250 E Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20525

202-606-5000 | 800-942-2677 | TTY 800-833-3722

AmeriCorps State and National Guide to Performance Measure Changes

Table of Contents

1. General Rule

2. Considerations for State Commissions: Formula v. Competitive Subgrants

3. Changing Performance Measures

a. Common Performance Measure Issues

4. Examples of Performance Measure Target Changes

5. Procedure for Changing Performance Measures Pre-Award or Mid-Year

1. General Rule

Any performance measure change should be for the purpose of improving the performance measures. This could mean 

improving the measure itself or the program’s overall approach to performance measurement. Improving the 

performance measures might include, but is not limited to: creating or revising performance measures to more 

accurately reflect a program’s theory of change, bringing a performance measure into alignment with National 

Performance Measure Instructions, providing clearer definitions of key terms, adjusting interventions/data collection 

plans/instruments to be more robust, etc. For more information about high quality performance measures, please see 

the Quality Performance Measures course in the CNCS Performance Measures Core Curriculum 

(http://www.nationalservice.gov/resources/performance-measurement/training-resources#Quality PM). Changes that 

do not improve the quality of the performance measures should not be approved. Changes for the sole purpose of 

lessening burden on the program, without improving the quality of the measure, should not be approved. A program 

reducing targets for the sole purpose of meeting their targets would not be an acceptable change.

For example: A request to stop using National Performance Measures simply to reduce the burden of compliance with 

the Performance Measures Instructions would not be an acceptable change.

For example: A program realizes mid-year that fewer beneficiaries will demonstrate positive change than expected and 

proposes adjusting their performance measure targets via an amendment. This is not an acceptable change because the 

sole purpose of the change is to allow the program to meet targets. In cases like this where changing targets is not 

allowed, the program will still have an opportunity to provide an explanation for unmet targets in the GPR.

2. Consideration for State Commissions: Formula v. Competitive Subgrants

Formula 

State Commissions have discretion when allowing formula subgrantees to adjust their performance measures via an 

amendment. Commissions should utilize the considerations in this document to guide their discussion with subgrantees 

and are encouraged to discuss formula performance measure changes with their CNCS Program Officer. The Commission 

is responsible for reviewing and approving the changes via an amendment, and the CNCS Program Officer will certify the 

amendment. Note that formula subgrantees utilizing National Performance Measures must follow the selection rules as 

specified in the National Performance Measure Instructions. CNCS Program Officers will review formula performance 

measure alignment prior to certification, and misaligned National Performance Measures will not be certified.
NationalService.gov

Competitive

Commissions and CNCS must both approve adjustments to competitive subgrantees’ performance measures. Changes in 

performance measures require an amendment to the application in eGrants which includes amending the 

subapplication, the Commission’s review and approval of the subapplication, and the CNCS Program Officer’s review and 

approval of the subapplication. 

3: Changing Performance Measures

Considerations: 

Under what circumstances should CNCS and/or the Commission approve a program’s request to change a 

performance measure?

1. See General Rule section above. Performance measure changes should only be approved if they are for the 

purpose of improving the quality of the performance measures.

2. During the program year: 

o In most cases the applicant will be held to the performance measures as outlined in their approved 

grant application. The clarification or revision period during the application process was the correct 

time for the applicant to fix most performance measure issues.

o Performance measure changes are allowable to correct certain types of applicant error (see “Common 

Performance Measure Issues” below). For example, if it becomes evident that the program did not

comply with National Performance Measure alignment instructions or definitions, the program should 

correct their measures at this time. 

o Other types of changes may be allowable if they will help the program to meet the General Rule criteria, 

and if there is a compelling reason why they should not wait until the next continuation/recompete 

application. For example, if an education program was notified at the beginning of the school year that 

the assessment test was changing for the entire district, the performance measures may need to be 

updated. The assessment test and indicators are different than what is in the approved application, so 

an amendment is needed. 

Commissions and programs should consider how the performance measure change will affect reporting 

for the year. For example, if a program changes to a more robust data collection tool mid-year, but was 

required to administer a pre- and post-test, it is likely that program will have to report ‘0’ for that 

outcome. Mid-year performance measure changes should be discussed with the CNCS Program Officer 

to determine how the change would affect reporting for the year. In the case of instrument changes, it 

is generally advised that programs spend the remainder of the year testing their new instrument before 

adopting it in the next grant year; however, there may be some exceptions where it makes sense to 

begin using a new instrument immediately.

3. In continuation applications: 

o Performance measure changes during the continuation application process are generally allowable if 

they help the program meet the General Rule criteria and/or correct certain types of applicant error (see 

“Common Performance Measure Issues” below). The applicant must provide a compelling reason

(adjusted interventions/instruments due to programmatic learning curve, significant change in program 

circumstances, allowable program design change, etc.). This reason must be documented in the 

continuation narrative section of the application. Programs should have solid justification and data to 

inform what is realistic and ambitious. 

o Reviewers should ensure the performance measures still reflect the primary intervention(s) of the 

program and still present a compelling reason for funding. For example, if the performance measures 

are now in a different focus area or the outcomes are different in scope, the changes should not be 
NationalService.gov

approved unless the program is still measuring its primary intervention and the outputs and outcomes 

still reflect a worthwhile investment.

o The need for and significance of revisions may depend on the experience level of the program. For 

example, a new program or a program implementing recommendations from an evaluation may need to 

revise their intervention design or dosage, which may impact performance measures. An experienced 

program that is not proposing significant changes to its program design would generally be expected to

maintain the performance measures that were approved when they recompeted, unless performance 

measure errors or problems in performance measure quality have subsequently been identified.

4. In recompete applications: 

o Performance measure changes during the recompete application process are generally allowable if they 

help the program meet the General Rule criteria. The focus should be on what is ambitious and realistic 

for this program given their past performance (including recommendations from an evaluation, if 

applicable) and proposed changes in the recompete application. Programs should have solid justification 

and data to inform what is realistic and ambitious. Reviewers should ensure the performance measures

reflect the primary intervention(s) of the program, present a compelling reason for funding, and follow 

all required Performance Measure Instructions.

Common Performance Measure Issues: 

CNCS has created the following chart which highlights common performance measure issues and recommended actions. 

The chart is intended as direction for CNCS staff and State Commissions. 

Performance Measure Issue Recommended Actions Data Reporting Considerations

Incorrect alignment of National 

Performance Measures (do not 

follow required selection rules)

 Require that the measures be 

corrected as soon as possible (preaward or anytime during the program 

year). 

 Provide training and technical 

assistance to program around 

improving performance measure 

quality. 

Allow performance measure 

actuals to be reported on the 

Grantee Progress Report (GPR) as 

long as the numbers reported for 

the individual outputs and 

outcomes were collected using 

valid 

instruments/protocols/definitions. 

If not, instruct the program to 

report zeroes.

National Performance 

Measures being used in the 

wrong context (e.g. beneficiaryfocused national measures 

being used to report memberfocused outputs/outcomes)

 Require that the measures be 

corrected as soon as possible (preaward or anytime during the program 

year). 

 Provide training and technical 

assistance to program around 

improving performance measure 

quality.

Do not allow performance 

measure actuals to be reported on 

the GPR. Instruct the program to 

report zeroes instead.
NationalService.gov

Poor-quality applicantdetermined measures 

(outcomes that do not measure 

a change in knowledge, 

attitude, behavior, or condition; 

misalignment of outputs and 

outcomes; measures that 

duplicate national measures; 

etc.)

 Provide training and technical 

assistance to program around 

improving performance measure 

quality.

 Require that the measures be 

improved in the next 

continuation/recompete application.

Programs may propose to make 

changes sooner if the changes meet 

the General Rule criteria. 

Allow performance measure 

actuals to be reported on the GPR 

as long as the numbers reported 

for the individual outputs and 

outcomes were collected using 

valid 

instruments/protocols/definitions. 

If not, instruct the program to 

report zeroes.

Minor errors in National 

Performance Measures that do 

not involve incorrect use of the 

measure (e.g. typos or mistakes 

in output and/or outcome 

targets)

 Provide training and technical 

assistance to program around 

improving performance measure 

quality.

 Require that the measures be 

corrected in the next 

continuation/recompete application.

Allow performance measure 

actuals to be reported on the GPR 

as long as the numbers reported 

for the individual outputs and 

outcomes were collected using 

valid 

instruments/protocols/definitions. 

If not, instruct the program to 

report zeroes.

Low quality data collection 

instrument (e.g. instrument is 

not valid or reliable, or does not 

comply with the performance 

measure instructions)

 Provide training and technical 

assistance to program around 

improving performance measure 

quality.

 Require the applicant to change the 

instrument in the next grant year and 

document this change in the 

continuation/recompete application. 

If the program wishes to change the 

instrument mid-way through the year, 

they may do so; however, due to 

issues such as pre/post-test matching,

they may still be unable to report 

actuals on the GPR. In general, it is 

wiser for applicants to spend time 

identifying and testing a high quality 

instrument that they will be ready to 

use in the next year rather than make 

a quick change mid-year.

Do not allow performance 

measure actuals from the 

instrument to be reported on the 

GPR. Instruct the program to 

report zeroes instead.

4: Examples of Performance Measure Target Changes

Please note: The below examples relate only to target changes for performance measures. 

EXAMPLES

Under what circumstances should CNCS and/or the Commission approve a program’s request to change performance 

measure targets?

1. During the program year: 
NationalService.gov

o Example of unallowable change: A program was awarded 28 full-time slots, 14 serving in a community 

outreach capacity and 14 serving as nutrition educators. After the award was made, the program 

discovered that two sites, each with one member, needed nutrition educators instead of community 

outreach members and would like to adjust their targets to reflect changes in the activities of the two 

members. In this case, changes in the activities of two members is not a significant program design 

change and does not warrant revising the targets at this point. The program is not allowed to make 

changes to their performance measures in this case, but can use the GPR as the opportunity to explain 

why targets were not met. The targets can be revised in the next continuation/recompete application.

o Example of allowable change: A program has two components, an early childhood literacy program and 

a middle school after school program. After the grant was awarded, but before members were 

recruited, the program learns that match funding has been cut for the middle school program, which 

accounts for 25% of the program’s MSYs. The program has a waiting list of students for the early 

childhood program and can secure additional match to support that program component, so all 

members will now serve in the early childhood program. This is a significant change in program design, 

and the program should change its targets for the early childhood program and delete the after school 

performance measure since it would not make sense for the program to have a performance measure 

for an activity they were no longer doing.

o Note: In these two examples, the major difference is the significance of the change. Commissions who 

are not sure whether a proposed change is significant enough to require an amendment should consult 

with their CNCS Program Officer. An amendment to change performance measures in this case will 

likely also require narrative explanation of the program design change. 

o Example of unallowable change: A program only enrolled 15 out of 20 full-time members and therefore 

will see a 25% reduction in productivity (outputs and outcomes) for the year. Adjusting performance 

measure targets due to low enrollment is not permitted because this change would not be for the

purpose of improving the performance measure (i.e., it would not follow the General Rule criteria).

o Example of allowable change: The Commission discovers the program did not use the correct definition 

of mentoring as stated in the National Performance Measure Instructions and therefore the number of 

actual mentor relationships is less than originally proposed. In this case, the program should be allowed 

to reduce the target mid-year as part of the required corrections to the performance measure.

2. In continuation and recompete applications: 

o Example of unallowable change: A program with no program design changes is proposing to decrease its 

performance measure targets despite its demonstrated ability to meet those targets in previous grant 

cycles. The program does not provide a compelling explanation of why this change is necessary.

o Example of allowable change: A program is proposing an expansion and would like to increase targets in 

proportion to the expansion request. 

5: Procedure for Changing Performance Measures Pre-Award or Mid-Year

Please note: The below procedure relates only to pre-award or mid-year changes. Changes in performance measures 

during continuation or recompete applications should be handled according to the normal CNCS/Commission 

application review process.

Please note: Amendments interfere with Grantee Progress Report (GPR) submission and review. Amendments on the 

same grant year as the GPR should not be initiated when there is an open GPR (i.e., when a GPR is in the process of 

being completed by a grantee or is currently under review by CNCS). 

Recommended procedure for reviewing a request to change performance measures pre-award or mid-year: 
NationalService.gov

1. Program proposes the change.

2. CNCS/Commission asks program to address each question below in writing. 

3. CNCS/Commission reviews the program answers, applying the considerations above. 

4. For competitive applications, the CNCS Program Officer will review the changes made to the performance 

measures and may have further questions or request additional clarification during this process.

5. If the proposed change is approved by the Commission and/or CNCS Program Officer, the change (pre-award) or 

amendment (mid-year) can be initiated. Documentation of the proposal and approval should be maintained. 

Questions programs should address when proposing to change their performance measures: 

The program should provide the answers to these questions in their change request. Documentation of the proposal and 

approval should be maintained.

 

1. State the grant year and application ID to be amended. 

2. Please describe the proposed change and why the change is necessary. . 

3. Please describe how the change will improve or strengthen the program’s performance measurement. 

4. Please describe how the changes are reasonable. Provide backup information as necessary.

5. Please describe how the changes are ambitious. Provide backup information as necessary.

6. For mid-year changes: Please describe whether this change will affect reporting for the year. Will ‘0’ need to be 

reported for an output or outcome because the intervention, definition, or data collection has changed? If the 

change will affect reporting for the year, outline how the change will affect reporting and what actions are 

required as a result. 

Questions Commissions/CNCS should consider as they review the program request: 

1. Will the change improve or strengthen the program’s performance measurement? 

2. Is the program’s issue described under the Common Performance Measure Issues section? If so, is the guidance 

in this section being followed correctly? 

3. Is the proposed change appropriate given the status of the program in their funding cycle? 

4. Is the program design change described (if applicable) significant and acceptable? 

5. Based on program past performance and current capacity, are the changes both ambitious and realistic? 

6. For target changes: Is there a legitimate reason for the program to make the change other than the program’s 

inability to meet the current target?

7. For mid-year changes: Will the change affect reporting for the year? If so, how will the Commission/program 

ensure data quality in reporting? 

8. Is there an open Grantee Progress Report (for submission or review) for this grant? If so, the amendment must 

not be started until after the report is closed. 

After appropriate consideration and approval for the proposed performance measure change and type of grant, follow 

the regular amendment procedure to update the performance measures. 

Finalized November 2016