Archive for the ‘Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.)’ Category
Posted by Christopher Coen on July 15, 2011
A reader named Louise submitted the following comment to the post about the State Department Assistant Secretary Eric Schwartz’s June 14, 2011 interview of George Rupp, President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee. The interview is part of a PRM series of conversations with leaders of various NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) titled Conversations with America.
The video is found on the State Department’s blog.
I am profoundly disappointed in this so-called Conversation with America. There was nothing in this “conversation” but the most basic general information that almost anybody interested in listening in would already know, especially those of us volunteer-advocates who have tried to find solutions for problems
refugees face once they arrive in the United States. There was absolutely no discussion about basic operating issues, again particularly within the U.S. (I submitted questions on this topic that never saw the light of day), that most of us struggle with daily in trying to help refugees whose resettlement agencies should be helping them but aren’t.
I was struck by the content imbalance of the conversation: Mr. Schwartz and Dr. Rupp spoke virtually exclusively about their activities outside the U.S. while the questions presented were almost exclusively about issues within the U.S. It is as if Mr. Schwartz, Dr. Rupp and even the narrator think the game is over once a refugee actually reaches the U.S. They ignore the reality, and the hypocrisy it represents, that often the very persecution and neglect that existed in the countries refugees fled exist in the U.S. It’s not that life is “tough” in the U.S. for many – it’s that life approaches impossible in the U.S., most especially for refugees placed with an underperforming local community resettlement agency – and in all too many cases even an abusive and neglectful one.
Refugees in failed placement face inadequate and/or unsafe housing, food shortages, completely useless English classes, exploitation by placement with practically any employer no matter how inappropriate or unsafe, inappropriate or nonexistent referrals for health care and constant caseworker voice mail turned on when they have problems. They are not given handbooks and their orientations are in English only. There are no warnings about how to be safe in their communities. There is no instruction about how to get emergency help, and there are rarely culturally informed caseworkers. By contrast, the outstanding local resettlement agencies are like the bright sunshine after a storm and are indeed safe and nurturing havens for refugees – but they are few in my experience.
There is obviously no question that refugees have the capacity to deal with a tough life and deprivation or they wouldn’t have made it through the refugee resettlement process alive. However, the all-to-frequent failure of the private and public agencies in this country that are charged with resettlement to give them the most basic tools to adapt is not only a moral disgrace but the failure to utilize people who would be very productive for our society if they only get a chance. Luckily for the U.S. some refugees are so tough they thrive despite their resettlement agencies’ failures. For the refugees lucky enough to be placed with an outstanding local resettlement agency life is indeed tough – but the possibility of a successful life is increased exponentially.
The conversation did at least make me realize several things: Mr. Schwartz is more interested in Burma than Africa, Iraq and Afghanistan – not that what is happening in Burma isn’t serious, but it seems Africa, the Middle East and Afghanistan would have warranted at least a mention since their refugees number in the millions. Mr. Schwartz’s and Dr. Rupp’s loci and primary interests outside the United States might explain the abysmal lack of supervision and oversight of the local resettlement agencies in the U.S. I have observed not even the most rudimentary calling to account by either the State Department or the local agency’s own national office over the egregious problems some of these agencies have caused. It seems, then, the weak oversight of local U.S. resettlement agencies is no accident because
both the national resettlement agencies and the Department of State either don’t care about, or don’t care to take the time to care about, resettlement failures inside the U.S. and would rather focus on happenings outside the U.S. They need to count both situations equally important.
Additionally, while Mr. Schwartz may be proud that we get some sort of progress for “a pittance,” I believe more than a pittance should be devoted to relieving human suffering abroad, many times caused, facilitated or ignored by the U.S. If only “a pittance” is spent outside the U.S., one can only imagine what miniscule amount is spent within the U.S. However even in the face of inadequate funding, the kind of refugee assistance failure/abuses I have seen could have, and can be, prevented. It simply takes workers who care to do their jobs in more than the most cursory of ways and leadership that insists on it and has the vision to think of innovative solutions.
Finally, it is almost laughable – were it not so indicative
of either territoriality or ignorance – that Mr. Schwartz and Dr. Rupp propose a study of the health care needs of refugees. It seems to me a colossal waste of money. There is an obvious and existing solution – called the U.S. public health service system. Poor people have been using it for a long time now. It’s hard to think there is any health problem the free clinics and health departments haven’t encountered.
I have written this as one more attempt to encourage Mr. Schwartz and Dr. Rupp to reconsider some of their ideas and conclusions about how the refugee resettlement system is working. I am trying to encourage some real systemic changes that only people like them can make, so I hope if they read this they will take it to heart and do some investigating. Not all improvements require money. I suggest if future conversations with America are going to be along the same path, tone, and superficiality as this one, however, that Mr. Schwartz spend his time doing something more productive.
Posted in Assistant Secretary of the PRM, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), IRC, PRM, State Department | Tagged: Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration, Conversations with America, Eric Schwartz, George Rupp, International Rescue Committee, IRC, NGO, non-governmental organizations, PRM | 3 Comments »
Posted by Christopher Coen on July 13, 2011
Iraqis who worked for the US government and its contractors, and therefore whom are eligible for the special immigrant visa, are finding themselves still trapped in Iraq as the American military readies for a pullout at the end of this year. During nearly the past four years, however, the US government has issued only about 7,000 special immigrant visas to eligible Iraqis – in a program that allotted 25,000 slots over five years. According to an article in The Ledger Iraqis who worked for the government are in fear of their lives as the clock ticks down.
BAGHDAD — Terrorism fears in the United States are all but halting visas for Iraqis, even those who risked their lives aiding the American war effort, making them especially vulnerable ahead of the planned American military withdrawal…
Congress required the Pentagon and the Departments of State and Homeland Security to draft a plan to expedite visas for the most pressing cases, should insurgents threaten those left behind after the military leaves, and set a deadline of May that was not met.
Meanwhile, neither the Bush nor the Obama administration has met the targets set by Congress several years for issuing special immigrant visas.
The numbers are stark: beginning in 2008, Congress expanded the special immigrant visa program to allot 25,000 slots over five years. After nearly four years, the government has issued about 7,000.
Mr. Johnson said the impetus for the legislation was to avoid a huge refugee crisis like the one after the pullout from Vietnam. In 2006, after British forces pulled out of Basra, the southern Iraqi port city, interpreters were rounded up and killed.
In an interview in Baghdad in May, Eric P. Schwartz, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, said the administration would take care of the Iraqis who had assisted the American forces. “We feel that we are prepared to deal with any variety of contingencies,” he said… Read more here
In the meantime Mr. Schwartz has announced his resignation, and will be riding the revolving door back into the private sphere.
Note: The article incorrectly states that the new security clearances are the result of two Iraqi refugees in Kentucky whom authorities alleged recently, were conducting terrorism planning. In fact, the federal government instigated the enhanced security checks last October.
Posted in Dept of Homeland Security, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), Iraqi, Obama administration, SIV (Special Immigrant Visa) immigrants, State Department | Tagged: Iraq, red tape, refugee, resettlement, security check, security clearance, SIV, Special Immigrant Visa | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on June 14, 2011
I submitted a question for George Rupp, president and CEO of the IRC, for his interview today by the PRM’s Assistant Secretary Eric Schwartz.
“Why does the IRC partner with local churches in their attempts to convert Bhutanese refugees to Christianity, for example, IRC’s partnership with The Word at Southern Hills church in Abilene, Texas?”
Unfortunately this comment seems to have magically disappeared from the list of submitted questions (funny how that works). Yet, I base the question on a news article from Abilene that I linked to in January. Personally I think that these refugees’ Hindu and Buddhist beliefs are serving them just fine and I don’t understand why our government and its contractors, therefore we as a society, are partnering to give these new Americans a new religion, which they haven’t requested.
So then I submitted another question, which this time they actually posted:
“A 2007 State Department PRM monitoring report for the IRC office in Baltimore indicates that the IRC and another resettlement contractor frequently placed refugees into an East Baltimore apartment complex that had evidence of questionable maintenance and security standards (housing that is safe, sanitary, and in good repair is supposedly a State Department refugee contract requirement). Monitors also noted that the IRC had failed to give a three-member Meskhetian Turk refugee family a crib and other supplies for their infant son. I note, again, that these items are listed as “minimum” required items in the State Department contracts. Why does the IRC fail to meet so-called “minimum requirements” of their obligations to refugees in the public/private partnership?”
The State Department did not select this question for use in the interview — of course — yet this question was also based on a document – one of the State Department’s own monitoring reports – so it’s not like I just make this stuff up. Again the State Department doesn’t want to discuss the issue.
I think there’s an obvious problem here when our government feels free to filter out substantive questions that it may not feel comfortable with, or which may not convey the message it wishes to control, but isn’t the supposed intent of our constitutional democracy to allow public input? I think we need to be concerned when a part of our US Department of State feels free to disregard that fundamental principle.
Posted in State Department, PRM, Nepali Bhutanese, Meskhetian Turks (Ahiska
Turk), Christian, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), Assistant Secretary of the PRM, churches, neglect, housing, substandard, household items, missing or broken, public/private partnership, furnishings, lack of, openess and transparency in government, children, Abilene, Buddhist, Hindu, Baltimore | Tagged: Abilene, Assistant Secretary of Population Refugees and Migration, Baltimore, Buddhist, censorship, Christian, constitution democracy, Conversations with America, conversion, Eric Schwartz, George Rupp, Hindu, International Rescue Committee, IRC, Meskhetian Turk, monitoring report, Population Refugees and Migration, PRM, public/private partnership, refugee, refugee resettlement, refugee resettlement agencies, refugee resettlement program, resettlement, State Department, The Word at Southern Hills | 4 Comments »
Posted by Christopher Coen on June 10, 2011
On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, the State Department’s Eric Schwartz, Assistant Secretary for Population, Refugees, and Migration, will have a live-streamed conversation with George Rupp, President and CEO of the International Rescue Committee on the Department of State’s official blog, at 10:15 a.m. ET. The PRM is inviting members of the general public to participate by submitting questions, some of which they will select for response during the live broadcast. The conversation is part of a series of conversations with leaders of various NGO’s (non-governmental organizations), named Conversations with America, in which the PRM will supposedly aim to provide “candid views of the ways in which leaders from the foreign affairs community are engaging the Department [of State] on pressing foreign policy issues.”
Follow this link to submit your questions.
Posted in Assistant Secretary of the PRM, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), IRC, NGO's (Non-governmental organizations), State Department | Tagged: assistant secretary, Conversations with America, Eric Schwartz, George Rupp, government contractor, International Rescue Committee, IRC, NGO, non-governmental organizations, Population Refugees and Migration, PRM, refugee, resettlement, State Department | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on September 25, 2010
The State Department’s Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration Eric P. Schwartz took a trip to Salt Lake City and Portland on September 7-8 ostensibly to meet with resettled refugees, state and local officials, and resettlement agency representatives. He reports his observations of the trip in a September 22nd letter posted on the State Department website.
I wanted to report to you on my September 7-8 visit to Salt Lake City and Portland, to meet with resettled refugees, state and local officials involved in refugee resettlement, resettlement agency representatives and others who are concerned and engaged in these issues in both communities. I was delighted to be accompanied for the Portland portion of my trip by U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley. In addition, Barbara Day of PRM’s Admissions staff joined me for both portions of the visit.
Both cities are great models of our public-private partnership, supported by volunteers who are deeply committed to the humanitarian mission of resettlement and by communities that strongly support the effort. They host Bhutanese, Iraqis, Burundians, Burmese, Congolese and many other refugee groups, and continually seek to enhance the support provided to new arrivals. It was gratifying to hear that the State Department’s doubling of the reception and placement grant – provided to support refugees for the first one to three months after their arrivals – has dramatically enhanced the ability of local agencies to provide critical initial support to refugees. here
So the resettlement contractors give great praise to Mr. Schwartz for doubling funding this year for refugees’ first 30-90 days (although when they talk to the press they only complain that they need more government funding) and Mr. Schwartz feels intense gratification. I guess I’m more interested to know if the resettlement agencies are now meeting minimum service requirements since the State Dept. has doubled their funding. Mr. Schwartz doesn’t seem to have looked into that.
He then takes a look at the “Salt Lake City innovation”, the State Dept’s experimental funding of local resettlement agencies for two years of case management for refugees (here and here). No discussion however about any qualitative measurements of what refugees have gained from extended case management, e.g. are employment outcomes increased, are refugees’ incomes increased, are refugees’ English language abilities increased, is out-migration (to other states) decreased, are more refugees learning to drive, owning cars, or finding better housing arrangements?
Case management: Supported by funding from the State of Utah, Salt Lake City has adopted a two-year, case-management approach, in which voluntary agency case workers formally sustain their intensive engagement with newly arrived refugees not for several months (as is generally the case in other states), but, rather, for two years….this system greatly enhances the ability of the refugee, over time, to access services effectively, and increases his or her overall sense of well-being… the Salt Lake City innovation seems like an important contribution that could serve as a model for others.
Then he discusses the problem of overseas cultural orientation. Refugees keep arriving in the U.S. reporting to have received all sorts of misinformation about American culture and the life they should expect to have once they get here, even though the State Department pays its private partner organizations IOM and the IRC to give the refugees quality cultural orientation lessons.
Overseas cultural orientation: Despite the State Department’s efforts to enhance our overseas cultural orientation programs for refugees who will be traveling to the United States, I continued to hear reports from refugees that the pre-departure process did not give them an adequate sense of –and preparation for— the challenges they would be confronting after arrival. PRM’s Admissions team is currently engaged in a critical review of our cultural orientation programs worldwide, which I expect will help us make significant improvements this coming year.
I’ve noticed that when I read about resettlement agencies blaming refugees’ misconceptions about American culture on the overseas orientation (as opposed to the orientation that the State Dept. requires resettlement agencies to do here once the refugees arrive) the agencies never mention the IOM or the IRC. I guess they don’t want the public to know that these “partner” agencies are obviously falling down on their responsibilities. Better instead to make it sound like some mysterious oversees group is misleading the refugees, or just providing poor orientation services. Shouldn’t it be our concern if the IOM and the IRC aren’t doing a good job? After all, we’re paying for it. I think we should measure their services by how well-informed refugees are once they arrive here, and not by how hard the agencies tried or some other subjective criteria. Also, why isn’t Mr. Schwartz taking a look at the problems with cultural orientation provided by resettlement agencies to refugees upon their arrival in the U.S. here, here, and here? It seems there are some severe problems in that phase as well.
Then Mr. Schwartz takes a look at English-language training for refugees.
English-language training for new arrivals: The most critical obstacle for successful integration of refugees may be lack of English language proficiency. Thus, it is essential that newly arriving refugees have access to the English language training that will enable them to enter the workforce and contribute to their local communities. In Salt Lake City, in Portland, and in the other cities I’ve visited over the past year, I heard repeatedly that even when English language programs were available, they could not be easily accessed by refugees compelled to find employment as quickly as possible. Some local communities have developed innovative English language training efforts linked to the workplace, but we at the federal level should consider ways to facilitate such innovations.
I think Mr. Schwartz got ahead of himself a bit by doubling resettlement agencies’ funding and only then looking at their services’ quality. Why this late analysis of English-language training? We’ve long known that these classes are often poor quality. Not only do refugees have a problem accessing them due to lack of time, transportation, and day care, but these classes are often taught by teachers who cannot speak the refugees’ languages (imagine trying to learn Chinese from an instructor who can’t explain anything to you in English). We also regularly hear from refugees who already have some English ability who say that agencies place them in classes that are too easy for them. We’ve heard these same complaints repeated by refugees for nine years now and the State Department has never responded to these complaints when we’ve brought them to their attention.
In the weeks and months ahead, we will pursue action in these and other areas, and, as always, we at PRM would very much welcome your observations and perspectives.
Of course that’s easily to say, but then why hasn’t the State Department responded to our many letters documenting the poor services that refugees have received in the U.S. from the private refugee resettlement agencies? I challenge Mr. Schwartz to act on his words and show us his welcoming of our observations by digging all our letters out of his files and for once responding to them in a substantive way.
Posted in "Salt Lake City innovation", Assistant Secretary of the PRM, community/cultural orientation, cultural adjustment, cultural orientation, pre-departure, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), ESL & ELL, funding, IOM, IRC, Oregon, PRM, public/private partnership, R&P, Salt Lake City, State Department, Utah | Tagged: "Salt Lake City innovation", Assistant Secretary of State for Population Refugees and Migration, Barbara Day, doubling of the reception and placement grant, English-language training, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), Eric Schwartz, ESL, International Organization for Migration, International Rescue Committee, IOM, IRC, Overseas cultural orientation, Portland, pre-departure cultural orientation, PRM, refugee case-management, refugee resettlement, refugee resettlement agencies, refugee resettlement program, refugees, resettlement, Salt Lake City, State Department | Leave a Comment »
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 April 21, 2010
Eric Schwartz the State Department’s Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration issued a letter about the 30th Anniversary of the U.S. Refugee Program as well as his recent visits to Denver and Phoenix (here).
Mr. Schwartz said that during his trips to Denver and Phoenix that he saw “the full range of stakeholders” in both cities, including state, county and local government officials; local voluntary agency resettlement staff; local police, public health, education, employment and transportation officials; and resettled refugees.
And how was he able to access local refugee clients? Through local refugee resettlement contractors who were able to determine which refugees he could meet, no doubt. I bet that refugees who were none too pleased with their resettlement certainly were not invited to take part. Under what logical scheme are private contractors allowed to decide who government funding and oversight agencies are able to meet with? It also sounds like Mr. Schwartz did not meet with any members of the local community, i.e citizens. Why not? Isn’t the refugee program supposed to be serving the American public’s humanitarian interests? The refugee program is a public program, and the last time I checked the government is supposed to be ”of, by and for” the people. Yet he just meets with government employees, government contractors, and few hand-selected refugees.
Then he delved into the most important aspect of his claimed efforts to help refugees — the honey pot.
“We were so very gratified by the strong and unequivocal messages of support we received from local community members, who were enthusiastic about the State Department’s recent decision to double the level of initial assistance provided to newly arriving refugees.”
By “local community members” he meant “local government contractors”. Well gee, of course they love getting more government funding. Who wouldn’t? But more importantly, who do they answer to for it? The refugees? No, they are powerless. To local citizens? No, this is a secretive program that restricts citizen involvement. To the State Department? Not really. Their oversight is weak and ineffective. They think being “nice” to their great “partners” (resettlement contractors) is the best way to operate – strangely, since it’s proven so disastrous over the past two decades. Contract requirements and regulations violated? Not to worry. The contractors have such a hard time of things you see. They must have good reasons for these continuing violations. Be nice to them. But then who will be nice to the refugees with such weak program oversight?
“Throughout the visit I was struck by the extraordinary efforts of our partners in the field. They are working assiduously to meet the needs of the refugee populations they serve, and their personal commitment to the service of others was as inspiring as it was impressive.”
Well again, all of that is really nice, but what about the extreme problems in the refugee program with refugee resettlement contractors who just will not, or cannot, provide even the most minimal services and material items to refugees? Wouldn’t it also be nice to address that issue once in a while? What about the contractors who are supposed to be bringing significant private funding to the program yet rely almost exclusively on government funding, and every week trumpet to the newspapers the lie that refugees are in dire straits because the government doesn’t give enough money?
Posted in Arizona, Assistant Secretary of the PRM, Colorado, Denver, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), funding, government, neglect, Phoenix, PRM, public/private partnership, R&P, State Department | Tagged: 1980 Refugee Act, 30th anniversary, contractors, Denver, Department of State, Eric Schwartz, government funding, oversight, Phoenix, Population Refugees and Migration, private funding, PRM, public funding, public/private partneship, R&P, refugee, refugees, resettlement agencies, State Department | 1 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 20, 2010
Colorado refugee contractors and government officials met with PRM Assistant Secretary Eric Schwartz. Refugee resettlement agencies will resettle about 2,600 refugees in Colorado in 2010, which will be a sizable increase over recent years (here).
Strangely, the recurring theme of complaints about not enough federal funding for refugee resettlement came up again, even though the State Department just doubled the per capita (per refugee) grant funding to resettlement agencies. The resettlement contractors don’t raise the issue of private funding, and why they aren’t raising enough private funds, and reporters don’t ask.
Colorado’s state refugee health coordinator Brenda Hummel said that refugees are arriving with medical problems and with no warning given to state officials, even though refugees supposedly get medical screening before arriving here.
“Hummel..said it’s particularly frustrating not to know when someone coming to Colorado needs medical attention.
Refugees are supposed to be medically evaluated before they get here. But, she said, those evaluations commonly miss serious problems. That leaves the state health department scrambling to find them care, she said.
Individuals are hurt, and the whole resettlement program suffers when workers don’t have accurate information about the refugees arriving, [Colorado state refugee coordinator Paul Stein] said.”
Medical screening for refugees abroad is generally coordinated by the Intergovernmental Organization on Migration (IOM) in cooperation with voluntary agencies (see p. 10 here). There is a requirement that they screen for tuberculosis, HIV, and certain venereal diseases — although they would presumably notice at these screenings if refugees have other serious medical issues. So, why aren’t the IOM and voluntary agencies abroad notifying state officials about refugees’ medical problems before they arrive here? Notice that the state official just blames the US federal government.
The issue of secondary migration also came up at the meeting, with a county government official complaining that it has an impact on Colorado counties’ finances.
“A recurring theme of the downtown meeting was a lack of attention to what those who work with refugees call ‘secondary migration’ — groups of refugees who leave the areas where they first settle in search of jobs.
That happened in Greeley, said Judy Griego, director of Weld County’s human services department.
After immigration officials raided the Swift meatpacking plant in 2006, dozens of Somalis arrived, hoping to fill jobs vacated by the raid, Griego said.
‘It ends up being on the counties to take care of these individuals,’ she said.”
This is an interesting issue because we’ve documented groups of refugees moving to other states after being neglected by their resettlement agencies. About 10 Burmese Karenni refugees recently ran from USCRI affiliate International Center in Bowling Green, and moved to Minnesota after complaining that the International Center had placed them in filthy apartments without basic furnishings or food. They also complained of not being able to get to the doctor’s office (no rides) and not being able to enroll their children in school because they couldn’t get them vaccinated.
Now, we have refugee contractors and state refugee coordinators blaming the federal government about lack of funding for secondary migration to other states, yet in the case of the Karenni refugees in Bowling Green we warned government officials about the problems hoping they would help the refugees. Instead, Kentucky’s state refugee coordinator Becky Jordan got our email and three weeks later still had not responded to us.
Becky Jordan, it turns out, works for another private refugee contractor in Kentucky, Catholic Charities (she actually has her office there and receives a paycheck from them, while supposedly acting as their oversight agent!), and told us she was accountable to them and not to us. She also said that she wasn’t going to communicate with us because we asked her if she was concerned about the refugees! (This would almost be a joke if refugees weren’t being so abused by such a broken system, and with such incompetent people at the helm.)
So obviously one of the best ways to solve the problem of secondary migration is to make sure refugee resettlement agencies are assisting the refugees they’re being paid to help, and not just throwing more money to the states and the resettlement agencies. Refugees will run to other states much less often if they find themselves in tolerable circumstances where they are. Isn’t that just obvious?
Posted in Assistant Secretary of the PRM, Bowling Green, Catholic Charities, Colorado, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), government, health, International Center in Bowling Green (Western Kentucky Refugee Mutual Assistance Association), IOM, Karenni, Kentucky, Minnesota, PRM, R&P, State Department, USCRI | Tagged: assistant secretary, Becky Jordan, Bowling Green, Brenda Hummel, catholic charities, Colorado, Eric Schwartz, HIV, International Center, IOM, Kentucky, Minnesota, oversight, Paul Stein, PRM, refugee, refugees, secondary migration, refugee, State Department, state refugee coordinator, state refugee health coordinator, tuberculosis, USCRI, vaccinations, voluntary agencies | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on March 18, 2010
Eric P. Schwartz, Assistant Secretary of the State Dept’s PRM Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration) has issued remarks in commemoration of the 30th Anniversary of the U.S. Refugee Act (of 1980). He addresses a few paragraphs to the domestic refugee resettlement part of our government’s efforts to help refugees:
….In light of my convictions on this issue, I took special interest in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, which resettled about 75,000 persons last year, the highest number since 1999 – after which the program was so significantly impacted by the tragic events of 9/11.
Our admissions program must vindicate protection objectives that include the interests of those persons we are resettling, but our goals must be much broader. And, indeed, through or in coordination with our admissions program, we have enhanced the capacity of UNHCR to identify vulnerable communities in need of resettlement, to develop innovative interim protection measures – such as emergency transit centers in many parts of the world – and to use our resettlement programs as a tool to encourage host government policies of greater tolerance. We have also been able to encourage other governments to do more on refugee resettlement issues, and we’ve promoted burden sharing. But again, we can best accomplish these and other objectives when our actions at home are models of good behavior for others to emulate abroad.
With that element in mind, and early in my tenure, I visited Chicago, Fort Wayne, Indiana and Minneapolis/St. Paul, to learn more about our efforts to meet the resettlement needs of newly arriving refugees – Bhutanese, Burmese, Burundians, Hmong, Iraqis and so many others. What I saw was both heartening and dismaying. It was so gratifying to witness the deep and abiding commitment to refugees among overworked and underpaid agency personnel in the field, the determination of new arrivals, and the welcoming spirit of local school, healthcare and government officials. On the other hand, it was very sad to meet with refugees who had severe problems that go well beyond the challenges that any new arrival should have to confront. I heard from refugees threatened with eviction after only months in the United States. I learned that refugees often had to choose between buying food or diapers for their children. And I spoke with agency field staff overburdened by the number of refugee families they serve and the complexity of the resettlement service needs of recent arrivals.
The Reception and Placement Program administered by the Department of State includes a one-time per capita grant for the initial weeks after arrival, but the grant had declined in real terms by more than 50% since its inception some decades ago. This was a major reason for the problems I witnessed, which have been documented and publicized in a variety of assessments over the past year or so. In my own review of this issue, I heard repeatedly from all stakeholders — agencies, congressional staff, and PRM Admissions office officials — that the amount we were providing for this short term support needed to be augmented substantially.
In light of our critical obligations on these issues, and thanks to the generous support of the Congress, we have now been able to increase the Reception and Placement per capita grant to voluntary agencies and new arrivals from $900 to $1,800, which was made effective as of January 1, 2010. This is intended to address challenges refugees face in their first 30 to 90 days in the United States, and will ensure that, in the first weeks after their arrival, refugees have a solid roof over their heads, a clean bed in which to sleep and basic assistance. This is also an expression of solidarity with the local communities that bear the greatest burden in meeting the initial needs of new arrivals.
We well understand that more must be done. And we will be working closely with the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services to secure additional job training, education and cash and medical assistance in the months that follow initial reception and placement….
We agree with his assessment that our admissions program must vindicate protection goals that include the interests of those persons we are resettling. But the question is, does it? So often, as we have documented on this website, refugee resettlement agencies in this country neglect refugees, leave them on their own without help, cheat them out of government-provided funds, threaten them, and in some cases even abuse them. What message does this send to the public and to the rest of the world? Why haven’t the federal oversight agencies put an end to these abuses?
Also, what does the Assistant Secretary mean when he says he heard from refugees threatened with eviction, “after only months in the United States?” I hope these refugees had received at least 8 months of assistance as provided by the federal agencies. (In the case of Lutheran Family Services in the Carolinas [LFSC] we recently learned that Iraqi refugees had no money for rent in December even though they had just arrived in September (here) and (here). What happened to their refugee cash assistance or Matching Grant payments?)
In addition, what does he mean that the amount of the R&P grant money from the State Department ($900 per refugee prior to this calendar year), “was a major reason for the problems [he] witnessed, which have been documented and publicized in a variety of assessments over the past year or so.” How does he know that these problems weren’t, alternatively, caused by resettlement agencies failing to raise enough private assistance and/or by their failure to perform their duties according to the State Department ‘Cooperative Agreement’ contracts that they so willingly signed? It seems that the Assistant Secretary has just bought — hook, line and sinker — the resettlement agencies’ line that all problems are due to a lack of enough government funding.
His explanation for buying into this argument is this: ”In my own review of this issue, I heard repeatedly from ALL [emphasis added] stakeholders — agencies, congressional staff, and PRM Admissions office officials — that the amount we were providing for this short term support needed to be augmented substantially.”
Yet, do those groups really represent ALL stakeholders? Which members of Congress did he hear from; just those who are the friends and allies of the refugee resettlement agencies? What about the ideas, insights and opinions of community members? What about community groups like ours that help refugees and watch the program? What about local government agencies that have been less than impressed with refugee resettlement agencies’ abilities and expertise in dealing with refugee-related issues? What about anybody, even a single person, who had a dissenting viewpoint?
And then finally, this, “…we will be working closely with the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services to secure additional job training, education and cash and medical assistance in the months that follow initial reception and placement.” So is that it? The solution to problems is just more government funding?
If the Assistance Secretary of the PRM really wants to help refugees then he will make sure that all the new funding comes with added requirements and stipulations for its use, and not simply give resettlement agencies cart blanche to use it as they wish. We’ve seen how that works and it doesn’t work well. The resettlement agencies are moving more and more toward running their operations completely on government funding, while shirking their responsibly to add significant private funding of their own, in keeping with being a true “partner” in the public/private partnership of the refugee resettlement program.
All of this new government funding being heaped on the program needs to come with adequate oversight provisions and mechanisms, or the refugees may not see their circumstances improved at all, and the public will be left with the bill for refugee services that were never provided. The program also needs clear and swift consequences for anyone caught threatening, neglecting or abusing refugees, or attempting to lie to, fool, or cheat the refugees — a occurance that is not uncommon by refugee resettlement workers, and even actively encouraged by management in their attempts to stifle any outside scrutiny of their agencies’ work and lack thereof.
Ending these abuses should be the program’s top priority on this 30th anniversary of the U.S. Refugee Act.
Posted in Assistant Secretary of the PRM, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), funding, government, HHS, Lutheran Family Services of the Carolinas, ORR, PRM, R&P | Tagged: 30th anniversary, Admissions office, admissions program, assistant secretary, Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration, cash assistance, Congress, education, Eric P. Schwartz (former Asst Sec.), Eric Schwartz, government funding, Health and Human Services, HHS, job training, LFSC, lutheran family services in the carolinas, Matching grant, medical assistance, ORR, partner, per capita, PRM, public/private partnership, public/private partneship, R&P, Reception and Placement, refugee, refugee resesettlement agencies, refugees, stakeholders, State Department, UNHCR | Leave a Comment »
Christopher Coen
Melissa Sogard
nancylee1
