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.