Friends of Refugees

A U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program Watchdog Group

Archive for the ‘Congress’ Category

Next Entries »

Elderly and Disabled Refugees Face a Cut-Off of Benefits After 7 Years

Posted by Christopher Coen on September 30, 2010

The New York Times has an editorial on the issue of elderly and disabled refugees facing a cut-off of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) due to the 7 year time limit for non-citizens. Some of these elderly and disabled refugees have absolutely no chance of ever passing a citizenship test due to the need for English language skills. We have refugees who arrive here illiterate in their own language and far too old to learn a new language. Some of these elderly people have dementia and other issues. SSI is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes). It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income. It provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York is seeking a one-year extension to help 5,500 refugees who are about to lose benefits.

Thousands of elderly and disabled refugees who receive cash assistance from the Social Security Administration are in danger of losing that lifeline. Their eligibility for benefits expires on Friday. Congress has granted temporary extensions before. It needs to do so again.

The welfare overhaul adopted in 1996 set limits on the time that refugees can receive Supplemental Security Income. Noncitizens normally do not qualify for payments, but refugees, who fled torture and war and could not work because of old age and infirmity, were among those granted an exception on the condition that they become citizens within seven years. That deadline came too quickly for some who were unable to pass the citizenship test in time. Many were homebound and had trouble negotiating paperwork or affording the fees. Others were stuck in limbo because of administrative backlogs…

…Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York is seeking a one-year extension to help 5,500 refugees who are about to be cut off. The bill is expected to cost about $22 million, and it would be more than offset by a fee collected for unemployment fraud. It would apply only to those who received benefits through the 2008 extension; new refugees must still meet the seven-year deadline. Read more here

A Bhutanese refugee suggested to me that the U.S. government should enact a rule for refugees with disabilities from the neck up versus those from the head down. In other words, to allow elderly refugees with dementia and other refugees with mental illness or developmental disabilities to avoid the time limit for benefits imposed on non-citizens. A medical specialist would decide who qualified for the exception. I don’t know if there is a diagnostic tool that is useful for determining which elderly and disabled people are cognitively capable of learning English. Of course there is also the financial barrier of affording the $595 naturalization fees, although waivers are available for people unable to afford the fees. Then there is the issue of refugees with physical disabilities that interfere with travel to and attendence at English classes.

**CORRECTION** – The 7-year limit for refugees listed above was actually a 9-year limit, due to the US Congress passing a rule in 2008 (set to expire Sept. 30, 2011) giving qualifying refugees 9-years of SSI if they were noncitizens. See Herald-Leader article:

…Congress extended the deadline once in 2008 so that refugees could  receive assistance for up to nine years before becoming citizens. But  that extension expires Sept. 30 [2011]… Read more here

**UPDATE** – Effort to extend eligibility fails

An article in the Washington Independent says that the Senate rejected the effort to pass the measure yesterday.

…Yesterday, the Senate considered a measure to extend eligibility for Supplemental Security …Income for some of the neediest refugees. It came up for unanimous consent, but failed to pass in the final hours of the session…

…Groups say they plan to continue to lobby in the lame duck session and next year for Congress to eliminate limits on SSI eligibility for refugees.

Although efforts to extend SSI payments have not encountered serious opposition — the extension in 2008 earned bipartisan support — rights groups have had trouble getting it added to the legislative calendar. “We don’t really hear opposition, we just have difficulty getting support,” Wiley says. Read more here

Posted in Congress, disabled refugees, elderly refugees, SSI | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

HIAS’ recommendations to the National Security Council’s interagency review of U.S. refugee program

Posted by Christopher Coen on June 13, 2010

In response to the commissioning of the comprehensive interagency review of refugee resettlement led by the National Security Council, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) submitted a list of recommendations here.

Writing for HIAS, Mark Hetfield, their Senior Vice-President for Policy and Programs, aside from the initial prerequisite butt kissing, paints a picture of federal government agencies operating in little coordination. He likens the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) — consisting of three federal agencies (and their subcomponents), the voluntary agencies, the states, UNHCR, and the International Organization for Migration – to a “snake” sliced into thirteen pieces (I can’t make this stuff up) .

With regard to the overseas part of the refugee program he advocates for change, writing that its “rife with redundancies and inefficiencies. The same information is collected multiple times by multiple parties (UNHCR, OPE/PRM, USCIS) in multiple forms and interviews, and then is not even shared with the receiving VOLAG or ORR in ways that could ensure better reception and integration.”

He also advocates NGOs (non-governmental organizations), such as the overseas wings of many of the U.S. domestic refugee resettlement agencies, be involved in the redesign of the refugee referral process (referral of refugees oversees for resettlement in the US), with an eye toward allowing greater involvement for the NGO resettlement agencies. He writes, “NGO partners should be engaged, resourced, and held accountable for referrals by [the State Department] as well as by UNHCR.”

This must be a first that a resettlement agency has ever requested that they be held accountable for anything (at least its the first time I’ve heard it). What bothers me is the recommendation that refugee resettlement agencies be “resourced” for referring refugees for resettlement. If they wish to insinuate themselves into the referral process, and its debatable whether that is wise or not, why don’t they fund themselves to do that? I mean, these private groups are not accountable to the U.S. public, so why should we be paying them for their operations?

HIAS also recommends that the Priority Three (P3): Family Reunification for Designated Nationalities refugee immigration category be “expanded so that it no longer discriminates on the basis of nationality …”.

This sudden interest in discrimination based on nationality is interesting in view of HIAS’ long support and heavy lobbying for the Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment, which grants extraordinary immigration privileges to certain groups of refugees based solely on their nationality (former Soviet-Republics) and religion (mostly Jewish, with a few evangelical Christians, Ukrainian Catholic/ Ukrainian Orthodox churches, as well as religious minorities in Iran, etc).

In addition, HIAS wants more “supplemental funding” – of course. According to HIAS, this “supplemental funding and placement should take into account (1) refugees with special needs relating to their mental or physical health; (2) refugees who are illiterate or semi-literate and therefore need more preparation for entry into the workforce; and (3) refugees who were professionals when they fled but who need recertification in order to practice their profession or their field in the United States.” According to HIAS, most refugees with professional credentials “end up driving cabs or working in Starbucks because they receive no assistance whatsoever obtaining the credentials necessary to work in their field of expertise.” No assistance from either the public or the private partners in the resettlement establishment?

But why should each and every one of these problems need solving by the government? Again, what is the point of the highly touted “private sector contribution” from the resettlement agencies if they offer so little help with these needs? Why aren’t they able to raise any private funding for these services? Do they really need more government funding simply to direct refugees with professional credentials and experience to jobs that are right for them?

HIAS also wants the U.S. Government to temporarily allow resettlement agencies to (1) resettle refugees outside of the “zone of resettlement agencies”, to places where they can find employment, (2) the lifting of refugee “free case” (refugees with no known established ties to someone in the US) site restrictions, and (3) the “relaxing” of some housing standards.

In other words the US government should allow resettlement agencies to resettle refugees directly to meatpacking plant sites (think JBS Swift & Co.’s meatpacking plant in Cactus, TX , or Mountaire Farms’ processing plant in Moorefield, W.Va) where the agencies have no offices or support for the refugees, and where local government social services agencies have no  expertise in refugee issues. Many of these meatpacking sites also do not offer ESL classes, or have any services for refugees with post-traumatic stress disorder (PSD) and other mental health issues due to torture and other previous abuse. Refugees will also be attending medical appointments where medical clinics may not offer interpretation.

As far as “relaxing” some housing standards, the standards are already bare minimum, e.g. no rodent or insect infestations, no dangerously dilapidated apartments, the need for smoke alarms. How low does HIAS wish to go? (if you were to see some of the dives into which the resettlement agencies place refugees you would wonder where further relaxation of housing standards would lead to.)  Do they propose housing refugees in apartments with severe code violations, packing 2-3 families in each apartment, housing refugees in barns?

Finally, HIAS proposes creation of a “refugee resettlement academy” — that would create webinars, certification processes, and the sharing of best practices among the local and national players. Again, they want government do this instead of HIAS and its refugee resettlement cohorts — the volags. Yet, why would this be government’s function and not that of the private sphere?

The volags have certainly been successful in putting together the Refugee Council USA (RCUSA), which regularly and vigorously lobbies for increased government-funding for their agencies, as well as for refugee welfare. Have they ever considered re-mandating RCUSA from begging for ever greater amounts of public money for their organizations to a group that would actually help refugees? They could rename it the RCUSA Refugee Resettlement Academy.

Posted in Catholic, evangelical, funding, HIAS, housing, overcrowding, housing, substandard, IOM, Jewish, Matching Grant program, meatpacking industry, mental health, Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment, NGO's (Non-governmental organizations), NSC (National Security Council), ORR, PRM, R&P, reform, State Department, USCIS, Volags (voluntary agencies) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Senate hearing on Refugee Protection Act of 2010

Posted by Christopher Coen on May 27, 2010

A U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing took place on May 19, 2010 for the Refugee Protection Act of 2010.

Dan Glickman, President of Refugees International testified about various aspects of the bill including Section 21 which would require that the State Department’s R&P (Resettlement & Placement) per head refugee grant (for refugees’ first 30-90 days) be automatically increased yearly based on inflation and increases in the cost of living (here).

Glickman testified that:

“…Section 21 of the Refugee Protection Act of 2010 would require the Secretary of State to conduct, on an annual basis, a review of the Reception and Placement grant amount to ensure that it reflects the actual costs of resettlement during the first 30-90 days.  The Secretary would then notify Congress of any changes…”

Does this mean that the federal government would now be expected to pay for ALL costs of the first stage of resettlement when for decades the program has claimed that it is a partnership between the government and private charitable groups? Currently, the so-called partnership supposedly requires that the private resettlement agencies give significant private resources to the refugee resettlement effort, although to what extent they do is unknown since they make little data public.

There is reason to believe, after analysing the resettlement agencies’ 990 forms, that many of them rely on the government for most of their funding, and not actually raising much private funding. (Check out our analysis of some of the LIRS affiliates’ funding in our Recommendations to the NSC’s inter-agency task force on refugee resettlement program reform, p.7, here).

Has Refugees International considered the possible dampening effect on resettlement agencies’ efforts to raise private funding for refugees if the R&P grant was automatically raised each year? What incentive would they have to raise funds for refugees if they had this mechanism to cover the absolute minimum funds necessary to resettle refugees into poverty, while covering their salaries and overhead? Is this really in the refugees’ interests?

Posted in Congress, funding, government, LIRS, NSC (National Security Council), public/private partnership, R&P, Refugees International, State Department | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Episcopal Migration Ministries’ annual conference in D.C.

Posted by Christopher Coen on April 16, 2010

Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM) held their annual conference in Washington D.C. April 13-16, and it seemed to be as much about lobbying Congress for more public funding as it was about training EMM’s affiliates’ staff (here).

The State Department’s Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, Eric P. Schwartz, gave the conference’s keynote address. His address was quite revealing about what the State Department considers to be “reform” of the refugee resettlement program when he said:

“The White House is leading a comprehensive effort to review the resettlement program and we will remain deeply engaged in this enterprise,” he said. “We will be working closely with the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services to secure additional job training, education, cash and medical assistance in the months that follow reception and placement.”

So, in other words, the comprehensive review of the refugee program ordered by President Obama via the National Security Council’s (NSC) interagency task force (here) is really nothing more than a smokescreen to secure more public funding from Congress for the State Department and the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS). It almost makes one feel a bit sick. Refugees were really counting on someone actually examing where all the current funding goes while they go without basic services and material items supposedly guaranteed under current funding.

I guess I also don’t understand why a State Department official would be “working with” the ORR to help it secure more funding. Is that his role? Shouldn’t he be focusing on keeping his own house in order at the State Department? What about all the refugees we keep hearing from all over the country that never get minimum-required State Department-funded services and material items? Shouldn’t Mr. Schwartz solve that problem before trying to help the ORR get more money too? I’m just saying.

Of course, I guess I should have known that the NSC’s look at the program was going to be a farce when I first read (here) back in June 2009 that President Obama’s review of the program came at the instigation of the volags and their lobbying group Refugee Council USA (RCUSA).

Hoping for reform, the Refugee Council USA and other organizations are requesting a review of the system by President Barack Obama and the federal agencies that administer it.

And to think we wrote 19 pages (here) of analysis and reform ideas for the NSC interagency task force’s refugee program review! (wondering if Dr. Samantha Powers is using that as blotter for the NSC task force’s coffee mugs.) Probably.

Anyway, the refugee resettlement agencie’s friends in Congress are wasting no time in putting forward legislation to secure more funding for HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) — even before the NSC has finished their review of the progam with a supposed eye toward reform.

Michigan Democratic Representative Gary C. Peters, in a March 14 letter addressed to his colleagues, said he “will soon be introducing legislation to reform the current refugee resettlement program to make it more successful in its mission to help refugees achieve self-sufficiency.”

Has Representative Peters sought out any ideas or views of others in refugee resettlement, such as community volunteers or refugees? (You know, the refugees that don’t work for the resettlement agencies.) Has he made any attempt to review how effectively the ORR is using current funding levels? How effective is their oversight, so that we know public funds won’t be wasted, but instead, will be effectively used to aid refugees?

I suppose I’m being too logical.

Posted in Assistant Secretary of the PRM, Congress, EMM, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), funding, government, HHS, NSC (National Security Council), Obama administration, ORR, PRM, RCUSA (volags lobbying group), reform, State Department | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

George Rupp of the IRC claims that all problems in resettlement the result of economy & not enough government funding

Posted by Christopher Coen on March 19, 2010

Here is a comment (below) we submitted to the Huffington Post in response to an article by George Rupp (head of IRC) and Morton Abramowitz (of the International Crisis Group) that credited the crisis in the refugee resettlement program to too little government funding (here).

Rupp and Abramowitz claimed:

“There is one area of good news, though it emerges only from the very bad experience of Iraqi refugees. The small fraction of educated, skilled Iraqis allowed to come to America-some with help from Iraq War-era friends who served as soldiers, aid workers and journalists — tested our aging refugee-admissions system and found it wanting. Run as a partnership between the U.S. Government and aid resettlement agencies like the International Rescue Committee, it was originally designed to accept large numbers of Vietnamese, but the government’s share of support for the program had deteriorated over time. Overstretched charities tried to make ends meet, but the economic downturn brought the whole system to the breaking point. Iraq War veterans and other concerned Americans were outraged. As a result, the Obama Administration is reviewing the entire process of how refugees are admitted to the United States and has taken the first critical steps toward repairing it, including more support in the first weeks after they arrive.”

In response we wrote:

The claim that the economic downturn brought the refugee resettlement system to the breaking point does not explain why it was never brought to the breaking point during previous recessions. Certainly Iraqi refugees should not have put much pressure on the system since our government resettled so few of them. One of the biggest outstanding questions is how much private funding the resettlement agencies bring to the resettlement process. They are supposedly required to bring significant private funding to the program, in line with the spirit of the public-private partnership, yet seem increasingly to rely just on government funding.

What would have happened to the program if our government had acceded to the resettlement agencies’ demands two years ago, via their RCUSA lobbying group, that we resettle 105,000 Iraqis per year. Compare this to the 77,000 total refugees we resettled from all over the world in just one recent year alone. The resettlement agencies didn’t have the funds to resettle that many refugees, yet that didn’t stop them from pressuring the government. The fact that most of these refugees may have ended up homeless on our streets did not phase them. Instead they have been successful in pressuring the government to double public funding for initial resettlement services while not promising to offer anything more than the minimal services they have provided for the past few decades.

The resettlement agencies seem to have forgotten their missions as charitable organizations.

Christopher Coen
Friends of Refugees

Posted in Congress, Cooperative Agreement, funding, government, Iraqi, IRC | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Refugee Protection Act of 2010, introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).

Posted by Christopher Coen on March 16, 2010

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has introduced the The Refugee Protection Act of 2010 (see here).  The bill is co-sponsored by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI), Richard Durbin (D-IL), and Daniel Akaka (D-HI).

The measure would change existing asylum policies to ensure more people who need and deserve US protection can benefit from it. It would also make several discrete, yet long overdue improvements in the support provided to refugees newly arrived in the United States. Importantly, the bill would direct the United States government to apply one standard for all asylum seekers intercepted at sea. This would make uniform the treatment of Cubans, Chinese and Haitians attempting to enter America by boat.

Well, I guess this discreteness is somewhat undemocratic, but hopefully Congress intends for it to help legitimate asylees.

The measure would also make other changes in the way asylum seekers are treated. Since 1996, asylum-seekers have had to file an asylum claim within one year of arrival in the United States. This has led to bona fide asylum seekers being denied protection simply because of the deadline, no matter how compelling their asylum cases may be. These asylum seekers are then returned to their countries of origin where they face a real threat of persecution. The Refugee Protection Act would eliminate this one-year deadline.

Well, that makes sense –to allow these asylees to apply for their green cards (permanent resident status) earlier than one year after they have been here. But then why does the bill include a provision for refugee resettlement agencies to get more money each year based on, “inflation and the cost of living”. Isn’t the recent doubling of the State Department’s R&P (Resettlement and Placement) grant enough?

In addition, the bill would ensure that the State Department’s Reception & Placement Grant – the one-time, per-capita grant given to refugees upon arrival in the United States – is adjusted annually to keep up with inflation and the cost of living.

How do we know that the resettlement agencies will use increases directly for the refugees, rather than on salaries, etc? Audits by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General seem to be extremely rare, and resettlement agencies can use “in-kind” donations to refugees of all of the junk-for-Jesus stuff they receive as a type of R&P “direct service” to the refugees. They can then use the R&P grant for other things like salaries, blackberries, wireless internet, etc. (witness Susan Gibson-Wise and LFS in the Carolinas in Greensboro).

It seems that the resettlement agencies have become addicted to easy federal agency funding, and have decided to include sneaky funding increases in every refugee/asylee bill with the help of their allies in Congress. To the extant that we tolerate this, they will just continue these ploys. They must only be given government funding increases IF they agree to verifiable increased services to refugees and asylees, increased government oversight, and openess and transparency to the public.

Easy money is only good for refugee resettlement agencies, not for the refugees.

Posted in asylees, Congress, Haitian, R&P | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Increase in R&P public funding – an analysis

Posted by Christopher Coen on January 31, 2010

Friends of Refugees has had some concerns about the recently announced increase in refugee program funding (see our recent post on this announcement). We wanted to know who made this recommendation and what criteria was used. We understand that President Obama ordered a comprehensive review of the refugee resettlement program by the National Security Council (NSC), but who is on the NSC’s Interagency Task Force and who is the Task Force consulting with? (It has been reported in several newspapers that the Task Force will be releasing it’s recommendations in February.)

According to an NSC official recently contacted by Friends of Refugees, the Interagency Task Force assigned to conduct the Administration’s review of the refugee program is composed of the NSC, the U.S. Department of State (DOS), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The official stated that in addition to the Task Force members, stakeholders from State governments, voluntary agencies, and think-tanks have also been consulted and will continue to be consulted over the course of the review process. The official also stated, somewhat strangely, that the NSC does not, “have any info on the timeline”, regarding when the NSC will release the final recommendations.

We then asked a State Department official how the PRM is funding the increase in the Reception and Placement (R&P) per capita grant. According to the official the President’s budget request for Migration and Refugee Assistance for refugee admissions was $305 million. Congress then voted to appropriate even more funding to the PRM then the President had requested, and the PRM was able to allocate a total of $324 million for refugee admissions.

In a follow-up email to the State Department official we asked why the increase in funding was done in advance of any recommendations from the NSC. We asked, “Isn’t the point of the NSC formulating recommendations to determine such things as whether or not R&P public funding should be increased, to what level, and what rules should be applied to how resettlement agencies may use those funds?” The official responded briefly that the PRM was, “aware of the urgency of the refugees need…[and that the increase] was done with NSC concurrence.”

In addition, we asked how the PRM decided on the $1800 figure. We pointed out that the increase identically matches the $1800 per capita recommendation made in the refugee resettlement group LIRS’ cost-analysis report ‘The Real Cost of Welcome’, which was also trumpeted by the Refugee Council USA. “Did the PRM simply agree with LIRS’ and RCUSA’s figures, or did it arrive at the $1800 separately?”, we asked. “Did the PRM agree with the $1800 figure by analyzing the LIRS cost-analysis [report] to determine if the numbers made sense, or did they use some other analysis?” “Did they do any other analysis to arrive at the $1800 figure?” The State Department official responded simply that, “The $1800 amount was determined based on the funding that was available, and the LIRS analysis.”

In our group’s opinion this presents a problem if the LIRS cost-analysis report is not accurate, which we believe it is not. The report claimed that LIRS-affiliated resettlement agencies’ private contributions were paying for 61% of the cost of resettling refugees in the first 30-90 days. Yet, neither LIRS nor some of their affiliates whose costs LIRS analyzed have budgets which are more than 8% privately funded. How then were resettlement agencies supposedly able to pay for 61% of refugee resettlement costs? According to the LIRS analysis churches and other local groups and people were supplying about half of the resettlement agencies’ 61% share of costs. The churches and community groups’ contribution is listed as volunteer time and in-kind donations. So the the church groups and other local groups contribute 30%, with the State Department and other federal contributions paying 39%, and the resettlement agencies only contributing a supposed 31%, if we are to believe their figures.

Yet, where are the resettlement agencies accounting for their supposed 31% contribution? Certainly the small part of their budgets that apparently comes from private sources could not account for 31% of refugee resettlement costs up to the refugees’ first 30-90 days, could it? If so, then the figures reported in the LIRS cost-analysis report may not be accurate. Isn‘t this important to know if the PRM is depending so highly on the LIRS report? (By the way none of these figures take into account the much larger government contributions from the ORR and other government agencies which provide for refugees’ needs up to the end of their eighth month in the US. The LIRS cost-analysis and the recent State Department doubling of refugee funds only covers the R&P part of refugee resettlement – the first 30-90 days.)

Considering all of this information, why hasn’t the NSC and the State Department’s PRM consulted with independent groups and stakeholders who have been critical of how the resettlement agencies have used the public contribution - people who have no vested interests in the funding increase? So far almost all of the agencies and groups that have been consulted have enormous vested interests in advocating for an increase in government funding. Why would they not advocate for increased funding?

Even the few think-tank people who have been consulted have been highly swayed by the resettlement agencies, no doubt. Witness Eric Schwartz Assistant Secretary of the PRM, a former think-tank member and NSC official, who recently visited several refugee resettlement agencies and became convinced problems could be solved by adding more public money. Mr. Schwartz must have no comprehension of the critical need to be weary of the opinions of people with vested interests. If this official and former think-tank member also consulted fellow government agencies in the refugee program, agencies that also have deep vested interests, then we would have to ask, what government agency wouldn’t want more money?

If the NSC wants to have balanced information by which to make recommendations to the President and to the State Department, shouldn’t people and groups who are knowledgeable about the refugee program and have no vested interests in the money – and therefore no conflict-of-interests – give input about the current needs and problems of the program? For example, our group Friends of Refugees was never consulted. We have a wealth of information about how refugee resettlement  and government oversight agencies have performed over the past ten years. Although our group supports and advocates for refugee resettlement in the U.S., we have also been critical of the performance of those agencies. We believe that the data and recommendations we have are critical for determining what has gone wrong with the program. We receive no government funding nor have we requested any. None of us are former refugee resettlement agency employees with an ax to grind. Our only interest in the program is in helping refugees and also making sure that tax-payer money is spent wisely and accountably, i.e. we have no conflicts-of-interests as almost all of the people and groups do who are recommending increased public funding as the main, maybe only, way of solving problems in the refugee program.

Throwing more public money at the program, and without first consulting independent players, may well make the problems worse. Certainly, the increase in funding to the resettlement agencies should not have been done until those agencies could assure the government that they would use the funding accountably, and that the public will be given a mechanism by which to determine if the increase in public funding is being used responsibly. Finally, the huge increase in funding may well just make the refugee resettlement agencies less inclined to raise private contributions. If so, this increase in public funding may actually hurt refugees and damage public perception of the program.

Posted in Congress, Dept of Homeland Security, funding, government, HHS, LIRS, NSC (National Security Council), ORR, PRM, R&P, State Department, Volags (voluntary agencies) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 18 Comments »

Next Entries »
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 84 other followers