Do National Service Programs Improve Subjective Well-Being in Communities?

AuthorLilla Pivnick,Robert W. Ressler,Pamela Paxton,Kristopher Velasco,Inbar Weiss
Published date01 April 2019
Date01 April 2019
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018814883
Subject MatterArticles
/tmp/tmp-171lBbWaA4WozP/input
814883ARPXXX10.1177/0275074018814883The American Review of Public AdministrationVelasco et al.
research-article2018
Article
American Review of Public Administration
2019, Vol. 49(3) 275 –291
Do National Service Programs Improve
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Subjective Well-Being in Communities?
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018814883
DOI: 10.1177/0275074018814883
journals.sagepub.com/home/arp
Kristopher Velasco1 , Pamela Paxton1, Robert W. Ressler1,
Inbar Weiss1, and Lilla Pivnick1
Abstract
Since the creation of Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) in 1964 and AmeriCorps in 1993, a stated goal of national
service programs has been to strengthen the overall health of communities across the United States. But whether national
service programs have such community effects remains an open question. Using longitudinal cross-lagged panel and change-
score models from 2005 to 2013, this study explores whether communities with national service programs exhibit greater
subjective well-being. We use novel measures of subjective well-being derived from tweeted expressions of emotions,
engagement, and relationships in 1,347 U.S. counties. Results show that national service programs improve subjective well-
being primarily by mitigating threats to well-being and communities that exhibit more engagement are better able to attract
national service programs. Although limited in size, these persistent effects are robust to multiple threats to inference and
provide important new evidence on how national service improves communities in the United States.
Keywords
national service, subjective well-being, AmeriCorps
In operation for a quarter century, the United States’ national
Dietz, 2007; McBride, Greenfield, Morrow-Howell, Lee, &
service program AmeriCorps seeks to foster civic engage-
McCrary, 2012; Perry, Thomson, Tschirhart, Mesch, & Lee,
ment, build community, and provide services in vulnerable,
1999; Simon & Wang, 2002), less is known about whether
high-need communities. Since its inception, billions of dollars
AmeriCorps strengthens communities more broadly.
have been spent to encourage national service and volunteer-
This study theorizes and tests the association between
ing on the part of individual citizens (Corporation for National
AmeriCorps and community subjective well-being, between
and Community Service [CNCS], 2018a). There is ongoing
2005 and 2013. We test a primary hypothesis that national
debate, however, about the utility of national service—its
service programs have meaningful consequences for the
effects on volunteers, the organizations that host them, and the
broader community in which they are located. We also assess
communities in which they are located. Policymakers increas-
differences across two major AmeriCorps programs,
ingly wish to display fiscal austerity and so look for ways to
AmeriCorps State and National and AmeriCorps-VISTA. We
evaluate the importance and effectiveness of federal programs
measure subjective well-being along five dimensions—
(Johnson & Howley, 2015). And the Trump administration
engagement, disengagement, positive emotions, negative
proposed eliminating the federal agency that oversees national
emotions, and negative relations—using data from Twitter in
service programs (Green, 2017).
1,347 U.S. counties. We also test whether counties that intro-
National service is seen as critical to building everything
duced AmeriCorps programs at some point after 2009 saw
from citizen engagement to nonprofit capacity to social capi-
comparatively better improvements (as an average treatment
tal (Perry & Thomson, 2004; Thomson & Perry, 1998;
effect) in subjective well-being by 2013 than counties without
Wofford & Waldman, 1996). Concerns about America’s
programs. Finally, we explore a reciprocal relationship
declining social capital make policy prescriptions like
between AmeriCorps and community subjective well-being
national service programs particularly timely (Paxton, 1999;
over time with two waves of longitudinal data, one in
Putnam, 2000; Twenge, Campbell, & Carter, 2014; Weiss,
Paxton, Velasco, & Ressler, 2018). But although research
1The University of Texas at Austin, TX, USA
documents the positive benefits of services provided by
Corresponding Author:
AmeriCorps to the nonprofits in which members are placed
Kristopher Velasco, Department of Sociology, The University of Texas at
and the positive impact on AmeriCorps members themselves
Austin, 305 E. 23rd Street, A1700, Austin, TX 78712-1699, USA.
(Finlay, Flanagan, & Wray-Lake, 2011; Grimm, Spring, &
Email: krisvelasco@utexas.edu

276
American Review of Public Administration 49(3)
2005-2009 and the other in 2010-2013. Certainly, the relation
(Bass, 2013; Lenkowsky, 2014; McBride, Gonzales, Morrow-
between AmeriCorps and subjective well-being may be recip-
Howell, & McCrary, 2011). Today, the AmeriCorps network
rocal; AmeriCorps influences subjective well-being, but the
has more than 15,000 nonprofits, schools, public agencies,
health of a community may also influence whether the com-
and community- and faith-based groups that recruit, select,
munity receives an AmeriCorps program. We test this possi-
train, and manage roughly 75,000 AmeriCorps members each
bility with a cross-lagged panel design. These longitudinal
year (CNCS, 2018b).
models help assess the robustness of our main findings to
Of interest to researchers, AmeriCorps leadership and part-
various causal threats. Results suggest that AmeriCorps pro-
ners, policymakers, and tax-payers is the progress AmeriCorps
grams buffer against threats to subjective well-being and also
makes in meeting its three objectives. This interest has pro-
highlight the reciprocal nature of AmeriCorps programming
duced a growing body of literature evaluating the various ways
and county-level subjective well-being.
in which national service programs generally, and AmeriCorps
specifically, produce individual, organization, or community
National Service Programs: What Do
effects. The bulk of existing research, however, focuses on
individuals and organizations with less attention to the poten-
We Know?
tial community-level effects of national service programs.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the National and
To begin, a variety of studies measure the impact of
Community Service Trust Act (NACSTA), which created a
AmeriCorps participation on corps members’ lives. Higher
new national service initiative, AmeriCorps, now overseen
levels of civic responsibility, voting, volunteering, employ-
by the Corporation for National and Community Service
ment, respect for diversity, and overall life skills such as
(CNCS). The act also incorporated an existing national ser-
decision making and time management are all associated
vice program under the AmeriCorps umbrella, President
with AmeriCorps participation (Aguirre International,
Johnson’s 1964 antipoverty program, Volunteers in Service
1996; Finlay et al., 2011; Frumkin et al., 2009; Galson,
to America (VISTA). While President Johnson’s program
2001; Perry, 1997; Perry & Katula, 2001; Perry & Thomson,
sought to be part of the greater War on Poverty, President
1997; Simon & Wang, 2002; Van Til & Gallup, 1997;
Clinton’s initiative was part of a broader effort to increase
Wilson, 2000 cf. Serow & Biting, 1995). The effects of
civic engagement within the United States and help all types
increased public service motivation are not just immediate
of communities in need through a domestic Peace Corps–
but continue over time (Ward, 2014) and affect senior mem-
type program (CNCS, 2017a). Today, AmeriCorps is com-
bers as well as young adults (Tschirhart, 1998). This body
posed of three main programs—AmeriCorps State and
of work suggests that AmeriCorps is fulfilling its first stated
National, VISTA, and AmeriCorps National Civilian objective of increasing the leadership potential and skills of
Community Corps (NCCC). In brief, members of AmeriCorps
AmeriCorps members and creating civically engaged
citizens.
State and National provide direct services (e.g., tutoring and
Second, nonprofit organizations benefit from national ser-
meal assistance) with and through national and local non-
vice programs. AmeriCorps is decentralized, with members
profits and local government agencies. VISTA members pro-
serving in thousands of local organizations as well as national
vide indirect services—such as capacity building, community
organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, Teach for
empowerment, and sustainability solutions—from within
America, and Boys and Girls Clubs. Both the organizations
organizations located in high-poverty communities (Virginia
that receive AmeriCorps support and AmeriCorps itself keep
Service, 2016). For example, AmeriCorps State and National
records on the direct service provided by members and by
members may provide direct service through a community
the organization as a whole. Program-specific metrics and
health clinic, while VISTA members focus on building the
related studies demonstrate that direct services generally
organization’s capacity to administer more health services
increase as a result of national service infusion, for example,
through its own clinical staff.
the number of families served by food programs or the num-
Despite differences, AmeriCorps programs are tasked with
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT