The undersigned private voluntary agencies, members of InterAction's
Committee on Migration and Refugee Affairs, appreciate this opportunity to subunit
written testimony before the subcommittee on the funding needs for domestic
refugee resettlement programs in fiscal year 1993. While we recognize the current
budgetary constraints facing the government, we are firm in our belief that
financial crises should not be a reason for abandoning this country's traditional
humanitarian principles that are the backbone of our refugee policies. As agencies
with more than 100 years of collective experience we are eommitted to serving
refugees and providing them with hope and assistance in rebuilding their Hves, and
we strongly believe the American public supports a strong federally funded program
on behalf of refugees entering this country in search of freedom from persecution.

The Administration has proposed in its 1993 refugee assistance budget a reduction from 8420 million this year to $227 million in 1993, a reduction of 45%. The Administration further plans on reducing available funds by requesting a delay in obligating nearly 8117 million of the appropriation until the end of the fiscal year. For the entire yaar, only about $110 million would be available to managu the program. We understand that only $50 million is to be designated to critical cash and medical assistance, and that refugees who do not qualify for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or local general assistance programs would be denied these traditional programs of assistance.

The result of such a substantial budget out would be the removal of a
crucial safety net for roughly 60,000 refugees ineligible for AFDO. A budget level of
$227 million would overwhelm the resources of the combined network of privata

R-96%

InterAction is a membership association of US. private voluntary organizations engaged in internallanal humanitarian efforts.
including relief, development, refugee assistanca public pollay, and global education.

05-20-92 01:01PM P004 #05

R-96%

and public agencies that work to make resettlement successful. We do not believe that a need for
budgetary restraint should lead to the break down of our national resettlement program.

The impact would be severe and immediate. It would mean that roughly 48% of the
anticipated refuges arrivals next year would have at beat a few weeks of transitional assistance.
Experience has shown that a period of assistance coupled with adequate medical coverage,
employment training, job placement, ESL, and other services is not only appropriate but is the bast
means to help refugees achieve rapid self-sufficiency. Experience has also shown that with time
and support refugees can rebound from their tragic experiences to become hard-working,
productive members of American society. The President's budget would eliminate this support and
may generate costly and long-term consequences for scores of local communities receiving refugees.

We understand, Mr. Chairman, that many important social servios programs are facing financial cutbacks at this time and we do not presume that the funding levels which supported this program in years past can legitimately be reclaimed. But the reduction proposed by the Administration sends a dangerous signal to the refugee resettlement community that the government's resolve to assist humanitarian programs for needy reflugves in faltering -- a signal that the government is retreating from the successful private-publie partnership that has resettled more than 1.5 million refugues since 1975. This retreat poses unfair burdens on status, local governments, and private agencies, whose resources to assist refugees are already stretched beyond the limits. In short, it places the entire program in extreme jeopardy.

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we strongly recommend an appropriations level of at least $424 million, the amount proposed by the House Budget Committam earlier this year. This amount is necessary to enable the current level of services to the estimated 120,000 reftigees who will be admitted into the United States during fiscal year 1993.

R-96%

It is important to point out that our recommendation for this level of funding is sembinad
with our on-going efforts to seek out more cost affective and efficient means of resettlement that
combine the expertise and resources of the various agencies and organizations, private and public,
active in the program. Over the years, the agencies have been actively involved in the
development of alternative methods and programs around the country. These efforts all prove that
an integrated mix of employment and social services, along with transitional cash assistance and
adequate medical coverage, is a model which produces better resettlement at a lower cost.

The current budget crisis has served to redouble these efforts to seek out and implement alternative methods along this model. The recent proposal by the Office of Refuges Resettlement (ORR), developed in response to the $227 million budget request, is based on this model and therefore warrants our close attention.

As currently understood, the ORR proposal would replace the special refugee cash
assistance programs now administered through state public assistanos systems with a new and
enhanced government - private sector partnership to improve the delivery of services to refugees.
As part of this partnership, national private voluntary agencies representing a broad spectrum of
religious ethnic, and humanitarian assistance constituencies, would implement a Transitional
Resettlement Program (TRP) and work through their community based affiliates toward the goal of
early refuges employment and durable self-sufficiency.

The conceptual framework as envisioned by the private voluntary agendes would allow for the provision of transitional income assistance together with extended case management and employment services, all interrelated, for the non-AFDC eligible caseload. This we feal, would greatly improve the refugees ability to move more quickly to durable self-sufficiency.

05-20-92 01:01PM P006 #05

R-96%

Given adequate funding and appropriate medical coverage, we believe the concept behind the ORR proposal is a new approach to resettlement which could achieve long-term cost savings while simultaneously result in better resettlement outcomes. Some of the potential benefits wa would anticipate include the following:

Refugees served in the transitional resettlement program (TRP) could be provided an arrRY
of closely coordinated services aimed at early employment and self-sufficiency:

An increase in the percentage of funds applied directly to programs and services;

Increased administrative flexibility which would allow agencies to more efficiently and
effectively target available resources to meet the needs of individual refugees:

Refugees served under the TRP would be removed from large public assistance programs
that were not designed nor have always responded effectively in serving as transitional
assistance programs;

Under the TRP eligible refugees could be provided transitional assistance to meet housing,
food, clothing and other needs for longer than the same resources would allow under the
existing Refugee Cash Assistance program.

While we are pursuing the ORR initiative, we reiturate the concern of our state and local government colleagues that ORR's proposed budget level of 8237 million is unrealistically and irresponsibly low. Within the $227 million request, the voluntary agency resettlement program portion of this budget -- $74 million -- is simply not adequate to support the community programs necessary to help newly arrived refugees

R-96%

achieve self-sufficiency. Initial estimates show that significantly increased funds would be
required to successfully implement the range of programs under the TRP.

We are also concerned that refugees have adequate medical coverage during their initial period of resettlement. The currant ORR proposal anvisions private medical insurance at a budget of $20 million. The necessary coverage cannot be obtained at that level of funding. According to preliminary estimates, the costs for refugee medical assistance in 1902, which covered 12 months of reimbursement were roughly $68 million. We would recommend that similar levels of funding be reserved for fiscal year 1998, preferably to continue as a special refuges madical assistance program.

Conclusions

We believe that the ORR proposal should not represent a shift of essential costs from the US government to the private sector. We believe that good public policy must require adequata funding to ensure the success of programs aimed at early self-sufficiency. Working refugees are tax paying, contributing members of American communities. The alternative in costly long-term reliance on publicly funded cash assistance and social servion programs, and the exacerbation of other social problems.

Each voluntary agency has a distinguished history in refugee resettlement, some extending back to World War II and before. Our capacity to administer national programs of reflagen assistance through long established networks of community based affiliates, and in partnership with federal, state and local governments and Mutual Assistance Associations, is a matter of publie record. We recognize that current budget realities require new thinking and new approaches to refugee resettlement. The ORE proposal represents such thinking and presents a conceptual framework that we believe offers the most efficient and effective use of available resourous.

05-20-92 01:01PM P008 #05