There is a problem here, but a lot of the proposed "solutions" are counterproductive. There are a fair number of PCVs in my area, and I was one once myself, so I hear a bit about what's going on there. A couple of years back the word came down from Washington that every country office had to have a safety and security officer. The one they had here was an ex-Marine, unfortunately not terribly knowledgeable about the country. A lot of his dictates were totally counterproductive, and his attitude antagonized a lot of people to the point where they didn't listen to the few smart things he did have to say. There was an effort to give volunteers satellite phones, which most volunteers wisely refused to take: that kind of expensive gadget attracts huge attention in a village: half the people will beg to use it, and be offended if they are refused, and the other half will see it as absolute proof that the volunteer is a CIA agent. These things create more problems than they solve.
The security guy also seemed convinced that the towns and cities are safer than the hinterlands, when in fact the opposite is true.
The nature of the job is such that the only real way to improve security lies in accurate assessment of conditions in prospective assignment sites, and continuing assessment by the volunteers of conditions.
The problem, it should be stressed, is crime, not terrorism or other politically motivated violence. Part of the problem, unfortunately, is that a lot of the volunteers are young and not terribly street smart, and what street smarts they have come from a very different environment. I have seen volunteers walk into risky situations completely unawares on more occasions than I can count.
The solution, in my view, is not better housing or more supervisor visits, but the recruitment of a much smaller number of much more qualified people, with real support from the home office. That would make security much easier to manage, and would also make the agency much more effective. |
