follow-up and the factor it is a part of. 

58 
 

 

 

Table F1. Original Survey Item List and Corresponding Factor 

Factor Baseline 

Survey 

First FollowUp Survey 

Professional Skills 

Plan, coordinate and manage meetings or events BQ12A F1Q16A 

Deliver presentations BQ12B F1Q16B 

Work with the media and public relations BQ12C F1Q16C 

Manage a project BQ12D F1Q16D 

Community outreach BQ12E F1Q16E 

Recruit, manage or train volunteers BQ12F F1Q16F 

Set priorities for multiple tasks BQ13A F1Q17A 

Life Skills 

I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events BQ14A F1Q18A 

Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations BQ14B F1Q18B 

I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort BQ14C F1Q18C 

I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping 

abilities 

BQ14D F1Q18D 

When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions BQ14E F1Q18E 

If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution BQ14F F1Q18F 

I can usually handle whatever comes my way BQ14G F1Q18G 

Communication Skills 

I can verbally communicate my ideas to other people BQ15A F1Q19A 

I listen to other people’s opinions or positions on an issue BQ15B F1Q19B 

I collaborate on projects as a team member to achieve a shared goal BQ15C F1Q19C 

I get along with other people in my work environment BQ15D F1Q19D 

I resolve conflicts through discussion and dialog BQ15E F1Q19E 

I treat other people with courtesy and respect BQ15F F1Q19F 

Appreciation for Varied Perspectives 

I try to understand other people’s ideas and opinions before arguing or stating my

own 

BQ16A F1Q20A 

I try to present my ideas without criticizing the ideas of others BQ16B F1Q20B 

I encourage different points of view without worrying about agreement BQ16C F1Q20C 

I try to consider all points of view or possible options before forming an opinion 

or making a decision 

BQ16D F1Q20D 

I encourage the participation of other people and support their right to be heard BQ16E F1Q20E 

Collaborative Practices 

If people from different backgrounds took the time to understand each other, there 

wouldn’t be so many social problems

BQ17A F1Q21A 

I feel comfortable belonging to groups where people are different from me BQ17B F1Q21B 

Diverse viewpoints bring creativity and energy to a work group BQ17C F1Q21C 

Multicultural teams can be stimulating and fun BQ17D F1Q21D 

People are more motivated and productive when they feel they are accepted for 

who they are 

BQ17E F1Q21E 

Diversity brings many perspectives to problem-solving BQ17F F1Q21F 

59 
Table F1 continued 

Factor Baseline 

Survey 

First FollowUp Survey 

Collaborative Practices 

I feel comfortable in forming friendships with people who are different from me BQ17G F1Q21G 

Community and Civic Efficacy 

I feel a personal obligation to contribute in some way to my community. BQ18A F1Q22A 

I am actively involved in issues that positively affect my community BQ18B F1Q22B 

I can make a difference in my community or neighborhood. BQ18C F1Q22C 

I feel I have the ability to make a difference in my community. BQ18E F1Q22E 

I try to find the time or a way to make a positive difference in my community. BQ18F F1Q22F 

Solving Community Problems 

Create a plan to address the problem BQ19A F1Q23A 

Get other people to care about the problem BQ19B F1Q23B 

Organize and run a meeting BQ19C F1Q23C 

Express your views in front of a group of people BQ19D F1Q23D 

Identify individuals or groups who could help you with the problem BQ19E F1Q23E 

Express your views on the Internet or through social media BQ19F F1Q23F 

Call someone on the phone you had never met before to get their help with the 

problem 

BQ19G F1Q23G 

Contact an elected official about the problem BQ19H F1Q23H 

Appendix G: Results from Latent Growth Curve Analysis 

We used the Latent Growth Curve Analysis (LGCA) technique to determine the growth in 

leadership skills prior to service, after graduation from service, and one year after graduation. 

The latent growth curve model is a powerful tool in analyzing longitudinal data. It compares the 

lines of change across a set of individuals and determines the overall model’s line of change

(Burant, 2016). LGCA considers change over time in terms of an underlying, latent, unobserved 

process and can represent unique curves for each individual or groups of individuals, represented 

as deviations from the average function, in addition to testing hypothesis about trajectories of 

interest (Fuzhong, 2013). 

We ran seven LGCA models and compared average leadership development scores between the 

comparison and treatment participants at three different times (baseline, first follow-up and 

second follow-up) while controlling for several individual level covariates (age, gender, race and 

ethnic, SES, and education) 

The intercept values in the table are the estimated component scores among the treatment group 

(members) at baseline. Treatment=0 values are the intercepts for the comparison group, meaning 

they are the estimated component scores among the comparison group participants at baseline. 

The Time value is the slope of the treatment group, this indicates the estimated growth amount 

per period for the treatment group. The Treatment=0 X Time value is the slope of the 

comparison group; this indicates the estimated growth amount per period for the comparison 

group. The growth trajectory indicates how many points higher or lower the comparison group is 

growing compared to the treatment group across the three time points. 

60 
Table G1 shows the latent growth analysis results for three components: professional skills, life 

skills and problem-solving abilities. For professional skills, the treatment group had a growth of 

0.094 points per period, while the comparison group saw a decrease of 0.008 points per period. 

The growth trajectory of -0.10 indicates that AmeriCorps members have a growth trajectory that 

is 0.10 points higher than comparison participants across the three timepoints. 

Table G1: Latent Growth Curve Analysis Results 

Professional Skills Life Skills Problem-Solving 

Indicator B SE pvalue B SE pvalue B SE pvalue 

Estimate baseline score for 

treatment group (Intercept) 

3.02 0.18 <.0001 3.97 0.13 <.0001 3.85 0.15 <.0001 

Estimate baseline score for 

comparison group 

(Treatment=0) 

3.23 0.04 <.0001 4.02 0.03 0.10 3.97 0.04 0.0006 

Estimate slope for treatment 

group (Time) 

0.09 0.01 <.0001 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.14 

Estimate slope for 

comparison group 

(Treatment=0 X Time) 

-0.01 0.02 <.0001 -0.004 0.02 0.03 -0.02 0.02 0.03 

Male -0.15 0.04 0.00 -0.04 0.03 0.19 -0.10 0.03 0.002 

Black or African American -0.05 0.07 0.47 -0.06 0.05 0.23 0.12 0.06 0.04 

Asian -0.16 0.08 0.06 -0.17 0.06 0.00 -0.15 0.07 0.03 

Multiracial 0.07 0.10 0.50 0.03 0.07 0.72 0.05 0.08 0.54 

Native Hawaiian/Other 

Pacific or American 

Indian/Alaskan Native 

0.08 0.17 0.63 0.05 0.12 0.66 0.11 0.14 0.42 

Hispanic or Latino 0.03 0.04 0.49 0.01 0.03 0.79 0.03 0.04 0.35 

Education 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.62 0.00 0.01 0.75 

Age 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.31 

SES 0.04 0.03 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.34 0.03 0.02 0.14 

For life skills, the treatment group had a growth of 0.036 points per period, while the comparison 

group saw a decrease of 0.004 points per period. The growth trajectory of -0.04 indicates that 

AmeriCorps members have a growth trajectory that is 0.04 points higher than comparison 

participants across the three timepoints. For community problem solving abilities, the treatment 

group had a growth of 0.018 points per period, while the comparison group saw a decrease of 

0.021 points per period. The growth trajectory of -0.04 indicates that AmeriCorps members have 

a growth trajectory that is 0.04 points higher than comparison participants across the three 

timepoints. 

Three components: communication skills, collaborative practices, and appreciation for varied 

perspectives, were found to have a negative trajectory from baseline to first follow-up, and then a 

positive trajectory from first follow-up to second follow-up. This indicates that AmeriCorps 

members reported a decrease in these skills at the end of their service compared to what they 

reported before their service. However, when surveyed a year after graduation, AmeriCorps 

61 
members reported a higher level of confidence in these skills compared to what was reported 

directly after the end of their service. 

Table G2: Latent Growth Curve Analysis Results (Baseline to First Follow-Up) 

Communication Skills Collaborative 

Practices 

Appreciation for 

Varied Perspectives 

Indicator B SE pvalue B SE pvalue B SE pvalue 

Estimate baseline score for 

treatment group (Intercept) 

4.06 0.03 <.0001 4.66 0.12 <.0001 4.21 0.14 <.0001 

Estimate baseline score for 

comparison group 

(Treatment=0) 

4.22 0.04 <.0001 4.62 0.03 0.18 4.23 0.04 0.00 

Estimate slope for treatment 

group (Time) 

-0.02 0.03 0.56 -0.21 0.02 <.0001 -0.10 0.01 0.14 

Estimate slope for 

comparison group 

(Treatment=0 X Time) 

-0.02 0.04 0.88 -0.02 0.03 <.0001 0.003 0.02 0.03 

Male -0.16 0.04 <.0001 -0.11 0.03 <.0001 -0.09 0.03 0.002 

Black or African American -0.03 0.06 0.59 -0.19 0.04 <.0001 -0.01 0.05 0.90 

Asian -0.07 0.08 0.38 -0.06 0.05 0.27 0.00 0.06 0.95 

Multiracial 0.17 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.52 0.18 0.08 0.02 

Native Hawaiian/Other 

Pacific or American 

Indian/Alaskan Native 

-0.03 0.15 0.85 -0.22 0.11 0.04 0.14 0.13 0.27 

Hispanic or Latino 0.03 0.04 0.52 -0.06 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.37 

Education -0.16 0.04 <.0001 0.00 0.01 0.88 0.00 0.01 0.99 

Age -0.03 0.06 0.59 0.00 0.01 0.96 0.01 0.01 0.40 

SES -0.07 0.08 0.38 0.02 0.02 0.23 -0.01 0.02 0.52 

Table G2 shows the latent growth analysis results for baseline to first follow-up. For 

communication skills, the treatment group had a decrease of 0.016 points per period, while the 

comparison group saw a decrease of 0.023 points per period. For collaborative practices skills, 

the treatment group had a decrease of 0.209 points per period, while the comparison group saw a 

decrease of 0.018 points per period. For appreciation for varied perspectives, the treatment group 

had a decrease of 0.101 points per period, while the comparison group saw a growth of 0.003 

points per period. 

62 
Table G3: Latent Growth Curve Analysis Results (First Follow-Up to Second Follow-Up) 

Communication Skills Collaborative 

Practices 

Appreciation for 

Varied Perspectives 

Indicator B SE pvalue B SE pvalue B SE pvalue 

Estimate baseline score for 

treatment group (Intercept) 

4.11 0.13 <.0001 4.42 0.13 <.0001 4.12 0.15 <.0001 

Estimate baseline score for 

comparison group 

(Treatment=0) 

4.23 0.03 <.0001 4.57 0.03 <.0001 4.25 0.04 0.0005 

Estimate slope for treatment 

group (Time) 

0.11 0.02 <.0001 0.12 0.02 <.0001 0.08 0.02 0.0006 

Estimate slope for 

comparison group 

(Treatment=0 X Time) 

-0.02 0.03 <.0001 -0.05 0.03 <.0001 -0.04 0.04 0.0004 

Male -0.09 0.03 0.00 -0.11 0.03 <.0001 -0.10 0.03 0.002 

Black or African American 0.01 0.05 0.77 -0.16 0.05 0.00 -0.01 0.05 0.89 

Asian -0.05 0.06 0.41 -0.09 0.06 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.94 

Multiracial -0.02 0.07 0.79 -0.06 0.07 0.41 0.14 0.08 0.09 

Native Hawaiian/Other 

Pacific or American 

Indian/Alaskan Native 

0.03 0.12 0.78 -0.15 0.12 0.22 0.21 0.13 0.13 

Hispanic or Latino 0.03 0.03 0.42 -0.05 0.03 0.13 0.02 0.04 0.62 

Education -0.01 0.01 0.59 0.00 0.01 0.96 0.003 0.01 0.77 

Age 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.87 0.003 0.01 0.66 

SES 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.22 0.002 0.02 0.93 

Table G3 shows the latent growth analysis results for first follow-up to second follow-up. For 

communication skills, the treatment group had a growth of 0.105 points per period, while the 

comparison group saw a decrease of 0.025 points per period. The growth trajectory of -0.13 

indicates that AmeriCorps members had a growth trajectory that is 0.13 points higher than 

comparison participants across the three timepoints. For collaborative practices, the treatment 

group had a growth of 0.124 points per period, while the comparison group saw a decrease of 

0.046 points per period. The growth trajectory of -0.17 indicates that AmeriCorps members had a 

growth trajectory that is 0.17 points higher than comparison participants across the three 

timepoints. For appreciation for varied perspectives, the treatment group had a growth of 0.083 

points per period, while the comparison group saw a decrease of 0.044 points per period. The 

growth trajectory of -0.13 indicates that AmeriCorps members have a growth trajectory that is 

0.13 points higher than comparison participants across the three timepoints. 

Community and civic efficacy has a constant negative trajectory throughout all three time 

periods. AmeriCorps members as well as comparison participants reported a decrease in 

community and civic efficacy throughout the study period. Table G4 shows the latent growth 

analysis results for community engagement. The treatment group saw a decrease of 0.050 points 

per period, while the comparison group saw a decrease of 0.064 points per period. Both 

AmeriCorps members and the comparison group saw a decrease in their community and civic 

63 
efficacy level; however, the growth trajectory of -0.01 indicates that AmeriCorps members have 

a growth trajectory that is 0.01 points higher than comparison participants across the three 

timepoints, meaning the gap between the two groups is closing by 0.01 points each period. 

Table G4: Latent Growth Curve Analysis Results 

Community and Civic Efficacy 

Indicator B SE p-value 

Estimate baseline score for treatment group 

(Intercept) 

4.07 0.03 <.0001 

Estimate baseline score for comparison group 

(Treatment=0) 

4.23 0.04 <.0001 

Estimate slope for treatment group (Time) -0.05 0.01 0.0006 

Estimate slope for comparison group 

(Treatment=0 X Time) -0.06 0.02 0.51 

Male -0.15 0.04 <.0001 

Black or African American -0.02 0.06 0.68 

Asian -0.06 0.07 0.46 

Multiracial 0.14 0.09 0.14 

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific or American 

Indian/Alaskan Native 0.00 0.15 0.98 

Hispanic or Latino 0.03 0.04 0.48 

Education 0.01 0.01 0.26 

Age 0.001 0.001 0.45 

Socioeconomic Status 0.03 0.03 0.27 

Appendix H: Results from Multilevel Model of the Association between Service 

Projects and Leadership Skills 

To analyze the impacts of service project characteristics on AmeriCorps members’ leadership 

development, we utilized a multilevel mixed linear model which accounts for the hierarchical 

(correlated) nesting of data (Bell, 2013). 

Research shows ignoring a level of nesting in data can impact estimated variances and the 

available power to detect treatment or covariate effects (Donner & Klar, 2000; Julian, 2001; 

Moerbeek, 2004; Murray, 1998; Shadish, Cook & Campbell, 2002) can seriously inflate Type I 

error rates (Wampold & Serlin, 2000), and can lead to substantive errors in interpreting the 

results of statistical significance tests (Goldstein, 2003; Nich & Caroll, 1997). Multilevel models 

can be conceptualized as regression models occurring at different levels. In this case, we are 

modeling the leadership skills of AmeriCorps members (at level-1) and exploring the influence 

of characteristics associated with service projects the AmeriCorps members work on in teams (at 

level-2). Additionally, a third level is added by accounting for the clustering of teams within 

regions (level-3). 

There are several advantages of fitting multilevel linear models to hierarchically structured data 

(Raudenbush, 1993). First, both continuous and categorical variables can be specified to have 

random effects. Variability can be partitioned at each level, which becomes an important process 

when accounting for dependency due to clustering effects. In addition, independent variables or 

64 
covariates can be included in the model at different levels. For example, predictors pertaining to 

the participant (e.g., age, gender) as well as information regarding the region in which 

participants are nested can be included in the model at each level (Suzuki, 1999). 

Table H1: Multilevel Analysis Results 

Collaborative 

Practices 

Comm. 

Skills 

Life 

Skills 

Prof. 

Skills 

Civic 

Efficacy 

Problem 

Solving 

Varied 

Perspectives 

SES 0.02 

(0.04) 

0.07 

(0.04) 

0.05 

(0.04) 

0.08** 

(0.04) 

0.07* 

(0.04) 

0.13*** 

(0.04) 

0.02 

(0.05) 

Black or African 

American (=1) 

-0.40** 

(0.20) 

-0.15 

(0.19) 

-0.21 

(0.19) 

0.06 

(0.17) 

-0.05 

(0.19) 

0.10 

(0.19) 

-0.17 

(0.21) 

Asian (=1) -0.23 

(0.21) 

0.21 

(0.20) 

0.17 

(0.21) 

0.12 

(0.19) 

0.08 

(0.20) 

0.19 

(0.20) 

0.01 

(0.23) 

Multi race (=1) -0.39** 

(0.17) 

-0.27 

(0.16) 

-0.54 

(0.17) 

-0.40 

(0.15) 

-0.25 

(0.17) 

-0.40** 

(0.16) 

-0.22 

(0.18) 

Hispanic or 

Latino (=1) 

-0.10 

(0.10) 

0.08 

(0.09) 

0.05 

(0.01) 

0.07 

(0.09) 

-0.02 

(0.09) 

0.05 

(0.09) 

0.04 

(0.10) 

Native Hawaiian 

or Alaskan Native 

(=1) 

0.22 

(0.55) 

0.14 

(0.53) 

-0.40 

(0.55) 

0.07 

(0.49) 

0.81 

(0.53) 

0.41 

(0.53) 

0.24 

(0.58) 

Male (=1) -0.29*** 

(0.08) 

-0.26*** 

(0.08) 

-0.18*** 

(0.08) 

-0.21*** 

(0.07) 

-0.09 

(0.08) 

-0.16** 

(0.08) 

-0.34*** 

(0.09) 

Baseline score 0.40*** 

(0.04) 

0.47*** 

(0.04) 

0.46*** 

(0.04) 

0.58*** 

(0.03) 

0.53*** 

(0.04) 

0.50*** 

(0.04) 

0.41*** 

(0.04) 

Disaster impacts 0.05** 

(0.02) 

0.04* 

(0.02) 

0.00 

(0.02) 

0.01 

(0.02) 

0.02 

(0.02) 

0.01 

(0.02) 

0.03 

(0.02) 

Intangible impacts 0.004 

(0.01) 

-0.001 

(0.01) 

0.01 

(0.01) 

0.01 

(0.01) 

0.01 

(0.01) 

0.02** 

(0.01) 

0.00 

(0.01) 

Tangible Impacts -0.001 

(0.02) 

0.00 

(0.03) 

0.05* 

(0.03) 

0.04* 

(0.02) 

0.05** 

(0.03) 

0.01 

(0.02) 

0.01 

(0.03) 

Note: *p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.001; Standard errors in parenthesis. Explanatory variables SES and baseline score, as well as all seven outcome 

variables have been standardized (z-score). 

Table H1 shows the MLM results for each of the seven leadership skills as well as covariates. 

The analysis indicates that members' socioeconomic status is significantly associated with 

several aspects of leadership skills. AmeriCorps members’ SES has a positive relationship with 

professional skills, community and civic efficacy, and community problem solving abilities, 

indicating that AmeriCorps members with higher socioeconomic statuses report higher average 

scores in those categories. The biggest impact is seen in community problem solving abilities, 

with one standard deviation increase in SES resulting in a 0.13 standard deviation increase in 

problem solving abilities. 

Based on our findings, it appears that members who are male reported lower scores in each of the 

leadership skills, except community and civic efficacy. Compared to female or non-binary 

identifying AmeriCorps members, male members reported a lower appreciation for varied 

perspectives score by 0.34 standard deviations, lower collaborative practices score by 0.29 

standard deviations and lower communication skills score by 0.26 standard deviations. In 

general, there are no significant differences in leadership skills by race and ethnicity. The 

exceptions are members who identify as Black or African American reported lower collaborative 

65 
practices score by 0.40 standard deviations, members who identified with multiple race and 

ethnicity reported lower collaborative practices score by 0.39 standard deviations and lower 

problem-solving skills score by 0.40 standard deviations. 

When analyzing the project level predictors, projects that have tangible impacts are positively 

associated with life skills, professional skills, and community and civic efficacy skills. Projects 

where members mitigate disaster (e.g., focus on disaster recovery, mitigation, prevention, or 

preparedness) are positively associated with members’ ability to communicate as well as 

collaborate with others. The analysis shows that AmeriCorps members’ problem-solving abilities 

are positively associated with projects that have intangible impacts. 

66 
References 

Abt Associates, Inc., & Corporation for National and Community Service (2008). Still Serving: 

Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni. Washington, DC: Corporation for National 

and Community Service. 

Bell, B. A., Ene, M., Smiley, W., & Schoeneberger, J. A. (2013). A multilevel model primer using 

SAS PROC MIXED. SAS global forum (Vol. 433, pp. 1-19). Columbia, SC, USA: University of South 

Carolina. 

Burant, C. J. (2016). Latent growth curve models: Tracking changes over time. The International 

Journal of Aging and Human Development, 82(4), 336-350. 

Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) (2013). All 

Together Now: Collaboration and Innovation for Youth Engagement. Medford, MA: Tufts University. 

Cowen, C., & Sellman S.W. (2012). Improving the quality of NAEP socioeconomic status 

information. Alexandira, VA: Human Resources Research Organization. 

Donner, A. & Klar, N. (2000). Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health 

research. London: Edward Arnold. 

Epstein, D. (2009). Evaluating the Long-Term Impacts of AmeriCorps Service on Participants. 

Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 

Fredriksson, A., & Oliveira, G. M. d. (2019). Impact evaluation using Difference-inDifferences. RAUSP Management Journal, 54(4), 519-532. 

Friedman, E., Freeman, B., Phillips, B., Rosenthal, L., Robinson, D., Miller, H., & Porowski, A. 

(2016). New methods for Assessing AmeriCorps Alumni Outcomes: Final Survey Technical Report. 

Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service. 

Frumkin, P., Jastrzab, J., Vaaler, M., Greeney, A., Grimm, R.T., Cramer, K., & Dietz, N. (2009). 

Inside national service: AmeriCorps’ impact on participants. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 

28(3), 394-416. 

Fuzhong, L. (2013). Latent Curve Analysis: A Manual for Research Data Analysts. Eugene, OR. 

Oregon Research Institute. 

Georges, A., Smith, S. J., & Fung, W. (2021). Profile of AmeriCorps NCCC Members at the Start 

of Service. San Mateo, CA: JBS International, Inc. 

Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel statistical models (3rd ed). London: Edward Arnold. 

Houghton, J. D., & DiLiello, T. C. (2010) Leadership development: The key to unlocking 

individual creativity in organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 31(3) 230-245. 

Hudson-Flege, M.D. (2018). Getting Things Done for Life: Long-term Impact of AmeriCorps 

Service for Diverse Groups of Members. Clemson, SC: Clemson University. 

67 
Jastrzab, J., Chase, A., Valente, J., Hazlett, A., LaRock, R., & James, D. (2004). Serving Country 

and Community: A Longitudinal Study of Service in AmeriCorps: Early Findings. Washington, DC: 

Corporation for National & Community Service. 

JBS International, Inc. (2015). National Service Systematic Review and Synthesis of National 

Service Literature. Burlingame, CA: JBS International, Inc. 

Julian, M. (2001). The consequences of ignoring multilevel data structures in nonhierarchical 

covariance modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 325-352. 

Karagianni, D., & Montgomery, A. J. (2018). Developing leadership skills among adolescents 

and young adults: A review of leadership programmes. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 

23(1), 86-98. 

Kibel, B.M. (2012). The Arizona AmeriCorps Experience Evaluation Report 2011-2012. Phoenix, 

AZ: Arizona Governor’s Commission on Service and Volunteerism.

Lechner, Michael. (2011). The Estimation of Causal Effects by Difference-in-Difference 

Methods. Dept of Economics, University of St. Gallen. 

Markovitz, C., Schneider, G., Jastrzab, J., Abt Associates, Inc., & Frumkin, P. (2008). Improving 

Lives and Communities: Perspectives on 40 Years of VISTA Service. Washington, DC: Corporation for 

National and Community Service. 

Mattero, M. (2009). Measuring the impact of youth voluntary service programs: Summary and 

conclusions of the International Experts’ Meeting. Washington, DC: World Bank. 

Metz, E.C., & Youniss, J. (2005). Longitudinal gains in civic development through school-based 

required service. Political Psychology, 26(3), 413-437. 

Moerbeek, M. (2004). The consequences of ignoring a level of nesting in multilevel analysis. 

Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 129-149. 

Murray, D.M. (1998). Design and analysis of group-randomized trials. New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press. 

Nich, C. & Carroll, K. (1997). Now you see it, now you don’t: A comparison of traditional versus 

random-effects regression models in the analysis of longitudinal follow-up data from a clinical trial. 

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 252-261. 

Raudenbush, S.W. & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data 

analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in 

observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 45-55. 

Shadish, W., Cook, T. & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for 

generalized causal inference. Boston, MD: Houghton Mifflin. 

68 
Suzuki, S., & Sheu, C. F. (1999, September). Using PROC MIXED in Hierarchical Linear 

Models: Examples from two-and three-level school-effect analysis, and meta-analysis research. 

In Midwest SAS Users Group Conference Proceedings (Vol. 252, p. 267). 

Wampold, B.E. & Serlin, R.C. (2000). The consequences of ignoring a nested factor on measures 

of effect size in analysis of variance. Psychological Methods, 5, 425-433. 

Westat (2002). Evaluation of Citizenship Training Materials Implementation and Outcomes in 

AmeriCorps Programs. Washington, DC: Corporation for National and Community Service. 

National Center for Education Statistics (2012). Improving the measurement of socioeconomic 

status for the National Assessment of Educational Progress: A theoretical foundation. Jessup, MD: 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

Yerace, F.J. (2017). Adolescent and youth leadership development: The role of advisers in 

facilitating leadership and civic engagement through stewardship of student councils. Spokane, WA: 

Gonzaga University. 

Zhao, Q. Y., Luo, J. C., Su, Y., Zhang, Y. J., Tu, G. W., & Luo, Z. (2021). Propensity score 

matching with R: conventional methods and new features. Annals of translational medicine, 9(9), 812. 

69