welfare system that couples aid to needy persons, regardless of age or family characteristics, with strong self-support efforts and incentives. Question. Have there been any studies of the impact of this refugee migration on our population situation, our housing problems, our labor, economic, city planning, and regional development policies? And if not, why hasn't this been done? It appears to us that it is impossible to formulate sensible policies in these areas without analyzing these impacts. Answer. We are currently aware of only one study bearing on some of these areas, "A Pilot Study of the Dispersal and Assimilation of Indochinese Refugees" by Lorraine Garkovich, a doctoral candidate at the University of MissouriColumbia; this study was carried out with the support of the Ford Foundation. We believe that one factor has been the short amount of time that has passed since the completion of the initial resettlement from the camps. We will try to determine whether other studies may have been made which have not been brought to our attention, as well as to consider possible avenues for research. Question. How do you justify the creation of a separate category of aid for the new 15,000 parolees? Some observers have specifically criticized your bill for this. Is this not creating an administrative monstrosity? Why should not all refugees be aided strictly on the basis of justified need regardless of their date of entry? Answer. The major question in regard to the scope and level of funding on behalf of the 15,000 new refugees related to the impact on the States. It is our feeling that the new refugees will encounter many of the same problems initially as the original group of refugees and that, in recognition of this, it would be appropriate to provide a period of full Federal funding to the States for cash and medical assistance, social services, and State-local administrative costs, prior to beginning a phasedown. In our proposal, it would be necessary only for the State to maintain a record of the refugee's date of arrival in the United States-that is, whether the refugee arrived on or after August 11, 1977. While this would create an additional record-keeping item, we felt that the resultant higher level of funding to the States would constitute a benefit outweighing any inconvenience. Question. In an article which appeared in The Washington Post on September 19, 1977, it was indicated that many Indochina refugees are illegally sending money back to Vietnam. Has HEW surveyed the scope of this problem? Further, it is our understanding that a "needs test" is applied to Indochina refugees as a precondition to refugee assistance, and it would be interesting to know whether the monies which are sent abroad are considered as a part of the refugee assets in determining eligibility for welfare. Isn't it possible that a refugee could become needy by sending substantial sums of money to relatives in Vietnam? Answer. Welfare eligibility is based on need and family size taking into account income received, with the need standards and payment levels based on those applying in the State's AFDC program. Since earnings from employment would be the major factor, regardless of how a refugee disposed of those earnings, eligibility could not be attained by sending some of the earnings out of the country. We would also be inclined to believe, purely from an economic standpoint, that sending funds abroad would be much more likely to occur among the nearly two-thirds of the refugees who are not receiving any cash assistance, since their incomes are above the level of eligibility for assistance and they would therefore be in a better position to spare some funds. There is, however, no way in which we would be able to determine the extent to which refugees might be sending funds abroad which-probably indirectly—would be destined for their relatives in Indochina. Since refugees are aware of the illegality of sending funds to Vietnam, we do not feel that there would be a response to inquiries by us on this. Question. It has been suggested on occasion that HEW assume the responsibility for negotiating resettlement contracts with the voluntary agencies. In other words, there would be a transfer of this responsibility from the Department of State to HEW which is the agency primarily responsible for domestic resettlement. Is there any merit in this suggestion? Answer. We believe that the voluntary agencies have done an excellent job under difficult circumstances. Never before have so many refugees been resettled in the United States in such a short period of time, and the unemployment situation which prevailed throughout most of the country at the time the refugees arrived made the resettlement program even more difficult. On the HEW side, we have had a continuing relationship with several of the voluntary agencies since the Cuban program began in 1961 and have been responle for the VOLAG contracts for the Cuban program. Based on the experience to date, we do not believe that the success of the respective resetlement efforts has been affected by whether the contracts were negotiated by HEW or the State Department. RESPONSE TO QUESTION FROM CHAIRMAN EILBERG DURING HEARING [See p. 79] Question. Do varying State benefit rates in case assistance programs determine internal migration patterns? Answer. We are familiar with five studies dealing with patterns of population movement within the United States. These studies indicate that the primary motivating factors in internal migration are social (i.e., to be with relatives) or related to securing employment. The studies indicate that the amount of cash assistance is not a primary motivating factor in movement. The five studies referred to are: "Welfare Careers and Low Wage Employment," by Joe H. Miller and Lewis A. Ferman, for the Department of Labor, December 1972 (pp. 80-86). "Life Cycle Theory of Migration: Whether to Migrate as a Function of Change," by John Bishop, Discussion Paper, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., October 1976. "The Geographic Mobility of Labor," by J. B. Lansing and Eva Meuller, Ann Arbor Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1967. "The Administration of Aid to Families with Dependent Children in New York City, November 1968–February 1969, Report of a joint review carried out by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the New York State Department of Social Services, September 1969. "Geographic Payment Variation in a Federal Welfare System, by Janice Peskin, Technical Analysis Paper No. 14, Office of Income Security Policy of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, January 1977. B. STATISTICAL INFORMATION RELATING TO RESETTLEMENT Number of Indochinese refugee cash assistance recipients whose assistance will be terminated Sept. 30, 1977-State estimates 1 TABLE 1.-Indochinese refugees in the United States, Sept. 1, 1977 Resettled under expanded parole program__-. Resettled under "boat cases" program (as of Aug. 1, 1977). Total TABLE 2.-INDOCHINESE REFUGEES IN THE UNITED STATES BY STATES 129, 792 528 3, 466 11,000 914 145, 700 1 Adjusted to include 914 refugee "boat cases" with known State locations (as of Aug. 1, 1977) and 4,012 other refugees whose State location has not been ascertained. |