Guest Rant of the Week: Response to “Think Again: The Peace Corps”

One of my good PC friends, Jon Walsh, jotted an email to Mr. Strauss in response to his article in Foreign Policy above:

Dear Mr. Strauss:

I read your article on the Peace Corps in FP. It was a little brutal. I also thought it was a tad bit unfair. I think you made some generalizations that aren't true (maybe they were for Cameroon, but not elsewhere), and wrongfully place the blame for some things on Peace Corps. Some can be explained as looking just at the bad apples to describe the rest, but I really do think you got a few things wrong.

I served as a volunteer in Kenya in water/sanitation from 1997-1999. Our service was evaluated by more than just a biannual survey. The Wat/San director, Lusimba Rague, came out several times to visit me at my site (and I was in the bush for both of my sites) and would talk to people I worked with when I wasn't around. I was moved halfway through my service when it became apparent that my first site wasn't going to get anything done because of the amount of corruption there. We also had to talk with Mr. Rague upon leaving to determine if it would be worthwhile to send a replacement in the area. We had to make a case. Additionally, the wat/san sector was not trying to do the same things that it had done when Peace Corps was first created. We were more about teaching about health and HIV/AIDS than trying to construct water tanks and wells (although some did, myself included), which was the original mission. And some of the projects that I and others were involved with had nothing to do with wat/san at all, but were seen as needs in our respective community (I helped build some fish ponds to provide money for a local woman's group). I think this shows some accountability and adaptation by the organization that you claim doesn't exist.

Additionally, I think Peace Corps has done some good development work, albeit incremental and not without its share of fighting political BS within and without the organization. As you rightfully state in your article, Peace Corps tries to do a lot of things with little money. Sometimes it doesn't work, but I think going grassroots is a safer bet than throwing more money at problems. Africa has plenty of examples that show that big pockets for development doesn't always get a lot done, and often can be harmful due to ever-present corruption there. More money draws more criminals (just the appearance of this can do it sometimes) which sap the resources and will of people to tackle problems there both short-term and long-term. If you have worked there, I know you know this. And I'll bet that Peace Corps has a better record getting at least something done more often than some of the big money development outfits there simply because of that. I saw examples all the time of this while I was there. And as for solving some of the problems there, but it really is on the people who live there in the end. You can change policies in Peace Corps and other relief efforts all you want, but if the local governments and people aren't willing to take the handout and put it for the greater good, your efforts will be fruitless. Identifying these people takes time and cultivation, and it's something Peace Corps really is a hell of a lot better at doing outside of the capitol of countries than just about anyone else in the development field.

And it's because volunteers really get to know the people. Labeling that as a front for semester-abroad or merely public relations type work it flat out wrong. If you want to criticize something, you should be complaining about how other relief organizations haven't tapped Peace Corps volunteers for their information on who to go to in their sites to try and get work done (So many times I saw clueless NGOs hand out money for projects to people that should have never been trusted in my town). It really is a great untapped resource. I would have to be done delicately so as not to portray volunteers as the conduit to getting lots of money (as stated above), but I think it could be done, especially at the close of service when volunteers really do have a good handle on what is going on (I definitely would not ask volunteers who just got there who would be good to approach).

I have no doubt that some reform is needed in Peace Corps (it is a government organization, after all). I went through two directors in my time at Kenya, and one was absolutely asleep at the wheel. I know of a couple of volunteers that probably never should have made it out of the recruiting process and were probably huge headaches for Peace Crops staff in Kenya. But, for each of those examples, I can come up with 10 other ones where volunteers and staff were doing good work. I'd hate to see your article get used in Congress and elsewhere to smear that effort.I'm sure you have gotten a lot on email on this. I thank you for taking the time to read mine. Hope all is well with you wherever you are.

Sincerely,
Jon Walsh



In a matter of minutes, Mr. Strauss shot Jon back an email from Madagascar:

Peace Corps is not a joke. It's one of the best ideas the US has ever had. It's also one of the most poorly administered best ideas ever. The result is that it horribly undershoots its potential and in the process does a disservice to many of the people involved; volunteers, staff and locals. PC has been over-promising and under-delivering since day one.

It's time to turn that around.

But because of PC's incredible PR machine, this has never happened because no one wants to disturb a beautiful imagine, whether it represents reality or simply perception.

A lot of good work happens in PC but because PC is like a relay race, with one volunteer or staff member handing off to the next, many good things get dropped and disappear with no lasting impact. That isn't always the case, but it is very often the case.It's great that your supervisor got out to see you. Believe it or not, it still happens that in some countries PCVs are lucky to be visited once a year. They should be visited once a month. If that were the case, many of the staff-volunteer resentment issues would go away. Everyone would be focused on the work and on working with and serving the local community.

It's also great that you saw some evolution in your program. But that isn't the case in many places. (I've worked in more than 50 countries and encountered lots of PC and development projects over the years.) But PC itself has not guidance for local evaluations and doesn't support any systematic, objective monitoring and evaluation. That has to change.

I used to say in all sincerity that a great thing about PC is that it has never had enough money to do any real damage. But it has never had enough money to do any real, lasting good either. I would rather see PC (try to) do great things in a small number of countries than to simply limp along in 70 or 80. I don't see the point in that.

I also used to tell PCVs who wanted to continue in development that if they did one day they would see that by the standards of other organizations, PC wasn't such a mess as they thought. But we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to ineffective NGOs or out of touch multi-lateral organizations. We all can see what the potential is and we know we are falling short. We should be shooting for the stars and we're patting ourselves on the back for being better than what is a pretty sorry lot (and I've worked for many of them).

You mention you had two CDs, one asleep at the wheel. I wasn't around PC then but I'll take your word for it. Until very recently, one could become a CD without ever being interviewed in Washington. Can you imagine? I don't say that face-to-face interviews will always reveal something well hidden, but selecting someone to run a PC program without meeting with them first? Hard to believe, but it was true until very recently.

When major things like that are not being handled correctly, you can imagine that some of the smaller but important things hardly getting a passing notice. Peace Corps could do just fabulous things. But it won't happen by sticking with the status quo. Sorry I can't go into more detail right now. A few more emails to answer. I lived in the Bay Area for most of 1982-2002. Moss Landing. Sounds nice. Though foggy and cold.

Thanks for writing. Write back if you feel inclined. I'll get to it. It just may be a while.

And if you'd like a bit more about my thinking on development in general, see https://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2000/mayjun/articles/strauss.html

Regards,

Robert Strauss
Antananarivo, Madagascar