Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and 

Senior Companion Program 

Submitted to:

AmeriCorps 

250 E St., SW

Washington, DC 20024

Submitted by:

ICF Incorporated, LLC

9300 Lee Highway

Fairfax, VA 22031

https://www.icf.com

December 18, 2020

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

under Blanket Purchase Agreement # CNSHQ14A0006 and Contract # 

95332A19F‐0062. Information in this report is in the public domain. Please, direct 

communications related to this report to Lily Zandniapour at 

lzandniapour@cns.gov and Colin White at cwhite@cns.gov. Cite this report as 

follows: Modicamore, D., Naugler, A., Casey, B., Miller, B., Munaretto, C., & 

Pershing, J. (2020). Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program. ICF.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

i 

CONTENTS

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

Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion Programs...............................................ES-1

Return on Investment Study Methods............................................................................ES-2

ROI Results........................................................................................................................ES-5

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

Study Overview ....................................................................................................................1

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

FGP & SCP Evaluation History ..............................................................................................3

Selection of FGP & SCP for the AmeriCorps ROI Project...................................................6

ROI Methodology......................................................................................................................6

Monetizing Benefits and Costs ............................................................................................8

Costs....................................................................................................................................25

ROI Study Limitations..........................................................................................................26

Benefits, Costs, and ROI Results .............................................................................................27

Benefits................................................................................................................................27

Costs....................................................................................................................................28

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

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

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

Appendix: Benefits and Costs Included in Return on Investment Calculations ................40

References ..............................................................................................................................48
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

ii

AUTHORS

This study was conducted by researchers from ICF: 

• Dominic Modicamore, Lead Economist

• Alix Naugler, Research Scientist

• Brendan Casey, Senior Economics Analyst

• Benjamin Miller, Senior Director

• Claire Munaretto, Senior Economics Analyst

• Janet Pershing, Vice President
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

ES-1 

Executive Summary 

Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion Programs

AmeriCorps contracted with ICF Incorporated, 

LLC (hereafter ICF) to explore and quantify the 

return on investment (ROI) of several programs 

that rely on national service—AmeriCorps State 

and National Program and AmeriCorps Seniors—

as a major resource to sustain operations. ROI 

analyses have the potential to help AmeriCorps

measure the performance of programs and 

build the base of evidence for future resource 

allocation decisions. In addition, ROI study results 

will help AmeriCorps communicate the value of 

its programming to relevant stakeholders. 

AmeriCorps Seniors1 is composed of three 

programs with separate streams of funding: the 

Foster Grandparent Program (FGP), the Senior 

Companion Program (SCP), and the Retired and 

Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). This study 

measures the ROI for two of these three 

AmeriCorps Seniors programs: FGP & SCP. Unlike

FGP & SCP, RSVP supports programming in six diverse focus areas. Evaluation data that 

cover the full range of RSVP programming are not yet available. For that reason, RSVP is 

not included in this ROI analysis. 

Foster Grandparent Program

FGP engages volunteers ages 55 and over to serve as role models, mentors, and friends 

to children. The program provides a way for seniors to stay active by serving children 

and youth in their communities. FGP volunteers serve at thousands of local 

organizations that (AmeriCorps, 2017a): 

• Help children learn to read and provide one-on-one tutoring

• Mentor troubled teenagers and young mothers

• Care for premature infants or children with disabilities

• Help children who have been abused or neglected

1 As of September 29, 2020, the Seniors Corps program’s name was changed to AmeriCorps Seniors.

Key Results

This study estimates that the 

AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program (FGP) and 

Senior Companion Program 

(SCP) generate an ROI of 

$3.50 per funder dollar. FGP 

alone has an ROI of $2.75 per 

funder dollar. SCP has an ROI of 

$5.08 per funder dollar.

The return on each dollar of 

federal support for the program is 

even higher. The magnitude of 

the results is driven by savings on 

healthcare, savings on assisted 

living costs, and the value of 

in-kind services.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

ES-2 

FGP not only benefits children, but also helps the volunteers stay active and engaged 

with the community. Volunteers in this program may qualify to earn a tax-free hourly 

stipend. For fiscal year (FY) 2018, AmeriCorps reported that there were roughly 

22,435 FGP volunteers serving nationwide.2

Senior Companion Program

SCP engages volunteers to provide assistance and companionship primarily to elderly

individuals—and also to people with disabilities—who have difficulty with daily living 

tasks, such as shopping or paying bills. The program aims to keep individuals 

independent longer and provide respite to their caregivers. 

Senior Companions help an average of two to four adults live independently in their 

own homes. SCP provides services to the elderly and to people with disabilities, provides 

caregivers a respite from their caregiving responsibilities, and helps the senior volunteer 

stay active and engaged.

Volunteers in this program may qualify to earn a tax-free hourly stipend if they meet 

certain income eligibility requirements. For FY18, AmeriCorps reported that there were 

roughly 10,655 SCP volunteers serving nationwide. 

Return on Investment Study Methods

The methodology for the FGP & SCP ROI study consists of the following components: 

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

evaluations and other third-party sources to determine the benefits to FGP & SCP 

participants, FGP & SCP volunteers, caregivers, private insurance companies, other 

healthcare payers, and the federal government. The benefits realized across these 

six stakeholder groups include:

• FGP & SCP Participants. Program participants benefit from in-kind services, 

reduced spending on assisted living facilities, and reduced out-of-pocket (OOP) 

medical care costs due to improved health outcomes that result from the 

services they receive.

• FGP & SCP AmeriCorps Seniors Volunteers. These AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers’ 

benefits include the stipends they receive during their service and reduced OOP 

medical care costs due to improved health outcomes after serving. 

• Caregivers. Individuals who receive respite from their caregiving activities due to

the services offered by SCP experience reduced OOP medical care costs due to 

the improved health and well-being they experience. 

• Private Insurance Companies. These healthcare payers benefit from reduced 

medical care costs due to improved health outcomes of program participants, 

volunteers, and caregivers. 

2 Unless otherwise cited, all information provided by AmeriCorps for this report was received through ICF’s 

personal communication in 2020 with AmeriCorps.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

ES-3 

• Other Healthcare Payers. A variety of additional healthcare payers (e.g., 

community and neighborhood clinics, worker’s compensation, or homeowner’s 

or liability insurance) benefit from reduced medical care costs due to improved 

health outcomes of program participants, volunteers, and caregivers.

• Federal Government. Medicare and Medicaid have reduced medical care costs 

due to improved health outcomes of program participants, volunteers, and 

caregivers.

This ROI analysis monetized program benefits in 2019 dollars.

2. Assessing program costs. Program costs for these two AmeriCorps Seniors programs 

were provided directly by AmeriCorps and consist of federal funds and budgeted 

match funds for each program for FY18 (i.e., October 1, 2017 – September 30, 

2018).3 

3. Calculating the ROI. The ROI analysis includes three ROI calculations: 

• Total benefits per federal dollar

• Total benefits per funder dollar

• Federal government benefits per federal dollar

This analytical framework includes only those benefits that 1) could be reasonably 

monetized given the available data, and 2) likely would not have occurred without FGP 

& SCP. Figure ES-1 shows how the programs can result in FGP & SCP participant, FGP & 

SCP AmeriCorps Seniors volunteer, caregiver, private insurance company, other 

healthcare payer, and federal government benefits.

3 The most recent year for which cost data were available. 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

ES-4 

Figure ES-1. Benefits among Stakeholder Groups Derived from FGP & SCP

Figure ES-2 shows the benefits and costs that are included in each of the three types of 

ROI calculations. 

Figure ES-2. Benefits and Costs Included in the ROI Calculations

ROI Calculation* Benefits (numerator) Costs (denominator)

Total Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

All participant, volunteer, 

caregiver, private insurance 

company, other healthcare 

payer, and federal government

benefits derived from FGP & SCP

• Federal AmeriCorps funding

Total Benefits per 

Funder Dollar 

All participant, volunteer, 

caregiver, private insurance 

company, other healthcare 

payer, and federal government 

benefits derived from FGP & SCP

• Federal AmeriCorps funding

• Budgeted match and all other 

funding

Federal Government 

Benefits per Federal 

Dollar

Reduced healthcare spending 

(Medicare and Medicaid)

attributable to FGP & SCP

• Federal AmeriCorps funding

*Note: AmeriCorps is the only source of federal support for FGP & SCP, so the cost of AmeriCorps’s support 

to these programs is the sole component of the denominator for two ROI calculations: 1) total benefits per 

federal dollar, and 2) federal government benefits per federal dollar. Total benefits per funder dollar 

includes all support to these programs, including AmeriCorps support and budgeted match funding from 

non-federal entities. 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

ES-5 

ROI Results

Figure ES-3 summarizes the ROI results for FGP & SCP. The results are expressed as cost–

benefit ratios and are interpreted as the amount of dollars returned for every dollar of 

investment (or cost).4 

Figure ES-3. ROI Results for FGP & SCP

ROI Calculation

AmeriCorps Seniors Program

FGP & SCP 

Combined FGP SCP

Total Benefits per Federal Dollar $4.57 $3.45 $7.29

Total Benefits per Funder Dollar $3.50 $2.75 $5.08

Federal Government Benefits per Federal Dollar $0.69 $0.16 $1.97

Combined, FGP & SCP generate strong positive ROIs for two of the three ROI 

calculations: total benefits per federal dollar and total benefits per funder dollar—a 

return of $4.57 and $3.50 for every dollar invested, respectively. When only federal 

government benefits are considered, the return for FGP & SCP combined is $0.69 for 

every dollar invested. 

For FGP alone, this analysis estimates a return of $3.45 in total benefits per federal dollar 

and $2.75 per funder dollar. The results for FGP are lower than those for SCP, particularly 

FGP’s return of the federal government benefits per federal dollar of $0.16. However, 

the lower ROIs for FGP are primarily due to a major limitation in this study: the lack of 

data availability to measure the long-term benefits to a large proportion of FGP

participants. The participants’ benefits for FGP captured in this study primarily consist of 

the value of services provided by FGP volunteers, as measured by multiplying the 

number of hours of services provided by a market rate for those services. The long-term 

benefits to the children and youth who are served by FGP programs are not captured

because those outcome data are not available. Those benefits are likely considerable.

For example, the one-on-one tutoring that is provided by FGP may lead to improved 

educational outcomes and higher educational attainment, which may, in turn, lead to 

increased earnings and tax revenue through employment, as well as reduced

government spending on public assistance. All of these can drive a strong, long-term

ROI. Even with this limitation, however, these ROI results for FGP still demonstrate strong 

total benefits per federal dollar and total benefits per funder dollar. 

4 ROIs are often expressed as percentages when measuring the financial return to a single entity from that 

entity’s investment. Although this is consistent with one of the three ROI metrics reported (e.g., federal 

government benefits per federal dollar), since the other ROIs lend themselves to a cost–benefit ratio, that 

ratio is consistently used for all three metrics. Although not shown as a ratio, the results should be interpreted 

as the return for every dollar of investment. 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

ES-6 

SCP generates a strong positive return for all three ROI calculations. Total benefits per 

federal dollar are $7.29, while total benefits per all funder dollars are $5.08. The federal 

government alone realizes a return of $1.97 for every tax dollar invested. 

The magnitude of the positive ROI calculations is driven by several factors, including:

• Healthcare expenditure savings. Volunteers, caregivers, program participants, 

private insurance companies, other healthcare payers, and the federal government 

all realize savings in healthcare expenditures from the improvement in health 

outcomes of participants, volunteers, and caregivers. Healthcare savings stem from 

reduced emergency department visits, reduced inpatient hospital stays, and overall 

improved health and wellness. 

• Assisted living expenditure savings. Many of the individuals who receive services 

from SCP volunteers report that they can stay in their homes while receiving the 

services rather than having to move into an assisted living facility. This generates 

significant cost savings for these program participants. 

• Value of in-kind services. FGP & SCP program participants (and their households) 

receive services that are provided in-kind by volunteers at no cost to themselves or 

their families. These services have monetary value and do not displace labor, but 

instead add the capacity needed to address unmet needs in communities 

nationwide.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

1 

Introduction 

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

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

service—AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps Seniors—as a major resource to sustain 

operations. ROI analyses measure the performance of programs and build the base of 

evidence for future resource allocation decisions. ROI study results demonstrate the 

value of AmeriCorps programming to relevant stakeholders. 

This project began with a comprehensive literature review process to assess the 

feasibility of ROI analyses of several 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 for each selected 

program. 

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

subject of ROI studies: College Possible, the Community Technology Empowerment 

Project (CTEP), Minnesota Reading Corps, and AmeriCorps Seniors’ Foster Grandparent 

and Senior Companion Programs. This ROI study measures the benefits of AmeriCorps 

Seniors’ Foster Grandparent Program (FGP) and Senior Companion Program (SCP) 

against its costs based on the analytical approach and data sources specified in its 

respective feasibility study. 

Study Overview

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 Seniors volunteers) 

plays in its operation. The section also provides a brief history of past evaluations and 

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

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

benefits derived from FGP & SCP and describes its program costs. 

• Benefits, Costs, and ROI Results provides a detailed description of the benefits and 

costs that are inputs into the ROI analyses and presents the results of the three ROI 

calculations.

• Recommendations for Further Research explores ways in which 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: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

2 

Program Description

AmeriCorps Seniors is a network of national service programs for Americans 55 years 

and older, made up of three primary programs that each take a different approach to 

improving lives and fostering civic engagement. Through three AmeriCorps Seniors

programs—FGP, SCP, and Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP)—volunteers5

commit their time to address critical community needs, including academic tutoring 

and mentoring, elderly care, disaster relief support, and more (AmeriCorps, 2017b). 

These AmeriCorps Seniors programs not only generate important benefits for service 

recipients and their communities, but also for AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers themselves. 

This study measures the ROI for two of the three AmeriCorps Seniors programs: FGP & 

SCP. 

Foster Grandparent Program

FGP engages volunteers ages 55 and over to serve as role models, mentors, and friends 

to children. The program provides a way for seniors to stay active by serving children 

and youth in their communities. FGP volunteers serve at thousands of local 

organizations that (AmeriCorps, 2017a). 

• Help children learn to read and provide one-on-one tutoring

• Mentor troubled teenagers and young mothers

• Care for premature infants or children with disabilities

• Help children who have been abused or neglected

FGP not only benefits children, but also helps the volunteers stay active and engaged 

with the community. Volunteers in this program may qualify to earn a tax-free hourly 

stipend. For fiscal year (FY) 2018, AmeriCorps reported that there were roughly 

22,435 FGP volunteers serving nationwide.6

Senior Companion Program

SCP engages volunteers to provide assistance and companionship primarily to elderly 

individuals—and also to people with disabilities—who have difficulty with daily living 

tasks, such as shopping or paying bills. The program aims to keep seniors independent 

longer and provide respite to family caregivers. 

Senior Companions help an average of two to four adults live independently in their 

own homes. SCP provides services to the elderly, provides caregivers a respite from their 

caregiving responsibilities, and helps the senior volunteer stay active and engaged.

5 AmeriCorps Seniors nomenclature refers to “volunteers.” AmeriCorps’s nomenclature for national service 

as a whole refers to those same individuals as “members.” This feasibility study uses the term “volunteers.” 

6 Unless otherwise cited, all information provided by AmeriCorps for this report was received through ICF’s 

personal communication in 2020 with AmeriCorps.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

3 

SCP volunteers receive pre-service orientation, training from the organization where 

they serve, and may qualify to earn a tax-free hourly stipend. For FY18, AmeriCorps

reported that there were roughly 10,655 SCP volunteers serving nationwide. 

FGP & SCP Evaluation History

A series of evaluations provides insight into the impacts of FGP & SCP on volunteers, 

caregivers, and program participants.7 Four relevant studies are described below. 

University of Maine (2018): SCP 

This brief study by the University of Maine (2018) Center on Aging quantifies the costs 

and benefits of that organization’s implementation of SCP. The study used the average 

hourly cost of nursing home care for a semi-private room in Maine to estimate the value 

of the program’s independent living assistance services. It compares those costs to an 

estimate of program costs gleaned from AmeriCorps’s annual progress report for 

FY16–17 to demonstrate significant cost savings of leveraging SCP volunteers versus 

having to reside in a nursing home facility. 

Some of the assumptions made by the University of Maine (2018) risk overestimating the 

monetary value of SCP services. However, this study provides a basic model for using 

data from the commercial marketplace for senior care to estimate the value of an hour 

of SCP service. 

Georges et al. (2017): Does the Senior Companion Respite Service Matter for the 

Health and Well-being of Caregivers? 

In 2014, AmeriCorps launched an evaluation to assess the impact of SCP respite 

services on caregivers to inform policy discussion and strengthen the program’s respite 

services. This evaluation by Georges et al. (2017) and had two primary objectives. The 

first objective was to describe the types of services caregivers received, how 

caregivers’ expectations for respite services aligned with the respite services they 

received, and their satisfaction with respite services received. The second objective 

was to provide preliminary descriptive results on the extent to which there was a 

change in caregivers’ self-rated health and well-being following the start of respite 

services. 

The final analysis sample consisted of 56 caregivers who completed both baseline and 

follow-up surveys. The report used descriptive analysis to examine the types of services 

caregivers received, the number of hours the Senior Companion volunteer provided 

respite support, the alignment between expectations of respite services and the 

services received, and overall satisfaction with respite services. Importantly, the analysis 

compared changes in caregivers’ self-rated health and well-being before and after 

7 “Participants” refers to elderly individuals who are receiving care through SCP. This group is distinct from 

caregivers who benefit from the program because SCP provides a respite from their caregiving 

responsibilities. Caregivers may themselves be elderly, but are not the direct recipient of care provided by 

SCP volunteers.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

4 

benefiting from the respite care provided by SCP. Selected results of Georges et al. 

(2017) include the following:

• General health. Forty percent of caregivers who rated their health as fair/poor prior 

to receiving respite support subsequently rated their health as good at follow-up, 

indicating an improvement in overall perceived health. 

• Functional limitations. A lower proportion of caregivers reported functional 

limitations at follow-up compared to baseline. This was particularly the case for 

those who, prior to the start of respite support, rated their health as fair/poor. 

• Social and emotional connectedness. An average loneliness score was calculated 

based on caregivers’ responses to questions about their social and emotional 

connectedness. At follow-up, a higher proportion of caregivers had lower loneliness 

scores, and a higher proportion reported fewer symptoms of depression. About 

50 percent had a change in their loneliness score, which suggested a reduction in 

perception of loneliness at follow-up. Moreover, about 80 percent of respondents for 

the questions on emotional connectedness suggested they felt more emotionally 

connected at follow-up. 

• Depression symptoms. Many caregivers also reported fewer symptoms of 

depression, with up to 42 percent of caregivers reporting a fewer number of 

depression symptoms in the follow-up survey. 

The researchers also compared caregivers’ self-reported health and well-being ratings 

to similar data from the general population, using a sample from the Health and 

Retirement Study (HRS; University of Michigan, 2020).8 The HRS comparison sample used 

in this analysis consisted of people providing care to a family member or friend (i.e., 

caregivers not receiving SCP’s respite services). A comparison of the average score in 

self-rated health showed caregivers had significantly lower average self-rated health 

than HRS caregivers did at baseline. However, at follow-up, the caregivers had closed 

that gap, and as a result, there were no significant differences in the average score 

between the two groups. Of note, ICF’s ROI analysis focuses on monetizing the impacts 

in this study related to caregivers’ improved health outcomes from baseline to followup, specifically in terms of estimated medical cost savings.

Georges et al. (2018): Longitudinal Study of Foster Grandparent and Senior 

Companion Programs: Service Delivery Implications and Health Benefits to the 

Volunteers 

This study—launched in 2014—was designed to evaluate FGP & SCP, and it had three 

objectives. The first was to describe the demographic profile, knowledge of national 

service, and motivation for volunteering among first-time FGP & SCP volunteers. The 

second was to assess volunteers’ retention, satisfaction, and level of engagement with 

FGP & SCP. Lastly, the study aimed to examine how participation in national service 

8 The University of Michigan Health and Retirement Study is a longitudinal panel study that surveys a 

representative sample of approximately 20,000 people in America. The HRS is supported by the National 

Institute on Aging and the Social Security Administration.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

5 

contributed to changes in self-rated health and well-being. This ROI study focuses on 

Georges et al.’s (2018) third objective. It monetizes the impacts on volunteers’ health 

and well-being in terms of medical cost savings. 

The Georges et al. (2018) longitudinal study recruited first-time volunteers with FGP or 

SCP between July and November 2015, and all individuals who had not previously 

volunteered with FGP or SCP were eligible to enroll. These first-time volunteers

completed a baseline survey prior to the start of their service and then two follow-up 

surveys over a two-year period to capture a variety of measures. The first follow-up 

survey was administered nine months after the baseline survey and the second 

follow-up survey was administered 21 months after the baseline survey. The analysis 

sample consisted of the 841 volunteers who completed the three surveys. 

The analysis examined changes in self-reported health outcomes for FGP & SCP stayers 

and leavers. Stayers were defined as FGP or SCP volunteers who stayed in national 

service through the two follow-up periods, and leavers represented those who left 

national service before the first or second follow-up period. Results indicate that FGP & 

SCP volunteers’ self-rated health improved among stayers, but leavers reported a 

decline in their health. Moreover, a higher proportion of stayers also reported improved 

self-rated health in their first two years of service. 

This evaluation also compared the self-reported health of FGP & SCP stayers to similar 

adult volunteers and non-volunteers in the general population. The researchers used 

propensity score matching (PSM) to match FGP & SCP volunteers with a sample of 

volunteer and non-volunteer participants in the 2012 and 2014 HRS datasets. Self-rated 

health was significantly higher for both FGP/SCP stayers and HRS volunteers compared 

to HRS non-volunteers at both baseline and second follow-up. At baseline, the 

percentage difference in average self-rated health between FGP & SCP stayers and 

HRS non-volunteers was 11 percent, which increased to 22 percent at second follow-up. 

Additionally, results indicate that FGP & SCP stayers who reported fair/poor health at 

baseline had 55 percent higher odds of improving their health compared to HRS 

non-volunteers. The increase in average self-rated health was due to both an increase 

in the average self-rated health among FGP & SCP volunteers and a decrease among 

HRS non-volunteers.

Georges et al. (2014): Descriptive Report for the Senior Companion Program 

Independent Living Pilot/Feasibility Survey 

This evaluation of individuals who received independent living services from a Senior 

Companion volunteer was comprised of a cross-sectional and a pilot pre–post survey. 

The former had a sample size of 557 SCP program participants and captured their

demographic characteristics as well as measured the program’s impact on their 

perceived self-efficacy, life satisfaction, self-reported health and medical conditions, 

and other social and emotional health outcomes. The latter had a sample size of 20

new SCP program participants and asked similar questions related to perceived health 

outcomes and demographics. 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

6 

Some results from these Georges et al. (2014) surveys include the following: 

• On average, program participants have been receiving SCP services for 4.1 years. 

The average number of hours per week with an SCP volunteer is 8.7 hours.

• SCP program participants are predominantly female and racially diverse, and the 

majority (83 percent) are low-income (i.e., have an income level below 

$20,000 annually). 

• More than 90 percent of respondents agreed that they were satisfied with their 

Senior Companion, and that the Senior Companion Program had met their 

expectations.

• Ninety-seven percent of respondents reported having been diagnosed with at least 

one medical condition and more than two-thirds (68 percent) reported being 

diagnosed with more than one. 

• Because of SCP, 90 percent agreed that they were less lonely. 

• Because of SCP, 73 percent agreed that they were able to remain living at their 

home. 

Selection of FGP & SCP for the AmeriCorps ROI Project

Based on a comprehensive feasibility study, ICF recommended making FGP & SCP the 

subject of an ROI analysis due to: 

• The scale of program operations. Both programs operate nationwide and represent 

a significant ongoing investment by AmeriCorps. An ROI of the programs could 

provide AmeriCorps with important information on the value of the programs for 

future resource allocation decisions, such as whether the programs merit expansion.

• Interest in measuring health and well-being benefits to volunteers due to their 

engagement with the programs. Quantifying the benefits to AmeriCorps Seniors

volunteers is an important frontier for AmeriCorps. Those benefits have been long 

assumed but have been challenging to measure in a rigorous way. An ROI 

approach that includes volunteer benefits would provide a methodology 

AmeriCorps could use for other programs. AmeriCorps may also be able to adapt 

this approach to capture additional benefits to volunteers of FGP & SCP, beyond 

the health benefits that were the focus of Georges et al. (2018). 

ROI Methodology 

The methodology for the FGP & SCP ROI study consists of the following components: 

1. Measuring and monetizing program benefits. This includes using data from previous 

evaluations and other third-party sources to determine the benefits to FGP & SCP 

participants, FGP & SCP AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers, caregivers, private insurance 

companies, other healthcare payers, and the federal government. The benefits 

realized across these six stakeholder groups include:
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

7 

• FGP & SCP Participants. Program participants benefit from in-kind services, 

reduced spending on assisted living facilities, and reduced out-of-pocket (OOP) 

medical care costs due to improved health outcomes that result from the 

services they receive.

• FGP & SCP AmeriCorps Seniors Volunteers. These AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers’ 

benefits include the stipends they receive during their service and reduced OOP 

medical care costs due to improved health outcomes after serving. 

• Caregivers. Individuals who receive respite from their caregiving activities due to 

the services offered by SCP experience reduced OOP medical care costs due to 

the improved health and well-being they experience. 

• Private Insurance Companies. These healthcare payers benefit from reduced 

medical care costs due to improved health outcomes of program participants, 

volunteers, and caregivers. 

• Other Healthcare Payers. A variety of additional healthcare payers (e.g., 

community and neighborhood clinics, worker’s compensation, or homeowner’s 

or liability insurance) benefit from reduced medical care costs due to improved 

health outcomes of program participants, volunteers, and caregivers.

• Federal Government. Medicare and Medicaid have reduced medical care costs 

due to improved health outcomes of program participants, volunteers, and 

caregivers.

This ROI analysis monetized program benefits in 2019 dollars.

2. Assessing program costs. Program costs for these two AmeriCorps Seniors programs 

were provided directly by AmeriCorps and consist of federal funds and budgeted 

match funds for each program for FY18 (i.e., October 1, 2017 – September 30, 

2018).9 

3. Calculating the ROI. The ROI analysis includes three ROI calculations: 

a. Total benefits per federal dollar

b. Total benefits per funder dollar

c. 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 

FGP & SCP. 

Figure 1 shows how both these programs map to FGP & SCP participant, FGP & SCP 

AmeriCorps Seniors volunteer, caregiver, private insurance company, other healthcare 

payer, and federal government benefits.

9 FY18 was the most recent year cost data could be provided by AmeriCorps for these AmeriCorps Seniors 

programs. 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

8 

Figure 1. Benefits among Stakeholder Groups Derived from FGP & SCP

Monetizing Benefits and Costs

This analysis monetized an array of benefits, and included FGP & SCP benefits and costs 

in 2019 dollars. 

Benefits

FGP & SCP result in monetizable benefits to several stakeholders. Figure 2 summarizes 

these benefits and provides the data sources used by stakeholder group.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

9 

Figure 2. Benefits Realized from FGP & SCP by Stakeholder Group

Stakeholder Group Benefits Data Sources* 

FGP Participants • In-kind services 

received 

• AmeriCorps10

• National Wage Estimates (U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, 2019) 

• Consumer Price Index (CPI; BLS, n.d.)

• Schonfeld & Associates, Inc. (n.d.)

SCP Participants • In-kind services 

received

• Reduced 

spending on 

assisted living 

facilities

• Reduced OOP 

medical costs 

due to 

decreased 

hospital visits 

• AmeriCorps

• National Wage Estimates (BLS, 2019) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

• Georges et al. (2014)

• Pray et al. (2010) 

• Genworth (2020) 

• Consumer Expenditure Survey 

(BLS, 2020) 

• Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project 

(HCUP; Agency for Healthcare 

Research and Quality, 2016) 

• Lutheran Senior Services (LSS)11

• Schonfeld & Associates, Inc. (n.d.)

FGP & SCP 

AmeriCorps Seniors

Volunteers

• Stipends

• Reduced OOP 

medical costs 

due to 

improved 

health

• AmeriCorps10

• Georges et al. (2018)

• Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 

(MEPS; AHRQ, 2020) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.)

Caregivers (SCP) • Reduced OOP 

medical costs 

due to 

improved 

health

• AmeriCorps10

• Georges et al. (2017)

• MEPS (AHRQ, 2020) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.)

10 AmeriCorps, personal communication, 2020. 11 Lutheran Senior Services, personal communication, April 22, 2020. All references to Lutheran Senior 

Services refer to data received through ICF’s personal communication with that organization. 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

10 

Stakeholder Group Benefits Data Sources* 

Private Insurance 

Companies & Other 

Healthcare Payers

• Reduced 

medical costs 

due to the 

improved 

health of 

participants, 

volunteers, and 

caregivers

• AmeriCorps12

• HCUP (AHRQ, 2016) 

• LSS13

• CPI (BLS, n.d.)

• Georges et al. (2017)

• MEPS (AHRQ, 2020) 

• Georges et al. (2018)

Federal Government • Reduced 

Medicare and 

Medicaid costs 

due to 

improved 

health of 

participants, 

volunteers, and 

caregivers

• AmeriCorps12

• HCUP (AHRQ, 2016) 

• LSS13

• CPI (BLS, n.d.)

• Georges et al. (2017)

• MEPS (AHRQ, 2020) 

• Georges et al. (2018)

• American Hospital Association (2020) 

*Note: The usage of these data sources is discussed in more detail below. 

Benefits to FGP & SCP Participants 

Benefits to FGP & SCP participants include in-kind services received by FGP & SCP 

participants, cost savings related to aging in place for SCP participants, and reduced 

OOP medical costs for SCP participants due to fewer hospital visits. 

In-Kind Services

FGP & SCP participants—children and elderly or disabled adults, respectively—benefit 

from the in-kind services they receive from these AmeriCorps Seniors programs. These 

in-kind services provided by AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers augment, but do not 

displace, labor, and address unmet community needs nationwide. To monetize these 

benefits, this analysis calculated the number of hours served by FGP & SCP volunteers 

by program activity using data provided by AmeriCorps for FY18. The analysis estimated 

the value of those service hours by estimating hourly wages and overhead.

12 AmeriCorps, personal communication, 2020. 13 Lutheran Senior Services, personal communication, April 22, 2020. All references to Lutheran Senior 

Services refer to data received through ICF’s personal communication with that organization.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

11 

Hourly wages. The analysis used national wage estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS, 2019) for 2018 to monetize the labor of those hours served by FGP & SCP 

volunteers. Specifically, this analysis matched a BLS occupation to a program activity 

type based on the duties and responsibilities carried out by program volunteers.14 It 

used the 25th percentile hourly wage or annual salary data (depending on data 

availability) for each of the matched BLS occupations, given that volunteers who 

provide these different services in FGP & SCP do not necessarily obtain the 

qualifications or skillset required by those who pursue these professions for a living. 

Overhead. Overhead includes employer-paid benefits, administrative expenses, and 

other general expenses that third-party providers would pass on to clients when offering 

similar services. This analysis estimated overhead using a median overhead rate 

calculated across all industry types from Schonfeld & Associates, Inc. (n.d.). The analysis 

applied that overhead rate to the hourly wage totals calculated previously. The value 

of these services, expressed in 2019 dollars, is shown in the last column of Figure 3. 

Figure 3. In-Kind Service Cost Savings by AmeriCorps Seniors Program

Program Activity

FY18 Hours

(number 

of hours)

BLS Hourly 

Wage

(2019$)* 

Overhead 

Rate (%)

Cost of In-Kind 

Services (2019$)

FGP

Tutoring and 

Classroom/Education 

Assistance

 17,035,180 $10.76 24.28% $227,783,069 

Mentoring 2,250,267 $17.72 24.28% $49,549,052 

Person-based Care 270,895 $9.63 24.28% $3,241,715 

SCP

Independent Living 

Assistance 9,332,031 $10.69 24.28% $123,976,357 

Sources: AmeriCorps, BLS (2019), Schonfeld & Associates, Inc. (n.d.)

*Note: the hourly wage provided by BLS was originally in 2018 dollars and an inflation rate was used to 

express this wage in 2019 dollars above. Also, the hourly wage data is representative of the 25th percentile 

for each BLS occupation and numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

14 This analysis used the annual salary of a Teacher Assistant (SOC: 25-9041) for the “Tutoring and 

Classroom/Education Assistance” activity type; the hourly wage for a Child, Family, and School Social 

Worker (SOC: 21-1021) for the “Mentoring” activity type; the hourly wage for a Childcare Worker (SOC: 39-

9011) for the “Person-based Care” activity type; and the hourly wage for Personal Care Aids (SOC: 39-9021) 

for the “Independent Living Assistance” activity type. 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

12 

These in-kind services represent one-time benefits for the given program year because 

only one year of costs is considered in the ROI analysis.

Reduced Spending on Assisted Living Facilities

SCP volunteers provide independent living assistance in the homes of elderly or 

disabled individuals. This allows program participants to remain in their homes longer 

(i.e., to age in place) instead of living in assisted living facilities, which represents cost 

savings to SCP participants.15 This analysis measured reduced spending on assisted 

living facilities, but not for nursing homes. This is because the qualifications, skillset, and 

duties of SCP volunteers more closely align with those of individuals who work at assisted 

living facilities. Additionally, nursing homes tend to provide more comprehensive 

personal and medical care to residents, which includes daily responsibilities not 

required or expected of SCP volunteers. 

Estimating the number of SCP participants who age in place longer due to SCP. 

Georges et al. (2014) found that 49 percent of the surveyed population of SCP 

participants indicated that they strongly agreed that they can remain living in their 

home independently due to SCP (see Figure 4). This analysis first applied this 

percentage to the number of individuals served by SCP during FY18 (i.e., 29,530) to 

estimate what portion of the SCP national population strongly believed the program 

allowed them to remain living at home independently (i.e., age in place). Then, the 

analysis applied a 2 percent factor representing the portion of the national 65+ 

population that currently resides in assisted living facilities, according to Pray et al. 

(2010). Doing so estimated the portion of the SCP national population that would have 

had to go to an assisted living facility if not for SCP. This metric is used because it cannot 

be assumed that 49 percent of the entire SCP participant population had the means to 

move to assisted living facilities. Residency costs and other systematic barriers may 

prevent many from doing so. Thus, this metric helps in calculating a conservative 

estimate of savings to SCP participants.

The product of the first three columns of Figure 4 yielded an estimate of 289 SCP 

participants who avoided assisted living facilities during the program year. 

Estimating cost savings from aging in place longer. To monetize the savings of aging in 

place, this analysis calculated the difference between the median monthly cost of an 

assisted living facility and the mean monthly housing expenditures for an individual in 

the U.S., of which the latter metric considers the age distribution of SCP participants. The 

median monthly cost of an assisted living facility in the U.S. is $4,051 (Genworth, 2020). 

Based on 2019 data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (BLS, 2020), the mean 

monthly housing expenditure in the U.S. per person—weighted based on the age 

distribution of SCP participants in FY18—was $1,505. This analysis took the difference 

between these metrics, annualized it, and applied it to the aforementioned 

289 individuals to calculate total savings. 

15 While aging in place likely generates quality of life benefits for SCP participants in addition to cost 

savings, data to measure and monetize those benefits are not currently available.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

13 

Figure 4. Cost Savings to Assisted Living Facilities due to SCP

Program 

Number 

of SCP 

Participants 

Served 

in FY18 

Percent 

Who 

Strongly 

Agreed 

They Could 

Live at 

Home (%) 

Percent of 

Population 

in Assisted 

Living 

Facilities 

(%)

Number of 

Participants 

Who 

Avoided 

Assisted 

Living 

Facility Costs

Median 

Annual 

Cost of 

an 

Assisted 

Living 

Facility 

(2019$) 

Median 

Annual 

Housing 

Cost for a 

Mortgage 

(2019$) 

Total 

Benefit 

Realized 

(2019$) 

SCP 29,530 49% 2% 289 $48,612 $18,065 $8,840,025

Sources: Georges et al. (2014), AmeriCorps, Pray et al. (2010), Consumer Expenditure Survey (BLS, 2020)

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

As shown in Figure 4, this analysis estimates the total reduced spending on assisted living 

facilities to be $8,840,025. This was included in the ROI analysis as a one-time benefit for 

SCP participants based on the assumption that SCP participants are better able to age 

in place while SCP services are provided, but not afterward in the event that those 

services are discontinued. 

Reduced OOP Medical Costs from Decreased Hospital Visits and Improved Health

This analysis estimated reduced OOP medical costs to SCP participants—resulting from 

fewer visits to hospitals (both inpatient stays16 and emergency department visits) and 

improved health—due to participating in SCP. 

Estimating the reduction in hospital visits. The monetization process for this one-time 

benefit leveraged the results of an outcomes analysis completed by the Lutheran 

Senior Services (LSS)17, the statewide SCP for Minnesota.18 Its findings indicated that 

compared to 12 months before SCP participation, a sample of SCP participants 

experienced a 21 percent decrease in inpatient hospital stays and a 54 percent 

decrease in emergency department visits 12 months after beginning SCP 

participation.19 To monetize these benefits and apply them to the national SCP 

participant population, this analysis first used data from the Healthcare Cost and 

16 Inpatient stays are when someone was admitted to a hospital and had to stay at that hospital overnight 

for at least one night to receive care or be monitored. 17 Lutheran Senior Services, personal communication, April 22, 2020. All references to Lutheran Senior 

Services refer to data received through ICF’s personal communication with that organization. 18 This benefit—as well as all medical cost savings benefits realized across stakeholder groups—is only 

realized for one year. In other words, improved health outcomes in this ROI analysis are not spread out or 

discounted for several years after program participation or service. This is because it is assumed that to 

sustain these benefits in improved health or decreased hospital visits, program participation and service 

would have to continue from year to year. For that to happen, costs for beyond just one program year 

would need to be included. Therefore, all these medical cost savings are one-time benefits that are 

experienced because of one year of programming.

19 For all stakeholder groups that experience medical cost savings due to SCP participants’ decreased 

hospital visits, the impact on hospital or healthcare providers is not captured in this ROI analysis. It is 

assumed that these hospitals and healthcare providers are operating at 100 percent capacity. Thus, when 

they lose visits due to the favorable impacts of SCP, it is assumed visits will come from another individual 

needing care and the hospital is not losing revenue. 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

14 

Utilization Project (HCUP; AHRQ, 2016)—which is managed by the Agency for 

Healthcare Research and Quality under the Department of Health and Human 

Services—to estimate the mean inpatient stay and emergency department visit 

discharge rates for the population served by SCP (Figure 5). The analysis weighted these

discharge rates—shown in Figure 5—based on the age segmentation of SCP 

participants for FY18. This analysis then applied these weighted discharge rates to the 

number of SCP participants served nationwide in FY18 (i.e., 29,530, per AmeriCorps 

data) to estimate the number of SCP participants who—without the program—would 

have experienced an inpatient hospital stay or emergency department visit in a year. 

The discharge rates in Figure 5 indicate that only 9,150 and 6,813 SCP participants out of 

the entire SCP population served nationwide would have had an inpatient hospital stay 

or emergency department visit, respectively, during the program year. This is a 

conservative approach, given that individuals may experience multiple inpatient 

hospital stays or emergency department visits in one year.

The analysis then applied the LSS findings regarding reduced inpatient hospital stays 

and emergency department visits that resulted from SCP to this reduced SCP 

participant population. Based on this process, the analysis estimates that SCP resulted in 

1,961 fewer inpatient stays and 3,650 fewer emergency department visits nationwide for 

the program year. 

Monetizing the reduced hospital visits by SCP participants. To monetize the reduced 

medical costs associated with these reduced hospital visits, the analysis used data on 

the mean inpatient stay and emergency department visit hospital charge for the U.S.20

It weighted these metrics based on the age distribution of SCP participants in FY18 and 

then applied them to the number of reduced inpatient stays and emergency hospital 

visits as a result of SCP. The result estimates the total medical cost savings experienced 

due to decreased hospital visits by SCP participants across all payers. 

To calculate the cost savings specifically to SCP participants, the analysis used HCUP 

data (AHRQ, 2016) on the distribution of hospital charges across payers, weighted 

based on SCP participants’ ages for FY18. As shown in Figure 5, HCUP data indicates 

that 1.1 percent of inpatient stay and emergency department visit expenditures are 

paid OOP. Thus, approximately 1.1 percent of the total cost savings realized would 

benefit SCP participants directly. 

20 The mean hospital charge was used as the cost component in monetizing cost savings to OOP payers, 

private insurance companies, and other healthcare payers as a result of the decrease in inpatient stays 

and emergency department visits since, according to the HCUP data source (AHRQ, 2016), the hospital 

charge represents what the hospital billed for the stay or visit. The mean hospital cost was used as the cost 

component to monetize savings to the federal government (which manages Medicare and Medicaid), 

since it represents the actual costs of production. 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

15 

Figure 5. Cost Savings for SCP Participants by Hospital Visit Type

Hospital 

Visit Type

Number 

of SCP 

Participants 

Served in 

FY18

Discharge 

Rate (%)

Reduction 

in Hospital 

Visits (%)

Mean 

Hospital 

Charge 

per Visit 

(2019$)

Portion 

Paid 

OOP (%)

Total

Benefit 

Realized

(2019$)

Inpatient 

Stays 29,530 31% 21% $59,783 1.1% $1,315,264 

Emergency 

Department 

Visits

29,530 23% 54% $56,795 1.1% $2,325,991 

Total $3,641,255

Sources: AmeriCorps, HCUP (AHRQ, 2016), LSS

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

As a result, SCP participants experience a one-time benefit of over $3.6 million based 

on the reduction in inpatient stays and emergency department visits. Benefits to other

payers are discussed in subsequent sections.

Benefits to FGP & SCP Volunteers 

This ROI analysis captured two types of FGP & SCP volunteer benefits: stipends and 

reduced medical costs due to improved health outcomes. 

Stipends 

Data on stipend amounts were provided directly by AmeriCorps for FY18 and represent 

the total stipends—paid for by AmeriCorps federal funding and budgeted match 

funding from non-federal government entities—awarded to FGP & SCP volunteers for 

their service. This amount in 2019 dollars is $89,729,541 and represents a direct benefit to 

FGP & SCP volunteers because it is a form of income they previously did not have. For 

FY18, the hourly stipend amount for FGP & SCP volunteers was $2.65/hour; as of 

April 1, 2020, this amount was increased to $3/hour (AmeriCorps, 2020). 

Reduced OOP Medical Costs from Improved Health

FGP & SCP volunteers themselves experience OOP medical cost savings from improved 

health. This analysis used the findings from Georges et al. (2018) to monetize this 

program impact. Based on FGP & SCP volunteers’ survey responses, that study found 

16.6 percent of FGP & SCP volunteers reported fair/poor health at baseline (i.e., prior to 

serving in AmeriCorps Seniors). When compared to a group of similar individuals who 

were not volunteers, FGP & SCP volunteers who initially reported fair/poor health at 

baseline had a 55 percent better chance of improved health after serving. 

To incorporate these findings into the ROI analysis, this analysis first calculated the 

number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) for FGP & SCP volunteers for FY18. The improved 

health experienced by FGP & SCP volunteers in Georges et al. (2018) was based on the 

number of people who served in these programs, and given that AmeriCorps provided 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

16 

total hours served per program, it was necessary to calculate the number of FTEs that 

the hours represented. Figure 6 shows this calculation, in which the total number of 

hours served in FY18 for each AmeriCorps Seniors program was divided by AmeriCorps’s 

Volunteer Service Year (VSY) proxy of 1,044 hours per program year (AmeriCorps, 2018). 

The calculations yield a total of 27,759 FTEs.

Figure 6. Full-Time Equivalents by AmeriCorps Seniors Program

AmeriCorps 

Seniors Program Hours Served in FY18

Average Hours 

Served in Volunteer 

Service Year (VSY)

Full-Time 

Equivalents (FTEs)

FGP 19,648,631 1,044 18,821 

SCP 9,332,031 1,044 8,939 

Total 28,980,662 27,759

Source: AmeriCorps 

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. FTEs are rounded to the nearest whole person. 

This analysis applied the 16.6 percent to the number of FTEs for both AmeriCorps Seniors

programs to estimate the number with fair/poor health prior to volunteering. The 

analysis then applied a factor of 55 percent to estimate the number of FTEs who 

experienced improved health (i.e., moved from a self-perceived health status of 

fair/poor to good/very good/excellent) as a result of serving in FGP or SCP. Based on 

these calculations, roughly 2,540 volunteers experienced improved health outcomes. 

To monetize this benefit, this analysis used medical cost data provided by the Medical 

Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS; AHRQ, 2020), managed by the Agency for Healthcare 

Research and Quality under the Department of Health and Human Services. The MEPS

medical cost data was provided by age group and by self-reported health status. The 

MEPS Likert scale matched that used in the Georges et al. (2018) study. The analysis 

calculated the mean annual medical expenditure for someone with a perceived 

health status of fair/poor versus good/very good/excellent, weighted by the age 

distribution of FGP & SCP volunteers who served in FY18. Results are shown in Figure 7 in 

2019 dollars. 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

17 

Figure 7. Cost Savings for FGP & SCP Volunteers due to Improved Health

Metric Outputs (Inputs) 

Number of FTEs in FY18 27,759 

Number of FTEs with Fair/Poor Health at 

Baseline 4,618 (16.6%)

Number of FTEs with Improved Health 2,540 (55%)

Mean Annual 

Medical 

Expenditures 

per Person 

(2019$)

Fair/Poor Health $25,569 

Good/Very Good/Excellent Health $7,805 

Reduction in Mean Annual Medical 

Expenditures due to Improved Health $17,763 

Portion Paid OOP $2,115 (11.9%) 

Total Benefit Realized $5,372,497

Sources: AmeriCorps, Georges et al. (2018), MEPS (AHRQ, 2020)

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The difference in the mean annual medical expenditures per person (nearly $18,000) 

represents the total cost savings that result from improved health outcomes. However, 

FGP & SCP volunteers only realize the portion of medical cost savings that would be

paid OOP. Using MEPS data (AHRQ, 2020), weighted by the age segmentation of FGP & 

SCP volunteers for FY18, this analysis determined that 11.9 percent of total medical 

expenditures for this population is paid OOP. FGP & SCP volunteers themselves 

experience a one-time cost savings of over $5 million over 12 months due to improved 

health from serving in AmeriCorps Seniors. 

Benefits to Caregivers for SCP Participants 

Caregivers of individuals who receive SCP services benefit indirectly by receiving a 

respite from their caregiving activities. Because of this, caregivers’ own health improves, 

according to findings from Georges et al. (2017). That study indicates that 47 percent of 

surveyed caregivers who reported their health status as fair/poor at baseline reported

their health status as good/very good/excellent at follow-up. 

To incorporate this improvement in health, this analysis started with the 5,442 caregivers 

served by SCP in FY18. Then, the analysis applied 47 percent to estimate the number of 

caregivers who experienced increased health outcomes attributable to SCP. This 

resulted in more than 2,500 caregivers nationwide whose health improved from 

fair/poor to good/very good/excellent as a result of SCP. 

To monetize this improvement, this analysis used medical cost data from MEPS (AHRQ, 

2020) to calculate the mean annual medical expenditure for someone with a 

perceived health status of fair/poor versus good/very good/excellent, both weighted 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

18 

to reflect the age distribution of caregivers.21 These metrics are shown in Figure 8 in 2019 

dollars.

Figure 8. Cost Savings for Caregivers due to Improved Health

Metric Outputs (Inputs) 

Number of Caregivers in FY18 5,442 

Number of Caregivers Who Indicated 

Fair/Poor Health at Baseline and 

Good/Very Good/Excellent Health at 

Follow-up

2,558 (47%) 

Mean Annual 

Medical 

Expenditures 

per Person 

(2019$)

Fair/Poor Health $23,869 

Good/Very Good/Excellent Health $7,016 

Reduction in Mean Annual Medical 

Expenditures due to Improved Health $16,853 

Portion Paid OOP $2,042 (12.1%)

Total Benefit Realized $5,223,761

Sources: AmeriCorps, Georges et al. (2017), MEPS (AHRQ, 2020)

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

The difference in the mean annual medical expenditures per person (nearly $17,000) 

represents the total cost savings that result from caregivers’ improved health outcomes. 

However, caregivers only realize the portion of medical cost savings that would be paid 

OOP. Using MEPS data (AHRQ, 2020), weighted by the age segmentation of caregivers, 

this analysis determined that 12.1 percent of total medical expenditures for this 

population is paid OOP. Caregivers themselves experience a one-time cost savings of 

over $5 million annually due to improved health resulting from SCP.

Benefits to Private Insurance Companies 

Medical cost savings to private insurance companies stem from decreased hospital 

visits for SCP participants, as well as improved health for FGP & SCP volunteers and 

caregivers. This analysis used the methodologies described above to calculate total 

medical cost savings related to the outcomes experienced by SCP participants, FGP & 

SCP volunteers, and caregivers. To calculate the cost savings specifically to private 

insurance companies from SCP participants’ decrease in hospital visits, the analysis

used HCUP data (AHRQ, 2016) on the distribution of healthcare costs across payers. 

21 The same five-point scale categorizations used in the Georges et al. (2017) and Georges et al. (2018) 

studies (e.g., poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent) are used by MEPS (AHRQ, 2020). 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

19 

Figure 9 estimates cost savings to private insurance companies from SCP participants’ 

decrease in hospital visits.22 HCUP data on the distribution of healthcare costs across 

payers were weighted based on the age distribution of SCP participants and used to 

estimate that 12.1 percent of hospital visit costs are paid by private insurance 

companies. Private insurance companies realize nearly $40 million in savings from the 

reduction in hospital visits by SCP participants. 

Figure 9. Cost Savings for Private Insurance Companies by Hospital Visit Type due to 

Decreased Hospital Visits for SCP Participants

Hospital Visit 

Type

Number 

of SCP 

Participants 

Served in 

FY18

Discharge 

Rate (%)

Reduction 

in Hospital 

Visits (%)

Mean 

Hospital 

Charge per 

Visit (2019$)

Portion Paid 

by Private 

Insurance 

(%)

Total Benefit 

Realized

(2019$)

Inpatient 

Stays 29,530 31% 21% $59,783 12.1% $14,170,021 

Emergency 

Department 

Visits

29,530 23% 54% $56,795 12.1% $25,059,117 

Total $39,229,138

Sources: AmeriCorps, HCUP (AHRQ, 2016), LSS

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Figure 10 shows cost savings to private insurance companies that stem from the 

improved health outcomes of FGP & SCP volunteers, as well as caregivers.23 This analysis 

used MEPS (AHRQ, 2020) data, weighted based on the age distribution of each 

stakeholder group, to determine the share of healthcare costs paid by private 

insurance companies.24 This benefit was estimated at nearly $25 million.

22 For specifics on how each of the metrics in columns 1 – 4 of Figure 9 was estimated, please reference the 

Benefits to FGP & SCP Participants section (specifically the “Reduced OOP Medical Costs from Decreased 

Hospital Visits and Improved Health” subsection) earlier in this report.

23 For specifics on how each of the metrics in columns 1 – 3 of Figure 10 was estimated, please reference 

the Benefits to FGP & SCP Volunteers section (specifically the “Reduced OOP Medical Costs from Improved 

Health” subsection) as well as the Benefits to Caregivers for SCP Participants section earlier in this report. 24 Based on the data received, caregivers tended to be younger than FGP & SCP volunteers. Thus, 

caregivers had a higher portion of medical cost savings allocated to private insurance companies. 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

20 

Figure 10. Cost Savings due to Improved Health for Private Insurance Companies by 

Stakeholder Group

Stakeholder 

Group

Number of 

Individuals Who 

Experienced 

Improved Health

Mean Annual 

Medical Expenditure Portion Paid 

by Private 

Insurance 

(%)

Total Benefit 

Realized 

(2019$)

Fair/Poor 

Health 

(2019$)

Good/Very 

Good/Excellent 

Health (2019$)

FGP & SCP 

Volunteers 2,540 $25,569 $7,805 24.5% $11,034,329 

Caregivers 

for SCP 

Participants

2,558 $23,869 $7,016 32.2% $13,865,855 

Total $24,900,184

Sources: AmeriCorps, MEPS (AHRQ, 2020), Georges et al. (2018), Georges et al. (2017)

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Benefits to Other Healthcare Payers 

Medical cost savings to other healthcare payers stem from the decreased hospital visits 

of SCP participants as well as the improved health of FGP & SCP volunteers and 

caregivers. 

For the former, as mentioned earlier, HCUP data (AHRQ, 2016) is used to monetize these 

benefits, and its definition of “other” healthcare payers includes those such as worker’s 

compensation, TRICARE (healthcare for military families), Veterans Affairs (VA) 

healthcare, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Indian Health Services, the 

Title V Program, state or county indigent programs, and others (Barrett et al., 2014). 

Generally speaking, these “other healthcare payers” are insurance plans or payers of 

last resort for individuals who don’t have insurance. 

To estimate cost savings to this “other healthcare payers” stakeholder group as a result 

of decreased hospital visits, this analysis used the methodologies described above to

first calculate total medical cost savings related to SCP participants’ decrease in both 

inpatient stays and emergency department visits. To calculate the cost savings 

specifically to these other healthcare payers, the analysis used HCUP data (AHRQ, 

2016) on the distribution of healthcare costs across payers, using only the portion paid 

by other healthcare payers in the calculation of benefits. 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

21 

Figure 11 estimates this stakeholder group’s savings from SCP participants’ decrease in 

hospital visits.25 HCUP data on the distribution of healthcare costs across payers were

weighted based on the age distribution of SCP participants and used to estimate that 

1.8 percent of hospital visit costs are paid by other healthcare payers. As a result, they 

realize nearly $6 million in savings from the reduction in hospital visits by SCP 

participants. 

Figure 11. Cost Savings due to Decreased Hospital Visits for Other Healthcare Payers by 

Hospital Visit Type

Hospital 

Visit Type

Number 

of SCP 

Participants 

Served in 

FY18

Discharge 

Rate (%)

Reduction 

in Hospital 

Visits (%)

Mean 

Hospital 

Charge 

per Visit 

(2019$)

Portion Paid 

by Other 

Healthcare 

Payers (%)

Total 

Benefit 

Realized 

(2019$)

Inpatient 

Stays 29,530 31% 21% $59,783 1.8% $2,128,107 

Emergency 

Department 

Visits

29,530 23% 54% $56,795 1.8% $3,763,473 

Total $5,891,580

Sources: AmeriCorps, HCUP (AHRQ, 2016), LSS

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Figure 12 shows benefits to other healthcare payers that stem from the improved health 

outcomes of FGP & SCP volunteers, as well as caregivers.26 For these improved health 

outcomes, MEPS data is used to determine cost savings to other healthcare payers and 

this data source’s definition of “other” healthcare payers includes those such as the 

Department of Veterans Affairs (excluding TRICARE), Indian Health Services, community 

and neighborhood clinics, worker’s compensation, homeowner’s or liability insurance, 

and others (AHRQ, n.d.). This analysis used MEPS data (AHRQ, 2020), weighted based on 

the age distribution of each stakeholder group, to determine the share of healthcare 

costs paid by other healthcare payers. This benefit was also estimated at nearly 

$6 million.

25 For specifics on how each of the metrics in columns 1 – 4 of Figure 11 was estimated, please reference 

the Benefits to FGP & SCP Participants section (specifically the “Reduced OOP Medical Costs from 

Decreased Hospital Visits and Improved Health” subsection) earlier in this report. 26 For specifics on how each of the metrics in columns 1 – 3 of Figure 12 was estimated, please reference 

the Benefits to FGP & SCP Volunteers section (specifically the “Reduced OOP Medical Costs from Improved

Health” subsection) as well as the Benefits to Caregivers for SCP Participants section earlier in this report.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

22 

Figure 12. Cost Savings due to Improved Health for Other Healthcare Payers by 

Stakeholder Group

Stakeholder 

Group

Number of 

Individuals Who 

Experienced 

Improved Health

Mean Annual 

Medical Expenditure Portion Paid 

by Other 

Healthcare 

Payers (%)

Total 

Benefit 

Realized 

(2019$)

Fair/Poor 

Health 

(2019$)

Good/Very 

Good/Excellent 

Health (2019$)

FGP & SCP 

Volunteers 2,540 $25,569 $7,805 6.5% $2,942,436 

Caregivers 

for SCP 

Participants

2,558 $23,869 $7,016 6.7% $2,868,720 

Total $5,811,156

Sources: AmeriCorps, MEPS (AHRQ, 2020), Georges et al. (2018), Georges et al. (2017) 

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Benefits to the Federal Government 

The federal Medicare and Medicaid programs also benefit from medical cost savings 

that stem from SCP participants’ decreased hospital visits as well as FGP & SCP 

volunteers’ and caregivers’ improved health. Figure 13 estimates federal government 

savings from SCP participants’ decrease in hospital visits.27 HCUP data (AHRQ, 2016) on 

the distribution of healthcare costs across payers were weighted based on the age 

distribution of SCP participants and used to estimate that 80.6 percent of hospital visit 

costs are paid by Medicare and 4.3 percent are paid by Medicaid. The federal 

government realizes nearly $59 million in savings from the reduction in hospital visits by 

SCP participants. 

27 For specifics on how each of the metrics in columns 1 – 4 of Figure 13 was estimated, please reference 

the Benefits to FGP & SCP Participants section (specifically the “Reduced OOP Medical Costs from 

Decreased Hospital Visits and Improved Health” subsection) earlier in this report.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

23 

Figure 13. Cost Savings due to Decreased Hospital Visits for the Federal Government by 

Hospital Visit Type

Hospital 

Visit Type

Number 

of SCP 

Participants 

Served in 

FY18

Discharge 

Rate (%)

Reduction 

in Hospital 

Visits (%)

Mean 

Hospital 

Cost per 

Visit 

(2019$)*

Portion 

Paid by 

Medicare & 

Medicaid

(%)

Total 

Benefit 

Realized 

(2019$)

Inpatient Stays

Medicare 29,530 31% 21% $12,811 80.6% $20,250,937 

Medicaid 29,530 31% 21% $13,106 4.3% $1,095,896 

Emergency Department Visits

Medicare 29,530 23% 54% $12,171 80.6% $35,812,975 

Medicaid 29,530 23% 54% $12,451 4.3% $1,938,049 

Total $59,097,858

Sources: AmeriCorps, HCUP (AHRQ, 2016), LSS, American Hospital Association (2020)

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

*Note: The mean hospital charge was used as the cost component in monetizing cost savings to OOP 

payers, private insurance companies, and other healthcare payers. The hospital charge represents what 

the hospital billed for the stay or visit. The mean hospital cost represents the negotiated prices between the 

federal government and healthcare entities. This portion of the analysis uses mean hospital cost to 

monetize savings to the federal government because hospitals are more likely to receive payments of the 

negotiated cost from the federal government for a given service, rather than what they would have 

charged for the entire stay or visit. Further, the prevalence of underpayments is reflected in Figure 13 to 

calculate a more conservative estimate of savings to the federal government. Specifically, according to 

the American Hospital Association (2020), hospitals only received $0.87 and $0.89 for every dollar spent 

caring for Medicare and Medicaid patients, respectively. Because of this, only 87 and 89 percent of the 

average hospital cost per visit paid by Medicare and Medicaid, respectively, is included in Figure 13 

above.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

24 

Figure 14 shows benefits to the federal government that stem from the improved health 

outcomes of FGP & SCP volunteers, as well as caregivers.28 This analysis used MEPS data

(AHRQ, 2020), weighted based on the age distribution of each stakeholder group, to 

determine the share of healthcare costs paid by the federal government. This benefit 

was estimated at nearly $47 million.

Figure 14. Cost Savings due to Improved Health for the Federal Government by 

Stakeholder Group

Stakeholder 

Group

Number of 

Individuals Who 

Experienced 

Improved Health

Mean Annual 

Medical Expenditure Portion 

Paid by 

Medicare & 

Medicaid 

(%)

Total 

Benefit 

Realized 

(2019$)

Fair/Poor 

Health 

(2019$)

Good/Very 

Good/Excellent 

Health (2019$)

FGP & SCP Volunteers

Medicare 2,540 $25,569 $7,805 50.2% $22,645,594 

Medicaid 2,540 $25,569 $7,805 6.5% $3,125,217 

Caregivers for SCP Participants

Medicare 2,558 $23,869 $7,016 40.3% $17,353,923 

Medicaid 2,558 $23,869 $7,016 8.8% $3,794,015 

Total $46,918,749

Sources: AmeriCorps, MEPS (AHRQ, 2020), Georges et al. (2018), Georges et al. (2017)

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Summary of Distribution of Healthcare Cost Savings Across Payers 

Figure 15 summarizes the division of cost savings for the improved outcomes 

experienced by participants, volunteers, and caregivers by payer type to demonstrate 

that all cost savings are included in this ROI analysis but divided across multiple 

stakeholder groups. Again, these percentages are calculated using data from either 

MEPS or HCUP—depending on the stakeholder group whose outcomes improved—and 

weighted based on the respective age distribution of participants, volunteers, and 

caregivers when applicable. 

28 For specifics on how each of the metrics in columns 1 – 3 of Figure 14 was estimated, please reference 

the Benefits to FGP & SCP Volunteers section (specifically the “Reduced OOP Medical Costs from Improved 

Health” subsection) as well as the Benefits to Caregivers for SCP Participants section earlier in this report.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

25 

Figure 15. Percent of Cost Savings Realized by Payer Type and Outcome

Payer Type

SCP Participants’ 

Decreased Hospital 

Visits (%)

FGP & SCP 

Volunteers’ 

Improved Health (%)

Caregivers’ Improved 

Health (SCP) (%)

Medicare 80.6% 50.2% 40.3% 

Medicaid 4.3% 6.9% 8.8% 

Private Insurance 12.1% 24.5% 32.2% 

OOP 1.1% 11.9% 12.1% 

Other 1.8% 6.5% 6.7% 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Sources: AmeriCorps, MEPS (AHRQ, 2020), HCUP (AHRQ, 2016)

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Costs

Federal funding and non-federal match funding support the operations of FGP & SCP. 

The former is provided by AmeriCorps and the latter is raised by grantees and includes

funding from state and local governments, community-based organizations, and other 

non-federal entities.29 

Funding-level data provided by AmeriCorps reflect amounts that were fully utilized to 

cover program costs. These program costs were provided directly by AmeriCorps for

FY18. They are expressed in 2019 dollars in the analysis to be consistent with the 

monetization process of program benefits. Figure 16 shows the segmentation of these 

costs by funder type and AmeriCorps Seniors program. Based on data provided by 

AmeriCorps, federal and budgeted match funds are used by programs for items such 

as background checks, equipment purchases, local or long-distance travel, meals,

supplies, volunteers’ stipends, and other indirect costs. 

While AmeriCorps is the primary funder for both FGP & SCP (sponsoring more than 

three-fourths of these programs’ combined costs), the programs’ combined budgeted 

match spending was 31 percent of federal funds. This match enables AmeriCorps 

Seniors programs to serve more individuals and provide more services than would be 

possible otherwise, thereby increasing benefits across stakeholder groups. When 

analyzing FGP & SCP separately, budgeted match spending was 25 percent and 

43 percent of federal funds, respectively. 

29 AmeriCorps provided data on budgeted match spending in April 2020. On their grant applications, 

programs must denote the non-federal match they expect to receive for the upcoming fiscal year. Given 

this, it is possible that the actual match was higher than the budgeted match initially reported for FY18.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

26 

Figure 16. FGP & SCP Costs by Funder Type and AmeriCorps Seniors Program 

Funder

Costs for Program 

Year (2019$) Percent of Total (%)

Match Funding 

as a Percentage 

of AmeriCorps 

Funds (%)

FGP

AmeriCorps $108,043,041 80% 

Non-federal $27,336,587 20% 25% 

Total $135,379,628 100% 

SCP

AmeriCorps $44,832,529 70% 

Non-federal $19,473,545 30% 43% 

Total $64,306,074 

Total FGP & SCP Combined 

AmeriCorps $152,875,570 77% 

Non-federal $46,810,132 23% 31% 

Total $199,685,702

ROI Study Limitations

The most important limitation of this ROI study is the lack of data on the long-term 

benefits to FGP participants. The participants’ benefits for FGP captured in this study 

primarily consist of the value of services provided by FGP volunteers, as measured by 

multiplying the number of hours of services provided by a market rate for those services. 

The long-term benefits to the children and youth who are served by FGP programs are 

not captured because those outcome data are not available. Those benefits are likely 

considerable, and would most likely lead to a much higher ROI for FGP. For example, 

one-on-one tutoring provided by FGP likely leads to improved educational outcomes 

and higher educational attainment and, in turn, leads to increased earnings and tax 

revenue through employment and reduced government spending on public 

assistance. All of these can drive a strong, long-term ROI. One example of evidence 

that early childhood education interventions result in positive, long-term impacts for 

participating youth is provided by Reynolds et al. (2018). That study evaluated whether 

the Child–Parent Center (CPC) program in Chicago—a preschool to third grade 

intervention that provides educational programming to economically disadvantaged 

children and comprehensive services to their families—was linked to higher educational 

attainment in later years. The study followed children until they were 35 years old. The 

study concluded that, compared to a matched comparison group, those in the CPC 

program for four to six years had a 48 percent higher rate of degree completion. 

Although these outcomes are robust and substantial, they could not be used to 

reasonably monetize the benefits of students who participate in FGP given the 

differences in the service models between the CPC program and FGP. Even with this 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

27 

limitation, however, the ROI estimates for FGP still demonstrate strong total benefits per 

federal dollar and total benefits per funder dollar. 

It is also important to note that this ROI study relies in part on self-reported data. 

Specifically, the Georges et al. (2014), Georges et al. (2018), and Georges et al. (2017) 

studies—which describe program impacts for SCP participants, FGP & SCP volunteers, 

and caregivers for SCP participants, respectively—include self-reported survey data. 

Data on FGP & SCP volunteers’ and caregivers’ improved health was based on 

respondents rating their own health status using a Likert scale (i.e., poor, fair, good, very 

good, excellent) at baseline and at follow-up. Medical tests, hospital records, or other 

documentation by third-party sources were not available to corroborate the health 

status of these individuals. Similarly, Georges et al. (2014) asked SCP participants for their 

level of agreement on whether they were able to remain living at home independently 

as a result of SCP. Objective sources were not used to evaluate whether participants 

could live on their own successfully due to program participation. AmeriCorps Seniors

does validate data on performance measures submitted by program grantees, and 

these often include participant outcomes. However, data collected and analyzed by

third-party evaluators—such as the aforementioned studies—are not validated by 

AmeriCorps.30 

Lastly, the sample sizes used in some of these outcome analyses are small relative to the 

national FGP & SCP populations that are served annually. Specifically, the sample sizes 

for the LSS analysis, as well as the Georges et al. (2018) and Georges et al. (2017) 

studies, were not statistically representative of the nationwide populations for these 

groups in FY18. Conducting studies with larger sample sizes would help increase the 

confidence level of future ROI analyses. 

Benefits, Costs, and ROI Results

The ROI analysis for FGP & SCP measures the benefits of the programs compared to 

their costs to estimate the financial return to the various stakeholders from the 

investment. 

Benefits

Figure 17 summarizes estimated benefits (in 2019 dollars) for FGP & SCP by stakeholder 

group. Benefits total roughly $700 million for FGP & SCP combined, and about 

53 percent of that is attributed to FGP while 47 percent is attributed to SCP. The benefits 

of SCP are largely healthcare related, such as improved health outcomes for volunteers 

and the seniors they serve. This produces savings in healthcare expenditures, which in 

30 AmeriCorps Seniors requires grantees to submit work plans, which contain national performance 

measures. These performance measures are intended to measure the impact of activities that meet needs 

within the community. For each one, there are specific instructions on how to measure and collect data. 

Data collection and tracking mechanisms are reviewed by AmeriCorps staff through both desk reviews 

and on-site staff visits. Grantees report on data twice a year through Project Progress Reports. These reports

are reviewed by staff for accuracy. Submitted data are also verified by staff. However, outcomes related 

to individuals’ improved health as used in this analysis were not provided by program performance 

measures, but rather by third-party studies.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

28 

turn benefits the payers of healthcare, such as the federal government (e.g., Medicaid, 

Medicare) and private health insurance companies. While FGP also produces savings in 

healthcare for volunteers, a greater proportion of the program’s benefits stems from the 

value of services provided. 

Figure 17. Benefits by Stakeholder Group (2019$)

Stakeholder Group

Benefits by Program

FGP & SCP

Combined (2019$) FGP (2019$) SCP (2019$)

FGP & SCP Participants $417,031,473 $280,573,836 $136,457,637

FGP & SCP Volunteers $95,102,038 $64,952,442 $30,149,596

Caregivers (SCP) $5,223,761 − $5,223,761

Private Insurance Companies $64,129,322 $7,481,177 $56,648,146

Other Healthcare Payers 

(not including Medicare/Medicaid) $11,702,736 $1,994,945 $9,707,791

Federal Government $106,016,607 $17,472,380 $88,544,226

Total $699,205,936 $372,474,780 $326,731,156

Benefit per FTE $25,188 $19,791 $36,552

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Costs

Figure 18 summarizes the costs of FGP & SCP by funding source, as provided by 

AmeriCorps. The total cost of FGP & SCP for the September 2017 through August 2018 

program year (FY18), in 2019 dollars, is roughly $199.7 million. A total of 68 percent of the 

funding for the two programs combined was allocated to FGP, while 32 percent was 

allocated to SCP. AmeriCorps provided roughly 77 percent of the funding for these two 

AmeriCorps Seniors programs, while other funders provided 23 percent of the funding in 

terms of a budgeted match. Budgeted match funding can be provided to these 

programs by state or local governments, non-profits, community-based organizations, 

and other entities. Funding from these other sources represents the budgeted match

used to provide services and implement the program. 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

29 

Figure 18. Cost by Funding Source for FGP & SCP (2019$) 

Funding Source

FGP & SCP 

Combined

(2019$) FGP (2019$) SCP (2019$)

AmeriCorps (Federal Government) $152,875,570 $108,043,041 $44,832,529 

Other Funders* $46,810,132 $27,336,587 $19,473,545 

Total $199,685,702 $135,379,628 $64,306,074 

Source: AmeriCorps 

*Note: Includes the budgeted match provided by non-federal entities. 

ROI Results

Figure 19 shows the benefits and costs that are included in each of the three ROI 

calculations. 

Figure 19. Benefits and Costs Included in the ROI Calculations 

ROI Calculation* Benefits (Numerator) Costs (Denominator) 

Total Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

All participant, volunteer, caregiver, 

private insurance company, other 

healthcare payer, and federal 

government benefits derived from FGP & 

SCP

• Federal AmeriCorps 

funding

Total Benefits per 

Funder Dollar 

All participant, volunteer, caregiver, 

private insurance company, other 

healthcare payer, and federal 

government benefits derived from FGP & 

SCP

• Federal AmeriCorps 

funding

• Budgeted match 

funding

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Reduced healthcare spending attributable 

to FGP & SCP

• Federal AmeriCorps 

funding

*Note: AmeriCorps is the only source of federal support for FGP & SCP, so the cost of AmeriCorps’s support 

to these programs is the sole component of the denominator for two ROI calculations: 1) total benefits per 

federal dollar, and 2) federal government benefits per federal dollar. Additionally, “funder dollar” includes 

all support to these programs, including AmeriCorps support and budgeted match funding from nonfederal entities.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

30 

Figure 20 summarizes the ROI results for FGP & SCP. The results are expressed as cost–

benefit ratios and are interpreted as the amount returned for every dollar of investment 

(or cost).31 

Figure 20. ROI Results for FGP & SCP 

ROI Calculation

AmeriCorps Seniors Program

FGP & SCP

Combined FGP SCP

Total Benefits per Federal Dollar $4.57 $3.45 $7.29 

Total Benefits per Funder Dollar $3.50 $2.75 $5.08 

Federal Government Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

$0.69 $0.16 $1.97 

Combined, FGP & SCP generate strong positive ROIs for two of the three ROI 

calculations: total benefits per federal dollar and total benefits per funder dollar. Results 

show a return of $4.57 and $3.50 for every dollar invested, respectively. When only 

federal government benefits are considered, the return for FGP & SCP combined is 

$0.69 for every dollar invested. 

For FGP alone, this analysis estimates a return of $3.45 in total benefits per federal dollar 

and $2.75 per funder dollar. The results for FGP are lower than those for SCP, particularly 

FGP’s return of the federal government benefits per federal dollar of $0.16. However, 

the lower ROIs for FGP are primarily due to a major limitation in this study: the lack of 

data availability to measure the long-term benefits to a large proportion of FGP 

participants. The participants’ benefits for FGP captured in this study primarily consist of 

the value of services provided by FGP volunteers, as measured by multiplying the 

number of hours of services provided by a market rate for those services. The long-term 

benefits to the children and youth who are served by FGP programs are not captured 

because those outcome data are not available. Those benefits are likely considerable. 

For example, the one-on-one tutoring that is provided by FGP may lead to improved 

educational outcomes and higher educational attainment, which may, in turn, lead to 

increased earnings and tax revenue through employment, as well as reduced 

government spending on public assistance. All of these can drive a strong, long-term 

ROI. Even with this limitation, however, these ROI results for FGP still demonstrate strong 

total benefits per federal dollar and total benefits per funder dollar. 

31 ROIs are often expressed as percentages when measuring the financial return to a single entity from that 

entity’s investment. Although this is consistent with one of the three ROI metrics reported (e.g., federal 

government benefits per federal dollar), since the other ROIs lend themselves to a cost–benefit ratio, that 

ratio is consistently used for all three metrics. Although not shown as a ratio, the results should be interpreted 

as the return for every dollar of investment. 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

31 

SCP generates a strong positive return for all three ROI calculations. Total benefits per 

federal dollar are $7.29 for every federal government dollar invested, while total 

benefits per all funder dollars equals $5.08 for every dollar invested. The federal 

government alone realizes a return of $1.97 for every tax dollar invested, a nearly 200

percent return. 

Additional Detail on ROI Calculations

The formulas used to calculate each of the three ROI estimates are listed below:

Figure 21, Figure 22, and Figure 23 show the total benefits, costs, and ROI results for

these AmeriCorps Seniors programs combined and individually. 

Figure 21. ROI Calculations for FGP & SCP Combined (2019$)

Benefits / Costs

Total Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Total Benefits per 

Funder Dollar

Federal Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Total Benefits $699,205,936 $699,205,936 $106,016,607 

Total Costs $152,875,570 $199,685,702 $152,875,570 

Result $4.57 $3.50 $0.69

Figure 22. ROI Calculations for FGP (2019$)

Benefits / Costs

Total Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Total Benefits per 

Funder Dollar

Federal Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Total Benefits $372,474,780 $372,474,780 $17,472,380 

Total Costs $108,043,041 $135,379,628 $108,043,041 

Result $3.45 $2.75 $0.16

Total 

Benefits 

per 

Federal 

Dollar

Total 

Benefits 

per 

Funder 

Dollar

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Benefits to FGP & SCP Participants + Benefits to FGP & SCP Volunteers + 

Benefits to Caregivers + Benefits to Private Insurance Companies + 

Benefits to Other Healthcare Payers + Benefits to the Federal Government

Federal (AmeriCorps) Funding 

= 

Benefits to FGP & SCP Participants + Benefits to FGP & SCP Volunteers + 

Benefits to Caregivers + Benefits to Private Insurance Companies + 

Benefits to Other Healthcare Payers + Benefits to the Federal Government 

Federal (AmeriCorps) Funding + Budgeted Match Funding = 

Benefits to the Federal 

Government

Federal (AmeriCorps) 

Funding 

= 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

32 

Figure 23. ROI Calculations for SCP (2019$)

Benefits / Costs

Total Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Total Benefits 

per Funder Dollar

Federal Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Total Benefits $326,731,156 $326,731,156 $88,544,226 

Total Costs $44,832,529 $64,306,074 $44,832,529 

Result $7.29 $5.08 $1.97

Drivers of ROI

The magnitude of the positive ROI calculations is driven by several factors, including:

• Healthcare expenditure savings. Volunteers, caregivers, program participants, 

private insurance, other healthcare payers, and the federal government realize 

significant savings in healthcare expenditures from the improvement in health 

outcomes of participants, volunteers, and caregivers because of FGP & SCP. 

Healthcare savings stem from reduced emergency department visits, reduced 

inpatient hospital stays, and overall improved health and wellness. 

• Assisted living expenditure savings. Many of the individuals who receive services 

from SCP volunteers report that they can stay in their homes while receiving the 

services rather than having to move into an assisted living facility. This generates 

significant cost savings for these program participants.

• Value of in-kind services. FGP & SCP program participants (and their households) 

receive in-kind services of considerable value. These services have monetary value 

and do not displace labor, but instead add the capacity needed to address unmet 

needs in communities nationwide. 

Recommendations for Further Research

Future ROI studies for national and community service programs, and FGP & SCP in 

particular, can be strengthened in several ways. 

Recommendation 1: Study FGP participants’ long-term outcomes. The most prominent 

limitation of this ROI study is the lack of available data on the long-term benefits to 

children and youth served by FGP. FGP volunteers serve in high-need schools and help 

children learn how to read, mentor troubled teenagers, and teach kids social skills, 

while also providing emotional support. While a body of research has emerged on the 

positive effects of early childhood education and other education interventions, the 

programs and services researched do not adequately match the FGP service model.

Future research should measure and monetize the long-term benefits of FGP. For 

instance, the one-on-one tutoring provided by FGP volunteers may boost high school 

graduation rates, college enrollment, and postsecondary degree completion. 

Research may be able to quantify that relationship by comparing the improvement in 

reading scores for children and youth who receive tutoring to those who do not. Existing 

literature may establish a connection between those reading scores and, for example,

high school graduation rates. The estimated impact on high school graduation rates 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

33 

could then be monetized based on the increased employment and earnings that are 

associated with a high school degree. 

The FGP ROI estimates reported in this analysis would likely be substantially higher if 

long-term benefits to participants were included. Thus, collecting and analyzing data 

on outcomes for FGP participants is an important area for potential future research. 

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

along with or in place of self-reported data, can improve the accuracy of program 

outcome measurements. While self-reported data is easier to obtain—especially via 

survey instruments—it has 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 selfreported data. In the case of AmeriCorps Seniors programs, third-party data may be 

used to corroborate self-reported health outcomes for volunteers and—in the case of 

SCP—caregivers. Third-party data may also be used to corroborate SCP participant 

statements about the extent to which the program enabled them to age in place.

Recommendation 3: Ensure sample sizes for program evaluations are adequate and 

random. AmeriCorps grantees are required to conduct evaluations for their programs. 

To ensure findings are statistically representative of the population served, grantees 

should identify what the appropriate sample size should be for their outcome studies, 

which would differ by program based on the number served. Appropriate sample 

sizes—as well as those samples being random—will make the findings more reliable and 

provide greater confidence that the outcomes can be attributed to the intervention 

itself versus other confounding factors. Overall, larger sample sizes in these studies can 

provide a smaller margin of error, identify outliers in the data, and otherwise measure 

program impacts more accurately. 

Recommendation 4: Develop a strategy to evaluate the outcomes of RSVP. While this 

ROI analysis includes the impacts of AmeriCorps Seniors’ FGP & SCP, it excludes those 

that result from the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). RSVP is one of the nation’s 

largest volunteer networks for older adults that supports volunteering across a variety of 

projects, including community-based work across AmeriCorps’s six focus areas. RSVP 

volunteers may engage in community development initiatives, independent living 

assistance, the tutoring or mentoring of children, or natural disaster relief. Because this 

AmeriCorps Seniors program supports a myriad of interventions, it would be beneficial 

to develop a strategy to collectively evaluate the outcomes of the array of services this 

program provides nationally, and to monetize its benefits to its volunteers and other 

applicable stakeholder groups. By carrying out this work and incorporating it into the 

results of this analysis, an ROI could be calculated that is more representative of the 

impacts and benefits across all three AmeriCorps Seniors programs collectively. 
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

34 

Conclusion

Based upon these findings, investment in FGP & SCP results in favorable impacts across 

a variety of stakeholder groups, including participants who receive program services, 

caregivers, volunteers, the federal government, and other healthcare payers. In 

addition to their market value, these services can provide longer-term benefits. SCP 

participants, primarily seniors, and their caregivers benefit from improved health 

outcomes and the ability for participants to remain living in their homes longer. FGP & 

SCP volunteers also benefit from staying active and engaged in their community, which 

leads to improved health outcomes. Many of the benefits—particularly the healthrelated benefits—realized by participants, caregivers, and volunteers have positive 

impacts on the federal government through savings in healthcare expenditures, such 

as those incurred by Medicare and Medicaid. These benefits are also realized by other 

payers of healthcare costs, including state and local governments and private insurers. 

Note that long-term benefits to FGP participants—children and youth—are not currently 

measured and, for that reason, are not captured in this ROI analysis. 

The results of the ROI indicate that the benefits realized by all stakeholders from FGP & 

SCP combined outweigh the investment made by funders. The combined return to 

participants, volunteers, government, and other beneficiaries is $4.57 for every dollar in 

federal government cost, a 457 percent return on investment. When all funding (from 

the federal government and other funders) is considered, the total return across all 

stakeholder groups is $3.50 for every dollar in cost, a 350 percent return on investment. 

Lastly, when considering the ROI to the federal government alone, for FGP & SCP 

combined, the federal government receives $0.69 back in cost savings for each dollar

in cost. 
40 

Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

Appendix: Benefits and Costs Included in Return on Investment Calculations 

Benefits

In Figure 24, the rightmost three columns indicate whether a benefit is included in the numerator of a return on investment 

(ROI) calculation.

Figure 24. Benefits Included in ROI Calculations

Benefit Stakeholder Group Data Sources

Total Benefits 

per Federal Dollar

Total Benefits 

per Funder Dollar

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

In-kind services 

provided to 

children and youth 

by the Foster 

Grandparent 

Program (FGP)

FGP participant • AmeriCorps32

• National Wage 

Estimates (U.S. 

Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, 2019) 

• Consumer Price 

Index (CPI; BLS, 

n.d.) 

• Schonfeld & 

Associates, Inc. 

(n.d.) 

X X 

32 AmeriCorps, personal communication, 2020.
41 

Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

Benefit Stakeholder Group Data Sources

Total Benefits 

per Federal Dollar

Total Benefits 

per Funder Dollar

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

In-kind 

independent living 

assistance services 

provided to older 

and/or disabled 

adults by the Senior 

Companion 

Program (SCP)

SCP participant • AmeriCorps33

• National Wage 

Estimates (BLS, 

2019) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

• Schonfeld & 

Associates, Inc. 

(n.d.) 

X X 

Cost savings from 

not having to go to 

assisted living 

facilities 

SCP participant • AmeriCorps33

• Georges et al. 

(2014) 

• Pray et al. (2010) 

• Genworth (2020) 

• Consumer 

Expenditure 

Survey (BLS, 

2020) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

X X 

33 AmeriCorps, personal communication, 2020. 
42 

Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

Benefit Stakeholder Group Data Sources

Total Benefits 

per Federal Dollar

Total Benefits 

per Funder Dollar

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Decreased out-ofpocket (OOP) 

hospital visit costs 

due to improved 

SCP participant 

health

SCP participant • AmeriCorps34

• Lutheran Senior 

Services (LSS)35

• Healthcare Cost 

and Utilization 

Project (HCUP; 

Agency for 

Healthcare 

Research and 

Quality, 2016) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

X X 

Decreased private 

insurance hospital 

visit costs due to 

improved SCP 

participant health

Private insurance 

companies

• AmeriCorps 34

• LSS35

• HCUP (AHRQ, 

2016) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

X X 

34 AmeriCorps, personal communication, 2020. 35 Lutheran Senior Services, personal communication, April 22, 2020. All references to Lutheran Senior Services refer to data received through ICF’s 

personal communication with that organization.
43 

Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

Benefit Stakeholder Group Data Sources Total Benefits per Federal Dollar

Total Benefits 

per Funder Dollar

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Decreased 

Medicare and 

Medicaid hospital 

visit costs due to 

improved SCP 

participant health

Federal 

government 

• AmeriCorps36

• LSS37

• HCUP (AHRQ, 

2016) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

• American 

Hospital 

Association 

(2020) 

X X X 

Decreased hospital 

visit costs to other 

healthcare payers 

due to improved 

SCP participant 

health

Other healthcare 

payers 

• AmeriCorps36

• LSS37

• HCUP (AHRQ, 

2016) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

X X 

36 AmeriCorps, personal communication, 2020. 37 Lutheran Senior Services, personal communication, April 22, 2020. All references to Lutheran Senior Services refer to data received through ICF’s 

personal communication with that organization.
44 

Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

Benefit Stakeholder Group • Data Sources

Total Benefits 

per Federal Dollar

Total Benefits 

per Funder Dollar

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

OOP cost savings 

due to FGP & SCP 

volunteers’ 

improved health

FGP & SCP 

volunteers 

• AmeriCorps38

• Georges et al. 

(2018) 

• Medical 

Expenditure 

Panel Survey 

(MEPS; AHRQ, 

2020) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

X X 

Private insurance 

cost savings due to 

FGP & SCP 

volunteers’ 

improved health

Private insurance 

companies

• AmeriCorps38

• Georges et al. 

(2018) 

• MEPS (AHRQ, 

2020) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

X X 

Medicare and 

Medicaid cost 

savings due to FGP 

& SCP volunteers’ 

improved health

Federal 

government 

• AmeriCorps38

• Georges et al. 

(2018) 

• MEPS (AHRQ, 

2020) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

X X X 

38 AmeriCorps, personal communication, 2020.
45 

Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

Benefit Stakeholder Group • Data Sources

Total Benefits 

per Federal Dollar

Total Benefits 

per Funder Dollar

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Cost savings to 

other healthcare 

payers due to FGP 

& SCP volunteers’ 

improved health

Other healthcare 

payers 

• AmeriCorps39

• Georges et al. 

(2018) 

• MEPS (AHRQ, 

2020) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

X X 

OOP cost savings 

due to caregivers’ 

improved health

Caregivers (SCP) • AmeriCorps39

• Georges et al. 

(2017) 

• MEPS (AHRQ, 

2020) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

X X 

Private insurance 

cost savings due to 

caregivers’ 

improved health

Private insurance 

companies

• AmeriCorps39

• Georges et al. 

(2017) 

• MEPS (AHRQ, 

2020) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

X X 

39 AmeriCorps, personal communication, 2020.
46 

Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

Benefit Stakeholder Group • Data Sources

Total Benefits 

per Federal Dollar

Total Benefits 

per Funder Dollar

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Medicare and 

Medicaid cost 

savings due to 

caregivers’ 

improved health

Federal 

government 

• AmeriCorps40

• Georges et al. 

(2017) 

• MEPS (AHRQ, 

2020) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

X X X 

Cost savings to 

other healthcare 

payers due to 

caregivers’ 

improved health

Other healthcare 

payers 

• AmeriCorps40

• Georges et al. 

(2017) 

• MEPS (AHRQ, 

2020) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

X X 

Stipends FGP & SCP 

volunteers 

• AmeriCorps40 X X 

40 AmeriCorps, personal communication, 2020.
47 

Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

Costs

In Figure 25, the rightmost three columns indicate whether a cost is included in the denominator of a return on investment 

(ROI) calculation.

Figure 25. Costs Included in ROI Calculations

Cost Stakeholder Group Data Sources

Total Benefits 

per Federal Dollar

Total Benefits 

per Funder Dollar

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

AmeriCorps costs 

for stipends and 

other FGP & SCP 

grant funding

Federal 

government 

(AmeriCorps)

AmeriCorps41 X X X

Budgeted match 

funding

Non-federal 

government 

funders

AmeriCorps41 X

41 AmeriCorps, personal communication, 2020.
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

48

References 

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2016). HCUPnet: Healthcare cost and utilization 

project. https://hcupnet.ahrq.gov

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2020). MEPS summary tables: Use, expenditures, 

and population. https://meps.ahrq.gov/mepstrends/hc_use

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (n.d.). MEPS-HC summary data tables technical 

notes. https://meps.ahrq.gov/survey_comp/hc_technical_notes.shtml

American Hospital Association. (2020, January). Fact sheet: Underpayment by Medicare and 

Medicaid. https://www.aha.org/system/files/media/file/2020/01/2020-Medicare-MedicaidUnderpayment-Fact-Sheet.pdf

AmeriCorps (formerly Corporation for National and Community Service). (2017a). Foster 

grandparents. https://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/senior-corps/senior-corpsprograms/fostergrandparents

AmeriCorps (formerly Corporation for National and Community Service). (2017b). What is 

AmeriCorps Seniors? https://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/senior-corps/what-seniorcorps

AmeriCorps (formerly Corporation for National and Community Service). (2018). FGP and SCP 

service hour requirements: Final rule fact sheet.

https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Fact%20Sheet%20-

%20FGP%20and%20SCP%20Service%20Hour%20Requirements_0.pdf

AmeriCorps (formerly Corporation for National and Community Service). (2020, April 10). Senior 

Corps volunteers receive stipend increase.

https://www.nationalservice.gov/newsroom/press-release/2020/senior-corps-volunteersreceive-stipend-increase

Barrett, M., Lopez-Gonzalez, L., Hines, A., Andrews, R., & Jiang, J. (2014, December 17). HCUP 

methods series: An examination of expected payer coding in HCUP databases (Report # 

2014-03). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.hcupus.ahrq.gov/reports/methods/2014-03.pdf

Genworth. (2020). Cost of long term care by state: Cost of care survey. 

https://www.genworth.com/aging-and-you/finances/cost-of-care.html

Georges, A., Fung, W., Liang, J., Smith, J., Pratt, D., Sum, C., Birmingham, C., & Gabbard, S. 

(2017). Does the Senior Companion respite service matter for the health and well-being of 

caregivers? Corporation for National and Community Service (now AmeriCorps).

https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/CaregiverStudy_Foll

owUp_Report_2017_09_22_CNCS_508.pdf

Georges, A., Fung, W., Smith, J., Liang, J., Sum, C., & Gabbard, S. (2018). Longitudinal study of 

Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion Programs: Service delivery implications and 

health benefits to the volunteers. Corporation for National and Community Service (now 

AmeriCorps). 

https://nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/Longitudinal_Study_of_Fost

er_Grandparent_and_Senior_Companion_Programs_FINAL_508.pdf
Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program

49 

Georges, A., Gabbard, S., Sum, C., Lovegrove, P., & Macdonald, S. (2014). Descriptive report for 

the Senior Companion Program Independent Living Pilot/Feasibility Survey. Corporation for 

National and Community Service (now AmeriCorps). 

https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_2014_SCP_Descrp

RptSCPIndPilotFeasibilitySurvey_0.pdf

Pray, L., Boon, C., Miller, E. A., & Pillsbury, L. (2010). Providing healthy and safe foods as we age: 

Workshop summary. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12967

Reynolds, A. J., Ou, S., & Temple, J. A. (2018). A multicomponent, preschool to third grade 

preventive intervention and educational attainment at 35 years of age. JAMA Pediatrics,

172(3), 247-256. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.4673

Schonfeld & Associates, Inc. (n.d.). SG&A benchmarks: SG&A expense as a percentage of sales 

by industry sector. SAI Books. https://saibooks.com/sga-benchmarks

University of Maine, Center on Aging. (2018). Senior Companion Program.

University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. (2020). Health and Retirement Study. 

https://hrs.isr.umich.edu/about

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2019, April 02). May 2018 national occupational employment and 

wage estimates—United States. https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes_nat.htm

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020, September 22). Annual calendar year tables—Average 

expenditure, share, and standard error tables: Age of reference person (Consumer 

Expenditure Survey). https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables.htm. 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). CPI inflation calculator. 

https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm