Obviously in response to a request from Senator Richard Lugar back in July 2010, the General Accounting Office has just released a new report that criticizes the State Department and the Dept. of Health and Human Services for not coordinating with communities when refugees are resettled resulting in overloaded, and stressed-out cities.

I haven’t read it and don’t even have a minute to summarize the summary, but check it out yourself here.  Here is the release from GAO.

And, I’m not going to get too excited about it because no one in the refugee industry is going to take it seriously.  The only thing that they will take seriously is when the money stops flowing to the contractors.  And, the only way that will happen is if Congress takes action, and of course what Congress could do is just throw more money at the overloaded communities!

Oops forgot!  Meant to give you the title:   Greater Consultation with Community Stakeholders Could Strengthen Program.   Every time I see that word “stakeholder” I want to barf!

Update July 28:  Church World Service, another big refugee contractor, is also lobbying Congress to keep it from reducing expenditures to the refugee program, here.

Your tax dollars!

Yesterday, I told you that officials from overloaded El Cajon, CA went to DC to see if they can wring some money out of the State Department or the Dept. of Health and Services to keep their local welfare/schools/health care from crashing completely due to an overload of refugees needing “services.”

Now we see that Congress is considering reducing funds for Refugee Resettlement and big contractors who need to keep their staff salaries flowing are urging people to contact Congress and beg for more money for them.

How many times over the years have we heard this same old refrain—-more money please!   No one ever says, if we don’t have the money we will have to reduce the number of refugees entering the country, after all, there are no jobs!

Folks!  The party is over!

Here is the story by reporter Una Moore (hopefully not THAT Una!) at the UN Dispatch.

Proposed drastic cuts to refugee assistance funding, if approved by Congress, will imperil support for tens of thousands refugees due to be resettled in the United States during the coming fiscal year.

Refugee resettlement organizations are understandably alarmed.

At this point Ms. Moore sends us to the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI)website for their little form letter for you to send to your Member of Congress.    Moore continues:

Resettlement field offices, largely located in America’s poorest cities, have endured years of crisis-level funding shortfalls and staffing shortages, with no relief in sight. These deficiencies mean that, as is, many refugees receive only the bare minimum of support following their arrival in the United States, leaving unmet pressing needs like mental health care and extended case management for refugees with disabilities.

And local non-profits simply aren’t able to fill all of the gaps, especially now, with many small organizations struggling to survive on dwindling donations and facing stiff competition for scarce foundation dollars. If the proposed 2013 cuts go through, refugees will face an even rougher start to life in America than they do now.

Readers it was originally envisioned that these contractors were part of a public-private partnership (ahhh! I hate that phrase surely not envisioned by our founding fathers) where the “private” really meant private funding would be used as well.  But, gradually all that has changed and contractors such as USCRI reports in its most recent available Form 990  that out of $31 million in income in 2009/10, nearly $29 million is from you!

The Refugee Resettlement program costs the US taxpayer over $1 billion a year!   That figure does not include subsidized housing, most health care, food stamps or educating the kids.   If we resettle 50,000 refugees (just rounding the  number) that means you pay about $20,000 for every man, woman and child as they enter the country not including all the “social services” these impoverished and poorly educated people consume locally.