Archive for the ‘reform’ Category
Posted by Christopher Coen on April 12, 2012
After passing the New Hampshire state house one-year refugee moratorium bill, spearheaded by Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas, went before a state senate hearing this week. A lawyer with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human services, which oversees refugee resettlement, testified that the bill directs the department to do a number of things that it has no authority or ability to do. A report at New Hampshire Public Radio has this:
A bill that would allow communities to ask for a one-year moratorium on refugee resettlement has made it to a Senate Committee, but critics of the bill are piling up.
This moratorium bill has traveled a winding road to get to the senate.
The house committee that first heard recommended – almost unanimously – to kill it.
The full house then voted nearly two to one to pass it.
Now that it’s being heard by the senate, it’s drawing fresh opposition…
…several leaders from the refugee community…spoke out against the moratorium bill.
Several others at the hearing – including UNH law professor Buzz Scherr – argued that the bill runs afoul of the constitution in a basic way: it tells people where they can, or can’t, live.
Scherr: and that’s what this legislation does, it isolates a particular group of legal residents, political and economic refugees, new to this country, and says for this one year period you can’t come here.
Other opponents testified the bill as drafted would be impossible to implement.
Jennifer Jones is a lawyer with the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human services, which oversees refugee resettlement.
Jones: it directs the department of health and human services to do a number of things that we have no authority or ability to do… Read more here
Mayor Gatsas testified that the local refugee resettlement agency doesn’t tell his office each time a refugee arrives. The International Institute of New England, however, pointed out that they tell the schools and health department. (I wonder if this means the Institute does not tell the mayor about the total number of refugees resettled each year? I would find that difficult to understand. The group’s national resettlement affiliate, the USCRI, presents a plan each year to the State Department for how many refugees are resettled in each city.) An article at Manchester’s Union Leader newspaper gives both side’s positions – those of the mayor and of William J. Gillett, chairman of the Institute’s board of directors:
…Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas has long urged a moratorium on the resettlement program, saying the city and the refugees need an opportunity to catch their breath so that refugees can be successful.
He blamed much of the problems on the resettlement agencies, which provide support for up to nine months, but leave most refugees unprepared to obtain jobs and become productive, he said.
Gatsas has met with state and federal resettlement officials, as well as the agencies, but believes most of his efforts to slow down the process have “fallen on deaf ears.”…
…“As mayor, I never know when someone is coming to the city of Manchester,” he said.
But William J. Gillett, chairman of the board of directors for the International Institute of New England, the resettlement agency for Manchester, said…There has been a considerable slowing of the number of refugees resettled in Manchester…“The system works, but it’s not perfect,’ he said…
…Committee member Sen. Nancy Stiles, R-Hampton, asked how much notice the city is given when refugees are sent to Manchester, and Gillett said the health department and school district are notified.
“We don’t receive much notice ourselves,” he said, and acknowledged the mayor’s office is not notified as refugees arrive all year long.
Barnes said if the agency and the mayor could get together maybe “some good could come of this.”
Gillett said he has made efforts. Earlier Gatsas said he would continue to reach out to the agency.
Lutheran Social Services also resettles refugees in New Hampshire. Refugees are re-settled in 14 communities throughout the state. University of New Hampshire School of Law professor Albert “Buzz” Scheer told the Senate committee, as he did the House committee, that the bill as proposed is unconstitutional, because it would segregate one class of residents, prevent residents moving from one state to another and cannot supersede federal law that governors the program… Read more here
Although the resettlement agency seems to have made many mistakes, which they have not fully acknowledged, Mayor Gatsas has long shown that he has no intention of compromising. Nevertheless, a state senator wants both sides to just “sit down together”, to work all this out. Either the senator is naive or he wants the public to see that the senate gave each side one last try at reaching compromise. An article at the Concord Monitor newspaper explains:
The chairman of a Senate committee yesterday implored Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas and a refugee settlement agency to resolve their differences and eliminate the need for a proposed moratorium on new refugees that has already passed the House.
“It seems there has been lack of communication, and that seems to be a burr under some people’s saddle,” said Sen. Jack Barnes, a Raymond Republican. “I’d like to get the burr out from underneath the saddle.”
Barnes said to Gatsas, “Will you please try to reach out one more time to these groups?”
Gatsas said he would…
The Senate Public and Municipal Affairs Committee did not vote on the refugee moratorium bill, which passed the House in March, 190-109. Barnes said he wanted to wait a week to see whether Gatsas and the International Institute of New Hampshire could resolve their differences without legislation… Read more here
Posted in International Institute of NE, International Institute of New Hampshire, legislation, legislation, moratorium / restriction, New Hampshire | Tagged: bill, International Institute of New England, legislation, manchester, moratorium, New Hampshire, refugees, resettlement | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on February 14, 2012
In a letter of note from a former refugee resettlement agency director, she asks about concrete reform suggestions for the federal resettlement program:
…I have worked for many years in resettlement in the US as well as with IOM and UNHCR abroad. I have read your blog and I agree with many of your points (not all) and appreciate many of the points you raise. I guess what I am trying to find is some concrete reform suggestions to the federal program? Maybe I’m just not seeing it there with all the other entries.
I think it is hard for most people working in resettlement to accept the criticism as they feel they are doing the best they can with minimal resources. I always felt resentful of PRM and the lack of funding as I spent my nights and weekends (unpaid of course) ferrying people to appointments, hauling furniture, etc. etc. only to then be attacked by people like you for not doing enough. That said…you are absolutely right to document these epic fails on the part of many agencies (mine…under my leadership absolutely included!). Yes the volags are underfunded, but at some point it cannot be an excuse and we need to have a real, fruitful dialogue about reforming what is a very broken system.
I’d love to hear your ideas for reform.
Many of the reform ideas are brought up in the daily posts on this blog, here are a few examples:
- Openness and transparency in the resettlement program (secrecy serves only to shield responsible parties from accountability). Program and financial audits should be posted on government websites.
- Enforcement of current federal government regulations and contract requirements
- An end to the “partnership” arrangement between refugee resettlement contractors and the government oversight agencies (its puts the two in bed together, eliminating authority in the oversight relationship, which is not good for refugees or the public)
- Consideration of crime rates when choosing resettlement sites
- Increased State Department monitoring/inspection visits (once in 10 years or more guarantees that problems will not be resolved, and the ORR appears to mainly rely upon over the phone “desk audits”
- Abandoning the fictional concept that resettlement contractors can oversee themselves (the State Dept. claims that the national resettlement agencies are neutral and effective inspectors of their own sub-contractors; state governments have handed over oversight responsibilities to federal resettlement contractors to oversee themselves as “state refugee coordinators”)
- Making government oversight agency inspections unannounced
- Ending the federal government oversight agencies’ reliance mainly on contractors’ records for performance evaluations (now State Department inspectors only speak to 3-4 refugee cases at each resettlement site to verify services, and monitors will not investigate any complaints from community members – they skip over those cases during inspections)
- Actual penalties for contractors who do not meet the minimum requirements of government contracts (no consequences means no accountability)
- Expansion of the quite minimal “minimum requirements” of the government contracts
- An end to the revolving door, which makes government contractors into government oversight people and vice versa
- Requiring refugee resettlement contractors to show the public what private resources they are actually contributing
- Refugees must never be required to sign any forms, including apartment leases, without an interpreter and a thorough explanation of what they are signing
- Refugee travel loan repayment bills must be in the refugees’ languages
- Currently there is almost no minimum standard for assisting refugees to find employment – resettlement agencies are not required to help the refugees find jobs (what about a some minimum standard such as three realistic job leads per month per refugee, and help with the job applications?)
- Also see our recommendations to the National Security Council
Posted in reform | Tagged: government contractors, government oversight, minimum requirements, minimum standards, open government, oversight, reform, refugees, resettlement | 4 Comments »
Posted by Christopher Coen on February 10, 2012
Does left hand know what right hand does?
According to an article from Chattanooga, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) David M. Robinson claims that Tennessee’s new law – that mandates refugee resettlement agencies to report quarterly to local governments and allows local communities to apply for a “moratorium” on refugee resettlement – is already part of federal law. He must be referring to the part of the Tennessee that deals with quarterly reporting since there is no federal law about moratoriums. The “federal law” he refers to is actually a ORR regulation, as well as required via the State Department refugee contracts. Robinson claims he believes that the State Department (and/or their contractors?) have always abided by this regulation. Yet, they have not always abided by it, hence Tennessee’s claimed need to codify the requirement via state law. In New Hampshire the state refugee coordinator went so far as to claim that she could not require a refugee resettlement agency to consult with a city about its work, even though the ORR regulation required her, as the state refugee coordinator, to conduct quarterly meetings between the resettlement agencies and state and local governments. So, it seems that there is a disconnect between what the government oversight agencies believe that they do, and what actually happens. An article about Robinson’s visit is found in the Chattanooga Times Free Press:
A top U.S. State Department official, who spent two days in Tennessee discussing the state’s refugee resettlement program, said he wants to give communities a “louder voice in the process.”
“We believe it’s in the best interest of the United States that we pursue this program, but also we need to recognize the community nature of the program,” David Robinson, acting assistant secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, Migration, said during a news conference Thursday.
Robinson has been in the state for a two-day visit with community members, local government officials and employers to discuss the resettlement process…
…Tennessee is the first and only state to pass a law that mandates resettlement agencies to report quarterly to local governments and allows local communities to apply for a “moratorium” on refugee resettlement if those agencies overload local resources.
The law was approved last year, but the Tennessee Office for Refugees said no one has applied for the moratorium.
Robinson said that it’s already part of federal law but said Tennessee’s law “makes perfect sense.”
He added, “We believe that’s what we’ve always done,” he said… Read more here
All of this brings another question to my mind: If the new bill in New Hampshire for a proposed one-year moratorium on refugee resettlement is probably unconstitutional – as University of New Hampshire Law professor Albert Scheer told a NH state House committee last week – wouldn’t that be an indication that the part of Tennessee’s law which allows local refugee moratoriums also likely be unconstitutional? Sheer says it is likely unconstitutional because it singles out a particular class of legal residents. He cited a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case involving a California law forbidding indigent residents from other states from settling in California.
Posted in Assistant Secretary of the PRM, capacity, Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting, Joint Quarterly Placement Planning Meeting, legislation, legislation, moratorium / restriction, New Hampshire, openess and transparency in government, ORR, State Department, Tennessee | Tagged: Assistant Secretary of State, David M. Robinson, moratorium, ORR, Population Refugees and Migration, PRM, Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act, refugees, resettlement, unconstitutional | 1 Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on February 3, 2012
A University of New Hampshire Law professor told a state House committee that a bill for a proposed one-year moratorium on refugee resettlement is probably unconstitutional. He said that the moratorium provision raises constitutional questions because it singles out a particular class of legal residents. He contrasted the bill with another that became law in Tennessee last year. A Union Leader article has more
CONCORD — A bill allowing communities to impose a one-year moratorium on refugee resettlements is probably unconstitutional, a law professor told a House committee Thursday.
House Bill 1405 had both its supporters and detractors at a public hearing Thursday before the House Municipal and County Government Committee…
…The bill’s prime sponsor, Rep. Laura Pettengill, R-Glen, told the committee the legislation is similar to one passed in Tennessee…
But University of New Hampshire Law professor Albert Scheer told the committee the moratorium provision raises constitutional questions because it singles out a particular class of legal residents.
He cited a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case involving a California law forbidding indigent residents from other states from settling in California.
He also said states cannot pass laws that conflict with the “federal framework.” The refugee resettlement program is under the direction of the State Department.
Scheer said the Tennessee bill did not include the moratorium provision when it finally passed…
…Representatives of Lutheran Social Services of New England and the International Institute of New Hampshire spoke against the bill. Read more here
Posted in International Institute of New Hampshire, legislation, Lutheran Social Services of New Hampshire, moratorium / restriction, New Hampshire, State Department, Tennessee | Tagged: bill, International Institute of New Hampshire, legislation, Lutheran Social Services of New Hampshire, moratorium, New Hampshire, refugees, resettlement, State Department, unconstitutional | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on January 10, 2012
Representatives in New Hampshire’s state legislature this month introduced a bill to give cities the ability to declare a one-year moratorium on new refugees. An article at Yahoo News explains:
MANCHESTER, N.H.–With Mitt Romney’s strength in the polls in New Hampshire, the mayor of the state’s biggest city hopes that a resolution to what he calls “the refugee resettlement question” will soon be at hand…
…In July, the city’s aldermen took the unusual step of passing a bill requesting a two-year moratorium on new refugee resettlement… After interviewing city leaders and refugees, the State Department reduced the number of new refugees that would be settled in Manchester during this fiscal year–which began in October–from 300 to 200…
…Leaders in the local Bhutanese community are happy that the moratorium failed, but they remain wary of the mayor’s insistence that the city can’t handle more refugees. This month, representatives in the state legislature introduced a bill to give cities the ability to declare a one-year moratorium on new refugees, suggesting that the debate over their place in New Hampshire is far from over…
…”The moratorium that he is talking about has really created a lot of mental disturbances and tension to the communities who are already here,” Narad Adhikari, who moved to Manchester five months ago and is still looking for work, told Yahoo News…
The article also mentions that USCRI’s International Institute lumped all the refugees in one English class, ignoring skill levels (which has long proven counterproductive):
…many Bhutanese families in Manchester do not speak English, according to Acharya. The English classes provided by the International Institute–and paid for by the federal government–lump together refugees who have never had a day’s education with those who have spent years in a classroom, hampering the progress of both groups, he says.
The students Subedi works with sometimes act out in class because they receive less homework and lighter discipline than they did at the United Nations-run schools in the refugee camp.
“It’s easier here, so sometimes they try to take advantage of it,” Subedi said. Read more here
Posted in ESL & ELL, language, legislation, legislation, moratorium / restriction, Nepali Bhutanese, New Hampshire, State Department | Tagged: bhutanese, International Institute of New England, manchester, State Department, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants | 2 Comments »
Posted by Christopher Coen on November 1, 2011
As if the difficulties for refugees in adjusting to a new culture weren’t hard enough – while dealing with the heavy emotional baggage that stems from loss of family, loss of home, and extended periods in refugee camps – the US refugee resettlement program continues to place many of them in crime-ridden neighborhoods where the refugees fear for their lives. Thus, exacerbating mental health conditions (I have lobbied with the State Department for change in this issue since 2001 – see a 2005 letter). Philadelphia is one of the problem resettlement sites. An article in NewsWorks has the story:
War, torture, loss of family and friends–refugees arriving in the United States often carry heavy emotional baggage. Then they endure the strains of adjusting to a new culture. Agencies working with refugees new to Philadelphia are puzzling out how to help this population cope with its burdens…
…Refugees may have experienced loss of family, loss of home, arduous flight, extended periods in refugee camps, and then all of the challenges around readjustment.
For Khin Khin, who is from Burma, the readjustment struggles began right away. She fled to the U.S. with her husband, who was persecuted in Burma for his political activities. Arriving in Philadelphia, a service agency set her family up in a temporary apartment in a very bad neighborhood. “I know that America is not heaven, but we think that we can live very safely, but my husband when we first arrived, he was robbed,” recalled Khin Khin. “He was so scared to call the police because that guy said, ‘if you call the police I will kill you’, so he is so scared.”
Khin Khin remembers hearing gunfire all the time. She felt isolated, since no other Burmese families lived nearby. She had a sick infant, who required several surgies. At times, stress, anxiety and worry were and still are overwhelming. During a recent physical, she says her doctors recommended counseling. Khin Khin says she was told to share her feelings with a therapist, but she doesn’t want to do that because she is too shy… Read more here
Posted in Burma/Myanmar, cultural adjustment, dangerous neighborhoods, Lutheran Children and Family Service (Philadelphia), mental health, Philadelphia, reform, safety, State Department | Tagged: Burma, crime, dangerous neighborhoods, mental health, Myanmar, Philadelphia, refugees, resettlement, State Department, U.S. Department of State | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on October 26, 2011
Slumlord
Omaha elected officials have finally had it with the 4,000+ unresolved code violation cases in the city involving substandard living conditions that endanger low-income, immigrant and refugee populations. Certain landlords – the slumlords – have been ignoring violation notices and failing to make repairs. An article in the Omaha World-Herald tells more:
An alliance of Omaha churches and community groups celebrated Tuesday after the City Council unanimously approved measures to increase fees for city building permits and inspections.
The council’s action, proponents said, helps end a years-long battle to better enforce building code violations that blight neighborhoods and endanger tenants…
…About 30 members of the group Omaha Together One Community filled part of the council chambers as seven of its members testified in favor of the amendments.
Rundown properties damage neighborhood property values and attract crime, they said. They argued that code violations create substandard living conditions that endanger low-income residents or immigrant and refugee populations.
“We know that many owners respond by fixing the problem. Our concern is with those who do not,” said OTOC member Susan Kuhlmann of Omaha.
“They ignore the (violation) notice and fail to make the repairs. Despite any follow-up city reinspections, there is no additional fee. So what’s the incentive to repair the property?”…
…Rick Cunningham, city planning director, said the higher fees were needed for his department to better cover inspection costs and promote more fee collections from property owners who ignore them…
…Cunningham said there are more than 4,000 unresolved code violation cases in the city… Read more here
Posted in housing, housing, substandard, Omaha, reform, safety | Tagged: code violations, crime, Omaha, property values, refugees, resettlement, slumlord, substandard living conditions, Together One Community | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on October 10, 2011
Colorado’s eligibility crackdown on its Old Age Pension will not effect elderly refugees. Formerly, immigrants living in Colorado could sponsor their elderly parents as immigrants by telling the federal government they would take care of their relatives, but then sign up their family members for the Old Age Pension. Now, there is a five-year residency requirement, putting the state in line with federal benefits law. The new law also allows exceptions for hardship cases, such as elderly immigrants who are refugees. An article in the Denver Post has more:
For years, Colorado was known as a place with a unique legal loophole that allowed people to import their elderly immigrant relatives — family members they’d already promised to provide for — and immediately make taxpayers support them…
…The Old Age Pension program provides more than 23,000 low-income Colorado residents who are at least 60 years old with cash benefits of up to $699 per month…
…Voters added the Old Age Pension program to the state constitution in 1936. Originally, recipients had to have lived in Colorado for 35 years before getting the pension, but courts struck down the requirement as well as another requiring recipients to be U.S. citizens, meaning lawful permanent residents are eligible.
However, a remaining provision of the constitutional amendment says that the income of the family of the recipient can’t be considered in determining eligibility for the program. That’s despite the fact that under federal law, a person who sponsors an immigrant must sign a form pledging to be responsible for the immigrant…
…State officials and caseworkers say the frequent result was that people living in Colorado sponsored their elderly parents as immigrants, telling the federal government they take care of their relatives but then signing up their family members for the Old Age Pension.
With the five-year residency requirement, the program became aligned with federal law, which imposes the same waiting period to receive federal benefits…
…The new law does allow some exceptions for hardship cases, such as those elderly immigrants who are refugees or who are abandoned by their sponsors… Read more here
Posted in Colorado, elderly refugees, reform | Tagged: Colorado, elderly, immigrants, Old Age Pension, reform, refugees, resettlement | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Christopher Coen on August 3, 2011
If you’ve ever been stopped by a cop or had your day in court you’ve probably run up against the problem in which mere mortals, with all their biases and potential for failure, wield enormous power. If they woke up in a bad mood, for instance, the rest of us are going to feel their pain. Asylees face a similar phenomena in our courts in what is known as “refugee roulette”. Some of the judges seem to have almost never heard an asylum story that they didn’t find believable. Others rarely find the stories believable. It turns out that the difficult problem to get around here is the need we have for someone to decide if the asylee’s story is believable – it comes downs to that when actual proof is unavailable. So far we haven’t been able to invent a machine that can make this determination any better. An article in NY Daily News explains how the asylum court works in New York City:
For immigrants seeking asylum, winning the right to stay in the United States is often a game of chance that comes down to one thing: which judge hears their tale.
A report out this month shows two New York immigration judges with strikingly different records on granting safe haven – illustrating what experts call “refugee roulette.”
“One of the most important issues you ask, if they’re in court already, is, ‘Who’s your judge?’” said Zachary Sanders, a New York immigration lawyer.
At 26 Federal Plaza, lawyers hope for Judge Terry Bain, whose asylum acceptance rate is higher than that of any jurist in the nation. From October 2005 through this May, Bain approved 94.5% of applicants, well above the national rate of 46.8%, according to a new report by Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse…
…Judge Alan Vomacka sits in the same court, but he’s accepted just 28.3% of the cases he’s seen…
...Asylum law requires that immigrants prove they are fleeing persecution. They must give evidence or provide a reasonable explanation for why they can’t show proof. And they must be consistent. Some judges are more strict than others about demanding actual documentation. Approval ultimately depends on whether or not the judge believes an immigrant is telling the truth.
“Judges are people,” said Sanders. “You have to put yourself in the position of this person. You have to see things through their eyes, and then you have to decide if they’re lying or not.”
The system has come under fresh scrutiny after Nafissatou Diallo, who accused former IMF leader Dominique Strauss-Kahn of rape, admitted she embellished her asylum application.
“The system is created to give the benefit of the doubt to the asylum seeker,” said Jason Dzubow, a lawyer who blogs as The Asylumist. “On the one hand, it encourages fraud. But how many legitimate asylum seekers are you willing to send back to their countries, where they face persecution, in order to weed out fraud?”… Read more here
In case your tempted to think that it all evens out, by allowing individual judges of various backgrounds to use their own education and experience in deciding someone’s fate, for the judge who believes almost every asylee it means that crooks and schemers get through – not good for us. Then for the judge that almost never believes the asylees, we end up throwing good people back to the wolves in their countries — definitely not what America is all about.
So, why don’t we have panels decide these cases, e.g a panel of three judges? Wouldn’t that help to even-out judges using their personal education and experience in determining truth? If justice is the goal, this might get the best results.
Posted in asylees, court, Dept. of Justice, reform | Tagged: asylees, asylum, asylum law, courts, Department of Justice, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF, immigration court, Jason Dzubow, Judge Alan Vomacka, Judge Terry Bain, Nafissatou Diallo, New York City, Refugee roulette, refugees, resettlemen | 3 Comments »
Posted by Christopher Coen on March 22, 2011
U.S. House of Representatives’ Congressman Gary C. Peters’ (D-Mich.) proposed (discussion draft) refugee bill is now out and awaiting possible cosponsors. This bill is named The Domestic Refugee Reform and Modernization Act of 2011.
First thing I note is that Peters frames the proposal to analyze the ORR’s refugee services program with the idea that all current “unmet needs” (of refugees) are a government responsibility (p.5 line 24, p.6 lines 1-3). Yet, what about private contributions to current unmet needs? After all, the refugee resettlement program supposedly is a public/private partnership. The problem here is that Peters is apparently taking all his information and cues from a private refugee resettlement contractor – Church World Service (CWS).
Secondly, the discussion draft proposes that the ORR gather all sorts of extra data on refugees, such as mental health assessments and needs (p.10 lines 13-25, p.11 lines 1-5), secondary migration numbers (p.9 lines 3-19), etc., and proposes that an HHS Assistant Secretary report these findings to Congress each year. Yet, the ORR does not meet current reporting requirements to Congress, for laws already on the book (they have refused to release to Congress annual reports for fy2008, fy2009 and fy2010, as required by the Refugee Act of 1980). Shouldn’t Congress try to fix that problem first before adding any more reporting requirements?
Thirdly, Peters (CWS?) proposes to make the ORR independent within the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), and to make the ORR director an independent Assistant Secretary within HHS, yet he gives no real reasons for this other than that it would create “transparency” (really? how?), and would allow the ORR “broader authority and ability to make structural changes and direct resources effectively.” Okay CWS and ORR – what structural changes are you proposing? What redirection of resources are you proposing?
Aren’t these issues deserving of an open and public discussion?
Posted in Detroit area, HHS, legislation, legislation, Michigan, ORR, reform | Tagged: Domestic Refugee Reform & Modernization Act of 2011, Gary C. Peters, Gary Peters, Health and Human Services, HHS, human rights, Office of Refugee Resettlement, ORR, proposed bill, reform, refugee bill, refugee resettlement, refugee resettlement agencies, refugee resettlement program, refugess, US Department of Health and Human Services | Leave a Comment »
Christopher Coen
Melissa Sogard
nancylee1
