Order Code RS21168
March 8, 2002Updated April 26, 2005
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Peace Corps: USA Freedom Corps
Initiative
Curt Tarnoff
Specialist in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
On January 29, 2002, President Bush proposed doubling the size of the Peace Corps
from its current 7,000 volunteer level. He also proposed that volunteers be assigned to
assist the reconstruction of Afghanistan and begin serving in other countries currently
lacking a program, including more Islamic countries. As it considers the FY2003
Foreign Operations appropriations bill, Congress will debate the level of funding required
to support these proposals. Major issues for Congress will be availability of funding visà-vis other aid priorities and the safety and security of volunteers assigned to Islamic
countries. This report will be updated as events warrant.
In his State of the Union speech to Congress on January 29, 2002, President Bush
announced the creation of the USA Freedom Corps to encourage and support American
volunteer activities both at home and abroad. As the U.S. agency that provides volunteer
skills internationally, the Peace Corps is a constituent part of the Administration’s new
initiative and would be significantly affected by it. The USA Freedom Corps proposal has
several features that would affect the Peace Corps. It would:
!
Double the size of the Peace Corps within five years from its current level
of about 7,000, bringing it closer than it has been in decades to its 1966
peak level of 15,556. The Administration has requested a budget increase
of $42 million in FY2003 to pay for the first installment of this plan. By
FY2007, the Peace Corps budget is expected to be more than $200
million greater than the present $275 million level.
!
Place the Peace Corps under the inter-agency USA Freedom Corps
umbrella, making the Director of the Peace Corps a member of the USA
Freedom Corps Council, formally chaired by the President.
!
Seek to deploy Peace Corps volunteers to assist the reconstruction of
Afghanistan under its Crisis Corps program, consistent with safety and
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
security concerns. Prior to this action, an assessment team would be sent
to Afghanistan to evaluate needs and opportunities for volunteer service.
!
Launch new Peace Corps programs in countries lacking one, including
more Islamic countries. Volunteers currently serve in 70 nations.
Background
Founded in 1961, the Peace Corps has sought to meet its legislative mandate of
promoting world peace and friendship by sending American volunteers to serve at the
grassroots level in villages and towns in all corners of the globe. Living and working with
ordinary people, volunteers have contributed in a variety of capacities – such as teachers,
foresters, health promoters, and small business advisers – to improving the lives of those
they serve and helping others understand American culture. They also seek to share their
understanding of other countries with Americans back home through efforts like the Paul
D. Coverdell World Wise School program, which links serving volunteers with U.S.
elementary school classrooms. To date, more than 165,000 Peace Corps volunteers have
served in 135 countries.
In addition to its basic two-year tour of duty, the Peace Corps introduced in 1996 a
Crisis Corps, drawing on former volunteers to provide short-term emergency and
humanitarian assistance at the community level. Generally, assignments up to six monthslong are made with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), relief, and other development
organizations. Peace Corps officials have said that the advantage of using these volunteers
is that many already possess relevant technical skills, experience of living in rough
conditions, and local language capabilities that would make them particularly effective in
emergency situations. From the time the Peace Corps agrees to provide help, Crisis Corps
volunteers can be put in the field in about three to eight weeks. To date, 458 Crisis Corps
volunteers have served in 30 countries.
Issues for Congress
Although the Peace Corps is viewed positively by the public and is widely supported
in Congress, the President’s initiative raises a number of potential issues for policymakers.
Budget Issues. Doubling the size of the Peace Corps over five years to a level of
roughly 14,000 volunteers would mean a significant increase in its budget over the same
period, presumably to be maintained for years thereafter. To meet its goal, the Bush
Administration has requested an appropriation of $317 million for the first year, an
increase of $42 million over its regularly appropriated FY2002 level of $275 million.1 By
FY2007, the Peace Corps appropriation is expected to be more than $200 million greater
than at present. While authority to increase the size and funding of the Peace Corps
already exists for FY2003 – at $365 million, the authorized level is well in excess of the
request – Congress will have to weigh whether sufficient funds are available vis-a-vis other
1
Beginning in FY2003, the Administration is requesting full costs for federal employee retirement
pensions and health care benefits in accounts with administrative expenses under the discretionary
budget. Including these costs, therefore, the Administration request in FY2003 for the Peace Corps
is $320 million; the comparable FY2002 level was $278 million.
CRS-3
foreign aid priorities to warrant appropriating the amounts requested by the
Administration. Despite the apparent popularity of the Peace Corps, recent history
suggests that the initiative may face some challenges in this regard.
In 1985, Congress made it the policy of the United States and a purpose of the Peace
Corps to maintain “consistent with programmatic and fiscal considerations,” a volunteer
corps of at least 10,000 individuals (P.L. 99-83). In 1998, the Clinton Administration
renewed the call for a 10,000 volunteer level, and, in 1999, Congress approved a Peace
Corps Authorization (P.L. 106-30) that authorized sufficient funds to put the Peace Corps
on a path to meet its 10,000 volunteer goal by the year 2003. While appropriators have
approved modest annual increases, they have set funding well below the amounts required
to bring the Agency near the 10,000 level. For example, the 10,000-track authorization
for FY2002 was $327 million, $52 million greater than the actual appropriation.
Appropriators specifically cited “budget pressures” among the reasons for limiting the
Peace Corps during this period, but other, competing foreign aid interests which received
substantial funding increases at the time included debt reduction, HIV/AIDS, and child
survival.
Proposed Peace Corps Budget: FY2003-07
Fiscal Year
Appropriation ($ mil)
Total Volunteers
2002
278 (actual)
7,000
2003
320
8,200
2004
362
10,000
2005
404
12,000
2006
446
13,600
2007
488
14,000
Source: Peace Corps. Appropriation includes federal employee retirement pensions and health benefits.
Total volunteers are number anticipated at end of the fiscal year.
Program and Management Issues. A large scale, rapid increase in the size of
the Peace Corps might exacerbate existing weaknesses or create strains in its operations.
As the Peace Corps expands, Congress may wish to pay particular attention to how the
agency addresses recruitment, programming, and support of volunteers.
The recruitment of volunteers with appropriate skills and willingness to live in
unfamiliar and sometimes uncomfortable conditions is essential to the overall mission of
the Peace Corps. In FY2001, 94,463 people expressed an interest in the Peace Corps,
8,897 actually applied, and 3,191 became trainees.2 Maintaining a high level of volunteer
qualification standards while doubling the number accepted may require imaginative and
strong measures to expand the applicant pool. A substantial spike in applicants and those
expressing interest in applying since September 11 and the President’s State of the Union
speech, if sustained, may make it easier for the Peace Corps to meet its recruitment goals.
The agency, while adept at recruiting generalists and providing them with sufficient
training to carry out useful assignments, has not emphasized the provision of highly skilled
professionals, such as doctors, agronomists, or engineers, which, many argue, more
accurately reflects the current needs of developing countries. Weighed against this view
is the belief that the Peace Corps is an agency of public diplomacy as much as it is a
2
Entry of an additional 417 trainees was delayed to FY2002, due to the events of September 11.
CRS-4
development organization, and personal interaction and demonstration of U.S. values is
as important as providing technical expertise. To accommodate more highly skilled
personnel, the Peace Corps might have to change many existing practices, including
methods of recruitment, training, programming, and perhaps even terms of service.
The Peace Corps has been criticized in the past for providing inadequate
programming and support of volunteers. This view was reflected in a 1990 General
Accounting Office investigation (Peace Corps: Meeting the Challenges of the 1990s, May
1990, NSIAD-90-122). It noted that some volunteers had little or nothing to do or had
spent six or more months developing their own assignments, without benefit of site visits
by Peace Corps staff. The GAO attributed the programming problem to a failure of
planning, evaluation, and monitoring systems. Since then, the Peace Corps has maintained
that it has addressed these weaknesses with systematic approaches to project development,
annual project reviews, and increased opportunities for site visits and volunteer feedback.
However, incidents suggesting poor programming and staff support still occur, although
their frequency and depth is not known, and, one sign of volunteer dissatisfaction – the
attrition rate – remains arguably high at 31% (1996-1998 average).
Country Presence. While the Peace Corps could double its size by simply
expanding its numbers in countries it currently serves, the President has specifically
announced the intention to enter new countries – Afghanistan, East Timor, Peru,
Swaziland, Chad, Botswana, Azerbaijan, and Bosnia-Herzegovina , among them.
The decision of where to locate Peace Corps volunteers has been of continuing
interest to Congress. In legislation or report language, Congress has generally favored
U.S. strategic interests as a key criterion for determining country presence. A decade ago,
Congress placed priority on the entry of the Peace Corps into Central Europe and the
former Soviet Union. In the mid-1990s, the Senate Foreign Operations subcommittee
encouraged a reevaluation of the location and levels of volunteers “to reflect the shifts in
U.S. priorities and interests in the post-cold-war environment” (S. Rept. 105-35, June 24,
1997). An amendment adopted in the Senate version of the FY2002 foreign aid bill
(deleted from the conference report) supports an increased Peace Corps presence in
Muslim countries.
In deciding where to locate, the Peace Corps considers multiple factors, including
the safety of volunteers (see below), the potential for the program to be effective – level
of development, support of the host country, and proposed projects – and overhead costs.
In addition, it must be responsive to meeting the various and competing views of the Peace
Corps mission, including those of Congress.
Meeting all these demands has not always been feasible. To the extent that the Peace
Corps mission is perceived as public diplomacy, it has been expected to maintain a global
presence. To meet its development mission, it has been inclined to leave those countries
which have “graduated” from USAID’s economic aid program in recent years and some
it considers to have been poor “partners.” Reflecting U.S. foreign policy interests, it has
sought a presence in countries of special interest, such as the former Soviet Union. One
outcome of the President’s initiative and an increase in Peace Corps funding might be that
these competing priorities will all be better satisfied.
CRS-5
Security Issues. Under the Administration’s proposal, the Peace Corps is expected
to enter Afghanistan and other Islamic countries where they do not currently serve. Many
of these countries of U.S. foreign policy interest, however, might be considered unsafe for
Americans over the foreseeable future. Despite the appeal of using Peace Corps
volunteers to convey U.S. culture and values directly to the grassroots of Islamic
countries, policymakers may be unable to meet policy needs without compromising on
safety.
Congressional conferees on the FY2002 foreign operations bill, while supporting the
concept of Peace Corps entry into Muslim countries, noted their key concern was
volunteer safety. Although the Administration has announced that the goal “will be to
deploy...volunteers to Afghanistan as quickly as possible,” it also notes that all decisions
regarding new country entry “will be made in a manner consistent with the safety and
security of volunteers.” Accordingly, the current plan envisions putting volunteers only
in Kabul, but even a limited presence is uncertain until a pending assessment team returns
with its findings.
The Peace Corps has traditionally given the safety and security of its volunteers the
highest priority. Evacuations and closure of missions to insure the well-being of volunteers
in cases of political instability and civil unrest have constrained the growth of the Peace
Corps. In the past ten years, volunteers have been evacuated from 26 countries for these
reasons (and two others due to natural disasters), including three attributed to the events
of September 11 – Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and the Kyrgyz Republic.3
Currently, 23% of all volunteers serve in countries with Muslim populations of over
40%, including Jordan, Morocco, and Mali. In general, the Peace Corps has argued that
the close interpersonal relationship between volunteers and members of their host country
community helps to make them safe. But it has been particularly concerned in recent years
with the threats of terrorism, crime, and civil strife, and has responded by upgrading
communications, testing emergency action plans, and other security measures. Before
establishing a new country program, the Peace Corps considers a number of criteria,
including the presence of a stable government and effective law enforcement and the
absence of anti-American acts of terror in the operational area. A more thorough
investigation of these issues is undertaken for countries, like Afghanistan, that have been
affected by conflict.
Role in the USA Freedom Corps. The Peace Corps is currently an independent
agency. However, supporters of the Peace Corps, remembering the 1970s when it was
subsumed with domestic volunteer agencies into the body of ACTION, may be concerned
that its autonomy will be lost again under the USA Freedom Corps initiative.
The executive order that establishes the USA Freedom Corps, however, does not
appear to impinge on the independence of the Peace Corps. It assures that the directors
of the different agencies and departments of government that make up the USA Freedom
Corps Council, which is chaired by the President, “shall remain responsible for overseeing
the programs administered by their respective departments, agencies, and offices. Each
3
From the $40 billion emergency supplemental (P.L. 107-38) that followed the September 11
attacks, the President allocated $6.5 million to the Peace Corps for the evacuation of volunteers.
CRS-6
such department, agency, and office will retain its authority and responsibility to administer
those programs according to law.” It also notes that “This order does not alter the
existing authorities or roles of executive branch departments, agencies, or offices. Nothing
in this order shall supersede any requirement made by or under law.”
What the order does suggest is a greater degree of presidential interest in the Peace
Corps than may have been the case in the years since President Kennedy. A direct line of
interest and concern toward the Peace Corps emanating from the White House could have
a substantial positive or negative effect on the policy and management decisions of a Peace
Corps director, depending on one’s point of view. Some observers are concerned that
close identification of the Peace Corps with an Administration’s foreign policy may, in the
words of former Peace Corps Director Mark Gearan, threaten its worldwide reputation
and ability to present itself “as representing the best of the American people, not as official
representatives of the U.S. government or its policies.”4
4
Boston Globe, February 10, 2002Current Issues
Curt Tarnoff
Specialist in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
As it considers authorization and Foreign Operations appropriations legislation in
2005, Congress will debate the FY2006 level of funding for the Peace Corps and may
continue the 2004 discussion of Peace Corps expansion and policies regarding the safety
and security of volunteers. This report will be updated as events warrant.
Generally viewed positively by the public and widely supported in Congress, the
Peace Corps, the U.S. agency that provides volunteer skills internationally, has drawn
congressional attention in recent years largely due to two issues — a Presidential initiative
to significantly expand the size of the agency and reports raising concerns regarding the
safety and security of volunteers. Both issues stimulated legislative action with bills
being approved by House or Senate. However, these legislative efforts died with the 108th
Congress. In 2005, the 109th Congress will consider the President’s annual funding
request for the Peace Corps and may again take up some of the concerns raised in 2004.
Background
Founded in 1961, the Peace Corps has sought to meet its legislative mandate of
promoting world peace and friendship by sending American volunteers to serve at the
grassroots level in villages and towns in all corners of the globe. Living and working with
ordinary people, volunteers have contributed in a variety of capacities — such as teachers,
foresters, health promoters, and small business advisers — to improving the lives of those
they serve and helping others understand American culture. They also seek to share their
understanding of other countries with Americans back home through efforts like the Paul
D. Coverdell World Wise School program, which links serving volunteers with U.S.
elementary school classrooms. To date, more than 178,000 Peace Corps volunteers have
served in 138 countries. About 7,733 volunteers currently serve in 72 nations.
In addition to its basic two-year tour of duty, the Peace Corps introduced in 1996 a
Crisis Corps, drawing on former volunteers to provide short-term (up to six months)
emergency and humanitarian assistance at the community level with NGOs, relief, and
other development organizations. Nearly 600 Crisis Corps volunteers have served in 39
countries, including post-tsunami Thailand.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
Congressional Actions
Appropriations. The FY2005 Omnibus Appropriations legislation approved in
December 2004 (H.R. 4818) provides $320 million for the Peace Corps. Following a
0.8% across-the-board rescission, the actual Peace Corps appropriation will be $317.4
million. This final appropriation is about $84 million less than the President’s $401
million request. The Administration’s FY2006 foreign operations budget request includes
$345 million for the Peace Corps.
Authorization. On April 6, 2005, the Senate began consideration of S. 600
(S.Rept. 109-35), the State Department authorization, which contains language
authorizing appropriations for the Peace Corps in FY2006 at $345 million, the
Administration request level, and “such sums as may be necessary” for FY2007.
Despite repeated efforts during the past three years, Congress adjourned in December
2004 without enacting a new Peace Corps authorization. Twice in 2002, the Senate
approved bills (S. 2667 and S. 12) authorizing appropriations that would double the size
of the Peace Corps and institute various reforms. The House did not act on a similar
version (H.R. 4979). In July 2003, the Senate began, but did not complete, floor debate
on S. 925 (S.Rept. 108-39), the State Department authorization for FY2004, which
included Peace Corps expansion legislation nearly identical to the 2002 Senate-approved
bills. On July 16, 2003, the House approved H.R. 1950, its version of the State
Department authorization, amended to include H.R. 2441 (H.Rept. 108-205), which
contained Peace Corps expansion legislation. On February 27, 2004, another State
Department authorization bill containing the Peace Corps legislation, S. 2144, was
introduced.
S. 2144 and H.R. 1950 shared many features. Chiefly, both bills supported an
expanded volunteer force by authorizing appropriations to the year FY2007 sufficient to
double its size. Both bills required that volunteers be trained in the education, prevention,
and treatment of infectious diseases so that they could convey this knowledge during their
service. They established a number of reporting requirements, including reports to
Congress on how the Agency planned to increase the number of volunteers, new agency
initiatives, country security concerns, student loans, and recruitment of volunteers for
priority countries. The two bills reaffirmed the Peace Corps’ status as an independent
agency. Both pieces of legislation focused attention on returned volunteers (RPCVs).
They required that some members of a revived Advisory Council be RPCVs. Both bills
urged that RPCVs be utilized to open or reopen programs in Muslim countries.
The two bills differed in several ways. Their authorization levels were slightly
different. H.R. 1950 required more reports — on federal equal opportunity programs and
on medical screening procedures and health considerations for putting volunteers in a
country. Responding to concerns that the Peace Corps not be used for intelligence
purposes, the bill required that recruiting be the responsibility of the Peace Corps; the
Senate bill required that it be “primarily” its responsibility. H.R. 1950 raised the
minimum readjustment allowance provided volunteers at completion of service from $125
for each month served to $275 in FY2004 and $300 thereafter, while S. 2144 raised it to
$275 only (volunteers currently receive $225). Under H.R. 1950, the Advisory Council
would have 11 members, 6 of whom are RPCVs; S. 2144 would have 7 members,
including 4 RPCVs. The latter measure required regular meetings and an annual report
CRS-3
from the Council on its functions. Both bills authorized establishment of an annual grant
program to help RPCVs implement small projects — in S. 2144 eligible projects had to
meet the so-called “third goal” of the Peace Corps (promoting an understanding of other
peoples by Americans); in H.R. 1950 they could meet all Peace Corps goals. For this
purpose, S. 2144 authorized the Corporation for National and Community Service to
utilize $10 million in funds additional to the regular Corporation budget; H.R. 1950
authorized the Peace Corps Director to allocate the grants which are additional to the
Peace Corps budget (or the role could be delegated to the Corporation). H.R. 1950
required that the number of Crisis Corps volunteers be expanded to at least 120 in
FY2004, 140 in FY2005, 160 in FY2006, and 165 in FY2007. It also contained a
declaration of support for the Bush goal of doubling the Peace Corps by FY2007.
Safety and Security Legislation. Because they live and work at the grassroots
level in developing countries, Peace Corps volunteers appear to many Americans to be
especially vulnerable to crime. Even before September 11, their safety and security had
been a prime concern of the Peace Corps. The threat of anti-American terrorism has
increased those concerns. In late 2003, the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News ran a series of
reports highlighting — many former volunteers say exaggerating — the dangers
potentially faced by volunteers, and suggested that the agency was failing in its obligation
to provide adequate security.
Following hearings held by the House International Relations Committee, the House
approved H.R. 4060 on June 1, 2004. The Health, Safety, and Security of Peace Corps
Volunteers Act of 2004 (H.Rept. 108-481) sought to address some security concerns by
statutorily establishing the already-existing Office of Safety and Security in the Peace
Corps and creating an Ombudsman position to handle volunteer complaints. The bill also
required reports on screening procedures used to determine the psychological fitness of
those seeking to serve as volunteers, and a report on the “five year rule” that limits the
length of Peace Corps staff employment and which is regarded as one reason for high staff
turnover and loss of institutional memory on safety and security issues. Although the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee also held hearings on the issue, no safety and
security legislation was approved in the Senate in 2004.
Issues for Congress
Expansion Initiative. In his State of the Union speech to Congress on January 29,
2002, President Bush announced a proposal to double the size of the Peace Corps within
five years from its January 2002 level of about 7,000, bringing it closer than it has been
in decades to its 1966 peak of 15,556.
After three years of insufficient appropriations, it is clear that the original
Administration plan to double the size of the Peace Corps over five years will not be met.
Meeting that goal would have meant a significant increase in its budget over the same
period, presumably to be maintained for years thereafter. By FY2007, the Peace Corps
appropriation was expected to be more than $200 million greater than FY2002. While
the various House- and Senate-approved authorization bills would have met or slightly
surpassed the Administration proposal, Congress has had to weigh whether sufficient
funds were available vis-a-vis other foreign aid priorities — such as HIV/AIDS, terrorism,
and child survival — to warrant appropriating the amounts requested by the
Administration. Despite the apparent popularity of the Peace Corps, constraints on
CRS-4
spending combined with the pull of other priorities has undermined the rapid expansion
plan. At this point, with an FY2006 request $98 million below its own original expansion
budget plan and a newly stated goal in its budget justification document of 8,000
volunteers by the end of FY2008, the Administration appears to have abandoned the
initiative.
From the beginning, the expansion initiative ran into resistance. In providing only
$285 million for the Peace Corps in its FY2003 appropriations legislation, Senate
appropriators noted in report language (S.Rept. 107-219) that the expansion plan was
“overly-ambitious,” suggesting it may have to be drawn out over more than five years.
In each year from FY2003 to FY2005, Congress appropriated funds $22 million, $51
million, and $84 million, respectively, below the Administration request. Despite these
shortfalls in funding, Congress appears supportive of continued expansion. The FY2005
foreign operations statement of managers calls for the establishment of new Peace Corps
programs in Cambodia and other locations in Asia.
Table 1. Peace Corps Budget: FY2002-FY2007
Fiscal Year
Request ($ mil)
2002
275
2003
317
2004
359
2005
401
2006
345 (443)
Appropriation ($ mil)
Total Volunteers
278.9
6,636
295
7,533
308
7,733
317
(12,000)
—
(13,600)
2007
—
(485)
—
(14,000)
Source: Peace Corps and CRS. FY2002 figure includes $3.9 million Emergency Response Fund transfer.
FY2003-5 figures reflect across-the-board rescissions. Figures in parentheses are original expansion request.
Total volunteers are number at end of the fiscal year and, for FY2005 forward, anticipated number if
expansion appropriation had been met. Under original expansion initiative, FY2003 volunteer number target
was 8,200; FY2004 target was 10,000.
Program and Management Issues. Members of Congress appear to have been
concerned that even an increase in the size of the Peace Corps more modest than that
originally envisioned might exacerbate existing weaknesses or create strains in its
operations. Both House and Senate legislation in the 108th Congress stressed the
importance to Peace Corps’s effectiveness of improved strategic planning and H.R. 4060,
the House bill that addressed security issues, calls for a report on the extent to which work
assignments are well-developed and volunteers are suitable for them. No matter the
outcome of the expansion effort, Congress may continue to pay particular attention to how
the agency addresses recruitment, programming, and support of volunteers.
The recruitment of volunteers with appropriate skills and willingness to live in
unfamiliar and sometimes uncomfortable conditions is essential to the overall mission of
the Peace Corps. A substantial spike in applicants and those expressing interest in
applying since September 11 has made it easier for the Peace Corps to meet its
recruitment goals. In FY2004, 148,216 people expressed an interest in the Peace Corps
(up from 94,463 in FY2001), 13,249 actually applied (8,897 in FY2001), and 3,811
became trainees (3,191 in FY2001). The agency, however, while adept at recruiting
generalists and providing them with sufficient training to carry out useful assignments,
has not emphasized the provision of highly skilled professionals, such as doctors,
agronomists, or engineers, which, many argue, more accurately reflects the current needs
CRS-5
of developing countries. Weighed against this view is the belief that the Peace Corps is
an agency of public diplomacy as much as it is a development organization, and personal
interaction and demonstration of U.S. values is as important as providing technical
expertise. To accommodate more highly skilled personnel, the Peace Corps might have
to change many existing practices, including methods of recruitment, training,
programming, and perhaps even terms of service.
The Peace Corps has been criticized in the past for providing inadequate
programming and support of volunteers. This view was reflected in a 1990 Government
Accountability Office (GAO) investigation (Peace Corps: Meeting the Challenges of the
1990s, May 1990, NSIAD-90-122). It noted that some volunteers had little or nothing to
do or had spent six or more months developing their own assignments, without benefit
of site visits by Peace Corps staff. The GAO attributed the programming problem to a
failure of planning, evaluation, and monitoring systems. Since then, the Peace Corps
maintains that it has addressed these weaknesses with systematic approaches to project
development, annual project reviews, and increased opportunities for site visits and
volunteer feedback. However, incidents suggesting poor programming and staff support
still occur, although their frequency and depth is not known, and, one sign of volunteer
dissatisfaction — the attrition rate — remains arguably high at 30.5% (2002).
Security Issues. Among the concerns raised regarding Peace Corps security are
that crimes against volunteers have increased. The Dayton Daily News articles that ran
in the fall of 2003 assert that the Peace Corps is sending volunteers to places “far more
dangerous” than it admits publicly, does not warn volunteers about criminal incidents, and
does not supply adequate security training or supervision. It suggests that Peace Corps
staff ignore volunteer concerns and provide insufficient support to volunteers who have
experienced crime. The GAO has issued two reports since 2002 addressing security
issues. While noting improvements by Peace Corps in its more recent report, the GAO
has suggested that “some unevenness” in compliance with safety procedures mandated
by Peace Corps headquarters likely remains.1
Statistics kept by the Peace Corps, varying from year to year and by type of assault,
may be selectively interpreted. Both in absolute terms and when viewed in the context
of incidents per 1,000 volunteer years to account for the rise in number of volunteers in
this period, they show a large increase in the number of aggravated assaults from 57 in
1993 (9 per 1,000 volunteer years) to 102 in 1999 (16 per 1,000 volunteer years) and then
a leveling-off to 87 cases (14 per 1,000 volunteer years) in 2002. Reports of rape rose
from 10 incidents in 1993 (3.1 per 1,000 female volunteer years) to a peak of 20 (5.3 per
1,000 female volunteer years) in 1997. Rape events in absolute terms decreased by 40%
between 1997 and 2002 to 12 (3.2 per 1,000 female volunteer years). However the
numbers are viewed, the GAO points out that, since the number of events is small, there
may be some question as to whether the apparent trends are significant.
1
Government Accountability Office, Peace Corps: Initiatives for Addressing Safety and Security
Challenges Hold Promise, but Progress Should be Assessed, GAO-02-818, July 2002, and Peace
Corps: Status of Initiatives to Improve Volunteer Safety and Security, GAO-04-600T, March 24,
2004.
CRS-6
These statistics also reflect volunteer reporting rates, which likely produce
undercounting, and they do not demonstrate whether volunteers are any more or less
susceptible to assault than American living in New York or Des Moines. When surveyed
in 2003, 86% of volunteers reported that they felt safe where they lived.2
In general, the Peace Corps says that it gives the safety and security of its volunteers
the highest priority. It has been particularly concerned in recent years with threats of
terrorism, crime, and civil strife, and has responded by upgrading communications, testing
emergency action plans, and other security measures. Before establishing a new country
program, the Peace Corps considers a number of criteria, including the presence of a
stable government and effective law enforcement and the absence of anti-American acts
of terror in the operational area. Evacuations and closure of missions to insure the wellbeing of volunteers in cases of political instability and civil unrest have constrained the
growth of the Peace Corps. In the past ten years, volunteers have been evacuated from
at least 27 countries for these reasons, including three attributed to the events of
September 11 — Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and the Kyrgyz Republic.
Under the Administration’s expansion proposal, the Peace Corps was expected to
enter Afghanistan and other Islamic countries where they do not currently serve. At this
time, 20% of all volunteers are serving in countries with Muslim populations of over
40%. In general, the Peace Corps has argued that the close interpersonal relationship
between volunteers and members of their host country community helps to make them
safe. However, despite the appeal of using Peace Corps volunteers to convey U.S. culture
and values directly to the grassroots of Islamic countries, many of these countries of U.S.
foreign policy interest might be considered unsafe for Americans over the foreseeable
future. Conferees on the FY2002 foreign operations bill, while supporting the concept
of Peace Corps entry into Muslim countries, noted their key concern was volunteer safety.
Although the Administration announced in 2002 that the goal “will be to
deploy...volunteers to Afghanistan as quickly as possible,” it also noted that all decisions
regarding new country entry “will be made in a manner consistent with the safety and
security of volunteers.”
2
Peace Corps 2006 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 223.