Refugee Assistance on the Ground. the Case Social Welfare Policy for Refugees Operated in NYC Area

Background and purpose: Despite the increased public interest in the situation of refugees, little is known about how The Federal Refugee Resettlement Program operates on the ground and how it affects refugees (Nightingale, 2008; Ott, 2015). The program uses tools such as: case management, employment services, language trainings, cultural orientation classes and direct cash allowances. Research suggests that although overall employment rate among refugees is higher than among the native population (Capps, Newland, Fix, McHugh, 2015), employment is often low paid and includes jobs at the bottom of the labor market structure, since refugees have no time to learn the English and increase their long term opportunities (Brick, Cushing-Savvi, Elshafie, Krill, McGlynn Scanlon, Stone, 2010).

Using the case of the New York City area, this article seeks to provide a nuanced understanding of the implementation of The Federal Refugee Resettlement Program.  More specifically, it aims to: explore the ways in which the program is implemented, its intended and unintended outcomes for refugees and mechanisms shaping and framing its implementation.

Methods: The article uses 20 in-depth interviews with refugees, 10 caseworkers implementing the program and 5 experts involved in developing these programs in NYC area. Refugees were sampled based on their income, residence and receiving welfare assistance. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and Dedoose software was used for data analysis. Thematic analysis using inductive approach was utilized. The theoretical framework of interpretative policy analysis was used (Wagenaar, 2014), focused on three stages of the policy making cycle: policy shaping, framing and delivery (implementation).

Results: The implementation of the Program varies depending on the location of agencies implementing it, their locally available resources and other local resources.  The implementation is challenged by contradicting activities framing the program. The latter include measuring performance of clients, caseworkers and agencies operating the programs by the number of clients employed as soon as possible, and in the same time offering other valuable activities (e.g. cultural orientation and ESL training) not affecting immediate employment. As a result, the program creates few incentives for different stakeholders to encourage participation in some of its activities. These conditions together with the characteristics of the Program itself and US social welfare policies after 1996 reform shape the Program outcomes for refugees. Individuals are pushed out into a workforce soon after their arrival to the US, which does have some positive short term outcomes. In a longer timeframe however it limits their opportunities to improve their labor market position. It can also lead to negative psychological outcomes such as increased fear, anxiety, trauma and in some cases depression.

Conclusion: The findings indicate that despite some positive outcomes, in a longer timeframe the Program in its current shape can work counterproductive to its objectives by exacerbating inequalities and in some cases perpetuating poverty. Measuring Program outcomes should include long term employment situation of clients, i.e. quality of jobs they perform and adjustment of the employment to their skills and education level.