Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology 

Empowerment Project 

Submitted to:

AmeriCorps 

250 E St., SW

Washington, DC 20024

Submitted by:

ICF Incorporated, LLC

9300 Lee Highway

Fairfax, VA 22031

https://www.icf.com

December 18, 2020

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

under Blanket Purchase Agreement # CNSHQ14A0006 and Contract # 

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

communications related to this report to Lily Zandniapour at 

lzandniapour@cns.gov and Sarah Yue at syue@cns.gov. Cite this report as follows: 

Modicamore, D., Naugler, A., Casey, B., Miller, B., Munaretto, C., & Pershing, J. 

(2020). Return on Investment Study: Community Technology Empowerment 

Project. ICF.
ES-1 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

CONTENTS

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

Community Technology Empowerment Project.........................................................ES-1

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

Benefits and Costs..........................................................................................................ES-4

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

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

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

Program Description.................................................................................................................1

CTEP Evaluation History.......................................................................................................3

Selection of CTEP for the AmeriCorps ROI Project ...........................................................4

ROI Methodology......................................................................................................................4

Monetizing Benefits and Costs...........................................................................................6

ROI Study Limitations.........................................................................................................13

Benefits, Costs, and ROI Results .............................................................................................15

Benefits...............................................................................................................................15

Costs...................................................................................................................................15

ROI Results .........................................................................................................................16

Recommendations for Further Research ..............................................................................19

Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................20

Appendix A: Benefits and Costs Included in Return on Investment Calculations.............22

Benefits...............................................................................................................................22

Costs...................................................................................................................................26

Appendix B: Additional Information on the Methodology..................................................27

Methodology Overview ...................................................................................................27

Measuring Benefits............................................................................................................28

Measuring Costs ................................................................................................................43

Calculating ROI.................................................................................................................44

References ..............................................................................................................................46
ES-2 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

AUTHORS

This study was conducted by researchers from ICF: 

• Dominic Modicamore, Lead Economist

• Alix Naugler, Research Scientist

• Brendan Casey, Senior Economics Analyst

• Benjamin Miller, Senior Director

• Claire Munaretto, Senior Economics Analyst

• Janet Pershing, Vice President
ES-1 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Executive Summary 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

AmeriCorps contracted with ICF Incorporated, 

LLC (hereafter ICF) to explore and quantify the 

return on investment (ROI) of several programs 

that rely on national service—AmeriCorps and 

AmeriCorps Seniors—as a major resource to 

sustain operations. ROI analyses have the 

potential to help AmeriCorps measure the 

performance of programs and build the base of 

evidence for future resource allocation 

decisions. In addition, ROI study results will help 

AmeriCorps communicate the value of its 

programming to relevant stakeholders. 

This ROI study measures the benefits of the 

Community Technology Empowerment Project 

(CTEP) against its costs. CTEP is implemented by 

the Saint Paul Neighborhood Network (SPNN) 

and serves the Minneapolis–St. Paul 

metropolitan area. CTEP operates under the 

AmeriCorps State and National program in the Economic Opportunity focus area. As 

one of SPNN’s core programs, CTEP helps increase work-readiness skills of underserved 

groups so they can succeed in today’s workforce and contribute to the economy. The 

program promotes digital inclusion and equips new immigrants and members of 

low-income communities with the latest digital competencies, helping them gain 

sustainable employment and improve their civic, educational, and social opportunities.

The length of time that people participate in CTEP varies depending on the CTEP 

services they receive.

Key Results

This study estimates CTEP’s ROI to 

be between $2.95 and $34.26 per 

funder dollar, depending on how 

long program participants and 

AmeriCorps members 

experience increased earnings 

as a result of CTEP. The return on 

each dollar of federal support for 

the program is even higher. The 

magnitude of the results is driven 

by strong employment and 

earnings outcomes for 

participants, and benefits to 

AmeriCorps members of national 

service that increase their 

earnings. 

CTEP Impacts: Selected Evaluation Results

Below are high-level findings from CTEP’s 2018 evaluation (Backman, 2018) that 

provide context on the program’s structure and performance: 

• The median number of program hours attended by survey respondents was 22.9.

• Of those who responded to the survey, 10.3 percent were unemployed preprogram, were looking for work while in the CTEP program, found a job after 

CTEP program participation, and indicated that the CTEP program helped them 

in their job search.

• The median annualized earnings of CTEP program participants who were 

unemployed pre-program but employed post-program was $30,763.

• Over 81 percent of survey respondents who were looking for work reported that 

participating in the CTEP program helped them search for a job.
ES-2 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

As instructors, AmeriCorps members work with CTEP participants aged 14 years old and 

older to improve their digital skills and technology literacy at various community 

locations, including libraries, community-based organizations, and adult education or 

employment centers. AmeriCorps members teach in formal classes and provide oneon-one mentoring and training in computer and technology labs to help participants 

become certified in technology skills. Certifications are awarded based on assessments 

designed by Northstar, a provider of digital literacy curricula and certifications. 

AmeriCorps members also instruct workforce readiness classes to assist English language 

learners. CTEP uses 35 full-time AmeriCorps members to provide these services to 

program participants and to support the capacity building initiatives of the program’s 

multiple host sites.

Return on Investment Study Methods 

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

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

evaluations and other third-party sources to determine the benefits of the CTEP 

program. Benefits are realized across three stakeholder groups: CTEP participants, 

CTEP AmeriCorps members, and the government. Specifically, these benefits

include increased earnings for CTEP program participants, and for CTEP AmeriCorps 

members, increased earnings, living allowance during their service, and education 

awards following their service. Government benefits include tax revenue generation 

from increased economic activity and earnings as well as reduced spending on

corrections, public assistance, and social insurance. This analysis monetized program 

benefits using various proxies and summed those amounts to quantify the impact of 

the CTEP program in 2019 dollars.

2. Assessing program costs. CTEP program costs were estimated based on the CTEP 

program budget, including budgeted federal funds, required match funds, and 

other funding. The CTEP program’s budget includes costs that were allocated during

the CTEP program year of September 2018 through August 2019. 

3. Calculating the ROI. The ROI analysis consisted of three 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 representing different assumptions 

about the persistence of program outcomes. 

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 AmeriCorps program. Figure ES 1 shows how CTEP program activities can result in 

CTEP participant, AmeriCorps member, and government benefits. 
ES-3 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Figure ES 1. Benefits among CTEP Participants, AmeriCorps Members, and Government

Derived from CTEP

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

ROI calculations. 

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

ROI Calculation Benefits (numerator) Costs (denominator)

Total Benefits per Federal 

Dollar

All participant, AmeriCorps 

member, and government 

benefits derived from the 

program 

• Federal AmeriCorps

funding

Total Benefits per Funder 

Dollar

All participant, AmeriCorps 

member, and government 

benefits derived from the 

program 

• Federal AmeriCorps

funding

• Match funding

• All other funding 

Federal Government Benefits 

per Federal Dollar

Additional tax revenue 

generation and reduced 

spending attributable to the 

program 

• Federal AmeriCorps

funding

Available data established that both CTEP participants and AmeriCorps members enjoy 

increased earnings impacts—due to increased employment—as a result of the CTEP 

program. However, the data do not establish the duration of those benefits. To address 

a range of possible durations for those benefits, the analysis includes three scenarios:1

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

benefits last for both CTEP participants and AmeriCorps members. Certain additional benefits are included 

equally across these three scenarios. For instance, lifetime benefits with regard to decreased public 

assistance, social insurance, and corrections costs as a result of members’ higher educational attainment 

post-service are represented in each of these three scenarios equally as present values. Thus, whether 

members’ employment and earnings impacts are sustained for one year (i.e., short-term scenario) or 30 

years (i.e., long-term scenario), the same present value amount of the lifetime cost savings is realized. 
ES-4 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

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

earnings impacts are limited to a single year.

• 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.2

• Long-Term. This scenario assumes sustained earnings impacts throughout CTEP 

participants’ and CTEP 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 present net value in 2019 dollars. 

The only difference between the three scenarios is the length of time that increased 

employment and earnings are sustained; all other benefits are held constant. 

Benefits and Costs

Figure ES 3 shows the estimates of monetized benefits of the CTEP program by 

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

benefits amount to over $2.6 million, of which roughly 42, 30, and 28 percent are 

attributed to CTEP participants, AmeriCorps members, and the federal government, 

respectively. Under the medium-term scenario, the total benefits equal roughly 

$19.3 million, of which about 70 percent are attributed to CTEP participants, 8 percent 

are attributed to AmeriCorps members, and 22 percent are attributed to the federal 

government. Lastly, under the long-term scenario, the total benefits equal nearly 

$30.8 million, of which 72 percent are attributed to CTEP participants, 6 percent are 

attributed to AmeriCorps members, and 22 percent are attributed to the federal 

government.

Figure ES 3. Benefits by Recipient

Recipient 

Benefits by Scenario (2019$)

Short-Term Medium-Term Long-Term

CTEP Participants

(percent of total)

$1,109,288 

(42%)

$13,561,007 

(70%)

$22,148,532 

(72%)

AmeriCorps Members

(percent of total)

$788,039 

(30%)

$1,462,541 

(8%)

$1,927,721 

(6%)

Federal Government 

(percent of total)

$751,318 

(28%)

$4,279,406 

(22%) 

$6,712,607 

(22%)

Total (total percent)

$2,648,646 

(100%)

$19,302,954 

(100%)

$30,788,860 

(100%)

2 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). 
ES-5 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Additionally, Figure ES 4 shows the cost of the CTEP program by funding source. The 

total cost of the CTEP program for the September 2018 to August 2019 program year 

was $898,720. A total of 64 percent of CTEP program costs ($578,720) are funded by the 

federal government (i.e., AmeriCorps), while the remainder (36 percent or $320,000) 

consists of the required match funding and additional funding provided by state and 

local governments and other non-government entities (i.e., local non-profits such as 

community, adult basic education, and workforce readiness centers.). The match 

funding received from non-federal government sources is equal to 55 percent of the 

federal funding provided for this program year.

Figure ES 4. Cost by Funding Source 

Source Amount ($) Percent of Total (%)

Federal Government Funding 

(AmeriCorps) 

$578,720 64% 

State/Local Government Funding $136,000 15% 

Non-government Funding $184,000 21% 

Total $898,720 100% 

ROI Results

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

medium-term, and long-term). Figure ES 5 shows the ROI results for the CTEP program. 

Since two of the calculations include benefits to society (i.e., CTEP program participants 

and 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 cost).3

Figure ES 5. ROI Results for CTEP

ROI Calculation

ROI Scenario

Short-Term Medium-Term Long-Term

Total Benefits per Federal Dollar $4.58 $33.35 $53.20 

Total Benefits per Funder Dollar $2.95 $21.48 $34.26 

Federal Government Benefits per Federal Dollar $1.30 $7.39 $11.60 

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

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

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

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

as the return for every dollar of investment. 
ES-6

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Under the short-term scenario, the ROI for total benefits per federal dollar is $4.58, 

meaning that CTEP participants, AmeriCorps members, and the government realize a 

combined return of $4.58 on every dollar invested by the federal government (i.e., 

AmeriCorps) into the CTEP program. The ROI to all funders combined (under the shortterm scenario) when all benefit types are considered, is $2.95.4 In addition, under the 

short-term scenario, for every dollar invested by the federal government, the federal 

government alone realizes $1.30 in return from additional tax revenue and savings. 

Under the medium-term scenario, the ROI for total benefits per federal dollar, total 

benefits per funder dollar, and federal government benefits per federal dollar are

$33.35, $21.48, and $7.39, respectively. 

Given the assumptions under the long-term scenario, the total benefits equal $53.20 for 

each dollar of federal government investment, and the total benefits per total funder 

dollar equals $34.26. Lastly, under the long-term scenario, the federal government 

alone receives $11.60 back in federal benefits for every tax dollar invested. 

Given the different assumptions of the three scenarios, the respective benefits across all 

three ROI calculations are larger than their associated costs. At a minimum—when 

considering solely the federal government investment provided by AmeriCorps and the 

benefits that would be realized for one years’ time by the federal government alone—

the CTEP program more than breaks even (as shown under the short-term scenario with 

an ROI of $1.30). This indicates that given the most conservative assumptions and ROI 

calculation, the federal government still receives a monetary return greater than the 

taxes allocated to pay for the CTEP program’s annual operation. Of note, when all 

benefits are considered (i.e., that of CTEP participants, AmeriCorps members, and the 

various levels of government), in summation they are about 4.6 times that of 

AmeriCorps’s initial investment into CTEP for the most short-term scenario. Thus, when all 

stakeholder benefits are realized (and the benefit of increased earnings is only 

sustained for one year), they are over four and a half times the initial investment made 

by the federal government. 

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

• The robust employment and earnings outcomes realized by CTEP program 

participants. A total of 10.3 percent of CTEP participants who were unemployed 

before the program and job searching during the program not only gained 

employment after completing the program, but attributed their employment to the 

program (Backman, 2018). 

• The employment outcomes of AmeriCorps members. According to the national 

AmeriCorps Alumni Outcomes Survey study (Friedman et al., 2016), the percentage 

of members unemployed was 5 percentage points lower six months after serving in 

AmeriCorps versus six months before.

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

AmeriCorps), state and local governments, and other non-government entities. The latter group consists of 

local non-profits that are predominantly community centers, adult basic education centers, and workforce 

readiness centers. 
ES-7

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

• The educational attainment outcomes of AmeriCorps members. AmeriCorps 

members receive an education award after serving in the AmeriCorps program; the 

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

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

education award generates additional earnings for AmeriCorps members. 

For the ROI calculations of 1) total benefits per federal dollar and 2) total benefits per 

funder dollar, in particular, AmeriCorps’s requirement of match funding also contributed 

to the magnitude of the ROI results. This additional funding, amounting to $320,000 for 

the September 2018 to August 2019 program year, was leveraged from the government 

investment and allowed CTEP to enroll and provide training to more participants than 

otherwise would have been served under the federal funding alone, leading to greater 

total benefits realized for the community and society. 
1

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Introduction 

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

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

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

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

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

value of AmeriCorps programming to relevant stakeholders. 

This project began with a comprehensive literature review process 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: College Possible, the Community Technology Empowerment 

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

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

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

feasibility study. 

Study Overview

This study is organized into five sections:

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

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

operation. The section also provides a brief history of past evaluations and outlines 

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

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

benefits derived from the CTEP program and describes its program costs. 

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

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

calculations.

• Recommendations for Further Research explores ways in which AmeriCorps and 

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

including how to address limitations of this study.

• Conclusion summarizes key points from the ROI study overall.

Program Description

CTEP is implemented by the Saint Paul Neighborhood Network (SPNN) and serves the 

Minneapolis–St. Paul metropolitan area. CTEP operates under the AmeriCorps State and 

National program in the Economic Opportunity focus area. SPNN’s mission is to 

empower underrepresented people to use media, communications, and technology to 
2 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

further civic, social, community, and economic advancement (Saint Paul 

Neighborhood Network, 2020a). As one of SPNN’s core programs, CTEP helps increase 

the work-readiness skills of underserved groups so they can succeed in the workforce 

and contribute to the economy. The program promotes digital inclusion and equips 

new immigrants and members of low-income communities with the computer-related 

knowledge and skills they need so they can obtain gainful employment and improve 

their civic, educational, and social opportunities.

As CTEP instructors, AmeriCorps members work with youth and adults (aged 14 years old 

and older) to improve their digital skills and technology literacy at various community 

locations, including libraries, community-based organizations, and adult education or 

employment centers. AmeriCorps members teach in formal classes, provide one-onone mentoring and training in computer and technology labs, and certify participants 

in technology skills. Certifications are awarded based on assessments designed by 

Northstar, a provider of digital literacy curricula and certifications. AmeriCorps members

teach skills derived from curricula specified under the Northstar Digital Literacy 

standards and instruct workforce readiness classes positioned to assist English language 

learners, low-income individuals, and others. Examples of their instructional activities 

include helping participants navigate graphic design platforms, introducing them to 

the internet, and helping them edit resumes in Word. CTEP currently leverages 35 

full-time AmeriCorps members to provide these services to program participants and to 

support the capacity building initiatives of the program’s multiple host sites (SPNN, 

2020b). 

Northstar Digital Literacy Standards, Curricula, and Assessments

Northstar (2020) sets standards for digital literacy and offers 

digital literacy testing. CTEP uses Northstar curricula to help 

• Essential computer skills: including basic computer skills, internet basics, using 

email, Windows 10, Mac OS

• Essential software skills: including Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint

• Using technology in daily life: including social media, information literacy, career 

search skills, and an individual’s digital footprint

CTEP uses proctored Northstar assessments to certify program participants in these 

digital literacy topics. Participants who achieve a score of at least 85 percent on an 

assessment earn the Northstar Digital Literacy Certificate. Participants who pass 

assessments for multiple topics have the option of receiving a summary certificate 

listing all modules passed.

Northstar is a program of Literacy Minnesota, a 501c3 organization, whose mission is 

to share the power of learning through education, community building, and 

advocacy. 

program participants build their technology knowledge and skills around 

Northstar’s digital literacy standards for:
3

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

CTEP Evaluation History

Two evaluations—each by Backman (2015, 2018)—have measured the impacts of the 

CTEP program. The main objective of both evaluations was to determine whether 

participation in Northstar Digital Literacy assessments and related computer skills 

instruction—both administered and provided by AmeriCorps members in the CTEP 

program—improved the employability of adult learners. 

Both evaluations used survey responses to assess the employment outcomes of those 

who participated in CTEP’s Northstar assessment-related classroom programming. The 

2018 evaluation improved on the 2015 evaluation by including updated data on 

program outcomes, expanding member involvement, improving the survey design, and 

increasing the survey response rate. Given these improvements to the study design, the 

2018 evaluation was used as the basis for this ROI study. 

For the Backman (2018) evaluation, surveys were administered and completed by 

272 adult learners who passed at least one Northstar assessment and participated in at 

least four hours of CTEP’s Northstar-related basic computer skills classes from September 

2017 to mid-June 2018. Participants completed the surveys 1 to 10 months after

participating in CTEP, were either employed or unemployed before program 

participation, and passed a Northstar assessment at least four weeks prior to survey 

administration. The surveys included questions about participants’ demographics, 

employment status, purpose for program attendance, and whether participation in 

computer skills classes helped in their job search. For respondents who were employed 

post-program, the surveys also captured data on types of employers they worked for 

and the jobs they obtained. 

General findings from the Backman (2018) evaluation included the following: 

• The median number of program hours attended by survey respondents was 22.9.

• Over 81 percent of survey respondents who were looking for work reported that 

participating in the CTEP program helped them search for a job. 

• Over 47 percent of unemployed survey respondents who were searching for work 

had found employment at the time of survey administration.

This ROI study, which focused only on CTEP program participants who were 

unemployed prior to program participation, used the following employment outcomes, 

as well as the Backman (2018) evaluation’s documentation of CTEP participant

demographics:

• Of those who responded to the survey and had passed at least one Northstar 

assessment after participating in at least four hours of CTEP training, 10.3 percent

were unemployed before starting the CTEP program, were actively seeking work 

while they were taking CTEP classes, found a job after CTEP program participation, 

and indicated that the Northstar related programming helped them in their job 

search.

• The median annualized earnings of CTEP program participants who were 

unemployed pre-program but employed post-program was $30,763.
4 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Selection of CTEP for the AmeriCorps ROI Project

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

comprehensive feasibility study. The feasibility study noted the program’s 2018 

evaluation which documented employment and earnings outcomes of the program, 

providing a basis for estimating CTEP program benefits (Backman, 2018). The feasibility 

study also identified research that could be used to quantify the benefits to AmeriCorps 

members involved in CTEP via national service. In particular, a 2016 study by Friedman 

et al. documented the post-national service employment outcomes associated with 

serving in AmeriCorps.5 Additionally, Zeidenberg et al. (2016) estimated the extent to 

which national service increased members’ educational attainment.6 Including these 

additional data allowed an expanded array of benefits of the CTEP program to be 

captured in the ROI analysis.

CTEP largely targets and serves low-income, working-age adults, which is a distinct 

population not represented among the other programs that were being considered by 

AmeriCorps for an ROI analysis. In addition, ROI results for this program may be 

applicable to other similarly structured Economic Opportunity programs that benefit 

from AmeriCorps support and resources.

ROI Methodology 

The methodology for the CTEP ROI study consists of the following components: 

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

evaluations and other third-party sources to determine the benefits to CTEP program 

participants, CTEP AmeriCorps members, and the government. The benefits realized 

across these three stakeholder groups include: 

• CTEP Program Participants. Increased earnings. 

• AmeriCorps Members. Living allowances received during service, education 

awards received following service, and increased earnings post-service. 

• Government. Income, Social Security, and Medicare tax revenue from CTEP 

participants’ and 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 associated with increased educational 

attainment of AmeriCorps members and the employment of CTEP participants. 

This ROI analysis monetized CTEP program benefits in 2019 dollars.

2. Assessing program costs. CTEP program costs are based on the CTEP program 

budget and consist of budgeted federal funds, required match funds, and other 

funding. The CTEP program’s budget includes costs that were allocated during the 

CTEP program year of September 2018 to August 2019.

5 For additional information, see page 56 of Friedman et al. (2016).

6 For additional information, see pages 9 and 25 of Zeidenberg et al. (2016).
5 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

3. Calculating the ROI. The ROI analysis includes three ROI calculations, each assessed 

under three scenarios representing different assumptions about the persistence of 

program outcomes: 

• Total benefits per federal dollar

• Total benefits per funder dollar7

• Federal government benefits per federal dollar

This analytical framework includes only those benefits that could be reasonably 

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

the AmeriCorps program. Figure 1 shows how CTEP program activities can result in CTEP 

participant, AmeriCorps member, and government benefits.

Figure 1. Benefits among CTEP Participants, AmeriCorps Members, and Government

Derived from CTEP

Available data established that both CTEP participants and AmeriCorps members enjoy 

earnings impacts as a result of the CTEP program. However, the data do not establish 

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

benefits, the analysis includes three scenarios:8

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

earnings impacts are limited to a single year.

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

AmeriCorps), state and local governments, and other non-government entities. The latter group consists of 

local non-profits that are predominantly community centers, adult basic education centers, and workforce 

readiness centers.

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

benefits last for both CTEP participants and AmeriCorps members. Certain additional benefits are included 

equally across these three scenarios. For instance, lifetime benefits with regard to decreased public 

assistance, social insurance, and corrections costs as a result of members’ higher educational attainment 

post-service are represented in each of these three scenarios equally as present values. Thus, whether 

members’ employment and earnings impacts are sustained for one year (i.e., short-term scenario) or 30 

years (i.e., long-term scenario), the same present value amount of these lifetime cost savings are realized.
6 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

• 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.9

• Long-Term. This scenario assumes sustained earnings impacts throughout CTEP 

participants’ and CTEP 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. 

The only difference between the three scenarios is the length of time that increased 

employment and earnings are sustained; all other benefits are held constant. 

The long-term scenario (30 years of sustained employment and earnings benefits) 

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

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

medium-term scenario (15 years of sustained employment and earnings benefits) 

represents the midpoint between the short-term and long-term scenarios. 

Monetizing Benefits and Costs

• This analysis monetized an array of benefits and included CTEP program costs, all in 

2019 dollars, to assess the ROI of the CTEP program. Additional details on the 

methodology employed and the calculations used for this analysis are in 

Appendix B.

Benefits

CTEP results in monetizable benefits to CTEP participants, AmeriCorps members, and the 

government. Figure 2 summarizes these benefits and data sources by stakeholder 

group.

Figure 2. Benefits Realized from the CTEP Program by Stakeholder Group

Stakeholder Group Benefits Data Sources* 

CTEP Participants • Additional earnings from 

increased employment

• Backman (2018)

• CTEP10

• American Community Survey 

(ACS; U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.) 

• Consumer Price Index (CPI; 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

n.d.) 

9 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). 10 Unless otherwise cited, all information provided directly by CTEP for this report was received through ICF’s 

personal communication with CTEP in 2020.
7 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Stakeholder Group Benefits Data Sources* 

AmeriCorps 

Members

• Education awards 

• Living allowances 

• Additional earnings from 

increased employment

(Friedman et al., 2016)11

• Additional educational 

attainment as a result of 

education awards

• Friedman et al. (2016) 

• Zeidenberg et al. (2016) 

• CTEP

• ACS (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.) 

• Trostel (2015) 

• CPI (BLS, n.d.) 

• AmeriCorps12

Government • Tax revenue from increased 

CTEP participant earnings postprogram and sales tax revenue 

from the induced increased 

economic activity

• Reduced spending on public 

assistance from increased CTEP 

participant earnings postprogram 

• Tax revenue from increased 

AmeriCorps member earnings

post-national service and sales 

tax revenue from the induced 

economic activity

• Reduced spending on 

corrections, public assistance, 

and social insurance associated 

with the increased educational 

attainment of AmeriCorps 

members post-national service

• Consumer Expenditure Survey 

(BLS, 2020) 

• Federal and state income tax 

rates (Bankrate, 2020; Tax 

Foundation, 2019) 

• Social Security tax rate (Social 

Security Administration, 2018) 

• Medicare tax rate (SSA, 2018) 

• Combined state and average 

local sales tax rates (Tax 

Foundation, 2019) 

• Trostel (2015) 

*Note: The usage of these data sources is discussed in more detail in the subsequent paragraphs. 

Additionally, for the state income and the combined state and average local sales tax rates used in this 

ROI analysis, tax rates used on CTEP participants’ increased earnings are specific to Minnesota. Tax rates 

used on AmeriCorps members’ increased earnings, living allowances, and education awards are national 

averages. Specifics can be found in Appendix B. 

Additional Earnings from Increased Employment (Benefit to CTEP Participants) 

Backman (2018) estimated earnings outcomes for CTEP program participants who were 

unemployed pre-program and became employed post-program. Other CTEP 

participants were employed pre-program and may have experienced increased 

earnings as a result of acquiring skills taught in the CTEP program. However, the 

11 This study found that AmeriCorps service led to a 5 percentage point decrease in unemployment 

between six months prior to service and six months after service. This is leveraged to monetize the 

additional earnings of AmeriCorps members who serve in the CTEP program. 

12 Unless otherwise cited, all information provided directly by AmeriCorps for this report was received 

through ICF’s personal communication with AmeriCorps in 2020. 
8

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Backman (2018) outcome data do not establish the effect of the program on the 

earnings of already-employed program participants and there are no other data 

available that establish that benefit. This ROI analysis estimated benefits only for CTEP 

program participants who were unemployed pre-program and became employed 

post-program, but included costs of the full program, yielding conservative estimates of 

ROI.

In addition, Backman (2018) only collected outcomes data for the subset of program 

participants who passed at least one Northstar assessment. Others who participated in 

the program but did not pass at least one Northstar assessment may also have 

experienced increased earnings or other benefits that are not captured in this ROI 

analysis.

Backman (2018) found that of those who responded the CTEP program survey, 

10.3 percent were unemployed pre-program, job seeking while taking the CTEP 

computer literacy classes, employed post-program, and indicated that CTEP helped 

them in their job search. This analysis used the 10.3 percent to estimate the increase in 

employment of CTEP participants as a result of the program. To estimate employment

impacts across the full program, the 10.3 percent was applied to the number of CTEP 

program participants who passed at least one Northstar assessment during the 

September 2018 to August 2019 program year.13 The product of this calculation 

estimated the number of CTEP participants who became employed due to 

participation in CTEP. To estimate earnings from this employment, the estimated 

number of newly employed participants was multiplied by the average annualized 

earnings for CTEP participants who became employed post-program as provided by 

the study. This analysis used the Consumer Price Index (CPI; U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, n.d.) to express that dollar amount in 2019 dollars. 

To conservatively estimate the net earnings benefit from CTEP-attributable employment 

gains, the employment of CTEP participants post-program was compared to their 

assumed employment pre-program (i.e., what participants’ employment rate would 

have been if they didn’t participate in the CTEP program). To estimate this latter metric, 

a weighted employment rate was calculated using 2018 data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) for the Minneapolis–St. Paul–Bloomington, 

MN–WI metropolitan statistical area (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.). In estimating this preprogram employment rate, the demographic distribution of CTEP participants provided 

in the study—gender, age, race, and English as a second language status—was 

included. This employment estimate was used to approximate the employability of the

CTEP participants if they did not participate in the CTEP program. 

The additional number of CTEP participants employed solely due to the CTEP program 

(when comparing the employment rate of post- versus pre-program) was leveraged to 

estimate the increased earnings of CTEP participants after program completion. This 

13 CTEP provided this metric, which represented the number of program participants who passed at least 

one Northstar assessment (1,530) of the population served for the most recent, full program year.
9 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

metric was then taxed and discounted based on the short-term, medium-term, and 

long-term scenarios in net present 2019 dollars. These cumulative post-tax earnings 

represent the disposable income earned by CTEP participants as a result of CTEP 

program participation.14 

Additional Earnings from Increased Employment (Benefit to 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). Friedman 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. To monetize this decrease in 

unemployment, the analysis first applied the 5 percentage point reduction in 

unemployment to the number of CTEP’s AmeriCorps members, and then applied the 

product to the median annual earnings, which was weighted by members’ 

educational attainment levels post-service and was provided by Friedman et al. (2016). 

The analysis proceeded to:

• Estimate the additional AmeriCorps members employed attributable to national 

service

• Estimate the annual median earnings of the AmeriCorps members 

• Calculate the total earnings for AmeriCorps members attributable to the increased 

employment

14 For CTEP participants and AmeriCorps members, post-tax earnings represent the gross earnings realized 

due to increased employment minus the amount taken from a combination of federal income, state 

income, Medicare, and Social Security taxes. Although increased sales taxes (to state and local 

governments) are an additional government benefit due to these groups’ increased earnings, these sales 

taxes are not removed from CTEP participants’ or AmeriCorps members’ gross earnings to calculate their 

post-tax earnings; as a result, there is a slight income imbalance in this ROI analysis for these two groups. 

However, this has no measurable impact on the ROI. 
10 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

The earnings metrics for AmeriCorps members were applied and discounted based on 

the short-term, medium-term, and long-term scenarios in net present 2019 dollars. 

AmeriCorps members’ post-tax projected earnings represent the additional income 

earned attributable to their participation in national service.15

Education Awards and Living Allowances (Benefits to AmeriCorps Members) 

AmeriCorps members receive living allowances during their national service term and 

education awards after program exit. Both living allowances and education awards 

are taxable, so post-tax amounts were used to calculate benefits to members. 

Living Allowances. AmeriCorps members use living allowances to pay for expenses 

during their service terms. This post-tax amount represents a direct benefit to 

AmeriCorps members. 

Education Awards. AmeriCorps members can use education awards to a) pay for

additional educational attainment and b) repay student loans. Friedman et al. (2016) 

studied how AmeriCorps members allocate their education awards between these 

eligible uses. 

• Education award used to pay for additional educational attainment. This analysis 

estimated the expected increased earnings attributable to AmeriCorps members’ 

increased educational attainment post-service as a result of using the education 

award to pay for additional schooling. Based on Friedman et al. (2016), the analysis 

estimated the amount in post-tax education awards that CTEP AmeriCorps 

members used to pay for additional educational attainment. The analysis then 

estimated the value of the additional educational attainment attributable to the 

education awards in terms of lifetime earnings. These estimated additional earnings 

were included as a benefit to AmeriCorps members. 

• Education award used to repay student loans. The amount of post-tax education 

awards used to repay student loans, as identified by Friedman et al. (2016), was 

included in the ROI analysis as a direct one-time benefit to AmeriCorps members. 

Tax Revenue Generation and Reduced Spending (Benefits to Government) 

The benefits of CTEP to program participants and AmeriCorps members result in benefits 

to the various levels of government.

15 For CTEP participants and AmeriCorps members, post-tax earnings represent the gross earnings realized 

due to increased employment minus the amount taken from a combination of federal income, state 

income, Medicare, and Social Security taxes. Of note, even though increased sales taxes (to state and 

local governments) are an additional government benefit due to these groups’ increased earnings, these 

sales taxes are not removed from CTEP participants’ or AmeriCorps members’ gross earnings to calculate 

their post-tax earnings; as a result, there is a slight income imbalance in this ROI analysis for these two 

groups. However, this has no measurable impact on the ROI.
11

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Benefits to the Government from Increased Earnings by CTEP Participants 

Government benefits from increased earnings by CTEP participants in the form of: 

• Income tax revenue from increased CTEP participant earnings post-program. 

Federal income taxes, state income taxes, Medicare taxes, and Social Security taxes 

were estimated for the additional earnings of CTEP participants based on 2019 rates. 

For both the federal and state income taxes, the rates of the second-to-lowest

income brackets were used, since the annual median earnings of the CTEP 

participants post-program were in this tax bracket. For the state income tax, rates 

specific to Minnesota were used, assuming that CTEP participants continue to reside 

in that state over the course of their working years.

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

CTEP participant earnings post-program. To estimate the additional sales tax 

revenue generated due to the additional net earnings of CTEP participants, the 

combined state and average local sales tax rate for Minnesota was first applied to 

the estimated taxable expenditures for consumers whose income is similar to that of 

the CTEP participants post-program using the Consumer Expenditure Survey (BLS, 

2020). The resulting product was then applied to the additional earnings of CTEP 

participants to calculate the increase in sales tax to state and local governments as 

a result of CTEP program participation. 

• Reduced spending on public assistance from increased CTEP participant earnings 

post-program. As a result of increased earnings, CTEP participants receive less public 

assistance. Specifically, savings to the federal government with regard to public 

assistance—including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP) benefits—were estimated. To calculate this, the decrease in public 

assistance spending by the government as a result of CTEP participants’ increased 

income post-program was estimated using data from the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey (BLS, 2020). 

Benefits to the Government from Increased Earnings and Educational Attainment 

by AmeriCorps Members 

Government benefits from increased earnings and educational attainment by 

AmeriCorps members in the form of: 

• Income tax revenue from increased AmeriCorps member earnings post-national 

service. The analysis estimated federal income tax, state income tax, Medicare, and 

Social Security tax for the additional earnings of AmeriCorps members based on 

2019 tax rates. The analysis estimated tax rates based on the annual median 

earnings of the CTEP AmeriCorps members. The analysis used average state income 

tax rates for the United States, given that 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 

AmeriCorps member earnings post-service. To estimate the additional sales tax 

revenue generated due to the additional net earnings, the analysis multiplied the 

average combined state and local sales tax for the United States by the estimated 
12

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

taxable expenditures to income ratio for consumers whose income is similar to that 

of the AmeriCorps member earnings post-service using the Consumer Expenditure 

Survey (BLS, 2020). The resulting product was then applied to the additional earnings 

of the AmeriCorps members to calculate the increase in sales tax to state and local 

governments.

• Tax revenue from living allowances and education awards. The living allowance 

provided to CTEP AmeriCorps members during their service term is taxed. This 

analysis applies all the aforementioned tax rates to estimate this additional 

government revenue. For the state income and state sales taxes, average rates 

across the U.S. are used, even though the living allowance is provided to the 

AmeriCorps members during their time of service in Minnesota. This is done to stay 

consistent with the AmeriCorps members’ tax rates that are used for additional 

income earned post-program, where it is assumed that they can be living anywhere 

in the U.S. after program completion. Using national average tax rates rather than 

Minnesota-specific rates for one service year has no impact on the ROI results. 

Education awards are also taxed, resulting in additional government revenue. Sales 

taxes are not calculated for education awards since this award amount cannot be 

used for consumer purchases. The education award is, however, subject to federal 

and state taxes, such as income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes. These taxes 

are accounted for in the ROI analysis.16 

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

associated with increased educational attainment of AmeriCorps members 

post-service. The last benefit related to CTEP AmeriCorps members captured by this 

ROI study is the lifetime reduction in public assistance, social insurance, and 

corrections/incarceration spending due to the higher educational attainment of 

members (Trostel, 2015). Higher-educational attainment is associated with less 

dependence on government assistance programs and lower incarceration rates

(Blagg & Blom, 2018; Harlow, 2003). Because CTEP AmeriCorps participation 

increases educational attainment, the government spends less. 

For the monetization of these benefits, the analysis paired the expected increase in 

educational attainment for CTEP AmeriCorps members with the expected 

difference in per-person lifetime government cost savings from Medicaid, SNAP, 

unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation, and incarceration for individuals 

with different levels of educational attainment. 

Costs

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

match funding, and all other funding used to support program operations. The costs are 

specific to the program participant cohort whose outcomes are measured for in this 

16 The tax implications of the AmeriCorps member education award can be found here: 

https://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps/segal-americorps-education-award/taximplications. 
13 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

analysis. Figure 3 shows the segmentation of CTEP program costs by funder, which was

provided by the CTEP AmeriCorps Program Director. The AmeriCorps federal funds 

included the living allowances provided to participating AmeriCorps members during 

this service year and the summed, pro-rated17 educational award amounts granted to 

these members once they completed their service term. Federal dollars also helped 

pay for part of the salary of one of the CTEP program staff members and for program 

expenses such as AmeriCorps members’ FICA and other administrative fees. The sum of 

the state/local government and the non-government costs represents the match 

funding CTEP received for the program year; these amounts are spent on staff salaries 

and other program costs or expenses.

Of note, while AmeriCorps is the leading funder for CTEP (sponsoring more than 

two-thirds of program costs), CTEP’s match funding was 55 percent of federal funds. This 

higher match provides the CTEP program with the budgetary slack to serve more 

individuals and provide more services than would be otherwise available only under the 

federal funds, which translates into increased benefits across stakeholder groups. 

Figure 3. CTEP Program Costs by Funder Type

Funder

Funding Provided for 

the Program Year ($) Percent of Total (%)

Percent of 

AmeriCorps Funds

(%)

AmeriCorps $578,720 64% 

55% 

State/Local 

Governments $184,000 21% 

Non-government18 $136,000 15% 

Total $898,720 100% 

ROI Study Limitations

There are some limitations to consider that will help contextualize the ROI analysis’ 

findings. With regard to the data sources used, the Backman (2018) and Friedman et al. 

(2016) studies—which describe program impacts for CTEP participants and AmeriCorps 

members, respectively—include data that are self-reported using survey instruments. 

Specifically, data on employment and earnings outcomes and on whether CTEP 

participation helped in participants’ success in obtaining employment post-program 

are not corroborated by third-party sources. Moreover, specific to the Backman (2018) 

evaluation, the survey question that evaluated whether CTEP program participation 

played an influential role in helping participants in their job search was binary: it helped 

17 Regarding the pro-rating of education awards: if an AmeriCorps member did not finish a full year of 

service, the member is granted a reduced education award based on the number of hours completed

that service year.

18 This funder group includes local non-profits that predominantly consist of community centers, adult basic 

education centers, and workforce readiness centers.
14 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

or did not help. The question was not written to assess to what degree CTEP helped 

them secure a job post-program. 

As noted above, outcomes data were not available for a large subset of the CTEP 

participant population. Specifically, Backman (2018) estimated earnings outcomes for 

CTEP program participants who were unemployed pre-program and became 

employed post-program. As discussed above, other CTEP participants were employed

pre-program and may have experienced increased earnings as a result of acquiring 

skills taught in the CTEP program. However, the Backman (2018) outcome data do not 

establish the effect of the program on the earnings of already-employed program 

participants. In addition, Backman (2018) only collected outcomes data for the subset 

of program participants who passed at least one Northstar assessment. Others who 

participated in the program but did not pass at least one Northstar assessment may 

also have experienced increased earnings or other benefits.19 Since the benefits from 

only a subset of participants are included in the ROI calculation, while the cost to serve 

all participants are included, the ROI results are conservative estimates. 

Only employment-related outcomes were captured in Backman (2018). Because the 

CTEP program is structured to help participants gain and enhance their digital literacy 

skills, it can also lead to improved educational outcomes, such as high school/GED 

completion, college enrollment, or postsecondary degree completion. Those potential 

educational outcomes could further increase participants’ employability or earnings 

potential. Because outcomes related to increased educational attainment were not 

included in the evaluation, they are not included in the ROI estimates. If these 

outcomes were included and reasonably monetized, they would likely increase the 

estimated ROI for the CTEP program. 

Lastly, it is likely that not all possible benefits from the CTEP program are included in this 

analysis, since the CTEP evaluation is focused on just the outcomes experienced by 

program participants. For example, the evaluation does not capture any possible 

improvements in CTEP participants’ families’ well-being, socio-economic status, or 

health as a result of their obtaining employment. These benefits would also lead to a 

higher ROI than reported here. 

The analysis in this study uses a conservative approach to address the limitations of the 

outcome evaluations used, leading to an estimated ROI that is likely lower than the 

actual. As noted above, outcomes for only a subset of the CTEP population are 

included while costs to serve the entire participant population are considered in the 

ROI. Furthermore, there are likely additional benefits, such as those to participants’ 

family members, that are not included in this analysis.

19 There was a total of 4,440 CTEP participants for the September 2018 to August 2019 program year 

measured in this ROI. Of this amount, 2,001 individuals took the Northstar assessment, of which 1,530 passed. 
15 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Benefits, Costs, and ROI Results

The ROI for the CTEP program measures the benefits of the program compared to its 

costs in order to determine the return to different stakeholders. This section provides 

ICF’s estimates of benefits, costs, and resulting ROI. 

Benefits

Figure 4 shows the estimates of monetized benefits of the CTEP program by stakeholder 

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

amount to over $2.6 million, of which roughly 42, 30, and 28 percent are attributed to 

CTEP participants, AmeriCorps members, and the federal government, respectively. 

Under the medium-term scenario, the total benefits equal roughly $19.3 million, of which 

about 70 percent are attributed to CTEP participants, 8 percent are attributed to 

AmeriCorps members, and 22 percent are attributed to the federal government. Lastly, 

under the long-term scenario, the total benefits equal nearly $30.8 million, of which 72 

percent are attributed to CTEP participants, 6 percent are attributed to AmeriCorps 

members, and 22 percent are attributed to the federal government. 

Figure 4. Benefits by Recipient

Recipient

Benefits by Scenario (2019$)

Short-Term Medium-Term Long-Term

CTEP Participants

(percent of total)

$1,109,288 

(42%)

$13,561,007 

(70%) 

$22,148,532 

(72%)

AmeriCorps Members

(percent of total)

$788,039 

(30%)

$1,462,541 

(8%)

$1,927,721 

(6%)

Federal Government 

(percent of total)

$751,318 

(28%)

$4,279,406 

(22%) 

$6,712,607 

(22%)

Total (total percent)

$2,648,646 

(100%)

$19,302,954 

(100%)

$30,788,860 

(100%)

Costs

Figure 5 shows the cost of the CTEP program by funding source. The total cost of the 

CTEP program for the September 2018 to August 2019 program year was $898,720. A 

total of 64 percent of CTEP program costs ($578,720) are funded by the federal 

government (i.e., AmeriCorps), while the remainder (36 percent or $320,000) consists of 

the required match funding and additional funding provided by state and local 

governments and other non-government entities (i.e., local non-profits such as 

community, adult basic education, and workforce readiness centers.). The match 

funding received from non-federal government sources is equal to 55 percent of the 

federal funding provided for this program year. 
16 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

$578,720 

$184,000 

$136,000 

AmeriCorps (federal) costs

Non-government costs

Other government costs

Note that the cost used in this ROI analysis includes the cost to serve all CTEP 

participants for the most recent program year. The benefits used in the ROI analysis, in 

contrast, include only a subset of the participants served (as discussed above). Thus, 

the ROI findings are conservative estimates.

Figure 5. Cost by Funding Source for CTEP Program

ROI Results

Figure 6 shows the benefits and costs that are included in each of the three ROI 

calculations. 

Figure 6. Benefits and Costs Included in the ROI Calculations 

ROI Calculation Benefits (numerator) Costs (denominator) 

Total Benefits per Federal 

Dollar

All participant, AmeriCorps 

member, and government 

benefits derived from the 

program 

• Federal AmeriCorps

funding

Total Benefits per Funder 

Dollar

All participant, AmeriCorps 

member, and government 

benefits derived from the 

program 

• Federal AmeriCorps

funding

• Match funding

• All other funding 

Federal Government Benefits 

per Federal Dollar

Additional tax revenue 

generation and reduced 

spending attributable to the 

program 

• Federal AmeriCorps

funding

Figure 7 summarizes the ROI results for CTEP across the short-term, medium-term, and 

long-term scenarios. Three different ROI results are calculated for each scenario. Since 

two of the calculations include benefits to society (i.e., CTEP program participants and 

AmeriCorps members), the results are expressed as cost–benefit ratios, while 

64%

21% 

15% 
17 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

maintaining the ROI terminology. Specifically, these ratios take the form of the sum of 

monetized benefits over the sum of applicable 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).20 See Appendix B for the formulas used to calculate each 

ROI calculation. 

Figure 7. ROI Results for CTEP

ROI Calculation

ROI Scenario

Short-Term Medium-Term Long-Term

Total Benefits per Federal Dollar $4.58 $33.35 $53.20 

Total Benefits per Funder Dollar $2.95 $21.48 $34.26 

Federal Government Benefits per Federal Dollar $1.30 $7.39 $11.60 

Even the short-term scenario demonstrates that CTEP generates significant value 

relative to its costs. Under the short-term scenario, the federal government receives 

$4.58 in total benefits for every dollar invested, and all funders collectively receive 

$2.95 in total benefits per dollar invested. Given the short-term scenario, the federal

government alone receives $1.30 back in fiscal returns and savings for every dollar 

invested, while also generating significant benefits for society (i.e., CTEP participants 

and AmeriCorps members) from that investment. Moreover, this indicates that given the 

most conservative assumptions and ROI calculation, the federal government still 

receives a monetary return greater than the taxes allocated to pay for the CTEP 

program.

Under the medium-term scenario, the ROI for total benefits per federal dollar, total 

benefits per funder dollar, and federal government benefits per federal dollar are

$33.35, $21.48, and $7.39, respectively. 

Under the long-term scenario, CTEP participants, AmeriCorps members, and the 

government realize a combined return of $53.20 on every dollar invested by the federal 

government (i.e., AmeriCorps) into the CTEP program. For every dollar invested in the 

CTEP program from all funders, $34.26 is returned to both society and the government

combined.21 In addition, under the long-term scenario, for every dollar invested by the 

federal government, the federal government alone realizes $11.60 in return from 

additional tax revenue and savings. 

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

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

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

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

as the return for every dollar of investment. 

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

AmeriCorps), state and local governments, and other non-government entities. The latter group consists of 

local non-profits that are predominantly community centers, adult basic education centers, and workforce 

readiness centers.
18 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Given the different assumptions of the three scenarios, the respective benefits across all 

three ROI calculations are larger than their associated costs. Additionally, when all 

benefits are considered (i.e., that of CTEP participants, AmeriCorps members, and the 

various levels of government), in summation AmeriCorps receives $4.58 for every dollar it 

initially invested into CTEP for the most short-term scenario. Thus, when all stakeholder 

benefits are realized (and the benefit of increased earnings is only sustained for one 

year), they are 458 percent the initial investment made by the federal government. This 

further corroborates how CTEP generates significant value across a diverse group of 

stakeholders. 

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

• The robust employment and earnings outcomes realized by CTEP program 

participants. Backman (2018) found that of those who responded to the CTEP 

program survey, 10.3 percent were unemployed pre-program, job seeking while 

taking the CTEP computer literacy classes, became employed post-program, and 

indicated that CTEP helped them in their job search. As explained previously in the 

ROI Study Limitations section, this is a conservative estimate of program impacts, 

given that only a subset of participant outcomes is included in this ROI, but the cost 

to serve the entire CTEP participant population is still used in the ROI calculation. 

Therefore, if any of the participants who were not included in the evaluation 

outcomes experienced positive employment impacts (which is very likely), the 

resulting ROI calculations would be larger than reported.

• The employment outcomes of AmeriCorps members. According to Friedman et al. 

(2016) in the national AmeriCorps Alumni Outcomes Survey study, the percentage of 

members unemployed was 5 percentage points lower six months after serving in 

AmeriCorps versus six months before.

• The educational attainment outcomes of AmeriCorps members. AmeriCorps 

members receive an education award after serving in the AmeriCorps program; the 

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

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

education award generates additional earnings for AmeriCorps members.

• Government funding serving as a catalyst for private funding of evidence-based 

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

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

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

funding of AmeriCorps programs (such as for CTEP) serves as a catalyst for private

and other government funding of evidence-based programs that benefit 

communities and society. This additional combined private and non-federal 

government funding—amounting to $320,000 for CTEP for the most recent program 

year—allowed the CTEP program to enroll and provide training to more participants 

than otherwise would have been served under the federal funding alone, leading to 

greater total benefits realized.
19

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Recommendations for Further Research 

Future ROI studies for national and community service programs, such as CTEP, can be 

strengthened in several ways. 

Recommendation 1: Ensure sample sizes for program evaluations are adequate and 

random. AmeriCorps grantees are required to conduct evaluations for their programs. 

To ensure findings are statistically representative of the population served, grantees 

should identify what the appropriate sample size should be for their outcome studies, 

which would differ by program based on the number served. As noted earlier, in the 

2018 CTEP evaluation (Backman, 2018), the improved employment outcomes were 

derived from a sample of 272 survey respondents and the ROI calculation for CTEP

applies those same outcomes to a population of 1,530 CTEP participants. For the 

employment outcomes to be statistically representative of this 1,530 population (at a 

95 percent confidence interval and with a 5 percent margin of error), the survey sample 

needed to be 308 program participants. For the AmeriCorps studies used, this was not 

an issue. This is because their study samples were sufficient for their outcomes to be 

statistically representative of the 35 AmeriCorps members who served in CTEP during the 

most recent program year. Appropriate sample sizes—as well as those samples being 

random—will make the findings more reliable and provide greater confidence that the 

outcomes can be attributed to the intervention itself versus other confounding factors. 

Overall, larger sample sizes in these studies can provide a smaller margin of error, 

identify outliers in the data, and otherwise measure program impacts more accurately. 

Recommendation 2: Document outcomes using third-party data. 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 participants’ wages or employment status. 

Recommendation 3: Ask detailed questions in surveys, including demographics. Also, 

it’s important to stress to AmeriCorps programs that plan on using surveys in their 

program evaluations to not only ask detailed questions, but to ask questions that 

effectively capture all direct and indirect impacts of programming. For instance, 

programs should ask applicable demographic-based questions that make it possible to 

create comparison groups that match the demographic distribution of program 

participants. Additionally, for programs that may generate both employment and 

education outcomes (such as CTEP), grantees should collect information on whether 

program participants gained employment and additional educational attainment

(such as degrees or certifications beyond those earned as part of participation in the 

program). 
20 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

This information can be collected through post-program surveys at multiple points in

time. The information could also be collected from administrative records, such as UI 

data (as described previously) for employment, and wages and data from the National 

Student Clearinghouse (NSC) for educational attainment. Grantees could also collect 

data on the post-program occupations of participants and whether the skills or 

certifications they obtained through the program were required for those occupations. 

These data could further establish the connection between programs and outcomes.

Recommendation 4: Determine the persistence of short- and long-term impacts for both 

program participants and AmeriCorps members. The persistence of impacts, such as 

earnings, is often not measured in evaluations since they require long-term tracking.

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

impacts can be used, as was completed in this ROI analysis, rigorous research on the 

long-term impact of programming will enable AmeriCorps to determine a single value 

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

the CTEP evaluation, survey respondents reported their employment outcomes

between 1 and 10 months after program exit. Instead of collecting outcome measures

at a time that varies by program participant, grantees should track outcomes of interest 

at the same intervals, multiple times after program completion, to provide greater 

insight into the duration and consistency of benefits. 

Recommendation 5: Quantify ripple effects. Earnings impacts on program participants 

and AmeriCorps members likely have positive benefits for those individuals’ families and 

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 program 

participants could be collected alongside the ripple effects their outcomes have on 

their families and communities to determine how long these indirect impacts are 

sustained after program participation or completion. 

Conclusion 

Based upon these findings, investment in CTEP results in favorable impacts across a 

variety of stakeholder groups. Specifically, impacts are realized by CTEP participants, 

AmeriCorps members, and the various levels of government. CTEP participants benefit 

from knowledge and skills gains—along with Northstar certifications of technology 

skills—that they can transfer to the labor market, which can lead to improved 

employment and earnings outcomes. As CTEP instructors, AmeriCorps members gain 

valuable work experience, preparing them for future employment or educational 

pursuits. The government benefits from the improved employment and earnings 

outcomes of both the CTEP participants and the AmeriCorps members because these 

improvements lead to additional tax revenue and reduced spending on public 

assistance and other government programming. 
21

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

The ROI results indicate that the benefits realized by CTEP participants, AmeriCorps 

members, and the government outweigh the investment made by funders (e.g., 

federal, state, and local governments as well as local non-profits that provide program 

funding).22 The combined return to participants, members, and the government per 

federal (i.e., AmeriCorps) dollar is $4.58 under the short-term scenario, $33.35 under the 

medium-term scenario, and $53.20 under the long-term scenario. 

When all funding (from the various levels of government and other funders) is

considered, the ROI across all stakeholder groups is $2.95 under the short-term scenario, 

$21.48 under the medium-term scenario, and $34.26 under the long-term scenario. In 

other words, every $1.00 of funding results in $2.95, $21.48, or $34.26 in return for the 

scenarios, respectively. 

Lastly, when considering the ROI to the federal government alone, the short-term, 

medium-term, and long-term scenario results are $1.30, $7.39, and $11.60, respectively.

This indicates that even under the most short-term scenario, the federal government still 

receives a $1.30 return on each dollar invested, through increased revenue and cost 

savings, while also generating significant societal benefits to CTEP participants and 

AmeriCorps members. 

22 Local non-profits predominantly consist of community centers, adult basic education centers, and 

workforce readiness centers.
22 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Appendix A: Benefits and Costs Included in Return on Investment Calculations 

Benefits

In Figure A-1, the three rightmost columns indicate by an “X” if the benefit is included in the numerator of a return on 

investment (ROI) calculation.

Figure A-1. Benefits Included in ROI Calculations

Benefit

Stakeholder 

Group Data Sources

Total Benefits 

per Federal 

Dollar

Total Benefits 

per Funder 

Dollar

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Increased earnings 

due to increased 

employment of 

program participants

Program 

participant

• Backman (2018)

• American Community Survey (ACS; 

U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.) 

• Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation 

calculator (U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, n.d.)

X X

Increased income tax 

revenue due to 

increased earnings of 

program participants

Federal and 

state 

governments

• Backman (2018)

• ACS (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.)

• CPI inflation calculator (BLS, n.d.) 

• Tax rate data (Bankrate, 2020; Tax 

Foundation, 2019) 

X X X

Increased Social 

Security and 

Medicare tax revenue 

due to increased 

earnings of program 

participants

Federal 

government

• Backman (2018)

• ACS (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.)

• CPI inflation calculator (BLS, n.d.)

• Social Security Administration (2018)

X X X
23 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Benefit

Stakeholder 

Group Data Sources

Total Benefits 

per Federal 

Dollar

Total Benefits 

per Funder 

Dollar

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Increased sales tax 

revenue due to 

increased earnings of 

program participants

State and 

local 

governments

• Backman (2018)

• ACS (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.)

• CPI inflation calculator (BLS, n.d.)

• Consumer Expenditure Survey (BLS, 

2020) 

• Tax rate data (Tax Foundation, 2019) 

X X

Reduced spending on 

annual public 

assistance, 

Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI), and 

Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program 

(SNAP) payments due 

to increased earnings 

of program 

participants

Federal 

government

• Backman (2018)

• ACS (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.)

• CPI inflation calculator (BLS, n.d.)

• Consumer Expenditure Survey (BLS, 

2020) 

X X X

Increased earnings of 

national service 

members due to 

increased 

employment and 

education of national 

service members 

National

service 

member

• Friedman et al. (2016) 

• Trostel (2015) 

• Zeidenberg et al. (2016) 

• ACS (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.)

• CPI inflation calculator (BLS, n.d.)

• National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES, 2018) 

X X
24 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Benefit

Stakeholder 

Group Data Sources

Total Benefits 

per Federal 

Dollar

Total Benefits 

per Funder 

Dollar

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Increased income tax 

revenue due to 

increased earnings of 

national service 

members

Federal and 

state 

governments

• Friedman et al. (2016) 

• ACS (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.)

• CPI inflation calculator (BLS, n.d.)

• NCES (2018) 

• Tax rate data (Bankrate, 2020; Tax 

Foundation, 2019) 

X X X

Increased Social 

Security and 

Medicare tax revenue 

due to increased 

earnings of national 

service members

Federal 

government

• Friedman et al. (2016) 

• ACS (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.)

• CPI inflation calculator (BLS, n.d.)

• NCES (2018) 

• Social Security Administration (2018)

X X X

Increased sales tax 

revenue due to 

increased earnings of 

national service 

members

State and 

local 

governments

• Friedman et al. (2016) 

• ACS (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.) 

• Consumer Expenditure Survey (BLS, 

2020) 

• NCES (2018) 

• Tax rate data (Tax Foundation, 2019) 

X X
25 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Benefit

Stakeholder 

Group Data Sources

Total Benefits 

per Federal 

Dollar

Total Benefits 

per Funder 

Dollar

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

AmeriCorps member 

living allowances and 

education awards

National 

service 

member

• Community Technology 

Empowerment Project (CTEP)23

• AmeriCorps24

X X

Reduced spending on 

lifetime public 

assistance, 

corrections, and social 

insurance due to 

increased 

educational 

attainment of national 

service members

Federal, state, 

and local 

governments 

• Trostel (2015) 

• Zeidenberg et al. (2016) 

• ACS (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.)

X X X

23 Unless otherwise cited, all information provided directly by CTEP for this report was received through ICF’s personal communication with CTEP in 

2020. 24 Unless otherwise cited, all information provided directly by AmeriCorps for this report was received through ICF’s personal communication with 

AmeriCorps in 2020.
26 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Costs

In Figure A-2, the three rightmost columns indicate by an “X” if the cost is included in the denominator of an ROI 

calculation.

Figure A-2. Costs Included in ROI Calculations

Cost

Stakeholder 

Group Data Sources

Total Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

Total Benefits 

per Funder Dollar

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar

AmeriCorps costs for 

education awards, 

living allowances, 

and other CTEP 

program grant 

funding

Federal 

government 

(AmeriCorps)

• AmeriCorps X X X 

State and local 

government funding

State and local 

governments

• CTEP X 

Other nongovernment costsNongovernment 

funders*

• CTEP X 

*Note: This beneficiary includes local non-profits that predominantly consist of community, adult basic education, and workforce readiness centers.
27 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

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 Community Technology Empowerment Program (CTEP) 

included the following steps: 

• Measuring and monetizing program benefits to CTEP participants, AmeriCorps 

members, and the different levels of government 

• 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 AmeriCorps 

program. 

Although both CTEP participants and AmeriCorps members experience positive 

benefits from the CTEP program in terms of increased employment and earnings

(described below), available data do not establish how long these specific impacts are 

sustained over time. To address a range of possible durations for those benefits, three 

scenarios were developed for this ROI study: 

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

earnings impacts are limited to a single year.

• 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.25

• Long-Term. This scenario assumes sustained earnings impacts throughout CTEP 

participants’ and CTEP 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 present net value in 2019 dollars. 

25 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).
28

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

The only difference between the three scenarios is the length of time that increased 

employment and earnings are sustained; all other benefits are constant across the 

scenarios.26 For each ROI calculation, three ROI estimates using the three scenarios

were developed, which is shown in greater detail in the Calculating ROI section. 

Measuring Benefits

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

the program benefits. As a result of the CTEP program, CTEP program participants, 

AmeriCorps members serving in the CTEP program, and various levels of government 

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 CTEP Participants

The findings from Backman (2018), which include CTEP participants’ employment and 

earnings outcomes post-program participation using data collected from a survey, are

used to measure the impact of CTEP on program participants. Backman (2018) found 

that of those who passed at least one Northstar assessment and responded to the CTEP 

program survey, 10.3 percent were unemployed pre-program, were job seeking while 

enrolled in CTEP, gained employment post-program, and indicated that CTEP helped 

them in their job search. This ROI study uses this employment outcome to estimate the 

number of additional participants employed as a result of the CTEP program. 

Specifically, as noted earlier in the report, 4,400 individuals participated in CTEP during 

the September 2018 to August 2019 program year. Of those, 2,001 took at least one 

Northstar assessment, of which 1,530 passed. To calculate the benefits of the CTEP 

program on participants in terms of employment gains, the 10.3 percent was applied to 

the number of CTEP participants who passed at least one Northstar assessment during 

the most recent program year (1,530). This calculation determined the number of 

individuals employed after participating in the CTEP program (i.e., 158 individuals). 

To calculate conservatively the benefits associated with CTEP participants gaining 

employment, the study used a weighted employment rate (based on a similar 

demographic and geographic distribution to the CTEP participants), created using 2018 

American Community Survey (ACS) data (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.), to estimate the 

employability of CTEP participants in the absence of the CTEP program. In other words, 

this metric represents an assumed pre-program employment rate and denotes the 

portion of the aforementioned 158 CTEP participants who would eventually become 

employed even if they did not participate in the CTEP program. The actual

employment outcome for the CTEP participants—derived from the Backman (2018) 

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

benefits last for both CTEP participants and AmeriCorps members. Certain additional benefits are included 

equally across these three scenarios. For instance, lifetime benefits with regard to decreased public 

assistance, social insurance, and corrections costs as a result of members’ higher educational attainment 

post-service are represented in each of these three scenarios equally. Thus, whether members’ 

employment and earnings impacts are sustained for one year (i.e., short-term scenario) or 30 years (i.e., 

long-term scenario), the same amount of these cost savings is realized. 
29 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

evaluation and denoted as participants’ post-program employment rate—is then 

compared to the assumed demographically weighted, pre-program employment rate. 

This difference between the two determines the number of additional CTEP participants 

employed that is solely attributable to the CTEP program (i.e., benchmarking CTEP 

participants’ employment post-program with what their employment would have been 

pre-program). 

As noted previously, two of the scenarios in this study assume that benefits from 

improved employment are sustained (15 years and 30 years for the medium-term and 

long-term scenarios, respectively). However, some number of previously unemployed 

individuals served by CTEP would have found employment without the program. This 

analysis uses an estimated general employment rate of 72.3 percent to estimate the 

proportion of previously unemployed CTEP participants who would have gained 

employment even without completing the CTEP program. Specifically, this employment 

rate is weighted to account for the distribution of gender, age, race, and English as a 

second language status among the CTEP participants provided in the Backman (2018)

study. This assumed pre-program employment rate is then multiplied by the 

158 additional individuals employed to estimate the number of CTEP participants who 

would have been employed without participating in the program. Since this analysis 

only includes the CTEP participants who transitioned from unemployment to 

employment pre- versus post-program (i.e., the aforementioned 158 individuals), their 

associated employment rate is 100 percent. The difference in the number employed 

after the CTEP program and the number that is estimated to become employed at 

some point even if they didn’t participate in CTEP is shown in Figure B-1. This difference 

(i.e., 44 individuals) represents the number of additional CTEP participants that became 

employed post-program that is solely attributable to the CTEP program. 

Figure B-1. Additional Number Employed and Annual Median Earnings for CTEP 

Participants 

CTEP 

Participants

Number 

Employed 

Post-CTEP* 

Estimated

Number That 

Would Become 

Employed 

without CTEP

Estimated 

Number 

Employed 

Solely Because 

of CTEP

Median 

Gross Annual 

Earnings

(2019$) 

Median 

Net Annual 

Earnings

(2019$)**

CTEP 

Participants 158 114 44 $30,763 $22,202 

Sources: Backman (2018), American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.) 

*Note: The CTEP participants who are included in the ROI analysis are only those who were unemployed 

pre-program and became employed post-program and attributed their employment to the program. Thus, 

the employment rate post-program is 100 percent. Of note, this is not the employment rate for all those 

who participated in the CTEP program during the most recent program year. 

**Note: Median net annual earnings excludes payroll taxes paid on earnings (i.e., federal and state 

income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes) and accounts for the reduction in public assistance 

collected by CTEP participants as a result of increased earnings from obtaining employment.
30 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

To calculate the benefits of CTEP to program participants in terms of increased earnings 

(derived from the increased employment of the 44 CTEP participants), the median net 

annual earnings for CTEP participants (shown in Figure B-1) is multiplied by the number 

of individuals who are employed solely because of CTEP. This increase in net earnings is 

then spread over time depending on the scenario to create a cumulative sum of 

median net earnings for these additional CTEP participants who are estimated to be 

employed solely as a result of the CTEP program. Of note, the median gross annual 

earnings for the CTEP participants was provided by Backman (2018) and is 

representative of the population included in this ROI analysis (i.e., those who passed at 

least one Northstar assessment, responded to the CTEP program survey, were 

unemployed pre-program, were job seeking while taking CTEP classes, were employed 

post-program, and reported that CTEP helped them in their job search). 

To avoid double counting, median net annual earnings is used to calculate the direct 

benefit to CTEP participants, rather than median gross annual earnings. The median net 

annual earnings in Figure B-1 excludes payroll taxes (federal and state income, Social 

Security, and Medicare). It also accounts for the reduced amount of public assistance 

that CTEP participants would be eligible for as a result of increased earnings from 

becoming employed—an estimated savings of $577 per person whose employment is 

solely attributable to the CTEP program, based on reduced estimated public assistance 

payments of $542 annually (see the discussion preceding Figure B-8 for details). This 

methodology avoids double counting benefits because the payroll taxes and the 

reduction in public assistance are counted as benefits to the government (explained 

later in the Benefits to Government section). The payroll tax rates and the assumptions 

made about the reduction in public assistance collection that are used to calculate 

median net earnings (based on the median gross earnings) are also described in the 

Benefits to Government section. 

Based on these calculations, the cumulative median net earnings for the CTEP 

participants for the three different scenarios are shown in Figure B-2. These post-tax (net) 

monetary amounts represent the additional earnings realized due to the employment 

of the 44 CTEP participants whose employment gain is solely attributed to the CTEP 

program. 

Figure B-2. Cumulative Increase in Median Net Earnings due to Participation in CTEP 

by Scenario

Scenario

Cumulative Increase in Median Net Earnings 

due to Participation in CTEP (2019$) 

Short-Term $987,237 

Medium-Term $12,068,929 

Long-Term $19,711,592 

Sources: Backman (2018), American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.) 
31 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Benefits to AmeriCorps Members

The AmeriCorps members who provide services to the CTEP participants also 

experience benefits due to their service. This analysis estimates the following benefits: 

• Living allowance and education award

• Increased earnings due to increased education derived from the education award

• Additional earnings due to a 5 percentage point reduction in unemployment as a 

result of AmeriCorps service27

Living Allowance and Education Award 

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 alumni use them to pay for additional 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 education is used in calculating members’ additional earnings due to the 

increased educational attainment they experience post-service from using the 

education award. This analysis included the post-tax values of the living allowance and 

the portion of the education award used to repay student loans as AmeriCorps 

member benefits (Figure B-3). The portion of the education award used to fund 

additional educational attainment is discussed in the following subsection.

Figure B-3. Additional AmeriCorps Member Benefits

Benefit Post-Tax Value (2019$) Notes

Living Allowance (net) $209,709 Post-tax living allowances members 

receive during service 

Education Award (net) 

Used to Pay Off Student 

Loans

$41,592 

Post-tax education award amount 

used to pay off outstanding student 

loans

Total $251,301

Sources: CTEP,28 Friedman et al. (2016)

27 According to Friedman et al. (2016), the percentage of members unemployed was 5 percentage points 

lower six months after serving in AmeriCorps than six months before.

28 Unless otherwise cited, all information provided directly by CTEP for this report was received through ICF’s 

personal communication with CTEP in 2020. 
32 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Increased Earnings due to Increased Education Derived from the Education 

Award 

The AmeriCorps education award pays for some portion of members’ increased

educational attainment, and the future earnings derived from that educational 

attainment is treated as a direct benefit to AmeriCorps members. To calculate the 

portion of members’ increased educational attainment that is attributable to CTEP, 

tuition cost data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2018) were

used. Figure B-4 details the average total cost of tuition for each degree type (NCES, 

2018), and the portion of the cost that the post-tax education award amount (i.e., 

$3,942) represents ($5,92029 before taxes). These percentages were used to estimate 

the lifetime benefits of educational attainment that can be attributed to the education 

award. For instance, according to NCES (2018), the average annual cost of a public, 

in-state, four-year academic institution during the 2017 to 2018 academic year was 

$20,050, which amounts to over $84,000 for four years if expressed in 2019 dollars. The 

$3,942 post-tax education award only represents 5 percent of the cost of that degree, 

so the AmeriCorps program, accordingly, could only be credited with 5 percent of the 

completion of an AmeriCorps member’s bachelor’s degree post-service. 

Figure B-4. Average Total Cost of Education and Portion Attributable to Education Award 

by Degree Type

Degree Type Average Cost (2019$)*

Percent of Degree Tuition 

Covered by Post-tax 

Education Award (%)

Associate Degree $6,810 57.9% 

Bachelor’s Degree $84,210 4.7% 

Graduate Degree30 $25,045 15.7% 

Source: NCES (2018), CTEP

*Note: Costs were provided for the 2017 to 2018 academic year by NCES (2018) and are expressed in 2019 

dollars since the post-tax education award amounts are in 2019 dollars. 

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 35 CTEP AmeriCorps members who served during 

the most recent program year are distributed by their pre-service highest level of 

educational attainment, as shown in Figure B-5. Then, the portion of these 

35 AmeriCorps members who leveraged their education award to pay for additional 

educational attainment (i.e., 46 percent) is distributed across members’ pre-service 

29 The education award takes into account whether the AmeriCorps members were full- or part-time and 

were engaged over a full program year or an academic year. In addition, the analysis adjusts the value of 

education awards to dollars in the period studied. For those reasons, education award benefits per person 

may differ across national service programs. 30 Assumes a two-year graduate program.
33

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

education levels. For example, 27 CTEP AmeriCorps members had a bachelor’s degree 

pre-service. Friedman et al. (2016) indicates 46 percent of AmeriCorps alumni used their 

education award to pursue postsecondary degrees after program completion, making 

the number of CTEP AmeriCorps members who used their education award to pursue a 

degree higher than their bachelor’s degree 12.4 (noted as “12” in Figure B-5).

Next, the difference in the additional lifetime 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 Figure B-5 and expressed in 2019 dollars. For instance, Trostel 

(2015) calculated that the lifetime earnings in 2019 dollars of someone with an 

associate degree is about $890,000, while that of someone with a bachelor’s degree is 

over $1.3 million. The difference between these two metrics (roughly $420,000) 

represents the additional lifetime earnings realized as a result of gaining a bachelor’s 

degree if an associate degree was already completed. This process was completed for 

all postsecondary degree types to conservatively estimate the additional lifetime 

earnings realized by CTEP AmeriCorps members due to an increase in educational 

attainment. To isolate the increase in educational attainment specific to members using 

the education award to pursue additional education, the number of CTEP AmeriCorps 

members who used the award for this purpose by degree type is reduced by the 

percent of the degree tuition that can be covered by the $3,942 post-tax education 

award received post-service. 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 educational attainment that is credited to 

the use of the education award post-service. As noted in Figure B-5, this lifetime 

earnings amount is roughly $400,000 across all CTEP AmeriCorps members who served in 

the most recent program year. Of note, these lifetime earnings are in addition to the 

earnings derived from CTEP AmeriCorps members’ gains in employment as delineated 

in the subsequent section. While the earnings from AmeriCorps members’ increased 

employment differs depending on the scenario (i.e., short-term, medium-term, and 

long-term) since it’s uncertain how long these earnings will persist, the lifetime earnings 

calculated in Figure B-5 are constant across all three scenarios.
34 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Figure B-5. Additional Earnings from AmeriCorps Members’ Use of the Education Award 

Degree Type

Number 

of CTEP 

AmeriCorps 

Members

Number 

of CTEP 

AmeriCorps 

Members 

Who Used 

Education 

Award for 

Schooling

Percent 

of Degree 

Tuition 

Covered by 

Education 

Award (%)

2019 

Additional 

Lifetime 

Earnings 

(2019$)

Additional 

Lifetime 

Earnings from 

Education 

Award 

(2019$)

High School 

Diploma 5 2 0.0% − −

Associate 

Degree 1 0 57.9% $275,964 $73,470 

Bachelor’s 

Degree 27 12 4.7% $424,577 $246,822 

Graduate 

Degree 2 1 15.7% $469,802 $68,023 

Total 35 16 $388,316 

Sources: NCES (2018), Trostel (2015)

Note: It’s assumed that a public high school education is used and thus would be free; therefore, an 

education award could not be used to obtain this level of education and future earnings are not realized 

for this degree type. It’s also assumed for the graduate degree type that a two-year program is used. 

Moreover, the counts of CTEP AmeriCorps members in the second column are rounded to the nearest 

whole integer. 

Reduction in Unemployment due to AmeriCorps Service 

According to the national AmeriCorps Alumni Outcomes Survey study (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. Friedman 

et al. (2016) did not provide actual employment rates for AmeriCorps members preand post-service, but instead provided the change in unemployment rates (a 5

percentage point decrease). Thus, to estimate the additional number of AmeriCorps 

members employed post-service attributable to the CTEP program, this analysis 

multiplied the 5 percentage point increase in employment by the number of CTEP 

AmeriCorps members who served during the most recent program year, as shown in 

Figure B-6. The analysis estimated the earnings of AmeriCorps members as a result of 

their increased employment using educational attainment data from Zeidenberg et al. 

(2016). 
35 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Figure B-6. Additional Number Employed and Annual Median Earnings for AmeriCorps 

Members

AmeriCorps 

Members

Number 

of CTEP 

AmeriCorps

Members

Percentage 

Point Increase 

in AmeriCorps 

Members’ 

Employment 

(%)

Number 

Employed 

Attributable 

to AmeriCorps

Median 

Gross 

Annual 

Earnings 

(2019$) 

Median 

Net Annual 

Earnings 

(2019$)*

AmeriCorps 

Members 35 5% 2 $47,979 $31,945 

Sources: Zeidenberg et al. (2016), Friedman et al. (2016), American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, 

n.d.) 

*Note: Median net annual earnings excludes payroll taxes paid on earnings (i.e., federal and state income, 

Social Security, and Medicare taxes).

Figure B-7 shows the cumulative median net earnings for the additional AmeriCorps 

members employed for the three different scenarios (i.e., short-term, medium-term, and 

long-term). These post-tax (or net) monetary amounts represent the additional earnings 

realized due to the AmeriCorps members serving in CTEP whose employment is solely 

attributed to the program. 

Figure B-7. Cumulative Median Net Earnings for AmeriCorps Members by Scenario

Scenario

Cumulative Median Net Earnings 

for CTEP Participants (2019$) 

Short-Term $55,903 

Medium-Term $683,414 

Long-Term $1,116,187 

Sources: Zeidenberg et al. (2016), American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau, n.d.) 

Benefits to Government

State and Local Government 

State and local government benefits from CTEP are realized through the generation of 

additional state income tax revenue from increased employment, state and local sales 

tax revenue from increased employment, and reduced lifetime spending on social 

insurance and corrections as well as increased lifetime state and local taxes due to the 

increased educational attainment of AmeriCorps members post-service. Additionally, 

state government revenue is derived from the taxable portion of the living allowances 

and education award received by AmeriCorps members. 
36

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

State Income Tax Revenue: To measure income tax revenue generation that stems from 

increased employment for state governments (any local income taxes are not 

included), the additional gross median earnings of CTEP participants and AmeriCorps 

members that are solely attributed to the CTEP program are taxed by a state income 

tax rate. For CTEP participants’ additional gross median earnings, the 2019 Minnesota

state income tax rate of 6.8 percent is used, while for AmeriCorps members’ gross 

median earnings, the nationwide average 2019 state income tax rate of 3.8 percent is 

used (Tax Foundation, 2019). For the additional earnings of AmeriCorps members that 

stem from their increase in educational attainment—driven by the use of the education 

award—Trostel (2015) provides the additional lifetime state income taxes gained. 

Moreover, both living allowance and education award amounts given to AmeriCorps 

members post-service are taxed by the same state income tax (i.e., 3.8 percent) used 

to calculate tax revenue from AmeriCorps members’ increased earnings that stem from 

increased employment. 

State and Local Sales Tax Revenue: To measure sales tax revenue generation that stems 

from increased employment for state and local governments, the amount of CTEP 

participants’ and AmeriCorps members’ additional median net earnings that are spent 

on taxable goods is taxed by a sales tax rate. For CTEP program participants, the

summation of the 2019 Minnesota state sales tax rate of 6.9 percent and Minnesota’s

average local sales tax rate of 0.5 percent (Tax Foundation, 2019) is used, amounting to 

7.4 percent. For AmeriCorps members’ additional earnings and living allowance 

amounts, the average 2019 combined state and local average sales tax rate across 

the U.S. of 6.5 percent is used (Tax Foundation, 2019). 

To estimate the amount of CTEP participants’ and AmeriCorps members’ median 

earnings as a result of improved employment that is spent on taxable goods, data from 

the Consumer Expenditure Survey (BLS, 2020) 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 earnings of the CTEP 

participants and AmeriCorps members; for CTEP participants this proportion is 42

percent, while for AmeriCorps members it’s 28 percent. The difference between these 

proportions is a result of the different income brackets CTEP participants and 

AmeriCorps members fall into. These proportions are then applied to CTEP participants’

and AmeriCorps members’ median net earnings to calculate the post-tax monetary 

amount they spend on taxable goods, and then sales tax rates are applied accordingly

to estimate the resulting sales tax revenues that go to state and local governments. For 

AmeriCorps members’ gross living allowance amount, the portion AmeriCorps members 

spent on taxable goods (28 percent) along with the 6.5 percent sales tax rate is applied 

to calculate additional tax revenue to state and local governments. 

Additional lifetime sales taxes realized for state and local governments—as a result of 

AmeriCorps members using their education award to achieve higher educational 

attainment post-service—are provided by Trostel (2015).
37

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

State and Local Government Cost Savings: State and local governments also benefit 

from CTEP through lifetime savings in social insurance and corrections—as reported in 

Trostel (2015)—due to the increase in AmeriCorps members’ educational attainment 

after program exit. Of note, social insurance includes unemployment insurance 

compensation and workers’ compensation. To conservatively calculate these lifetime 

non-federal government savings, the pre-service education levels of AmeriCorps 

members is first compared to their post-service education levels, with the latter 

provided by Zeidenberg et al. (2016). This calculation determines the change in lifetime 

costs (and thus savings) in corrections and social insurance based on the differences in 

education levels among CTEP AmeriCorps members (see Figure B-9). To determine 

what portion of this differential represents lifetime 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 

is determined based on the U.S. incarcerated population in 2019. Specifically, the 

number of individuals housed in federal government institutions (9.7 percent) versus 

state and local facilities (90.3 percent) was used to divide up these savings (Sawyer & 

Wagner, 2019). Therefore, over 90 percent of the lifetime cost savings in corrections due 

to AmeriCorps members experiencing an increase in educational attainment pre- to 

post-service are allocated to state and local governments. 

Federal Government 

The federal government benefits from the CTEP program in terms of increased tax 

revenue (e.g., federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes) from CTEP 

participants’ and AmeriCorps members’ increased additional earnings that are derived 

from increased employment and from the taxable portion of the living allowances and 

education award received by AmeriCorps members. Benefits are also realized in the 

form of cost savings in public assistance, social insurance, and corrections expenditures

due to CTEP participants’ improved employment and AmeriCorps members’ increased 

educational attainment post-service. 

Federal Income Tax Revenue: To measure federal income tax revenue that stems from 

employment, the additional median gross earnings of CTEP participants and 

AmeriCorps members that are solely attributed to the CTEP program—including the 

living allowances and education awards received by AmeriCorps members—are taxed 

by a federal income tax rate. This rate is based on the estimated median gross annual 

earnings of CTEP participants and AmeriCorps members and the gross amount in living 

allowances and education awards received by members. For CTEP participants, the 

2019 federal income tax rate is 12 percent, while for AmeriCorps members, the rate 

used is 22 percent, based on their earnings. The tax rate used for the living allowances 

and education awards is also 22 percent (Bankrate, 2020). The difference in the federal 

income tax rates stems from participants’ and members’ earnings amounts after 

participating or serving in the CTEP program, respectively, which are associated with 

different federal income tax brackets. For the additional lifetime earnings of AmeriCorps 
38

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

members that is based on their increase in educational attainment—fueled by the use 

of the education award to pursue further education—Trostel (2015) provides additional 

lifetime federal income taxes.

Social Security and Medicare Tax Revenue: Social Security and Medicare tax revenue 

are measured the same way as federal income tax (i.e., by measuring the fiscal gain as 

a result of earnings from increased employment and the gross amount 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 1.5 percent, respectively; thus, these rates are applied to the additional 

median gross earnings for both CTEP participants and AmeriCorps members to 

calculate the additional amount of revenue the federal government receives. These 

same rates are also applied to the gross living allowance and education award 

amounts received by members to calculate additional tax revenue. Moreover, 

additional lifetime Social Security tax revenue realized for the federal government—as a 

result of AmeriCorps members using their education award to complete different higher 

education degree types 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 improved employment

(and thus increased earnings) of CTEP participants as well as the increased educational 

attainment of AmeriCorps members after program exit. In this ROI analysis, reductions in 

public assistance, social insurance, and corrections costs are realized for AmeriCorps 

members, but only reductions in public assistance payments are realized for CTEP 

participants; this is because educational attainment data for CTEP participants were

not provided to use the same proxies from the Trostel (2015) study as were used for the 

AmeriCorps members. Thus, though both groups experience benefits from the CTEP 

program that result in decreases in federal government costs, the sources and 

methodology used for each group slightly differ due to data availability. 

To estimate the savings in public assistance spending that resulted from the 

employment gains of CTEP participants post-program participation, data from the 

Consumer Expenditure Survey (BLS, 2020)—specifically for the Midwestern region, which 

is where Minnesota is located—are used. Figure B-8 shows the amount of income the 

average household receives, by income bracket, from the federal government in 

public assistance (i.e., Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF, Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, Supplemental Security Income or SSI, etc.). The 

amount of public assistance spending on CTEP participants before program 

participation was $1,119 annually, since the CTEP participants whose outcomes are 

included in this ROI analysis were unemployed pre-program, meaning they had little to 

no income. Based on CTEP participants’ median gross annual earnings from Figure B-1, 

the public assistance spending amount per person was reduced to $542 annually. The

difference ($577 per person employed due to CTEP), which represents the per person 

savings to the federal government in terms of public assistance spending, is then 

applied to the number of additional CTEP participants employed that is attributed solely 

to the CTEP program (i.e., the 44 individuals), and spread over time depending on the 

scenario. 
39 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Figure B-8. 2018 Average Annual Public Assistance Payments by Income Range for 

Midwestern Region

Payment 

Source

Less

than

$15,000 

($)

$15,000

to

$29,999 

($)

$30,000

to

$39,999 

($)

$40,000

to

$49,999 

($)

$50,000

to

$69,999 

($)

$70,000

to

$99,999 

($)

$100,000

to

$149,999 

($)

$150,000

to

$199,999 

($)

$200,000

and

more ($)

Public 

Assistance 

(TANF, 

SNAP, SSI, 

etc.)

$1,119 $746 $542 $374 $242 $108 $145 $36 $32

Source: Consumer Expenditures Survey (BLS, 2020)

In addition to the fiscal cost savings derived from the improved employment and 

earnings of CTEP participants, the federal government also spends less on AmeriCorps 

members after the completion of their national service terms. Using the findings of 

Trostel (2015), which were referenced earlier in this section, the increased educational 

attainment that AmeriCorps members achieve after national service—provided by 

Zeidenberg et al. (2016)—was used to estimate the federal government portion of 

lifetime cost savings on social insurance (which is comprised of worker’s compensation 

and unemployment insurance compensation, as noted earlier), public assistance (e.g., 

SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, etc.), and corrections. Figure B-9 shows the lifetime costs to the 

federal versus the state and local governments for each of these areas—where 

applicable—by education level. To conservatively calculate the federal government’s

lifetime savings, the pre-service education levels of AmeriCorps members are first 

compared to their post-service education levels. The differences between the public 

assistance, federal social insurance, and federal corrections costs for the pre- versus 

post-service education levels represent the cost savings realized by the federal 

government due to the increased educational attainment level of a CTEP AmeriCorps 

member post-service. As previously mentioned when 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 compensation (part of social insurance; Oswald, 2018), and 

almost 10 percent of the lifetime cost savings in corrections (Sawyer & Wagner, 2019). 

Figure B-9. Government Costs from Increased Educational Attainment Level per 

Individual’s Lifetime

Source of 

Government 

Saving

High School 

Diploma (2012$)

Associate 

Degree (2012$)

Bachelor’s 

Degree (2012$)

Graduate 

Degree 

(2012$)

Public Assistance $54,155 $31,803 $14,480 $9,394

Social Insurance $9,584 $8,209 $5,863 $4,732

Federal $3,964 $3,570 $2,660 $2,090 

State/Local $5,620 $4,639 $3,204 $2,643 
40 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Source of 

Government 

Saving

High School 

Diploma (2012$)

Associate 

Degree (2012$)

Bachelor’s 

Degree (2012$)

Graduate 

Degree 

(2012$)

Corrections $8,488 $4,055 $1,190 $725

Federal $822 $393 $115 $70 

State/Local $7,666 $3,662 $1,075 $655 

Total $72,227 $44,067 $21,533 $14,851

Source: Trostel (2015)

Figure B-10 shows the tax rates that were applied to CTEP participants’ and AmeriCorps 

members’ additional median gross and net earnings (which were derived from 

increased employment), depending on the type of revenue being calculated. 

Differences in tax rates used were largely driven by differences in earnings and the 

geographic distribution of these two groups, as detailed in the last column.

Figure B-10. 2019 Tax Rates and Ratio of Taxable Expenditures for CTEP Participants and 

AmeriCorps Members

Metric

CTEP 

Participant 

Rate (%)

AmeriCorps 

Member Rate (%) Notes

Federal 

Income Tax

12.0% 22.0% • CTEP Participants: Tax rate for second 

lowest federal income tax bracket; 

based on the median gross annual

earnings of CTEP participants due to 

increased employment

• AmeriCorps Members: Tax rate for 

third lowest federal income tax 

bracket; based on the median gross 

annual earnings of AmeriCorps 

members due to increased 

employment

State Income

Tax

6.8% 3.8% • CTEP Participants: Tax rate for second 

lowest state income tax bracket for 

Minnesota; based on the median 

gross annual earnings of CTEP 

participants due to increased 

employment

• AmeriCorps Members: Average of 

state income taxes for the U.S.; based 

on the median gross annual earnings 

of AmeriCorps members due to 

increased employment

Social 

Security Tax

6.2% 6.2% • Social Security tax rate for employees 

and employers
41 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Metric

CTEP 

Participant 

Rate (%)

AmeriCorps 

Member Rate (%) Notes

Medicare Tax 1.5% 1.5% • Medicare tax rate for employees and 

employers

Sales Tax 7.4% 6.5% • CTEP Participants: Combined state 

and average local sales tax rate for 

Minnesota

• AmeriCorps Members: Average 

combined state and local sales tax 

rate for the U.S.

Ratio of 

Taxable 

Expenditures 

per National 

Consumer

42.0% 28.0% Percent of net income spent on taxable 

goods and services; used to calculate 

sales tax from net earnings:

• CTEP Participants: Based on the 

median gross annual earnings of CTEP 

participants due to increased 

employment

• AmeriCorps Members: Based on the 

median gross annual earnings of 

AmeriCorps members due to 

increased employment

Sources: Tax Foundation (2019), Bankrate (2020), Social Security Administration (2018), Consumer 

Expenditures Survey (BLS, 2020)

Summary of Benefits to Government

Figure B-11 shows the amount of tax revenue generated and savings in expenditures for 

state and local versus federal government that are solely credited to the CTEP program

and calculated using the methods described above. The data are broken out by CTEP 

participants and AmeriCorps members for each of the three scenarios. These

government revenue and savings amounts are benefits that are included in the three 

ROI calculations. 

Figure B-11. State/Local and Federal Government Benefits by Stakeholder Group and by 

Scenario

Benefit Type

Benefit (2019$)

Short-Term

MediumTerm Long-Term

CTEP Participant-Derived Benefits

State/Local Government Benefits $122,052 $1,492,079 $2,436,940

State Income Tax Revenue from Employment

(Minnesota state tax rate: 6.8%) $91,274 $1,115,822 $1,822,418 

State and Local Sales Tax Revenue from 

Employment $30,778 $376,257 $614,522 
42 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Benefit Type

Benefit (2019$)

Short-Term

MediumTerm Long-Term

(Minnesota state and local tax rate: 7.4%) 

Federal Government Benefits $289,412 $3,538,054 $5,778,530

Federal Income Tax Revenue from Employment

(Federal tax rate: 12.0%) $161,072 $1,969,098 $3,216,031 

Social Security & Medicare Tax Revenue from 

Employment

(Federal Social Security tax rate: 6.2%) 

(Federal Medicare tax rate: 1.5%) $102,683 $1,255,300 $2,050,220 

Savings in Reduced Public Assistance from 

Employment (Lifetime) $25,657 $313,656 $512,279 

AmeriCorps Members-Derived Benefits

State/Local Government Benefits $ 92,519 $139,510 $171,916 

State Income Tax Revenue from Living Allowances 

and Education Awards*

(Average state tax rate: 3.8%) $19,008 $19,008 $19,008 

State and Local Sales Tax Revenue from Living 

Allowances*

(Average state and local tax rate: 6.5%) $3,831 $3,831 $3,831 

State Income Tax Revenue from Employment

(Average state tax rate: 3.8%) $3,165 $38,692 $63,193 

State and Local Sales Tax Revenue from 

Employment

(Average state and local tax rate: 6.5%) $1,021 $12,485 $20,390 

State Income, Sales, and Property Taxes from 

Educational Attainment (Lifetime) $34,838 $34,838 $34,838 

Savings in Reduced Social Insurance and 

Corrections Spending from Educational Attainment 

(Lifetime) $30,656 $30,656 $30,656 

Federal Government Benefits $461,906 $741,353 $934,077

Federal Income Tax Revenue from Living 

Allowances and Education Awards*

(Federal income tax rate: 22.0%) $110,940 $110,940 $110,940 

Social Security and Medicare Tax Revenue from 

Living Allowances and Education Awards*

(Federal income tax rate: 22.0%) $38,577 $38,577 $38,577 

Federal Income Tax Revenue from Employment

(Federal income tax rate: 22.0%) $18,472 $225,819 $368,818 

Social Security and Medicare Tax Revenue from 

Employment $6,423 $78,523 $128,248 
43 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Benefit Type

Benefit (2019$)

Short-Term

MediumTerm Long-Term

(Federal Social Security tax rate: 6.2%) 

(Federal Medicare tax rate: 1.5%) 

Federal Income Tax Revenue from Educational 

Attainment (Lifetime) $85,987 $85,987 $85,987 

Social Security Tax Revenue from Educational 

Attainment (Lifetime) $56,880 $56,880 $56,880 

Savings in Reduced Social Insurance, Corrections, 

and Public Assistance Spending from Employment 

(Lifetime) $144,627 $144,627 $144,627 

Total $965,889 $5,910,996 $9,321,463 

* Living allowances and education awards are one-time taxable payments. The resulting tax revenue does

not vary by scenario.

Of note, the federal and non-federal government estimates of reduced lifetime social 

insurance, corrections, and public assistance spending as well increased lifetime taxes 

from AmeriCorps members’ use of the education award do not vary across the three 

scenarios (i.e., short-term, medium-term, and long-term) because they are not 

dependent on how long the increased employment and associated earnings of 

AmeriCorps members are sustained post-service. Rather, they are derived from 

AmeriCorps members’ increased educational attainment post-national service. 

Measuring Costs

Figure B-12 shows the costs of CTEP by funding source. AmeriCorps is the leading funder 

for CTEP, covering more than two-thirds of the program’s annual operating costs. Other 

non-federal government funders matched 55 percent of AmeriCorps’s contribution for 

the most recent, completed program year. That matched amount represented 36 

percent of total CTEP program funding for the year. 
44 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Figure B-12. Funding Sources and Amounts for CTEP (September 2018 – August 2019)

Source Amount ($) Details

Federal Government Funding AmeriCorps) $578,720

Living Allowances $314,970 Covers members’ living allowances 

during their service term 

Education Awards $74,449 Amount of education awards 

given to members post-service 

Other $189,301 Used to pay for CTEP staff salaries 

and other expenses/administrative 

fees like AmeriCorps members’ 

FICA

State/Local Government Funding $136,000 

Non-government Funding31 $184,000

Total $898,720

Source: CTEP

Calculating ROI 

To calculate the three ROI calculations for CTEP, the sum of applicable benefits is 

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. 

Since two of the ROI calculations include benefits to society (i.e., CTEP program 

participants and AmeriCorps members), the results are expressed as a cost–benefit 

ratio, while maintaining ROI terminology.32 Although not shown as a ratio, the ROI results 

are interpreted as the amount of dollars returned for every $1.00 of investment (or cost). 

31 This funder group includes local non-profits that predominantly consist of community centers, adult basic 

education centers, and workforce readiness centers.

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

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

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

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

as the return for every dollar of investment. 
45 

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

The formulas used to calculate each of the three ROIs are shown below: 

= Benefits to CTEP Particpants + Benefits to AmeriCorps Members + Benefits to the Government

Federal (AmeriCorps) Funding

= Benefits to CTEP Particpants + Benefits to AmeriCorps Members + Benefits to the Government

Federal (AmeriCorps) Funding + Required Match Funding + Other Funding

= Benefits to the Federal Government

Federal (AmeriCorps) Funding

Figures B-13, B-14, and B-15 show the total benefits, costs, and ROI results for each 

scenario. 

Figure B-13. ROI Calculations for Short-Term Scenario

Benefits/Costs

Total Benefits per 

Federal Dollar 2019$)

Total Benefits per 

Funder Dollar (2019$)

Federal Government 

Benefits per Federal 

Dollar (2019$)

Total Benefits $2,648,646 $2,648,646 $751,318 

Total Costs $578,720 $898,720 $578,720 

Result $4.58 $2.95 $1.30 

Figure B-14. ROI Calculations for Medium-Term Scenario

Benefits/Costs

Total Benefits per 

Federal Dollar 2019$) 

Total Benefits per 

Funder Dollar (2019$) 

Federal Government 

Benefits per Federal 

Dollar (2019$) 

Total Benefits $19,302,954 $19,302,954 $4,279,406 

Total Costs $578,720 $898,720 $578,720 

Result $33.35 $21.48 $7.39

Figure B-15. ROI Calculations for Long-Term Scenario

Benefits/Costs

Total Benefits per 

Federal Dollar 2019$)

Total Benefits per 

Funder Dollar (2019$)

Federal Government 

Benefits per Federal 

Dollar (2019$)

Total Benefits $30,788,860 $30,788,860 $6,712,607 

Total Costs $578,720 $898,720 $578,720 

Result $53.20 $34.26 $11.60 

Total Benefits 

per Federal 

Dollar

Total Benefits 

per Funder 

Dollar

Federal 

Government 

Benefits per 

Federal Dollar
46

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

References 

Backman, D. (2015). Evaluation report: Impact of Northstar assessment and related

computer skills programming on employment in CTEP programs. Minnesota Literacy 

Council. 

https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_SaintPaul

NeighborhoodNetwork_CommunityTechnologyEmpowerment_2015.pdf

Backman, D. (2018). 2018 Evaluation report: Impact of the Northstar assessment & 

related computer skills programming on employment in CTEP programs. AmeriCorps. 

https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/SaintPaul_19

AC208840_Report_Revised_508%20%281%29.pdf

Bankrate. (2020). bankrate.com

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

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://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_AmeriCo

rpsAlumniOutcomesFinalTechReport.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

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://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_Imprv_Liv

esComm_40YrsVISTASvc_2008.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (2018, November). 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 postsecondary 

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

Northstar. (2020.) About Northstar. https://www.digitalliteracyassessment.org

Office of Management and Budget. (1992, October 29). Circular A-94: Guidelines and 

discount rates for benefit–cost analysis of federal programs, Transmittal Memo No. 

64. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A94/a094.pdf
47

Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project

Office of Management and Budget. (2003, September 17). Circular A-4. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf

Oswald, J. (2018, March 29). What does an unemployment claim cost an employer? 

Unemployment Insurance Services. https://www.unemploymentservices.com/unemployment-claim-cost-employer/

Saint Paul Neighborhood Network. (2020a). About SPNN. https://www.spnn.org

Saint Paul Neighborhood Network. (2020b). Join the Community Technology 

Empowerment Project! General CTEP AmeriCorps position description. 

https://www.spnn.org/blog/join-community-technology-empowerment-projectgeneral-ctep-americorps-position-description

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. (2018, October). OASDI and SSI program rates & limits, 

2019. 

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/prog_highlights/RatesLimits2019.html

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://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/upload/employment_research_r

eport.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. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020, September 22). Consumer Expenditure Surveys. 

https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables.htm 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). CPI inflation calculator. https://data.bls.gov/cgibin/cpicalc.pl

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Explore census data. https://data.census.gov/cedsci/ 

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://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_NatlStud

ent_ClearinghouseMatch_AlumniOutcomes_2016.pdf