Return on Investment Study:

Montana Conservation Corps

Submitted to:

AmeriCorps 

250 E St., SW

Washington, DC 20024

Submitted by:

ICF Incorporated, LLC

1902 Reston Metro Plaza

Reston, VA 20190

https://www.icf.com

September 20, 2023

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

under Contract # GS00Q14OADU209 and Order # 95332A20F0068. Information in this 

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

Lily Zandniapour at lzandniapour@cns.gov and Emily McDonald at 

emcdonald@cns.gov. Cite this report as follows: Voigt, G., Borgida, J., Clark, D., 

Miller, B., Modicamore, D., Pershing, J., Thompson, P. (2023). Return on Investment 

Study: Montana Conservation Corps. ICF.
i

Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

CONTENTS

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

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

Overview of Benefits and Costs.......................................................................................ES-2

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

ROI Study Limitations.........................................................................................................ES-5

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

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

Population Served..................................................................................................................3

MCC Evaluation History .........................................................................................................3

Selection of MCC for the AmeriCorps ROI Project.............................................................7

Comparable ROI Estimates...................................................................................................8

ROI Methodology .....................................................................................................................11

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

Costs ......................................................................................................................................13

ROI Study Limitations............................................................................................................25

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

Results ........................................................................................................................................25

Program Benefits ..................................................................................................................25

Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs)................................................................................27

Program Funding..................................................................................................................28

ROI Results.............................................................................................................................29

Recommendations for Further Research................................................................................32

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................34

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

Calculations ..............................................................................................................................35

Appendix B: Additional Information on the Methodology...................................................41

Methodology Overview ......................................................................................................41

Measuring Program Benefits...............................................................................................42

Measuring Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs).............................................................62

Measuring Program Costs ...................................................................................................66

Calculating ROI ....................................................................................................................66
ii

Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

Appendix C: Results by Year...................................................................................................71

References ................................................................................................................................76

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Benefits Among Stakeholder Groups From MCC ..................................................12

Figure 2. Program Cost by Funding Source ...........................................................................29

Figure 3. Percentage of AmeriCorps Alumni Seeking Work, Providing Caregiving, 

or Occupied Outside of the Workforce From Friedman et al. (2016)................................. 43

Figure 4. Compound Interest Formula Used to Calculate Investment Opportunity 

Cost............................................................................................................................................65

LIST OF TABLES 

Table ES-1. ROI Estimates ......................................................................................................ES-4

Table 1. MCC AmeriCorps Member Demographics ..............................................................3

Table 2. WCC’s Treatment on Native Plant and Noxious Weed Coverage Results 

After 1 Year..................................................................................................................................6

Table 3. Relevant Studies and Their Findings.........................................................................10

Figure 1. Benefits Among Stakeholder Groups From MCC ..................................................12

Table 4. Benefits Realized From MCC by Stakeholder Group .............................................13

Table 5. Value of Ecosystem Services Preserved Through BDA Installations (2023$).........18

Table 6. Value of Carbon Sequestration Through BDA Installations (2023$)......................18

Table 7. Value of Extreme Event Moderation Through BDA Installations (2023$)..............18

Table 8. Value of Water Purification Through BDA Installations (2023$) .............................18

Table 9. Value of Ecosystem Services Preserved Through Fuel Reduction Treatments 

(2023$) .......................................................................................................................................20

Table 10. Value of Human Health Benefits From Reduced Air Particulates From Smoke 

(2023$) .......................................................................................................................................20

Table 11. Value of Benefits from Reduced Carbon Dioxide Equivalents Emissions 

(2023$) .......................................................................................................................................21

Table 12. Total Value of Ecosystem Restoration Services (2023$) .......................................22

Table 13. Total Value of Trail Maintenance and Creation Services (2023$) ......................22

Table 14. MCC Program Costs, 2021–2022 Program Year....................................................25

Table 15. Benefits by Recipient ...............................................................................................26

Table 16. Percentage of Program Benefits by Stakeholder Group.....................................26

Table 17. Forgone Benefits From Professional Opportunity Cost.........................................27

Table 18. Investment Opportunity Cost by Scenario and Funding Stream........................28
iii

Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

Table 19. Program Funding by Source for MCC....................................................................28

Figure 2. Program Cost by Funding Source ...........................................................................29

Table 20. Program Benefits, Net Benefits and Program Costs by ROI Scenario.................29

Table 21. ROI Results for MCC ................................................................................................. 31

Table 22. Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Costs Included in ROI 

Calculations ..............................................................................................................................35

Table 23. MCC AmeriCorps Member Benefits From the Living Allowance and 

Education Award .....................................................................................................................43

Figure 3. Percentage of AmeriCorps Alumni Seeking Work, Providing Caregiving, or 

Occupied Outside of the Workforce From Friedman et al. (2016) .....................................43

Table 24. Additional Pre-tax Earnings for MCC AmeriCorps Members From Reduced 

Unemployment Based on MCC AmeriCorps Member Demographics..............................44

Table 25. Cumulative Additional Post-tax Earnings Derived From Reduced 

Unemployment due to Serving With MCC by Scenario.......................................................45

Table 26. Average Total Cost of Education and Portion Attributable to Education 

Award by Degree Type............................................................................................................46

Table 27. Estimates of the Number of Postsecondary Degrees Pursued Using the 

Education Award by Degree Type.........................................................................................47

Table 28. Additional Earnings From AmeriCorps Members’ Use of the Education 

Award ........................................................................................................................................48

Table 29. Government Costs by Educational Attainment Level per Individual’s 

Lifetime ......................................................................................................................................53

Table 30. 2022 Tax Rates and Ratio of Taxable Expenditures for MCC AmeriCorps 

Members’ Earnings, Living Allowances, and Education Awards ........................................54

Table 31. State/Local and Federal Government Benefits by Stakeholder Group and 

by Scenario ...............................................................................................................................55

Table 32. Ecosystem Services Restored From MCC BDA Installation ..................................57

Table 33. Carbon Sequestration Benefits From MCC BDA Installation ...............................58

Table 34. Drought and Flood Moderation From MCC BDA Installations ............................58

Table 35. Water Purification Benefits From MCC BDA Installation.......................................58

Table 36. Preserved Ecosystem Services From MCC Fuel Reduction Activities .................59

Table 37. Human Health Benefits From Reduced Wildfires From MCC Activities ..............59

Table 38. Carbon Dioxide Reduction Benefits From MCC Activities...................................60

Table 39. Habitat Improvement Benefits From MCC Activities............................................60

Table 40. Trail Maintenance and Creation Benefits From MCC Activities..........................61

Table 41. Societal Benefits by Impact Category and by Scenario.....................................61

Table 42. Forgone Earnings of MCC AmeriCorps Members for a Service Term.................63
iv

Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

Table 43. Forgone Taxes Associated With the Forgone Earnings of MCC AmeriCorps 

Members for a Service Term....................................................................................................64

Figure 4. Compound Interest Formula Used to Calculate Investment Opportunity 

Cost............................................................................................................................................65

Table 44. Forgone Benefits From Investment Opportunity Cost Calculation by Scenario 

and Funding Stream.................................................................................................................66

Table 45. Funding Sources and Amounts for MCC (2021–2022)..........................................66

Table 46. ROI Calculations for Short-Term Scenario..............................................................68

Table 47. ROI Calculations for Medium-Term Scenario........................................................69

Table 48. ROI Calculations for Long-Term Scenario..............................................................70

Table 49. MCC Benefits and Costs per Year..........................................................................72

Table 49, cont. MCC Benefits and Costs per Year................................................................73

Table 49, cont. MCC Benefits and Costs per Year................................................................74

Table 49, cont. MCC Benefits and Costs per Year................................................................75

AUTHORS 

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

• George Voigt, ICF, Economics Analyst

• Julia Borgida, ICF, Public Policy Researcher

• Danny Clark, ICF, Research Analyst 

• Benjamin Miller, ICF, Senior Director

• Dominic Modicamore, ICF, Lead Economist

• Janet Pershing, ICF, Vice President

• Phylicia Thompson, BCT Partners, Research and Evaluation Analyst 
ES-1

Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

Executive Summary 

Program Description

Montana Conservation Corps (MCC) is an 

environmental service program dedicated to 

promoting field research and direct 

conservation service. Founded in 1991, MCC has 

received AmeriCorps support since 1993. MCC 

supports communities and public lands in the 

Northern Rockies (including Montana, Wyoming, 

Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota) 

through the deployment of teams to develop 

beaver dam analogs (BDAs),1 mitigate fire 

threats, reduce the spread of invasive species, 

and restore and redesignate trails. MCC’s 

trained monitoring and assessment teams 

capture critical data on the condition of forest 

and rangeland health. 

MCC’s program activities include crew-based 

services that develop BDAs that improve 

drought and flood resilience, increase 

ecosystem services2 of adjacent habitats, and 

reduce wildfire risk by preventing combustible material from drying out and posing a 

higher burn risk. MCC crew-based services also reduce wildfires through fuels reduction3

and habitat restoration. In addition, MCC members treat and abate noxious weeds, 

conduct post-fire re-seeding, and reintroduce native plants. MCC members also 

implement trail management measures, including the designation and restoration of 

trail routes, which also support reduction of fire threat by reducing fuels along trail 

corridors, maintaining fuel breaks, and offering improved access to fire locations. The 

primary anticipated outcomes of MCC program activities include increasing drought 

resilience of treated watersheds from the installation of BDAs, reducing the risk of 

catastrophic wildfire, and increasing accessibility and safe conditions of recreational 

trail systems. 

1 Beaver dam analogs refer to man-made structures that generate similar environmental engineering 

outcomes as natural beaver dams, such as water retention and filtering, improved flow duration during 

droughts, and increased riparian health of adjacent ecosystems.

2 Ecosystem service values are the economic value to society for the various ecological outcomes that an 

ecosystem generates (e.g., carbon sequestration of a forest on an annual basis).

3 Fuel reduction treatments refer to actions that remove potential fuel from at-risk areas. These can include 

manual removal such as cutting down dead vegetation or thinning ground cover. Fuel reduction 

treatments can also include controlled burns to simulate a more natural reduction process with a much 

lower risk of the fire spreading.

AmeriCorps, the federal agency 

for national service and 

volunteerism, provides 

opportunities for Americans to 

serve their country domestically, 

address the nation's most pressing 

challenges, improve lives and 

communities, and strengthen civic 

engagement. Each year, the 

agency places more than 200,000 

AmeriCorps members and 

AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers in 

intensive service roles; and 

empowers millions more to serve 

as long-term, short-term, or onetime volunteers. Learn more at 

AmeriCorps.gov. 
ES-2

Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

To better understand the impact of the program in relation to costs, AmeriCorps 

commissioned a return on investment (ROI) analysis by ICF, an independent research 

firm. ROI analyses of national service programs estimate the monetary value of benefits 

that a program generates per dollar invested. 

Overview of Benefits and Costs

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

the program’s costs. This ROI analysis used recently developed strategies for monetizing 

outcomes associated with preserved ecosystem services, for reduced carbon dioxide 

equivalents4 emissions from reduced wildfire acres burned, and for discounting 

ecosystem benefits over regrowth periods. Benefits of MCC include: 

• Benefits to various stakeholders of ecosystem services, reduced wildfire 

damage, other environmental benefits, and trail access. MCC uses AmeriCorps 

members to construct BDAs, which revitalize degraded riparian and adjacent 

ecosystems, perform fuel reduction treatments5 on at-risk sites to reduce severity 

of wildfires, remove invasive species to increase benefits to society from

ecosystems, and build and maintain trails that provide health and recreational 

benefits. The societal benefits of MCC can be attributed to three key functions 

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

of trail systems. 

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

increased wages and reduced unemployment post-national service through skill 

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

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

receive living allowances and stipends during their national service and receive 

Segal AmeriCorps Education Awards after successful completion. 

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

receive more income tax revenue from increased AmeriCorps member earnings 

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

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

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

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

insurance. Because of the increase in secondary and postsecondary educational 

attainment for AmeriCorps members, federal and state governments spends less 

on these items. 

4 Carbon dioxide equivalents refers to the total greenhouse gas warming impact from a varied source 

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

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

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

5 MCC’s fuel reduction treatments include mechanical thinning where potential fuel for wildfires is removed 

to increase ecosystems’ resilience to wildfires. 
ES-3

Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

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

specifically from state and local governments. This additional funding allows MCC to 

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

funding alone. Though match funding does not impact the ROI—because ROI is a perunit metric—it increases investment in MCC, thereby increasing the program’s total

impact.

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

quantify the reduction of burned acres from wildfires, which are: 

• Benefits that accrue from ecosystems that are preserved following program 

activity. This is estimated by using literature estimates for ecosystem services per 

acre based on ecosystem type and the characteristics of the treated acres.

• Benefits from reduction of wildfires being reduced over time as flammable 

material regrows following treatment. These are estimated using literature 

estimates on the regrowth of plants following wildfire reduction treatments.

• Due to environmental benefit changes over time following one-time program 

activities that occur. 

These environmentally discounted benefits accommodate for the deterioration of 

benefits over subsequent years toward the prior status of the ecosystem.

Program costs for the MCC program totaled $9,579,450 and came from the following 

sources: 

• Federal government (AmeriCorps) 

• Federal government (Non-AmeriCorps) 

• State and local government

• Tribal governments 

• Private 

ROI Results

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

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

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

The analysis used three different scenarios to estimate benefits under different 

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

programs last for 1 year (short-term scenario), 15 years (medium-term), or 30 years 

(long-term). 

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

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

so addresses the uncertainty involved in monetizing ecosystem benefits. 

The ROIs are presented as dollars returned for every dollar of investment. 
ES-4

Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

Table ES-1. ROI Estimates 

ROI calculation

ROI scenario

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Total benefits per federal dollar* 

With low ecosystem benefits $0.73 $7.75 $11.66 

With average ecosystem benefits $2.39 $27.37 $41.38 

With high ecosystem benefits $7.81 $92.69 $144.32 

Total benefits per funder dollar* 

With low ecosystem benefits $0.66 $6.63 $9.79 

With average ecosystem benefits $2.11 $23.83 $35.84 

With high ecosystem benefits $6.86 $81.07 $126.05 

Federal government benefits per federal dollar -$0.02 $0.18 $0.49 

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

society.

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

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

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

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

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

ROI results with average or high ecosystem benefits indicate a positive return on

funding invested in the program. The ROI of $0.66 for the total benefits per funder dollar

calculation with the low set of ecosystem benefit estimates is below the break-even 

point on funding invested, as is the total benefits per federal dollar calculation under 

low ecosystem benefits. All other scenarios and ecosystem benefit levels show positive 

returns. 

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

three scenarios. As a program that is intended primarily to generate benefits to society, 

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

design of MCC. In addition, existing data and literature do not establish causal 

relationships between program activities such as BDA installation and wildfire reduction

and federal expenditures. Following some wildfires, federal (and private) disaster 

recovery funds are spent to aid in recovery efforts. MCC’s efforts on wildfire reduction 

treatments could result in the mitigation of those severe wildfires and lead to 

subsequent saving of those funds. MCC’s BDA installations also provide wildfire 

reduction benefits as well as flood resilience. However, the current literature lacks the 

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

private) funds. This suggests that there may be additional savings as a result of MCC’s 

activities that are not quantified in this methodology. Including federal disaster recovery 

expenditure savings, resulting from a reduction in wildfires and floods, would lead to a 

higher ROI for the federal government than this analysis estimates. 
ES-5

Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

The magnitude of the positive ROI estimates is driven by the following factors:

• Revitalized ecosystem services from BDA installation. Societal benefits accrue 

and do not diminish over time due to the long-term drought resilience and 

riparian improvements associated with BDAs. 

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

wildfires accrue but diminish over time as vegetation regrows and generates 

more potential fuel.

• Increased benefits from ecosystems from reduced invasive species. Societal 

benefits accrue but diminish over time as invasive species return.

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

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

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

AmeriCorps program, AmeriCorps members receive an education award, which 

is used by a portion of members to help pay for postsecondary degrees postservice. The additional educational attainment resulting from the use of the 

education award generates additional earnings for AmeriCorps members. 

• Employment outcomes of AmeriCorps members. Past studies establish that 

AmeriCorps members experience increased employment and increased earnings 

post-service. 

ROI Study Limitations

Not all potential benefits of MCC were included in this analysis due to limitations of the 

data available. For example, MCC’s wildfire reduction efforts likely avoided property 

loss and costs related to post-wildfire recovery typically borne by a combination of 

federal, state, and local government sources. Private homeowners, private insurance 

firms, and government agencies that engage in disaster recovery benefit from those 

avoided costs. However, due to the lack of data to demonstrate robust causal 

relationships between the treatments and damages that would have otherwise 

occurred, those benefits are not included in the analysis. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

1

Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

AmeriCorps programming to relevant stakeholders. 

This project’s federal fiscal year 2023 activities began with a comprehensive literature 

review and preliminary assessments of whether ROI analyses were feasible for five 

national service programs. These feasibility studies included thorough reviews of these 

programs’ recent evaluations, detailed logic models, proposed ROI analysis 

methodologies for each program, and a scorecard mechanism that determined the 

viability of conducting an ROI analysis for each selected program. 

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

subjects of ROI studies for fiscal year 2022: Montana Conservation Corps (MCC), Green 

City Force AmeriCorps, AmeriCorps Urban Safety (AMUS) Program, and the Parent 

Possible HIPPY program. This ROI study measures the benefits of MCC against its costs. 

This study is organized into five sections:

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

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

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

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

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

estimates for programs that are similar to MCC. 

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

monetize benefits derived from MCC activities, describes its associated program 

costs, and explains how opportunity costs were calculated.

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

provides a detailed description of the program benefits, forgone benefits 

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

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

• Recommendations for Further Research explores ways AmeriCorps and others 

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

including how to address limitations of this study.

• Conclusion summarizes key points from the ROI study overall.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

2

Program Description 

Montana Conservation Corps (MCC) is an 

environmental service program dedicated to 

promoting field research and direct 

conservation service. Founded in 1991, MCC has 

received AmeriCorps support since 1993. MCC 

supports communities and public lands in the 

Northern Rockies (including Montana, Wyoming, 

Idaho, North Dakota, and South Dakota) 

through the deployment of teams to develop 

beaver dam analogs (BDAs),6 mitigate fire 

threats, reduce the spread of invasive species, 

and restore and redesignate trails. MCC’s 

trained monitoring and assessment teams 

capture critical data on the condition of forest 

and rangeland health. 

MCC’s program activities include crew-based 

services that develop BDAs that improve 

drought and flood resilience, increase 

ecosystem services7 of adjacent habitats, and 

reduce wildfire risk by preventing combustible 

material from drying out and posing a higher 

burn risk. MCC crew-based services also reduce 

wildfires through fuels reduction8 and habitat restoration. In addition, MCC members 

treat and abate noxious weeds, conduct post-fire re-seeding, and reintroduce native 

plants. MCC members also implement trail management measures, including the 

designation and restoration of trail routes, which also support reduction of fire threat by 

reducing fuels along trail corridors, maintaining fuel breaks, and offering improved 

access to fire locations. The primary anticipated outcomes of MCC program activities 

include increasing drought resilience of treated watersheds from the installation of 

BDAs, reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire, and increasing accessibility and safe 

conditions of recreational trail systems.

6 Beaver dam analogs refer to man-made structures that generate similar environmental engineering 

outcomes as natural beaver dams, such as water retention and filtering, improved flow duration during 

droughts, and increased riparian health of adjacent ecosystems.

7 Ecosystem service values are the economic value to society for the various ecological outcomes that an 

ecosystem generates (e.g., carbon sequestration of a forest on an annual basis).

8 Fuel reduction treatments refer to actions that remove potential fuel from at-risk areas. These can include 

manual removal such as cutting down dead vegetation or thinning ground cover. Fuel reduction 

treatments can also include controlled burns to simulate a more natural reduction process with a much 

lower risk of the fire spreading.

AmeriCorps, the federal agency 

for volunteerism and national 

service, provides opportunities for 

Americans to serve their country 

domestically, address the nation’s 

most pressing challenges, improve 

lives and communities, and 

strengthen civic engagement. 

Each year, the agency invests 

more than $800 million in grants 

for local nonprofit, community, 

tribal, and state organizations; 

places more than 200,000 

AmeriCorps members and 

AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers in 

intensive service roles; and 

empowers millions more to serve 

as long-term, short-term, or onetime volunteers. Learn more at 

AmeriCorps.gov. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

3

Population Served

Since 1993, MCC has operated as an AmeriCorps program. Currently, over 400 MCC 

volunteers are engaged in environmental and community service across Montana. 

MCC conducts its service through leadership development and young adult, youth, 

Indigenous, and individual placement programs. These programs offer service 

opportunities for individuals ages 14 and older, up to professional conservation 

experience for adults. Table 1 shows MCC AmeriCorps member demographic data for 

the 2021–2022 program year studied in this ROI analysis.9

Table 1. MCC AmeriCorps Member Demographics

Demographic category Percentage of MCC AmeriCorps members

Gender

Male 45.6%

Female 48.2%

Gender queer 6.2%

Race/ethnicity

White 87.2%

African American 1.1%

Hispanic 2.1%

Asian 3.2%

Two or more races 1.8%

Other 4.6%

Age

17–20 21.1%

21–25 61.5%

26–30 16.1%

30 and older 1.4%

Source: MCC

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

MCC Evaluation History

There have been no direct evaluation studies of MCC’s BDA programs; however, there 

are sufficient data sources to estimate the impact of MCC’s programs as detailed 

below. 

9 Jono McKinney, President and CEO of MCC, personal communication, January 30, 2023. Hereafter, all 

instances of MCC referenced as a data source were retrieved from this communication.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

4

Other Data Sources

Ecosystem Services Provided by Beavers Castor Spp.10

This study estimated the ecosystem service values from the presence of beavers on a 

per-hectare basis. The ecosystem services considered in this study are water 

purification, moderation of extreme events, habitat and biodiversity provision, nutrient 

cycling, greenhouse gas sequestration, recreational hunting and fishing, water supply, 

and non-consumptive recreation. To derive estimates for each of the listed ecosystem 

services, the authors conducted a comprehensive literature review of recent studies 

(since 2000) and other relevant criteria, which resulted in 105 studies that estimated 

valuation. After aggregating and modeling the various characteristics of the studies, 

researchers found that beavers generate roughly $689 (2017$) per hectare per year in 

ecosystem service values. The study then expands on an aggregate annual valuation 

estimate by utilizing geographic information system (GIS) mapping to identify the 

number of hectares impacted by beavers to generate the annual estimate of 

$332.6 million per year. The ecosystem services estimated in this study provided a basis 

for estimating benefits of BDAs installed by MCC.

Analysis of Vegetation Recovery Surrounding a Restored Wetland Using the 

Normalized Difference Infrared Index (NDII) and Normalized Difference 

Vegetation Index (NDVI)11

This study estimated the area of impacted ecosystems that surround BDAs. 

Using GIS data on vegetation health, the researchers studied the impact of five BDAs 

that had been installed between 2004 and 2008. Their findings suggest that BDAs create 

a corridor roughly 300 meters wide that extends 5 kilometers downstream and 1 

kilometer upstream where positive impacts on vegetation occurred compared to 

reference sites. This result suggests that each BDA impacts roughly 180 hectares of 

riparian and adjacent ecosystems. These findings relate to the specific type of BDA that 

MCC is installing and provide a conversion from the number of BDAs installed to the 

spatial area impacted.

Estimation of Wildfire Size and Risk Changes due to Fuels Treatments12

This study estimated the impacts on the likelihood of wildfire occurrence from fuel 

reduction treatments. Researchers evaluated 72,000 hectares of wildland where fuel 

reduction had occurred and that were affected by 14 large wildfires that burned over 

314,000 hectares between 2002 and 2010. Their findings suggest that fuel treatments 

10 Thompson, S., Vehkaoja, M., Pellikka, J., & Nummi, P. (2020). Ecosystem services provided by beavers 

Castor spp. Mammal Review, 51(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12220

11 Wilson, N. R., & Norman, L. M. (2018). Analysis of vegetation recovery surrounding a restored wetland 

using the normalized difference infrared index (NDII) and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). 

International Journal of Remote Sensing, 39(10). https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2018.1437297

12 Cochrane, M. A., Moran, C. J., Wimberly, M. C., Baer, A. D., Finney, M. A., Beckendorf, K. L., Eidenshink, J., 

& Zhu, Z. (2012). Estimation of wildfire size and risk changes due to fuels treatments. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire, 21(4), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11079
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

5

affected the chance of treated acres catching fire by changing the rate at which fire 

spreads across the surface and reducing the likelihood of crowning.13 These results 

suggest that strategic placement of fuel reduction treatments reduces the overall size 

of wildfires that occur. 

The fuel reduction treatments analyzed in this report were similar to those used by MCC 

and provided a statistically significant reduction in burn probability as a result of 

treatments. Researchers estimated the effect of (a) only unplanned treatments 

(previous wildfires), (b) only planned treatments, and (c) a combination of both. 

While the combination of both previous wildfires and targeted treatments led to the 

greatest reduction in fire spread, the study found that planned fuel treatments (item b 

above) resulted in a 7.2 percent reduction in fire size. 

Evaluation Report: Washington Conservation Corps Restoration Sites: Impact 

Evaluation 2014–201514

An evaluation of the Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) conservation efforts 

provides data relevant to measuring the impact of similar efforts by MCC. The 

evaluation studied whether WCC effectively restored native plant cover and reduced 

invasive plant cover at 23 randomly selected restoration sites that were at least 1 acre 

in size. The study compared the restoration sites to 23 paired comparison sites. Each 

restoration site was similar to the pre-restoration conditions of its paired reference site. 

The study used Before-After, Control-Impact (BACI) statistical analysis to analyze the 

outcomes of WCC efforts. BACI is an effective method to evaluate natural and humaninduced interventions on ecological variables when treatment sites cannot be 

randomly chosen (Conner et al., 2016). 

The study found that due to the restoration efforts of WCC members, native coverage 

increased by 9.6 percent at restoration sites compared to 0.4 percent at reference sites 

the first year following planting.15 Moreover, noxious weed coverage decreased by 

15.6 percent at restoration sites compared to a decrease of 1.4 percent at reference 

sites. Both results were statistically significant, as shown in Table 2.

13 Crowning refers to the movement of wildfire through shrubs and upper tiers of trees, rather than across 

the ground surface.

14 The Watershed Company. (2015). Impact evaluation 2014-2015: Washington Conservation Corps 

restoration sites. https://americorps.gov/evidence-exchange/impact-evaluation-2014-2015-washingtonconservation-corps-restoration-sites

15 Average survival for native plants in the first year following the planting was 72 percent.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

6

Table 2. WCC’s Treatment on Native Plant and Noxious Weed Coverage Results After 1 

Year

Coverage group

Restoration

(treatment)

Reference

(comparison) Difference P-value Significant?

Native tree 

and shrub

9.6% 

increase

0.4% 

increase 9.2% 0.03 Yes

Noxious weed 15.6% decrease 1.4% decrease 14.2% 0.03 Yes

Determining Economic Benefits of Park Trails: Management Implications16

This study estimated the social benefits of trail networks on local populations. 

Of 543 surveyed recreational trail users at Table Rock State Park in South Carolina, 248 

returned valid surveys that included responses to questions about how they valued their 

experience. Specifically, the survey asked about respondents’ willingness to pay a 

certain fee to access the park and willingness to pay an additional fee for improved 

trail systems at the park. Analysis of the surveys used a contingent valuation method 

based on a bivariate probit model of the responses. As the bid amount shown to trail 

users increased, the proportion of users who reported being willing to contribute that 

amount decreased. At the lowest end, 82.14 percent of trail users reported being willing 

to pay $0.50. At the upper end bid, only 20.59 percent of trail users reported being 

willing to pay $10. When willingness-to-pay is estimated across the entire sample, the 

study authors found an economic benefit of between $3.81 and $5.71 for the 

maintenance of trails. They then compared the total benefit on an annual basis using 

the total number of visitors to the annual costs of maintenance to create an ROI for 

these services.

The Economic Impact of the 2013 Rim Fire on Natural Lands

Following the 2013 Rim Fire in northern California, Batker et al. (2013) estimated the 

environmental benefits that were lost in the first year following the fire. Their study 

estimated that, from the 254,654 acres burned, between $100 million and $736 million 

in ecosystem services were lost. Utilizing median home values for the burn area, they 

also estimated that the total impacted property value from the fire exceeded 

$1.6 billion. They also estimated the cost of fighting the wildfire to be $127.2 million 

and the lost recreation and tourism value to be between $450,000 and $211 million. 

Wildfire Smoke and Health Impacts: A Closer Look at Fire attributes and Their 

Marginal Effects

Moeltner et al. (2013) studied the impacts on respiratory health from wildfire smoke and 

estimated the health costs per acre depending on the distance to the fire. Their results 

show that there is a causal link between respiratory patients and fires as far as 300 miles 

16 Oh, C. & Hammitt, W. (2010). Determining economic benefits of park trails: Management implications. 

Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 28(2), 94–107.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

7

away. Depending on proximity to and severity of the fire, they estimate that health 

costs range between $0.54–$2.09 per acre burned.

Comparing Ecosystem Goods and Services Provided by Restored and Native 

Lands 

Dodds et al. (2008) studied the impact of ecosystem services and the restoration index17

of those services on restored lands following disruption. Their analysis found that restored 

Western forested mountains and Wetlands had restoration index scores of 0.89 and 

0.93, showing that restoration efforts return significant portions of the native ecosystem 

services. They evaluated that restored western forested mountains (54,000,000 

hectares), generate $57 billion per year in ecosystem services. Similarly, they assessed 

that restored wetlands (340,000 hectares) provide $196 billion per year in ecosystem 

services throughout the U.S. This is equivalent to an estimated $233,000 per restored 

acre per year.

None of the studies above directly examine the economic cost of CO2 emissions that 

result from wildfires, from either a community health or environmental cost perspective. 

However, there are studies that can link prevented burn acres to avoided emissions. 

Both Guo et al. (2019) and Arora and Melton (2018) estimate the carbon dioxide 

equivalents released from an acre of land burning. Their estimates range from 0.023 

tons to 1.75 tons of carbon dioxide equivalents based on ecosystem characteristics. 

Based on the updated social cost of carbon (SCC) of $185 per ton (Rennert et al., 

2022), carbon emissions prevented from burning can be quantified as social benefits. 

As with the other ecosystem service treatments, this analysis will utilize Bartels et al. 

(2016) which estimates the rate of regrowth for various ecosystems, providing a 

dynamic discounting of benefits over time as regrowth occurs. Previous ROI studies 

(Voigt et al., 2022) have utilized this approach to quantify the economic damages 

resulting from the emission of 1 ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. The current ROI study 

will further review literature to advance the methodology for incorporating the 

economic costs of CO2 emissions from wildfires in the ROI calculation for MCC. 

Selection of MCC for the AmeriCorps ROI Project

ICF recommended the MCC AmeriCorps program for a feasibility study to explore 

monetizing benefits and costs of an environmental stewardship program. The 

availability of data related to the program’s evaluation and documented outcomes 

made it a strong candidate for estimating ROI. 

The primary outcomes of MCC that would be monetized for an ROI analysis relate to 

BDA installation and the associated ecosystem services, wildfire fuel reduction 

treatments, restoration of native plants species, reduction of invasive species, and trail 

maintenance. Existing literature estimates the value of fuel reduction treatments, 

ecosystem service values, and the value of improved trails based on a variety of 

17 The restoration index is the relative value of the restored ecosystem compared to the native ecosystem’s 

value. For example: the dollar value of a restored wetland acre compared to the dollar value of the native 

wetland acre.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

8

benefits. An ROI analysis for MCC will use the improved drought and climate resilience 

from the BDAs, reduced wildfire risk, environmental service values, and improved trail 

benefit values to monetize the benefits of MCC’s outcomes. 

The potential ROI methodology for MCC borrows elements from the 2022 study of 

Nevada Conservation Corps and the 2021 study of Washington Conservation Corps. 

This study of MCC advances ROI analysis in the conservation field by incorporating the 

value of drought resilience, especially related to BDA installation.

Comparable ROI Estimates

ROI studies of other programs that offer similar services provide context for a potential 

set of ROI estimates for MCC. Table 3 summarizes information across studies.

Beaver Dam Analog

At the time this report was produced, there were no comparable ROI studies related to 

BDA installation and its benefits.

Wildfire Mitigation

A number of studies estimate the effectiveness of conservation activities in mitigating 

wildfires. Specifically, Jones (2021) analyzed the costs and benefits of wildfire mitigation 

treatments related to the Forest to Faucet (F2F) program. The F2F program treatments 

were classified into groups: general canopy treatments (where potential fuels were 

mechanically thinned and clear cut)18 and surface fuel treatments (such as prescribed 

burns, lop and scatter, and mastication).19 To assess the benefits of the program, wildfire 

behavior was modeled to evaluate pre- and post-treatment. 

The analysis found that every dollar invested in such treatments yielded benefits 

between $0.67 and $3.88. Benefits included reduced property loss, reduced recovery 

and rehabilitation costs, reduced suppression costs, increased recreation, and 

conservation of endangered species. The study estimated the value of natural resource 

goods and services based on ecosystem service values in the literature. Mason et al. 

(2006) found an ROI in a similar range, with mitigation efforts on low-risk areas returning 

$1.04 for every dollar spent and high-risk areas returning $2.42. The study estimated ROI 

of fuel reduction treatments by estimating the value of benefits that included reduced 

firefighting costs, fatalities avoided, facility losses avoided, and reduced loss of timber 

resources. ICF ( Voigt et al., 2022) conducted an ROI study of Nevada Conservation 

Corps, finding an ROI of $0.98 (short-term) to $78.04 (long-term) for every funder dollar 

spent. 

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

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

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

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

reducing fuels to small pieces, thereby increasing the health of remaining trees.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

9

Reduction of Invasive Species

Past studies conducted cost–benefit analyses of habitat improvements for the removal 

of invasive species and renewal of native species. These studies provide context for a 

set of ROI estimates related to MCC’s work. 

Zavaleta (2000) examined the economic costs and benefits of controlling the invasive 

Tamarix plant species in the western United States. The analysis looked at the impact of 

Tamarix on water supplies, flood control, and wildlife, and developed a monetary 

estimate of the benefit to each category if Tamarix were replaced with native 

vegetation. Due to limited data availability, a regional estimate for each ecosystem 

service was derived from numerous sources, including direct cost measures and 

willingness-to-pay data. The study found that at a 3 percent discount rate, eradication 

of Tamarix will lead to an ROI range of $1.36–$2.12 for each dollar of cost. The 

Watershed Company (2015) also conducted an effectiveness study on a similar 

AmeriCorps program, the Washington Conservation Corps, and estimated the 

effectiveness of restoration activities, similar to those used by MCC. Their findings 

suggested that the treatments increased native tree and shrub presence by 9.2

percent and decreased noxious weed presence by 14.2 percent after 1 year. ICF 

(Munaretto et al., 2021) conducted an ROI study of Washington Conservation Corps, 

finding an ROI of $0.20 (short-term) to $33.90 (long-term) for every funder dollar spent.

Trail Maintenance

There are also social benefits derived from the maintenance of trail systems resulting 

from MCC’s work. Past cost–benefit and economic analyses of recreational trails 

provide context for an ROI study of MCC’s AmeriCorps program. 

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

relationship with health costs associated with inactivity. Per-capita annual costs of trail 

use included trail construction/maintenance and equipment and travel, while percapita annual direct benefit examined the medical benefit of using the trails. The study 

found that every $1 of investment in trails for physical activity led to $2.94 in direct 

medical benefit. 

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

Carolina. Benefits were calculated based on the community’s willingness to pay for 

park services using the double-bounded contingent valuation method. The study found 

that the economic benefit characterized by willingness to pay for entry to the 

recreation area was $4.76 per visit. Oh and Hammitt compared the estimated value of 

visitor benefits to park costs, estimating the ROI for trail maintenance to be between 

$1.15 and $1.72.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

10

Table 3. Relevant Studies and Their Findings

Study

Forest treatments/ 

study area

Benefits/cost savings 

evaluated

ROI estimate*

(Return in dollars 

for every $1 in cost)

Jones et al. (2021) General canopy 

treatments (e.g., 

mechanical thinning) 

and surface fuel 

treatments (e.g., 

prescribed fire)

Source water 

protection, property 

loss, recovery and 

rehabilitation costs, 

suppression costs, 

recreation, and 

endangered species 

values

$0.67 to $3.88

Mason et al. (2006) Wildfire fuel reduction 

through forest 

thinning

Firefighting, fatality, 

facility losses, cost of 

timber, willingness to

pay for fire risk 

reduction

$2.42 (high risk)

$1.04 (moderate risk)

Zavaleta (2000) Ecosystem services 

lost as a result of 

noxious week 

presence.

Avoided 

replacement costs 

from water provision 

and avoided flood 

damages

$1.36 to $2.12

The Watershed 

Company (2015)

Efficacy of restoration 

efforts to increase 

native species 

presence and 

decrease noxious 

weeds

9.2% increase in 

native vegetation 

and 14.2% decrease 

of noxious weeds 

following treatment

N/A

ICF – Munaretto et al.

(2021)

Increasing native 

coverage and 

reducing noxious 

weed coverage

Increased ecosystem 

service valuation per 

acre of restoration 

sites, benefits to 

AmeriCorps and 

other stakeholders of 

national service 

$0.20 to $33.90

ICF – Voigt et al.

(2022)

Wildfire reduction 

treatments, habitat 

restoration, invasive 

species removal, and 

trail maintenance

Reduced damages 

from wildfires, 

increased ecosystem 

service valuation per 

acre of restoration 

sites, value of trail 

maintenance, 

benefits to 

AmeriCorps and 

other stakeholders of 

national service

$0.98 to $78.04 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

11

Study

Forest treatments/ 

study area

Benefits/cost savings 

evaluated

ROI estimate*

(Return in dollars 

for every $1 in cost)

Wang et al. (2005) Nebraska Costs: trail 

construction/

maintenance and 

equipment and 

travel

$2.94

Oh and Hammitt 

(2010)

A state park in South 

Carolina

Willingness to pay for 

recreational 

resources

N/A

*Where studies did not report ROIs, they were calculated based on the net benefits and net 

costs, where available. 

ROI Methodology 

The methodology for estimating MCC’s ROI consisted of the following components: 

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

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

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

governments; and society. 

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

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

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

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

investment opportunity cost for MCC AmeriCorps program funding that could 

have been used for other purposes. 

3. Assessing program costs. MCC provided program costs for the 2021–2022 

program year. MCC costs for the 2021–2022 program year include operating 

costs, AmeriCorps member expenses, non-AmeriCorps member expenses, and 

other indirect costs. AmeriCorps member expenses included the living allowance 

amounts received during service.

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

assessed under three scenarios representing different assumptions about the 

persistence of program outcomes: 

• Total benefits per federal dollar

• Total benefits per funder dollar20 

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

(i.e., AmeriCorps, federal government [non-AmeriCorps]), tribal governments, private, and other, as well as

match funding from state and local governments.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

12

• Federal government benefits per federal dollar

This analytical framework includes only those benefits that could be reasonably 

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

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

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

Figure 1. Benefits Among Stakeholder Groups From MCC

Available data establishes that MCC AmeriCorps members enjoy earnings impacts as a

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

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

includes three scenarios:21

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

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

also assumes no lifetime benefits are realized.

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

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

applied each year to represent net present value in 2022 dollars.22 This scenario 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

short-term scenario.

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

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

discount rate, see Office of Management and Budget (2003).
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

13

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

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

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

present value in 2022 dollars. This scenario also assumes the entire net present 

value of lifetime benefits is realized.

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

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

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

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

earnings benefits) represents the midpoint between these two scenarios. 

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

Program Costs

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

expected opportunity costs—all in 2022 dollars—to assess the ROI of MCC. Additional 

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

Appendix B. 

Program Benefits 

Outcomes of MCC result in monetizable benefits to MCC AmeriCorps members; 

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

and data sources by stakeholder group.

Table 4. Benefits Realized From MCC by Stakeholder Group

Stakeholder group Benefits

MCC AmeriCorps members • Additional earnings from reduced unemployment 

• Post-tax living allowances 

Federal, state, and local 

governments

• Tax revenue from increased earnings by MCC

AmeriCorps members post-program and sales tax 

revenue from the induced increased economic activity

• Tax revenue from living allowances 

• Reduced lifetime spending on corrections, public 

assistance, and social insurance from increased 

educational attainment by MCC AmeriCorps members

• There are likely other benefits to federal agencies from 

reduced spending on wildfire and flood disaster relief 

funding; however, limitations exist to incorporating 

those benefits currently.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

14

Stakeholder group Benefits

Society • Ecosystem service values associated with improved 

ecosystem health resulting from the installation of BDAs 

at impaired riparian sites

• Wildfire reduction benefits, including: 1) ecosystem 

services preserved, 2) reduced human health impacts, 

and 3) reduced carbon dioxide emissions

• Increased benefits from ecosystem services due to 

unburned areas as well as ecosystem restoration 

activities

• Increased health outcomes from access to trails

• There may be other benefits to private 

insurers/individuals from reduced spending on recovery 

following wildfire disasters; however, limitations exist to 

incorporating those benefits currently.

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

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

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

members and federal, state, and local governments. 

Benefits to AmeriCorps Members

MCC AmeriCorps members benefit from increased likelihood of employment postnational service and from living allowances.23 

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

MCC AmeriCorps members receive living allowances during their national service. 

The living allowances are taxable income and thus result in increased government 

revenue.24 The post-tax living allowance was included in the ROI analysis as a direct 

one-time benefit to MCC AmeriCorps members. 

Additional Earnings From Reduced Unemployment (Benefit to MCC AmeriCorps 

Members)

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

increased educational attainment, and higher income from increased employment 

post-national service.25 Freidman et al. (2016) found that unemployment among 

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

2016.

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

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

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

2016.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

15

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

points lower compared to 6 months before serving.26 To monetize this decrease in 

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

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

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

analysis then proceeded to:

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

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

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

Bureau, 2020)

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

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

recent program year to estimate the number of additional MCC AmeriCorps 

members employed post-service 

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

the number of additional MCC AmeriCorps members employed to estimate the 

total increased earnings attributable to national service 

The earnings metrics for MCC AmeriCorps members were applied and discounted 

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

present 2022 dollars. The post-tax MCC AmeriCorps members’ projected earnings 

represent the additional income earned by AmeriCorps members attributable to 

serving with the MCC program. 

Benefits to Government

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

government. 

Tax Revenue From Increased Earnings by MCC AmeriCorps Members

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

AmeriCorps members. Those benefits include:

• Income tax revenue from increased earnings by MCC AmeriCorps members 

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

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

AmeriCorps members based on 2022 rates. For both federal and state income 

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

earnings paid in taxes. 

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

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

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

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

26 See page 56 of Friedman et al. (2016).
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

16

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

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

AmeriCorps members may disperse to various locations nationwide following 

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

working years.

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

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

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

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

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

analysis applied that rate to the estimated taxable expenditures of MCC

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

Consumer Expenditure Survey data (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021).27 The 

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

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

Tax Revenue From Living Allowances Received by MCC AmeriCorps Members

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

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

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

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

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

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

and local government revenue.

Benefits to Society 

The societal benefits of MCC can be attributed to four key functions of the 

organization: ecosystem service improvements from BDAs, wildfire mitigation, 

habitat improvements, and maintenance of trail systems. 

BDA Ecosystem Service Improvements Attributable to MCC

Evaluations and peer-reviewed literature show that BDA installations like those 

constructed by MCC create a variety of ecosystem service benefits that accrue to 

society, which range from $1,138 to $99,761 per year (Thompson et al., 2020; Wilson and 

Norman, 2018).28 To monetize this societal benefit, the analysis multiplied the number of 

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

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

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

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

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

28 Ecosystem service values are typically produced within a range due to uncertainty of impacts and the 

overall societal benefits from the services. In order to internalize those ranges into the model, this 

methodology uses the low, average, and high estimates from the range to present three scenarios of 

ecosystem service values for every ROI.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

17

acres that experienced ecosystem restoration as a result of the BDA by the ecosystem 

service values per acre of land restored.

The analysis estimated the number of acres restored from the installation of the BDA by 

multiplying the number of BDAs installed during the 2021–2022 program year by the 

area of impact provided by MCC.29 Due to the nature of the BDA in restoring and 

preserving the health of the riparian habitat, these values do not decrease over time. 

The analysis then calculated the societal benefits related to those restored acres as well 

as flat per BDA societal benefits using various other literature that establishes ecosystem 

service values, carbon sequestration benefits, extreme event moderation likelihood, 

and water purification benefits:

1. Ecosystem services preserved through riparian habitat restoration. MCC 

specifically targets impaired riparian habitats for BDA installation, resulting in 

significant ecosystem service benefits following the installation and restoration of 

the habitat. The value of a single acre of riparian habitat being restored is 

estimated to be between $3,029 and $288,752 (2022$) (ESSRTI, 2021). 

2. Benefits from carbon sequestration value through riparian restoration. Every acre 

of riparian habitat that is restored from a BDA being installed sequesters carbon 

dioxide at a higher rate than prior to the installation. Thompson et al. (2020) 

estimated this to be roughly 1.7 tons of carbon dioxide annually per acre. To 

monetize this value, the analysis utilized the updated SCC from Rennert et al. 

(2022) of $212 (2022$) per ton. 

3. Benefits from extreme event moderation. Every BDA installed creates a buffer for 

water retention, which reduces the likelihood and impact of drought and flood 

events. Thompson et al. (2020) estimated that the per-acre BDA benefit on an 

annual basis would be $59.94 (2022$), the societal benefit of this reduction in 

extreme events is quantified by multiplying the number of BDAs and their 

impacted acreages by this per-BDA benefit.

4. Benefits from water purification. Installed BDAs also provide purification for 

downstream water. These benefits are accrued on the basis of acres impacted 

per BDA, and Thompson et al. (2020) estimated the annual benefit to be $52.20 

(2022$) per acre. To monetize these benefits, the total acres impacted by 

installed BDAs are multiplied by the benefit.

29 The estimate of 175 acres of riparian habitat being restored from BDA installation is lower on a per-BDA 

basis than estimates from Wilson and Norman (2018). This analysis will utilize MCC’s lower estimates to 

ensure that this study uses conservative estimates when calculating ecosystem benefits from BDAs. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

18

Each of these is a distinct benefit with no overlap that would result in double counting

of benefits. For instance, the ecosystem service values specifically measure benefits of 

restored ecosystems following BDA installation and are distinct from the carbon 

sequestration, extreme event moderation, or water purification that the BDA causes. 

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

scenarios and three environmental impact levels due to BDA installations during the 

2021–2022 program year. 

Table 5. Value of Ecosystem Services Preserved Through BDA Installations (2023$)

Value of ecosystem services Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Low* $530,084 $5,429,863 $7,666,895

Average* $9,914,571 $101,558,945 $143,399,885

High* $50,531,676 $517,616,324 $730,867,396

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

acre from wildfire.

Table 6 presents the discounted benefits of carbon sequestration due to BDA 

installations during the 2021–2022 program year. 

Table 6. Value of Carbon Sequestration Through BDA Installations (2023$)

Value of carbon 

sequestration Short-term Medium-term Long-term

All impact levels $27,295 $279,589 $394,776

Table 7 presents the discounted benefits of extreme event moderation due to BDA 

installations during the 2021–2022 program year. 

Table 7. Value of Extreme Event Moderation Through BDA Installations (2023$)

Value of extreme 

event moderation Short-term Medium-term Long-term

All impact levels $10,489 $107,443 $151,708

Table 8 presents the discounted benefits of water purification due to BDA installations 

during the 2021–2022 program year. 

Table 8. Value of Water Purification Through BDA Installations (2023$)

Value of water 

purification Short-term Medium-term Long-term

All impact levels $9,136 $93,579 $132,133
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

19

Wildfire Reduction Benefits Attributable to MCC

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

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

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

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

based on MCC data. 

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

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

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

related to those preserved acres using various other literature that establishes 

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

equivalents emission costs from wildfires on a per acre basis:

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

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

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

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

analysis reduced ecosystem service benefits incrementally with the estimated 

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

this benefit decreases by 84 percent by the end of the study period (roughly 1.2

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

thereafter).30

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

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

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

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

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

effectiveness decreases over time as fuel accumulates naturally, the analysis 

reduced health benefits with the estimated amount of regrowth (Bartels et al., 

2016). The analysis assumes that the value of this benefit decreases by 84

percent by the end of the study period (roughly 1.2 percent per year for the first 

10 years, and roughly 3.7 percent per year thereafter).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

was applied to all three wildfire reduction benefits outlined in this section.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

20

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

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

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

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

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

dioxide emissions per acre allows this analysis to incorporate uncertainty about 

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

treatment effectiveness decreases over time as fuel accumulates naturally, the 

analysis reduced benefits from avoided carbon dioxide equivalents emissions

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

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

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

per year thereafter).

Table 9 presents the discounted benefits of ecosystem services to society over the three 

scenarios and three environmental impact levels due to wildfire reduction treatments 

during the 2021–2022 program year. 

Table 9. Value of Ecosystem Services Preserved Through Fuel Reduction Treatments

(2023$)

Value of ecosystem services Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Low* $122,419 $1,063,881 $1,086,678

Average* $496,446 $4,314,359 $4,406,805

High* $900,859 $7,828,911 $7,996,666

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

per acre from wildfire and the persistence of ecosystem services from habitats that weren’t burned. 

Table 10 presents the discounted health benefits to society over the three scenarios due 

to wildfire reduction treatments during the 2021–2022 program year. 

Table 10. Value of Human Health Benefits From Reduced Air Particulates From Smoke

(2023$)

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

All impact levels* $168,199 $1,461,733 $1,493,054

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

impact levels.

Table 11 presents the discounted benefits from reduced carbon dioxide equivalents 

emissions over the three scenarios and three potential carbon dioxide equivalent 

emission levels due to wildfire reduction treatments during the 2021–2022 program year. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

21

Table 11. Value of Benefits from Reduced Carbon Dioxide Equivalents Emissions (2023$)

Value of emission reduction benefits Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Low* $1,203 $10,457 $10,681

Average* $46,576 $404,772 $413,445

High* $91,949 $799,087 $816,209

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

acre from wildfire.

It should be noted that not all potential benefits of MCC were included in this analysis 

due to limitations of the data available. For example, MCC’s wildfire reduction efforts 

likely avoided property loss and costs related to post-wildfire recovery typically borne 

by a combination of federal, state, and local government sources. Private 

homeowners, private insurance firms, and government agencies that engage in 

disaster recovery benefit from those avoided costs. However, due to the lack of data 

to demonstrate robust causal relationships between the treatments and damages that 

would have otherwise occurred, those benefits are not included in the analysis.

Habitat Improvement Benefits Attributable to MCC

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

species presence, increases ecosystem services to society (The Watershed Company, 

2015; Zavaleta, 2000). To monetize the increase in ecosystem services due to MCC 

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

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

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

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

(ESSRTI, 2021)

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

treated 

3. The stream of benefits was then discounted based on regrowth estimates 

(Bartels et al., 2016). The cumulative decrease is 84 percent by the end of the 

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

percent per year thereafter).

Table 12 presents the discounted benefits to society over the three time scenarios and 

three environmental impact levels generated by the ecosystem restoration activities

during the 2021–2022 program year.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

22

Table 12. Total Value of Ecosystem Restoration Services (2023$)

Value of ecosystem 

services Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Low* $4,223,821 $47,085,516 $61,731,638

Average* $10,262,031 $114,397,138 $149,980,785

High* $20,965,005 $233,709,724 $306,405,986

*These impact levels represent low, average, and high estimates of the ecosystem service values per acre 

from restoration activities.

Trail Maintenance and Creation Benefits Attributable to MCC

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

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

the analysis first determined the number of miles and state in which those trails were 

located based on MCC-provided data. The analysis then proceeded to:

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

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

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

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

accrued following the maintenance or construction year to generate a net 

benefit value

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

net benefits

Table 13 presents the discounted benefits to society from trail maintenance and 

creation activities during the 2021–2022 program year over the three scenarios. 

Table 13. Total Value of Trail Maintenance and Creation Services (2023$)

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

Health benefits $4,448 $55,623 $110,452

Recreation benefits $499 $6,243 $12,398

Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs)

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

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

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

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

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

forgone benefits are referred to as the professional and investment opportunity costs. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

23

Professional Opportunity Cost to MCC AmeriCorps Members

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

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

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

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

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

as well as their weighted unemployment rate using the demographic distribution of 

MCC AmeriCorps members for the 2021–2022 program year and ASEC data. The 

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

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

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

The weighted unemployment rate represents how many of the MCC AmeriCorps 

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

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

employed and then to calculate the aggregate earnings those employed individuals 

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

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

1 year. 

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

appropriately allocate opportunity costs between MCC AmeriCorps members and 

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

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

estimated the reduction in sales tax from reduced consumption. These taxes combined 

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

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

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

members is called the total professional opportunity cost. 

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

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

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

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

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

opportunity cost removed from these total federal government benefits include the 

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

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

federal taxes is called the federal professional opportunity cost. 

Investment Opportunity Cost to Funders 

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

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

2021–2022 program year were invested in U.S. Treasury bonds instead. To calculate this, 

the analysis matched the 2021 real interest rates provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (2020) to each of the scenarios leveraged in this ROI 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

24

analysis: short-term, medium-term, and long-term.31 The rates of return for U.S. Treasury 

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

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

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

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

interest rates are -1.8, -0.8, and -0.3 percent, respectively (Office of Management and 

Budget, 2020). Also, the number of time periods elapsed on these bonds is equal to the 

number of years the short-term, medium-term, and long-term scenarios assume MCC

AmeriCorps members’ employment and earnings gains are sustained: 1 year, 15 years, 

and 30 years, respectively. These bonds compound bi-annually according to the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury (2019). The forgone accrued interest was calculated for 

each of the three scenarios if the funding amount used to support MCC was instead 

invested. Note that for 1) the federal government benefits per federal dollar ROI 

calculation and 2) the total benefits per federal dollar ROI calculation, the investment 

opportunity cost subtracted from the benefits in these calculations is the forgone 

accrued interest from investing only the federal funds into these U.S. Treasury bonds. This 

is called the federal investment opportunity cost. This is because these ROI calculations 

only include federal government (not total) program costs. For the other ROI 

calculation estimated in this analysis, the investment opportunity cost subtracted from 

the benefits realized is the accrued interest from investing all MCC funds (both federal 

and non-federal) into these U.S. Treasury bonds. This is called the total investment 

opportunity cost. See Appendix B for details.

Program Costs

The costs used in this analysis are specific to the 2021–2022 MCC program year. MCC 

costs for the 2021–2022 program year include operating costs, AmeriCorps member 

expenses, and other costs (shown in Table 14). Operating costs capture the majority of 

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

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

other benefits members receive during service. Non-AmeriCorps member expenses and 

other costs are indirect costs incurred by MCC from engaging volunteers not 

associated with AmeriCorps.32

31 The analysis used 2021 real interest rates for U.S. Treasury bonds because the MCC AmeriCorps program 

year analyzed began in 2021. 

32 MCC (2023) 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

25

Table 14. MCC Program Costs, 2021–2022 Program Year

Cost category Value

Operating $4,350,150

AmeriCorps member expenses $4,399,271

Non-AmeriCorps member expenses $100,000

Other $730,029

Total $9,579,450

Source: MCC (2023) 

ROI Study Limitations

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

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

and damages that would have otherwise occurred. Without robust evidence of a 

causal link, the ROI cannot account for reductions in private costs (homeowner and 

private insurer) or costs to the federal government (federal disaster recovery spending 

following wildfires or floods). 

Insufficient Data to Attribute Post-Wildfire/Post-Flood Recovery Savings to Government

and Private Sector Entities 

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

government sources. These sources of savings could include private homeowners, 

private insurance firms, and federal disaster recovery spending that result from their 

activities following severe wildfires and floods. In addition, there is insufficient data to 

determine the per-acre cost of recovery funding by funding source. This is due to a lack 

of data defining the causal relationship between the acres prevented from burning

and flooding by MCC and savings to the federal government on disaster relief.

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

savings on post-wildfire and post-flood recovery due to MCC’s work. To provide 

conservative ROI estimates, the analysis assumed there are no government savings on 

post-wildfire and post-flood recovery either to state and local or the federal 

government. The resulting ROI calculations are likely underestimates given the exclusion 

of that benefit. 

Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Cost), 

Program Costs, and ROI Results 

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

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

Program Benefits 

Table 15 shows MCC benefits by stakeholder group for each of the three scenarios. 

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

ecosystem benefits.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

26

Table 15. Benefits by Recipient

Recipient

Benefits by scenario

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

AmeriCorps members $2,186,738 $13,148,672 $24,166,702 

Federal government $97,836 $3,569,056 $6,095,052 

State & local 

governments $144,727 $217,813 $263,616 

Low* $5,099,981 $57,513,734 $77,776,610

Society Average* $20,942,078 $244,892,999 $361,613,621

High* $72,711,943 $868,650,524 $1,344,609,086

Total

Low* $7,185,974 $72,278,706 $106,651,813

Average* $23,028,071 $259,657,971 $390,488,824

High* $74,797,936 $883,415,496 $1,373,484,289

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

literature. 

Table 16 shows the percentage breakdown of program benefits by stakeholder group 

over the three scenarios examined in this report. As a result of the large ecosystem 

service benefits to society that accrue over time, a majority of benefits for the mediumand long-term scenarios are attributed to society.

Table 16. Percentage of Program Benefits by Stakeholder Group

Recipient

Benefits by scenario

Short-term* Medium-term* Long-term* 

AmeriCorps 

members

9.36% 

(29.04%, 2.91%)

5.02%

(17.66%, 1.48%)

6.16%

(22.31%, 1.76%)

Federal 

government

0.42%

(1.30%, 0.13%)

1.36%

(4.79%, 0.40%)

1.55%

(5.63%, 0.44%)

State & local 

governments

0.62%

(1.92%, 0.19%)

0.08%

(0.29%, 0.02%)

0.07%

(0.24%, 0.02%)

Society 89.61%

(67.74%, 96.77%)

93.53%

(77.25%, 98.09%)

92.22%

(71.81%, 97.78%)

*The percentage values are presented for an average ecosystem service value. Low to high ecosystem 

service value ranges are presented in parentheses.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

27

Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs)

Table 17 shows the breakdown of the forgone benefits from the professional opportunity 

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

2023 dollars. It provides the amount of post-tax earnings that members forgo—and the 

associated taxes forgone—to serve with MCC. This is called the total professional 

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

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

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

The sum of forgone federal taxes is called the federal professional opportunity cost. 

Table 17. Forgone Benefits From Professional Opportunity Cost

Forgone category

Professional opportunity 

cost amount across 

all scenarios (2023$)

Post-tax earnings $3,367,080 

Federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes -$728,825 

State income taxes -$133,205

State sales taxes -$266,411

Total $2,238,639 

Table 18 lists the forgone benefits from the investment opportunity cost incurred by 

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

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

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

calculations. 

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

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

benefits per federal dollar ROI calculation.

Table 18 column headers list the 2021 real interest rates for U.S. Treasury bonds and the 

number of years elapsed (with two payments a year). These values were used to 

calculate the forgone accrued interest value for each scenario. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

28

Table 18. Investment Opportunity Cost by Scenario and Funding Stream

Funding stream

Forgone accrued interest by scenario

Short-term

(-1.80% interest rate 

and 1 year elapsed)

Medium-term

(-0.80% interest rate 

and 15 years 

elapsed)

Long-term

(-0.30% interest rate 

and 30 years 

elapsed)

Total MCC program 

funding -$195,257 -$1,234,512 -$938,533

Federal MCC program 

funding only -$171,113 -$1,081,865 -$822,484

Program Funding

Table 19 shows the funding sources of MCC for the 2021–2022 program year provided 

by the program. MCC is partly funded through fees charged to federal agencies other 

than AmeriCorps and other non-federal groups for its services, and funding does not 

directly match costs in a given program year. During the 2021–2022 program year, MCC 

ran a small surplus. 

Table 19. Program Funding by Source for MCC 

Funder

Funding provided 

for the program year

AmeriCorps $2,842,634

Project revenue (federal) $5,417,366

Project revenue (state & local) $1,000,000

Private $740,000

Total $10,000,000

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Figure 2. Program Cost by Funding Source, shows the breakdown of program funding 

by source shown in Table 14.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

29

Figure 2. Program Cost by Funding Source

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

ROI Results 

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

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

benefits of MCC activities with program costs to calculate the ROI. Table 20 shows the 

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

that are used in three ROI calculations. 

Table 20. Program Benefits, Net Benefits and Program Costs by ROI Scenario

ROI scenario

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

Program cost $10,896,636 $10,896,636 $10,896,636

Federal government cost $9,549,273 $9,549,273 $9,549,273

Non-federal government cost $1,347,363 $1,347,363 $1,347,363

Total program gross benefits* $23,613,942 $265,615,409 $398,497,659 

Environmental benefits to society ― low $5,099,981 $57,513,734 $77,776,610 

Environmental benefits to society ―

medium $20,942,078 $244,892,999 $361,613,621 

Environmental benefits to society ― high $72,711,943 $868,650,524 $1,344,609,086 

Member benefits $2,429,301 $16,935,541 $30,525,370

Federal government benefits $97,836 $3,569,056 $6,095,052

State/local government benefits $144,727 $217,813 $263,616

Total forgone benefits

(opportunity costs) -$3,501,032 -$2,461,777 -$2,757,755

Forgone benefits to members (forgone 

earnings post-taxes) -$3,367,079.63 -$3,367,079.63 -$3,367,079.63

Forgone tax revenue from members 

earnings -$329,209.21 -$329,209.21 -$329,209.21

Forgone tax revenue federal 

government -$728,824.98 -$728,824.98 -$728,824.98

 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

30

ROI scenario

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

Forgone tax revenue state/local 

government $399,615.77 $399,615.77 $399,615.77

Forgone benefits from total investment 

interests/returns (all funders) $195,257 $1,234,512 $938,533

Forgone benefits from federal 

government investment/returns $147,511 $932,638 $709,034

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

Net benefits members (member benefits 

― forgone benefits members) $2,429,301 $16,935,541 $30,525,370

Net benefits federal government (federal 

government benefits ― forgone tax 

revenue federal government ― forgone 

benefits from federal government 

investment/returns)

$97,836 $3,569,056 $6,095,052

Net benefits state/local government and 

other funders (state/local government 

benefits ― forgone tax revenue 

state/local government)

$144,727 $217,813 $263,616

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

benefits] / federal government cost)**

With low ecosystem benefits $0.73 $7.75 $11.66

With average ecosystem benefits $2.39 $27.37 $41.38

With high ecosystem benefits $7.81 $92.69 $144.32

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

program cost)**

With low ecosystem benefits $0.66 $6.39 $9.90

With average ecosystem benefits $1.70 $23.58 $35.95

With high ecosystem benefits $6.45 $80.83 $126.16

Federal government benefits per federal 

dollar (net benefits federal government / 

federal government cost) 

-$0.02 $0.18 $0.49

*Total program gross benefits utilize the average ecosystem service values.

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

society.

Table 21 shows the ROI results. Each row represents a different ROI calculation 

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

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

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

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

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

The analysis used three different scenarios to estimate benefits under different 

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

programs last for 1 year (short-term scenario), 15 years (medium-term), or 30 years 

(long-term). 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

31

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

Table 21. ROI Results for MCC

ROI calculation

ROI scenario

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

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

benefits] / federal government cost)* 

With low ecosystem benefits $0.73 $7.75 $11.66

With average ecosystem benefits $2.39 $27.37 $41.38

With high ecosystem benefits $7.81 $92.69 $144.32

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

program cost)* 

With low ecosystem benefits $0.66 $6.39 $9.90

With average ecosystem benefits $1.70 $23.58 $35.95

With high ecosystem benefits $6.45 $80.83 $126.16

Federal government benefits per federal dollar 

(net benefits federal government / federal 

government cost) 

-$0.02 $0.18 $0.49

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

to society.

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

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

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

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

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

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

$0.66 for the total benefits per funder dollar calculation with the low set of ecosystem 

benefit estimates is below the break-even point on funding invested, as is the total 

benefits per federal dollar calculation under low ecosystem benefits. All other scenarios 

and ecosystem benefit levels show positive returns. 

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

three scenarios. As a program that is intended primarily to generate benefits to society, 

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

design of MCC. In addition, existing data do not make it possible to attribute 

post-wildfire and post-flood event recovery savings to the federal government, such as 

savings in federal disaster recovery expenditures. (See ROI Study Limitations on page 

25.) Including these potential savings in expenditures would lead to a higher ROI for the 

federal government than this analysis estimates. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

32

The magnitude of the positive ROI estimates is driven by the following factors:

• Increased ecosystem service values from installation of BDAs. Societal benefits 

from the installation of BDAs accrue and do not diminish over time due to the 

continued drought prevention and ecosystem improvement services they 

provide.

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

wildfires accrue but diminish over time as potential fuel reaccumulates.

• Increased ecosystem service values from reduced invasive species. Societal 

benefits from increased ecosystem services accrue but diminish over time as 

invasive species return.

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

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

• The educational attainment outcomes of AmeriCorps members. After serving in 

the AmeriCorps program, AmeriCorps members receive an education award, 

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

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

education award generates additional earnings for AmeriCorps members. 

• The employment outcomes of AmeriCorps members. Past studies establish that 

AmeriCorps members experience increased employment and increased earnings 

post-service. 

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

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

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

contributed to the magnitude of outcomes. Federal government funding of MCC

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

governments. This additional funding—amounting to about $1,740,000 for MCC for the 

studied program year—allowed MCC to operate at a larger scale than otherwise 

would have been possible under the federal funding alone. Though it may not impact 

the ROI, because it is a per-unit metric, match funding leads to greater investment in 

MCC and thus to greater impact. 

Recommendations for Further Research 

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

program, can be strengthened in several ways. 

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

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

earnings or employment, is often not measured in evaluations because it requires longterm tracking. Although a scenario-based approach that accounts for variations in the 

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

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

a single value for ROI calculations and avoid relying on the scenario-based approach. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

33

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

member alumni 6 months before service, 6 months after service, and during the summer 

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

from 3 to 11 years after service completion, depending on the AmeriCorps member 

alumni cohort (i.e., 2005, 2010, or 2013). Thus, instead of collecting outcome measures 

at a time that varies by AmeriCorps member or program participant, studies should 

track outcomes of interest at the same intervals, multiple times after program or service

completion, to provide greater insight into the duration and consistency of benefits.

Recommendation 2: Document outcomes using third-party data sources. Using thirdparty data, along with or in place of self-reported data, can also improve the accuracy 

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

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

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

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

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

corroborate findings from self-reported data. For example, if employment and earnings 

outcomes are of interest, unemployment insurance data—which are submitted by 

employers—could be used to verify members’ wages or employment status postservice. Additionally, if degree completion data are of interest, such as in the case of 

this ROI analysis, data from the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) could be used to 

verify what portion of MCC AmeriCorps members pursued higher education and which 

degrees were completed post-program with the help of the education award. Were 

degree or employment outcomes data from third-party data sources (like NSC)

available, those data may make more precise ROI estimates possible. 

Recommendation 3: Quantify federal disaster funding from wildfire and flood events. 

Federal disaster recovery spending has been significant following wildfires and flood 

events in recent years. These funds are primarily allocated for temporary and recovery 

housing for individuals whose homes were destroyed. Additional research on 

relationship between federal disaster funding and wildfire/flood characteristics (such as 

acreage impacted and proximity to population centers) would allow researchers to 

estimate the extent to which MCC’s wildfire reduction and BDA installation results in 

federal cost savings in the form of reduced federal disaster recovery spending. 

Recommendation 4: Quantify the change in value of regrowth due to carbon sinks. As 

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

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

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

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

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

valid.

Recommendation 5: Quantify private funds used for wildfire and flood restoration. 

Private funds from property owners and insurance companies are used to restore 

property damage caused by wildfires and floods. Additional research on the 

relationship between private funding and wildfire/flood characteristics (such as 

population density near the locations, as well as causal links from specific acres 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

34

impacted to property damage occurring) would allow researchers to estimate the 

impact of MCC’s activities on private funds spent on wildfire or flood recovery efforts. 

Conclusion 

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

especially under the medium- and long-term scenarios as benefits accumulate. Despite 

the large societal benefits, the federal government does not experience a break-even 

ROI from MCC at any time frame. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

35

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

in ROI Calculations 

In Table 22, the three columns on the right indicate by an “X” if the program benefits, forgone benefits (opportunity cost), 

or program cost is included in the numerator or denominator of an ROI calculation.

Table 22. Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Costs Included in ROI Calculations

Benefit or cost

Total benefits 

per federal 

dollar

Total 

benefits per 

funder 

dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Benefit

Stakeholder 

group Data sources X indicates inclusion in the ROI numerator

Improved ecosystem services from 

BDA installation Society

• MCC

• Thompson et al. 

(2020)

• Wilson and Norman 

(2018)

X X 

Improved carbon sequestration 

from BDA installation Society

• MCC

• Thompson et al. 

(2020)

X X 

Benefits from extreme event 

moderation from BDA installation Society

• MCC

• Thompson et al. 

(2020)

X X 

Improved water quality benefits 

from BDA installation Society

• MCC

• Thompson et al. 

(2020)

• Rennert et al. (2022)

X X 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

36

Benefit or cost

Total benefits 

per federal 

dollar

Total 

benefits per 

funder 

dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Avoided costs to society from 

wildfires Society

• MCC

• Cochrane et al. 

(2012) 

X X 

Avoided costs to government from 

wildfires

Federal, state, 

and local 

governments

• MCC

• Batker et al (2013)

• Moeltner et al. 

(2013)

X X 

Increased ecosystem services Society

• Dodds et al. (2008)

• The Watershed 

Company (2015)

X X 

Health and recreational benefits of 

trails Society

• MCC

• Oh et al. (2010)

• Wang et al. (2005)

X X 

Increased earnings of national 

service members due to increased 

employment and education of 

AmeriCorps members 

AmeriCorps 

members 

• MCC

• Friedman et al. 

(2016)

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2019-a)

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2019-b)

X X 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

37

Benefit or cost

Total benefits 

per federal 

dollar

Total 

benefits per 

funder 

dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Increased federal and state income 

tax revenue due to increased 

earnings of AmeriCorps members

Federal and 

state 

governments

• MCC

• Friedman et al. 

(2016)

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2019-a)

• Tax rate data on 

Bankrate.com and 

Loughead (Tax 

Foundation, 2020)

X X X 

Increased Social Security and 

Medicare tax revenue due to 

increased earnings of AmeriCorps 

members

Federal 

government

• MCC

• Friedman et al. 

(2016)

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2019-a) 

• Social Security 

Administration (2020)

X X X 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

38

Benefit or cost

Total benefits 

per federal 

dollar

Total 

benefits per 

funder 

dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Increased sales tax revenue due to 

increased earnings of AmeriCorps 

members

State and local 

governments

• MCC

• Friedman et al. 

(2016)

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a)

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2019-a)

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2021)

• Loughead (Tax 

Foundation, 2020)

X X 

AmeriCorps member living 

allowances and education awards

AmeriCorps 

members • MCC X X 

Reduced spending on lifetime 

public assistance, corrections, and 

social insurance due to increased 

educational attainment of 

AmeriCorps members

Federal, state, 

and local 

governments 

• Trostel (2015)

• Zeidenberg et al. 

(2016)

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

X X X

Forgone benefits (opportunity costs) Stakeholder 

group 

Data sources X indicates inclusion in the ROI denominator

Opportunity costs of forgone market 

wages for AmeriCorps members

AmeriCorps 

members 

• MCC

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2019-b) 

X X X 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

39

Benefit or cost

Total benefits 

per federal 

dollar

Total 

benefits per 

funder 

dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Opportunity costs of federal taxes 

on forgone market wages for 

AmeriCorps members (e.g., federal 

income and social security taxes)

Federal 

government

• MCC

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2019-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2019-b) 

• Tax rate data on 

Bankrate.com and 

Loughead (Tax 

Foundation, 2020)

• Social Security 

Administration (2020)

X X X 

Opportunity costs of state and local 

taxes on forgone market wages for 

AmeriCorps members (e.g., state 

income and state/local sales taxes)

State and local 

governments 

• MCC

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2021-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2019-a)

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2019-b) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2021)

• Loughead (Tax 

Foundation, 2020)

X X X 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

40

Benefit or cost

Total benefits 

per federal 

dollar

Total 

benefits per 

funder 

dollar

Federal 

government 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Opportunity costs of federal funders Federal 

government

• AmeriCorps

• U.S. Treasury 

Department

X X X 

Opportunity costs of other program 

funders

Nongovernment 

funders

• MCC

• U.S. Treasury 

Department

X 

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

AmeriCorps grant costs (excluding 

living allowances and education 

awards provided to AmeriCorps 

members)

Federal 

government 

(AmeriCorps)

• AmeriCorps X X X 

AmeriCorps member living 

allowances and education awards

Federal 

government 

(AmeriCorps)

• AmeriCorps X X X 

Montana Conservation Corp (MCC) 

costs MCC • MCC X 

Other federal government funding 

(not provided by AmeriCorps)

Federal 

government • MCC X X X 

State and local government funding State and local 

governments • MCC X 

Other non-government costs

Nongovernment 

funders

• MCC X 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

41

Appendix B: Additional Information on the Methodology 

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

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

to calculate the ROI, the results of interim calculations that contribute to the ROI 

calculations, and assumptions that underlie the analysis. 

Methodology Overview 

Calculating the ROI for MCC included the following steps: 

• Measuring and monetizing program benefits to MCC program participants, MCC

AmeriCorps members, and the different levels of government 

• Estimating forgone benefits (opportunity costs)

• Assessing program costs 

• Calculating the ROI 

This ROI analysis included only those benefits that could be reasonably monetized given 

the available data and that likely would not have occurred without MCC. 

Although MCC AmeriCorps members experience positive benefits from MCC in terms of 

increased employment and earnings (described below), available data do not 

establish how long these specific impacts are sustained over time. To address a range 

of possible durations for those benefits, three scenarios were developed for this ROI 

study: 

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

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

also assumes no lifetime benefits are realized. 

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

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

applied each year to represent net present value in 2020 dollars.33 This scenario 

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

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

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

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

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

value of lifetime benefits is realized. 

There are some differences between the three scenarios. One is the length of time that 

increased employment—and earnings associated with that employment—are 

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

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

discount rate, see Office of Management and Budget (2003).
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

42

sustained. The other is what portion of lifetime benefits, when applicable, are realized.34

For each ROI calculation, three estimates using the three scenarios were developed, 

which is shown in greater detail in the Calculating ROI section. 

Measuring Program Benefits 

The first step in calculating the ROI for MCC is to measure and monetize the program 

benefits. MCC program participants, MCC AmeriCorps members, and various levels of 

government benefit from MCC activities. These benefits were identified through an 

extensive literature review and data collection process. The methods used to measure 

benefits for each of these stakeholder groups are described below. 

Benefits to the MCC AmeriCorps Members 

The MCC AmeriCorps members who provide services as part of MCC benefit from their 

national service. This analysis estimated the following benefits: 

• Living allowance

• Increased earnings due to reduced unemployment

Living Allowance and Education Award 

Living allowances are given to AmeriCorps members during their 1-year service term to 

pay for various living expenses—such as housing and groceries—and it sometimes 

includes members’ workers’ compensation and health insurance when applicable. 

Regarding education awards, according to Friedman et al. (2016), a significant portion 

(i.e., 46 percent) of AmeriCorps State and National member alumni use them to pay for 

additional postsecondary education at colleges, graduate schools, and 

technical/vocational schools, while others (i.e., 33 percent) use them to pay off 

outstanding student loans. The remaining 21 percent do not use their education 

awards. 

Both the living allowances and education awards (considered one-time benefits that 

are not discounted or spread over time) are taxable and represent member benefits. 

However, only the portion of education awards used by members to pay off existing 

student loans is considered a direct member benefit. The portion that is utilized to 

pursue further postsecondary education is only used in calculating members’ additional 

lifetime earnings due to the increased educational attainment they experience postservice from using the education award. This is done to avoid double counting. This 

analysis included the post-tax values of the living allowance and the portion of the 

education award used to repay student loans as MCC AmeriCorps member benefits, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

short-term scenario.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

43

which are listed in Table 23. The portion of the education award used to fund additional 

postsecondary education is discussed in the following section.

Table 23. MCC AmeriCorps Member Benefits From the Living Allowance and Education 

Award

Benefit Post-tax value Notes

Living allowance $3,744,385 Post-tax living allowances members 

receive during service

Education award used to 

pay off student loans $520,315 Post-tax education award amount used to pay off outstanding student loans

Total $4,264,700

Sources: Friedman et al. (2016) and MCC (2023) 

Increased Earnings due to Reduced Unemployment 

According to Friedman et al. (2016), the percentage of AmeriCorps members 

unemployed was 5 percentage points lower 6 months after serving in AmeriCorps 

compared to 6 months before serving. The study did not provide actual employment 

rates for AmeriCorps members pre- and post-service but instead provided the 

unemployment rates shown in Figure 3 (17 percent vs. 12 percent) in which the change 

between them represents a 5-percentage-point decrease. 

Figure 3. Percentage of AmeriCorps Alumni Seeking Work, Providing Caregiving, or 

Occupied Outside of the Workforce From Friedman et al. (2016)

*“Currently” refers to the summer 2016 survey. Respondents were from the 2005, 2010, and 2013 AmeriCorps 

cohorts, so respondents varied in how much time had elapsed since their AmeriCorps service.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

44

A direct member benefit from being employed post-service is additional income 

earned. To monetize this 5-percentage-point decrease in unemployment, ICF 

requested that MCC provide the gender, age, pre-service educational attainment, 

and race/ethnicity distribution of AmeriCorps members who served with the MCC

program for the most recent program year. Based on those demographics, the analysis 

used annual average earnings data from the Current Population Survey’s Annual Social 

and Economic (ASEC) Supplement for March 2019 to estimate MCC AmeriCorps 

members’ additional earnings due to the reduced unemployment (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2019). 

Specifically, the analysis used ASEC data to calculate the per-person pre-tax average 

annual earnings for 18- to 34-year-olds weighted by the demographic distribution of 

MCC AmeriCorps members who served during the 2021–2022 program year. This value 

was $35,195, as shown in Table 24. The analysis then multiplied the 5-percentage-point 

decrease in unemployment from Friedman et al. (2016) by the number of MCC

AmeriCorps member full-time equivalents (FTEs) who served during the most recent 

program year (i.e., 238). This estimated the number of additional MCC AmeriCorps 

member FTEs employed due to national service (i.e., 12). To estimate the additional 

pre-tax earnings that stemmed from the reduced unemployment, the $418,824 annual 

earnings amount was multiplied by the additional number of MCC AmeriCorps 

members employed post-service. This represents the additional income earned by MCC 

AmeriCorps members due to serving with MCC. 

Table 24. Additional Pre-tax Earnings for MCC AmeriCorps Members From Reduced 

Unemployment Based on MCC AmeriCorps Member Demographics

Metric Value (2023$)

Average per-person pre-tax annual earnings of employed 18- to 34-

year-olds weighted by MCC AmeriCorps member demographics 

(e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, and pre-service education level)

$35,195

Reduction in AmeriCorps members’ unemployment 5%

Total expected increase in earnings, per member $1,760

MCC AmeriCorps member FTEs 238

Cumulative additional pre-tax earnings* $418,824

Cumulative additional post-tax earnings* $396,063

*This value is undiscounted; thus, the values do not sum in the table.

Sources: MCC (2023), Friedman et al. (2016), and U.S. Census Bureau (2019)

To avoid double counting, the additional post-tax earnings is used to calculate the 

direct benefit to MCC AmeriCorps members, rather than the additional pre-tax

earnings. The post-tax annual earnings in Table 24 excludes payroll taxes (e.g., federal 

and state income, Social Security, and Medicare). The payroll tax rates used are 

described in more detail in the Benefits to Government section. 

Based on these calculations, the cumulative additional post-tax earnings for MCC 

AmeriCorps members for the three different scenarios—discounted to 2022 dollars using 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

45

data from Office of Management and Budget (2003)—are shown in Table 25. These 

monetary amounts represent the additional post-tax earnings realized due to the 

employment gain that is solely attributed to MCC. 

Table 25. Cumulative Additional Post-tax Earnings Derived From Reduced 

Unemployment due to Serving With MCC by Scenario

Scenario

Cumulative additional post-tax earnings 

due to serving with MCC (2022$)

Short-term $2,429,301

Medium-term $16,935,541

Long-term $30,525,370

Sources: MCC (2023), Friedman et al. (2016), U.S. Census Bureau (2019), and Office of Management and 

Budget (2003)

Increased Lifetime Earnings due 

to Increased Postsecondary Education 

Derived From the Use of Education 

Awards 

The AmeriCorps education award pays 

for some portion of members’ increased 

postsecondary educational attainment, 

and the future earnings derived from that 

educational attainment is treated as a 

direct benefit to MCC AmeriCorps 

members. To calculate the portion of 

members’ increased educational 

attainment that is attributable to MCC, 

this analysis used cost data from the 

National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES). Table 26 details the average total 

cost for each degree type and the portion 

of the cost that the post-tax education 

award amount (i.e., $5,234 represents 

$6,15535 before taxes). The analysis used 

these percentages to estimate the lifetime 

benefits of postsecondary educational 

attainment that can be attributed to the 

education award. For instance, according 

to NCES (2020), the average annual cost of 

35 This analysis used the 2020 to 2021 AmeriCorps education award amount ($6,345) but discounts it to net 

present 2020 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. For more information about this education award, 

please see https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorps-education-award/find-out-more. 

Additional earnings derived from 

AmeriCorps members’ reduced 

unemployment were calculated 

annually and then discounted based 

on the short-term, medium-term, and 

long-term scenarios in net present 

2020 dollars. 

For additional earnings derived from 

AmeriCorps members’ increased 

postsecondary educational 

attainment—due to using education 

awards—Trostel (2015) did not provide 

data on how earnings accrue over 

time. Therefore, this analysis treated 

the increases in earnings as lifetime 

values expressed in 2020 dollars. The 

analysis assumed 100 percent of those 

lifetime earnings accrued by year 30 

(i.e., in the long-term scenario), 50 

percent accrued by year 15 (i.e., in 

the medium-term scenario), and 

nothing accrued 1 year post-program 

(i.e., in the short-term scenario). 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

46

a public, in-state, 4-year academic institution during the 2019–2020 academic year was 

$24,869. This amounts to over $100,000 for 4 years if expressed in 2019 dollars. The $5,234

post-tax education award only represents 5 percent of the cost of that degree, so 

MCC, accordingly, could only be credited with 5 percent of the completion of MCC

AmeriCorps members’ bachelor’s degrees post-service. 

Table 26. Average Total Cost of Education and Portion Attributable to Education Award 

by Degree Type

Degree type36 Average cost (2019$)*

Percentage of degree 

total cost covered by post-tax 

education award

Associate degree $30,824 22.7%

Bachelor’s degree $101,948 6.9%

Graduate degree $24,342 28.8%

*Costs were provided for the 2019 to 2020 academic year by NCES (2020) for associate degree, bachelor’s 

degree, and graduate degree types. Costs are expressed in 2019 dollars. 

Sources: AmeriCorps (n.d.) and NCES (2020) 

To determine the future lifetime earnings (and later, the associated lifetime taxes, 

which are described in the Benefits to Government section) realized due to the use 

of the education award post-service, the analysis first determined the number of 

additional postsecondary degrees estimated to be completed by degree type. The 238

MCC AmeriCorps member FTEs who served during the 2021–2022 program year were 

distributed by the education award use findings listed in Friedman et al. (2016) across 

the degree types. Specifically, Friedman et al. (2016) reported 46 percent of 

AmeriCorps State and National member alumni used their education award to pursue 

postsecondary degrees after program completion. This makes the number of MCC

AmeriCorps member FTEs expected to use the education award to pursue additional 

postsecondary education roughly equal to 110. Specifically, Friedman et al. (2016) 

indicated that the 46 percent comprises 2 percent using the education award to 

attend a technical or vocational training program, 21 percent using it to obtain a 

bachelor’s degree, and 23 percent using it for graduate school.37 This results in the 

number of MCC AmeriCorps members estimated to pursue an associate degree, 

a bachelor’s degree, and a graduate degree post-service to be roughly 5, 50, and 55, 

respectively, due to using the education award. These values are shown in Table 27. 

36 Costs for an associate degree include tuition, required fees, books, and supplies for a public, in-state, 

2-year program; costs for a bachelor’s degree include tuition, required fees, books, supplies, and 

on-campus housing for a public, in-state, 4-year program; costs for a graduate degree include tuition 

and required fees for a public, in-state, 2-year graduate program. 

37 This analysis considers the use of the education award to attend a technical or vocational training 

program from Friedman et al. (2016) to be synonymous with using it to pursue an associate degree.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

47

Table 27. Estimates of the Number of Postsecondary Degrees Pursued Using the 

Education Award by Degree Type

Degree type

Total MCC

AmeriCorps 

member FTE count

Percentage estimated to 

pursue postsecondary 

education according to 

Friedman et al. (2016)

Number of 

degrees pursued 

using the 

education award

Associate degree 243 2% 5 

Bachelor’s degree 243 21% 50

Graduate degree 243 23% 55

All degrees — 46% 110

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Sources: AmeriCorps (n.d.), MCC (2023),U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019-a), Friedman et al. (2016), and 

NCES (2020)

Next, the difference in the additional lifetime pre-tax earnings from one degree type to 

the subsequent degree type was estimated using data provided by Trostel (2015), 

which is shown in the fifth column of Table 28.38 For instance, using Trostel (2015) data, 

the lifetime earnings of someone with an associate degree is about $875,000, while that 

of someone with a bachelor’s degree is almost $1.3 million. The difference between 

these two metrics (roughly $417,000 as show in Table 28) represents the additional 

lifetime earnings realized as a result of gaining a bachelor’s degree if an associate 

degree was already completed. This process was completed for all postsecondary 

degree types to conservatively estimate the additional lifetime earnings realized by 

MCC AmeriCorps members due to an increase in postsecondary educational 

attainment. Trostel (2015) also included data on lifetime taxes paid, which was then 

used to estimate the post-tax lifetime earnings that would be realized per additional 

postsecondary degree received. Specifically, the lifetime taxes paid amounts were 

subtracted from the pre-tax additional lifetime earnings amounts to estimate the 

additional post-tax lifetime earnings, a direct benefit to MCC AmeriCorps members.

38 For an associate degree, comparisons were made between metrics for a high school diploma and those 

for an associate degree. For a bachelor’s degree, comparisons made were between metrics for an 

associate degree and those of a bachelor’s degree. For a graduate degree, comparisons made were 

between metrics for a bachelor’s degree and those of a master’s degree. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

48

Table 28. Additional Earnings From AmeriCorps Members’ Use of the Education Award

Degree type 

Percentage 

of MCC 

AmeriCorps 

members 

expected to 

pursue 

postsecondary 

education 

FTE MCC 

AmeriCorps 

members 

Percentage 

of degree 

tuition 

covered by 

education 

award 

Additional 

lifetime 

earnings 

of the 

degree 

(pre-tax) 

Additional 

lifetime 

earnings 

from 

education 

award 

(pre-tax) 

Additional 

lifetime 

earnings 

from 

education 

award 

(post-tax) 

Expected to 

not use award 

for 

postsecondary 

education 

54% 129 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Associate 

degree

2% 5 22.7% $194,926 $210,878 $107,280

Bachelor’s 

degree

21% 50 6.9% $602,342 $2,068,729 $1,115,806

Graduate 

degree

23% 55 28.8% $534,670 $8,423,202 $5,238,392

Total 100% 238 $10,702,810 $6,461,477 

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Sources: AmeriCorps (n.d.), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019-a), MCC (2023), Friedman et al. (2016), 

NCES (2020), and Trostel (2015)

To isolate the increase in additional lifetime earnings specific to members using the 

education award, the number of MCC AmeriCorps members who used the education 

award for this purpose by degree type was reduced by the percentage of the degree 

cost that can be covered by the post-tax education award received post-service, 

displayed in the fourth column of Table 28. Then, this amount is applied to the 2022

additional lifetime earnings by degree type to calculate the additional lifetime earnings 

realized by AmeriCorps members from their increase in postsecondary educational 

attainment that is credited to the use of the education award post-service. The 

additional lifetime earnings amount is roughly $6.46 million across the FTE MCC

AmeriCorps members. Of note, these lifetime earnings are in addition to the earnings 

derived from MCC AmeriCorps members’ gains in employment as delineated in the 

subsequent section. To reiterate, the earnings from MCC AmeriCorps members’ 

reduced unemployment differs depending on the scenario (i.e., short-term, mediumterm, and long-term) since it is uncertain how long these earnings will persist. For the net 

lifetime earnings—and all lifetime benefits in this ROI analysis—the entire amount is 

realized in the long-term, half of it is realized in the medium-term, and no amount is 

realized in the short-term. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

49

Benefits to Government 

State and Local Government 

State and local governments benefits from: 

• Additional state income tax 

revenue from MCC AmeriCorps 

members’ increased earnings due 

to reduced unemployment

• Additional lifetime state and local 

taxes due to MCC AmeriCorps 

members’ increased 

postsecondary educational 

attainment39

• Additional lifetime state and local 

taxes due to MCC program 

participants’ increased secondary 

educational attainment40

• Additional state and local taxes 

from the living allowance and 

education award received by 

these members

• Additional state and local sales tax 

revenue from MCC AmeriCorps 

members’ increased consumption 

due to reduced unemployment

• Reduced lifetime spending on 

social insurance and corrections41

due to MCC AmeriCorps members’ increased postsecondary educational 

attainment 

State income tax revenue: To measure income tax revenue generation that stems from 

reduced unemployment for state governments (any local income taxes are not 

included), the additional pre-tax earnings of MCC AmeriCorps members that are solely 

attributed to MCC are taxed by a weighted, estimated proportional state income tax 

rate. This tax rate considers state-specific progressive tax brackets and standard 

deduction amounts. 

39 This benefit was calculated using lifetime tax revenue data from Trostel (2015). These values summed 

lifetime state income taxes, lifetime property taxes, and lifetime sales taxes by education level. 

40 Ibid.

41 Reduced spending on public assistance due to MCC AmeriCorps members’ increased postsecondary 

educational attainment is included as a federal government benefit, not a state and local government 

benefit. This is because public assistance includes programs funded at the federal level (e.g., TANF, etc.).

Additional tax revenue derived from 

AmeriCorps members’ reduced 

unemployment, living allowances, 

and education awards were calculated 

using tax rates specific to each perperson monetary amount. 

For additional tax revenue derived from 

AmeriCorps members’ increased 

postsecondary educational 

attainment—due to using education 

awards—as well as from program

participants’ increased secondary 

educational attainment, Trostel (2015) 

did not provide specific tax rates. 

Therefore, this analysis treated the 

increases in tax revenue as lifetime 

values expressed in 2020 dollars. The 

analysis assumed 100 percent of those 

lifetime tax revenues accrued by year 

30 (i.e., in the long-term scenario), 50 

percent accrued by year 15 (i.e., in the 

medium-term scenario), and nothing 

accrued 1 year post-program (i.e., in 

the short-term scenario).
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

50

Based on the taxable income, the analysis estimated the proportional state income tax 

for each state as the amount of state income taxes paid per MCC AmeriCorps member 

divided by their pre-tax earnings. This analysis then calculated the weighted average of 

these state-specific tax rates—using these states’ population from the 5-year estimates 

of the 2021 American Community Survey—to estimate a weighted national tax rate

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2021-a). A weighted national tax rate was used because MCC 

AmeriCorps members may disperse to various locations nationwide following their 

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

Lifetime state income tax revenue values are also provided by Trostel (2015) by 

education level. Based on the number of postsecondary degrees estimated to be 

obtained due to the use of the education award received after serving with the MCC 

program, additional lifetime state income taxes are realized. Thus, the additional 

lifetime state income taxes paid values—informed by data from Trostel (2015)—were 

first converted to 2022 dollars. The analysis then multiplied them by the inferred number 

of degrees obtained with using the education award.

State governments also receive state income taxes from the education awards MCC

AmeriCorps members receive post-service. The analysis estimated the pre-tax 

education award amount in 2022 dollars (i.e., $7,006).42 Then the analysis multiplied it by 

the number of MCC AmeriCorps member FTEs expected to redeem the award and use 

it to pursue postsecondary education or to repay outstanding student loans based on 

findings from Friedman et al. (2016). The result represents the pre-tax cumulative 

education award amount expected to be received by MCC AmeriCorps members. The 

portion of this value taxed by state income taxes was estimated using a weighted state 

income tax rate specific to the per-person education award amount. Additionally, 

state income taxes were estimated for the living allowance amount received by MCC 

AmeriCorps members during their service term using tax rates specific to the per-person 

value. The different rates used for these member benefits are enumerated in Table 30. 

State and local sales tax revenue: To measure sales tax revenue generation for state 

and local governments that stems from reduced unemployment, a weighted state and 

local sales tax rate was applied to the amount of MCC AmeriCorps members’ 

cumulative additional post-tax earnings that are available to be spent on taxable 

goods. To establish a weighted state and local sales tax, this analysis first summed the 

state sales tax rate and the average local sales tax rate for each state using data from 

Fritts (2021). Then using 2021 data from the American Community Survey (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2021-a), these state-level combined state and local sales tax rates were 

weighted based on the population of each state. The resulting weighted average sales 

tax rate used in this analysis was 7.44 percent. 

To estimate the additional post-tax earnings as a result of reduced unemployment that 

was spent on taxable goods, data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (U.S. Bureau 

42 This analysis used the 2020 to 2021 AmeriCorps education award amount ($6,345) but discounts it to 

net present 2020 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. For more information about this education award, 

please see https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorps-education-award/find-out-more. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

51

of Labor Statistics, 2021) were used. These data show the amount of spending on a 

number of different goods and services by national consumers across several different 

pre-tax income brackets.43 The proportion of earnings that is spent on taxable goods 

(such as alcoholic beverages, housekeeping supplies, apparel, etc.) was then 

calculated for consumers with incomes that matched the per-person average pre-tax 

earnings of MCC AmeriCorps members. This value was 43 percent. This proportion was 

then applied to MCC AmeriCorps members’ cumulative additional post-tax earnings to 

calculate the post-tax monetary amount they spend on taxable goods. Then the sales 

tax rate (i.e., 7.44 percent) was applied to estimate the resulting sales tax revenues that 

go to state and local governments due to MCC AmeriCorps members’ reduced 

unemployment post-service. 

Trostel (2015) also provides additional lifetime state and local sales tax values by 

education level. Using these values, the analysis calculated the additional sales tax 

revenue realized by state and local governments as a result of MCC AmeriCorps 

members using their education award to achieve higher postsecondary educational 

attainment post-service. These values represent a direct benefit to state and local 

governments in the form of increased tax revenue. 

State and local government cost savings: State and local governments also benefit 

from MCC programming through lifetime savings in social insurance and corrections—

as reported in Trostel (2015)—due to the increase in MCC AmeriCorps members’ 

postsecondary educational attainment after program exit. Of note, social insurance 

includes unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation. To calculate these 

lifetime non-federal government savings, the analysis first calculated the decrease in 

social insurance and corrections costs (and thus savings) from one education level to 

the subsequent education level using data from Trostel (2015) and then multiplied these 

monetary amounts by the number of additional postsecondary degrees estimated to 

be obtained due to the use of the education awards. 

To determine what portion of this differential represents lifetime cost savings to state or 

local governments versus the federal government, a different method was employed 

for each of these cost savings areas. For social insurance, 50 percent of lifetime 

unemployment insurance cost savings and all the lifetime cost savings for workers’ 

compensation are apportioned to state and local governments (Oswald, 2018). 

Regarding reductions in lifetime corrections spending, the portion between the federal 

and state or local governments was determined based on data from Hyland (2015). 

Specifically, this report found that 8.4 percent of U.S. correction costs is paid by the 

federal government and the remaining 91.6 percent is paid by state and local 

governments. Therefore, almost 92 percent of the lifetime cost savings in corrections 

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

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

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

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

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

Montana Conservation Corps

52

due to MCC AmeriCorps members experiencing an increase in postsecondary 

educational attainment post-service are allocated to state and local governments.

Federal Government 

The federal government benefits from: 

• Additional federal income, Social Security, and Medicare tax revenue from MCC 

AmeriCorps members’ increased earnings due to reduced unemployment

• Additional federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes from the living 

allowance and education award received by these members

• Additional lifetime federal taxes due to MCC AmeriCorps members’ increased 

postsecondary educational attainment

• Additional lifetime federal taxes due to MCC program participants’ increased 

secondary educational attainment

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

corrections due to MCC AmeriCorps members’ increased postsecondary 

educational attainment

Federal income tax revenue: To measure federal income tax revenue that stems from 

reduced unemployment, the additional pre-tax earnings of MCC AmeriCorps members 

that are solely attributed to MCC—as well as the pre-tax living allowance and 

education award amounts received by MCC AmeriCorps members—are taxed by a 

federal income tax rate. The rates used are estimated proportional tax rates that 

consider the standard deductions and progressive tax brackets specific to federal 

income taxes as provided by El-Sibaie (2019). To reiterate, an estimated proportional 

tax rate equals the total amount of taxes estimated to be paid divided by the pre-tax 

amount of the value to be taxed (e.g., per-person average pre-tax earnings). The 

specific federal income tax rates used for these different benefits are enumerated in 

Table 30. Of note, different tax rates were used because they were specific to the perperson pre-tax earnings, living allowance, and education award amounts.

For the additional lifetime earnings of MCC AmeriCorps members that are based on 

their increase in postsecondary educational attainment—fueled by the use of the 

education award—Trostel (2015) provides additional lifetime federal income tax values. 

Social Security and Medicare tax revenue: Social Security and Medicare tax revenue 

are measured as fiscal gains as a result of the additional pre-tax earnings of MCC 

AmeriCorps members from their reduced unemployment and as a result of the pre-tax 

living allowances and education awards amounts received by members. However, tax 

rates specific to each revenue source are used. Social Security and Medicare use flat 

tax rates, 6.2 percent and 1.45 percent, respectively; thus, these rates are applied to 

the additional pre-tax earnings of MCC AmeriCorps members to calculate the 

additional amount of revenue the federal government receives. These same rates are 

also applied to the living allowance and education award amounts received by MCC 

AmeriCorps members to calculate additional tax revenue. Moreover, additional lifetime 

Social Security tax revenue realized for the federal government—as a result of MCC 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

53

AmeriCorps members using their education award to complete a higher education 

degree type post-service—is provided by Trostel (2015). 

Federal government cost savings: The federal government realizes cost savings in public 

assistance, social insurance, and corrections due to the increased postsecondary 

educational attainment of MCC AmeriCorps members after program exit. Specifically, 

the number of additional postsecondary degrees estimated to be earned by MCC 

AmeriCorps members post-service as well as data from Trostel (2015) were used to 

estimate the federal government portion of lifetime cost savings on social insurance 

(which is composed of workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance, as noted 

earlier), public assistance (e.g., SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, etc.), and corrections. 

Table 29 shows the lifetime costs to the federal versus the state and local governments 

for each of these areas—where applicable—by education level in 2012 dollars as 

presented in Trostel (2015). The differences in these lifetime costs from one education 

level to the next represent cost savings per degree obtained. 

Table 29. Government Costs by Educational Attainment Level per Individual’s Lifetime

Source of government cost

Associate degree 

(2012$)

Bachelor’s degree 

(2012$)

Graduate degree 

(2012$)

Public assistance $38,617 $14,480 $9,394

Social insurance $8,897 $5,863 $4,732

Federal $3,652 $2,660 $2,090

State/local $5,246 $3,204 $2,643

Corrections $4,055 $1,190 $725

Federal $341 $100 $61

State/local $3,714 $1,090 $664

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Source: Trostel (2015) 

As mentioned earlier in this appendix, as a result of MCC, the analysis estimated an 

additional 110 MCC AmeriCorps members would redeem the education award to 

pursue additional postsecondary education. Based on the portion of degree costs 

covered by the post-tax education award, this analysis calculated that an additional 

associate degree, bachelor’s degree, and graduate degree would be obtained due 

to MCC. To conservatively calculate the federal government’s lifetime savings 

associated with these education gains, the differences between the public assistance, 

federal social insurance, and federal corrections lifetime costs for these education 

levels and those that precede them are calculated and then expressed in 2022 dollars. 

These values are then multiplied by the number of additional postsecondary degrees 

estimated to be obtained—where appropriate—to represent the total cost savings 

realized by the federal government due to the MCC program. As previously mentioned 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

54

where discussing the state and local governments’ allocation of the reduction in 

lifetime social insurance and corrections expenditures, the federal government receives 

50 percent of the lifetime cost savings in unemployment insurance (part of social 

insurance; Oswald, 2018), and more than 8 percent of the lifetime cost savings in 

corrections (Hyland, 2015). These federal government savings are shown in Table 29.

Table 30 shows the tax rates applied to MCC AmeriCorps members’ additional pre-tax 

and post-tax earnings (derived from reduced unemployment), depending on the type 

of revenue being calculated. It also enumerates the tax rates used for the pre-tax living 

allowance and education award amounts received by MCC AmeriCorps members 

during their service term or upon service completion, respectively. 

Table 30. 2022 Tax Rates and Ratio of Taxable Expenditures for MCC AmeriCorps 

Members’ Earnings, Living Allowances, and Education Awards

Metric

Rate for 

additional 

earnings & 

education 

award*

Rate for living 

allowance & 

education 

award** Notes

Estimated 

proportional 

federal 

income tax 

7.51% 3.08% • Tax rates are used that consider the 

progressive tax brackets and standard 

deductions specific to federal income 

taxes. 

• These rates are dependent on and 

applied to the pre-tax value of each 

metric being taxed.

Estimated 

proportional 

state 

income tax 

-9.73% -22.70% • Tax rates are used that consider the 

progressive tax brackets and standard 

deductions specific to each state’s 

income taxes. Each state’s tax rate is 

weighted based on the state’s 

population and summed to estimate a 

weighted national average. 

• These rates are dependent on and 

applied to the pre-tax value of each 

metric being taxed.

Social 

Security tax 

6.20% 6.20% • Social Security tax rate for employees 

and employers.

• These rates are applied to the pre-tax 

value of each metric being taxed.

Medicare 

tax 

1.45% 1.45% • Medicare tax rate for employees and 

employers.

• These rates are applied to the pre-tax 

value of each metric being taxed.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

55

Metric

Rate for 

additional 

earnings & 

education 

award*

Rate for living 

allowance & 

education 

award** Notes

Sales tax 7.44%; N/A to 

the 

education 

award

6.39%; N/A to the 

education award

• The combined state and average local 

tax rate for each state was summed 

and weighted based on states’ 

population to calculate a national 

weighted average sales tax rate. 

• The rate is applied to the additional 

post-tax earnings of members as well 

as their post-tax living allowance 

amount.

Ratio of 

taxable 

expenditures 

per national 

consumer

43.22% 57%; N/A to the 

education award

• Percentage of post-tax earnings spent 

on taxable goods and services that is 

used to calculate sales tax from posttax earnings.

• Ratio is dependent on the pre-tax 

value of members’ additional earnings 

or the pre-tax living allowance amount.

*These rates are only used for the portion of the education award used to repay outstanding student loans. 

**These rates are only used for the portion of the education award used for additional schooling. 

Sources: Fritts (2021), Social Security Administration (2021), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021), and ElSibaie (2019)

Summary of Benefits to Government 

Table 31 shows the amount of tax revenue generated and savings in expenditures for 

state and local versus federal government that are solely credited to MCC and 

calculated using the methods described above. These government revenue and 

savings amounts are benefits that are included in the three ROI calculations, and they 

are derived from MCC program impacts.

Table 31. State/Local and Federal Government Benefits by Stakeholder Group and by 

Scenario

 

Benefit type

Benefit

Long-term Medium-term Short-term

State/local government 

benefits $358,120 $88,259 -$236,884

State income tax 

revenue $239,468 $128,439 $24,812

State and local sales tax 

revenue $944,006 $472,003 $31,467

State income, sales, 

and property taxes from 

postsecondary 

$864,087 $432,043 $0
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

56

 

Benefit type

Benefit

Long-term Medium-term Short-term

educational attainment 

(lifetime) 

State savings in reduced 

social insurance and 

corrections spending 

from postsecondary 

educational attainment 

(lifetime) 

$46,004 $23,002 $0

Federal government 

benefits $6,136,269 $3,479,664 $741,120 

Federal income tax, 

Social Security, and 

Medicare tax revenue 

from living stipend and

education award* 

$615,643 $615,643 $615,643 

Federal income, 

Social Security, and 

Medicare tax revenue 

from employment

$1,905,207 $952,604 $63,507 

Federal income, Social 

Security, and Medicare 

Tax revenue from 

postsecondary 

educational attainment 

(lifetime) 

$21,426 $114,421 $61,969 

Federal savings in 

reduced social 

insurance, corrections, 

and public assistance 

spending from 

postsecondary 

educational attainment 

(lifetime)

$3,593,992 $1,796,996 $0

Total $6,494,389 $3,567,923 $504,235 

*Living allowances and education awards are one-time taxable payments. The resulting tax revenue does 

not vary by scenario.

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Benefits to Society

Society benefits from MCC’s activities in the form of these distinct benefits:

• BDA benefits attributable to MCC

• Wildfire reduction benefits attributable to MCC
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

57

• Habitat improvement benefits attributable to MCC

• Trail maintenance and creation benefits attributable to MCC

Beaver Dam Analog Benefits Attributable to MCC 

Society benefits from MCC’s BDA installation in four ways: 

• Ecosystem services restored through riparian habitat improvements following 

BDA installation

• Carbon sequestration from restored riparian habitats 

• Drought and flood moderation from BDA presence

• Water purification from BDA presence

Each of these is a distinct benefit with no overlap that would result in double counting 

of benefits. For instance, the ecosystem service values specifically measure benefits of 

restored ecosystems following BDA installation and are distinct from carbon 

sequestration, extreme event moderation, or water purification resulting from the BDA.

Based on the number of BDAs installed by MCC during the 2021–2022 program year 

(507), a total impact area of 175 acres of riparian habitat were restored as a result of 

MCC’s efforts.

Ecosystem services restored through riparian habitat improvements following BDA 

installation

The literature provides varying estimates of the value of ecosystem services. This analysis 

used low, average, and high estimates of those benefits to allow for the uncertainty 

involved in monetizing ecosystem benefits, as shown in Table 32.

Table 32. Ecosystem Services Restored From MCC BDA Installation

Ecosystem 

service level

Riparian ecosystem 

service values 

per acre (A) 

Acres 

impacted (B)

Aggregate value 

per year before 

discounting (A * B)

Low $3,029 175 $530,084

Average $56,655 175 $9,914,571

High $288,752 175 $50,531,676

Carbon sequestration from restored riparian habitats

Based on Thompson et al. (2020) and Rennert et al. (2022) estimates on the carbon 

sequestered and the social cost of carbon, as well as the provided acres impacted 

by BDA installation, annual benefits are estimated in Table 33.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

58

Table 33. Carbon Sequestration Benefits From MCC BDA Installation

Ecosystem 

service 

level

Carbon 

sequestered 

per acre (A)

Acres 

impacted (B)

Social cost 

of carbon (C)

Aggregate value 

per year before 

discounting 

(A * B * C)

All 1.7 175 $212 $27,295

Drought and flood moderation from BDA presence

Based on Thompson et al. (2020), the presence of BDAs reduces the likelihood of both 

droughts and floods through their hydrologic characteristics, which generate annual 

benefits estimated in Table 34.

Table 34. Drought and Flood Moderation From MCC BDA Installations

Ecosystem 

service level

Annual benefits 

per acre (A) Acres impacted (B)

Aggregate value 

per year before 

discounting (A * B)

All $59.94 175 $10,489

Water purification from BDA presence

Based on Thompson et al. (2020), the presence of BDAs causes notable water 

purification effects for downstream sources, which create benefits estimated in 

Table 35. 

Table 35. Water Purification Benefits From MCC BDA Installation

Ecosystem 

service level

Water purification 

benefits per acre

(A) Acres impacted (B) 

Aggregate value 

per year before 

discounting (A * B)

All $52.20 175 $9,136

Wildfire Reduction Benefits Attributable to MCC 

Society benefits from the reduction in wildfires resulting from MCC’s fuel reduction 

treatments in three distinct ways: 

• Ecosystem services preserved through fuel reduction treatments

• Human health benefits from reduced air particulates from smoke

• Benefits from reduced carbon dioxide equivalents emissions 

Using the 7.2 percent estimate in burn reduction from fuel reduction treatments 

presented in Cochrane et al. (2012), and the 3,446 acres treated from MCC (2023), this 

analysis estimated that in the first year 248.11 acres are prevented from burning as a 

result of MCC’s efforts.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

59

Ecosystem services preserved through fuel reduction treatments

The literature provides varying estimates of the value of ecosystem services. This analysis 

used low, average, and high estimates of those benefits to allow for the uncertainty 

involved in monetizing ecosystem benefits, which are presented in Table 36. These 

annual estimates were then reduced using the Bartels et al. (2016) regrowth metrics (10

percent regrowth during the first 10 years and 84 percent total regrowth over 30 years).

These values were then discounted with other streams of benefits to generate the net 

present values presented in Table 9 of the main report. 

Table 36. Preserved Ecosystem Services From MCC Fuel Reduction Activities

Ecosystem service 

level

Preserved ecosystem 

services (A) 

Acres prevented 

from burning (B)

Aggregate value 

per year before 

discounting (A * B)

Low $493 248.11 $122,419

Average $2,001 248.11 $496,446

High $3,631 248.11 $900,859

Human health benefits from reduced air particulates from smoke

Using the per-acre health costs from wildfire burning and the acres preserved, this 

analysis estimated annual health benefits from reduced air particulates from smoke, 

presented in Table 37. These annual estimates were then reduced using the Bartels et 

al. (2016) regrowth metrics (10 percent regrowth during the first 10 years and 84 percent 

total regrowth over 30 years). These values were also discounted with other streams of 

benefits to generate the net present values presented in Table 10 of the main report. 

Table 37. Human Health Benefits From Reduced Wildfires From MCC Activities

Ecosystem 

service level

Health cost 

per acre (A) Acres preserved (B) 

Aggregate value 

per year before 

discounting (A * B)

All $678 248.11 $168,199

Benefits from reduced carbon dioxide equivalents emissions

The literature provides varying estimates of the quantity of carbon dioxide equivalents 

emissions produced when an acre of similar composition to those MCC treats is burned. 

Carbon dioxide equivalents emissions are avoided due to 248.11 acres not burning as a 

result of MCC’s efforts. This analysis used low, average, and high estimates from the 

literature to allow for the uncertainty involved in monetizing those avoided costs. 

To place a dollar value on these benefits, this analysis multiplies the variable carbon 

dioxide equivalents emissions under each scenario by the SCC. This analysis utilized the 

$212 in 2022$ reported in Rennert et al. (2022) and estimated the annual benefits 

presented in Table 38. These annual estimates are then reduced using the Bartels et al. 

(2016) regrowth metrics (10 percent regrowth during the first 10 years and 84 percent 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

60

total regrowth over 30 years). These values are then discounted with other streams of 

benefits to generate the net present values presented in Table 11 of the main report. 

Table 38. Carbon Dioxide Reduction Benefits From MCC Activities

Ecosystem 

service level

Tons of carbon 

prevented from 

releasing per acre (A)

Acres prevented 

from burning (B) 

Aggregate value 

per year before 

discounting 

(212 * A * B)

Low 0.03 248.11 $1,578

Average 1.02 248.11 $53,651

High 2.00 248.11 $105,199

Habitat Improvement Benefits Attributable to MCC 

Society benefits from the ecosystem service values resulting from MCC’s ecosystem 

restoration activities. MCC reported treatment of 6,291 acres in forested mountains and 

423 acres of other ecosystem designations. The ecosystem service value per acre for 

each of those types of ecosystems was applied to the number of acres treated for 

each of the three ecosystem levels in Table 39. These annual estimates are then 

discounted using the Bartels et al. (2016) regrowth metrics (10 percent regrowth during 

the first 10 years and 84 percent total regrowth over 30 years). These values are then 

discounted with other streams of benefits to generate the net present values presented 

in Table 12.

Table 39. Habitat Improvement Benefits From MCC Activities

Ecosystem 

service level

Forested mountains (A)

(6,291 acres)

Other ecosystem 

designations (B) 

(423 acres)

Aggregate value 

per year before 

discounting 

(6,291 * A + 423 * B)

Low $8,810 $7,654 $4,223,821

Average $20,776 $27,952 $10,262,031

High $40,238 $89,941 $20,965,005

Trail Maintenance and Creation Benefits Attributable to MCC 

Society enjoys health and recreational benefits from MCC’s trail maintenance and 

creation. Using MCC’s reported 1,513 miles of trails created or maintained and the sum 

of the health and recreation value per mile of trails $4.85 ($4.36 in 2022$ per mile in 

health benefits from Wang et al., 2005; and $0.49 in 2022$ per mile in recreation benefits

from Oh and Hammitt, 2010), this analysis calculates annual benefits of $7,336. 

This estimate is reduced in subsequent years by the annual maintenance cost for 

backcountry trails of $822 (Echelberger and Plumley, 1986). These values are then 

discounted with other streams of benefits to generate the net present values presented 

in Table 13.
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

61

Table 40. Trail Maintenance and Creation Benefits From MCC Activities

Ecosystem 

service level

Health benefits 

per mile(A) 

Recreation value 

per mile (B) 

Aggregate value 

per year (1,513 (A+B))

All $4.36 $0.49 $7,336

Summary of Benefits to Society 

Table 41 shows the benefits to society that are solely credited to MCC and calculated 

using the methods described in the main report. 

Table 41. Societal Benefits by Impact Category and by Scenario

Benefit type

Benefit

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

BDA impacts

With low ecosystem 

benefits $577,003 $7,094,871 $11,648,799

With average ecosystem 

benefits $9,961,490 $122,487,208 $201,107,086

With high ecosystem 

benefits $50,578,595 $621,918,104 $1,021,103,669

Wildfire reduction

With low ecosystem 

benefits $291,821 $3,253,109 $4,265,001 

With average 

ecosystem benefits $711,221 $7,928,416 $10,394,578 

With high ecosystem 

benefits $1,161,007 $12,942,460 $16,968,259 

Ecosystem restoration 

With low ecosystem 

benefits $4,223,821 $47,085,516 $61,731,638 

With average ecosystem 

benefits $10,262,031 $114,397,138 $149,980,785 

With high ecosystem 

benefits $20,965,005 $233,709,724 $306,405,986 

Trail access

Health benefits $4,448 $55,623 $110,452

Recreation benefits $499 $6,243 $12,398
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

62

Benefit type

Benefit

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Total – with low 

ecosystem benefits $5,099,981 $57,513,734 $77,776,610

Total – with medium 

ecosystem benefits $20,942,078 $244,892,999 $361,613,621

Total – with high 

ecosystem benefits $72,711,943 $868,650,524 $1,344,609,086

Measuring Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs)

The analysis included two types of forgone benefits, referred to as opportunity costs, 

into each of the three ROI calculations to conservatively estimate the return of the 

MCC program. The two types are forgone benefits from a professional opportunity cost 

to MCC AmeriCorps members and forgone benefits from an investment opportunity 

cost to funders. Each of these forgone benefit (opportunity cost) types is subtracted 

from the total program benefits—that stem from MCC—to calculate net benefits. Net 

benefits are then compared to the program cost to calculate each ROI. The 

methodologies used to calculate these two forgone benefits (opportunity costs) are 

described below. 

Forgone Benefits From Professional Opportunity Cost to MCC AmeriCorps Members

There is a professional opportunity cost to MCC AmeriCorps members for their period of 

national service, during which they could have been otherwise employed. This includes 

both the forgone earnings of MCC AmeriCorps members for their service term and the 

forgone taxes associated with those lost earnings. To calculate this, the analysis first 

used the demographic distribution of MCC AmeriCorps members for the 2021–2022 

program year—in terms of gender, age, race/ethnicity, and pre-service education 

level—and ASEC data to estimate the weighted unemployment rate for this population 

(i.e., 5.8 percent). This represents how many of these MCC AmeriCorps members would 

have been unemployed if they did not serve with MCC. Using the weighted 

unemployment rate and the number of MCC AmeriCorps member FTEs who served 

during the 2021–2022 program year (i.e., 238), the analysis estimated the number of 

members that would have been unemployed without serving with MCC based on their 

demographic characteristics (i.e., 14). Then the analysis multiplied this value by the 

weighted post-tax annual earnings. This is derived from the pre-tax annual earnings 

listed in Table 42. The methodology used to calculate this latter monetary amount is 

described in the previous Increased Earnings due to Reduced Unemployment section. 

The post-tax amount subtracts all applicable payroll taxes (e.g., federal income, state 

income, Medicare, and Social Security). The product of multiplying 14 by the weighted 

post-tax annual earnings represents what MCC AmeriCorps members would have 

earned if they did not serve with MCC. Separately, the analysis then multiplied the 

number of MCC AmeriCorps member FTEs who served by the amount they earned 

during their national service in the form of a post-tax living allowance (i.e., $17,623 per 

person). This represents the aggregate amount MCC AmeriCorps members earned 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

63

during their service term. The difference between what they would have earned if they 

did not serve and what they did earn because they served equals the total post-tax 

earnings forgone due to serving with MCC. These values and the formula used to 

calculate the forgone post-tax earnings are shown in Table 42.

Table 42. Forgone Earnings of MCC AmeriCorps Members for a Service Term

Row Component Value Source

A MCC AmeriCorps member FTEs 238 MCC (2022)

B Weighted unemployment rate 5.8% U.S. Census Bureau (2021-b) 

C Weighted post-tax annual earnings 

per person (2022$) $35,195 U.S. Census Bureau (2021-b) 

D Post-tax living allowance per person $17,623 AmeriCorps (2020)

E Total post-tax earnings forgone (2022$) $3,696,289 [A x (1- B) x C] – (A x D)

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

The second portion of this professional opportunity cost was the forgone taxes 

associated with the earnings of MCC AmeriCorps members lost for this year of service. 

Federal income, state income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes specific to the 

per-person weighted pre-tax earnings amount were calculated. Specifically, the 

estimated proportional federal and state income tax rates used were 7.5 and 

1.77 percent, respectively. The analysis also estimated the sales taxes lost based on the 

per-person post-tax earnings forgone by the MCC AmeriCorps members. Using data 

from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021), 

the analysis estimated that based on the per-person weighted pre-tax earnings of MCC

AmeriCorps members (i.e., $38,791), 43.22 percent of their income would have been 

spent on taxable goods, as opposed to 53.1 percent of the living allowance. Then the 

weighted combined state and local sales tax rate (i.e., 7.44 percent)—used earlier in 

this analysis to calculate government benefits—was applied to the difference in 

expected spending on taxable goods to represent the resulting sales tax revenue lost 

due to individuals serving with MCC instead of working for higher pay. The totals for 

these taxes are listed in Table 43. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

64

Table 43. Forgone Taxes Associated With the Forgone Earnings of MCC AmeriCorps 

Members for a Service Term

Forgone taxes

Taxes without 

service term

(2023$)

Taxes realized 

from living 

allowance

(2023$)

Net taxes 

forgone

(2023$)

Federal forgone taxes (i.e., federal 

professional opportunity cost) $1,178,763 $449,938 $728,825 

Federal income taxes $575,131 $129,072 $446,059 

Social Security and Medicare taxes $603,632 $320,866 $282,766

Non-federal forgone taxes $389,304 $161,770 $227,534

State income taxes $135,667 $0 $135,667

Sales taxes $253,637 $161,770 $91,867

Total taxes $1,568,067 $611,708 $956,359

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

For the federal government benefits per federal dollar ROI calculation, only federal 

government (not total) benefits are included. Because of this, only federal components 

of the professional opportunity cost are subtracted from all federal government 

benefits—realized due to MCC—in this ROI calculation. The parts of the professional 

opportunity cost subtracted from these total federal government benefits include the 

forgone net federal income taxes (i.e., $446,059) and the net forgone Social Security 

and Medicare taxes (i.e., $282,766). The sum of these two values is called the federal 

professional opportunity cost. The sum of all the values listed in Table 43 and the 

forgone post-tax earnings of MCC AmeriCorps members is called the total professional 

opportunity cost. These naming conventions are referenced in the Calculating ROI 

section. 

Forgone Benefits From the Investment Opportunity Cost to Funders 

The investment opportunity cost estimates the expected forgone return if funds used to 

support the activities and positions of MCC AmeriCorps members during the most 

recent program year were invested in U.S. Treasury bonds instead. An investment 

opportunity cost is calculated for two different funding streams: 1) all MCC program 

funding for the 2020–2021 program year and 2) only federal funding for the same 

program year. This is done because two of the three ROI calculations only have federal 

(not total) program costs included. Thus, for 1) the federal government benefits per 

federal dollar and 2) the total benefits per federal dollar ROI calculations, the 

investment opportunity cost subtracted from the benefits in these calculations is the 

forgone accrued interest from investing only the federal funds into these U.S. Treasury 

bonds. For the other ROI calculation, the investment opportunity cost subtracted from 

the benefits realized is the forgone accrued interest from investing all MCC program 

funds (both federal and non-federal) into these U.S. Treasury bonds. Therefore, the 

analysis estimated forgone accrued interests across all three scenarios when 1) all MCC
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

65

program funds and 2) only federal MCC program funds are invested in U.S. Treasury 

bonds.

To calculate these forgone accrued interest values, the analysis first matched 2021 real 

interest rates provided by the Office of Management and Budget (2020) to each of the 

scenarios included in this ROI analysis. The analysis used 2021 real interest rates for U.S. 

Treasury bonds because the MCC program year analyzed began in 2021. The real 

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

between the 10-year and 20-year maturity rates was used as the rate for the mediumterm scenario, and the 30-year maturity rate was used for the long-term scenario. These 

real interest rates were -1.8, -0.8, and -0.3 percent, respectively. Also, the number of 

years elapsed on these U.S. Treasury bonds was equal to the number of years the 

different scenarios assumed MCC AmeriCorps members’ employment and earnings 

gains were sustained. These values are 1 year, 15 years, and 30 years for the short-, 

medium-, and long-term scenarios, respectively. Given that U.S. Treasury bonds 

compound biannually according the U.S. Department of the Treasury (2019), the 

formula used to calculate the forgone accrued interest for each of the three scenarios 

for the two funding streams is listed in Figure 4, where A equals the forgone accrued 

interest (e.g., the investment opportunity cost), P equals the amount of one of the 

funding streams, r equals the 2021 real interest rate, and t equals the number of years 

elapsed. 

Figure 4. Compound Interest Formula Used to Calculate Investment Opportunity Cost

Based on this formula, the forgone benefits from the investment opportunity cost 

calculated by scenario and funding stream are listed in Table 44, along with their 

associated inputs. The forgone accrued interest amounts for all funding are called the 

total investment opportunity costs, while that for federal funding only are called the 

federal investment opportunity costs. These naming conventions are referenced in the 

Calculating ROI section. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

66

Table 44. Forgone Benefits From Investment Opportunity Cost Calculation by Scenario 

and Funding Stream

Metric

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

All funding

Federal 

funding 

only All funding

Federal 

funding 

only All funding

Federal 

funding 

only

Real 

interest 

rate 

-1.80% -0.80% -0.30%

Years 

elapsed 1 15 30

Funding 

amount $10,896,636 $9,549,273 $10,896,636 $9,549,273 $10,896,636 $9,549,273 

Forgone 

return 

(accrued 

interest) 

-$938,533 -$822,484 -$1,234,512 -$1,081,865 -$195,257 -$171,113

Note: The real interest rates used are the 2021 real interest rates because the MCC program year 

commenced in 2021. 

Measuring Program Costs

Table 45 shows the costs of MCC by funding source.

Table 45. Funding Sources and Amounts for MCC (2021–2022) 

Funding Source Amount Percentage of total 

Cost categories $9,479,450 

Operating $4,350,150 45.9%

AmeriCorps member expenses $4,399,271 46.4%

Non-AmeriCorps member expenses $730,029 7.7%

Funding sources $10,000,000 

AmeriCorps $2,842,634 28%

Project revenue (federal and non-federal) $6,417,366 64%

Private $740,000 7%

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Source: MCC (2023)

Calculating ROI

To complete the three ROI calculations for MCC, the sum of applicable program 

benefits is reduced by the forgone benefits, or the professional and investment 

opportunity costs (where appropriate) and then compared to the cost of the program. 

As described previously, these three ROI calculations are calculated for each of the 

three scenarios: short-term, medium-term, and long-term. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

67

Since two of the calculations include benefits to society (e.g., MCC AmeriCorps 

members, children of MCC program participants, etc.), the results are expressed as 

cost–benefit ratios, while maintaining the ROI terminology. Specifically, these ratios take 

the form of the sum of monetized benefits over the sum of applicable program costs. 

The ROIs expressed as cost–benefit ratios in this study can be interpreted as the amount 

of dollars returned for every dollar of investment (or program cost).44 

The formulas used to calculate each of the three ROIs are shown below:45

44 ROIs can be expressed in percentages or as ratios, such as in this study. Although not shown as a ratio in 

the results, the ROIs in this study show the amount of return for every dollar invested. 

45 Non-government stakeholders in this ROI analysis include MCC AmeriCorps members and the children of

MCC program participants. 

Total 

Benefits per 

Federal 

Dollar

=

(Benefits to Non-government Stakeholders + Benefits to Government) –

(Forgone Benefits From Total Professional Opportunity Cost + Forgone Benefits 

From Federal Investment Opportunity Cost)

(AmeriCorps Federal Funding) 

Total 

Benefits 

per Funder 

Dollar

=

(Benefits to Non-government Stakeholders + Benefits to Government) –

(Forgone Benefits From Total Professional Opportunity Cost + Forgone Benefits 

From Total Investment Opportunity Cost)

(AmeriCorps Federal Funding + Non-Federal Match Funding) 

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

=

(Benefits to the Federal Government) – (Forgone Benefits From Federal 

Professional Opportunity Cost + Forgone Benefits From Federal Investment 

Opportunity Cost)

(AmeriCorps Federal Funding) 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

68

Table 46, Table 47, and Table 48 show the total benefits, opportunity costs, program 

costs, and ROI results for the short-, medium-, and long-term scenarios, respectively. 

Table 46. ROI Calculations for Short-Term Scenario

Components

Total costs 

and benefits 

per federal dollar

(2020$)

Total costs 

and benefits 

per funder dollar

(2020$)

Federal government 

costs and benefits 

per federal dollar

(2020$)

Total benefits by range of impact

With low ecosystem 

benefits $6,988,788 $7,185,974 

With average -$197,185

ecosystem benefits $22,830,885 $23,028,071 

With high ecosystem 

benefits $74,600,750 $74,797,936 

Total forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) -$876,336 -$3,844,340 -$876,336

Total program costs $9,549,273 $10,896,636 $9,549,273 

ROI

Result – low $0.73 $0.66 

-$0.02 Result – average $2.39 $2.11 

Result – high $7.81 $6.86 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

69

Table 47. ROI Calculations for Medium-Term Scenario

Components

Total costs and 

benefits per federal 

dollar

(2020$)

Total costs and 

benefits per funder 

dollar

(2020$)

Federal government 

costs and benefits 

per federal dollar

(2020$)

Total benefits by range of impact

With low ecosystem 

benefits $73,982,486 $72,278,706 

$1,703,780 With average 

ecosystem benefits $261,361,751 $259,657,971 

With high ecosystem 

benefits $885,119,277 $883,415,496 

Total forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) -$1,661,463 -$4,632,345 -$1,661,463 

Total program costs $9,549,273 $10,896,636 $9,549,273 

ROI

Result – low $7.75 $6.63 

Result – average $27.37 $23.83 $0.18

Result – high $92.69 $81.07 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

70

Table 48. ROI Calculations for Long-Term Scenario

Components

Total costs and 

benefits per federal 

dollar

(2020$)

Total costs and 

benefits per funder 

dollar

(2020$)

Federal government 

costs and benefits 

per federal dollar

(2020$)

Total benefits by range of impact

With low ecosystem 

benefits $111,328,796 $106,651,813 

$4,676,983 With average 

ecosystem benefits $395,165,808 $390,488,824 

With high ecosystem 

benefits $1,378,161,272 $1,373,484,289 

Total forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) -$1,437,859 -$4,407,922 -$1,437,859

Total program costs $9,549,273 $10,896,636 $9,549,273

ROI

Result – low $11.66 $9.79 

Result – average $41.38 $35.84 $0.49

Result – high $144.32 $126.05 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

71

Appendix C: Results by Year

Table 49 shows the breakdown of costs and benefits over a 30-year period. Program 

activities create a stream of benefits over time to AmeriCorps members, the federal 

government, state and local governments, and society. Opportunity costs that occur 

from participation in the program apply to the first year, and forgone benefits to funders 

accrue over time. Program costs are expended in the first year only. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

72

Table 49. MCC Benefits and Costs per Year

Benefits and costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8

Benefits – low $5,724,460 $1,066,479 $1,074,944 $1,083,856 $1,093,227 $1,103,072 $1,113,405 $1,124,240 

Benefits – medium $15,108,947 $10,346,694 $10,250,887 $10,155,527 $10,060,626 $9,966,199 $9,872,259 $9,778,822 

Benefits – high $55,726,052 $50,512,498 $49,965,390 $49,418,728 $48,872,526 $48,326,798 $47,781,558 $47,236,819 

AmeriCorps member benefits $4,613,147 $431,389 $444,331 $457,660 $471,390 $485,532 $500,098 $515,101 

Federal government benefits $513,445 $32,411 $33,383 $34,385 $35,416 $36,479 $37,573 $38,700 

State and local government benefits $20,865 $32,087 $33,050 $34,041 $35,062 $36,114 $37,198 $38,314 

Society benefits – low $577,003 $570,592 $564,181 $557,770 $551,358 $544,947 $538,536 $532,125 

Society benefits – medium $9,961,490 $9,850,807 $9,740,123 $9,629,440 $9,518,757 $9,408,074 $9,297,391 $9,186,707 

Society benefits – high $50,578,595 $50,016,611 $49,454,626 $48,892,642 $48,330,658 $47,768,673 $47,206,689 $46,644,704 

Forgone benefits (opportunity costs) $5,295,353 $144,137 $144,137 $144,137 $144,137 $144,137 $144,137 $144,137 

Forgone benefits to members $3,696,289 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone tax revenue $1,279,899 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal taxes $728,825 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

State/local taxes $551,074 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone benefits from total 

investments (all funders) $171,654 $77,520 $77,520 $77,520 $77,520 $77,520 $77,520 $77,520 

Forgone benefits from federal 

investments $147,511 $66,617 $66,617 $66,617 $66,617 $66,617 $66,617 $66,617 

Program costs $9,579,450 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal government costs $8,870,571 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Non-federal costs $708,879 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

73

Table 49, cont. MCC Benefits and Costs per Year

Benefits and costs Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16

Benefits – low $1,135,592 $1,147,477 $1,144,973 $1,143,035 $1,141,679 $1,140,922 $1,140,784 $1,141,281 

Benefits – medium $9,685,902 $9,593,516 $9,243,786 $8,894,621 $8,546,039 $8,198,056 $7,850,692 $7,503,964 

Benefits – high $46,692,598 $46,148,910 $44,296,347 $42,444,350 $40,592,935 $38,742,120 $36,891,922 $35,042,361 

AmeriCorps member benefits $530,554 $546,470 $562,865 $579,751 $597,143 $615,057 $633,509 $652,514 

Federal government benefits $39,861 $41,057 $42,289 $43,558 $44,864 $46,210 $47,596 $49,024 

State and local government benefits $39,463 $40,647 $41,866 $43,122 $44,416 $45,749 $47,121 $48,535 

Society benefits – low $525,714 $519,303 $497,954 $476,604 $455,255 $433,906 $412,557 $391,208 

Society benefits – medium $9,076,024 $8,965,341 $8,596,766 $8,228,191 $7,859,616 $7,491,040 $7,122,465 $6,753,890 

Society benefits – high $46,082,720 $45,520,736 $43,649,328 $41,777,920 $39,906,511 $38,035,103 $36,163,695 $34,292,287 

Forgone benefits (opportunity costs) $144,137 $144,137 $144,137 $144,137 $144,137 $144,137 -$32,254 -$32,254

Forgone benefits to members $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone tax revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

State/local taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone benefits from total 

investments (all funders) $77,520 $77,520 $77,520 $77,520 $77,520 $77,520 -$17,347) -$17,347

Forgone benefits from federal 

investments $66,617 $66,617 $66,617 $66,617 $66,617 $66,617 -$14,907) -$14,907

Program costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal government costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Non-federal costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

74

Table 49, cont. MCC Benefits and Costs per Year

Benefits and costs Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24

Benefits – low $1,142,435 $1,144,263 $1,146,786 $1,150,026 $1,154,003 $1,158,740 $1,164,260 $1,170,586 

Benefits – medium $7,157,891 $6,812,493 $6,467,790 $6,123,804 $5,780,555 $5,438,066 $5,096,360 $4,755,460 

Benefits – high $33,193,455 $31,345,224 $29,497,689 $27,650,870 $25,804,788 $23,959,466 $22,114,927 $20,271,194 

AmeriCorps member benefits $672,090 $692,252 $713,020 $734,411 $756,443 $779,136 $802,510 $826,586 

Federal government benefits $50,495 $52,010 $53,570 $55,177 $56,833 $58,538 $60,294 $62,103 

State and local government benefits $49,991 $51,490 $53,035 $54,626 $56,265 $57,953 $59,692 $61,482 

Society benefits – low $369,859 $348,510 $327,161 $305,812 $284,462 $263,113 $241,764 $220,415 

Society benefits – medium $6,385,315 $6,016,740 $5,648,165 $5,279,590 $4,911,015 $4,542,439 $4,173,864 $3,805,289 

Society benefits – high $32,420,879 $30,549,471 $28,678,063 $26,806,655 $24,935,247 $23,063,839 $21,192,431 $19,321,023 

Forgone benefits (opportunity costs) -$32,254 -$32,254 -$32,254 -$32,254- -$32,254 -$32,254 -$32,254 -$32,254

Forgone benefits to members $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone tax revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

State/local taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone benefits from total 

investments (all funders) -$17,347 -$17,347 -$17,347 -$17,347 -$17,347 -$17,347 -$17,347 -$17,347

Forgone benefits from federal 

investments -$14,907 -$14,907 -$14,907 -$14,907 -$14,907 -$14,907 -$14,907 -$14,907

Program costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal government costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Non-federal costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

75

Table 49, cont. MCC Benefits and Costs per Year

Benefits and costs Year 25 Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30

Benefits – low $1,177,742 $1,185,753 $1,194,645 $1,204,444 $1,215,178 $1,226,874 

Benefits – medium $4,415,390 $4,076,175 $3,737,841 $3,400,414 $3,063,922 $2,728,392 

Benefits – high $18,428,291 $16,586,243 $14,745,076 $12,904,817 $11,065,491 $9,227,128 

AmeriCorps member benefits $851,383 $876,925 $903,232 $930,329 $958,239 $986,986 

Federal government benefits $63,966 $65,885 $67,861 $69,897 $71,994 $74,154 

State and local government benefits $63,327 $65,227 $67,183 $69,199 $71,275 $73,413 

Society benefits – low $199,066 $177,717 $156,368 $135,019 $113,670 $92,320 

Society benefits – medium $3,436,714 $3,068,139 $2,699,564 $2,330,989 $1,962,414 $1,593,838 

Society benefits – high $17,449,615 $15,578,207 $13,706,799 $11,835,391 $9,963,983 $8,092,575 

Forgone benefits (opportunity costs) -$32,254 -$32,254 -$32,254 -$32,254 -$32,254 -$32,254

Forgone benefits to members $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone tax revenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

State/local taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Forgone benefits from total investments (all 

funders) -$17,347 -$17,347 -$17,347 -$17,347 -$17,347 -$17,347

Forgone benefits from federal investments -$14,907 -$14,907 -$14,907 -$14,907 -$14,907 -$14,907

Program costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Federal government costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Non-federal costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

76

References 

AmeriCorps. (n.d.). Education Award find out more. AmeriCorps. 

https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorps-educationaward/find-out-more

Arora, V. K. & Melton, J. R. (2018). Reduction in global area burned and wildfire 

emissions since 1930s enhances carbon uptake by land. Nature Communications, 9. 

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03838-0

Bartels, S. F., Chen, H. Y.H., Wulder, M. A., & White, J. C. (2016). Trends in postdisturbance recovery rates of Canada’s forests following wildfire and harvest. Forest 

Ecology and Management, 361,194–207. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.11.015

Batker, D., Christin, Z., Schmidt, R., & de la Torre, I. (2013). The economic impact of the 

2013 Rim Fire on natural lands. Earth Economics. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grantsfunding/docs/earth_economics_rim_fire_report_11.27.2013.pdf

Blagg, K., & Blom, E. (2018, September). Evaluating the return on investment in higher 

education: An assessment of individual- and state-level returns. Urban Institute. 

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99078/evaluating_the_return_

on_investment_in_higher_education.pdf

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

Corps – Evaluation Report 2019 – 2020. Reno, NV. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/GreatBasinInstitute.21ES231073.

Evidencedoc3_EDITED_508.pdf

Cochrane, M. A., Moran, C. J., Wimberly, M. C., Baer, A. D., Finney, M. A., Beckendorf, K. 

L., Eidenshink, J., & Zhu, Z. (2012). Estimation of wildfire size and risk changes due to 

fuels treatments. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 21(4), 357–367. 

https://doi.org/10.1071/WF11079

Conner, M. M., Saunders, W. C., Bouwes, N., & Jordan, C. (2016). Evaluating impacts 

using a BACI design, ratios, and a Bayesian approach with a focus on restoration. 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 188(10), 555.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5526-6

Dodds, W. K., Wilson, K. C., Rehmeier, R. L., Knight, G. L., Wiggam, S., Falke, J. A., 

Dalgleish, H. J., & Bertrand, K. N. (2008). Comparing ecosystem goods and services 

provided by restored and native lands. Bioscience, 58(9), 837–845. 

https://doi.org/10.1641/B580909

Echelberger, H. E., & Plumley, H. J. (1986). Anatomy of backcountry management costs. 

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Research Paper NE-575. 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/21721 

El-Sibaie, A. (2019, November 14). 2020 tax brackets. Tax Foundation.

https://taxfoundation.org/2020-tax-brackets/
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

77

Eastern Sierra Sustainable Recreation and Tourism Initiative (ESSRTI). (2021). A changing 

climate: Vulnerability in California’s Eastern Sierra. 

https://mltpa.org/images/downloads/703_02_AChangingClimate_2021-05-

13_FINAL.pdf

Friedman, E., Freeman, B., Phillips, B., Rosenthal, L., Robinson, D., Miller, H., & Porowski, A. 

(2016). AmeriCorps alumni outcomes: Final survey technical report. Corporation for 

National and Community Service (now AmeriCorps). 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_AmeriCorpsAlumni

OutcomesFinalTechReport_1.pdf

Fritts, J. (2021, January 6). State and local sales tax rates, 2021. Tax Foundation. 

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/2021-sales-taxes/

Guo, M., Li, J., Wen, L., & Huang, S. (2019). Estimation of CO2 emissions from wildfires 

using OCO-2 data. Atmosphere, 10(1), 581. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10100581

Hyland, S. S. (2015). Justice expenditure and employment extracts, 2015 - final. 

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/justice-expenditure-and-employmentextracts-2015-final 

Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. 

(2013). Technical support document – technical update of the social cost of carbon 

for regulatory impact analysis – under Executive Order 12866. 

Jones, K. W. (2021, November 24). Estimating the societal benefits from wildfire 

mitigation activities in a payments for watershed services program in Colorado. 

https://doi.org/10.32942/osf.io/z9skm

Loughead, K. (2020, February 4). State individual income tax rates and brackets for 

2020. Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/state-individual-income-tax-ratesand-brackets-for-2020/

Markovitz, C., Schneider, G., Jastrzab, J. A., & Frumkin, P. (2008, April). Improving lives 

and communities: Perspectives on 40 years of VISTA service. Corporation for 

National and Community Service (now AmeriCorps).

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_Imprv_LivesComm

_40YrsVISTASvc_2008_1.pdf

Mason, C. L., Lippke, B. R., Zobrist, K. W., Bloxton Jr, T. D., Ceder, K. R., Comnick, J. M., ... 

& Rogers, H. K. (2006). Investments in fuel removals to avoid forest fires result in 

substantial benefits. Journal of Forestry, 104(1), 27–31.

Moeltner, K., Kim, M. K., Zhu, E., & Yang, W. (2013). Wildfire smoke and health impacts: 

A closer look at fire attributes and their marginal effects. Journal of Environmental 

Economics and Management, 66(3), 476–496. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2013.09.004
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

78

Munaretto, C., Ryder, D., Modicamore, D., Naugler, A., Miller, B., & Pershing, J. (2021). 

Return on Investment Study: Washington Conservation Corps. ICF.

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/ROI_WCC%20a_RELEASE.pdf 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2020). IPEDS Data Explorer. Average 

costs (in constant 2019 dollars) associated with attendance for full-time, first-time 

degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates at Title IV institutions operating on an 

academic year calendar system, and percentage change, by level of institution, 

type of cost, control of institution, residency, and student housing: United States, 

academic years 2017–18 and 2019–20. 

https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Search?query=&query2=&resultType=all&page=1&sortBy

=date_desc&overlayTableId=27425

Office of Management and Budget. (1992, October 29). Circular A-94: Guidelines 

and discount rates for benefit–cost analysis of federal programs, transmittal memo 

no. 64. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A94/a094.pdf

Office of Management and Budget. (2003, September 17). Circular A-4. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf

Office of Management and Budget. (2020, November 19). Budget assumptions. 

Nominal treasury interest rates for different maturities (from annual budget 

assumptions for the first year of the budget forecast). 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/discount-history.pdf 

Oh, C. & Hammitt, W. (2010). Determining economic benefits of park trails: 

Management implications. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 28(2), 

94–107. 

Oswald, J. (2018, March 29). What does an unemployment claim cost an employer?

Unemployment Insurance Services. https://www.unemploymentservices.com/unemployment-claim-cost-employer/

Rennert, K., Errickson, F., Prest, B. C., Rennels, L., Newell, R. G., Pizer, W., Kingdon, C., 

Wingenroth, J., Cooke, R., Parthum, B., Smith, D., Cromar, K., Diaz, D., Moore, F. C., 

Muller, U. K., Plevin, R. J., Raftery, A. E., Sevcikova, H., Sheets, H. Stock, J. H., Tan, T., 

Watson, M., Wong, T. E., & Anthoff, D. (2022). Comprehensive evidence implies a 

higher social cost of CO2. Nature, 601, 687–692. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-

05224-9

Schimel, D., Alves, D., Enting, I., Heimann, M., et al. (1995). Radiative forcing of climate 

change. In Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, (pp. 65-132). 

Contribution of Working Group I. Second Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar2/wg1/

Social Security Administration. (2020). Fact sheet: 2020 Social Security changes.

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/colafacts2020.pdf
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

79

Spera, C., Ghertner, R., Nerino, A., & DiTommaso, A. (2013). Volunteering as a pathway 

to employment: Does volunteering increase odds of finding a job for the out of 

work? https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/ 

evidenceexchange/FR_2013_VolunteeringasaPathwaytoEmployment_1.pdf

Trostel, P. (2015). It’s not just the money: The benefits of college education to individuals 

and to society. Lumina Foundation. 

https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-just-the-money.pdf

Thompson, S., Vehkaojia, M., Pellikka, J., & Nummi, P. (2020). Ecosystem services 

provided by beavers Castor spp. Mammal Review. https://beavertrust.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/10/Thompson_et_al-2020_Mammal_Review.pdf

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019-a). Consumer Price Index. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019-b). Occupational employment and wage statistics. 

https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021, May 27). Consumer Expenditure Surveys tables 

(CE). https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/calendar-year/mean-item-share-averagestandard-error.htm#cu-income

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic 

(ASEC) Supplement for March 2019. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/timeseries/demo/cps/cps-asec.2019.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic 

(ASEC) Supplement for 2020. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/timeseries/demo/cps/cps-asec.2020.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2021-a). American Community Survey (ACS). 

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/news/data-releases.2021.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2021-b). 2021 Current Population Survey (CPS). 

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

U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2019). Interest rate statistics. 

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financing-the-government/interest-ratestatistics

Voigt, G., Borgida, J., Clark, D., Kulka, L., Miller, B., Modicamore, D., Pershing, J., 

Thompson, P., & Sarwana, M. (2022). Return on Investment Study: Nevada 

Conservation Corps. ICF.

https://www.americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/36039_NCC_2022_AmeriC

orps_ROI_Study_RELEASE_508.pdf 

Wang, G., Macera, C. A., Scudder-Soucier, B., Schmid, T., Pratt, M., & Buchner, D. (2005). 

A cost-benefit analysis of physical activity using bike/pedestrian trails. Health 

Promotion Practice, 6(2), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839903260687
Return on Investment Study: 

Montana Conservation Corps

80

The Watershed Company. (2015). Impact evaluation 2014–2015: Washington 

Conservation Corps restoration sites. https://americorps.gov/evidenceexchange/impact-evaluation-2014-2015-washington-conservation-corps-restorationsites

Wilson, N. R., & Norman, L. M. (2018). Analysis of vegetation recovery surrounding a 

restored wetland using the normalized difference infrared index (NDII) and 

normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI). International Journal of Remote 

Sensing, 30(10), 3243–3274. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2018.1437297

Zavaleta, E. (2000). Valuing ecosystem services lost to Tamarix invasion in the United 

States. In H. A. Moody and R. J. Hobbs (Eds), Invasive Species in a Changing World

(Chapter 12). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hCoJiTo7I3wC&oi=fnd&pg=PA261&

ots=OOnnz0GwJt&sig=4DJXDAwE6bREcfxiSrjOzZv_6ss#v=onepage&q&f=false

Zeidenberg, M., Freeman, B., Friedman, E., & Porowski, A. (2016). Results from the 

National Student Clearinghouse data match: New methods for assessing 

AmeriCorps alumni outcomes. Abt Associates. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_NatlStudent_Cleari

nghouseMatch_AlumniOutcomes_2016_1.pdf