Why Expanding AmeriCorps Isn't Such a Good Idea

This week, May 8-15, is AmeriCorps Week, a celebration of the national service program that has become all the rage over the past few years. In case you're not familiar, AmeriCorps is the federal government program that sends "stipended volunteers" (mostly people in their late teens and early 20s) to work for nonprofit groups of all types across the country. The program, created by President Clinton, has been a cornerstone of President Obama's push toward volunteering and service-oriented jobs, and last year he authorized a $5.7 billion measure that will triple the number of people hired into the program in the next eight years.

Sounds terrific, right? I thought so too. After all, anything the government can do to encourage more people to help those who desperately need it has to be a good idea. But that was before I read a persuasive article in Blue Avocado, an online magazine covering the nonprofit sector. The article, by philanthropy expert Rick Cohen, convinced me that without some major changes, expanding AmeriCorps and similar programs may actually increase the ranks of Americans living in poverty.

It should come as no surprise that AmeriCorps members aren't paid much (salaries average about $900 a month, plus an educational stipend); after all, nobody chooses altruistic careers hoping to get rich. But it makes me a bit uncomfortable to think that the government is paying people less than the government-mandated minimum wage (AmeriCorps says that its members make more than minimum wage, but that's only including the education stipend, which can only be used after one's AmeriCorps service is over). And although AmeriCorps members do get basic benefits like health care, the plan is bare-bones — despite the administration's outrage about insurance companies that refuse to cover "pre-existing conditions," AmeriCorps has the same policy.

AmeriCorps leaders say it is important for members to experience living like the impoverished people they're helping (a type of poverty simulation?), but why is it a good thing to put more people in poverty, even for just a year or two? This year, AmeriCorps grads are entering a brutal job market, and unless their parents are helping out, they likely don't have any savings to live off of while looking for a job.

Cohen's main argument, though, is not about the experience of people in the AmeriCorps program, but about the effect on the nonprofit groups the AmeriCorps members work for. Those groups have been hit hard by the recession, making them eager to take advantage of the government-funded AmeriCorps members. But training volunteers takes time and staff capacity, putting a burden on the organizations, especially the small ones. Furthermore, as Cohen writes, the program "could lead to the deleterious idea that nonprofits don’t need to pay well, pay living wages, offer benefits, offer union-like job protections, offer full-time jobs, create long-term career paths or recruit and build professional skills among their staff in order to deliver their goods and services." Clearly nonprofits play an important role in providing jobs (10 percent of Americans work for a nonprofit), but replacing those jobs with AmeriCorps workers making less than minimum wage could be harmful to the sector's ability to employ.

If American government, nonprofits and individuals are serious about ending poverty, increased federal funding and encouraging people to pursue jobs that help others are both important components of any plan. But setting up a two-tier system isn't the way to go. AmeriCorps and other programs must start by paying a living wage if they want to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Photo credit: ccstbp