Peace Corps: Spreading Peace or 'Study-Abroad' program?

Great Debates
21

You have still provided nothing to support your assertion that Peace Corps “needs to be reformed.” You have made a lot of statements, but no arguments.

Please provide some concrete examples of or evidence support how you think the organization is failing to meet its goals. From my perspective, it seems like you don’t know much about the program the fact that it’s called Peace Corps, you heard of some people joining it out of college (nobody joins it out of high school, despite your recollections), and it rubs you wrong for some reason.

There is a simple factual answer to this.

Peace Corps works with countries and communities, and both are expected to make an active contribution to the Peace Corps program. For example, communities are usually expected to house their volunteers, place them with a counterpart or existing organization, and sometimes find a host family. If a Peace Corps volunteer designs a project, the community is expected to contribute a substantially. For example a volunteer may raise funds for the bricks to build a new schoolhouse, and the community will provide the land and labor. Peace Corps volunteers are there to teach, motivate and facilitate a community, but ultimately the development stems from and belongs to the community.

This means that Peace Corps only works in countries that have specifically invited Peace Corps to work with their country. Every Peace Corps country wants its Peace Corps volunteers, and has taken concrete steps to show that. Peace Corps is not something that is imposed on people. It’s not something that people resent. Countries desire their volunteers and work hard to keep them active.

There are a number of reasons why a country may not apply to be a part of the Peace Corps program. There are countries who do not ask, and there are countries that have suspended or terminated their program. There are also times when Peace Corps decides a country is too unsafe or unstable for a program- Peace Corps does not operate in conflict zones, civil wars, or other inherently unsafe situations

In Brazils case, specifically, they have a legacy of viewing development through “dependency theory,” a development philosophy that was championed by several prominent Brazilian theorists and political thinkers. Dependency theory basically says that rich countries get rick off the backs of the poor, and the best thing that poor countries can do is tell rich countries to stuff it. In practice, dependency-theory based political policy has not been a and has been largely dismantled. But dependency theory is still a part of the political culture there, and so shunning things like Peace Corps is one of the few ways that politicians have to play to this lingering sentiment.

22

This. Honestly, this is a program that sends incredibly bright, motivated, talented young people off to do their level best to assist the communities they’re placed in. (The program is remarkably selective). This helps us build a pool of experts and administrators for other government programs, often improves our image abroad, and (not incidentally) helps to save lives. Health education, sanitation projects, and so on are the sorts of things that help ensure people survive childhood.

I’m not an RPCV, but I have friends who are, and they would all agree that the Corps can be dangerous. Heck, one of my friends was one of the last PCVs in Chad before the Corps pulled out. But we send ambitious young people off to do dangerous things for our country all the time - I think we have some military recruiters on this Board, they can talk all about it. Peace Corps Volunteers are far, far cheaper to train and deploy than soldiers, build far more goodwill, and face much less risk of death or injury.

So long as people are willing to go, I see no reason not to send them, so long as the PC uses reasonable (not perfect) precautions to keep most people from getting hurt, most of the time.

23

Whether or not it’s useless depends on if there were any qualifying studies done.

The strongest point against the Peace Corps is that you really need a degree to get in. This smacks of elitism.

Furthermore you’d have to examine the amount of good a Peace Corp volunteer does. Once you get this you’d have to find out if the same amount of good could be done with those with lessor educations.

Then you’d have to qualify the amount of worked lost by those with degrees, who could possibly be more productive in other environments.

For example let’s say you have an MD and he decides to work as a cashier in a grocery store. Certainly there is nothing wrong with honest work, but you can easily see in this example it’s a waste. You know have a highly educated person in a job that can be done by people with much less education.

So you’d have a job loss of a less educated person, and an opening for a doctor which is needed but would go unfilled.

That extreme example show how one would have to qualify the program to see if there is benefit to it.

I’m not knocking the PC nor am I endorsing it, but one would have to really qualify it to see if it does have any worth.

24

Really? Are you reading what I’m saying?

Well, your perspective is clearly wrong. Can you please cite your claims? You’re incorrect, so please correct yourself.

I’m well aware of the dismal qualifications the Peace Corps has for its program.

From the PC website, here is its mission:

Well, that’s not too hard to do with $500 million a year. Yeah, it is a very cheap program. It does not mean that it’s worth what we spend on it or what people donate for.

If the Peace Corps is so effective, why isn’t it showing us? Where’s the data? Breakdown of money spent per project and its long term effects? Studies? I know it’s so riddled with politics that the Peace Corps will probably never be gone, but the argument is wroth entertaining.

If the Peace Corps could at least show it was more effective than other organizations doing the same thing, then there’s some justification…unless you want to expand it, of course. Since the objective changes, so does the perception of its ‘usefulness’ in foreign policy.

The argument behind the Peace Corps was that the U.S. was fighting an ideology war and a service like the Peace Corps would help. It would encourage older professionals to volunteer and help the places we were volunteering – with lasting impact. Now? What do we do? Just keep sending people with college degrees to countries that don’t have a high rate of college degrees? :confused:

The Peace Corps is part of the Foreign Operations budget (and participants are employees of the U.S. government) and it’s called the Peace Corps for a reason. It’s become a foreign aid program instead of a peacekeeping program. I don’t object to that idea - because I believe foreign aid should come with know-how - but it doesn’t mean I have to like the program as it stands. It could be doing a lot more if we looked at it differently. But the Peace Corps is not going to get much of a boost or have an impact in our foreign policy unless something is done.

ngos (sorry…) do the same work as the Peace Corps.

I know all about dependency theory, but it doesn’t explain why we are not in other areas. Of course African nations want Peace Corps volunteers!

I guess we can keep trying spreading feel goodies and democracy throughout the world with water wells and HIV awareness, but whatever. Either expand and properly fund it and rethink the vision or scrap it.

Or keep it, I guess, since it’s Kennedy’s brainchild.

25

I like what you brought up here. The Peace Corps takes a lot of people straight out of college – but what a college degree is now isn’t what it was in the 60s, right? So there are people who should be more qualified in terms of experience that replace current Peace Corps leaders. And people who don’t have a college degree should be able to join (on a limited basis) as under-servers (can’t think of the word right now) of leaders. Sending out one person in a community or in teams of two isn’t going to be as effective when it comes to economic development.

anyway, since the PC has programs with universities and it’s a government bureaucracy that is horribly complicated, it’ll probably stay forever. it has too much lobbying power.

26

Peace Corps has an impact on our foreign policy. If nothing else, it’s a great bargaining chip for ambassadors. Pull up the embassy schedules for any ambassador that has a significant PC presence in the country and you will find a ton of PC related events.

Peace Corps is in a ton of countries outside of African countries. What are you talking about?

27

Dismal? Over 90% require a college degree plus meaningful experience in the field in which they will be working.

So if you want to work in the field of agriculture you need a bachelor’s or associate degree in agronomy or horticulture plus “(c)ompetitive applicants have a solid background in agricultural production on family or commercial farms. They have grown fruits and vegetables and understand concepts such as soil fertility and integrated pest management. Other relevant experience that is helpful includes interest in, and knowledge of, organic farming, mechanical skills from using farm machinery, some experience with livestock, and knowledge of food storage and preservation.”

Or if you want to do health education you must have a bachelor’s degree in health education, nutrition, or dietetics. And “(c)ompetitive applicants have been active in health-related activities on a volunteer basis in colleges or their communities, working, for example, as peer nutritionists, AIDS or sexually transmitted disease counselors, or resident advisors in dormitories. Many are pre-med students who have shadowed doctors in hospitals. Other relevant skills include expertise in disease surveillance, creative training and adult education techniques, and community entry and survey methods.”

All of these are in addition to showing knowledge of a foreign language such as French, Arabic or Spanish.
Dismal? Really?

28

What is it?

So you’re saying it* is* political? That ambassadors use the PC to advance our country’s agenda? :confused:

Or that ambassadors have PC related events because…that’s (gasp) part of their job?

I think you missed the sarcasm. As of this publication, it was 41 per cent.

29

What is the distinction you’re trying to make? You said PC doesn’t have an impact on our foreign policy. I pointed out a few ways it does. An ambassador’s job is to promote foreign policy. Therefore, PC, a component of foreign policy, is component of an ambassador’s job.

Yes, I did miss the sarcasm.

Also, I’m unclear on why you think peacekeeping is not/ was not a component of foreign policy.

30

Really? Do you have statistics on the latest Peace Corps volunteers? Ages, level of college attained, undergraduate major, and fluent language spoken (and utilized - cause me going to Botswana with knowing Hebrew, Spanish & English and Pig Latin does NOTHING for me!) ?

So working on HIV awareness requires you to have a BA in the health field?

That’s not what their website says. :confused:

I’m sorry; the only Peace Corps volunteers I know are ones who oh yeah you know it - taught English as a Second Language. It’s probably because I’m a teacher (derh), but I’d like to know the kinds of experience the other volunteers actually have. Not just what the agency claims they all have. There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence of Peace Corps volunteers’ stories all over the world wide web. Since the Peace Corps can’t back it up, I’m not sure how their stories should be less relevant.

It was also my understanding that you went where they sent you – have they changed that?

Perhaps you are taking this a little too personally?

31

For example, I served a second term in China. I’m sure I don’t need to expound how huge the diplomatic aspect of PC is in that program.

Peace Corps is In the middle of a large campaign to recruit more retired people and older volunteers. For obvious reasons, older people have more complications when it comes to packing up and starting a new life. Medical concerns are also a factor. But there is still a large contingent of older volunteers and that is growing.

People without degrees can serve if they have specific needed skills, especially when it comes to advanced water and sanitation engineering and construction. Every country sets their requirements for volunteers- China wanted people with Masters degrees or more than three years of classroom teaching. In general, a 4 year degree attests to a basic level of stick-to-it-ness and hopefully some maturity. It sets back the whole program in a country when someone goes home or gets sent home, so they really want something that shows that you have it in you to see it through. Besides a degree, each program has specific technical requirements- teachers need teaching experience, health volunteers need to have worked or volunteered in clinics, etc.

No NGO does what Peace Corps does. Generally a PCV spends their first year observing and assessing what the community really wants, who is served and who is left out by current development projects, who is trustworthy and who is corrupt, etc. No NGO comes close to that level of assessment. It’s not viable to have people do that on the salaries that NGO employees receive. Almost all NGOs work from major cities and their foreign employees live relatively isolated from the communities they work in. And this isn’t going to change easily- NGO employees are professionals. They have degrees, families to raise, and skills that translate directly to business and public administrations. They are not going to live in huts.

And NGOs lack the clout to work with the governments in ways that get the volunteers out to where they are needed, keep them safe, and ensure that they are useful. PC asks a lot of it’s host countries, and it can do that because it has the US government behind it.

Peace Corps conducts various levels of assessment, from volunteer reports on a quarterly basis to months long visits from the inspector general every few years. All of the annual reports and inspector general reports are available online. I have some constructive criticism of the Peace Corps M&E system, but you can’t say the information is not there.

Again, what specific documents, incidents, statistics or other actual piece of information leads you to conclude that Peace Corps is “useless”?

32

They impact our foreign policy initiatives? I’m still skeptical.

An ambassador’s job is to act as a spokesperson for the government. In a way, Peace Corps volunteers are cultural ambassadors. But do you really think our ambassador to Israel is in the same category as our ambassador to Swaziland? Of course not. But our ambassador to Swaziland is probably 10x more effective in foreign policy relations than the Peace Corps.

It is relevant if its in the right region. There’s a difference between ‘foreign policy’ as a catch all and a foreign policy agenda or focus. The Peace Corps is possibly not addressing a U.S. need.

33

What specific information do you have when you made the erroneous claim that I thought people joined the Corps after high school?

Where’s your evidence that you need a B.A. in health care to work in health education?

Where’s your evidence that the Peace Corps does anything effective? It’s been lauded as a great program for decades, but it’s just not politically correct to question it, right?

I’m sorry – your beloved organization makes some incredulous claims! Surely they have something to prove its worth. Every other governmental agency has to prove itself. Why not the Peace Corps? :confused:

34

Tell that to my friends who worked with this group.

So a PCV spends half of his or her time in the assessment phase?

[/QUOTE]

35

Impacting foreign policy initiatives? I guess that depends what you mean. Is the Peace Corps sitting in a strategy meeting with the JCOS determining our next strategic move? No- of course not. But are they a key component of the US’s soft power? Absolutely. I don’t see how you can argue otherwise. There is a ton of literature on this. I recommend looking into Joseph Nye’s work, as well as this Brookings Policy Memo: http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2003/12globalgovernance_rieffel.aspx

Ambassador to Israel compared to Ambassador to Swaziland- I think they’re in the same category in that they are representing the views of the US. Not in the the same category in that Israel is a key strategic ally and Swaziland is not. Similarly, the Swaziland Ambassador is likely going to be a State Department professional vs. the Israeli Ambassador will probably be a political appointee.

And I disagree with you about the Ambassador to Swaziland having more effectiveness in our foreign relations. If anything in a complete hereditary, non-democratic, hierarchical, non-strategic ally, monarchy like Swaziland, the US’s ability to conduct traditional diplomacy is very limited. However, the ability of Peace Corps volunteers to work in a country in which the US has absolutely no strategic interest, spreading a general positive American impression among people and government bureaucrats is way more powerful than the laudatory messages of the U.S. Ambassador.

How can you say it’s not addressing a U.S. need? Foreign policy focus: make the US more attractive. Utilize soft power- shift away from hard power. Mitigate the influence of China in Africa. Peace Corps does these things. They are clear distinct needs.

If you still don’t feel that Peace Corps’ value has been demonstrated, please define what you mean by “foreign policy.”

36

Doctors Without Border is an amazing organization, and they do a hell of a lot of good. But they generally focus on alleviating a need for highly-trained medical professionals, usually in response to a conflict, disaster or crisis. While it is not easy, and their volunteers find themselves in uncomfortable and dangerous positions pretty often, it’s a different thing than Peace Corps.

They do not generally send volunteers to live as part of the community, which is the key to the Peace Corps model. I believe the MSF salary is around $1,400 a month. I made more like $100 a month- about exactly what a Cameroonian high school teacher works. I lived in an ordinary house with no AC, no huge gate, no internet, no car, etc. i lived like an ordinary person. I worked an ordinary job. I wore a headscarf and never showed my knees. If I wanted a soda or to use the internet for an hour, I had to save my pennies because it was expensive for me. My friends were teachers, market ladies, housewives, the banker, tailors and local activists. I’d sometimes go a month without seeing a foreigner or speaking English. I was 100% there.

It’s just a totally different model. I wouldn’t say it is better or that it is worse, but nobody else really does that. Catholic Relief Services comes closest, but it’s still a different thing.

As a result, Peace Corps has an incredible amount of institutional knowledge, and Peace Corps volunteers are the experts on some countries.Someone working an ordinary job would take most of a decade to learn what I learned about Cameroon. And I’m probably going to end up working for the government in some capacity and it will be a bargain for them- they’d never be able to train a foreign service officer from scratch to know these things.

The whole “the first year is for assessment” thing isn’t hard and fast. Every volunteer has an ongoing job or organization that they work for, and that continues. But at some point volunteers are going to want to do a major project- start a library, build a classroom, dig some latrines, etc. and it makes a big difference in the project’s sustainability if you work through the assessment process and create a project that is truly stemming from the community’s needs. I started a youth center/library. Three years later, it is still going strong and benefiting the community.

As for qualifications, when I went to the recruiter with a BA in Film and Digital Media, I was told I could only be nominated provisionally and that in order to be placed I would either need to spend a year tutoring or find some health-related volunteering. I think I agreed to beef up my qualifications while I was undergoing the (very long) medical clearance process.

But, because of the program closure in Chad, a spot opened up in IT Education in Cameroon. I was working in a tech position at a startup search engine at the time. This combined with the technical aspects of my degree and some experience teaching digital video production and editing qualified me. I was by far the least qualified of my group, which included two former Microsoft employees (who cashed in and retired young) and a professional computer science trainer.

My years of teaching and excellent Peace Corps record (I did some notable secondary projects) qualified me to teach in China.

They do.

37

I didn’t see any kind of accountability report. So what? There are reports on “Meeting the Challenges of the 1990s.” :confused:

It’s great you had a great experience. But one site I read (by ex PCVs) stated it costs around $45k/year per volunteer. Is that efficient? I don’t make that much a year! How many people go into a community alone? Is that really better than networking? You have a specific skillset. But do we need to be spending money on sending 3,000 people a year to teach ESL and do HIV education? Is that policy making? Economics? Money well spent? Not convinced. I could take half that and go teach English in an organization where I’m needed, valued, and networked.

I’m not questioning how beneficial the PC was to you. Look at PC university programs. Oh, they benefit. PC is now the way to get government-sponsored public policy experience.

I’m just questioning the PC as it is.

38

GAO report in 2002.

The GAO recognized violence and safety…so what was done about it? :confused:

39

Ha. I dare you to be a blonde young woman Africa or Latin America and not get harassed. It took about five minutes in country before someone tried to grab my ass. I’m surprised the harassment numbers aren’t higher.

I imagine after a GAO report, PC did take some serious measures. I have credible info that they are taking serious measures now, as well. But they are probably not going to be able to stop rape. And there will always be some volunteers who have lived through rape who are justifiably upset. And this will always be an easy, attractive news story- it’s got all the right elements for a TV new expose- optimistic all American innocent young women in peril, scary foreign dark skinned men being sexually menacing, a big evil/incompetent government agency, worried waspy parents and a dash of taxpayer outrage. I’m sure we will see a variation on this same story (last time it hit the news it was about the Peace Corps health plan…turns out they can’t stop all disease any better than they can stop all rape) in about five years. I hate that this sensationalism keeps people from joining - or as most often happens creates a lot of family pressure against joining- what would quite likely be the best thinng they’ve ever done.

40

I’m a blonde young woman in Denver. I can imagine. :wink: But please don’t discount those women as sensationalist stories. Don’t act like it’s about inflating racial tensions. They were the victims. And their complaints have been going on for over a decade.

It’s nice that you have it on authority that something is being done, but the NYT article referenced crime that had been going on for years. It’s 2011 now. Not sure what was implemented.

At any rate, it doesn’t seem that anyone here can prove the Corp’s long-term effectiveness on anyone but some PCers themselves and yes, some communities.