Jul 03, 2008

More Young People Looking for Post-College Stints in the Volunteer Corps

by Laura Starita

One of the unexpected consequences of the current economic malaise is that more recent college graduates are reportedly deferring their entry into the work force in order to spend a year volunteering. Organizations such as Teach for America, the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps have seen significant increases in their application pool this year according to the Wall Street Journal, even from graduates of top colleges. The young people opting for volunteer positions cite their desire to “get something done” to help those that are less fortunate as a prime motivator. The trend is largely driven, however, by the reality that the existing job opportunities are simply not as attractive right now as they might be in a few years. Given the elite reputation held by Teach for America, for one, a two year stint in an urban school or abroad in the Corps can be leveraged into an attractive resume bullet point.

There is something ironic and nonsensical, however, about putting the least experienced members of the US talent pool to work for some of the neediest people in the world. Even worse is the assumption that their college degree and enthusiasm necessarily make them assets that the poor inherently should want working in their interest. In the last few months two relevant stories have come out about the Peace Corps specifically, both of which suggest that its historical reliance on young volunteers has played a role in the organizations’ reputation as a particularly ineffective conduit for humanitarian relief. The first story from the New York Times highlights the Peace Corps’ efforts to shift its demographics by recruiting more mature volunteers. The logic behind the shift is that mature volunteers have more work experience that they can directly apply, and their life experience usually means they have more ease dealing with different kinds of people. In addition, the Peace Corps is particularly active in countries where maturity is traditionally respected and venerated. Older volunteers in these environments often have more influence with the local population, and are better able to listen in turn to what the locals are saying. The second article was a particularly scathing piece in Foreign Policy by Robert Strauss, a former Peace Corps country director. Among other criticisms, he soundly dismisses the idea that local populations always love their volunteers, and instead painted a more complicated picture of tolerance, curiosity and even amusement toward the twenty-something Americans. A young woman who recently returned from three years as a Corps volunteer in Zambia recently summed it up for me like this: “You are a form of entertainment to them at first, and then six months later you realize no one is showing up anymore to your meetings.”

There are many things that make young people good choices for volunteer work, especially in developing countries. They are usually enthusiastic, not usually jaded, sometimes creative about coming up with alternative ideas, and they in most cases have sufficient stamina and bodily health to allow them to deal heartily with medium-term relative privation. But there is sound reason to wonder exactly who is supposed to be the real beneficiary of Peace Corps, AmeriCorps and Teach for America-type programs. Is their goal to substantively improve the lives of the service recipients (there is no evidence on any of the above organizations which unambiguously proves that goal has been met)? Or are they meant mainly to serve the short-term employment needs of the volunteers? This recent surge in interest suggests the emphasis, intended or not, leans to the latter.