Be Realistic About National Service
For many years proposals for an American national service have been floated. Some have come from politicians, some from nonprofits or think tanks, and some from independent scholars. A few piecemeal schemes under the umbrella of AmeriCorps have been implemented, but so far no serious commitment to a comprehensive national service program has gained any traction.
There are several reasons for this reluctance.
First is the sheer size and scope of a potential program. Generally, proposals for a national service suggest involving all young Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 for two years. This would mean developing tasks and opportunities for approximately 4 million individuals on an ongoing basis.
The most frequent model offered for a national service is the Civilian Conservation Corps established during the Great Depression. At the time America’s population was less than 130 million compared to today’s number of 335 million. Unemployment in the 1930s hovered around 25 percent. Even during the pandemic the US joblessness rate has remained below 15 percent.
Initially, the CCC consisted of approximately 1500 working camps for a total of about 300,000 workers, all men. The camps provided housing and meals. Workers were paid $30 per month, but were required to send most of that home to support families. Fewer than 3 million young men participated in the program during its operations between 1933 and 1942. Total cost of the program over nine years was $3 billion.
Developing cost estimates for a 21st century national service program is dicey. According to a study by the Aspen Institute, based on the current cost of existing AmeriCorps programs, the probable cost to involve as many as 1 million people would be approximately $20 billion annually. The Aspen Institute suggests that nearly half of this cost could be provided by state and local governments and private funding.
A second obstacle facing a national service is the disagreement about purpose. Often advocates describe national service as a means of enhancing civic responsibility among young people and of building relationships among the country’s diverse populations. This would possibly be an eventual outcome of a successful program, but it’s does not appear to be a very effective selling point.
Congressional appropriators seem to take a jaundiced view that national service is just another “make work” scheme designed to reduce unemployment rolls. The Edward M. Kennedy Serve American Act passed in April 2009 with the goal of pushing enrollments in national service programs to 250,000 has never been funded. Enrollments remain at less than 100,000.
Current participants are for the most part already well aware of the duties of citizenship, but for many potential enrollees the emphasis on civic responsibility translates into low wages and uncertain future benefits. For a young person struggling to deal with the challenges of adult independence working a couple of years for bare subsistence seems a foolish endeavor.
The promise of college tuition down the road may be attractive to some, but it’s just another pipe dream for many. To begin with, the usual amount offered is likely to be inadequate to cover probable cost. Also, there is growing pushback against the bureaucratic nature of formal education at both the traditional colleges and universities and community colleges. Better to earn compensation that provides maximum flexibility.
Another barrier to national service is the saliency of public opinion in favor of the concept. Polls of public opinion regarding universal participation in a national service program have generally been broadly supportive. But when a specific proposal is introduced, support rapidly weakens, especially if the idea of “mandatory” national service is proposed.
Former US Representative Charles Rangel (D-NY) for more than a decade (2003-2015) sought support for passage of the Universal National Service Act which would have required all people between 18 and 42 to either serve in the military or perform civilian service related to some national security purpose. Rangel was motivated primarily by his objection to America’s constant use of the volunteer military in foreign adventures. “(I)f those calling for war knew that their children were likely to be required to serve---and be placed in harm’s way---there would be more caution….”
Despite the probable legitimacy of Rangel’s opinion, there is little evidence that the American public is supportive of a return to the military draft or the creation of a universal national service. Only once was there a recorded vote related to Rangel’s legislation---402-2 against. A Gallup poll in 2017 found that the only age group that favored mandatory national service was the over 65 category. Fifty-seven percent of those under 30 opposed.
But the national service concept can be successfully implemented with significant benefits for the country and for the participants. Several factors would have to be addressed.
First, it is clear that the concept cannot be implemented effectively as a single program. Creating an organization to create and manage activities for up to 4 million individuals would be an implausible task and not one that is likely to generate broad support either among the public or in Congress.
Instead, the emphasis should be on expanding what is already being done with AmeriCorps, although underfunded severely. A variety of units focused on specific areas of need could be developed with clearly defined legitimate missions. Perhaps each department of the Cabinet and most independent agencies of the federal government could identify potential units. Programs could be developed in education, healthcare, transportation, parks and recreation, land reclamation, national security, money and finance, etc.; the possibilities are almost endless.
Having a purpose that addresses an identifiable need would justify more thoughtful consideration of funding on the part of Congress. Successful programs would reduce the need for some existing expenditures. Potential participants would also see service as being more meaningful.
Another vital factor would be upgrading compensation for participants. Current AmeriCorps workers earn an average of about $14 an hour, but many earn as little as $5 an hour. For these volunteers national service represents a significant sacrifice at a time when they are first assuming responsibility for their own support. A minimum wage of $15 an hour should be implemented across all national service programs. Not only would this strengthen the attraction for young volunteers, but it would also encourage agencies and nonprofits supporting national service programs to develop agendas addressing legitimate needs.
Finally, national service must be thought of as a major means of fulfilling government’s responsibility as stated in the US Constitution---“to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty….” Too many important needs of American society are unmet today. Too many young people are embarking upon adulthood unprepared and untethered. A comprehensive, well-funded national service program could do much to resolve both problems in a successful manner.