Friends of Refugees

A U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program Watchdog Group

Archive for the ‘USCRI’ Category

« Previous Entries

Akron sees influx of Nepali-Bhutanese refugees

Posted by Christopher Coen on May 23, 2012

There is now a surge of Nepali-Bhutanese refugees resettling to Akron, Ohio. This happens when refugees seek to join their relatives already resettled in a local area (refugees termed as “geo cases”) as well as my secondary migration from other US cities (the Nepali-Bhutanese may be hearing from friends and families that jobs are available in Akron). Of course the surge puts pressure on the local resettlement agency to find a lot of material-item donations – e.g. furniture, essential household items, clothes, toiletries – in a relatively short period. Akron’s Beacon-Journal newspaper explains:

When members of the Bhutanese family arrived in Akron from a refugee camp in Nepal, they had nothing but the clothes on their backs and a few keepsakes in a bag.

The International Institute of Akron provided them with a furnished apartment, a hot meal and all of life’s little essentials, including kitchen gadgets, towels, sheets, blankets and cleaning items.

“It was a difficult life in the camps for 20 years,” said Bhim Subba, 50, who traveled to Akron with his wife and two children in February. “We were seeing no future there and decided to be resettled.”

The institute expects to serve a record number of refugees this month, with 85 already arriving as of late last week and the possibility of more in the remainder of the month. The figure is more than double the 30 to 40 refugees the agency normally gets in a month.

With the influx, the institute is looking for donations of basic items for the families.

“We need it all,” said Debbie May-Johnson, executive director of the institute…

…May-Johnson said most of the refugees coming into Akron are from Bhutanese refugee camps in Nepal and Burmese camps in Thailand. She said they are asking to come to Akron because they already have family here, with refugees from these camps settling in the city for the past five years.

May-Johnson said the institute has an equal number of refugees who come from other U.S. cities to Akron, seeking job opportunities and affordable housing… Read more here

Posted in Akron, International Institute of Akron, Nepali Bhutanese, secondary migration, refugee | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

International Institute of New Jersey closes down

Posted by Christopher Coen on May 15, 2012

It was just three weeks ago that a newspaper article featured the International Institute of New Jersey (IINJ) and explained the agency’s services and activities. There was not even a hint of any brewing problems. Today the same newspaper has announced the IINJ’s abrupt closing, and just a day after another article announced that the agency was “downsizing” due to $800,000 in federal and state aid cuts. Now it turns out that when the April article appeared the IINJ had not paid its rent in seven months. An article today in The Jersey Journal announced the closing:

Reversing comments they made yesterday, officials with the International Institute of New Jersey (IINJ), a Jersey City-based nonprofit that provides services for immigrants, said today the organization will be closing by mid-June and declaring bankruptcy.

Yesterday, the director and chair of the organization, told The Jersey Journal the nonprofit was “downsizing” and relocating due to a total of $800,000 in federal and state aid cuts. 

The organization’s budget is $1.8 million a year, according to IINJ executive director Catherine Tansey.

According to an email sent to supporters from IINJ board chair Bill Armbruster that was obtained by The Jersey Journal, the nonprofit, located at 1 Journal Square, ended most operations on Friday, “though some will continue to the end of the month”…

…”We are supposed to make the final payments to the staff on May 18, but that will depend on when funds arrive,” he wrote. “We will be filing for bankruptcy shortly after we receive the last grant money due the Institute, which will probably be around mid-June.”

In the email, Armbruster states the organization owes eight months in back rent. “The cutbacks in government funding and our inability to raise sufficient private funds, whether from corporations, foundations and individual donors, put us in a chronic deficit,” he states.

IINJ employs 12 full-time staff and has 10 AmeriCorps volunteers, IINJ officials said yesterday.

IINJ has been serving immigrants in Hudson County since 1918… Read more here

Posted in New Jersey, USCRI | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Cleveland housing for refugees – Cheaper to rehab vacant house than to demolish it

Posted by Christopher Coen on May 13, 2012

The first refugee family has moved into a vacant, foreclosed house in Cleveland as part of a program to rehab empty housing stock in the city. The project is a collaboration between the Cuyahoga County land bank and International Services Center. It turns out that the $40,000 expended to rehab the house is less than what it would have cost to demolish it. An article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer explains:

LAKEWOOD, Ohio — A pilot program operated by two nonprofit groups to place refugees in vacant, foreclosed homes has settled its first family into a renovated house in Lakewood.

Bhutanese natives Ruk and Leela Rai, along with their 3-year-old son, Anish, moved into an updated century home on Hopkins Avenue last week.

Two years ago, the International Services Center resettled the Rais in Cleveland from a refugee camp in Nepal,where Ruk and Leela had lived for 20 years. Their son was born in the camp.

Through the center’s programs, they learned life skills and found jobs. And now they are the first recipients of the new housing program created bythe center and the Cuyahoga County land bank.

About a year ago, the land bank, which has acquired a number of empty foreclosed homes, teamed with the center to split the costs of renovating the vacant Lakewood home and renting it to a refugee family.

So far, the partnership has worked well. And there’s a good chance it will continue, as the center needs housing for its stream of refugees, and the land bank, which razes many empty foreclosed homes, needs occupants.

It cost $40,000 to rehab the Lakewood house, which is cheaper than demolishing an empty foreclosed property… Read more here

Posted in Cleveland, housing, International Services Center, Nepali Bhutanese | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bowling Green International Center – Matching Grant Program inspection

Posted by Christopher Coen on May 3, 2012

In late 2009 and early 2010 a volunteer assisting refugees at the Bowling Green International Center (previously known as Western Kentucky Refugee Mutual Assistance Association) found refugees from Myanmar (in this case Karenni) living in deplorable conditions, who reported receiving low-quality resettlement services from the resettlement agency. The volunteer documented extensively what she saw and heard, including taking photos and videos. Oddly, a State Department resettlement grant inspection report from earlier in 2009 failed to uncover any of these problems.

Now, here is a look at the ORR’s most recent inspection report of the International Center’s (IC’s) use of Matching Grant Program funds, from 2006. By the way, this is one of twelve inspection reports (8 were incomplete) that we recently received from a Freedom of Information Act request to the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) covering a period from 2005 to 2011. (If HHS complied with the FOIA law, that would mean that the ORR did two inspections per year. This, in a program that in CY2006, for example, paid out $35,772,000 to the resettlement contractors, and served 24,753 refugees, Cuban/Haitian Entrants, asylees and victims of trafficking) 

Here are highlights from the inspection:

  • The IC’s national affiliate, the USCRI, supposedly monitored the IC in March of 2006 (these are the self-inspections that the State Dept. touts as being useful — I remain skeptical). “ORR requested a copy of this report for the record, but USCRI failed to comply.”
  • Of the 67 refugees enrolled in the MG program in 2005, the ORR reviewed only eight refugee case files. Files contained document forms in other languages that did not have a corresponding English copy. Comprehensive employment services were in some cases not documented as required by MG Guidelines. In some cases there was no documentation of closeout, e.g. status of refugee at termination of services and referrals to later programs if needed. The ORR reviewer found that the full issues that had arisen in refugee cases — the resulting services and/or follow-up for some cases — were not noted, and were instead learned only by speaking with the refugees (visiting with only three of the 67 refugees) and resettlement agency staff.
  • The IC referred the vast majority of refugees to only one factory that it had a long, established relationship with, disregarding the diversity of refugees’ employment histories and education. (One size does not fit all.)
  • Instances where the IC did not pay the children’s part of the monthly cash payments – $40 per child. This is the cash that the ORR gives to resettlement agencies for refugee parents who are receiving employment services so that they are able to pay basic bills.
  • Although resettlement agencies such as the IC are allowed to use $2 in MG funds for each $1 in donations they gather, the ORR review found “numerous instances in which copious amounts of inappropriate and unallowable donations were being recorded and counted as MG match. Examples include $1,639 for clothing donations to [match the MG funds] a family of three…and $3,319 for clothing donations for a family of six…unclear service donations of $192 (I suspect that should be four digits — a piece here is redacted)…and counting donations that are clearly required as part of the [State Department refugee grant] (Mattresses [for one refugee] and pillows, sheets, mattresses, etc. for [another refugee] as MG match. The reviewer…found that donated goods were not…consistently valued in a manner that assigns reasonable values to such donations.”
  • The IC intermingled funds from separate grants, even from separate US federal agencies, which the ORR assessed as “grossly incompliant” (sic). For example, the reviewer found “numerous instances where [IC] was incorrectly charging federal funds for employee time. ORR Matching Grant, ORR Cash Assistance, ORR Medical Assistance, ORR…Social Services, and [State Department initial resettlement services grant money] charges were often mixed up.” This included double charging case management services to the MG program and to another grant though the refugee was only enrolled in the MG program, charging refugee health costs to MG, and charging MG past the allowable service period.
  • Despite these deficiencies the ORR wrote that the International Center provides “effective services to refugees that are enrolled in the MG program” (???), and that the number of refugees enrolled in the MG program was projected to increase from 67 in 2005 to 175 in 2006. The ORR’s specific assessment of the IC’s use of MG program grant money also appears to give the agency credit for non-MG services. For example, the ORR gives the IC credit for services such as referring refugees in a timely manner to food stamps, medical assistance, health screenings and social security cards – all of which the State Department refugee resettlement grant covered. Read report here

Posted in Bowling Green, children, employment services, employment/jobs for refugees, International Center in Bowling Green (Western Kentucky Refugee Mutual Assistance Association), Karenni, Matching Grant program, ORR, USCRI | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Matching Grant monitoring findings – Heartland Alliance in Chicago

Posted by Christopher Coen on April 30, 2012

The said purpose of the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s (ORR’s) Matching Grant Program (MG) is to place refugee clients in jobs which will enable their household units to meet self-sufficiency within 120 to 180 days (in this case “self-sufficiency” is defined as not accessing public cash assistance, although the household units may use other forms of welfare, e.g. SNAP/food stamps, Section 8 housing assistance, etc.). The MG supposedly works to speed up the process of self-sufficiency by offering programs, support, and incentives to refugees, making the transition to self-sufficiency faster and easier. Its called “Matching Grant” because participating agencies (private contractors) agree to match the ORR grant with cash and in-kind contributions (goods and services) from the “community”. The ORR awards $2 for every $1 raised by the refugee resettlement agency from non-federal sources – including state and local support, United Way contributions, and in-kind support from other local and volunteer organizations – up to a maximum of $2,200 in federal funds per refugee. So, self-sufficiency is the goal, but what are the results?

The Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights refugee resettlement agency in Chicago is one of the contractors that the ORR monitored to assess how well resettlement agencies are helping refugees using the Matching Grant money. In the past Heartland Alliance’ use of US Department of State refugee grant money, as well as a human trafficking grant from the US Department of Justice, left much to be desired. Now, it seems that a ORR MG Program Analyst noted deficiencies in Heartland Alliance’s use of the MG program grant as well, according to a newly released 2005 inspection of the agency:

…Case Notes – …The reviewer found little detail of services being provided, particularly in cases where clients did not become self-sufficient…

…Asylee Payments – Some asylee cases were found to be missing required monthly payments…

…Housing Provision – ORR observed a number of cases [where] full rental payments were not provided for the required time period, although needed. This forced clients to supplement the rent payments with their MG cash…

…Job Development – The reviewer found little evidence of true job developments on the part of [Heartland Alliance]. The program employment outcomes appear to be the result of fairly intense case management coupled with relatively independent clients who find their own jobs. In cases where clients have a family or a strong community base to assist in the employment search, this system seems adequate in assisting clients to become self-sufficient. However, few to no modifications to that procedure were evident in dealing with free cases [refugees with no local family or ethnic community support] that do not have a strong community base to assist, or other instances where such assistance is necessary. Such sub-par employment services were particularly evident in low English level refugee clients. The [Heartland Alliance] employment rate for CY2004 was 50%. USCRI national average for CY2004 was 85%; the national MG average was 72%… Read more here

This last figure seems to point to a problem at Heartland Alliance and not MG Program weaknesses. Yet, it also shows how dependent government inspectors are on contractors’ own written records in assessing compliance with government grants. Aside from the problems noted, what comes to mind is to what degree the contractor’s written records match refugee clients’ reports about services received, however, the inspection report shows no comments from the clients (as opposed to the State Department’s reviews of refugee resettlement grantees).

Nevertheless, though the national average for refugee employment in the MG program was 82% that year, Heartland Alliance’s refugee clients in MG only achieved a 50% employment rate. Much of that 50% appears to have been refugees finding employment on their own or with the help of family or community.

Posted in asylees, Chicago, economic self-sufficiency, employment services, employment/jobs for refugees, Heartland Alliance, Matching Grant program, ORR | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Manchester’s conservative rag calls for a “compromise moratorium”

Posted by Christopher Coen on April 21, 2012

After the failure of the effort in New Hampshire to enact a refugee moratorium state law that would allow municipalities to ban new refugees from resettling locally for one year, the local conservative Union Leader newspaper has come out with an editorial calling for a so-called “compromise moratorium”. (Never mind that the proposed law was fatally flawed by singling out a specific group of people and restricting their constitutional right to freedom of movement, and by trying to preempt a federal law that has supremacy.) The editorial staff now says that a compromise would be to “let” refugees resettle to Manchester but ban them from receiving any “city-financed public benefits for two years.”

I find this perplexing because in all the discussions and newspaper articles about the moratorium issue I don’t remember any clear argument having been established that refugees are somehow a burden to city finances. One side of the debate repeated this over and over, I remember, but no evidence was ever offered. Why is this the central concept that they focus on in regard to refugee resettlement? They seem to want to tie together refugees and welfare usage in our minds usage — in this case, the part that is “city-financed”. Yet, is there any real data supporting this concept, or is it just ideologically based without consideration of facts?

According to a July 9, 2011 Op-ed piece in the Concord Monitor by William J. Gillett, chairman of the board of the International Institute of New England refugee resettlement agency, the latest data showed that, “63 percent of refugees in our workforce training program gained employment within 180 days of their arrival.” Then there was the March 16, 2012 article in the Concord Monitor that claimed that a state house floor debate, “focused on the frustration of Manchester officials, who have complained that a flood of non-English speaking refugees had lowered their school test scores and burdened city welfare services.” (emphasis added) Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas also complained that refugee children were lowering local school test results. But what about this welfare thing?

Isn’t most welfare provided at the state level and mostly financed by the federal government? What city benefits is the Union Leader referring to? If you check out the web page for the City of Manchester’s Welfare Department it turns out that the only welfare the website lists is temporary emergency assistance — although there is also mention of a work program and the City’s participation as a screening agency for Manchester Emergency Housing:

The Manchester, NH City Welfare Department provides temporary emergency assistance to city residents for the basic necessities of life when no other resource is available. Assistance is rendered in voucher form only.

The Welfare Department also operates a work program and participates as a screening agency during working hours for Manchester Emergency Housing, a non-profit family shelter… Read more here

The site then directs users to links to the State Division of Health and Human Services for all the typical things that most people think of as “welfare” – Medicaid, food stamps (SNAP), child care, TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), etc.

So, it seems that the Union Leader is claiming that the City’s welfare burden is essentially the temporary emergency assistance that residents use when they are in a crisis. Is that it? If so, how much could this amount to? Apparently there was a spike in the numbers of refugees needing this assistance back in June 2011, but that was twenty-six families. A July 10, 2011 article in the Union Leader indicated that twenty-six refugee families had recently been in the city welfare office looking for help after a cut off of their state rental assistance. But nowhere else from the past ten months of discussion about the proposed moratorium do I see any other facts about refugees’ City welfare usage.

Furthermore, shouldn’t emergency assistance to residents in any city be based on need, not on what class of people or group that applicants may belong to? Restricting it in such a way would, once again, be unconstitutional. This type of talk about “compromise” is not real or constructive.

Posted in funding, International Institute of NE, International Institute of New Hampshire, moratorium / restriction, New Hampshire | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Moratorium bill dies a quiet death in New Hampshire senate

Posted by Christopher Coen on April 19, 2012

So ends the strange saga of New Hampshire’s refugee moratorium bill. A state senate committee has recommended sending the bill “off to study”, which in an election year is apparently akin to killing it since it would have to start as a new bill next year. An article in the Nashua Telegraph has the details:

CONCORD – A move to give any city or town the right to seek a one-year ban on accepting any more refugees appears headed to legislative death in the state Senate.

With no debate and little fanfare, the Senate Public and Municipal Affairs Committee recommended shipping this House-passed measure, HB 1405, which Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas has vigorously pursued, off to study.

Sen. Jack Barnes, R-Raymond, said the solution lies not in a state law but better communication among community service groups that care for these refugees and the host towns…

…Barnes recommended that the panel study the issue, which in an election year is akin to killing the bill since it would have to start all over as a new bill in 2013… Read more here

Oddly, the Republican chairman of the committee blamed refugee advocates for the lack of promised communication with Manchester’s mayor this past week, even though he had specifically asked the mayor to reach out to the refugee advocates and the mayor had promised he would. Yet, neither side had made an effort. An article at the Concord Monitor explains:

A Senate committee yesterday recommended interim study for a refugee moratorium, but not before its chairman gave refugee advocates a tongue lashing on communication etiquette.

Sen. Jack Barnes, a Kingston Republican, said despite assurances a week ago, Manchester refugee advocates have not tried again in the last seven days to initiate a compromise with Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas, who wants the moratorium.

“I don’t appreciate people coming to this committee and saying they are going to do something and then not doing it,” said Barnes of agreements by both sides to work on a compromise. “That, to me, is garbage.”

Reached yesterday after the hearing, the advocates, Manchester immigration lawyer George Bruno and William Gillett of the New England International Institute, offered a slightly different take.

Gillett said the institute’s executive director did call Gatsas, in part to introduce a new Manchester site director. She had not gotten a call back, he said.

And Bruno said he didn’t know there was a deadline to make contact with Gatsas…

…”I might say, I haven’t heard anything from the mayor either,” Bruno said…

…At a hearing on the bill last week, Barnes implored both sides to set aside their differences and renew efforts to establish a working relationship. Both sides agreed.

Knowing his committee was voting on the bill yesterday, Barnes called Gatsas on Monday night to ask whether he had heard from Bruno or Gillett. Gatsas told him he hadn’t, Barnes said yesterday.

Clearly irritated yesterday, Barnes said, “It seems Mr. Bruno and these other groups haven’t given the mayor the courtesy of a phone call.”

Gillett and Bruno said yesterday they remain willing to work with the mayor, and Bruno said he’d reach out to Gatsas when he returns from Italy.

They said they’d take the mayor’s calls, too… Read more here

Posted in International Institute of NE, International Institute of New Hampshire, legislation, moratorium / restriction | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Refugee moratorium bill now before the New Hampshire state senate

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: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Nationalities Service Center In Philadelphia Resettles LGBT Refugees

Posted by Christopher Coen on March 26, 2012

In 2010, about 3,500 lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT) refugees were resettled in the U.S. – including about 125 in Pennsylvania – and about 1,000 LGBT asylum seekers are also entering the country.Most LGBT people who come here as refugees or seeking asylum don’t identify as LGBT, making sensitive resettlement services trickier to apply. In Philadelphia the Nationalities Service Center is resettling some of these refugees. An article in the Philadelphia Daily News explains:

…refugees classified as lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT) [are being] resettled in Philadelphia by the Nationalities Service Center, the city’s largest refugee-resettlement agency…

…Until recent years, LGBT refugees in the U.S. were more likely to identify their persecution as ethnic, religious or political, said Juliane Ramic, the NSC’s director of social services.

On Dec. 6, President Obama issued a presidential memorandum directing the first-ever U.S. government strategy dedicated to combating human-rights abuses against LGBT people abroad. On the same day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke in Geneva about the need to protect LGBT people. “In many ways, they are an invisible minority,” she said. “They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed.”

The NSC in Philadelphia, along with representatives from the Chicago-based Heartland Alliance for Human Needs and Human Rights, conducted training to help ensure that refugee-resettlement agencies and other service providers understand the vulnerabilities of LGBT refugees and asylees before, during and after resettlement.

Because most LGBT people who come here as refugees or seeking asylum don’t identify as LGBT, reliable statistics on their numbers are hard to come by. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees does not identify or track LGBT refugees, and information on sexual orientation or gender identity rarely is reflected in refugees’ files, according to the Heartland Alliance.

In 2010, about 3,500 LGBT refugees were resettled in the U.S. – including about 125 in Pennsylvania – and about 1,000 LGBT asylum seekers entered the country, the Heartland Alliance estimates… Read more here

Posted in Heartland Alliance, LGBT refugees, Nationalities Service Center, Obama administration, Philadelphia | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Refugee Resettlement Services: What Low Standards Produce

Posted by Christopher Coen on February 29, 2012

This is an extra scene from Nickel City Smiler, a documentary film about Karen refugees in Buffalo. Donna Pepero, head of the Refugee School Impact Program in the Buffalo Public Schools, talks about a resettlement agency in Buffalo that dropped off a refugee family to an apartment furnished with just part of a sectional sofa – not even any beds:

Posted in Buffalo, Burma/Myanmar, Catholic Charities of Buffalo, furnishings, lack of, International Institute of Buffalo, Jewish Family Service of Buffalo & Erie County, Journey's End Refugee Services, Journey's End Refugee Services, Karen | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 84 other followers