Peace Corps

Former Peace Corps country director Robert L. Strauss kicked off a fierce debate with his online essay, "Think Again: The Peace Corps." Strauss argued:

In the eyes of Americans, no government agency better exemplifies the optimism, can-do spirit, and selfless nature of the United States than the Peace Corps. Unfortunately, it’s never lived up to its purpose or principles.

Former volunteers were eager to respond, and several of their letters are posted below. Peace Corps Director Ronald A. Tschetter also wrote in with his comments, saying he was "greatly disappointed with both the tone and misrepresentations of Robert Strauss’s article."

Readers, what do you think? Read the original article and the responses, and weigh in with your thoughts below.

Andrew J. Holmes offers a mixed assessment of Strauss's article:

As a former Peace Corps volunteer, former international development worker, and current MBA candidate, I find that the author’s arguments cite legitimate problems with the Peace Corps, but in doing so points out some of the strengths of the program.

Many large organizations, government and otherwise, are riddled with inefficiency, and I believe that a further analysis of Peace Corps' finances would likely prove that it is relatively lean for a government organization. Medivacs and the bureaucracy that involves medical complications are a large expense, and it is amazing that Peace Corps is as inexpensive to taxpayers as it is after taking this into account. I doubt the American taxpayers get more bang for their buck in any international development, military, or entitlement programs.

Giving Peace Corps concrete goals to accomplish would be an extremely difficult task, given the variety of circumstances within and across countries in which volunteers operate. Much of the development community struggles with establishing benchmarks for performance; the fact that Peace Corps volunteers often operate in fringe areas makes this all the more difficult. While at first sounding like a good idea, in many cases specific benchmarks would either doom volunteers to inevitable failure or, to prevent this failure, would prevent volunteers from ever entering a site to begin with. In fact, a major component of a Volunteer’s assignment lies in their assessing the situation, and developing attainable goals based on the environment. An enforced plan from Washington would force volunteers to attempt to fit square pegs into round holes.

Here's a reaction from Blair Reeves, a Peace Corps volunteer in Cameroon from 2005 to 2007:

Robert is right about some things - the Peace Corps, like any other government agency, is overly politicized, obtusely bureaucratic and suffers from some occasionally awful administration. As an employee for a USAID contractor now, however, I brush off these criticisms as being somehow specific to Peace Corps. As many others have pointed out, the PC can be a potent diplomatic tool - the very example of the "public diplomacy" our country so badly needs today. And no matter what Robert thinks, genuine, sustainable, long-term development is accomplished by individual volunteers on a local basis - just ask the village of Okong, where I helped arrange to fund and build two sources of potable water where there were none before. So fix the failings and let Peace Corps evolve - but see the PC's flaws in perspective with its successes.

Emily Armitage, a Peace Corps volunteer currently serving in Bulgaria, begs to differ with Robert Strauss:

Strauss misrepresents a reputable initiative of the US government while devaluing the work of many current and past volunteers. While Strauss argues that many younger volunteers are immature and unqualified, my experiences have taught me otherwise.

Volunteers must be passionate, energetic, flexible and adaptable. There is great value in having volunteers from every age group. Each volunteer offers a different skill set and background, representative of the diversity in America. Yet, often, skills learned in the United States are inapplicable in the developing world due to societal and cultural differences. Often, highly skilled Americans can make ineffective volunteers because they lack some of the other characteristics essential to success in a foreign environment. Volunteers must adapt their perspectives and be willing to learn from their native colleagues.

Older volunteers often have difficulty learning the language, which can limit their contacts within the community. The Peace Corps must recruit volunteers willing to spend two years of their lives in difficult, sometimes primitive conditions and it may be harder for older volunteers to adapt to a lower standard of living. While older volunteers have more life experiences, many younger volunteers possess knowledge of technology, web design, e-mail and the Internet--integral skills for the developing world.

Strauss criticizes the organization's reliance on personal anecdote as an indicator of success. Certainly, rigorous evaluation must be a critical program element but grassroots development encompasses more than statistically validated economic improvement. The impacts are often qualitative and intangible. Grass roots development work empowers people to make sustainable change. The results are usually felt individually or locally. The Peace Corps budget is miniscule compared to those of other US government agencies and international development organizations. We receive a living allowance equal to the local standard and must utilize resources within our community to provide training and develop projects. Peace Corps volunteers are not given money to implement projects. This calls for a nuanced approach to determine and respond to local needs. Often broad overarching policies become illogical within the context of a specific country. It is highly likely that Strauss' experiences in Cameroon differ greatly from the issues facing Bulgaria.

Peace Corps volunteers are not professional development workers. Most move on to other professions while retaining the values and lessons learned abroad. Our experiences make us better, more informed citizens of the world and enable us to share a unique perspective with our fellow American citizens. Of the three Peace Corps goals, the second and third have a resounding impact—to help promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served and to help promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans. We provide the face of America in some of the most remote parts of the world. We show ordinary people that the United States is not a militant superpower without regard for the rest of humanity.

Recently my grandfather wryly questioned me, "Why is it called the Peace Corps? You aren't at war with these countries." Upon consideration, I would say it is one of the best preemptive strategies out there. Volunteers provide a platform for dialogue, exchanging ideas and vision with the citizens of their host countries.

Garner Woodall, a Peace Corps volunteer in Togo from 2000 to 2001, responds:

I hate to say it, but Robert Strauss is dead right in many respects. In fact, when it comes to his point about Peace Corps sending volunteers where they are needed most, this had a lot to do with my leaving early.

I was sent to a village after Peace Corps Togo had conducted a problematic training stage for their Natural Resource Management program (NRM). The village itself was very divided before Peace Corps arrived, and became further divided as the training program went on. Peace Corps Togo decided to pull its training program out of the village after it was evident that there were too many issues. However, there were a handful of people in the village that asked for a regular volunteer to be posted there. The Country Director himself admitted to me that I was a "consolation volunteer" for this village and gave me the full background of Peace Corps' involvement there after I had been at post for nearly a year. This was not how I imagined Peace Corps went about chosing villages for PCV placement.

To make it worse, I was a Girls Education Volunteer in a village where roughly a third of middle school students where female, which in Togo, was exceptional. The highest score on school exams in the village had been achieved by girls as well. What the village really wanted a NRM Volunteer, but since my village was in the south where environmental degradation as not as severe compared to the north, (i.e. where the horses had not yet stormed through the barn door)  Peace Corps Togo refused to send a NRM PCV. So my village got what they didn't want or need.

I left early, because I realized that with the infighting in the village and the lack of interest in my work, I wasn't going to accomplish much. I didn't want to be one of those deadbeats Robert Strauss described in his article that just stuck around doing time. Interestingly, despite my precautions in my Close of Service reports, Peace Corps Togo posted another volunteer in the same village. At least this time they got it right and posted a NRM volunteer. However, it appears that a large portion of the work he did was in villages other than the one to which he was posted.

I don't regret my service with Peace Corps. Of course I wish it had gone better, but in the end it was a life changing experience that opened a whole new world for me. I continue to maintain contact with my host family, and even now when people ask me about my time there, I feel like I am still digesting it.