Peace Corps and NGOs: Time for a Review?

In an article on HIV/AIDS in Swaziland, The Killing Disease (http://www.lgbrpcv.org/articles/11_06_killing_disease.htm), published in the last (November, 2006) issue of this Newsletter, author Vincent D’Agostino laments the lack of coordination among agencies involved in the delivery of HIV/AIDS related services, along with the denial among those infected, and those around them, of a lack of appropriate intervention. The introduction by the Editor notes that Swaziland is recognized as having the highest rate of HIV infection in the world while D’Agostino states that nearly half of the population is infected, but only about 20% are aware of their status.

My reaction to the article was not surprise at either of the major points made by the author, or the suffering and death which follows such problems, especially in Africa. But I found the author to be especially poignant in his comments regarding the delivery of treatments. He states: “…there are too many hands, too many players, too many fighters, too many NGO’s, too many messages, too many mixed messages, too many everything. There is no cohesion, no communication. There is constantly a breakdown of all these things wherever you go…It really is a land of confusion out there.”

I have also noted this lack of cohesion in the delivery of human services associated with governments “out sourcing” them to NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) and private for profit agencies in developing countries. I first came across this effort to disengage governments in such programs in Latin America in the early 1990s. This was the period when the so-called “neo-cons,” through the IMF and the World Bank, among others, like USAID, were encouraging, if not insisting, that in order to be looked upon favorably for loans and related funding, dependent governments had to privatize or in other ways “outsource” their human service delivery resources (e.g. health and agricultural extension, literacy and consciousness raising, community development, technical vocational education) to non governmental agencies. I recall that, along with the confusion noted by D’Agostino, there was considerable competition for survival among the NGOs. Each had an office, a staff, and each was dependent for funding from some national or international agency, or was dependent on the demand from clients to pay directly for services received. Such competition was fueling a lack of cooperation and communication among agencies, as each NGO, for example, needed to convince those who were funding their programs to continue support. An NGO’s survival meant jobs for its staff as well as the delivery of services to a known population. To share information about its programs, about possible funding sources, and about its proposals for funding with other NGOs working with similar missions, was looked upon negatively as such action was perceived as sharing internal secrets which ultimately would make the agency less competitive.

On a recent trip to Jamaica this past summer, where I was working with USAID on public-private partnerships to support primary school education, I again came across the competitive nature of the NGO landscape. In Jamaica, however, I noted another characteristic of such competition, the alignment of NGOs along political and religious lines, such that the competition was not just among individual agencies but among coalitions of agencies. Such alignments or groups of agencies were tied to political and religions groups, which effectively blocked much real participation with others across group lines. Yet, it appeared that little productive activity could go on, at least in encouraging public-private partnerships, in the absence of linking up with such coalitions.

The Bush administration added the “faith based” initiative to the confusion that D’Agostino points to, by encouraging religiously affiliated non-government agencies to become more active in human service delivery. While, in principle, many would likely agree that governmental agencies need to encourage the involvement of the public through financial assistance and volunteerism, the test for judging progress on a project appears now to be tied to how many “partnerships” can be created, thereby effectively reducing the attention given to the goals associated with the program itself. The results have heightened the competition among individual agencies to a new level as such competition is tied, not just to agency survival, but to the socialization of the general public to particular political and religious belief systems.

When I first studied NGOs in Latin America in the 1970s, many were small, local, community based, and took support from regional and national agencies. Today however, NGOs are often large, multinational institutions which operate more as corporations, but whose focus is less on making money than delivering services. Nevertheless, they are clearly “big business.” The Peace Corps has created a partnership with these international NGOs for the placement of Volunteers and, curiously on its website, categorizes NGOs under “business development.” The site also provides PCV training modules intended to help Volunteers sustain and make more effective the NGOs where they are assigned. As NGOs have become primary institutions for PCV placement, Volunteers no doubt find themselves in the confusing and conflicting positions identified by D’Agostino. Thus, Volunteers may be competing with colleagues placed in another agency in seeking funds and service delivery alternatives, or find themselves, among others, in conflict with the religious constraints placed on delivering such services. A prime example of the latter is the endorsement of abstinence in favor of the use of condoms in HIV/AIDS prevention programs.

Is it not time to stand back from policies associated with privatization, public-private partnerships and faith based initiatives, which the U.S. government has emphasized, and ask what has actually happened in the delivery of human services to those who need them? Similarly, is it perhaps time to take stock of the reliance Peace Corps has placed on corporate (or corporate like) multi-national NGOs in its Volunteer placement and service delivery? Perhaps looking at the effects of alignment with such NGOs, and encouraging the importance of cross NGO cooperation rather than competition, cohesion rather than alignment with political and religious belief systems, and communication across agencies rather than silence, as criteria for funding. In addition, choosing more locally based NGOs and government agencies for PCV assignment would shift the attention from those who deliver services to those who are in need of such services. The alternative is to continue what appear to be the likely negative, interactive, effects of competition and conflict which characterize human delivery systems, and which Peace Corps may have become associated with in much of the world. However one answers such questions, we would all be wise to take another look at Vincent D’Agostino’s comments on his experience.