Polyglot
-
National Peace Corps Association > News > Polyglot > Thoughts on Improving the Peace Corps
Thoughts on Improving the Peace Corps
By Jonathan Pearson on Wednesday, August 18th, 2010
L to R: RPCVs Rose Galer, Jake Knight, Cale Reeves and Sara Reeves are all attending Indiana University
Last fall, when the National Peace Corps Association conducted our Better, Bolder Peace Corps survey, one of the key findings was that the agency take a close look at volunteer benefits. As our executive summary noted, “those most directly affected – applicants, current volunteers and recent RPCVs – feel a strong need for improved volunteer benefits. No one specific benefit was the clear preference and a further consideration of improving the benefits offered to Volunteers is warranted.”
The agency has begun to address this challenge, most notably earlier this year when it announced an increase in the volunteer readjustment allowance. On Tuesday, as part of our “Coffee and Conversation” gathering in Bloomington Indiana, we sat down with four recent RPCVs and asked for their thoughts on how to improve the Peace Corps. Perhaps not surprisingly, volunteer benefits was at the top of their list. But their concerns were not only about big ticket items such as student loan support. And their ideas didn’t center exclusively on their needs.
For Cale and Sara Reeves, who served together in Samoa from 2007 – 09, their initial thought turned to a fellow volunteer they served with from the state of Florida. Cale and Sara said their friend – a lifelong Florida resident – joined them in Samoa for two years then returned home with a desire to continue serving others. He decided to become an Emergency Medical Technician and applied for school. However, because he had been serving in Samoa, he was determined not eligible for in-state tuition because he had not been living in Florida for the past year.
Rose Galer (Paraguay 03-05) is finishing her graduate studies at the School for Public and Environmental Affairs this fall. With the job hunt underway, Rose pointed to another benefit enhancement that has been raised by others: improving the non-competitive eligibility (NCE) status for RPCVs applying for federal jobs. Currently, volunteers are offered that status for one year after service. The group noted many volunteers spend much of that first year readjusting to life back home and figuring out what to do next. “Lots of volunteers come back and go to graduate school,” said Rose. “Now that I’m about to graduate, now is when I could really use the NCE status.” Possible improvements suggested by the group included extending the years of eligibility or allowing flexibility in applying the status, so RPCVs could use the year-long NCE when it is appropriate to their career path.
Another area of ongoing improvement this group endorsed was to continue recruiting older volunteers. “Recruiting people who are just retired or retired is really great,” said Jake Knight (Mongolia 05-07). “Not only do they bring a lifetime of skills, but age gets you credit in many countries and cultures.” And, while the recruitment of retirees moves Peace Corps closer to its longstanding goal of representing the diverse face of America, Cale Reeves suggested that “You’ll never represent America without selecting people in the prime of their lives.” One suggestion? Consider ways to expand Peace Corps service to middle-aged parents so their dependents can be included.
On to Illinois! Follow this link for next stops on our NPCA Road Trip, which runs through September 1st.
P.S. As a Volunteer, Sara wrote a wonderful article about tatooing in Samoa for the spring 2009 issue of WorldView.
HI,
Your comments were good. When I returned from Colombia in 1965,
there were no benefits. Career counseling was unheard of. Someone knowledgeable who could offer ideas about possibilities for where and what to study and where to look for fulfilling careers would have been very good. I did eventually end up teaching ESL and Spanish for Spanish Speakers and was de facto
Hispanic advocate at the high school level. It was quite rewarding.
Roberto
I like the idea of recruiting more older folks. I was 52 and a new widow when I joined. My brother and his wife were about the same age as I when they joined. I felt that I benefited so much from my service, not especially in benefits which I didn’t need, but in healing after my husband’s death and building a new, useful life.
It’s true that elders are often held in greater regard in more “primitive” societies like the Mayans, where I served.
I wrote a book about my service, Belize Journal: Peace Corps Experience of a New Widow. Anyone interested can get one on Amazon or from me.
I was “older” when I went to PC. I never hear of any recruiting aimed to older folks.
My understanding of NCE is that it can be extended for a total of up to 3 years, if you go back to grad school or in certain other instances.
Still, it would be good to have even more flexibility with the benefit. The benefit is definitely not as useful as it could be.
I would love to serve in PC again, however because I have children this is currently not possible. It would be great to see PC once again accept volunteers with dependants. What a fantastic experience it could be for the entire family.
I agree with this article, overall. However, I think it would be interesting to find out what the key findings are would be from ex-staff of Peace Corps as well. As one, I would say that the five year rule, a rule that only applies to US Direct Hires, is one of the most harmful policies of Peace Corps. In spirit, I agree with it (decreasing bureaucracy and increasing creativity being the theory behind the rule), but in reality it doesn’t work that way. The average employee rotation (most of who are RPCVs who know something about what it is like to be a volunteer) is about 1.5 years, while the average local hire works 20+ years and represents 90% of staffing. Obviously local staff were never volunteers and therefore are not able to provide that insight. The difference of local longevity and frequent US staff rotation too often creates a divide between the American and local staff, a lack of knowledge and experience on the part of the American staff, and apathy and unwillingness to change in the field on the part of the staff in the field, which negatively affects Peace Corps system, policies, and the quality of the agency in so many ways. For example, despite years of discussion and a supposed increased budget and commitment to high quality standards of support, from recruiting, to volunteer benefits, in site development and placement, in safety and security, in training, in response to issues and problems, in volunteer visits and support in their work, I have seen few real changes, and I have been involved with Peace Corps since 1993, as a Volunteer, short-term technical trainer, Training Director hired locally, Program Manager/APCD, and US Direct hire for 4.5 years at PTO.
I found that the staff, like myself, who were former volunteers and highly committed to improving the Agency overall and especially the support and services in the field, frequently hit major road blocks, both at HQ due to lack of knowledge, turnover and little to no support for the field, and huge resistance to change amongst local staff. That being said, I recognize and appreciate the many local staff with whom I have had the pleasure of working who are and continue to be hard-working, highly committed, and supportive to programs and Volunteers, frequently without sufficient support. By making these observations, in no way do I mean to criticize or offend the many wonderful people who work at Peace Corps.
However, there are serious internal and systemic blocks to improving Peace Corps as an agency that I believe must be addressed, especially if Peace Corps is to grow and change with the times. I estimated that about 50% of committed, highly qualified RPCV staff left Peace Corps feeling that the agency is unwilling or unable to change, were exhausted from attempting to improve the quality of different processes, found that there was no institutional memory and little support for those changes at upper levels and in the field, that many Country Directors seem quasi-political, not staffed with competent leaders, and that those staff who rock the boat were frequently pushed out. Worse than poor quality procedures, systems and policies in areas that directly and negatively impact Volunteers, and an unwillingness to improve those, (Yes, I admit to being a boat-rocker, and interested in Volunteers having the best support possible), worse was the corruption I found in Peace Corps, locally and at HQ, in more than one country, and reported, and was unfortunately never addressed. I know other staff that left for similar reasons. Therefore, when we discuss Peace Corps reform and improving the Peace Corps, I believe the discussion and advocacy must move beyond just volunteer benefits, to a larger and more systemic problem with Peace Corps as an agency. As an RPCV highly committed to the mission of Peace Corps and appreciative of the life-changing impact it had on me during my four years as a Volunteer, I am saddened by the state of the agency.