Brookings: Topics - Peace Corps

How 9/11 Changed How Americans View The World

Robert Kagan — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:00:00 -0400

Editor’s note: On NPR’s Talk of the Nation, Robert Kagan discussed - with Neil Conan and Woodrow Wilson Center President Jane Harman - Americans’ attitudes towards politics and international affairs since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

NEAL COHAN, HOST: Robert Kagan, the same question: How have your views changed since 9/11?

KAGAN: Well, I'm kind of a dinosaur, so my views don't - didn't change that much. I mean, obviously, we've had two unsuccessful military conflicts. The question that I have about American public opinion is: Are we in a fundamentally changed public opinion environment, or are we just going through what, really, if you look historically, is a consistent cycle?

There have been numerous periods throughout American history when we've gone from a period of global activism with a lot of public enthusiasm, World War I, for instance, which was immediately followed by tremendous disillusionment and a turning away from the world.

And if you look at the long history of polls since the Second World War, there have been ups and downs. There was a time - 1982, I'm looking at this poll - Americans were even less enthusiastic about having an active role then than they are today. But then it went up 10 points.

So, obviously, at this moment, in this recession, with, you know, Afghanistan not looking successful, Iraq a mixed picture, Americans are more pessimistic. If we get out of the recession, when we get out of the recession, I hope, when we face new crises, I think you could see American opinion changing again.

And one of the things that I note, interestingly, is that there is a majority of support for enforcing no-fly zones over Syria, which is a military action, which could have all kinds of consequences. So I take a more - I take a longer view of this, and I've seen - you know, you've seen, historically, Americans go up and down on this question. And I consider 61 percent supporting an active role in the world quite high and, in a way, you know, to be welcomed.

CONAN: But big majorities opposed to acting if, for example, China invades Taiwan, if North Korea attacks South Korea, split on Israel.

KAGAN: Yeah. But I'm not sure - I'd like to know compared to when. Was there a time when Americans were enthusiastic about going to war with China over Taiwan? It's possible. I haven't seen older polling about that.

And then, of course, there is the interesting phenomenon that we've seen over and over again, Americans saying, a majority of Americans saying they don't want to get into a certain conflict. The president, you know, often with the approval of Congress, not always, nevertheless taking Americans into that conflict and then seeing Americans rally to support that action.

Woodrow Wilson, in 1916, won his election saying he was the man who kept us out of war. Five months later, he led Americans into war with enormous public support. So I just - I'm wary of looking at these public opinion polls and thinking that somehow this is an attitude written in stone. These things are very changeable over time.

Listen to the full interview at npr.org »

Authors

Robert Kagan

Publication: NPR

Image Source: © Mike Segar / Reuters

Peace Corps at 50

David L. Caprara — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:12:00 -0400

This week, our nation reflects on the 50-year legacy of the Peace Corps, which President John F. Kennedy signed into law on September 22, 1961. The passing earlier this year of Sargent Shriver, the indefatigable founding director of the Peace Corps, furthered national and international recognition of America’s longstanding traditions of service to the world. The time is right to expand the national policy discussion to include a broadened array of global service actors inspired by the example of Peace Corps volunteers to address critical human needs.

The largest independent representative survey of Peace Corps volunteers to date is being released this week as part of the 50th anniversary assessments by Civic Enterprises and the National Peace Corps Association with Peter D. Hart Research Associates. The survey documents responses from 11,138 Peace Corps volunteers who served from 1961 to 2011.

Among the survey findings of the returned Peace Corps volunteers:

82 percent view Peace Corps service “effective in promoting a better understanding of Americans in the communities they served,” and 74 percent indicated they view it “helps the U.S. adapt to globalization.”
59 percent view their service as, “effective in meeting the needs for trained workers.”
98 percent would recommend Peace Corps service to their family members.

Enhanced international awareness among volunteers was underscored in prior research assessing international NGO service released at a Brookings-Washington University joint forum. The Center for Social Development (CSD) report found that cross-cultural service also contributes significantly to international social capital, by developing a group of volunteers abroad who can leverage additional resources and connections to coordinate humanitarian aid projects.

Impacts of the broadened field of global and local volunteers are being demonstrated in critical issue areas such as basic hygiene and malaria reduction by Peace Corps and Malaria No More in Senegal, and a promising demonstration project led by Omnimed and Makarere University in Kampala, Uganda. The Omnimed model has utilized an innovative combination of international medical volunteers, supported by Volunteers for Prosperity at USAID and Peace Corps, to train and equip local village volunteers in Community Health Teams in sustaining malaria prevention. By expanding this network of public and private partners, and empowering local social entrepreneurs and village volunteers, potential exists to spread effective, results-based malaria health service corps across Sub-Saharan Africa and worldwide.

A steadily growing recognition of the importance of the wider landscape of volunteers— including NGOs, faith-based institutions, corporations and universities—is furthering goals for multi-sector inclusion in international service that Peace Corps’ founding director Sargent Shriver articulated to President Kennedy in his original 1961 report.

The Call to Peace and accompanying Service World recommendations represent a fresh call to action which should be taken up by foundations and both national parties to develop innovative and results-oriented solutions to today’s challenges of development and peace.

Authors

David L. Caprara

Image Source: Â© Ho New / Reuters

Sargent Shriver’s Lasting—and Growing—Legacy

David L. Caprara — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 09:56:00 -0500

Robert Sargent Shriver, Jr. guided the Peace Corps from its inception in 1961 (when it was a nascent vision of service and citizen diplomacy) to establish a renowned track record of success over the past half century, in which more than 200,000 volunteers and trainees have served in 139 countries.

The legacy of Shriver’s leadership with the Peace Corps and later with the Office on Economic Opportunity and Special Olympics has reached and changed millions of lives—of both those empowered and those who served—from impoverished communities across rural and urban America to huts and villages in developing nations throughout the world. Yet one of the greatest gifts he leaves us is the foundation to build on those accomplishments to scale-up service as a direly needed “soft power” alternative to establish international understanding and collaboration in a volatile world. As Sarge put it, so simply but powerfully: “Caring for others is the practice of peace.”

Sarge Shriver’s unquenchable idealism today is being advanced by a new generation of social entrepreneurs such as Dr. Ed O’Neil, founder of OmniMed and chair of the Brookings International Volunteering Project health service policy group. With the help of Peace Corps volunteers and USAID-supported Volunteers for Prosperity, O’Neil has fielded an impressive service initiative in Ugandan villages that has expanded the capacity and reach of local health-service volunteers engaged in malaria prevention and education on basic hygiene.

Timothy Shriver, who succeeded his parents, Sarge and Eunice, at the helm of the Special Olympics, speaks eloquently on the move of a second generation from politics to building civil society coalitions promoting soft power acts of service and love, one at a time. This impulse is echoed in the Service World policy platform which hundreds of NGOs and faith-based groups, corporations and universities have launched to scale-up the impact of international service initiatives. This ambitious undertaking was first announced by longtime Shriver protégé former Senator Harris Wofford at a Service Nation forum convened on the morning of President Obama’s Cairo speech in which he called for a new wave of global service and interfaith initiatives.

I had the privilege of serving as a national director of the VISTA program inspired by Shriver and to work alongside Senator Wofford and John Bridgeland, President George W. Bush’s former White House Freedom Corps director, who have co-chaired the Brookings International Volunteering Project policy team. Along with Tim Shriver, they have ignited the Service World call to action, together with Michelle Nunn of Points of Light Institute, Steve Rosenthal of the Building Bridges Coalition, Kevin Quigley of the National Peace Corps Association and many others.

The Obama administration and Congress would best honor the life and legacy of Sarge Shriver by calling for congressional hearings and fast- tracking agency actions outlined in the Service World platform and naming the global service legislation after him. Coupled with innovative private-sector and federal agency innovations, the legislation would authorize Global Service Fellowships, link volunteer capacity-building to USAID development programs such as Volunteers for Prosperity, and double the Peace Corps to reach a combined goal of 100,000 global service volunteers annually—a goal first declared by JFK.

Those who promote opportunity and service as vehicles to advance peace and international collaboration will continue to draw inspiration from Sargent Shriver’s indefatigable quest for social justice―from the time he talked then-Senator John F. Kennedy into intervening in the unjust jailing of Martin Luther King, Jr. to his refusal to accept wanton violence and impoverished conditions in any corner of the world.

Information on offering online tributes to the Shriver family and donations in lieu of flowers requested by the family of Sargent Shriver can be found at www.sargentshriver.org .

Authors

David L. Caprara

Image Source: © Ho New / Reuters

International Volunteer Service: A Smart Way to Build Bridges

David L. Caprara, Kevin F. F. Quigley and Lex Rieffel — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:04:50 -0400

Introduction

President Obama has proposed expanding the Peace Corps and building a global network of volunteers, “so that Americans work side-by-side with volunteers from other countries.” Achieving this goal will require building on the success of the Peace Corps with a new combination of public and private initiatives designed to expand opportunities for volunteers to address critical global problems such as poverty, contagious diseases, climate change, and conflict.

We examine alternative service models, both domestic and foreign, and offer recommendations to the Obama Administration for harnessing the energy and skills of Americans eager to engage in volunteer work in foreign countries as part of a multilateral mobilization effort and smart power diplomacy.

Downloads

Download

Authors

David L. Caprara
Kevin F. F. Quigley
Lex Rieffel

International Service and the Obama Administration

David L. Caprara — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:00:00 -0500

Editor’s Note: President Obama has stated his commitment to enhancing service and volunteer opportunities for Americans both at home and abroad. David Caprara, the director of Brookings’s Initiative on International Volunteering and Service, explores the administration’s agenda in this Q&A.

Q: President Obama has been a long-time supporter of service and volunteer efforts. As his administration now commences in earnest, what are the major areas of focus we might expect to see from the president and his cabinet?

President Obama has just made his first successful mark on national service by supporting $201 million in new funding for Americorps and related national service programs adopted in the stimulus bill and signed into law as one of the first acts of his presidency. The administration has aims of expanding the Peace Corps and boosting AmeriCorps participation from 75,000 slots to 175,000 members.

In addition, the Administration is supporting “development 2.0” approaches by engaging the private sector, civil society and new media, which certainly include an expanded focus on volunteer service at home and abroad.

Q: Doubling the size of the Peace Corps to 16,000 by 2011 has been one publicly stated goal of the new Administration. What does the international service community think about this objective?

The Building Bridges Coalition, an outgrowth of the International Volunteering Initiative at Brookings, which includes more than 180 international volunteer service organizations and universities, strongly supports the President’s Peace Corps goal. The Coalition has also supported boosting overall global volunteering to 100,000 annually through a combination of doubling Peace Corps, enacting Global Service Fellowship funding along the lines proposed by Senator Russ Feingold, and authorizing Volunteers for Prosperity at USAID. These goals formed the basis of the Service Nation Summit’s global policy recommendations last year. Former Senator Harris Wofford (a legendary architect of service initiatives under Presidents Kennedy, Clinton and now Obama) and our International Volunteering team at Brookings helped to craft the recommendations following months of policy research and practitioner forums.

Q: The Obama administration has expressed an interest in establishing an “America’s Voice Initiative” to utilize Americans with foreign language skills for public diplomacy efforts, and to increase opportunities for older individuals to serve overseas in volunteer capacities. What would these types of efforts mean for America volunteer and service programs overall?

The Administration’s America’s Voice Initiative and multilateral approach to service signal a new direction that places greater emphasis on “track two diplomacy” and smart power assets represented in our nation’s greatest diplomats – our volunteers. Our project policy team and national advisors will continue shaping policy options that could make multi-lateral service a reality.

Q: Given its full agenda with the global financial crisis and new domestic programs, do you think Congress will take up new service policy proposals this year?

The Kennedy-Hatch “Serve America Act,” which was announced during the Service Nation Summit on September 11, 2008, stands a strong chance of passing in this Congress. We can base this projection on the foundation of a solid groundswell of bipartisan support, a broad popular mandate, and leadership by President Obama, who has embraced service as a central cause of his presidency. This week’s adoption of expanded funding for Americorps in the stimulus package is the first installment on this agenda.

Authors

David L. Caprara

A Better Place for the Peace Corps

Lex Rieffel — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:00:00 -0400

Editor’s Note: The Peace Corps, although the standard of excellence for international volunteering, remains constrained by budget issues and low numbers of volunteers. Increasing the number of American's engaged in volunteer service overseas will involve rethinking the organizational form. In a recent World View article, Lex Rieffel advises for the creation of a Corporation for International Study and Service that includes the Peace Corps and outlines key benefits.

The Peace Corps is stuck in a rut. It remains the gold standard for international volunteering but budget constraints have kept the number of volunteers in the field below 8,000. Today the Peace Corps is barely half the size it reached at its peak in the mid-1960s, despite President Bush's request to Congress after 9/11 to rebuild to the 14,000 level.

A critical challenge for the next president of the United States will be to convince the rest of the world that we are more interested in being a reliable partner than a military superpower. The future security and prosperity of Americans will depend on the success of this effort, which can only be achieved through a mix of hard power and soft power instruments. The Peace Corps has been one of the most effective forms of American soft power since John F. Kennedy created it in 1961. Scaling up the Peace Corps to ten times its present size could be one of the smartest initiatives advanced by the next president. Based on policy analysis and deliberations carried out over the past five years, a bold move of this kind will require a new mission, a new funding model, and a new organizational form.

The new mission simply needs to reflect the immense changes in the world over the past fifty years, especially the rise of new economic powers such as Brazil, China and India. A bigger Peace Corps will only be attractive to these countries if it is more of a partnership, an exchange, a two-way street. The new funding model can be borrowed from our domestic volunteer programs. Instead of putting the full cost on American taxpayers, federal budget dollars can be combined with private sector funds: from NGOs, for-profit programs, corporations, universities, etc.

The most radical step required to have ten times as many Americans engaged in volunteer service overseas is probably the creation of a new organizational form. The task calls for an organization that will allow traditional Peace Corps service to remain the gold standard, but will accommodate a "family" of related international volunteer programs.

Four organizational forms have been considered. The one that offers the greatest advantages is a Corporation for International Study and Service that includes the Peace Corps, essentially as it is today, among half a dozen or more volunteering options.

The alternatives that appear less attractive are: keeping the Peace Corps as a federal agency but mandating it to establish several new programs with a range of service requirements; spinning off the Peace Corps into the private sector (with a basic commitment of federal funding) where it would be free to innovate both on the funding side and the program side; and enlarging the mandate of the Corporation for National and Community Service – CNCS (which administers AmeriCorps, Vista and other domestic programs) to include the Peace Corps and various new international programs.

Here are some of the benefits to expect from creating a Corporation for International Study and Service – CISS:

Like the CNCS, the CISS would have a policy-making Board of Directors dominated by private citizens. This will make Peace Corps governance more bipartisan and more visible.
With a fresh and broader mandate, the CISS Board would appoint as CEO a charismatic personality who could more effectively "sell" international volunteering to the Congress, to Americans seeking service opportunities overseas, and to the leading emerging market countries that will be the major drivers of global economics and politics for the next fifty years. The CEO could be the Director of the Peace Corps at the same time.
The Peace Corps would have a better "home," less beholden to the White House and the State Department. It will be at the heart of the CISS: recruiting, training, and supporting volunteers for two-year assignments, as it has been doing successfully for almost 50 years. It will contribute country knowledge and operational experience for the new programs to be established by the CISS. The goal of doubling the number of Peace Corps volunteers by 2011 can be more easily reached as part of a strategic approach to building bridges with the rest of the world.
Two existing "sister" programs would also find better homes in the CISS. One is Peace Corps Response, which sends returned Corps Volunteers to "hot spots" for short-term (six month) periods of service. With co-financing, it could easily grow from 100 volunteers per year today to more than a thousand per year. The other is Volunteers for Prosperity, a "match-making" program now administered by USAID. The CISS would also be the logical home for the Global Service Fellowship Program that is now under consideration in the Congress.
The CISS would be free to add and drop programs as the supply of volunteers and the demand from foreign countries evolves. An absolutely critical step will be to create a program to place foreign volunteers at useful sites in the United States, as science and language teachers in our public schools, for example. An obvious winner will be a new program for "Baby Boomers" that might involve shorter but repeated commitments at sites tailored to their skills and experience.
The Peace Corps was born on a university campus. Sargent Shriver's vision included an intense partnership with American colleges and universities. It did not materialize, but today the prospects may be better. In-service learning is booming here and in other countries. Academic leaders have been working to scale up international study. The synergies between international study and international service are clear and immense. Bringing the two together in the CISS will help both movements achieve what neither can achieve independently: more funding, greater volunteer interest, better service opportunities, and better post-study and post-service employment opportunities.

Will the next President of the United States be prepared to take a bold step of this kind? The answer depends in large part on what the candidates hear on campuses and in communities across the country this fall. That's how the Peace Corps began. The time is ripe. Use your voice and vote.

Authors

Lex Rieffel

Publication: World View, Volume 21, Number 3

Ten Times the Peace Corps: A Smart Investment in Soft Power

Kevin F. F. Quigley and Lex Rieffel — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:00:00 -0400

Abstract

Reversing the negative attitudes toward the United States that prevail in many parts of the world will require a mix of hard power and soft power instruments. The Peace Corps has been one of the most effective forms of American soft power since it was created by John F. Kennedy almost 50 years ago. With 8,000 volunteers in the field, however, it is half the size it reached at its peak in 1966, and most Americans are unaware that it still exists.

Scaling up the Peace Corps to ten times its present size could be one of the smartest initiatives advanced by the next president if it is premised on a new vision, a different funding model, and an enhanced organizational form.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Kevin F. F. Quigley
Lex Rieffel

Global Service Fellowships: Building Bridges through American Volunteers

David L. Caprara, Harris Wofford and John Bridgeland — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 00:00:00 -0400

As policy-makers search for ways to share the best of America with the world, they should start with our international volunteers, who embody this country's spirit of generosity, resourcefulness and hope. With the support of Congress and the Bush Administration, volunteers can become the first face of America to communities in many nations, while advancing concrete initiatives that lift up the lives of the poor throughout the world.

To maximize the potential of international volunteering, we propose that Congress establish a program of Global Service Fellowships to support American volunteers—nominated by congressional members—serving abroad with qualifying nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), faith-based groups, and universities that are committed to advancing peace and development. Initial funding of $50 million would support approximately 10,000 fellowships annually averaging $5,000 each to pay for volunteers' travel, program costs, and minimal living expenses. In addition, Congress and the White House should work together to double the Peace Corps, authorize and provide support to Volunteers for Prosperity, and increase support of other efforts inside and outside government to enable global service and assess its impact. These efforts will empower a growing coalition of international volunteering organizations to help reach the goal of 100,000 Americans serving in developing countries each year.

Policy Brief #160

The role of international volunteer service in building bridges across growing global divides has never been more critical to the future of our nation, and global peace and stability. Building on the exemplary work of the Peace Corps, a growing field of nongovernmental organizations, faithbased entities, universities, and corporate service programs seek to help communities abroad while enhancing the lives of volunteers. In addition to bringing tangible benefits to the people they serve, members of this new cadre of international volunteers also tend to develop enduring habits of civic engagement and lasting appreciation of foreign partners and perspectives. This strengthens America's civil society, advances public diplomacy objectives abroad, and deepens American understanding of forces beyond our borders.

This movement of international volunteers could be greatly enhanced by congressional leadership to provide America's volunteers with expanded service opportunities that would help improve perceptions of the United States abroad. To maximize the potential of international volunteering, we propose that Congress pursue a global service agenda centering on a new program of congressionally-nominated Global Service Fellowships, along with doubling the Peace Corps, authorizing and supporting Volunteers for Prosperity, and increased support of technical assistance and multilateral exchanges. These efforts will empower a growing coalition of international volunteering organizations to help reach the goal of 100,000 Americans serving in developing countries each year.

The unique power of volunteer service has been key to the vitality of our nation since its birth. In the mid-nineteenth century, historian Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique contributions of voluntary organizations as a core strength of our young democracy. In the following two centuries, presidents from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush have recognized that volunteering is one of America's greatest exports.

A longitudinal study conducted by Abt Associates for the Corporation for National and Community Service noted the profound long-term impact of extended service in domestic programs like AmeriCorps on participants' civic engagement. These benefits include increased volunteer connections and participation in their community, knowledge of local community challenges such as the environment, health, and crime, and personal growth through strengthened habits of citizenship and service.

Service abroad brings the additional benefit of forging personal relationships between generous Americans and poor citizens of foreign lands. While American volunteers come home with a lifelong appreciation of the challenges faced by developing countries, citizens of those nations gain personal experience of American generosity and humanity.

The potential power of these efforts are evidenced in the results of a recent Terror Free Tomorrow poll, which showed a markedly positive change in major Muslim nations' perceptions of the United States in response to humanitarian relief and service initiatives. Polling data indicated that nearly 60 percent of Indonesians and 75 percent of Pakistanis held more favorable views of the United States following humanitarian assistance after their tsunami and earthquake tragedies. Importantly, this change in perception lasted beyond the initial aid and service, underscoring that America's actions can have lasting impact.

One illustrative international volunteer example is Kimberly Priebe of Schaumburg, Illinois, who was recently honored by USA Freedom Corps for her service as a World Teach volunteer teaching English in a community college in Vilcabamba, Ecuador. While serving in Ecuador for one year, Ms. Priebe published columns back home that described the serious educational needs of the population in Vilcabamba. After reading the columns, the residents of Schaumburg responded by sending contributions to establish 100 scholarships for young people to attend the Vilcabamba community college. This support, generated by an American volunteer abroad, will foster benefits and bonds that will last beyond the scholarships and affect generations to come.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered remarks in June 2006 at the Brookings Institution. His speech centered on international service and cultural exchange. "Don't sell us short," he stated, "One way not to sell us short is to take that which we still have as a valuable commodity, who we are and what we are, and send it overseas in the form of volunteers."

Global Service Fellowships

International volunteering and service should be re-engaged with the level of commitment and imagination exhibited by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 with the launch of the Peace Corps. This legacy should be adapted to meet the twenty-first century's unique challenges of global conflict and human development. And it should leverage the twenty-first century's remarkable wealth of organizations outside of government, such as NGO and faith-based partners, corporations and universities committed to advancing global development to meet the goal of engaging 100,000 Americans serving abroad annually.

We ask Congress and the president to raise their sights to these goals by embracing a global service agenda that would empower a wider range of Americans of diverse socio-economic backgrounds and professional skills to respond to a call to service meeting critical humanitarian needs and achieving vital civic diplomacy objectives.

As a centerpiece of this agenda, Congress should authorize a new Global Service Fellowship to support qualifying organizations outside of government that have the commitment and the capacity to sponsor volunteers abroad to advance concrete development objectives. Initial funding of $50 million would support approximately 10,000 fellowships annually averaging $5,000 to pay for volunteers' travel, program costs, and minimal living expense. This is a fraction of the cost of supporting a Peace Corps volunteer for one year. Global Service Fellowships ranging from both short-term placements of up to six months, to lengthier one year assignments can be an effective "on ramp" both to longer Peace Corps service and a lifetime of civic engagement.

This new initiative, involving government support for individuals in non-profit and faith-based groups, builds on the successful model created by AmeriCorps at home. AmeriCorps has placed volunteers in a variety of civic, community, and faith-based groups. This has strengthened the voluntary organizations while also broadening service opportunities well beyond those available through entities formally connected with government. It is a model that creates a powerful virtuous circle: government can leverage resources beyond its own, and worthy voluntary groups get needed help in building their own capacities to engage millions of Americans in service to the nation.

Global Service Fellowship recipients would be nominated by each U.S. representative and senator, and awards made in the form of a voucher to defray travel and program living expenses redeemable through qualifying international voluntary service NGOs, faith-based organizations, and overseas service learning programs with universities and colleges. Fellowship applicants would initially apply through participating international service programs and, upon acceptance, would submit their Fellowship application to their congressional office for nomination to the appropriate oversight agency.

To promote increased socio-economic diversity in the international service field, added weight in the selection process could be given to qualified applicants coming from households with income less than 200 percent of poverty level. Applicants with demonstrated prior community service experience would, likewise, be given added consideration, as would applicants from skilled disciplines addressing specific host country needs.

David L. Caprara is nonresident fellow and director of the Brookings Initiative on International Volunteering and Service, and the former director of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and AmeriCorps VISTA, Corporation for National and Community Service.

John Bridgeland co-chairs the Brookings Institution policy working group on International Volunteering and Service. He is CEO of Civic Enterprises, CEO of Malaria No More, and former assistant to the president and director of the White House Domestic Policy Council and director, USA Freedom Corps at the White House overseeing domestic and international service.

Harris Wofford co-chairs the Brookings Institution policy working group on International Volunteering and Service. He is a former United States senator from Pennsylvania and CEO of the Corporation for National and Community Service during the Clinton Administration. He is former special assistant to President Kennedy for civil rights and worked with Sargent Shriver to organize the Peace Corps.

Downloads

Download

Authors

David L. Caprara
Harris Wofford
John Bridgeland

Publication: Brookings Institution

The Best Diplomats: American Volunteers

David L. Caprara — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 00:00:00 -0500

As the 110th Congress convenes this week, it faces an opportunity -- fuelled by the American public's mandate for change -- to develop and employ new bipartisan policies that enhance global security and peace while improving the world's opinion of our country.

Central to this effort should be an increased role for the American volunteer, who has served as one of the best diplomats and representatives of this country to communities across the globe. From the Peace Corps to the rapidly growing field of corporate volunteers, Americans have invested their time, skills and energy in service initiatives abroad and in doing so, exhibited our traditional spirit of good will and concern for others while building bridges between countries.

Take Kimberly Priebe of Schaumburg, Illinois, who was recently honored by the White House Freedom Corps during an event at the Brookings Institution for her service as a World Teach volunteer teaching English in a community college in Vicabama, Ecuador. While serving in Ecuador for one year, Kimberly published columns back home that described the serious educational needs of the population in Vicabama. After reading the columns, the local residents of Schaumburg responded by sending contributions to establish 100 scholarships for young people to attend the Vicabama community college. This support, generated by an American volunteer abroad, will foster generational benefits and bonds that last beyond the scholarships.

From personal experience, I can attest to the power of volunteer efforts to deepen the understanding of those who are served and those who serve alike. Last summer, my teenaged son and I participated in a Global Peacemakers international service initiative in Cambodia, where we worked alongside rural villagers in Siem Reap to build a home with and for an expecting couple. This joint effort forged lasting ties of respect and friendship across cultural boundaries that continue today as our Cambodian friends send updates via phone calls and e-mails.

The effects of the power of service can also be seen in the results of a recent Terror Free Tomorrow poll, which showed a markedly positive change in major Muslim nation perceptions of the United States in response to humanitarian relief and service initiatives. Polling data indicated that nearly 60 percent of Indonesians and 75 percent of Pakistanis held more favorable views of the United States following humanitarian assistance after their tsunami and earthquake tragedies. Importantly, this change in perception lasted beyond the initial aid and service, underscoring that America's actions can have lasting impact.

Recognizing the potential benefits of increased U.S. volunteerism abroad, the Brookings Institution recently announced a major new collaborative initiative aimed at doubling the number of U.S. volunteers abroad within a three-year period, while promoting enhanced local capacity to strengthen the impact of indigenous volunteer efforts in local communities. This international volunteering coalition is comprised of more than 50 groups, including corporations, non-governmental organizations, leading universities and government agencies who will work to encourage more international volunteering and reciprocal exchanges with Americans and their foreign counterparts from all walks of life.

While the Brookings initiative is a step in the right direction, much more could be accomplished if this effort is boosted through Congressional support and engagement. Therefore, we ask the new Congress to pursue an expansion of the Peace Corps and to empower new international volunteers through Congressionally-nominated Global Service Fellowships, increased technical assistance, and multilateral exchanges in concert with UN Volunteers. These actions will link the efforts of American volunteers in a variety of service projects to a broader national effort aimed at enhancing international and intercultural understanding while improving lives through service. If we are serious about combating terrorism and enhancing national security then we should include the natural proponents of America's optimism and generosity -- our volunteer -- as part of the solution.

Authors

David L. Caprara

Publication: washingtonpost.com

International Volunteering: Smart Power

Lex Rieffel and Sarah Zalud — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 00:00:00 -0400

Abstract

The face of America that has been welcomed most enthusiastically in the rest of the world for decades has been the face of a volunteer: assisting with disaster relief, building houses for poor families, teaching English to university students, and so much more.

International volunteer programs contribute directly and indirectly to our nation's security and well-being. They represent one of the best avenues Americans can pursue to improve relations with the rest of the world. The scale of these programs, however, is far below the levels suggested by their benefits. The federal budget for FY 2006 supports 75,000 AmeriCorps volunteers working domestically but only 7,800 Peace Corps volunteers working in foreign countries.

Reflecting the value that Americans see in volunteering overseas, programs in the private sector have grown rapidly in the past ten years. In 2005, at least 50,000 Americans participated in NGO and corporate programs. The number could be much higher, easily more than 100,000, with a program like AmeriCorps that leverages private funding. The number could be doubled again by offering additional options suitable to large pools of talent, such as retiring baby boomers.

The potential dividends from scaling up international volunteer programs are impressive relative to most other "soft power" programs of the U.S. government. The time is ripe for a breakthrough in this area, with policies aimed at strengthening existing programs such as increased funding for the Peace Corps, raising the public awareness of volunteer programs overseas, linking service and studie, and measuring effectiveness. It is a smart way to knit the United States more effectively into the fabric of this rapidly changing world.

Policy Brief #155

The United States is seeking a leadership role that protects its vital national interests while effectively engaging other nations as willing partners. Global challenges such as terrorism, poverty, and HIV/AIDS call for new policies to promote mutual understanding and cooperation with the citizens of other countries.

The disadvantages of acting alone or in small coalitions have become clearer in recent years. Furthermore, the experience in Iraq has made the American public more aware of the limitations of "hard power." Hard power can topple unfriendly regimes, but it cannot build stable and prosperous nations.

The appointment of Karen Hughes as under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs in March 2005 showed that the Bush Administration is committed to relying more on the kind of "soft power" that Harvard professor Joseph Nye has been advocating for more than a decade. Soft power is exercised through a vast array of public sector activities, from the Fulbright program of academic exchanges to the new Millennium Challenge Corporation. Condoleezza Rice underscored the move toward soft power in a speech on January 18, 2006, that highlighted the State Department's plan for a new "transformational diplomacy."

Overseas volunteer work is a form of soft power that contributes measurably to the security and well-being of Americans. Volunteers working in other countries develop life-long relationships and promote cross-cultural understanding in ways that few other federally funded programs can do. They bring home to the U.S. an understanding of foreign cultures that enriches our country and informs our policy choices. Volunteers also contribute to institutional capacity building, social capital, democratic governance, and a respect for human rights, all of which help to make the world a safer place for Americans both at home and abroad.

International volunteer programs represent one of the best avenues Americans can pursue to improve relations with the rest of the world. Despite the obvious benefits, however, the scale and effectiveness of these programs remain far below their potential.

NGOs and corporations can take steps by themselves to scale up their international volunteer programs and make them more effective. These programs could grow faster, however, with the help of a campaign to raise public awareness of the benefits of international volunteering, and more of the kind of catalytic support the federal government provides for AmeriCorps and other domestic volunteer programs.

U.S. Government Support for International Volunteer Programs

The Bush Administration gave a big boost to volunteer programs generally when it created USA Freedom Corps in 2002 and Volunteers for Prosperity in 2003. The support has been primarily rhetorical, however. Budget funding for these two programs has been very limited.

USA Freedom Corps was created by President Bush as a coordinating entity in the White House charged with "promoting a culture of service, citizenship, and responsibility in America." With an emphasis on domestic volunteering, USA Freedom Corps has created a database of volunteer opportunities (Volunteer Network), it administers the President's Volunteer Service Award program and the Presidential Greeter program, and it supports the President's Council on Service and Civic Participation. It is a focal point for five national service programs (AmeriCorps, Citizens Corps, Learn and Serve America, Senior Corps, and Peace Corps), and for government-sponsored volunteer service initiatives such as Volunteers for Prosperity.
Volunteers for Prosperity (VfP) was created by Executive Order in September 2003 as a web-based program to promote the use of volunteers in six presidential initiatives, and to assist highly skilled Americans in finding suitable volunteer assignments overseas. Prospective volunteers can find links on the VfP website to 220 partner organizations. In 2005 a total of 12,000 volunteers were placed overseas by these partner organizations. VfP's office is located in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
The Peace Corps was created in 1961. It had 7,810 volunteers serving in 72 countries at the end of FY 2005. This was the highest level in 30 years, but well below its peak in 1966, when the Peace Corps had more than 15,000 volunteers in the field. It is a shadow of the 100,000-strong Peace Corps that President Kennedy believed would be desirable. In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush proposed doubling the number of volunteers to 14,000 within five years. His budgets for FY 2003 and 2004 were consistent with that target, but Congress only appropriated enough funding to sustain an 18 percent increase. Peace Corps volunteers commit to 27 months of service, and receive a $6,075 relocation allowance upon return. One hundred percent of Peace Corps funding comes from the federal budget.
Other federally funded international volunteer programs. Several private sector programs are heavily dependent on federal funding, primarily from USAID, and several others use federal funding to supplement funding they receive from individual and corporate donors. Examples of these programs are ACDI/VOCA (in agriculture), the Citizens’ Development Corps, and the Financial Services Volunteer Corps. The number of volunteer assignments they support each year appears to be fewer than 1,000.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Lex Rieffel
Sarah Zalud

Reaching Out: Americans Serving Overseas

Lex Rieffel — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:00:00 -0500

Introduction: Overseas Service as a Soft Instrument of Power

The United States is struggling to define a new role for itself in the post-Cold War world that protects its vital self interests without making the rest of the world uncomfortable.

In retrospect, the decade of the 1990s was a cakewalk. Together with its Cold War allies Americans focused on helping the transition countries in Eastern and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union build functioning democratic political systems and growing market economies. The USA met this immense challenge successfully, by and large, and it gained friends in the process.

By contrast, the first five years of the new millennium have been mostly downhill for the USA. The terrorist attacks on 9/11/01 changed the national mood in a matter of hours from gloating to a level of fear unknown since the Depression of the 1930s. They also pushed sympathy for the USA among people in the rest of the world to new heights. However, the feeling of global solidarity quickly dissipated after the military intervention in Iraq by a narrow US-led coalition. A major poll measuring the attitudes of foreigners toward the USA found a sharp shift in opinion in the negative direction between 2002 and 2003, which has only partially recovered since then.

The devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina at the end of August 2005 was another blow to American self-confidence as well as to its image in the rest of the world. It cracked the veneer of the society reflected in the American movies and TV programs that flood the world. It exposed weaknesses in government institutions that had been promoted for decades as models for other countries.

Internal pressure to turn America's back on the rest of the world is likely to intensify as the country focuses attention on domestic problems such as the growing number of Americans without health insurance, educational performance that is declining relative to other countries, deteriorating infrastructure, and increased dependence on foreign supplies of oil and gas. A more isolationist sentiment would reduce the ability of the USA to use its overwhelming military power to promote peaceful change in the developing countries that hold two-thirds of the world's population and pose the gravest threats to global stability. Isolationism might heighten the sense of security in the short run, but it would put the USA at the mercy of external forces in the long run.

Accordingly, one of the great challenges for the USA today is to build a broad coalition of like-minded nations and a set of international institutions capable of maintaining order and addressing global problems such as nuclear proliferation, epidemics like HIV/AIDS and avian flu, failed states like Somalia and Myanmar, and environmental degradation. The costs of acting alone or in small coalitions are now more clearly seen to be unsustainable. The limitations of "hard" instruments of foreign policy have been amply demonstrated in Iraq. Military power can dislodge a tyrant with great efficiency but cannot build stable and prosperous nations. Appropriately, the appointment of Karen Hughes as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs suggests that the Bush Administration is gearing up to rely more on "soft" instruments.

The soft instruments of power can be thought of as including a vast array of public sector and private sector activities. They range from the government's position in the international debate about global warming to the Fulbright program of academic exchanges to the behavior of American tourists overseas. For the purposes of this paper they are defined as the residual set of instruments after excluding hard instruments, with hard instruments being defined as all instruments involving any kind of armed military or police force.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on one particular soft instrument in one category of these instruments. The category is activities funded by the federal budget. The instrument is overseas service, typified by the Peace Corps. The central question addressed in this paper is whether federal government funding for overseas service is too big or too small. A preliminary answer involves an attempt to measure the "bang for the buck" in two distinct exercises. One compares the major overseas service programs supported by the US Government—the Peace Corps program—with other soft instruments, such as overseas study. The other compares the Peace Corps program with alternative overseas service programs. Both exercises are constrained by the lack of any broadly accepted methodology for comparing these kinds of apples and oranges.

Part II of this paper looks at the Peace Corps program in the context of other federally-funded soft instruments.

Part III provides some historical context on overseas service by Americans. It traces the growth of overseas service and places it in the stream of public service and national service options.

Part IV focuses on the options for overseas service that Americans have today. Using the Peace Corps as a benchmark, it examines the scale, cost, and effectiveness of the other options.

Part V examines the policy choices involved in designing a new, catalytic overseas service program loosely modeled on the domestic AmeriCorps program.

Finally, a preliminary design for such a program is presented in Part VI.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Lex Rieffel

Reconsidering the Peace Corps

Lex Rieffel — Mon, 01 Dec 2003 00:00:00 -0500

The Peace Corps is one of the smallest instruments in the foreign policy toolkit of the United States. It is a "boutique" agency with a superb reputation. The Bush administration has proposed doubling the number of Peace Corps volunteers working in developing countries to 14,000 by 2007, still below the 1966 peak of over 15,000 volunteers.

Bipartisan support for the Peace Corps is strong and its cost is miniscule. Thus this expansion seems unambitious relative to the magnitude of the task of building a more stable and prosperous world. But a sharp increase in the number of volunteers in the next several years may not be feasible. Countries such as Brazil and India, which could absorb large numbers of Peace Corps volunteers, may resist. Recruiting enough qualified volunteers could be difficult under the current conditions of service.

The basic choice is between preserving the Peace Corps as a boutique agency with a popular mission or redefining the mission in a way that will attract more interest among host countries and appeal to a broader spectrum of talented Americans.

POLICY BRIEF #127

The Peace Corps was born during the cold war. Created to win hearts and minds in the non-aligned developing countries, its biggest impact, ironically, has probably been at home in the United States.

Nation-building was the main objective of the new agency when the first Peace Corps volunteers arrived in Ghana in August 1961. In retrospect, the complexities of nation-building were seriously underestimated. The impact of the Peace Corps on progress in developing countries over the past forty years has been too small to measure partly because of these complexities, but mostly because of the limited scale of its operations. Built up rapidly to a level of more than 15,000 volunteers in the field in 1966, the Peace Corps shrank during the 1970s and remained below 5,000 volunteers for most of the 1980s. A resurgence of demand for volunteers occurred following the end of the cold war, especially from countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union that were moving from communism to free market economies. A remarkable bipartisan consensus in favor of expanding service opportunities for Americans brought the Peace Corps to the current level of 8,000 volunteers.

The Peace Corps has adjusted continuously to changing realities in the field and at home. The pace of change remains relentless, however. For example, high-speed, high-quality communications, unimagined when the Peace Corps was founded, have created a global village where images of the collapsing World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, were seen by a high percentage of the world's 6 billion inhabitants before the sun set in New York the same day. Since then the fight against terrorism has been at the top of America's foreign policy agenda, and all existing policy instruments have been redirected to bolster this struggle.

For the Peace Corps, President Bush has proposed increasing the number of volunteers to 14,000. Doubling or even tripling the number, however, is not likely to make a perceptible difference. The question for policymakers is whether placing a substantially larger number of talented Americans in communities in less privileged countries could make a difference.

THE DOMESTIC CONTEXT

The Peace Corps is a small piece of a vast mosaic of public service, national service, and volunteer service.

Public service encompasses all of the employees of federal, state, and local governments and their related boards, agencies, and corporations. All are funded by taxes on the citizenry. Peace Corps volunteers are public servants because the enabling legislation accords them the status of federal employees.

National service is equated in the public mind with military service, not with service as a Peace Corps volunteer. To an increasing degree, however, American soldiers are being deployed in developing countries rather than in the advanced countries of Europe, the main battlefield over the past century. Thus the differences are no longer as great.

Volunteer service is broader and more complex. The Department of Labor has estimated that one in four American adults (almost 60 million out of 220 million over the age of 16) participated in voluntary service activities in community organizations in 2001-2002. The vast majority are unpaid volunteers.

President Bush created the USA Freedom Corps in 2002 as a central point for mobilizing Americans interested in voluntary service in support of national goals. A "Coordinating Council" chaired by the president provides policy guidance for the main federal service programs in existence: the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, and Learn and Serve America. In September 2003, President Bush signed an executive order inaugurating the Volunteers for Prosperity Initiative, which matches skilled Americans with volunteer opportunities overseas related to five federally supported programs, including the Emergency Plan for HIV/AIDS Relief.

In the context of the whole federal budget, the Peace Corps budget is almost invisible: $359 million. This amount represents two one-hundredths of one percent of the $1.8 trillion (outlays basis) requested by President Bush for FY2004, or 1.5 percent of the International Affairs budget. Due to the intense pressure to contain spending for all domestic and foreign programs, the odds are against the Peace Corps receiving its full budget request from Congress. By contrast, the National Defense budget request added up to $400 billion, including personnel expenditures of $99 billion.

The Peace Corps is one of the least expensive instruments being used to advance U.S. foreign policy objectives. A volunteer in the field earns $2,700 per year in the form of a readjustment allowance. Base pay for an Army private is $15,480 per year (E2) and for a second lieutenant is $26,208 per year (O1). Base pay for Foreign Service and Agency for International Development employees is even higher.

THE INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

When the Peace Corps was founded, the cold war struggle to contain communism was the dominant foreign policy goal of the U.S. government. The strategic nuclear attack force was the foremost instrument developed for this purpose. Armed intervention, notably in Korea and Vietnam, also played a critical role.

At the same time, the United States deployed an array of soft instruments—including bilateral aid administered by the Agency for International Development and multilateral aid from the World Bank and the regional development banks—to win the hearts and minds of the majority of the globe's population that lived in the non-aligned Third World countries.

Despite the skepticism of most Americans about the effectiveness of foreign aid as the twenty-first century began, the economic progress achieved by developing countries in the previous fifty years has been remarkable. Increases in life expectancy, adult literacy, and other social yardsticks have been impressive by historical standards. Partly as a consequence of this progress, flows of development assistance declined as countries such as Brazil and Korea graduated from aid and gained access to international capital markets.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, transformed the foreign policy agenda of the United States. Fighting terrorism became the overwhelming priority. Foreign aid programs that had been focused on alleviating poverty have been redirected to weaken the sources of support for terrorists.

A recent Brookings study, Agenda for the Nation, refers to American military power as a kind of "glue" for global security and stability. At the same time, more of the developing world views this power resentfully as a means of extending American economic and cultural domination. By contrast, the Peace Corps is one of the few forms of engagement offered by the U.S. government that is eagerly embraced by developing countries. This is arguably a sufficient reason for expanding it.

Fortunately, the United States is not alone in tackling terrorism, poverty, and nation-building. All of the developed democracies are committing a larger share of their GDP to development assistance than the United States does. The specialized agencies of the United Nations, including the World Bank and the World Health Organization, have sizeable operations. As many as twenty other countries have government-supported programs for putting volunteers to work at the grassroots level in developing countries. More than one hundred nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) based in high-income countries are supporting volunteers involved in every aspect of nation-building and poverty reduction.

Key Issues

Are the original goals still relevant?

Goal #1: Providing trained manpower.
Over the past forty years, virtually all developing countries have established education systems that produce well-prepared university graduates. All have sent students to the United States and elsewhere who have met the high standards of professional schools and have successfully competed in the global marketplace. Yet the United States remains the world's leading source of new technologies and new ideas. Hosting Peace Corps volunteers is a cost-effective way for developing countries to have early access to the cutting edge of modern life, including mastery of the English language. On balance, with the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa, the first goal appears to remain valid but has lost some of its urgency.

Goal #2: Promoting understanding of Americans among people in developing countries.
The United States is far better equipped than other countries to use hard instruments to fight global threats such as terrorism. The task will be easier to the extent that people in developing countries appreciate what Americans are doing. At the moment, the United States faces considerable skepticism. Public diplomacy may not be sufficient to turn the tide. Personal relationships have always been the best way to promote American ideals. Fostering these relationships has been the greatest success of the Peace Corps. The second goal, making friends, appears to have even greater urgency today than forty years ago.

Goal #3: Promoting understanding among Americans of people in developing countries.
The Peace Corps agency may not be the best instrument for advancing this goal because it competes with the primary mission of placing qualified volunteers in communities abroad. An obvious alternative exists: the National Peace Corps Association (NPCA), which represents returned volunteers. The Peace Corps is now providing a small amount of funding to NPCA for activities related to the third goal. If the NPCA is successful in beefing up its membership it will be in a position to take on even more responsibility in this area.

After September 11, the Peace Corps' first director, Sargent Shriver, suggested adding a fourth goal. Congressman Sam Farr (D-Calif.), a returned volunteer, subsequently offered the following formulation: "to help promote global acceptance of the principles of international peace and non-violent coexistence among peoples of diverse cultures and systems of government." The intent is to articulate a goal that would more effectively counter the perception that the United States is seeking to extend its dominant position in the world at the expense of other countries and cultures. The Peace Corps is uniquely positioned to deliver this message. A fresh vision could both invigorate the Peace Corps and enhance our national security.

Is institutional independence important?

Created as an independent agency, the Peace Corps was merged with domestic volunteer programs into a new agency, ACTION, in 1971, but regained full independence in 1982.

Peace Corps independence is now a sacred cow. Supporters consider independence as essential to ensuring that the Peace Corps will not be used to advance the short-term goals of whatever administration is in power. They also argue that it will remain critical to maintaining the trust and respect of the countries in which the Peace Corps operates.

Yet independence is partly a myth. As long as the Peace Corps is a federal agency with a budget proposed by the president and appropriated by Congress, partisan agendas will be reflected in Peace Corps operations. One obvious impact is on the size of its budget. Another impact is in the selection of the head of the agency, who by statute is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The Peace Corps does not appear to be at risk of losing its independence now. The issue instead is whether the preoccupation with independence gets in the way of achieving broader objectives. Some loss of independence might be necessary to build a program that could have a bigger impact on making the world a safer and more enjoyable place for all people.

Other institutional arrangements could conceivably enhance Peace Corps independence without diminishing effectiveness. For example, Congress might grant the Peace Corps a charter to operate as a government-sponsored non-profit corporation with a board of directors responsible for selecting the head of the agency. Another step would be to revise the existing host-country agreements to permit projects to be developed directly with sponsoring public sector agencies and NGOs in each country, making it more of a people-to-people program.

Can demand for Peace Corps volunteers be increased?

Strategically, the major constraint on the demand side appears to be the absence of programs in large developing countries such as India, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, and Nigeria. All had Peace Corps programs in the past. Restoring programs in these countries will probably require that a new "product" be created, based on a more forward-looking vision.

Other possible steps include:

Re-labeling. A stumbling block to initiating a Peace Corps program in China was the Peace Corps label. This hurdle was overcome by creating a new label: "U.S.-China Friendship Volunteers." A more positive attitude toward country-specific labels could make it easier to start programs elsewhere.
Greater host-country ownership. Peace Corps operations are visibly driven by Americans. Appointing host-country nationals as country directors or co-directors could increase country ownership of Peace Corps programs.
Reverse volunteers. If the primary mission shifts toward increasing mutual understanding through personal relationships, a logical result would be to reexamine the potential for placing volunteers from foreign countries in U.S. communities. The more advanced developing countries such as India and Brazil might find the concept of a two-way exchange more appealing. Communities across the United States could benefit from having foreign volunteers in their senior high schools to assist in teaching second languages or geography. A template for such a program already exists in the Visiting International Faculty Program that currently has 1800 teachers at community schools in nine states.
Multilateral volunteers. American volunteers may be more effective serving under the United Nations flag than under the U.S. flag in some countries. The U.N. Volunteers program currently has about 5,000 volunteers in the field. Less than fifty are Americans.

Can the supply of volunteers be increased?

While Peace Corps management believes that the current level of demand is consistent with the objective of filling 14,000 slots by 2007, some observers are concerned that levels above 10,000 may not be feasible without lowering standards.

Perhaps the hardest question to answer is how the quality of Peace Corps volunteers has changed over the past forty years. The prevailing view among Peace Corps managers and NPCA leaders is that the overall quality has not changed and remains high. Anecdotal evidence supports this view. The absence of empirical studies of volunteer effectiveness reflects the difficulty of structuring a survey that would yield convincing results.

When jobs are hard to find for college graduates, the application flow tends to increase. It is less clear how sensitive the supply is to the amount of the readjustment allowance that accumulates now at the rate of $225 per month. This amount is less than 60 percent of what AmeriCorps members accumulate. A case could be made for a Peace Corps allowance higher than the AmeriCorps allowance on the basis of hardship and national interest.

Two other steps to increase supply are worth considering:

The baby boom generation. Many baby boomers are at their peak in terms of technical skills and civic understanding. Tapping this rich pool of talent effectively, however, may require a separate recruiting operation and staff support structure, and a different service formula. An older staff person dedicated to backstopping older volunteers in each country office could help to minimize early termination. A one-year service commitment could make the Peace Corps more attractive to older Americans, possibly combined with the option of returning to the same site or country after a three-month break.
Customized placement. Current Peace Corps policy discourages applicants from applying for assignment to a specific country. As a consequence, applicants with a compelling interest in a particular country may never get invited to training. Customizing products and services is a basic trend in today's world. A more customized recruitment and placement process could have a measurable impact on supply and even more on the results achieved in the field.

Can support policies be improved?

Attrition is a perennial concern. Since the late 1950s, the attrition rate over the 27-month period from the time a nominee accepts an invitation to train to completion of service is on the order of 28 percent to 30 percent. Much of the attrition is associated with suspensions of programs due to unforeseeable events such as the SARS epidemic in China. Other major causes include health problems and discontent with site-specific working conditions. While the attrition rate seems high, it may not be realistic or cost effective to attempt to reduce it.

Dividing the $359 million budget request for 2004 by the target of having 10,000 volunteers in the field yields a cost per volunteer of $36,000. There are, however, programs in the private sector that place volunteers at a cost of $5,000 to $6,000 per year. This points to the possibility of fielding more volunteers at a lower cost by relying more on NGOs to recruit volunteers and find suitable sites.

Two controversial areas of support are transportation and communications. Serious accidents with motorcycles became so frequent ten years ago that the Peace Corps had to ban their use. Pressures are growing now to find other alternatives to bicycles and public transportation. Personal telephones and computers have been encouraged in some countries and discouraged in others. Safety concerns have recently pushed the Peace Corps toward more flexibility in this area.

Two components of volunteer support—in-country training and medical care—receive almost universal acclaim and therefore should probably not be tinkered with at this time.

Knowledgeable observers consistently cite good programming as the key to volunteer effectiveness. Programming consists of selecting a specific area of activity (project), finding suitable sites, designing sound training programs, and helping volunteers overcome problems that inevitably arise. These are core responsibilities of the country offices. Seeking economies in this area may be penny-wise and pound-foolish. At the same time, close monitoring of country offices is essential to maintaining consistently high performance standards.

CONCLUSION

The Peace Corps is a gem, but a small one in a big world. The central policy issue today is whether to preserve it as is or to create a new program with a mission that appeals to a broader group of developing countries and attracts a larger number of qualified volunteers.

The Bush administration's current plan to double the number of Peace Corps volunteers is not particularly ambitious, but expansion driven from the bottom up rather than the current top-down approach is more likely to preserve the luster of the Peace Corps. Putting a substantially larger number of American volunteers in developing countries for meaningful work looks feasible, but probably requires a fresh approach.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Lex Rieffel

The Peace Corps in a Turbulent World

Lex Rieffel — Wed, 15 Oct 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Introduction

The Peace Corps was born in a different world, the Cold War world. It was created to win hearts and minds in the non-aligned developing countries, but its biggest impact may have been at home in America.

Nation building was the top priority for the Peace Corps when the first volunteers arrived in Ghana in August 1961. In retrospect, the complexities of nation building were grossly underestimated. The impact of the Peace Corps on economic growth in developing countries over the past 40 years has been too small to measure partly because of these complexities, but mostly because of the small scale of its operations.

After the first wave of pioneers, however, individual volunteers have attached greater importance to the second and third goals of the Peace Corps: promoting better understanding of Americans by people in culturally distant countries, and promoting better understanding of these people in the cities and towns of America. While it is impossible to quantify the increase in mutual understanding attributable to the Peace Corps since 1961, the personal relationships established and the insights gained are widely acknowledged both at home and abroad.

The zeal of the early 1960s was followed by a decade of gradual decline in the size and ambitions of the Peace Corps, which came close to succumbing to Vietnam-era cynicism on university campuses and to partisan politics in Washington. The fall of the Iron Curtain at the end of the 1980s and the historic transition to market economies and democratic political systems among the countries of the former communist bloc led to a resurgence of interest in the Peace Corps among developing countries (especially in Latin America) as well as among young Americans. This trend coincided with a new interest in creating opportunities for voluntary service domestically to produce a remarkable bipartisan consensus behind an expansion of the Peace Corps abroad and the creation of AmeriCorps to add muscle to volunteer programs at home. Nevertheless, the Peace Corps remains the only civilian volunteer program fully funded by the federal government.

Terrorism moved to the top of the foreign policy agenda after the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. As part of his strategy of mobilizing Americans to tackle domestic and foreign problems, President George W. Bush proposed a doubling of the Peace Corps from 7,000 to 14,000 by 2007. Military intervention to establish stable and respectable regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq were much larger policy initiatives that sparked a new public debate in the United States and the United Nations about nation building. The HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa and the intolerable conditions in failed states such as Burma, Haiti, Kosovo, Liberia, and North Korea added to public pressure to find new ways to reduce violence, deprivation, and suffering in the world.

Downloads

Download

Authors

Lex Rieffel