Slate's Bizbox
dialogues: E-mail debates of newsworthy topics.

Does AmeriCorps Work?

dialogues
entries
123456
from: Doug Bandow
to: Harris Wofford

Posted Wednesday, Dec. 8, 1999, at 9:00 PM ET

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a columnist for Copley News Service, and the author of The Politics of Envy: Statism as Theology (click here to buy it). Harris Wofford is a former senator from Pennsylvania and the current CEO of the Corporation for National Service, the agency that administers the AmeriCorps program.

It's strange for an AmeriCorps advocate to complain about the use of anecdotes. Proponents always cite examples of trees planted and children mentored. Since there are bad as well as good experiences, the only way to honestly assess the program is to look at both.

Unfortunately, "materially weak" operations in such areas as "financial management and reporting" and "grants management" are not minor problems, especially when combined with "irregularities, including fraud, in the reporting of AmeriCorps service hours." This makes it hard to know how much good is actually being done by how many people.

These inadequacies in a private group are bad enough. They are particularly serious when they involve a government program that people have no choice but to support.

Obviously, other federal (and state and local) agencies often fail on this score. However, lack of financial accountability is unacceptable even in the Defense Department.

Moreover, there is an obvious need for the military in a world awash in armed states. In contrast, AmeriCorps is operating in a country awash in volunteers. Americans are already working to meet the problems the program seeks to address. We have no alternative to the Pentagon. We do to AmeriCorps.

Unfortunately, analyses like that from Aguirre International don't offer much useful information, since they rely on grantee claims instead of assessing grantee activities. It's fair to assume that Ivy Tech State College would judge its busted projects as having gotten "things done that need doing," far outweighed their costs, and prepared "young Americans for the future."

Necessary is a serious evaluation of what participants in programs funded by the Corporation for National Service actually do and how much they do. But if definitions of service are elastic and accurate service records aren't kept, it becomes impossible to do so. Much good may nevertheless be occurring, but we shouldn't assume it as a matter of faith.

We should be especially skeptical of cost-benefit ratios resulting from analyses that aggregate a diverse mélange of good and bad activities and rely on reporting that is, to put it charitably, flawed. A review of an earlier laudatory AmeriCorps consultant's report by the Statistical Assessment Service, for instance, found that the purported benefits were greatly inflated as a result of "unfounded assumptions and faulty projections."

Genuinely independent research shows AmeriCorps to be an expensive operation. To measure the net benefits of government-funded service, one must include all costs, including for states, localities, and private groups. In doing so, the General Accounting Office found that per-person costs exceeded $26,000. The total was much higher for AmeriCorps personnel assigned to federal agencies--$31,600.

This illustrates one of the program's problems. Splitting up funding among federal, state, local, and private agencies makes every activity seem artificially cheap to everyone, though collectively they may be spending far more than any benefits. Even if $16,000 a head seems like a good investment, there's no reason to assume that $26,000 a head is.

The expense doesn't diminish if charitable groups support the program. Of course Habitat for Humanity backs AmeriCorps. Why wouldn't the organization enjoy having 1,000 government-paid volunteers? What serious group dedicated to serving those in need wouldn't be tempted by the prospect of government aid?

That doesn't justify AmeriCorps, however. Organizations are likely to value less and consequently use less well largely free labor. People naturally prize most what they must pay for.

Moreover, AmeriCorps doesn't create resources. It reallocates them. Those same 1,000 Habitat volunteers could have been funded by a private foundation, single wealthy benefactor, or broad public appeal. The fact that it is easier to file a grant proposal with one tax-supported agency than to raise the money from more numerous private sources doesn't mean that it is better to do so.

Of course, it will take effort to convince Americans to give more--as much as the AmeriCorps budget, and beyond. But it will become impossible to do so if donors and beneficiaries alike look to the government as a major source of funding of the independent sector. If we don't ask people to meet a higher civic call, they are unlikely to do so. And you, given your passionate commitment to service, are obviously one of the people to do the asking.

But the answer is service, not national service. Challenging the young to look outward and exhibit real compassion, meaning to suffer with those in need around them, is surely one answer to problems of youth alienation, confusion, and self-destruction.

This is not enough, however. Many of their elders are also focused inward, whether on career, consumption, or something else. We must ask them to act as well. Adults should volunteer--and, equally important, contribute financially to create service opportunities for young and old alike.

In the end, our disagreement over AmeriCorps is not whether service is good. It is. It is not whether full-time volunteers are valuable. They are. Rather, it is whether we should ask the American people to do not only the volunteering but also the funding. Only then will we bring out the best in them and in America.

dialogues
entries
123456
from: Doug Bandow
to: Harris Wofford

Posted Wednesday, Dec. 8, 1999, at 9:00 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a columnist for Copley News Service, and the author of The Politics of Envy: Statism as Theology (click here to buy it). Harris Wofford is a former senator from Pennsylvania and the current CEO of the Corporation for National Service, the agency that administers the AmeriCorps program.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby