Friends of Refugees

A U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program Watchdog Group

Archive for the ‘RPC (Refugee Processing Center)’ Category

Comment submitted for today’s State Department hearing on size & scope of refugee program

Posted by Christopher Coen on May 1, 2012

Below is a comment that a regular reader of this blog submitted for today’s State Department public hearing on the size and scope of the refugee program for fiscal year 2013:

I am a private citizen refugee advocate who has been assisting refugees with resettlement issues for the past three years. My comments are based on my experience helping refugees after they arrive in the United States with two exceptions: (1) It shouldn’t be as hard as it appears to be logistically for refugees to go through the process to enter the U.S. . By that I mean, not that each individual shouldn’t be scrutinized in detail, but that the process should entail the least travel through dangerous areas in their home countries, the fewest return trips to an application center, the most feedback about application status, the fewest repeat requests for information, and the speediest answer about whether refugee status will be granted. (2) The travel loan program should be converted to a travel grant program. There seems to be some sort of philosophy that it is citizen-building to saddle a refugee with debt as his/her first exposure to life in the United States. I disagree…It is regularly and repeatedly emphasized to them that failure to repay the travel loan can jeopardize their ability to get U.S. citizenship because of an adverse credit report – yet they are all too often given no information about how to seek forgiveness of a loan many of them will likely never be able to repay in time because of their personal situations. Furthermore, I think having the resettlement agencies act as collection agents for these loans is a significant conflict of interest…

My remaining comments concern my experience during the course of my activities as a refugee advocate…Resettlement agency failures to meet contracted responsibilities are not isolated incidences but are regular, daily occurrences on a widespread basis. I believe these failures occur not because of lack of resources, although that is surely true in some cases, but primarily because of a lack of leadership. Leadership in the local affiliates, leadership in the national offices of resettlement agencies, and leadership in the Domestic Resettlement Section. The failure of leadership that talks to each other more than to refugees. Leadership that cares more about what Washington thinks than what refugees think…I have encountered exactly two offices serving refugees in which a human actually answered the telephone; my experience instead has been full of voice mail not returned and even voice mail boxes completely full – this by agencies who are serving people who may not even have used a telephone before coming to the U.S. Leadership, such as that at World Relief, who cares more about its employees’ religious qualifications than their actual competence. Leadership that does not put enough of its own cash into a resettlement program but instead phonies up the value of its match (the value of which, I believe, is rarely, if ever, audited…English language instruction, crucial, of course, for new arrivals, is regularly inadequate and irrelevant to what a new arrival needs. Referrals for mental health services are regularly inadequate or nonexistent. Housing placements are regularly in dangerous neighborhoods and/or too expensive for the refugee to sustain after financial support stops. Too often refugees are completely abandoned after the initial six months placement…Too often the minimum contractually-required services are not adequately provided or not provided at all. Too often refugees become homeless…There are few people in responsible positions who have the personal and professional competence to install effective programs, who care whether their subcontractors perform well, who care whether their employees serve their clients well, who blame themselves and not their clients when things are not working well…

Particularly disappointing is the leadership of the Domestic Resettlement Section who appears to be more apologist for and defender of resettlement agencies and their local affiliates no matter what rather than the overseers and refugee advocates they should be. Complaints go unanswered; or, if answered, are answered with the condescension of a parent who knows best and must be trusted to do the right thing. Investigation may be promised but one never knows whether it happens and what the result is because that would be a violation of confidentiality. All I know is that what I complained about did not appear to change…Program audits are too infrequent and do not appear to include audits of financial responsibility…Particularly disappointing is that the Domestic Resettlement Section seems to think all is well and nothing needs to change – at least nothing they care to share with the public…

Here is a link to a documentary about refugees in Buffalo, N.Y. I think you’ll find their indomitable spirits despite all that has happened to them is most inspiring. I also recommend the press kit that is posted on the web site for an insight as to how resettlement agencies in Buffalo inspired the making of this film. Read full letter here

Posted in capacity, dangerous neighborhoods, democracy, language interpretation/translation, lack of, Office of Admissions, openess and transparency in government, RPC (Refugee Processing Center), SIV (Special Immigrant Visa) immigrants, State Department, Travel Loan Program, volunteers, World Relief | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Overall decrease in number of refugee arrivals to the U.S.

Posted by Christopher Coen on April 23, 2012

An article in the Salt Lake Tribune refers to the overall reduction in refugees being resettled to the US. Although the government set a goal of resettling 80,000 refugees for fiscal year 2011, only 56,424 refugees resettled. The goal again was 80,000 refugees for fiscal year 2012 but as of the end of March, halfway through that fiscal year, the federal government has resettled only 21,836 refugees. The slowdown is apparently due to the backlog in the security clearances done for each refugee by the Department of Homeland Security .

…The number of refugees coming to America has sharply declined in the past two years, as security measures have increased for newcomers coming from some of the most turbulent parts of the world.

“As credible threat information emerged, we had to enhance our screening process for the refugee program in order to make sure we were keeping our country safe,” said Deborah Sisbarro, public affairs adviser for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, which is part of the U.S. State Department.

The decrease in arrivals — nearly 17,000 fewer refugees in 2011 than in 2010 — follows the high-profile arrest of two Iraqi refugees in 2011 on terrorism charges after they were resettled in Kentucky…

In 2011, 56,424 refugees arrived in the U.S., compared with 73,311 the year before.

Halfway into this federal fiscal year, the U.S. has welcomed 21,836 refugees, though federal officials continue to assure resettlement workers that numbers will climb.

Utah welcomed 836 refugees in 2011 versus 1,100 in 2010…

The decline has forced the IRC, one of a handful of resettlement agencies in Utah, to shrink its staff. Each refugee comes with about $700 from the federal government… Read more here

My first suspicion is that this large reduction of incoming refugees mainly includes Iraqi refugees, due to the security clearance backlog. Looking at the numbers at the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center website, however, it turns out that reductions are from each area of the world, although with refugees from Africa and the Near East losing the largest share. Only 26,000 refugees from the Near East/South Asia arrived in FY2011, compared to the 35,000 that the US federal government approved for resettlement. In addition, only 6000 refugees from Africa were let in compared to the 15,000 approved (whether this reduction is from across Africa or concentrated in one area, e.g. Somalia, I don’t know). Nevertheless, the security clearances backlog is affecting refugee rivals from all regions, including the 3000 unallocated lots — none of which were used in FY2011. (Also, a complicating factor related to the security clearances is that many Iraqis and Somalis have similar names, which can present a problem if US authorities consider someone else by the same name as a security threat).

Note: Regarding the $700 figure given for the federal government’s contribution per refugee – local refugee resettlement agencies get $700 per capita from the State Department for their overhead costs. As to what the State Department actually gives, that would be $1800 per capita just for initial refugee resettlement needs (refugees’ first 90 days). The federal government supplies other contributions via the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

Posted in ceiling limit, refugee annual, Dept of Homeland Security, R&P, RPC (Refugee Processing Center), security/terrorism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

State Department taking comments on “scope” of the refugee program

Posted by Christopher Coen on April 16, 2012

The US Department of State is asking for feedback about the size and scope of the US refugee resettlement program. A meeting will be held at the Refugee Processing Center in Arlington, Virginia on May 1, which the public may attend. Or you can send comments via email.

I plan to comment about the size and scope of the program needing to strongly tied to effective administration and management of it. (Why are contractors still allowed to inspect themselves? How effective are State Department inspections when they are pre-announced, so rare (once in ten years or less), and that mainly rely on contractor’s records and not refugees’ feedback? Why are there no penalties for contractors that fail to comply with minimum requirements of the State Department contracts? Why are the minimum requirements – see Operational Guidance – so extremely minimal? Why don’t resettlement plans take into account local crime rates?, etc.)

A notice in the Federal Register gives details about the meeting:

There will be a meeting on the President’s FY 2013 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program on Tuesday, May 1, 2012 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Refugee Processing Center, 1401 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1100, Arlington, Virginia. The meeting’s purpose is to hear the views of attendees on the appropriate size and scope of the FY 2013 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.Show citation box

Persons wishing to attend this meeting must notify the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration at telephone (202) 453-9257 by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2012, to reserve a seat. Persons wishing to present written comments should submit them by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 via email to spruellda@state.gov or fax (202) 453-9393…

…If you have questions about the public meeting, please contact Delicia Spruell, PRM/Admissions Program Officer at (202) 453-9257…

Dated: March 22, 2012.

David Robinson,

Acting, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2012-7700 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]… Read more here

Posted in Operational Guidance, PRM, RPC (Refugee Processing Center) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Submit comments to State Dept. by May 5 — planning for refugee admissions to US, FY 2012

Posted by Christopher Coen on May 4, 2011

Tomorrow, May 5, is the deadline to submit comments to the US State Department regarding planning for refugee admissions to the US for fiscal year 2012. The State Department will then prepare a Presidential Determination letter for Congress.

The following is the announcement from the Federal Register:

There will be a meeting on the President’s FY 2012 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program on Thursday, May 12, 2011 from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Refugee Processing Center, 1401 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700, Arlington, Virginia. The meeting’s purpose is to hear the views of attendees on the appropriate size and scope of the FY 2012 U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.Persons wishing to attend this meeting must notify the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration at telephone (202) 453-9257 by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 5, 2011, to reserve a seat. Persons wishing to present written comments should submit them by 5 on Thursday, May 5, 2011 via e-mail to spruellda@state.gov or fax (202) 453-9393.If you have questions about the public meeting, please contact Delicia Spruell, PRM/Admissions Program Officer at (202) 453-9257. Information about the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program may be found at http://www.state.gov/g/prm/.Dated: March 30, 2011.David Robinson,*Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Department of State.

Things to comment on include such things as capacity issues (are we currently resettling refugee in a responsible manner based on current capacity?)

Posted in ceiling limit, refugee annual, RPC (Refugee Processing Center), State Department | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2011 Report To the Congress

Posted by Christopher Coen on October 26, 2010

The Obama administration determined that refugee admission numbers for fiscal year 2011 will be 80,000 refugees. A detailed report to Congress can be found at the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center (RPC) website – Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2011 Report To the Congress.

According to the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act the report must contain detailed information on various aspects of the refugee admissions program including “An analysis of the anticipated social, economic, and demographic impact of their admission to the United States”. The Act requires that this information be submitted before the start of the fiscal year. Curiously they footnoted this requirement with the following statement.

Detailed discussion of the anticipated social and economic impact, including secondary migration, of the admission of refugees to the United States is being provided in the Report to the Congress of the Refugee Resettlement Program, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Department of Health and Human Services.  

Sort of sounds like the ORR is simultaneously issuing a report to Congress for FY2011, doesn’t it? Yet, the ORR has not furnished Congress with a refugee report since fiscal year 2007! This seems to be some pretty serious flouting of the requirements. Of course this is hardly surprising in light of all the other violations of requirements that refugees discover once they arrive in the U.S. during their initial resettlement process.

Posted in Annual Report to Congress, Congress, ORR, RPC (Refugee Processing Center) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota branches out to St. Cloud

Posted by Christopher Coen on August 18, 2010

Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota (LSSMN) is expanding it’s satellite office in St Cloud and will now resettle refugees directly to the city. They expect to resettle 100 refugees this coming fiscal year, mostly Somalis and a few Iraqis.

Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota has worked with refugees in St. Cloud since 2002, when it opened a refugee employment office. This year, the agency ratcheted up its efforts by establishing a refugee resettlement office in St. Cloud.

The office has contracted to resettle 100 refugees — mostly Somalis and a few Iraqis — in the St. Cloud area this year and in each of the next two years.

Jennifer Jimenez-Wheatley heads the new office, helping refugees find places to live, work, shop and worship. She helps them learn to speak and write English. She coordinates the resettlement process with local school, government and nonprofit agencies. here

Jimenez-Wheatley claims that local partners decided to resettle Iraqi refugees.

Somalis have established a presence in St. Cloud, but the handful of Iraqis she’s helping settle here won’t be joining such a large community from their home country. Jimenez-Wheatley says St. Cloud’s refugee advisory committee — composed of city, school district and nonprofit officials — decided resettling Iraqis here made sense in part because they share the Muslim faith with the Somali community.

But that can’t be true because LSSMN’s national partner, Lutheran Immigration and Refugees Service (LIRS) is the agency that attends meetings each week in Arlington, VA at the State Department’s RPC (Refugee Processing Center), and decides which refugees it’s affiliates such as LSSMN will take. Or is Jimenez-Wheatley implying that local partners put in requests to LIRS about what type of refugees they want, and in this case they wanted Muslim refugees? I find that bizarre.

In any event, I just read an interesting article about what its like for refugees to deal with our system when they arrive here. One Somali refugee family in St Cloud was beside themselves when they could not find a mentally ill adult daughter for two years because Stearns county would not tell them where she was. here

*UPDATE: Minnesota Public Radio had this to say:

While the refugee resettlement program has received positive feedback from some leaders and community members in St. Cloud, another challenge new refugees may face include religious and cultural misunderstandings. The St. Cloud area has been the recent spotlight of racial, religious, and cultural tensions: from anti-Islamic cartoons to broken windows at the mosque to graffiti on a Somali-owned business that read, “GO HOME.” here

Posted in State Department, LIRS, Somali, Iraqi, mental health, faith-based, Islamic, Christian, Minnesota, RPC (Refugee Processing Center), Lutheran, St. Cloud, Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Catholic Charities Diocese of Des Moines will continue to resettle refugees in Iowa

Posted by Christopher Coen on May 13, 2010

Catholic Charities Diocese of Des Moines has decided to continue resettling refugees in Iowa (here and here). This decision comes on the heels of Lutheran Services in Iowa deciding to stop refugee resettlement and the State Department pulling funding from the Iowa Bureau of Refugee Services (an Iowa state agency that was long given an acceptation to the requirement that refugee agencies be non-profits and add private funding to resettlement efforts).

According to the Des Moines Register:

Catholic Charities decided Wednesday it will push on alone in resettling refugees, extending Iowa’s history as a sanctuary for refugees from war-torn, poverty-stricken nations.

The group’s decision comes months after the only other organizations that had been resettling refugees in Iowa – Lutheran Services in Iowa and the Iowa Bureau of Refugee Services – pulled out of resettlement. That put Iowa’s future as a refugee haven in limbo.

Catholic Charities will resettle between 100 and 130 people annually.

That’s far fewer than the more than 900 refugees resettled in Iowa during the last fiscal year, when Catholic Charities and Lutheran Services jointly resettled refugees through Refugee Cooperative Services.

Lutheran Services said it could not afford to continue its program.

Catholic Charities said that it is facing a “financial burden” due to refugees not being able to find jobs in the current economy, and the group having to pay their rent for a longer time. This, even though the State Department doubled per capita (per refugee) funding as of January 1, 2010. (The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services via their Office of Refugee Resettlement also provides refugees with up to 8 months of cash assistance to help pay rent, as well as a large array of other refugee funding).

If Catholic Charities had stopped resettlement – and that was a possibility, given the financial burden – it would have ended a prolific era of refugee resettlement in Iowa. Thirty thousand refugees have made Iowa home since 1975

….Refugee resettlement makes up about 17 percent of the work of Des Moines’ Catholic Charities, or $450,000 of a $2.7 million budget.

The refugee expenses include administrative costs as well as direct assistance such as help paying rent. Catholic Charities will hire three employees for refugee resettlement, which entails assisting refugees with housing, transportation, learning American culture and finding jobs.

Catholic Charities will focus on receiving refugees with Iowa ties instead of so-called “free cases” – refugees with no familial ties in the United States.

“We’re taking a risk, but we’ve been really careful to set this up so it will be successful,” said Nancy Galeazzi, executive director of Catholic Charities. “We have had to be smart about what we can handle. But it’s the right thing to do.”

The organization will benefit from a decision this year by the Department of State to increase the money it directs to resettling agencies. Instead of getting $900 per refugee, resettling agencies now get $1,800.

One continuing concern is refugees’ difficulty in finding jobs in the sour economy. In that case, Catholic Charities continues to pay their rent. But that’s built into the plan, Galeazzi said.

Sol Varisco-Santini, who heads refugee resettlement for Catholic Charities, recently sat in on the weekly resettlement meeting in Washington, D.C., and watched agencies who resettle refugees in the United States allocate the week’s 2,100 arrivals. She wanted Iowa to still be part of that equation. To do that, Catholic Charities decided to focus on fewer refugees.

“One hundred thirty is much more manageable for Iowa than 900,” Varisco-Santini said. “Even though the percentage of people we’re helping is very small, we think it is worth it.”

The meeting she sat in on is the weekly meeting at the Refugee Processing Center (RPC) in Arlington, Virginia. The RPC is a State Department agency at which the private refugee resettlement agencies are allowed to decide where incoming refugees are placed in the U.S. and who will take which refugee “free cases” (refugees with no family or sponsors in the U.S.). Resettlement agencies often fail to mention this process via the RPC, and instead tell refugees, community members and the media that they have no control over how many or which refugees they resettle locally.

The article also refers to the chance that refugees will continue to arrive in Iowa via “secondary migration” (after first being resettled to other states, and then migrating on their own to Iowa).

John Wilken, director of the Iowa Bureau of Refugee Services, applauded Catholic Charities’ decision to continue resettling refugees. But he predicted a rise in secondary migration – refugees who resettle outside Iowa, then move here to be close to family. Wilken estimates some 1,000 additional refugees came to Iowa through secondary migration in 2009.

“When you take a state with a long history of resettlement and reduce its capacity by 80 percent, what do you do with all the cases who wanted to come here but can’t?” Wilken said. “The fact our numbers are down here does not stop the individuals being processed from getting resettled. They’ll just be assigned somewhere else.”

Posted in Catholic Charities, Catholic Charities Diocese of Des Moines, faith-based, funding, Iowa, LIRS, Lutheran Services in Iowa, RPC (Refugee Processing Center), State Department, Sudanese, USCCB, Vietnamese | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

USCCB’s Catholic Diocese of Arlington Caught Neglecting Refugees, Area Churches Say Enough Is Enough

Posted by Christopher Coen on March 29, 2010

The media caught yet another refugee resettlement agency neglecting their refugee clients — USCCB’s Catholic Diocese of Arlington’s Office of Migration and Refugee Services. Area churches say enough is enough, that they will no longer allow USCCB to treat refugees inhumanely and ignore refugee program guidelines (see article).

…volunteers from Fredericksburg-area churches unrolled an elaborate welcome mat. But now, church staff and volunteers say enough is enough.

“This is a justice issue,” said the Rev. Larry Haun, pastor of Fredericksburg Baptist Church. “We don’t want to be understood as being against refugee resettlement. We just think that when they’re resettled, they should be treated according to the guidelines. They should be treated humanely.

“When people are invited here, and when they aren’t given food, when they aren’t given beds, when they aren’t given blankets, that’s injustice.”

It is also a legal issue. Resettlement agencies contract with the federal government and agree to provide beds, blankets, food or money for food, other furniture and linens.

At a meeting in late February, local church leaders asked the U.S. Department of State to stop sending refugees to the Fredericksburg area.

The refugees are invited by the State Department and resettled by the Catholic Diocese of Arlington’s Office of Migration and Refugee Services. The office’s Fredericksburg Refugee Service Center has a satellite location on Butler Road in Stafford County.

The Catholic resettlement agency, after taking an enormous amount of help from local churches and community members, apparently decided to exclude the churches and local volunteers after they started voicing concerns. Refugees said the Catholic agency workers then warned them not to talk to church volunteers about their situations or to take their help.

Newcomers arrived and volunteers did not know–until established refugees told stories of families with little furniture, food or transportation.

Volunteers from several area churches stepped in to help. But they say that they could rarely reach the resettlement office. Resettlement officials said they are protecting their clients’ privacy.

Refugees said they’ve been warned not to talk to church volunteers about their situations or to take their help.

“We tell them: ‘Don’t take free stuff. Work for what you get,’” said Derek Maxfield, associate director of the Arlington Diocese’s Migration and Refugee Services.

Don’t take free stuff?! That’s what the refugee resettlement program is all about — community members donating free stuff and time to help refugees so that the government doesn’t have to do it all alone, otherwise known as the “public/private partnership”. Hello! Apparently the Catholic agency is forgetting that is how they just convinced the State Department to double R&P funding, by claiming that they give too much free stuff and volunteer time, via churches, community groups and other volunteers, and that the government must do more (here).

The Catholic resettlement agency’s warnings to refugees not to speak to volunteers, something we have documented all over the country when we catch an agency neglecting their refugee clients (is it written in their playbook?), is nothing less than a form of intimidation and abuse of vulnerable clients.  Refugee clients should NEVER be used as pawns when refugee resettlement agencies attempt to avoid accountability. Not to mention the refugees’ constitutional right to freedom of association. They may speak to or befriend anyone they wish, despite refugee resettlement agencies treatment of them as second-class citizens.

Seyoum Berhe, director of the Archdiocese of Arlington Migration and Refugee Services, also claims that refugees only get four months of help. Not true. That’s only for refugees enrolled in ORR’s Matching Grant Program (and they can get up to six months help, if the resettlement agency will give it to them, not just four), and refugees enrolled in Matching Grant are able to apply for refugee cash assistance if they are still unemployed after four months (they can get help up to the end of their eighth month). Anyway, only 30% of refugees are in Matching Grant. Most refugees get at least eight months of help if they can’t find a job. Low income refugee families with children can get assistance even longer.

In fact, Berhe compares resettling refugees to raising teenagers. And in the resettlement program, refugees typically have four months to be self-supporting.

“We’re like tough parents,” Berhe said.

Resettlement contracts with the State Department require the basics: furnished homes, English classes and help finding jobs. Financial assistance–which comes through a few federal and state agencies–lasts only a few months.

But many volunteers say refugees require more than what the resettlement workers provide.

So then the question becomes, why did USCCB decide to resettle the particular refugees that they did in Fredericksburg? We know that the VOLAGs meet each month and decide which refugees they will take and where they will resettle them. They meet right there in Arlington at the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center (RPC). Why did USCCB decide to take Burundi and Iraqi refugees and resettle them to Fredericksburg? Is there any local torture center that can help rehabilitate the Iraqi refugees? The Burundian refugees started arriving in large numbers 4-5 years ago. We know they have greater needs than other refugees. Why did USCCB think that Fredericksburg was the right site for them?

When Arlington’s Migration and Refugee Services chose Fredericksburg for resettlement, starting-level jobs were plentiful.

Many refugees found jobs quickly and were able to afford the rents. But as the recession deepened, jobs grew scarce.

At the time, more refugees were coming, and they had greater needs.

For example, those from Burundi in central Africa had spent decades in refugee camps. They often came with little formal education and did not know how to use indoor plumbing, electricity or cars.

And some refugees from Iraq came with severe emotional scars. They needed mental health resources, something already scarce in the area.

….When the national resettlement agencies’ staff decide where to place refugees, they look at communities’ capacity.

Then there is the issue of the federal requirement that local government agencies MUST be consulted about refugee resettlement and placement issues. Is there enough local capacity? In this case the Catholic Church decided to just ignore that requirement, as we see all too often, and the State Department and the ORR apparently didn’t even care enough to enforce their own requirements — once again!

Capacity takes into account social services and nonprofits, schools, health departments and jobs.

School officials, social services directors and health department officials said they were never asked how many refugees they could handle.

Of course we just saw this problem in New Hampshire, where the state refugee coordinator claimed she couldn’t require the local resettlement agencies to coordinate with local government agencies — even though that is what the law requires! (here)

The law/regulations that govern the U.S. refugee resettlement program (45 C.F.R. PART 400—REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM, see 400.5:H) requires that local refugee resettlement agencies meet regularly with local government officials.

 “…the State will…assure that meetings are convened, not less often than quarterly, 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 appropriate placement of refugees in advance of the refugees’ arrival.”

Also, according to the State Department Cooperative Agreement contract that USCCB signed USCCB must:

“…colaborate with state and local officials, other agencies and services in the area in implementing a plan to rationalize the numbers of refugees to be resettled and to ensure quality services and a welcoming atmosphere are provided to refugees.”

So, where is Virginia’s state refugee coordinator, Kathy Cooper? She’s the director of the Virginia Office of Newcomer Services and supposedly coordinates all of this in Virginia. Now, after the resettlement agency neglected the refugees she says all sides involved in resettlement in Fredericksburg need to talk more. Yeah, but what about the required consultation with local government agencies before resettlement agencies bring refugees in and dump them off? That’s the advantage of following regulations. They tend to be there for a good reason.

The problem we have with government oversight agencies is the same problem we have with the private refugee resettlement agencies — there are no consequences for ignoring regulations and requirements. In the meantime the Congress just keeps rewarding them with more money. This is a recipe for more refugee neglect, more refugee abuse, and more negative articles in the media — something that will both damage more refugees’ lives, and damage the program even further.

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, Burundian, Catholic, Catholic Diocese of Arlington, Christian, Cooperative Agreement, faith-based, fredericksburg, funding, government, intimidation of refugees, Iraqi, local officials, failure to notify, mental health, New Hampshire, ORR, R&P, religion, RPC (Refugee Processing Center), State Department, USCCB, Virginia, volunteers | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 84 other followers