Earlier this year, British Chancellor Rishi Sunak proposed a national service scheme that would give young people the choice between taking part in a year-long military training program or doing civil service one weekend per month for the same period. The proposal was met with outrage and huge public unhappiness, as it was seen as a de facto conscription of Britain’s young people.
The idea is more popular in the United States, where a 2017 Gallup poll found that nearly half of Americans Required National Service. In fact, many teens themselves are interested, but the number is greater than the system can accommodate. Related programs are underfunded, and as a result, they are unable to accommodate millions of Americans, even though there are plenty of lucrative jobs available for volunteers. Expanding national service opportunities is one of the few topics in the United States that transcends political affiliation, age, and race. Whether it’s the military or the local soup kitchen, people understand the benefits of serving their country. But the cost of doing so can be high, and it’s up to the government to reduce that cost.
To be clear, Congress should not impose a mandate. Forcing the nation’s next great technology innovators, star athletes, cohorts of primary care physicians, and skilled construction workers we need to build our new infrastructure to serve a year or two would do more harm than good to society, although of course they should be welcomed into such a program. Rather, by the time they and their peers reach their late teens, they should be discussing with their friends who will go straight to college, go directly to graduate school, or immediately enter the workforce, and spend a year or two working with millions of people across the country to make America a better place to live, safer, and healthier.
The Uniting Through Service Act would create an interagency council where military, national and public service officials could work together to inform young people about service opportunities, making it easier for Americans to find paths to national service. Heads of agencies like AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps could join in joint recruiting campaigns. The council itself would cost “negligible,” according to one congressional aide, and would build the infrastructure needed to help expand service programs while many wait for additional funding.
But even if this modest bill passes, it will only be the beginning. Participating in a program like AmeriCorps or Peace Corps means sacrificing a year or two of work and the higher salary that would come with the job. Meanwhile, the stipends these programs offer usually don’t cover living expenses. This is mainly because the programs have faced years of significant funding cuts. While national service may never be as well-paid as a Wall Street internship, Congress should invest in increasing young people’s salaries so that it is at least a reasonable option for Americans who can’t afford it. National service efforts should give applicants flexibility, allowing them to focus on a specific skill set or geographic location, for example. That would attract Gen Z participants who want to gain skills that will lead to the achievement of their career goals while serving.
But restoring national service programs would not only help young Americans learn and prepare to enter the workforce, it would also help the government agencies and organizations that benefit from young Americans’ labor. The greatest benefit could be felt throughout society, by instilling a sense of service and duty in a diverse group of participants, countering apolitical disinterest and building solidarity. If new adults are following President John F. Kennedy’s famous advice and asking what they can do for their country, surely the country had better have an answer.
