Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Washington, DC 20024 

ICF Incorporated, LLC 

Fa

Submitted to: 

AmeriCorps 

250 E St., SW 

Submitted by: 

9300 Lee Highway 

irfax, VA 22031 

https://www.icf.com 

September 2, 2021 

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

under Contract # GS00Q14OADU209 and Order # 95332A20R0013. Information in 

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

report to Lily Zandniapour at lzandniapour@cns.gov and Sarah Yue at 

syue@cns.gov. Cite this report as follows: Munaretto, C., Ryder, D., Modicamore, 

D., Naugler, A., Miller, B., & Pershing, J. (2021). Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps. ICF. 
i 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

CONTENTS 

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

Washington Conservation Corps.....................................................................................ES-1 

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

Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Costs ............................................. ES-6 

ROI Results..........................................................................................................................ES-8 

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

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

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

WCC Evaluation History.........................................................................................................3 

Selection of WCC for the AmeriCorps ROI Project.............................................................6 

Ecosystem Service Valuation................................................................................................6 

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

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

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

Costs ......................................................................................................................................12 

ROI Study Limitations............................................................................................................24 

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

Results ........................................................................................................................................26 

Program Benefits ..................................................................................................................26 

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

Program Costs ......................................................................................................................28 

ROI Results.............................................................................................................................30 

Recommendations for Further Research................................................................................37 

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................38 

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

Return-on-Investment Calculations........................................................................................40 

Appendix B: Additional Information on the Methodology...................................................44 

Methodology Overview ......................................................................................................44 

Measuring Program Benefits...............................................................................................45 

Measuring Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs).............................................................64 
ii 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Measuring Program Costs ...................................................................................................68 

Calculating ROI ....................................................................................................................69 

References ................................................................................................................................72 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Average Percent Native Tree and Shrub Coverage Before vs. After 

Intervention .................................................................................................................................5 

Figure 4. Benefits among WCC AmeriCorps Members, Government, and Society 

Figure 9. Compound Interest Formula Used to Calculate Investment Opportunity 

Figure 2. Average Percent Noxious Weed Coverage Before vs. After Intervention...........5 

Figure 3. Ecosystem Services Framework .................................................................................7 

Derived from WCC ...................................................................................................................11 

Figure 5. Cost by Funding Source for WCC Program, 2018–2019 Program Year...............29 

Figure 6. Cost by Expenditure Category for WCC Program, 2018–2019 Program Year....29 

Figure 7. Ecosystem Services Framework ...............................................................................46 

Figure 8. Unemployment Status Results from Friedman et al. (2016) ..................................55 

Cost ............................................................................................................................................67 

List of Tables 

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

One Year .....................................................................................................................................4 

Table 4. Imputed Annual Ecosystem Service Values per Acre by Land Cover Type 

Table 5. Annual Ecosystem Service Value of WCC's 2018–2019 Program Year’s 

Table 2. Program Benefits Realized from the WCC Program by Stakeholder Group .......13 

Table 3. Annual Ecosystem Service Values by Land Cover Type (2019$)..........................15 

(2019$) .......................................................................................................................................16 

Improved Land by Type (2019$) ............................................................................................17 

Table 6. WCC Program Costs, 2018–2019 Program Year .....................................................23 

Table 7. WCC Program Costs by Funder Type, 2018–2019 Program Year..........................24 

Table 8. WCC Program and Expected Education Award Costs (2019$)...........................24 

Table 9. Program Benefits by Recipient .................................................................................27 

Table 10. Forgone Benefits from Professional Opportunity Cost..........................................27 

Table 11. Forgone Benefits from Investment Opportunity Cost by Scenario and 

Funding Stream.........................................................................................................................28 

Table 12. Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Costs Included in the ROI Calculations...........30 
iii 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Table 13. Program Benefits, Net Benefits, and Costs by ROI Scenario for WCC................31 

Table 14. ROI Results: Total Benefits per Federal Dollar ........................................................34 

Table 15. ROI Results: Total Benefits per Funder Dollar .........................................................34 

Table 16. ROI Results: Federal Government Benefits per Federal Dollar ............................35 

Table 17. Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Costs Included in the 

WCC ROI Calculation ..............................................................................................................40 

Table 18. Imputed Annual Ecosystem Service Values per Acre by Land Cover Type 

(2019$) .......................................................................................................................................48 

Table 19. Annual Ecosystem Service Value of WCC's 2018–2019 Program Year’s 

Improved Land by Type (2019$) .............................................................................................49 

Table 20. Total Value of Ecosystem Services to Society (2019$) .........................................49 

Table 21. WCC AmeriCorps Member Benefits from the Living Allowance and 

Education Award .....................................................................................................................50 

Table 22. Average Total Cost of Education and Portion with Using the Education 

Award by Degree Type............................................................................................................52 

Table 23. Additional Earnings from AmeriCorps Members’ Use of the Education 

Award ........................................................................................................................................54 

Table 24. Additional Per-Person Pre-tax Earnings for WCC AmeriCorps Members 

from Reduced Unemployment Based on WCC AmeriCorps Member Demographics ...56 

Table 25. Cumulative Additional Post-Tax Earnings Derived from Reduced 

Unemployment due to Serving in the WCC Program by Scenario.....................................56 

Table 26. Government Costs by Educational Attainment Level per Individual’s 

Lifetime ......................................................................................................................................61 

Table 27. 2019 Tax Rates and Ratio of Taxable Expenditures for WCC AmeriCorps 

members’ Earnings, Living Allowances, and Education Awards ........................................62 

Table 28. State/Local and Federal Government Benefits by Stakeholder Group and 

by Scenario ...............................................................................................................................64 

Table 29. Forgone Earnings of WCC AmeriCorps Members for a Service Term 

Table 30. Forgone Taxes Associated with the Forgone Earnings of WCC AmeriCorps 

................65 

Members for a Service Term....................................................................................................66 

Table 31. Investment Opportunity Cost Calculation by Scenario and Funding Stream ..68 

Table 32. Funding Sources and Cost Categories for WCC, 2018–2019 Program Year .....68 

Table 33. ROI Calculations for Short-term Scenario ..............................................................70 

Table 34. ROI Calculations for Medium-term Scenario ........................................................70 

Table 35. ROI Calculations for Long-term Scenario ..............................................................71 
iv 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

AUTHORS 

This study was conducted by researchers from ICF: 

• Claire Munaretto, Senior Economics Analyst 

• David Ryder, Economics Consultant 

• Dominic Modicamore, Lead Economist 

• Alix Naugler, Senior Research Scientist 

• Benjamin Miller, Senior Director 

• Janet Pershing, Vice President 
ES 1-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Executive Summary 

Washington Conservation Corps 

AmeriCorps contracted with ICF Incorporated Key Results , 

LLC (hereafter ICF) to explore and quantify the This study estimated Washington 

return on investment (ROI) of several programs Conservation Corps’ (WCC) ROI 

that rely on AmeriCorps national service as a to be between $0.20 and $33.90 

major resource to sustain operations. ROI per funder dollar, depending on 

analyses have the potential to help AmeriCorps how long WCC AmeriCorps 

measure the performance of programs and members experience increased 

build the base of evidence for future resource earnings as a result of program 

allocation decisions. In addition, ROI study results participation, as well as the 

will help AmeriCorps communicate the value of range of estimated benefits 

provided by ecosystem service its programming to relevant stakeholders. improvements. The return on 

This ROI study calculated the benefits of the each dollar of federal support for 

Washington Conservation Corps’ (WCC) the program is even higher, 

conservation activities against its costs. WCC is between $0.69 and $118.09. 

implemented by the Washington State These results are driven by 

Department of Ecology, to protect and restore environmental benefits as well as 

natural areas throughout the state of favorable employment and 

Washington. WCC operates under the education outcomes for WCC 

AmeriCorps State and National program in the AmeriCorps members in the 

Environmental Stewardship focus area. WCC is years following their service. 

an environmental service program providing 

opportunities for young adults aged 18 to 25 years old to protect and restore natural 

habitats for state- and federally-listed species.1 WCC conducts the following types of 

restoration projects: 

• Removing beach debris and structures that damage shoreline habitat 

• Planting, maintaining, and preserving urban and native trees and shrubs 

• Restoring marine and nearshore habitat 

• Repairing and replanting stream-side habitat 

• Building and maintaining backcountry and urban trails 

• Constructing trails, bridges, and boardwalks 

• Removing invasive weeds 

• Monitoring restoration sites and sampling streams 

1 Veterans can also join WCC up to age 31. State of Washington: Department of Ecology. N.d. About the 

WCC. Retrieved from: https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/Our-role-in-the-community/WashingtonConservation-Corps. 
ES 2-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

WCC Impacts: Selected Evaluation Results 

Below are high-level findings from WCC’s restoration site evaluation in 2014 and 

2015 (Watershed Company, 2015) that studied the effectiveness of WCC’s 

restoration efforts. 

• Native coverage increased by 9.6 percent at restoration sites compared to 

0.4 percent at reference sites in the year following the planting intervention. 

• Noxious weed coverage decreased by 15.6 percent at restoration sites 

compared to a decrease of 1.4 percent at reference sites in the year following 

the planting intervention. 

In addition to completing environmental stewardship projects, WCC members provide 

disaster services in Washington and across the nation during floods, fires, hurricanes, 

and other natural disasters.2 WCC’s 2018–2019 program year had 340 crew members 

and crew leaders who received hands-on experience building trails, planting native 

trees, implementing erosion control techniques, restoring critical habitats, and 

responding to local and national disasters. 

Invasive species negatively impact ecosystem services related to agriculture, industry, 

and human health. Examples of such impacts include the affecting of water 

purification, pollination, natural pest control, disease regulation, soil fertility, and nutrient 

and water cycling. Invasive species can also impact cultural services including 

aesthetic values, recreation, and tourism, in both riparian and upland areas. Decreased 

biodiversity and species extinctions linked to invasive species threaten the continued 

delivery and quality of many ecosystem services. (Charles and Dukes, 2006). Via WCC’s 

restoration projects, the program directly removes invasive weeds and restores habitats 

using native plants, enhancing biodiversity and ultimately improving ecosystem 

services. 

Return on Investment Study Methods 

The methodology for the WCC ROI study consisted of the following components: 

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

previous evaluation and other third-party sources to determine the benefits to 

society, WCC AmeriCorps members, and government. The benefits realized across 

these three stakeholder groups included: 

• Society. Habitat restoration improves ecosystem services provided by the land, 

which yield long-term benefits to society. 

2 State of Washington: Department of Ecology. N.d. op. cit. 
ES 3-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

• WCC AmeriCorps members. WCC AmeriCorps members benefit from: 

a) Living allowances and education awards 

b) Increased earnings due to reduced unemployment 

c) Increased lifetime earnings due to increased post-secondary education 

derived from the use of education awards 

• Government. Government benefits from income, Social Security, and Medicare 

tax revenue from WCC AmeriCorps members’ increased earnings, and sales tax 

revenue from the increased economic activity that results from those increased 

earnings. Government benefits also include reduced spending on corrections, 

public assistance, and social insurance and increased tax revenue associated 

with the increased educational attainment of WCC AmeriCorps members that is 

derived from their use of education awards post-service. Finally, government 

benefits from tax revenue from WCC AmeriCorps members’ living allowances 

and education awards. 

This ROI analysis monetized WCC program benefits in 2019 dollars. 

2. Estimating forgone benefits (opportunity costs). This analysis calculated two types of 

forgone benefits, or opportunity costs. Due to AmeriCorps members’ participation in 

WCC, they forgo wages (and associated tax revenue) they could have earned 

from other employment. Similarly, because of AmeriCorps and other funders’ 

investment in the WCC program, the funders forgo returns from other investments. 

These forgone benefits are also referred to as “opportunity costs.” 

The first forgone benefit comprised the professional opportunity cost to WCC 

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

earn more pay by doing other work and consists of those forgone earnings (and 

associated tax revenue). 

The second forgone benefit comprised the investment opportunity cost which is the 

forgone return of investing program funds into U.S. Treasury bonds instead of using 

them to support the WCC program. Both are considered costs of national service 

that reduce the program benefits monetized.3 

For the ROI estimates, the analysis subtracts forgone benefits from program benefits 

to calculate net benefits. The net benefits are then compared to 

program costs. 

3. Assessing program funding and costs. WCC provided program costs, which 

included federal funds and other leveraged funding. The WCC cost data covered 

the program year of September 2018 through August 2019. 

3 The total professional opportunity cost includes the forgone earnings of members and the taxes 

associated with those earnings. The federal professional opportunity cost includes only the forgone federal 

taxes that stem from those earnings. The total investment opportunity cost is the forgone return of all 

funding while the federal investment opportunity cost is the forgone return of only federal funding. 
ES 4-

 

 

 

 

 

 

Societal Benefits 

Government Benefits 

AmeriCorps Member Benefits 

WCC 

Program Activities 

Societal 

Impacts 

AmeriCorps 

Member 

Impacts 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

4. Calculating the ROI. The ROI analysis consisted of three types of ROI calculations: 1) 

total benefits per federal dollar, 2) total benefits per funder dollar, and 3) federal 

government benefits per federal dollar. This analysis calculated the value of these 

three ROI calculations under three scenarios (long, medium, and short-term) 

representing different assumptions about the persistence of program outcomes. As 

mentioned above, the benefits used to calculate the ROI are the net benefits 

associated with the program (the program benefits minus the forgone benefits, or 

opportunity cost). This analysis also calculated three variations of each scenario 

within low, average, and high estimates of ecosystem service benefits to society. 

This analytical framework included only those benefits that could be reasonably 

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

the WCC program. Figure ES 1 shows how WCC program activities can result in WCC 

AmeriCorps member and government benefits. 

Figure ES 1. Benefits to WCC AmeriCorps Members, Government, and Society Derived 

from WCC 

Table ES 1 shows the benefits, forgone benefits (opportunity costs), and costs that are 

included in each of the three types of ROI calculations. 

Table ES 1. Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Costs Included in the ROI Calculations 

ROI Calculation Benefits Forgone Benefits Costs 

Total Benefits per 

Federal Dollar 

All societal, WCC 

AmeriCorps member, 

and government 

benefits derived from 

the program 

• Forgone benefits 

from total 

professional 

opportunity cost 

• Forgone benefits 

from Federal 

investment 

opportunity cost 

• AmeriCorps 

federal funding 

• Other NonAmeriCorps 

federal funding 

• Total professional 

opportunity cost 

• Federal 

investment 

opportunity cost 
ES 5-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

ROI Calculation Benefits Forgone Benefits Costs 

Total Benefits per All societal, WCC • Forgone benefits • AmeriCorps 

Funder Dollar AmeriCorps member, from total federal funding 

and government 

benefits derived from 

the program 

professional 

opportunity cost 

• Forgone benefits 

• Other (including 

match) funding 

• Total professional 

from total opportunity cost 

investment 

opportunity cost • Total investment 

opportunity cost 

Federal Government Additional tax • Forgone benefits • AmeriCorps 

Benefits per Federal revenue generation from Federal federal funding 

Dollar and reduced 

spending attributable 

to the program 

professional 

opportunity cost 

• Forgone benefits 

• Other NonAmeriCorps 

federal funding 

from Federal • Federal 

investment professional 

opportunity cost opportunity cost 

• Federal 

investment 

opportunity cost 

Available data established that WCC AmeriCorps members enjoy increased earnings 

impacts—due to reduced unemployment—as a result of the WCC program. However, 

the data did not establish the duration of those benefits. To address a range of possible 

durations for those benefits, the analysis included three scenarios:4 

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

here is that the impact is limited to a single year after program exit. This scenario 

also assumed no long-term or lifetime benefits are realized. 

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

assumption here is that the earnings impact lasts 15 years. A three percent 

discount rate is applied each year to represent net present value in 2019 dollars.5 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

realized for the short-term scenario. 

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

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

discount rate, see Office of Management and Budget (2003). 
ES 6-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recipient - - -

Benefits by Scenario (2019$) 

Short term Medium term Long term 

Society — — — 

Low $652,966 $8,028,917 $13,182,373 

Average $5,273,492 $64,843,249 $106,463,663 

High $23,746,737 $291,991,617 $479,409,924 

WCC AmeriCorps Members $7,066,627 $15,893,840 $21,677,769 

Federal Government $987,937 $3,178,886 $4,798,228 

Total 

Low $8,707,530 $27,101,642 $39,658,370 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

This scenario also assumed only half of the net present value of lifetime benefits 

is realized. 

• Long-term. This scenario assumed sustained earnings impacts throughout the 

working years of WCC AmeriCorps members. The assumption here is that the 

earnings impact lasts 30 years. A discount rate of 3 percent is applied to the 

earnings each year to represent net present value in 2019 dollars. This scenario 

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

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

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

scenario assumes benefits for only the year after national service. The medium-term 

scenario (i.e., 15 years of sustained employment and earnings benefits) represents the 

midpoint between these two scenarios. 

This analysis also used low, average and high estimates of annual ecosystem service 

values. The values were based on the range of estimates established in the literature for 

the relevant land cover types. 

Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Costs 

Table ES 2 shows the estimates of monetized benefits of the WCC program by 

stakeholder group for each of the three scenarios. Under the short-term scenario, total 

benefits are estimated to range from over $8.7 million to over $31 million. Under the 

medium-term scenario, the benefits are estimated to range from over $27 million to 

over $311 million. Lastly, under the long-term scenario, the total benefits range from 

over $39 million to over $505 million.6 

Table ES 2. Program Benefits by Recipient 

6 The range of values (i.e., low, average, and high) are based on the range of potential impacts, 

incorporating the lowest and highest estimates established and the average is calculated by averaging all 

values identified from the literature. The range of per-acre values for each land cover type reflects 

variations in the estimated values found in the literature. 
ES 7-

 

Recipient - - -

Benefits by Scenario (2019$) 

Short term Medium term Long term 

Average $13,328,056 $83,915,974 $132,939,660 

High $31,801,301 $311,064,342 $505,885,921 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

-

-

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Table ES 3 shows the breakdown of both the professional and investment forgone 

benefits, or opportunity costs, used in this ROI analysis. The forgone benefits are 

subtracted from the program benefits (shown above) to calculate the net benefits of 

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

ROI. These forgone benefits are referred to as the professional and investment 

opportunity costs. 

The professional forgone benefits includes the post-tax earnings WCC AmeriCorps 

members forgo—and the associated taxes forgone—due to their participation in the 

WCC program instead of working. This forgone benefit is consistent across all 

three scenarios. 

The forgone benefits of investment, or opportunity cost, represents the forgone accrued 

interest from investing WCC program funds (total funding and only federal funding,7 

separately) into U.S. Treasury bonds instead of into the WCC program. The accrued 

interest calculated varies by scenario since the analysis matched real interest rates for 

different maturity levels to each of the three scenarios. The time elapsed on these 

investments (in years) were also set equal to the number of years represented in each 

scenario: 1 year for the short-term, 15 years for the medium-term, and 30 years for the 

long-term. 

Table ES 3. Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Cost) by Scenario 

Opportunity Cost 

ROI Scenario (2019$) 

Medium 

Short term term Long term 

Professional Opportunity Cost $5,714,957 $5,714,957 $5,714,957 

Forgone Earnings of WCC AmeriCorps Members $4,582,857 $4,582,857 $4,582,857 

Forgone Taxes from Forgone Earnings $1,132,100 $1,132,100 $1,132,100 

Investment Opportunity Cost $87,754 $1,857,991 $5,094,520 

Forgone Accrued Interest on Total WCC Funding $62,563 $1,324,623 $3,632,051 

Forgone Accrued Interest on Federal WCC 

Funding Only $25,191 $533,368 $1,462,469 

Total Opportunity Cost by Scenario $5,802,711 $7,572,948 $10,809,477 

7 Federal funding includes both AmeriCorps funding and other federal funding. 
ES 8-

 

 

 

Funding Source Amount ($) Percent of Total (%) 

AmeriCorps $1,704,842 13% 

Other Federal $1,054,012 8% 

State Funding $3,950,499 30% 

State Interagency Agreements $2,642,618 20% 

Private/Local/ Tribal Governments $3,818,375 29% 

Total $13,170,346 100% 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - -

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Table ES 4 shows the program cost of WCC by funding source for the September 2018 

to August 2019 program year (excluding opportunity costs which are estimated 

separately). The total cost of the WCC program included funds that supported WCC 

AmeriCorps member expenses (e.g., living allowance, etc.), program operating costs 

(e.g., supplies, training, travel, program staff costs), and indirect costs. About 21 percent 

of program costs ($2.7 million) were funded by federal government sources, while the 

remaining consisted of other revenue provided by private funders as well as local and 

state governments. 

Table ES 4. Cost by Funding Source for the 2018–2019 Program Year 

Note: The expected redeemed education awards post-service are not included in this table. The table 

includes only funding for the 2018–2019 Program Year. 

ROI Results 

This analysis developed nine ROI estimates using the three scenarios (short-term, 

medium-term, and long-term) and the low, average, and high estimates of the 

ecosystem service values. As noted above, the ROI calculations compare the net 

benefits of the WCC program with the program costs to calculate the ROI. Table ES 5 

shows the gross program benefits, forgone benefits, net benefits, and program costs of 

the WCC program, along with the results of the three ROI calculations. 

Table ES 5. Program Benefits, Net Benefits, and Program Costs by ROI Scenario 

Benefits and Costs 

Total Gross Program Benefits 

Short term 

ROI Scenario (2019$) 

Medium term Long term 

Environmental Benefits to Society - Low $652,966 $8,028,917 $13,182,373 

Environmental Benefits to Society -

Medium $5,273,492 $64,843,249 $106,463,663 

Environmental Benefits to Society - High $23,746,737 $291,991,617 $479,409,924 

Member Benefits $6,774,646 $14,937,771 $20,277,157 

Federal Government Benefits $987,937 $3,178,886 $4,798,228 

State/Local Government Benefits $291,981 $956,069 $1,400,612 

Total Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs) $5,802,711 $7,572,948 $10,809,477 
ES 9-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - -

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

ROI Scenario (2019$) 

Benefits and Costs Short term Medium term Long term 

Forgone Benefits to Members (Forgone 

Earnings Post Taxes) $4,095,201 $4,095,201 $4,095,201 

Forgone Tax Revenue from Members 

Earnings $1,619,755 $1,619,755 $1,619,755 

Forgone Tax Revenue Federal 

Government $1,132,100 $1,132,100 $1,132,100 

Forgone Tax Revenue State/Local 

Government $487,655 $487,655 $487,655 

Forgone Benefits from total investment 

Interests/Returns (All Funders) $87,754 $1,857,991 $5,094,520 

Forgone Investment Benefits to Federal 

Government from Funding Provided $25,191 $533,368 $1,462,469 

Program Cost $14,603,748 $14,603,748 $14,603,748 

Federal Government Cost $4,192,256 $4,192,256 $4,192,256 

Non-Federal Government Cost $10,411,492 $10,411,492 $10,411,492 

Total Program Net Benefits (Total Program Gross Benefits – Total Forgone Benefits) 

Low $2,904,819 $19,528,694 $28,848,893 

Medium $7,525,346 $76,343,027 $122,130,184 

High $25,998,590 $303,491,394 $495,076,445 

ROI for Total Benefits per Federal Dollar (Total Net Benefits / Federal Government Cost) 

Low $0.69 $4.66 $6.88 

Medium $1.80 $18.21 $29.13 

High $6.20 $72.39 $118.09 

ROI for Total Benefits per Funder Dollar (Total Program Net Benefits / Total Program Cost) 

Low $0.20 $1.34 $1.98 

Medium $0.52 $5.23 $8.36 

High $1.78 $20.78 $33.90 

Federal Government Benefits per Federal 

Dollar* (Net Benefits Federal 

Government / Federal Government Cost) 

-$0.04 $0.36 $0.53 

* Federal Government Benefits do not include societal benefits from ecosystem services in terms 

of their fiscal return, which is calculated in the ROI scenarios. 
ES 10-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - -

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Table ES 6 shows the ROI results for the WCC program. The results are expressed as cost– 

benefit ratios, while maintaining the ROI terminology. Specifically, these ratios take the 

form of the sum of monetized net benefits over the sum of program costs. The ROIs 

expressed as cost–benefit ratios in this study can be interpreted as the amount of dollars 

returned for every $1.00 of investment (or program cost).8 

Table ES 6. ROI Results for WCC 

Ecosystem Service 

ROI Calculation Value Estimates Short term 

ROI Scenario 

Medium term Long term 

Total Benefits per Federal Dollar 

Formula: Total Net Benefits / 

Federal Government Cost 

Low $0.69 $4.66 $6.88 

Average $1.80 $18.21 $29.13 

High $6.20 $72.39 $118.09 

Total Benefits per Funder Dollar 

Formula: Total Net Benefits / 

Total Costs 

Low $0.20 $1.34 $1.98 

Average $0.52 $5.23 $8.36 

High $1.78 $20.78 $33.90 

Federal Government Benefits per Federal Dollar 

Formula: Federal Government Net Benefits / Federal 

Government Cost 

-$0.04 $0.36 $0.53 

WCC AmeriCorps produces strong returns in the medium- and long-term scenarios 

when benefits are included for WCC AmeriCorps members, as well as for federal, state, 

and local governments. This is indicated by the results of the total benefits per federal 

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

In the short-term scenario—where benefits for only a single year post-program are 

included—the ROI results indicate that program costs outweigh the benefits. A negative 

ROI or one that is below $1 in the first year post-program is common in programs where 

there is an initial one-time investment made and benefits accrue in the following years. 

This is because it often requires several years of benefits to recoup the initial investment 

and generate positive returns. During the program, AmeriCorps members gain the 

experience, skills, and knowledge that result in future benefits, such as improved 

employment and wages, which can be sustained throughout their working years. Part 

of the reason why the ROI calculations show losses in the short-term is because the 

professional opportunity cost to WCC AmeriCorps members is high given that more 

than 50 percent of members for the 2018–2019 program year had a bachelor’s degree 

pre-service. This augments the earnings they forgo due to serving in WCC AmeriCorps 

for one year. Additionally, as noted in the ROI methodology, lifetime benefits that stem 

from WCC AmeriCorps are not realized in the short-term scenario. Given this, the ROI 

calculations for the short-term Total benefits per funder dollar scenarios under the low 

and average estimates of the ecosystem service values result in losses. Specifically, 

every $1 invested results in a return of $0.20 to all stakeholders under the short-term 

scenario considering low ecosystem service values to society and $0.52 considering 

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

the results, the ROIs in this study show the amount of return for every $1 invested. 
ES 11-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

average ecosystem service values to society. For every $1 the federal government 

invests, the federal government loses its original $1 investment plus an additional $0.04. 

Under the medium-term scenario, total benefits per federal dollar invested yields $4.66 

to $72.39, and total benefits per funder dollar are anticipated to yield $1.34 to $20.78. 

Given the medium-term scenario, the federal government alone receives $0.36 back in 

fiscal returns and savings for every dollar invested, while also generating benefits for 

society. 

Under the long-term scenario, total benefits for every federal dollar invested yields $6.88 

to $118.09, and all funders are anticipated to receive $1.98 to $33.90 in total benefits 

per dollar invested. Given the long-term scenario, the federal government alone 

receives $0.53 back in fiscal returns and savings for every dollar invested, while also 

generating benefits for society. 

The magnitude and direction of the ROI calculations are driven by several 

factors including: 

• The wide range of ecosystem service values by various land cover types. Table 3 

in the main report presents a range of annual ecosystem service values for 

relevant cover types. As explained in the ROI Study Limitations section, there are 

limitations to using ecosystem service valuation related to challenges in 

estimating ecosystem service benefits. 

• The employment outcomes of WCC AmeriCorps members. Evaluations have 

shown that serving in AmeriCorps fosters higher skill acquisition, increased 

educational attainment, and higher income from increased employment postnational service (Friedman et al., 2016; Markovitz et al., 2008; Spera et al., 2013; 

Zeidenberg et al., 2016). According to Friedman et al. (2016), the percentage of 

AmeriCorps members who were unemployed was 5 percentage points lower six 

months after serving in AmeriCorps versus the six months before. This gain in 

employment resulted in increased cumulative earnings and tax revenue. 

• The educational attainment outcomes of WCC AmeriCorps members. 

AmeriCorps State and National members receive education awards after serving 

with an AmeriCorps program. The award is used by a portion of members to help 

pay for post-secondary degrees post-service. The additional educational 

attainment resulting from the use of the education award generates additional 

lifetime earnings for WCC AmeriCorps members and additional tax revenue and 

savings for government. 

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

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

2) total benefits per funder dollar, AmeriCorps’s requirement of other leveraged funding 

also contributed to the magnitude of the ROI results. Federal government funding of the 

WCC program served as a catalyst for private and other government funding. This 

additional combined private and non-AmeriCorps government funding—amounting to 

over $10.4 million for WCC for the 2018–2019 program year— allowed the WCC 

program to enroll more individuals than otherwise would have been served under the 
ES 12-

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

federal funding alone, leading to greater total benefits realized. Though it may not 

impact the ROI, because it is a per unit metric, non-AmeriCorps funding leads to 

greater investment in the WCC program and thus to a greater impact as more 

individuals are served and increased benefits to society are produced. 
1 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

AmeriCorps programming to relevant stakeholders. 

This project began with a comprehensive literature review and preliminary assessments 

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

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

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

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

each selected program. 

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

subject of ROI studies for Fiscal Year 2021: Habitat for Humanity AmeriCorps, Washington 

Conservation Corps, YouthBuild AmeriCorps, and Birth & Beyond’s Home Visitation 

Program. This ROI study measures the benefits of the Washington Conservation Corps 

(WCC) against its program costs based on the analytical approach and data sources 

specified in its respective feasibility study. 

Study Overview 

This study is organized into five sections: 

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

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

operation. It also provides a brief history of past evaluations, outlines the factors 

that made this program a strong selection for an ROI study, and identifies a 

potential set of comparable ROI estimates for the WCC program. 

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

monetize benefits derived from the WCC program, describes its associated 

program costs, and explains how opportunity costs are calculated. 

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

Results provides a detailed description of the benefits, program costs, and 

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

the three ROI calculations across different assumptions. 

• Recommendations for Further Research explores ways AmeriCorps and others 

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

including how to address limitations of this study. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Program Description 

WCC is an environmental service program administered by the Washington State 

Department of Ecology9 that provides opportunities for young adults ages 18 to 2510 to 

protect and restore natural habitats for state- and federally-listed species including 

anadromous fish.11 The WCC program has more than 300 crew members and leaders 

throughout the State of Washington.12 

Crew members receive hands-on experience building trails, planting native trees, 

implementing erosion control techniques, restoring critical habitats, and responding to 

local and national disasters. AmeriCorps members who serve in WCC engage in service 

work in small crews of up to half a dozen people to restore natural resource sites. Crew 

leaders supervise groups and provide guidance on job skills, offer technical knowledge, 

and arrange field logistics. WCC AmeriCorps members receive a living allowance, 

insurance, training, and an education award in exchange for their service.13 

WCC conducts the following types of restoration projects: 

• Removing beach debris and structures that damage shoreline habitat 

• Planting, maintaining, and preserving urban and native trees and shrubs 

• Restoring marine and nearshore habitat 

• Repairing and replanting stream-side habitat 

• Building and maintaining backcountry and urban trails 

• Constructing trails, bridges, and boardwalks 

• Removing invasive weeds 

• Monitoring restoration sites and sampling streams 

In addition to completing environmental stewardship projects, WCC members provide 

disaster services in Washington and across the nation during floods, fires, hurricanes, 

and other natural disasters.14 

9 WCC is funded through Serve Washington (the Washington State Service Commission), including receiving 

AmeriCorps funding in the role of subgrantee. 

10 Veterans can also join WCC up to age 31. State of Washington: Department of Ecology. N.d. About the 

WCC. Retrieved from: https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/Our-role-in-the-community/WashingtonConservation-Corps. 

11 Endangered marine species are listed here by NOAA Fisheries’ Species Directory: 

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species-directory/threatenedendangered?title=&species_category=1000000031&species_status=any®ions=1000001126&items_per_p 

age=25&sort= 

12 State of Washington: Department of Ecology. n.d. op. cit. 

13 State of Washington: Department of Ecology. n.d. op cit. 

14 State of Washington: Department of Ecology. n.d. op. cit. 
3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

For the 2018–2019 program year, WCC had 262 full-time, 60 half-time, and 

18 quarter-time AmeriCorps members that served as WCC crew members and leaders. 

The 340 total members, or 297 full-time equivalent (FTE) members, treated 3,265 acres, 

improved 1,514 acres, planted more than half a million trees, supported more than 

450,000 square feet of erosion control, treated more than 600 miles of trail, and 

15,16 improved more than 300 miles of trail.

Invasive species negatively impact ecosystem services related to agriculture, industry, 

and human health. Examples of such impacts include the affecting of water 

purification, pollination, natural pest control, disease regulation, soil fertility, and nutrient 

and water cycling. Invasive species can also impact cultural services including 

aesthetic values, recreation, and tourism, in both riparian and upland areas. Decreased 

biodiversity and species extinctions linked to invasive species threaten the continued 

delivery and quality of many ecosystem services. (Charles and Dukes, 2006). Via WCC’s 

restoration projects, the program directly removes invasive weeds and restores 

habitats using native plants, enhancing biodiversity and ultimately improving 

ecosystem services. 

WCC Evaluation History 

The Watershed Company (2015) measured the effectiveness of the WCC’s restoration 

efforts to increase native plant cover and reduce invasive plant cover at 23 randomly 

selected restoration sites. The impact evaluation used Before-After, Control-Impact 

(BACI) statistical analysis to analyze the outcomes of WCC restoration efforts. BACI is an 

effective method to evaluate natural and human-induced interventions on ecological 

variables when treatment sites cannot be randomly chosen. This study’s treatment 

involved the planting of native vegetation at each of the 23 restoration sites and WCC 

employed some method of weed control at 19 of the restoration sites. 

Pre-restoration site conditions were recorded at each site. Data collection included: a 

description of the dominant invasive plants at each site, existing native vegetation 

conditions, and visual cover estimates for native vegetation, total noxious vegetation, 

reed canarygrass, knotweed, and other weeds. Variables such as invasive plant 

removal methods, soil amendments, bare-root or container plants, planting density, 

and irrigation, were recorded for review in the final evaluation. Post-restoration 

conditions were recorded immediately following the restoration action (fall/winter 2014) 

and one-growing season later (late summer 2015). Data collection at reference sites 

followed a similar protocol to restoration sites. Native and invasive cover estimates, 

15 Washington Conservation Corps (WCC). 2021. Data Request for Return-on-Investment Study. Submitted 

by Laura Schlabach on March 9 and 24 and June 8, 2021. 

16 “WCC defines ‘trails treated’ as all trail activities including short-term improvements to existing 

recreational infrastructure (trail clearance, surface repairs, debris removal) and new constructions, reroutes, 

or new infrastructure that enhances the sustainability of a trail (including puncheons, boardwalks, bridges, 

culverts, water bars and steps or stairs). WCC defines ‘trails improved’ as contributions to public access, 

safety, improved used of established, approved paths. WCC uses land manager assessments to verify 

quantitative and qualitative data with respect to this.” – WCC (2021). Op. cit. 
4 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

plant health and vigor, and established photo-points were recorded once in winter 

2014 and once in late summer 2015.17 

The outcomes included the following related to native coverage and noxious weed 

coverage: 18 

• Native coverage increased by 9.6 percent at restoration sites compared to 0.4 

percent at reference sites the first year following the planting intervention. The 

average survival for new native plantings in the first year was 72 percent. 

• Noxious weed19 coverage decreased by 15.6 percent at restoration sites 

compared to a decrease of 1.4 percent at reference sites the first year following 

the planting intervention. 

Both results were statistically significant as shown in Table 1. WCC’s Treatment of Native 

Plant and Noxious Weed Coverage Results After One Year, demonstrating that WCC 

used effective intervention techniques. 

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

One Year 

Coverage Group Restoration Reference Difference P value Significant? 

Native Tree and Shrub 9.6% increase 0.4% increase 9.2% 0.03 Yes 

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

Figure 1 shows the mean percent of native tree and shrub coverage for the 

restoration and reference sites before and after the intervention. Figure 2 shows 

noxious weed coverage. 

17 The Watershed Company. 2015. Impact Evaluation 2014-2015: Washington Conservation Corps 

Restoration Sites (Rep.). Kirkland, WA. Retrieved from 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/2015_10_01_WAStateDeptofEcology_WAConservation 

Corps_ImpactEvaluationFullReport_ORE.pdf 

18 The Watershed Company. 2015. Impact Evaluation 2014-2015: Washington Conservation Corps 

Restoration Sites (Rep.). Kirkland, WA. Retrieved from 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/2015_10_01_WAStateDeptofEcology_WAConservation 

Corps_ImpactEvaluationFullReport_ORE.pdf 

19 Noxious weeds are non-native plants that, due to their aggressive growth and lack of natural enemies, 

can be highly destructive and difficult to control. Noxious weeds can reduce crop yields, destroy native 

plant and animal habitat, damage recreational opportunities, clog waterways, lower land values, create 

erosion problems and fire hazards, and poison humans and livestock. Whatcom County, WA. N.d. What are 

Noxious Weeds?. Retrieved from: https://www.whatcomcounty.us/921/What-Are-Noxious-Weeds. 
5 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Figure 1. Average Percent Native Tree and Shrub Coverage Before vs. After Intervention 

Figure 2. Average Percent Noxious Weed Coverage Before vs. After Intervention 
6 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Selection of WCC for the AmeriCorps ROI Project 

ICF recommended making the WCC program the subject of an ROI analysis based on 

a comprehensive feasibility study. This feasibility study delineated the process for 

monetizing the associated benefits and costs of this environmental stewardship 

program by analyzing outcomes related to restoring wetlands and riparian corridors. 

Specifically, the feasibility study noted how the native plant and noxious weed 

coverage outcomes, included in the Watershed Company (2015), could be included in 

an ROI for WCC. The improvement of ecosystems through the reduction in noxious 

weeds and increased native vegetation, can yield increases in societal value from 

ecosystem service values. Ecosystem service values are the value of improved land 

cover types based on a variety of benefits to society identified and calculated in the 

existing literature. 

Ecosystem Service Valuation 

Ecosystems are dynamic environments housing plants, animals, microorganisms, and 

the nonliving interacting as a single unit. Services rendered naturally by an ecosystem 

can benefit humans who ultimately value these services. Some ecosystem service 

values are directly tied to market activity, such as extractive activities (e.g., timber 

production, mining, food, etc.). Other values may be indirectly, or not at all, tied to 

market activity. Values of goods and services that fall outside of market activity are 

called non-market values.20 

Values attributed to ecosystem services can be described as use or non-use values. Use 

values, provide economic value through direct use by humans. Some direct uses of 

ecosystem services involve human consumption, such as harvesting timber and other 

forest products, food, and fuel. Other direct uses, such as viewing wildlife, hiking, and 

enjoying scenic vistas, do not involve any actual consumption. Human beings also can 

use ecosystem services indirectly. For example, when people directly use plants and 

animals, consumptively or non-consumptively, they indirectly use the habitats of those 

plants and animals. Other examples of indirect use include regulation of water flow, 

waste assimilation, and climate regulation (i.e., carbon storage and sequestration).21 

Ecosystem services are commonly divided into four distinct groups:22 

• Provisioning services provide products that are used directly by people, such as 

food, water, and raw materials 

• Regulating services are outputs from the normal functioning of ecosystems that 

benefit people in direct ways, such as the regulation of climate, air and drinking 

water quality, soil formation and retention, moderation of extreme events, and 

biological control 

20 De Groot et al. op. cit. 

21 De Groot et al. op. cit. 

22 De Groot et al. op. cit. 
7 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

• Habitat and supporting services are processes that are necessary for the 

production of other ecosystem services, such as habitat for plants and animals, 

conservation of genetic diversity, and cycling of nutrients 

• Cultural services provide benefits to people through meaningful interactions with 

nature, such as aesthetic enjoyment, recreation, spiritual enrichment, and 

cognitive development 

Eastern Sierra Sustainable Recreation and Tourism Initiative (ESSRTI) (2021)23 applied an 

“ecosystem services framework” to determine which ecosystem services are commonly 

identified with land cover types. The first step of the framework was understanding the 

physical landscape’s ecosystem functions by land cover type. The ecosystem functions 

are assessed for their capacity to generate ecosystem services, and finally, ecosystem 

service values indicate the societal impacts and outcomes associated with human 

well-being. Figure 3 illustrates the process associated with the ecosystem 

services framework. 

Figure 3. Ecosystem Services Framework 

Physical 

landscape 

Ecosystem 

functions 

Ecosystem 

services 

Effects on 

human 

well-being 

ESSRTI (2021) conducted an extensive literature review for values for land cover types 

and ecosystem services and then used benefit transfer methods to adapt the values to 

their project site in the Eastern Sierra in California. Benefit transfer uses value estimates of 

ecosystem services from existing studies and applies them to a new context. Two 

approaches to conducting benefit transfers are benefit value transfer and benefit 

function transfer. 

Benefit value transfer takes point estimates, or values, from the primary source and 

applies them to the new project site, assuming the new project site is similar to the 

primary study site. Benefit function transfer takes the function used to estimate benefits 

in the original study and applying the function to the new project site. Independent 

variables in the function are updated with values that reflect the characteristics of the 

new project site. Benefit function transfer is preferred over benefit value transfer as it 

allows for the original values to be adapted to a greater degree than is possible with 

benefit value transfer. Despite these advantages, the data are not always available to 

conduct benefit function transfers. 

23 Eastern Sierra Sustainable Recreation and Tourism Initiative (ESSRTI). 2021. A Changing Climate: 

Vulnerability in California’s Eastern Sierra. Retrieved from: 

https://mltpa.org/images/downloads/703_02_AChangingClimate_2021-05-13_FINAL.pdf 
8 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

As described above, ESSRTI (2021) used both benefit function transfer and benefit value 

transfer from the literature to estimate a range of annual ecosystem service values by 

land cover type. The range of values (i.e., low, average, and high) are based on the 

range of potential impacts, incorporating the lowest and highest estimates established 

and the average is calculated by averaging all values identified from the literature. 

Table 3, presented in Section “2. Estimate Ecosystem Service Values”, shows the range 

of annual ecosystem service values for select and applicable land cover types 

estimated by ESSRTI (2021). ESSRTI (2021) expects the range to be similar to other 

ecosystem service analyses applying benefit transfer. The range of per-acre values for 

each land cover type reflects variations in the estimated values found in the literature.24 

As the Eastern Sierras of California are relatively close to Washington State and the 

ESSRTI (2021) was recently published, the range of values are similarly used applying 

benefit value transfer to the WCC program’s improved acreage. Additionally, ESSRTI 

(2021) was developed in partnership with the State of Washington Office of 

Sustainability and Climate. 

Comparable ROI Estimates 

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

ROI estimates. 

The Trust for Public Land (2010) analyzed the costs and benefits of the Land & Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF).25 The LWCF funds federal land acquisition by the Bureau of 

Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and National Park Service. 

Using a sample of 16 sites that received LWCF funding between 1998 and 2009, The Trust 

for Public Land analyzed the past and likely future economic returns generated from 

the sample federal sites and found that every dollar invested generates $4 in economic 

value from natural resource goods (e.g., grazing on grasslands) and services (e.g., 

water filtration, flood protection by wetlands, erosion control, etc.) alone. The study 

estimated the value of natural resource goods and services based on ecosystem 

service values in the literature. 

There are additional benefits of these conservation efforts that were not included in The 

Trust for Public Land’s ROI estimates. For example, the federal lands provide local 

recreation and are vital to local tourism industries. The Trust for Public Land found that 

more than 10 million people visit these 16 sites annually and spend more than $500 

million in the surrounding local communities. Including these spillover effects would 

increase the return to society, resulting in a more favorable ROI. Similarly, as described 

in the ROI Study Limitations Section, recreation and tourism benefits could not be 

estimated for the restoration and improvements made by WCC due to a lack of 

24 ESSRTI states in regard to the use of a range, “We carried this structure through the analysis to emphasize 

the range of values that ecosystem services provide. The range provided by this analysis is an expected 

outcome and similar to other analyses of this type.” ESSRTI (2021) p. 31. 

25 The Trust for Public Land. (2010). Return on the Investment from the Land & Water Conservation Fund. 

Retrieved from: https://www.tpl.org/return-investment-land-and-water-conservation-fund 
9 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

available data. Capturing recreation usage such as hiking on improved trails could 

result in a more favorable ROI in this analysis. 

To date, there is little literature on the ROI of conservation efforts that includes a 

broader array of benefits. However, Funk et al. (2013) estimated the social welfare 

return of South Africa’s Working for Water program—a wetland invasive plant control 

program—in terms of job creation and training. The study found that the social welfare 

return was comparable to, or higher than, the ecosystem service return.26 The authors 

also note that a California-based program designed to control an invasive reed species 

recently won funding partly by emphasizing its economic benefits as a public 

works project. 

Moreover, conservation efforts may provide additional environmental benefits not 

captured in ROI studies to date, such as flood protection. For example, Narayan et al. 

(2016) estimated the economic benefits of coastal wetlands in reducing property 

damage from storms and flooding in the Northeastern United States.27 Results indicated 

that salt marsh conservation in New Jersey can reduce average annual flood losses by 

more than 20 percent. The study estimated that coastal wetlands saved more than 

$625 million in flood damages after Hurricane Sandy. 

ROI Methodology 

The methodology for the WCC ROI study consisted of the following components: 

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

previous evaluation and other third-party sources to determine the benefits to 

society, WCC AmeriCorps members, and the government. The benefits realized 

across these three stakeholder groups include: 

• Society. Habitat restoration improves ecosystem services provided by the land, 

which yield long-term benefits to society. 

• WCC AmeriCorps members. WCC AmeriCorps members benefit from 

a) living allowances and education awards 

b) increased earnings due to reduced unemployment 

c) increased lifetime earnings due to increased post-secondary education 

derived from the use of education awards 

26 Funk, J., Matzek, V., Bernhardt, M., & Johnson, D. (2013). Broadening the Case for Invasive Species 

Management to Include Impacts on Ecosystem Services. BioScience, 64(1). doi:10.1093/BIOSCI/BIT004 

27 Narayan, S., Beck, M.W., Wilson, P., Thomas, C., Guerrero, A., Shepard, C., Reguero, B.G., Franco, 

G., Ingram, C.J., Trespalacios, D. (2016). Coastal Wetlands and Flood Damage Reduction: Using Risk 

Industry-based Models to Assess Natural Defenses in the Northeastern USA. (Rep.). London: Lloyd’s 

Tercentenary Research Foundation. Retrieved from 

https://conservationgateway.org//ConservationPractices/Marine/crr/library/Documents/CoastalWetlands 

andFloodDamageReductionReport.pdf 
10 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

• Government. Government benefits from income, Social Security, and Medicare 

tax revenue from WCC AmeriCorps members’ increased earnings, and sales tax 

revenue from the increased economic activity that results from those increased 

earnings. Government benefits also include reduced spending on corrections, 

public assistance, and social insurance and increased tax revenue associated 

with the increased educational attainment of WCC AmeriCorps members that is 

derived from their use of education awards post-service. Finally, government 

benefits from tax revenue from WCC AmeriCorps members’ living allowances 

and education awards. 

This ROI analysis monetized WCC program benefits in 2019 dollars. 

2. Estimating Forgone Benefits (opportunity costs). This ROI analysis estimated two types 

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

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

have earned more pay by doing other work. This included both the forgone 

earnings of WCC AmeriCorps members and the associated tax revenue for 

government. The second was the investment opportunity cost for WCC AmeriCorps 

program funding that could have been used for other purposes. The analysis 

estimated the investment opportunity cost for both government and private funders 

based on the forgone return of investing program funds into U.S. Treasury bonds. The 

rates of return for U.S. Treasury bonds provide a market-based estimate of return for 

low-risk investments. For the ROI estimates, the analysis subtracted forgone benefits 

from program benefits to calculate net benefits. 

3. Assessing program costs. WCC provided program costs for the program year of 

2018–2019. WCC costs for the 2018–2019 program year included operating costs, 

AmeriCorps member expenses, and other indirect costs. Program operating costs 

captured the majority of expenses which include supplies, training, travel, and 

program staff costs. AmeriCorps member expenses included the living allowance 

amounts received during service and the expected education awards received 

post-service.28 

4. Calculating the ROI. The ROI analysis included three ROI calculations, each assessed 

under three scenarios representing different assumptions about the persistence of 

program outcomes and low, average, and high estimates of ecosystem valuations. 

The three ROI calculations are: 

• Total benefits per federal dollar 

• Total benefits per funder dollar29 

• Federal government benefits per federal dollar 

28 WCC (2021). op. cit. 

29 The different funder groups whose investment is in this calculation include the federal government (i.e., 

AmeriCorps and other federal sources), state and local governments, and other non-government entities. 
11 

 

 

Societal Benefits 

Government Benefits 

AmeriCorps Member Benefits 

WCC 

Program Activities 

Ecosystem 

Impacts 

AmeriCorps 

Member 

Impacts 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

This analytical framework included only those benefits that could be reasonably 

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

the WCC program. Figure 4 shows how WCC program activities can result in society, 

WCC AmeriCorps member, and government benefits. 

Figure 4. Benefits among WCC AmeriCorps Members, Government, and Society Derived 

from WCC 

Available data established that WCC AmeriCorps members enjoy increased earnings 

impacts—due to reduced unemployment—as a result of the WCC program. 

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

increased educational attainment, and higher income from increased employment 

post-national service (Friedman et al., 2016; Markovitz et al., 2008; Spera et al., 2013; 

Zeidenberg et al., 2016). Freidman et al. (2016) found that unemployment among 

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

points lower compared to six months before.30 However, the data does not establish the 

duration of those benefits. To address a range of possible durations for those benefits as 

well as lifetime benefits, the analysis includes three scenarios:31 

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

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

assumes no long-term or lifetime benefits are realized. 

30 See page 56 of Friedman et al. (2016). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

realized for the short-term scenario. 
12 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

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

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

applied each year to represent net present value in 2019 dollars.32 This scenario 

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

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

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

last 30 years. A discount rate of 3 percent is applied to the earnings each year to 

represent net present value in 2019 dollars. This scenario also assumes the entire 

net present value of lifetime benefits is realized. 

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

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

scenario assumes benefits for only the year after national service. The medium-term 

scenario (i.e., 15 years of sustained employment and earnings benefits) represents the 

midpoint between these two scenarios. 

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

Program Costs 

This analysis monetized an array of program benefits, forgone benefits (opportunity 

costs) and included WCC program costs, all in 2019 dollars, to assess the ROI of the 

WCC program. Additional details on the methodology employed and the calculations 

used for this analysis are in Appendix B: Additional Information on the Methodology. 

Program Benefits 

The WCC program results in monetizable benefits to society, WCC AmeriCorps 

members, and the various levels of government. Table 2 summarizes these benefits and 

data sources by stakeholder group. 

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

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

discount rate, see Office of Management and Budget (2003). 
13 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Table 2. Program Benefits Realized from the WCC Program by Stakeholder Group 

Stakeholder Group Benefits Data Sources* 

Society • Increased ecosystem service valuation per 

acre of WCC restoration sites 

• WCC (2021) 

• The Watershed 

Company (2015) 

• Eastern Sierra 

Sustainable Recreation 

and Tourism Initiative 

(ESSRTI) (2021) 

WCC AmeriCorps 

Members • AmeriCorps member post-tax living 

allowances and education awards 

• Additional earnings from reduced 

unemployment 

• Additional lifetime earnings from increased 

educational attainment as a result of 

education awards 

• WCC (2021) 

• Friedman et al. (2016) 

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(Current Population 

Survey (CPS)) (2019) 

• Trostel (2015) 

• NCES (2019a) 

• NCES (2019b) 

• Consumer Price Index 

(CPI); (BLS, 2021) 

Government • Tax revenue from increased earnings by 

WCC AmeriCorps members post-program 

and sales tax revenue from the induced 

increased economic activity 

• Tax revenue from living allowances and 

education awards 

• Reduced spending on corrections, public 

assistance, and social insurance from 

increased educational attainment by 

WCC AmeriCorps members as a result of 

education awards 

• Additional tax revenue from increased 

educational attainment by WCC 

AmeriCorps members as a result of 

education awards 

• Consumer Expenditure 

Survey (BLS, 2020) 

• Social Security tax rate 

(Social Security 

Administration (SSA), 

2020) 

• Medicare tax rate (SSA, 

2019) 

• Combined state and 

average local sales tax 

rates (Tax Foundation, 

2019) 

• IRS (2020) 

• Trostel (2015) 

• Consumer Price Index 

(CPI; BLS, n.d.) 

• AmeriCorps (2020) 

*Usage of these data sources is discussed in more detail in the subsequent sections. Additionally, tax rates 

used on WCC AmeriCorps members’ increased earnings, their forgone earnings, and their education 

awards and living allowances are national averages. See Appendix B for a detailed discussion. 

A. Monetize Benefits of Ecosystem Restoration 

1. Estimate Habitat Improvements Attributable to WCC 

This analysis estimated WCC’s impact on enhanced and restored habitats in terms of: 

• increased native plant species 

• decreased invasive plant species 
14 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

The Watershed Company (2015) study established that the impacts of WCC’s 

restoration actions are statistically significant, demonstrating that the WCC program 

uses effective interventions to reduce noxious weed coverage and foster increased 

native plant coverage. Specifically, results indicated that compared to the reference 

sites, restoration sites increased native coverage by 9.2 percent and reduced noxious 

weed coverage by 14.2 percent one year after WCC’s planting intervention. The study 

states that they expect native vegetation coverage to continue to increase as planted 

vegetation grows. Similarly, invasive coverage is expected to continue to decrease as 

native vegetation becomes established. 

2. Estimate Ecosystem Service Values 

ICF used an ecosystem service valuation approach to assess the value of goods and 

services derived from ecosystem improvements by WCC. Ecosystems are dynamic 

complexes of plants, animals, microorganisms, and the nonliving environment, which 

interact as functional units. The processes through which ecosystems sustain themselves 

are known as ecosystem functions. Ecosystem services are the benefits that society 

receives from ecosystem functions. Some values are tied to direct market activity, such 

as timber, minerals, food, and fuel. Other values can be derived from indirect or nonmarket activity, such as climate regulation (i.e., carbon storage and sequestration), 

waste treatment, water quality and regulation, and recreational activities. 

ESSRTI (2021)33 estimated the value of ecosystem services, taking existing studies and 

applying them to a different scenario. The report established a baseline, identifying 

ecosystem services by land cover type and their economic benefits. ESSRTI (2021) 

estimated, through benefit transfer, the values for various land cover types, applying 

both benefit function transfer34 and benefit value transfer as applicable.35 Step 3 is 

ultimately an example of benefit value transfer as we apply the findings of ESSRTI (2021) 

and apply them to WCC’s improved land area. Table 3 presents a range of annual 

ecosystem service values for select and applicable land cover types. The range of 

impacts (i.e., low, average, high) is derived from the literature, including the lowest 

estimate, the highest estimate, and the average of all values identified. 

33 Eastern Sierra Sustainable Recreation and Tourism Initiative (ESSRTI). 2021. A Changing Climate: 

Vulnerability in California’s Eastern Sierra. Retrieved from: 

https://mltpa.org/images/downloads/703_02_AChangingClimate_2021-05-13_FINAL.pdf 

34 Benefit function transfer takes the function used in a previous study (ideally a primary source that 

estimated the value of ecosystem service benefits in a particular location/case study) to estimate benefits 

in the new context (ESSRTI, 2021). 

35 Benefit value transfer takes point estimates, or values, from a primary source and applies them directly to 

a different context, under the assumption that the new context is similar to the primary study site (ESSRTI, 

2021). 
15 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Table 3. Annual Ecosystem Service Values by Land Cover Type (2019$)36 

Land Cover Type Low 

Total Value per Acre per Year 

Average High 

Coniferous Forest $8,922 $20,926 $42,482 

Deciduous Forest $4,671 $15,889 $36,512 

Grassland $8,211 $17,614 $30,933 

Shrubland $8,983 $18,171 $30,678 

Wetland $2,646 $49,493 $252,252 

Source: ESSRTI (2021) 

Further discussion of ecosystem services can be found in Appendix B: Additional 

Information on the Methodology. 

3. Apply Ecosystem Service Valuation to WCC’s Improved Acreage 

ICF used the benefit value transfer method to apply ecosystem service values from 

ESSRTI (2021), presented in Table 3, to the land cover types improved by WCC over the 

course of the 2018–2019 program year (described below). The ROI uses the findings of 

ESSRTI (2021) because the report: 

• Conducted an extensive literature review of values for all land cover types and 

ecosystem services 

• Was developed in partnership with the State of Washington Office of 

Sustainability and Climate 

• Applied a range of values similar to the WCC program’s improved acreage 

• Was recently published 

Next, ICF aligned the WCC data on improved land by land cover type with the land 

cover types presented in ESSRTI (2021). WCC treated 3,265 acres and improved 

1,514 acres during the 2018–2019 program year. WCC defines treated land as acres 

where invasive species were removed, and the site is prepared for additional 

restoration activities including planting. WCC improved land by increasing native 

species coverage and biodiversity, consistent with established land management 

protocol. To conservatively estimate the value of WCC’s restoration efforts, the 1,514 

improved acres were ultimately used in conjunction with the net increase of 9.2 percent 

in native tree and shrub coverage as a result of the intervention (Figure 1). 

36 These values were derived from Table 11 in ESSRTI (2021). Op. Cit. 
16 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

WCC provided land cover types for project sites by percentage: 37 

• 60 percent riparian/wetland 

• 20 percent forested mountains 

• 10 percent marine forests 

• 10 percent other. 

This analysis used the benefit value transfer method to apply low, average, and high 

ecosystem service values from ESSRTI (2021) to the land cover types improved by WCC. 

The analysis specifically applied: 

• ESSRTI (2021) values for wetlands to the 60 percent of acreage identified by WCC 

as “riparian/wetland” 

• Averaged ESSRTI (2021) values for coniferous, deciduous, grassland, and 

shrubland land cover types to the 20 percent of acreage identified by WCC as 

“forested mountains”38 

• ESSRTI (2021) values for coniferous forest to the 10 percent of acreage identified 

by WCC as “marine forests”39 

• Averaged ESSRTI (2021) values for coniferous, deciduous, grassland, shrub land, 

and wetland land cover types to the 10 percent of acreage identified by WCC 

as “other” 

The results of applying the above numbers and values are presented in Table 4. 

Table 4. Imputed Annual Ecosystem Service Values per Acre by Land Cover Type 

(2019$) 

Land Cover Type Low Average High 

Riparian/Wetland $2,646 $49,493 $252,252 

Forested Mountains $7,697 $18,150 $35,151 

Marine Forests $8,922 $20,926 $42,482 

Other $6,687 $24,419 $78,571 

37 WCC (2021). op. cit. 

38 EPA. 2000. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations. Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion II. 

Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/rivers2.pdf 

39 Perakis, Geiser, and Lilleskov. Chapter 9: Marine West Coast Forests. GTR-NRS-80. Retrieved from: 

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr-nrs-80chapters/9-perakis.pdf 
17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

For example, the low range estimate for riparian/wetland ecosystem services is $2,646 

(Table 4). That $2,646 multiplied by 60 percent of 1,514 improved acres is $2.4 million. 

9.2 percent of $2.4 million ($221,146 in Table 5) is the improvement in ecosystem services 

attributable to the WCC intervention due to improved riparian/wetland acres during 

the 2018–2019 program year. 

Table 5. Annual Ecosystem Service Value of WCC's 2018–2019 Program Year’s Improved 

Land by Type (2019$) 

Land Cover Type Percent Low Average High 

Riparian/Wetland 60 $221,146 $4,136,272 $21,081,375 

Forested Mountains 20 $214,412 $505,618 $979,232 

Marine Forests 10 $124,271 $291,479 $591,725 

Other 10 $93,136 $340,123 $1,094,405 

Total 100 $652,966 $5,273,492 $23,746,737 

Additional explanation is provided in Appendix B’s Apply Ecosystem Service Valuation 

to WCC’s Improved Acreage Section. 

B. Monetize Benefits of WCC AmeriCorps Members’ National Service 

AmeriCorps members who serve with WCC benefit from higher skill acquisition, 

increased educational attainment, and increased employment post-national service.40 

1. Estimate Benefits based on FTE WCC AmeriCorps Member Award Amounts 

AmeriCorps members serving with WCC realize a benefit from the post-tax living 

allowances AmeriCorps State and National members are allotted during their public 

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

are considered taxable income and thus result in increased government revenue.41 

40 Relevant studies include: 

Friedman, E., Freeman, B., Phillips, B., Rosenthal, L., Robinson, D., Miller, H., & Porowski, A. (2016). AmeriCorps 

Alumni Outcomes: Final Survey Technical Report. Retrieved from 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_AmeriCorpsAlumniOutcomesFinalTechRe 

port_1.pdf 

Zeidenberg, M., Freeman, B., Friedman, E., & Porowski, A. (2016). Results from the National Student 

Clearinghouse Data Match: New Methods for Assessing AmeriCorps Alumni Outcomes. Retrieved from 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_NatlStudent_ClearinghouseMatch_Alumni 

Outcomes_2016_1.pdf 

Spera, C., Ghertner, R., Nerino, A., & DiTommaso, A. (2013). Volunteering as a Pathway to Employment: 

Does Volunteering Increase Odds of Finding a Job for the Out of Work? Retrieved from 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_2013_VolunteeringasaPathwaytoEmploy 

ment_1.pdf 

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

Segal AmeriCorps Education Award. Retrieved from https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segalamericorps-education-award 
18 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

The award amounts (living allowance and education award) were included in the ROI 

analysis as a direct one-time benefit to FTE WCC AmeriCorps members expected to 

redeem the award. Further discussion of WCC AmeriCorps member benefits can be 

found in Appendix B: Additional Information on the Methodology. 

2. Estimate Benefits based on FTE WCC AmeriCorps Member Employment Outcomes 

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

increased educational attainment, and higher income from increased employment 

post-national service (Friedman et al., 2016; Markovitz et al., 2008; Spera et al., 2013; 

Zeidenberg et al., 2016). Freidman et al. (2016) found that unemployment among 

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

points lower compared to six months before.42 To monetize this decrease in 

unemployment, the analysis first determined the demographic distribution of WCC 

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

race/ethnicity, gender, age, and education level pre-service using data provided by 

WCC. The analysis then proceeded to: 

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

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

Survey’s Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement for March 2019 

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

(2016) to the number of FTE WCC AmeriCorps members that served during the 

2018–2019 program year to estimate the number of additional FTE WCC 

AmeriCorps members employed post-service 

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

the number of additional FTE WCC AmeriCorps members employed to estimate 

the total increased earnings attributable to national service 

The earnings metrics for WCC AmeriCorps members were applied and discounted 

based on the short-term, medium-term, and long-term scenarios in net present 2019 

dollars. The post-tax AmeriCorps members’ projected earnings represents the additional 

income earned by AmeriCorps members attributable to their participation in the 

WCC program. 

Further discussion of WCC AmeriCorps member benefits can be found in Appendix B: 

Additional Information on the Methodology. 

3. Estimate Benefits based on WCC AmeriCorps Member Educational Outcomes 

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

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

et al. (2016)—can use their education awards to: 

a) pay for additional post-secondary educational attainment or 

42 See page 56 of Friedman et al. (2016). 
19 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

b) repay student loans 

Friedman et al. (2016) estimated that 46 percent of AmeriCorps State and National 

members used their education award to pursue additional post-secondary education 

while 33 percent used it to repay student loans.43 

This analysis estimated the expected increase in lifetime earnings attributable to WCC 

AmeriCorps members increased educational attainment post-service as a result of 

using the education award to pay for additional schooling. Based on the findings from 

Friedman et al. (2016), this ROI analysis estimated the amount in post-tax education 

awards that WCC AmeriCorps members used to pay for additional educational 

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

attainment attributable to the education awards in terms of lifetime earnings using data 

from Trostel (2015). These estimated additional lifetime earnings were included as a 

benefit to WCC AmeriCorps members. 

Further discussion of WCC AmeriCorps member benefits can be found in Appendix B. 

C. Tax Revenue Generation and Reduced Spending (Benefits to Government) 

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

of government. 

1. Benefits to Government from the Living Allowance earned by WCC AmeriCorps 

Members 

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

taxable. This analysis applied relevant tax rates (e.g., federal income, Medicare, Social 

Security, and sales tax on estimated spending) to the living allowance amount received 

to estimate this additional government revenue. As WCC conducts conservation work 

in Washington State and Washington State does not have a state income tax, no state 

income taxes were incurred on WCC AmeriCorps members’ living allowances. The 

analysis used Washington State sales tax rates to estimate state and local sales 

tax revenue. 

2. Benefits to Government from Increased Earnings by WCC AmeriCorps Members 

Government benefits from increased earnings by WCC AmeriCorps members in the 

form of: 

• Income tax revenue from increased WCC AmeriCorps member earnings postservice. Federal income taxes, state income taxes, Medicare taxes, and Social 

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

AmeriCorps members based on 2019 rates. For both federal and state income 

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

earnings paid in taxes. To estimate proportional tax rates that reflect federal- and 

state-level progressive tax brackets and standard deductions, the amount of 

total taxes paid was divided by the additional pre-tax earnings per WCC 

43 Friedman et al. (2016). op. cit. Exhibit VIII-6. 
20 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

AmeriCorps member. For the state income tax rate, the analysis weighted 

individual state-level rates by their respective state populations to estimate a 

nationwide tax rate to apply program-wide. An estimated weighted tax rate for 

states, nationwide, was leveraged because WCC AmeriCorps members may 

disperse to various locations nationwide following their service terms and 

continue to migrate over the course of their working years. 

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

increased WCC AmeriCorps member earnings post-service. To estimate the 

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

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

rate for the U.S.—weighted by states’ populations—was calculated. Then it was 

applied to the estimated taxable expenditures for consumers based on the postservice pre-tax earnings of WCC AmeriCorps members using the Consumer 

Expenditure Survey (BLS, 2021).44 The resulting product was then applied to the 

share of post-tax earnings attributable to serving with WCC AmeriCorps estimate 

state and local government sales tax revenue. 

3. Benefits to Government from Increased Educational Attainment by WCC AmeriCorps 

Members 

Government benefits from increased post-secondary educational attainment by WCC 

AmeriCorps members. Those benefits include: 

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

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

additional government revenue.45 This ROI analysis applied federal income, state 

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

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

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

were used. Sales taxes were not estimated for education awards given that this 

award amount cannot be used for consumer purchases. 

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

from increased educational attainment as a result of education awards. Higher 

educational attainment is associated with less dependence on government 

assistance programs and lower incarceration rates (Blagg & Blom, 2018; Harlow, 

2003). Because WCC AmeriCorps members increased post-secondary educational 

attainment, due to the use of the education award, the government spends less. 

44 To calculate the estimated taxable expenditures, Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) Table 1203 was 

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

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

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

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

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

Segal AmeriCorps Education Award. Retrieved from https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segalamericorps-education-award 
21 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

For the monetization of these benefits, the analysis paired the expected increase in 

post-secondary educational attainment of WCC AmeriCorps members with the 

expected difference in per-person lifetime government cost savings from Medicaid, 

SNAP, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation, and corrections for 

individuals with different levels of educational attainment. The latter values were 

provided by Trostel (2015). 

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

awards. The last benefit related to WCC AmeriCorps members captured in this ROI 

study is the lifetime tax revenue generated from members’ higher post-secondary 

educational attainment due to the use of the education award. Here, the 

estimated increase in WCC AmeriCorps members’ post-secondary educational 

attainment is paired with the expected difference in per-person lifetime taxes for 

individuals with different levels of education as provided by Trostel (2015). This 

lifetime tax revenue includes federal income, state income, property, Social 

Security, Medicare, and sales taxes derived from use of the education award. 

Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs) 

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

three ROI calculations for the WCC program: a professional opportunity cost to WCC 

AmeriCorps members and an investment opportunity cost to funders. The forgone 

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

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

ROI. These forgone benefits are referred to as the professional and investment 

opportunity costs. 

Professional Opportunity Cost to WCC AmeriCorps Members 

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

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

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

what WCC AmeriCorps members would have earned if they did not serve in the WCC 

program. Specifically, this analysis estimated the weighted average annual earnings of 

this group as well as their weighted unemployment rate using the demographic 

distribution of WCC AmeriCorps members for the 2018–2019 program year and ASEC 

data. The demographics included were gender, age, race/ethnicity, and pre-service 

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

expected earnings of the WCC AmeriCorps members if they were employed, not 

serving in the WCC program. The weighted unemployment rate represents how many 

of the WCC AmeriCorps members would have been unemployed if they did not serve 

in the WCC program. These weighted metrics were first used to estimate the portion of 

WCC members who would have been employed and then to calculate the aggregate 

earnings those employed individuals would have made without serving in the WCC 

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

population would forgo due to serving with WCC for one year. Some of the forgone 

earnings would have been paid in the form of taxes. To appropriately allocate 

opportunity costs between WCC AmeriCorps members and government, the analysis 
22 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

estimated the reduced tax revenue for federal income, state income, Social Security, 

and Medicare taxes. The analysis also estimated the reduction in sales tax from 

reduced consumption. These taxes combined represent what the various levels of 

government are forgoing in tax revenue when these individuals decide to serve in the 

WCC program instead of working for higher pay. The summation of all forgone taxes 

and the forgone post-tax earnings of WCC AmeriCorps members is called the total 

professional opportunity cost. 

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

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

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

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

realized as a result of the WCC program in this ROI calculation. The parts of the 

professional opportunity cost removed from these total federal government benefits 

include the federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes forgone due to WCC 

AmeriCorps members forgoing earnings during their service year. The summation of 

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

Investment Opportunity Cost to Funders 

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

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

2018–2019 program year were invested in U.S. Treasury bonds instead. To calculate this, 

the analysis matched the 2018 real interest rates provided by the Office of 

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

analysis: short-term, medium-term, and long-term.46 The rates of return for U.S. Treasury 

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

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

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

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

These real interest rates are 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 percent, respectively.47 Also, the number of 

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

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

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

respectively. These bonds compound bi-annually according to the Department of 

46 The analysis used 2018 real interest rates for U.S. Treasury bonds because the WCC AmeriCorps program 

year analyzed began in 2018. 

47 OMB Circular No. A-94. 2020. Appendix C. Retrieved from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2020/12/2020_Appendix-C.pdf and White House. 2020. Budget Assumptions. November 

19, 2020. Real Treasury Interest Rates. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/discounthistory.pdf 
23 

 

 

 

 

Cost Category Cost Percent of Total (%) 

Operating $6,784,804 51.5% 

AmeriCorps Member Expenses $6,028,862 45.8% 

Other $356,681 2.7% 

Total $13,170,347 100.0% 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Treasury (n.d.). The forgone accrued interest was calculated for each of the three 

scenarios if the funding amount used to support WCC was instead invested.48 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

accrued interest from investing all WCC funds (both federal and non-federal) into these 

U.S. Treasury bonds. This is called the total investment opportunity cost. See Appendix B 

for details. 

Program Costs 

The costs for the WCC program, used for this ROI analysis, include federal, state, local, 

and private funding to support program operations. The costs are specific to the 

2018–2019 WCC program year. WCC costs for the 2018–2019 program year include 

operating costs, AmeriCorps member expenses, and other costs (shown in Table 6). 

Operating costs capture the majority of expenses which include supplies, training, 

travel, and program staff costs. AmeriCorps member expenses include the living 

allowance and other benefits members receive during service. Other costs are indirect 

costs incurred by WCC.49 

Table 6. WCC Program Costs, 2018–2019 Program Year 

Source: WCC (2021) 

Table 7 shows the segmentation of WCC program costs by funder.50 Total federal 

funding comprised 21 percent of total funding. WCC indicated that all non-AmeriCorps 

sources listed contributed funding to support the program. As all individuals serving in 

48 Department of Treasury. N.d. Interest Rates - Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from: 

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financing-the-government/interest-rate-statistics/interest-ratesfrequently-asked-questions 

49 WCC (2021). op. cit. 

50 WCC (2021). op. cit. 
24 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost Category Value Percent of Total (%) 

Program Costs $13,170,347 90.2% 

Expected Post-service Education Awards Redeemed $1,433,402 9.8% 

Total Costs $14,603,749 100.0% 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

WCC are AmeriCorps members, all non-AmeriCorps funding is revenue that supports 

the AmeriCorps program.51 

Table 7. WCC Program Costs by Funder Type, 2018–2019 Program Year 

Funder 

Funding Provided 

for the Program Year ($) Percent of Total (%) 

AmeriCorps $1,704,842 12.9% 

Federal (non-AmeriCorps) $1,054,012 8.0% 

State Funding and Interagency 

Agreements $6,593,117 50.1% 

Private/Local/ Tribal Governments $3,818,375 29.0% 

Total $13,170,346 100.0% 

Source: WCC (2021) 

Federal dollars also helped pay for the expected education award amounts granted to 

WCC AmeriCorps members, post-service. Table 8 shows the total cost of the WCC 

program as the sum of the program costs and the expected value of education 

awards redeemed. Please refer to the section in Appendix B for details on the 

calculation of the expected education award amount.52 

Table 8. WCC Program and Expected Education Award Costs (2019$) 

ROI Study Limitations 

Four study limitations are identified below, which derive from a lack of available data, 

as well as general precautions when valuing ecosystem services and environmental 

recreation. 

51 WCC (2021). op. cit. 

52 The education award comes from the National Service Trust. This is a line-item in AmeriCorps’s annual 

budget approved by Congress every year. Thus, the expected education award amounts to be realized 

by WCC AmeriCorps members post-service is as being supplied by AmeriCorps and thus comes from a 

federal government funding source. For more information please reference this link: 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CNCS%20FY%202021%20Congressional%20Budget%20 

Justification%20w%20IG%20Message%20%28Final%29_508.pdf. 
25 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Limitations to Using WCC Outcomes Data from The Watershed Company (2015) 

Watershed Company’s 2015 evaluation of effectiveness of the WCC’s restoration efforts 

study the outcomes after the first year following the planting intervention, only covering 

one growing season. This affects ICF’s analysis of medium and long-term benefits 

resulting from the WCC’s restoration activities: 

• The study only reflects the results of the intervention after a single growing 

season, thus long-term impacts of the planting intervention are not captured. 

• Invasive noxious weed plant cover thresholds in the established performance 

standards are typically achieved through ongoing site maintenance, performed 

at least twice annually. WCC does not conduct ongoing site maintenance, 

introducing uncertainty about the impacts of restoration actions after the 

first year. 

Limitations on Available Data from WCC 

Regarding the data sources used, WCC does not closely track the land cover types 

(e.g., wetlands) on which they perform ecosystem treatments and improvements. WCC 

instead was able to provide rough estimates as percentages which were used in this 

ROI analysis. 

In addition, WCC does not collect data on WCC AmeriCorps members’ post-service 

outcomes related to employment, income, and post-secondary education completion. 

Given this, this analysis used the survey results for AmeriCorps State and National 

members broadly, provided in Friedman et al. (2016). Friedman et al. (2016) estimated 

the percent of AmeriCorps members that redeemed the education award and this 

analysis used this as a proxy for post-secondary education contributable to AmeriCorps. 

To estimate post-service employment rates and income, this analysis used data from 

the Current Population Survey’s Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement for 

March 2019, weighting metrics based on the demographics provided by WCC. 

Limitations on Using Ecosystem Service Values 

Additionally, there are limitations to using ecosystem service valuation including:53 

• The difficulty in examining the long-term value of biodiversity and ecosystem 

services 

• Valuation studies can struggle to recognize the inter-dependency among 

various ecosystem services 

• Ecosystem services are interrelated, and thus care must be taken when 

monetizing to avoid double counting ecosystem service benefits 

53 De Groot, R., B. Fisher, and M. Christie, 2010, “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, 

Ecological and Economic Foundations.” United Nations Environment Programme, Geneva, 

Switzerland. Retrieved from: http://www.teebweb.org/wpcontent/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Ecological%20and%20Economic%20Foundations/TEEB% 

20Ecological%20and%20Economic%20Foundations%20report/TEEB%20Foundations.pdf 
26 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

• Social and cultural criteria are constrained by methodological limitations 

Limitations to Valuing Trail Treatments and Improvements 

Lastly, WCC provided data on other services provided by the WCC AmeriCorps 

members. During the 2018–2019 program year, WCC AmeriCorps members completed 

the treatment of more than 600 miles of trail and improved more than 300 miles of 

trail.54 Unfortunately there is a lack of data on recreational use of public trails in 

Washington State. Further, there is a lack of data in the academic literature on the 

estimated value of trail maintenance and improvement and therefore they were not 

incorporated into this analysis. 

Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs), Program 

Costs, and ROI Results 

The ROI for the WCC program measures the net benefits of the program compared to 

its costs to determine the return to different stakeholders. This section provides ICF’s 

estimates of program benefits, forgone benefits (opportunity costs), program costs, and 

resulting ROI. 

Program Benefits 

Table 9 shows the estimates of monetized benefits of the WCC program by stakeholder 

group for each of the three scenarios. Under the short-term scenario, if using the low 

estimate for societal benefits from ecosystem services, WCC AmeriCorps members 

gain 78 percent of the expected benefits ($6,774,646 ÷ $8,707,530). Under the long-term 

scenario, if using the high estimate for societal benefits from ecosystem services, 

WCC AmeriCorps members gain 4 percent of the expected benefits ($20,277,157 ÷ 

$505,885,921). 

54 WCC (2021). op. cit. 
27 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forgone Category 

Professional Opportunity Cost 

Amount Across All Scenarios (2019$) 

Post-Tax Earnings for Members $4,095,201 

Federal Income and Social Security and Medicare Taxes $1,132,100 

State Income Taxes and Sales Taxes $487,655 

Total $5,714,957 

- - -

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Table 9. Program Benefits by Recipient 

Recipient 

Benefits by Scenario (2019$) 

Short term Medium term Long term 

AmeriCorps Members $6,774,646 $14,937,771 $20,277,157 

Society 

(via Ecosystem 

Services) 

Low $652,966 $8,028,917 $13,182,373 

Average $5,273,492 $64,843,249 $106,463,663 

High $23,746,737 $291,991,617 $479,409,924 

Federal Government $987,937 $3,178,886 $4,798,228 

State & Local Governments $291,981 $956,069 $1,400,612 

Low 

Total Average 

High 

$8,707,530 $27,101,642 $39,658,370 

$13,328,056 $83,915,974 $132,939,660 

$31,801,301 $311,064,342 $505,885,921 

Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs) 

Table 10 shows the breakdown of the forgone benefits from the professional opportunity 

cost to WCC AmeriCorps members and the government in net present 2019 dollars. It 

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

forgone to government—due to members serving in the WCC program for a service 

term instead of working. Of note, for the federal government benefits per federal dollar 

ROI calculation, only the forgone federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes 

will be subtracted from the total federal benefits that are realized due to the WCC 

program. 

Table 10. Forgone Benefits from Professional Opportunity Cost 

Table 11 lists the investment opportunity cost amounts incurred by each scenario and 

for when: 

a) Total WCC funds for the program year are invested in U.S. Treasury bonds and 

b) Only federal funding for the WCC program (both program and education 

award funding) are invested in these bonds. 

These opportunity costs are called the total investment opportunity cost and the 

federal investment opportunity cost, respectively. As mentioned earlier, accrued 
28 

 

 

- - -

Funding Stream 

Forgone Accrued Interest by Scenario (2019$) 

Short term Medium term Long term 

(0.6% interest rate 

and 1 year elapsed) 

(0.8% interest rate 

and 15 years elapsed) 

(1.0% interest rate 

 and 30 payments) 

Total WCC AmeriCorps 

Funding $87,754 $1,857,991 $5,094,520 

Federal WCC 

AmeriCorps Funding 

Only 

$25,191 $533,368 $1,462,469 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

interest in this analysis was calculated for two separate funding amounts. Table 11 also 

lists the 2018 real interest rates and the number of years (with two payments a year) that 

were used as inputs to calculate the accrued interest value for each scenario. 

Table 11. Forgone Benefits from Investment Opportunity Cost by Scenario and Funding 

Stream 

Program Costs 

Figure 5 shows the costs incurred by the WCC program by funding source, excluding 

any expected education awards to be redeemed. The total cost of the WCC program 

for the 2018–2019 program year was $13,170,346. The federal government funded 

21 percent of WCC program costs ($2,758,854), while various Washington State 

agencies funded 50 percent ($6,593,117) and a mix of private, local, and tribal 

government funding supplied the remaining 29 percent (or $3,818,375). WCC indicated 

that all non-AmeriCorps sources listed contributed funding to support the program, thus 

the other revenue received is equal to 87 percent of the total funding provided for this 

program year. 
29 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Figure 5. Cost by Funding Source for WCC Program, 2018–2019 Program Year 

$1,704,842 

13% 

$1,054,012 

8% 

$3,950,499 

30% 

$2,642,618 

20% 

$3,818,375 

29% 

AmeriCorps 

Other Federal 

State Funding 

State Interagency 

Agreements 

Private/Local/ Tribal 

Governments 

Figure 6 shows the cost of the WCC program by cost category. The total cost of the 

WCC program for the 2018–2019 program year was $14,603,749, which includes the 

program costs and the expected education awards to be redeemed by WCC 

AmeriCorps members. 

Figure 6. Cost by Expenditure Category for WCC Program, 2018–2019 Program Year 

$6,784,804 

47% 

$6,028,862 

41% 

$356,681 

2% $1,433,402 

10% Operating 

AmeriCorps volunteer expenses 

Other 

Expected Education Award 

Redeemed 
30 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

ROI Results 

Table 12 shows the benefits, forgone benefits (opportunity costs), and costs that are 

included in each of the three types of ROI calculations. 

Table 12. Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Costs Included in the ROI Calculations 

ROI Calculation Benefits Forgone Benefits Costs 

Total Benefits per All societal, WCC • Forgone benefits • AmeriCorps 

Federal Dollar AmeriCorps member, from total federal funding 

and government 

benefits derived from 

the program 

professional 

opportunity cost 

• Forgone benefits 

• Other NonAmeriCorps 

federal funding 

from Federal • Total professional 

investment opportunity cost 

opportunity cost • Federal 

investment 

opportunity cost 

Total Benefits per All societal, WCC • Forgone benefits • AmeriCorps 

Funder Dollar AmeriCorps member, from total federal funding 

and government 

benefits derived from 

the program 

professional 

opportunity cost 

• Forgone benefits 

• Other (including 

match) funding 

• Total professional 

from total opportunity cost 

investment 

opportunity cost • Total investment 

opportunity cost 

Federal Government Additional tax • Forgone benefits • AmeriCorps 

Benefits per Federal revenue generation from Federal federal funding 

Dollar and reduced 

spending attributable 

to the program 

professional 

opportunity cost 

• Forgone benefits 

• Other NonAmeriCorps 

federal funding 

from Federal • Federal 

investment professional 

opportunity cost opportunity cost 

• Federal 

investment 

opportunity cost 

This analysis developed three ROI estimates using the three scenarios (short-term, 

medium-term, and long-term). As noted above, the ROI calculations compare the net 

benefits of the WCC program with the program cost to calculate the ROI. Table 13 

shows the program gross benefits, forgone benefits, net benefits, and cost of the 

program, and each of the components, that are used to calculate the three ROIs. 
31 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - -

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Table 13. Program Benefits, Net Benefits, and Costs by ROI Scenario for WCC 

ROI Scenario (2019$) 

Benefits and Costs Short term Medium term Long term 

Total Gross Program Benefits 

Environmental Benefits to Society - Low $652,966 $8,028,917 $13,182,373 

Environmental Benefits to Society - Medium $5,273,492 $64,843,249 $106,463,663 

Environmental Benefits to Society - High $23,746,737 $291,991,617 $479,409,924 

Member Benefits $6,774,646 $14,937,771 $20,277,157 

Federal Government Benefits $987,937 $3,178,886 $4,798,228 

State/Local Government Benefits $291,981 $956,069 $1,400,612 

Total Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs) $5,802,711 $7,572,948 $10,809,477 

Forgone Benefits to Members (Forgone 

Earnings Post Taxes) $4,095,201 $4,095,201 $4,095,201 

Forgone Tax Revenue from Members 

Earnings $1,619,755 $1,619,755 $1,619,755 

Forgone Tax Revenue Federal Government $1,132,100 $1,132,100 $1,132,100 

Forgone Tax Revenue State/Local 

Government $487,655 $487,655 $487,655 

Forgone Benefits from total investment 

Interests/Returns (All Funders) $87,754 $1,857,991 $5,094,520 

Forgone Investment Benefits to Federal 

Government from Funding Provided $25,191 $533,368 $1,462,469 

Program Cost $14,603,748 $14,603,748 $14,603,748 

Federal Government Cost $4,192,256 $4,192,256 $4,192,256 

Non-Federal Government Cost $10,411,492 $10,411,492 $10,411,492 

Total Program Net Benefits (Total Program Gross Benefits – Total Forgone Benefits) 

Low $2,904,819 $19,528,694 $28,848,893 

Medium $7,525,346 $76,343,027 $122,130,184 

High $25,998,590 $303,491,394 $495,076,445 

ROI for Total Benefits per Federal Dollar (Total Net Benefits / Federal Government Cost) 

Low $0.69 $4.66 $6.88 

Medium $1.80 $18.21 $29.13 

High $6.20 $72.39 $118.09 
32 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - -

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

ROI Scenario (2019$) 

Benefits and Costs Short term Medium term Long term 

ROI for Total Benefits per Funder Dollar (Total Program Net Benefits / Total Program Cost) 

Low $0.20 $1.34 $1.98 

Medium $0.52 $5.23 $8.36 

High $1.78 $20.78 $33.90 

Federal Government Benefits per Federal 

Dollar* (Net Benefits Federal Government / 

Federal Government Cost) 

-$0.04 $0.36 $0.53 

Total Gross Program Benefits 

Environmental Benefits to Society - Low $652,966 $8,028,917 $13,182,373 

Environmental Benefits to Society - Medium $5,273,492 $64,843,249 $106,463,663 

Environmental Benefits to Society - High $23,746,737 $291,991,617 $479,409,924 

Member Benefits $6,774,646 $14,937,771 $20,277,157 

Federal Government Benefits $987,937 $3,178,886 $4,798,228 

State/Local Government Benefits $291,981 $956,069 $1,400,612 

Total Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs) $5,802,711 $7,572,948 $10,809,477 

Forgone Benefits to Members (Forgone 

Earnings Post Taxes) $4,095,201 $4,095,201 $4,095,201 

Forgone Tax Revenue from Members 

Earnings $1,619,755 $1,619,755 $1,619,755 

Forgone Tax Revenue Federal Government $1,132,100 $1,132,100 $1,132,100 

Forgone Tax Revenue State/Local 

Government $487,655 $487,655 $487,655 

Forgone Benefits from total investment 

Interests/Returns (All Funders) $87,754 $1,857,991 $5,094,520 

Forgone Investment Benefits to Federal 

Government from Funding Provided $25,191 $533,368 $1,462,469 

Program Cost $14,603,748 $14,603,748 $14,603,748 

Federal Government Cost $4,192,256 $4,192,256 $4,192,256 

Non-Federal Government Cost $10,411,492 $10,411,492 $10,411,492 

Total Program Net Benefits (Total Program Gross Benefits – Total Forgone Benefits) 

Low $2,904,819 $19,528,694 $28,848,893 

Medium $7,525,346 $76,343,027 $122,130,184 

High $25,998,590 $303,491,394 $495,076,445 
33 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - -

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

ROI Scenario (2019$) 

Benefits and Costs Short term Medium term Long term 

ROI for Total Benefits per Federal Dollar (Total Net Benefits / Federal Government Cost) 

Low $0.69 $4.66 $6.88 

Medium $1.80 $18.21 $29.13 

High $6.20 $72.39 $118.09 

ROI for Total Benefits per Funder Dollar (Total Program Net Benefits / Total Program Cost) 

Low $0.20 $1.34 $1.98 

Medium $0.52 $5.23 $8.36 

High $1.78 $20.78 $33.90 

Federal Government Benefits per Federal 

Dollar* (Net Benefits Federal Government / 

Federal Government Cost) 

-$0.04 $0.36 $0.53 

* Federal Government Benefits do not include societal benefits from ecosystem services in terms 

of their fiscal return, which is calculated in the ROI scenarios. 

Three different ROI results are calculated for each scenario. Since two of the 

calculations include benefits to society, the results are expressed as cost–benefit ratios, 

while maintaining the ROI terminology. Specifically, these ratios take the form of the 

sum of monetized net benefits over the sum of applicable program costs. The ROIs 

expressed as cost–benefit ratios in this study can be interpreted as the amount of dollars 

returned for every $1.00 of investment (or cost).55 See Appendix B for the formulas used 

to calculate each ROI calculation. 

Table 14 summarizes the ROI results for total benefits per Federal dollar across the 

short-term, medium-term, and long-term scenarios and across the low, average, and 

high ecosystem service value estimates. Under the short term scenario the ROI ranges 

from $0.69 for the low ecosystem service value estimate to $6.20 for the high ecosystem 

service value estimate. Under the medium-term scenario, total benefits per federal 

dollar invested yields $4.66 to $72.39, based on the ecosystem service value, while 

under the long-term scenario, it yields $6.88 to $118.09 for every dollar invested. 

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

the results, the ROIs in this study show the amount of return for every $1 invested. 
34 

 

ROI Calculation by Ecosystem Service Value Estimate - - -

ROI Scenario 

Short term Medium term Long term 

Low $0.69 $4.66 $6.88 

Average $1.80 $18.21 $29.13 

High $6.20 $72.39 $118.09 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - -

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Table 14. ROI Results: Total Benefits per Federal Dollar 

Table 15 summarizes the ROI results for total benefits per funder dollar across the 

short-term, medium-term, and long-term scenarios and across the low, average, and 

high ecosystem service value estimates. When all funding is considered the ROI under 

the low and average ecosystem service value estimate are below $1.00, indicating that 

costs outweigh the benefits in the first year after the program for those ecosystem 

service value estimates. Specifically, every $1 invested results in a return of $0.20 to all 

stakeholders under the short-term scenario considering low ecosystem service values to 

society and $0.52 considering average ecosystem service values to society. Under the 

medium and long-term scenarios for total benefits per funder dollar, WCC AmeriCorps 

produces strong ROI results ranging from $1.34 to $33.90 for every dollar of total 

program investment. 

Table 15. ROI Results: Total Benefits per Funder Dollar 

ROI Calculation by Ecosystem Service Value Estimate Short term 

ROI Scenario 

Medium term Long term 

Low $0.20 $1.34 $1.98 

Average $0.52 $5.23 $8.36 

High $1.78 $20.78 $33.90 

Table 16 summarizes the ROI results for Federal government benefits per federal dollar 

across the short-term, medium-term, and long-term scenarios. For this ROI the federal 

cost of the program outweigh the federal benefits across all ROI scenarios. It should be 

noted that ecosystem service values estimates are not factored into this ROI, since 

those benefits are to society and are not realized directly by the federal government; 

federal government benefits consist of only tax revenue gains and savings in 

expenditures. The ROI to federal government for the WCC program is largely 

dependent on the benefits to WCC AmeriCorps members in the form of improved 

employment and earnings outcomes. When considering the ROI to the federal 

government alone under the short-term scenario, for every $1 the federal government 

invests, the federal government loses its original $1 investment plus an additional $0.04. 

Given the medium-term scenario, the federal government alone receives $0.36 back in 

fiscal returns and savings for every dollar invested (or a loss of $0.64 directly to the 

federal government). Under the long-term scenario, the federal government alone 

receives $0.53 back in fiscal returns for every dollar invested. 
35 

 

 

- - -

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

A negative ROI or one that is below $1 in the first year post-program is common in 

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

following years. This is because it often requires several years of benefits to recoup the 

initial investment and generate positive returns. During their participation in the WCC 

program, AmeriCorps members gain the experience, skills, and knowledge that result in 

future benefits, such as improved employment and wages, which can be sustained 

throughout their working years. Another reason why the ROI calculations show losses in 

the short-term is because the forgone benefits in the first year (i.e., professional 

opportunity cost) to WCC AmeriCorps members is high given that more than 50 percent 

of members for the 2018–2019 program year had a bachelor’s degree pre-service. This 

augments the earnings they forgo due to serving in WCC AmeriCorps for one year. 

Additionally, as noted in the ROI methodology, lifetime benefits to members that stem 

from WCC AmeriCorps are not realized in the short-term scenario, contributing to the 

negative ROI in that scenario. 

Table 16. ROI Results: Federal Government Benefits per Federal Dollar 

Federal Government Benefits 

per Federal Dollar Short term 

ROI Scenario 

Medium term Long term 

ROI Calculation -$0.04 $0.36 $0.53 

Given the different assumptions of the three scenarios, the respective benefits across 

the majority of ROI calculations are larger than their associated costs. Regarding 

federal benefits, the federal government will not recoup their investments fiscally, even 

over the long term as the ROI is less than a dollar. The wide variation in ecosystem 

service valuation gives very different results, but even the most conservative estimates 

yield positive results for society in the medium- and long-term. Additionally, if the true 

value of benefits is closer to the average or high estimates of ecosystem service values, 

there could be enormous societal gains per dollar invested. The magnitude and 

direction of the ROI calculations are driven by several factors including: 

• The wide range of ecosystem service values by various land cover types. 

Table 3 presents a range of annual ecosystem service values for the relevant 

land cover types. As explained in the Ecosystem Service Valuation and ROI Study 

Limitations sections, there are limitations to using ecosystem service valuation 

related to challenges in estimating ecosystem service benefits, thus yielding a 

wide range of potential benefits. Benefit transfer uses value estimates of 

ecosystem services from existing studies and applies them to a new context. The 

range of values (i.e., low, average, and high) are based on the range of 

potential impacts, incorporating the lowest and highest estimates established 

and the average is calculated by averaging all values identified from the 

literature. 
36 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

• The employment outcomes of WCC AmeriCorps members. Evaluations have 

shown that serving in AmeriCorps fosters higher skill acquisition, increased 

educational attainment, and higher income from increased employment 

post-national service (Friedman et al., 2016; Markovitz et al., 2008; Spera et al., 

2013; Zeidenberg et al., 2016). According to Friedman et al. (2016), the 

percentage of AmeriCorps members unemployed was 5 percentage points 

lower six months after serving in AmeriCorps versus six months before. This gain in 

employment resulted in increased earnings and tax revenue. 

• The educational attainment outcomes of WCC AmeriCorps members. 

AmeriCorps State and National members receive education awards after serving 

with an AmeriCorps program. The award is used by a portion of members to help 

pay for post-secondary degrees post-service. The additional educational 

attainment resulting from the use of the education award generates additional 

lifetime earnings for WCC AmeriCorps members and additional tax revenue and 

savings for government. 

• Medium- and long-term accumulation of benefits. In the short-term, the three 

ROI calculations are less than 1 because only one year of post-program 

environmental benefits, employment, and earnings are factored in while the 

entire program cost is considered. Additionally, the short-term scenario does not 

include any lifetime benefits in terms of reduced spending on corrections, public 

assistance, and social insurance or increased tax revenue. As these benefits 

accumulate over time, the analysis shows positive returns. This is indicated by the 

ROI results in the medium- and long-term scenarios (15- and 30-years 

post-program, respectively). 

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

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

2) total benefits per funder dollar, AmeriCorps’s requirement of other leveraged funding 

also contributed to the magnitude of the ROI results. Federal government funding of the 

WCC program serves as a catalyst for private and other government funding. This 

additional combined private and non-AmeriCorps government funding—amounting to 

more than $10.4 million for WCC for the 2018–2019 program year—allowed the WCC 

program to enroll more individuals than otherwise would have been served under the 

federal funding alone, leading to greater total benefits realized. Though it may not 

impact the ROI, because it is a per unit metric, non-AmeriCorps funding leads to 

greater investment in the WCC program and thus to a greater impact as more 

individuals are served and increased benefits to society are produced. 
37 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Recommendations for Further Research 

Future ROI studies for national and community service programs, such as WCC, can be 

strengthened in several ways. 

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

WCC’s intervention for society and WCC AmeriCorps members. The Watershed 

Company (2015) did not measure the persistence of environmental impacts, such as 

reduced noxious weed coverage and increased native vegetation. Data on those 

long-term impacts would increase the rigor of ROI analysis of WCC and similar 

programs. Longitudinal research on medium- and long-term outcomes for WCC 

AmeriCorps members after service would clarify the extent to which AmeriCorps 

member benefits persist. Also studying individuals who applied to be AmeriCorps 

members but did not serve in AmeriCorps would provide a helpful point of comparison. 

Recommendation 2: Ensure sample sizes for program evaluations are adequate and 

random. AmeriCorps grantees are required to conduct evaluations for their programs. 

To ensure findings are statistically representative, grantees should identify what the 

appropriate sample size should be for their outcomes. This could be done by 

conducting a power analysis during the planning phase to determine the required 

sample size. WCC improved more than 1,500 acres during the 2018–2019 program year 

and across four different land cover types. Watershed Company (2015) did not take 

land cover type into consideration for their analysis, a key variable when considering 

ecosystem services. In order to consider land cover types, a larger sample size would be 

necessary to provide greater confidence that the outcomes can be attributed to the 

intervention itself rather than other confounding factors. Additional research on impacts 

by land cover type could increase the rigor of the ROI analysis. Overall, larger sample 

sizes in these studies can provide a smaller margin of error, identify outliers in the data, 

and otherwise measure program impacts more accurately. 

Recommendation 3: Monetize value of trail treatment and improvement.56 This benefit 

was not captured in this analysis. During the 2018–2019 program year, WCC AmeriCorps 

members completed the treatment of more than 600 miles of trail and improved more 

than 300 miles of trail. Unfortunately, there is a lack of data on recreational use of public 

trails in Washington State. Further, there is a lack of data in the academic literature on 

the estimated value of trail maintenance and improvement. Studies that address these 

gaps in available data would enable future studies to estimate the value of WCC’s trail 

treatment and improvement. 

56 To restate, “WCC defines ‘trails treated’ as all trail activities including short-term improvements to existing 

recreational infrastructure (trail clearance, surface repairs, debris removal) and new constructions, 

reroutes, or new infrastructure that enhances the sustainability of a trail (including puncheons, boardwalks, 

bridges, culverts, water bars and steps or stairs). WCC defines ‘trails improved’ as contributions to public 

access, safety, improved used of established, approved paths. WCC uses land manager assessments to 

verify quantitative and qualitative data with respect to this.” – WCC (2021). Op. cit. 
38 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Recommendation 4: Document outcomes and Impacts using third-party data sources. 

Using third-party data, along with or in place of self-reported data, can also improve 

the accuracy of program outcome measurements. While self-reported data are easier 

to obtain—especially via the use of survey instruments—it has several disadvantages. 

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

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

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

evaluation or to corroborate findings from self-reported data. For example, if 

employment and earnings outcomes are of interest, unemployment insurance (UI) 

data—which are submitted by employers—could be used to verify members’ wages or 

employment status, post-service. Additionally, if degree completion data are of interest, 

such as in the case of this ROI analysis, data from the National Student Clearinghouse 

(NSC) could be used to verify what proportion of WCC AmeriCorps members pursue 

higher education and which degrees are completed post-program with the help of the 

education award. Using degree or employment outcomes data, representative of 

actual WCC AmeriCorps members from third-party data sources (like NSC) would have 

increased the accuracy of this ROI analysis. 

Recommendation 5: Quantify ripple effects. Earnings impacts on WCC AmeriCorps 

members and societal impacts from their service likely have positive benefits for those 

individuals’ families and surrounding communities. Rigorous research on those potential 

ripple effects would enable AmeriCorps to capture a broader array of benefits of this 

and other programs, which would increase the resulting ROI. Specifically, the 

longitudinal impacts of WCC AmeriCorps members could be collected alongside the 

ripple effects their outcomes have on their families and communities to determine how 

long these indirect impacts are sustained after service. 

Conclusion 

Based upon the ROI findings, investment in the WCC program results in largely 

favorable impacts across a variety of stakeholder groups under the long-, medium-, 

and most short-term scenarios. Specifically, impacts are realized by WCC AmeriCorps 

members, various levels of government, and society in general. 

The ROI results indicate that under the high-range estimated short-term scenario and all 

medium- and long-term scenarios, benefits realized by society, WCC AmeriCorps 

members, and governments predominantly outweigh the investment made by funders 

(e.g., private funders as well as federal, state, and local governments). 

The combined return to WCC AmeriCorps members, governments, and society per 

federal dollar ranges from $0.69 to $6.20 under the short-term scenario; $4.66 to $72.39 

under the medium-term scenario, and $6.88 to $118.09 under the long-term scenario. 

Considering all funding (from the various levels of government and other funders), the 

ROI across all stakeholder groups ranges from $0.20 to $1.78 under the short-term 

scenario; $1.34 to $20.78 under the medium-term scenario, and $1.98 to $33.90 under 

the long-term scenario. 
39 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Lastly, when considering the ROI to the federal government alone under the short-term 

scenario, for every $1 the federal government invests, the federal government loses its 

original $1 investment plus an additional $0.04. Given the medium-term scenario, the 

federal government alone receives $0.36 back in fiscal returns and savings for every 

dollar invested (or a loss of $0.64 directly to the federal government). Under the 

long-term scenario, the federal government alone receives $0.53 back in fiscal returns 

for every dollar invested. 
40 

 

 

Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Cost 

Total Benefits 

per Federal 

Dollar 

Total Benefits 

per Funder 

Dollar 

Federal Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar 

Program Benefits 

Stakeholder 

Group 

Data Sources X indicates inclusion in the ROI numerator 

Increased ecosystem service 

valuation per acre of 

enhanced and restored 

wetlands and riparian corridors 

Host Sites 

• ESSRTI (2021) 

• The Watershed 

Company (2015) 

X X — 

Increased earnings of national 

service members due to 

increased employment and 

education of AmeriCorps 

members 

AmeriCorps 

Member 

• WCC (2021) 

• Friedman et al. (2016) 

• U.S. Census Bureau, 

(n.d.) 

• BLS (2020) 

• BLS (2021) 

X X — 

Increased federal and state 

income tax revenue due to 

increased earnings of 

AmeriCorps members 

Federal and 

state 

governments 

• WCC (2021) 

• Friedman et al. (2016) 

• U.S. Census Bureau, 

(n.d.) 

• BLS (2021) 

• Tax rate data on 

Bankrate.com and 

Taxfoundation.org 

(2020) 

X X X 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

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

Return-on-Investment Calculations 

In Table 17, the three rightmost columns indicate by an “X” if the benefit is included in the numerator of a return on 

investment (ROI) calculation. 

Table 17. Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Costs Included in the WCC ROI Calculation 
41 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Cost 

Total Benefits 

per Federal 

Dollar 

Total Benefits 

per Funder 

Dollar 

Federal Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar 

Increased Social Security and 

Medicare tax revenue due to 

increased earnings of 

AmeriCorps members 

Federal 

government 

• WCC (2021) 

• Friedman et al. (2016) 

• U.S. Census Bureau, 

(n.d.) 

• BLS (2021) 

• Social Security 

Administration (2020) 

X X X 

Increased sales tax revenue 

due to increased earnings of 

AmeriCorps members 

State and 

local 

governments 

• WCC (2021) 

• Friedman et al. (2016) 

• BLS (2020) 

• BLS (2021) 

• U.S. Census Bureau, 

(n.d.) 

• U.S. Census Bureau, 

(2019) 

• Tax rate data on 

Taxfoundation.org 

(2020) 

X X — 

AmeriCorps member post-tax 

living allowances and 

education awards 

AmeriCorps 

Member WCC (2021) X X — 

Reduced spending on lifetime 

public assistance, corrections, 

and social insurance due to 

increased educational 

attainment of AmeriCorps 

members 

Federal, 

state, and 

local 

governments 

• Trostel (2015) 

• Zeidenberg et al. 

(2016) 

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2019) 

X X X 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 
42 

 

Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Cost 

Total Benefits 

per Federal 

Dollar 

Total Benefits 

per Funder 

Dollar 

Federal Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar 

Forgone Benefits 

(Opportunity Costs)* 

Stakeholder 

Group 

Data Sources X indicates inclusion in the ROI numerator 

Opportunity Costs of forgone 

market wages for AmeriCorps 

members 

AmeriCorps 

Member 

• WCC (2021) 

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2019) 

• BLS (2020) 

X X — 

Opportunity Costs of federal 

taxes on forgone market wages 

for AmeriCorps members (e.g., 

federal income and social 

Federal 

government 

• WCC (2021) 

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2019) 

• BLS (2020) 

• BLS (2021) 

• Tax rate data on 

Bankrate.com and 

— — X 

security taxes) Taxfoundation.org 

(2020) 

• Social Security 

Administration (2020) 

Opportunity Costs of state and 

local taxes on forgone market 

wages for AmeriCorps 

members (e.g., state income 

and state/local sales taxes) 

State and 

local 

government 

• WCC (2021) 

• BLS (2020) 

• BLS (2021) 

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(n.d.) 

• U.S. Census Bureau 

(2019) 

• Tax rate data on 

Taxfoundation.org 

(2020) 

X X — 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 
43 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits, and Program Cost 

Total Benefits 

per Federal 

Dollar 

Total Benefits 

per Funder 

Dollar 

Federal Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar 

Opportunity Cost of Forgone 

Benefits from total investment 

Interests/Returns (All Funders) 

Federal 

Government 

State and 

Local 

Government 

Nongovernment 

funders 

• CAPC 

• Office of 

Management and 

Budget (OMB) (2020) 

• U.S. Department of 

Treasury X X — 

Opportunity Cost from Forgone 

Investment Benefits to Federal 

Government from Funding 

Provided 

Federal 

Government 

• CAPC 

• Office of 

Management and 

Budget (OMB) (2020) 

• U.S. Department of 

Treasury 

— — X 

Program Cost Stakeholder 

Group Data Sources X indicates inclusion in the ROI numerator 

Federal Government Funding Federal 

Government 

WCC (2021) X X X 

State and local government 

funding 

State and 

local 

government 

WCC (2021) — X — 

Other non-government costs 

Nongovernment 

funders 

WCC (2021) — X — 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

* Opportunity costs are amounts that are reduced from total benefits realized across ROI calculations. Thus, they represent a negative value in the 

numerator. Please see the Calculating ROI section of Appendix B for further details. 
44 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Appendix B: Additional Information on the Methodology 

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

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

to calculate the return on investment (ROI), the results of interim calculations that 

contribute to the ROI calculations, and assumptions that underlie the analysis. 

Methodology Overview 

Calculating the ROI for the Washington Conservation Corps (WCC) included the 

following steps: 

• Measuring and monetizing program benefits to WCC AmeriCorps members, the 

different levels of government, and society 

• Estimating Forgone Benefits (opportunity costs) 

• Assessing program costs 

• Calculating the ROI 

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

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

Although WCC AmeriCorps members experience positive benefits from the WCC 

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

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

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

developed for this ROI study: 

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

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

also assumes no lifetime benefits are realized. 

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

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

applied each year to represent net present value in 2019 dollars.57 This scenario 

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

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

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

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

present value in 2019 dollars. This scenario also assumes the entire net present 

value of lifetime benefits is realized. 

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

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

discount rate, see Office of Management and Budget (2003). 
45 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

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

increased employment—and earnings associated with that employment—are 

sustained. The other is what portion of lifetime benefits, when applicable, are realized.58 

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

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

Measuring Program Benefits 

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

the program benefits. As a result of the WCC program, improved ecosystem services 

benefit society at large and WCC AmeriCorps members and various levels of 

government also benefit. These benefits were identified through an extensive literature 

review and data collection process. The methods used to measure benefits for each of 

these stakeholder groups are described below. 

Benefits to Society from Ecosystem Service Improvements 

Ecosystem Service Valuation 

The objective of this analysis was to estimate the economic value for the marginal 

improvement in ecosystem services resulting from the WCC weeding and planting 

intervention. Both market and non-market values are included, provided by the 

land cover types on which the WCC interventions occurred during the 2018–2019 

program year. 

Ecosystems are dynamic environments housing plants, animals, microorganisms, and 

the nonliving interacting as a single unit. Services rendered naturally by an ecosystem 

can benefit humans who ultimately value these services. Some ecosystem service 

values are directly tied to market activity, such as extractive activities (e.g., timber 

production, mining, food, etc.). Other values may be indirectly, or not at all, tied to 

market activity. Values of goods and services that fall outside of market activity are 

called non-market values.59 

Values attributed to ecosystem services can be described as use or non-use values. Use 

values, provide economic value through direct use by humans. Some direct uses of 

ecosystem services involve human consumption, such as harvesting timber and other 

forest products, food, and fuel. Other direct uses, such as viewing wildlife, hiking, and 

enjoying scenic vistas, do not involve any actual consumption. Human beings also can 

use ecosystem services indirectly. For example, when people directly use plants and 

animals, consumptively or non-consumptively, they indirectly use the habitats of those 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

realized for the short-term scenario. 

59 De Groot et al. op. cit. 
46 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

plants and animals. Other examples of indirect use include regulation of water flow, 

waste assimilation, and climate regulation (i.e., carbon storage and sequestration).60 

Ecosystem services are commonly divided into four distinct groups:61 

• Provisioning services provide products that are used directly by people, such as 

food, water, and raw materials 

• Regulating services are outputs from the normal functioning of ecosystems that 

benefit people in direct ways, such as the regulation of climate, air and drinking 

water quality, soil formation and retention, moderation of extreme events, and 

biological control 

• Habitat and supporting services are processes that are necessary for the 

production of other ecosystem services, such as habitat for plants and animals, 

conservation of genetic diversity, and cycling of nutrients 

• Cultural services provide benefits to people through meaningful interactions with 

nature, such as aesthetic enjoyment, recreation, spiritual enrichment, and 

cognitive development 

ESSRTI (2021)’s applied an “ecosystem services framework” to determine which 

ecosystem services are commonly identified with land cover types. The first step of the 

framework was understanding the physical landscape’s ecosystem functions by land 

cover type. The ecosystem functions are assessed for their capacity to generate 

ecosystem services, and finally, ecosystem service values indicate the societal impacts 

and outcomes associated with human well-being. Figure 7 illustrates the process 

associated with the ecosystem services framework. 

Figure 7. Ecosystem Services Framework 

Physical 

landscape 

Ecosystem 

functions 

Ecosystem 

services 

Effects on 

human 

well-being 

ESSRTI (2021) conducted an extensive literature review for values for land cover types 

and ecosystem services and then used benefit transfer methods to adapt the values to 

their project site in the Eastern Sierra in California. 

Benefit transfer uses value estimates of ecosystem services from existing studies and 

applies them to a new context. Two approaches to conducting benefit transfers are 

benefit value transfer and benefit function transfer. Benefit value transfer takes point 

estimates, or values, from the primary source and applies them to the new project site, 

assuming the new project site is similar to the primary study site. Benefit function transfer 

60 De Groot et al. op. cit. 

61 De Groot et al. op. cit. 
47 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

takes the function used to estimate benefits in the original study and applying the 

function to the new project site. Independent variables in the function are updated 

with values that reflect the characteristics of the new project site. Benefit function 

transfer is preferred over benefit value transfer as it allows for the original values to be 

adapted to a greater degree than is possible with benefit value transfer. Despite these 

advantages, the data are not always available to conduct benefit function transfers. 

Table 3, presented in the section on Monetizing Program Benefits, Forgone Benefits 

(Opportunity Costs), and Program Costs, shows the range of annual ecosystem service 

values for select and applicable land cover types estimated by ESSRTI (2021). As 

described above, ESSRTI (2021) used both benefit function transfer and benefit value 

transfer from the literature to estimate a range of annual ecosystem service values by 

land cover type. The range of values (i.e., low, average, and high) are based on the 

range of potential impacts, incorporating the lowest and highest estimates established 

and the average is calculated by averaging all values identified from the literature. 

ESSRTI (2021) expects the range to be similar to other ecosystem service analyses 

applying benefit transfer. The range of per-acre values for each land cover type 

reflects variations in the estimated values found in the literature .62 

As the Eastern Sierras of California are relatively close to Washington State and the 

ESSRTI (2021) was recently published, the range of values are similarly used applying 

benefit value transfer to the WCC program’s improved acreage. Additionally, ESSRTI 

(2021) was developed in partnership with the State of Washington Office of 

Sustainability and Climate. 

Apply Ecosystem Service Valuation to WCC’s Improved Acreage 

This analysis used the benefit value transfer method to apply low, average, and high 

ecosystem service values from ESSRTI (2021) to the land cover types improved by WCC. 

The analysis specifically applied: 

• ESSRTI (2021) values for wetlands to the 60 percent of acreage identified by WCC 

as “riparian/wetland” 

• Averaged ESSRTI (2021) values for coniferous, deciduous, grassland, and 

shrubland land cover types to the 20 percent of acreage identified by WCC as 

“forested mountains”63 

• ESSRTI (2021) values for coniferous forest to the 10 percent of acreage identified 

by WCC as “marine forests”64 

62 ESSRTI states in regard to the use of a range, “We carried this structure through the analysis to emphasize 

the range of values that ecosystem services provide. The range provided by this analysis is an expected 

outcome and similar to other analyses of this type.” ESSRTI (2021) p. 31. 

63 EPA. 2000. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommendations. Rivers and Streams in Nutrient Ecoregion II. 

Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/rivers2.pdf 

64 Perakis, Geiser, and Lilleskov. Chapter 9: Marine West Coast Forests. GTR-NRS-80. Retrieved from: 

https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr-nrs-80chapters/9-perakis.pdf 
48 

 

Land Cover Type Low Average High 

Riparian/Wetland $2,646 $49,493 $252,252 

Forested Mountains $7,697 $18,150 $35,151 

Marine Forests $8,922 $20,926 $42,482 

Other $6,687 $24,419 $78,571 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

• Averaged ESSRTI (2021) values for coniferous, deciduous, grassland, shrub land, 

and wetland land cover types to the 10 percent of acreage identified by WCC 

as “other” 

The results of applying the above numbers and values are presented in Table 18. 

Table 18. Imputed Annual Ecosystem Service Values per Acre by Land Cover Type 

(2019$) 

Table 19 presents the added annual value to society from the total acres improved 

by WCC during the 2018–2019 program year. The results in Table 19 include the low, 

average, and high per acre values in Table 3 and multiplies them by the 

1,514 “improved” acres across the 60 percent riparian/wetland, 20 percent forested 

mountains, 10 percent marine forests, and 10 percent other land cover types provided 

by WCC. 

Lastly, this analysis multiplied the values by the 9.2 percent increase in native tree and 

shrub coverage as a result of the WCC planting intervention (Figure 1). The results of the 

Watershed Company (2015) indicate that compared to the reference sites, restoration 

sites increased native coverage by 9.2 percent and reduced noxious weed coverage 

by 14.2 percent one year after WCC’s planting intervention. The study states that they 

expect native vegetation coverage to continue to increase as planted vegetation 

grows. Similarly, invasive coverage is expected to continue to decrease as native 

vegetation becomes established. Thus, the findings indicate that the restorative benefit 

of WCC’s intervention is a 9.2 percent increase in native coverage. This statistically 

significant marginal improvement in the local ecosystem is applied to the annual 

ecosystem service values to estimate the value of that marginal improvement. For 

example, the low range estimate for riparian/wetland ecosystem services (Table 18) is 

$2,646. That $2,646 multiplied by 60 percent of 1,514 improved acres is $2.4 million. 

9.2 percent of $2.4 million ($221,146 in Table 19) is the improvement in ecosystem 

services attributable to the WCC intervention due to improved riparian/wetland acres 

during the 2018–2019 program year. 
49 

 

Land Cover Type Percent Low Average High 

Riparian/Wetland 60 $221,146 $4,136,272 $21,081,375 

Forested Mountains 20 $214,412 $505,618 $979,232 

Marine Forests 10 $124,271 $291,479 $591,725 

Other 10 $93,136 $340,123 $1,094,405 

Total 100 $652,966 $5,273,492 $23,746,737 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - -

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Table 19. Annual Ecosystem Service Value of WCC's 2018–2019 Program Year’s 

Improved Land by Type (2019$) 

Additionally, the annual values are discounted and summed to create the short-, 

medium-, and long-term scenario values, presented in Table 20. The long-term scenario 

assumes sustained impacts of 30 years, discounted at a 3 percent rate each year to 

represent net present value in 2019 dollars. The medium-term scenario assumes 

sustained impacts of 15 years, discounted at a 3 percent rate each year to represent 

net present value in 2019 dollars. The short-term scenario only reflects the year after the 

2018–2019 program year in which ecosystem services are rendered. 

Table 20. Total Value of Ecosystem Services to Society (2019$) 

Value of Ecosystem Service Short term Medium term Long term 

Low $652,966 $8,028,917 $13,182,373 

Average $5,273,492 $64,843,249 $106,463,663 

High $23,746,737 $291,991,617 $479,409,924 

Benefits to WCC AmeriCorps Members 

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

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

following benefits: 

• living allowance and education award 

• increased earnings due to reduced unemployment 

• increased lifetime earnings due to increased post-secondary education derived 

from the use of education awards. 
50 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benefit Post -Tax Value (2019$) Notes 

Living Allowance (net) $5,107,477 

Post-tax living allowances 

members receive during 

service 

Education Award (net) Used 

to Pay Off Student Loans $485,873 

Post-tax education award 

amount used to pay off 

outstanding student loans 

Total $5,593,350 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Living Allowances and Education Awards 

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

to pay for various living expenses, such as housing and groceries. Regarding education 

awards, according to Friedman et al. (2016), a significant portion (i.e., 46 percent) of 

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

post-secondary education at colleges, graduate schools, and technical/vocational 

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

The remaining 21 percent do not use their education awards. 

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

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

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

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

pursue further post-secondary education is used in calculating members’ additional 

lifetime earnings due to the increased educational attainment they experience 

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

This analysis included the post-tax values of the living allowance and the portion of the 

education award used to repay student loans as WCC AmeriCorps member benefits 

(Table 21). The portion of the education award used to fund additional post-secondary 

education is discussed in the following section. 

Table 21. WCC AmeriCorps Member Benefits from the Living Allowance and Education 

Award 

Sources: WCC (2021), Friedman et al. (2016) 
51 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Increased Lifetime Earnings due to Increased Post-secondary Education Derived from 

the Use of Education Awards 

The AmeriCorps education award pays for 

some portion of members’ increased postsecondary educational attainment, and the 

future earnings derived from that educational 

attainment is treated as a direct benefit to 

WCC AmeriCorps members. To calculate the 

portion of members’ increased educational 

attainment that is attributable to the WCC 

program, cost data from the National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES, 2019a & NCES, 

2019b) were used. Table 22 details the 

average total cost for each degree type 

(NCES, 2019a & NCES, 2019b), and the portion 

of the cost that the post-tax education award 

amount (i.e., $4,857 represents $6,12065 before 

taxes). These percentages were used to 

estimate the lifetime benefits of postsecondary educational attainment that can 

be attributed to the education award. For 

instance, according to NCES (2019a), the 

average annual cost of a public, in-state, 

four-year academic institution during the 

2018-2019 academic year was $24,869. This 

amounts to over $100,000 for four years if 

expressed in 2019 dollars. The $4,857 post-tax 

education award only represents 5 percent of 

the cost of that degree, so the WCC program, 

accordingly, could only be credited with 5 percent of the completion of WCC 

AmeriCorps members’ bachelor’s degree post-service. 

For additional earnings derived 

from WCC AmeriCorps members’ 

reduced unemployment, they 

were calculated annually and 

then discounted based on the 

short-term, medium-term, and 

long-term scenarios in net present 

2019 dollars. 

For additional earnings derived 

from WCC AmeriCorps members’ 

increased post-secondary 

educational attainment—due to 

using education awards—Trostel 

(2015) did not provide data on 

how earnings accrue over time. 

Therefore, this analysis treated the 

increases in earnings as lifetime 

values expressed in 2019 dollars. 

The analysis assumed 100 percent 

of those lifetime earnings accrued 

by year 30 (i.e., in the long-term 

scenario), 50 percent accrued by 

year 15 (i.e., in the medium-term 

scenario), and nothing accrued 

one year post-program (i.e., in the 

short-term scenario). 

65 This analysis used the 2020 to 2021 AmeriCorps education award amount ($6,345) but discounts it to net 

present 2019 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. For more information about this education award, 

please see https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorps-education-award/find-out-more 
52 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Table 22. Average Total Cost of Education and Portion with Using the Education Award 

by Degree Type 

Degree Type66 Average Cost (2019$) 

Percent of Degree Tuition Covered 

by Post tax Education Award (%) 

Some College $30,824 15.8% 

Bachelor’s Degree $101,948 4.8% 

Graduate Degree $24,342 20.0% 

Source: NCES (2019a), NCES (2019b), WCC (2021) 

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

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

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

post-secondary degrees estimated to be completed by degree type. The 297 FTE WCC 

AmeriCorps members who served during the 2018–2019 program year were distributed 

by the education award use findings listed in Friedman et al. (2016) across the degree 

types. Specifically, Friedman et al. (2016) indicates 46 percent of AmeriCorps State and 

National member alumni used their education award to pursue post-secondary 

degrees after program completion, making the number of FTE WCC AmeriCorps 

members expected to use the education award to pursue additional post-secondary 

education 136 members. Friedman et al. (2016) indicates that this 46 percent is 

comprised of 21 percent using the education award to obtain a bachelor’s degree, 

23 percent using it for graduate school, and 2 percent using it to attend a technical or 

vocational training program. This results in the number of FTE WCC AmeriCorps 

members estimated to pursue some college, a bachelor’s degree, and a graduate 

degree post-service as 6, 62, and 68, respectively, due to using the education award as 

shown in Table 23. 

Next, the difference in the additional lifetime pre-tax earnings from one degree type to 

the subsequent degree type is estimated using data provided by Trostel (2015), which is 

shown in the fifth column of Table 23 and expressed in 2019 dollars. For instance, using 

Trostel (2015) data, the lifetime earnings in 2019 dollars of someone with “some college” 

is about $780,000, while that of someone with a bachelor’s degree is over $1.3 million. 

The difference between these two metrics (roughly $525,000 as shown in Table 23) 

represents the additional lifetime earnings realized as a result of gaining a bachelor’s 

degree if some college was already completed. This process was completed for all 

post-secondary degree types to conservatively estimate the additional lifetime earnings 

realized by WCC AmeriCorps members due to an increase in educational attainment. 

66 Costs for some college include tuition and required fees as well as books and supplies for a public, instate, two-year program; costs for a bachelor’s degree include tuition, required fees, books, supplies, and 

on-campus housing; costs for a graduate degree includes tuition and required fees for a public, two-year 

graduate program. 
53 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Specifically, the lifetime taxes paid amounts were subtracted from the pre-tax 

additional lifetime earnings amounts to estimate the additional net lifetime earnings, a 

direct benefit to WCC AmeriCorps members. 

To isolate the increase in post-secondary educational attainment specific to members 

using the education award, the number of WCC AmeriCorps members who used the 

education award for this purpose by degree type is reduced by the percent of the 

degree cost that can be covered by the $3,942 post-tax education award received 

post-service, displayed in the fourth column of Table 23. Then, this amount is applied to 

the 2019 additional lifetime earnings by degree type to calculate the additional lifetime 

earnings realized by AmeriCorps members from their increase in post-secondary 

educational attainment that is credited to the use of the education award post-service. 

The additional lifetime earnings amount is roughly $8 million across the FTE WCC 

AmeriCorps members. Of note, these lifetime earnings are in addition to the earnings 

derived from WCC AmeriCorps members’ gains in employment as delineated in the 

subsequent section. To reiterate, the earnings from WCC AmeriCorps members’ 

reduced unemployment differs depending on the scenario (i.e., short-term, mediumterm, and long-term) since it is uncertain how long these earnings will persist. For the net 

lifetime earnings—and all lifetime benefits in this ROI analysis—the entire amount is 

realized in the long-term, half of it is realized in the medium-term, and no amount is 

realized in the short-term. 
54 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - - -

=

— — 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Table 23. Additional Earnings from AmeriCorps Members’ Use of the Education Award 

Degree Type 

Percent of WCC 

AmeriCorps Members 

Expected to Pursue 

Post secondary 

Education 

[A] 

FTE WCC 

AmeriCorps 

Members 

[B] 

Percent of 

Degree Tuition 

Covered by 

Education 

Award (%) 

[C] 

Additional 

Lifetime 

Earnings of 

the Degree 

(pre tax) 

(2019$) 

[D] 

Additional 

Lifetime Earnings 

from Education 

Award (pre tax) 

(2019$) 

[E] [B] x [C] x [D] 

Additional 

Lifetime 

Earnings from 

Education 

Award (post 

tax) (2019$)** 

[F] 

Expected to Not Use 

Award for Postsecondary Education 

54% 160 NA NA NA NA 

Some College* 2% 6 15.8% $170,286 $159,106 $80,942 

Bachelor’s Degree 21% 62 4.8% $526,201 $1,560,846 $841,870 

Graduate Degree 23% 68 20.0% $467,083 $6,355,266 $3,952,341 

Total 100% 297 $8,075,218 $4,875,153 

* Note: WCC’s provided data reflected that none of their current members had an associate degree. So to best reflect their education composition, 

only “Some College” was used in this analysis, reflecting the assumption of 2-years of college. 

** Note: Lifetime taxes derived from Trostel (2015). 

Sources: WCC (2021), Friedman et al. (2016), NCES (2019a & 2019b), Trostel (2015) 
55 

 

 

 

0 20 40 60 80 100 

Percent of AmeriCorps Alumni 

Currently 

Six Months After AmeriCorps 

Six Months Before AmeriCorps 

Seeking work, providing caregiving, 

or occupied outside of the workforce 

17 

12 

12 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Increased Earnings due to Reduced Unemployment 

According to Friedman et al. (2016), the percentage of AmeriCorps members 

unemployed was 5 percentage points lower six months after serving in AmeriCorps 

compared to six months before. The study did not provide actual employment rates for 

AmeriCorps members pre- and post-service, but instead provided the unemployment 

rates shown in Figure 8 (17 percent vs. 12 percent) in which the change between 

represents a 5 percentage-point decrease. 

Figure 8. Unemployment Status Results from Friedman et al. (2016)67 

Source: Friedman et al. (2016) 

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

earned. To monetize this 5 percentage-point decrease in unemployment, ICF 

requested that WCC provide the gender, age, pre-service educational attainment, 

and race/ethnicity distribution of AmeriCorps members who served in the WCC 

program for the 2018–2019 program year. Based on those demographics, the analysis 

used annual average earnings data from the Current Population Survey’s Annual Social 

and Economic (ASEC) Supplement for March 2019 to estimate WCC AmeriCorps 

members’ additional earnings due to the reduced unemployment. 

Specifically, the analysis used ASEC data to calculate the per-person average pre-tax 

annual earnings for 18- to 34-year-olds weighted by the demographic distribution of 

WCC AmeriCorps members that served during the 2018–2019 program. This value was 

$41,151 as shown in Table 24. To estimate the additional pre-tax earnings that stemmed 

from the reduced unemployment, the $41,151 annual earnings amount was multiplied 

by 5 percent. The product represents the per-person expected increase in pre-tax 

earnings solely derived from the post-service employment gain and thus attributable to 

the WCC program. The analysis then multiplied this additional earnings amount by the 

number of WCC AmeriCorps FTEs that served during the most recent program year. 

67 “Currently” refers to the summer 2016 survey. Respondents were from the 2005, 2010, and 2013 

AmeriCorps cohorts, so respondents varied in how much time had elapsed since their AmeriCorps service. 
56 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Metric 

Value 

(2019$) 

Average Per-Person Pre-tax Annual Earnings of Employed 18 to 34-year-olds 

Weighted by WCC AmeriCorps Member Demographics (e.g., gender, 

race/ethnicity, and education level) 

$41,151 

Reduction in AmeriCorps Members’ Unemployment 5% 

Total Expected Per-Person Increase in Pre-tax Earnings $2,058 

WCC AmeriCorps Members FTEs 297 

Pre-Tax Annual Expected Increase in Earnings for All WCC AmeriCorps Members* $610,069* 

Post-Tax Annual Expected Increase in Earnings for All WCC AmeriCorps Members $495,047 

 

 

 

 

 

-

Scenario 

Cumulative Additional Post tax Earnings 

due to Serving in the WCC Program (2019$)* 

Short-term $480,629 

Medium-term $4,766,282 

Long-term $6,118,590 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

This represents the additional income earned by WCC AmeriCorps members due to 

their national service. 

Table 24. Additional Per-Person Pre-tax Earnings for WCC AmeriCorps Members from 

Reduced Unemployment Based on WCC AmeriCorps Member Demographics 

Sources: WCC (2021), Friedman et al. (2016), ASEC (2019) 

* This value is undiscounted, thus the values do to sum in the table. 

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

direct benefit to WCC AmeriCorps members, rather than the increase in pre-tax 

earnings. The post-tax annual increase in earnings in Table 24 excludes payroll taxes 

(e.g., federal and state income, Social Security, and Medicare). The payroll tax rates 

used are described in more detail in the Benefits to Government section. 

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

AmeriCorps members for the three different scenarios—discounted to 2019 dollars using 

3 percent (OMB, 2003)—are shown in Table 25. These post-tax monetary amounts 

represent the additional post-tax earnings realized due to the employment gain that is 

solely attributed to the WCC program. 

Table 25. Cumulative Additional Post-Tax Earnings Derived from Reduced 

Unemployment due to Serving in the WCC Program by Scenario 

Sources: ASEC (2019), WCC (2021), Friedman et al. (2016) 

* These values are discounted 
57 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Benefits to Government 

State and Local Government 

State and local government benefits from WCC are realized from: 

• Additional state income tax revenue from WCC AmeriCorps members’ 

increased earnings due to reduced unemployment 

• Additional lifetime state and local taxes due to WCC AmeriCorps members’ 

increased post-secondary educational attainment68 

• Additional state and local taxes from the living allowance and education award 

received by these members, where applicable 

• Additional state and local sales tax revenue from WCC AmeriCorps members’ 

increased consumption due to reduced unemployment 

• Reduced lifetime spending on social insurance and corrections69 due to WCC 

AmeriCorps members’ increased post-secondary educational attainment 

State Income Tax Revenue: To measure 

income tax revenue generation that 

stems from reduced unemployment for 

state governments (any local income 

taxes are not included), the additional 

pre-tax earnings of WCC AmeriCorps 

members that are solely attributed to 

the WCC program are taxed by a 

weighted, estimated proportional state 

income tax rate. This tax rate considers 

state-specific progressive tax brackets 

and standard deduction amounts. 

Based on the taxable income, the 

analysis estimated the proportional 

state income tax as the amount of state 

income taxes paid per AmeriCorps 

member divided by their pre-tax 

earnings. This analysis then calculated 

the weighted average of these statespecific tax rates—using these states’ 

population from the 5-year estimates of 

the 2019 American Community Survey— 

For additional tax revenue derived from 

WCC AmeriCorps members’ reduced 

unemployment, living allowances, and 

education awards, they were calculated 

using tax rates specific to each perperson monetary amount. 

For additional tax revenue derived from 

WCC AmeriCorps members’ increased 

post-secondary educational 

attainment—due to using education 

awards—Trostel (2015) did not provide 

specific tax rates. Therefore, this analysis 

treated the increases in tax revenue as 

lifetime values expressed in 2019 dollars. 

The analysis assumed 100 percent of 

those lifetime tax revenues accrued by 

year 30 (i.e., in the long-term scenario), 

50 percent accrued by year 15 (i.e., in 

the medium-term scenario), and nothing 

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

the short-term scenario). 

68 This benefit was calculated using lifetime tax revenue data from Trostel (2015). These values summed 

lifetime state income taxes, lifetime property taxes, and lifetime sales taxes by education level. 

69 Reduced spending on public assistance due to members’ increased post-secondary educational 

attainment is included as a federal government benefit, not a state and local government benefit. This is 

because public assistance includes programs funded at the federal-level (e.g., TANF, etc.). 
58 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

to estimate a weighted tax rate. While there is not a state income tax in Washington 

State, an estimated weighted tax rate for states, nationwide, was leveraged for taxes 

on post-service earnings that stemmed from the reduction in employment because 

WCC AmeriCorps members may disperse to various locations following their service 

terms and continue to migrate over the course of their working years. 

Lifetime state income tax revenue is also provided by Trostel (2015) by education level. 

Based on the number of post-secondary degrees estimated to be obtained due to the 

use of the education award received after serving in the WCC program, additional 

lifetime state income taxes are realized. Thus, the additional lifetime state income taxes 

paid values—informed by data from Trostel (2015)—were converted to 2019 dollars and 

then multiplied by the inferred number of degrees obtained due to the education 

award, calculated in Table 21. 

State governments also receive state income taxes from the education awards WCC 

AmeriCorps members receive post-service. The analysis estimated the pre-tax 

education award amount in 2019 dollars (i.e., $6,120).70 Then the analysis multiplied it by 

the number of FTE WCC AmeriCorps members (i.e., 297) and by the percentage of 

AmeriCorps State and National member alumni expected to redeem the award and 

use it to pursue post-secondary education or to repay outstanding student loans 

(i.e., 79 percent).71 The resulting product represents the pre-tax cumulative education 

award amount expected to be received by WCC AmeriCorps members. The portion of 

this value taxed by state income taxes was estimated using a weighted state income 

tax rate. Additionally, state income taxes are estimated for the living allowance 

amounts received by WCC AmeriCorps members during their service term. As 

Washington does not have a state income tax, no state income taxes are calculated 

for the service term. The different rates used for these member benefits are enumerated 

in Table 25. 

State and Local Sales Tax Revenue: To measure sales tax revenue generation that stems 

from reduced unemployment for state and local governments, the amount of WCC 

AmeriCorps members cumulative additional post-tax earnings that are spent on 

taxable goods was taxed by a sales tax rate. Specifically, a weighted state and local 

sales tax was calculated. This analysis first summed the state sales tax rate and the 

average local sales tax rate for that state by state using data from Tax Foundation 

(2019). Then using 2019 data from the American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, 

n.d.), these state-level combined state and local sales tax rates were weighted based 

on the population of each state. The resulting weighted average sales tax rate used in 

this analysis was 7.43 percent. 

70 This analysis used the 2020 to 2021 AmeriCorps education award amount ($6,345) but discounts it to net 

present 2019 dollars using the Consumer Price Index. For more information about this education award, 

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

71 Friedman (2016). Op. cit. 
59 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

To estimate the additional post-tax earnings as a result of reduced unemployment that 

is spent on taxable goods, data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (BLS, 2021) are 

used. These data show the amount of spending on a number of different goods and 

services by national consumers across several different income brackets. The proportion 

of earnings that is spent on taxable goods (such as alcoholic beverages, housekeeping 

supplies, apparel, etc.) was then calculated for consumers with incomes that matched 

the per-person average pre-tax earnings of WCC AmeriCorps members. Based on their 

per-person average pre-tax earnings, this value was 41.3 percent. This proportion was 

then applied to WCC AmeriCorps members’ cumulative additional post-tax earnings to 

calculate the post-tax monetary amount they spend on taxable goods. Then the sales 

tax rate (i.e., 7.43 percent) was applied accordingly to estimate the resulting sales tax 

revenues that go to state and local governments due to reduced unemployment 

post-service. 

As with the additional lifetime state income taxes, additional lifetime sales taxes realized 

by state and local governments are provided by Trostel (2015). These values represent a 

direct benefit to state and local governments in the form of increased tax revenue. 

State and Local Government Cost Savings: State and local governments also benefit 

from WCC through lifetime savings in social insurance and corrections—as reported in 

Trostel (2015)—due to the increase in WCC AmeriCorps members’ post-secondary 

educational attainment after program exit. Of note, social insurance includes 

unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation. To calculate these lifetime 

non-federal government savings, the analysis first calculated the difference in the 

lifetime costs (and thus savings) from one education level to the subsequent education 

level using data from Trostel (2015) and then multiplied these monetary amounts by the 

number of additional degrees estimated to be obtained due to the use of the 

education awards. 

To determine what portion of this differential represents lifetime cost savings to state or 

local governments versus the federal government, a different method is employed for 

each of these cost savings areas. For social insurance, 50 percent of lifetime 

unemployment insurance cost savings and all the lifetime cost savings for workers’ 

compensation are apportioned to state and local governments (Oswald, 2018). 

Regarding reductions in lifetime corrections spending, the portion between the federal 

and state or local governments was determined based on data from Hyland (2015). 

Specifically, this report found that 8.4 percent of U.S. correction costs are paid by the 

federal government and the remaining 91.6 percent is paid by state and local 

governments. Therefore, almost 92 percent of the lifetime cost savings in corrections 

due to WCC AmeriCorps members experiencing an increase in secondary and postsecondary educational attainment post-service are allocated to state and local 

governments. 
60 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Federal Government 

The federal government benefits from: 

• Additional federal income, Social Security, and Medicare tax revenue from WCC 

AmeriCorps members’ increased earnings due to reduced unemployment 

• Additional federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes from the living 

allowance and education award received by these members, where applicable 

• Additional lifetime federal taxes due to WCC AmeriCorps members’ increased 

post-secondary educational attainment 

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

corrections due to WCC AmeriCorps members’ increased post-secondary 

educational attainment 

Federal Income Tax Revenue: To measure federal income tax revenue that stems from 

reduced unemployment, the additional pre-tax earnings of WCC AmeriCorps members 

that are solely attributed to the WCC program—as well as the pre-tax living allowance 

and education award amounts received by WCC AmeriCorps members—are taxed by 

a federal income tax rate. The rates used are estimated proportional tax rates that 

consider the standard deductions and progressive tax brackets specific to federal 

income taxes as provided by Tax Foundation (2020). An estimated proportional tax rate 

equals the total amount of taxes estimated to be paid divided by the pre-tax amount 

of the value to be taxed (e.g., per-person average pre-tax earnings). For WCC 

AmeriCorps members during the service year, the 2019 federal income tax rate is 

10 percent. For WCC AmeriCorps members following the service year, the tax rate used 

for the education awards and potential future earnings resulting the reduction in 

unemployment used the 2019 federal income tax rate of 12 percent. 

For the additional lifetime earnings of WCC AmeriCorps members that is based on their 

increase in post-secondary educational attainment—fueled by the use of the 

education award—Trostel (2015) provides additional lifetime federal income taxes. 

Social Security and Medicare Tax Revenue: Social Security and Medicare tax revenue 

are measured as fiscal gains as a result of the additional pre-tax earnings of WCC 

AmeriCorps members from their reduced unemployment and due to the pre-tax 

amounts in living allowances and education awards received by members. However, 

tax rates specific to each revenue source are used. Social Security and Medicare use 

flat tax rates, 6.2 percent and 1.45 percent, respectively; thus, these rates are applied 

to the additional pre-tax earnings of WCC AmeriCorps members to calculate the 

additional amount of revenue the federal government receives. These rates are also 

applied to the living allowance and education award amounts received by WCC 

AmeriCorps members to calculate additional tax revenue. Moreover, additional lifetime 

Social Security tax revenue realized for the federal government—as a result of WCC 

AmeriCorps members using their education award to complete different higher 

education degree type post-service—is provided by Trostel (2015). 

Federal Government Cost Savings: The federal government realizes cost savings in 

public assistance, social insurance, and corrections due to the increased post-
61 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

secondary educational attainment of WCC AmeriCorps members after program exit. 

Specifically, the number of additional post-secondary degrees estimated to be earned 

by WCC AmeriCorps members post-service as well as data from Trostel (2015) were 

used to estimate the federal government portion of lifetime cost savings on social 

insurance (which is comprised of worker’s compensation and unemployment 

insurance, as noted earlier), public assistance (e.g., SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, etc.), 

and corrections. 

Table 26 shows the lifetime costs to the federal versus the state and local governments 

for each of these areas—where applicable—by education level in 2012 dollars as 

presented in Trostel (2015). The differences in these lifetime costs from one education 

level to the next represent cost savings per degree obtained. 

Table 26. Government Costs by Educational Attainment Level per Individual’s Lifetime 

Source of 

Government Saving 

Some College 

(2012$) 

Bachelor’s Degree 

(2012$) 

Graduate Degree 

(2012$) 

Public Assistance $38,617 $14,480 $9,394 

Social Insurance $8,897 $5,863 $4,732 

Federal $3,652 $2,660 $2,090 

State/Local $5,246 $3,204 $2,643 

Corrections $4,055 $1,190 $725 

Federal $341 $100 $61 

State/Local $3,714 $1,090 $664 

Sources: Trostel (2015) 

As mentioned earlier in this appendix, as a result of the WCC program, the analysis 

estimated an additional 136 WCC AmeriCorps members would redeem the education 

award to pursue additional post-secondary education. Assuming all who redeemed 

the education award completed the pursued post-secondary education, an estimated 

6 members will complete some college, 62 will earn a bachelor’s degree, and 68 will 

earn a graduate degree. To conservatively calculate the federal government’s lifetime 

savings associated with these education gains, the differences between the public 

assistance, federal social insurance, and federal corrections lifetime costs for these 

education levels and those that precede them are calculated and then expressed in 

2019 dollars. These values are then multiplied by the number of additional 

post-secondary degrees estimated to be obtained—where appropriate—to represent 

the total cost savings realized by the federal government due to the WCC program. As 

previously mentioned where discussing the state and local governments’ allocation of 

the reduction in lifetime social insurance and corrections expenditures, the federal 

government receives 50 percent of the lifetime cost savings in unemployment 

insurance (part of social insurance; Oswald, 2018), and more than 8 percent of the 

lifetime cost savings in corrections (Hyland, 2015). 

Table 27 shows the tax rates applied to WCC AmeriCorps members’ additional pre-tax 

and post-tax earnings (derived from reduced unemployment), depending on the type 
62 

 

Metric 

Additional Earnings 

from reduced 

unemployment* (%) 

Living 

Allowance & 

Education 

Award** (%) Notes 

• Tax rates are used which consider 

the progressive tax brackets and 

Estimated standard deductions specific to 

Proportional 8.16% 4.00% federal income taxes. Federal • These rates are dependent on and Income Tax 

applied to the pre-tax value of 

each metric being taxed. 

• Tax rates are used which consider 

the progressive tax brackets and 

standard deductions specific to 

each state’s income taxes. Each 

Estimated state’s tax rate is weighted based 

Proportional 3.04% 2.25% on the state’s population and State 

summed to estimate a weighted Income Tax 

national average. 

• These rates are dependent on and 

applied to the pre-tax value of 

each metric being taxed. 

• Social Security tax rate for 

employees and employers. Social 6.20% 6.20% • These rates are applied to the pre- Security Tax tax value of each metric being 

taxed. 

• Medicare tax rate for employees 

and employers. Medicare 1.45% 1.45% • These rates are applied to the pre- Tax tax value of each metric being 

taxed. 

• The combined state and average 

6.39% on the local tax rate for each state was 

Living summed and weighted based on 

Allowance; states’ population to calculate a Sales Tax 7.43% N/A to the national weighted average sales 

Education tax rate. 

Award • The rate is applied to the additional 

post-tax earnings of members. 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

of revenue being calculated. It also enumerates the tax rates used for the pre-tax living 

allowance and education award amounts received by WCC AmeriCorps members 

upon program completion. 

Table 27. 2019 Tax Rates and Ratio of Taxable Expenditures for WCC AmeriCorps 

members’ Earnings, Living Allowances, and Education Awards 
63 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Metric 

Additional Earnings 

from reduced 

unemployment* (%) 

Living 

Allowance & 

Education 

Award** (%) Notes 

Ratio of 

Taxable 

Expenditures 

per National 

Consumer 

41.29% 

57% on the 

Living 

Allowance; 

N/A to the 

Education 

Award 

• Percent of post-tax earnings spent 

on taxable goods and services that 

is used to calculate sales tax from 

post-tax earnings. 

• Ratio is dependent on the pre-tax 

value of the additional earnings of 

members. 

*These rates are only used for the portion of the education award used to repay outstanding student loans. 

**These rates are only used for the portion of the education award used for additional schooling. 

Sources: Tax Foundation (2019), Social Security Administration (2020), Consumer Expenditures Survey (BLS, 

2021) 

Summary of Benefits to Government 

Table 28 shows the amount of tax revenue generated and savings in expenditures for 

state and local versus federal government that are solely credited to the WCC program 

and calculated using the methods described above. These government revenue and 

savings amounts are benefits that are included in the three ROI calculations and they 

are derived from WCC program impacts. 
64 

 

Benefit (2019$) 

Medium -

Benefit Type Short -term term Long -term 

State/Local Government Benefits $103,347 $1,038,395 $1,533,727 

State Income Tax Revenue from Education Awards* $36,987 $36,987 $36,987 

State Income Tax Revenue from Emp loyment $18,013 $178,635 $229,318 

State and Local Sal es Tax Revenue from Empl oyment $48,347 $479,444 $615,473 

State Income, Sal es, and Property Taxes from Post -

secondary Educational Attainment (Lifetime) $0 $325,975 $651,949 

State Savings in Reduced Social Insurance and 

Corrections Spending from Post -secondary Educational 

Attainment (Lifetime) 

$0 $17,355 $34,710 

Federal Government Benefits $987,937 $3,178,886 $4,798,228 

Federal Income Tax, Socia l Security, and Medi care Tax 

Revenue from Livi ng Allowance & Education Award* $894,280 $894,280 $894,280 

Federal Income, Social Security, and Medi care Tax 

Revenue from Empl oyment $93,658 $928,781 $1,192,299 

Federal Income and Social Security Tax Revenue from 

Post-secondary Educational Attainment (Lifetime) $0 $1,274,058 $2,548,116 

Savings in Reduced Social Insurance, Corrections, and 

Public Assistance Spending from Post -secondary 

Educational Attainment (Lifetime) 

$0 $81,767 $163,534 

Total $1,091,285 $4,217,281 $6,331,955 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Table 28. State/Local and Federal Government Benefits by Stakeholder Group and by 

Scenario 

* Living allowances and education awards are one-time taxable payments. The resulting tax revenue does 

not vary by scenario. 

Measuring Forgone Benefits (Opportunity Costs) 

The analysis included two types of forgone benefits, referred to opportunity costs, into 

each of the three ROI calculations to conservatively estimate the return of the WCC 

program: forgone benefits from a professional opportunity cost to WCC AmeriCorps 

members and forgone benefits from an investment opportunity cost to funders. Each of 

these forgone benefit (opportunity cost) types is subtracted from the total program 

benefits —that stem from the WCC program—to calculate net benefits. Net benefits 

are then compared to the program cost to calculate each ROI. The methodologies 

used to calculate these two forgone benefits (opportunity costs) are described below. 
65 

 

 

 

 

 

Row Component Value Source 

A FTE WCC AmeriCorps Members 297 WCC (2021) 

B Weighted Unemployment Rate (%) 3.8% ASEC (2019) 

C Weighted Pre-tax Annual Earnings Per Person ($) $41,151 ASEC (2019) 

D Living Allowance Per Person ($) $20,333 WCC (2021) 

E Total Post-tax Earnings Forgone $5,714,957 (A x (1-B) x C) – (A x D) 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Forgone Benefits from Professional Opportunity Cost to WCC AmeriCorps Members 

There is a professional opportunity cost to WCC AmeriCorps members for their period of 

national service, during which they could have otherwise been working. This includes 

both the forgone earnings of WCC AmeriCorps members for their service term and the 

forgone taxes associated with those lost earnings. To calculate this, the analysis first 

used the demographic distribution of WCC AmeriCorps members for the 2018–2019 

program year—in terms of gender, race/ethnicity, and pre-service education level— 

and ASEC data to estimate the weighted unemployment rate for this population 

(i.e., 3.8 percent). This represents how many of these WCC AmeriCorps members would 

have been unemployed if they did not serve in the WCC program. Using the weighted 

unemployment rate and the number of FTE WCC AmeriCorps members that served 

during the 2018–2019 program year, the analysis estimated the number of members 

that would have been employed without serving in the WCC program based on their 

demographic characteristics (i.e., 297). Then the analysis multiplied this value by the 

weighted pre-tax annual earnings listed in Table 24. The methodology to calculate this 

monetary amount is described in the previous Increased Earnings due to Reduced 

Unemployment section. These values combined represent what WCC AmeriCorps 

members would have earned in total if they did not serve in the WCC program. 

Separately, the analysis then multiplied the number of FTE WCC AmeriCorps members 

that served by the amount they earned during their national service in the form of a 

living allowance (i.e., $20,333 per person). This represents the aggregate amount WCC 

AmeriCorps members earned during their service term. The difference between what 

they would have earned if they did not serve and what they did earn because they 

served equals the total post-tax earnings forgone due to serving in the WCC program. 

These values and the formula used to calculate these forgone post-tax earnings are 

shown in Table 29. 

Table 29. Forgone Earnings of WCC AmeriCorps Members for a Service Term 

The second portion of this professional opportunity cost was the forgone taxes 

associated with the earnings of WCC AmeriCorps members lost for this year of service. 

Federal income, state income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes specific to the 

aforementioned per-person weighted pre-tax earnings amount were calculated. 

Specifically, the estimated proportional federal and state income tax rates used were 

8 percent and 3 percent, respectively. The analysis also estimated the sales taxes lost 

based on the per-person post-tax earnings forgone by the WCC AmeriCorps members. 
66 

 

 

-

Forgone Taxes = –

Taxes without 

Service Term 

(2019$) 

Taxes Realized from 

Living Allowance 

(2019$) 

Post tax Taxes 

Forgone 

(2019$) 

[A] [B] [C] [A] [B] 

Federal Income Taxes $936,062 $241,156 $694,906 

State Income Taxes $350,591 $0 $350,591 

Social Security and Medicare Taxes $898,402 $461,208 $437,194 

Sales Taxes $356,085 $219,021 $137,064 

Total Taxes $2,541,140 $921,385 $1,619,755 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Using data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (BLS, 2021), the analysis estimated 

that based on the per-person weighted pre-tax earnings of WCC AmeriCorps members 

(i.e., $41,151), 41 percent of their income would have been spent on taxable goods, as 

opposed to 57 percent of the living allowance. Then the weighted combined state and 

local sales tax rate (i.e., 7.34 percent)—used earlier in this analysis to calculate 

government benefits—was applied to the difference in expected spending on taxable 

goods to represent the resulting sales tax revenue lost due to individuals serving in the 

WCC program instead of working. The totals for these taxes are listed in Table 30. 

Table 30. Forgone Taxes Associated with the Forgone Earnings of WCC AmeriCorps 

Members for a Service Term 

In the federal government benefits per federal dollar ROI calculation, only federal 

government (not total) benefits are included. Because of this, only federal components 

of the professional opportunity cost are subtracted from all federal government 

benefits—realized due to the WCC program—in this ROI calculation. The parts of the 

professional opportunity cost subtracted from these total federal government benefits 

include the forgone post-tax federal income taxes (i.e., $694,906) and the post-tax 

forgone Social Security and Medicare taxes (i.e., $437,194). The sum of these two values 

is called the federal professional opportunity cost. The sum of all the values listed in 

Table 30 and the forgone post-tax earnings of WCC AmeriCorps members is called the 

total professional opportunity cost. These naming conventions are referenced in the 

Calculating ROI section. 

Forgone Benefits from Investment Opportunity Cost to Funders 

The investment opportunity cost estimates the expected forgone return if funds used to 

support the activities and positions of WCC AmeriCorps members during the most 

recent program year were invested in U.S. Treasury bonds instead. An investment 

opportunity cost is calculated for two different funding streams: 1) all funding for the 

2018–2019 program year and 2) only federal funding for the WCC program. This is done 

because two of the three ROI calculations only have federal (not total) program costs 

included. Thus, for 1) the federal government benefits per federal dollar and 2) the total 

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

from the benefits in these calculations—realized due to the WCC program—is the 
67 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

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

the other ROI calculation, the investment opportunity cost subtracted from the benefits 

realized is the accrued interest from investing all WCC funds (both federal and 

non-federal) into these U.S. Treasury bonds. Therefore, the analysis estimated accrued 

interests across all three scenarios when 1) all WCC funds and 2) only federal WCC 

funds are invested in U.S. Treasury bonds. 

To calculate these accrued interest values, the analysis first matched real interest rates 

provided by the Office of Management and Budget to each of the scenarios included 

in this ROI analysis. The real interest rate for the 3-year maturity was used for the 

short-term scenario, the average between the 10-year and 20-year maturity rates was 

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

for the long-term scenario. The analysis applied the 2018 real interest rates due to the 

implied rate of expenses of WCC described in Table 27.72 These real interest rates 

applied were 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 percent, respectively.73 Also, the number of years 

elapsed on these U.S. Treasury bonds was equal to the number of years the different 

scenarios assumed WCC AmeriCorps members’ employment and earnings gains were 

sustained. These values are 1 year, 15 years, and 30 years for the short-, medium-, and 

long-term scenarios, respectively. Given that U.S. Treasury bonds compound 

bi-annually,74 the formula used to calculate the accrued interest for each of the three 

scenarios for the two funding streams is listed in Figure 9, where A equals the forgone 

accrued interest (e.g., the investment opportunity cost), P equals the amount of one of 

the funding streams, r equals the 2018 real interest rate, and t equals the number of 

years elapsed. 

Figure 9. Compound Interest Formula Used to Calculate Investment Opportunity Cost 

tt∗2

AA = PP �1 + 2

rr

� − PP

Based on this formula, the investment opportunity cost calculated by scenario and 

funding stream are listed in Table 31, along with their associated inputs. The forgone 

accrued interest amounts for all funding are called the total investment opportunity 

costs while that for federal funding only are called the federal investment opportunity 

costs. These naming conventions are referenced in the Calculating ROI section. 

72 The analysis used 2018 real interest rates for U.S. Treasury bonds because the WCC AmeriCorps program 

year analyzed began in 2018. 

73 Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2020, November). Circular No. A-94. Appendix C. Retrieved 

from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2020_Appendix-C.pdf 

74 Department of Treasury. N.d. Interest Rates - Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from: 

https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financing-the-government/interest-rate-statistics/interest-ratesfrequently-asked-questions and White House. 2020. Budget Assumptions. November 19, 2020. Real Treasury 

Interest Rates. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/discount-history.pdf 
68 

 

- - -

Metric 

Short term Medium term Long term 

All Funding 

Federal 

Funding 

Only All Funding 

Federal 

Funding 

Only All Funding 

Federal 

Funding 

Only 

Real Interest 

Rate* 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 

Years 

Elapsed 1 15 30 

Funding 

Amount $14,603,748 $4,192,256 $14,603,748 $4,192,256 $14,603,748 $4,192,256 

Forgone 

Accrued 

Interest 

$4,802,663 $1,378,687 $2,676,349 $768,292 $6,619,797 $1,900,326 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Table 31. Investment Opportunity Cost Calculation by Scenario and Funding Stream 

* Note: The real interest rates used are the 2018 real interest rates due to the fact that the WCC program 

year commenced in 2018. 

Measuring Program Costs 

Table 32 shows the costs of WCC by funding source and cost category. State funding 

supplies half the funding for the WCC program. 

Table 32. Funding Sources and Cost Categories for WCC, 2018–2019 Program Year 

Source Amount ($) Details 

Cost Categories $13,170,347 

Operating $6,784,804 Expenses such as supplies, training, travel, and 

program staff costs 

AmeriCorps member 

expenses $6,028,862 Living allowances and other benefits received during service 

Other $356,681 Indirect costs incurred by WCC 

Funding Sources $13,170,346 Percent* 

AmeriCorps $1,704,842 13% 

Other Federal $1,054,012 8% 

State Funding $3,950,499 30% 

State Interagency 

Agreements $2,642,618 20% 

Private/Local/ Tribal 

Governments $3,818,375 29% 

Source: WCC (2021) 

*Values may not sum due to rounding 
69 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Benefits to the Federal Government) – (Forgone Benefits from Federal Professional Federal 

Government Opportunity Cost + Forgone Benefits from Federal Investment Opportunity Cost) = 

Benefits per (AmeriCorps Federal Funding + Other Federal Funding) Federal Dollar 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Calculating ROI 

To calculate the three ROI calculations for the WCC program, the sum of applicable 

benefits is reduced by the forgone benefits from the professional and opportunity cost 

(where appropriate) and then compared to the cost of the program. As described 

previously, these three ROI calculations are calculated for each of the three 

aforementioned scenarios: short-term, medium-term, and long-term. Due to the range 

of benefits derived from ecosystem services, the low, medium, and high estimates are 

also presented, totaling nine scenarios. 

Since the majority of the calculations include benefits to society (i.e., society at large 

and WCC AmeriCorps members), the results are expressed as cost–benefit ratios, while 

maintaining the ROI terminology. Specifically, these ratios take the form of the sum of 

monetized benefits over the sum of costs. The ROIs expressed as cost–benefit ratios in 

this study can be interpreted as the amount of dollars returned for every $1.00 of 

investment (or program cost).75 

The formulas used to calculate each of the three ROIs are shown below: 

(Benefits to WCC AmeriCorps Members + Benefits to Society + Benefits to 

Government) – (Forgone Benefit from Total Professional Opportunity Cost + Forgone 

Benefits from Federal Investment Opportunity Cost) 

= 

(AmeriCorps Federal Funding + Other Federal Funding) 

Total 

Benefits per 

Federal 

Dollar 

Total 

Benefits per 

Funder 

Dollar 

(Benefits to WCC AmeriCorps Members + Benefits to Society + Benefits to 

Government) – (Forgone Benefits from Total Professional Opportunity Cost + 

Forgone Benefits from Total Investment Opportunity Cost) 

= 

(AmeriCorps Federal Funding + Other Federal Funding + Non-federal Funding) 

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

the results, the ROIs in this study show the amount of return for every $1 invested. 
70 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

- -

-

-

-

-

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Tables 33, 34, and 35 show the total program benefits, forgone benefits (opportunity 

costs), program costs, and ROI results for each scenario. 

Table 33. ROI Calculations for Short-term Scenario 

Total Costs and 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar 

Components (2019$) 

Total Costs and 

Benefits per Funder 

Dollar 

(2019$) 

Federal Government 

Costs and Benefits per 

Federal Dollar 

(2019$) 

Total Benefits by Range of Impact 

Total Benefits - Low $8,707,530 $8,707,530 

Total Benefits - Average $13,328,056 $13,328,056 $987,937 

Total Benefits - High $31,801,301 $31,801,301 

Total Forgone Benefits 

(Opportunity Costs) $1,157,291 $5,802,711 $1,157,291 

Total Program Costs $4,192,256 $14,603,748 $4,192,256 

ROI 

Result Low $0.69 

Result Average $1.80 

Result High $6.20 

$0.20 

$0.52 

$1.78 

$0.04 

Table 34. ROI Calculations for Medium-term Scenario 

Components 

Total Benefits per 

Federal Dollar 

(2019$) 

Total Benefits per 

Funder Dollar 

(2019$) 

Federal Government 

Benefits per Federal Dollar 

(2019$) 

Total Benefits by Range of Impact 

Total Benefits - Low $27,101,642 $27,101,642 

Total Benefits - Average $83,915,974 $83,915,974 $3,178,886 

Total Benefits - High $311,064,342 $311,064,342 

Total Forgone Benefits 

(Opportunity Costs) $1,665,468 $7,572,948 $1,665,468 

Total Costs $4,192,256 $14,603,748 $4,192,256 

ROI 

Result Low $4.66 

Result Average $18.21 

Result High $72.39 

$1.34 

$5.23 

$20.78 

$0.36 
71 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

-

-

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Table 35. ROI Calculations for Long-term Scenario 

Components 

Total Benefits per 

Federal Dollar 

(2019$) 

Total Benefits per 

Funder Dollar 

(2019$) 

Federal Government 

Benefits per Federal Dollar 

(2019$) 

Total Benefits by Range of Impact 

Total Benefits - Low $39,658,370 $39,658,370 

Total Benefits - Average $132,939,660 $132,939,660 $4,798,228 

Total Benefits - High $505,885,921 $505,885,921 

Total Forgone Benefits 

(Opportunity Costs) $2,594,569 $10,809,477 $2,594,569 

Total Costs $4,192,256 $14,603,748 $4,192,256 

ROI 

Result Low $6.88 

Result Average $29.13 

Result High $118.09 

$1.98 

$8.36 

$33.90 

$0.53 
72 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

References 

AmeriCorps. 2020. Members & Volunteers: Segal AmeriCorps Education Award. 

Retrieved from: https://americorps.gov/members-volunteers/segal-americorpseducation-award/find-out-more 

Blagg, K., & Blom, E. (2018, September). Evaluating the return on investment in higher 

education: An assessment of individual- and state-level returns. Urban Institute. 

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99078/evaluating_the_return_ 

on_investment_in_higher_education.pdf 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2020. Consumer Expenditure Surveys. Retrieved from 

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

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2021. Consumer Price Index. All Urban Consumer - U.S. 

City Average, All Items - Annual Average. https://data.bls.gov/cgibin/surveymost?cu 

Charles and Dukes. 2006. Impacts of Invasive Species on Ecosystem Services. Ecological 

Studies, Vol. 193. Pages 217-236. 

De Groot, R., B. Fisher, and M. Christie, 2010, “The Economics of Ecosystems and 

Biodiversity, Ecological and Economic Foundations.” United Nations Environment 

Programme, Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from: http://www.teebweb.org/wpcontent/uploads/Study%20and%20Reports/Reports/Ecological%20and%20Economic 

%20Foundations/TEEB%20Ecological%20and%20Economic%20Foundations%20report 

/TEEB%20Foundations.pdf 

Department of Treasury. N.d. Interest Rates - Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved 

from: https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financing-the-government/interestrate-statistics/interest-rates-frequently-asked-questions 

Eastern Sierra Sustainable Recreation and Tourism Initiative (ESSRTI). (2021). A Changing 

Climate: Vulnerability in California’s Eastern Sierra. 

https://mltpa.org/images/downloads/703_02_AChangingClimate_2021-05-

13_FINAL.pdf 

Friedman, E., Freeman, B., Phillips, B., Rosenthal, L., Robinson, D., Miller, H., & Porowski, A. 

(2016). AmeriCorps alumni outcomes: Final survey technical report. Corporation for 

National and Community Service (now AmeriCorps). 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_AmeriCorpsAlumni 

OutcomesFinalTechReport_1.pdf 

Harlow, C. (2003, April 15). Bureau of Justice Statistics special report: Education and 

correctional populations. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf 
73 

 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Hyland, S. S. (2015). Justice Expenditure And Employment Extracts, 2015 - Final. 

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/justice-expenditure-and-employmentextracts-2015-final 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS). (2020). IRS provides tax inflation adjustments for tax year 

2019. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-provides-tax-inflation-adjustments-for-taxyear-2019 

Markovitz, C., Schneider, G., Jastrzab, J. A., & Frumkin, P. (2008, April). Improving lives 

and communities: Perspectives on 40 years of VISTA service. Corporation for 

National and Community Service (now AmeriCorps). 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_Imprv_LivesComm 

_40YrsVISTASvc_2008_1.pdf 

National Center for Education Statistics. (2019a). Digest of education statistics. Table 

330.20. Average undergraduate tuition and fees and room and board rates 

charged for full-time students in degree-granting post-secondary institutions, by 

control and level of institution and state or jurisdiction: 2016-17 and 2017-18 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_330.20.asp 

-------. (2019b). Digest of education statistics. Table 330.50: Average and percentiles of 

graduate tuition and required fees in degree-granting post-secondary institutions, by 

control of institution: 1989-90 through 2018-19. 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_330.50.asp 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (1992, October 29). Circular A-94: 

Guidelines and discount rates for benefit–cost analysis of federal programs, 

Transmittal Memo No. 64. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A94/a094.pdf 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2003, September 17). Circular A-4. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2020, November). Circular No. A-94. 

Appendix C. Retrieved from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2020/12/2020_Appendix-C.pdf 

Oswald, J. (2018, March 29). What does an unemployment claim cost an employer? 

Unemployment Insurance Services. https://www.unemploymentservices.com/unemployment-claim-cost-employer/ 

Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2019, March 19). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2019. 

Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html 

Social Security Administration. (2020). Fact Sheet: 2020 Social Security Changes. 

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/colafacts2020.pdf. 
74 

 

 

 

Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps 

Spera, C., Ghertner, R., Nerino, A., & DiTommaso, A. (2013, June). Volunteering as a 

pathway to employment: Does volunteering increase odds of finding a job for the 

out of work? Corporation of National and Community Service (now AmeriCorps). 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_2013_Volunteering 

asaPathwaytoEmployment_1.pdf 

Tax Foundation. (2019). State and local sales tax rates, 2019. 

https://taxfoundation.org/sales-tax-rates-2019/ 

Trostel, P. (2015). It’s not just the money: The benefits of college education to individuals 

and to society. Lumina Foundation. 

https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/its-not-just-the-money.pdf 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. CPS Annual Social and Economic (March) Supplement 2019. 

Universe: Demographics, Age (A_AGE): 18 to 34 & Universe: Demographics, Age 

(A_AGE): 18 to 34; Current status, Experienced labor force, Y/N (A_EXPLF): Employed. 

https://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm 

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). American Community Survey. Explore census data. 

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ 

Whatcom County, WA. N.d. What are Noxious Weeds?. Retrieved from: 

https://www.whatcomcounty.us/921/What-Are-Noxious-Weeds. 

White House. 2020. Budget Assumptions. November 19, 2020. Real Treasury Interest 

Rates. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/discounthistory.pdf 

Zeidenberg, M., Freeman, B., Friedman, E., & Porowski, A. (2016, April 27). Results from 

the National Student Clearinghouse Data Match: New methods for assessing 

AmeriCorps alumni outcomes. Abt Associates. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_NatlStudent_Cleari 

nghouseMatch_AlumniOutcomes_2016_1.pdf