Archive for the ‘Matching Grant program’ Category
Posted by Christopher Coen on May 3, 2012
In late 2009 and early 2010 a volunteer assisting refugees at the Bowling Green International Center (previously known as Western Kentucky Refugee Mutual Assistance Association) found refugees from Myanmar (in this case Karenni) living in deplorable conditions, who reported receiving low-quality resettlement services from the resettlement agency. The volunteer documented extensively what she saw and heard, including taking photos and videos. Oddly, a State Department resettlement grant inspection report from earlier in 2009 failed to uncover any of these problems.
Now, here is a look at the ORR’s most recent inspection report of the International Center’s (IC’s) use of Matching Grant Program funds, from 2006. By the way, this is one of twelve inspection reports (8 were incomplete) that we recently received from a Freedom of Information Act request to the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) covering a period from 2005 to 2011. (If HHS complied with the FOIA law, that would mean that the ORR did two inspections per year. This, in a program that in CY2006, for example, paid out $35,772,000 to the resettlement contractors, and served 24,753 refugees, Cuban/Haitian Entrants, asylees and victims of trafficking)
Here are highlights from the inspection:
- The IC’s national affiliate, the USCRI, supposedly monitored the IC in March of 2006 (these are the self-inspections that the State Dept. touts as being useful — I remain skeptical). “ORR requested a copy of this report for the record, but USCRI failed to comply.”
- Of the 67 refugees enrolled in the MG program in 2005, the ORR reviewed only eight refugee case files. Files contained document forms in other languages that did not have a corresponding English copy. Comprehensive employment services were in some cases not documented as required by MG Guidelines. In some cases there was no documentation of closeout, e.g. status of refugee at termination of services and referrals to later programs if needed. The ORR reviewer found that the full issues that had arisen in refugee cases — the resulting services and/or follow-up for some cases — were not noted, and were instead learned only by speaking with the refugees (visiting with only three of the 67 refugees) and resettlement agency staff.
- The IC referred the vast majority of refugees to only one factory that it had a long, established relationship with, disregarding the diversity of refugees’ employment histories and education. (One size does not fit all.)
- Instances where the IC did not pay the children’s part of the monthly cash payments – $40 per child. This is the cash that the ORR gives to resettlement agencies for refugee parents who are receiving employment services so that they are able to pay basic bills.
- Although resettlement agencies such as the IC are allowed to use $2 in MG funds for each $1 in donations they gather, the ORR review found “numerous instances in which copious amounts of inappropriate and unallowable donations were being recorded and counted as MG match. Examples include $1,639 for clothing donations to [match the MG funds] a family of three…and $3,319 for clothing donations for a family of six…unclear service donations of $192 (I suspect that should be four digits — a piece here is redacted)…and counting donations that are clearly required as part of the [State Department refugee grant] (Mattresses [for one refugee] and pillows, sheets, mattresses, etc. for [another refugee] as MG match. The reviewer…found that donated goods were not…consistently valued in a manner that assigns reasonable values to such donations.”
- The IC intermingled funds from separate grants, even from separate US federal agencies, which the ORR assessed as “grossly incompliant” (sic). For example, the reviewer found “numerous instances where [IC] was incorrectly charging federal funds for employee time. ORR Matching Grant, ORR Cash Assistance, ORR Medical Assistance, ORR…Social Services, and [State Department initial resettlement services grant money] charges were often mixed up.” This included double charging case management services to the MG program and to another grant though the refugee was only enrolled in the MG program, charging refugee health costs to MG, and charging MG past the allowable service period.
- Despite these deficiencies the ORR wrote that the International Center provides “effective services to refugees that are enrolled in the MG program” (???), and that the number of refugees enrolled in the MG program was projected to increase from 67 in 2005 to 175 in 2006. The ORR’s specific assessment of the IC’s use of MG program grant money also appears to give the agency credit for non-MG services. For example, the ORR gives the IC credit for services such as referring refugees in a timely manner to food stamps, medical assistance, health screenings and social security cards – all of which the State Department refugee resettlement grant covered. Read report here
Posted in Bowling Green, children, employment services, employment/jobs for refugees, International Center in Bowling Green (Western Kentucky Refugee Mutual Assistance Association), Karenni, Matching Grant program, ORR, USCRI | Tagged: Bowling Green, government contractor, International Center, karenni, Matching grant, One size fits all, ORR, refugees, resettlement, Western Kentucky Refugee Mutual Assistance Association | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on April 30, 2012
The said purpose of the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s (ORR’s) Matching Grant Program (MG) is to place refugee clients in jobs which will enable their household units to meet self-sufficiency within 120 to 180 days (in this case “self-sufficiency” is defined as not accessing public cash assistance, although the household units may use other forms of welfare, e.g. SNAP/food stamps, Section 8 housing assistance, etc.). The MG supposedly works to speed up the process of self-sufficiency by offering programs, support, and incentives to refugees, making the transition to self-sufficiency faster and easier. Its called “Matching Grant” because participating agencies (private contractors) agree to match the ORR grant with cash and in-kind contributions (goods and services) from the “community”. The ORR awards $2 for every $1 raised by the refugee resettlement agency from non-federal sources – including state and local support, United Way contributions, and in-kind support from other local and volunteer organizations – up to a maximum of $2,200 in federal funds per refugee. So, self-sufficiency is the goal, but what are the results?
The Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights refugee resettlement agency in Chicago is one of the contractors that the ORR monitored to assess how well resettlement agencies are helping refugees using the Matching Grant money. In the past Heartland Alliance’ use of US Department of State refugee grant money, as well as a human trafficking grant from the US Department of Justice, left much to be desired. Now, it seems that a ORR MG Program Analyst noted deficiencies in Heartland Alliance’s use of the MG program grant as well, according to a newly released 2005 inspection of the agency:
…Case Notes – …The reviewer found little detail of services being provided, particularly in cases where clients did not become self-sufficient…
…Asylee Payments – Some asylee cases were found to be missing required monthly payments…
…Housing Provision – ORR observed a number of cases [where] full rental payments were not provided for the required time period, although needed. This forced clients to supplement the rent payments with their MG cash…
…Job Development – The reviewer found little evidence of true job developments on the part of [Heartland Alliance]. The program employment outcomes appear to be the result of fairly intense case management coupled with relatively independent clients who find their own jobs. In cases where clients have a family or a strong community base to assist in the employment search, this system seems adequate in assisting clients to become self-sufficient. However, few to no modifications to that procedure were evident in dealing with free cases [refugees with no local family or ethnic community support] that do not have a strong community base to assist, or other instances where such assistance is necessary. Such sub-par employment services were particularly evident in low English level refugee clients. The [Heartland Alliance] employment rate for CY2004 was 50%. USCRI national average for CY2004 was 85%; the national MG average was 72%… Read more here
This last figure seems to point to a problem at Heartland Alliance and not MG Program weaknesses. Yet, it also shows how dependent government inspectors are on contractors’ own written records in assessing compliance with government grants. Aside from the problems noted, what comes to mind is to what degree the contractor’s written records match refugee clients’ reports about services received, however, the inspection report shows no comments from the clients (as opposed to the State Department’s reviews of refugee resettlement grantees).
Nevertheless, though the national average for refugee employment in the MG program was 82% that year, Heartland Alliance’s refugee clients in MG only achieved a 50% employment rate. Much of that 50% appears to have been refugees finding employment on their own or with the help of family or community.
Posted in asylees, Chicago, economic self-sufficiency, employment services, employment/jobs for refugees, Heartland Alliance, Matching Grant program, ORR | Tagged: Chicago, grant, inspection, Matching grant, monitoring, Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on June 18, 2011
The ORR recently put out a message about the 2012 Matching Grant Program to refugee resettlement agencies. For the Matching Grant Program the ORR awards $2 in public funds for every $1 raised by the private resettlement contractor, up to a maximum of $2,200 in federal funds per capita (that is, per persons in the program, although not proportioned equally to all refugee clients).
Dear colleagues,
The Office of Refugee Resettlement is very pleased to announce the publication of the 2012 Matching Grant Program funding opportunity announcement.
The Voluntary Agencies Matching Grant Program is an alternative to public cash assistance designed to enable refugees, asylees, and other ORR eligible populations to become self-sufficient through employment within 120 to 180 days from date of arrival into the United States (U.S.) and/or date of eligibility for ORR services… Services provided under this cooperative agreement
include, but are not limited to, comprehensive case management, employment services, maintenance assistance, cash allowance, and administration.
…Participating agencies agree to match the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) grant with cash and in-kind contributions of goods and services from the community. Currently, ORR awards $2 for every $1 raised by the agency up to a maximum of $2,200 in federal funds per client. At least 20 percent of the non-federal share (the grantee’s match) must be met with cash or cash equivalent; the balance may be cash, in-kind services, or donated goods. Note that while Federal and match funds are calculated and awarded on a per capita or enrolled client basis, the actual spending of such funds is not per capita based. This is to allow Matching Grant Program service providers flexibility in providing individually tailored services (higher or lower than the per capita rate) necessary for the client to achieve self-sufficiency… [emphasis added]
Program related questions should be directed to Tom Giossi in the Office of Refugee Resettlement.
Thank
you,
ORR
(An online version is found on the ORR website.)
So, it looks like resettlement agencies are able to direct money to
individual refugee clients depending upon the individuals’ needs. The policy does therefore, however place a large amount of power over individual refugees in the hands of these small religious and/or non-profit private groups. This freedom can also be misused to reward some refugee clients and punish others, especially those that speak-up. It would be naive to think this cannot and does not happen. Refugee clients are often fearful of retaliation from authority figures – and they commonly misperceive these small, private government contractors as “authorities” – due to the negative and traumatic circumstances from which they have fled For that same reason, however, many refugee clients have learned the necessity of being courageous and speaking up for themselves when they see abuses.
My concern is the power this Matching Grant Program policy gives those agencies that have, or newly develop, a propensity to punish refugee clients who speak out. (I’ve seen it happen – this is not hypothetical.) To counter that negative and unintended consequence what we need here, at the very least, is unbiased and independent oversight – and that’s not what we have with the current cozy partnership between government oversight agencies and the private agencies they oversee. Not only is “partnership” the official policy, but most of the government monitors are former resettlement agency employees who went in search of government jobs – jobs that may be more demanding/ stimulating, but that also have much better benefits.
Therefore, who protects refugees from the real and possible abuses? Essentially no one, so far, except the outspoken and courageous community members and leaders we periodically see. I don’t think that’s enough though, and it certainly can never substitute for effective oversight.
Posted in employment services, employment/jobs for refugees, Matching Grant program, ORR, public/private partnership, retaliation, revolving door | Tagged: human rights, Match Grant, Matching grant, Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR, refugee, refugee resettlement, refugee resettlement agencies, refugee resettlement program, resettlement, voluntary agencies | 5 Comments »
Posted by Christopher Coen on August 2, 2010
Public vs. private
The purpose of ORR’s Matching Grant Program supposedly is to place refugee clients in appropriate jobs which will enable the household unit to attain self-sufficiency within 120 to 180 days without accessing public cash assistance (although apparently it is anticipated that refugees will still need to access food stamps, section 8, etc.). Approximately 30% of all refugees are enrolled in MG.
Resettlement agencies must give support adequate to meet the subsistence needs of refugees. Maintenance assistance includes food or food subsidies, suitable housing, cash allowance, and transportation assistance throughout the first 120 days from the refugee client’s date of eligibility.
While most refugees/clients entering the US — including those not enrolled in MG – are expected to achieve self-sufficiency within a short time, MG supposedly works to speed up the process by offering programs, support, and incentives to refugees which can make the transition faster and easier.
Why is the program called “matching” grant? Participating agencies agree to match the ORR grant with cash and in-kind contributions of goods and services from the “community”. The ORR awards $2 for every $1 raised by the resettlement agency from non-federal sources, including state and local support, United Way contributions, and in-kind support from other local and volunteer organizations, up to a maximum of $2,200 in federal funds per client. Of this match – an uneven public/private match – Volags and local affiliates only need to give 20 percent of the match in cash; the balance may be in cash, in-kind services, or donated goods. Donated items that are worn-out, dirty, broken, or otherwise useless are euphemistically called “Junk-for-Jesus”, and its unknown exactly how much of this junk resettlement agencies try to pass off in the MG program. What is known is that the ORR rarely inspects resettlement agencies, and refugees typically have no idea who to complain to even when they are able to overcome their fear of retaliation by resettlement agencies. (I have personally seen quite a bit of this junk passed on to refugees even at resettlement agencies considered in good standing by the ORR and the State Department.)
Beginning upon enrollment and continuing until income from employment makes the refugee case self-sufficient, resettlement agencies must give refugees a minimum of $200 cash allowance per month ($50 per week), or the maximum amount that will not affect Medicaid eligibility, to all adult clients, and $40 per month ($10 per week) to each minor in the case. Refugee clients must use this minimum cash allowance to buy personal items as necessary and not for basic maintenance assistance. Resettlement agencies may also sanction refugee clients who fail to comply with an agreed-upon resettlement plan and/or agency directive involving attendance at counseling, training sessions, or English classes, or who refuse to be interviewed for or accept an appropriate job offer. Sanctions can include reducing the refugee’s MG cash allowance, or even cutting off services entirely. Refugees know not to disagree with resettlement agencies unless they wish to risk swift and serious retaliation.
The ORR requires resettlement agencies to make refugees accept the first “appropriate” job offered, yet what type of job is appropriate and who gets to make that decision? Resettlement agencies make that decision, regardless of refugees’ opinions. The ORR evaluates resettlement agencies according to the percentage of refugees who become employed within 4-6 months, and then awards the agencies more or less MG slots the following year based on that evaluation. Resettlement agencies therefore have a strong incentive to place refugees in any job available, irrespective of its appropriateness for the refugee. In other words, there exists a conflict-of-interest here. Furthermore, after 180 days no one keeps track of refugee job retention rates.
What is the average hourly wage for refugees placed in jobs via the MG program? According to the ORR’s CY 2007 figures the MG program “boasted” an average hourly wage of $8.47. Yet, are $8 an hour jobs “appropriate” to support families? Alternatively, refugees who are not enrolled in MG, and not required to take the first job offered, are eligible for up to 8-months of refugee cash assistance, a time during which they can look for higher-paying jobs. Refugees enrolled in MG are not given that chance.
How are refugees chosen for the MG program? From as much as we can tell in talking to refugees at dozens of refugee resettlement agencies across the country, resettlement agencies are most likely to place refugees in the program who are the most employable, i.e. those with education, work-related skills, and English language capabilities. Which brings us to this question: what then is the significance of the high self-sufficiency rate reported by the program? According to a study by the IRC and Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs in 2008 MG helped 80% of MG participants to secure economic self-sufficiency as defined by ORR. Without a control group to compare these refugee to, however, we really have no idea to what degree the program, with its greatly increased public costs, increases refugees’ rates of employment.
Certainly, Congress should not make increases in spending on the program until neutral third-party investigators figure out the answer to that question.
Posted in employment/jobs for refugees, funding, in-kind assistance, Matching Grant program, ORR, public/private partnership, SCORR | Tagged: Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, employment services, jobs, Junk for Jesus, Matching grant, Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR, public/private partnership, refugees, resettlement, resettlement agencies, SCORR, volags | 4 Comments »
Posted by Christopher Coen on July 2, 2010
Darci Asche, the community liason for Lutheran Social Services of North Dakota (LSSND), advised the Jamestown, ND community about what their reactions should be to incoming refugees, here.
Representatives from local agencies and businesses attended an informational session Wednesday to learn about Somali culture and how best to serve those people here.
Meet in the middle, was the advice Darci Asche said is most helpful. Asche is the community support services supervisor for Lutheran Social Services in Fargo. Several refugee groups reside in Fargo, including a group from Somalia. Both cultures should attempt to give and take, she said.
In Fargo, for example, employers allowed for prayer time during the business day. Muslims are required to pray five times a day and one of them is at about 1:30 p.m. Also, employers allowed for long gloves and other uniform adjustments at businesses where loose clothing like shawls and headdresses could pose a hazard. Muslim women are required to cover most of their body including wrists and ankles.
Adjustments like those are part of the challenge of migration, Asche said, but the benefits include more taxpayers, new businesses, new employees, more children in schools with declining enrollment and more residents offset the population loss in cities where populations are declining.
“My philosophy is the more diverse, the more exciting a place is,” Asche said. About 15,000 people reside in Jamestown and of them, more than 96 percent are white, according to census data from 2000.
…So far, about 30 Somalis have moved here, but about 400 have applied for housing since March, said Dave Klein of the Stutsman County Housing Authority. Many of them may have applied for housing in several cities, but the influx has created a waiting list for available residences in Jamestown, Klein said. Local people seeking housing come first, Klein said, but the housing authority also seeks to help refugees.
“We’re here to help and find ways to encourage people to be here in Jamestown,” he said.
Some local people may express concern about tax dollars benefiting refugees because some of them need housing assistance, Medicaid or other social services. But for Asche, no American immigrant started without help. The benefits of an employed new citizen outweigh the tax burden. Plus, benefits in this state are limited, she said.
“If anyone were looking for a free ride, North Dakota would not be the place to go,” she said.
Dave Klein of the Stutsman County Housing Authority says that local people are first in line for housing assistance, but his statement is a bit misleading because refugees living in Jamestown are local people.
Darci Asche of LSSND makes the sweeping claim that no American immigrant started life here without help, but government welfare programs are certainly relatively new compared to our long history of immigration. I know that my own ancestors were poor farmers and miners who received almost nothing upon their arrival to this country. In the old days charities helped immigrants, and did so with private charitable funds. I don’t think we have to misconstrue history to advocate for refugee support.
The “limited benefits for refugees from our tax dollars in North Dakota” argument is not really honest either as most of the money is federal money. North Dakota is a net importer of federal dollars, as are most rural states, for a large assortment of welfare for the general population as well as for refugees — Medicaid, food stamps, cash assistance, HUD funds, heating assistance, WIC, etc.
It’s interesting that Asche says refugees wouldn’t come to North Dakota for a free ride because certain benefits in the state are limited, but missing here is that most refugees have no say in coming to North Dakota — LSSND and it national affiliate LIRS just places them there. Refugees who come voluntary from other states via “secondary migration” number about 165 per year, while LSSND and LIRS place about 500 per year there involuntarily (almost no one would choose to resettle In North Dakota by choice when you factor in the climate, the lack of employment and consumer protections, and the old-boy power structure evident at almost every level).
LSSND Asche’s comment on the importance of diversity apparently does not apply to their view of diversity of opinion. Our group since 2001 has called attention to their repeated and obvious neglect of their refugee clients, and each time they met us with stonewalling or hostility.
The most ironic issue brought up in this article though is that some refugee resettlement groups advocate for religious freedom in the employment place, e.g. LSSND advocates that employers accommodate Muslim workers, while other resettlement agencies like World Relief and Catholic Charities of Washington DC advocate for their right to discriminate in hiring based on religious beliefs. Which position is the U.S. refugee resettlement program advocating? There seems to be an eery silence emanating from federal government refugee program agencies.
Posted in Catholic, Catholic Charities of Washington DC, Christian, discrimination in hiring, employment/jobs for refugees, evangelical, faith-based, funding, Islamic, LIRS, Lutheran Social Services of ND, Matching Grant program, North Dakota, religion, secondary migration, refugee, Somali, World Relief | Tagged: Catholic Charities of Washington DC, discrimination in hiring, immigration, jamestown, LIRS, LSSND, Lutheran Social Services of North Dakota, Medicaid, Muslim, ND, North Dakota, refugee, refugee resettlement, refugees, resettlement, secondary migration, refugee, Somali, somalis, Stutsman County Housing Authority, World Relief | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on July 2, 2010
The College of Southern Idaho Refugee Center has a list of issues for what the government should do for them, and for refugees — ideas for President Obama’s NSC review of the resettlement program, here.
According to Ron Black, the manager of CSI Refugee Center, he would like:
… more focus on support services, such as transportation and programs to deal with housing evictions. He’d also like an increased emphasis on English language education, along with the creation of training programs with local businesses, such as hotels.
He’s also concerned that the NSC officials conducting the review did not ask his agency for any comments.
Changes sought by the Obama administration would have to be approved by Congress, with input from national resettlement agencies. But, Black said, local agencies such as his had no input.
“They asked some centers, like in Chicago,” Black said. “But needs in Chicago are different from ours.”
CSI Refugee Center’s national affiliate, the USCRI (U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants), however, did have a seat at the table. (I wonder what sort of relationship Mr. Black’s organization has with the USCRI if he doesn’t think any of his organization’s concerns made it to the NSC via the USCRI? Hmm.)
Mr. Black is also skeptical about some of the volag’s reform ideas:
While local resettlement managers told the Times-News that reform is long overdue, some proposals may not improve the system, said Ron Black, manager of the College of Southern Idaho Refugee Center.
One change would extend the maximum duration of federal financial aid refugees receive from eight months to 18. Some people may need more time to find work, Black said. Refugees from places such as Nepal and Burma need to learn English, learn to drive a car and adjust to cultural differences, such as hygiene and being on the clock.
But refugees who arrive with some education and knowledge of English shouldn’t need 18 months to get on their feet, Black noted.
“It can be a disincentive to work,” he said.
CSI’s Twin Falls center provides housing and helps refugees find work by providing English classes, employment counseling and job placement. The U.S. State Department requires refugee centers to place a certain percentage of refugees in jobs within five months, although Black said the department had backed off that mandate during the economic downturn.
Black said some refugees want to work, but some will drag their feet as long as they receive benefits.
Yet, refugees who are highly employable are often placed in the Matching Grant program, instead of refugee cash assistance. It’s the refugee cash assistance, as well as refugee medical assistance, that they are proposing extending from the current 8 months to 18 months. So I’m not sure where the disincentive would be for these refugees since the program encourages them – supposedly helps them – to find employment within four months. Refugees who don’t speak English could definitely well-use 18 months of help. Also, many states make refugees ineligible for refugee cash assistance who are employable and have voluntarily quit or refused to accept a bona fide offer of employment. So, if Mr. Black wants flexibility, wouldn’t he have to take that up with his state government?
Of course, this reform suggestion from the volags means the government would pay the added costs, rather than the refugee resettlement charities adding a dime. That’s how it always seems to work with their suggestions.
Posted in CSI Refugee Center (Idaho), employment/jobs for refugees, ESL & ELL, funding, Idaho, Matching Grant program, Nepali Bhutanese, NSC (National Security Council), Obama administration, reform, Twin Falls, USCRI | Tagged: College of Southern Idaho Refugee Center, CSI refugee center, Idaho, Matching grant, National Security Council, NSC, Obama, refugee, refugees, resettlement, Twin Falls, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, USCRI | 2 Comments »
Posted by Melissa Sogard on June 27, 2010
The Refugee Council USA (RCUSA), the refugee resettlement agencies’ lobbying wing, is recommending to the President that we accept 100,000 refugees in fiscal year 2011, here and here. That would be 20,000 more than he recommended for this year – 80,000. Next year, no doubt, we’ll read well-placed media stories about how these additional refugees were forced onto the resettlement agencies, and how overwhelmed they are.
Unexplained is how the agencies would be able to find jobs for that many additional refugees in a down economy. According to RCUSA’s Fiscal Year 2011 Funding Urgently Needed for the Office of Refugee Resettlement:
… the federally funded programs administered by local refugee resettlement agencies are highly successful in assisting refugees in securing employment…
Is that true? According to the article, Arizona’s Neglected Immigrants, jobs in Phoenix are scarce for refugees:
The recession is having a strong impact on employment for Arizona’s refugees. Finding jobs for immigrants is a primary concern for the state-contracted refugee resettlement agencies, which bring a large portion of Africans to the Valley.
Only one in three of people in the refugee caseload entered the workforce in 2009, the lowest level in three years for the Office for Refugee Resettlement. Those who landed work received an average hourly wage of $7.17 here.
We know that jobs are scarce in most other states as well.
Taking at look at honey pot recommendations, RCUSA recommends more than doubling funding for the Matching Grant program from $60 million to $135 million. The program allows the resettlement agencies to give refugees donated stuff, a.k.a. ‘Junk for Jesus’, and the government matches it at a 2 to 1 ratio – two government dollars for each dollar of stuff. (Shouldn’t it be 1 to 1? The 2 to 1 is essentially a “mismatch”, isn’t it?)
They also want a $12.4 million increase for “Specialized Employment Services” for highly educated and professional refugees. But we’ve seen how they use current funding for Iraqi SIV immigrants, here. They already receive public funding for case management for each refugee whether they be refugees who are highly educated professionals or not. Why don’t they just use those dollars to connect the refugees with information at existing organizations that offer a wealth of information to help immigrant professionals, such as Upwardly Global?
RCUSA also wants $13 million more for its resettlement agency members for ‘Case Management for Highly Vulnerable Refugees’. Does that mean they are also willing to take a cut in funding for the refugees who are highly employable, well-adjusted and don’t need much case management? I suspect not.
They want an extra $4 million for community outreach. For example, the ORR funds ethnic food festivals in places like Lincoln, Nebraska here. I suspect that sort of thing is useful as a way to help refugees earn money, while creating a fun festival for the larger community, but with refugees facing evictions in the current economy is this really the best way to spend limited funds? Why isn’t current funding being shifted to help with emergencies?
Posted in employment/jobs for refugees, funding, Iraqi, Lincoln, Matching Grant program, Nebraska, Obama administration, ORR, Phoenix, Refugee Council USA (RCUSA), SIV (Special Immigrant Visa) immigrants | Tagged: AZ, Iraqi, Junk for Jesus, Lincoln, Matching grant, NB, Nebraska, Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR, Phoenix, RCUSA, Refugee Council USA, refugees, resettlement, SIV | Leave a Comment »
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: Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, HIAS, Mark Hetfield, Morrison-Lautenberg Amendment, National Security Council, NSC, RCUSA, Refugee Council USA, refugees, resettlement | 2 Comments »
Posted by Christopher Coen on April 28, 2010
Refugees with professional credentials continue to receive inappropriate employment services from many refugee resettlement agencies. Trained as doctors, engineers, and lawyers, most of these refugees are placed in no-skill or low-skill jobs – cleaning, assembly, landscaping labor, etc. — with almost no attempt made to place them in jobs where they could use their skills.
Iraqi SIV immigrants reported about these problems in Sacraemnto (here).
According to Michelle Karolak, director of the refugee resettlement program at Catholic Charities in Jacksonville, this isn’t her fault, it’s the refugees’ fault (here).
.
“A lot of our other clients – although not all of them – are willing to take whatever is offered,” said Michelle Karolak, director of the refugee resettlement program for the local operations of Catholic Charities. “Iraqis, not so much.”
“We have no choice,” Karolak said. “We have to get them up and running as fast as we can.”
Yet, do they have to get them, “up and running as soon as possible”, only in low-skill jobs? There is no such requirement. The refugee program stresses the need for early self-sufficiency, but does not require resettlement agencies to place refugees in low-pay, low-skill jobs. In fact, jobs for which refugees can use their professional skills are much more likely to allow them to become self-sufficient. Also, what does she mean, “as fast as we can”? Refugees, almost as a rule, report that they sit for months at a time with no one helping them to find jobs.
According to refugees in Jacksonville they’ve had to find professional jobs on their own because local resettlement agencies won’t help them.
Majid Abdulmajeed…was hired as an adjunct professor of chemical engineering based on his experience in Iraq. But he only got the job after an acquaintance passed his resume to the school.
“The main employment agent didn’t suggest jobs like this,” he said.
Well, why not? Have resettlement agencies begun to believe their own PR that Iraqi refugees are just too difficult, and refugees must accept any job offered? According to the Matching Grant Program requirements (only 30% of refugees are enrolled in it, but the resettlement agencies are doing everything they can to get the government to expand the program) refugees must accept the first job offered, but even in that case that doesn’t mean that resettlement agencies have to refer the refugees to inappropriate jobs.
Many resettlement agencies seem to have an extraordinarily difficult time thinking outside of the box, and of course refugees continue to pay the price for that.
Posted in California, Catholic Charities, employment services, Florida, Iraqi, Jacksonville, Matching Grant program, neglect, professionals, SIV (Special Immigrant Visa) immigrants, USCCB, World Relief | Tagged: any job offered, catholic charities, employment, employment services, FL, Florida, Iraqi, Iraqis, Jacksonville, jobs, low-skill, Matching grant, Michelle Karolak, no-skill, professional, professionals, refugee, refugees, self-sufficiency, USCRI, World Relief | 1 Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on April 17, 2010
Church World Service and an interfaith coalition of organizations have called on Congress to appropriate “robust funding” for, among other things, refugee resettlement programs within the U.S. (here). Some of the other groups in the coalition include the Episcopal Church (which EMM is a part of), and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (one of the two churches that make up LIRS).
Among other things the interfaith coalition has recommended:
$415 million for refugee admissions in the Migration and Refugee Assistance account in FY2011
Additionally, the group asked for Congress to fund the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the Department of Health and Human Services at $987.9 million, or at minimum, the $877.9 million that President Obama requested for ORR services. Due to historic under-funding, the Office of Refugee Resettlement has been unable to adequately meet the needs of arriving refugees,” they said.
The levels the coalition is requesting, they say, would …”urgently needed housing assistance and support for the Matching Grant program, a welfare alternative that helps resettled refugees find employment within six months.”
The MRA account is the State Department’s refugee account, and has the domestic refugee resettlement funds. Whereas this Interfaith Coalition is asking Congress for $415 for the State Department’s domestic resettlement account, the State Department only asked for $377 million, up from $282,750 in FY2009, and an estimated $324,000 for FY2010 (here) when the State Dept. R&P grant to resettlement agencies was doubled!
This statement, “Due to historic under-funding, the Office of Refugee Resettlement has been unable to adequately meet the needs of arriving refugees”, is false. It assumes that the U.S. refugee resettlement program isn’t a public/private partnership and that the federal agencies must give funds for all needs. I think by now that we all know that isn’t true. The private resettlement agencies just like the easy federal funds, so they want more, without having to lift a finger to raise a decent amount of private funding to add to the public funding.
The focus on the Matching Grant program is also quite troubling, as it is ripe for abuse by refugee resettlement agencies. The Matching Grant program also has a number of troubling rules such as a requirement that refugees take the first job offered to them, even if the resettlement agency has directed them to a job that is completely inappropriate for supporting a family (while there are better-paying jobs in the community which refugees qualify for). Resettlement agencies may also match the ORR grant with only 20% cash and the rest of it may be donated stuff (in-kind assistance). This aspect of the program is under-monitored, with resettlement agencies regularly giving refugees dirty and broken junk, or just not giving items at all that they claim to give.
The Matching Grant program also encourages resettlement agencies to dump the refugees into unsustainable jobs so that they can keep the balance of the ORR grant money (they only have to give the refugee rent and monthly cash as long as the refugee remains unemployed).
It’s no wonder that the resettlement agencies and their friends in Congress and the federal oversight agencies want to expand the Matching Grant program. This would, unfortunately, be a disaster for refugees.
Posted in Congress, CWS, EMM, faith-based, funding, government, HHS, in-kind assistance, LIRS, Matching Grant program, Obama administration, ORR, PRM, State Department, USCCB, Volags (voluntary agencies) | Tagged: Church World Service, Congress, CWS, EMM, Health and Human Services, HHS, in-kind assistance, interfaith coalition, LIRS, Match Grant, Matching grant, Migration and Refugee Assistance account, MRA, Obama, Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR, private funding, public funding, refugees, resettlement, State Department, USCCB, volags | 2 Comments »
Christopher Coen
Melissa Sogard
nancylee1
