Return on Investment Study:

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Submitted to:

AmeriCorps 

250 E St., SW

Washington, DC 20024

Submitted by:

ICF Incorporated, LLC

1902 Reston Metro Plaza

Reston, VA 20190

https://www.icf.com

September 20, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

Modicamore, D., Pershing, J., Thompson, P., & Voigt, G. (2023). Return on Investment 

Study: Green City Force. ICF.
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

i

CONTENTS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Population Served..................................................................................................................2

GCF Evaluation History ..........................................................................................................3

Selection of GCF Program for the AmeriCorps ROI Project ..............................................4

Comparable ROI Estimates...................................................................................................4

ROI Methodology .......................................................................................................................9

GCF Program Activities That Were Not Monetized ..........................................................11

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

Costs ......................................................................................................................................11

ROI Study Limitations............................................................................................................19

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

Results ........................................................................................................................................20

Program Benefits ..................................................................................................................20

Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs)................................................................................20

Program Costs ......................................................................................................................22

ROI Results.............................................................................................................................22

Recommendations for Further Research................................................................................25

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................27

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

Return on Investment Calculations.........................................................................................28

Appendix B: Additional Information on the Methodology...................................................34

Methodology Overview ......................................................................................................34

Measuring Program Benefits...............................................................................................35

Measuring Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs).............................................................49

Measuring Program Costs ...................................................................................................53

Calculating ROI ....................................................................................................................53
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

ii

Appendix C: Results by Year...................................................................................................56

References ................................................................................................................................61

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Benefits Among Stakeholder Groups From the GCF Program.............................10

Figure 2. Program Cost by Funding Source ...........................................................................22

Figure 3. Compound Interest Formula Used to Calculate Investment Opportunity 

Cost............................................................................................................................................52

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES-1. ROI Estimates ......................................................................................................ES-3

Table 1. Demographics of GCF AmeriCorps Members..........................................................3

Table 2. Relevant Studies and Their Findings...........................................................................6

Table 3. Benefits Realized From the GCF Program by Stakeholder Group........................11

Table 4. GCF Program Costs by Funder Type........................................................................19

Table 5. Percentage of Program Benefits by Stakeholder Group.......................................20

Table 6. Program Benefits by Recipient .................................................................................20

Table 7. Forgone Benefits From Professional Opportunity Cost...........................................21

Table 8. Investment Opportunity Cost by Scenario and Funding Stream..........................21

Table 9. Program Cost by Funding Source for the GCF Program .......................................22

Table 10. Program Benefits, Net Benefits, and Program Costs by ROI Scenario................23

Table 11. ROI Results for the GCF Program............................................................................24

Table 12. Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Costs Included in ROI 

Calculations ..............................................................................................................................29

Table 13. GCF AmeriCorps Member Benefits From the Living Allowance and 

Education Award .....................................................................................................................36

Table 14. Additional Pre-Tax Earnings for GCF AmeriCorps Members From Reduced 

Unemployment .........................................................................................................................37

Table 15. Cumulative Additional Post-Tax Earnings Derived From Reduced 

Unemployment due to Serving With the GCF Program by Scenario ................................. 37

Table 16. Average Total Cost of Education and Portion Attributable to Education 

Award by Degree Type............................................................................................................39

Table 17. Additional Earnings From AmeriCorps Members’ Use of the Education 

Award ........................................................................................................................................40

Table 18. Government Costs by Educational Attainment Level per Individual’s 

Lifetime ......................................................................................................................................46
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

iii

Table 19. 2021 Tax Rates and Ratio of Taxable Expenditures for GCF AmeriCorps 

Members’ Earnings, Living Allowances, and Education Awards ........................................47

Table 20. State/Local and Federal Government Benefits by Stakeholder Group and 

by Scenario ...............................................................................................................................48

Table 21. Forgone Earnings of GCF AmeriCorps Members for a Service Term..................50

Table 22. Forgone Taxes Associated With the Forgone Earnings of GCF AmeriCorps 

Members for a Service Term....................................................................................................51

Table 23. Forgone Benefits From Investment Opportunity Cost Calculation by 

Scenario and Funding Stream ................................................................................................53

Table 24. Funding Sources and Amounts for the GCF Program (2021–2022) ....................53

Table 25. ROI Calculations for Short-Term Scenario..............................................................55

Table 26. ROI Calculations for Medium-Term Scenario........................................................55

Table 27. ROI Calculations for Long-Term Scenario..............................................................55

Table 28. GCF Program Benefits and Costs per Year ...........................................................57

AUTHORS 

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

• Julia Borgida, ICF, Economics Analyst

• Danny Clark, ICF, Research Analyst 

• Benjamin Miller, ICF, Senior Director

• Dominic Modicamore, ICF, Lead Economist

• Janet Pershing, ICF, Vice President

• Phylicia Thompson, BCT Partners, Research and Evaluation Analyst 

• George Voigt, ICF, Senior Economics Analyst
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

ES-1

Executive Summary 

Program Description

Green City Force (GCF), operating in Brooklyn, 

New York, uses workforce training to improve 

the economic mobility of AmeriCorps members, 

all of whom reside in New York City Housing 

Authority (NYCHA) housing. During the 6-month 

program, members gain hands-on experience 

with building sustainable infrastructure, 

distributing fresh produce, and engaging in 

urban agriculture, ultimately leading to green 

career pathways such as energy conservation 

assistants, compost coordinators, solar energy 

installers, energy auditors, and other positions 

and apprenticeships. AmeriCorps members also 

prepare for and take the Green Professional 

Training (GPRO) certification and the OSHA 30-

hour Construction and Safety training and 10-

hour Site Safety Training, improving their 

understanding of green building practices and 

workplace health and safety, better enabling 

members to attain occupations such as HVAC technicians, plumbers, and electricians. 

The primary focus of GCF’s AmeriCorps activities is to help members gain exposure to 

aspects of the green economy and prepare members for careers following their time 

with the program.

AmeriCorps members are part of GCF’s Service Corps, where members engage in 

professional development sessions as well as three key service initiatives centered 

around improving the sustainability and health of the New York City public housing 

community. These initiatives include building and maintaining urban farms that 

distribute free organic produce to residents. They also include a resident-to-resident 

education program through which AmeriCorps members educate other NYCHA 

residents on environmental sustainability. 

GCF offers career development support to Service Corps members, including those 

who are AmeriCorps members, following their period of service in the program. 

GCF provides graduates with career counseling and help accessing trainings and 

available job opportunities.

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

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

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

that a program generates per dollar invested.

AmeriCorps, the federal agency 

for national service and 

volunteerism, provides 

opportunities for Americans to 

serve their country domestically, 

address the nation's most pressing 

challenges, improve lives and 

communities, and strengthen civic 

engagement. Each year, the 

agency places more than 

200,000 AmeriCorps members 

and AmeriCorps Seniors 

volunteers in intensive service 

roles; and empowers millions more 

to serve as long-term, short-term, 

or one-time volunteers. Learn 

more at AmeriCorps.gov. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

ES-2

Overview of Benefits and Costs

To calculate the ROI of the GCF program, program benefits were identified, quantified, 

and compared to the program’s costs. These included benefits from the workforce 

training for AmeriCorps members that is a primary focus of GCF. The analysis also 

captured benefits from GCF’s production and distribution of fresh produce to NYCHA 

residents for free and composting of organic waste at GCF farms. Benefits of GCF

include: 

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

increased wages and reduced unemployment post-national service through 

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

Workforce training is a primary focus of GCF, leading to improved employment 

outcomes for Service Corps members.

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

receive living allowances and stipends during their national service and receive 

a Segal AmeriCorps Education Award after successful completion. Due to the 

high pre-service unemployment rate of this group, the opportunity cost to GCF 

AmeriCorps members presented in this analysis is negative, meaning the 

opportunity to participate in the program and earn a stipend outweighs potential 

forgone earnings for AmeriCorps members.

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

receive more income tax revenue from increased AmeriCorps member earnings 

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

Federal, state, and local governments also realize tax revenue from the taxable 

living allowances, stipends, and education awards provided to AmeriCorps 

members. Further, federal and state governments realize tax revenue from 

increased earnings by AmeriCorps members as a result of increased educational 

attainment. 

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

insurance. Because of the increase in postsecondary educational attainment for 

AmeriCorps members and program pariticpants, federal and state governments 

spend less on these items. 

• Benefits to various stakeholders from GCF program activities. GCF AmeriCorps 

members participate in activities such as the Farms at NYCHA program that 

distributes fresh produce to NYCHA residents for free through the efforts of GCF 

AmeriCorps members. Benefits of this program include cost savings to NYCHA 

residents from the distribution of free produce. In addition, composting organic 

waste at the farms reduces municipal government spending on processing of 

waste and benefits society by reducing carbon emissions. 

There are likely additional benefits related to GCF activities such as benefits resulting 

from alumni support activities and additional environmental benefits from urban farms 

operated at NYCHA properties. While many studies speak to these benefits of GCF

program activities, the existing research does not yet provide a sufficient basis to 
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

ES-3

rigorously monetize these additional benefits from GCF’s work. This is due in part to study 

designs, data constraints, and program mechanisms. The exclusion of some potential 

benefits from the analysis makes this a conservative estimate of GCF’s ROI.

Program costs for GCF in the 2021–2022 program year totaled $1,444,961. Funding was 

from the following sources:

• Federal government 

• State and local government 

• Program service fees1

• Foundations

ROI Results

Table ES-1 shows the ROI results for the GCF program. Each row represents a different 

ROI calculation depending on which benefits are considered (all benefits or only 

benefits to the federal government) and which funding is considered (federal funding 

only or all funding). The ROIs are presented as dollars returned for every dollar of 

investment. The analysis used three different scenarios to estimate benefits under 

different assumptions. Specifically, the study assumed that increased earnings 

attributable to the programs last for 1 year (short-term scenario), 15 years (medium-term 

scenario), or 30 years (long-term scenario).

Table ES-1. ROI Estimates

ROI calculation

ROI scenario

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Total benefits per federal dollar $1.39 $9.45 $17.93

Total benefits per funder dollar $0.69 $4.09 $7.60

Federal government benefits per federal dollar $0.21 $1.67 $3.10

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

ROI calculations. The most significant factors driving the positive ROI estimates in the 

medium- and long-term scenarios are:

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

AmeriCorps program, AmeriCorps members receive an education award, which 

is used by a portion of members to help pay for postsecondary degrees 

post-service. The additional educational attainment resulting from the use of the 

education award generates additional earnings for AmeriCorps members. 

1 Program service fees were paid by Clean NYCHA for waste management services provided by Green 

City Force.
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

ES-4

• Employment outcomes of AmeriCorps members. GCF AmeriCorps members 

experience increased employment and increased earnings post-service as a 

result of the workforce training and career development elements of the GCF 

program.

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

ROI results indicate that there is a short-term loss on funding invested in the program 

based on the results of total benefits per funder dollar and federal benefits per federal 

dollar ROI calculations. An ROI that is below $1 in the first year post-program is common 

in programs where there is an initial one-time investment made and benefits accrue in 

the following years. This is because it can require several years of benefits to recoup the 

initial investment and generate positive returns. 
1

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

AmeriCorps programming to relevant stakeholders. 

This project began with a comprehensive literature review and preliminary assessments 

of whether ROI analyses were feasible for five national service programs. These 

feasibility studies included thorough reviews of these programs’ recent evaluations, 

detailed logic models, proposed ROI analysis methodologies for each program, and a 

scorecard mechanism that determined the viability of conducting an ROI analysis for 

each selected program. 

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

subjects of ROI studies for fiscal year 2022: Green City Force AmeriCorps, Montana 

Conservation Corps, AmeriCorps Urban Safety (AMUS) Program, and the Parent Possible 

HIPPY program. This ROI study measures the benefits of Green City Force AmeriCorps 

against its costs. 

This study of the Green City Force AmeriCorps program is organized into five sections:

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

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

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

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

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

comparable ROI estimates for the Green City Force AmeriCorps program. 

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

monetize benefits derived from Green City Force AmeriCorps, describes its 

associated program costs, and explains how opportunity costs were calculated.

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

provides a detailed description of the program benefits, forgone benefits 

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

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

• Recommendations for Further Research explores ways AmeriCorps and others 

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

including how to address limitations of this study.

• Conclusion summarizes key points from the ROI study overall.
2

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Program Description 

Green City Force (GCF), operating in Brooklyn, New York, uses workforce training to 

improve the economic mobility of AmeriCorps members, all of whom reside in New York 

City Housing Authority (NYCHA) housing. During the 6-month program, members gain 

hands on experience with building sustainable infrastructure, distributing fresh produce, 

and engaging in urban agriculture, ultimately leading to green career pathways such 

as energy conservation assistants, compost coordinators, solar energy installers, energy 

auditors, and other positions and apprenticeships. AmeriCorps members also prepare 

for and take the Green Professional Training (GPRO) certification and the OSHA 30-hour 

Construction and Safety training and 10-hour Site Safety Training, improving their 

understanding of green building practices and workplace health and safety, better 

enabling members to attain occupations such as HVAC technicians, plumbers, and 

electricians. The primary focus of GCF’s AmeriCorps activities is to help members gain 

exposure to aspects of the green economy and prepare members for careers following 

their time with the program.

AmeriCorps members are part of GCF’s Service Corps, where members engage in 

professional development sessions as well as three key service initiatives centered 

around improving the sustainability and health of the New York City public housing 

community. These initiatives include building and maintaining urban farms that 

distribute free organic produce to residents. They also include a resident-to-resident 

education program through which AmeriCorps members educate other NYCHA 

residents on environmental sustainability. 

GCF offers career development support to Service Corps members, including those 

who are AmeriCorps members, following their period of service in the program. 

GCF AmeriCorps graduates have access to GCF alumni services, including career 

counseling, continued trainings, and sector-relevant job listings.

Population Served2

GCF’s Service Corps program has graduated over 600 AmeriCorps members as of 

August 2022, with an overall graduation rate of 81 percent. All participating AmeriCorps 

members are young adults ages 18–24 who reside in the NYCHA housing. Through

GCF’s service initiatives, AmeriCorps members have engaged with over 50,000 public 

housing residents. This analysis looked at the outcomes of the specific cohort engaged 

during the September 2021–October 2022 program year. This included 38 AmeriCorps 

members whose demographics are outlined in Table 1 below. 

2 Sindri Manzanares, GCF contact, personal communication, November 11, 2022. Hereafter, all instances of 

GCF referenced as a data source were retrieved from this communication.
3

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Table 1. Demographics of GCF AmeriCorps Members

Demographics Count Percentage

Race

African American 22 57.9%

Two or more 7 18.4%

Other 7 18.4%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 1 2.6%

White 1 2.6%

Ethnicity 

Hispanic origin 16 42.1%

Non-Hispanic origin 15 39.5%

Unknown 7 18.4%

Gender

Female 20 52.6%

Male 15 39.5%

Nonbinary 3 7.9%

Source: Green City Force

GCF Evaluation History

One recent evaluation has been completed for the GCF, summarized below. 

Farms at NYCHA Final Evaluation Report, CUNY Urban Food Policy Institute – 

June 20193

This evaluation summarized outcomes of the Farms at NYCHA initiative. Farms at NYCHA

is one of the service initiatives supported by GCF Service Corps members and is a 

public–private partnership that has supported six farms across four New York City 

boroughs since 2016. The farms distribute fresh produce to NYCHA residents free of 

charge. Service Corps members’ tasks include construction, planting, harvesting, and 

distributing produce. Service Corps members also engage with NYCHA residents and 

gain professional development experience. 

The evaluation grouped the outcomes of Farms at NYCHA into numerous categories, 

including economic opportunities for GCF Service Corps members, increased NYCHA 

resident cohesion and safety, improved health and nutrition of residents, and 

environmental benefits. The evaluation used surveys from GCF Service Corps members 

to measure effects of the workforce development training, as well as interviews with key 

3 CUNY Urban Food Policy Institute (2019). Farms at NYCHA final evaluation report. 

https://greencityforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Farms-at-NYCHA-Final-Report.pdf 
4

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

stakeholders to understand the outcomes of the program. The evaluation noted that 

71.5 percent of non-disabled NYCHA residents between the ages of 18 and 24 are 

unemployed prior to their service and found that 94 percent of 2016 program 

graduates and 96 percent of 2017 program graduates transitioned into full-time work 

or school within 6 months of completing their service The evaluation also tracked 

farm-related and environmental data, including pounds of organic waste composted 

and gallons of stormwater absorbed. 

This ROI analysis was not able to capture the value of all benefits to NYCHA residents

found by CUNY Urban Food Policy Institute due to data limitations. But the analysis 

captures savings from resident access to free organic produce and benefits related to 

composting. The analysis also uses CUNY Urban Food Policy Institute results to capture 

benefits to GCF AmeriCorps members.

Other Data Sources 

In addition to the GCF evaluation described above, GCF provided data on the number 

of program graduates who maintained employment or school for 1 year following 

completion of their service and their wages. GCF also provided data specific to the 

activities Service Corps members engaged in during their service, including the pounds 

of organic produce distributed through the Farms at NYCHA program and the pounds 

of compost collected through the same program. 

Selection of GCF Program for the AmeriCorps ROI Project

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

monetizing benefits and costs of a community and economic development program. 

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

outcomes made it a strong candidate for estimating ROI. 

The methodologies developed to measure benefits related to the distribution of free 

produce and composting organic waste may be applied to other programs that 

engage in urban farming. 

Comparable ROI Estimates

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

estimates for GCF. Table 2 summarizes information across studies.

Workforce Training Programs

Previous ROI analyses have estimated the benefit of funding workforce programs. 

The programs studied have similarities to GCF’s green careers workforce development 

program. 

Harper-Anderson (2018) conducted a cost–benefit analysis to examine programming 

funded in Virginia by two public funding streams: the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) 

and the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program. The resulting programming 

provided workforce training to unemployed individuals. WIA funding is distributed 

among job training and job search services. TAA utilizes its funding for reemployment 

services, job search assistance and allowance, training, training income support, 
5

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

relocation allowance, and health coverage. The study found a positive ROI for both 

WIA and TAA programs when comparing program participants to nonparticipants with 

similar profiles. On average, WIA programs generated a return of $1.72 for each dollar 

invested. 

The cost-benefit analyses conducted by Hollenbeck (2009) examined the ROI of 

workforce development programs in Indiana connected to WIA for Adults, WIA for 

Dislocated Workers, WIA for Youth, TAA, and sub-baccalaureate postsecondary 

education. WIA programs provide labor market exchange resources, including 

education and training services to unemployed individuals. TAA assists individuals who 

lost their jobs due to international competition. Postsecondary education programming 

offers the opportunity to obtain an associate degree. In this study, all programs yielded 

positive ROI estimates (WIA-Adults: $7.60, WIA-Dislocated Workers: $2.13, WIA-Youth: 

$0.22, postsecondary: $9.66), except for TAA (-$0.40). The ROI estimates included the 

benefits and costs to both program participants and government.

Several studies assess the economic benefits of apprenticeships, which is a workforce 

development model with similarities to GCF’s Service Corps. Kuehn et al. (2022) 

evaluated the American Apprenticeship Initiative sponsored by the U.S. Department of 

Labor. The study explored the employment and earnings outcomes and employer costs 

associated with the participant completing the program. The costs included training, 

reduced productivity, supplies, and program registration. Direct benefits included the 

value of products and services provided by the apprentice and reduced costs of hiring 

for an open role. Indirect benefits included employer loyalty and a reduction in 

turnover. The benefit of the apprenticeship program had a value of $16,000 per 

apprentice, and the costs were $11,100. The ROI was $1.44 for an apprentice who 

worked with the organization for a minimum of 5 years and had the median production 

value. The apprenticeships in this study included a variety of jobs across several sectors 

and may not include jobs similar to those that GCF participants received training for. 

ICF (2021) conducted an ROI study of YouthBuild AmeriCorps, a youth leadership 

training program that mirrors traditional workforce development programs. The 

program intended to improve education and employment outcomes for youth who 

were not in school and were not gainfully employed. The study estimated YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps’s ROI to be between -$0.40 and $9.58 per funder dollar, depending on how 

long YouthBuild AmeriCorps participants experience increased earnings from serving 

and participating in YouthBuild AmeriCorps.

Sustainability Investment

Yang (2016) studied an urban community farm in California. The study calculated the 

return on the farm’s operational costs. When considering both social and environmental

benefits of the farm as indicated in a willingness-to-pay survey—including improved 

food quality and access, beneficial health impacts, community development, 
6

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

ecosystem services and biodiversity, and cultural and aesthetic value—the ROI ranged 

from $5.01 to $6.87.

Community Development 

A cost-benefit analysis conducted by Gurin-Sands et al. (2019) assessed the return on a 

community development project that built an affordable housing center that included 

a health center and job training center. This study estimated an ROI of $2.91 attributed 

to cost savings to health systems, improved medical outcomes, savings from the social 

cost of carbon, leveraged investments, and income boosts related to affordable 

housing. 

Table 2. Relevant Studies and Their Findings

Study Study area

Benefits/cost savings 

evaluated

ROI estimate*

(Return in dollars for 

every $1 in cost)

Harper-Anderson 

(2018)

Public workforce 

development

Costs: Administrative 

costs and training 

costs 

Benefits: Additional 

taxes revenue 

attributable to an 

increase in afterprogram earnings 

and savings

WIA ROI: $1.72

Hollenbeck (2009) Public workforce 

development

Costs: Administrative 

and service fees

Benefits: Tax 

revenues, less transfer 

incomes

WIA-Adults: $7.60

WIA-Dislocated 

Workers: $2.13

WIA-Youth: $0.22

TAA: -$0.40

Postsecondary: $9.66
7

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Study Study area

Benefits/cost savings 

evaluated

ROI estimate*

(Return in dollars for 

every $1 in cost)

Kuehn et al. (2022) Apprenticeship Costs: Training, 

reduced productivity 

of experienced staff 

while mentoring, 

supplies, and staff 

time devoted to 

completing 

documentation

Direct benefits: Value 

of apprentices’ 

products or services, 

reduced costs of 

hiring and filing a 

skilled labor position

Indirect benefits: 

Employer 

engagement and 

loyalty, reduced 

turnover, an 

enhanced pipeline of 

skilled workers, 

development of 

future managers, 

improved company 

culture

$1.44 (represents ROI 

considering costs and 

benefits during 

apprenticeship and 

up to 5 years after 

completion)

ICF (2021) Youth leadership Costs: Professional 

opportunity costs 

including foregone 

earnings during the 

program, forgone 

taxes, state and 

national grants, 

education awards, 

and match funds

Benefits: Increased 

earnings for 

YouthBuild 

AmeriCorps 

participants, tax 

revenue generation, 

reduced spending on 

corrections, public 

assistance, and social 

insurance. 

$0.40–$9.58
8

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Study Study area

Benefits/cost savings 

evaluated

ROI estimate*

(Return in dollars for 

every $1 in cost)

Yang (2016) Urban agriculture Costs: Farm 

manager’s salary, 

cost of equipment 

and seeds, cost of 

water

Benefits: Value of 

produce, donations, 

grant money, social 

and environmental 

benefits (food quality 

& access, health 

impacts, educational 

opportunities, 

community 

development & 

social justice, 

ecosystem services, 

cultural & aesthetic 

value, volunteer 

hours

Economic ROI: -$0.38

Social & 

environmental 

benefits: $5.40–$7.26

Total ROI: $5.01–$6.87

Gurin-Sands (2019) Community 

development

Costs: Community 

development 

investment

Benefits: Healthcare 

system savings, 

household income 

boosts, additional 

investments of 

government dollars, 

carbon savings, 

reduced mortality

$2.91
9

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Study Study area

Benefits/cost savings 

evaluated

ROI estimate*

(Return in dollars for 

every $1 in cost)

Anderson (2018) Public workforce 

development

Costs: Administrative 

costs and training 

costs 

Benefits: Additional 

taxes revenue 

attributable to an 

increase in afterprogram earnings 

and savings

N/A

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

costs, where available. 

ROI Methodology 

The methodology for estimating the ROI of the GCF program consisted of the following 

components: 

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

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

determine the benefits to AmeriCorps members, the government, and society. 

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

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

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

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

investment opportunity cost for the GCF program funding that could have been 

used for other purposes. 

3. Assessing program costs. GCF provided program costs associated with Cohort 

22 within the September 2021–October 2022 program year. GCF program costs 

included operating costs, AmeriCorps member expenses, and other indirect 

costs. AmeriCorps member expenses included the living allowance amounts 

received during service and the expected education awards received 

post-service. 

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

assessed under three scenarios representing different assumptions about the 

persistence of program outcomes: 

• Total benefits per federal dollar

• Total benefits per funder dollar4

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

(i.e., AmeriCorps) and match funding from state and local governments.
10

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

• 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 

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

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

Figure 1. Benefits Among Stakeholder Groups From the GCF Program

Available data provided by GCF establishes that GCF AmeriCorps members enjoy 

earnings impacts as a result of serving in program. However, the data is for 1 year 

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

includes three scenarios:5 

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

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

also assumes that no lifetime benefits are realized.

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

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

applied each year to represent net present value in 2022 dollars.6 This scenario 

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

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

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

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

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

present value of lifetime benefits is realized.

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

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

from the program. For example, lifetime benefits in terms of decreased public assistance, social insurance, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

discount rate, see Office of Management and Budget (2003).
11

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

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

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

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

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

earnings benefits) represents the midpoint between these two scenarios. 

GCF Program Activities That Were Not Monetized 

GCF engages in activities that were not captured in the ROI analysis but that likely result 

in additional benefits. For example, the GCF program provides career services support 

to alumni of the program post-service. This benefit of the program cannot be measured 

and monetized with the data currently available. Similarly, the urban farms that are 

maintained by GCF AmeriCorps members likely result in additional environmental 

benefits not captured in this analysis due to lack of data. These include benefits related 

to recycling and stormwater absorption. Finally, benefits to NYCHA residents that were 

identified in previous evaluations, such as health benefits from access to fresh produce, 

improved community cohesion and safety improvements, and improved sustainability 

knowledge as a result of GCF’s program activities were not included in this analysis due 

to lack of available data to monetize them. The exclusion of some potential benefits 

from the analysis makes this a conservative estimate of GCF’s ROI.

Monetizing Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs), 

and Program Costs

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

expected opportunity costs—all in 2022 dollars—to assess the ROI of the GCF program. 

Additional details on the methodology employed and the calculations used for this 

analysis are in Appendix B.

Program Benefits 

The GCF program results in monetizable benefits to GCF AmeriCorps members; NYCHA 

residents; society; and federal, state, and local governments. Table 3 summarizes these 

benefits and data sources by stakeholder group.

Table 3. Benefits Realized From the GCF Program by Stakeholder Group

Stakeholder group Benefits

GCF AmeriCorps members • Additional earnings from reduced unemployment 

• Additional lifetime earnings from increased educational 

attainment as a result of education awards

• Post-tax living allowances and education awards 

NYCHA residents • Savings from access to free organic produce

Society • Decreased damages to society caused by carbon 

emissions, due to composting organic waste
12

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Stakeholder group Benefits

Federal, state, and local 

governments 

• Tax revenue from increased earnings by GCF members 

post-program and sales tax revenue from the induced 

increased economic activity

• Tax revenue from living allowances and education 

awards 

• Reduced lifetime spending on corrections, public 

assistance, and social insurance from increased 

educational attainment by GCF AmeriCorps members 

as a result of education awards

• Lifetime tax revenue from increased educational 

attainment by GCF AmeriCorps members as a result of 

education awards

• Lifetime tax revenue from increased educational 

attainment by GCF AmeriCorps members as a result of 

education awards

• Reduced spending on processing of waste resulting 

from composting of organic waste

Benefits to AmeriCorps Members 

Post-Tax Living Allowances and Education Awards 

Member-specific benefits to AmeriCorps members serving with GCF include post-tax 

living allowances AmeriCorps State and National members receive during their national 

service and post-tax education awards they receive after service completion. Both are 

considered taxable income and thus result in increased government revenue.7 

The post-tax living allowance and the education award amount that was used to repay 

student loans were included in the ROI analysis as direct one-time benefits to GCF

AmeriCorps members. 

Additional Earnings From Reduced Unemployment 

GCF AmeriCorps members experience increased employment and increased earnings 

post-service as a result of the workforce training and career development elements of 

the GCF program. Not only do GCF AmeriCorps members have reduced

unemployment outcomes following completion of their service, but they are also able 

to obtain higher-paying jobs in specific green industries, including positions in urban 

agriculture and energy efficiency, such as energy conservation assistants, compost 

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

Segal AmeriCorps Education Award. https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorpseducation-award
13

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

coordinators, solar energy installers, energy auditors, and other positions and 

apprenticeships. 

According to census data for New York City residents, the average hourly wage 

accounting for similar racial demographics would be $14.00, and the average hourly 

wage accounting for the same level of educational attainment would be $16.59— 

both of which are lower than the post-service wage of $19.26 provided by GCF.

To monetize this benefit following completion of service, the analysis utilized GCFprovided data regarding the number of AmeriCorps members who were employed 

1 year following completion of the program, as well as the average wage of these 

individuals. Using the unemployment rate provided in the 2019 Farms at NYCHA 

evaluation, the analysis found a corresponding increase in the number of employed 

individuals.8 The analysis then proceeded to multiply the number of newly employed 

individuals by the median wage to determine increased earnings resulting from the 

GCF program. The earnings metrics were applied and discounted based on the 

short-term, medium-term, and long-term scenarios to represent net present 2022 dollars. 

This analysis applied the GCF-provided average post-service wage of $19.26 only to 

AmeriCorps members whose post-service employment is attributable to participation 

in AmeriCorps. Given that other members also earn the higher average wage as a 

result of upskilling, this is a conservative estimate of the earnings benefit to members.

Additional Lifetime Earnings From Increased Educational Attainment as a Result 

of Education Awards

Another benefit derived from national service is the higher educational attainment of 

AmeriCorps members. AmeriCorps members in general—as documented in Friedman 

et al. (2016)—can use their education awards to pay for additional postsecondary 

educational attainment or to repay student loans. 

GCF-provided data indicated that five AmeriCorps members went on to pursue 

additional education following completion of the program, while Friedman et al. (2016) 

reported 33 percent of AmeriCorps State and National members used it to repay 

student loans.

This analysis estimated the expected increase in lifetime earnings of GCF members 

attributable to the use of education awards to pay for additional postsecondary 

schooling. Based on the findings from Friedman et al. (2016), the analysis estimated the 

amount in post-tax education awards that GCF AmeriCorps members used to pay for 

additional educational attainment. The analysis then estimated the value of the 

additional educational attainment attributable to the education awards in terms of 

lifetime earnings. These estimated additional post-tax lifetime earnings were included as 

a benefit to GCF AmeriCorps members.

8 According to the 2019 Farms at NYCHA evaluation, 71.5 percent of non-disabled NYCHA residents 

between the ages of 18 and 24 are unemployed.
14

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Benefits to NYCHA Residents 

Through the Farms at NYCHA program, GCF AmeriCorps members contribute to the 

operation of urban farms and distribution of organic produce to NYCHA residents. 

All produce distributed at each of the six farmstands is given to residents for free. 

The analysis calculated cost savings to residents using a GCF-provided estimate of the 

number of pounds of produce distributed to residents, combined with an estimate of 

the market cost of produce. 

Benefits to Society 

The Farms at NYCHA program composts organic waste generated by NYCHA residents 

and the Farms at NYCHA itself. GCF provided an estimate of the number of pounds of 

waste composted through the program. Using Nordahl et al. (2020), this analysis 

determined the reduction in carbon emissions as a result of composting organic waste 

and diverting it from a traditional landfill. The difference in carbon emissions was then 

valued using the social cost of carbon to monetize the benefit to society resulting from 

the reduction in emitted carbon (Rennert et al., 2022). 

Benefits to Government 

Tax Revenue Generation and Reduced Spending (Benefits to Government)

The benefits of GCF AmeriCorps members result in benefits to various levels of 

government. 

Benefits to Government From Increased Earnings by GCF AmeriCorps Members 

Federal, state, and local governments benefit from increased earnings by GCF

AmeriCorps members. Those benefits include: 

• Income tax revenue from increased employment by GCF AmeriCorps members 

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

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

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

taxes, the analysis estimated proportional tax rates representing the share 

of earnings paid in taxes. To estimate proportional tax rates that reflect 

federal- and state-level progressive tax brackets and standard deductions, the 

amount of total taxes paid was divided by the pre-tax earnings per GCF

AmeriCorps member. 

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

increased employment by GCF AmeriCorps members post-service. To estimate 

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

earnings of GCF AmeriCorps members, the New York state and local sales tax 

rate was applied to the estimated taxable expenditures of GCF AmeriCorps 

members based on their post-service pre-tax earnings using Consumer 
15

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Expenditure Survey data (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022-a).9 The resulting 

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

to serving with the GCF program, for AmeriCorps members, to estimate state 

and local government sales tax revenue. 

Benefits to Government From Increased Educational Attainment by GCF AmeriCorps 

Members 

Federal, state, and local governments benefit from increased postsecondary 

educational attainment by GCF AmeriCorps members. Those benefits include: 

• Tax revenue from education awards. Education awards provided to GCF

AmeriCorps members upon service completion are subject to taxes, resulting in 

additional government revenue.10 This ROI analysis applied federal income, state 

income, Social Security, and Medicare tax rates to the expected total amount of 

education awards to be given to GCF AmeriCorps members to estimate these 

additional taxes. Both estimated proportional federal and state income tax rates 

were used. Sales taxes were not estimated for education awards because they

cannot be used for consumer purchases. 

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

insurance from increased educational attainment as a result of education 

awards and program participation. Higher educational attainment is associated 

with less dependence on government assistance programs and lower 

incarceration rates (Harlow, 2003; Blagg and Blom, 2018). Because of GCF

AmeriCorps members’ increased postsecondary educational attainment due to 

the use of the education award and program participation, federal and state

governments spend less. To monetize these benefits, the analysis paired the 

expected increase in postsecondary educational attainment of GCF

AmeriCorps members with the expected difference in per-person lifetime 

government cost savings from Medicaid, SNAP, unemployment insurance, 

workers’ compensation, and corrections for individuals with different levels of 

educational attainment. The latter values were provided by Trostel (2015). 

• Lifetime tax revenue from increased educational attainment as a result of 

education awards. Another benefit related to GCF AmeriCorps members 

captured in this ROI study is the lifetime tax revenue generated from members’ 

higher postsecondary educational attainment due to the use of the education 

award. Here, the estimated increase in GCF AmeriCorps members’ 

postsecondary educational attainment was paired with the expected difference 

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

from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022-a). This table lists the annual expenditure means by pre-tax 

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

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

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

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

Segal AmeriCorps Education Award. https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorpseducation-award
16

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

in per-person lifetime taxes for individuals with different levels of education, 

as provided by Trostel (2015). This lifetime tax revenue includes federal income,

state income, property, Social Security, Medicare, and sales taxes derived from 

use of the education award.

Benefits to Government From Living Allowances Received by GCF AmeriCorps Members

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

considered taxable income. This analysis applied a proportional federal income tax 

rate as well as Medicare and Social Security tax rates to the pre-tax living allowance 

amount received by GCF AmeriCorps members for the most recent program year. 

The analysis also applied a sales tax rate to the estimated taxable expenditures of GCF

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

additional state and local government revenue. 

Benefits to Government From Reduced Spending on Waste Processing

Composting from the Farms at NYCHA program results in reduced municipal spending 

on waste processing. The analysis values the cost savings as a benefit to local 

government using the GCF-provided estimate of pounds of compost created, 

combined with an estimate from Farhidi et al. (2022) of the cost that would have been 

incurred to process that waste in a landfill.11 

Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs) 

The analysis estimated forgone benefits of both members and funders because of their 

participation and investment in the GCF program. These forgone benefits were 

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

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

forgone benefits are referred to as the professional and investment opportunity costs, 

described below. 

11 According to Farhidi et al. (2022), composting 1 ton of waste results in government savings of $60, 

assuming composting can divert 30% of the average waste processed.
17

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Professional Opportunity Cost to GCF AmeriCorps Members

The first forgone benefit was the professional 

opportunity cost to GCF AmeriCorps members 

for their period of national service, during which 

they could otherwise be working and earning 

higher pay. To calculate this opportunity cost, 

this analysis estimated what GCF AmeriCorps 

members would have earned if they did not 

serve with the GCF program. Specifically, this 

analysis estimated the weighted average 

annual earnings of this group as well as their 

weighted unemployment rate using GCFprovided data, data from the Current 

Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement for March 2022 (U.S. Census Bureau, 

2022-b), and the demographic distribution of 

GCF AmeriCorps members for the 2021–2022 

program year. The demographics included were 

gender, age, race/ethnicity, and the highest level of education pre-service. The 

weighted average annual earnings represent the expected earnings of the GCF

AmeriCorps members if they were employed but not serving with the GCF program. The 

unemployment rate, taken from the 2019 Farms at NYCHA evaluation, represents how 

many of the GCF AmeriCorps members would have been unemployed if they did not 

serve with the GCF program. These weighted metrics were used to calculate the 

aggregate earnings those employed individuals would have made without serving with 

the GCF program. Namely, they are used to calculate the aggregate post-tax earnings 

this population would forgo due to serving with the GCF program for one year. 

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

To appropriately allocate opportunity costs between GCF AmeriCorps members and 

government, the analysis estimated the reduced tax revenue for federal income, state 

income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes. The analysis also estimated the reduction 

in sales tax from reduced consumption. Combined, these taxes represent what the 

various levels of government are forgoing in tax revenue when these individuals decide 

to serve with the GCF program instead of working for higher pay. The summation of all 

forgone taxes and the forgone post-tax earnings of GCF AmeriCorps members is called 

the total professional opportunity cost. 

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

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

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

government benefits (e.g., tax revenue and cost savings) realized as a result of the GCF

program in this ROI calculation. The parts of the professional opportunity cost removed 

from these total federal government benefits include the federal income, Social 

Security, and Medicare taxes forgone due to GCF AmeriCorps members forgoing 

Using data provided by the 

NYCHA, the 2019 Farms at NYCHA 

evaluation noted that 71.5 

percent of non-disabled NYCHA 

residents between the ages of 18 

and 24 are unemployed. Due to 

the high pre-service 

unemployment rate of this group, 

the opportunity cost to GCF 

AmeriCorps members is negative, 

meaning the opportunity to 

participate in the program and 

earn a stipend outweighs 

potential forgone earnings for 

AmeriCorps members.
18

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

earnings during their service year. The summation of these forgone federal taxes is 

called the federal professional opportunity cost. 

Investment Opportunity Cost to Funders

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

It estimates the expected forgone return if all funds used to support the GCF program 

during the 2021–2022 program year were invested in U.S. Treasury bonds instead. 

This opportunity cost applies to all funders, including but not limited to AmeriCorps. 

To calculate this, the analysis matched 2021 real interest rates provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (2020) to each of the scenarios leveraged in this ROI 

analysis: short-term, medium-term, and long-term.12 The rates of return for U.S. Treasury 

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

The real interest rate for the 3-year maturity was used for the short-term scenario, 

the average between the 10-year and 20-year maturity rates was used as the rate for 

the medium-term scenario, and the 30-year maturity rate was used for the long-term 

scenario. These real interest rates were -1.8 percent, -0.8 percent, and -0.3 percent, 

respectively (Office of Management and Budget, 2020). Also, the number of time 

periods elapsed on these bonds was equal to the number of years the short-term, 

medium-term, and long-term scenarios assume GCF AmeriCorps members’ 

employment and earnings gains are sustained: 1 year, 15 years, and 30 years, 

respectively. These bonds compound biannually, according to the U.S. Department of 

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

three scenarios if the funding amount used to support the GCF program was instead 

invested. 

Note that for 1) the federal government benefits per federal dollar and 2) the total 

benefits per federal dollar ROI calculations, the investment opportunity cost subtracted 

from the benefits in these calculations is the forgone accrued interest from investing 

only the federal funds into these U.S. Treasury bonds. This is called the federal investment 

opportunity cost. This is because these ROI calculations only include federal 

government (not total) program costs. For the other ROI calculation estimated in this 

analysis, the investment opportunity cost subtracted from the benefits realized is the 

forgone accrued interest from investing all GCF program funds (both federal and nonfederal) into these U.S. Treasury bonds. This is called the total investment opportunity 

cost. See Appendix B for details. 

Program Costs 

The costs for the GCF program, used for this ROI analysis, include federal and required 

match funding and any other funding used to support program operations. The 

program costs are specific to funding the activities and positions of GCF AmeriCorps 

members whose outcomes are measured in this analysis. 

12 The analysis used 2021 real interest rates for U.S. Treasury bonds because the GCF program year analyzed 

began in 2021. 
19

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Table 4 shows the segmentation of GCF program costs by funder.13 The federal funds 

included the AmeriCorps State and National grant. Federal dollars also helped pay for 

the expected education award amounts granted to GCF AmeriCorps members once 

they completed their service term. Funds provided by state/local governments 

represent the match funding the GCF program received for the program year. 

Table 4. GCF Program Costs by Funder Type

Funder Funding provided for the program year

Federal government (AmeriCorps) $486,200

State/local governments (i.e., match funding) $828,193

Program service fees $14,006

Foundations $116,562

Total $1,444,961

ROI Study Limitations

Study limitations include the following:

• The GCF program provides career services support to alumni of the program 

post-service. This benefit of the program cannot be measured and monetized 

with the data currently available. As a result, it was not included in the ROI 

estimates. 

• Activities of GCF AmeriCorps members result in environmental benefits not 

captured in this analysis due to lack of data. These include benefits related 

to recycling and stormwater absorption. These benefits were not included 

in the ROI. 

• Additional benefits to NYCHA residents that were identified in previous 

evaluations, such as health benefits from access to fresh produce, improved 

community cohesion and safety improvements, and improved sustainability 

knowledge as a result of GCF’s program activities, were not included in this 

analysis due to lack of available data to monetize them. 

13 Program cost data were provided by GCF. 
20

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs), 

Program Costs, and ROI Results 

This section provides estimates of program benefits, forgone benefits (opportunity 

costs), and program costs, along with the ROI results. 

Program Benefits 

Table 5 shows the percentage of total benefits by stakeholder group for each of the 

three scenarios. Table 6 shows the monetized program benefits by stakeholder group 

over the three time scenarios. The majority of monetized benefits are realized by GCF 

AmeriCorps members and the federal government. Together, these two stakeholders 

experience 89 percent to 94 percent of program benefits, depending on the scenario. 

Table 5. Percentage of Program Benefits by Stakeholder Group

Recipient

Benefits by scenario (%) 

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

GCF AmeriCorps members 75% 77% 77%

NYCHA residents* 6% 1% 0%

Society* 0% 0% 0%

Federal government 14% 17% 17%

State/local governments 5% 6% 6%

*NYCHA resident benefits were 0.47% in the long-term. Society benefits were 0.018% in the short-term, 

0.003% in the medium-term, and 0.001% in the long-term.

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Table 6. Program Benefits by Recipient

Recipient

Benefits by scenario (2022$)

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

GCF AmeriCorps members $702,565 $4,874,195 $9,326,670

NYCHA residents $56,637 $56,637 $56,637

Society $140 $140 $140

Federal government $129,877 $1,059,654 $2,053,507

State/local governments $47,885 $371,441 $717,569

Total $937,104 $6,362,066 $12,154,523 

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs)

Table 7 shows the breakdown of the forgone benefits from the professional opportunity 

cost to GCF AmeriCorps members and government in net present 2022 dollars. It lists 
21

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

the amount of post-tax earnings that members are forgoing—and the associated taxes

forgone—to serve with the GCF program. This is called the total professional opportunity 

cost. For the federal government benefits per federal dollar ROI calculation, only the 

forgone federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes were subtracted from the 

total federal benefits that are realized due to the GCF program. The summation of 

these forgone federal taxes is called the federal professional opportunity cost. Due to 

the high pre-service unemployment rate of this group, the opportunity cost to GCF 

AmeriCorps members is negative, meaning the opportunity to participate in the 

program and earn a stipend outweighs potential forgone earnings for AmeriCorps 

members. 

Table 7. Forgone Benefits From Professional Opportunity Cost

Forgone category

Professional opportunity 

cost amount across all scenarios (2022$)

Post-tax earnings -$161,772

Federal income, Social Security, and 

Medicare taxes -$598

State income and sales tax -$1,591

Total -$163,961

Table 8 lists the forgone benefits from the investment opportunity cost incurred by 

scenario and for when:

a) Total GCF program funds for the program year are invested in U.S. 

Treasury bonds 

b) Only federal GCF program funds (both program and education award funding) 

are invested in these bonds 

Table 8 also lists the 2021 real interest rates and the number of years elapsed (with two 

payments a year) that were used as inputs to calculate the forgone accrued interest 

value for each scenario. The analysis used 2021 real interest rates for U.S. Treasury bonds 

because the GCF program year analyzed began in 2021. 

Table 8. Investment Opportunity Cost by Scenario and Funding Stream

Funding stream

Forgone accrued interest by scenario (2022$)

Short-term

(1.30% interest rate 

and 1 year elapsed)

Medium-term

(1.45% interest rate 

and 15 years 

elapsed)

Long-term

(1.50% interest rate 

and 30 years 

elapsed)

Total GCF program 

funding -$29,386 -$185,794 -$141,249

Federal GCF program 

funding only -$12,206 -$77,173 -$58,670
22

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Program Costs

Table 9 shows the cost of GCF for the 2021–2022 program year by funding source, and 

the percentage from each source is shown in Figure 2. Overall, the total cost of the GCF

program for this program year was $1,444,961. This amount includes $486,200 in federal 

government funding from the AmeriCorps State and National grant and the expected 

education awards, which constituted 34% of the cost. The remaining 66% of the cost 

was provided by state/local governments as part of the required match funding, 

program service fees, and foundations. This match provides the GCF program with the 

resources to offer more services than would otherwise be available only under the 

AmeriCorps federal funds. That translates into increased aggregate benefits realized 

across stakeholder groups.

Table 9. Program Cost by Funding Source for the GCF Program

Funder Funding provided for the program year

Federal government (AmeriCorps) $486,200

State/local governments (i.e., match funding) $828,193

Program service fees $14,006

Foundations $116,562

Total $1,444,961

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Figure 2. Program Cost by Funding Source

ROI Results

This analysis developed three ROI estimates for the GCF program using the three 

scenarios (short-term, medium-term, and long-term). As noted above, the ROI 

 
23

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

calculations compare the net benefits of the GCF program with the program cost to 

calculate the ROI. 

Table 10 shows the program gross benefits, forgone benefits, net benefits, cost of the 

GCF program, and each of the components that are used to calculate the three ROIs.

Table 7. Program Benefits, Net Benefits, and Program Costs by ROI Scenario

Benefits and costs

ROI scenario (2022$)

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Total program gross benefits $937,104 $6,362,066 $12,154,523 

GCF AmeriCorps members $702,565 $4,874,195 $9,326,670

NYCHA residents $56,637 $56,637 $56,637

Society $140 $140 $140

Federal government $129,877 $1,059,654 $2,053,507

State/local governments $47,885 $371,441 $717,569

Total forgone benefits (opportunity cost) -$205,553 -$426,928 -$363,880

Forgone benefits to members (forgone 

earnings post-taxes) -$161,772 -$161,772 -$161,772

Forgone tax revenue from members’ 

earnings -$2,189 -$2,189 -$2,189

Forgone tax revenue federal government -$598 -$598 -$598

Forgone tax revenue state/local 

governments -$1,591 -$1,591 -$1,591

Forgone benefits from total investment 

(all funders) -$29,386 -$185,794 -$141,249

Forgone benefits from federal 

government investment -$12,206 -$77,173 -$58,670

Total program net benefits (total program 

gross benefits – total forgone benefits) $1,008,609 $6,174,983 $11,602,808

Net benefits members (member benefits – 

forgone benefits members) $864,337 $5,035,967 $9,488,442

Net benefits federal government (federal 

government benefits – forgone tax 

revenue to federal government – forgone 

benefits from federal government 

investment)

$144,272 $1,139,016 $2,114,366

Program cost $1,444,961 $1,444,961 $1,444,961

Federal government cost $486,200 $486,200 $486,200

Non-federal government cost $958,761 $958,761 $958,761
24

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Benefits and costs

ROI scenario (2022$)

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

ROI for total benefits per federal dollar 

(total program net benefits / federal 

government cost)

$1.39 $9.45 $17.93

ROI for total benefits per funder dollar 

(total program net benefits / program 

cost)

$0.69 $4.09 $7.60

Federal government benefits per federal 

dollar (net benefits federal government / 

federal government cost) 

$0.21 $1.67 $3.10

Table 11 summarizes the ROI results for the GCF program across the short-term, 

medium-term, and long-term scenarios. Three different ROI results are calculated for 

each scenario. Since two of the calculations include benefits to society, the results are 

expressed as cost–benefit ratios, while maintaining the ROI terminology. Specifically, 

these ratios take the form of the sum of monetized benefits over the sum of applicable 

program costs. The ROIs expressed as cost–benefit ratios in this study can be interpreted 

as the amount of dollars returned for every $1 of investment (or program cost).14 

See Appendix B for the formulas used to calculate each ROI calculation.

Table 8. ROI Results for the GCF Program

ROI calculation

ROI scenario

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Total benefits per federal dollar $1.39 $9.45 $17.93

Total benefits per funder dollar $0.69 $4.09 $7.60

Federal government benefits per federal dollar $0.21 $1.67 $3.10

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

ROI calculations. The most significant factors driving the positive ROI estimates in the 

medium- and long-term scenarios are:

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

AmeriCorps program, AmeriCorps members receive an education award, 

which is used by a portion of members to help pay for postsecondary degrees 

post-service. The additional educational attainment resulting from the use of the 

education award generates additional earnings for AmeriCorps members. 

14 ROIs can be expressed in percentages or as ratios, such as in this study. Although not shown as a ratio 

in the results, the ROIs in this study show the amount of return for every $1 invested. 
25

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

• Employment outcomes of AmeriCorps members. GCF AmeriCorps members 

experience increased employment and increased earnings post-service as a 

result of the workforce training and career development elements of the GCF 

program.

Due to available data, a limited number of benefits from program activities were able 

to be monetized, including cost savings to residents of free organic produce and 

reduced CO2 emissions due to GCF composting activities. These benefits were relatively 

small compared to program costs.

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

ROI results indicate that there is a short-term loss on funding invested in the program 

based on the results of total benefits per funder dollar and federal benefits per federal 

dollar ROI calculations. An ROI that is below $1 in the first year post-program is common 

in programs where there is an initial one-time investment made and benefits accrue in 

the following years. This is because it can require several years of benefits to recoup the 

initial investment and generate positive returns. 

Government funding serves as a catalyst for private funding of evidence-based social 

services programs. For the ROI calculations of 1) total benefits per federal dollar and 

2) total benefits per funder dollar, AmeriCorps’s requirement of match funding also 

contributed to the magnitude of outcomes. Federal government funding of the GCF

program serves as a catalyst for other funding, specifically that from state and local 

governments. This additional funding allowed the GCF program to operate at a larger 

scale than would have been possible under the federal funding alone. Though it may 

not impact the ROI because it is a per-unit metric, match funding leads to greater 

investment in the GCF program and thus to a greater impact as more individuals are 

served. 

Recommendations for Further Research 

Future ROI studies for national and community service programs, such as the GCF

program, can be strengthened in several ways. 

Recommendation 1: Determine the persistence of short- and long-term impacts for 

AmeriCorps members. The persistence of impacts, such as earnings or employment, 

is often not measured in evaluations because it requires long-term tracking. Although a 

scenario-based approach that accounts for variations in the persistence of impacts 

can be used, as was completed in this ROI analysis, rigorous research on the long-term 

impact of programming will enable AmeriCorps to determine a single value for ROI 

calculations and avoid relying on the scenario-based approach. For example, 

Friedman et al. (2016) reported the unemployment status of AmeriCorps member 

alumni 6 months before service, 6 months after service, and during the summer of 2016. 

The authors indicate that data for the latter timepoint was collected anywhere from 

3 to 11 years after service completion, depending on the AmeriCorps member alumni 

cohort (i.e., 2005, 2010, or 2013). The varying data collection periods for the cohorts 

makes it difficult to measure the duration of benefits. Thus, instead of collecting 

outcome measures at a time that varies by AmeriCorps member, studies should track 
26

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

outcomes of interest at the same intervals, multiple times after program or service

completion, to provide greater insight into the duration and consistency of benefits.

Recommendation 2: Document outcomes using third-party data sources. Using thirdparty data, along with or in place of self-reported data, can also improve the accuracy 

of program outcome measurements. While self-reported data are easier to obtain—

especially via the use of survey instruments—they have several disadvantages. Some 

answers may be exaggerated, respondents may not answer honestly, and response 

biases could affect results. AmeriCorps programs should—where possible—leverage 

data from third-party sources either to provide data for their program evaluation or to 

corroborate findings from self-reported data. For example, if employment and earnings 

outcomes are of interest, unemployment insurance data—which are submitted by 

employers—could be used to verify members’ wages or employment status postservice. Additionally, if degree completion data are of interest, such as in the case of 

this ROI analysis, data from the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) could be used to 

verify what portion of GCF AmeriCorps members pursued higher education and which 

degrees were completed post-program with the help of the education award. Were 

degree or employment outcomes data available from third-party data sources (like 

NSC), those data may make more precise ROI estimates possible. 

Recommendation 3: Quantify ripple effects. Earnings impacts AmeriCorps members 

likely have positive benefits for those individuals’ families and surrounding communities. 

Rigorous research on those potential ripple effects would enable AmeriCorps to 

capture a broader array of benefits of this and other programs, which would be 

expected to result in an increased ROI. Specifically, the longitudinal impacts on

AmeriCorps members could be collected alongside the ripple effects their outcomes 

have on their families and communities to determine how long these indirect impacts 

are sustained after program participation or completion. 

Recommendation 4: Monetize additional benefits through improved data collection. 

Future evaluations should attempt to collect data on benefits to NYCHA residents and 

other program beneficiaries that were not captured in this ROI study. These may spring

from program activities and outcomes measured in previous evaluations, such as 

improved community cohesion, safety improvements, improved sustainability 

knowledge, additional environmental benefits (e.g., improved stormwater absorption), 

and efforts to promote the health of community members. Similarly, future evaluations 

should attempt to capture the benefit of ongoing alumni support AmeriCorps members 

receive from GCF in the medium- and long-term ROI scenarios. Improved data 

collection on these topics will allow for a more precise and inclusive ROI estimate. 
27

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Conclusion 

Based upon these findings, investment in the GCF program results in favorable impacts 

under the medium- and long-term scenarios. Impacts are driven by increased 

postsecondary educational attainment and increased employment of AmeriCorps 

members. In the short-term scenario—which only includes benefits for 1 year 

post-program—the results are mixed. The total benefits per federal dollar calculation 

estimates that benefits exceed costs in the short-term. The total benefits per funder 

dollar and federal government benefits per federal dollar calculations estimate a 

short-term loss. 
28

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Appendix A: Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and 

Program Costs Included in Return on Investment Calculations 

In Table 12, the three columns on the right indicate by an “X” if the program benefits, 

forgone benefits (opportunity cost), or program cost is included in the numerator or 

denominator of an ROI calculation.
29

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Table 9. Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Costs Included in ROI Calculations

Benefit or cost

Total net 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Total net 

benefits per 

funder dollar 

Federal 

government net 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Benefit Stakeholder group Data sources X indicates inclusion in the ROI numerator

Increased earnings of 

national service members 

due to increased 

employment and education 

of AmeriCorps members 

AmeriCorps 

members 

• GCF

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2022-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2022-b)

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2019-c)

• CUNY Urban Food 

Policy Institute (2019))

X X

Increased federal and state 

income tax revenue due to 

increased earnings of 

AmeriCorps members

Federal and state 

governments

• GCF

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2022-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2022-b) 

• Tax rate data on 

Bankrate.com and 

Loughead (Tax 

Foundation, 2020)

X X X

Increased Social Security 

and Medicare tax revenue 

due to increased earnings of 

AmeriCorps members

Federal 

government

• GCF

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2022-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2022-b) 

• Social Security 

Administration (2021) 

X X X
30

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Benefit or cost

Total net 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Total net 

benefits per 

funder dollar 

Federal 

government net 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Increased sales tax revenue 

due to increased earnings of 

AmeriCorps members

State and local 

governments

• GCF

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2022-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2022-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2022-b)

• Loughead (Tax 

Foundation, 2020)

X X

AmeriCorps member posttax living allowances and 

education awards

AmeriCorps 

members • GCF

X X

Reduced spending on 

lifetime public assistance, 

corrections, and social 

insurance due to increased 

educational attainment of 

AmeriCorps members

Federal, state, and 

local governments • Trostel (2015)

• Zeidenberg et al. (2016)

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2022-a) 

X X X

Savings from access to fresh 

produce

NYCHA members • GCF X X

Reduced carbon emissions 

and social cost of carbon

Society • GCF

• Rennert et al. (2022)

• Nordahl et al. (2020)

X X

Reduced cost of processing 

waste

State and local 

governments

• GCF

• Farhidi et al. (2022)

X X
31

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Benefit or cost

Total net 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Total net 

benefits per 

funder dollar 

Federal 

government net 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Forgone Benefit (Opportunity 

Cost) Payer Data Sources X indicates inclusion in the ROI denominator

Opportunity costs of forgone 

market wages for 

AmeriCorps members

AmeriCorps 

members 

• GCF

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2022-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2019-c)

X X X

Opportunity costs of federal 

taxes on forgone market 

wages for AmeriCorps 

members (e.g., federal 

income and social security 

taxes)

Federal 

government

• GCF

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2022-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2022-b)

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2019-c)

• Tax rate data on 

Bankrate.com and 

Loughead (Tax 

Foundation, 2020) 

• Social Security 

Administration (2021)

X X X
32

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Benefit or cost

Total net 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Total net 

benefits per 

funder dollar 

Federal 

government net 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Opportunity costs of state 

and local taxes on forgone 

market wages for 

AmeriCorps members (e.g., 

state income and 

state/local sales taxes)

State and local 

governments 

• GCF

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2022-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2019-a) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2022-b) 

• U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (2019-c)

• Loughead (Tax 

Foundation, 2020)

X X

Opportunity costs of federal 

funders

Federal 

government

• AmeriCorps

• U.S. Treasury 

Department (2019)

X X X

Opportunity costs of other 

program funders

Non-government 

funders

• GCF

• U.S. Treasury 

Department (2019)

X

Program cost Payer Data sources X indicates inclusion in the ROI denominator

AmeriCorps grant costs 

(excluding living allowances 

and education awards 

provided to AmeriCorps 

members)

Federal 

government 

(AmeriCorps)

• AmeriCorps X X X

AmeriCorps member living 

allowances and education 

awards

Federal 

government 

(AmeriCorps)

• AmeriCorps X X X

GCF costs GCF • GCF X
33

Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

Benefit or cost

Total net 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Total net 

benefits per 

funder dollar 

Federal 

government net 

benefits per 

federal dollar

Other federal government 

funding (not provided by 

AmeriCorps)

Federal 

government

• GCF X X X

State and local government 

funding

State and local 

governments • GCF X 

Other non-government costs Non-government 

funders • GCF X 
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

34

Appendix B: Additional Information on the Methodology 

This appendix provides additional details on the methodology used for this study, as a 

supplement to the methodology section in the main report. It describes the steps used 

to calculate the ROI, the results of interim calculations that contribute to the ROI 

calculations, and assumptions that underlie the analysis. 

Methodology Overview 

Calculating the ROI for the GCF program included the following steps: 

• Measuring and monetizing program benefits to GCF AmeriCorps members, 

NYCHA residents, society, and the different levels of government 

• Estimating forgone benefits (opportunity costs)

• Assessing program costs 

• Calculating the ROI 

This ROI analysis included only those benefits that could be reasonably monetized given 

the available data and that likely would not have occurred without the GCF program. 

Although GCF AmeriCorps members experience positive benefits from the GCF

program in terms of increased employment and earnings (described below), available 

data do not establish how long these specific impacts are sustained over time. To 

address a range of possible durations for those benefits, three scenarios were 

developed for this ROI study: 

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

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

also assumes no lifetime benefits are realized. 

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

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

is applied each year to represent net present value in 2022 dollars.15 This scenario 

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

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

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

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

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

value of lifetime benefits is realized. 

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

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

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

Green City Force AmeriCorps

35

There are some differences between the three scenarios. One is the length of time that 

increased employment—and earnings associated with that employment—are 

sustained. The other is what portion of lifetime benefits, when applicable, are realized.16

For each ROI calculation, three estimates using the three scenarios were developed, 

which is shown in greater detail in the Calculating ROI section. 

Measuring Program Benefits 

The first step in calculating the ROI for the GCF program is to measure and monetize the 

program benefits. GCF AmeriCorps members, NYCHA residents, society, and various 

levels of government benefit from the GCF program. These benefits were identified 

through an extensive literature review and data collection process. The methods used 

to measure benefits for each of these stakeholder groups are described below. 

Benefits to GCF AmeriCorps Members 

The GCF AmeriCorps members who provide services as part of the GCF program 

experience benefits due to their national service. This analysis estimated the following 

benefits: 

• Living allowance and education award

• Increased earnings due to reduced unemployment

• Increased lifetime earnings due to increased postsecondary education derived 

from the use of education awards

Living Allowance and Education Award

Living allowances are given to AmeriCorps members during their 1-year service term 

to pay for various living expenses—such as housing and groceries—and they sometimes 

include members’ workers’ compensation and health insurance when applicable. 

Regarding education awards, according to Friedman et al. (2016), a significant portion 

of AmeriCorps State and National member alumni use them to pay for additional 

postsecondary education at colleges, graduate schools, and technical/vocational 

schools, while others (i.e., 33 percent) use them to pay off outstanding student loans. 

The remaining 21 percent do not use their education awards. Additionally, GCF

provided data indicating five program members went on to pursue further education 

within 1 year following completion of their service. 

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

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

stem from the GCF program. For example, lifetime benefits in terms of decreased public assistance, social 

insurance, and corrections costs result from GCF AmeriCorps members’ higher educational attainment 

post-service. The analysis estimates lifetime benefits differently in the three scenarios. Specifically, the net 

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

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

realized for the short-term scenario.
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

36

Both the living allowances and education awards (considered one-time benefits that 

are not discounted or spread over time) are taxable and represent member benefits. 

However, only the portion of education awards used by members to pay off existing 

student loans is considered a direct member benefit. The portion that is utilized to 

pursue further postsecondary education is only used in calculating members’ additional 

lifetime earnings due to the increased educational attainment they experience 

post-service from using the education award. This is done to avoid double counting. 

This analysis included as GCF AmeriCorps member benefits the post-tax values of the 

living allowance and the portion of the education award used to repay student loans, 

which are listed in Table 13. The portion of the education award used to fund additional 

postsecondary education is discussed in the following section.

Table 10. GCF AmeriCorps Member Benefits From the Living Allowance and 

Education Award

Benefit Post-tax value (2022$) Notes

Living allowance $364,838 Post-tax living allowances members 

receive during service

Education award used to 

pay off student loans $64,242 Post-tax education award amount used to pay off outstanding student loans

Total $429,080

Sources: GCF and Friedman et al. (2016)

Increased Earnings due to Reduced Unemployment 

According to data provided by NYCHA to GCF for the 2019 Farms at NYCHA 

evaluation, 71.5 percent of non-disabled NYCHA residents between the ages of 18 and 

24 are unemployed (i.e., 28.5 percent are employed).17 GCF also provided data for the 

cohort engaged during the 2021–2022 program year indicating 15 of 22 participating 

AmeriCorps members maintained employment for 1 year following graduation from the 

program (i.e., 68.9 percent). This represents a 40.4 percent increase in employment of 

GCF AmeriCorps members following completion of the program.

A direct member benefit from being employed post-service is additional income 

earned. GCF AmeriCorps members not only see increased employment following 

completion of their service but earn higher wages as a result of specific job training and 

upskilling. To monetize this benefit, ICF used GCF-provided data on the average wage 

of GCF AmeriCorps members who were employed 1 year post-graduation. The analysis 

then multiplied the 40.4 increase in employment by the number of GCF AmeriCorps 

member full-time equivalents (FTEs) who served during the most recent program year

(i.e., 22). This estimated the number of additional GCF AmeriCorps member FTEs

17 The civilian unemployment rate was 3.8 percent in May of 2018 and 3.6 percent in May of 2022. Overall 

unemployment has remained relatively similar since 2018, leading to confidence in using the NYCHAprovided unemployment rate of 71.5 percent from the 2019 Farms at NYCHA evaluation in this analysis. 

https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm 
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

37

employed due to national service (i.e., 8.88). To estimate the additional pre-tax 

earnings that stemmed from the reduced unemployment, the analysis multiplied the 

GCF-provided $19.26 average hourly wage of GCF AmeriCorps members by the 

additional number of GCF AmeriCorps members employed post-service, assuming a 

40-hour work week for 52 weeks of the year. This represents the additional income 

earned by GCF AmeriCorps members due to serving with the GCF program. 

Table 11. Additional Pre-Tax Earnings for GCF AmeriCorps Members From Reduced 

Unemployment

Metric Value (2022$)

Average annual earnings (assuming $19.26 hourly wage) of employed GCF

AmeriCorps members 

$40,061

Reduction in AmeriCorps members’ unemployment 40.40% 

GCF AmeriCorps member FTEs 22

Cumulative additional pre-tax earnings $356,060 

Cumulative additional post-tax earnings $280,846

Source: GCF

To avoid double counting, the additional post-tax earnings is used to calculate the 

direct benefit to GCF AmeriCorps members, rather than the additional pre-tax earnings. 

The post-tax annual earnings for the additional 8.88 GCF AmeriCorps member FTEs 

employed in Table 14 exclude payroll taxes (e.g., federal and state income, Social 

Security, and Medicare). The payroll tax rates used are described in more detail in the 

Benefits to Government section. 

Based on these calculations, the cumulative additional post-tax earnings for GCF

AmeriCorps members for the three different scenarios—discounted in 2022 dollars using 

data from the Office of Management and Budget—are shown in Table 15. These 

monetary amounts represent the additional post-tax earnings realized due to the 

employment gain that is solely attributed to the GCF program. 

Table 12. Cumulative Additional Post-Tax Earnings Derived From Reduced 

Unemployment due to Serving With the GCF Program by Scenario

Scenario

Cumulative additional post-tax earnings 

due to serving with the GCF program (2022$)

Short-term $256,060

Medium-term $5,340,905

Long-term $10,681,812

Sources: GCF and Office of Management and Budget (2003)
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

38

Increased Lifetime Earnings due to 

Increased Postsecondary Education 

Derived From the Use of Education 

Awards

The AmeriCorps education award pays for 

some portion of members’ increased 

postsecondary educational attainment, 

and the future earnings derived from that 

educational attainment is treated as a 

direct benefit to GCF AmeriCorps 

members. To calculate the portion of 

members’ increased educational 

attainment that is attributable to the GCF

program, this analysis used cost data from 

the National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES). Table 15 details the average total 

cost for each degree type and the portion 

of the cost that the post-tax education 

award amount (i.e., $5,622) represents 

($7,015 before taxes).18 The analysis used 

these percentages to estimate the lifetime 

benefits of postsecondary educational 

attainment that can be attributed to the 

education award. For instance, according 

to NCES (2021), the average annual cost of a public, in-state, 4-year academic 

institution during the 2020–2021 academic year was $28,029. This amounts to more than 

$100,000 for 4 years if expressed in 2022 dollars. The $5,622 post-tax education award 

only represents 4.8 percent of the cost of that degree, so the GCF program could only 

be credited with 5 percent of the completion of GCF AmeriCorps members’ bachelor’s 

degree post-service. 

18 This analysis used the 2021 to 2022 AmeriCorps education award amount ($7,015). For more information 

about this education award, please see https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorpseducation-award/find-out-more. 

Additional earnings derived from 

AmeriCorps members’ reduced 

unemployment were calculated 

annually and then discounted based 

on the short-term, medium-term, and 

long-term scenarios in net present 

2022 dollars. 

For additional earnings derived from 

AmeriCorps members’ increased 

postsecondary educational 

attainment—due to using education 

awards—Trostel (2015) did not provide 

data on how earnings accrue over 

time. Therefore, this analysis treated the 

increases in earnings as lifetime values 

expressed in 2022 dollars. The analysis 

assumed 100 percent of those lifetime 

earnings accrued by year 30 (i.e., in the 

long-term scenario), 50 percent 

accrued by year 15 (i.e., in the 

medium-term scenario), and nothing 

accrued 1 year post-program (i.e., in 

the short-term scenario).
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

39

Table 13. Average Total Cost of Education and Portion Attributable to Education Award 

by Degree Type

Degree type19 Average cost (2022$)*

Percentage of degree total cost 

covered by post-tax education award

Associate degree $28,029 20.1%

Bachelor’s degree $116,275 4.8%

Graduate degree $35,872 15.7%

*Costs were provided for the 2020 to 2021 academic year by NCES (2021) for associate degree, bachelor’s 

degree, and graduate degree types. 

Sources: AmeriCorps (n.d.) and NCES (2021)

To determine the future lifetime earnings (and later, the associated lifetime taxes, which 

are described in the Benefits to Government section) realized due to the use of the 

education award post-service, the analysis first determined the number of additional 

postsecondary degrees estimated to be completed by degree type. GCF provided 

data indicating all AmeriCorps members had obtained a high school diploma prior to 

beginning service, and five graduates of the program went on to further education. 

Therefore, the analysis assumes five AmeriCorps members pursued a bachelor’s degree 

following completion of the GCF program. 

Next, the difference in the additional lifetime pre-tax earnings was estimated using data 

provided by Trostel (2015), which is shown in the fifth column of Table 17 and expressed 

in 2022 dollars.20 For instance, using Trostel (2015) data, the lifetime earnings in 2022

dollars of someone with an associate degree is about $1 million, while that of someone 

with a bachelor’s degree is almost $1.5 million. The difference between these two 

metrics (roughly $483,000 as shown in Table 17) represents the additional lifetime 

earnings realized as a result of gaining a bachelor’s degree if an associate degree was 

already completed. This process was completed for all postsecondary degree types to 

conservatively estimate the additional lifetime earnings realized by GCF AmeriCorps 

members due to an increase in postsecondary educational attainment. Trostel (2015) 

also included data on lifetime taxes paid, which was converted to 2022 dollars and 

then used to estimate the post-tax lifetime earnings that would be realized per 

additional postsecondary degree received. Specifically, the lifetime taxes paid 

amounts were subtracted from the pre-tax additional lifetime earnings amounts to 

estimate the additional post-tax lifetime earnings, a direct benefit to GCF AmeriCorps 

members. 

19 Costs for an associate degree include tuition, required fees, books, and supplies for a public, in-state, 

2-year program; costs for a bachelor’s degree include tuition, required fees, books, supplies, and 

on-campus housing for a public, in-state, 4-year program; costs for a graduate degree include tuition 

and required fees for a public, in-state, 2-year graduate program. 

20 For an associate degree, comparisons were made between metrics for a high school diploma and those 

for an associate degree. For a bachelor’s degree, comparisons made were between metrics for an 

associate degree and those of a bachelor’s degree. For a graduate degree, comparisons made were 

between metrics for a bachelor’s degree and those of a master’s degree. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

40

Table 14. Additional Earnings From AmeriCorps Members’ Use of the Education Award

Degree 

type

Number of 

degrees 

pursued 

using the

education 

award

Percentage

of degree 

total cost 

covered by 

post-tax 

education 

award

Number of 

degrees 

obtained 

using the

education 

award

Additional

pre-tax 

lifetime 

earnings

per degree 

type

Additional 

lifetime 

earnings 

from 

education 

award 

(post-tax) 

Additional 

lifetime 

earnings 

from 

education 

award 

(post-tax)

Associate 

degree 0 20.1% 0 $194,929 $95,763 $0 

Bachelor’s 

degree 5 4.8% 0.24 $602,351 $289,747 $69,539

Graduate 

degree 0 15.7% 0 $534,678 $202,162 $0 

Total 5 — 0.24 — — $69,539

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Sources: AmeriCorps (n.d.), GCF, Friedman et al. (2016), NCES (2021), and Trostel (2015)

To isolate the increase in additional lifetime earnings specific to members using the 

education award, the number of GCF AmeriCorps members who used the education 

award for this purpose by degree type was reduced by the percentage of the degree 

cost that can be covered by the $5,622 post-tax education award received postservice, displayed in the third column of Table 17. As a result, the analysis estimated that 

the use of the education award among GCF AmeriCorps members produced roughly 

0.24 additional bachelor’s degree post-service. Then, the number of additional degrees 

obtained was applied to the 2022 additional post-tax lifetime earnings by degree type. 

This calculates the additional lifetime post-tax earnings realized by GCF AmeriCorps 

members from their increase in postsecondary educational attainment that is credited 

to the use of the education award post-service. The total additional lifetime post-tax 

earnings amount was roughly $69,000 across GCF AmeriCorps members. Of note, these 

lifetime earnings are in addition to the earnings derived from GCF AmeriCorps 

members’ gains in employment as delineated in the previous section. To reiterate, the 

earnings from GCF AmeriCorps members’ reduced unemployment differs depending 

on the scenario (i.e., short-term, medium-term, and long-term) since it is uncertain how 

long these earnings will persist. For the post-tax lifetime earnings—and all lifetime 

benefits in this ROI analysis—the entire amount is realized in the long-term, half of it is 

realized in the medium-term, and no amount is realized in the short-term.

Benefits to NYCHA Residents 

Through the Farms at NYCHA program, GCF AmeriCorps members distribute free 

organic produce to NYCHA residents. GCF provided data indicating 17,589 pounds of 

produce were distributed during the September 2021–October 2022 program year. 

Using data from Supermarket News, estimating an average price of $3.22 per pound of 

organic produce in 2022, the analysis valued the cost savings to NYCHA residents to be 

$56,637 (Redman, 2022).
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

41

Benefits to Society 

An additional element of the Farms at NYCHA program is the composting of organic 

waste. A 2020 study (Nordahl, 2020) looked at the greenhouse gas emissions associated 

with multiple management scenarios for organic municipal solid waste, including 

landfilling and composting. The study found that landfilling organic waste has the 

largest greenhouse gas footprint, emitting an estimated 400 kg of carbon dioxide per 

metric ton of waste, while composting results in the lowest footprint of -41 kg of carbon 

dioxide per metric ton of waste.21 The difference in carbon emissions across these two 

scenarios equates to 0.441 fewer metric tons of carbon emissions per metric ton of 

composted material. The analysis next used GCF-provided data that estimated 3,305 

pounds of compost collected (i.e., 1.5 metric tons) to calculate the difference in 

carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the Farms at NYCHA program. This difference 

came out to 0.66 fewer metric tons of carbon dioxide emitted as a result of composting

instead of landfilling. 

Rennert et al. (2022) estimates the social cost of carbon dioxide, a monetized value of 

the damages to society caused by increases in carbon emissions. The social cost of 

carbon emissions is used in regulatory analysis to evaluate climate policies. It accounts 

for a variety of impacts on public health, property values, and agricultural production 

that will result when new carbon dioxide is emitted (Asdourian, 2023). In this recent 

evaluation, the social cost of carbon is estimated to be $212 per metric ton in 2022 

dollars. 

Applying the social cost of carbon to the reduction in emissions resulting from GCF 

composting activities, the analysis estimates a marginal societal benefit of $140 as a 

result of decreased carbon dioxide emissions due to composting instead of landfilling.

While this benefit is negligible due to a relatively small amount of compost collected, 

larger-scale composting can provide larger carbon dioxide emission reductions and 

other benefits to individuals, such as health benefits. 

Benefits to Government 

State and Local Governments 

State and local governments benefits from: 

• Additional state income tax revenue from GCF AmeriCorps members’ increased 

earnings due to reduced unemployment

• Additional lifetime state and local taxes due to GCF AmeriCorps members’

increased postsecondary educational attainment22

21 The Nordahl study assumes that finished compost is subsequently used as soil and fertilizer replacement. 

The negative result associated with composting results from offsetting emissions from alternative sources of 

soil and fertilizer. 

22 This benefit was calculated using lifetime tax revenue data from Trostel (2015). These values summed 

lifetime state income taxes, lifetime property taxes, and lifetime sales taxes by education level. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

42

• Additional state and local taxes from the living allowance and education award 

received by these members

• Additional state and local sales tax revenue from GCF AmeriCorps members’ 

increased consumption due to reduced unemployment

• Reduced lifetime spending on social insurance and corrections23 due to GCF

AmeriCorps members’ increased postsecondary educational attainment

• Reduced spending on waste processing due to composting of organic material

State income tax revenue: To measure 

income tax revenue generation that 

stems from reduced unemployment for 

state governments (any local income 

taxes are not included), the additional 

pre-tax earnings of GCF AmeriCorps 

members that are solely attributed to the 

GCF program are taxed by a weighted, 

estimated proportional state income tax 

rate. This tax rate considers state-specific 

progressive tax brackets and standard 

deduction amounts. Based on the 

taxable income, the analysis estimated 

the proportional state income tax for 

each state as the amount of state 

income taxes paid per GCF AmeriCorps 

member divided by their pre-tax 

earnings. This analysis then calculated 

the weighted average of these statespecific tax rates—using these states’ 

populations from the 5-year estimates of 

the 2022 American Community Survey—

to estimate a weighted national tax rate

(i.e., 2.1 percent; U.S. Census Bureau, 

2022-a). A weighted national tax rate 

was used because GCF AmeriCorps members may disperse to various locations 

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

their working years.

Lifetime state income tax revenue values are also provided by Trostel (2015) by 

education level. Based on the number of postsecondary degrees estimated to be 

obtained due to the use of the education award received after serving with the GCF

program, additional lifetime state income taxes are realized. Thus, the values of 

23 Reduced spending on public assistance due to GCF AmeriCorps members’ increased postsecondary 

educational attainment is included as a federal government benefit, not a state and local government 

benefit. This is because public assistance includes programs funded at the federal level (e.g., TANF, etc.).

Additional tax revenue derived from 

AmeriCorps members’ reduced 

unemployment, living allowances, and 

education awards was calculated using 

tax rates specific to each per-person 

monetary amount. 

For additional tax revenue derived from 

AmeriCorps members’ increased 

postsecondary educational 

attainment—due to using education 

awards—as well as from increased 

secondary educational attainment, 

Trostel (2015) did not provide specific 

tax rates. Therefore, this analysis treated 

the increases in tax revenue as lifetime 

values expressed in 2022 dollars. 

The analysis assumed 100 percent of 

those lifetime tax revenues accrued by 

year 30 (i.e., in the long-term scenario), 

50 percent accrued by year 15 (i.e., in 

the medium-term scenario), and 

nothing accrued 1 year post-program 

(i.e., in the short-term scenario).
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

43

additional lifetime state income taxes paid—informed by data from Trostel (2015)—

were first converted to 2022 dollars. The analysis then multiplied them by the inferred 

number of degrees obtained using the education award. 

State governments also receive state income taxes from the education awards GCF

AmeriCorps members receive post-service. The analysis estimated the pre-tax 

education award amount in 2022 dollars (i.e., $7,015).24 Then the analysis multiplied it by 

the number of GCF AmeriCorps member FTEs expected to redeem the award and use 

it to pursue postsecondary education or to repay outstanding student loans, based on 

findings from Friedman et al. (2016) and GCF-provided data. The result represents the 

pre-tax cumulative education award amount expected to be received by GCF

AmeriCorps members. The portion of this value taxed by state income taxes was 

estimated using a weighted state income tax rate specific to the per-person education 

award amount. Additionally, state income taxes were estimated for the living 

allowance amount received by GCF AmeriCorps members during their service term

using tax rates specific to the per-person value. The different rates used for these 

member benefits are enumerated in Table 19.

State and local sales tax revenue: To measure sales tax revenue generation for state 

and local governments that stems from reduced unemployment, a weighted state and 

local sales tax rate was applied to the amount of GCF AmeriCorps members’ 

cumulative additional post-tax earnings that are available to be spent on taxable 

goods. To establish a weighted state and local sales tax, this analysis first summed the 

state sales tax rate and the average local sales tax rate for each state using data from 

Fritts (2021). Then using 2022 data from the American Community Survey (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2022-a), these state-level combined state and local sales tax rates were 

weighted based on the population of each state. The resulting weighted average sales 

tax rate used in this analysis was 7.44 percent. 

To estimate the additional post-tax earnings as a result of reduced unemployment that 

was spent on taxable goods, data from the Consumer Expenditure Surveys (U.S. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, 2022-a) were used. These data show the amount of spending on a 

number of different goods and services by national consumers across several different 

pre-tax income brackets.25 The proportion of earnings that is spent on taxable goods 

(such as alcoholic beverages, housekeeping supplies, apparel, etc.) was then 

calculated for consumers with incomes that matched the per-person average pre-tax 

earnings of GCF AmeriCorps members. This value was 57 percent. This proportion was 

then applied to GCF AmeriCorps members’ cumulative additional post-tax earnings to 

24 This analysis used the 2021 to 2022 AmeriCorps education award amount ($6,495) but adjusted it to net

present 2022 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. For more information about this education award, 

please see https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorps-education-award/find-out-more. 

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

used from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022-a). This table lists the annual expenditure means by pretax income tax brackets. Thus, the pre-tax earnings of GCF AmeriCorps members were used instead of their 

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

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

Green City Force AmeriCorps

44

calculate the post-tax monetary amount they spend on taxable goods. Then the sales 

tax rate (i.e., 7.44 percent) was applied to estimate the resulting sales tax revenues that 

go to state and local governments due to GCF AmeriCorps members’ reduced 

unemployment post-service. 

Trostel (2015) also provides additional lifetime state and local sales tax values by 

education level. Using these values, the analysis calculated the additional sales tax 

revenue realized by state and local governments as a result of GCF AmeriCorps 

members using their education award to achieve higher postsecondary educational 

attainment post-service. These values represent a direct benefit to state and local 

governments in the form of increased tax revenue. 

State and local government cost savings: State and local governments also benefit 

from the GCF program through lifetime savings in public assistance, social insurance, 

and corrections—as reported in Trostel (2015)—due to the increase in GCF AmeriCorps 

members’ postsecondary educational attainment after program exit and student 

veterans’ postsecondary educational attainment. Of note, social insurance includes 

unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation. To calculate these lifetime 

non-federal government savings, the analysis first calculated the decrease in social 

insurance and corrections costs (and thus, savings) from one education level to the 

subsequent education level using data from Trostel (2015) and then multiplied these 

monetary amounts by the number of additional postsecondary degrees estimated to 

be obtained due to the use of the education awards. 

To determine what portion of this differential represents lifetime cost savings to state or 

local governments versus the federal government, a different method was employed 

for each of these cost savings areas. For social insurance, 50 percent of lifetime 

unemployment insurance cost savings and all the lifetime cost savings for workers’ 

compensation are apportioned to state and local governments (Oswald, 2018). 

Regarding reductions in lifetime corrections spending, the portion between the federal 

and state or local governments was determined based on data from Hyland (2015). 

Specifically, this report found that 8.4 percent of U.S. corrections costs are paid by the 

federal government and the remaining 91.6 percent is paid by state and local 

governments. Therefore, almost 92 percent of the lifetime cost savings in corrections 

due to GCF AmeriCorps members experiencing an increase in postsecondary 

educational attainment post-service are allocated to state and local governments. 

Federal Government

The federal government benefits from: 

• Additional federal income, Social Security, and Medicare tax revenue from GCF

AmeriCorps members’ increased earnings due to reduced unemployment

• Additional federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes from the living 

allowance and education award received by these members

• Additional lifetime federal taxes due to GCF AmeriCorps members’ increased 

postsecondary educational attainment
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

45

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

corrections due to GCF AmeriCorps members’ increased postsecondary 

educational attainment

Federal income tax revenue: To measure federal income tax revenue that stems from 

reduced unemployment, the additional pre-tax earnings of GCF AmeriCorps members 

that are solely attributed to the GCF program—as well as the pre-tax living allowance 

and education award amounts received by GCF AmeriCorps members—are taxed by 

a federal income tax rate. The rates used are estimated proportional tax rates that 

consider the standard deductions and progressive tax brackets specific to federal 

income taxes as provided by El-Sibaie (2019). To reiterate, an estimated proportional 

tax rate equals the total amount of taxes estimated to be paid divided by the pre-tax 

amount of the value to be taxed (e.g., per-person average pre-tax earnings). The 

specific federal income tax rates used for these different benefits are enumerated in 

Table 20. Of note, different tax rates were used because they were specific to the perperson pre-tax earnings, living allowance, and education award amounts.

For the additional lifetime earnings of GCF AmeriCorps members that is based on their 

increase in postsecondary educational attainment—fueled by the use of the education 

award, Trostel (2015) provides additional lifetime federal income tax values. These 

values are used to calculate the additional income tax revenue realized by the federal 

government due to members’ postsecondary education gains.

Social Security and Medicare tax revenue: Social Security and Medicare tax revenue 

are measured as fiscal gains as a result of the additional pre-tax earnings of GCF

AmeriCorps members from their reduced unemployment and as a result of the pre-tax 

living allowances and education awards amounts received by members. However, tax 

rates specific to each revenue source are used. Social Security and Medicare use flat 

tax rates, 6.2 percent and 1.45 percent, respectively; thus, these rates are applied to 

the additional pre-tax earnings of GCF AmeriCorps members to calculate the 

additional amount of revenue the federal government receives. These same rates are 

also applied to the living allowance and education award amounts received by GCF

AmeriCorps members to calculate additional tax revenue. 

Moreover, lifetime Social Security tax values are provided by Trostel (2015) by education 

level. The analysis used these values to estimate the additional lifetime Social Security 

tax revenue realized by the federal government as a result of GCF AmeriCorps 

members using their education award to complete different postsecondary education 

degree types post-service. 

Federal government cost savings: The federal government realizes cost savings in public 

assistance, social insurance, and corrections due to the increased postsecondary 

educational attainment of GCF AmeriCorps members after program exit. Specifically, 

the number of additional postsecondary degrees estimated to be earned by GCF

AmeriCorps members post-service as well as data from Trostel (2015) were used to 

estimate the federal government portion of lifetime cost savings on social insurance 

(which is composed of workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance, as noted 

earlier), public assistance (e.g., SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, etc.), and corrections. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

46

Table 18 shows the lifetime costs to the federal versus the state and local governments 

for each of these areas—where applicable—by education level in 2012 dollars as 

presented in Trostel (2015). The differences in these lifetime costs from one education 

level to the next represent cost savings per degree obtained. 

Table 15. Government Costs by Educational Attainment Level per Individual’s Lifetime

Source of government costs

Associate degree 

(2012$)

Bachelor’s degree 

(2012$)

Graduate degree 

(2012$)

Public assistance $31,803 $14,480 $9,394

Social insurance $8,209 $5,863 $4,732

Federal $3,570 $2,660 $2,090

State/local $4,639 $3,204 $2,643

Corrections $4,055 $1,190 $725

Federal $341 $100 $61

State/local $3,714 $1,090 $664

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Source: Trostel (2015) 

As mentioned earlier in this appendix, as a result of the GCF program, the analysis 

estimated an additional 5 GCF AmeriCorps members would redeem the education 

award to pursue additional postsecondary education (i.e., bachelor’s degrees). 

To conservatively calculate the federal government’s lifetime savings associated with 

these education gains, the differences between the public assistance, federal social 

insurance, and federal corrections lifetime costs for this education levels and those that 

precede it are calculated and then expressed in 2022 dollars. These values are then 

multiplied by the number of additional postsecondary degrees estimated to be 

obtained—where appropriate—to represent the total cost savings realized by the 

federal government due to the GCF program. As previously mentioned where 

discussing the state and local governments’ allocation of the reduction in lifetime social 

insurance and corrections expenditures, the federal government receives 50 percent of 

the lifetime cost savings in unemployment insurance (part of social insurance; Oswald, 

2018), and more than 8 percent of the lifetime cost savings in corrections (Hyland, 

2015). These federal government savings are shown in Table 20.

Table 19 shows the tax rates applied to GCF AmeriCorps members’ additional pre-tax 

and post-tax earnings (derived from reduced unemployment), depending on the type 

of revenue being calculated. It also enumerates the tax rates used for the pre-tax living 

allowance and education award amounts received by GCF AmeriCorps members 

during their service term or upon service completion, respectively. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

47

Table 19. 2021 Tax Rates and Ratio of Taxable Expenditures for GCF AmeriCorps 

Members’ Earnings, Living Allowances, and Education Awards

Metric

Rate for 

additional 

earnings & 

education 

award*

Rate for living 

allowance & 

education 

award** Notes

Estimated 

proportional 

federal 

income tax

10.35% 0.00% • Tax rates are used that consider the 

progressive tax brackets and standard 

deductions specific to federal income 

taxes. 

• These rates are dependent on and 

applied to the pre-tax value of each 

metric being taxed.

Estimated 

proportional 

state income 

tax 

3.13% 1.12% • Tax rates are used that consider the 

progressive tax brackets and standard 

deductions specific to each state’s 

income taxes. Each state’s tax rate is 

weighted based on the state’s 

population and summed to estimate a 

weighted national average. 

• These rates are dependent on and 

applied to the pre-tax value of each 

metric being taxed.

Social Security 

tax 

6.20% 6.20% • Social Security tax rate for employees 

and employers.

• These rates are applied to the pre-tax

value of each metric being taxed.

Medicare tax 1.45% 1.45% • Medicare tax rate for employees and 

employers.

• These rates are applied to the pre-tax

value of each metric being taxed.

Sales tax 7.44%; N/A to 

the education 

award

7.44%; N/A to 

the education 

award

• The combined state and average local 

tax rate for each state was summed 

and weighted based on states’ 

populations to calculate a national 

weighted average sales tax rate. 

• The rate is applied to the additional 

post-tax earnings of members as well 

as their post-tax living allowance 

amount.
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

48

Metric

Rate for 

additional 

earnings & 

education 

award*

Rate for living 

allowance & 

education 

award** Notes

Ratio of 

taxable 

expenditures 

per national 

consumer

55%; N/A to 

the education 

award

63%; N/A to 

the education 

award

• Percentage of post-tax earnings spent 

on taxable goods and services that is 

used to calculate sales tax from posttax earnings.

• Ratio is dependent on the pre-tax 

value of members’ additional earnings

or the pre-tax living allowance amount.

*These rates are only used for the portion of the education award used to repay outstanding student loans. 

**These rates are only used for the portion of the education award used for additional schooling. 

Sources: Fritts (2021), Social Security Administration (2021), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022-a), 

and El-Sibaie (2019) 

Summary of Benefits to Government

Table 20 shows the amount of tax revenue generated and savings in expenditures for 

state and local versus federal government that are solely credited to the GCF program 

and calculated using the methods described above. These government revenue and 

savings amounts are benefits that are included in the three ROI calculations, and they 

are derived from GCF program impacts.

Table 16. State/Local and Federal Government Benefits by Stakeholder Group and 

by Scenario

Benefit type

Benefit (2022$)

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

State/local government benefits $53,279 $732,427 $1,459,550

State income tax revenue from education 

awards $5,303 $5,303 $5,303

State income tax revenue from 

employment $11,137 $167,059 $334,118

State and local sales tax revenue from 

employment $36,839 $552,583 $1,105,165

State income, sales, and property taxes 

from member postsecondary educational 

attainment (lifetime)

$0 $6,742 $13,485

Savings in reduced public assistance, 

social insurance, and corrections 

spending from member postsecondary 

educational attainment (lifetime)

$0 $740 $1,479
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

49

Benefit type

Benefit (2022$)

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Federal government benefits $129,877 $34,939,342 $69,812,884

Federal income tax revenue from 

education awards and living allowances* $65,800 $65,800 $65,800

Social Security and Medicare tax revenue 

from education awards and living 

allowances* 

 $64,077 $961,162 $1,922,324

Federal income and Social Security tax 

revenue from member postsecondary 

educational attainment (lifetime)

$0 $38,879,968 $67,769,937

Savings in reduced social insurance, 

corrections, and public assistance 

spending from member postsecondary 

educational attainment (lifetime)

$0 $32,412 $64,824

Total $183,157 $35,671,769 $71,272,435

*Living allowances and education awards are one-time taxable payments. The resulting tax revenue does 

not vary by scenario.

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

Measuring Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs)

The analysis included two types of forgone benefits, referred to as opportunity costs, 

in each of the three ROI calculations to conservatively estimate the return of the GCF

program: forgone benefits from a professional opportunity cost to GCF AmeriCorps 

members and forgone benefits from an investment opportunity cost to funders. Each of 

these forgone benefit (opportunity cost) types is subtracted from the total program 

benefits—that stem from the GCF program—to calculate net benefits. Net benefits are 

then compared to the program cost to calculate each ROI. The methodologies used to 

calculate these two forgone benefits (opportunity costs) are described below. 

Forgone Benefits From Professional Opportunity Cost to GCF AmeriCorps 

Members 

There is a professional opportunity cost to GCF AmeriCorps members for their period of 

national service, during which they could have been otherwise employed. This includes 

both the forgone earnings of GCF AmeriCorps members for their service term and the 

forgone taxes associated with those lost earnings. To calculate this, the analysis first 

used the unemployment rate of 71.5 percent provided in the 2019 Farms at NYCHA

evaluation to represent how many of these GCF AmeriCorps members would have 

been unemployed if they did not serve with the GCF program. This unemployment rate 

was provided by NYCHA and applies to NYCHA residents ages 18–24. Using the 

unemployment rate and the number of GCF AmeriCorps member FTEs who served 

during the 2021–2022 program year, the analysis estimated the number of members 

who would have been unemployed without serving with the GCF program based on 

their demographic characteristics. Then the analysis multiplied this value by the 
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

50

weighted post-tax annual earnings. This is derived from the post-tax annual earnings 

listed in Table 14. The methodology used to calculate this latter monetary amount is 

described in the previous Increased Earnings due to Reduced Unemployment section. 

The post-tax amount subtracts all applicable payroll taxes (e.g., federal income, state 

income, Medicare, and Social Security). Combined, these values represent what GCF

AmeriCorps members would have earned in total if they did not serve with the GCF

program. Separately, the analysis then multiplied the number of GCF AmeriCorps 

member FTEs who served by the amount they earned during their national service in the 

form of a post-tax living allowance (i.e., $11,098 per person). This represents the 

aggregate amount GCF AmeriCorps members earned during their service term. 

The difference between what they would have earned if they did not serve and what 

they did earn because they served equals the total post-tax earnings forgone due to 

serving with the GCF program. These values and the formula used to calculate the 

forgone post-tax earnings are shown in Table 21.

Table 17. Forgone Earnings of GCF AmeriCorps Members for a Service Term

Row Component Value Source

A GCF AmeriCorps member FTEs 38 GCF

B Unemployment rate 71.5% 2019 Farms at NYCHA 

evaluation

C Weighted post-tax annual earnings per 

person (2022$) $23,800

U.S. Census Bureau (2022-b), 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(2022-b), & GCF

D Post-tax living allowance per person $11,098 GCF

E Total post-tax earnings forgone (2022$) -$163,965 [A x (1 – B) x C] – (A x D)

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

The second portion of this professional opportunity cost is the forgone taxes associated 

with the earnings of GCF AmeriCorps members lost for this year of service. Federal 

income, state income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes specific to the per-person 

weighted pre-tax earnings amount were calculated. Specifically, the estimated 

proportional federal and state income tax rates used were 10.35 percent and 3.13

percent, respectively. The analysis also estimated the sales taxes lost based on the perperson post-tax earnings forgone by the GCF AmeriCorps members. Using data from 

the Consumer Expenditure Surveys (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022-a), the analysis 

estimated that based on the per-person weighted pre-tax earnings of GCF AmeriCorps 

members (i.e., $23,800), 55 percent of their income would have been spent on taxable 

goods, as opposed to 53 percent of the living allowance. Then the weighted combined 

state and local sales tax rate (i.e., 7.44 percent)—used earlier in this analysis to 

calculate government benefits—was applied to the difference in expected spending 

on taxable goods to represent the resulting sales tax revenue lost due to individuals 

serving with the GCF program instead of working for higher pay. The totals for these 

taxes are listed in Table 22.
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

51

Table 18. Forgone Taxes Associated With the Forgone Earnings of GCF AmeriCorps 

Members for a Service Term26

Forgone taxes

Taxes without 

service term

(2022$)

Taxes realized 

from living 

allowance

(2022$)

Net taxes 

forgone

(2022$)

Federal income taxes $11,945 $19,543 -$7,598

Social Security and Medicare taxes $19,718 $32,262 -$12,543

State income taxes $7,705 $12,606 -$4,901

Sales taxes $10,614 $19,911 -$9,296

Total taxes $49,982 $84,322 -$34,339 

Note: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. 

For the federal government benefits per federal dollar ROI calculation, only federal 

government (not total) benefits are included. Because of this, only federal components 

of the professional opportunity cost are subtracted from all federal government 

benefits—realized due to the GCF program—in this ROI calculation. The parts of the 

professional opportunity cost subtracted from these total federal government benefits 

include the forgone net federal income taxes (i.e., -$7,598) and the net forgone Social 

Security and Medicare taxes (i.e., -$12,543). The sum of these two values is called the 

federal professional opportunity cost. The sum of all the values listed in Table 22 and the 

forgone post-tax earnings of GCF AmeriCorps members is called the total professional 

opportunity cost. These naming conventions are referenced in the Calculating ROI 

section. Although the forgone net taxes are negative, as taxes associated with the 

living allowance are greater than the pre-service taxes paid by participating 

AmeriCorps members, we still refer to them as forgone taxes for consistency with other 

ROI analyses. 

Forgone Benefits From the Investment Opportunity Cost to Funders 

The investment opportunity cost estimates the expected forgone return if funds used to 

support the activities and positions of GCF AmeriCorps members during the most recent 

program year were invested in U.S. Treasury bonds instead. An investment opportunity 

cost is calculated for two different funding streams: 1) all GCF program funding for the 

2021–2022 program year and 2) only federal funding for the same program year. This is 

done because two of the three ROI calculations only have federal (not total) program 

costs included. Thus, for 1) the federal government benefits per federal dollar and 2) 

the total benefits per federal dollar ROI calculations, the investment opportunity cost 

subtracted from the benefits in these calculations is the forgone accrued interest from 

26 Due to the high pre-service unemployment rate and low earnings of participating GCF AmeriCorps 

members, the forgone taxes associated with the earnings of members in the year that they complete their 

service are lower than the taxes associated with the living allowance. Therefore, net forgone taxes for this 

group are negative.
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

52

investing only the federal funds into these U.S. Treasury bonds. For the other ROI 

calculation, the investment opportunity cost subtracted from the benefits realized is the 

forgone accrued interest from investing all GCF program funds (both federal and nonfederal) into these U.S. Treasury bonds. The analysis estimated forgone accrued interests 

across all three scenarios when 1) all GCF program funds and 2) only federal GCF

program funds are invested in U.S. Treasury bonds.

To calculate these forgone accrued interest values, the analysis first matched 2021 real 

interest rates provided by the Office of Management and Budget (2020) to each of the 

scenarios included in this ROI analysis. The analysis used 2021 real interest rates for U.S. 

Treasury bonds because the GCF program year analyzed began in 2021. The real 

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

between the 10-year and 20-year maturity rates was used as the rate for the mediumterm scenario, and the 30-year maturity rate was used for the long-term scenario. These 

real interest rates were -1.8 percent, -0.8 percent, and -0.3 percent, respectively (Office 

of Management and Budget, 2020). Also, the number of years elapsed on these U.S. 

Treasury bonds was equal to the number of years the different scenarios assumed GCF

AmeriCorps members’ employment and earnings gains were sustained. These values 

are 1 year, 15 years, and 30 years for the short-, medium-, and long-term scenarios, 

respectively. Given that U.S. Treasury bonds compound biannually according to the 

U.S. Department of the Treasury (2019), the formula used to calculate the forgone 

accrued interest for each of the three scenarios for the two funding streams is listed in

Figure 3, where A equals the forgone accrued interest (e.g., the investment opportunity 

cost), P equals the amount of one of the funding streams, r equals the 2021 real interest 

rate, and t equals the number of years elapsed. 

Figure 3. Compound Interest Formula Used to Calculate Investment Opportunity Cost

Based on this formula, the forgone benefits from the investment opportunity cost 

calculated by scenario and funding stream are listed in Table 23, along with their 

associated inputs. The forgone accrued interest amounts for all funding are called the 

total investment opportunity costs, while that for federal funding only are called the 

federal investment opportunity costs. These naming conventions are referenced in the 

Calculating ROI section. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

53

Table 19. Forgone Benefits From Investment Opportunity Cost Calculation by Scenario 

and Funding Stream

Metric

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

All funding

Federal 

funding 

only All funding

Federal 

funding 

only All funding

Federal 

funding 

only

Real 

interest 

rate 

-1.8% -0.8% -0.3%

Years 

elapsed 1 15 30

Funding 

amount $1,639,941 $681,180 $1,639,941 $681,180 $1,639,941 $681,180

Forgone 

return 

(accrued 

interest) 

-$686,602 -$285,193 -$185,794 -$77,173 -$141,249 -$58,670

Measuring Program Costs

Table 24 shows the costs and funding sources of the GCF program. Federal government 

funding covers 34 percent of the costs, while the remaining program costs are funded

by state/local government as part of the required match funding, as well as program 

service fees and foundations. 

Table 20. Funding Sources and Amounts for the GCF Program (2021–2022)

Funder

Funding provided for the 

program year Percentage of total (%)

Federal government $486,200 34%

State/local governments 

(i.e., match funding) $828,193 57%

Program service fees $14,006 1%

Foundations $116,562 8%

Total $1,444,961 100%

Source: GCF

Calculating ROI 

To complete the three ROI calculations for the GCF program, the sum of applicable

program benefits is reduced by the forgone benefits, or the professional and investment 

opportunity costs (where appropriate), and then compared to the cost of the program. 

As described previously, these three ROI calculations are calculated for each of the 

three scenarios: short-term, medium-term, and long-term. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

54

Since two of the calculations include benefits to society (e.g., GCF AmeriCorps 

members) the results are expressed as cost–benefit ratios, while maintaining the ROI 

terminology. Specifically, these ratios take the form of the sum of monetized benefits 

over the sum of applicable program costs. The ROIs expressed as cost–benefit ratios in 

this study can be interpreted as the amount of dollars returned for every $1 of 

investment (or program cost).27 

The formulas used to calculate each of the three ROIs are shown below:28

27 ROIs can be expressed in percentages or as ratios, such as in this study. Although not shown as a ratio in 

the results, the ROIs in this study show the amount of return for every $1 invested. 

28 Non-government stakeholders in this ROI analysis include GCF AmeriCorps members, NYCHA residents, 

and society. 
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

55

Table 25, Table 26, and Table 27 show the total benefits, opportunity costs, program 

costs, and ROI results for each scenario. 

Table 21. ROI Calculations for Short-Term Scenario

Components

Total benefits per 

federal dollar 

(2022$)

Total benefits per 

funder dollar 

(2022$)

Federal government 

benefits per federal 

dollar (2022$)

Total program benefits $1,066,972 $937,095 $129,877

Total forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) -$12,804 -$193,347 -$12,804

Total program costs $681,180 $1,639,941 $681,180

Result $1.69 $0.69 $0.21

Table 22. ROI Calculations for Medium-Term Scenario

Components

Total benefits per 

federal dollar 

(2022$)

Total benefits per 

funder dollar 

(2022$)

Federal government 

benefits per federal 

dollar (2022$)

Total program benefits $7,420,090 $6,360,717 $1,059,374

Total forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) -$77,771 -$349,755 -$77,771

Total program costs $681,180 $1,639,941 $681,180

Result $11.01 $4,09 $1.67

Table 23. ROI Calculations for Long-Term Scenario

Components

Total benefits per 

federal dollar 

(2022$)

Total benefits per 

funder dollar 

(2022$)

Federal government 

benefits per federal 

dollar (2022$)

Total program benefits $12,151,872 $12,151,834 $2,052,948

Total forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) -$59,269 -$305,210 -$59,269

Total program costs $681,180 $1,639,941 $681,180

Result $17.95 $7.62 $3.13
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

56

Appendix C: Results by Year 

Table 28 shows the breakdown of costs and benefits over a 30-year period. Program 

activities create a stream of benefits over time for AmeriCorps members, the federal 

government, and state and local governments. AmeriCorps members’ forgone benefits 

from professional opportunity cost apply to the first year. Funders’ forgone benefits from 

investment opportunity cost accrue over time. Program costs are expended in the first 

year only. Program benefits are shown in nominal dollars.
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

57

Table 24. GCF Program Benefits and Costs per Year

Benefits and costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 

Benefits $3,943,634 $5,801,232 $7,567,415 $9,326,048 $11,078,724 $12,827,023 $14,572,523 $16,316,799

AmeriCorps members $702,565 $723,642 $745,351 $767,712 $790,743 $814,465 $838,899 $864,066

Federal government 

benefit from members $96,339 $74,870 $77,116 $79,429 $81,812 $84,266 $86,794 $89,398

State/local government 

benefit from members $42,483 $53,776 $55,390 $57,051 $58,763 $60,526 $62,341 $64,212

Government benefit 

from composting $90 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Societal benefit from 

composting $140 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

NYCHA resident benefit 

from free produce $56,637 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) -$192,042 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693

Forgone benefits to 

members -$163,961 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone tax revenue 

federal government -$598 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone tax revenue 

state/local government -$1,591 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal forgone 

benefits from 

investment -$25,892 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693

Program costs $1,444,961 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal government $486,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Non-federal $958,761 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

58

Benefits and costs Year 9 Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 14 Year 15 Year 16

Benefits $18,061,420 $19,807,957 $21,557,979 $23,313,060 $25,074,773 $26,844,698 $28,624,421 $30,415,535

AmeriCorps members $889,988 $916,688 $944,188 $972,514 $1,001,689 $1,031,740 $1,062,692 $1,094,573

Federal government 

benefit from members $92,080 $94,843 $97,688 $100,619 $103,637 $106,746 $109,949 $113,247

State/local government 

benefit from members $66,138 $68,122 $70,166 $72,271 $74,439 $76,672 $78,972 $81,341

Government benefit 

from composting $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Societal benefit from 

composting $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

NYCHA resident benefit 

from free produce $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693

Forgone benefits to 

members $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone tax revenue 

federal government $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone tax revenue 

sate/local government $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal forgone benefits 

from investment $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693

Program costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal government $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Non-federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

59

Benefits and costs Year 17 Year 18 Year 19 Year 20 Year 21 Year 22 Year 23 Year 24

Benefits $32,219,642 $34,038,353 $35,873,292 $37,726,097 $39,598,418 $41,491,922 $43,408,296 $45,349,244

AmeriCorps members $1,127,410 $1,161,233 $1,196,070 $1,231,952 $1,268,910 $1,306,978 $1,346,187 $1,386,573

Federal government 

benefit from members $116,645 $120,144 $123,748 $127,461 $131,284 $135,223 $139,280 $143,458

State/local government 

benefit from members $83,782 $86,295 $88,884 $91,550 $94,297 $97,126 $100,040 $103,041

Government benefit 

from composting $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Societal benefit from 

composting $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

NYCHA resident benefit 

from free produce $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone benefits 

(opportunity costs) $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693

Forgone benefits to 

members $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone tax revenue 

federal government $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone tax revenue 

state/local government $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal forgone benefits 

from investment $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693

Program costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal government $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Non-federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

60

Benefits and costs Year 25 Year 26 Year 27 Year 28 Year 29 Year 30

Benefits $47,316,489 $49,311,779 $51,336,885 $53,393,601 $55,483,752 $57,609,187

AmeriCorps members $1,428,170 $1,471,015 $1,515,145 $1,560,600 $1,607,418 $1,655,640

Federal government benefit from 

members

$147,762 $152,195 $156,760 $161,463 $166,307 $171,296

State/local government benefit 

from members 

$106,132 $109,316 $112,596 $115,973 $119,453 $123,036

Government benefit from 

composting 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Societal benefit from composting $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

NYCHA resident benefit from free 

produce

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone benefits (opportunity 

costs)

$11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693

Forgone benefits to members $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone tax revenue 

federal government 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Forgone tax revenue state/local 

Government 

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal forgone benefits from 

investment

$11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693 $11,693

Program costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Federal government $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Non-federal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

61

References 

AmeriCorps. (n.d.). Education Award find out more. AmeriCorps. 

https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorps-educationaward/find-out-more

Asdourian, E., & Wessel, D. (2023). What is the social cost of carbon? Brookings. 

https://www.brookings.edu/2023/03/14/what-is-the-social-cost-ofcarbon/#:~:text=The%20social%20cost%20of%20carbon%20(SCC)%20is%20an%20esti

mate%20of,a%20ton%20of%20carbon%20emissions.

Blagg, K., & Blom, E. (2018, September). Evaluating the return on investment in higher 

education: An assessment of individual- and state-level returns. Urban Institute. 

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99078/evaluating_the_return_

on_investment_in_higher_education.pdf

CUNY Urban Food Policy Institute. (2019). Farms at NYCHA final evaluation report. 

https://greencityforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Farms-at-NYCHA-FinalReport.pdf

El-Sibaie, A. (2019, November 14). 2020 tax brackets. Tax Foundation.

https://taxfoundation.org/2020-tax-brackets/

Farhidi, F., Madani, K., Crichton, R. (2022). How the US economy and environment can 

both benefit from composting management. Environmental Health Insights, 16. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302221128454

Friedman, E., Freeman, B., Phillips, B., Rosenthal, L., Robinson, D., Miller, H., & Porowski, A. 

(2016). AmeriCorps alumni outcomes: Final survey technical report. Corporation for 

National and Community Service (now AmeriCorps). 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_AmeriCorpsAlumni

OutcomesFinalTechReport_1.pdf

Fritts, J. (2021, January 6). State and local sales tax rates, 2021. Tax Foundation. 

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/2021-sales-taxes/

Gurin-Sands, C., Loury, A. Waas, S., Kolak, M., Elias, R.R., Jutte, D.P., Cunningham, M. & 

Laflamme, E. (2019). From outcome to impact: An exploratory model for estimating 

the health returns of comprehensive community development. Build Health Places 

Network. https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/cdph/ 

statistics_and_reports/Build-Healthy-Places-Network-From-Outcomes-to-Impact-AnExploratory-Model-for-Estimating-the-Health-Returns-of-Comprehensive-CommunityDevelopment.pdf

Harlow, C. (2003, April 15). Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: Education and 

correctional populations. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

62

Harper-Anderson, E. (2018). What is the return on investment for public workforce 

programs? An analysis of WIA and TAA in Virginia. State and Local Government 

Review, 50(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X18823878

Hollenbeck, K. (2009). Return on investment analysis of a selected set of workforce 

system programs in Indiana. W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. 

https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=reports

Hyland, S. S. (2015). Justice expenditure and employment extracts, 2015 - final. 

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/justice-expenditure-and-employmentextracts-2015-final 

ICF. (2021). Return on investment study: YouthBuild AmeriCorps. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/ROI_YB%20a_RELEASE.pdf

Kuehn, D., Mills De La Rosa, S., Lerman, R., & Hollenbeck, K. (2022). Do employers earn 

positive returns to investments in apprenticeship? Evidence from registered 

programs under the American Apprenticeship Initiative. Abt Associates.

https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2022-

36_AAI_ROI_Final_Report_508_9-2022.pdf

Loughead, K. (2020, February 4). State individual income tax rates and brackets for 

2020. Tax Foundation. https://taxfoundation.org/state-individual-income-tax-ratesand-brackets-for-2020/

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2021). IPEDS Data Explorer. Average 

costs associated with attendance for full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduates at Title IV institutions operating on an academic year calendar 

system, and percentage change, by level of institution, type of cost, control of 

institution, residency, and student housing: United States, academic years 2019–20

and 2021–22. 

https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Search?query=&query2=&resultType=all&page=1&sortBy

=date_desc&overlayTableId=32463

Nordahl, S., Devkota, J., Amirebrahimi, J., Josephine Smith, S., Breunig, H., Preble, C., 

Satchwell, A., Jin, L., Brown, N., Kirchstetter, T., & Scown, C. (2020). Life-cycle 

greenhouse gas emissions and human health trade-offs of organic waste 

management strategies. Environmental Science & Technology, 54(15), 9200–9209.

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c00364

Office of Management and Budget. (1992, October 29). Circular A-94: Guidelines 

and discount rates for benefit–cost analysis of federal programs, transmittal memo 

no. 64.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A94/a094.pdf

Office of Management and Budget. (2003, September 17). Circular A-4. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

63

Office of Management and Budget. (2020, November 19). Budget assumptions. 

Nominal treasury interest rates for different maturities (from annual budget 

assumptions for the first year of the budget forecast). 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/discount-history.pdf 

Oswald, J. (2018, March 29). What does an unemployment claim cost an employer? 

Unemployment Insurance Services. https://www.unemploymentservices.com/unemployment-claim-cost-employer/

Redman, R. (2022). Organic fresh produce feels double-edged sword of inflation. 

Supermarket News. https://www.supermarketnews.com/consumer-trends/organicfresh-produce-feels-double-edged-sword-inflation

Rennert, K., Errickson, F., Prest, B. C., Rennels, L., Newell, R. G., Pizer, W., Kingdon, C., 

Wingenroth, J., Cooke, R., Parthum, B., Smith, D., Cromar, K., Diaz, D., Moore, F. C., 

Muller, U. K., Plevin, R. J., Raftery, A. E., Sevcikova, H., Sheets, H. Stock, J. H., Tan, T., 

Watson, M., Wong, T. E., & Anthoff, D. (2022). Comprehensive evidence implies a 

higher social cost of CO2. Nature, 601, 687–692. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-

05224-9

Social Security Administration. (2021). Fact sheet: 2021 Social Security changes.

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/colafacts2021.pdf

Trostel, P. (2015). It’s not just the money: The benefits of college education to individuals 

and to society. Lumina Foundation. 

https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-just-the-money.pdf 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022-a). Consumer Expenditure Surveys tables (CE). 

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

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022-b). Consumer Price Index. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022-c). Occupational employment and wage statistics. 

https://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm

U.S. Census Bureau. (2022-a). American Community Survey (ACS). 

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

U.S. Census Bureau. (2022-b). Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic 

(ASEC) Supplement for March 2022. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/ 

time-series/demo/cps/cps-asec.2022.html#list-tab-165711867

U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2019). Interest rates statistics. 

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financing-the-government/interest-ratestatistics 

Yang, D.S. (2016). Hedging our bets on urban agriculture: A cost-benefit analysis of the 

UC Gill Tract Community Farm. 

https://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/es196/projects/2016final/YangD_2016.pdf
Return on Investment Study: 

Green City Force AmeriCorps

64

Zeidenberg, M., Freeman, B., Friedman, E., & Porowski, A. (2016). Results from the 

National Student Clearinghouse data match: New methods for assessing 

AmeriCorps alumni outcomes. Abt Associates. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_NatlStudent_Cleari

nghouseMatch_AlumniOutcomes_2016_1.pdf