Like most returned Peace Corps volunteers, I have a complex relationship with the organization made of equal parts nostalgia and frustration. So it was with some interest that I read the recent need articles about the major changes to their application system. These changes were promoted by a sharp fall in applications in recent years, as well as a large number of incomplete applications- which is not surprising given it’s a sixty page ordeal and it takes about a year from start to finish.
The streamlining is a clear win. The change that’s making waves is that applicants can now choose which country they go to.
Previously, the mantra was “flexible and adaptable.” We were reminded that we were volunteers above all, and we would be placed where our skills were most needed, and that was what was most important. While you could usually request to avoid one or two areas, we were strongly discouraged from having too many ideas of where we wanted to be. After all, no matter what preconceived notions you may have in your head, actually serving is always radically different than one’s expectations.
So my first reaction was “everyone is going to leave early (which really hurts a program) when they realize daily life in Paraguay isn’t like the little vision they made up in their head.” Lots of people leave early. In my experience, they were often the ones who had built up too many expectations.
My second reaction was to realize that people today do have more choices. IMHO, Peace Corps offers something really unique that is almost impossible to get elsewhere. But that aside, if you just want to volunteer somewhere all it takes now is a few internet searches. Often these offer less commitment and cushier living.
Finally, I thought that it could increase the quality of applicants by fostering competition. But then lots of perfectly wonderful but low-profile countries (like my own Cameroon) will be left with the dregs. But then again, it could cause countries to compete to get their act together and attract volunteers. But then, the things applicants want (cushy living conditions, high speed internet, beachside posts, lax safety rules) are not necessarily the best things for making an impact.
So- anyone following this? Any thoughts on this? How can Peace Corps stay relevant?
Well, in the last few years I’ve had several former students get all the way through the process, be told something like “You’ll be somewhere on [continent] doing HIV work, but hang tight while we get more details,” and then they wait, and wait, and after a year or so, give up and get a professional job because they need to pay off their student loans. This is my biggest concern, and the thing I see from outside the PCV system that seems most problematic at a structural level.
I have a number of students who go to, or want to go to, low-profile countries, so I’d think this change might increase applications.
The way it worked previously was you complete an extensive application and interview process, and then you are “nominated” to a particular region, type of work, and month of departure. These can change and often do, but usually the region stays the same.
Then you go through your medical clearance, which involves your doctor doing all kinds of tests and filling out all kinds of forms-- on your own dime. Any medical conditions need extensive follow up to ensure they are stable. At the same time, your legal and financial clearances are processed.
Only then do you receive an invitation, which has an exact date and country. This usually happens 3 months or less from departure.
I believe they are trying to cut this whole process from an average of a year to an average of six months- in part by getting you matched to a country faster and tailoring the hoops you have to jump through to that country.
But of course there are always complications. Most teachers leave in spring (or fall for Southern Hemisphere) so they can train before the school year starts.
That would help. I’ve written letters for three people who got through their clearances, were told they’d get their information soon, and then just waited.
Interesting. My foster daughter recently began her term as a PCV. While she was applying, I explained over and over to people that no, she wouldn’t get a choice. . . but in her case, because she was already proficient in French - and had already spent a semester in Kenya - that the odds were 99% that she would be assigned to Africa - which was where she wanted to be. So the lack of choice never really mattered to her.
I would guess, as you say, that the biggest problem is that the “less popular” countries would struggle for volunteers. Heck, as a Geography major, let me tell that a lot of Americans have never even heard of half the countries in which the PC operates.
Ugh, if the communities were in a position to provide perks for volunteers, wouldn’t those be the communities in lesser needs of help? Or, would there be a risk of communities diverting resources to attract volunteers? That sounds like a recipe to foster resentment towards the PCV.
Maybe the PC will need to institute some kind of differential pay system, with additional pay for volunteers to the wallflower countries.
Well, perks can be things like a liberal off-site policy or allowing volunteers to take motorcycle taxis. As for living conditions, they are always going to vary. Each country sets their own standards based on security, costs, and availability. So one African country may place volunteers in huts, while the neighboring country require brick houses. In China, where volunteers teach in universities, they are all in modern-ish cities. A lot varies.
I’m former Peace Corps (Madagascar for three years in the 2000s). Im not a fan of people being able to choose where to go. You’re supposed to go where your talents and skills are most needed, not where your personal bliss might lead you.
Also, if people are allowed to choose where to go, there are going to be tons of people volunteering for the Dominican Republic, and very few for Lesotho.
even sven, I was with one of my recent graduates yesterday, and she told me she was applying for the Peace Corps and asked if she could give me as a reference. Since I’ve traveled with her as part of her undergrad experience, I said sure and asked where she wanted to go. She gave me a huge smile and said, “I want to work in Cameroon!”
Not a PC alum, but I’m all for streamlining the application process if it gets people in the field sooner, maintains quality, and keeps applicants from losing heart, losing patience and going to work somewhere other than for the PC. I’d have no problem if the PC asked for your top five preferences as to where you’d like to work, and would do its best to oblige you, but with a clear understanding that the needs of the Corps came first.
I don’t see a problem with it, so long as the volunteer’s choices aren’t considered guaranteed. If a ton of people choose the Dominican Republic and nobody chooses Cameroon, then some of the people who chose Dominican Republic will end up in Cameroon anyway. But what’s the harm of letting people go where they want, when possible? Yeah, you want people going where their skills are most useful, but that’s probably one of the factors that goes into folks’ preferences, anyway.
What is involved in legal and financial clearances?
Is the “legal” clearance pretty much just a criminal records check, or do they actually do extensive research into your unique situation and notify you that they are concerned about the ten acres of Kentucky farmland you own and whether or not Bill Jones of Podunk is likely to try to litigate an easement across it?
What’s the financial clearance? Is it just a check as to whether or not you are able to pay your bills, or do they go deeper and say hey, you can’t serve in the PC unless you sell those IBM shares and stop using that small Florida bank that is horribly inconvenient?
A bit of hijack, but a question, please (motivated in part by an NY Times article I read yesterday on medical care, or the lack of it, in the Peace Corps):
Do Peace Corps volunteers sign a waiver absolving the Corps, its leaders, the Government, etc., of responsibility should they get sick (or die) overseas, get kidnapped by the local terrorist cadre, are raped (ostensibly because of poor security measures), etc.? I would assume they do but am curious to see what the ‘official’ policy is).
I think it’s a pretty standard background check, basically to make sure you aren’t on the run from anything and will be able to meet your financial commitments while you serve.
I don’t think so, but I couldn’t tell you for sure. I would guess it’s similar to whatever happens for other overseas posts (foreign service, military, etc.)
I always found the medical care adequate and professional, given the realities of the location. I’ve stated more of my thoughts in the other thread.