Archive for the ‘NSC (National Security Council)’ Category
Posted by Christopher Coen on August 27, 2010
The State Department’s top refugee official, assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration Eric P. Schwartz, has hinted that the administration is not interested in doing a major airlift to Guam of endangered Iraqis who worked for the US military and US contractors. The US government conducted similar airlift for US allies after the fall of Saigon in 1975 and from northern Iraq after Saddam Hussein’s troops moved to reclaim control of that area in 1996. In an article in the Washington Post Mr. Schwartz said that, instead, the Obama administration is focusing on promoting reconciliation and security in Iraq.
With the Iraqis…many more are arriving through the refugee program. But a separate program created by Congress for Iraqis who worked for the U.S. government has been criticized as cumbersome and ineffective.
Only about 2,100 of the 15,000 available visas have been issued under that program.
Recently, 22 House and Senate members wrote to the State and Defense departments asking for a comprehensive plan to protect the thousands of Iraqis who worked with U.S. forces, including a possible airlift.
“Schwartz has a great reputation,” said Kirk W. Johnson, executive director of the List Project to Resettle Iraqi Allies. “The main policy tool that I want put back on the table is directly derived from his leadership on Operation Pacific Haven.”
That was the airlift of U.S. allies from northern Iraq to Guam, after Saddam Hussein’s troops moved to reclaim control of that area in 1996.
Schwartz said the Obama administration is focusing on promoting reconciliation and security in Iraq. “We don’t expect the kind of contingency the members described,” he said. here
The article also praises Mr. Schwartz for doubling the per capita (per refugee) grant to refugee resettlement agencies for refugees first 30-90 days in the US.
Perhaps Schwartz’s greatest accomplishment in his current job hasn’t come overseas, but at home.
Early on, he traveled around the United States to see how resettled refugees were faring.
“It was heartbreaking to hear the stories,” he recalled. Refugees were struggling in the depressed economy, forced to decide between buying food or diapers for their children.
Schwartz realized that the State Department grant of $900 given to refugees for housing, food and other expenses for their first several weeks had not kept up with inflation. He decided to double it, to $1,800.
What no one considers here is that Mr. Schwartz doubled the money the State Department gives to refugee resettlement agencies without any corresponding promises by the agencies to abide by their resettlement contracts to give refugees at least the bare minimum required services and material items, which they have long failed to give. Mr. Schwartz has also kept in place the extremely cozy relationship the private resettlement agencies have with the State Department and other government oversight agencies; a type of relationship that always leads to wrongdoing by private businesses.
Posted in Assistant Secretary of the PRM, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), funding, Iraqi, NSC (National Security Council), Obama administration, PRM, SIV (Special Immigrant Visa) immigrants, State Department | Tagged: airlift, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), Eric Schwartz, Guam, Iraq, Iraqi refugees, PRM, refugee resettlement, refugee resettlement program, refugees, resettlement, resettlement agencies, SIV, State Department, Vietnam | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on July 19, 2010
The Indianapolis Star reports that refugees are not having an easy go of things in Indiana. Refugees, like US citizens, are having a hard time finding jobs, even with job training, and struggle to get by on limited government help. Local resettlement agencies are hoping that the Obama administration will come through with a lot of new government funding via the NSC’s “review” of the federal refugee program.
The U.S. government provides various forms of assistance to refugees — people who typically have escaped the ravages of war-torn nations where torture and political persecution are common — but it’s only available for up to eight months.
By then, it’s expected that refugees — even though many come with limited savings and often little or no English skills — will have found work and be self-sufficient.
…in this economy, many refugees…find it nearly impossible to get work, even with job training provided by the state.
Of the 1,862 refugees and political asylum grantees who resettled in Indiana in 2009, 49 percent became employed, with an average wage of less than $9 an hour.
That leaves many families relying heavily — or entirely — on short-term federal assistance.
…The Obama administration is conducting the first thorough review of the nation’s refugee resettlement system in three decades.
Major reforms are expected to be announced this summer and could include the extension of federal aid for eligible refugees past the current eight-month maximum.
Experts say the review is especially necessary now, given the struggling economy and shaky job market, and because it’s long overdue.
The current system remains virtually unchanged from when it was established by Congress in 1980, when the country was dealing with a wave of refugees from Southeast Asia. Now, the population is more diverse: Last year, nearly 75,000 refugees from more than 70 countries arrived in the United States.
“It’s a cookie-cutter approach to resettlement at this point,” said Carleen Miller, executive director of Exodus Refugee Immigration Inc., which, along with Catholic Charities Indianapolis, is one of two agencies that resettle newcomers in the Circle City.
“There’s not a lot of flexibility to really meet the unique needs of . . . the people that are coming,” Miller said. “It’s never been reviewed to see if it’s really meeting the needs of the current populations that are coming.”
…”The expectation of the United States government is that people are self-sufficient within six months, and that’s really difficult in this economy, plus it’s difficult for the groups that are coming right now.” here
I notice that all the “experts” this journalist refers to are contractors for the refugee program. Is it really any surprise they all want more free government money as the one and only solution to all the problems that plague the program? No one seems to think about how more public funds could drive out the few private funds remaining in the program.
Also, Miller’s statement that the US government expects that refugees be self-sufficient in six months is not correct. If Miller would check her State Department refugee contract she would see that they expect her organization to help 75% of refugees find jobs within six months – and the State Department has dropped that expectation entirely during this recession. Plus, why would the government offer eight months of Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA) if they expected everyone to have a job within six months?
The article also mentions medical issues for refugees.
Other issues compound the problem. Because refugees increasingly are coming from war-torn nations such as Iraq, more have such medical issues as shrapnel wounds and amputations.
Those medical issues are yet another difficult hurdle many refugees must overcome in their efforts to find employment and become self-sufficient — and it’s an issue that often requires time.
“I think there are going to be more medical cases,” Miller said, “so this review couldn’t have come at a better time.”
I don’t understand this claim that refugees are increasingly coming from war-torn nations. Haven’t refugees always come from war-torn nations? I know that many non-refugees from the FSR (former-Soviet republics) given refugee status probably didn’t have war injuries, but most refugees have always been fleeing wars, as well as fleeing oppressive regimes that did not offer medical care for their people and that employed torture on opponents.
How will the NSC review address this issue? The national volags are supposedly required to have a plan for placing refugees in their network in places where they can receive proper medical treatment, although somehow refugees keep being placed in cities that do not have torture treatment programs. All the requirements in the world don’t matter if they are not enforced. Also, we already have social security disability payments. Many Americans resent that refugees arrive here and begin to receive social security payments when they haven’t been adding to the social security pot. If disability payments aren’t good enough, what else are the resettlement agencies proposing here?
We won’t know the answer to that until the NSC releases the results of its review because all the meetings have been behind closed doors and only involved the refugee contractors and government agencies. The public was not invited to take part. I hope the refugees aren’t noticing how we practice democracy in this program.
Posted in State Department, NSC (National Security Council), Iraqi, Indiana, health, reform, faith-based, Christian, Obama administration, funding, Exodus Refugee Immigration, Catholic, employment/jobs for refugees, openess and transparency in government, Catholic Charities Indianapolis, Palestinian, Indianapolis | Tagged: NSC, State Department, refugees, National Security Council, Obama, resettlement, Indiana, Exodus Refugee Immigration, Catholic Charities Indianapolis, Refugee Cash Assistance, RCA, FSR, social security disability | 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 Christopher Coen on June 23, 2010
The Los Angeles Times has an article on President Obama’s NSC review of the resettlement program, but it seems they got all their information from the resettlement agencies and their friends in the government here.
The IRC’s Bob Carey claims refugee women can’t feed their children! Apparently then resettlement agency workers, such as those at the IRC, aren’t helping them to apply for food stamps and WIC.
“The system is broken,” said Robert Carey, chairman of Refugee Council USA, an umbrella group of resettlement and advocacy groups. “There are women who can’t feed their children adequately and people who are really being brought into poverty. … There is a federal obligation in this to ensure that people brought in here are given the basic tools to rebuild their lives.”
Among other myths being spread by the resettlement contractors is that the system is broken because it’s a “one-size-fits-all-system.”
When the system was established by Congress in 1980, the U.S. was responding to an influx of refugees fleeing Southeast Asia, said Eskinder Negash, director of the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement. Today, the caseload is more diverse and a one-size-fits-all approach is no longer effective, he said. In fiscal year 2009, the U.S. accepted nearly 75,000 refugees from more than 70 countries, including many with special needs, such as single mothers and torture victims.
It’s funny because none of these insiders mention that $200 of the State Department per person grant (not per family) may be used by the resettlement contractors for special needs of any of the agency’s refugees that they choose.
They also don’t mention that the resettlement contractors are the ones who are supposed to write a personalized plan for each employable refugee specific to that refugee — special needs, obstacles to employment, etc. One size doesn’t fit all, and that’s where federal resettlement agency contractors are supposed to use their supposed expertise to help refugees. Instead they say the government should solve the problem. Then why do we need their great “private sector contribution”, which they so often tout?
It’s also ironic that former resettlement agency worker, and new ORR Director, Eskinder Negash (via the revolving door) complains about the difficulties of taking in so many diverse refugees. The resettlement agencies are the ones who constantly begged for new refugee groups to come in. If they really wanted to help more people wouldn’t they take more refugees from fewer groups, rather than some refugees from ever-increasing multiple groups? Where was the planning that should have been put in place before taking in groups for whom the resettlement agencies had few interpreters, e.g. the Burmese Karen, Karenni, and Chin? There was 20 years to plan while the refugees rotted in refugee camps in Thailand. Oops, let’s not talk about that.
Yet another complaint from resettlement agencies is that benefits for refugees vary by state. They fail to mention that cost-of-living varies by state as well.
The amount of public assistance refugees are offered varies among states and often doesn’t cover basic needs. In San Diego, a family of four typically receives about $828 a month compared with $335 a month in Phoenix, according to resettlement workers.
But if you read the State Department monitoring reports for, say Phoenix (see our tab above) you quickly learn that Phoenix was sold as a good resettlement site for refugees specifically because apartment rents are low (no mention of the lousy mass transit for low-income workers, with jobs on one side of the sprawled city, and affordable housing on the other, and the grueling heat (try 120 degrees fareinheit) refugees must stand in waiting for buses with multiple connections). So why shouldn’t refugees in expensive San Diego get more for rent than those in Phoenix? Am I being too logical?
I’m waiting for any reporter to really analyze the so-called NSC “review” of the refugee program to see if it is really anything other than a review of various ways to get more free public money to the government’s refugee agencies and their private partner friends.
In the meantime, our group continues to struggle to help refugees, while not taking even one government nickel.
Posted in Burma/Myanmar, funding, IRC, Karen, Karenni, NSC (National Security Council), Obama administration, ORR, Phoenix, R&P, reform, Refugees International, San Diego, State Department | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on June 18, 2010
June 20th marks World Refugee Day, a day when we look at the plight of all refugees, not just those resettled to the U.S., but the overwhelming majority of refugees who will never be resettled here or to any other nation. While the world’s refugee population is growing, the world is able to resettle less than 1% of them. The cost of resettling refugees is inarguable enormous, which always brings up the issue of the best way to spend limited resources on the world’s refugee population.
A 2002 study by North Dakota State University in Fargo estimated that a refugee family of four costs the taxpayer $21,965, just for the initial resettlement period. Although there are certain advantages to resettlement — refugees who are able to thrive in the U.S. are then able to significantly aid their cohorts who stay behind — there is no doubt that we could aid far more refugees by redirecting the dollars used on resettlement for those who stay behind in limbo. The 99% of refugees who stay behind are desperately in need of food, medicine, medical care, and protection. Only people deluded by the PR of domestic refugee resettlement agency contractors — exalted “partners” in refugee resettlement speak – who claim that resettlement is unquestionable, would not be bothered by this dilemma.
It would help if the U.S. refugee program did refugee resettlement well, but we are regularly deluged with accounts from refugees whom resettlement agencies have placed in deplorable conditions, often times in dangerous urban neighborhoods, and left to fend for themselves with little of the minimum-required help that the agencies promise to give when taking public funds. Regularly refugees must scrounge for furnishings and household items from dumpsters. Regularly resettlement agencies fail to give even used clothing, to adequately help refugees to look for jobs, or to help refugees to adequately deal with American ways, such as endless paperwork, which are foreign to them. In response to this neglect, and often times even abuse, the resettlement agencies’ friends in government regularly conspire to coverup and whitewash the offenses. This leaves many of us in the community who help refugees wondering how much of our system’s response to the world refugee issue is based on solid and wise thinking and strategy, and how much of it is just the corruption, cronyism, and egotism we regularly see in the resettlement program in our own communities.
For those groups who claim to really care for the world’s refugees it is now past the time when they need to put their money where their mouths are. Instead of depending on constant easy government money for the “charity” they take credit for, they need to start raising significant private funds for refugee assistance. They must also be honest with the American people and open their refugee programs to real public scrutiny. The U.S. Refuge Admissions Program is a public program serving the people of the United States, not a club for elite “partners”.
We also take this occasion of World Refugee Day, with 2010 marking the 30th anniversary of the Refugee Act of 1980, to call on Samantha Powers (Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director, Multilateral and Humanitarian Affairs, National Security Council) to open up to the public the NSC’s comprehensive interagency review of the U.S. refugee resettlement program. So far there has been zero effort to include the views of anyone outside the refugee resettlement establishment, including any views considered to dissent from the standard “refugee resettlement agencies and their friends in government can do no wrong” canon. In the name of democracy and human rights we call on Dr. Powers to immediately make public all documents of the interagency task force, and open discussion of the plan for reform to all community groups, not just those government agencies and so-called refugee charities who hope to benefit from increased government funding of their programs.
Posted in abuse, neglect, NSC (National Security Council), Samantha Powers, World Refugee Day | Tagged: contractors, June 20, national security agency, NSC, partners, partnership, refugee, Refugee Act of 1980, refugees, resettlement, volags, World Refugee Day | 1 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 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: Committee on the Judiciary, Congress, Dan Glickman, hearing, LIRS, National Security Council, NSC, R&P, refugee, Refugee Protection Act of 2010, refugees, Refugees International, Resettlement & Placement, Resettlement and Placement, Secretary of State, senate, State Department | Leave a Comment »
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: Assistant Secretary of State, Congress, Department of Health and Human Services, EMM, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), Eric Schwartz, Gary C. Peters, HHS, interagency task force, National Security Council, NSC, Obama, Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR, Population Refugees and Migration, PRM, RCUSA, reform, refugee, Refugee Council USA, refugees, review, Samantha Powers, volags, White House | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on March 30, 2010
The bad news from Fredericksburg, Virginia just keeps coming in (here). Our previous post on this case is here. Area churches are now saying that USCCB’s Catholic Diocese of Arlington left refugees in apartments without food or beds, and did not take refugees to the doctor’s office.
Meanwhile, many Fredericksburg-area refugees wonder whether they were better off in the camps. Some call relatives back home and tell them to stay where they are.
At least four families that resettled in the Fredericksburg area have returned to the Middle East.
Church leaders in the area said they were shocked to visit newly arriving refugees only to discover refrigerators containing just a carton of spoiled milk, houses without beds, and sick people who had not seen a doctor. Some area volunteers chronicled 36 instances of refugees lacking the basic services required by the State Department.
This is obviously nothing new. We have seen this at resettlement agencies around the country for the past decade, even far before the current recession. Why can’t the State Department make sure its refugee contract requirements are being fulfilled? Why don’t resettlement agencies stop taking new refugees when they are no longer able to help additional incoming refugees? (By the way, those refugees that returned to the Middle East must have been Iraqis).
Local churches asked government agencies for help, and government officials came in for visits, but the problems didn’t end. Why not? What’s the point of fancy visits by officials if they can’t get resettlement agencies to abide by basic contract requirements?
“…clergy say the resettlement program, in some ways, ties their hands.
When area volunteers encountered problems with the resettlement office, they didn’t know where to turn.
The problems grew. Eventually, area clergy brought in officials from the State Department, Health and Human Services, the U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops and political offices.
The churches asked for a halt in arrivals.
‘But at the end of the day, we have to help these people,’ said the Rev. Larry Haun, pastor of Fredericksburg Baptist Church. ‘If they’re still going to come, then we need to fix a broken system.’ “
The article also points out that the public cannot follow how much money is going into the program, especially from private sources. Neither the government oversight agencies nor the private refugee resettlement agencies show how much money, if any, the resettlement agencies are actually adding to all the government grants and contracts. So how are we to check whether they really need more government funding? Are we to take their word for it? Where is the transparency?
See State Department 2007 monitoring. Note that in spite of their inspection and their recommendations, with no penalties imposed, not much seems to have changed.
*Update — April 2, 2010 Editorial at Free Lance-Star (here)
Posted in arlington, beds, Catholic, Catholic Diocese of Arlington, churches, food, funding, Iraqi, neglect, NSC (National Security Council), reform, transportation, USCCB, Virginia, volunteers | Tagged: arlington, beds, blankets, catholic church, Catholic Diocese of Arlington, churches, clergy, contract requirements, contracts, food, fredericksburg, Fredericksburg Baptist Church, grants, Health and Human Services, HHS, Iraqis, middle east, pastor, refugee, refugees, resettlement agencies, State Department, transparency, transportation, U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops, USCCB, Virginia, volunteers | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on March 5, 2010
Friends of Refugees’ presented a list of recommendations to the National Security Council for President Obama’s comprehensive review of the U.S. refugee resettlement program (here).
Here are the specific recommendations for the state refugee coordinators:
- Stop forwarding details of specific refugee cases that have been reported as neglected or abused to resettlement agencies before government oversight agencies have first had a chance to look at the case files for those cases.
- Take immediate action to investigate all details of all reported cases of refugee neglect and abuse, and report back to community members and groups what steps they have taken to investigate the problems and what has been learned (refugee cases may be referred to generically as case A, B, C, etc. due to confidentiality concerns. Confidentiality concerns are not to be used to avoid accountability.)
- Abide by all federal laws and regulations and state laws, such as state’s open records and sunshine statutes. Currently some state refugee coordinators place themselves above the law with regard to these state laws.
- Report all serious cases of refugee resettlement agency neglect and abuse reported to them to state ombudsman or other designated state investigatory officials.
- Provide assistance to refugees who have been the subject of crimes, or have family members who have been subjected to crime, in order to relocate to safer housing or neighborhoods. (The PRM must discontinue the flow of free-case refugees to states indefinitely whose state refugee coordinators do not comply with this requirement.)
Posted in government, NSC (National Security Council), PRM, reform | Tagged: comprehensive review, friends of refugees, interagency task force, National Security Council, NSC, Obama, PRM, program, proposals, reform, refugee, refugee resettlement, refugees, review, state refugee coordinators | Leave a Comment »
Christopher Coen
Melissa Sogard
nancylee1
