This article is absurd. If there's still bipartisan support, a widely recognized need, and qualitative (and some quantitative data) proving the value of the Peace Corps, I'm unclear on what problems we need to solve.

Particularly puzzling is when Mr. Kenny suggests one of the Peace Corps' enduring strength is the 2-year minimum that volunteers must serve... which comes 2 paragraphs before he suggests the Peace Corps get rid of that requirement!

Equally confusing is Mr. Kenny's tangent into cell phone use in Senegal. Is the Peace Corps' goal to spread technology? Are the goals of the Peace Corps fulfilled when a developing nation gets cell phones? It seems a little ridiculous to assume rural senegalese are buying cell phones and suddenly caring about headline news on CNN.com.

The Peace Corps is a beacon in American foreign policy. It is a shining example of what Joe Nye calls "soft power". While other organizations have taken up the challenge of bringing volunteers to war-torn areas or established world capitals, the Peace Corps continues to send volunteers to the far reaches of the globe, and for the most part to rural villages to establish lasting connections and forge meaningful relationships.

Sure, the Fulbright program is doing amazing things, as is Doctors Without Borders, and we should be proud that so many American students are choosing to study abroad. But the Peace Corps still fulfills a unique niche, and it is thriving. Leave it alone.

That 1 million Americans volunteer abroad per year.
Peace Corps service is fundamentally different that most other international volunteer experiences. This number undoubtedly represents the growth of the "voluntourism" industry made up of organizations that provide a for-profit feel-good experience to backpacking bohemians. Of course this is not true of prestigious organizations like Doctors without Borders and there are certainly a number of other organizations doing substantive work for the benefit of the foreign populations they serve. Among those that do, the vast majority offer teaching assistance. While this service valuable, and certainly many or most Peace Corps Volunteers also offer teaching assistance to the communities they serve, this is a small part of what PCVs do. PCVs function as social entrepreneurs and catalysts for development efforts indigenous to the countries they serve. PCVs also serve rural and remote populations that are not frequented by voluntourists nor serviced by the world’s “professional” development organizations such as Oxfam and UNDP.
That tertiary education rates have risen.
Colleges in developing countries are mostly located in urban areas, while PCVs serve rural populations. Yes, they also serve urban populations but not unless there is a demonstrated need. PCVs serve at the request of a host organization. The quality of education of PCVs still exceeds that of foreign college graduates by and large, and there is something to be said for the American culture’s entrepreneurial spirit, often lacking among impoverished and apathetic populations.
That Peace Corps administration costs are too high.
Safety and security of Volunteers is a real issue. Recent reporting from abc reveals that 1,000 PCVs have been victims of sexual assault since 1990. They make the convincing case that Peace Corps does not do enough to protect its Volunteers. Burglary and battery are other concerns. The risks backpackers expose themselves to, where they are rarely the only foreigners to ever have been seen in the places they visit, are not comparable to the risks PCVs are exposed to. It should be noted that PCVs are not expatriates, as this article claims. This being said, there is certainly room to cut administrative costs. It should be noted that there is a cost to training PCVs as development workers and maintaining a standard of performance.
That “only 44 percent of host country nationals who have interacted with a volunteer believed that Americans are committed to assisting other peoples.”
44 percent seems high. I would imagine most of the world thinks much less of Americans. Peace Corps could do a better job in terms of publicity. Even among host country nationals who have interacted with PCVs, many do not know that PCVs are Americans.
That Peace Corps is operating in a world where people in even remote regions have exponentially greater access to sources of information about American culture and foreign policy than they had in 1961.
The question is whether or not PCVs can make a significant impact on America’s global image. The answer is undoubtedly “no.” However, Peace Corps Volunteers champion the cosmopolitan ethic that upholds "conversation" –the respectful and candid exchange of views amongindividuals and cultures –as a good in its own right. This is a critical component of America’s democratic vision for a peaceful world. And volunteers are on the front lines of this effort to spread peace through comprehension of human variety and common aspirations. Living as and among host country populations is certainly a qualitatively different experience for host country nationals than that they experience with backpackers and tourists.
Two-years.
Even compared to “professional” development agencies like Oxfam and the UNDP, the Peace Corps model that requires Volunteers to live as and among the population they serve, enabling them to better understand community level needs and design appropriate approaches, is unique and has enormous potential for impact. The Fulbright model-based suggestion for reform misses the point. Our immersion in communities allows Volunteers to create a level of local buy-in for development efforts that other aid organizations struggle to achieve.
Since the 1960’s,fledgling multi-national develop efforts have given rise to a multi-billion dollar industry. The growth of the foreign aid industry has endured criticisms, blunders, and challenges to the merit of its very existence. An increased focus on due diligence, innovation, and rigorous evaluation are outcomes that we see as generally positive in the world of development. Evidence-based approaches that draw on quantitative analysis are now industry standard. It is my impression that this standard has yet to reach (in a significant way) the Peace Corps’ service model for Volunteers. Volunteers are capable of adopting evidence-based approaches just as we have learned to focus on sustainability and self-sufficiency as essential aspects of successful projects. As they constantly reflect on the sustainability of a project, they can also begin to include monitoring and evaluation as tools for ensuring positive outcomes. If volunteers and counterparts design projects with quantitative evaluation in mind, they will strengthen the impact of our efforts.

Mr Kenny,

I am not sure I fully understand what your argument against the current model of the Peace Corps is.

You state that the average cost per volunteer is approximately $104,000 per year, and that more bang for the buck could be obtained by the program behaving like a private-sector program or like the Fullbright program. I find this argument faulty.

The cost of maintaining a PCV does look high, and undoubtedly there are efficiencies that could be wrung from the program. But as the Center for Strategic and Budgetary analysis has noted, it costs about $775,000 per year to maintain one deployed US servicemember in a theater such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Considering that there are far more military personnel than Peace Corps volunteers, and that their value in projecting American influence has become ever more questionable, shouldn't we look for savings in the defense budget first? Maybe the army doesn't need Pizza Huts in their Forward Operating Bases.

Placing almost 9,000 volunteers in 77 countries for $400 million a year sounds like a bargain. When you consider that the federal government spends more subsidizing rice farmers in the US (which no doubt has adverse impacts on development), or more on questionable programs such as the Merida initiative, then the program's costs seem neither bloated nor ineffectual, nor a great strain on the federal budget.

I would also say that comparing the Peace Corps to private volunteer programs is a false equivalency. Many (if not most) private programs charge their volunteers for the privilege of service, and often do not invest that money into development projects. These private programs have even more dubious value than the Peace Corps does, both for American participants and local recipients. Do church groups or private programs initiate development projects needed or wanted by locals? Do those volunteers take the time to learn the local language and culture, or live with local families?

Likewise, comparing the Peace Corps to the Fulbright program seems to not be a fair comparison. The cost may be less, but this carries its own pitfalls. If the Peace Corps sent its volunteers to Yemen on grants, thereby cutting program costs by avoiding security, what would happen when those volunteers get into danger?

As noted by commenters above, the Peace Corps tends to post PCVs in rural areas or areas with demonstrated need. A PCV's life is not as secure or protected as a State Department employee or a member of the military: arguably more, not less, should be done. Nevertheless, in return PCVs have much more freedom to interact with and learn from local populations at their own income level than would be the case with government agencies, or private volunteering services. US embassies routinely state that PCVs have a better understanding of what is happening in a country than the embassy staff does.

It is true that the world is overall better educated and better connected today than it was in 2011. But once again: are US interests served by having people form their opinions of Americans from movies and television, as opposed to working with college graduates? Personal networks still count for a lot in this world.

A fair case can be made (and has been made before), that more skilled, more professional volunteers could serve for shorter periods. Probably something along these lines would be needed to get bigger, middle income countries such as Brazil, India or Indonesia to host PCVs again. In my own Peace Corps experience in the former Soviet Union, most of my fellow volunteers held graduate business degrees or graduate education degrees. But we must consider this paradox: if older, more professional volunteers serve, how would they exactly be different from expat businesspeople? Would they agree to live at the average income level of the countries they were serving in? If they served for shorter periods, wouldn't that actually make them less interested in local needs or the outcomes of development projects?

The Peace Corps model isn't perfect, and it is operating in a vastly changed world. But unfortunately I'm finding that your article overestimates the cost and uselessness of the Peace Corps, and doesn't really have much to offer in terms of solutions.

Thanks,

ML

"...does the world still need the Peace Corps?" Basically, no.

Every Peace Corp kid I've met is doing it for one of several reasons a) They don't know what else to do b) They want the experience to put on an entrance letter to a Master's program at a top-ranked university or c) They're truly idealistic and they're going to change the world. They learn nothing about the country that they're in and more often than not, freak out as they're far too young an inexperienced to take on such a dramatic life shift that most Peace Corp opportunities offer.

On a broader scope, their one year spent in-country does nothing for the country nor for the Peace Corp volunteer. It's simply not enough time for real development to actually happen; that takes decades. This program should be shut down and shelved as it has long outlived its purpose, if it ever truly had one. And just so you know, I'm liberal and live in San Francisco, so this isn't a "red stater" ranting about how this program needs to go. I'm a "blue stater" who says that the program is DOA.

I served in Cameroon from 2008-2010. I wrote a blog entry in response to this article: http://www.asianpolyglot.com/2011/02/does-the-world-still-need-peace-corps/

Austinland!

Great response. It looks like you are currently working in this sector. Would love to speak to you as we are currently doing work in measuring results/impacts.

Luc Lapointe consultant.luc@live.ca