Analysis of the AmeriCorps NCCC 

Service Project Database: How NCCC 

Service Projects Strengthen 

Communities and Impact Members –

Final Report 

Submitted: September 29, 2020 

Submitted to: 

Melissa Gouge 

Corporation for National and Community Service 

250 E St SW, Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20024 

Submitted by: 

JBS International, Inc. 

155 Bovet Road, Suite 210 

San Mateo, CA 94402 
Analysis of the AmeriCorps NCCC Service Project Database: 

How NCCC Service Projects Strengthen Communities and 

Impact Members – Final Report 

September 29, 2020 

Authors 

This report was prepared by JBS International, Inc. 5515 Security Lane, Suite 800, North 

Bethesda, MD, 20852, pursuant to a contract with the Corporation for National and Community 

Service (CNCS), a U.S. government agency. 

Carmen Sum, M.B.A, Senior Research Associate 

Robert Shannon, M.A., Research Associate 

Claudia Birmingham, M.A., Research Associate 

Thao Phan, B.A., Research Assistant 

Wenson Fung, Ph.D., Research Associate 

Annie Georges, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate 

Donald J. Pratt, Ph.D., Research Associate 

Acknowledgements 

This study would not be possible with the participation of the CNCS and AmeriCorps NCCC staff 

at headquarters and at the four regional NCCC campuses: Pacific, North Central, Southwest, 

Southern. 

Citation 

Sum, C., Shannon, R., Birmingham, C., Phan, T., Fung, W., Georges, A., & Pratt, D., (2020).

Analysis of the AmeriCorps NCCC Service Project Database: How NCCC Service Projects 

Strengthen Communities and Impact Members. North Bethesda, MD: JBS International, Inc. 
i

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... vi

Key Findings ................................................................................................................................ vi

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................viii

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

Data ................................................................................................................................................. 2

Methods of Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 3

Findings........................................................................................................................................... 3

Types and Characteristics of NCCC Service Projects and Communities Served .........................3

Strengthening Communities and Impact on Members................................................................46

High-level Findings of FEMA Projects ........................................................................................ 94

Project Characteristics ................................................................................................................94

Strengthening Communities and Impact on Members..............................................................100

High-Level Findings of NCCC Campuses ................................................................................. 103

Project Characteristics ..............................................................................................................104

Strengthening Communities and Impact on Members..............................................................110

Recommendations for Further Development of the Service Projects Database ......................... 112

Lessons Learned and Best Practices ........................................................................................... 113

Database ....................................................................................................................................113

AmeriCorps NCCC Forms ........................................................................................................113

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 116

Appendix A: Methodology ......................................................................................................... 118

Appendix B: Supporting Tables and Descriptions ...................................................................... 121

Table of Tables 

Table 1: Number and Percent of Service Projects with Secondary Issue Areas, Fiscal Years 2012-

2019 Projects (N=3,358) ................................................................................................................. 5

Table 2: Service Projects Characteristics, Fiscal Years 2012-2019 (N=4,796) .............................. 6

Table 3: Total Number of Outputs Reported in Each Output Category* ..................................... 13

Table 4: Total Number of Outputs in Each Output Category by Issue Area ................................ 13

Table 5: Type of Organization of NCCC Sponsors by Fiscal Years 2012 – 2019* ..................... 16

Table 6: Sponsor Type by Fiscal Years 2012 - 2019 by Natural and Other Disasters (DIS)* ..... 17

Table 7: Sponsor Type by Fiscal Years 2012 - 2018 by Energy Conservation (EC) ................... 18
ii

Table 8: Types of Sponsors for Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV) Service 

Projects* ........................................................................................................................................ 19

Table 9: Types of Sponsors for Infrastructure Improvement (INF) Service Projects ................... 20

Table 10: Types of Sponsors for Urban and Rural Development (URD) Service Projects* ........ 21

Table 11: Number of Projects by Year (N=5,004) ....................................................................... 22

Table 12: Recurring and Non-Recurring Service Sites (2012-2019)............................................ 26

Table 13: Percent of Recurring and Non-recurring Service Sites by Project Characteristic, 2012-

2019*............................................................................................................................................. 27

Table 14: Distribution of Sponsor Types (2012-2019) ................................................................. 43

Table 15: Number of Service Projects by Sponsor Type and Year (2012-2019) ......................... 44

Table 16: Average Number of Service Projects per Sponsor by Year (All Sponsor Types) ........ 44

Table 17: Number of Sites by Sponsor Type and Year (2012-2019) ........................................... 45

Table 18: Average Number of Sites per Sponsor by Year (All Sponsor Types) .......................... 45

Table 19: Characteristics of Projects Associated with Disaster Response ................................... 63

Table 20: Characteristics of Projects associated with Disaster Recovery .................................... 64

Table 21: Subcategories for Disaster Preparedness, Prevention, and Mitigation ......................... 76

Table 22: Outputs under Disaster Knowledge and Preparedness ................................................. 76

Table 23: Outputs under Organizational Infrastructure ................................................................ 77

Table 24: Outputs under Organizational Effectiveness ................................................................ 78

Table 25: Outputs under Built and Natural Capital ...................................................................... 78

Table 26: Outputs under FEMA-Related Organizational Infrastructure ...................................... 79

Table 27: Outputs under Other ..................................................................................................... 79

Table 28: Disaster Response Outputs ........................................................................................... 81

Table 29: Disaster Recovery Outputs ........................................................................................... 82

Table 30: Disaster Response and Recovery Outputs by Sub-Category ........................................ 83

Table 31: Subcategories for Building Community and Organization Capacity ........................... 87

Table 32: Community Built and Natural Capital Outputs ............................................................ 88

Table 33: Human Capital and Learning Outputs .......................................................................... 89

Table 34: Outputs under Other ..................................................................................................... 92

Table 35: Number and Percent of FEMA Service Projects with Secondary Issue Areas, Fiscal 

Years 2012-2019 Projects (N=1,568) ........................................................................................... 95

Table 36: Top Output Types Reported by FEMA Projects under Natural and Other Disaster (DIS) 

Issue Area (100 or more counts) ................................................................................................... 97

Table 37: Number of FEMA Service Project Outputs by Output Category and Issue Area ........ 99
iii

Table of Figures 

Figure 1: Service Projects Primary Issue Areas, Fiscal Years 2012-2019 (N=5,004) .................... 4

Figure 2: Characteristics of Service Projects in the Natural and Other Disasters (DIS) Primary 

Issue Area, Fiscal Years 2012-2019 (N=2,308)* ........................................................................... 7

Figure 3: Characteristics of Service Projects in the Energy Conservation (EC) Issue Area, Fiscal 

Years 2012-2019 (N=55)* .............................................................................................................. 8

Figure 4: Characteristics of Service Projects in the Environmental Stewardship and Conservation 

(ENV), Fiscal Years 2012-2019 (N=890)* ..................................................................................... 9

Figure 5: Characteristics of Service Projects in Infrastructure Improvement (INF) Issue Area, 

Fiscal Years 2012-2019 (N=260)* ............................................................................................... 10

Figure 6: Characteristics of Service Projects in the Urban and Rural Development (URD) Issue 

Area, Fiscal Years 2012-2019 (N=1,283)* ................................................................................... 11

Figure 7: Number of Service Projects that Reported Outputs, by Issue Area .............................. 12

Figure 8: Output Categories with Highest Count of Outputs ....................................................... 14

Figure 9: Top Output Types Reported by NCCC Service Projects (400 or more) ....................... 15

Figure 10: Percent of Projects in each Issue Area between 2012-2019 (N=5,004) ...................... 23

Figure 11: Percent of Projects with each Characteristic (N=4,796), 2012-2019 .......................... 24

Figure 12: Percent of Recurring and Non-Recurring Service Sites by Year (2012-2019) ........... 26

Figure 13: States where Service Projects Included “Basic Needs“ Outputs (2012-2019) ............ 32

Figure 14: States where Service Projects Included “Community Well-being” Outputs (2012-2019)

....................................................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 15: States where Service Projects Included “Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and 

Mitigation” Outputs (2012-2019) ................................................................................................. 34

Figure 16: States where Service Projects Included “Disaster Recovery” Outputs (2012-2019) .. 35

Figure 17: States where Service Projects Included “Disaster Response” Outputs (2012-2019) .. 36

Figure 18: States where Service Projects Included “Energy and Environmental Practices” Outputs 

(2012-2019)................................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 19: States where Service Projects Included “Housing” Outputs (2012-2019) .................. 38

Figure 20: States where Service Projects Included “Natural Resources” Outputs (2012-2019) .. 39

Figure 21: States where Service Projects Included “Public Space and Infrastructure” Outputs 

(2012-2019)................................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 22: States where Service Projects Included “Special Populations” Outputs (2012-2019) 41

Figure 23: States where Service Projects Included Outputs that were “Not Categorized” (2012-

2019) ............................................................................................................................................. 42

Figure 24: Characteristics of Projects associated with Community Impact Projects ................... 47

Figure 25: Characteristics of Projects associated with Tangible Benefits to Individuals ............. 50

Figure 26: Characteristics of Projects associated with Intangible Benefits to Individuals ........... 52
iv

Figure 27: Characteristics of Projects associated with Benefits to Specific Populations ............. 54

Figure 28: Characteristics of Projects Associated with Tangible Benefits to Organizations ....... 57

Figure 29: Characteristics of Projects associated with Intangible Benefits to Organizations ...... 59

Figure 30: Characteristics of Projects associated with Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and 

Mitigation ...................................................................................................................................... 61

Figure 31: Community Level Impacts of NCCC Projects ............................................................ 71

Figure 32: Individual Level Impacts of NCCC Projects ............................................................... 72

Figure 33: Organizational Level Impacts of NCCC Projects ....................................................... 73

Figure 34: Life Skills Gained by Members................................................................................... 75

Figure 35: Professional Skills Gained by Members ..................................................................... 75

Figure 36: Characteristics FEMA Service Projects, Fiscal Years 2012-2019 (N=1,568) ............ 96

Figure 37: Top Types Reported by FEMA Projects under FEMA (FMA) Issue Area (40 or more 

counts) ........................................................................................................................................... 98

Figure 38: Community Level Impacts of FEMA Projects .......................................................... 100

Figure 39: Individual Level Impacts of FEMA Projects ............................................................ 101

Figure 40: Organizational Level Impacts of FEMA Projects ..................................................... 102

Figure 41: Life Skills Gained by Members................................................................................. 102

Figure 42: Professional Skills Gained by Members ................................................................... 103

Figure 43: Distribution of Service Projects by Issue Area by Region ........................................ 104

Figure 44: Output Categories of Service Project Accomplishments, Atlantic Campus ............. 106

Figure 45: Output Categories of Service Project Accomplishments at North Central Campus . 107

Figure 46: Output Categories of Service Project Accomplishments at Pacific Campus ............ 107

Figure 47: Output Categories of Service Project Accomplishments at Southern Campus ......... 108

Figure 48: Output Categories of Service Project Accomplishments at Southwest Campus....... 109

Figure 49: FEMA Projects in Regions from Fiscal Year 2012- Spring 2019 ............................. 110
v

Glossary 

Issue Area: This is the general category for the focus of the NCCC 

service project. 

• Primary Issue Area: This is the single main area addressed by the project from one of the 

following options: Energy Conservation (EC), Environmental Stewardship and 

Conservation (ENV), Infrastructure Improvement (INF), Natural and Other Disasters 

(DIS), Urban and Rural Development (URD). All projects have a primary issue area. 

• Secondary Issue Area: This is the secondary area(s) addressed by the project. Options 

include all of the primary issue areas plus two more: FEMA (FMA) and Populations 

Assisted and Engaged (VAR). Not all projects have secondary issue areas. 

Project characteristic: These are categories that describe the general aims of the project, and 

they are related to the outputs/accomplishments. For example, project characteristics may be: 

disaster assistance, where NCCC Members assist disaster survivors registering for FEMA 

assistance; housing, where Members serve at Habitat for Humanity build sites; education support, 

where Members tutor youth; or at-risk ecosystems, where Members clear sites of invasive species. 

Projects may have more than one characteristic. 

Output: Outputs, or accomplishments, are results of activities completed by NCCC Members, 

and they are measurable (countable). For example, outputs could be the number of people served, 

number of volunteers recruited, number of acres landscaped, number of houses built, etc. Projects 

may have more than one output. 

Outcome: Outcomes address community needs, and they are the result of the project’s activities 

and outputs/accomplishments. Examples of outcomes include improved access to economic 

opportunities or housing, improved food security, and increased knowledge of sustainable energy 

practices. Projects may have more than one outcome. 

• The primary intended outcome is the main intended benefit resulting from the NCCC 

activities. 

• Outcome groupings (also called ‘output categories’), are broader categories of similar 

intended outcomes, such as “Basic Needs”, “Disaster Recovery”, and “Natural 

Resources.” These intended outcomes are a result of the project’s 

outputs/accomplishments. For example, the output “pounds of exotic vegetation removed” 

is expected to result in the intended outcome “parks, natural habitats, and at-risk 

ecosystems preserved or protected,” and the output “new trees planted” is expected to 

result in the intended outcome of “parks, natural habitats, and at-risk ecosystems 

enhanced.” Both outcomes are similar and fall under the outcome grouping of “Natural 

Resources.”

Community Impact: These are the benefits to the community because of the service project. 

Impacts may affect the overall community, individuals within the community, or organizations 

such as nonprofits that host service projects. For example, at the community level, a service 

project may increase a community’s built and natural capital by improving access to public spaces 
vi

like trails and parks. At the individual level, the project may provide immediate relief to disaster 

survivors or access to affordable housing for low income families. At the organizational level, a 

project may improve efficiency by organizing donations, supplies, or data. 

Member Impact: These are the benefits to the Members providing the service, such as new 

experience and skills. Members may gain professional skills, including both technical (sometimes 

referred to as hard) skills in areas like construction or land management or managerial (sometimes 

referred to as soft) skills in leadership and teamwork. Members may also show personal growth, 

such as resilience or increased awareness of people different from themselves, or they may 

solidify career goals. 
vi

Executive Summary 

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) is a federal agency engaging 

more than 5 million Americans in service through its core programs. One of those programs is 

AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC), which engages people ages 18-24 in 

a ten-month, full-time term of team-based, residential national service. CNCS is building 

evidence for national service across its programs, highlighting the benefits of volunteering and 

demonstrating how its programs improve individuals’ lives and strengthen communities. CNCS 

contracted JBS International to support NCCC’s efforts assessing its impact on Member 

development and strengthening communities. JBS first constructed a prototype AmeriCorps 

NCCC Service Projects Database (SPD) containing sample project information and was 

subsequently awarded a second contract to populate the database with qualitative and 

quantitative project information on the NCCC service projects from FY 2012 to Spring 2019 

across all campuses and analyze that data. 

The database contains information on 5,004 NCCC service projects completed between 2012 and 

Spring of 2019 from the four regional campuses plus 120 service projects randomly selected 

from the Atlantic campus. It includes information on things like project issue area, 

characteristics, sponsor organization information, and goals and accomplishments. 

The two primary purposes of the database are to capture key data about NCCC service projects 

in one location, where data can be analyzed both across and within projects, and to support the 

selection of case studies for a NCCC study. The information collected will be used to help 

AmeriCorps NCCC understand the relationship between service projects, outputs, and short- and 

long-term outcomes; to analyze the impact of service projects on communities served and Corps 

Members; and to inform a research effort to develop a NCCC-specific definition of 

‘strengthening communities’ and Member development. In the longer term, integrating 

systematic data collection into daily operations and recording data in a central database can 

improve immediate monitoring, assist in identifying strategic goals and benchmarks, and has the 

potential for use in future evaluations. 

This report describes the results of JBS’s final analysis of the service project data for the NCCC 

program. Several research questions framed the final analysis. These questions fall into two 

categories. The first set of research questions focused on describing the type and characteristics 

of service projects. These questions looked at primary and secondary issue areas, project 

accomplishments, what recurring service projects look like in terms of issue areas, project 

characteristics, the community needs addressed by service projects, and how frequently NCCC 

served the same community with the same needs. The second set of research questions focused 

on what could be learned about how NCCC service projects strengthen communities and affect 

Members. These questions were based on what Members’ reported on the PCR narratives

Key Findings 

Characteristics of NCCC Service Projects and Communities Served 

Analysis of the SPD reveals the following top-level results regarding the characteristics of 

NCCC service projects and the communities they serve. 
vii

• The top three issue areas are: Natural and Other Disasters, which made up 50% of 

AmeriCorps NCCC service projects, Urban and Rural Development service projects, with 

26% of projects, and Environmental Stewardship and Conservation service projects, 

which accounted for 18%. 

• Service projects typically had multiple project characteristics, which describe the general 

purpose of the project and are related to accomplishments Service project characteristics 

most often reported were community support (41%), at-risk ecosystems (34%), 

infrastructure improvement (34%), and capacity building and leverage (34%). 

• Community support and at-risk ecosystems were recurring characteristics across the five 

primary issue areas. Infrastructure improvement is also a recurring characteristic across 

all the primary issue areas, but only 5% of service projects reported Infrastructure 

Improvement as their primary issue area. Lastly, Capacity building and leverage 

characteristics were noted in four of the five primary issue areas, but this characteristic is 

most frequently reported under service projects in the natural and other disasters primary 

issue area. 

• The greatest number of accomplishments or outputs were reported in the Natural and 

Other Disasters primary issue area with 9,250 outputs, and these accomplishments were 

reported under the disaster recovery, disaster prevention preparedness and mitigation, and 

disaster response categories. Service projects in the Environmental Stewardship, and 

Urban and Rural Development primary issue areas had the second greatest number of 

reported accomplishments or outputs, with more than 6,000. In these two primary issue 

areas, the categories with high numbers of reported accomplishments include natural 

resources and community well-being. 

• Between 2012 and 2019, 1,439 unique sponsors were associated with the 5,004 service 

projects. The Federal Government, national non-profits, and other non-profits sponsored

most service projects between 2012 and 2018. The Federal Government most frequently 

sponsored service projects in the Natural and Other Disaster issue area. 

Strengthening Communities and Impact on Members

Analysis of the SPD reveals the following top-level results of how service projects strengthen 

communities and the impacts on Corps Members. 

• Service projects supported communities by providing direct impacts including tangible 

and intangible benefits to both individuals and organizations, enhancing disaster 

prevention, preparedness, and mitigation, and assisting communities with disaster 

recovery. 

o The most common community-level impacts of NCCC service projects were on 

the built and natural capital of communities through work on improving 

accessibility to public structures; building trails, gardens and farms; and 

supporting youth camps. 

o The most common individual-level impacts are on helping people meet basic 

needs such as accessing food and shelter, receiving disaster assistance, and 

developing human capital and learning through teaching volunteers or tutoring 

youth. 
viii

o The most common organization-level impacts noted were in infrastructure 

support, which included enhancing an organization’s data infrastructure or 

physical infrastructure. Infrastructure support also included Members organizing 

and conducting inventory of an organization’s supplies or donations. 

• About half of all service projects during the eight-year period involved disaster services. 

o Projects that focused on disaster prevention, preparedness, and mitigation most 

commonly reported enhancing disaster knowledge and preparedness by 

assembling and distributing informational materials and by providing information 

to individuals.’

o Disaster response projects most commonly reported impacts associated with 

organizational effectiveness, such as supporting disaster service facilities or 

volunteer facilities in disaster areas. 

o Disaster recovery projects most commonly reported impacts associated with 

organizational infrastructure, for example developing resource guides or reports 

or completing damage or needs assessments 

• Specific populations assisted by projects include military veterans, individuals in crisis 

(such as disaster survivors or the homeless), immigrants and refugees, disabled persons, 

the elderly, at-risk youth, and Members of Native American communities. Many projects 

supported more than one vulnerable population. 

• Impacts of projects on Corps Members included enhancing personal and life skills, 

building professional skills, growing interpersonal skills, and fostering an understanding 

of civic engagement. The most commonly reported impacts on Members were enhancing 

construction and environmental management skills, increasing communication skills, 

building leadership skills, and fostering personal growth in areas like adaptability and 

confidence. 

Recommendations 

The following recommendations emerged from analysis of the SPD data. 

• To facilitate analysis of service projects over time and by geographic location, 

AmeriCorps NCCC should ensure consistency in how service sites are identified in 

service project documents. One way to do this is to assign a unique identifier to each 

service site and their sponsor organization. 

• To fully capture information on disaster-related service projects, AmeriCorps NCCC 

could redesign primary documentation (Service Project Request Form and Project 

Application) to accommodate selection of multiple disaster types with an option to 

identify the primary disaster type. 

• To increase functionality and utility for end users, AmeriCorps NCCC could add the 

ability to generate summary reports to the service project database. 

• To increase the value of the SPD for NCCC campuses, AmeriCorps NCCC could test the 

database with campus staff to obtain feedback on their potential uses of the database.
ix

The following recommendations emerged during the development of the SPD. 

• To minimize loss of data during the data entry process, AmeriCorps NCCC could back 

up the SPD daily and run the Access database compression routine weekly. Users could 

apply “Save Record” when completing database entries on the Project Narratives form to 

prevent loss of data.

• To capture complete Member and community impacts consistently and accurately, 

AmeriCorps NCCC could provide written guidance on the Community and Member 

Impact statements with explicit guidance to not merely list accomplishments (outputs). 

• To support Team Leaders capturing their project’s community benefits on the Project 

Completion Report (PCR), NCCC could provide written guidance on how to identify 

such impacts (and whether they are immediate/visible or speculative/longer-term). This 

could take the form of a short list of Community and Member Impact codes or guiding 

questions. 

• To clarify possible links between multiple service projects (whether undertaken for one 

or multiple sponsors), NCCC could add to the database and corresponding Service 

Project Request Form and Project Application unique ID numbers for organizations, 

secondary sponsors, and sites.

• To obtain detailed and complete information on service project goals, AmeriCorps NCCC 

could expand the size of First Goal, Second Goal, and Third Goal fields on the Project 

Application form and provide written guidance on how to complete these fields. 

• To ensure consistent reporting regarding populations served, NCCC could add a checklist 

of specific populations for service projects on the PCR. These populations might include 

military veterans; people in crisis (e.g., disaster survivors and homeless individuals); 

immigrants or refugees; disabled persons; Native Americans; and the elderly. 

Moving forward, integrating systematic data collection into daily operations and recording data 

in a central database can improve immediate monitoring and oversight and assist in identifying 

longer term strategic goals and benchmarks. In addition, a central database with consistently 

defined, systematically collected, high quality data about NCCC service projects, outputs and 

outcomes will prove useful in future evaluations. 
1

Introduction 

The mission of AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC) is to strengthen 

communities and develop leaders though direct, team-based service. NCCC Members are 18 to 

26 years old and represent a wide variety of socioeconomic, cultural, geographic, and 

educational backgrounds. NCCC Members are assigned to one of four regional campuses then 

placed into teams ranging between 8 and 12 Members. Teams complete a variety of service 

projects, which are generally 3 to 13 weeks in duration, and respond to local community needs 

throughout the United States and territories. Teams live in the communities they serve to help 

better understand the community, participate in more enhanced service-learning opportunities, 

and build leadership and life skills through service.1

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) contracted JBS International to 

support NCCC’s efforts assessing its impact on Member development and strengthening 

communities. JBS first constructed a prototype AmeriCorps NCCC Service Projects Database 

(SPD) containing sample project information and was subsequently awarded a second contract to 

populate the database with qualitative and quantitative project information on NCCC service 

projects from FY 2012 to spring 2019 across all campuses and to analyze that data. The two 

primary purposes of the database are to capture key data about NCCC service projects in one 

location, where data can be analyzed both across and within projects, and to support the selection 

of the case studies for an AmeriCorps NCCC study. In the longer term, integrating systematic 

data collection into daily operations and recording data in a central database can improve 

immediate monitoring and oversight and assist in identifying strategic goals and benchmarks. In 

addition, a central database with consistently defined, systematically collected, high-quality data 

about AmeriCorps NCCC service projects, outputs and outcomes, will be useful in future 

evaluations. 

AmeriCorps NCCC completed more than 5,000 service projects through the deployment of 

46,989 Corps Members and Team Leaders to all 50 U.S. states and Washington, DC, as well as 

three U.S. territories (Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands). A 

research team at JBS International coded then analyzed the data on these service projects to 

assess the extent to which it can be used to map the types and characteristics of service projects 

and evaluate the impact of service projects on communities and Corps Members. In the longer 

term, integrating systematic data collection into daily operations and recording data in a central 

database can improve immediate monitoring and oversight and assist in identifying strategic 

goals and benchmarks. In addition, a central database with consistently defined, systematically 

collected, high quality data about AmeriCorps NCCC service projects, outputs and outcomes, 

has the potential for use in future evaluations. 

The first set of analysis, focusing on the types and characteristics of service projects, is guided by 

these research questions: 

• Research Question 1: What are the characteristics of NCCC service projects by 

issue/focus areas? 

1For more information, see: https://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps/americorpsprograms/americorps-nccc/sponsor-americorps-nccc-team. 
2

• Research Question 2: What are NCCC’s service project accomplishments to communities 

by issue/focus areas? 

• Research Question 3: How has the type of sponsor changed over time? 

• Research Question 4: How have the characteristics of NCCC service projects changed 

over time? 

• Research Question 5: What are the characteristics of recurring service projects? What 

community needs have service projects addressed over time by issue/focus areas? 

• Research Question 6: How frequently does NCCC serve the same community with the 

same needs?

• Research Question 7: How many individual service projects are nested within unique 

sponsors? What is the number of sites and the average number of sites for each sponsor 

type?2

The second set of analysis focus on what can be discerned about impact on communities and 

Members based on Members’ report of the service projects’ accomplishments. The following 

research questions guided these analyses. 

• Research Question 8: What does the data show on how NCCC projects impact and 

strengthen communities? What does the data show on how NCCC projects impact 

Members? Do these impacts vary and, if so, how? 

• Research Question 9: What are the main themes associated with strengthening 

communities and Member impact? 

• Research Question 10: What are NCCC’s service project contributions to communities’ 

disaster preparation and mitigation? 

• Research Question 11: What are NCCC’s service project contributions to support 

recovery and response in communities that experienced disaster? 

• Research Question 12: What are NCCC’s service project contributions in building 

community and organization capacity? 

Data 

The NCCC Service Projects Database (SPD) is a rich source of both qualitative and quantitative 

data on completed service projects from FY 2012 through Spring 2019. AmeriCorps NCCC 

provided the research team with electronic versions of these data sourced from completed 

Service Project Applications (referred to as Project Application throughout), Service Project 

Request (SPR) forms, and Project Completion Reports (PCR). The data included NCCCassigned issue areas, project accomplishments, project characteristics, disaster type (when 

applicable), type of sponsor, and sponsor and site locations. The measures for project 

characteristics describe the general goals of the project and are related to the project 

2

 Research Question 7 as originally stated “How are individual service projects nested within multiple separable 

sponsor initiatives? How often are multiple service projects linked both within sponsors and among multiple cosponsors” could not be answered. CNCS data does not include unique IDs for sites or co-sponsors. Thus, the 

question was revised to look at data on unique sponsors and sponsor types, and sites under sponsor type. 
3

accomplishments. For example, project characteristics include: disaster assistance, where NCCC 

Members assist disaster survivors in registering for Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) assistance; housing, where Members serve at Habitat for Humanity build sites; 

education support, where Members tutor youth; and at-risk ecosystems, where Members clear 

sites of invasive species. Projects may have more than one characteristic. The SPD also captured 

narrative text as reported by NCCC teams that worked on these service projects. The narrative 

texts reflect the teams’ perceptions of the service projects on the communities served and what 

the Members stated they gained by working with their teams. 

Methods of Analysis 

We used quantitative and qualitative analytic approaches to answer the research questions. We 

use frequency, mean, and percent to examine the types and characteristics of service projects. 

Our examination of the second set of research questions on the impact of the service projects on 

the communities served and Members, used both qualitative and quantitative methods. Appendix 

A describes the thematic coding of the narrative texts. 

Findings 

Types and Characteristics of NCCC Service Projects and Communities Served 

This section describes service projects’ primary and secondary issue areas, their NCCC-assigned 

project characteristics (e.g., community support, at-risk ecosystems, infrastructure improvement, 

and capacity building and leverage, etc.) and project accomplishments. AmeriCorps NCCC 

defines project accomplishments as outputs completed for a service project. We examined

whether the different project characteristics and types of sponsoring organizations changed over 

time. Since there are multiple years of data available, we also examined whether the needs 

addressed by service projects address recur. Last, we looked at the number of sponsor service 

sites that typically engage in NCCC projects. 

Research Question 1: What are the characteristics of NCCC service projects by issue area?

For the first research question, the characteristics of service projects are examined by primary 

issue areas, secondary issue areas, and types of outputs completed for the service projects taken 

from NCCC’s accomplishments data.

Issue Areas 

NCCC has five categories of issue areas: Energy Conservation (EC), Environmental Stewardship 

and Conservation (ENV), Infrastructure Improvement (INF), Natural and Other Disasters (DIS), 

and Urban and Rural Development (URD). Each service project is categorized in one primary 

issue area. 

Figure 1 shows half of service projects are in the Natural and Other Disasters and about onequarter are in the Urban and Rural Development service projects issue area. One percent of 

service projects are in the Energy Conservation primary issue area. 
4

Figure 1: Service Projects Primary Issue Areas, Fiscal Years 2012-2019 (N=5,004) 

Secondary issue areas include ten categories: the five primary issue areas and the following five 

additional categories – FEMA (FMA), Populations Assisted and Engaged (VAR), Education 

Support (EDU), Unmet Human Needs (HUM), and Public Safety (PS).3 About two-thirds (67%, 

3,358) of service projects have a secondary issue area. Of the 3,358 projects with a secondary 

issue area, 1,578 (47%) have one secondary issue area while 1,780 (53%) selected more than 

one, resulting in multiple combinations. Table 1 shows the distribution across the secondary 

issue area categories. For parsimony, the table shows only the combinations of secondary issue 

areas with at least 100 service projects. The FEMA category was the most frequent secondary 

issue area with 522 service projects (16%), followed by Populations Assisted and Engaged with 

411 service projects (12%). 

3

 NCCC has since phased out three secondary issue areas— Education Support (EDU), selected by 120 projects; 

Unmet Human Needs (HUM), selected by 29 projects; and Public Safety (PS), selected by 16 projects. 
5

Table 1: Number and Percent of Service Projects with Secondary Issue Areas, Fiscal Years 

2012-2019 Projects (N=3,358) 

Secondary Issue Area Number of Projects Percent 

FEMA (FMA) only 522 16% 

Populations Assisted and Engaged (VAR) only 411 12% 

Infrastructure Improvement (INF) only 289 9% 

Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV) and 

Infrastructure Improvement (INF) 

224 7% 

Infrastructure Improvement (INF) and Urban and Rural 

Development (URD) 

206 6% 

Urban and Rural Development (URD) only 171 5% 

Populations Assisted and Engaged (VAR) and Urban and 

Rural Development (URD) 

139 4% 

Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV), 

Infrastructure Improvement (INF), and Populations Assisted 

and Engaged (VAR) 

136 4% 

Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV) only 134 4% 

Infrastructure Improvement (INF) and Populations Assisted 

and Engaged (VAR) 

134 4% 

Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV) and 

Urban and Rural Development (URD) 

107 3% 

Infrastructure Improvement (INF), Populations Assisted and 

Engaged (VAR), and Urban and Rural Development (URD) 

105 3% 

All remaining combinations of secondary issue areas (less 

than 100 projects each) 

780 23% 

Project Characteristics 

NCCC records 16 characteristics about their service projects. Characteristics are based on the 

service project’s outputs/accomplishments, and a service project may have more than one 

characteristic. Of the 5,004 completed service projects, 4,796 had one or more characteristics. As 

shown in Table 2, the most frequent characteristics were community support (41%), at-risk 

ecosystems (34%), infrastructure improvement (34%), capacity building and leverage (34%), and 

disaster assistance provided (30%). 
6

Table 2: Service Projects Characteristics, Fiscal Years 2012-2019 (N=4,796) 

Characteristic Examples of Outputs Percent 

Community Support Community activities planned or conducted; meals 

served 

41% 

At-risk Ecosystems Wildlife species protected or assisted; acres of 

wetlands restored or protected 

34% 

Infrastructure 

Improvement 

Playgrounds constructed or repaired; public buildings 

renovated 

34% 

Capacity Building & 

Leverage 

Partnerships and coalitions supported; individuals 

assisted on the 211-call system 

34% 

Disaster Assistance 

Provided 

People assisted at mass care facilities; Federal Disaster 

Aid Applications processed 

30% 

Environmental 

Conservation 

Miles of new hiking trails constructed; parks restored 

or refurbished 

29% 

Populations Assisted and 

Engaged 

Number of immigrants or refugees assisted; veterans 

assisted 

27% 

Housing Homes painted or renovated; homes mucked and/or 

gutted 

24% 

Awareness and 

Stewardship 

New trees planted; energy efficiency kits distributed 18% 

Other Healthy Futures Number of gardens started or tended 12% 

Education Support K-12 students tutored; adults tutored 11% 

Public Safety Disaster simulations or exercises supported 11% 

Energy Efficiency Recycling programs started or expanded; number of 

efficient lightbulbs installed 

4% 

Inclusion of People with 

Disabilities 

Homes in which handicap accessibility was improved 3% 

Access to Care People received immunizations 3% 

Financial Literacy Tax returns completed 1% 

Note: Percent will not add to 100% because service projects may have more than one characteristic. 

Project Characteristics by Primary Issue Area 

This section describes the distribution of projects’ characteristics within each of the five primary 

issue areas. Nearly half of the 5,004 service projects (2,472) are categorized as Natural and Other 

Disasters (Figure 1), and service projects typically had multiple project characteristics. 

Figures 2 through 6 show community support and at-risk ecosystems are recurring characteristics 

with 15% to 82% of the service projects having one of these characteristics across the primary 

issue areas. Infrastructure improvement is also a recurring characteristic but with a lower 

percentage –12% to 45%– of service projects across the five primary issue areas. The exception 

was the infrastructure primary issue area, where 85% of service projects were recorded as 

infrastructure improvement characteristics. However, as was shown in Figure 1, the 

infrastructure primary issue area only accounted for 5% (264) of all service projects from 2012-

2019. The capacity building and leverage characteristic was recorded in four of the five issue 

areas, most frequently for service projects in natural and other disasters. 
7

The remainder of this section illustrates the distribution of service projects’ characteristics within 

each issue area. We organize the discussion alphabetically by issue area acronym with each issue 

area’s project characteristics reported by largest to smallest prevalence. 

Natural and Other Disasters (DIS) 

Service projects in the Natural and Other Disasters (DIS) issue area are typically recorded using 

the capacity building and leverage and disaster assistance characteristics. In Figure 2, 70% of 

DIS service projects were capacity building and leverage, and 60%were disaster assistance. 

Other characteristics recorded for more than 20% of service projects in DIS were housing and

public safety. 

Figure 2: Characteristics of Service Projects in the Natural and Other Disasters (DIS) 

Primary Issue Area, Fiscal Years 2012-2019 (N=2,308)*

* Service projects might have more than one characteristic. 
8

Energy Conservation (EC) 

The service projects in the Energy Conservation issue area represent 1% of all service projects 

from 2012-2019 (Figure 1). Of the service projects reporting characteristics in the EC issue area, 

the most frequent characteristics, as shown in Figure 3, were awareness and stewardship (67%), 

energy efficiency (67%), and housing (51%). More than 20% of the service projects were 

characterized as community support, population assisted and engaged, infrastructure, and at-risk 

ecosystems.

Figure 3: Characteristics of Service Projects in the Energy Conservation (EC) Issue Area, 

Fiscal Years 2012-2019 (N=55)* 

*Service projects might have more than one characteristic. 
9

Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV) 

About 18% (890) of the service projects reported characteristics in the Environmental 

Stewardship and Conservation issue area (Figure 1). The most frequent characteristics reported 

for these service projects are at-risk ecosystems (82%), environmental conservation (80%), and 

infrastructure improvement (65%). More than 45% of these service projects are characterized as 

community support or awareness and stewardship; more than 20% are characterized as 

population assisted and engaged.

Figure 4: Characteristics of Service Projects in the Environmental Stewardship and 

Conservation (ENV), Fiscal Years 2012-2019 (N=890)* 

*Service projects might have more than one characteristic. 
10

Infrastructure Improvement (INF) 

Five percent (260) of service projects are in the Infrastructure Improvement primary issue area. 

As expected, the most frequently reported characteristic was infrastructure improvement (85%); 

this was followed by at-risk ecosystems (70%), community support (68%), and environmental 

conservation (66%). More than 20% of these service projects were characterized as awareness 

and stewardship, population assisted and engaged, other health futures, and housing. 

Figure 5: Characteristics of Service Projects in Infrastructure Improvement (INF) Issue Area, 

Fiscal Years 2012-2019 (N=260)* 

*Service projects might have more than one characteristic.
11

Urban and Rural Development (URD) 

More than one quarter (26%) of service projects are in the Urban and Rural Development issue 

area (Figure 1). These service projects are frequently characterized as community support (76%), 

populations assisted and engaged (51%), and infrastructure improvement (45%). Other 

characteristics reported for more than 20% of these projects include housing, education support, 

at-risk ecosystems, other health futures, and environmental conservation. 

Figure 6: Characteristics of Service Projects in the Urban and Rural Development (URD) 

Issue Area, Fiscal Years 2012-2019 (N=1,283)*

*Service projects might have more than one characteristic. 
12

Research Question 2: What are service projects’ accomplishments to communities by 

issue/focus areas? 

This section describes the service projects’ accomplishments in the communities served. NCCC 

records information on service projects’ accomplishments as “outputs.” NCCC has ten output 

categories (see Figure 7). NCCC teams reported the greatest number of outputs in the DIS issue 

area, while EC had the least number of outputs. 

First, we assessed the completeness of the data on service projects outputs. Figure 7 shows the 

number of service projects with outputs by issue area. The NCCC’s accomplishments data 

contained the five issue areas and these secondary issue areas: Education (EDU), Unmet Human 

Needs (HUM), Public Safety (PS), FEMA (FMA) and Populations Assisted and Engaged 

(VAR). 

A service project may have multiple outputs in these issue areas. Outputs are concentrated in the 

DIS, URD, ENV, INF and VAR issue areas (Figure 7). The service projects’ accomplishments in 

the FMA issue area cover a shorter period, from 2012 through 2016. As previously noted, NCCC 

phased out the EDU, HUM, and PS issue areas.

4

Figure 7: Number of Service Projects that Reported Outputs, by Issue Area 

Second, to answer the second research question, we identified themes from the community 

impact narratives of 4,769 service projects with outputs. We coded outputs based on their 

primary activity or focus. We pulled examples from the community impact narratives to illustrate 

accomplishments. For our analysis, output categories were guided by the primary intended 

outcome found in the AmeriCorps NCCC Team Project Output document. We grouped these 

primary intended outcomes into the overarching categories: Basic Needs; Community Wellbeing; Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation; Disaster Recovery; Disaster Response; 

Energy and Environmental Practices; Housing; Natural Resources; Public Space and 

4 A MS Excel file “Q2 Charts by Output Group and Issue Area for NCCC 2020-09-29” shows an expanded versions 

of service projects accomplishments by issue areas. 

16

30

120

307

561

1372

1724

1915

2258

2281

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Public Safety (PS)

Unmet Human Needs (HUM)

Education (EDU)

Energy Conservation (EC)

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FMA)

Population Assisted and Engaged (VAR)

Infrastructure Improvement (INF)

Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV)

Urban and Rural Development (URD)

Natural and Other Disasters (DIS)
13

Infrastructure; and Special Populations5. Table 3 lists the total number of outputs in the 10 output 

categories. 

Table 3: Total Number of Outputs Reported in Each Output Category* 

Output Category Total Number of Outputs

Natural Resources 6,588 

Public Space and Infrastructure 4,590 

Community Well-being 4,384 

Disaster Recovery 4,101 

Special Population 3,005 

Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation 2,899 

Disaster Response 1,589 

Basic Needs 1,523 

Housing 1,277 

Energy and Environmental Practices 1,084 

Total 31,040 

*The output categories were guided by the Primary Intended Outcome from the “AmeriCorps National Civilian 

Community Corps (NCCC) Team Project Output” list. AmeriCorps NCCC phased out some accomplishment 

outputs; 776 outputs were phased out and not included in the results. 

Table 4 shows the total number of outputs in each output category by the Issue Areas. The 

highest number of outputs are in the Natural Resources category in the ENV issue area. The 

second highest number of outputs are in the Public Space and Infrastructure output category, 

which is spread across three issue areas: ENV, URD, and INF. Community Well-being and 

Disaster Recovery output categories also had a high number of outputs. Energy and 

Environmental practices, and Housing output categories had the fewer total number of outputs. 

Table 4: Total Number of Outputs in Each Output Category by Issue Area 

DIS ENV URD INF VAR FMA EC Total

Natural Resources 6,588 6,588 

Public Space and Infrastructure 368 301 3,921 4,590 

Community Well-being 4,296 88 4,384 

Disaster Recovery 3,431 670 4,101 

Special population 758 2,247 3,005 

Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, 

and Mitigation 2,496 403 2,899 

Disaster Response 1,505 84 1,589 

Basic Needs 777 719 27 1,523 

Housing 283 994 1,277 

Energy and Environmental 

Practices 510 574 1,084 

Total 9,250 7,466 6,310 4,009 2,247 1,184 574 31,040 

5 The “Special Population” output category is defined as a group or individuals served by NCCC Members with 

specific characteristics, such as disadvantaged youth, higher education students, immigrants or refugees, homeless 

individuals, NCCC alumni, people with disabilities, people in disaster areas, senior citizens, veterans, and 

volunteers. 
14

Figure 8 shows the issue area (inner circle) and their output categories (outer circle) with the 

highest counts of outputs.6 The greatest number of outputs were reported in the Natural and 

Other Disasters primary issue area, and the bulk of these outputs were reported under the 

Disaster Recovery, Disaster Prevention Preparedness and Mitigation, and Disaster Response 

output categories, with 7,432 of 9,250 total outputs. Service projects in the Environmental 

Stewardship and Conservation, and Urban/Rural Development primary issue areas also had some 

of the largest number of reported outputs, with more than 6,000 in each. In these two primary 

issue areas, the output categories with the highest number of reported outputs include, 

respectively, Natural Resources and Community Well-being. 

Figure 8: Output Categories with Highest Count of Outputs 

6

 Larger segments indicate higher numbers of outputs. For example, there were 4,296 Community Well-being 

outputs and 984 Housing outputs within the Rural/Urban Development issue area. 
15

Figure 9 represents the issue areas with 400 or more outputs in a single output type. The size of 

the slices in the outer layer is based on the total count for the output type, and this layer 

determines the relative size of inner slices. For example, because the Environmental Stewardship 

and Conservations issue area has more output types with large counts, it appears bigger, but, as 

we know from previous figures and tables, Natural and Other Disaster is the biggest issue area 

by total number but shows fewer counts under any particular output type.

Figure 9: Top Output Types Reported by NCCC Service Projects (400 or more)

In Appendix B, we provide detailed supporting tables showing the frequency and percent of 

outputs within issue areas and output types from 2012 to 2019. See tables B-1 through B-26. 
16

Research Question 3: How has the type of sponsor changed over time? 

Sponsors Types 

NCCC had nine organizational classifications for sponsors: Federal Government, Higher 

Education - State Controlled, Local Government – County, Local Government – Municipal, 

National Non-Profit, Non-Profit, State Education Agency, State Government, and Other. Of the 

5,004 service projects, 4,558 had information of the type of organization for the sponsor. From 

2012 to 2019, Federal Government sponsored 41% of those projects, non-profits sponsored 28%, 

and national non-profits sponsored 16%. In any full fiscal year, Federal Government sponsors 

accounted for at least 43% of the service projects (Table 5). 

Table 5: Type of Organization of NCCC Sponsors by Fiscal Years 2012 – 2019*

Sponsor 

Type 

Federal 

Government 

Higher 

Education 

Organization 

- State 

Controlled 

Local 

Government 

- County 

Local 

Government 

- Municipal 

National 

NonProfit Non-Profit Other 

State 

Education 

Agency 

State 

Government 

 

N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 

2012 

43 9 8 2 14 3 26 5 133 27 213 43 18 4 2 0 40 8 

2013 

328 45 6 1 23 3 27 4 114 16 163 22 15 2 - 

0 

49 7 

2014 

293 44 7 1 11 2 29 4 102 15 168 25 16 2 3 0 41 6 

2015 

275 43 6 1 13 2 40 6 91 14 172 27 10 2 1 0 33 5 

2016 

248 47 

6 1 

11 2 

21 4 

72 14 

141 27 

7 1 

1 19 

19 4 

2017 

271 48 5 1 4 1 30 5 71 13 153 27 8 1 6 1 20 4 

2018 

370 47 4 1 9 1 21 3 123 16 210 27 20 3 4 1 23 3 

2019 

27 18 1 1 2 1 7 5 33 22 56 38 10 7 1 1 10 7 

Total 1,855 43 87 201 739 1,276 104 18 235 

*Description for “Other” sponsor data was not provided in the NCCC data file. 
17

Natural and Other Disasters (DIS) 

Of the five primary issue areas, Natural and Other Disasters issue area had the most sponsors. 

This is the issue area where Federal Government sponsored the highest number of service 

projects. Of the 1,855 service projects the Federal Government sponsored, 1,611 were in the 

Natural and Other Disasters issue area. Among non-profit organizations, 301 of the 1,276 service 

projects they sponsored were in this issue area, and 175 of the 739 service projects sponsored by 

national non-profits were in this issue area. 

Table 6: Sponsor Type by Fiscal Years 2012 - 2019 by Natural and Other Disasters (DIS)*

Sponsor 

Type 

Federal 

Government 

Higher 

Education 

Organization 

- State 

Controlled 

Local 

Government 

- County 

Local 

Government 

- Municipal 

National 

Non-Profit Non-Profit Other

State 

Government 

 N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 

2012 

24 15 3 2 5 3 6 4 37 23 71 44 3 2 13 8 

2013 

304 78 0 0 5 1 3 1 18 5 48 12 0 0 11 3 

2014 

262 78 0 0 0 0 7 2 18 5 36 11 2 1 9 3 

2015 

230 79 1 0 1 0 5 2 17 6 33 11 1 0 5 2 

2016 

225 82 0 0 4 1 2 1 19 7 19 7 3 1 1 0 

2017 

240 82 0 0 0 0 2 1 22 8 23 8 1 0 3 1 

2018 

313 74 0 0 3 1 3 1 41 10 54 13 2 0 5 1 

2019 

13 34 0 0 2 5 0 0 3 8 17 45 2 5 1 3 

Total 1,611 4 20 28 175 301 14 48 

*Description for “Other” sponsor data was not provided in the NCCC data file. 
18

Energy Conservation (EC) 

Four types of organizations sponsored service projects in the Energy Conservation issue area 

(Table 7). Over the seven-year span, non-profit organizations sponsored at least 50% of the 

Energy Conservation service projects followed by local government at the municipal level. 

Table 7: Sponsor Type by Fiscal Years 2012 - 2018 by Energy Conservation (EC) 

Sponsor Type Local Government - 

County 

Local Government - 

Municipal National Non-Profit Non-Profit 

 

N % N % N % N % 

2012 

1 7 0 0 7 50 6 43

2013 

1 11 0 0 2 22 6 67

2014 

0 0 0 0 2 22 7 78

2015 

0 0 2 50 0 0 2 50

2016 

0 0 2 25 0 0 6 75

2017 

0 0 3 43 0 0 4 57

2018 

0 0 1 33 0 0 2 67

Total 2 8 11 33

 
19

Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV) 

Non-profit organizations are the most frequent sponsors of Environmental Stewardship and 

Conservation service projects (Table 8). These organizations sponsored 32% of the total service 

projects between November of 20117 and May 2019. The Federal Government sponsored 171 

ENV service projects during this same period. 

Table 8: Types of Sponsors for Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV) Service 

Projects* 

Sponsor 

Type 

Federal 

Government 

Higher 

Education 

Organization 

- State 

Controlled 

Local 

Government 

- County 

Local 

Government 

- Municipal 

National 

NonProfit 

NonProfit Other 

State 

Education 

Agency 

State 

Government 

 N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 

2012 18 17 1 1 7 6 7 6 18 17 36 33 4 4 0 0 18 17

2013 19 17 1 1 11 10 10 9 15 13 27 24 5 4 0 0 26 23

2014 27 21 1 1 7 5 7 5 21 16 40 31 2 2 2 2 24 18

2015 36 29 1 1 10 8 11 9 15 12 30 24 1 1 0 0 22 17

2016 12 13 3 3 6 7 5 6 13 15 37 42 2 2 0 0 11 12

2017 19 21 2 2 2 2 6 7 13 14 36 39 2 2 1 1 11 12

2018 33 27 2 2 6 5 9 7 17 14 39 32 3 2 2 2 11 9 

2019 7 14 0 0 0 0 3 6 7 14 20 40 4 8 0 0 9 18

Total 171 11 49 58 119 265 23 5 132 

*Description for “Other” sponsor data was not provided in the NCCC data file. 

7

 Some NCCC service projects in fiscal year 2012 reported a start date of November 2011. 
20

Infrastructure Improvement (INF) 

Non-profit and national non-profit organizations sponsored 54% of the Infrastructure 

Improvement service projects, and local government-municipal and state government were the 

second largest group of sponsors at 26% (Table 9).

Table 9: Types of Sponsors for Infrastructure Improvement (INF) Service Projects 

Sponsor 

Type 

Federal 

Government 

Higher 

Education 

Organization 

- State 

Controlled 

Local 

Government 

- County 

Local 

Government 

- Municipal 

National 

NonProfit 

NonProfit Other 

State 

Education 

Agency 

State 

Government 

 N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 

2012 0 0 0 0 1 3 7 21 3 9 16 47 1 3 1 3 5 15

2013 3 8 1 3 4 11 3 8 11 30 5 14 0 0 0 0 10 27

2014 0 0 1 3 2 6 5 14 9 26 12 34 0 0 0 0 6 17

2015 7 18 1 3 2 5 4 10 5 13 17 43 1 3 0 0 3 8 

2016 4 11 1 3 1 3 4 11 6 17 17 47 0 0 0 0 3 8 

2017 4 14 0 0 1 4 6 21 3 11 10 36 2 7 0 0 2 7 

2018 4 13 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 10 16 52 2 6 0 0 5 16

2019 3 33 0 0 0 0 2 22 1 11 2 22 1 11 0 0 0 0 

Total 25 4 11 32 41 95 7 1 34 

*Description for “Other” sponsor data was not provided in the NCCC data file. 
21

Urban and Rural Development (URD) 

National non-profit and non-profit organizations sponsored 975 of the 1,220 URD service 

projects. 

Table 10: Types of Sponsors for Urban and Rural Development (URD) Service Projects* 

Sponsor 

Type 

Federal 

Government 

Higher 

Education 

Organization 

- State 

Controlled 

Local 

Government 

- County 

Local 

Government 

- Municipal 

National 

NonProfit 

NonProfit Other 

State 

Education 

Agency 

State 

Government 

 N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % 

2012 1 1 4 2 0 0 6 3 68 38 84 47 10 6 1 1 4 2 

2013 2 1 4 2 2 1 11 6 68 39 77 44 10 6 0 0 2 1 

2014 4 2 5 3 2 1 10 6 52 32 73 45 12 7 1 1 2 1 

2015 2 1 3 2 0 0 18 10 54 30 90 51 7 4 1 1 3 2 

2016 7 6 2 2 0 0 8 7 34 28 62 52 2 2 1 1 4 3 

2017 8 5 3 2 1 1 13 9 33 22 80 53 3 2 5 3 4 3 

2018 20 10 2 1 0 0 7 3 62 30 99 48 13 6 2 1 2 1 

2019 4 8 1 2 0 0 2 4 22 44 17 34 3 6 1 2 0 0 

Total 48 24 5 75 393 582 60 12 21 

*Description for “Other” sponsor data was not provided in the NCCC data file. 
22

Research Question 4. How have the characteristics of NCCC service projects changed over 

time? 

This research question seeks to describe whether there has been a change in the characteristics of 

service projects over time. For context, we first present the number of service projects each year 

between 2012 and 2019 (Table 11) and the distribution of service projects in each primary issue 

area (Figure 10). 

The number of service projects are roughly evenly distributed between 2012 and 2018. However, 

2019 includes projects through May 2019 only and is therefore an incomplete list of service 

projects for that year (Table 11). 

Table 11: Number of Projects by Year (N=5,004) 

Year Number of Projects Percent 

2012 532 11% 

2013 814 16% 

2014 723 14% 

2015 695 14% 

2016 600 12% 

2017 638 13% 

2018 843 17% 

2019 159 3% 

All Years 5,004 100% 

Figure 10 shows the distribution of service projects in each primary issue area by year. 

Infrastructure Improvement service projects have remained at about 4-7% of NCCC projects 

each year; Natural and Other Disasters made up 45-56% of service projects between 2013 and 

2018. Urban and Rural Development service projects composed between 22 and 36% of projects 

every year, and Environmental Stewardship and Conservation serviced projects comprised 

between 15 and 23%. 
23

Figure 10: Percent of Projects in each Issue Area between 2012-2019 (N=5,004) 

Percent of Projects with Each Characteristic, 2012-2019 

Across the eight-year span, the 6 most frequently reported of the 16 characteristics were 

Community Support, At-Risk Ecosystems, Infrastructure Improvement, Capacity Building and 

Leverage, Disaster Assistance Provided, and Populations Assisted and Engaged. 

Figure 11 shows the percent of service projects in each characteristic between 2012 and 2019. 

Since a service project may have more than one project characteristic, the percent will not add to 

100. The main trends observed in Figure 11 are: 

• The percentage of Community Support service projects decreased from 2015 to 2017 but 

never fell below 30 and increased again in 2018. 

• The percentage of At-risk Ecosystems service projects decreased from 2015 to 2018 but 

increased in 2019. 

• The percentage of service projects in Capacity Building and Leverage varied from 34 to 

42 between 2012 and 2018. As the number of these service projects increased in this area, 

so did service projects in Disaster Assistance and Housing. 

• The percentages of service projects in Disaster Assistance in 2017 and 2018 (40 and45) 

were higher than in other years. 

• The percentage of projects characterized as Housing increased gradually from 18 in 2015 

to 37 in 2018. 

• The percentage of service projects in Populations Assisted and Engaged remained 

between 20 and30 from 2013 to 2018.

• The percentage of service projects in Awareness and Stewardship decreased every year 

from 2013 to 2018. 

• The percentage of service projects in Education Support remained between about 10 

and15 every year. 

• Fewer than 10% of projects had the characteristic of Inclusion of People with Disabilities, 

Access to Care, Energy Efficiency, or Financial Literacy in any year. 
24

Figure 11: Percent of Projects with each Characteristic (N=4,796), 2012-2019
25
26

Research Question 5: What are the characteristics of recurring service projects? What 

community needs have service projects addressed over time by issue area? 

Characteristics of Recurring Service Projects 

We identified the number of times any service project occurred at the service site address. If the 

service site address appeared more than once, the site was considered “recurring.” Just under half 

(49%) of the service site addresses were “recurring” (Table 12) with 11% of sites (786) hosting 

at least five projects between 2012 and 2019. 

Table 12: Recurring and Non-Recurring Service Sites (2012-2019) 

Number of times service 

project occurred at the site Service Sites (N=6,993) Percent 

One Time (Non-recurring) 3,533 51% 

Two Times 1,282 18% 

Three or Four Times 1,392 20% 

Five or More Times 786 11% 

Figure 12 shows the distribution of how often sites hosted an NCCC team in each year from 

2012 to 2019. There does not seem to be any discernible trend in the recurrence of service 

projects at specific sites. Between 2014 and 2016, 56% or more of the service sites hosted an 

NCCC team two or more times. 

Figure 12: Percent of Recurring and Non-Recurring Service Sites by Year (2012-2019) 

Table 13 shows the characteristics of service projects grouped by whether the service site was a 

recurring site (hosted two or more service projects) or non-recurring (hosted one service project). 

Of the service sites that were active only once, almost half hosted Community Support service 

projects. Of the sites that hosted two service projects, 53% hosted Community Support service 
27

projects, 48% hosted At-risk Ecosystems service projects and Infrastructure Improvement. Of the 

service sites that were active 3-4 times, 38% hosted Capacity Building and Leverage service 

projects, 37% hosted Community Support service projects, 35% hosted At-risk Ecosystems, and

32% hosted Infrastructure Improvement service projects. Of the service sites that were active 

five or more times, 44% hosted Capacity Building and Leverage service projects, and 33% 

hosted Community Support service projects. 

Table 13: Percent of Recurring and Non-recurring Service Sites by Project Characteristic, 

2012-2019* 

Characteristic 

Recurring Service Sites Non-recurring 

Service Sites 

Active Two 

Times 

(N=1,247) 

Active 3-4 

Times 

(N=1,312) 

Active 5 or 

more times 

(N=751) 

Active One Time 

(N=3,423) 

Community Support 53% 37% 33% 49% 

At-risk Ecosystems 48% 35% 28% 38% 

Infrastructure Improvement 48% 32% 26% 37% 

Environmental Conservation 43% 29% 25% 33% 

Disaster Assistance Provided 17% 28% 22% 32% 

Populations Assisted and Engaged 32% 28% 23% 32% 

Housing 24% 20% 13% 30% 

Capacity Building & Leverage 17% 38% 44% 27% 

Awareness and Stewardship 27% 19% 18% 22% 

Other Healthy Futures 18% 13% 8% 15% 

Education Support 15% 12% 12% 13% 

Public Safety 7% 11% 17% 8% 

Energy Efficiency 6% 4% 3% 4% 

Inclusion of People with Disabilities 4% 4% 2% 3% 

Access to Care 2% 3% 2% 3% 

Financial Literacy 3% 2% 2% 3% 

* A service site could host a project with more than one characteristic

Even though the current information NCCC collects can capture whether a site is recurring to 

host service projects, a recurring site does not necessarily mean the same type of service project. 

In short, recurrence of service projects at the same site address in a different year might not have 

Corps Members performing the same type of services. 

Community Needs Addressed Over Time 

The information NCCC collects can provide insights into the community needs that service 

projects addressed over time within each of the primary issue areas. We use ten output categories 

as the measure of community needs. Of the 5,004 projects, 4,796 projects reported outputs that 

were classified in at least one of the ten output categories.

8 The analysis on community needs is 

based on the reported outputs for 96% of the service projects. 

In this section we describe NCCC’s accomplishments in addressing community needs across 

each issue area. In Appendix B, we provide detailed supporting tables showing the percent of 

8

 Data is missing for the remaining 208 projects (i.e. they did not report outputs). 
28

outputs within each of the ten output categories and issue areas for each year, from 2012 to 2019 

(see Tables B-27 through B-31).

Natural and Other Disasters (DIS) 

Natural and Other Disaster (DIS) comprises the highest number of service projects during this 

period. Within this issue area, the community needs most frequently addressed were in Disaster 

Recovery and Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation. Between 2014 and 2018, more 

than half of outputs were in these two output categories. Community needs in the Disaster 

Recovery output category peaked in 2016 at 38% of all outputs in the Natural and Other Disaster 

issue area, and community needs in the Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation output 

category increased from 2012 through 2015. Other important areas where community needs were 

addressed included Disaster Response, which made up between 7% and 15% of outputs each 

year, and Special Populations, which made up 10% to 18% of the outputs for 6 of the 8 years 

(see Appendix B, Table B-27). 

One service project cited their accomplishments in Disaster Response as follows: 

“FEMA Community Relations is a branch of FEMA’s External Affairs Department that 

works directly with disaster survivors as a means to direct those who have been impacted 

to available assistance and resources. For three weeks, Bayou 4 worked out of FEMA’s 

LRO (Long-term Recovery Office) and worked directly with the Community Relations 

staff in the New Orleans area. Upon entering the disaster area for Hurricane Isaac, 

Bayou 4 was paired up with Community Relations reservists who were already working 

the area for several weeks prior to the team’s arrival. Bayou 4 was split up as a team 

during the workdays, and went door to door canvassing Jefferson, Orleans, and 

Plaquemines Parishes around the greater New Orleans area. Bayou 4 Members gave out 

available information to survivors such as: the location of Disaster Recovery Centers, 

how to apply for federal disaster assistance, how to eliminate mold from a home, where 

to live if a home is inhabitable, and how to follow through for an appeal to get federal 

assistance money. “ 

Energy Conservation (EC) 

The Energy Conservation (EC) issue area had the fewest number of service projects between 

2012 and 20189(see Appendix B, Table B-28). The community needs most frequently addressed 

in this issue area were in the Energy and Environmental Practices output category, comprising 

between 34% and 65% of all outputs every year in this issue area. Natural Resources outputs 

accounted for 17% to 25% of all outputs in 4 of the 7 years; they peaked in 2013 at 25% of all 

outputs in this issue area and decreased to 6% of outputs by 2018. 

This is one example of how the NCCC teams described their accomplishments: 

“Coast 2 managed to save Louisiana residents 520,080 kWh worth of energy, $60,720, 

and 590,040 pounds of CO2 that would have otherwise been emitted into the atmosphere. 

(These statistics are calculations based on the lifetime of a lightbulb--7 to 10 years.) 

Additionally, 500 gallons worth of rainwater collected in rain barrels will help prevent 

9

 EC outputs were not available in 2019. 
29

flooding of Louisiana residents’ homes during storms. The owner of the new vegetable 

garden can potentially save $10-100 dollars each year, and with nutritious food choices, 

will be able to have a healthier lifestyle. Additionally, each of the 85 homeowners who 

had lightbulbs installed, the 10 who had rain barrels installed, the 1 who had a garden 

installed, and the 28 who were canvassed (124 homeowners overall), were all given 

educational packets that described how to be environmentally friendly, how to save more 

energy, and how their new products or items save them money, energy, or water.”

Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV) 

In the Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV) issue area, Natural Resources were 

the most frequent community needs that NCCC teams addressed, accounting for about half of the 

outputs every year (see Appendix B, Table B-29). The Public Space and Infrastructure output 

category comprised about one quarter of the outputs every year in the ENV area. There was little 

fluctuation in the distribution of outputs across the different categories from year to year. 

As an example of a community need addressed in ENV projects, an NCCC team wrote: 

“Blue Seven worked to make a substantial positive impact on the community. By 

constructing 2.3 miles of trail and restoring 12.3 miles of existing trail, Blue Seven aided 

in adding and restoring access to nature for locals, tourists, and animals. Blue Seven 

building 10 gardens for the community garden provided the needed manpower to get the 

community garden started and running again. And by clearing 20.5 acres of brush and 

invasive species throughout the project round, Blue Seven helped the city staff keep the 

town clean and safe for those that live here and pass through...”

Infrastructure Improvement (INF) 

In the Infrastructure Improvement (INF) issue area, the most frequently reported outputs were in 

Natural Resources and Public Space and Infrastructure, which combined to cover about twothirds of the outputs in this issue area every year (see Appendix B, Table B-30). Between 16% 

and 24% of the outputs were in Community Well-being each year, increasing to 24% by 2019.

One NCCC team described their accomplishment as follows: 

“River 1 helped restore historically significant buildings that were in serious need of 

repairs. The buildings that the team roofed had been placed on a back burner for several 

years because they are staff buildings, not seen or used by the public; park funds had 

been allocated for the more critical repairs to buildings that the paying patrons used 

throughout the park. However, these buildings not only served as an important piece of 

history, they were built by the CCC during the 1930’s and the cabin was built with 

cabbage palm logs, a style not often seen outside of CCC construction, they are also 

important to the functioning of the park; the shop building that was leaking and rotted 

housed important tools and equipment while the cabin was going to be the residence of 

the volunteer coordinator. By making repairs to a living space, the park was able to 

house more of their volunteers or staff with another functioning cabin available. 

Approximately 350,000 people visit the park annually and the majority of resources the 

park has are dedicated to making the park enjoyable and safe for those people. Although 

the volunteers served with the team, having River 1 roof the two buildings allowed the 
30

volunteers and rangers to be able spend more time on other pressing matters, such as the 

buildings and land that the paying public interacted with rather than spending over a 

month on two buildings the public would not benefit from.”

Urban and Rural Development (URD) 

Urban and Rural Development (URD) service projects accounted for 26% of all service projects 

between 2012 and 2019. The most frequent reported outputs across the communities served were 

in the Community Well-being category, which composed about one-third of the outputs in this 

issue area in most years (see Appendix B, Table B-31). These reported outputs peaked at 35% of 

the outputs in 2014. Public Space and Infrastructure composed about one-fifth of outputs every 

year. Natural Resources composed about 15% of the outputs every year, peaking in 2016 at 18%. 

An example of NCCC teams’ accomplishments in the Community Well-being output category 

was described in this narrative: 

“Although Water 5’s main project was working at the House of Abigail, the team got to 

work with other community groups to understand the issues that Mountain View faces. 

Every Wednesday, the team alternated working with the Mountain View Garden Club 

and the Mountain View Community Garden. And once a month, the team would work 

with the F.E.E.D. Program (Food Enough Everyone Distribution). The Mountain View 

Garden Club works to make the town of Mountain View beautiful and appealing to 

people passing through and the residents that live here. The Mountain View Community 

Garden works to give the people of Mountain View a place to grow their own food for a 

small price of $10 per bed per year. The F.E.E.D. Program is a mobile food pantry that 

provides food to residents in the Mountain View and Peace Valley Area that can show 

their monthly income and the amount of household Members they are providing for. The 

town of Mountain View is a smaller town that has a predominantly older population, so 

the team has been helping the town complete projects that wouldn’t otherwise be 

completed. By working in the Community Garden and with the F.E.E.D. Program, the 

team learned about the food security issues in the town of Mountain View. With the 

F.E.E.D. program, the team would help distribute food, but also help people carry their 

items to their vehicles. With the Community Garden, the team would help mulch and 

weed, along with helping complete other projects such as staining and creating a new 

sign that otherwise wouldn’t have been completed.”
31

Research Question 6: How frequently does NCCC serve the same community with the 

same needs? 

To answer this question, we again use the reported outputs as the measure of community needs. 

AmeriCorps NCCC has phased out a group of outputs; these are combined under a general 

“Phased Out” category. A service project may report multiple outputs or address multiple needs 

across these categories. 

We used the state from the site address to determine project locations where NCCC teams served 

communities. To determine how frequently NCCC served the same needs (which we measure 

from type of outputs reported) in the same communities, we grouped the site addresses and

cross-tabulated the addresses with the 11 project output categories (including “Phased Out”). We 

illustrate the results in state-level maps for each output category (or needs) from 2012 to 2019.10

An accompanying Excel file, “Q6 Site Map by Year and Output Grouping for NCCC 2020-09-

29,” includes a table with the list of category outputs and maps of project locations by year. 

10 Site addresses were used to determine the location where service projects were completed. There were 

324 addresses that were not found, including 173 P.O. Box addresses, and 94 addresses did not have an 

exact match. 
32

Basic Needs 

Basic Needs outputs include, for example, persons receiving immunizations, and people 

receiving food, water, clothing, personal items or household goods. Figure 13 shows the states 

where NCCC teams reported Basic Needs outputs. Nearly half of all states (24) had sites where 

at least five service projects included Basic Needs between 2012 and 2018. The highest numbers 

of Basic Needs outputs were in California and Texas; each had 24 sites where at least five 

service projects included Basic Needs outputs during the time period. 

Figure 13: States where Service Projects Included “Basic Needs” Outputs (2012-2019) 
33

Community Well-Being 

The Community Well-being category encompasses diverse accomplishments such as youth 

participating in a summer program, pounds of debris removed, and community activities planned 

or conducted. Figure 14 shows the states where NCCC teams reported these types of outputs. 

Most states (30) had sites where at least five service projects included Community Well-being 

outputs between 2012 and 2018. The largest numbers of accomplishments that addressed 

community well-being were in California, where 118 sites had five or more projects, followed by 

Colorado (42), Texas (36), Oregon (33), and Washington (28), where at least five NCCC teams 

reported this category. 

Figure 14: States where Service Projects Included “Community Well-being” Outputs (2012-

2019) 

Three output categories are related to disaster: Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and 

Mitigation; Disaster Recovery; and Disaster Response. The next three maps show that the 

concentrations of service projects in these three categories are sparser nationally compared to 

those of other output categories but are more concentrated in certain states. Specifically, these 

categories are concentrated in California, Colorado, Missouri, southern states (Texas, Georgia, 

Florida, South Carolina, Louisiana) and east coast states (Washington, D.C., New York, New 

Jersey).
34

Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation 

NCCC teams served in 12 states between 2012 and 2019 where at least five service projects 

included outputs categorized as Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation. Five of these 

states had large numbers of sites where at least five recurring projects occurred and where 

accomplishments in Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation were reported. In Texas,

142 sites had projects that recurred five or more times; California had 96 such sites, Georgia 84, 

Missouri 67, and Washington, D.C. 67. 

Figure 15: States where Service Projects Included “Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and 

Mitigation” Outputs (2012-2019) 
35

Disaster Recovery 

Ten states had sites with at least five service projects where NCCC teams reported 

accomplishments in Disaster Recovery occurred between 2012 and 2018. Three of these states 

each had over 100 sites with five recurring service projects that addressed disaster recovery over 

the time period. In Texas, 200 sites had projects that recurred five or more times, followed by 

Georgia (130) and Missouri (106). 

Figure 16: States where Service Projects Included “Disaster Recovery” Outputs (2012-2019) 
36

Disaster Response 

The concentration of sites and service projects with accomplishments in Disaster Response 

mirrors the previous two maps that cover the other disaster categories. Figure 17 shows the states 

with projects that reported Disaster Response outputs. Thirteen states had sites where at least five 

service projects included Disaster Response outputs between 2012 and 2018. Most of these sites 

were in Texas, where 35 sites had five or more service projects where NCCC teams addressed 

disaster response, and Georgia, where 22 sites had five or more such projects.

Figure 17: States where Service Projects Included “Disaster Response” Outputs (2012-2019) 
37

Energy and Environmental Practices 

Figure 18 shows the states where NCCC teams reported Energy and Environmental Practices 

outputs (e.g., individuals educated on recycling practices). Fifteen states had sites where at least 

five service projects had Energy and Environmental practices outputs. In five states (Colorado, 

Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Virginia), 16 sites in each had seven or more recurring service 

projects over the time period.

Figure 18: States where Service Projects Included “Energy and Environmental Practices”

Outputs (2012-2019) 
38

Housing 

NCCC teams worked on service projects that addressed housing needs by painting, renovating or 

constructing, and landscaping. These service projects, as shown in Figure 19, occurred 

throughout the U.S. between 2012 and 2019. Most of these projects occurred in Texas, with 24 

sites, and Alabama, with 29 sites that each had 6 recurring projects during the period. 

Figure 19: States where Service Projects Included “Housing” Outputs (2012-2019) 
39

Natural Resources 

The Natural Resources category comprises the highest number of outputs (see Table 4), and

these outputs (accomplishments) are in the Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV) 

issue area. In fact, the Natural Resources output category accounts for 88% of all outputs in the 

ENV issue area. Typical Natural Resources outputs include wildlife species protected or assisted, 

acres of wetlands restored or protected, and miles of new hiking trails constructed. 

The map in Figure 20 shows NCCC teams have served and addressed natural resources needs of 

communities in all states and territories. Sixteen states had sites where at least five service 

projects recurred between 2012 and 2018. Most of these sites were on the West Coast: California 

had 232 service sites with at least five recurring projects during the time period, Oregon had 92, 

and Washington had 56. 

Figure 20: States where Service Projects Included “Natural Resources” Outputs (2012-2019) 
40

Public Space and Infrastructure 

Public Space and Infrastructure outputs include schools or public buildings renovated, vacant 

lots cleared, and picnic sites built. The map in Figure 21 shows that between 2012 and 2019, 

NCCC teams accomplished Public Space and Infrastructure outputs in communities in all states 

and territories. Sixteen states had sites where at least five service projects recurred between 2012 

and 2019. Most of these sites were on the West Coast: California had 142 service sites with at 

least five projects during the time period that reported Public Space and Infrastructure outputs, 

Washington had 52, and Oregon had 46. 

Figure 21: States where Service Projects Included “Public Space and Infrastructure” Outputs 

(2012-2019) 
41

Special Populations 

Special Populations include activities to recruit and train volunteers, assist people with 

disabilities, seniors, youth, veterans and their families, and individuals experiencing 

homelessness. Service projects with Special Populations outputs occurred in every state and 

territory. Four states had high numbers of service sites with five or more recurring projects where 

Special Populations outputs were reported. California had 58 sites, Washington 41, Alabama 39, 

and Georgia 24. 

Figure 22: States where Service Projects Included “Special Populations” Outputs (2012-2019) 
42

Phased Out 

Figure 23 shows the states with projects whose outputs have been phased out by CNCS. This 

includes 20 outputs; most (16) were in the Education issue area, such as “teen parent programs 

presented” and “school hallways painted or renovated.”

11 Sixteen states had sites where at least 

five service projects occurred between 2012 and 2018. The largest number of sites were in 

Colorado (24) and Texas (16). 

Figure 23: States where Service Projects Included Outputs that were “Not Categorized” (2012-

2019) 

 

11 A complete list of the 20 phased-out outputs can be found in Appendix B, Table B-32. 
43

Research Question 7: How many individual service projects are nested within unique 

sponsors? What is the number of sites and the average number of sites for each sponsor 

type?12

Service Projects Nested Within Unique Sponsors 

Between 2012 and 2019, 1,439 unique organizations sponsored 5,004 service projects. Table 14 

shows that non-profits (34%), the Federal Government (21%), and national non-profits (19%) 

account for three-quarters of all sponsors.

Table 14: Distribution of Sponsor Types (2012-2019) 

Table 15 shows the number of service projects for each organization type. Sponsors are unique 

within the fiscal year, but the same sponsor could be counted in other years. Each year, NCCC 

conducted between 159 and 843 service projects in total, and non-profits, national non-profits 

and the Federal Government sponsored more service projects than other categories of 

organizations. 

12 Research Question 7 as originally stated: “How are individual service projects nested within multiple separable 

sponsor initiatives? How often are multiple service projects linked both within sponsors and among multiple cosponsors” could not be answered. AmeriCorps NCCC data does not include unique IDs for sites or co-sponsors. 

Thus, the question was revised to look at data on unique sponsors and sponsor types, and sites under sponsor type. 

Sponsor Type Unique Sponsors 

N % 

Non-Profit 495 34% 

Federal Government 303 21% 

National Non-Profit 270 19% 

State Government 112 8% 

Local Government - Municipal 84 6% 

Local Government - County 38 3% 

Higher Education Organization - State Controlled 14 1% 

State Education Agency 9 1% 

Other 50 3% 

Missing 64 4% 

Total 1,439 100% 
44

Table 15: Number of Service Projects by Sponsor Type and Year (2012-2019) 

Sponsor Type 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

Non-Profit 213 163 168 172 141 153 210 56 

Federal Government 43 328 293 275 248 271 370 27 

National Non-Profit 133 114 102 91 72 71 123 33 

State Government 40 49 41 33 19 20 23 10 

Local Government - Municipal 26 27 29 40 21 30 21 7 

Local Government - County 14 23 11 13 11 4 9 2 

Higher Education 

Organization - State 

Controlled 8 6 7 6 6 5 4 1 

State Education Agency 2 0 3 1 1 6 4 1 

Other 18 15 16 10 7 8 20 10 

Missing 35 89 53 54 74 70 59 12 

Total 532 814 723 695 600 638 843 159 

Table 16 below shows the number of service projects per sponsor for all sponsor types 

combined. The number of projects ranged from 1 to 50 per sponsor, and sponsors averaged 

between 1 and 2 projects each year. Federal Government sponsors averaged between three and 

four projects for most years; other types of sponsors usually averaged one project per year. The 

average number of service projects by sponsor type can be found in Appendix B, Table B33.

Table 16: Average Number of Service Projects per Sponsor by Year (All Sponsor Types) 

Sites 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

Total 532 814 723 695 600 638 843 159 

Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Maximum 7 31 40 37 50 49 38 4 

Average 1.45 2.05 1.75 1.62 1.79 1.81 1.92 1.16 

Number of Sites and Average Number of Sites per Sponsor Type 

Table 17 presents the number of sites for each organization type that sponsored a service project. 

Sponsors are unique within the fiscal year, but the same sponsor could be counted in other years. 

Non-profit, national non-profit, and Federal Government had the highest number of sites during 

this period. Federal Government sponsors typically have more sites than other sponsor types. For 

example, the number of Federal Government sponsor sites ranged between 283 and 451 between 

2013 and 2018. State Government, Local County Government, and Higher Education sponsors 

all decreased steadily from 2012 to 2018. 
45

Table 17: Number of Sites by Sponsor Type and Year (2012-2019) 

Sponsor Type 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

Non-Profit 375 233 189 285 199 234 365 89 

Federal Government 68 419 338 375 283 304 451 38 

National Non-Profit 219 150 135 154 85 106 200 65 

State Government 61 63 56 42 21 34 39 18 

Local Government - Municipal 47 47 34 72 22 41 41 10 

Local Government - County 30 29 25 19 12 9 18 2 

Higher Education 

Organization - State 

Controlled 

22 7 7 9 6 8 5 4 

State Education Agency 3 0 3 1 1 7 11 1 

Other 19 16 16 10 7 11 43 16 

Missing 81 146 58 78 78 77 76 15 

Total 925 1,110 861 1,045 714 831 1,249 258 

*Types of sponsors are unique within each fiscal year. 

Table 18 below shows the number of service sites per sponsor for all sponsor types combined. 

The number of sites ranged from 1 to 66 per sponsor, and sponsors averaged between 1 and 3 

sites each year. Federal Government sponsors had the largest average number of sites, ranging 

from two to five each year. Other types of sponsors averaged between one and three sites per 

year. The average number of sites by sponsor type can be found in Appendix B, Table B-34.

Table 18: Average Number of Sites per Sponsor by Year (All Sponsor Types) 

Sites 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 

Total 925 1,110 861 1,045 714 831 1,249 258 

Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Maximum 32 51 43 41 57 66 43 8 

Average 2.51 2.80 2.08 2.44 2.13 2.35 2.85 1.88 
46

Strengthening Communities and Impact on Members 

NCCC teams provide narrative on each of their service projects. These narratives are recorded in 

the PCR. The two types of narratives are the community impact narrative on community benefits 

and the Member impact narrative on Member benefits. We thematically coded these narratives to 

capture and measure the impacts NCCC service has on communities and Members. We also 

look specifically at service projects involved in disaster preparation, mitigation, recovery, and 

response and their effect on the communities. Last, we look at the impact of NCCC service on 

the communities and the sponsoring organizations themselves in terms of building capacity. 

Research Question 8: What does the data show on how NCCC projects impact and 

strengthen communities? What does the data show on how NCCC projects impact 

Members? Do these impacts vary and, if so, how? 

Impact on Communities of NCCC Projects 

In order to answer this question, we qualitatively analyzed community impact statements from 

CNCS narrative data files by applying codes developed through an initial sampling of projects. 

Our analysis showed several themes across NCCC service projects, such as direct impacts to 

communities; tangible and intangible benefits to individuals in communities; tangible and 

intangible benefits to organizations; enhanced disaster prevention, preparedness, and mitigation; 

and assistance with disaster recovery. 
47

Direct Impacts to Communities 

Direct impacts to communities occurred through the improvement of built and natural capital, 

such as gardens, farms, camps, assisting with special community events, and enhancing 

economic impacts in the community. Projects that directly impacted local communities had a 

variety of characteristics, illustrated in Figure 24. 

Figure 24: Characteristics of Projects associated with Community Impact Projects 

NCCC teams achieved these goals through a wide array of activities, some of which are 

highlighted below using quotes from project narratives. Corps Members have participated in 

projects that created new public spaces or private residences or enhanced existing resources. 

Some of these projects included improved accessibility or aesthetics of public or private 

structures or spaces. 

In one project narrative, Corps Members described their work: 

“One of the many Independent Service Projects (ISP) the team led included renovating 

with the Xavier preparatory school by cleaning and beautifying windows and doors to 

prepare for students arrival in the near future. On the team’s community engagement 

day, Delta 10 went to a park off of St. Roch Ave to beautify the neighborhood and teach 

the community about the importance of recycling and energy conservation.”

In other projects, Corps Members described improvements to ecosystems, such as reduced 

erosion or increased biodiversity. For example, one project narrative stated: 

3353

3298

2771

2732

1063

797

614

176 163 90

At-risk ecosystems Infrastructure improvement

Community support Environmental conservation

Housing Awareness and stewardship

Other healthy futures Energy efficiency

Inclusion of people with disabilities Capacity building and leverage
48

“In addition, the team was instrumental in coalescing with the U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) to accomplish the reclaiming of several popular campsites in Homestake and the 

surrounding area that had been depleted of its natural state due to excessive foot and 

vehicle traffic. Essentially, specific campsites were being rehabbed after heavy 

machinery churned the soil, which allowed Sun Four to plant 110 lodgepole pine trees 

and to tend to 180 freshly planted trees by watering them. Moreover, Members 

implemented four simplistic water bars to obstruct unnatural water flow as a result of 

motor vehicle tracks that were contributing to further erosion and runoff flowing into the 

river in the mountains of Piney Lake. Lastly, the team restored 36 feet of riverbank with 

the USFS by extracting and fastening together willow bundles that were staked at the 

river’s edge and in total assisted in 8.5 acres of wildlife habitat restoration.”

Some NCCC projects contributed to the addition of or improvements to community gardens or 

farms. For example, one NCCC team serving at a camp reported the following: 

“Cedar 1 worked with Feed Iowa First in Cedar Rapids, IA for one week. They planted 

fresh fruits and vegetables such as watermelons, strawberries, peas, tomatoes, peppers, 

onions, bok choy, Chinese string beans, lettuce, kale, broccoli, cabbage, and cauliflower. 

First, one Member tilled the rows of empty land where the vegetables were going to be 

planted. Then, two people dug holes on each side of the row and another two people 

would bring the plants to put them in the ground and cover them with soil. They also 

helped the current crops by weeding around them. Cedar 1 made it possible to till the 

ground by mowing the grass. They also weed whacked around the shed and areas the 

riding mower could not reach. To ensure proper growth and support, stakes need to be 

placed next to tomato plants. One Member cut pieces of rebar to the correct length and 

another Member hammered them into the ground at every third tomato plant.”

A number of NCCC projects also provided specific support for improving the built and natural 

capital at camps. For example, one project reported: 

“After a winter storm in 2012 that took down over a hundred trees, Camp Zanika has 

been cluttered with unwanted debris that also acts as fuel for fire. Silver Seven was able 

to reduce the fuel level in the surrounding forests of the camp, while also taking an active 

part in the camp sessions. In total the team burned 1,751 pounds of that unwanted debris, 

clearing an area of 6.5 acres. The project also consisted of camp beautification, in which 

the team repainted 13 different cabins. The team interacted with the ongoing summer 

camp sessions, shadowing counselors and helping to conduct the programs. In hopes to 

develop Camp Zanika’s environmental education program, the team constructed 1 

birdhouse-type box that children will be able to deposit their questions about the natural 

world into in order to get a written response from the nature director.”

Another area of direct impacts to the community is assistance NCCC teams provide to special 

community events. The activities NCCC teams assisted with include event preparation, set up, 

and clean up. Some of these events were aimed at awareness or fundraising; for example, one 

team reported: 
49

“Silver Six’s main project with the Noyo Food Forest was preparing for and facilitating the 

2013 Earth Day Festival. The Earth Day Festival is the Noyo Food Forest’s annual major 

community outreach and fundraising event. Leading up to the festival, the team worked on 

beautification and infrastructure improvement projects to prepare the garden for community 

members attending the festival and businesses providing services throughout the event. The team 

laid 400 pounds of mulch, cleared paths and beds of grass and weeds totaling 600 pounds, 

transplanted 1,750 flowers and vegetables, and painted 32 signs. During the Earth Day Festival, 

Silver Six provided operational and logistical support to the Noyo Food Forest by greeting and 

assisting 750 visitors, setting up booths for vendors, serving soup, chili, and coffee, picking up 

trash, assisting with plant sales, recruiting children to help paint 1 community mural, and 

helping with other general tasks throughout the day.”

Other events NCCC teams supported included volunteer days; one team wrote, “Finally, Maple 

2 completed a Community Day in Hamilton County in collaboration with Hamilton County 

Convention and Visitor’s Bureau. The team organized volunteers to paint 5 rooms in a historic 

home and create a rain garden along with other landscaping improvements.”

Finally, some NCCC projects helped to provide economic benefits to communities in which they 

worked. For example, one project reported: 

“About 350,000 visitors each year make their way to West Texas to visit Big Bend 

National Park and see the Chihuahuan Desert, one of the richest examples of North 

American desert. Maintaining and improving trails will enable more visitors to learn 

about the vast desert and cultural history of the Big Bend region. Big Bend crews and the 

AmeriCorps NCCC team addressed the need for great trails that will allow for 

exploration by Members of communities from all over the nation. Big Bend National Park 

is surrounded by Brewster County; the county, though immense, has only 15,000 

inhabitants who depend on the tourism generated by the park to make a living. Corps 

Members helped to create a viable income for the local residents and at the same time 

provided those same residents a park to enjoy. Additionally, the Big Bend Trail recycling 

program offers local communities a place to recycle, for free, thus improving the local 

community's awareness and environment.”

Tangible and Intangible Benefits to Individuals 

Tangible Benefits to Individuals 

Our analysis showed NCCC projects had tangible benefits to individuals through improved 

access to food, water, clothing, health care, shelter, or other basic needs. Characteristics of 

projects that provided tangible benefits to individuals are shown in Figure 25. Common impacts 

of these projects are illustrated below using project narrative quotes. 
50

Figure 25: Characteristics of Projects associated with Tangible Benefits to Individuals 

In some cases, Corps Members assisted with basic needs in the wake of a disaster or at other 

times; for example, one project narrative stated: 

“By responding to the evacuation quickly, Green Six and Blue Six were able to assist 

with the initial set up of the shelters alongside the American Red Cross. There were 150 

cots set up when the teams arrived to Chico, 450 assembled in the first 24 hours, then an 

additional 300 cots by hour 40 into assisting the shelters. With a constant stream of 

evacuees being registered, it was important for the teams to work together to assemble 

cots and distribute supplies as quickly as possible. This would allow for individuals and 

families to settle into the shelters after leaving all their belongings behind, and to have a 

place to rest after the initial evacuation.”

At other times, NCCC projects assisted with basic needs outside of disaster settings, as this 

example illustrates: “Working with Essential Services, the team completed a homeless count for 

Coos Bay, giving out health kits and sandwiches to everyone who filled out a survey, ultimately 

aiding 38 people from the Coos Bay homeless community.”

Many NCCC teams assisted individuals accessing safe and affordable housing that would not 

otherwise be available to them. For example, a NCCC team stated: 

“For six weeks, Water 2 worked with Central Oklahoma Habitat for Humanity, based out 

of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Central Oklahoma Habitat for Humanity is a non-profit 

Christian housing ministry dedicated to building decent and affordable housing for low 

income families living in substandard conditions... The team's highlights were raising the 

710

697

135

74

70

9

Community support Disaster assistance provided Financial literacy

Capacity building and leverage Access to care Public safety
51

walls of 3 new homes, painting and cleaning 10 homes, and participating in the 

dedication of two new homes given to a family.”

The contributions of NCCC teams may have supported individuals’ physical health and safety

within those communities. One project reported, “Green Two partnered with Oregon State 

University KidSpirit, clearing out a gymnasium as well as sanitizing a gymnastics studio. The 

team helped to make the gym a safer, cleaner environment for the children that use the studio 

space.”

A team helping to muck and gut houses stated, “Because of the teams work the homes would be 

able to be treated for mold control and there would not be further risks to the family’s health 

making a healthier and therefore happier community.”

A team that worked on trail repair and maintenance noted, “The team also repaired 2 foot 

bridges on the trail to make them safer for campers and their guardians.”

Some of the NCCC teams also helped individuals complete their tax forms, enabling them to 

obtain tax refunds. For example: 

“Delta 4 strengthen the community of Memphis, as well as all the other cities that they 

visited and served, by putting $362,009 in tax refunds back into the pockets of citizens. 

322 tax returns were completed, processed, and approved; this is significant because 

those are 322 families and individuals who would have otherwise not been able to file 

their taxes due to lack of resources or knowledge. With the assistance of an AmeriCorps 

team new sites were opened by United Way in areas where individuals have a more 

difficult time completing their taxes. The presence of AmeriCorps NCCC increased 

community awareness around sites and financial resources that can be utilized in the 

years to come.”

Finally, some NCCC projects helped to provide economic and financial benefits to individuals. 

For example, some of the home repair projects that NCCC teams took on allowed home owners 

to avoid paying for costly services: “The mucking and gutting services that Delta 6 provided 

allowed for homeowners to save money as well.”

In other cases, home repairs may have long-term economic benefits for homeowners as this 

narrative illustrates: “Providing insulation allows for lower energy costs by not spending as 

much on heating and cooling for the home. The insulation was provided for residents that were 

low-income households and many of those residents are elderly. By saving money on energy 

costs, these residents are able to use that money on essential items like medications and food.”

Intangible Benefits to Individuals 

Our analysis showed intangible benefits of NCCC projects to Members of the communities in the 

form of psychosocial benefits and increases in human capital and learning. The characteristics of 

projects that provided intangible benefits to individuals are illustrated in Figure 26. The variety 

of impacts these projects had on individuals is illustrated below through the project narrative 

quotes. 
52

Figure 26: Characteristics of Projects associated with Intangible Benefits to Individuals 

One example of psychosocial benefits NCCC Members helped foster is captured in this quote: 

“The residents of the Laurel Shelter, and the employees were very pleased by the painting that 

had been completed by Delta 2 and felt that it “lifted spirits around the home.”

Another project wrote: 

“Azul Two was able to benefit the community in a very direct way by interviewing 275 

disaster survivors for unmet housing needs, but aside from the information gathered, Azul 

Two gave the disaster survivors someone to talk too. Many of the interviews would allow 

for the survivors to talk out their traumatic experience with the disaster. Letting the 

survivors de-stress was a major benefit to the mental health of the survivors.”

Another example of NCCC projects impact on psychosocial benefits is that the presence of 

Corps Members helped improve individuals’ attitudes toward FEMA or other government 

agencies; as a consequence, individuals feel that the government cares about their communities. 

For example, one narrative reported, “The daily face-to-face interaction the team provided 

assured survivors that FEMA valued their safety and well-being.”

Another project noted, “The project attracted various government officials to the site, further 

demonstrating to the community that those who represent them in government care about their 

family and history in a place that has been long neglected.”

NCCC projects helped with food security through more reliable access to healthy and affordable 

food. For example, one NCCC project reported, “Cedar 1 also planted an urban garden so 

residents can have free access to fruits and vegetables, which are healthy and nutritious foods.” 

811

746

671

254

24 11

Populations assisted and engaged Education support

Awareness and stewardship Community support

Public safety Access to care
53

Another project reported: 

“The main goal set out for the team consisted of preparing Revision International's two urban 

vegetable farms, the Somali-Bantu Farm and Kepner Community Farm, for the upcoming 

season. This involved raking, weeding, sifting and spreading compost, adding fertilizer, turning 

soil, and planting in the plant beds. The team was also responsible for planting, thinning, 

transplanting, fertilizing and watering 10,000 vegetable and herb seedlings. These seedlings are 

to be sold in weekly seedling sales, for community members to use. The seedlings will also be 

used in their 300+ backyard gardens, and will be planted at the two farms to be harvested for 

their Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farm shares. These uses help provide 

opportunities for community members to develop a nutritious diet. Fire 1 was also responsible 

for seed inventory and distribution for the twelve community teachers, or promotoras, who will 

educate backyard garden owners and aid in the planting of their gardens.”

Many NCCC projects promoted human capital and learning by teaching new skills to members 

of the communities. A NCCC team working on an energy conservation-focused project with 

adult members of the community reported: “This will improve air quality and slow contributions 

to global warming. Educating the public on energy conservation and renewable resources will 

have similar benefits. If the people who have been educated put their education into practice they 

can both save themselves money and reduce their environmental impact.” 

Another NCCC team working on a project with children and young people reported, “Blue Two 

served at a community event in which they taught children how to plant trees. This educational 

experience may impact the mindset of these children as they grow older to bolster a more 

environmentally-conscious generation.”

NCCC teams tutored, mentored, supported or helped students with educational curriculum and 

materials. For example, one NCCC team worked directly in schools and reported the following 

activities: “River 5 taught and coached the children how to play soccer, flag football, volleyball, 

basketball, prison ball, and capture the flag. River 5 also provided Zumba lessons for the 

children and preformed various callisthenic routines. In addition, River 5 helped the children 

learn math and read. River 5 also took the children at MQFCO on various field trips.” 

Another team worked to help local law enforcement officers access education about disability 

integration: “The members also researched training opportunities for Law Enforcement 

personnel to attend in order to become more educated in disability integration and 

coordination.”

Finally, NCCC teams helped to engage and support individuals who worked as volunteers with 

community organizations. For example, one team helped to registre a large number of volunteers 

for an environmentally-focused nonprofit: “At this event, Maple 7 registered 440 community 

volunteers from the Quad City area in the three-day expo event. Maple 7 worked alongside the 

community volunteers to supervise, educate and teach individuals about the tree wrapping 

process.”

Another team working on a home-building project reported, “7 had the opportunity to 

coordinate volunteer groups ranging from 10-30 people. By becoming the lead on separate 
54

tasks, the team was able to efficiently and effectively get more done for the project site and help 

the site supervisor maintain a safe work environment.”

Benefits to Specific Populations 

NCCC projects also provided support and benefits to specific populations. These populations 

included individuals in crisis (like disaster survivors and those experiencing homelessness), 

veterans, the elderly, people with disabilities, at-risk youth, immigrants and refugees, and others. 

Projects that provided benefits to specific populations had a variety of characteristics, illustrated 

in Figure 27. Driven by these goals, projects conducted an array of activities, with some of the 

key types of activities and impacts illustrated using the project narratives below. 

Figure 27: Characteristics of Projects associated with Benefits to Specific Populations 

Some NCCC projects assisted individuals affected by disasters and other crises. For example, a 

NCCC team assisting individuals in response to Hurricane Isaac reported: 

“First, Oak 3 was assigned to a client shelter in Shreveport, LA. The gym at the LSUS 

(Louisiana State University of Shreveport) campus provided shelter for clients who 

evacuated their town, before the hurricane hit. Here, the team supported the operation by 

serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner, to a gross total of 98 clients. In addition, Members 

interacted with the 31 youth, to make it easier for the parents who were very concerned 

for their homes.”

Another team reported, “Pine 5 informed survivors of the full range of services available (such 

as the phone number for receiving mold kits and where to seek alternative shelter), registered 

those who suffered damages to their property with FEMA, and provided referrals to whole 

community partners.”

1134

66

47

10 1

Populations assisted and engaged Capacity building and leverage

Access to care Disaster assistance provided

Housing
55

In addition to assisting disaster survivors, NCCC teams also provided support to individuals and 

families experiencing homelessness. One team reported : 

“Gold Four received and sorted 7250 pounds of household goods and 7500 pounds of 

clothing received and sorted. At the Midvale Family Shelter, Gold Four received and 

sorted through 1525 pounds of clothing for the homeless families. At the Midvale Family 

Shelter, the team helped clean 35 beds in the dorm area for incoming families. During 

Gold Four’s stay at The Road Home they were able to distribute 1000 pounds of food for 

the Homeless clients and 250 pounds of food was distributed at the Midvale location.”

Another project reported, “Cedar 1 helped the Eastside Mission with different projects, such as 

assisting in the kitchen to serve the homeless or disadvantaged, and sorting clothes for their 

clothing shop. Families are able to get clothing at no cost, giving them the opportunity to dress 

appropriately for interviews, special occasions, and day-to-day activities.”

Some NCCC projects focused on serving the veteran community. One project reported: 

“In the Westwood Community, the team cut down and removed 1250 pounds of unwanted 

vegetation from one veteran's back yard, replaced the broken siding on his house, and 

primed and painted the whole exterior. The team also wrote and designed a banner, 

which they presented at a community Veterans Day gathering, where they served 24 

veterans and their family Members lunch.”

NCCC projects also supported a range of other vulnerable populations. Some projects provided 

assistance to people with disabilities. NCCC teams supported individuals with both physical and 

intellectual disabilities. One project described its team’s experience: 

“Most of the team’s time and effort was devoted to assisting other staff Members in 

providing childcare for 22 visually impaired or blind children and 13 siblings ranging in 

ages from 8 months old to 18 years old, so that parents could attend the workshops and 

sessions. Members of Maple 6 were divided among multiple rooms throughout the Braille 

School where they were able to care for the children. These rooms provided the children 

with varied environments and activities such as a game room and an arts and crafts 

room. The team also assisted the children with eating, communicating, and traveling 

throughout the buildings.”

Other projects assisted the elderly, at-risk youth, immigrants, refugees, and Native American 

individuals and communities. For example, one project described its work with unaccompanied 

alien children (UAC – also known as unaccompanied minors), writing, “We received donated 

toys, supplies and training from Save the Children and utilized this support to better the children 

under Border Patrol’s supervision. We provided recreational and educational activities to the 

UAC, we were able to enrich the lives of children caught in a challenging situation.” 

Another project worked with at-risk youth, writing: 

“The team assisted in total 200 cadets, male and female, considered at-risk youth. River 

One did so through teaching the Boys & Girls Club of America’s financial literacy 

course “Money Matters” to each cadet. The corps Members tutored these same 200 
56

cadets in Health and English classes, putting in around 1120 total tutoring hours as a 

team.”

Another project wrote: 

“Youth Members of these various clubs, but especially the Moody County Boys and Girls Club 

and the Santee Sioux Tribe Tribal Education Youth Center, face persistent issues of summer 

learning loss through lack of out of school academic engagement, inconsistent meals/poor 

nutrition at home, and lack of stable/regular positive role models in their personal lives. 

Assisting in facilitating the programs which Maple 4 took part in, managing the summer food 

grant program, and spending time engaging with youth in a range of contexts improves the wellbeing of club youth and directly addresses community needs identified by the sponsor. Giving 

youth the competence, confidence, and well-being to succeed in the immediate and long term, 

fosters the development of youth who are better able to mature into adulthood, which leads to a 

community of more engaged and positive community members.”

In many cases, NCCC projects supported multiple vulnerable populations through their work. 

For example, one project reported: 

“River 1 worked to help disabled, elderly, and veteran community members finish taxing and 

laborious work on the way to finalizing their homes and returning them to pre-flood conditions. 

One corps member worked on the completion of several phases of a house owned by a disabled 

veteran, seeing a before and after of a nearly four week project.” 

Tangible and Intangible Benefits to Organizations 

Many NCCC projects supported organizations that serve communities, allowing those 

organizations to spend more time serving their target populations. 

Tangible Benefits to Organizations 

NCCC projects served organizations in a variety of tangible ways. These projects had 

characteristics focused primarily around Capacity Building and Leverage, though all of the 

characteristics of these projects are shown in Figure 28. Common impacts of these projects are 

described below using quotes from project narratives. 
57

Figure 28: Characteristics of Projects Associated with Tangible Benefits to Organizations 

Many NCCC projects provide tangible benefits to organizations by adding or improving their 

physical infrastructure. For example, a project reported helping an organization with various 

large projects: 

“Blue Seven dug out and reshaped 75 feet of a stone amphitheater at the base of 

Inspiration Point, as well as installed an irrigation system for the 27 trees that they 

planted and consequently watered on a weekly basis. In addition, they dug 815 feet of 

drainage ditch in which 3/8 inch PVC pipe was laid, installed 1 irrigation box, installed 

and pinned down 650 feet of drip line, installed 54 drip line emitters, and buried an 

additional 75 feet of drip line. The Members also dug an eight foot hole for a “Peace 

Pole” and spread 26 truckloads of decomposed granite on the pathway.”

NCCC teams helped organize data and informational products. For example, a FEMA Corps 

team reported, “Throughout the round Members created and updated 10 different data bases of 

information pertaining to Manufactured Housing Units, created a 3D model of a Manufactured 

Housing Unit, compared and contrasted fire prevention methods, and wrote up a software 

application.” 

Another project reported, “Two Members were assigned to help scan, digitally verify, and 

organize files from former disasters, in order to prepare them for transportation to the Federal 

Records Center in Fort Worth. This project was immensely helpful because it was a timeconsuming process which freed up space and resources for future disasters files.”

 

 
58

NCCC teams helped organize physical supplies and equipment. One NCCC team working on a 

conservation project reported, “By assisting with miscellaneous tasks such as sorting hand tools 

and cleaning shop areas, the team saved the park staff time and energy that can instead be 

focused on wildlife conservation.” 

Another team reported, “The main focus of work during the project with Habitat for Humanity 

in Omaha was organizing and packing materials and supplies at their 5,000 square foot 

warehouse and assisting with moving, unpacking, and reorganizing supplies in their new 24,000 

square foot warehouse.” 

Another project reported: 

“One group worked in the Freeport Boys and Girls Club where they worked to remove 

furniture and other items from the old club to the new club. They also organized those 

items in a storage room, painted one classroom, cleaned, and designed an art project for 

the children to partake in. The other group helped to organize office space, file 

paperwork, create props for a talent show, and inventoried decorations for the Annual 

Boys and Girls Club Holiday Gala.”
59

Intangible Benefits to Organizations 

Numerous NCCC projects also provided intangible benefits to organizations, such as enhancing 

organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Characteristics of these projects are illustrated in 

Figure 29. Illustrative project narrative quotes highlighting the impacts of these programs follow. 

Figure 29: Characteristics of Projects associated with Intangible Benefits to Organizations 

Many NCCC projects did not provide direct tangible benefits but nonetheless were impactful 

because these projects enhanced the organizations’ efficiency or effectiveness. These NCCC 

projects enabled the organizations to serve more people, offer more or better services, or finish 

projects faster than would otherwise be possible. For example, one team that served as camp 

counselors noted that they helped expand the services of the camp: “Through Delta eights efforts 

as camp counselors, Camp Easter Seals UCP was able to allow more people who have 

disabilities to get to enjoy a positive camp experience.”

A team helping at a school reported, “Maintenance tasks completed also saved time for regular 

maintenance staff, who normally wouldn’t be able to complete these additional tasks during the 

usual school year.”

A FEMA Corps project reported: 

“Because the team served as raw manpower in the large warehouse staffed by four 

people regularly, the amount of work that could be done before the team arrived was 

greatly improved. This facility serves as the center for all electronic equipment within 

FEMA and, because of this, everything that happens there has to be done on time and 

 

 

 

 
60

correctly. When that happens, all other facilities, whether in the field or long standing 

offices, have the equipment they need to operate effectively. When these other facilities 

have what they need, they can better assist the community in preparation and recovery 

efforts. In such instances, American citizens are put in a better position to receive 

adequate and timely support when needed in the face of disaster situations. The efficiency 

with which Hickory 4 served allowed resources to be distributed much sooner, sometimes 

a day or more before expected. This speed of distribution could be the difference between 

life and death for a citizen.” 

Another project enhanced the efficiency of the services the United Way could offer to flood 

survivors: 

“Earth 7 has worked in different parts in Larimer County, Mucking and Gutting homes. 

Some things include removing and putting up drywall, cutting down fallen trees, 

removing debris and identifying and fixing damages to interior of the building. The 

assistance of Earth 7 has allowed people who live in the Larimer County community to 

receive some help more efficiently.”

In a few cases, NCCC teams also helped foster collaborations or partnerships between 

organizations. One project narrative reported, “The goal was to better understand the National 

Flood Insurance Program by end of round and facilitate collaboration between DSA and 

Mitigation.” 

Another reported, “For six weeks, Maple 5 served in Columbus Nebraska for project sponsor 

Connect Columbus. The primary objective of the project were defined as to: promote 

collaboration among agencies and organizations and the sharing of community resources...”

Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation 

NCCC projects provided a variety of services to help prevent, prepare for, and mitigate natural 

disasters. Characteristics of these projects are shown in Figure 30. Common themes of these 

projects’ impacts are illustrated below using project narrative quotes. 
61

Figure 30: Characteristics of Projects associated with Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and 

Mitigation 

Many NCCC projects helped prevent or mitigate natural disasters on public lands through 

changes to the physical environment, such as through fuel reduction work to prevent or mitigate 

wildfires. For example, one community impact narrative states: 

“Sun 3 helped to prepare units for prescribed burns by limbing and thinning near the 

fireline. This helps to make the fire less intense near the fireline and therefore reduces the 

chance of the burn escaping and turning into a wildfire. The team also thinned many of 

the units. This helps in reducing the likelihood for crown fires to occur, ensures that the 

Ponderosa Pine (a fire resistant species of pine) remains the dominant species, and 

promotes greater resistance to mountain pine beetle attack and the spread of mistletoe by 

reducing Ponderosa Pine stocking levels.” 

Another project reported: 

“Due to the geography of RFB 8, the Forest Service deemed it vital to burn piled fuels to 

protect the city of Boulder from catastrophic wildfires. Without the controlled 

consumption of these fuels, a wildfire could potentially sweep down the ridge, through 

Jamestown, and into Boulder with very few natural barriers. Fire 4's burning of piled 

fuels and subsequent, repeated checking to ensure that all heat was extinguished in the 

piles ensured that Boulder and Jamestown would be protected.”

NCCC teams enhanced community members’ knowledge of how to prepare for or prevent 

disaster. One team working with The Pillowcase Project reported, “The Pillowcase Project is a 

partnership between the American Red Cross and the Disney Cooperation to empower children 

 
62

grades 3-5 with the knowledge and skills to be prepared and take action in emergency 

situations.” 

Another project reported: 

“FEMA Gold Four also attended and assisted at 3 local community preparedness fairs, 

where the team set-up and manned a FEMA booth, completing 16 hours of outreach to 

300 people by providing disaster preparedness information. The team also provided the 

local community with information such as encouraging them to create a disaster kit, 

informing them what safety precautions to take during the event of a disaster and various 

other tips pertaining to disaster preparedness.”

A team in Atlanta reported, “Lastly, Summit 4 volunteered at Refugee Family Services and 

delivered a disaster preparedness lesson plan to elementary school-aged children. The team 

gave the children disaster preparedness materials and family preparedness plans to fill out with 

their families.” 

Another project reported: 

“At this workshop, 10 youth leaders trained in disaster preparedness activities including 

a sandbagging workshop, a fire extinguisher class, an individual preparedness session, 

and a workshop on herbal medicines for disaster. A total of 30 people, including the 10 

youth leaders, participated in this safety awareness training...During the conference, 300 

educational kits were distributed to participants. This kit contained a DVD Emergency 

Preparedness Tool Kit developed to be used as a guide for training youth in their tribes 

to prepare for disaster.”

Finally, some NCCC teams assisted directly to improve response readiness through disaster 

simulations, drills, and related activities that provided opportunities to first responders and others 

to practice and improve response. A FEMA Corps project reported, “During the rest of the 

team’s time there they assisted the Trainers in leading an advanced course for Public 

Information Officers. FEMA Green One assisted in the simulation by creating media injects, role 

playing, and answering the phones to allow for the students to experience a simulation as real 

life as possible.” 

Another team reported: 

“An interactive simulation also allowed audience Members to personally develop and 

run a mock VRC (Volunteer Response Center], and encounter individuals with various 

intentions of visiting the VRC. They additionally were supplied with different 

supplementary materials to assist them and potentially their fellow employees, to 

eventually help in their own creation of VRCs in their towns. Ocean Eight was granted 

the opportunity to travel to and work in the areas they lead these presentations in, 

allowing them to observe and experience Northeastern Mississippi, as well as along the 

Gulf of Mississippi. Over the course of three and a half weeks, Members presented 4 VRC 

facilitations in Oxford, Starkville, Hattiesburg, and Gulfport to 14 individuals.”
63

Disaster Response 

Some NCCC teams provided immediate response to individuals. Characteristics of these projects 

included a focus on Housing, Disaster Assistance, and Public Safety, presented in Table 19. 

Table 19: Characteristics of Projects Associated with Disaster Response 

Many of the Disaster Response projects focused on helping individuals affected by disasters by 

providing services like mucking and gutting homes to reduce health and safety hazards or 

prevent future damage. For example, one project reported providing such support, writing: 

“The community of Panama City directly benefitted from Delta 1's work as the team 

worked directly with homeowners to remove hazards from their homes and protect their 

homes from further damage. Mucking and gutting homes removed the hazard of mold and 

black mold. This can lead to long-term health issues with constant exposure. Tarping 

roofs prevented the homes from further water damage and potential for mold growth. 

Removing debris made entrances and exits safely accessible to homeowners. Clearing an 

area for homeowners to place a trailer on their property assisted homeowners by 

creating a temporary living until their homes were deemed safe to live in.”

Another narrative described a similar project: 

“The service that Cedar 4 completed during their time in Glenwood and Hamburg 

directly benefitted the survivors of the flooding disaster, both at the disaster site and at 

the Glenwood Resource Center (GRC). The receding flood waters at the disaster site in 

Hamburg created a high need for mucking, gutting and mold suppression as homes 

became more accessible to cleanup crews on the ground. The team’s service mucking, 

gutting, and performing mold suppression allowed a safe home and community for 

survivors to return to and begin their rebuilding efforts. Additionally, survivors being 

able to access their homes and identify the materials and supplies they needed most, 

created a demand for assistance in the GRC. Mucking and gutting homes and performing 

mold suppression in a timely manner prevented further damage to the structure and 

ensured that the homeowner had an opportunity to rebuild and avoid the home being 

condemned.”

Project Characteristics Number of Reported Project 

Outputs

Housing 327

Disaster assistance provided 232

Public safety 65
64

Disaster Recovery 

NCCC teams helped provide essential services and support in the wake of disasters. 

Characteristics of these projects are illustrated in Table 20. Common impacts of these projects 

are highlighted, below with quotes from project narratives. 

Table 20: Characteristics of Projects associated with Disaster Recovery 

Often, these projects involved assisting populations directly affected by the disaster. NCCC 

projects increased knowledge of or access to funding, labor, or other resources that assisted in 

long-term recovery from disaster. Many times, NCCC teams helped disaster survivors register 

for services: “The team also impacted the local community by ensuring everyone they made 

contact with was able to register for assistance or find the status of their applications. This will 

(help] the survivors as they try to rebuild their homes and lives.”

In other cases, NCCC teams provided direct services to affected populations: “Blue Fifty and 

Silver Six worked alongside the American Red Cross to provide food, shelter, and a clean living 

space to all who were displaced by the Oroville Dam.”

NCCC teams also provided essential information to survivors about services and assistance: 

“The team was also able to inform residents of other resources they could utilize, such as the 

Shelter at Home program, which they may not have previously been aware of.” 

In some cases, teams also provided for survivors’ basic needs in the immediate aftermath of a 

disaster: 

“The food, water and clothing collected by the team benefited many survivors of this 

disaster, fulfilling their immediate needs. Delta 2’s work connecting individuals with 

resources including food pantries, immunization programs, long term recovery, 

temporary housing, and other organizations benefited the community by providing 

options for immediate assistance while programs through FEMA and MEMA worked to 

determine financial assistance.”

Some NCCC teams helped with the refurbishment or renovation of homes affected by the 

disaster, helping to reduce health and safety hazards or prevent future damage. For example, one 

project reported: 

“The team's service strengthened the community by providing extra hands in the efforts 

to rebuild these homes, working quickly and efficiently on each home, and by speaking 

with the homeowners of each home to listen to their stories. For example, the team 

worked at the West Columbia house for two weeks, and in that time completed over 1,000 

square feet worth of flooring; varnished every doorway/frame in the home; cut and 

Project Characteristics Number of Reported Project 

Outputs

Disaster assistance provided 970

Capacity building and leverage 408

Housing 341
65

placed trim along each wall in the 9 rooms within the house, and painted the walls, 

ceilings, and trim with top coat.”

Another team reported: 

“Many people within the community of Tuscaloosa are still rebuilding from the tornado 

in 2011. There are families who still are waiting for homes. Homeowners are extremely 

grateful to have volunteers like AmeriCorps NCCC to help. As volunteers with Habitat 

for Humanity Tuscaloosa (HFHT) River Two Members were consistent participants in 

the building process.”

The actions of NCCC teams sometimes helped individuals return to their homes or go back to 

work more quickly following a disaster. One project reported, “By lending our manpower to SBP 

we helped accelerate the process of getting these homeowners moved back in to their homes and 

bringing their long and arduous journey to a close.”

Another project report stated, “Due to Maple 1’s work, these individuals are closer to returning 

to their homes and getting their normal lives back.”

Another team wrote, “As vocalized frequently by the project leads, Water 4 helped to deliver the 

SBP mission of shrinking the time between disaster and recovery. Overall, as Water 4 completed 

over 3000 hours of home renovation and repair the team helped to improve the lives of those still 

struggling in Brazoria County.”

Finally, in some instances, NCCC teams reported helping individuals affected by disaster to 

experience a sense of normalcy and providing other emotional and psychosocial benefits: “With 

our help, the community was able to benefit by regaining a sense of normalcy after a disaster in 

a faster amount of time. The homeowners who benefit from SBP’s work regained a sense of pride 

in their home, slowly restoring the overall morale of the community itself.”

Another team described their service: “River 5 was able to serve those who could not complete 

any necessary work themselves, while simultaneously providing hope for the future as the 

community moves on from the flood.”

These intangible benefits are, according to some of the project narratives, just as valuable as the 

more tangible benefits teams provided; 

“Our team has had the opportunity to speak with these individuals, and the gratitude and 

joy they have expressed at being able to have their home back has been truly lifechanging for the team. It is clear that our work and the work of AHAH has not just 

provided a physical service for these individuals, but an emotional one as well. 

Homeowners have expressed to us that they felt deserted and helpless before All Hands 

and Hearts offered their services. This organization has helped to make people feel 

remembered and cared for when it seemed that no one else did.” 

Impact on Members of NCCC Projects 

Through the service projects narrative, NCCC also asks Members to record how their work

impacted them. We thematically coded and analyzed the Member Impact statements using a 
66

codebook developed through an initial sampling of projects; these codes were then applied to the 

narrative text. Four main themes reflect impact on Members: personal impacts and life skills, 

professional skills, interpersonal connections, and civic orientation and engagement. 

Personal Impacts and Life Skills 

Corps Members reported that their service impacted their self-efficacy, confidence, and 

resilience. One FEMA Corps team reported, “It was a beneficial experience to the team to have 

a forgiving and kind point of contact, to help the Corps Members become more comfortable and 

competent in their jobs, give them space to make mistakes, but held them to the same standards 

as the rest of the FEMA crew.”

One NCCC project reported, “At a more abstract level, corps Members learned how to stay 

motivated while performing mundane, repetitive tasks.”

NCCC teams reported impact on managerial skills through stress management and critical 

thinking skills, as these examples point out: “The long hours worked by Cedar 4 gave the team 

experience in coping with stress;” 

Another team reported, “The team was able to practice flexibility and adapting to the needs of 

others.” 

And, another wrote, “This confidence lead to the team doing their assigned job better, which will 

bring them even more confidence in their lives. Confidence is paramount to being able to work in 

a team, lead a team, or really perform any function that requires someone to rely on you.”

Participation in NCCC also helped some Members think more about their careers, affirming or 

changing career interests or otherwise helping Members better prepare for careers. For example, 

one project reported how team Members were able to obtain professional development 

opportunities: “The team also participated in two professional development trainings consisting 

of useful information on salary negotiation, cover letters, resumes, interviewing, international 

work, and what to do after you get the job.”

Some NCCC projects provided useful experiences preparing employment applications and 

interviews; for example, “Members carried chainsaws and other heavy equipment, had no 

electricity and minimal to no phone service. This will be a powerful experience for Members to 

recall in interviews and applications for positions requiring outdoor work/physical stamina--a 

likely scenario for many in the team pursuing careers in natural resources.”

Other NCCC projects provided Members with opportunities to build a professional network that 

could provide employment references; as a FEMA Corps project reported, “In addition, the team 

has continued to build a list of professional references which will greatly benefit any one of them 

when it comes time to apply for a job after the program is completed.”

NCCC projects also helped Members acquire new knowledge and skills to help carry out a 

variety of endeavors. Some of this knowledge will help Members in their personal lives, as this 

example illustrates: “In order to inform others about their health insurance options, every 

Member of Cedar 5 needed to gain a full understanding of the Affordable Care Act. This 
67

knowledge was useful to the team because everyone is approaching the age where they are no 

longer covered by their parents’ plans.” 

In other cases, Corps Members acquired new knowledge and skills that will help them 

effectively carry out work-related projects as in this statement: 

“Corps Members benefited from this project in many ways. Corps Members gained the 

skills to successfully set and run a staging area. Members trained in many different 

position including truck check in/ check out, ground support, general maintenance and 

data entry. While at Region IV corps Member also were able to learn the work that goes 

into a disaster before it even happens.” 

Another team wrote, “The team gained extensive experience with planning, facilitating, and 

supporting a community event through their work with the Home Fire Campaign.”

Professional Skills 

NCCC projects also provided Corps Members the opportunity to develop professional skills. 

This included technical skills, including skills related to construction, crisis response, the use of 

computers, and environmental management. These skills are acquired through formal training 

and hands-on experience, which Corps Members can include on their resumes. Training for 

Members varied based on the types of projects and organizations they worked with. For example, 

a NCCC team working on a crisis project noted, “Corps Members were trained on how to 

properly carry and transport critically injured victims.” 

An NCCC team working on an environmental conservation project noted: 

“Silver received training on herbicide application and native plants and were able to 

apply this knowledge several times a week. By the end of the project, Members were able 

to give interpretive tours and talk knowledgably to visiting groups and volunteers about 

the local flora and fauna. The team also had trainings on operating Bobcat tractors, 

ATV’s, and boom lifts.” 

One NCCC team working on physical construction project noted, “Members were able to gain 

onsite training with a variety of tools and construction skills. Members learned how to cut and 

install metal framing and roofing.” 

Another team received training in a variety of managerial and office skills: 

“The team participated in four training days at the office. The team now has a better 

understanding of the Individual Assistance Delivery Process. Additionally, the team was 

able to learn several skills with their two projects including: customer service, problem 

solving, multi-tasking, research, telecommunication skills, and data entry.”

Corps Members benefit from hands-on opportunities to practice new skills that may assist them 

in their future careers. A FEMA Corps project reported, “Each of the Members of the team got 

the chance to perform physical work that took them out of the office setting ...The work at the 

staging area also taught the Members of Ocean 2 to consider safety issues while working around 

and with heavy machinery and working on top of THUs.”
68

An Oregon-based NCCC project reported, “Members had several service days with trail 

maintenance, where they learned the proper way to handle, use, and maintain trail tools.” 

Another NCCC team reported, “The corps Members of Fire 7 have gained experience in the safe 

use of many construction tools including levels, measuring tape, power drills, circular saws, and 

table saws.” 

A team working with gardens reported, “Throughout the course of the year, the team has gained 

experience planting trees and maintaining gardens. St. Dorothy’s Rest offered the opportunity to 

serve in the initial stages of garden planning and startup. Members learned the complexities of 

designing and establishing a garden.”

And, a team that worked with computer-based geospatial systems reported, “Members have 

developed competence in skills relating to basic geospatial information system operation.”

Interpersonal Connections 

NCCC projects help Members’ interpersonal skills by engaging with people who differ from 

themselves. For example, one NCCC team noted, “Members worked with a diverse group of atrisk youth and applied their schooling to tutoring youth. The culture and population in Mecca 

was very different from the communities the Members had experienced in their past, and the 

team learned some Spanish as well as meeting many families from Mexico.”

Another team noted how their work helped them become more sensitive to working with diverse 

individuals, writing, “Members learned how to be sensitive to various cultural differences and 

how to work about language barriers.”

Another team reported, “The team also gained a great deal of empathy and respect for the 

people of the Caribbean, and people from different cultures in general.”

The Member impact statements in the service project narratives noted how NCCC participation 

impacts oral and written communication skills. One NCCC team reported, “The team honed and 

refined new life skills like listening with compassion, responding with empathy...”

Members in some cases improved on professional interpersonal communication, as this quote 

illustrates, “Delta 6 improved their interpersonal skills through communication with the various 

site supervisors.”

Another NCCC team reported, “Members located within the Voluntary Agency Liaison and 

External Affairs department received skills in case management, creating and submitting order 

request forms, as well as professional phone etiquette.”

A FEMA project reported, “Interacting with survivors allowed Members to improve 

communication skills and continue developing interpersonal skills.”

Corps Members gained critical experience in both effective teamwork and leadership. A team 

working with Habitat for Humanity reported how the experience had helped foster both 

leadership and teamwork among Members: 
69

“Because the work site is so large and outside volunteers are constant, the Members of 

the team have been able to develop their own personal leadership skills on site taking 

control of a specific task and becoming the expert on leading others in completing this 

task. This leadership has also played well into team dynamics since each Member must 

share and teach their newly acquired skills with others on the team.”

A FEMA Corps team noted, “Everyone on the team developed in their own way as leaders and 

everyone on the team took the opportunity to prove not only to the team, but to FEMA as well 

that young people can be mature, adapt to the situation given, and take it head on.”

In some cases, Corps Members stepped into leadership positions, as the following example 

illustrates: 

“Members of the team also were able to practice their meeting-running skills and public 

speaking by running the daily All Hands and Hearts 5:30 meetings covering work 

accomplished that day, work for tomorrow, meeting notes, shout outs, and assignment of 

Base responsibilities. An excellent example is CM Mary Smith13 stepping into a role as 

Base Manager for a portion of time while in Coastal Bend, undertaking responsibilities 

such as organization of various base operations, grocery shopping, and delegating tasks 

to volunteers on base duty for the day.”

Civic Orientation and Engagement 

Many NCCC teams reported impacts on Members’ civic orientation and engagement, which is 

likely due to increased Corps Member knowledge about the need for and efforts to strengthen 

communities. One team reported how their experience helped to instill a commitment to future 

service, writing: 

“Though the team noted marked differences between military service and 

national/community service, the team also found that the two were rooted in similar 

values that emphasized the importance of community, working in service of others, and 

securing a brighter future. This connection invigorated the team in understanding the 

context of their own service and the value of long-term professional commitment to 

service.” 

In some cases, Corps Members witnessed and learned from organizational efforts, as this quote 

illustrates, “A huge benefit that was given to Oak 5 was the ability to see a well-run nonprofit 

organization and the wood, dedication, and passion that go into making a successful impact.”

A NCCC team working on a disaster project reported, “On the project, Members were able to 

get a sense of all the different tasks that go into responding to a disaster through looking at what 

the MA tasks were.”

In some cases, Corps Members learned more about civic engagement and participation. A NCCC 

team’s learning about civic processes inspired Corps Members, as this narrative reported: 

13 Name has been changed.
70

“The team was able to interact with various city employees and officials and learned 

more about how city town hall meetings, cops meetings, and board meetings for Keep 

Jackson Beautiful are carried out. Many Members were inspired to continue to learn 

about these topics and want to carry this information forward with them into their lives 

after AmeriCorps NCCC.”

In some cases, the experience fostered a desire to continue serving their communities. A NCCC 

team reported: 

“Many Members have not experienced the devastation from a natural disaster and are 

now gravely aware of the need caused from one. Many said they were very interested in 

continuing to help the Red Cross and similar relief efforts after the NCCC program. 

Providing assistance for clients through the American Red Cross was an experience 

Members will forever hold in their hearts.”
71

Research Question 9: What are the main themes associated with strengthening 

communities and Member impact? 

We identified the main themes through a thematic analysis of the community impact narrative 

statements using ATLAS.ti software and a codebook developed by JBS, in collaboration with 

NCCC (see Appendix A).

Strengthening Communities 

The main themes associated with strengthening communities are enhancing built and natural 

capital; increasing organizational infrastructure, including FEMA infrastructure and organization 

of donations, supplies, and data; enhancing organizational effectiveness; providing for 

individuals’ basic needs, including affordable housing; providing disaster assistance; and 

supporting human capital and learning. As previously noted, NCCC projects strengthen 

communities at the community, individual, and organizational levels. 

At the community level, the most common theme was associated with service projects to 

improve communities’ built and natural capital (2,463), as shown in Figure 31. Built and Natural 

Capital activities include creating or improving built community assets, like playgrounds or 

trails, or natural assets, like parks. 

Figure 31: Community Level Impacts of NCCC Projects 

89

234

266

365

513

2463

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Number of Projects (N = 4,761)

Built and natural capital

Special events

Camps

Garden and farms

Disaster mitigation public lands

Expected Economic Benefit
72

The themes also reveal impacts on the individuals in the communities served (Figure 32). The 

most common themes identified were support basic needs (756); provide disaster assistance 

(738); support human capital and learning (726); increase physical health and safety (587); 

provide psychosocial benefits (373); and serve special populations (298). Under psychosocial 

benefits, NCCC projects helped individuals recover from disasters (124); enhance trust in the 

government or FEMA (78); and improve food security (47). 

Figure 32: Individual Level Impacts of NCCC Projects 

49

74

78

97

188

213

279

298

303

373

411

577

587

726

738

756

Number of Projects (N =4,761)

Basic needs

Disaster assistance

Human capital and learning

Physical health and safety

Volunteer engagement and

effectiveness

Crisis

Psychosocial benefits

Affordable housing

Special populations

Disaster home livability

Disaster knowledge - preparedness

Disaster home refurbishment

Veterans

Expected Economic Benefit

Return to home and work

Tax refunds
73

Based on the identified themes, NCCC service projects also support communities through 

organizational infrastructure improvements (1,848) and organizational effectiveness (1,216).

Organizational infrastructure refers to both physical infrastructure, like buildings or office 

equipment, data, reports or materials, and policies or procedures as exhibited in Figure 33. 

Organizational effectiveness refers to enhancing the organization’s ability to expand its services, 

relieving organization staff of some of their work burden, or increasing the efficiency of the 

organization. 

Figure 33: Organizational Level Impacts of NCCC Projects 

NCCC projects tend to engage in multiple impact areas. Of the 4,761 service projects, in 860 of 

them we identified an impact both on individuals’ basic needs and on supporting people in crisis. 

For example, one NCCC project provided assistance to the homeless: 

“In Friendship Park, Blue One passed out 21,576 lunch tickets, assisted 895 guests in the 

park, and assisted with monitoring 620 showers. In the Dining Hall, the team served 

23,167 guests meals. At Mustard Seed School, members tutored a total of 314 students, 

including 100 elementary school students and 80 middle school students, and also 

assisted with 13 field trips. At Mary House, Blue One sorted 3,000 school supplies, 

served 1,737 guests breakfast, sorted and organized 1355 pounds of donations, including 

183 bags for Mother’s day, 545 shoes, 5969 diapers, 525 pounds of clothing, 13951 baby 

wipes, 150 scarves, 2707 socks, 9 bins of miscellaneous items, 7344 mixed toiletries, 

1672 pieces of mail, attended 2 staff meetings, cleaned 7 rooms, and assisted 699 guests 

in the dispensary. In total Blue One assisted 46,582 guests while working at Loaves and 

Fishes.”
74

In 1,031 service projects, the themes show that NCCC teams worked with individuals in crisis 

and providing psychosocial benefits. For example, one project reported how they helped provide 

assistance to disaster survivors as well as lent a listening ear: 

“Cedar 7 served alongside volunteers from NECHAMA and the International Orthodox 

Christian Charities (IOCC) to alleviate some of the stress and loss and to help put each 

homeowner back in a safe and stable home. A lot of the homeowners the team served did 

not have any other support and found themselves in extremely stressful and difficult 

situations. Some homeowners were elderly or had disabilities which further complicated 

their recovery efforts. Cedar 7 may not have been able to completely recover their homes 

or possessions, but even the smallest of tasks the team could help with seemed to make a 

difference to many residents. Whether it was a roof that needed a small tarp, or just a 

chance for survivors to share their story, residents of Flagler Beach are now better able 

to take their first steps on the long path towards recovery from Hurricane Irma’s 

impact.”

In 306 service projects, we identified themes on both home refurbishment and individuals’ 

physical health and safety. One NCCC team wrote: 

“Within Williamsburg and Georgetown counties there are many low-income households 

who did not receive assistance after the flood through insurance or FEMA. AHV has 

been providing mold sanitation and working to rebuild these homes where in some cases 

the homeowners were living with black mold which can lead to serious health issues. 

Delta 3 benefitted the community by giving AHV an extra ten volunteers to help complete 

repairs on more homes in a timelier manner. Homeowners and in some cases the 

homeowner’s families were able to move back into homes that were rebuilt into 

functional structures knowing that the mold had been sanitized.” 

Member Impacts 

The main themes associated with impacts on Members can be divided into life skills, 

professional skills, and increased civic engagement and orientation.

Under life skills, the theme of personal growth (916) came up frequently, such as increased selfefficacy, confidence, and resilience. Another theme was Member increased awareness, 

knowledge, and skills in dealing with people different from themselves (633) and Member’ 

increased knowledge of strategies and skills to plan, prepare, execute, and assess endeavors (539) 

(see Figure 34). 
75

Figure 34: Life Skills Gained by Members 

Most of the 4,761 projects we analyzed described one or more impact on Corps Members’ 

professional skills, including technical skills (3,994) and managerial skills (2,672) needed for 

success in the workplace. One hundred of the project narratives also described how national 

service helped inform Members about career choices, affirming or changing their career 

interests. As we illustrate in Figure 35, within technical professional skills gained, NCCC teams 

described construction skills (1,381), environmental management skills (1,418), computer skills 

(711), and working with people in crisis (493). Within managerial skills, NCCC teams described 

oral and written communication skills (1,249), leadership skills (977), and teamwork skills (636). 

Finally, NCCC teams described impact on Corps Members’ knowledge, understanding and 

learning about strengthening communities. This included learning how relationships with 

community-based organizations and coalitions function and increasing civic knowledge and civic 

participation, such as knowledge about how to volunteer or how to collaborate with community 

members to solve community problems. 

Figure 35: Professional Skills Gained by Members 
76

Research Question 10: What are NCCC’s service project contributions to communities’ 

disaster preparation and mitigation? 

Disaster preparation and mitigation is the third largest accomplishments group, following natural 

resources and disaster recovery (see Table 4). We examined types of outputs in the Disaster 

Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation output category to assess NCCC’s contributions in 

supporting communities in preparing for and mitigating disasters. Based on the thematic analysis 

of community impact narratives, we grouped these outputs into 10 subcategorizes that identified 

outputs most closely tied to preparing for and mitigating disasters. Table 21 shows the number of 

outputs in each subcategory. 

Table 21: Subcategories for Disaster Preparedness, Prevention, and Mitigation 

Subcategory Number of Outputs

Disaster knowledge and preparedness 1,026

Organizational infrastructure 514

Organizational effectiveness 402

Built and natural capital 294

FEMA-related organizational infrastructure 232

Disaster assistance to individuals 202

Home refurbishment 118

Disaster mitigation on public lands 101

Physical health and safety 9

Assisting individuals in crisis 1

Disaster Knowledge and Preparedness 

Activities classified as disaster knowledge and preparedness include distributing information 

through the public to increase individuals’ knowledge and preparedness for disasters. Table 22 

lists the specific types of outputs for this subcategory. 

Table 22: Outputs under Disaster Knowledge and Preparedness 

One example of the work performed under this subcategory as reported by a NCCC team: 

“The work done by Pine 3 supporting preparedness programs with the American Red 

Cross had numerous benefits to the community. The team’s work on the Home Fire 

Prevention campaign assisted in protecting individuals from injury or death from fires. 

There is a lot of misinformation, or lack of information, concerning fires and what to do 

in case of one. This causes thousands of injuries and deaths every year in the United 

Outputs Number of Outputs Percent

Number of informational documents or publications 

assembled or distributed

326 31.77

Information provided to X individuals 211 20.57

Disaster information disseminated 207 20.18

Disseminating disaster information 147 14.33

Educational materials and/or preparedness kits 

distributed

135 13.16
77

States. By educating individuals about how to reduce the chances of fire and how to 

safely respond were one to occur, those people are less likely to be injured, or worse, in 

the case of an emergency. This directly protects the welfare of thousands of individuals in 

the community.”

Organizational Infrastructure 

Organizational infrastructure includes developing materials or facilitating training. These 

projects also played a role in increasing data or infrastructure for organizations such as 

enhancing organizational infrastructure like procedures and protocols. Table 23 summarizes 

these types of outputs. 

Table 23: Outputs under Organizational Infrastructure 

One NCCC team recorded an example of such work, writing: 

“During the 13 weeks of service, Bayou 5 worked to accomplish many different tasks: the 

team identified resilient commodity Points of Distribution (PODs) using various GIS 

techniques, updated a staff directory for all of FEMA Region I, rectified Environmental 

and Historical Preservation data sets, spent 3 days in Vermont providing around-theclock GIS support for the Massachusetts Urban Search & Rescue Task Force-1, helped 

try and solve a possible trend of increasing disaster declarations across Region I, and 

provided coastal flooding maps to be used in damage assessments after a severe storm.”

Another project reported, “In addition, members reached the community through social 

media by writing e-briefs, attending periscope events, and creating media toolkits. 

Through media, the team’s work reached a large number of Americans, informing them 

to actions they could take to become prepared.”

Organizational Effectiveness 

Activities under organizational effectiveness include working on grant applications and project 

worksheets, supporting disaster simulations and exercises, and inspecting and installing 

emergency equipment (Table 24). Such activities are intended to facilitate organizational 

efficiency and effectiveness. 

Outputs Number of Outputs Percent

Number of training or instruction materials 

developed

257 50.00

Number of trainings or workshops conducted or 

facilitated

134 26.07

General administrative duties performed 123 23.93
78

Table 24: Outputs under Organizational Effectiveness 

For example, one team reported how the work they did saved FEMA time and effort: 

“Because of the work Gulf 3 accomplished, disaster survivors will receive life-saving and 

life-sustaining supplies such as water, MRE’s, blankets, and medical supplies faster than 

they otherwise would have. The FEMA staff will not have to spend time re-packaging 

commodities before shipment, checking for expiration dates, or fumbling with insecure 

loads, because this team worked efficiently to get these things done.” 

Another team reported assisting in the grant writing process, “Gulf 2 updated and submitted 539 

grants for the Texas Consolidated Resource Center (CRC) consisting of a total of 2058 hours, 

which assisted with supporting the recovery process for declared disasters across the United 

States.”

Built and Natural Capital 

The built and natural capital subcategory includes removing brush and undergrowth to prevent 

fires and prescribed burns to prevent fires (Table 25). Two-hundred ninety-four programs 

reported outputs that fell under the Built and Natural Capital subcategory. 

Table 25: Outputs under Built and Natural Capital 

One team reported, “The focus of the twelve workday project was to remove the invasive species 

burdock and beggar’s lice as well as to create brush piles from timber downed by Winter Storm 

Atlas in October 2013 to help mitigate wildfire danger on the property.” 

Another team reported, “Under the supervision and guidance of the BYLT, Gold One was able to 

remove 13,202 pounds of invasive species from the land covering 2.5 acres in total. 4 acres of 

brush were removed and 0.25 of that was burned for fire prevention.”

FEMA-Related Organizational Infrastructure 

Two-hundred thirty-two projects reported outputs that fell under the FEMA-Related 

Organizational Infrastructure subcategory, as summarized in Table 26. 

Outputs Number of Outputs Percent

Grant Applications or Project Worksheets 

Drafted, Reviewed, Updated, or Submitted

200 49.75

Disaster simulations or exercises 

supported

143 35.57

Number of emergency equipment 

inspected or installed

59 14.68

Outputs Number of Outputs Percent

Acres of brush or undergrowth removed to prevent 

fires

231 78.57

Acres of land burned in prescribed burns to prevent 

fires

63 21.43
79

Table 26: Outputs under FEMA-Related Organizational Infrastructure 

One NCCC team described the management of a FEMA warehouse: 

“Five of the team members were assigned to the warehouse, where all of the donations 

would be sent. Corps members helped to unload the trucks as they came in to the loading 

dock, palletizing as necessary and ensuring that the materials could safely be transported 

via forklift around the large storage area. They were also responsible for setting up a 

system for sorting donations into different groups, so that when certain supplies were 

needed they would be easier to access.” 

Another team described their work managing water distribution, “The team also pioneered the 

effort to move the water distribution center into the remaining recovery site and team members 

were the ones to create and implement the system they continue to use.”

Other Outputs that Contribute to Disaster Preparedness, Prevention, and Mitigation 

In addition to these most common subcategories listed above, NCCC projects reported these 

other outputs related to the Disaster Preparedness, Prevention, and Mitigation output category 

(Table 27). This work varied from improving technologies or programs to conducting outreach 

and installing smoke detectors. 

Table 27: Outputs under Other 

One team described assisting in fire suppression activities: “Fire 4 had the privilege to engage in 

direct fire suppression activities during this project. The team was dispatched on the Peewink 

Fire near Sugarloaf Mountain late in the round. Fire 4 participated in both the Initial Attack and 

mop-up of the fire.”

Outputs Number of Outputs Percent

Number of new or improve technologies, processes, 

or programs designed or implemented

172 74.14

Shelters assessed or surveyed 47 20.26

Warehouse/Distribution centers managed 13 5.6

Outputs Number of Outputs Percent

Number of kits assembled 147 22.17

Number of homes protected from disaster damage 66 9.95

Outreach conducted 55 8.3

Homes or other buildings protected from damage in a 

disaster

52

7.84

Acres of land in which fire was suppressed or 

contained

49

7.39

Sandbags filled or installed 41 6.18

Number of public spaces or facilities protected from 

disaster damage

11

1.66

Smoke detectors installed 9 1.36

Individuals sheltered 1 0.15
80

Teams also helped install smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors; “Fire Seven also 

installed smoke and carbon monoxide detectors along with high efficiency light bulbs.” 

In Arizona, a team helped protect communities from torrential rains: “In the two days the team 

worked on sandbagging, they bagged and palletized 1,720 sandbags to be placed in Sedona.”
81

Research Question 11: What are NCCC’s service project contributions to support recovery 

and response in communities that experienced disaster? 

We examined the types of outputs in the Disaster Response (Table 28) and Disaster Recovery 

output categories (Table 29). 

Table 28: Disaster Response Outputs 

Outputs Number of Outputs Percent

Disaster Service Facilities supported 371 23.35

Mucked and/or Gutted 327 20.58

Pounds of debris or trash removed 232 14.6

Volunteer facilities supported in disaster areas 198 12.46

Registration or helpline calls answered 152 9.57

Partnerships and coalitions supported 119 7.49

Structures demolished in disaster areas 65 4.09

Shelters assessed or surveyed 41 2.58

Critical needs reported 40 2.52

Non-critical needs referrals 29 1.83

Trees needing removal documented 15 0.94
82

Table 29: Disaster Recovery Outputs 

Outputs Number of Outputs Percent

Resource guides or reports developed or drafted 454 11.07

Number of warehouses supported 298 7.27

Public meetings or forums prepared or presented 297 7.24

Damage or needs assessments completed 274 6.68

Number of maps created or updated 270 6.58

Number of persons in disaster areas registered for assistance 268 6.53

Pounds of Items Sorted, Inventoried, or Repackaged 267 6.51

Number of referrals to voluntary agencies 247 6.02

Number of locations geotagged 191 4.66

Pounds of supplies collected, received or distributed 187 4.56

General administrative duties performed 152 3.71

Case status updates conducted 133 3.24

Number of site visits conducted 129 3.15

Outreach conducted 106 2.58

Functional needs identified 90 2.19

Pounds of donations sorted 90 2.19

Resources identified 83 2.02

Registration or helpline calls answered 81 1.98

Number of support facilities setup or broken down 76 1.85

Number of damage or needs assessments submitted 61 1.49

Public facilities needing repairs documented 58 1.41

Rental resources identified 58 1.41

Acres of land overhauled or restored after a fire 44 1.07

Individuals registered at shelter/NEMIS 39 0.95

Partnerships and coalitions supported 31 0.76

Rental resources referrals identified 22 0.54

FEMA FSAs/ISBs and THUFSAs supported 19 0.46

Sandbags removed after flood waters receded 18 0.44

Individuals receiving supplies from warehouses 16 0.39

Special needs individuals identified or referred for services 16 0.39

Individuals assisted on the 211 call system 11 0.27

Non-critical needs referrals 4 0.1

Occupants moved out of THUs (Temporary Housing Units) 4 0.1

Sidewalks needing repairs documented 4 0.1

Evacuees registered in databases 3 0.07
83

Based on the thematic analysis of the projects’ narrative, we identified subcategories of outputs 

for Disaster Response and Disaster Recovery. These subcategories of outputs are organizational 

infrastructure for FEMA and other organizations (e.g., supporting warehouses and registering 

survivors for assistance); organizing supplies, donations, and data (e.g., receiving and 

inventorying supplies); enhancing organizational effectiveness (e.g., conducting public forums); 

providing assistance to individuals affected by disaster (e.g., referring survivors to voluntary 

agencies),;enhancing disaster-affected homes’ livability (e.g., mucking and gutting); enhancing 

communities’ built and natural capital (e.g., removing trash and debris and submitting 

damage/needs assessments’ documenting repairs needed at public facilities); mitigating disasters 

on public lands that were previously affected by disasters (e.g., overhauling and restoring land 

after a fire); and providing other forms of assistance to those affected by disasters. Table 30 lists 

the number of outputs in each subcategory for both Disaster Recovery and Disaster Response, 

after which we describe the five most frequently occurring sub-categories.

Table 30: Disaster Response and Recovery Outputs by Sub-Category 

Subcategory Number of Disaster 

Recovery Outputs

Number of Disaster 

Response Outputs

Organizational infrastructure 1,282 236

FEMA-related organizational 

infrastructure

1,046 41

Organizing supplies, donations, and/or 

data

544 0

Organizational effectiveness 457 688

Disaster home livability 0 624

Disaster assistance to individuals 414 0

Built and natural capital 152 0

Disaster mitigation on publication lands 61 0

Affordable housing 58 0

Assisting individuals in crisis 50 0

Basic needs 16 0

Assisting special populations 16 0

Return to home and work 4 0

Organizational Infrastructure 

NCCC projects provided organizational infrastructure support to other disaster-focused projects 

and organizations. For Disaster Recovery projects, this support included activities such as 

developing resource guides and reports (454), completing damage and needs assessments (274), 

performing general administrative duties (152), and conducting case study updates (133). For 

Disaster Response projects, this support included answering registration and helpline calls (152), 

reporting critical needs (40), providing non-critical needs referrals (29), and documenting trees 

needing removal (15). 

One team worked with the American Red Cross in North Carolina and reported: 

“Bayou 5 was able to start working on the assigned projects. The entire team was trained 

by the Disaster Program Manager of the Triangle Area Chapter in how to conduct a 
84

shelter survey as well as how to properly fill out the shelter survey form. The team was 

able to conduct 10 shelter surveys throughout the project. Several Corps Members were 

also trained and able to update the Region’s shelter information in the National Shelter 

System.”

FEMA-Related Organizational Infrastructure 

Many service projects that worked on Disaster Recovery and Response activities supported

FEMA by enhancing physical infrastructure and data related to the needs of current and potential 

disaster survivors. Under Disaster Recovery, these activities included, for example, supporting 

warehouses (298), creating and updating maps (270), and registering disaster survivors for 

assistance (268). Under Disaster Response, these activities included assessing and surveying 

shelters (41). 

One of the ways that NCCC projects provided organizational infrastructure support to FEMA 

was by registering those in need of assistance and otherwise recording data and information. For 

example, one NCCC team wrote:

“Azul Five assisted the city of Tallahassee, Florida and Leon County by providing 

registration assistance, case inquiries, and case updates for disaster assistance. The team 

interacted with community leaders and disaster survivors as a part of FEMA’s mission to 

assess and canvass impacted areas. Members were able to register survivors and provide 

information and updates to local officials on the registration process. The service 

provided by Azul Five will help the citizens of Leon County to recover and from this 

disaster.” 

Another team reported: 

“Alpine Three worked at the Joint Field Office (JFO) in Bloomington, Minnesota to meet 

the mission of Public Assistance recovery for DR-4182 (Minnesota Flooding). The team's 

main focuses was preparing Project Worksheets, documenting eligible costs, conducting 

site visits, making Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps. Alpine Three's tasks and 

goals contributed to getting the state of Minnesota and the effected counties to predisaster conditions.”

In addition to organizing and recording data, NCCC Members also helped FEMA with physical 

infrastructure tasks. For example, one team reported: “The team also helped to increase 

communication across the region by working with Health and Human Services to install a High 

Frequency 100-watt antenna onto the building. This antenna provides a clear channel between 

regional operations on the continent and the US Virgin Islands.”

Organizing Supplies, Donations, or Data 

Many of the teams that worked on Disaster Recovery service projects helped organize supplies, 

donations, and data for disaster recovery activities. These activities included sorting, 

repackaging, and inventorying items (267); collecting, receiving, and distributing supplies (187); 

and sorting donations (90). 
85

One example of the work performed under this subcategory was reported by an NCCC team: 

“Key 2 provided vital support to keep the Red Cross operation running smoothly. Several 

Members were involved in logistics, receiving, inventorying, distributing, and reordering 

supplies for the shelter, which kept the residents clothed, fed, and comfortable.” 

Another project reported, “FEMA Gold Two supported the Voluntary Agency Liaison (VAL) 

team over a six-week period. The team was assigned to 3 sections within the VAL department. 

Three Members supported the Oklahoma Multi-Agency Warehouse (MAW). The team sorted, 

inventoried and moved over 100,000 pounds of clothes, food and supplies to send out to 

survivors.”

Organizational Effectiveness 

NCCC teams worked on service projects that helped increase organizational efficiency and 

effectiveness. Activities under Disaster Recovery related to organizational effectiveness include 

preparing and presenting public meetings or forums (297), conducting site visits (129), and 

supporting partnerships and coalitions (31). Activities under Disaster Response outputs include 

supporting disaster service facilities (371), supporting volunteer facilities in disaster areas (198), 

and supporting partnerships and coalitions (119). 

One project highlighted their work in this area, writing, “Earth 4 has improved their social 

media sites as well as updated them regularly throughout the round...The team was able to help 

Rebuild Joplin get caught up on all volunteers who have signed up online in the past before the 

NCCC team arrived and entered all information into the team’s new system as well as contacted 

them to follow up on their volunteer dates”

Disaster Home Livability 

NCCC Members mucked and gutted homes (327), removed trash and debris (232), and 

demolished structures in disaster areas (65) to make homes affected by disasters more livable. 

For example, one project team wrote, “The team suited up to do a proper muck and gut of the 

damaged rooms inside, demolishing the mold filled ceilings and removing damaged insulation—

all of which has been sitting for 3+ years. After the rooms were treated for mold, the team was 

able to begin installing insulation and drywall.” 

Another team reported, “Additionally, spraying homes/structures for mold suppression ensured a 

safer and healthier environment for homeowners who were living in their damaged homes.”

Disaster Assistance to Individuals 

NCCC Members provided direct assistance to disaster survivors by providing referrals to 

voluntary agencies (247), conducting outreach (106), and submitting damage or needs 

assessments (61). 

One team described the benefits that disaster survivors received: 

“As soon as Summit 5 arrived in Austin, the team hit the ground running to assist 

disaster survivors. Covering four different Disaster Service Facilities in four different 

communities, the team scattered Hays County. After a few weeks of going to door-to-door 
86

and staffing fixed registration sites, the team had assisted 3,179 survivors by 

disseminating disaster information. The team also provided 9 case updates and 57 

referrals to community partners. Once the DSA mission was completed, the team worked 

with Voluntary Agency Liaison partners to muck and gut four homes that had been 

damaged by the disaster.” 

Another project described its work: 

“Eagle 1 spent majority of their time completing Disaster Survivor Assistance (DSA) 

field work throughout Richland County. Our field work consists of identifying high 

impacted areas and going door to door to interact with the residents. We act as a 

resource by answering any questions about the FEMA assistance process, deliver 

information to other resources, provide community referrals as well as assist survivors 

file new registrations, perform case updates & inquiries. Lastly our team provides a 

therapeutic medium for survivors to share their story by actively listening to stories with 

compassion and empathy.”

In the following example, NCCC Members providing direct assistance to disaster survivors, 

including those with intellectual disabilities: 

“By supporting the DSA mission of community outreach, the team was able to reach 

survivors who might not be able to get to DRCs during a disaster, have mobility concerns 

due to age or disability, or individuals who could not understand the assistance being 

offered by FEMA through the telephone or internet, and an at-home visit was necessary 

to better explain the process. For example, the team had a survivor who was living in her 

damaged dwelling and sleeping on a flood contaminated mattress. She had a mental 

health disability that made it difficult for her to leave her home to go to the MRIC at the 

high school to talk to someone there. By visiting her home several times on different days, 

the team was able to aid the survivor by providing disaster specific information and help 

her understand the available resources and assistance for her. The survivor was able to 

receive a mattress through whole community referrals and will be able to have a 

sufficient mattress to sleep on.”

Other Disaster Response and Recovery Outputs 

NCCC teams helped contribute to a variety of other Disaster Response and Recovery outputs. In 

some cases, NCCC Members helped improve built and natural capital in communities affected 

by disasters. For example, this team, working as a part of flood relief efforts in South Dakota, 

wrote the following: “When Maple 2 moved to Rapid City, South Dakota, they served five 

counties within the Black Hills. The team helped at 27 different homes. The team was able to 

remove 73,750 pounds of brush, tree limbs, and logs from homeowners’ yards. The team weedwacked 25 square feet in addition to having moved and stacked 1.75 fire cords.”

In another example, an NCCC team was able to help survivors of a disaster find information 

regarding rental units: “Over the course of this interview, Members provided survivors with 

rental resources and Members ensured that survivors had a place to stay. Not only does this help 

survivors to find a place to stay in their area, but also, it re-assures survivors of the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency's mission and presents a very positive front.”
87

Research Question 12: What are NCCC’s service project contributions in building 

community and organization capacity? 

The thematic analysis of the community impact narratives revealed NCCC teams’ contributions 

in building community and organizational capacity. Organizational capacity building refers to 

“internal or external strategies that use resources or technical assistance to strengthen an 

organization’s capabilities to increase organizational effectiveness” (CNCS, 2017, 

Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool). Community building refers to practices directed 

toward the creation or enhancement of community among individuals within a regional area or 

with a common interest. Table 31 lists the 10 subcategories most closely tied to building 

community and organizational capacity. 

Table 31: Subcategories for Building Community and Organization Capacity 

Subcategory Number of Outputs 

Built and Natural Capital 1,461 

Human capital and learning 993 

Supporting community gardens 

and farms 

614 

Supporting community special 

events

434 

Organizing donations, supplies, 

or data

337 

Organizational effectiveness 222 

Tax refunds 135 

Organizational infrastructure 110 

Assisting special populations 47 

Volunteer engagement and 

effectiveness

31 

Built and Natural Capital 

We counted the highest number of outputs under the subcategory of built and natural capital. The 

most frequent activities in this subcategory, as listed in Table 32, consisted of removing debris or 

trash. NCCC teams also contributed to community and organizational capacity by supporting 

museums or historical sites, the second most frequent activity.
88

Table 32: Community Built and Natural Capital Outputs 

Project narratives frequently described how NCCC Members helped to remove trash and debris 

in the communities in which they worked. A team working at an organization focused on the 

elderly reported, “1/3 of an acre of land was cleared of unwanted brush or vegetation by 

removing 190 pounds of exotic vegetation, 500 pounds of underbrush, and 1300 pounds of debris 

of trash,” and another team reported, “At Fortune School, Silver 5 led 81 volunteers in picking 

up 30 pounds of garbage and unwanted debris from the front parking lot, cleaned 99 windows, 

set up two speed limit signs, assembled 500 recruitment packets, decorated 50 posters, and 

installed two curtains.” 

In addition to removing trash and recyclables, some teams worked to remove natural debris to 

improve yards or maintain trails: “At the Castana Creek Crossing, part of a 4 day community 

build, Members supervised 80 volunteers in removing 205 pounds of invasive species (.5 acres), 

restored 50 feet of stream bed, removed 550 pounds of debris, planted 255 native plants, and 

completed a total of 1 acre of landscaping.”

Other projects focused on supporting museums and historical buildings – sites that often lack the 

funding and capacity to undertake the work needed done to preserve artifacts, maintain building 

upkeep, and provide excellent visitor experiences. One project in Iowa wrote: 

“The NCCC group also helped move a warehouse of historical artifacts to a more secure 

location to help preserve the items. Along with moving the artifacts, they built shelves 

and helped develop a more efficient way to store them. The team also spent most of their 

days working on the Logsdon (which is a paddleboat that belongs to the museum). They 

scraped old paint, primed and re-painted the boat during their entire project.”

In providing these services for community organizations, NCCC Members provided a service 

that organizations themselves were not always able to do. 

Human Capital and Learning 

NCCC teams contributed to community and organizational capacity by supporting human capital 

and learning. Most outputs involved supporting K-12 students through tutoring and summer and 

out-of-school programming (Table 33). 

Outputs Number of Outputs Percent

Pounds of debris of trash removed 1039 71.12

Museums or historical buildings renovated or 

supported

129 8.83

Neighborhood clean up activities organized or 

conducted

105 7.19

Archeological sites supported 53 3.63

Museums or historical buildings supported 47 3.22

Museums or historical buildings renovated or 

restored

46 3.15

Historical cemeteries restored or maintained 42 2.87
89

Table 33: Human Capital and Learning Outputs 

One team described how Members hosted a camp for students to enhance science, technology, 

engineering, math education and other summer learning opportunities for students in Flint, 

Michigan: 

“First the team hosted a two-week STEAM Camp for over 100 kindergarten through 

seventh grade students. This camp, paired with community education and other summer 

programming, helped reduce summer learning loss and kept children off the streets. In 

addition to teaching the students, AmeriCorps service members were able to give love, 

compassion, attention, and help to children who may not get those things anywhere else. 

The children were shown that someone cares about them and their wellbeing.”

In addition to direct education work with children, the project also focused on cleaning up 

graffiti at the school and repairing playground equipment to enhance the overall learning 

environment for children in this area. 

Another project worked with children of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe: 

“Cedar 3 supported the programming efforts of the Sioux YMCA who serves 2,500 

children across the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Reservation each year. Their mission is 

to develop and strengthen the children and families they serve so they can fulfill their 

greatest individual and collective spiritual, mental and physical goals. Sioux YMCA 

fulfills a need on the reservation because the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Reservation 

has the lowest child poverty rates in North America. There is a high need in the 

community for tutoring, mentoring, positive role modeling, and community engagement. 

Cedar 3 assisted the Sioux YMCA by helping to build their capacity through youth 

facilitation, curriculum development, program implementation, and building 

improvements. This service increased consistent and available programming and meals 

offered to the Dupree and surrounding Reservation community served by the Sioux 

YMCA. Cedar 3 met and worked with children and families on the reservation. This 

provided the team the opportunity to understand the meaning in the work the team was 

contributing to, and connect to the community served. Every project task, school 

program, evening program, and program with elders that the team supported helped the 

Sioux YMCA meet their mission and goals.”

Outputs Number of Outputs Percent

K-12 students supported in an out of school program 412 41.49

K-12 students tutored 217 21.85

Summer programs for youth planned or conducted 183 18.43

Hours spent in tutoring K-12 students 72 7.25

Youth participating in summer program 40 4.03

People participating in community safety awareness program 24 2.42

Students taught in English as a Second Language programs 18 1.81

Hours spent supporting English as a Second Language 

programs

15 1.51

Adults tutored 12 1.21
90

Supporting Community Gardens and Farms 

NCCC projects supported community and organizational capacity by developing and 

maintaining community gardens and farms. About 9 in 10 outputs involved starting or tending 

gardens; 1 in 10 harvested food. 

The gardens and farms that NCCC Members worked on are used both for local food production 

and for education about gardening, healthy eating, and dietary diversity. One project narrative 

explained, 

“Water 5 helped UKB build gardens on tribal land for the UKB's Child Development Center and 

Elder Community Center. Additionally, the team worked in the community building personal 

gardens at 6 UKB community member's homes. Team Members collaborated with several Elders 

to help relocate and expand the garden for the Elder Center. The team planted a variety of 

vegetables and herbs, and constructed a wire fence around the 25x30 foot garden bed. 

Additionally, the team initiated a completely new garden for the Child Development Center for 

the children to become engaged in gardening and to learn more about local food production. 

The Child Center staff and children served will enjoy three new raised garden beds that are 

ready for planting. Through all these efforts, UKB community members will have easier access 

to fresh produce and therefore many health and economic benefits.”

As this narrative notes, many of the projects worked to build gardening opportunities that offered 

educational benefits and cultivated an appreciation for gardening and food in Members of the 

community. 

In other cases, NCCC Members’ work at gardens and farms was more directly centered around 

food security for those in need. One such project described how NCCC Members provided 

essential services to a farm that supported a local food bank and provided food for members of 

the community: 

“During their service with the Josephine County Food Bank, Gold 3 harvested 1778 pounds of 

produce and collected 5750 pounds of food from various donors in Grants Pass. These donations 

and produce were then distributed to members of the community who cannot afford their own 

food. The Josephine County Food Bank only has two employees who work the 6 acre farm and 

would not be able to produce the expected 40,000 pounds of fresh produce and do the rest of the 

work necessary to keep the farm going. The new greenhouse Gold 3 built will increase the farm's 

productivity. The fencing the team repaired will keep herbivores from eating what the farm 

grows. The restored barn will be a good space for coordinating volunteers, teaching local 

students about environmental stewardship and gardening, and hosting events for the donors to 

the food bank...Gold 3's work educating various groups that visited the farm increased the 

community's awareness of the farm, its activities, and the crisis their neighbors are facing. At the 

same time, the team educated these visitors in proper and environmentally friendly ways to grow 

their own food and become more self-sufficient.”

Supporting Community Special Events 

Four hundred thirty-four NCCC projects helped support special events occurring in the 

communities in which they worked. 
91

For many community-based organizations, special events are a key opportunity to raise 

awareness and funds for their organization. By supporting these events, NCCC Members 

strengthen organizations’ ability to fund their work and generate interest and excitement around 

the work of the organizations. One project explained: 

“Earth 6 strengthened the community by assisting in putting on Wildwoods Lanterns 

festival that serves as the primary source of revenue for year. Wildwood provides the 

greater Little Rock community with access to nature, the arts, and diverse cultural events 

and the work of Earth 6 helped to grow the efforts that Wildwood puts forth in engaging 

the community through art and nature. The Lanterns festival itself provides the 

community with a look into Chinese, German, Mexican, and UK culture. Over the course 

of the 3 day festival approximately 4,100 attended. The first month at Wildwood earth 6 

focused primarily on cleaning up the park and helping to change the perception that the 

park is overgrown and uncared for. The work that the team completed helped to sustain 

the park for the coming year, including making trails accessible again and making the 

park a safer place for people to visit and enjoy. By removing invasive species and debris 

throughout the park the team put Wildwood in a better position to grow the green space, 

artistic offerings and educational outreach to visitors of the park.”

In some cases, while Members helped ensure event success, these events also provided an 

opportunity for Members to grow closer to the communities in which they worked. A project in 

Joplin, Missouri explained, “May 22nd commemorated the one-year anniversary of the tornado 

in Joplin and Joplin “celebrated” by holding a Day of Unity. Despite having arrived in Joplin a 

week prior, Earth 2 participated in the day. They started the Day at the Walmart were they 

passed out flags and bracelets. Afterwards, they participated in the town’s Unity Walk, which 

was approximately 3.5 miles long and passed by the areas that were hit the hardest by the 

tornado. The Unity Walk ended at Cunningham Park, where the team passed out programs for 

the memorial and subsequently watched the ceremony.”

Organizing Donations, Supplies, or Data 

NCCC projects also directly supported the work of community organizations by sorting, doing 

inventorying, organizing, and archiving donations, supplies, materials, and data. Most of this 

work involved food donations, but some projects also organized historical materials. 

In many cases, NCCC Members helped receive, inventory, and distribute food for organizations 

such as food banks. One project narrative explained, “Habitat for Humanity also partnered with 

the CARE Food Pantry and Earth 5 distributed 1500 lbs. of food to 30+ individuals.” 

Another project reported, “Members also supported a food and water drive that received 7500 

pounds of food and 288 gallons of water and distributed these goods to 250 local community 

members.” 

A project in Virginia reported: 

“Delta 7 was able to participate in delivering 1,500+ pounds of food from Trader Joes 

on Saturdays to locations where people could come and pick up what they needed for 

their families each week. Along the same lines, Delta 7 helped prepare three mobile food 
92

pantries which were located in specific areas and provided families with food. Working 

directly with people experiencing homelessness also included making and serving 349 

meals over the course of the team’s time in Hampton. These types of services supported 

those with financial burdens, while also allowing those people to focus on other aspects 

of life instead of the where/when of their next meal.”

In a small number of cases, Members helped to sort, organize, and archive historical materials 

such as documents and artifacts to support local museums and historical societies and preserve 

local history. One team worked with a heritage society in Memphis, Tennessee: “River Ten also 

helped organize an area in the Memphis Convention Center that held historical debris from a 

demolished theatre. While in this particular area, River Ten organized the historical debris to 

help MHL inventory the number of historical artifacts from the demolished theatre.”

Other Outputs that Contribute to Community and Organizational Capacity 

Other ways NCCC service projects support community and organizational capacity include, as 

shown in Table 34, expanding or improving existing programs (118), supporting libraries (104), 

conducting or evaluating community assessments (93), and completing tax returns (61). 

Table 34: Outputs under Other 

Projects’ narrative descriptions of their impact on communities capture some of these outputs. 

For example, one project wrote of their work to support libraries in the community: 

“At the second school the library was not being used because there were boxes of 

donated books that had been placed in the library and had not been sorted. The team 

sorted through all of the donated items and put them in their proper place according to 

the type and level of book. Besides these two larger projects, the team was also able to 

sort through books that had been donated to Recovery School District and pick up books 

from the Latter Public Library and deliver all these books to four different schools.”

Some teams received special training and served as volunteer tax preparers for community 

members – including immigrants, the elderly, and low-income populations. For example, one 

team worked to prepare taxes in Kansas City: 

“The community of people the team assisted were generally lower to middle class 

individuals who could not afford to have their taxes prepared. The money that the clients 

would have spent toward tax preparation can now be put toward something more 

Outputs Number of Outputs Percent

Existing programs expanded or improved 118 21.65

Libraries supported 104 19.08

Community assessments conducted or evaluated 93 17.06

Tax returns completed 61 11.19

Dollars returned to communities through tax returns 58 10.64

People assisted with language barriers to receive public service 47 8.62

Community youth leaders recruited or trained 31 5.69

Computer labs installed or supported 17 3.12

Number of individuals assisted with tax preparation 16 2.94
93

meaningful to them and their families, like education expenses, or household bills. 

Providing a free service to lower income families allowed the team to have a tangible 

and impactful presence within the community that improved lives. The team provided free 

tax assistance to over 2,000 families. That’s 2,000 people who would have otherwise had 

to spend a paycheck on tax services.”

Another team in Kentucky reported: 

“Through the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program administered through the 

Brighton Center, River 6 was trained and made available to serve Northern Kentucky 

residents through tax preparation, from Basic level to Advanced including Health 

Savings Account taxes. As a resource, River 6 made a positive impact on more than 125 

families and individuals, returning a total of $375,000 and saving the Northern Kentucky 

area residents at least $18,000 on paid tax preparation. This amount both returned and 

saved can make a real difference in the lives of Northern Kentucky's residents.”

NCCC Members supported communities in numerous other ways. They assisted those with 

limited English-language abilities: “Blue Four also participated in the construction of three 

homes and helped renovate 10 other homes. The team also helped clear one empty lot and 

provided help to 34 senior citizens, one disabled person, and 30 people with language barriers 

to receive assistance.” 

And, they constructed and renovated spaces like computer labs: “A total of 9 rooms were 

renovated, which included a STEM classroom, a computer lab, 2 libraries, an art room, a 

cafeteria/gymnasium, an office and a cafeteria kitchen. In total, the team organized, cleaned and 

painted approximately 6,450.5 square feet of the BUCC, in addition to painting 4 murals.”
94

High-level Findings of FEMA Projects 

This section highlights the characteristics and accomplishments of FEMA Corps service projects. 

This section also summarizes the themes associated with strengthening communities and 

Member impact across FEMA Corps service projects. 

In 2012, the FEMA and CNCS created FEMA Corp, a track of the AmeriCorps NCCC program. 

FEMA Corps is a national service program dedicated to help communities prepare for and 

respond to disasters. 

Project Characteristics

AmeriCorps NCCC FEMA Corps teams completed 1,568 service projects through deployment of 

12,573 FEMA Corps Members and Team Leaders to all 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., 

including 3 U.S. territories (Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands). 

The Federal Government sponsored between 98% and 100% of the FEMA Corps projects each 

year from 2013 to 2019. Local and national nonprofits sponsored about 2% of FEMA Corps 

service projects. 

All FEMA service projects recorded Natural and Other Disasters as their primary issue area14, 

but they also had accomplishments that fell under a secondary issue area. As previous noted, 

secondary issue areas include the five primary issue areas (Energy Conservation (EC), 

Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV), Infrastructure Improvement (INF), Natural 

and Other Disasters (DIS), and Urban and Rural Development (URD)), and five additional 

categories: FEMA (FMA), Populations Assisted and Engaged (VAR), Education Support 

(EDU), Unmet Human Needs (HUM), and Public Safety (PS). More than one-third (40%, 625) 

of FEMA service projects have a secondary issue area. Of the 625 projects with a secondary 

issue area, 525 (84%) have one secondary issue area while 100 (16%) selected more than one, 

resulting in multiple combinations. 

Table 35 shows the distribution across the secondary issue area categories. The FEMA category 

was the most frequent secondary issue area, selected by 1,503 (96%) of the projects, with 522 

service projects (33%) selecting it as their only secondary issue area.15

14 The total number of projects that reported FEMA as their program type was 1,570 projects. There are two FEMA 

projects with primary issue area of Urban and Rural Development (URD). These are errors and excluded from this 

FEMA sites analysis. 

15 “FEMA” is not one of the options for a primary issue area.
95

Table 35: Number and Percent of FEMA Service Projects with Secondary Issue Areas, Fiscal 

Years 2012-2019 Projects (N=1,568) 

Secondary Issue Area Number of 

Projects Percent 

FEMA (FMA) only 522 33% 

Populations Assisted and Engaged (VAR) 40 3% 

FEMA (FMA), Populations Assisted and Engaged (VAR) 23 1% 

Urban and Rural Development (URD) 14 1% 

FEMA (FMA), Urban and Rural Development (URD) 9 1% 

Populations Assisted and Engaged (VAR), Urban and Rural 

Development (URD) 5 0% 

Energy Conservation (EC) only 3 0% 

Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV) 2 0% 

FEMA (FMA), Energy Conservation (EC) 2 0% 

Infrastructure Improvement (INF), Populations Assisted and 

Engaged (VAR) 1 0% 

FEMA (FMA), Environmental Stewardship and Conservation 

(ENV) 1 0% 

FEMA (FMA), Energy Conservation (EC), Urban and Rural 

Development (URD) 1 0% 

FEMA (FMA), Environmental Stewardship and Conservation 

(ENV), Populations Assisted and Engaged (VAR) 1 0% 

FEMA (FMA), Infrastructure Improvement (INF), Urban and Rural 

Development (URD) 1 0% 

NCCC records 16 characteristics about their service projects. Characteristics are based on the 

service project’s outputs/accomplishments, and a service project may have more than one 

characteristic. Of the 1,568 completed FEMA service projects, 1,418 had one or more 

characteristics. As shown in Figure 36, the most frequent characteristics were capacity building 

and leverage (93%), disaster assistance provided (58%), and public safety (29%). 
96

Figure 36: Characteristics FEMA Service Projects, Fiscal Years 2012-2019 (N=1,568) 

Note: Percent will not add to 100% because service projects may have more than one characteristic. 

Table 36 shows the Natural and Other Disaster (DIS) issue area where an output type had 100 or 

more counts. Among FEMA service projects, the Disaster Recovery category had the largest 

number of outputs. Within this category, the output type with the highest count was “Resource 

guides or reports developed or drafted” (443,16%). The second largest category in this issue area 

was Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation, and the output type with the largest count 

was “Number of informational documents or publications assembled or distributed” (311, 17%). 

Lastly, in the Disaster Response category, the output type “Disaster Service Facilities supported” 

accounted for 40% of the outputs. 
97

Table 36: Top Output Types Reported by FEMA Projects under Natural and Other Disaster 

(DIS) Issue Area (100 or more counts) 

Output Category Output 

Number of 

Outputs Percent 

Disaster Recovery 

Resource guides or reports developed or drafted 443 16%

Public meetings or forums prepared or presented 292 11%

Number of maps created or updated 254 9%

Pounds of Items Sorted, Inventoried, or Repackaged 240 9%

Number of persons in disaster areas registered for assistance 239 9%

Number of warehouses supported 220 8%

Number of referrals to voluntary agencies 219 8%

Number of locations geotagged 179 7%

Pounds of supplies collected, received or distributed 138 5%

Disaster Prevention, 

Preparedness, and 

Mitigation 

Number of informational documents or publications 

assembled or distributed 

311 17%

Number of training or instruction materials developed 251 14%

Grant Applications or Project Worksheets Drafted, Reviewed, 

Updated, or Submitted 

195 11%

Disaster information disseminated 191 10%

Number of new or improve technologies, processes, or 

programs designed or implemented 

161 9%

Disseminating disaster information 138 7%

Disaster simulations or exercises supported 135 7%

Number of trainings or workshops conducted or facilitated 128 7%

Number of kits assembled 120 6%

Disaster Response 

Disaster Service Facilities supported 247 40%

Registration or helpline calls answered 121 19%

Partnerships and coalitions supported 101 16%

Special Population People assisted in disaster areas 320 100%

Figure 37 represents the FEMA issue area with output types that had 40 or more counts. The size 

of the slices is based on the outer layer, which is the total count for the output type. Under the 

FEMA issue area, the Disaster Recovery output category had the most variety of output types 

with more than 40 counts. Within this category, the largest output types were “General 

administrative duties performed” (152) and “Case status updates conducted” (133). The output 

category with the next largest count was Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation. Three 

types of outputs had 40 or more counts in this category, but the largest output type was 

“Information provided to X individuals” with 211 counts. 
98

Figure 37: Top Types Reported by FEMA Projects under FEMA (FMA) Issue Area (40 or 

more counts) 

Community Needs Addressed 

In this section, we describe FEMA teams’ accomplishments in addressing community needs 

across each issue area. In our analysis, we use the 10 output categories as the measure of 

community needs. All of the 1,568 FEMA service projects with outputs were classified in at least 

one of the 10 output categories. Table 37 shows the total number of outputs in each output 

category by issue area. The highest number of outputs are in the Disaster Recovery output 

category in the DIS issue area, which made up 38% of the total outputs of FEMA projects, 

followed by the Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation output category with 25%. 

The FMA issue area also accounted for a high number of outputs. Within this issue area, we see 

that the Disaster Recovery (670) and Disaster Prevention and Preparedness (403) output 

categories were most frequently reported, contributing 9% and 6% of the total outputs between 

2013 and 2019, respectively. 
99

Table 37: Number of FEMA Service Project Outputs by Output Category and Issue Area 

Output Category DIS FMA VAR URD EC ENV INF Total

Disaster Recovery 2,753 670 0 0 0 0 0 3,423

Disaster Prevention, 

Preparedness, and 

Mitigation 

1,850 403 0 0 0 0 0 2,253

Disaster Response 621 84 0 0 0 0 0 705

Special population 320 0 73 0 0 0 0 393

Basic Needs 237 26 0 7 0 0 0 270

Housing 41 0 0 1 0 0 0 42

Community Wellbeing 0 0 0 31 0 0 1 32

Energy and 

Environmental 

Practices 

0 0 0 0 6 2 0 8

Natural Resources 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3

Public Space and 

Infrastructure 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3

Total 5,822 1,183 105 50 6 5 3 7,319
100

Strengthening Communities and Impact on Members 

Impact on Communities of NCCC Projects 

FEMA Corps teams also complete the NCCC Project Completion Reports (PCR) which include 

narratives about benefits to the communities that were served. Teams completed 1,506 FEMA 

Corps PCRs, which were thematically coded and analyzed. FEMA Corps teams strengthened 

communities at the community, individual, and organizational levels. At the community level, 

the most common theme was FEMA Corps teams’ work in augmenting communities’ built and 

natural capital (55). This was closely followed by providing support with special events in the 

community (52), as shown in Figure 38. 

Figure 38: Community Level Impacts of FEMA Projects 

2

4

17

52

55

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Expected economic benefit

Built and natural capital-Gardens and farms

Disaster mitigation public lands

Special events

Built and natural capital
101

Of individual-level impacts, FEMA teams most frequently provided disaster assistance support 

(565). The other common impacts included support to people in crisis (225), helping individuals 

be better prepared for future disasters (194), and assisting individuals meet basic needs (161).

Under psychosocial benefits, FEMA teams helped enhance trust in the government or FEMA 

(53); assisted individuals recover from disasters (47); and improved food security (2) as 

exhibited in Figure 39. 

Figure 39: Individual Level Impacts of FEMA Projects 

In addition to community-level and individual-level impacts, our analysis of FEMA projects 

found organizational-level impacts as shown in Figure 40. These impacts supported communities 

through organizational infrastructure improvements (1,009) and, more specifically, providing 

increased data and infrastructure for FEMA (867). Organizational infrastructure refers to both 

physical infrastructures, like buildings or office equipment, data, reports or materials, and 

policies or procedures. Another general theme observed was organizational effectiveness (507), 

which refers to enhancing the organization’s ability to expand its services, relieving organization 

staff of some of their work burden, or increasing the efficiency of the organization. 

2

3

6

6

8

18

43

47

49

53

57

59

71

83

161

194

225

565

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Psychosocial benefits -Food security

Expected economic benefit

Disaster home refurbishment

Veterans

Return to home and work

Disaster home liveability

Special populations

Psychosocial benefits-Disaster recovery

Basic needs -Affordable housing

Psychosocial benefits -Trust in government or FEMA

Volunteer engagement and effectiveness

Physical health and safety

Human capital and learning

Psychosocial benefits

Basic needs

Disaster knowledge- Preparedness

Crisis

Disaster assistance
102

Figure 40: Organizational Level Impacts of FEMA Projects 

Member Impacts 

Project Completion Reports also included narratives about benefits to the FEMA team Members. 

We analyzed narratives from a total of 1,506 FEMA Corps Project Completion Reports to 

identify the themes of how the experience impacted FEMA Corps Members themselves. The 

main themes associated with impacts on FEMA Corps Members were life skills, professional 

skills, and increased civic engagement and orientation. The most common theme among life 

skills was personal growth (266) which included increased self-efficacy, confidence, and 

resilience. Increased awareness, knowledge, and skills in dealing with people different than 

themselves (134) were common themes that emerged from the narratives as well as Members’ 

increased knowledge of strategies and skills to plan, prepare, execute, and assess endeavors 

(127).

Figure 41: Life Skills Gained by Members 

The FEMA Corps teams described one or more impacts on Corps Members’ technical skills 

(2,608) and managerial skills (1,919) needed for success in the workplace as shown in Figure 42. 

Within technical skills gained, FEMA teams recorded computer skills (602), working with 

100

297

507

867

1009

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Organizational effectiveness -Disaster readiness

Infrastructure -Organized

Organizational effectiveness

Infrastructure -FEMA

Infrastructure
103

people in crisis (319), construction skills (28), and environmental management skills (15). 

Within managerial skills, FEMA teams described oral and written communication skills (577), 

leadership skills (192), and teamwork skills (166). 

Figure 42: Professional Skills Gained by Members 

In addition to the professional skills shown in the figure, FEMA Corps teams described how 

national service helped inform them about career choices, affirming or changing their career 

interests (474). Lastly, 222 FEMA Corps teams described impacts on their knowledge, 

understanding and learning about strengthening communities and how relationships with 

community-based organizations and coalitions work, including increased civic knowledge and 

civic participation (e.g., knowledge of how to volunteer, how to collaborate with other Members 

of the community to solve community problems, how community-based organizations or 

coalitions operate). 

High-Level Findings of NCCC Campuses 

This section summarizes key findings for each of the NCCC Regions: Atlantic, North Central, 

Pacific, Southern, and Southwest. We summarize the projects’ characteristics and how service 

projects strengthened communities and impacted Members from 2012 through Spring 2019. 

AmeriCorps NCCC has four active regions, which are North Central, Pacific, Southern, and 

Southwest. In 2017, AmeriCorps NCCC closed its Atlantic Campus. As mentioned in previous 

sections, the database contains information on 5,004 NCCC service projects completed from 

2012 to Spring of 2019 from the four regional campuses. Of this total, 120 service projects were 

randomly selected from the Atlantic Campus. 

AmeriCorps NCCC’s five issue areas are Energy Conservation (EC), Environmental 

Stewardship and Conservation (ENV), Infrastructure Improvement (INF), Natural and Other 

Disasters (DIS), and Urban and Rural Development (URD). As shown in Figure 1, the top three 

issue areas are Natural and Other Disasters (DIS), Urban and Rural Development (URD), and 

Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV). About half of the service projects are 

within the issue area of Natural and Other Disasters (DIS) while the second most frequent issue 
104

area is Urban and Rural Development. Another common issue area is Environmental 

Stewardship and Conservation (ENV). 

A service project’s outputs (accomplishments) determine the project characteristics. Moreover, a 

service project may have more than one characteristic. Of the 5,004 service projects, 4,796 of 

reported one or more characteristics. The following section examines the characteristics of the 

service projects in each region. 

Project Characteristics 

Issue Areas and Project Characteristics by Region 

Figure 43 below shows the distribution of service projects by issue areas by region. Natural and 

Other Disasters (DIS) was the most frequent issue area for NCCC service projects, followed by 

Urban and Rural Development (URD). However, most of the service projects in the DIS issue 

area were completed in the Southern and Pacific regions. The Southwest region had almost the 

same number of completed projects in DIS and the URD issue areas. Most service projects in the 

ENV issue area were completed in the North Central and Pacific regions, while most service 

projects in the URD issue area were completed in the North Central, Pacific, and Southwest 

regions. 

Figure 43: Distribution of Service Projects by Issue Area by Region

The top three issue areas for the Atlantic campus are Natural and Other Disasters (DIS) with 61 

projects, Urban Rural and Development (URD) with 27 projects, and Environmental 

Stewardship and Conservation (ENV) with 22 projects. Additionally, of the 120 service projects 

in the Atlantic campus, 41% have the project characteristic of community support. About 36% of 

the service projects have the two project characteristics of capacity building and leverage and 

populations assisted and engaged. 

 
105

The North Central region recorded 1,143 completed service projects. For this region, Natural and 

Other Disasters (DIS) is the most frequently occurring issue area (467), Urban Rural and 

Development (URD) is the second most common issue area (387), and Environmental 

Stewardship and Conservation (ENV) is third (264). The most frequent project characteristics at 

the North Central region were community support (40%), at-risk ecosystems (33%), and 

infrastructure improvement (32%). 

The Pacific region completed 1,404 service projects. Of these service projects, 649 were in the 

issue area of Natural and Other Disasters (DIS). Thus, DIS is the most common issue area in the 

region. Following at 309 projects is Urban and Development (URD), and Environmental 

Stewardship and Conservation (ENV) is next with 263 projects. Almost half of the service 

projects in the Pacific region have a project characteristic of at-risk ecosystems (45%). Two 

other common project characteristics found were community support (43%) and infrastructure 

improvement (41%). 

There were 1,347 completed service projects in the Southern region. More than two-thirds, 68%, 

of the Southern region’s service projects identified their primary issue area as Natural and Other 

Disasters (DIS) (922). Furthermore, capacity building and leverage compose almost half of the 

project characteristics in the Southern region’s service projects; 44% of projects focused on 

providing disaster assistance, while 31% focused on housing. 

The top three issue areas for the Southwest campus are Natural and Other Disasters (DIS), Urban 

and Rural Development (URD), and Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV). 

Although Natural and other Disasters (DIS) was the most frequent issue area (373 of the 990 

service projects), Urban and Rural Development (URD) also had a high number of projects 

(364). More than half of the Southwest’s projects were characterized as community support 

(51%). We also found that 42% of this region’s service projects improved infrastructure, and 

39% worked on at-risk ecosystems. 

Community Needs Addressed 

We identified the output categories of 4,769 service projects by grouping together outputs 

(accomplishments). The analysis for the output categories was guided by the primary intended 

outcome found in the AmeriCorps NCCC Team Project Output document. We grouped these 

primary intended outcomes into 10 overarching output categories: Basic Needs; Community 

Well-being; Disaster Prevention, Preparedness and Mitigation; Disaster Recovery; Disaster 

Response; Energy and Environmental Practices; Housing; Natural Resources; Public Space and 

Infrastructure; and Special Populations. We use these categories as the measure of community 

needs. 
106

The Atlantic region reported a total of 824 outputs over a six-year period. Figure 44 shows the 

output categories of service projects at the Atlantic regional campus are Disaster Recovery (139) 

and Natural Resources (122) followed by Special Population (102). Service projects associated 

with Natural Resources cleared acres of unwanted brush or exotic vegetation, tend to trees or 

shrubs, or restore miles of existing hiking trails. Service projects in the output category Disaster 

Recovery prepared or presented public meetings or forums, drafted resource guides and 

developed reports, and registered people in disaster areas for assistance. 

Figure 44: Output Categories of Service Project Accomplishments, Atlantic Campus

The North Central region reported a total of 6,016 outputs over an eight-year span. Figure 45

shows the distribution of the output categories of service project accomplishments in the North 

Central region. The largest output category was Natural Resources (1,299), which included

outputs such as acres of land cleared of unwanted brush or exotic vegetation or new trees 

planted. Disaster Recovery is the second largest output group (870), and it included developing 

or drafting resource guides or reports, referring people to voluntary agencies, registering people 

in disaster areas for assistance, and sorting pounds of items. 
107

Figure 45: Output Categories of Service Project Accomplishments at North Central Campus 

Over an eight-year span, the Pacific campus reported a total of 9,624 outputs across the ten issue 

areas. Figure 46 shows the output categories of service project accomplishments in the Pacific 

region. Most of the service projects fell under the Natural Resources (2,612) category, where 

outputs included removing pounds of exotic vegetation, clearing acres of land of unwanted 

brush, restoring miles of hiking trails, tending to shrubs and trees, and planting native plants. The 

output category Public Space and Infrastructure (1,559) involved outputs such as feet of fencing 

built or repaired, or informative signs built, painted or installed. 

Figure 46: Output Categories of Service Project Accomplishments at Pacific Campus 
108

A total of 7,982 outputs were accounted by the Southern region over an eight-year period. In the 

Southern region, the top output categories reported by service projects were Disaster Recovery 

(1,559); Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation (115); and Natural Resources (976). 

The Disaster Recovery service projects include drafting resources guides, supporting 

warehouses, and presenting and preparing public meetings or forums. Another output category 

that stood out in the Southern region is Natural Resources with 976 outputs. Natural Resources 

outputs include clearing acres of unwanted land, restoring miles of existing hiking trails, and 

removing exotic vegetation. 

Figure 47: Output Categories of Service Project Accomplishments at Southern Campus 

The Southwest regions reported a total of 7,370 total outputs across the ten issue areas over an 

eight-year span. Figure 48 shows the most frequent output categories of service project 

accomplishments in the Southwest region. The top three output categories in the Southwest 

region are Natural Resources (1,579), Community Well-being (1,378), and Public Space and 

Infrastructure (1,219). Typical activities within Natural Resources include clearing acres of 

unwanted land, restoring hiking trails, and removing vegetation. Activities in the Community 

Well-being output category include removing trash, tending to gardens, and supporting K-12 

students in and out of school programs. 
109

Figure 48: Output Categories of Service Project Accomplishments at Southwest Campus 

Sponsor Types 

From 2012 to 2019, 1,439 unique organizations sponsored 5,004 NCCC service projects. Nonprofit organizations made up 34% of sponsors (495 of 1,439 sponsors), sponsoring more service 

projects than any other sponsor type. About 21% (303) of the unique sponsors were federal 

government agencies, and 19% (270) were national non-profit organizations. 

At the Atlantic campus, 41% (48 of 116) of their service projects were sponsored by the federal 

government from 2012 to 2017. Additionally, about half of the other service projects were 

sponsored by non-profit organizations (25%) and national non-profit organizations (22%). 

This pattern was true for the remaining four NCCC campuses as well. From 2012 to 2019, for 

the North Central campus, 37% of service projects were sponsored by the federal government, 

25% were sponsored by national non-profit organizations, and non-profit organizations (23%). 

At the Pacific campus, 37% of service projects were sponsored by the federal government, 36% 

were sponsored by national non-profit organizations, and 13% by non-profit organizations. At 

the Southern campus, more than half of their service projects were sponsored by the federal 

government (55%), followed by non-profit organizations (22%) and national non-profit 

organizations (13%). Lastly, at the Southwest campus, 31% of service projects were sponsored 

by the federal government, 29% were sponsored by national non-profit organizations, and 17% 

by non-profit organizations. 

FEMA Projects by Regions 

There are two types of programs for AmeriCorps NCCC, Traditional and FEMA. The Federal 

Emergency Management Agency also known as FEMA supports citizens and first responders 

during a disaster. From fiscal year 2012 to Spring 2019, there were FEMA Corps teams in all 

five regions: Atlantic, North Central, Pacific, Southern, and Southwest. In 2016, the Southwest 
110

FEMA Corps program ended. In 2017, the Atlantic FEMA Corps program ended, then the North 

Central FEMA Corps program ended in 2019. There are currently two active FEMA Corps 

programs in the Pacific and Southern regions. We analyzed all 1,568 FEMA Corps projects 

completed from 2013 – 2019 across the five regions.

Figure 49: FEMA Projects in Regions from Fiscal Year 2012- Spring 2019 

Since FEMA is focused on disaster recovery and response, all its service projects have an issue 

area of Natural and Other Disasters (DIS). As shown above in Figure 49, the Southern region 

completed the most FEMA Corps projects (593) followed by the Pacific (415). 

FEMA service projects from different regions share project characteristics. The most common 

project characteristic is capacity building and leverage. The second most common project 

characteristic is providing disaster assistance. Another common project characteristic that all 

FEMA projects have is public safety. 

Within all regions, the most common project output category for FEMA projects was Disaster 

Recovery. Service projects that fall under this output category include present or prepare public 

meetings, draft resource guides, and register people in disaster areas for assistance. Other 

frequent output categories include Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation, and 

Disaster Response. Tasks in these project accomplishments include supporting disaster 

simulations or exercises, supporting disaster service facilities, answering helpline calls, 

supporting partnerships and coalitions, and volunteering at facilities that support disaster areas. 

Strengthening Communities and Impact on Members 

Impact on Communities of NCCC Projects 

In this analysis, we looked at how NCCC service projects – both Traditional Programs and 

FEMA Corps – impact communities in the five NCCC regional campuses. Improving 

accessibility to public structures; building trails, gardens, and farms; and supporting youth camps 

are some examples of the work that was impactful to the communities. Furthermore, service 

projects can also impact individuals in the community by helping people meet basic needs like 

food and shelter, receiving disaster assistance, mentoring volunteers and youth, rebuilding homes 

after a disaster, filing tax returns, assisting veterans, and engaging volunteers. 
111

The most common community impact from service projects is built and natural capital. This 

includes services like building trails, gardens, and farms, and improving accessibility to public 

structures. Other common community impacts included helping an organization’s infrastructure 

and increasing an organization’s efficiency. Service projects are impactful by entering 

information in databases or making renovations to the organization’s buildings, finishing projects 

faster, and increasing partnerships. 

Impacts to Members 

We thematically coded the narratives from the Project Completion Reports describing benefits to 

Members. NCCC service enhanced personal and life skills, built professional skills, grew 

interpersonal skills, and fostered an understanding of civic engagement. The emergent themes 

from Members included gaining skills in construction and environmental and land management. 

Additionally, Members grew in computer skills and direct service to people in crisis. NCCC 

teams also described gains in managerial skills, especially communication, leadership, and 

personal growth in areas like adaptability and confidence. Members learned how to work in a 

team, gain awareness and experience with people different from themselves, and gained 

knowledge of career options. 

 
112

Recommendations for Further Development of the Service Projects 

Database 

To support future analysis of the service projects data, we offer several recommendations based 

on our work importing, coding, and analyzing the AmeriCorps NCCC data in the Service 

Projects Database (SPD): 

• Assign unique identifiers (IDs) and names to sites and organizations and create a 

corresponding “look-up table” for reference. This is important because a site entry name 

can vary across service projects resulting in the appearance of multiple sites all of which 

actually refer to the same site (e.g., it is spelled differently, an acronym is used instead of 

the name, an incomplete name is used). Unique IDs will allow AmeriCorps NCCC to 

track organizations and sites over time and delve further and more accurately into 

recurring service projects in the same communities. 

• Consider whether one or more disaster types should be available for entry in the “Type of 

Disaster” field in the Service Project Data Entry form. Currently, the user may select one 

type of disaster, which would be the primary disaster, but the project applications and 

SPRs sometimes describe situations where a service project is addressing several 

disasters. Since only type of disaster is recorded in the data, the additional information 

about other types of disasters is not available for analysis. 

• Review current data tables and see whether tables should be added, consolidated, or 

deleted. Currently, the database has 5 main tables and 13 associated look-up tables. JBS 

staff simplified the process for importing program data with sites, project narratives, and 

project accomplishments using the minimal number of tables necessary. However, there 

might be additional information in the AmeriCorps NCCC database not currently in the 

SPD that would be useful to include in future analysis. 

• Create MS Access summary reports for SPD tables to check data at a glance. Reports can 

calculate and present selected relevant data in a user-friendly format. Such a report might 

be easier to understand than looking at a data table cluttered and complicated by 

extraneous detail. 

• Review AmeriCorps NCCC’s needs and goals for the data in SPD and how the SPD 

might be used by the regions if it were available to them. Test the database with regional

staff to explore whether the SPD might be feasibly and usefully implemented at the field 

level. Assess whether campuses have the technology or staff to maintain an MS Access 

database. 
113

Lessons Learned and Best Practices 

The following lessons learned and best practices emerged from data entry and analysis of the 

Service Projects Database (SPD). 

Database 

The SPD includes current data on programs, accomplishments, and narratives for 5,004 

AmeriCorps NCCC service projects. 

Two best practices for AmeriCorps NCCC regarding the SPD database are to ensure that: (1) the 

database is backed-up nightly on a central server so data is not lost or the back-end data file is 

mistakenly deleted; and (2) that AmeriCorps NCCC staff compact the database at least weekly 

because, as more information is entered and more tables and queries are created, the database 

could be corrupted or damaged and its growth could impede performance or .. 

To ensure that entered data is recorded and saved when using the database’s Project Narratives 

form to conduct thematic coding of the Community and Member Impact statements, users should 

be absolutely certain to click the “Save Record” button at the bottom of the page before 

proceeding to the next project . 

AmeriCorps NCCC Forms 

Project Completion Reports 

JBS staff received data for service projects’ Member and Community Impact statements to code. 

JBS understands “impacts” as benefits to members, due to their participation in the project, and 

benefits to communities because of the work accomplished. Through the coding process, we 

found that some projects were providing only a list of outputs (accomplishments) in the Member 

and Community Impact statements and not highlighting benefits from those accomplishments for 

communities or NCCC Members. To consistently capture more accurate and more complete 

information on the impacts due to AmeriCorps NCCC projects, AmeriCorps NCCC might 

provide guidance or a template for completing the Community and Member Impact statements, 

and an explanation of the difference between impacts and the accomplishments (outputs) that 

projects report elsewhere. 

The narrative of service projects recorded in the PCR typically did not describe intangible 

benefits to the community, especially psychosocial benefits. Guidance and training could be 

offered to NCCC teams to better assess intangible benefits that might not be immediately visible. 

Training could also help NCCC teams assess potential longer-term impacts of their work and

describe those impacts in terms of the sponsor’s larger mission. Providing guiding questions to 

respond to rather than having the teams write a general impact statement would be one way to 

support NCCC teams in describing these benefits. 

It might be useful to make available a condensed list of the Community and Member Impact 

codes at NCCC Team Leader trainings. This would help NCCC teams consider more deeply, 

then document more thoroughly, their work’s impact. While some narratives contained highly 

detailed descriptions, others were quite brief. Although inference would suggest that a project 

had certain types of impact (e.g., Pro – hard – construct while working on a Habitat for 

Humanity project), not all impacts were explicitly described in the narratives. A list at hand of 
114

possible areas of impact would help spur all NCCC teams’ thinking about their work to be more 

descriptive and complete. These guidance materials would be provided either as a list of 

potential impacts to consider or as specific writing prompts. For example, see the following 

guiding questions: 

Community Impact Statements 

• Did Member contributions to this include things like building trails, working on camp 

cabins and infrastructure, working on community gardens and farms, etc. 

• Did Member contributions to this project help to prevent or mitigate future disasters? 

This might include activities such as fuel reduction, increasing knowledge of disaster 

preparedness in the community, or working with an organization on disaster response 

simulations. 

• Did Member contributions to this project include things like providing food or affordable 

housing or less-tangible benefits like mental wellness, food security, or increasing trust in 

government? This might also include activities that help increase individuals’ knowledge 

and skills and provide increased health and safety to individuals. 

• Did Member contributions to this project help respond to a disaster? This might include 

activities like mucking and gutting homes, rebuilding homes damaged by a disaster, or 

helping individuals return to home or work. 

• Did Member contributions to this project help the organization they worked with? This 

might include activities like setting up an office, organizing data files, or preparing 

materials – or expanding programming, writing grant proposals, or spreading awareness 

of the organization in the community. 

• Did Member contributions to this project provide an economic benefit either to the 

community as a whole – such as increasing tourism revenue – or to individuals – such as 

increasing savings? 

Member Impact Statements 

• Did participation in this project affect Member life skills? These skills may include 

Members’ ability to work with diverse people and populations; Members’ personal 

growth in terms of adaptability, flexibility, and confidence; or Members’ knowledge of 

how to plan, execute, and evaluate tasks. 

• Did participation in this project affect Member professional skills? These skills may 

include technical skills – like the ability to use specific tools or computer programs or 

work with crisis-affected populations – or managerial skills – like the ability to 

communicate, lead, or work as a team. 

• Did participation in the project affect Member ability to seek and acquire job 

opportunities? This might include skills such as resume writing, networking, or 

interviewing. 
115

• Did participation in the project affect Member knowledge of or ability to help strengthen 

communities? This might include things like learning how nonprofits function, learning 

how community partnerships can solve challenging problems, or learning about 

volunteerism. 

 Project Application and SPR Forms 

One of the research questions was to analyze how multiple service projects are linked both 

within sponsors and among multiple co-sponsors. AmeriCorps NCCC program data currently do 

not identify unique sponsor or site information to answer this question accurately. If 

AmeriCorps NCCC would like to answer these types of questions, then the Project Application 

and SPR forms will need to include unique IDs for each organization, for secondary sponsors, 

and for sites; this will allow better tracking of where Member, service projects, and 

accomplishments occur. 

Starting in 2017, the Project Application forms allowed NCCC teams to report as many as three 

goals for their service projects. The limited space provided on the form to report each goal might 

have contributed to the inconsistent information reported about project goals. AmeriCorps 

NCCC should consider additional guidance to NCCC teams regarding how to document a 

project’s goals. One example of guidance would explain that the NCCC team is expected to write 

a one-sentence summary of each goal. Alternatively, AmeriCorps NCCC could extend the space 

allotted for goal recording to allow more detailed descriptions of the service project and its goals. 

It might be useful for AmeriCorps NCCC to add a checklist of specific populations that projects 

work with to help ensure consistent reporting regarding specific populations. Such a list might 

include: veterans; people in crisis (including disaster survivors and the homeless); 

immigrants/refugees; disabled persons; Native Americans/tribal communities; and the 

elderly/senior citizens. 
116

Conclusion 

The service projects database (SPD) contains information on more than 5,000 service projects 

completed between fiscal year 2012 and Spring 2019. The SPD is an important tool for 

AmeriCorps NCCC to demonstrate the benefits of national service and how national service 

improves the lives of individuals and strengthens communities. 

Three issue areas account for 94% of all NCCC service projects: Natural and Other Disasters 

(50%), Urban and Rural Development (26%), and Environmental Stewardship and Conservation 

(18%). These same issue areas also accounted for the largest share of service project 

accomplishments (outputs). While most service projects had multiple project characteristics, the 

most frequent were community support (41%), at-risk ecosystems (34%), infrastructure 

improvement (34%), and building or leveraging organizational capacity (34%). Between 2012 

and 2019, 1,439 unique sponsors accounted for the 5,004 service projects captured in the SPD.

Leading project sponsors were the Federal government, national non-profits, and other nonprofits. 

The most common community-level impacts of NCCC service projects were on the built and 

natural capital of communities through work on improving accessibility to public structures, 

building trails, gardens and farms, and supporting youth camps. In the particular issue area of 

Natural and Other Disasters, the most common impacts of service projects on communities were 

enhancing disaster knowledge and preparedness, and increased support for disaster service 

facilities. The most common individual-level impacts were on helping people meet basic needs 

such as accessing food and shelter, receiving disaster assistance, including registration for FEMA 

assistance, and human capital and learning through teaching volunteers or tutoring youth. The 

most common organization-level impacts noted were in infrastructure support, which included 

updating information in organizations’ databases, renovating physical infrastructure, and 

conducting inventories of supplies or donations. The most common impacts on Members were 

enhancing construction and environmental management skills, increasing communication skills, 

building leadership skills, and fostering personal growth in areas like adaptability and 

confidence. 

The SPD will help AmeriCorps NCCC understand the relationship between national service, 

outputs, and short- and long-term outcomes. The data in the SPD is a tool for analyzing the 

impact of service projects on communities served and on Member. The data will also inform any 

future research studies to develop operational definitions of ‘strengthening communities’ and 

‘member development’ in relation to service with AmeriCorps NCCC. 

This report identifies several lessons learned and recommendations springing from the 

development of the SPD and analysis of the data. A key task of the SPD project was to identify 

ways to improve the quality and utility of data generated by NCCC’s service projects to 

maximize the value of this data for program assessment and continuous improvement. Some of 

the most salient recommendations include providing written guidance on Community and 

Member Impact statements and PCRs to help improve the quality and usefulness of the service 

projects narratives; providing more space for NCCC teams to write comprehensive goal 

statements in the project application; assigning a unique identifier to each service site and 

sponsor organization; redesigning primary documentation for disaster-related service projects; 
117

adding a checklist of specific populations served to the PCR; and adding reporting features to the 

SPD. 

AmeriCorps NCCC should consider integrating systematic data collection into daily operations 

and recording the service project data in a central database to facilitate monitoring and oversight 

and assist in identifying strategic goals and benchmarks. A central database with consistently 

defined, systematically collected, high-quality data about NCCC service projects, outputs, and 

outcomes, has the potential for future use in evaluations of the AmeriCorps NCCC program. The 

quality of the analyses conducted using the SPD will depend greatly on the quality and 

completeness of the data that NCCC continues to add to the database. This points to the value of 

harnessing daily business practices and processes to consistently collect well-defined data. 

Integrating more rigorous data collection and better data collection habits into daily operations 

and storing data in a shared database increases the SPD’s utility for real-time use. High-quality 

data also creates the foundation for more rigorous evaluation of AmeriCorps NCCC. 
118

Appendix A: Methodology

This appendix describes the steps taken to code then analyze the AmeriCorps NCCC service 

projects data. NCCC gathers both quantitative and qualitative data on each service project. These 

data include outputs (e.g., number of people served, number of houses built, or trails cleared), 

outcomes (e.g., improved access to economic opportunities or housing, improved food security, 

and increased knowledge of sustainable energy practices), project characteristics (e.g., at-risk 

ecosystems, capacity building and leverage, and disaster assistance provided), type of program, 

issue area, organization, and site geographic location. The forms also capture narratives written 

by the NCCC team that worked on the service project. As further described below, we developed 

a coding framework to code the narrative text, enabling us to document impact of the service 

projects on Members and the communities they serve. 

For research questions 1 through 7, we use frequency, mean, and percentage to describe the 

characteristics of service projects, their accomplishments, and types of sponsors. We analyze the 

themes that emerged from coding the service projects narrative and quoted narratives for 

research questions 8 and 9. A mixed-methods approach (qualitative and quantitative analysis) 

was employed for research questions 10 through 12. 

In addition to quantitative and qualitative analyses, we created separate maps for sponsors and 

service sites, for a total of two Excel files. We used Microsoft Office 365 Excel 3D Map, a 

standard feature in recent versions of Excel, to map sponsor and service site locations. We chose 

Excel 3D Map because, as a feature within Excel, it assures compatibility across computer 

systems. Using a combination of the program dataset and project accomplishments datasets, we 

created the interactive maps for each fiscal year (2012 to 2019). Excel 3D Map uses Bing Maps 

to plot address information. 

The maps are contained within each Excel file and can be accessed by selecting “Insert” on the 

ribbon and then selecting “3D Map.” Each interactive map contains one layer for each fiscal year 

(2012 to 2019) and one layer that displays data for all fiscal years. Fiscal years (layers) can be 

displayed individually, multiple years at once, or all years at once. Users can zoom in to the 

location of an individual sponsor or service site, or search by address, city, or ZIP code using the 

“Find Location” button. Each layer of the sponsor-level map is filtered by type of organization. 

Each layer of the site-level map is filtered by outcome grouping. Each map has two main 

methods of visualization, bubble and heat maps. Additional options include height, thickness, 

colors, opacity of the visuals, and display map labels (e.g., city and street names). The user will 

be able to append additional data to the Excel spreadsheet and update the map with new data 

(using the “Refresh Data” button), provided that all variable names from the new data are the 

same and appear in the same order. 

There are three instances where it will not be possible to map an address or when a close 

approximate address will be mapped. The first instance is that, as with all mapping software, 

Excel 3D Map will not be able to find P.O. Box addresses. There were 173 service sites and 207 

sponsors with P.O. Box addresses. The second instance is that, even when there is a full address, 

Bing Maps might not be able to find it. The third instance is that there are addresses where Bing 

Maps does not have an exact match and automatically attempts to map a close match. The 

Mapping Confidence report in Excel 3D Maps shows percentage of addresses that were plotted 

with high confidence and the specific addresses that have no resolution or close match. The 
119

Mapping Confidence report can be found by expanding the layer for all fiscal years and clicking 

on the percentage of confidence in the “Location” section. For CNCS’s convenience, we copied 

the information from the Mapping Confidence report into a sheet, “No or Near Match 

Addresses,” in each Excel spreadsheet. 

Methodology for Thematic Analysis and Coding of Narrative Text 

We developed a coding framework on key Member and community outcomes based on intensive 

and iterative analysis of narratives from a stratified random sample of 400 service projects. We

reviewed program materials, logic models, and the literature on strengthening communities, 

leadership development, and Member retention. These materials inform the creation of an initial 

set of codes for deductive coding for both Community Outcome and Member Outcome 

protocols. 

Community Outcome Framework 

We developed a framework to codify community outcomes based on narrative text written by 

NCCC teams on each service project. This process began with emergent, inductive-oriented 

coding with approximately 100 service projects. We conducted rapid coding to quickly develop 

an understanding of the narrative data. We used a constant comparative method to ensure that the 

codes were grounded and accurately reflected the data. We then added deductive codes using the 

logic model. Based on discussion with NCCC, ORE, and two subject matter experts, Drs. 

Matthew Hudson-Flege (Clemson University) and Mary Ohmer (University of Pittsburgh), we 

added codes for organizational capacity building. 

We refined the coding framework to distinguish units of analysis (individuals, organizations, and 

community level) and clarity of support (tangible and intangible). Tangible support captures 

outcomes that are clear to observers, such as providing food and clothing to survivors of a 

disaster. Intangible support captures outcomes that are not concrete or clear to observers, such as 

providing emotional support to survivors after a crisis or listening to people in the community 

who are struggling with addiction. 

This careful approach ensured our coding was sensitized to key issues and made the initial set of 

deductive codes more useful while it also made discoveries possible during inductive coding. 

The evolving framework differentiated certain codes and showed that some codes could be 

consolidated or made into subcodes (e.g., making Food security, classified as an intangible, into 

a subcode of Psychosocial benefits). We also worked with NCCC and ORE to clarify disasterrelated activities and suggestions on developing codes to align with FEMA Corps’ language

(e.g., Home Refurbishment was changed to Disaster Home Refurbishment to clarify the context 

within which this work occurred). 

We conducted an initial round of consensus coding and calculated intercoder agreement. This 

first assessment yielded a low intercoder agreement and too many codes, both of which are 

standard and expected in this initial phase of the analysis. We coded an additional 50 service 

projects to assess the frequency of the codes; we eliminated or consolidated rare and overlapping 
120

codes, which reduced the number of codes from 36 to 24.16 For example, we added the Built and 

Natural Capital – Gardens and Farms subcode because “Food security” was discussed less often 

but Built and Natural Capital related to food was still worth noting. 

Member Outcome Framework 

The Leadership Development logic model was the foundation for developing the framework to 

codify Member impact. We selected 40 project narratives and applied deductive codes outlined 

in the logic model. We included additional subcodes that emerged during the coding. 

Based on discussion with NCCC, ORE, and Drs. Ohmer and Hudson-Flege, we refined the 

deductive codes to include additional codes and subcodes, such as Pro-Crisis to capture instances 

during which Members responded to people in acute crisis situations Under the Pro-Success 

code, the subcode Pro-Success-Lead was added to capture and emphasize Members employing 

leadership skills during service and. 

We coded a total of 100 narratives and calculated frequencies for each deductive and inductive 

code. We dropped or consolidated low frequency codes which appeared less than 10% of the 

time. This process reduced the number of codes from 33 to 16. 

16 For the Community Outcome Codebook, we retained rare codes (e.g., tax refunds) since there is more variation in 

Community Outcome narratives and some items are rare but are distinct enough to warrant keeping the code. We

also consolidated some subcodes into parent codes (e.g., built and natural capital, currently a single parent codes, 

was consolidated from three subcodes because distinctions between the subcodes were not meaningful based on our 

analysis of the data). 
121

Appendix B: Supporting Tables and Descriptions

The following tables provide additional analysis to support the research questions in the report. 

Research Question 2: What are service projects’ accomplishments to communities by 

issue/focus areas? 

Tables B-1 through B-26 provide more detailed descriptions of the distribution of total number 

of outputs in each of the five primary issue areas. 

Natural and Other Disasters (DIS) 

NCCC teams reported 9,250 total outputs in the Natural and Other Disaster issue area. Table B-1 

shows the distribution across the output categories. More than one-third (37%) of outputs were in 

the Disaster Recovery category. Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation had 2,496 

outputs. At 283, Housing had the fewest number of total outputs. 

Table B-1: Total Number of Outputs by Output Categories in Natural and Other Disasters 

Primary Issue Area 

Output Category Number of Outputs 

Disaster Recovery 3,431 

Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation 2,496 

Disaster Response 1,505 

Basic Needs 777

Special Population 758

Housing 283

Total 9,250 

We gain further insights into the accomplishments of service projects in the DIS primary issue 

area by examining the distribution of types of outputs in each of the six output categories. 

Disaster Recovery 

As noted in Table 5 above, the highest number of total outputs are for service projects in Natural 

and other Disasters primary issue area is in the disaster recovery output category. We observed 

20 types of disaster recovery outputs, ranging from developing or drafting resource guides or 

reports to removing sandbags after flood waters receded (Table B-2). 
122

Table B-2: Types of Disaster Recovery Outputs – Natural and Other Disasters Primary Issue 

Area 

Here is an example of a disaster recovery output narrative: 

“Gold Five supported the Logistics Division for the Queens Joint Field Office (JFO), for 

disaster 4085/Hurricane Sandy. Members during project helped break down seven 

Disaster Recovery Centers (DRC) and one field office. The team also devoted time to 

assist SharePoint Task Force in preparing and reviewing contracts and funding requests 

for audit, an extremely sensitive mission while FEMA remains under sequestration. Gold 

Five also registered over 85 people during their first day of duty for three different blood 

drives. In addition, the Team also inventoried and distributed FEMA Corps polos and 

sweatshirts to over 120 Members stationed in NYC. One Member of Gold Five also 

assisted in the maintenance and right-sizing of the fleet department. One team Member 

created a specified IT connection floor plan map for the entire JFO. Members also 

inventoried the warehouse and built disability kits for DRCs while at the warehouse.”

Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation 

The second highest number of outputs for service projects in the Natural and Other Disasters 

primary issue area was in the Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation category, with 

2,496 total outputs. We found 20 types of outputs in this output category. The outputs in this 
123

category ranged from preparing informational documents or publications to installing smoke 

detectors in homes (See Table B-3). An example of an output narrative: 

“The community benefits, in the broad view, Jade 1 enhanced a more efficient 

preparedness, response and recovery of the whole community in times of crisis. The 

community now has a better perspective on what it means to be a whole community 

partner in all hazards preparedness, response and recovery. Jade 1 assisted in 

increasing engagement with houses of worship and faith-based private non-profit groups 

that work with seniors, low-income populations, ethnic and religious minorities, people 

with limited English proficiency/low literacy and all people with access and functional 

needs.”

Table B-3: Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation Outputs – Natural and Other 

Disasters Issue Area 

Disaster Response 

The Disaster Response output category shows nine types of outputs and a total of 1,505 outputs, 

with nearly half of the outputs reported under Disaster Service Facilities supported (371) and 

Muck and/or Gutted activities (327). 
124

Table B-4: Disaster Response Outputs – Natural and Other Disasters Issue Area 

One example of a Disaster Response output is: “In this project, Cedar 1 served in the area of 

Oak Park, MI, assisting NECHAMA with their efforts to help families recover from the flooding 

that hit the Metro-Detroit area on August 11. Cedar 1 contributed to response efforts by helping 

to muck and gut 16 homes.”

Basic Needs 

The Basic Needs output category included 11 types of outputs for a total of 777 outputs (Table 

B-5). The most frequent output type is pounds of food collected or distributed, water or clothing 

collected or distributed, assistance provided at mass care facilities. Basic Needs outputs less 

frequently entail persons receiving immunization, immunization programs planned or conducted, 

assisting youth in disaster areas, and cleaning laundry for persons in disaster. 

Table B-5: Basic Needs Outputs– Natural and Other Disasters Issue Area 

As an example of the work performed under this output category, one project noted: 

“Fire Three did a great job transitioning to disaster and supports the ACS staff and 

community. Fire Three transformed an empty department building into a full running 

donation and distribution center in a matter of days. After all was set up the team helped 
125

build up the foundation and leverage volunteers coming in to support the center. By day 

four the center had thousands and thousands of donations. The donation and distribution 

center switched over to just distributing July 2nd. On an average day the center sees 

between 75-125 clients (evacuees of the High Park Fire) a day.”

Special Population 

The Special Population output category had one type of output with a total of 758 outputs. 

Table B-6: Special Population Outputs – Natural and Other Disasters Issue Area 

One example of a Special Population output is: “Many people lost absolutely everything they 

owned and had to start over again. The team cleared much debris from the fire as well as set 

deck footing for disabled residents who have not had the necessary handicapped accessible 

fixtures that they need since the fire hit.”

Housing 

The Housing output category had the lowest number of outputs in 283 total outputs (see Table B7). One project shared their accomplishments by writing, “River 52's work benefitted the 

community by assisting homeowners with repairs and protecting them from further damage. The 

team was also able to help the citizens to feel comfortable in their homes.”

Table B-7: Housing Outputs – Natural and Other Disasters Issue Area 

Environmental Stewardship and Conservation (ENV) 

The next primary issue area for which we examined the distribution of output category is 

environmental stewardship and conservation. NCCC teams reported outputs for 1,915 projects in 

the Environmental Stewardship and Conservation issue area. Table B-8 shows the total number 

of outputs for each of the three output categories, Natural Resources (6,588), Energy and 

Environmental Practices (510), and Public Space and infrastructure (368). 

Table B-8: Output Categories in the Environmental Stewardship and Conservation Issue Area 

Output Category Number of Outputs

Natural Resources 6,588 

Energy and Environmental Practices 510

Public Space and Infrastructure 368

Total 7,466 

We gain further insights into the accomplishments of service projects in the ENV primary issue 

area by examining the types of output in each of the three output categories.
126

Natural Resources 

The natural resources output category has 23 types of outputs under (Table B-9). Three types of 

outputs, acres of land cleared unwanted brush or exotic vegetation, pounds of exotic vegetation 

removed, and miles of existing hiking trails restored composed close to half (46%) of the total 

natural resource outputs. 

Table B-9: Natural Resources Outputs - Environmental Stewardship and Conservation Issue 

Area 

Note: The outputs “Miles of coastal shoreline restored or protected” and “Miles of streambeds, riverbeds, 

riverbanks, or stream banks restored or protected” previously used feet as the measurement for these outputs. 

As an example of the work performed in the natural resource output category, one project noted: 

“The work that the park was trying to accomplish consisted of creating a proper habitat 

for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, referred to as the RCW. River Two was to 

eradicate a surplus of sand pine trees, turkey oaks, and long-leaf pines that were not fit to 

become potential nesting trees for the bird. By clearing certain trees, River Two was able 

Outputs Number of Outputs Percent

Acres of land cleared of unwanted brush or exotic vegetation 1141 17%

Pounds of exotic vegetation removed 1031 16%

Miles of existing hiking trail restored 869 13%

Trees or shrubs tended or cared for 483 7%

Miles of new hiking trails constructed 418 6%

New trees planted 404 6%

Number of native plants planted 393 6%

Feet of erosion controlling walls built or repaired 270 4%

Water bars installed in hiking trails 219 3%

Wildlife species protected or assisted 213 3%

Acres of wildlife habitats restored or protected 195 3%

Pounds of underbrush removed 183 3%

Miles of streambeds, riverbeds, riverbanks, or stream banks restored or 

protected

178 3%

Acres of parks restored or refurbished 157 2%

Parks restored or refurbished 133 2%

Acres of land burned in prescribed burns 88 1%

Pounds of seeds collected 70 1%

Miles of coastal shoreline restored or protected 57 1%

Acres cleared or maintained for animal passage 30 0%

Acres of dunes preserved 30 0%

Acres of wetlands restored or protected 26 0%
127

to open up space and underbrush in three out of ten potential clusters so natural, native 

grasses could take over the forest understory. In roughly four weeks the team cut down 

and removed approximately 15,000 pounds of wood and underbrush over three potential 

clusters spanning a five-acre area.”

Energy and Environmental Practices

Energy and environmental practices is one of the three output categories in the ENV primary 

issue area. This category has three types of outputs (Table B-10), all of which reflect teaching or 

providing some form of environmental education. 

Table B-10: Energy and Environmental Practices Outputs - Environmental Stewardship and 

Conservation Issue Area 

As an example of the work performed under the energy and environmental practices output 

category, one project wrote, “Blue Two assisted with facilitating six environmental outdoor 

education classes, which included: three Eight-Day High School Wilderness Backpacking Trips, 

an Elementary Nature Discovery Camp, and two Middle School Outdoor Adventure Camps. 

Moreover, some Members of Blue Two assisted in hosting two Siskiyou Field Institute Courses.”

Public Space and Infrastructure 

The third output category under the ENV primary issue area, Public Space and Infrastructure, 

had three types of output, with almost half (45%) reported as “Stone or wooden steps built into 

steep slopes,” as shown in Table B-11. 

Table B-11: Public Space and Infrastructure Outputs - Environmental Stewardship and 

Conservation Issue Area 
128

Urban and Rural Development (URD)

The Urban and Rural Development (URD) primary issue area had four output categories: 

Community Well-being, “Housing, Basic Needs, and Public Space and Infrastructure (Table B12). 

Table B-12: Output Categories in the Urban and Rural Development Issue Area 

Output Category Number of Outputs 

Community Well-being 4,296 

Housing 994

Basic Needs 719

Public Space and Infrastructure 301

Total 6,310 

We gain further insights into the accomplishments of service projects in the URD primary issue 

area by examining the types of output in each of the four output categories. 

Community Well-being 

The Community Well-being output category had 28 types of outputs, as listed in Table B-13. In 

this category, NCCC teams frequently recorded the removal of debris and trash, followed by 

tending or starting a garden, planning or conducting community activities, and supporting K12students. 
129

Table B-13: Community Well-being Outputs - Urban and Rural Development Issue Area 

(N=4296) 

As an example of the work performed under the community well-being output category, one 

project noted: 

“Blue Two served Loaves and Fishes in five programs, assisting the staff in running each 

program more efficiently during their busiest time of year and upholding the 

organization’s mission of providing guests with acceptance and respect in a safe 

environment. The team served meals to 26,021 guests through the Dining Room, 
130

Maryhouse and Mustard Seed School and assisted a total of 10,953 guests with questions 

and services. At Mustard Seed, Blue Two tutored 64 preschool students, 72 elementary 

school students and 26 middle school students and led 1.5 hours of physical activity each 

day, totaling 665.5 hours. At Maryhouse, the team sorted and inventoried 7,255 pounds 

of clothing donations and organized and packaged 220 pounds of toiletries for individual 

donations. The team supported a library and a computer lab by aiding the Librarian in 

daily operations and tasks.”

Housing 

The Housing output category encompassed four types of outputs. More than half (57%) of the 

number of outputs are “Homes painted or renovated,” followed by “Houses constructed” (37%). 

Table B-14: Housing Outputs - Urban and Rural Development Issue Area (N=994) 

As an example of the work performed under “Housing,” output category, one project stated: 

“Oak Four winterized 15 homes by preparing plumbing pipes for winter. The team 

framed two 250 square foot porches for new homes. The main focus of work during the 

project with Habitat for Humanity in Omaha was organizing and packing materials and 

supplies at their 5,000 square foot warehouse and assisting with moving, unpacking, and 

reorganizing supplies in their new 24,000 square foot warehouse. Members removed 

6,000 pounds of plant material and garbage from Habitat properties. The team installed 

insulation, countertops, and screen doors at three homes, as well as power-washed 

sidewalk and siding. Oak Four helped deliver building supplies to four Habitat work 

sites.”

Basic Needs 

The Basic Needs category in the URD primary issue area had eight types of outputs (Table B15), including the most frequent types: serving meals (32%), receiving household goods or 

personal items (24%), and receiving, sorting and distributing clothes (24%). 
131

Table B-15: Basic Needs Outputs - Urban and Rural Development Issue Area (N=719) 

To illustrate the accomplishment made under the housing output category in the URD primary 

issue area, one project noted: 

“One CM split her time between the Adult Education center and the Special Education 

classroom. She worked with 4 adults in Adult Ed helping adults prepare to take their 

General Education Development (GED) test. Another CM worked closely with the 

Intervention Specialist/Mayor. He did many tasks for her, including passing out clothes 

and food to homeless students, compiling lists of grades and running various errands. We 

also provided support in the library, band class, tutoring and after-school activities.”

Public Space and Infrastructure 

The fourth and last output category in the URD primary issue area is Public Space and 

Infrastructure, which included one type of output – acres of completed landscaping (Table B-16). 

Table B-16: Public Space and Infrastructure Outputs - Urban and Rural Development Issue 

Area 

An example of the work performed in the Public Space and Infrastructure category includes this 

description from a project: “The main focus for the team involved clearing over 15 vacant lots 

throughout the Idora Neighborhood of overgrown shrubs and trees, removing more than 75,000 

pounds of vegetation. In addition, corps Members assisted with various community gardens in 

the neighborhood, pulling invasive species, building garden sheds, and constructing flower 

beds.”

Infrastructure Improvement (INF)

The next issue area we examined is Infrastructure Improvement (INF). There are two output 

categories under the INF issue area. Almost all the total outputs are categorized as Public Space 

and Infrastructure (Table B-17). 
132

Table B-17: Output Categories in the Infrastructure Improvement Issue Area 

Output Category Number of Outputs 

Public Space and Infrastructure 3,921 

Community Well-being 88

Total 4,009 

We gain further insights into the accomplishments of service projects in the INF primary issue 

area by examining the types of output in both output categories. 
133

Public Space and Infrastructure 

The Public Space and Infrastructure category has 19 types of outputs in (Table B-18). The most 

frequent types of outputs reported were building and repairing fences; building, painting or 

installing informative signs; and renovating public buildings. 

Table B-18: Public Space and Infrastructure Outputs - Infrastructure Improvement Issue 

Area (N=3921) 

An example of the work performed under the public space and infrastructure output category, 

one project noted, “Using only hand tools, Delta Two cleared three acres of land for public use 

in the future as a park and removed one half ton of overgrowth, including native and invasive 

plant species. The team spent a week at the site off Highway 54, and the land, named Bug Stover 

Park after its caretaker, is planned to eventually be developed by RAIL with modern facilities.”

Community Well-being 

As shown in Table B-19, the Community Well-being output category consisted of 2 types of 

outputs with a total of 88 outputs. 

Table B-19: Community Well-being Outputs - Infrastructure Improvement Issue Area (N=88) 
134

To illustrate the accomplishment made under this category, one project noted: 

“Within Generation One Academy, Members served as tutors, role models and teacher 

assistants in classrooms and after school programs. Within the Community Revitalization 

Department, Members led over volunteers on community-based projects such as vacant 

lot clearing, house painting and trash removal. Fire 6 used staff support and local 

resources in accordance with in-depth project specific training to accomplish the 

aforementioned tasks.”

Populations Assisted and Engaged (VAR) 

In the Populations Assisted and Engaged issue area, 1,372 of the service projects reported 2,247 

outputs under the Special Population output type. The output most reported was volunteers 

recruited or coordinated, accounting for more than one-third (36%) of total outputs (Table B-20). 

An example of a project accomplishment in this issue area was: 

“The service the team performed greatly benefited the veteran community at the games by 

providing a safe transportation experience. Furthermore, the team expedited the loading 

and unloading process enabling all athletes to reach their events on time and reduce 

their time waiting in transit lines, thereby enabling more time to be spent practicing for 

events and bonding with their fellow veteran community. The Members’ energy and 

enthusiasm for service and willingness to engage each veteran they assisted in securing 

helped to improve the veteran experience by providing a warm welcome to the games and 

an additional layer of support. Lastly, Members’ knowledge of the games and 

surrounding area proved useful in answering veteran questions and better ensuring that 

everyone involved got as much out of the games as possible.”

Table B-20: Special Population Outputs - Populations Assisted and Engaged (VAR) Issue 

Area 
135

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FMA) 

Under the FMA issue area, four types of outputs were reported as shown in Table B-21. 

Table B-21: Output Categories in the FEMA Issue Area 

Output Category Number of Outputs 

Disaster Recovery 670

Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation 403

Disaster Response 84

Basic Needs 27

Total 1,184 

Following is a summary of the output categories reported in the FEMA issue area. 

Disaster Recovery 

The FMA projects reported 670 outputs for Disaster Recovery (Table B-22). As shown in the 

table, there are 15 types of outputs, with the greatest number of outputs in general administrative 

duties performed and case status updates. 

Table B-22: Disaster Recovery Outputs – FEMA Issue Area (N=670) 

To illustrate the accomplishment made under this category, one project noted: 

“Beginning September 12, 2013, the state of Colorado received widespread flooding and 

on September 14, a presidential disaster declaration was made for the most affected 

counties. On September 16, Alpine 1 began working at an emergency donations and 

distribution center in Loveland, CO. The distribution center was established by the City 

of Loveland and is operated by Adventist Community Services (ACS). Alpine 1 was 
136

requested to support the operations of the distribution center, and the team members 

were split among all departments of the center. Alpine 1 served as a consistent group of 

workers who helped the center run as efficiently as possible by maintaining data systems 

and operational procedures as established by ACS. FEMA Corps members received, 

inventoried and sorted donations, managed volunteers, maintained all data necessary for 

operations, including client information and statistics of the amount of items clients took 

away from the center. The information collected and maintained was used to help prevent 

disaster fraud and to report to the City of Loveland about the activities of the emergency 

distribution center. The team helped implement monitoring measures by working with 

local police to verify addresses, to ensure that those who needed it most were able to 

receive all that they required. Team members also performed customer service to all 

clients, and referred them to other agencies if possible and/or necessary. Throughout the 

round, corps members from Alpine 1 received, sorted and distributed 315,963 pounds of 

donated goods including food, clothing, personal care and household items, assisted 

4,000 disaster survivors in meeting their emergency needs, performed 514 hours of data 

entry, and managed 1400 volunteers. “

Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation 

The FMA projects reported 403 outputs for Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation 

(Table B-23). As shown in the table, there are five types of outputs with 52% of outputs in 

information provided to X individuals and 31% in general administrative duties performed. 

Table B-23: Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation– FEMA Issue Area (N=403) 

An example of the work performed under this category was reported by one project, writing, “In 

two days, FEMA Corps members were able to inventory $873,656.28 worth of equipment. 

FEMA Corps members were able to begin and manage a recycling system for all 4 floors of the 

JFO, we were able to gather 30 pounds of recyclables per day.”

Disaster Response 

The FMA projects reported 84 outputs for Disaster Response (Table B-24), with critical needs 

tallying 48% of the outputs. 
137

Table B-24: Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation– FEMA Issue Area (N=84) 

An example of the work performed under this output category states: 

“Ocean Eight represented FEMA, but namely assisted wherever necessary; most 

commonly they helped the American Red Cross in the unloading and distributing of 

standard items to struggling individuals and families. Overall members aided in the 

distribution of roughly 5,625 pounds of supplies, which included 2,300 gallons of water, 

800 pounds of household good and personal items, and 900 pounds of food. They also 

supplied approximately 1,200 meals and 125 educational materials, and in total provided 

water and food to around 1,700 individuals.”

Basic Needs 

The FMA projects reported two types of basic needs outputs, with 93% of the outputs in 

provided individuals with food and/or water. 

Table B-25: Basic Needs Outputs – FEMA Issue Area (N=27) 

To illustrate the accomplishment made under this category, one project noted, “The local 

community came out to assist the shelter clients, bringing tons of donations, and local 

organizations and churches provided hot southern comfort meals for the residents to enjoy. 

Additionally, once residents had the opportunity to go through donated items, affected 

community members were able to take items they needed.”

Energy Conservation (EC) 

The Energy Conservation issue area had 307 projects reporting outputs. These projects reported 

574 outputs, all in the Energy and Environmental Practices output category. 

Energy and Environmental Practices 

The Energy and Environmental Practices output category had 14 types of outputs . Nearly 20% 

of the outputs reported were weatherized homes (Table B-26). 
138

Table B-26: Energy and Environmental Practices Outputs - Energy Conservation Issue Area 

One project described weatherizing homes: 

“Delta Two completed extensive repairs to weatherworn decking on two of the existing 

railroad trusses. When floodwaters prevented Delta Two from working on the primary 

project, the team did trail work on the Wateree Passage, Table Rock State Park, Oconee 

Passage and the Poinsett State Park. The team also participated in an Earth Day trash 

pickup in Eutawville, South Carolina, repaired a parking lot and de-weatherized a cabin 

in Poinsett State Park and organized the Palmetto Conservation Foundation’s Tool 

Trailer. Though floodwaters prevented Delta Two from constructing as much of the 

walkway as planned, the team completed an immense amount of preparation for the 

walkway so that when the waters recede, the rest of the walkway can go up.”

Research Question 5: What are the characteristics of recurring service projects? What 

community needs have service projects addressed over time by issue area? 

Community Needs Addressed over Time 

Tables B-27 through B-31 show the percent of outputs reported by projects in 10 output 

categories by primary issue area and year. The analysis is based on the reported outputs for 96% 

of the service projects (N=4,796). 
139

Table B-27: Percent of Outputs by Output Category, Natural and Other Disasters Issue Area 

(2012-2019) 

Output 

Category 

2012 

(N=1,077) 

2013 

(N=1,933) 

2014 

(N=1,731) 

2015 

(N=1,738) 

2016 

(N=1,487) 

2017 

(N=2,051) 

2018 

(N=2,902) 

2019 

(N=350) 

Disaster 

Recovery 3% 32% 36% 33% 38% 33% 31% 21%

Disaster 

Prevention, 

Preparedness, 

and Mitigation 

7% 12% 23% 30% 24% 25% 22% 10%

Natural 

Resources 17% 10% 10% 8% 4% 2% 3% 8%

Disaster 

Response 12% 12% 8% 7% 12% 15% 13% 15%

Special 

Population 18% 10% 6% 5% 10% 12% 11% 14%

Community 

Well-Being 10% 4% 5% 4% 2% 1% 2% 6%

Public Space 

and 

Infrastructure 

13% 7% 5% 5% 3% 2% 4% 7%

Basic Needs 9% 8% 3% 5% 5% 8% 7% 9%

Housing 9% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 6% 8%

Energy and 

Environmental 

Practices 

3% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 2%

TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table B-28: Percent of Outputs by Output Category, Energy Conservation Issue Area (2012-

2018) 

Output Category 2012 

(N=138) 

2013 

(N=40) 

2014 

(N=41) 

2015 

(N=39) 

2016 

(N=43) 

2017 

(N=34) 

2018 

(N=18) 

Energy and Environmental 

Practices 49% 38% 34% 41% 65% 62% 56%

Natural Resources 8% 25% 17% 18% 2% 18% 6%

Community Well-Being 7% 8% 24% 8% 9% 3% 22%

Special Population 22% 0% 12% 18% 7% 3% 11%

Public Space and 

Infrastructure 7% 20% 5% 8% 5% 9% 0%

Housing 6% 5% 2% 3% 7% 0% 0%

Basic Needs 0% 3% 0% 3% 0% 6% 6%

Disaster Recovery 0% 0% 2% 0% 5% 0% 0%

Disaster Response 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Disaster Prevention, 

Preparedness, and Mitigation 1% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0%

TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
140

Table B-29: Percent of Outputs by Output Category, Environmental Stewardship and 

Conservation Issue Area (2012-2019) 

Output Category 2012 

(N=963) 

2013 

(N=874) 

2014 

(N=1,155) 

2015 

(N=993) 

2016 

(N=569) 

2017 

(N=609) 

2018 

(N=927) 

2019 

(N=506) 

Natural 

Resources 58% 56% 53% 56% 57% 58% 49% 48%

Public Space 

and 

Infrastructure 

20% 21% 23% 25% 20% 19% 21% 23%

Community 

Well-Being 8% 10% 11% 10% 11% 12% 16% 13%

Energy and 

Environmental 

Practices 

7% 7% 5% 3% 6% 5% 6% 6%

Special 

Population 4% 4% 5% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4%

Basic Needs 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Disaster 

Prevention, 

Preparedness, 

and Mitigation 

1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Disaster 

Recovery 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

Disaster 

Response 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Housing 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2%

TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table B-30: Percent of Outputs by Output Category, Infrastructure Improvement Issue Area 

(2012-2019) 

Output Category 2012 

(N=963) 

2013 

(N=874) 

2014 

(N=1,155) 

2015 

(N=993) 

2016 

(N=569) 

2017 

(N=609) 

2018 

(N=927) 

2019 

(N=506) 

Natural Resources 36% 38% 33% 35% 32% 32% 21% 24%

Public Space and Infrastructure 29% 28% 33% 33% 33% 37% 41% 36%

Community Well-Being 18% 16% 19% 19% 18% 17% 20% 24%

Special Population 7% 7% 6% 5% 6% 7% 4% 3%

Energy and Environmental Practices 4% 5% 3% 3% 4% 2% 1% 4%

Housing 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5%

Disaster Prevention, Preparedness, 

and Mitigation 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0%

Basic Needs 1% 0% 1% 1% 4% 2% 3% 4%

Disaster Recovery 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

Disaster Response 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
141

Table B-31: Percent of Outputs by Output Category, Urban and Rural Development Issue 

Area (2012-2019) 

Output 

Category 

2012 

(N=1,189) 

2013 

(N=1,162) 

2014 

(N=1,087) 

2015 

(N=1,300) 

2016 

(N=906) 

2017 

(N=1,259) 

2018 

(N=1,456) 

2019 

(N=349) 

Community 

Well-Being 32% 34% 35% 32% 32% 30% 30% 25%

Public Space 

and 

Infrastructure 

20% 17% 17% 21% 22% 23% 20% 19%

Natural 

Resources 17% 15% 13% 15% 18% 17% 13% 16%

Special 

Population 14% 17% 16% 13% 10% 12% 13% 13%

Basic Needs 4% 5% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 11%

Housing 6% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 10% 9%

Energy and 

Environmental 

Practices 

6% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 4%

Disaster 

Prevention, 

Preparedness, 

and Mitigation 

0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

Disaster 

Recovery 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Disaster 

Response 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
142

Research Question 6: How frequently does NCCC serve the same community with the 

same needs? 

Phased-Out Output (Accomplishment) List 

Table B-32 shows a complete list of the 20 outputs that have been phased out and are no longer 

active. 

Table B-32: Outputs Phased Out – No Longer Active 

Accomplishment 

Output Code 

Description of Output 

EDU-03 Hours spent in tutoring elementary school students 

EDU-04 Middle school students tutored 

EDU-05 Hours spent in tutoring middle school students 

EDU-06 High school students tutored 

EDU-07 Hours spent in tutoring high school students 

EDU-15 School rooms painted or renovated 

EDU-16 School hallways painted or renovated 

EDU-28 Pre-school day care programs assisted 

EDU-30 Books sorted, inventoried, repaired, or shelved 

EDU-33 Teen parent programs presented 

EDU-34 Students participating in teen parent program 

EDU-35 Teenagers or young adults taught life skills 

EDU-36 Manuals or guides for volunteers written 

EDU-40 Computer labs installed or supported 

HUM-28 Community parks restored 

PS-15 Community areas with graffiti removed 

URD-31 Manuals or guides written 

VAR-101 Includes all meals provided by sponsor (calculate $4.75 max per member) 

VAR-102 Includes snacks on worksite, free tickets to events, etc. 
143

Research Question 7: How many individual service projects are nested within unique 

sponsors? What is the number of sites and the average number of sites for each sponsor 

type? 

Average Number of Sites by Sponsor Type 

Tables B-33 and B-34 show the average number of service projects (B-33) and service sites (B34) for each type of sponsor. 

Table B-33: Average Number of Service Projects by Sponsor Type and Year 

Sponsor Type 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non-Profit 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Federal Government 2 4 3 3 3 4 3 1 

National Non-Profit 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 

Higher Education Organization 

- State Controlled 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

State Government 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Local Government - Municipal 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Local Government - County 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

State Education Agency 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 

Other 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 

Missing 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 

Table B-34: Average Number of Sites by Sponsor Type and Year 

Sponsor Type 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Non-Profit 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 

Federal Government 3 5 4 4 3 4 4 2 

National Non-Profit 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 

Higher Education Organization 

- State Controlled 4 1 1 2 1 2 2 4 

State Government 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 

Local Government - Municipal 3 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 

Local Government - County 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 

State Education Agency 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 

Other 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 

Missing 5 5 2 2 3 3 4 2