A Boost for Peace Corps’ Next 25 Years

Now that the Peace Corps’ great 25th birthday bash is over, it might be useful to look at some of the colder realities.

Once a vigorous symbol of youthful idealism, the Peace Corps is no longer youthful, less vigorous, its idealism tempered by the number of major developing countries, including virtually all in South America, that have phased out the Peace Corps. The number of volunteers has dwindled from a high of 15,500 in 1966 to a mere 5,600 today; their average age has risen from 23 to 29. It is a far cry from the early hopes of sending 100,000 young Americans out into the developing world each year, to “make a difference.”

In this budget-conscious era, do we still need a Peace Corps? Could its $125 million a year of American taxpayers’ money be put to better use?

To even pose such questions is sacrilege to most of the 120,000 Americans who have served as volunteers over the past 25 years, even more so to many liberal politicians who seem to feel that their elusive Camelot can yet be found in the Peace Corps. Indeed, Congress only this year passed a resolution calling for a doubling of the Peace Corps by 1990, for reasons, I suspect, more sentimental than practical.

As a Republican former director of the Peace Corps, all too aware of its problems and unfulfilled promise, I still find myself on the side of those who say yes, let’s keep and expand the Peace Corps. But unlike those who look wistfully to the past, I would argue that a new model is needed, a restructuring that would enable the Peace Corps to flourish, and also bring it closer to its original purpose.

This new Peace Corps would have three distinct divisions. Each would administer different kinds of programs to make the best use of the skills and resources of different sectors of our population, from the liberal arts graduate with no technical skills to the established professional.

The first division would most closely resemble the early days of the Peace Corps. It would be largely a people-to-people program, offering opportunities to enthusiastic Americans with no specific technical skills--young people who are virtually barred from today’s heavily skills-oriented Peace Corps. They would serve abroad for only one year instead of the two now required, in projects such as large-scale feeding programs in Africa, community health and sanitation campaigns and school-building.

The second division would preserve much of the essence of today’s Peace Corps, providing developing countries with the skilled, experienced people that they need, for longer terms of two to three years. But I would recommend a significant change. For such skilled people, the pay shouldbe raised substantially above today’s “sacrifice” level of $175 a month.

The third division would offer sabbatical opportunities of three to nine months for established professionals, such as physicians, public health experts, consulting engineers and scientists. They could be invaluable in such situations as that now faced by Bolivia, which has a desperate need for agricultural experts to help develop new crops to substitute for coca, the source of cocaine.

The key to making this new kind of Peace Corps work is the inclusion of those major sectors of the nation that until now have been omitted: other federal agencies (military as well as civilian), state and local governments, major corporations and universities. These and other institutions could be encouraged to provide short sabbaticals for employees with needed skills. Our larger cities, similarly, could provide urban planners, a great need in some of the faster-developing nations. Our agricultural states could provide agronomists, irrigation engineers, cattle breeders, forestry experts. The periods of service would vary, depending on need and availability. The opportunities of this break from routine on at least partial pay would make such service an attractive prospect for most professionals.

These steps would greatly broaden the Peace Corps’ scope, capabilities and achievements. It would almost certainly prove more popular with developing countries. My experience tells me that many countries will want the Peace Corps once they learn that we are willing to provide the kinds of people they need most, on projects that are important to them.

Under this new format, the Peace Corps would be more representative of the United States as a whole. Yet the essential ingredients would remain: imparting know-how, on a person-to-person basis, in the spirit of voluntary service. At the same time, it offers exceptional opportunities for Americans to broaden their experience of the world. And its budget, by federal standards, is still minuscule. Under the above proposals, with the contribution of employers and other, largely untapped institutions, it could remain so.

The Peace Corps symbolizes much of what is best in our country--our generous spirit, our good-neighborliness, our multitude of skills and our genuine desire to help those in need. What is needed for the Peace Corps to thrive beyond 25 is the will to change, to adapt to circumstances, to be more flexible.

I believe it was the former Cabinet officer John Gardner who wrote that people are like plants--they need re-potting from time to time. So, most surely, do our institutions.