In another memo from the US State Department, resettlement agencies can say they have reached “capacity” and turn down placements as the end of the fiscal year approaches (FY 2010 ends September 30th). The memo dated June 15th from the Office of Admissions, Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration begins:
The following revised end of fiscal year Adjusted Assurance and Placement Policy is designed to serve the best interests of refugees and to allow the USRAP to admit the greatest possible number of refugees in Fiscal Year FY (2010) within current domestic refugee placement capacities. No agency or affiliate will be asked or expected to assure more refugees than it can competently resettle under the terms of the FY 2010 Cooperative Agreement.
Apparently to get out of one’s cooperative agreement, the agency can claim “unusual capacity challenges” within the agency or within the community (assuming they mean the broader community, ie. the city). I guess I should be grateful that capacity in the community is even being addressed.
Frankly though this is a bit confusing. How can the USRAP (US Resettlement and Placement) admit the largest number of refugees (they are aiming for 80,000 this year according to Obama) if a large number of agencies determine that they have “capacity challenges?”
I’m glad the State Department recognizes there are “capacity challenges,” but I wonder that it’s left to the agency to determine if they are competent to continue resettling refugees or need to halt resettlement especially since I view their work as a kind of ponzi scheme where they are paid by the head to resettle refugees—cut off those coming in and the money stops too!
Many times on these pages I’ve recommended that “capacity” of resettlement towns and cities must be determined in the local community by a legal process I’ve dubbed the ‘social and economic impact statement’ requirement. It goes like this (patterned after the National Environmental Policy Act, EIS requirement): In advance of refugee resettlement in a new town or city, or in an existing resettlement city, the federal government initiates a process to assess the capacity of the area to absorb refugees. Both economic and social factors would be considered. There would be PUBLIC hearings where experts would report on the job market, schools, health system, affordable housing and so forth. There would also be a frank discussion about whether the community wants diversity.
If the report produced by such hearings was favorable to refugees, a limit would be set on the number of refugees that locality could handle over say a 2 or 3 year period. The “capacity” would be regularly reassessed.
The federal government would also assure there would be no unfunded mandates for the state, county or city.
LOL! Don’t hold your breath that this reform will show up in the White House reform expected out this summer!