The Effects of US Resettlement Policies on the Wellbeing of Refugees: An Analysis with the Multilevel Policy Implementation Framework

Background and Purpose: The global population of forcibly displaced remains at a record high, with 26 million refugees. The stages of forced migration with its elements of uncertainty create a heightened fear and stress for refugees. This study aims to contribute a multilevel analysis of the wellbeing of refugees resettled in New York City by examining the impact of organizational, city, state, and federal welfare policies under the Trump Administration on refugees from the perspective of service providers.

Methods: A qualitative case study approach was utilized to capture New York City’s unique environment for policy implementation and to identify ways in which its approach to migration policies in general, and refugee resettlement policy in particular, could be improved and replicated. This study used a purposive and convenience sampling method. Data were collected through face-to-face in-depth interviews. The researchers focused on organizations at different levels of policy implementation that provide services to diverse refugee populations. The semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 service providers to explore their experiences with policy implementation and the effect of other potential existing factors in service provision on refugee wellbeing. Thematic analysis was utilized. The data analysis was informed by the Multilevel Policy Implementation Framework’s (Sandfort & Moulton, 2015) policy and program implementation indicators. This framework helped examine how much the desired ends for the target population were achieved through the program implementation.

Results: The findings suggest that the U.S. refugee resettlement system is operating based on the Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601 and securitization theory ideology, prioritizing self-sufficiency over social support, holding states and local governments responsible for the resettlement programs, and treating refugee as security threats. This ideology creates a premise for legal violation of human rights. The findings also indicate that insufficient time given by law to refugees undermines their ability to integrate effectively. Certain areas of wellbeing (like shelter, social environment, and mental health) are not addressed by the existing policies and services. Service providers also have no specific definition of desired program implementation outcome in the policy practice.

Conclusions and Implications: According to the findings, requiring refugees to participate in the labor force without providing them adequate time and support impedes refugees’ ability to integrate into the society as refugees do not get enough time to deal with cultural shock, language barrier, and trauma. Additionally, holding state and local governments and non-profit organizations responsible for the operations of the resettlement programs lead to discrepancies in refugee wellbeing as refugees receive different services depending on the state and city they are resettled. The actions reflecting the ideology of the securitization theory in the United States created a premise for legal violation of human rights, including the rights to life, liberty, and security. A shift to a human rights approach in policy can enable effective policy implementation that aims to increase wellbeing and facilitate integration. Future studies may explore the subjective wellbeing of refugees as well as, changes in the wellbeing of refugees under the current administration.