USA Today Article Regarding the Uselessness of Peace Corps

Well, it is official – I am enraged. I can't believe how far off the track this author is, at least in my opinion. After all, Peace Corps' goals are not the same as USAID or the World Bank. If I wanted to spend huge amounts of money for infrastructure development projects that may (or may not) help people, I would have interviewed there. However, I refuse to - I don't think AID is the right way to go - it's too political, and it often disregards the actual needs of the people.

In the article, why did the PCV in Nepal help with water access? Because he realized there was a problem, a need. No other organization spent enough time there to even do that! PC trains its volunteers heavily on needs assessment - the one true way of doing productive work. Living with a people - truly getting to know them - is the most accurate way to assess their needs.

The article said "That's too bad. Technology and international politics have changed the world since 1960 in ways that make the "roughing it" philosophy counterproductive. The Peace Corps could better the world quicker by changing its focus." Americans are always looking for the quick fix. And AID, the WB, etc, all have their own approaches to quickly developing a country. However, I do not feel that development is a field for quick fixes. That is how the world gets itself in trouble. That is how the US wastes most of its time and money. Huge technological advances aren’t the only way to “develop.” In fact, I am sure there is more to development than simple economic development and technological development. Peace Corps works with education, health, and social development in a way that the other organizations/agencies cannot. By sending volunteers out in the field for long periods of time, a different type of development can be achieved.

I am not saying that AID and the WB are not important, but I am arguing that there is still a role for the “roughing-it” approach. If you want to do the other type of development - quick fix, impersonal - PC is not what you are looking for. However, for many of us in the field of development, the technology based USAID approach is not the one we want to be involved with.

This article infuriated me - maybe you guys can tell! It is opinions like this that cause the budget of the PC to fall every year even as our president calls for us to double the number of volunteers. I just believe that the PC approach to HUMAN development is more important in this day and age. But if you want to work on econ development, go to the World Bank; if you want to work in tech development, go to AID.

-----------------------------------

Done with the criticism. There is one thing I agree with in this article - hold PCVs accountable for their work. I do think that it may help young PCVs like me focus our energies and help the people we are meant to serve. I have heard of a small number of volunteers that treat this as a vacation. It is not. I plan to work hard with my needs assessments and my development projects, so I would not mind someone checking in with me every couple of months to make sure I am moving forward. Holding PCVs to somewhat higher standards cannot hurt the work of the Peace Corps.