This report was co-authored by the Corporation for 

National and Community Service and Abt 

Associates Inc., under contract number ABT03T004. 

Corporation for National and Community Services 

Office of Research and Policy Development 

May 2008 

The mission of the Corporation for National and 

Community Service is to improve lives, strengthen 

communities, and foster civic engagement through 

service and volunteering. Each year, the 

Corporation engages more than four million 

Americans of all ages and backgrounds in service to 

meet local needs through three major programs: 

Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve 

America.

The Corporation partnered with Abt Associates Inc., 

an independent and non-partisan research firm, to 

conduct the study. 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to 

reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. 

The suggested citation is: Corporation for National 

and Community Service, Office of Research and 

Policy Development, Still Serving: Measuring the 

Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni, 

Washington, D.C., 2008. 

Upon request, this material will be made available in 

alternative formats for people with disabilities. This 

report is also available on the Corporation’s Web 

site at http://www.nationalservice.gov. 
 

CEO Message 

It is a great pleasure for the Corporation for National and Community Service to present the most definitive longitudinal 

study ever on the long-term effect of AmeriCorps service on former members. Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year 

Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni compares AmeriCorps members who served in 1999-2000 with a like group who expressed 

interest in joining AmeriCorps but did not enroll, providing scientifically rigorous data that illuminates the powerful and 

lasting impact of a single year of AmeriCorps service. And there’s big news: it turns out that AmeriCorps is not only a 

conduit to intense service, it is also America’s pipeline to public service careers. In short, a year of AmeriCorps service 

influences many to pursue careers as teachers, nonprofit managers and government employees – this at a time when America 

is bracing for crisis-level workforce and leadership shortages in the nonprofit and government sectors. 

Since its inception in 1994, more than 540,000 individuals have served in AmeriCorps. These members, most of whom gave 

at least a year of dedicated, intensive service, have tackled some of our nation’s toughest problems, including illiteracy, 

homelessness, gang violence, and drug abuse. AmeriCorps members remain on the front lines of service every day, and have 

in recent years stepped up their role in recruiting, training, and managing volunteers of all ages and backgrounds — they 

supported 1.7 million community volunteers in 2007 alone. Together, AmeriCorps members and the volunteers they mobilize 

serve with more than 4,100 organizations nationwide, from national nonprofits like Boys and Girls Clubs, Red Cross, Teach 

for America and Habitat for Humanity to small, local faith-based groups. Increasingly they are part of organizations that are 

at the forefront of social entrepreneurship, serving and producing the next generation of nonprofit leaders. In all these ways, 

AmeriCorps members are “getting things done” and making a difference in communities from coast to coast. 

When we embarked on this study eight years ago, we believed it was important to determine the impact of AmeriCorps 

service on individuals who serve. While those who join AmeriCorps are already active in their communities prior to service, 

one of the most remarkable findings of the study confirms the intuitive belief that community service given in a dedicated, 

intensive way changes the person serving – not just for a day or during their period of service – but in a way that has lasting

effects on their lives and behavior. We are now able to demonstrate for the first time that one year of service in AmeriCorps 

creates long-term positive impacts on AmeriCorps alumni eight years later. These alumni continue to be highly civically 

engaged in their communities whether as public servants, volunteers, or in a variety of community activities. 

In fact, sixty percent of AmeriCorps State and National alumni work in a nonprofit or governmental organization, continuing 

to solve their communities’ most pressing needs. Nearly half (46 percent) pursue careers in specific fields such as education,

social work, public safety, government or military service. These results are significant as our nation attempts to fill millions 

of nonprofit and public sector jobs, and counter critical shortages in fields like education and nursing. Nonprofit employers 

also look to alumni as a valuable source for employees, hiring many alumni who first served in their programs as 

AmeriCorps members. And AmeriCorps is a clear entrée to public service for minority alumni and alumni from 

disadvantaged circumstances, as both groups are significantly more likely to choose public service careers than their nonAmeriCorps peers. 

The results of this study suggest that AmeriCorps has the potential to make an even more profound difference in our country 

in the future. Not only does AmeriCorps provide individuals with immediate opportunities to serve, but AmeriCorps service 

also spurs these individuals to be agents of positive change in their communities after their service is complete. Equipped 

with the leadership skills and “can do” spirit gained through AmeriCorps, these alumni continue to be models and catalysts 

for civic engagement, working with public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and other individuals to create a stronger and 

more equitable society for all Americans. 

David Eisner, Chief Executive Officer, Corporation for National and Community Service 
 

Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of 

AmeriCorps on Alumni 

May 2008 

Co-authored by: 

Abt Associates Inc. 

Workforce and Civic Renewal Group 

Cambridge, Massachusetts 

Bethesda, Maryland 

Ryoko Yamaguchi, Project Director 

Philip Gordon, Deputy Project Director 

Christopher Mulvey, Associate Analyst 

Fatih Unlu, Associate 

Laura Simpson, Senior Analyst 

JoAnn Jastrzab, Principal Investigator 

Christopher Winship, Harvard University, Principal 

Investigator 

Cristofer Price, Project Quality Advisor 

Ken Lam, Senior Associate 

Cay Bradley, Senior Analyst 

Melanie Brown-Lyons, Senior Analyst 

Corporation for National and Community Service 

Office of Research and Policy Development 

Washington, D.C. 

Robert Grimm, Jr., Director 

Kevin Cramer, Deputy Director 

LaMonica Shelton, Associate Director for Policy 

and Communications 

Nathan Dietz, Senior Research Associate and 

Statistician 

Lillian Dote, Policy Analyst 

Shelby Jennings, Research Communications 

Specialist 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page i 

Acknowledgements 

The report authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of many individuals to this study. First of all, we would 

like to thank the individuals in the study sample—both AmeriCorps members and individuals from the 

comparison group—for the time they spent answering our surveys and talking with interviewers on the telephone. 

We appreciate their time, candor, and thoughtfulness. 

We also want to thank the AmeriCorps State and National programs and AmeriCorps National Civilian 

Community Corps campuses that participated in the study for their help in administering the baseline survey to 

incoming members. We especially want to thank the State and National programs and NCCC campuses that 

helped us obtain recent contact information on their members. For some, it meant reviewing paper files from 

1999 to provide us with updated contact information on their former members. 

Our Technical Working Group provided sage advice throughout the study, particularly with regards to the 

analysis plan, response rates, and interpretation of the findings. We would like to thank Greg Duncan 

(Northwestern University), Rebecca Maynard (University of Pennsylvania), Doug McAdam (Stanford 

University), Larry Orr (formerly of Abt Associates Inc.), David Reingold (Indiana University), Carole Uhlaner 

(University of California, Irvine), Edward Vytlacil (Columbia University), and Stephen G. West (Arizona State 

University). 

We thank staff from the Corporation for National and Community Service, including Sandy Scott, Carla Manuel, 

Kristin McSwain, Merlene Mazyck, Kathy Ott, and the staff of AmeriCorps State and National and AmeriCorps 

NCCC. We also recognize the ongoing support for this study provided by the Corporation’s Board of Directors, 

in particular, the vision and leadership of former Board members Dr. Leslie Lenkowsky and Dr. Thomas Ehrlich. 

We also want to thank the Hands On Network for assisting us in obtaining the most up-to-date contact 

information on AmeriCorps members during the data collection phase. Their willingness to share their 

information was invaluable. 

Finally, this report would not be possible without the valuable support of our colleagues at Abt Associates, 

including Survey Director Todd Robbins, Assistant Survey Director Michael Harnett, Lindsay Horner, Julie 

Williams, Sonju Harris, Don LaLiberty, Rebecca Zarch, Jan Nicholson, Jeff Smith, and Abt’s Survey Group. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page ii 

Table of Contents 

Introduction and Study Overview ..........................................................................................................................1

AmeriCorps: A Program Overview...................................................................................................................................1

State and National...............................................................................................................................................2

NCCC .................................................................................................................................................................2

Research Design.................................................................................................................................................................3

Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................5

Limitations..........................................................................................................................................................6

Organization of this Report................................................................................................................................................7

Characteristics of Study Participants.....................................................................................................................8

Age .....................................................................................................................................................................................8

Race....................................................................................................................................................................................8

Gender ................................................................................................................................................................................8

Disadvantaged Circumstances...........................................................................................................................................9

Educational Attainment .....................................................................................................................................................9

The Impacts of AmeriCorps..................................................................................................................................10

Civic Engagement........................................................................................................................................................... 15

Employment.................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Education......................................................................................................................................................................... 35

Life Satisfaction .............................................................................................................................................................. 39

Conclusion and Implications.................................................................................................................................41

References ...............................................................................................................................................................44

Endnotes..................................................................................................................................................................49
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 1 

Introduction and Study Overview 

Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of 

AmeriCorps on Alumni is a longitudinal study that 

assesses the outcomes and impacts of national and 

community service on individuals who serve in 

AmeriCorps State and National and AmeriCorps 

National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC). The 

objective of the study is to identify the effects of 

AmeriCorps on members’ civic engagement and 

volunteering, employment and careers, educational 

attainment, and life satisfaction. The findings in this 

report reflect a longerterm assessment of the 

impact of participation in 

AmeriCorps 

approximately eight years 

after enrollment in the 

program. The study 

includes a nationally 

representative sample of 

more than 1,700 

AmeriCorps members 

who served in 108 

AmeriCorps State and 

National programs across 

the country, and 475 AmeriCorps members in three 

(of then, five) NCCC regional campuses enrolling in 

1999–2000, and similar numbers of individuals in 

State and National and NCCC comparison groups. 

The Corporation partnered with Abt Associates Inc., 

an independent and non-partisan research firm, to 

conduct the study. 

AmeriCorps: A Program Overview 

AmeriCorps is a national service program that 

engages 75,000 individuals in intensive, resultsdriven service each year. AmeriCorps programs 

address the needs of communities in education, the 

environment, public safety, disaster relief, and other 

human needs. AmeriCorps also increases the 

capacity of nonprofit organizations to serve their 

communities by mobilizing volunteers, expanding 

services, raising funds, and creating sustainable 

programs. Since the program’s inception in 1994, 

more than 540,000 Americans have served with tens 

of thousands of nonprofit organizations, public 

agencies, and faith-based organizations nationwide. 

In return for their service, AmeriCorps members 

receive a Segal AmeriCorps Education Award that 

they can use to pay for college or to pay back 

qualified student loans. 

AmeriCorps is administered by the Corporation for 

National and Community 

Service (the Corporation), an 

independent government 

agency, the mission of which is 

to improve lives, strengthen 

communities, and foster civic 

engagement through service 

and volunteering. AmeriCorps 

encompasses three distinct 

programs, including 

AmeriCorps State and National, 

AmeriCorps NCCC, and 

AmeriCorps Volunteers in 

Service to America (VISTA). 

AmeriCorps has its roots in our nation’s long 

tradition of service, civic engagement, and citizen 

action to address community needs. It emerged out 

of a national service movement that began with 

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation 

Corps of the 1930s and early 1940s and was 

furthered by the creation of the Peace Corps, 

VISTA, Foster Grandparents, and other national 

service programs in the 1960s. 

The National and Community Service Act of 1990 

funded new and existing community service 

initiatives at the state and local levels, providing them 

with a unified structure and national focus. In 1993, 

the Corporation for National and Community Service 

was established to connect Americans of all ages and 

backgrounds with opportunities to give back to their 

communities and their nation. It merged the work and 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 2 

staff of two predecessor agencies, ACTION and the 

Commission on National and Community Service. In 

1994, the first class of 20,000 AmeriCorps members 

began their volunteer service in more than 1,000 

communities (Corporation for National and 

Community Service, 2008a). Under the Clinton 

Administration, AmeriCorps grew to support 50,000 

members per year. 

In his State of the Union Address following the 

September 11, 2001 attacks, President Bush 

proposed expanding AmeriCorps to 75,000 members 

per year; this was implemented in 2004. The critical 

role of national service in disaster response and 

rebuilding was demonstrated in the wake of 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which devastated the 

Gulf Coast in 2005. In response to these hurricanes, 

more than 10,000 AmeriCorps members have 

provided 3 million hours of volunteer service and 

mobilized or managed 229,000 volunteers to help 

Gulf Coast communities recover and rebuild 

(Corporation for National and Community Service, 

2007a, 2007b). 

This study focuses on the impacts of service in the 

AmeriCorps State and National and AmeriCorps 

NCCC programs on members who served during the 

1999–2000 program year. Both programs improve 

the nation’s communities through intensive 

community service using different program 

structures and delivery mechanisms.1

State and National 

AmeriCorps State and National programs support a 

broad range of local service programs that engage 

Americans in intensive service to meet critical 

community needs. AmeriCorps State and National 

provides funding to a large network of public and 

nonprofit organizations that sponsor service 

programs around the country, including thousands of 

faith-based and other community organizations, 

higher education institutions, Indian tribes, and 

public agencies. These groups recruit, train and 

oversee AmeriCorps members to meet critical 

community needs in education, the environment, 

public safety, health, and other human needs. The 

year this study began, program year 1999–2000, the 

AmeriCorps State and National programs enrolled 

approximately 36,000 members. Currently there are 

over 67,000 members annually (Corporation for 

National and Community Service, 2006b). 

Members serve with thousands of community- and 

faith-based organizations, providing valuable 

services such as tutoring and mentoring youth, 

building affordable housing, and coordinating afterschool programs. More importantly, AmeriCorps 

members recruit and manage other community 

volunteers to multiply efforts to serve communities. 

NCCC 

The AmeriCorps National Civilian Community 

Corps is a team-based, full-time residential program 

for individuals aged 18 to 24. Members are based at 

regional campuses organized by teams of 10 to 12, 

and take on a series of six to eight week projects 

throughout their respective regions. Service 

activities are diverse and include environmental 

preservation, youth development, building and 

renovating low income housing, and disaster 

response and relief. All NCCC members are trained 

in CPR, first aid, and other disaster services, and 

approximately 15 percent of members are also 

trained as firefighters. NCCC teams can be deployed 

rapidly to meet the nation’s public safety and 

disaster response needs and can nimbly respond to 

other national priorities. Since 2005, more than 

3,100 NCCC members have served in the Gulf Coast 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 3 

on more than 650 separate disaster-related services 

projects. Currently, there are 1,100 members 

serving with the NCCC. 

In exchange for a year of full-time (1,700 hours) 

service, AmeriCorps members receive a Segal 

AmeriCorps Education Award of $4,725 that can be 

used toward higher education, or to repay qualified 

student loans. Members who serve part time receive 

a partial Segal AmeriCorps Education Award. Many 

educational institutions now match the amount of the 

award. Members also receive a modest living 

allowance, health benefits, training, and deferment 

of student loans during service. 

Research Design 

Still Serving: Measuring the 

Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps 

on Alumni is designed to assess 

the outcomes and impacts of 

national and community service 

on members who served in 

AmeriCorps State and National 

and NCCC, eight years after 

enrolling in 1999–2000. 

The study is designed to address 

the following research questions: 

 What is the impact of 

AmeriCorps on members’ civic engagement? 

 What is the impact of AmeriCorps on members’ 

careers? 

 What is the impact of AmeriCorps on members’ 

educational attainment? 

 What is the impact of AmeriCorps on members’ 

life satisfaction? 

The research uses a quasi-experimental design, 

where a nationally representative sample of 

individuals who participated in AmeriCorps State 

and National and NCCC in 1999–2000 are compared 

to a similar group of individuals who did not 

participate in the program (Shadish, Cook, & 

Campbell, 2002). This type of research design has a 

treatment group (AmeriCorps members) and a 

matched comparison group (individuals who did not 

participate in AmeriCorps).2

 

In selecting comparison groups for this study, the 

goal was to identify individuals who demonstrated 

both an awareness of AmeriCorps and an interest in 

service. The State and National comparison group is 

composed of individuals who had indicated 

knowledge of, and interest in, AmeriCorps by 

contacting the Corporation’s toll-free information 

line and requesting information about the program, 

but who did not actually enroll during the study 

period. For reasons of comparability, the 

comparison group was limited to those contacting 

the information line during roughly the same period 

as did individuals in the program 

group—summer to fall of 1999. 

The NCCC comparison group 

was selected from the pool of 

individuals who applied for entry 

into the NCCC during the spring 

1999 recruitment selection 

process,3

 met the program’s 

eligibility requirements, and 

either did not enroll because of a 

limited number of slots in the 

program or declined an invitation 

to enroll. 

 

Survey data were collected from AmeriCorps and 

comparison group individuals at four time points. 

The baseline survey was administered in 1999, after 

application for entry, but prior to program 

participation for AmeriCorps participants. A postprogram survey was administered a year later in 

2000 when AmeriCorps participants completed or 

were near completion of their program. A third 

survey was administered in 2004 to obtain 

supplemental information. The fourth wave 

collected survey data in 2007. 

As documented in the baseline report for this study,4

 in 

general, the treatment and comparison groups for each 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 4 

AmeriCorps program were similar in age and in 

outcomes measured at baseline. Appendix C presents 

descriptive statistics that show the comparison of 

measures for individuals in both State and National and 

NCCC by treatment and comparison status.5

 To 

mitigate the threat of selection bias, propensity score 

analysis (PSA) was incorporated into the design of this 

analysis (Becker & Ichino, 2002; Rosenbaum & Rubin, 

1984). PSA estimates treatment effects by comparing 

treatment cases with comparison group cases that are 

about as likely to be selected into the treatment group 

based on their observable characteristics. The study 

collected a great deal of information about background 

and motivational characteristics that might affect both 

selection into treatment and the outcomes of interest. 

Examples of these characteristics include exposure to 

service during childhood and prior participation in 

service. This information was used, along with 

participants’ baseline characteristics, to create a 

measure of each respondent’s likelihood to join 

AmeriCorps State and National or AmeriCorps 

NCCC—i.e., their propensity score. The effect of 

participation in AmeriCorps State and National or 

AmeriCorps NCCC was estimated by comparing 

AmeriCorps members with individuals from the 

comparison group who had similar likelihoods of 

enrolling in AmeriCorps. This approach is described 

in more detail in Appendix I. 

In the 1999–2000 program year, from which the study 

sample was drawn, total enrollment in State and 

National, NCCC, and VISTA programs was over 

Exhibit 1: Data Collection 

Instrument Timinga Focus 

Baseline Survey

(1999–2000) 

Members: Within days of enrolling 

Comparison Group: 3–4 months after 

inquiring about AmeriCorps (roughly when 

they might have enrolled) 

• Prior service experience 

• Other background characteristics 

• Attitudinal information related to 

outcomes 

Post-Program

Survey 

(2000-2001) 

State and National Members: 1–2 months 

after completing service (approximately 1 

year after baseline survey) 

NCCC Members: During final 1–2 weeks of 

service (approximately 10 months after 

baseline survey) 

Comparison Group: 12–15 months after 

baseline survey 

• Attitudinal information related to 

outcomes 

• Information on AmeriCorps program 

experience (members only) 

Post-Program 

Supplemental 

Survey (PPSS) 

(2003-2004)

Members: 3 years after baseline survey 

(approximately 2 years after most members 

completed their service) 

Comparison Group: 3 years after baseline 

survey 

• Additional background information to 

model probability of program 

participation 

• Social networking behavior 

• Additional information on program 

experience (members only) 

• Limited data on post-program activities 

Follow-Up Survey

(2007)

Members: 8 years after baseline survey 

(approximately 7 years after most members 

completed their initial year of service) 

Comparison Group: 8 years after baseline 

survey 

• Attitudinal and behavioral information 

related to outcomes 

• Limited data on post-program activities 

• Information about the Segal 

AmeriCorps Education award usage 

(members only) 

a

 A note on survey timing: The duration of AmeriCorps programs was generally between 10 and 12 months. Cases were 

released for the post-program and post-program supplemental interviews at 12 and 36 months after baseline interview. Most 

respondents were interviewed within a few weeks of survey release. In some instances, it took longer (up to five months) to 

locate and interview respondents. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 5 

40,000 members. From the State and National and 

NCCC programs, a nationally representative sample of 

full-time, first-year members enrolling in program year 

1999–2000 was selected for inclusion in this study. 

The sample consisted of 1,717 individuals who served 

full-time in one of 108 AmeriCorps State and National 

programs and 475 individuals who served full-time in 

AmeriCorps NCCC in three, of the then five, NCCC 

regional campuses. The comparison group for the 

State and National program consisted of 1,524 

individuals, and the comparison group for the NCCC 

program consisted of 401 individuals. 

Two previous reports were included as part of this 

longitudinal study on the impacts of AmeriCorps 

participation. The baseline report, Serving Country 

and Community: A Study of Service in AmeriCorps, A 

Profile of AmeriCorps Members at Baseline, was 

released in June 2001, and provides a description of 

AmeriCorps participants and programs. The follow-up 

report, Serving Country and Community: A 

Longitudinal Study of Service in AmeriCorps, Early 

Findings, 6 released in December 2004, found that 

AmeriCorps had positive short-term impacts on 

members’ connection to community, knowledge about 

problems facing their community, participation in 

community-based activities, and personal growth in the 

years following their service when compared to the 

comparison group of non-participants. 

Methodology 

Results from two types of analyses are presented in the 

report. The first type consists of descriptive analyses 

of characteristics of AmeriCorps participants in the 

1999–2000 program years. These analyses utilize data 

from the 2007 follow-up survey, and use sampling 

weights such that a reported mean (e.g. mean age) 

represents an estimated average of the population of 

State and National or NCCC participants in the 1999–

2000 program year. 

The second type of analysis is a quasi-experimental 

impact analysis that is used to make inferences about 

the effects of AmeriCorps program participation in 

1999–2000 on outcomes measured eight years later in 

the 2007 follow-up survey. The impact analysis 

estimates the effects of participation by comparing the 

outcomes for AmeriCorps members with outcomes for 

similar individuals who did not enroll in AmeriCorps 

(comparison groups), using propensity score analysis 

to address possible selection bias. The use of a 

comparison group enables the study to describe the 

average effects of treatment on the treated. 

As in the 2004 report (Corporation for National and 

Community Service, 2004), several of the civic 

engagement outcomes are constructed from groups of 

related survey questions.7

 The study analyzes these 

program outcomes in terms of changes—the changes 

between baseline and post-program values of the same 

measures. These changes (which could be negative as 

well as positive) are then compared between program 

members and comparison group members. The study 

estimates the effects of treatment (participation in 

AmeriCorps) separately for AmeriCorps State and 

National and AmeriCorps NCCC programs.8 The 

impact estimates are thus conceptually difference in 

differences: the difference between the change from 

baseline to post program experienced by the treatment 

group (members), and the analogous change 

experienced by the comparison group (similar nonmembers). 

For these civic engagement outcome measures, the 

study also estimates separate impacts for subgroups 

of the treatment and comparison groups. In many 

cases, the study finds the estimated impacts of 

AmeriCorps participation are different for 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 6 

Blacks/African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and 

individuals from disadvantaged circumstances. For 

further insight into these outcomes, the researchers 

also examine differences in responses to the 

individual questions used to construct these 

outcomes between the program and comparison 

group members, overall and within subgroups. The 

researchers perform similar analyses for the 

employment, education, and life satisfaction 

categories, looking at differences in responses to the 

questions used to measure these outcomes.9

Limitations 

Certain methodological limitations are inherent to 

this study. The findings reflect the outcomes of 

members approximately eight years after they 

enrolled in AmeriCorps. Finding significant longterm effects is often much more difficult than shortterm effects as impacts tend to fade over time. 

Participants in both the treatment group and 

comparison group may have experienced many other 

important life events that have influenced them 

during the follow-up period. 

The evaluation uses a quasi-experimental design 

where the outcomes of AmeriCorps members in the 

treatment group are compared to those of individuals 

in a matched comparison group. While the 

evaluation does not use an experimental design to 

randomize treatment assignment, researchers applied 

rigorous statistical procedures, such as propensity 

score analysis, to help mitigate selection bias and 

support causal inferences (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 

1984). The effects of quasi-experimental research 

may be sensitive to the analytic techniques selected, 

and researchers attempting to replicate these results 

using different analytic techniques and assumptions 

may find that results differ.10 Furthermore, like all 

longitudinal studies, maintaining the study sample 

over a period of eight years is often challenging and 

requires significant resources and time (Groves, 

2006). The response rate for the Still Serving: 

Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on 

Alumni report is 71 percent, when calculated based 

on the respondents to the previous wave of the 

study. When calculated based on all respondents 

from the 1999 baseline survey, the response rate is 

58 percent. Response rates and non-response 

variation over time may also affect the 

representativeness of participants used for the 

analyses.11 

Exhibit 2: Characteristics of AmeriCorps State and National and AmeriCorps NCCC 

Programs, 1999–2000 Program Year

State and National NCCC 

Enrollment 36,000 1,000 

Locations 700 granteesa 5 regional campuses 

Age range of members 17+ 18–24 

Operated by: Local, state, and national nonprofits, 

government agencies 

The Corporation 

Recruitment Localb National 

Type Primarily non-residential Residential 

Participation Both full-time and part-time Full-time only 

Number of service projects per 

member 

Generally one primary project, often 

with smaller short-term projects 

4–6 projects 

a

 Some grantees operate in more than one location. 

b

 During the 1999–2000 program year, some applicants to AmeriCorps State and National were identified through a national recruitment 

effort implemented by the Corporation. Those applicants were referred to local programs based on their geographic and service 

interests for consideration as part of those programs’ standard selection and enrollment process.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 7 

In addition, this report is based on the AmeriCorps 

program and its members during the 1999–2000 

program year. Since that time, the program has 

continued to evolve and there are some important 

differences between AmeriCorps programs today 

and the program nearly a decade ago. During the 

1999–2000 program year, slightly more than half of 

all members (56%) served in full-time AmeriCorps 

programs. The study’s treatment group only 

included first-year full-time members. Today, many 

AmeriCorps members serve less than full-time in 

part- or reduced part-time programs. During the 

2005–2006 program year, 44 percent of members 

served in full-time AmeriCorps programs, and 56 

percent served part- or reduced part-time 

(Corporation for National and Community Service, 

2008b). In addition, during the study year, the 

primary issue area addressed by AmeriCorps was the 

provision of services to children and youth. While 

the majority of AmeriCorps programs continue to 

serve children and youth, the Corporation has also 

increased its focus on promoting public safety and 

disaster relief following the tragedy of September 

11, 2001 and the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita. 

Organization of this Report 

The report begins with a description of the 

characteristics of AmeriCorps members, and is 

followed by four sections assessing the impacts of 

AmeriCorps on members’: 

 Civic Engagement; 

 Employment; 

 Education; and 

 Life Satisfaction. 

Each section focuses on the longer-term impacts of 

the AmeriCorps experience on members eight years 

after enrollment. Members are compared to a 

similar group of respondents who expressed interest 

in the AmeriCorps, but did not enroll. Also included 

in this report are comparisons between members and 

national averages or benchmarks, using data from 

national population surveys. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 8 

Characteristics of Study Participants 

In this section the study provides a description of the 

population of State and National and NCCC 

AmeriCorps members for the 1999–2000 program 

year. The results are intended to serve as a backdrop 

for all other analyses through this report. 

Age 

Participation in AmeriCorps State and National is 

open to U.S. citizens 17 years of age or older, and 

most State and National members in the study 

sample joined when they were between the ages of 

17 and 24. Not surprisingly, enrollment in State and 

National often occurred at transition periods in 

young peoples’ lives—age at enrollment peaked at 

around 18 and then again at around 22, roughly 

corresponding to traditional graduation points from 

high school and college. However, State and 

National programs enrolled older members as well, 

suggesting that participation in full-time national 

service is an attractive option for individuals 

throughout their lifetimes. The average age at 

enrollment was 28 years for State and National 

sample members, with a median age of 23.8. 

Members’ ages ranged from 17 to 79 at baseline. 

Since the results in this report assess impacts eight 

years following member enrollment, the average 

State and National member is now approximately 36 

years old, with a median age of 31. 

Participation in AmeriCorps NCCC is limited to 

individuals between 18 and 24 years of age. Given 

NCCC’s narrower age range, the mean age at 

enrollment for study participants was 21.5 years old. 

The median age at enrollment was 22.1. Now eight 

years later, the mean age for an NCCC member is 

29.5 years old, with a median age of 30.1. 

Race 

The Corporation encouraged AmeriCorps programs 

to recruit a diverse set of members, a policy that 

contributed to a racially and ethnically diverse group 

of participants. At baseline, slightly less than half 

(46%) of State and National sample members were 

white, compared to the majority of NCCC sample 

members (86%), and compared to 75 percent of the 

national population that were white in 2000 (U.S. 

Census 2000). Blacks/African Americans 

represented a quarter of State and National members 

(27%), while Hispanics/Latinos represented another 

16 percent. At baseline, five percent of the NCCC 

members were Black/African American and four 

percent were of Hispanic/Latino origin.12

Gender 

Particularly noteworthy was the predominance of 

women in the sample, who accounted for over twothirds of the membership of both the State and National 

Exhibit 3: Race and Ethnicity of Members in 

1999 

State and National 

NCCC 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 9 

programs (71%) and NCCC (68%) at baseline. In 

comparison, 65 percent of employees in the nonprofit 

sector are women (Odendahl & O'Neill, 1994). 

Disadvantaged Circumstances 

One of the goals of AmeriCorps is to provide service 

opportunities for those from economically 

disadvantaged circumstances. Study participants 

were asked whether in their youth or in the year 

prior to joining AmeriCorps, they received public 

assistance, such as welfare, food stamps, or Women, 

Infants, and Children (WIC) assistance; lived in 

public housing or other project-based housing; or 

received other housing assistance such as Section 8 

or housing vouchers. Since these assistance 

programs are generally means-tested, individuals 

from economically disadvantaged circumstances 

were defined as respondents receiving public 

assistance from any of these government programs. 

Overall, 36 percent of AmeriCorps State and 

National sample members and 18 percent of NCCC 

sample members received public assistance or lived 

in public housing either during their youth or in the 

year before applying to AmeriCorps. 

While growing up, more than a quarter of the State 

and National members (26%) lived in households 

receiving public assistance, 10 percent lived in 

public housing, and 5 percent received other housing 

assistance. For NCCC members, 17 percent 

received public assistance as youth, 3 percent lived 

in public housing, and 2 percent received other 

housing assistance. 

In the year before applying to AmeriCorps, 15 

percent of State and National members were on 

public assistance, 5 percent lived in public housing, 

and 5 percent received other housing assistance. For 

NCCC members, only one percent received public 

assistance in the year prior to serving in 

AmeriCorps, and less than one percent received 

public housing and other housing assistance. 

Educational Attainment 

Overall, at baseline, AmeriCorps members had more 

formal education than the general population. 

Ninety-two percent of State and National sample 

members had at least a high school diploma or GED 

when they enrolled in AmeriCorps, compared to 82 

percent of Americans over the age of 18. Thirty 

percent of the State and National members had earned 

a bachelor’s degree before enrolling in AmeriCorps, 

which is 8 percentage points higher than the national 

average of 22 percent in 1999–2000. Eight years 

later, 70 percent of State and National members have 

college degrees. NCCC sample members were 

similarly more educated than the rest of the nation at 

baseline. Ninety-nine percent of NCCC members had 

graduated from high school or attained a GED when 

they started their term of service, and 50 percent had 

their bachelor’s degree at baseline in 1999–2000. 

After eight years, 85 percent of NCCC members have 

a college degree.

Exhibit 4: Gender of Members in 1999 

State and National 

NCCC 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 10 

The Impacts of AmeriCorps 

This section presents the longer-term impacts of 

AmeriCorps service on members’ civic engagement, 

employment, education, and life satisfaction. As 

described in the methodology section of this report, 

impacts are measured by comparing the results 

reported by AmeriCorps members to the results 

reported by the comparison groups. Findings are 

reported separately for AmeriCorps State and 

National and AmeriCorps NCCC. When available, 

national benchmarks are included to provide 

additional context for the results. 

To facilitate interpretation, the study uses several 

approaches in describing findings. First, line graphs, 

displaying the mean baseline (1999) and 2007 

scores13 for treatment and comparison groups, are 

presented for each outcome. These graphical 

representations present a clear picture of the changes 

in outcomes over time. Exhibit 5 displays a sample 

graph, which illustrates the changes experienced by 

the State and National treatment and comparison 

groups for a hypothetical outcome. 

The hypothetical outcome, like several of the 

outcomes in the report, is constructed from a series 

of related survey questions. The slight upward slope 

on the red line indicates that, on average, State and 

National members experienced a slight gain for this 

outcome over the eight-year period following 

enrollment. During the same time period, as shown 

by the blue line, the comparison group experienced a 

decrease for this outcome. Based on this chart, the 

study would conclude that the estimated effect of 

program service is positive. 

The study also uses statistical significance and 

effect sizes to interpret the impacts. In fact, the 

difference in the sample chart14 is statistically 

significant,15 and the estimated effect size would be 

called “medium-sized,” using standards 

conventionally employed by policy researchers. 

Effect size is a standardized measure of the 

treatment (AmeriCorps program) effect, which can 

be used to compare the results across outcomes. 

The effect size represents the magnitude of the 

average treatment effect for each outcome relative 

to the amount of natural variation in that outcome. 

Effect sizes are increasingly used in educational 

research where conventional guidelines suggest 

interpreting an effect size of .20 as a small effect, 

.50 a medium effect, and .80 a large effect (Cohen, 

1988; Lipsey, 1990). For the purposes of assigning 

descriptive labels to the effect sizes in this report, 

the researchers have adopted the following 

guidelines: small effect = 0 < effect size < 0.34; 

medium effect = 0.35 < effect sizes < 0.64; large 

effect = 0.65 < effect size < 1. The study estimated 

the effect sizes illustrated in these graphs with the 

same method used in the 2004 report. This enables 

the researchers to compare the impacts of service in 

AmeriCorps on outcomes in both 2004 and 2007. 

Exhibit 5: Sample Effect Size Graph 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.24, statistically significant at the p<0.01 level.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 11 

Exhibit 6: State and National Effect Size by Outcome 

The impact analysis estimated the effects of participation in AmeriCorps by comparing changes in the 

outcomes for AmeriCorps participants over time with changes in the outcomes for similar individuals 

who did not enroll in AmeriCorps (comparison groups), using Propensity Score Analysis to address 

possible selection bias. 

2004 2007 

Civic Engagement-Related Outcomes 

Connection to Community (Attitude): Represents the respondent’s 

opinion about the strength of his/her connection to the community, as 

represented by the strength of feelings toward the community, including 

attachment, awareness, and commitment.

0.51** 0.24** 

Identify and Understand Problems in the Community 

(Attitude/Knowledge): Represents the respondent’s self-assessed 

understanding of social problems in his/her community, such as environment, 

public health, and crime.

0.30** 0.26* 

Importance of Neighborhood Participation (Attitude):

Represents the respondent’s opinion about the importance of being active in 

his/her neighborhood, including reporting crimes, keeping the neighborhood 

clean, and participating in neighborhood organizations

0.27** 0.03 

Civic Obligations (Attitude): Represents the respondent’s opinion about 

the importance of participating in various civic activities, including voting in 

elections and serving on a jury.

0.16* 0.06 

Confidence in Ability to Work with Local Government 

(Attitude): Represents the respondent’s opinion about the feasibility of working 

with local or state government to meet a range of community needs, such as fixing a 

pothole or getting an issue on a statewide ballot.

0.21** 0.28** 

Ability to Lead a Successful Community-Based Movement 

(Attitude): Represents the respondent’s opinion about the feasibility of 

starting a grassroots effort to meet a range of community needs, such as starting 

an after-school program or organizing a park cleanup program.

0.33** 0.25** 

Appreciation of Cultural and Ethnic Diversity (Attitude):

Represents the respondent’s opinion about the importance and desirability of 

relationships between people who do not share the same cultural and/or ethnic 

background.

0.03 0.04 

Constructive Personal Behavior in Groups (Behavior): Provides 

the respondent’s report of the frequency with which he/she personally uses 

techniques for encouraging constructive group interactions, such as encouraging 

participation by other team members and supporting others’ right to be heard.

0.06 0.26 

Constructive Group Interactions (Behavior/Experience):

Provides the respondent’s report of the frequency with which he/she participated 

in group situations during which constructive interactions, such as working out 

conflicts and sharing ideas, occurred.

0.02 0.23 

Personal Growth Through Community Service (Attitude):

Represents the respondent’s assessment of the impacts of his/her prior volunteer 

activities during the previous year with respect to personal growth, including 

exposure to new ideas, changing beliefs, and learning about the real world.

0.31** 0.04 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 12 

Exhibit 6: State and National Effect Size by Outcome Continued

2004 2007 

Personal Effectiveness of Community Service (Attitude):

Represents the respondent’s opinion about the impacts of his/her prior volunteer 

activities during the previous year with respect to making community 

contributions, developing attachments to the community, and making a 

difference.

0.38** 0.02 

Active in Community Affairs (Behavior): Represents the frequency 

with which he/she participates in community-based activities, including attending 

community meetings and writing to newspapers to voice opinions.

0.16** 0.19* 

Voting Participation (Behavior): Represents whether respondent voted 

in 2000 Presidential election in 2004 column and the 2004 Presidential election 

in 2007 column.

0.01 -0.05 

Social Trust (Attitude): Represents the extent to which the respondent 

believes that other people can be trusted. NAb

 -0.02 

Volunteering Participation (Behavior): Provides likelihood that 

respondent served as a volunteer at any point following Fall 2000 for 2004 

results and within 12 months prior to survey for 2007.

0.07 0.07 

Employment-Related Outcomes 

Importance of Service-Oriented Careers (Attitude) a: Represents 

respondent's opinion about whether his/her current job is a position that 

contributes to others, such as working to correct inequalities and being of direct 

service to others.

0.10 0.21 

Public Service Employment (Behavior): Represents how likely 

respondent is to be working in a public service career. 0.07* 0.26** 

Education-Related Outcomes 

Educational Progress (Behavior): Represents respondent’s 

educational attainment at the time of survey. -0.01 -0.07 

Life Satisfaction Outcomes 

Life Satisfaction (Attitude): A new outcome for the 2007 survey that 

measures overall satisfaction with life, through satisfaction with career, financial, 

situation, physical health, close relationships with friends and family, religious or 

spiritual life, and leisure activities.

NAb

 0.26* 

** Indicates statistical significance at the 0.01 level. 

* Indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level. 

a

 Outcome is modified for 2007 analysis. See Appendix G for a more detailed explanation of the outcome. b

 NA indicates “Not Applicable” because this outcome was not measured on previous surveys.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 13 

Exhibit 6: NCCC Effect Size by Outcome 

The impact analysis estimated the effects of participation in AmeriCorps by comparing changes in the 

outcomes for AmeriCorps participants over time with changes in the outcomes for similar individuals 

who did not enroll in AmeriCorps (comparison groups), using Propensity Score Analysis to address 

possible selection bias.

2004 2007 

Civic Engagement-Related Outcomes 

Connection to Community (Attitude): Represents the respondent’s 

opinion about the strength of his/her connection to the community, as 

represented by the strength of feelings toward the community, including 

attachment, awareness, and commitment.

0.39** 0.37** 

Identify and Understand Problems in the Community 

(Attitude/Knowledge): Represents the respondent’s self-assessed 

understanding of social problems in his/her community, such as environment, 

public health, and crime.

0.29* 0.10 

Importance of Neighborhood Participation (Attitude):

Represents the respondent’s opinion about the importance of being active in 

his/her neighborhood, including reporting crimes, keeping the neighborhood 

clean, and participating in neighborhood organizations

0.08 0.26* 

Civic Obligations (Attitude): Represents the respondent’s opinion about 

the importance of participating in various civic activities, including voting in 

elections and serving on a jury.

0.09 0.19 

Confidence in Ability to Work with Local Government 

(Attitude): Represents the respondent’s opinion about the feasibility of working 

with local or state government to meet a range of community needs, such as fixing a 

pothole or getting an issue on a statewide ballot.

0.34* 0.42** 

Ability to Lead a Successful Community-Based Movement 

(Attitude): Represents the respondent’s opinion about the feasibility of 

starting a grassroots effort to meet a range of community needs, such as starting 

an after-school program or organizing a park cleanup program.

0.21 0.53** 

Appreciation of Cultural and Ethnic Diversity (Attitude):

Represents the respondent’s opinion about the importance and desirability of 

relationships between people who do not share the same cultural and/or ethnic 

background.

-0.39** 0.19 

Constructive Personal Behavior in Groups (Behavior): Provides 

the respondent’s report of the frequency with which he/she personally uses 

techniques for encouraging constructive group interactions, such as encouraging 

participation by other team members and supporting others’ right to be heard.

-0.16 0.09 

Constructive Group Interactions (Behavior/Experience):

Provides the respondent’s report of the frequency with which he/she participated 

in group situations during which constructive interactions, such as working out 

conflicts and sharing ideas, occurred.

-0.12 0.16 

Personal Growth Through Community Service (Attitude):

Represents the respondent’s assessment of the impacts of his/her prior volunteer 

activities during the previous year with respect to personal growth, including 

exposure to new ideas, changing beliefs, and learning about the real world.

0.58** 0.10 

 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 14 

Exhibit 6: NCCC Effect Size by Outcome continued

2004 2007 

Personal Effectiveness of Community Service (Attitude):

Represents the respondent’s opinion about the impacts of his/her prior volunteer 

activities during the previous year with respect to making community 

contributions, developing attachments to the community, and making a 

difference.

-0.03 0.51* 

Active in Community Affairs (Behavior): Represents the frequency 

with which he/she participates in community-based activities, including attending 

community meetings and writing to newspapers to voice opinions.

0.44** 0.18 

Voting Participation (Behavior): Represents whether respondent voted 

in 2000 Presidential election in 2004 column and the 2004 Presidential election 

in 2007 column.

0.10 -0.06 

Social Trust (Attitude): Represents the extent to which the respondent 

believes that other people can be trusted. NAb

 0.36** 

Volunteering Participation (Behavior): Provides likelihood that 

respondent served as a volunteer at any point following Fall 2000 for 2004 

results and within 12 months prior to survey for 2007.

0.16** 0.28* 

Employment-Related Outcomes 

Importance of Service-Oriented Careers (Attitude) a: Represents 

respondent's opinion about whether his/her current job is a position that 

contributes to others, such as working to correct inequalities and being of direct 

service to others.

-0.20 0.22 

Public Service Employment (Behavior): Represents how likely 

respondent is to be working in a public service career. 0.08 0.14 

Education-Related Outcomes 

Educational Progress (Behavior): Represents respondent’s 

educational attainment at the time of survey. -0.02 -0.01 

 Life Satisfaction Outcomes 

Life Satisfaction (Attitude): A new outcome for the 2007 survey that 

measures overall satisfaction with life, through satisfaction with career, financial, 

situation, physical health, close relationships with friends and family, religious or 

spiritual life, and leisure activities.

NAb

 0.39** 

** Indicates statistical significance at the 0.01 level. 

* Indicates statistical significance at the 0.05 level. 

a

 Outcome is modified for 2007 analysis. See Appendix G for a more detailed explanation of the outcome. b NA indicates “Not Applicable” because this outcome was not measured on previous surveys.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 15 

Civic Engagement 

Political scholars and researchers have advanced 

many arguments regarding the value of engagement 

in civic and political affairs (Bennett & Resnick, 

1990; Habermas, 1984-1987; Verba, Schlozman, 

Brady, & Nie, 1993). Generally speaking, civic 

engagement is a fundamental requirement for a 

healthy democracy (Barber, 1984; Hutchins, 1952), 

and where participation rates are too low, democracy 

may no longer be viable 

(Powell, 1982). Widespread 

civic participation 

guarantees that all voices 

and viewpoints are heard in 

the public sphere, which 

may not happen if fewer 

people participate (Piven & 

Cloward, 1988; Schlozman, 

1984). Civic engagement 

also has positive benefits for 

the active participant, 

including the development 

of civic skills that encourage 

more effective participation 

(Brady, Verba, & 

Schlozman, 1995). Finally, 

civic engagement can 

promote “bridging” social 

capital, which leads to 

stronger, more diverse social 

networks (Briggs, 2003) and ultimately a healthier 

society. 

Unfortunately, there is some indication that 

Americans may be less involved in their 

communities than in the past, turning into passive 

observers rather than active participants (National 

Conference on Citizenship, 2006). Over the past 30 

years, Americans have reduced public meeting 

attendance by 35 percent and their participation in 

civic organizations has decreased by half (Putnam, 

2000). As civic engagement diminishes, so do the 

social networks, norms, and institutions that 

strengthen the civic health of the country (National 

Conference on Citizenship, 2006). 

AmeriCorps recognizes the importance of 

community participation and is designed, in part, to 

provide civic engagement and leadership 

opportunities for all program members. 

Participation in AmeriCorps helps members realize 

that they are able to make an impact in their 

communities in addressing some of our country’s 

most pressing needs (Corporation for National and 

Community Service, 2008c). 

At its core, civic engagement 

is about a person’s 

understanding of problems 

in the community, 

willingness to address the 

problems, and level of 

involvement designing 

solutions to the problem 

(Verba, Schlozman, & 

Brady, 1995). These 

attributes can be measured 

across several stages of 

involvement. First, does one 

actively reflect on and assess 

the status of one’s 

community? In doing so, 

does one perceive the 

challenges the community 

faces? Second, does one 

believe that one has the 

ability to successfully work 

for change? Third, does one leverage observations 

and a sense of empowerment with a corresponding 

responsibility for the wellbeing of one’s community? 

Does this result in direct action on behalf of the 

community? Applying learning and motivation 

theory (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 1999; Ryan & 

Deci, 2000), the researchers on this study created a 

three-stage framework for assessing civic 

engagement—Assess, Empower, and Act. 

The study measures several aspects and dimensions 

of civic engagement by developing a series of 

outcomes that represent themes. Each outcome is 

composed of a set of related questions. For 

example, one aspect of civic engagement is an 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 16 

individual’s connection to community, which is 

measured by a series of questions including: “Do 

you have a strong attachment to your community,” 

“Are you aware of what can be done to meet 

important needs in your community,” and “Do you 

feel you have the ability to make a difference in 

your community?” 

The civic engagement outcomes assessed in this 

section follow the three stages of involvement—

Assess, Empower, and Act. In the first stage of 

assessing the needs of the community, the study 

examines: 

 Connection to community; 

 Identification and understanding of problems in 

the community; and 

 Importance of neighborhood participation and 

civic obligations. 

For the second stage of becoming empowered as a 

force for change, the study assesses: 

 Confidence in ability to work with local 

government; 

 Confidence in ability to organize community 

activities; 

 Constructive personal behavior in groups, 

constructive interaction in groups, and 

appreciation of cultural and ethnic diversity; and 

 Personal growth and effectiveness through 

community service. 

For the third stage, direct action of civic engagement 

was measured by: 

 Participation in community affairs and voting; 

 Social trust; 

 Volunteering; and 

 Donating to charitable causes. 

Assess 

Eight years after enrolling in AmeriCorps, State 

and National and NCCC members are more 

likely to assess and reflect on the needs of their 

community. 

State and National and NCCC members are 

significantly more likely than the comparison group to 

have a strong connection to community, as 

characterized by their level of commitment and 

attachment to their communities and awareness of the 

social issues facing their communities. For State and 

National members, there is a small effect size for 

connection to community (effect size = 0.24). State and 

National members score higher on measures of their 

level of connection to community (mean = 0.07) than 

Exhibit 7: Connection to Community 

State and National 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.24, statistically significant at the p<0.01 level.

NCCC 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.37, statistically significant at the p<0.01 level.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 17 

the comparison group (mean = -0.17). While the effect 

size is statistically significant, it is smaller than the 0.51 

effect size measured in 2004. For NCCC members, 

there is a medium effect for connection to community 

(effect size = 0.37), as NCCC members score higher on 

connection to community (mean = 0.08) than the 

comparison group (mean = -0.28). The effects for 

NCCC have persisted since 2004, and are 

approximately as large (effect size = 0.39). 

The effects of program participation are particularly 

pronounced for some subgroups of members. Both 

Blacks/African Americans (effect size = 0.48) and 

members from disadvantaged circumstances (effect size 

= 0.36) who participated in State and National have 

statistically significant differences compared to similar 

individuals in the comparison group. When individual 

components of connection to community are analyzed, 

Blacks/African Americans who participated in these 

programs are 10 percentage points more likely to have 

an understanding of how to meet the needs of their 

community than Black/African American members of 

the comparison group (77% compared to 67%). In 

addition, 79 percent of Black/African American State 

and National members indicate they have the ability to 

make a difference in their communities, compared to 71 

percent of the comparison group. Of members from 

disadvantaged circumstances, 61 percent say they are 

connected to their communities, versus 54 percent of 

individuals from the disadvantaged circumstances 

comparison group. 

State and National members are also significantly 

more likely to be able to identify and understand 

problems in their community. Among the specific 

problems facing communities are illiteracy, crime, 

lack of civic involvement, public health issues, and 

environmental issues. State and National members 

are more likely to identify and understand social 

problems in the community (mean = 0.19), than the 

comparison group (mean = -0.07). There is a small 

effect of participation (effect size = 0.26), which is 

slightly smaller than in 2004 (effect size = 0.30). 

For NCCC members, there is no significant 

difference between the treatment and comparison 

groups on identifying and understanding social 

problems in the community (effect size = 0.10), 

although NCCC members score higher (mean = -

0.20) than the comparison group (mean = -0.30). In 

2004, there were statistically significant differences 

between NCCC members and their comparison 

group (effect size = 0.29). 

When responses to specific questions are analyzed, 

State and National members report that they 

understand the local environmental (59%) and literacy 

(59%) issues more than their peers in the comparison 

group (52% and 49%, respectively). For NCCC, 

members and their comparison group report their 

understanding of local environmental (55% and 57%) 

and literacy (35% and 37%) issues at similar rates. 

Within demographic subgroups, Hispanic/Latino State 

Exhibit 8: Identify and Understand Problems 

in Their Community 

State and National 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.26, statistically significant at the p<0.05 level.

NCCC 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.10, p>0.05 level.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 18 

Exhibit 9: Importance of Neighborhood 

Participation 

State and National 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.03, p>0.05 level.

NCCC 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.26, statistically significant at the p<0.05 level.

and National members (mean = 0.14) are significantly 

more likely than the comparison group (mean = -0.56) 

to be able to identify and understand problems in their 

community. At 0.71, the effect size is large. 

Hispanic/Latino State and National members are more 

than twice as likely to indicate that they understand the 

problems associated with the lack of civic engagement 

in their communities, as Hispanic/Latino members of 

the comparison group (42% to 17%). Fifty-five percent 

of Hispanic/Latino State and National members indicate 

that they understand local public health problems facing 

the community, while only 36 percent of the 

comparison group shares these perceptions. 

Another aspect of assessing community needs, as a 

stage of involvement, is the importance of being a 

responsible citizen. These neighborhood obligations 

may include reporting crimes, participating in 

neighborhood organizations, helping to keep the 

neighborhood clean and safe, and helping others 

who are less fortunate. Overall, State and National 

members are not significantly different from the 

comparison group in reporting on the importance of 

neighborhood participation. State and National 

members score negligibly higher on the importance 

of neighborhood participation (mean = 0.09 vs. 

comparison group mean = 0.07). The nonsignificant effect size is 0.03, compared to the 

statistically significant effect size of 0.27 in 2004. 

For NCCC members, however, the effects of service 

appear for the first time. NCCC members are 

significantly more likely to understand the 

importance of neighborhood participation (mean = -

0.02), than the comparison group (mean = -0.29). 

There is a small effect of participation (effect size = 

0.26), which exceeds the non-significant effect size 

in 2004 (effect size in 2004 = 0.08; p = 0.40). 

Hispanic/Latino State and National members (mean = 

0.26) are significantly more likely than their comparison 

group (mean = -0.15) to report the importance of 

neighborhood participation (effect size = 0.43). Almost 

96 percent of Hispanic/Latino State and National 

members report that keeping the neighborhood safe is a 

very important obligation, compared to 83 percent of the 

comparison group. Likewise, 57 percent of State and 

National members of Hispanic/Latino origin report that 

participation in neighborhood organizations is very 

important compared to 35 percent of Hispanics/Latinos 

in the comparison group. 

Neighborhood obligations are closely related to civic 

obligations. The study asked respondents about the 

importance of serving on juries, voting in elections, and 

keeping informed about news and public issues. For 

both State and National and NCCC members, results are 

not statistically significant. State and National members 

(mean = 0.02) score higher than the comparison group 

(mean = -0.04), but the difference is not significant. 

Similarly, NCCC members (mean = 0.00) score higher 

than the comparison group (mean = -0.18), but the 

difference is not significant. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 19 

Empower 

State and National and NCCC members are more 

empowered to work for the betterment of their 

community than the comparison group. 

The most important civic impact of AmeriCorps on 

members is, perhaps, a sense of empowerment or 

self-efficacy–a strong belief that they can make a 

difference. Both State and National and NCCC 

members have greater confidence in their ability to 

work with local government to address community 

needs. Examples of community needs include fixing 

a pothole, building an addition onto a local 

community center, and getting an important issue on 

a statewide ballot. State and National members 

score higher on local civic efficacy (mean = 0.07) 

than the comparison group (mean = -0.21). There is 

a small effect for self-reported confidence in 

members’ ability to work with local government 

(effect size = 0.28) that has increased since 2004 

(effect size in 2004 = 0.21). 

For NCCC members, there is a medium effect size for 

self-reported confidence in ability to work with local 

government (effect size = 0.42). NCCC members 

score higher (mean = 0.04) than the comparison group 

(mean = -0.35). The effects for NCCC have increased 

and continued to be statistically significant since 2004 

(effect size in 2004 = 0.34). 

Exhibit 11: Confidence in Ability to Work with 

Local Government 

State and National 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.28, statistically significant at the p<0.01 level.

NCCC 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.42, statistically significant at the p<0.001 level.

Exhibit 10: Civic Obligations 

State and National 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.06, p>0.05.

NCCC 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.19, p>0.05.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 20 

When responses to individual questions are 

analyzed, 41 percent of State and National members 

indicate that they believe that they definitely would 

be able to get the local government to fix a pothole 

on their street, compared to 38 percent of individuals 

from the comparison group. Forty-one percent of 

NCCC members believe they definitely would be 

able to get the local government to fix a pothole on 

their street, compared to 34 percent of individuals 

from the comparison group. 

Within subgroups, when asked about their level of 

confidence in their ability to work with local 

government to build an addition onto a local community 

center, non-white State and National members are twice 

as likely as their comparison group to have confidence. 

Twenty percent of minority State and National members 

could work with local government, compared to nine 

percent of the comparison group. Similarly, State and 

National members from disadvantaged backgrounds are 

twice as likely as individuals from the comparison 

group to believe they could definitely work with local 

government to get an addition built. Fourteen percent of 

State and National members from disadvantaged 

circumstances could work with local government, 

compared to seven percent in the comparison group. 

Respondents were also asked about their level of 

confidence in starting a community-based movement 

to address a community need. Meeting a community 

need included organizing an event to benefit a charity 

or religious organization, starting an after-school 

program for children whose parents work, and 

organizing an annual clean-up for a neighborhood 

park. Participation in AmeriCorps has a statistically 

significant impact on members’ views of their ability to 

lead a successful community-based movement to 

address challenges facing their community. 

For State and National members, there is a small 

effect size for self-reported ability to lead a 

successful community-based movement (effect size 

= 0.25). State and National members score higher 

on self-reported ability to lead a successful 

community-based movement (mean = 0.05) than the 

comparison group (mean = -0.20). While the effect 

size is statistically significant, it is smaller than the 

statistically significant 0.33 effect size from 2004. 

For NCCC members, there is a medium effect for selfreported ability to lead a successful community-based 

movement (effect size = 0.53). NCCC members score 

higher on self-reported ability to lead a successful 

community-based movement (mean = 0.28) than the 

comparison group (mean = -0.18). In 2004, the effect 

of NCCC on members’ self-reported ability to lead a 

successful community-based movement was not 

significant, indicating that NCCC’s program effects 

may require several years to be realized. 

Respondents were asked about their ability to start 

an after-school program with others in their 

community. Fifty-nine percent of State and National 

Exhibit 12: Ability to Lead a Successful 

Community-Based Movement 

State and National 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.25, statistically significant at the p<0.01 level.

NCCC 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.53, statistically significant at the p<0.01 level.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 21 

members and 60 percent of NCCC members believe 

they would definitely be able to collaborate with 

others in their community to start an after-school 

program for children, compared to 52 percent and 52 

percent in their respective comparison groups. 

In addition to empowerment and efficacy, 

individuals must also be able to connect with others 

to build social networks that generate “social 

capital.” Social capital is defined as the collective 

value of social networks and the inclinations of 

individuals in them to do things to help each other 

(Saguaro Seminar, 2008). Bridging social capital 

“requires that we transcend our social and political 

and professional identities to connect with people 

unlike ourselves” (Putnam, 2000). To assess the 

impact of AmeriCorps participation on members’ 

connections to others, the study asked respondents 

about their behaviors and interactions in groups, and 

their appreciation of cultural and ethnic diversity.

The study finds that there are no significant 

differences between State and National members and 

their comparison group on constructive personal 

behavior in groups (effect size = 0.26), constructive 

group interactions (effect size = 0.23), or 

appreciation of cultural and ethnic diversity (effect 

size = 0.04). These findings are similar to the 2004 

findings for State and National members, which 

were also not significant. 

Similarly, there are no significant findings for 

NCCC members and their comparison group on 

constructive personal behavior in groups (effect size 

Exhibit 13: Appreciation of Cultural and 

Ethnic Diversity 

State and National 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.04, p>0.05 level.

NCCC 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.19, p>0.05 level.

Exhibit 14: Constructive Personal Behavior 

in Groups 

State and National 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.26, p>0.05 level.

NCCC 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.09, p>0.05 level.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 22 

= 0.09), constructive group interactions (effect size = 

0.16), or appreciation of cultural and ethnic diversity 

(effect size = 0.19). In 2004, constructive personal 

behavior in groups and constructive group 

interactions were also not significant for NCCC 

members. Appreciation of cultural and ethnic 

diversity, however, was significant and negative in 

2004. Thus, the short-term negative significant 

finding for NCCC members, for appreciation of 

diversity, appears to have dissipated over time. 

Researchers also assessed the effects of AmeriCorps 

participation on members’ personal growth through 

community service and personal effectiveness of 

community service. Personal growth through 

community service is measured as whether 

respondents feel that their community service 

activities led to changes, such as a re-examination of 

their beliefs and attitudes, exposure to new ideas, 

and learning about the “real world.” There are no 

significant differences for State and National 

members (effect size = 0.04) on personal growth 

through community service. In 2004, there was a 

statistically significant effect (effect size = 0.31). 

Similarly, there are no significant differences 

between NCCC members and the comparison group 

(effect size = 0.10). In 2004, there was a statistically 

significant medium-size effect between members 

and the comparison group (effect size = 0.58). 

Clearly the effects of service on both State and 

National and NCCC members’ personal growth 

through community service have faded over the past 

eight years. 

Exhibit 15: Constructive Group Interactions 

State and National 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.23, p>0.05 level.

NCCC 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.16, p>0.05 level.

Exhibit 16: Personal Growth Through 

Community Service 

State and National 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.04, p>0.05 level.

NCCC 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.10, p>0.05 level.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 23 

Personal effectiveness of community service is 

measured as whether respondents feel that their 

community service made a contribution to the 

community, made a difference in the life of at least 

one person, or made the respondent feel like part of 

the community. There are no significant differences 

for State and National members with respect to 

personal effectiveness (effect size = 0.02). In 2004, 

however, there was a statistically significant effect 

(effect size = 0.38). For NCCC members, there is a 

statistically significant medium effect (effect size = 

0.51). In 2004, there were no significant differences 

between NCCC members and their comparison 

group on personal effectiveness of community 

service (effect size = -0.03), which may indicate that 

NCCC program effects take time to be realized. 

Act 

Once individuals have assessed and are empowered to 

improve their communities, they have the necessary 

tools to turn their attitudes into behaviors; that is, they 

can turn their knowledge into action. AmeriCorps 

service is intended to instill and reinforce active 

behaviors in its members. Recognizing that there are 

many ways for members to act on behalf of their 

communities, the study measured members’ 

community activities, voting, volunteering, donating, 

and social trust. These activities are among the most 

critical for civic engagement because they are 

measures of actual behaviors. 

Eight years after serving in AmeriCorps, State 

and National members continue to be especially 

active in community affairs; there are no impacts 

on NCCC members. 

State and National members are significantly more 

likely to be active in community affairs as measured 

by attending community meetings, supporting 

organizations and issues they find important , and 

publicly expressing their opinions. Results indicate 

Exhibit 17: Personal Effectiveness of 

Community Service 

State and National 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.02, p>0.05 level.

NCCC 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.51, statistically significant at the p<0.05 level.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 24 

that State and National members are significantly 

more likely to be active in their communities. State 

and National members exhibit a small effect (effect 

size = 0.19), scoring higher on community-based 

activism (mean = 0.03) than the comparison group 

(mean = -0.15). The effect is slightly larger than the 

0.16 effect size from 2004. 

Subgroup analyses of State and National members 

reveal that AmeriCorps has a medium effect (effect 

size = 0.37) on Black/African American’s likelihood 

of being engaged in the political process (mean = 

0.16) when compared to Blacks/African Americans 

in the comparison group (mean = -0.21). 

Furthermore, non-white State and National 

members, taken as a whole, report a small effect 

(effect size = 0.28) of service on measures of 

community participation (mean = 0.02), when 

compared to non-white individuals in the 

comparison group (mean = -0.25). 

Participation in AmeriCorps has no significant effect 

on NCCC members’ level of community 

engagement (effect size = 0.18), although members 

score higher (mean = -0.12) than the comparison 

group (mean = -0.29). This is a considerable change 

from 2004, when NCCC members were significantly 

more likely to be active in community affairs (effect 

size = 0.44). 

Analysis of responses to specific questions indicates 

that State and National members are slightly more 

likely than individuals in the comparison group to 

participate in community meetings, events, and 

activities (69% compared to 63%). Similarly, when 

NCCC respondents were asked how often they 

participate in community meetings, events, and 

activities, 20 percent of NCCC members reported 

that they participated, compared to 17 percent of the 

comparison group. 

AmeriCorps had no impact on State and National 

and NCCC members’ voting rates in the 2004 

Presidential election. Voting rates for State and 

National members in the 2006 Congressional 

mid-term election were lower than for the 

comparison group, while there were no 

differences for NCCC members. 

Voting in national elections is one of the most 

recognizable forms of civic engagement and is 

fundamental to democracy. Although members are 

prohibited from engaging in any political activities 

during their service, AmeriCorps provides many 

members with their first exposure to addressing the 

issues facing communities and their first opportunity 

to work with community organizations and 

government officials. 

Exhibit 18: Active in Community Affairs 

State and National 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.19, statistically significant at the p<0.05 level.

NCCC 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.18, p>0.05 level.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 25 

To assess members’ level of voting eight years after 

serving in AmeriCorps, the study measures whether 

State and National and NCCC members: 

 Are registered to vote; 

 Voted in the 2004 Presidential election; and 

 Voted in the 2006 Congressional mid-term 

election. 

Registering to vote is the essential first step in 

participating in our nation’s democratic process. The 

study finds that there are no statistically significant 

differences between State and National members and 

their comparison group in registering to vote. Nearly 

all State and National (92%) members were registered 

voters in 2007, the same percentage as the comparison 

group. Both groups exceeded the national voter 

registration rate of 62 percent in 2006 (U.S. Census, 

2008). Similarly, there were no significant differences 

between NCCC members (94%), and their comparison 

group (95%), but both groups exceeded the national 

population in voter registration. 

From 2000 to 2006, the percentage of registered voters 

across the nation declined. However, during the same 

time period, the percentage of State and National and 

NCCC members registering to vote increased. In 

2000, 64 percent of Americans over the age of 18 were 

registered to vote. In 2006, 62 percent of eligible 

Americans were registered to vote (U.S. Census, 

2008). In comparison, 84 percent of State and National 

members were registered to vote in 2000, while 92 

percent are currently registered to vote. Similarly for 

NCCC, 87 percent of members were registered to vote 

in 2000, while 94 percent are currently registered to 

vote. 

A stronger indication of civic engagement is 

participating in our democracy by voting in 

elections. In the 2000 Presidential election, 77 

percent of State and National and 78 percent of 

NCCC members reported voting. In comparison, 76 

percent of the State and National comparison group 

and 67 percent of the NCCC comparison group 

voted in 2000. The voting rates for both 

AmeriCorps members and the comparison group are 

significantly higher than the 55 percent of eligible 

Americans who voted in 2000 (U.S. Census, 2008). 

More recently in the 2004 Presidential election, 86 

percent of State and National members voted, 

compared to 88 percent of their comparison group. 

NCCC members were also slightly less likely to vote 

than their comparison group (91% compared to 93%) 

The differences for both State and National and NCCC 

were not statistically significant. When compared to 

the voting rates for the national population in the 2004 

Presidential election, both State and National and 

NCCC members, and their comparison groups, voted 

at significantly higher rates than the average of 58 

percent (U.S. Census, 2008). 

Exhibit 19: Percent Registered to Vote 

State and National 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = -0.01, p>0.05 level.

NCCC 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = -0.07, p>0.05 level.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 26 

Historically, fewer people vote in Congressional 

mid-term elections than in presidential elections 

(Born, 1990; U.S. Census, 2008a; 2008b). The 2006 

election was no exception, attracting fewer voters 

than even pre-election forecasts predicted 

(McDonald, 2006). Mid-term elections may have 

decreased participation either because Congressional 

elections mainly attract more committed voters 

while Presidential elections attract less committed 

voters (Campbell, 1966) or because presidential 

supporters may be turned off by negative campaign 

messages in mid-term elections (Kernell, 1977). 

Mid-term Congressional elections tend to revolve 

more around local issues, especially the level of 

constituency service provided by elected officials 

(Ansolabehere, Snyder, & Stewart, 2000; Cain, 

Ferejohn, & Fiorina, 1987). Thus, participation in 

mid-term elections is an important indicator of 

engagement with local civic issues, perhaps even 

more so than participation in Presidential elections. 

Exhibit 20: Percentage of Population Who Voted in National Elections 

State and National 

For “Voted in 2004 Presidential Election”, no effect of participation. 

Effect Size = -0.07, p>0.05 level. 

For “Voted in 2006 Mid-Term Election”, negative effect of participation. 

Effect Size = -0.15, statistically significant at the p<0.05 level. 

NCCC 

For “Voted in 2004 Presidential Election”, no effect of participation. 

Effect Size = -0.06, p>0.05 level. 

For “Voted in 2006 Mid-Term Election”, no effect of participation. 

Effect Size = -0.03, p>0.05 level. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 27 

This study finds that similar to national trends, 

voting rates among study participants were lower in 

the 2006 Congressional mid-term elections 

compared to the 2004 Presidential election. In the 

2006 Congressional mid-term elections, 73 percent 

of State and National members and 78 percent of 

NCCC members voted, compared to 80 percent and 

79 percent of their respective comparison groups, 

and 44 percent of adults nationally (U.S. Census, 

2008). The differences between State and National 

members and their comparison group are significant 

(p = 0.03) and negative. The differences between 

the NCCC members and their comparison group are 

not significant. 

In addition to voting, respondents were also asked 

about several other forms of political activity, 

including contacting a government official to express 

an opinion, working as a volunteer for a political 

party or candidate on a campaign, or talking to people 

regarding voting for a specific candidate or party. For 

these measures of political engagement, results are 

not significant for either State and National or NCCC. 

These sustained longer-term effects are not surprising, 

since AmeriCorps programs and AmeriCorps 

members are prohibited from engaging in political 

activity during their service. Results are also not 

significant within subgroups, with one important 

exception. State and National members from 

disadvantaged circumstances are significantly more 

likely than disadvantaged individuals in the 

comparison group to have contacted a government 

official to express an opinion on a local or national 

issue (effect size = 0.39). 

AmeriCorps has no impact on State and National 

members’ social trust and a positive impact on 

NCCC members’ social trust. 

A large and growing body of research has suggested 

that communities with higher levels of trust in others 

also tend to enjoy a wide variety of positive social 

outcomes (Knack & Keefer, 1997). When 

individuals report that “people can generally be 

trusted,” they tend to act in a more trustworthy 

manner themselves (Glaeser, Laibson, Scheinkman, 

& Soutter, 2000), which allows norms of 

cooperation to emerge or grow in strength (Brehm & 

Rahn, 1997; Orbell & Dawes, 1991). Under such 

circumstances, people find it easier to trust one 

another even when they do not share a history of 

positive experiences. 

As a result, in places where trust is high, it is easier 

and less costly to engage in economic transactions. 

Trust reduces the need for government intervention 

to prevent exploitation and allows entrepreneurs to 

spend more time innovating and creating (Knack & 

Exhibit 21: Social Trust 

State and National 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = -0.02, p>0.05 level.

NCCC 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = -0.36, statistically significant at the p<0.01 level.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 28 

Keefer, 1997), which stimulates economic 

performance. Such an atmosphere also promotes the 

production of a variety of collective social goods 

(Putnam, Leonardi, & Nanetti, 1993), such as 

reduced income inequality (Galor & Zeira, 1993; 

Kawachi, Kennedy, Lochner, & Prothrow-Stith, 

1997), better public education (La Porta, 1997), 

better public health (Kawachi, Kim, Coutts, & 

Subrahmaniam, 2004), and less violent crime 

(Galea, Karpati, & Kennedy, 2002). 

Collective action in communities is dependent on the 

ability of individuals to trust each other. This social 

trust enables neighbors to come together to address 

community problems. For the first time in the 

Longitudinal Study, respondents were asked about 

their level of social trust, or the extent to which they

believe that other people can be trusted. Seventy 

percent of State and National members believe other 

people can be trusted, compared to 71 percent of the 

comparison group. Although the difference between 

the treatment and comparison groups is not 

significant, both groups are well above the national 

average of 49 percent (General Social Survey, 

2004). Differences within subgroups are also not 

significant. 

NCCC members are significantly more likely to 

report that other people can be trusted. Eighty-five 

percent of NCCC members believe that other people 

can be trusted, compared to 71 percent of the 

comparison group. NCCC members are 14 

percentage points higher than their comparison 

group in reporting that others can be trusted, and 36 

percentage points higher than the national average 

(49%). This significant impact on social trust for 

NCCC members may result, in part, from the 

program’s residential design and focus on teambased service. Reliance on one’s team members, 

and successfully collaborating with others to meet 

community needs, may have provided the 

foundation for subsequent high levels of trust. 

AmeriCorps has no impact on State and National 

members’ volunteering rates, while NCCC 

members are significantly more likely to 

volunteer than the comparison group. 

Volunteer service is one of the most important ways 

that an individual demonstrates one’s commitment 

to the community. In 2007, 64 percent of State and 

National members report volunteering through or for 

an organization during the prior 12 months. The 

comparison group volunteering rate is 60 percent, 

rendering the effect not statistically significant. 

Similarly, volunteering rates within State and 

National subgroups also are not significant. Sixtyfive percent of non-whites report volunteer work 

through or for an organization during the past 12 

months, compared to 59 percent of the comparison 

Exhibit 22: Percentage Reporting 

Volunteering in Past 12 Months 

State and National 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.07, p>0.05 level.

NCCC 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.28, statistically significant at the p<0.01 level.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 29 

group (percentage point difference = 6.42%; not 

significant). Sixty-six percent of State and National 

members from disadvantaged circumstances report 

volunteer work through or for an organization during 

the past 12 months, compared to 53 percent of 

disadvantaged members from the comparison group 

(percentage point difference = 12.41%; not 

significant). Although the volunteering rates are not 

significant within subgroups, the fact that the 

subgroup rates are as high, if not higher, than the 

volunteering rates for whites (63%) and those from 

non-disadvantaged circumstances (63%) in State and 

National, is counter to national trends. Generally in 

the United States, non-whites tend to have lower 

volunteering rates (Corporation for National and 

Community Service, 2007c). In this study, the 

results suggest non-whites who serve in AmeriCorps 

volunteer at rates similar to whites. The same is true 

for members from disadvantaged circumstances. 

Although generally individuals from disadvantaged 

circumstances have lower volunteering rates, the 

study finds that State and National members from 

disadvantaged circumstances volunteer at higher 

rates than those from non-disadvantaged 

circumstances. 

Exhibit 23: Types of Organizations Where Respondents Volunteer 

State and National 

Note: Other includes all responses that received less than three percent of responses: Immigrant/refugee assistance, Labor Union, Public Safety, International 

Organization, Sports or Hobby Group, Government Organization, or Political Party.

NCCC 

Note: Other includes all responses that received less than three percent of responses: Cultural or Art Organization, Hospital Clinic, Non-Profit Organization, Sports 

or Hobby Group, Immigrant Refugee Assistance, Civic Organization, Labor Union, Government Organization, or Public Safety Organization.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 30 

NCCC members are significantly more likely than 

the comparison group to have volunteered through 

or for an organization during the past 12 months. 

On average, 64 percent of NCCC members 

volunteered, 13 percentage points higher than the 

NCCC comparison group (51%). This significant 

impact on volunteering rates for NCCC members 

may result, in part, from the program’s residential 

design and focus on team-based service. 

The study also analyzes a subgroup of respondents 

who had not volunteered in the five years prior to 

joining or inquiring about AmeriCorps. A shortterm analysis of this subgroup in 2004 found 

positive and significant effects on volunteering, 

suggesting AmeriCorps has the ability to increase 

volunteering of individuals who have not been 

previously engaged in service. By 2007, the 

positive effects are not significant for this 

subgroup. Sixty-one percent of State and National 

members who had not volunteered in the five years 

prior to joining AmeriCorps did volunteer during 

the past 12 months, compared to 50 percent of the 

comparison group (percentage point difference = 

11.12%). 

The median number of hours volunteered by State 

and National members and their comparison group 

counterparts were both 40 hours each, in the past 

year. Among the subsets of those currently between 

the ages of 25–34 the median number of volunteer 

hours is 30 and 32, respectively. For NCCC 

members and their comparison group counterparts, 

all of whom are in the 25–34-year age range, the 

medians are 40 and 32 hours, respectively. 

In general, the primary organizations with which 

State and National members volunteer are social and 

community service organizations, which receive 25 

percent of their volunteer service. The second and 

third most frequent organizations are religious 

organizations (20%), and children’s educational, 

sports, or recreational groups (15%). NCCC 

members volunteer for social and community service 

organizations (29%), followed by religious 

institutions (14%), and children’s educational, 

sports, or recreational groups (12%). 

The activities that former State and National 

members most frequently engage in while 

volunteering are tutoring (19%), mentoring (17%), 

providing professional or management assistance, 

including serving on a board or committee (9%), 

and fundraising (7%). Similarly, NCCC members 

spend the greatest proportion of their service hours 

tutoring (13%), mentoring youth (13%), providing 

professional or management assistance, including 

serving on a board or committee (13%), and 

fundraising (12%). 

Exhibit 24: Most Frequent Activities 

Performed While Volunteering 

State and National 

NCCC 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 31 

AmeriCorps has no effect on the rate at which 

State and National and NCCC members donate 

to nonprofit organizations and social causes. 

In addition to being active citizens and volunteers, 

Americans provide important support for social causes 

by donating goods and financial resources. In 2006, 

Americans made donations of money, clothing, food, 

and other items valued over $295 billion (Benevon, 

2007). These donations supported the work of more 

than one million non-profit organizations (Troy, 2005), 

many of which might not be sustained at their current 

levels if not for the support of private citizens. 

To assess donating behaviors, State and National and 

NCCC members were asked whether they or anyone in 

their families donated money, assets, or property with a 

combined value of more than $25 in the past 12 

months. A follow-up question asked the dollar value 

of the members’ donations. Members were also asked 

whether they donated money, blood, time, clothes, 

food, or professional skills for Hurricane Katrina or 

other recent disaster relief efforts. 

The results indicate that State and National members 

make donations of money, assets, or property with a 

combined value of more than $25 very frequently, 

Exhibit 26: Percentage of Individuals That 

Donated to Hurricane Katrina 

Relief 

State and National 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.29, Statistically significant at the p<0.01 level.

NCCC 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.29, Statistically significant at the p<0.05 level.

Exhibit 25: Percentage of Individuals Making 

Donations to Organizations or 

Causes 

State and National 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = -0.19, p>0.05 level.

NCCC 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.14, p>0.05 level.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 32 

and at rates similar to their comparison group and 

the nation overall. Although the donating rates are 

not statistically significant, 78 percent of State and 

National members donated to at least one cause in 

the past 12 months. In comparison, 70 percent of 

the State and National comparison group donated 

money, assets, or property in the past 12 months, 

while overall, 70 percent of Americans made 

donations in the past 12 months (Panel Study of 

Income Dynamics, 2006). 

Results are similar for NCCC members. Although 

there are no statistical differences between members 

and the comparison group, a higher percentage of 

NCCC members donated money, assets, or property 

with a combined value of more than $25. Eightyone percent of NCCC members donated to at least 

one cause in the past 12 months. In comparison, 75 

percent of the NCCC comparison group donated 

money, assets, or property in the past 12 months, 

while overall, 70 percent of Americans made 

donations in the past 12 months. 

AmeriCorps programs play a key role in organizing 

volunteers to help communities recover from 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Since Hurricane Katrina, 

10,000 AmeriCorps members have volunteered three 

million hours of service in the Gulf Coast region and 

mobilized or managed more than 229,000 volunteers 

(Corporation for National and Community Service, 

2007a). This same institutional commitment to help 

Hurricane Katrina survivors holds true for State and 

National and NCCC members who served in 

AmeriCorps eight years ago. 

The study asked respondents whether they had made 

donations in response to Hurricane Katrina, and if so, 

the form of their donation. Over one-third of both 

former State and National members and the 

comparison group donated money (38% and 34%, 

respectively), or clothes and food (35% and 33%, 

respectively) in response to Hurricane Katrina. For 

NCCC, 41 percent of NCCC members and 40 percent 

of the comparison group donated money for Hurricane 

Katrina. Almost a third contributed clothes and food 

(30% of NCCC members and 26% of their comparison 

group). State and National (18%) and NCCC (20%) 

members also report donating time to charitable 

organizations in response to Hurricane Katrina. In 

comparison, 14 percent of the State and National 

comparison group, and 8 percent of the NCCC 

comparison group, report donating time to charitable 

organizations in response to Hurricane Katrina. 

Employment 

AmeriCorps service provides members with the 

opportunity to explore different career paths, gain jobrelated skills, develop leadership skills, and network 

with community leaders, while engaged in activities 

that strengthen communities. For example, during 

their year of service, many members develop teaching 

skills as they teach or tutor students. Other members 

may be required to obtain Red Cross certification in 

order to serve through hospitals and healthcare 

organizations or provide disaster relief. Still other 

members learn how to manage projects and work in 

teams as they build homes or clear trails. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 33 

While these job training and experiential learning 

techniques are proven methods for workforce 

development, engaging in these activities through 

national service provides an added benefit that goes 

beyond merely preparing members for employment. 

Members are exposed to parts of society that they 

might not otherwise have encountered (Sagawa, 

Connolly, & Chao, 2008), and are introduced to careers 

they might not have considered. These career 

opportunities may have been 

perceived as unattainable, or 

may have simply been unknown 

had a member not served. In 

addition, while national service 

prepares members for the 

workforce, it can also be a 

conduit to careers that serve the 

public good. Members have the 

opportunity to serve in fields 

such as healthcare, education, 

and social services—fields that 

need visionary leaders (Sagawa et al., 2008), but are 

currently facing a severe shortage of qualified 

employees (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007, 2008). 

In recent years, a decline in the number of people 

entering public service careers, related to an increase in 

competition from the private sector for talented staff, 

has led to a drying up of the government’s 

“replacement stream” (National Commission on Public 

Service, 2003; Partnership for Public Service, 2007). 

Experts predict that 60 percent of the federal 

government workforce, and 90 percent of its senior 

executive service will be eligible to retire by 2017, 

thereby exacerbating the shortage (Council for 

Excellence in Government & The Gallup Organization, 

2007). State and local government are not immune. 

They are predicted to lose more than 30 percent of their 

workforce to retirement, private-sector employers, and 

alternative careers (Carroll & Moss, 2002). 

Similarly, the field of nonprofit management is 

facing shortages. Experts estimate that by 2016, 

more than 80,000 new senior managers will be 

needed each year to lead America’s nonprofit 

organizations (Tierney, 2006). 

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008), 

more than three of every ten new jobs will be in 

healthcare, social services, or education. However, 

these fields are already facing significant employment 

shortages. U.S. hospitals are currently experiencing 

nursing shortages, and hospitals need more than 

100,000 registered nurses to fill current vacancies. The 

United States will need 1.2 million new nurses (Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, 2007) and an additional 250,000 

public health workers by 2020 

to meet the nation’s health care 

needs (Association of Schools 

of Public Health, 2008). In 

education, the National 

Education Association predicts 

that the United States will need 

2 million new teachers in the 

next decade. 

In view of the dire need for 

those serving the public 

good, the study focuses on whether service in 

AmeriCorps has an impact on the career choices of 

members, including: 

 Employment in a public service career; and 

 Effects on the importance of service-oriented 

careers. 

AmeriCorps is a pipeline for careers in public 

service. 

Throughout this evaluation, it is evident that not only 

are AmeriCorps members aware of, and empowered to 

meet, the needs of their communities, but members are 

pairing their convictions and observations with action. 

State and National members believe in working for the 

good of the community, with a statistically significant 

number of members pursuing careers in fields such as 

education, social work, public safety, arts, religion, 

government, or military service. Forty-six percent of 

State and National members are employed in these 

public service fields, compared to 33 percent of the 

comparison group. Although the difference is not 

significant, 43 percent of NCCC members are 

employed in a public service field, compared to 37 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 34 

percent of the comparison group. One possible 

explanation for the different findings between State 

and National and NCCC may be a reflection of the 

different program models. For example, the majority 

of members in State and National have placements in 

public agencies and nonprofit organizations that 

sponsor service programs around the country. While 

engaging in service, these members are also exposed to 

many aspects of working directly in a public agency or 

nonprofit organization. In comparison, NCCC 

members are based at NCCC regional campuses and 

work in teams to complete short-term service projects 

of 4–6 weeks in duration for several different 

sponsoring organizations during their year of service. 

AmeriCorps has an even greater impact on the career 

choices of non-white members and those from 

disadvantaged circumstances. Non-white State and 

National members are significantly more likely to have 

a career in public service than members of the 

comparison group (44% compared to 26%). State and 

National members from disadvantaged circumstances 

are 20 percentage points more likely to be employed in 

a public service field (46% compared to 26%). 

The study also examines employment sector. 

Employment sectors, which differ from employment 

fields, include government, for profit, nonprofit, and 

self-employment. For example, an individual 

working as a teacher in a public elementary school 

would be included in the education field and the 

government sector. State and National members are 

significantly more likely to be employed in the 

government sector than the comparison group. More 

than a third (37%) of State and National members 

are working for federal, state, or local governments, 

compared to 28 percent of the comparison group. 

Thirty-six percent of NCCC members report that 

they work for the government, compared to 33 

percent of the NCCC comparison group, but these 

differences are not significant. Nonprofit 

organizations often have the most direct and 

consistent contact with those who are in the greatest 

need of social services. Twenty-four percent of 

State and National members and 22 percent of 

NCCC members report that they work for nonprofit 

organizations. These figures are not significantly 

different from those of either comparison group; 23 

percent of the State and National comparison group 

and 21 percent of the NCCC comparison group work 

in the nonprofit sector. When results for the 

government and nonprofit sectors are combined, the 

findings show that 61 percent of State and National 

members are currently employed in either 

government or nonprofit sectors, compared to 51 

percent of the comparison group. Fifty-eight percent 

of NCCC members are currently employed in the 

government or nonprofit sectors, compared to 54 

percent of the comparison group. 

Exhibit 27: Percentage of Respondents 

Employed in Public Service Field 

State and National 

Positive effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.26, Statistically significant at the p<0.01 level.

NCCC 

No effect of participation. 

Effect Size = 0.14, p>0.05 level.
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 35 

Members were asked about the importance of

having a service-oriented career. The importance 

of a service-oriented career was measured as the 

respondent’s opinion about whether their current job 

is a position that contributes to others, such as 

working to correct inequalities and being of direct 

service to others. There are no significant 

differences between State and National members and 

their comparison group (effect size = 0.21), nor 

NCCC members and their comparison group (effect 

size = 0.22). 

Within State and National subgroups, however, the 

impacts of service in AmeriCorps on members’ 

opinions of the importance of having a serviceoriented career are fairly large. Non-white State and 

National members are significantly more likely to 

report the importance of a service-oriented career 

(effect size = 0.45). State and National members 

from disadvantaged circumstances are also 

significantly more likely to emphasize serviceoriented careers than their peers (effect size = 0.67). 

A member’s network of colleagues and peers can 

serve as a bridge to professional opportunities. 

Employment results reveal that AmeriCorps creates 

an environment conducive to connecting members to 

careers. Both State and National and NCCC 

members report that service in AmeriCorps 

introduced them to job connections, and made them 

aware of and helped them take advantage of 

opportunities. Forty-seven percent of State and 

National members, and 30 percent of NCCC 

members say that AmeriCorps gave them 

connections that helped them find a job. Seventynine percent of State and National members, and 83 

percent of NCCC members report that their 

AmeriCorps experiences in the 1999–2000 program 

year gave them exposure to new career options. 

Sixty-seven percent of State and National members 

report that their AmeriCorps experiences in the 

1999–2000 program year provided them with an 

advantage in finding a job. Seventy percent of 

NCCC members say that AmeriCorps gave them an 

advantage in finding a job. 

Education 

Higher levels of education are correlated with 

positive outcomes for both individuals and society. 

For example, for the individual, higher education 

typically results in higher earnings and greater job 

stability, regardless of gender or racial differences 

(Stoops, 2004; U.S. Census, 2007). The average 

annual income for a college graduate with a 

bachelor’s degree was $56,788 in 2006, while the 

income for a high school graduate with a high school 

diploma was $31,071 (U.S. Census, 2007). For 

society, a higher level of education keeps our nation 

competitive in the global market, results in higher 

tax revenues from increased wages, contributes to 

lower poverty rates, and results in fewer families 

dependent on publicly funded programs (Jamison, 

Jamison, & Hanushek, 2007; National Center on 

Education Statistics, 1995; Sandefur & Cook, 1998). 

At the same time, higher education helps to nurture the 

next generation of civically minded citizens (Dewey, 

1923; Honeywell, 1931; Lee, 1962). College graduates 

are typically more civically engaged and tend to make 

a greater contribution to the public good. For example, 

they are more likely to vote, volunteer, and engage in 

other civic behaviors (Hart, Donnelly, Youniss, & 

Atkins, 2007; Metz, McLellan, & Youniss, 2003). 

Recognizing the value that higher education provides 

to the individual and to society, AmeriCorps programs 

are designed to support the pursuit of postsecondary 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 36 

education in several ways. National service programs 

often include components that increase members’ 

understanding of the importance of education, beliefs 

in their ability to pursue education, and confidence that 

they can successfully earn a college degree. 

In addition, the Corporation offers each member who 

completes a year of service an education award. The 

Segal AmeriCorps Education Award is $4,725 for fulltime service, and is pro-rated for members who serve 

less than full time. The award can be used for 

education or training with qualified institutions (such 

as accredited community colleges, universities, and 

colleges), or to repay qualified student loans, for a 

period of seven years after completing service. Many 

AmeriCorps members join State and National 

programs in order to receive the education award. At 

baseline, 70 percent of State and National members 

reported that the education award was quite or very 

relevant in motivating them to join. Fifty-three percent 

of NCCC members said the education award was quite 

or very relevant in motivating them to join. 

To determine the effects of participation in 

AmeriCorps on members’ educational progress, the 

study measures a variety of changes to State and 

National and NCCC members’ educational 

attainment and interests when compared to their 

respective comparison groups. It is important to 

note, however, that members participated in service 

full-time for a year. Therefore, the comparison 

group had an additional year to engage in 

educational pursuits or employment. 

The study focuses on several different educational 

outcomes, including level of education achieved and 

changes in members’ personal educational goals. 

AmeriCorps’ impact on the level of education actually 

achieved is measured by: 

 The highest level of education completed. 

Changes in personal educational goals of members 

are measured by: 

 Effect on members’ personal educational goals; 

 Effect on recognizing the importance of 

education; 

 Effect on level of education members expect to 

complete; and 

 If the Segal AmeriCorps Education Award 

helped members continue their education. 

Eight years after AmeriCorps, State and National 

and NCCC members have achieved the same 

level of education as the comparison group. 

The study finds that there is no statistically significant 

difference in the level of education achieved for State 

and National and NCCC members and their respective 

comparison groups. Eight years after serving in 

AmeriCorps, members and the comparison groups 

have achieved similar levels of education. More than 

half of all study participants have either a bachelor’s or 

master’s degree. Thirty-four percent of State and 

National members have earned a bachelor’s degree and 

24 percent report having a master’s degree or higher. 

In comparison, 39 percent of the State and National 

comparison group have a bachelor’s degree and 29 

percent have a master’s degree or higher. Forty-eight 

percent of NCCC members have a bachelor’s degree 

and 29 percent have a master’s degree or higher. In 

comparison, 50 percent of the NCCC comparison 

group have a bachelor’s degree and 29 percent have a 

master’s degree or higher. Since members dedicate at 

least a year of their life to service, their educational 

progress may have been postponed for a year, yet State 

and National and NCCC members have achieved the 

same level of education as the comparison group. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 37 

It is worth noting that eight years after enrolling in 

AmeriCorps, many former State and National and 

NCCC members are still in school pursuing a 

bachelor’s, master’s or higher degree. Currently, 24 

percent of State and National members, and 18 

percent of the comparison group, are still attending 

educational institutions. Twenty-five percent of 

NCCC members, and 21 percent of the comparison 

group, are still attending school. Results are not 

significant for either State and National or NCCC. 

With nearly a quarter of former State and National 

and NCCC members currently enrolled in higher 

education institutions, additional time may be 

needed to understand the long-term effects of 

AmeriCorps on members’ educational attainment. 

Within the State and National subgroups, 27 percent of 

Blacks/African Americans, 32 percent of 

Hispanics/Latinos and 24 percent of members from 

disadvantaged circumstances are currently pursuing a 

bachelor’s, master’s, or higher degree. Comparison 

group percentages are 24 percent, 2 percent, and 17 

percent, respectively. Similar to the results for the 

overall group, these subgroup results are not 

significant. 

One explanation for the large number of former 

AmeriCorps members and individuals in the 

comparison group enrolled in school pursuing a 

degree program eight years after baseline may be 

found in the recent literature on transitions to 

Exhibit 28: Current Level of Education Attained 

State and National 

NCCC 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 38 

adulthood. A general trend noted by scholars of the 

transition to adulthood is that young adults are 

taking longer to complete their college education 

(Fitzpatrick & Turner, 2006). Compared to young 

adults in the 1970s, about the same proportion of 

college students earn their degrees in four years at 

or around age 22, but the number of nontraditional 

or older undergraduate students has nearly doubled 

since 1970. Further, high school students today are 

expressing more reluctance to take on adult 

responsibilities, with an increasing number saying 

they “feel hesitant about taking a full-time job and 

becoming part of the 'adult' world” (Briddle, 

Flanagan, Osgood, Syvertsen, & Wray, 2006). As 

a result, additional time may be needed to 

determine the effects of AmeriCorps on educational 

attainment. 

A second explanation may be the declining 

purchasing power of the Segal AmeriCorps 

Educational Award. The amount of the education 

award has been fixed at $4,725 since the program 

began in 1993, and has not been adjusted to reflect 

inflation and the rising costs of education that have 

occurred over the past 15 years. Adjusting for 

overall inflation between 1993 and 2007, the real 

value of the education award has declined from 

$4,725 to $3,303 in constant 1993 dollars, a decline 

of approximately 30 percent. At the same time, the 

costs for attendance at public and private higher 

education institutions have increased significantly. 

During the period from 1993 to 2005, the annual 

cost of attendance at four-year public institutions 

increased by almost 80 percent (from $6,365 to 

$11,441 in public institutions, and from $15,904 to 

$26,489 in private institutions). Today, the award 

purchases less than one semester of tuition at a 

public higher education institution, not including 

room and board or other educational expenses. In 

addition, since the AmeriCorps education award is 

taxable, the value of the award is reduced by the 

amount of taxes paid on the award. The results 

suggest that while the AmeriCorps education award 

is an important part of members’ motivation for 

joining AmeriCorps and has provided support for 

many members to further their education, the value 

of the award in relation to the increasing costs of 

education may not be sufficient to make members 

more likely to complete a degree program than 

similar individuals in the comparison group. 

State and National and NCCC members were also 

surveyed about whether their experience in 

AmeriCorps helped them see the importance of 

education. For State and National members, almost 

two-thirds of members (66%) report that serving in 

AmeriCorps helped them see the importance of 

education. Fifty-seven percent of NCCC members 

report that AmeriCorps helped them see the 

importance of education. Within the State and 

National subgroup of Hispanics/Latinos, 

Blacks/African Americans, and members from 

disadvantaged circumstances, the percentages are 

82, 72, and 74, respectively. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 39 

Life Satisfaction 

In recent years, social scientists have devoted a great 

deal of attention to the measurement of life 

satisfaction or overall happiness with one’s life. The 

growth of such research is particularly apparent in the 

literature of behavioral economics and psychology, 

where many studies examine the relationships 

between self-reported life satisfaction and a variety of 

positive outcomes. The most common self-reported 

measure—a simple, “global” assessment of one’s 

overall life satisfaction—has been shown to affect, 

and be affected by, responses to more specific 

questions about satisfaction with various “life facets” 

(Lance, Mallard, & Michaelos, 1995). Dozens of 

cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have 

suggested that overall life satisfaction, and its 

components, are positively associated with such 

outcomes as marriage, friendships, income, work 

performance (Diener, Lyubomirsky, & King, 2005) 

and physical health (Pressman & Cohen, 2005).16

Volunteering and being active in one’s community 

may be a way to stimulate these positive effects. 

Many recent studies (Post, 2007) have suggested 

that volunteering and working on behalf of others 

can improve life satisfaction and also provide 

physical and emotional benefits to volunteers. For 

example, recent research indicates that volunteers, 

particularly older volunteers, have lower mortality 

rates than non-volunteers with similar backgrounds 

(Brown, Consedine, & Magai, 2005). Emotional 

benefits include lower expression of depression 

(Lum & Lightfoot, 2005) and higher rates of 

satisfaction with one’s life (Li & Ferraro, 2006). 

Research also indicates that lower levels of 

depression and despair may directly impact physical 

health (Sullivan & Sullivan, 1997). Therefore, good 

overall health and volunteering appear to be part of a 

“self-reinforcing cycle” of well-being (Grimm, 

Spring, & Dietz, 2007). 

Following these ideas, this study assesses whether 

AmeriCorps had an impact on members’ selfreported levels of life satisfaction eight years 

following their AmeriCorps enrollment. The 

researchers are interested in describing how the 

emotional benefits of AmeriCorps service accrue to 

members themselves, including how members feel 

about their physical state of being. 

The impacts of AmeriCorps service on overall life 

satisfaction are assessed by asking study participants 

if they are satisfied with several aspects of their lives, 

including: 

 Work or career; 

 Personal financial situation; 

 Physical health; 

 Personal relationships with family and friends; 

 Religious or spiritual life; and 

 Leisure activities. 

Eight years after service, State and National and 

NCCC members are more satisfied with their 

lives than the comparison group. 

Service in AmeriCorps State and National and 

AmeriCorps NCCC has significant positive effects 

on the overall life satisfaction of members when 

compared to their respective comparison groups. 

For State and National members, there is a small 

effect for life satisfaction (effect size = 0.26). State 

and National member score higher on overall life 

satisfaction than the comparison group. Similarly, 

for NCCC members, there is a medium effect for 

overall life satisfaction (effect size = 0.39), as 

NCCC members score higher on life satisfaction 

than the comparison group. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 40 

When individual questions that form the life 

satisfaction construct are analyzed, State and 

National members generally report being more 

satisfied than the comparison group. Members are 

very satisfied, compared to the comparison group, in 

their careers (46% compared to 41%), physical 

health (46% compared to 39%), relationships with 

family and friends (70% compared to 62%), 

religious or spiritual lives (54% compared to 44%), 

and leisure activities (43% compared to 33%). The 

comparison group (21%) surpasses the State and 

National members’ (18%) response to satisfaction 

with their personal financial situation. 

NCCC members show greater overall life satisfaction 

than their comparison group as well. NCCC 

members report being very satisfied, compared to the 

comparison group, with their careers (56% compared 

to 50%), physical health (54% compared to 48%), 

religious or spiritual lives (43% compared to 40%), 

personal financial situation (22% compared to 19%), 

and leisure activities (51% compared to 44%). 

Seventy-eight percent of individuals from the NCCC 

comparison group report being very satisfied with 

their relationships with family and friends, compared 

to 77 percent of NCCC members. 

Exhibit 29: Percentage Reporting Very Satisfied with Aspects of Life Satisfaction 

State and National NCCC 

Treatment Comparison Treatment Comparison 

Work or Career 46 41 56 50 

Financial Situation 18 21 22 19 

Physical Health 46 39 54 48 

Relationships with Friends and Family 70 62 77 78 

Religious/ Spiritual Life 54 44 43 40 

Leisure Activities 43 33 51 44 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 41 

Conclusion and Implications 

Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of 

AmeriCorps on Alumni is a longitudinal study 

designed to assess the outcomes and impacts of 

national and community service on individuals who 

served in the AmeriCorps State and National and the 

AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps 

(NCCC). The objective of the study is to assess the 

impact of AmeriCorps on members’ civic 

engagement, employment and careers, educational 

attainment, and life 

satisfaction. The 

findings in this report 

reflect a longer-term 

assessment of the impact 

of participation in 

AmeriCorps 

approximately eight 

years after enrolling in 

the program. 

There are three important 

considerations for 

interpreting the findings 

in this study. First, in 

1999 when this study 

began, AmeriCorps was a relatively new federal 

program and the majority of young people had very 

little knowledge of or experience with AmeriCorps. 

Therefore, those individuals who were interested in 

AmeriCorps in 1999—regardless of whether they 

were in the treatment or comparison group—were 

generally a more select group of individuals. In 

general, both the AmeriCorps members and the 

comparison group had high rates of volunteering, 

voting, and other civic behaviors prior to applying to 

AmeriCorps. It is not surprising, therefore, that eight 

years after enrolling in AmeriCorps, members and 

the comparison group continue to exhibit high levels 

of civic engagement, and both groups continue to be 

engaged at levels well above the general public. As 

a result, the high levels of engagement among both 

the treatment and comparison groups may make it 

difficult to find significant effects of participation. 

 For example, while there is no impact of 

AmeriCorps State and National on volunteering or 

voting, both State and National members and the 

comparison group are much more likely to 

participate in these civic activities than the general 

public. 

Second, the follow-up survey analyzed here shows 

that some of the short-term program effects observed 

in 2004 have remained 

strong, or even increased 

in strength, in 2007, while 

others have diminished in 

strength. In general, 

finding significant longerterm effects are often 

much more difficult than 

finding shorter-term 

effects, since the impacts 

of a single year of 

intensive service could be 

expected to fade over 

time. Although about half 

of the impacts observed in 

2004 persist into 2007, 

some of the effect sizes are decreasing, suggesting 

that program effects may fade over time. For 

example, connection to community has been 

significant in both 2004 and 2007 for both State and 

National and NCCC members, but the effect size has 

decreased for State and National. Meanwhile, in 

2004, both State and National and NCCC members 

were more likely than the comparison group to 

understand community problems, but while the 

program effect is still about as large in 2007 for 

State and National members as it was in 2004, the 

program effect for NCCC is no longer detectable. 

Also, for both programs, AmeriCorps members are 

no more likely than individuals from the comparison 

group to emphasize the importance of fulfilling civic 

obligations, an effect that was strong and positive in 

2004 for State and National. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 42 

At the same time, other impacts appear to take 

several years to develop and emerge. For example, 

in 2004, the effect of NCCC participation on 

members’ ability to lead a successful communitybased movement was not significant. Today, the 

study finds a large effect for this outcome. In 2004, 

both State and National and NCCC members had 

more confidence in their ability to work with local 

government officials than did members of the 

comparison groups; today, these program effects are 

still significant and even stronger. Similar results 

are found for the NCCC, where program members 

are more likely to have confidence in their ability to 

organize community-based efforts, a program effect 

that was not observed at all in 2004. 

Third, perhaps one of the most interesting 

conclusions from the study is that the results suggest 

different programmatic models in AmeriCorps State 

and National and NCCC may contribute to different 

types of longer-term impacts on members. State and 

National supports members serving directly in 

nonprofit organizations. These members work for 

organizations like the Red Cross, Habitat for 

Humanity, Teach for America, City Year, and 

hundreds of local nonprofit and community-based 

organizations and public agencies. As a result, the 

work experience and job connections these members 

gained during their service may have contributed to 

the impacts on entering careers in public service and 

working in the government and nonprofit sectors. 

At the same time, NCCC’s residential design and 

focus on team-based service may have contributed to 

the impacts on social trust and other forms of civic 

engagement. Dependence on one’s team members, 

and successfully collaborating with others to meet 

community needs, may foster the high levels of trust 

among NCCC members. NCCC members also 

engage in several different service projects across 

many communities during their term of service, 

which may partially explain the positive effects on 

volunteering for NCCC members. 

There are interesting differences based on member 

characteristics. For example, AmeriCorps service 

continues to have long-term impacts on the civic 

engagement and employment of State and National 

members from disadvantaged circumstances. For 

these members, AmeriCorps influences their 

commitment to volunteer service, their service to 

others in the community, and their feelings of 

connection to their community. For Black/African 

American and Hispanic/Latino State and National 

members, their experience has had a significant 

long-term impact on civic engagement which 

continues seven years after service. For example, as 

compared to the comparison group, Black/African 

American members have higher levels of 

engagement in the political process and feeling 

connected to their community. Hispanic/Latino 

members have higher levels of feeling connected to 

their community and neighborhood at large. 

However, Black/African American and 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 43 

Hispanic/Latino State and National members’ levels 

of voting and volunteering are similar to their 

respective comparison groups. 

This study also reveals some areas where the impact 

of AmeriCorps may be in need of additional 

consideration. For example, the study finds that 

there is no statistically significant difference in the 

level of education achieved for State and National 

and NCCC members and their respective 

comparison groups. Eight years after serving in 

AmeriCorps, members and the comparison groups 

have achieved similar levels of education. While the 

Segal AmeriCorps Education Award does not appear 

to have an effect on degree attainment, the education 

award continues to be an important motivator for 

individuals to join AmeriCorps, and consistently is 

identified by members as one of the main reasons for 

joining. Additionally, the award appears to help 

members further their education, particularly for 

disadvantaged members, although it does not always 

result in degree attainment. On the other hand, it is 

important to note that one-quarter of members are 

still enrolled in school seven years after serving in 

AmeriCorps, and the longer-term effects on 

educational attainment may not be realized for 

several more years. 

Another topic for future study could be changes in 

the typical service experience of AmeriCorps 

members since 1999–2000. The Still Serving: 

Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on 

Alumni report has followed State and National and 

NCCC members who entered service in 1999–2000; 

since then, both programs have undergone 

considerable change. For example, in 1999, the 

researchers selected only full-time members from 

State and National because, at the time, a majority of 

members served full time. Currently, however, 

slightly more than half of State and National 

members serve in part-time or reduced part-time 

programs. For the NCCC, service efforts in 1999–

2000 were largely focused on conservation, such as 

cleaning parks, and construction, such as repairing 

and building parks and other public spaces. 

Currently, the NCCC program focuses on disaster 

relief, in addition to a range of other activities to 

meet the needs of communities across the country. 

As a result, a study of a new cohort of AmeriCorps 

members could measure the effects of the current 

AmeriCorps State and National and NCCC 

programs, and could assess the effects of different 

amounts of service on member outcomes. 

 

This report sheds light on the potential the 

AmeriCorps program has to make a difference in our 

country not only by providing service that produces 

community outcomes, but also by giving individuals 

the opportunity to be agents of positive change in 

communities across the nation. At a time when 37 

million Americans live in poverty, about 800,000 

youths are in gangs, 15 million children lack a caring 

adult in their lives, recovery from disasters in the 

Gulf of Mexico is still not complete, and 

environmental degradation continues to erode our 

natural resources, it is clear that our country needs 

engaged citizens to make a difference in their 

communities throughout their lifetimes. Moreover, 

numerous groups indicate that our country will face 

a sizeable shortage of public service professionals in 

the coming decades. This report suggests 

AmeriCorps can be a key strategy for not only 

building stronger communities, but also for building 

stronger citizens who are ready and willing to take 

on the challenges of today and tomorrow as highly 

engaged members of their neighborhoods and 

through careers in public service. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 44 

References 

Ansolabehere, S., Snyder, J., & Stewart, C. (2000). Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using 

Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 17-34. 

Association of Schools of Public Health. (2008). Confronting the Public Health Workforce Crisis. Washington, 

D.C.: Association of Schools of Public Health. 

Barber, B. (1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California 

Press. 

Becker, S. O., & Andrea Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Based on Propensity Scores. 

The Stata Journal, 2(4), 358-377. 

Benevon. (2007). The Giving USA Foundation Releases its 2006 Statistics. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from 

http://sforce.benevon.com/images/GivingUSA2007.htm. 

Bennet, S. E., & Resnick, D. (1990). Implications of Nonvoting for Democracy in the United States. American 

Journal of Political Science, 34(3), 771-803. 

Born, R. (1990). Surge and Decline, Negative Voting, and the Midterm Loss Phenomenon: A Simultaneous 

Choice Analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 34(3), 615-645. 

Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. (1995). Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation. 

American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271-294. 

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, 

and School. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences. 

Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital. 

American Journal of Political Science 41(3), 999-1023. 

Briddle, L., Flanagan, C., Osgood, D. W., Syvertsen, A., & Wray, L. (2006). The Changing Social Contract at the 

Transition to Adulthood: Implications for Individuals and the Polity. Network on Transitions to 

Adulthood Research Network Retrieved 4/18/08, from 

www.transad.pop.upenn.edu/downloads/changing%20social%20contract%20flanagan.pdf. 

Briggs, X. D. S. (2003). Bridging Networks, Social Capital, and Racial Segregation in America. Unpublished 

manuscript. Cambridge, MA. 

Brown, W. M., Consedine, N. S., and Magai, C. (2005). Altruism Relates to Health in an Ethnically Diverse 

Sample of Older Adults. Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 

60B (3), 143-152. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007, December 18). Tomorrow's Jobs. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from 

http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Occupational Outlook Handbook. Retrieved March 26, 2008. from 

http://www.bls.gov/oco/home.htm. 

Cain, B., Ferejohn, J., & Fiorina, M. (1987). The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral 

Independence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 45 

Campbell, A. (1966). Surge and Decline: A Study of Electoral Change. In Campbell, Converse, Miller & Stokes 

(Eds.), Elections and the Political Order. New York: Wiley. 

Carroll, J., & Moss, D. (2002). State Employee Worker Shortage: The Impending Crisis. Lexington, KY: Council 

of State Governments. 

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Corporation for National and Community Service. (2004). Serving Country and Community: A Longitudinal 

Study of Service in AmeriCorps. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from 

http://www.americorps.org/pdf/06_1223_longstudy_report.pdf. 

Corporation for National and Community Service. (2006a). AmeriCorps*NCCC. Retrieved February 19, 2008, 

from http://www.americorps.gov/pdf/factsheet_americorps_nccc.pdf. 

Corporation for National and Community Service. (2006b). AmeriCorps*State and National. Retrieved February 

19, 2008, from http://www.americorps.gov/pdf/factsheet_americorps_sn.pdf. 

Corporation for National and Community Service. (2007a). Broadcast-Quality Video Footage on 2-Year 

Volunteer Response to Hurricane Katrina Available. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from 

http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/newsroom/releases_detail.asp?tbl_pr_id=792. 

Corporation for National and Community Service. (2007b). National Service Responds to the Gulf Coast 

Hurricanes. Retrieved February 19, 2008, from 

http://americorps.gov/pdf/06_0831_factsheet_katrina.pdf. 

Corporation for National and Community Service. (2007c). Volunteering in America. Retrieved March 12, 2008, 

from http://cns.gov/about/volunteering/index.asp. 

Corporation for National and Community Service. (2008a). AmeriCorps: History, Legislation, and Budget. 

Retrieved February 19, 2008, from http://americorps.gov/about/ac/history.asp. 

Corporation for National and Community Service. (2008b). Fiscal Year 2009: Congressional Budget 

Justification. Retrieved. from http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/2009_budget_justification.pdf. 

Corporation for National and Community Service. (2008c). Our Mission and Guiding Principles. Retrieved 

March 3, 2008, from http://cns.gov/about/role_impact/mission.asp. 

Council for Excellence in Government & The Gallup Organization. (2007). Within Reach...But Out of Synch: The 

Possibilities and Challenges of Shaping Tomorrow's Government Workforce. Retrieved May 5, 2008 

from http://www.excelgov.org/UserFiles/File/Within%20Reach%20But%20Out%20of%20Synch.pdf. 

Dewey, J. (1923). The School and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Diener, E., Lyubomirsky, S., & King, L. (2005). The Benefits of Frequent Positive Affect: Does Happiness Lead 

to Success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803-855. 

Fitzpatrick, M. D., & Turner, S. E. (2006). The Changing College Experience for Young Adults. Network on 

Transitions to Adulthood Research Network. Retrieved 4/18/2008, from 

www.transad.pop.upenn.edu/downoads/fitzpatrick-formatted.pdf. 

Galea, S., Karpati, A., & Kennedy, B. (2002). Social Capital and Violence in the American States, 1974-1993. 

Social Science & Medicine, 55, 1373-1383. 

Galor, O., & Zeira, J. (1993). Income Distribution and Macroeconomics. Review of Economic Studies, 60, 35-52. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 46 

General Social Survey. (2004). Statistics on Trust 2004. Retrieved March 25, 2008, from 

http://publicdata.norc.org/webview/velocity?var1=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicdata.norc.org%3A80%2Fobj

%2FfVariable%2F4697_V5076&op1=%3C%3E&cases2=5&stubs=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicdata.norc.or

g%3A80%2Fobj%2FfVariable%2F4697_V1&var2=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicdata.norc.org%3A80%2Fobj

%2FfVariable%2F4697_V5076&op3=%3C%3E&analysismode=table&v=2&var3=http%3A%2F%2Fpu

blicdata.norc.org%3A80%2Fobj%2FfVariable%2F4697_V5076&ao2=and&weights=http%3A%2F%2Fp

ublicdata.norc.org%3A80%2Fobj%2FfVariable%2F4697_V5084&cases3=7&V1slice=1972&ao1=and&

previousmode=table&study=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicdata.norc.org%3A80%2Fobj%2FfStudy%2F4697&

headers=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicdata.norc.org%3A80%2Fobj%2FfVariable%2F4697_V4282&op2=%3

C%3E&mode=table&ao3=and&V4slice=0&tabcontenttype=row&count=2&cases1=4. 

Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. (2000). Measuring Trust. The Quarterly 

Journal of Economics, 115(3), 811-846. 

Grimm, R., Spring, K., & Nathan Dietz, N. (2007). The Health Benefits of Volunteering: A Review of Recent 

Research. Retrieved March 11, 2008 from http://www.nationalservice.gov/pdf/07_0506_hbr.pdf. 

Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys. Public Opinion 

Quarterly, 70(5), 646-675. 

Habermas, J. (1984-1987). The Theory of Communicative Action (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity. 

Hart, D., Donnelly, T. M., Youniss, J., & Atkins, R. (2007). High School Community Service as a Predictor of 

Adult Voting and Volunteering. American Education Research Journal, 44(1), 197-219. 

Helliwell, J., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The Social Context of Well-Being. Transactions of the Royal Society 

Series B, 359, 1435-1446. 

Honeywell, R. J. (1931). The Educational Work of Thomas Jefferson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Hutchins, R. M. (1952). The Great Conversation: The Substance of a Liberal Education. Encyclopedia Brittanica. 

Chicago. 

Jamison, E. A., Jamison, D. T., & Hanushek, E. A. (2007). The Effects of Education Quality on Income Growth 

and Mortality Decline. Economics of Education Review, 26, 772-789. 

Jastrzab, J., Bernstein, L., Litin, L., Braat-Campbell, S., Stickney, E., Artis, E., & Giordono, L. (2001). Profile of 

AmeriCorps Members at Baseline. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc. 

Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Lochner, K., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1997). Social Capital, Income Inequality, and 

Mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87(9), 1491-1498. 

Kawachi, I., Kim, D., Coutts, A., & Subrahmaniam, S. V. (2004). Commentary: Reconciling the Three Accounts 

of Social Capital. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33, 1-9. 

Kernell, S. (1977). Presidential Popularity and Negative Voting: An Alternative Explanation of the Midterm 

Congressional Decline of the President's Party. American Political Science Review, 71(1), 44-66. 

Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation. 

The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(3), 1251-1288. 

La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., Vishny, R.W. (1997). Trust in Large Organizations. American 

Economic Review, 87, 333-338. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 47 

Lance, C. E., Mallard, A. G., & Michaelos, A. C. (1995). Tests of the Causal Direction of Global – Life Facet 

Satisfaction Relationships. Social Indicators Research, 34(1), 69-92. 

Lee, G. C. (1962). Crusade Against Ignorance: Thomas Jefferson on Education. New York: Teachers College 

Press. 

Li, Y., & Ferraro, K. F. (2006). Volunteering in Middle and Later Life: Is Health a Benefit, Barrier or Both? 

Social Forces, 85(1), 497-519. 

Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design Sensitivity: Statistical Power for Experimental Research. New York: Sage. 

Lum, T. Y., & Lightfoot, E. (2005). The Effects of Volunteering on the Physical and Mental Health of Older 

People. Research on Aging, 27(1), 31-55. 

McDonald, M. P. (2006). Rocking the House: Competition and Turnout in the 2006 Midterm Election. The 

Forum, 4(3). 

Metz, E., McLellan, J., & Youniss, J. (2003). Types of Voluntary Service and Adolescent Civic Development. 

Journal of Adolescent Research, 18(2), 188-203. 

National Center on Education Statistics. (1995). Welfare Recipiency by Educational Attainment. Washington DC: 

US Department of Education, NCES. 

National Commission on Public Service. (2003). Urgent Business for America: Revitalizing the Federal 

Government for the 21st Century: Report of the National Commission on the Public Service.

National Conference on Citizenship. (2006). America's Civic Health Index: Broken Engagement. Retrieved 

March 13, 2008, from http://www.civicenterprises.net/pdfs/2006civichealth.pdf. 

Odendahl, T., & O'Neill, M. (Eds.). (1994). Women and Power in the Nonprofit Sector: Jossey-Bass. 

Orbell, J., & Dawes, R. M. (1991). A "Cognitive Miser” Theory of Cooperators Advantage. American Political 

Science Review, 85(10), 515-528. 

Panel Study of Income Dynamics. (2006). Retrieved from http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Guide/. 

Partnership for Public Service. (2007). Making the Difference: A Blueprint for Matching University Students with 

Federal Opportunities. 

Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. (1988). Why Americans Don't Vote. New York: Pantheon. 

Post, S. G. (Ed.). (2007). Altruism and Health: Perspectives from Empirical Research. Oxford: Oxford 

University Press. 

Powell, G. B. J. (1982). Contemporary Democracies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005). Does Positive Affect Influence Health? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 925-

971. 

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & 

Schulster. 

Putnam, R., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University 

Press. 

Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the 

Propensity Score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 516-523. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 48 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: Classic Definitions and New Directions. 

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67. 

Sagawa, S., Connolly, A., & Chao, T. (2008). Leaders for Every Sector: National Service as a Strategy for 

Leadership and Workforce Development. Washington DC: Center for American Progress. 

Saguaro Seminar. (2008). Civic Engagement in America, Social Capital Primer. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from 

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/ 

Sandefur, G. D., & Cook, S. T. (1998). Permanent Exits from Public Assistance: The Impact of Duration, Family, 

and Work. Social Forces, 77(2), 763-787. 

Schlozman, K. L. (1984). What Accent the Heavenly Chorus? Political Equality and the American Pressure 

System. The Journal of Politics, 46(4), 1006-1032. 

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for 

Generalized Causal Inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin. 

Stoops, N. (2004). Educational Attainment in the United States: 2003. Washington DC: US Census. 

Sullivan, G. B., & Sullivan, M.J. (1997). Promoting Wellness in Cardiac Rehabilitation: Exploring the Role of 

Altruism. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 11(3), 43-52. 

Tierney, T. (2006). The Leadership Deficit. Stanford University Social Innovation Review, Summer. 

Troy, C. (2005). Commentary: 501(c) 3 organizations reach the 1 million mark. Retrieved March 11, 2008, from 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20050602/ai_n14652219. 

U.S. Census. (2007). Educational Attainment in the United States: 2007. Washington DC: US Census. 

U.S. Census. (2008a). Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 406: Participation in Elections for President 

and U.S. Representatives: 1932 to 2006. Retrieved from 

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0406.pdf. 

U.S. Census. (2008b). Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 404: Voting-Age Population, Percent 

Reported Registered, and Voted: 1994 through 2006. Retrieved. from 

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0404.pdf. 

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H. E., & Nie, N. H. (1993). Citizen Activity: Who Participates? What Do 

They Say? American Political Science Review, 87(2), 303-313. 

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 49 

Endnotes 

 

1

 AmeriCorps includes a third major program, Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA). VISTA was not included in 

this study. VISTA is a highly decentralized program; its members serve individually or in small groups and focus 

primarily on building capacity in local communities. In contrast, AmeriCorps State and National and AmeriCorps 

NCCC members focus on the provision of direct services. Since the VISTA experience and member profiles differ 

appreciably from the other programs, the effects of service participation may be different from those for State and 

National and NCCC members. Additional information about AmeriCorps programs and structure can be found at 

www.AmeriCorps.org. 

2

 The ideal strategy for assessing program impacts is to employ an experimental design in which program applicants are 

randomly assigned into two groups: treatment (enrolled in the program) and control (excluded from enrollment in the 

program). However, during the 1999–2000 program year, when this study was implemented, AmeriCorps was still in the 

process of building national awareness and many local programs were working to recruit qualified candidates to fill their 

enrollment targets. Therefore, the Corporation determined that implementation of random assignment would not be feasible. 

3

 Candidates are recruited and selected during the spring for subsequent enrollment in the NCCC during the fall and 

winter. 

4

 The baseline report (Jastrzab et al, 2001), released by the Corporation in 2001, provided detailed information on 

characteristics of the study participants. The report can be accessed at http://www.nationalservice.gov or 

http://www.abtassoc.com.

5

 For additional discussion of the comparability of the AmeriCorps and comparison groups, see Chapter 4 in Corporation 

for National and Community Service, 2004. 

6

 Corporation for National and Community Service (2004). Serving Country and Community: A Longitudinal Study of Service 

in AmeriCorps. Washington, DC. The report can be accessed at http://www.nationalservice.gov.

7

 Details of the construction of these variables can be found in Appendix G. 

8

 Appendix J presents a detailed description of the analytic methods used to generate impact estimates. 

9

 Appendix J contains complete results for all outcomes studied. 

10 Appendix K presents findings from the sensitivity analysis. 

11 Appendix E presents findings from a series of non-response analyses. 

12 It is important to note that the baseline survey was created prior to Census’ change in asking about race and ethnicity. 

Therefore, for the AmeriCorps survey, the category “Hispanic” was treated as a racial category, the same as 

Black/African American and Asian. 

13 These graphs represent regression-adjusted values of each outcome measured at baseline (1999) and in 2007. The outcome 

was rescaled so that the baseline score has a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one. The outcome value for each 

group was estimated using a multivariate regression model that controlled for key demographic variables, as well as variables 

that had different distributions for the program and comparison groups even after propensity score analysis was performed. 

The same regression model was used to estimate regression-adjusted values, both at baseline and in 2007, of each outcome. 

Appendix J contains a more complete discussion of the regression-adjustment method. 

14 The size of the sample plays a large role in determining whether an observed difference between former AmeriCorps 

members and comparison group members is statistically significant. In general, it is easier to detect differences with the 

full State and National sample, since it is the largest. For the NCCC sample, as well as the subgroups of the State and 

National sample, statistical power is diminished because the sample size is smaller. 
Still Serving: Measuring the Eight-Year Impact of AmeriCorps on Alumni 

Page 50 

 

15 The p-value indicates the probability of observing the sample value for the outcome merely by chance if it is true that 

there is no impact from AmeriCorps participation. For example, a p-value of less than 0.01 indicates that there is less 

than a 1 percent chance of observing such a difference in the sample in the absence of any true treatment effect. For each 

outcome, we indicate whether the impact is positive or negative, if the p-value is less than 0.05; otherwise we indicate 

that there is no impact. For all outcomes, there are no statistically significant differences between the AmeriCorps and 

comparison groups on baseline scores. 

16 Many studies draw a distinction between the concepts of “satisfaction” and “happiness,” arguing that satisfaction is more 

stable and less susceptible to changes in circumstances (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004). Pressman and Cohen (2005, p. 925) 

draw a similar distinction between two types of positive affect (PA): “trait PA,” which is more stable, and more similar 

to satisfaction, and “state PA,” which is more context-dependent and transitory. They note that changes in state PA are 

easier to induce in experimental and clinical study settings, which makes it easier to detect a causal effect, but that the 

physiological effects of these changes are not always beneficial.