For years the Peace Corps world has asked itself an important question: “Has the Peace Corps made a difference?” An affirmative answer provides assurance that the large expenditure of money, time, and talent since 1961 has been justified. A negative answer reduces the entire effort to the equivalent of a grand tour for a few privileged Americans.
Unfortunately, there is no foolproof way of answering the question. As my friend Joey has often pointed out on this site, the Peace Corps has done a dreadful job of evaluating itself as an institution, as well as the work of its tens of thousands of volunteers. Still, we can make some educated guesses based on a few hard facts and, of more importance, on anecdotal evidence from the past half century. (Remember, just because it is anecdotal does not mean it is worthless.) Several years ago I made an effort to do such an assessment and concluded - wearing my rose-colored glasses, some will say - that indeed the effort has been worthwhile, and the country can take comfort in knowing that its money, time, and talent have been well spent.
The greatest differences the Peace Corps experience has made are in the lives of those who participated in it and, by extension, in the life of the country to which they returned. Virtually all volunteers (92% in an early survey) said that the Peace Corps influence on their lives has been profound. Their concept of the world and their place in it has been changed permanently for the better. Whatever level of provincialism they began with has been replaced by recognition that we are all in this together.
What makes this so important for the United States - rather than just for the individuals involved - is the combined impact returned volunteers have had on the collective character of American society. The important role former volunteers play in international affairs is well known. USAID, the State Department, almost all NGOs, and many international philanthropic organizations - all have former Peace Corps folks on their staffs. In 1986 the head of USAID said, “Five hundred former volunteers, me included, are on our roster.” In 1990 the heads of all the American agencies in Nepal were former volunteers. Two months ago in one of my blog contributions I highlighted two wonderful organizations currently ‘making a difference.’ Both were founded and are now led by former volunteers. Surely, this situation continues.
Beyond the international arena one can see the influence of former volunteers throughout society. Former volunteers are serving in the Senate and House; many others are on congressional staffs; still more are in local and state governments. Others are in every conceivable walk of life and they are often central to the lives of their communities. Can there be even one school system in the entire country that has no former volunteer teachers, staff, and administrators? What little research we have suggests that these folks not only are contributing members of society, but they also bring the wider world to their home places, places that otherwise might never give a thought to what lies beyond the border. America is different - better I would say - for the presence of nearly 200,000 returned volunteers.
To suggest that Peace Corps bestowed its greatest gifts on those who served and the country that supported them is not a criticism, nor is it meant to lessen the contributions made to the people of the third world. It simply reflects a universal truth in the Peace Corps: “We received more than we gave.”
Another arena in which volunteers clearly ‘made a difference’ is in the way people of the Third World think about Americans. One of my favorite stories has to do with a volunteer couple stranded by floodwaters in a remote part of Malaysia while on vacation. When a local man learned that they were Peace Corps volunteers he smiled and said, in effect, “I owe you!” Ten years earlier he had benefited from the presence of a volunteer and was eager to repay his debt, which he did. The Peace Corps has softened the image many have of Americans and their sometimes rough-shod ways. Recently while in Costa Rica I asked one of our rainforest guides if he knew of the Peace Corps. He said “Of course” and I swear he was warmer and more open upon learning that I, too, had a Peace Corps connection. I expect that the 50th anniversary celebration will have more than one head of state, many more ranking government officials from present and former host countries, and countless English-as-a-second-language speakers publicly (and privately) thanking Peace Corps for ‘making a difference’ in their lives.
The toughest arena in which to judge the Peace Corps contribution is in economic and social development. The Peace Corps is a very small part of that apparatus. Nobody knows how to sum up the individual experiences of tens of thousands of volunteers, let alone find the data that might assist in that project.
Yet I contend that there is sufficient evidence to credit Peace Corps with two important contributions at the macro level. First, the Peace Corps has altered the theoretical underpinnings of development by emphasizing the absolute need to bring beneficial change to people where they live. All of the hydro dams, the steel mills, the world-class hospitals are meaningless if they do not lead to better lives for the people. There have been others involved in promoting this understanding of development - Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful, and Dr. James Yen’s insistence on development that is ’simple, economical, practical, and duplicable’ come to mind - but the Peace Corps took these ideas to the whole world.
Second, the Peace Corps has provided the formative experience for many of the professionals and experts currently working in the field of economic and social development. Based on some very elementary research I did among volunteers who served in the Philippines, and projecting the results for the rest of the Peace Corps universe, something like ten thousand former volunteers are now in that broadly-defined field. As a head of USAID once said, “[the Peace Corps approach] has dramatically affected the way development . . . has been reformulated.”
Beyond that are the tens of thousands of individual stories - once housed in the Peace Corps library - of the hogs that went to market at 6 months, instead of 2 years; of the galvanized roofs that replace thatched roots when a vegetable marketing program succeeded; of the feeding center that restored vitality to a barrio’s youngsters; of the double-cropping permitted when USAID, Peace Corps, and local rural banks cooperated to bring small loans to subsistence farmers; and of the impact fish ponds can have on a community. (For this last, I recommend Tidwell’s The Ponds of Kalambayi.)
Has the Peace Corps made a difference? I answer with a resounding ‘yes’ on three levels: the individual, the national, and the world at large. Long may it continue.
25 Comments So Far»
I am visiting friends in Texas who asked me, “Is the Peace Corps still around?” Maybe it is better that we do the work quietly.
I’ve never been a fan of ‘quietly,’ perhaps because of my early days in consumer goods marketing, and more recently in trying to raise money for local arts groups. The need for ‘good press’ is especially important for the Peace Corps now that the ‘naysayers’ point to the annual cost of $50,000 per volunteer, and ask what are we getting for our money.
Have you seen the new Peace Corps promo that John Coyne mentioned a day or two ago? It deserves widespread viewing from both a recruiting standpoint as well as for its constituency building possibilities. As I said, ‘quietly’ doesn’t get it done for me.
Might I suggest that, for those of us who served….it certainly has made a difference and shows how many times a week.
Brad Whipple
Colombia One 1961-63
Peace Corps Staff Training 1963-1965 Puerto Rico
David. Since the Peace Corps seems to be off the radar scope for most Americans, again, they are surprised to hear that it is still in business, it will take a very large sound to put in back on the map.
brad…
you really shouldn’t be discussing the residual effects of giardia liambria and aquardiente on the workings of your internal organos in public…
Leo, where you at in TX? How long? How was Mardi Gras?
Leo
In many respects I think that the Peace Corps began its fall off the radar screen as early as the mid-1970’s. The NYT index had an average annual ‘mention’ of the Peace Corps during the early 60s of 103.7. By the mid-70s it had already fallen to 17.7, and in 1992-94 it was a paltry 3.6. Still, the agency had some pretty good years during that time despite not being a popular news item.
The key ‘audience’ is not us and our friends, but the younger folks who still make up the body of the volunter force. During the past year I’ve had a number of local 20-some-things ask about how they could improve their chances of being accepted by the Peace Corps. And, I think applications far out-number invitees.
Good PR may not be a sina qua non (if I remember my latin correctly), but it sure will help. The new video will do it.
Miguelito
I’m sorry you mentioned those ailments. It brought to mind a very bad 3-4 days when half the American mission in Manila was in desparate straits after eating spoiled shrimp at some damn fancy ball I had to attend!
Bradford Whipple! You were my CD Leader in Penasco NM in 1963. Seems like yesterday.
Mishelle. I am now in Houston and go to San Antonio on Monday which is Feb 22, if my calendar is correct. Are you in Texas? I will be seeing an old Peace Corps friend tomorrow. He too went from the Peace Corps to the State Department.
Have fun Leo! Heading to Houston tomorrow. In San Antonio, if you plan on playing tourist, try a helicopter tour!
David, I appreciate very much your essay on the value of the Peace Corps. I’d like to offer my thoughts in the spirit of collegiality.
Your assessment of Peace Corps focuses on the Third Goal (charging Volunteers to bring back to this country what they learned). I think you do that well. Your presumption is that, of course, the First Goal was met (sending technical personnel to countries which requested them). I think that is where we would not be agreement. I think absent from your analysis is the voice of the Third World.
Your voice is authentic because it reflects the culture and values of white, corporate organizational culture, which has been so dominant in Peace Corps history. You address the question of evaluation only fleetingly. There is no real acknowledgement of the role of host countries in evaluation. Indeed, it is if they are of no consequence because Americans were better qualified to make those judgments for them. This was no always true.
Peace Corps/W/Johnson-Shiver was very concerned about the role of host countries in evaluation. I would like to quote, liberally, if I may, from the minutes of the Director’s Staff Meeting, December 16, 1965. Shriver is the Director; the participants are identified by name, but not by title. Maybe some of you will recognize who they are. This is a public document that I copied at the National Archives II. The citation is Record Group 490; Peace Corps History Document File; Directors Staff Meeting Reports. The archives have re catalogued this record group and I do not have the current reference numbers. The old reference included: Box 2-5 “61-“67. The Ac# was 62-B-1611. Here are those minutes:
“Patterson said there are some major problems of understanding between host countries and the Peace Corps’ objectives and methods of operation. ‘The host country cannot understand why we have all these rules, why we can’t let them do it their way, and why we have our own organization. They view us as a sort of third force existing outside normal channels, with a motion and direction over which they have no control. They suspect us, rightly, of having our own motives, which they see as being, at worst, political and, at best, incomprehensive.”
Patterson went on to present recommendations to involve host countries in our “purpose-making process, to have them participate in the decisions…in the evaluations and establishment of standards of Peace Corps success.” The recommendation included Host Country evaluation of Peace Corps programs, and Peace Corps evaluation results being made available to the Host Country; opening Peace Corps Termination Conferences, and workshops, etc. to Host Country officials; making available annual reports to each Host Country; requesting Host Country research and report on problems and progress of the Peace Corps; and, “early terminations be sent, when appropriate, through Host Country interviews.”
The ensuing discussion by the Senior Staff is illuminating. “Carter felt that there were no major problems…but that there would be major problems if the recommendations were implemented…to create a need for evaluation is mischievous.”
“Prichard agreed with Carter.” He argued that if there were problems, it was the fault of the Country Representative or CD.
“Shriver asked if any countries had asked to do formal evaluation of Peace Corps programs. ‘Has there been a ground swell of demands?’ Wiggins said there had not been a ground swell for evaluations but there was no ground swell for the Peace Corps either.
The recommendations, Wiggins said were addressed positively to help the host country, rather than negatively to solve a problem.”
“Mankiewicz said ‘As far as Latin American is concerned, one problem is coordination with host country officials. If we can more closely involve them, that is a good thing. If their suggestions deflect us from our original courses somewhat that may also be a good thing.”
“Erich Hofmann, Deputy Representative in Ecuador, said ‘the Peace Corps there is working with over 700 agencies. Who do you want to get a report from? As far as involvement. the host country is already involved planning and in-country training. In addition, the Volunteer reports are forwarded through the host country agencies before coming to us.”(Italics are mine)
“Quimby said Africa is different…The Peace Corps is a budgetary item for most African countries and therefore they can hold us more accountable.”…”Alexander said the Peace Corps has been successful in Africa because Africans are easier to deal with. They need us and realize they need us.”
At the end of this discussion, “Shriver asked Peters and Krug to study ways that the host country could have a greater involvement in the process of evaluation and research.” ….”Shriver asked for continued suggestions on how we can improve host country participation. He asked the regional directors to talk with their Representatives to find out the extend of the problem, and how the host countries would like to be more involved.”
This document is so important to the understanding of Peace Corps/W/Johnson-Shriver as this working group of the highest level dealt with operational problems. The value I take away is how these men demonstrated such a “decent respect for the opinions of mankind.”
The discussion only begins to touch on all those issues so critical to the Peace Corps. Where is the Volunteer in evaluation? What if the Volunteer and the people he/she is working with choose projects or pursuits that the local government finds inappropriate? What are we learning about moving cross-culturally with our technology and values?
But such questions arise from the very nature of where Peace Corps was four and half years into its operation. And what were the answers?
I wish I had a Star Wars holograph gadget so I could go back to this time and place and ask.
Joey, I agree completely on the legitimacy of host country participation in the evaluation process, and I also agree that as best I know it has never been practiced in a systematic, techically appropriate way. If it had I would have had some material to use as I tried to answer the question “Has the Peace Corps Made a Difference?”
I do think that Peace Corps attitudes towards host country institutions and the local people who worked in them changed for the better as the years went on. Certainly by the 70s every Peace Corps program had HCNs in responsible positions, except as I recall CD and Deputy CD positions which were (I think) reserved for American citizens only.
When I read some of the comments made in that early high-level staff meeting you quoted I couldn’t help but think I was listening to a staff meeting at the British Foreign Office during the height of the British Empire. A little ’smug’ were we?
Perhaps Toyota’s answer yesterday that ‘they were so busy growing they forgot to evaluate what was going on’ applies to the early days of the Peace Corps as well?. Evaluation does not come naturally to managers, even though it should.
I do wonder if you agree with my conclusion that ‘yes’ the Peace Corps has made a worthwhile difference on a national, individual, and international scale?
By the way, although I haven’t checked, I think part of my Peace Corps book tries to make a strong case for more, and more rigorous, evaluation and research to finally answer the questions everyone has about the Peace Corps, and that you often raise.
Thanks for your always cogent comments.
David, I did not copy the entire minutes from that meeting because of space considerations. I hope very much that did not give a distorted perspective. I did not hear “the British Foreign Office at the height of the British Empire.” What comments led you to that conclusion?
I wish, so much, that the National Archives would put the public documents from the Peace Corps Record Group online. They are just so invaluable. The recommendations on how to include host countries in the “purpose-making process” came from the senior staff.
That certainly is not “smug,” at all. I thought that the responses were candid, not smug.
To insert myself into your comment - You and I “agree completely on the legitimacy of host country participation in the evaluation process, and .. also agree that as best I know it has never been practiced in a systematic, techically appropriate way.” Why this has never been done is the very question I would have liked to ask this group.
What I find so frustrating is that the public record has only been perserved piecemeal. What happened to the recommendations, I don’t know. It appeared to me that there were those among the senior staff who were proposing a closely integrated program with host country nations. To understand the follow-up and follow-through on those recommendations would be central to understanding how Peace Corps interacted in the field. That is critical historical information.
As far as I can tell, that history is simply lost, available only in bits and pieces. The very absence of that history is what allows you and I to project our own experiences on to the multi-year, multi-country, multi-cultural behemoth which is Peace Corps. It does make for interesting blogging!
As to your question, was Peace Corps worth it? In terms of the Third Goal, absolutely. Although, the American public is entitle to know far more about Peace Corps activities than is currently easily available. My
suggestion? A Peace Corps Library/Museum in DC.
I think in terms of meeting the Second Goal, Peace Corps is very successful. People in the Third World, developing nations, former Soviet Union countries know more about Americans, warts and all, because Volunteers have lived for long periods of time, without our cultural “shelters.” You can’t fake it!
In terms of the First Goal, I think Peace Corps has been successful sending teachers and nurses to host countries. I think Peace Corps has failed, many times, in its attempts to move technology-health, agriculture, ecological, enginnerring, etc, across cultures, for all the reasons we have discussed.
Joey
Below are the quotations that led to my comment about the British Empire. The thoughts triggered by them are in parentheses.
“Carter felt that there were no major problems…but that there would be major problems if the recommendations were implemented…to create a need for evaluation is mischievous.” (We know best; don’t complicate things.)
“Prichard agreed with Carter.” He argued that if there were problems, it was the fault of the Country Representative or CD. (Let’s just change our Viceroy)
Wiggins said there had not been a ground swell for evaluations but there was no ground swell for the Peace Corps either. (They are so backward they don’t even know they need us.)
Who do you want to get a report from? As far as involvement the host country is already involved planning and in-country training. (What else do want them to do? Be independent?)
Alexander said the Peace Corps has been successful in Africa because Africans are easier to deal with. They need us and realize they need us.” (Talk about condescension!)
At the end of this discussion, “Shriver asked Peters and Krug to study ways that the host country could have a greater involvement in the process of evaluation and research.” (Let’s form a parliamentary committee, and it will all go away!)
David, Thank you for citing the comments. I will respond to each one. First, I am going through my notes to see if I can find out more information about the participants. The Senior Staff is a mix. Some are, I think, Washington staff who never were assigned to HC. Others came to DC, as you did, after successful tours as Country Directors.
My first thought on reading your comments was that the “imperial attitude” you picked up was not directed toward HNCs, but rather reflected the attitude of PC/W toward in-country Peace Corps Staff! It may well be that some of the Regional Officers are looking to protect their own “turf.”
You have asserted so well that the real work of Peace Corps happens in-country and you noted your own difficulty with PC/W. I remember as a “peon” back in the day, that we PCVs used to say that PC/.W maintained its objectivity by never actually visiting a PC site or even a HC.
Thank you for honesty and your patience.
Dave,
I am wrong about who constituted the Senior Staff at this meeting and who were responsible for these suggestions. The staff at the meeting included former Country Directors and then Current Directors. The recommendations were originally prepared by William Canby, H. Donald Wilson and Michael McCone. According to Wikipedia, William Canby had been staff in Ethiopia and in 1965 was Peace Corps Director for Uganda. H. Donald Wilson was the Peace Corps Director for Ethiopia. I could not find bio information for Michael McCone. So these suggestions did not come from the dreaded Evaluation Department of Charles Peters, but rather from overseas staff.
The first quote from Carter is complete. I don’t know his background. i
found the use of the word “michievous,” interesting too. Let me quote completely Prichard’s direct response to Carter. Pritchard had been Country Director in Turkey and now, I think, was in charge of the Asian/Far East Office.
“Pritchard agreed with Carter. ‘If the problems are as stated, the Representative is not doing his job. I have never seen this as much of a problem, but if you ask the host country for their suggestions and don’t honor those suggestions you do have a problem. In Turkey, I started a host country committee to advise the Peace Corps. It was virtually useless. Apart from the committe, I always talked to the interested host country officials anyway. For instance, if there was an educational program, I invited in Ministry of Education officials on an informal basis. There are many things a Representative (Director) can do informally. I would be scared to death of a formal relationship. The host country officials just don’t understand Peace Corps problems.’
Pritchard was speaking from his own experiences in the field.
Thank you for your analysis and your attention. I will finish the commentary in my next post.
David, This is to continue my response to your comments on the Peace Corps Senior Staff meeting, December 16, 1965.
Your comment on Warren Wiggins is the one I simply do not understand. It is quoted in its entirety.
Wiggins is the author of “Towering Task,” the most important of the “founding documents” of Peace Corps. He was present, so to speak, at the conception. He knew that the impetus for Peace Corps came from the response of young Americans to Kennedy’s University of Michigan speech, not from foreign countries. He knew that Shriver had personally traveled overseas and spoke directly to Heads of the states to persuade them to accept Volunteers. Ghana was perhaps the one country that instantly grasped the significance of the offer and asked for university teachers to replace those from the Britain who were leaving as that country became independent of that British Empire.
Wiggins’ statement is factual and straightforward. There is nothing to suggest that he is characterizing host countries as “backward.” Shriver asked him a question, and he answered it.
Earlier in this discussion, Wiggins had offered the following suggestion:
“Wiggins suggested that Volunteers might have a home stay, that is, after their termination conference they would stay a week or so in the home of a host country official and discuss with him their two-year experience.”
Perhaps, David, you might want to revisit your first impression of Wiggins and his comments.
Erich Hofmann, the Deputy Representative from Ecuador was quoted completely. Again, I think his question was legitimate. “What else do you want them to do?” Your rhetorical comment “Be Independent? Is one I don’t understand in this context.
I appreciate your response to Alexander’s comment. Let me quote the whole discussion about Africa and I hope that it will make more sense to you. I will also include the rest of the discussion so that you can see that Shriver was not “forming a parliamentary committee, and it will all go away!”
“Quimby said Africa is different. Ninety-eight per cent of all host country contributions received by the Peace Corps comes from Africa. THE PEACE CORPS IS A BUDGETARY ITEM FOR MOST AFRICAN COUNTRIES AND THEREFORE THEY CAN HOLD US MORE ACCOUNTABLE. (The capitalization is mine for emphasis JR). ‘We should do everything to increase host country understanding and this means involving them. I would agree with Carter that the recommendations should not be institutionalized, but I like them as suggestions for regional action.”
“Alexander said the Peace Corps has been successful in Africa because Africans are easier to deal with. They need us and realize they need us. ‘A great opportunity is stated in these recommendations, but I don’t see the opportunity as solving the problems. I would advise against them as solutions for administration or programming problems.’
“Carter said all the problems mentioned in the paper can be dealt with and solved at a country or regional level. Shriver suggested that the recommendations not be thought about as a package, but individually. Some recommendations could be institutionalized and others dropped. Shriver said he has no objections to host countries doing an evaluation of Peace Corps programs, but they should not replace our own evaluations. Nor should the Peace Corps allow just any host country official to do it.”
“Carter said that evaluations in effect are already being done in the host countries, and if they want to do a formal evaluation they will do it.”
“Shriver asked if anyone was against item 3, the Annual Report of Peace Corps activities in each country to be made to the host country. The senior staff agreed that this is a feasible idea.”
“Mankiewicz said he would encourage reports from the host countries, but they should be made more often than annually and at lower levels that the Prime Minister. The reports should be made by the institutions we are working with.”
“Krug said that much research information must come from the host country if we are to obtain it at all.”
“MacArthur said rather than an evaluation, host countries officials should give us data so we could prepare a report and present it to them.”
“Carp said host country participation in the selection process has been a failure because we were trying to get host country officials to participate in a particularly American institutions which does not fit into their sociological-psychological backgrounds. A preferable way to involve the host country is for selection to go to the foreign embassy after the final board and explain the criteria that we use and we certain people were selected and other people were not selected.”
“Quimby said Carp’s suggestion made good sense, but that he would expand it by three steps: (1) he would bring over host country officials other than the Ambassador. (2) he would involve the host country official in the training program and Peace Corps/Washington for three week, (3) and the official should have an opportunity to interview the Volunteers.”
“Josephson said we were right to think about involving the host country, but that the report doesn’t talk about how the countries want to be involved. ‘We should find out what the host country wants to do.””
“Shriver asked for continued suggestions on how we can improve host country participation. He asked the regional directors to talk with their Representatives to find out the extent of the problem, and how the host countries would like to be more involved.”
David, I hope this makes more sense for you. I had cited this document to illustrate that at one point in time, the Peace Corps was trying to find ways to listen to HCNs and involve them in the evaluation process. If you would like me to email you the whole document, which has be quoted here almost in its entirety, I will be more than happy to do so.
I think, again, if there had been a Peace Corps Archive/Library available to you BEFORE you went to the Phillippines, you might have had a more comprehensive view of all that went on in the sixties. If we had such a library/ archive now, you would be able to review what ever would be more helpful based on your own experiences. I think that it is just awful that we are reduced to commenting on the history of Peace Corps based on the prisim of our own experiences and the very piece meal and fragmented public record available.
I don’t know what happened to these suggestions. I would presume that there were not part of the management expectations when you were in the Phillippines. I can find bits and pieces of where such recommendations may have been implemented in Colombia.
Again, although we are not in agreement, I appreciate so very much your review.
Dawood Khan Salaam u Aliekum,
http://sites.google.com/a/afghanconnections.org/afghan-connections/Home/third-goal-activities
(New information and inquiry below)
Copy and paste the webpage above and start navigating around the Friends of Afghanistan site. The first site will show “Third Goal” activities that we are wrapping up this weekend in Buffalo, NY. Our Webmaster and Operations Officer, Terry Dougherty has done a great job in making the navigation fun and easy.
But we have a lot more going on and we are actively involved in supporting programs in country. My students funded construction of an Internet Cafe at SOLA in Kabul and we think that it may be the only Internet Cafe built exclusively for women in Afghanistan.
I returned in 2003 & 2006 to facilitate a number of student funded, gender equity educational initiatives including school construction projects. I may go back again this summer in between the reunions.
Also, how can I find the contact info for the Afghanistan Country Directors & Staff from the 1960s and 1970s? Regarding the two reunions this summer, I would like to let our organizers alert the former PC Staff about the details. We are in contact with a few but would like to touch base with the rest.
Peace, Tony Agnello
President, Friends of Afghanistan
tony@afghanconnections.org
http://www.afghanconnections.org
Tony, I think it is great what the Friends of Afghanistan are doing. I know that Friends of Colombia are also engaged in projects in Colombia., as well as so many other alumni groups. My concern is that if the average American would like to know what Peace Corps has done and what you all are doing in Afghanistan or in any other host country, there is no easy path to getting or understanding that information. That is why I think a physical location for a Peace Corps Museum/Library is so important. The RPCV community operates almost like a clique. You have to be a member to know what happened. There is our own jargon, ie. HCN and RPCV.
I don’t think Peace Corps in Washington maintains current information on past staff or would even know who they were or how to find out. I could be wrong. There are privacy concerns which would preclude releasing any information. Google works for me.
I might add, however, it is interesting to call the Peace Corps 800 number - 1-800-424-8580 and ask for Human Resources or Public Information. There may well be ways to locate what you are looking for and/or it is fun to talk to the occasional RPCV staff member.
David, I have a research question. You had talked about the Peace Corps Library/Archives in Wash/DC. That unit was reorganized into ICE back in 1998. I am going to be visiting Peace Corps next week just to look at the physical outlay of ICE. You have referred to hundreds if not thousands of files outling the activities of Volunteers. My question is what did that physically look like in the Peace Corps Library. Were they original copies from PCVs in the field filed by country and date? If they have been kept, what would I be looking for? ICE
Any help you might offer would really be appreciated. A long time ago, I had hoped to just come up with an informal guide to where Peace Corps public documents could be found. That still is my intent. I am mainly finding out where they are not. Thank you.
Joey
It has been about 15 years since I did that research and I may not be remembering accurately but I recall accessing files by country that were filled with all sorts of coutry-specific material usually sent to the library either by or through the desk officers.
In the files would be things like copies of COS reports, letters from volunteers, PR material generated by the visits (which were regularly scheduled) of Public Affairs journalists, copies of Congressional investigative team reports, and material prepared by incountry staff to be used for recruiting and/or training purposes.
One of my main sources for anecdotal evidence for Philippines PCV experiences was contained in an excellent and extensive compilation of letters from currently serving PCVs to their future replacements, a copy of which went to the library.
There was also a file for each PC Director, some of which were very thick, and some of which were thin. All of the annual reports were there as well as some excellent news clippings containing both favorable and unfavorable news articles. Copies of mamy of the Peace Corps books were there and all of the volunteer magazines.
I remember that the PC librarian at that time knew what was in the library and where to find it. My major decisions had to do with how could I use all this stuff, not where could I find material on which to base a book.
My understanding of ICE (which may be incorrect) is that it is a resource center to provide technical assistance to the field and not a place to store historicall material. It is present and future oriented not past.
Good luck, but don’t get your hopes up too high. Let me know what you find.
Thank you so very much. It is very helpful to have a idea of what I might be looking for. I believe you are correct about the purpose of ICE.
Evidently, the historical documents were maintained in the Peace Corps Library. There are lists of materials from the Library which are in the process of being digitalized. Also, there may be some unidentified materials in ICE. Also, documents were sent to the Archives at College Park.
I will look to see if there are country specific materials at ICE.
These letters would be historical invaluable.
“One of my main sources for anecdotal evidence for Philippines PCV experiences was contained in an excellent and extensive compilation of letters from currently serving PCVs to their future replacements, a copy of which went to the library.”
I am going to see if I can track them down. There is your next book!!
David, I know, of course, that your book is based on your experiences, not historical documents. But, your documentation is very helpful.
Leave Comments Below»