VISTA 50-Year Review 

Evaluation and Measurements: VISTA's Impact on Poverty, A 

50-Year Review of Evaluation and Evidence

J U N E 2 0 1 8

Corporation for National & Community Service 

Office of Research & Evaluation 

June 2018 
i

Evaluation and Measurements: VISTA's Impact on Poverty, A 50-Year Review of Evaluation 

and Evidence

CONTENTS 

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

Part 1. History, Policy, Ideology, and Activities......................................................................... 3

VISTA’s Service Ideologies.......................................................................................................... 7

VISTA Project Activities And Focus Areas................................................................................ 9

Part 2. Evidence Assessment...................................................................................................... 11

Evaluation Issues – Types and Methods of Assessment ........................................................... 11

Measurement Issues .................................................................................................................. 13

Evidence Assessment ................................................................................................................ 16

Evidence .................................................................................................................................... 16

Part 3: Summary and Recommendations................................................................................ 30

Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 32

Final Thoughts........................................................................................................................... 40

References.................................................................................................................................... 42
1

Evaluation and Measurements: VISTA's Impact on Poverty, A 50-Year Review of Evaluation 

and Evidence

Introduction 

AmeriCorps VISTA is a national service program established as part of the Economic 

Opportunity Act of 1964.

1

 Along with several other federally funded programs, Volunteers in 

Service to America or VISTA, as it was originally known, was created as part of a broad 

government effort to address economic and social inequality, known as the “War on Poverty.” 

VISTA began implementing services in 1965 following its historic charge to “alleviate the 

effects and eliminate the causes of poverty in America.” The VISTA program’s singular 

defining activity was, and is, to recruit and place volunteers in poor communities to address, by 

whatever means practical and available, the needs of the poor.

2

 

From its inception, VISTA was envisioned as a program that would not provide direct services; 

rather, it would organize, empower, and enable the poor to act on their own behalf for selfadvancement. While early efforts centered on community organizing and legal and social 

advocacy, across its history, VISTA’s activities also included empowerment, basic skills 

development, and building organizational and community capacity. In some instances, however,

VISTA volunteers also provided direct service. 

Following its early tenure as an anti-poverty program, VISTA was reauthorized under the 

Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973.

3

 It was placed under the administration of the 

ACTION agency, and its legislative mission was more clearly defined: [T]o enable persons from 

1 United States Public Law 88-452, Title VI, Aug. 20, 1964, Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.

2 The State of the Union Address, Lyndon Baines Johnson, President, 1964. Retrieved February 20, 2013, from 

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbj1964stateoftheunion.htm.

3 Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-113, Oct. 1, 1973; 42 U.S.C. 4950 et seq.).
2

Evaluation and Measurements: VISTA's Impact on Poverty, A 50-Year Review of Evaluation 

and Evidence 

all walks of life, all geographical areas, and all age groups, including elderly and retired 

Americans, to perform meaningful and constructive volunteer service in agencies, institutions,

and situations where the application of human talent and dedication may assist in the solution of 

poverty and poverty-related problems.

4 With this reauthorization, VISTA evolved from an antipoverty initiative into a national service program.

In 1984, amendments to the act expanded the objectives of the program to include “generating 

the commitment of private sector resources, encouraging volunteer service at the local level, and 

strengthening local agencies and organizations to carry out their work fighting poverty.”5 As a 

result of this statute, VISTA solidified its role and primary activity as capacity building and 

resource development. 

These simple mandates have served as a mission statement and have guided most of VISTA’s 

attempts to establish an identity, evaluate its activities, and assess its impact. Cited prominently 

in the introductions to all evaluations have been references to authorizing legislation and the 

charge to eliminate poverty. Although VISTA activities have hewed closely to this vague and 

broadly defined goal, assessing its actual impact on poverty has presented substantial challenges. 

This report critically examines and summarizes the efforts that VISTA has made to evaluate its

impact on poverty both nationally and within the communities it serves, and it reviews VISTA’s 

efforts to assess its outputs, services, and processes. Part 1 describes VISTA’s administrative 

structure and the evolution of its policies and procedures over a 50-year period, including past 

and current policies that affect recruitment and volunteer characteristics, its project activities, and 

4 Public Law 93-113, Oct 1, 1973, Part A – Statement of Purpose.

5

Ibid. 
3

Evaluation and Measurements: VISTA's Impact on Poverty, A 50-Year Review of Evaluation 

and Evidence 

its focus areas. In addition, the report frames this review within a discussion of VISTA’s 

competing and complementary service ideologies. Part 2 reviews the various evaluation 

methodologies, measurement issues, and the organization’s structural factors that impact or limit 

evaluation and measurement of its services, and reviews all past and extant evaluation research. 

Part 3 will summarize the state of the evidence and will suggest potential approaches and some 

necessary steps to implement future evaluations.

PART 1. History, Policy, Ideology, and Activities

AmeriCorps VISTA is a federally funded, anti-poverty/national service program that provides 

full-time volunteers to agencies and organizations that serve poor communities. This simple 

program description has held across 50 years of its existence, yet it belies a more complex 

process for implementing this seemingly basic objective. The evolution of VISTA, its approach 

to service, its politics and policies, and the various ways it has been conceptualized have all 

exerted a significant influence on the manner and extent to which VISTA can evaluate the 

impact of its services. 

Although founded primarily as an anti-poverty initiative, across different political 

administrations, VISTA has evolved into a national service program, expanding its mission from 

alleviation and eradication of poverty to include the impact of VISTA service on the volunteer. 

Policy changes, often triggered by administrative and political considerations, particularly during 

the first 15 years of operation, have had a substantial impact on volunteer recruitment and 

training, administrative structure, and modification to the types of activities that VISTA has 

implemented (Bass, 2013).
4

Evaluation and Measurements: VISTA's Impact on Poverty, A 50-Year Review of Evaluation 

and Evidence

One prominent change during the Vietnam War era was ending military service deferments for 

VISTAs.6 This decision triggered significant shifts in both service activities and importantly, 

volunteer demographics. Following the end of military deferments, the demographics of the 

volunteer corps reflected more women, and older, less educated, and less professionally trained 

members (Pass, 1975; Bass, 2013). A second change involved volunteer recruitment practices,

which shifted substantially during these formative years. At its inception in 1965, VISTA 

headquarters was responsible for recruiting, approving, training, and placing all volunteers, 

known then as Nationally Recruited Volunteers. These outsiders were envisioned as catalysts 

with skills and education that could bring about change. However, in 1966, VISTA expanded the 

recruitment process to include volunteers recruited by sponsors. Known as Locally Recruited 

Volunteers, they were viewed as knowledgeable about conditions on the ground, key 

stakeholders, and resources. Municipalities and organizations began recruiting from the 

communities that VISTA served, specifically seeking out low-income volunteers who would 

serve alongside national recruits, ostensibly each enhancing the skills and values of the other 

(Pass, 1975; Strickler, 1994; Bass, 2013). Although all volunteers were ultimately approved by 

the national office, over time, a majority were recruited from local communities – a practice that 

continues to the present day. A third historic shift occurred in response to political concerns 

during the early 1970s, chiefly the perceived intrusion of the federal government into state and 

local jurisdictions. VISTA sought to decentralize program management, shifting approval of 

projects and volunteer activity descriptions to state offices. Consequently, the influence of the 

national headquarters staff over programmatic issues was diminished. This development would 

6 VLine, VISTA Newsletter, June 1970.
5

significantly impact VISTA’s ability to develop and implement standardized volunteer activities 

(Pass, 1975; Strickler, 1995; Bass, 2013). Last, but not least, over a period of several decades 

spanning the mid-1960s into the early 21st century, growing costs, episodic concerns about 

radical activism, social changes, and technological advances combined to substantially alter the 

way that VISTA delivered volunteer orientation and training. To address these concerns, VISTA 

limited both the focus and length of the orientation and increased the role of state and local 

organizations in the training process (Clark, 2002). Although VISTA’s initial training period 

lasted two weeks, its present process is a three-day pre-service orientation with follow-up inservices, supervision, and on-the-job training experiences.

These changes presented substantial challenges for evaluation and measurement, as VISTA was 

not a static entity with clearly defined administrative practices and consistent well-developed 

service activities. 

From 1976 through 1980, VISTA underwent additional changes in the nature of its project 

activities and recruitment strategies. This term witnessed a renewed emphasis on activist 

community organizing, an enhanced effort to recruit locally and to target low-income volunteers, 

and a substantial effort to evaluate its impact, including the impact of service on the volunteer. 

After 1980, following a change in the political climate, and as a result of its activist anti-poverty 

work, VISTA experienced a sharp decline in its resources and significant limitations were placed 
6

on its activities. Despite failed efforts to de-fund the program (the second attempt in a six-year 

period), VISTA survived, but in a diminished capacity (Strickler, 1994; Bass, 2013).

7

Concurrent with substantially reduced funding, the number of VISTAs actively serving across 

this period fell from a high of more than 6,000 full-time volunteers to a low of fewer than 3,000 

in the mid to late 1980s, and the range of its service activities was substantially curtailed. In 

1984, reauthorization of the national Domestic Volunteer Service Act more clearly directed 

VISTA to engage in capacity-building activities and to recruit more local volunteers (Clark, 

2002). As a result of evolving policy, and later social and political trends, VISTA’s demographic 

profile reflects overwhelmingly female participation and substantially higher involvement of the 

poor. From the mid-1970s to the present time, women comprise nearly 80 percent of volunteers, 

and local and low-income recruits make up approximately 66 percent of the volunteers in 

service. Through outreach and targeted recruitment efforts, minority participation in VISTA has 

grown to comprise approximately 40 percent of all recruits.

8

 

With the signing of the 1993 National and Community Service Trust Act, the Corporation for 

National and Community Service assumed administrative control over VISTA and it was 

incorporated into AmeriCorps. Since that time, it has maintained a relatively stable cadre of 

7

In the 1981 ACTION Annual Report, Director Thomas Pauken writes: Within recent years VISTA has attracted controversy as 

a result of the political role of some of the organizations it has supported. The fact is that in the last administration, VISTA 

rapidly became a tax-supported tool in the hands of political activists. Following the election of President Ronald Reagan, a 

profound rethinking of the place of government in the life of the community took place. In ACTION, this process led to a reevaluation of the VISTA program, its objectives and its practices. This critical review focused on the twin issues of voluntarism in 

the service of the community and political activism disguised as service to the community. As a result the decision was made to 

take steps to de-politicize VISTA as the short-term objective while measures would get underway aimed at an eventual complete 

phasing out of the program in FY 1983. The decision to take these steps was paralleled with the Director’s determination to add 

emphasis to the recruitment of genuine volunteers in contrast to the paid volunteer service of VISTA. 

8 VISTA Annual Reports
7

volunteers, fielding approximately 6,000 full-time volunteers and 2,000 summer associates 

yearly. Primary activities continue to reflect capacity building and resource development.

VISTA’s Service Ideologies

Although clearly worded, VISTA’s mission to address and eliminate poverty was not well 

considered in the design of the program. Critics of VISTA have long expressed concerns that its 

activities would duplicate professional services, replacing existing workers who were already 

performing these tasks in the field. Additional criticism centered on concerns that volunteers 

were often not trained to provide the direct services that were needed. To quell these criticisms, 

VISTA encouraged volunteers to focus their efforts on enhancing opportunities for the poor by 

providing them with the tools, knowledge, and skills to improve their own circumstances. 

Consequently, from its inception, VISTA has limited direct service activities, and instead 

focused on problem solving and capacity building within the communities and for the people it 

served. 

However, given these constraints and the natural challenges inherent in addressing the needs of 

the poor, VISTA has often had to strike a balance between competing ideologies that reflect both 

complementary and conflicting approaches: a compensatory service ideology and a community 

advocacy/activist ideology (Pass, 1975). In a compensatory service model, poverty is primarily 

due to a dearth of opportunity for growth. Within this framework, poor communities lack the 

resources to provide for the basic needs of their residents. Absent these resources, the poor lack 

the ability to advance and are marginalized in the larger economy. VISTA’s role would then be 

to foster the development of services that can assist the poor to overcome poverty’s 
8

circumstances. These could include opportunities for adult literacy; early childhood education;

job training programs; and access to health care, social services, and improved nutrition. 

In an advocacy/activist model, poverty’s root causes are embedded in the structure of the social 

system. Impoverished communities are disenfranchised and, in essence, unable to speak or 

advocate on their own behalf. Participation by the community in the decision-making process or 

power structure is viewed as the best pathway for progress out of poverty. By sharing the power, 

communities can acquire the necessary tools and resources to address their own needs.

Under an advocacy/activist framework, VISTA’s primary role involved organizing the 

community to achieve three essential outcomes: (1) to speak for itself; (2) to participate in 

problem-solving processes; and (3) to challenge the social, political, and economic structures for 

greater access to resources and opportunities.

In practice, VISTA’s activities almost always reflected elements of both ideologies. Project 

activities were generally shaped by multiple factors, including the actual conditions of poverty, 

the expressed needs of the local community, and the volunteer’s perspective on what was 

necessary and feasible (Bass, 2013). Consequently, volunteers have nearly always brought to 

bear solutions that included input from community leaders, the poor, VISTA supervisors, and the 

volunteer his or herself. 

This “from the ground up” approach to volunteer activities necessarily reflects creative problem 

solving; however, it makes it difficult to establish uniformity in service activity across sponsor 

organizations. Within VISTA, there are no well-identified models of anti-poverty activity that 

allow for uniform description and fidelity in implementation. Under the rubric of “capacity 
9

building,” volunteers may participate in some role in any number of anti-poverty approaches that 

meet the needs of the community regardless of an evidence base.

VISTA Project Activities and Focus Areas

When VISTA was first created, the services that the volunteers provided were largely shaped by 

perceived community needs, available resources, and the skills of the volunteer. Through the 

latter part of the 1960s and into the early 1970s, in order to provide structure and improve 

management of the program, and to exert some control over its activities, VISTA developed 

project service sectors, which were broadly defined categories that loosely encompassed the 

varied project activities performed by volunteers. These sectors included Health, Education and 

Manpower, Economic Development, Housing, Social Services, Legal Assistance, and 

Community/Program Development. By the mid to late 1970s, these sectors evolved into seven

service areas of ACTION’s Basic Human Needs, service categories that again encompassed most 

project activities.

9

 These service areas formed the basis of annual reports, and provided a 

framework for early regular quantitative evaluations. 

Concurrent with the emergence of both the project sectors and Basic Human Needs service areas, 

VISTA made two distinct efforts to craft evaluation paradigms that would ensure rigorous, highquality impact evaluations (Chafkin,Pines, Kennefick, Colligan, Freeman, Montgmery, 1969; 

Gilmartin, Rossi, & Russ-Eft, 1977). Not surprisingly, these assessments noted the substantial

barriers to evaluating VISTA’s anti-poverty impact, citing among other issues its small size, 

diffuse organizational structure, unspecified unit of measurement, and vaguely described effect. 

9 The seven service areas included Education, Health, Economic Development, Housing, Community and Program Development, 

Social Services, and Legal Assistance. 
10

Nevertheless, these early “evaluability assessments” recommended protocols for evaluating its 

activities, elements of which were adopted in later evaluation projects. Realistically, however, 

only a few selected recommendations were implemented in ongoing evaluations of the program. 

Nevertheless, concerns raised by these evaluation capacity assessments remain salient across the 

whole of VISTA’s history. Through the latter part of the 1980s, project activities were 

implemented that emphasized emerging community needs, recent legislation, and social trends. 

VISTA began assisting service programs related to domestic violence, drug use, 

weatherization/energy efficiency, economic opportunity, and HIV/AIDS.

10

 Childhood and adult 

literacy became a significant area of concern for two successive presidential administrations, and 

VISTA became a launch point for several high-profile literacy projects. These included Literacy 

Corps and the Summer Reads program, both of which involved quantitative evaluations of their 

own.

Following the transition from ACTION to the Corporation for National and Community Service

(CNCS), and its incorporation into AmeriCorps, VISTA distinguished itself from other CNCS 

programs by emphasizing its capacity-building and resource development activities. This 

distinction highlighted VISTA’s stronger emphasis on fostering organizational capacity and 

minimized its limited direct service activity. With the signing of the Serve America Act in 2009, 

CNCS incorporated into its strategic plan the six focus areas for service across all of its 

programs. These focus areas are Disaster Services, Economic Opportunity, Education, 

10 The first annual combined progress reports described VISTA activities by regions of the country and individual sponsor. After 

VISTA was placed under ACTION, all national service program activities were summarized in ACTION Annual Reports, which 

included project descriptions by service or focus area, budget, and some deliverables, including resources generated. The 1988 

ACTION Report, VISTA, pages 11–12, provided a description of activities occurring in the late 1980s. Similarly, the 

AmeriCorps VISTA National Newsletters (1994–1998) describe a number of activities, including community building, domestic 

violence efforts, and work with HIV/AIDS patients. 
11

Environmental Stewardship, Healthy Futures, and Veterans and Military Families.

11

 As an 

addendum, CNCS included Capacity Building at a later date.

A closer examination of the themes inherent in the service categories and volunteer assignment 

descriptions across five decades suggests that, across its entire history, VISTA has consistently 

aligned its project activities and services to address issues specific to poverty, including 

education and employment training, health care, social services, housing, and legal advocacy. 

Less clear, however, are the goals of the activities (whether these are implemented to eliminate 

poverty or ameliorate its effects), the intended outcomes (expanding organization capacity vs.

addressing poverty’s causes and correlates), and the theoretical mechanisms by which these 

activities are linked to the elimination of poverty. 

PART 2. Evidence Assessment 

Evaluation Issues – Types and Methods of Assessment 

Across the course of its 50-year history, VISTA has engaged in the long-standing practice of 

periodic program evaluation. Over these five decades, VISTA has evolved in response to social 

and political trends, and yet the methodology used by the federal offices overseeing VISTA, as 

well as by the program itself, has remained remarkably consistent. In actuality, VISTA’s “impact

evaluations,” almost all required by statute, can more accurately be defined as program

assessments, although, while many include a community perspective, few, if any, assess actual 

community impact.

12

 Typical evaluations conducted by and for VISTA have consisted of 

surveys and/or targeted interviews with volunteers, supervisors, site managers, and staff. On 

11 Public Law 111-13, Apr. 21, 2009, The Serve America Act.

12 Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-113, Oct. 1, 1973; 42 U.S.C. 4950 et seq.).
12

occasion, community partners are also interviewed or surveyed. Reporting generally consisted of 

simple descriptions, including volunteer demographics, service area activities, estimated 

measures of performance, and anecdotal accounts of services and outcomes from selected 

community members. Analyses are generally restricted to the level and types of data collected,

and generally provide assessments of the program for congressionally mandated reports. 

Recent studies have included random samples of programs, stratified by focus areas, and types of 

volunteers and service regions, which allowed for generalizations to the population of programs. 

Most recently, program outcome studies have employed more sophisticated statistical models 

and have sought to identify factors associated with measures of impact, such as project 

sustainability or productivity.

Community member participation assessment, however, has always been through convenience 

samples. Baseline levels of poverty have never been established, limiting generalizability or 

measures of actual impact. 

Among all of its evaluations, there have been few attempts to generate rigorously designed 

studies, identify best practices, develop evidence-based models of service, and even effectively 

assess innovations in national service programing. Consequently, the collective knowledge about 

VISTA’s success in the War on Poverty remains limited and largely anecdotal. 

Assessing the work of an evolving program over an extended period may not be fair or even 

warranted, as standards for both practice and measurement evolve. This is not to say that some of 

VISTA’s studies lack utility or could not now – even 50 years on – contribute to the design of 

more rigorous impact evaluations and research. VISTA’s evaluation efforts, both qualitative and 
13

quantitative, may provide the seeds that could potentially inform research designs examining the 

mechanisms of change, effective processes and practices, and actual community impact. 

Measurement Issues 

A consistent focus on poverty issues regardless of changes across time, political administration, 

internal management, and emerging manifestations of poverty suggests that VISTA is an 

adaptive organization that adheres strongly to its founding charge to address poverty. The 

program has developed a wide range of innovative activities; theory-inspired interventions;

flexible and, in some instances, well-delineated procedures; and, above all, adherence to its 

mission. While these factors may accurately describe VISTA and are necessary for rigorous 

impact evaluation, at present, these are not sufficient to evaluate VISTA’s impact relative to its 

mission and goals. 

Any evaluation of the impact of VISTA’s activities in alleviating and addressing poverty will 

encounter challenges across several measurement areas, and will need to address a substantial 

number of barriers. These challenges include both general issues of measurement and issues 

specific to the program. 

Within the first category of general measurement issues, any evaluation of VISTA should begin 

by examining its project activities and services. A clear strategy linking these activities to both 

the needs of the poor and expected improvement in poverty outcomes is a necessary first step. 

Hence, any evaluation should include a well-developed logic model, some baseline measures of 

poverty, clearly specified interventions, a well-designed protocol for implementing these 

interventions and identified units of measurement, valid instruments, and data collection 

protocols. 
14

Although these elements may be developed by large project sponsors with a defined service task 

for its volunteers, VISTA’s relationship with project sponsors has often impeded this approach. 

First, at the national level, VISTA’s volunteer management structure reflects a diffuse decisionmaking process, yielding key decisions regarding program management, volunteer recruitment, 

volunteer assignment descriptions, project activities, training, and supervision for state and local 

sponsors. This management structure, while key to responsivity, adaptability, and innovation, 

can result in wide variability across similarly named activities and no manifest standardized 

guidelines for service implementation, such as population characteristics, dosage, model 

guidelines, or curricula.

Second, VISTA national headquarters maintains a non-directive relationship with sponsoring 

agencies, and with the exception of limited performance measurements, does not actively 

promote data collection, including community-level baseline measures and post service data 

collection. In truth, this would be difficult for most small sites, and where it does occur, the 

efforts of a few volunteers providing capacity-building service, subsumed within a larger 

organization, would be difficult to disentangle from other factors.

Relatedly, VISTA’s size has never been great, numbering around 6,000 volunteers at its peak, 

and substantially less during lean funding years. A typical project sponsor may support, on 

average, three to five members, often with overlapping assignment descriptions and activities. 

However, VISTA also partners with larger national sponsors overseeing multiple small sites, and 

at these locations, it is possible to measure the aggregate impact of its members on organizational 

capacity. Still, given that there are often overlapping assignments and multiple activities, as well 

as a lack of clear service descriptions, measuring impact is reduced to the presence or absence of 
15

the volunteer – and key elements of success related to best practices, volunteer characteristics, 

organizational dynamics, and focus areas remain elusive.

Another factor that presents a challenge to evaluation is related to service ideology. This quite 

simply boils down to the identified unit of measurement. Under its current state of output 

reporting, VISTA focuses primarily on the contributions that its volunteers make to 

organizational functioning and development. Subsumed under this capacity-building framework, 

the unit of measurement is the organization or sponsor. Quantifiable indices include resources 

generated, volunteers organized, and sustainability. Less easily measured are activities that 

support administrative and management functions (e.g., developing record-keeping systems, 

developing community partnerships, writing curriculum or promotional material). In either case, 

however, poverty impact is a function of the sponsor, and therefore only indirectly related to 

VISTA’s efforts.

There are cases where VISTA does provide direct service, however. This approach provides 

VISTA with a more direct hand in implementing and delivering services that address or 

ameliorate the effects of poverty, such as child care, access to services, job training, education, 

and counseling. Under this scenario, the unit of measurement is the individual. Here, too, 

VISTA’s small size, lack of structured programing, multiple or overlapping activities, and lack 

of a clearly defined logic model also impede measurement. While individual-level measures are 

easily quantifiable, these are not so easily linked to gains against poverty, whether at the local 

level or in aggregate at the national level.
16

Evidence Assessment 

Within the preceding context, the remaining discussion critically analyzes VISTA’s program 

assessments, evaluations, and research studies that have been conducted over its 50-year history 

(Appendix A). Roughly speaking, these studies and program assessments can be categorized by 

the era in which the evaluation was designed and conducted, the purpose of the study, the 

methodology, and the level of rigor employed. Each of these factors influences how these studies 

may inform a long view of the program, as well as mark VISTA’s evolution over time. In 

addition, this evidence review will critically assess the value of these periodic assessments in 

order to shed light on the potential contributions of these efforts.

Evidence 

Process Evaluations 

Between 1965 and 1975, shortly after it began placing volunteers in American communities, 

VISTA began periodic research and assessments of its work. The two primary lines of inquiry it 

pursued included what VISTA is achieving (outputs) and how VISTA does its work (process). 

Because information generated by the first question has more utility, the majority of VISTA’s 

evaluations contained three standard components: (1) descriptive reporting and output 

measurement, (2) volunteer satisfaction, and (3) stakeholder perceptions and anecdotal reports of 

impact. While informative for tracking and reporting purposes, these output evaluations provided 

little in the way of community impact or changes in beneficiary or community levels of poverty.

However, targeted studies and critical reviews have also been conducted to probe VISTA’s 

mechanisms of change, including process assessments that explore a range of individual and 
17

community impacts. These studies have expanded the knowledge base about VISTA and are 

suggestive of how it may be evaluated in the future. 

VISTA’s earliest efforts at process evaluations were two-fold in purpose. The first focused on 

understanding the role of the VISTA volunteer in the community and the mechanisms through 

which the volunteer brought about change (process and presence). The second targeted program 

implementation, specifically for improvement or adaptation following critical questions, 

volunteer complaints, and negative reports of VISTA activity.

One of the first and most influential series of evaluations involved a longitudinal assessment of 

volunteers and their service activity (Cantor, 1967). This four-part study conducted over a twoto three-year period was commissioned by the Columbia School of Social Work upon becoming 

a VISTA training site. Largely qualitative in nature, the purpose of the study was to identify: 

(1) the mechanisms of change inherent in the volunteer’s work; (2) differences in volunteer 

demographic, behavioral, and attitudinal characteristics potentially linked to performance and 

satisfaction; (3) volunteer activities that may be linked to successful performance; and (4) service 

impact on the volunteer (satisfaction and professional growth). 

Although only two of the four studies were available for review, these are nevertheless 

instructive. Primarily centered on the volunteer, these explorations were conducted within the 

service milieu and the context of the beneficiary. Strikingly, impact was not interpreted as 

changes in actual poverty conditions, but instead as changes in the beneficiary’s attitudes, 

outlook, sense of community, and most importantly, level of self-efficacy. From a temporal 

perspective, this outcome was more consistent with VISTA’s initial charge to help the poor help 

themselves and remains, to date, the only study to adopt this focus. 
18

In one of these earliest publications, Cantor (1967–1968) interviewed and surveyed volunteers, 

supervisors, sponsors, and community members to identify the key roles of VISTA volunteers as 

agents of change. These findings explicated the theoretical framework that facilitated community 

and individual change.

13 Cantor identified five roles that VISTAs play in addressing the needs of 

the poor: (1) a bridge between the ghetto and the outside world, (2) a catalyst to activate others, 

(3) a service provider addressing pressing needs, (4) a gadfly or innovator, and (5) a role model. 

Interestingly, these roles capture well the competing and complementary service ideologies. To 

date, however, no other studies reviewed have rigorously tested this model. These roles 

subsequently fueled several of VISTA’s promotional publications. And yet, there were no 

subsequent follow-up research projects that validated these observations. Nevertheless, 

individual beneficiary-level change (efficacy) wrought by contact and advocacy remains an 

intriguing unit of measurement. In a related vein, a 2002 study on motivation to serve generated 

typologies of service providers, with some intriguing links to these same concepts (Standerfer,

2002). Although not related or even cited in the later work, the same thematic constructs attest to 

a consistent adherence to addressing the needs of the poor and the volunteer motivations that 

undergird these efforts. 

Concurrent with this nascent research on the theoretical mechanisms of service were two efforts 

to assess both VISTA’s operational side and the feasibility of conducting a large-scale impact 

evaluation. The first study resulted in A Call to ACTION in 1972, a report by the evaluation staff 

of the Office of Domestic and Anti-Poverty Operations (ACTION, 1971). This report was an 

internally commissioned study to assess the management and operations of the program. At the 

13 Cantor’s research was targeted at understanding the process by which volunteers could bring about change in the lives of the 

poor, and what social/relational and community engagement mechanism were critical for social change. This work informed both 

the prevailing views of the VISTA volunteers and the debate in how to address long-term systemic poverty.
19

time the report was commissioned, VISTA was being criticized for purported political activity by 

some volunteers, and was receiving complaints from volunteers regarding training assignment 

descriptions. 

This study involved a rigorous qualitative evaluation in order to establish an unbiased and nonpartisan perspective. A team of 21 evaluators was organized, consisting of social scientists, 

psychologists, evaluation consultants, community action specialists, and successful VISTA 

alumni. All evaluators were external to the ACTION office and were trained in structured 

interviewing and on how to score a standardized evaluation form. Although the study cites a 

number of positive aspects about the program, including the quality and genuine commitment of 

the staff and volunteers, there were several areas of concern, specifically with regard to 

management and programming. Among these were: (1) a lack of specific goals, undefined 

strategies, and unclear or inaccurate assignment descriptions; (2) the prominence of the 

sponsoring organization’s objectives over those of the national headquarters; and (3) no clear or 

dominant service ideology. 

The recommendations of the team included fostering a stronger role for the national headquarters 

in conducting a needs assessment at the project level, and implementing evaluation processes 

that underscore the need for more strenuous project planning and programming. 

This study captures well the essence of VISTA while undergoing political conflict and change, 

and it is as instructive in its approach as it is in its findings. The use of a large and independent 

group of stakeholders, scholars, practitioners, and evaluation specialists seeking consensus on 

problem identification and future recommendations suggests a necessary first step in building an 

evaluation framework and promoting institutional buy-in within such a diffuse and entrenched 
20

organization. Although readiness for change is critical in any organization, strong and informed 

guidance from specialists and stakeholders can be influential in propelling a more rigorous 

evaluation agenda moving forward. 

The second study, entitled the VISTA Impact Assessment (ACTION/VISTA, 1973, Internal 

Document), involved an interim assessment of the impact of VISTA services to enhance 

organizations’ capacity to combat poverty. The methodology involved a telephone survey of 

VISTA supervisors from all 10 regions that had projects with five or more volunteers and that 

had been in operation six months or more. Two hypotheses were tested: (1) organizations 

sponsoring VISTA volunteers are becoming more self-reliant, and (2) VISTA volunteers 

supplement community efforts to eliminate poverty. The conclusions of the study were 

affirmative for VISTA and indicated gains for both the organizations and the communities. 

Although this demonstration amounted to a less than rigorous quantitative evaluation, 

importantly, the study outlined a five-factor evaluation framework and six recommendations for 

expanding and improving this very process.

14

 Within this evaluation framework, VISTA would 

assess: (1) the appropriateness of service objectives (logic model or guided intervention), (2) the 

adequacy of effect (actual impact on poverty measures), (3) the effectiveness of the intervention 

(strength), (4) efficiency (costs vs. gains), and (5) unintended consequences. 

The report also issued six recommendations for future evaluations, including: (1) data collection 

at multiple levels (volunteers, sponsors, and the community), (2) collecting baseline communitylevel data for pre/post analysis, (3) identifying and controlling for overlapping causes of change, 

14 The study proposed an evaluation framework that reiterated findings and recommendations from an earlier evaluability 

assessment of the VISTA program, suggesting some effort to integrate professional consultation with actual practice.
21

(4) using control groups for comparison (closed VISTA projects terminated prior to completion 

or organizations with and without VISTA volunteers), (5) expanding data usage to include 

alternative data sources for measurement, and (6) emphasizing sustainability as an impact. The 

report acknowledged that these suggestions were both costly and difficult to implement in a 

decentralized organization with small, diffuse sponsor sites. Indeed, wide-scale implementation 

of all but one of these recommendations – the recommendation pertaining to sustainability – has 

not, to date, taken place.

15

 

The preceding studies occurred during VISTA’s first 10 years of operation. Although not the 

only evaluations to have occurred, these studies are the most important ones in terms of heuristic 

value and actionable recommendations. The next section will discuss VISTA’s efforts to 

quantify its work and assess policy changes within the organization.

Program Assessments and Policy Impact Studies 

During the period from 1976 through 1980, yearly evaluations were conducted that comprised 

surveys of volunteers, supervisors, sponsors, and community participants. This simple 

methodology reflected the approach used in the earlier demonstration project.

However, the intent was not to assess feasibility or expand evaluation capacity. The two-fold 

purpose of these evaluations was to generate activity reports that quantified VISTA’s 

15 The three studies that focused on sustainability were: (1) The VISTA Goal Accomplishments and Community Effects 

Evaluation: Final Report 1986–1987 (1988), (2) The Sustainability of AmeriCorps VISTA Programs and Activities (1997), and 

(3) The VISTA Program Assessment (2010). Each study reported strong impacts for VISTA projects within sponsor programs 

and reported approximately 60 percent to 80 percent sustainability or incorporation of the VISTA interventions (see the appendix 

for citations). 
22

accomplishments (for political purposes) and to establish empirical evidence of the impact of 

policy changes within the organization. 

Policy shifts during this period included several initiatives to expand community organizing 

activities and the number of locally recruited volunteers (particularly those from poor 

communities), as well as to promote partnerships with national poverty advocacy groups. In a 

series of evaluations commencing in 1976, VISTA began collecting baseline member and service 

data, and volunteer demographics and activity profiles.

16

 Across a four-year span, volunteer 

characteristics, outputs (resources and recruited volunteers), and activities were tracked and 

compared over time. Findings from the final 1980 evaluation indicated that the targeted activities

and member demographics changed in the anticipated direction, and VISTA continued to 

generate substantial resources for communities. Not surprisingly, with regard to compiling 

impact figures for annual reports, questions about the validity or accuracy of VISTA outputs 

created opportunities for challenges from critics for many years (Bass, 2013).

Through the better part of the 1980s, VISTA encountered significant political challenges

involving its services, and subsequently experienced dramatic budget cuts. Evaluations across 

this time were rare; however, those that were conducted in large part followed the standard 

format of surveying volunteers, supervisors, and sponsors, coupled with selected interviews. 

16 There were eight studies commissioned by the ACTION agency from 1973 through 1980. All were conducted by the Office of 

Policy and Planning, Research and Evaluation Unit. These studies included: (1) A Study of Target and Non-Target VISTA 

Volunteers (1973), (2) VISTA Volunteer – Sponsor Survey (1976), (3) VISTA Project Survey (1976), (4) National VISTA Study 

(FY 1977), (5) VISTA National Grant Evaluation (1978), (6) VISTA Activities Survey (1978), Volume 1: Final Report, (7) 

VISTA Activities Survey (1979), and (8) VISTA Activities Survey (1980). 
23

Nonetheless, in 1988, ACTION released VISTA Goal Accomplishments and Community Effects 

Evaluation: Final Report 1986–1987 (Abt Associates, 1988). This evaluation design included 

pre/post measures of site assessments, as well as interviews with volunteers, sponsors, and 

community members. Consistent with previous findings, the descriptive analysis continued to 

report significant gains in program service expansion, greater reach, and increased revenues. 

VISTA’s volunteer demographic profile remained largely unchanged, and sponsor and 

community ratings remained positive. Notably, one reported finding focused on predicted project 

sustainability. Through interviews with program staff, the study found that at the close of 

services following the second year, 48 percent of VISTA projects were institutionalized, and 

approximately 90 percent were projected to be sustained post VISTA support.

17

Special Initiatives 

In 1986, the national Domestic Volunteer Service Act was modified, directing VISTA to focus 

on literacy primarily through capacity building and resource development. This mandate shifted 

a substantial portion of VISTA service activity toward supporting adult and child literacy 

projects, and it facilitated a series of targeted evaluations. Not surprisingly, these early 

assessments followed the same format and methodology as previous VISTA evaluations, lacking 

rigor and measures of impact. 

The following paragraph, lifted from a 1991 evaluation of Literacy Corps, is atypical of VISTA 

evaluations to date in that the authors acknowledge serious limitations in the evaluation:

Fieldworkers found that there were no established procedures for collecting information 

at any literacy program. The closest thing to this was an annual report which is 

17 VISTA Goal Accomplishments and Community Effects Evaluation: Final Report 1986–1987, Abt Associates, 1988.
24

submitted to the LVA national office or Laubach International Headquarters. But these 

data simply represent the number of clients being served, and do not reflect the broader 

results of the literacy program.

Anecdotes were far too often substituted for statistical data. One Director said of her 

literacy program, “Students come in creeping through the door and leave with their 

heads held high.”18

All reported metrics relative to VISTA’s accomplishments were gleaned from surveys and 

amounted to the numbers of clients reached, volunteers recruited, projects expanded, and 

projects sustained. A lack of baseline or comparative measures hampered any assessment of 

impact. 

Similarly, in 1997, VISTA participated in “America Reads” – a national program initiative by 

the Clinton Administration.

19

 Volunteers were placed in several Summer Read projects to fulfill 

various capacity-building, direct service, and project support roles. The program was evaluated 

using a rapid assessment protocol consisting of interviews with project directors and volunteers, 

limited site visits, literature reviews, project descriptions, and in some instances, project 

evaluation results. The report cites factors that impede evaluations, including no uniformity 

across individual projects, little project measurement, and wide variation in the role of the

VISTAs. The results of the study were largely based on anecdotal reports. Although, in some 

18 Improving Literacy with VISTA Volunteers: An Evaluation Report on the VISTA Literacy Corps. Developmental Associates, 

1991. 

19 Description and Evaluation of the Summer Reads Initiative. Macro International, 1997.
25

rare instances, there were pre/post measures of literacy attainment, measurement instruments 

differed across sites, impeding comparisons. 

Concurrent with VISTA’s literacy focus, in the mid to late 1990s, program assessments were 

conducted that focused on VISTA’s other primary service activities – capacity building and 

resource development. A prime example included an addendum report attached to the 1995 

accomplishment survey.

20

 

Although the methodology of these evaluations largely adopted those used in previous 

approaches, the inclusion of capacity outputs and the expansion of descriptive output measures 

assessing support for organizations more clearly delineated the areas where VISTA was making 

contributions. In this report, capacity-building assessment focused on three areas: (1) expanding 

local organizational resources (financial), (2) strengthening community ties with sponsoring 

organizations, and (3) supporting management and administration. Within these assessment 

areas, several outputs were reported, including generating financial resources, the proportional 

significance of resources for sponsors, fund-raising activities, partnership development and

community outreach, program planning, volunteer recruitment, developing management systems,

and direct support. 

Findings from these in-depth, cross-sectional surveys supported the general findings across 

several decades – that VISTA was producing benefits and gains through its volunteers. For 

instance, VISTA generated $26.4 million in cash and $39 million in in-kind service. VISTA 

increased organizational resources, averaging 2.3 percent for cash and 6.6 percent for in-kind 

20 Support for Local Organizations: Report from the AmeriCorps VISTA 1994 Accomplishment Survey. Westat, 1994.
26

resources (Westat Accomplishment Survey, 1994). This evaluation appears to be a single study

focusing on measuring organizational support and capacity. 

One unintended upshot of this report was the identification of a potential list of quantifiable 

capacity measures appropriate for either pre/post assessment or a more rigorous comparative 

research project. In addition, these items could be considered for inclusion in capacity-building 

scales. 

Despite this work and a focus on targeted assessments of special initiative, the issues of impact 

measurement continued to pose difficulties for VISTA across the next two decades. A 2004 

evaluation of VISTA’s Asset Building Program found that: 

Entrepreneur Corps VISTAs are responsible for developing, implementing and expanding 

asset building programs. VISTA members are definitely “getting things done”...

However the impact of their activities on the programs they support remains largely 

anecdotal.

Nevertheless, the report recommended a list of performance measures for future evaluations, and 

highlighted the need for targeted training (Moore McBride, 2004).

Measures of Impact 

Three evaluations, notable for a strong design, modest level of rigor, and actual measures of 

impact, were commissioned by VISTA between 1997 and 2010. The first sustainability study,

entitled The Sustainability of AmeriCorps Programs and Activities (Tabori, Gordon, & Martinez, 

1997), examined the impact of VISTA’s capacity-building and resource development activities 

on organizational change. Structured interviews were conducted with an initial random sample of 
27

240 organizations that had VISTA-supported projects and were closed for either two or five 

years. Of these, 119 organizations were primary interviews and 82 represented follow-up 

interviews (projects that refused or were unable to participate in the primary interview). 

Accounting for programs that were no longer in existence or were unable to participate, the 

adjusted response rate was 93.4 percent. The survey yielded information on seven key items: 

(1) characteristics of the VISTA-supported project; (2) the goals, objectives, and activities of the 

project; (3) the project budget; (4) the pre/post status of the VISTA-supported activity; (5) the 

number and role of the VISTA volunteers; (6) the post VISTA status of the volunteers; and 

(7) the sources of support for post VISTA continuation. 

The two samples were compared on key indicators to assess for systematic differences between 

those that agreed to participate and those that did not. Due to program turnover and a lack of 

institutional memory, limited information was collected from the follow-up organization.

Addressing a range of empirical and policy questions, the study addressed factors associated with 

the survival or continuation of the VISTA member activity or program after the grant closed. 

This would include services, practices, or policies created and adopted by the host organization.

21

 

The study reported strong impacts, citing survival rates of more than 60 percent five years after 

project closure and a 76 percent survival rate two years out. Greater sustainability was 

demonstrated for previously existing projects vs. new initiatives; however, even these were 

sustained at a rate that exceeded 60 percent. Although these findings demonstrate the positive 

21 The primary research questions focused on sponsor characteristics and policy implications: (1) What proportion of the VISTAsupported project survived after VISTA had departed? (2) Were there differences in survival rates between the two-year mark 

and the five-year mark? (3) What role did VISTA policies play in the survival rates? (4) What was the role of prior VISTA 

experience in sustaining a project? (5) Was organizational capacity-building activity likely to influence survival rates? (6) What 

role did VISTA volunteers play in recruiting, training, and supervising non-VISTA volunteers? (7) What problems did projects 

face in raising continuation funds? and (8) What impact did they have on survival rates?
28

impact of VISTA support for both new and existing projects, over time VISTA was more likely 

to target its service to support and expand existing projects. 

Although VISTA has previously reported sustainability rates, this was the first evaluation project 

to focus specifically on this outcome, suggesting that sustainability should be a component in a 

constellation of impact measures. Furthermore, this study suggested that comparative research 

focusing on organizations that sustained VISTA-supported programs and those that did not 

allows another avenue for assessing best practices, volunteer placement, and network 

development. In addition, this type of evaluation can serve as a basis to indirectly measure 

VISTA’s impact on poverty via an intermediary organization. 

In 2010, VISTA commissioned another program assessment that examined factors associated 

with project success and sustainability – the VISTA Program Assessment (Thomas et al., 2010). 

In this evaluation, a sample of 250 current projects in their third year and 250 projects closed 

between two and five years were surveyed; site visits were conducted with a smaller subset of 

closed projects. Using a rigorous sampling process, project information, site visits, interviews,

and administrative records, the research team constructed multivariate models that predicted both 

project success and sustainability.

Similar results were reported, with nearly 80 percent of projects sustained at the two-year mark. 

This research also examined the characteristics of volunteers, projects, sponsors, and the 

community, as well as VISTA’s policies and practices. Factors associated with success and 

sustainability included well-trained VISTA volunteers, screening, organization-specific training,

and well-designed projects. 
29

The importance of this study lies with the accurate identification of factors associated with 

project success and sustainability. These factors may aid in the design of activities, volunteer 

placement practices, and project management. Ultimately, the creation of prescriptive models 

also can promote the design of rigorous impact evaluations. 

The most rigorous impact study, conducted by a National Service Fellowship Program 

participant, was not directly commissioned by VISTA. This project was entitled Capacity 

Building as a Fundamental Objective: Definition and Measurement in the AmeriCorps VISTA –

Habitat for Humanity International Affiliate Partnerships (Elliot, 2002), and examined the 

organizational impact of the program’s capacity-building activities. The study compared Habitat 

for Humanity sites where VISTAs serve to those where they are not assigned. In this study, the 

researcher conceptualized capacity along a 38-point scale, generating a total score. Production 

was then assessed by both size and output, and capacity-building activity was defined as 

generated resources and volunteers, administrative assistance, and support. This quasiexperimental design compared similar Habitat for Humanity affiliates with VISTA volunteers to 

affiliates without VISTA support. The outcomes were site levels of productivity and, most 

prominently, the number of houses built. 

Controlling for organizational measures, community-level measures, and volunteer 

characteristics, sites with VISTA volunteers were more productive and generated more actual 

output (i.e., houses built/land secured) compared to sites without VISTAs. This study is the first 

and, to date, only empirical evidence of VISTA’s activity that can be directly related to 

measureable community impact. 
30

This evaluation hewed closely to earlier recommended evaluation strategies, including clear 

definition of a service activity, a large enough sample to generate reliable findings, the use of a 

comparison group and baseline measures to assess performance, and clear theoretically derived 

dependent measures.

The capacity-building study represents the type of evaluation design that should be a prominent 

model for many VISTA evaluations, particularly among large sponsors.

22

PART 3: Summary and Recommendations 

The overarching purpose of this review is to inform planning and discussion regarding a VISTA 

research agenda, including impact evaluations. The documents reviewed include all available 

research studies, program evaluations, evaluability assessments, accomplishment surveys, 

member surveys, training evaluations, and special reports generated during VISTA’s 50-year 

history (See the attached references for a list of the documents, and Appendix A.) Although it is 

likely that these documents provide a reasonably comprehensive record of VISTA’s evaluation 

history, inconsistent and inadequate record keeping may have contributed to a small number of 

misplaced evaluation documents.

In assessing this body of evidence, two related questions guided interpretation of the findings. 

The first question addressed the evidence of VISTA’s impact on poverty. From this macro 

perspective, did VISTA’s activities have a measureable impact on national poverty metrics? The 

second question, more focused and causal, assessed the impact of VISTA’s activities on the 

22 Inadvertently, the study was replicated in 2016 by Olson, Cooper, and Viola, 2013–16 External Evaluation for HFH National 

Service Programs, with highly similar results. The authors’ did not cite Ginger Elliot’s previous study as it had never been 

published. Similarly, the 2010 VISTA Program Assessment (Olson et al.) does not appear to be informed by the 1997 

Sustainability Study (Tabori et al.). Although there is no doubt that these omissions are not purposeful, it is one indication that 

there is little organizational learning and planning by VISTA leadership on evidence-informed decision making regarding 

programing and measurement. 
31

specific measureable variables that address or ameliorate poverty within a service area. This 

perspective is admittedly more realistic, despite the fact that VISTA’s interventions are difficult 

to isolate. Consequently, efforts to assess impact within specific individuals, organizations, and 

communities served by VISTA remain a more feasible and realistic endeavor.

After examining a broad range of reports and studies on the program’s work, its special projects, 

and research efforts (Appendix A), it is tempting to conclude that VISTA has indeed had an 

impact on the national poverty rate. However, this conclusion begs the question, what is the 

evidence to support this claim? Unlike its larger sister programs (Head Start, Job Corps, and 

Community Action Programs), VISTA has remained a very small initiative, limiting its capacity 

to demonstrate change on a national or even regional scale. Regardless of its fifty years as a 

national service, anti-poverty program, scant rigorous evidence exists that, through its activities, 

VISTA has contributed to a reduction in poverty at the national level. 

Conversely, this review found several consistent themes related to impact that resonated across 

this 50-year history. The three most prominent are: (1) VISTAs have consistently been viewed as 

both talented and dedicated to their work; (2) VISTAs have consistently generated a substantial 

amount of capacity in the form of monetary, in-kind, and volunteer support for sponsor 

organization; and (3) VISTA-supported projects have consistently demonstrated an impressive 

record of sustainability, averaging more than 60 percent at the five-year mark. In addition to 

these themes, replicated evaluation research supports the notion that organizations utilizing 

VISTAs have substantially higher levels of productivity and extended reach (Elliot, 2002; Olson 

et al., 2016).
32

Given these consistent findings, it is not unrealistic to suggest that VISTA may have had an 

impact on poverty, albeit mostly at local or community levels. More accurately, VISTA has 

probably improved the lives of beneficiaries by addressing needs often associated with poverty 

through enhanced or sustained services via an intermediary organization. Acknowledging that 

VISTA’s strongest activities involve capacity building, the evidence of the success of the VISTA 

program through this organizational work does demand some consideration. 

Still, there are limitations associated with this body of evidence. Most interventions that VISTA 

members employ lack demonstrated evidence of effectiveness, and approved projects are not 

typically required to include evidence-based interventions. In addition, baseline metrics, pre/post 

measures, or control groups are rarely used to evaluate or isolate the effect of an intervention. 

Consequently, in the final analysis, VISTA’s impact on poverty remains equivocal. 

Nevertheless, despite a lack of evidence, one of the strongest contributions from this body of 

work is the collected wisdom that derives from years of implementing service, and the many 

attempts to measure its impact. Furthermore, these efforts also might inform an understanding of 

the dynamics associated with VISTA service at the member level. The collective crop of 

research, evaluations, and program assessments provides a basis for informing and addressing 

structural and programmatic barriers to evaluation, research on scale development, and 

innovative measurements. 

Recommendations 

The preceding review is meant to inform the decision-making process as VISTA considers a 

research and evaluation agenda. Prior to drafting a plan, it will be important to engage in a broad 
33

discussion of the purpose, potential uses, and any administrative or programmatic changes 

necessary to facilitate the process. 

Potential changes may include formally defining aspects of its programming and services, 

standardizing some activities, designing interventions, formalizing and expanding training 

specific to the service being evaluated, specifying clear guidelines for placing volunteers, 

conducting or requiring thorough needs assessments, collecting valid community measures, and 

developing logic models and theories of change consistent with its range of services. Many of 

these changes will have a significant impact on both grant making and project administration.

Recommendation #1: Acquire Expert Consultation and Guidance on VISTA’s Program Policies 

and Practices 

Should VISTA consider developing a comprehensive evaluation and research strategy, it may 

consider replicating an approach utilized in A Call to Action (ACTION/VISTA, 1972). For this 

project, VISTA assembled and trained a team of external stakeholders to review and evaluate all 

aspects of the program, including policies and procedures, volunteer orientation and activities, 

the scope and scale of its services, satisfaction and attrition, and community/sponsor perspectives 

on service activities and training. 

Using a similar approach to examine all facets of the program, these discussions can inform 

planning and the practical elements of evaluation, including information needs, measurement 

issues, barriers, and costs. 
34

Central questions that can guide this work ask:

•

•

•

What is the current administrative structure of VISTA and how are its policies consistent 

with its operating practices? What evidence is there for the efficiency and effectiveness 

of these policies in terms of impacting service delivery and reporting? 

What are essential information needs that can guide planning and implementation of 

services and assessment of these activities? 

What internal practices and policy changes are critical to implement consistent, welldefined evidence-based services and facilitate data collection?

Successful evaluation of both program functioning and impact requires that these inter-related 

policies and practices be made explicit and subject to assessment.

23

 

Recommendation #2: Assess and Improve Measurement 

Valid measures are critical to program management and impact assessment. Critical features of 

good measurement include a well-designed logic model that defines or specifies the problem to 

be addressed, the selected intervention, and the outcome variables that are theoretically linked to 

a VISTA activity or sponsor intervention. Identifying the selected outcomes and impact 

measures enables the collection of data on pre-activity levels of functionality at the individual, 

organizational, and community levels. In some instances, particularly at the community level, 

many measures are readily available through administrative records. In addition to identified 

23 A similar technical working group might be assembled comprising experts in evaluation and national service. These may 

include former VISTA administrators, current and former sponsors, and other government agency staff that implement evidencebased programs and anti-poverty experts.
35

community or organizational markers, many qualitative and quantitative evaluations will require 

valid instruments for data collection at the individual level. 

Over the course of its history, VISTA has amassed a small library of questionnaires, surveys, 

data collection protocols, and definitions of outcome measures for capacity building and project 

success. Collecting, modifying, and validating these instruments and measures, in itself, is a 

worthwhile research pursuit that can further the field of community-based program 

measurement, and would serve as a needed first step in assessing multiple effects. 

A general guiding framework for assessing impact at the individual member level might include 

metrics similar to the currently used member assessment surveys. Combining these metrics with 

measures assessing psychosocial functioning, motivation to serve, leadership, cultural 

competency, and administrative data on employment and education can enable and strengthen 

the development of predictive models associated with program success. Employing pre/post or 

longitudinal designs with comparisons groups from other service organizations can seek to 

validate what is anecdotal data on the impact of VISTA services. 

Beneficiary impact may be assessed via qualitative methods, including case studies, longitudinal 

observations, and innovative strategies employing both VISTA membership and skill-based 

training such as community-based participatory research. Metrics should include beneficiary 

resident involvement and activation, psychosocial functioning, family role functioning, 

employment/education/self-sufficiency, health, and well-being.

Organizational measures may include pre/post capacity-building assessments targeting the 

impact of VISTA activities on sponsors. These should include scaling an organization’s services 

through expansion, reach, and productivity; developing innovative services; developing or 
36

changing policy; and strengthening community engagement. Evaluation methods should consider 

clustering sponsors by common characteristics, such as focus areas or the use of evidenced-based 

interventions, and comparison groups should be considered.

At the community level, impact metrics may include collective resident activation and 

involvement, utilization of social and government services, level of ongoing citizen participation 

(e.g., volunteering/social responsiveness), and resident/local government relationship metrics. 

Methods to assess these metrics may include social or organizational network analysis and 

community engagement assessments.

Prior to implementing any program assessment or evaluation plan, it is prudent to conduct a data 

audit, including, at a minimum, these suggested steps: 

1. Examining the data needs relevant to the proposed assessment or evaluation.

2. Identifying available sources of existing administrative data.

3. Identifying existing valid data collection instruments or creating new instruments. These

may include scales assessing individual or organizational measures (e.g., behavioral 

functionality, self-efficacy, connectedness to others, organizational capacity).

4. Assessing the capacity to link with existing survey data or longitudinal survey follow-up

data (e.g., exit survey, follow-up survey). 

5. Developing a formalized oral history methodology to record and track former and current

volunteers, beneficiaries, supervisors, and organizational staff.

Recommendation #3: Consider Capitalizing on New Opportunities by Developing Innovative 

Service Models and Targeting These Projects for Evaluation 
37

VISTA is a multifaceted organization that has a diffuse management structure. Governance over 

project designs, volunteer recruitment, training, supervision, and service activity is decentralized, 

and is held typically by the state office and sponsor. Introducing policy changes or standardizing 

some practices may prove to be a complicated and difficult task as these may vary widely across 

states and sponsors. In spite of its decentralized design, however, VISTA has finely honed and 

established management practices and, across its history, has regularly considered and 

implemented innovative service designs in partnership with government, corporate, and 

nonprofit organizations (e.g., Literacy Corps, Entrepreneur Corps, Bridging the Digital Divide, 

Habitat for Humanity). 

These innovative service projects may offer an opportunity to consider building an evaluation 

plan prior to, and even as part of, the implementation of service. In this regard, VISTA may gain 

substantial insight from a review of Social Innovation Fund project designs. Well-conducted 

needs assessments, articulated theories of change and related logic models, homogeneous 

assignment descriptions, well-designed and specified interventions, targeted or expanded 

trainings specific to the intervention, assessable and measureable beneficiaries, and 

implementation strategies that generate comparison groups (such as through lagged 

implementation) may provide an opportunity to conduct rigorous experimental and quasiexperimental designs. 

Recommendation #4: Consider Standardizing Assignment Descriptions and Volunteer Role 

Heterogeneity – Identify What Works and How It Works 

VISTA volunteer sponsor organizations vary widely in size, service needs, and capacity. 

Typically, sponsors host no more than five volunteers, who in turn often serve in small groups or 
38

alone. Some larger organization, however, may host 20 or more VISTAs, and some national 

organizations can even host several hundred placed in sites across the country.

Given this wide variation in size and capacity, sponsors and even state offices may interpret 

application guidelines very differently, perhaps bending guidelines to suit specific needs. Within 

a capacity-building framework, concept papers and related volunteer assignment descriptions 

will vary as sponsors meet specific needs. In addition, within a single sponsor, two or more 

VISTAs may work on the same project with overlapping roles and assignment descriptions, or 

with evolving tasks targeting different beneficiaries. 

This heterogeneity across and even within sponsors, state offices, project focus areas, and in 

particular volunteer assignment descriptions may impede the identification of best practices and 

the measurement of impact specific to VISTA activities. 

One approach may be for VISTA to consider embedding core tasks and a minimum allocated 

time within volunteer assignment descriptions. VISTA can then assess volunteers for adherence 

to the description and roles. It then may be feasible to aggregate sponsors or volunteers within 

assignment descriptions across different geographical regions and evaluate the impact of their 

volunteers’ work. In addition, these assessments can serve a three-fold purpose: (1) monitor 

volunteer assignments, (2) identify best practices, and (3) facilitate an impact evaluation.

A related consideration is the adequacy of the impact evaluation sample size. Statewide and 

within communities there are often only a handful of VISTA volunteers serving within projects 

at any one time. Given that heterogeneity across projects can be addressed, bundling smaller 

sponsor sites with similar projects and missions, as well as similar volunteer activity 

descriptions, may generate a feasible sample size for a rigorous and cost-effective evaluation of 
39

VISTA-supported interventions. Successful quasi-experimental studies of organizational impact 

have been conducted based on the aggregated presence of VISTA volunteers. However, one 

limitation of these studies is that it has been difficult to assess the impact of different assignment 

descriptions at a level other than the organization. In addition, these studies have not identified 

volunteer best practices, the most efficacious or productive settings for different assignment 

descriptions, or the unique contributions of supervision and training. These factors may be 

controlled in an aggregated sample collected from several bundled sites.

Studies conducted with larger sponsors or smaller bundled sponsors offer an opportunity for 

more rigorous quantitative impact evaluations, provided that VISTA can adequately specify 

assignment descriptions and volunteer roles, collect detailed sponsor site characteristics, measure 

comprehensive and valid pre/post outputs and outcomes, and identify comparable control groups. 

Recommendation #5: Specify a Range of Primary Beneficiaries and Create a Continuum of 

Impact 

VISTA beneficiaries can range from individuals to organizations, at times to whole 

communities, or in some instances all three. In assessing impact or the success of an assignment,

it is critical to specify in advance the target of the services. Given legislative mandates to 

implement capacity-building services, VISTA has demonstrated some success at evaluating 

impact through its sustainability studies. Because organizations often serve as bridges between 

the individual and the community, any assessment of organizational impact (such as 

sustainability, scope, and reach of services) should include some measures of individual and/or 

community effect as well. These may include targeted case studies that provide context for the 

impact. 
40

Recommendation #6: Consider Multiple Innovative Evaluation Methodologies 

Because the parameters of VISTA’s services and activities span a range of geographies and 

beneficiaries, multiple evaluation strategies need to be considered. Quantitative measures of 

impact at the local levels may be available in only limited instances. Beyond strictly quantitative 

measures, evaluation designs might include mixed methods and qualitative strategies. Case 

studies can be used to provide a comprehensive overview of service impact, and VISTA has long 

used variations of this approach to provide perspective on its projects. 

VISTA should consider establishing protocols for rigorous, targeted case studies of host 

communities, sponsors, focus areas, and volunteer activities. Included in a mixed-methods 

approach, VISTA should consider rigorously designed studies involving oral histories of 

volunteers and beneficiaries over time. 

Final Thoughts 

While prior evaluations provide modest evidence of organizational impact, future evaluations of

VISTA, if done well, will provide a basis for the organizational adaptation and evolution 

necessary for a 21st century program. Ever-increasing calls for evidence of impact and better 

stewardship of public dollars only underscore the need for a well-developed, comprehensive 

evaluation strategy. This rationale for studying VISTA highlights the need to identify volunteer 

activities that yield impact and measurable change, isolate volunteer characteristics associated 

with project completion and success, promote challenging and transformative volunteer 

placements, and most importantly, provide information that can inform and advance the field of 

national service such that it truly has an impact on poverty. In this regard, VISTA may serve well 
41

as a laboratory within which successful innovations of community-based programs can be 

discovered.

There will be numerous opportunities for VISTA to re-define its role as an anti-poverty/national 

service program over the coming decade. While the problems of poverty and social justice never 

seem to abate, a wealth of information, resources, and innovative practices have been gathered 

that show promise in alleviating and even preventing poverty. VISTA has had a long history of 

contributing to these practices, and in meeting these new challenges, it can again make a 

substantial contribution to this emerging body of knowledge.
42

REFERENCES 

Abt Associates. (1988). VISTA Goal Accomplishments and Community Effects Evaluation: Final 

Report 1986–1987. ACTION, Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation Unit, Washington,

DC. 

ACTION. (1973). A Study of Target and Non-Target VISTA Volunteers. Internal Report. 

Washington, DC.

ACTION, Office of Domestic and Anti-Poverty Operations. (Dec. 1971). A Call to ACTION in 

1972: An Analysis and Evaluation of VISTA Programs, August–September 1971. Washington, 

DC.

ACTION, Office of Policy and Planning, Division of Evaluation. Washington, DC. 

–

–

–

–

VISTA. (Nov. 1978). VISTA National Grant Evaluation.

VISTA. (1978). Activities Survey, Volume 1: Final Report.

VISTA. (1979). VISTA Activities Survey. 

VISTA. (1980). VISTA Activities Survey.

ACTION, 1975 Annual Report.

ACTION, 1980 Annual Report.

ACTION, 1981 Annual Report.

ACTION, 1982 Annual Report.

ACTION, 1988 Annual Report.

Bass, M. (2013). The Politics and Civics of National Service: Lessons from the Civilian 

Conservation Corps, VISTA and AmeriCorps. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.

ISBN 978-0-8157-2380-6.

Beetle, M. (Mar. 1977). VISTA Project Survey 1976. ACTION, Office of Policy and Planning,

Division of Evaluation, Washington, DC. 

Cantor, M. (Sept. 1967). VISTA Volunteers and the Poor: A Special Type of Helping 

Relationship. Columbia University, School of Social Work. 
43

Cantor, M. (Jul. 1968). Some Correlates of Success and Satisfaction in Urban VISTA. Columbia 

University, School of Social Work. 

Chafkin, S.H., Pines, J.M., Kennefick, A.R., Colligan, E., Freeman, A.L., and Montgomery, E. 

(1969). Measuring the Impact of VISTA on Poverty Communities. Unpublished Document.

Clark, C.F. (2002). The War on Poverty: History, Selected Programs and Ongoing Impact. 

University Press of America, Lanham, MD, p. 137.

The Daily Illini. April 22, 1970, No. 135.

Developmental Associates. (1991). Improving Literacy with VISTA Volunteers: An Evaluation 

Report on the VISTA Literacy Corps. ACTION, Office of Policy Research and Evaluation, 

Program Analysis and Evaluation Division, Washington, DC. 

Developmental Associates. (1993). An Evaluation Report on Volunteers in Service to America. 

ACTION, Office of Policy Research and Evaluation, Program Analysis and Evaluation Division, 

Washington, DC. 

Elliot, G. (2002). Capacity Building as a Fundamental Objective: Definition and Measurement 

in the AmeriCorps VISTA – Habitat for Humanity International Affiliate Partnerships. Internal 

Report by a National and Community Service Fellow.

Frazier, L., Jamtgaard, K., and Kalin, J. (Oct. 1976). VISTA Volunteer – Sponsor Survey. 

ACTION, Office of Policy and Planning, Division of Evaluation.

Frazier, L., Jamtgaard, K., and Kalin, J. (Jul. 1978). National VISTA Study FY 1977. ACTION, 

Office of Policy and Planning, Division of Evaluation.

Gilmartin, K.J., Rossi, R.J., and Russ-Eft, D. (1977). Program Impact Evaluation Paradigm for 

VISTA. American Institute for Research. Unpublished.

Goldblatt, H. (1967). VISTA Associates in Appalachia: An Assessment of the 1966 Summer 

Associate Program. Office of Economic Opportunity, Washington, DC. 

Macro International, Inc. (1997). Description and Evaluation of the Summer Reads Initiative. 

Corporation for National and Community Service, Washington, DC.

Moore McBride, A. (2004). AmeriCorps VISTA and Asset Development: Increasing Capacity for 

Performance Measurement and Effects. Center for Social Development, Washington University, 

St. Louis, MO.
44

Olson, B., Cooper, D., and Viola, J. (2016). 2013–16 External Evaluation for HFH National 

Service Program. Habitat for Humanity International. Application ID: 16ED179488.

Pass, D.J. (1975). The Politics of VISTA in the War on Poverty: A Study of Ideological Conflict. 

Columbia University. Unpublished Dissertation.

Standerfer, C. (2002). Why Serve: Understanding the Service Orientation of AmeriCorps VISTA 

Service Members. Internal Report by a National and Community Service Fellow.

The State of the Union Address. (2012). Retrieved February 20, 2013, from 

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/lbj1964stateoftheunion.htm.

Strickler, G. (1994). VISTA: A Study in Organizational Survival. Bryn Mawr College. 

Unpublished Dissertation.

Tabori, J.R., Gordon, I.M., and Martinez, R. (Aug. 1997). The Sustainability of AmeriCorps

VISTA Programs and Activities. Corporation for National and Community Service, Washington, 

DC. People Work, Inc.

Thomas, C., Gasper, J., Robins, C., and Silva, P. (Mar. 2010). The VISTA Program Assessment. 

Corporation for National and Community Service, Washington, DC. Westat, Inc. 

Westat, Inc. Support for Local Organizations: Report from the AmeriCorps VISTA 1994 

Accomplishment Survey. Corporation for National and Community Service, Washington, DC. 

United States Public Law 88-452, Title VI, Aug. 20, 1964, Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.

United States Public Law 93-113, Oct. 1, 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4950 et seq., Domestic Volunteer 

Service Act of 1973.

United States Public Law 93-113, Oct 1, 1973, Part A – Statement of Purpose.

VLine, VISTA Newsletter, June 1970.
APPENDIX A

45

TITLE/TYPE DATE AUTHOR(S)

TYPE OF 

STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

DESCRIPTION/QUALITY/

MAJOR FINDING

Early Process Assessments and Research on Volunteer Impact

VISTA Associates in 

Appalachia: An 

Assessment of the 

1966 Summer 

Associate Program

Feb-67 Harold Goldblatt Evaluation –

survey and 

open-ended 

narrative

What do VISTA SAs do? How do they 

accomplish their goals? How are they received in 

the community?

A description of the volunteers, their 

activities, the communities they served, their 

perspectives of the service, and the needs 

they addressed – Well done process 

assessment. Also suggested a typology of 

volunteers. The purpose of this study was to 

understand the aspects of the volunteer, the 

type of work they do, and their integration 

into the communities they serve.

VISTA Volunteers 

and the Poor: A 

Special Type of 

Helping Relationship

Apr-67 Marjorie Cantor Qualitative 

evaluation 

Who and what are VISTAs? What are the 

mechanisms by which they achieve their goals? 

How does VISTA work?

A typology of volunteers and an initial 

theory of change – The first and most 

publicized volume on VISTA.

Study of VISTA 

Summer Associates –

Legal Services

Sep-68 Sidney Cohen, 

Sidney 

Hollander 

Associates

Member survey 

and interviews

What do VISTA Legal Services volunteers do? 

How do they accomplish their goals? How are 

they received in the community?

An activity survey to assess VISTA’s 

summer associates legal services project –

Poor response rates and simplistic but fairly 

good interviews and good anecdotal 

information. Provided an overview of 

VISTA legal services. 

Some Correlates of 

Success and 

Satisfaction in Urban 

VISTA

Jul-68 Marjorie Cantor Qualitative and 

quantitative 

evaluation

What member characteristics correlated with 

project success for VISTA volunteers?

Preliminary tests of the constructs cited in 

the first paper and factors associated with 

perceived success and satisfaction –

Attempted to address the question of what 

volunteer characteristics are most useful in 

which situations.

VISTA Resource 

Book

Jun-68 VISTA Staff Resource and 

onboarding 

information

An informative view of VISTA’s 

organization, policies, and practices during 

the early years.

A Call to ACTION in 

1972: An Analysis 

and Evaluation of 

VISTA Programs, 

August–September 

1971

Dec-71 Evaluation Staff, 

Office of 

Domestic and 

Anti-Poverty 

Operations, 

ACTION

Qualitative –

process 

assessment

How is VISTA managed? What practices are 

effective/ineffective? Is VISTA achieving its 

goals? What are the barriers to better 

management and goal attainment? What changes 

can improve evaluation and measurement?

High-quality process assessment – Excellent 

recommendation for improving evaluations 

and measuring impact. Attempted to assess 

what VISTA does, what it does well, what 

problems there are in the program related to 

management, uniformity in service, barriers 

to successful completion, potential 

improvements. 
APPENDIX A

46

TITLE/TYPE DATE AUTHOR(S)

TYPE OF 

STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

DESCRIPTION/QUALITY/

MAJOR FINDING

Early Process Assessments and Research on Volunteer Impact

Program Impact 

Study

Mar-73 VISTA Staff Quantitative – a 

telephone 

survey of a 

stratified sample 

of VISTA 

supervisors

What has VISTA accomplished? Preliminary impact study – More of a 

feasibility study than anything else. 

Reported on VISTA accomplishments and 

made solid recommendations.

A Study of Target 

and Non-Target 

VISTA Volunteers

Mar-73 VISTA Staff Quantitative – a 

questionnaire 

for VISTA 

volunteers, 

sponsors, and 

program staff

What are the differences (age, education, income, 

race, residence) between locally recruited and 

nationally recruited VISTA volunteers? How do 

they work differently/together?

The first study to examine LRV vs. NRV –

Very positive findings overall for 

comparability. 

Program and Policy Assessments 

VISTA Volunteer –

Sponsor Survey

Oct-76 L. Frazier, K. 

Jamtgaard, & J. 

Kalin, OPP, 

Division of 

Evaluation, 

ACTION

Quantitative –

survey of 

volunteers, 

supervisors, and 

sponsors

A survey of VISTA sponsors, supervisors, 

volunteers, and community around the country 

assessing aspects of the VISTA program related to 

volunteer training, readiness, and assignment 

characteristics, project completion, and program 

improvements.

A record review and a complex method for 

administering related data collection 

instruments across four program strata –

Finding were positive for successful 

completion of anti-poverty programs. 

Greater clarity and project definition was 

cited as a need. This study was a general 

program assessment.

VISTA Project 

Survey 1976

Mar-77 Melvin Beetle, 

OPP, Evaluation 

Division, 

ACTION

A related study examining the 

accomplishments of national goals, project 

objectives, volunteer productivity, 

community impact, and policy compliance. 

Generally high marks for VISTA – Moderate 

level of rigor. Not an impact evaluation. 

This was a program assessment – Were 

implemented policies achieving their desired 

effect?

National VISTA 

Study FY 77

Jul-78 Jamtaard, 

Schwartz, & 

Younger, OPP, 

Evaluation 

Division, 

ACTION

Quantitative 

evaluation

The research questions for this study included: 

Has VISTA accomplished its national goals? Has 

it accomplished its project objectives? What is 

the level of productivity for VISTA’s projects and 

volunteers? Has there been a measureable impact 

in the community? Has VISTA adhered to its 

policies? 

The first national assessment – Modest rigor, 

adequate design, and relevant research 

questions related to project success and 

poverty relevance. Not an impact study but 

suggestive of positive change. Evaluated 

VISTA at the program unit level. Poor 

community measures – only anecdotal 

measures of impact.
APPENDIX A

47

TITLE/TYPE DATE AUTHOR(S)

TYPE OF 

STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

DESCRIPTION/QUALITY/

MAJOR FINDING

Program and Policy Assessments

VISTA National 

Grant Evaluation

Nov-78 OPP, Evaluation 

Division, 

ACTION

Process 

evaluation –

questionnaire 

and survey site 

visits

Does direct funding of large grantees improve 

overall participation of the community in the 

design and implementation of programs?

Process assessment of the National Grants 

Program – A direct funding project for large 

national grantees. Assessed implementation 

and compliance – Found higher rates of 

participation by poor communities vs. 

traditional funding mechanisms. 

VISTA Activities 

Survey 1978, Volume 

1: Final Report

Jan-79 OPP, Evaluation 

Division, 

ACTION

Activities 

survey 

questionnaire 

and site visits

Program assessment – How many were served 

and in what service areas? How many resources 

were generated? Who served and in what focus 

areas?

Quantitative and qualitative analysis of 

volunteer activity and community and 

organizational impact – Moderate level of 

rigor. Adequate findings related to 

organizational impact – Very poor 

community measures (no pre/post or baseline 

and no community markers. Findings 

suggest an inability to involve the poor in 

decision processes.

VISTA Activities 

Survey 1979

Nov-79 OPP, Evaluation 

Division, 

ACTION

Activities 

survey 

questionnaire 

Have VISTA policies expanding community 

organizing been successful?

A follow-up study to assess progress 

implementing VISTA policies to emphasize 

the community organizing project area and 

limit direct services – Successful shift but 

several difficulties in definition, planning, 

and phasing out tasks. This was a policy 

assessment study.

VISTA Activities 

Survey 1980

Sep-81 OPP, Evaluation 

Division, 

ACTION

Activities and 

outcome survey

Program assessment – How many were served 

and in what service areas? How many resources 

were generated? Who served and in what focus 

areas?

Reported on volunteer demographics, project 

characteristics, beneficiaries, volunteer 

satisfaction, training, and policy changes 

instituted prior to 1978. Moderate level of 

rigor – No impact methodology. This was 

another program assessment. What has 

VISTA accomplished? How many served? 

How much generated? 

Demonstrating Impact and Evaluating Special Initiatives

VISTA Goal 

Accomplishments 

and Community 

Effects Evaluation: 

Final Report 1986–

1987

Jul-88 Abt Associates –

ACTION, 

Program 

Analysis and 

Evaluation Unit

Pre/Post service 

site visits; 

conducted 

interviews with 

staff, volunteers, 

and community 

members

Program assessment – How many were served 

and in what service areas? How many resources 

were generated? Who served and in what focus 

areas? What is the impact of VISTA on program 

sustainability?

Positive finding – Modest rigor and proper 

focus – still anecdotal evidence of effect. No 

independent measures of impact and poor 

measures of sustainability. Consistent 

findings though; 66% of projects had 

planned sustainability or were in some phase 

of integration. 
APPENDIX A

48

TITLE/TYPE DATE AUTHOR(S)

TYPE OF 

STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

DESCRIPTION/QUALITY/

MAJOR FINDING

Demonstrating Impact and Evaluating Special Initiatives

Improving Literacy 

with VISTA 

Volunteers: An 

Evaluation Report on 

the VISTA Literacy 

Corps

Mar-91 Developmental 

Associates –

ACTION, Office 

of Policy 

Research and 

Evaluation, 

Program 

Analysis and 

Evaluation Unit

Mail surveys of 

current L.C. 

volunteers and 

sponsor project 

directors; 

telephone 

surveys of 

former L.C. 

volunteers 

Program assessment – How many were served in 

the literacy programs? What gains were made? 

How well were the programs implemented? 

Same general finding – Strong volunteer 

dedication and organizational skills. No 

measure of actual impact – poor 

sustainability.

VISTA Evaluation: 

Rapid Assessment 

Site Visit Report

Jun-92 Developmental 

Associates –

ACTION, Office 

of Policy 

Research and 

Evaluation, 

Program 

Analysis and 

Evaluation Unit

Preliminary 

process 

assessment to 

determine 

survey items, 

available 

outcome data, 

and information 

access for full 

evaluation 

Feasibility assessment of a model for evaluating 

programs.

Highly interesting review of selected 

programs – decent narrative. Worth 

reviewing to inform the process for future 

impact evaluations.

An Evaluation 

Report on Volunteers 

in Service to America

May-93 Developmental 

Associates –

ACTION, Office 

of Policy 

Research and 

Evaluation, 

Program 

Analysis and 

Evaluation Unit

Survey of 

volunteers, 

supervisors, and 

community 

members

Program assessment – How many were served 

and in what service areas? How many resources 

were generated? Who served and in what focus 

areas? What is the impact of VISTA in the 

community?

Large stratified sample – Moderate to high 

response rates. Positive findings – Selfrating by volunteers and supervisors and 

project success ratings by community 

members. No pre/post design or any use of 

community markers.

AmeriCorps VISTA 

1994 

Accomplishments 

Survey: Final Report

Dec-95 Westat, Inc. A mail survey 

with telephone 

follow-up of the 

universe of 

projects (667) 

active for the 

full year in 

1994; 70% 

response rate 

(465)

Program assessment – How many were served 

and in what service areas? How many resources 

were generated? Who served and in what focus 

areas? What is the impact of VISTA in the 

community?

Comprehensive count of VISTA activities 

and outputs for a one-year period for projects 

that were open across the full year. 

Categorized by focus areas. Findings are 

estimates from the survey and are open to 

substantial error.
APPENDIX A

49

TITLE/TYPE DATE AUTHOR(S)

TYPE OF 

STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

DESCRIPTION/QUALITY

/MAJOR FINDING

Evaluating Special Initiatives

Description and 

Evaluation of the 

Summer Reads 

Initiative

Oct-97 Macro 

International, 

Inc.

Rapid response 

methodology –

modified 

process 

assessment –

record review, 

lit review, site 

visits (5 

programs), and 

interviews (15 

programs

Program assessment – How many were served in 

the literacy programs? What gains were made? 

How well were the programs implemented? 

Programs were successful in setting up the 

summer reading projects – Marked by wide 

variability across the model. No actual 

pre/post measures for outcomes. 

Recommendations suggest a poorly 

designed, implemented, and organized 

initiative.

Member Survey for 

ACNS, AC VISTA 

and AC NCCC, Final 

Report

1999 Regina Nudd, 

Isabelle Nguyen, 

& William 

Strang, Westat, 

Inc.

Internal 

evaluation –

contained within 

the CNCS 

National Service 

Member survey, 

a sample of 

1,257 state and 

national AC 

members, 798 

NCCC 

members, and 

1,140 AC 

VISTA 

volunteers were 

interviewed; 

VISTA response 

rate was 75%

What are the demographic profiles of the national 

service program members?

Confirms long-standing demographic profile 

of VISTA – Predominantly women, 60% 

white, high dedication. Spans all 

socioeconomic levels and NRV have higher 

educational levels.
APPENDIX A

50

TITLE/TYPE DATE AUTHOR(S)

TYPE OF 

STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

DESCRIPTION/QUALITY/

MAJOR FINDING

Evaluating Special Initiatives

Evaluation of DC 

Reads – Year 2, Final 

Report

Jan-00 Macro 

International, 

Inc.

Surveys and 

interviews with 

all participants, 

including 

VISTAs

Special initiative – Literacy: How did VISTA 

preform as a support for this program?

CNCS (AC VISTAs) participated in the DC 

Reads initiative with three other partners –

CIS, DCPS, and five local universities. 

Federal work/study students provided 

tutoring in 16 underperforming schools –

Four were selected for outcome measures –

Very successful program. VISTA provided

site coordination, tutor supervision, and some 

training. VISTAs also helped to integrate the 

curriculum and material. No direct impact 

from VISTA presence – VISTA provided 

administrative and managerial support. A 

lack of training in educational programing 

was cited as a barrier to better management. 

Raises the question of how to evaluate the 

supporting role that VISTA plays in 

designing and implementing services for 

other programs.

Comprehensive 

Evaluation of 

AmeriCorps VISTA 

Faith-Based and 

Grassroots 

Initiatives: Final 

Report, Year 1

Oct-04 ORC Macro, 

Applied Human 

Technologies 

Division

Census survey 

of 1,178 VISTA 

projects – 15 

selected for indepth review 

Special initiative – Faith-based community 

programs: How did VISTA preform as a support 

for this project?

Examined the scope of VISTA’s projects that 

are in faith-based or community-based 

organizations – The number of VISTAs 

serving at the projects and the focus areas 

addressed by these projects. Reviewed 

VISTA activities at these sites as well. 

Capacity development, volunteer generation, 

community development.

AmeriCorps VISTA 

and Asset 

Development: 

Increasing Capacity 

for Performance 

Measurement and 

Effects

Jul-04 Amanda Moore 

McBride, Center 

for Social 

Development, 

Washington 

University, St 

Louis, MO

Process 

assessment –

case 

studies/telephon

e interviews 

with 28 

identified 

Entrepreneur 

Corps VISTA 

projects

Special initiative – Entrepreneur Corps: How did 

VISTA preform as a support for this project?

Identified outputs and outcomes that would 

be useful in measuring performance and 

potentially impact. Excellent study for 

highlighting the barriers and potential 

solutions to measurement and the role of 

inadequate volunteer training was cited. 
APPENDIX A

51

TITLE/TYPE DATE AUTHOR(S)

TYPE OF 

STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

DESCRIPTION/QUALITY/

MAJOR FINDING

Improved Study Designs and Diversified Methodology 

Support for Local 

Organizations: 

Report from the 

AmeriCorps VISTA 

1994 

Accomplishment 

Survey

Nov-95 Westat, Inc. A mail survey 

with telephone

follow-up of the 

universe of 

projects (667) 

active for the 

full year in 

1994; 70% 

response rate 

(465)

What were the impacts of VISTAs on 

organizational level of functioning, resources, and 

community integration?

Excellent study examining overall capacity 

building – Organizational resources, 

financial resources, fund raising, 

partnerships, volunteer generation, etc. 

Suggests elements of scale for capacitybuilding measures.

The Sustainability of 

AmeriCorps VISTA 

Programs and 

Activities

Aug-97 J.R. Tabori, I. 

Margarita 

Gordon, & R. 

Martinez, People 

Work, Inc. 

Interviews with 

VISTA 

supervisors at 

sponsor 

organizations

What were the impacts of VISTA support on 

project sustainability? What were the 

circumstances that fostered sustainability?

The research goals were to estimate the postVISTA sustainability rates across time and to 

identify the main factors that influenced 

sustainability. This study is characterized by 

a well-designed sample and well-defined 

outcomes. The sample included 240 

supervisory personnel from VISTA projects 

that have been closed two years and five 

years prior to 1996. Of these, 25 were 

ineligible. Of the remaining sample, 119 

completed the interview on initial contact 

and 82 completed a follow-up interview 

(93.4% response rate). Findings includes 

68% sustainability at five years, 76% at two 

years. Capacity building was an influential 

factor for the two-year rates, and VISTAs 

were more influential in the project’s 

survival vs. the five-year sample. 

Why Serve: 

Understanding the 

Service Orientation 

of AmeriCorps 

VISTA Service 

Members

Jul-02 Christine 

Standerfer, 

National and 

Community 

Service Fellow

Q-sort 

methodology 

and interviews 

with 61 newly 

recruited 

VISTA service 

members 

attending 5 

regional PSOs 

and one national 

PSO

What are the motivations and perspectives of 

individuals who chose to serve in VISTA?

Categorized members into one of five service 

orientations.
APPENDIX A

52

TITLE/TYPE DATE AUTHOR(S)

TYPE OF 

STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

DESCRIPTION/QUALITY/

MAJOR FINDING

Improved Study Designs and Diversified Methodology

Capacity Building as 

a Fundamental 

Objective: Definition 

and Measurement in 

the AmeriCorps 

VISTA – Habitat for 

Humanity 

International 

Affiliate Partnerships

Nov-02 Ginger Elliott, 

National and 

Community 

Service Fellow

Quasiexperimental 

design –

measures the 

impact of 

capacity 

building on 

productivity 

between Habitat 

for Humanity 

sites with and 

without VISTA 

support

What are the overall impacts of VISTA support 

for organizational capacity and productivity

compared to comparable organizations without 

support? 

Well-designed and implemented study –

Clearly defines capacity building and relevant 

outcome measures. Generated comparable 

intervention and control groups. Positive 

findings for VISTAs – Controlling for site 

differences. VISTA sites outperformed nonVISTA sites. Limitation – Only measures the 

impact of presence, cannot determine specific 

activities linked to capacity except (fund 

raising, material acquisition, volunteer 

generation).

The VISTA Program 

Assessment

Mar-10 Cynthia 

Thomas, Joseph 

Gasper, Cynthia 

Robins, & 

Priyanthi Silva, 

Westat, Inc. 

Random sample 

of 250 closed 

projects and 265 

ongoing projects 

in their third 

year; document 

review and 

abstraction, site 

visits and 

interviews with 

project staff and 

state offices

What are the program and member 

characteristics that are associated with project 

sustainability?

A sustainability study with impressive results 

– More than 70% sustained at the two-year

mark. Includes a descriptive analysis of the 

projects and a comprehensive review of the 

status of closed projects, as well as the details 

of the volunteer roles and activities, goals, 

management issues, and plans. Generated a 

predictive model to test hypotheses regarding 

factors associated with sustainability.

Dissertations/Books

The Politics of 

VISTA in the War on 

Poverty: A Study of 

Ideological Conflict

1975 David Pass Dissertation A political perspective on the forces that 

shaped VISTA’s organizational mindset and 

approach to service. 

VISTA: A Study in 

Organizational 

Survival

1994 Gay Strickler Dissertation An organizational assessment of the strategies 

that VISTA employed during periods of 

existential threat and funding cuts.

The War on Poverty: 

Selected Programs 

and Ongoing Impact

2002 Robert F. Clark Book
APPENDIX A

53

TITLE/TYPE DATE AUTHOR(S)

TYPE OF 

STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

DESCRIPTION/QUALITY/

MAJOR FINDING

Dissertations/Books

The Politics and 

Civics of National 

Service

2013 Melissa Bass Book

The Underclass 

Debate: Views From 

History

1992 Michael B. Katz Edited book

Evaluability Assessments

Measuring the 

Impact of VISTA on 

Poverty 

Communities

1969 S.H. Chafkin, 

J.M. Pines, A.R. 

Kennefick, E. 

Colligan, A.L. 

Freeman, E. 

Montgomery, 

American 

Technical 

Assistance 

Corporation

Evaluability 

assessment

What are the most feasible and defensible 

methods to evaluate VISTA?

A thorough examination of the VISTA 

program; its structure, processes, and policies; 

and the barriers to evaluation. The study 

make recommendations for measurement and 

evaluation, including a stronger central role in 

project design, planning projects with 

measurement included in the process, 

community analysis prior to project 

interventions to assess impact, identifying 

selected outcomes for the target intervention 

such as behavioral change, attitudinal changes, 

and enhanced training.

Program Impact 

Evaluation Paradigm 

for VISTA

1977 K.J. Gilmartin, 

R.J. Rossi, & D. 

Russ-Eft, 

American 

Institute for 

Research

Evaluability 

assessment

What are the most feasible and defensible 

methods to evaluate VISTA?

This attempt to craft an evaluation design for 

the VISTA program was based on interviews 

with 25 middle management staff. The project 

encountered a changed political 

administration, shifting agency needs, and no 

well-defined work plan. It is a study in scope 

change, poorly defined goals, and institutional 

inertia. Nevertheless, the recommendations 

that are made include organizational changes 

to exert control over projects, developing logic 

models, building in a measurement 

mechanism linked to interventions, and 

specifying outcomes within varying units of 

measurement. Very detailed and instructive.
APPENDIX A

54

TITLE/TYPE DATE AUTHOR(S)

TYPE OF 

STUDY RESEARCH QUESTIONS

DESCRIPTION/QUALITY/

MAJOR FINDING

Member Studies and Training Assessments

Impact of VISTA 

and Peace Corps 

Service on Former 

Volunteers and 

American Society

1977 Ester Smith Study 76-043-

1068, contract 

research 

corporation

Poor sample size – Comparative research. Not 

comparable samples/experiences – No valid 

measures of community impact.

Improving Lives and 

Communities: 

Perspectives on 40 

Years of VISTA 

Service

2008 C. Markovitz, G. 

Schnider, J. 

Jastrzab, & P. 

Frumpkin, Abt 

Associates

Member impact 

study

What is the impact of service in VISTA on the 

civic, educational, and employment outcomes 

and the intergenerational transfer of values on 

members over time?

A retrospective study of service impact on 

three waves of VISTA volunteers – 1965–

1972, 1973–1980, and 1980–1993. The study 

employed both survey methodology (n=1,539) 

and in-depth interviews (n=64) with VISTA 

members and a comparison group of members 

who withdrew from service prior to 

completion. Findings suggest that, for many 

outcomes, VISTA service had a very modest 

positive impact (education, income, values –

some civic). Some limitations include a 38% 

response rate for the survey and challenging 

comparability of the two groups; the 

retrospective design may also have introduced 

bias (recall) and inability to control for preexisting factors leading to service. In 

addition, differences between the intervention 

and control groups were small.

AmeriCorps VISTA 

Member Survey

2013 J. Devine, E. 

Clark, & J. Lau, 

Education 

Northwest

Member 

experience and 

satisfaction 

survey 

How do VISTA volunteers rate their national 

service experience?

A survey of new VISTA volunteers regarding 

their experience at key points during their 

service year – The survey was administered 

four time over the course of a one-year period 

and in each phase included volunteers who 

served less than three months and up to 11 

months. The survey asked about onboarding, 

stipends, training, VADs, the VISTA campus, 

post-VISTA adjustment assistance, etc. 

Nearly 80% suggested that their assignment 

description matched their placement tasks and 

well over 70% reported satisfaction with their 

experience. Several recommendations are 

made for modifications to the training process.