Habitat for Humanity International, Application ID: 16ED179488

2013-16 External 

Evaluation for HFH 

National Service 

Program

Bradley Olson, PhD, Daniel Cooper, PhD, & Judah 

Viola, PhD

ABSTRACT

In 2014-15 surveys were collected from three sets of

stakeholder groups to determine the impact of the 

AmeriCorps Program on Habitat for Humanity Affiliates 

and the National and VISTA members that participated in 

the program. The quasi-experimental matched-pair 

research design suggests that hosting members added 

capacity to the organization and increased the likelihood 

of more home builds, more rehabs, and more volunteers

engaged.
Page | 1 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The following report presents findings of an external evaluation for Habitat for Humanity’s AmeriCorps program 

from 2013-2015. The focus of the evaluation was to determine whether hosting AmeriCorps National Members 

and VISTAs expanded Habitat for Humanity Affiliates’ capacity to serve communities across the United States. 

The current evaluation report includes survey findings from three stakeholder groups: (1) Habitat host affiliates 

as well as a matched comparison group of non-host affiliates; (2) current National and VISTA service members 

placed at Habitat affiliates during FY 2014-2015; and (3) National and VISTA alumni who served with a Habitat 

for Humanity affiliate. Subsequent to the executive summary of findings, the report includes a brief review of 

the literature and more detailed descriptions of the evaluation design and findings. The appendices include 

additional data from surveys that have been shared with the HFH team over the course of the evaluation period. 

 

Finding 1: National and VISTA Members increase HFH host site capacity to serve more families by building and 

rehabbing more homes:1,2

Across 2013-2015, Habitat affiliates that hosted National and VISTA members were matched to similar sized 

affiliates that did not host members.3,4

 Hosting affiliates both built and rehabbed more homes compared to 

similar-sized non-hosting affiliates. Over 2014-15 fiscal year, only host affiliates saw an increase in homes built5

Finding 2: AmeriCorps members increase HFH host sites’ capacity to serve more families by engaging more 

volunteers:1

Host affiliates engaged a much larger number of volunteers compared to non-host affiliates.6 In sum, the quasiexperimental matched-pair design showed, over a three-year period, that by hosting National and VISTA service 

members, Habitat and its affiliates increased builds, rehabs, and volunteers. These increases, in turn, 

contributed to the housing stability of community members throughout the US. 

Finding 3: AmeriCorps members benefit from their year of service by learning new and transferrable skills: 

Alumni reported gaining important knowledge and experiences as part of their work. This includes: 

 78% reporting gains in homebuilding experience 

 65% reporting gains in leadership skills 

 

1

Note on Matching Process and analyses run: Host affiliates were randomly matched (in cases when there was more than one potential 

match) with similar non-host affiliates on their annual expense budget. When this matching process was tested to see if the groups were 

different on the number of staff or part time staff, as expected, the two groups were statistically equivalent. This was true on comparisons 

of several other variables as well. Given that budget was the most appropriate variable to equalize the two groups, cross-sectional 

comparisons (baseline) were made between the host and non-host affiliate conditions. Three One-tailed paired t-tests, compared host and 

non-host affiliates (matched on expense budgets). The first t-test compared the total number of builds across 2013, 2014, and 2015. The 

second analysis was run on the total number of rehabs across 2013, 2014, and 2015. The third t-test was run on the number of volunteers 

engaged. In each of these cases, it was predicted that the host affiliate group would have significantly greater totals than the matched nonhost affiliates (N=47 per group). 

2

 To determine whether there were changes over the 14-15 fiscal year, in the number of builds, a 2 X 2 Mixed Factorial ANOVA with prepost changes in the number of builds as one variable and host-affiliate vs. non-host affiliate (N=26;160). 

3

 changed from m=41.24 to m=15.54; p=.06

4

 changed from m=30.32 to m=21.11; p=.05

5

Hosts increased from a mean of 4.04 to 4.60 and the non-host affiliates saw a drop from 2.00 to 1.8

6

Hosts m=1,867; non-hosts m=1,112; p=.05.
Page | 2 

 62% reporting gaining knowledge of service, engagement, and sense of responsibility 

 60% reporting gains in project management abilities 

At the conclusion of their service year: 

 72% of members reported that their AmeriCorps experience would help their chances of finding a job 

 80% felt that their AmeriCorps experience would improve their performance at a future job 

 59% felt it would improve their chances of getting a promotion

 and 63% felt it would help them make a career change 

Finding 4: A year of AmeriCorps service with Habitat for Humanity may impact the career trajectory of 

AmeriCorps members, providing a pipeline into community development professions: 

 

Compared to when they began, AmeriCorps members reported, at the end of their service year, being 

significantly more interested in affordable housing development7. They reported being significantly more likely 

to volunteer with another affordable housing provider or community development organization. In addition, the 

Alumni survey revealed 34% of participants going on to work for a Habitat affiliate at the conclusion of their 

service. 

Finding 5: A year of service successfully connected AmeriCorps members to the local community and the 

families served. 

There was a 10% increase in the proportion of respondents who felt connected with partner families (increase 

from 53% to 63%) after completing the year of service.8 Responses also showed significant increases in the 

degree they felt connected to the local community.9 These findings suggest, among other things, that the service 

year provides meaningful community engagement opportunities for participants. 

 

 

7

 Changed from m = 4.4 to m = 3.4; p < .001

8

 p = .001

9 Mean changes of “connected to local community” = 3.8 to 4.0; Mean changes of “connected to families” = 3.5 to 3.9. These changes were 

statistically significant (p=.05) based upon a paired samples t-test with N=90. 

 
Page | 3 

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 

The Corporation for National Community Service (CNCS) National Service program, including AmeriCorps 

National and AmeriCorps VISTA, has produced a host of benefits to U.S. citizens.10 Habitat for Humanity’s 

participation in the National Service Program has been touted as a faith-based model for connecting 

volunteering, civic engagement, and increased homeownership. Habitat is the largest home-building program in 

the world, impacting families that include veterans, those impacted by disasters, people with disabilities, 

migrants, and the diverse American workforce at large. Habitat home construction, rehab, repair, and 

neighborhood revitalization efforts have been shown to benefit families in multiple ways, in multiple sites, and, 

in particular, in the quality of life of all residents in targeted communities.11 

Anecdotally, and qualitatively, there is evidence that AmeriCorps members have vastly helped many Habitat 

affiliate organizations build more expansively, effectively and efficiently.1 Longitudinal studies with large 

samples have concluded that national service programs in general hold promise for addressing gaps in civic 

engagement within the U.S.12 Yet, the HFHI National Service Program has typically focused on short-term 

outputs such as the number of activities that AmeriCorps members accomplished over their year of service.13

There is still much to learn, using more rigorous methods, about the ways in which the program might be 

impacting Habitat affiliate capacity as well as the career trajectory of the service members themselves. 

Mixed-methods designs often have the rigor and credibility of quantitative designs and analysis, as well as the 

richness of qualitative approaches, and are valuable for understanding the impact of volunteering and civic 

engagement.4 One set of prior independent evaluations of Habitat for Humanity’s Neighborhood Revitalization 

(NR) initiative has shown strong, positive outcomes. The NR initiative is an approach that targets specific “hard 

hit” neighborhoods by working in concert with a variety of partners, including AmeriCorps members. In an 

independent, longitudinal examination, and in numerous sites, NR was found to have led to neighborhood 

residents feeling safer and more connected to their neighborhoods over time. These studies have also showed 

longitudinal effects on different measures of quality of life in various neighborhoods throughout the U.S..9 

Home building and neighborhood improvement efforts are linked with quality of life, but there is still a need for 

more rigorous studies about what value AmeriCorps members add to these efforts. The current evaluation 

focuses on this exact question through mixed-method approaches. One component of the current evaluation is 

the use of a quasi-experimental design to compare organization-level outcomes between affiliates who utilize 

members and comparable (matched) affiliates who do not. In other words, given the connection established 

between the number of homes built and quality of life outcomes, a primary question was, do affiliates that host 

members show greater capacity, growth, and sustainability than a matched comparison group? 

To better understand the rationale for this study’s multiple samples and research questions, it is helpful to 

understand some theory about volunteering and service. National Service is believed to have at least four 

essential outcomes for participating volunteers: citizenship, personal growth, social capital, and public work14. 

 

10 Clinton, B. (1999). Remarks at the AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps Graduation Ceremony. Sidney Yates Auditorium at the 

Department of the Interior. 

McCain, J. (2001). Putting the National in National Service: AmeriCorps Works. Time to Make it Bigger. The Washington Monthly. October, 

2001.

11 See multiple evaluation reports on the Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative; Cooper et al. (2013), Olson et al. (2014). 

12 Finlay, A. K., Flanagan, C., & Wray-Lake, L. (2011). Civic engagement patterns and transitions over 8 years: The AmeriCorps National 

Study. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1728-1743. 

13 Bovard, J. (2010). Clinton’s ‘National Service” Program... Inside Washington. December, 10. P. 5.

14 Frumkin, P. & Miller, B. (2008). Visions of National Service. Sociology. 45, 436-443.
Page | 4 

AmeriCorps members typically have higher rates of future volunteerism, education attainment, social capital 

and life skills than other citizens.15 

In the current evaluation, citizenship and personal growth among AmeriCorps members might be seen as the 

extent to which volunteering impacts service members’: a) desires to contribute more to the nation and the 

communities in which they work and b) individual growth in skills and knowledge. Social capital is the extent to 

which AmeriCorps members, Habitat affiliates, and the community build greater strength through their 

interpersonal connections. Working for the public good may reflect the capacity of the collective labor to impact 

the work of the affiliate and community members being served. Other evaluation studies have focused on social 

psychological variables tied to volunteer cohesion, connectedness, and sense of community.11 

Habitat for Humanity operates under a federated model with Habitat for Humanity International (HFHI) 

providing centralized governance to independent, affiliates, who coordinate all aspects of Habitat home building 

in local areas. With nearly 1,400 U.S. based affiliates, HFH provides low-income families living in substandard 

housing with volunteer-built, rehabilitated or repaired homes and affordable mortgage products. HFHI projects 

are located in both rural and urban communities and target those communities' most vulnerable populations. 

The primary selection criteria used to identify partner families is economic need. The families have low incomes 

(25% to 60% of area median income), live in sub-standard or overcrowded housing, or devote a high percentage 

of their income to housing costs. They must also demonstrate the ability to repay the no interest mortgage or 

loan and a willingness to partner with HFH to participate in financial literacy training and to volunteer to help 

construct their home and the homes of others, known as sweat equity. 

To evaluate the effectiveness of the AmeriCorps-HFHI relationship it is important to survey leaders at Habitat 

affiliates who recruit, train, support, and guide future goals16 of AmeriCorps members, and to survey the 

individual members (current members and alumni) themselves, seeing for instance, how volunteering and their 

experiences have personally impacted the life course of these members17. The Corporation’s AmeriCorps

program presents a model of volunteering as a pathway to employment. The model suggests that direct 

benefits, such as increased social and human capital, lead to strong career connections and increased 

perceptions of job-ready skills and personal qualities. Initial findings indicate that AmeriCorps members believe 

their service experience will help them find a job, improve their job performance, get a promotion, and make 

successful career steps.18

While the current evaluation examines a variety of research questions using qualitative and quantitative 

methods, the primary focus is on outcomes comparing matched sets of Habitat affiliates that host AmeriCorps 

members and those that do not. In essence, the primary research question is: to what degree does hosting 

service members allow HFHI and Habitat affiliates to have a bigger impact? 

 

15 Frumkin, P. & Jastrzab, J (2010). Serving Country and Community: Who Benefits from National Service. Harvard University Press; Simon, 

C.A., & Wang, C. (2002). The Impact of AmeriCorps service on volunteer Participants. Administration and Society, 34, 522-540.; Tschirhart 

et al. (2001). Stipended Volunteers: Their goals, experiences, satisfaction, and likelihood of future service. Nonprofit and Volunteer Sector 

Quarterly. DOI: 10.1177/0899764001303002 

16 Allen, J. A. & Mueller, S. L. (2013). The Revolving door: A closer look at major factors in volunteers’ intention to quit. Journal of 

Community Psychology, 41, 139-155.

17 Jenkinson, C. E., Dikens, A. P., Jones, K., Thompson-Coon, J., Taylor, R. S., et al. (2013). Is volunteering a public health intervention? A 

systematic review and meta-analysis of the health and survival of volunteers. BMC Public Health, 13, 1-10. over 8 years: The AmeriCorps 

National Study. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1728-1743.

18 CNCS (2013). Research and Evaluation symposium. Retrieved from http://americorps2013.hbco.com/presentations/Research_Summit/Research_Summit_Slides.pdf 
Page | 5 

3 HFHI AMERICORPS PROGRAM DESCRIPTION, LOGIC MODEL, AND EVALUATION DESIGN 

3.1 PROGRAM GOALS & OBJECTIVES 

Program Summary19

For 20 years, HFHI has partnered with HFH affiliates to invest in, and place, AmeriCorps members in 

communities throughout the United States. Habitat for Humanity utilizes AmeriCorps members as a highly 

effective means of addressing the need for affordable housing by engaging communities, developing resources 

and supporting families. These interventions result in Habitat affiliates gaining capacity, developing sustainable 

infrastructure, increasing the number of families served, and increasing ability to serve families more 

comprehensively. This ultimately leads to changes in family condition/quality of life and changes in communities 

and neighborhoods. 

AmeriCorps members provide host sites (i.e., Habitat affiliates) a unique human resource: motivated, passionate, 

hard-working members who can address community needs in a variety of ways. AmeriCorps National members 

are utilized by a host site to engage the community in direct service and capacity building activities to address 

community needs. Members engage directly with volunteers, partner families, and other stakeholders within 

the community. Through their service year with Habitat, members also have the opportunity for personal 

development and skill improvement. The positions AmeriCorps members take or the roles they play within 

Habitat are adapted to the needs of the host site with the goal of expanding the host site’s ability to meet 

community needs through direct service. AmeriCorps VISTA members perform more indirect service, building

capacity and sustainable solutions. VISTAs strengthen capacity by building programs and infrastructure, 

expanding community partnerships, securing long-term resources, and coordinating trainings. Activities directly 

relate to the VISTA program’s stated mission of eliminating poverty through community awareness and 

involvement. 

 

19 Summary from HFHI External Evaluation Plan 2016-19 
Page | 6 

3.2 PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL 

3.3 EVALUATION PURPOSE, QUESTIONS AND DESIGN 

The purpose of the current evaluation was to track processes and outcomes of the Habitat AmeriCorps 

partnership. The primary outcome related goal was to determine, through a matched, quasi-experimental 

design, whether there was evidence that Habitat host affiliates (through the participation of AmeriCorps 

members) showed greater productivity and increased capacity than similar, non-hosting affiliates. Research 

questions included:

 Do AmeriCorps members increase HFH host sites’ capacity to: 

o Serve more families? 

o Engage more volunteers? 

o Offer housing-related services, including new builds and rehabs? 

Other questions included: 

 Do AmeriCorps members benefit from their year of service by: 

o Receiving useful workforce development training? 

o Learning new and transferrable skills? 
Page | 7 

o Experiencing an increase in civic engagement? 

These questions and more were answered with through multiple survey measures. The different surveys, each 

designed for this evaluation, were given to three separate samples (affiliates, current Habitat AmeriCorps 

members, and alumni). Each measure is described below and copies of all full surveys can be found as 

appendices (see Appendix 8.2).

Affiliate survey: The external evaluators interviewed the HFHI National Service Department’s extended 

leadership team as well as staff from three affiliates in order to ensure that the survey questions covered the 

range of topics of interest for the evaluation. The survey questions were framed in a way that would not be 

overly burdensome for affiliates to complete, and reflected language that would make sense to affiliate staff 

completing the survey. The first survey was collected through affiliate leadership in September-November of 

2014 and the follow-up survey was collected in July-August of 2015. 

The affiliate survey examined the difference between Habitat affiliates that utilize AmeriCorps members (host 

sites) and those that do not (non-host sites). Affiliates from each group were paired on budget size, creating a 

matched, quasi-experimental study.1 Outcome data included variables related to key organizational goals such 

as the number of families served, homes built, houses rehabbed, partnerships created, and resources generated.

Host affiliate surveys: Host affiliate leadership and/or direct supervisors of AmeriCorps members were surveyed 

with the basic measure and additional items. The goal of the additional questions was to understand their 

perceptions of the impact members had on organization-level outcomes and added capacity. Areas covered 

included:

The impact that members have had (roles, level of integration into the affiliate, value added) over the previous 

fiscal year: 

 The value added by the inclusion of AmeriCorps members and the National Service program in the work 

done at the host site 

 Perceptions about members’ contributions to organizational capacity

Survey of AmeriCorps Members and Alumni: As stated earlier, a primary goal of the National Service program 

evaluation is to assess the extent to which the program is cultivating life-long housing and community 

development leaders. Thus, the second component of the study utilized pre-post survey data collected from 

currently serving AmeriCorps members and a one-time alumni survey (two similar yet unique instruments) to 

better understand their experiences and what impact serving with HFH has had on them. In collaboration with 

the HFH team, evaluators collected online surveys from alumni (September 2014) and current members (August 

2014 and August 2015). These surveys were designed to answer the following questions: 

 What impact has service with AmeriCorps and Habitat for Humanity had on individuals’ perceived life 

plans? 

 Do AmeriCorps members plan to continue to work on housing issues following their service year? 

 Have AmeriCorps alumni continued to work on housing issues? 

 What perceptions do members/alumni have about their contribution to organizational capacity? 

 
Page | 8 

 What perceptions have members/alumni have about improved quality of life of Habitat service 

recipients? 

Data Collection 

The evaluators collected data from Habitat for Humanity affiliates operating in the U.S. (the affiliate survey). 

The survey was sent to nearly all 1,400 affiliates in the U.S. 

As stated earlier, a quasi-experimental control group was created by matching participating affiliates with nonparticipating affiliates on budget, the best proxy for similar staffing, fundraising, and service provision. Given 

Habitat’s federated model, which creates, in affiliates, a captive audience that responds to HFHI requests for 

participation; no incentives were needed for participation. The statistical analyses used HFH host site and 

member-level data, including mixed-factorial ANOVAs. These analyses allowed evaluators to compare the 

“intervention” group (in this case, participating affiliates) with a matched control.
Page | 9 

4 FINDINGS FROM AFFILIATE PRE AND POST SURVEYS 

The affiliate results describe quantitative data from matched comparison groups of host and non-host affiliates. 

After key findings from quantitative data are presented, highlights from qualitative findings are described. 

Further descriptive data are displayed in the appendix. To provide a balance between readability and validity of 

the findings, the key findings are reported below with footnotes that provide the necessary technical 

information to understand the scientific methods used. 

4.1 MEMBERS INCREASE HFH HOST SITE CAPACITY TO SERVE MORE FAMILIES BY BUILDING AND REHABBING MORE 

HOMES20,21 

Across all of the data, the findings from the affiliate data are the most consequential, given the matched 

comparison group and the ability to compare effects over time. 

From 2013 to 2015 host affiliates built more homes compared to the “random, matched pair control group”22. 

Host affiliates also rehabbed more homes than similar-sized non-hosts.23 On average, host affiliates can be 

expected to build approximately 9 more homes per year than a comparable non-host affiliate. 

What’s more, from 2014 to 2015 host affiliates saw an increase in builds while equivalent-sized non-host 

affiliates, on average, saw decrease during the same time period.24 This illustrates that AmeriCorps members can 

potentially provide a positive buffer effect during challenging years. 

4.2 AMERICORPS MEMBERS INCREASE HFH HOST SITES CAPACITY TO SERVE MORE FAMILIES BY ENGAGING MORE 

VOLUNTEERS11,20 

Host affiliates engaged a much larger number of volunteers compared to the non-host affiliates.25 On average, 

the mean number of total volunteers engaged during the fiscal year by host affiliates was nearly 70% higher 

than non-host affiliates. This could potentially be a primary mechanism by which AmeriCorps members lead to a 

greater number of builds, and therefore a greater impact on quality of life among community members. 

 

20 Note on Matching Process and analyses run: Host affiliates were randomly matched with similar non-host affiliates on their annual 

expense budget. This matching process was tested to see if the groups differed on several relevant variables including the number of full 

and part time staff, and, as expected, the two groups were statistically equivalent. Given that budget was the most appropriate variable to 

equalize the two groups, cross-sectional comparisons (baseline) were made between the host and non-host affiliate conditions. Three onetailed paired t-tests, comparing host and non-host affiliates (matched on expense budgets). The first t-test compared the total number of 

builds across 2013, 2014, and 2015. The second analysis was run on the total number of rehabs across 2013, 2014, and 2015. The third ttest was run on the number of volunteers engaged. In each of these cases, it was predicted that the host affiliate group would have 

significantly greater totals than the matched non-host affiliates (N=47 per group). 

21 To determine whether there were changes over the 14-15 fiscal year, in the number of builds, a 2 X 2 Mixed Factorial ANOVA with prepost changes in the number of builds as one variable and host-affiliate vs. non-host affiliate (N=26;160). 

 

22 m = 30.32 vs. m = 21.11; p = .05 

23 m = 41.24 vs. m = 15.54; p = .05 

24 Host increase from a mean of 4.04 to 4.60; non-host drop from 2.00 to 1.8 

25 m = 1,867 vs. m = 1,112; p = .05
Page | 10 

In summary, given the quasi-experimental matched-pair research design and analysis, it was found that (after 

accounting for the match on budget), host affiliates, over a three-year period, built and rehabbed more homes, 

and incorporated many more volunteers in their work.

4.3 HABITAT AFFILIATES PERCEIVED AMERICORPS MEMBERS IMPROVED CAPACITY AND SUSTAINABILITY OF THE 

AFFILIATE IN VARIOUS WAYS 

The above quantitative findings demonstrate key areas where capacity was added by volunteer service 

members. However, surveys yielded further, rich data about how affiliates understand the benefits of hosting.

The figure below illustrates the fact that expectations about the impacts of utilizing AmeriCorps Nationals and

VISTAs were largely exceeded. When comparing pre and post surveys across fiscal year 2014-2015, host site 

respondents reported that AmeriCorps Nationals and VISTAS had more of an impact on the organization than 

they had hoped or expected at the outset of the year. 

Expectations about volunteer impacts were exceeded 

Affiliates report more than expected capacity added by National and VISTA Members 

Affiliate expectations of how National/VISTA Members would impact 

the organization (prior to service year vs. after service year)... 

Quality in which families are served

Pre 51%

Post 65%

Number of partners the affiliate has

Pre 44%

Post 42%

Number of homes rehabbed or restored

Pre 40%

Post 57%

Pace of building

Pre 24%

Post 59%

Number of donors the affiliate has

Pre 44%

Post 29%

Number of volunteers recruited

Pre 44%

Post 48%

Number of volunteers retained

Pre 43%

Post 56%

Effectiveness of volunteers

Pre 33%

Post 62%

Number of families served

Pre 41%

Post 65%

 
Page | 11 

In addition, qualitative data from open-ended questions with affiliates help further illuminate other aspects of 

capacity. The following themes from host site affiliates, reflect their perspective on how hosting adds capacity to 

the affiliate. The qualitative responses can be grouped into four main areas, and quotes have been selected to 

illustrate each: 

1) Short-term productivity – The value of hosting members; as well as member’s ability to attract and 

manage the volunteers that build and rehab more homes. 

2) “Expansion of Reach” – A phrase commonly used by affiliates to describe a desired form of sustainable 

change. In essence, “reach” refers to the affiliate’s ability to extend their impact beyond their traditional 

number of builds. 

3) “Pipeline of Strong Employees” – A phrase used by affiliates referring to the “workforce development” 

aspect of eventually hiring on AmeriCorps members 

4) Sustainable change – Changes to both service members and affiliate capacity due to hosting, expect to 

last beyond the service year. 

1) Short-term productivity—the perceived value of hosting members: 

 “Our members have been a tremendous asset to our organization. Just in the 1 1/2 years they have been with us we 

have tripled our house production. Also, our volunteer base has multiplied and our [volunteer] retention is better 

that it has ever been.”

 “Both programs are invaluable. They have increased our ability to build a stronger organization in tremendous ways 

this year. We can reach more people, build more houses, provide a better volunteer experience, and enhance our 

communications all due to AmeriCorps members.”

 “Hosting members adds tremendous value to our affiliate through their energy, innovation, and dedication we as an 

affiliate are able to accomplish more projects and deliver a higher level of service to our partner families than we 

would be able to do without the capacity and support we receive from our AmeriCorps members.”

 “As a result of hosting AmeriCorps National Direct members, our affiliate has been able to build more homes and 

undertake additional projects. The value added by having these additional workers has proved to be significant.”

 “Our affiliate would not be able to build 40 or more new homes and renovate 5 or more homes without our 

National members that work with construction. We recruit up to 13,000 volunteers annually and that would not be 

possible without our national member that works with volunteers....” 

 “Primary value add is our AmeriCorps members’ interaction with construction volunteers on site in a leadership 

capacity.”

2. “Expansion of Reach”—extending beyond usual progress:

 “Our affiliate's main goal is to increase our capacity and number of families served in our community, we have 

currently moved from working as a “Block Builder” to “Neighborhood Builder”, as described by Habitat International. 

This increase in capacity has required an expansion of our community partners. The AmeriCorps member positions 

have allowed our affiliate to implement successful programs that will increase the number of families we serve by 

creating and implementing sustainable projects that engage the local community by utilizing community 

collaboration and partnerships to meet the need of critical housing issues in the community.”

 “[Members have] enabled us to start up a Restore.”

 “It has helped to develop our repair and weatherization program, beyond what we could have done on our own.”

 “Our NRI program was barely functional before our VISTA, and is now healthy. We anticipate the same results with 

the opening of our first ReStore, with policies and partnerships due to our VISTA.”
Page | 12

3. “Pipeline of Strong Employees”—workforce development of hiring AmeriCorps members:

 “The AmeriCorps program has regularly and consistently introduced new, passionate people to Habitat's mission. 

Many of these folks have gone on to becoming staff at Habitat Greensboro or some other affiliate, and in that way 

they have helped to sustain our efforts.

 “Our Construction Supervisor is a former National Member with us and having our National Service members has 

made for better experiences for the volunteers on the build site.”

4. Sustainable Changes—various outcomes well beyond usual success:

 “Increases our capacity and quality. Focus on making these gains sustainable.” 

 “...That position also ensures that we retain many volunteers through relationship building and communications.” 

 “The National Service members always drastically improve the experience our volunteers receive due to the ability 

to offer more guidance and support throughout a volunteer shift. When volunteers are more engaged and feel like 

they are actually accomplishing things, they are more likely to work harder and return.” 

 “The AmeriCorps program makes it possible for us to grow in a healthy and sustainable way.” 

 “[Members] help evolve culture to be more flexible and open to change” 
Page | 13 

5 FINDINGS FROM PRE AND POST AMERICORPS MEMBER SURVEYS 

5.1 A YEAR OF AMERICORPS SERVICE WITH HABITAT AFFILIATES MAY IMPACT THE FUTURE TRAJECTORY OF 

VOLUNTEERS, BUILDING A PIPELINE INTO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS26 

 

Survey respondents reported being significantly more interested in affordable housing development at the end 

of their year of service than they were when they began.27 This finding is consistent across both National 

Members and VISTAs. Further, as might be expected, National members and VISTAs reported being very 

interested in volunteering with Habitat at the beginning of their year of service (71% at baseline). Nonetheless, 

both groups reported even more interest in continuing to volunteer with Habitat in some capacity in the future, 

with 82% reporting that they will be likely or very likely to do so in the future. 

Respondents also reported being significantly more likely to volunteer with another affordable housing provider 

or community development organization after their year of service.28 Results from the Alumni survey also 

revealed that 34% of participants go on to work for a Habitat affiliate at the conclusion of their service. The full 

set of related findings can be found in the figure below. 

 

Increased Interest in Affordable Housing and Volunteering After Service Year

Percent interested in... Overall (N= 86) National Member (N= 62) VISTA (N= 22) 

Affordable housing in general

Pre 50% 50% 51%

Post 89% 90% 82%

Affordable housing as a career

Pre 64% 68% 50%

Post 62% 64% 54%

Supporting Habitat as a volunteer

Pre 71% 70% 77%

Post 82% 81% 82%

Being an advocate for affordable housing in general

Pre 47% 44% 63%

Post 52% 48% 62%

Volunteering with another community organization

Pre 42% 48% 41%

Post 64% 67% 51%

These findings, combined, illustrate that the service year appears to be building a pipeline into work with 

community development organizations. Interest in affordable housing, interest in supporting Habitat as a 

26 Findings are based on analyses of respondents who completed both survey waves. Paired samples t-tests were run to 

determine significant mean differences in pre-post scores. In addition, descriptive data are presented to highlight changes 

in percentage “agreement.”

27 Mean = 3.4 during pre-test survey; mean = 4.4 during post-test survey, p < .001

28 Mean = 3.38 during pre-test survey; mean = 3.8 during post-test survey, p = .001 
Page | 14 

volunteer, and interest in volunteering with another community organization all increased after the service year. 

And, roughly one third of respondents reported go on to be fully employed by Habitat for Humanity, 

demonstrating an impact on the organization and field of affordable housing development more broadly. 

5.2 A YEAR OF SERVICE SUCCESSFULLY CONNECTS AMERICORPS MEMBERS TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND THE 

FAMILIES WITH WHOM THE AFFILIATE WORKS. 

Ideally, a year of volunteer service allows participants to get experience working directly with the communities 

and families that the organizations serve. It is important that members get to experience impactful work that 

connects them with these populations. Based on survey results, this appears to be the case. 

There was a significant 12% increase (from 51% to 63%) in the proportion of respondents who felt connected 

with partner families at the beginning of their service year vs. the end.29 Likewise, mean responses about feeling 

connected to the local community served by the Habitat affiliate increased significantly over the course of the 

service year.30 As can be seen in the figure below, this is true of both AmeriCorps National and VISTA members. 

In particular, there were large changes in VISTAs who “agreed” that they felt connected. 

 

Increased Connection with Families and Community After Service Year 

Overall (N= 86) National Member (N= 62) VISTA (N= 22) 

Feel connected to the volunteers

Pre 71% 78% 50%

Post 71% 75% 59%

Feel connected to partner families

Pre 51% 56% 32%

Post 63% 66% 55%

Feel connected to the local communities

Pre 62% 62% 55%

Post 67% 65% 73%

These findings are important because they suggest that the service year provides meaningful community 

engagement opportunities for participants. 

29 Mean changes of “connected to families” = 3.5 to 3.9 (p = .001). These changes were statistically significant based upon a 

paired samples t-test with N=90. 

30 Mean changes of “connected to local community” = 3.8 to 4.0 (p = .05) 
Page | 15 

5.3 AMERICORPS NATIONAL AND VISTA MEMBERS REPORT SEVERAL WAYS THAT THEIR YEAR OF SERVICE 

INCREASED THE CAPACITY OF THE AFFILIATE 

Survey respondents provided rich responses about the degree to which they saw their service year increasing 

the capacity of the host affiliate. Qualitative coding of open-ended responses revealed four main themes about 

added capacity. 

1) Supporting partnerships and relationships in the community 

2) Creating new systems, resources, or tools to improve services 

3) Developing and recruiting volunteers 

4) Grants development 

The first of these themes—supporting community partnerships—captures a unique aspect of service that the 

quantitative data elsewhere does not. Many Habitat affiliates are currently engaged in Neighborhood 

Revitalization (NR) work that seeks to build partnerships with other stakeholders and organizations to improve a 

targeted neighborhood. Survey respondents reported increasing the host site’s capacity to build these 

partnerships with other organizations. Below is a quote from a respondent speaking about this aspect of 

capacity. 

 “Got training for the board on asset based community development. Built trust and positive relationships with the 

focus community residents and local stakeholders. Built the capacity of the volunteer program, we built 3 houses 

this year, year prior we only built 1. Raised funds to support new Habitat homes. Helped to start home repairs 

program. Using Success Measures, I did baseline property assessments of 88 homes in our NR community.”

AmeriCorps members also reported putting new systems in place that allowed the affiliate to improve their 

efficiency, improve their communication, or improve their services, as seen in the following example. 

 “I documented and laid a framework for our database project, which will continue to improve the quality of our data. 

I also believe I helped strengthen ties between Habitat and [county] faith communities, which will help with 

volunteer capacity.”

Another commonly reported dimension of capacity added is with the recruiting and developing volunteers to 

help provide crucial services. This finding was also noted in quantitative analyses comparing affiliates hosting 

volunteers with those who do not. The quote below provides an example of this. 

 “By being instrumental in recruiting additional volunteers for a test build schedule that would expand the individuals 

served, I helped the affiliate identify potential flaws in the schedule and process for recruiting/retaining key 

volunteers”

The fourth theme related to capacity building from the perspective of AmeriCorps members was that they 

added to the affiliates’ ability to secure grant funding through their grants development work. The quantitative 

evidence that host sites had greater fundraising capacity than non-host sites is consistent with this contention. 

The quote below is one example from the member survey supporting this idea, but the cause of such enhanced 

fundraising capacity cannot necessarily be attributed to the AmeriCorps members or VISTAs. 

 “This past year, I have been able to apply for, and receive a few grants that will help fund some of our core longterm projects. I also worked to put on a first-year fund-raising event that will be able to grow and expand in the 

coming years”
Page | 1

6 FINDINGS FROM ALUMNI SURVEY 

6.1 ALUMNI CLEARLY SAW THE IMPACT OF THEIR SERVICE ON AFFILIATE CAPACITY TO SERVE COMMUNITIES 

The Alumni findings are consistent with previously mentioned data showing that increased volunteer 

engagement is related to increases in builds and rehabs. Seventy percent of alumni reported their participation 

led to more effective engagement of volunteers. Similarly, 67% of alumni reported that their worked helped the 

affiliate engage more volunteers, and engage more partner families (40%). A majority of alumni reported their 

service increased affiliate capacity to build more homes, and a large portion (44%) felt they increased the quality 

of builds. 

Overall, findings were similar between National and VISTA alumni. National Members were more likely to report 

making differences in people’s lives and impacting the community. VISTA members were again more focused on 

their learning of organizational functions. 

6.2 ALUMNI BENEFITED BY LEARNING NEW AND TRANSFERABLE SKILLS

Consistent with past CNCS research on AmeriCorps members, 63% of the alumni believed their experiences 

improved their likelihood of obtaining a job, and 75% stated their experience improved their future job 

performance. 

Of the skills gained, the vast majority of alumni (78%) gained homebuilding skills, (65%) leadership abilities, and 

(60%) project management skills. 

Few differences in learning gains were found between National and VISTA members. National members were 

more likely to gain knowledge in homebuilding, volunteer relations, and leadership development. VISTA 

members report a broader array of skills related to different facets of organizational operations. 

National and VISTA Member Knowledge Gained 

National (N= 339) VISTA (N= 104) 

Homebuilding 88% 44%

Fundraising[VALUE] 48%

Marketing [VALUE] 60%

Volunteer Relations 77% 64%

Leadership Development 71% 54%

Project Management 59% 64%

Program Development 21% 55%

Network Building 28% 41%

Non-profit Management 23% 48%

Advocacy 22% 25%

Training Coordination 34% 29%

Community Development 40% 43%

Service/Engage/Responsibility 64% 59%

6 
Page | 17 

6.3 ALUMNI FELT AMERICORPS WAS A CHARACTER BUILDING EXPERIENCE 

In addition to the tangible job skills, alumni reported growing as responsible citizens and building character, 

findings consistent across both the quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitatively, 62% of Alumni reported 

gaining knowledge of service, engagement, and a greater sense of responsibility. 

The majority (58%) reported a desire to pursue a career in affordable housing, whether with Habitat or 

elsewhere. Over a third (34%) continued working with Habitat as employees. In effect, the AmeriCorps program 

provides a great pipeline of staff for Habitat for Humanity affiliates. 

Likelihood of Pursuing a Career in Affordable Housing by Role 

National (N= 339) VISTA (N= 104) 

Overall 58% 57%

Construction 59%

Volunteer Coordination 59%

Outreach 57% 56%

Resource Development 64%

Project Development 56%

The representative quotes below illustrate how the AmeriCorps experience changed alumni careers and overall 

life perspectives: 

 “I so much enjoyed my role in Family Services that when I heard they were adding on a position I knew that Habitat 

is where I wanted to spend my future.”; “I became a Construction Manager with HFH, which I had not considered 

before.”; “Yes. Rather than returning to work as an architect, I took a job with a Habitat affiliate.”; “I did not intend 

to continue working in the non-profit sector after AmeriCorps, but I ended up getting hired on by my affiliate. While 

no longer with a Habitat affiliate, I still work in development for a non-profit.”

 “I found that I want to be an advocate for affordable housing. I had not thought much about this topic before my 

AmeriCorps terms.”; “I became very interested in housing and non-profit work, whereas I had originally envisioned 

myself teaching / in the humanities in academe.”

Others reported that their service year increased their overall motivation: 

 “I had always wanted to help people but AmeriCorps strengthened my faith that I myself could make a difference. 

Whatever job I had I strive to be better at it every day because of what I learned in my time serving.”

 “I became much more interested in urban policy and development issues.”; “I was interested in socially responsible 

architecture before, but after my years I realized that policy plays a huge part and I am now in school for urban 

design.”
Page | 18 

 “I became more deeply interested in construction in general, and home construction specifically.”; “I decided to 

forgo law school and instead entered a career in construction project management. Have been at it since 2005. Best 

decision I ever made and wouldn't have done it had I not had the experience I had with Habitat.” 

Others reported an increased desire to pursue further education: 

 “I realized I needed to learn more about the root causes of poverty and ways to end it. I chose a Public Health 

Master's program and career.”, “I had been much less aware of affordable housing issues, especially in certain 

regions of the country before serving with Habitat. My VISTA experience combined with my education in economics 

led me to my career in housing research and data analysis.” 

Others described more empathy and a greater appreciation for diversity: 

 “I became much more empathetic to the lack of opportunities for people in poverty. And that helping others to 

better themselves was what is really important in life.”; “I know prefer to work only with Non-profits that have a 

diverse work force. I am also working with a number of agencies to combat discrimination” 

 

When looking at the main roles that National and VISTA members played during their year of service, National 

members were primarily engaged in construction, whereas VISTA members engaged in a broader variety of roles. 

The top four self-described roles are highlighted below. 

Top Roles Performed 

Construction Crew [VALUE] Leader

Volunteer Service

16% Coordinator

Construction Systems 11%

Volunteer Development 8%

VISTA (N= 104)

Resource Development 32%

Outreach 25%

Volunteer Development 24%

Project Development 24%

National (N= 339)
Page | 19 

7 CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, the results of these diverse surveys that triangulate between affiliate and member perspectives 

show substantial effects for the HFHI National Service program. There were signs of increased productivity, 

efficiency, and sustainability for the affiliates. The quasi-experimental design provides a high degree of 

confidence that hosting an AmeriCorps member increases the capacity of the organization. When compared to 

similar affiliates, those who host service members typically build and rehab more homes, and engage more 

volunteers and partners. The National Service program also clearly has positive impacts for the AmeriCorps 

members who complete a year of service. AmeriCorps members reported gaining a range of skills and 

knowledge, increased interest in affordable housing and community development, and approximately one third 

obtain full-time placement at a Habitat affiliate. Thus, along with providing a rewarding experience for the 

member, the program also shows evidence of building a professional pipeline into the community development 

field. 

Results of the evaluation benefited from large sample sizes, across various stakeholder groups, increasing the 

confidence in these findings. AmeriCorps members benefited highly from the program, as did the community 

members being served. In essence, the available data show that the program is doing exactly what was intended 

from the start of the AmeriCorps initiative. While much more can be understood in future studies about the 

mechanisms of the positive effects, there is little question that Habitat’s work is a national model for National 

Service programs. 
Page | 20 

8 APPENDIX 

8.1 SURVEY SAMPLES 

Affiliate Survey 

Host and non-host affiliates completed surveys in fall 2014 (N=645) and again in summer 2015 (N=410).31 Host 

sites made up 13-17% of the samples. The median expense budget for host sites was $2 Million. The host sites 

projected that they would build 6 and rehab 3 homes in 2015. They had a median of 10 full-time staff and 3 parttime staff. Across all volunteers at the host affiliates, the numbers ranged from 20-13,400 with a median of 800 

volunteers per year. With regard to service area, 46% were urban, 22% rural. The population of these areas 

were evenly distributed among those under 100,000 and over 750,000. Fifty-five percent used veterans as 

volunteers. Forty-seven percent of homeowners were veterans. Approximately 5% of the host affiliates reported 

growth in the past five years due to natural a disaster. 

Member Survey 

AmeriCorps National and VISTA members completed a survey in the fall of 2014 at the beginning of their service 

year (N=235) and again at the end in August, 2015 (N=120)32. The above analyses were conducted on the sample 

of respondents that completed both survey waves (N=90), which allowed for a longitudinal comparison. Paired 

samples t-tests were conducted on survey items to test for significant changes over time. The final longitudinal 

sample was comprised of slightly more AmeriCorps National members (N=64) than VISTAs (N=26). These two 

groups were similar in some ways, but VISTAs tended to have a higher educational attainment prior to the 

service year. During the service year, VISTAs were more likely to be deployed in a wide range of roles, with 

nearly all being responsible for project development, whereas AmeriCorps members were heavily involved in 

construction roles and tasks (further breakouts are displayed below). 

Alumni Survey 

The Alumni survey included 22 items ranging from Likert-type items that focused on engagement activities to 

open-ended items asking on career impact and aspirations. The response rate was strong considering the large 

number of alumni who were sent the survey. Out of 2,938 alumni invited, 529 (18%) completed the survey 

during the fall of 2014. The majority (64%) were National members as opposed to VISTA or NCCC. As indicated in 

the chart below, there were slightly more female VISTAs. VISTAs were also slightly more likely to have a 

bachelor’s or graduate degree. However, National members were slightly more likely to have begun graduate 

work after their service. Overall, the vast majority of Alumni had a Bachelor’s degree when participating and 

over 40% went on to additional studies since their service year (further demographics are displayed below). 

 

31 Affiliate Survey response rates were 46% and 29% respectively 

32 Response rates for the member survey were 79% and 32% respectively 
Page | 21 

8.2 SURVEY MEASURES 

The survey tools were developed in collaboration with key staff from HFHI, who provided input about questions 

that were of primary interest. In addition, stakeholder interviews were conducted with a select sample of 

Habitat for Humanity affiliates (N=3) who had hosted AmeriCorps members in the past. Information learned 

from these interviews was also used to help inform the questions asked in the surveys below, which were 

collected via surveymonkey. 

Affiliate Baseline Survey 

1. What is the name of your affiliate? 

2. Has your affiliate hosted any of the following AmeriCorps service members since 2013? (check all that 

apply) 

a. HFHI AmeriCorps National Members 

b. HFHI AmeriCorps VISTA Members 

c. VISTA Summer Associates 

d. AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) 

e. AmeriCorps State Members (Provided via the state service commission or a sponsor organization 

other than HFHI) 

f. AmeriCorps State VISTA Members (Provided via an SSO or a legal sponsor other than HFHI) 

g. None of the above 

h. Other: please specify _____________ 

3. If yes, they will be directed to continue on to Q4. If No, they will skip to the demographic section

4. How many HFHI AmeriCorps National Members have you used in the past 3 yrs (note: HFHI AmeriCorps 

National Members, not VISTAS)? 

a. 2012-2013:_____ 

b. 2013-2014:_____ 

c. 2014-2015:_____ 

5. How many HFHI AmeriCorps VISTAs have you used in the past 3 yrs (note: VISTAS, not National 

Members)? 

a. 2012-2013:_____ 

b. 2013-2014:_____ 

c. 2014-2015:_____ 

6. To what extent do you believe HFHI AmeriCorps National Members impact (1=not at all to 5=very 

much): 

a. Your affiliate’s overall capacity to build homes?

b. Your affiliate’s number of new homes built?

c. Your affiliate’s number of homes rehabbed/restored?

d. The pace at which your affiliate completes home builds (time to build)? 

e. The number of volunteers your affiliate recruited? 

f. The number of volunteers your affiliate retained? 

g. The effectiveness of volunteers (through training/repetition) 
Page | 22 

h. The number of families your affiliate served? 

i. The quality in which families are served by your affiliate? 

j. The number of partners your affiliate has? 

k. The number of donors to your affiliate? 

7. To what extent do you believe AmeriCorps HFHI AmeriCorps VISTAs impact (1=not at all to 5=very 

much): 

a. Your affiliate’s overall capacity to build homes? 

b. Your affiliate’s number of homes built?

c. Your affiliate’s number of homes rehabbed/restored?

d. The pace at which your affiliate completes home builds (time to build)? 

e. The number of volunteers your affiliate recruited? 

f. The number of volunteers your affiliate retained? 

g. The effectiveness of volunteers (through training/repetition) 

h. The number of families your affiliate served? 

i. The quality in which families are served by your affiliate? 

j. The number of partners your affiliate has? 

k. The number of donors to your affiliate? 

8. In reality beyond the categories available through HFHI, which of the following are actual activities your 

National Members involved in most? (Select the top 3) 

a. Home building (such as Renovation/Repair/Construction) 

b. Disaster-related building (such as Renovation/Repair/Construction) 

c. Neighborhood revitalization 

d. Promotion/Marketing/Communications 

e. Volunteer coordination 

f. Partner family support 

g. Outreach coordination (with other organizations and stakeholders about meetings/ hearings, 

etc.) 

h. Working with special populations (e.g. youth development, disability inclusion, etc.) 

i. Veterans-related service 

j. Other (Please Specify) 

9. In reality beyond the categories available through HFHI, which of the following are actual activities are 

your VISTAs involved in most? (Select the top 3) 

k. Project Development 

l. Neighborhood revitalization 

m. Promotion/Marketing/Communications 

n. Volunteer development 

o. Partner family development 

p. Outreach coordination (with other organizations and stakeholders about meetings/ hearings, 

etc.) 

q. Project development 

r. Working with special populations (e.g. youth development, disability inclusion, etc.) 

s. Veterans related service 

t. Other (Please Specify) 
Page | 23 

10. What is the “value added” your affiliate gets by hosting having AmeriCorps National or VISTAs serve 

(open ended)? 

11. To what extent do you find the guidance, policies, and procedures from HFHI to be effective in helping 

your affiliate establish a working relationship between with your AmeriCorps National Members or 

VISTAs? (1-5) 

12. How could these be improved? (open ended) 

13. To what extent do you feel that AmeriCorps National Members and/or VISTAs: 

a. are integrated into your affiliate team? (1-5)

b. are mentored by affiliate staff? (1-5)

c. develop lasting relationships with staff? (1-5)

d. are given leadership opportunities at your affiliate (1-5)

e. are able to use their unique talents and skills (1-5)

14. Could you provide some examples of how National Members and/or VISTAS are mentored by staff? 

15. Can you think of any changes that would allow your organization to better integrate and get the most 

out of members? (open ended) 

 

16. What do you think is the greatest impact for National Members and VISTAs in their year of service with 

your affiliate? (open ended) 

17. How can HFHI market the opportunity to host AmeriCorps members so that it is more appealing to 

affiliates? 

18. What recommendations do you have for Habitat affiliates attracting others to a year of service? (Open 

Ended) 

19. What recommendations do you have for recruiting AmeriCorps National and VISTAs? [ALL AFFILIATES 

ANSWER] 

20. If your affiliate does not use National Service Members or VISTAs, can you briefly describe why not? 

(open ended) [only for organizations who selected “no” to the opening question]

Demographic Questions

21. Approximately how many homes has your affiliate built in the past 3 yrs? 

a. FY 2013:_____ 

b. FY 2014:_____ 

c. FY 2015 (projected):_____ 

22. Approximately how many homes has your affiliate rehabbed in the past 3yrs? 

a. FY 2013:_____ 

b. FY 2014:_____ 

c. FY 2015 (projected):_____ 
Page | 24 

23. What is the approximate fundraising amount your affiliate has brought in for 2013-2014? 

24. In order to get a sense of the size of your affiliate, could you share what the affiliate’s budget (expenses) 

is for the current fiscal year? 

25. Has your affiliate had to grow due to a natural disaster in the past 5 yrs? 

26. Does your affiliate work with veterans: yes/no If yes: 

a. As volunteers? 

b. As partner families? 

27. In what type of service area does your affiliate predominately work? 

a. Rural 

b. Suburban 

c. Urban 

28. What is the population of the City or metropolitan area in which your affiliate works? 

29. What is the population of the City or metropolitan area in which your affiliate works? 

a. Small (less ant 50,000) 

b. Intermediate (50,000-99,000)

c. Medium (100,000-249,000) 

d. Large (250,000-749,000)

e. Very large (750,000 or greater) 

30. Approximately how many full-time staff does your affiliate employ? 

31. How many part time staff does your affiliate employ? 

32. How many volunteers do you engage annually? 

33. Email address (ONLY if this survey was forwarded to you be the staff member who originally received it) 

 
Page | 25 

Affiliate Wave II Survey 

1. What is the name of your affiliate? 

2. How many HFHI AmeriCorps National Members are you using this fiscal year (note: HFHI AmeriCorps 

National Members, not VISTAS)? 

a. 2014-2015:_____ 

3. How many HFHI AmeriCorps VISTAs are you using this fiscal year (note: VISTAS, not National Members)? 

a. 2014-2015:_____ 

4. Looking back on this current fiscal year, to what extent do you believe HFHI AmeriCorps National 

Members have impacted (1=not at all to 5=very much): 

a. Your affiliate’s overall capacity to build homes?

b. Your affiliate’s number of new homes built?

c. Your affiliate’s number of homes rehabbed/restored?

d. The pace at which your affiliate completes home builds (time to build)? 

e. The number of volunteers your affiliate recruited? 

f. The number of volunteers your affiliate retained? 

g. The effectiveness of volunteers (through training/repetition) 

h. The number of families your affiliate served? 

i. The quality in which families are served by your affiliate? 

j. The number of partners your affiliate has? 

k. The number of donors to your affiliate? 

5. Looking back on this current fiscal year, to what extent do you believe AmeriCorps HFHI AmeriCorps 

VISTAs impact (1=not at all to 5=very much): 

a. Your affiliate’s overall capacity to build homes?

b. Your affiliate’s number of homes built?

c. Your affiliate’s number of homes rehabbed/restored?

d. The pace at which your affiliate completes home builds (time to build)? 

e. The number of volunteers your affiliate recruited? 

f. The number of volunteers your affiliate retained? 

g. The effectiveness of volunteers (through training/repetition) 

h. The number of families your affiliate served? 

i. The quality in which families are served by your affiliate? 

j. The number of partners your affiliate has? 

k. The number of donors to your affiliate? 

6. In this current fiscal year, which of the following are actual activities your National Members involved in 

most? (Select the top 3) 

a. Home building (such as Renovation/Repair/Construction) 

b. Disaster-related building (such as Renovation/Repair/Construction) 

c. Neighborhood revitalization 

d. Promotion/Marketing/Communications 

e. Volunteer coordination 
Page | 26 

f. Partner family support 

g. Outreach coordination (with other organizations and stakeholders about meetings/ hearings, 

etc.) 

h. Working with special populations (e.g. youth development, disability inclusion, etc.) 

i. Veterans-related service 

j. Other (Please Specify) 

7. In this current fiscal year, which of the following are actual activities are your VISTAs involved in most? 

(Select the top 3) 

a. Project Development 

b. Neighborhood revitalization 

c. Promotion/Marketing/Communications 

d. Volunteer development 

e. Partner family development 

f. Outreach coordination (with other organizations and stakeholders about meetings/ hearings, 

etc.) 

g. Project development 

h. Working with special populations (e.g. youth development, disability inclusion, etc.) 

i. Veterans related service 

j. Other (Please Specify) 

8. How would you describe the “value added” your affiliate received this year by hosting having 

AmeriCorps National or VISTAs serve (open ended)? 

9. Thinking about this current fiscal year, to what extent do you feel that AmeriCorps National Members 

and/or VISTAs: 

a. are integrated into your affiliate team? (1-5)

b. are mentored by affiliate staff? (1-5)

c. develop lasting relationships with staff? (1-5)

d. are given leadership opportunities at your affiliate (1-5)

e. are able to use their unique talents and skills (1-5)

10. Could you provide some examples of how National Members and/or VISTAS are mentored by staff? 

11. Has your affiliate made any changes this fiscal year to better integrate and get the most out of National 

Members and/or VISTAS 

12. Approximately how many homes has your affiliate built so far this fiscal year? 

a. FY 2015:_____ 

13. Approximately how many homes has your affiliate rehabbed this fiscal year? 

a. FY 2015:_____ 

14. What is the approximate fundraising amount your affiliate has brought in for the current fiscal year? 

a. Are you on target to meet your fundraising goal? 

15. Approximately how many volunteers have you engaged this fiscal year? 
Page | 27 

AmeriCorps National and VISTA Member Baseline and Wave II Survey 

The first set of questions focus on your interests and knowledge of Habitat and Affordable housing 

development 

1. How interested in affordable housing development were you PRIOR to coming to Habitat? (1-5)

2. To what extent do you have a sense of how Habitat impacts families? (1-5)

3. To what extent do you have a sense of how Habitat impacts communities? (1-5)

What is your level of interest in continuing to support affordable housing development, community 

development, or neighborhood revitalization? 

4. As a career? (1-5)

5. As a Habitat volunteer? (1-5)

6. As an advocate (lobbying or fundraising) (1-5)

The next set questions focus on your roles at your host site, and characteristics of that site: 

7. What roles did you take on during your year of service? (Check all that apply) 

a. Outreach Coordination 

b. Construction Crew Leader 

c. Construction Systems 

d. Deconstruction Coordination 

e. Family Services Coordination 

f. Family Services Development 

g. Project Development 

h. Resource Development 

i. ReStore Development 

j. Volunteer Development 

k. Volunteer Services Coordination 

8. Which of the following tasks do you anticipate being involved in this year? (Select the top 3) 

a. Home building (such as Renovation/Repair/Construction) 

b. Disaster related building (such as Renovation/Repair/Construction) 

c. Fundraising 

d. Promotion/Marketing/Communications 

e. Volunteer coordination 

f. Outreach coordination (with other organizations and stakeholders about meetings/ hearings, etc.) 

g. Project management 

h. Working with special populations (e.g. youth development, disability inclusion, etc.) 

i. Veterans related work 

j. Other (Please Specify): ___________________________________________________ 

9. What led you to choose Habitat for Humanity for your host site? (Open Ended) 
Page | 28 

The next set of question will focus on your orientation, training, and integration into your affiliate: 

10. (FOR VISTAS ONLY) The trainings offered by the Corporation for National and Community Service prepared 

me for the work at the Habitat host site. (1-5)

11. The on-site orientation prepared me for the work at the Habitat host site. (1-5)

12. The service-specific training offered by the host site will help me serve effectively. (1-5)

13. What is the greatest strength in the training you’ve received? (open ended and POST ONLY)

14. What would improve the trainings offered? (open ended and POST ONLY) 

The FINAL set of questions focus on your sense of community and social networks/relationships with other 

AmeriCorps National & VISTA members, Habitat Staff & Volunteers, and the community in general: 

15. I have made valuable contacts/relationships with other members of the host site. (1-5)

16. I feel connected to the host site staff. (1-5)

17. I feel connected to the volunteers. (1-5)

18. I feel connected to the Habitat partner families. (1-5)

19. I feel connected to the local community where I will be spending the year (1-5)

20. What do you plan/hope to do next in terms of your career? (OPEN ENDED) 

21. I expect to use the Eli Segal Education Award? (yes/no) 

22. What type of service did you complete? 

a. AmeriCorps National service member 

b. VISTA 

23. What is your gender? 

a. Female 

b. Male 

c. Transgender 

24. What was your highest level of education completed at the time of your year of service? 

a. Some High School 

b. High School Diploma or GED 

c. Some College 

d. Bachelor’s Degree

e. Graduate Work 
Page | 29 

25. What is your highest education completed now? 

Some High School 

a. High School Diploma or GED 

b. Some College 

c. Bachelor’s Degree

d. Graduate Work 
Page | 30 

AmeriCorps National and VISTA Member Alumni Survey 

The first set questions focus on your role(s) at your host site, and characteristics of that site: 

1. What roles did you take on during your year of service? (Check all that apply) 

a. Community Outreach Coordination 

b. Construction Crew Leadership 

c. Construction Systems 

d. Deconstruction Coordination 

e. Family Services Coordination 

f. Family Services Development 

g. Project Development 

h. Resource Development 

i. ReStore Development 

j. Volunteer Development 

k. Volunteer Services Coordination 

l. Other, Please Specify: ___________________ 

2. Which tasks were you most involved in during your time as an AmeriCorps National Member or VISTA? 

(Select the top three) 

a. Home building (such as Renovation/Repair/Construction) 

b. Disaster related building (such as Renovation/Repair/Construction) 

c. Fundraising 

d. Neighborhood revitalization 

e. Promotion/Marketing/Communications 

f. Volunteer coordination 

g. Partner family support 

h. Outreach coordination (with other organizations and stakeholders about meetings/ hearings, 

etc.) 

i. Project development 

j. Working with special populations (e.g. youth development, disability inclusion, etc.) 

k. Veterans related service 

l. Other (Please Specify): __________________________________________________ 

The next questions ask about your personal growth resulting from your time as an AmeriCorps National or 

VISTA member. 

3. Check all the knowledge and skills that you feel you gained during your year of service. 

a. Home Building/Construction 

b. Fundraising 

c. Promotion/Communications/Marketing/Public Relations 

d. Volunteer Relations 

e. Leadership Development 

f. Project Management 

g. Program Development 

h. Network building 

i. Nonprofit management 

j. Advocacy 

k. Training Coordination 
Page | 31 

l. Community Development issues and Affordable Housing Policies 

m. Community service, engagement, and sense of responsibility 

n. Other (please specify) 

4. How much do you agree with the following aspects of your AmeriCorps experience: 

a. I felt I made a contribution to the community (1-5)

b. I gained an understanding of the solutions to the challenges faced by the community(s) where I 

served (1-5)

c. I felt I made a difference in the life of at least one person (1-5)

d. During my year of service I gained knowledge on how non-profits function (1-5). 

e. Following my year of service I better understand issues around affordable housing development 

(1-5)

f. My attitudes changed during service about the value of homeownership. (1-5)

5. For a career, I am interested in affordable housing, and/or community development (1-5). 

6. Did your career interests change as a result of your experience with Habitat? If so, how...

7. I stayed involved with Habitat for Humanity after completing my service (select all that apply): 

a. As a member of the Habitat AmeriCorps Alumni Association 

b. as a general advocate for Habitat’s work

c. as a Habitat volunteer 

d. as an affiliate board member 

e. as a Habitat employee 

f. not at all 

g. other (specify)? 

8. As a result of your service with the host site, the host site was able to (check all that apply): 

a. Build more efficiently (faster) 

b. Build more effectively (higher quality) 

c. Engage more total volunteers 

d. Engage volunteers more effectively (e.g., better volunteer experience, more repeat volunteers) 

e. Engage partner families more effectively with regard to financial literacy education 

f. Engage partner families more effectively with regard to DIY home-improvements/upkeep 

training 

g. Engage partner families more effectively with regard to good neighbor training 

h. Engage partner families more effectively with regard to sweat equity experiences (e.g., 

supervision, type of work) 

i. Engage community residents (non-partner families) more effectively 

j. Engage community partners more effectively 

k. Introduce new programs 

l. Expand the host site’s array of housing services

m. Advance Habitat’s work through gifts in-kind support 

n. Raise more money through grants or monetary gifts 

o. Improve marketing for the host site 

p. Other (specify) 

9. How much do you think your AmeriCorps experience helped with: 
Page | 32 

a. Improving your chances of finding a job (1-5)

b. Improving your performance at a future job (1-5)

c. Improving your chances of getting a promotion (1-5)

d. Making a career change (1-5)

The FINAL set of questions focus on your sense of community and social networks/relationships with other 

AmeriCorps National & VISTA members, Habitat Staff & Volunteers, and the community in general: 

10. I felt connected to: 

a. The host site staff (1-5 & not applicable) 

b. Habitat volunteers (1-5 & not applicable) 

c. Habitat partner families (1-5 & not applicable) 

d. The local community I served while at Habitat (1-5 & not applicable) 

11. Have your relationships with other alumni or staff influenced your life, your opportunities, and career 

aspirations? (open ended) If Yes, How? 

12. What job(s) did you take after your service with Habitat? How did your experience with Habitat or 

AmeriCorps influence your ability to do the work at these job(s)? (OPEN ENDED) 

13. How have you been involved in your community following your service year? How did your service year 

influence your level of civic engagement post-service? (Open Ended) 

14. Describe how your AmeriCorps experience challenged you personally and/or professionally. Tell us 

about the most difficult time you had during your service year, what led to it, and whether anything 

could be done for future members in your position to prevent it from happening. (OPEN ENDED). 

15. Ultimately, what did you find the most impactful for you in this whole experience? (Open Ended) 

16. How do you think the host site benefited most from your presence? (Open Ended) 

17. Did you use the Eli Segal Education Award? (yes) 

18. Why did you not use it (if applicable) 

19. What type of service did you complete? 

a. AmeriCorps National service member 

b. VISTA 

20. What is your gender? 

a. Female 

b. Male 

c. Transgender 

21. What was your highest level of education completed at the time of your year of service? 

a. Some High School 

b. High School Diploma or GED 
Page | 33 

c. Some College 

d. Bachelor’s Degree

e. Graduate Work 

22. What is your highest education completed now? 

Some High School 

a. High School Diploma or GED 

b. Some College 

c. Bachelor’s Degree

d. Graduate Work 

 
Page | 34 

8.3 ADDITIONAL MEMBER PRE-POST SURVEY DATA 

In addition to the key findings presented in the body of the report, the following charts present additional 

findings from the sample of members who completed both waves of the Member Survey. 

1. AmeriCorps Members Report Improved Future Job Prospects 

Will/did the service year increase your chances of... Overall (N= 86) National (N= 62) VISTA (N= 22) 

Finding a job

Pre 78% 75% 85%

Post 76% 79% 67%

Improving performance at future job

Pre 84% 84% 80%

Post 82% 85% 72%

Getting a promotion

Pre 56% 57% 55%

Post 61% 67% 43%

Making a career change

Pre 61% 65% 60%

Post 65% 72% 54%

2. High Expectations for Service Year Were Largely Met 

Strong Leadership Experience Gained, Room for Improvements 

Will/did the service year allow you to... Overall (N= 86) National (N= 62) VISTA (N= 22) 

Make a difference in a community

Pre 89% 89% 90%

Post 88% 89% 82%

Understand community challenges and solutions

Pre 87% 87% 90%

Post 81% 78% 85%

Make a difference in someone's life

Pre 93% 93% 90%

Post 93% 93% 91%

Gain leadership experience

Pre N/ N/ N/

Post A A A 90% 91% 82%
Page | 35 

8.4 ADDITIONAL ALUMNI SURVEY DATA 

The Alumni Survey had a sample size large enough to analyze demographic data and differences between 

AmeriCorps National and VISTA member experiences. The charts below provide breakouts for both groups by 

the different roles that the alumni played during their year of service. 

1. Strong Survey Response, Particularly for National Members 

Overall (N= 526) National (N= 339) VISTA (N= 104) 

Gender 

Female 62% 59% 74%

Male 37% 40% 24%

Transgender 1% 1% 2%

Education Prior to Service 

Bachelor's Degree 77% 76% 79%

Graduate Work 12% 12% 15%

Education After Service 

Graduate Work 41% 42% 38%
Page | 36 

9%

76%

11%

3%

8%

5%

6%

2%

2%

8%

16%

25%

10%

11%

3%

12%

13%

24%

32%

22%

24%

23%

Community Outreach

Construction Crew Leader

Construction Systems

Deconstruction

Family Service Coordinator

Family Services Developpment

Project Development

Resource Development

Restore Development

Volunteer Development

Volunteer Service Coordinator

2. All Roles Described by AmeriCorps National and VISTA Members 

National (N= 339) VISTA (N= 104)

18%

32%

[VALUE]

Neighborhood

Revitalization

Volunteer Service

Coordinator

Homebuilding

3. Top Described Tasks 

39%

39%

48%

Marketing

Community Outreach

Volunteer Coordination

National (N= 339) VISTA (N= 104)
Page | 37 

98%

6%

12%

80%

78%

68%

16%

25%

18%

22%

32%

39%

65%

70%

26%

43%

93%

59%

47%

34%

38%

40%

25%

53%

45%

66%

70%

23%

60%

63%

67%

67%

50%

43%

43%

37%

43%

57%

73%

Homebuilding

Fundraising

Marketing

Volunteer Relations

Leadership Development

Project Management

Program Development

Network Building

Non-profit Management

Advocacy

Training Coordination

Community Development

Service/Engage/Responsibil...

4. AmeriCorps National Member Knowledge Gained by Role

Construction (N= 256) Volunteer (N= 53) Outreach (N= 30)

42%

76%

67%

67%

52%

58%

58%

64%

61%

37%

30%

52%

52%

40%

48%

68%

72%

48%

64%

64%

28%

44%

24%

36%

44%

52%

44%

48%

60%

64%

44%

88%

84%

36%

56%

28%

32%

48%

68%

Homebuilding

Fundraising

Marketing

Volunteer Relations

Leadership Development

Project Management

Program Development

Network Building

Non-profit Management

Advocacy

Training Coordination

Community Development

Service/Engage/Responsibility

5. VISTA Member Knowledge Gained by Role

Resource Dev. (N= 33) Outreach (N= 25) Project Mgmt. (N= 25)
Page | 38 

6. National Member Changes in Learning 

Attitude about value of affordable housing changed 31% 33% 25% 8%3%

Better understand affordable housing 41% 47% 6%4%

Learned how nonprofits function 42% 46% 8%3%

Made a difference in someon's life 73% 22% 2%

Learned community challenges and solutions 32% 48% 13% 4%

Made contribution to community 53% 40% 3%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

7. VISTA Member Changes in Learning 

Attitude about value of affordable housing changed 31% 33% 24% 7% 6%

Better understand affordable housing 40% 49% 5%4%

Learned how nonprofits function 52% 40% 2%

Made a difference in someon's life 52% 38% 4%4%

Learned community challenges and solutions 29% 53% 10% 4%4%

Made contribution to community 39% 44% 8% 5%5% 

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

8. VISTA Resource Development Role Changes in Learning 

Attitude about value of affordable housing changed 42% 24% 24% 6% 3%

Better understand affordable housing 44% 50% 3% 3%

Learned how nonprofits function 58% 39% 3%

Made a difference in someon's life 49% 46% 3% 3%

Learned community challenges and solutions 29% 39% 15% 3%

Made contribution to community 39% 49% 3%6%3%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Page | 39 

9. VISTA Community Outreach Changes in Learning 

Attitude about value of affordable housing changed 40% 40% 28% 12%

Better understand affordable housing 40% 40% 8% 12%

Learned how nonprofits function 56% 28% 4% 12%

Made a difference in someon's life 68% 20% 4% 8%

Learned community challenges and solutions 48% 28% 16% 8%

Made contribution to community 44% 40% 8% 8%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

10. VISTA Project Development Changes in Learning 

Better understand affordable housing 32% 40% 28%

Learned how nonprofits function 46% 54%

Made a difference in someon's life 72% 24% 4%

Learned community challenges and solutions 48% 48% 4%

Made contribution to community 32% 56% 12%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

11. National Member Construction Role Learning Changes 

Attitude about value of affordable housing changed 32% 32% 25% 10%

Better understand affordable housing 40% 50% 7% 3%

Learned how nonprofits function 41% 45% 10% 3%

Made a difference in someon's life 78% 20% 2%

Learned community challenges and solutions 33% 48% 13% 4%

Made contribution to community 56% 41% 3%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Page | 40 

12. National Member Volunteer Role Changes in Learning 

Attitude about value of affordable housing changed 31% 33% 17% 14%

Better understand affordable housing 53% 25% 8% 8%

Learned how nonprofits function 56% 34% 4%

Made a difference in someon's life 62% 26% 2%4%

Learned community challenges and solutions 36% 42% 6% 9%

Made contribution to community 53% 28% 8% 4%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree

13. National Member Outreach Role Changes in Learning 

Attitude about value of affordable housing changed 27% 30% 30% 10%

Better understand affordable housing 45% 52%

Learned how nonprofits function 43% 53% 3%

Made a difference in someon's life 53% 43%

Learned community challenges and solutions 50% 37% 10%

Made contribution to community 50% 47% 0%

Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Page | 41 

8.5 LOGIC MODEL OF HOW NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAM ADDS CAPACITY 

The logic model below summarizes findings from surveys, including the quasi-experimental analyses and other 

data, about how the program adds capacity to affiliates as well as the AmeriCorps members themselves.