UNITED STATES COORDINATOR FOR REFUGEE AFFAIRS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20520 September 30, 1992 Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing with regard to the need for a small reallocation of FY 92 refugee admissions numbers from regions where they will not be utilized to the admissions ceiling for the former Soviet Union. This situation, which developed in the final days of the fiscal year and resulted from an unanticipated surge in departures from the former Soviet Union, has been discussed with Subcommittee staff. This letter confirms the reallocation of numbers unused in other regions to the former Soviet Union ceiling in order to accommodate these individuals who, while adjudicated as refugees and entitled to travel on United States Government funded travel loans, have made their own arrangements and paid for their travel to the U.S. As recently as last week we estimated the shortfall at 100. Given arrivals during the last five days of the fiscal year, however, the need for additional numbers has grown to 400. We are addressing this situation through the use of numbers unused in East Asia, Eastern Europe and the Near East. In the case of the Near East, the numbers would be those unused from the 1,000 number unallocated reserve previously assigned to that region. The adjusted ceilings would be as follows: The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs, United States Senate. Please be assured that, these changes do not impede the travel of any refugees in the regions from which numbers are being drawn; the numbers would have gone unused in these regions. On the contrary, the reallocation allows us to accommodate additional already-approved refugees from the former Soviet Union who otherwise might have been required to wait until FY 1993 for admission to the U.S. I hope that you will agree that these minor adjustments in FY 1992 admissions serve the best interests of the U.S. refugee program. Please do not hesitate to contact my office if additional information would be helpful. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, hame It Hall, Acting Jewel Lafontant-Mankarious DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILI August 26, 1992 The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Chairman U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs 520 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-6284 Dear Senator Kennedy: This is in response to your questions for inclusion in the hearing record on the July 23, 1992 annual consultations on refugee admissions. I was pleased to appear before your subcommittee on this important subject and hope the enclosed responses are helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have further questions or concerns. Sincerely, Donna Donna N. Givens Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Enclosure Questions and Answers for the Record Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing July 23, 1992 Witness: Donna Givens, Principal DAS for Children and Families Question. Ms. Givens, as we have already heard today, there is some concern about ORR's proposed new program where some of the refugee funding will no longer be distributed by the States. I would appreciate your views on how this might affect the refugee dependency rate, particularly in California which has always been much higher than most of the rest of the country. you expect it will result in a significant reduction in the dependency rate? Answer. The latest available data on refugee dependency rates is for September 30, 1989. Currently, ORR is not able to calculate a dependency rate because Federal refugee funds no longer reimburse the State share of AFDC. Therefore data on refugee AFDC recipients are not available. Do In California, over 80 percent of the refugees who had been in the U.S. two years or less were receiving assistance as of September 30, 1989. The national average was 48.5 percent. The average for States other than California was 31.1 percent. we Based on ORR's experience with the voluntary agency matching grant program and Wilson/Fish projects which are similar in many respects to the proposed Private Resettlement Program believe that the Private Resettlement Program would result in lower dependency in California than is true under the Stateadministered program by enabling refugees to become employed more quickly. This would be accomplished by combining within the same agency the responsibilities for transitional assistance and strong case management directed toward early job placement and self-support. Question. The proposed 1993 refugee ceiling is 132,000. But H.H.S. has requested $227 million to fund the resettlement of these refugees. What is your comment on the fact that for the first time in history our refugee policy the number of refugees we admit will be determined by dollars allotted by H.H.S., rather than foreign policy and humanitarian considerations? Answer. The proposed refugee admissions have continued to be based on foreign policy and humanitarian considerations. When the President's Budget for FY 1993 was developed, it was based on the assumption that 122,000 publicly supported refugees would be admitted in FY 1993, plus up to 10,000 refugees under the Private Sector Initiative (PSI) at no cost to the government. These are the same refugee admissions numbers as are being proposed by the Administration today. Question. How does the Department expect the States, localities, and voluntary agencies to adjust to the proposed cut in funding? Answer. The Administration has had to make hard choices about where to put limited Federal resources. Under the proposed budget of $227 million, States would continue to be responsible for the program for unaccompanied minors and for employment services and targeted assistance, for which they would receive $133 million out of the $227 million requested 58% of the total. - We propose to replace the present State-administered programs of refugee cash assistance (RCA) and refugee medical assistance (RMA) with transitional assistance and case management provided through the private sector. This proposal would provide agencies that have access to incoming refugees with responsibility for transitional assistance and case management for RCA-type refugees that is, refugees who are not eligible for the categorical programs of AFDC, Medicaid, and SSI. Under this restructuring, we estimate that the budget request would enable transitional assistance to be provided by the private agencies for almost four times longer than the Stateadministered RCA and RMA programs, a substantial gain in costeffectiveness. We believe that the strong link between transitional assistance and case management would enable many refugees to gain earlier employment. The Office of Refugee Resettlement has been consulting extensively with the States, the national voluntary refugee resettlement agencies and their local affiliates, and refugee mutual assistance associations to develop plans for the new program and to assure a smooth transition. Question. Voluntary agencies the so-called "VOLAGS" do most of the day-to-day, hands on resettlement work with the refugees. Could you describe what input the VOLAGS had in preparing the H.H.S. FY '93 refugee budget request? Answer. Neither the VOLAGS nor any other organizations or individuals outside the Federal Government had input into preparing the ORR request in the President's Budget for FY 1993. After the President's Budget was made public, we consulted extensively with the voluntary refugee resettlement agencies, at both the national and local levels, with the States, and with refugee mutual assistance associations. 2 |