Afghan and Iraqi Special Immigrants: More Information on Their Resettlement Outcomes Would Be Beneficial

Certain Afghan or Iraqi nationals who worked for the U.S. government and may have experienced serious threats due to this work may qualify for an SIV. An SIV allows them and eligible family members to resettle in the United States, and since 2008 over 60,000 SIV holders (principal holder and family members) have done so. Upon arrival, they are eligible for resettlement assistance from State and HHS. GAO was asked to review SIV holders' resettlement outcomes and challenges. This report examines (1) available data on SIV holders' employment and other outcomes, (2) challenges affecting their resettlement, and (3) federal efforts to help address challenges. GAO analyzed the most recent federal data (State: 2010-2016; and HHS: 2016) on SIV holders' outcomes; interviewed officials from nine national resettlement agencies; and visited three states (CA, TX, and VA) where over half of SIV holders resettled. In these states, GAO interviewed the states' refugee coordinators and, for two local areas with relatively high levels of SIV resettlement, interviewed local resettlement agency officials and conducted focus groups with SIV holders. GAO also reviewed relevant federal laws and policies and interviewed federal officials.

Since fiscal year 2011, about 13,000 Afghan and Iraqi nationals (excluding family members) have resettled in the United States under special immigrant visas (SIV), but limited data on their outcomes are available from the Department of State (State) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). State collects data on SIV holders' resettlement outcomes once—90 days after they arrive. GAO's analysis of State's data from October 2010 through December 2016 showed that the majority of principal SIV holders—those who worked for the U.S. government—were unemployed at 90 days, including those reporting high levels of education and spoken English. Separately, HHS collects data on about one-third of resettled SIV holders (those in one HHS grant program). According to HHS's fiscal year 2016 data (the only year available), most of these SIV holders were employed and not receiving cash assistance 6 months after arrival; however, these data are not representative of all SIV holders. GAO did not identify any outcome data for SIV holders beyond 6 months after arrival. HHS annually surveys refugees up to 5 years after arrival, but does not do so for SIV holders. However, it has occasionally used its survey of refugees to analyze selected groups at no additional reported cost. Such analysis could provide valuable information on whether SIV holders have achieved longer-term assimilation, consistent with HHS' mission and program goals.

Stakeholders GAO interviewed reported several resettlement challenges, including capacity issues in handling large numbers of SIV holders, difficulties finding skilled employment, and SIV holders' high expectations. Officials from local resettlement agencies in Northern Virginia reported capacity challenges for their agencies and the community due to the large increase of SIV holders. In almost all of GAO's focus groups with principal SIV holders, participants expressed frustration at the need to take low-skilled jobs because they expected that their education and prior work experience would lead to skilled work.

State and HHS have taken steps to address some resettlement challenges. For example, in 2017 State placed restrictions on where SIV holders could resettle and HHS announced a new grant to support career development programs for SIV holders, refugees, and others. In addition, State provides information to prospective SIV holders about resettlement. However, the information is general, and lacks detail on key issues such as housing affordability, employment, and available government assistance. Providing such specifics could lead to more informed decisions by SIV holders on where to resettle and help them more quickly adapt to potential challenges once in the United States.

GAO recommends that 1) HHS consider including SIV holders in its annual survey on refugees' longer-term outcomes, and that 2) State provide more detailed information on key issues to prospective SIV holders. Both agencies agreed with our recommendations.

Afghan and Iraqi nationals who were employed by or on behalf of the U.S.  government in Afghanistan or Iraq and have experienced ongoing serious  threats as a consequence of such employment, or who worked directly  with the U.S. Armed Forces or under chief of mission authority as a  translator or interpreter, may apply for a special immigrant visa (SIV) to  the United States. Upon securing a visa, the principal SIV holder and his  or her eligible dependents may resettle in the United States and are  granted lawful permanent resident status upon admission into the United  States. Since fiscal year 2008, over 60,000 individuals—about 20,000  principal SIV holders and their families—have been admitted under SIVs  and received federal resettlement assistance upon arrival.

SIV holders are authorized to receive resettlement assistance from the  Departments of State (State) and Health and Human Services (HHS), as  well as federal public benefits, to the same extent and for the same  periods of time as refugees. In fiscal year 2016, SIV holders accounted for about 13 percent of all individuals served by State’s resettlement  program, which totaled $228 million in federal obligations for all  individuals served. For the same year, SIV holders accounted for about 8  percent of the total individuals served by HHS’s refugee resettlement  programs, which totaled $656 million in federal obligations for all  individuals served. Some of these resettlement programs are  administered through nine national voluntary resettlement agencies and  their network of over 200 local affiliates. State and local social service  offices may also be involved in administering resettlement assistance.  This assistance is generally provided for 6 to 8 months after an  individual’s arrival in the United States, and individuals are expected to be  self-sufficient as soon as possible.

Although SIV holders make up a relatively small number of individuals  receiving assistance from these programs, in light of the vital services  they provided to U.S. interests overseas, policymakers and others have  sought information about meeting SIV holders’ needs when they resettle  in the United States. GAO was asked to report on challenges faced by  SIV holders when resettling in the United States and how they fare in  employment and other outcomes. In this review, we examined the  following research objectives:  (1)  What do available resettlement data show regarding employment  and other outcomes for SIV holders?  (2)  What factors or challenges affect SIV holders’ resettlement, as  reported by resettlement agencies, SIV holders, and others?  (3)  To what extent have State and HHS helped resettlement agencies  and others address SIV holders’ resettlement challenges?

To address our first research objective, we examined available data from  State and HHS. Specifically, we analyzed individual record-level data  from State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) for  fiscal year 2011 through the first quarter of fiscal year 2017 (i.e., October  2010 through December 2016) that provide information on recipients of  State’s resettlement program, the Reception and Placement (R&P)  program. The R&P information we examined included data on recipients’  employment status and other household income sources at 90 days after  arrival in the United States. Additionally, we reviewed PRM data on  recipients’ background characteristics, such as education level and  spoken English ability, that PRM collects during the application and  screening process prior to an individual’s resettlement in the United  States. PRM collected both the background and the R&P data in a way  that allowed SIV holders to be examined separately from resettled  refugees. We also did analyses with the same variables for resettled  refugees from the same general timeframe. We reviewed the data from  PRM for missing data and internal inconsistencies, and interviewed PRM  officials knowledgeable about the data to resolve identified issues. We  determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes of  reporting employment rates, income sources, and receipt of services at  90 days, as well as broad categories of education and spoken English  levels, for SIV holders and, in some cases, refugees.

We also examined summary-level data from HHS’s Office of Refugee  Resettlement (ORR), which administers the refugee assistance programs,  on the Matching Grant program—the one ORR program that collects  information in a way that allowed us to identify outcomes for SIV holders  separately from all other program participants. We examined SIV  outcome data from ORR for the Matching Grant program for fiscal year  2016, the only year such data were available. About one-third of SIV  holders participate in the Matching Grant program, which is also available  to refugees and other eligible individuals. Matching Grant outcomes, such  as whether participants are employed at the end of 6 months or have  enough earned income to no longer need cash assistance, are not  representative of SIV holders, who may participate in other cash  assistance programs, as we discuss further in the report. Based on our  review of the data, program and reporting documentation, and interviews  and communication with ORR and resettlement agencies, we determined  that the 2016 data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes of reporting  on the program’s employment and self-sufficiency outcome measures for  participating SIV holders and for all Matching Grant participants for that  fiscal year.

To address our second research objective, we interviewed officials who  represent national and local organizations that assist refugees and SIV  holders with resettlement, and conducted focus groups with SIV holders.  We interviewed officials at all nine national resettlement agencies, and  several national advocacy or service provider groups. We also  conducted site visits in three states—California, Texas, and Virginia— which represent the resettlement locations for over half of SIV holders in  the country. For each of these states, we interviewed the state’s refugee  coordinator (or equivalent official) and officials at local resettlement  agencies and social service offices in two local areas with high or medium  concentrations of SIV holders to better understand factors affecting their  resettlement. Specifically, we conducted site visits in Oakland and  Sacramento, California; Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas; and Arlington and  Falls Church, Virginia. Overall, our selected site visit locations varied in  median housing costs and the presence of SIV holders from both  Afghanistan and Iraq. In each state, we also conducted three to four focus  groups with SIV holders (principals and female spouses) to better  understand resettlement factors or challenges from their perspectives,  conducting a total of 11 focus groups and speaking with a total of 86  participants. (We conducted 8 focus groups with all or mostly male  principal SIV holders, and 3 focus groups with primarily female spouses.)  We also distributed short anonymous surveys to participants at the end of  each focus group. The information gathered from interviews and focus  groups conducted on our site visits is not generalizable and is meant to  provide illustrative examples.

To address our third research objective, we reviewed relevant federal  laws, regulations, and other agency documentation, and interviewed  officials from State’s PRM and Consular Affairs, as well as ORR. To  assess federal agency efforts, we reviewed program and agency goals,  and compared with federal internal control standards. We also asked  officials we interviewed from national and local resettlement agencies and  other stakeholder groups about their perspectives on federal efforts to  address challenges or factors related to SIV holders’ resettlement. (For  more information on our methodologies for our analysis of State data and  on our focus groups with SIV holders, see appendix I.)

We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 through  February 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

SIV holders become lawful permanent residents upon admission to the  United States under one of three special visa programs. The first, created  in 2006, is for certain Afghans and Iraqis who have worked directly with  U.S. Armed Forces, or under chief of mission authority, for at least one  year as translators or interpreters. It is currently capped at 50 visas  (excluding spouses and children) per year and is a permanent program.  The other two SIV programs for certain Iraqis and Afghans who worked  for or on behalf of the U.S. government, and as a consequence  experienced or are experiencing an ongoing serious threat, have had  larger numbers of visas allocated but are temporary in nature and require  legislation to extend the programs. The SIV program for Iraqis who  worked for or on behalf of the U.S. government stopped accepting new  applications after fiscal year 2014. The SIV program for Afghans who  worked for or on behalf of the U.S. government continued to accept new  applications as of November 2017, and most recently, was allocated  additional visas in December 2017.

For all of these SIV programs, prospective special immigrants must go  through multiple steps as required by the particular program to which they  are applying, such as (1) providing a letter of recommendation from the  direct U.S. citizen employment supervisor, (2) a statement describing the  threats the applicant has received as a result of his or her U.S.  government employment, and (3) forms and documents for all family  members applying for visas. Additionally, applicants must have an in- person interview with a consular officer and have fingerprints taken at a  U.S. embassy or consular office, among other steps in the process. The  Iraqi and Afghan SIV application process has been subject to criticism  due in part to the length of time it has taken some applications to be  processed. Legislation was enacted to require State and the Department  of Homeland Security to complete SIV applications within a specified  period of time and to report on the efficiency of the application process.

SIV Resettlement in the United States and Resettlement Assistance

Afghan and Iraqi special immigrants are treated like refugees for  purposes of federal public assistance, including receipt of resettlement  assistance. Over time, SIV holders have accounted for an increasing  percent of the total number of individuals receiving resettlement  assistance in the United States. SIV holders accounted for about 1  percent of the total number of individuals who received resettlement  assistance upon arrival in fiscal year 2008 (the first year they were eligible  for this assistance), 13 percent in fiscal year 2016, and about 26 percent  in fiscal year 2017, with a reduction that year in total refugee arrivals (see  fig. 1).

During the application process overseas, SIV holders may elect to receive  resettlement assistance upon arrival in the United States. If they indicate  on their visa application that they have a tie in the United States and  would like to be placed nearby, in most cases PRM will do so. SIV  holders are then served by the local resettlement agencies in that area.  (This is also true for refugees who indicate they have U.S. ties.) Most SIV  holders travel to the United States in the same way as refugees, with  travel booked by the International Organization for Migration (an inter- governmental organization). In this case, resettlement agencies know in  advance of SIV holders’ arrival. However, some SIV holders elect to book  their own travel to the United States for various reasons, such as when  they may be in immediate danger in their home countries. These SIV  holders must contact a local resettlement agency as soon as possible  after they arrive to receive initial resettlement assistance through the R&P  program, generally within 30 days of arrival. SIV holders who arrange  their own travel and elect to receive resettlement assistance after they  arrive in the United States are often known by resettlement agencies as  walk-in SIV holders.

Various federal programs provide resettlement assistance for which SIV  holders are eligible (see table 1). The R&P program provides initial  resettlement assistance for the first 30 to 90 days and is administered  through agreements PRM has with the nine national resettlement  agencies and their network of local resettlement agencies. The R&P  cooperative agreement outlines what resettlement agencies must do for a  newly arrived individual or family, including picking up people at the  airport; providing initial housing, furniture, food, and clothing; helping  children enroll in school or adults enroll in language programs; and  developing a resettlement plan, which focuses on early employment for  employable adults. Under the R&P agreement, PRM provides a fixed per  capita grant to national resettlement agencies for individuals served  ($2,075 in fiscal year 2017), of which a specified amount must be given in  cash or spent directly on each individual served through the R&P program  ($925 in fiscal year 2017). These grant amounts and standards are the  same nationally.

ORR’s programs generally provide short-term assistance after the initial  resettlement period. Several of ORR’s key refugee assistance programs,  such as cash and medical assistance and social services, are  administered through grants to refugee coordinators (or equivalent) in  each state. These coordinators are, in many cases, staffed by state  agencies (e.g., departments of social services), but in some cases are  staffed by private organizations. At the local level, service providers may  be county social services offices, local affiliates of the nine national  resettlement agencies, or other community service providers. In contrast,  ORR’s Matching Grant program is administered through the national  resettlement agencies and not the state refugee coordinators. This  program provides cash assistance, employment services, and case  management for up to 6 months. In some cases a household also may  receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Medicaid  instead of refugee cash and medical assistance, depending on state  eligibility rules and the characteristics of any given household. In addition,  because SIV holders, like refugees, are eligible to receive public benefits,  they may also be eligible for other types of assistance, such as food  assistance from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Available Data Provide Limited Information on SIV Holders’ Short-Term Outcomes and No Information on Long- Term Outcomes

Limited data from PRM from fiscal year 2011 through part of fiscal year  2017 showed that most principal SIV holders were unemployed and relied  on cash assistance for income 90 days after arrival to the United States.  Available data from ORR for one of its programs, the Matching Grant  program, provide slightly longer-term information, but only cover a portion  of SIV holders and are not representative. ORR’s Matching Grant data for  fiscal year 2016 (the only year available) showed that most SIV holders  were employed 6 months after arrival and no longer reliant on cash  assistance. Although ORR regularly surveys the general refugee  population up to 5 years after resettlement in order to examine their  longer-term outcomes, it has never surveyed SIV holders for such  information.

Limited State Department Data Collected 90 Days After Arrival Showed the Majority of Principal SIV Holders Were Unemployed

About 60 percent of all principal SIV holders participating in the R&P  program who arrived to the United States in fiscal years 2011 through the  first quarter of 2017 were unemployed 90 days after arriving, according to  data that PRM collects from resettlement agencies on R&P recipients.  Based on our analyses of these data, principal SIV holders from Iraq  tended to be unemployed at somewhat higher rates than those from  Afghanistan. With respect to English speaking skills, the majority who  reported their level of spoken English as “good” were unemployed,  though they had considerably higher employment rates at 90 days than  those reporting English levels of “some” or “none.” In contrast,  employment rates were relatively comparable among principal SIV  holders with different levels of education, although those with post- secondary levels of education had somewhat lower employment than  those at the secondary level (see fig. 2).

Additionally, almost all SIV households relied on cash assistance at 90  days in order to cover expenses such as housing costs. Even among  households that had earnings from employment, most also relied on  some form of cash assistance, according to our analysis of the R&P  data. Of those SIV households receiving earnings from employment, 89  percent were also receiving income through Refugee Cash Assistance,  Matching Grant, or TANF programs, which is slightly higher than the rate  of the overall refugee population who received one of these types of cash  assistance (82 percent). These were the most common types of cash  assistance that SIV households received, with slightly less than a third  also relying on personal assets (see fig. 3).

SIV holders also received non-cash assistance and services within 90  days of arrival, based on our analysis of the R&P data. For example,  nearly all SIV households received food assistance, the most common  type of non-cash assistance. Other common forms of assistance include  employment services and case management, which were provided to  both principal SIV holders and spouses (mostly wives) at comparable  rates (see fig. 4). To a lesser degree, principal SIV holders and spouses  also received health services and access to English as a Second  Language (ESL) courses, among other types of assistance.

HHS Data on About One- Third of SIV Holders Show Most Are Employed 6 Months After Arrival, but Federal Agencies Do Not Collect Longer-Term Data

The most recent data from the Matching Grant program, which is one  cash assistance program in which selected SIV holders might participate  during and after their initial 90 days in the United States, and the one  such ORR program for which SIV outcomes could be identified, showed  that the majority of SIV program participants were employed and no  longer relying on cash assistance at end of the 180 day (or 6 month)  benefit period. Specifically, about two-thirds of SIV holders in the  Matching Grant program were employed at 180 days, a rate slightly lower  than the rate for all Matching Grant participants, which include refugees,  asylees, and other specified groups, according to data for fiscal year 2016  (see fig. 5). However, SIV holder participants had slightly higher rates of  full-time employment and a slightly higher average wage of about $12 per  hour compared with all Matching Grant participants. The relatively low  wages may reflect, among other contributing factors, the general need for  Matching Grant participants to accept the first available employment  opportunity, including entry level jobs, as a requirement of the program  and the length of the program, which ends at 180 days. About 80 percent  of participating SIV households, as well as all participating households in  the Matching Grant program in fiscal year 2016, were considered “self- sufficient,” defined by the program as having sufficient earnings to cover  basic expenses without the need for cash assistance.

About one-third of SIV households overall participate in the Matching  Grant program. Findings on SIV holders participating in this program are  not representative of all SIV holders, given program design elements.  For instance, the Matching Grant program has limited enrollment slots,  and resettlement agencies may have an incentive to select more  “employable” candidates. In contrast, Refugee Cash Assistance and  TANF, the other main cash assistance programs in which SIV holders  may participate, generally serve all eligible clients based on income and  other eligibility requirements. Additionally, unlike Refugee Cash  Assistance or TANF, the benefit amount for the Matching Grant program  is generally not reduced or terminated based on earnings, which may  create additional incentives to find work and potentially increase the  likelihood of employment at 90 days for Matching Grant participants.  Our analysis of PRM’s data from the R&P program show that principal  SIV holders participating in the Matching Grant program have a higher  employment rate 90 days after arrival than those receiving cash  assistance from ORR’s Refugee Cash Assistance program or state TANF  programs.

Additionally, although Matching Grant data provide some additional  information beyond what is collected for the R&P program, the data still  provide relatively limited insight on individuals’ employment and other  outcomes. First, the Matching Grant data are collected at 6 months after  arrival, which is a few months beyond the 90-day reporting period for the  R&P program. The focus on 6-month outcomes aligns with the Matching  Grant program’s goal of immediate self-sufficiency and employment  before the end of cash assistance; however, the short timeframe  precludes any understanding of participants’ progress in job security,  wage growth, or career advancement over the longer-term. Second,  while the Matching Grant data do include information on full-time or part- time employment status and average wage—information not captured in  the R&P data—they do not provide information on type of employment,  career or wage progression, or the amount earnings exceed expenses for  those households considered self-sufficient. Moreover, ORR’s guidelines  for the Matching Grant program encourage resettlement agencies to work  with participants with specialized, advanced skills or vocations who have  been placed in entry-level work to obtain job upgrades or recertification  programs as appropriate. However, ORR does not collect any information  on the extent that this occurs or results in positive employment outcomes,  such as wage increases.

While ORR’s program data focus on short-term self-sufficiency, ORR  regularly gathers information on the longer-term outcomes of the general  refugee population through its Annual Survey of Refugees. ORR  conducts its Annual Survey of Refugees to comply with a statutory  reporting requirement. It also uses its annual survey to provide  Congress and the public information as to whether refugees are  successfully resettling in the United States through its programs, in line  with the agency’s overall mission to link the populations it serves to the  right resources to help them become successfully assimilated members  of American society over the longer term. The survey provides  information on a sample of refugees each year after resettlement in the  United States, up to 5 years. It reports on a range of outcomes, including  wage progression, educational attainment, home ownership, and the  receipt of public assistance (including non-cash assistance), among other  things. Although ORR has typically surveyed the refugee population  overall, it has in previous years used its annual survey to conduct  supplements on special populations, including Iraqi refugees, Hmong  refugees, and the Lost Boys of Sudan. These populations were selected  based on ORR leadership’s policy priorities and their inclusion in the  survey, through the use of oversampling techniques, was cost-neutral,  according to ORR officials.

ORR, however, has never used its Annual Survey of Refugees to  examine long-term outcomes for SIV holders. HHS, in October 2017,  awarded a research contract focused on redesigning its Annual Survey of  Refugees, the first such redesign since 1993. The goal of this effort is to  better understand medium- to long-term resettlement outcomes for  refugees and related populations through improved data collection, but  the contract does not mention examining the outcomes of any special  populations, such as SIV holders. Agency officials stated that ORR plans  to explore potential costs and benefits of including special populations  (such as SIV holders) in its survey redesign efforts. However, at the time  of our review, ORR officials did not yet know whether such an effort would  be cost neutral, as with other prior efforts examining special populations;  and if not, whether they could obtain long-term outcome information about  SIV holders through future surveys or in other ways.

Standards for Internal Control state that management needs quality  information to make decisions and achieve its objectives. Accordingly,  one of ORR’s policy objectives is to improve data collection in order to  make data-driven decisions to better support the populations it serves.  Similarly, a primary goal of HHS’ redesign of the Annual Survey of  Refugees is to maximize the effectiveness of ORR’s policies and  programs in promoting successful integration for its populations. Without  longer-term data or other in-depth research, neither ORR nor  policymakers have information as to whether SIV holders have  progressed beyond the immediate goal of basic self-sufficiency toward  improved economic security and cultural integration over the longer term.

Reported Challenges Include the Capacity of Resettlement Agencies in Certain Locations, Barriers to Skilled Employment, and Housing

SIV holders faced a variety of challenges while resettling in the United  States, according to representatives of 13 local resettlement agencies we  interviewed and SIV holders who participated in 11 focus groups. Among  local resettlement agencies, the two in Northern Virginia reported  significant challenges with their capacity to assist the large numbers of  SIV holders in the area, while agencies in other locations we visited  reported fewer capacity challenges. SIV holders also experienced  challenges finding skilled employment, which did not align with their  expectations of resettlement in the United States. Additionally, securing  affordable and suitable housing, and female spouses’ assimilation to U.S.  culture were reported challenges. Officials we interviewed from some  resettlement agencies reported taking steps to address some of these  issues.

Large Numbers of SIV Holders Created Capacity Challenges for Resettlement Agencies in Northern Virginia

Of the 13 local resettlement agencies in three states at which we  interviewed officials, officials from the 2 agencies in Northern Virginia  reported the greatest impact from high numbers of SIV holders, creating  capacity challenges at both local resettlement agencies as well as in the  community. The number of SIV holders in the Northern Virginia area  increased more than tenfold since fiscal year 2013 and almost doubled  from fiscal years 2015 through 2016, according to data provided by  Virginia’s state refugee coordinator. Officials from one of the two local  resettlement agencies in Northern Virginia reported that SIV holders also  increased as a percentage of their total caseload in recent years, and  now make up almost 90 percent. In addition to large numbers of SIV  holders scheduled to arrive at local resettlement agencies, many also  arrived as walk-ins, which meant the agencies could not predict how  many individuals they would need to assist at a given time, according to  Virginia’s state refugee coordinator.

Both of the Northern Virginia local resettlement agencies reported  challenges related to capacity. Staff from one agency said that a case  manager would normally have three to four families a month to resettle  but now might regularly be dealing with five families in a week and, in an  extreme case, 70 families in a month. The large influx created great  challenges in finding affordable housing for SIV holders, according to staff  from the two agencies, especially because the area has one of the most  expensive housing costs in the state (see fig. 6). Additionally, officials  from the agencies and Virginia’s state refugee coordinator reported that  the influx caused significant delays in getting SIV holders needed social  services, such as health screenings for children, which then resulted in  school enrollment delays. Due to the significant increase in SIV holder  arrivals, two national resettlement agencies opened temporary offices in  the area under PRM’s approval and encouragement.

SIV holders may have originally been drawn to Northern Virginia by the  hope of finding work at nearby federal government offices, according to  officials from one national resettlement agency and one local resettlement  agency. Local resettlement agency staff added that over time, SIV  holders may have moved to the area to be near an established  community of SIV holders. According to PRM data, 83 percent of SIV  holder cases in Virginia reported having U.S. ties, although 66 percent of  these were ties to friends (not relatives). In all three focus groups  conducted in Northern Virginia, SIV holders reported that their U.S. ties  were sometimes distant friends or acquaintances who were helpful in the  resettlement process, including with providing transportation and  navigating life in the United States.

Officials from local resettlement agencies in other areas we visited  expressed fewer capacity challenges. In Sacramento, officials from the  three local resettlement agencies and a local service provider reported  that they faced some capacity challenges, as their local area had among  the highest number of SIV holder arrivals in the United States, according  to our analysis of PRM data. However, so far officials we interviewed in  Sacramento reported that have been able to find ways to manage service  provision to address the high caseloads. For instance, to address rising  housing costs and difficulties securing affordable housing, officials from  one local resettlement agency reported that they started securing housing  farther from the central SIV holder community, although this was not  always preferred by SIV holders they resettled. Officials from Sacramento  County’s health department said to address backlogs for health  screenings caused by increased SIV holder arrivals, they increased the  number of full-time staff. In addition, Sacramento, when compared with  Northern Virginia, had more local resettlement agencies to manage  arrivals (four versus two), which may have helped local agencies address  capacity challenges. In the Dallas/Fort Worth area, officials we  interviewed from all six local resettlement agencies reported no significant  capacity challenges with respect to resettling SIV holders. These six  agencies had fewer SIV holder arrivals, and SIV holders represented a  smaller percentage of their total caseload than other sites we visited.  Generally, securing affordable housing that meets requirements was not  reported as a major challenge, although housing prices were rising in  Dallas, according to local resettlement agency staff and the Dallas/Fort  Worth regional designee.

SIV Holders Experienced Barriers to High-Skilled Employment, Which Did Not Align with Their Expectations of Resettlement

According to officials from national and local resettlement agencies,  officials from advocacy groups, and SIV holder participants in all 8 focus  groups conducted with principal SIV holders, principal SIV holders faced  challenges obtaining employment in their previous fields or that matched  their skill level. These challenges occurred even though they had worked  for the U.S. government, tended to have completed secondary education  or more, and reported good levels of spoken English. Several factors may  account for these challenges, some of which may also be applicable to  skilled refugees or immigrants who are not SIV holders. These include:

Limited opportunities for federal employment in the United States: SIV  holders had limited opportunities for federal employment because  most positions required U.S. citizenship as well as background  investigations or security clearances that are available only to citizens,  as we reported in 2010. In 6 of the 8 focus groups we conducted  with principal SIV holders, some participants said that they expected  to be able to get jobs similar to the ones they had in Afghanistan or  Iraq, such as with the federal government, because they had  previously worked for U.S. organizations. Based on the surveys they  completed at the end of our focus groups, principal SIV holders  reported that they had a range of jobs in Afghanistan and Iraq,  including interpreter, information technology worker, security guard,  project manager, and engineer. In one of our focus groups  conducted in Northern Virginia, some participants expressed  frustration with being ineligible for security clearances for federal  employment in the United States because they were able to obtain  clearance to work in Afghanistan, and they now had to wait 5 years to  apply for U.S. citizenship, which is required for a U.S. security  clearance.

SIV holders’ previous work may not help with U.S. employment: Some  officials we interviewed from advocacy groups and local resettlement  agencies said that while principal SIV holders’ ability to speak English  with a high level of proficiency enabled them to work for the U.S.  government overseas, they may not always have the writing skills  needed for professional work in the United States. Officials from a  career development organization that works directly with highly skilled  immigrants, including SIV holders, to help them re-enter their fields in  the United States said that SIV holders may sometimes be hindered in  re-entering their original professional fields because during the time  they worked as interpreters, translators, or other positions for the U.S.  government, they may not have been actively employed in their  original fields.

Barriers to foreign degree and credential recognition: While SIV  holders and others may be able to get their foreign degrees or other  credentials assessed for U.S. equivalency, these processes can be  costly or time consuming, according to officials we interviewed from  one national and two local resettlement agencies. Staff from two  national resettlement agencies said that degree recognition could be  particularly challenging for Afghan SIV holders because the nature of  conflict in Afghanistan made it harder for evaluators to connect with  universities there. Other research we reviewed identified the  complexities of the licensing process and of available career paths as  challenges for highly skilled and educated immigrants in the United  States in general.

Officials we interviewed from about half of the local resettlement agencies  said that because principal SIV holders were often unable to find  employment in their prior profession, many took “survival” or low-skilled  jobs in order to cover basic expenses. Officials from local resettlement  agencies, as well as participants in our focus groups, reported that  common jobs for principal SIV holders included drivers for ride-sharing  services like Uber and Lyft, airport workers such as luggage handling and  food service, security guards, low-level information technology workers  such as cell phone assembly or temporary technician, or warehouse  workers such as inventory or stocking. One principal SIV holder we spoke  to in our focus groups said he worked as a civil engineer for 6 years in  Afghanistan, but was assembling cell phones in the United States, which  was disappointing for him given his years of experience and education. In  almost all of our focus groups with principal SIV holders, participants  expressed frustration about the barriers to re-entering their professional  fields and the need to take low-skilled jobs.

These employment-related challenges did not align with the expectations  of principal SIV holders, who thought that their education and prior work  experience with the U.S. government would enable them to find skilled  work, according to many national and local resettlement agency officials  we interviewed and SIV holders who participated in our focus groups. All  3 state refugee coordinators, representatives of 7 of 9 national  resettlement agencies, and representatives of 10 of 13 local resettlement  agencies we spoke to said that SIV holders tend to have high, unrealistic  expectations about employment or about life in general after they arrive.  As one principal SIV holder from one of our focus groups in California  stated: “I thought I would not need to worry about anything in the U.S. for  years and they will take care of me and my family because I worked for  their government.” SIV holders in our focus groups also expected more  assistance in obtaining high-skilled employment than they generally  received. In all 8 of our focus groups conducted with principal SIV  holders, some participants expected more assistance getting back into  their fields of interest, but said that local resettlement agencies did not  always have the technical skills or resources needed to assist them.  Similarly, in 4 of the 8 focus groups with principal SIV holders, some  participants reported that they expected to receive sufficient government  assistance to cover expenses while they adapted to life in the United  States, spent time getting retrained or recertified, or searched for  employment.

Because of these high expectations, the reality of starting over was  frustrating or shocking, and made the initial resettlement process  challenging, according to both staff from local resettlement agencies and  SIV holders from our focus groups. Officials from a number of national  and local resettlement agencies said that SIV holders’ expectations  tended to be higher than other clients they served, such as refugees.  Officials we interviewed from a number of national and local resettlement  agencies agreed that they would have liked to do more for SIV holders,  given their sacrifice in working for the U.S. government, but that they treat  all of their clients in the resettlement program the same, in accordance  with PRM’s cooperative agreements. Staff from one national resettlement  agency and one local resettlement agency agreed that while they would  like to assist SIV holders and other highly-skilled clients to obtain better or  more skilled jobs, they did not have the resources or capacity to provide a  significant amount of specialized help over a longer term.

False expectations about resettlement may have come through word of  mouth or other sources, according to resettlement agency staff and SIV  holders we interviewed. Some local resettlement agency staff said SIV  holders’ high expectations may be due in part to inaccurate information  from the SIV holder community through social media or word of mouth.  Staff from one local resettlement agency reported that managing SIV  holders’ high expectations was time-consuming for staff because there  was a “mountain of misinformation” within the community. Principal SIV  holders may have also received false hope from their overseas U.S.  military colleagues, who may not understand the challenges of  resettlement. For example, one principal SIV holder we spoke to in our  focus groups said that his American co-workers in Afghanistan told him it  would be easy to find a good job in the United States because of his  skills, but he said finding employment in his previous field was  challenging and he is now working for a warehouse packing department.

The Virginia Refugee Resettlement Program  Manual states that the STEP program  provides highly-skilled participants with  specialized services that include professional  assessments and assistance in accessing  training, certifications, and courses related to  prior careers. STEP participants are selected  based on an employment assessment of all  participants enrolled in Virginia’s refugee  social service employment program, which is  available to those who have had a refugee  eligible status for less than 5 years and are  over age 16. Many STEP beneficiaries in  Northern Virginia are special immigrant visa  (SIV) holders, according to the Virginia State  Refugee Coordinator. The STEP program is  funded through the Office of Refugee  Resettlement’s Refugee Social Services and  Targeted Assistance funds, and services are  provided by local resettlement agencies. programs: Officials we interviewed at local resettlement agencies in  Texas and Virginia said they used ORR funding to support career  development programs for SIV holders and other clients. For  example, officials from Catholic Charities Dallas said they used ORR’s  Refugee Social Services funds to offer clients training and  certifications in technical occupations, such as clinical nurse or forklift  operator. Officials we interviewed from other organizations said they  also relied on programming or funds provided under the Workforce  Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) for career development  programs that could serve SIV holders. For example, officials from the  International Rescue Committee’s national office said that some of  their local offices used WIOA’s American Job Center system to help  SIV holders and other skilled clients with good English skills access  training opportunities or other job search resources. Officials from the  Sacramento Employment Training Agency told us they recently  utilized WIOA and other funding to launch an English Language  Learner Workforce Navigator pilot that will emphasize assisting SIV  holders and refugees because of large populations of these groups in  Sacramento County. The program aims to provide participants with  additional entry points to employment and training opportunities, as  well as case management and supportive services.

California Law on In-state Tuition for SIV  Holders and Refugees  In October 2017, California enacted Assembly  Bill 343, which provides certain special  immigrant visa (SIV) holders and refugees  admitted to the United States and who settle  in California with in-state tuition at California  Community Colleges for the minimum time  necessary to become a resident. (Students  generally need to live in California for more  than one year and meet other requirements to  qualify for in-state tuition.) The legislature’s  finding, as stated in the bill, was that access  to institutions of higher education will ensure  that SIV holders are “able to pursue their  educational goals and rebuild and improve  their lives and the lives of their families.”

Upwardly Global officials describe their work  as eliminating employment barriers for special  immigrant visa (SIV) holders, immigrants and  refugees who were professionals in their  home countries. They work to help these  newcomers re-enter their career fields after  moving to the United States, according to staff  we interviewed and other information. The  organization offers career development  programming including training on the U.S.  job search, specialized training opportunities,  and recertification services. It provides these  services to job seekers in-person at physical  locations (Chicago, New York, San Francisco,  and Silver Spring, Maryland), as well as  virtually through online services, training  modules, or other job resources. Since 2009,  the organization has placed 69 individuals  with SIVs (of 236 served) into new  employment with an average annual salary of  about $54,000 at placement, according to  data from Upwardly Global. SIV holders most  commonly placed in jobs in technology,  engineering, or finance and accounting,  according to staff we interviewed. career development: Officials from Catholic Charities Fort Worth, for  example, said they recruited retirees who were former professionals  to voluntarily work one-on-one with clients on job readiness skills,  such as interviews, resume writing, and general career planning.  Officials we interviewed from several national and local resettlement  agencies or county service providers also reported that they  sometimes refer clients to outside organizations with career  development programming for highly-skilled immigrants, such as  Upwardly Global (see sidebar).

Housing Issues and Integration of Female Spouses Were Other Challenges

While housing challenges were common among both SIV holders and  refugees, SIV holders tended to have high expectations, according to  staff from some local resettlement agencies. Officials from national and  local resettlement agencies, as well as SIV holders from our focus  groups, described several housing related challenges:

Local resettlement agencies faced barriers to securing housing: SIV  holders, like refugees, lack rental or credit histories and Social  Security numbers when they arrive in the United States, which limits  the housing options available to local resettlement agencies who must  secure their housing. Local resettlement agency staff said that they  had built relationships with landlords who were willing to forego these  requirements; accordingly, some staff reported that SIV holders and  refugees were often housed in certain apartment complexes.

SIV holders in our focus groups expected better housing: In 10 of 11  focus groups we conducted, SIV holders reported that sometimes the  apartments they lived in were not of high quality, they experienced  problems with infestation, or had concerns about safety. The SIV  holders in our focus groups who had problems with infestation or  other issues said that they reported them to the landlord or local  resettlement agency and the issues were generally addressed, but not  always to their satisfaction. Additionally, according to staff from  national and local resettlement agencies, as well as SIV holders in 5  of our 11 focus groups, SIV holders often expected better housing or  to be placed in certain locations near the main SIV holder community;  however, this was not always possible due to limited availability of  affordable housing. SIV holders in some of our focus groups also  reported that they could not afford to move to nicer apartments.

Affordable housing was limited: Housing affordability was also cited as  a major challenge, especially by local resettlement agency staff and  SIV holder participants in 5 of our focus groups in Northern Virginia  and Oakland, California. In Alameda County, where the city of  Oakland is located, and in the city of Alexandria, where most SIV  holders from our 3 focus groups in Northern Virginia lived, the median  rental cost for a one-bedroom apartment in 2016 was about $1,400,  according to U.S. Census Bureau data. In Sacramento and Dallas,  rising housing costs were cited as growing challenges by staff from  some local resettlement agencies and SIV holders in 3 of our 4 focus  groups in those cities. While there are no national guidelines for  affordability, officials from one national resettlement agency said that  their general rule is to find housing that a family could afford on their  expected income and have extra for other expenses.

Some groups we spoke with used strategies to help address housing  challenges. For example, Catholic Charities Dallas had a dedicated  housing specialist whose primary job was to find and place clients into  suitable housing and whose work included conducting outreach to new  apartment complexes to ensure that they knew of the agency and the  benefits of renting to SIV holders and refugee clients. Officials from  Catholic Charities of the East Bay in Oakland described their church  sponsorship program in which a local church is matched with a family to  help subsidize rent and support the family in other areas, often for 6  months or more. Also, officials from one advocacy and service  organization, No One Left Behind, said they assisted local resettlement  agencies with finding housing for SIV holders, and had established  agreements with local resettlement agencies in some cities, including  Rochester, New York and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to secure housing  and provide furnishings for all SIV holder families they resettled.

Officials we interviewed from all 9 national resettlement agencies and 12  of 13 local resettlement agencies reported that female SIV spouses  experienced specific barriers to assimilation. These include:

Female SIV spouses experienced cultural adjustment challenges:  Officials from national and local resettlement agencies reported that  the gap between male principal SIV holders and their spouses in  terms of English proficiency, education, work experience, or exposure  to American culture, could be large and created challenges for  women’s integration, especially for Afghan women, a few officials  noted. Accordingly, male principal SIV holders may be able to more  quickly integrate, while female SIV spouses may be less likely to  participate in programs, struggle to integrate, or feel isolated,  according to officials from national and local resettlement agencies.  Officials noted that this gap tended to be larger than between refugee  husbands and wives, who may be more evenly matched. Our analysis  of PRM data confirmed that differences in education and spoken  English levels were larger between principal SIV holders and spouses  than with refugee principals and spouses. According to our analysis  of PRM data on SIV spouses, 42 percent reported speaking no  English, with those from Afghanistan much less likely to speak any  English than those from Iraq. Afghan SIV spouses were also about  one-third as likely to have reported completing postsecondary  education as Iraqi SIV spouses, based on available data. In  contrast, in our focus groups some female SIV spouses and some  female principal SIV holders had prior work experience and high  levels of education. For example, about one-third of the female SIV  spouses in our focus groups (9 of 27) reported on their participant  surveys that they had prior work experience in their home countries,  including as teachers and journalists.

Lack of childcare and limited transportation options: Officials we  interviewed from local resettlement agencies and SIV spouses in two  of our focus groups said that barriers around childcare and  transportation made it challenging for female SIV spouses to leave the  house for classes or employment. For example, in one of our  Sacramento focus groups, several female SIV spouses reported that  they wanted to take English classes and find work, but the cost of  childcare and lack of public transportation, including school buses for  their children, were prohibitive.

National and local resettlement agency officials also reported that female  SIV spouses may take longer to assimilate and feel isolated because of  families’ expectations about female spouses staying home. Officials from  one national resettlement agency said that prior to arrival, many SIV  holders and their families lived comfortably on one income, and therefore  female spouses were often not initially willing to work, which strained  finances and made self-sufficiency difficult. In all three of our focus  groups with female SIV spouses, participants said that they would like to  work, but needed to wait until their children were older or needed to learn  English first.

Officials we interviewed from several resettlement agencies described  their efforts to address some of the challenges related to the integration of  female spouses. They include:

Engaged SIV women independent from their spouses: Staff from two  local resettlement agencies reported providing intake for men and  women separately so that they ensure that women had a connection  to resettlement agency staff independent of their husbands. Other  agencies reported that they started making sure that an interpreter  was provided for the female spouse rather than having her husband  act as an interpreter, so that they could ensure everyone received the  same information and that such information was not filtered through  the husband. Staff we spoke to at one local resettlement agency  acknowledged that their employment services had previously been  primarily focused on the male clients in each household, but that they  had since created a separate curriculum for women to ensure that all  adult clients received job readiness training.

Mitigated barriers faced by female SIV spouses to attend English  classes and to work: To address childcare and transportation barriers,  staff we spoke to at three local resettlement agencies said they  offered English language classes at apartment complexes with many  SIV holder families, with childcare provided. Several local  resettlement agencies also used volunteers to provide in-home  English classes and mentoring for SIV women. Officials from two local  resettlement agencies said they provided women’s empowerment  programming to overcome isolation and other issues. For example,  officials from International Rescue Committee Dallas told us that they  offered a women’s empowerment class that met two times per week  to discuss varying topics, including public transit, job readiness, and  sewing.

Officials from Opening Doors Sacramento, an  affiliate of Church World Service, told us that  they assist women who are special immigrant  visa (SIV) holders and refugees convert their  homes into home-based childcare centers.  Opening Doors utilizes funds from the Office  of Refugee Resettlement’s grant on micro- finance and partners with a local social  service agency to help the women start a  business plan and get licensed. As of April  2017, over 50 women have received their  license through this program, many of whom  are from Afghanistan, according to officials  from Opening Doors.

State’s PRM has taken several steps to address the capacity challenges  reported by resettlement agencies in Northern Virginia. First, in May  2017, PRM placed limitations on SIV holders’ resettlement in that area in  response to concerns raised by local resettlement agencies and the state  refugee coordinator, and in consultation with national resettlement  agencies, advocacy groups, and ORR. The policy generally restricts SIV  holders from being placed in Northern Virginia unless they have close  family ties there. Second, in June 2017, PRM issued another new policy  that gives SIV holders more resettlement options. Under this new policy,  SIV holders can choose to be placed in one of 25 cities without having a  U.S. tie (see table 2). This option did not exist previously, as SIV holders,  like refugees, were typically placed near a specified U.S. tie or in a  location primarily determined by resettlement agencies. According to  PRM officials, by providing a choice to SIV holders, they aimed to  increase the likelihood of successful resettlement in these alternative  areas and mitigate secondary migration (when people leave their initial  placement to move to desired locations). PRM officials said that they  considered various factors in developing the list of 25 cities, including the  presence of existing SIV communities, sufficient capacity to resettle new  arrivals among local resettlement agencies, and housing availability and  employment opportunities based on information from local resettlement  agencies. In finalizing its list of cities, PRM also sought input from national  resettlement agencies, advocacy organizations, and ORR.

To inform SIV holders about resettlement prior to arrival and to better  manage their expectations, PRM has developed informational materials  specifically for SIV holders. All individuals served through the R&P  program must receive cultural orientation training once they arrive in the  United States, according to R&P guidelines, and many refugees also take  this training overseas. In contrast, SIV holders generally do not take  overseas cultural orientation training because they typically receive their  visas in locations where there are no facilities to provide such training.  PRM officials said providing special cultural orientation training sessions  for SIV holders, such as at the U.S. embassy in Kabul, would be  logistically difficult and potentially result in additional security risks for SIV  holders. In lieu of overseas cultural orientation trainings, PRM provides a  Dari-translated version of its manual on U.S. resettlement, Welcome to  the United States: A Guidebook for Refugees, for distribution by the U.S.  embassy in Kabul. It has also developed several other types of  informational materials specifically for SIV holders, including documents  such as “19 Things You Need to Know About Resettling in the United  States” and “Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About Resettlement  Benefits for Iraqi and Afghan Recipients of Special Immigrant Visas,” as  well as short videos aimed specifically at SIV holders (see sidebar). SIV  holders can access informational materials on State’s Refugee  Processing Center’s website, and links to this website are included at the  end of emails from PRM staff when communicating with SIV holders,  according to PRM officials. Additionally, PRM officials noted that they  have also worked with advocacy groups who may be communicating with  SIV holders while overseas, to disseminate information, such as the  challenges of resettling in high cost-of-living areas. Officials said that their  efforts to inform SIV holders about resettlement before they come to the  United States have been ongoing for several years.

However, officials we interviewed from many national and local  resettlement agencies, as well as those from some state refugee  coordinator offices and advocacy groups, said that State could do more to  inform SIV holders about resettlement while they were still overseas,  given their often false expectations about resettlement. For instance,  officials from a number of these entities said that PRM’s informational  materials for SIV holders are general and lack specific details or more in- depth information on issues, such as housing affordability, employment,  or the type of government assistance they will or are likely to receive. This  type of information could provide them a better sense of what to expect  when they resettle in the United States, according to officials.

Based on our review, we found that while the materials discuss  resettlement challenges generally, such as difficulties associated with  relocating in certain high-cost areas or the likelihood that SIV holders will  need to take an entry-level job instead of one in their professional field,  they do not contain specific details, examples, or links to specific  information. For example, the materials do not provide information on  area housing costs in popular resettlement areas or common jobs or  average wages among SIV holders (or refugees). They provide minimal  information on the amounts people may receive in government assistance  or the extent to which they can expect assistance with such things as  longer-term training or education. PRM’s new list of 25 cities, for instance,  includes a link to each city’s municipal government website, but such  websites are unlikely to provide easy access to information, such as area  housing costs, that could help inform people’s resettlement choices. PRM  officials stated that they are wary of providing specific details because  these may vary for SIV families, depending on the state where they  reside, the assistance programs in which they participate, their particular  household situation, or other factors. Such differences can be a source of  misinformation among those in the SIV community, according to PRM  officials, as well as some resettlement agencies we interviewed.   Accordingly, officials noted that they would not want to be in a position to  defend information that may be inaccurate or not applicable to SIV  holders. Officials we interviewed from two resettlement agencies also  noted that it could be challenging to provide specific details, such as on  government benefit amounts, as these may vary greatly across  households.

Yet, officials we interviewed from other resettlement agencies and  advocacy groups noted that illustrative details, examples, or more in- depth discussion on key issues would provide SIV holders more  understanding of what they may experience and inform their decision- making. Providing web links to relevant information or additional  information from official sources may also help SIV holders gather  information from more credible sources and counter some of the  misinformation they may receive through word of mouth, according to a  state refugee coordinator and officials at two local resettlement agencies  we interviewed. Similarly, participants in 5 of our 11 focus groups said  that getting additional cultural orientation or more information about life in  the United States, such as from State, would have been useful. Some  said they did not always get an accurate picture of resettlement from their  U.S. ties. One principal SIV holder we spoke to said getting additional  information about resettlement while still overseas would have been  useful for SIV holders since it can be difficult to learn all this information  once they have arrived in the United States, as they are in “culture shock”  and “overwhelmed” by all they have to do. In contrast, participants in  three focus groups said that access to more resettlement information  overseas would not have been useful: People’s primary focus at that time  is on simply getting their visa and leaving the country.

In addition to the lack of specificity in the information provided to  prospective SIV holders, some of State’s efforts to disseminate existing  information are also incomplete. For instance, we learned of some  instances of miscommunication between PRM and Consular Affairs  regarding information provided to SIV holders at embassies. While PRM  officials told us they understood that the embassies in Kabul and  Baghdad provided SIV holders with hard copies of Welcome to the United  States, and played the informational videos for SIV holders on a loop,  officials from Consular Affairs told us that the Bagdad embassy no longer  provided hard copies of guides due to costs, and neither embassy played  the videos due to space and other issues. Officials we interviewed from  a few resettlement agencies and advocacy groups suggested that there  may be additional opportunities for State to disseminate information, such  as making the “19 Things to Know” document available at more touch  points. The links to such SIV-specific informational documents are directly  available on State’s Refugee Processing Center website and through the  form SIV holders complete to elect to receive resettlement benefits.  However, they are not directly accessible on State’s Consular Affairs’  websites that describe the steps to apply for a SIV. Further, these SIV- specific documents are also not offered at embassies or mailed to SIV  holders in their visa packages, according to Consular Affairs officials.  Moreover, in several of our focus groups, some participants stated that  they did not remember receiving any or much information on resettlement  in the United States while in their home country, including information  aimed specifically at SIV holders.

Federal internal controls state that management should externally  communicate necessary quality information to achieve objectives,  considering audience, nature of information, availability of information,  and costs in doing so. Because State’s current information to SIV  holders overseas is general and the agency may miss opportunities to  disseminate or otherwise make individuals aware of the information, SIV  holders may be hampered in their ability to make well-informed decisions  on where to resettle in the United States, as well as in their ability to  prepare and adapt to potential challenges as quickly as possible upon  arrival.

ORR’s New Grant Provides More Targeted Assistance on Working with Skilled Immigrants

Although ORR does not provide specific support or assistance for SIV  holders, ORR’s funding and technical assistance for refugees and other  eligible clients can be used to support programming for highly skilled  clients, including SIV holders. For example, states can use Refugee  Social Services and Targeted Assistance Grant funds to develop  specialized programs aimed at higher skilled immigrants, if they choose.  Among our selected states, Virginia used these funds to support its  career development program. ORR also uses a technical assistance  provider, Higher, to provide support related to employment and self- sufficiency. Higher makes various employment resources available that  resettlement agencies or other service providers can use, including those  that can help serve highly skilled clients, such as webinars or postings on  educational or career development opportunities. Higher has also  developed online training modules, recertification guides, and other  resources that refugees, SIV holders, or other clients can directly access  through its website, in addition to posting links to other providers’  services, such as those from Upwardly Global, which are directly  accessible by clients.

In addition, in June 2017, ORR posted a new $3 million competitive grant  announcement for the Refugee Career Pathways program that aims to  address the challenges experienced by highly skilled refugees, SIV  holders, or other eligible populations in moving beyond low-skilled work  into professional fields with career advancement opportunities (see text  box). The grant announcement states that this program will utilize a  “career pathways” approach, as defined by WIOA, which is a combination  of training, education, and services to help people obtain short-term and  long-term career opportunities in specific fields that align with state or  regional economic needs. Possible types of assistance that could be  provided to participants include case management, training and technical  assistance, mentoring, or financial assistance for educational or  certification programs. This ORR grant aligns with the desire for more  targeted assistance and information for skilled immigrants, such SIV  holders, which was expressed by officials we interviewed at a number of  national and local resettlement agencies and SIV holders in our focus  groups.

Goals of Office of Refugee Resettlement’s new Refugee Career Pathways Program  “The Refugee Career Pathways (RCP) program is a new program established by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to  address the obstacles faced by resettled refugees in initiating professional careers in their new communities. While many refugees  have previous professional experience in their country of origin, they often lack the degrees, certifications, and knowledge specific to  the U.S. job environment needed to attain professional employment after resettlement. Even highly-skilled refugees are often required  to take low-skilled jobs with little opportunity for advancement or skill development. This in turn limits refugees’ potential to achieve  economic self-sufficiency and to benefit their communities by making full use of the skills and experience they bring to their new home.  The goal of the RCP program is to support refugees in attaining the knowledge and resources needed to begin a professional career  in their new community. Existing job training programs for refugees often focus on supporting initial job placement, which may not be  adequate to secure long-term self-sufficiency. The RCP program will assist refugees to begin professional careers that provide not  only a salary but also greater job security and the possibility of career advancement.”

SIV holders resettle in the United States in most cases to escape  endangerment—a result of their work for the U.S. government in Iraq or  Afghanistan. After their resettlement, however, no outcome information  exists beyond whether SIV holders are minimally self-sufficient within  their first 6 months. SIV holders are a small group compared to the larger,  general population of refugees. Yet ORR faced and overcame similar  constraints in conducting studies on other special populations in the past,  such as the Lost Boys of Sudan, responding to the focus and concern of  policymakers about those populations at the time. Although ORR could  leverage its existing methodologies to examine SIV holders’ longer-term  outcomes in further research, similar to what it did for other groups, it has  not yet fully explored the feasibility of doing so or other possibilities to  obtain information about the SIV holder population. ORR’s new survey  redesign efforts, aimed at improving its understanding of the long-term  outcomes of refugees and related populations, provide the agency an  opportunity to do this. Until then, policymakers have no information as to  whether SIV holders—a population of special interest and one with an  increasing presence in the federal refugee resettlement programs—are  successfully resettling in the United States.

While many of the resettlement challenges related to employment,  housing, or cultural integration are outside of State’s control, they may be  exacerbated by SIV holders’ own high expectations about resettlement.  These expectations are often cultivated before they arrive from overseas.  State’s efforts to inform SIV holders about resettlement have been  ongoing for years and, to some extent, help overcome the logistical  difficulties of not being able to provide SIV holders with cultural orientation  training before they come. However, the persistent gap among SIV  holders’ expectations and their experiences, as described by many of the  SIV holders and officials we interviewed from national and local  resettlement agencies and advocacy groups, and other stakeholders,  suggests that these efforts are falling short. While State has made efforts  to disseminate the information through various touchpoints, there are  missed opportunities for distribution, such as at embassies. When  coupled with the lack of examples or details in State’s informational  materials for SIV holders, these missed opportunities may contribute to  SIV holders’ ongoing false expectations of resettlement.

Finding additional ways to deliver information to SIV holders about the  realities of resettlement could help them make more informed decisions  about where they choose to resettle—decisions which may be predicated  on their ability to access additional information about important factors  such as employment opportunities or area housing costs. Such  information, while not a panacea for the real resettlement challenges SIV  holders face, can at least help them make decisions that better align their  personal situation with the economic realities of resettlement in the United  States. Additional information could also mitigate SIV holders’ surprise  and frustration once they arrive, better enable them to quickly orient to  their new lives, as well as help refugee agencies facilitate that transition.

We are making two recommendations, including one to ORR and one to  PRM:  1.  The Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) should  consider including SIV holders in its Annual Survey of Refugees.  (Recommendation 1)  2.  The Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and  Migration (PRM) should identify and implement additional ways to  deliver information to prospective SIV holders about resettlement to  assist with adjustment and expectations after arrival in the United  States, including providing more detailed or in-depth information on  key issues. PRM, working with Consular Affairs as needed, should  also identify and address potential gaps in disseminating relevant  information to SIV holders, such as at embassies. (Recommendation  2)

We provided a draft of our report to HHS and State for review and  comment. Both agencies agreed with our recommendations. In its  response, HHS stated that while it did not believe including SIV holders in  the Annual Survey of Refugee was feasible under the current contract  due to costs, it would continue to look for cost-effective ways to include  SIV holders in its survey redesign efforts and in future contracts. HHS  stated that it would also explore ways to capture more information on SIV  holders through its administrative program data, including on employment  outcomes. State, in its response, said that PRM has developed new  guidance for the Refugee Processing Center’s SIV unit regarding the  distribution of additional information to SIV holders and that staff from this  unit plan to include additional links to cultural orientation information in all  their correspondences with SIV applicants. Additionally, State noted that  Embassy Baghdad will distribute copies of the Welcome Guide to Iraqi  SIV holders and that PRM will work with Consular Affairs to identify other  ways to provide information to SIV applicants. HHS and State also  provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as  appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, Secretaries of Health and Human Services  and State, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7215 or larink@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Additional Methodological Details

This appendix provides additional information on our methodologies for  our analysis of data from the Department of State (State) and on our  focus groups with special immigrant visa (SIV) holders.

We analyzed individual record-level data from State’s Bureau of  Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) for fiscal years 2011 through  the first quarter of 2017 (i.e., October 2010 through December 2016) that  provide information on recipients of State’s resettlement program, the  Reception and Placement (R&P) program. Fiscal year 2011 was the first  year of the R&P program’s current reporting requirements, and December  2016 was the most current data available at the time of our review.  Overall, this timeframe accounted for about 40,000 individual SIV holders  (principal SIV holders and their family members) and 14,000 cases, or  households, before we excluded instances of missing data. In our  analysis and reported results, we excluded instances of missing data,  such as when SIV holders migrated from their initial placements before  resettlement agencies could collect 90-day outcome information, or, in the  case of employment rates, when principal SIV holders were considered  exempt from seeking employment for various reasons. This resulted in  about 38,000 individuals and 13,000 cases.

The R&P information we examined included data on recipients’  employment status and other household income sources at 90 days after  arrival, such as from earnings or common cash assistance programs.  Most of the R&P data are provided as “yes” or “no” responses, such as  whether an individual is employed or whether the household has income  that exceeds expenses. R&P data are collected by national and local  resettlement agencies on all individuals served through the R&P program,  and reported to PRM at one-point in time—90 days after individuals’  arrival in the United States. Per R&P reporting requirements, some data  are collected at the case or household level, such as whether the  household has sufficient income to meet expenses, while other data, such  as employment status, are collected on each individual in a case.

Additionally, we reviewed PRM data on recipients’ background  characteristics, such as education level and spoken English ability,  collected by PRM during the application and screening process prior to an  individual’s resettlement in the United States. PRM tracks information on  all individuals applying to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program,  including those with SIVs, using its data repository known as the  Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System. Some of the  background information on SIV holders, including education level and  spoken English level, are self-reported and provided on SIV application  forms. PRM collected both the background and the R&P data in a way  that allowed SIV holders to be examined separately from resettled  refugees. We also did analyses with the same variables for resettled  refugees from the same general timeframe. We reviewed the data from  PRM for missing data and internal inconsistencies, and interviewed PRM  officials knowledgeable about the data to resolve identified issues. We  determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes of  reporting employment rates, income sources, and receipt of services at  90 days, as well as broad categories of education and spoken English  levels, for SIV holders and, in some cases, refugees.

In each of our selected states (California, Texas, and Virginia), we  conducted three to four focus groups with principal SIV holders and SIV  spouses to better understand resettlement factors or challenges from  their perspectives. In total, we conducted 11 focus groups and spoke with  86 participants from both Afghanistan and Iraq. Specifically, we  conducted eight focus groups with all or mostly principal SIV holders.  (Participants in seven of these groups were all male principal SIV holders;  participants in one group included four male principal SIV holders and two  female spouses.) We also conducted three focus groups with primarily  female spouses. (All participants in these three groups were females;  however, in two groups, one participant was the principal SIV holder.)

To supplement the information we gathered through our focus group  discussions, we also distributed short anonymous surveys to participants  at the end of each session. Among other basic questions, we asked  participants whether they were currently employed and, if so, the type of  work they did. We also asked principal SIV holders what type of work they  did for the U.S. government, and SIV spouses whether they worked in  their home country and the type of work. Almost all participants submitted  a survey (84 of 86). However, some participants (particularly SIV  spouses) appeared to have difficulty understanding the questions,  although we had translation assistance during our focus groups. In our  report, we discussed survey findings on principal SIV holders’ prior work  for the U.S. government and the prevalence of prior work among SIV  spouses. Overall, these responses had few blanks, and the responses  themselves seemed to indicate general understanding of the questions.

The information gathered from interviews and focus groups from our site  visits is not generalizable and is meant to provide illustrative examples.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact above, Janet Mascia (Assistant Director),  Theresa Lo (Analyst-in-Charge), Cristina Norland, and Rachel Pittenger  made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were  James Bennett, Kathryn Bernet, Pamela Davidson, Holly Dye, Sara  Edmondson, Cynthia Grant, Marissa Jones, James Rebbe, and  Rosemary Torres Lerma.