AmeriCorps and Thick Service

I wrote a post the weekend following the election that referenced "thick democracy." During the campaign, President Obama had signaled a paradigm shift in the relationship citizens would have with their government should he be elected. Citizens were not going to merely be spectators, shut out from the government's work. Instead, the new president would ask everyone to pitch in and problem-solve using whatever backgrounds they had to benefit the country. Democracy would be thickened by the infusion of substance. Voting would not serve as the only way to embrace civic engagement; things like serving others, being involved (campaigning, canvassing, etc.) in local politics, pursuing the highest degree attainable, and staying abreast of current affairs also are ways to strengthen citizenship and our country.

We're seeing much of this campaign enthusiasm translate into fulfilled promises and even more enthusiasm. For instance, the Serve America Act has tripled the size of AmeriCorps and increased the education award to over $5,000 per year. The number of applicants for programs like City Year and Teach for America, which was already on the rise before the election, has surged even higher. The increase in number and popularity of service opportunities is a great sign for the future.

But to continue progressing, we need to examine ways to improve opportunities for engagement, especially as these opportunities continue to surge in popularity among young folks. Jo Fullmer at Beyond Bread is correct: we need to continue building the service infrastructure in order to ensure its permanence over the long haul. Fullmer describes her experience in the Lutheran Volunteer Corps, an organization that's not officially related to AmeriCorps, but whose volunteers can receive education awards. Fullmer believes she was fortunate to have an experience that was so engaging and supportive, as many others' do not.

My own service was conducted through the Lutheran Volunteer Corps (which is not technically part of AmeriCorps, though we can receive AmeriCorps education awards). LVC also provides participants with additional financial support, a programmatic structure, and living accommodations within an intentional community. Through this community, I’ve found the support and inspiration to sustain a year of low pay and difficult work. And with the LVC’s support, Bread for the City has provided me the space and trust to try my hand at the work of social justice. As a result, I consider this year of service to have been a privilege.

And yet, that privilege itself is not as widely available and readily exercised by young Americans as it could be. Debt prevents so many from participating, and those who try anyway must struggle to attain loan relief. Even if a year or more of service can be financially feasible, many are daunted without a proper social network or access to a feasible living situation. Opportunities to serve are taken to best advantage when there is sufficient support inside the program.

Supportive living conditions; sustained and sustaining financial support; social engagement – these are the critical components of my successful service. Through improvements designed to foster these conditions, AmeriCorps could become an even more powerful engine of volunteerism and civic participation.

With Jo’s account, we are reminded that not every direct service opportunity within AmeriCorps might be beneficial for Americans wishing to serve, and that some change in that program might be a positive development. I wonder if it is forgetting the political element of service in its work. Service and politics are undeniably related. Common sense says that those participating in direct service to treat small-scale problems (community cleanups, working at a soup kitchen, etc.) care enough about the larger parent issue (the Green Movement, hunger and homelessness, etc.) to support larger, more proactive measures aimed at destroying them. But, to my knowledge (and please comment and correct me if I am incorrect), the majority of those working with/benefited by AmeriCorps have little to do with any larger political approach to solving problems.

But what if it did? How might that take shape? My girlfriend (who's been involved with and has some knowledge of the organization) and I quickly thought of a few changes that might strengthen the civic engagement involved in working with AmeriCorps. While this is by no means a closed list with no opportunity for feedback, I thought I would post what we thought of here.

The expansion of the AmeriCorps appointment from its current two year term to an extra year could improve a variety of problems. Jo discussed the absence of a supportive network in many positions; perhaps a longer term might help this a bit, opening the possibility of longer working relationships between the agency, the AmeriCorps member, and those. Also, another year of eligibility could allow for longer deferment periods on student loans. Finally, the lengthened term could lead to additional changes for the better, listed below.

With an expanded term, AmeriCorps members could be given the space to confront larger, more systemic issues and do so with more than just direct service. Instead of maintaining a static term in which the AmeriCorps member performs direct service each year of his or her eligibility, the term could be tiered: while the first year of service might be direct, AmeriCorps could then create a series of "Issue Advocate" positions for second and third year members of the program. Issue Advocates would become civic experts in their policy area, learning and teaching the ropes of government and non-profits, identifying and leveraging support for certain policies that reinforce the direct service work already being performed.

As it turns out, there's an excellent model for this kind of experience already in place. At the Congressional Hunger Center, the Bill Emerson National Fellows Program links the direct service with the additional issue advocacy needed to solve the massive hunger problem in this country. A description of the program's structure from the website:

Twenty Fellows begin the program in Washington, D.C. for a 10-day orientation and training session, and are then placed for six months with community-based organizations involved in direct anti-hunger and anti-poverty efforts, such as food banks, local advocacy organizations, community organizing groups and economic development agencies. Each host organization identifies specific goals and objectives for the Fellows and provides the supervision and resources necessary to accomplish them. In mid-February, the Fellows move to Washington, D.C. and regroup for another week-long training session before starting their policy placements. Policy placements are with national organizations involved in the anti-hunger and poverty movement. These placements give the Fellows insight into the process that shapes policy on the national level. The program ends in early August.

Someone who I consulted when writing this pointed out that such a holistic experience would be akin to receiving a master's degree in that policy area by the end of that person's direct service and advocacy work. Not only would our problem-solving efforts in various policy arenas be fortified with an expanded version of the Fellows program, but the nation's local communities could gain a considerable number of skilled civic experts.

In order to build the programmatic elements of AmeriCorps though, Jo's call for more infrastructural support should be heeded. Providing a separate housing stipend for participants would provide the additional support Jo called for. The increased stipends in the Serve America legislation was a great start, but starting a separate housing stipend would institutionalize housing support for AmeriCorps members, broadening their compensation package. Those working for AmeriCorps could then focus more on the work they do as opposed to finding an affordable place to live.

In the end, the thinking here is to ensure that we continue to move forward in building a progressive youth movement, which must, at its core, include a vision for expanding programs like AmeriCorps. When expanding AmeriCorps and other programs, we should be concentrating on moving past the direct service and embracing the other civic opportunities inherent in these initiatives. The ideas discussed above are just a few ways to thicken our service infrastructure as we move further into the 21st Century.