Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:10 AM
Can The Peace Corps Thrive Without Dodd?
Dodd's departure leaves the Senate without a former Peace Corps volunteer for the first time since 1979. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
The Peace Corps' $420 million budget this year is 25 percent more than in 2009, the agency just opened programs in Indonesia and Sierra Leone, and lawmakers can't stop raving about new Administrator Aaron Williams.
So why are Peace Corps boosters worried? Two words: Christopher Dodd.
The Connecticut Democrat volunteered in the Dominican Republic from 1966 to 1968. When he retires at the end of this term, it will be the first time since 1979 that the Senate has been without a former Peace Corps volunteer. True, there are still Peace Corps supporters in the Senate, plus a record five returned volunteers in the House. But is that enough?
"I don't think we've ever had any real enemies," said former Sen. Harris Wofford, D-Pa., who helped launch the Peace Corps in the early 1960s. "It's a question of priorities and whether we've had enough champions."
The late Sen. Paul Tsongas, D-Mass., became the first former volunteer in the Senate -- he served in Ethiopia from 1962 to 1964 -- when he was elected in 1978. He was joined two years later by Dodd, and then by Wofford in 1991.
Dodd in particular has been key to pushing through several Peace Corps funding requests. And he sponsored the Peace Corps Improvement and Expansion Act of 2009, which instructs the agency to evaluate the countries it operates in, better solicit former volunteers for advice and plan its own expansion. The bill passed out of committee last week.
Dodd's departure has taken on new import as the Peace Corps, which turns 50 next year, looks ahead. President Obama campaigned on a promise to double the number of volunteers by 2011, and the agency's budget is growing. But what will a 21st century Peace Corps look like?
That question won't be decided by former volunteers in the Senate, but by the likes of Sens. Christopher "Kit" Bond, R-Mo., and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. They may admire the program, but they don't share the nostalgia of someone like Dodd, who often chats with Aaron Williams about their time in the Dominican Republic (Williams served there from 1968 to 1969.)
"Like any other issue that people generally like, there is a low-level of [active] support for it," said a senior Dodd aide. "But when it requires legislative efforts, how do you build beyond the general feelings of goodwill for the Peace Corps?"
For his part, Bond imagines transforming the Peace Corps into the tip of the spear of American diplomacy. He would pull volunteers from countries of questionable strategic importance like Fiji and Vanuatu and parachute them into the Muslim world. The decision in December to put volunteers back in Indonesia (the Peace Corps was kicked out in 1965) is a step in that direction, Bond told NationalJournal.com.
"Re-establishing the Peace Corps in Indonesia is one of the most important smart power investments our nation has made in the region since" American relief efforts in the wake of the 2004 tsunami, he said. "By putting more sandals and sneakers on the ground today, we will help prevent having to put boots on the ground in the future."
Leahy, meanwhile, holds the purse strings as the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs. He wants the Peace Corps to come up with a strategic vision, and he has wrangled with former volunteers in the House who want to boost funding before seeing a reform plan.
Leahy also wants to run the agency through a cost-benefit analysis of sorts. Last year, he wrote in a budget report that a volunteer costs $50,000 to put in the field, while a measles vaccine is just a few dollars.
"Sometimes it isn't understood that the subcommittee has a fixed allocation, and adding to one program means subtracting from other worthy needs," said a Leahy aide, who noted that while the subcommittee deals with a roughly $55 billion budget, only about $5 billion of that is actually discretionary. "It also would be untenable to shift large sums to the Peace Corps before knowing what the reform plan is."
Dodd's departure, lawmakers and Peace Corps advocates agreed, doesn't slow the Peace Corps' momentum. But as the agency's budget grows, it will attract more scrutiny from budget-cutting lawmakers. Who will be the Peace Corps' champion?
"That's a good question," said Kevin Quigley, president of the nonprofit National Peace Corps Association. "I wish I knew."
Ronald A. Schwarz
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Senator Dodd played a valuable role in supporting the Peace Corps and he will be missed. There are, however, other Returned Volunteers in Congress such a Sam Farr who will carry the torch and another will reach the Senate. As for the cost, I doubt anyone can challenge the fact that nothing can match the contributions of Peace Corps Volunteers to the image of the USA in developing countries, or their later contributions to diplomacy, politics, business, education, health and culture. The record speaks for itself.
John Chromy
Thursday, April 22, 2010
In response to part of this article please know the actual cost of having a Peace Corps Volunteer in the field is: Direct costs per PCV approximately $26,000/year--if you add all of Peace Corps overhead it becomes approximately $ 42,000/PCV per year.
compare that with:
a) Direct cost a mid-level embassy employee overseas--$360,000/per year
b) DoD reporting of the cost of having a soldier overseas --approximately $500,000 ; and in Afghanistan DoD says now it is costing slightly more than a million dollars per soldier
I wonder which of these three is making a more positive impact in the host country and at what cost benefit ratio.?
good will hunting
Thursday, April 22, 2010
There are many Peace Corps haters around these days, Mge is just one of many. There is a reason why Mge offers no statistics, just anecdotes to make the case. The facts are PC is just off of its safest decade ever and deaths in the Peace Corps are very, very low. The other awful truth is that most peopel who sign up for Peace Corps go in with their eyes wide open, ready to serve their country.
The $60K is way, way off for supporting a volunteer. Nevertheless, even $60k is much better than the $1 million per soldier.
Could and should Peace Corps continue to strive to be the best development and cultural exchange program in the world, yes. But the carping is unnessary and unwarranted. Mge is just dead wrong.
Kevin
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
I would have to disagree with the “Mge”, the first commenter here, on several issues.
As a Peace Corps Volunteer (Panama, 2007-2009), I – and many other PCVs – stated openly what areas I thought could be improved in the parts of the Peace Corps that I could see (training, language, site placement, etc). Now, as a Returned Peace Corps Volunteer (RPCV) I have a strong connection to the Peace Corps Headquarters in Washington DC, and I – again, with many other RPCVs – continue to state thoughts and opinions on how to improve the Peace Corps. Only now I can see much more of the entire process than I could as a PCV. (And I think Mge’s suggestion that suggestions and changes can’t be made because folks want a job is low and ludicrous.)
From the Headquarters point of view, there is an effort to capture data to show what the effect Peace Corps, as a whole, is having. In part, this is due to requests from Congress, but also due to comments from PCVs, who, accustomed to how work and progress is measured in the United States, often find the process “too slow” while serving. PCVs want to point at what we have done in the first three months of our time, but often it is not until later in our two years that our efforts begin to bear measurable fruit. And anecdotes abound about the volunteer who left after two years thinking he’d accomplished nothing, only to visit twenty years later with his family to find that he was still fondly remembered, that former students had gone on to become prominent and popular community leaders, and concepts he had taught his neighbors had finally been adopted after he left, when the time was right for the seeds he had sown to sprout and thrive. No inexpensive measles vaccine can have that sort of long term impact.
And in fact, that is the real strength of the Peace Corps: the volunteers are right there, in the community, living with the people, like the people, part of the people. Peace Corps isn’t some occasional visitor, coming by once a year just long enough to roll down the windows, let out some air conditioned air, toss a few gifts (shots, supplies, money, donations, what have you) to the gathered masses, and then zip back to the regional capital or other not-so-tiny city. Instead, they are there every day, able to reinforce what they giving (information, capacity, capability, self-reliance), able to show that American’s, in general, are much more like everyone else in the world than we are like movie stars or TV stars.
As for the cost per volunteer, that is a good question. And the answer will differ depending on how you answer this question: “What do we really want to accomplish?” Do we want nothing more than better health programs for citizens of Country Z? Do we want nothing more than better agriculture programs, or education systems, or small business programs, or what have you, in Country YouNameIt? Then yes, in many of those cases, perhaps we could “hire local” and hope that the quality was sufficient.
But if the answer is no, we want to also generate a positive impression of the United States in the citizens of Country Z, and no, we want to also share some of the best practices from the United States and around the world in agriculture, education, or small business, and no, we want to provide training to the people delivering these trainings, then perhaps we need to do more than just “hire local”. Peace Corps has three main goals: Helping the people of interested countries in meeting their need for trained men and women; Helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served; and Helping promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans. Without actual Americans in the communities, we can’t have an impact on the second and third goals.
With just $400 million this year, the Peace Corps has one of the smallest budgets in the government. Yet it manages to place over 7000 positive, long term, face-to-face impressions of Americans around the globe, impacting millions each year. So is $100 to $400 a person, for delivery of assistance, learning, and better understanding of Americans a good enough answer?
kevin
Mge
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Peace Corps already has sums shifted to it. The money comes from military aid(e.g. Fiji 10 million), US government programs like PEPFAR(Direclty funds PCs) and disaster budgets like Haiti(Congress is tying PC to the disaster funding). This rose out of PC partnering with NGOs
Transferring funds from PC countries ike Fiji should have already be done. For example, Fiji is currently banned for US foreign aid. PC is the exception. In the past, closing this country would have been done right after the coup that put in the military dictator. PC now stays in countries with coups and military dictators. Indonesia and other countries are being opened up at the request of the Obama administration and State making PC service much more dangerous by ignoring safety and security limitations over political pleasing for increased funding from the administration and State.
The cost per PC is higher than $50,000 and continues to increase as Dodd's bill is passed. The 2012 budget goals put them well above $60,000 per PC per year. Why would an NGO, country or program finance a PC for this amount when they could hire in country or place others like doctors and nurses for that amount? The cost is simply to high to justify the PCs.
The feelings of good will are financial. The cost per PC per year is so high it is justified by hiring in country personnel and paying staff in Washington. The PC value is this, not the good will. The PCs exist to pay these salaries a lot like foreign aid being justified by the percentages that go to salaries and infrastructure.
PC is more dangerous because of pressure to fund it. For example, one PC was 'accidental' shot , another died in hospital after a month of no diagnosis, another was shot to death by PC staff, another was fired for acquiring AIDS, another was fired for getting pregnant. The list goes on; danger to PCs and wrongful firings when the budget is so large that these should not be problems. PC is better off placing with NGOs like CNCS and cutting the huge overhead that isn't very effective as we move into more dangerous countries.
The advocate would say all this, but won't because of the pressure for more funding for PC staff and infrastructure. It is bad for a career to bring all this up, so most won't, hoping for a job.