During the 2008 election, President Obama pledged  to double the Peace Corps from 7,800 volunteers to 16,000 by its 50th anniversary in 2011. He first made the promise to students at Cornell College in Iowa, on Dec. 5, 2007, saying, “We will double the size of the Peace Corps by its 50th anniversary in 2011.” Eight months later, on July 2, 2008 at the University of Colorado, he repeated the promise: ”We’ll also grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.” Three months later, he reiterated this promise for the third time during the second Presidential debate on October 7, 2008 (which was watched by over 50 million people):
“And the last point I just want to make. I think the young people of America are especially interested in how they can serve, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m interested in doubling the Peace Corps, making sure that we are creating a volunteer corps all across this country.”
President Obama has completely broken the promise (as the Pulitzer-Prize winning website, Politifact, recently reported), and there is no remorse about it at the White House.  Even if we pass the $46 million increase proposed by the administration for 2011, the agency will have fewer than 10,000 volunteers worldwide by the end of 2011 (6,000 volunteers and $300 million short of what he said he would give to PC).
In the last year, I’ve spoken to senior White House advisors and other top-level staff members at OMB to understand what happened. Â One senior OMB official actually said to me,
“Just because it was said during the campaign does not mean it’s going to be fulfilled.” When I asked why such a relatively small funding pledge (it would cost about $300 million to double, a speck of dust in the federal budget) would not be fulfilled, the same OMB official vaguely referred to the economic crisis and mentioned Peace Corps not being in “strategically significant countries.”  When I countered that Peace Corps had opened in Sierra Leone, Colombia and Indonesia, three important countries, and expanded in Morocco, Ukraine, Botswana, China and other countries, they questioned whether Peace Corps could handle the funds.  When I mentioned the President’s Peace Corps Director, Aaron Williams, had managed a billion-dollar budget when he directed USAID in South Africa and that he had already fielded an additional 1,000 volunteers in less than a year and formed partnerships with NGOs like CHF International which will help field volunteers, they gave other excuses about Peace Corps being in Bulgaria and Romania,  and asked why we had volunteers in EU countries.  When I countered that the volunteers there were working with some of the world’s most vulnerable populations (such as the Roma) and furthering the Peace Corps’ 3 goals, they questioned the goals.
And that’s what it has been from the White House and OMB, when it comes to the Peace Corps: excuses and deflections.
In the fiscal year 2011 budget, OMB even falsely implies that the promise is somehow being kept, boasting about providing “$446 million to fund the second year of the President’s initiative to significantly increase the number of Peace Corps volunteers, keeping the Peace Corps on track to grow by 50 percent so it reaches 11,000 volunteers by 2016.”
It is misleading for OMB to imply that the promise was “11,000 by 2016,” when millions of Americans watched the President’s speeches clearly promising 16,000 by 2011.  Peace Corps is not on track and the President’s initiative was to double.  It’s almost as if they switched “11″ in “2011″ with “16″ and the “16″ in “16,000″ with “11″ and thought no one would notice.
For once, Congress is not the problem. Â Thanks to a massive grassroots movement by RPCVs, nearly 200 House and Senate Members have co-sponsored legislation and co-signed Dear Colleague letters this year urging the appropriations committees to provide the funding needed to double the Peace Corps over the next few years. Â And it’s not House Democrats or Senate Republicans; some of the most conservative Republican Senators like Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri are championing major expansion. Â If anyone is to blame it’s the President for not fulfilling the promise and the Democratic Senators that continue to cut the high numbers proposed by Congressman Sam Farr (Colombia 64-66), which Foreign Operations Subcommittee Chairwoman Rep. Nita Lowey (NY-18) has consistently supported.
Now, it is believed the White House is planning to request a small, token increase for 2012. We can not let that happen. Â With the 50th anniversary months away, now is the time to reinvigorate Peace Corps, which is half the size it was in 1966, despite many new nations requesting volunteers today and record numbers of applicants of all ages. Â The President has to lead in the struggle to pass at least the $446 million which the administration has requested from Congress for 2011 so we can support 10,000 volunteers. Â But most importantly, President Obama needs to reinstate his promise with a historic funding increase in FY 2012 and a plan for growing Peace Corps to 16,000 volunteers. Â Not once since being elected has he referred to doubling the Peace Corps. Â The President is soon expected to deliver a major speech in Indonesia, where Peace Corps opened after a 45-year absence. Â It would take so little for the President to restate his campaign promise during that important speech.
“President Obama, are you still committed to keeping your campaign promise to double the Peace Corps to 16,000 volunteers, and will you help us pass the $46 million increase in funding for the 50th anniversary in 2011 which the Senate is threatening to cut?”
Please write the President with the question and let me know by sending an e-mail to rajeev@pushforpeacecorps.org with “I Asked President Obama the Question” in the title.
Comments are closed or deactivated
Rajeev, great post…It is full of useful information and great details. The fight for a larger Peace Corps has to start inside the Peace Corps building.
In 1961 when Shriver was ’selling’ the idea of a Peace Corps he saw–betwen March and September 363 members of Congress.He not only saw ‘leaders’ he saw everyone! He saw Congressmen and women by geographical region. He cultivated the idea that the P eace Corps was above partisan politics. And that approach has paid off. As you said in your blog, conservation Republicans want a larger Peace Corps.
Where are the liberals when we need them? By the way has the Peace Corps Administration hired a Congressional Liaison person yet? My guess is No!
Rajeev,
Fair enough. The administration hasn’t kept its promises fully (though the headlines this week are about how Peace Corps has reached a 40-year high in volunteers). Half a loaf…
On the other hand, most recent presidents have made similar promises, and, similarly, failed to keep them. I’m not necessarily so heartbroken about that.
1. I’m not totally convinced that Peace Corps could find enough QUALIFIED applicants to fill 6000 more slots; recruiters complain now about how they’re barely meeting their recruiting goals as it is, no matter how hard they try. Certainly, recruiting and advertising would need to be ramped up greatly to make this work.
2. I’m also not convinced that the DC headquarters could effectively administer a quick influx of 6000 more PCVs. A slower, more incremental increase in numbers would be digested a lot more effectively.
By all means, let’s double the volunteer ranks — but let’s make sure the process is sustainable, and that the new volunteers are worthy ones.
Thanks Dave.
You are right that past pledges from Presidents, Republican and Democrat ones, weren’t fulfilled. That was because there was no real concerted legislative campaign (which is not the case now). When the President would request the funds, these requests would get cut by the time Congress passed the foreign operations bills, and no one cared because no one knew (and no one knew because there was no real advocacy campaign communicating with RPCVs).
Now in the last 2 years, there’s more public education about the appropriations process, and there’s a sizable base of people in pretty much every legislative district who can help the President get the funding passed by Congress, but the President has to at least make the request for big funding increases.
Peace Corps may want a big increase, but if the President requests a low number, like it or not, they are tied to it and they cannot advocate for more than that amount. Because PC can’t lobby for the higher numbers it really wants, Congress can say that Peace Corps only wants the President’s request and dismiss the grassroots activists, saying that even the Peace Corps doesn’t want the higher funding.
What’s so strange about all of this is that this is one of the few issues in the world where Democrats and Republicans agree, and everyone would benefit politically. No one would fault Congress for expanding Peace Corps.
Of course even if the President requests a high amount, Dave is absolutely right that there’s no guarantee we will get it. Even now we’re struggling to get the President’s requested $46 million increase, but I think my point goes beyond the request. The Administration needs to make this a priority and lobby for it with the subcommittee chairs. They do that for so many other budgets that are important to them, why not Peace Corps?
The fact is that since being elected President, not once has President Obama restated his campaign promise to double the Peace Corps.
Rajeev- Increasing the number of Peace Corps Volunteers over a longer time period might not be such a bad idea. Although it is very common to cite the peak year (15,000+), the average number of volunteers during the 1960’s was 11,000. Also, the number of complaints concerning volunteers without meaningful jobs seemed to coincide with the record setting build-up. High attrition rates also coincided with this past build-up.
After reading stacks of historical reports for the preparation of the Peace Corps Chronology; 1961-2010 (now in production), my concerns changed a bit. I noticed that when comparing the number of Washington support staff today to that of the 1970’s when there was a similar number of volunteers in the field- today’s Washington staff is 3 times as numerous. Even so, the number of training days have been cut and the initial time from application to reporting has increased.
There seemed to be a 3 year lead time between job creation and a volunteer actually going to work (boots on the ground).
Another serious problem is the increasing rate of rapes. While only one third of pioneer volunteers were females, todays corps’ majority are females and rapes are increasing. In the preface of my book, I suggest that all volunteers be trained in self-defense, given whistles and small canisters of pepper spray, much like a camper might carry for protection.
Rajeev, What do you think will be the consequence for the Peace Corps’s budget now that the House is controlled by conservative Republicans?
The new congress will not be seated until January. This congress is free to pass a budget. Unfortunately, it has been slow to act upon just about everything. Maybe that’s one of the reasons for the change.
Again, my article “While The Peace Corps Slept” (just enter it on any search engine) pointed to the bloated bureaucracy in the Corps and lengthy, expensive selection process as the main reason the Corps has not grown. And every time a President has called for the Corps to double he is met with a chorus of Peace Corps voices saying, “We do not want to dillute the quality of the PCVs with a numbers game.” We are our own worse enemy.
If you compare the number of Washington staff to a period in history when we had a comparable number of vounteers ( the 1970’s), today there ate three times as many Washington staff folks as then. The time from application until training has also become longer (15.5 months if I remember corectly) even though personal computers did not exist in the 1970’s. As I mentioned earlier, the quick bolstering of forces in the 1960’s seemed to create a different set of problems. However, the Peace Corps has also experienced periods of bloated bureacracy. This might be one of those times. Instead of dumping staff, it might be wise to inform them of a scheduled build-up as Obama has promised and grade them on-
1. Lowering the time of application to reporting for training
2. Lowering Washington staff starting with numbers crunchers. Freeze all hiring for Washington data collection services (they don’t solve probelms, just describe them)
3. Lowering the real number of rapes by increasing training to 16 weeks and including 1 hour per day of self-defense classes as well as distributing neck-worn shrill whistles and a tiny canister of pepper spray to all volunteers. Assign women in twos- the buddy sustem.
I wonder if the apparent demise of the five year rule has played a role in the build-up of staff numbers? Can PC/W have possibly grown to the extent reported?
While not meaning to make light of an awful situation, I do remember how one woman in a swine production program handled the problem of unwelcome suitors. She wore the scapel-type instrument she used to castrate piglets on a silver chain around her neck. She delighted in describing its use to pushy guys, who quickly got the message.
David,
Where do you find “the apparent demise” of the five year rule?
It seems to me that there are myrid issues being presented here. From “What should the goal of the Peace Corps be?” to solving staff problems and agency problems.
Leo, in your article “While the Peace Corps Slept,” you comment on the role of the military in nation-building, for lack of a better word. I would like to recommend a book: “Waging Peace -A Special Operations Battle to Rebuild Iraq,: by Schultheis. One of the soldiers featured is Robert Paul, an RPCV. Paul was killed in Afghanistan in the fall of 2006. His comments on peace and military were featured in the Spring 2007 issue of World View.
Joey- The five year rule still exists but over the years the number of exceptions to it undermines the intent. Recently, the new director recommended (and was given approval of) even more exceptions.
David- I am not sure whether the five year rule and the bloated Washington staff are related. One would have to analyze the positions.
Joey Thanks for the tip on the book about Robert Paul. I will look for it.
My comment on the 5-year rule was based mainly on what seems to be frequent comments on this site by, or referring to, ‘long-term’ Peace Corps employees and the fact that every employee seems to have been ‘Peace Corps’ previously in some capacity. Back in the old days, come one’s fifth anniversary and it was ‘adios.’
One fellow wrote in another connection that the five-year rule forced him out; otherwise he would have ‘held onto those bountiful tits forever.’
For me, it was the best job I ever had, and without the automatic ‘kick,’ hell, I might still be there!
My understanding is that there are about 20 Safety and Security positions which are exempt by law from the five year rule. Lorenzo alluded to more positions which the current Director requested and now has exempt, but I don’t know any more about that.
What I do know is that I when I talk with “lower level”, there is frequently an reference to the five-year rule. I have seen a FOIA officer and a Public Records Manager leave because of the five year rule.
One assistant management director complained about the difficulty of getting career employees with needed administrative (read: bureacratic) skills because they did not want to interrupt their civil service path with a stinct at Peace Corps. In country HCN staff are state department employees and are exempt from the five year rule.
Also, the 29-32 political appointees all resigned the day Obama was sworn in. Those positions were not filled for months, due to Senate problems with confirmation of all Obama appointees. Willians did not take over until August of 2009. The current Deputy Director wasn’t sworn in until JUne of this year.
I don’t think that there are long-term Peace Corps employees outside of the noted exemptions. But, always, I could be wrong.
One report I read, which I do not have at my fingertips, said that about 48% of Peace Corps staff are RPCVs.
The Deputy Director of the Peace Corps spoke at my university yesterday and while she didn’t mentioned idea of doubling the size of the Peace Corps, based on her comments, it sounded like the Peace Corps is no where near prepared for such a massive increase in the number of volunteers.
What it seems like to me was that doubling the size sounded like a great idea during the campaign, but after the election it became clear that even if the money was available, the Peace Corps wouldn’t be prepared to use it. Also, the $46 million budget increase is nothing to sneeze at. I believe the Deputy Director said it was the single largest budget increase since the Peace Corps was founded. That’s something that should be applauded, not ridiculed.
I was a volunteer over 30 years ago in Iran, just prior to the Islamic Revolution.
Having been of student age, I got to know many of the students back then. Many of them felt the revolution would usher in a new age of democratic government, and not a theological take over.
Though the volunteers stayed out of the politics, looking back, the Peace corps supported the then idealism of thought that it would hopefully usher in democracy.
Our very presence gave many hope in a better way of self determinism, that seemed to have lost it’s way to a brutal regime.
If only we had more dedication and a larger presence, we might have better tipped the scales to a peaceful outcome .
That we are able to show Americans are more interested in helping people achieve a better life,
rather than beating them into submission, was the best purpose the Peace Corps has to offer.
You change more minds this way than you ever do with military force.