Domestic Resettlement of Indochinese Refugees: Struggle for Self-Reliance

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-05-10.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                         DOCUMENT RESUME
02416 - [A1332313]

Domestic Resettlement of Indochinese Refugees: Struggle for
Self-Reliance. HRD-77-35; B-133001. May 10, 1977. 47 pp.

Report to the Congress; by Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller General.
Issue Area: Income Security Programs (1300).
Contact: Human Resources and Development Div.
Budget Function: Income Security: Public Assista:nce and Other
    Income Supplements (604).
Organizaticn Concerned: Department of State; Department of
    Health, Education, and Welfare.
Congressional Relevance: House Committee on Ways and Means;
    Senate Committee on Finance; Congress.
Authority: Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of
    1975 (P.L. 94-23). Immigration and Nationality Act, sec.
    212(a)(15) (8 U.S.C. 1182). P.L. 94-24; S. Rept. 94-138.
    P.L. 94-441. S. 2313 (94th Cong.). H.R. 14447 (94th Cong.).
    S. 694 (95th Cong.).
          Attention is directed toward the resettlement phase of
the Ind&chinese refugee program, which includes the placement of
refugees with sponsors and their initial steps toward
integration into American society. Findings/Conclusions: lie
Department of State contracted with 9 professional voluntary
agencies and 10 State and local organizations to process
Indochina refugees through U.S. reception centers, the final
goal being resettlement. Confusion and misunderstanding,
especially concerning resettlement fees, resulted from the broad
contracts between the Department and the agencies. Once
resettled, many refugees went on the welfare rolls.
Recommendations: Because voluntary agencies have traditionally
been used to resettle refugees in emergency situations, the
State Department should provide, in future contractual
arrangements with voluntary agencies, for: a definition of the
term "resettlement"; the return of unused resettlement funds at
the completion of the program, when this is the intent of the
Government; uniform transitional allowances to meet refugees'
initial resettlement expenses; a specific resettlement fee
arrangement for voluntary agencies when friends and relatives
sponsor refugees and when refugees merely register wita the
agencies; and specific reporting requirements until programs are
completed. Enactment of legislation which would not deny
permanent-resident alien status to Indochinese refugees on
public assistance would help facilitate the adjustment of these
refugees into American society and ultimately lead the way to
U.S. citizenship. (Author/SC)

              Domestic Resettlement Of
              Indochinese Refugees--
              Struggle For Self-Reliance
              Department of State
              Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

              Indochinese refugees have been processed
              from reception centers into American com-
              munities by State and voluntary resettlement
              agencies. Confusion and misunderstanding re-
              sulted because contracts between the Depart-
              ment of State and the voluntary agencies were
              too broad.
              Between December 1, 1975, and December 1,
              1976, refugees on the welfare rolls have in-
              creased from about 19 to 30 percent. As of
              December 1, 1976, about 44,000 of the
              144,000 refugees who entered the United
              States were receiving cash assistance.

              HRD-77-35                                       MAY 10, 1977
                 COMPtROL..R GNERAL or
                                    OETHE UN, rtD STATES
                           WAIIN TOI D.C. a


 To the President of the Senate eii6 the
 Speaker of the House of Representatives

     With the collapse of the South Vietnamese
governments in April 1975, over 140,000         and Cambodian
ated and entere2 the U.S. resettlement   refugees were evacu-
                                        system under the Indo-
chinese refugee program. The
massive endeavor on the part ofresettlement process was a
                                 the U.S. Government involving
many State and local organizations, private
voluntary agencies.                          citizens, ;nd

     We previously issued three reports, as
chapter 1 of this report, which             discussed in
                                contained information relevant
to the evacuation and temporary care phases
                                            of the refugee pro-
gram. This report concerns our observations
ment phase of the program, including the     on the resettle-
with sponsors and their initial steps    placement of refugees
                                      toward being integr:ated
into American zsciety.
     We did not request all agencies concerned
                                                with the Indo-
chinese refugees to review and provide
report. The Department of State as well written comments on this
the President's Special Interagency Task  as representatives  of
Refugees, and HEW'R Refugee Task Force,   Force for Indochina
the report and provided comments which however, have reviewed
                                        have been incorporated
where appropriate.

     We made our review pirsuant to the Budget
Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), nd the Accounting    and Accounting
of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67).                      and Auditing Act

     Copies of this report are being
Office of Management and Budget, and sent to the Director,
                                     the Secretaries of State
and Health, Education, and Welfare.

                                      Comptroller General
                                      of the United States
                                      STRUGGLE FOR SELF-RELIANCE
                                      Department of State
                                      Department of Health, Education,
                                        and Welfare
              D I G E S T

              To process Indochinese refugees throuch U.S.
              reception centers, with the final goal being
              resettlement, the Department of State con-
              tracted with 9 professional voluntary
              agencies and 10 State and local organiza-
              tions. Contracts were too broad, however,
              leading to confusion and misunderstanding,
              especially concerning resettlement fees.

              Once resettled, many refugees go on the
              welfare rolis, increasing the burden to the
              The Congress appropriated $305 million for
              the Department of State to use to relocate
              and resettle Indochinese refugees. Another
              $100 million was appropriated tc the Depart-
              ment of Hea:.th, Education, and Welfare to
              provide capn and medical assistance, educa-
              tional activities, and publi\, health services
              to refugees.

             As part of the contractual arrangements, the
             State Department agreed to pay the voluntary
             agencies $500 to cover resettlement expenses
             for each refugee resettled. Voluntary
             agencies are professional resettlement
             agencies with long experience in the field
             of migration of immigrants and refugees, and
             have been considered the backbone of the
             resettlement program. As of June 30, 1976,
             the voluntary agencies had resettled about
             125,000 of the approximately 130,000 refugees
             that had resettled in the United States.


           Upon removal, the report
covr dte should be noted hereon.
The five agencies GAO reviewed were respon-
sible for resettling about 116,000 refugees.
At these agencies, however, contracts were
written too broadly. As a result, no uni-
form specific provisions had been made to
indicate whether voluntary agencies
-- should return unused resettlement
   funds, as the State Department
   believed was the intent of the
   Congress, and
-- should receive the full resettlement
   fee for refugees directly sponsored
   by relatives and friends Ra.d who
   were registered wish agencies with
   little or no involvement in arranging
   for resettlement.

Voluntary agencies esti.mated that 10,000
refugees were sponsored by families or
friends, which represented $5 million in
contract payments. (See pp.16-19.)

Refugees' confusion and misunderstanding con-
cerning the amourt of and manner in which
money was distributed to them might have
been avoided if the contracts had provided
that the voluntary agencies use part of the
resettlement fee to provide uniform trans-
itional allowances to refugees to cover
initial expenses. (See p. 19.)

As of June 30, 1976, the five agencies had
either received or were due about $58 million
in resettlement fees. The agencies had spent
about $36 million of it, leaving $22 million
available for expenditures until the program
ends in September 1977. Of the $36 million,
about $13 million was spent after December
1975, when most refugees had been sponsored
and placed into American communities. The
contracts provided for no financial reporting.
(See p. 14.)

A postaudit of the voluntary agencies' work
has been planned by the State Department.
However, in the absence of periodic financial

           reporting 'y voluntary agencies, the State
           Department should take immediate steps to
           examine voluntary agency funds spent after
           December 1975, in order to determine the
           nature of expenditures and whether volun-
           tary agency funds set aside for costs
           through September 1977 should remain out-
           standing. (See p. 20.)
           Because voluntary agencies have traditionally
           been used to resettle refugees in emergency
           situations, the State Department should pro-
           vide, in future contractual arrangements with
           voluntary agencies, for

           -- a definition of the term "resettlement";
           -- the return of unused resettlement funds
              at the completion of the program, when
              this is the intent of the Government;
           -- uniform transitional allowances to meet
              refugees' initial resettlement expenses;
           -- a specific resettlement fee arrangement
              for voluntary agencies when friends and
              relatives sponsor refugees and when
              refugees merely register with voluntary
              agencies; and

           -- specific reporting requirements,
              including the nature and extent of
              agency expenditures, until programs are
              completed.  (See p. 20.)

           Indochinese refugees have to overcome several
           obstacles in their quest for self-sufficiency:
           employment, language, income level, adjustment
           to ALerican customs, and breakdowns in sponsor
           arrangements. (See p. 34.)

           The percent of refugees receiving public
           assistance increased from about 19 to 30 percent
           between December 1, 1975 and December 1, 1976.

Tear Sht                         iii
In December 1976, about 44,000 of the
refugees resettled were on the welfare
rolls, prohibiting them from becoming
permanent resident aliens. (See p. 23.)

Legislation introduced in the 95th
Congress would change the refugees'
status from parole to permanent resident
alien and eventually pave the way for
U.S. citizenship and more job opportunity.
It specifically provides that the section
of the Immigration and Nationality Act
dealing with aliens on welfare not apply
to Indochinese refugees otherwise eli-
gible for permanent resident status
under the bill. GAO believes that the Congress
should deal with this segment of the
refugee population when considering the
legislation.   (See p. 26.)

                                    -   - -   -   -   -Pa_
DIGEST                                                   i

   1       INTRODUCTION                                  1
               Our prior reports on evac-
                 uation and camp phases                  2
               Resettlement of refugees in
                 the United States                       2
               Transition of refugee program to
                 HEW                                     3
               Scope of review                           4
             ROLE IN RESETTLEMENT                       5
               Resettlement process of VOLAGs           6
               Resettlement expenses                   11
               Contract responsibilities               16
               Conclusions                             19
               Recommendations                         19
             PROCESS                                   21
               HEW refugee resettlement programs       21
               Other Federal resettlement pro-
                 grams                                 29
               State and local resettlement
                 agencies                              31
               Recommendation to the Congress          32
             MENT                                      34
               Employment                              34
               Language                                36
               Income level                            36
               Adjusting to American customs           36
               Breakdowns in sponsorship
                 arrangements                          37

       I   Indochinese refugees in the United
             States as of December 1, 1976 (HEW
             Refugee Task Force report of
             December 20, 1976)                        40
APPENDIX                                               Page

    II      Indochinese refugees resettled in the
              United States as of December 1, 1976      41

   III      Percentage of Indochinese refugees cn
              financial assistance--for December 1,
              1975, and December 1, 1976                43

    IV      Average 1975 unemployment rates for
              States where Indochinese refugees
              resettled                                 45
     V      Principal officials responsible for
              administering activities discussed
              in this report                            47

     CWS    Church World Service

     FRC    Federal Regional Council

     GAO    General Accounting Office

     HEW    Department of Health, Education, and

    HIAS    United HIAS Service, Inc. (Hebrew
              Immigrant Aid Society)
     HUD    Department of Housing and Urban
     INS    Immigration and Naturalization Service
     IRC    International Rescue Committee, Inc.

    LIRS    Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service

     SBA    Small Business Administration

     SRS    Social and Rehabilitation Service
    USCC    United States Catholic Conference

   VOLAGs   voluntary agencies
                          CHAPTER 1


     When the South Vietnamese and Cambodian governments
collapsed in April 1975, thousands of refugees sJught rescue
and a place of resettlement in the United States. As of
December 30, 1975, approximately 141,000 refugees were evac-
uated arid had entered the resettlem.ent system. About 130,000
settled in the United States and jo.'.ned the 16,000 Indochinese
who were already in the United States prior to the fall of
the governments of Vietnam and Cambodia.
     The problem of finding temporary living areas where the
refugees could be housed and processed was solved by opening
four Western Pacific restaging areas and four U.S. reception
centers during April and May 1975. To coordinate U.S. Govern-
ment efforts in this massive humanitarian undertaking, the
President if the United States established the Interagency
Task Force for Indochina Refugees (Interagency Task Force)
on April 18, 1975, which was composed of representatives
from 18 Federal departments and agencies, each contributing
its own expertise. These Federal departments and agencies
had responsibility for advising and providing personnel and
resources to the Interagency Task Force. The Task Force was
charged with providing for the transportation and safety of
the refugees, and the planning and implementing of a major
resettlement program.
     To assist the refugees, the Congress, in May 1975,
enacted the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act
of 1975 (Public Law 94-23), and the accompanying appropri-
ation act (Public Law 94-24).  Public Law 94-23 authorized
$455 million to be used for assistance to the refugees.
Funds were made available (1) to State and local public
agencies which provided refugee services; (2) to other
agencies and organizations to pay for refugee transportation
and resettlement expenses; and (3) for employment and training
     Of the $455 million authorized under Public Law 94-23, a
total of $405 million was appropriated by Public L-w 94-24
which was approved May 23, 1975. The Congress appropriated
     -- $305 million to the State Department to remain avail-
        able for obligation purposes through June 30, 1976,
        for the relocation and resettlement of refugees.

    --$100 million to the Department of Health, Education,
      and Welfare (HEW) for assistance to refugees in the
      United States. These funds were also to remain
      available for obligation purposes through June 30,

     In addition to the $100 million appropriated to HEW, the
State Department transferred $53 million of its $305 million
appropriation to HEW as of June 30, 1976, primarily for wel-
fare and medical care under the Medicaid program. The State
Department had obligated the $252 million remaining of the
$305 million appropriation as of June 30, 1976.
     Furthermore, HEW included in its fiscal year 1977 budget
request to the Congress, the $50 million that had been
authorized but not appropriated, and an authorization to
mcke presently appropriated funds available through September
1977. This was approved October 1, 1976, by Public Law 94-441.
Through November 30, 1976, HEW had obligated about $117


     We previously issued three reports dealing with this
program. The initial report to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, "Review of Preliminary Estimates of Evacuation
Costs, Temporary Care and Resettlement Costs of Vietnamese
and Cambodian Refugees," ID-75-68, May 27, 1975, dealt with
preliminary estimates of evacuation costs and our views re-
garding their validity. Our second report to the Congress,
"U.S. Provides Safe Haven for Indochinese Refugees," ID-75-71,
June 16, 1975, included information on estimated program
costs and the handling of the flow of refugees from the
Western Pacific restaging areas to the U.S. reception centers.
The third report to the Congress, "Evacuation and Temporary
Care Afforded Indochinese Refugees--Operation New Life," ID-
76-63, June 1, 1976, followed our second report and provided
up-to-date information on temporary care at the U.S. reception
centers, and included certain cost data.
     The Indochinese refugee program was a massive endeavor
by the U.S. Government involving many State and local govern-
ments, private citizens, and voluntary agencies (VOLAGs).

     This report deals with our observations on the two
resettlement phases of the program: (1) placing the
refugees with sponsors and their initial steps toward
being integrated into American society, and (2) providing
additional assistance to refugees in the early stages of
resettlement and assessing their progress since their
departure from the reception centers.
     To process the refugees through the system with the
final goal being resettlement, the State Department con-
tracted with nine VOLAGs and a number of State and local
governments. These VOLAGs are professional resettlement
agencies with long experience in-the field of migration
of immigrants and refugees, and were the backbone of
the resettlement program. As of December 31, 1975, VOLAGs
had resettled 115,000 refugees while State and local
resettlement agencies had resettled about 5,000. Almost
8,200 refugees were resettled to unknown U.S. locations.
These refugees were among the first wave of refugees
to arrive in the United States and were accompanied by
former employers and relatives. They were processed through
Travis Air Force Base because refugee reception centers
had not yet been established. According to HEW Task Force
officials, no records were kept on refugees' relocations.
Some 6,600 refugees had resettled in third countries, and
another 1,546 had repatriated to Vietnam. The last reception
center closed on December 20, 1975.
     In May 1976, the U.S. Attorney General authorized an
additional 11,000 Indochinese refugees, mainly from camps
in Thailand, to be admitted into the United States.
     Following the closing of the reception centers, the
Interagency Task Force terminated its work, and in January
1976, the monitoring of refugees' resettlement activities
was transferred to the HEW Refugee Task Force which was
composed principally of personnel from HEW; Departments of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Interior, and the
Treasury; and the Agency for International Development.
The Department of State: however, retained financial
responsibility for Interagency Task Force operations, for
example, payments to VOLAGs for resettlement billings.
     HEW regional offices have proceeded to add temporary
staff members who speak either the Viet:iamese or Cambodian
language. Working with HEW's permanent staff in the regions,
these staff members will be responsible for:
    1.    Ensuring that existing HEW services within
          a region are available to support refugee

    2.    Augmenting the services of State and local
          health, education, and welfare agencies
          through the use of a selective problem-
          analysis and solving capability.

     3.   Working with regional and local VOLAG offices
          to assist in the development of supportive
          follow-up mechanisms to facilitate refugee

     4.   Coordinating other resources to maximize
          the possibility of successful refugee
          resettlement and readjustment.


     In the Senate Committee on Appropriations report, ac-
companying the appropriation act (Public Law 94-24, Senate
Report No. 94-138, dated May 15, 1975), we were directed
to monitor the obligations and expenditures under the program
and to periodically report our findings to the Committee on
Appropriations. Because of other congressional interest in
the program, however, it was agreed with the Committee that
our reports would be addressed to the Congress after we ful-
filled the Committee's initial request with our May 1975

     As a result of this mandate regarding the Indochinese
refugee program, we initiated this review to provide an
insight into the progress of the refugees' resettlement in
the United States.
     The review was directed primarily towards the progress
made by VOLAGs, resettlement problems encountered by
sponsors and refugees, and the effectiveness and timeliness
of Federal and State refugee assistance programs. We made
our review at the Departments of State and HEW in Washington,
D.C., and at the New York headquarters of five VOLAGs.
Refugees were interviewed in New York, Oklahoma, Florida,
California, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey during October
and November '975.

                          CHAPTER 2
      Refugees coming to the United States since World
have traditionally been resettled largely through the War   II
of voluntary agencies. These organizations have helped
refugees and immigrants from Hungary, Cuba, Russia, Uganda,
and other countries to integrate into American society. Prior
to 1961, VOLAGs worked primarily through their'own
resources. With the arrival of about 600,000 Cuban refugees
durinq the 1960s and early 1970s, the Government provided
grants to VOLAGs to assist-them in their
efforts. Durinq the 1970s the Government resettlement
                                           began to contract
with VOLAGs to resettle refugees. In 1975, with the
sudden influx of Indochinese refugees, the Government again
turned to VOLAGs. Their expertise and experience were
needed, since the United States had never  before experienced
the arrival of so many refugees in so short a time.

      The State Departm nt contracted with nine VOLAGs to
resettle the Indochinese refugees. Four   of them were
sectarian types and represented major religious denominations
in the United States. These included the United
Catholic Conference (USCC); Church World Service States
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS); and United
HIAS Service, Inc. (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)).
The five other nonsectarian VOLAGs included the Tolstoy
Foundation, Inc.; American Council for Nationalities
Service; American Fund for Czechoslovak Refugees; Travelers-
Aid International Social Services; and the International
Rescue Committee, Inc. (IRC).
     As part of the contractual arrangements, the State
Department agreed to pay VOLAGs $500 to cover resettle-
ment expenses for each refugee resettled. According to the
Senate Appropriations Committee report (Senate Report
No. 94-138, dated May 15, 1975), VOLAGR would be reim-
bursed only for those costs actually incurred which were in
excess of their normal operating costs. The State Department
considered the $500 an average figure,
nized that some refugees would cost moresince it was recog-
                                          to resettle than
others. VOLAGs had responsibility for providing counseling
at the reception centers and for placing refugees with
sponsors. The role of the sponsor--individual or group--
depended on how much assistance VOLAGs provided.


     For our review, we selected the five largest VOLAGs
in terms of number of refugees resettled. These included
the four sectarian VOLAGs and IRC. The number and per-
cent of refugees resettled by all VOLAGs is shown in the
following chart.

                       REFUGEE RESETTLEMENTS
                               BY VOLAG
                          AS OF JUNE 30, 1976

 SERVICE, INC.            1750o0       U.S. CATHOLIC
                                -- J~aCONFERENCE
                 IMMIGRATION AND /          59,901
                 REFUGEE SERVICE

                               WORLD                   /
United States Catholic Conference
     USCC has resettled 59,901 refugees, more than any other
VOLAG. As of June 30, 1976, USCC was entitled to receive
$29.9 million, of which it had spent about $21.2 million.

     USCC is the official representative of the Catholic
Bishops of the United States in the fields of migration,
immigration, and refugee affairs. The Conference utilizes a
nationwide network of dioceses to resettle refugees. Each
diocese has a resettlement director who acts as a liaison
between USCC and the local parish or individual sponsor. The
director is responsible for finding good sponsors for the
refugees, monitoring the resettlement, and resolving problems
and breakdowns in refugee/sponsor relationships.
     USCC reimburses each diocese for resettlement expenses
up to an average of $300 for each refugee   In addition,
$10 is given to each refugee for pocket r aey when he leaves
the camp. The remaining funds (about $190) are allocated for
USCC headquarters and diocesan administrative expenses, and
for various employment and educational programs to assist the
     In most cases, sponsors pay for food, clothing, Lent,
and other resettlement expenses for the refugees, o.er and
above that provided by the local diocesan resettlement office.

     For example, one refugee living in New York City with
his wife and six children received from the local diocesan
resettlement office $1,650 of the $2,400 allotted for
living expenses, and the family received $80 for travel
expenses when they left the reception camp. The diocese has
$750 remaining to provide direct assistance to the family.
These and more funds may ultimately be given to the family
if they need it. If they do not, the money would be available
to other needy refugees, according to a USCC representative.
The sponsor of the refugee family also contributed $1,100
for food, rent, and utilities.

     Of the $4,000 paid to USCC for resettling the family
($500 x 8 refugees), it has set aside $1,520 ($190 x 8
refugees) for administrative expenses and future programs to
assist the refugees.

Church World Service

     CWS is a department of the Division of Overseas
Ministries of the National Council of the Churches of Christ
in the United States of America. CWS is responsible for the
operation and coordination of the Council'. immigration and
refugee program. The agency has resettled approximately
18,000 Indochinese refugees with sponsors. As of June 30,
1976, CWS was entitled to receive about $9.1 million, of which
it had spent $4.2 million.

     CWS obtains sponsors from local churches, groups, or
individuals who volunteer their help. Each refugee; is
given a transitional grant of $100 and $10 pocket money
upon leaving camp. Once the refugee is with a sponsor, any
breakdowns in the relationship between the refugee and his
sponsor or other problems encountered by the refugee are
usually taken care of by the local church. CWS is contacted
only when additional financial assistance is required.

     As an example, a refugee family placed by CWS received
a $100 transitional grant and $10 pocket money for each of
the eight members in the family when they left the camp.
Their sponsor, two local churches, gave them $1,000 along
with furniture and household items.

Lutheran Immigration
and Refugee Service
     LIRS is a department of the   Division of Mission and
Ministry of the Lutheran Council   in the United States of
America. It handles immigration    and refugee affairs for
the three participating Lutheran   Synods of the Lutheran

     LIRS has resettled almost 16,000 Indochinese refugees.
As of June 30, 1976, LIRS was entitled to receive about
$8.4 million and had spent $3.3 million. Most of the LIRS
refugees were sponsored by Lutheran congregations throughout
the United States. Although the agency has used individual
sponsors, it encourages individuals to link their sponsorships
with congregations to prevent sponsor breakdowns and other
problems. Sponssrships are arranged by regional coord-
inators established for the program. These coordinators
meet with congregations, supply them with information on
sponsorship, and act as a liaison between the congregation
and LIRS.

     LIRS requires its sponsors to bear the major costs of
resettlement. LIRS pLovides each refugee with $10 pocket
money upon leaving camp. Additional financial assistance to
the sponsor is usually not necessary because of the many
resources available to a congregation. A Lutheran congrega-
tion in California, for example, sponsored a Vietnamese
mother and her four children. Her husband had remained in
Vietnam. Church members found a job for the mother; obtained
an apartment for the family; paid for their rent, food, and
clothing; and donated furniture and other household items.
In addition, the refugees were given free medical services
by a member of the church.

United HIAS Service, Inc.
     HIAS is a worldwide Jewish migration agency whose
organizational roots go back to 1884. Normally, the agency
services only Jewish refugees and migrants, but at the re-
quest of the State Department, it agreed to resettle Indo-
chinese refugees. Since it began accepting the refugees,
HIAS has resettled approximately 3,550 refugees. As of
June 30, 1976, HIAS was entitled to $1.8 million for that
work and had spent $1.5 million.
     HIAS sponsors are either Jewish family agencies or
individuals. Refugees resettled through the family
agencies receive the benefits of a professional social
service organization. The family agency provides employment,
housing, and cou.nseling services to the refugee and his
family, with the objective of making the refugees independ-
ent. To reimburse the family agency for providing these
services, HIAS pays them $450 for each refugee who is spon-
sored. For a family of six refugees, the family agency would
receive $2,700 from HIAS. Whether the agency would spend all
of the funds would depend on the needs of the refugee.   If
some of the money is not needed, it would be available for
other refugees, according to an agency representative.

     Most refugees sponsored by individuals received a $100
transitional grant from HIAS when they left the reception
center. Their additional needs would be met by the sponsor.
In some cases, hundreds of dollars were spent by individual
sponsors. For example, the sponsor of a Cambodian refugee
family spent about $2,600 for food, rent, utilities, clothing,
and other miscellaneous items. In cases where an individual
sponsor is unable to provide all the necessary assistance,
the refugee can obtain additional aid from HIAS.

International Rescue Committee, Inc.

     IRC is a nonsectarian organization whose objective is to
provide worldwide assistance to needy refugees, with special
emphasis on assistance to children. IRC has been in existence
since 1933 and has resettled refugees from all parts of the
world. During this program, IRC resettled about 17,500
refugees with the help of individuals, community groups, and
organizations as sponsors. As of June 30, 1976, IRC was en-
titled to receive about $8.8 million, of which it had spent
$5.9 million.
     IRC provided refugees with transitional grants of $100
plus $10 for travel expenses when they left the reception
centers. It does not, as a matter of policy, provide any
additional aid unless requested by the refugee or sponsor.
Requests are frequently made, however, and, according to an
IRC official, it has provided an extensive amount of aid
to refugees after they were placed with their sponsors.

     An example of one IRC case involved the resettlement
of a young man in California. He came to the United States
without his family and was resettled in September 1975.
He initially received a $100 transitional grant and $10
travel expenses when he left Camp Pendleton. Later, he
received an additional $240 from IRC for food, rent, and

Confusion over distribution
of resettlement funds
     The manner in which resettlement funds were distributed
by VOLAGs caused some confusion and misunderstanding
among the refugees. Some refugees received transitional
allowances when they left the reception centers, while
others received only travel or pocket money, depending on
the particular VOLAG's policy. One local resettlement
agency (Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association) dis-
tributed the entire $500 resettlement fee it received
directly to each of its refugees in installments. As a
result of the varying VOLAG and resettlement agency policies
for allocating resettlement funds, refugees became increasingly
concerned about how much cash assistance they were actually
entitled to receive. Our review of HEW files as well as
refugee communications to us indicated that this has been a
major source of refugee dissatisfaction with the program.

     In this connection, the HEW Refugee Task Force reported
to the Congress in March 1976, that in response to refugee
concerns, it had circulated a statement to the refugees in-
forming them that the allocation of the $500 resettlement
funds was left to the discretion of the individual VOLAG.
The table below summarizes the policies used by the VOLAGs
included in our review to allocate resettlement funds to the

                              Transitional       Travel or
VOLAG:                        allowance          pocket money
     USCC                          -                $10
     CWS                         $100                10
     LIRS                          -                 10
     HIAS                         100
     IRC                          100                10

     The five VOLAGs we reviewed had resettled about 107,000
refugees as of December 31, 1975. For performing this task
they had received or were due approximately $53 million, yet
they had accomplished the first phase of the program--that
is, the initial resettlement, by expending only about $23
million at the end of 1975.

               VOLAG Resettlement Receipts and
             Expenture as of DeceMber 31j,.175

                           Unspent Still due     Funds available
VOLAG Receipts Expenditures funds    VOLAG       for future cost

  - -…- - - - - …-
                 - - - -(millions)

USCC     $19.5    $11.9     $ 7.6    $ 6.1            $13.7
CWS        4.4      2.9       1.5      4.5              6.0
LIRS       3.4      2.0       1.4      4.5              5.9
HIAS       1.5      1.4        .1       .2               .3

IRC        8.7      4.5       4.2       .5              4.7
 Total   $37.5    $22.7     $14.8    $15.8            $30.6
VOLAGs stated that more money will be spent    in future years
to cover the expenses of sponsor breakdowns    and additional
financial needs of refugees and programs to    assist the
refugees in areas such as job placement and    language training.
     The following chart shows the average VOLAG resettlement
cost per refugee for the five VOLAGs. It does not include
any money provided to the refugees by sponsors who were
not reimbursed by VOLAGs.

                                     BY VOLAG
                              AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1975

400 -

300 -

        100                "         "        _      ,        ,       ,:',.:':',,,,':.:.:.:-...:"
                                                                      ,,',    ............                .


            USCC                 CWS                  LIRS                HIAS                      IRC
                      expenses (direct   ssista.nc to refugees and sp.n .rs)
        Salary and odminlstrotive expenses of VOLAG

     As of June 30, 1976, new figures reported by the five
VOLAGs in the table below show that about 116,000 refugees
had been resettled. Approximately $58 million was either
received or due VOLAGs, and about $36 million had been

                  VOLAG Resettlement Receipts and
                 Expenditures as of June 30, 1976
                                Unspent       due    Funds available
VOLAG   Receipts   Expenditures funds        VOLAG   for future cost

                   -- - - - -   (millions)

JSCC     $26.2        $21.2      $ 5.0       $ 3.7        $ 8.7
CWS        8.3          4.2          4.1        .8          4.9
LIRS       5.9          3.3          2.6       2.5          5.1

HIAS       1.8          1.5           .3        -            .3

IRC        8.8          5.9          2.9        -           2.9
  Total $51.0         $36.1      $14.9       $ 7.0        $21.9

     A comparison with the December 31, 1975, figures show
that for the 6 months ended June 30, 1976, VOLAG expen;di-
tures increased by $13 million, and the funds available for
future costs were reduced by almost $9 million.
Return of unused funds

     The contracts between VOLAGs and the State Department
were written and awarded very quickly because of the urgent
need to resettle the refugees. As a result, some contracts
did not indicate whether VOLAGs were required to return
unused resettlement funds.
     In an attempt to clarify the Government's position, the
State Department notified VOLAG officials on November 20,
1975, that the Senate Appropriations Committee expected that
VOLAGs would be reimbursed only for those costs actually
incurred which exceeded their normal operating costs.
Because of the Committee's position and the possibility
that reimbursements may exceed actual costs, the State Depart-
ment also told VOLAGs that they should return unused
funds, even though they were not reauired to do so by the
     Officials of four of the five VOLAGs we spoke with
agreed that they would return unused funds, at the end of
the program--September 30, 1977. However, officials of LIRS

advised us that they expect to spend all of the funds they
have received under the contract.
     State Department officials informed us that in April
1976, they had instructed VOLAGs that when the program
terminates in September 1977, they should request retaining
unused funds to cover unusual medical or other special long-
term care needed for specified refugees. The legality of
whether the VOLAGs can continue to use funds after
September 30, 1977, is presently under consideration by
the State Department.
Some refugees resettled with
  ittle or no VOLAG involvement
 inarranging for sponsors

     Between April and June 1975, VOLAG and Interagency Task
Force activities were focused on organizing and providing for
resettling the refugees. During this period, the Task Force
became concerned with reports that certain sponsorships were
breaking down. The Task Force was particularly alarmed at
breakdowns in cases where the refugees were sponsored by
either their relatives, who were often spouses of American
citizens, or former employers (direct sponsorships), and where
there was no VOLAG processing at the camps involved. To
help solve problems in these situations, the Task Force decided
that each refugee should register with a VOLAG even though
there was a direct sponsorship arrangement. The Task Force
reasoned that if these sponsorship arrangements broke down
the refugee would be in a better position if there was a
VOLAG to rely on for assistance.

     Many refugees registered with VOLAGs under these condi-
tions although they were sponsored by relatives or former
employers with little or no VOLAG assistance. The registra-
tion procedure unfortunately created a problem. VOLAGs
generally followed the practice of billing for all the refu-
gees registered with them regardless of whether a VOLAG was
instrumental in obtairing a sponsor. The result was that
VOLAGs were reimbursed $500 per refugee in all registered
cases even though little or no service was provided in ini-
tially arranging for sponsors.

     HEW and State Department officials informed us that,
aside from the fact that some refugees cost more to resett'le
than others, VOLAGs had responsibility for sponsor verifica-
tion, as well as long-term responsibility for the refugees.

     During the course of our work, we visited each of the
five VOLAGs and asked them to estimate the number of refugees
fitting into this category. They estimated the number of
these refugees at about 10,000, representing about $5 million
in resettlement payments.

Plans for State Department audit

     State Department officials in the Office of Inspector
General for Foreign Service informed us that plans are under-
way to audit VOLAC refugee resettlement activities when the
program terminates in September 1977. We believe, however,
it would be more desirable for an audit to be made before
the program ends in order to determine (1) how VOLAGs
spent $13 million over the 6-month period since the recep-
tion centers were closed and the initial resettlements were
accomplished, and (2) if the $22 million set aside for future
costs should continue to remain outstanding until the program

     State Department officials informed us that they did not
believe an audit of VOLAG expenditures after December 1975
was necessary, particularly since a postaudit of VOLAG ac-
tivities has already been planned for September 1977. They
also mentioned that if funds were found to be improperly
used, VOLAGs involved would reimburse the State Department.
In addition, State Department officials advised us that if
VOLAG funds could not continue to remain outstanding,
ongoing VOLAG training and placement programs would be seri-
ously hindered.

     However, as discussed on page 19, since the VOLAG con-
tracts provided for no financial reporting with respect to
the nature and purpose of VCLAG expenditures, we believe that
this lack of accountability makes an early audit desirable.


     The contracts between the State Department and VOLAGs
basically called for the VOLAGs to provide reception and
placement assistance for the refugees with the objective of
resettling them in the United States. In addition, the con-
tracts also contained specific monitoring and reporting re-
sponsibilities which VOLAGs were to carry out. The
reporting responsibilities, however, did not include infor-
mation on the nature and purpose of VOLAG expenditures under
the contracts.

Resettlement responsibilities

     VOLAG officials generally believe their major lcgal
responsibility under the contract was to place refugees with
sponsors. In their opinion, placement with a sponsor con-
stituted resettlement under the contract and entitled them
to the $500 resettlement fee. Although VOLAG officials be-
lieve their legal responsibility was met when this was done,
they did not consider their job finished. By their definition,
resettlement means more than simply placing a refugee with a
sponsor. Generally, they consider a refugee resettled when
he is an employed and self-supporting member of the community,
even though it may take several years for some refugees to
reach this position. During this time VOLAGs will stand
by to assist the refugees.

Monitoring and reporting

     The contracts included initial reporting requirements to
be completed shortly after the refugee was placed with a
sponsor. VOLAGs were also required to monitor resettlements
and report on sponsor breakdowns to the Interagency Task
Force and to the HEW Task Force.

Initial reporting requirements

     USCC, CWS, HIAS, and IRC were required to report, within
30 days of resettlement, the name, address, and employment
status of the head of each family or individual refugee, and
whether the refugee was attending school. While IRC has been
meeting these requirements, USCC and CWS have not been able
to obtain Lue employment or educational status of all their
refugees. They sent out questionnaires to obtain this in-
formation but have had difficulty obtaining and reporting the
data. HIAS has been waiting until the State Department
standardizes its reporting requirements before releasing its

     LIRS requested a different reporting requirement in
its contract to monitor resettlements more closely. LIRS
had been required to immediately report the arrival of
a refugee, and within 45 days, report on the specific re-
settlement action taken by the sponsor. In addition, it had
been required to submit confirmed copies of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) release and the report on
arrival of the refugee as the basis for payment under the
contract. As of December 31, 1975, LIRS had sent in the

required reports and INS releases for only 900 of the 16,000
refugees it had resettled.

Breakdown in sponsorship reporting requirements

     Under their contracts, USCC, CWS, HIAS, and IRC are re-
quired to report quarterly from July 1, 1975 to September
30, 1977, any known instances of breakdowns in sponsorship
arrangements and the steps taken to correct the situation in
each case. Only IRC, however, was complying with the require-
ment. CWS has refused to provide any information to the
Government, other than the refugee's name and funds provided,
in order to protect the privacy of the refugees. According to
a CWS official, this information has been accepted by the
State Department in place of the quarterly report on sponsor-
ship breakdowns. USCC officials said they have not sent in the
required reports because they usually do not monitor resettle-
ments once refugees have been placed with the local parish or
family service agency. Sponsorship breakdowns are resolved at
the local level and are not reported to USCC.
     LIRS was required to submit quarterly reports on the
status of all resettlements for 1 year after its initial
45-day report. As of December 31, 1975, the agency, however,
had not submitted any quarterly reports. LIRS planned to send
them in when it had complied with the State Department's
initial reporting requirements.

     HIAS officials stated that they would not submit the re-
port until the HEW Task Force defined resettlement.
New reporting requirements

      During December 1975, the State Department sent letters
 to VOLAGs indicating new reporting requirements. The
 State Department believed that the 30-day initial reporting
 requirement and quarterly reports on sponsorship breakdowns
 were not providing the Government with information necessary
 to conduct its responsibilities under the program. Informa-
 tion contained in the new reports includes family status,
 language ability, employment, health, housing, public assist-
,ance, and sponsor-relationship status. The new report would
 provide information which would permit monitoring the progress
 of the program and would provide data for answering congres-
 sional requests about the program. According to HEW Task
 Force officials, the new reporting requirements provide more
 meaningful information than the initial reporting requirements.

     As of June 8, 1976, the HEW Task Force reported that
about 10,500 progress reports involving about 42,000 of the
116,000 refugees resettled, had been received from the 5

Lack of financial reporting

     Although contracts with VOLAGs provided that expen-
diture records be maintained in support of the refugee pro-
gram, VOLAGs were not required to periodically report the
nature and purpose of such payments to the State Department.
     Most VOLAG program initial resettlement costs would prob-
ably have been incurred by December 1975, when most refugees
were sponsored and placed into American communities. We
believe that in implementing the State Department audit plans
and in the absence of any financial reporting by VOLAGs,
it would be desirable to examine VOLAG expenditures after that
date and before the program ends, to determine both the nature
and purpose of the expenditures, and whether all VOLAG funds
set aside for anticipated costs until September 1977, should
remain outstanding.
     Concerning contractual agreements with VOLAGs, the
terms of the contracts were written so broadly that no uni-
form specific provisions had been made to indicate (1)
whether VOLAGs should return unused resettlement funds, al-
though the State Department believed this was the intent of
the Congress, and (2) whether VOLAGs should receive the full
resettlement fee from the State Department for refugees
who were directly sponsored by relatives and friends, and
were merely registered with VOLAGs, with little or no assist-
ance provided in initially arranging for sponsors.

     Furthermore, the confusion and misunderstanding which
has existed among the refugees concerning the amount of and
manner in which money was distributed to the refugees out of
the resettlement fees received by the VOLAGs, might have been
avoided if the contracts had provided for uniform transitional
allowances by the VOLAGs to cover initial refugee expenses.

     Although a postaudit of VOLAG refugee activity has
been planned by the State Department, we recommend that the

Secretary of State instruct the Inspector General for Foreign
Service to
    -- take immediate steps to examine VOLAG funds spent
       after December 1975 to determine the nature of the
       expenditures and whether VOLAG funds set aside for
       anticipated costs until the program terminates in
       September 1977, should remain outstanding.
     Because VOLAGs hae traditionally been used to resettle
refugees in emergency situations, we also recommend that in
future contractual arrangements with VOLAGs, the State
Department make certain that contracts provide for
     --a definition of the term "resettlement;"
     -- the return of unused resettlement funds at the com-
        pletion of the program, when such is the intent of the
     -- uniform transitional allowances by VOLAGs to meet
        the refugees' initial resettlement expenses;

     -- a specific resettlement fee arrangement for VOLAGs
        when there is direct sponsorship by relatives or
        former employers, and when refugees merely register
        with VOLAGs; and

     -- specific reporting requirements until the completion
        of the program which include the nature and extent
        of VOLAG expenditures.

                          CHAPTER 3

     During the first phase of domestic resettlement, primary
emphasis had been given to arranging sponsorships and placing
refugees from the reception centers into American communities
by State and voluntary resettlement organizations. The
second phase of the resettlement process has been concerned
with providing additional assistance to refugees in the early
stages of resettlement, and in assessing the progress made
by the Indochinese since their departure from-the reception

     With the closing of the last reception center in December
1975, coordination of domestic refugee resettlement activities
became the responsibility of the HEW Refugee Task Force in
the Office of the Secretary and the HEW regional offices.
In October 1976, the HEW Task Force functions and many staff
members were transferred to the Social and Rehabilitation
Service (SRS) within HEW.

     The discussion that follows describes the Federal,
State, and local governments' role in the resettlement pro-
cess, including major assistance programs which were available
to refugees. The Federal departments and agencies discussed
are those considered by the HEW Task Force to have been prin-
cipally involved in the domestic resettlement of refugees.
The information is based primarily on data contained in quar-
terly status reports on refugees prepared by the HEW Task
Force and its predecessor, the Interagency Task Force. The
reports will continue to be submitted to the Congress by the
President until September 30, 1977, and a final report will be
submitted no later than December 31, 1977, a requirement under
the Indochina Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975.

     Program assistance available to refugees consisted of
three major categories--cash assistance and Medicaid, educa-
tional activities, and public health services. Funds appro-
priated to carry out these activities, related obligations as
of November 30, 1976, and a detailed discussion of these
programs follow.

               HEW Refugee Program Assistance
                  Status of Funds Available
                   as of November 30, 1976

Funds appropriated:                                    (millions)

   -- Amount appropriated to HEW under Public
       Law 94-24 - May 1975                              $100.0

   -- Amount transferred to HEW from Department
       of State appropriation - June 1976                  53.0

   -- Amount appropriated to HEW under P.L. 94-441 -
        October 1976                                       50.0

       Total                                             $203.0


     Cash assistance and Medicaid           $87.1

     Educational activities                  25.4

     Public health services                     4.5       117.0

       Total funds available                             $ 86.0

Cash assistance and Medicaid
     This activity includes financial and medical assistance,
and social services available to Vietnamese, Cambodian and
Laotian refugees who have now resettled in the United States.
HEW assistance has been provided through regular State and
local public assistance ag ncies thtt administer related wel-
fare and medicaid programs under similar standards as those
in the domestic programs (e.g., Aid to Families with Depen-
dent Children). Agreements involving HEW and State welfare
agencies serve as the basis for providing the assistance
and include estimated costs to be incurred by the State as
well as local agencies within the State. These agreements
provide for 100 percent reimbursement for assistance and
services rendered, including administrative costs, because
HEW and the Congress did not want the refugees to become a
burden on State or local resources.
     Eligibility requirements for public assistance to re-
fugees such as determination of need, scope of services,

and level of payments have been based on the program stand-
ards of the particular State, which vary considerably
among the States.  For example, about one-fourth of the ref-
ugees have resettled in California where cash assistance
payments are slightly higher than the national average.  (See
app. II for distribution of refugees by State.) The extent
and incidence of assistance that may be required for refugees
in each State is affected by the income and resources avail-
able to them, which in most instances is directly related to
their employment situation.

Upward trend in cash assistance and Medicaid
     According to figures reported by the HEW Task Force on
December 20, 1976, 44,000 of the 144,000 refugees resettled
in the United States, or about 30 percent, were receiving
cash assistance and were also eligible for Medicaid. Other
data reported by the Task Force indicated that the percent
of refugees receiving cash assistance had increased from
about 19 to 30 percent between December 1, 1975, and December 1,
1976. (See app. III.) In addition, refugees receiving only
Medicaid, had increased by 70 percent for the same period
(13,000 versus 23,000). 1/

     HEW officials informed us that while they consider 30
percent of the refugees on cash assistance to be substantial,
it is far less than the 50 percent figure which was origi-
nally anticipated in the early stages of the refugee program.

     The high number of refugees on the welfare rolls was
largely attributed to their lack of marketable job skills
and inability to speak the English language.

     With the objective of reducing by one-half the number of
Indochinese on cash assistance and having them become econom-
ically self-sufficient, the HEW Task Force in March 1976,
prepared a strategies and objectives plan, requesting the full
support and cooperation of the HEW regional offices and the
voluntary resettlement agencies. The focus of the plan was
on job development, English language training, and vocational
and occupational education.

1/ Thirty-two States or jurisdictions have a medically needy
   program under their Medicaid program in which needy persons
   ineligible for cash assistance may be eligible for medical

Better coordination might have helped
reduce public assistanceto refugees

     While it would appear that the HEW Task Force has re-
cently taken steps to reduce the number of refugees on public
assistance, we noted a case involving Washington State, where
better coordination between Washington State, VOLAGs and
the Interagency Task Force might have prevented increases in
the number of refugees on the public assistance rolls.
     In June 1975, Washington State became the first govern-
mental entity to resettle refugees. Other refugees were re-
settled in Washington State through the efforts of the VOLAGs.
Once the refugees began arriving, it was the State's policy
to provide them with 1 month's financial assistance to help
ease their transition into the community. These payments
were included in the $500 resettlement fee provided by the
State Department for each refugee resettled. The refugees
were directed to apply to the State welfare offices where
further assistance would be provided once their financial
eligibility had been established.  In this regard, SRS
policy instructions issued June 1975, provided that where
a State finds that refugees in a community apply for welfare
shortly after arrival, the SRS regional office should be
notified immediately by the State to provide a basis for
corrective action and future resettlement planning.

     Apparently, however, not much attention had been paid
to the increasing numbers of refugees being placed on
public assistance by the State. In fact, it was not until
October 1975, when, as a result of a congressional inquiry,
the Interagency Task Force sent an evaluation team to look
into the matter.
     The study, completed in early November 1975, showed that
2,462 of the 3,874 refugees resettled, or 64 percent, were
on public assistance during October 1975. The high percentage
of refugees on public assistance was largely caused by the
State's approval of sponsors without the required financial
resources for sponsorship, and the State assuring many spon-
sors that it was acceptable to enroll refugees on public
assistance. The study concluded that Washington's great con-
cern for the refugees, as expressed in its willingness to
provide financial, medical, and social services to refugees,
were principal factors which accounted for the State's high

welfare enrollment. As of December 1, 1976, about 3,000 of
the 5,200 refugees (60 percent) resettled in the State were
on public welfare.
Resettlement in high
unemployment areas
     Another matter of great concern to the Interagency Task
Force was the resettlement of refugees in States with high
unemployment. Labor market information had been provided and
interpreted by the Department of Labor on an ongoing basis
to VOLAGs to assist them in identifying and avoiding
refugee resettlement in areas of high unemployment. By
November 1975, Interagency Task Force officials still con-
tinued to discourage VOLAGs from resettling refugees in high
unemployment areas.
     Some Task Force and VOLAG officials told us that pres-
sure came from the Congress and the Executive Branch to
remove the refugees from the reception centers as quickly
as possible, which may have been a contributing factor to
resettlement in high unemployment areas.

     Some States with high unemployment received a dispro-
portionate number of refugees relative to their total popu-
lation. For example, California, with an average unemploy-
ment rate of 10 percent for 1975, received about 27,200 ref-
ugees, or about 20 percent of the total refugees resettled in
the United States. The population of California is about 10
percent of the total national population. Another example is
Washington State, which had an average unemployment rate of 9
percent for 1975 and received about 4,200 refugees or about
3 percent of the total ref jees resettled. The population of
Washington State represents about 2 percent of the total
national population. (See app. IV for list of unemployment
rates and States where refugees resettled as of December 31,

Change in parole status
     Views expressed to the HEW Task Force by many refugees
indicated that their parole status is of major concern to
them and a hindrance to permanent resettlement. As parolees
in "indefinite voluntary departure status," refugees are
neither American citizens nor permanent resident aliens, but
are eligible for certain types of assistance from Federal
departments and agencies normally available to citizens or
permanent resident aliens. Until recently most could not be
employed by the U S. Government and the refugees still cannot
be employed by cettain State and local governments. Also,
without permanent Lesidency status, the refugees are not
eligible for enlistment in the military services.

     Legislation introduced in the 94th Congress on Septem-
ber 10, 1975, (S. 2313), and June 17, 1976 (H.R. 14447), would
change the Indochinese refugees' status from parole to that
of permanent resident aliens and eventually pave the way for
U.S. citizenship.  However, section 212(a)(15) of the Immi-
gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182) denies permanent
resident alien status to parolees who are likely at any time
to become public charges, and as previously discussed in this
report about 30 percent of the refugees were on the.welfare
rolls as of December 1976.  H.R. 14447 gave recognition to
this potential problem 1/ by specifically providing that
section 212 (a)(15) would not be applicable to an alien other-
wise eligible for permanent resident status under the bill.

     In October 1976, the 94th Congress adjourned without
taking action on either of the bills.

     On February 10, 1977, legislation (Senate bill 694)
was introduced in the 95th Congress to change the status of
Indochinese refugees to that of permanent resident aliens.
This bill was similar to H.R. 14447 in that section 212(a)(15)
would not be applicable.

Educational activities

     HEW's Office of Education's Refugee Assistance Task
Force was designated to administer the refugee education pro-
gram as part of HEW's responsibility under the Indochina
Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975.  Approximately
$25 million has been authorized for the education program
from the $100 million appropriated to HEW.  The major portion
of the funding, $15 million, has been made available for
elementary and secondary education grants to State and
local education agencies for an estimated 40,000 school-age
children.  These grants also provided funds for supplementary
English language instruction for refugee children.  By early

1/ A similar situation existed under the Cuban refugee program
   and because there was no specific statutory provision making
   their permanent tesident alien status exempt from the appli-
   cation of section 212(a)(15), the Attorney General made an
   administrative determination to do so.

April 1976, almost 3,000 applications for elementary and
secondary education grants had been received from every
State, the District of Columbia, and Guam.
     Another $5 million in adult education grants was al-
located to the States for special English language instruction
for adult refugees. As of November 30, 1976, the $25 million
authorized for the education program had been fully obligated.
     Support services for the refugee education program in-
clude two nationwide information services, the Georgetown
University and the Center for Applied Linguistics telephone
"hotlines." The HEW Task Force has reported that both these
services have provided needed assistance primarily to elemen-
tary and secondary teachers, and administrators in meeting the
needs of the students, and have also assisted refugee stu-
dents in attending post-secondary institutions.  In-service
training workshops and the development of curriculum mate-
rials for refugees have been provided by five of the Office
of Education's bilingual centers.

Health training and other health activities

      On July 31, 1975, the Secretary of HEW authorized the
Public Health Service to spend $1.3 million in refugee funds
to assist the Indochinese refugee physicians prepare for the
Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates Examina-
tion.   In January 1976, 25 refugee physicians passed the
examination, but 160 others were unsuccessful in passing the
English portion. The HEW Task Force reported in June 1976
that of the 670 refugee physicians identified, 412 were
participating in preparatory courses for the examination that
was to be held July 21, 1976. As of December 20, 1976, there
have been a total of 150 refugee physicians who have success-
fully passed the examination, and their placement in approved
graduate training positions was being undertaken by the
American Medical Association and the Bureau of Health Manpower
in HEW.

     In addition to the physicians program, the Public Health
Service is conducting a short-term program to help refugee
dentists qualify for practice in the United States. Of 95
Indochinese dentists identified in this country, 40 were
selected to begin training at two dental schools in the United
States in October 1976. Funds allocated for this program
amounted to about $683,000.

      The HEW Center for Disease Control in Atlanta,
 has been performing a study on refugee health
                                                problems and
 access to health care.    The HEW Task Force reported in
 September 1976 that the Center had completed
                                               its study con-
 firming earlier observations that in general,
                                                refugee health
 was reasonably good.   The study was conducted among 83 ran-
 domly selected refugee families, comprising
                                              396 individuals
 in three locations (Atlanta, Georgia; Fort Smith,
 and San Diego, California) with high concentrations
                                                      of refugees.
 The study found that most of the health problems
                                                   were dental
 with respiratory illness being considered the second
 common health problem.

Support services
     Operating as an integral part of the HEW Task FoLce are
three major refugee support activities: (1) the Resettlement
Liaison Unit, (2) Information and Referral Unit, and
Publications Unit. Their efforts were coordinated with the
regional refugee assistance coordinators in HEW's 10
offices.                                             regional

     The focus of the Resettlement Unit has been on consoli-
dating working relationships and establishing followup
nels with VOLAGs a.d State and local resettlement agencies.

     The Information and Referral Unit operates a toll-free
telephone line to meet the continuing resettlement   needs of
refugees and their sponsors, and to refer calls to
                                                     the appro-
priate sources, such as VOLAGs and HEW regional offices.
The unit is staffed by personnel fluent in many languages,
including English, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and
majority of the inquiries concern refugees who Laotian.   The
                                                are attempting
to locate friends, and who need information about
and job training. Phone calls from the refugees oneducation
free lines also enable the HEW Task Force to know whenthe toll-
settlement inquiries occur.
     The Publications Unit publishes a monthly newspaper with
the primary purpose of providing refugees with information
in their own language about programs and services
the public and private sectors. It is intended to in both
                                                   help them
adjust to life in the United States and become productive
members of American society.


     The following Federal departments and agencies have con-
tinued to support the refugee resettlement program since it

Department of State
     The State Department has provided support to tne HEW
Task Force in it- '.fforts to obtain current feedback of ref-
ugee resettleme:_ conditions from VOLAGs. Other State
Department respL '-ilitiesinclude (1) managing the repa-
triation of refugees who may wish to return to their countries
of origin and (2) handling requests and actions concerning
refugees in third countries who wish to immigrate to the
United States.

Department of Labor
     Through the State employment security agencies, the
Department of Labor offers job placement services to refugees
and also provides funds to States and localities for occupa-
tional training programs.

     The HEW Task Force reported on March 15, 1976, that of
the total 27,671 refugees registered with State agencies,
about 5,500 (19 percent) have been placed in jobs, about
6,900 (25 percent) were referred to training or other ser-
vices, and approximately 13,600 remain listed in active files
where they will be considered as job requests are received.

     In addition, the HEW Task Force reported that although
slightly over one-third of the refugees who registered with
State agencies had professional, technical, and clerical
classifications, only about 16 percent found jobs at these
skill levels. This indicated that many refugees had accepted
employment at skill levels lower than their qualifications.
     On May 13, 1976, the Department of Labor clarified its
regulation under the Comprehensive Employment and Training
Act making refugees on cash assistance eligible for monthly
incentive allowances of $30 while receiving training under
the Act.

Department of Housing and
Urban Development

     Some of the HUD programs available to refugees include
rental assfJtance, the sale or rental of HUD-held properties

(single and multifamily), low income public housing (pro-
vided necessary qualifications are met), and loan insurance
for purchase of mobile homes.
     An assessment made of refugee housing by the HEW Task
Force concluded that housing problems were frequently en-
countered because of the high cost of housing in relation to
refugee family income. Since many refugees were under-
employed and working in minimum wage positions, they were
forced to share inadequate housing with other refugee

     Information compiled by the Interagency Task Force in
October 1975 included data on refugee families considered to
be potential users of subsidized housing with income below
$10,000, and presently residing with sponsors and relatives,
or who had made other living accommodations. An analysis of
the data indicated that as of October 22, 1975, about 97 per-
cent of the 1,570 heads of households sampled had income be-
low $10,000, and approximately 61 percent had been temporar-
ily housed and would be potential consumers of subsidized
housing. Projecting these figures meant that approximately
52,000 of about 85,000 refugees resettled, comprising families
with two or more members, would be potential users of subsi-
dized housing (the Task Force considered one-third of the
refugee population to be one-member families).

     A sample survey taken by the HEW Task Force showed that
in August 1976 only 5 percent of the refugees were still
living with their sponsors, a reduction from almost 30 per-
cent from a December - January HEW Task Force survey. Half
the refugees surveyed were then renting apartments and the
other half were living in houses. We did not consider the
role of HUD in resettlement.
Small Business Administration
     Assistance available to refugees from SBA includes busi-
ness loans, counseling for prospective businessmen, and govern-
ment subcontract work. A smdll business investment corpora-
tion, whose principal officers are Vietnamese, has been funded
by SBA to provide loans to refugees to enable them to start
small businesses.

Vederal Regional Council
     With members from 10 U.S. Government agencies, FRC
coordinates Federal, State, and local government activity.

WoAk performed by FRC at the local level involves advising
groups such as corporate leaders, businessmen, and churches
of refugee needs and progress in their communities.
Presently, FRC's attention has focused on the English
language, job training, housing, and transportation.

     Aside from the traditional VOLAG resettlement agencies,
five States, a local government, and three private nonprofit
organizations became involved in the resettlement effort.
These non-VOLAG resettlement agencies also received $500 for
each refugee resettled.

     Services provided by State and local agencies include
licensing programs for drivers, problem referral service, job
information and placement service, adult education programs
(primarily English language training), and financial and
medical assistance. Local groups made community resources
available to refugees.
     The following schedule shows the number of refugees
resettled by State and local resettlement agencies as re-
ported by the HEW Task Force in their report to the Congress
dated December 23, 1976.

State and local                                    Number of
resettlement                                       refugees
agencies                                           resettled
Indianapolis                     ,       .   - ;        80
Iowa                         ,                 "     1,207
Maine                                                 167
New Mexico                                             545
Oklahoma                                              362
Washington State                                    1,739
Chinese Consolidated
  Benevolent Association,
  California and                                      838
  New York                                             72
Don Bosco (Jackson County,
  Missouri)                                           386
Church of Jesus Christ
  of Latter Day Saints                                700
        Total                                       6,096
     The HEW Task Force has indicated that the role of the
non-VOLAG resettlement agencies was not as large as originally
anticipated. The efforts of VOLAGs caused many potential
non-VOLAG agencies to either conclude that additional assis-
tance was not needed, or to merge their efforts with those
of VOLAGs. The HEW Task Force, while encouraging the estab-
lishment of additional resettlement programs, also urged
that such programs be channeled through VOLAGs whenever


     Enactment of legislation similar to Senate bill 694
would help facilitate the Indochinese refugees' adjustment
into American society and ultimately lead the way to U.S.

     Because section 212(a)(15) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act could deny permanent resident alien status

to refugees on public assistancer and since 30 percent of
the refugees were on the welfare rolls in December 1976, the
Cungress should deal with that particular segment of the
refugee population as proposed in Senate bill 694 or in any
similar legislation introduced in the 95th Congress. Other-
wise, if the Congress decides to give permanent resident
alien status to the refugees without exempting them from
section 212 (a)(15), the Attorney General would have to make
an administrative determination not to exclude refugees on
public assistance from becoming permanent resident aliens in
the same manner that was done for the Cuban refugees.

                            CHAPTER 4

                     IN REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT
     Refugees who came to the United States were for the most
part well educated and had worked in white collar occupations.
The December 15, 1975, Interagency Task Force report to the
Congress, reported that more than 43 percent of heads of
households were previously in medical, professional, techni-
cal, managerial, clerical, or sales occupations. It also was
reported that 75 percent of all heads of households had
completed at least a secondary education.

     Even though they brought with them these occupational
and educational credentials, more than 75 percent of refugee
heads of households were reported, in the HEW Task Force
Vietnam Resettlement Operational Feedback report, to be em-
ployed below their native country occupational level. This
feedback report has been part of an ongoing evaluation pro-
cess to survey the success of the resettlement program.

     We spoke to 37 families, comprising 187 persons. Al-
though our interviews were limited, they tended to confirm
the Interagency Task Force observations on employment and
language skills. In those instances where the refugees
interviewed were unable to speak good English, we were
assisted by interpreters, sponsors, and members of the clergy.


     One problem is the fact that professionals, including
dentists, nurses, pharmacists, lawyers, and educators, face
considerable difficulty in establishing qualifications to
practice in this country.

     One of the refugee families we spoke with, arrived in
the United States in May 1975. This family of seven adults
and four children settled in New York. None of the refugees
were working, including the head of the household who had
been a dentist in Vietnam. He had been currently attending
dental school so that he would be able to practice in this
country. Since he did not completely understand the courses
he was taking, he also attended an English language course.
It will take more than 2 years for this man to complete the
courses necessary for him to practice dentistry in the
United States. Some of the other adults in the family were

attending English and vocational courses with the hope of
finding jobs in the near future. In the meantime, the
refugees were living in the sponsor's home and were receiving
public assistance.
     We also spoke with a Vietnamese history teacher and a
government economist, who were unable to find jobs in the
United States. In the case of the economist who held a
master's degree in finance and economics, the main obstacle
to his obtaining a job commensurate with his abilities was
his poor English. The teacher, also, did not know English
well enough to teach in America.

     Although these professionals and some other refugees
were unemployed, we found that most were able to find jobs.
In most of the families interviewed, one or more family
members were employed full time although many were under-
employed. Among the underemployed were some former Vietnam-
ese military personnel. They could not continue working in
their occupational fields since their immigration status
did not allow them to enlist in the U.S. military services.
One man worked as a cafeteria worker, another as a mechanic,
and a third one as a maintenance man and, all could speak
only minimal English.

     While our observations did not yield as high a per-
centage as indicated in the feedback report, about 65 per-
cent of employed heads of households we interviewed were

     We also found some refugees who were successful in
finding jobs comparable to those they held in Indochina.
One man, who speaks English fluently, was the chief of a
beverage distribution center in Vietnam. Currently, he has
been doing similar work as a sales manager in a manufacturing
company. He stated his salary of $150 per week was adequate
to support his family of four.
     Another refugee, who did not speak any English, was
able to continue his job as a camera repair technician in
the United States. A representative of a camera company
which the refugee had dealt with in Vietnam, arranged for
the company to sponsor the refugee and his family. The
refugee is now earning $200 per week. In this case, lack of
English did not prevent the refugee from finding a good job.


     For professionals as well as for other workers, their
employment difficulties were due in large part to language
problems. One of the first requirements for gainful employ-
ment has been the ability to speak and understand English.
The December 15, 1975, Interagency Task Force report to the
Congress indicated that 73 percent of the heads of households
had a knowledge of English but pointed out that only 37 per-
cent had good English language skills.

     We observed some refugees who could converse in English
very well while some could not speak or understand any
English. Many refugees are trying to improve their situations
by attending English classes and all children in our survey
were enrolled in school.
     HEW has taken steps to allow funding for extensive
language training for both adults and children. (See pp. 26
and 27.)  It appeared, however, that some school districts
may not be requesting this aid, especially if the refugee
children had been scattered throughout the district rather
than concentrated in certain areas, as was the case in New
York City and in many other school districts we visited.


     Even though most of the refugees were employed, many
did not earn enough to support their families. Data in the
feedback report shows that 42 percent of the refugee house-
holds had an annual income below $2,500. Twenty-seven per-
cent had an income between $2,500 and $4,999, and 2 percent
had an income over $10,000 annually. We observed that 71
percent of those employed full time were earning between
$1.50 and $3.00 per hour at the time of our interviews. One
example was a 30 year-old married refugee with two children
who spoke English poorly. He was only paid the minimum wage
of $2.10 an hour while working full time in a cafeteria.
Because of this low salary he still relied on his sponsor's
assistance for paying the rent.
     The refugees came here with limited knowledge of
American customs. In the reception centers, the American
Red Cross and other organizations assisted the refugees in
becoming familiar with many aspects of American society,
such as using the telephone. Sometimes the refugees came

without any family or friends. These people were lonely and
found it difficult to adjust to their new surroundings. To
combat these types of problems, Vietnam information centers
have been established in some areas. In New York City, for
example, the Vietnam House was organized in October 1975
and headquartered in a YMCA to service Vietnamese refugees
in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. They inform refu-
gees about Federal assistance available and housing oppor-
tunities, conduct English classes, and plan social events
where Vietnamese and Americans can get together.
      Perhaps even more important than group help has been
the help the sponsor has given to the refugee. The sponsors
not only feed and clothe the refugee until he becomes self-
supporting, but also assist him in finding a job, enrolling
his children in school, and helping him understand our laws
and customs. Some of the sponsors we spoke with introduced
their friends to the refugees and helped them become part of
the community. Efforts of groups like these have undoubtedly
helped in easing the cross-cultural adjustment of the refu-

     A majority of the refugees interviewed by us and covered
in the feedback report were satisfied with their sponsorship
arrangements. However, through talking with VOLAG officials,
it became evident that breakdowns had occurred in some re-
settlements. A breakdown is a situation in which a sponsor
and the refugee have been unable or unwilling to continue
their arrangement for a variety of reasons. Breakdowns seem
to have occurred more frequently in the use of individual
sponsors than in group sponsors. For this reason VOLAGs
have preferred group sponsors such as church or community
groups. We also found that breakdowns also seemed to occur
often in mass resettlements.
     The reasons for breakdowns have varied and included
circumstances such as
     -- spcnsorship undertaken on an emotional basis without
        regard to ability to handle moral and financial

     -- inability of a refugee to find employment,

     -- refugee moving to a new location, and

    -- personality conflicts between a refugee and
       the sponsor.

     One refugee told us he was originally sponsored by a
friend. After a while, the sponsor could not provide proper
financial assistance to the refugee and his family which in-
cluded his wife and eight children. Consequently, the family
hdJ to live in a rundown, leaky, basement apartment. They
were in desperate need of assistance and had to contact their
VOLAG who then arranged a new sponsorship.

Individual sponsorships
     Historically, VOLAGs have always preferred church or
community groups as sponsors rather than individuals. The
groups offer more resources for the refugee and assume a
more responsible attitude toward the refugees. Through-
out the Indochinese program, however, according to some
VOLAG representatives, the Interagency Task Force pressured
VOLAGs to quickly remove the refugees from the camps and
encouraged them to use individual sponsors which were easier
to obtain than group sponsors. One VOLAG sw-'tched to groups
because they experienced many breakdowns with individual
sponsors. Other VOLAGs also experienced breakdowns with
early individual sponsorships and later emphasized the use
of groups.
Mass resettlements

     In order to resettle large groups of refugees, VOLAGs
and the Interagency Task Force used the idea of mass resettle-
ments. These, too, resulted in many breakdowns. In these
resettlements at least 10 refugees were sponsored by one
individual or organization, often providing refugees with
employment, housing, or training as a package, according to
Task Force officials.
     For example, one group of fishermen was sponsored by
a company which provided training and housing. Training in
English and new fishing techniques were also taught so that
the refugees could become better members of the community.
The training program has now been completed and all of the
fishermen either have jobs or offers of employment.
     During the course of the program, 24 7ompanies or
individuals sponsored about 2,000 refugees with employment
as the initiating factor. Five of the srnoorships involving

525 refugees have broken down. These breakdowns and other
problems were usually handled by the Interagency Task Force
Office of Special Concerns.
     Although we were able to determine that breakdowns have
occurred, especially with individual and mass sponsorships,
it was difficult to determine their extent because most VOLAGs
have not reported them, as required by their contract. (See
p. 18.)  If more information were available regarding
breakdowns, statistics could act as an important barometer
for the program in measuring the success of resettlements.
     HEW Task Force officials informed us that the new re-
porting requirements also have not provided the necessary
breakdown statistics (See p. 18.), and that other reporting
requirements are being considered.

APPENDIX I                                         APPENDIX I

                   AS OF DECEMBER 1; 1976-  ..
    (HEW Refugee Task Force Report of December 20, 1976)

Resettled under special parole program                   129,792
Resettled under humanitarian parole program                  500
Resettled under special Lao program                        3,280
Resettled under expanded parole program                   10,500

          Total in United States                       a/144,072

Potential arrivals under special Lao program                 186
Potential arrivals under expanded parole program             500
          Potential total resettled in
            United States                               144.758

a/There are 440 requests for repatriation before
  the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

APPENDIX II                                                APPENDIX II

                      AS OF DECEMBER I7 1976
           (HEW Task Force Report of December 20, 1976)

Rank      State        Number        Rank    State            Number
  1     California     30,495         22    Arkansas            2,127
  2     Texas          11,136         23    Kansas              1.953
  3     Pennsylvania    8,187         24    New Jersey          1,918
  4     Virginia        5,620        25     Georgia             1,622
  5     Florida         5,237        26     Arizona             1,444
  6     Washington     5,205         27     Alabama             1,439
  7     New York       4,749         27     Massachusetts       1,439
 8      Illinois       4,675         28     Nebraska            1,418
 9      Minnesota      4,250         29     North Carolina      1,334
10      Louisiana      3,916         30     Connecticut         1,304
11      Oklahoma       3,716         31     Tennessee           1,250
12      Ohio           3,496         32     Kentucky            1,174
13      Iowa           3,352         33     New Mexico          1,047
14      Missouri       3,154         34     Utah                  964
15      Michigan       2,949         35     South Carolina        926
16      Maryland       2,828         36     Guam                  818
17      Wisconsin      2,461         37     Dist. of Columbia     613
18      Oregon         2,448         38     South Dakota          604
19      Hawaii         2,411         39     Rhode Island          545
20      Colorado       2,350         40     Nevada                519
21      Indiana        2,175         41     Mississippi           493

APPENDIX II                         APPENDIX II

Rank     State            Number

 42    Idaho                 421

 43    North Dakota          408

 44    Maine                  376

 45    Montana                360

 46    West Virginia          268

 47    Delaware               173

 48    New Hampshire          171

 49    Wyoming                143

 50    Vermont                106

 51    Alaska                  94

 52    American Samoa           1

 53    Puerto Rico              1

       To Unknown State     1,789
                 Total    144,072

APPENDIX III                                          APPENDIX III

                     AND DECEMBER , 1976
   (HEW Refugee Task Force Report of March and December 1976)
                                  Percent on financial assistance
                  State         December 1. 1975   December 1,1976

Region I       Connectic-ut              5.19            19.02
               Maine                    16.26            25.27
               Massachusetts            26.00            30.30
               New Hampshire            13.66            10.53
               Rhode Island             17.48            34.13
               Vermont                  12.00             6.60

 2egion II     New York                  7.80            12.19
               New Jersey               30.23            34.25
               Puerto Rico

Region III     Delaware                 18.70            34.68
               Maryland                 22.94            28.29
               Pennsylvania              6.62            20.87
               Virginia                 28.31            23.63
               West Virginia            47.69            19.03
               District of Columbia     16.58            38.34

Region IV      Alabama                   9.03            12.72
               Florida                  16.34            27.50
               Georgia                   9.76            10.79
               Kentucky                 40.02            45.23
               Mississippi               2.66            10.75
               North Carolina           13.95            19.27
               South Carolina            2.89             6.91
               Tennessee                 0.00            12.40
                                        13.90            21.21
Region V       Illinois                 18.10            25.82
               Indiana                  20.22            24.78
               Michigan                 27.90            41.30
               Minnesota                 6.07            21.18
               Ohio                      9.26            22.43
               Wisconsin                12.24            30.27
                                        T-.5-9           26.96

a/ Not available

APPENDIX III                                           APPENDIX III

                               Percent on financial assistance
                  State       December      1975   December      1976
Region VI      Arkansas              3.42                12.22
               Louisiana             2.80                23.67
               New Mexico            8.07                 8.40
               Oklahoma              2.76                13.72
               Texas                 7.53                15.71
                                     5.35                16.11
Region VI!     Iowa                 13.99                18.56
               Kansas                9.22                25.19
               Missouri              8.76                43.41
               Nebraska             11.47                30.82

Region VIII Colorado                25.25               41.87
            Montani                 25.75               25.83
            North Dakota            10.71               30.15
            South Dakota             5.50               23.51
            Utah                    14.49               23.03
            Wyoming                 14.78               13.99
                                    18.7                32.80
Region IX    Arizona                 2.07                3.74
             California             31.18               46.42
             Hawaii                 39.87               61.59
             Nevada                 55.32               28.52
             Guam                                       70.78
             American Samoa

Region X     Alaska                  3.70                1.06
             Idaho                   3.88               28.03
             Oregon                 52.78               75.29
             Washington             66.61               56.85
                                    T777                60.29
Total number resettled in
  United States                 123,901               144,072
Number on financial assistance 23,768                  44,041
Percent on financial assistance
  of total resettled in United
  States                        19.18                   30.57
a/ Not Available

                                                  APPENDIX IV

                       Number of refugees      Average 1975
                       resettled by State    unemployment rate
                       December 31,1975      per State (note a)
                            1,262                   7.7
Alabama                                             8.1
Alaska                          81
                            2,042                   8.3
Arkansas                                            9.5
Arizona                     1,059
                           27,199                   9.9
California                                          6.3
Colorado                    1,790
                            1,175                   9.1
Connecticut                                         8.6
Delaware                       155
                            1,254                   7.6
District of Columbia                               10.7
Florida                     5,322
                            1,331                    8.6
Georgia                                              7.2
Hawaii                      2,039
                               412                   7.0
 Idaho                       3,696                   7.1
 Illinois                                            8.6
 Indiana                     1,785
                             2,593                   5.4
 Iowa                                                4.5
 Kansas                      1,897
                                967                  7.3
 Kentucky                                            7.4
 Louisiana                   3,602
                                375                  9.4
 Maine                                               6.9
 Maryland                    2,319
                             1,169                  11.2
 Massachusetts                                      12.5
 Michigan                    2,200
                             3,802                    5.9
 Minnesota                                            7.1
 MississipPi                    488
                             2,669                    6.9
 Missouri                                             7.6
 Montana                        198
                              1,211                   6.1
 Nebraska                                             9.3
 Nevada                          338
                                 161                  6.5
 New Hampshire                                      10.1
  New Jersey                  1,515
                              1,040                   7.2
  New Mexico                                          9.5
  New York                    3,806
                              1,261                   8.6
  North Carolina                                      4.9
  North Dakota                   448
                              2,924                   9.1
  Ohio                                                7.2
  Oklahoma                    3,689
                              2,063                  10.6
  Oregon                                               8.3
  Pennsylvania                7,159
                                 223                 13.9
  Rhode Island                                         8.7
   South Carolina                759

APPENDIX IV                                        APPENDIX IV

                       Number of refugees     Average 1975
                       resettled by State   unemployment rate
State                  December 31, 1975    per State (note a)

South Dakota                  545                   4.7
Tennessee                     922                   8.3
Texas                       9,130                   5.6
Utah                          559                   6.9
Vermont                       150                   9.6
Virginia                    3,733                   6.4
Washington                  4,182                   9.5
West Virginia                 195                   7.0
Wisconsin                   1,821                   6.9
Wyoming                       115                   4.1
Unknown                     8,182
          Total        b/
a/ Rates obtained from U.S. Department of Labor.

b/ Includes 1 Vietnamese and 114 Cambodians at Halfway House
   in Philadelphia. Also includes refugees resettled in
   Guam (778), American Samoa (1), and Puerto Rico (1).
   Does not include 822 children born to refugees in the
   United States.

APPENDIX V                                               APPENDIX V



                  DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT

                   FOR INDOCHINA RE·FUGEES

                                             Tenure of office
                                            From            To

     Julia Vadala Taft               May      1975      Dec. 1975
     Ambassador L. Dean Brown        Apr.     1975      May 1975

                     DEPARTMENT OF STATE

     Cyrus R. Vance                  Jan. 1977          Present
     Henry A. Kissinger              Sept. 1973         Jan. 1977

     James M. Wilson                 Apr.     1975      Present


     Joseph A. Califano, Jr.         Jan.     1977      Present
     David Mathews                   Aug.     1975      Jan. 1977

                   HEs RE'?UGEE TASK FORCE
     Philip Holman                   Oct.     1976      Present
     Lawrence L. McDonough           Jan.     1976      Oct. 1976