# Presentation: 248670

## ACF/OPRE Welfare Research ConferenceThe Evaluation of the Refugee Social Service (RSS) and Targeted Assistance Formula Grant (TAG) Programs

- Funded by DHHS, Office of Refugee Resettlement
- Conducted by The Lewin Group and Partners: Urban Institute, SEARAC, Johns Hopkins, NORC

**ACF/OPRE Welfare Research Conference**The Evaluation of the Refugee Social Service (RSS) and Targeted Assistance Formula Grant (TAG) Programs

## Evaluation of RSS/ TAG Programs

- _Purpose:_ To examine the effectiveness of RSS/ TAG programs in improving refugees’ employment and income over time
- _Team:_
- The Lewin Group
- Johns Hopkins
- Urban Institute
- SEARAC
- NORC

## Groups Eligible for RSS/TAG

- Refugees: Persons outside their homeland who are unable/unwilling to return because of well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion
- Non-refugee groups
- Asylees
- Cuban/Haitian Entrants
- Amerasians
- Trafficking Victims

## Refugee Admissions: 1983 - 2004

## Services and Benefits Provided to Refugees

- Reception and Placement (DOS)
- Limited cash and medical assistance (HHS)
- Variety of discretionary programs (HHS)
- RSS/TAG employability and social adjustment services - programs supporting economic self-sufficiency (HHS)

## Refugee Social Services/ Targeted Assistance (RSS/TAG)

- Formula grant funds to states (RSS) and counties (TAG)
- Goal is to help refugees achieve economic self-sufficiency and social adjustment
- Eligibility: Up to 5 years after date of entry
- Services include:
- Case management
- Employment services (job search, placement, and follow-up)
- English language training
- Short-term training and education
- Day care and transportation
- Translation or interpretation services
- OJT and skills recertification
- Other

## Structure of the Evaluation

- Components:
- Implementation study
- Outcomes study
- Continuous evaluation design study
- Data sources:
- RSS/TAG program data
- Administrative data (cash assistance, Food Stamps, UI wage records)
- Survey: 955 completes
- Focus groups: 3 groups in each site
- Field research: 2 visits to each site

## Sites Selected for Case Study

- Sacramento, CA
- Miami, FL
- Houston, TX

## Differences Between the Sites: What Refugees Are in Each SiteArrivals in Study Sites FY2000-2004

- Source: RADS.
- Note: Asylees are not represented in these percentages.
- a Former USSR primarily from Ukraine, Moldova, Russia, and Belarus

## Languages Spoken in Houston(27 in all!)

| Language | Percent Speaking |  | Language | Percent Speaking |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Spanish | 32.6% |  | English | 3.8% |
| Arabic | 8.5% |  | Bosnian | 2.2% |
| Vietnamese | 8.4% |  | Swahili | 1.2% |
| Somalian | 5.3% |  | Maay Maay | 1.2% |
| French | 5.1% |  | Burmese | 1.1% |
| Farsi | 4.7% |  | Afghanese | 0.9% |
| Amharic | 4.0% |  | Other | 21.1% |

- Source: Preliminary analysis of site program data. Sample is individuals in each site at least 18 years of age with dates of arrival between FY 2000 and FY 2004 (FY 2001 and FY 2004 for Sacramento), who received RSS/TAG services.

## Differences Between the Sites: Education and English

- Miami
- Less than 1% had no education at intake; 80% had at least 12 years of education
- 16% spoke English at intake
- Houston
- 25% never attended school as of intake; 53% had at least a high school diploma
- 30% had “medium” or “advanced” English speaking ability at intake (as compared to “basic” or no English speaking ability)
- Sacramento
- 16% had “fair”, “good”, or “excellent” English ability at intake (as compared to “some”, “poor”, or no English ability)
- No program data on education level; English ability data also have high missing rates, so may not be fully accurate

- Source: Preliminary analysis of site program data. Sample is individuals in each site at least 18 years of age with dates of arrival between FY 2000 and FY 2004 (FY 2001 and FY 2004 for Sacramento), who received RSS/TAG services.

## Differences Between the Sites: How the Programs Are Administered

- Sacramento
- County administered
- Well-established network of Mutual Assistance Associations (MAAs)
- Primarily serves family-reunification cases
- Miami
- State administered
- Strong collaboration with workforce system
- Primarily serves Cuban-Haitian Entrants
- Houston
- Public-private partnership
- Houston consortium agencies work closely together
- Primarily serves “Free Cases”

## State-Administered Program (CA, FL)

## Public-Private Partnership Model in TX

## Differences Between the Sites: The Welfare Context

- Sacramento
- Generous TANF benefits; other public supports available
- Miami
- Low TANF benefits
- Houston
- Minimal contact with welfare system in low TANF benefit state

## RSS/TAG Service Receipta

| Service Component | Sacramento | Miami | Houston |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ESL/VESL | 80.0% | 22.3% | 53.3% |
| Employment Services | 33.7% | 67.5% | 49.8% |
| Basic Education/GED |  | 4.1% | 1.6% |
| OJT/Work Experience | 15.5% | 1.6% | 1.6% |
| Vocational Training | 4.6% | 5.5% | 5.5% |
| Legal Services |  | 22.4% |  |
| Driver Education |  |  | 28.9% |
| Social Adj/Case Mgmt | 35.2% |  | 39.5% |
| Sample Size | 2,304 | 54,300 | 1,779 |

- a Among those receiving any services during study window.
- Source: Preliminary analysis of site program data. Sample is individuals in each site at least 18 years of age with dates of arrival between FY 2000 and FY 2004 (FY 2001 and FY 2004 for Sacramento), who received RSS/TAG services.

## Some Themes Emerging From the Study (Preliminary)

- State TANF rules provide an important context for understanding program services
- Diverse populations in Houston, some with less formal education, may represent the future for most local refugee programs
- English is important for advancement; programs provide English instruction within the work-first model of RSS/TAG
- Refugees are difficult to survey

## To Come...

- Final report: Fall 2007
- In addition to findings from the site visits and program data discussed in this presentation, the report will present employment and program participation outcomes from administrative data and results from the survey of refugees
- Continuous evaluation: How can ORR conduct quality evaluations to support continued program improvements in future?

## For Further Information

- Questions and comments may be directed to:
- Sam Elkin (703) 269-5521
- _[sam.elkin@lewin.com](mailto:sam.elkin@lewin.com)_
- or
- Mary Farrell (703) 269-5685
- _[mary.farrell@lewin.com](mailto:mary.farrell@lewin.com)_