Archive for the ‘Cooperative Agreement’ Category
Posted by Christopher Coen on February 12, 2012
David Robinson, acting assistant secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration apparently spent some time discussing the new refugee law implemented in Tennessee last year – the Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act. State Sen. Jim Tracy, who sponsored the Act, alleges that the State Department thinks the new bill [actually a law now], which allows for local refugee moratoriums and codifies the federal regulation requiring quarterly meetings between resettlement agencies and local officials, is “just fine”. (???) An article in the Shelbyville Times-Gazette gives a view of the meeting from Tracy’s perspective:
A top representative of the U.S. State Department was in Tennessee this week to discuss a law dealing with the state’s refugee resettlement program.
The Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act, which originated from the desk of State Sen. Jim Tracy, became law last July. It’s the first bill of its kind.
It requires the state’s refugee program agency, Catholic Charities, to meet four times a year with local governments to plan and coordinate “the appropriate placement of refugees in advance of the refugees’ arrival …”
The law also allows local communities to apply for a “moratorium” on refugee resettlement if those agencies overload local resources, and so far, Tennessee is the only state that has passed this type of legislation…
A number of refugees from a variety of countries, such as Somalia, Burma and Egypt, have moved to Shelbyville in recent years to be closer to jobs at the Tyson Foods facility.
Tyson Foods needs workers who will willingly accept relatively low pay for the repetitive motion, cold environment jobs, and new refugee immigrants need jobs to support their families. (Alternatively, Americans could pay higher meat prices and the government could require companies like Tyson Foods to pay a more livable wage.)
…On Wednesday, David Robinson, acting assistant secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, met with Tracy and other parties to discuss the law passed last year, the state senator told the T-G.
“That was the whole purpose of the visit, and they thought the bill was fine,” Tracy said, but he added that even though provisions in the new state refugee law passed last year was already codified in federal law, it had not been enforced…
Perhaps the State Department refugee office isn’t bothered by the new law’s quarterly meetings requirement, since it’s already an ORR regulation, but why would they think that the new law is just fine? Are moratoriums compatible with the constitutional provision that allows people freedom of movement? The government may not single out specific groups of people to restrict their freedom of movement (individuals get to decide for themselves where they want to live in this country).
…”If you are going to bring refugees into a community, you need to meet with community leaders, mayor, councilmen, commissioners, school superintendents, hospitals, anyone that an influx of a refugee group would affect,” Tracy said, explaining the reasons for the law being passed last year.
…Tracy said he “thought it was interesting that we had to codify something in state law to get [the State Department's] attention.”…
Yes that is interesting. Also interesting is why other government refugee program-related regulations and contract requirements are also regularly ignored. World Relief feels free to worship on the public’s nickel, even though its prohibited by a federal regulation, and their ORR partner has ignored our complaint about that practice. Also, the quite minimal “minimum requirements” that the resettlement agencies agree to meet in the refugee program are regularly flouted, and the State Department refugee office does not enforce those requirements or penalize the resettlement contractors. In practice this does not seem to have been working well for decades — the resettlement contractors just continue to violate regulations and contract requirements year after year. (What does that say about the public/private partnership philosophy in which contractors are put on pedestals and government oversight agencies don’t exercise much authority?)
…Tracy explained he also had questions for Robinson, talking about the local unemployment rate and about refugees getting on state assisted benefits, while the State Department discussed “sustainability” of the refugees. Supposedly, the refugees have 90 days to become sustainable in this country, Tracy said.
“The question we had for them was ‘what’s the definition of sustainability,’” Tracy said. “We had a good discussion about it.”…
Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if they shared that discussion with the public? After all, this is a publicly run and funded humanitarian program. The State Department refugee office apparently gave advance notice to all so-called “stakeholders”, except for the last minute notice to the public and press.
…”It was a pretty high level meeting,” Tracy said. “They were very concerned who was going to be in the meeting, it was very interesting.”
Tracy said that the State Department wanted to clarify that they had no control over secondary migration, when refugees leave the city they were initially settled in and go elsewhere.
The senator said that’s why the law is “so important, because we’re bringing refugees into Tennessee, the majority of them settle in Nashville, Knoxville, Memphis and Chattanooga,” but they eventually migrate to smaller towns…
So, what the state senator doesn’t seem to understand is that, under the Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act, Shelbyville and other localities will not be able to request any local moratoriums on refugee resettlement since no one is resettling refugees to those places. Refugees are moving to Shelbyville on their own for meatpacking industry jobs, in what is known as “secondary migration”.
…”It was interesting that they (the State Department) would travel to Tennessee to talk about the legislation that we passed last year and I really take it as a compliment,” Tracy said Friday. “I think they were already supposed to be doing that, and in Tennessee, they have to be doing that now.” Read more here
I guess I’d like to hear the State Department’s version of what was said at this “pretty high level meeting”, but since they treat refugee resettlement as a secret program, which seems only to guard against accountability, I won’t hold my breath.
***UPDATE*** — While the public had to sit outside the meeting one of the so-called “stakeholders” invited to the meeting was the lobbyist Jennifer Murphy of the Catholic Public Policy Commission of Tennessee.
Posted in State Department, ORR, World Relief, Cooperative Agreement, Somali, Assistant Secretary of the PRM, meatpacking industry, public/private partnership, Tennessee, openess and transparency in government, secondary migration, refugee, local officials, failure to notify, capacity, Catholic Charities of Tennessee, Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting, Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting, legislation, Murfreesboro/Shelbyville | Tagged: Catholic Public Policy Commission of Tennessee., David Robinson, federal contractors, moratorium, Population Refugees and Migration, PRM, Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act, refugees, regulations, resettlement, Tennessee | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on January 26, 2012
This topic seems to fall under the “Do not do” section of the best practices category. According to the State Department resettlement contracts, resettlement contractors are not to place incoming refugee cases in temporary housing, rather they should place refugees in their own permanent housing, e.g. an apartment rental, upon their arrival. Nevertheless, some contractors do this despite the requirement (I understand that once in a while refugees arrive in the US on short notice from the State Department, but what other excuse contractors are using for use of temporary housing I am not aware of). According to a July 2009 monitoring inspection, World Relief Aurora – an affiliate of World Relief in Aurora, Illinois – is one of the contractors that government inspectors found which have failed to place refugees into their own housing upon arrival. In this case, the agency placed refugees into the homes of unrelated refugee host families.
Monitors visited four refugee families and found that none of the adults were working yet, even though they were eager to work — one family had been in Aurora for four months, and another refugee man three months earlier. In addition, none of the refugees had received an initial health screening, which the Operational Guidance contract document requires be done within 30 days of their arrival. With regard to the housing:
…All of the refugees that monitors visited except [an] Iraqi family had been placed with unrelated refugee host families for a few days when they first arrived until they could sign leases for their own apartments. No form of written agreement showed what the host families had agreed to provide or for what period. The affiliate assured monitors that they provide bedding and other supplies, and that families usually volunteered. The Burmese Chin refugee told monitors that his bed and other items belonged to a previous tenant who had moved away. A case note in his file also revealed that the affiliate had asked the refugee to pay a previous tenant’s rent share for a period before the refugee moved in. The young Karenni refugee did not understand what furnishings were his to keep if he moved out… Read report here
Here is a snippet from a February 2010 posting which shows World Relief has long-placed refugees into non-permanent housing upon arrival.
… [a] Burundian refugee woman in Boise should not have lived with church members after initially arriving in Boise. The State Department’s Admissions Office has repeatedly warned World Relief affiliates (here, here and here) that this practice is prohibited…
Posted in best practices, Chicago, Cooperative Agreement, faith-based, housing, Karenni, late health screenings, Operational Guidance, World Relief | Tagged: best practices, Cooperative Agreement, inspection, monitoring, refugees, Relief Aurora, resettlement, World | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on January 24, 2012
Today the State Department’s PRM Bureau had a live chat session on their Facebook page with Acting Assistant Secretary David Robinson. This was my question:
Christopher Coen’s question: Why are Office of Admissions’ inspections of refugee resettlement contractors not unannounced, and why are there no penalties for the contractors’ failure to meet Cooperative Agreement contract requirements?
U.S. Department of State: Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration: PRM announces visits up to two weeks in advance, and home visits two days in advance. Just so you know, PRM requires corrective actions that correspond with the level of non-compliance. This could include stopping placement of refugees through a particular contractor. In fact, this year, monitoring findings factored into the Cooperative Agreement awards. In general, we view our auditing and monitoring and evaluation programs as cooperative tools to correct mistakes and respond to inadequacies. In the rare instances we find faults too serious to fix, we take immediate action, including the possible removal of an organization from our work.
Don’t unannounced inspections reveal how a place really operates? Announced inspections allow the refugee resettlement contractors to make preparations (clean things up?). If you read through some of the State Department monitoring reports you will see that the contractors’ refugee case notes (part of the record that the monitors use to test the contractors’ quality of services) often do not correspond to the services and material items that the refugees say that the agencies gave them. The case notes also sometimes do not conform to what the monitors find in other parts of the records, and in their interviews with a small sample of refugees (3-4 refugee cases). Announced inspections allow for altering of the records (monitoring reports show the use of white-out liquid, and pro forma individual refugee self-sufficiency plans). Computerized case management notes can make the possible alteration of records difficult to detect.
The other problem is how rare these inspections are – once in ten years or more, according to the results of our monitoring reports FOIA requests (once in five according to a senior State Department official I spoke with in 2010 who refused to speak for attribution).
It’s good to see that State Department monitoring findings are finally being factored into the Cooperative Agreement awards (the State Department’s non-competitive grants to the private resettlement contractors), yet how are they being factored in? Why are their no penalties for non-compliance with contract requirements other than the rarely used temporary suspension or removal of an “affiliate” — a subcontractor — resettlement agency?
A friend of our group asked the following question:
U.S. Department of State: Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration: I want to repost and answer Cevon Anderson’s earlier question.
Have you performed any financial audits of the numerous resettlement agencies you have found to be not in compliance with State Department cooperative agreement requirements?
U.S. Department of State: Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration: Thanks for your question, Cevon. As government officials and taxpayers, we believe strongly that we must be good stewards of our tax dollars. We regularly monitor programs, and our cooperative agreements require quarterly financial status reports and a final financial report be submitted to the Bureau’s Office of the Comptroller. In addition, recipients of our financing must have an appropriate audit performed by independent public accountants in accordance with U.S. Government Auditing standards. That audit must include confirmation that the reported quarterly charges were actually incurred in the amounts and during the periods specified and that the reported charges were not based on average costs, estimates, or predetermined fees.
U.S. Department of State: Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration: Finally, we implement an aggressive monitoring and evaluation program throughout the year, visiting dozens of resettlement sites around the country and our facilities overseas to assure compliance with our standards, rules and regulations.
Yet, when State Department monitors primarily rely on contractors’ own written records as proof of compliance with basic requirements of the State Department contracts (services to refugees), aren’t those records the basis that the audits rest upon? These resettlement contractors’ records are also sometimes left incomplete.
It’s also hard for me to think of these monitoring inspections as “aggressive” when they are so rare, and there are no penalties for non-compliance (again, other than the very rare suspension or termination of a refugee resettlement contractor). How does the State Department “assure compliance with…standards, rules and regulations” when these once-in-5-to-10 years-or-more-inspections show that the contractors quite regularly are not even complying with the “minimum” standards of the contracts? Other federal government agencies make contractors give back contract money when there is proof of lack of contract compliance. Isn’t that the minimum we should expect? Why would private resettlement contractors have any incentive to prevent continuing and future problems in their services when there are no teeth in the government oversight? That just seems like management 101 to me.
Posted in Assistant Secretary of the PRM, Cooperative Agreement, funding, neglect, openess and transparency in government, public/private partnership, State Department | Tagged: assistant secretary, Cooperative Agreement, David Robinson, government contractors, government contrcats, Population Refugees and Migration, PRM, public/private partnership, refugees, resettlement | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on October 30, 2011
It turns out that resettlement agencies in Lancaster, Pennsylvania have not been giving coats or good shoes to refugees as early as the winter of 2009 (even though resettlement agencies sign a contract with the US State Department promising that they will give refugees Appropriate seasonal clothing required for work, school, and everyday use as required for all members of the family, including proper footwear for each member of the family, here). A school district official also visited refugee families and found instances where two or more Bhutanese families sharing an apartment. The two local resettlement agencies, Church World Service Lancaster and Lutheran Children and Family Service of Eastern PA, apparently had not even informed the School District of Lancaster – or at least the School District’s point person for homeless students – about the arrival of the Bhutanese families. An article in the Intelligencer Journal/Lancaster New Era covers this resettlement site:
In late 2009, with winter setting in, the children of some Bhutanese families were coming to school without coats or good shoes.
Ken Marzinko, School District of Lancaster’s point person for homeless students, started visiting the parents, and in some cases, found two or more Bhutanese families sharing an apartment.
“I was caught off guard,” Marzinko said of hearing about the refugees and their needs.
Like most Americans, Marzinko wasn’t aware the United States had in 2008 begun taking in 60,000 of the more than 100,000 Bhutanese crowding camps in Nepal. More than 800 now live in Lancaster County, and many more are in the pipeline... Read more here
The most recent State Department inspections of the two local resettlement agencies, from 2006, show other problems. The report for Church World Service Lancaster shows that only 53% of refugee clients were employed after 90 days, even though jobs at that time were quite plentiful in Lancaster, with an unemployment rate of only 3.4% in 2006. Agency staff had also used white out throughout the case logs.
The Lutheran Children and Family Service inspection report also showed that refugees’ relatives who helped with their resettlement did not understand that the agency was ultimately responsible for all contract requirements. Apparently the agency had duped these relatives into believing that they were responsible for the requirements of the agency’s contract (a common occurence according to these State Department monitoring reports). In three of four refugee homes that monitors visited, batteries in smoke detectors were dead.
Although the two agencies, the Lutheran agency being a subcontractor of LIRS, were vested with the State Department contract requirement that each refugee receive a physical health screening within 30 days, refugees were not being screened within that time requirement. Case logs also did not make references to airport reception of refugees and employment referals – as supposedly equired – so that there was no documentation that these services were provided by the resettlement agencies.
Posted in children, clothes, Cooperative Agreement, CWS, employment services, faith-based, housing, housing, overcrowding, late health screenings, Lutheran, Lutheran Children and Family Service of Eastern PA, meeting refugees at the airport, Nepali Bhutanese, Operational Guidance, Pennsylvania, State Department | Tagged: bhutanese, Church World Service, Church World Service Lancaster, CWS, federal contractors, LIRS, Lutheran Children and Family Service of Eastern Pennsylvania, Lutheran immigration and refugee services, refugees, resettlement | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on May 24, 2011
Don’t think the deplorable conditions under which Australian refugee resettlement contractors are resettling refugees in Newcastle are any different from what keeps happening over here on the other side of the big pond. In Milwaukee journalists just busted Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan for placing Burmese refugees in an apartment building overflowing with code violations, roaches, and leaking sewage, and run by a known child-porn felon. He has been convicted of tax offenses, has a history of serious building-code violations, and is being sued by the city in four different lawsuits – yet Lutheran Social Services claims they have the best interests of the refugees at heart — for sure. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel tells more:
Dozens of Burmese refugees who fled persecution in their homeland have landed in recent years in cockroach-infested Milwaukee apartments, some thick with the smell of leaking sewage and almost all unprotected by working smoke or carbon monoxide detectors.
Many of the refugees were placed in the squalid conditions by Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, which acknowledges it never conducted a background check on the complex’s owner, Daniel Bruckner, a Fox Point lawyer.
State and city records reviewed by the Journal Sentinel show Bruckner faces hundreds of city building code violations and four city lawsuits, owes nearly a half-million dollars in delinquent property taxes and has seven felony convictions for importing child pornography.
Lutheran Social Services was unaware of Bruckner’s code violations and legal troubles, said Natascha Malkemes, a spokeswoman for the agency.
“We should know these things,” she conceded, adding,”We have our clients’ best interests at heart for sure.”
On Friday, the agency - which is paid federal dollars to settle refugees - released a statement saying, “The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has recently made our organization aware of litigation against and a criminal record of a landlord we have worked with in the past. Because of this development, Lutheran Social Services will immediately begin looking into ways to put procedures in place to apply background check standards on all of the landlords we work with.”
In addition, the agency pledged to contact the refugees who rent from Bruckner and assist any who wish to move.
Bruckner placed the blame for most of his 443 building-code infractions at Wilson Park Garden Apartments on his tenants, especially the Burmese refugees…
…The U.S. State Department’s standard agreement with social services agencies says refugees should have “decent, safe and sanitary housing” with working smoke detectors, adequate heat and electrical fixtures, and should be “free of rodent and insect infestation” with “no detectable dangerous or unsanitary odors.”
But in interview after interview, refugees living in the apartments on S. 20th St. said they had tried for months without success to get Bruckner to fix failings in these areas…
…The cockroach problems had persisted for months, according to residents, and were evident in numerous visits by reporters to the complex.
At night, bugs came out and bit her children, explained Paw Shee during an interview two weeks ago. Shee, a 36-year-old, lives at the apartment complex with her husband, three children and an army of roaches. Sometimes the bugs crawled over her face, Shee said,
speaking through an interpreter.
When workers finally fumigated apartments on May 5, they did so while adults and young children were inside, according to the residents. Missy Henriksen, a spokeswoman for the National Pest Management Association, said manufacturers usually recommend that a spray be dry before people re-enter a room.
One floor above, Moo Nge, his wife and their five children had one of the few carbon monoxide detectors in the apartments that reporters visited. The detector was installed only after Moo Nge was rushed to the hospital in September with carbon monoxide poisoning, which family members said happened when he was cooking. The hospitalization forced him to miss work, and he lost his temp job.
On the top floor of the same building lives a woman named Mu Mu, 43, her three children and three other family members. Their refrigerator is broken. So is one of the toilets, and there is a gaping hole behind the bathtub faucet.
“We tried to call, but he did not come,” Mu Mu said when asked about the landlord…
…Malkemes acknowledged that her agency had no idea that Bruckner is a convicted felon with a history of serious building-code violations who is being sued by the city in four different lawsuits. She agreed that these issues could affect the safety of the refugees.
When asked about the cockroach infestation at the apartments, Malkemes said by email: “New arrivals come from refugee camps where they had no electricity or running water, and sometimes are not accustomed to general upkeep or how to properly store food. In these camps, refugees are often exposed to insects and this is their everyday (life).”
Non-refugees agree
Although Bruckner and his building manager blamed refugees for the cockroach problem, other tenants who are not refugees also described having infestation problems at Wilson Park Garden Apartments. Moreover, these tenants provided accounts that mirrored other hardships cited by the refugees.
Families described arriving in winter to apartments without heat, going days without working refrigerators and weeks or months without working stoves. The problems the families described are consistent with those cited in inspectors’ reports.
Despite these conditions, the non-refugee tenants were paying as much as $845 a month in rent…Read more here
Let’s see, what could be LIRS’ excuse this time? No doubt it will be the same tired old excuses – their affiliate (subcontractor) didn’t
“know” about the apartments or the slumlord running the place. (Why not? Aren’t they paid to know?) Or, Lutheran Social Services has been growing. Gee, isn’t that the point of having LIRS and its vast experience on hand to advise and oversee its affiliate? And why didn’t the State Department know about this mess? Oh I forgot, LIRS and the other volags are “partners” and are supposed to “self-monitor” their affiliates. Yet once again that method proves disastrous. In the meantime the State Dept. monitors most likely haven’t inspected for years. These refugees would have continued to suffer in these deplorable conditions had journalists not intervened.
Lutheran Social Services claims it “will immediately begin looking into ways to put procedures in place to apply background check standards on all of the landlords we work with”? Yet LIRS has been
resettling refugees for decades and the State Department and
journalists have continually caught them placing refugees into
deplorable slum apartments. Why aren’t background checks the norm at every LIRS affiliate?
Will we see the State Department’s Office of Admissions conduct a timely Australian-style investigation – with an investigation report made immediately available to the public? Don’t count on it. Our national refugee resettlement program seems to be run secretively with the sole purpose of shielding the private refugee resettlement contractor partners and their government oversight friends from any real accountability.
Posted in Burma/Myanmar, Cooperative Agreement, faith-based, home visits, housing, housing, substandard, Karen, LIRS, Lutheran, Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, Milwaukee, openess and transparency in government, rats and roaches, State Department, Wisconsin | Tagged: Burma/Myanmar, Cooperative Agreement, government contract, human rights, Karen, LIRS, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Lutheran social services, Lutheran Social Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, Milwaukee, Myanmar, Office of Admissions, pedaphile, porn felon, refugee, refugee resettlement, refugee resettlement agencies, refugee resettlement program, resettlement, slumlord, State Department, substandard housing, tax evasion, Wilson Park Garden Apartments, Wisconsin | 1 Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on May 16, 2011
Nashville Public Radio is reporting that Tennessee’s House and Senate have passed the state refugee bill that would mandate that resettlement agencies report quarterly to local governments. It would also allow local communities to apply for a “moratorium” on refugee resettlement, with resettlement agencies, if those agencies overload local services.
…Refugee resettlement bill – The full House and Senate have now voted to require any agency that administers the state’s refugee program, which is currently Catholic Charities of Tennessee, to report quarterly to local governments.
SB 1670 from Sen. Jim Tracy of Shelbyville, which has seen a huge growth in Somali refugees, is called the Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act.
It’s designed to help local authorities plan for schools and emergency services. But it also requires Catholic Charities to accept an application from a local government for a moratorium on new refugee resettlement if a host community lacks sufficient capacity… Read more here
This bill should be unnecessary as an ORR regulation and the State Department’s Cooperative Agreement contract with resettlement agencies supposedly already require state refugee coordinators (in this case Catholic Charities itself as the state of Tennessee has dropped out of oversight responsibilities) to convene quarterly meetings with local officials. But this is the problem with under-monitored and unenforced requirements, which our national refugee resettlement program is rife with. Government oversight agencies have little authority in their relationships with refugee resettlement contractors who are thought of as “partners”. Enforcement of requirements and rigorous monitoring wouldn’t be partner-like. Hence we now have a state legislature attempting to codify a federal regulation. Doesn’t this undermine Tennessee residents’ trust of the national resettlement program? Every other lack of enforcement of basic requirements also undermines the public’s trust.
Posted in Catholic Charities of Tennessee, Cooperative Agreement, legislation, moratorium / restriction, ORR, State Department, Tennessee | Tagged: Cooperative Agreement, human rights, Nashville, Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR, refugee, Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act, refugee resettlement, refugee resettlement agencies, resettlement, Shelbyville, State Department, Tennessee | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Melissa Sogard on April 3, 2011
Refugee resettlement agencies seem to give nearly every refugee household old and worn non-stick pots and pans. The reason is that these are items are donated by organizations, religious groups, and individuals who are trying to help, are therefore plentiful. The problem is, these items are broken. Not only are they broken, but they are particularly dangerous for refugees who may never have cooked before on electric stoves (its not uncommon for refugees to leave empty pots on burners that are still on; that’s just a common error for people who are adapting to this new – to them -technology).
Why are these items dangerous? The problem lies with flaking non-stick coatings on this cookware and the resultant uneven heating that might accelerate emissions of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) – used in making the coatings. Emissions of this chemical into a home’s air – especially when overheated - can cause flu-like illnesses in people, and can actually kill pet birds (think of the use of canaries in coal mines). Refugees simply often overheat cookware on their electric stoves as they learn to use electric ranges for the first time in their lives.
The other problem is that most of the affordable apartments that refugee resettlement agencies place these refugees in have the typical nonventilating fans over the stove, which just recycle air through old filters that no one has changed in years. Also, refugee clients often use metal utencils on their pots and pans, and even if during 15-minute home-safety orientations resettlement personnel remember to mention to refugee clients not to do this, one or two times is rarely enough.
Donated cookware that has flaking non-stick coatings must be tossed in the garbage. None of us would use these items, and neither should refugee clients. Plus – the State Department contract makes it clear that agencies must not give items to refugees which are not “in good condition”.
That’s not optional. See Operational Guidance – [1] Furniture, household items and clothing listed need not be new, but must be clean, in good condition, and functional.
[emphasis added]
Posted in Cooperative Agreement, household items, missing or broken, Operational Guidance, safety, State Department | Tagged: Cooperative Agreement, human rights, non-stick coating, Operational Guidance, perfluorooctanoic acid, PFOA, refugee, refugee resettlement, refugee resettlement agencies, refugee resettlement program, resettlement, State Department | 2 Comments »
Posted by Christopher Coen on March 3, 2011
There is a new State Department monitoring report that we acquired via a FOIA that documents neglect of refugees. The State Department cited the Houston-based refugee resettlement agency, Alliance for Multicultural Community Services, an ECDC affiliate, for “partial-compliance” with their State Department refugee resettlement contract. Findings include:
- The Alliance had placed all three refugee families visited at home by monitors in housing with problems, including serious mold, roach infestation, and a serious plumbing problem that forced an Iraqi refugee family to move.
- A Burundian refugee woman did not know how to use either the stove or a thermostat in her apartment.
- The Burundian family’s second bedroom had no furniture, so the couple’s infant and 2-year-old toddler had to sleep in the parent’s room.
- The Burundian refugee family and a Burmese refugee family reported that the Alliance failed to give them required living-room furnishings, so the families had to garbage-pick sofas and chairs from dumpsters.
- The Alliance did not give refugees pocket-money, as required.
- The Burundian refugee family — with the infant and toddler — reported that the Alliance did not give them food or supplies for their infant upon their arrival as required, and that the Alliance did not use child safety seats when transporting the family to appointments.
- The Burmese refugee family reported that the Alliance did not have interpretation at the airport upon their arrival or during orientation. The Alliance finally hired someone who spoke their Karen dialect over four months after their arrival.
- Orientation to health care services in the area appeared to be incomplete, as both the Burundian and Burmese families expressed anxiety over their children’s medical needs and uncertainty about how to handle emergencies.
- The Burundian and Burmese families expressed anxiety over their prospects for self-sufficiency.
- The Alliance did not provide any structured training plan to new employees, as required.
- Refugee client case note logs contained minimal information, and often failed to record home visits. Monitors were often unable to verify that the Alliance provided refugee clients with the minimum-required services of the State Department refugee contracts (see contract documents – the Cooperative Agreement and Operational Guidance).
- Monitors noted Insect infestation in one or more refugee apartments.
- Monitors noted that the Alliance did not give some refugee(s) a ready-to eat meal upon arrival after long intercontinental flights, as required.
Then there are these comments about the Alliance from 2010. Note that three years after this State Department monitoring the Alliance is still putting refugees in substandard housing, etc.
So, in other words, the State Department noticed all these problems and three years later many of the problems have not ceased. What does that tell us about the effectiveness of the State Department monitoring trips? The State Department does not use any penalties for resettlement agencies’ they find in “non-compliance” or “partial-compliance” with the so-called minimum requirements of the State Department refugee contracts. Resettlement agencies don’t have to give back any of the government contract money they received for agreeing to provide minimum services and then not providing them.
Posted in Alliance for Multicultural Community Services, beds, Burma/Myanmar, Burundian, children, Cooperative Agreement, cultural/community orientation, post arrival, ECDC, food, furnishings, lack of, health, home visits, housing, housing, substandard, Houston, Iraqi, Karen, language, language interpretation/translation, lack of, meeting refugees at the airport, Operational Guidance, pocket-money, rats and roaches, State Department, Texas, transportation | Tagged: Alliance for Multicultural Community Services, Burmese refugees, Burundian refugees, ECDC, Ethiopian Community Development Council, houston, human rights, Iraqi refugees, Karen refugees, Kassahun Bisrat, refugee neglect, refugee resettlement, refugee resettlement agencies, refugee resettlement program, refugees, resettlement, State Department | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on February 28, 2011
According to a U.S. State Department Office of Admissions’ monitoring report recently released Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Rockford is yet another refugee resettlement agency that didn’t bother to meet even the minimum requirements of its refugee contract.
The 2007 inspection report noted the following:
Also see the Operational Guidance contract document which lists minimum requirements that resettlement agencies promise to give refugee clients.
Posted in State Department, USCCB, Operational Guidance, Cooperative Agreement, Illinois, Burma/Myanmar, Burundian, faith-based, Catholic, community/cultural orientation, housing, substandard, Karen, language interpretation/translation, lack of, Chin, housing, cultural/community orientation, post arrival, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Rockford, Rockford | Tagged: State Department, refugees, USCCB, resettlement, Operational Guidance, refugee resettlement program, refugee resettlement, Cooperative Agreement, refugee resettlement agencies, Burmese refugees, Burundian refugees, Karen refugees, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Rockford, Catholic Charities Rockford, jeanne lindberg, Rockford, substandard housing, Chin refugees | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on February 22, 2011
A bill in the Tennessee legislature would mandate, via state law, that refugee resettlement agencies consult with local communities. The Shelbyville Times-Gazette has an article explaining the proposed legislation:
…Refugee bill
SB1670 is another bill [State Sen. Jim] Tracy filed with Bedford County in mind. The proposed legislation would codify federal regulations to ensure that local communities would be able to absorb refugees.
The bill would make sure that a town’s “absorptive capacity” would be evaluated at regular intervals in consultation between the local governments and the resettlement agencies before commitments are made for refugee resettlement….
…Tracy said that there has been “a lot of discussion across the state about this, particularly in Bedford County … but other counties also.” The proposed bill would require resettlement agencies to let local governments know when a large number of refugees are coming “because it puts a burden on the local community.”
The bill would require the charitable organizations that sponsor the refugees to let the state know when refugees are coming, how many, “what they’re (the agencies) getting paid and where the money is going.”
In 2008, the state withdrew from administering refugee services, but appointed Catholic Charities as the fiduciary agency for the state’s refugee programs.
The Tennessee Office for Refugees, a department of Catholic Charities, would be required to meet four times a year with local governments representatives to plan and coordinate the appropriate placement of refugees in advance of their arrival…
…The state refugee office would also be required to accept applications from a local government for a moratorium on new resettlement if the host community “lacks sufficient absorptive capacity,” the bill reads.
If a determination is made that further resettlement in the host community “would result in an adverse impact to existing residents,” then the Tennessee Office for Refugees would suspend additional resettlement until it is jointly determined by local officials and the state refugee coordinator that there is an “absorptive capacity.”
The bill is cosponsored by Sens. Ken Yager and Rusty Crowe, with the House version of the bill introduced by Rep. Bill Dunn of the 16th District… Read more here
Currently, state refugee coordinators are required, via ORR regulations, to convene quarterly meetings each year whereby representatives of local resettlement agencies, local community service agencies, and other agencies that serve refugees meet with representatives of State and local governments to plan and coordinate the proper placement of refugees in advance of the refugees’ arrival.
In addition, according to the U.S. State Department’s Cooperative Agreement contract with refugee resettlement agencies ”the number of refugees assigned to an approved applicant will be determined by the [State Department], in accordance with the needs of the Admissions Program, taking into account… placement recommendations of state and local officials…” (see V. Refugee Caseload Assignment).
Apparently, federal regulations mean little when not enforced, thus requiring local codification. Let’s see where this goes.
Posted in Catholic Charities of Tennessee, Cooperative Agreement, local officials, failure to notify, ORR, reform, State Department, Tennessee | Tagged: catholic charities, Cooperative Agreement, Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR, refugee resettlement, refugee resettlement agencies, refugee resettlement program, refugees, resettlement, Sen. Jim Tracy, State Department, Tennessee, Tennessee Office for Refugees, TN | Leave a Comment »
Christopher Coen
Melissa Sogard
nancylee1
