Overdependence Suggested but State, Local Governments Disagree : U.S. Office Plans to Cut Refugee Funds by $117 Million

The federal Office of Refugee Resettlement has proposed that social and medical programs serving refugees be slashed at least $117 million, but the plan is encountering stiff opposition from state and local officials as well as from volunteer groups.

Frustrated at not being able to move Congress to make some of the more critical cuts, the refugee office now is trying to force cuts by changing federal regulations itself.

Fewer refugees are entering the country now than in the years immediately following the Vietnam War and too much money thus is available to too few refugees, Reagan Administration officials say. And, they argue, it is time that states, counties and volunteer organizations pick up more of the expenses.

Long-Held Ideal Conflicts

The controversy pits the long-held American ideal of welcoming with open arms the oppressed of the world against the need to quickly make them self-sufficient once they reach U.S. shores.

The Administration is faced with an increasingly vocal body of state and local critics who use a classic argument to make their case. “The federal government decided to allow refugees into the country,” declared one member of this group, Thomas L. Joseph, the legislative representative for the National Assn. of Counties. “So, the federal government should assume the financial responsibility.”

Specifically, state and local officials oppose a provision that allows the federal government to fully reimburse states for up to 31 months for what they provide refugees in cash and welfare assistance. Until March, the reimbursement was for up to 36 months, but to comply with Gramm-Rudman the period was cut to 31 months. Now the Administration wants it cut to 18 months, contending that even 31 months stifles the quest for refugees’ independence.

Questions Genuine Need

“Any time you put money into the funding stream, people find a way to use it,” Phillip N. Hawkes, director of refugee resettlement, said. “Money will almost generate its own need.”

Currently, $409.4 million a year is appropriated for all refugee programs under the Department of Health and Human Services, with most of the money distributed to states. More than 1 million refugees--most from Asia--have resettled in this country since 1975, receiving financial aid through intricately crafted special programs in every state but Alaska.

Ranging from cash assistance and food stamps to job training and day care, these programs have fostered an unhealthy dependence, the Administration says, encouraging more than half of the newcomers in this country three years or less to go on welfare.

“Immigrants come in and do fine,” Hawkes said, “but refugees don’t. They not only go on public assistance, but stay on it for years.”

Great Harm Seen in Cuts

On the other hand, those who have helped resettle the refugees say they see great harm in the proposed cuts.

“It is tragic that as the world refugee population goes up, the U.S. commitment to refugees diminishes,” said Zdenka Seiner, assistant director for government relations of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, who rejects the notion that Americans are suffering from “compassion fatigue.”

Nevertheless, for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, the target date for the new regulations, the Reagan Administration wants to:

--Eliminate a $47-million program that targets only states with large, hard-to-employ refugee populations and emphasizes job training. California would suffer a $16-million loss over 19 months.

--Cut $22 million in overall social services money for such state-administered programs as vocational training, day care and transportation.

--Eliminate $15 million for education assistance to school districts with large numbers of refugee children.

--Reduce matching funds to voluntary organizations, many of them church-run, by almost $3 million.

--Save $30 million by reducing to 18 months the maximum period for which the federal government reimburses states for cash and medical assistance.

“I haven’t met any counties and states that like” the proposals, conceded Hawkes.

A number of officials from refugee resettlement groups agree that 36 months is too long for federal assistance. Elaine G. Squeri, employment specialist at the Refugee Education and Employment Program in Arlington, Va., said she would like to see the reimbursement period cut to as few as 12 months to prevent a “welfare mentality” among the refugees.

But among many local officials, the view is different. They argue that “flexibility”--allowing officials to keep some refugees on welfare rolls if they need help--is a good reason to make the maximum reimbursement period as long as possible.

Some May Need Extra Help

Although some refugees can find jobs soon after arrival, others need years and “a little extra assistance” in getting adjusted, said Walter Barnes, chief of the refugee services program in California’s Department of Social Services.

For many of the 61,000 refugees currently receiving federally reimbursed cash assistance in California, Barnes noted, a minimum-wage job is “not sufficient to meet the needs of their families.”

In Minneapolis, where Hennepin County last year paid an average of $169,000 each month in aid to families of refugees--mostly Hmongs from Cambodia--Kevin P. Kenney, administrator of social services, said that the reduction in federal reimbursement would cause “a tremendous increase in the demand on county dollars.”

Disputes Time Needed to Settle

Such assertions are reinforced in Washington by organizations representing local officials. Lilia Reyes, principal associate at the 878-member U.S. Conference of Mayors, said that reports from cities across the nation “have proven that refugees need longer than 18 months to acquire skills and resources to become independent.”

As the refugees have come to America, Hawkes said, the nation has done “a disservice to ourselves and to them. They feel there’s no need to go out and get employed. If we can’t change the image, we need to change the program.”

But Jack Griswold, associate director of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, sees the proposed changes as part of an ominous shift. Griswold warned: “Immigration policy is no longer being driven by humanitarian concern but by how many dollars we have.”