COMMENTARY: The volunteer summit: Well-intentioned but shortsighted

c. 1997 Religion News Service UNDATED _ About eight years ago, while running a small, privately funded, life-skills program for homeless men, I met with a group of businessmen in an attempt to enlist their financial and in-kind support. As I outlined my agency’s vision _ which included purchasing a residential facility and providing our […]

c. 1997 Religion News Service

UNDATED _ About eight years ago, while running a small, privately funded, life-skills program for homeless men, I met with a group of businessmen in an attempt to enlist their financial and in-kind support. As I outlined my agency’s vision _ which included purchasing a residential facility and providing our clients with a broad array of services _ I could sense a sudden dip in the temperature around the conference table.

Finally, one man, speaking for them all, broke the chilly silence.”Most of the men here volunteer their time at the local soup kitchen,”he said.”I feel good when I go to the soup kitchen and hand out a sandwich and some soup. If I give you the long-term support you are looking for, I won’t feel as good.” I was reminded of the above encounter as I considered the pep rally known as the Presidents’ Summit for America’s Future. However well-intended, the initiative _ which seeks to enlist volunteers and raise funds to help 2 million children _ will do little to stem the tidal wave of problems faced by our nation’s youth.


Why? Because volunteers are generally limited in terms of their time, resources and vision. Thus, in an increasingly fast-paced society, where priorities are continually weighed and juggled, those who give of themselves are likely to do so only where their comfort level is the greatest.

For some, like the businessmen I spoke to, this may mean handing out soup and sandwiches to the poor. For others, it may involve serving as a mentor to a teenager.

The problem with this, as those of us in the helping professions can readily attest, is that such efforts, while good, do not address the real issues.

For example, many of the same people those businessmen served eight years ago still make the daily trek to the soup kitchen today. Why? Because the life-management issues they face _ substance abuse, education, chronic unemployment, housing, health care and personal responsibility _ were never addressed.

Thus, the good the businessmen did became the enemy of the best.

The same, I fear, will occur after the Presidents’ Summit. The graffiti whitewashed by President Clinton will soon reappear unless the hopelessness that spawned it is addressed. The fact is, safe havens provide little comfort in unsafe neighborhoods, and a mentor is a poor excuse for a parent.

This is not to say the Summit is a waste of time. It is not. To the contrary, it is a much-needed call to arms for the George Baileys (the town do-gooder in”It’s a Wonderful Life”) among us.

Yet if volunteerism is the presidents’ _ and the nation’s _ only alternative to”big government,”the lives of many of our young people will remain less than wonderful. Similar to George Bush’s ill-conceived Thousand Points of Light program, the program will likely commend ambitious volunteer initiatives, while failing to coordinate a comprehensive strategy to address


broad needs.

One approach might be to identify and provide funding for small agencies providing services on the front lines of the nation’s urban centers. Such agencies are often nudged out of the competitive grants process _ including federal block grants _ because they lack the technical writing skill and, most importantly, the personal and political connections necessary to compete effectively with larger agencies.

Yet they often provide a broader array of services _ at lower cost _ than more well-heeled agencies.

Another strategy might be to look at service strategies developed in smaller cities. Small cities have many of the same social problems as their larger cousins. However, the smaller size can facilitate greater coordination of services, thus producing a more viable and effective national model than can be seen in the large city.

While the federal government provides funding on a competitive basis for such demonstration projects, most private foundations do not. Many of the larger foundations, particularly those who finance faith-based programs, limit their funding focus to the megacities. As a result, leading-edge agencies or consortiums in second- or third-tier urban areas are not considered.

The president’s bully pulpit would provide a wonderful platform from which to initiate and promote viable next steps in the campaign to save our youth. Volunteerism alone will not do it.

If the Presidents’ Summit represents the sum total of our national vision, thousands of volunteers will feel good about themselves _ but the needs of our troubled young people will go largely unmet.


END ATCHISON

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!