Cuts likely as President Bush falls short of Peace Corps goal

Six years ago, President Bush outlined a plan that would double the size of the Peace Corps by fiscal 2007 — to 14,000 volunteers.

It hasn't happened.

Bush will leave office roughly 6,000 volunteers short of that goal, according to today's Washington Post. Economic pressures are forcing the agency begun by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 to trim back on new volunteers, recruiting offices and other costs.

Two of the culprits: The value of the dollar is sinking against other currencies, and energy costs are going up.

But a budget standoff between the White House and Democrats running Congress may be contributing to the problem — because it may force the Peace Corps to operate under its current budget if final budget votes are not conducted until after Bush leaves office.

The Post reported that the Peace Corps, with a $330.8-million budget, faces an expected shortfall of $18 million this fiscal year and next.

The falling value of the dollar increases the cost of overseas leases, living costs for the volunteers, and foreign staff salaries — most of which are handled in local currencies.

"Tough budgetary decisions must be made now in order to ensure a financially healthy agency next fiscal year," Peace Corps Director Ronald A. Tschetter wrote to Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), of the House Appropriations Subcommittee that overseas Peace Corps funding, the paper reported.

-- James Gerstenzang

Photo: President Kennedy hands the pen used to sign the Peace Corps Act in 1961 to R. Sargent Shriver, the first director of the Peace Corps. Credit: Corbis

Comments

[FW]

Cutting the number of Peace Corps Volunteer Employees makes no sense. They are cheap and are paid below poverty levels. They are the only federal employees in existence to be paid below poverty.

The staff are paid very well and have waivers for their five year 'opportunity law.' PC also has five year leases. They also have pensions. The Director has a new account at Treasury for these pensions, leases, waivers and other purposes. The Peace Corps also has accounts in countries that are in the country's currency and not considered part of the US Treasury.

The travel issue has become as issue for PCVEs who now travel between countries.

The PCVE living costs are being billed to NGOs for having a PCVE. The average cost of a PCVE is $41,000. The NGO may be required to spend $600.00 or more for the PCVE. Programs like PEPFAR(a five year budget that PC has mirrored and passed) are billed at the support level for the PCVE. The PCVE is not worth the money when they are 'farmed out.' The NGOS would rather have the $41,000 a year for the five year program budget and hire outside the US government, which is already funded and paid. PEPFAR and other programs would rather hire a five year employee for their agency or program that is a professional specialist rather than a PCVE generalist. The staff support level is too high and now pensioned and the five year 'opportunity law' waived by the Director. The staff support level needs to be reduced and five year 'opportunity law' enforced. The foreign and domestic pension issue will continue to increase costs regardless of what is done; all this is controlled by the Director and his new account at Treasury.

Leases and salaries are also paid when there are no PCVEs in country. In an evacuation, which we have had less of due to the drive to keep PCVE numbers up, the PC Staff is still paid after the PCVEs leave. This can continue indefinitely. In Georgia, the staff is being paid in a foreign country. Offices that would have been closed in the past due to a military dictator overthrowing the democratic government in a military coup that would require evacuating the PCVEs and closing the office are now left open and PCVEs are put in forced assignments in dangerous countries where PC is the only aid waived under Section 508. This increases costs and increases the use of PC funding in country under State Department and PC accounts that are the only aid money allowed. Costs of offices and staff that are kept in country that would not have been kept open in the past will continue to increase costs regardless of what is done.

The proposal being made, since the traditional funding bill was not passed (although the five year budget was under another bill), is that the PCVEs be paid at the funding level. The argument that PCVEs should stay poor is not a valid argument and never was; it's a reflection on poor countries and poor people staying poor. Once the PCVEs are paid like other federal employees and not poverty wages, we can look at expansion and more funding. Congress really can't advocate much for PC because it is really illegal to pay the federal employees, PCVEs, what they are paid. The PC funding bill with the 'raise' for PCVEs was not going to be passed this year, which is why the 'raise' was there.

As far as energy costs; I know one country won't pay PCVEs for gas stoves anymore. This is the usual response from PC when money is a problem.

[David Frossard]

Since both Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama have proposed greatly enlarging the Peace Corps (and other volunteer federal programs), closing the Peace Corps recruiting offices in Denver and Minneapolis on Jan. 1 makes no kind of sense. To double the current number of volunteers will likely entail reopening those offices, at great expense (both to the taxpayer and to the current employees whose lives will be hugely disrupted by the closing in January -- even if it turns out to be temporary).

It would be nice if both sides of the aisle could come together this one single time to fund Peace Corps as it will need to be funded to meet the goals of either presidential contender. Peace Corps is the biggest bargain in the US budget.