Brief: National service

Prepared from Grant Precedent, 2026-10-23; data as of precedent 2026-10-21, measures 2026-10-22.

Measures funders require

What you can collect, and how

Tier 1 is collected today from your own records. Tier 2 needs one free instrument. Tier 3 needs a partner under a data agreement. A measure that matches no rule has no tier.

What grantees achieved

2 grantees of Foster Grandparent Program reported 8 results against targets over 4 periods; the median result was 124% of target (middle half 124% to 126%), and 100% met or exceeded the target. Source: Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas County, program monitoring reports, https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/VII-C-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf.

• Seniors in Service of Tampa Bay, Inc. (FY2020): Percent of students identified as needing language or literacy support will demonstrate a level of improvement rating of a little improvement, moderate improvement or a great deal of improvement at posttest; promised 80%, actual 99% (124% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/VI-C-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring.pdf
• Seniors in Service of Tampa Bay Inc. (FY2022): Participants served (target vs actual); promised 260, actual 353 (136% of target); unit: count. Source: https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/VIII.B.-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf

1 grantee of Literacy & Early Education – Literacy Volunteer Recruitment & Management reported 6 results against targets over 2 periods; the median result was 123% of target (middle half 123% to 123%), and 100% met or exceeded the target. Source: Children's Services Council of Broward County, annual performance reports, https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf.

• HandsOn Broward (FY2021-22): Participating agencies satisfied with HandsOn Broward coordination services.; promised 80%, actual 98% (123% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Annual-Performance-Report-Fiscal-Year-2021-202212.pdf

1 grantee of Literacy & Early Education - Literacy Volunteer Recruitment & Management reported 3 results against targets over 1 period; the median result was 125% of target (middle half 125% to 125%), and 100% met or exceeded the target. Source: Children's Services Council of Broward County, annual performance reports, https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/APR-FY-23-24-Book-002.pdf.

• HandsOn South Florida (FY2024-25): Percentage of reading coaches and mentors reporting satisfaction with HandsOn South Florida training and coordination services; promised 80%, actual 100% (125% of target); unit: %. Source: https://www.cscbroward.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APR-Book-FY-24-25.pdf

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: AmeriCorps Volunteers in Service to America reported 12 results against targets over 3 periods; the median result was 102% of target (middle half 99% to 107%), and 75% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

• AmeriCorps Volunteers in Service to America (2006): Amount of cash and inkind resources generated by AmeriCorps*VISTA members.; promised $170,878,001.00, actual $152,875,205.00 (89% of target); unit: $. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10003913.2006.html

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps reported 11 results against targets over 4 periods; the median result was 106% of target (middle half 100% to 133%), and 73% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

• AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps (2006): Number of volunteers generated/coordinated per NCCC member.; promised 15, actual 65 (433% of target). Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10004457.2005.html

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: AmeriCorps State and National Grants reported 2 results against targets over 2 periods; the median result was 143% of target (middle half 127% to 159%), and 100% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

• AmeriCorps State and National Grants (2005): Percent of AmeriCorps members who accepted public sector employment one-year after completing AmeriCorps service; promised 51%, actual 89% (175% of target); unit: %. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10000324.2005.html

Target-setting language with precedent

Each item comes from one funder, one program or one department; none is a government-wide rule.

Showing clauses from AmeriCorps.

• AmeriCorps performance measures, 45 CFR 2522.640(a)(1) (current text): Quote: “Adjust your performance measure or target based on experience” — https://www.govinfo.gov/link/cfr/45/2522?link-type=pdf&sectionnum=630&year=mostrecent

What reviewers penalize

These ten weaknesses recur in 17 published reviewer critiques, mostly U.S. Department of Education and NIH. The count is the number of critiques that name it, not a rate, and a reviewer comment is a judgment.

• Attrition or missing-data handling left unresolved (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “the applicant did not address how missing data will be handled” U.S. Department of Education, Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Mid-Phase, WestEd, S411B220027, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 25, 29. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220027_WestEd_TRF.pdf#page=29
• Comparisons vulnerable to selection, contamination, baseline differences or incompatible data (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “may require additional interpretation” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, K01 AI131895 (Rebeiro, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 5-6. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/k01-rebeiro-summary-statement.pdf#page=6
• Feasibility assumptions or fallback arrangements unsupported (named in 6 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no alternative analysis plan is provided” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017174 (Heinemann and Cherney), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 3, 5-6. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/sanitized-heinemann-cherney-summary-statement-redacted.pdf#page=5
• Implementation fidelity, thresholds or mediators inadequately specified (named in 5 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “Mediators are not described.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Education Development Center, U411C190275, 2019, Technical Review Form, p. 4. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2019/11/U411C190275-Education-Development-Center-Inc.-TRF-Tier-2.pdf#page=4
• Measurement tools insufficiently identified, supported or protected against reporting bias (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no detail is provided” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, Niswonger Foundation, U411B170038, 2017, Technical Review Form, pp. 4-5. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2016/12/U411B170038_TRF.pdf#page=4
• Targets or success criteria missing, inconsistent or disconnected from the project (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “lacks a specific number” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, ASSISTments Foundation, S411B220024, 2022, Technical Review Form, p. 14. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220024_ASSISTments-Foundation-Inc_TRF.pdf#page=14
• Analysis procedures insufficiently specified for the stated questions or model (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “methods of data analysis are not adequately described” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, R01 AI098472 renewal (Gandhi, UCSF), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 4-5. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/2-R01-AI098472-06_Ganhdi_Summary.pdf#page=4
• Data protection, management or cross-site coordination incomplete (named in 3 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The data management plan stops midsentence on page 125” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017683 (Gifford and Camarata, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 9-10. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/sanitized-giffordcamarataapplicationsummary-dc017683-01a1.pdf#page=10
• Feedback collection lacks a specified route into program decisions (named in 2 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The applicant does not discuss how often the team will review data or implement changes.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Orange County Superintendent of Schools, S411C200130, 2020, Technical Review Form, pp. 16, 19. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2020/12/S411C200130-Orange-County-Superintendent-of-Schools-TRF.pdf#page=19
• Evaluator independence insufficiently explained (named in 1 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The level of independence is not made clear” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Research Triangle Institute, S411C220065, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 24-25. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411C220065_Research-Triangle-Institute-_TRF.pdf#page=24

Protocol skeleton

Draft text, edit before use

Measures: Number of organizations that received capacity building services; Number of organizations that increased their effectiveness, efficiency, and/or program scale/reach; Number of individuals served; Number of individuals reporting increased disaster readiness; Number of structures protected or restored; Number of structures returned to regular use after a disaster; Number of housing units developed or repaired; Number of individuals with improved financial knowledge; Number of individuals who secure employment; Number of individuals transitioned into safe, healthy, affordable housing; Number of safe, healthy, affordable housing units made available; Number of individuals with improved job readiness; and 4 more listed above. Baseline: ____ months from award, using eGrants Performance Measure Module; Volunteer WV 2026 AmeriCorps Competitive NOFO. Targets: set from the observed baseline at month ____, or committed now as a change of ____ percentage points from baseline.

Missing-data plan (how dropout and missing observations will be handled): ____

Comparison group or baseline (what you compare against and how the groups started): ____

Fallback if recruitment, data access or the first analysis falls short: ____

Fidelity threshold (what counts as full implementation, and how it is measured): ____

Instrument named, with its validity evidence and its rights (license) status: ____

Numeric target for each measure (a number, not a direction): ____

Analysis for each outcome (method, comparison, adjustment): ____

Data protection and data management (who holds identifiable data, where, for how long): ____

Feedback schedule (who reviews the data, how often, and what changes as a result): ____

Evaluator role and independence (who evaluates and how they are separate from delivery): ____

The text is copied or summarized from public documents. It is not legal advice.