United States – Refugee Educational Advancement Lab (REAL)

January 11, 2023August 30, 2023

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.

November 28, 2022November 28, 2022

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.

November 14, 2022November 14, 2022

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:

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.
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/