document resume ed 380 246 author morse, …document resume ed 380 246 rc 019 977 author morse, ann,...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 380 246 RC 019 977

AUTHOR Morse, Ann, Ed.TITLE America's Newcomers: An Immigrant Policy Handbook.INSTITUTION National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver,

CO.; State and Local Coalition on Immigration.SPONS AGENCY Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, New York, N.Y.REPORT NO ISBN-1-55516-996-1PUB DATE Sep 94NOTE 120p.; Chapter 3, Employment and Training Programs

for Immigrants and Refugees, was publishedseparately; see ED 371 081.

PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) Collected WorksGeneral (020)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Access to Education; Adult Education; Cultural

Pluralism; Educational Needs; 71ementary SecondaryEducation; Eligibility; *Federal Legislation; FederalPrograms; Health Services; *Immigrants; *Immigration;'Job Training; *Public Policy; Refugees; SocialServices; State Programs

IDENTIFIERS *Access to Health Care

ABSTRACTThis handbook contains five research papers and

extensive reference materials on general immigration, immigrantpolicy, and related federal and state programs. "Immigration andImmigrant Policy" (Jonathan C. Dunlap) presents an historicaloverview of U.S. immigration, 1820s-1980s; defines various immigrantstatuses and eligibility of each for federal programs; and describesthe roles and responsibilities of federal, state and localgovernments, and the courts. "Health Care Issues for New Americans(Jonathan C. Dunlap, Fay Hutchinson) discusses immigrants' access tohealth care, public health issues related to immigration, mentalhealth of refugees, and language and culture issues in service

z- delivery. "Employment and Training Programs for Immigrants andRefugees" (Ann Morse) describes the Job Training Partnership Act andother federally funded training programs for disadvantaged adults andyouth, training programs targeted at specific immigrant populations,licensing of foreign-born professionals, and unmet needs for Englishclasses and other educational services. "Community Relations andEthnic Diversity" (Ann Morse, Jonathan Dunlap) discusses publicopinion about immigration, cultural diversity, and assimilation;language issues; community coalitions; incentives for citizenship;multilingual outreach programs; and mass media effects. "FederalRetrenchment, State Burden: Delivering Targeted Assistance toImmigrants" (Wendy Zimmerman) examines concentrations of immigrantsand refugees in certain states; state costs; reductions in publicassistance, language and job training, and health and socialservices; and implications for policy reform: Appendices contain a

chronology of federal immigration legislation and a directory ofimmigrant policy contacts by state. This handbook contains 70selected references, additional references in each chapter, and anindex. (SV)

R I CN 'WCOMERS

s

Atiabise-p

411 J.

TOY-

711,f;

.k.

%

/y9.7

.4C

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

BEST COPY AVAILABL

All immigrant. P©i ,Randibook

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice ot Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

)71/Th1s document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationorigmating it

0 Minor changes have been made to improverePrOduction quallty

Points of view or opinions stated in this document Co not necessarily represent officialOE RI position or policy

2

AMERICA'S NEWCOMERSAn Immigrant Policy Handbook

IMMIGRANT POLICY PROJECT

STATE AND LOCAL COALITION ON IMMIGRATION

Edited byAnn Morse

Program Manager

National Conference of State LegislaturesWilliam T. Pound, Executive Director

1560 Broadway, Suite 700Denver, Colorado 80202

444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 515Washington, D.C. 20001

September 1994

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES iv

STATE & LOCAL COALITION ON IMMIGRATION, IMMIGRANT POLICY PROJECT

National Advisory Board MembersGoverning BoardMembers of the Panel of Experts vi

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix

1. IMMIGRATION AND IMMIGRANT POLICY 1

Introduction 1

A Nation of Immigrants 1

Two Waves of Immigration 3

Immigration Status 6

The Newcomer in the 1990s 8

How the System Works 10

Federal Immigration Law 12

Conclusion 18

Glossary 19

References 20

2. HEALTH CARE ISSUES FOR NEW AMERICANS 21

Introduction 21

Access to Health Care 22Public Health 24Refugee Mental Health 26Language and Culture 28Conclusion 31References 33

3. EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES 34

Introduction 34Federal Programs for Employment and Job Training 35Immigrant and Refugee Programs 39Discussion 42Conclusion 45Notes 47References 47

4. COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY 49

Introduction 49The Ambivalent Welcome 50Melting Pot or Salad Bowl? 51Coping with Diversity 54Conclusion 63Notes 64References 65

5. FEDERAL RETRENCHMENT, STATE BURDEN: DELIVERING TARGETED ASSISTANCE TOIMMIGRANTS 66

IntroductionA Brief History of the Refugee ProgramA Brief History of SLIAGConcentration of Immigrants and RefugeesStudy ApproachLimitations or DataState CostsGrowing Needs and Reduced ServicesReductions in Public AssistanceReductions in Language and Job TrainingReductions in Health ServicesMaintaining and Expanding Social ServicesThe Legacy of the Refugee Program and SLIAGImplications for Policy ReformConclusionNotesReferences

6667697070717376767679808182838587

APPENDIXES

A. Chronology of Immigration Legislation 89B. Contacts on Immigration and Immigrant Policy 91

State and Local Government 91

Federal Government 97Non-Governmental Organizations 97

SELECTED REFERENCES ON IMMIGRATION AND IMMIGRANT POLICY 99

INDEX 103

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLES1. Overview of Alien Eligibility for Federal Programs2. Refugee Admissions and Refugee Resettlement Funding: 1980-19943. Reductions in Refugee Cash and Medical Assistance4. Refugee Arrivals by State: FY 19925. Legalization Applicants by State: FY 19926. Benefit Structt'res and Payment Levels of Selected States: FY 19927. State Reported Uncompensated Refugee Costs by Program: FY 19918. Refugee Program Funding by Type of Service: FY 1984 and FY 19929. Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and Foreign-born Populations by State:

10. SLIAG Costs by Program: FY 1987-1993

768687172747577

1990 7881

FIGURES1. Refugee Resettlement Funds vs. Refugee Arrivals 42. Federal Refugee Assistance: Reimbursement to the States: 1981 to 1991 43. Immigration to the United States by Decade: 1821-1830 Through 1981-1990 54. Legal Immigration to the United States in FY 1991 95. Cumulative Refugee Arrivals, FY 1975 through FY 1991 10

6

iv

STATE & LOCAL COALITION ON IMMIGRATIONIMMIGRANT POLICY PROJECT

National Advisory Board Members

Kevin W. Concannon, Director, Oregon Department of Human Resources

David P. Forsberg, Secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of Human Services (19924993)

Ann Klinger, Supervisor, Merced County, California

Alexander Pene las, Commissioner, Dade County, Florida (1993- )

Ann W. Richards, Governor, Texas

Harvey Ruvin, Commissioner, Dade County, Florida (1992-1993)

James Scheibe', Mayor, Saint Paul, Minnesota (1992-1993)

Art Torres, State Senator, California State Senate

Albert Vann, State Assemblyman, New York State Assembly

Karen Vialle, Mayor, Tacoma, Washington (1992-1993)

William Waldman, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Human Services (1993- )

Pete Wilson, Governor, California

Governing Board

National Conference of State LegislaturesWilliam T. Pound, Executive Director

Sheri Steisel, Director, Human Services Committee

National Governors' AssociationRaymond Scheppach, Executive DirectorNolan Jones, Director for Justice and Public Safety

United States Conference of MayorsThomas Cochran, Executive Director;Laura DeKoven Waxman, Assistant Executive Director

National Association of CountiesLarry Naake, Executive Director;Marilina Sanz, Associate Legislative Director

for Human Services

American Public Welfare AssociationA. Sidney Johnson, Executive DirectorElaine Ryan, Director of Government Affairs

7

MEMBERS OF THE PANEL OF EXPERTS

Robert Bach, Senior Policy Adviser, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C.

Michael Fix, Director, Immigrant Policy Program, The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.

Charles Kee ly, Director, Center for Immigration Policy and Refugee Assistance, Washington, D.C.

Lavinia Limon, Director, U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement, Washington, D.C.

Susan Martin, Executive Director, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, Washington, D.C.

Doris Meissner, Commissioner, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C.

Cecilia Munoz, Senior Policy Associate, National Council of La Raza, Washington, D.C.

David North, New Trans Century Foundation, Virginia

Demetrios Papademetriou, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C.

Theresa Rusch, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C.

Frank Sharry, Executive Director, National Immigration Forum, Washington, D.C.

Rick Swartz, President, Swartz and Associates, Washington, D.C.

Tsehaye Teferra, Executive Director, Ethiopian Community Development Council, Virginia

Luis Torres, Director, Inter American Institute on Migration and Labor, Washington, D.C.

8vi

PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

These issue papers were produced by theImmigrant Policy Project of the State and LocalCoalition on Immigration, a collaboration of fivenational organizations representing state and localgovernment:

American Public Welfare AssociationNational Association of CountiesNational Conference of State LegislaturesNational Governors' AssociationUnited States Conference of Mayors

The goals of the coalition are to improve inter-governmental coordination and communicationamong the key state and local officials and otherrelevant actors in the immigration community, andto enhance the capacity of state and local officials tomanage immigrant policy.

The Immigrant Policy Project was begun in 1992with the support of The Andrew W. MellonFoundation. The project's goal is to address the roleof state and local governments in the resettlementof refugees and immigrants. The project performsresearch and education, acts as a central source ofinformation for the coalition, and channelsinformation to the coalition's constituencies. Theproject seeks to document immigration trends,innovative policies and programs, and priorities forstate and local government.

The issue papers in this handbook benefited fromthe insight, advice, and technical expertise of manystate and local officials and immigration specialists.The project is particularly grateful to our expertpanel for their comments. Thanks are also due tothe members and staff of the project's NationalAdvisory Board for providing focus, to StephanieBell-Rose for providing guidance, and to a numberof federal, state and local immigration experts andresearchers (especially SCORR), who providedsupport and information. Special appreciation isdue to the following experts for assistance withspecific issue papers.

For A State and Local Policymaker's Guide toImmigration and Immigrant Policy, authored byJonathon C. Dunlap of the Immigrant Policy Project,thanks are owed to David Rosenberg, Ann DeeTucker, Charles Wheeler, Carol Wolchok, andWendy Zimmermann. Edits and comments were

provided by Ann Morse, Sheri Steisel, Michael Bird,and Karen Fisher.

For Health Care Issues for New Americans, authoredby Jon Dunlap and Fay Hutchinson of theImmigrant Policy Project, we thank Barbara Brown,Luis Caraballo, Jennifer Cochran, Monica Perz, EdSilverman, Joy Johnson Wilson, and WendyZimmermann.

For Employment and Training Programs forImmigrants and Refugees, authored by Ann Morse,program manager of the Immigrant Policy Project,many thanks go to the researchers and laborspecialists who assisted in providing backgroundresearch and specific examples and recommen-dations. Edits and comments were provided byMichael Bird, Scott Liddell, David Shreve, and SheriSteisel.

For Community Relations and Ethnic Diversity, co-authored by Ann Morse and Jon Dunlap, we thankElizabeth Aivars, Julie Quiroz, Trudy Sopp, RonWakabayashi, and Wendy Zimmermann.Comments were provided by Sheri Steisel, JoyJohnson Wilson, and Chris Zimmerman.

Federal Retrenchment, State Burden: DeliveringTa; geted Assistance to Immigrants was written byWendy Zimmermann, research associate at theUrban Institute. The survey was conducted jointlyby the Urban Institute's Immigrant Policy Programand the American Public Welfare Association, as amember of the State and Local Coalition onImmigration. The author thanks Gabe Negatu forhis help in implementing the survey on which thereport is based, Nolan Malone for researchassistance, and Michael Fix, Ann Morse, DavidRosenberg, and Elaine Ryan for their helpfulcomments and suggestions.

Finally, the Immigrant Policy Project owes itsgenesis and its continued success to an extendedfamily of coalition staff for their thoughtful advice,assistance, and creativity, particularly co-creatorsMichael Benjamin, Susan Greene, Jana Mason, LiliaReyes, and Sheri Steisel as well as Rick Ferreira,Tom Joseph, Nolan Jones, Brian Lagana, AliciaPelrine, Elaine Ryan, Marilina Sanz, Margie Siegel,Laura Waxman, and Amy Wilkins.

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This handbook is a compilation of work producedby the State and Local Coalition on Immigrationthrough its Immigrant Policy Project. Five researchpapers examine general immigration andimmigrant policy in the United States; health careissues; employment and training programs;community relations and ethnic diversity; and theeffects of declining targeted assistance for refugeesand immigrants. The first paper, a guide toimmigration and immigrant policy, has beenrevised and updated since its initial publication inFebruary 1993. The handbook includes extensivereference materials, compiled by the project overthree years: a brief chronology of U.S. immigrationlegislation; a contact list of federal, state, local, andnongovernmental representatives experienced inimmigration issues and a bibliography of recentarticles, studies, and reports related to immigrationand immigrant policy.

Immigration and Immigrant Policy

The United States is in the largest wave of immigra-tion since the turn of the century: one-third of thenation's net population growth in the 1980s camefrom immigration. As more immigrants andrefugees arrive in the United States, state and localgovernments are attempting to meet their needs foreducation, job placement, and health and humanservices. The sheer numbers of immigrants frommany countries and with varying job skills andlanguage ability are having a dramatic effect onstates and localities.

Although the federal government has exclusivejurisdiction over immigration policy (the terms andconditions for entry into the United States), federaldecisions have direct and indirect effects on stateand local governments in the form of their budgets;the composition of their citizenry; the utilizationand quality of their services; and the general social,political, and economic character of theircommunities. Though more immigrants arearriving, the federal government has reduced orconstrained the few programs that assist newimmigrants to integrate into the economic, social,and civic life of the United States. Finally, newlegislative and judicial mandates are extendingstate and local responsibility for providing servicesto immigrants. For states and localities, federalimmigration policy thus becomes state and focalimmigrant policy.

Executive Summary

Since the end of World War II, the numbers ofimmigrants have increased steadily each decade,reaching 9.5 million between 1981 and 1990.Although the early groups were predominantlyEuropeans and Canadians, by the end of the 1980smore than 80 percent of all immigrants were non-European, mostly Asians and Latin Americans.

Immigrants are typically described as legal(entering to join families or to work), humanitarian(as refugees), or unauthorized (entering illegally oroverstaying their visas). A growing number offederally funded categories has established varyingrules of eligibility for work and for public benefits,complicating state and local delivery of services.

The federal government plays three roles in theimmigration and immigrant policy dynamic thatconcern states and localities: (1) regulatingadmissions into the United States; (2) fundingresettlement assistance for very limited and specificgroups of newcomers; and (3) determiningnewcomer eligibility for federal programs. Thecourts, too, shape policy; several decisions haverequired states and localities allow certain groupsto receive benefits. Private agen..ies also helpresettle newcomers. Finally, states and localitiesplay a significant role in emergency and transitionalassistance for newcomers through emergencyhealth, education, social services, civics andlanguage courses, and other programs thatcontribute to their successful resettlement.

Three major laws were passed in 10 years thatreformed humanitarian, illegal, arid legalimmigration: the Refugee Act of 1980, theImmigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, andthe Immigration Act of 1990. Each law affectsimmigrants' status and rights, and each hasimplications for state and local policy.

The number and diversity of the new immigrantsare creating new fiscal and social challenges forstate and local governments. The lack of acomprehensive federal policy to provide adequatelyfor the resettlement of refugees and immigrants iscompelling state and local government to createimmigrant policy, but without adequate resources.Economists show that two-tlrirds of the incomeprovided by immigrants flows to the federal level,while only one-third flows to states and localities.Yet the education and health care needs of new

10ix

arrivals cause states and localities to incursignificant costs. The federal jurisdiction overimmigration must be adjusted to equitably respondto the needs of both the new immigrants and ofstate and local governments, as partners in theintergovernmental system.

Health Care Issues for New Americans

Immigrants and refugees are among the millions ofpeople who are curt ently without health insurance,are insured only part of the year, or whoseinsurance is inadequate in the event of acatastrophic illness. "le demand for newcomerhealth care services continues to surpass thebudgetary and program resources of state and localgovernments. As discussions continue on healthcare reform, the specialized needs of newcomersand their differing eligibility for federal servicesneed to be considered.

Newcomers face several barriers to adequate,comprehensive health care. Institutional barriers,such as legal status and program eligibility require-ments, prevent some categories of newcomers fromparticipating in government-sponsored health careprograms. Foreign languages and culturescontribute to miscommunication between serviceproviders and newcomer patients. Economicobstacles prevent many newcomers frompurchasing health care on their own.

Federal programs designed to meet newcomers'health care needs are inadequate and fragmented,and over the last decade, the federal governmenthas been shifting newcomer health care respon-sibilities to state and local governments. Inresponse, state and local governments arebeginning to design policies and programs to meetthe health care needs of this diverse population.However, because their resources are limited, thesemodels are rare and difficult to replicate.

Four health care policy areas particularly affectnewcomers: access to regular and comprehensivehealth care; public health; mental health; and theeffect of linguistic and cultural barriers on new-comers' use of health care. Sections of this chapterdiscuss newcomers' needs and problems withineach specific area, the current federal response, andsOme successful state and local programs.

If newcomers have access to regular and compre-hensive health care, they can receive primary carein doctors' offices, obviating the use of hospital

x

outpatient departments and emergency rooms,which increases costs to state and localgovernments. Public and preventive health issuesraised by newcomers (particularly the highincidence of tuberculosis, hepatitis B, and parasites)have serious implications for both newcomers andnatives. Immigrants, too, have mental healthproblems, particularly refugees who have sufferedthe horrors of persecution or torture. Finally,communicate )ri problems, either linguistic orcultural, between health care provider and patientmay significantly compromise the quality of healthcare received and the efficacy of treatment.

Fragmentation of the U.S. health care systemadversely affects newcomer access to adequatehealth care, and newcomers who can gain accessare often poorly served because providers do notusually have multilingual and multiculturalresources for appropriate and effective care. States,localities, and others are trying to compensate fordeficiencies in the current system through supple-mental progr 'lms or policies but do not have theresources to develop comprehensive approaches.Without improved health care access for new-comers, federal, state, and local governments willbe unable to provide efficient, inexpensive, andappropriate care to these populations.

Newcomer health care needs affect not only theindividuals themselves, but also the communities inwhich they live. When newcomers are healthy,they have better prospects for early employment,self-sufficiency, and successful integration into theirnew communities. Health care access fornewcomers is a cornerstone of successfulresettlement policy.

Employment and Training for Refugees andImmigrants

Immigrants are a growing proportion of theAmerican workforce: the U.S. Department of Laborpredicts that by the year 2000 nearly one-fourth ofnew workers will be immigrants. Many immigrantshave limited skill in English and a low level ofschooling, a fact that has serious implications forthe nation's current employment and trainingsystem. Federal job training programs serve a smallpercentage of the eligible population, and the fewtargeted programs for refugees and immigrantshave endured drastic funding reductions anddelays. At the same time, language and literacybarriers reduce access to these programs forrefugees and immigrants.

11Executive Summary

This report outlines the provisions of the JobTraining Partnership Act, the Job Opportunities aridBasic Skills program, and the two U.S. Health andHuman Services programs for newly legalizedimmigrants and refugees. It includes recentevaluations of these programs and examples ofsuccessful programs that serve the foreign-born.

Increased numbers of immigrants in the nation'sworkforce will require rethinking of the delivery ofeducation, employment, and training to traditionaland nontraditional U.S. workers. The existingemployment and training programs are frag-mented, lack adequate resources, and discourageaccess by immigrants and refugees. No prepara-tions have been made to meet the demand forservices of the newly legalized formerly served bythe State Legalization Impact Assistance Grantprogram. Finally, the refugee program has facedrepeated funding cuts and is again up forreauthorization in 1994.

In a related arena, the federal government isproposing welfare reform and a new system ofwelfare to work. Addressing the needs ofnormative eligible public assistance recipients willbe a challenge in federal, state, and local welfarereform efforts. As the "new social contract" isdeveloped between public assistance recipients andthe government, appropriate program supportsuch as classes in English as a second language,bilingual educators, and acculturation withingovernment programs and the workplacemust beavailable to support the welfare-to-work transitionfor targeted as well as mainstream populations.

As policymakers craft reforms of their welfare,education, employment, and training programs forimproved self-sufficiency and workforce skills, therequirements of d growing immigrant populationmust be examined and addressed. Successfulprograms discussed in this paper should not beoverlooked, such as combined language andvocational training, comprehensive services such asJob Corps, and coordinated services that addressfamily self-sufficiency.

Community Relations and Ethnic Diversity

Is the melting pot boiling over? Recent outbreaks ofviolence in U.S. cities have led some observers toquestion whether the nation can continue to absorblarge numbers of newcomers without paying a highprice in ethnic strife. However, federal jurisdiction

Executive Summary 12

over immigration policy limits the flexibility ofstates and localities to respond, and a steady declinein federal assistance for resettlement services israising community tensions and issues of equity.

The challenge of state and local policymakers is toprovide basic services with few resources incommunities made up of diverse ethnic and socialgroups, most of whom are legally residing in theUnited States. What programs and policies can becreated that are inclusive and responsive to theneeds of both newcomers and establishedresidents?

Researchers and policymakers alike point to thesuccess of increased interaction and communicationamong community residents in easing tensions. Forexample, all residents have a stake in safe neighbor-hoods and quality schools. Policymakers cansupport good community relations in their roles asleaders in the community, as shapers of publicopinion, and creators of policies and programs thatequitably serve all community residents and thatattempt to overcome the language and culturalbarriers that often lead to tensions within thecommunity.

This issue paper examines the nation's historicalambivalence toward the foreign-born as shown inlegislation, policies, and opinion polls; makesrecommendations for building community fromdiversity; and gives examples of successfulprograms. The recommendations are in six broadareas: leadership, participation and communitycoalitions, citizenship, inclusive policies andprograms (in multicultural outreach, language, lawenforcement, and economic development), specialoffices or committees for immigrant issues, andmedia relations.

Federal proposals raised by Congress in 1994 wouldcurtail or bar access by certain classes of immigrantsfrom federal assistance, mainly as a source offinancing for welfare reform or for budget deficitreduction. However, an end to federal financialassistance for newcomer services does not mitigatethe newcomers' needs for services or state and localresponsibilities for public health and safety.

State and local policyrnakers hold key roles indeveloping and maintaining strong communityrelations among all residents, and they continue todiscover new ways of building community fromdiversity.

xi

Federal Retrenchment, State Burden: DeliveringTargeted Assistance to Immigrants

This new study, conducted by the American PublicWelfare Association and the Urban Institute,confirms that reduced targeted federal assistancefor immigrants shifted costs to states and localities.

According to the 1990 census, 20 million foreign-born people are living in the United States.Approximately one million are refugees, and 2.6million are immigrants who entered illegally butwere granted amnesty under the ImmigrationReform and Control Act of 1986. Although thesetwo groups make up only a fraction of the totalforeign-born population, almost all targeted federalmoney for newcomers has been allocated to statesand localities through the domestic refugeeresettlement program and the State LegalizationImpact Assistance Grant (SLIAG).

To document the fiscal, programmatic, andinstitutional effects on states of policy shifts withinthe refugee program and SLIAG, the UrbanInstitute and APWA conducted a survey of the stateadministrators of the refugee program and SLIAG.The study suffers from a limitation common tomany studies assessing fiscal impacts of immigrantsthe limited availability of data on the costs ofproviding services to newcomers. Many states doriot track specific immigrant populationsparticipating in their public welfare programs.Among those that do, there is considerablevariation in how they document the services used.Therefore, the survey does not attempt to estimatetotal immigrant and refugee costs for all state andlocal governments; rather, it provides data forselected states on the costs of providing certainservices to refugees and amnesty immigrants.

Although the number of refugees admitted hasmore than doubled since the early 1980s (from60,000 in 1983 to 122,000 in 1993), federal fundinghas been reduced dramatically, from $7,300 perrefugee in 1982 to about $2,200 in 1992 (adjusted forinflation). Federal reimbursement for refugeesdropped from the original 36 months of special cashand medical assistance to eight months. Reimbuse-ment for the state share of AFDC, Medicaid, SSIand General Assistance ended completely. Statecosts resulting from these cuts vary significantly,because of differences in benefit programstructures, payment levels, welfare usage, andcapacity to track or estimate costs. For FY 1991, 19states reported AFDC costs for refugees of $87.5

million (including California's estimated costs of$81 million for. FY 1994). Fifteen states reportedstate and local Medicaid costs of $9.8 million, andsix states reported $9.6 million in cost-shifts underGeneral Assistance. SLIAG, unlike the refugeeprogram, was fully funded. States reported,however, that costs that should have beenreimbursed werenot because of the way in whichthe program was defined and implemented. Sixstates reported )sts of $24.45 million for providingservices that were not reimbursable (day care, food,shelter, and child protective services).

Federal funds for refugee social services alsodeclined dramatically, while the need for servicesincreased. Many arriving in the late 1980s had lesreducation and less proficiency in English than earlierarrivals, and the loss of cash and medical supportheightened the need for refugees' early employmentand self-sufficiency. Of all social services, the surveyfound that states most often reduced Englishlanguage training, although some states, usuallythose with small numbers of refugees, expandedlanguage training despite decreased funding.Health services were also reduced as fundingdecreased; states cut back on immunizations, healthscreenings and follow-up care, sometimes leading toincreased use of emergency services.

A bright note is tly.t the refugee program andSLIAG have improved states' institutional capacityto serve newcomers. Several states have createdstate-level offices for newcomers, supportednetworks of providers, determined newcomers'service needs, and, to an extent, helped makemainstream institutions more accessible to them.

In summary, decreased funding in the refugeeprogram has shifted costs to states and localities.The survey results point to the need to better trackthe costs of providing services to refugees andimmigrants to better assess the impacts of thesepopulations on the public coffers. Decliningrefugee program funds have resulted in reducedpublic assistance, social services, and healthservices in many states. Although SLIAG programfunds were fully appropriated, burdensome federalrequirements for documentation has led some statesto simply absorb costs. The two programsenhanced states' institutional capacity to servenewcomers. However, the states' ability tomaintain this capacity is threatened by thecombined effect of declining refugee programdollars and the termination of the SLIAG program.

13xii Executive Summary

1. IMMIGRATION AND IMMIGRANT POLICY

Jonathan C. DunlapNational Conference of State Legislatures

It's very, very important that we in government, the private sector, the volunteer sector, recognize thatnewcomers to this country are assets, that we have a cultural diversity that should be held up andcelebrated, and that we have an obligation as a government to design policies that foster diversity.

Secretary Davis P. ForsbergMassachusetts Executive Department ofHealth and Human Services

Chapter 1 was originally published as America's Newcomers: AState and Local Policymakers' Guide to Immigration andImmigrant Policy by the National Conference of State Legislatures,February 1993.

INTRODUCTION

The United States is a nation of immigrants, fromthe first "boat people," the Pilgrims, to the latestmigrants, who come here seeking political asylum,economic opportunity, and reunion with familymembers. The face of America is changingdramatically: one-third of the nation's populationgrowth in the 1980s is attributable to immigration.This demographic change brings new challenges forstate and local government in providing education,health care, and other services to a new and diversecommunity.

But even though more immigrants are arriving, thefederal government has reduced or constrained thefew programs that assist new immigrants tointegrate into the economic, social, and civic life ofthe United States. Federal funding for refugees,legalized aliens, and for immigrant educationprograms has been cut substantially or delayed.For the most part, the responsibility for integratingimmigrants into society has been left to state andlocal government, private organizations, and theimmigrants themselves.

State and local responsibility for newcomers is alsobeing increased by new legislative and judicialmandates for immigrant services. For example, theRefugee Act of 1980 requires states to provide cashand medical assistance to refugees; the ImmigrationReform and Control Act of 1986 allows access topublic assistance, health and educational services to


newly legalized aliens; and the 1982 U.S. SupremeCourt case Plyler v. Doe extends public educationbenefits to undocumented children.

As a result of these trends in federal immigrationpolicy (increasing immigration, decreasing federalassistance, and additional mandates), state andlocal policymakers are encountering new fiscal andsocial challenges. In response, they are creating"immigrant policy," programs and services thatmeet the needs of a diverse, multiethnic citizenry.

These new arrivals affect a range of governmentservices, from education to community relations tohealth and human services, which in turn raisesissues of funding, inclusion, and equity. Somestates and localities have created offices orlegislative bodies to address the needs of theforeign-born. Others have created innovativeprograms or adapted mainstream programs toserve a variety of areas to assist immigrants make asuccessful transition to their new community. Thisguide has been developed to provide an overviewof federal legislation and the immigration processand to illustrate the effects of federal immigrationpolicy on states and localities.

A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS

Americans are proud of their immigrant heritageand the principle of freedom and opportunitysymbolized by the Statue of Liberty. Our nationstands as a beacon for the world's "huddled massesyearning to breathe free."

Immigrants in our communities are often met witha mixture of welcome and reservation. Somecitizens are concerned that immigrants threaten the

14 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

nation's economic and soL ial well-being.'Immigrants are accused of abusing governmentassistance programs, contributing little or no taxrevenue to the public coffers, taking jobs from U.S.citizens, and failing to adjust to new communities.

History shows that these reservations are not aunique response. During the mass immigrationbetween 1880 and 1910, when almost 18 millionimmigrants entered the United States, high levels ofimmigration evoked similar concerns in the citizensof that day. Immigrants, it was feared, threatened

the cultural and moral fiber of American society.Immigrating Italians, Poles, Germans, Slays, andJews were considered inferior and not likely toassimilate with their northern and westernEuropean predecessors.

But while the history books reveal a pattern ofanxiety on the part of some citizens, they alsoindicate that these concerns are often misplaced andunfounded. For example, at the turn of the 20thcentury. newcomers served as a source of valuablelabor, helping to build the country's

Immigration, The Labor Force, and The Economy

There are a number of schools of thought about the effect of immigrants on the U.S. labor force andeconomy. A primary reason for differing opinion is that immigrants are such a diverse population. Eachlegal status (legal immigrants, humanitarian immigrants, and illegal immigrants) affects the labor marketand the economy in different ways.

One school of thought has found immigration to have a positive impact on the labor market and theeconomy. A 1988 national study of Hispanic immigration by economist Gregory Defreitas found thatthis immigration had "no significant negative effect on wage levels of low-skilled native men" and that"recent immigration has not had substantial adverse wage or employment effects." Similar studies bylabor economist Julian Simon of the University of Maryland and Ben Wattenberg of the AmericanEnterprise Institute, among others, have come to comparable conclusions.

Additionally, the Alexis de TocqUeville Institute recently found that "immigrants do not just fill jobs,they create jobs. They do this by creating new businesses; through their spending; through theinvestment capital they bring with them; by migrating to areas where jobs are most plentiful; and byraising the productivity of United States businesses."

Other data compiled by economist George Borjas of University of CaliforniaSanta Barbara, andreported in Business Week magazine (7/13/92) makes nationwide estimates concerning newcomerincome, tax contributions, and welfare use. According to this estimate, at least 11 million immigrants areemployed, earning $240 billion per year and paying $90 billion in taxes per year. The data furtherestimate that immigrants receive $5 billion in welfare annually.

However, other labor economists, such as Vernon Briggs of Cornell University, are somewhat lessoptimistic in their analysis of immigration (particularly unskilled, undocumented immigrants) and itsimpact on the labor market. Briggs' research has indicated that immigration of unskilled newcomers hasa tendency to depress wages in low-skill job markets, thereby affecting other low-skill populations, bothimmigrants and citizens alike. A study by the Department of Labor found that heavy immigration inthe Los Angeles area led to poorly enforced labor standards and increased inequity between the wealthyand the poor.

Perhaps a 1989 report by the United States Department of Labor best sums up the relationship betweenimmigration and the economy: "There is no single bottom-line, 'labor market effect' of immigration....The use of immigrant workers as low-cost labor may simultaneously constrain the wage rates and jobopportunities of similarly qualified natives, improve the survival prospects of the employing firm andthereby secure the employment and earnings of better-trained co-workers, and lower costs to domesticconsumers."

152 America's Newcomers

infrastructure and to fuel the engine of America'sIndustrial Revolution. These immigrants proved tobe hard working, honest, and often entrepreneurial

. citizens.

Today's newcomers, now mostly from Asia, LatinAmerica, and the Caribbean, are proving many ofour current concerns to be similarly unfounded.During the 1980s, 1.5 million immigrants withcollege degrees arrived in the United States. Thesenewcomers fill needs for engineers, health careprofessionals, scientists, computer programmers,and managers. Other, less-educated newcomersmake contributions as entrepreneurs, day laborers,child care providers, and taxi drivers.

Although immigrants have proved to be economicand cultural assets, they make demands on stateand local governments. In California, newcomershave put a strain on public resources and infra-structure. More than one-third of all newcomerssettle in the Golden State. In New York City, it isnot unheard of to have more than 100 languagesspoken in one school district. In Minnesota's TwinCities, a substantial Southeast Asian population iscompelling state and local social service deliverysystems to accommodate new cultural and religioustraditions. In many other states and localities,newcomers put additional demands on scarcepublic resources as well. These newcomers requirehealth care, education, job training, police,emergency services, social services, and housing.

Although the United States has promoted agenerous immigration policy, allowing manypeople to enter the country, the federal governmenthas never been forthcoming with substantialresources for "immigrant policy," that is, forimmigrant resettlement. The aid the federalgovernment does provide is targeted at narrowlydefined groups (e.g., refugees, legalized aliens) thatexclude many other immigrants. Those immigrantswho fall outside the purview of federal resettlementprograms are allowed to access federal and state-federal mainstream assistance programs after athree-year waiting period (see the "Three-yeardeeming" box on page 15). When these immigrantsfinally do get into these programs, the services theyreceive are not as specialized as immigrants need.For example, immigrants may need interpreters orinstruction in English as a second language (ESL) inaddition to basic services.

The lack of federal resettlement assistance is beingexacerbated by a sluggish economy and decreasing


tax revenues at the federal, state, and local levels.For example, the recession and the ensuingcompetition for limited government revenue havequickly reduced what little federal aid thegovernment provides to needy refugees (see figures1 and 2). Figure 1 demonstrates the decline infederal funding for refugee programs and thesimultaneous increase in the number of refugeesarriving in the United States. Figure 2 documentsthe reduction in federal reimbursement provided tostates to subsidize the costs states incur by servingthe refugee population.

On the state and local levels, spending for programsthat normally assist immigrants, such as education,ESL, interpreter services, public assistance, indigenthealth care, and so on, is being reduced oreliminated. With fewer services, immigrants facesignificant barriers to becoming self-sufficientmembers of their new communities.

Nevertheless, a few states and localities aresuccessfully assisting immigrants despite thisbudgetary pressure. By combining pots of moneyfrom various sources, state;,, cities and counties areproviding immigrants with education andemployment assistance and some limited supportservices, such as child care and translation services.These temporary services enable most immigrantsto successfully make the transition to self-sufficiency.

TWO WAVES OF IMMIGRATION

There have been two principal "waves" ofimmigration to the United States in its modernhistory (see figure 3). The first began in the 1840s,as revolutionary upheaval and agricultural faminein Europe caused hundreds of thousands ofNorthern and Western Europeans (e.g. Irish,Germans, English, and Scandinavians) to immigrateto this country. This wave of immigration swelledthroughout the late 1800s and culminated in themass immigration of the early 1900s, when 8.9million immigrants entered the country between1900 and 1910.

By the end of this wave, immigrants were primarilyfrom Southern and Eastern Europe and Canada. Atthe height of this mass immigration, immigrantsaccounted for 9.6 percent of the total United Statespopulation.

3

Figure 1Refugee Resettlement Funds vs. Refugee Arrivals

Millions

$600.0

$500.0

$400.0

$300.0

$200.0

$100.0

$0.0

T

Arrivals

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993e

Cash, Medical & Social I Cash, Medical & Social ----11"° Refugee Arrivals

Assistance (Current Dollars) Assistance (1982 Dollars)

Prepared by the National Conference of State Legislatures, October 1993

Figure 2Federal Refugee Assistance: Reimbursement to the States: 1981 to 1991

Months ofReimbursement

40

, 36

30 a.31

25 29 t 24

20

15,

10 '

5

0 18 0 18 0 18 0 18 0 18 0 18 Q 18

12 12

0 L---. -4 4 ----4

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

Categorical Aid 0.- Refugee Cash /Medical

Prepared by the National Conference of State Legislatures from data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

174

America's Newcomers

This first wave concluded around the time of WorldWar I, as the United States federal governmentpassed laws restricting immigration and theoutbreak of the war made international traveldifficult. Thereafter, during the Great Depressiona _I on through World War II, immigrationcontinued, but at greatly reduced levels.

The second major period of immigration to theUnited States begar after the close of World War II,and it continues today. The numbers of immigrantshave again grown steadily each decade since the

1940s, reaching 9.5 million between 1981 and 1990.Although the number of immigrants is now athistorically high levels, immigrants arriving in the1980s represented only 3.5 percent of the totalUnited States population. In the early part of thissecond wave, most immigrants were againEuropeans (mostly Germans, English, and Italians)and Canadians. In the 1960s, more non-Europeanimmigrants began to arrive. By the end of the1980s, more than 80 percent of all immigrants werenon-European and mostly from Asia and LatinAmerica (see figure 3).

Figure 3Immigration to the United States by Decade: 1821-1830 Through 1981-1990

Millions of Immigrants

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

0

MI Additional*

I 1 All Other (Legal)

Europe/Canada (Legal)

* Additional Immigrants

include IRCA

legalizations, asylees,

illegals, etc

1.7

0.60.1

2.82.62.3

5.2

8.9

1820s 1840s 1860s 1880s


3.8

1.00.5

7.5

9.5

1900s 1920s 1940s 1960s 1980s

16

Source: INS and The Urban Institute.

Reprinted with permission.

5

IMMIGRATION STATUS

Before the 20th century, the United States restrictedimmigration in a piecemeal fashion, excludinglimited classes of people (e.g., criminals, paupers,the insane) and ethnic groups (e.g., Chinese andJapanese). At that time, the term "immigrant" wasused to encompass all entrants into the UnitedStates. However, over the course of this century,immigration restrictions and controls have becomemore systematic but also more specialized. Forexample, "legal immigrant" now represents aspecific category. The term "newcomer" hasreplaced "immigrant" to refer to all new arrivals,regardless of their legal status. Therefore"newcomer" includes legal immigrants, refugees,illegal aliens, and all other categories.

Today, permission to enter the United States isbased on sometimes conflicting objectives, such asreuniting families while trying to meet UnitedStates economic needs or simultaneously promotingUnited States foreign policy objectives andhumanitarian interests. Based on theseconsiderations, the Immigration and Naturalization

Service (INS) has created different legal statusesdesignating the terms of entry. The terms designatethe length of residence permitted (temporary orpermanent), and whether the applicant may work,apply for citizenship, or receive public benefits.Table 1 presents an overview of immigrants'eligibility for federal benefits. These often complexand varied statuses fall into three general types:legal immigration, humanitarian immigration, andunauthorized immigration (commonly referred toas illegal immigration). The most common legalstatuses are described below; other immigrantcategories are defined in the glossary (p. 19).

Legal Immigration

Legal immigrants (also "lawful permanentresidents" or "permanent resident aliens") are thosepersons permitted to stay in the countrypermanently. Lawful permanent residents (LPR)are usually admitted into the United States becausethey have valuable job skills or family ties to thecountry. LPR immigrants are eligible to bringfamily members to reside in the country, to work,

Where They Come From, Where They Go

The majority of legal immigrants in 1991 were from Mexico, Central America, or Asia. Below are lists ofthe 10 principal countries of origin and the 10 most popular states of intended residence for legalimmigrants. In 1991, the top 10 countries of origin accounted for 62.9 percent of all legal immigrants tothe United States; the top 10 states of intended residence received 79.1 percent of all legal immigrants tothe United States.

Top 10 Countries of Origin Top 10 States of ResidenceSoviet Union 56,839 California 194,317Philippines 55,376 New York 135,707Vietnam 55,278 Florida 50,897Mexico 52,866 Texas 42,030China 31,699 New Jersey 38,529India 31,165 Illinois 31,633Dominican Republic 30,177 Massachusetts 19,537Korea 21,628 Virginia 16,321Jamaica 18,025 Pennsylvania 14,464Iran 18,019 Maryland 13,586*TOTAL 443,292* TOTAL 557,021*

(62.9%) (79.1%)*

*Figures do not include estimates of illegal immigrants or amnesty immigrants under the 1986 ;mmigration Reform and ControlAct. In 1991, there were 1,123,162 amnesty immigrants, mostly Mexicans, and most of this population settled in California.Source: Immigration and Naturalization Service,

6 BEST COPY /2,VAILARE 18America's Newcomers

Table 1.Overview of Alien Eligibility for Federal Programs

ALIEN'S STATUS

Program LPRFamilyUnity

Refugee/Asylee

Parolee,Cuban/HaitianEntrant

TPS DEDAsylum

ApplicantUndocu-mented

CASH

AFDC YesSame asamnesty

alienYes Yes Yes

Arguablyyes as

PRUCOL*No No

SSI Yes Yes Yes Yes No YesArguably

yes asPRUCOL*

No

Unem-ploymentInsurance

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesYes

(if work-authorized)

No

RefugeeAssistance

Yes, ifAmer-asian,

formerrefugee or

asylee

No YesYes, if

paroled asrefugee orasylee or ifnational ofCuba or

Haiti

No No No, unlessnational of

Cuba orHaiti

No, unlessnational of

Cuba orHaiti

MEDICAL CARE

Medicaid YesSame asamnesty

alienYes Yes Emergency

servicesYes Emergency

services"Emergency

servicesFOODFoodStamps Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No NoWIC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesSchool.Lunch andBreakfast Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesEDUCATIONHeadstartK-12 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesTitle IVFederalLoans

Yes Yes Yes Yes ArguablyYes

ArguablyYes

ArguablyYes

No

JTPA Yes ,

Yes(if work-

authorized)Yes Yes

Yes(if work-

authorized)

Yes(if work-

authorized)

Yes(if work-

authorized)No

HOUSINGFederalHousing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

*PRUCOL=permanently residing in the U.S. under cover of law**Some states, such as Florida and Massachusetts, recognize as PRUCOL.

LPR=Lawful Permanent ResidentTPS=Imporary Protected StatusDED= Deferred Enforced Departure

Table prepared by the National Immigration Law Center 9/93

20Immigratton and Immigrant Policy

and to apply for United States citizenship after fiveyears of continuous residence in the United States.Lawful permanent residents are eligible to apply forall federal assistance programs.

Humanitarian Immigration

Refugees are those persons outside their country oforigin but not yet in the United States who have awell-founded fear of persecution because of race,religion, nationality, political opinion, ormembership in a social group. Refugees are eligibleto work in the United States upon entry and mayconvert to permanent resident status after one yearof residence in the country. Refugees are eligible toapply for any federal assistance program.Additionally, some needy refugees qualify for arefugee-specific, federal income assistance andmedical program.

Asylees are refugees who are already present in theUnited States at the time they apply for refugeeprotection. They are eligible for the same benefitsas refugees, but only 10,000 may become lawfulpermanent residents each year.

Parolees are persons who normally would not beadmissible but are allowed to enter temporarily forhumanitarian, medical, and legal reasons. Unlikerefugees, parolees are not eligible for special federalbenefits nor are they on a predetermined path topermanent resident status. Some parolees qualifyfor work authorization, depending on theirpersonal circumstances.

Unauthorized Immigration

Legalized aliens (also called amnesty aliens or "pre-82s") are former unauthorized, or illegal, aliens who

were given legal status under the ImmigrationReform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. To qualify,unauthorized aliens had to prove they had residedin the United States since 1982 or that they werequalifying special agricultural workers (SAWs).These unauthorized persons were awarded a one-time opportunity to become lawful permanentresidents. After earning lawful permanentresidence, legalized aliens are permitted to apply forcitizenship. Legalized aliens are barred from mostfederal government assistance programs for fiveyears from the date of their legalization, but they arepermitted to work immediately.

Unauthorized migrants (also undocumented orillegal aliens) are persons present in the UnitedStates without permission of the government, eitherby illegally crossing the border or overstaying thepermitted time on their immigration documents.Unauthorized persons are not permitted to accessmost federal government programs or apply forcitizenship.

THE NEWCOMER IN THE 1990S

In 1991, 1,827,167 persons were granted lawfulpermanent resident status. However, it should benoted that this total is abnormally high because itincludes aliens granted lawful permanent residencestatus under the 1986 IRCA amnesty program.There wem 1,123,162 legalized aliens granted LPRstatus in 1991, leaving a total of 704,005 normaladmissions for the year (see figure 4). In recentyears there have been more female immigrants thanmales. In 1991 this trend was reversed; maleimmigrants represented 66.4 percent of the totalimmigrant population while females represented

The Visa The "Green Card"

Essentially, a visa is a ticket to enter the United After legal immigrants enter the United States,States, usually in the form of a stamp (in a with their immigrant visas, they are issued apassport) or a card. Visas are issued by the "green card" (now actually pink), also called aDepartment of State. There are two kinds of visa: resident alien card. This card is proof of lawfula nonimmigrant visa, which grants its possessor permanent residence in the United States and ittemporary permission to stay in the country, and a authorizes the recipient to work in the country.permanent residence, or immigrant, visa, which Green cards are issued by the INS to legalconfers lawful permanent residence status on its immigrants after their arrival and to refugees afterholder. one year of residence. Other aliens are eligible to

apply for green cards subject to the limitations oftheir specific legal status.


33.6 percent. The median age for all immigrants in1991 was approximately 29 years. However, thesedata are also affected by the IRCA amnestyprogram. Amnesty immigrants are overwhelm-ingly male and are older than the normal immigrantpopulation.

Immigrants in the 1990s are the most diversepopulation ever to come to the United States.They bring widely divergent experiences andskills to this country. Many come to the UnitedStates with education and job skills, and quicklybecome economic contributors as scientists,engineers, artists, entrepreneurs and athletes.Other immigrants, however, face a broad range ofproblems and barriers to successful participation

in American society. For example, one-third ofimmigrant workers are high school dropouts andtherefore may have limited English skills or beilliterate in their own languages. Refugees haveoften been psychologically and physically torturedin "re-education camps" before leaving their homecountries. Elderly immigrants often have fewmarketable skills and poor health, which makeself-sufficiency an elusive goal. Unauthorizedpersons sometimes avoid reporting crimes to thepolice because they fear deportation, but this maymake them easy targets for discrimination andextortion. This diversity requires flexibility on thepart of state and local policymakers to helpnewcomers become self-sufficient members of thecommunity.

Figure 4Legal Immigration to the United States in FY 1991

, I Alaska

0 Hawaii1k.q

Number of legal immigrants: FY 1991

212 to 1,216

1,216 to 3,650L I

E1:71 3,650 to 11,005

allEli 11,005 to 194,317

Note: Data do not include the 1986 ICRA amnesty population and are presented according to the immigrant's state of intendedresidence. Total non-IRCA immigration is 1,123,162.Source: Statistics Division, Immigration and Naturalization Service

Immigration and Immigrant Policy 2 "9

HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS

Federal Administration

The federal government plays three roles in theimmigration and immigrant policy dynamic thatconcern states and localities: (1) regulatingadmissions into the United States; (2) fundingresettlement assistance for very limited and specificgroups of newcomers (i.e., refugees and legalizedaliens); and (3) determining newcomer eligibilityfor federal programs.

The federal responsibility for immigration isshared by the President, four executive depart-ments (State, Justice, Health and Human Services,and Labor), and Congress.

The President is responsible for setting admissionlevels for refugees, in annual consultation withCongress (usually a meeting between the U.S.

coordinator for refugee affairs and the I-louse andSenate judiciary committees).

The Department of State administers immigrantand nonimmigrant visas, and its Bureau forRefugee Programs handles overseas refugeeassistance to prepare refugees to enter the country.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)of the Department of Justice (DOD is responsiblefor processing applications for immigration andcitizenship, inspecting aliens for admission to theUnited States and enforcing the nation's immi-gration law. DOJ's Executive Office forImmigration Review (EOIR) is the judicial locus ofadmissions oversight. The EOIR consists of theimmigration judges who adjudicate immigrationlaw, and the Board of Immigration Appeals(BOIA), which hears immigrant appeals toimmigration judges' decisions. The Community

Figure 5Cumulative Refugee Arrivals, FY 1975 through FY 1991

o Hawaiie

OC.

Alaska

r/-

.'1;

Number of refugees: FY 1975 through 1991

E-1) 300 to 3,500

I I 3,300 to 12,000

1= 12,000 to 24,0(0

24,000 to 500,000

Source: Office of Refugee Resettlement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and Ron Spendal, Oregon RefugeeCoordinator


Relations Service (CRS) provides limitedresettlement assistance for Cuban/Haitianentrants allowed into the United States.)

The Department of Health and Human Services,through the Office of Refugee Resettlement andits Division if State Legalization Assistance, isresponsible for administering federal reimburse-ment to states and localities for expenditures madeon behalf of refugees anc. legalized aliens.

The Department of Labor's Employment andTraining Administration is responsible forcoordinating international migration with domesticworkforce needs.

In Congress, the House and Senate JudiciaryCommittees have jurisdiction over immigration,citizenship, and refugee policy issues. The Houseand Senate Appropriations Committees overseedomestic and overseas program funding.Additionally, Congress periodically crates varioustask forces and commissions to study immigration.Currently one commission is operating, theCommission on Immigration Reform.

Judicial Mandates

The courts play a part in shaping newcomer benefiteligibility. Judicial decisions have required statesand localities to allow certain groups of aliens toparticipate in a number of specified state andlocally funded programs. For example, in the 1971case of Graham v. Richardson, the United StatesSupreme Court ruled that state welfare benefitsmay not be denied to aliens. In the 1982 cage Ply lerv. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court found thatundocumented children are entitled to equalprotection under the law and therefore must beallowed to enroll in public education. Finally, in

1992 the U.S. District Court decided in Lewis v.Grinker that pregnant women are eligible forprenatal care under Medicaid regardless of theirimmigration status. Although the ruling affectsNew York state immediately, it is not clear whetherthis decision can be applied to prenatal care in otherstates. California is likely to be the first testingground for the applicability of Lewis outside of NewYork as immigrant advocates in California are suingthe state on these grounds.

State and Local Administration

State and local governments have a de jureresponsibility for getting special resettlementservices and assistance to qualifying newcomers asa result of federal law. Typically, states andlocalities meet this responsibility by eitherproviding services through their own mainstreamsocial services offices or by contracting withnongovernmental organizations and coordinatingtheir efforts. This assistance is either first paid forby states and localities, which are in turnreimbursed by the federal government (e.g., theState Legalization Impact Assistance Grant) or paidfor up front by the federal government (e.g.,refugee assistance).

States and localities also have a legal responsibilityto provide certain judicially mandated services tothe newcomer population. The costs of theseservices are not reimbursed by the federalgovernment but are paid for solely with state andlocal government tax revenue.

Finally, sta'.es and localities have a de factoresponsibility to assist newcomers who do notqualify for special federal resettlement assistance,thus serving as a safety net of last resort. New-

Newcomer Tax Revenue: A Federal Monopoly

Paying for immigrant resettlement is difficult for state and local government. Although newcomers paya great deal in taxes ($90 billion annually, by at least one national estimate), nearly two-thirds of thesetaxes are paid to the federal government through the income and Social Security taxes while only one-third is paid to state or local governments. Despite this incongruity, in recent years federal resettlementassistance has declined (see figures 1 and 2), and states and localities have been forced to pay more forresettlement needs. Concomitantly, the federal government has not provided sufficient funding to statesand localities for newcomer resettlement for the levels of newcomers it admits. The result is high levelsof admissions but inadequate funding for resettlement and no relief for state and local budgets. Thefederal government receives most of the immigrant revenue, and the states and localities provide most ofthe services.

Immigration and Inmu,srant Policy11

corners outside the purview of federal resettlementassistance participate in state-local and state - federalmedical, social service, and income assistanceprograms (i.e., state-local programs such as oeneraiassistance, state Medicaid, indigent health care andstate-federal programs such as Aid to Families withDependent Children [AFDC], SupplementalSecurity Income [SSI] and Medicaid /Medicare).States and localities are not reimbursed for the costsfor newcomers participating in either state-localprograms or the state portion of state-federalmatching grant programs. As federal assistancecontinues to decline, the de facto responsibility ofstates and localities increases. (As part of theImmigrant Policy Project, the American PublicWelfare Association and the Urban Institutecollaborated on a survey to assess the effects onprograms, services, and institutional capacity offunding delays and cutbacks in federal programsserving refugees and the newly legalized. Theresults of the survey are reported in chapter 5.)

States and localities have responded to this crisis bycreating offices to serve immigrant needs. Forexample, the mayor of New York City has createdan Office of Immigrant Affairs and Texas andMassachusetts have created similar statewideoffices. As part of their oversight responsibility,state legislatures in California, Virginia, and NewYork created a committee, a subcommittee and atask force, respectively, to study newcomer issues.Additionally, according to federal law each statemust have a refugee coordinator to ensure thecoordination of public and private resettlementresources, and a SLIAG administrator to coordinateresources for the newly legalized population.

Nongovernmental Organizations

The private sector plays a vital role in resettlingnewcomers. Refugee resettlement assistance andservices are provided by a network of privatevoluntary resettlement agencies (VOLAGs),mutual assistance associations (MAAs), and stateand local governments. Generally, states andlocalities contract with VOLAGs and MAAs toprovide initial services to refugees. Stategovernments occasionally provide servicesdirectly. For example, the state of Iowa servesboth as a voluntary agency for reception andplacement and as the state's social serviceprovider. The state of Vermont has affiliated witha voluntary agency to provide joint services tonewcomers resettling in that state.

Resettlement assistance for newly legalized aliens isdelivered through a similar, although lessinstitutionalized, network. This network is madeup of community-based organizations (CBOs), localschool districts, state universities and communitycolleges, local indigent health care providers, andstate-subsidized hospitals. Some states have usedSLIAG money to actually fund the creation ofcommunity organizaiions that provide educationand health services to the newly legalizedpopulation.

VOLAGs and MAAs

A VOLAG (voluntary agency) is usually anonprofit organization, often affiliated with areligious organization, the provides the initialreception and placement of refugees in theUnited States. Approximately 10-12 voluntaryagencies (including the state of Iowa whichserves as a VOLAG) have cooperativeagreements with the Department of State toprovide services during refugees' first 90 daysin the United States. Additionally, fivevoluntary agencies currently participate in thematching grant program of the Department ofHealth and Human Services to provideresettlement services for eight months after theinitial reception and placement.

MAAs (mutual assistance associations) arenonprofit organizations, created by ai:d forspecific ethnic groups, that provideresettlement assistance to refugees. MAAs alsoreceive federal grant money to provideresettlement services to newly arrived refugees.

FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW

Foreigners can enter the United States with theintent to stay permanently or temporarily. Thoseentering with the intent to reside permanently canbe (1) legal immigrants, (2) humanitarian immi-grants, or (3) unauthorized migrants. (Humani-tarian immigration is not a legal category or statusbut is used broadly to include those immigrantsallowed to enter for humanitarian reasons:refugees, asylees, parolees, etc.)

Foreigners can also enter the country temporarily as(1) nonimmigrants, who enter each year as tourists,


students, and other tamporary visitors, or (2)unauthorized persons, such as day workers orfamily members who come for short visits to theUnited States.

The following sections describe the laws thatgovern legal immigration, humanitarianimmigration, legalization, and unauthorized entryand the effects they are having on state and localgovernments. Congress passed three major piecesof legislation amending the Immigration andNationality Act, the basic immigration code of theUnited States, diring the 1980s: the ImmigrationAct of 1990. the Refugee Act of 1980, and theInurtigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

Levi Immigration and the '.mmigration Act of1990

The most common method of obtaining long-termresidence in the United States is to apply for legalimmigration and the accompanying lawful per-manent resident status. In 1990, Congress con-ducted a comprehensive overhaul of the Immigra-tion and Nationality Act, the basic immigrationcode of the United States. The Immigration Act of1990 (P.L,. 101-649) altered the process for legalimmigration and increased the number of visas forlegal immigration from 570,000 to 700,000. In FY.1995, the number of available visas will decrease to675,000 visas per year for legal immigrants.

The 1990 act created a new preference system todistribute visas. It identifies three categories of legalimmigration and divides the 675,000 visas amongthem: 480,000 (71 percent) to immigrants related toUnited States citizens and permanent residentaliens, 140,000 (21 percent) to specially skilled (cremployment-based) immigrants, and 55,000 (8percent) visas to what are called "diversity"immigrants from countries awarded few visas theprevious five years. (See box "Priorities forDistributing Legal Immigration Visas.")

Family-related immigrants are of two types:immediate relatives (i.e., spouses; minor, singlechildren; parents of adult United States citizens)and family-sponsored immigrants (adult childrenand brothers and sisters of United States citizens;spouses and unmarried children of permanentresidents). Family-sponsored immigrant visaswere capped under the 1990 act for the first time.

Employment-based immigrants are those alienswith extraordinary ability, advanced degrees,

Exclusion and Deportation

Not everyone who wishes to enter the UnitedStates is permitted to do so. Many foreignerswho want visas are denied them by U.S.immigration law. However, even certainpeople with visas are prevented (i.e.,"excluded") from entering the country basedon criteria established in United Statesimmigration law. These criteria includeinfection with AIDS, a history of criminalactivity, or a likelihood of violating the terms ofentry.

Similarly, some people already in the UnitedStates may be forced to leave (i.e., "deported")if they violate certain conditions listed inUnited States immigration law. Newcomerscan be deported for a number of reasons, suchas violating the conditions of their entry visa(e.g., overstaying their approved length oftime), committing a crime, becoming a publiccharge (i.e., becoming dependent ongovernment assistance), or entering the countrywithout inspection (i.e., illegally).

special skills, or professional experience. Otherseligible under this category are religious workers,unskilled laborers, and persons investing at least $1million in the United States that will create at least10 new jobs.

"Diversity" immigrants are persons from thosecountries that received less than 50,000 visas overthe preceding five years. Most diversityimmigrants will likely come from Europe, becausedig the 1970s and 1980s few visas were set asidefor, or awarded to, European immigrants. To beeligible, aliens must have the equivalent of a highschool education or two years of work experience.

The 1990 act also created a new legal status fcrhumanitarian immigrants. The United Statesattorney general may now award "temporaryprotected status" (TPS) eligibility to nationals fromcountries faced with natural or man-madedisasters who rmy remain in the United Statesuntil their countries are deemed safe. Examples ofcountries whose nationals have received TPS areKuwait, El Salvador, Lebanon, Liberia, andSomalia.

Immigration and Inunigrant Policy

13

Priorities for Distributing Legal Immigration Visas

Immediate Relative ImmigrantsUnlimited

There are an unlimited number of visas available to immediate family relatives of United States citizens.Immediate family members include the following: spouses, minor and single children, and parents.

Family-Sponsored ImmigrantsMinimum of 226,000 Visas

Because the cap on family-related immigration is 480,000 and immigration by immediate relatives ofcitizens (see above) is unlimited, it is conceivable that immediate relatives might use up all 480,000 visasin a given year. To protect other family members from this occurrence, at least 226,000 visas every yearare available to people in the family-sponsored category, thereby making the 480,000 figure a "pierceablecap." If more than 480,000 visas are awarded to family members in a given year the difference betweenthe two numbers is subtracted from the family-sponsored category in the following year.

1) Unmarried sons and daughters of United States citizens 23,400/year

2) Spouses and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent residents 114,200/year

3) Married sons and daughters of United States citizens 23,400/year

4) Brothers and sisters of adult United States citizens 65,000/year

40,000/year

Employment-Based Immigrants-140,000 Visas

1) Aliens with outstanding abilities

2) Aliens with advanced degrees or with exceptional abilitiesrequiring labor certification 40,000/year

3) Aliens with needed skills, unskilled workers of whom there is a shortage,or aliens with baccalaureate degrees, all requiring labor certification 40,000/year

4) Special immigrants, including religious workers 10,000/year

5) Foreign investors willing to invest $1 million to create at least 10 jobs 10,000/year

The Immigration Act of 1990 also sets aside anumber of visas between FY 1992 and FY 1994 toallow the family members of newly legalizedaliens to obtain lawful permanent residence in theUnited States. To qualify, family members mustprove that they have resided in the country sinceMay 1988.

The 1990 act also increased the number of asyleeswho could obtain LPR status from 5,000 to 10,000per year and created an emergency immigrationfund.

State and local impact. Legal immigrants mayparticipate in any federal, state, or local programfor which they meet the categorical eligibilityrequirements. The federal government and moststates and localities do not track public benefitrecipients by their immigration status, and thereforethe specific cost of serving newcomers in these

14

programs is, for the most part, unknown. However,it is evident that immigrants make extensive use ofsome specific programs.

For example, education services are widely used byboth youth (e.g., K-12) and adults. This is partlybecause immigrants are entitled to publiceducation, and immigrant families are younger thanaverage, and therefore are more likely to haveschool-age children. Education is paid for by stateand local governments, but these costs are notcompletely recovered from immigrant tax revenue.Additionally, federal education programs forimmigrants are being reduced, putting furtherpressure on states and localities. For example,funding for the Immigrant Education Act, the onlyimpact aid for immigrant education, fell by halfover the course of the 1980s. Similarly, funding forTitle VII bilingual education for limited Englishproficient children fell by half over the 1980s.

27America's Newcomers

Finally, the Refugee Education Assistance programhas been unfunded since 1988.

In contrast, legal immigrants are unlikely to accesswelfare and income assistance programs unlessabsolutely necessary for a number of reasons. First,the great majority of immigrants come to the UnitedStates to work. Second, legal immigrants withsponsors are ineligible for AFDC, SSI, and foodstamps for three years (see box "Three-YearDeeming and Public Charge"). Also, immigrantsmay worry that if they use welfare they might bedesignated a "public charge" and then be deported.Finally, many immigrants are from cultures thatencourage individuals to depend on their familiesinstead of the government or other resources.

Humanitarian Immigration and the Refugee Actof 1980

One of the nation's founding principles has beenthe offer of freedom and opportunity to theoppressed, perhaps best symbolized by the Statueof Liberty and its promise of asylum. Before 1980,humanitarian assistance was provided in apiecemeal fashion, assisting only limited classes ofpeople (e.g., Cubans and Indochinese). In 1980, thenation extended its humanitarian commitment byestablishing a comprehensive, national refugeeresettlement and assistance policy. The RefugeeAct of 1980 provided a definition of "refugee"consistent with international law and established aframework for the selection of refugees foradmission to the United States. This policy wasintended to replace the former ad hoc, discretionaryparole authority of the 1952 Immigration andNationality Act and the conditional entrantpreference established by the 1965 Amendments tothe act.

Of the four main humanitarian categories (refugee,asylum, parole, and temporary protected status),the refugee group is historically the largest(approximately 123,000 in FY 1992). However, thecontinued use of parole permits large numbers of"refugee-like" persons (approximately 137,000 inFY 1992) to enter. Data indicate that sincetemporary protected status was created in 1990,more than 200,000 persons have been awardedpermission to stay in the United States temporarily.Finally, in FY 1992, more than 5,000 persons weregranted asylum, and more than 103,000applications for asylum were filed.

Innnigrahon and Itnnu:rant 1'0 !Ic1

Three Year "Deeming" and "Public Charge"

Some legal immigrants come to the UnitedStates with the aid of citizens who serve as their"sponsors." A sponsor is someone who files an"affidavit of support" to help the sponsoredimmigrant obtain lawful permanent residentstatus. As a result of this relationship, thefederal government requires any sponsoredimmigrant to include the sponsor's resources inany application for AFDC, SSI, food stamps,and a few state general assistance programs fortheir first three years in the United States Thesponsor's income is therefore "deemed"available to the sponsored immigrant.However, the affidavit does not legally obligatesponsors to share their resources with thesponsorees.

The federal government expects newcomers tobecome self-sufficient as soon as possible aftertheir arrival. Immigrants who becomedependent upon public assistance (state,federal, or both), fail to find employment, andare unlikely to be self-supporting in the future(because of poor health, inadequate education,lack of sponsorship, etc.) may be deported onthe grounds that they have become a "publiccharge." The "public charge" issue usuallyaffects aliens tryins to obtain LPR status andrarely affects lawful permanent residents.

According to the Refugee Act of 1980, thePresident must set an annual ceiling on the totalnumber of refugees that may enter the UnitedStates. Also, separate regional ceilings must beset, limiting the number of refugees from each partof the globe. Once applications have beenreceived, the Department of State's Bureau ofRefugee Programs applies a priority system todecide which persons will be selected for entrance(see box "Priorities for Admitting Refugees").

Newcomers needing humanitarian safe haven oftenneed help in making a successful transition intoAmerican society. Vietnamese refugees havesometimes experienced persecution in their nativeland, including physical and psychological torture.Some Latino parolees know little English and havefew marketable job skills. Other humanitarian

15

immigrants, like the Hmong are from primitivecultures and therefore need orientation to moderntechnology and amenities. With such over-whelming barriers to successful assimilation,humanitarian immigrants are a very vulnerablepopulation. The federal government recognized thetremendous need of humanitarian immigrants andits own responsibility for meeting these needs in theRefugee Act of 1980.

Priorities for Admitting Refugees

The Refugee Act of 1980 established the followingcriteria for determining which refugees havepriority in entering the United States:

Priority 1 Those in immediate danger of lossof life (e.g., political prisoners)

Priority 2 Former employees of the UnitedStates government for one or more years

Priority 3 Persons with a close UnitedStates family relation (spouse, unmarriedchild, or parents of persons legally in thecountry)

Priority 4 Those with close ties to UnitedStates foundations, voluntary agencies, orUnited States companies for one or moreyears

Priority 5 Relatives who do not fit incategory three

Priority 6 Those whose admission is inthe national interest of the United Statesbecause of their nationality

The Refugee Act authorized and codified, for thefirst tir,.e, federal assistance for comprehensive,domestic resettlement of refugees. It provided forreimbursement to states for the cost of providingcash and medical assistance to all refugees up to amaximum of their first three years in the UnitedStates. This Cash and Medical Assistance program(CMA) originally covered all state costs for refugeeswho meet the requirements for "categorical"programs: AFDC, SSI, Medicaid, and state-financed General Assistance programs. The act alsoreimbursed states through CMA for refugees whowere needy but who did not qualify for categoricalprograms, through a parallel program of Refugee

16

Cash Assistance (RCA) and Refugee MedicalAssistance (RMA).

The Office of Refugee Resettlement providesresettlement assistance to refugees, asylees,Cuban/Haitian entrants, and Amerasians under thefollowing programs:

Social Services is a federal grant to states toprovide English language training andemployment services and Title XX services suchas translation, oriencation, day care, andtransportation for refugees in the United Statesfor three years or less. When a state has a "cashassistance dependency rate" for refugees of 55percent or more, ORR regulations require thestate to spend 85 percent of their Social Servicesfunds on employability services. States mayrequest a waiver of this requirement.

The Targeted Assistance Grant is additionalfederal assistance to those communities thatreceive the most eligible refugees andCuban/Haitian entrants.

The Preventive Health Services programprovides grants to state public health facilitiesto perform health screening and follow-uptreatment.

The Voluntary Agency Matching Grantprovides matching funds to voluntaryresettlement agencies that assist in refugeeresettlement.

State and local impact. As the federal budgetproblems have increased, funding for the refugeeresettlement program repeatedly has been cut back(see figures 1 and 2). Since 1981, federalreimbursement for the costs incurred by serving theAFDC-eligible population has decreased from 36months to no reimbursement at all. States andlocalities now pay for this group just as they pay forthe cost of services to legal immigrants. Similarly,since 1981 federal reimbursement for RCA andRMA has dropped from 36 months ofreimbursement to eight months.

Second, some humanitarian immigrants do notqualify for federal income-maintenance programsor resettlement assistance. Parolees do not qualifyfor the Refugee Act benefits, neither do newcomerswith temporary protected status. There is no limit


on the number of parolees that INS may admit eachyear. States and localities bear the cost of providingservices to these populations by the default of thefederal government, even though these immigrantshave many of the same needs of the refugees,asylees, and Cuban/Haitian entrants who receivefederal assistance.

Illegal Immigration and the Immigration Reformand Control Act of 1986

There are a number of ways in which unauthorizedpersons enter the United States. Some stow awayon vehicles entering the United States. Others crossthe 1,951-mile-long border by themselves or withthe aid of "coyotes," smugglers who arrange to getforeigners into the country in exchange for money.Some newcomers originally obtain legal permissionto enter but then overstay the time of residenceprovided for in their visas. Still others use forgeddocuments to enter the country.

During the 1980s, the number of persons in theUnited States without legal permission increasedrapidly because jobs and wages were much moreattractive in the United States than in most othercountries. Many others wanted to be reunited withfamily members already living in the United States.It is estimated that in 1980, between two millionand four million unauthorized people were in theUnited States. By 1986, it was believed that thenumber had increased to between three million andfive million people.

In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act(IRCA) was passed to address this rise in illegalimmigration. It established employer sanctions(fines and jail sentencing) for hiring unauthorizedworkers and provided a one-time amnesty to allowunauthorized migrants currently residing in theUnited States to apply for legalization. IRCAgranted amnesty to 2.6 million unauthorized alienswho had lived in the United States since 1982 ("pre-82s") or had performed special agricultural work("SAWs"). Pending some remaining SAWapplications, an additional 100,000 aliens may beauthorized. However, like the humanitariannewcomers, the newly legalized were in great needof language training, health care, education, andother social services. And, as before, at first thefederal government recognized its responsibility topay for this resettlement assistance.

To minimize the impact on United Statestaxpayers and to prevent the reduction of benefits

to disadvantaged citizens, the amnesty aliens weretemporarily denied access to federal programsbased on financial need (specifically AFDC,Medicaid, and food stamps). The StateLegalization Impact Assistance Grant (SLIAG)program was created to reimburse states for theexpenses they would incur by serving thispopulation during the five-year exclusion period.SLIAG provides federal reimbursement to statesfor costs incurred for public assistance, publichealth, and education. Public assistance primarilyincludes the state share of Medicaid and hospitaland medical care for the amnesty immigrants. Thepublic health programs include immunization,testing, family planning, and preventive healthscreening. Educational services consist mainly ofinstruction in basic English, American governmentand history, and citizenship. Vocational training isnot covered under the SLIAG program.

The IRCA legislation also increased borderenforcement and created the Systematic AlienVerification for Entitlements (SAVE) system. SAVErequires state and federal benefit-granting agenciesto verify that alien applicants for specific federalbenefits (AFDC, Medicaid, food stamps,unemployment insurance, education loans andgrants, and housing) have the authorized legalstatus for participation in these programs.Additionally, IRCA grants lawful permanentresident status to Cubans and Haitians who enteredbefore 1982.

State and local impact. The good intentions thatIRCA represented have evaporated. The federalgovernment has not been forthcoming with the aidit promised in the program's authorizinglegislation. SLIAG was created as a four-year, $4billion program, with a seven-year spending cycle,designed to allow for the anticipated I tigherdemand for assistance in the later years of theprogram. States were permitted to spend the 1988-1991 appropriations until 1994. However,beginning in 1990, large portions of the promisedSLIAG appropriations were deferred to later fiscalyears. States were finally paid the $812 millionowed them in FY 1994.

Second, the five-year exclusion from federal assis-tance is ending for those who qualified for theamnesty program in its first year 1987-1988.Therefore, there will likely be increasing caseloadsin the AFDC, SSI, food stamps, and Medicaidprograms and a corresponding increasing statematching grant requirement for state governments.

JUImmigraHon and Immigrant Policy17

Third, despite IRCA's early success in reducingillegal entries, it is estimated that the number ofunauthorized migrants is increasing again. Onemeasure often used in estimating illegal entries isthe number of apprehensions reported by theBorder Patrol. Some increase this number toaccount for entrants who successfully elude theBorder Patrol. Others adjust the number down,noting that aliens continue to cross the border untilthey are successful in gaining entry, despite the factthat they may be apprehended ty 'the Border Patrolmany times, thereby inflating estimates ofunauthorized immigration. In fact, unauthorizedaliens are often commuters who return to theirnative countries when they have earned somemoney, have completed work or cannot find any, ormiss their families; these returns are not counted.Accounting for these factors, the Urban Instituteestimates that the net annual flow of unauthorizedmigrants intending to reside permanently in theUnited States is roughly 200,000. The INS inOctober 1992 estimated the total resident illegalpopulation in the United States at 3.2 million.

Finally, the IRCA employer sanctions have provedproblematic. The GAO has found that employz.rsare discriminating against legal minority residentsfor fear of violating the IRCA sanctions. Membersof the business community have complained that ablack market of fraudulent Social Security cardsand drivers' licenses makes compliance difficult.As a result, there have been a number ofcongressional attempts to eliminate employersanctions, none of which have been successful.Other members of Congress are interested increating tamper proof documents and improvingthe employment eligibility verification system.

CONCLUSION

The 1980s showed the highest levels of immigrationin the United States since the turn of the century.Even if recent immigration trends were suddenlyreversed, the diversity of ethnicity and race of theserecent arrivals will have lasting effects on ourpublic institutions and will create new challengesfor state and local officials. How will health andsocial service programs adjust to a multilingual,multicultural population? How will school systemsadapt to the needs of children from 100 differentcountries? How can state and local officials ensurethat public services and benefits are distributed

18

equitably among the members of the community?

Although the federal government has exclusivejurisdiction over immigration, there is a lack ofresponsibility for immigrants after their arrival.Federal resettlement programs are piecemeal andinadequate. Though more immigrants are arriving,funding has been reduced or constrained for thefew programs that assist new immigrants tointegrate into the economic, social, and civic life ofthe United States.

In the absence of a comprehensive federal policyto provide for refugees and immigrants, state andlocal governments are creating immigrant policy.States and localities implement programsrequired by federal law, provide servicesmandated by the courts, and initiate programsand policies to serve the specialized needs of theirnew citizens.

The number and diversity of the new immigrantsare creating new fiscal and social challenges forstate and local governments. The lack of acomprehensive federal policy is compelling stateand local government to create immigrant policy,but without adequate resources. Many state andlocal governments are grappling with continuingbudget deficits. Although immigrants are valuablecontributors to the U.S. economy and pay taxes ($90billion according to one estimate), there is inequityin the flow of immigrant revenues. Economistsshow that two-thirds of revenues provided byimmigrants flow to the federal level, while onlyone-third flows to states and localities. Yet theneeds of the new arrivals cause states and localitiesto incur significant costs, particularly for educationand health care. This disparity leads tounreimbursed costs for state and localgovernments.

We have yet to see what immigration and refugeepolicy will be for the 1990s. It is likely that thenew administration and Congress will re-examine immigration laws and consider arestructuring of the refugee program.Immigration reform should include the followingcomponents: (1) program planning andimplementation at the community level toaddress service needs and community relationsand (2) a redress of the fiscal inequity ofimmigrant revenues and costs among the federal,state, and local levels.


GLOSSARY

The following immigrant categories and legalstatuses are also among the most numerous andfrequently used newcomer categories. Othercategories are defined on pages 6 and 7.

Amerasians are Southeast Asian children fatheredby United States citizens and born in SoutheastAsia. Amerasians are eligible to emigrate to theUnited States under various immigration laws.Spouses, children, parents, or guardians mayaccompany the immigrating Amerasian.

Cuban/Haitian entrants are in the "entrant"category (legal status pending) which wasoriginally created for the Cuban and Haitianarrivals of 1980 and allowed for this population toobtain work permits and to apply for publicassistance. Title V of the Refugee Assistance Act of1980 extended eligibility for refugee services to thispopulation and to future Cuban/Haitian arrivals intemporary status as a parolee, asylum applicant,etc.

Deferred enforced departure (DED) status isawarded to immigrants at the discretion of theexecutive branch. It awards work authorizationand temporary protection from deportation to itsrecipients. It has been granted only to ElSalvadorans and Chinese student. after the eventsof Tiananmen Square.

Family unity entrants are immediate familymembers of legalized aliens. These persons musthave lived in the United States since May 1988.Family unity entrants are granted a stay ofdeportation and permitted to work in the UnitedStates; they receive the same public benefits as thelegalized alien family member.

Naturalization is the process by which a foreign-born individual becomes a citizen of the UnitedStates. Naturalization requires that the person beover 18 years old, lawfully admitted to the UnitedStates, reside in the country continuously for fiveyears, and have a basic knowledge of English andAmerican government and history.


Nonimmigrants are temporary visitors to theUnited States who are allowed to enter the countryfor specific periods of time with nonimmigrantvisas. Examples of nonimmigrants are students,tourists, and business travelers. They are typicallyineligible for public benefits, but certain categoriesmay obtain authorization to work while innonimmigrant status.

The permanently residing under color of law(PRUCOL) status is a legal term that applies to"aliens here (in the United States) under statutoryauthority and those effectively allowed to remainhere under administrative discretion." PRUCOLstatus means that an alien is considered to belegally residing in the country for an indefiniteperiod for the purposes of determining benefiteligibility for public assistance. PRUCOL is not amethod of entering the United States and appliesonly to public benefit eligibility, and therefore it isnot a legal, or immigration, status like lawfulpermanent resident or refugee.

Temporary protected status (TPS) aliens areauthorized to stay in the Uniced States for aspecified limited time, during which they areeligible to work and live in the country. After thetime period expires, either their status may beextended, or they may be required to leave thecountry. Like asylum, TPS is granted only to thosealready in the country. TPS is awarded to wholeclasses of people, such as Lebanese or El Salvadorannationals, so that they can escape civil unrest intheir native countries.

Voluntary departure status can be awarded by animmigration judge to a newcomer in deportationproceedings. The newcomer must have no criminalhistory, agree to voluntarily leave the country, andprove he or she has the financial means to do so.

Extended voluntary departure (EVD) status is agrant of additional time to voluntarily leave thecountry.

3 ''ti 19

REFERENCES

Cose, Ellis. A Nation of Strangers: Prejudice, Politics andthe Populating of America. New York: WilliamMorrow and Co., Inc. 1992.

Defreitas, Gregory. "Hispanic Immigration and LaborMarket Segmentation." Industrial Relations, vol. 27no. 2, Spring 1988.

Fix, Michael, and Jeffrey S. Passel. The Door RemainsOpen: Recent Immigration to the United States and aPreliminary Analysis of the Immigration Act of 1990.PRIP-UI-14. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute,Program for Research on Immigration Policy,January 1991.

Griffin, Rodman D. "Illegal Immigration: Does ItDamage the Economy and Strain Social Services?"CQResearcher, April 24, 1992, 361-384.

Gurwitt, Rob, "Back to the Melting Pot." Governing, June1992, 31-35.

Keely, Charles B. American Immigration - The ContinuingTrends. New York: The Coordinating Committee forEllis Island, Inc., 1989.

Kilborn, Peter T. "Law is Said to Fail to Stop the Abuseof Farm Workers." The New York Times. October 22,1992, Al.

Mandel, Michael J., and Christopher Farrell. "TheImmigrants." Business Week, July 13, 1992, 114-122.

Mason, Jana. "Immigration Act of 1990." W Memo, April1991, 15-25.

Morosoff, Ellen. Immigration Policy and the Labor Force inNew York State. Albany: New Yt ..k State LegislativeCommission on Skills Development and VocationalEducation, October 1991.

Morse, Ann. "United States Immigration and RefugeePolicy: Federal Policy and Its Impact on States."State-Federal Issue Brief, vol. 3, no. 2, Denver:National Conference of State Legislatures, June 1991

Muller, Thomas. The Fourth Wave: California's Newestimmigrants. Washington, D.C.: The Urban InstitutePress, Spring 1984.

North, David S. IRCA Did Not Do Much to the LaborMarket: A Los Angeles County Case Study. WorkingPaper no. 10. United States Department of Labor,Division of Immigration Policy and Research,International Labor Affairs Bureau, November 1991.

Rosenberg, David E. "Serving America's Newcomers:States and Localities Are Taking the Lead in theAbsence of a Comprehensive National Policy."Public Welfare, Winter 1991, 28-37.

Stanfield, Rochelle L. "Melting Pot Economics." NationalJournal, February 22, 1992, 442-446.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office ofRefugee Resettles- eat. Refugee Resettlement Program:Annual Report to Congress, FY 1991, January 31, 1992.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Affairs. TheEffects of Immigration on the United States LaborEconomy and Labor Market. Immigration Policy andResearch Report no. 1, January 1989.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Refugee Resettlement:Federal Support to the States Has Declined.GAO/HRD-91-51. December 1990.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Immigration Reform:Employer Sanctions and the Question of Discrimination.GAO/GGD-90-62. March 1990.

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. StatisticalYearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service,1997. Washington, D.C.: Government PrintingOffice, September 1992.

Vialet, Joyce C. "A Brief History of United StatesImmigration Policy." CRS Report for Congress.Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service,January 25, 1991.

Weissbrodt, David. Immigration Law and Procedure 2ndEd. In a Nutshell Series. St. Paul, Minn.: WestPublishing Co., 1989.

Wheeler, Charles, and Rebecca Chiao. Guide to AlienEligibility for Federal Programs. Los Angeles:National Immigration Law Center, 1992.

33


2. HEALTH CARE ISSUES FOR NEW AMERICANS

Jonathan C. DunlapFay Hutchinson

National Conference of State Legislatures

Chapter 2 was originally published as America's Newcomers:Health Care Issues for New Americans by the National Conferenceof State Legislatures, (lily 1993.

INTRODUCTION

Over the past year, health care reform has become atop priority on the country's domestic agenda.Immigrants and refugees are among the millions ofpeople who are currently without health insurance,who are insured only part of the year, or who havehealth insurance that is inadequate w meet theirneeds in the event of a catastrophic illness. Thedemand for newcomer health care servicescontinues to eclipse the budgetary and programresources of state and local governments.* Asdiscussions continue on the need for health carereform, it is important that newcomers' health careneeds not be overlooked.

Newcomers are a significant and growing past ofthe diversity and richness of American society.During the 1980s an estimated 9.5 millionnewcomers entered the United States, the highestdecade total in our nation's history, and thesenumbers promise to continue to increase in the1990s. Newcomers are making valuable economicand social contributions to virtually every part ofour nation's livelihood, yet they raise importantquestions for the nation's health care policy becauseof their specialized needs and differing eligibilityfor federal services.

Newcomers face a number of different barriers toadequate, comprehensive health care. Institutionalbarriers, such as legal status and program eligibilityrequirements, prevent some categories ofnewcomers from participating in government-sponsored health care programs. Foreignlanguages and cultures contribute tomiscommunication between service providers and

The term "newcomers" includes all foreign-born, regardless oftheir immigrant status. Terms such as legal immigrants,refugees, legalized aliens, undocumented aliens and !.o on, referto specific categories of newcomers. Definitions of thesecategories are provided in chapter 1.

Health Care Issues

newcomer patients. Economic barriers preventmany newcomers from purchasing health care ontheir own. When these barriers prevent newcomersfrom obtaining adequate health care, their efforts tobeLome self-sufficient are severely impaired.

Federal programs designed to meet newcomers'health care needs are inadequate and fragmented,and over the last decade, the federal government hasbeen shifting newcomer health care responsibilitiesto state and local governments. In response, stateand local governments are beginning to designpolicies and programs to meet the health care needsof this diverse population. However, because theresources of state and local government are limited,these models are rare and are difficult to replicate.

Although there are other health care issues thatconcern newcomer populations, this paperconcentrates on four main policy areas: access toregular and comprehensive health care; publichealth; mental health; and the effect of linguisticand cultural barriers on newcomers' use of healthcare. Each section discusses the needs andproblems newcomers have within these specificareas, the current federal response, and somesuccessful state and local programs.

If newcomers have access to regular andcomprehensive health care, they can receiveprimary care in the offices of primary carephysicians, obviating the use of hospital outpatientdepartments and emergency rooms, whichincreases costs to state and local governments.Public and preventive health issues raised bynewcomers (particularly the high incidence oftuberculosis, hepatitis B, and parasites) have seriousimplications for both newcomers and natives.Mental health problems are cause for concern,particularly for refugees who have suffered thehorrors of persecution or torture. Finally,communication problems, either linguistic orcultural, between health care provider and patientmay significantly compromise the quality of healthcare received and the efficacy of treatment.

Because these issues are interrelated, there is someoverlap in the presentation. This overlap serves as

3.1 21

a reminder that progress in one area of resettlementpolicy often contributes to progress in other areas.If newcomers are healthy, their prospects for earlyemployment, proficiency in English, and successfulresettlement are increased. Therefore, newcomerhealth care is a cornerstone of any successfulresettlement strategy.

ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

Access to regular and comprehensive health care isan important component of effective newcomerresettlement. There are a number of variables, suchas immigrant status, income, employment,ethnicity, English language proficiency, andunfamiliarity with the American health care system,that influence a newcomer's capacity to obtainprimary health care.

Middle class, legal immigrants with employer-sponsored health insurance obtain health care muchlike their counterparts in the general population.However, while these immigrants are self-sufficient, many would be classified as medicallyindigent in the event of major or catastrophicillness.

Low-income, legal immigrants and refugees withfamilies are generally eligible for Medicaid benefits.Additionally, low-income refugees who are noteligible for Medicaid are usually eligible for aspecial Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) programfor their first eight months in the country. TheRMA program provides refugees with the samebenefits as the Medicaid program. Immigrants andrefugees covered by Medicaid or the RMA programare therefore able to obtain health care relativelyeasily, for the first eight months of arrival.

Legal immigrants and refugees applying for theMedicaid or RMA programs are subject to the samestate-created eligibility criteria as U.S. citizens. Insome states, the qualifying income level forMedicaid and RMA is lower than in others, therebydisqualifying some working-poor newcomers inthese states from participation in the program. Inthese instances, newcomers with low-paying jobsmay be earning too much to qualify for Medicaid orRMA but not enough to allow them to participate inan employer-sponsored health plan or to pay forhealth care themselves. Migrant farmworkers,particularly, fall into this category. In 1990, theDepartment of Labor conducted a nationwidesurvey of the agricultural worker population and

found that only 20 percent had employer-sponsoredhealth insurance.

Undocumented immigrants qualify for very limitedgovernment health care benefits and are less likelythan insured newcomers to have other health carecoverage, to use preventive health services, and toreceive prenatal care. Although data on theundocumented population are scarce, a studyconducted by the Center for United States-MexicanStudies at the University of California, San Diego,between 1981 and 1983 showed that more than 81percent of the undocumented interviewees lackedpublic or private insurance coverage and thatcoverage increased only slightly for undocumentedimmigrants after long residence in the UnitedStates. A 1992 study completed for INS found that49 percent of the recently legalized alien populationhad no health insurance, even though many hadtheir legal status for more than one year.

Undocumented immigrants do not routinely seekgovernment health care and other social servicebenefits because of program ineligibility, high costs,language problems, unfamiliarity with the U.S.health care system, and fear of discovery by theImmigration and Naturalization Service (INS).Although some state and local governments haveexplicitly instructed their employees not to give anyinformation regarding their clients to the INS,federal law mandates that social workers verify anapplicant's immigration status through INS' auto-mated Systematic Alien Verification for Eligibility(SAVE) system.

The health care patterns of low-income, uninsurednewcomers often mirror those of their counterpartsin the general population. Both groups

1. delay treatment until the medical problem isin its advanced stages and symptoms becomeacute;

2. neglect preventive health care; and3. receive primary health care in an emergency

room rather than in a doctor's office.

Because newcomer groups, especially undocu-mented immigrants, are unlikely to receivecomprehensive health care or be covered bycomprehensive health insurance, they often turn tohospital outpatient departments and emergencyrooms to meet their health care needs. Californiaestimates that undocumented immigrants accessingemergency medical services through the Medi-Calprogram cost the state approximately $400 million

35


in FY 1992. Texas estimates that it incurred $16million in emergency Medicaid costs for FY 1992and that public hospitals incurred $56 million incosts from servi:tg undocumented immigrants.Florida estimates that it incurred $5 million inemergency Medicaid costs for serving thispopulation in FY 1993.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986allows for partial federal reimbursement under theMedicaid program to health care providers foremergency medical services provided to all low-income residents regardless of their immigrantstatus. But although the right to emergencymedical care is protected by federal and state law,the inappropriate use of these services causes agreat deal of concern for state and localgovernments as well as for health care providers.

State and local governments and hospitals,particularly public hospitals, have a vested interestin reducing newcomers' use of emergency carebecause it directly affects state and local budgetsand hospitals' levels of uncompensated care. Oncea case has been determined an emergency by aphysician, hospitals with emergency rooms mustoffer at least initial treatment. Providing theseservices is proving costly to states, localities, andhospitals because the partial federal reimbursementfor the cost of these emergency services isinadequate to offset the costs. States and localitiesare then placed in the difficult position of eitherreimbursing hospitals for the outstanding expenseor shifting these costs to the hospitals themselves.

From the hospital's perspective, the overuse ofemergency services is an inefficient use of itsresources because the cost of these services is higherthan outpatient services. According to a 1992 articlein the Journal of Legal Medicine, a few hospitalsrespond to this budgetary pressure by using a verynarrow definition of the term emergency and byrefusing to serve poor, undocumented immigrantseven if they have legitimate medical emergencies.Even though these practices contravene the law,they may often go unpunished because theundocumented population is unlikely to notify thefederal government of this violation. Otherhospitals shoulder the expense of theseuncompensated costs by charging more for servicesprovided to other patients.

Most newcomer patients require more social serviceinterventions than do patients in the generalpopulation. They may require more discharge

Health Care Issues

planning and patient education, especially wherethey are unfamiliar with the U.S. health care systemand have limited English language skills. Thisplaces an undue strain on public hospitals,particularly in areas where private trauma centershave been closing and at a time when hospitals arebeing asked to serve more people with fewerfinancial resources. As governmentreimbursements decline, hospitals become less ableto continue providing uncompensated care.

Uninsured newcomers sometimes choose topurchase health care from underground healthcare providers who are not licensed or certified bythe appropriate authorities. Underground healthsystems have surfaced in communities with largenewcomer populations. These systems providehealth care to those who are unable to use the U.S.health care system (e.g., because of their immi-gration status) or who are unwilling to do so (e.g.,because they prefer to go to doctors with a similarethnic or cultural background even if they areuncertified). Care provided in these clinics is oftenexpensive and may be second-rate or evendangerous.

Federal Programs

Newcomer eligibility for health care. Newcomersare eligible for widely divergent health carebenefits, depending on their immigration status.Low-income refugees and legal immigrants areassisted through the Medicaid program. Low-income refugees who do not qualify for theseprograms m ly use the Refugee Medical Assistanceprogram during their first eight months in theUnited States. Undocumented immigrants mayreceive only emergency services under theMedicaid program.

Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of1986, legalized immigrants were barred fromcertain federal public assistance programs for thefirst five years of their legal residency. During thisfive-year period, legalized immigrants were eligiblefor state and local health programs which in turncould be reimbursed for these medical expensesthrough the State Legalization Impact AssistanceGrant (SLIAG). In May 1993, the ban on federalservices ended, allowing the newly legalized toaccess federal mainstream health care programs.

Public hospitals. Public hospitals are the principalproviders of inpatient care for immigrants andrefugees. They receive a "disproportionate share

3623

hospital" (DSH) subsidy from the federal Medicaidand Medicare programs to help subsidize care forpersons who cannot pay for health care forthemselves. Each year the federal governmentappropriates nearly $2 billion to be divided amongapproximately 1,600 hospitals that provide asubstantial amount of indigent care.

Community health centers. The Health Resourcesand Services Administration of the Department ofHealth and Human Services (DHHS) providesfunding for community health centers (CHCs)through project grants. Because of their close tieswith the community, CHCs can be sensitive toemerging community needs and provide patientcare to special populations. Project objectivesinclude improved availability, accessibility, andorganization of health care for underservedpopulations. Funding recipients may includepublic or nonprofit agencies, institutions, ororganizations and a limited number of state andlocal governments. Recipients must be prepared toassume some project costs.

Migrant health centers. The federal migrant healthprogram funds more than 100 migrant healthcenters nationally, providing services toapproximately 450,000 migrant farmworkers.These health centers provide a range of services thatcan include preventive health care, dental care,pharmaceuticals, bilingual outreach, andemergency outpatient services. Migrant healthcenter staff often include bilingual and biculturalhealth care professionals. These facilities are oftenable to provide the social and support services thathospitals usually cannot provide.

Funding for migrant health centers is available fromthree different funding streams in the Departmentof Health and Human Services. The HealthResources and Services Administration providesfunding to public or nonprofit organizations, withpriority given to community-based organizationsrepresentative of the populations being served. TheWomen, Infant, and Chile NIC) program is asecond major source of funding for these centers.Third, the Medicaid program also assists infinancing these centers, but providers receivereimbursement for only 50 percent of costs for theirservices. Unfortunately, the federal governmenthas provided only enough funding to servebetween 12 percent and 16 percent of the eligiblemigrant farmworker population, and these centersdo not serve farmworkers who are no longermigrating.

State and Local Programs

Many state and local government general assistance(GA) or general relief (GR) programs providemedical benefits in addition to cash assistance totheir eligible low-income residents. These GAmedical programs, also called indigent careprograms, offer varying levels of care and serve arange of populations. Indigent care programs insome states provide comprehensive medicalbenefits to all residents regardless of theirimmigrant status, while other programs provideonly emergency benefits to the undocumented ordo not serve them at all. All state and local welfareprograms must serve eligible legal immigrants andrefugees.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Newcomers raise a number of key issues for publichealth officials. Certain newcomer populationsenter the United States with health problemsresulting from environmental conditions andinadequate medical care in their countries of origin.Refugees and others fleeing persecution and torturedevelop health problems en route to the UnitedState.; or while living in overcrowded resettlementcamps with inadequate sanitation facilities. Stateand local officials have reported that the mostsignificant public health issues confrontingimmigrants and refugees are tuberculosis, hepatitisB, and intestinal parasitic infection:

In 1990, the foreign-born population accountedfor 25 percent of all tuberculosis cases in theUnited States. Officials in Texas, California,and Illinois report that the incidence oftuberculosis among immigrants and refugees isincreasing, particularly in urban environmentsand among the farmworker population.

A 1991 study estimates that between 14 percentand 20 percent of Indo-Chinese refugees in theUnited States, or 180,000 people, carry thehepatitis B virus. Between 10 percent and 12percent of the general Southeast Asian refugeepopulation are estimated to be chronic carriersof the virus.

A 1992 report commissioned by the AmericanAssociation of Retired Persons states thatnewcomer populations, and especially refugeesand farmworkers, have a high incidence ofparasitic infection. According to the PublicHealth Service, farmworker groups are nearly


50 times more likely to have parasitic infectionthan the general population.

These health problems are compounded by culturaland linguistic barriers (see the Language andCulture section). Some immigrants and refugeesmay not be able to adequately communicate theirhealth problems to health professionals or may notbe familiar with western medication, germ theory,and general treatment practices. Therefore,newcomers need access to trained interpreters whohave a good technical knowledge of medical issuesas well as an understanding of the patient's culturalbackground. Innovative programs at the state andlocal level are employing bilingual and biculturalhealth care professionals to provide these servicesto newcomers.

Disease prevention and health promotion are twocritical elements in protecting the public health andcontaining health care costs. Disease preventionand treatment occur at three different levels. Thefirst level emphasizes preventing disease before itoccurs, the second level, early detection andtreatment of a contracted disease, and the third,rehabilitation.

Health promotion includes health education andpublic outreach and, therefore, focuses on suchissues as nutrition, physical fitness, reproductivehealth, and identification of available health careservices and resources. Some newcomers needhealth education regarding emergencies and acutecare, including how to call for emergency servicesand administer basic cardiopulmonary resusci-tation. At this time, most refugees receive an initialorientation to the U.S. health care system from theirresettlement agencies, but other newcomers receiveno such orientation. Some health care serviceproviders also make use of bilingual educationalmaterials to reach out to newcomers and teach themhow and where to obtain access to health care. Forexample, Oregon's refugee program has developednewcomer orientation video tapes withaccompanying written materials. However, there isa general need for improved dissemination of theseand other materials in Oregon and in other states.

Currently, newcomer health care policy focusesprimarily on the second and third levels of diseasedetection and treatment with emphasis on healthscreening, health assessment, health education, andrequired treatment and follow-up. However, themobility of some newcomer populations hascontributed to poor compliance with treatment

Health Care Issues

plans, especially for diseases that require longerterm treatment. For example, effective treatment oftuberculosis requires at least six months of regularmedication. If the patient discontinues treatmenttoo early, the disease remains uncured and maybecome drug-resistant. The mobility of newcomergroups also limits the effectiveness of immunizationservices for the hepatitis B virus and the treatmentof other diseases.

Federal Programs

Coordinated assessment and treatment are notuniformly provided by the federal government toAmerica's newcomers. The federal governmentprovides legal immigrants and refugees with acursory overseas health screening and stategovernments with limited reimbursement fordomestic refugee health assessment and treatment.The overseas health screening ensures that legalimmigrants and refugees (1) are free fromcommunicable diseases of public healthsignificance, (2) do not have a mental illness linkedto violent behavior, and (3) do not have a drugaddiction. Although no one is allowed to immi-grate to the United States without passing thismedical exam, it is usually possible to obtainwaivers that allow immigrants and refugees withtreatable conditions to enter the country providedthey receive treatment within a prescribed timeperiod. When these exceptions are made, the PublicHealth Service notifies the appropriate state andlocal health departments of the arrival of thesenewcomers in their communities.

Once newcomers enter the United States, certaingroups are served by a patchwork of federal publichealth programs that do not meet all the publichealth needs of newcomers. Most of theseprograms are administered by the Department ofHealth and Human Services (DHHS). For example,the Public Health Service's Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC) oversees specificprograms such as tuberculosis control and hepatitisB prevention. The Office of Refugee Resettlement(ORR) provides funds to CDC to identify healthproblems that might impair refugees' self-sufficiency and to refer these refugees for treatment.The Migrant Health Program provides somepreventive services, including immunization andhealth promotion to a small percentage of thenation's migrant workers. The federal governmentalso provides states with a preventive health blockgrant that can be used for a variety of public healthservices.

36 25

However, these federal programs fail to meet mostof the public health needs of the newcomerpopulation. Mainstream public health programs donot adequately target new arrivals, even though theincidence of diseases such as tuberculosis is higheramong newcomers. Federal funds for public healthservices are often allocated on the basis ofnewcomers' legal status, not on their health needs.Also, the myriad federal public health programsserving newcomers are underfunded and lackcohesion, consistency, and focus. These problemscontribute to an ineffective U.S. strategy for publichealth treatment because only some newcomersreceive needed preventive services.


To fill some of the gaps in federal policy, some stateand local governments are creating their own publichealth policies and programs to meet newcomers'preventive health needs. Despite their limitedresources, states and localities are realizing thatthey must go beyond the limited public healthsupport that the federal government offers. Forexample, Illinois pays for health screenings forVietnamese immigrants and parolees in the OrderlyDeparture Program (ODP) who have the samehealth problems as refugees but are ineligible forfederally funded health screening. However, modelstate and local programs are rare and hard toreplicate with existing resources.

Some states and localities are conducting publichealth outreach campaigns for new arrivals bycreating and circulating bilingual educationalmaterials on important public health topics. InOregon, the state's refugee resettlement officereceived a grant from the federal Office of RefugeeResettlement to develop multilingual videomaterials on resettlement topics. Nineteen differenttapes in 15 different languages provide anorientation to American society. One 17-minutetape entitled "Using Health Care Services" providesan overview of the American medical system. InRhode Island, Women and Infants Hospitalreceived a grant from a private foundation to createa series of mu!tilingual videotapes on specificpublic health issues such as sexually transmitteddiseases, tuberculosis, and hepatitis B. Currently,nine tapes are available in seven languages. Boththe Oregon and the Rhode Island tapes areavailable at minimal cost. Information onmultilingual videotapes used in other states isavailable from DHHS' Office of RefugeeResettlement.

State and local government service providers arealso learning that building a relationship of trustwith their clientele is of utmost importance in theirattempts to better steward the public health. InCalifornia, Los Angeles County's Edward R. RoybalComprehensive Health Center, or the "Clinica deColores" as it is known locally, provides a widearray of bilingual and bicultural public healthservices to the Hispanic population of East LosAngeles. The center concentrates its public health.-,Ezvices in four areas: a chest clinic (fortuberculosis), a sexually transmitted disease clinic,immunization fcr children and adults, and casemanagement.

Over the last 20 years, the center has worked toinclude Hispanic community organizations in itsoutreach and service delivery. Priority hiring isgiven to Hispanic or other Spanish-speakingadministrators, doctors, nurses,.clerks, and otherstaff. Community representatives are regularlyinvited to discuss appropriate treatment methodsand strategies with staff and administrators. Thecenter also insists on maintaining strictconfidentiality for its clients.

The fruits of this cooperative effort are the goodreputation and word-of-mouth outreach that bringmany residents with limited English proficiency tothe center's doors. The center reports that even ifnewcomers move 50 to 60 miles away, they stillreturn to the center for health care. This connectionto the community has enabled "Clinica de Colores"to successfully integrate public health services withthe culture of its clients.

REFUGEE MENTAL HEALTH

Newcomers, especially refugees, suffer adjustmentand acculturation stresses associated with adapta-tion to a new society. The situation is exacerbated ifneither family nor society can provide the social oreconomic support that is needed to smooth thetransition and if refugee populations cannotcommunicate effectively in English. Psychiatricepidemiological studies of the Hmong populationin Minnesota have confirmed that refugees withinthat population who had developed somecompetence in both oral and written English werebetter able to adjust to life in the United States andwere less likely to become mental health casualties.

Intergenerational and cultural stress within thefamily unit resulting from immigration to the


United States also may adversely affect newcomermental health. In a number of newcomer families,parents have had to rely on their children aslanguage and culture brokers and to help them withacculturation. This dependence results in rolereversals that may violate cultural values andtraditions. Also, the pressure on children to"Americanize" frequently prompts them toabandon cultural traditions, thereby alienatingolder family members.

Refugees have unique mental health needs. Onfleeing their homeland, most refugees have had toleave their savings and possessions behind. Thosewho have lived in resettlement camps for a pro-tracted period often have feelings of alienation andloss of identity. Many refugees mourn the loss offamily members due to war, famine, or attacks asthey fled. Surveys conducted by Fred Bemak ofjohns Hopkins University reveal that one-third ofthe refugee population studied felt withdrawn,depressed, and alienated. Of the Amerasians whowere interviewed, one-third of the women had beenraped, one-third had experienced hunger, and one-third had seen or endured physical beatings. Oftenrefugees operate on "emergency adrenaline" in theearly days of arrival, and might experience "post-traumatic stress syndrome" later on.

Refugee mental health issues are cause for concernbecause orthodox mental health strategies alonehave not been effective in treating refugee mentalhealth problems. And even when culturallysensitive services are available, refugees from somecultures are reluctant to get mental healthtreatment. For example, a study of Afghan refugeeshas demonstrated that even when Afghanpsychotherapists are available, many Afghans donot want to use these services for fear .'i gossip,losing face, or having to share sensitive personalinformation. As with other populations seekingmental health care, treatment is compromised byfailure to complete treatment or to return forrequired follow-up.

Major contributors to refugee mental healthproblems include the following:

1. Changes in socioeconomic status;2. Loss of a sense of individuality;3. Torture, persecution, imprisonment, and

traumatic departure from country of origin;4. Unemployment (and underemployment

relative to one's level of education);

Health Care Issues

5. Unrealistic expectations regarding life in theUnited States;

6. Shortage of mental health professionalswilling or able to work with culturallydifferent populations; and

7. Separation from family and social supportsystems.

Language and cultural barriers as well as inade-quate social service support have limited the abilityof mental health service providers to meet refugeeneeds. A fragmented federal mental health policyhas exacerbated these problems by not providingsupport for needed preventive programs oruniformity in service delivery.

Federal Programs

Although Congress has continued to providefunding for refugee resettlement, allocations havebeen designed principally to promote earlyemployment at the expense of other resettlementneeds. Those comprehensive needs far exceed thelimited federal funding made available. Significantinvestment has therefore not been made in long-term infrastructure such as increasing the numberof clinics, professionals, and language programsthat would help to prevent protracted mental healthproblems.

The federal programs that provide funding fornewcomer mental health include Medicaid,Medicare, the Mental Health Block Grant, RefugeeTargeted Assistance, and the Voluntary AgencyMatching Grant. Though these funds are notdedicated to mental health, some states andvoluntary resettlement agencies have been able touse small portions of these funds for mental healthinitiatives.

Mental health funding, resource personnel, andtreatment centers have not kept pace with theincreased refugee demand for mental healthservices. As early as the mid-1970s, it was observedthat refugees suffer a greater number of both minorand major mental health problems even when thenew culture is similar to their own. In addition,mainstream mental health resources are often toolimited to include refugees. In the mid-1980s, theOffice of Refugee Resettlement funded the NationalInstitute of Mental Health to carry our a three-yearlimited initiative to stimulate refugee programs inseveral state mental health departments. However,with the elimination of federal funds, those

4027

departments have been unable to put these plansinto action.


Some state and local governments are trying to pulltogether the pieces of a coherent andcomprehensive refugee mental health policy tomeet the increased demand. In their efforts, statesand localities are trying to implement responsive,community-based programs that provideprofessional staff with cross-cultural training andincorporate the cross-cultural approach in theirtreatment plans. These programs also would aim toallocate resources for and bring into treatment thosepopulations most in need, and they would have themeans for early detection and prevention of mentalillness.

In the early 1980s, Santa Clara County, Calif., noteda significant increase in its Southeast Asian refugeepopulation. This prompted the county's mentalhealth bureau to use its own funds to conduct aneeds assessment survey of the new Vietnamese,Cambodian, and Chinese communities in their ownlanguages. Their findings showed tha' heVietnamese and Chinese refugees had twice themental health needs of the general population, andthe Cambodian refugees had eight times the need.

The survey also found that fourth and fifthgeneration Asian-Americans had different mentalhealth needs and received their care in differentsettings than did newly arrived Southeast Asianrefugees. The acculturated group had lower levelsof needs that could be met within general treatmentprograms while more recent refugees were seen inspecialized mentalliealth programs. Further,children were found to need additional mentalhealth resources and services. They are currentlyunderserved, and the number of children in need ofservices is increasing.

In response to these findings, the Santa ClaraMental Health Bureau reallocated its programresources to target the needs of these populations.The bureau created a mental health centerdedicated to serving South, ..st Asian refugees andexpanded the resources of two other county serviceproviders. Additionally, the county encouragesSoutheast Asians to obtain social work training atnearby San Jose State University and then activelyrecruits them as county positions become available.

The mental health bureau, like most other mentalhealth agencies, gets funding from a variety ofdifferent sources. Slightly less than 50 percentcomes from Medicaid and Medicare, approximately30 percent comes from special state tax revenue,another 20 percent comes from county funds, andthe remainder comes from sources like the federalMental Health Block Grant. Between FY 1991 andFY 1993 the mental health bureau's budgetincreased from $76 million to $92 million.However, despite the county's continued supportfor the program, severe budget problems haveforced it to reduce its FY 1994 contribution by $14million.

In 1980, the St. Paul International Clinic inMinnesota was opened to provide adult medicalservices for refugees of different nationalities.During the first three years, physicians began tosuspect that some refugees had mental healthproblems that were manifesting themselves asphysical problems. Starting in 1984, the clinicbegan to employ psychiatrists and later apsychologist to provide both medication andpsychotherapy to mentally ill refugees. The clinichas also been able to hire a Hmong nurse to assistwith the large number of Hmong the clinic serves.The clinic also has nine interpreters on staff whointerpret in nine different languages. Psychiatristsand psychologists each work with interpreters.

Other providers, such as Miami's New HorizonCommunity Mental Health Clinic, are incorporatingthe cross-cultural approach to treatment plans inculturally diverse communities. This approachrecognizes the complementary roles of modern andtraditional or alternative treatment, especially inmental health programs.

LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

Linguistic and cultural differences coupled withunfamiliarity with the U.S. health care system resultin decreased access to health care for non-English-speaking newcomers. The ability to maintaineffective communication between health careprovider and patient is therefore critical to thequality of patient care. Good communicationbetween health professionals and newcomerpatients is particularly crucial for those medicalprocedures that require the patient's informedconsent. If patients cannot understand the need for


a proposed procedure, they usually will not givetheir consent.

The Census Bureau estimates that, in 1990, 30.3percent of the 520,504 Asian language householdsand 23.4 percent of the 1,596,405 Spanish languagehouseholds were "linguistically isolated," meaningthat there is no one over the age of 14 in the house-hold who speaks English well. But although thesenewcomers are unable to communicate effectivelyin English, few hospitals offer translation servicesand trained interpreters to serve newcomers withlimited or no skill in English. The lack of interpre-ter services within medical settings is cause forconcern in light of the changing demographics ofthe U.S. population. According to a staff member ofthe House Subcommittee on Health and Environ-ment, "If you're accused of a crime in this country,when you go to court someone will interpret foryou. If you're sick and you need a doctor, you're onyour own."

In a recent study, the Chicago Reporter noted that anestimated 20 percent to 25 percent of Chicagoresidents need translating assistance at hospitals orhealth clinics. Although more than 59 languagesare spoken in Chicago, 71 of the 84 hospitals andclinics who responded to this survey said that theyhave not hired interpreters, and only two of the 34suburban facilities have interpreter services. Of the70 facilities who use staff employed in other jobs forinterpretation purposes, only 11 train them, eventhough they may have to translate complicatedmedical terms. Ten hospitals and clinics reportedusing housekeeping employees to interpret, 27 useclerks as well as other employees, 20 medicalfacilities ask patients to bring their own interpre-ters, and one tells them to go elsewhere for serviceif they cannot provide their own interpreter. Somehealth providers and families rely on children totranslate. This can violate social and culturalnorms, put undue pressure on children (see theMental Health section), and lead to deliberatemasking of symptoms and, therefore, improperdiagnosis.

The University of Illinois at Chicago recentlyconducted a survey of 141 Cook County hospitalsand clinics. Of the 42 responding, only 10 percentof the hospitals provide intake forms in Spanish,while nearly half the clinics do. The study alsoconfirmed that medical interpreter services areprovided haphazardly and that there is a need for

Health Care Issues

policy and programs in this area. ChicagoTravelers and Immigrants Aid, which commis-sioned the study, has since formed a task force thathas suggested ways to train and certify health careproviders.

One way to overcome language and culturalbarriers would be to hire immigrant doctors,nurses, and other health professionals. Thissolution is problematic because of the stringentstandards and certification requirements the U.S.medical community places on foreign-trainedpersonnel. Doctors and nurses are often required torepeat entire education and training programs toobtain U.S. certification, even if immigrant healthcare professionals can document that they havereceived a comparable education overseas.

Specific cultural traditions and experiences affectnewcomer access to health care in a variety of ways.Newcomers frequently are unaccustomed towestern medical practices and may be unfamiliarwith basic germ theory. Newcomers may also bemore comfortable with alternative remedies andtreatments (e.g., herbal medication, spiritualhealing) than with western treatment procedures(e.g., injections). Some newcomers areapprehensive of large hospitals and the prospect ofdescribing personal ailments to an unknown doctoror nurse.

Federal Programs

The federal government has no coherent policy orprograms that address language and culturalbarriers to immigrant health care. Althoughinterpretation and translation services arereimbursable expenses under the Medicaidprogram and DHHS does have a policy ofsupporting interpretation services where necessary,state claims for these costs are rarely honoredbecause of insufficient federal appropriations.However, some progress was made beginning in1985 when the Office for Minority Health (OMH)was created by DHHS. In 1990, the Congresspassed the Disadvantaged Minority Health Act,which created the Office of Deputy AssistantSecretary for Minority Health in DHHS. This officeis charged with activities related to diseaseprevention, health promotion, service delivery, andresearch concerning disadvantaged minorities.OMH also distributes a limited number of grants tohelp health care providers obtain the assistance ofbilingual health professionals and staff.

4) 29


Interpretation and translation. To bridge thecommunication gap, some health care providershave now hired full-time, part-time, or contracttranslators. Efficiency indicators at the Roanoke(Va.) City Health District Refugee Clinic point to thevalue of early interpreter intervention. In theRoanoke program, outreach workers providetranslation services during clinic and home visits,enabling staff to complete and assess patient healthhistories and explain needed follow-up. Bilingualstaff contribute to improved patient flow andreduced clinic and personnel costs. The intro-duction of a family-centered clinic has eliminatedthe previously fragmented health care deliverysystem. Families go to one clinic per month, whichlessens clinic confusion and saves time. Interpretersare now in the clinics when the refugees are there,leading to better use of clinic time and resources.

Other programs have also hired bilingualemployees or contracted with on-call languagebanks that provide interpreter services. Since 1986,Boston City Hospital has been operating a 24-hourhealth hotline in 25 languages, which explains howand where residents can obtain health care servicesin the Boston area. A number of states and localgovernment agencies contract with a telecom-munications company for translation assistanceover the telephone. Interpreters for 140 languagesare on call nationwide. However, this telephoneline service is expensive and is not an adequatesubstitute for the physical presence of interpreterswho can read body language and facial expressions.

In Seattle, Wash., a coalition of Seattle/KingCounty, nonprofit, and private service providerssponsor a 12-hour interpreter training programtaught by a trained interpreter. The class helpsinterpreters identify their role in service delivery;addresses interpreter ethics, professional pre-sentation, and proper procedures; conductstranslation and language-strengthening exercises;and helps interpreters develop cultural models thathelp them understand their clients. The cost tosponsoring agencies for this training is a nominal$65 per student. The class is offered four to fivetimes per year, and there is enough demand for theclass to meet even more frequently.

Seattle's Pacific Medical Center is using a grantfrom the Kellogg Foundation to create aninterpreter forum. The forum provides morespecific and technical training about different

30

medical terminology and procedures forinterpreters. As interpreters finish the 12-hourcourse, many of them attend the monthly meetingsof this forum for continuing education.

Cultural differences. Even though progress isbeing made in translation services, health careprofessionals say that the real need is forbiculturally appropriate services and biculturalservice providers.

In an attempt to address this problem, the VirginiaDepartment of Mental Health, Mental Retardationand Substance Abuse Services (VDMH) hasestablished multiethnic, multicultural advisorycouncils to define culturally appropriate services,determine which services are needed, and assist intraining service providers to meet these needs.

The Massachusetts Department of Public Health(MDPH) and its Office for Refugee and ImmigrantHealth have created the Committee for Culturallyand Linguistically Relevant Health Education. Thecommittee, consisting of interested MDPH staffmembers, assists program administrators withinMDPH in translating, adapting, or developinghealth education materials for specific newcomercommunities that are culturally and linguisticallyrelevant. This committee has helped toinstitutionalize the certification of culturallyappropriate education materials.

The Santa Clara County (Calif.) Mental HealthBureau has established a policy that the ethniccomposition of the staff in its various programsshould reflect the ethnic population of its clients.Their intervention strategies involve inclusion ofminorities in the planning of new services,development of a specific hiring plan, creation ofnew agencies and services, and adjusting prioritiesof existing agencies.

The bureau conducted a study in 1989 to determinethe effect of ethnic matching of therapist and clienton the length of treatment and service utilizationpatterns. The results indicated that matching theethnicity of client and therapist had a positive effecton the length of treatment and also reduced theclient's use of emergency and inpatient services.

In the development of quality services for ethnicallydiverse populations, some providers haveincorporated into their program philosophy theconcept that services must be designed to meet theneeds of individuals as members of their respective

America's Newcomers

ethnic groups and must coincide with the client'sworld view. Increased emphasis is therefore beingplaced on the cross-cultural approach to treatmentplans in culturally diverse communities.

Professional relicensure. Some highly educatedimmigrant populations have problems integratingwith the U.S. workforce because of their limitedproficiency in English. It is difficult for foreign-born professionals, including doctors, nurses, andpharmacists, to obtain even entry-level positions orU.S. accreditation. Medical schools generally donot give full credit for foreign credentials. It is alsodifficult for foreign-trained health professionals tocompete with U.S. trained professionals for alimited number of residency positions. Voca-tionally appropriate courses in English as a secondlanguage and assistance with recertification aresuggested for these population groups as a methodof accelerating re-entry into their chosen profession.Additionally, the creation of residency programs,perhaps within community health centers, forforeign-trained medical professionals would alsohelp meet these needs for retraining andrecertification.

Credentialing of foreign-trained health care pro-fessionals may help alleviate the U.S. labor shortagein the health professions as well as meet the needfor bilingual and bicultural staff. Earlycredentialing of foreign health care professionalshas three distinct advantages:

1. It helps newcomers become employed morequickly, thereby reducing unemployment andunderemployment within these populations.

2. It helps meet the needs of the health careindustry for skilled professional personnel.

3. It facilitates the delivery of culturallysensitive health care services to othernewcomers.

With initial funding obtained from New York'sHealth, Education, and Social Services departments,the New York State Refugee and Immigrant HealthProfessional Transition Initiative was formed in1991 to help legal immigrants obtain appropriatelicenses to practice in the state. The initiative (1)evaluates programs and makes recommendations toreplicate, modify, or discontinue programs and (2)develops methods to accelerate professionalrelicensure at cost-effective rates.

Current programs include preparing foreign-educated health professionals for nursing,

Health Care Issues

laboratory, and physical therapy certification. Theprogram has also been awarded funding to retrainLatino medical graduates as physician assistantsand respiratory therapists. These programs areexpected to train more than 200 immigrants forhealth careers in New York City.

The Nurses Tutoring Project, a nonprofit agency inChicago, has struggled for survival since itsfounding in 1974. The project provides educationand counseling services to all nurses and studentsregardless of race, gender, age, creed, or nationalorigin. It provides vocational English classes to anaverage of 250 foreign-born nurses annually.

CONCLUSION

The fragmentation of the U.S. health care systemadversely affects newcomer access to adequatehealth care. Because the U.S. system is employer-based, many unemployed or underemployednewcomers do not have health insurance. Evenwhen some newcomers have full-time employment,they may not be able to afford employeecontributions to employer-sponsored healthinsurance.

Federal government-sponsored health care isavailable for some immigrant categories but not forothers. This is particularly problematic whenmembers of the same family have identical medicalconditions but only those with particular,authorized immigrant status have access to care.Others must find a way to pay for their own care ordelay treatment until emergency care is required.

Working-poor newcomers sometimes are ineligiblefor Medicaid, Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA),or indigent care because they do not meet theprogram requirements. For example, Georgiareports that some refugees find work so quicklythat they lose their eligibility for the RMA programbefore the allowed eight months has elapsed. Otherworking-poor newcomers are ineligible forprograms because they do not have legal immigrantstatus. Often they are unable to afford the cost ofprivate insurance as well. Without access togovernment- or employer-sponsored health care,working-poor and undocumented newcomers donot receive the preventive health care they needand, therefore, seek treatment in emergency roomswhere they must be served. By delaying treatmentin this manner, newcomers may develop more

4 431

serious medical conditions that are in turn morecostly to treat.

Newcomers who can gain access to health care inthe United States are often poorly served becausehealth care providers do not usually have themultilingual and multicultural resources needed toserve them. Few hospitals and clinics haveadequately trained interpreters or bilingual andbicultural professionals on their staffs. Theseresources are needed to bridge the communicationgap between service providers and their raciallyand ethnically diverse patients. Inadequateinterpreting services may result inmiscommunication, misdiagnosis, and impropertreatment. As a result of these economic,institutional, linguistic, and cultural barriers tohealth care, newcomers are routinely underservedby the U.S. health care system and sometimes theyare not served at all.

States, localities, and others are trying to compen-sate for the deficiencies in the current system.Some state and local newcomer health care pro-grams have supplemented programs sponsored byemployers or the federal government with state orlocal funds or even with new programs. Othershave devised effective policies to better meetnewcomers' needs for multilingual andmulticultural health care.

These programs and policies have proved successfuland can serve as good models for broader use.However, state and local governments do not have

32

the resources to develop more comprehensiveapproaches, and so they are ultimately reliant on thefederal government to meet these broader needs.

As the United States considers reform of the healthcare system, it is crucial that any new nationalsystem take into consideration how health carecoverage will be provided to newcomers. Withoutimproved health care access for newcomers,federal, state, and local governments will be unableto provide efficient, inexpensive, and appropriatehealth care services to these populations.

Furthermore, if some newcomer populations are leftuncovered, states and localities will be required toprovide at least emergency services to these groupsbecause of court orders, despite the fact that statesand localities have no authority to limit immigrationinto their communities. This is an expense thatstates and localities cannot afford, particularly inlight of current fiscal constraints on state and localhuman resource budgets.

Newcomer health care needs affect not onlynewcomers themselves, but also the communities inwhich they live. When newcomers are healthy,they can integrate into their new communities, gainemployment, and become self-sufficient muchsooner. As federal, state, and local governmentsand other partners cooperate to improve thenation's immigrant policy, better health care accessfor newcomers must be a cornerstone of asuccessful resettlement strategy.


REFERENCES

Baker, Judith. "Cross-cultural Medicine: A DecadeLater." The Western Journal of Medicine 157, no. 3(September 1992).

Barudy, Jorge. "A Programme of Mental Health forPolitical Refugees: Dealing With the Invisible Painof Political Exile." Social Science and Medicine 28, no.7 (1989): 715-727.

Cassely, Mary E. Undocumented Aliens and the U.S. HealthCare System. Washington, D.C.: AmericanAssociation for Retired Persons, July 1992.

Clabots, Renee B., et al. "The Multilingual VideotapeProject: Community Involvement in a UniqueHealth Education Program." Public Health Reports107, no. 1 (January-February 1992): 75-80.

Gage, Larry S., et al. America's Safety Net Hospitals: TheFoundation of Our Nation's Health System.Washington, D.C.: National Association of PublicHospitals, January 1991.

Greenberg, Liza, and Monica Perz. ASTHO BilingualHealth Initiative Report and Recommendations: StateHealth Agency Strategies to Develop LinguisticallyRelevant Public Health Systems. Washington, D.C..Association of State and Territorial Health Officials,July 1992.

"Health Care Access for Non-English Speakers: 29City/County Local Health Department Programs."Local Health Officers News 32, no. 7 (November 1992).

Hill, Linda, et al. "Prevention of Hepatitis BTransmission in Indo-Chinese Refugees with Activeand Passive Immunization." American Journal ofPreventive Medicine 7, no. 1 (1991): 29-32.

Hubbell, Allan F., et al. "Access to Medical Care forDocumented and Undocumented Latinos in aSouthern California County." The Western Journal ofMedicine 154 (April 1991): 414-416.

Lone, Sana. "Access to Health Care and theUndocumented Alien." The Journal of Legal Medicine13 (1992): 271-332.

Health Care Issues

Meinhardt, Kenneth, et al. "A Method for EstimatingUnderutilization of Mental Health Services by EthnicGroups." Hospital and Community Psychiatry 38, no.11 (November 1987): 1186-1190.

Mooteiro, Lois A. "Immigrants Without Care." Society(September/October 1977): 38-42.

National Health Reform and Access for the Underserved. APolicy Symposium on the Health Care Safety Net,sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation and theRobert Wood Johnson Foundation, February 22,1993. Washington, D.C.: Service EmployeesInternational Union, AFL-CiO, Canadian LaborCongress, 1993.

Richmond, Ruth. "Failure to Communicate." ChicagoReporter 22, no. 3 (March 1993).

Rumbat, R.; L. R. Chavez; R. Moser, et al. "The Politics ofMigrant Care: A Comparative Study of MexicanImmigrants. In Research in the Sociology of HealthCare, edited by Dorothy Wertz, vol. 7. Greenwich,Conn.: JAI Press, 1988.

State and Local Coalition on Immigration, America'sNewcomers: A State and Local Policytnakers' Guide toImmigration and Immigrant Policy, by Jonathan C.Dunlap. Denver, Colo.: National Conference of StateLegislatures, 1993.

U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration andNaturalization Service. Immigration Reform andControl Act: Report on the Legalized Alien Population.March 1992.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Hired Farmworkets:Health and Well-Being at Risk. GAO/HRD-92-46.February 1992.

Westermeyer, Joseph. "Prevention of Mental DisorderAmong Hmong Refugees in the U.S.: Lessons Fromthe Period 1976-1986." Social Science and Medicine 25,no. 8 (1987): 941-947.

46

BEST COPY AVAILABLE33

1014415411111111MCALIVTIRMIMAIIIMG1111

3. EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMSFOR IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES

Ann MorseNational Conference of State Legislatures

By the year 2000, nearly one:fourth of new workers will be immigrants

U.S. Department of Labor

Chapter 3 was originally published as America's Newcomers: Em-ployment and Training Programs for Immigrants and Refugeesby the National Conference of State Legislatures, October 1993.

INTRODUCTION

The topic of immigrants and jobs usually leads tocontroversy, with opponents of immigration statingthat immigrants take jobs and displace Americanworkers and depress their wages, while proponentsbelieve immigrants create jobs and markets. Anumber of researchers have explored the issue oflabor market effects of immigration. In a recentreview of fiscal studies on immigration, Rothmanand Espenshade found that, "Sometimes theconsequences for natives' earnings andemployment are negative and sometimes they arepositive, but in almost all instances the effects areweak or insignificant."'

The focus of this report is not, however, to debatethe impacts of immigrants on the labor market, butto discuss the reality of a multilingual, multiethnicworkforce and the services available in the currentemployment and training system. The issue forstate and local policymakers is how to assist theselegal residents, admitted by federal law, to becomeproductive members of their adopted communitiesand to contribute to the nation's goal of acompetitive workforce.

Trends in federal programs and in the demogra-phics of immigrants are leading to an increasinggap in services at a time of increasing need. Federaljob training programs (JTPA and JOBS) serve asmall percentage of the eligible population, and thefew targeted programs for refugees and immigrantshave endured drastic funding reductions anddelays. At the same time, language and literacybarriers reduce access to these programs forrefugees and immigrants.

34

A growing proportion of the U.S. immigrantpopulation has limited English skills and a lowlevel of schooling. In a November 1989 censussurvey, 24 percent of immigrants aged 16 and olderreported that they spoke only English at home; 45percent spoke another language and spoke Englishwell; and the remaining 32 percent spoke English"not well" or "not at all." Immigrants also tend tofall along educational extremes: although a littlemore than one-fourth of new immigrants arecollege graduates, about one-fourth have attendedless than nine years of school.

Demographers project continuing high levels ofimmigration. Approximately one millionimmigrants enter the United State each year:480,000 arrivals through family visas, 140,000arrivals through worker visas, and 55,000 throughspecial "diversity" visas; approximately 120,000refugees and an estimated 200,000 undocumentedimmigrants enter and remain in the United States.Most of the 140,000 worker visas are provided tothose with "extraordinary ability," professionalswith advanced degrees, skilled workers, specialimmigrants (such as rel'gious workers), andinvestors.

Immigrants currently make up 8 percent (14.9million) of the nation's workforce. Of the 14.9million, 6 million are Hispanic, 3.1 million Asian,4.8 million white non-Hispanic, 0.9 million black,and 0.1 other. The U.S. Department of Laborprojects that immigrants will comprise nearly one-fourth of new workers by the year 2000 (due todemographic trends such as a low U.S. birthrateand the aging of the population).

This chapter outlines the main federal programsthat provide employment and training services, andexamples of successful programs that serve theforeign-born. The chapter also highlights issuesraised by participants of the Immigrant PolicyProject's regional meetings convened in 1992-1993.


FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR EMPLOYMENT AND JOBTRAINING

The main federal programs that provide employ-ment and training services are the Job TrainingPartnership Act (JTPA) for disadvantaged adultsand youth and the Job Opportunities and BasicSkills (JOBS) program, a welfare-to-work program.However, participation rates in these programs byimmigrants is difficult to ascertain: programs trackuse by ethnicity, not by immigration status per se.Two programs within the U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services (HHS) also provideemployment, job training and educational servicesfor specific immigrant populations (for refugeesand aliens legalized under the Immigration Reformand Control Act [IRCA)).

The Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 (JTPA)

JTPA is the largest system of federal job trainingprograms, funded at approximately $4 billionthrough the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Theprograms serve economically disadvantaged adultsand youth, older workers, dislocated workers,migrant and seasonal farmworkers, NativeAmericans, and others who face significantemployment barriers. Participation is open to U.S.citizens, lawful permanent residents, refugees,asylees and parolees, those legalized under IRCA,and individuals authorized by the U.S. attorneygeneral to work in the United States.

The JTPA program was amended in 1992 in anattempt to better serve those with the greatest need,by designating target groups with barriers toemployment. At least 65 percent of those servedmust fall in one or more of the listed target groups(including those deficient in basic skills, e.g.,English, reading, or computing skills at or belowthe 8th grade level; school dropouts; welfarerecipients, etc.). Local areas may add oneadditional target group.

Services include (1) direct training and (2) trainingrelated and supportive services. Direct trainingincludes basic skills, on-the-job training (OJT),assessment and counseling, education-to-worktransition activities, bilingual training, andcustomized training. Training-related and supportservices include job search assistance, outreach, andservices to enable participation in the program, suchas child care. The amendment added as an allowableactivity bilingual training and outreach for individualswith limited proficiency in English. Local areas must

Employment and Training Programs

provide an assessment of skill levels and service needsof each participant, develop individual servicestrategies, review individual progress, and refer toappropriate training and services. Funds areauthorized at a 10 percent increase each year toexpand services. Technical assistance funds areavailable to support replication of successfulprograms.

Linkages. Local job training programs are requiredto establish appropriate linkages with otherfederally authorized programs, such as the CarlPerkins Vocational and Applied TechnologyEducation Act, JOBS, food stamps, the NationalLiteracy Act, and Head Start, as well as appropriatestate and local educational agencies, communityorganizations, and other training, employment, andsocial service programs. The 1992 amendments alsoauthorize states to establish a single HumanResource Investment Council for JTPA, CarlPerkins, Adult Education, Wagner-Peyser, LiS

and food stamp employment and trainingprograms.

Migra It workers. According to the NationalCommission for Employment Policy, the federalgovernment spends $600 million annually on 13programs that provide education, training, andhealth care for migrant and seasonal farmworkers,most of whom are foreign-born. (Four programsaccount for 88 percent of the funds: migranteducation, migrant health, the JTPA farmworkerprogram, and Migrant Head Start.) Thecommission notes a lack of coordination ineligibility criteria and grouping of services for th,:migrant population. A 1992 commission reportrecommends that government agencies improvecoordination of their policies and programs todeliver a comprehensive set of services, and todevelop a common framework for streamliningeligibility requirements.

Job Corps. Job Corps is a residential educationaland vocational training program for at-risk youth.While it does not keep data specifically onimmigrant status, it does measure program usethrough five major ethnic groups. In San Francisco,for example, approximately 33 percent of thestudents are Hispanic, 25 percent black, 24 percentwhite, 10 percent Asian-Pacific Islander, and 5-6percent American Indian. Job Corps has developeda national curriculum with materials in 23languages; English language classes are provided ateach center. The average length of the

4835

JTPA in Brief

"It is the purpose of this Act to establish programs to prepare youth and adults facing serious barriers to

employment for participation in the labor force by providing jcb training and other services that will result in

increased employment and earnings, increased educational and occupational skills, and decreased welfare

dependency, thereby improving the quality of the workforce and enhancing the productivity and competitiveness of

the Nation." Job Training Reform Amenclnients of 1992, P.L. 102-367.

JTPA includes programs for disadvantaged adults and youth (Title II, $1.8 billion, plus a summer

program for youth, funded at approximately $700 million); dislocated workers (Title III, $577 million);

federally administered programs such as for migrant and seasonal farmworkers ($77 million), Job Corps

($955 million), veterans, and the National Commission for Employment Policy (all in Title IV).

Disadvantaged adults and youth (Title H). In FY 1991, an estimated $1.8 billion was spent for trainingof 721,000 disadvantaged adults and youth, serving approximately 5-10 percent of the eligiblepopulation. The summer employment and training program for youth provides remedial education,classroom and on-the-job training, and work experience at the minimum wage. Approximately $700million has been available annually, serving about 600,000 youth.

Dislocated workers (Title III). JTPA includes a $577 million program for dislocated workers, designedto assist those who have recently lost their jobs due to mass layoffs or plant closings. Others eligibleunder this program include long-term unemployed people with limited local opportunities for jobs in

their fields; farmers, ranchers or self-employed individuals who become jobless due to general economic

conditions or natural disasters. Services include retraining (classroom and on-the-job training, remedialeducation including literacy or ESL), and readjustment training (assessment, career counseling, job

placement, job development and supportive services).

Administration of Titles H and III. These programs are administered largely at the local level. Generalpolicy guidance is provided by the State Job Training Coordinating Council, appointed by the governor,and composed of representatives of business, state and local government, organized labor, communitybased organizations, and the general public. The governor establishes "Service Delivery Areas" (SDAs)

to receive job training funds. Within each SDA, local officials and Private Industry Councils (PICs) arepartners in developing and implementing the job training program. PICs consist of representatives fromthe private sector, educational agencies, organized labor, community based organizations, and publicassistance agencies. 77 percent of the Title II-A (adult training) funds to states are allocated to theSDA/PICs (the core program). The remaining 23 percent is earmarked: 5 percent for stateadministration, 8 percent for basic education and coordination, 5 percent for older workers, and 5percent for service delivery areas that exceed their performance standards, or for technical assistanceactivities. One hundred percent of Title II-B (summer youth), 82 percent of Title II-C (youth training),

and 50 percent of Title III are allocated to SDAs.

Migrant workers (Title IV). Section 402 of JTPA provides the principal federal training program formigrant farmworkers. The program is funded at $77 million for 1992and serves approximately 55,000farmworkers and their dependents, or 2 percent of the eligible population. Services include adult andbasic education, ESL, on-the-job training, counseling, and support services (including day care, healthcare, legal aid, transportation). Support services are limited to 15 percent of funds.

Job Corps (Title IV) is a federally administered residential education and vocational training programfor at-risk youth, aged 16-24. Originally established as part of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964,the Job Corps is a partnership of federal government, organized labor and private industry, volunteerand national nonprofit advocacy organizations. Funded at $955 million, Job Corps providescomprehensive services: basic education, vocational training, health care, counseling, support services,and cultural awareness classes. The program serves approximately 68,0C. youth each year who arepoor, school dropouts and either unempoyed or not in the labor force (reaching approximately 2percent of those in need).

36 49 America's Newcomers

program for an individual is 10 months. It is anopen-entry, open-exit program; enrollees are self-paced for advancement. In San Francisco, thecurrent waiting list to enter the program is over1,000.

Evaluations of JTPA. In 1991, the GeneralAccounting Office (GAO) reported that servicesdiffer by demographic group: white participantswere more likely than minorities to receiveclassroom training and on-the-job training;minorities were more likely to receive only jobsearch assistance. Participants receiving classroomtraining have the highest average placement wageupon completing training; job search assistancealone resulted in the lowest average placementwage.'

According to the GAO, several factors contribute todisparities in services provided to minorities:financial incentives in performance-based contractsthat value the number of participants trained orplaced in jobs (not the benefit to the participant);the lack of an independent and comprehensiveassessment process; the lack of support servicessuch as child care and transportation; and thediscriminatory actions of some employers.

The GAO report stated, "in the case of minoritiesand women, service providers tend to steer themtoward low-skilled, low-wage jobs because that isthe easiest way to achieve performance benchmarksand receive payments under their performance-based contracts." Also, many providers "offertraditional, stereotypical training because it isinexpensive to set up, jobs are plentiful, and mostparticipants can easily complete the training."

A 1992 evaluation of )TPA (Title II-A) indicated thatJTPA had generally positive effects on earnings andemployment of adults, but little or no effect onfemale youths, and substantial negative effects onmale youths. JTPA did not appear to benefitHispanics; their post-training earnings were lowerregardless of age or gender.'

GAO reported that support services for JTPA needto be improved. The June 1992 report noted thatparticipants who received child care support weremore successful in completing training and findingjobs. However, only 9 percent of Service DeliveryArea funds were spent on support services.

Performance standards. JTPA has been criticizedin the past for "creaming" the most employable


people and screening out those who are harder toserve in order to meet performance standards thatrewarded high job placements. For example,minimum entry requirements for certain programsoften limited access for those with limited Englishskills, excluding those with less than a sixth gradeeducation. The system rewarded short programsand quick job placement rather than improvedskills for the student.

The 1992 JTPA amendments directed DOL, inconsultation with the U.S. Department of Educationand HHS, to prescribe performance standardsbased on factors including placement and jobretention for six months in unsubsidizedemployment, increased earnings, reduction inwelfare dependency, and acquisition of skills.Governors may prescribe variations in thestandards based upon economic, geographic anddemographic factors in the state. States must makeefforts to increase services and positive outcomesfor hard-to-serve individuals.

The JTPA program in Yuma, Ariz., implemented apilot program months before the 1992 amendmentsin order to better provide for the "hard to serve."Clients who are monolingual Spanish, limitedEnglish proficient, or functioning below a fifthgrade level may enter the Educational Oppor-tunities Center to reach language, literacy and basiceducation levels that will enable them to undertakevocational training. Despite this and other efforts,local administrators estimate only 5 percent of thedemand in Yuma County is met.

A JTPA-funded program that has been praised forits success with the "hard to serve" is the Center forEmployment Training (CET), a communitybasedorganization in San Jos', Calif. CET combinespractical occupational training for all participants inan open-entry, open-exit setting. No minimumeducational level is required for enrollment.English as a second language and basic remediationare provided as needed within the vocationaltraining. A Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.,evaluation of CET found that participants with thegreatest barriers to employment derived thegreatest benefit from participation.

It should be noted that evaluation of JTPA pro-grams is difficult because of the latitude localitieshave to design programs to fit the unique needs ofthe community. Federal funds are distributed tostates, who must pass through most of the funds tolocalities, called Service Delivery Areas (SDAs).

5037

Each SDA decides where funds are allocated, theprograms offered, and therefore what kinds ofclients will be served. Programs, services, andadministrative structures thus vary from area toarea.

Job Opportunities and Basic Skills TrainingProgram (JOBS)

Created by the Family Support Act of 1988, theJOBS program is a "welfare-to-work" program forrecipients of Aid to Families with DependentChildren. The program provides employment,education, and job training to assist poor familieswith children become self-sufficient. Eligibility isopen to citizens, legal permanent residents, those"permanently residing in the United States undercolor of law" (PRUCOL), such as conditionalentrants, asylees, refugees, or parolees.

Eligibility for certain aliens has been decided by thecourts because AFDC regulations do not definePRUCOL beyond categories specified by Congress.Holley v. Lavine extended eligibility fo, .hoseresiding under "official permission or discretion."Sudomir v. McMahon refused eligibility for apending asylum applicant, as the applicant hadonly the possibility of residence; not officialauthorization, express or implied. Legalized peopleunder IRCA were barred from accessing AFDC(and thus JOBS) for five years after they weregranted temporary resident status. The five-yearbar phased out in May 1993.

Implementation Issues. In FY 1992, states spentapproximately two-thirds of the $1 billion appropri-ation. States were unable to draw down the fullappropriation because tight state budgetsprecluded raising the required matching funds.Only 11 states claimed their full allocation of federalJOBS funds. States spent $437 million on JOBS-related child care. GAO reported in September1991 that states have shortages of services such asbasic and remedial education (especially in ruralareas) and that two-thirds of the states haveshortages in child care and transportation.

Regntations. The "100-hour rule" mandates that anAI.DC primary wage earner, such as a JOBSparticipant, lose benefits if he or she exceeds 100hours of work per month.

Demonstrations authorized by HHS are under wayin California, Wisconsin, and Utah to test a:_lefinition of unemployment easier to meet than the

100-hour rule. (A California refugee demonstrationproject found that waiving the 100-hour ruleincreased the level of job entries, but it may not be amajor factor in reducing welfare dependency.) The"20-hour rule" requires participants to engage in 20hours of program activity a week to be countedtoward a state's required participation rate, butmost educational programs require only 12-18classroom hours.

Evaluations. Since JOBS was implemented sorecently, few studies have yet been conducted onthe effectiveness of the program, and no research isavailable that measures specific immigrantparticipation in the program. The followingevaluations are provided to give an indication ofthe potential success of JOBS and the extent towhich minorities access and benefit fromemployment and training programs.

Preliminary results of a study of six counties in theCalifornia GAIN program (a precursor of thenational JOBS program), indicates that the programis successful in achieving higher earnings forparticipants and lowering state expenditures onwelfare. The Manpower Demonstration ResearchCorporation (MDRC) reported that the averagesingle parent participant earned 21 percent morethan a welfare recipient in a control group; welfaresavings averaged 6 percent'

MDRC notes that a key feature of the program isthe use of educational and basic skills levels to placeparticipants in two different tracks: those without ahigh school diploma, fail to achieve a certain mathand literacy level, or are not proficient in English,are placed in basic education classes. Those whoare judged not to need basic education must usuallyparticipate in job search first. Participants alreadyin approved education and training programs whenthey enter GAIN may continue in those programs.

In a review of 1980s welfare-to-work programs,MDRC found that almost all programs studied ledto earnings and/or employment gains; however,employment and earnings impacts did not occurwhen resources per eligible individual were too lowto provide employment-directed assistance, orwhen programs were operated in a rural, very weaklabor market.' MDRC notes that administratorsmay face trade-offs in meeting JOBS objectives(earnings gains, welfare savings, or reducing long-term dependency). For example, low-cost servicesmay reach greater numbers of people, but achieveless long-term impact.


JOBS in Brief

FundingJOBS is a capped entitlement. Funds are available to states at a match rate up to the overall JOBSfunding cap, authorized at $1 billion for federal FY 1993; $1.1 billion in 1994; $1.3 billion in 1995; and $1billion thereafter.

Target groupsThe JOBS program requires that a minimum percentage of the AFDC population be served. In 1993, 11percent of the nonexempt AFDC caseload must participate in JOBS in any given month, rising to 15percent in 1994, and 20 percent in 1995. JOBS also requires that 55 percent of JOBS funds be spent ontarget groups, such as teen parents and long-term welfare recipients (defined as families on assistancefor more than 36 months). (States that do not meet both requirements lose the ability to claim enhancedfederal match for JOBS.)

ServicesStates must offer the following: education, job skills training, job readiness, job development and jobplacement, and supportive services such as child care. Educational services include literacy, remedialeducation, ESL, and assistance in obtaining a high school diploma or the equivalent. States are alsorequired to offer two of these four activities: group and individual job search; on-the-job training; worksupplementation programs; or community work experience. Child care funds for JOBS participants areavailable under a separate, open-ended entitlement at the Medicaid match rate. (Transitional child careis also available for 12 months after the parent stops receiving AFDC.) Transportation and other work-related costs are reimbursed at 50 percent and apply to the JOBS cap.AdministrationAt the federal level, JOBS is managed by the Administration on Children and Families in the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services. States administer JOBS through the welfare agency. Thestate office may provide services directly or contract with JTPA administrative entities, state and localeducation agencies, and other public or private organizations, including community-basedorganizations.

In Connecticut, the Department of IncomeMaintenance found several barriers for PuertoRican families to becoming self-sufficient: JTPAscreens out people who are not language proficient;Latino culture encourages women to stay home andcare for their children; lack of family support forchild care; and lack of family and peer support forself-improvement. Connecticut reorganized theJOBS program and made it more family systemsoriented; created contract opportunities withcommunity-based organizations; linked programswith the Department of Labor to blend jobplacement and family-focused human services; andreorganized the human services program.

A study of the Massachusetts Employment andTraining (ET) Choices Program (1987-1990) foundthat Latinas, despite high participation rates, hadpoor outcomes for job placement and wages.' Jobplacement for all women was 44 percent; for Latinasit was only 28 percent. (Language was not found tobe a factor in placement.) The most successful

Employment and Training Prosrams

programs were those which aided the developmentof English language skills combined with skills andjob training programs. However, 66 percent ofLatinas were in education-only programs. Thereport suggested that one reason for the pooroutcomes was insufficient resources for community-based organizations (CBOs) to develop integratedprograms of skills and training combined withlanguage and literacy education. (CBOs are thetypical route of entry for Latinas into the program.)

IMMIGRANT AND REFUGEE PROGRAMS

The U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices (HHS) administers two programs targetedto specific immigrant groups: the SLIAG programfor undocumented immigrants legalized under the1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and thedomestic refugee resettlement program, establishedby the Refugee Act of 1980.

54 BEST COPY AVAILABLE39

HHS State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants(SLIAG)

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986(IRCA) reimbursed states for certain education costsrelated to undocumented immigrants grantedamnesty under the act. In addition, applicants forlegalization were required to pass an English andcitizenship test, entailing a minimum 40 hours ofinstruction. Services allowed under IRCA are thoselisted in the Adult Basic Education Act, includingthe required English language and citizenshiptraining, literacy training, basic education, GEDpreparation, educational materials, curriculumdevelopment, ancillary services such as child careand transportation, and direct and indirectadministrative costs. Administrative costs for astate education agency were capped at 1.5 percent.

The SLIAG education funds were not permitted tobe used for job training or vocational education,and only limited funds were available forelementary and secondary school students and foradults. IRCA applied the definitions andprovisions of the Emergency Immigrant EducationAct, thus capping funds to a service provider at$500 per eligible child or adult per year. Fundingfor grades K-12 was not available for schools withless than 500 eligible individuals, or 3 percent of aschool district's enrollment.

States were allowed flexibility in allocating SLIAGfunds among public assistance, public health, andeducational services (with a minimum 10 percentfor each category). California used 20 percent of itsSLIAG grant or education programs, doubling thestate's ESL capacity and eliminating waiting lists forclasses. However, when SLIAG funds end,California expects to support only 15 percent of itsexpanded capacity. Other states have recordedcontinued high enrollment in adult educationclasses by this population. SLIAG funds created atemporary capacity for educational services, but thedemand and need for services continues. TheEnglish and civics requirement brought hundredsof thousands of people into the educational systemfor the first time. For example, a California surveyof the newly legalized found that one-half werefirst-time users of educational services. Further-more, the educational needs of the newly legalizedare high. The INS Legalized Population Surveyfound that legalized aliens had substantially feweryears of education on average (seven years) thanU.S. residents (13 years). While 85 percent reported

40

speaking Spanish well, only 15 percent reportedspeaking English well.

A research project conducted in 1992 for CaliforniaCommunity Colleges found that the amnestypopulation was unique, with different backgroundsand support needs from other groups who receiveESL in California community colleges." Theamnesty population's recent arrival to theeducational process and their interest in supportservices suggests a considerable need for assistancein obtaining access to the system. The reportrecommends continued assessment and adjustmentof instructional programs to serve the wide varietyof educational backgrounds and ethnic diversity ofthe state's rapidly growing ESL population. Thereport also recommends programs that can educateimmigrant parents and children together, providingeducational opportunities for both adults andchildren and minimizing the inter-generationalconflict of two languages and two cultures withinthe family.

HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)

The Office of Refugee Resettlement within HHS isthe agency responsible for domestic resettlementassistance for refugees. Two ORR programs allowstates to use funds for employment and training:the Social Services program and the TargetedAssistance program.

A third program provides matching grants (up to$1,000 per refugee) to voluntary agencies foremployment services, English language instruction,social adjustment services, food, and housingduring a refugee's first four months in the UnitedStates. Refugees served by this program may accesspublicly funded medical assistance and otherservices.

ORR has also instituted demonstration programsfunded from the social services appropriation ($12.5million in FY 1992). This includes the Wilson/FishDemonstration projects and the nationaldiscretionary projects (such as the Key StatesInitiative and Job Links).

Social services. The Refugee Act permits states touse funds in this program for a broad range ofservices, including any service allowable in a state'splan under Title XX of the Social Security Act, plusservices allowed by ORR such as English language


SLIAG in Brief

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was enacted to control illegal immigration. Itestablished employer sanctions for hiring undocumented people, and granted amnesty to 2.6 millionundocumented immigrants already in the United States. These newly legalized immigrants were barredfrom accessing federal programs such as AFDC and Medicaid for five years. (The bar ended in May1993.) The State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG) program was created to reimbursestates for public assistance, public health, and education costs related to this population during the five-year bar. In an unusual budgeting formula, federal funding of $4 billion was appropriated for FY1988-1991, to be spent by states until FY 1994. However, federal budget deficits have led to funding deferralssince 1990. The final appropriation of $812 million was allocated to states in FY 1994.

training, job development and placement, careercounseling, vocational training, child care, andtranslation and interpreter services. However, ORRrequires that if a state's refugee welfare utilizationrate is 55 percent or more, 85 percent of socialservice funds must be used for English languagetraining, vocational training, employmentcounseling, and job placement. The limitation doesnot apply if the social services plan was establishedby or in consultation with local governments, andprovides for the maximum appropriate provisionfor employability services.

The remaining 15 percent may be used fororientation, social adjustment ana translation,transportation, day care and other state Title XXservices. Awards are made to states based on percapita arrivals for the previous three years. In 1992,Congress appropriated $83 million for the socialservices line item. ORR allocated $67 million tostates; $3.5 million was earmarked for refugeeassociations; and $12.5 million was used by ORR fordiscretionary social service programs.

Targeted Assistance program. The TargetedAssistance program funds employment and otherservices for refugees and entrants in "high-impact" areas, e.g., counties with large refugee orentrant populations, a high proportion of refugeesor entrants to the overall population, and highpublic assistance use. The goal is to assist refugeesto obtain employment within one year. Eighty-five percent of the funds must be used foremployment-related services (vocational English,on-the-job training, job placement). In 1992, $49million was allocated for targeted assistanceactivities for refugees and entrants. Ninetypercent was awarded to 20 states for 44 qualifyingcounties facing extraordinary resettlementproblems; 10 percent was awarded to localities in22 states most heavily affected by :efugees such as


Laotian Hmong, Cambodians, and SovietPentecostals, including secondary migrants.

An example of a successful program funded byTargeted Assistance is the Jeffco Employment andTraining Services program in Golden, Colo.,funded since 1986, and awarded a CountyAchievement Award from the NationalAssociation of Counties. Laurie Bagan, the staterefugee coordinator, notes that refugees tend tohave many employment barriers: low Englishskills, cultural differences, lack of training andexperience, limited access to transportation, andlack of knowledge of the community andresources. The program's goal is to coordinateservices among agencies and increase refugeeaccess to existing programs. The programprovides comprehensive and centralized services,including classroom training, work trainingexperience, and support services such as day careand translation.

Demonstration Programs and DiscretionaryProjects

Wilson/Fish demonstration projects. In 1984Congress directed HHS to examine alternativeresettlement strategies for the delivery of cashassistance, social services, and case management toassist refugees make the transition from publicassistance to self-sufficiency. Demonstrationprojects received no additional allocations;programs are funded from existing cash andmedical assistance grants and social services grants.

The Oregon Refugee Early Employment Project(REEP), begun in 1985, is an alternative employ-ment project to the mainstream refugee resettlementeffort. It serves refugees ineligible for AFDC or SSI.REEF services are "front-loaded," that is, servicesare concentrated on the refugee immediately after

51 41

arrival in the United States. The program integratesservices (language training, pre-employmenttraining, job placement, child care, transportation)and provides linkages between service providers.(It is staff intensive, with only one caseworker for 35cases.)

The REEP goals are early employment andincreased self-sufficiency with cost savings to theprogram. An evaluation by the Refugee PolkyGroup found that REEP reached its objective ofplacing 75 percent of its employable clients in full-time permanent employment within 18 months ofarrival in the United States. Family self-sufficiency(family earnings exceeding program incomestandards) was not achieved; a single wage earnerat minimum wage could not support a family. Itwas hoped that future earnings would be higher asthe earner gained work experience, or the familywas supported by multiple wage earners. Costsavings of 18.5 percent were achieved over a three-year period. A follow-up review in 1991 noted thatdespite changes in caseload and reduced programlength, REEP still showed that most refugeesbecame employed within nine months of arrival.

Key components of the program are cash assistance,case management, and employment servicescontracted to three voluntary agencies and aconsortium of refugee associations and medicalassistance provided to all lox- income clientsthrough a full service medical provider. Theprogram is monitored by Oregon state officials.

Other Wilson/Fish programs include a U.S.Catholic Conference demonstration project in SanDiego, a grant to the Cuban Exodus ReliefFund,and demonstration projects with AlaskaRefugee Outreach and in the state of Kentucky.(The California Refugee Demonstration Projectexisted from 1985-90.)

National discretionary projects. ORR allocated$12.5 million in FY 1992 for six programs directedtoward improving employment opportunities forrefugees: (1) the Key States/Counties Initiativeaims to increase employment and reduce welfaredependency among targeted populations in NewYork, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington,Massachusetts, and Michigan (funded at a total of$2.5 million), and in Los Angeles County andOrange County ($400,000 total, funded underTargeted Assistance); (2) Job Links ($3.6 million)provides supplementary social service funds to 30states with good resettlement opportunities to link

42

refugees with jobs; (3) Planned Secondary Resettle-ment ($1.2 million) provides opportunity forunemployed refugees to relocate to communitieswith favorable employment prospects; (4) theAmerasian Initiative ($2.8 million) assists inresettlement of Amerasians and families; (5)Microenterprise Development Initiative ($1.3million) to promote small business and self-employment among refugees; and (6) $1 million to24 states and California counties for the specialneeds of Vietnamese re-education camp detainees.

DISCUSSION

Coordination

A Multiplicity of programs exist for employmentand training. At the federal level, the GAO found125 programs spending $16.3 billion to train adultsand out-of-school youth, under the supervision of14 iederal departments or agencies. In Massachu-setts, the National Commission for EmploymentPolicy found 31 training programs funded at $320million in FY 1992: 13 funded by the federalgovernment, nine by the state, and six fundedjointly by federal and state government (two werefunded by other sources and information wasunavailable for the adult education program). Of31 programs, five provided 67 percent of the funds:JOBS, 26 percent; Vocational Rehabilitation ofMassachusetts, 14 percent; JTPA II-A, 11 percent;Department of Mental Retardation, 10 percent; andEmployment Services, 6 percent. An estimated422,000 people were served.

As one method of maximizing dollars in a time ofscarce resources, programs have been urged, ormandated, to coordinate services with otherprograms. Both JOBS and JTPA contain this type oflanguage. Program coordination alone, however,cannot make up for the overwhelming demand foremployment and training services. Nor does itanswer how mainstream programs, attempting toserve a broad range of disadvantaged people, canserve those functioning at low literacy levelsand/or those without adequate English languageskills.

In the field, practitioners contend that they face"one-way coordination"; for example, no directivesexist to require educational agencies to coordinatewith JTPA. In addition, conflicting eligibilityrequirements and definitions of "economicallydisadvantaged" prohibit meaningful coordinationof policies and programs. Uniform terms anddefinitions would simplify program administration

5 5America's Newcomers.

for both agencies and clients, for intake, assessment,planning, and evaluation.

Some areas have attempted to address this issue.For example, New Jersey has established a "supercouncil" to streamline planning and delivery ofemployment and training programs. Created fromthe JTPA State Job Training Coordinating Council,the new State Employment and Training Com-mission makes policy recommendations to thegovernor on JTPA, Carl Perkins VocationalEducation, Wagner-Peyser employment service,JOBS, and state programs. Since its creation, NewJersey has consolidated' its education and trainingprograms from 64 to 15, with a projected savings of$6 million over 18 months.

The Minnesota Interagency Adult Learning Councilencourages those at the local level to coordinateservices, for example, using a common intake formfor welfare, employment and training, andcommunity services. A 1985 law encouragedagencies to co-locate for one-stop shopping.

In California, if a county is already able to serve allAFDC participants, it may use federal refugeefunds to set up employment programs or languageclasses for refugees within GAIN (California's JOBSprogram). State legislation allows counties to set upa parallel system to streamline a program for newlyarrived refugees

In Tacoma, Wash., El Centro de Latino developed acollaborative program to provide ESL to Hispanics,particularly adults. It is supported with a variety ofresources: city funds, school district funds andassistance in establishing an alternative high school,a grant from the Department of Labor, andassistance from Microsoft, Nintendo and IBM. Thecomputer companies created a computer lab totrain people in data processing and computer skills,and also established a family learning center forESL.

In Atlanta, Ga., the Atlanta Private IndustryCouncil (PIC) collaborates with Georgia StateUniversity to offer a Vocational English as a SecondLanguage program to accommodate participantswho do not have the skills necessary to enter thePIC's vocational training. The project is fundedwith JTPA education and coordination grant funds.This program serves Title II-C youth and operatessix months each year.


Mainstreaming v. Targeted Programs

Participants in the Immigrant Policy Project'sregional meetings examined the possibility ofadapting "mainstream" programs that commandlarger resources, such as JTPA, to address theunique needs of refugees and immigrants.Research studies have demonstrated the high levelof participation by immigrants in the workforce;refugees and some immigrants, however, needtransitional assistance to facilitate their entry intothe labor market. These newcomers generally needthe same kinds of services that other disadvantagedpopulations need, with the unique requirement forEnglish language instruction and culturaladjustment. For example, refugees need ESLclasses, vocational/ technical training, culturallyspecific employment and training, and supportservices (such as day care, counseling, and medicalassistance). However, few refugees end up inmainstream programs and state-local resources areinsufficient. Provided sufficient funds remain fortargeted programs, these resources could be used toleverage mainstream programs and improve accessby immigrants.

An argument against the creation of "targeted"populations is that it often becomes a screeningdevice rather than a mechanism for inclusion. Ifprograms serve only 5-10 percent of the eligiblepopulation, then 90-95 percent must be excluded, orturned away, from services. The current system is apatchwork of employment and training programsfor specific populations with many holes and littlecoordination of services, eligibility requirements, orbureaucracies.

Other participants argued that mainstreamprograms are not equipped to accommodate thespecial language and cultural differences ofimmigrants, and that programs are still needed forthose that do not qualify for mainstream services.In Minnesota, for example, the JTPA and refugeeprograms are operated separately to handlelanguage, cultural, and discrimination issues.

In JTPA and other mainstream programs, refugeesor other immigrants may not have as high a priorityas other "targeted" groups for services. To focusattention on the needs of refugees and immigrants,policymakers may work within the SDA/PICstructure where most determinations on clientgroups are made; or state legislation can establish

Jr- 6 43

.iorities for JTPA, even at the SDA level. At thestate level, recommendations and information onthe needs of refugees and immigrants should beprovided to the federally mandated boards such asthe State Job Training Coordinating Council, theAFDC/JOBS Board, the Unemployment InsuranceBoard, and the Vocational Education Board.(Under 1992 JTPA amendments, states have theoption to combine planning and delivery ofemployment and training programs under HumanResource Investment Councils.)

Job Corps, as a comprehensive, integrated providerof training, remedial education, health care,counseling, and support services may be a usefulmodel or service deliverer for refugees andimmigrants.

La Cooperativa, a Sacramento-based coalition offive organizations (including CET) that has trainedlow-income people for 25 years, observes thatworkforce deveL,pment as a national issue is aserious problem. Eighty-two percent of the newlylegalized population works, but public policy isgeared toward dependent poor people and does notbuild on the strong work ethic of this population.While this population could fit into the communitycollege system in California, they probably won'tbecause of their low educational levels anddifficulty in accessing public institutions.

Licensing of Foreign-born Professionals

An unexpected finding was the need to address U.S.certification and licensing requirements for foreign-born professionals. Highly educated refugees andimmigrants are encountering barriers entering theworkforce because foreign credentials don't transfereasily to the United States. In some areas, states andlocalities have developed programs to assist foreign-trained professionals with U.S. accreditation, forexample, to alleviate physician and nursingshortages. PHASE was established in 1988 andfunded by the New York City Department ofEmployment, in collaboration with the city Healthand Hospitals Corporation and the state Office ofMental Health. PHASE assists immigrantprofessionals to become licensed or certified inoccupations when a shortage has been documentedin health or human services fields.

In testimony before the New York LegislativeCommission on Skills Development and VocationalEducation, Dr. Rosa Gil of PHASE stated thatbarriers to immigrant participation in the workforce

44

include inadequate knowledge of professionalcredentialing requirements in the state, andunfamiliarity with U.S. testing methods. Sherecommended funding for ethnic community-basedorganizations to provide orientation, training andemployment services; innovative on-the-job trainingfor Hispanic, Asian, and Caribbean immigrants;and information for immigrant professionals onlicensing, education and training programs, casemanagement services, and employment services.

In Virginia, state officials are examining thepossibility of licensing reciprocity with other statesand the establishment of uniform standards for thehealth profession.

Florida established the following guidelines forphysician certification. Any foreign doctor maybecome a physician's assistant if he or she: (1)practiced in his or her home country; (2) resided inFlorida for three years before entering the program;(3) attended one year at the University of Miami; (4)and has one year of supervised practice by a Floridadoctor.

Brown University has a one-to-one program forengineers that uses technologically specific Englishtraining and includes preparation for certification.In Chicago, a nonprofit organization provides train-ing in both English and medical classes to pass thenursing certification (funded by SLIAG). Thisprovides refugees with a guaranteed job as abilingual medical professional. Another groupprovides scholarships to bilingual substance abusecounselors to pursue the two-year certificationprocess.

The New York Association of New Americans(NYANA) developed an initiative to retrainSoviettrained nurses and help them pass the NewYork licensing exam by providing remediation inEnglish with additional nursing instruction. Thisprogram fulfilled two objectives by providingemployment for foreign-trained professionals andaddressing a severe labor shortage of nurses in thecity. The initiative continues as the New YorkState Health Transition Initiative with resourcesprovided by the New York departments of socialservices, education, and health.

Eligibility for Services

The proliferation of immigration categories anddiffering eligibility for services created by thefederal government has confused and complicated

America's Newcomers

the delivery of services to those who need them.Dr. Philip Martin of UC-Davis writes of "mixedfamilies" created by the 1986 amnesty program,particularly for the agricultural workers. Howshould social policy deal with a family containing alegalized father (temporarily barred from services),unauthorized mother and children (ineligible formost services), and U.S.-citizen children (eligible forall services)? This is compounded by varyingeligibility requirements in federal programs.

Georges Vemez of RAND recommends that thefederal government standardize requirements forexisting federal, social, and other entitlementprograms for which immigrants are eligible. At thelocal level where services must be provided, manybelieve that distinctions of legal status areirrelevant: a person without a job, whether legal,refugee, or other, still needs assistance, but federalbenefits are often lacking.

Communication Issues

In general, there is a shortage of interpreters,translators, bilingual teachers, ESL teachers, andESL classes. Paul Hill of the RAND Corporation, ina discussion of newcomers in American schools,notes that the teacher supply is the greatest limitingfactor in meeting the needs of immigrant students.Other unmet needs include texts and instructionalmaterials, adult education for older immigrantstudents, and incentives for teacher mobility andtraining.

In Illinois community colleges, 45 percent ofstudents are limited English proficient, but only 3percent of the adult education budget is for ESL.There are insufficient teachers and number of hoursprovided for adult ESL classes. In California, CEThas served 50,000 people in its English languageclasses through SLIAG funds; with the end of theprogram in sight, no replacement funds have beenfound to meet the enormous need. CET notes thatthe two components that offer long term benefit forthe amnesty population are language developmentintegrated with employment and training. TheNew York Association for New Americans(NYANA) notes that for Soviet refugees in theirprogram the single most important determinant oftheir ability to obtain work is the ability tocommunicate in English.

We need and don't have a well-coordinated systemthat addresses language education and vocationaltraining. The National Center for Research in

Employment and Trmning Programs

Vocational Education states in a recent report thatthe long-term language instruction needs ofimmigrants are not provided for. Many immigrantscannot meet the ability-to-benefit testing criteria ofJTPA or JOBS. The lack of bilingual training orsupport services is a barrier to the participation ofimmigrants in JOBS and JTPA. Finally, programstend to "cream" at admission, choosing studentsmost likely to become employed, becausereimbursement is based on high job placementrates.

Availability of Services

Vernez writes that immigrants' demand for adulteducation (literacy, English, and vocational edu-cation) may be outstripping the ability of states anddistricts to provide. He states, "Adult educationhas been, and continues to be, the most-neglectedarea of education, not only for immigrants, but forall adults." The,future economic prospects of thenewly legalized depend on access to basic adulteducation; for example, nearly two-thirds have suchlow proficiency in English they would havedifficulties functioning in other than entry-leveljobs, in most job training programs, and in thecommunity.

Local jurisdictions are finding it increasinglydifficult to pay for immigrant services. Vemezfinds this pattern: "The fiscal burden of immigrantsincreases as the size of the jurisdiction decreases,ranging from neutral or even positive at thenational level, to neutral to negative at the statelevel, to negative at the local (county/city) level."Vemez recommends targeted federal funds forthose communities most affected by newimmigrants and their children, primarily foreducational institutionsfrom early childhood toK-12, adult education, and community colleges.

CONCLUSION

The high immigration levels of the 1980s have beenwidely publicized: nearly 9 million newcomersaccounted for one-third of the nation's netpopulation growth. What has been less wellconsidered is the Department of Labor's projectionthat immigrants will become a significantproportion of the nation's workforce.

These changing demographics will require somerethinking of the delivery of education, employ-ment, and training to traditional and nontraditionalU.S. workers. The existing employment and

5S45

training programs form a fragmented system,lacking adequate funds or resources. JTPA andJOBS programs have shown some success, but serveonly a small percentage of the eligible population,and effectively discourage access by immigrantsand refugees. The SLIAG program, which createdtemporary capacity for educating the newlylegalized, is anticipated to end in September 1994.No preparations have been made to meet thecontinued demand for services of the 2.5 millionnewly legalized. The refugee program, whichprovides short-term employment services to a smallportion of newcomers, has faced repeated fundingcuts in recent years, and is again up forreauthorization and reform in 1994.

In a related arena, President Clinton promised to"end welfare as we know it" and replace it with anew system of welfare to work. Addressing theneeds of the nonnative eligible public assistancerecipients will be a challenge in federal, state, andlocal welfare reform efforts. Many Washington-based immigrant policy specialists have beensurprised to answer federal inquiries on barriers ofimmigrants to family self-sufficiency. Refugees andimmigrants, while still a small portion of AFDCrecipients nationwide, confront unique barriers,particularly those of language and culture.However, many of the needs of immigrants andrefugees are the same as other low-income families.

46

Support services such as health care and child careare essential to a family's sustained independencefrom welfare.

A new social contract is being created betweenmainstream public assistance recipients and thegovernment, giving each responsibilities. Govern-ment's side of the bargain is to ensure that theappropriate program supportsuch as classes inEnglish as a second language, bilingual educators,and acculturation within government programs andthe workplaceis available to support the welfare-to-work transition for targeted as well asmainstream populations.

As policymakers at federal, state, and local levelscraft reforms of their welfare, education,employment and training programs for improvedself-sufficiency and workforce skills, therequirements of a growing immigrant populationwill need to be examined and addressed.Successful practices within the programs discussedin this paper should not be overlooked; forexample, combined language and vocationaltraining, comprehensive services such as Job Corps,and coordinated services that address family self-sufficiency. In order to compete in today's globaleconomy, the United States must invest in its mostvaluable asset, its workforce.

5 sAmerica's Newcomers

NOTES

1. Eric S. Rothman and Thomas J. Espenshade,"Fiscal Impacts of Immigration to the United States,"Population Index 58, no. 3 (Fall 1992).

2. U.S. General Accounting Office, Job TrainingPartnership Act: Racial and Gender Disparities in Services,GAO/HRD-91-148, September 1991.

3. "The National JTPA Study: Title II-A Impactson Earnings and Employment at 18 Months,"(Bethesda, Md.: Abt Associates Inc., May 1992).

4. James Riccio and Daniel Friedlander. GAIN:Program Strategies, Participation, Patterns, a,id First-YearImpacts in Six Counties, May 1992; and, DanielFriedlander, James Riccio and Stephen Freedman.GAIN: Two-Year Impacts in Six Counties, (New York:Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, May1993).

5. Judith M. Gueron, Front Welfare To Work:Summary, (New York: Manpower DemonstrationResearch Corporation, 1991).

6. Marta Elisa Moret, speaking at "Latino Families,Poverty and Welfare Reform" seminar sponsored bythe AAMFT Research and Education Foundation,Washington, D.C., September 25, 1992.

7. Miren Uriarte, Latinas in the MassachusettsEmployment and Training (ET) Choices Program,(presentation at "Latino Families, Poverty and WelfareReform," seminar sponsored by the AAMFT Researchand Education Foundation, Washington, D.C.,September 25, 1992).

8. Scot L. Spicer and Jorge R. Sanchez, Caught inthe Shadows: Immigrant Educational AccessThe AmnestyPopulation. (Glendale Community College, Calif., April1992).

REFERENCES

Abt Associates Inc. The National JTPA Study: Title 1I-AImpacts on Earnings and Employment at 18 Months.Bethesda, Md., May 1992.

American Public Welfare Association. "State Views onAFDC, JOBS Issues," W Memo (January 1992): 9-20.

California Assembly Office of Research: -Ready or Not,Here We Come: Training California's EmergingWorkforce. Sacramento, Calif., June 1990.

Friedlander, Daniel; James Riccio; and StephenFreedman. GAIN: Two-Year Impacts in Six Counties.New York, N.Y.: Manpower DemonstrationResearch Corporation, May 1993.

Gueron, Judith M. Froni Welfare To Work: Summary. NewYork, N.Y.: Manpower Demonstration ResearchCorporation, 1991.

Handelman, Mark, and Alfred P. Miller. "VocationalServices in Soviet Jewish Resettlement: TheChallenge for the Nineties," Journal of JewishCommunal Service 67, no. 2 (Winter 1990).

Liddell, Scott. "New Jersey's Super Council CoordinatesWorkforce Development," NCSL Legisbrief, no. 16(April 1993).

Employment and Trainzng Programs

Martin, Philip. "NAFTA, Migration, and U.S. LaborMarkets." Appendix C of The Employment Effects ofthe North American Free Trade Agreement:Recommendations and Background Studies.Washington, D.C.: National Commission forEmployment Policy, 1992.

Meisenheimer, Joseph R., II. "How Do Immigrants Farein the U.S. Labor Market?" Monthly Labor Review(December 1992): 3-19.

National Commission for Employment Policy. AssessingState-Level Job Training Coordination: A Survey Designand Methodology Based Upon the MassachusettsExperience, Research Report No. 92-01 (December1992).

National Governors' Association. "Side by SideComparison of the Job Training Partnership ActBefore and After the 1992 Amendments." Legisline(October 1992).

National Immigration Law Center. Guide to AlienEligibility for Federal Programs. Los Angeles, Calif.,1992.

6047

Ramsey, Kimberly, and Abby Robyn. Preparing AdultImmigrants for Work: The Educational Response in TwoCommunities. National Center for Research inVocational Education, University of California,Berkeley. #N-3586-NCRVE/UBC/RC. RAND,Santa Monica, Calif., 1992.

Refugee Policy Group. The Refugee Eariy EmploymentProject: An Evaluation. Washington, D.C., August1989.

Refugee Policy Group. The Refugee Early EmploymentProject: A Revisit. Washington, D.C., May 19, 1991.

Riccio, James, and Daniel Friedlander. GAIN: ProgramStrategies, Participation, Patterns, and First-YearImpacts in Six Counties, New York, N.Y.: ManpowerDemonstration Research Corporation, May 1992.

Rothman, Eric S., and Thomas J. Espenshade. "FiscalImpacts of Immigration to the United States,"Population Index 58, no. 3 (Fall 1992): 381-415.

Spicer, Scot L., and Jorge R. Sanchez. Caught in theShadows: Immigrant Educational AccessThe AmnestyPopulation. Glendale Community College, Glendale,Calif., April 1992.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee onWays and Means. Overview of Entitlement Programs:1993 Green Book. 103d Congress, 1st sess., July 7,1993.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,Administration for Children and Families, Office ofRefugee Resettlement. Refugee Resettlement Program:Report to the Congress.. Annual Report FY 1992Washington, D.C. January 31, 1993.

U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration andNaturalization Service. Immigration Reform andControl Act: Report on the Legalized Alien Population.March 1992.

48

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International LaborAffairs. The Effects of Immigration on the U.S. Economyand Labor Market, Immigration Policy and ResearchReport 1, 1989 .

U.S. General Accounting Office. Job Training PartnershipAct: Racial and Gender Disparities in Services.GAO/HRD-91-148. September 1991.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Job Training PartnershipAct: Actions Needed to Improve Participant SupportServices. GAO/HRD-92-124. June 12, 1992.

Uriarte, Miren. Latino in the Massachusetts Employmentand Training (ET) Choices Program. Presentation at"Latino Families, Poverty and Welfare Reform,"seminar sponsored by the AAMFT Research andEducation Foundation, Washington, D.C., September25, 1992.

Vernez, Georges. Needed: A Federal Role in HelpingCommunities Cope with Immigration. RAND Programfor Research on Immigration Policy. RAND/RP-177.RAND Corp., Santa Monica, Calif., 1993.

Vialet, Joyce, and Larry Eig. "Alien EligibilityRequirements for Major Federal AssistancePrograms." CRS Report for Congress. Washington,D.C.: Congressional Research Service, August 1,1989.

Vialet, Joyce, and Larry Eig. "Alien Eligibility for FederalAssistance." CRS Report for Congress. Washington,D.C.: Congressional Research Service, April 27,1993.


4. COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY

Ann MorseJonathan C. Dunlap


Once I thought to write a history of the immigrants in America. Then I discovered that theimmigrants were American history.

Chapter 4 was originally published as America's Newcomers:Community Relations and Ethnic Diversity by the NationalConference of State Legislatures, April 1993.

INTRODUCTION

The United States was founded on the ideals ofequal opportunity and individual freedom,embodied in the Declaration of Independence andsymbolized by the Statute of Liberty. Millions havecome from all over the world to pursue, and tofulfill, this dream.

Americans are strongly ambivalent about thismigration to the land of the free. Compassionate tothose fleeing war and persecution, Americans arealso fearful that a large, unauthorized migrationmay jeopardize jobs, overwhelm governmentservices, and destabilize communities. Periodically,the nation erupts in a public debate over newcomersand their effect on the social fabric. How do weensure equitable and fair treatment to bothnewcomers and .lative residents? How can weseparate the myth from reality and perception fromfact about the benefits and the costs of immigration?Although most studies point to America's (andimmigrants') overall success in assimilation, pocketsof areas experience disproportionate impacts. Theseinclude highly visible areas with many, suddenarrivals, such as Florida's experience with Cubansand Haitians. Smaller communities are alsochanging, such as Lowell, Mass., whose populationis now 20 percent Cambodian.

Recently, outbreaks of violence in several citiesseemed to indicate that the nation is on the verge ofethnic strife: the melting pot was boiling over.Media and public attention on immigrants and racerelations surged, heightened by the civil disorder inLos Angeles, the bombing of the World TradeCenter, the Chinese boat refugees, and the Haitian


Oscar Handlin

exodus. People began to question whether thenation can successfully continue to absorb largenumbers of the foreign-born.

6

Complicating the debate over immigration is thepublic's sense of competition for scarce resources.Two unrelated trends of the 1980s, high levels ofimmigration and economic restructuring, arecreating ripple effects of unemployment, low taxrevenues, limited budgets for social resources, andless available assistance at a time of increased need.

Federal jurisdiction over immigration policy limitsthe flexibility of states and localities to respond.With a steady decline in federal assistance, statesana localities are faced with cutting back onprograms and with meeting the needs of the native-born as well as the newcomers, raising issues ofequity and community tensions. Finally, the federalgovernment receives about two-thirds ofimmigrants' taxes, while states and localities receiveonly one-third of immigrants' taxes and provide themost services to them, particularly for educationand health care. Areas facing both economicdifficulties cind high levels of immigration havepetitioned the federal government to be moreresponsible for the consequer,ces of its decisions inimmigration policy.

The reality facing state and local policymakers is theneed to provide basic services with few resourcesfor communities made up of diverse ethnic andsocial groups, most of whom are legally residing inthe United States. How do we cope with thisdiversity? What programs and policies can becreated that are inclusive and responsive to theneeds of both newcomers and established residents?

Researchers arid policymakers alike point to thesuccess of increased interaction and communicationamong community residents in easing tensions. For

ti

49

example, all residents have a stake in safeneighborhoods and quality schools and can worktogether for these common goals. Policymakers cansupport good community relations in their roles asleaders in the community, as shapers of publicopinion, and creators of policies and prograMs thatequitably serve all community residents and thatattempt to overcome the language and culturalbarriers that often lead to tensions within thecommunity.

This chapter examines problems and solutions :ncommunity relations between residents andnewcomers, reviews the nation's historicalambivalence toward the foreign-born in publicopinion and in legislation, and outlines the theoriesof assimilation (the melting pot metaphor versus thesalad bowl metaphor). Practical examples ofprograms that successfully bring people together tosolve common problems and ways thatpolicymakers can build community from diversityare provided.

THE AMBIVALENT WELCOME

Since the earliest days of the republic, those alreadysettled have cried out against those who wouldfollow. Benjamin Franklin, while cognizant of theeconomic contributions of German immigrants,worried about their effect on the nation's linguisticand cultural unity. The Irish Catholics enteringearly in the 18th century were viewed as generallyless desirable than earlier arrivals. Anti-immigrantsentiment led to the creation of a political party inthe 1850s, the Know-Nothings, with one issue:opposition to immigration.

Legislation

The first federal laws pertaining to immigrationpassed in 1798, responding to the "alien menace"that might enter in the wake of the French Revolu-tion and the Reign of Terror. The Alien andSedition Acts authorized the President to deportdangerous aliens and established a 14-year waitingperiod for naturalization. (The residencerequirement for naturalization was restored to fiveyears by the Jeffersonians in 1802 and has remainedunchanged.) These laws reflected a heightened anti-immigrant rhetoric, and, as Ellis Cose suggests, theyforeshadowed a regular pattern of xenophobia thatresurfaces throughout American history.'

In the mid- to late 19th century businesses began toadvertise overseas for laborers who would be

50

willing to immigrate to the United States and workon the railroads, on farms, and in mines. However,as a significant number of non-Europeanimmigrants began to arrive in the United States, thenation began to impose limits on immigration. Inthe early 1880s, California passed laws excludingChinese from immigrating into their communities.These laws were prompted by a depressed stateeconomy and labor unions concerned abouteconomic competition. Shortly thereafter, thefederal government preempted these stateimmigration laws and passed the Chinese ExclusionActs, a series of laws forbidding Chineseimmigration and naturalization, and later expandedthe ban to cover other Asians.

In the 1920s, a series of federal laws were enactedthat placed severely restrictive quotas onimmigration from all countries outside of Northernand Western Europe. In later years, the pendulumswung back. Congress eliminated race as a barrierto.immigration in the 1952 Immigration andNationality Act. National origin quotas wereabolished in 1965 and replaced by a preferencesystem for relatives of U.S. residents and workersneeded in the United States. Current legislationpermits 700,000 visas annually for familyreunification and work regardless of country oforigin.

Temporary entry, or "guestworker," programs wereestablished by the federal government duringWorld War II. The Bracero program encouragedimmigration by Mexican agricultural workers tohelp harvest the nation's crops. In 1954, after thewar ended and the farm labor shortage was over,the U.S. conducted a mass deportation programknown as "Operation Wetback" in which hundredsof thousands of illegal farmworkers, resident aliens,and even some Mexican-American citizens wererounded up by federal law enforcement officialsand deported to Mexico.'

Public Opinion Polls

"The current cohort of immigrants, whoever theymay be, is viewed with suspicion and distrust," RitaSimon found after studying 50 years of publicopinion.' In the late 19th and early 20th centuries,editorials and articles of many of the largestnewspapers and magazines regularly opposedimmigration by the newest immigrants, those fromEastern and Southern Europe, primarily Jews,Italians, and Slays.' Today's "current cohort" ofimmigrants, those from Asia, Latin America, and


the Caribbean, e re similarly opposed. A 1982 pollby the Gallup Organization indicated thatAmericans view the contributions of English, Irish,Jewish, German, and Italian immigrants morepositively, while the contributions of the newestgroups, Asians and Latinos, are viewed morenegatively.' A 1992 poll by Business Week found that69 percent of non-black Americans and 53 percent ofblack Americans believed that immigration is badfor the nation.'

And yet public opinion research also seems toindicate that the public's view of immigration maybe favorably influenced by increasing the public'sfamiliarity with different newcomer groups. In1992, the American Jewish Committee surveyedAmericans on the social standing of 58 differentethnic groups in the United States. Europeangroups (the earliest immigrants) monopolized thetop of the ladder, followed by Germans, Irish, andScandinavians (arriving in the mid-19th century)and then by Italians, Greeks, Poles, Russians, andJews. Notably, the ratings of all groups increasedfrom 1964 to 1989, indicating that tolerance ofethnicity seems to be rising. However, the"Wisians," a fictitious group invented by theresearchers, received one of the lowest scores. Mostrespondents did not rank the Wisians, but 39percent of those surveyed were willing to cffer theopinion that Wisians as a class were not doing well.'

The recent economic recession and subsequent slowrecovery have also influenced the public'sperception of immigration. Americans have beenquick to blame immigrants for depressing wagesand taking jobs from natives. Yet there is littleeconomic research to support these fears. Mosteconomic analyses have found that, in theaggregate, immigrant labor has little net negativeeffect on employment opportunities or wage levelsfor the native-born, and that over time immigrantsare a boon to the economy.'

However, in isolated industries there have beensome significant, short-term negative effects. Recenttestimony before the federal Commission onImmigration Reform identified specific instances ofdisplacement.' For example, citrus pickers inVentura County, Calif., have been displaced bycontract laborers who are undocumentedimmigrants. Likewise, construction workers inHouston, Texas, have suffered from competitionwith low-wage immigrant labor. Wages along thehighly affected southwestern border of the UnitedStates also seem to be lower than in other regions of

the country for comparable work. Finally, African-American janitors in Los Angeles have beendisplaced by Latino immigrant competitors.

Another negative influence on public opinion ofimmigrants is a belief that newcomers use toomany public benefits and services. Newcomersare accused of burdening government budgets byoverusing public programs, particularly welfare.The Urban Institute reports that immigrants' useof welfare is lower than commonly believed."Only 2.3 percent of immigrants entering fromnon-refugee sending countries during the 1980swere reported to be using public benefits in1989lower than the welfare participation rate ofnatives (3.3 percent). ""' However, certain groupsof newcomers do use a disproportionate share ofwelfare services, such as refugees from countriessuch as the former Soviet Union, Vietnam, andCuba who have experienced persecution andoften need more public assistance than otherimmigrants."

Certain segments of society are more likely tooppose immigration than others. Historically, thosewith less education or income and some racialminority groups have been more likely to opposehigh levels of immigration because immigrants areviewed as competitors for resources such as jobs,housing, and benefits.'2 For example, polling datain the 1980s suggested that African-Americans aremore likely to associate unemployment with:..iimigration than are whites, Latinos, or Asians."However, in the 1992 poll by Business Week, blackAmericans were more likely than non-blacks tosupport immigration and immigrants."

Many U.S. citizens, particularly younger membersof society (20 to 29 year olds), believe that thecultural diversity resulting from immigration is asource of the nation's strength. A nationwideGallup survey in 1992 found that 61 percent of thepublic agreed that immigrants improve our countrywith their cultures and talents:5 Muller notes that, inthe abstract, Americans believe in cultural diversity,but they become less enthusiastic in times of rapidimmigration and rapid development in the:-ornmunity."

MELTING POT OR SALAD BOWL?

The "melting pot" is the traditional image ofAmerican assimilation of immigrants, representing amelding of peoples in a new nation bounded by

6 .1

Community Relations anii Ethnic Diversity 51

ideals rather than history, language, or culture.Newer theories of assimilation respect the culturesof origin and attempt to forge a balance between oldand new: not a melting, but a mixing of a "salad" ofunique ingredients. New York City's Mayor DavidDinkins used "mosaic" to describe the city's varietyof ethnicities and cultures. A recent study of U.S.immigrant children and how they assimilate callsinto question whether the United States has onemainstream culture or a "rainbow" of social andethnic mainstreams." Lawrence Fuchs believes themetaphor that best captures the ethnic dynamics ofassimilation is "kaleidoscope," expressing anextensive variety of color and shape andinterrelationships that are complex and continuallychanging."

These newer metaphors emphasize the idea ofintegration or accommodation rather thanassimilation: newcomers adapt to the Americanmainstream, but they also change the communitiesthey join. Rumbaut says, "The question for manyimmigrants is not whether they will assimilate.They will. But the question is, assimilate into whatAmerican mainstream or which Americanculture?"'

Bach notes that the traditional assimilationperspective "examines only the immigrantsthemselves, assuming that newcomers will adaptcompletely to established U.S. life."'" Therefore, hisChanging Relations Project focused on theaccommodation, the process by which establishedresidents and groups at different stages ofresettlement found ways to adjust and support oneanother.

In City on the Edge: The Transformation of Miami,Portes and Stepick study the effect of the MarielCubans and Haitian refugees who arrived in Miamiaround 1980. Miami's population is now 49 percentHispanic (60 percent of them Cuban), 30 percentnon-Hispanic whites, and 19 percent black!' Theauthors argue that Miami is "the nation's first full-fledged experiment in bicultural living in thecontemporary era."22 Instead of adapting toAmerican society, they write, the immigrants aretransforming the city (see the sidebar "ChangingCities").

The traditional stages of assimilation may no longeroccur: The first generation began at the bottom ofthe ladder and struggled, the second generationclimbed, and the third generation attended auniversity and entered the American mainstream.

Today, the increasing number and variety ofethnicities and cultures are having an effect on the"mainstream": the minorities are causing themajority to adapt. Some new arrivals don't start atthe bottom of the ladder, but at the top, wealthy andeducated, for example, in Monterey Park, Calif.Miami's Cuban community found an economic andpolitical niche first, and only then began to adaptculturally±

The effects of rapid transformation on communitiescan lead to racial or ethnic tensions. But defining orframing the problem of racial tensions can bedifficult. Muller states that, in general, publicanxieties about the current surge of immigrants areless economic than social, a concern that immigrantenclaves are culturally and psychologically separatefrom the American mainstream.' John Higham saysthat class culture is more important than ethnic orracial cultures!' Ngoan Le of the Illinois Division ofPlanning and Community Services finds that "whatoften divides people is economic well-being ratherthan race; racial differences are not as important asclass similarities."'

Senator Art Torres of California sees opportunity inthe newcomers' ties to their country of originasassets for international trade and economicdevelopment. One reason to value diversity is thatit can work for the community, locality, or state byhelping it compete in an increasingly interconnectedglobal economy. The language skills and familiaritywith a trading partner's culture can be tapped fromimmigrants to support new business ventures. Theease and low cost of transportation andcommunications facilitate ties between new and oldcultures, and these ties can contribute to economicgrowth both in the United States and in theimmigrants' country of origin. In 1984, when animmigrant family from Mexico started a wood-products company in San Diego, Calif., they wereable to export a substantial amount of goods intoMexico because of their bicultural heritage andknowledge of Mexican business opportunities.27Similar cultural advantages have benefitedCalifornia companies in Silicon Valley and otherhigh-tech firms that are owned or operated byimmigrants.

The Language Divide

Language differences are the major source oftension between newcomers and establishedresidents. Bach finds that language serves "as asource of intergroup conflict, tension, and distance"


Changing Cities

Immigration since the 1960s has facilitated urban renewal, "by strengthening small businesses, providinglow wage labor, and maintaining the population base necessary to sustain a high level of economicactivity. The new immigrantsunskilled workers, professionals, and entrepreneurshave encouragedthe flow of investment, furnished workers for factories and service industries, and helped revivedeteriorating urban neighborhoods."

The composition of the population of U.S. cities has changed with the influx of immigrants in newproportions, as the following examples illustrate.

Atlanta: During the 1980s, Georgia experienced the most rapid increase of people who don't speakEnglish at home, a gain of 113 percent. Blacks are Atlanta's largest minority group, at one-third of thecity population of 2.8 million residents. However, the Asian and Hispanic population grew from 20,000in 1980 to 200,000 in 1992.

New York City: Nearly one in three New York City residents is foreign-born. Almost a million are newimmigrants,'arriving during the 1980s. In contrast to other regions of the United States that receiveprimarily Asian and Mexican immigrants, the immigrants to New York City are mostly Caribbean andSouth American.

Monterey Park, Calif.: In 1970, two-thirds of the city's population was white; by the mid-1980s, thepopulation was one-third white. Asians make up 57 percent of the total population of 61,000 in 1990,Hispanics 31 percent, and non-Hispanic whites the remainder.

Lowell, Mass.: One of seven residents is a recent immigrant. Cambodian refugees began arriving in theearly 1980s, fleeing the Khmer Rouge and war in their homeland. By 1985, the community had grown to3,000 people and established the first Buddhist temple on the East Coast, attracting even moreCambodians. Lowell is now home to more than 20,000 Cambodians, about 20 percent of the city'spopulation.

Miami, Fla.: Miami's population is 49 percent Hispanic (60 percent of them Cuban), 30 percent non-Hispanic white, and 19 percent black. Even more dramatic is immigration to the county surroundingMiami: Dade County attributes 95 percent of its growth in the last decade to the foreign-born.

Total foreign-born in 1990: The foreign-born population of the United States was approximately 21 million in atotal population of 258 million. In absolute terms, this is the highest number in U.S. history; but as a percentage,it is about half that of a century ago: in 1890 immigrants were 14.8 percent of the total population, and now theyare about 8.6 percent.

Sources: Waldrop; City of New York; Muller (see References, p.65).

because people are unable to communicate witheach other.' At the same time, language can serveas a primary method of bringing people together.'Immigrants realize that the ability to speak Englishis the key to advancement and involvement inAmerican society. The issue is not opposition tolearning English, but the capacity to retain their firstlanguage in addition to learning English. In theirrecent study, sociologists Ruben Rumbaut andAlejandro Portes found that many immigrantchildren are quickly learning English, but they are


also maintaining the languages and customs of theirnative lands."

One myth about language is the belief that earlierimmigrants adjusted without any special assistance.In fact, a number of private and publicorganizations organized and provided languageclasses for immigrants. New Jersey in 1907 passedlegislation to support English and civics classes forthe foreign-born. In New York, a Bureau ofIndustries and Immigration was established in 1910

662) EST-COPY AVIIL'311

53

to promote the effective employment of immigrantsand their development as useful citizens. In 1914the Federal Bureau of Naturalization sponsoredcitizenship classes in the public schools. Socialclubs, labor unions, and businesses also supportedlanguage and civics classes for newcomers in theearly 20th century!'

Linguistic and cultural differences arecompounded and intensified by the institutionaland residential segregation of different ethnic,racial, and economic groups that exists inAmerican society today. Bach points out that theconsequences of this segregation are that differentethnic groups have few opportunities to connect."Groups interact in only a few special places,including schools, workplaces, churches, andplaying fields. These are rare places, and eachfaces the excessive strain of absorbing andresponding to the demographic diversity thatcharacterizes America's communities.""

Barriers to communication and cultural misunder-standings between different ethnic groups canlead to isolation and polarization. New traditionsand values are not automatically or easilyaccommodated. Often they are seen ascompetition, a threat to community stability, andpreviously established traditions. For example,when Asian businesses were created in MontereyPark, Calif., store owners put up business signs intheir native languages. The prevalence of non-English signs in the busin' district wasthreatening to many Anglo and Latino nativeswho had lived in the community for many years.These residents responded by passing a law thatrequired English signs, which created tensionbetween the different communities.

However, in spite of the difficulties, community-building efforts are succeeding at easing tensionsand building bridges between groups. The follow-ing section provides examples of policies and pro-grams used by public officials, but more often byresidents and newcomers themselves, to accommo-date each other and solve common problems.

COPING WITH DIVERSITY

State and local policymakers face the need toprovide basic services with few resources forcommunities made up of diverse ethnic and socialgroups, most of whom are legally resident in the

54

United States. This section provides practicalexamples for state and local policymakers toaddress the realities of a diverse multilingual,multiethnic constituency and help to build acommunity from this diversity. The examples andrecommendations are drawn from a series ofmeetings conducted by the Immigrant Policy Projectwith state, local, and private representatives todiscuss immigrant policy. At each of the meetings,the participants were invited to discuss communityrelations issues related to immigrants and theincreasing diversity of the U.S. population.Discussions centered on roles for state and localpolicymakers, community representatives, and themedia. Recent studies on community relations andnewcomers are highlighted.

The examples and recommendations center on sixbroad areas: leadership, participation andcommunity coalitions, citizenship, inclusive policiesand programs, special offices or committees forimmigrant issues, and media relations.

Leadership

Policymakers as public leaders have the ability toease community tensions and provide responsivegovernment. Because diversity is not naturallyincorporated into the status quo, there is a need forelected and appointed officials to provide theirconstituents with a vision of the strength that comesfrom diversity and the common goals shared bynewcomers and established residents. Interventionsby policymakers are needed to help different ethnicgroups work together and to help manage thenewcomers' transition into American societywithout displacing existing communities.

State and local policymakers can provide thisleadership in a variety of ways. An important firststep is setting a positive tone for immigrant policythat emphasizes inclusion, equality of opportunity,and the recognition of the contributions of allresidents. Officials can also work with the media tomake sure that issues related to newcomers aregrounded in facts and not emotion and prejudice.

Leadership of policymakers is interrelated withother components of this section: civic participation,coalition-building, and developing inclusive policiesand programs. It warrants special attention becausepolicymakers in their public role set the tone andimage for welcoming newcomers and for assuringthat government treats all residents equitably.


The leadership of public officials is a key Aement indeveloping and maintaining strong communityrelations among different ethnic and racial groups.Policymakers must be actively involved with eachcommunity to be aware of the stresses and conflictsthere and to develop policies and methods foraddressing problems before they become critical.Public officials can also take a role in teachingnewcomers their responsibilities to their adoptedcommunity (such as health and safety requirementsor housing ordinances) and through orientation tothe community and to local government.

Other components of leadership involve promotingcivic participation by community residents, such asencouraging citizenship, supporting coalition-building to solve common problems, and adaptingpolicies and programs to reflect the diversity of thecitizens being served, for example, in lawenforcement, schools, housing, and health agencies.Political leaders have a key role with the media,communicating the success stories within thecommunity and not focusing only on conflict.

Participation and Community Coalitions

"Participation works," states Robert Bach, author ofa recent report, Changing Relations: Newcomers andEstablished Residents in U.S. Conintunities.'2 For thisreport, teams of researchers interviewed newcomer.:and established residents in six U.S. cities: Chicago:Miami; Monterey Park, Calif.; Houston;Philadelphia; and Garden City, Kan. The key togood community relations, they found, is to provideopportunities for groups of different ethnicities orcultures to work toward meaningful common goals.These activities should not focus on differencesamong groups, but on commonalities. Commongoals, such as Neighborhood Watch or Safe Streetprograms, benefit all residents by improvingschools, developing recreation programs for youth,and providing groups the opportunity to jointlysolve problems. These types of communityactivities improve communication among groupsand overcome perceptions of mistrust.

State and local policymakers are also in a position ofbringing people and resources together to solveproblems. This may include organizing meetingswith government officials and various ethnic groupsin the community, providing leadership training fornewcomer communities to help them participate inlocal affairs, or facilitating cooperation amongimmigrant groups.

Community Relations and F.thilic 1)Merstty

In New York City, former mayor David Dinkinsworked with the New York Coalition onImmigration to bring representatives of the city'svarious ethnic groups together with the serviceproviders who administer the city's programs. Thismeeting provided new information to city officialsabout effective service delivery strategies to thesepopulations and encouraged newcomercommunities to participate more actively in citybusiness.

In Tacoma, Wash., former mayor Karen Vialleincluded immigrants and refugees in herorganization of a Community Summit. BecauseTacoma was trying to think creatively about itsfuture, the mayor created a commission to definesome goals for the community's next 10 years. Thecommission addressed eight issues, among them theenvironment, education, and the celebration andenhancement of cultural and ethnic diversity.Including the city's newcomers in this project gavethem a sense of ownership in Tacoma's future andensured that their concerns would be taken intownid' ration.

Frank Sharry of the National Immigration Forumnotes that the current emphasis in interethnicrelations is on conflict or dispute resolution, dialogue,and occasions to celebrate cultural diversity. Thoughthese activities are a place to start, more meaningfulkinds of cooperation, such as interaction andcoalition-building around common interests, isneeded. As an example of innovative coalition-building, immigrant communities in California havebegun to unitewith environmental groups to opposeindustrial pollution in their neighborhoods.

Los Angeles' South Central neighborhood, wherethe civil disturbances of 1992 occurred, experienceda 16 percent population growth in the last 10 years,but only a 1 perant growth in housing. RonWakabayashi of L.A.'s Human RelationsCommission notes that there is a great deal ofcompetition for housing and other services. Thesuburban migration of the 1980s meant middle-income abandonment of inner cities across thecountry, leaving the poor and fixed-incomeresidents. In many inner-city neighborhoods thereis an absence or underdevelopment of a "socialinfrastructure," institutions that can define, frame,and mediate community tensions, and advocatecommunity interests. For newcomers, it generallytakes three generations to begin getting involved inpolitical institutions and advocacy. Without

6355

Recommendations of The Changing Relations Project

The Changing Relations Project investigated the relationships between recent immigrants and longer-term residents. The following are the project's recommendations to national, state, and local officials forfostering positive interactions between these groups:

1. A primary rule of policy should be to avoid actions that worsen relations among newcomers andestablished residents.

2. Policies such as the legalization program under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986should foster inclusion and participation of newcomers.

3. Newcomers with permanent residency status should be enabled and encouraged to participate inlocal elections, reinforcing efforts of coalition-building through local electoral participation.

4. Federal budgetary problems and the uniqueness of local combinations of groups require a renewedfocus on community-building. Grass-roots organizing is a useful approach in promotingopportunities for interaction among groups at the local level.

5. Local activities should encourage participation and mobilization across group lines.6. Existing organizeions are not necessarily responsive to the new demographic, social, and economic

diversity in today's communities. They should consciously seek ways to cross group boundaries andidentify common projects.

7. Efforts should be expanded to provide newcomers with access to English-language programs, andestablished residents should be encouraged to learn other languages.

8. Established residents need more and better information about newcomers.9. Media reporting often misrepresents the range of interactions and complexities of relations,

especially in crises. Coverage should be continued until such incidents are resolved.10. Special events and public festivals can create a more tolerant tone in communities and are

particularly effective when they involve face-to-face collaboration among groups in planning theevents.

The Changing Relations Project was a seven-year research project funded by The Ford Foundation. Principal author: Robert Bach.

institutions to channel or relieve stress and to solveproblems, stress can escalate to a flashpoint. Thequestion for policymakers is how to enable theseunderdeveloped community institutions and makediversity work.

For many public officials, Lo; Angeles symbolizesa "balkanization" of minorities, each communitylooking after its own interests. Public officials fearthat this will occur in their cities and are seekingways to be responsive to and support unity amongdifferent minorities. In Los Angeles, this process(sometimes called "building community") in-volves surveys and conversations with residents toframe what the community should be, how peoplebelong to the community, and how the communitybelongs to the city. Ron Wakabayashi comparesthe city's stresses to the fault lines of an earth-quake: we know where the F tresses are and wherewe need to do initial intervention. But in the longterm, we need to develop a social infrastructureand design it in a way that supports diversity.

56

Bach notes that there are complex problems relatedto inviting participation from many differentgroups. The "pervasive mismatch between theresources groups need and the current structure ofavailable financing ... is a primary reason effortsto organize intergroup relations fail. "" Thesegroups need connections with agencies, whethergovernment, nonprofit, or for-profit.

Community coalitions need to encourageimmigi ants to represent their own interests, defineproblems, develop solutions, and participate in thedecision making. Too often, the native-born decidewhat immigrants need. Mechanisms to encourageparticipation should include door-to-door flyers andannouncing public meetings in multilingualnewspapers.

In Washington, D.C., the NationF.1 ImmigrationForum established the Community InnovationsProject to examine community relations betweennewcomers and established residents. This project

6 9America's Newcomers

is founded on the belief that community relationsare likely to be most s Accessful when differentethnic communities unite to pursue common goals,focusing not on group differences but on sharedinterests. The project is assembling information onexamples of interethnic cooperation in New York,Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. Aforthcoming report will describe successful modelsthat state and local officials can consider for theircommunities.

A new federal program for community service mayalso provide mechanisms for bringing diversegroups together. The Corporation for National andCommunity Service, created in September 1993, willstrive to foster civic responsibility and strengthenthe ties that bind us together as a nation throughcommunity service programs.

Citizenship

Lack of citizenship, and all that this privilegeimplies, contributes to the isolation of immigrants.Without citizenship and the right to vote,immigrants have no representation in local, state, ornational government. Subsequently, immigrants arenot connected to civic affairs. The INS estimatesthat there are 10 million legal residents in the UnitedStates who are not citizens.

To be eligible for United States' citizenship (or"naturalization"), an immigrant must be lawfullyadmitted for permanent residence and have residedin the United States continuously for five years.Applicants for naturalization must pass tests inEnglish and civics and promise to obey the Consti-tution and laws of the United States. Citizenshipconfers the right to vote, to hold public office, and toserve on juries.

In November 1993, the Clinton administrationproposed a new policy to spend $30 million toencourage legal immigrants to become naturalizedUnited States citizens. For the first time, according toSam Bernsen, a former INS lawyer, the federalgovernment will actively encourage and promotecitizenship for immigrants. The administration policywould allow INS to enter into cooperativeagreements with community-based organizations,ethnic associations, and educational institutions toassist immigrants in preparing naturalizationapplications and in meeting civics and languageproficiency requirements. Additional efforts will bemade to streamline and simplify the administrativeprocedures of the naturalization process. INSCommissioner Doris Meissner puts it this way:"Naturalization builds bridges between newimmigrant groups and the existing society, much aslabor unions, political parties, and public schoolshave done in the past."

Avoiding Racial Conflict

The U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Community Relations Service (CRS) helps communities toresolve disputes deriving from interethnic conflict. CRS staff have been called on to provide disputeresolution counseling and other techniques in crises such as the episodes in Brooklyn-Crown Heights,Washington, D.C.-Mount Pleasant, and South Central Los Angeles.

CRS publishes a guide to help state and local officials understand racial and ethnic conflict. Somehighlights of the guide, entitled Avoiding Racial Conflict: A Guide for Municipalities:

There are two community dynamics that lead to civil disorder: (1) a perceived disparity intreatment between groups and (2) lack of confidence in redress systems. When one or both ofthese dynamics are present, tensions are heightened and public displays of superiority,antagonism, or confrontation have the potential for triggering civil disorder.

Proactive efforts on the part of state arid local governments are important and cost-effective. Theseinclude instituting local redress systems that prohibit discriminatory behavior and punishoffending officials and creating ordinances on civil rights, hate crimes, human relationscommissions, fair housing, equal opportunity, and voting rights. Finally, it is important that allmembers of the community be represented on boards and commissions.

Cormulindit Relation.. and I !lime f7 0

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

57

The Clinton administration policy is expected tohelp defuse anti-immigrant sentiment, enfranchiseimmigrants, encourage immigrants to increase theirparticipation in civic affairs, and make it easier forimmigrants to get jobs as police officers or publicschool teachers, which are limited to citizens insome states.

This effort will build on the model established bythe amnesty provision of the Immigration Reformand Control Act. The undocumented who weregranted amnesty were required to take English andcivics classes to obtain legal residency. Theseclasses encouraged the newly legalized toparticipate more fully in community life andbrought both newcomers and established residentstogether. These three million legalized aliens arenow becoming eligible for citizenship, havingcompleted five years of legal residence in the UnitedStates.

Nongovernmental organizations also have a role toplay in encouraging newcomers to become citizens.One example is the work of The Close UpFoundation, a nonprofit citizenship educationorganization. Close Up established a Program forNew Americans in 1987 for high school studentswho have been in the United States for less than fiveyears. Since 1987, more than 4,000 students from 30states and 80 countries have participated. Theprogram provides an understanding of the U.S.political and democratic process through the studyof government at the local, state, and national levels.Students visit their s'.ate capital and meet with localleaders; visit Washington, D.C., and meet withcongressional members or their staffs; and put theirnew civic participation skills into practice in acommunity service project.

Inclusive Policies and Programs

There are a number of specific policies andprograms where state and local policymakers canimplement change to be more inclusive of allresidents in the community. Issues such as multi-lingual outreach, law enforcement, and economicopportunity are all important to developing honest,fair, and open community relations. All communityresidents, established and newcomer, should havethe opportunity to participate in the development ofpolicies and programs that serve them. RonWakabayashi notes that coalition- and community-building requires leadership to become moresensitive to including all communities and people ofcolor, particularly those who have been

traditionally disenfranchised and excluded from theeconomic, political, or social mainstream. MarciaChoo of the Asian-Pacific Dispute Resolution Centeradds, "We often try to 'fix the problem,' or havealready defined and framed the problems, issues,and solutions and.yet leave out those whose liveswill be most affected."

Multilingual outreach. To help newcomersadjust to their new communities and to integratethemselves into mainstream society, somelocalities are creating multilingual outreachprograms, which provide an orientation to U.S.society to newcomers in their primary languages.Some outreach programs also help connectresidents with their elected representatives.

The Arlington County, Va., Bilingual Outreachprogram is one such example. The program wascreated in 1981 to assist Southeast Asian refugeeswith limited English proficiency (known ineducation circles as LEP). The programmushroomed during the 1980s to include Hispanicsand other LEP newcomers. The program employsfive bilingual outreach workers who make homevisits and hold small group meetings in multiplelanguages to teach newcomers basic homeeconomics, basic health information, survivalEnglish, and the way to obtain needed socialservices. The outreach workers also teach classesabout doing laundry, gardening, using energywisely, and family planning. In 1992, ArlingtonCounty's program received a National Associationof Counties Achievement Award and anInnovations Award from Governing magazine.

In Boston, Mass., former mayor Ray Flynn createdthe Neighborhood Services Liaison to be a "one-stopshop" for residents in need of community services.Each part of the city had a liaison in the mayor'soffice who was available through a 24-hour hotlineto make sure that communities were receivingnecessary services (i.e., street sweeping/plowing,streetlight repair, etc.). In other words, if somethingwas wrong with a city-provided service, residentscould call their Neighborhood Services Liaison,often in their primary language, and obtainassistance. This representation reassured manyisolated and nonparticipating communities that theydid have access to the system and that they couldwork with city government. A similar communityliaison program in Miami, Fla., was instrumental indefusing community tensions there during the LosAngeles riots.


City of San DiegoDiversity Training

The City of San Diego implemented a program in 1991 in recognition and appreciation of the richdiversity of the city's 10,000 employees and 1.2 million constituents. The goal of "The DiversityCommitment" is to create an environment where differences are valued as assets and to create a high-performing team delivering better services to the city residents.

Information was collected in focus group interviews from nearly 1,000 city employees selected randomlyand assured confidentiality. Diversity issues included equitable service, bureaucracy, leadership,performance measurement, rewards, career development, promotion, communication, health and safety,benefits, and inclusion and participation of people of color and white women in the organization. Thecity then identified career development, communications, and promotions as the areas most needingimprovement. These data led to policy changes in the hiring and promotions process and theestablishment of new mechanisms to deal with the identified problem areas.

Additionally, the city instituted four-day diversity educational sessions for employees on confidentiality,prejudice, harassment in the workplace, racism, sexism, gay and lesbian issues, the Hispanic experience,planning, support systems, and future actions.

The following specific changes were instituted by the city:

Changed policies and procedures to ensure that all employees can feel productive and valued atwork regardless of ethnicity, sexual orientation, physical disability, age, gender, family status, orreligion, and to improve the delivery of services to the city's culturally diverse residents. Conductedproblem-solving groups and action planning sessions to make short-term and long-term plans.Addressed issues such as communications with employees, removing barriers in the interview andpromotion process. Distributed the city's equal opportunity policy to all employees; published it inboth English and Spanish; and included an informational insert on sexual harassment.

Instituted monthly meetings with employee associations (e.g., AFSCME) as well as informal citygroups (e.g., the Latino Employees Association) and representatives from the fire and policedepartments' human resources divisions to discuss diversity issues.

Created a mechanism between management, unions, and informal employee groups as a proactivesystem to raise diversity issues.

Improved the selection procedure for hiring and promotional interview panel members to betterrepresent employee/applicant diversity (e.g., multilingual, gender, ethnic, and age differences).

Established new family issues and tuition reimbursement policies as a result of concerns raisedduring the diversity interviews.

Created a Multicultural, Multilingual Task Force to address specific issues and makerecommendations for change regarding language, accent, and translation concerns.

Language. Federal laws and court decisions requirethe provision of education and language services forimmigrants. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited"discrimination and denial of access to education onthe basis of a student's limited English proficiency."Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) regulz lionsto implement the 1968 Bilingual Education Actrequired local districts to provide appropriate

Communt ty Relations and Ethnic ' 'Ten:0

services to LEI' students in order to receive federalaid. The 1974 Lau v. Nichols Supreme Court decisionupheld the HEW requirements when it ruled that aChinese student in San Francisco, unable to obtaininstruction in his native tongue, was being deprivedof equal educational opportunity. The 1982 U.S.Supreme Court case, Ply ler v. Doe, established that achild should not be denied access to a public

7259

elementary or secondary education because ofimmigrant status.

As previously discussed, language is the main causeof division among different ethnic groups.However, English classes in many states areseverely oversubscribed. In New York City, federal,state, and local funding provides free Englishclasses to approximately 30,000 students a year. Butthe 1990 census estimated 1.36 million New Yorkershave limited English proficiency. A survey ofprograms receiving federal adult education fundsconservatively estimated that 17,000 people were onwaiting lists for English classes in 1990.'c

Michael Fix and Wendy Zimmermann of the UrbanInstitute find that "one-half of Miami's population,one-third of Los Angeles' population, and one-fifthof New York's population reported in the 1990census that they do not speak English 'veryThe number of LEP children in the schools ro:.e 52percent between 1986 and 1991, while schoolpopulations rose only 4 percent.

Providing opportunities and resources forimmigrants to learn English is a necessity so thatnewcomers become employable and self-sufficient.In Massachusetts the state has instituted a programto promote opportunities for English in which part-time organizers recruit native English speakers toteach English to newcomers and help them preparefor the citizenship test. In Chicago, an interculturalfamily literacy program brings together Latino andAfrican-American families to promote literacy.

Many states and localities have developed languagebanks, hired interpreters and translators, and/orcontracted with a telecommunications service fortranslation assistance over the telephone. Forexample, New York City uses a variety of tools,including the telecommunications service;interpreters for the police department emergencyservice, who can handle calls in any languagespoken in New York City; and a large pool ofvolunteers for city workers seeking translationservices.

The Transitional Institute for New AmericanStudents is a demonstration model established in1992 at the Caribbean Research Center of MedgarEvers College, City University of New York.Caribbean immigrants in New York experience thesame problems as other immigrants: familydisruption, culture shock, unfamiliarity with schoolsystems, among others. But they also face academic

60

and language difficulties. Although their homecountries' official language was English, they havedifferent levels of competence in English, and aspecial English skills development program is oftenneeded. Their lack of formal education and lowEnglish proficiency causes poor performance inmath and reading, in spite of high attendance rates.Three cornerstones of the project are the orientationpackage for students and families, parentinvolvement, and teacher sensitivity.

Law enforcement. To successfully apply the lawand protect all residents of the community, lawenforcement officials need to develop and maintainoutreach with new ethnic communities. In Lowell,Mass., hiring minority police officers helped thecity's large Cambodian population to feel more atease with the police department. The city of Lowellwas able to create these new positions in the midstof a city budget crisis through an innovative swap.The local housing authority was persuaded to spenda portion of its public safety appropriation to hirethe Cambouians and to then lend them to the policedepartment. In exchange, the police departmenttook responsibility for protecting some of the publichousing units.

Police departments must recognize special issuesrelated to immigrants. Immigrants tend not toreport crimes because of communication problems,cultural gaps, fear of U.S. immigration authorities,ignorance of their rights, and unfortunateexperiences with the police in their home countries.For example, in cases of domestic violence, abattered spouse without legal status is unlikely toseek police protection for fear of deportation.Traditional healing practices are oftenmisunderstood. One example is the SoutheastAsian practice of "coining," in which a parent heatsa coin, places it on a child's neck or back, andvigorously rubs the coin against the skin in thebelief that this is an effective method of solvingrespiratory problems, infection, or sore throats. Thisprocess leaves burns or bruises on the skin and mayappear to be child abuse in the eyes of the policeand social workers.

In St: Paul, Minn., A Community Outreach Program(ACOP) has succeeded in building trust between thepolice and the city's Asian community and haslowered crime rates in the process. Created in 1991,the ACOP is the product of cooperation between thecity's police department and public housing agency.There are four large public housing projects in St.Paul, 70 percent of which are occupied by Southeast


Asians. Before ACOP, the housing projects hadhigh crime rates, and the police received littlecooperation from the residents, who were reluctantto file police reports, aid investigations, or testify incourt. With funding from the U.S. Department ofHousing and Urban Development drug eliminationprogram, St. Paul assigned some police to part-timepatrols in the housing projects. By 1994, the ACOPprogram had seven full-time uniformed officers(including two Asian and one African-Americanofficers), one police sergeant, three interpreters, twosocial workers, and one crime prevention specialist.

The police in ACOP intervene in the community tostop kids from joining gangs and to provide positiverole models. Every officer in the program isassigned to a special detail such as leading a BoyScout troop or coaching an athletic team. For adultsthere is a residential council for each housingproject, which meets monthly with police andpersonnel from other city agencies. Adult residentsmay also participate in the ACOP advisory boardcouncil, which serves as a liaison between the policeand residents. ACOP social workers are helping tobridge the gap between kids and parents byproviding counseling and education, and workingwith police officers in some situations. ACOP alsohas a crime prevention program, which introducesresidents to the police in their community, teachesthe residents personal and property safety, andtakes them on a tour of police department.Residents are also encouraged to ride along withACOP officers on their patrols. Finally, ACOPofficers and the project residents provide training toother city police officers about Asian culture andvalues. ACOP has resulted in better reporting ofcrime and major reductions in drive-by shootings,assaults, and gang activity. Although ACOPprimarily serves the project residents, police reportthat even Asians outside the projects prefer to callthe ACOP office first.

Economic opportunity. One area where immi-grants and residents sometimes dash is over daylabor and street vending. For poorly educatednewcomers, this type of work requires little Englishproficiency and few job skills. However, merchantsand local residents are often opposed to laborersand vendors Congregating on corners in theircommunities while they wait for prospectiveemployers or sell their wares. In Los Angeles, theCoalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of LosAngeles (CHIRLA), in cooperation with the city, hasstarted a project to meet the needs of both residents,laborers, and vendors. With a little seed money, the

project provides for a more structured andorganized system wherein the city providesportable toilets and trash cans, school and healthofficials provide on-site classes and health checkups,the laborers put their names on rosters for work,and street vending is better regulated.

Often, access to capital is the barrier to entrepre-neurship for newcomers and residents alike. Manyimmigrant communities have been victimized bylarge banks that accept immigrant savings depositsbut are unwilling to loan money to immigrantcommunities. In res,onse to this credit crunch,Brooklyn, New Yort s Central BrooklynPartnership, and a coalition of churches andcommunity development organizations haverecently created the Central Brooklyn Federal CreditUnion. The Central Brooklyn FCU provides loans toresidents for personal use and for cars, mortgages,education, home repair, and small businessdevelopment. With a newly awarded federalcharter, all deposits in the credit union are insuredby the federal government for up to $100,000. TheCentral Brooklyn FCU is the only credit unionexclusively serving Central Brooklyn and theCaribbean immigrants who live there.

Special Offices of Immigrant Affairs

Several states and localities have established offices,legislative bodies, city or county offices or liaisons,or advisory committees specifically to respond toissues related to immigrants.

The Virginia legislature established a JointSubcommittee Studying the Needs of Foreign-BornIndividuals in the Commonwealth (1992-1993). Thelegislature has examined the needs of immigrantsfor education, health care outreach, translation ofgovernment documents, and interpreters for civilcases.

California in 1993 established an Assembly 'electCommittee on Statewide Immigration Impact,chaired by Assemblywoman G :ace Napolitano.Upon completion of five public hearings heldaround the state, the committee will issue a report ofits findings in January 1994. (A previous committeefell victim to the 1991 budget crisis: the CaliforniaJoint Committee on Refugee Resettlement,International Migration and CooperativeDevelopment, which had been created in 1973. Thecommittee was created to maximize federal supportand establish effective state strategies to assure the

Community Re lattom and 1:timit. D)1 ortty 61

orderly socioeconomic integration of immigrantsand refugees into California society.)

In 1987, the New York Assembly created the TaskForce on New Americans to consider immigrantemployment and civil rights, among other issues. In1993, the assembly was forced to terminate the taskforce because of state budget deficits. In 1994,Assemblyman Brian Murtaugh, a senior memberfrom Manhattan, went to the Speaker of the Houseand asked to recreate the task force using his ownstaff and personal resources. The task force'sagenda for 1994 will focus on leveraging more fundsfrom federal, state, and private sources to fundclasses in citizenship and English as a secondlanguage (ESL) for the amnesty population;reviewing employer sanctions and evidence thatthey contribute to discrimination in hiring; anddeveloping strategies to encourage immigrants tocreate entrepreneurial business ventures andbecome economically self-sufficient.

In 1986, Oregon Governor Neil Goldschmidt createdan office to manage the Immigration Reform andControl Act's (IRCA) State Legalization ImpactAssistance Grant. In 1987 this office became theGovernor's Immigration Coordinating Committeeby executive order. The committee has 13 members,appointed by the governor. The committeeresearches housing, employment, labor, and healthissues relating to the newcomer population inOregon. It also is charged with monitoring andimplementing IRCA, recommending policysolutions to the governor on immigration-relatedissues, providing technical assistance on employersanctions and other IRCA-related laws andregulations, acting as liaison with the INS, andserving as the state point of contact on allimmigration issues.

In 1991, in recognition of Texas' large immigrantpopulation, Governor Ann Richards and the TexasLegislature created the Governor's Office ofImmigrant and Refugee Affairs (GOIRA) to developand coordinate programs and policy affecting thenewcomer population in Texas and to serve as thestate's primary resource on all newcomer issues.The agency's mission statement is "to understandand address the needs of the immigrant/refugeepopulation in Texas through policy development,distribution of public and private funds,coordination of services, and dissemination ofinformation; arid, to facilitate the self-sufficiencyand social integration of Texas' immigrant/refugeepopulation and to foster an understanding and

62

appreciation of the state's cultural diversity."GOIRA is the first legislatively sanctioned stateagency in the country dedicated to addressingimmigrant and refugee issues.

In St. Paul, Minn., former mayor Jim Scheibelcreated an Advisory Committee on Refugee Affairs.Southeast Asians are the largest minority group inSt. Paul, making up 7 percent of the population.The committee's "Report on Southeast Asian Familyand Youth Issues" found that more than 60 percentof all Southeast Asians and 70 percent of SoutheastAsian children live in poverty. The Hmong consti-tute 90 percent of the Southeast Asian population.Primarily a rural, seminomadic people, the Hmongface large cultural and educational barriers (awritten Hmong language has existed only since the1950s). Southeast Asians remain isolated from themainstream community, linguistically, culturally,and geographically. Southeast Asian families aresuffering from severe stresses to the family fabric.Immigrant children, because they adapt faster to thenew language and culture, become the inter-mediaries for the family, creating role reversalswhere parents and grandparents rely on thechildren.

Media Relations

The media affect how the broader communityunderstands newcomers and interacts withestablished residents; it is extremely important tohighlight the positive aspects of communities andnot just the crises. Community leaders complainthat the media often mistake long-term residents offoreign descent for new arrivals, and that storiesoften focus on conflict, not the development ofproblems and efforts to cooperate and solve them.Media coverage is criticized for contributing toxenophobia by focusing on negative aspects ofimmigration, catering to stereotyping, and reportingnone of the positive contributions of immigrants.

Bach notes that reporting tends to be episodic andcrisis-oriented and rarely emphasizes the positive.Immigrant advocacy organizations argue that themedia reinforce negative attitudes by regularlyassociating newcomers with increasing costs forpublic services (such as education, health care, andwelfare), high unemployment and job displacement,and community tension and conflict. The mediausually recognize a community's diversity only intimes of social conflict and tension, associatingdiversity solely with negative results. As ethnicgroups work together to solve some of these


problems, media coverage is notably absent, havingalready moved on to the next crisis. Newcomers'contributions, such as creation of small businessesand jobs, and values such as thrift, hard work, andself-sufficiency are rarely mentioned.

Los Angeles suffers from "communication segrega-tion," according to Ron Wakabayashi, leading todifferent perceptions of problems. More than 80different specialty presses exist in Los Angeles.Through the eyes of the Los Angeles Sentinel, you seea reflection of social history and a sense of injusticesuffered by African-Americans and an expectationthat the criminal justice system will not serve themfairly or treat them equitably. The Korea Timesreflects a story of immigrants, of long hours infamily operations, of the American dream. The rolefor policymakers is to help frame and defineproblems not as crises but as social histories andhow these histories intersect.

Wakabayashi notes that because of the vast numberof language groups, special populations, and media,it is difficult to develop adequate exchanges amongcommunicators, so that the media can get a broadview. This wider perspective is an importantfoundation for cooperation among groups.

The Communications Consortium Media Center is anonprofit organization that helps public interestgroups make targeted and efficient use of the mediaas a means of bringing about policy or socialchange. The consortium, in conjunction with theNational Immigration Forum, is conducting anImmigrant and Refugee Media Project. This projecthas assisted both advocates and policymakers inpromoting the positive contributions of immigrants.Topics included explaining how broadcast and printmedia work, focusing and targeting a message,writing press releases, improving relations withreporters, developing a media list, and other mediarelations techniques.

One way to counteract negative media portrayals ofimmigrants is press conferences or photoopportunities that feature local leaders who areimmigrants. Stories on family ties, respect forparents and grandparents, and a good work ethicalso can contribute to common understanding,demonstrating that values are shared by newcomersand residents alike. Policymakers can contribute togood community relations by working with theeditorial board of local newspapers to publicizesuccess stories. Some media are reaching out toimmigrant communities. For example, some of the

Houston media initiated community meetings todevelop cross-cultural programming for theirstation.

CONCLUSION

Americans traditionally have mixed feelings aboutimmigrants: pride in ethnic heritage versus fears ofjob displacement and competition for resources.The current political and social environment reflectsthat same ambivalence. Though some would statethat immigrants threaten the American social fabric,others argue that we can't afford to disenfranchise alarge proportion of the nation's legal residents.

Federal proposals in Congress this year wouldcurtail or bar access by certain classes of immigrantsfrom federal assistance, mainly as a source offinancing for welfare reform or for budget deficitreduction. These proposals contain the followingassumptions:

1. Federal program ineligibility will induceimmigrants (legal or not) to leave the country.

2, Federal assistance should not be extended toimmigrants even if they have a disablingaccident, suffer from domestic violence, orlack family or support networks.

3. A prohibition on federal benefits will requirefamily members to support their immigrantrelatives.

4. States and localities will continue providingservices to residents who continue to needthem, and they will tacitly accept and pay forthe shift in responsibility for immigrantservices.

However, an end to federal financial assistance fornewcomer services does not in any way mitigate thenewcomers' actual needs for services, or the stateand local responsibilities for public health andpublic safety.

Ultimately, immigration is about our communities:our families, our neighbors, our co-workers. Stateand local policymakers hold key roles in developingand maintaining strong community relations amongall residents. They provide leadership, promoteinclusion, develop special institutions, and in effect,act as stewards of immigrant policy. Policymakersand community leaders continue to discover newways of "building community from diversity" thatsupport our founding ideals of equal opportunityand individual freedom.

7

nily Relations and Ethnic Diversity 63

NOTES

1. Ellis Cose, A Nation of Strangers: Prejudice, Politicsand the Populating of America (New York, N.Y.: WilliamMorrow and Co., 1992), p. 23.

2. Lawrence Fuchs, The American Kaleidoscope: Race,Ethnicity, and the Civic Culture (Hanover, N.1-1.: UniversityPress of New England, 1990), p. 276.

3. Rita J. Simon, "Old Minorities, New Immigrants:Aspirations, Hopes, and Fears," The ANNALS of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science, November1993, p. 61.

4. Rita J. Simon and Susan H. Alexander, TheAmbivalent Welcome: Print Media, Public Opinion, andImmigration (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1993), see pp. 71,85, 127.

5. Simon, "Old Minorities, New Immigrants," p. 63.

6. Michael J. Mandel et al., "The Immigrants: HowThey're Helping to Revitalize the U.S. Economy," BusinessWeek, July 13, 1992, p. 114.

7. Tamar Lewin, "Study Points to IncreaseTolerance of Ethnicity," New York Times, January 8, 1992,p. Al2.

8. See Maria Enchategui, "immigration and theWages and Employment of Black Males," photocopied(Washington, D.C.: TI-?. Urban Institute, 1993); Eric S.Rothman and Thomas Espenshade, "Fiscal Impacts ofImmigration to the United States," Population Index 58,no. 3 (Fall 1992): 381-415; U.S. Department of Labor,The Effects of Immigration On the U.S. Economy and LaborMarket, Immigration Policy and Research, Report 1,(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,1989), pp. 179-184.

9. Michael Greenwood, testimony before the federalCommission on Immigration Reform, April 27, 1993;David S. North, testimony before the federal Commissionon Immigration Reform, April 27, 1993.

10. Michael Fix and Jeffrey Passel, "Immigrants andWelfare: New Myths, New Realities" (testimony beforethe House Ways and Means Subcommittee on HumanResources, November 15, 1993).

11. Gregory Defreitas, testimony before the federalCommission on Immigration Reform, April 27, 1993.

12. Simon and Alexander, The Ambivalent We/come, p.40.

64

13. Thomas Muller, Immigrants and the American City(New York, NY: New York University Press, 1993), p.165.

14. Mandel et al., "The Immigrants," p. 119.

15. "The Melting Pot," Christian Science Monitor,March 27, 1992.

16. Muller, Immigrants and the American City, p. 245.

17. Sam Fullwood III. "Children of New ArrivalsAvoid Melting Into the Mainstream," Los Angeles Times,September 8, 1993, p. A7.

18. Fuchs, The American Kaleidoscope, p. 276.

19. Robert Bach, Changing Relations: Newcomers andEstablished Residents in U.S. Communities (New York, N.Y.:The Ford Foundation, 1993), p. 20.

20. Alejandro Portes and Alex Stepick, City on theEdge: The Transformation of Miami (Berkeley, Calif.:University of California Press, 1993).

21. Portes and Stepick, City on the Edge.

22. Portes and Stepick, City on the Edge.

23. Fullwood, "Children of New Arrivals," p. A7.

24. Muller, Immigrants and the American City, p. 10.

25. John Higham, "The Goals of AmericanImmigration Policy: A Long-Term View" (testimonybefore the federal Commission on Immigration Reform,October 1, 1993).

26. Ngoan Le, presentation to the National Conferenceof State Legislatures' State-Federal Assembly Committeeon Human Services at the NCSL Annual Meeting inCincinnati, Ohio, July 28, 1992.

27. Mandel et al., "The Immigrants," p. 118.

28. Bach, Changing Relations, p. 20.

29. Fullwood, "Children of New Arrivals," p. A7.

30. Fuchs, The American Kaleidoscope, pp. 61-63.

31. Robert Bach, "Recrafting the Common Good:Immigrants and Community," The ANNALS of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science, November1993, p. 160.


32. Bach, Changing Relations, p. 48. 35. Deborah Sontag, "English as a PreciousLanguage," New York Times, August 29, 1993, p. 29.

33. Bach, Changing Relations, p. 70.

34. Robert Pear, "U.S. to Encourage Legal Immigrantsto Get Citizenship," New York Times, November 26, 1993,p. Al.

36. Michael Fix and Wendy Zimmermann, EducatingImmigrant Children: Chapter 1 in the Changing City(Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1993), p. 2.

REFERENCES

African Refugee Network (published by the EthiopianCommunity Development Council, Inc., Arlington,Va.) 3, no. 2 (September 1993): 1.

Bach, Robert. Changing Relations: Newcomers andEstablished Residents in U.S. Communities. New York,N.Y.: The Ford Foundation, 1993.

Cose, Ellis. A Nation of Strangers: Prejudice, Politics andthe Populating of America. New York: WilliamMorrow & Co., 1992.

Fix, Michael, and Wendy Zimmermann. EducatingImmigrant Children. Urban Institute Report 93-3.Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1993.

Fuchs, Lawrence H. The American Kaleidoscope: Race,Ethnicity, and the Civic Culture. Hanover, N.H.:University Press of New England, 1990.

"Miami a Unique Sociological Laboratory, Researcherson Immigration Find." Chronicle of Higher Education,September 1, 1993, pp. A7-11.

Muller, Thomas. Immigrants and the American City. ATwentieth Century Fund Book. New York: NewYork University Press, 1993.

New York City , Department of City Planning. TheNewest New Yorkers: An Analysis of Immigration IntoNew York City During the 1980s. DCP #92-16. June1992.

Community Rrlation,,mil came

San Diego. City Manager's Report, 6/23/92. Report#92-210. June 1992.

Simon, Rita J. "Old Minorities, New Immigrants:Aspirations, Hopes, and Fears." The ANNALS of theAmerican Academy of Political and Social Science,November 1993, pp. 61-73.

Simon, Rita J., and Susan H. Alexander. The AmbivalentWelcome: Print Media, Public Opinion, andImmigration. Westport, Conn.: Prager, 1993.

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Civil Rights IssuesFacing Asian Americans in the 1990s. Washington,D.C., February 1992.

U.S. Department of Justice. Immigration andNaturalization Service. Naturalization Requirementsand General Information. (Form N-17).

U.S. Department of Justice. Immigration andNaturalization Service. Statistical Yearbook of theImmigration and Naturalization Service, 1992.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,1993.

Waldrop, Judith. "The Newest Southerners." AmericanDemographics, October 1993, pp. 38-43.

7 3

65

5. FEDERAL RETRENCHMENT, STATE BURDEN:

DELIVERING TARGETED ASSISTANCE TO IMMIGRANTS

Wendy ZimmermannThe Urban Institute

The survey on which this paper is based was conducted jointly by theUrban Institute's Immigrant Policy Program and the AmericanPublic Welfare Association, as a member of the State and LocalCoalition on Immigration.

INTRODUCTION

A mismatch exists between the federal govern-ment's immigration policy, which is inclusive anddeliberate, and its immigrant policy, which islaissez-faire and ad hoc. Though the number ofimmigrants arriving in the United States isincreasing, the federal dollars aimed at helpingthem adjust to life in the United States aredecreasing. While the immigrant population islarge and diverse, federal policy is generally aimedat only selected groups of newcomers.

The 1990 census counted nearly 20 million foreign-born people living in the United States. Among the20 million are about one million refugees and2.6 million formerly undocumented immigrantswho legalized their status under the 1986Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).Although these two populations make up only afraction of the total foreign-born population, almostall of the targeted federal money that went to statesand localities during the 1980s to offset the costs ofnewcomers was aimed at these two groups.

These funds were provided under the RefugeeResettlement Program and State LegalizationImpact Assistance Grants (SLIAG), which can bethought of as two important pieces of thepatchwork of policies that make up the country'sfederal immigrant policy.' The Refugee Programprovides funds to state and local governments andto voluntary agencies to resettle refugees. SLIAGreimburses states for the costs of providing certainservices to immigrants who legalized their statusunder the Immigration Reform and Control Act of1986 (IRCA). In addition to providing funds forcash assistance and medical and social services,they have in many cases served as an impetus tostates to develop strategies for serving the largerand more diverse immigrant community.

66

Changes to the Refugee Program and SLIAGunderscore the mismatch between immigration andimmigrant policy. While the number of immigrantsand refugees is increasing, Refugee Programfunding is falling and the temporary SLIAGprogram is due to expire at the end of FY 1994. Atthe same time, the growing newcomer population isincreasingly in need of services, with more refugeesentering with little education and poor health in thelate 1980s compared with those entering in the early1980s. Shrinking federal funds, increasingimmigration and immigrants' rising need forservices have increased state and local govern-ments' costs. Frustration, in part over risingimmigration levels and declining federal support, isreflected in litigation brought against the federalgovernment by Arizona, California and Florida andin a planned suit by Texas.

To document the fiscal, programmatic andinstitutional impact on states of policy shifts withinthe Refugee Program and SLIAG, the UrbanInstitute and the American Public WelfareAssociation, as part of the State and Local Coalitionon Immigration, conducted a survey of RefugeeProgram and SLIAG coordinators.

The survey is part of an effort to help inform thelarger debate about the costs and benefits ofimmigrants. Data on state and local costs ofproviding services to immigrants are largelyunavailable. Where they are available, they aredifficult to collect through a survey. Theselimitations led us to focus the survey on the effectsof the Refugee Program and SLIAG, where webelieved some data would be available at the statelevel.'

This chapter presents the results of the survey andaddresses the following questions:

a. What state costs resulted from reducedRefugee Program funding and theimplementation of SLIAG?

b. What effects did changes in these programshave on the services provided to refugees andto immigrants who legalized under IRCA?

America's Newcomers

c. What impact have these two programs, andthe changes made to them, had on the states'institutional capacity to serve newcomers?

d. Finally, in light of national debate about thecosts of services to immigrants and thefederal role in paying for those services, whatdo we learn about the impacts of decliningfederal support for newcomers and about theway in which federal, state and local costsmight be shared?

Although this chapter concentrates on the impact oftwo specific immigrant-targeted programs, it raisesthe larger question of the federal government's rolein financing services for and investing inimmigrants. Our results suggest that shrinkingfederal investment in these populations does shiftsome costs to states and localities. Where states andlocalities have not replaced lost federal funds,services have often been reduced. This analysisalso indicates that declining federal dollars havereduced education and training for newcomers,which, in turn, may have restricted theiremployment opportunities.

In many states, the Refugee Program and SLIAGhave clearly left thP;- mark on both the public andprivate institution ipacity to serve immigrantsand refugees. The.. ,wo programs have served asan impetus for the creation of state-level offices toaddress the needs of newcomers in several states.Without the federal funding that has accompaniedthe two programs in the past, however, much of theexisting state institutional capacity is threatened.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE REFUGEE PROGRAM

I lie Refugee Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-212; 94 Stat. 102)defines refugees as persons who have "a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,religion, nationality, membership in a particularsocial group or political opinion." Because refugeesare fleeing persecution and are selected withoutregard to potential employment or the availabilityof family support, the U.S. government providesfinancial and other support to them for a limitedtime after their arrival. The Refugee ResettlementProgram, administered by the Office of RefugeeResettlement (ORR) in the Department of Healthand Human Services (HHS), provides funds forcash and medical assistance and social servicesaimed at helping refugees become self-sufficient.

' 0Federal Retrenchment, State Harden

The story of increasing numbers of newcomers anddecreasing federal support can be seen most starklyin the Refugee Program. Although the number ofrefugees admitted has more than doubled since theearly 1980sfrom 60,000 in 1983 to 122,000 in1993funding for the Refugee Program has beencut dramatically over the past decade. This hasresulted in reduced federal spending per refugeefalling from about $7,300 in 1982 to about $2,200 in1992, after adjusting for inflation (table 2). In FY1994, funding for the Refugee Program went upslightly and will likely remain level for FY 1995.

Under the Refugee Program as originally designedin 1980, the federal government paid 100 percent ofcash and medical assistance for refugees' first 36months after arrival. If refugees were eligible foi.Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC),Medicaid, or Supplemental Security Income (SSI),they received benefits under those programs, andthe federal government then reimbursed states andlocalities for 100 percent of their share (includingany state supplement to the federally funded SSIprogram)? For refugees who were not eligiblebecause they were not single parents or familieswith children but who were financially needy bystate standards, the federal government provided36 months of special refugee cash assistance (RCA)and refugee medical assistance (RMA).4 Since 1980,federal support for these two forms of assistancehad been gradually cut back, and beginning in 1991the federal government has provided noreimbursement for the nonfederal share of thecategorical programs and eight months of refugeecash and medical assistance (table 3).5

These reductions in Refugee Program funding havehad a number of effects on states and localities andon the refugees themselves. First, the reduction andeventual elimination of federal reimbursement forAFDC, Medicaid, SSI, and GA costs is a direct cost-shift: where previously the federal governmentpaid 100 percent of the program costs for servingrefugees, states and localities now pay the sameshare that they pay for other non-refugeeparticipants in these programs, or about half of thecosts. Second, the shift from 36 to eight months ofrefugee cash and medical assistance has alsoresulted in increased costs to states and localities tothe extent that refugees who no longer receiveRCA/RMA use other state or locally funded cash ormedical services.

67

Table 2Refugee Admissions and Refugee Resettlement Funding: 1980-1994

Fiscal year

Number ofrefugees

admitteda

Refugeeresettlement

funding($ millions)

Dollars perrefugee

Dollars perrefugee

(adjusted)'

Percentchange indollars per

refugee(adjusted)

Percentchange 1982

to 1992(adjusted)

19801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993

1994

207,116159,25297,35560,03670,60167,16760,55458,86576,733

106,538122,263113,582131,611107,887

121,000'

$516.9901.6689.7585.0541.8444.4315.8339.6346.9382.4389.8410.6410.6

381.5d400.0

$2,4965,6617,0849,7447,6746,6165,2155,7694,5213,5893,1883,6153,1203,127

3,306

$7,3419,7837,3866,1494,7585,0783,8222,8952.4392,6542,224

+17 9°k+33.3°/0-24.5%-16.7%-22.6%+6.7%-24.8%-24.3%-15.7%+8.8%

-16.2% -69.7%

a.

b.

d.e.

Includes Amerasians and their accompanying family members.Dollars per refugee are based on program fund: allocated and refugees admitted in that year.Adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), base 1982-84 = 100.This means that each dollar amount shown is expressed in terms of a weighted 1982-1983-1984 expenditure average and istherefore comparable over time. (Source: The Economic Report of the President, Table B-56, January 1993.)Congress gave ORR special al :Monty to use 1992 surplus funds for 1993, which are not included in this table.Admission ceiling.

Source: Office for Refugee Resettlement (ORR), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Table 3Reductions in Refugee Cash and Medical Assistance

Effectivedate

Funding periodCategorical Programs Special refugee cash and medical assistance

General Assistance (GA)reimbursement

Reimbursementnonfederal share RCA/RMA

4/1/80 36 months 36 months None4/1/82 36 months 18 months 18 months3/1/86 31 months 18 months 13 months2/1/88 24 months 18 months 6 months

10/1/88 12 months 12 months 12 months1/1/90 4 months (maximum) 12 months None1/1/91 None 12 months None

10/1/91 None 8 months None

Source: Joyce C. Vialet. "Refugee Admissions and RPseldement Policy." Congressional Research Service Issue Brief, March 3, 1992.


The size and character of the new cost burdenshifted to individual states varies depending on thesize of the state's refugee population, the generosityof the states' AFDC and Medicaid programs,participation in AFDC programs for unemployedparents, as well as the existence and generosity oftheir state and local assistance programs, such asGeneral Assistance. Where no alternative state orlocal services are available, funding reductions arenot borne by the public sector but by the refugeesthemselves.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF SLIAG

The State Legalization Impact Assistance Grant(SLIAG) was enacted as a political compromise tooffset some of the costs to states of the 2.6 millionpeople who legalized their status under IRCA andwho were barred from most services for five years.It was supposed to provide $4 billion inreimbursement, with $1 billion a year for four years,and three additional years to spend the full amount.A share of the funds, about $460 million, went tothe federal government to offset some of its costsfor providing certain services to eligible legalizedaliens (ELAs).

SLIAG was intended to benefit state and localgovernments by reimbursing them for the costs ofproviding certain public assistance, public healthand education services to ELAs. Since thelegalizing population was barred from most federalassistance programs, these funds would help offsetsome of the increased costs to states and localitiesresulting from ELAs' use of state or locally fundedservices. SLIAG was also meant to ensure thatELAs received basic health, welfare and educationservices, including the 40 hours of English andcivics instruction they needed in order to gainpermanent resident status under the legalizationprogram.' In addition, a small amount of fundscould be used to provide outreach to ELAs aboutthe steps necessary to complete legalization. Fundscould also be used to educate the public about theantidiscrimination provision in IRCA that prohibitsemployers from discriminating against jobapplicants who are foreign-looking or foreign-sounding.

Unlike Refugee Program funds, SLIAG funds havenot been cut, and after repeated delays andsuspensions Congress has appropriated the fullamount originally authorized by the Congress.Therefore, the cost-shifting issue does not apply to

Federal Retrenchnienl, Steer Harden

this program to the extent that it does to theRefugee Program. However, the administrativerequirements for establishing claims and the wayreimbursable costs were defined have limited theamount of reimbursement states and localities havereceived.

Congress recognized that the process of docu-menting and receiving reimbursement for costswould be a slow one for states and for that reasongave states seven years to use SLIAG funds.Nonetheless, Congress shifted $555 million of theFY 1990 appropriation into FY 1991, claiming thatthe slow pace at which states were drawing downtheir allocated funds indicated they would not needthe full $4 billion. In FY 1991 Congress shifted anadditional $567 million into FY 1992. Then in FY1992 the $1.12 billion that was to become availablethat year was shifted again to FY 1993. In FY 1993,$812 million of the money was deferred to FY 1994.Finally, in FY 1994, despite proposals to rescind it,the last installment of the SLIAG funds wasappropriated and made available to the states.

The program was designed to be temporary,intended to provide reimbursement to states forexisting health and welfare services for a fixedperiod of time. Therefore, the money that was usedto provide new educational services will soon nolonger be available.

Although the SLIAG funds finally have beenappropriated in full, the delays and threatenedrescission of some of those funds, as well as theRefugee Program reductions, have fueled strongstate complaints about federal funding for the costsof immigrants and refugee's. On January 31, 1993,for example, the governors of California, Florida,New York, Texas and Illinois sent a letter toPresident Clinton asking for reimbursement to thestates for the cost of providing services todocumented and undocumented immigrants andrefugees. These complaints are part of a broadernational debate about the costs and benefits ofimmigrants. That debate, in turn, has led tonumerous proposals to reduce benefits to legal andillegal immigrants and to several states' filing suitagainst the federal government for reimbursementfor services provided to undocumented immigrants.'The SLIAG and Refugee Program experiences mayoffer insights on how the federal government shouldor should not provide aid to offset the impact ofimmigration on states and localities.

69

CONCENTRATION OF IMMIGRANTS AND REFUGEES

Most immigrants and refugees live in only ahandful of states, which consequently bear adisproportionate part of the burdenand thebenefitsof resettling them. The settlement patternof refugees and ELAs is generally similar to that ofthe foreign-born population as a whole.

California receives more refugees than any otherstate-33,249 out of a total of 131,611 refugees whoarrived in FY 1992. or one-quarter of all refugeessettled in the Uniteci States that year. New Yorkalso receives a large share of all refugees-20 per-cent, or 26,601 in FY 1992. Illinois, Florida, Texas,and Washington each received between 5,000 and6,000 refugees in that year, bringing the share forthe top six states to about two-thirds. Another 17states received between 1,000 and 5,000 refugees, or30 percent of all refugees. The remaining 28 statesreceived 8 percent in FY 1992 (table 4).

The pattern of refugee resettlement in the UnitedStates has been consistent over time. Since 1983nearly 900,000 refugees have been resettled in theUnited States. About 30 percent of these refugeeslive in California, and about two-thirds live in sixstates: California, New York, Illinois, Florida,Texas, and Washington. (This distribution isadjusted for secondary migration, or themovement of refugees from the state of their initialresettlement to another state.)

This concentration is even more pronounced for thelegalized population. Out of the three millionapplicants for legalization under IRCA, more thanhalf, or 1.6 million, live in California, whilc only 5percent live in New York. Eighty-four percent ofELAs live in only five states: California, New York,Texas, Illinois, and Florida. Another 12 states havemore than 12,000 applicants each, making up closeto 12 percent of all applicants. The remaining 33states and the District of Columbia have only 4percent of all applicants (table 5).

It is important to remember that states with smallrefugee populations also may face difficultresettlement issues. They often do not have thecapacity to provide services to immigrants thatsome of the states with large flows of immigrantsand refugees have.

STUDY APPROACH

This report draws primarily on data collected froma survey of Refugee Program and SLIAGcoordinators, as well as background data collectedfrom the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement,which administers both the Refugee Program andSLIAG. Some data were collected from localities bystate coordinators.

The analysis is based on survey responses receivedfrom 40 states for the Refugee Program portionand from 33 states for the SLIAG portion. Theseresponse rates are fairly high: 78 percent ofRefugee Program coordinators and 82 percent ofSLIAG coordinators returned surveys (only 40states participate in SLIAG). For purposes ofanalysis, the states were divided into threecategories for each portion of the survey: states inwhich large numbers of refugees or ELAs aresettled, states in which moderate numbers havesettled, and states in which few have settled." Forthe Refugee Program survey five of the six states-vith heavy concentrations of refugees responded'11 but New York), 14 of the 17 mediumancentration states, and 21 of the 28 low

concentration states. Thus, states containing three-quarters of all refugees responded. For the SLIAGsurvey, four of the five heavy concentration statesresponded, 11 of the 12 medium concentrationstates, and 18 of 34 low concentration states. Thus,state containing 93 percent of all ELAs respondedto tl survey.

The surveys sent to the state coordinators weredesigned to collect both quantitative andqualitative information about the RefugeeProgram and SLIAG. One purpose of thesurveys was to document the costs to statesresulting from changes made to the RefugeeProgram and any nonreimbursed costs to statesfor serving the legalized population. A secondpurpose was to document the institutionalchanges associated with the programs' operationand the decline in support. The survey was alsointended to document the impact of theprograms on the offices that administered themand on the states' capacities to provide servicesto newcomers.

83

Table 4Refugee Arrivals by State: FY 1992

(Total number of refugees = 131,611)

States with a high concentration ofrefugees (>5,000; n=6)

States with a medium concentrationof refugees (>1,000; n=17)

States with a low concentration ofrefugees (<1,000; n=28)

# of # of # ofState refugees State refugees State refugees

California 33,249 Pennsylvania 4,222 North Carolina 887New York 26,601 Massachusetts 4,185 Louisiana 811Texas 5,918 Maryland 3,142 Iowa 808Washington 5,421 Georgia 3,124 Nebraska 791Florida 5,321 New Jersey 2,896 Kansas 700Illinois 5,083 Minnesota 2,754 Kentucky 640

Michigan 2,682 Utah 565Oregon 2,496 North Dakota 477Ohio 2,330 Rhode Island 448Missouri 2,065 New Mexico 389Virginia 1,987 Oklahoma 354Wisconsin 1,874 Indiana 350Arizona 1,520 Hawaii 336Tennessee 1,309 Alabama 311Connecticut 1,217 Nevada 305Colorado 1,135 Idaho 305Dist. of Columbia 1,110 South Dakota 278

Vermont 263New Hampshire 213Maine 157South Carolina 144Montana 88Alaska 81Arkansas 71

Delaware 64West Virginia 46Mississippi 44Wyoming 11

Total 81,593 Total 40,038 Total 9,93762% 30% 8%

Note: Those states in italics did not return 01? Refugee Program Survey and are therefore not included in the analysis in the text.Classification based on refugee and Amerasian arrivals in FY 1992. The total number of refugees listed by state does not add to 131,611because 43 refugees went to U.S territories or the state they arrived in was unknown.

Source: Office of Refugee Resettlement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Annual Report FY i992, p. A-4.

Llls.11TATIONS OF DATA

This study suffers from a limitation common tomany studies assessing the fiscal impact ofimmigrants: the limited availability of data on thecosts of providing services to newcomers. Manystates do not separately track refugees participatingin their public welfare programs; therefore, theycannot provide data to fully assess the fiscalimpacts of cutbacks in the Refugee Program. Costsincurred by states and localities but not reimbursed

Fedora( Retrenchment, Slate llurilen

under SLIAG were often not reimbursed becauseELAs were not tracked in certain services. In fact,several states reported that where ELA partici-pation was low, it was too costly to document theuse of those services by ELAs. Further, there isconsiderable variation in how states document theservices used by immigrants and refugees. Forexample, states document costs for different periodsof time; some track the number of times a service isused, others the number of people using a service.

81

71

Table 5Legalization Applicants by State: FY 1992

(Total number of applicants = 3,040,948)

States with a high concentration(>150,000; n=5)

States with a medium concentration(>12,000; n=12)

States with a low concentration(<12,000; n=34)

State # of ELAs State # of ELAs State # of ELAs

California 1,622,051Texas 449,197New York 174,189Illinois 160,419Florida 151,632

Arizona 82,898New Jersey 45,983Washington 37,924New Mexico 28,223Oregon 27,463Georgia 24,322Colorado 22,849Nevada 20,454Virginia 19,434Massachusetts 18,311North Carolina 16,989Maryland 12,536

Oklahoma 11,068Idaho 10,116

Pennsylvania 9,306Kansas 7,936Utah 7,447

Michigan 6,879Connecticut 6,355Dist. of Columbia 6,034Wisconsin 4,336Nebraska 3,678Indiana 3,588South Carolina 3,327Louisiana 3,019Rhode Island 2,960Ohio 2,872Arkansas 2,780

Iowa 2,560Tennessee 2,436Hawaii 2,393Missouri 2,224Minnesota 2,175Alabanza* 1,805Delaware* 1,312Wyoming 1,072Alaska* 781

Kentucky* 750

Mississippi* 713

New Hampshire 613

West Virginia* 404Maine* 288

Montana* 234

South Dakota* 125

Vermont* 64

North Dakota* 66

Total 2,577,48884%

Total 357,38612%

Total 111,7164%

Note: Those states in italics did not return tie survey and are therefore not included in the analysis in the text. Those states with anasterisk do not participate in SLIAG, usually because the state found it cost-ineffective to apply for reimbursement. Legalizationapplicants include those applying because they had been in the country for at least five years (I-687) and those applying under thespecial agricultural worker (1 -700) SAW provision.

Source: Provisional Legalization Application Statistics, Statistics Division, Office of Plans and Analysis, U.S. Immigration andNaturalization Service, Augu:.t 15, 1992.

For these reasons, this report does not try toestimate total immigrant and refugee costs for allstate and local governments.' Rather, it providesdata for selected states on the costs of providingcertain services to refugees and F.I.As.

72

This limitation points to the need for better andmore systematic documentation of the use ofservices by refugees and immigrants in order toassess their costs and benefits more completely inthe future.

Aincrica's Newcomers

STATE COSTS

More than half the states responding to the RefugeeProgram survey were unable to provide cost data,primarily because they did not track refugees in thewelfare system once the states were no longerreceiving reimbursement for the refugees' costs.Nineteen states reported specific costs for FY 1991for refugees in the country 36 months or less. Thosecosts represent annual state outlays that would nothave been made if the federal government hadcontinued to reimburse state and local governmentsfor the costs of providing AFDC, Medicaid, SSI andGeneral Assistance for 36 months as it did in 1980.They reflect, then, the state and local costsassociated with the federal government's retreatfrom its original funding commitment.

State costs vary significantly for a number ofreasons. These include differences in benefitprogram structures, payment levels, welfare usageand capacity to track or estimate costs.'' Althoughall states are required to have in place AFDCprograms for unemployed parents (AFDC-UP)under which poor, two-parent families can receivebenefits, some states, including Florida and Texas,have a limit on the time period during whichfamilies can r =eh.,e benefits. Further, paymentlevels vary significantly. California's AFDCprogram for unemployed parents paid an averageof $733 per family in FY 1992, compared with $382in Florida and $205 in Texas." Additionally, somestates have a General Assistance program whileothers do not, and the payment levels for thatprogram may also vary greatly. These variations ina state's benefit structure and payment levels,therefore, have a significant effect on the level ofcost-shifting to the states (table 6). Those stateswith time limits on the duration of AFDC-UPbenefits, with low payment levels and with noGeneral Assistance program are therefore likely toincur much lower cost-shifts than states with agenerous benefit program structure.

Further, there is wide variation in refugees' welfareparticipation rates. Census data indicate that in1990 about 17 percent of recent arrivals fromcountries sending large numbers of refugeesreceived public assistance. The equivalent share forCalifornia was 27 percent and for Texas 10 percent.New York, which did not respond to the survey,has a participation rate equal to the national rate: 17percent.'

retirral P,IITI1c11111011, Slate Iiita.t?

It is not entirely surprising, then, that Californiareported much higher costs than any other statean estimated $81 million in state and local AFDCcosts for FY 1994. California's high costs are due tothe state's large numaer of refugees, its highpayment levels, and its relatively high refugeewelfare use rates. The state of Washington reported$4.21 million in AFDC costs for FY 1991, far higherthan any other state except California. Totalreported AFDC costs are $87.5 million.

Fifteen states, including Washington, Illinois andFlorida, reported state and local Medicaid costs of$9.8 million, $3.6 million of it from Washington.Only seven states were able to report costs incurredunder the SSI state supplement. They totaled$822,355, with only one large state, Illinois,reporting costs for that program. Finally, six states,including Washington and Illinois, reportedincurring $9.6 million in cost-shifts under GeneralAssistance (table 7).

Florida reported comparatively low refugee costs of$584,607 under AFDC and Medicaid. These lowcosts probably are a result of its lower paymentrates and its lack of a state-wide General Assistanceprogram. Florida is currently suing the federalgovernment for reimbursement for the costs ofproviding services to undocumented immigrants,refugees and legal immigrants.

These cost-shifts for AFDC, Medicaid, SSI, andGeneral Assistance, total $107.7 million for onefiscal year, but only $26.7 million when California isnot included. This table should not be taken as anestimate of total cost-shifts to all states resultingfrom reduced Refugee Program funding since theseare annual estimated costs for only 19 states andsome programs. The costs incurred by New York,the state that receives the second largest number ofrefugees, are not included here.

When viewed over the long-term, these cost-shiftsare significant. Assuming that over the next fiveyears the number and type of refugees stay aboutthe same, these costs could add up to at least $500milliona significant rmount of money for thislimited number of states and programs.

Washington, for example, could incur close to $50million in costs over five years. If an increasingshare of refugees have little education and greaterhealth care needs, the costs could be higher. They

SG

73

Table 6Benefit Structures and Payment Levels of Selected States: FY 1992

State

California

Texas'

Florida'

Washington

Illinois

AFDC-11P1time-limitedeligibility

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

Average AFDC-UPpayment level

per family

$733

$205

$382

$557

$394

GeneralAssistance

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

GeneralAssistance

payment level

$510

$531

$367

1. The term AFDC-UP is an acronym for Aid to Families with Dependent Children/UnemployedParents. Time-limited eligibilitymeans that families are eligible for benefits for only a fixed period of time.

2 Selected counties in Texas have eme,gency programs to assist the poor or disabled.3. Florida has no statewide General Assistance program; Dade County has a program under which disabled persons are entitled to

benefits for a maximum of six consecutive months.

Sources. U. S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Owl-vim) of Entitlement Programs, 1993 Green Book, Jui) 7,1993; Marion Nichols, jon Dunlap, Scott Barkan, National General Assistance Survey, 1992.

may, however, be offset by a possible decline in the -number of refugee admissions. Further, though thesurvey collected data on only one year's costs, stateshave been incurring direct cost-shifts each yearsince 1982 when the federal government began toshorten the reimbursement period.

The survey results appear to be in line with a 1990analysis by the Oregon refugee coordinator whoestimated the cost-shitts to states resulting from thefederal reduction in the reimbursement period from24 to four months. That analysis estimated that inFY 1990 all states would absorb ;85 million in costsas a result of that reduction. Despite theincompleteness of the survey data used here, costestimates are higher probably because the reim-bursement period has since been eliminated andbecause the survey sought to estimate costs forrefugees here fewer than 36 months, not 24. Servicecosts have also increased some ;hat since theOregon study was conducted."

Coo-shifting under SLIAG has taken a differenttwist. Despite deferrals in the appropriations, thegiants have been fully funded. But the way inwhich states have been allocated funds underSLIAG will I :ve some states with shortages at theend of the program in FY 1994 and others withsurpluses. The formula for distributing SLIAGfunds was based partly on the number of ELAs andpartly on the costs of services in each state.Nonetheless, the actual costs of services in se,,e, alstates, including California, were higher than

anticipated. Those high-cost states spent more ontheir ELAs than they were allocated ' ;:is underthe formula.

ConAress has responded by allowing a one-timedistribution of "leftover" SLIAG dollars to those

states with approved costs that exceed their totalallocation." HHS expects the amount distributed tobe about $311 million:5 California, with an HHS-projected shortage of about $201 million, willbenefit most from this reallocation. New York,Minnesota, Washington, Rhode Island andWashington, D.C. are also expected to haveshortages and to receive funds. After thereimbursement is complete, HHS expects there tobe about $75 million unspent.'6 Some state officials,however, argue that there will be no SLIAG fundsleft over after the redistribution.

The real surprise in SLIAG, however, is that theremay be leftover funds at all. In a GAO studyconducted in 1991, states estima' d that $4.2 billionwould be needed to cover their costs, more than the$4 billion allocated under SLIAG 17 Part of thereason for the leftover funds lies in how theprogram was defined and implemented. Theseimplementation choices, in turn, reveal that therewere in fact some state costs that might have beenreimbursed but were not. Delays in gettingregulations written, spending deferrals and the wayallowable costs had to be documented led somestates to not seek or receive reimbursement forcertain services. A number of states with small ELA


7

Table 7State Reported Uncompensated Refugee Costs by Program: FY 1991

State/State GroupTotal

reported costs AFDC Medicaid SSI GA

TOTAL ALL STATES $107,700,924 $87,494,340 $9,775,940 $822,355 $9,608,289

Total 4 Large States 94,200,507 86,079,939 4,862,568 54,000 3,204,000

California' 81,000,000 81,000,000Washington* 8,881,900 4,212,900 3,565,000 1,104,000

Illinois* 3,734,000 700,000 880,000 54,000 2,100,000Florida 584,607 167,039 417,568

Total 6 Medium States 12,831,317 1,089,168 4,806,149 751,000 6,185,000.

Pennsylvania* 6,870,000 325,000 500,000 45,000 6,000,000

Colorado* 2,985,000 350,000 1,850,000 600,000 185,000New Jersey# 2,109,863 195,315 1,914,548Massachusetts# 546,454 108,853 391,601 46,000Arizona* 270,000 60,000 150,000 60,000Tenessee* 50,000 50,000

Total 9 Small States 669,100 325,233 107,223 17,355 219,289Hawaii 445,879 210,966 15,624 219,289Nebraska 100,958 55,149 44,078 1,731

North Carolina 58,978 14,630 44,348South Carolina* 25,194 9,639 15,555

Nevada" 16,202 16,202New Hampshire# 7,478 6,294 1,184Alabama 5,082 5,082Idaho' 5,070 3,012 2,058Louisiana 4,259 4,259 0

Note: Actual or estimated state and local costs for providing services to refugees who have been in the country for 36months or less as reported by states in the Urban Institute/APWA Survey.a. California's AFDC table is an estimate of its costs for FY 1994.b. Nevada's costs are for FY 1992.c. Idaho provided costs for refugees here less than 24 months.*These states provided estimated costs. Washinghn's Medicaid costs are estimated; its AFDC and GA costs are actualcosts.#These states provided costs for refugees here less than four, not 36, months.

populations chose not to participate in SLIAGbecause of the cost documentation requirements.

Only four states reported that they had submittedcosts for reimbursement that had been rejected byHHS. These states, Massachusetts, New Jersey,Louisiana and Pennsylvania, reported that they hada total of $1.2 million in costs that were rejected--afraction of the $3.2 billion that had been approvedunder SLIAG as of December 1993.''

Although few states reported rejected costs, manyclaimed that reimbursable costs had been definedtoo narrowly early on. They also reported that

HHS often did not approve their proposed method-ologies for calculating costs. States complained thatthere were disincentives to submitting costs thatmight be rejected because applications had to beaccepted in their entirety and disputed costs wouldhold up all reimbursement. Funding deferralsresulted in lower annual allocations for states,leading some (California, for example) to budgetand spend less money on adult education than theywould have had the funds not been deferred.

In addition to these barriers, states reported thatthere were allowable costs that simply could not bedocumented. In some cases, the providers did not

8Federal Rrtroti-lintent, State Pardo, 75

know about the availability of SLIAG funds: inothers, the administrative costs of documentingELAs' use of services were greater than the amountthat would have been reimbursed.

States also incurred costs for providing services toELAs that were not reimbursable under SLIAG.Texas, Florida, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania,Arizona, and Colorado reported a total of $24.45million in services for ELAs such as day care, food,shelter or child protective services that were notcovered under SLIAG. Because of incompletereporting, this is plainly a lower-bound estimate ofthe additional costs of serving ELAs.

GROWING NEEDS AND REDUCED SERVICES

The impact of reduced federal spending has beenfelt not only by state and local governments but bythe refugees themselves. As previously mentioned,refugees who are not eligible for AFDC andMedicaid may receive refugee cash and medicalassistance. Federal support for this refugeeassistance was cut from 36 months in 1980 to eightmonths in 1991. When the eight months are over,eligible refugees can usually get state or locallyfunded General Assistance or General Relief.However, where no such program exists, refugeesare left without assistance.

REDUCTIONS IN PUE3LIC ASSISTANCE

Although 42 states have some type of GeneralAssistance program, many are administered on acounty (versus state) level, so benefits vary fromlocality to locality in terms of eligibility criteria,amount nd duration of benefits.' California'sstatewide program offers a maximum monthlybenefit of $510 for a three-person family living inLos Angeles. Nearly all needy people who do notqualify for federally fund( d cash assistanceprograms are eligible. Texas, on the other hand,does not have a statewide program, but somecounties operate their own assistance programs. InHarris County, Texas, only the disabled andunemployed parents with children are eligible forbenefits which run to a maximum of $198 for afamily of three. Dade County, Ha., providesemergency assistance to disabled people for amaximum of six months (see table 6). thistype of program variation, in some ways it is notsurprising that refugee participation in publicassistance programs, and hen:e refugee cost,,,would be high in California. The survey provided

interesting anecdotal evidence of developmentswithin local refugee populations that may, at leastin part, be tied to the reduced availability of publicassistance to refugees. Both Texas and Virginiareported that teenagers dropped out of school tohelp support their families, and Texas reportedincreased crime among its refugee youth.

Some states may have public assistance programsfor which refugees are eligible, but services may notbe adapted to meet their linguistic and culturalneeds. Idaho, for example, reported that althoughthe state administers safety net programs, they arenot accessible to refugees.

REDUCTIONS IN LANGUAGE AND JOB TRAINING

Not only did federal cash and medical assistancefunding per refugee fall by 74 percent between 1984and 1992, social service spending fell by 60 percent(after accounting for inflation) from $950 to $509(table 8).'' Social service funds are used to orientrefugees to life in the United States and forlanguage and job training. As the period of cashand medical assistance has decreased and refugeeshave been pushed into early employment, somestates have had to offering language and jobtraining in order to pay for job placement services.Others have had to reduce the types of servicesprovided. The Kansas coordinator, for example,reported that employment training and ESL areprovided at the expense of social adjustment andnon-employment-related services.

As social service funds declined, refugees' need forservices was rising. Many refugees arriving in thelate 1980s had less education than those whoarrived earlier. For example, 33 percent of refugeesarriving between 1980 and 1984 had fewer thaneight years of education compared with 40 percentof those arriving between 1987 and 1990.Additionally, the share of refugees who werelimited English proficient (LEP) also rose during thedecade. Sixty-five percent of those arriving in theearly 1980s were LEP compared with 77 percent of..nose arriving in the late 19805.22

The survey revealed that of all social services, statesWere most likely to reduce English language train-ing. Eighteen out of 40 states (four with largenumbers, six with moderate numbers, and eightwith low numbers) reported either reducing thenumber of sites for or hours of language training,reducing the duration of services or eliminating

89


Table 8Refugee Program Funding by Type of Service: FY 1984 and FY 1992

Type of Service

1984 (70,601 refugees) 1992 (131,611 refugees)Percent

change indollars

per refugee(Adjusted)

Totalfunding/L000

Dollarsper

refugee'

Dollarsper

refugee(Adjusted)

Totalfunding(/1000)

Dollarsper

refugee

Dollarsper

refugee(Adjusted)

An services $541,897 $7,675 $7,387 $410,630 $3,120 $2,224 -69.9%

Cash andmedical assistance

357,127 5,058 4,869 232,477 1,766 1,259 -74.1%

Social services (,6,972 949 913 67,009 509 363 -60.3%

Preventn. e health 8,400 119 115 5,631 43 30 -73.4%

VOLAG matchinggrant program

4,000 57 55 39,036 297 211 287.7%

Targeted assistance 37,530 532 512 48,796' 371 264 -48.3%

Demonstration /specialprojects. discretionarysocial service allocations

1,213 31 30 12,476 95 68 124.0%

MAA grant program 3,279 46 45 3,467 26 19 -58.0%

Other" 22,412 317 306 1,739 13 9 -96.9%

Note: Adjusted for inflation using the Cot t-umer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), base 1982-84=100. This means that

each dollar amount shown is expressed in terms of a %eighted 1982-1983-1984 expenditure average and is therefore comparable overtime. (Source: The Economic Report of the President, Table B-56, January, 1993.)

a. Dollars per refugee are based on program funds allocated and refugees admitted in that year.h Includes 539,964,000 in targeted assistance funds available from the previous fiscal year.c. Includes $4,880,000 provided as targeted assistance under discretionary allocations as well as 543,916 provided under state

formula allocation.d. Programs such as Education Assistance for Children, Federal Administration, demonstration/special projects, privately

administered and Wilson/Fish projects.

Source: Office for Refugee Resettlement, U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Annual Report to Congress, FY 1984 and FY

1992.

language instruction altogether. Four of the fivestates with large numbers of refugeesCalifornia,Florida, Illinois and Texasreduced the languageservices provided to refugees. In fact, the onlysocial services that California reduced verelanguage services. Eight states, including Illinoisand Texas, reported eliminating languageinstruction to refugees.

These reductions in language services hove come ata time when many states, particularly those withlarge numbers of immigrants and refugees, havelarge and growing populations with limited Englishproficiency. For example, 4.5 million, or 15 percent,of California's population are LEP, and 1.7 millionpeople, or 10.4 percent of the population, in Texasare LEP (table 9).

rLi 0

Federal Rrtrrn luurnt, Chill. Burden 77

Table 9Limited English Proficiency (LEP) and Foreign-born Populations by State: 1990

StateTotal

PopulationLEP population Foreign-born population

Number % Total Number

All states 248,124,018 13,979,192 5.6% 19,724,04 2.9%

California 29,690,843 4,468,568 15.1 6,463,106 21.8New York 17,902,276 1,773,268 9.9 2,850,288 15.9Texas 16,869,020 1,749,944 10.4 1,511,090 9.0Florida 12,930,156 955,164 7.4 1,661,640 12.9Illinois 11,175,750 663,375 5.9 944,505 8.5New Jersey 7,578,909 597,506 7.9 975,247 12.9Massachusetts 6,009,744 332,449 5.5 566,878 9.4Pennsylvania 11,781,666 296,550 2.5 380,844 3.2Arizona 3,644,173 258,700 7.1 270,608 7.4Ohio 10,3("3,488 192,944 1.9 253,824 2.4Michigan 9,27t:,382 192,242 2.1 352,146 3.8Connecticut 3,278,282 187,810 5.7 280,630 8.6Washington 4,878,405 168,120 3.4 326,250 6.7New Mexico 1,500,360 163,620 10.9 88,635 5.9Virginia 6,086,985 155,700 2.6 310,365 5.1Maryland 4,580,100 142,590 3.1 309,120 6.7HawaiiLouisianaColorado

1,106,1264,186,9053,295,935

122,794114,540111,900

11.12.73.4

156 ,10081,405

142,335

14.11.94.3

Georgia 6,289,738 105,448 1.7 166,194 2.6Wisconsin 4,791,360 89,064 1.9 116,424 2.4Oregon 2,836,864 84,672 3.0 141,888 5.0North Carolina 6,605,970 84,630 1.3 114,675 1.7Indiana 5,429,520 80,928 1.5 82,336 1.5Minnesota 4,047,816 76,498 1.9 107,939 2.7Nevada 1,192,230 62,712 5.3 102,713 8.6Rhode Island 994,838 59,033 5.9 85,111 8.6Oklahoma 3,117,681 58,786 1.9 66,725 2.1Missouri 5,125,177 53,737 1.0 77,248 1.5Kansas 2,455,974 50,418 2.1 61,596 2.5Utah 1,716,762 45,492 2.6 61,370 3.6Tennessee 4,677,690 39,345 0.8 54,390 1.2South Carolina 3,488,295 37,875 1.1 51,450 1.5IowaAlabama

2,453,0943,975,536

35,44832,368

1.40.8

39 ,08145,696

1.61.1

Kentucky 3,462,858 27,288 0.8 29,232 0.8Maine 1,127,896 25,630 2.3 31,438 2.8Dist. of Columbia 597,744 25,584 4.3 52,848 8.8Mississippi 2,511,435 25,110 1.0 21,585 0.9Alaska 544,141 25,080 4.6 28,234 5.2New Hampshire 951,592 24,514 2.6 39,559 4.2Nebraska 1,535,793 21,483 1.4 26,061 1.7Idaho 1,002,820 20,740 2.1 28,660 2.9ArkansasWest Virginia

2,123,6761,397,718

20,53813,230

1.00.9

21 ,45614,652

1.01.0

South Dakota 695,640 11,304 1.6 7,992 1.1Montana 783,541 10,412 1.3 13 1.7Wyoming 459,216 8,8388 1.919 6,534 1.4North Dakoto 536,850 7,925 1.5 7,275 1.4Vermont 557,986 6,578 1.2 14,118 2.5Delaware 226,832 4,656 2.1 3,696 1.6Unidentifiable 4,245,230 56,044 1.3 77,189 1.8

Note: Limited English Proficiency is defined here as those people who speak a language other than English at home andwho report their Englkh language speaking ability as less than "very well."

Source: Census of Population and I lousing, 1990: Public Use Microdata I Sample, U.S., Bureau of the Census, 1992.


Reducing language services to newcomers canhave a significant effect on their earnings andemployment. Research has found that foreign-born workers who are fluent in English haveearnings that are 17 percent higher thancomparable workers.-' In addition, the Office ofRefugee Resettlement's annual survey of refugeesfound that those refugees who reported that theywere fluent in English were more likely to beworking than those who said they spoke English alittle or not at all. Fifty-two percent of refugeesspeaking English fluently were participating in thelabor force, versus 37 percent who spoke a littleEnglish and 8 percent who did not speak Englishat all!'

Refugees who lost language services providedthrough the Refugee Program may receive Englishas a Second Language (ESL) training through astate's adult education system, which in someplaces is already strained by large LEP populations.As Illinois' refugee coordinator put it, "ESL andskills training are now dependent on available slotsin mainstream programs." Although data onavailability of ESL are scarce, existing evidenceindicates that in places where newcomers areconcentrated, including Los Angeles and New YorkCity, waiting lists are often long!' At least threestates, Virginia, Massachusetts and Utah, thatreported reducing their language training, didreport waiting lists for ESL services in those states.Virginia reported, for example, that Arlington andFairfax County both had waiting lists; in FairfaxCounty 732 people were on the list, a significantnumber since the state provided ESL to 4,600people in 1991.2' Massachusetts reported waitinglists as long as two or three years.2'

Texas, however, reported that ESL was availablestatewide through local school districts' AdultEducation Programs; therefore the refugeeprogram's language service was deleted withouteliminating its availability. Where refugees are ableto get into state-run ESL classes, those classes areusually funded by a combination of federal andstate dollars. On a national level, states spendabout four dollars for every dollar spent by thefederal government. Some states spend more.California, for example, spends seven dollars forevery federal dollar spent.' It can be argued thatthe reduced federal support for social services,which pushes refugees from largely federallyfunded programs to mostly state-funded languageprograms, is a form of cost-shift.

Federal ketrenclimeoll, title Rtirdet,

Twice as many states reduced language trainingthan reduced job training or placement services-10states reported making some reduction in jobtraining and nine states reduced job placementservices (compared with 18 that reduced languagetraining). Of the states with large numbers ofrefugees, Illinois reduced both job placement andtraining, and Texas reduced only job training.States may have reduced language services moreoften than job services because of the RefugeeProgram's emphasis on getting refugees employedquickly. This focus on rapid employment can alsobe seen in staffing patterns. Illinois reportedincreasing its staffing for employment services torefugees in the United States fewer than 12 monthsand decreasing staffing for employment services forits longer-term, presumably more difficult toemploy, refugees.

Reduced employment services have also made itmore difficult to get refugees into good jobs.California, Maine and Massachusetts reported thatthe limited availability of social services meant thatthey have more refugees with poor English and jobskills who find it difficult to compete for jobs.Refugees often must take jobs with few or nobenefits, low wages and little opportunity formobility. With less job training support available,some refugees may remain on state or locallyfunded public assistance, imposing higher welfarecosts. The California refugee coordinator reported,"Declining federal funding for English, vocationaltraining, employment and other services means thatmany refugees will continue to go unserved. Insome counties no services can be provided at all.Poor English, job skills and education levels do notallow them to compete effectively for jobs.Therefore, it is anticipated that refugees will stay onAFDC longer." It is difficult, however, todisentangle these effects from the effects of aneconomy that has gotten worse and from the factthat more refugees have arrived with lower humancapital.

REDUCTIONS IN HEALTH SERVICES

More refugees are entering with health problems inthe late 1980s and early 1990s than in earlier years,but fewer resources are available to provide themwith medical care. The number, and share, ofrefugees from the former Soviet Union has grownfrom less than 1,000 in 1984 (1 percent of allrefugees) to more than 60,000 (46 percent) in 1992.24

Cl

79

Many of the Soviet refugees are older and often lesshealthy than other refugees. Many are alsoaccustomed to frequent use of health care, whichalso drives up costs.'" These trends are occurringwhile Refugee Program funds for preventive healthservices are declining. These funds dropped by 73percent (after inflation) between 1984 and 1992,from $119 to $43 per refugee, about the same rate atwhich cash and medical assistance fundingdropped.

As funding for preventive health services hasdeclined, some states have had to cut basic healthservices to refugees. Texas, Montana, Oklahoma,and Utah reduced immunizations to refugees,posing a risk not only to refugees but also to thepublic. California expanded its immunizations butrestricted initial health screenings (healthassessments conducted after arrival), fol!ow-upafter the health screening and other health services.

Seven other states, including Texas andWashington, also limited their health screenings torefugees. And 12 other low and mediumconcentration states reduced the extent to whichthey provided follow-up health care.

Some states reported that limited refugee medicalassistance has also resulted in increased use ofemergency services. Virginia's refugee coordinatorstated, "More refugees are arriving with healthproblems and after refugee medical assistanceexpires, refugees often use emergency roomfacilities for all medical care or do not get care."Texas reported that there has been "increased use[of emergency services] due to a lack of healthinsurance in entry-level jobs." Since emergencymedical services are generally more expensive todeliver than preventive services or those deliveredin a doctor's office, this too has resulted in increasedcosts.

Although state respondents were not able to trackthe costs of providing emergency services torefugees, cost-shifts occur here, too. Federal anti-dumping laws require hospitals to provide peoplewith emergencies with necessary stabilizingtreatment!' If costs are not paid for by Medicaid orRefugee Medical Assistance and the refugeesthemselves are not able to pay for the services, thenhospitals pass on uncompensated costs to otherprivate and public payers, including federal, stateand local governments. Thus, to the extent thatreduced refugee services have led to increased useof emergency services, this has also resulted

indirectly in a cost-shift to state and localgovernments.

Reduced funds have also resulted in cuts inbilingual health care staff and in mental healthservices. Georgia reported having to cut 25 percentof its bilingual staff since 1988. Illinois reportedcutting its mental health care staff in half, and Texasand Georgia also reduced mental health services torefugees.

MAINTAINING AND EXPANDING SOCIAL SERVICES

While reduced federal support led to fewer servicesin most states, a few states maintained or expandedservices despite decreased social service funding.In some cases other federal, state or local sources offunding were found to provide the services, whichcan be viewed as another form of cost-shifting. In afew cases, states developed innovative approachesto delivering services more cost-effectively.

Although 18 states reduced language services torefugees, 14 states expanded language training, and13 states expanded job training and placementservices. However, 13 out of the 14 states thatexpanded services did not have large numbers ofrefugees; hence, the funding required was not great.Washington was the only state with a large numberof refugees that expanded language services.Florida and Washington expanded job training andjob placement services, while Texas expanded onlyplacement services.

Expanded language and skills training may be tiedto reduced cash and medical assistance. Therefugee coordinator from Rhode Island reportedthat the state found it necessary to expand ESL,Vocational ESL and job placement services becausethe time available for finding refugees employmentwas limited.

Several states maintained or expanded servicessimply because they received increased RefugeeProgram funding. Maryland, for example, reportedthat its Refugee Program social service funding rosein proportion to its increasing number of refugees.Alabama, Colorado and Kentucky reportedreplacing declining social service funds with otherHFIS discretionary funds for refugees, such as JobLinks or Targeted Assistance.'

Other states replaced declining Refugee Programfunds with other federal or state funds. Maine

93Yp America's Newcomers

reported that refugees participated in aprevocational education program funded by afederal Carl D. Perkins grant. In Hawaii and NewMexico state dollars were provided for services.Hawaii reported finding ways to deliver ESLservices more cost-effectively. New Jersey andNevada reported improved coordination betweenmainstream and Refugee Program serviceproviders as refugee and adult education ESL werecombined.

Education provided under SLIAG alsorepresented an expansion in services. A largeportion of SLIAG funds was used to provide therequired English and civics instruction that thelegalizing population needed to adjust fromtemporary to permanent resident status. Thesefunds could be used not just to meet the skeletal 40hours of instruction that was mandated, but foradditional language instruction as well. In manystates these funds allowed for an expansion inlanguage services. However, it was available toonly a specific immigrant subpopulation, that is,ELAs. Overall, about $665 million, or about 21percent of all SLIAG funds spent, have gonetoward education, primarily English as a SecondLanguage (ESL).

SLIAG spending for this and other purposes,however, was designed to be temporary and whenit ends there will be a contraction in services. Infact, SLIAG funds dedicated to education havebeen declining in the later years of the program(table 10). In FY 1989 nearly $222 million, or 36percent of all SLIAG funds awarded in that year,

were spent on adult education. In FY 1992 thatamount decreased to only $75 million, or 11percent of SLIAG funds. California, for example,will no longer receive the nearly $50 million inSLIAG monies for adult education that it receivedin FY 1992.

At the same time, SLIAG-funded educationservices provided to the large legalizingpopulation appear to have induced a greaterdemand for language and other training withinthis population. Sixteen states-including Texas,Florida and Illinois-reported sustained demandfol. ESL beyond the 40-hour requirement. ThoughSLIAG stimulated increased institutional capacityto provide language services, funding to support ithas largely disappeared. Demand for languagetraining, however, has not disappeared and islikely to further strain state and locally fundedEnglish language classes.

THE LEGACY OF THE REFUGEE PROGRAM AND SLIAG

Our respondents generally agreed that theRefugee and SLIAG programs have createdsubstantial new institutional capacity to serveimmigrants and refugees at the state and locallevel. Though SLIAG was primarily areimbursement program, the state offices thatadministered the grants and the expansion ineducation services had the unintended effect ofhelping to create institutional capacity to serveimmigrants at the state level. In fact, 17 statesreported that at least some of the institutional

Table 10SLIAG Costs by Program: FY 1987-1993

($ millions)

YearPublic

assistance

Publichealth

assistanceEducation

K-12Adult

educationAnti-

discrimination OutreachSLIAG

administration TotalAll years S2,147.3 $270.9 $5.9 $662.5 $5.6 $7.0 $79.3 $3,178.41987 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .3 5.61988 171.1 32.0 2.2 26.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 237.81989 320.1 52.5 2.5 222.0 0.0 0.4 13.1 610.61990 416.0 56.2 0.9 195.8 0.3 1.3 18.0 688.61991 509.1 60.3 0.3 131.9 1.7 3.9 19.8 726.91992 528.6 55.1 0.0 74.7 2.3 1.3 17.1 679.11993* 202.3 9.5 0.0 12.1 1.3 0.1 4.6 229.8

`First half of year onlySource; Division of State Legalization Assistance, U.S. Department of Health and Human SETO CeS.

9.1federal Retrenchment, State Burden

81

capacity to serve immigrants established withSLIAG support is likely to remain in place. Thisexpanded capacity includes more teachers andorganizations able to deliver language and jobtraining services, new training curricula andmaterials and indiv'.duals in state bureaucraciescommitted to serving newcomers.

Although SLIAG funding for education services isdue to expire, a proposal was introduced inCongress in the fall of 1993 (H.R. 3495 and 5.1407)to use possible surplus SLIAG funds foreducational services (i.e. ESL) and for outreachregarding naturalization and citizenship. Theseare the funds th-.( may remain after the initialsurplus has been redistributed to reimburse statesfor costs that were not covered in their originalallocation. The bill provides Sol million for statesbased on their number of ELAs. Services wouldbe provided only to the legalized population thatwould remain eligible until FY 1997. Thisextension would also turn SLIAG into a ten yearprogram. Although the first priority for SLIAGfunds should be full reimbursement of servicecosts, this proposal would ensure that if funds areleft over, they would go toward helping tomaintain, at least for a short while, some of thecapacity to provide services that was createdunder SLIAG.

Beyond the field of education, the RefugeeProgram and SLIAC have helped in other ways tocreate state and local institutional capacity to servenewcomers. First, and perhaps most important,several states have turned their Refugee andSLIAG administrative programs into state-leveloffices aimed at addressing the needs ofnewcomers more generally. These includeMassachusetts, Texas, Maryland and Virginia.Other states, though not creating state-leveloffices, broadened the scope of their activities tobetter address the needs of the entire immigrantpopulation. New Jersey, Nevada, North Carolina,and South Carolina used these programs tocoordinate with mainstream service providers andmake them more accessible to refugees andimmigrants. Idaho provides an interestingexample of how these two programs helped raiseawareness of other immigrant issues at the statelevel. It reported that it planned to use state fundsto start an Immigrant Family Counseling Program.

Second, the Refugee Program helped create andsupport community based organizations, such asmutual assistance associations that provided

refugees with employment related services andhelped them to integrate into the community.Many of thes private organizations have then usedother sourer of funds to serve the immigrantpopulation more broadly. Finally, through SLIAGand the Refugee Program, networks of serviceproviders have been created, and those providershave learned more about the demands of thenewcomer population.

The loss of staff members who have acted asadvocates for immigrants and refugees, however, islikely to affect states' ability to broadly serveimmigrants. This is especially true in states withsmaller immigrant populations where there arefewer state and local officials paying attention totheir specific needs. With regard to languageservices, South Carolina's SLIAG coordinatorreported, "We expect that the lack of an advocatefor constant evaluation of the need for adulteducation services to non-English speakers willcause a reduction in services." When asked aboutthe combined effect of reductions in RefugeeProgram funding and termination of SLIAG, theTexas coordinator reported, "The state may moveinto a more passive, reactive mode, rather thanaddressing programs and policy affecting theimmigrant/refugee population and the state in apro-active, comprehensive manner."

States and localities have absorbed some of thecosts that the Refugee Program and SLIAG will nolonger pay for and in some cases have been able toexpand services. However, most states' ability tomaintain the level of services provided under thesetwo programs is very limited, particularly in lightof the troubled fiscal. climate in many states. Forexample, Colorado said that it recently passed anamendment that limits state taxes and expenditures,precluding any possibility of replacing lost federalrefugee and SLIAG money with state funds.

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY REFORM

National debate about the costs and behefits ofimmigration has escalated, bringing immigration tothe forefront of policy discussions. This debate hasled to proposals to bar immigrants from receivingwelfare and to demands from state governments forfederal reimbursement of the costs of servingimmigrants. In light of these developments, thetype of impacts that have resulted from reducedRefugee Program funding as well as the lessons

America's Newcomers

learned here regarding impact aid to states andlocalities warrant attention.

As seen in the Refugee Program, when the period ofavailability of federal refugee cash and medicalassistance was reduced, refugees turned to stateand locally funded services such as GeneralAssistance. Where refugees were not able to getstate and locally funded services, they bore thebrunt of the reductions. We also saw that reducedhealth services resulted in increased use ofemergency services. These services are often moreexpensive to deliver than preventive or primarycare and are paid for partly by states and localities.

Census data reveal that although refugees havehigh welfare usage rates soon after their arrival,their use of welfare declines over the long term. Atthe same time, other immigrants have low welfareusage rates soon after arrival but their rates increaseover the long term." To some extent this differenceis explained by the fact that efugees are providedspecial assistance upon arrival while otherimmigrants are effectively barred from receivingpublic assistance for several years after arrival.Nonetheless, these trends may indicate thatinvestment in refugees soon after they arrivethrough job and language training may pay off inthe long run as shown by their declining welfareusage rates.

State efforts to seek reimbursement for immigrants'costs, as well as proposals to restrict immigrantwelfare eligibility, raise questions about the federalrole in paying for immigrant costs. Changes infederal welfare eligibility may not affect immigranteligibility for state and local services." Therefore,the proposed changes to restrict immigranteligibility for federal benefits are likely to drive upuse of state and local benefits, as seen with theRefugee Program. Those states with a generousbenefit structure will incur greater costs than thosewithout. Further, other research has found that thefederal government receives more in taxes fromimmigrants than it pays out in services. But thereverse is true for many states and almost alllocalities." These findings point to consideration ofnew federal strategies to offset state and local costsof immigrants.

In determining whether and how to offset costs,several issues must be considered, including forwhich immigrants and costs reimbursement iswarranted and how to design the reimbursement orimpact aid. SLIAG provides perhaps the most

Federal Retrenchment, Slate Runlet'

relevant example of such an impact aid grant tostates!' SLIAG was successful at getting federalfunds to state and local governments to offsetcertain costs. But SLIAG's design as a reimburse-ment program with burdensome documentationrequirements made it difficult for states andlocalities to receive all the allotted funds. Theserequirements also resulted in a large share of theSLIAG funds paying for administrative efforts andnot for services. Further, it is important to note thatdocun nting services used by immigrants isparticularly difficult because not all state and localprograms screen for immigration status.

SLIAG provided a number of other lessons relevantto how impact aid funds might be distributed. Theprogram's strict rules for not allowing funds to goto new services (with the exception of educationand antidiscrimination outreach) chilled potentialinnovation in service delivery. Such innovationmight help states and localities adapt their servicesto better meet the needs of the changin,, immigrantpopulation. Further, the SLIAG experiencesuggests that flexibility in the funding formula forimpact aid is necessary to accommodate changes inthe immigrant population and in the casts ofproviding services. Finally, any potential futureimpact aid program could build on the public andprivate institutional capacity to serve newcomerscreated under the Refugee Program and SLIAG.

CONCLUSION

The Refugee Program and SLIAG have had animportant effect on many states' capacity to servenewcomers. For some states they have been theimpetus for the creation of state-level offices aimedat serving all newcomers. The programs have alsohelped state and local governments furtherunderstand the demand for services amongnewcomer populations, create networks ofproviders and, to some extent, make theirmainstream institutions more accessible tonewcomers' needs. They have also made importantinvestments in non-governmental organizationsthat serve immigrants.

Decreased Refugee Program funding has shiftedcosts to states and localities, particularly those withlarge numbers of refugees and high costs ofproviding services. Because states do not all trackthe participation of refugees in public assistanceprograms, it is impossible to know the exact cost-shifts resulting from the Refugee Program reduc-

96 83

tions. California, the state with the largestdocumented costs, estimates its AFDC expendituresfor refugees in the country less than three years at$81 million for FY 1994. Washington reported atotal of $8.8 million in costs for AFDC, Medicaidand General Assistance for FY 1991. Florida,another state with large numbers of refugees,reported only $585,000 in costs for AFDC andMedicaid in that year. These results suggest thatreductions in Refugee Program funding haveresulted in significant cost-shifts to some states,particularly when viewed over the long term asannual costs are compounded. They also point tothe need for better tracking of the costs of providingservices to refugees and immigrants in order tobetter assess the impact of these populations on thepublic coffers.

Declining Refugee Program funds have resulted inreduced public assistance, social services, andhealth services in many states. Though a few states,primarily those with smaller refugee populations,have been able to maintain or expand some socialservices, these services are limited in the extent towhich they can fully meet newcomers' basic healthand educational needs.

States were more likely to cut language servicesthan any other type of social service. These cuts

84

have come at a time when growing limited Englishproficient populations are in many states strainingpublic resources for language instruction. Whererefugees do get language instruction through thefederal-state funded adult education system, costsare again being shifted to states.

Despite the deferrals of SLIAG funding, all of thepromised funds appear likely to go to the states.However, burdensome federal documentation re-quirements led some states to simply absorb costsrather than ark for reimbursement. In a few in-stances, states were unable to meet documentationstandards, resulting in some unreimbursed costs.

Finally, the Refugee Program and SLIAG providesome insights on the current debate about the costsof providing services to newcomers and the federalgovernment's shrinking role in paying for thoseservices. Proposals to cut immigrants off federalwelfare would likely result in greater use of stateand local services. These proposals, as well asrecent lawsuits brought by several states requestingreimbursement for the costs of immigrants,underscore both the mismatch betweenimmigration policy and immigrant policy and theneed for more comprehensive thinking about whitthe country's federal immigrant policy should loot.like.

7

America's Newcomers

NOTES

1. For a broader discussion of federal immigrantpolicy see Michael Fix and Wendy Zimmermann, AfterArrival: An Overview of Federal Immigrant Policy in theUnited States, The Urban Institute, July 1993. For ananalysis of state level immigrant policy see WendyZimmermann and Michael Fix, Immigrant Policy in theStates: A Wavering Welcome, The Urban Institute, July1993.

2. We also learned from the experiences of theMaryland Office for New Americans and the OregonState Refugee Office, which conducted statewide surveysto collect data on the services provided to newcomers.While these surveys yielded some interestinginformation from the states, it was clear that fewprograms collected reliable data on the use of services byimmigrants and, therefore, such a survey on a nationallevel would not be fruitful.

3. The federal government usually pays about halfthe costs of AFDC and Medicaid, but the exact amountvaries by state. For example, the federal governmentpays 64 percent of Texas' AFDC costs versus 50 percentof California's.

4. Beginning in 1982 RCA/RMA was available foronly 18 months, but the cost of providing assistance torefugees under a state or local General Assistanceprogram, if available, was fully reimbursed for thesubsequent 18 months.

5. The inclusion of two-parent families with childrenin the AFDC Unemployed Parent Program has meantthat more refugees qualify for that program and fewerrefugees receive payments from the federal refugee cashand medical assistance program.

6. See Lin C. Liu, IRCA's State Legalization ImpactAssistance Grants (SLIAG): Early Implementation, RANDNote, N-3270-FF, Santa Monica, Calif: RAND, 1991.

7. Immigrants' eitibility for the SSI program, whichprovides assistance ao the elderly, blind and disabled,was limited by recent le- ..lation. The deeming periodfor SSI, or the time dur ig which an immigrant'ssponsor's income is dE :Tr ad to be that of the immigrantfor purposes of eligib: .y, was extended from three tofive years until 1996. The Clinton welfare reform planwould limit immigrant eligibility by extending thedeeming period from 3 to 5 years for AFDC and FoodStamps and would make the extension for SSIpermanent. In addition, the Republican welfare reformbill, H.R. 3500, proposed much broader restrictions,making all non-citizens ineligible for most publicassistance except for refugees who would be eligible forsix years after becoming permanent residents andimmigrants over age 75 who have been legal residents

Federal Retrenchment, State Burden

for at least five years. Suits have been filed by Florida forthe costs of providing a range of services to legal andundocumented immigrants, Chiles v. U.S., No. 94-(S.D. Fla.)(filed Apr. 11, 1994); by California for the costsof incarcerating and providing health care services toundocumented immigrants, California v. U.S. No.940674K(CM)(S.D. Cal.)(filed Apr. 29, 1994), California v.U.S., No. 94-3561LGB(MCX)(C.D.Cal.)(filed May 3, 1994),and by Arizona for the costs of incarceratingundocumented immigrants Arizona v. U.S., No. DIV 94-0866PHXSMM (D.Ariz.)(filed May 2, 1994).

8. For the Refugee Program survey the threecategories are: states that received over 5,000 refugees inFY 92; states that received between 1,000 and 5,000 andstates that received under 1,000. For analysis of theSLIAG portion of the survey the three categories are:states that had more than 150,000 legalization applicants(including those who had been in the country for at leastfive years [pre-82s] and those who legalized under thespecial agricultural worker provision [SAWs]); states thathad between 12,000 and 150,000; states that had fewerthan 12,000. While it should be remembered that othergroupings would also be of interest, these categories arein line with the numbers of refugees received by statesover the past dec ade.

9. For an analysis of the costs and revenues ofimmigrants in one locality, see Clark, Rebecca and JeffreyPassel, How Much Do Immigrants Pay in Taxes? Evidencefrom Los Angeles County, Washington, D.C.: The UrbanInstitute, PRIP-UI-26, August 1993.

10. The report is based on costs as they werereported by the state Refugee Program coordinators;therefore, these costs are only as accurate as the actual orestimated costs that they have provided.

11. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee onWays and Means, Overview of Entitlement Programs: 1993Green Book, July 7, 1993, pp. 683-84.

12. These tables do not reflect actual refugee welfarerates. Rather, they are estimates of refugee welfareparticipation based on 1990 census counts of thosearriving after 1986, who reported using public assistanceand who were born in the major refugee-sendingcountries: Albania, Poland, Romania, USSR, Afghanistan,Cambodia, Iraq, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba and Ethiopia.

13. Ron Spendal, Oregon's refugee coordinator,estimated the state-by-state cost-shifts by using FY 1988costs and adjusting for changes in refugee arrivalnumbers and changes in state costs. His study estimatedcost-shifts to states for FY 1990 at $85,346,739.

9385

14. (Pub. L. No. 102-394, 106 Stat. 1792) amendingIRCA Sect. 204(b)(4), reported in Interpreter Releases,October 26,1992.

15. Data from the Office of Refugee Resettlement,U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, January14, 1993.

27. Not all refugee coordinators knew whether therewere waiting lists for ESL in their state. For this reason,we cannot report a complete list of states with waitinglists.

28. Chisman, Spruck Wrigley, Ewen, 1993.

29. Office of Refugee Resettlement, U.S. Department16. Ibid. of Health and Human Services, Annual Report: FY 1992,

Washington, D.C., 1992, p. A-3.17. U.S. General Accounting Office, Funding for State

Legalization Impact Assistance Grants Program, GAO/HRD-91-109, Washington, D.C., May 1991.

18. About three-quarters of the rejected costs werefor medical assistance and most of the rest was for cashassistance.

19. See Marion Nichols, Jon Dunlap, Scott Barkan,National General Assistance Survey, 1992, Washington,D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and theNational Conference of State Legislatures, December1992.

20. Ibid.

21. These calculations are based on the number ofrefugees arriving in a year and federal Refugee Programobligations for the same year. They do not necessarilycorrespond to the number of refugees using thoseservices in that year.

22. U.S. Census, PUMS, 1990. Because the censusdoes not identify refugees we used foreign-born personsfrom countries that sent large numbers of refugees overthe decade as a proxy for refugees. These countries areAlbania, Poland, Romania, USSR, Afghanistan,Cambodia, Iraq, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba and Ethiopia.

23. Chiswick, Barry R. and Paul W. Miller,"La: guage in the Immigrant Labor Market," Immigration,Language and Ethnicity, edited by Barry R. Chiswick,Washington, D.C.: The American Enterprise InstitutePress, 1992, p. 264.

24. Office of Refugee Resettlement, U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services, Annual Report FY 1992, p.55.

25. Forrest P. Chisman, Heide Spruck Wrigley,Danielle T. Ewen, "ESL and the American Dream: AReport on an Investigation of English as a SecondLanguage Service for Adults," Southport Institute forPolicy Analysis, 1993.

26. U.S. Department of Education, Division of AdultEducation and Literacy, Adult Education Delivery SystemTrends: Program Year 1990-1991, April 1993.

86

30. Wendy Zimmermann and Michael Fix,Immigtant Policy in the States: A Wavering Welcome, TheUrban Institute, July 1993.

31. The federal anti-dumping statute is designed toprevent hospitals from transferring or dischargingpeople in need of emergent' care because they lackprivate health insurance. 42 U.S.C. Sect. 1395dd. Manystates also have similar anti-dumping laws. See MicheleMelden, Michaei Parks, and Laura Rosenthal, "HealthCare Rights of the Poor: An Introduction," ClearinghouseReview, November 1991, pp. 896-903.

32. In FY 1992 ORR awarded $3.56 million to 30states under the Job Links discretionary program. Thesefunds are intended to provide supplementary socialservice funding to link employable refugees with jobs incommunities that have good economic opportunities.ORR awarded $48.8 million for targeted assistance foremployment and other services for refugees in local areaswith unusually large refugee populations, highlyconcentrated refugee populations and with high use ofpublic assistance. Of the total, $19 million was speciallyearmarked for Florida to provide health care to refugeesat Jackson Memorial Hospital and to help support thecosts of educating refugee children in the Dade Countypublic school system.

33. Michael Fix and Jeffrey Passel with MariaEnchautegui and Wendy Zimmermann, Immigration andImmigrants: Setting the Record Straight, The UrbanInstitute, May 1994; and Frrnk D. Bean, Kyung Tae Park,Jennifer V.W. Van Hook, Jennifer Glick, WelfareRecipiency Among Immigrants: Implications for U.S.Immigrant Policy, Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute,January 1994.

34. Two provisions in current law act to deter recentimmigrants from applying for and receiving federalwelfare benefits. The first is the deeming provision,under which the income of an immigrant's sponsor is"deemed" to also be the income of the immigrant forpurposes of eligibility for the first three years ofresidence. Second, an immigrant who is found to be a"public charge" in the first five years of residence may bedeported.

35. However, the Clinton welfare reform planproposes to allow states to disqualify from their General


Assistance programs any legal immigrants ineligible forfederal benefits. "Work and Responsibility Act of 1994,"

FIR4605 /S2224.

36 Fix, Passel, et al, 1994.

Another impact assistance grant targeted toimmigrants is provided under the Emergency ImmigrantEducation Act (DEA). EIEA funds, budgeted at about$35 million for FY 1995, are distributed to school districtsbased on the number of children in the district who havebeen in the country three years or less.

REFERENCES

Bean, Frank D., Kyung Tae Park, Jennifer V.W. VanHook. Jennifer Glick. "Welfare Recipiency AmongImmigrants: Implications for U.S. Immigrant Policy."Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, January1994.

Chisman, Forrest P., Heide Spruck Wrigley, Danielle T.Ewen. "ESL and the American Dream: A Report onan Investigation of English as a Second LanguageService for Adults." Washington, D.C.: SouthportInstitute for Policy Analysis, 1993.

Chiswick, Barry R. and Paul W. Miller, "Language in theImmigrant Labor Market." Immigration, Languageand Ethnicity, ed. Barry R. Chiswick. Washington,D.C.: The American Enterprise Institute Press, 1992.

Clark, Rebecca and Jeffrey Passel. "How Much doImmigrants Pay in Taxes? Evidence from LosAngeles County." Washington, D.C.: The UrbanInstitute, PRIP-UI-26, August 1993.

Fix, Michael, Jeffrey Passel with Maria Enchautegui andWendy Zimmermann. Immigration and Immigrants:Setting the Record Straight. Washington, D.C.: TheUrban Institute, May 1994.

Fix, Michael; and Wendy Zimmermann. "After Arrival:An Overview of Federal Immigrant Policy in theUnited States." Washington, D.C.: The UrbanInstitute, July 1993.

Liu, Lin C. "IRCA's State Legalization Impact AssistanceGrants (SLIAG): Early Implementation." '' QN DNote, N-3270-FF, RAND: Santa Monica, CA, 1991.

Marzahl, David. "The Immigration Reform and ControlAct Revisited: The Role of Education in theLegalization Program in Illinois." Travelers andImmigrants Aid of Chicago and The ChicagoCoalition for Immigrant and Refugee Protection,August 1990.

Melden, Michele, Michael Parks, and Laura Rosenthal."Health Care Rights of the Poor: An Introduction."Clearinghouse Review, November 1991.

Federal Retrenchment, State Burden

Nichols, Marion, Jon Dunlap, Scott Barkan. "NationalGeneral Assistance Survey, 1992." Washington,D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and theNational Conference of State Legislatures, December

1992.

Parker, Theresa. Testimony presented to theSubcommittee on Human Resources of theCommittee on Ways and Means, November 15, 1993.

Spendal, Ron. Letter on state refugee costs, Oregon StateRefugee Coordinator, Adult and Family ServicesDivision, Oregon Department of Human Resources,January 11, 1990.

U.S. Department of Education, Division of AdultEducation and Literacy. "Adult Education DeliverySystem Trends: Program Year 1990-1991." April1993.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office ofRefugee Resettlement. "Annual Report FY 1992."1992.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office ofRefugee Resettlement. "Annual Report FY 1994."1994.

U.S. General Accounting Office. "Funding for StateLegalization Impact Assistance Grants Program."GAO/HRD-91-109, May 1991.

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways andMeans. "Overview of Entitlement Programs: 1993Green Book." July 7, 1993.

Vialet, Joyce C. "Refugee Admissions and ResettlementPolicy." Congressional Research Service Issue Brief,March 3, 1992.

Wilson, Pete. "Governor's Budget 1993-94: FromAdversity to Opportunity." California, January 1993.

Zimmermann, Wendy and Michael Fix. "ImmigrantPolicy in the States: A Wavering Welcome."Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, July 1993.

10087

APPENDIX A

CHRONOLOGY OF IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION

1920s A ceiling was placed on most immigration, and a per-country quota was established based on thenational origin of the U.S. population in the 1910 census.

1952 The Immigration and Nationality Act, P.L. 82-414 (also known as the McCarran-Walter Act) wasthe first codification of immigration and nationality law and is still the basic code. It set a ceiling of150,000 for non-Western hemisphere countries and established a preference system for distributingvisas within each country's allotment (favoring highly skilled workers). Regarding refugees,Section 212(d) (5)) empowered the U.S. Attorney General to admit for up to two years any personwhose admission would be in the American interest. Originally meant for emergencies (medicaltreatment), it has been broadly interpreted to permit mass admission of refugees.

1965 The Immigration Act of 1965 ended the national origins quota system and added a newpreference system oriented toward family reunification. Innovations in the act were a ceiling onvisas for immigration from the Western hemisphere at 120,000, 170,000 for all other countries, andno more than 20,000 from one country. Also, all nonrelative and nonrefugee immigrants wererequired to obtain a labor clearance certifying that American workers were not available andimmigrants would not lower prevailing wages and working conditions. The act also established apreference for refugees, which was limited to people fleeing from a communist-dominated countryor the Middle East.

1978 The two ceilings for immigrants from "Western hemisphere" and "other country" were combinedinto a single annual ceiling of 290,000 visas.

1980 The Refugee Act, P.L. 96-212, brought the definition of refugee into conformity with theinternational definition; it dropped the seventh preference that had been established for refugeesand reduced the worldwide quota to 270,000. Refugee admissions were separated fromimmigration and organized as a separate process. Refugees became entitled to certain federallyreimbursable social and medical services (the length of reimbursement has decreased from 36 toeight months for special refugee assistance, and from 36 to 0 months for categorical programs).Appropriations were authorized for three years. Also, 5,000 asylees a year were allowed to adjusttheir status from asylee to permanent resident. The President, in consultation with Congress, setsadmission levels for refugees (125,000 for FY 1990); there are six priority levels for determiningwho may enter.

1982 Refugee Assistance Amendments, P.L. 97-363, extended authorization of appropriations forrefugee assistance and domestic resettlement for one year (FY 1983). (FY 1984 and FY 1985 wereauthorized through continuing resolutions.)

1986 Refugee Assistance Extension Act, P.L. 99-605, extended funding for two years for domesticresettlement activities under the Refugee Act of 1980 (FY 1986 and FY 1987). The appropriationsincluded $100 million for social services; $50 million for targeted assistance to heavily affectedareas; and "such sums as necessary" for cash and medical assistance, special educationalassistance, matching grant program, and administrative costs. Since 1975, the federal governmenthas maintained a policy of reimbursing state and local governments for 100 percent of the coststhey incur in resettling refugees "subject to appropriations." (FY 1988 was funded through acontinuing resolution, P.L. 100-202. Total funding for states and other grantees under the refugeedomestic assistance program was $347 million.)

1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, P.L. 99-603, (popularly known as the Simpson-Rodino Actor IRCA), was signed into law November 6, 1986. Its purpose was to control illegal or

101Chronology of Immigration Legislation 89

undocumented immigration, chiefly by establishing penalties for employment of undocumentedaliens; and to provide legalization of status of certain aliens illegally resident in the United States.Nearly three million undocumented persons were granted amnesty under this act.

1988 Immigration Amendments, P.L. 100-658, were enacted to promote diversification in the legalimmigration system by providing for issuance overa two-year period of 50,000 visas for countriesthat have sent few immigrants over recent years.

1989 Immigration Nursing Relief Act, P.L. 101-238, allows State Legalization Impact Assistance Grant(SLIAG) funds to be used for public education and outreach for the Phase II legalization processunder IRCA and for outreach regarding unfair discrimination in employment.

1990 The Immigration Act of 1990, P.L. 101-649, increased the overall immigration ceiling for familyreunification and employment to 675,000 entrants per year. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens(spouses, minor children, and parents) are now counted under the ceiling, although there is nolimit on the number of immediate relatives who may enter. The legislation created 55,000"diversity" visas for countries disadvantaged under the current system (primarily Europe);increased the per country limit of 20,000 visas to 25,000; created a "temporary protected status"that allows nationals fleeing natural or man-made disasters to remain in the United States untiltheir countries are deemed safe; and permitted work authorization for spouses and children ofthose granted amnesty under the 1986 act. The act permits 10,000 asylees to adjust to permanentresident status each year.

1993 P.L. 103-37 reauthorized appropriations for refugee assistance for FY 1993 and FY 1994. Thecurrent appropriations level is $400 million for the domestic refugee resettlement program.

10290 Appendix A

APPENDIX 131

CONT ACTS ON IMMIGRATION AND IMMIGRANT POLICY

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

AlabamaJOEL SANDERS

State Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Human Resources50 Ripley StreetMontgomery, AL 36130(205) 242-1950

AlaskaRITA HOLDENAlaska Refugee Outreach4502 Cassin DriveAnchorage, AK 99507(907) 561-0246

ArizonaTRI HUU TRANState Refugee CoordinatorRefugee Resettlement ProgramP.O. Box 6123, Site Code 0862Phoenix, AZ 85005(602) 542-6600

ArkansasHYGINIUS UKADIKEManager, Refugee Resettlement ProgramP.O. Box 1437, Slot 1225Little Rock, AR 72203(501) 682-8263

CaliforniaJOHN CULLENDirector of Human ServicesMerced CountyP.O. Box 112Merced, CA 95340(209) 385-3000

JOAN DARRAH

Mayor of Stockton425 N. El Dorado StreetStockton, CA 95202(209) 944-8244

SUSAN GOLDINGMayor of San Diego202 C StreetSan Diego, CA 92101(619) 236-6330

FRANK JORDANMayor of San FranciscoCity Hall Room 200San Francisco, CA 94102(415) 554-6141

BRUCE KENNEDYState Refugee CoordinatorEmployment and Immigration Programs BranchDepartment of Social Services744 P Street, MS 19-46Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 324-1576

ANN KLINGERMerced County Supervisor2222 M StreetMerced, CA 95340(209) 385-7366

BECKY LAVALLYSenate Office of Research1020 N Street, Suite 565Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 445-1727

BILL MCFADDENDepartment of Social Serv:cesLos Angeles County12860 Crossroads Parkway SouthCity of Industry, CA 91746(310) 908-8457

RICHARD RIORDANMayor of Los Angeles200 N. Spring StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012(213) 485-3311

1 This list of contacts include the state refugee coordinators, the members of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Task Force on Immigration,the members of the Immigrant Policy Project's Expert Panel, and other key immigrant policy contacts suggested by the ImmigrantPolicy Project's Gov, ming Board (the American Public Welfare Association, the National Association of Counties, the NationalGovernors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors).

Contacts 103 91

CHARLES SMITHMayor of Westminster8200 Westminster BoulevardWestminster, CA 92683(714) 898-3311

ART TORRESCalifornia State SenatorState Capitol, Room 2080Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 445-3456

DORIS WARDTax AssessorSan Francisco CountyCity Hall, Room 289San Francisco, CA 94102(415) 554-4851

PETE WILSONGovernor of CaliforniaState CapitolSacramento, CA 95814(916) 445-2841

ColoradoLAURIE BAGANState Refugee CoordinatorRefugee & Immigrant Services ProgramDepartment of Social Services789 Sherman Street, Suite 250Denver, CO 80203(303) 863-8211

ConnectiCutLUCIO HIDALGOState Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Human Resources1049 Asylum DriveHartford, CT 06115(203) 566-4329

DelawareCELENA HILLState Refugee CoordinatorDivision of Social Services, P.O. Box 906New Castle, DE 19720(302) 577-4453

District of ColumbiaSH.t,RON PRATT KELLYMayor of Washington, D.C.District BuildingWashington, D.C. 20004(202) 727-6319

92

THELMA WAREState Refugee CoordinatorOffice of Refugee Resettlement645 H Street, NE, Suite 4001Washington, D.C. 20002(202) 724-4820

FloridaSEYMOUR GELBER

Mayor of Miami Beach1700 Convention Center DriveMiami Beach, FL 33139(305) 673-7030

ALEX PENELASDade County Commissioner111 NW 1st Street, Suite 220Miami, FL 33128(305) 375 5071

ANGELO PARRINODepartment of Public Assistance5550 W. IdlewildTampa, FL 33614(305) 375-5071

NANCY KELLEY WITTENBERGState Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Health and Rehabilitative Services1317 Winewood BoulevardBldg. 1, Room 423Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700(305) 488-3791

GeorgiaEVERETT GILL

State Refugee CoordinatorDFCS Special Programs UnitDepartment of Human Resources2 Peachtree Street, NE, 13th FloorAtlanta, GA 30303(404) 657-3425

HawaiiLINDA CROCKETT LINGLE

Mayor of Maui200 S. High StreetWailuku, Maui, HI 96793(808) 243-7855

101Appendix B

DWIGHT OVITTAssistant State Refugee CoordinatorOffice of Community Services335 Merchant Street, Room 101Honolulu, HI 96813(808) 586-8675

IdahoJAN REEVESManager, Refugee Services ProgramBureau of Family Self Support450 W. State Street, 7th FloorBoise, ID 83720(208) 334-6579

IllinoisRICHARD M. DALEY

Mayor of Chicago121 N. LaSalle StreetChicago, IL 60602(312) 744-3300

ED SILVERMANRefugee Program Bureau ManagerBureau of Refugee & Immigrant Services527 S. Wells Street, Suite 500Chicago, IL 60607-3922(312) 793-7120

IndianaVICKI STUMP

Department of Welfare238 S. Meridian Street, 4th FloorIndianapolis, IN 46204(317) 232-4943

IowaWAYNE JOHNSONChief, Bureau of Refugee Services1200 University Avenue, Suite DDes Moines, IA 50314-2330(515) 283-7904

KansasPHILIP GUTIERREZ

Employment Preparation Services/Refugee300 SW Oakley, West HallTopeka, KS 66606(913) 296-5157

Contacts

KentuckyJ. R. NASHDivisions of Programs ManagementDepartment of Social Services275 E. Main Street, 6th FloorFrankfort, KY 40621(502) 564-6750

LouisianaSTEVE THIBODEAUX

State Refugee CoordinatorOffice of Community Services2026 St. Charles Avenue, Room 202New Orleans, LA 70130(504) 568-8958

WAYNE WADDELLCaddo Parish Commissioner3221 Green Terrace RoadShreveport, LA 71118(318) 687-5319

MaineDAN TIPTONState Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Human ServicesStatehouse Station #1221 State StreetAugusta, ME 04333(207) 287-5060

MarylandFRANK BIEN

State Refugee CoordinatorOffice for New Americans311 W. Saratoga Street, Room 222Baltimore, MD 21201(410) 333-0180

MassachusettsTHOMAS FORDActing DirectorOfficz? for Refugees and Immigrants2 Boylston Street, Suite 202Boston, MA 02116(617) 727-7888

MichiganJUDI HALLState Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Social ServicesMichigan Plaza, Suite 4621200 6th StreetDetroit, MI 48226(313) 256-1740

10593

MinnesotaBONNIE BECKERState Refugee CoordinatorRefugee & Immigrant Assistance Division444 Lafayette Road.St. Paul, MN 55155-3837(612) 296-2499

MississippiROBIN SMITHState Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Public Works, P.O. Box 352Jackson, MS 39205(601) 354-6658

MissouriEMANUEL CLEAVERMayor of Kansas City414 East 12th Street, 29th FloorKansas City, MO 64106(816) 274-2595

PATRICIA HARRIS

State Refugee CoordinatorDivision of Family Services, P.O. Box 88Jefferson City, MO 65103(314) 751-2456

MontanaJIM ROLANDO

University of MontanaDepartment of Social. WorkMissoula, MT 59812(406) 243-2336

NebraskaMARIA DIAZState Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Social Services301 Centennial Mall SouthLincoln, NE 68509(402) 471-9200

NevadaANTHOULA SULLIVANState Welfare DivisionDepartment of Human Resources2527 N. Carson StreetCarson City, NV 89701(702) 687-4715

94

New HampshirePATRICIA GARVINState Refugee CoordinatorGovernor's Ofc. of Energy & Human Resources57 Regional DriveConcord, NH 03301(603) 271-2611

New MexicoPAUL LUCERO

Income Support DivisionDepartment of Human ServicesP.O. Box 2348Santa Fe, NM 87504-22348(505) 827-7248

New JerseyCARDELL COOPERMayor of East Orange44 City Hall PlazaEast Orange, NJ 07019(201) 266-5151

AUDREA DUNHAMState Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Human ServicesCN 717, 50 E. State StreetTrenton, NJ 08625(609) 984-3154

SHARPE JAMESMayor of Newark920 Broad StreetNewark, NJ 07102(201) 733-6400

LARRIE W. STALKSCounty RegisterEssex County131 Raymond Avenuesouth Orange, NJ 07079(201) 642-0614

WILLIAM WALDMANCommissionerDepartment of Human Services222 S. Warren Street, CN 700Trenton, NJ 08625(609) 292-3717

106 Appendix B

New YorkJOHN BAITISTONICommissioner, Social ServicesDutchess County60 Market StreetPoughkeepsie, NY 12601(914) 431-5000

MARK LEWISState Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Social Services40 N. Pearl StreetAlbany, NY 12243(518) 432-2517

ALBERT VANN

New York State RepresentativeLegislative Office Building, Room 422Albany, NY 12248(518) 455-5474

North CarolinaALICE COLEMAN

State Refugee Coordinator325 N. Salisbury StreetRaleigh, NC 27603(919) 733-4650

RICHARD W. JACOBSENDirector of Social ServicesMecklenberg County301 Billingsle y RoadCharlotte, NC 28211(704) 336-3020

North DakotaKATHY NIEDEFFER

Refugee Program AdministratorDepartment of Human Services600 East Boulevard AvenueBismarck, ND 58505(701) 224-4808

OhioERICA TAYLOR

State Refugee CoordinatorBureau of Refugee ServicesRhodes State Office Tower, 30th 1.ioor30 East Broad StreetColumbus, OH 43266-0423(614) 466-5848

OklahomaKAREN RYNEARSON

Refugee Program ManagerDepartment of Human ServicesP.O. Box 25352Oklahoma City, OK 73125(405) 521-4092

OregonLUIS CARABALLO

DirectorOffice of Immigration Programs155 Cottage Street,Salem, OR 97310(503) 373-7679

KEVIN CONCANNONDirectorDepartment of Human Resources318 Public Service BuildingSalem, OR 97310(503) 378-3033

VERA KATZ

Mayor of Portland1220 SW 5th Street, PAC WestPortland, OR 97204(503) 823-4120

JOHN MULLEN

Department of Social ServicesClackamas CountyP.O. Box 68369Oak Grove, OR 97268(503) 655-8640

RON SPENDAL

State Refugee CoordinatorAdult and Family Services500 Summer Street, NESalem, OR 97310-1013(503) 945-6099

PennsylvniaRON KIRBY

State Refugee CoordinatorBureau of Contract & Program Support ServicesHealth & Welfare Building, Room 529P.O. Box 2675Harrisburg, PA 17120(717) 783-7535

107

Contacts 95

Rhode IslandCHRISTINE MARSHALLState Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Human Services275 Westminster Mall, 4th FloorProvidence, RI 02903(401) 277-2551

South CarolinaBERNICE SCOTTState Refugee CoordinatorRefugee & Legalized Alien ServicesDepartment of Social Services, P.O. Box 1520Columbia, SC 29202-1520(803) 737-5941

South DakotaPEARL PRUEState Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Social ServicesKneip Bldg, 700 N. Governor's DrivePierre, SD 57501(605) 773-3493

TennesseeSTEVE MEINBRE SSE:

State Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Human Services400 Deaderick Street, Citizen's PlazaNashville, TN 37248-9500(615) 741-5949

TexasBARBARA CREWS

Mayor of Galveston823 RosenbergGalveston, TX 77553(409) 766-2103

SAUL N. RAMIREZ, JR.Mayor of Laredo1110 Houston StreetLaredo, TX 78040(210) 791-7300

ANN RICHARDSGovernor of TexasP.O. Box 12428, Capitol StationAustin, TX 78711(512) 463-2000

96

MARGUERITE RIVERA HOUZETexas Office of Immigration & Refugee Affairs9101 Burnet Road, Suite 216Austin, TX 78758(512) 873.2400

NELSON WOLFEMayor of San AntonioP.O. Box 839966San Antonio, TX 78283-3966(210) 299-7060

UtahSHERMAN ROQUIERO

State Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Human ServicesP.O. Box 45500Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0500(801) 538-4091

VermontCHARLES SIMPSON

State Refugee CoordinatorRefugee Resettlement Program59 Pearl StreetBurlington, VT 05401(802) 658-1120

VirginiaKATHY COOPER

State Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Social Services730 E. Broad StreetRichmond, VA 23299-8699(804) 692-1206

WashingtonTHUY VU

State Refugee CoordinatorDivision of Refugee AssistanceP.O. Box 45420Olympia, WA 98504-5420(206) 438-8385

West VirginiaCONA CHATMANState Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Human ResourcesState Capitol Complex, Bldg. 6, Room 817Charleston, WV 25305(304) 348-8290

108Appendix B

WisconsinSUSAN LEVYState Refugee CoordinatorRefugee Assistance and Poverty Office1 W. Wilson Streit Room 330P.O. Box 7935Madison, WI 53707(608) 266-0578

WyomingJEANNE JERDING

State Refugee CoordinatorDepartment of Family Services811 N. Glenn RoadCasper, WY 82601(307) 265-4411

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

U.S. COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION REFORM*SUSAN MARTINExecutive Director1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 511Washington, D.C. 20009-5708(202) 673-5348

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES*LAVINIA LIMONDirector, Office of Refugee ResettlementAdministration for Children and Families370 L'Enfant Promenade, SWWashington, D.C. 20447-0001(202) 401-9246

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE*DORIS MEISSNERCommissionerImmigration and Naturalization Service425 I Street, NW. Suite 7100Washington, D.C. 20536(202) 514-1900

*ROBERT BACH

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service425 I Street, NW, Room 6038Washington, D.C. 20536(202) 616-7767

*Denotes members of the Immigrant Policy Project's ExpertPanel

Contacts

COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICE5550 Friendship BoulevardSuite 330Chevy Chase, MD 20815(301) 492-5929

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABORLINDSAY LOWELLImmigration Policy and ResearchRoom S5325200 Constitution Avenue, NWWashington, D.C. 20210(202) 219-9098

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE"IMOTHY E. WIRTHUndersecretary of State for Global Affairs2201 C Street, NW, Room 7250Washington, D.C. 20520(202) 647-6240

*ThERESA RUSCHBureau of Population, Refugees & MigrationSA-1, Room 120022nd and C Streets; NWWashington, D.C. 20524(202) 663-1047

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

*MICHAEL FixThe Urban Institute2100 M Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20037(202) 857-8517

*CHARLES KEELY

The Center for Immigration Policy and RefugeeAssistance

Georgetown University - POB 2298Washington, D.C. 20057(202) 687-7932

*CECILIA MuSlozNational Council of La Raza81U First Street, NE, Suite 300Washington, D.C. 20002-4205(202) 289-1380

*DAVID NORTH

New TransCentury Foundation3113 North Kensington StreetArlington, VA 22207(703) 241-1724

10997

*DEMETRIOS PAPADEMETRIOUThe Carnegie Endowment for International Peace2400 N Street, NWWashington, D.C. 20037(202) 862-7985

*FRANK SHARRY

National Immigration Forum220 I Street, NE, Suite 220Washington, D.C. 20002(202) 544-0004

*RICK SWARTZSwartz and Associates1869 Park Rd, NWWashington, DC 20010(202) 328-1313

*TSEHAYE TEFERRAEthiopian Community Development Council1038 South Highland StreetArlington, VA 22204(703) 685-0510

*LUIS TORRESInter American Institute on Migration and LaborMount Veri ton College2100 Foxhall Road, NWWashington, D.C. 20007(202) 625-4686

CHARLES WHEELERNational Immigration Law Center1636 W. 8th Stree;., Suite 205Los Angeles, CA 90017(213) 487-2531

98

JANA MASONImmigration and Refugee Services of America1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 701Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 797-2105

JOHN FREDRIKSSONLutheran Immigration and Refugee Services122 C Street, NW, Suite 125Washington, D.C. 20001(202) 783-7509

RICHARD PARKINS

U.S. Catholic ConferenceMigration and Refugee Services3211 4th Street, NEWashington, D.C. 20017-1194(202) 541-3114

DIANA AVIVCouncil of Jewish Federations1640 Rhode Island Ave, NW, Suite 500Washington, D.C. 20036(202) 785-5900

DIANA BUISoutheast Asia Resource Action Center1628 16th Street, NW, Third FloorWashington, D.C. 20009(202) 667-4690

110Appendix B

SELECTED REFERENCES ON IMMIGRATION AND IMMIGRANT POLICY

Aleinikoff, Thomas A., and David A. Martin.Immigration: Process and Policy. 2nd ed. St. Paul,Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1991.

Bach, Robert L., and Doris Meissner. Employment andImmigration Reform: Employer Sanctions For YearsLater. 1st ed. Washington, D.C.: CarnegieEndowment for International Peace, 1990.

Bean, Frank D.; Barry Edmonston; and Jeffrey S. Passel,eds. Undocumented Migration to the United StatesIRCA and the Experience of the 1980s. Washington,D.C.: The Urban Institute tor RAND Corp. 1990.

Bean, Frank D.; Charles B. Keely; and Georges Vernez.Opening and Closing the Doors: Evaluating ImmigrationReform and Control. Washington, D.C.: The UrbanInstitute, 1989.

Borjas, George J. Friends or Strangers: The Impact ofImmigrants on the U.S. Economy. Basic Books, USA.1990.

Borjas, George )., and Richard B. Freeman, eds.Immigration and the Work Force, Economic Consequencesfor the United States and Source Areas. Vol. A.National Bureau of Economic Research Report.Chicago: University of Chicago, 1992.

Briggs, Vernon M. Mass Immigration and the NationalInterest. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1992.

. Immigration and the U.S. Labor Market:Public Policy Gone Awry. Ithaca, N.Y.: CornellUniversity, 1992.

City of St. Paul. Southeast Asian Refugees and U.S. Cities:Myths and Realities. St. Paul, Minn., December 4,1990.

Clark, Rebecca L., and Jeffrey S. Passel. :low Much DoImmigrants Pay in Taxes?: Evidence From Los AngelesCounty. PRIP-UI-26. Washington, D.C.: UrbanInstitute, August 1993.

Commission for the Study of International Migration andCooperative Economic Development. UnauthorizedMigration: An Economic Development Response.Washington, D.C., July 1990.

Cortes, Michael. California's Shadow Population: TheImpact of Undocumented Immigrants from Latin Americaon State Health and Social Service Policies and Programs.Berkeley: California Policy Seminar, August 1985.

Selected References on Immigration and Immigrant Policy

Cose, Ellis. A Nation of Strangers: Prejudice, Politics andthe Populating of America. New York: WilliamsMorrow and Co., Inc., 1992.

Eig, Larry M., and Joyce C. Vialet. "Alien EligibilityRequirements for Major Federal AssistancePrograms. CRS Report for Congress. No. 93-1046A.Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service,December 8, 1993.

Ekstrand, Laurie E. Immigration and Enforcement:Problems in Controlling the Flow of Illegal Aliens.Washington, D.C., GAO, 1993.

Enchautegui, Maria E. Immigration and CountyEmployment Growth. PRIP-IU-23. Washington, D.C.:The Urban Institute, August 1992.

Espenshade, Thomas J., and Eric S. Rothman. "FiscalImpacts of Immigration to the United States".Population Index, Fall 1992, 381-415.

Fix, Michael, and Jeffrey S. Passel, with Maria E.Enchautegui and Wendy Zimmermann. Immigrationand Immigrants: Setting the Record Straight.Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, May 1994.

Fix, Michael, and Jeffrey S. Passel. The Door RemainsOpen: Recent Immigration to the United States and aPreliminary Analysis of The Immigration Act of 1990.Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, January1991.

Fix, Michael, and Wendy Zimmermann. After Arrival:An Overview of Federal Immigrant Policy in the UnitedStates. Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute, July1993.

Fuchs, Lawrence H. Inimigration Policy and Ethnic Policies:An Agenda for Tomorrow. Waltham, Mass.: BrandeisUniversity, 1993.

Fuchs, Lawrence H. The American Kaleidoscope: Race,Ethnicity and the Civic Culture. Hanover, N.H.: TheUniversity Press of New England, 1990.

Keely, Charles B. American ImmigrationThe ContinuingTradition. Washington, D.C.: The CoordinatingCommittee for Ellis Island, Inc., 1989.

Los Angeles County Internal Services Department.Impact of Undocumented Persons and Other Immigrantson Costs, Revenues and Services in Los Angeles County.November 6, 1992.

11199

Morosoff, Ellen. Immigration and the Labor Force in NewYork State. Albany: New York State LegislativeCommission on Skills Development and VocationalEducation, October 1991.

Muller, Thomas. The Fourth Wave: California's NewestImmigrants. Washington, D.C.: The Urban InstitutePress, 1984.

Muller, Thomas. Immigrants and the American City. ATwentieth Century Fund Book. New York: NewYork University Press, 1993.

National Immigration Law Center. Guide to AlienEligibility for Federal Programs. Los Angeles:National Immigration Law Center, 1993.

North, David S. Aliens and the Regular and Irregular LaborMarkets. Immigration Policy and Research.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Deptartment of Labor, 1988.

North, David S. IRCA Did Not Do Much to the LaborMarkel: A Los Angeles County Case Study,Immigration Policy and Research Working Paper 10,U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Affairs,November 1991.

Ortiz, Ronald J., and Joseph L. Salvo. The Newest NewYorkers: An Analysis of Immigration into New York CityDuring the 1980s. New York: New York CityDepartment of City Planning, JL ne 1992.

Portes, Alejandro, and Ruben G. Rumbaut. ImmigrantAmerica: A Portrait. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1990.

Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. "The New SecondGeneration: Segmented Assimilation and ItsVariants." The Annals of the American Acedemy ofPolitical and Social Science, (November 1993), 74-96.

Rumbaut, Ruben G. "Passages to America: Perspectiveson the New Immigration." in America at Century'sEnd, edited by Alan Wolfe. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Simon, Julian L. The Economic. Consequences ofImmigration. Washington, D.C.: The Cato Institute,1989.

Simon, Rita J., and Susan H. Alexander. Print Media,Public Opinion, and Immigration. Westport, Conn.:Praeger Publishers, 1993.

Smith, Michael P., and Bernadette Tarallo. California'sChanging Faces: New Immigrant Survival Strategies andState Policy. Berkeley: California Policy Seminar,October 1993.

100

Sorensen, Elaine; Frank D. Bean; Leighton Ku; andWendy Zimmermann, eds. Immigrant Categories andthe U.S. Job Market: Do They Make a Difference? 92-1Ed. Washington, D.C,: The Urban Institute, 1992.

State and Local Coalition on Immigration. America'sNewcomers: A State and Local Policynzaker's Guide toImmigration and Immigrant Policy by Jonathan D.Dunlap. Issue Paper No. 1, Denser: NationalConference of State Legislatures, February 1993.

to and Local Coalition on Immigration. America'sNewcomers: Health Care Issues for New Americans byJonathan C. Dunlap and Fay Hutchinson. IssuePaper No. 2, Denver: National Conference of StateLegislatures, July 1993.

State and Local Coalition on Immigration. America'sNewcomers: Employment and Training Programs forImmigrants and Refugees by Ann Morse. Issue PaperNo. 3, Denver: National Conference of StateLegislatures, October, 1993.

State and Local Coalition on Immigration. America'sNewcomers: Community Relations and Ethnic Diversityby Ann Morse and Jonathan C. Dunlap. Issue PaperNo. 4, Denver: National Conference of StateLegislatures, April 1994.

State of California, Assembly Office of Research,Summary Report: Assembly Select Committee onStatewide Immigration Impact. Sacramento, May 1994.

State of California, Office of the Auditor General. A FiscalImpact Analysis of Undocumented Immigrants Residingin San Diego County. Sacramento, August 1992.

State of California, 2:9nate Office of Research. CaliforniansTogether: Defining the State's Role in Immigration.Sacramento, July 1993.

State of California, Senate Office of Research. A Review ofSelected Issues Relating to Undocumented Persons in SanDiego. Sacrament, January 1991.

State of Florida, Executive Office of the Governor and theFlorida Advisory Council on IntergovernmentalRelations. The Unfair Burden: Immigration's Impact orFlorida. Tallahassee, March 1994.

State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitativeservices. Refugee Programs Update. Vol. IV, no. 2,Summer 1993.

State of Florida, Department of Health and RehabilitativeServices. Florida's Refugee Resettlement Program:1989The Year in Review. Tallahassee, June 1990.

11 2 America's Newcomers

State of Iowa, Department of Human Services, Bureau ofRefugee Services. Bureau of Refugee Services' ResourceBibliography . January 1993 ed. Des Moines, January1993.

U.S. Committee for Refugees. World Refugee Survey, 7994.Washington, D.C.: American Council forNationalities Service, 1994.

U.S. Conference of Mayors. Immigrant Policy Issues forAmerica's Cities: A 78-City Survey. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Conference of Mayors, June 1994.

U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on theJudiciary. Immigration and Nationality Act. 102ndCong., 2nd sess., 9th ed., April 1992.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office ofRefugee Resettlement. Directory: Films-Videotapes onRefugees. Washington, D.C., 1991.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office ofRefugee Resettlement. Refugee Resettlement Program:Report to Congress. hinuay 31,1993. Washington,D.C., 1993.

U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration andNaturalization Service. Statistical Yearbook of theImmigration and Naturalization Service, 1992.Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1993.

U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration andNaturalization Service. Commissioner's Fact Book:Summary of Recent Immigration Data, July 1991.Washington, D.C..

U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration andNaturalization Service. Immigration Reform andControl Act: Report on the Legalized Alien Population.Washington, D.C.,March, 1992.

U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration andNaturalization Service. Naturalization Requirementsand General Information. Form N-17 (Rev. 08- 23 -88).

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International LaborAffairs. The Effects of Immigration on the U.S.

Economy and Labor Market. Immigration Policy andResearch. Report no. 1, January 1989.

U.S. General Accounting Office. The Changing Workforce:Demographic Issues Facing the Federal Government.Washington, D.C., 1992.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Illegal Aliens: DespiteData Limitations, Current Methods Provide BetterPopulation Estimates. GAO/PEMD-93-25.Washington, D.C., August 1993.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Immigration ReformEmployer Sanctions and the Question of Discrimination.GAO/GGD-90-62. Washington, D.C., March 1990.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Refugee Resettlement:Federal Support to the States Has Declined.GAO/HRD-91-51. Washington, D.C., December1990.

Valdez, Burciaga R.; Julie DaVanzo; Georges Vernez; andWade Mitchell. Immigration: Getting the Facts. SantaMonica: RAND, 1993.

Vernez, Georges. Needed: A Federal Role in HelpingCommunities Cope with Immigration. RP-177. SantaMonica: RAND, 1993.

Vernez, Georges and Kevin McCarthy. Meeting theEconomy's Labor Needs Through Immigration: Rationaleand Challenges. Santa Monica: RAND, 1990.

Vialet, Joyce C. "Refugee Admissions and ResettlementPolicy." CRS Issue Brief. Washington, D.C.:Congressional Research Service, August 5, 1992.

Weissbrodt, David. Immigration Law and Procedure. 2nded. In a Nutshell Series. St. Paul, Minn.: WestPublishing Co., 1989.

Zimmermann, Wendy, and Michael Fix. Immigrant Policyin the States: A Wavering Welcome. Washington, D.C.:The Urban Institute, July 1993.

113

Selected Reference:: on Immigration and Immigrant Policy 101

INDEX

AAcculturation. See AssimilationA Community Outreach Program (ACOP), 60-61Administration on Children and Families (DHHS), JOBS and, 39Admissions: number of, 68 (table); priorities for, 16; regulating, ix,

10Adult Basic Education Act, 40Adult Education Programs (Texas), 79Advisory Committee on Refugee Affairs (St. Paul), 62AFDC. See Aid to Families with Dependent ChildrenAFDC-UP. See Aid to Families with Dependent Children -

Unemployed ParentsAid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), xii, 12, 16, 17,

41, 44, 46, 69, 79, 85n7; cost-shifts for, 73; eligibility for, 76;expenditures for, 84; federal government and, 85n3; IRCAand, 38; JOBS and, 39; legal immigrants and, 15; regulationsof, 48; reimbursement for, 67, 73

Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Unemployed Parents(AFDC-UP), 73, 85n5

Alabama, social service funds in, 80Alaska Refugee Outreach, 42Aliens, federal programs for, 7 (table)Amerasian Initiative, 42Amerasians, 19; benefits for, 16; mental health nee.is of, 28;

resettlement of, 42; stress for, 27; views on, 51. See alsoChinese; Vietnamese American Public Welfare Association(APWA), 12; study by, xii, 66

Amnesty program, 8, 9, 17, 58Anti-dumping laws, 80, 86n31Anti-immigrant sentiment, 50, 58, 83APWA. See American Public Welfare AssociationArizona, SLIAG and, 76Arizona v. U.S. 85n7Arlington County Bilingual Outreach, 58Assembly Select Committee on Statewide Immigration Impact

(California), 61Assimilation, xi, 46, 49, 51-52; humanitarian immigrants and, 16;

mental health and, 26-27; theories of, 50Asylees, 8Asylum, applications for, 15Atlanta, immigrants in, 53At-risk youth, training for, 35, 36Avoiding Racial Conflict: A Guide for Municipalities (CRS), 57

BBach, Robert: on media, 62; on participation, 55; on segregation,

54Benefits, reduction in, 68 (table)Bernsen, Sam: on citizenship, 57Bilingual/bicultural professionals, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32. See also

Foreign-born professionalsBilingual Education Act (1968), 59Board of Immigration Appeals (BOLA), 10Border Patrol, unauthorized immigration and, 18Boston, community services in, 58Boston City Hospital, health hotline at, 30Bracer() program, 50Brown University, certification preparation at, 44Bureau for Refugee Programs (Department of State), 10Bureau of Industries and Immigration (New York), 53Bureau of Refugee Programs (Department of State), 15

Index

cCalifornia: AFDC in, 73, 85n3; amnesty population in, 40; benefit

strue`wes/payment levels of, 74 (table); GA in, 76; healthservices in, 80: immigrant expenditures in, xii, 43, 73, 79, 84;immigrants in, 3, 55, 70; language services in, 40, 45, 77;reimbursement for, 69; SLIAG in, 40, 81; social services in, 79;welfare dependency in, 42

Califc;mia Joint Committee on Refugee Resettlement,International Migration and Cooperative Development, 61-62

California Refugee Demonstration Project, 42.California v. U.S., 85n7Cambodioas, 49, 53; hiring, 60; mental health needs of, 28Capital, access to, 61Caribbe. n Research Center (City University of New York), 60Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act,

35, 43, 81Cash and Medical Assistance (CMA), 16, 86n18Catholic Conference demonstration project, 42CBOs. See Community-based organizationsCDC. See Centers for Disease Control and PreventionCenter for Employment Training (CET), 37, 44, 45Center for United States-Mexican Studies (University of

California, San Diego), study by, 22Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 25Central Brooklyn Federal Credit Union, loans from, 61Central Brooklyn Partnership, 61CET. See Center for Employment TrainingChanging Relations: Newcomers and Established Residents in U.S.

Communities (Bach), 55Changing Relations Project, 52, 56; assimilation and, 52CHCs. See Community health centersChicago: interethnic cooperation in, 57; literacy program in, 60Chicago Travelers and Immigrants Aid, 29Chiles v. U.S., 85n7Chinese: exclusion of, 50; mental health needs of, 28Chinese Exclusion Acts, 50CHIRLA. See Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los

AngelesChoo, Marcia: on conflict resolution, 58Citizenship, promoting, 55, 57-58, 62, 82City on the Edge: The Transformation of Miami (Portes and

Stepick), 52Civic participation, 69, 81; promoting, 54, 55, 57, 58Civil Rights Act (1964), language services and, 59Clinica de Colores, 26Clinton, Bill: welfare and, 46Close Up Foundation, The, 58CMA. See Cash and Medical AssistanceCoalition-building, 54, 55, 56Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles

(CHIRLA), 61Coining, 60Colorado: SLIAG and, 76, 82; social service funds in, 80Commission on Immigration Reform, 11; immigrant labor and,

51

Committee for Culturally and Linguistically Relevant HealthEducation, 30

Communications Consortium Media Center, 63Community-based organizatio, (CB0s), 12, 39, 82Community health centers (CHL.,;), funding for, 24Community Innovations Project, 56

114103

Community relations, 49, 55-57; ethnic diversity and, xi-xii;media and, 56; policvmakers and, 54-55, 63; problems/solutions in, 50

Community Relations Service (CRS), 10-11, 57Community Summit (Tacoma), 55Congress, 10; funding from, 11Connecticut, JOBS in, 39Corporation for National and Community Service, 57Cost-shifting, 69, 70, 74, 79, 80; direct, 67; significance of, 73:

state-by-state, 85n13Cross-cultural approaches, 28, 31CRS. See Community Relations ServiceCuban entrants, 17, 19, 49, 52, 53; benefits for, 16Cuban Exodus Relief Fund, 42Cultural barriers, 27, 28-31, 54, 60

DED status. See Deferred enforced departure statusDeeming, 15, 86n34Deferred enforced departure (DED) status, 19Demonstration programs, 41-42Department of Education, JTPA and, 37Department of Employment (NYC), PHASE and, 44Department of Health and Human. Services (DHHS), xi, 11, 12,

74, 80; CHCs and, 24; cost calculation and, 75; healthprograms and, 25; interpretation services and, 29; JOBS and,39; JTPA and, 37; migrant health centers and, 24; 100-hourrule and, 38; Refugee Resettlement Program and, 67;training/employment and, 39

Department of Housing and Urban Development, funding from,61

Department of Income Maintenance (Connecticut), 39Department of Justice (DOJ), 10; racial conflict and, 57Department of Labor (DOL): agricultural workers and, 22; ESL

and, 43; job displacement and, 39, 45; JTPA and, 35, 37;newcomers and, 2, 11, 34, 45

Department of Mental Retardation, 42Department of State, 10, 12, 15Deportation, 9, 50DHHS. See Department of Health and Human ServicesDinkins, David, 52, 55Disadvantaged Minority Health Act, 29Discretionary projects, 41-42Disproportionate share hospital (DSH) subsidy, 24Diversity, ix, 9, 18; community relations and, xi-xii; coping with,

54-63; valuing, 51, 52Diversity immigrants, 13-14Division of State Legalization Assistance (DHHS), 11DOJ. See Department of JusticeDOL. See Department of LaborDSH subsidy. See Disproportionate share hospital subsidy

EEconomic opportunity, struggles over, 61Economic Opportunity Act (1964), 36Education, 67, 83; adult, 35, 45; bilingual, xi, 14, 46; health, 25;

immigrants and, x, xi, 1, 3, 12,14, 34, 51, 81, 84; SLIAG and,40, 81, 82

Educational Opportunities Center, 37Edward R. Roybal Comprehensive Health Center, 26EIEA. See Emergency Immigrant Education ActELAs. See Eligible legalized aliensEl Centro de Latino, ESL by, 43Eligibility, ix, 7 (table), 44-45, 63, 76, 83; determining, 10, 85n7

104

Eligible legalized aliens (ELAs), 71, 72, 74, 82; concentration of,70; services for, 69, 76; survey on, 70

Emergency Immigrant Education Act (EIEA), 40, 87n36Emergency services, 76; increased use of, 80, 83; newcomers and,

xii, 3, 23, 31, 32Employer sanctions, 17Employment, x-xi, 34; barriers to, 44; demand for, 42-43;

programs for, 35Employment and Training Administration (Department of

Labor), 11Employment and Training (ET) Choices Program

(Massachusetts), 39Employment-based immigrants, 13; visas for, 14Employment services, 41, 42, 76; expansion of, 80; reductions in,

79English: proficiency in, 22, 53, 61, 79; training in, xii, 16, 39, 40,

41, 45, 56, 60, 69, 81; vocational, 41, 43, 80. See also LimitedEnglish proficiency

English as a second language (ESL), xi, 3, 31, 36, 39, 40, 45, 46,76, availability of, 62, 79, 80, 81; demand for, 81, 86n27;funding for, 82; support for, 43. See also Language training

Entrepreneurship, barriers to, 61EOIR. See Executive Office for Immigration ReviewESL. See English as second languageET. See Employment and Training Choices ProgramEVD status. See Extended voluntary departure statusExecutive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) (DO)), 10Extended voluntary departure (EVD) status, 19

FFamily-related immigrants, 13; visas for, 14Family-sponsored immigrants, visas for, 14Family Support Act (1988), JOBS and, 38Family unity entrants, 19Federal Bureau of Naturalization, citizenship classes by, 54Federal policy, ix, 12-18; limits of, 66; states/localities and, 1Federal programs, xi, 6, 8; eligibility for, ix, 7 (table), 10, 63Florida: benefit structures/payment levels of, 73, 74 (table); ESL

in, 81; health care in, 86n32; immigrant expenditures in, 73,84; job training/placement in, 80; language services in, 77;Medicaid costs in, 23, 73; physician certification in, 44;reimbursement for, 69; SLIAG and, 76

Food stamps, 15, 17, 35, 85n7Foreign-born population, 53, 66; by state, 78 (table)Foreign-born professionals: hiring, 29; licensing, 31, 44

GA. See General AssistanceGAIN program (California), 38, 43General Accounting Office (GAO): IRCA and, 18; on JTPA, 37;

SLIAG study by, 74; on training programs, 42General Assistance (GA), xii, 16, 83, 85n4; cost-shifting under,

73; expenditures for, 84; funding from, 76; medical benefitsfrom, 24; reimbursement for, 67, 73

General Relief (GR): funding from, 76; medical benefits from, 24Georgia: funding cuts in, 80; RMA in, 31Georgia State University, ESL and, 43GOIRA. See Governor's Office of Immigrant and Refugee

AffairsGovernor's Immigration Coot dinating Committee (Oregon), 62Governor's Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs (GOIRA), 62GR. See General ReliefGraham v. Richardson,11Green Card, 8Guestworker programs, 50


HHaitian entrants, 17, 19, 49, 52; benefits for, 16Hawaii, refugee services in, 81Head Start, 35Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYC), PHASE and, 44Health care: access to, 21, 22-24, 25, 80; barriers to, x-xi, 21, 25,

32; federal programs for, x, 25, 31; fragmentation of, x, 31;multilingual/multicultural, 25, 32; newcomers and, x, xii, 1, 3,12, 21, 23, 31, 32, 46, 84; preventive, 21, 22, 80; primary, 22;reductions in, 79-80, 83; reform, x, 21, 32. Sec also Medicalassistance; Mental health; Public health

Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), 59Health insurance, 21, 31Health Resources and Services Administration (DHHS), health

centers and, 24Hepatitis B virus, 24, 25, 26HEW. See Health, Education, and WelfareHispanic community, public health and, 26Hmong, 26; barriers for, 62; hiring, 28; orientation for, 16Holley v. Lavine, 38House Appropriations Committee, funding from, 11House Judiciary Committee, funding from, 11Houston, media in, 63Humanitarian immigrants, 6, 8, 12; assimilation and, 16; laws

governing, 13; Refugee Act and, 15-17; TPS and, 13Human Resource Investment Council UTPA), 35, 44

I!BM, ESL and, 43Idaho: public assistance in, 76; SLIAG and, 82Illegal aliens, 8; estimating, 18Illegal immigration, 6, 8, 12,18; IRCA and, 17; laws governing, 13Illinois: benefit structures/payment levels of, 74 (table); cost-shifting

in, 73; ESL in, 45, 81; funding cuts in, 80; jobplacement/training in, 79; language services in, 77; Medicaidcosts in, 73; public health in, 26; reimbursement for, 69

Immigrant and Refugee Media Project, 63Immigrant Education Act, 14Immigrant Family Counseling Program, 82Immigrant policy, 1, 10; for employment/job training, 39-42;

immigration policy and, ix-x, 66; leadership on, 54Immigrant Policy Project, ix, 12, 34, 54; goals of, vii; regional

meetings of, 43Immigrants. Sec NewcomersImmigration: cities and, 53; costs and benefits of, 49, 82; by

decade, 5 (figure); economic restructuring and, 49; federaljurisdiction over, xi, 10, 49, 50; immigrant policy and, ix-x, 66;impact of, 34, 62; increase in, ix, 18; legislation for, 89-90;restrictions on, 5, 6, 89; stress of, 26-27; types of, 6; waves of,3, 5-6

Immigration Act (1965), 89Immigration Act (1990) (P.L. 101-649), ix, 90; legal immigration

and, 13-: 1Immigration Amendments (1988) (P.L. 100-658), 90Immigration and Nationality Act (1952) (P.L. 82-414), 13, 5(1, 89;

Amendments (1965) to, 15Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), 6, 8, 10, 17, 62;

citizenship and, 57; health insurance study by, 22; populationsurvey by, 40

Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) (1986) (P.L. 99-603), ix, xii, 1, 13, 55, 56, 89-90; AFDC and, 38; amnestyprogram in, 8, 9, 17, 58; DHHS and, 39; education costs and,40; GAO and, 18; health care and, 23; illegal immigration and,17, 18; JOBS and, 38; legalization and, 70; SLIAG and, 41, 69;state/local impact of, 17-18

Index

Immunizations, cutting, 80Impact aid funds, distributing, 83Inclusive policies, developing, 54, 58-59INS. Sec Immigration and Naturalization ServiceInterpreters: hiring, 60; lack of, 29; training program for, 30Iowa, VOLAGs in, 12IRCA. See Immigration Reform and Control Act

Jjeffco Employment and Training Services (Colorado), 41Job Corps, xi, 36, 44, 46; multilingual curriculum for, 35, 37Job Links, 40, 42, 80, 86n32Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program (JOBS), xi.

34, 35, 42, 43, 46; AFDC and, 39; evaluation of, 38-39, 45;funding for, 39; IRCA and, 38

Job Training Partnership Act (1982) (JTPA), 34, 35, 42, 46;evaluation of, 37, 45; language proficiency and, 39;newcomers and, xi, 43-44; performance standards of, 37-38;purpose of, 36; women/minorities and, 37

Joint Subcommittee Studying the Needs of Foreign-BornIndividuals in the Commonwealth (Virginia), 61

JTPA. See Job Training Partnership ActJudicial mandates, 11

KKellogg Foundation, grant from, 30Kentucky, social service funds in, 80Key States/ Counties Initiative, 40, 42Know-Nothings, 50

LLabor, 2, 51; clashes over, 61; multilingual/multiethnic, 34La Cooperativa (Sacramento), workforce development by, 44Language barriers, 34, 45, 60; problems with, 27, 28-31, 52-54. See

also Limited English proficiency; Lit...racyLanguage training, 54, 57, 59-60; demand for, 81, 82; investment

in, 83; reductions in, 76-77, 79, 80, 84. See also English assecond language

Latino Employees Association, 59Latinos: asylum for, 15; job placement for, 39; views on, 51Law enforcement, 3; outreach by, 60-61Lawful permanent residents (LPR), 6, 14, 15; federal assistance

for, 8LAW V. Nichols, 59

Legal immigrants, 6, 8, 12; laws governing, 13-14; medical carefor, 24; services for, 15, 22; by state , 9 (figure); state/localimpact of, 14-15

Legalization, 69; applying for, 13, 17, 70, 72 (table)Legalized aliens, 8; citizenship and, 58Legalized Population Survey (INS), 40LEP. See Limited English proficiencyLewis v. Grinker, 11

Limited English proficiency (LEP), 9, 23, 34, 37, 58, 59, 76, 77; bystate, 78 (table). See also Language barriers

Linkages, establishing, 35Literacy: barriers to, 34; promoting, 60. See also Language

barriersLos Angeles: community building in, 56; ESL in, 79; immigrants

in, 55-56; interethnic cooperation in, 57; LEP in, 60; media in,63; welfare dependency in, 42

Louisiana, cost rejections for, 75Lowell: immigrants in, 53; minority officers in, 60LPR. Sec Lawful permanent residents

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

1.16 105

MMcCarran-Walter Act. See Immigration and Nationality ActMAAs. See Mutual assistance associationsMaine: education in, 80-81; social services in, 79Mainstreaming, targeted programs vs., 43-44Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC),

report by, 38Maryland: Refugee Program in, 80; SLIAG and, 82Massachusetts: cost rejections for, 75; ESL in, 79; SLIAG and, 76,

82; social services in, 79; welfare dependency in, 42

Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH), 30

MDPH. See Massachusetts Department of Public HealthMDRC. See Manpower Demonstration Research CorporationMedia: attention from, 49: community relations and, 56;

newcomers and, 62-63Medicaid, 12, 16, 17, 39, 69, 80; cost and benefits of, 22, 73, 84;

cost-shifts for, 73; eligibility for, 76; federal government and,

67, 85n3; interpretation services and, 29; mental health and,27, 28; newcomers and, xii, 11, 23, 31, 41; reimbursement for,

23, 67, 73; undocumented immigrants and, 23Medical assistance, 8, 24, 83; limits on, 79-80; reduction in, 68

(table), 76; rejecting, 86n18. See also Health careMedi-Cal program, costs for, 22-23Medicare, 12; mental health and, 27, 28Melting pot metaphor, 50, 51-52Mental health, x, 26-28; access to, 21; funding for, 27; problems

in, 27, 80; state/local programs in, 28Mental Health Block Grant, 27, 28Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services (VDMH), 30

Miami: bicultural living in, 52; community liaison program in,

58; immigrants in, 53Michigan, welfare dependency in, 42Microenterprise Development Initiative, 42Microsoft, ESL and, 43Migrant health centers, funding for, 24Migrant Health Provam, 25Migrant workers 1'. JTPA and, 36Minnesota: refugee programs in, 43; SLIAG funds for, 74;

welfare dependency in, 42Minnesota Interagency Adult Learning Council, 43Montana, health services in, 80Monterey Park, Asians in, 53, 54Multicultural, Multilingual Task Force, 59Multilingual /multicultural resources, using, 32, 58Mutual assistance associations (MAAs), 12, 82

NNational Association of Counties, 41, 58National Center for Research in Vocational Education, 45National Commission for Employment Policy, 35, 36; on training

programs, 42National Immigration Forum, 63; community relations and, 56National Institute of Mental Health, 27National Literacy Act, 35Naturalization, 19; applicants for, 57; outreach for, 82Neighborhood Services Liaison, 58Neighborhood Watch program, 55Nevada: Refugee Program and, 81; SLIAG and, 82Newcomers, 6, 8-12; ambivalence toward, xi, 1-2, 49, 50, 51, 54 -

55, 62-63; assistance for, 4 (figure); barriers for, 9; benefits for,22, 68 (table); concentration of, 70; conflict among, 57;contributions by, 2, 3, 21, 62-63, 66; cooperation among, 54-55;cumulative arrivals of (by state), 10 (figure); diversity of, ix, 9,18; federal funding for, xii, 1; media and, 49; number of, 18,

21; origins of, 6; state-level offices for, xii; state/local impact

106

of, 14-15; state/local spending on, xii-xiii, 1, 3, 73-76; survey

on, 70New Horizon Community Mental Health Clinic (Miami), 28

New Jersey: cost rejections for, 75; employment/training in, 43;Refugee Program and, 81; SLIAG and, 82

New Mexico, refugee services in, 81New York: immigrant services in, 12; LEP in, 60; reimbursement

for, 69; SLIAG funds for, 74; welfare dependency in, 42

New York Association of New Americans (NYANA), 44, 45

New York City: ESL in, 79; health careers in, 31; immigrantservices in, 12; immigrants in, 3, 53, 55; interethniccooperation in, 57; translation services in, 60

New York Coalition on Immigration, 55New York Legislative Commission on Skills Develo?ment and

Vocational Education, 44New York State Health Transition Initiative, 44New York State Refugee and Immigrant Health Professional

Transition Initiative, 31Nintendo, ESL and, 43Nongovernmental organizations, 83; citizenship and, 58;

resettlement and, 12Nominmigrants, 12-13, 19North Carolina, SLIAG and, 82Nurses Tutoring Project (Chicago), 31NYANA. See New York Association of New Americans

0ODP. Sec Orderly Departure ProgramOffice for Minority Health (OMH) (DHHS), 29Office for New Americans (Maryland), survey by, 85n2

Office for Refugee and Immigrant Health (Massachusetts), 30

Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Minority Health

(DHHS), 29Office of Immigrant Affairs (NYC), 12Office of Mental Health (NYC), PHASE and, 44Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) (DHHS), 11, 16, 27; health

programs and, 25; Job Links and, 86n32; nationaldiscretionary projects and, 42; public health and, 26; RefugeeResettlement Program and, 67; survey by, 70, 79; TargetedAssistance and, 40, 41

Oklahoma, health services in, 800M1-1. See Office for Minority HealthOmnibus.Budget Reconciliation Act (1986), reimbursement and,

23100-hour rule, waiving, 38Operation Wetback, 50Orderly Departure Program (ODP), 26Oregon: cost-shifts in, 74; health care access in, 25; IRCA in, 62;

public health in, 26; REEP in, 41-42ORR. See Office of Refugee Resettlement

PPacific Medical Center (Seattle), interpreter forum at, 30Parasitic infections, 24-25Parolees, 8Pennsylvania: cost rejections for, 75; SLIAG and, 76Permanently residing under color of law (PRUCOL) status, 19,

38Permanent resident aliens, 6PHASE, establishment of, 44PICs. See Private Industry CouncilsPlacement services. See Employment servicesPlanned Secondary Resettlement, 42Plyler v. Doe, 1, 11, 59Police, 3; outreach by, 60-61


Policymakers, community relations and, xi, 54-55, 63Post-traumatic stress syndrome, 27Preference system, 13, 14, 50Preventive health care, 21, 22; funding cuts for, 80Preventive Health Services, 16Private Industry Councils (PICs), 36; ESL and, 43Professionals. See Bin lingual/bicultural professionals; Foreign -

born professionalsProgram for New Americans, 58Program funding, by service type, 77 (table)Program planning, 18, 42-43PRUCOL status. See Permanently residing under color of law

statusPublic assistance programs, refugee participation in, 76Public charge, 15, 86n34Public health, x, 21, 24-26; federal funds for, 26; state/local

programs for, 26. See also Health carePublic Health Service: health programs and, 25Public hospitals, 23-2

Quotas, national origin, 50, 89

B.Race relations, 57; media and, 49RCA. See Refugee Cash AssistanceREEP. See Refugee Early Employment ProjectRefugee Act (1980) (P.L. 96-212), ix, 1, 13, 67, 89; humanitarian

immigration and, 15-17; priorities in, 16; resettlementprogram by, 39; social services and, 40-41

Refugee arrivals: resettlement funds vs., 4 (figure); by state, 71(table)

Refugee assistance, reimbursement for, 4 (figure)Refugee Assistance Act (1980), Title V of, 19Refugee Assistance Amendments (1982) (P.L. 97-363), 89Refugee Assistance Extension Act (1986) (P.L. 99-605), 89Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA), 16, 67, 85n4Refugee Early Employment Project (REEF) (Oregon), 41-42Refugee Education Assistance, 15Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA), 16, 22, 23, 31, 67, 80, 85114Refugee Policy Group, REEP and, 42Refugee Program, 67, 80, 85n8, 86n21; cutbacks in, 69, 71, 73, 83-

84; employment and, 79; legacy of, 81-82, 84; spending for, 84;state costs for, 66; survey on, 70, 73

Refugees. See NewcomersRefugee Targeted Assistance, mental health and, 27Reimbursement, 4 (figure), 18, 23, 25, 67, 73, 82; rejecting, 70, 75;

seeking, 69, 83; shortening period for, 74. See alsoUncompensated costs

"Report on Southeast Asian Family and Youth Issues," 62Resettlement, 18, 39; assistance for, ix, 3, 10,11 -12; difficulties

with, 66, 70; health care and, x, 22; pattern of, 70; paying for,11, 68 (table); state/local governments and, 16-17

Resettlement funds, refugee arrivals vs., 4 (figure)Rhode Island: public health and, 26; SLIAG funds for, 74RMA. Sec Refugee Medical AssistanceRoanoke City Health District Refugee Clinic, interpreter services

at, 30

SSafe Street program, 55St. Paul: outreach in, 60-61; Southeast Asians in, 62St. Paul International Clinic, cross-cultural approach at, 28Salad bowl metaphor, 50, 51-52

Index

San Diego, diversity training in, 59San Francisco, Job Corps in, 35, 37San Jose, CET in, 37Santa Clara County Mental Health Bureau: ethnic composition

of, 30; Southeast Asians and, 28SAVE. See Systematic Alien Verification for Eligibility systemSAVE. See Systematic Aaen Verification for Entitlements systemSAWs. See Special agricultural workersSDAs. See Service Delivery AreasSegregation, institutional/residential, 54Self-sufficiency, xi, 3, 9, 15, 42, 46, 60; health care and, 22, 32;

promoting, 62, 63, 67Senate Appropriations Committee, funding from, 11Senate Judiciary Committee, funding from, 11Service Delivery Areas (SDAs), 36, 37-38, 43, 44Services: availability of, 45; costs of, 66-67, 71, 74; eligibility for,

44-45; reduction in, 76. Sec also Various services by typeSimpson-Rodino Act. See Immigration Reform and Control ActSLIAG. See State Legalization Impact Assistance GrantSocial Security Act, Title XX of, 40, 41Social services, 3, 16, 23, 40-41; cutbacks in, 76, 80; federal funds

for, xii; maintaining/expanding, 80-81; reduced federalsupport for, 79

Social Services program, ORR and, 40South Carolina, SLIAG and, 82Special agricultural workers (SAWs), 8, 17, 85n8Sponsors, 15SSI. See Supplemental Security IncomeState and Local Coalition on Immigration, vii, ix, 66State Employment and Training Commission, 43State Job Training Coordinating Council (JTPA), 36, 43, 44State Legalization Impact Assistance Grant (SLIAG), xi, xiii, 11,

23, 45, 46, 71, 75, 76, 85n8, 90; certification and, 44; changesfor, 66; cost-shifting under, 74; costs of, 66, 81 (table); creationof, 17; cutting, 84; DHHS and, 39, 40; education and, 40, 81,82; funds for, 69, 74; GAO study on, 74; IRCA and, 41; legacyof, 67, 81-82, 83, 84; managing, 62; survey on, xii, 70

State Refugee Office (Oregon), survey by, 85n2Sudomir v. McMahon, 38Supplemental Security Income (SSI), xii, 12, 16, 17, 41; cost -

shifts for, 73; eligibility for, 85n7; legal immigrants and, 15;reimbursement for, 67, 73

Systematic Alien Verification for Eligibility (SAVE) system, 22Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, 17

1 .1 S

TTacoma, immigrants in, 55Target Assistance, 16, 27, 42, 80; ORR and, 40, 41Targeted programs, mainstreaming vs., 43-44Task Force on New Americans (New York), 62Taxes, newcomers and, 2, 11, 14, 18Temporary protected status (TPS), 13, 19, 50Texas: AFDC costs in, 85n3; benefit structures/payment levels of, 73,

74 (table); county assistance programs in, 76; ESL in, 79, 81;funding cuts in, 80; health services in, 80; immigrant servicesin, 12; job training/placement in, 79, 80; language services in,77; Medicaid costs in, 23; reimbursement for, 69; SLIAG and,76, 82

TPS. See Temporary protected statusTraditional healing practices, 60Training, x-xi, 3; demand for, 42-43, 82; direct, 35; expansion of,

80, 83; federal, 34, 35; on-the-job, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 44;reduction of, 67, 76-77, 79; self-sufficiency, xi; vocational, 41

Translators: hiring, 60; lack of, 29; state/local programs for, 30Transnational Institute for New American Students, 60

107

Tuberculosis: incidence of, 24, 26; treatment of, 2520-hour rule, 38

UUnauthorized immigrants, 6, 8, 12, 18; IRCA and, 17; laws

governing, 13; number of, 17Uncompensated costs, 18, 23; 1' state /by program, 75 (table). See

also ReimbursementUnderground health systems, 23Undocumented immigrants, 8; costs for, 85n7; eduCation

benefits for, 1; health care and, 22, 23; Medicaid and, 23;reimbursement for, 69; SLIAG and, 41

Unemployment Insurance Board, 44University of Illinois, Chicago: survey by, 29Urban Institute, xi, 12, 66; on immigrant welfare use, 51; on

unauthorized migrants, 18"Using Health Care Services" (videotape), 26Utah: ESL in, 79; health services in, 80

VVDMH. See Virginia Department of Mental HealthVending, clashes over, 61Vermont, VOLAGs in, 12Videotapes, multilingual, 26Vietnamese: asylum for, 15; hepatitis B virus and, 24; special

needs of, 28, 42Virginia: ESL in, 79; immigrant services in, 12; licensing

reciprocity in, 44; SLIAG and, 82Virginia Department of Mental Health (VDMH), 30Visas: diversity, 34; extraordinary ability, 34; family, 34, 50;

immigrant, 8; nonmigrant, 8, 10; permanent residence, 8;

preference system for, 13,14, 50; worker, 34Vocational Education Board, 44Vocational English as a Second Language program (Georgia), 43Vocational Rehabilitation of Massachusetts, 42Voluntary agencies (VOLAGs), 12Voluntary Agency Matching Grant, 16; mental health and, 27Voluntary departure status, 19

wWagner-Peyser employment service, 35, 43Washington, D.C.: interethnic cooperation in, 57; SLIAG funds

for, 74Washington state: benefit structures/payment levels of, 74 (table);

cost-shifting in, 73; health services in, 80; immigrantexpenditures in, 73-74, 84; job training/placement in, 80;language services in, 80; Medicaid costs in, 73; SLIAG fundsfor, 74; welfare dependency in, 42

Welfare, 24; eligibility for, 83; legal immigrants and, 15;newcomers and, xii, 2, 51, 69, 73, 83, 85n12, 86n34; self-sufficiency and, xi

Welfare reform, xi; Clinton and, 85n7, 86-87n35; Republicansand, 85n7

Welfare-to-work transition, xi, 38, 46WIC. Sec Women, Infant, and Child programWilson/Fish Demonstration projects, 40, 41, 42Wisconsin, welfare dependency in, 42Women, Infant, and Child (WIC) program, 24Women and Infants Hospital (Rhode Island), public health and,

26Work and Responsibility Act (1994), 87n35Workforce. See Labor

America's Newcomers

9Amerlca s NewcomersAn Immigrant Policy Handbook

Mnore immigrants and refugees are coming to the United States today than at anytime since the turn of the century, and the large number and great diversity of

ewcomers are dramatically affecting states and localities. Although the federal

government sets immigration policy (the terms for entry into the country), states and localities

have become responsible for immigrant policy, that is, the policies that helpnewcomersassimilate into the country's economic, social, and civic life. This book isa reference onimmigrant policies for state and local policymakers.

Produced by the Immigrant Policy Project of the State and Local Coalition on Immigration, thiscomprehensive handbook

presents an overview of U.S. immigration, federal governance, and the effect ofimmigration on states and localities;

offers discussion of health care issues, employment and training programs, andcommunity relations and ethnic diversity; and

summarizes the results of a survey on the fiscal, programmatic, and institutional

effects on states of reduced targeted federal assistance for immigrants and refugees.It also includes a chronology of U.S. immigration legislation, a list of contacts on immigrationand immigrant policy, and a bibliography of recent publications on these topics.

The Immigrant Policy Project

The Immigrant Policy Project of the State and Local Coalition on Immigration is acollaboration of five natial:al organizations representing state and local government:

American Public Welfare Association

National Association of Counti


National Governors' Association

United States Conference of Mayors

The project is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to address the role of stateand local governments in the resettlement of refugees and immigrants. Other issuepapers of the project examine immigration trends and their effect on state and localgovernment; health care issues; and community relations.

AIMICAN WILIAM AssOCLATION111111111111111/1111

Item # 9366Price: $35.00

State and Local Coalition on ImmigrationImmigrant Policy Project

maivEotaN4tR5

ASSUEMON Caelorwas of Iftla

120ISBN 1-55516-996-1

document resume ed 380 246 author morse, …document resume ed 380 246 rc 019 977 author morse, ann,...

Documents