Fifty years ago today, in the Rose Garden of the White House, President John F. Kennedy addressed the very first group of Peace Corps volunteers who were departing for service in Ghana and Tanzania. Twenty-five years later, I flew to San Francisco to join nearly 300 others bound for service in the Philippines.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of what Bono has referred to as one of the few things "that both parties can agree on," though such bipartisanship now occurs against a backdrop of serious rancor on the Hill and major cuts proposed to all US foreign assistance operations. In widely publicized hearings, women have also recently testified to the Peace Corps' failings in the aftermath of rape or sexual abuse.
Harkening back to the 1994 World Bank/IMF "Fifty Years is Enough" campaign, is fifty years enough for the Peace Corps?
President Kennedy created the Peace Corps on March 1, 1961 by executive order. On September 22, Congress authorized the agency "to promote world peace and friendship." setting three goals: to provide trained men and women to work in developing countries; to promote better understanding of Americans; and to promote better understanding of other people by Americans. These goals have guided the Peace Corps over the past fifty years and I count myself and some of my closest friends among the more than 200,000 Americans who have served under them in 139 countries around the world.
Today, operating under a $400 million budget, the agency has more than 8,600 volunteers and trainees in the field. Their work ranges from HIV/AIDS to business development and environmental preservation -- clearly important issues in the developing-country context.
But in a tight budget environment, does the Peace Corps offer value for money? The US created the Peace Corps during one of the most precarious moments in the Cold War. Between the March 1 executive order and the September 22 legislation, the world witnessed the construction of the Berlin Wall and the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. President Kennedy observed at the time that the Soviets "had hundreds of men and women... prepared to spend their lives abroad in the service of world communism". In this protracted stand-off, "winning hearts and minds" was thought critical. Likewise, the demand for trained men and women in the developing world was dramatically different than it is today.
Given these realities, has the agency outlived its purpose?
Since 1961 we have learned a lot about what works in development, what does not, and how to make foreign assistance work better. We know that leadership by the country receiving aid -- and the use of their own systems of budgeting, accountability and financial management -- is critical. It is similarly crucial to develop capacity in the country, coordinate among development agencies and actors, and measure impact and results. We also know that individual stand-alone projects -- designed, implemented and managed by the donor -- do not produce sustainable development. Though often laudable, more often than not these projects run parallel to the country's own institutions, coming to an abrupt end when the individuals responsible leave -- an experience familiar to many former volunteers, myself included.
A year ago, the Peace Corps published its "Comprehensive Agency Assessment," acknowledging that "the three goals are not sufficient for setting the agency's future direction". The Assessment sets out an ambitious strategy for the future, taking into account the "changing face of both the United States and the countries it serves". Yet while it refers to the Peace Corps as one the "one of the most cost effective US foreign assistance programs", the 204-page document is practically devoid of practical references to sustainability, capacity development and country ownership -- concepts that are the cornerstones of other forms of US foreign assistance. An additional concern centers on the fact that the agency is nowhere to be found in last September's Presidential Policy Directive on Development, nor does the Directive seem to feature anywhere on the Peace Corps' website.
In an atmosphere of fiscal restraint and demand for tangible results from tax-funded spending in developing countries, it is critical that the Peace Corps become more integrated within US development policy. And while elements of the Comprehensive Agency Assessment are moving in the right direction, more needs to be done to turn the Peace Corps into a 21st century instrument. This includes ensuring that volunteers are providing services for which no local expertise exists and that aim to develop local capacity; and that these are imbedded in national or local development strategies. These activities also need to be coordinated with other development programs, be they US-sponsored or otherwise. Lastly, they should be designed -- together with the host countries and communities -- to permit measurement of actual development impact and results. At the macro level, the agency's place in the Presidential Policy Directive also needs to be defined.
Like many thousands of former volunteers, I am forever indebted to President Kennedy and his vision of a "peace corps of talented men and women" -- a vision to which I owe my family and my career. Even so, is fifty years of Peace Corps enough?
Certainly not -- serious demand for the type of skills brought by volunteers still exists in many parts of the world. That said, goals designed in 1961 are simply not enough to carry the Peace Corps through its next fifty years. In today's fiscal environment, passion and sentiment alone are unlikely to sustain Congressional appropriations. A clear vision of the agency as an instrument for supporting development -- producing solid, sustainable and measurable results for the people and countries its volunteers serve -- is the foundation of a "new" Peace Corps.
Stephen P. Groff is the Deputy Director for Development Cooperation at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris and was recently elected to the board of the National Peace Corps Association.
Chris, Ghana 78-80
The other problem that is you focused on only one of the three goals. Out of context it does not stand, and of course this is not an effective way to assist developing countries. The goals of the Peace Corp include promoting understanding between nations, on very direct level. I suggest the parents and children you worked with have a much more positive view of the US as do your past neighbors, shopkeepers and friends. Those changes do not stop when you board the plane.
As for the cost effectiveness, it is pretty simple. In today’s world and with the importance of fighting terrorism, it is very effective. We know Al Qaeda and other similar groups recruit from many places including the country you served in. There is no doubt in my mind that these groups would have many more recruits if the Peace Corp did not operate in that country. Or to put it more crudely, the Peace Corps is a positive ad campaign in a world where how other nations view the US is increasingly important.
I think the Peace Corps can do effective development work, though I also believe that the other two goals are the more achievable. But there is a piece missing here, which is that PC also serves as a proving ground for a new generation of leaders in the development world and other sectors. I wouldn't be where I am today without my service. Is it "cost effective?" I have no idea how you measure that quantitatively, but I'd place a serious wager that the investment made on my career during Peace Corps will earn itself back 1000 times over the next 30 years.
Consequently, I love Stephen's closing line, "A clear vision of the agency as an instrument for supporting development -- producing solid, sustainable and measurable results for the people and countries its volunteers serve -- is the foundation of a "new" Peace Corps." I wish that had been the case back in my day.
Ultimately, if people are giving of their time and energy and the US is supporting this financially, the program must evolve to provide maximum sustainable value. Just producing good feelings is not enough - not when truly changing and positively impacting lives could happen instead.
Best wishes of success to the Peace Corps as they reinvent themselves.
One was toward accountability; these days, programs are evaluated continuously and changes made regularly to improve performance. The Peace Corps is on a much more businesslike, results-oriented trajectory than before.
Another trend is toward sustainability. Rather than a single volunteer spending two years in a village, one shot and out (the method while I was in the Philippines), PCVs are now often replaced two or three times at a site -- thus putting volunteers in an area for six or eight years. This allows local people not only to observe the technology or program in question, but to learn it well, internalize it, teach it to each other, and modify it to fit local conditions -- to make it sustainable.
Does Peace Corps do good? Hell yes -- and a lot of it. Should it be continued? Of course. Has it been worth the cost? A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the entire budget of the Peace Corps, from 1961 to today, adds up to less than a week's spending in the current US defense budget.
We seem to have no problem spending trillions of dollars to wage multiple wars. Isn't it a worthwhile investment to spend a tiny percentage of that amount waging peace?
"word of mouth." Where did you serve in Africa?
I served in Colombia 1963-65 in Health Education/Community Development. I think that improvements and program direction at Peace Corps should flow from the field through comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of programs. That calls for systems that are not in place now and do not appear to have been in place, through time and space. There are tremendous things to learn from working at the village level. All of that knowledge should be preserved. It has not been. The best results come from cooperation between the Volunteer and people in site.
I do not believe that the Third World or the Developing World should be treated as some kind of "Brave News World" vacation or laboratory for "callow white American youth." The commitment
Peace Corps makes is first to help. If we can not make good on that commitment, then we shouldn't go.
Sure, a lot of what Peace Corps does varies country to country, era to era, so one's mileage may vary. Recordkeeping is probably all over the map. And the 5-year employment limit for Peace Corps administrators tends to limit institutional knowledge -- an unfortunate side-effect of a generally good rule. Nevertheless, from extensive contact with RPCVs, visits to other PC countries, and my own experience, my subjective impression is one of generally greater accountability and better practices over the years, despite great practical obstacles. I'll stand by that statement.
Obviously, Peace Corps shouldn't be a "2-year vacation for rich white kids" as some seem to view it. PCVs should do real work and do it well. Most do. But in addition to more institutional memory, and more transmission of methods that work between PCVs and eras, I think some rigorous instruction in developmental theory during training would be a tremendous benefit to the organization. Without a thorough grounding in each of these areas, projects will fail: Sustainable. Community. Development. Of course, I teach university classes in exactly that subject, so I *would* think so, wouldn't I? 8-)
My reasons for disagreement are similar to those expressed by Vice-President Johnson in early 1961. At the time, the Peace Corps was battling administrators demanding its integration into the State Department as a subdivision of AID. LBJ’s advice, paraphrased by Bill Moyers in a letter to a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee reads:
“Boys, this town is full of folks who believe the only way to do something is their way. That’s especially true in diplomacy and things like that because they work with foreign governments and protocol is oh-so-mighty important to them, with guidebook and rulebooks and do’s-and-don’ts to keep you from offending someone. You put the Peace Corps in the foreign service [or AID] and they’ll put stripped pants on your people when all you want them to have is a knapsack and a tool kit and a lot of imagination.”
A 21st century LBJ would probably add a laptop computer and an iPod to the equipment list but make no other changes.
At the country level, it is similarly critical that this work be coordinated with other development programs – ideally under the lead of the country or community itself. Again, I wouldn’t argue for volunteers to be absorbed by other donor programs but better coordination is crucial – we have seen time and time again that a collection individual stand-alone projects do not create development. Sustainable development must be led by countries and communities and in order for the Peace Corps to have the kind if impact it can, its efforts need to be aligned with the efforts of others - be these local or international actors.
Yes, something new should be started and implemented. Today electronics can be of great help educating the gifted of a country, who then serve for a few years as volunteers in their own country. They could serve to find sources of water, new methods of agriculture, teaching the population trades. That way, people themselves will own the achievements they make. And, with electronics one such professional/teacher can now teach many. No landlines needed, or other wire connections.
Enterprising natives can produce e-books and preserve their own knowledge and traditions as well. Of course, for that Wi-Fi may be necessary.
Financial aid, and food aid, has proven to get into the wrong hands, to be sold at black market prices. People need to find new way to self-sustain ot be independent of profiteurs. Done on a small, individual, scale, there is not financial gain of any proportion to be taken away.