Each year, more than 65,000 Americans commit to a service year, which they spend working full-time as a volunteer. Individuals of all ages are teaching in urban schools, responding to natural disasters, and fighting food insecurity. Some serve in their hometowns; others travel across the country. But if asked about Americorps, the most popular service year program, most Americans respond, “Ameriwho?”
Service years strengthen communities, develop participants’ skills, and create a sense of nationalism and unity — and yet, these programs remain widely unknown. Some advocates want to turn the service year into a rite of passage — a new cultural expectation and opportunity for all young Americans. Such a bold proposal, enticing as it may sound, raises many questions: Is service as a cultural norm even possible? Would it be beneficial for our country? Would it be worth the cost?
An American Tradition
In his 1961 inauguration speech, former President John F. Kennedy said something that would become forever ingrained in the American psyche: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Shortly afterward, Kennedy created the Peace Corps, an organization through which individuals engage in two years of service in locations across the world.
In the same spirit, President Lyndon B. Johnson created Volunteers in Service to America, the domestic version of the Peace Corps, in 1964. Participants served across the United States, working to improve schools, clean parks, and build roads. VISTA was inspired in large part by government-sponsored New Deal work programs that provided service jobs and boosted the economy following the Great Depression.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton continued the tradition by signing the National and Community Service Trust Act, funding the Corporation for National and Community Service and its largest program, AmeriCorps. VISTA became a program within AmeriCorps, and funding for national service increased tremendously. CNCS, which had a budget of $1.08 billion in 2018, is the largest funder of service years in the United States. The federal government provides grants to nonprofits and government agencies to hire mostly full-time individuals, typically 18 to 28 years old, to serve for 10 months at a time. Individuals complete their service while honing their skills through professional development, receiving a modest living allowance and a small educational award.
AmeriCorps Today
AmeriCorps has made a significant impact, but there is nonetheless room for improvement. In one 2009 study, researchers compared individuals who had completed a year of service and those who had expressed interest but never signed up. Service year participants did feel more connected to their communities and possessed a greater ethic of service. However, across the board, educational drive and appreciation of cultural diversity — key selling points for national service expansion — did not change with participation. AmeriCorps’ own review of its participants found similar outcomes, though they did point to an increase in employment after a year of service. The data calls for a restructuring of the service system, particularly one that creates more consistency across programs and deepens the participant experience.
Failed Attempts at Expansion
When President Obama renewed AmeriCorps in 2009, the stated goal was a 400 percent increase in terms of both funding and positions by 2017. But AmeriCorps has mostly failed to expand, and its federal funding has been threatened. Members of Congress have proposed legislation that would create a system of mandatory Universal National Service multiple times, only to see that legislation stalled repeatedly.
Mark Gearan, former director of the Peace Corps and current member of the congressionally appointed Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, explained in an interview with the HPR that “political football” has held Congress back from past attempts at expansion. However, 25 years of AmeriCorps programming, he said, have fostered “much more of a bipartisan appreciation” for service, creating the possibility for growth. Gearan believes that reframing national service as an expectation rather than a requirement would also change perceptions of service in Congress and among the public more generally.
One reason expansion has stalled is the program’s low profile. Although the Peace Corps has only 7,000 active positions and AmeriCorps has more than 65,000, Americans remain much more familiar with the former. The Peace Corps is revered in large part because of the glamour of traveling to far-flung places to promote world peace. JFK was also the face of the Peace Corps, providing more recognition for the program; AmeriCorps has had no such advocate.
The Financials
If all Americans completed a year of service at the age of 22, the country would need to offer 4 million opportunities. Each year, however, only 300,000 people express interest in completing a year of service. Funding a universal year of national service would require at least $30 billion in federal funding, and likely an equal amount of private investment. While significant, this figure pales in comparison to the military’s budget of over $700 billion, which supports fewer than 1 million staff members and civilians.
The idea of national service for all appeals to many government officials, though some find it more feasible than others. Linda Thompson, executive of the State of Georgia’s Commission for Service and Volunteerism, did not seem concerned about expansion across her state. Thompson told the HPR that “there is so much to be done” that could be accomplished by service year members in Georgia; she believes that encouraging all young Americans to do a year of service “wouldn’t be hard at all” given that AmeriCorps turns away three out of every four applicants. She thinks that service programs should start early, focusing on high school recruitment. Thompson added that the current programs form a “diverse profile” that “could provide opportunities for everyone.”
Nick Almeida, chief service officer for the city of San Jose, is also excited about the prospect of a common year of service, but said he knows the limits of his region. “A lot of people in Silicon Valley have trade-offs when it comes to work,” he explained. “Many don’t have the luxury” to complete a year of service given the area’s high cost of living. Almeida’s team is currently working with corporations to support service, with the goal of raising stipends and using the service to train individuals to meet “workforce needs.” However, Almeida still framed a common year of service as an “aspiration” and not an impending reality.
A New Campaign
Service Year Alliance, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., is leading the charge for a common service year. Its expansion campaign is set to launch in 2019. Yasmeen Shaheen McConnell, managing director of strategic engagement for Service Year Alliance, told the HPR that the campaign’s focus is to “grow awareness [through] influencers,” to build “demand at a local level,” and to “pass legislation and secure funding.”
The legislation, which McConnell hopes will reach Congress in 2020, would propose significantly more funding for national service positions. It would not, however, immediately provide enough funding for every 22-year-old to complete that year of service. Yasmeen described what she sees as a “national moment” in which a divided nation might be brought together by a campaign like this one. To encourage widespread participation, Yasmeen said that Service Year Alliance is focused on “growing these opportunities for all Americans [so that] we are not reinforcing structural inequities” and “making sure that people can earn benefits [through service] that allow them to access the American Dream.” On her campaign trail, Hillary Clinton echoed this vision, suggesting a similar idea: service in exchange for scholarship.
One Size Fits All?
The vision is compelling, but it cannot succeed without convincing the young Americans in question. Fortunately, however, a Harvard Institute of Politics poll completed in the winter of 2017 found that 61 percent of young Democrats, 64 percent of young Republicans, and 51 percent of young Independents supported the creation of a mandatory national service system.
Ziad Ahmed, a 20-year-old Generation Z marketing consultant, wrote in an email to the HPR that he hopes that “every young person cares deeply about service, our world, and our tomorrow.” However, he emphasized that he would not “advocate for a one-size-fits-all policy”; instead, he would encourage some young people to “start companies” and “run for office.”
Ahmed’s sentiments echo those of Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and a major advocate against the concept of Universal National Service. Somin told the HPR that “public policy should show greater respect for diversity.” He was “skeptical that the best way to help disadvantaged people is to send [them]… for a year or two of service” and argued that Americans should be wary of government-created jobs. When asked if the government should promote public service in general, Somin responded: “I don’t think it’s wise to talk about what we should encourage all young people as a category to do.”
By contrast, Gearan argued that the government should play a role in promoting public service as it is a matter of “national ethic.” Gearan acknowledged, however, that some people will not want to serve, particularly when “the government is actively working against” them.
Freedom versus Democracy
Given rising demand and new momentum, expanding American service year programs seems possible and likely, though many express reservations about making them mandatory. Creating a cultural expectation instead of a legal requirement might incentivize service while creating space for nonparticipation, especially as generating funding for every 22-year-old to serve would certainly be possible. Mandatory service years also raise concerns about freedom and government intervention, but opponents rarely take issue with the fundamental idea of service. Prompting a cultural shift may be more challenging than introducing legislation, but if successful, it may ultimately create a new civic ethic among young Americans.
Image Credit: Obama White House Archives/Pete Souza