REAL Blog

Posted on

The Temporary Protection Directive – a Model for Responding to Refugee Crises?

By: Jessica Crist and Bernhard Streitwieser

Peer reviewed by REAL members

On December 13th, two REAL members attended an event at the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) in Washington, DC on the European Union’s (EU) Temporary Protection Directive (TPD), an initiative set into motion by the EU on March 4th, 2022 in response to the Ukrainian refugee crisis. The TPD was established in 2001. However, it was not used until the war in Ukraine set off an avalanche of human displacement. Monique Pariat, Director General for Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission, discussed this initiative with MPI Director of International Programs, Meghan Benton. Understanding the EU’s initiative provides valuable lessons to U.S. policymakers who currently struggle to reform migration policy, especially for Central American migrants. 

Background

All available figures today attest to an unrelenting rise in global human displacement. 

Displacement figures are the highest since World War II. In 2015, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimated a global migrant count of 249 million. Only five years later, this estimate grew to 281 million, which is equivalent to the entire U.S. population in 2000. This was a 3.37 to 3.60 percentage increase in statelessness in just five years: 32 million more people losing everything. For context: Canada’s population of 36 million is only slightly larger. Imagine nearly every Canadian losing their home, giving up their livelihood, leaving loved ones behind, and being stripped of their identity.

Among the many factors that contribute to global statelessness – war, civil strife, gang violence, ecological disaster, corruption, and religious and social intolerance – the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan in August of 2021 and the unprovoked Russian military invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022 played prominent roles. The resulting sudden population influxes often stress, and potentially limit, the available systemic resources that governments, civil societies, and institutions have to respond. These disruptions also often trigger negative sentiment, sometimes violent, towards migrants. 

Those seeking asylum in the U.S. in recent years were met with nationalist policies attempting to halt migration by separating children from their parents or imposing quotas under the guise of prolonged public health crises (Title 42). The continuing migration crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border and the political stalemate regarding Title 42 exemplify the need for more open and welcoming migration policies. The perception of control created by TPD has swayed EU public opinion to be more welcoming toward migrants. Additionally, the social and financial benefits provided to migrants through TPD have allowed migrants to better integrate into EU society. Moving forward, existing positive and widely-accepted response models must be explored and cultivated into practice.

The Potential Impact of the Temporary Protection Directive on U.S. Policy

The TPD is authorized annually and has been extended through March of 2024 because the Ukrainian crisis continues. Pariat explained that the TPD is not only a “massive investment by the EU” regarding humane migrant reception, but also an equally important investment in demonstrating orderly and successful migration management to all citizens. In the U.S. and in the EU there are some similarities in the reasoning behind the asylum debate. However, the circumstances are distinct: Ukrainian refugees flee to the EU to escape war, while Central American migrants flee to the U.S. to escape poverty and crime. Even so, adopting policies similar to TPD could improve U.S. public opinion on migrants, control chaos at the border, and provide essential services to incoming migrants.

TPD created a perception of order for EU citizens. MPI director Dr. Andrew Selee explained  “the perception of order and control gives it credibility; it’s not so much about the money….Perception is the key.” Credibility is important to counterbalance anti-immigration sentiment, which also includes accusing their political opponents’ efforts as exacerbating what they see as gross government misspending. 

Rising nationalism in the U.S. has influenced attacks on the current government and pushed the financial responsibility for migrants onto liberal-leaning states. The “migrant buses,” which forced migrants from the southern border to northern states on frigid Christmas Eve, is only the most recent egregious example. The TPD’s financial and political success is, in part, owed to its impression of order and control, which garners public support for migrants. The U.S. could adopt similar policies to reform their migration system. Doing so would foster a more inclusive public attitude toward incoming migrants.

The social and financial benefits provided to Ukrainian migrants by TPD also aid in the wider integration process. TPD gives refugees access to social benefits, education, economic mobility, and medical care. Pariat explained that TPD creates a “talent pool,” aiming to match Ukrainian migrants with labor market shortages in their host country. As there is no U.S. equivalent for U.S.-Mexico border migrants, those who are bused to various U.S. cities receive humanitarian relief from mutual aid groups, churches, and civilian volunteers. By crafting an integration policy comparable to the TPD, the U.S. government could support essential migrant services rather than rely on local efforts and civilian funds. Public perception would be improved by the control and organization demonstrated by the policy.

The U.S. Temporary Protective Status and the EU Temporary Protection Directive

The U.S. government’s Temporary Protective Status (TPS) policy allows migrant populations from certain countries to stay in the U.S. legally while seeking asylum. However, TPS does not include a pathway to permanent residency. Similar to the EU’s TPD, in the U.S. the TPS policy must continue to be renewed. The TPS program in the U.S. can be renewed for 6, 12, or 18 months at a time, depending on the situation in the designated country. TPS allows beneficiaries to apply for a work permit, but, in contrast to Europe’s TPD, does not award social benefits. This major shortcoming continues to leave most migrants in economic precarity. The goal of the TPD is to integrate Ukrainian migrants into EU society through essential service provisions, while TPS is designed to be temporary in nature and only prevents the immediate deportation of those temporarily approved migrants.

Can the U.S. Emulate the EU’s TPD?

The U.S. government stands to learn from the EU’s TPD by adopting similar policies and contextualizing them to create an organized process supporting humane and orderly migration at the southern border. This would concurrently aid in building positive public reception and inclusion of migrants. Regarding the current discourse on the termination of Title 42 and the temporary nature of TPS, the U.S. urgently needs to attain a credible and organized immigration plan that will ease the strain on the migration system and align the two political parties on the best and most humane approach. Through lowered tensions and an assured orderly process that can be respectable to shelter seekers and also to the hosting communities along the border and further in the country, humanity may yet prevail. The EU’s TPD serves as a powerful next-generation model that U.S. policymakers should think about trying to leverage if they hope to more effectively address migration and humanitarian relief.

Posted on

Refugee and Migrant Education Network 2022 International Conference: Centering Refugee Voices Through Education

By: Alex Erickson 11/28/22

Peer reviewed by REAL members

“To risk leaving home and leaving everything behind showcases a profound hope for the future.”

  • Fr. Thomas H. Smolich, SJ, International Director for Jesuit Refugee Services 

On September 26-28th, 155 people from 27 countries came together to share perspectives, ideas, practices, and more at the Refugee and Migrant Education Network 2022 International Conference. The network was created in 2016 as a consortium of universities committed to refugee and migrant education. I had the incredible opportunity to participate in a workshop where I presented research on American immigration policy and its effects on refugee education, alongside sharing details about an upcoming project from REAL. During the conference, I realized that the underlying theme was that we, whether that be society, NGO’s, other refugee education stakeholders, or more, are not doing enough to help refugee and migrant populations globally. After the panels, workshops, and discussions, it became clear that only through education can we equitably serve refugee populations and provide the opportunity for them to pursue their dreams and live out their true potential as people. One of the opening speakers, Thomas Smolich, International Director for Jesuit Refugee Services, stated that only 5 percent of all refugees have access to higher education institutions. Furthermore, Smolich shared that 75 percent of refugees live in exile for over five years, while averages are closer to that of 25 years (Dryden-Peterson, 2016). Although there are organizations working to combat these alarming statistics, more needs to be done. Throughout six plenary sessions, seventeen workshops, and two panel discussions, experts and leaders in the field of refugee and migrant education exchanged knowledge and deliberated what actionable solutions are needed to move forward and create sustainable change. 

To me, the most moving and inspiring panel discussion was titled “Refugee Student Leaders: Overcoming Challenges Together.” The panel featured a moderator from UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) and five refugee students from Sudan, The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Burundi, all willing to share their experiences and their perspectives on the topic of refugee and migrant education. When asked about the importance of access to education for all school-aged refugees, they had many insights into how school was invaluable for them personally. One refugee student believed education was “…the light, the future, the next generation, giving one power and strength…” and that education is “the key to life” for everyone. Other panelists further explained the importance, stating that education equipped them with the skills necessary to give back to the community that they came from, and that although education does not guarantee someone success, it can prepare them for future opportunities. They added that education is not only within classroom walls, but that it exists everywhere and is multidisciplinary and multi-faceted, highlighting how important it is to provide education access for all refugees. 

Later, a question was asked on whether there was a specific point in their lives that provoked their aspirations, leading to some insights into the resiliency of the panelists. In response, one panelist stated that her culture pushed her to pursue her dreams of becoming a successful professional in the medical field through education. She was able to stay resilient due to role model’s from her culture inspiring her to stay on her path to success despite being displaced. Another panelist shared that in grade school, their school burned down. After this, they remember thinking “How can we live a better life? How can I help those people around me?” While living in a refugee camp, they cited that they saw “many talented people, but no opportunity to showcase their talents.” This ultimately created a sense of resiliency in this student and they found that education was an avenue for them to give back to their community. Another panelist cited that their resilience came from failure. They felt that they were continuously rejected from college due to their race, but they persevered and were eventually accepted, which instilled a deep value of resiliency. All of these refugee students had certain points in their life that elicited resiliency and led them to use education to pursue their goals. 

From the experiences and perspectives of these panelists, it was made clear to me that only through education can we begin to provide equitable opportunities to displaced people globally. All of the panelists were able to pursue education which allowed them to contribute to society with their full potential. One of the panelists is now a doctor and has been working in one of the largest hospitals in their new home country. Another panelist is studying economics while teaching English in a refugee school in her newly resettled environment. The third panelist, once a professional rugby player, obtained a business degree and is now pursuing a career as a diplomat. Another had to flee their country twice, but was able to become a dentist while also working as an interpreter for UNHCR. Lastly, one panelist holds a Master’s in Nuclear Engineering and is currently working on a global climate change initiative. He recently invented an energy-saving solution that has been implemented in refugee camps near his home country. Due to the permitting circumstances that led to educational access in their places of resettlement, these refugee student panelists were able to pursue their educational dreams and goals and have become incredibly successful in their own ways. Providing equitable access to education to all people, including refugees and migrants, benefits the community at-large. Had these refugee panelists not been able to pursue education to eventually become doctors, dentists, diplomats, nuclear engineers, teachers, and more, they would not have been able to positively impact their communities in the highly specialized ways that they do through their professional careers. How much human potential goes undiscovered due to barriers preventing the conditions necessary to pursue one’s goals through education? 

The Refugee and Migrant Education Network’s 2022 International Conference showcased that there are many people in this world committed to eliminating these obstacles and increasing the accessibility of education for displaced people globally. Centering refugee voices and experiences can provide real world case studies of success and push us to continue to work on solutions for a problem that oftentimes feels insurmountable. The conference and panel with refugee student leaders helped provide insights into the ideal goal of our work in the form of refugee students receiving the education they deserve and achieving their goals despite their situation. We should continuously strive for a world where all refugees and migrants are treated equitably and have the opportunity to freely use education systems across the world as tools to help them pursue their dreams.

References

Dryden-Peterson, S. (2016). Refugee education: The crossroads of globalization. Educational Researcher, 45(9), 473-482.

Posted on

Early Childhood Education for Refugees in the United States

By: Isabelle Hoagland

Peer-reviewed by REAL members

Introduction

Early Childhood Education (ECE) is an essential component of a child’s development during critical years of its life, yet it is often inaccessible for refugee families in the United States Despite ample evidence in favor of creating widespread access to high-quality ECE, the U.S. does not have universal childcare or ECE programs. The federal Head Start program does help provide access to ECE for underserved populations, yet many barriers often prevent refugee families from accessing the Head Start program. In this blog post, I will 1) establish the importance of ECE, 2) reflect on my interview with the executive director of the Community Action Agency of Somerville, MA, David Gibbs, who oversees the city’s Head Start program; and 3) provide recommendations to help ensure access to ECE for refugees in the U.S.

Early Childhood Development 

Early Childhood Development (ECD) encompasses a child’s physical, cognitive, linguistic, and social emotional development from a prenatal stage through primary school (UNICEF, 2017). Ninety percent of brain development occurs before the age of five, according to the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (2010), providing a small window of opportunity in a child’s early years of life to maximize the scope of the brain’s cognitive and language abilities, social skills, and socioemotional development (UNICEF, 2017). Early education is an essential component of healthy child development (Nurturing Care, 2020). 

Research on high-quality ECE establishes both short- and long-term advantages (Morland et al., 2016; Karoly et al., 2005). Children who have participated in ECE are less likely to be unemployed or incarcerated later in life, are more likely to graduate from high school, and on average earn higher salaries than those who do not (Meloy et al., 2019). Longitudinal research of preschool programs has found up to $17 returned in social benefits for every dollar invested (Meloy et al., 2019). Furthermore, according to Meloy et al. (2019), high-quality ECE helps close gaps in educational and life outcomes between lower- and upper-income families. ECE has been shown to increase children’s socioemotional skills and school readiness (Arapa et al., 2021; Barnett, 1992), and provide a healing environment for those who have been exposed to trauma (The National Scientific Council on the Developing Child 2005/2014). For children who have experienced trauma or adverse childhood experiences, ECE programs have the potential to offer a nurturing and healing environment. 

Head Start Programs

The U.S. does not have universal childcare or ECE programs. Instead, it is the responsibility of individual states and localities to decide what kind of programs to provide, if any (Park, 2018). Some states offer free preschool and ECE for low-income families, but these provisions are ad hoc. However, in 1964, President Johnson created the federally-funded Head Start program with the goal of providing a comprehensive ECD program that would serve low-income and underprivileged communities (Department of Health and Human Services, 2021). Refugees in the U.S. are eligible to enroll in these programs; however, many barriers exist to accessing them. A lack of qualified, bilingual, and culturally competent preschool teachers, ECE staff, and providers make the programs largely inaccessible to refugee families (Park, 2018). Research shows that families with limited proficiency in English or formal education are less likely to enroll their children in ECEC programs due to enrollment barriers (Morland et al., 2016). Beyond Head Start programs, little to no infrastructure exists in the U.S. for refugee children ECE (Park, 2018). This speaks to the broader issue of the lack of universal ECE programs in the country. 

I had the chance to speak with David Gibbs, who oversees the Head Start program in Sommerville, MA. In our conversation, Gibbs explained to me that Head Start is a center-based preschool program that also provides holistic wraparound services for the children and their families. Enrollment in Head Start is typically competitive due to high demand and few slots available. To be eligible for Head Start, a family’s income must not exceed 125 percent of the federal poverty line. However, a child may be otherwise qualified by virtue of 1) having a learning disability, 2) being involved with local child abuse or neglect agency, 3) if they are currently homeless, or 4) if they are a refugee.  All children enrolled in a Head Start program receive health supervision, vaccinations, regular checkups, access to mental health and disability specialists, and nutrition specialists. Additionally, any family member may receive referrals to mental and primary health services. 

An opportunity exists for the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to establish a collaboration with the Office of Head Start (OHS). This collaboration could work to ensure that refugee families are aware of local ECE programs available to them and could aid in navigating the enrollment process, addressing one of the key barriers to access that refugee families face. There is currently very little communication between refugee services, which are led by the government, and ECE services, which are run by individual states and localities (Park, 2018). According to Morland et al. (2016), “Head Start is well positioned to work with resettlement programs to help ease the transition of refugee families to their new communities, provide centralized access to key comprehensive services, and improve overall school readiness for children of refugee families” (p. 2). However, such collaboration does not exist in most places in the country, likely due to a silo effect within organizations.

Recommendations

Research has demonstrated that collaboration between federal, state, and local agencies is beneficial in creating access to ECE for refugee children (Morland et al., 2016). As such, I recommend the following to help ensure access to Head Start programs for refugee children:

  1. ORR should establish a firm collaboration with OHS. Partnerships between ORR and OHS, whose services typically do not interact (Morland et al., 2016), would help ensure that all refugee families with young children are aware of Head Start programs available to them and ensure equitable access, while also signaling the importance of ECE. 
  2. Refugee resettlement agencies should prioritize connecting families with young children to local Head Start programs. A collaboration between resettlement agencies and local Head Start programs would create an avenue to support refugee access to and enrollment in ECE. Refugee families with young children would greatly benefit from Head Start’s wraparound services after they stop receiving support from the resettlement office. 

References

Arapa, B., Sánchez, E., Hurtado-Mazeyra, A., & Sánchez, A. (2021). The relationship between access to pre-school education and the development of social-emotional competencies: Longitudinal evidence from Peru. International Journal of Educational Development, 87, 102482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102482

Barnett, W. S. (1992). Benefits of Compensatory Preschool Education. The Journal of Human Resources, 27(2), 279–312. https://doi.org/10.2307/145736

Bouchane, Kollen, Molly Curtiss, and Bethany Ellis. 2016. Safe Spaces: The Urgent Need for Early Childhood Development in Emergencies and Disasters. London: Theirworld. https://theirworld.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Safespaces_report.pdf

Department of Health and Human Services. (2021). Head Start History. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs/about/history-head-start

Karoly, L. A., Kilburn, M. R., & Cannon, J. S. (2005). Early childhood interventions: Proven results, future promise. Rand.

Meloy, B., Gardner, M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). Untangling the Evidence on Preschool Effectiveness: Insights for Policymakers. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/untangling-evidence-preschool-effectiveness-report

Morland, L., Ives, N., McNeely, C., & Allen, C. (2016). Providing a Head Start: Improving Access to Early Childhood Education for Refugees. 37.

Moving Minds Alliance. (2020). Analysis-of-international-aid-levels-for-early-childhood-services-in-crisis-contexts.pdf. https://movingmindsalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/analysis-of-international-aid-levels-for-early-childhood-services-in-crisis-contexts.pdf

Park, M. (2018). Responding to the ECEC Needs of Children of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Europe and North America. 70.

Ponguta, L. A., Aragón, C. A., Varela, L. R., Moore, K., Hein, S., & Cerezo, A. (2020). Sector‐wide analysis of early childhood development and education in emergencies in Colombia and considerations to strengthen systems globally. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2020(172), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20367

Refugee Resettlement and Child Care Partnerships: Partnering to Increase Refugee Families’ Access to High-Quality Child Care. (2014). https://www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/policy-guidance/refugee-resettlement-and-child-care-partnerships-partnering-increase-refugee

Refugees, U. N. H. C. for. (n.d.). UNHCR Education Report 2021: “Staying the course” – The challenges facing refugee education. UNHCR. Retrieved March 27, 2022, from https://www.unhcr.org/publications/education/612f85d64/unhcr-education-report-2021-staying-course-challenges-facing-refugee-education.html

Statman-Weil, K. (2015). Creating Trauma- Sensitive Classrooms. 8.

Taylor, S., & Sidhu, R. K. (2012). Supporting refugee students in schools: What constitutes inclusive education? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903560085

The National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2005). Stress Disrupts the Architecture of the Developing Brain. 12.

UNICEF-Programme- Guidance-for-Early-Childhood-Development-2017.pdf. (2017). UNICEF.

United Nations Association of the National Capital Area. (2021). Climate Displacement.pdf. Google Docs. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Lpmw8zjzSqDVGWOtQFpmOBeXRolruiJT/view?usp=embed_facebook

US Department of State. (2022). Refugee Admissions. United States Department of State. https://www.state.gov/refugee-admissions/

What is Nurturing Care? (2020, November 19). https://nurturing-care.org/what-is-nurturing-care/

Posted on

Giving Voice to the Voiceless: The Value of Creative Expression and Arts-Based Education Initiatives for Refugees

By: Ciara Hoyne

Peer-reviewed by REAL members

In 2021, 13,700 refugees were resettled in the U.S., which is approximately 43 percent more than in the year 2020 (UNHCR, 2022). Push factors such as the outbreak of war in Ukraine in February 2022, the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan in the summer of 2021, multiple ongoing humanitarian and economic crises, and worldwide climate catastrophes have intensified the flows of refugees into the U.S. A particular challenge to grappling with the rise in numbers of refugees is finding ways to effectively include and integrate migrants into their host societies (Moreira & Jakobi, 2021). Upon resettling, refugees are often confronted with the reality of discrimination and lack of inclusion based upon their linguistic, cultural, or ethnic backgrounds (Brown, 2015). Many refugees also struggle with the experience of cultural bereavement or the “experience of the uprooted person, or group, resulting from loss of social structures, cultural values and self-identity” (Beauregard, 2020) as they adjust to life in a new country. The challenges refugees face have adverse psycho-sociological effects and can inhibit their sense of inclusion and agency within the host community (Beauregard, 2020). As a result, refugees are often left struggling to grasp a cohesive sense of identity, while simultaneously seeking to find a voice and sense of purpose. 

While refugees may face undue challenges to feeling included within host societies, opportunities for creative expression or arts based education programs can act as a pathway to improving feelings of inclusion, confidence, agency, and empowerment ​​(Nashwan, Steckler, Abdulhaq, 2019). Creativity allows the individual to see from a different perspective by developing one’s own vision of the world, and often entails synthesizing and channeling past and present experiences into different forms of art (Brown & Bousalis, 2017). This synthesizing process is especially valuable as a coping mechanism for refugee populations who have experienced cultural bereavement and trauma associated with being displaced from one’s home. Refugees can also utilize creative expression as a way to connect to their own heritage and maintain a sense of identity (Beauregard, 2020). For example, creative practices, such as theater and hip-hop dance have significant value for Middle Eastern youth living in the U.S., as it allows youth to connect to the tradition of storytelling present in many Arab cultures (Nashwan, et. al., 2019). Participation of refugee youth in theater and hip-hop reflects the notion that refugees can engage in creative practices that allow them to participate in American culture while still maintaining ties to their native culture. Similar to this idea, artistic practices also incorporate the “expression of ambivalence and change” (Beauregard, 2020), which can aid in keeping refugee students grounded as they navigate considerable amounts of change upon resettling to live in the U.S. 

Perhaps even more important to consider is the unique quality of creative practices to exist across cultural and national lines, embodying an ability to connect to a sense of appreciation inherent in all people (Nashwan, et. al., 2019). That is to say, no matter what cultural background an individual may come from, arts-based education is capable of reinforcing and strengthening intercultural relationships. This can invoke change on both the individual and broader community level. According to one study by Moreira & Jakobi (2021), refugees, as well as locals participating in creative intervention projects, were able to cultivate a process of mutual exchange and dialogue. Similar findings were the result of a study on arts cooperation projects in refugee communities in Polykastro, Greece. Overall it suggested that public arts projects can promote the acceptance and inclusion of refugee communities into the broader fabric of the local community (Escaño, et. al., 2021). Both studies reveal that arts-based education projects can improve the relationship between recently resettled refugees and locals within their community. This relationship acts to aid refugees in their feelings of inclusion within society, mitigate the harmful psycho-social effects associated with resettlement, and reduces experiences of discrimination. 

In addition to social inclusion, opportunities for creative expression also positively contribute to refugees’ communication abilities and confidence levels. One program based on creative writing workshops for refugees found that refugees were able to benefit from self-expression, and improve their English language skills (Stickley et. al, 2018). Improvement of language skills, coupled with the welcoming environment of the workshop, ultimately provided refugees with a newfound sense of confidence in their abilities to express themselves and to cultivate a voice that can be heard and appreciated within their new community. Despite disadvantages in English language speaking abilities, creative writing workshops for refugees and people seeking asylum have proven to be successful ways for refugees to be socially included.

Confidence-building in creative expression is also relevant to the use of spoken word poetry in multilingual classrooms. One program highlighted spoken word poetry workshops within classroom spaces that allowed refugee students to create their own narratives and engage with their own voice in a way that was not impeded by language barriers or limited proficiency in English (Burton & Van Viegen, 2021). The workshop also allowed both native and non-native speakers of English to collaborate by “negotiating meaning and translating words for one another” (Burton & Van Viegen, 2021). This proved to be successful in helping non-refugee students understand refugee students’ difficult experiences of linguistic standards and discrimination present within the classroom (Burton & Van Viegen, 2021). The enhanced communal understanding of refugee students’ linguistic challenges is valuable because it can lead to a greater sense of compassion and empathy within learning environments and local communities. 

Given the benefits of creativity and arts-based education programs for refugee populations, U.S. schools and community service providers should work to incorporate more of these arts-based education initiatives into their curriculums and program schedules. In order to carry out this call to action, I recommend that schools first work to reduce the stigma associated with the arts as less valuable in comparison to other academic endeavors such as math and science. Second, in addition to illuminating the value of the arts, it is essential that schools and community service providers enhance the allocation of arts-based funding in order to gather sufficient resources and support for facilitating programs that can provide refugees with the utmost benefits. Third, I recommend that these arts-based initiatives combine the participation of refugees with involvement of the local community to bring attention to the positive value that refugees can add to society. The transformative power of creative expression and arts-based education can serve as an outlet for refugees to be seen and appreciated by a greater audience. Above all, these initiatives can serve as an opportunity for refugees to feel empowered, hopeful, and welcome in the U.S. 

References

Beauregard, C. (2020). Being in between: Exploring Cultural Bereavement and Identity Expression through Drawing. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health Vol. 15 (3), 292-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/15401383.2019.1702131

Brown, C. S. (2015). The Educational, Psychological, and Social Impact of Discrimination on
the Immigrant Child. Migration Policy Institute. 1-17. 

Brown, S. L.,  & Bousalis, R. (2017). Empowering Young Minds Through Communication, Creative Expression, and Human Rights in Refugee Art. Art Education, Vol. 70 (4), 48-50.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00043125.2017.1317562

Burton, J. & VanViegan, S. (2021). Spoken Word Poetry with Multilingual Youth from Refugee Backgrounds. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, Vol. 65 (1), 75-84. doi: 10.1002/jaal.1178

Escaño, C., Mesías-Lema, J.M., & Mañero, J. (2021). Empowerment of the refugee migrant community through a cooperation project on art education in Greece. Development in Practice, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2021.1944986 

Moreira, A. I. A.,  & Jakobi, A. L. P. (2021). Re-Voicing the Unheard: Meta-Study on Arts-Based Interventions for Social Inclusion of Refugees and Asylum Seekers. Journal of Education, Culture, and Society, Vol. (2), 93-112. doi: 10.15503.jecs2021.2.93.112

Nashwan, A. J., Steckler, T., & Abdulhaq, B. K. (2019). Healing Through Expression: How the Arts Transform the Experience of Syrian Refugees in Jordan. Human and Social Sciences, Vol.46 (3), 377-388. 

Stickley, T., Hui, A., Stubley, M., Baker, F., & Watson, M. C. (2019). “Write here, sanctuary” creative writing for refugees and people seeking asylum. Arts & Health, Vol.11(3), 246-263. https://doi.org/10.1080/17533015.2018.1494450

UNHCR. (2022, July 21). The U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program Explained. UNRefugees.org.https://www.unrefugees.org/news/the-u-s-refugee-resettlement-program-explained/

UNHCR. (2021). Figures at a Glance. UNHCR.org. https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/figures-at-a-glance.html

Posted on

A Call for Inclusion of Refugee Mothers at All Levels of Education

By: Haley Skeens

Peer-reviewed by REAL members

At the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, education was established as a basic human right for all refugees. Yet, over 30 years later, girls and women with refugee backgrounds still suffer from unequal access to education (UNHCR, 2022). This includes refugee mothers, who are often neglected in education research and policy. 

Most research on education for refugee mothers revolves around pregnancy, childbirth, and childcare education (Erdemir, 2022; Henry, 2020; Ponguta et al. 2019). Little has been published about refugee mothers’ educational journeys. Governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) need to allocate greater funds towards more inclusive research and educational options for vulnerable groups, such as refugee mothers, to ensure equal access to education at all levels.

Barriers 

Common barriers refugee mothers face include gender-specific, cultural expectations which limit their educational access. An Australian study showed that some husbands prohibited refugee mothers from attending mixed-gender language learning classes due to cultural gender norms (Riggs et al., 2012). Men are viewed as the financial head of the family, so men and boys’ education is prioritized over that of women and girls in some cultures (Riggs et al., 2012). 

In a separate study, researchers Harris et al. (2013) explored education for refugee mothers as a threat to male authority, especially the authority of husbands. Refugee mothers accessing education were seen as “creating ‘gender trouble’” because they were traversing typical gender roles (Harris et al., 2013, p. 190). Often, traditional gender roles expect men and boys to provide financial support while refugee mothers care for children and the home. Limited childcare including options perceived as culturally inappropriate by refugee mothers present an obstacle for those who would like to access education (Riggs et al., 2012, p. 399). 

Refugee mothers also face limited funds for education and must consider childcare costs and additional educational expenses. Riggs et al.’s (2012) study discussed the financial stressors placed on refugee mothers in relation to their own and their children’s education. In their study, mothers enrolled in full-time education programs wished to attend part-time school to lessen the burden of childcare expenses but were concerned that such change would affect their welfare payments. Refugee mothers were also upset that their children’s school had hidden fees for extra activities and field trips (Riggs et al., 2012). However, a 2017 study found that lack of childcare was only an obstacle for married mothers. Husbands enforced gendered caretaking roles for refugee mothers. Therefore, single moms with refugee backgrounds had more autonomy over their educational decisions. Single mothers also shared that they felt obligated to continue their education to earn a higher-paying job and provide as the sole breadwinner (Perry & Mallozzi, 2017). This raises the question of autonomy versus financial necessity for single moms choosing to pursue education.

Refugee mothers also face the challenge of knowing the language of instruction in host countries. Many are eligible to take language classes but have difficulty attending due to family responsibilities and lack of childcare. Without access to language education, refugee mothers have lower chances of passing the language tests often required for admission to tertiary education programs (UNHCR, 2019). This is reflected in Ergin and de Wit’s (2020) study which found that of Syrian refugee background students who only had one parent attain a higher education degree, 30.87% were fathers while only 7.8% were mothers. 

Riggs et al. (2012) explain that “language skills are vital for participating in education and employment, and accessing services, which in turn, affect opportunities to develop social connections” (p. 398). Unfortunately, refugee mothers are at a higher risk of exclusion from language education, which increases risk of social isolation, postpartum depression, and depression (Riggs et al., 2012). This emphasizes the need for refugee mothers’ access to language education because without sufficient language training, their sense of belonging, mental health, and well-being are negatively impacted.

However, refugee mothers are not a monolith, and their experiences vary, including other challenges not mentioned above. By examining common barriers, we can begin to discuss possible solutions and urge governments and NGOs to increase accessibility of education services for student mothers with refugee backgrounds. 

Recommendations

Barriers to accessing education can be detrimental to refugee mothers, affecting families, communities, and nations. If refugee mothers gain access to more educational opportunities, research shows that “health, education, social, economic and leadership prospects increase while vulnerability…decreases” (UNESCO, 2019). Therefore, governments, universities, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) need to offer more inclusive education programs to best support refugee mothers and communities. 

Several programs currently exist which serve as examples on how to help refugee mothers access education. For Syrian refugee mothers in Turkey, Arar et al. (2018) describe a program that includes a nursery for children alongside language classes and vocational courses which allow women to learn profitable skills. Ergin and de Wit (2020) also suggest programs to increase Syrian female refugees’ access to education including female-only scholarships, childcare at universities, and spreading awareness about the importance of girls education. These solutions provide support systems for refugee mothers and daughters to access higher education, and it is imperative that resettlement agencies work together with local organizations and universities to offer these educational opportunities to increase gender equality in schooling. 

Arizona State University’s Digital English Language Courses at the Za’atari Camp Center in Jordan offer access to refugee mothers through flexible education models. This program emphasizes “gender parity in program recruitment” and facilitates access to education by offering on-site daycare (Connected Learning in Crisis Consortium, 2019, p. 30). Refugee mothers can “participate…and improve their English skills…with their children supervised by NRC staff nearby.” (Connected Learning in Crisis Consortium, 2019, p. 30). These types of programs and wraparound services are crucial to supporting refugee mothers’ success in education. 

Amidst what “looks set to become Europe’s largest refugee crisis this century,” it is crucial to act now (Mantoo, 2022). The UNHCR has recently mobilized field staff to Ukraine and surrounding countries to assure that refugees’ basic humanitarian needs are met, including education. Education systems must be ready to help not only children integrate into school systems but other student populations such as refugee mothers. Investing time and effort in ensuring refugee mothers’ access to education will benefit individuals, refugee communities, and contribute to national and global well-being. 

All opinions are exclusively those of the author and not of George Washington University, the Graduate School of Education and Human Development, the Refugee Educational Advancement Laboratory or any of its members or other entities.

References

Arar, K., Deniz Orucu., & Akki, G. (2018). Culturally Relevant School Leadership for Syrian Refugee Students in Challenging Circumstances, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(6), 960-979.

Connected Learning in Crisis Consortium. (2019). ASU’s Digital English Language Courses in Za’atari Camp, Jordan. https://connectedlearning4refugees.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/CLCC-2019-Yearbook_Final.pdf

Erdemir, E. (2022). Home-Based Early Education for Refugee and Local Children via Mothers: A model of contextually sensitive early intervention. Journal of Child and Family Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-02197-7

Ergin, H. & de Wit, H. (2020). Integration policy for Syrian refugees’ access to Turkish Higher Education: Inclusive enough? In Curaj, A., Deca, L. & Pricopie, R. (Eds.), European Higher Education Area: Challenges for a new decade (pp. 121-131). Cham: Springer.

Harris, A., Spark, C., & Ngum Chi, M. C. (2013). The Barriers that Only You Can See: African Australian women thriving in tertiary education despite the odds. Géneros (Barcelona), 2(2), 182–202.

Henry, J., Beruf, C., & Fischer, T. (2020). Access to Health Care for Pregnant Arabic-Speaking Refugee Women and Mothers in Germany. Qualitative Health Research, 30(3), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732319873620

Mantoo, S., (2022). UNHCR mobilizing to aid forcibly displaced in Ukraine and neighbouring countries.UNHCR.https://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing/2022/3/621deda74/unhcr-mobilizing-aid-forcibly-displaced-ukraine-neighbouring-countries.html

Perry, K.H., & Mallozzi, C. A. (2017). “We have education, I can say that”: Worldview and access to education for adult refugees. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 491–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12152

Ponguta, L.A., Issa, G., Aoudeh, L., Maalouf, C., Nourallah, S., Khoshnood, K., Zonderman, A. L., Katsovich, L., Moore, C., Salah, R., Al‐Soleiti, M., Britto, P. R., & Leckman, J. F. (2019). Implementation Evaluation of the Mother‐Child Education Program Among Refugee and Other Vulnerable Communities in Lebanon. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2019(167), 91–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20314

UNESCO. (2019). From Access to Empowerment: UNESCO strategy for gender equality in and through education 2019-2025. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000369000

UNHCR. (2019). Doubling our Impact: Third country higher education pathways for refugees.https://www.unhcr.org/5e5e4c614.pdf

UNHCR. (2022). Women. https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/women.html

Posted on

A World of Refugees: The Outbreak of War in Ukraine

By: The faculty and students of the REAL

Today, war has broken out in Ukraine. This event is an eerie echo of what the world witnessed 83 years ago with Ukraine’s neighbor, Poland, when Nazi Germany invaded. As of February 24th, 2022, media projections suggest that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions will quickly result in upwards of 1 million or more Ukrainians fleeing westward as refugees. Soon, these displaced persons will no longer be members of communities where they had a home, a livelihood, a daily routine, and, most importantly, an identity. They will simply melt into the large and growing global population of “refugees.” This tragedy is happening in real-time.

The Refugee Educational Advancement Laboratory (REAL) sends its deepest and most heartfelt thoughts to all Ukrainians. As a group of students and scholars, we will vigilantly monitor the events unfolding across the Atlantic, just as we monitor refugee activity elsewhere in the world. 

While REAL’s focus is on refugee access to education–a process that is several steps removed from the initial tragedy of displacement–we know that after massive upheaval and once survival is ensured humans aspire to regain ownership over their human rights, including education. A return to the educational routine and the safety that classrooms and institutions provide is but one small but critical source of comfort educators the world over can offer those whose lives have been uprooted. Education is, and will always be, among the most precious and foundational rights that every human being deserves.

Today’s tragedy in Ukraine now binds the citizens of that nation to those in other countries who are already victims of war, genocide, famine, and additional maladies that are the cause of forced displacement. Indeed, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR, Figures at a Glance), five major crises in five different regions of the world have by now displaced 82.4 million humans, both people domestically and internationally–the greatest rise in numbers since the Second World War.  Among those, 26.4 million now bear the tragic label of “refugee.” These man-made and avoidable tragedies consume Syria and Afghanistan in the Middle East, Venezuela in South America, South Sudan in Africa, and Myanmar in Southeast Asia, among other less publicized crises globally. Now Ukraine may join them. 

All of these situations push citizens into neighboring countries and points far beyond their homeland. No intake country is ever perfectly equipped to provide the short-term humanitarian and long-term integration support its newcomers will need. Some well-resourced countries will be better equipped to open their doors than others are. But the vast majority of the less developed countries will continue to shoulder the weight of the nearly 90% of all refugee flows. Each country of transit or of final resettlement will take a different position toward offering integration and support services for refugees. But what we know from past behavior is that few will welcome them openly. 

Today, we are faced with the likely scenario that millions of Ukrainians in real-time will soon join the expanding web of suffering and global displacement we have seen grow in our lifetimes. The REAL team joins a loud chorus of international voices condemning the actions of the Russian leadership today. We send our thoughts to the Ukrainian people and encourage the United States to be prepared to open its doors to displaced populations who may come from Ukraine, just as they have come so recently from Afghanistan and have come throughout our history from so many other ailing corners of the world.

All opinions are exclusively those of the Refugee Educational Advancement Laboratory (REAL) and not of the George Washington University nor the Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Posted on

Where Do We Go From Here? Examining Twenty Years of Refugee Policy and Admissions Numbers

By: Jessica Crist

Peer-reviewed by REAL members

Introduction

U.S. immigration policy has experienced ebbs and flows over the past 20 years. Refugee legislation has remained largely unchanged since 1980 when the U.S. refugee program began, however, executive branch discretion has changed its implementation (Bolter et al., 2022). Changing executive policies around refugee admission have increased the difficulty of the resettlement process by requiring refugees to wait for longer periods of time, creating confusion regarding policy changes and adding to the trauma many refugees face when fleeing their country of origin. The Biden administration should consider creating more welcoming refugee policies. Referencing a recent report from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), I make several recommendations for the Biden administration’s refugee policy.

U.S. refugee policy 2001-present

George W. Bush (2001-2009)

George W.Bush’s inauguration in 2001 brought a conservative shift in U.S. politics. During his first year in office, Bush lowered the U.S. refugee admission ceiling–the number of spots allotted to resettle refugees in the U.S. each fiscal year (FY)–from 90,000 to 80,000 (LIRS, 2020; MPI, 2022). The effects of the terrorist attacks on September 11th further slowed immigration. Only 69,886 refugees were admitted in FY 2001 despite the 80,000 refugee ceiling (MPI, 2022). As the U.S. recovered from the attacks, Bush lowered the refugee admission ceiling to 70,000 refugees in FY 2002 but only 27,000 refugees entered the U.S. that year (MPI, 2022). In the wake of 9/11, rising nationalism created a less-welcoming environment for refugees.

Refugee admissions gradually rose during the latter half of the Bush presidency. In 2008, he raised the ceiling to 80,000 (MPI, 2022). In FY 2008, the final year of the Bush administration, 60,191 refugees entered the U.S. (MPI, 2022). Though Bush took a strong stance against undocumented immigration and enacted policies that made immigrating more difficult, the administration maintained an open policy toward refugees. This set a precedent for future administrations, making the U.S. immigration system more selective and difficult with intense application and screening processes.

Barack Obama (2009-2017)

For many, Barack Obama’s historic election as the first African-American president sparked hope for change in the United States. During the first three years of Obama’s presidency, he kept the refugee admissions ceiling at 80,000 (MPI, 2022). In 2009, the Obama administration admitted 74,654 refugees, the most refugees admitted in nearly ten years (MPI, 2022). Though refugee admissions were steady in 2009 and 2010, the number of refugees accepted in the U.S. in 2011 dropped to 56,424 (MPI, 2022). Subsequently, in 2012, the Obama administration lowered the refugee admission ceiling to 76,000, followed by 70,000 in 2013 (MPI, 2022). This lowering of the refugee admissions ceiling and drop in refugees entering the U.S. was mainly due to strong political opposition in Congress and in individual states. In his final year as president, Obama raised the ceiling to 85,000 and 84,994 refugees entered the U.S. (MPI, 2022). Though Obama did receive criticism for his harsh deportation of many migrants in the U.S., his other immigration policies and open attitude toward displaced persons created a welcoming atmosphere for refugees in the U.S.

Donald Trump (2017-2021)

Trump’s unprecedented election in 2016 highlighted the growing desire for isolationist policies in the country. Trump was the first U.S president to win based on an immigration agenda (Bolter et al., 2022). Through the 472 immigration related executive actions that spanned his presidency, Trump increased executive branch influence on immigration policy (Bolter et al., 2022). This impacted refugee policy and specifically how many refugees were able to resettle in the United States. Trump’s “Travel Ban” executive order on October 24th, 2017, which lasted until December 23rd, 2017, deprioritized resettlement applications from applicants in eleven countries, and deemed these countries to be “high risk” to U.S. national security (Bolter et al., 2022). It also created additional vetting for refugees from “high risk” countries that included longer interviews, separate interviews for children, and an expanded list of “national security indicators” that would warrant further screenings (IRAP, 2021). These additional vetting procedures delayed resettlement applications, creating a backlog in the immigration system. Trump’s policy changes made it harder for refugees from certain regions to be resettled in the U.S., resulting in a decrease in the number of refugees admitted from the Middle East and an increase in those admitted from Europe (Bolter et al., 2022).

Trump’s relentless reductions to the refugee admission ceiling greatly affected refugee admittance. In 2017, Trump lowered the refugee admission ceiling to 50,000–the lowest in recorded history to that point in time (MPI, 2022). In 2020, Trump dropped the refugee admission ceiling to an all-time low of 18,000 and only accepted 11,814 refugees (MPI, 2022). This was partially due to the impact on travel and the closure of U.S. embassies during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, Trump’s previous refugee admissions numbers show a downward trend that was only exacerbated by the pandemic (Bolter et al., 2022; MPI, 2022).

With reduced resettlement budgets, U.S. states faced growing challenges to resettlement (Bolter et al., 2022). Overall, the decrease in refugee arrivals and funding cuts damaged U.S. resettlement infrastructure as well as shrunk the network and capacity of resettlement organizations across the country (Bolter et al., 2022). Such damage will take years to rebuild, impacting the lives of refugees waiting to be resettled.

Joseph Biden (2021-present)

In his first year as president, Joe Biden took steps to reverse some Trump-era refugee policies. In FY 2021, Biden raised the refugee admission ceiling to 62,500, the highest ceiling since 2016, however, only 11,411 refugees were admitted (MPI, 2022). Low admissions can be attributed to the ongoing pandemic, the chaos of the Afghan evacuation plan, and the staggering U.S. immigration system backlog (Bolter et al., 2022). Approximately 90,000 refugees have completed pre-screening but await their U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) interview (U.S. DOS, U.S. DHS, and U.S. DHHS, 2021). For FY 2022, Biden raised the admission ceiling to 125,000–the highest in over 20 years (MPI, 2022). While Biden has voiced his commitment to restoring welcoming refugee policies, he has received criticism for his lack of action in bringing these policies to fruition. To avoid regressing to Trump-era refugee admissions numbers and to ensure an effective and efficient refugee resettlement process, the administration needs to enact further reforms.

Recommendations for the Biden Administration

The Biden administration should invest significant resources into resettlement organizations, such as the International Rescue Committee and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services. Federal investment can rebuild lost staff, bolster programming, and increase capacity to resettle additional refugees. The Biden administration must also allocate more staff to U.S. embassies and government offices, such as USCIS, and ensure the opening of all U.S. embassies around the world. By providing more staff to embassies and government offices to increase capacity and prevent delays, the U.S. can reduce the backlog of cases. Biden must reopen U.S. embassies quickly, following the latest Covid-19 safety measures. This will increase the speed and number of resettlements to the U.S.

Conclusion

The last 20 years of the U.S. refugee program have seen many changes. Trump administration refugee reforms will have a lasting effect on the resettlement of refugees in the U.S., and an adverse impact on our historic image as a country friendly to migration. To effectively resettle refugees and increase refugee admissions, President Biden needs to do more than raise the refugee ceiling. Through increasing funding and staffing and the reopening of U.S. embassies and government agencies, the Biden administration can not only bring back the successful admissions rates of 20 years ago, but must also continue to transform the refugee admission infrastructure to uphold the U.S. commitment to a humane and welcoming immigration system.

YearRefugee Admission CeilingNumber of Refugees Admitted
George W. Bush
200090,00073,147
200180,00069,886
200270,00027,131
200370,00028,403
200470,00052,873
200570,00053,813
200670,00041,223
200770,00048,282
200880,00060,191
Barack Obama
200980,00074,654
201080,00073,311
201180,00056,424
201276,00058,238
201370,00069,926
201470,00069,987
201570,00069,933
201685,00084,994
Donald Trump
201750,00053,716
201845,00022,533
201930,00030,000
202018,00011,814
Joe Biden
202162,50011,411
2022125,000TBD

Elaboration by the author, February 8, 2022 from (MPI, 2022).

All opinions are exclusively those of the author and not of George Washington University, the Graduate School of Education and Human Development, the Refugee Educational Advancement Laboratory or any of its members or other entities.

References

Bolter, Jessica, Emma Israel, and Sarah Pierce. (2022, February). Four Years of Profound Change: Immigration Policy during the Trump Presidency. Migration Policy Institute (MPI). https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/mpi-trump-at-4-report-final.pdf

International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP). (2021, June). Debunking ‘Extreme Vetting’: Recommendations to Build Back the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. Retrieved February 8, 2022, from,  https://refugeerights.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Vetting-Report-2020-v6-REVISED-JUNE-2021-1.pdf

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS). (2020, September 1). Frequently Asked Questions: Refugee Ceiling and the Presidential Determination. Retrieved on February 16, 2022 from, https://www.lirs.org/faqs-refugee-ceiling/

Migration Policy Institute (MPI). (2022). U.S. Annual Refugee Resettlement Ceilings and Number of Refugees Admitted, 1980-Present. Retrieved February 8, 2022 from, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-annual-refugee-resettlement-ceilings-and-number-refugees-admitted-united?width=850&height=850&iframe=true

U.S. Department of State (DOS), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (2021). Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2022: Report to the Congress. Washington, DC. https://www.wrapsnet.org/documents/Report+to+Congress+for+FY+2022+USRAP.pdf

Posted on

Recommendations for the U.S. Government as Refugee Admissions Resumes Following Temporary Pause

By: Savannah Smith

Peer-reviewed by REAL members

A spokesperson from the U.S. Department of State recently announced that there would no longer be restrictions on refugees traveling to the U.S. beginning January 11, 2022 (Alvarez, 2022). This decision follows a whirlwind year for President Joe Biden’s refugee policy, which has changed repeatedly throughout his short time in office. 

In April 2021, Biden announced that his administration would keep the historically low 15,000-refugee admissions cap put in place by former President Donald Trump. However, after facing a fierce backlash within his own party and from human rights activists, his administration was ultimately swayed to increase the cap as planned (Shear, 2021). In May 2021, Biden raised the admissions cap to 62,500 (Shear, 2021), and in October 2021, he reaffirmed his promise to increase that cap to 125,000, which is now set to take effect in fiscal year 2022 (The White House, 2021).  

Afghan refugees have been notably impacted by these sporadic changes to U.S. refugee policy. Following the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan and takeover of the country by Taliban forces in August 2021, a humanitarian crisis ensued. Thousands of Afghans at risk, due to their connections with the U.S. or its allies, had to quickly be evacuated and get through  Kabul’s tightly controlled airport for resettlement elsewhere. In response, the Biden administration shifted course once again, this time in late 2021, imposing a temporary freeze on the admission of refugees  in order to focus on the resettlement of Afghans and those who met certain exceptions (Alvarez, 2022). 

Resettlement agencies that partner with the federal government were the targeted beneficiaries of this freeze. Priscilla Alvarez, who first reported that the temporary pause would be lifted, explains this reasoning further, stating that, “refugee resettlement agencies that partner with the federal government had limited capacity after years of declining refugee admissions under the Trump administration, resulting in closed offices and laid-off staff” (2022). The freeze provided refugee resettlement agencies with an opportunity to address these issues and to specifically focus on resettling large numbers of Afghans.

The Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS) is one of many refugee resettlement organizations that have been assisting with the Afghan crisis. According to their website, LIRS is “the largest faith-based nonprofit dedicated to serving vulnerable immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees in the U.S.” (LIRS, 2021). In December 2021, LIRS opened a new resettlement office in Alexandria, Virginia specifically to receive refugees from Afghanistan and to help integrate them into the community (Kunkle, 2021). Many Afghan refugees choose to resettle in Northern Virginia because there is already a large Afghan community in the area (Olivo, 2021). Through existing sites, LIRS had already resettled over 1,200 refugees in Northern Virginia since the summer (Jarvis, 2021). Officials from LIRS’s Alexandria office further reported that they anticipated resettling close to 700 refugees to the area from housing at nearby military bases (Kunkle, 2021). 

Lifting the temporary freeze on refugee admissions to the U.S. is essential to fulfilling the Biden administration’s promise of accepting 125,000 refugees over the next fiscal year. It is important to note, however, that accepting more refugees could make it more difficult to address the problems that already exist for refugees trying to integrate into their new communities. For example, resettlement agencies could quickly become overwhelmed by an abrupt increase in admissions because their operations were drastically deconstructed during the previous presidential administration. Additionally, despite the presence of a large Afghan community in Northern Virginia, refugees who lack established connections in the area–combined with high housing costs, inability to access personal funds, and lack of access to food and other resources–present significant challenges to resettling (Olivo, 2021). More specifically, finding permanent housing in an area like Northern Virginia, which already suffers from an affordability challenge, especially without a steady income or access to rental or credit history, has proven incredibly difficult for refugees trying to resettle here permanently (Olivo, 2021). These individuals often leave their home countries in urgency, which does not allow them with time to gather these documents and records that are standard for taking residency in a new country. 

Based on these trends, it is necessary that the federal government prioritize consistency in its refugee policy that has been absent over the previous fiscal year. As a nation founded by immigrants, the U.S. is at its best when individuals from different backgrounds and cultures are accepted within local communities to provide diverse perspectives that foster cross-cultural understanding. Abruptly decreasing or pausing the refugee admissions cap creates confusion and denies vulnerable individuals from resettling in a safe place. Conversely, abruptly increasing the refugee admissions cap can leave resettlement agencies overwhelmed, so prioritizing a steady increase of refugees admitted to the U.S. is necessary to rebuild the system on a strong, sustainable foundation. 

Increasing the resources that are allocated to refugee resettlement agencies is also particularly important in this context, especially as the admissions cap is significantly higher now than it was a year ago. For example, the federal government only provides “a one-time payment of $2,275 for each Afghan an agency serves, of which $1,225 is available for agencies to use for direct assistance, like housing or basic necessities” (Alvarez, 2021). That leaves many Afghans with minimal allowance left to sustain themselves if employment remains an issue. In a place like Northern Virginia, where those of us who live in this area know that living costs are incredibly high, this one-time payment amount does not provide an adequate safety net to enable refugees to build and sustain a new life, especially as it is not always easy to find work quickly. The federal government can address this issue by either increasing the amount of the one-time payment or by increasing the frequency of those payments. Additional funding should also be provided to resettlement agencies to help them ramp upn job placement support as a way to reduce the amount of time refugees rely on payment from the federal government, especially if that payment quotient is not increased. More funding in these areas could be obtained either as a part of the federal government’s annual budget or as a separate spending bill introduced in Congress. Finally, considering refugees’ lack of access to important documents, such as credit and rental history, resettlement agencies also need to work with the federal government to establish an official waiver for these documents as a way to ease the process of finding permanent residency. 

All opinions are exclusively those of the author and not of George Washington University, the Graduate School of Education and Human Development, the Refugee Educational Advancement Laboratory or any of its members or other entities.

References

Alvarez, P. (2021, September 30). Refugee groups race to find housing for 53,000 Afghan evacuees. CNN. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/30/politics/afghan-refugees-housing-costs/index.html 

Alvarez, P. (2022, January 10). Refugee admissions to the US will restart this week after temporary freeze. CNN. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/10/politics/refugee-united-states/index.html 

Jarvis, J. (2021, December 23). Nonprofit opens afghan resettlement office in Alexandria. INSIDENOVA.COM. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://www.insidenova.com/headlines/nonprofit-opens-afghan-resettlement-office-in-alexandria/article_9ceacccc-627a-11ec-9165-dfab1d533b33.html 

Kunkle, F. (2021, December 17). Faith-based organization opens Northern Virginia Office to aid Afghan refugees. The Washington Post. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/12/16/afghan-refugees-aid-virginia-lutheran-nonprofit/ 

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS). (2022, January 3). About Us. LIRS. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://www.lirs.org/about/

Olivo, A. (2021, December 12). Refugee aid groups in Washington region overwhelmed by Afghan caseloads. The Washington Post. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/12/12/afghan-refugees-washington-virginia-cases/ 

Olivo, A. (2021, September 19). Afghan refugees in D.C. area face their next hurdle: An Affordable Housing Crunch. The Washington Post. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/dc-afghan-refugees-affordable-housing/2021/09/17/6c26fbd2-1587-11ec-b976-f4a43b740aeb_story.html 

Shear, M. (2021, September 20). The Biden Administration will raise the cap on refugee admissions to 125,000. The New York Times. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/20/us/politics/biden-refugee-cap.html 

The White House. (2021, October 8). Memorandum for the secretary of State on presidential determination on refugee admissions for Fiscal Year 2022. Retrieved January 21, 2022, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/08/memorandum-for-the-secretary-of-state-on-presidential-determination-on-refugee-admissions-for-fiscal-year-2022/ 

Posted on

Reducing the Burden of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases on Displaced Populations

By: Brittany Troupe

Peer-reviewed by REAL members

The Problem

Vaccine-preventable diseases (VPDs) are communicable diseases that can be prevented through immunization. There are 17 VPDs that the United States and other countries target through policy measures.1 These diseases include measles, meningitis, cholera, and others that have a high incidence and prevalence in displaced populations.1,2 In this brief, displaced populations refer to groups that were forcibly removed from their homes. Refugees will be regarded as individuals who were legally recognized by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) as having refugee status. 17% of all infectious disease outbreaks from 1996-2016 occurred in the Eastern Mediterranean region.3 Displaced populations in the Eastern Mediterranean region have a higher incidence and prevalence of VPDs than their non-displaced regional counterparts.4,5 Humanitarian crises cause an increase in malnutrition, a degradation of sanitation infrastructure, and a reduction in available health services.2 These risk factors directly increase the spread of communicable diseases. Civil conflicts cause humanitarian crises and increase the burden of VPDs on displaced persons, aid organizations, host countries, and non-displaced regional populations.2 Eastern Mediterranean displaced persons experience higher exposure to civil conflicts than any other regional group.6 The most recent estimates state that there are 82.4 million people currently displaced.7 Nearly 40% or about 20 million displaced persons are from the Eastern Mediterranean region.6 Policy solutions for reducing the burden of VPDs will be targeted at Syrian, Afghan, Libyan, and other large displaced ethnic groups that primarily speak Arabic.

The Social Determinants

Displaced persons in the Eastern Mediterranean region originate from countries, such as Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya, which have had decades-long civil conflicts and humanitarian crises.6 These persons have limited access to vaccines and health clinics within their countries of origin. The destruction of built environments in countries of origin and the insufficient infrastructure to address population influxes in host countries is a factor causing the increased burden of VPDs in displaced populations.2 Humanitarian crises increase political tensions within host countries leading to elevated levels of xenophobia. Xenophobia by host countries causes reductions in trust that displaced persons have in the host country’s health systems.8 The cultural implications of humanitarian crises cause barriers to care for displaced persons. Political perceptions of migrants in host countries increase individual prejudices and hinder social integration.2 Within xenophobic host countries, displaced persons are confined to groups with their cultural or displaced backgrounds. These groups most commonly exist in camp settings, formal or informal. Displaced persons are at an even higher level of risk for VPDs in camp settings due to overcrowding, poor sanitation, lack of infrastructure, and poor living conditions.2 Outbreaks of VPDs are more likely to occur in these populations because of their lower immunization rates.2,4 Host populations have higher immunization rates and a lower incidence of VPDs.2 Socially integrating displaced persons into host countries would decrease the burden of VPDs by invoking herd immunity.2 Integration requires political action and active efforts by policymakers to reduce xenophobia. Inaction will continue to put displaced persons and host populations at a higher risk of VPD outbreaks.

Other cultural determinants influence displaced persons’ willingness to receive vaccinations. Displaced persons can experience vaccine hesitancy because of general fears of side effects and doubts of vaccine efficacy.8 Vaccine hesitancy is more likely to be expressed when care is provided through host country health systems as opposed to international aid groups.8 Accessible health communication in Arabic, or a displaced person’s primary language, is a tool that needs to be integrated in all policy solutions. Displaced persons in the Eastern Mediterranean generally embrace medical care when it is available despite experiencing vaccine hesitancy at higher rates than non-migrants.8 Cultural competencies must be included into policy recommendations to develop inclusive solutions for reducing the burden of VPDs on displaced persons.

Key Actors

The social determinants of health that influence the burden of VPDs on displaced persons can be managed by host countries and international aid groups. The largest host countries in the Eastern Mediterranean are Turkey, Jordan, and Palestine.7,9 These three countries host a total of 6.4 million displaced persons.7,9 Turkey, alone, hosts 3.7 million displaced persons.7 Only 2% of the displaced population in Turkey live in camps.10 This is compared to the 81% of displaced persons living in camps in Jordan.9 Nearly 50% of displaced persons in Palestine reside in camps.11 The policy recommendations for these three host countries will differ slightly in their implementation.

Turkey, Jordan, and Palestine are accountable for integrating the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI). EPI programs are designed based on guidelines made by the WHO.12 Countries differ in the implementation of EPI programs based on social determinants of health. In Turkey, EPI programs must be developed for urban settings with local administrators and public health officials; considering that 98% of displaced persons are not encamped.10 EPI programs in Jordan should be chartered under national leadership to ensure that the 81% of displaced persons currently encamped have equitable vaccine access.9 Local resources may not be sufficient in developing EPIs for encamped populations. However, an extent of local implementation is required for all EPI programs. Palestine is currently in national conflict with Israel, EPI programs for displaced persons in Palestine would be implemented most effectively under international aid groups, such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Each nation or implementing group must be held accountable by the UN and WHO for ensuring EPI programs are equitable. EPI programs developed for citizens of host countries may differ from EPI programs catered to displaced persons. This can raise the ethical concerns that displaced persons are being denied complete access to care due to political or cultural motivations.2 The ethical challenges of this are compounded by logistical challenges that hinder social integration.

Policy Recommendations

Turkey, Jordan, and other Eastern Mediterranean countries that support large numbers of displaced persons should expand the implementation of the EPI to specifically target services at border entry points. Establishing VPD reception centers at entry points can ensure the majority displaced persons in host countries receive screening for VPDs because they all cross through them.2 Reception centers intend to increase surveillance of VPDs. This surveillance would increase the efficacy of EPI programs because it establishes a documented medical history. Most countries facing conflict and humanitarian crises do not have reliable immunization records that displaced persons can access.13 These reception centers should provide treatment for VPDs to reduce the burden of VPDs on host countries. International aid groups should collaborate with host countries to establish reception centers at border points. Host countries can use the data from reception centers to establish EPI programs in camps and urban settings. EPI programs developed with surveillance data can target the most vulnerable people more precisely. This would decrease the burden of VPDs. The UNHCR, along with international aid groups, can collaborate with community leaders to provide resources for VPD treatment and EPI implementation.

The second policy recommendation in this brief is that host countries should disperse displaced populations throughout the country. Developing social integration and increased pathways to permanent residency can have a large effect on reducing the burden of VPDs on displaced persons and host countries. Social integration offers the benefits of increased trust from displaced persons and herd immunity. Current pathways to resettlement for displaced persons exist on the international and national scale. Displaced persons can currently apply for refugee status through the UNHCR and Palestinian displaced persons can apply for refugee status under the UNRWA. The demand for refugee status exceeds the capacity of the UNHCR, leaving millions of displaced persons without resettlement pathways. Turkey, Jordan, and other large host countries should work with their national governments to develop visas, resettlement, or naturalization pathways specific to displaced persons. Decreasing the burden of VPDs on displaced persons will require treatment, increased vaccination, and pathways to social integration.

All opinions are exclusively those of the author and not of George Washington University, the Graduate School of Education and Human Development, the Refugee Educational Advancement Laboratory or any of its members or other entities.

References

1. Vaccines by Diseases. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/vaccines-diseases.html. November 22, 2016. Accessed October 22, 2021.

2. Lam E, McCarthy A, Brennan M. Vaccine-preventable diseases in humanitarian emergencies among refugee and internally-displaced populations. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics. 2015;11(11):2627-2636. doi:10.1080/21645515.2015.1096457

3. Desai AN, Ramatowski JW, Marano N, Madoff LC, Lassmann B. Infectious disease outbreaks among forcibly displaced persons: an analysis of ProMED reports 1996–2016. Confl Health. 2020;14(1). doi:10.1186/s13031-020-00295-9

4. Charania NA, Gaze N, Kung JY, Brooks S. Interventions to reduce the burden of vaccine- preventable diseases among migrants and refugees worldwide: A scoping review of published literature, 2006–2018. Vaccine. 2020;38(46):7217-7225. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.09.054

5. Charania NA, Gaze N, Kung JY, Brooks S. Vaccine-preventable diseases and immunisation coverage among migrants and non-migrants worldwide: A scoping review of published literature, 2006 to 2016. Vaccine. 2019;37(20):2661-2669. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.04.001

6. Yahya M, Muasher M. Refugee Crises in the Arab World. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/10/18/refugee-crises-in-arab-world- pub-77522. 2020. Accessed October 22, 2021.

7. Figures at a Glance. UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/figures-at-a-glance.html. June 18, 2021. Accessed October 22, 2021.

8. Tankwanchi AS, Bowman B, Garrison M, Larson H, Wiysonge CS. Vaccine hesitancy in migrant communities: a rapid review of latest evidence. Current Opinion in Immunology. 2021;71:62-68. doi:10.1016/j.coi.2021.05.009

9. Jordan Syrian Refugees. ACAPS. https://www.acaps.org/country/jordan/crisis/syrian- refugees. August 25, 2020. Accessed October 22, 2021.

10. UNHCR Turkey – Fact Sheet September 2020. UNHCR. https://reliefweb.int/report/turkey/unhcr-turkey-fact-sheet-september-2020. September 22, 2020. Accessed October 22, 2021.

11. UN Relief & Works Agency (UNRWA): Palestinian Refugees in the Gaza Strip. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestinian-refugees-in-the-gaza-strip. 2021. Accessed October 22, 2021.

12. Essential Programme on Immunization. WHO. https://www.who.int/teams/immunization- vaccines-and-biologicals/essential-programme-on-immunization. Accessed October 22, 2021.

13. Chiesa V, Chiarenza A, Mosca D, Rechel B. Health records for migrants and refugees: A systematic review. Health Policy. 2019;123(9):888-900. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.07.018

Refugee Education Advancement Laboratory (REAL) at George Washington University
Viewing Message: 1 of 1.
 Notice

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Visit GW’s Website Privacy Notice to learn more about how GW uses cookies.