AmeriCorps 2023 State of the Evidence 

Report

September 1, 2023

Scott Richman, Michelle Bennett, Katie Gleason
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
AmeriCorps 2023 State of the Evidence Report

September 1, 2023

Scott Richman, Michelle Bennett, Katie Gleason

Submitted to:

AmeriCorps

Office of Research and Evaluation

250 E Street, SW

Washington, DC 20525

Attention: Katy Hussey-Sloniker

Submitted by:

Mathematica

1100 First Street, NE, 12th Floor

Washington, DC 20002-4221

Phone: (202) 484-9220

Fax: (202) 863-1763

Citation

Richman, S., M. Bennett, and K. Gleason. “AmeriCorps 2023 State of the Evidence Report.” Mathematica, 

September 2023. 

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge several people who contributed to and supported this report funded by 

AmeriCorps. At AmeriCorps, Katy Hussey-Sloniker, Mary Hyde, Lily Zandniapour, Andrea Robles, Rosa 

Johnson and other staff within the AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation provided feedback that 

greatly enhanced this report. We appreciate their thoughtful insights into AmeriCorps programs and the 

evidence-building efforts the agency has undertaken. We also thank Mathematica study team members 

Kelsey Bagwill and Ryan Fiorito for their support in the preparations and logistics that helped this report 

come to fruition. In addition, Susan Vermeer Lopez provided valuable project leadership that supported 

this report’s development, and Linda Rosenberg provided critical technical review and feedback that 

greatly enhanced the report. Sheryl Friedlander helped prepare it, and Dale Anderson and Jennifer Brown 

provided editorial assistance.

Produced and published at U.S. taxpayer expense.
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying. 
Table of Contents

Mathematica® Inc. v 

Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................................................... ix

I. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................................1

A. How AmeriCorps invests in building evidence ................................................................................................................2

B. Context for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report.......................................................................................................3

C. Overview of the 2023 State of the Evidence Report......................................................................................................4

1. State of the Evidence framework................................................................................................................................4

2. Research questions...........................................................................................................................................................6

3. Methodological approach .............................................................................................................................................7

4. Characteristics of the reviewed studies ....................................................................................................................8

D. How the report is organized................................................................................................................................................. 12

II. What is the State of the Evidence on AmeriCorps Participants?...................................................................................... 15

A. Characteristics of AmeriCorps members ......................................................................................................................... 15

B. Benefits to AmeriCorps members and volunteers....................................................................................................... 18

III. What is the State of the Evidence on AmeriCorps Partners?............................................................................................. 23

IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?............................................................................. 27

A. Evidence on how AmeriCorps-funded interventions benefit communities...................................................... 27

1. Education........................................................................................................................................................................... 28

2. Economic opportunity.................................................................................................................................................. 32

3. Healthy futures ................................................................................................................................................................ 34

4. Environmental stewardship........................................................................................................................................ 36

5. Disaster services.............................................................................................................................................................. 37

6. Veterans and military families ................................................................................................................................... 39

B. Investing in community-based solutions generates greater value in return.................................................... 39

C. Successfully scaling an intervention requires evidence and readiness............................................................... 42
Table of Contents

Mathematica® Inc. vi

V. What Do We Know About the State of National Service, Volunteering, and Civic Engagement in

the United States? ............................................................................................................................................................................... 45

A. Societal rates of volunteerism and civic engagement............................................................................................... 46

B. New insights advance understanding of national service, volunteering, and civic engagement............ 48

1. Factors that promote civic engagement among individuals........................................................................ 48

2. Studies using participatory research illustrate how to include community members in the design

and study of programs to address complex social problems ...................................................................... 50

3. Practices that help organizations maximize the impact of volunteers..................................................... 52

4. The importance of nonprofits for the subjective well-being of communities....................................... 53

VI. Summary and Recommendations................................................................................................................................................. 54

A. The state of the evidence on AmeriCorps participants ............................................................................................. 54

B. The state of the evidence on AmeriCorps partners .................................................................................................... 55

C. The state of the evidence of AmeriCorps on communities ..................................................................................... 56

D. The state of the evidence on national service, volunteering, and civic engagement in society............... 58

References......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60

Appendix A. Studies Reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report.........................................................................A.1

Appendix B. Study Review Rubric...........................................................................................................................................................B.1
Table of Contents

Mathematica® Inc. vii

Tables

I.1. AmeriCorps ORE research grant cycles and priority funding areas ............................................................................3

IV.1. Number of reviewed studies examining AmeriCorps outcomes and impacts in the community 

domain, by AmeriCorps focus area....................................................................................................................................... 27

A.1. Studies reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence report.....................................................................................A.3

B.1. Study review rubric for the 2023 State of Evidence report ........................................................................................B.3

Figures

I.1. State of the Evidence framework ..............................................................................................................................................5

I.2. Percentage of studies by study source that conducted the research........................................................................9

I.3. Percentage of studies by main study approach............................................................................................................... 10

I.4. Percentage of studies by AmeriCorps program included in the research ............................................................ 11

I.5. Percentage of studies by State of the Evidence framework domain....................................................................... 12

II.1. AmeriCorps member profiles .................................................................................................................................................. 17

IV.1. COVID-19 Containment Response Corps phases for disaster service response ................................................ 38

IV.2. ROI per funder dollar for AmeriCorps-funded interventions ..................................................................................... 41

IV.3. The Scaling Programs with Research Evidence and Effectiveness (SPREE) process .......................................... 43

V.I. Changes in social capital between 2008 and 2013 on measures of individuals’ associational 

connections and formal ties..................................................................................................................................................... 47

V.2. Civic enrichment hypothesis .................................................................................................................................................... 50
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying. 
Executive Summary

Mathematica® Inc. ix

Executive Summary

In the past decade, AmeriCorps,

1 its grantee organizations, and AmeriCorps Office of Research and 

Evaluation (ORE) research grant recipients have generated a wealth of evidence on AmeriCorps programs, 

interventions, civic engagement, and national service. In 2017, AmeriCorps ORE released the first State of 

the Evidence Report, which was one of the agency’s first large-scale efforts to synthesize a growing body 

of evidence across the various AmeriCorps funding programs and grants. That report used evidence 

obtained from October 2014 to June 2017.The purpose of this report is to synthesize key themes from 

studies produced by or for AmeriCorps from 2017 to 2022 with the goal of describing the state of the 

evidence where the agency seeks to make an impact.

This 2023 State of the Evidence report is based on the 

investments AmeriCorps regularly makes in evidence 

building through several avenues. The agency provides

funding and technical support to AmeriCorps State and 

National grantee organizations to conduct independent 

evaluations of their interventions. Other programs, such 

as AmeriCorps NCCC, AmeriCorps VISTA, and 

AmeriCorps Seniors, also generate evidence that aligns 

with the agency’s learning agenda. AmeriCorps ORE 

funds research grants, third-party evaluations, systematic 

reviews, and meta-synthesis analyses, and it also conducts its own research to generate credible and 

relevant evidence on AmeriCorps programs, successful interventions, and civic life in the United States. 

2017 State of the Evidence Report

The 2017 State of the Evidence Report is a 

precursor to the current report. The 2017 

report synthesizes the body of evidence 

produced by or for AmeriCorps from 2014 to 

2017. See the 2017 State of the Evidence 

Report for a discussion of AmeriCorps’ earlier 

evidence findings, which are not included in 

this 2023 State of the Evidence Report.

A. State of the Evidence framework and research questions 

In collaboration with ORE, Mathematica developed a State of the Evidence framework that defines where 

the agency seeks to build evidence in pursuit of its mission to “improve lives, strengthen communities, 

and foster civic engagement through service and volunteering.” This framework guides how we approach

the evidence synthesis and the structure of this report.

The four domains in this framework represent where AmeriCorps seeks to make an impact through its 

investments in national service and volunteerism: participants, partners, communities, and society. Each 

domain also includes the specific research questions this report addresses:

• Participants are the individual AmeriCorps members and volunteers who join AmeriCorps to serve local 

communities through AmeriCorps programs.

What does AmeriCorps know about AmeriCorps participants? More specifically ... 

– What are the characteristics of participants who serve with AmeriCorps?

– What outcomes and impacts, if any, do AmeriCorps participants experience?

1 Prior to 2020, AmeriCorps operated as the Corporation for National and Community Service (or CNCS).
Executive Summary

Mathematica® Inc. x 

• Partners are the AmeriCorps grantees and sponsoring organizations that receive AmeriCorps program 

funding to implement service projects in their local communities using AmeriCorps members and 

volunteers.

What does AmeriCorps know about AmeriCorps partners? More specifically ... 

– In what ways, if any, has AmeriCorps helped build the capacity of grantees and sponsor organizations 

to achieve their missions and better serve their communities? 

• Communities are the individuals, groups, and local areas that experience or receive services from 

AmeriCorps-funded grantees or sponsors delivered by AmeriCorps members and volunteers.

What does AmeriCorps know about communities served by AmeriCorps-funded grantees or 

sponsors and their members and volunteers? More specifically ... 

– What outcomes or impacts, if any, do communities served by AmeriCorps-funded grantees or 

sponsors and their members and volunteers experience? 

– What does the research say about investments in and scaling of effective interventions?

• Society represents national service, volunteering, and civic engagement in the United States more 

broadly.

What does AmeriCorps know about national service, volunteering, and civic engagement in 

society? More specifically ... 

– What are the societal rates of volunteerism, participation in national service, and civic engagement? 

How do these rates vary by demographic characteristics?

– What new insights has AmeriCorps-funded research generated to advance the field’s understanding 

of national service, volunteering, and civic engagement?

Mathematica began this synthesis by identifying a total of 116 studies eligible for review based on the 

AmeriCorps Evidence Exchange as the primary source for compiling studies reviewed for this document. 

Studies produced through AmeriCorps ORE research grants were compiled through the grantee profiles

published on the agency’s website or obtained directly from ORE. We then used this framework and a 

structured review process to extract key information from those 116 studies, including their design and 

key findings. See Appendix A for a full list of studies reviewed and Appendix B for the rubric used to 

review the studies in this report.

It is also important to know that this report is meant to capture the state of the evidence produced or 

supported by AmeriCorps during a specific timeframe (2017 to 2022). Evidence and knowledge building 

are ongoing processes, especially as the agency continues to generate new research. As a result, themes 

discussed within this report should be viewed as characterizing the evidence as it exists at the time of this 

report, with the understanding that the interpretation of that evidence can evolve as new evidence 

emerges. 
Executive Summary

Mathematica® Inc. xi

B. Summary of key findings

Most of the reviewed studies (95 percent) were conducted by evaluators external to AmeriCorps, and the 

most common study designs used by AmeriCorps-funded evaluators facilitate drawing causal conclusions 

about intervention impacts (43 percent). In addition, the majority of studies (71 percent) focused on the 

AmeriCorps State and National program. Of the four domains in the framework, the majority of the 

reviewed studies provided evidence that focused on the communities served by AmeriCorps-funded 

grantees or sponsors and their members and volunteers (61 percent). 

1. The state of the evidence on AmeriCorps participants

We reviewed 16 studies (14 percent of 116 studies) that examined AmeriCorps participants’ characteristics 

and the benefits participants experience through serving or volunteering with AmeriCorps. Three studies 

showed how these members possess the cultural competency to work and interact with communities of 

people who are different from themselves and showed that they enter their service term with unique 

backgrounds and motivations to serve. The 14 studies that examined benefits to participants paint a 

mixed picture on how AmeriCorps members and volunteers benefit from their service or volunteer 

experience. Only five studies of those 14 studies used a quasi-experimental design (QED) or randomizedcontrol trial (RCT) design, and of these, only three found positive impacts on AmeriCorps members’ 

employment, education, and civic engagement (Anderson et al. 2019; Frazier et al. 2018; Hudson-Flege 

2018). Two of the 14 studies focused on AmeriCorps Seniors; they were a QED and a meta-synthesis of 

extant literature on the program, provided evidence on how AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers experienced 

improved physical and psychological well-being due to their service experience (Frazier et al. 2019; 

Georges et al. 2018).

2. The state of the evidence on AmeriCorps partners

We reviewed 10 studies (9 percent of 116 studies) that examined whether AmeriCorps helped build the 

capacity of partners—grantees and sponsor organizations—to achieve their missions and better serve 

their communities. Emerging themes from two grantees’ QED evaluations suggested that AmeriCorps 

partnerships can help grantees meet their project goals (McCreary et al. 2020; Viola et al. 2018). Other 

outcomes studies highlighted how AmeriCorps partners experienced increases in their capacity to better 

serve their communities. However, these studies did not include a comparison group in the study design, 

so it is difficult to attribute these promising outcomes to partners’ AmeriCorps involvement.

3. The state of the evidence of AmeriCorps on communities

We reviewed 71 studies (61 percent of 116 studies) that examined how communities and the individuals 

within them benefit from AmeriCorps-funded interventions, the value generated from investing in 

AmeriCorps-funded interventions, or how to scale interventions to increase the scope of their impact. 

Fifty-one of those studies explored impacts or outcomes associated with AmeriCorps-funded 

interventions, most of which were in AmeriCorps’ education focus area (31 studies); the other focus areas 

(disaster services, economic opportunity, environmental stewardship, healthy future, and veterans and 

military families) had eight or fewer studies.

Our review of 15 return on investment (ROI) and benefit-cost studies (two of which also examined

outcomes or impacts) highlighted how AmeriCorps-funded interventions across the six focus areas can 
Executive Summary

Mathematica® Inc. xii

generate additional value that exceeds the initial investments necessary for implementing the 

interventions. An additional seven studies discussed important prerequisites to successfully scale an 

intervention. 

4. The state of the evidence of AmeriCorps on national service, volunteering, and civic 

engagement in society

We reviewed 25 studies (22 percent of 116 studies) that furthered evidence on national service, 

volunteering, and civic engagement in the United States. One descriptive study helped generate new 

insights on the civic health of society with regards to the levels of formal volunteering in the United States 

and the variations in individuals’ characteristics among volunteers (AmeriCorps Office of Research and 

Evaluation 2021). Another study also identified the importance of exploring the multifaceted nature of 

civic engagement and how trends can differ based on how civic engagement is measured (Weiss et al. 

2019). Nine studies also explored factors that may affect civic engagement among individuals. Eight 

studies highlighted how participatory research can be successful in engaging individuals in the strategy 

design and research processes to help address those individuals’ own or local community needs. Finally, 

five studies highlighted how organizational practices can influence how successful organizations are in 

engaging and maintaining volunteers to support their goals.

C. Implications of the findings

Based on this report’s findings, we propose the following recommendations that can help AmeriCorps and 

its evidence-building ecosystem, which includes AmeriCorps ORE, AmeriCorps program offices, and State 

Service Commissions, to further its evidence-building efforts. 

1. The state of the evidence on AmeriCorps participants

The findings from this report detail opportunities for AmeriCorps to strengthen its efforts to build 

evidence on AmeriCorps members and volunteers:

• Consider expanding efforts to analyze data on the characteristics of AmeriCorps members and 

volunteers who apply for and serve with AmeriCorps.

• Explore avenues for collecting data from AmeriCorps members and volunteers when entering and 

exiting the program to help generate new evidence in this domain. 

• Provide additional supports to grantee evaluators to support developing new evidence on AmeriCorps 

members.

2. The state of the evidence on AmeriCorps partners

Findings in this domain offer strategies for how AmeriCorps can gather additional evidence on its 

partners.

• Explore avenues for collecting data from AmeriCorps partners at the beginning and end of their grant 

period.

• Consider linking partner survey data with other data sources.

• Consider avenues for facilitating impact studies on AmeriCorps partners.
Executive Summary

Mathematica® Inc. xiii

3. The state of the evidence of AmeriCorps on communities 

Findings in this domain offer considerations for how AmeriCorps can continue to build evidence on 

AmeriCorps’ impact on communities.

• Consider what additional supports and trainings would help build evidence in focus areas that had 

fewer studies.

• Utilize meta-analytic approaches to further identify how AmeriCorps-funded interventions impact 

communities.

• Continue efforts in developing additional ROI studies and build grantee evaluator capacity to include 

these or other cost-related analyses in the evidence they produce.

4. The state of the evidence of AmeriCorps on national service, volunteering, and civic 

engagement in society

Findings in this domain identify approaches where AmeriCorps can grow and apply the evidence on 

building national service, volunteering, and civic engagement in society.

• Continue designing future rounds of AmeriCorps ORE research grant funding that prioritize specific 

topics of interests to programs, agencies, and the field to build more evidence in those areas.

• Explore ways to help partner organizations incorporate new evidence on national service, volunteering, 

and civic engagement into their own practices and identify opportunities for service and volunteering 

that do not currently exist. As new innovations occur, seek to identify opportunities to test new 

approaches with impact studies. 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying. 
Chapter I. Introduction

Mathematica® Inc. 1 

I. Introduction

Since the federal agency’s beginning in 1993, AmeriCorps2 has aimed to use national service and

volunteerism to help Americans improve their own lives while strengthening local communities and 

fostering civic engagement across the nation. As the sole federal agency dedicated to community service 

and volunteerism, AmeriCorps provides resources, coordination, infrastructure, and leadership to connect 

individuals with organizations working to address community challenges. AmeriCorps has done so 

through funding programs and grants that:

• Fund local and national organizations to engage 

AmeriCorps members, up to one year of service, using 

evidence-based or evidence-informed approaches to 

strengthen communities (AmeriCorps State and 

National) and develop community leaders through 

direct, team-based national and community service 

(AmeriCorps NCCC) 

• Enhance organizations’ capacity to alleviate poverty 

and address the impacts of poverty in local 

communities (AmeriCorps VISTA) and increase 

volunteer recruitment and retention (Volunteer 

Generation Fund) 

• Provide grants to organizations to engage Americans 

age 55 and older to deliver one-on-one mentoring and 

academic support to children with exceptional needs 

(AmeriCorps Seniors Foster Grandparent Program

[FGP]); provide friendship and supportive and 

individualized assistance to help adults remain 

independent in their homes (AmeriCorps Seniors 

Senior Companion Program [SCP]); and volunteer in 

their communities to help address critical needs

(AmeriCorps Seniors Retired and Senior Volunteer 

Program [RSVP]) 

• Support national days of service (Martin Luther King Day of Service and September 11 Day of 

Service) that encourage Americans to volunteer in their communities

• Fund efforts to improve understanding of the importance and impact of civic engagement and national 

service (AmeriCorps ORE research grant program) 

AmeriCorps focus areas

• Disaster services help communities 

prepare for, respond to, and recover from 

natural and other disasters.

• Economic opportunity addresses housing, 

financial literacy, and employment needs of 

individuals and families with low income.

• Education helps communities design and 

implement solutions that improve 

educational outcomes and prepare 

students for college and their careers.

• Environmental stewardship trains 

individuals in conservation and green jobs 

and supports successful science-based 

conservation strategies.

• Healthy futures interventions focus on 

health-focused assistance, prevention, and 

intervention to educate and maintain 

healthy communities.

• Veterans and military families programs 

provide services to meet their needs and 

engage veterans and military families in 

national service opportunities.

Through its various programs and grants, AmeriCorps draws on the value of national and community 

service to address the focus areas of disaster services, economic opportunity, education, environmental 

stewardship, healthy futures, and veterans and military families (see sidebar). To do this, AmeriCorps

identifies and invests in community solutions through its dedication to using evidence to find what works

2 Prior to 2020, AmeriCorps operated as the Corporation for National and Community Service (or CNCS).
Chapter I. Introduction

Mathematica® Inc. 2 

and build the capacity of grantee organizations, service members, and communities to have a lasting 

impact on the well-being of individuals and local areas. 

A. How AmeriCorps invests in building evidence

AmeriCorps evidence-building 

principles

• AmeriCorps adheres to rigorous scientific 

and data standards.

• AmeriCorps prioritizes relevant evidence. 

• AmeriCorps makes findings from its 

evidence-building activities broadly 

available and accessible. 

• AmeriCorps protects the independence 

and objectivity of its evidence.

Source: AmeriCorps Policy 900: Evaluation Policy, as 

cited in AmeriCorps Office of Research and 

Evaluation (2022). 

AmeriCorps evidence ratings and 

criteria

• Pre-preliminary ratings are applied when 

there is not an available outcomes or 

impact evaluation for the intervention but 

there is performance data for that 

intervention.

• Preliminary ratings are applied to 

outcomes studies, such as pre- and posttests with no comparison group or posttests only for treatment and comparison 

groups.

• Moderate ratings are applied to study 

designs that support causal conclusions 

but have limited generalizability beyond 

the study context.

• Strong ratings are applied to study 

designs that support causal conclusions 

that generalize to other contexts or focal 

populations.

Source: AmeriCorps (2021a).

Guided by its strategic learning and evidence-building 

plan (also referred to as the AmeriCorps learning 

agenda), the agency generates and uses actionable

evidence and data to inform how it operates and seeks to 

continually improve upon its effectiveness (AmeriCorps 

Office of Research and Evaluation 2022). The plan also 

demonstrates how AmeriCorps applies its evidencebuilding principles (see sidebar) to do the following: 

• Enhance the agency’s impact on national service 

members and volunteers, along with the communities 

and organizations they serve within. 

• Articulate agency- and program-specific priority 

projects that can build upon the existing evidence base 

for national service, volunteerism, and civic 

engagement.

To achieve these objectives, AmeriCorps regularly invests 

in evidence building through various avenues. The 

agency, along with State Service Commissions, provides 

funding and technical support to AmeriCorps State and 

National grantee organizations to conduct independent 

evaluations of their interventions.

3 These grantees range 

from those assessing the early phases of their 

interventions to those developing quality, causal evidence 

of effectiveness for their interventions. This approach 

aligns with AmeriCorps’ aim of growing new solutions to 

current issues facing local communities while also aiming 

to expand the impact of existing interventions. Because 

the type and quality of research on grantees’ 

interventions vary widely, AmeriCorps developed tieredevidence frameworks to rate the quality of evidence for 

the interventions it supports. AmeriCorps applies “prepreliminary,” “preliminary,” “moderate,” and “strong” 

evidence ratings based on whether the evidence 

demonstrates a causal impact or whether the evidence is 

3 The AmeriCorps Evaluation Resources page displays various resources for technical assistance and evaluation 

capacity building that the agency provides to help grantees build evidence for their interventions. 
Chapter I. Introduction

Mathematica® Inc. 3 

generalizable to other contexts and populations (see sidebar for the criteria associated with each evidence 

rating category). Other programs, such as AmeriCorps NCCC, AmeriCorps VISTA, and AmeriCorps Seniors, 

also generate evidence that align to the agency’s learning agenda.

In addition, the AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) funds third-party evaluations, 

systematic reviews, and meta-synthesis analyses, as well as conducts its own research, to generate 

credible and relevant evidence on AmeriCorps programs, successful interventions, and civic life in the 

United States. Producing and synthesizing well-executed evaluations and research further expands the 

knowledge base on national service, volunteerism, and civic engagement, and addresses priority areas of

interest to AmeriCorps and the research field. AmeriCorps ORE has also funded four research grant cycles 

between 2015 and 2022 that support researchers, scholars, and dissertation writers at higher education 

institutions to study civic engagement, volunteering, national service, and civil society more broadly (see 

Table I.1). These AmeriCorps ORE research grants help increase the field’s understanding of the nation’s 

civic health, identify factors that facilitate or serve as barriers to civic engagement and national service, 

and engage in innovative research approaches that help address community challenges. 

Table I.1. AmeriCorps ORE research grant cycles and priority funding areas

Grant cycle Priority funding areas

2015 • Researching the economic benefits of national service, volunteering, and civic engagement

• Developing innovative methods to measure these concepts at various geographic levels

2017 • Defining and measuring civic engagement at the community level

• Understanding individuals’ motivations for and behaviors of civic engagement throughout the 

life course.

• Researching the impacts of civic engagement, volunteering, and national service for individuals, 

families, and communities

2018 • Using a participatory research approach to engage people within their communities to identify, 

understand, and address societal issues and exploring the use of national service to assist in 

tackling community-identified priorities

2022 • Build on prior research funded by AmeriCorps or propose new lines of research that build the 

field of volunteering and civic engagement especially in the context of COVID

• Pursue several broad categories, including studying volunteers and volunteer management; 

understanding and measuring civic engagement, volunteering, and national service at varying 

geographical levels; understanding civic infrastructure and how it strengthens communities; 

and studying national service programs’ interests

Source: https://americorps.gov/partner/how-it-works/research-evaluation. 

B. Context for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report

Federal government agencies are increasingly conducting systematic evidence reviews and synthesizing 

evaluations and research to help identify themes, strengths, and limitations of the evidence base they 

have helped to produce or fund. These efforts help advance the substantive fields in which they operate 

and inform current and future planning efforts on where more evidence is needed. In the past decade, 

AmeriCorps and its grantee organizations and ORE research grant recipients have generated a wealth of 

evidence on AmeriCorps programs, interventions, civic engagement, and national service. To help 

summarize and identify broader implications from this work, the agency periodically contracted with

third-party evaluators to conduct meta-synthesis analyses designed to build knowledge of AmeriCorps-
Chapter I. Introduction

Mathematica® Inc. 4 

funded interventions with evidence of beneficial impacts on communities and individuals receiving 

intervention services (AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation 2017; Frazier et al. 2019; JBS 

International 2015; Richman and Streke 2020; Zhang and Sun 2016). Each of these studies summarized

evidence findings from within one or two AmeriCorps funding programs, but none took an agency-wide 

perspective on the cumulative evidence produced by AmeriCorps.

The AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation (2017) State of the Evidence Report, however, was one 

of the agency’s first large-scale efforts to synthesize a growing body of evidence across the various 

AmeriCorps funding programs and grants. Focusing largely on research studies funded from October 

2014 to September 2017 (fiscal years 2015 to 2017) and a few key reports before that time period, 

AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation (2017) identified several key findings about the state of the 

evidence at the time:

• Volunteerism and AmeriCorps service can benefit individuals’ economic opportunity. The report 

highlighted one study that found that volunteers’ odds of finding employment were 27 percent higher 

than those of non-volunteers (Spera et al. 2013). The report also discussed a study of nearly 4,000 

AmeriCorps alumni from the 2005, 2010, and 2013 cohorts, which found that the majority of alumni say 

AmeriCorps benefited their career path (Friedman et al. 2016).

• Older Americans who volunteer can experience health improvements. The report highlighted a 

representative study of 8,000 volunteers through AmeriCorps Seniors FGP and AmeriCorps Seniors SCP. 

The analysis found that compared to a sample of non-volunteering older adults, AmeriCorps Seniors 

FGP volunteers were less likely to self-report poor or fair health, and AmeriCorps Seniors SCP volunteers

were more likely to self-report excellent or very good health (Tan et al. 2016). 

• AmeriCorps-funded interventions increased the return on taxpayer investment. The report 

highlighted several studies demonstrating the cost savings associated with AmeriCorps-funded 

interventions across AmeriCorps focus areas. For example, one cited study found that school-level costs 

from implementing a one-on-one AmeriCorps-funded tutoring reading program were about $1,000 

lower per student than the average cost for other supplemental reading services (Jacob et al. 2015). 

C. Overview of the 2023 State of the Evidence Report

In this section, we describe the framework, research questions, and methodological approach that guided 

the 2023 State of the Evidence Report. We also provide descriptive information on the studies we 

reviewed for the report.

1. State of the Evidence framework

Building on the AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation (2017) analysis, the purpose of this report is 

to synthesize the AmeriCorps-conducted or -funded research and evaluations published from July 2017 to 

December 2022. In collaboration with AmeriCorps ORE, Mathematica developed a framework (Figure I.1) 

that defines where the agency seeks to build evidence in pursuit of its mission to “improve lives, 

strengthen communities, and foster civic engagement through service and volunteering.” This framework

guided how we approached the evidence synthesis and ensuing structure for the report. 
Chapter I. Introduction

Mathematica® Inc. 5 

Figure I.1. State of the Evidence framework

The framework consists of four domains—participants, partners, communities, and society—that represent 

where AmeriCorps seeks to make an impact through its investments in national service and volunteerism: 

• Participants are the individuals who join AmeriCorps as members and volunteers to serve local 

communities through AmeriCorps programs. In addition to various benefits AmeriCorps provides to 

members and volunteers (such as education awards and supplemental health insurance), AmeriCorps 

participants also gain valuable professional and personal skills that can improve their lives.

• Partners are the AmeriCorps grantees and sponsoring organizations that receive AmeriCorps program 

funding to implement service projects in their local communities using AmeriCorps members and 

volunteers. These partners receive funding or member allocations directly from AmeriCorps or as 

subgrantees to other funding partners or State Service Commissions. AmeriCorps funds and participants 

can help build organizations’ capacity to deliver services and address challenges in their communities.
Chapter I. Introduction

Mathematica® Inc. 6 

• Communities are the individuals, groups, and local areas that experience or receive services from 

AmeriCorps-funded grantees or sponsors delivered by AmeriCorps members and volunteers. For 

example, this can include students who received one-on-one college preparation support from 

AmeriCorps-funded mentors, local environments where AmeriCorps members created new green 

spaces, or adults who received financial literacy training from AmeriCorps-funded instructors.

AmeriCorps, through its members and volunteers and funded partners, seek to make community 

impacts in each of AmeriCorps’ six focus areas. 

• Society represents national service, volunteering, and civic engagement in the United States more 

broadly. AmeriCorps produces and funds research and evidence designed to enhance the field’s 

understanding of these key areas. The research can also inform how the agency can engage community 

residents, its members and volunteers and partners and can help strengthen communities. 

AmeriCorps strives to impact each of these domains directly through its programmatic and ORE research 

grant-making opportunities. The agency also recognizes and encourages ways that these domains can 

influence each other (as shown in Figure I.1 with two-directional arrows between the four domains). For 

example, engaging AmeriCorps participants in national service has the potential to increase their careerreadiness skills, which in turn can improve civic engagement more broadly in society. Additionally, 

providing capacity building supports directly to AmeriCorps partners and matching them with AmeriCorps 

participants can enable partners to do more or serve more individuals in their communities, which can 

help address community-level issues in their local context. New research on civic engagement can also 

provide AmeriCorps partners with innovative strategies on how to recruit young adults into national 

service opportunities, which can help improve participant, partner, and community outcomes.

2. Research questions

The primary objective of this report is to synthesize the various studies produced by or for AmeriCorps 

from 2017 to 2022 to describe the state of the evidence for the participant, partner, community, and 

society domains where the agency seeks to make an impact. The specific research questions this report 

addresses are:

• What does AmeriCorps know about AmeriCorps participants? More specifically ... 

– What are the characteristics of participants who serve with AmeriCorps?

– What outcomes and impacts, if any, do AmeriCorps participants experience?

• What does AmeriCorps know about AmeriCorps partners? More specifically ... 

– In what ways, if any, has AmeriCorps helped build the capacity of grantees and sponsor organizations 

to achieve their missions and better serve their communities? 

• What does AmeriCorps know about communities served by AmeriCorps-funded grantees or 

sponsors and their members and volunteers? More specifically ... 

– What outcomes or impacts, if any, do communities served by AmeriCorps-funded grantees or 

sponsors and their members and volunteers experience? 

– What does the research say about investments in and scaling of effective interventions?
Chapter I. Introduction

Mathematica® Inc. 7 

• What does AmeriCorps know about national service, volunteering, and civic engagement in 

society? More specifically ... 

– What are the societal rates of volunteerism, participation in national service, and civic engagement? 

How do these rates vary by demographic characteristics? 

– What new insights has AmeriCorps-funded research generated to advance the field’s understanding 

of national service, volunteering, and civic engagement?

3. Methodological approach

To focus on the body of AmeriCorps-related literature produced since the 2017 State of the Evidence 

report, the scope of the studies reviewed for this report included those published between July 2017 to 

December 2022. To address the first three primary research questions, this report focused on synthesizing 

evidence on how AmeriCorps participants might benefit from their service experience, how AmeriCorps 

participants can enhance AmeriCorps partner capacity, and how national service can impact local 

communities. As such, we reviewed studies in which AmeriCorps members or AmeriCorps Seniors 

volunteers were the focus of the research or were involved in delivery of services that AmeriCorps 

partners provided to communities. This meant that studies funded by AmeriCorps’ Social Innovation Fund 

(SIF) were excluded from this review as AmeriCorps participants were not included in these grants. SIF was 

a program of the Corporation for National and Community Service (dba AmeriCorps) that received 

funding from 2010 to 2016. During that time period, the program awarded 59 intermediary grantees to 

establish subgrants with community organizations to overcome local challenges in economic opportunity, 

healthy futures, and youth development. As part of their funding, SIF grantees and subgrantees were 

required to conduct rigorous program evaluations. In total, the SIF program generated 126 evaluations, of 

which 85 percent were based on a randomized-control trial (RCT) design or quasi-experimental design 

(QED). To address the fourth primary research question, we reviewed studies developed or funded by 

AmeriCorps that aimed to increase the knowledge base on national service, volunteering, and civic 

engagement in society. 

Overall, we identified a total of 116 studies eligible for review. These studies were conducted by 

AmeriCorps program grantees, AmeriCorps ORE research grantees, AmeriCorps ORE, or AmeriCorps OREcommissioned contractors. See Appendix A for the full list of studies reviewed for this report. The 

AmeriCorps Evidence Exchange was the primary source for compiling studies reviewed for this document. 

This public digital repository provides equitable access to research and evaluation reports on AmeriCorpsfunded interventions for users to identify effective solutions that can help address the needs of their 

communities. The Evidence Exchange posts studies designed to meet program-specific evaluation 

requirements and are assessed by independent, third-party evaluators (see the Evidence Exchange 

Metadata Glossary in AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation [2021] for more information). Studies

produced through AmeriCorps ORE research grants were compiled through the grantee profiles

published on the agency’s website or obtained directly from AmeriCorps ORE. These studies were from 

the 2015, 2017, and 2018 AmeriCorps ORE research grant cohorts.4 We did not limit studies on the basis 

4 At the time of this report, some AmeriCorps ORE Research grantees still had active grants, which meant that they 

had not yet produced a study or made it available to AmeriCorps ORE. Additionally, some grantees produced studies 
Chapter I. Introduction

Mathematica® Inc. 8 

of their research or evaluation design, but evaluation-capacity building guides, tip sheets, or tools were 

excluded from review.5

We next applied a structured review process to extract key information from all 116 studies identified as 

eligible for review. Using the review rubric presented in Appendix B, a study team leader and two

reviewers documented the characteristics of each study. If multiple studies focused on the same 

intervention, a separate rubric was completed for each study. The study team leader reviewed the

completed rubrics to identify any discrepancies between the reviews. To create the final review, the study

review team discussed and resolved any discrepancies across the three reviews, and, if needed, another

study team leader was consulted if a consensus could not be reached.6 

The review rubric captured information on the characteristics of the study’s substantive focus, along with 

its design and key findings. Substantive focus characteristics included the State of the Evidence domain(s)

categorization; AmeriCorps focus and topic areas; the affiliated AmeriCorps program(s) through which

AmeriCorps participants served when providing intervention services or through which partners received 

AmeriCorps supports; intervention components and settings; and the focal population for the study. We 

also recorded information on the study source itself; that is, we identified whether it was produced by an 

AmeriCorps program grantee, an AmeriCorps ORE research grantee, the AmeriCorps ORE, or an 

AmeriCorps ORE-commissioned contractor. We extracted information on the study’s research design (for 

example, randomized-controlled trial, quasi-experimental design, meta-synthesis, or descriptive) and key 

outcomes of interest to the study and recorded a description of the study’s main findings. 

It is important to note that our review did not assess the quality of study design implementation or its 

analytic approach, as these studies were designed to meet AmeriCorps’ evidence-building requirements. 

However, our characterization of the study findings is grounded in the research design used and statistical 

tests conducted and not in how study authors described the findings. For example, findings from an 

outcomes study that did not include a comparison group are not characterized as evidence of impact, 

even if the study authors described their findings as such.

4. Characteristics of the reviewed studies

In this section, we provide descriptive information about the studies reviewed for this synthesis, including 

the entities that generated the research, the types of study designs used, the AmeriCorps programs that 

the studies included or focused on, and the number of studies that align with each of the four domains 

described in the State of the Evidence framework (Figure I.1). These characteristics uphold the objectivity, 

rigor, generalizability, and relevancy of the evidence that AmeriCorps has supported and created.

that were not publicly available (for example, journal articles requiring publication fees). As a result, we compiled and 

reviewed 29 eligible studies affiliated with 18 out of 36 AmeriCorps ORE research grantees from the 2015, 2017, and 

2018 cohorts. We did not identify any studies from the 2022 cohort, as these ORE research grantees will conclude 

their research projects over a three year period.

5 Our search also yielded 23 documents that were practitioner guides, evaluation-related tools, and summary briefs of 

original studies already compiled as part of the search. We excluded these documents from our review.

6 The review included six studies (two meta-syntheses and four case studies) that were produced by Mathematica. 

AmeriCorps ORE commissioned these studies under a separate contract that focused on scaling evidence-based 

models.
Chapter I. Introduction

Mathematica® Inc. 9 

The majority of reviewed studies were generated by AmeriCorps program grantee external 

evaluators. Figure I.2 displays the percentage of studies by the source that conducted the research. 

AmeriCorps program grantee evaluators produced the majority of reviewed studies (48 percent of the 116 

reviewed). This pattern is consistent with AmeriCorps’ grant-making process, particularly for the 

AmeriCorps State and National program, which has evidence-building requirements for grantees based 

on their funding type, grant type, and grant size and the grant program’s award evaluation requirements 

based on its Terms and Conditions.

7 The three cohorts (2015, 2017, and 2018) of AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantees produced 25 percent of the reviewed studies. AmeriCorps ORE commissioned 21

percent of the studies through external contractors while also directly producing four percent itself. One 

study, produced by the AmeriCorps NCCC program office with technical support from AmeriCorps ORE, 

was also reviewed. Overall, 95 percent of the reviewed studies were carried out by evaluators external to 

AmeriCorps. While AmeriCorps funded these studies, the reliance on external evaluators reduces the 

potential for conflicts of interest and provides objectivity to the study results.

Figure I.2. Percentage of studies by study source that conducted the research

Source: N = 116 studies produced for or by AmeriCorps from June 2017 to December 2022 reviewed for this report.

Note: AmeriCorps ORE = AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation.

The most common study designs used by AmeriCorps-funded evaluators facilitate drawing causal 

conclusions about intervention impacts. Figure I.3 displays the percentage of studies by the main study 

design employed by the evaluators. Fifty of the 116 reviewed studies (43 percent) used impact study 

design, with 37 percent of all studies using a quasi-experimental design (QED) and six percent using a 

randomized controlled trial (RCT). These study designs support causal conclusions about the interventions 

or programs studied. Such studies assess an intervention’s impact by assessing differences in outcomes 

between those receiving the intervention (the treatment group) and a comparable group of individuals 

not receiving the intervention (the comparison group). Further analysis (not displayed in Figure I.3) shows 

7 Additional information on terms and conditions for AmeriCorps State and National grants can be found at 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/2023ASNProgram508TC.pdf
Chapter I. Introduction

Mathematica® Inc. 10

that an AmeriCorps program grantee evaluator conducted 43 of the 50 impact studies (86 percent) that 

used a QED or RCT approach. 

Additionally, 13 percent of the reviewed studies used an outcomes study design. Outcomes studies often 

collect data from individuals before and after they receive an intervention to determine whether 

individuals’ outcomes changed over time. However, any detected changes cannot be definitively 

attributed to the intervention because, without a comparison group, it is unclear what individuals would 

have done if they had not received the intervention. Thirteen percent of the studies used a descriptive

design, and 11 percent used a return on investment (ROI) or other cost-related study design. Most of the 

ROI or cost-related studies were conducted through AmeriCorps commissioned reports. Seven percent of 

the studies used a participatory research approach, which were all conducted by AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantees. These studies directly involved community members as equal and active participants in 

all aspects of the research.

8

Figure I.3. Percentage of studies by main study approach

Source: N = 116 studies produced for or by AmeriCorps from June 2017 to December 2022 reviewed for this report.

Notes: RCT = randomized-controlled trial; QED = quasi-experimental design; ROI = return on investment. The “Other” 

category includes implementation studies, meta-syntheses, and theoretical frameworks. 

Participatory research is a methodological approach that can include one or more study designs. We classified studies 

using this approach into their own category separate from the other study design classifications. 

The majority of studies focused on the AmeriCorps State and National program. Seventy-one 

percent of the 116 reviewed studies included, at least in part, the AmeriCorps State and National program 

or its members (Figure I.4). These studies, for example, focused on AmeriCorps State and National 

members’ experiences or outcomes or evaluated interventions where AmeriCorps State and National 

members delivered services to intervention recipients or communities. This pattern aligns with 

AmeriCorps funding requirements across the different program offices, as the AmeriCorps State and 

National program has evidence-building requirements for grantees based on their funding type, grant 

8 Additional information on participatory research methods can be found at 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/2021_07_20_ParticipatoryResearchOnePager_ORE.pdf. 
Chapter I. Introduction

Mathematica® Inc. 11

type, grant size, and the program’s award evaluation requirements based on their Terms and Conditions. 

The other AmeriCorps funding programs require their grantees to collect and track data, but their Terms 

and Conditions for grantees and sponsors do not require conducting formal evaluations of their 

interventions. Less than a quarter of the studies (22 percent) did not focus on interventions or participants 

of a particular AmeriCorps program. The vast majority of these studies (23 of 25 studies) were conducted 

by AmeriCorps ORE research grantees that broadly focused on expanding the knowledge base on 

facilitators, barriers, and approaches to civic engagement and volunteerism in the United States. Nine 

percent of the studies included the AmeriCorps VISTA members, whereas AmeriCorps NCCC and the three 

AmeriCorps Seniors programs (RSVP, FGP, and SCP) were included in five percent or less of the studies. 

Figure I.4. Percentage of studies by AmeriCorps program included in the research

Source: N = 116 studies produced for or by AmeriCorps from June 2017 to December 2022 reviewed for this report.

Note: RSVP = Retired and Senior Volunteer Program; FGP = Foster Grandparent Program; SCP = Senior Companion Program. 

Percentages do not add to 100 percent because studies could be represented in more than one category. Twelve

studies included AmeriCorps members from more than one AmeriCorps program (for example, analyzing community 

impacts based on services delivered by AmeriCorps State and National and AmeriCorps VISTA members). 

The majority of the reviewed studies provided evidence that focused on the communities served by 

AmeriCorps-funded grantees or sponsors and their members and volunteers. We classified studies 

according to the four domains presented in the State of the Evidence framework (Figure I.1) based on 

studies’ primary outcomes or focus.

9 Sixty-one percent (71 studies) of the 116 reviewed studies focused 

on the communities and individuals receiving intervention services funded by AmeriCorps (Figure I.5). 

Among these 71 community-focused studies, 37 used either a QED or RCT to assess impacts on those 

receiving intervention services (not displayed in Figure I.5). Less than a quarter of all studies (22 percent) 

were categorized under the society domain. These studies, predominantly conducted by AmeriCorps ORE 

9 Studies about or including AmeriCorps and its members and volunteers were coded under the participant, partner, 

or community domains. Studies could be classified under more than one of these domains (for example, if a study 

reported on community-level outcomes while also assessing AmeriCorps participant outcomes). If AmeriCorps was 

not an explicit focus of a study, the study was classified in the society domain.
Chapter I. Introduction

Mathematica® Inc. 12

research grantees, aimed to expand the knowledge base on topics of interest to AmeriCorps, such as 

factors that relate to individuals’ civic engagement. Relatively fewer studies focused on AmeriCorps 

participants (14 percent) and partners (nine percent) during this review’s timeframe.

10 These studies 

focused on describing the AmeriCorps member experience, changes in outcomes for AmeriCorps 

members, or ways in which organizational capacity increased because of the partners’ involvement with 

AmeriCorps.

Figure I.5. Percentage of studies by State of the Evidence framework domain

Source: N = 116 studies produced for or by AmeriCorps from June 2017 to December 2022 reviewed for this report.

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 percent because studies could be categorized into more than one domain. Ten studies 

included AmeriCorps members from more than one AmeriCorps program (for example, including AmeriCorps State and 

National and AmeriCorps VISTA members in their analysis).

D. How the report is organized

Our discussion of these studies’ findings in the ensuing chapters is organized around the four domains of 

the State of the Evidence framework and the corresponding research questions we seek to address. In 

Chapter II, we describe the evidence that focuses on AmeriCorps participants—the members and 

volunteers engaging in national service—and the reported experiences and outcomes derived from their 

engagement with AmeriCorps. In Chapter III, we discuss AmeriCorps partner grantees and sponsoring 

organizations and the evidence that highlights ways in which AmeriCorps involvement has helped build 

their organizational capacity. In Chapter IV, we describe evidence that focuses on ways in which 

AmeriCorps-funded interventions impact the communities and individuals receiving AmeriCorps-funded 

grantee or sponsor services delivered by AmeriCorps members and volunteers. In Chapter V, we describe 

the evidence that helps increase the field’s understanding of national service, volunteerism, and civic 

engagement in society. Chapter VI provides a summary of key findings and offers recommendations

based on these themes.

10 The 2017 State of the Evidence report discusses several studies that focus on AmeriCorps participants that were 

outside the scope of studies reviewed for this report.
Chapter I. Introduction

Mathematica® Inc. 13

We placed a relatively greater emphasis on impact studies for identifying themes related to how 

participants, partners, and communities might benefit from their AmeriCorps involvement and discuss 

emerging findings from other types of studies that coalesce around each other or support other studies’ 

impact findings. In areas where there is an absence of impact studies or there is relatively less research

overall, we aimed to clarify what conclusions can and cannot be drawn from the evidence discussed. 

It is also important to know that this report is meant to capture the state of the evidence produced or 

supported by AmeriCorps during a specific timeframe (2017 to 2022). Evidence and knowledge building 

are ongoing processes, especially as the agency continues to generate new research. As a result, themes 

discussed within this report should be viewed as characterizing the evidence as it exists at the time of this 

report, with the understanding that the interpretation of that evidence can evolve as new evidence 

emerges. 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying. 
Chapter II. What is the State of the Evidence on AmeriCorps Participants?

Mathematica® Inc. 15

II. What is the State of the Evidence on AmeriCorps Participants? 

Each AmeriCorps program relies on and empowers AmeriCorps members or AmeriCorps Seniors 

volunteers to help address the issues and challenges local communities face. These AmeriCorps 

participants seek to make a difference in their communities through their national service and 

volunteerism, and their experiences can help them develop professionally, personally, and civically as 

individuals. In this chapter, we present key themes arising from the 16 studies (14 percent of 116 studies) 

our review identified as having a focus, at least in part, on AmeriCorps participants. 

The chapter addresses two research questions:

• What are the characteristics of participants who serve with AmeriCorps?

• What outcomes and impacts, if any, do AmeriCorps participants experience?

In Section A of this chapter, we discuss key findings from the small subset of studies that explored key 

characteristics of AmeriCorps participants. Section B synthesizes themes arising from studies that assessed 

whether AmeriCorps participants benefited from engaging in national service and volunteerism.

A. Characteristics of AmeriCorps members

Our review process identified three studies that primarily focused on key characteristics of AmeriCorps 

participants.11 The three studies included samples of AmeriCorps members serving through the 

AmeriCorps State and National, AmeriCorps NCCC, or AmeriCorps VISTA programs. We did not identify 

any studies that provide characteristics of AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers. This section describes key 

findings from these three studies. We do not intend for our discussion to be an all-encompassing

description of AmeriCorps members, as these studies sought to describe AmeriCorps members according 

to key measures of interest to the research.

AmeriCorps members possess the cultural competency to work and interact with communities of 

people who differ from themselves. AmeriCorps administers the AmeriCorps Member Exit Survey (MES) 

to AmeriCorps State and National, AmeriCorps NCCC, and AmeriCorps VISTA members to capture insights 

about their service experience and attitudes upon exiting from their program.12 Based on the AmeriCorps 

member theory of change, the survey includes questions that align to four pathways through which the 

agency aims to impact its members: bridging differences, civic engagement, “getting things done,” and 

life and career skills. AmeriCorps ORE conducted a descriptive analysis of AmeriCorps MES data collected 

from 2016 to 2020 to understand how AmeriCorps members bridge differences by serving individuals 

different from themselves while also serving alongside members from other backgrounds (Dermanjian 

and Johnson 2022) (see the box). 

11 AmeriCorps collects demographic information on its members and volunteers, such as age, sex, and race and 

ethnicity, as part of the application and enrollment process. The agency analyzes this information (for example, see 

https://data.americorps.gov/National-Service/AmeriCorps-Members-Demographic/2ca3-89j5) to learn more about 

who is applying and enrolling in AmeriCorps service opportunities and to help the agency know whether it is 

engaging a diverse corps of members and volunteers who reflect the diversity of the communities in which they serve. 

12 Dermanjian and Johnson (2022) report that nearly 300,000 AmeriCorps members have responded to the MES since 

2015, and 75 to 80 percent of members completed the MES each year from 2016 to 2020.
Chapter II. What is the State of the Evidence on AmeriCorps Participants?

Mathematica® Inc. 16

The study found that most AmeriCorps State and National, AmeriCorps NCCC, and AmeriCorps VISTA members 

completing the AmeriCorps MES at the end of their service from 2016 to 2020: 

• Enjoy exploring differences between their co-workers and friends from different cultures and backgrounds 

(over 88 percent) and feel they respect the values of people from different cultures and backgrounds (over 94 

percent)

• Enjoy interacting (over 92 percent) and feel confident when interacting (over 88 percent) with people from 

different cultures and backgrounds

Note: Dermanjian and Johnson (2022) analyzed survey responses for each AmeriCorps program separately. The percentages 

referenced here represent the lowest proportion reported for an AmeriCorps program in a particular year across the 2016 to 

2020 time period.

The study also found that the proportion of AmeriCorps members demonstrating cultural competency on 

these MES questions was relatively greater among those who indicated they regularly worked on a team 

during their service term compared to members who worked on teams less often. The findings were 

generally consistent across AmeriCorps member demographic characteristics (age, gender, race, ethnicity, 

and education), AmeriCorps focus area, and the AmeriCorps program through which members served. 

While this descriptive study highlights how AmeriCorps members demonstrate important aspects of 

cultural competency, the study design’s limitations make it difficult to attribute these patterns to 

AmeriCorps members’ service. Without knowledge of members’ level of cultural competency at the start 

of their service and without a comparison group, we cannot know what these individuals’ cultural 

competency would have been had they not served through AmeriCorps. Additionally, because the study 

focused on members from three AmeriCorps programs (State and National, NCCC, and VISTA), it is 

unclear whether these findings can be generalized to AmeriCorps volunteers who participate in 

AmeriCorps Seniors programs. 

AmeriCorps members enter their service terms with unique backgrounds and motivations to serve. 

AmeriCorps seeks to recruit and enroll a diverse set of members who reflect the communities in which 

they serve. Having an in-depth understanding of who AmeriCorps members are at the start of their 

service can help the agency identify whether it is meeting recruitment and enrollment goals and help 

ensure that the agency is meeting the needs of its service members As part of a three-year quasi 

experimental longitudinal impact evaluation of AmeriCorps NCCC service on AmeriCorps members’ 

leadership skills and qualities, Georges et al. (2021) conducted a descriptive study of the baseline findings 

of AmeriCorps NCCC members to identify their key characteristics at the start of their service term and 

how they compare to individuals who were invited to join AmeriCorps NCCC but did not enroll. The 

evaluation and report will be completed in December of 2023. The study’s sample included 1,120 

AmeriCorps NCCC members who began service from winter 2020 to winter 2021, which was 77 percent of 

all AmeriCorps NCCC members who began their service during that timeframe (see the box). 
Chapter II. What is the State of the Evidence on AmeriCorps Participants?

Mathematica® Inc. 17

Analysis of the data collected at baseline from these members showed that:

• Their average age was 21 years,

• Half identified as female, 48 percent identified as male, and two percent identified as nonbinary.

• Over 95 percent had at least a high school diploma or GED and 32 percent had a bachelor’s degree.

• Over two-thirds (69 percent) had previous volunteer experience.

• Fifty-seven percent lived in a two-parent or two-guardian household; 26 percent lived in a single parent 

household; six percent had no parent, one parent and one guardian, or one guardian only; and 10 percent 

declined to provide this information.

Georges et al. (2021) also found that AmeriCorps NCCC members (n = 1,120) and the comparison group 

(n = 927) were similar at baseline on measures of self-efficacy, life skills, collaborative work practices, 

communication skills, valuing diversity, and community engagement. However, a smaller proportion of 

AmeriCorps NCCC members than comparison group individuals reported being civically engaged in their 

community and exhibited confidence in their professional skills and problem-solving ability. The findings 

from this study provide a deeper understanding of who AmeriCorps NCCC members in this cohort are, 

but additional research is needed to determine whether and how these characteristics are typical of other 

AmeriCorps NCCC cohorts and how they compare to the characteristics of members serving through 

AmeriCorps State and National and AmeriCorps VISTA.

A separate study conducted by an 

AmeriCorps ORE research grantee also 

sought to develop distinct profiles of 

AmeriCorps State and National and 

AmeriCorps NCCC members based on 

their characteristics when they began 

their service term (Hudson-Flege 2018). 

To carry out this work, the study applied 

a cluster analysis on a sample of 1,424 

AmeriCorps State and National and 

AmeriCorps NCCC members and 1,216 

comparison group members who 

participated in the 1999–2007 

AmeriCorps Longitudinal Study. As 

shown in Figure II.1, the Hudson-Flege 

(2018) study grouped AmeriCorps members into four unique profiles based on their age, education level, 

and public service motivation (defined as commitment to public interest, civic awareness, and attraction to 

public policy): Young Idealists, Wanderers, Gappers, and Public Servants. The study also noted statistically 

significant differences between these member profiles based on gender, race or ethnicity, and family 

income. For example, compared to the study sample as a whole, the Public Servant profile had a higher 

representation of female AmeriCorps members, and the Young Idealist and Wanderer profiles had a 

higher representation of Black and Hispanic members. Overall, the study provided a unique lens for 

understanding AmeriCorps members as they begin their national service, though it is important to 

acknowledge that these profiles are based on a small set of measures that likely do not fully encapsulate

Figure II.1. AmeriCorps member profiles

Source: Hudson-Flege (2018).
Chapter II. What is the State of the Evidence on AmeriCorps Participants?

Mathematica® Inc. 18

the nuances of all AmeriCorps members. Future studies can aim to use more recent data on AmeriCorps 

members and incorporate additional measures on AmeriCorps to continue exploring the characteristics of 

AmeriCorps members who engage in national service.

B. Benefits to AmeriCorps members and volunteers

Our review process identified 14 studies focused on assessing whether national service and volunteering 

through AmeriCorps benefits AmeriCorps participants. AmeriCorps participants from all of the AmeriCorps 

(State and National, VISTA, and NCCC) and AmeriCorps Seniors (FGP, SCP, and RSVP) programs were 

included in at least one study, with AmeriCorps State and National members being at least part of the 

focus in most of the studies (10 of 14). Five of the 14 studies used either a QED or RCT design to assess 

impacts on AmeriCorps participants, and another study was a meta-synthesis that conducted a review of 

other external evaluations that had causal designs.13 The other eight studies used an outcomes or 

descriptive study design. The 14 studies examined outcomes that we thematically grouped into three 

categories: growing one’s employment or educational future, improving one’s well-being; and increasing 

one’s civic engagement. In this section, we describe key findings associated with each of these outcome 

categories. 

Although AmeriCorps members experienced employment- or educational-related outcome 

improvements, there is limited evidence on whether individuals’ AmeriCorps service caused these 

outcomes. Our review identified four studies that used a QED or RCT design to assess whether 

AmeriCorps members’ service experience affected their employment or educational outcomes. Using a 

comparison group allowed these studies to attribute any differences in outcomes between AmeriCorps 

members and the comparison group to AmeriCorps members’ service experiences. Only two of the four 

studies reported statistically significant differences between AmeriCorps members and comparison group 

individuals. One (Anderson et al. 2019) found that AmeriCorps State and National Reading Partners 

alumni were approximately 1.3 times more likely to report they currently worked in the nonprofit, public, 

or government sectors than a matched comparison group sample from the national General Social Survey 

dataset. The other, the Hudson-Flege (2018) study described in Section II.A, found that AmeriCorps 

members characterized as Gappers (recent college graduates with low public service motivation) had 

greater increases in basic work skills relative to a comparison group of Gappers who did not serve 

through AmeriCorps. However, the study did not find statistically significant differences on the basic work 

skills measure between AmeriCorps members and comparison group members within the other three 

profiles, and the study groups across all four profiles were similar in the extent to which individuals felt 

responsible for their employment success and educational success. 

Two other studies using a QED or RCT design did not find evidence of impacts on AmeriCorps members. 

One study found that although opportunity youth14 serving with AmeriCorps State and National showed 

increases in high school completion, courses completed, current employment, hourly wages, and longest 

employment period between pre-test and post-test assessments, comparison group members 

13 Three of the 14 studies used a QED design to assess impacts on individuals receiving AmeriCorps-funded services 

but used an outcomes study design to examine whether AmeriCorps members experienced outcome changes. 

14 AmeriCorps defines opportunity youth as individuals from 16 to 24 years who are disconnected from school or 

work (Frazier et al. 2018).
Chapter II. What is the State of the Evidence on AmeriCorps Participants?

Mathematica® Inc. 19

experienced similar improvements in these areas (Frazier et al. 2018). The other study used a field 

experiment to determine the impact of having AmeriCorps service listed on a résumé during a job search

and found that listing AmeriCorps on individuals’ résumés when applying for jobs did not have statistically

significant impact on whether they received a call back for a job interview (Levine et al. 2018).

Three outcomes studies reported statistically significant outcome improvements for AmeriCorps

members, although not having a comparison group prevents any causal conclusions. The findings might

also not be generalizable to AmeriCorps participants serving in different substantive areas or contexts. For

example, one study found that AmeriCorps State and National members who served with YouthBuild had 

statistically significant increases in their educational attainment goals and knowledge of how to pursue 

college and career pathways (The Center for Youth and Communities 2019). Another study found that 

AmeriCorps State and National members trained through the Alliance for Catholic Education Teaching 

Fellows experienced statistically significant increases in (a) teachers’ self-reported preparedness for

conducting various instructional tasks and (b) principal and academic supervisor performance ratings over

the course of the school year (Kowalski et al. 2018). A third study found AmeriCorps State and National 

members serving as mentors and community coordinators for the Energy Express program increased in

their confidence and knowledge to perform their role and attitudes towards community service (Edmonds 

2019).

Five reviewed studies used a post-test only or descriptive study design to highlight how AmeriCorps

members appeared to benefit from their national service experiences, but these study designs do not

enable us to attribute these outcomes to their AmeriCorps service experience. These studies found that

the majority of AmeriCorps State and National members in the study samples reported that they gained

useful skills and industry-related knowledge (Dietz et al. 2019; Viola et al. 2018) and that their AmeriCorps

experience helped shape their employment and educational goals (Anderson et al. 2019; Dietz et al. 2019).

One study reported that 73 percent of AmeriCorps State and National members serving with the Local 

Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) program were employed or self-employed six months after their

service ended (Dietz et al. 2019). Another study found that 41 percent of 367 sponsoring organizations 

across five states reported that they hired AmeriCorps State and National members who served with their

organization (Whitsett et al. 2018). A comprehensive descriptive study of 4,671 AmeriCorps NCCC service

projects completed between 2012 and 2019 found that most projects self-reported making impact on

AmeriCorps NCCC members’ technical skills (84 percent) and managerial skills (56 percent) that would

benefit their future careers (Sum et al. 2020). 

AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers experienced improvements in their physical and psychological wellbeing. Two studies investigated physical or psychological well-being impacts or outcomes of adults

volunteering through AmeriCorps Seniors programs. A longitudinal study of AmeriCorps volunteers in

AmeriCorps Seniors FGP and SCP found that AmeriCorps volunteers in both programs who remained for 

their entire service reported statistically significant improvements in their self-perceived health than a

comparison group of adult non-volunteers in the general population (Georges et al. 2018). However, there

were no significant differences between these two groups on the average number of self-reported

symptoms of depression. When comparing the two AmeriCorps Seniors programs to each other among

those who stayed for the entire service, the study found that FGP volunteers were more likely to report

improvements in self-rated health than SCP volunteers, whereas SCP volunteers had higher life 
Chapter II. What is the State of the Evidence on AmeriCorps Participants?

Mathematica® Inc. 20

satisfaction scores and lower social isolation/loneliness scores than FGP volunteers. A meta-synthesis 

study of the three AmeriCorps Seniors programs (FGP, SCP, and RSVP) also identified robust evidence of 

the positive outcomes volunteers can experience (Frazier et al. 2019). The study reviewed 27 reports on 

the AmeriCorps Seniors programs, which contained a total 64 AmeriCorps volunteer outcomes. Twelve of 

the 52 positive outcomes were based on RCT or QED study designs, which found that AmeriCorps 

volunteers had better physical health (six outcomes), overall functioning (one outcome), life satisfaction 

(two outcomes), mental health (two outcomes), and social connectedness (one outcome). 

An AmeriCorps ORE research grantee conducted a descriptive study of 1,697 adults volunteering through 

AmeriCorps Seniors RSVP to examine factors that may relate to adults’ satisfaction with their volunteer 

role and whether they intended to remain in that role (Crittenden 2019). Because adults hold several social 

roles (for example, caregiving, working, and volunteering), the more roles one has or the extent to which 

roles have competing demands has the potential to influence their volunteering decisions. Ultimately, the 

study found that the extent to which individuals have roles with competing demands (role conflict) was 

related to their volunteering satisfaction and the number of roles they occupied was related to the 

amount of time they spent volunteering. Although this study did not examine physical or well-being 

outcomes associated with volunteering, the findings provide insights on why volunteers vary in their 

program participation, why they may differ in the benefits that come from volunteering, and supports 

they may need to help sustain their volunteering through AmeriCorps. 

Some aspects of AmeriCorps members’ civic engagement and civic mindedness increased after 

their service. The review identified three studies that used a QED or RCT design to assess impacts of 

AmeriCorps service experience on members’ civic engagement and civic mindedness. These studies 

defined and measured civic engagement and civic mindedness in varying ways, which speaks to the 

multifaceted nature of these complex constructs. Hudson-Flege (2018) found that members in the 

Wanderers, Gappers, and Public Servants profiles demonstrated a statistically significant greater increase 

in their opinion about the importance of being active in the community (referred to as neighborhood 

obligation) than comparison group members. The study also showed statistically significant differences 

between Young Idealists, Gappers, and Public Servants relative to comparison group members on 

opinions about the feasibility of working with other neighborhood residents to meet local needs (referred 

to as grassroots efficacy). However, the study found no reported differences between the study groups on 

a measure of community-based activism.

The two QED studies that focused on AmeriCorps members serving with specific grantee organizations 

had mixed findings about whether members’ service impacted their civic engagement and civic 

mindedness. Anderson et al. (2019) found that compared to a matched sample of individuals from the 

American National Election Study, Reading Partners AmeriCorps alumni were more likely to express their 

political views, self-report higher levels of political knowledge, and participate in volunteer activities. 

However, the two samples were similar with regards to voting in the 2016 presidential election and sense 

of social trust. The Frazier et al. (2018) QED, which used a sample of opportunity youth in AmeriCorps 

State and National programs, found that AmeriCorps members and the comparison group had similar 

outcomes on various measures of civic engagement, such as sense of community, social trust, and sense 

of self-efficacy to solve community issues.
Chapter II. What is the State of the Evidence on AmeriCorps Participants?

Mathematica® Inc. 21

In addition, the review identified three studies that examined changes in civic engagement using samples 

of AmeriCorps members serving with specific grantee organizations, but none included a comparison 

group in the study design. A study of AmeriCorps members serving in the YouthBuild program reported 

statistically significant increases between baseline and follow-up on members’ volunteer and community 

service involvement, leadership skills, and sense of community connectedness (The Center for Youth and 

Communities 2019). The other two studies found relative increases between AmeriCorps members’ pretest and post-test reports on their likelihood to volunteer in the future (Viola et al. 2018) and being 

involved in volunteer or community service activities to help their community (Dietz et al. 2019), but the 

report does not indicate whether these changes were statistically significant.
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying. 
Chapter III. What is the State of the Evidence on AmeriCorps Partners?

Mathematica® Inc. 23

III. What is the State of the Evidence on AmeriCorps Partners? 

AmeriCorps strives to support and empower nonprofit, faith-based, and community organizations to 

address the critical issues in their local areas. Through its partnerships with these grantees and sponsor 

organizations, AmeriCorps provides them with AmeriCorps members and AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers 

to help partners increase their reach. AmeriCorps programs, such as AmeriCorps VISTA, can also help 

build the capacity of these organizations by providing AmeriCorps members that can help enhance their 

infrastructure and foster community partnerships. In this chapter, we answer the research question: 

• In what ways, if any, has AmeriCorps helped build the capacity of grantees and sponsor 

organizations to achieve their missions and better serve their communities?

In this chapter we present key findings from the 10 studies in the review identified as having a focus, at 

least in part, on AmeriCorps partners. We organize our discussion based on studies that examined 

whether AmeriCorps partners accomplished more within their communities and studies that focused on 

whether AmeriCorps help developed partners’ organizational capacity. Given the small number of studies 

in this area and the limited number based on experimental design, our synthesis in this chapter should be 

viewed as identifying emerging themes that warrant additional exploration with further research.

Partnering with AmeriCorps helped grantees and sponsoring organizations meet their project 

goals. We identified four studies that examined whether and how AmeriCorps partners were able to 

achieve the objectives they hoped to accomplish. Two of these studies focused their impact analyses on 

specific grantee organizations hosting AmeriCorps State and National and AmeriCorps VISTA members 

using a QED approach (McCreary et al. 2020; Viola et al. 2018). A third study conducted a post-test only 

outcomes approach among AmeriCorps NCCC sponsor organizations that partnered with AmeriCorps 

from 2016 to 2019 (Hamdan and Robles 2022). The fourth study provided descriptive information using 

qualitative data that discussed how AmeriCorps members helped increase the capacity of coaching 

programs to help individuals recover from the opioid addiction (AmeriCorps Office of Research and 

Evaluation 2020).

AmeriCorps partners built 13 percent more 

homes per year and completed 30 to 42 

percent more trail or habitat management 

tasks than sites that did not host 

AmeriCorps members.

Sources: Viola et al. (2018); McCreary et al. (2020).

Results from the two QEDs showed that AmeriCorps 

grantee organizations with AmeriCorps members were 

more able to accomplish their mission than comparable 

organizations that did not host AmeriCorps members. 

Viola et al.’s (2018) analysis of Habitat for Humanity 

(HFH) found that small and large HFH sites hosting 

AmeriCorps State and National and AmeriCorps VISTA 

members built and rehabbed more homes than HFH 

sites that did not host any members. A similar pattern 

was found in the environmental stewardship area. 

McCreary et al. (2020) found that state and federal land 

management personnel from across the United States 

that work with AmeriCorps State and National Conservation Corps programs (the treatment group) were 

able to accomplish more of their agency’s planned work than personnel who did not work with 
Chapter III. What is the State of the Evidence on AmeriCorps Partners?

Mathematica® Inc. 24

AmeriCorps (the comparison group). For example, treatment group agencies working with AmeriCorps 

members completed a significantly higher percentage of planned trail and fuel management work than 

comparison group agencies that did not partner with AmeriCorps. However, comparison group agencies 

accomplished more of their planned invasive species management work than did the treatment group 

AmeriCorps partner agencies. Additional studies on this topic are needed to determine how generalizable

these findings are to other AmeriCorps partners, especially among those implementing interventions

aligned with other AmeriCorps focus areas of interest, such as economic opportunity, education, and 

healthy futures.

Data collected from 941 AmeriCorps NCCC sponsoring organizations that completed service projects 

between 2016 to 2019 also highlights how partners believe AmeriCorps members helped them achieve 

their project goals (Hamdan and Robles 2022). These sponsoring organizations implemented a variety of 

projects in their communities, such as those focused on disaster response and recovery; enhancements of 

parks, natural habitats, and at-risk ecosystems; and access to improved economic opportunities, food 

security, or nutritional practices. Overall, 96 percent of AmeriCorps NCCC sponsor organizations agreed 

that their AmeriCorps NCCC teams supported 

their organization’s mission, 88 percent reported 

that their AmeriCorps NCCC team made 

substantial contributions to their project 

objectives, and 92 percent reported that their 

AmeriCorps NCCC team helped enhance services 

they provided to their communities. Qualitative 

data collected by another study focusing on 

AmeriCorps State and National partners using 

coaching programs to help individuals recovering 

from opioid addiction also highlighted how the 

AmeriCorps members helped provide the 

necessary capacity. Without the support, they 

would not have been able to deliver health 

services and supports to community individuals 

(AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation

2020). Although these results highlight various ways in which AmeriCorps NCCC sponsor organizations 

report benefiting from host AmeriCorps NCCC teams, the lack of baseline data on the extent to which 

these organizations felt they were already achieving their goals and the absence of a similar comparison 

group of non-hosting sites make it difficult to draw causal conclusions about these findings.

Among the 941 AmeriCorps NCCC sponsoring 

organizations completing service projects between 

2016 to 2019, the majority of them indicated that 

their AmeriCorps NCCC service team ... 

Supported 

their 

organization’s 

mission

Contributed 

substantially to 

project 

objectives

Helped enhance

services to the 

communities

(96 percent) (88 percent) (92 percent)

Source: Hamdan and Robles (2022).

AmeriCorps partners experienced capacity increases in ways that can help them better serve their 

communities, but it is unclear if these increases were due to their AmeriCorps involvement. We 

identified six studies on whether and how AmeriCorps partners improved their organizational capacity. 

Two of these studies examined outcomes related to volunteer engagement and management and another 

study synthesized prior research on the AmeriCorps VISTA program implementation and the extent to 

which AmeriCorps VISTA helped build capacity for partners. A QED study conducted by an AmeriCorps 

ORE research grantee examined the extent to which participation in AmeriCorps VISTA helped 

organizations attract new volunteers in future years (Messamore et al. 2021). Comparing a sample of 80 
Chapter III. What is the State of the Evidence on AmeriCorps Partners?

Mathematica® Inc. 25

AmeriCorps VISTA grantee organizations to a similar group of 1,116 organizations that did not host 

AmeriCorps VISTA members, the study found that AmeriCorps VISTA organizations had 71 percent more 

volunteers two years later than did non-VISTA organizations. The study also found that VISTA 

organizations experienced a one percent increase in volunteers for every 10 percent increase in the 

number of days served by AmeriCorps VISTA members. A synthesis review by AmeriCorps ORE of previous 

studies of the AmeriCorps VISTA program also highlighted how organizations hosting AmeriCorps VISTA 

members were able to sustain their projects after closing out their partnership with the AmeriCorps 

program (AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation 2018). Another study examined whether an 

AmeriCorps State and National volunteer infrastructure program helped community-based organizations 

improve their volunteer management practices (JBS International 2018). Using a pre-test, post-test design, 

the study reported that organizations increased in measures of volunteer plan development, 

implementation, and sustainability, and the results were similar between organizations that received the 

program for one year compared to those that participated for multiple years. Although these are 

promising results, it is difficult to attribute the growth specifically to the volunteer infrastructure program 

without the presence of a comparison group of organizations that did not receive the program.

An analysis of the AmeriCorps NCCC Service Project Database provides insights on the extent to which 

AmeriCorps NCCC members provide capacity support to AmeriCorps sponsoring organizations (Sum et al. 

2020). Among 4,796 AmeriCorps projects implemented between 2012 and 2019, 34 percent had outputs 

or accomplishments characterized as helping to build capacity, such by supporting partnership and 

coalition building. AmeriCorps NCCC members most often provided capacity supports for projects that 

were primarily focused on the disaster services focus area. 

The other two studies we reviewed focused on measures of program evaluation and performance 

measurement capacity and overall capacity across several organizational domains. One study conducted 

an RCT on a performance measurement training and technical assistance that AmeriCorps members 

provided to local organizations (Marc Bolan Consulting 2020). The study found that organizations 

randomized into the intervention group reported greater knowledge gains about what constitutes 

evidence of effectiveness along with greater confidence in their ability to engage in evaluation and 

performance management compared to organizations assigned to the control group. However, the two 

study groups were similar on other outcome measures, such as the overall evaluation and performance 

management knowledge measure, attitudes toward conducting various components of an evaluation, and 

self-reported capacity to conduct an evaluation. The other study evaluated an intervention that placed 

AmeriCorps State and National members in local philanthropic organizations to provide various capacity 

building services, such as helping to develop partnerships, improve programming and capacity, and 

engage volunteers (Pritchard et al. 2020). The evaluation used a QED approach and compared partner 

organizations to a group of similar nonprofit organizations that did not host AmeriCorps member on a 

measure of overall organizational capacity (based on factors related to program development, delivery, 

and education; outreach; technology; and volunteer management). The results showed both study groups 

experienced organizational capacity growth, and it did not detect a statistically significant difference 

between the groups.
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying. 
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 27

IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

AmeriCorps programs are designed to strengthen local communities by addressing the local issues and 

challenges they face. Backed by the support of AmeriCorps funding and the structure of local 

organizations, AmeriCorps-funded partners and their members and volunteers enter communities to 

deliver interventions on the ground alongside and in service to local communities and the individuals 

residing within them. In this chapter, we present themes about the benefit of AmeriCorps grantee and 

sponsor programs to communities by investigating outcomes and impacts of AmeriCorps-funded 

interventions on communities, the value generated from investing in AmeriCorps-funded interventions, 

and how to prepare interventions to become ready to scale to serve more individuals within and across 

communities. 

The chapter addresses two research questions:

• What outcomes or impacts, if any, do communities served by AmeriCorps-funded grantees or 

sponsors and their members and volunteers experience?

• What does the research say about investments in and scaling of effective interventions?

We reviewed 71 studies classified under the communities domain of the State of the Evidence framework. 

In Section A, we discuss key findings from studies that examine outcomes and impacts of AmeriCorps 

interventions on community members they aim to serve. In Section B, we present evidence about the 

monetized value AmeriCorps grantee and sponsor programs bring to communities, factoring in the other 

domains as well, relative to the investment and opportunity costs associated with implementing these 

programs. Section C discusses ORE’s work regarding how to identify and scale the most effective 

interventions with a goal of creating the greatest positive impact on communities.

A. Evidence on how AmeriCorps-funded interventions benefit communities

We reviewed 51 studies that examined impacts or outcomes associated with AmeriCorps-funded 

interventions. Studies evaluated programs across the six AmeriCorps focus areas of disaster services, 

economic opportunity, education, environmental stewardship, healthy futures, and veterans and military 

families (Table IV.1). Studies could be classified under multiple focus areas if they examined outcomes 

pertinent to those areas. For example, a study on the Sunset Park AmeriCorps program examined an 

intervention that sought to improve adults’ work skills and their children’s reading skills, connecting it to 

both economic opportunity and education (The Sunset Park Health Council 2019). In this section, we 

summarize findings across the studies reviewed for each focus area, starting with education, which had 

the most identified studies.

Table IV.1. Number of reviewed studies examining AmeriCorps outcomes and impacts in the 

community domain, by AmeriCorps focus area

Disaster services

Economic 

opportunity Education

Environmental 

stewardship Healthy futures

Veterans and 

military families

2 8 31 6 6 1

Note: N = 54. Numbers do not add to 51 because studies could be represented in more than one focus area. 
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 28

1. Education

AmeriCorps education topics of interest

Source: AmeriCorps (2021a).

 

AmeriCorps’ work in the education focus area seeks 

to improve educational outcomes for students to 

prepare them for when they first enter kindergarten 

all the way through to beginning college or their 

careers. Topics of interest to the agency within this 

focus area include kindergarten to grade 12 

success, school readiness, and postsecondary 

education support.

Our review categorized 31 studies, all conducted by 

AmeriCorps State and National grantees, that 

offered evidence on AmeriCorps-funded 

interventions in the education focus area. While 

each intervention has its unique vision and 

strategies for achieving that aim, these programs commonly provided some form of mentoring, tutoring, 

or after-school support for students or training to teachers. Twenty-seven studies used a QED or RCT 

design, three were outcomes studies, and one was an implementation study. In this section, we discuss 

key themes related to students’ outcomes in literacy (16 studies), math (11 studies), attendance (five 

studies), socio-emotional or behavioral (seven studies), school readiness (five studies), and college 

enrollment (four studies). To do this, we summarize evidence across different AmeriCorps-funded 

interventions. We do not make any claims about whether a particular intervention model has sufficient 

evidence to be considered effective.

Evaluations of AmeriCorps-funded interventions seeking to increase students’ literacy outcomes 

indicate success with younger students and when measuring specific aspects of their literacy 

development. We identified 16 studies, three using RCT designs and 13 using QED designs, that 

compared literacy outcomes for K–12 students receiving AmeriCorps-funded interventions to the 

outcomes for comparison groups of students. Eight studies reported statistically significant positive 

impacts on students’ literacy outcomes. Three of these studies evaluated the Reading Corps model, 

focusing on students between kindergarten and grade three and measuring specific literacy domains 

(Markovitz et al. 2018; Pepper et al. 2018; Van Norman 2020). Two of the eight studies examined different 

program models (Literacy First and Energy Express) using samples of kindergarten and grade one 

students or students between kindergarten and grade six, and also measured specific literacy domains 

(Caverly et al. 2019; Edmonds 2019). Key findings from these studies show impacts on young students’ 

letter sound fluency (Caverly et al. 2019; Markovitz et al. 2018; Pepper et al. 2018), whole word reading 

(Caverly et al. 2019; Edmonds 2019), nonsense word fluency (Caverly et al. 2019; Pepper et al. 2018); and

reading development and fluency (Caverly et al. 2019; Edmonds 2019; Pepper et al. 2018; Van Norman 

2020). Three of the eight studies found positive impacts on students’ grades in literacy classes (Chapin 

Hall 2017) or on district or state assessments (Chapin Hall 2017; Kowalski et al. 2018; Lambert 2019).
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 29

The other eight studies, which did not report statistically positive impacts, tended to use samples of 

students from wider grade bands (for example, kindergarten to grade 12 or grade one to grade eight) and 

used state assessments or class grades as their outcome measures than those that reported positive 

outcomes (Abraham and Polush 2019; Agile Analytics 2020; Fairchild 2017; Gerdeman et al. 2017; JBS 

International 2017, 2020; Nathenson et al. 2021; Tetta et al. 2019). There were no other distinguishable 

patterns. Additional studies that incorporate a meta-analysis approach can synthesize findings from 

these and future studies and help to add clarity on the evidence of effectiveness on literacy outcomes.

Studies provided little evidence that AmeriCorps-funded interventions impact student math 

outcomes. We identified one RCT study, nine QED studies, and one outcomes study that examined 

whether AmeriCorps-funded interventions improved students’ math outcomes. Two studies found 

positive impacts on students’ math outcomes on several different measures. For example, an RCT study of 

Math Corps, a math tutoring intervention for students in grades four to eight, found that students in the 

intervention group had higher math fact fluency and math achievement scores than students in the 

control group, though the groups were similar in their mathematics state exam scores (Codding et al. 

2019). A QED study of City Year Chicago found that the intervention, which includes math support among 

other forms of academic and social-emotional support, had a significant impact on math grades and 

standardized test scores of students in grades four to eight and on math grades of students in grade nine 

relative to the comparison group (Chapin Hall 2017).

Findings from two other QED studies provided additional evidence suggesting that their examined 

intervention had positive impacts on math outcomes, but the results were ultimately inconclusive. For 

example, one study on the Alliance for Catholic Education (ACE) Teaching Fellows program found that 

students taught by early career ACE teachers in one diocese had significantly lower math growth than the 

students of other first- and second-year teachers, but ACE-taught students in another diocese had 

significantly greater math growth than the comparison group (Kowalski et al. 2018). Another study on the 

Keystone SMILES intervention reported that eight of the 12 treatment schools scored better than a sample 

of 12 comparison schools on year-to-year average growth and four-year average growth on state math 

assessments, but it is unclear if the overall difference between the two groups was statistically significant 

(Wolfrom Consulting 2020).

Among the other seven identified studies that examined students’ math outcomes, six QED studies did 

not find significant differences between students receiving services from AmeriCorps-funded interventions 

and comparison group students (Agile Analytics 2020; Fairchild 2017; Gerdeman et al. 2017; JBS 

International 2017, 2020; Nathenson et al. 2021). The other study, on the Providence Children’s Museum 

Literacy Club, found 52 percent of its students in grades two to four achieved a 10 percent growth rate on 

a math skills assessment between program entry and exit but did not include a comparison group in the 

study design (Providence Children’s Museum 2019).

AmeriCorps-funded interventions were successful in improving attendance outcomes, particularly 

for students in grades five to nine. We identified five QED studies that examined whether AmeriCorpsfunded interventions successfully impacted students’ school attendance. Four of these studies examined 

interventions designed, at least in part, to have AmeriCorps members provide one-on-one support to 

students identified as being at risk of disengaging from school or being off track from graduating (Agile 
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 30

Analytics 2020; Chapin Hall 2017; The Improve Group 2019; Lin 

and Reece 2021). The fifth study assessed an after-school 

program in which AmeriCorps members coordinated enrichment 

and academic support activities with youth (Sim and Good 2019). 

Three studies that conducted primary or subgroup analyses on 

students in grades five to nine found statistically significant 

impacts on students’ attendance. For example, the evaluation on 

the Ready to Extend a Caring Hand (REACH) Corps found that 

students in grades five to eight had significantly fewer unexcused 

absences than comparison group students, but there were not 

any differences when comparing students from kindergarten to 

grade four (Lin and Reece 2021). Similarly, the evaluation of the City Year program found positive impacts 

on attendance for students in grade nine relative to a comparison group, but the program and 

comparison groups had similar levels of attendance among students in grades four to eight (Chapin Hall 

2017). Another study on the Partners for After School Success program found significant positive impacts 

on grade eight students across three different school years (Sim and Good 2019). The study also found 

significant impacts on attendance for grade seven students across two different school years and for

grade six students in one of the school years examined. Two studies, on the Alliance with Youth and the 

Communities in Schools programs, reported statistically significant increases in student attendance 

among those in the program, but these improvements were similar to those of comparison groups of 

students (Agile Analytics 2020; The Improve Group 2019).

AmeriCorps programs improved 

school attendance for students in 

older grade levels

Sources: Chapin Hall (2017); Lin and 

Reece (2021); Sim and Good (2019).

There is less evidence suggesting that AmeriCorps-funded interventions improve social-emotional 

and behavioral outcomes for students. We identified seven QED studies that examined a variety of 

social-emotional and behavioral outcomes for students. Five of the studies did not detect statistically 

significant impacts on reducing student misbehavior (Agile Analytics 2020; Chapin Hall 2017; Lin and 

Reece 2021) or scores on behavioral and social-emotional assessments (JBS International 2017, 2020). Two 

studies found impacts on the extent to which students completed their work (The Improve Group 2019) 

and progressed to the next grade level (Fairchild 2017), but no other studies examined these outcomes to 

support any general findings associated with these outcomes. 

Children receiving AmeriCorps-funded interventions experienced gains in school readiness, but 

more evidence is needed to determine whether these interventions made an impact. We identified 

five studies that focused on fostering school readiness among preschool children. Two of them evaluated 

the Jumpstart intervention using QEDs (CCR Analytics 2019; Magnolia Consulting 2019) and another QED 

study assessed the First 5 Santa Cruz Reading Corps (Wright et al. 2017). Both interventions focused on 

improving preschool children’s language, literacy, and social-emotional skills needed to enter 

kindergarten developmentally ready to learn. We also identified an outcomes study on the Sunset Park 

AmeriCorps program (The Sunset Park Health Council 2019) and an implementation study on the Learning 

Early Achieves Potential (LEAP) initiative (ACET 2018); both programs aimed to improve preschool 

children’s social-emotional skills and school readiness.
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 31

The three QED studies found that preschool children served by the First 5 Santa Cruz Reading Corps and 

Jumpstart experienced significant increases in the literacy and language skills needed for school readiness. 

Children in preschool programs with Santa Cruz Reading Corps members experienced statistically 

significant impacts in their emergent literacy skills, such as recognizing letter names, letter sounds, and 

picture names (Wright et al. 2017). Jumpstart children also gained in their literacy skills, as measured by 

the extent to which they met language development age expectations and scored on early literacy 

assessments, but these increases were statistically similar to those experienced by matched comparison 

groups (CCR Analytics 2019; Magnolia Consulting 2019). 

The two other studies did not assess impacts on school readiness using a comparison group design. The 

outcomes study on the Sunset Park AmeriCorps program reported that 94 percent of the 52 children 

served saw increases in their Child’s Behavior Traits assessment scores (The Sunset Park Health Council

2019). The LEAP implementation study highlighted model fidelity strengths and challenges and 

opportunities to improve the program’s implementation, which would allow future studies to evaluate and 

detect potential impacts of the program, but the study did not focus on assessing child outcomes or 

impacts (ACET 2018).

AmeriCorps members had a positive impact on students’ college enrollment. We identified four 

studies that focused on postsecondary educational support, all of which were QED studies. Three of these 

studies focused on the College Possible intervention (Richardson et al. 2018; Rolfhus et al. 2021; Spinney 

et al. 2019) and the fourth study evaluated the College Advising Corps that was implemented in Missouri 

(Bettinger et al. 2019). In both interventions, AmeriCorps members serve as peer coaches to low-income 

students in grades 11 and 12, providing guidance on key aspects of preparing for college. These four 

studies offer a consistent picture that peer coaching of low-income high school students impacts their 

enrollment in college and other academic outcomes (see the box). 

Peer coaching focused on college preparation has a positive impact on high school 

students’ outcomes

Relative to matched samples of comparison group students, students who received peer coaching:

• Were more likely to enroll in college immediately after high school 

• Were more likely to enroll in a four-year college, including students who had relatively lower levels of 

academic performance

• Completed a greater number of college admissions applications, scholarship applications, and financial aid 

applications

• Enrolled in a greater number Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses during their 

senior year

• Had higher school attendance rates, grade point averages, on-track to graduate rates, and levels of 

noncognitive skills 

Sources: Bettinger et al. (2019); Richardson et al. (2018); Rolfhus et al. (2021); Spinney et al. (2019).
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 32

2. Economic opportunity

AmeriCorps economic 

opportunity topics of interest

Source: AmeriCorps (2021a).

AmeriCorps programs in the economic opportunity focus 

area seek to improve the economic well-being of those 

receiving AmeriCorps services. Topics of interest within this 

focus area include increasing employability, financial literacy, 

and housing opportunities for those in need. Our review 

identified eight studies conducted by AmeriCorps program 

grantees that offered evidence on AmeriCorps-funded 

interventions in this area. Three studies used QEDs to assess 

intervention impacts, and five used an outcomes design. The 

available studies covered a diverse set of outcomes, making it 

difficult to identify themes on topics related to employability, 

literacy skills, and housing. For example, one study focused 

on crime reduction impacts and the economic savings 

associated with it, while another focused on providing free legal services to individuals with low to 

moderate incomes, as having unmet legal needs can create economic insecurity (we discuss this study in 

Section A.6 of this chapter). We highlight key findings associated with the studies identified in this focus 

area and discuss the need for additional studies that can help produce evidence of effectiveness for 

AmeriCorps-funded interventions.

Emerging evidence highlights improvements in housing-related outcomes, but additional research 

is needed to understand how AmeriCorps-funded interventions impact those outcomes. Three 

studies examined housing-related outcomes. Nelson and Kaiser’s (2020) QED study on the Twin Cities 

Habitat for Humanity (TCHFH) program compared outcome differences between a sample of families who 

acquired a home through TCHFH to a matched comparison group of similar families who qualified for 

TCHFH support but had not yet closed on a home. The study measured families’ person-per-bedroom 

ratio (a measure of overcrowding in a residence in which lower ratios are more desirable) and ratings of 

home satisfaction, safety, and housing issues. Families served by TCHFH had significantly lower personper-bedroom ratios and were more likely to meet the ratio of two or less (a guideline set by the US 

Department of Housing and Urban Development) than comparison group families. TCHFH families also 

reported greater overall home satisfaction and feelings of safety and fewer housing issues than the 

comparison group. 

An outcomes study that examined varying approaches for delivering housing-related improvements and 

other support services to older adults also reported positive improvements across a variety of measures, 

though a lack of comparison group in the study design limits any causal conclusions (Walter et al. 2019). 

For example, adults age 65 and over who received safety repairs to their homes, information on fall 

prevention, and referrals to other support services reported significant increases in well-being and greater 

confidence in performing daily tasks without fear of falling. Using a different sample of older adults who 

received home risk assessments, hazard intervention and remediation services, energy efficiency services, 

and weatherization services, the study found that most clients reported improvements in moving safely 

around the house (67 percent), mobility while entering or exiting the house (62 percent), and performing 

daily life activities (59 percent). An outcomes study of the Keep Austin Housed project highlighted how 
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 33

the project delivered housing placement services to 1,072 clients over two years and 422 clients obtained 

housing in that time (Keep Austin Housed 2019).

Adult learners developed new skills, but additional research is needed to examine how 

AmeriCorps-funded interventions contribute to employability and wealth outcomes. Three studies 

examined AmeriCorps-funded interventions designed to enhance adult learners’ skills and knowledge. 

One QED study assessed the Community Technology Empowerment Project’s Northstar program, which 

teaches computer skills to adult learners, by comparing a sample of unemployed job-seeking adults who 

completed at least four hours of Northstar and passed a Northstar assessment to a similar group of 

unemployed jobseekers attending workforce centers in the region (Backman 2018). The study found that 

Northstar participants had a 47 percent employment rate one quarter later whereas the comparison 

group’s employment rate was 40 percent; the seven percent difference was statistically significant. In a 

survey of program participants, 81 percent of the adult learners reported the computer skills they 

acquired helped them in searching for employment. 

Two outcomes studies examined increases in English language proficiency and financial literacy skills. An 

outcomes study on the VOCAL AmeriCorps program highlighted how 3,378 adult learners demonstrated 

progress in English as a second language (49 percent of all program enrollees) and 2,018 adult learners 

obtained a job (approximately 50 percent of all program enrollees) over the course of the project’s threeyear period (Meehan 2019). Among a sample of economically disadvantaged individuals receiving 

financial literacy services through the Sunset Park AmeriCorps program, a pre-test, post-test study 

showed that 69 percent of participants showed gains in their literacy skills (The Sunset Park Health Council

2019). However, it is difficult to attribute these outcomes to the VOCAL or Sunset Park programs without 

the inclusion of a comparison group in the study design.

Additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of AmeriCorps-funded interventions 

in reducing crime. The AmeriCorps Urban Safety (AMUS) program provides real-time crime mapping 

analyses and collaborative problem-solving processes to deter and reduce crime in Detroit, Michigan. A 

QED study of the program found that although AMUS precincts experienced a decrease in crime 

frequency during the study’s three-year period, these changes were statistically similar to those 

experienced in non-AMUS precincts (Moss 2018). The study also estimated that the reduced crime in the 

AMUS precincts saved $378 million when factoring costs associated with victims and the criminal justice 

system, opportunity costs associated with criminals’ choosing to engage in crime, and other intangibles. 

Although the study did not find evidence of effectiveness for the AMUS program, it highlights a promising 

avenue for examining community-level economic impacts in addition to the individual-level impacts 

evaluations often explored.
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 34

3. Healthy futures

AmeriCorps healthy futures

topics of interest

Source: AmeriCorps (2021a).

Within the AmeriCorps healthy futures focus area, the agency 

strives to improve individuals’ health and well-being by 

helping older adults with special needs maintain their 

independence (aging in place), addressing individuals’ obesity 

and nutritional needs (obesity and food), and improving 

individuals’ access to health care services they need (access to 

care). We identified six studies that provided evidence on

AmeriCorps-funded interventions and projects in this focus 

area. Two were QED studies conducted by AmeriCorps 

program grantee organizations, and three were outcomes 

studies conducted by AmeriCorps program and AmeriCorps 

ORE research grantee organizations. Another study was an 

AmeriCorps ORE–commissioned meta-synthesis on 

AmeriCorps Seniors impacts and outcomes. 

Two of these studies focused on obesity and food outcomes and one study examined outcomes related 

to aging in place. The three other studies are health related but did not fit neatly into the three healthy 

futures categories: two focused on outcomes we labeled supportive family environments and the third 

assessed community-level measures of subjective well-being (levels of positive or negative affect). We 

discuss the findings associated with those studies, but there is an insufficient amount of evidence to draw 

broader conclusions around AmeriCorps’ impact in these areas.

Although children participating in AmeriCorps interventions showed improvements in health and 

nutritional outcomes, evidence of impacts is limited. A QED study conducted on the Up2Us Coach 

program sought to examine whether coaches trained in sports-based youth development strategies, 

social-emotional skill-building techniques, and mentoring strategies can impact youths’ attributes 

associated with healthy decision making, physical fitness, and nutritional habits (Jarjoura and Meckes 

2018). Among the eight healthy decision-making attributes assessed in the evaluation—self-awareness; 

positive identity; situational awareness; future focus and plan B thinking; discipline; social confidence; prosocial connections; and well-being—the study found that Up2Us Coach youth participants experienced 

significantly greater increases in well-being than did matched comparison group of youth. The study also 

found that Up2Us Coach youth participants showed gains in physical fitness and nutritional habits, but 

these increases were similar to those experienced by the comparison group. An outcomes study on the 

Live Healthy Kids intervention also reported increases in children’s nutritional habits across several 

measures (Mwangi 2018). The Live Healthy Kids intervention is designed to expose children to and teach 

them about a variety of healthy foods and promote physical exercise. Using a pre-test, post-test design, 

the study found that children significantly improved in their knowledge of fruits and vegetables and 

willingness to try new foods and parents’ report of their children’s willingness to engaged in 60 minutes of 

physical activity each day.
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 35

Home visiting programs using a parent education curriculum can help create supportive family 

environments for children. We identified two evaluations, a QED study and an outcomes study, that 

examined home visiting programs using the Nurturing Parenting Program (NPP) parent education 

curriculum. The QED evaluation of the Birth & Beyond Family Resource Center initiative found that 

families receiving at least eight hours of home visiting services using the NPP curriculum had better child 

welfare outcomes than families not receiving Birth & Beyond home-visiting services (Applied Survey 

Research 2021). For example, children in families receiving at least eight hours of home visiting were less 

likely to experience substantiated recurrences of maltreatment over the course of a 12-month period 

relative to a matched comparison group that did not receive home visits. The outcomes study conducted 

on the Child Welfare System Improvement program also found positive family and parent outcomes 

associated with families receiving NPP during home visiting services (LPC Consulting Associates 2017). 

Families receiving at least eight hours of NPP demonstrated significant increases in their parenting 

knowledge and decreases in risk behavior, and 85 percent of the parents did not have child welfare 

involvement 12 months after completing the NPP curriculum. 

Additional research is needed to better understand AmeriCorps Seniors impact on program 

beneficiaries. The Frazier et al. (2019) meta-synthesis of research conducted on AmeriCorps Seniors 

programs highlighted benefits the volunteers experienced (see Chapter III), but the study identified 

relatively less research on how these programs may benefit the older adults, caregivers, and children 

served by the programs. The study identified 28 outcomes that focused on adult clients, but only two 

outcomes showed positive impacts based on QED or RCT evaluations. These impacts were on measures of 

overall functioning and depression/mental health outcomes. The synthesis did not identify any impact or 

outcomes studies that showed increases in physical health for adult clients. There were relatively fewer 

outcomes examined for caregivers and children, and while most indicated positive results, they were 

examined using outcomes study designs that do not enable causal conclusions on program impacts.

Evidence on the reciprocal effect between community well-being and the presence of AmeriCorps 

programs warrants further exploration. An innovative study conducted by an AmeriCorps ORE research 

grantee assessed how levels of community subjective well-being were associated with the number and 

sustained presence of AmeriCorps members across 1,347 counties in the U.S. (Velasco et al. 2019). The 

study measured various aspects of community level well-being—engagement, disengagement, positive 

emotions, negative emotions, and negative relationships—by categorizing social media postings in those 

areas. A key finding was that a one-year increase in AmeriCorps’ presence in the community was 

associated with decreased levels of negative relations and disengagement language in social media 

postings. Although most of the studies discussed in this chapter examine the impacts or outcomes for 

those directly receiving AmeriCorps-funded services, Velasco et al. (2019) highlight potential indirect 

impacts AmeriCorps can have on individuals who are not receiving AmeriCorps services but have 

AmeriCorps members based in their communities. The study also found that levels of disengagement in 

social media posts were associated with AmeriCorps program presence in subsequent years, and the 

authors hypothesize that disengaged communities might be less likely to apply for or receive AmeriCorps 

funding. Additional research in this area can help inform ways to identify and prioritize investment in 

underserved communities.
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 36

4. Environmental stewardship

AmeriCorps environmental stewardship

topics of interest

Source: AmeriCorps (2021a).

Within its environmental stewardship focus area, 

AmeriCorps aims to make community-level impacts 

in several key areas by increasing energy efficiency, 

creating green jobs and green spaces, fostering 

awareness and stewardship, and protecting at-risk 

ecosystems. We identified six studies that 

examined AmeriCorps-funded interventions and 

projects within this focus area. Five of these were 

QED studies conducted by AmeriCorps State and 

National grantee organizations, and another was a descriptive study on AmeriCorps NCCC–funded 

projects. 

AmeriCorps-funded approaches are protecting at-risk environmental ecosystems. The five QED 

studies examined various approaches to protecting ecosystems. Two of these studies examined the 

effectiveness of different Washington Conservation Corps’ restoration methods on native plant survival 

rates, along with ratings of deer browse and string trimmer plant damage in Washington state (The 

Watershed Company 2018, 2021). The evaluations tested two separate restoration methods—applying 

deer deterrent to the plants and using protection tubes around the plants—relative to a comparison set 

of plants that received no treatment. The Watershed Company (2018) found that plants protected by 

tubes had significantly greater survival rates and lower damage from string trimmers one year later than 

both the comparison plants and plants treated with deer deterrent. However, the three groups were 

similar on deer damage. The Watershed Company (2021) found that these patterns were sustained over 

three additional years. Another QED assessed the impact of watershed restoration activities conducted by 

AmeriCorps members serving with EarthCorps (The Watershed Company 2019), also in Washington state.

AmeriCorps members in this study used power tools, hand tools, and herbicides to suppress invasive 

plants in an effort to make natural areas healthier. The study found that areas treated with restoration 

methods used by AmeriCorps members 

experienced statistically significant decreases in 

invasive species coverage one year later relative to 

untreated comparison areas. These results are

similar to another QED study in Montana state 

parks that found the use of weed treatments made 

a statistically significant impact on reducing 

invasive species while also increasing beneficial 

plant coverage (Naiman-Sessions and Shteir 2019). 

Finally, the fifth QED study found a positive impact 

of Nevada Conservation Corps’ fuels reduction 

treatment activities on reducing the fire regime 

condition class, which reduces the risk of wildfires, 

on the treated public lands (Christiansen 2019). 

Impacts of AmeriCorps environmental 

stewardship interventions

Sources: Naiman-Sessions and Shteir (2019); The 

Watershed Company (2018, 2019, 2021).
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 37

This body of evidence provides strong evidence on how AmeriCorps environmental stewardship 

interventions have made positive impacts. It is also important to consider the generalizability of these 

findings, as the evidence is based on interventions conducted in the Western region of the United States. 

Future studies are needed to understand how the assessed environmental stewardship activities discussed 

here or other approaches might impact localities in other parts of the nation.

AmeriCorps NCCC projects make a positive environmental footprint in communities. An analysis of 

the AmeriCorps NCCC Service Project Database provides a broad sense of the environmental-related 

outputs and outcomes that AmeriCorps NCCC sponsor organizations report creating in their communities 

(Sum et al. 2020). Among 4,796 AmeriCorps projects implemented between 2012 and 2019, 34 percent 

focused on at-risk ecosystems (such as protecting wildlife species or restoring wetlands), 29 percent 

focused on environmental conservation (such as constructing hiking trails or restoring parks), and 18 

percent focused on awareness and stewardship (such as planting new trees).15 To understand the reach of 

AmeriCorps NCCC through these projects, the study reported that members cleared 1,141 acres of land of 

unwanted brush or exotic vegetation and restored or created 1,287 miles of hiking trails. Members also 

taught 64 environmental education programs. Although these findings provide detailed information on 

the scope of AmeriCorps NCCC–funded projects in this focus area, information on similar projects funded 

through other AmeriCorps programs, such as AmeriCorps State and National, would enable a more 

comprehensive analysis of the agency’s footprint in this area and help see if these activities are achieving 

agency objectives.

5. Disaster services

AmeriCorps disaster services

topics of interest

Source: AmeriCorps (2021a).

AmeriCorps’ activities in the disaster services focus area aim to 

help communities prepare for, respond to, and recover from 

natural and human-made disasters. Disasters include forest fires, 

floods, hurricanes, oil spills, pandemics, terrorist attacks, and 

tornadoes. A primary topic of interest includes outcomes that 

capture the extent of disaster assistance provided by AmeriCorps 

members. Our review identified two studies that included a focus 

on this area. One is a descriptive analysis of the AmeriCorps 

NCCC service projects (also discussed in Chapter II), and the 

other is an implementation study conducted by the AmeriCorps 

NCCC program office of its COVID response.

Disaster services is the most common primary focus of 

AmeriCorps NCCC projects. Sum et al.’s (2020) analysis of the AmeriCorps NCCC Service Project 

Database showed that 50 percent focused on disaster services. Among the 4,796 AmeriCorps projects 

implemented between 2012 and 2019, 30 percent focused specifically on providing disaster assistance 

(such as by assisting people at mass care facilities or helping to process federal disaster aid applications) 

and 11 percent focused on public safety (such as by supporting disaster simulations or exercises). Projects 

15 The Sum et al. (2020) study refers to these areas of focus as project characteristics, and NCCC projects could have 

more than one characteristic. 
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 38

focusing on addressing natural and other disasters 

produced a total of 9,250 outputs for their 

communities. For example, AmeriCorps members 

developed 583 informational documents and 

training materials in efforts to assist in disaster 

preparedness; produced 454 resource guides or 

reports on disaster recovery efforts; and supported 

371 service facilities to aid in disaster responses 

(see sidebar). These findings provide detailed 

information on the scope of AmeriCorps NCCC–

funded projects in the disaster services area, but 

they do not address the effectiveness of those 

projects.

How AmeriCorps NCCC projects focused 

on disaster services

Source: Sum et al. (2020).

Response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic 

provides a case study on how national service 

can be mobilized to address a public health 

crisis. The AmeriCorps (2021b) implementation 

study on how the COVID-19 Containment Response Corps (CCRC) formed and responded to the COVID19 public health crisis in the State of Colorado provides deep insights on how national service programs

assemble together and respond to disaster situations. The study discusses various phases of the CCRC’s 

creation and response efforts (Figure IV.1), highlighting contextual factors and program strengths and 

challenges experienced along the way. For example, the study discusses how a shared focus, trust among 

partners, and political support helped to quickly and effectively launch the CCRC initiative. However, CCRC 

needed to navigate numerous challenges, such as administrative hurdles, logistical challenges (for 

example scheduling necessary trainings), and a sense of having to figure out the approach along the way. 

As CCRC transitioned to implementation and scaled, it engaged approximately 934 members and 

volunteers who completed 17,629 case investigations and delivered 32,803 test results to thousands of 

Colorado community members.

Figure IV.1. COVID-19 Containment Response Corps phases for disaster service response

Note: CCRC = COVID-19 Containment Response Corps.
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 39

6. Veterans and military families

AmeriCorps veterans and military

families topics of interest

Source: AmeriCorps (2021a).

AmeriCorps aims to assist veterans and military 

families by connecting them to education 

opportunities, helping them access services and 

benefits they have earned, and providing job 

training and employment search supports. We 

categorized one study as aligning to the veterans 

and military families focus area, which was an 

outcomes study on the Justice for Montanans

intervention (Mandiloff and Scott 2019). Although 

the intervention was not designed specifically for this special population, the study reported that over a 

two-year period Justice for Montanans served 4,083 veterans and 9,529 veteran family members, along 

with 264 active duty members and 1,346 active duty family members. Justice for Montanans services 

included providing low- to moderate-income Montanans with legal needs with access to legal self-help 

information, resources, referrals for civil legal matters, and volunteer support for civil legal assistance. 

Although the study did not conduct subgroups analyses of veterans, active duty members, and military 

families, it did report increases in legal understanding among 77,908 low- to moderate-income 

Montanans who participated. Additional research is needed to understand how veterans and military 

families benefit from AmeriCorps-funded services.

B. Investing in community-based solutions generates greater value in return

Return on investment (ROI) studies help shed light on the overall monetized value that AmeriCorps 

programs bring to the participant, partner, and community domains relative to the investment and 

opportunity costs associated with implementing these programs. While rigorous RCT and QED studies 

assess program impacts, ROI studies help to inform whether those impacts are worth it when making 

funding or resource allocation decisions. Other types of cost analyses can provide an understanding of 

whether it is feasible to scale an intervention (Section IV.C discusses scaling).

Our review identified 15 studies that conducted cost-related analyses for AmeriCorps-funded 

interventions. Twelve were ROI studies on different programs or interventions commissioned by 

AmeriCorps ORE, and the other three were cost or benefit-cost analyses conducted by AmeriCorps 

program grantees. We base our discussion primarily on the 12 ROI studies because they used the same 

methodological approach for generating their calculations (see the box). We supplement those findings 

with results from the other three studies.
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 40

Methodological components to the 12 reviewed ROI studies

• Measuring and monetizing program benefits: This part involves using program, public, and third-party data 

to estimate the benefits realized by key groups or entities impacted by the program (for example, program 

recipients, AmeriCorps members delivering services, and government agencies).

• Estimating forgone benefits: This part concerns calculating the opportunity costs, which are the potential 

benefits that key groups or entities may have experienced had the program option not been chosen (for 

example, the benefits from the program funding had funds been invested elsewhere).

• Assessing program costs: This part involves determining the total costs needed to implement the program for 

a particular duration of time. which can include grant amounts, matching funding from other sources, fees, and 

education awards to AmeriCorps members. 

• Calculating the ROI: This part consists of three ROI calculations: (1) total benefits per federal dollar, (2) total 

benefits per funder dollar, and (3) federal government benefits per federal dollar. However, because there were 

insufficient data to inform the length of time that AmeriCorps members and, where applicable, program 

recipients will experience earnings benefits from their involvement in the program, the ROI calculations 

considered a range of possible durations, such as:

– Short-term: this scenario assumes earnings impacts of a single year after program exit; 

– Medium-term: this scenario assumes earnings impacts last 15 years; and 

– Long-term: this scenario assumes earnings impacts last 30 years. 

Sources: Borgida et al. (2022); Clark et al. (2022a, 2022b); Modicamore et al. (2020a, 2020b); Munaretto et al. (2020, 2021a, 

2021b); Naugler et al. (2021a, 2021b, 2021c); Voigt et al. (2022).

AmeriCorps-funded programs demonstrate a positive ROI across AmeriCorps’ focus areas. Figure 

IV.2 summarizes the ROI estimates for the 12 AmeriCorps-funded programs (Borgida et al. 2022; Clark et 

al. 2022a; 2022b; Modicamore et al. 2020a; 2020b; Munaretto et al. 2020a; 2020b; 2021; Naugler et al. 

2021a; 2021b; 2021c; Voigt et al. 2022). There are several key themes associated with these findings, which 

show how these programs can generate value when addressing local community issues. 

From 2020 to 2022, 

AmeriCorps ORE

commissioned 12 ROI studies 

that demonstrated how 

programs generate value 

when addressing local 

community issues

Additional information on these 

• Each of the agency’s six focus areas of interest has an AmeriCorps-funded program 

demonstrating a positive ROI.

– Disaster services: SBP AmeriCorps (Borgida et al. 2022);

– Economic opportunity: The Community Empowerment 

Technology Project (Modicamore et al. 2020b), Habitat for 

Humanity (Naugler et al. 2021b), and YouthBuild (Naugler 

et al. 2021c); 

– Education: Breakthrough Central Texas—Austin program 

(Clark et al. 2022a), College Possible’ s College Access 

program (Munaretto et al. 2020a), and Minnesota Reading 

Corps—Kindergarten (Munaretto et al. 2020b);

– Environmental stewardship: Nevada Conservation Corps 

(Voigt et al. 2022) and Washington Conservation Corps 

(Munaretto et al. 2021);

studies can be found on the 

AmeriCorps Evidence Exchange.
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 41

– Healthy futures: AmeriCorps Seniors FGP and SCP (Modicamore et al. 2020a) and Birth & Beyond 

Home Visitation program (Naugler et al. 2021a); and

– Veteran and military families: Washington State Department of Veterans Affairs Vet Corps (Clark et al. 

2022b).

• All programs saw a positive ROI in the medium and long-term scenarios. The 12 programs showed 

a positive return on invested dollars, under the assumption that AmeriCorps members experienced 

earning impacts for 15 or 30 years after finishing their service program. 

Figure IV.2. ROI per funder dollar for AmeriCorps-funded interventions

Note: The graph reflects three ROI calculations for each program (with the exceptions of AmeriCorps Seniors FGP and SCP) 

based on varying assumptions on the length of time AmeriCorps members and program participants will experience 

earnings benefits. The yellow boxes represent the short-term scenario of earnings benefits lasting for one year, the 

green circles represent the medium-term scenario of earnings benefits lasting for 15 years, and the blue triangles 

represent the long-term scenario of earnings benefits lasting for 30 years. For example, under the long-term scenario 

where earnings benefits lasting for 30 years, every dollar invested in SBP AmeriCorps from all funders returns $4.14 in 

value.

Sources: Borgida et al. (2022); Clark et al. (2022a, 2022b); Modicamore et al. (2020a, 2020b); Munaretto et al. (2020a, 2020b, 

2021); Naugler et al. (2021a, 2021b, 2021c); Voigt et al. (2022). 

Two other benefit-cost studies conducted by AmeriCorps program grantees that used different 

methodologies also contribute to understanding the value of programs in the education and economic 

domain. For example, a benefit-cost study of College Possible’s College Fit initiative found that that for 

every $1 spent, a benefit of $14.66 was returned in year 1 of the program, whereas a benefit of $4.34 was 

returned in year 2 (Rolfhus et al. 2021). The authors attributed the difference between years to the greater 

number of students served in the program’s first year than in the second year. In the area of economic 

opportunity, another AmeriCorps program grantee estimated that every dollar invested in the Housing 

Upgrades to Benefit Seniors program generated $1.80 in benefits (Walter et al. 2019). 
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 42

Another AmeriCorps program grantee conducted a cost study on the Minnesota Reading Corps prekindergarten program (Brooks et al. 2018). The study found that the average costs were $84,980 per site 

and $1,690 per student, while average personnel costs were $51,680 per site and average training costs 

were $29,860 per site. 

C. Successfully scaling an intervention requires evidence and readiness

When evidence shows that an intervention helped improved individuals or community outcomes, there is 

often the desire to identify ways to scale the intervention so that it can work for more people. AmeriCorps 

ORE funded the Scaling Evidence-Based Models (SEBM) project to generate practical knowledge about 

how the agency might foster the successful scaling of effective interventions using one of three 

approaches (see the box) and help support AmeriCorps’ efforts to identify which interventions work and 

how they can work for more people. Undergoing this effort would also serve as an example to other 

governmental agencies and philanthropic funders on how they can systematically review evidence of 

effectiveness of the interventions they fund, as well as assess how ready their grantees or funded 

organizations might be for scaling activities. 

Intervention scaling approaches

There are three main approaches to scaling interventions so that more people could receive the beneficial impacts 

of an intervention:

• Expansion: Extending the intervention to more people in the same target population and location where it had 

previously been offered.

• Replication: Extending the intervention to the same target population but in a new location. Replication is 

about creating a new implementation infrastructure, whereas expansion is about increasing the capacity of an 

existing infrastructure. 

• Adaptation: Modifying an existing intervention to serve a new target population or to implement it in a new 

setting (type of location).

Source: Selekman et al. (2020).

The SEBM project developed and applied the Scaling Programs with Research Evidence and Effectiveness 

(SPREE) process to help AmeriCorps identify which of its funded interventions demonstrate evidence of 

effectiveness and a readiness to scale (Maxwell and Richman 2019). The project also conducted a series of 

case studies with AmeriCorps grantees in the process of scaling their interventions. The SPREE process has 

two distinct parts, each of which is represented in Figure IV.3. The first part is designed to identify 

interventions with rigorous evidence of effectiveness for participants receiving the services. In order to 

scale an intervention successfully to serve a greater number of individuals, there needs to be rigorous 

evidence that supports the intervention’s effectiveness to begin to with. The second part is designed to 

determine the extent to which the effective interventions and the organizations implementing them 

demonstrate a readiness for scaling. If grantees do not have the intervention-level and organization-level 

definitions, processes, and structures in place prior to scaling, they are less likely to maintain or exceed the 

benefits first documented about its effectiveness.
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 43

Figure IV.3. The Scaling Programs with Research Evidence and Effectiveness (SPREE) process

Source: Richman and Streke (2020).

Applying this process to grantees and their interventions funded between 2010 and 2019, the SEBM 

project conducted a systematic review of intervention evidence documents and applications for 

AmeriCorps funding. The review identified interventions with the strongest evidence of effectiveness and 

provided AmeriCorps with an understanding of why other interventions did not meet criteria for rigorous 

research, such as using study designs lacking the internal validity that gives confidence that the 

intervention, and not other factors, impacted individuals receiving the intervention (Richman and Streke 

2020). The project also identified the extent to which organizations described the intervention 

conditions—having a well-specified intervention, a well-defined target population, and implementation 

supports—and organization conditions—having an enabling context and implementation infrastructure—

needed to be ready for scaling. AmeriCorps-funded organizations implementing interventions with 

evidence of effectiveness did a better job in their scaling 

plans of describing the readiness of their interventions for 

scaling than they did of describing what organizations 

needed to be ready to support scaling (Selekman et. 2020).

The SEBM project used the findings from these reports, 

along with scaling principles emerging from 

implementation science research, to develop an interactive 

tool designed to help organizations improve both their 

readiness to scale an intervention and the intervention’s 

readiness to be scaled (see the sidebar).

Scaling Checklists: Assessing Your 

Level of Evidence and Readiness 

(SCALER) tool 

The SCALER tool helps organizations 

(1) ensure the intervention to be scaled 

is likely to produce desired outcomes 

and is therefore worthy of being scaled 

and (2) identify whether the effective 

intervention and the organization are 

ready to scale

The SCALER tool can be found on the 

AmeriCorps evaluation resources page.

Case studies conducted on three AmeriCorps grantees 

(Anderson et al. 2020; Eddins et al. 2020; Jones et al. 2020) 

and a cross-site analysis of arising themes (Needels et al. 
Chapter IV. What is the State of the Evidence of AmeriCorps on Communities?

Mathematica® Inc. 44

2020) also highlighted various facilitators and challenges that can occur as organizations scale their 

interventions. For example:

• Grantees often used multiple funding sources to support scaling, but this can lead to multiple datacollection efforts needed to satisfy different funding requirements. The timing of available funding 

might also condense grantees’ preferred planning period, which can make scaling more challenging.

• Grantees experienced internal support, particularly from organizational leaders, and local support from 

community stakeholders to scale their interventions.

• When striving to serve a new focal population or better serve an existing one while scaling, 

administrators valued personnel whose language and culture aligned with those of the focal population 

and its challenges.

• An increase in personnel needed for scaling created additional logistical considerations for training 

personnel on the intervention. This included conducting decentralized trainings across multiple 

locations and providing site-specific information to make the training materials more relevant.
Chapter V. What Do We Know About the State of National Service, Volunteering, and Civic Engagement in the United States?

Mathematica® Inc. 45

V. What Do We Know About the State of National Service, 

Volunteering, and Civic Engagement in the United States?

AmeriCorps strives to make a lasting impact on the civic health of society and to be a thought leader in 

the field of volunteering and civic engagement. AmeriCorps ORE furthers the agency’s mission by 

supporting and conducting research and evaluations that advance the knowledge base and public 

understanding of volunteering and civic engagement. Since 2002, ORE has contributed to this evidence

building in part by funding and analyzing data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) Civic 

Engagement and Volunteering (CEV) Supplement.16 The CPS CEV, the most robust longitudinal survey on 

the topics of volunteering and civic engagement, provides valuable insight into America’s civic health over 

time. Based on the recommendation from National Academies of Sciences17 to complement the national 

level CPS CEV survey with additional measurement approaches and research designs, AmeriCorps ORE 

launched its research grant program in 2015to support researchers, scholars, and dissertation writers at 

institutions of higher education as they pursue projects that advance understanding of national service, 

volunteering, and civic engagement in society.18 AmeriCorps ORE research grantees also help examine 

effective strategies that foster civic engagement and use innovative research methods to address 

community priorities. To date, ORE has funded four research grant cycles that have awarded 55 grants.19

In this chapter, we present key themes arising from the 25 studies—24 conducted by AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantees and one conducted by AmeriCorps ORE—that contribute to the body of knowledge 

about national service, volunteering, and civic engagement in the United States. We answer the research 

questions:

• What are the societal rates of volunteerism, participation in national service, and civic 

engagement? How do these rates vary by demographic characteristics?

• What new insights has AmeriCorps-funded research generated to advance the field’s 

understanding of national service, volunteering, and civic engagement?

In Section A of this chapter, we discuss key findings from three studies that describe the current state of 

volunteerism and civic engagement in the United States. Section B synthesizes themes that arise from 22 

studies using a variety of methodologies that provide insights on the factors that relate to individuals’ 

16 More information on the CEV can be found at https://data.americorps.gov/api/views/rgh8-g2uc/files/6160b250-

6443-45ef-8b2a-cb42f909a8fa?download=true&filename=2021%20CEV%20Dataset%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.

17 See the National Academy of Sciences (2014) “Civic Engagement and Social Cohesion Measuring Dimensions of 

Social Capital to Inform Policy” for more information at https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18831/civicengagement-and-social-cohesion-measuring-dimensions-of-social-capital

18 AmeriCorps has funded four ORE research grant cycles to date. More information about the AmeriCorps ORE 

research grants can be found at 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/What%20is%20a%20Research%20Grant_053023_final_508.pdf

and https://americorps.gov/partner/how-it-works/research-evaluation. 

19 At the time of this report, some AmeriCorps ORE research grantees still had active grants, which meant that they 

had not yet produced a study or made it available to AmeriCorps ORE. Additionally, some grantees produced studies 

that were not publicly available (for example, journal articles requiring publication fees). As a result, we compiled and 

reviewed 29 eligible studies affiliated with 18 of 36 AmeriCorps ORE research grantees (from the 2015, 2017, and 2018 

cohorts). Twenty-four of these studies are discussed in this chapter (the other five were discussed in earlier chapters).
Chapter V. What Do We Know About the State of National Service, Volunteering, and Civic Engagement in the United States?

Mathematica® Inc. 46

civic engagement; how participatory research methodology can include community members to study 

and address complex social problems; practices that help organizations maximize the impact of 

volunteers; and the importance of nonprofit organizations for the subjective well-being of communities.

A. Societal rates of volunteerism and civic engagement

Access to the CPS CEV on the 

AmeriCorps Open Data Portal

The 2019 CPS CEV data described in 

this section is publicly available on the 

AmeriCorps Open Data Portal. At the 

time of this report, AmeriCorps ORE is 

also in the process of analyzing the 

recently released 2021 CPS CEV data. 

We identified three studies that describe specific aspects of 

civic engagement in society: volunteerism and social capital. 

Two of these studies present findings from longitudinal data 

available in the CPS CEV, which in 2019 surveyed 139,217 

households in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The 

third study presents findings from a survey of 683 

representative nonprofits in 2019. This section describes key 

findings from these three studies. We do not intend for our 

presentation of the findings to be an all-encompassing 

descriptive account of civic engagement in the United States, as these studies present data and findings 

on only two aspects of civic engagement.

Volunteering among Americans has remained stable at 30 percent over the last 20 years, but 

current rates vary by demographic, socioeconomic, and family characteristics. Analyses of 2019 CPS 

CEV data reveal that an estimated 30 percent of Americans, or 77.9 million people, reported that they 

volunteered for an organization or association (AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation 2021). In 

total, these volunteers served an estimated 5.8 billion hours with an economic value of $147 billion. The 

study also identified how rates of volunteerism vary by key demographic characteristics (see the box).

Volunteerism rates in 2019 varied by demographic characteristics

• Women volunteer at higher rates (33 percent) than men (25 percent).

• White individuals volunteer at higher rates (32 percent) than those of another race (25 percent) or Black 

individuals (23 percent).

• Non-Hispanic individuals volunteer at higher rates (33 percent) than Hispanic individuals (19 percent). 

• Generation X, or those born between 1965 and 1980, had the highest rate (35 percent) of volunteerism 

compared to other age groups (30 percent for baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1964; 28 percent for 

generation Z and millennials, born after 1996 and between 1981 and 1996, respectively; and 25 percent for the

silent generation or older, born before 1946). 

Source: AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation (2021).

The study found that the rate of volunteerism with organizations and associations increased dramatically 

with educational attainment and annual household income. Twelve percent of those with less than a high 

school diploma volunteered compared with 44 percent among those with a college degree or higher. 

Among those in households with an annual income of less than $40,000 a year, 20 percent volunteered, 

compared with a 45 percent volunteer rate in households with annual income of $150,000 or more. Rates 

of volunteering were also relatively higher among part-time workers and parents of school-aged children. 

who tend to have more discretionary time, network ties, and other personal circumstances that support 

civic engagement.
Chapter V. What Do We Know About the State of National Service, Volunteering, and Civic Engagement in the United States?

Mathematica® Inc. 47

A new measure reveals that the associational dimension of social capital did not decline from 2008 

to 2013, despite declines in social capital as a whole throughout the twentieth century. Social capital 

is defined as the networks and ties among individuals, groups, and organizations, and researchers have 

noted its decline throughout the twentieth century (Weiss et al. 2019). These researchers sought to 

measure dimensions of social capital that have not been empirically assessed since the General Social 

Survey was revised in 2004.20 The authors discussed how social capital is multidimensional and includes 

formal ties with groups and organizations, along with informal associational connections between 

neighbors in the community. The study used CPS CEV data to measure changes in social capital between 

2008 and 2013 on these two dimensions. Formal ties were measured by participation in groups, and 

informal, associational connections were measured by speaking with or exchanging favors with neighbors. 

The study found that while individuals’ formal ties decreased, informal associational connections did not 

decline during this time period, though there was a slight, nonlinear decrease during the Great Recession 

(see Figure V.1). 

Figure V.I. Changes in social capital between 2008 and 2013 on measures of individuals’ 

associational connections and formal ties

Note: This graph reflects the percentage of respondents who reported participating in civic organizations, sport organizations, 

local organizations, and religious organizations in the previous 12 months and who reported speaking with their 

neighbors and exchanging favors with their neighbors at least once a month.

Source: Weiss et al. (2019).

20 The General Social Survey stopped fielding questions that measure social capital in 2004. Other national surveys 

were able to measure trust, one dimension of social capital, after 2004, but the associational dimension of social 

capital has not been captured since 2004 (Weiss et al. 2019). More information about the General Social Survey can 

be found at https://gss.norc.org/. 
Chapter V. What Do We Know About the State of National Service, Volunteering, and Civic Engagement in the United States?

Mathematica® Inc. 48

Nonprofits vary in the number and type of volunteers they engage. A survey of nonprofits 

representative of the 2019 US nonprofit sector provided insight into how organizations work with 

volunteers and how these volunteers benefit the organizations. Hager and Brudney (2021) describe how 

nonprofits vary in the number of volunteers they engage and the amount of time volunteers devote to 

nonprofits. For example, over a 12-month period, 7.3 percent of nonprofits worked with 10 or fewer 

volunteers for an average of 10 or fewer hours a week, while at the other end of the spectrum 3.6 percent 

of nonprofits worked with over 1,000 volunteers for an average of over a thousand hours a week.

In addition, the average volunteer age differed by nonprofit sector: the average age of a volunteer in 

education, health, environmental, arts, and human service nonprofits was 46 to 48 years. International 

organizations engage volunteers with an average age of 51 years, and religious nonprofits have the oldest 

average volunteer age at 60 years. The authors also analyzed change over time using data from the first 

wave of the survey administered to a nationally representative sample of nonprofits in 2003. In 2019, 

volunteers were more interested in episodic, short-term assignments than in 2003.

B. New insights advance understanding of national service, volunteering, and 

civic engagement

In this section, we present new insights from 22 studies regarding the factors that influence individuals’ 

civic engagement, how participatory research approaches can be used to include community members in 

the design and study of programs to address complex social problems, the practices that help 

organizations maximize the impact of volunteers, and the importance of nonprofits for the subjective 

well-being of communities.

1. Factors that promote civic engagement among individuals

We identified nine studies that explored the factors that affect civic engagement among individuals. The 

inquiry across these studies focused on a variety of subgroups, from Latino/a youth to workers in 

cooperative firms, providing a rich picture of civic engagement in different communities. Findings from 

these studies are thematically grouped into three categories: (1) how civic engagement is related to 

fostering critical consciousness (that is, a critical analysis of social systems, inequities, and one’s place 

within those systems, along with cultivation of a commitment to social change); (2) how youths’ 

environmental context can influence what civic engagement activities they engage in; and (3) the 

relationship between professional life and civic engagement. In this section, we describe key findings in 

each of these categories.

Development of critical consciousness among people of color promotes their civic engagement.

Five studies provided insight into how fostering program participants’ critical consciousness can help 

increase these individuals’ civic engagement. Three of these studies focused on the Latino/a community, 

either measuring the outcomes of an adult education program (one study) or by conducting participatory 

research approaches with Latino/a youth (two studies). Two studies focused on Black parents of schoolage children using either mixed methods or a review of scholarly literature on critical race theory.

Three programs supported development of a critical understanding of inequities in American society and 

affirmed that the lived experiences of participants navigating those inequities promoted civic engagement 
Chapter V. What Do We Know About the State of National Service, Volunteering, and Civic Engagement in the United States?

Mathematica® Inc. 49

among both youth and elders in the Latino/a community. For example, Clark-Ibáñez et al. (2021) found 

that participation in Cultivando Sabiduría, a civic education program that used culturally responsive and 

civic education practices, was associated with increased levels of volunteering and knowledge of electoral 

processes and participation in politics among low-income, Spanish-speaking Latino/a adults age 55 or 

older (Clark-Ibáñez et al. 2021). Pritzker et al. (2020) engaged Latino/a youth in participatory research to 

identify strategies to overcome barriers to civic participation. They found that approaches that 

acknowledge and incorporate how Latino/a youth’s lives are influenced and impeded by their surrounding 

contexts show promise for promoting forms of civic engagement, including volunteering and community 

service. Nicotera and Pritzker (2020) also used participatory methods in a school setting and found that 

practices that support Latino/a civic engagement include facilitation of discussion and activities related to 

current social issues and civic action, connecting students with civic leaders in the Latino/a community, 

and encouraging school staff to reflect on the ways in which their own implicit biases affect their practice 

as educators.

Critical consciousness is also a key concept for Marchand (2019), who explored the role Black parents play 

in their children’s education. Using mixed methods, including qualitative interviews with Black parents of 

students in racially diverse middle schools with documented racial achievement gaps, Marchand found 

that Black parents’ analysis of inequities in schools influences how and why they engage in their children’s 

schools, as defined as actions parents take at the school site. As part of this study, Marchand identified a 

gap in the field’s ability to measure the complexity and motivation of Black parents’ school participation 

and created and validated a new measure, critical parent engagement, that captures the relationship 

between parents’ consciousness of racial inequity and their participation in their children’s schools. 

Another study by Marchand et al. (2019) that reviewed scholarly literature on critical race theory endorsed 

this conceptual framework of critical parent engagement and its ability to help explain the factors that 

promote or hinder Black parental school involvement. The authors discussed the potential benefit of this 

framework for schools and districts as they work towards equity in the school system. 

Environmental context can shape youths’ civic engagement behaviors. A mixed methods study by 

Wray-Lake and Abrams (2020) used surveys and in-depth interviews with youth to gather perspectives on 

the different ways youth of color in high-poverty urban communities engage civically. The study found 

that young people’s civic engagement was primarily through informal activities, defined as those that are 

spontaneous or casual, as opposed to activities that are structured or through an organization. Most civic 

activity was undertaken in youth’s own neighborhoods, for example attending informal social gatherings 

or helping neighbors or peers (Wray-Lake and Abrams 2020). The study also found that youth engaged in 

civic activity that was unique to their local context, such as intervening to stop someone from being 

bullied, and that emphasized personal responsibility, such as getting good grades in school. As a result of 

the study’s findings, the authors proposed a new conceptual model of youth civic action that represents 

the experiences of the youth interviewed and includes four civic engagement pathways youth take: (1) 

disengaged, defined as having low community involvement; (2) personally responsible, defined as 

emphasizing personal goals; (3) safely engaged, defined as engaged in community-based forms of 

helping; and (4) broadly engaged, defined as engaged in a variety of civic actions in the community as 

well as being interested or engaged politically (Wray-Lake and Abrams 2020).
Chapter V. What Do We Know About the State of National Service, Volunteering, and Civic Engagement in the United States?

Mathematica® Inc. 50

Participation in democratic activities in 

the workplace and professional networks 

can strengthen civic engagement. Our 

review identified three studies that explored 

the relationship between workplace 

structure and civic behavior. Two of these 

studies used mixed methods, and one used 

qualitative methods.

A study of 1,147 workers in 82 worker 

cooperatives, defined as companies in which 

workers share in the profits and 

management of the organization using 

democratic principles, across the United 

States found that those who work in 

cooperatives are more civically engaged 

compared to national measures, even when compared to individuals with similar characteristics who work 

in conventional firms (Schlachter and Már 2020; Schlachter and Purshinskaya 2021). For example, the rate 

of serving as an organization leader was 53 percent among cooperative workers, compared with 11

percent of those working in traditional firms, and the rate of attending a public meeting was 51 percent 

among cooperative workers, compared with nine percent of those working in conventional firms. 

Schlachter and Már (2020) also found that participation among cooperative workers in firm governance 

was positively associated with civic behaviors, including volunteering, serving as an organizational leader, 

or attending public meetings. By complementing its surveys with qualitative interviews, this study 

developed a new theory to explain the mutually reinforcing relationship between civic activity in and 

outside the workplace, the civic enrichment hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, ideals in one’s 

personal life lead people to seek out workplaces that reflect these ideals (see Figure V.2). 

Figure V.2. Civic enrichment hypothesis

Source: Schlatter and Már (2020).

Complementing the civic enrichment hypothesis of a bidirectional influence of engagement in personal 

and professional life, as well as porous boundaries between the two, a qualitative study by Best et al. 

(2017), conducted 70 in-depth interviews, finding that professional networks and community ties play an 

instrumental role in facilitating both professional advancement and civic involvement among immigrant 

professionals. This study found that immigrant professionals are variously engaged civically, participating 

in both formal and informal community-based organizations and groups.

2. Studies using participatory research illustrate how to include community members in the 

design and study of programs to address complex social problems

We identified eight studies that used a participatory research approach21 to work with community 

members to study and provide recommendations on how to address specific local social issues with 

21 Participatory research is an approach or framework where community members are actively involved in the 

research, using their community expertise to identify local issues and develop actionable solutions. Some participatory 

research studies use a more specific approach that emphasizes the resulting action of the study: Participatory action 

research (PAR) or youth participatory action research (YPAR) when youth are involved).
Chapter V. What Do We Know About the State of National Service, Volunteering, and Civic Engagement in the United States?

Mathematica® Inc. 51

different focal populations, including youth experiencing homelessness and low-income, first-generation 

high school students. The participatory research studies used a variety of data collection methods, 

including interviews, focus groups, surveys, journaling, and photovoice. These community-based 

approaches to local challenges also aligned to focus areas of interest to the agency.

• Economic opportunity. In a program to support youth experiencing homelessness, peer support 

specialists worked to build relationships with the youth and to help them access services within their 

community, including healthcare and housing. A study using participatory action research (PAR) 

methodology, collected data through interviews and journaling. It found that peer mentors provide a 

unique opportunity to build authentic relationships with young people experiencing homelessness and 

that service providers should emphasize relationship building in addition to provision of services 

(Erangey et al. 2020). A related study also collected data through interviews and journaling to learn 

about the PAR process of working with peer mentors. The study found that navigating power dynamics 

is important for power-diverse PAR teams, defined as teams comprised of individuals with clear 

differences in their levels of power. The study found that use of specific activities, such as power 

mapping, in which members of a team identify those with power and discuss how to influence them, 

can be effective tools to navigate power dynamics in PAR (Littman et al. 2020). 

• Education. A PAR study on ways to reduce barriers to college information and access among lowincome, first-generation high-school students resulted in development of an action plan to increase 

college enrollment (White 2022). This study used photovoice (student-taken photos that express their 

perspectives and feelings) and Q methodology, and the author notes that using PAR can help generate 

strategies to address social problems that are tailored to a specific community context.

• Environmental stewardship. A youth PAR (YPAR) study that used photovoice to document a specific 

type of environmental injustice called “slow violence” aimed to make this problem more visible so as to 

draw attention to it and increase the amount of resources devoted to solving it (Willett et al. 2021). Over 

the course of the study, the adult and youth co-researchers documented specific instances of slow 

violence, including dumping, and noted that in their neighborhoods vulnerable people, including 

children and those with disabilities, were most affected by this injustice. The study concluded with 

strategies for how community members themselves could address slow violence, along with an analysis 

of the effect inequitable services and infrastructure play in this problem. The team designed many 

actions with partners to facilitate work in the problem areas they identified, but many of their plans 

were interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic and thus were not described in detail in this study.

• Healthy futures. Other examples of participatory research occurred within different focal populations 

and focal issues, such as a PAR study engaging the families of children with disabilities in a poor 

community in Puerto Rico to form support networks to discuss their individual and collective strengths 

and needs (Vazquez-Rivera and Rojas-Livia 2021). Another action research study worked with eight 

community-based organizations (CBOs) in the Boston area to learn from their experiences responding 

to the COVID-19 pandemic and found that CBOs can respond to an emergency by integrating service 

provision into their activism and organizing work (Loh 2022). 

Two of the eight studies demonstrated how participatory research can help increase civic engagement 

more broadly. Jacquez et al. (2021) and Dutt et al. (2021) worked with refugees in Cincinnati to 

understand how to foster civic engagement in this community and support community members to 
Chapter V. What Do We Know About the State of National Service, Volunteering, and Civic Engagement in the United States?

Mathematica® Inc. 52

become drivers of change. Through a survey and focus groups, the first study identified three actions to 

increase refugees’ civic engagement: (1) a civic leadership workshop for refugees on how to become 

involved in civic life, (2) a guide with resources on living in Cincinnati, and (3) an event to foster 

community building among refugees from different countries of origin. The second study conducted a 

participatory evaluation and found that engaging in participatory research fostered a sense of solidarity 

among the refugee co-researchers.

3. Practices that help organizations maximize the impact of volunteers

We identified five studies that discuss practices that help organizations maximize the value of volunteers. 

One study describes findings from a survey representative of the 2019 US nonprofit sector. Another study 

is a meta-synthesis of scholarly research on volunteer-management practices. A third study used an RCT 

design to assess if use of emotional language in nonprofit mission statements enhances charitable 

behavior. Another descriptive study explores the language change in over 700 nonprofit mission 

statements, and a final study uses a new method of data collection, systematic social observation (SSO), to 

explore the relationship between space and participant interaction during civil society convenings. 

Use of volunteer-management practices can 

increase the benefit volunteers bring to an 

organization and volunteers’ satisfaction with 

the work. Two studies provided insight on how 

nonprofit organizations use practices to affect the 

experiences of volunteers and to ensure that their 

efforts yield the maximum benefit for the 

organizations. A descriptive study of a survey 

representative of the 2019 US nonprofit sector by 

Hager and Brudney (2021) found that investments in 

volunteer management capacity result in greater 

benefit from volunteers for the organization. The 

volunteer management practices mentioned in this 

study include matching volunteers to appropriate 

tasks, providing training and professional 

development for volunteers, communicating the 

value of their work to volunteers and organizational 

leaders, and assessing volunteer impact, among others. Although these practices are not widely adopted 

by nonprofits, nonprofits reported that they are receptive to best practices in volunteer management. 

Nonprofits with large amounts of revenue invest in volunteer management practices at higher rates than 

those with less revenue, but between 2003 and 2019 nonprofits on average did not increase their 

volunteer management capacity.

Volunteer management practices 

associated with positive organizational 

and volunteer outcomes include: 

• Assigning volunteers tasks that align with their 

career goals (increased volunteer longevity)

• Messages of support from the organization on 

volunteers’ work and their general well-being 

(increased volunteer longevity and satisfaction) 

• Provision of training and professional learning 

opportunities for volunteers (increased volunteer 

longevity) 

• Cultivation of positive relationships among 

volunteers (increased volunteer longevity)

Sources: Hager and Brudney (2021); ICF International 

(2021). 

A meta-synthesis of scholarly research on volunteer-management practices since 2010 expands on Hager 

and Brudney’s findings. According to the 2021 study (ICF International 2021), volunteer management 

practices such as matching volunteers to roles based on interest, supporting volunteers, and providing 
Chapter V. What Do We Know About the State of National Service, Volunteering, and Civic Engagement in the United States?

Mathematica® Inc. 53

training opportunities are positively associated with retention and other positive volunteer outcomes, 

including their satisfaction with their volunteer work.

Nonprofits use language that evokes emotion in their mission statements, which can increase 

charitable behavior. Two studies provided insight on the use of language by nonprofits in their 

messaging. An RCT found that use of emotional language, defined as language that evokes an affective 

feeling, in nonprofit mission statements enhances charitable behavior, including donations and volunteers 

(Paxton et al. 2020). The study found differences in the effect of positive and negative language according 

to the nonprofit field. Positive emotion is effective in social bonding fields, which include arts, culture, 

humanities, education, recreation and sport, youth development, and religion-related issues. Negative 

emotion is effective in social problem fields, which include environment, healthcare, crime and legalrelated, employment, agriculture, food and nutrition, housing and shelter, and civic rights and social 

action. A descriptive study analyzed the language in over 700 service and advocacy nonprofit mission 

statements and showed that, over time, nonprofits have adopted more inclusive language regarding 

sexual and gender identities (Velasco and Paxton 2022). The authors note that further research is needed 

to explore if these language changes will result in meaningful improvements to the diversity of individuals 

volunteering with nonprofits. 

The size of a space matters for fostering participant interaction. One study explored how the physical 

spaces where civil society convenings—defined as meetings, events, and activities—take place help foster 

participant interaction and the building of social ties among participants. The study used a new method, 

systematic social observation (SSO), to analyze how two dimensions of spatial variation, one which 

measures how large the space is, and the other which measures the boundaries of the space and whether 

the space is distinct from other spaces, affect participant interaction. The study concludes that mediumsized spaces are the best for fostering interaction among participants and notes the promise of the SSO 

for collecting large-scale data on space, participant interaction, and social ties (Baggetta et al. 2022).

4. The importance of nonprofits for the subjective well-being of communities

A study by Ressler et al. (2021) advances the field’s understanding of the importance of nonprofits for 

community well-being. This study used administrative and social media posting data to explore whether 

there are more expressions of positive emotions in communities with higher numbers of nonprofit 

organizations. The study found that the presence of nonprofit organizations in a community was 

associated with a decrease in negative emotions communicated by residents of that community via social 

media (Ressler et al. 2021). This study parallels the methodological approach of the Velasco et al. (2019) 

study discussed in Chapter IV, which found that a one-year increase in the presence of AmeriCorps 

programs in the community was associated with decreased levels of negative relation and disengagement 

language in social media postings.
Chapter VI. Summary and Recommendations

Mathematica® Inc. 54

VI. Summary and Recommendations

AmeriCorps regularly invests in evidence building to enhance the agency’s impact on national service 

members and volunteers, as well as on the communities and organizations that they serve within. The 

agency also seeks to be a thought leader by growing the knowledge base on trends in national service, 

volunteerism, and civic engagement in the United States and the individual, contextual, and societal 

factors that contribute to the nation’s civic health. This report synthesized the evidence from 116 

AmeriCorps-conducted or -funded studies published from 2017 to 2022 and organized around the State 

of the Evidence framework (Figure I.1) developed for this report. The framework includes the four domains 

on which the agency seeks to build evidence.

Most of the 116 studies (95 percent) were conducted by evaluators external to AmeriCorps, providing 

confidence in the research’s objectivity and demonstrating the agency’s commitment to investing in 

evidence building. Among these 116 studies, impact studies using QED or RCT designs were the most 

common (43 percent), which enables the agency to better understand which programs and interventions 

affect AmeriCorps participants, partners, and communities. The diversity of other study approaches—

including outcomes, descriptive, and implementation studies— and research approaches—including 

traditional methods and participatory research approaches—highlights the agency’s willingness to 

support grantees in building initial evidence for their interventions and to foster innovative approaches to 

studying new topics that can advance the field’s understanding of national service, volunteering, and civic 

engagement. The majority of studies (71 percent) focused on the AmeriCorps State and National program 

members, partners, and interventions provided to communities, which aligns with the size of the program 

and evaluation requirements for grantees. However, the pattern also highlights the need for more 

evidence building for AmeriCorps NCCC and VISTA and the three AmeriCorps Seniors programs (the 

Foster Grandparent Program, Senior Companion Program, and RSVP). 

In this chapter, we summarize the key findings from our synthesis across the participant (Section A), 

partner (Section B), community (Section C), and society domains (Section D) and discuss the implications 

of these findings for AmeriCorps and its evidence-building ecosystem, which includes AmeriCorps ORE, 

AmeriCorps program offices, and State Service Commissions. 

A. The state of the evidence on AmeriCorps participants

We reviewed 16 studies (14 percent of 116 studies) that examined AmeriCorps participants’ characteristics 

and the benefits participants experience through serving or volunteering with AmeriCorps. Studies that 

examined AmeriCorps participants focused on members serving through the AmeriCorps State and 

National, AmeriCorps NCCC, or AmeriCorps VISTA programs. Three studies showed how these members 

possess the cultural competency to work and interact with communities of people who are different from 

themselves and showed that they enter their service with unique backgrounds and motivations to serve. 

The 14 studies that examined benefits to participants paint a mixed picture on how AmeriCorps members 

and volunteers benefit from their service or volunteer experience. Only five studies used QED or RCT 

designs, and of these, only three found positive impacts on AmeriCorps members’ employment, 

education, and civic engagement (Anderson et al. 2019; Frazier et al. 2018; Hudson-Flege 2018). Two of 

the 14 studies, a QED and a meta-synthesis of extant literature on the program, focused on AmeriCorps 
Chapter VI. Summary and Recommendations

Mathematica® Inc. 55

Seniors. They provided evidence on how AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers experienced improved physical 

and psychology well-being due to their service experience (Frazier et al. 2019; Georges et al. 2018).

These findings have several implications for how AmeriCorps can strengthen its efforts to build evidence 

on AmeriCorps members and volunteers:

• Consider expanding efforts to analyze data on the characteristics of AmeriCorps members and 

volunteers who apply for and serve with AmeriCorps. These analyses can provide additional insights 

on who AmeriCorps members and volunteers are and identify any trends that may evolve over time. 

Obtaining a deeper understanding of AmeriCorps members and volunteers can inform whether the 

agency is meeting its engagement and enrollment objectives and allow for data-driven decision making 

to address any areas in need of improvement.

• Explore avenues for collecting data from AmeriCorps members and volunteers when entering 

and exiting the program to help generate new evidence in this domain. Although the AmeriCorps 

Member Exit Survey (MES) provides a wealth of information on outgoing members’ service experiences 

and attitudes upon their exit, similar data does not exist at program entry. Having a parallel entrance 

survey would allow AmeriCorps to know if AmeriCorps members exhibit outcome changes the agency is 

striving to achieve for its members. Such information can also help inform the agency’s efforts to 

consistently provide a meaningful service experience.

• Provide additional supports to grantee evaluators to support developing new evidence on 

AmeriCorps members. Ideally, as evaluators seek to build evidence on the effectiveness of 

interventions, they would also collect data from or on AmeriCorps members. These data can further the 

agency’s knowledge about its members’ experiences and provide grantees with useful information on 

how to better train and support AmeriCorps members to maximize the potential benefits that they can 

have on communities.

B. The state of the evidence on AmeriCorps partners

We reviewed 10 studies (9 percent of 116 studies) that examined whether AmeriCorps helped build the 

capacity of partners—grantees and sponsor organizations—to achieve their missions and better serve 

their communities. Emerging themes from two grantees’ QED evaluations suggested that AmeriCorps 

partnerships can help grantees meet their project goals (McCreary et al. 2020; Viola et al. 2018). Other 

outcomes studies highlighted how AmeriCorps partners experienced increases in their capacity to better 

serve their communities. However, these studies did not include a comparison group in the study design, 

so it is difficult to attribute these promising outcomes to partners’ AmeriCorps involvement. Still, these 

findings highlight ways AmeriCorps partners improved over time, which provides an opportunity for 

additional exploration and evidence building in this area.

These findings have several implications for how AmeriCorps can gather additional evidence on its 

partners.
Chapter VI. Summary and Recommendations

Mathematica® Inc. 56

• Explore avenues for collecting data from AmeriCorps partners at the beginning and end of their 

grant period. Partnering with AmeriCorps in itself can be viewed as a capacity-building support worthy 

of an evaluation, and collecting data at the beginning and end of a grant period can create new 

evidence for building organizational capacity. For example, having pre-test, post-test information on 

partner capacities and facilitators and the barriers they experience can provide new evidence on 

whether partners are benefiting from their AmeriCorps partnerships. Such data can also help the agency 

know how best to meet their partners’ needs with additional trainings and other supports.

• Consider linking partner survey data with other data sources. The information gathered directly 

from AmeriCorps partners could potentially be enriched if merged with data from other sources, such as 

AmeriCorps MES data, the AmeriCorps NCCC Service Project Database, or other administrative 

information that partners provide to the agency. For example, connecting AmeriCorps NCCC members’ 

responses on the AmeriCorps MES with host sites’ responses to the AmeriCorps NCCC sponsor survey 

can help the agency know the extent to which the partner and member experiences are intertwined. In 

turn, this can inform how the agency can support its partners and increase their capacity.

• Consider avenues for facilitating impact studies on AmeriCorps partners. Grantee evaluators may 

benefit from additional technical assistance on identifying, recruiting, and collecting data from 

comparison group organizations that can serve as a basis for conducting an impact study on partnerrelated outcomes. One AmeriCorps ORE research grantee (Messamore et al. 2021) provided a promising 

example of how secondary data can also be leveraged to examine potential partner impacts. This can 

provide another pathway for future evaluations to consider when seeking to add to the body of

evidence in this domain.

C. The state of the evidence of AmeriCorps on communities

We reviewed 71 studies (61 percent of 116 studies) that examined how communities and the individuals 

within them benefit from AmeriCorps-funded interventions, the value generated from investing in 

AmeriCorps-funded interventions, or how to scale interventions to increase the scope of their impact. 

Most of the 51 studies that explored impacts or outcomes associated with AmeriCorps-funded 

interventions were in the education focus area (31 studies); the other five focus areas had eight or fewer 

studies.

• The evidence within the education focus area highlighted how AmeriCorps-funded interventions 

impact literacy outcomes, particularly for young students or when assessing specific aspects of 

literacy development. Studies showed that interventions also impacted school attendance for samples 

of students in grades five to nine and secondary students’ college enrollment. The causal evidence was 

relatively less clear with regards to whether AmeriCorps-funded interventions impact math, socialemotional, behavioral, and school readiness outcomes, as there were few QED or RCT studies that 

showed positive impacts.

• Among the eight studies in the economic opportunity area, we identified one QED that showed 

how an AmeriCorps-funded intervention can positively impact individuals’ housing outcomes.

Two other outcomes studies in this area reported significant increases in housing-related outcomes. We 

saw a similar pattern on the topic of adults’ employability skills (one QED study reported positive 

impacts, and two outcomes studies showed significant increases in skill development). However, 
Chapter VI. Summary and Recommendations

Mathematica® Inc. 57

additional evidence based on QED or RCT study designs are needed to provide further insights on 

AmeriCorps’ impact on these outcomes. The other studies in this area focused on crime reduction and 

the provision of free legal services to individuals with low or moderate incomes.

• The evidence within the healthy futures focus area highlighted how AmeriCorps-funded 

interventions can impact health outcomes (one QED study) and child well-being outcomes (one 

QED study), but these findings were only supported by an additional outcomes study on each 

topic. Another healthy futures study was a meta-synthesis that highlighted the limited amount of 

extant literature that found positive impacts of AmeriCorps Seniors programs on clients, caretakers, and 

children. The other study conducted a secondary analysis of administrative and social media data to 

identify how the presence of AmeriCorps programs in a community can help to improve levels of 

community well-being. Additional evidence based on QED or RCT study designs is needed to draw 

additional insights on the findings presented in these reviewed studies.

• Within the environmental stewardship area, five QED studies showed how AmeriCorps-funded 

approaches are helping to protect at-risk ecosystems by improving plant life and reducing 

wildfire risks.

• The disaster services and veteran and military families focus areas had the fewest number of 

studies. These studies provided insightful information on the types of services provided, but none 

offered evidence of AmeriCorps impact in these areas.

Our review of 15 ROI and benefit-cost studies highlighted how AmeriCorps-funded interventions across 

the six focus areas can generate additional value that exceeds the initial investments necessary for 

implementing the interventions. An additional seven studies discussed important prerequisites to 

successfully scale an intervention—having strong evidence of effectiveness, along with intervention and 

organization readiness to scale—but there are various facilitators and challenges that organizations can 

experience once they undertake scaling.

These findings have several implications for how AmeriCorps can continue to build evidence on 

AmeriCorps’ impact on communities.

• Consider what additional supports and trainings would help build evidence in focus areas that 

had fewer studies. Building the pool of evidence-based interventions across all AmeriCorps focus areas 

will allow the agency to meet communities’ needs across a range of outcomes. The agency could 

explore the research needs of program grantees in the disaster services, economic opportunity, 

environmental stewardship, healthy futures, and veterans and military families focus areas. Discussions 

with grantees in these areas could build an understanding of the challenges they face in conducting 

rigorous evaluations and identifying research methods to build evidence in their field.

• Utilize meta-analytic approaches to further identify how AmeriCorps-funded interventions 

impact communities. This study highlighted arising themes associated with the studies conducted 

within the education focus area. Meta-analyses can help further clarify the magnitude and significance 

of the effects for the interventions overall (for example, within the education focus area) and for 

subgroups of interest (for example, on college enrollment or literacy outcomes). This approach can also 

apply to other focus areas as the agency continues to build the body of evidence in those areas. 
Chapter VI. Summary and Recommendations

Mathematica® Inc. 58

• Continue efforts in developing additional ROI studies and build grantee evaluator capacity to 

include these or other cost-related analyses in the evidence they produce. Producing more ROI 

analyses can help the agency expand the knowledge base on particular interventions that generate 

value. Having additional ROI studies conducted on interventions that focus on a particular topic (for 

example, interventions focusing on enhancing school readiness or employment skills) could help the 

agency make broader generalizations on how AmeriCorps-funded interventions generate value when 

addressing specific community challenges. Encouraging grantees to provide cost-related information in 

their evaluations can potentially facilitate conducting new ROI studies, and it may also help facilitate 

scaling their interventions. Increasing awareness of the resources needed to implement a new 

intervention can provide organizations with critical information as they assess whether to replicate the 

intervention in their own community and increase the prospects of successful implementation.

D. The state of the evidence on national service, volunteering, and civic 

engagement in society

We reviewed 25 studies (22 percent of 116 studies) that furthered the evidence on national service, 

volunteering, and civic engagement in the United States. One descriptive study helped generate new 

insights on the civic health of society with regards to the levels of formal volunteering in the United States 

and the variations that exist across individuals’ characteristics (AmeriCorps Office of Research and 

Evaluation 2021). Another study also identified the importance of exploring the multifaceted nature of 

civic engagement (for example, formal volunteer and informal associational connections between 

neighbors in the community) and how trends can differ based on how civic engagement is measured 

(Weiss et al. 2019). Nine studies also explored factors that may affect civic engagement among 

individuals. This includes fostering individuals’ critical consciousness about societal inequities and taking 

the time to understand individuals’ lived experiences can help promote greater civic engagement. 

Additionally, participating in democratic activities in the workplace and professional networks also relates 

to individuals’ civic engagement. Eight studies highlighted how participatory research can be successful in 

engaging individuals in the strategy design and research processes to help address their own or local 

community needs. Finally, five studies highlighted how organizational practices, such as volunteer 

management approaches and how they use language and physical space, can influence how 

organizations can successfully engage and maintain volunteers to support their goals.

These findings have several implications for how AmeriCorps can grow and apply the evidence on 

building national service, volunteering, and civic engagement in society.

• Continue designing future rounds of AmeriCorps ORE research grant funding that prioritize 

specific topics of interest to programs, agency, and the field to build more evidence in those 

areas. For example, increasing the knowledge base on factors that relate to individuals’ civic 

engagement can provide the agency and its partners with valuable information that can inform how to 

recruit individuals into national service and volunteerism. Additional studies on volunteer-related 

organizational practices can provide AmeriCorps partners with new insights on how they can maximize 

the value of national service members and volunteers.
Chapter VI. Summary and Recommendations

Mathematica® Inc. 59

• Explore ways to help partner organizations incorporate new evidence on national service, 

volunteering, and civic engagement into their own practices and identify opportunities for 

service and volunteering that do not currently exist. As new innovations occur, seek to identify

opportunities to test new approaches with impact studies. With arising evidence on how to engage 

volunteers and factors that can influence individuals’ civic engagement, AmeriCorps can encourage 

partner organizations to incorporate this knowledge into their practices. This can also create an 

opportunity for testing different organizational practices and build new evidence on ways to build 

organizational capacity. 
References

Mathematica® Inc. 60

References

Abraham, W. T., and E. Polush. “AmeriCorps Literacy Tutoring to K-5th Grade Students Program at DMPS Elementary 

Schools: Short-Term Impact Study Evaluation Report.” September 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/DesMoinesIndependentCommunitySchoolDistrict.20

AC220840.Report-Revised_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

ACET Inc. “AmeriCorps LEAP Initiative: Year 1 Evaluation Report.” 2018. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/SouthernMinnesotaInitiativeFoundation.20AC220629.

Report-Revised_508_0.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Agile Analytics. “CIS of Central Texas: Austin ISD AmeriCorps Outcome Evaluation.” October 2020. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/CIS%20Impact%20Report%20Oct%202020_508.pdf. Accessed 

July 21, 2023.

AmeriCorps. “Metadata Glossary: AmeriCorps Evidence Exchange.” 2021a. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/2021_10_15_EvEx-Metadata-Glossary_ORE.pdf. Accessed July 

21, 2023.

AmeriCorps. “COVID-19 Containment Response Corps Implementation Report.” 2021b. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/CCRC%20Implementation%20Report-Evidence%20Exchange06-06-2022_508%20%281%29.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation. “2017 State of the Evidence Annual Report.” 2017. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/FR_2017%20State%20of%20the%20Evidence%20Report_0126

23_FINAL_508.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation. “Evaluation and Measurements: VISTA’s Impact on Poverty, A 50-Year 

Review of Evaluation and Evidence.” 2018. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/VISTA_Evaluation_and_Impact_Final%20Report_Edite

d_053118_FINAL_508v2_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation. “A Promising Response to the Opioid Crisis: CNCS-Supported 

Recovery Coach Programs.” (by Lily Zandniapour, Roshni Menon, Tia Renier, and Shane Dermanjian). 2020. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/23419_CNCS_ORE_Opioid_Report_v03_RELEASE_508_

1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation. “Key Findings from the 2019 Current Population Survey: Civic 

Engagement and Volunteering Supplement” (by Laura Hanson Schlachter). 2021. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/2019%20CPS%20CEV%20findings%20report%20CLEAN_10De

c2021_508.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation. “Strategic Learning and Evidence Building Plan: Fiscal Years 2022-

2026.” 2022. https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/AmeriCorps-Learning-Agenda-2022-2026.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023.

Anderson, L.M., J. Meredith, and J. Hildreth. “Reading Partners AmeriCorps Alumni Study.” Policy Studies Associates, 

2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/ReadingPartners.20ND220475.Report1_508_1.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023.

Anderson, M.A., K. Eddins, K. Needels, and S. Richman. “Scaling the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool 

Youngsters (HIPPY) Intervention: Insights from the Experiences of Parent Possible.” Report submitted to 

AmeriCorps. Mathematica, June 2020. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/CNCS_Scaling_HIPPY%20%28002%29_1.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023.

Applied Survey Research. “AmeriCorps Quasi-Experimental Program Evaluation 2018-2021.” November 2021.

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/Birth_And_Beyond%20508C.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.
References

Mathematica® Inc. 61

Backman, D. “2018 Evaluation Report: Impact of the Northstar Assessment & Related Computer Skills Programming 

on Employment in CTEP Programs.” Saint Paul Neighborhood Network, 2018. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/SaintPaul_19AC208840_Report_Revised_508%20%28

1%29_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Baggetta, M., B.R. Fulton, and Z. Caplan. “Space and Interaction in Civil Society Organizations: An Exploratory Study in 

a U.S. City.” Social Inclusion, vol. 10, no. 3, 2022, pp. 307–318. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v10i3.5308. Accessed July 

21, 2023.

Best, A., J. Dale, K. Kerstetter, and S. Retrosi. “Linking Civic Engagement and Immigrant Professional Success: 

Opportunities, Barriers and Contexts.” AmeriCorps Research and Evidence Webinar Series. June 2017. 

Bettinger, E.P., A.L. Antonio, and J. Foster-Hedrick. “Missouri College Advising Corps Final AmeriCorps Evaluation 

Report.” Evaluation and Assessment Solutions for Education, LLC, 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/CuratorsoftheUniversityofMissouri.20AC221169.Repo

rt-Revised_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Borgida, J., D. Clark, L. Kulka, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, J. Pershing, P. Thompson, M. Sarwana, and G. Voigt. “Return on 

Investment Study: SBP.” ICF, September 2022. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/36039_SBP_2022_ROI_Study_RELEASE_508.pdf. Accessed July 

21, 2023. 

Brooks B., M. Escueta, A. Muroga, V. Rodriguez, and H.M. Levin. “Report for Minnesota Reading Corps Pre-K Program 

Cost Analysis.” Teachers College, Columbia University, January 2018. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/Reading%26MathInc.18AC200112.Report3-

Revised_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Caverly, S., G. Stoker, D. Hoon Lee, and G. Fleming. “Literacy First K–1 Report The 2017-18 Impact Evaluation.” 

American Institutes for Research, April 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/UTAustinCharles.20ES220684.Report1-

Revised_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

CCR Analytics. “An Evaluation of the Jumpstart California Program 2017-2018.” January 2019.

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/JumpstartforYoungChildren_19AC212451_Report2_R

evised_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

The Center for Youth and Communities. “Integrating Service into YouthBuild AmeriCorps HSE and Diploma Granting 

Programs.” Brandeis University, January 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/Final_Report_Service_in_Diploma_and_Non_Diploma_

Granting_Programs_Final_Appendix_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Chapin Hall. “Implementation and Impact of City Year Within the Chicago Context.” University of Chicago, September 

2017. https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/CityYearInc_18AC199152Report_508_1.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023.

Christiansen, E. “Great Basin Institute - Nevada Conservation Corps - Evaluation Report 2019-2020.” University of 

Nevada, January 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/GreatBasinInstitute.21ES231073.Evidencedoc3_EDITED_508.p

df. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Clark, D., J. Borgida, L. Kulka, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, J. Pershing, P. Thompson, M. Sarwana, and G. Voigt. “Return on 

Investment Study: Breakthrough Austin.” ICF, September 2022a. 

https://www.americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/36039_Breakthrough_2022_ROI_Study_RELEASE_508.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Clark, D., J. Borgida, L. Kulka, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, J. Pershing, P. Thompson, M. Sarwana, and G. Voigt. “Return on 

Investment Study: Washington State Department of Veterans Affairs Vet Corps.” ICF, September 2022b. 

https://www.americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/36039_WDVA_Vet_Corps_2022_ROI_Study_RELEASE_508

.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 
References

Mathematica® Inc. 62

Clark-Ibáñez, M., A. Alvarez, A. Gonzales, M. Ramos Pellicia, A. Ardon, N. Jara, and V. Martinez-Rodriguez. “Cultivando 

Sabiduría (Cultivating Wisdom): Latinx Immigrant Elders and Civic Engagement.” Humboldt Journal of Social 

Relations, vol. 1, no. 43, 2021. https://doi.org/10.55671/0160-4341.1151. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Codding, R.S., P.M. Nelson, D.C. Parker, R. Edmunds, and J. Klaft. “Evaluation of a Math Tutoring Program 

Implemented with Community Support: A Systematic Replication & Extension.” Northeastern University, 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/ReadingandMathInc_20AC220018_Report_Revised_5

08_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Crittenden, J.A. “Juggling Multiple Roles: An Examination of Role Conflict and Its Relationship to Older Adult 

Volunteer Satisfaction and Retention.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Maine, 2019.

Dermanjian, S., and R. Johnson. “Bridging Differences Through AmeriCorps Service: AmeriCorps Member Exit Survey 

Analysis 2016-2020.” AmeriCorps, 2022. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/MES%20Bridging%20Differences_FINAL%20DRAFT_V2_03_29

_2023_508%20Final.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Dietz, N., D. Jones, and B. McKeeve. “A Pathway to Economic Opportunity for Communities and AmeriCorps 

Members.” Urban Institute, January 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/LocalInitiativesSupportCorp_19ND212588_Report_Re

vised_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Dutt, A., F. Jacquez, N. Chaudhary, B. Wright, R. Adhikari, T. Adhikari, A. Al Shehabi, et al. “Creating Collective 

Solidarity: Insights from the Development and Process Evaluation of Civic Action for Refugee Empowerment in 

Cincinnati.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, vol. 28, no. 3, 2021, pp. 349–360. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000459. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Eddins, K., MA. Anderson, K. Needels, and S. Richman. “Scaling the Birth and Beyond (B&B) Intervention: Insights from 

the Experiences of the Child Abuse Prevention Council (CAPC).” Report submitted to AmeriCorps. Mathematica, 

June 2020. https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/CNCS_Scaling_BirthandBeyond%

20%28002%29_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Edmonds, B. “Energy Express Evaluation 2019.” Indiana University, October 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/WestVirginiaUniversityResearchCorp.21AC232595.Evidence1_

EDITED%20508C.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Erangey, J., C. Marvin, D.M. Littman, M. Mollica, K. Bender, T. Lucas, and T. Milligan. “How Peer Support Specialists 

Uniquely Initiate and Build Connection with Young People Experiencing Homelessness.” Children and Youth 

Services Review, vol. 119, 2020, article 105668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105668. Accessed July 21, 

2023. 

Fairchild, S. “AmeriCorps at Communities in Schools of Central Texas Impact Analysis, 2016-2017.” Creekside Research 

Solutions, September 2017. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/CISofCentralTX.18AC199687.Report2-

Revised_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Frazier, R., C. Birmingham, V. Wheat, and A. Georges. “A Systematic Review of Senior Corps’ Impact on Volunteers and 

Program Beneficiaries.” JBS International, Inc., 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/2019-09-09-Senior-Corps-Research-ReviewSynthesis-Report%20_to%20CNCS_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Frazier, R., D. Pratt, G. Cardazone, M. Hartig, J. Liang, and A. Georges. “Final Report for AmeriCorps Opportunity Youth 

Evaluation Bundling.” JBS International, Inc., 2018. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FINAL%20Bundling%20Final%20Report%202018.01.1

6_to%20CNCS_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Friedman, E., B. Freeman, B. Phillips, L. Rosenthal, D. Robinson, H. Miller, and A. Porowski. “New Methods for Assessing 

AmeriCorps Alumni Outcomes: Final Survey Technical Report.” Abt Associates Inc., 2016. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_AmeriCorpsAlumniOutcomesFinalTechReport_1.p

df. Accessed July 21, 2023.
References

Mathematica® Inc. 63

Georges, A., W., Fung, J. Smith, J. Liang, C. Sum, and S. Gabbard. “Longitudinal Study of Foster Grandparent and Senior 

Companion Programs: Service Delivery Implications and Health Benefits to the Volunteers.” JBS International, Inc., 

2018. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/Longitudinal_Study_of_Foster_Grandparent_and_Seni

or_Companion_Programs_FINAL_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Georges, A., S.J. Smith, and W. Fung. “Profile of AmeriCorps NCCC Members at the Start of Service.” JBS International, 

Inc., 2021. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/Leadership%20Development%20Baseline%20Early%20Findin

gs_FINAL_508compliant_to%20be%20posted_0.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Gerdeman, R.D., Y. Wan, A. Molefe, J.M. Bos, B. Zhu, and S. Dhillon. “Impact of TNTP’s Teaching Fellows in Urban 

School Districts.” American Institutes for Research, May 2017. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/TheNewTeacherProject_19ED210338_Report1_Revise

d_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Hager, M.A., and J.L. Brudney. “Volunteer Management Capacity in America’s Charities: Benchmarking a Pre-Pandemic 

Field and Assessing Future Directions.” Arizona State University, 2021. 

https://www.volunteeralive.org/docs/Hager_Brudney_VMC2_2021_brief.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Hamdan, H., and A. Robles. “AmeriCorps NCCC Sponsor Organization Survey: Analysis of Traditional Corps Sponsor 

Feedback by NCCC Regions Before the COVID Pandemic (2016–2019).” AmeriCorps, November 2022. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/AmeriCorps%20NCCC%20Sponsor%20Survey_12.9.22_Final_5

08_0.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Hudson-Flege, M.D. “Getting Things Done for Life: Long-Term Impact of AmeriCorps Service for Diverse Groups of 

Members.” Doctoral dissertation, Clemson University, 2018.

https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3142&context=all_dissertations. Accessed July 21, 

2023. 

ICF International. “Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature Review.” 2021. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/External%20Literature%20Review_VGF%20FINAL%20with%20

TOC%2010.5.21_508%20%281%29.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

The Improve Group. “AmeriCorps Promise Fellow Program Minnesota Alliance with Youth Impact Evaluation Report, 

2019.” 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/Impact%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20Minnesota%20Allianc

e%20With%20Youth%20Statewide%20AmeriCorps%20Promise%20Fellows%20Program%20_Final%20508.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Jacob, R., C. Armstrong, and J. Willard. “Mobilizing Volunteer Tutors to Improve Student Literacy: Implementation, 

Impacts, and Costs of the Reading Partners Program.” MDRC, March 2015. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_EMCF_ReadingPartners_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 

2023.

Jacquez, F., A. Dutt, E. Manirambona, and B. Wright. “Uniting Liberatory and Participatory Approaches in Public 

Psychology with Refugees.” American Psychologist, vol. 76, no. 8, 2021 pp. 1280–1292. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000835. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Jarjoura, G.R., and J. Meckes. “National Evaluation of Up2Us Coach Program Year 2016–17.” American Institutes for 

Research, February 2018. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/Up2UsInc_19ND212530_Report_Revised_508_1.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023.

JBS International. “National Service Systematic Review and Synthesis of National Service Literature.” JBS International, 

2015. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/2015_08_19_NationalServiceSynthesisFullReport_ORE.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023.
References

Mathematica® Inc. 64

JBS International, Inc. “Napa County Office of Education CalSERVES Expanded Learning Impact Evaluation.” October 

2017.

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/NapaCountyOfficeofEd_19ES212602_Report1_Revise

d_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

JBS International. “Assessing the Volunteer Infrastructure Program Using the Volunteer Capacity Assessment.” JBS 

International, November 2018. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/NapaCountyOfficeofEd_19ES212602_Report1_Revise

d_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

JBS International, Inc. “Napa County Office of Education CalSERVES AmeriCorps Impact Evaluation 2020.” October 

2020. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/NapaCountyOfficeofEducation.21AC230649.Evidencedoc1_ED

ITED-2_508.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Jones, C., D. Friend, M.A. Anderson, K. Needels, and S. Richman. “Scaling the Reading Corps Intervention: Insights from 

the Experiences of United Ways of Iowa.” Report submitted to AmeriCorps. Mathematica, June 2020. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/CNCS_Scaling_IowaReadingCorps_1.pdf. Accessed 

July 21, 2023.

Keep Austin Housed. “Evaluation Report: 2017-2019 Front Steps: Keep Austin Housed AmeriCorps Program.” 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FrontSteps.20ES220974.Report2-Revised_508_1.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023.

Kowalski, M., S. Ponisciak, and G. Svarovsky. “The University of Notre Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education Teaching 

Fellows Program: Evaluation of Outcomes and Impact, 2015-2017.” University of Notre Dame, January 2018. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/UniversityofNotreDame.20ED220035.Report_Revised_

508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Lambert, L. “Evaluation Report Impact Evaluation PYs 2017-18 and 2018-19.” Minneapolis Public Schools Research 

Evaluation Assessment and Accountability Department, 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/MinneapolisPublicSchools.20AC220563.Report2-

Revised_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Levine, P., K. Kawashima-Ginsberg, J. Benenson, and N. Hayat. “The Impact of National Service on Employment 

Outcomes.” AmeriCorps Research and Evidence Webinar Series, March 2018. 

Lin, S., and T. Reece. “REACH Corps FY19 End of Grant Evaluation (2019-21).” Jefferson County Public Schools, July 

2021. https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/REACH%20Corps%20508C.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Littman, D.M., K. Bender, M. Mollica, J. Erangey, T. Lucas, and C. Marvin. “Making Power Explicit: Using Values and 

Power Mapping to Guide Power-Diverse Participatory Action Research Processes.” Journal of Community 

Psychology, vol. 49, 2021, pp. 266–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22456. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Loh, P. “Grounded and Interconnected in the Pandemic: Community engagement and organizing adaptations from 

COVID response efforts in Metro Boston.” Tufts University, October 2022. https://pennloh-practical.vision/wpcontent/uploads/2022/11/Grounded-and-Interconnected-in-the-Pandemic-Oct.2022.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

LPC Consulting Associates. “Child Welfare System Improvement (CWSI) AmeriCorps Program Evaluation Report (2014-

2016).” January 2017. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/PreventChildAbuseCalifornia_17AC191988_Report_Re

vised_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Magnolia Consulting. “An Evaluation of Jumpstart for National Direct.” January 2019.

Mandiloff, C., and M.F Scott. “Justice for Montanans AmeriCorps Evaluation Report.” Mandiloff Law Office, 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/MontanaLegalServices.20ES220455.ReportRevised_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Marc Bolan Consulting. “Washington Service Corps Performance Measurement Training & Technical Assistance 

(PMT&TA) Program Evaluation.” August 2020.

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/WAStateEmploymentSecurityDept.21ES230404.Evidencedoc1

_V3_508.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 
References

Mathematica® Inc. 65

Marchand, A.D. “Black Parents’ Critical Consciousness: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Links to Parent School 

Engagement.” Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 2019. 

Marchand, A.D., R.R. Vassar, M.A. Diemer, and S.J. Rowley. “Integrating Race, Racism, and Critical Consciousness in 

Black Parents’ Engagement with Schools.” Journal of Family Theory & Review, vol. 11, 2019, pp. 367–384. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12344. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Markovitz, C.E., M.W. Hernandez, E.C. Hedberg, H.H. Whitmore, and J.L. Satorius. “Impact Evaluation of the Minnesota 

Reading Corps K-3 Program (2017-2018).” Report submitted to Reading & Math, Inc. NORC at the University of 

Chicago, October 2018. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/Reading_Math_19AC208813_Report_Revised_508_1.p

df. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Maxwell, N.L., and S. Richman. “Scaling Programs with Research Evidence and Effectiveness (SPREE).” Foundation 

Review, vol. 11, no. 3, November 2019, pp. 55–67. https://americorps.gov/evidence-exchange/scaling-programsresearch-evidence-effectiveness. Accessed July 21, 2023.

McCreary, A., M. Edwards, M. McKenna, E. Seekamp, and S. Lockwood. “2019 Public Lands Service Coalition 

Partnership Impact Evaluation Interim Report.” North Carolina State University, October 2020. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/Public%20Lands%20Service%20Coalition%20Partnership%20I

mpact%20Evaluation_Final%20Report_508.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Meehan, M. “VOCAL AmeriCorps 2017-2019, Evaluation Report.” Program Planning & Evaluation Consulting, Inc., 

2019. https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/foundation_review_CNCS%20SPREE_Sept2019_508.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023.

Messamore, A., P. Paxton, and K. Velasco. “Can Government Intervention Increase Volunteers and Donations? 

Analyzing the Influence of VISTA with a Matched Design.” Administration & Society, vol. 53, no. 10, 2021, pp. 1547–

1579. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211009885. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Modicamore, D., A. Naugler, B. Casey, B. Miller, C. Munaretto, and J. Pershing. “Return on Investment Study: 

AmeriCorps Seniors Foster Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program.” ICF, December 2020a.

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/ROI_AmeriCorpsSeniors_FGP_SCP_508.pdf. Accessed July 21, 

2023. 

Modicamore, D., A. Naugler, B. Casey, B. Miller, C. Munaretto, and J. Pershing. “Return on Investment Study: 

Community Technology Empowerment Project.” ICF, December 2020b. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/ROI_CTEP_508.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Moss, B.G. “Impact Evaluation of the AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program.” Wayne State University, February 2018. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/Evaluation%20of%20AMUS%20Program%202018_508.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023.

Munaretto, C., B. Casey, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, A. Naugler, and J. Pershing. “Return on Investment Study: College 

Possible College Access Program.” ICF, December 2020a. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/ROI_College%20Possible%20College%20Access%20Program_

508.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Munaretto, C., B. Casey, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, A. Naugler, and J. Pershing. “Return on Investment Study: 

Minnesota Reading Corps—Kindergarten.” ICF, December 2020b.

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/ROI_MRC%20Kindergarten_508.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Munaretto, C., D. Ryder, D. Modicamore, A. Naugler, B. Miller, and J. Pershing. “Return on Investment Study: 

Washington Conservation Corps.” ICF, September 2021. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/ROI_WCC%20a_RELEASE.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Mwangi, J.N. “Live Healthy Kids Program, Years 2016-2017; 2017-2018.” Ohio University College of Health and 

Sciences, 2018. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/OhioUniversity_19ES208894_Report1_508_1.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023.
References

Mathematica® Inc. 66

Naiman-Sessions, J., and S. Shteir. “The Efficacy of AmeriCorps Weed Treatments in Montana State Parks.” Montana 

State Parks, October 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/Montana%20Impact%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf. Accessed 

July 21, 2023.

Nathenson, R., M. Pardo, S. Subedi, C. Henry, M. Joshi, M. Lachowicz, K. Neering, et al. “Teach for America National 

AmeriCorps Evaluation: Evaluation 2017–18 and 2018–19 School Years.” American Institutes for Research, 

December 2021.

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/Teach%20for%20American_National%20AmeriCorps%20Eval

uation%20508C.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Naugler, A., L. Kulka, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, C. Munaretto, J. Pershing, and M. Sarwana. “Return on Investment 

Study: Birth & Beyond Home Visitation Program.” ICF, September 2021a. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/ROI_B%20and%20B%20a_RELEASE.pdf. Accessed July 21, 

2023. 

Naugler, A., L. Kulka, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, C. Munaretto, J. Pershing, and M. Sarwana. “Return on Investment 

Study: Habitat for Humanity AmeriCorps.” ICF, September 2021b. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/ROI_HFH%20AmeriCorps%20a_RELEASE.pdf. Accessed July 

21, 2023. 

Naugler, A., L. Kulka, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, C. Munaretto, J. Pershing, and M. Sarwana. “Return on Investment 

Study: YouthBuild.” ICF, August 2021c. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/ROI_YB%20a_RELEASE.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Needels, K., D. Friend, S. Richman, K. Eddins, and C. Jones. “Scaling Evidence-Based Interventions: Insights from the 

Experiences of Three Grantees.” Report submitted to AmeriCorps. Mathematica, June 2020. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/CNCS_Cross-Site_Process_Study_Insights_1.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023.

Nelson, P., and P. Kaiser. “An Evaluation of the Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity AmeriCorps Program.” Center for 

Advancing Research to Practice at ServeMinnesota, October 2020. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/TwinCitiesHabitatforHumanity.21ES231460.Evidencedoc1_EDI

TED_508.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Nicotera, N., and S. Pritzker. “Promoting Latinx Youth Civic Engagement: Issues for School Settings.” University of 

Houston, 2020. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/68rexrpwvmkmnpd/Latinx%20Youth%20Schools%20Draft_Practitioner%20Focus.pdf?

dl=0. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Paxton, P., K. Velasco, and R.W. Ressler. “Does Use of Emotion Increase Donations and Volunteers for Nonprofits?” 

American Sociological Review, vol. 85, no. 6, 2020, pp. 1051–1083. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122420960104. 

Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Pepper, S., E. Fissel, and K. Knestis. “Literacy Lab Early Literacy Intervention: Treatment and Comparison Group FAST 

Bridge Assessment Differences 2017 – 2018.” Inciter, 2018.

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/TheLiteracyLab_19ND211496_Report_Revised_508_1.

pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Pritchard, K., D. Teles, and B. Doctor. “Public Allies External Impact Evaluation.” Data You Can Use and the Urban 

Institute, December 2020. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/PublicAllies.21ND232620.Evidencedoc1_EDITED-2_508.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023.

Pritzker, S., D. Moreno, N. Nicotera, R. Saenz, S. Campos, K. Avila, and A. Ruiz. “Promoting Good Trouble: Latinx YouthDriven Change Strategies for Civic Engagement and Activism.” University of Denver, 2020. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f0ix5vlv4c9w0uv/Latinx%20Youth%20Driven%20Change%20Strategies%20Infographi

c_YouthPractitionerDraft.pdf?dl=0. Accessed July 21, 2023.
References

Mathematica® Inc. 67

Providence Children’s Museum. “Evaluation of Play-Based Learning Training on AmeriCorps Members’ Learning Club 

Implementation: AmeriCorps 2018-2019 Evaluation Report.” 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/ProvidenceChildrensMuseum.20ES221918.ReportRevised_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Ressler, R.W., P. Paxton, K. Velasco, L. Pivnick, I. Weiss, and J.C. Eichstaedt. “Nonprofits: A Public Policy Tool for the 

Promotion of Community Subjective Well-Being.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 31, no. 

4, 2021, pp. 822–838. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab010. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Richardson, J., D. Marlin, J. Vadas, E. Colo, and S. Goldrick-Rab. “Evaluation of College Possible Milwaukee.” Hope Lab, 

June 2018. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/CollegePossible_19ES209111_Report_Revised_508_1.

pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Richman, S., and A. Streke. “Evidence of Effectiveness in AmeriCorps-Funded Interventions.” Report submitted to 

AmeriCorps. Mathematica, September 2020. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/AmeriCorps_EffectiveEvidence.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Rolfhus, E., E. Diaz, L. Decker-Woodrow, E. Adachi, S. Sohrabie, D. Barfield, and G. Lamey. “Evaluation of College 

Possible’s College-Fit Initiative 2018-2020.” Westat Inc., October 2021. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/College%20Possible%20Fit%20Initiative%20508C.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023.

Schlachter, L.H., and K. Már. “Spillover, Selection, or Substitution? Workplace and Civic Participation in Democratic 

Firms.” May 2020. SocArXiv Papers. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/684tf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Schlachter, L.H., and O. Prushinskaya. “How Economic Democracy Impacts Workers, Firms, and Communities. 

Democracy at Work Institute.” Democracy at Work Institute, 2021. https://institute.coop/resources/how-economicdemocracy-impacts-workers-firms-and-communities. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Selekman, R., K. Needels, N. Reid., and S. Richman. “Planned Scaling Activities of AmeriCorps-Funded Organizations.” 

Report submitted to AmeriCorps. Mathematica, September 2020. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/AmeriCorps_ScalingPlans.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Sim, G., and A. Good. “Partners For Afterschool Success (PASS) AmeriCorps: 2017-2019 Evaluation Report.” Wisconsin 

Evaluation Collaborative, November 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/DaneCountyHumanServices.20AC220910.Report1_50

8_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Spera, C., R. Ghertner, A. Nerino, and A. DiTommaso. “Volunteering as a Pathway to Employment: Does Volunteering 

Increase Odds of Finding a Job for the Out of Work?” AmeriCorps, Office of Research and Evaluation, 2013.

https://www.americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_2013_VolunteeringasaPathwaytoEmploymen

t_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Spinney, S., K. Uekawa, and J. Campbell. “2015 College Possible: Closing the Achievement Gap for Low-Income 

Students i3 National Development Study.” ICF, November 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/CollegePossible.20ED222503.Report1_508v2_1.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Sum, C., R. Shannon, C. Birmingham, T. Phan, W. Fung, A. Georges, and D. Pratt. “Analysis of the AmeriCorps NCCC 

Service Project Database: How NCCC Service Projects Strengthen Communities and Impact Members.” JBS 

International, Inc., September 2020. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/SPD%20Final%20Research%20Report%20-

%20Final%20Report_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.

The Sunset Park Health Council. “Sunset Park AmeriCorps Evaluation Report.” 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/SunsetParkHealthCouncil.20AC221572.Report_508_1.

pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023.
References

Mathematica® Inc. 68

Tan, E. J., A. Georges, S.M. Gabbard, D.J. Pratt, A. Nerino, A.S. Roberts, S.M. Wrightsman, et al. “The 2013–2014 Senior 

Corps Study: Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions.” Public Policy & Aging Report, vol. 26, no. 3, 2016, pp. 

88–95. https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR-SC-Foster-Grand-Parents_1.pdf. Accessed 

July 21, 2023. 

Tetta, P., J. Baker, and A. Medhanie. “Washington Reading Corps Impact Evaluation Final Report and 

Recommendations.” Mission360 Consulting, LLC, July 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/WAStateEmploymentSecurityDept.20ES220532.Repor

t-Revised_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Van Norman, E.R. “Evaluation Report of the Impact of Post-Exit Progress Monitoring on Literacy Outcomes in the 

Reading Corps Program.” Lehigh University, December 2020. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/Reading%26Math.21ND230488.Evidencedoc3_EDITED_508.pd

f. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Vazquez-Rivera, C., and J. Rojas-Livia. “Refortalecimiento: Beyond Prevention, Empowerment and Intervention in an 

Impoverish Community in Puerto Rico.” Revista Colombiana de Psicología, vol. 31, no. 1, 2021, pp. 109–124.

https://doi.org/10.15446/rcp.v31n1.88726. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Velasco, K., and P. Paxton. “Deconstructed and Constructive Logics: Explaining Inclusive Language Change in Queer 

Nonprofits, 1998 – 2016.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 127, no. 4, 2022, pp. 1267–1310. 

https://doi.org/10.1086/718279. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Velasco, K., P. Paxton, R.W. Ressler, I. Weiss, and L. Pivnick. “Do National Service Programs Improve Subjective WellBeing in Communities?” The American Review of Public Administration, vol. 49, no. 3, 2019, pp. 275–291.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018814883. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Viola, J., D. Cooper, and B. Olson. “Evaluation of Habitat for Humanity AmeriCorps Program 2016-2019.” National 

Louis University, December 2018. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/HabitatforHumanityIntl_19ED211822_Report1_Revise

d_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Voigt, G., J. Borgida, D. Clark, L. Kulka, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, J. Pershing, P. Thompson, and M. Sarwana. “Return on 

Investment Study: Nevada Conservation Corps.” ICF, September 2022. 

https://www.americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/36039_NCC_2022_AmeriCorps_ROI_Study_RELEASE_508.

pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Walter, K., T. Rao, E. Gall, and I. Harris. “Housing Upgrades to Benefit Seniors.” IMPAQ International, LLC, March 2019.

The Watershed Company. “Impact Evaluation Report Washington Conservation Corps Restoration Methods.” October 

2018. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/2018_10_25_WAStateDeptofEcology_WAConservationCorps_I

mpactEvaluationReport_19ES208650_Report2_Revised_508_ORE.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

The Watershed Company. “Impact Evaluation Report EarthCorps Restoration Methods.” October 2019. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/EarthCorps%20Impact%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023. 

The Watershed Company. “Impact Evaluation Report Washington Conservation Corps Restoration Methods.” October 

2021. https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/WA%20Conservation%20Corps%202021%20508C.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Weiss, I., P. Paxton, K. Velasco, and R.W. Ressler. “Revisiting Declines in Social Capital: Evidence from a New Measure.” 

Social Indicators Research, vol. 142, 2019, pp. 1015–1029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1956-6. Accessed 

July 21, 2023. 

White, C.C. “Participatory Action Research Addressing Social Mobility.” Open Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 10, 2022, 

pp. 269–283. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2022.106021. Accessed July 21, 2023.

Whitsett, A., D. Schlinkert, and S. Mastikhina. “The AmeriCorps Experience: Transformation through Service.” Arizona 

State University, May 2018. https://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/sites/default/files/americorps_final_report_year_2.pdf. 

Accessed July 21, 2023. 
References

Mathematica® Inc. 69

Willett, J., A. Tamayo, and A. Rayo. “Making the Invisible Visible: Documenting Slow Violence Through Photovoice with 

Youth in Nevada.” Journal of Community Practice, vol. 29, no. 2, 2021, pp. 112–132. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2021.1938327. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Wolfrom Consulting. “Keystone SMILES AmeriCorps Evaluation Report.” September 2020. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/document/KeystoneSMILESCommunityLearningCenter.21AC231035.Evid

encedoc1_EDITED_508.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Wray-Lake, L., and L.S. Abrams. “Pathways to Civic Engagement Among Urban Youth of Color.” Monographs of the 

Society for Research in Child Development, vol. 85, no. 2, serial no. 337, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12415. 

Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Wright, F., S. Hembree, and J. Braun. “First 5 Service Corps Project Evaluation.” Davis Consultant Network, January 

2017. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/CAChildren%26FamiliesFoundation.18AC201331.Rep

ort1-Revised_508_1.pdf. Accessed July 21, 2023. 

Zhang, X., and J. Sun. “Meta-Analysis of Evaluations Across the Social Innovation Fund Program: Final Report.” Report 

prepared for AmeriCorps, Office of Research and Evaluation. ICF International, 2016. 

https://americorps.gov/sites/default/files/evidenceexchange/FR_SIF_Meta-Analysis_Final_Report_1.pdf. Accessed 

July 21, 2023. 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying. 
Mathematica® Inc. A.1 

Appendix A. 

Studies Reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying. 
Appendix A. Studies Reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report

Mathematica® Inc. A.3 

Appendix Table A.1 presents information on the 116 studies we reviewed as part of this AmeriCorps State of the Evidence synthesis. We organize 

the studies by the State of the Evidence domain under which they were classified (participants, partners, communities, and society). Studies could 

be classified across more than one domain and therefore can appear in more than one section in the table.

Table A.1. Studies reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence report

Study citation

Focus area/topic 

of interest

AmeriCorps 

program

Study source 

type

Study 

design

State of the Evidence framework domain: Participants

Dermanjian, S., and R. Johnson. “Bridging Differences Through AmeriCorps 

Service: AmeriCorps Member Exit Survey Analysis 2016-2020.” AmeriCorps, 

2022. 

Member 

characteristics

ASN; VISTA; 

NCCC

ORE report Descriptive

Georges, A., S.J. Smith, and W. Fung. “Profile of AmeriCorps NCCC Members 

at the Start of Service.” JBS International, Inc., 2021.

Member 

characteristics

NCCC ORE 

commissioned 

report

QED

Hudson-Flege, M.D. “Getting Things Done for Life: Long-Term Impact of 

AmeriCorps Service for Diverse Groups of Members.” Doctoral dissertation, 

Clemson University, 2018.

Member 

characteristics; 

Member experience

ASN; NCCC AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

QED

Anderson, L.M., J. Meredith, and J. Hildreth. “Reading Partners AmeriCorps 

Alumni Study.” Policy Studies Associates, 2019.

Member experience ASN; VISTA AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Crittenden, J.A. “Juggling Multiple Roles: An Examination of Role Conflict 

and Its Relationship to Older Adult Volunteer Satisfaction and Retention.” 

Doctoral dissertation, University of Maine, 2019.

Member experience RSVP AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Descriptive

Dietz, N., D. Jones, and B. McKeeve. “A Pathway to Economic Opportunity 

for Communities and AmeriCorps Members.” Urban Institute, January 2019.

Member experience ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

Outcomes

Edmonds, B. “Energy Express Evaluation 2019.” Indiana University, October 

2019. 

Member 

experience; 

Education

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Frazier, R., D. Pratt, G. Cardazone, M. Hartig, J. Liang, and A. Georges. “Final 

Report for AmeriCorps Opportunity Youth Evaluation Bundling.” JBS 

International, Inc., 2018.

Member experience ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

QED

Frazier, R., C. Birmingham, V. Wheat, and A. Georges. “A Systematic Review 

of Senior Corps’ Impact on Volunteers and Program Beneficiaries.” JBS 

International, Inc., 2019. 

Member 

experience; Healthy 

futures

FGP; SCP; RSVP ORE 

commissioned 

report

Other (meta-synthesis)
Appendix A. Studies Reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report

Mathematica® Inc. A.4 

Study citation

Focus area/topic 

of interest

AmeriCorps 

program

Study source 

type

Study 

design

Georges, A., W., Fung, J. Smith, J. Liang, C. Sum, and S. Gabbard. 

“Longitudinal Study of Foster Grandparent and Senior Companion 

Programs: Service Delivery Implications and Health Benefits to the 

Volunteers.” JBS International, Inc., 2018.

Member experience FGP; SCP ORE 

commissioned 

report

QED

Kowalski, M., S. Ponisciak, and G. Svarovsky. “The University of Notre 

Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education Teaching Fellows Program: 

Evaluation of Outcomes and Impact, 2015-2017.” University of Notre Dame, 

January 2018. 

Member 

experience; 

Education

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Levine, P., K. Kawashima -Ginsberg, J. Benenson, and N. Hayat. “The Impact 

of National Service on Employment Outcomes.” AmeriCorps Research and 

Evidence Webinar Series, March 2018.

Member experience ASN; VISTA AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

RCT

Sum, C., R. Shannon, C. Birmingham, T. Phan, W. Fung, A. Georges, and D. 

Pratt. “Analysis of the AmeriCorps NCCC Service Project Database: How 

NCCC Service Projects Strengthen Communities and Impact Members.” JBS 

International, Inc., September 2020.

Member 

experience; 

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity; Disaster 

services; 

Environmental 

stewardship

NCCC ORE 

commissioned 

report

Descriptive

The Center for Youth and Communities. “Integrating Service into 

YouthBuild AmeriCorps HSE and Diploma Granting Programs.” Brandeis 

University, January 2019. 

Member experience ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

Outcomes

Viola, J., D. Cooper, and B. Olson. “Evaluation of Habitat for Humanity 

AmeriCorps Program 2016-2019.” National Louis University, December 

2018.

Member 

experience; 

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

ASN; VISTA AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Whitsett, A., D. Schlinkert, and S. Mastikhina. “The AmeriCorps Experience: 

Transformation through Service.” Arizona State University, May 2018.

Member experience ASN; VISTA AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Outcomes

State of the Evidence framework domain: Partners

AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation. “A Promising Response to 

the Opioid Crisis: CNCS-Supported Recovery Coach Programs.” (by Lily 

Zandniapour, Roshni Menon, Tia Renier, and Shane Dermanjian). 2020. 

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

ASN; VISTA ORE Report Descriptive
Appendix A. Studies Reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report

Mathematica® Inc. A.5 

Study citation

Focus area/topic 

of interest

AmeriCorps 

program

Study source 

type

Study 

design

AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation. “Evaluation and 

Measurements: VISTA’s Impact on Poverty, A 50-Year Review of Evaluation 

and Evidence.” 2018.

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

VISTA ORE report Other (meta-synthesis)

Hamdan, H., and A. Robles. “AmeriCorps NCCC Sponsor Organization 

Survey: Analysis of Traditional Corps Sponsor Feedback by NCCC Regions 

Before the COVID Pandemic (2016–2019).” AmeriCorps, November 2022. 

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

NCCC ORE report Descriptive

JBS International. “Assessing the Volunteer Infrastructure Program Using 

the Volunteer Capacity Assessment.” JBS International, November 2018.

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

Outcomes

Marc Bolan Consulting. “Washington Service Corps Performance 

Measurement Training & Technical Assistance (PMT&TA) Program 

Evaluation.” August 2020.

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

RCT

McCreary, A., M. Edwards, M. McKenna, E. Seekamp, and S. Lockwood. 

“2019 Public Lands Service Coalition Partnership Impact Evaluation Interim 

Report.” North Carolina State University, October 2020.

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Messamore, A., P. Paxton, and K. Velasco. “Can Government Intervention 

Increase Volunteers and Donations? Analyzing the Influence of VISTA with a 

Matched Design.” Administration & Society, vol. 53, no. 10, 2021, pp. 1547–

1579.

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

VISTA AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

QED

Pritchard, K., D. Teles, and B. Doctor. “Public Allies External Impact 

Evaluation.” Data You Can Use and the Urban Institute, December 2020.

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Sum, C., R. Shannon, C. Birmingham, T. Phan, W. Fung, A. Georges, and D. 

Pratt. “Analysis of the AmeriCorps NCCC Service Project Database: How 

NCCC Service Projects Strengthen Communities and Impact Members.” JBS 

International, Inc., September 2020.

Member 

experience; 

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity; Disaster 

services; 

Environmental 

stewardship

NCCC ORE 

commissioned 

report

Descriptive
Appendix A. Studies Reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report

Mathematica® Inc. A.6 

Study citation

Focus area/topic 

of interest

AmeriCorps 

program

Study source 

type

Study 

design

Viola, J., D. Cooper, and B. Olson. “Evaluation of Habitat for Humanity 

AmeriCorps Program 2016-2019.” National Louis University, December 

2018.

Member 

experience; 

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

ASN; VISTA AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

State of the Evidence framework domain: Community

AmeriCorps. “COVID-19 Containment Response Corps Implementation 

Report.” 2021b. 

Disaster services ASN; RSVP; 

NCCC; VISTA

Other: 

AmeriCorps 

NCCC

Other (implementation)

Sum, C., R. Shannon, C. Birmingham, T. Phan, W. Fung, A. Georges, and D. 

Pratt. “Analysis of the AmeriCorps NCCC Service Project Database: How 

NCCC Service Projects Strengthen Communities and Impact Members.” JBS 

International, Inc., September 2020.

Member 

experience; 

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity; Disaster 

services; 

Environmental 

stewardship

NCCC ORE 

commissioned 

report

Descriptive

Backman, D. “2018 Evaluation Report: Impact of the Northstar Assessment 

& Related Computer Skills Programming on Employment in CTEP 

Programs.” Saint Paul Neighborhood Network, 2018.

Economic 

opportunity

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Keep Austin Housed. “Evaluation Report: 2017-2019 Front Steps: Keep 

Austin Housed AmeriCorps Program.” 2019.

Economic 

opportunity

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

Outcomes

Mandiloff, C., and M.F Scott. “Justice for Montanans AmeriCorps Evaluation 

Report.” Mandiloff Law Office, 2019.

Economic 

opportunity; 

Veterans and 

military families

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

Outcomes

Meehan, M. “VOCAL AmeriCorps 2017-2019, Evaluation Report.” Program 

Planning & Evaluation Consulting, Inc., 2019.

Economic 

opportunity

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

Outcomes 

Moss, B.G. “Impact Evaluation of the AmeriCorps Urban Safety Program.” 

Wayne State University, February 2018.

Economic 

opportunity

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Nelson, P., and P. Kaiser. “An Evaluation of the Twin Cities Habitat for 

Humanity AmeriCorps Program.” Center for Advancing Research to Practice 

at ServeMinnesota, October 2020.

Economic 

opportunity

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED
Appendix A. Studies Reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report

Mathematica® Inc. A.7 

Study citation

Focus area/topic 

of interest

AmeriCorps 

program

Study source 

type

Study 

design

The Sunset Park Health Council. “Sunset Park AmeriCorps Evaluation

Report.” 2019.

Economic 

opportunity; 

Education

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

Outcomes

Walter, K., T. Rao, E. Gall, and I. Harris. “Housing Upgrades to Benefit 

Seniors.” IMPAQ International, LLC, March 2019.

Economic 

opportunity

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

Outcomes 

Abraham, W. T., and E. Polush. “AmeriCorps Literacy Tutoring to K-5th Grade 

Students Program at DMPS Elementary Schools: Short-Term Impact Study 

Evaluation Report.” September 2019.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

ACET Inc. “AmeriCorps LEAP Initiative: Year 1 Evaluation Report.” 2018. Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

Other (implementation)

Agile Analytics. “CIS of Central Texas: Austin ISD AmeriCorps Outcome 

Evaluation.” October 2020.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Bettinger, E.P., A.L. Antonio, and J. Foster- Hedrick. “Missouri College 

Advising Corps Final AmeriCorps Evaluation Report.” Evaluation and 

Assessment Solutions for Education, LLC, 2019. 

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Caverly, S., G. Stoker, D. Hoon Lee, and G. Fleming. “Literacy First K–1 

Report The 2017-18 Impact Evaluation.” American Institutes for Research, 

April 2019. 

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

RCT

CCR Analytics. “An Evaluation of the Jumpstart California Program 2017-

2018.” January 2019. 

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Chapin Hall. “Implementation and Impact of City Year Within the Chicago 

Context.” University of Chicago, September 2017. 

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Codding, R.S., P.M. Nelson, D.C. Parker, R. Edmunds, and J. Klaft. “Evaluation 

of a Math Tutoring Program Implemented with Community Support: A 

Systematic Replication & Extension.” Northeastern University, 2019.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

RCT

Edmonds, B. “Energy Express Evaluation 2019.” Indiana University, October 

2019. 

Member 

experience; 

Education

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Fairchild, S. “AmeriCorps at Communities in Schools of Central Texas Impact 

Analysis, 2016-2017.” Creekside Research Solutions, September 2017. 

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED
Appendix A. Studies Reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report

Mathematica® Inc. A.8 

Study citation

Focus area/topic 

of interest

AmeriCorps 

program

Study source 

type

Study 

design

Gerdeman, R.D., Y. Wan, A. Molefe, J.M. Bos, B. Zhu, and S. Dhillon. “Impact 

of TNTP’s Teaching Fellows in Urban School Districts.” American Institutes 

for Research, May 2017. 

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

JBS International, Inc. “Napa County Office of Education CalSERVES 

AmeriCorps Impact Evaluation 2020.” October 2020.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

JBS International, Inc. “Napa County Office of Education CalSERVES 

Expanded Learning Impact Evaluation.” October 2017.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Kowalski, M., S. Ponisciak, and G. Svarovsky. “The University of Notre 

Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education Teaching Fellows Program: 

Evaluation of Outcomes and Impact, 2015-2017.” University of Notre Dame, 

January 2018. 

Member 

experience; 

Education

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Lambert, L. “Evaluation Report Impact Evaluation PYs 2017-18 and 2018-

19.” Minneapolis Public Schools Research Evaluation Assessment and 

Accountability Department, 2019.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Lin, S., and T. Reece. “REACH Corps FY19 End of Grant Evaluation (2019-

21).” Jefferson County Public Schools, July 2021.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Magnolia Consulting. “An Evaluation of Jumpstart for National Direct.” 

January 2019.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Markovitz, C.E., M.W. Hernandez, E.C. Hedberg, H.H. Whitmore, and J.L. 

Satorius. “Impact Evaluation of the Minnesota Reading Corps K-3 Program 

(2017-2018).” Report submitted to Reading & Math, Inc. NORC at the 

University of Chicago, October 2018.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

RCT

Nathenson, R., M. Pardo, S. Subedi, C. Henry, M. Joshi, M. Lachowicz, K. 

Neering, et al. “Teach for America National AmeriCorps Evaluation: 

Evaluation 2017–18 and 2018–19 School Years.” American Institutes for 

Research, December 2021.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Pepper, S., E. Fissel, and K. Knestis. “Literacy Lab Early Literacy Intervention: 

Treatment and Comparison Group FAST Bridge Assessment Differences 

2017 – 2018.” Inciter, 2018.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Providence Children’s Museum. “Evaluation of Play-Based Learning Training 

on AmeriCorps Members’ Learning Club Implementation: AmeriCorps 

2018-2019 Evaluation Report.” 2019.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

Outcomes
Appendix A. Studies Reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report

Mathematica® Inc. A.9 

Study citation

Focus area/topic 

of interest

AmeriCorps 

program

Study source 

type

Study 

design

Richardson, J., D. Marlin, J. Vadas, E. Colo, and S. Goldrick-Rab. “Evaluation 

of College Possible Milwaukee.” Hope Lab, June 2018.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Rolfhus, E., E. Diaz, L. Decker-Woodrow, E. Adachi, S. Sohrabie, D. Barfield, 

and G. Lamey. “Evaluation of College Possible’s College-Fit Initiative 2018-

2020.” Westat Inc., October 2021.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Sim, G., and A. Good. “Partners For Afterschool Success (PASS) AmeriCorps: 

2017-2019 Evaluation Report.” Wisconsin Evaluation Collaborative, 

November 2019.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Spinney, S., K. Uekawa, and J. Campbell. “2015 College Possible: Closing the 

Achievement Gap for Low-Income Students i3 National Development 

Study.” ICF, November 2019.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Tetta, P., J. Baker, and A. Medhanie. “Washington Reading Corps Impact 

Evaluation Final Report and Recommendations.” Mission360 Consulting, 

LLC, July 2019.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

The Improve Group. “AmeriCorps Promise Fellow Program Minnesota 

Alliance with Youth Impact Evaluation Report, 2019.” 2019.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Van Norman, E.R. “Evaluation Report of the Impact of Post-Exit Progress 

Monitoring on Literacy Outcomes in the Reading Corps Program.” Lehigh 

University, December 2020.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

RCT

Wolfrom Consulting. “Keystone SMILES AmeriCorps Evaluation Report.” 

September 2020.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Wright, F., S. Hembree, and J. Braun. “First 5 Service Corps Project 

Evaluation.” Davis Consultant Network, January 2017.

Education ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Christiansen, E. “Great Basin Institute - Nevada Conservation Corps -

Evaluation Report 2019-2020.” University of Nevada, January 2019.

Environmental 

stewardship

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Naiman-Sessions, J., and S. Shteir. “The Efficacy of AmeriCorps Weed 

Treatments in Montana State Parks.” Montana State Parks, October 2019.

Environmental 

stewardship

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

The Watershed Company. “Impact Evaluation Report EarthCorps 

Restoration Methods.” October 2019.

Environmental 

stewardship

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

The Watershed Company. “Impact Evaluation Report Washington 

Conservation Corps Restoration Methods.” October 2018.

Environmental 

stewardship

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED
Appendix A. Studies Reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report

Mathematica® Inc. A.10

Study citation

Focus area/topic 

of interest

AmeriCorps 

program

Study source 

type

Study 

design

The Watershed Company. “Impact Evaluation Report Washington 

Conservation Corps Restoration Methods.” October 2021.

Environmental 

stewardship

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Applied Survey Research. “AmeriCorps Quasi-Experimental Program 

Evaluation 2018-2021.” November 2021.

Healthy futures ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

Frazier, R., C. Birmingham, V. Wheat, and A. Georges. “A Systematic Review 

of Senior Corps’ Impact on Volunteers and Program Beneficiaries.” JBS 

International, Inc., 2019. 

Member 

experience; Healthy 

futures

FGP; SCP; RSVP ORE 

commissioned 

report

Other (meta-synthesis)

Jarjoura, G.R., and J. Meckes. “National Evaluation of Up2Us Coach Program 

Year 2016–17.” American Institutes for Research, February 2018.

Healthy futures ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

QED

LPC Consulting Associates. “Child Welfare System Improvement (CWSI) 

AmeriCorps Program Evaluation Report (2014-2016).” January 2017.

Healthy futures ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

Outcomes

Mwangi, J.N. “Live Healthy Kids Program, Years 2016-2017; 2017-2018.” 

Ohio University College of Health and Sciences, 2018.

Healthy futures ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

Outcomes

Velasco, K., P. Paxton, R.W. Ressler, I. Weiss, and L. Pivnick. “Do National 

Service Programs Improve Subjective Well-Being in Communities?” The 

American Review of Public Administration, vol. 49, no. 3, 2019, pp. 275–291.

Healthy futures ASN; VISTA AmeriCorps ORE

research grantee

Outcomes

Borgida, J., D. Clark, L. Kulka, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, J. Pershing, P. 

Thompson, M. Sarwana, and G. Voigt. “Return on Investment Study: SBP.” 

ICF, September 2022. 

Investing in 

interventions

ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

ROI/Cost-related

Brooks B., M. Escueta, A. Muroga, V. Rodriguez, and H.M. Levin. “Report for 

Minnesota Reading Corps Pre-K Program Cost Analysis.” Teachers College, 

Columbia University, January 2018. 

Investing in 

interventions

ASN AmeriCorps 

grantee evaluator

ROI/Cost-related

Clark, D., J. Borgida, L. Kulka, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, J. Pershing, P. 

Thompson, M. Sarwana, and G. Voigt. “Return on Investment Study: 

Washington State Department of Veterans Affairs Vet Corps.” ICF, 

September 2022b. 

Investing in 

interventions

ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

ROI/Cost-related

Clark, D., J. Borgida, L. Kulka, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, J. Pershing, P. 

Thompson, M. Sarwana, and G. Voigt. “Return on Investment Study: 

Breakthrough Austin.” ICF, September 2022a. 

Investing in 

interventions

ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

ROI/Cost-related

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

Pershing. “Return on Investment Study: Community Technology 

Empowerment Project.” ICF, December 2020b.

Investing in 

interventions

ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

ROI/Cost-related
Appendix A. Studies Reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report

Mathematica® Inc. A.11

Study citation

Focus area/topic 

of interest

AmeriCorps 

program

Study source 

type

Study 

design

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

Pershing. “Return on Investment Study: AmeriCorps Seniors Foster 

Grandparent Program and Senior Companion Program.” ICF, December 

2020a. 

Investing in 

interventions

FGP; SCP ORE 

commissioned 

report

ROI/Cost-related

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

Pershing. “Return on Investment Study: College Possible College Access 

Program.” ICF, December 2020a.

Investing in 

interventions

ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

ROI/Cost-related

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

Pershing. “Return on Investment Study: Minnesota Reading Corps—

Kindergarten.” ICF, December 2020b.

Investing in 

interventions

ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

ROI/Cost-related

Naugler, A., L. Kulka, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, C. Munaretto, J. Pershing, 

and M. Sarwana. “Return on Investment Study: Birth & Beyond Home 

Visitation Program.” ICF, September 2021a.

Investing in 

interventions

ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

ROI/Cost-related

Naugler, A., L. Kulka, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, C. Munaretto, J. Pershing, 

and M. Sarwana. “Return on Investment Study: Habitat for Humanity 

AmeriCorps.” ICF, September 2021b.

Investing in 

interventions

ASN; VISTA ORE 

commissioned 

report

ROI/Cost-related

Naugler, A., L. Kulka, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, C. Munaretto, J. Pershing, 

and M. Sarwana. “Return on Investment Study: YouthBuild.” ICF, August 

2021c.

Investing in 

interventions

ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

ROI/Cost-related

Voigt, G., J. Borgida, D. Clark, L. Kulka, B. Miller, D. Modicamore, J. Pershing, 

P. Thompson, and M. Sarwana. “Return on Investment Study: Nevada 

Conservation Corps.” ICF, September 2022.

Investing in 

interventions

ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

ROI/Cost-related

Anderson, M.A., K. Eddins, K. Needels, and S. Richman. “Scaling the Home 

Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) Intervention: 

Insights from the Experiences of Parent Possible.” Report submitted to 

AmeriCorps. Mathematica, June 2020.

Scaling ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

Case study

Eddins, K., MA. Anderson, K. Needels, and S. Richman. “Scaling the Birth and 

Beyond (B&B) Intervention: Insights from the Experiences of the Child 

Abuse Prevention Council (CAPC).” Report submitted to AmeriCorps. 

Mathematica, June 2020. 

Scaling ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

Case study

Jones, C., D. Friend, M.A. Anderson, K. Needels, and S. Richman. “Scaling the 

Reading Corps Intervention: Insights from the Experiences of United Ways 

of Iowa.” Report submitted to AmeriCorps. Mathematica, June 2020.

Scaling ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

Case study
Appendix A. Studies Reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report

Mathematica® Inc. A.12

Study citation

Focus area/topic 

of interest

AmeriCorps 

program

Study source 

type

Study 

design

Maxwell, N.L., and S. Richman. “Scaling Programs with Research Evidence 

and Effectiveness (SPREE).” Foundation Review, vol. 11, no. 3, November 

2019, pp. 55–67.

Scaling ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

Case study

Needels, K., D. Friend, S. Richman, K. Eddins, and C. Jones. “Scaling 

Evidence-Based Interventions: Insights from the Experiences of Three 

Grantees.” Report submitted to AmeriCorps. Mathematica, June 2020.

Scaling ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

Case study

Richman, S., and A. Streke. “Evidence of Effectiveness in AmeriCorpsFunded Interventions.” Report submitted to AmeriCorps. Mathematica, 

September 2020.

Scaling ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

Other (meta-synthesis)

Selekman, R., K. Needels, N. Reid., and S. Richman. “Planned Scaling 

Activities of AmeriCorps-Funded Organizations.” Report submitted to 

AmeriCorps. Mathematica, September 2020.

Scaling ASN ORE 

commissioned 

report

Other (meta-synthesis)

State of the Evidence framework domain: Society

AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation. “Key Findings from the 2019 

Current Population Survey: Civic Engagement and Volunteering 

Supplement” (by Laura Hanson Schlachter). 2021.

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable ORE report Descriptive

Best, A., J. Dale, K. Kerstetter, and S. Retrosi. “Linking Civic Engagement and 

Immigrant Professional Success: Opportunities, Barriers and Contexts.” 

AmeriCorps Research and Evidence Webinar Series. June 2017.

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Descriptive

Clark-Ibáñez, M., A. Alvarez, A. Gonzales, M. Ramos Pellicia, A. Ardon, N. 

Jara, and V. Martinez-Rodriguez. “Cultivando Sabiduría (Cultivating 

Wisdom): Latinx Immigrant Elders and Civic Engagement.” Humboldt 

Journal of Social Relations, vol. 1, no. 43, 2021. 

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Outcomes 

Cutler White, C. “Participatory Action Research Addressing Social Mobility.” 

Open Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 10, no. 6, 2020, pp. 269–283. 

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Participatory research 

methodology

Dutt, A., F. Jacquez, N. Chaudhary, B. Wright, R. Adhikari, T. Adhikari, A. Al 

Shehabi, et al. “Creating Collective Solidarity: Insights from the 

Development and Process Evaluation of Civic Action for Refugee 

Empowerment in Cincinnati.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority 

Psychology, vol. 28, no. 3, 2021, pp. 349–360. 

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Case study
Appendix A. Studies Reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report

Mathematica® Inc. A.13

Study citation

Focus area/topic 

of interest

AmeriCorps 

program

Study source 

type

Study 

design

Erangey, J., C. Marvin, D.M. Littman, M. Mollica, K. Bender, T. Lucas, and T. 

Milligan. “How Peer Support Specialists Uniquely Initiate and Build 

Connection with Young People Experiencing Homelessness.” Children and 

Youth Services Review, vol. 119, 2020, article 105668. 

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Case study

Jacquez, F., A. Dutt, E. Manirambona, and B. Wright. “Uniting Liberatory and 

Participatory Approaches in Public Psychology with Refugees.” American

Psychologist, vol. 76, no. 8, 2021 pp. 1280–1292.

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Participatory research 

methodology

Littman, D.M., K. Bender, M. Mollica, J. Erangey, T. Lucas, and C. Marvin. 

“Making Power Explicit: Using Values and Power Mapping to Guide PowerDiverse Participatory Action Research Processes.” Journal of Community 

Psychology, vol. 49, 2021, pp. 266–282.

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Participatory research 

methodology

Loh, P. “Grounded and Interconnected in the Pandemic: Community 

engagement and organizing adaptations from COVID response efforts in 

Metro Boston.” Tufts University, October 2022.

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Participatory research 

methodology

Marchand, A.D. “Black Parents’ Critical Consciousness: Conceptualization, 

Measurement, and Links to Parent School Engagement.” Doctoral 

dissertation, University of Michigan, 2019.

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Descriptive

Marchand, A.D., R.R. Vassar, M.A. Diemer, and S.J. Rowley. “Integrating 

Race, Racism, and Critical Consciousness in Black Parents’ Engagement with 

Schools.” Journal of Family Theory & Review, vol. 11, 2019, pp. 367–384. 

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Other 

(theory/measurement)

Nicotera, N., and S. Pritzker. “Promoting Latinx Youth Civic Engagement: 

Issues for School Settings.” University of Houston, 2020.

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Participatory research 

methodology

Pritzker, S., D. Moreno, N. Nicotera, R. Saenz, S. Campos, K. Avila, and A. 

Ruiz. “Promoting Good Trouble: Latinx Youth-Driven Change Strategies for 

Civic Engagement and Activism.” University of Denver, 2020.

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Participatory research 

methodology

Schlachter, L.H., and K. Már. “Spillover, Selection, or Substitution? 

Workplace and Civic Participation in Democratic Firms.” May 2020. 

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Descriptive

Schlachter, L.H., and O. Prushinskaya. “How Economic Democracy Impacts 

Workers, Firms, and Communities. Democracy at Work Institute.” 

Democracy at Work Institute, 2021.

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Descriptive

Vazquez-Rivera, C., and J. Rojas-Livia. “Refortalecimiento: Beyond 

Prevention, Empowerment and Intervention in an Impoverish Community in 

Puerto Rico.” Revista Colombiana de Psicología, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 109–124.

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Participatory research 

methodology
Appendix A. Studies Reviewed for the 2023 State of the Evidence Report

Mathematica® Inc. A.14

Study citation

Focus area/topic 

of interest

AmeriCorps 

program

Study source 

type

Study 

design

Weiss, I., P. Paxton, K. Velasco, and R.W. Ressler. “Revisiting Declines in 

Social Capital: Evidence from a New Measure.” Social Indicators Research,

vol. 142, 2019, pp. 1015–1029.

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Descriptive

Willett, J., A. Tamayo, and A. Rayo. “Making the Invisible Visible: 

Documenting Slow Violence Through Photovoice with Youth in Nevada.” 

Journal of Community Practice, vol. 29, no. 2, 2021, pp. 112–132.

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Participatory research 

methodology

Wray-Lake, L., and L.S. Abrams. “Pathways to Civic Engagement Among 

Urban Youth of Color.” Monographs of the Society for Research in Child 

Development, vol. 85, no. 2, serial no. 337, 2020.

Civic engagement 

and volunteerism

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Descriptive

Backman, D. “2018 Evaluation Report: Impact of the Northstar Assessment 

& Related Computer Skills Programming on Employment in CTEP 

Programs.” Saint Paul Neighborhood Network, 2018.

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Descriptive

Hager, M.A., and J.L. Brudney. “Volunteer Management Capacity in 

America’s Charities: Benchmarking a Pre-Pandemic Field and Assessing 

Future Directions.” Arizona State University, 2021.

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Descriptive

ICF International. “Engaging Volunteers: A Comprehensive Literature 

Review.” 2021.

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

Not applicable ORE 

commissioned 

report

Other (meta-synthesis)

Paxton, P., K. Velasco, and R.W. Ressler. “Does Use of Emotion Increase 

Donations and Volunteers for Nonprofits?” American Sociological Review, 

vol. 85, no. 6, 2020, pp. 1051–1083.

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

RCT

Ressler, R.W., P. Paxton, K. Velasco, L. Pivnick, I. Weiss, and J.C. Eichstaedt. 

“Nonprofits: A Public Policy Tool for the Promotion of Community 

Subjective Well-Being.” Journal of Public Administration Research and 

Theory, vol. 31, no. 4, 2021, pp. 822–838.

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Outcomes 

Velasco, K., and P. Paxton. “Deconstructed and Constructive Logics: 

Explaining Inclusive Language Change in Queer Nonprofits, 1998 – 2016.” 

American Journal of Sociology, vol. 127, no. 4, 2022, pp. 1267–1310.

Nonprofit

organizational 

capacity

Not applicable AmeriCorps ORE 

research grantee

Descriptive

ASN = AmeriCorps State and National; FGP = AmeriCorps Seniors Foster Grandparent Program; NCCC = AmeriCorps NCCC; ORE = AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation; QED 

= quasi-experimental design; RCT = randomized controlled trial; RSVP = AmeriCorps Seniors Retired and Senior Volunteer Program; SCP = AmeriCorps Seniors Senior Companion 

Program; ROI = return on investment; VISTA = AmeriCorps VISTA.
Mathematica® Inc. B.1 

Appendix B.

Study Review Rubric
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying. 
Appendix B. Study Review Rubric

Mathematica® Inc. B.3 

In Appendix Table B.1, we present the review rubric Mathematica used to extract information on the 

characteristics of key findings from the 116 studies we reviewed. We developed these review items to 

align with the overarching goal of the project: to synthesize key findings from AmeriCorps-funded or -

produced research on AmeriCorps programs and national service, volunteering, and civic engagement 

from June 2017 to December 2022 within the State of the Evidence domains (see Figure I.1 in the main 

report).

Table B.1. Study review rubric for the 2023 State of Evidence report

Questions Responses

About the study

Date of the study [Eligible range is 2017 to 2022]

What is the organization/grantee name? [open-ended]

What is the source of the study? Select one

 AmeriCorps grantee evaluator

 AmeriCorps ORE research grantee

 AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation commissioned 

report

 AmeriCorps Office of Research and Evaluation report

Study focus

What is the AmeriCorps program of focus to 

the study?

Select all that apply

 AmeriCorps State and National

 AmeriCorps NCCC

 AmeriCorps VISTA

 AmeriCorps Seniors Foster Grandparent Program 

 AmeriCorps Seniors Senior Companion Program

 AmeriCorps Seniors Retired and Senior Volunteer Program

 Volunteer Generation Fund

 Not applicable

What is the State of the Evidence domain? Select all that apply

 Participants

 Partners

 Community

 Society

What is the focus area? Select all that apply

 Disaster services

 Economic opportunity

 Education

 Environmental stewardship

 Healthy futures

 Veterans and military families

 Member characteristics

 Member experience

 Civic engagement and volunteerism

 Nonprofit organizational capacity

 Investing in interventions

 Scaling
Appendix B. Study Review Rubric

Mathematica® Inc. B.4 

Questions Responses

What is the AmeriCorps focus area subtopic? Select all that apply

 Disaster services: Assistance provided

 Economic opportunity: Employment; financial literacy; housing

 Education: School readiness; kindergarten to 12th grade success; 

post-secondary education support

 Environmental stewardship: Energy efficiency; green jobs; at-risk 

ecosystems; awareness of environmental issues

 Healthy futures: Aging in place; obesity and food; access to care

 Veterans and military families: Connections to educational 

opportunities, jobs, and benefits

 Other: Specify

About the program/intervention

What is the name of the 

program/intervention?

[open-ended]

What are the core elements of the 

intervention?

[open-ended]

In what venue(s) is intervention

implemented?

[open-ended]

What is the focal population? [open-ended]

Study design and findings

[Note: Complete this section for each State of the Evidence domain to which the study was categorized]

What is the primary study design? Select one

 Randomized controlled trial

 Quasi-experimental design

 Outcomes study

 Descriptive study

 Case study

 Return on investment/cost-related study

 Meta-synthesis

 Implementation study

 Participatory research methodology (can use one or more study

designs to carry out the approach) 

 Other: Specify

If RCT or QED, describe the comparison 

group used as the contrast.

[open-ended]

How did the study collect its data? Select all that apply

 Surveys

 Assessments

 Administrative data

 Interviews/focus groups

 Observations

 Other: Specify

What was the sample size for the study (if 

applicable, record the comparison group 

sample size, as well)?

[open-ended]

What are the main outcomes of interest? [open-ended]

Describe the main findings. [open-ended]
Appendix B. Study Review Rubric

Mathematica® Inc. B.5 

Questions Responses

Does the study conduct subgroup analyses? Select one

 Yes

 No

If applicable, who/what is the focus of 

subgroup analysis was conducted?

[open-ended]

If applicable, describe the main findings for 

the subgroup analysis.

[open-ended]
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying. 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying. 
Mathematica Inc.

Our employee-owners work nationwide and around the world.

Find us at mathematica.org and edi-global.com. 

Mathematica, Progress Together, and the “spotlight M” logo are registered trademarks of Mathematica Inc.