Exploring Demographics, 

Motivation, Interpersonal and 

Group Cohesion Factors in 

Retaining Members through 

their Term of Service: A 

National Study of AmeriCorps 

NCCC 

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 94002 
Exploring Demographics, Motivation, Interpersonal and Group 

Cohesion Factors in Retaining Members through their Term of Service: 

A National Study of AmeriCorps NCCC 

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 

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

Belayeth Hussain, Ph.D., Senior 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 

Acknowledgments 

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 and Jazmin Ledesma Duque for their gentle persistence and 

persuasion in administering the survey. 

Citation 

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

Krauss, J. (2023). Exploring Demographics, Motivation, Interpersonal and Group Cohesion Factors in 

Retaining Members through their Term of Service: A National Study of AmeriCorps NCCC. San Mateo, 

CA: JBS International, Inc. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

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

Chapter 1 Prior studies on retention of young adults in national service ....................................... 2 

Chapter 2 Research Design............................................................................................................. 5 

Chapter 3 Demographic background, motivation, service experience, and reasons for leaving .... 8 

Demographic Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 8 

Age and gender........................................................................................................................ 8 

Race and Ethnicity................................................................................................................... 8 

Education ............................................................................................................................... 10 

Household Structure .............................................................................................................. 11 

Living arrangement................................................................................................................ 13 

Members’ socio-economic status .......................................................................................... 13 

Members’ education and employment activity prior to service ............................................ 14 

Sources where members first hear about AmeriCorps NCCC .............................................. 15 

Motivation to serve.................................................................................................................... 16 

Understanding of the service experience .................................................................................. 18 

Differences Between Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps Early Exit Members ..................... 19 

Reasons for Leaving Service Early ........................................................................................... 20 

Differences in Reasons for Leaving Between Traditional NCCC and FEMA Corps Early 

Exit Members ........................................................................................................................ 28 

Reasons for leaving early examined by race and ethnicity ................................................... 29 

Chapter 4 Service project characteristics and member retention.................................................. 31 

Chapter 5 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................... 37 

Chapter 6 Recommendations and Lessons Learned to Maximize Member Retention................. 38 

Appendix A: Survey Non-Response Bias Analysis...................................................................... 40 

Appendix B: Socioeconomic Status.............................................................................................. 42 

Appendix C: Composite Measure of Motivation for Service ....................................................... 48 

Appendix D: Reasons for Leaving Cluster Analysis .................................................................... 49 

Appendix E: Multilevel Model ..................................................................................................... 52 

References..................................................................................................................................... 56 

i 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 3.1 Attrition rate by age group ............................................................................................ 8 

Figure 3.4 Early exit members first heard about AmeriCorps NCCC from a friend or family or 

Figure 4.1 Examples of the coded projects’ impacts as described by teams assigned to the 

Figure 4.2 Service projects and the likelihood of early exit (Model 1 controls for service projects 

Figure 4.3 Service projects and the likelihood of early exit (Model 2 controls for service projects 

Figure 4.4 Service projects and the likelihood of early exit (Model 3 controls only for member 

Figure 3.2 Attrition rate within each race and ethnic group ........................................................... 9 

Figure 3.3 Living arrangements prior to service........................................................................... 13 

the AmeriCorps website................................................................................................................ 16 

Figure 3.5 Classification of motivation to serve among early exit members ............................... 18 

Figure 3.6 Groups of reasons why members left service............................................................. 21 

Figure 3.7 Distribution of reasons for leaving by program type................................................. 29 

Figure 3.8 Reason for leaving service early by race & ethnicity.................................................. 30 

projects.......................................................................................................................................... 32 

coded impacts, FEMA Corps and member characteristics).......................................................... 33 

coded impacts, and member characteristics, does not control for FEMA Corps) ........................ 34 

characteristics) .............................................................................................................................. 35 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 2.1: Sample of Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps early exit members ............................ 6 

Table 3.1 Comparison of the Race/ethnicity distribution among early exit members and members 

Table 3.2 Distribution of highest level of education completed among graduating AmeriCorps 

Table 3.4 Comparison of household structure among early exit members and members who 

Table 3.5 Comparison of parent/guardian education among early exit members and members 

Table 3.8 Reasons which the highest proportion of early exit members reported as important in 

Table 2.2: Survey response rate among early exit members .......................................................... 7 

who completed service.................................................................................................................... 9 

members and early exit members ................................................................................................. 10 

Table 3.3 Comparison of attrition rate within each race/ethnic group, by education................... 11 

completed service.......................................................................................................................... 12 

who completed service.................................................................................................................. 12 

Table 3.6 Distribution of early exit members Socio-Economic Status......................................... 14 

Table 3.7 Education and employment activity in the six months prior to service........................ 15 

their motivation to serve ............................................................................................................... 17 

Table 3.9 Percent of members responding 'Yes, this is true' ....................................................... 19 

Table 3.10 Group 1 Reasons for leaving related to leadership and program structure................. 22 

Table 3.11 Personal limitations affect members’ reasons for leaving .......................................... 25 

Table 3.12 Group 2 Reasons for leaving related to outside obligations ....................................... 26 

Table 3.13 Group 3 reasons for leaving related to project assignments ....................................... 27 

Table 3.14 Group 4 Reasons for leaving related to interpersonal team dynamics ....................... 28 

Table 4.1 Distribution by region................................................................................................... 31 

Table 4.2 Differences between FEMA Corps and Traditional NCCC ........................................ 36 

ii 
Executive Summary 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and community service. 

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

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

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

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

This report discusses the findings on factors that affect the retention of members. Retaining 

members through their year of service is an important in order to achieve AmeriCorps’ desired 

impact on those who serve, the beneficiaries and the communities. Retaining members 

maximizes the program’s cost effectiveness and enhances sustainability. A high attrition rate 

yields a higher than anticipated cost per member, as has occurred in recent years. It is important 

to understand the evidence on member retention to inform AmeriCorps’ efforts to achieve its 

desired impacts on beneficiaries and communities, enhances cost effectiveness of the program 

and its sustainability. With these concerns in mind, AmeriCorps sought to design this 

longitudinal study of its AmeriCorps NCCC program to understand how to maximize member 

retention at various stages of service. 

Objectives 

This study of member retention accomplishes the following objectives: 

1. Describe the characteristics of members who do not complete their term of service (early 

exit members). 

2. Describe motivation for service and reasons for leaving service. 

3. Identify factors that contribute to member retention through the end of the service term. 

4. Discuss the lessons learned and best practices that can inform how best to maximize 

member retention. 

Methods 

The study of member retention draws from the national longitudinal quasi-experimental design 

(QED) evaluation of AmeriCorps NCCC. The QED identified comparable individuals drawn 

from the pool of candidates who applied to serve and were accepted, but did not do so, and the 

treatment group consists of individuals who served and completed their term of service with 

AmeriCorps NCCC. The sample of early exit members includes members who began service but 

did not complete their terms of service. The survey administration timeline is the same for 

members, early exit members and comparison participants. All participants completed the same 

questionnaire at three time points. In addition, early exit members completed a short survey at 

iii 
the time of their exit to measure their reasons for leaving as well as their perception of the 

service experience and how this experience may have contributed to their decision to leave. Of 

the 1,252 incoming members, 344 exited without completing their term of service. This 

represents an attrition rate of 27 percent. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a 

random sample of 48 early exit members. Two researchers conducted the interviews via video 

conference calls or telephone conference calls between November 2020 and June 2022. Each 

semi-structured interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. 

iv 
Early Exit Members’ Demographics 

Average age of early exit members is 21. More than one-third are 

from low SES households. More than half identified as White; less than 

a quarter identified as Hispanic or Latino; less one fifth identified as 

Black or African American. 

Gender Age 

Non-Binary 

2% 22 and older 43% 

19-21 

Male 

48% 43% 

Female 18 14% 50% 

58% 

22% 

13% 

3% 

2% 

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 

Most early exit members have either a high school diploma or GED, 

technical school, or some college. 

Socio-Economic Status 

37% 

28% 

35% 

Low SES Average/Middle High SES 

SES 

Some high High school Technical At least a 

school degree or GED school or Associate degree bachelor’s degree 

2% 35% 23% 6% 33% 

some college 

Produced and published at US taxpayer expense. 
8%

The evidence AmeriCorps NCCC strengthens communities where 

members serve

Early exit from national service varies. The lowest exit rate is among 

members with a college degree irrespective of their age, SES, or 

race and ethnicity. 

Race & Ethnicity 

Members who identify 

as Black or AfricanAmerican have the 

highest exit rate. 

Socio-Economic Status 

Members who have a 

lower SES have a 

higher exit rate than 

those with average or 

high SES. 

Educational Attainment 

Members who do not 

have a high school 

diploma have the 

highest exit rate. 

Age 

Members aged 19 

through 21 have the 

highest exit rate 

compared to 

members aged 18 or 

members aged 22 and 

over. 

Early exit members are motivated to seek career and leadership 

development opportunities and they are altruistic. 

Develop 

Do Good 

Explore 

Earn 

» 77% of early exit members are motivated to 

find a direction for their career; 73% are 

motivated by the opportunity to gain 

professional skills. 

» 85% of early exit members are motivated 

because they want to make a difference 

and serve their country. 

» 87% of early exit members are motivated by 

the opportunity to travel the country; 75% are 

interested in meeting new people. 

» 50% of early exit members are motivated to 

earn money for college tuition; 31% are 

motivated because they need a job. 

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

Demographics, Motivations, 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. 
“I needed to help my family pay the bills, I 

was not earning enough money with 

NCCC.” 

Leadership & 

Program 

Structure 

Outside 

Obligations 

Project 

Assignments 

Team 

Dynamics 

“Improving the process by which campus 

leadership hears and responds to concerns 

from members, not just team leaders, 

would really increase that level of trust.” 

“I didn’t feel like the work I was doing was 

beneficial to people. They were struggling 

to find things to do.” 

“Some members engaged in bickering 

and negativity that dragged down the 

team.” 

Program structure, outside obligations, 

project assignments, and interpersonal 

team dynamics plays an important role in 

retaining members 

» Felt 

disconnected 

and disillusioned 

with the 

program’s 

structure. 

» Secured a job, 

going back to 

school, need to 

care for a family 

member 

» Interpersonal 

conflicts with the 

team 

» Dissatisfied with 

project 

assignments 

Unrealized expectations can result in ending service. 

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

Demographics, Motivations, 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. 
Members with project assignments that align with their interests and 

motivations are less likely to end their service early. 

» Members assigned to projects where they perceive they are making a 

difference are less likely to exit early, especially members who identified as 

Black or African American who also have the higher risk of ending their service 

early. 

» FEMA Corps members are significantly more likely to exit early compared to 

Traditional Corps members. This may be due to FEMA Corps members’ feeling 

they are less connected to the community they serve than Traditional Corps 

members, and more often feeling their assignments are meaningless busy-work. 

National Study of AmeriCorps NCCC. San Mateo, CA: JBS International, Inc. 

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

Demographics, Motivations, Interpersonal and Group Cohesion Factors in Retaining Members through their Term of Service: A 

Maximize member retention 

» Expose members to a range of assignments 

that align with interest, connection to the 

community being served as well as personal 

leadership and career development. 

» Ensure quality sponsors with sustainable 

workloads and clear expectations of training. 

» Strengthen communication connection 

between members and program leadership. 
 

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 engages and provides opportunities for more than five 

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

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

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

embodied in AmeriCorps’ 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 and help drive the agency’s 

business decisions to allocate resources strategically and grow effective national service 

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

with AmeriCorps NCCC promotes leadership skills among its members and how service projects 

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

AmeriCorps’ strategic plan, which the agency developed in accordance with the Foundations for 

Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (FEBP) of 2018, Pub. L. 115-435. The strategic plan provides 

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

learning and decision-making to ensure 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. 

This report discusses the findings on factors affecting retention of members 1 . Retention refers 

specifically to the continuance of members in a service program or activity; attrition refers to the 

loss of members from service. The literature on volunteer management has long sought to 

measure volunteer retention (and attrition) rates and to understand the determinants of retention. 

Low retention rates may result in the need for ongoing investment in recruiting and retraining 

other volunteers; attrition may even indicate a failing or an unsustainable program (Beirne & 

Lambin, 2013). Member retention through their year of service is an important factor for 

AmeriCorps to achieve its desired impacts on those who serve, beneficiaries, and communities. 

High member retention maximizes the program’s cost effectiveness and enhances sustainability. 

A high attrition rate yields a higher than anticipated cost per member. It is important to 

understand the evidence on member retention to inform AmeriCorps’ efforts to achieve its 

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

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

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

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

1 
desired impacts on beneficiaries and communities, enhances cost effectiveness of the program 

and its sustainability. In recent years, rising attrition rates (low retention rates) among members 

have resulted in higher than anticipated costs per member. With these concerns in mind, 

AmeriCorps sought to design a longitudinal study of its AmeriCorps NCCC program to 

understand how to maximize member retention. 

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

Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps. In the Traditional Corps program, AmeriCorps members 

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

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

emergencies such as COVID-19, 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. Administrative records show almost 23 percent of 

Traditional Corps members and 27 percent of FEMA Corps members leave before completing 

their service term. 

This study of member retention accomplishes the following objectives: 

1. Describe the characteristics of members who do not complete their term of service (early 

exit members). 

2. Describe motivation for service and reasons for leaving service. 

3. Identify factors that contribute to member retention through the end of the service term. 

4. Discuss the lessons learned and best practices that can inform how best to maximize 

member retention. 

Organization of the report 

This report is organized into 5 chapters. Chapter 1 summarizes the literature on factors affecting 

member retention in national service. The key themes that emerge as effective mechanisms to 

maximize retention include the importance of social networks, efforts to enhance satisfaction, 

and efforts to minimize stress and burnout. The discussion identifies the evidence gap in the 

literature to which the current study on member retention contributes. Chapter 2 describes the 

research design which includes the analysis approach, and data sources. Chapter 3 discusses the 

findings on the first two objectives; this includes a description of early exit member 

characteristics, members’ motivations to serve, and their reasons for ending their service. 

Chapter 4 discusses the findings on the third objective on the factors that contribute to member 

retention. Chapter 5 summarizes the findings and discusses the lessons learned and best practices 

to maximize national service members’ retention. Throughout the discussion, the analysis 

compares differences between Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps early exit members. 

Chapter 1 Prior studies on retention of young adults in national service 

Mechanisms for the retention of young adults in national service vary, but across the literature, 

key themes emerged regarding the importance of social networks; efforts to enhance satisfaction; 

and efforts to minimize stress and burnout as effective mechanisms to maximize retention. The 

evidence from studies of AmeriCorps members shows younger members more frequently 

2 
terminate their service prior to completion than older members; members with lower levels of 

education (GED, less than a high school education, or technical school) were more likely to 

leave their term of service for a non-compelling reason as were African American and American 

Indian/Alaskan members (AmeriCorps VISTA (n.d.); DMA Corporation, 2003). 

Social motivations are one reason for both an attraction to serve and desire to complete the 

service term. The influence of family and friends can induce individuals to volunteer (Rehberg, 

2005), though the study of AmeriCorps members by Jastrzab et al. (2004) found that family and 

friends were not major reasons that individuals chose to join AmeriCorps. Some studies 

demonstrated the importance of social networks within organizations for the retention of 

volunteers (Hidalgo, 2009; Rice & Fallon, 2011). Volunteering in groups may positively impact 

retention due to social acceptance, friendship, and other peer effects (Cnaan & Amrofell, 1994; 

Gidron, 1983; Haski-Leventhal & Cnaan, 2009 cited in McBride & Lee, 2012). The social 

relationships that volunteers develop with each other and paid staff (or group integration) is 

found to be a significant predictor of intent to remain among volunteers (Galindo-Kuhn & 

Guzley, 2002). While relationships within the organization are important, and good relationships 

with staff and other volunteers can positively affect volunteer retention (Hidalgo, 2009), some 

studies found that coworker relationships have a relatively weak influence on volunteer intention 

to remain (Walker, 2016; Vecina, Chacón, Marzana, and Marta, 2013). These mixed findings 

suggest the need for further research to better understand the role that the social aspects of 

service and volunteering play in retention. 

Other studies point to the importance of satisfaction for retention. Volunteer happiness is 

negatively associated with the intention to leave, and volunteers who find intrinsic rewards in 

their service experiences are more likely to stay (Alfes, Shantz, & Bailey, 2016; Al Mutawa, 

2015; Lammers, 1991). A study conducted by Yiu, Au, and Tang (2001) found that, of numerous 

factors examined, satisfaction with the volunteer assignment was the most salient predictor of 

longer duration of service. Volunteers tend to experience satisfaction when they are given 

interesting activities and some autonomy (Alfes, Shantz, & Bailey, 2016). Volunteers who 

receive ongoing training and support – thus fulfilling their motivations to acquire new skills and 

knowledge – also express greater satisfaction with their assignments and greater likelihood to 

remain in service (Wooten, 2017). Those volunteers who are fully engaged tend to find that 

assignment more intrinsically enjoyable and are more likely to remain in the organization (Alfes, 

Shantz, & Bailey, 2016). In their study, Galindo-Kuhn and Guzley (2002) found that volunteers 

need to feel effective and competent in their tasks, and these feelings can significantly impact 

retention. 

Burnout and stress contribute to attrition. Burnout is defined as an emotional depletion, a sense 

of a lack of personal accomplishment, and cynicism and callousness toward one’s assignment 

(Yiu, Au, & Tang, 2001). Volunteers experiencing burnout tend to have shorter duration of 

service and lower commitment to their service (ibid.). A study by Jansen (2010) found that 

greater use of negative coping mechanisms, higher levels of stress, decreased levels of empathy, 

and poorer general mental health were significant predictors of increased volunteer burnout. 

These findings may have implications for early warning signs of AmeriCorps member dropout. 

In a survey of AmeriCorps participants who left the program, Aguirre International (n.d.) found 

that personal need reasons (including family issues, financial difficulties, illness, childcare 

problems, and pregnancy) were frequently cited by former members. 

Research on Retention of College Students. A few seminal resources revealed similarity of 

3 
factors affecting retention of young adults attending residential colleges and retention of young 

adults in residential service programs like AmeriCorps NCCC. In their book on college student 

retention, Braxton and colleagues (2013) identify the importance of social integration on student 

retention and find empirical evidence demonstrating that commitment of college institutions to 

student welfare, institutional integrity, and psychosocial engagement play a significant role in 

social integration. Student perceptions that faculty 

at their institutions hold a genuine interest in 

students positively influence students’ views on the

commitment of their colleges to student welfare 

and to institutional integrity (Braxton et al., 2013). 

In a survey of the literature, Tinto (2006) points to 

several key findings on student retention. For 

example, for under-represented students, where it 

was once argued that, to promote retention, 

students should be encouraged to break away from 

past communities, the research shows that it is 

beneficial to maintain connections to past 

communities, families, and churches (Tinto, 2006). 

Student engagement also appears to be a driving 

factor of retention, though Tinto (2006) also points 

to gaps in the literature on best practices for 

encouraging student engagement. This finding may 

be critical to retention efforts for residential youth 

service programs and relates to the previously 

discussed desire of younger adult volunteers to feel 

engaged in meaningful and satisfying assignments 

when serving. 

In a review of research on college persistence 

indicators, Bowles, Therriault and Krivoshey 

(2014) noted that the reasons for college student 

attrition are varied and include a blending of personal, academic, and background characteristics 

as well as the transition from a highly structured educational experience in high school to a wider 

range of settings at college. For example, life experiences can have an important effect on 

persistence, and indicators of life experience on college persistence include availability and 

access to financial assistance; first-generation college student; single-parent student; working 

while attending school; and support. Institutional factors related to the higher education 

institution also play a role in persistence, and indicators include metrics under the dimensions of 

quality of classroom instruction and institutional resources. 

An understanding of factors 

affecting retention of college 

students is informative for 

addressing retention of young 

adults in national service. 

Specifically, factors shown to 

be important are: 

Social integration as well as 

maintenance of social ties with 

communities, families, and 

churches, particularly for 

under-represented students; 

Institutional commitment to 

student welfare and 

engagement; and 

Differential needs of students 

with different personal, 

academic, and background 

characteristics. 

Research on Retention of Military Personnel. AmeriCorps NCCC’s residential service

program combines aspects of the Civilian Conservation Corps and the United States military. 

The common foundation to the military is that training and deployment to service occur in a 

setting that is away from the members’ homes and communities, and it is different from their 

previous experience; furthermore, the service experience occurs in a close-quartered and 

structured environment that is unlike any prior experience members may have previously 

encountered. This unique structure might be relevant in understanding variations and fluctuations 

in AmeriCorps members’ retention. 

4 
Factors associated with military retention parallel those identified in the volunteer literature. For 

example, misalignment between expectations of military service, such as length and type of 

deployment, and the reality of actual experience could negatively affect retention (Helmus et al., 

2018; NATO RTO, 2007). One report described how a change in requirements for service to 

increase the pool of recruits could potentially enroll members who are less prepared for military 

service and, as a result, retention of these members could be lower compared to other recruits 

(NATO RTO, 2007). During their term of service, military members tended to leave service due 

to dissatisfaction with circumstances in the military and the attractiveness of alternatives in the 

private sector (NATO RTO, 2007). This finding is similar to the research findings among 

AmeriCorps NCCC members (Aguirre International, n.d.). The research on female Air Force 

officers, specifically, found three salient categories affecting retention: family and personal 

factors (such as children, pregnancy, spouses, and dating); career (career path flexibility, ability 

to cross-train, and civilian opportunities); and broader Air Force and military factors (including 

benefits, deployments, and force reduction). 

The key factors that have emerged as important contributors for recruitment, motivation, 

satisfaction, and retention in the military provide lessons about the retention of AmeriCorps 

members. For example, the research on the military suggests consideration be given to 

understanding how retention might be related to type of service projects, duties performed in 

projects, and length and duration of projects. 

Chapter 2 Research Design 

This report describes the characteristics of members who do not complete their term of service, 

their motivation for wanting to serve, reasons for leaving, and the factors that contribute to the 

likelihood of leaving service early. The objectives are: 

1. Describe the characteristics of members who do not complete their term of service (early 

exit members). 

2. Describe motivation for service and reasons for leaving service. 

3. Identify factors that contribute to member retention through the end of the service term. 

4. Discuss the lessons learned and best practices that can inform how best to maximize 

member retention. 

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

AmeriCorps NCCC. The QED identified comparable individuals from a comparison group 

drawn from the pool of candidates who applied to serve and were accepted but did not enroll. 

The treatment group consists of individuals who served and completed their term of service with 

NCCC. The sample of early exit members includes members who began service but did not 

complete their terms of service. The survey administration timeline is the same for members, 

early exit members and comparison participants. All participants completed the same 

questionnaire at three time points. In addition, early exit members completed a survey at the time 

of their exit to measure their reasons for leaving as well as their perception about the service 

experience and how this experience may have contributed to their decision to leave. 

5 
Participants 

The service year for AmeriCorps NCCC is divided into three cycles; the Fall cycle begins in 

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

members from February 2020 through March 2021 enrolled in the study. The data collection 

began with the February 2020 Winter cycle. Enrollment into the study occurred as members 

reported to their campus for training to begin their service. 

AmeriCorps members who began service but departed before completing their service term are 

identified as early exit members. The sample for the retention study is drawn from a survey 

administered to 1,252 AmeriCorps members as they began their service term. During the term of 

service, as members ended their service early and did not complete the program, the member is 

then identified as an early exit member. Table 2.1 shows the sample for the retention study. Of 

the 1,252 incoming members, 344 exited without completing their term of service. This 

represents an attrition rate of 27 percent. The attrition rate for FEMA Corps was 32 percent, and 

the attrition rate for the Traditional Corps was 26 percent. 

Table 2.1: Sample of Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps early exit members 

Incoming 

AmeriCorps 

Members at 

Baseline 

Sample of Early exit 

members 

Attrition Rate 

Overall 1,252 344 27% 

Traditional Corps 1,020 270 26% 

FEMA Corps 232 74 32% 

The first 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 

members who exited early before completing their service term were administered a survey at 

the time of their exit to measure their reasons for leaving as well as their perception about the 

service experience and how this experience may have contributed to their decision to leave. The 

early exit members were also contacted to complete the second survey, which was administered 

from October 2020 to March 2022. This is the same timeline that these participants would have 

completed their term of service (10 months for Traditional Corps, 12 months for FEMA Corps) 2 . 

The administration of the second survey began three to four weeks prior to members’ completion 

of their service term. The early exit members were again contacted to complete the third survey, 

which was administered from October 2021 to April 2023, 12 months post service. Concurrent 

with each survey administration with members, participants in the comparison groups completed 

the same survey as members. 

Table 2.2 shows the number of early exit members for each wave of survey administration. Of 

the 344 early exit members, 170 responded to the early exit survey at the time of their exit from 

the program, a response rate of 49 percent; 219 of the 344 participants completed the second 

survey, a response of 64 percent; and 148 responded to the third survey, a response rate of 68 

2 FEMA Corps has since adjusted their term of service to 10-months. 

6 
percent. 

Table 2.2: Survey response rate among early exit members 

Total 

Contacted 

Respondents Response Rate 

Early exit a survey

Overall 344 170 49% 

FEMA Corps 74 29 39% 

a Second survey

Overall 344 219 64% 

FEMA Corps 74 51 69% 

Third survey 

Overall 219 148 68% 

FEMA Corps 51 34 67% 

Semi-Structured 

Interviews 

Overall 51 48 94% 

FEMA Corps 10 10 100% 

a The early exit survey was administered at the time the member was exiting the program. Overall, 344 members exited early, all 

of whom were contacted about the early exit survey. Of the 344 early exit members, 170 completed the early exit survey. For the 

second survey all 344 early exit members were contacted, of which 219 completed the second survey. 

We conducted semi-structured interviews with a random sample of up to five early exit members 

from each of the ten classes whose members enrolled in the study. Of the 51 early exit members 

contacted, 48 completed the interview, resulting in a response rate of 94 percent. A total of 10 

FEMA Corps early exit members and 38 Traditional Corps early exit members participated in the 

interviews. Two researchers conducted the interviews via video conference calls or telephone 

conference calls between November 2020 and June 2022. Each semi-structured interview lasted 

approximately 45 minutes. 

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 before completion, are systematically different from those who 

participated fully. Between the baseline survey and first follow-up survey, 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 early exit participants who 

responded to the first follow-up survey and early exit participants who did not respond. 

7 
Appendix A provides a full list of the variables and a full description of the non-response 

analysis. 

Chapter 3 Demographic background, motivation, service experience, and 

reasons for leaving 

This chapter addresses the first two objectives: describe the characteristics of members who do 

not complete their term of service (early exit members); and describe their motivation for service 

and reasons for leaving service. This chapter is organized into seven sections: 

• Demographic characteristics, 

• How members first heard about AmeriCorps NCCC, 

• Motivations for serving, 

• Understanding of the service experience, 

• Perception of the service experience, 

• Reasons for leaving service early, and 

• Differences between Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps. 

Figure 3.1 Attrition rate by age group 

Demographic Characteristics 

Members in the 19-21 age bracket and 

members who identify as male have a 

higher attrition rate. 

Age and gender 

The average age of an early exit 

member was 21, with about 43 

percent of early exit members in the 

19-21 bracket and the 22 and older 

bracket. Figure 3.1 shows the attrition 

rate within each age group. The 

highest attrition rate, 35 percent, was among participants in the 19-21 bracket, compared to an 

attrition rate of 26 percent among those in the 22 or older bracket and an attrition rate of 20 

percent among participants aged 18. 

Of the 344 early exit participants, 171 identified as female (50%), 166 identified as male (48%), 

and 7 identified as non-binary (2%). Gender was not notable when examining the attrition rate, 

with males having a slightly higher rate (28%) compared to females (27%) and non-binary 

members (26%). 

Race and Ethnicity 

There are differences by race and ethnic distribution among members who would eventually exit 

early and among those who would eventually complete their service. Members who identified as 

Black or African American and those who identified as White are over-represented among early 

Sample size is 344 

8 
exit members compared to those who completed their service (Table 3.1). Among early exit 

members more than half (58%) identified as White compared to 55 percent among those who 

completed service; 13 percent of early exit members considered themselves Black or African 

American compared to 7 percent among members who completed service. Members who 

identified as Hispanic or Latino, Asian and multi-race are under-represented among early exit 

members (Table 3.1). Less than one-quarter (22%) of early exit members identified as Hispanic 

or Latino compared to 26 percent among members who completed service; 3 percent of early 

exit members identified themselves as multi-racial compared to 6 percent among members who 

completed service; and 2 percent of early exit members identified as Asian compared to 4 

percent among members who completed service. One percent of early exit members identified as 

American Indian/Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander. Members who 

identified as Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaskan 

Native are under-represented but make up a smaller proportion of members. 

Table 3.1 Comparison of the Race/ethnicity distribution among early exit members and members who 

completed service 

Race and Ethnicity Early 

Exit 

Completed 

Service 

All 

Incoming 

members 

White 58% 55% 55% 

Hispanic or Latino 22% 26% 26% 

Black or African American 13% 7% 9% 

Multi-Race 3% 6% 5% 

Asian 2% 4% 4% 

Native American or Alaska Native 1% 1% 1% 

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1% 1% 0.4% 

Figure 3.2 shows the attrition rates 

within each race and 

ethnic group. 

Members identifying 

as White have a 29 

percent rate of early 

exit. Black or African 

American members 

have the highest 

attrition rate at 41 

percent. Among 

Hispanic or Latino 

members, the attrition 

rate is 25 percent. 

Figure 3.2 Attrition rate within each race and ethnic group 

9 
Education 

The attrition rate by education is highest among members with no high school diploma, followed 

by members with a graduate degree, and members with a technical apprenticeship certificate. 

This pattern, however, is more consistent among members who identified as White, or Hispanic 

and Latino. Table 3.2 shows the majority (87%) of early exits have either a high school 

diploma/GED, some college, or a bachelor’s degree. Members who have a bachelor’s degree are

under-represented among early exits, 31 percent of early exit members have a bachelor’s degree

compared to 36 percent among members who completed service. Members with some college, 

an associate degree or who do not have a high school diploma are over-represented among early 

exits compared to members who completed service (Table 3.2). 

Table 3.2 Distribution of highest level of education completed among graduating AmeriCorps 

members and early exit members 

Level of Education Early 

Exit 

Completed 

Term of 

Service 

All Incoming 

AmeriCorps 

members 

Some high school, I do not have a diploma 2% 1% 1% 

High school diploma or GED 35% 35% 38% 

Technical school / Apprenticeship certificate 2% 2% 2% 

Some college 21% 20% 21% 

Associate degree 6% 5% 5% 

Bachelor's degree 31% 36% 32% 

Graduate degree 2% 1% 1% 

Sample size is 907 for AmeriCorps members that completed the term of service and 344 for early exit members. 

There is variation at the intersection of education and the participant’s race/ethnicity. For 

efficiency, since 93 percent of early exit participants identify as White (58%), Hispanic or Latino 

(22%), or Black or African American (13%), the discussion and chart focus on these three 

groups. Table 3.3 illustrates the attrition rate within each race and ethnic group by education 

level. Overall, the level of education completed by members is an important indicator of 

remaining in service. Within each group, the lowest attrition rate is among members with a 

college degree. Among members who identified as White and Hispanic or Latino, there is a high 

attrition rate for those on either side of the education spectrum (some high school, or graduate 

degree). By contrast, there is a high attrition rate among members who identified as Black or 

African American with a high school, technical school, and some college education. 

10 
 

 

Table 3.3 Comparison of attrition rate within each race/ethnic group, by education 

Level of Education White Hispanic or 

Latino 

Black or 

African 

American 

Some high school, I do not have a diploma 38% 100% -

High school diploma or GED 26% 27% 43% 

Technical school / Apprenticeship certificate 25% - 75% 

Some college 36% 22% 43% 

Associate degree 34% 37% 33% 

Bachelor's degree 25% 19% 22% 

Graduate degree 38% 50% -

Note: “-“ indicates no members with that level of education exited early. There were four members in the sample in the 

“Technical school / Apprenticeship certificate” education category and were Hispanic or Latino, none of them exited early. There 

were no African American members with some high school as their highest level of education. There was one African American 

member with a graduate degree that did not exit early. 

There is an inverse association between education and early exit among members who identified 

as Black or African American. The attrition rate among members who identified as Black or 

African American and completed technical school was 75 percent. The attrition rate among 

members who identified as Black or African American with either a high school diploma or 

GED or some college was 43 percent. Among those with a bachelor’s degree the attrition rate 

was 22 percent. 

Among members who identified as Hispanic or Latino and who had a high school diploma or 

GED, the attrition rate was 27 percent, and among those with an associate degree, the attrition 

rate was 37 percent. Whereas the attrition rate was lower at 19 percent among those with a 

bachelor’s degree. 

The attrition rate was 26 percent among members who identified as White (non-Hispanic) and 

who had a high school diploma or GED. The attrition rate was 36 percent among those with 

some college, and 38 percent among those with a graduate degree. Among members who 

identified as White and with a college degree, the attrition rate was 25 percent. 

Household Structure 

The survey included several questions on family background such as household structure, which 

asked participants to indicate the highest level of education completed by the parent or guardian 

they lived with most of the time and whether the parent or guardian, at the time they completed 

the survey, was currently working. These questions form a proxy of the members’ 

socioeconomic status. 

The pattern in the distribution of members’ household structure between both groups is the same 

in that most early exit members and members who completed service are from two-parent or 

one-parent households. When comparing the two groups, members in two-parent households are 

under-represented among the early exit group compared to members who completed service; 

whereas members in one-parent household are over-represented in the early exit group compared 

to members who completed service. More than half (51%) of early exit members lived in a twoparent/guardian household compared to 59 percent among members who completed service; and 

11 
30 percent of early exit members lived in a single-parent household compared to 24 percent 

among members who completed service. Members in one-parent and one-guardian households, 

and single-guardian (no parent) households are over-represented in the early exit group. About 3 

percent of early exit members lived in a household with one-parent/one-guardian household or in 

a single-guardian household; the distribution among members who completed service in the 

same type of households is 1 percent and 2 percent respectively (Table 3.4). 

Table 3.4 Comparison of household structure among early exit members and members who completed 

service 

Household Structure Early Exit Completed 

Service 

Two parents 51% 59% 

One parent 30% 24% 

One parent and one guardian 3% 1% 

Single guardian (no parent in household) 3% 2% 

No parent 3% 3% 

Two other family figures 1% 1% 

Do not wish to answer 9% 10% 

Sample size is 865 for AmeriCorps members that completed the term of service and 319 for early exit members 

Note: Parent is defined as: biological parent, adoptive parent, or stepparent. Guardian is defined as: foster parent, partner of 

relative, grandparent, other relative, or other guardian. 

Differences are demonstrated in the education level of the parent/guardian between early exit 

members and members who completed their service. Table 3.5 shows this distribution for each 

group. About 36 percent within each group have a parent or guardian with a master’s degree or 

Ph.D. At lower levels of education, the difference between the two groups is mixed. More than a 

quarter of early exit members have a parent/guardian with a bachelor’s degree or associate

degree (27%), and more than a quarter have a parent with a high school diploma or occupational 

training (28%). By contrast, less than one quarter of members who completed service have a 

parent/guardian with a high school diploma or occupational training (20%), and more than one 

third (38%) of members have a parent or guardian with a bachelor’s degree or associate degree. 

Table 3.5 Comparison of parent/guardian education among early exit members and members who 

completed service 

Level of Education Early Exit Completed 

Service 

Master’s degree or PhD 36% 36% 

High school diploma or occupational training 28% 20% 

Bachelor’s degree or Associate degree 27% 38% 

Unsure of parent’s education 5% 3% 

Does not have a high school diploma 4% 3% 

Sample size is 757 for AmeriCorps members that completed the term of service and 280 for early exit members. 

12 
Living arrangement 

In Figure 3.3, most early exit members (85%) lived at home at some point in the six months prior 

to service. One-fifth of early exit members lived in an apartment or home while paying rent 

(20%) prior to the start of their service. There was a similar distribution for members who 

completed their service. 

Figure 3.3 Living arrangements prior to service 

Members’ socio-economic status 

The socio-economic status (SES) construct is derived from an analysis that used household 

structure, parent employment status, and parent education. Based on the analysis, we calculated 

the SES score, which is then transformed to a scale from 1 to 3, where a score of ‘1’ indicates 

low socio-economic status, a score of ‘2’ indicates middle socio-economic status, and a score of 

‘3’ indicates high socio-economic status. The factors that contribute to a lower SES score are no 

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

degree, or the member lives in a single parent household or no parent household. The factors that 

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

parents/guardians have a college degree, or the member comes from a two biological parent 

household. Appendix B provides a full list of the variables used to measure SES. 

Table 3.6 shows the SES categorical scale for the early exits, and for members who completed 

service. There is an inverse relationship between SES and early exit. Among early exit members, 

37 percent have a low SES score compared to 30 percent for those who remained in the program. 

Similarly, a lower proportion of early exit members had a high SES score (28%) compared to 

those who completed service (32%). Members in the lower SES ended their service early at a 

higher rate compared to those with an average SES or high SES. The attrition rate among 

members in the lower SES was 33 percent, compared to 25 percent for members with an average 

SES and 23 percent for members with a high SES. 

13 
Table 3.6 Distribution of early exit members Socio-Economic Status 

SES Score Early Exit 

Members 

AmeriCorps 

members 

1 – Low SES 37% 30% 

2 – Average/Middle SES 35% 38% 

3 – High SES 28% 32% 

Members’ education and employment activity prior to service 

The pattern in education activity was similar for early exit members and those who completed 

their service in that most members in both groups were not in school/taking a break from school 

in the months prior to service (Table 3.7). However, members who were not in school prior to 

service are over-represented among the early exit group; and members who were attending 

college or high school prior to service are under-represented in the early exit group. In the six 

months prior to service, 51 percent of early exit members and 44 percent of members who 

completed service were not in school/taking a break from school in the months prior to service. 

More than one-third of incoming AmeriCorps members have a bachelor’s degree3 . It is not 

surprising that a common activity in the six months prior to service is that incoming members are 

attending college or high school or taking a break from school (see Table 3.7). 

As shown in Table 3.7 in the months prior to service, early exit members worked in the private 

sector (25%) and service industry (31%). This distribution differs among members who 

completed their service, with 31 percent working in the private sector and 27 percent working in 

the service industry. There is a much smaller percentage of early exit members who reported 

they were working at a non-profit (13%), government sector (12%), their own small business 

(6%), or their own non-profit (2%). The distribution is similar among AmeriCorps members who 

completed their service. AmeriCorps members who completed their service had worked in the 

non-profit sector (14%), government sector (12%), their own small business (5%) and at a nonprofit they created (1%). Both groups had about a quarter of their cohorts who had been 

unemployed and looking for work prior to service. 

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

Mateo, CA: JBS International, Inc. 

14 
Table 3.7 Education and employment activity in the six months prior to service 

Education and Employment Activity Early Exit Completed Service 

Education Activity 

Not in school/taking a break from school 51% 44% 

Attending college 32% 37% 

Attending high school 12% 20% 

Attending a vocational / technical training program 6% 3% 

Attending graduate school 3% 2% 

Type of Employment Activity 

Working in food preparation and service-related occupations 31% 27% 

Not working / unemployed, and actively looking for work 26% 25% 

Working in the private sector 25% 31% 

Working in the nonprofit or social service sector 13% 14% 

Working in the public/government sector 12% 12% 

Working in your own small business 6% 5% 

Working in another national service experience 4% 5% 

Working at a non-profit or social entrepreneurship venture that I 

created 

2% 1% 

Other 17% 18% 

Sources where members first hear about AmeriCorps NCCC 

Family or friends are the most common sources from which members first hear about AmeriCorps 

NCCC (Figure 3.4); this includes a friend or family member who had previously served in an 

AmeriCorps program (25%) and family or friends who served in a different AmeriCorps 

program (11%). Other frequent sources are the AmeriCorps website (24%), teachers or advisors 

(16%), people in social group who had or knew of members (8%), and social media (8%). 

15 
Figure 3.4 Early exit members first heard about AmeriCorps NCCC from a friend or family or the 

AmeriCorps website 

Sample size is 334. 

More than half of early exit members (59%) and AmeriCorps members who completed their 

term of service (57%) heard about AmeriCorps NCCC from only one source. About 13 percent 

of early exit members heard from two sources, and 6 percent heard from three sources. Of the 

members who heard from two sources, the most common combination of sources, at 11 percent, 

was family or friends who served in AmeriCorps or FEMA Corps, and family or friends who 

served in a different AmeriCorps or service program. Another common combination of sources 

was friends or family members who served in AmeriCorps or FEMA Corps combined with the 

AmeriCorps website. Hearing from a teacher or advisor, combined with the AmeriCorps website 

was also a common combination. 

Motivation to serve 

The issues that motivate individuals to serve help determine the types of experiences and the 

support and training needed to keep them engaged through the end of their term of service. 

Consistent with prior studies, there is not just a single reason for wanting to serve, individuals are 

motivated to serve for more than one reason. Among members serving with AmeriCorps NCCC, 

they are both altruistic, and they desire to achieve or accomplish a milestone. 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 survey included an open-ended 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. Table 3.8 lists the ten 

reasons with the highest proportion of early exit members reported as important in their decision 

to serve. Compared to members who completed their term of service, a higher percentage of 

early exit members were motivated because they wanted to travel/leave their town (87% vs. 85% 

for members), find direction to take career (77% vs. 73% for members), make new friends (75% 

16 
vs. 77% for members), gain leadership skills (74% vs 72% for members), network with 

professionals (58% vs. 52% for members), and earn money for college tuition (50% vs. 46% for 

members). 

Table 3.8 Reasons which the highest proportion of early exit members reported as important in their 

motivation to serve 

Motivation Early Exit Completed 

Service 

Desire to Achieve or Accomplish a Milestone 

I want to travel the country/I want to leave the town that I am living 

in right now 

87% 85% 

NCCC will give me a sense of purpose 78% 78% 

To try something new to find what direction I want to take in my 

career 

77% 73% 

I want to meet new people/make friends 75% 77% 

To gain leadership skills 74% 72% 

To gain professional skills/carpentry or construction skills/build 

resume 

73% 73% 

I want to network with professionals in my field of interest 58% 52% 

I want to earn money for future college tuition 50% 46% 

Desire to Make a Difference/Altruism 

I want to make a difference/serve my country 85% 87% 

I want to reduce social or economic inequality 77% 82% 

Sample size is 898 for AmeriCorps members and 341 for early exit members. 

Both groups are altruistic in their motivation for service, albeit members who complete their 

service are on average more inclined to be motivated to serve for altruistic reasons. Slightly more 

than three fourths (77%) of early exit members and 82 percent of members wanted to serve to 

reduce social or economic inequality. About 85 percent of early exit members and 87 percent of 

members wanted to make a difference and serve their country. 

17 
 

Figure 3.5 Classification of motivation to serve among early exit members 

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 the data by 

reducing the number of items to a few 

linear combinations of the data. Each 

linear combination corresponds to a 

principal component. Appendix C 

describes the PCA analysis and 

provides a complete list of the original 

survey items. The first seven principal 

components explained 53 percent of the 

variance. Based on the results from the 

PCA, we determined there are seven 

types of motivation to serve among 

early exit members. We then used 

factor analysis, a data reduction 

method, to interpret the seven types of 

motivation, as shown in Figure 3.5 4 . 

There are three primary types of 

motivators. Similar to members that 

completed their service, 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. The early exit members 

differ from members in that a higher proportion of them had financial reasons for applying to 

serve, a higher proportion of them were motivated to for the opportunity to travel, career 

opportunities, taking a gap year, and seeking experience to serve in another program. 

Understanding of the service experience 

The extent to which early exit members do not understand the service experience may also 

contribute to a decision to exit early. The survey administered to participants prior to the start of 

service included several statements to gauge members’ perception of what the service experience 

would be like. The statements describe an aspect of the service experience, and participants 

could rate whether their service experience matched that description. 

For the most part, AmeriCorps members and early exit members anticipated the experience in 

similar ways prior to the start of their service (Table 3.9). About 91 percent of members from 

both groups understood that a uniform must be worn when on duty. About the same proportion 

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

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

18 
in both groups understood they would serve on projects away from the dormitory of their campus 

and have to be around their team most of the time and could travel all over the United States 

during their service. 

The widest difference between early exit members and members who completed the service term 

is that a higher proportion of members who completed service understood that they would not be 

able to take on a part-time job or take night classes. Additionally, a higher proportion of early 

exit members thought there would be a process to guide how, what, and when things needed to 

be done, as well as thought they would have complete privacy when they were not on duty. 

Table 3.9 Percent of members responding 'Yes, this is true' 

Expectations of the service experience Early 

Exit 

Completed 

Service 

I always must conform to uniform standards when on duty 91% 91% 

I serve on projects that are away from the dormitory of my campus and must 

live, eat, and work with my team all the time around the clock 

75% 76% 

I will travel all over the United States and meet a lot of people 62% 66% 

I will have a formal structure and processes to guide me on how, what and 

when things need to be done 

68% 63% 

I cannot take a part-time job or take night classes 54% 64% 

I am part of a team of 8-10 other members who share my values 54% 51% 

I do my service projects between 9am and 5pm, and I have free time at night 

and on weekends to do the things I want to do 

36% 34% 

I live in a dormitory that feels like being in the military 23% 20% 

I get to work in an office doing administrative duties 15% 12% 

I have complete privacy when I am not on duty 10% 5% 

I believe that there are times the rules can be bent 5% 6% 

I can take time off anytime I want 3% 3% 

I can choose what type of work or projects I will be doing 3% 2% 

I participate in physical training only when I want 2% 2% 

Sample Size is 888 for members that completed service, 334 for the early exit members. 

Differences Between Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps Early Exit Members 

Of the 1,252 incoming AmeriCorps members we enrolled in the study, 19 percent served with 

FEMA Corps (Table 2.1). Of the 344 early exit members, 270 (78%) served with Traditional 

Corps, and 74 (22%) with FEMA Corps. The attrition rate for FEMA Corps was 32 percent, and 

the attrition rate for Traditional Corps was 26 percent. Comparison of the two groups showed 

these differences in age, gender, education, and employment activity. 

• FEMA Corps early exit members were older than Traditional Corps early exit members; 

57 percent of FEMA Corps early exit members are in the 22 and older bracket, versus 39 

percent for Traditional Corps. 

• A higher percentage of FEMA Corps tend to be male; 57 percent of FEMA Corps 

members early exit members identified as male, and 46 percent did so in Traditional 

Corps. 

• FEMA Corps had a higher proportion of early exit members who identify as Black or 

African American (21%) compared to Traditional Corps (11%). 

19 
• A higher percentage of FEMA Corps early exit members completed some college, an 

Associate degree or a bachelor’s degree (65% for FEMA Corps and 54% for Traditional 

Corps). 

• A higher percentage of FEMA Corps early exit members worked in the public or 

government sector; 18 percent compared to 10 percent for Traditional Corps. 

• FEMA Corps early exit members were motivated to join AmeriCorps NCCC for the 

opportunity to network with professionals in their field (70%) more so than Traditional 

Corps early exit members (54%). FEMA Corps members were less motivated by the 

opportunity to make friends (66%) compared to Traditional Corps (78%). 

• A higher percentage of FEMA Corps early exit members believed they would have 

complete privacy when they were not on duty; 19 percent compared to 8 percent for 

Traditional Corps. 

Reasons for Leaving Service Early 

An understanding of the reasons members leave before completing their service term can inform 

discussion on how best to maximize retention. Upon exiting, through a survey, we asked 

participants about their reasons for ending service early. For 26 survey items members could 

answer “Yes” or “No” whether each reason applied to their situation for ending their service. The 

survey provided space for members to write personal statements about their reasons and service 

experience. In addition, we randomly sampled five early exit members from each of the ten 

classes to participate in an interview about their service experience. Of the 51 members we 

contacted, 48 completed an interview. 

Prior studies show that reasons for ending service are complex and multi-faceted. This suggests 

the mechanisms for retaining members at risk of not completing their term of service will vary 

and will not be unidimensional. As discussed in Chapter 1, prior studies show that the 

intersectionality of the social network aspects, project assignments, and personal characteristics 

plays an important role in retaining members through their term of service. Our analysis 

reiterates what the previous literature has shown, that while each member has their own 

multifaceted set of reasons for leaving, there are common characteristics among early exit 

members that can yield insights on the multiple angles to support retention among those at risk of 

ending their service early. 

There are both voluntary and involuntary reasons for an early exit. Ten percent of the early exit 

members in the sample were involuntary; the program dismissed these members. Yet, members 

do not have a singular reason for leaving, even if it is involuntary. Of the 256 early exit members 

who answered the early exit survey, 87 percent cited multiple reasons for leaving. A combination 

of principal component analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis was utilized to group members based 

on the similarity of the pattern of their responses. Principal component analysis allows for a 

meaningful interpretation of all the data by reducing the list of 26 items to a few linear 

combinations of the data. Each linear combination corresponds to a principal component. A 

cluster analysis performed on the principal component scores showed four groups of members 

who shared similar reasons for leaving (Figure 3.6). Appendix D describes the clustering 

technique used and provides a list of which survey items fall into each cluster. The largest group, 

43 percent of members, reflects members whose reasons relate to the program’s leadership and 

who found the program’s structure challenging. The second group (39%) includes members 

20 
whose reasons were related to outside obligations such as leaving the program for a job or to go 

to school. The third group (13%) includes members who were dissatisfied with their project 

assignments. The fourth group (5%) includes members who found it challenging to overcome 

interpersonal issues with team members. 

Figure 3.6 Groups of reasons why members left service 

Leadership & 

Program Structure 

(43%) 

Project 

Assignments 

(13%) Team 

Dynamics 

(5%) 

Outside 

Obligations 

(39%) 

Group 1: Leadership and program structure. The largest group includes 43 percent of 

members who felt disconnected from the leadership and disillusioned with the program’s 

structure. The members in this group reported not feeling valued and feeling disrespected by the 

people in the program, not getting along with their supervisor or leadership, and feeling the 

program was too strict and structured. More than one-third of early exit members reported that 

they did not feel valued by the people in the program (39%), and some felt disrespected by 

people in the program (36%). This survey item was open to interpretation and could include 

interactions with peers, team leaders, or program staff. More than a quarter of early exit members 

reported they did not get along with their supervisor or leadership (28%). Some members felt 

challenged with the overall structure of the program. A quarter of early exit members in this 

group felt that the program was too strict (25%). 

21 
Table 3.10 Group 1 Reasons for leaving related to leadership and program structure 

Reason for not Completing the Term of Service Percentage that said ‘yes’

All early 

exit 

Traditional 

Corps 

FEMA 

Corps 

Leadership and program structure 

I did not feel valued by the people in the program 39% 38% 43% 

I felt disrespected by the people in the program 36% 37% 32% 

I did not get along with my supervisor or leadership 28% 27% 34% 

NCCC has too much structure / too strict 25% 27% 20% 

Members provided examples that, for them, would improve accountability and transparency, and 

minimize communication gaps between the program’s leadership and members. After giving 

some examples, one member who exited the program early shared his reasons, stating “They 

need to be more consistent with it [application of rules]. I think it sort of helps to, like, you know 

present these things – my hope is would be that they’d say, ‘Oh wow. We didn’t even know that. 

Maybe we should start looking into this.”

Some interviewees noted that AmeriCorps should not be treated as a military-esque organization, 

as the deference to the chain of command hinders open communication and relation of issues. 

When speaking about the structure of AmeriCorps, one early exit member stated, “I understand 

why they would want to have that, but the result is that members don’t feel that they are heard by

campus staff. And especially when there are emergency situations going on, members do not 

have recourse.” An interview with an early exit member underscores that the program’s 

structure can strip them of their autonomy and individuality, leading them to feel undervalued. “I 

personally value my independence a lot and I feel like that was taken away in the program.” The 

member shared, “seems like they don’t really care about individual members, as much as I feel 

like they should be like trying to work with you to help you want to stay in the program.”

Interviews and open-ended survey responses showed potential interpersonal conflicts with the 

program. They felt their feedback and issues were inadequately addressed. One member shared, 

“Campus staff really believes in the program, and that’s awesome, but the result is that they

don’t listen when people have concerns. Improving the process by which campus leadership 

hears and responds to concerns from members, not just team leaders, would really increase that 

level of trust.” 

Some early exit members noted the lack of access to directly engage with unit leaders, even 

when discussing critical matters. One early exit member recalled, “when I would try and give

feedback, it never really felt like I was being heard by my unit leader...and my team leader 

already had enough on her plate. I really didn’t feel like she was being supported in any way or 

not in a great way.”

Some early exit members felt the team check-ins did not provide an opportunity to discuss 

critical matters. One early exit member recalled, “when he would do team check-ins, which is the 

only other time we were really able to talk to the unit leader, it felt like...he’d ask the entire team

how do you feel about your team leader with the team leader sitting right there...that’s not how

you’re gonna get real responses.” 

22 
As a residential program, housing is one of the program structures that seems to factor into some 

members’ decision to end their term of service early. An example of this is the housing 

accommodation. Nearly a fifth of members reported their reason for leaving was because of the 

housing situation (18%). For example, one early exit member highlighted the frustrations with 

the communal grocery shopping and cooking arrangements enforced by his team leader, saying 

“I spoke to my team leader multiple times if it was possible we were allowed our own individual 

amount to decide what we could eat. If I wanted to eat only chocolate, that was my 

prerogative....I would’ve rather liked having my own little groceries stocked in my room.” Other 

responses centered on the perceived inadequacies of the money available to purchase quality 

food; one member suggested that AmeriCorps “increase the food budget to accommodate the 

amount of calories burned doing so many hours of physical labor” and an interviewee noted, 

“I’m barely surviving. My diet is not being met here. I’m eating unhealthy things.” Other 

members described grappling with a lack of privacy, even for bathing, with one member sharing, 

“Both the men’s and women’s showers were at a public gym so there were many nights that we

would go to try to take a shower and those from the public games could walk into our showers 

and there was no way to lock the door to make it more private.” In an open-ended survey 

response, a member shared, “I never had any personal time or privacy during or after work 

hours.” Other members generally felt that their housing conditions were inadequate; in a survey 

response one member said, “The housing was extremely bad at times,” and another stated, 

“Housing was horrible.”

Concerns about member protection and issues related to diversity and inclusion as did additional 

themes about the program structure emerged from the qualitative data. At least five early exit 

members expressed concerns about safety within the program, particularly regarding working 

and living conditions, inadequate policy response, physical strain, and situations regarding 

harassment and misconduct from fellow members. One early exit member recalled a situation in 

which a fellow member exhibited inappropriate behavior stating, “There was this kid...causing 

problems, sexually-wise. He was making unwelcomed comments and touching girls...And he

eventually got his three strikes and left. And then I remember in my second year I came in, and 

I’m looking at faces and I was like, ‘Wait is that the kid that was in my class doing all of that 

stuff?’” This example underscores the vulnerability some members feel when it appears that the 

organization did not adequately protect them with swift, effective, and consistent action. 

Four early exit members who filled in open-ended responses to the survey expressed similar 

concerns, calling out a need to update AmeriCorps’ policies regarding sexual harassment and 

gender-based discrimination, with one respondent suggesting that AmeriCorps “make it easier 

for members to make complaints and to be separated from individuals around whom they do not 

feel safe. In addition, investigations into allegations of discrimination, harassment and assault 

need to take top priority.” A review of the qualitative data shows that 144 early exit members 

made statements related to inadequate policy responses and bureaucratic measures that could 

erode the trust and confidence in the program’s commitment to wellbeing. Outside of these

explicit complaints regarding discrimination and harassment, members noted that the physical 

demands of their service, such as excessive mandatory physical training, posed a risk to 

members’ health and morale, potentially leading to both injuries and dissatisfaction. Members 

also drew attention to inadequate accommodation for and training to support members with 

physical or mental disabilities or mental health challenges, underscoring the need for a more 

23 
protective and supportive environment within AmeriCorps. 

Members described frustrations with efforts made to integrate greater diversity and inclusion into 

the program. For many respondents, there was a perceived lack of intentionality around 

accommodating individuals of diverse backgrounds into the program. Some members felt that 

AmeriCorps’ efforts to build diverse teams was not well executed or well thought out. One

member stated, “You guys speak a good game about being diverse and wanting your program 

opened up to different cultures and people with different economic means. I feel it wasn’t a good 

plan implemented; basically, the push for diversity was a little more surface.” Another shared in 

a survey response, “Diversity must be intentional and using an algorithm to randomly put people 

of different races or ages together does not embody intentionality.” When offering 

recommendations on how to act on this desire for diverse participants, one survey respondent 

suggested that AmeriCorps could “allow more access to local houses of worship.” Some 

members noted a desire for greater diversity in their teams, in part to ensure that individuals did 

not feel like a token individual representing a particular demographic group. Some members 

described tensions within their teams related to diverse viewpoints and backgrounds. One 

member shared, “Some members’ right-wing views made other CMs uncomfortable around them. 

This made us feel that we had to avoid talking about certain topics or sharing personal 

information.” Others felt that AmeriCorps’ trainings on issues related to diversity were outdated 

and insufficient; one member said, “The diversity workshop was a complete joke. It did not

mention the words race or racism one time over a span of three hours.”

Some members who identified as politically conservative felt that AmeriCorps was politicizing 

issues unnecessarily given their emphasis on diversity and inclusion. Mirroring an early exit 

member’s comment back to him in an interview, the interviewer stated, “What I’m hearing is 

that you didn’t feel that your perspective as more conservative was as represented and as 

welcomed.” A member shared their recommendation that AmeriCorps “drop the Critical Race 

Theory courses and replace it with a more sensible Diversity training. Emphasize zero tolerance 

for ridiculing others for political beliefs. Emphasize that AmeriCorps does not have a political 

standing and does not favor members for their beliefs.” Similarly, a member stated, “They call it 

diversity training, but it’s not. They’re teaching us critical race theory,” and another noted, “One 

of the instructors were trying to tell us about Black people being oppressed and how we should 

address that. And I was like, ‘I don’t think this should be political.’ I don’t think you need to be

telling me what we need to believe.”

Although not detailed here with qualitative data, 19 percent of early exit members reported 

mental, emotional, and physical limitations prevented them from participating in the program. 

24 
Table 3.11 Personal limitations affect members’ reasons for leaving

Reason for not Completing the Term of Service Percentage that said ‘yes’

All early 

exit 

Traditional 

Corps 

FEMA 

Corps 

Personal limitations 

I have a mental or emotional condition that limits my 

ability to do some activities 

15% 17% 9% 

I have a condition that substantially limits my ability 

to do some physical activities 

4% 6% 2% 

Early exit members described a sense of inadequate mental healthcare and support during their 

AmeriCorps service experiences. Members noted difficulties in accessing therapists and mental 

health care providers due to cost, availability, and mental barriers. One member said, “People 

with mental health issues struggle a lot. My friends talked about how they had member benefits 

and Teledoc and Telehealth can only really do so much because we only get a certain amount of 

sessions. Somebody who really needs support – two sessions with a therapist isn’t really gonna 

be beneficial for 10 months. And having little Wi-Fi or cell service can interfere with your access 

to telehealth.” Another member shared, “I had the option to see a therapist online through my

phone...but it was on me if I wanted to get better or not and start seeing a therapist. I got into my 

head too much that I just couldn’t start seeing the therapist.” For members actively struggling 

with their mental health and – for many living on their own for the first time – practicing healthy 

behaviors was challenging without active support. For those who did not receive the services and 

treatment they needed, mental health was frequently a reason for exiting the program. 

Fourteen respondents described the effect of COVID-19 on the decision to leave. This included 

members who did not feel safe due to COVID and those for whom COVID led to dissatisfaction 

with the program. While the virus may have directly prompted the departure of members in some 

circumstances, the management of service projects and inconsistencies in addressing the 

COVID-19 concerns of members appears to have added to dissatisfaction among the members 

who exited the program early. 

Group 2: Outside Obligations. The second largest group of members, comprising 39 percent of 

early exit members, reported securing a job or going back to school as reasons for leaving. 

Nearly half of the early exit members reported they found a job or had to leave because they 

would be starting work (45%), and 25 percent reported having decided to return to school. 

Family obligations also played a role in the decision to leave for some members, as 19 percent 

needed to care for a family member or close friend. 

25 
Table 3.12 Group 2 Reasons for leaving related to outside obligations 

Reason for not Completing the Term of Service Percentage that said ‘yes’

All early 

exit 

Traditional 

Corps 

FEMA 

Corps 

Outside obligations 

I found a job / I will start working 45% 43% 55% 

I was not earning enough money / I needed to earn more 

money to help pay bills 

38% 36% 46% 

I am going to go back to school 25% 24% 29% 

I need to care for a family member or close friend 19% 21% 11% 

Members were able to expand on their reasons for leaving using their own words in both 

interviews and in a write-in answer option in the survey. One member in an interview explained, 

“Another one of my members who was on my team also ended up leaving early. She left early

because she felt like she didn’t need it anymore. She had a good job offer.” Another member 

stated, “I think that most people that I’ve met through the program left for the same reason as I 

did. Where they got a job earlier.”

Financial reasons are not a primary driver of attrition, but rather a secondary reason that was 

cited across four groups of members. However, financial reasons are most intertwined with 

members who indicated they were leaving due to work, and school. Overall, 38 percent of all 

early exit members indicated they felt like they were not earning enough money. However, 

among members who are in Group 2 (Outside Obligations), close to half (48%) indicated they 

were not earning enough money. 

For some early exit members, financial stressors such as debt or family-related financial 

responsibilities were the driver for leaving. For some members, these financial challenges were 

exacerbated during the shift to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic; a survey 

respondent noted, “The stipend was not livable for low-resource individuals when you gave us 

remote work and did not provide housing or wifi,” and another shared, “My decision to leave 

AmeriCorps was strongly tied to the service projects due to COVID. The stipend was not enough 

to cover full housing expenses.”

Group 3: Project Assignments. 

The third group of members, comprising 13 percent of early exit members, exited due to 

dissatisfaction with their project assignments. The members in this group reported not having the 

assignments they thought they would be doing, lack of fulfillment with their assignments, and 

their own perception that they were not making a difference with their assigned projects. 

26 
Table 3.13 Group 3 reasons for leaving related to project assignments 

Reason for not Completing the Term of Service Percentage that said ‘yes’

All early 

exit 

Traditional 

Corps 

FEMA Corps 

Project assignments 

I was not getting to do the type of work I thought I 

would be doing 

33% 33% 34% 

The work I was assigned was not fulfilling 27% 26% 30% 

I was not making a difference in people's lives 

with the projects I was assigned 

18% 17% 23% 

One-third of early exit members were not doing the type of work they thought they would be 

doing, and, similarly, they did not find the work they were doing fulfilling (27%). A smaller 

proportion of early exit members stated they felt they were not making a difference in the 

communities they were assigned to (18%). 

These findings are supported by the interviews, in which early exit members described 

frustrations with their service assignments. These frustrations were either related to the type of 

assignments (e.g., assignments that felt boring, menial, or not impactful) or to programmatic 

structure. One member noted the sense of separation between her day-to-day tasks and overall 

impact, stating, “What we were doing was making the gates for a farm and that was all we were 

doing all day for the entirety of our stay. It was something to maybe be a learning opportunity 

for kids maybe 10 years down the line, which is great; it was just very distant from something 

that would provide really anything in the moment or near future so I didn’t feel very connected 

to it.” Another shared, “I didn’t feel like the work I was doing was beneficial to people. They

were struggling to find things to do.”

Group 4: Team Dynamics. The fourth group of members (5%) exited due to interpersonal 

conflicts with their team. The members in this group reported not getting along with or not 

feeling part of the team, felt disconnected from the program and unable to make friends with the 

people on their team, or were dismissed by the program. 

27 
Table 3.14 Group 4 Reasons for leaving related to interpersonal team dynamics 

Reason for not Completing the Term of 

Service 

Percentage that said ‘yes’

All early 

exit 

Traditional 

Corps 

FEMA Corps 

Team Dynamics 

I did not get along with the other members on 

my team 

18% 19% 18% 

I did not feel part of the team 18% 19% 18% 

People in the program did not try to get to 

know me 

13% 13% 14% 

I was not making friends with the other people 

on my team 

11% 10% 14% 

I was dismissed by the program 10% 8% 16% 

Some members described a sense that they did not fit in or belong with their teams. Some 

members described a lack of cohesion within their teams that contributed to their decision to 

leave early. Members live and work with the same team, and some members struggled to find 

space to take a break or get away from individuals with whom they were frustrated. 

In some cases, members described direct conflict within their teams. A survey respondent 

provided a detailed description of the conflicts on their team, sharing, “As time went on and 

residual issues and hurt emotions were left unresolved, the team conflicts grew in frequency and 

ferocity. Sometimes the emotional implications of this constant fighting were brought up in order 

to resolve them. However, the problematic attitudes and actions rarely, if ever, changed...Only

two members managed to stay in the program.”

Some members noted that the efforts AmeriCorps made to facilitate healthy team dynamics, such 

as conflict resolution training and supportive team leaders, were not sufficient to address these 

issues. One member shared the sentiment that training on conflict resolution “only go so far 

when you live, work, travel, socialize, eat, share a van, and share a debit card with seven 

random people.”

Some early exit members reported experiencing conflict with their fellow teammates, such as not 

getting along with other members (18%) and not feeling a part of the team they were in (18%). 

Differences in Reasons for Leaving Between Traditional NCCC and FEMA Corps Early Exit 

Members 

Figure 3.7 shows the distribution of members in each group by program type. Both FEMA Corps 

and Traditional Corps the largest group pertains to members experiencing challenges with 

leadership and the program structure. This is followed by outside obligations, project 

assignments and then team dynamics, respectively. Compared to Traditional Corps, a higher 

proportion of early exit FEMA Corps members felt challenged with their service assignments 

(14%) and with getting along with their team members (10%) 

28 
 

Figure 3.7 Distribution of reasons for leaving by program type 

One FEMA Corps member shared in an interview, “The team leaders were either bossy and 

arrogant, or they were just straight up neglectful. There were mental health issues by different 

members that were just straight up ignored by team leaders.” Similar to members in Traditional 

NCCC, FEMA Corps members expressed concern with the management of service projects 

specifically in the context of COVID-19. Five FEMA Corps members expressed dissatisfaction 

with how the service assignments were formed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. One 

FEMA Corps member stated, 

“If AmeriCorps, at least gave some more thought into what assignments could 

have been, other than sitting in a hotel room, I would have stayed. I think FEMA, 

in particular, they were doing a lot of things during the pandemic last year, there 

were a lot of ways that I feel like we could have helped out that would have been 

so much more meaningful than sitting on a hotel bed on a computer for the whole 

work day. So I feel like if I had better superiors that actually tried to understand 

me, as well as more meaningful assignments then I would have stayed, for sure.”

This is reiterated in the individual survey items as: 

• A higher proportion of FEMA Corps members stated that they felt the work they were 

doing was not making a difference in the communities at 23 percent (17% for Traditional 

Corps). 

• A higher proportion of FEMA Corps members found the work to be unfulfilling at 30 

percent (26% for Traditional Corps). 

• A higher proportion of FEMA Corps members found that they were not making friends 

on their team at 14 percent (10% for Traditional Corps). 

Reasons for leaving early examined by race and ethnicity 

We examined reasons for early exit by race and ethnicity. We focused on White, Hispanic or 

Latino and Black or African American for efficiency since these three groups comprise more 

than 90 percent of incoming AmeriCorps members. In Figure 3.8, among members who 

29 
identified as White and Hispanic or Latino, their most frequently cited reason was “I found a job/

I will start working” (45% of Whites said ‘yes’) and (51% of Hispanic or Latino said ‘yes’). 

Finding a job was less frequently cited among members who identified as Black or African 

American participants with 35 percent of this group’s early exits answering ‘yes.’ 

Among Black or African American members, their most frequently cited reason for early exit 

was, “I was not getting to do the type of work I thought I would be doing,” at 41%; this 

proportion was higher at 43 percent among members who identified as Hispanic and Latino. By 

contrast, among members who identified as White, 28 percent responded that this statement was 

true for them. 

Figure 3.8 Reason for leaving service early by race & ethnicity 

Not earning money and needing more money to pay bills was a top concern among Hispanic or 

Latino (48%), Black or African American (35%) and White (33%). 

Another common reason for early exit among White members was their sense of not feeling 

valued by the people in the program, with 41 percent selecting this reason. This reason was also 

cited by 34 percent of members who identified as Hispanic or Latino and by 35 percent of Black 

or African American members as their reason for early exit. 

Nearly one-third of Black or African American members indicated that family reasons was their 

reason for exiting the program early, as 29 percent stated they had to care for a family member or 

close friend. This is a higher proportion compared to both Hispanic or Latino (20%) and White 

members (16%). 

The opportunity to return to school was more frequently cited among White members, with 29 

percent indicating that going back to school was a reason for exiting the program early, 

30 
compared to 21 percent of Black or African American and 18 percent of Hispanic or Latino 

members. 

Chapter 4 Service project characteristics and member retention 

This chapter addresses the third objective to identify factors that contribute to member retention 

through the end of the service term. The research questions that guided this analysis are: How do 

the characteristics of service projects (e.g., duration, perceived team accomplishment and 

opportunities to engage with the community) affect member retention? How does the association 

between service project characteristics and retention differ for Traditional Corps and FEMA 

Corps? 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 

the likelihood of remaining in service, controlling for member characteristics. 

Of the 344 early exit members, we obtained assigned service projects for 278; of the 1,011 

members who completed service, we obtained assigned service projects for 887. When 

examining members who left early, we found that 46 percent of early exit members left during 

their first project or before their second project, 34 percent of early exit members left during their 

second project or before their third project, 15 percent of early exit members completed two 

service projects but left before completing a third, and 5 percent of early exit members 

completed three service projects before exiting. 

Table 4.1 shows the distribution of early exit members by region. The North Central region had 

the highest proportion of members who ended up leaving early at 35 percent, followed by 

Southern at 26 percent, Pacific at 20 percent and Southwest at 19 percent. 

Table 4.1 Distribution by region 

Region Early Exit 

North Central 35% 

Pacific 20% 

Southern 26% 

Southwest 19% 

The measures on the characteristics of the service projects are from the AmeriCorps NCCC 

Service Projects Database (SPD), which contains information on more than 6,700 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 from the assignment. These codes identify the 

primary types of impacts the team reported for the project. The coding framework distinguishes 

the unit where the impact occurred (i.e., Individual, organization, community) and the tangible 

and intangible impacts. Tangible impacts capture outcomes that are clear to observers, such as 

providing food and clothing to survivors of a disaster. Intangible impacts capture outcomes that 

are not concrete or clear to observers, such as providing emotional support to survivors after a 

31 
crisis or listening to people in the community who are struggling with addiction. 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 impact groupings within the SPD. Figure 4.1 provides illustrative examples of 

disaster, tangible and intangible impacts coded from the narrative text: 

1. Disaster Impacts – These projects focus on the prevention, mitigation, and preparedness 

of disaster. This includes service projects focused on disaster recovery and disaster 

response. Service projects that had a focus area of COVID-19 are included in this group. 

2. Tangible Impacts–These projects have impacts that are observable and measurable; this 

category excludes disaster related projects. 

3. Intangible Impacts–These projects have impacts that may be too subjective to accurately 

measure, and the impacts may not be able to be physically seen or felt. This type of 

project excludes disaster related projects. 

Figure 4.1 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 service groupings (disaster, tangible 

and intangible) in Figure 4.1. These are our main explanatory variables in the model that 

examines the effect of service projects on members’ likelihood of remaining in service. 

The regression model controlled for socioeconomic status scores (scaled with z score), race and 

ethnicity (e.g., White, Black or African American, Asian, Hispanic or Latino), gender, and 

physical or mental impairment. We analyzed three different models that introduce different sets 

of covariates. Model 1 includes service project coded impacts, member characteristics, and 

whether the member served with FEMA Corps. Model 2 includes service project coded impacts 

32 
and member characteristics. Model 3 includes only member characteristics. Appendix C provides 

the full results from the model. 

Models 1 and 2 indicate that projects with disaster impacts (disaster recovery, mitigation, 

prevention, or preparedness) reduce members’ likelihood of early exit; similarly, projects with 

tangible or intangible impacts reduce members’ likelihood of early exit. The analysis showed 

that these associations are statistically significant within the limits of confidence. 

All else being equal, FEMA Corps members have significantly higher likelihood of early exit 

compared to members in Traditional Corps. These findings were supported by the 95% 

confidence limits of the analysis (Figure 4.2). One possible explanation for the differential 

probability of exit between Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps (even though FEMA Corps 

focuses primarily on disaster projects) may be due to closer connections that Traditional Corps 

teams have to the community they served, where FEMA Corps teams frequently engage in office 

and logistics assignments that do not engage directly with the communities being served. 

Figure 4.2 Service projects and the likelihood of early exit (Model 1 controls for service projects coded 

impacts, FEMA Corps and member characteristics) 

The significance of member characteristics decreases once the model accounts for project 

impacts. This suggests that matching project assignments to align with members’ interest and 

motivations may reduce the likelihood of early exit. 

There is a significant negative association between socioeconomic status and the likelihood of 

early exit. Participants with high SES scores have a significantly higher likelihood of remaining 

in service compared to participants with lower SES scores. This pattern is consistent across all 

models. 

33 
The significance of member characteristics in explaining likehood of early exit increases when 

the impact of service projects are excluded from the model (Figure 4.3). 

Figure 4.3 Service projects and the likelihood of early exit (Model 2 controls for service projects coded 

impacts, and member characteristics, does not control for FEMA Corps) 

34 
Members who identify as Black or African American have a higher likelihood of early exit 

compared to participants who identify as White (Figure 4.4). However, the odds of early exit for 

members who identify as Black or African American decreased when project experience is 

accounted in the model (Figure 4.2). 

Figure 4.4 Service projects and the likelihood of early exit (Model 3 controls only for member 

characteristics) 

35 
One potential reason may have to do with the intersection of FEMA Corps service projects and 

the racial and ethnic distribution of FEMA Corps members. The likelihood of early exit seemed 

to be driven primarily by the differences in the impacts of members’ service project assignments 

between the two programs, as well as the higher proportion of Black or African American 

members who are assigned to FEMA Corps. Members who identify as Black or African 

American make up a larger proportion of FEMA Corps members at 15 percent than the 9 percent 

of Black or African American members who enrolled in Traditional Corps. Of that 15 percent, 

43 percent of Black or African American FEMA Corps members will leave without completing 

the term of service. Members who identified as Black or African American cited leaving because 

of not getting the assignments they thought they would do (i.e., dissatisfaction with project 

assignments). 

As shown in Table 4.2, FEMA Corps members feel less of a connection to the community than 

Traditional Corps members. Nearly half (48%) of FEMA Corps members who identify as Black 

or African American agreed that they developed an understanding of the strengths of 

communities compared to 63 percent of Black or African American members in Traditional 

Corps, 62 percent of members who identify as White in FEMA Corps, and 73 percent of 

members who identified as White in Traditional Corps. 

Table 4.2 Differences between FEMA Corps and Traditional NCCC 

Black or 

African 

American 

FEMA 

Corps 

White 

FEMA 

Corps 

Black or 

African 

American 

Traditional 

NCCC 

White 

Traditional 

NCCC 

I developed an understanding of the 

strengths of communities 

48% 62% 63% 73% 

I felt personally accepted in the 

communities in which I worked and 

served 

43% 58% 59% 70% 

I spent a lot of time doing 

meaningless "make work" tasks 

52% 53% 41% 46% 

FEMA Corps members less often reported feeling accepted in the communities they serve than 

Traditional Corps members, as only 43 percent agreed that they felt personally accepted in the 

communities in which they served, compared to 59 percent of Black or African American 

Traditional Corps members, 58 percent of White FEMA Corps members, and 70 percent of 

White Traditional Corps members. 

FEMA Corps members were more likely to agree that they spent a lot of time doing meaningless 

“make work” tasks, with half of both Black or African American (52%) and White FEMA Corps 

members agreeing (53%). This compared to 41 percent of Black or African American Traditional 

Corps members and 46 percent of White Traditional Corps members. 

36 
Chapter 5 Summary of Findings 

This report draws data from the longitudinal mixed-methods national evaluation of AmeriCorps 

NCCC to examine member retention through the end of their service term. In addition to survey 

responses, we coded emerging themes from interviews with a sample of early exit members. 

There is minimal to no effect of non-response bias. These are indicators of the validity and 

robustness of the data itself. 

AmeriCorps members who ended their term of service early were, on average, 21-years-old, 

living at home with their families prior to service, and had completed some college. They were 

motivated by a desire to travel while serving their country to make a lasting positive impact. The 

highest percentage of early exit is among Black or African American members (41%) and those 

in the 19-21 age bracket (35%). 

In terms of educational attainment, the highest attrition rates are among members who have not 

completed high school (50%) while the lowest attrition rates are among those with a college 

degree (23%). This statement holds when examining the intersection of education and member’s

race/ethnicity, as the lowest attrition rate for members who identify as White, Hispanic or Latino 

or Black or African American are all for members who have a college degree. There is a high 

attrition rate among members who identify as White and Hispanic or Latino and did not graduate 

high school. By contrast, there is a high attrition rate among members who identify as Black or 

African American with a high school education, technical school, and some college. Though 

African American members as a group had higher attrition rates, early exit appeared more 

common among those with fewer years of education, indicating that educational attainment is an 

important factor in determining retention. 

Our analysis corroborates the literature on retention in that it is a complex and multifaceted issue. 

Members who left service early felt disconnected from leadership and were dissatisfied with the 

program’s structure. Interviews and open-ended survey responses revealed that members often 

had conflicts with their unit leaders and campus staff. 

For some early exit members, outside obligations enticed them to leave the program early. Lack 

of satisfaction with service assignments seemed relevant in the early exit decision, with members 

stating they were not getting the assignments they thought they would be doing and that they did 

not feel fulfilled by their assignments. Project assignments seemed salient for FEMA Corps 

members, especially the members who identified as Black or African American. 

Leaving the program to go back to school was a more common reason among members who 

identify as White compared to members who identify as Black or African American and 

Hispanic or Latino. Among both Black or African American members and Hispanic or Latino 

members, the most common reason was they were not getting the assignments they thought they 

would be doing, which was particularly important among FEMA Corps members. Also, a higher 

proportion of members who identified as Black or African American said they exited early 

because they needed to care for a family member or friend. 

Service project assignments have a significant association with member retention, with projects 

that focused on disaster recovery, mitigation, prevention, or preparedness reducing the likelihood 

37 
of early exit, especially for members who identified as Black or African American. Similarly, 

projects with tangible or intangible impacts reduce the likelihood of early exit. FEMA Corps 

members have significantly higher likelihood of early exit compared to members in Traditional 

Corps independent of member characteristics, which is associated with FEMA Corps members’

perception that they were not making a difference to the communities they served. This suggests 

that AmeriCorps NCCC should help members better understand and externally document how 

each project assignment supports and strengthens communities. Additionally, the odds of early 

exit for members who identify as Black or African American decreased when project experience 

was taken into account. This may be attributed to the higher proportion of Black or African 

American members assigned to FEMA Corps, and primarily driven by the difference in service 

assignments between Traditional Corps and FEMA Corps. 

Chapter 6 Recommendations and Lessons Learned to Maximize Member 

Retention 

Expose members to a wide range of service projects to ensure personal development and 

increase perceived impact. The literature on retention states that satisfaction with the volunteer 

assignment is a vital predictor of longer duration of service. 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 project assignments significantly affect the 

likelihood of remaining in service. Participation in a wide range of projects increases the number 

of development opportunities for members. Matching member interests and skillsets to their 

service projects assignments would alleviate some of the disconnect members feel between 

themselves and the work they are doing. 

Ensure quality sponsorship with durable workloads. Members perform better when they have 

enough tasks and view the assignment as meaningful. AmeriCorps NCCC may need to ensure 

sponsor organizations have the amount of tasks needed to sustain a team for the duration of an 

assignment. In the cases where there are not enough tasks, members advocated for more 

flexibility in pulling teams from projects that were completed sooner than anticipated. The 

sponsor organization can make or break members’ experience. Clear communication and training 

from sponsors are vital in promoting the development of 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. 

Ensure team leaders have an accurate understanding of the position and provide them with 

additional support. The team leader has a crucial role and can have a large influence over their 

team dynamic and, as such, members’ overall experience. Team leaders are intermediaries 

between members and staff, and they deal with team conflict, enforce disciplinary actions, and 

provide support to their team. A sentiment shared through survey and interview responses was 

that team leaders need more internal support, more training, and more oversight to ensure they 

are treating teammates equitably. 

To combat the pressure that may come with a team leader position, team leaders may require indepth training of the roles and responsibilities of the position. One significant source of stress for 

38 
team leaders is the burden of their administrative duties. A team leader recommended “having 

two Team Leads to spread out the workload,” or perhaps a formal assistant team leader position. 

When team leaders are too overburdened by administrative duties, they cannot lead effectively or 

build positive relationships with their teammates. 

AmeriCorps needs to provide clear processes to team leads so they understand how to engage the 

organization to handle issues beyond their responsibilities, such as with mental health and sexual 

harassment. Team leaders have the responsibility of effectively handling team conflict as well as 

navigating the personal issues arising in their team. This can be extremely challenging and could 

result in team leaders feeling “intense pressure to fulfill roles beyond their means of experience

and training,” as one member stated. Team leaders may require more in-depth training in 

conflict resolution was a recommendation from members. However certain conflicts may require 

internal organizational support. Members described a lack of oversight of team leaders. 

Individual conversations between members and unit leaders could help alleviate issues of unfair 

treatment from team leaders. In addition, a standardized set of disciplinary actions may be 

utilized to ensure fair action across all members. 

Strengthen the connection between members and leadership by increasing communication. 

A good relationship with staff and other volunteers can positively affect volunteer retention 

(Hidalgo, 2009), and this can be seen in our analysis as well. One way to alleviate a disconnect 

between members and leadership is to improve the direct communication channel between 

leadership and members. Some early exit members noted the lack of access to directly engage 

with unit leaders, even when discussing critical matters. Members want to feel seen, heard, 

validated, and supported by AmeriCorps staff and leadership. Additionally, members want to 

know that the organization will protect them especially when they are feeling vulnerable or 

isolated. Members expressed concerns, calling to a need to update AmeriCorps’ policies 

regarding sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination. 

39 
Appendix A: 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 whether 

the non-response is random or 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 is: 

nnr B(Y̅

r) = Y̅r − Y̅t = ( ) (Y̅r − Y̅nr)

n

where: 

Y̅

t = the mean based on all sample cases; 

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 administrative data provided by AmeriCorps NCCC which contained 

observed characteristics on all participants whether they responded to the survey or not. 

Additionally, we used variables that were included in the baseline survey as all participants 

included in the first follow-up analysis were respondents in the baseline survey. 

Respondents and non-respondents can have similar demographic distributions, yet 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. In each instance, we

compared differences between respondents and non-respondents to assess the presence or 

absence of response bias and calculated the size and direction of the bias by applying the OMB 

formula. 

The administrative data contained age, any prior employment at the time of their application to 

serve with NCCC, number of previous jobs reported on their AmeriCorps NCCC application, if 

the participant was an immediate family member of active duty, National Guard or Veteran, and 

their application assessment score. Variables used from the baseline survey included: gender, 

whether the participant had an associate 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 if the participant 

indicated they worked in the six months prior to their service. Using these defined variables, the 

relative non-response bias calculations are based on the formula defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). JBS calculated non-response for all respondents combined 

(Table B1). Bias was low for all variables, indicating that there were only small differences 

between respondents and non-respondents. 

Non-Response Bias in the Full Sample. We assessed the differences in response patterns for all 

respondents. Table A1 shows the relative bias for each variable. Overall, the relative bias is 

40 
considered low as no variable has a relative bias greater than 10 percent. The two variables with 

the largest relative bias are ‘Hispanic or Latino’ and ‘Single or no parent household,’ both with 

nine percent relative bias. This indicates that early exit participants who identified as Hispanic or 

Latino, or early exit participants who came from a household with a single parent or no parent, 

were more likely to be respondents for the retention study. 

Table A1. Non-Response Bias—All Respondents 

Variable Mean -

all 

Mean -

respon 

dents 

Mean 

nonrespon 

dents 

Total 

respon 

dents 

Total nonrespondent 

s 

Differe 

nce in 

means 

Relativ 

e Bias 

Female 0.50 0.51 0.47 263 81 0.04 0.02 

Age 21 21 21 263 81 0.34 0.00 

Prior employment 0.87 0.86 0.90 263 81 -0.04 -0.01 

Number of jobs 2.51 2.60 2.25 226 73 -0.35 0.03 

Prior volunteer 

experience 

0.76 0.78 0.69 263 81 0.09 0.03 

Veteran status 0.19 0.19 0.19 261 81 0.01 0.01 

NCCC application 

assessment score 

65.28 65.26 65.35 245 78 -0.09 0.00 

College degree 0.38 0.39 0.33 263 81 0.06 0.04 

Parent college degree 0.67 0.64 0.74 201 65 -0.10 -0.04 

Non-Hispanic White 0.59 0.56 0.70 258 81 -0.15 -0.06 

Hispanic or Latino 0.23 0.25 0.16 262 81 0.09 0.09 

Single or no parent 

household 

0.36 0.40 0.24 247 72 0.16 0.09 

Working participant 0.58 0.58 0.58 263 81 0.00 0.00 

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 A2). Early exit participants who had 

prior volunteer experience were significantly more likely to participate in the retention study by 

responding to the early exit short survey. No other variables exhibited statistically significant 

differences. 

41 
Table A2. Likelihood of Non-Response Based on Participant Characteristics—All Respondents 

Variable B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) 

Female -0.0507 0.1341 0.1428 1 0.7055 0.904 

Age -0.7828 0.8167 0.9185 1 0.3379 0.457 

Prior employment 0.2786 0.2238 1.5496 1 0.2132 1.746 

Prior volunteer 

experience 

-0.3646 0.1594 5.2333 1 0.0222 0.482 

Veteran status -0.0517 0.1703 0.0921 1 0.7615 0.902 

NCCC application 

assessment score 

-0.0258 0.0941 0.0749 1 0.7844 0.975 

College graduate -0.0246 0.1839 0.0179 1 0.8936 0.952 

Parent college 

graduate 

0.132 0.1686 0.6127 1 0.4338 1.302 

Non-Hispanic 

White 

0.2942 0.1937 2.3072 1 0.1288 1.801 

Hispanic or Latino -0.0645 0.2287 0.0795 1 0.778 0.879 

Appendix B: Socioeconomic Status 

We constructed a socioeconomic status (SES) indicator variable based on multiple baseline 

survey questions. 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 B1 shows the original baseline survey questions that we 

used to construct the SES variable. 

42 
Table B1: Baseline Survey Questions Used for SES 

Variable Question Response Options 

BQ29 If you live in more than one household, answer about the Biological Mother 

parent or guardians you live with most of the time. Please Biological Father 

choose one parent to begin. Adoptive Mother 

What is this parent’s or guardian’s relationship to you? 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 Less than high school 

parent/guardian? 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’s 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

43 
Table B1 continued 

Variable Question Response Options 

BQ33 Do you have another parent or guardian in the same 

household? 

Yes 

No 

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’s 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

44 
Based on the questions in Table B1, we created three variables that aggregate parent 

employment, parent education and family structure. Table B2 lists these variables. 

45 
 

Table B2: 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 

46 
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. SES is treated as a latent variable with reflective 

indicators. A rationale for treating SES as a latent variable with reflective indicators is that its 

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 

everyone in the study. We then scaled the composite variable to be in a range of one to three: 1 –

low SES, 2 – medium SES, 3 – high SES. 

47 
Appendix C: Composite Measure of Motivation for Service 

We use Principal Component Analysis (PCA), a data reduction technique which allows for a 

meaningful interpretation of the data by reducing the number of items 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 six principal components with an 

eigenvalue greater than 1.1. Combined, these six principal components account for a total 

variation of 49 percent. 

Table C1: Eigenvalues and the proportion of variation are explained by the principal components 

Principal 

component 

Eigenvalue Difference Proportion of 

variation explained 

Cumulative proportion 

explained 

1 4.21891 2.273433 0.1758 0.1758 

2 1.945478 0.304668 0.0811 0.2568 

3 1.64081 0.221295 0.0684 0.3252 

4 1.419515 0.032737 0.0591 0.3844 

5 1.386778 0.239931 0.0578 0.4421 

6 1.146847 0.079736 0.0478 0.4899 

7 1.067111 0.031229 0.0445 0.5344 

8 1.035882 0.027715 0.0432 0.5776 

9 1.008168 0.095707 0.042 0.6196 

10 0.91246 0.097894 0.038 0.6576 

11 0.814566 0.03218 0.0339 0.6915 

12 0.782386 0.009828 0.0326 0.7241 

13 0.772558 0.032036 0.0322 0.7563 

14 0.740522 0.051992 0.0309 0.7872 

15 0.68853 0.024502 0.0287 0.8159 

16 0.664027 0.09771 0.0277 0.8435 

17 0.566317 0.020784 0.0236 0.8671 

18 0.545533 0.03074 0.0227 0.8898 

19 0.514793 0.024603 0.0214 0.9113 

20 0.490189 0.029727 0.0204 0.9317 

21 0.460463 0.029451 0.0192 0.9509 

22 0.431012 0.042796 0.018 0.9689 

23 0.388216 0.029287 0.0162 0.985 

24 0.35893 0.015 1 

Total 24 

We then used factor analysis, a data reduction method, to interpret the six 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 

48 
the other factor. We set the number of factors to six based on the PCA results. Using this 

criterion there are six groups of motivations to serve, defined as: 1) professional and career 

development 2) altruistic, 3) financial, 4) commitment to service, 5) finance undergraduate 

education, 6) finance graduate education. Table C2 shows the original survey items. 

Table C2. Original Survey Item List 

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 

Appendix D: Reasons for Leaving Cluster Analysis 

To analyze early exit members reasons for leaving a combination of Principal Component 

Analysis (PCA) and clustering technique was utilized (Ding, 2004). Research shows that when 

49 
the number of features is high, clustering results may suffer due to high level of dimensionality 

(Aggarwal et al. 2001). To navigate this, methods of dimensions reductions can be applied 

before any clustering methods as it helps to reduce the unnecessary noise of the data and achieve 

better clustering results (Ben-Hur and Guyon, 2003). 

We performed the PCA on the 26 survey items included in the early exit survey 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 nine of the survey items 

with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Therefore, nine components are retained for the rotation 

pattern. Combined, these nine components account for a total variation of 62.0 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 4.640552 2.23093 0.1785 0.1785 

2 2.409623 0.63338 0.0927 0.2712 

3 1.776245 0.23077 0.0683 0.3395 

4 1.545477 0.23344 0.0594 0.3989 

5 1.312039 0.06607 0.0505 0.4494 

6 1.245972 0.05045 0.0479 0.4973 

7 1.195521 0.0757 0.046 0.5433 

8 1.119817 0.11719 0.0431 0.5864 

9 1.002625 0.03024 0.0386 0.6249 

10 0.972387 0.0273 0.0374 0.6623 

11 0.945091 0.05477 0.0363 0.6987 

12 0.890316 0.10582 0.0342 0.7329 

13 0.784494 0.01556 0.0302 0.7631 

14 0.768933 0.07071 0.0296 0.7927 

15 0.69822 0.02345 0.0269 0.8195 

16 0.674767 0.08033 0.026 0.8455 

17 0.594438 0.01343 0.0229 0.8683 

18 0.581009 0.07423 0.0223 0.8907 

19 0.506779 0.0638 0.0195 0.9102 

20 0.442977 0.01331 0.017 0.9272 

21 0.429663 0.03891 0.0165 0.9437 

22 0.39075 0.04986 0.015 0.9588 

23 0.340894 0.01957 0.0131 0.9719 

24 0.321327 0.10138 0.0124 0.9842 

25 0.219946 0.02981 0.0085 0.9927 

26 0.190138 0.0073 1 

Total 26 

50 
Rather than performing a cluster analysis on the individual survey items, a cluster analysis is 

then conducted using the factor components as calculated from the PCA. An optimal number of 

clusters was determined after reviewing three criterion: the cubic clustering criterion (CCC), 

pseudo-F, and t-squared statistic. Figure D1 shows the criteria for the numbers of clusters. The 

CCC, pseudo-F, and t-squared statistics indicate four clusters as the optimum amount. 

Figure D1. Criteria for the number of clusters 

In setting the number of clusters to four, each early exit participant is assigned into one of the 

four clusters based on the complete linkage clustering technique. Complete linkage clustering 

calculates the distance between clusters based on maximum distance of possible pairs, and it 

tends to make highly compact clusters (Adams, 2021). We then examined each cluster to 

determine the commonalities in reasons for leaving. Based on the most frequently cited reasons 

in each cluster, we defined each cluster as 1) Leadership & Program Structure in which 43 

percent of the early example was assigned; 2) Outside Obligations in which 39 percent were 

assigned; 3) Project Assignments in which 13 percent were assigned; and 4) Team Dynamics in 

which 5 percent were assigned. Table D2 shows the original survey item and the corresponding 

cluster. 

51 
 

Table D2. Original Survey Item List and Corresponding Cluster 

Cluster 

Leadership & Program Structure 

I felt disrespected by the people in the program 

I did not feel values by the people in the program 

NCCC has too much structure / is too strict 

I did not get along with my supervisor or leadership 

Outside Obligations 

I wanted to go back to school 

I found a job / I will start working 

Project Assignments 

I was not learning the skills I need for the career I want 

I was not gaining any leadership skills 

I was not making a difference in people’s lives with the projects I was assigned

The work I was assigned was not fulfilling 

I was not getting to do the type of work I thought I would be doing 

Team Dynamics 

People in the program did not try to get to know me 

I did not get along with the other members on my team 

I was not making friends with the other people on my team 

I did not feel part of the team 

Appendix E: Multilevel Model 

To analyze the impacts of service project characteristics on AmeriCorps members’ likelihood of 

attrition, 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 in data can impact estimated variances and 

the available power to detect effects of covariate (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 development of AmeriCorps members (at level-1) and 

exploring the influence of characteristics associated with service projects assignments (at level2). 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 

52 
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 E1: Multilevel Analysis Results – Model 1 

Indicator B SE P-value Odds 

ratio 

95% 

Confidence 

Interval –

Upper limit 

95% 

Confidence 

Interval –

Lower limit 

SES -0.371 0.105 0.0004 0.690 0.562 0.847 

Female (Ref=Male) -0.123 0.200 0.539 0.884 0.597 1.309 

Nonbinary (Ref=Male) -0.104 0.665 0.876 0.901 0.244 3.325 

Black or African 

American (Ref = White) 

0.211 0.369 0.568 0.211 0.598 2.548 

Native American Alaska 

Native (Ref = White) 

1.282 1.434 0.372 1.282 0.216 60.179 

Asian (Ref=White) -0.494 0.634 0.437 -0.494 0.176 2.121 

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander (Ref= 

White) 

-5.600 15.392 0.716 -5.600 <0.001 >999.999 

Multi-Race (Ref= White) -0.364 0.443 0.411 -0.364 0.292 1.657 

Hispanic or Latino (Ref= 

White) 

-0.308 0.240 0.200 -0.308 0.459 1.177 

Physical or Mental 

impairment (Ref = No) 

0.681 0.603 0.259 0.681 0.605 6.454 

Table E1 shows the MLM results for Model 1 including the odds ratio estimates and the 95% 

confidence intervals. Model 1 includes participant level characteristics and demographics. 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 different levels 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. 

According to the odds ratio table for Model 1, it seems that members' socioeconomic status is 

linked to their likelihood of becoming early exit members. The 95% confidence limits indicate 

that those with higher SES scores tend to remain in the NCCC program for a longer duration 

than those with lower SES scores. This pattern continues consistently across all three models. In 

Model 2 (Table E2) we accounted for the total number of assigned disaster projects, which 

include service projects focused on disaster recovery and response, as well as projects that 

specifically addressed COVID. We also factored in tangible impact projects, which have 

observable and measurable impacts, and intangible impact projects, which have impacts that are 

more subjective and may not be physically visible or felt. 

53 
Table E2: Multilevel Analysis Results – Model 2 

Indicator B SE P-value Odds 

ratio 

95% 

Confidence 

Interval –

Upper limit 

95% 

Confidence 

Interval –

Lower limit 

SES -0.347 0.131 0.008 0.707 0.547 0.914 

Female (Ref=Male) -0.076 0.245 0.756 0.927 0.573 1.498 

Nonbinary (Ref=Male) 0.267 0.742 0.719 1.306 0.304 5.609 

Black or African 

American (Ref = White) 

-0.045 0.445 0.920 0.956 0.399 2.289 

Native American Alaska 

Native (Ref = White) 

4.341 1.994 0.030 76.786 1.531 >999.999 

Asian (Ref=White) -0.613 0.742 0.409 0.541 0.126 2.324 

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander (Ref= 

White) 

-4.135 15.230 0.786 0.016 <0.001 >999.999 

Multi Race (Ref= White) -0.416 0.535 0.438 0.660 0.231 1.888 

Hispanic or Latino (Ref= 

White) 

-0.456 0.287 0.113 0.634 0.360 1.114 

Physical or Mental 

impairment (Ref = No) 

-0.012 0.717 0.987 0.988 0.242 4.040 

All Disaster project -0.276 0.083 0.001 0.759 0.645 0.893 

All Tangible projects -0.098 0.089 0.272 0.907 0.761 1.080 

All Intangible projects -0.317 0.047 <.0001 0.728 0.664 0.798 

Our findings revealed that female and nonbinary members are less likely to leave the program 

early compared to their male counterparts. However, we also discovered that nonbinary members 

have a higher likelihood of leaving the program early than males when their project experience is 

taken into account. In terms of race and ethnicity, our analysis demonstrated that Black or 

African American and Native American Alaska Native members have a higher probability of 

becoming early leavers than White members. Moreover, the odds for Native American Alaska 

Native members remain higher than those for White members across all three models, regardless 

of their project experience. However, the odds for Black or African American members decrease 

when project experience is added to the model. The remaining race and ethnicity groups were 

found to have lower odds of exiting the program early compared to White members. 

Based on our research, it appears that the specific characteristics of a project can have a major 

impact on whether or not its members decide to remain in the program. We found that when we 

factored in these characteristics in our analysis, the odds of most individual factors decreased, 

which suggests that there is a strong link between project characteristics and members' desire to 

remain in the program. SPD provided valuable information on project issue areas and 

characteristics, which we utilized in our analysis by grouping three projects within the SPD. 

We can see that individuals who took part in disaster and intangible projects have a higher 

probability of remaining in the program. The statistical analysis revealed that these associations 

were significant within the limits of confidence. This trend was observed in both traditional 

Corps members and others. To explore this further, we included FEMA Corps as a predictor in 

Model 3 (Table E3). The results showed that members in FEMA Corps are more likely to exit. 

54 
Table E3: Multilevel Analysis Results – Model 3 

Indicator B SE P-value Odds 

ratio 

95% 

Confidence 

Interval –

Upper limit 

95% 

Confidence 

Interval –

Lower limit 

SES -0.298 0.133 0.025 0.742 0.572 0.963 

Female (Ref=Male) -0.024 0.250 0.923 0.976 0.598 1.595 

Nonbinary (Ref=Male) 0.235 0.763 0.759 1.264 0.283 5.653 

Black or African 

American (Ref = White) 

-0.118 0.452 0.794 0.888 0.366 2.156 

Native American Alaska 

Native (Ref = White) 

4.523 1.817 0.013 92.136 2.603 >999.999 

Asian (Ref=White) -0.519 0.744 0.486 0.595 0.138 2.565 

Native Hawaiian or Other 

Pacific Islander (Ref= 

White) 

-4.445 15.111 0.769 0.012 <0.001 >999.999 

Multi Race (Ref= White) -0.298 0.534 0.577 0.742 0.260 2.118 

Hispanic or Latino (Ref= 

White) 

-0.417 0.294 0.157 0.659 0.370 1.174 

Physical or Mental 

impairment (Ref = No) 

-0.182 0.736 0.805 0.834 0.196 3.538 

All Disaster project -0.294 0.085 0.001 0.745 0.631 0.881 

All Tangible projects -0.205 0.096 0.032 0.815 0.675 0.983 

All Intangible projects -0.318 0.048 <.0001 0.727 0.662 0.799 

FEMA (Ref=Traditional 

Corps) 

1.646 0.506 0.001 5.185 1.920 14.003 

55 
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. 

Adams, R. (2021). Hierarchical Clustering. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. 

Aggarwal, C. C. (2018). An introduction to cluster analysis. Data clustering (pp. 1-28). 

Chapman and Hall/CRC. 

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. 

Ben-Hur A., & Guyon I. (2003). Detecting stable clusters using principal component 

analysis. Methods Mol Biol. 224:159-82. 

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. 

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 

56 
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. 

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 

57 
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. 

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. 

58