There’s an interagency or nongovernmental fix for our broken Peace Corps

In the news


The Hill 4/03/24


Ask the next person you see what they know about the Peace Corps. Odds are the answer will be “never heard of it.”

(Thailand 1976–79)

The Peace Corps is past middle age and losing its vigor. Its service model has hardly changed in a world vastly different from the 1960s Cold War era. In 1966, more than 15,000 volunteers served in more than 40 countries. By 2020, when volunteers were brought home because of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were barely 7,000. The number today is fewer than 3,000.

We see three ways to make the Peace Corps more relevant: merge it into AmeriCorps, move it into the State Department, or transform it from a federal agency to a nongovernmental organization.

Launched by President Kennedy in 1961, the Peace Corps is one of the boldest, most innovative foreign policy initiatives of the post-World War II period. Countries emerging from colonial rule in the Global South lacked the infrastructure of industrial countries. Their populations were overwhelmingly rural. The Peace Corps was a welcome form of aid, without the strings associated with agencies like the World Bank and USAID.

Today, even the poorest countries in the world are led by graduates from top universities in high-income countries. They all have mobile phone networks and internet access. Furthermore, global challenges like climate change, which were low-priority concerns in the 1960s, exist today. Technology is erasing borders while nationalist sentiment is building walls between nations. Conflict seems to be growing on every continent, producing waves of migrants in a world with increasingly fewer welcoming shores.

In the dark and stormy world our children are growing up in, how can we connect Americans to people in other countries to build a more peaceful and sustainable world?  The best form of glue is a program that brings American women and men out of their comfort zones, helps them become more civic-minded and gets them to interact 24/7 with others across the globe, a program like the Peace Corps, but bigger and better.

Merging with AmeriCorps

Inspired by the report of the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service established by the U.S. Congress in 2017, we began by looking at the possibility of merging the Peace Corps into AmeriCorps. We found more benefits than we expected.

AmeriCorps was launched in 1993 and operates in close partnership with state and local governments. The number of volunteers funded directly and indirectly has grown steadily to more than 200,000 in 2022.

Merging the Peace Corps into AmeriCorps should make it possible to support more than 15,000 Americans serving overseas. The menu of service options could be expanded through partnerships with universities and NGOs like Habitat for Humanity. The structure of AmeriCorps is better suited to managing an international volunteer program because it is governed by a nonpartisan board of directors, making it less vulnerable to the whims of Congress.

The most radical benefit of moving the Peace Corps into AmeriCorps would be the chance to make it a two-way program by bringing foreign volunteers to the USA. Imagine the possibility of having one foreign volunteer teacher in every high school in the United States. Two-way volunteer service has the potential to be a big and inexpensive win for American communities and U.S. foreign policy.

Lex Riefel(Thailand 1976–79)

Moving to the State Department

Alternatively, moving the Peace Corps into the State Department could be more politically feasible. Here it would be easier to make the Peace Corps a two-way program because the inflow of foreign volunteers would be lost in the much larger inflow through the State Department’s distinct exchange programs that bring foreigners to the U.S. for education, training, speaking and performing.

Transforming to an NGO

An even better alternative would be transforming the Peace Corps into an NGO, giving it maximum operational flexibility. As the U.S. government does for the Asia Foundation, the federal budget could include core funding for a Peace Corps in the private sector. Most importantly, it would be free to obtain funding from leading philanthropists, charitable organizations and corporations.

One special advantage of being an NGO is having a board of directors composed of influential leaders able to hire an entrepreneurial and visionary CEO. Furthermore, in a world increasingly skeptical about the foreign policies of successive U.S. Republican and Democratic administrations, the Peace Corps as an NGO would gain the kind of credibility possessed by globally admired organizations like Doctors Without Borders.


Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of former Secretary of State John Kerry, famously said in 2004 that “one of the best faces America has ever projected is the face of a Peace Corps volunteer.” Relations with the rest of the world should be a top issue in this year’s presidential election campaign. Our national security in the decades to come will be at risk if we cannot maintain strong connections at the grassroots, people-to-people level around the world.

Some 21st century version of the Peace Corps is probably the best way to build these connections. Voters should ask candidates in our November election how they plan to measurably improve relations between America and the rest of the world.

A revitalized Peace Corps is the glue that America — and the world — needs to meet the challenges ahead. 


Kevin Quigley was the president of the National Peace Corps Association from 2003 to 2012 and a former Peace Corps volunteer in Thailand. Lex Rieffel is a former Peace Corps volunteer in India who has written extensively about Peace Corps and international volunteer service. 



Leave a comment
  • John: See!!! Where are else would we be able to read a report like this if it were not for your and Marian’s Peace Corps Worldwide? That’s why your work remains so important. This topic needs discussion and this is the place to do it.

    Barry Hillenbrand
    Ethiopia 1963-1965

  • I really like some of these ideas, particularly that of making international volunteering a two-way process. Lots of unexplored potential there! As far as spinning Peace Corps off as an NGO, such a move might foster the same organizational culture that characterizes too many donor-funded development organizations: prioritizing appearances over substance (when chasing donations, it’s more important to be seen to do good than to actually do good), forcing volunteers to put donors’ priorities ahead of those of the communities they’re serving, and subjecting volunteers to a heavy burden of monitoring and evaluation. If we want to preserve what’s best about Peace Corps, I think we need to avoid those outcomes.

  • It’s always good to see the RPCV community engaged in keeping the Peace Corps relevant and impactful. I doubt, however, that these recommendations will do either.

    1. Combining the Peace Corps with Americorps might have some budget and political benefits, but adding our once nimble, independent agency into a larger bureaucracy was exactly what we fought against when Nixon moved the agency into Action with VISTA (Carter later restored Peace Corps’ independence). As someone who manages a nonprofit, I am always concerned when board members want to expand our mission and goals to support other issues…a process known as “mission creep.” The fact is, we have our hands full doing the work we were created to do, and so does the Peace Corps, which, when doing it’s primary work, does it quite well and is in high demand.

    2. The State Department: I am surprised to see this proposed again, though understandable give Kevin’s ambassadorial orientation. If avoiding the ups and downs of politics is a goal of these recommendations, its hard to understand just how that will happen in a State Department subject to presidential foreign policy goals in a very turbulent world. Part of the Peace Corps’ success has always been its independence from formal foreign policy as a “people to people” function, serving Americans’ relationship to other people as an important means of pursuing a more peaceful world.

    3. The nonprofit: Part of what drew me to the Peace Corps was the belief then, and now, that I was answering my nation’s call to service. At the time I joined, we were not at war, but there was an expectation in my family that service to the country was part of our lives. Removing the Peace Corps from the national commitment to service would harvest decades to goodwill and political capital into a boutique social commitment in constant need of justifying its funding do a diversity of donors. True, like all government agencies, the Peace Corps must justify itself to Congress, but so far so good.

    What is needed is to take is to take President Biden’s admonition to “restore the soul of America” and actually restore what it means to BE an American. Instead of reinventing the Peace Corps, we should be urging the restoration of a national service ethos and requirement that includes an expectation of service for all Americans and a commitment to civic engagement. We are now seeing what happens when when service is no long a requirement of American citizenship.

    • When you speak of this: “We are now seeing what happens when when service is no long a requirement of American citizenship.” Are you speaking of Selective Service. better known as the Draft? The Draft has been effectively monthballed more than 50 years ago when. soon after 18 year olds got the vote. Other than the Draft, there has never been a “service requirement of American citizenship.” I didn’t understand your comment. As a woman, I am a citizen and I have never been required to serve as a requirement of American Citizenship.

      • Hi Joannae. I believe all Americans should participate in national service. I don’t think everyone needs to be drafted into the military as we don’t need that size of a standing army, but I do support a lottery draft that makes national defense the responsibility of all of us, not just working class and low income Americans overseen by a very tight knit elite. For those who don’t serve in our armed forces, there are many ways to serve, and I would at least like to see a system that rewards national service and inculcates citizenship values. Without getting into a whole soliloquy on how our society appears to be breaking down…one symptom for sure is how a generation of middle class Americans are increasingly seeing the main purpose of the United State is to make them rich. I don’t think the Constitution envisioned establishing America as simply an economic casino.

        • Thank you for your reply. It was reassuring. I don’t like the concept of “service” because as it used, now, it objectifies the people “receiving the service” and makes the important person the one who is “giving the service”. The Constitution gives the government the right to raise armies. There is no constitutional provision for a “lottery draft”. I respect your opinion, but I don’t agree with it.

          I remember the 1960s. The country was torn apart by Vietnam and civil rights movements. Our President and his brother were assassinated. Martin Luther KIng, a crusader for peaceful organization was assassinated. I don’t really know how we survived. Except there were political parties, people organizaed and voting and Nixon won. Constitution spells out process and rights, not necessarily outcomes. I remember being heartborken and then just numb.

          The Constitution initially provided for slavery and of course, taking land from Indian people. Free labor, free land, for white men sounds like an “economic casino” to me, where some white people win and everyone else loses.

          I do have some suggestion for Peace Corps in the future. I belive that an independent polling organization should be contracted to find out why college students don’t think about joining the Peace Corps. Also, there should be a way to also poll young people who are not in college. That would be the place to start.

          I absolutely disagree that the “government” has the responsiblity for “inculcating citizenship values”. Who decides what those values are? The former President and hiw followers? I don’t share what I think are his values. Should I be forced in to a
          service program to have certain values programed in?

          Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.

      • Not the draft. Volunteer service to our community , country and world
        The 4-H pledge
        Citizen service to our fellow humans

        • That’s great. But 4-H is a private organization, it is not a government agency/ No one is foced to join the 4-H. The Scouts also have a pledge and again a private organization, not a government one.

  • The one indespencible thing that remains the same about Peace Corps today as it was at its founding is the Peace Corps Volunteer. My sample of “new” Volunteers is admittedly all and my experience empirical formulated by attending a few CAPCA events in Chicago. They are talented, idealistic, adventurists, eager to to take on difficult tasks far from home, and desiring the dedicate two years of their lives working and living with host country colleagues.

    What has changed is today’s volunteers are strapped with huge financial debt upon graduating from college. I am sure crushing college debt precludes many young people from joining the Peace corps. But is the value of the Peace Corps determined by the number of Volunteers is service or is it determined by the contribution and experience of each Volunteer?

    I don’t think more Volunteers guarantees a better Peace Corps. In fact I think the opposite may be true.
    To keep the Peace Corps culture, I believe it must remain autonomous. If it becomes part of the career orientated State Department or other governmental agency, it will have to compete with other departments within the agency for funds and favor. As far as making it an NGO or exchange program, we have NGO’s and foriegn exchange programs already.

    Has the Peace Corps lost its luster – its star power? Is it no longer newsworthy? Yes. But it it still providing help to people from young Americans (chronically and spiritually) who otherwise would not get that help and is the Peace Corps experience still a great, life-changing experience? Jim Wolter, Malaya I, ’61-’66

    • Mrs Ghandi met with President Johnson in the White House in March 1966. Johnson said what India needs is more PCVS. Could she say no?
      Peace corps scrambled to find trainees. I worked on a training at Berkeley that summer. We had trainees with French language capabilities who had applied for west Africa. We had trainees who were in training in Puerto Rico in Spanish pulled out of their training and sent to Berkeley for Hindi and Punjabi to work in India agriculture.
      They did have good language and cultural training but very poor agriculture. I was part of the ag training program and the poultry part was good but the rest was lacking. The trainees were concerned about the lack of agriculture information. PC Washington said no problem. When you are in your village and a farmer has a problem that you are not confident about, send a telegram to your office and a technical person will advise you. I went as an Ag P T R in December 67 and was greeted by “ where the hell have you been? We are the end of our time.
      We had 1400+ volunteers in India at that time with many of them being disappointed and
      unhappy. By 1989-70 we had a much improved experience and some of those volunteers were very productive and still have a positive attitudes

      We also switched to in country training

  • I agree with Matt Losak that the way forward for the Peace Corps is not merging it with other governmental agencies or reforming it as a non-governmental entity. First, I challenge Kevin Quigley’s and Lex Rieffel’s opening assertion that asking “the next person you see what they know about the Peace Corps,” will result in “never heard of it.” I frequently mention my Peace Corps service in small and large social gatherings and in larger public forums and never once has anyone said “The Peace Corps? What the hell is that?” No. The Peace Corps is known and respected by the majority of Americans, in my view. I’ve even been thanked for my Peace Corps service by a military veteran. The future of the Peace Corps does not lie in disappearing it in some larger agency or taking it out of the public sector to turn it into an NGO dependent on the vagaries of charitable donors. As Matt Losak points out, the answer to the future of the Peace Corps is a revival of a sense of responsibility for national service and a renewed commitment to civic duty.

  • Lex, Kevin:

    When the Peace Corps came into existence in March 1961, there was only a handful of similar organizations operating abroad, e.g., CARE, Project HOPE (its hospital ship), Catholic Relief, etc. Today, there are more than a thousand NGOs, many of them funded by USAID on a regular basis.
    Almost all of them are non-profits, and in many cases, they are self-absorbed organizations, e.g., with a constant need to raise more funds for their overhead and salary expenses than for their intended beneficiaries.

    When one looks at Peace Corps they often only perceive it as its Volunteers in the field. They have limited knowledge that its 3rd Goal is alive and well, e.g., what do Volunteers do when they return home? Well, many have become Ambassadors; University presidents; authors of well over 500 have published books; major TV Hosts (Chris Matthews); owners of major sports organizations, e.g., the Chicago Bears; national song writers (Mary Kim John); leaders of national reformed educational organizations (Colombia); co-founders of Netflix; leaders on Wall Street, etc.

    It is probable that no other organization funded by the U. S. Congress has a greater Return on Investment than the Peace Corps. Put that into your thinking about its future

  • I concur with the preceding comment and the affirmation for John and the gift of this site. I find it a valuable way of keeping abreast of what others are thinking, and more importantly, doing. With respect to the Peace Corps, I commented some time ago that I thought it needed to be reinvented and was told by a colleague that it had already been done. I don’t think it took. I did a virtual volunteer assignment and found both Peace Corps Washington and the country office wanting in their management. It is not the Peace Corps that I worked in as a volunteer and a staff member.

  • Dear John Coyne and Marian,
    Keep up the vital work of keeping the door open to intra-RPCV communication. We need and want Peace Corps Worldwide so long as you and Marian are willing to, as the old spiritual says, “tote that barge.” Thank you folks again for the years of productive effort that PCW represents and for fostering our far-flung volunteer community. I for one am willing to contribute $$ once you’ve established a nonprofit corporation to shoulder the operation’s responsibilities and help keep PCW viable. Surely other RPCVs and staff would step up to the plate in any way they can, perhaps through the National Returned PC group?

  • Having had the opportunity to serve in three government programs: VISTA, the Peace Corps, and New York City Civic Corps, I feel that each program offers unique contexts and ways to serve. Too, in my experience, each has its particular scope and mission(s). In VISTA, for example, my role was working with Legal Aid attorneys to liaise with city agencies and nonprofits (Urban Renewal Agency, Community Action Programs), national organizations (the Urban League, Housing and Urban Development), and local community groups to ensure citizen participation in urban renewal projects. In the Peace Corps, I taught English and trained Thai English teachers in conjunction with the Thai Ministry of Education. In the Civic Corps–which is an AmeriCorps program–I worked with the nonprofit GenerationOn and various public schools to engage middle and high school students in service learning projects. A common thread through these experiences is education, vis-a-vis: community residents, re: their civil rights; language teachers, re: teaching methods and practices; and public school students re: service learning projects as part of their more academic education. From this perspective, I’m ambivalent about Kevin and Lex’s suggestions, re: possible changes to the Peace Corps, and share concerns expressed in other comments. If the Peace Corps were to become part of AmeriCorps, for example, it sounds like there would be a single, large umbrella organization, joining it with VISTA and Civic Corps, which I believe are already part of AmeriCorps. There could be advantages to this, such as the two-way exchange of teachers, which is an intriguing idea. But wouldn’t it create a very large bureaucracy, with seemingly differing and potentially conflicting objectives? As others have pointed out, Peace Corps would lose its original mandate of service expressed in the Three Goals. I think this is a good conversation to have, as the Peace Corps, like all organizations, must evolve with the changing times and needs of host countries.

    As a post script, I was interested to learn yesterday of a new program, similar to NYC Civic Corps, called Maryland Corps, proposed by Maryland governor Wes Moore. I like the pragmatic approach he is suggesting and the clear way he is promoting civic engagement. Here’s a link for reference:

  • Matt could not have expressed my feelings better. Merging Peace Corps with the State Department is dangerous. The posts’ independence (both actual and perceived) permits them to conduct their programs on a sustained basis without concern for the U.S. politics of the moment. Americorps is a huge bureaucracy, and Peace Corps would become lost in it. Further, the reasons that a prospective volunteer chooses one vs. the other are, in my opinion, largely different. That said, I don’t see a problem in having both under a single “Service” umbrella on the USG organization chart. There are many NGOs, including United Nations Volunteers, that already have a similar focus as Peace Corps. Also, there’s a strength (financial, operational, attractiveness to prospective staff) in having PC part of the Federal government.

    As to identity, I agree. The best approach may be a series of NPR (and NPR stations) 10-15 second announcements. For example, if an objective is to build up the Response database: “The Peace Corps, as relevant and needed as ever, and now taking applications from skilled Americans to serve as Peace Corps Response short-term advisors overseas.”

    • As Dean Rusk said, to make The Peace Corps a part of the State Department robs it of it value to the State Department. I concur. It should be autonomous, although that makes it tougher getting our funding. For change to the Peace Corps to be effective there needs to be an urgency. What is the urgency here. For me it is the lackluster manner in which it seems to be managed. There doesn’t seem to be any excitement about it anymore. How do we create some excitement and urgency.

  • I’m concerned that the source of our piece was not provided. It was posted on the website of “The Hill” on April 3. Here is a link to the original publication:

    This op-ed length piece was boiled down from a 3,000-word essay that we have not been successful yet in getting published. The benefits of “reinventing” the Peace Corps are laid out much more fully in the essay.

    Kevin and I will respond to these comments when the flow slows down. As we wrote in one of our earlier drafts: “let the debate begin”.

    We are grateful to John Coyne for bringing our piece quickly to the attention of the Peace Corps family. PeaceCorpsWorldwide is a valuable project that I hope will carry on long after I’m gone.

    • The tittle includes the phrase “our broken Peace Corps”. It would be helpful for me if you had expanded in more
      specific detail what you find “broken,” Thank you.

      Joanne Roll
      Colombia 1963-65

  • I’m “concerned” that they didn’t see to publish this article with Peace Corps Worldwide.

  • First, I would like to say how refreshing it has been to see an article here that is actually followed by interactive discussions about the contents of the article that includes a spectrum of views, opinions and concerns.

    As for the article itself, I agree with Joanne, how does one respond to an article that starts by talking about “our broken
    Peace Corps”, without ever discussing the ways they feel the Peace Corps is broken. But what is more disturbing is that
    the authors then proceed to state that there are three ways that the problem can be solved.

    The problem is that by presenting the ‘three ways” the Peace Corps can be fixed, carries with it the implication there is little
    room for a fourth or fifth way the merits consideration. When the answers are placed right there before your eyes, there is little
    need to consider other innovative ideas.

    I my view, issues goes right back to the original mission stated by the founding fathers, God love them. They were tasked with putting together a plan that, in other hands, would have been a mission impossible. The first three Peace Corps Missions deserve to continue in place, but a fourth could be added: To create an extended family of Peace Corps Volunteers with an enduring commitment and ongoing plan to help those locked in cruel poverty, those who shared their lives and kindness with us, to build a better life.

    I have found the problem … and the problem is me. But, I blame it on my mother. My older sister remembers for me how when a stranger approached and looked into my buggy saying, “Oh what a beautiful baby”, my mother’s response would be, “Now, don’t go saything those things about him, he’ll get a big head about himself.” ( Well, I got a pretty damn big head anyway.)

    Perhaps, wanting to help, but not wanting to be self-aggrandising, was a trait shared by so many who joined the Peace Corps.
    It has its positives and its negative effects. One detrimental aspect is the desire to go under the radar, not hooting into the wind
    about helpful things we were doing and not sharing with ideas and lessons learned that might benefit others.

    Back to the Fourth Mission. The early 90’s was an interesting time in Africa. Clinicians recognized that patients coming into the
    clinics with common treatable symptoms were failing to respond to the available medication, and without treatments would die of “the wasting disease”. In 1990, I was working in a hospital where I was working with a wonderful Malawian doctor who said, “This is so discouraging. I used to be able to help people. Now I feel so useless.”

    After I left, he wrote to me that there was a problem because of the staggering number orphans as a result the disease, still without a name and without a treatment.In the villages grandmothers in the villages were trying to care for the children of their own children who had died. He said, “We have to do something.” With that, we shook hands over the phone and made our plan. He would open a rehabilitation center for all malnourished children in the surrounding villages and I would find ways to get money.

    It turned out my job was much easier than his. I simply had to send letters to the 40 PCVs in my group. Their support was instantaneous, with donations and their desire to be involved. They started a cascade of others who had served in other groups in Malawi.

    Fast forward to today. The Malawi Children’s Village is now in its 32nd year, each year providing for the physical, emotional and educational of over 2000 orphans in thirty-seven villages in Malawi. RPCVs, their family and friends have contributed over 7.5 million dollars in support of children over the length of the program.

    I have overcome my humility (real and faked) to point out the amazing potential of RPCV affiliates. Now, I return to the idea of the “Broken Peace Corps” to ask: would introducing and supporting a robust Fourth Mission provide results that would demonstrate even further the long term benefits of the Peace Corps.

    • I think this is a great idea. However, all of the RPCV accomplishments have been done without official support from Peace Corps/ Washington. I think that is one reason they have been so successful! Look what you did by contacting and working with the RPCVs from your group. What a great achievement!!

      • India RPCVS like so many other country groups have amazing in country’charities’. Most are only known to the RPCVs from their respective countries.
        I want to mention that when I was on staff in Bhopal it seemed every so often a young Indian came to the office and wanted to volunteer. Of course we had to say it was only for US citizens.
        I was in Punjab last January and February to again see the are where I was fortunate to live and work.
        I accompanied a Punjab NGO to see the work they are doing. Very impressed by the dedication, technical ability and hard work they are doing.
        Anyone who wants to expand on their volunteer experience the Peace Corps Response has a large list of opportunities.
        USAID farmer to farmer programs administered by various NGOs are now taking applications for short term assignments

      • I think the reason that the Peace Corps agency has not been involved with all the RPCV programs is Peace Corps is a federali agency and has legal restrictions on what it can endorse or support. Its legislature mandate is to work with serving Volunteers and specific support to recemtly returned Volunteers.

        • I would comment that Friends of Colombia that started in the mid sixties still exists and provides funds to organizations in Colombia. It might be interesting for all the different
          :”Friends of [country] to get together and share notes. I think it would be facinating to learn of the experiences each has had and to identify best practices.

          Gary Robinson
          Colombia II, 62-64

          • Gary, it is great to hear that there are others with the idea of sharing what their “Friends of” groups have been able to do to support friends in their country of service.

            If this is to become an idea worth our pursuit, what is the next step?
            I’d love to talk with you. However, I am not sure that this the best place to foster the growth of shared ideas. First, exchanges on this medium tend to die quickly. Part of this may to due to the many purposes this forum serves.

            Another problem is structural. The site appears to have an established
            policy of withholding information about a way of the reader can initiate
            discussions with the writer to share information that may have no direct interest to the general readers.

            So, Gary, let’s give this a try: I’d appreciate hearing more about your ideas and invite you to contact me at

            If we convert our ideas into a plan of action, it will then be a time to share the seeds of our ideas with others here and elsewhere..

  • Twas so simple in the beginning. We were young, independent people who were trained to do particular jobs in India 1. Most of them didn’t work out but we were creative and made our own paths. Peace Corps Washington was busy and had little to do with us. Best thing that ever happened. Peace Corps should remain its own entity. Mixing it with other organizations is the end of it Keep Washington small and hands on. Don’t try to have volunteers in every place. We were best on a one on one scenario. Send only qualified people. Keep it simple, stupid.
    Robert Mitchell. India 1. 61-63.

  • Respectfully, No. No and No. For all of the reasons that have already been stated. As luck would have it-I happen to know someone who is serving in Thailand*right now*. And, of course- much has changed-the existence of computers for one thing- no more having to crank the roneo machine to make copies- and of course cell phones- not the poor soul on the motorbike who had to deliver the telegrams-TELEGRAMS for Pete’s sake! But friends- SO MUCH is the same- never mind the fact that I know this because we WhatsApp on the regular. The hopes and aspirations, the community and the loneliness (sometimes at the same time) the cultural overwhelm until you get your sea legs, the victories of conquering the language- it’s all the same. It’s a slippery slope to argue “no one knows about Peace Corps” or volunteers aren’t up tp snuff. They DO and they ARE- my nephew waited the entire of the closure to apply- and in the meantime he did two years of Americorps service- so big was his desire to do Peace Corps. So in sum, the song remains the same since my days as a volunteer and as a staffer- it’s less about “fixing” Peace Corps and more about properly FUNDING Peace Corps.

    Concetta Bencivenga Thailand 101 92-94
    Peace Corps NY Regional Office 95 – 99

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Copyright © 2022. Peace Corps Worldwide.