AmeriCorps	 	 at Communities	 	 	 	 	 in Schools of Central Texas

Impact	Analysis,	2016-2017

Prepared by

Creekside	Research Solutions
	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 2 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................4

Key Findings .................................................................................................................................................7

Methodology................................................................................................................................................8

Data Collection Methodology ..................................................................................................................8

Data Analysis Methodology......................................................................................................................8

Demographics ..............................................................................................................................................9

AMC	Members Demographics .................................................................................................................9

Race and	Ethnicity of students served	by AMC	members......................................................................10

What are the considerations/reasons/factors that influence a Program Manager’s decision to request or

decline an	AMC	member to	serve on	campus?..........................................................................................11

What are the considerations/reasons/factors that influence a Program Manager’s decision	to	place a

student with an AMC member? .................................................................................................................13

To what extent are students served by AMC receiving the full “dosage” of service (i.e., 1	hour per week

for	6 months)? ...........................................................................................................................................14

What are the most commonly targeted issues of students who are referred to AMC members, by grade

level	and	member	type	(FT/PT/EAO)?........................................................................................................16

How well did the AMC orientation and regular training provided at Resource Days prepare AMC

members for service?.................................................................................................................................17

How clearly defined were the AMC members’ service goals prior to starting their service period? Did

these goals (or	members’ understanding of	them)	change throughout	the service period? ....................20

What was the quality of communication between AMC members and Program Managers during the

term of	service, and what	is its relationship to member	effectiveness? ...................................................22

How many AMC members, on average, choose to serve more than one service year? To what extent are

members who have served more than one AmeriCorps term	more impactful with	students in	targeted	

outcomes, if at all? .....................................................................................................................................24

To what extent does the member position type (FT/PT/EAO) have an impact on student outcomes, if at

all? ..............................................................................................................................................................25

To what extent do members plan their activities to align with the targeted issues of the students they

serve? How often, on average, are members	able to engage students	on specific	targeted issues	during

sessions? Does	this	type of engagement lead to overall improvement on the specific	issues	that were

targeted during sessions? ..........................................................................................................................28
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 3 

What are the differences, if any, in discipline referrals between students served by AMC compared with

students	served by CIS Program Managers? If differences	are detected, what are the possible reasons	

for	such differences?..................................................................................................................................30

What do Program Managers and AMC members perceive to be the benefits of AMC members (e.g., to

what extent do they believe they actually see a change in students as a result of AMC member

intervention)?.............................................................................................................................................31

What are the differences, if any, in targeted issues and academic outcomes between students served by

AMC	and	students who	attend	CIS at schools	without an AMC member on campus? Between students	

served by AMC and students	who attend CIS with an AMC member on campus	but who are not served

by AMC? .....................................................................................................................................................33

Data collection .......................................................................................................................................33

Targeted issues outcomes......................................................................................................................34

Attendance.............................................................................................................................................34

Grades....................................................................................................................................................35

STAAR Outcomes....................................................................................................................................37

What are the differences, if any, in the number of students completing the school year/being promoted	

to the next	grade level between AMC students and those attending CIS at	campuses not	served by AMC?

Between	students served	by AMC	and	students who	attend	CIS with	an	AMC	member on	campus but

who are not served by AMC? .....................................................................................................................38

....................................................................................................................................................................39

How do Program Managers and AMC members rate members’ ability to meet or exceed program goals?

Limitations..................................................................................................................................................40

Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................41
	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 		

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 4 

Executive Summary

September 14, 2017

Prepared by Stephanie	Fairchild, Creekside Research	Solutions

Communities in	Schools of Central Texas (CIS) is a nonprofit organization	that is dedicated	to	working

with their community to develop strategies to empower students to stay in school and reach their full

academic potential. Since	1985,	CIS	of	Central	Texas	has	provided	dropout	prevention	and	scholastic

support services	to over 40,000 students	on campuses	all around Central Texas. CIS primarily serves	

schools	in underprivileged communities	with large percentages	of students	who are	at risk of dropping

out of school. Each	of its campus-based	programs plays a critical role in	providing a network of mentors,

volunteers, and community	partners who support students through behavioral and mental health

interventions,	case	management, and tutoring services. Through evidence-based	strategies and	targeted	

programming, CIS teaches students skills that help	them focus on	their own	growth	and	learning.

AmeriCorps is a network of national service programs that provide an	opportunity for individuals to	

serve in their local community and join with others	to help solve local social challenges. The program

“engages more than 75,000 Americans in intensive service each year at nonprofits, schools, public	

agencies, and community and faith-based	groups across the country.” Members dedicate a year to	

service, and in return they receive money for college, valuable work experience, and, in some cases, a

small living stipend.

The AmeriCorps program supports CIS	by placing members on school campuses where they serve as

mentors and tutors to at-risk students. Each year, hundreds of	AmeriCorps members spend valuable

service hours	working with over 1,000 CIS students	to help them stay in school and succeed in life.

Members serve full-time, part-time, or	quarter-time, and they work directly with students to provide

supportive guidance.

The principle objective of this evaluation report was to summarize the findings of an impact analysis that

was undertaken to examine the unique contributions of AmeriCorps	members	to the CIS program. The

evaluation was developed as part of an effort to understand the	added value	that AmeriCorps members

bring to	the students whom they serve above and	beyond	the service provided	to	students served	by CIS

staff alone. Data were collected from campuses that	did have AmeriCorps members serving on campus,

as well as those	that did not. The	evaluation implementation included collecting data	via	interviews,

focus groups, and surveys with CIS Program Managers and AmeriCorps members, a	rigorous quantitative	

analysis of CIS	student data, and analyzing and interpreting the	data	to answer evaluation questions.

The evaluation questions were divided into two sections: the first section of questions was designed to

measure the implementation	and	fidelity of the program, and	the second	measured	the impact and	

outcomes of the program.
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	  

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 5 

Implementation/Fidelity	Measures

1. What are the considerations/reasons/factors that influence a Program Manager’s	decision to

request	or	decline an AMC member	to serve on campus?

2. What are the considerations/reasons/factors that influence a Program Manager’s	decision	to

place a student with	an	AMC	member?

3. To what extent are students served by AMC receiving the full “dosage” of service (i.e. 1	

hour/week for 6 months)?

4. What are the most commonly targeted issues of students who are referred to AMC members,

by grade level and member	type (FT/PT/EAO)?

5. How well did the AMC orientation and regular training	(Resource	Days) prepare AMC	members

for	service?

6. How clearly defined	were the AMC	members’ service goals prior to	starting their service period?

Did these goals (or members’ understanding of them) change throughout the service period?

7. What was the quality of communication between AMC members and Program Managers	during

the term of	service, and	what is its relationship	to	member effectiveness?

Impact/Outcome	Measures

1. How many AMC members, on average, choose to serve more than one service year? To what

extent are	members who have	served more	than one	AmeriCorps term more impactful with

students	in targeted outcomes, if at all?

2. To what extent does	the member position type (FT/PT/EAO) have an impact on student

outcomes, if at all?

3. To what extent do members plan their activities to align with the targeted issues of the students	

they serve? How often, on average, are members able to engage students on specific targeted

issues	during	sessions?	Does	this	type	of	engagement	lead	to	overall	improvement	on	the

specific	issues	that were targeted during sessions?

4. What are the differences, if	any, in	discipline	referrals	between	students	served	by	AMC

compared with students	served by	CIS PMs? If differences	are detected, what are the possible

reasons for	such differences?

5. What do AMC/PMs perceive to be the benefits of AMC members (e.g., to what	extent	do they

believe they actually see a change in	students as a result of AMC	member intervention)? How do	

AMC/PMs rate members’ ability to	meet and/or exceed	program goals?

6. What are the differences, if any, in targeted issues and academic outcomes between	students

served by AMC and students	who attend CIS at schools	without an AMC member on campus?

Between	students served	by AMC	and	students who	attend	CIS with	an	AMC	member on	

campus	but who are not served by	AMC?

7. What are the differences, if any, in	the number of students completing the school year/being

promoted	to	the next grade level between	AMC	students and	those attending CIS at campuses

not served	by AMC? Between	students served	by AMC	and	students who	attend	CIS with	an	

AMC	member on	campus but who	are not served	by AMC?

8. How do AMC members/PMs rate members’ ability to meet/exceed program goals?
AmeriCorps	 	 	 Impact Report 2016-2017 6 
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 7 

Key	Findings

• AmeriCorps members are very highly valued by their supervisors and other CIS Program Managers

who agree that the reach and impact of CIS on the students they serve is much greater than it would

be without them. AmeriCorps members function in a supporting role to	the Program Managers with	

whom they work and provide crucial assistance to them in their work with students.

• An AmeriCorps member’s impact on the students they serve has less to do with the students with

whom they are paired than with the member’s dedication,	grit,	personal strength, and	commitment

to personal growth.

• The majority of AmeriCorps members felt the training	they received prior to	starting	their service

term prepared	them for their service to	the extent that it was possible, but that nothing	could	fully

equip them for the	day-to-day challenges they faced	in	their service with	students.

• The relationships between	AmeriCorps members and	their supervisors are extremely important to	

member success in working with students and fulfilling their service	requirements. Supervisors

provide on	the spot training	for members, as well as	much needed support for stressful times.

• AmeriCorps members believe they have the greatest impact on students’ self-esteem and behavior

and	less impact on	academic issues.

• There was almost no	impact of member position	type on	student outcomes. Students served	by fulltime, part-time, and EAO AmeriCorps members all faired about	the same in behavioral and academic

outcome measures.

• Students served by	AmeriCorps members tended to	have higher rates of promotion to the next	grade

level	than	those	not served	by AmeriCorps members.

• A	careful analysis of academic data from students served by AmeriCorps members and those not

served by AmeriCorps	members	indicates	that the AmeriCorps program is no more successful at	

improving	academic	outcomes	than	CIS.	

• AmeriCorps members make it possible for CIS to serve as many students as they do while

maintaining the integrity of the care they provide to each student. Without AmeriCorps	members,

CIS staff would	be overextended	and	the quality of service provided	to	students would	certainly

decrease.
	 	 	

	 	

		

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 			

		

		

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

		

		

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

		

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

		

		

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

		

		

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 		

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 8 

Methodology

Data Collection Methodology

1. Interviews

Evaluators conducted telephone interviews with CIS	program leaders and managers who oversee and

direct program implementation, and	who	are also	directly responsible for AmeriCorps members. The

interview	protocol	was	designed	to	answer	evaluation	questions regarding AmeriCorps member	

training, their	role within the CIS program, and their	overall impact	on CIS students.

1. Focus Groups

Evaluators conducted focus groups with a	random selection of AmeriCorps members to answer

evaluation questions regarding AmeriCorps member experiences with	CIS, where it can	be improved,

and to gain a	deeper understanding of their perceived impact on CIS	students.

1. Surveys

Evaluators designed the survey instruments to answer evaluation questions regarding the traits of a	

highly successful AmeriCorps member, to	collect demographic and	characteristic data of AmeriCorps

members, and to understand how AmeriCorps members perceive their	service with CIS.

Data Analysis Methodology

1. Interviews

Interview	transcripts	were	coded	and	analyzed	using a	coding	scheme	based	on	evaluation	questions.

Responses were coded	using the constant comparative method	and	emergent themes were identified.

1. Focus Groups

Focus group transcripts were	coded and analyzed using a	coding scheme	based on evaluation questions.

Responses were coded	using the constant comparative method	and	emergent themes were identified.

1. Surveys

Survey data	were	collected using Survey Monkey, an online	survey data	collection and analysis tool, and

were analyzed quantitatively. A coding scheme was developed based on the project evaluation

questions. All narrative responses were coded	using the constant	comparative method and emergent	

themes were identified.
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 9 

Demographics

AMC	Members Demographics

Figure 1: AMC Member Race (N=30)

Figure 2: AMC Member Ethnicity	(N=30)

Figure 3: AMC Member Gender (N=30)
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 10 

Figure 4: AMC member educational level at the beginning	of the 2016-2017	service term (N=30)

Race and	Ethnicity of students served	by AMC	members

Figure 5: Race of students served by AMC members (N=617)

Figure 6: Ethnicity of students served by AMC members (N=617)
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 11 

What are the considerations/reasons/factors that influence a Program Manager’s	

decision	to	request or decline an	AMC	member to	serve on	campus?

Telephone interviews were conducted with a	random sample of four CIS	Program Managers who had

direct supervision	of AmeriCorps members on	campus and	an	equally sized	random sample of Program

Managers who did not have an AMC member serving on campus. These interviews included questions

regarding the AmeriCorps members’ roles within the schools, as well as their	impact	on CIS students.

All interview participants were asked	to	rate their investment, or “buy-in,”	to	the	AMC	program.	This

measure was meant to be a starting point to understanding why Program	Managers would request or

decline an	AMC	member to	serve on	campus. However, on average, the buy-in	to	the	AMC	program	was

very	high amongst participants. The majority	of interview participants indicated that they	were very	

invested in	the	AMC	program	itself	and	recognized	the	program’s	value	to	CIS.	Only	one	participant	was

ambivalent about her buy-in,	but	she	stated	that	the	reason	was	out	of	concern	for	the	members

because the stipend	they received	was very low, not because the members did	not bring value to	the CIS

program. The decision	to	request or decline an	AMC	member to serve	on campus did not seem to be	

related to a Program Manager’s investment	in the AMC program itself.

Participants who requested to have	an AMC member serve	on campus agreed that they made	the	

request	because members were able to provide services to students who may not	otherwise receive

mentoring or tutoring due to time constraints on the part of Program	Managers, or due to lack of other

staff. They indicated that having another adult on campus	and in the CIS office helped them to reach

more students who needed their services and also allowed them	to keep the CIS office open when the

Program Managers themselves were	off campus or helping	other students. These	participants tended to

believe that they would	be over-extended, or “stretched too thin,” to effectively serve	all of the	

students	who come to CIS for support. One such participant summed up the general	position	of	this

group of Program Managers, saying, “They	[AMC members] add so much to the	CIS program. There’s no

way I could do what needs to be done by myself. It’s just not possible.” Another participant stated that

AMC	members act as allies on	campus	“who can provide services	that align with the CIS mission.” For

these Program Managers, the reach and support	of	the AMC members was a necessary and welcome

addition to their campuses.

Interviews	with	Program	Managers	who	did	not	request	to	have a	member serve	on campus revealed

varied reasons for why	a Program Manager would decline such support. In fact, each participant gave a

different response to	this question. The four reasons given	by participants for declining an	AMC	member

to serve on campus included:	

1. AMC	members are not trained	to	effectively deal with	the high	needs students that CIS serves on

one participant’s campus. The participant stated	that any person	working in	the CIS office needs to

be well trained	and	comfortable with	working with	such	a population, and	she further indicated	that
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 12 

she has	not had much success	working with AMC members	in the past due to this	lack of knowledge

and training.

2. The service requirements placed on AMC members are a	deterrent to having a	member serve on

campus. The participant stated that too many requirements	are placed on AMC members	and that

she did not have the time to help the AMC members	fulfill their service requirements	due to her

own	obligations and	rigorous schedule.

3. The participant stated that she was unable to request an AMC member to serve on the high school

campus	where she currently	serves.

4. Participant stated that the	CIS	office	in which she	serves	is not able to	support an	AMC	member due

to the lack of	capacity (i.e., desk space and computer	availability is limited). The	participant stated

that	she therefore prioritizes interns over	AMC members.
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

		

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 13 

What are the considerations/reasons/factors that influence a Program Manager’s

decision	to	place a student with	an	AMC	member?

Four randomly selected	Program Managers who	were responsible for the supervision	of AMC	members

were interviewed via telephone and asked to describe their reasons for placing students on an AMC

member’s caseload. A	survey was also	distributed	to	all Program Managers to	gather further	insights..

Program Manager Interviews

All four	participants replied	that they placed	members with	students who	were lower-need, appropriate

for	mentoring, and not	in need of	counseling. They prioritized appropriate member-student pairings	to

the extent	that	it	was possible, given their	knowledge of	members’ skills and	experience and	the needs

of the students. Participants stated	that these pairings were helpful to	students who	may have had	

difficulty developing healthy relationships with	adults. AMC	members provided	healthy modeling of

such relationships, including how to develop and maintain appropriate boundaries	and how to handle a

relationship’s closure.

No participants indicated that they would change their member-student pairings	if they had the chance

to do it	over	again.

Program Manager Survey

A	survey was distributed	to	all CIS Program Managers, and	in	it participants were asked	to	rank the

importance	of	certain	member	characteristics	to	an	AMC	member’s	success in	mentoring	and	tutoring

CIS students. A	list of member characteristics were provided	for	participants	to	rank	from	“very

important”	to	“not	at	all	important.” There were 29	participants in the survey.

Characteristics with	the highest ranking included:

• The member establishes and maintains healthy boundaries (100% very important)

• The member is able to work as a team	with other CIS staff and/or faculty (97% very important)

• The member is committed to completing the service term (97% very important)

• The member demonstrates respect for cultures other than their own (97% very important)

• The member holds him/herself accountable for his/her actions (97% very important)

• The member has active listening skills and is able to be a	student’s “safe place (97% very important)

These data	suggest that the pairing of AMC members with students is not the	highest determining	factor

for	student success, but rather the member’s	personal characteristics	carry more weight with Program

Managers in deciding whether or not a member is able to successfully serve the students on their

caseload.
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	  

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 		

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 		

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 14 

To	what extent are	students	served	by	AMC	receiving	the	full	“dosage” of service

(i.e., 1 hour	per	week for 6 months)?

Telephone interviews were conducted with a	four randomly selected Program Managers who had

supervision of AMC members	and two focus	groups	were conducted with randomly selected groups of

AMC	members. These data were collected	to	gain	insight into	the experiences of AMC	members, as well

as the	perspectives of those	who were	in direct supervision of them.

Program Manager Interviews

Program Manager interview participants stated that their AMC members were	able	to meet with

students	for the number of hours	required to fulfill their service. They indicated that they support their

members in fulfilling their hours by helping them	with their schedules and sharing	calendars with them

to help monitor	their	time. The one participant	whose responses diverged from these statements

disclosed	that her AMC	member was sick for a significant portion	of the service year, so	the member

missed a lot of service hours	as	a result.

The structure of the campus was the primary factor mentioned by participants as having an impact on

whether or not an AMC member could easily meet his or her hour requirements. Participants stated

that	meeting durations varied amongst members, depending	on a	range	of factors including	teacher

requests, campus restrictions, testing restrictions, field trips, and other	issues. They stated that	some

teachers only allowed students to leave for	part	of	class, or	they would allow the member to	stay in	class

to observe and work with the students during class sessions. One participant	stated that	students were

only allowed	to	leave during elective classes and	occasionally the students did	not want to	miss their

elective. Participants said that they encouraged their members	to be creative with their hours	and help

them plan check-ins	and	short	meetings	with	students if	they	are	not	able	to	meet	with	them	for a

whole hour.

Participants indicated that the	due	to the	STAAR test and other activities and projects, the	Spring	

semester was	structurally different than the Fall semester. These participants	agreed that during testing,

often	students were not allowed	to	leave class at all because the teachers were working on	a specific

subject that	they wanted the students to learn. Participants further	stated that	the Fall semester	was

easier for AMC members to fulfill their service	hour requirements than the	Spring	semester, mainly due	

to STAAR testing. Two participants stated that	their	AMC members were	not allowed to see	their

students	during testing times, so they could only check in at the end of the day. This	made fulfilling the

required hours during the Spring semester	more difficult	for	these members.

AMC	Member Focus Groups

On average, AMC members reported that it was not too difficult to meet the 1 hour per week

requirement, but	that	the hour	was usually broken up into sessions in which one-on-one meetings were

augmented with other interactions throughout the	week. One	member	elaborated, saying, "I don’t	get	

the whole hour	but	I supplement	with other	times. [Students] all pass in and come and hang out	in the
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 		 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 		 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

		 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 			

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 15 

CIS office so	I'm constantly seeing students. There’s never a time when	I'm alone, so	I feel like fulfilling

that	one hour is not a problem for me." Another member stated, "I don’t usually see them for an	hour -

45	minutes is max. Then I supplement with lunch bunches and stuff, unless kid is in crisis it’s really rare	

for	me to get	an hour	session. In my opinion , there are kids who can’t	handle an hour	or	even 45

minutes so I reduce that to 30 minutes. This has changed a bit with rapport but not that much, unless

it’s in a	group	setting	they	don’t	do	too	well."

Almost all members agreed	that testing weeks were particularly disruptive. In addition to students not	

being available for most of the day, students' schedules are not predictable and	that, members state,

can make it hard to find their students	during the day. Another factor that made fulfilling the necessary	

hours a difficulty was if	the member	was in school him or	herself. One such member	stated, "I had to

really juggle around my schedule. I’m part-time but	even then it	was very hard. You really have to sweet	

talk a lot	of	teachers. Sometimes I only had 2 hours a	day and it just wasn’t quality time."

Members also stated that often teachers can be a bit of a hindrance to meeting regularly with students.

Some	members reported that if teachers do not recognize	the	work they are	doing with students then

they are less likely to be	ok with students leaving	class. One	member stated that the	teacher of one	of

her students believed	that the student was embarrassed	when	pulled	out of class for meetings and	the

teacher	requested that	the AMC member	be more covert	about	the	reason for taking	the	student from

class.

Several members stated that the	lack of a	private, quiet meeting space	that was regularly available	for

their	use was another	disruption to meeting the requirement. These members went	on to say that	this

was an	issue especially if their Program Manager was using the CIS office for a meeting with	one of their

own	students: "When	my PM does groups I can’t be in	the room, so	it’s a challenge to	find	a private

place to	meet with	students. We sometimes meet in	hallway but confidentiality is an issue	and kids

don't want to	go	outside because It's too	hot." "There are really no	good	places to	meet that are quiet

and that we	can be	alone. And empty rooms are	all locked and it’s hard to find anyone	to unlock the	

doors at such a big school.” However, participants	indicated that if CIS office calendars	and schedules	

are	shared up front then this becomes less of a	problem.

When asked what types of things helped them meet this requirement, several members agreed that the

student's desire to meet	with them played a big role. Kids may "shy away" and refuse services. Members

stated that when this	happened they would try meeting in a group setting instead and this	worked

frequently, especially with students who needed social skills	practice.		

Members also stated that being allowed to observe or co-facilitate groups with their	PMs was very

useful training and	served	to	help	them meet their hours. To	this end, members went on	to	say that they

would like more training on how	to facilitate	successful groups, including how to keep kids from

disrupting and/or oversharing.
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 16 

What are the most commonly targeted issues of students who are referred to

AMC	members, by grade	level	and	member	type	(FT/PT/EAO)?

Academic concerns are the most common types of targeted	issues for	which students are referred to

CIS. This category includes a student’s academic readiness, grades, STAAR	outcomes, and	homework

completion records.	Students paired with AMC members are typically low-need	and	suitable for tutoring

or mentoring.

AMC	members commit to	a year of service as either a full-time or	part-time member. Full time members

serve an average of 45 hours	per week, or 1,700 hours	per year, and	part-time members serve an

average	of 25	hours per week, or 900	hours per year. Additionally, individuals planning to complete	a	

college internship through CIS may	apply	to be an Educational Award Only	(EAO) AMC member. EAO

members serve an average of 10 hours per week, or 450 hours per year.

Table 1 :	Frequency	of	AMC	position	types	during	the	2016-2017	service year

Position type Frequency	(%)

Full-time 298	(59%)

Part-time 39	(8%)

EAO 170	(34%)

Total 507

Frequency analyses were	conducted to identify the types of	targeted issues of students	paired with

these groups of	AMC members.	Data suggest that the majority of pairings line up with the rest of CIS

students, such that academic	issues	are the most common for	all member	groups. Interestingly, full-time

and part-time members are more likely to be paired with students who have behavioral issues, while

EAO members are more often paired with students who have targeted mental health issues.

Table 2: Frequency of	targeted issues for	all member position	types

Academic N (%) Behavior N(%) Mental Health N (%) Crisis Situation N (%)

Full-time 194	(65%) 83	(30%) 39	(13%) 13	(4%)

Part-time 24	(62%) 12	(31%) 2	(5%) 1	(3%)

EAO 108	(65%) 17	(10%) 38	(23%) 17	(10%)
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 17 

How	well did	the AMC	orientation and regular training	provided at Resource Days	

prepare AMC	members for service?

Randomly selected	groups of AMC	members participated	in	focus groups and a	survey was distributed

to all AMC members to further	assess their	experiences within the AMC program.

AMC	Member Focus Groups

Focus group participants were	asked to distinguish between the	Pre-Service	Orientation (PSO) and the	

on-site training sessions, also known as	Campus	Expectations.

On average, focus group participants were somewhat mixed	in	their ratings of the AMC	orientation.

Overall, they agreed that it was a helpful time to interact with and bond with other members, knowing

that	they would "all be in this together." Members indicated that	although it	did not	necessarily prepare

them for	the actual experience of	their	service on campus, they saw it	as a useful time to learn about	

paperwork requirements and	how to	fill out timesheets, as well as to	get to	know the history of AMC.

Campus Expectations were	more	favorably mentioned. Participants stated that	their	Program Managers

oriented	them very well and	provided	insight into	the individual campuses that helped	them feel more

prepared	for day to	day challenges ahead.

When asked if Resource Days were helpful in preparing	members for their service, participants mainly

agreed that they were but that some training sessions are	better than others. To a	great extent, the	

helpfulness of Resource Days depended	on	the presenter and	the time of day. Members seemed to

agree	that there	were	pros and cons to Resource	Days. They were	helpful, but often the	information

presented	came too	late to	be of great use to	them during their service term. One participant

articulated this and said, "It	would have been	helpful to	have Resource Days at the beginning of the year

because you	learn	all of the things throughout the year, but you	need	it sooner than	that. But at the

same time there’s	so much being taught at the beginning so I'm not sure how to balance that."

Members admitted sometimes "checking out" during Resource Days, especially when they considered

the students they could be helping during those times. One possible solution to the "checking out"

suggested by members	was	for presenters	to offer a mix of training on administrative requirements,

such as	paperwork, for half of the session and the other half would cover student issues, such as	dealing

with trauma. This, they stated, would provide a learning experience that would be useful and would

help	keep	them engaged.

AMC	Member Survey

Questions regarding AMC member orientation and training were included within	the	member	survey in

an effort to gather as much data	as possible	regarding the	usefulness and efficacy of the	training

systems	utilized by CIS and AMC	staff:
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 18 

1. Please	rate	the	overall usefulness of the	initial AmeriCorps Pre-Service	Orientation (PSO) and

member overnight retreat.

2. How well did the initial AmeriCorps PSO and overnight retreat prepare you for your service?

3. Please	rate	the	usefulness of the Resource Days in your	professional development	and training.

Figure 7:	Please	rate	the	overall	usefulness	of	the	initial	AMC	PSO	and	member overnight retreat. (N=30)

Figure 8:	How well did the initial AmeriCorps PSO and overnight retreat prepare you for your service?

(N=30)

Figure 9:	Please rate the usefulness of the Resource Days in your professional development and training.

(N=30)
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 19 

These data	suggest AMC members value	the	pre-service training they receive and most feel that the

continued training days	are useful. Survey data	analysis also supports what focus group participants

stated regarding their orientation and training:	members have relatively positive opinions regarding	the

usefulness of the Pre-Service	Orientation and overnight retreat, but there is still some ambivalence. This

holds true perhaps to	a greater extent for the Resource Days. Data suggest that although	these offerings

are	useful, members may feel there	is room for improvement.
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 20 

How	clearly defined	were the AMC	members’ service goals prior to	starting their

service	period? Did these	goals	(or members’ understanding	of them)	change	

throughout	the service period?

Data were collected from telephone interviews	with	four	randomly	selected	Program	Managers	who

had	supervision of at least one AMC member, as	well as	via focus	groups	with randomly selected AMC

members. Additionally, a survey was distributed	to	all AMC	members to	gain	further insights into	

member experiences.

Program Manager Interviews

Interviews	with	participating	Program	Managers	indicated	that	their	AMC	members’	service	goals	were

clearly	stated from the beginning and that their members	did a good	job	of fulfilling these goals.

However, oone participant stated	that there is a “disconnect” between	the expectations a member has

of his or her service and	the reality of the actual experience. She further stated	that the AMC	team does

a	good job up front of explaining the	goals of the	program, but that	the lived experience can still be very

different. Another participant said	that she is good	at sitting down	with	her AMC	member to	lay out

expectations at the	beginning	of the	year. She	indicated that training	and supervision by the	Program

Manager was important to helping the	member understand his or her service	goals.

Participants indicated that their AMC members’ service	goals did change	and evolve	during the	service	

year. They	stated that new goals emerged with new opportunities and challenges faced by the	member,

and that as the	members got to know their roles on campus they could create	more	opportunities to

learn	and	grow.	

AMC	Member Focus Groups

Participants stated that they did feel very well informed of their service	expectations prior to beginning

their	service terms. They agreed that	the Program Coordinator	who oriented them over	the summer	did

a	good job of letting them know what to expect and what was expected of them, including sharing

pertinent dates and	calendars. Members went on	to say that their expectations	did match their

experiences, to the	extent that their experiences could be	described in training. Almost all participants

stated that nothing AMC staff members	could do would prepare them for their actual daily service with	

students. One participant stated	that attempting to	explain	what they would	actually experience on	

campus	was	like "trying to describe a rainbow to a blind man."

Participants did not explicitly state	that their service	goals changed throughout the	year, but some

participants did	indicate that they did	not feel not fully prepared	for the level of care they would	be

providing to	students. These members stated they would appreciate more training on ethics and dealing

with gray areas.

• "I would have appreciated it if we had been prepared for more difficult challenging things. We could

do	different scenarios and	talk about when	to	call CPS, etc. It was exhausting and	emotionally
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 21 

challenging; Resource Days	didn’t capture that in the slightest - what a high needs campus looks

like."

• "The only thing is	that I wasn’t expecting my campus	to be as	high needs	as	it was	- hearing all the

situations	that my students	were going through was	shocking to me. Working one on one with

students	was	very eye	opening	to me	because	they were	battling	all these	fights but still going	in to

school and trying to succeed. It was	powerful. I was	able to be a positive influence and being that

person	has been	rewarding."

AMC	Member Survey

Survey participants were	asked to rate how well-defined	their service requirements were prior to	

beginning their 2016-2017	service term (N=30). The majority (87%) of participants indicated that their

service requirements	were either very clear or somewhat clear prior to beginning their service. This

further	supports the focus group data that	members believe that	AMC staff	do a good job of	preparing

them for	their	service.

Figure 10:	AMC	member	rankings	of clarity of service requirements prior to	beginning service year
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

		 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 22 

What was the quality	of	communication between AMC members and Program

Managers during the term of service, and	what is its relationship	to	member

effectiveness?

Data were collected via telephone interviews with four randomly selected Program Managers who had

supervision of at least one AMC member and focus groups with randomly	selected AMC members.

Program Manager Interviews

Interview	participants	stated	that	they	have	good,	open,	and	honest	relationships	with	their	AMC

members. They try to set expectations regarding	office	culture	and	let	them	know	what	day-to-day life

on	campus is like from the beginning, and	continue to	cultivate a connection	with	their AMC	members

through weekly supervisions and check-ins	as	needed.	

All participants stated	that they believe their relationship	with	their AMC	members has had	a positive

impact	on	the	members'	ability	to	be	effective in	their	service	with	students.	They	talk	about	the

members' progress and review the interactions with students the members have had throughout the

week. PMs also say that they give	their members ideas for activities to plan with students and various

intervention	techniques	they	may	use in	difficult	situations.	

Participating Program Managers further stated that	they played a large role in helping their	AMC

members fulfill their	service goals.	These participants stated that they challenged members to excel	in

their	service and build strong relationships with the students they served. They encouraged members to

think about	the type of	service year	they wanted to have and helped them meet	the goals they set	for	

themselves by giving feedback, helping them build confidence, and being a person that	the members

could confide in as	needed.

AMC	Member Focus Groups

All participants reported	having positive relationships with	their Program Managers. AMC	Members, on

average, stated that	their	Program Managers are supportive of	them and their	goals and are good

resources for	them in their	service with students.

• I	love my Program Manager.	She is awesome and I can’t say enough good things.	We have each

other’s back no	matter what. She makes it really easy to	talk. If I have questions she’s there with

answers and different ideas to deal with certain students. I lucked out."

• My Program Manager is	nothing	but	great	and	I’ve	learned	so	much	from	her.	She	includes	me a	lot.

I	know	all	of	her	students	and	all	my	students.	She	informs	me	of	what’s	going	on	and	that’s	really

helpful when	students come in	and	I know what’s going	on with them. She	takes me	to different

social work meetings	and truancy court to help me learn. I feel like we have daily supervision. We

have open	relationship	and	I can	ask her anything at any time and	she will be there with	an	answer.

She	knows everything."
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 23 

Members agreed that their Program Managers	had a large impact on their ability to be effective in their

service with students. They provide advice and support for the members	to become more comfortable

in	their	service	with	students.	Additionally, members receive continuous training and feedback from	

their	Program Managers, who can help guide them through specific daily challenges with students. One

participant elaborated on this point,	saying,	“Sometimes my PM listens in to my meetings and then

afterwards she gives feedback and ideas for	how to handle different	situations." Program Managers are

able	to address issues on the	spot when training may be	most effective. Members can go on to use

these specific, targeted lessons with students on	the same day they are received.
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 24 

How	many AMC	members, on	average, choose to	serve more than	one service

year? To what	extent	are	members	who have	served more	than one	AmeriCorps	

term more impactful	with students in targeted outcomes, if	at	all?

Focus groups were	conducted with a	randomized selection of AMC members to gain insights into

member experiences. Additionally, a survey was	distributed	to	all AMC	members to	collect data that

could	be utilized,	along	with	the	qualitative	data, to create a more full and accurate	representation of a	

member’s service experience

Survey results indicated that only about a	quarter of AMC members chose	to serve	more	than one	

service year with AMC during the 2016-2017	service	term (N=28).

Figure 11:	Frequency	of AMC	members’ service terms

Participants of member focus groups who had served multiple	service	terms indicated some	differences

in	their	experiences	this	service	year compared to their	first	service year, as well as compared to

members who had only served one service term. Members who had served multiple service terms

reported holding more realistic expectations of their service requirements prior	to beginning the service

year and had	greater confidence levels	in preparing to work	with students and in day to day student

interactions.	They indicated	that they had	already developed	some coping mechanisms	for stressful days	

and they had games and activities prepared for their	sessions	with students. However, there was no

evidence	to suggest that	student targeted outcomes were different between	groups.
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 		

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 25 

To	what extent does	the	member position type	(FT/PT/EAO) have an	impact on	

student outcomes, if at all?

Data analysis was conducted to compare the average means of student outcome data. As a caveat, it’s

important	to	note	that	the groups were non-homogenous,	such	that	there	were	notably	fewer	part-time

members who served this service term	than the other two groups. Additionally, there may be a number

of other factors that impact student outcomes that are not included	in	this model.

Attendance

Absences

Member position type does not appear to have a	significant impact on student absences (p=.214).

Contrast tests were performed	to	see if any of the groups differed	significantly, but none revealed	

significant differences	between	groups in	the	average	number	of	absences	that	AMC	students	received

during this service year. The effect of member position type on absences was very	low,	overall	(h2

=.006).

Effect size comparisons (using Hedge’s g, due to non-homogeneity of group	sizes) between	each	group	

were	conducted, revealing	small effects of member position type	on this measure:

• Full-time	compared	to	Part-time: g=.08

• Full-time compared to EAO: g=.15

• Part-time compared to EAO: g=.23

Tardies

Analysis of variance tests revealed	significant differences between	the three groups for	the average

number of tardies received	by AMC	students. Further examination	revealed the nature of	these

differences, such that students	served by	EAO members had	significantly more tardies, on	average,

compared to those	served by FT members. The effect of member position	type on	tardies was low,

overall (h2

=.021). However, effect	size comparisons (Hedge’s g)	between each group were conducted,

revealing small to medium effects of member position type	on this measure.

• Full-time compared to EAO: g=.51

• Part-time compared to EAO: g=.23

• Full-time compared to Part-time: g=.21

The FT-EAO comparison could reasonably	be interpreted as	a medium effect, meaning that there could

be a moderate but theoretically meaningful effect	of	member	position type on tardies, with the	FT	and

EAO groups being the most likely to see this	effect in comparison with each other.

Disciplinary Assignments

There was an absence of evidence to suggest that member position type	has an	impact on	the average

number of disciplinary incidents AMC	students had	this service year (p=.879). Contrasts tests further	

supported this	evidence, as	there	were	no significant contrasts between any of the individual groups.

The effect of member position type on disciplinary assignments was very low, overall (h2

=.001). Effect

size comparisons	(Hedge’s	g) between each group were	conducted, revealing	small effects of member

position	type on	this measure:
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 26 

• Full-time compared to Part-time: g=.09

• Full-time compared to EAO: g=.01

• Part-time compared to EAO: g=.07

Grades

English

There was no evidence	that member position type had	a strong impact on	average English	scores for

AMC	students this service year (p=.303). AMC	students, on	average, had	similar scores across groups.

The effect of member position type on English grades was very low, overall (h2

=.005). Effect size

comparisons (Hedge’s g) between each group were conducted, revealing small effects of member

position	type on	this measure:

• Full-time compared to Part-time: g=.003

• Full-time compared to EAO: g=.15

• Part-time compared to EAO: g=.14

Math

Average math	scores did	not vary much	between	groups and	there is a lack of evidence that member

position	type has a very strong impact on	the grades of AMC	students.	No significant differences were

detected	between	any of the three groups of members (p=.167). The effect of member position type	on

math grades was very low, overall (h2

=.007). Effect size comparisons (Hedge’s g) between each group

were conducted, revealing small effects of member position type on this measure:

• Full-time compared to Part-time: g=.15

• Full-time compared	to	EAO: g=.18

• Part-time compared to EAO: g=.03

Science

AMC	students’ average scores did	vary significantly between the three member groups (p<.001). Further

investigation	revealed	that	students	who	were	served	by PT members had higher science scores, on

average, compared to those served by the other	two member groups. The effect of member position

type on science grades was fairly moderate, overall (h2

=.03). Effect size comparisons (Hedge’s g)

between	each	group	were conducted, revealing small to medium effects	of member position type on

this measure:

• Full-time compared to Part-time: g=.63

• Full-time compared to EAO: g=.067

• Part-time compared to EAO: g=.69

There is a	moderate	but theoretically meaningful effect of member position type	on science	grades,

such that students	served by PT members	had a moderate but potentially important difference in

outcomes compared	to	students served	by FT and	EAO members.

Social Studies

AMC	student average	grades for social studies	did not differ significantly between the three member

groups (p=.125).	It does not seem that member position type has a large impact on AMC	student social

studies	grades. The effect of member position type on social studies grades was very low,	overall	
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 27 

(h2

=.009). Effect size comparisons (Hedge’s g) between each group were conducted, revealing small to

medium	effects of member position type on this measure:

• Full-time compared to Part-time: g=.19

• Full-time compared to EAO: g=.15

• Part-time compared to EAO: g=.36

The PT-EAO comparison could reasonably be interpreted as a	medium effect, meaning that there could

be a moderate but theoretically meaningful effect of member position	type on	tardies, with	the PT and	

EAO groups being the most likely to see this	effect in comparison with each other.
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 28 

To	what extent do	members plan	their activities to	align	with	the targeted	issues

of the students they serve?	How often, on	average, are members able to	engage

students	on specific	targeted issues	during sessions? Does	this	type	of

engagement lead to overall improvement on the	specific	issues	that were	

targeted during sessions?

AMC	Member Focus Groups

The majority of focus group participants stated that their meetings with students are not strictly

planned	out, but that they usually allow students to	guide the flow of the meetings. These members

went on to say that giving the students some say in what they did during their meeting times allowed

them to build rapport	and often helped the students to open	up	and	talk about what was going on	in	

their	lives. This type of	structure,	they explained,	seemed	to	be	more	impactful	with	the	students.

Members reminded evaluators that	every student	is different and	some students are talkative,	while

others need	a game	to distract them and keep them entertained. One	participant explained, "We don’t

really do activities explicitly about	the issues, but	we do	an	unrelated	activity and	I ask probing and

intentional	questions,	reflection	questions." This statement was met with agreement from	other focus

group participants. However, one member who is planning to come back for a second service term

stated that her meetings	this	past service term were mostly "free for all,"	but that she planned to be

more intentional in the	activities she	planned with her students during	her next service	term.

Members who stated that they did plan meetings reflected that they were	not always successful,

especially if they had not developed a	good rapport with the	student yet. These	members stated that

the student	would participate in the activity or	game, but	it	felt	forced and the student	would have more

difficulty opening up	to	them. Members went on	to	say that targeted	engagement did	not necessarily

lead	to	changes in	those	specific	areas,	but	that	giving	the	students a	safe	space	to	talk	and	disclose	the

issues	in their lives	did seem to help the students	improve generally.

AMC	Member Survey

Figure 12:	How often,	on	average,	do	you	feel	you	were	able	to	engage	your	students	on	the	targeted

issues	for	which	they	were	referred	to	CIS?	(N=30)
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 29 

Interestingly, AMC	member survey results do	not reflect the statements given	by focus group	members

regarding this issue.	The vast majority (97%) of AMC members who were surveyed stated that they were

able	to engage	their students on targeted issues during their meetings.	However, these data cannot

outline the steps these AMC	members may have taken	at the start of their service year to	build	rapport

with their students and be able to	engage	them on	their key	issues. Further information is needed to

determine whether or not the focus groups data can be generalized to all AMC members.
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 30 

What are the differences, if any, in discipline referrals between students served

by AMC	compared with students served	by	CIS	Program	Managers?	If differences

are	detected, what are	the	possible	reasons	for such differences?

Quantitative data were collected by CIS staff on	student behavioral and	academic outcomes. These

included	disciplinary	referrals	received	by	students at the beginning and	end	of the school year.

On average, all groups had low incidents of disciplinary assignments overall. Only the AMC and the CIS

groups showed an increase	in these	incidents, while	the	No AMC group actually	had a decrease	on

average. Only students served by AMC members showed a	statistically significant increase	in disciplinary

assignments from the	beginning of the	year to the	end. However, the effect size statistics (Cohen’s	d) for

each group were small for this	measure (AMC d=.12; No AMC d=.040;	CIS d=.045).

Figure 13:	Average	number	of	disciplinary	assignments	from	the	beginning	of	the	year	to	the	end	of	the

year

*Denotes significant difference

Interviews	with	Program	Managers and AMC member focus groups gave	some	explanations for this

phenomenon, including that AMC	members are not as equipped	to	deal with	the higher level of

disciplinary incidents that tend	to	arise during the Spring semester. Program Managers and	AMC	

members indicated that the	Spring	semester is more	stressful and challenging	for students and staff and

many students tended to act out, even if a student didn’t have a history of behavioral issues. This,

Program Managers and AMC members explained, is the result of the	stress that comes with additional

expectations placed on students, including	testing (STAAR and other	end of	semester	testing)	as well as

the fact	that	other	projects and	large assignments may be reaching their due dates.
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

		 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 31 

What do Program	Managers and AMC members perceive to	be the benefits of

AMC	members (e.g., to what extent do they believe they actually see a	change in

students	as	a	result of AMC member	intervention)?

Program Managers

Interviews	with	Program	Managers	revealed that the most significant benefit that AMC members bring	

to individual students is an example of	a consistent, safe, and healthy relationship with an adult. Beyond

that, participants stated that	members are able to model healthy closure of	a relationship, provide

mentoring and tutoring, give students desperately needed personal attention, and help improve their

academic interest and self-esteem. Program Managers stated that members provide	an outlet for

students	to talk honestly and they show compassion for the students.

Participants did not mention any specific noticeable changes	in students	as	a result of AMC	member

interventions,	but	the interview	participants	agreed	that	AMC	members	bring a	lot	of	value	to	CIS	as a

whole by allowing CIS the ability	to	reach	more	students than they would otherwise be able to reach

without them. Program Managers stated that their own caseloads would include the same number of

students, but without the support of the AMC members	they would be stretched very thin and	would	

have difficulty serving students	who were not high need.

AMC	Members

Members who participated in focus groups stated that students may not improve in specific targeted

areas, but they do generally improve	as a	result of the	members’ interactions with them. Participants

stated that they felt they were able to serve students	by being a safe, consistent adult who they could

trust. These members went	on to say that	many students in CIS did not	have such a person in their	lives,

so it was	a role they were	able	to take	on that could help students in future	relationships.

Survey data	from AMC members gave	insight into the	types of impacts members believed they had on

students	during their service year. Interestingly, participants	indicated that they had the greatest

impacts	on	issues	relating	to self-esteem and behavior. This	supports	statements	from	focus	group

members who indicated that they had more success in reaching students with behavioral and emotional

issues	than	with	issues	related	to	academics.	Members	offered	an	explanation	for	this,	stating	that	often

during their	sessions	students	would	be	unable	to	focus	due	to	emotional	concerns	or	teachers	would

report	behavioral disruptions and that	forcing the student	to try to focus on academics would be

unproductive.
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 32 

Table 3:	What	types	of	impacts	do	you	believe you had on the	students you served?

Huge Moderate

Impact Impact Small impact No Impact Total

Self esteem 24	(80%) 6	(20%) 0	(0%) 0	(0%) 30

Social skills 22	(73%) 8	(27%) 0	(0%) 0	(0%) 30

Behavior 13	(43%) 16	(53%) 1	(3%) 0	(0%) 30

Academic improvement 13	(43%) 12	(40%) 5	(17%) 0	(0%) 30

Decreased likelihood of

dropping out

8	(27%) 16	(53% 4	(13%) 2	(7%) 30

Improved	attitudes	about

school

8	(27%) 17	(57%) 4	(13%) 1	(3%) 30

Attendance 9	(30%) 15	(50%) 5	(17%) 1	(3%) 30
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 33 

What are the differences, if any, in targeted issues and academic outcomes

between	students served	by AMC	and	students who	attend	CIS	at schools without

an AMC member on campus?	Between students	served by AMC and students	who

attend CIS	with an AMC member on	campus but who	are not served	by AMC?	

Data collection

Quantitative student data were collected from CIS campuses that both did and did not have AMC

members serving on campus. These data included demographic and background characteristics,

academic scores, and targeted areas of	need and progress in those areas. The evaluative sample

included	2,568	students.	

Data analysis included data from three groups of students:

1) Students served by AMC (N=552);

2) Students from campuses not served by AMC (N=1,140); and,

3) Students not served by AMC but who attend a	campus upon which an AMC member is present

(N=876)

A	representative sample of all three student groups were randomly selected	for analysis.

For clarity, student groups are	labeled as follows:

1) Students who are	served by AMC members – “AMC”

2) Students who are	served by CIS	on campuses without an AMC member – “No AMC”

3) Students who are	served by CIS	on campuses with an AMC member but who are	not paired with an

AMC	member – “CIS”

Students were	referred to CIS	for a	wide	range	of mental, behavioral, and academic issues. Data	suggest

students	were largely referred to CIS across	all campuses	for reasons	relating to academics, and the

distribution	of issues between	groups was relatively homogenous. Interviews with	program managers

revealed that	they normally paired AMC members with students who were lower-need	and	suitable for

mentoring; however, the severity of each student’s targeted issue may differ within these categories,

making some more suitable for pairing with AMC	members than	others.

Table 4:	Key	areas	of	need

AMC N (%) No AMC N	(%) CIS N (%) Total

Academics 328	(63%) 695	(62%) 594	(69%) 1,617	(65%)

Behavior 83	(16%) 264	(23%) 150	(18%) 497	(20%)

Mental Health 87	(17%) 131	(12%) 91	(11%) 309	(12%)

Crisis Situations 20	(4%) 38	(3%) 21	(2%) 79	(3%)

Total 518 1,128 856 2,502
	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 34 

Targeted issues outcomes

At the end	of the year, students from all groups were assessed	to	determine progress on	their key areas

of need. Data analysis revealed	that the majority of students from all groups showed	improvement in	

these targeted issues.

Table 5:	Targeted	issues	outcomes

Improved N	(%) No Change N	(%) Regressed N (%) Total

AMC 305	(65%) 159	(34%) 8	(2%) 472

No AMC 802	(77%) 242	(37%) 0	(0%) 1,044

CIS 536	(68%) 253	(32%) 0	(0%) 789

Total 1,643 654 8 2,305

Attendance

Absences

All three groups showed	statistically significant increases	in the average number of absences	from the

beginning of the year to	the end. However, students paired	with	AMC	members had	lower average

absences than the	other two groups overall. The effect size	statistics	(Cohen’s d)	for	each group were

small for this	measure (AMC d=.23; No AMC d=.10; CIS d=.30).

Figure 14:	Average	number	of	absences	from	the	beginning	of	the	year	to	the	end	of	the	year

*Denotes significant difference

Tardies

Again, all three groups showed	increases	in the average number of tardies	recorded from the beginning

of the year to	the end. These increases were statistically significant for the AMC	and	CIS groups, but in	

practical terms none of the groups showed	a very great increase the average number of tardies

recorded from the beginning of	the year	to the end (i.e., each group’s average only increased by

approximately one	to one	and a	half more	tardies from pretest to posttest). The effect size statistics	

(Cohen’s d) for each group were small for	this measure (AMC d=.21; No AMC d=.04; CIS d=.12).
	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 35 

Figure 15:	Average	number	of	tardies	from	the	beginning	of	the	year	to	the	end	of	the	year

*Denotes significant difference

Grades

English

The differences in grades between the three groups are almost imperceptible. All groups showed a	

decrease in	average grade from the beginning of the year to	the end. Decreases in	average grade were

statistically significant for the No AMC group and for the CIS group. The effect size statistics (Cohen’s d)

for	each group indicated small effect	sizes for	this measure (AMC d=.10; No AMC d=.10; CIS d=.11).

Figure 16:	Average	English	grades	from	the	beginning	of	the	year	to	the	end	of	the	year**

**Note the x-axis minimum is >0	to show three	distinct lines. The	above	data	points are	as follows:

• AMC	Pretest: 81.4%, Posttest: 79.7%

• No AMC Pretest: 80.3%, Posttest: 78.9%*

• CIS Pretest: 80.5%, Posttest: 79.3%*

o *Denotes significant difference
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 36 

Math

Again, the grades at the	beginning and end of the	year are	very similar across groups. However, the	No

AMC	group	showed	a slight grade increase, while the AMC	and	the CIS groups decreased	slightly. None

of these differences were statistically significant. The effect size statistics (Cohen’s	d) for each group

indicate	a small effect size for this	measure (AMC d=.04; No AMC d=.07; CIS	d=.02).

Figure 17:	Average	math	grades	from	the	beginning	of	the	year	to	the	end	of	the	year**

**Note the x-axis minimum is >0	to show three	distinct lines. The above data points are as follows:

• AMC	Pretest: 80.2%, Posttest: 79.6%

• No AMC Pretest: 79.3%, Posttest: 80.3%

• CIS Pretest: 79.8%, Posttest: 80%

Science

Students across all groups had fairly high science	grades on average	(i.e., all scores were	in the	80%

range). Students who were paired with AMC members had a marginal but	statistically significant	

decrease in	science grades from the beginning of the year to	the end	of the year, while the other two	

groups showed a non-significant increase on	average. The effect size statistics (Cohen’s d) for each

group indicated small effect sizes for	this measure (AMC d=.15; No AMC d=.11; CIS d=.03).

Figure 18:	Average	science	grades	from	the	beginning	of	the	year	to	the	end	of	the	year**
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 37 

**Note the x-axis minimum is >0	to show three	distinct lines. The	above	data	points are	as follows:

• AMC	Pretest: 83.4%, Posttest: 81.5%*

• No AMC Pretest: 81.6%, Posttest: 83.2%

• CIS Pretest: 81.7%, Posttest: 82.8%

o *Denotes significant difference

Social Studies

All three groups of	students had high achievement	in social studies from the beginning of	the year	to the

end. However, grades for the	AMC group did decrease	slightly on average	while	grades for the	No AMC

and CIS	groups increased. The	CIS	group had a	statistically	significant increase from the beginning to the

end of the	year. The effect size statistics (Cohen’s d) for each group indicated small effect sizes	for this	

measure (AMC d=.07; No AMC d=.02; CIS d=.10).

Figure 19:	Average	social	studies	grades	from	the beginning	of the year to	the end	of the year**

*Denotes significant difference

**Note the x-axis minimum is >0	to show three	distinct lines

STAAR Outcomes

STAAR outcome	data	provided to evaluators included only whether or not students passed or failed

each STAAR exam. Data	were	not available	for all students included in the	evaluative	sample, so these	

scores	may not present an accurate representation of the STAAR scores	across	the three sample groups.

Table 6:	Percentage	of	students	who	obtained	passing	STAAR	exam scores

AMC (Total N) No AMC (Total N) CIS (Total N)

Reading 48% (351) 52% (370) 49% (405)

Math 54% (363) 60% (459) 54% (460)

Science 60% (120) 65% (238) 57% (217)

ELA 47% (129) 42% (129) 40% (156)

Social Studies 88% (24) 46% (230) 45% (119)
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 38 

What are the differences, if any, in the number of students completing the school

year/being	promoted to the	next	grade	level	between AMC students	and those	

attending	CIS	at campuses	not served by AMC?	Between students	served by AMC

and students	who attend CIS	with an AMC member on campus	but who are	not

served by	AMC?

Frequency analyses revealed that the	majority of all CIS	students were	promoted to the	next grade	level.

However, students paired with an AMC member were the most likely of all students	to be promoted at

the end of	the 2016-2017	service	year.

Figure 20:	Frequency	of	students	promoted	to	the	next	grade	level	between	groups
	 	 	

	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 39 

How	do	Program Managers and	AMC	members rate	members’	ability to	meet	or	

exceed program goals?

Program Managers

All Program Managers who supervise	at least one	AMC member and who participated in telephone	

interviews stated that their AMC members	were doing very well in completing	their	program	goals.	They

stated that the members	are receptive to feedback and are improving in their service as	they feel more

comfortable with their roles	on campus. One participant indicated that her AMC member has	been

absent frequently due	to illness, but that when she	is there	"she	is 110% present and still giving	

everything	even though she	knows she	will not complete	a	full term."

Survey data	from Program Managers further indicated that the	majority of Program Managers (71%)

believe AMC	members had	a large impact on	the students they served. Overall, data suggest that

Program Managers have	a	high view of AMC members and their ability to meet or exceed their goals.

Figure	21:	How	would	you	rate	the	impact	of	your	AMC	member	on	the	students	they	served? (N=21)

AMC	Members

On average, focus group participants believed that they were successful at meeting their program goals

this service year. They	indicated that they	progressed in their professional goals and grew as people.

Members stated that they believed they had a positive impact	on the lives of	the students they served.

A	few participants who had not already chosen a	career path stated that they decided to pursue a career

in	social	work	as a	result	of	this	service	year.	Some	already	started	looking	into	school	programs in	social	

work so they could get started.	Members, overall, reported being satisfied with their experiences and

stated that they gained more knowledge and experience than they expected at the start of their service

term.
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 40 

Limitations

As with	all research involving humans, this evaluation did have some limitations.

First, there	were	differences between student groups in grade	level and sample	size,	which although

accounted for in data	analysis, may have	had an impact on research validity. Second, STAAR outcomes

were missing for many students in each of the samples, which limits our ability to accurately compare

groups and reach valid conclusions regarding	these	outcomes. Finally, the	evaluator was unable	to

gather data directly	from the	population of interest due to	lack of access to	students, parents, teachers,

and other school administrators. This limitation limits the	scope	of the	evaluation and presents a	onesided view of the AmeriCorps members and	their service to	students.
	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	

AmeriCorps Impact Report 2016-2017 41 

Conclusion

The purpose of	this evaluation was to provide an impact	analysis of	the AmeriCorps Program at	

Communities in	Schools of Central Texas. Specifically, the goal was to	understand	the distinct

contributions	of AmeriCorps	members	to students, above and beyond what is provided	by the CIS

program staff. To	that end, evaluators collected	qualitative and	qualitative data from CIS and	

AmeriCorps program leaders about the AmeriCorps program,	as	well	as	student	outcome	data	from	the

beginning to	the end	of the school year. The students included	in	this evaluative sample included	

randomized selections of	CIS students served by AmeriCorps members, CIS students who are not	served

by AmeriCorps members, and	CIS students who	attend	campuses upon	which	AmeriCorps members

serve but who are not paired with an AmeriCorps member. These three groups were chosen specifically

to gain a clear	picture of	the impact	AmeriCorps members have on the students they serve as well as on

the campuses on which they serve as compared to students who have no interactions with AmeriCorps

members at all.

When outcome data for the three groups of students were analyzed, results revealed that students

served by AmeriCorps	members	were more likely to be in middle school than students	not served by

AmeriCorps members. And although students served by AmeriCorps members had slightly worse

academic outcomes than the	other two student groups, they were	more	likely to be	promoted to the	

next grade level than	those not served	by AmeriCorps. This finding was not very surprising, as	many

students	are paired with AmeriCorps	members	for academic	reasons	and need	extra	help with tutoring.

There is reason to assume that these students may perform more poorly, on average, than their peers

without the extra support from AmeriCorps	members.	Their	rate	of	academic	development	may	be

slower than their peers.

Evaluators also looked at outcome data	for students’ absences, tardies, and disciplinary incidents from

the beginning to the end of	the year. Data analysis showed that	although the groups did not	differ	from

each other very much in practical terms, the	students who	were not served	by AmeriCorps members

fared slightly better than those who were served by an AmeriCorps	member in all areas	but absences.

Students served by AmeriCorps members showed a	slight but statistically significant uptick in

disciplinary assignments from the	beginning of the	year to the	end.

Based	on	these detailed	analyses, it can	be concluded	that the AmeriCorps program is no	more effective

than CIS at	improving students’ academic outcomes. However, this does not	tell the whole story of the

services	AmeriCorps	members	provide to CIS as	a whole and to the campuses	on which they serve. The

mentoring support they provide to the students may not lead directly to academic improvement, but it

is a	crucial	service	to	underserved	students	such	as	those represented in this	sample, who often just

need	a consistent adult in	their lives to	model positive behavior and	provide an	emotional safe place and	

much-needed	compassion. A program as	extensive and ambitious	as	this	requires	further examination

to	understand	the lasting impacts that AmeriCorps members have on	the students they serve.