In this post, I would like to express an insider's view of the Peace Corps, which will lead you to just a few of the reasons I decided to exit the Peace Corps after serving just over a year's time. This goes without saying, but the Peace Corps experience is quite different for everyone, and this is just one viewpoint of it. However, I can assure you that my experience is shared by many returned Peace Corps volunteers and those currently serving.
As is the Peace Corps, thousands of volunteers spend two years of their lives bettering dozens of countries. But there's another side to the story. The budget for 7,700 volunteers is more than $300 million a year. For the roughly $80,000 it costs to support a volunteer for two years, a team of "true" development consultants could visit these 3rd world villages and provide a larger impact. But the Peace Corps doesn't work that way. Its primary focus is building cross-cultural friendships. To encourage friendships, the bulk of volunteers still serve in situations like simular to conditions of — remoteness, solitude, living at the locals' level, eking out progress by patience and wit. This was my experience as well, which is the common perception of the Peace Corps. However, technology and international politics have changed the world since 1960 in ways that make the "roughing it" philosophy counterproductive. The Peace Corps could better the world quicker by changing its focus. And as it still stands today, the program's methods revolve around these three goals:
• "Helping the people of interested countries in meeting their needs for trained men and women."
• "Helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served."
• "Helping promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of all Americans."
While the Peace Corps commercials talk about development, only one of these goals is about that version of helping. The value is more in cross-cultural exchange. Since the focus is exchange, not development, volunteers are encouraged to live as their hosts do. There is a funny volunteer competitive thing about who has to 'rough it' more, and people without electricity, running water, etc., seem to get the most bragging rights. Turkish (squating) toilets are fine, but the roughing-it philosophy also means limiting access to technology, even though it's sprouting all over the developing world. It means having most volunteers, "except in a few cases," serve by themselves. Because friendship is primary, I found my project vague or featuring little accountability. When I arrived to my site there in Morocco, I arrived to learn that my hosts weren't sure what the Peace Corps or my mission was. While overcoming these obstacles is a character-building experience, isolation, lack of technology and vagueness make service quite inefficient. That need not be the case. The world has changed since Kennedy's speech. When John Coyne, who runs the website Peace Corps Writers, flew to Addis Ababa in 1962, it was his second time on a plane. Few volunteers can say that now. Our needs, likewise, have changed. Under Kennedy, we battled the USSR for the developing world's soul. Now there may be a case for Arab world friendship programs, but elsewhere, people need American friends less than they need to stop carrying water six hours a day. Possible steps The Peace Corps, with its well-respected brand name, is uniquely positioned to make that happen.
Hosting Peace Corps volunteers is a cost-effective way for developing countries to have early access to the cutting edge of modern life, including mastery of the English language. On balance, with the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa, the first goal appears to remain valid but has lost some urgency. The Second Goal is to promote understanding of Americans among people in developing countries. The United States is far better equipped than other countries to use hard instruments to fight global threats such as terrorism. The task will be easier to the extent that people in developing countries appreciate what Americans are doing. At the moment, the United States faces considerable skepticism. Public diplomacy may not be sufficient to turn the tide. Personal relationships have always been the best way to promote American ideals. Fostering these relationships has been the greatest success of the Peace Corps. The Second Goal appears to have even greater urgency today than it did 40 years ago. The Third Goal is to promote understanding among Americans of people in developing countries. The Peace Corps agency may not be the best instrument for advancing this goal because it competes with the primary mission of placing qualified volunteers in communities abroad.
A more positive attitude toward country-specific labels could make it easier to start programs elsewhere. Greater host-country ownership. Peace Corps operations are visibly driven by Americans. Appointing host-country nationals as country directors or co-directors could increase country ownership of Peace Corps programs. If the primary mission shifts toward increasing mutual understanding through personal relationships, a logical result would be to reexamine the potential for placing volunteers from foreign countries in U.S. communities. American volunteers may be more effective serving under the United Nations flag than under the U.S. flag in some countries. The U.N. Volunteers program has about 5,000 volunteers in the field. Less than 50 are Americans. Can the supply of volunteers be increased? While Peace Corps management believes that the current level of demand is consistent with the objective of filling 14,000 slots by 2007, some observers are concerned that levels above 10,000 may not be feasible without lowering standards. Perhaps the hardest question to answer is how the quality of Peace Corps volunteers has changed over the past 40 years. The absence of empirical studies of volunteer effectiveness reflects the difficulty of structuring a survey that would yield convincing results. When jobs are hard to find for college graduates, the application flow tends to increase. It is less clear how sensitive the supply is to the amount of the readjustment allowance that accumulates now at the rate of $225 per month. This amount is less than 60 percent of what AmeriCorps members accumulate. A case could be made for a Peace Corps allowance higher than the AmeriCorps allowance on the basis of hardship and national interest. Two other steps to increase supply are worth considering. The baby boom generation is one. Many baby boomers are at their peak in terms of technical skills and civic understanding. Tapping this rich pool of talent effectively, however, may require a separate recruiting operation and staff support structure, and a different service formula. An older staff person dedicated to backstopping older volunteers in each country office could help to minimize early termination. A one-year service commitment could make the Peace Corps more attractive to older Americans, possibly combined with the option of returning to the same site or country after a three-month break. Customized placement. Current Peace Corps policy discourages applicants from applying for assignment to a specific country. As a consequence, applicants with a compelling interest in a particular country may never get invited to training. Customizing products and services is a basic trend in today’s world. A more customized recruitment and placement process could have a measurable impact on supply and even more on the results achieved in the field. Can support policies be improved? Attrition is a perennial concern. Since the late 1950s, the attrition rate over the 27-month period from the time a nominee accepts an invitation to train to completion of service is on the order of 28 percent to 30 percent. Other major causes include health problems and discontent with site-specific working conditions. While the attrition rate seems high, it may be lowered by finding more suitable sites. Knowledgeable observers consistently cite good programming as the key to volunteer effectiveness. Programming consists of selecting a specific area of activity (project), finding suitable sites, designing sound training programs and helping volunteers overcome problems that inevitably arise. These are core responsibilities of the country offices. Seeking economies in this area may be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Don't get me wrong, the Peace Corps is a gem, but a small one in a big world. The central policy issue today is whether to preserve it as is or to create a new program with a mission that appeals to a broader group of developing countries and attracts a larger number of qualified volunteers. The Bush administration’s current plan to double the number of Peace Corps volunteers is not particularly ambitious, but expansion driven from the bottom up rather than the current top-down approach is more likely to preserve the luster of the Peace Corps. Putting a substantially larger number of American volunteers in developing countries for meaningful work looks feasible, but probably requires a fresh approach.
And this, amoung a few other reasons, has led me to leave the Peace Corps short of my two year commitment. I feel somewhat saddened by my early departure, but liberated in my decision to leave. I can only hope that those reading this blog might benefit from my experience, and judge me not on my time commitment, but rather on my accurate account of the events leading up to my decision to leave. If you have an interest in or currently applying to the Peace Corps, it's important for you to go in knowing that there is a strong possibility that you too will be faced with this.
Best of luck to you!
