Is Obama Missing the National Service Moment?

The Obama administration may be about to squander a historic opportunity. By all reports, the economic recovery plan doesn't include a large-scale national service program.

Franklin Roosevelt viewed the Civilian Conservation Corps as an essential part of the New Deal, and it became one of its most popular programs. It was, Roosevelt said, "killing two birds with one stone. We are clearly enhancing the value of our natural resources and second, we are relieving an appreciable amount of actual distress."

Too often, modern politicians have viewed national service as a lovely little "worthwhile program," certainly a swell idea but not something that trumps the critical business of saving the economy.

That's the wrong way of looking at it.

First, the current economic collapse affects not only the unemployed auto-worker but his 21-year old daughter just out of college and unable to find a job. In hard times, applications to full-time community service programs increase, as other post-college options whither. Already, two out of three people who want to serve in AmeriCorps are being turned away from full time domestic service programs.The youth unemployment rate (ages 16-19) is now more than 20%.

Second, these service workers can be a critical part of meeting Obama's recovery goals. National service members can work on permanent and cost effective national improvements such as energy efficiency or improving schools.

A major national service program would also boost the struggling charitable sector, which is facing its own economic catastrophe: in many places, need for services is rising as donations are falling. Full-time national service workers are an in-kind subsidy to non-profits. Most AmeriCorps members do not work for the government, they work for charities like Habitat for Humanity or Red Cross, often helping to manage unpaid, occasional volunteers. Last year, 75,000 AmeriCorps members recruited more than 1.7 million volunteers, according to the Corporation for National Service. National service is a force-multiplier.

Most important, a national service program could help achieve another Obama campaign pledge that otherwise may prove too vague and ephemeral. He's talked about building bridges among Americans. That's nice but he can't do that just through speeches.

Common action breaks down barriers better than talk. Conservative churchgoers and secular liberals end up respecting the sincerity of each other's beliefs when they work together to feed the hungry. Race relations improve more when black, white and brown together save a drowning city than when they attend sensitivity workshops. Interfaith dialogue is less effective than interfaith house-building. And those from military families and those raised by, say, environmental activists will find mutual respect by working together to care for veterans or solve other critical problems.

In fact, the call for service shouldn't be limited to AmeriCorps. Imagine, for the first time ever, a national recruitment drive for all forms of service. Unlike past efforts, this significant recruitment effort - including YouTube videos, Facebook applications, mobile phones etc -- should call people to serve in the military, the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, senior corps, as well as private or faith-based service programs such as the Jesuit Volunteer Corps.

Oh, and by the standards of this economic recovery package, national service is dirt cheap. According to press reports, the economic recovery will cost around $800 billion and create 3 million jobs. By contrast, fielding a full-time AmeriCorps member costs the government somewhere between $11,000-$20,000 including an $4,725 educational scholarship, substantially cheaper than the infrastructure jobs.

So for a miniscule fraction of the recovery plan, we could field roughly 250,000 national service corps members (what Obama promised to do in the campaign, by the way). Add a few billion more, and wrap together military, overseas and private service, and Uncle Sam could finally make a simple, historic, transformative statement: "anyone who wants to serve their country or community in full time service - and then earn money for education - can do so."

A massive, voluntary national service program would accomplish both hard goals -- trees planted, houses weatherized etc -- but a soft goal as well: planting forever the idea in the minds of most young people (and many seniors) that one of the most fulfilling and useful things they could do is serve their nation for a year or two. We're in a crisis. Rather than the government just stepping in, shouldn't we be giving idealistic young people the chance to help solve problems?

This idea may not seem as concrete as a bridge project but in its own way it could be even more durable.

Comments

[Steve Rys]

Not to suggest that the federal government and top down leadership don't play an important role in inspiring active and engaged citizens to volunteer to better their neighborhoods, but it's not exclusively in the "public" realm.

There are a great deal of non-profits springing up, building off the momentum of the Obama campaign and taking advantage of the networks established.

Take for instance ServiceNation, which is using Facebook to get individuals to use social networking sites for something a little more substantive than gossip. For example: http://apps.facebook.com/servicenation_pledge/pledge/GZXPYXM4273 -- where in you can pledge to volunteer your time. Essentially, lowering the bar / entrance fee in a cost / benefit ratio, in addition to adding the personal touch of being invited to do so alongside people you know.

Putnam must be regretting his rather dismal predictions.

Cheers,
-Rys

[Matt7]

You make a number of good points, while raising awareness of the ned for participation in public service projects. But they sound more like criticisms of Obama's proposals than actual suggestions.

Please remember that a number of groups and organizations (churches, nfp's, etc.) are utilizing volunteer services (both those officially organized and ad hoc efforts). We could just use a lot more of them.

You know that "fixing the economy" is what is uppermost in the minds of most Americans. To many, that does not include "volunteering" their time for little or no pay. But if you mean to say that the inclusion of honorable and necessary "work," (even in the absence of compensation), while pursuing viable employment is an honorable enterprise and use of time, then I would agree with that, and support its inclusion in a national "work" plan.

[ObjectiveRealist]

Wholesome thought-food. I am especially happy to see you mention Habitat for Humanity, an excellent organization that really puts the "hand up, not handout" slogan into useful action. I wonder whether foreclosed homes could be brought current, and payments in the short-term subsidized, by government in exchange for service in AmeriCorps or any other national service program. Would Habitat be amenable? Would the gov? I think working on somebody else's home for the Habitat standard 500 hours, to move back into my foreclosed home, would be acceptable if I had a foreclosed home of my own.

[SaralehB]

I think that encouraging service is an idea whose time has come, but I also think that it could be taken a step beyond "national" service. If we're serious about living in a global community, and clearly the recent global financial crisis makes it clear that we do, then wouldn't public service be a great way to build connections. Why not an international service program? What better way can there be to move towards a more peaceful world than giving us all opportunities to be of help to each other beyond political boundaries? Let's start going off to service instead of going off to war.

[BoulderSue]

I am a super supporter of national service/volunteer programs. While in grad school studying counseling, I volunteered for about a year with county mental health and spent two years with Planned Parenthood. I learned more from those experiences than I ever got out of lectures or books. I eventually went to work (for pay) with Social Services and later, my longest held job and best, was as a volunteer coordinator for the Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP). My job was to place retired folks as volunteers in service to non-profit entities and to other Senior citizens and disabled. My volunteers did everything imaginable: tutoring in the schools, building wheelchair ramps, coordinating surplus food distribution, shopping for shut-ins to (in the cases of volunteers who were shut-ins themselves) making daily check-up calls to other shut-ins. With around 800+ volunteers, imagine, the monetary value of their service to the county, and a tremendous morale boost for retired people used to active days. My step-daughter did her share of volunteering in high school as a tutor etc. It was most certainly a factor in her acceptance into the Naval Academy. She later served as a Marine helicopter pilot with two deployments to Iraq doing search and rescue as well as supply and troop movement. She now heads a civilian volunteer group trained/supervised in search and rescue, using their own boats, by the Coast Guard. I will repeat this as a letter to Barack's web-site.

[morgan1]

You are correct. I am a firm believer in national service not only limited to our country but globally as well. I believe all high school graduates (And dropouts) should serve two years mandatory service of some kind-- Not necessarily military but even CO's have a place in the military service. There is no shortage of work that needs to be done for our own country and its people. It worked when JFK got us all fired up and motivated and that needs to be done once more and taken advantage of. I don't see that occurring for all the politicians are centered on saving Wall St, the failed and failing banks/investment firms, and so on. They are still talking of borrowing and spending, caught in a trap of their own making: Super Consumerism. Bush missed the boat on 9/11 and squandered an incredible opportunity. Obama is doing the same.

[merger]

I couldn't agree more with the need, but let's let Obama work his way for awhile before we jump in and criticize. He has 4 years to make changes and propose new plans. I just want us all to give this honorable young man a chance to work before we start second guessing and undermining, please. I didn't even vote for him, but I am willingly and absolutely ready to stand behind him. It is just vital to our countries health that we pull in one direction and give him the time he needs to work.

[Hmay6]

I currently work for Americorps in a Washington DC school full time, and after reading some of the comments I think some people are confused about the national service movement. Americorps is simply an umbrella organization that funds programs such as the Peace Corps, Vista, NCCC, and City year, the program I work for. National service DOES work and anyone who says it doesn't is ignorant and hasn't seen the results first hand. Obama's plan does not involve a draft for national service. He simply wants to increase funding for Americorps programs and make it known that oppurtunities exist for serving the nation other than going to war across seas. Its time to do something about our domestic issues instead simply throwing money at problems. We've all seen first hand from the Bush administration that this tactic does not work. Serving this year has not only changed the circumstances in my school but has also taught me the value of money, hardwork, and patience. Visit Cityyear.org to find out more about what I do and giving a year of full time service if you're interested.

[rationalwoman]

I absolutely and totally agree with you. It has always seemed to me that 2 years of national service, required upon graduation from high school (or dropping out) would accomplish multiple goals. It would provide structure to young people at a time when many of them need it, and teach responsibility to those who have not yet learned it. It would provide an income stream to them when jobs are hard to find. It would teach a skill, and provide an incentive to attend college. It would increase the sense of belonging and participation in the common experience of being an American, which would last a lifetime. There has never been a time in my 67-year lifetime when it would be more likely to be accepted, nor when it would address so many problems all at once. It could also be used as an opportunity to teach finance as part of the initial training.

[ruralwannabe]

Our society is so spoiled that we think that exchanging money for work is welfare? National service involves the building of bridges and roads without having to pay Haliburton executives to "manage" it. We are "spending" on money on nothing, LITERALLY nothing with the bank bailout, this is something we need. Almost the universe's way of pushing us in the right direction before we hear daily tragedies of falling bridges and condemned cities.

[BethGalbreath]

We have needed national service for a long time. I would not be a professional person, a middle class person, if my father had not been able to join the CCC. He not only served and gained skills, but was able to begin college part-time while serving. I benefitted from the CCC and the GI Bill through my father's escape from poverty. It can do the same today.

[Bettysdad]

National service is basically charity. If you allow the legitimate roles of government to be handled on a charitable basis, you are letting Republicans win because they will be able to defund existing programs and not support new ones since charity (volunteers) will take care of things. It also keeps people out of jobs.

The needs of society should not be supported on a voluntary or charitable basis. That's what taxes are for

[MomfromTexas]

The needs of society have always been supported on a voluntary or charitable basis. What on earth are you talking about? Churches and private organizations across this country have worked with the poor and disenfranchised since this country was founded. If we had waited for our government to do this? Oh, my!

[Bettysdad]

And it's worked so well.

That's why there are no poor, disenfranchised or sick people in America.

[janpradder]

Someone above posted: "National service is not something to be designed in a "moment," or thrown together in a slapdash fashion. The potential for abuse in such a program is so huge that if it isn't ready, it shouldn't go forward."
Hey folks, this is how Obama got his campaign rev'ed up, he trusts the people to use his structure to do good things. And we do! Yes we can!

[janpradder]

Go to Change.gov and on menu bar at top select "America Serves:
Here's some of what you will see. I have been invited to 5 or so comm. service events in the past month spearheaded by Obama.

AMERICA SERVES:
As the new administration takes shape, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will call on Americans from every walk of life to serve. President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and will create new service organizations to meet the nation's challenges head on:

a Classroom Corps to help underserved schools
a Health Corps to serve in the nation's clinics and hospitals
a Clean Energy Corps to achieve the goal of energy independence
a Veterans Corps to support the Americans who serve by standing in harm's way

Obama and Biden will call on citizens of all ages to serve. ... and develop a plan for all college students who engage in 100 hours of community service to receive a fully-refundable tax credit of $4,000 for their education. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

The Obama-Biden administration's volunteer initiatives are still taking shape, but take a moment now to let us know that you're interested, and we'll keep you posted on all the latest developments.

Enter your information below ...

[billw8017]

You can volunteer to various charities or form your own. I dislike the idea of enforcing any kind of unpaid national service. The government should do the things the government might do best and be supported by a sufficient tax system. Other desirable services can be furnished by the market, paid for by those who use them, surviving or failing accordingly.

Under the current circumstances, a more radical approach may be called for. Perhaps, a certain minimal level of services in food, water, shelter, education and health care should be assured to all without the means testing that shames the beneficiary or turns it into something whimsical and arbitrary. The Social Security system, for example, was never meant to be everybody's only retirement plan but it was to be augmented by personal savings. Minimal health care can be good health care while Michael Jackson can spend his own money to look young and white.

[NewsJunkie79]

Take a lesson from what we already know from Peace Corps, VISTA, TeachAmerica and other such programs that have made wonderful contributions on the ground here and around the world. The fact remains that volunteer programs are expensive to run and complicated to administer. In pure balance-sheet terms, it is very easy for management costs to obliterate the value of "free" labor. Also, there is no earthly way this nation will adopt mandatory national service, which would be even more expensive to administer. Theoretically, they're great, but very tough to pull off in the real USA.