Miss Cunningham is editor of Philanthropy, Culture, and Society, a publication of the Capital Research Center in Washington, D.C.
In government “volunteering” programs, .it’s easy to be misled by first impressions. Consider the Georgia Peach Corps, a youth program that operates in two rural counties in eastern Georgia, funded with a $2.8 million grant from the federal government’s Corporation for National and Community Service. At first glance, the visitor to the work center in Thomson, Georgia, is im pressed. The youngsters seem to be working hard, getting along with each other despite diverse backgrounds. However, a closer look raises serious questions.
To begin with, the workers are not volunteers who have been attracted to the program by idealism. They are employees, paid a wage of $4.25 an hour and earning a $5,000 tuition grant for a nine-month involvement with the program. In addition to these benefits, the program has massive overhead costs for supervisory personnel, travel, training, and general red tape. These burdens, combined with a high dropout rate in the program—it began with 140 students and graduated only 80—have driven the real cost per graduate to over $35,000 per year. For this expense the country benefited from youngsters who worked six hours a day, four days a week, for nine months. (The rest of the time was spent in transit or “training.”)
While the projects these workers complete are well-built, there’s a catch. By law, they cannot compete with private industry for contracts, and cannot displace any government workers through their efforts. This virtually insures that the projects they are assigned will be of marginal value to the community.
A case in point was the roof the Peach Corps put on the job training facility in Thomson. The roof was well done, easily passing for the work of professional roofers. But the federally-funded facility is used very little—much to the frustration of instructors. While I was there only one student—flanked by two instructors—worked on one of the four brand-new computers. (He was playing “Wheel of Fortune.”) The facility can handle up to 12 students at a time but never does. Twelve new dictionaries sit in the corner, their spines unbroken.
The effort to assemble a corps that, in Clinton’s words, “looks like America” has also been a struggle. According to program director Ken Cook, young white men were not keen about the idea of working for government. “White males are generally able to go on to college, or they saw this as a federal giveaway program and not cool.” The Peach Corps made a concerted effort to divert potential recruits from the college track to fulfill their affirmative action goals.
For all the talk of civic awareness, it’s hard to argue that the Peach Corps is an integrated part of the community. Only $5,000 of its hefty budget came from the Thomson area. And it’s hard to believe that beyond the few public works projects scattered throughout the county, the Peach Corps will leave much of a legacy. Funding will not be assumed by local entities when the federal money runs out.
Whose Work Ethic?
Were there positive, measurable results for the youngsters themselves? Project director Ken Cook reports that “out of the 80 kids, we probably have 20 percent going on to do something that more than likely they wouldn’t have normally. One kid is going to an apprenticeship program, several are going to vo-tech school, some are going into nursing.” Taxpayers might well wonder whether getting 16 youngsters to do something that “more than likely they wouldn’t have normally” is a fair return on $2.8 million of their money.
Did the program develop the work ethic and a commitment to volunteering? The unglamorous truth is that this community was already strong without the Peach Corps. Thomson played host to this national experiment because the community is a model one—a “five-star community” ac cording to a state panel—offering citizens good schools, low taxes, low crime rates, and a high standard of living. The work was of high quality because the youngsters already have skills and a good work ethic. In Thomson, many families are still intact and the influence of the church lingers. They haven’t waited for the government to teach them to volunteer: 50 percent of the citizens already do so in some fashion. In fact, many of the Peach Corps youngsters voiced surprise and disappointment that in addition to their paid work, genuine unpaid service wasn’t expected of them.
In this government “volunteering” program, the high cost may be more than just the $35,000 per graduate. It may be the erosion of community spirit begun by teaching young people to expect payment for good deeds.
