HR 1388 Serve America Act Federally Funds Volunteerism, HR 1444 Mandates Youth Service Requirement

HR 1388 Serve America ActSince we first covered HR 1388, the name of this law has changed from the the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act to the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.  Many Americans fear HR 1388 will force mandatory “volunteerism” on our youth, and some people have gone so far as to compare the program to Hitler’s Youth. According to the Open Congress summary of HR 1388:

The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act (formally the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education (GIVE) Act) authorizes a dramatic funding increase for AmeriCorps and other volunteer programs, and the creation of new programs for seniors and veterans. It establishes a goal of expanding from 75,000 government-supported volunteers to 250,000, and would increase education funding and establish a summer volunteer program for students, paying $500 (which would be applied to college costs) to high-school and middle-school student who participate.

There is nothing about mandatory service learning in the summary; however, the text of the law mandates a high percentage of participation in a “Youth Engagement Zone Program“:

‘(4) YOUTH ENGAGEMENT ZONE PROGRAM- The term ‘youth engagement zone program’ means a service-learning program in which members of an eligible partnership collaborate to provide coordinated school-based or community-based service-learning opportunities

‘(A) in order to address a specific community challenge

‘(B) for an increasing percentage of out-of-school youth and secondary school students served by a local educational agency; and

‘(C) in circumstances under which

‘(i) not less than 90 percent of such students participate in service-learning activities as part of the program; or

‘(ii) service-learning is a part of the curriculum in all of the secondary schools served by the local educational agency.

90 percent is so high it essentially equates to mandatory participation as does the alternative curricular requirement for secondary schools. What would constitute service learning under the Serve America Act? According to HR 1388:

‘(c) Authorized Activities- Funds under this part may be used to–

‘(1) integrate service-learning programs into the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (referred to in this part as ‘STEM’) curricula at the elementary, secondary, postsecondary, or postbaccalaureate levels in coordination with practicing or retired STEM professionals;

‘(2) involve students in service-learning programs focusing on energy conservation in their community, including conducting educational outreach on energy conservation and working to improve energy efficiency in low-income housing and in public spaces;

‘(3) involve students in service-learning programs in emergency and disaster preparedness;

‘(4) involve students in service-learning programs aimed at improving access to and obtaining the benefits from computers and other emerging technologies, including improving such access for individuals with disabilities, in low-income or rural communities, in senior centers and communities, in schools, in libraries, and in other public spaces;

‘(5) involve high school age youth in the mentoring of middle school youth while involving all participants in service-learning to seek to meet unmet human, educational, environmental, public safety, or emergency and disaster preparedness needs in their community;

‘(6) conduct research and evaluations on service-learning, including service-learning in middle schools, and disseminate such research and evaluations widely;

‘(7) conduct innovative and creative activities as described in section 112(a);

‘(8) establish or implement summer of service programs (giving priority to programs that enroll youth who will be enrolled in any of grades 6 through 9 at the end of the summer concerned) during the summer months (including recruiting, training, and placing service-learning coordinators)–

‘(I) meet unmet human, educational, environmental (including energy conservation and stewardship), and emergency and disaster preparedness and other public safety needs; and

‘(II) be intensive, structured, supervised, and designed to produce identifiable improvements to the community;

‘(i) that shall–

‘(ii) that may include the extension of academic year service-learning programs into the summer months; and

‘(iii) under which a student who completes 100 hours of service as described in section 146(b)(2), shall be eligible for a summer of service educational award of $500 or $750 as described in sections 146(a)(2)(C) and 147(d);

    ‘(A) for youth who will be enrolled in any of grades 6 through 12 at the end of the summer concerned; and

    ‘(B) for community-based service-learning projects–

‘(9) establish or implement youth engagement zone programs in youth engagement zones, for students in secondary schools served by local educational agencies for which a majority of such students do not participate in service-learning activities that

If service learning is truly voluntary, then why does the federal government feel the need to offer summer of service educational awards?  Although I am in favor of helping children attend college, doesn’t compensation contradict the very idea of voluntary service?  Many fear the Serve America Act will end true public service through federal funding.  According to the Heritage Foundation:

There are, of course, other underlying goals–President Obama had originally pushed the national service proposal partly in order to meet certain infrastructure needs, such as construction projects and school improvements.  The economic meltdown provided added rationale for this notion, as these projects could be performed by workers on the federal payroll, thus reducing unemployment.

These goals are important, because they highlight the bill’s real statement about public service, the one that has lurked in the President’s rhetoric since the campaign: that public service cannot meet its objectives–and may not even be able to survive–without federal funding. It seems that without Washington’s assistance and coordination, people like Senator Kennedy’s young friend will never be asked to serve their country–indeed, the implication of the person’s statement is that involvement in a federal program is what constitutes serving one’s country. If Congress believes that public service can only survive as a government-funded job, it is indeed dead.

When faced with a similar economic depression, President Hoover pushed for federally funded public service. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932, which significantly expanded the federal government’s involvement in volunteerism, provided $1.5 billion in 1932 dollars in temporary loans to public service organizations.

Although much of the controversy around HR 1388 has been around mandatory service requirements for American youth, the larger issue is tying federal dollars into public service. The act will actually create government funded jobs making participating states and organizations permanently dependent on federal funding for their service activities. Hoover understood that and called his act a government jobs program, recognizing the potential to end real voluntary public service through federal funding. The possibility of mandatory youth service requirements has not disappeared under the Obama administration.

Although the original language in HR 1388 included “a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people” has been deleted from the current version, it now appears in HR 144 Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act:

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

HR 1388 was signed into law with much fanfare by President Obama in the presence of former President Clinton and Senator Kennedy April 21, 2009. HR 1388 authorizes $5.7 billion over six years for service learning programs; however, Congress must still approve the funding.  There is a difference between public service and government funded service.  HR 1388 favors the latter.  Federally funding volunteerism won’t end our economic crisis.

Image: WhiteHouse.gov

Comments

  1. Jennifer–

    Always enjoy your analysis, but this is one of the rare cases in which I disagree with you (at least in part). First, I don't see anything particularly threatening about mandatory service requirements — service learning is an incredibly effective means of tying classroom knowledge to the "real world." Even the college freshman I've taught tend to learn ideas better through "hands-on" methods… and those who've had some service experience prior to college almost always tend to do better — they've got a sense of the big picture beyond the ivory tower (or the fraternity party).

    Secondly, I don't think adding financial incentives makes public service work any less meaningful… if anything, it broadens the pool of workers who can choose such work, since they're able to support themselves while serving their communities. Why limit such service only to those who have other financial resources? And, does entering such a program just for the payment, or student loan debt forgiveness, or other financial motivations, make the work someone does less meaningful?

    Glad you're taking a look at these things…

  2. Jeff, I agree service learning is very valuable. Our local high school has such a requirement, and I especially would like to see it tied to environmental projects. It's the mandatory part that I worry about. I believe in choice.

    As far as the financial incentives, whether in actual payment or college tuition assistance, I think that they should be fair (not below minimum wage) to actually be jobs. I feel my job as a public school teacher is public service and getting a paycheck does not make it any less meaningful or valuable, but it is not volunteerism or mandatory. It is my choice (of course I volunteer a lot of time and resources to get the job done right, but again, it is my choice).

    I absolutely agree with your comments regarding hands on learning and the value of service experience before college. I just fear mandates.

  3. Jen, I've enjoyed your coverage of HR 1388. Almost no one else has even touched it, so I appreciate your candor. I'm kind of torn on this one. If we look at service requirements as extensions of the education process, then they are no more mandates than education processes themselves.

    The sad truth is that Americans are less associative than they used to be. We belong less, we join less, we volunteer less. Might such programs help fill the obvious social gaps while simultaneously providing the knowledge, skills and experience to make our educational system a little more effective?

    And finally, let me pre-comment before all of the Nazi/Hitler Youth comments start rolling in. Save it for somewhere else, maybe Glenn Beck has a blog or something.

  4. Tim, I am torn too. I guess what I worry about is loss of choice. What if there is a such a requirement and a child can't get the project they want because of high demand? What happens if that child gets stuck doing something they hate that would turn them off to public service? I think we can promote and encourage service learning without mandates. Yes, education is mandated in this country. It is compulsory. Perhaps what I like is having local school boards in charge of service learning, not the federal government. As a parent, I can meet with a principal, attend a school board meeting, etc. to voice my concerns if I had any. My voice about an individual concern would not be heard by the federal govt. I don't see why we have to give up local control.

    The senior projects kids do at our local high school are a requirement, but the children choose what to do. We have had kids volunteer in grade schools, rebuild the bus shelter, paint the community hall, etc. They present their projects to the community.

    If the service learning occurred during the regular school day, then perhaps it would be better too. To expect children who may need to have jobs, chores, etc. to devote extra time outside of school may also be unrealistic.

    Yes, not Hitler youth comments on this one.

  5. Becky Robinson says:

    DOES ANYONE KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE FOLLOWING??

    I had an email this morning indicating that this bill has a provision in it that is virtually unknown. The information follows:

    "This bill, hr 1388, funds $20M in tax payer dollars to immigrate Hamas Refugees to the USA . This is the news that didn't make the headlines…

    By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in "migration assistance" to the Palestinian refugees and "conflict victims" in Gaza."

  6. Jennifer says:

    Becky, what is the source of your email? I did not see anything about that when I read through the bill that specifically targets Hamas. There is information about helping at risk populations, in which Hamas immigrants would qualify, I assume, but I would really like to know the source of your info.

  7. Edith Richmond says:

    Can you send me the passage that suggests helping

    the at risk populations that Becky Robinson suggests

    means Hamas? I received an alarmed call asking me to research this issue and I'd like to be able to respond to the request but I haven't found the passage in question to try to figure out what could result from the bill HR1388. My caller suggested the

    start of Hitler-like children's camps and talked about the Nazis, too. Also, reference to building

    terrorist (Muslim) population in America.

  8. Kris says:

    Why aren't you bothered by the thought of subjecting people to forced labor, as HR 1444 contemplates? You can say it's Good For You, but it doesn't follow that it's the least bit legal or moral for the government to impose.

  9. Beth says:

    Get your facts straight 'jen'
    http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_congress

    • I see this more like being required to take English in order to graduate. How many of us would have voluntarily read Catcher in the Rye when we were 15 if it wasn’t mandatory?

      It is most likely that without the mandate 90% of the kids would never even try to volunteer. We mandate all kinds of things for kids because it is for their own good. We mandate school, curfews, drinking age, driving age, and even the age at which they can have sex without excessive public scorn. Now we can mandate that they have to get up off their behinds and contribute to society.

      Some kids would not participate because they were lazy. Some kids would not participate because they were unsure if they would be welcome or they were unsure about what to do. Some kids would not participate because their parents would not let them for any number of seemingly irrational reasons.

      If it is mandatory then the 10% of kids who have an actual real reason why they can’t volunteer would be excused. The rest of them can find out how easy and useful it is to become a volunteer. They will learn something they can use for the rest of their lives.

      Now that I have stuck up for the mandatory bit, I do have a question: Is there any money for this program? Is it moving forward at all? It has been well over a year and I only heard about it because I was researching legislation that has been passed since Obama took office.

Speak Your Mind

*