The State Department’s Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration Eric P. Schwartz took a trip to Salt Lake City and Portland on September 7-8 ostensibly to meet with resettled refugees, state and local officials, and resettlement agency representatives. He reports his observations of the trip in a September 22^nd letter posted on the State Department website.

I wanted to report to you on my September 7-8 visit to Salt Lake City and Portland, to meet with resettled refugees, state and local officials involved in refugee resettlement, resettlement agency representatives and others who are concerned and engaged in these issues in both communities. I was delighted to be accompanied for the Portland portion of my trip by U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley. In addition, Barbara Day of PRM’s Admissions staff joined me for both portions of the visit.

Both cities are great models of our public-private partnership, supported by volunteers who are deeply committed to the humanitarian mission of resettlement and by communities that strongly support the effort. They host Bhutanese, Iraqis, Burundians, Burmese, Congolese and many other refugee groups, and continually seek to enhance the support provided to new arrivals. It was gratifying to hear that the State Department’s doubling of the reception and placement grant – provided to support refugees for the first one to three months after their arrivals – has dramatically enhanced the ability of local agencies to provide critical initial support to refugees. here

So the resettlement contractors give great praise to Mr. Schwartz for doubling funding this year for refugees’ first 30-90 days (although when they talk to the press they only complain that they need more government funding) and Mr. Schwartz feels intense gratification. I guess I’m more interested to know if the resettlement agencies are now meeting minimum service requirements since the State Dept. has doubled their funding. Mr. Schwartz doesn’t seem to have looked into that.

He then takes a look at the “Salt Lake City innovation”, the State Dept’s experimental funding of local resettlement agencies for two years of case management for refugees (here and here). No discussion however about any qualitative measurements of what refugees have gained from extended case management, e.g. are employment outcomes increased, are refugees’ incomes increased, are refugees’ English language abilities increased, is out-migration (to other states) decreased, are more refugees learning to drive, owning cars, or finding better housing arrangements?

Case management: Supported by funding from the State of Utah, Salt Lake City has adopted a two-year, case-management approach, in which voluntary agency case workers formally sustain their intensive engagement with newly arrived refugees not for several months (as is generally the case in other states), but, rather, for two years….this system greatly enhances the ability of the refugee, over time, to access services effectively, and increases his or her overall sense of well-being… the Salt Lake City innovation seems like an important contribution that could serve as a model for others.

Then he discusses the problem of overseas cultural orientation. Refugees keep arriving in the U.S. reporting to have received all sorts of misinformation about American culture and the life they should expect to have once they get here, even though the State Department pays its private partner organizations IOM and the IRC  to give the refugees quality cultural orientation lessons.

Overseas cultural orientation: Despite the State Department’s efforts to enhance our overseas cultural orientation programs for refugees who will be traveling to the United States, I continued to hear reports from refugees that the pre-departure process did not give them an adequate sense of –and preparation for— the challenges they would be confronting after arrival. PRM’s Admissions team is currently engaged in a critical review of our cultural orientation programs worldwide, which I expect will help us make significant improvements this coming year.

I’ve noticed that when I read about resettlement agencies blaming refugees’ misconceptions about American culture on the overseas orientation (as opposed to the orientation that the State Dept. requires resettlement agencies to do here once the refugees arrive) the agencies never mention the IOM or the IRC. I guess they don’t want the public to know that these “partner” agencies are obviously falling down on their responsibilities. Better instead to make it sound like some mysterious oversees group is misleading the refugees, or just providing poor orientation services. Shouldn’t it be our concern if the IOM and the IRC aren’t doing a good job? After all, we’re paying for it. I think we should measure their services by how well-informed refugees are once they arrive here, and not by how hard the agencies tried or some other subjective criteria. Also, why isn’t Mr. Schwartz taking a look at the problems with cultural orientation provided by resettlement agencies to refugees upon their arrival in the U.S. here, here, and here? It seems there are some severe problems in that phase as well.

Then Mr. Schwartz takes a look at English-language training for refugees.

English-language training for new arrivals: The most critical obstacle for successful integration of refugees may be lack of English language proficiency. Thus, it is essential that newly arriving refugees have access to the English language training that will enable them to enter the workforce and contribute to their local communities. In Salt Lake City, in Portland, and in the other cities I’ve visited over the past year, I heard repeatedly that even when English language programs were available, they could not be easily accessed by refugees compelled to find employment as quickly as possible. Some local communities have developed innovative English language training efforts linked to the workplace, but we at the federal level should consider ways to facilitate such innovations.

I think Mr. Schwartz got ahead of himself a bit by doubling resettlement agencies’ funding and only then looking at their services’ quality. Why this late analysis of English-language training? We’ve long known that these classes are often poor quality. Not only do refugees have a problem accessing them due to lack of time, transportation, and day care, but these classes are often taught by teachers who cannot speak the refugees’ languages (imagine trying to learn Chinese from an instructor who can’t explain anything to you in English). We also regularly hear from refugees who already have some English ability who say that agencies place them in classes that are too easy for them. We’ve heard these same complaints repeated by refugees for nine years now and the State Department has never responded to these complaints when we’ve brought them to their attention.

In the weeks and months ahead, we will pursue action in these and other areas, and, as always, we at PRM would very much welcome your observations and perspectives.

Of course that’s easily to say, but then why hasn’t the State Department responded to our many letters documenting the poor services that refugees have received in the U.S. from the private refugee resettlement agencies? I challenge Mr. Schwartz to act on his words and show us his welcoming of our observations by digging all our letters out of his files and for once responding to them in a substantive way.