Evaluation of Peace Corps/AID cooperation in Africa

in Africa. At the time of the evaluation (12/89), therewere about 900 PC volunteers assigned to 63 A.I.D.- supported projects in 24 African countries. A major finding is that there is little true partnership between A.I.D. and the PC. Instead, the principal focus of field cooperation is on resource sharing in the form of A.I.D. financial support for PC activities and PC participation in A.I.D.-supported projects. Moreover, there is a great deal of ambivalence in both agencies about the desirability and feasibility of increasing A.I.D.-PC collaboration. This attitude can be attributed to the following: (1) a lack of PC experience in project design, monitoring, and evaluation; (2) limited enthusiasm among PVO's for incorporating PC volunteers in their projects; (3) a perception among Mission staff that PC volunteers lack sufficient training for A.I.D. projects; (4) the shift towards nonproject assistance within A.I.D.; and (5) a lack of awareness within A.I.D. of the potential value of PC activities as precursors or successors to Mission projects. A.I.D. financing provides the bulk of PC project funding and has helped strengthen the capabilities of PC volunteers and their host country counterparts. Small Project Assistance (SPA) funds are widely used and appreciated, but there are some PC volunteers and Mission staff who are not pleased with PC volunteers being seen by villagers as a source of funding. Missions are generally not consulted on the use of Participating Agency Services Agreements (PASA's), and while PC must sign an agreement with A.I.D. to obtain SPA funds, the Missions generally have minimal involvement in the program administration. Most PC Missions are not well informed about technical PASA's and A.I.D. Mission knowledge of PASA's is even less. On the other hand, A.I.D. unduly limits the technical fields for which it will fund SPA projects and technical PASA's. There are many untapped opportunities for collaboration that would be in the interest of both agencies and would be supportive of host countries' development efforts. The synergistic effect of improved and expanded collaboration would be greater than the sum of benefits to each agency. This would be reflected in the overall impact of the U.S. government development effort in the host country and in a more rational use of taxpayers' dollars.