People doubt non-profit group ethics; no kidding!

Just this a.m. I was reading an article about how Catholic Charities was letting down Hispanics in Chicago here.   Ho hum, so what else is new.  But that isn’t what got my attention, it was a comment by someone responding to the story who was directing readers to this May 2009 report from Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.

Entitled “Ethics and Non-profits,” it talks about the erosion of confidence in for-profit businesses and the virtually equal erosion of public confidence in the non-profit sector.  Here are a couple of paragraphs.

Employee surveys similarly suggest that many American workplaces fail to foster a culture of integrity. Results vary but generally indicate that between about one-quarter and three-quarters of employees observe misconduct, only about half of which is reported. In the 2007 National Nonprofit Ethics Survey, slightly more than half of employees had observed at least one act of misconduct in the previous year, roughly the same percentages as in the for-profit and government sectors. Nearly 40 percent of nonprofit employees who observed misconduct failed to report it, largely because they believed that reporting would not lead to corrective action or they feared retaliation from management or peers.

Public confidence in nonprofit performance is similarly at risk. A 2008 Brookings Institution survey found that about one third of Americans reported having “not too much” or no confidence in charitable organizations, and 70 percent felt that charitable organizations waste “a great deal” or a “fair amount” of money. Only 10 percent thought charitable organizations did a “very good job” spending money wisely; only 17 percent thought that charities did a “very good job” of being fair in decisions; and only one quarter thought charities did a “very good job” of helping people. Similarly, a 2006 Harris Poll found that only one in 10 Americans strongly believed that charities are honest and ethical in their use of donated funds. Nearly one in three believed that nonprofits have “pretty seriously gotten off in the wrong direction.” These public perceptions are particularly troubling for nonprofit organizations that depend on continuing financial contributions.

My suggestion to all readers who wish to help refugees and immigrants, do it privately.  Find a local family and help them directly.  Most of the agencies (not all, but most) of the agencies ostensibly helping new immigrants have become primarily political organizations with substantial taxpayer funding to boot–avoid them! 

Here is a list to help you get started figuring out which to avoid.

Center for Immigration Studies has important information about how immigration impacts the health care debate.

From a recent CIS press release:

WASHINGTON (August 21) – While there has been some discussion of whether illegal immigrants should be covered by proposed government insurance plans, the enormous impact of immigration, both legal and illegal, on the health care system has generally not been acknowledged in the current debate.

Go here and learn more.

DHS Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2008

That’s the name of a July 2009 report from the Department of Homeland Security I just came across while reading the NumbersUSA article I just posted on.  Check it out here.

In 2008, the highest year yet, 359,000 aliens were removed from the US.  97,100 were criminal aliens!   811,000 foreign nationals agreed to go home without a removal order—-yeh, right!  How many of those actually left?

Then we have all those who got their marching orders at the White House last week getting ready to lobby for AMNESTY for these people.

Bhutanese to Canada: clever photo—from mud hut to metropolis

For regular readers of RRW, there isn’t a lot new in the article about large numbers of Bhutanese (ethnic Nepalese) going to Canada and the US (other western countries too), but I specifically wanted you to see the clever photograph at the top of the story published here in the Gorkhatimes (original story from the Globe and Mail).   I don’t know if someone was thinking ahead and set this pair of photos up this way, or are they cleverly photo-shopped?

The family depicted here is going to British Columbia.

Seven Western countries agreed to accept the Bhutanese after years of talks between Bhutan and Nepal ended in stalemate. Most – about 60,000 – will go to the United States. Many of the Kattels’ friends and relatives have plane tickets to places like Dallas, Salt Lake City and Phoenix. Mr. Kattel wishes more of his friends were going to B.C.

In Canada, the Bhutanese are to be settled in nearly 30 communities from Newfoundland to B.C. Eventually, about 900 refugees – including the Kattels – will move to Coquitlam, just outside Vancouver.

It’s a daunting prospect for the suburban community, and for the country as a whole.

Nine hundred Bhutanese are scheduled to go to a suburb of Vancouver—Coquitlam.   I found this paragraph interesting because apparently Canada does what I have recommended we do—hold community meetings well in advance of refugees arrival and line up host families.

In fact, city officials, community groups and residents in Coquitlam have laid out the welcome mat for the refugees from a little-known land. The local school board and the Immigrant Services Society of B.C. have set up a summer camp for the kids to polish their English and learn basic computer skills. Host families have come forward to help the refugees with basic tasks such as shopping and learning transit routes. Community meetings held in the spring to discuss the refugees’ arrival were overflowing.

Here is a webpage from the Canadian government’s Immigration department (Citizenship and Immigration Canada) spelling out very thoroughly what the plans are for Bhutanese going to Canada and a status report on how many have arrived, etc.    I don’t think the US government has any website that is as clear as this one in Canada.

For all of our government readers, please let us know if there is a US government website comparable to this one!  It is your chance to disprove my contention that refugee resettlement is done as secretly as possible here.

For more information on the Bhutanese, please use our search function.

What it’s like to be a refugee in America

That is the title of a Christian Science Monitor article a couple days ago.   Written by reporter Mary Wiltenberg, it is very thorough and well worth the read—even if I disagree with some of it! 

The article weaves an account of an African family’s experiences as they settle into life in Atlanta in between information on the program and how it works.   As a matter of fact, as I read it, I thought maybe the US State Department should hire Ms. Wiltenberg to write a manual of sorts on the program to be distributed in communities where refugees are resettled—to help answer citizens’ many questions in a straightforward and non-patronizing way.  The fact that citizens of resettlement cities are not consulted and generally left in the dark, leads to  much misunderstanding and is a major complaint of mine.   The reporter does a very good job explaining a complex federal program, warts and all.

The progam has problems.

A cornerstone of US foreign policy since the Carter administration, the resettlement program draws universal praise for its lifesaving generosity. But since 1980, it has been no politician’s top priority and has gone without major reform. And in today’s economy, the minimally funded program is failing many of those it rescues. Without a basic cultural foundation and language skills, some refugees who arrived in the US eager to build a life are ending up on the streets. Some are even returning to the war zones they fled, in desperate search of livelihoods.

This is the general outline of what refugees receive but one big issue is that it varies from agency to agency and city to city.   Some agencies do a better job than others.

Funded according to the volume of refugees they resettle, these agencies get $900 per head to cover administrative costs plus a refugee’s first three months in America: food, clothes, furniture, housing deposit, and rent. The agencies raise funds and distribute donated goods, and provide many refugees with help finding jobs, learning English, and accessing medical care, funded by the Department of Health and Human Services – and states sometimes chip in public assistance. But eight months after arrival, refugees are on their own and newcomers are lined up behind them, just as wasted and lost.

There are not enough jobs, especially now, for all the refugees arriving.

But today, refugees entering the job market are one of the biggest casualties of the economic collapse. In Phoenix, a major resettlement center, 80 percent of refugees were employed and self-supporting within four months of their arrival in 2007. Now, only 10 percent are.

It’s a similar scene here in the Atlanta suburb of Clarkston, an enclave of resettled refugees from more than 50 countries. On a cold February morning, Bhutanese refugee Bhanu Dhakal waited in line with 60 other refugees at the farmers’ market where Dawami got her first job. After two hours, he learned that there was no work, even for an experienced high school English teacher like him. For four months, he’d been hunting, willing to take any job. He and his wife were amazed: “This is not what we expected in America.”

There is a need to collect data on how the refugees are doing.

“Right now, we know there are huge problems facing refugees who resettle here because of the increase in unemployment and cutbacks in government services,” says Tim Riesser, a foreign-policy aide to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont. While little hard data has been collected on how many refugees are falling through the cracks, resettlement agencies see a growing number who are unemployed and unable to pay rent.

No plans from the Obama Administration to reform the program, maybe just more money.   Then this!   It costs on average $14,000 per refugee for resettlement, but that figure must not take into account those who stay on various forms of welfare for years.

There’s no sign that the Obama administration plans a major revision of resettlement policy in the near term, and the issue isn’t on the Congressional agenda. Key agencies – State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) – are in a holding pattern until administration appointees are in place.

What could change is funding. Over $1 billion is budgeted federally for resettlement (about $14,000 per refugee). But since the program’s founding, funding hasn’t kept pace with the cost of living – the length of assistance to new arrivals has shrunk: from 24 months three decades ago to a maximum of eight today.

So who are refugees?  And, where does it end?

Who are refugees? The 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and its 1967 Protocol, which the US signed, says: People outside their home countries who can’t return due to “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” (“Asylum seekers” have the same fear of persecution, but are already living in the countries to which they apply for protection.) This wording applies to many desperate people today, from the thousands of Sudanese streaming out of Darfur to the 2 million Iraqis forced from their country by the US war to 3 million Afghans still homeless 29 years after that nation’s previous war.

Over time, though, the definition has become problematic. Each year, millions around the world flee wars that devastate their lands and decimate their people, but don’t count as targeted persecution. Tens of millions more are “economic migrants,” uprooted by lack of livelihood.

In response to the above, I’m going to ask readers to watch the video at the NumbersUSA link at the top of the page, and then tell me where it ends.  I know it sounds harsh but we aren’t going to save them all. 

There is lots more in this article that you should find interesting.  I was going to remind you of the fraud that occurs in the program, how desperate people lie outright or just inadvertently, but it’s late and I am running out of steam.