REFUGEE 

RESETTLEMENT

Greater Consultation 

with Community 

Stakeholders Could 

Strengthen Program

Report to Congressional Requesters

July 2012

GAO-12-729

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-729, a report to 

congressional requesters

July 2012

REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT

Greater Consultation with Community Stakeholders 

Could Strengthen Program

Why GAO Did This Study

In fiscal year 2011, the United States 

admitted more than 56,000 refugees

under its refugee resettlement 

program. Upon entry, a network of 

private, nonprofit voluntary agencies 

(voluntary agencies) selects the 

communities where refugees will live. 

The Department of State’s PRM and 

the Department of Health and Human 

Services’ ORR provide funding to help 

refugees settle in their communities 

and obtain employment and monitor 

implementation of the program. 

Congress has begun to reexamine the 

refugee resettlement program, and 

GAO was asked to examine (1) the 

factors resettlement agencies consider 

when determining where refugees are 

initially placed; (2) the effects refugees 

have on their communities; (3) how 

federal agencies ensure program 

effectiveness and integrity; and (4) 

what is known about the integration of 

refugees. GAO reviewed agency 

guidance, monitoring protocols,

reports, and studies; conducted a 

literature review; reviewed and 

analyzed relevant federal and state

laws and regulations; and met with 

federal and state officials, voluntary 

agency staff, and local stakeholders in 

eight selected communities. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes several recommendations 

to the Secretaries of State and Health 

and Human Services to improve 

refugee assistance programs in the 

United States. HHS and State 

generally concurred with the

recommendations and each identified 

efforts they have under way or plan to 

undertake to address them. 

What GAO Found

Voluntary agencies consider various factors when determining where refugees 

will be placed, but few agencies we visited consulted relevant local stakeholders, 

which posed challenges for service providers. When deciding how many 

refugees to place in each community, some voluntary agencies prioritize local 

agency capacity, such as staffing levels, while others emphasize community

capacity, such as housing availability. Although the Immigration and Nationality 

Act states that it is the intent of Congress for voluntary agencies to work closely 

with state and local stakeholders when making these decisions, the Department 

of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) offers limited 

guidance on how this should occur. Some communities GAO visited had 

developed formal processes for obtaining stakeholder input after receiving an 

overwhelming number of refugees, but most had not, which made it difficult for 

health care providers and school systems to prepare for and properly serve 

refugees. 

State and local stakeholders reported that refugees bring cultural diversity and

stimulate economic development, but serving refugees can stretch local 

resources, including safety net services. In addition, refugee students can 

negatively affect performance outcomes for school districts because they often 

have limited English proficiency. Furthermore, some refugees choose to relocate 

after their initial placement, and this secondary migration may stretch

communities that do not have adequate resources to serve them. In fact, 

capacity challenges have led some communities to request restrictions or 

temporary moratoriums on resettlement. 

PRM and the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee 

Resettlement (ORR) monitor their refugee assistance programs, but weaknesses 

in performance measurement may hinder effectiveness. Although refugees are

eligible for ORR services for up to 5 years, the outcome data that ORR collects

focuses on shorter-term employment outcomes. ORR officials said that their 

performance measurement reflects the goals outlined by the Immigration and 

Nationality Act—to help refugees achieve economic self-sufficiency as quickly as 

possible. However, the focus on rapid employment makes it difficult to provide 

services that may increase refugees’ incomes, such as helping them obtain 

credentials to practice their professions in the United States. 

Little is known about the extent of refugee integration into U.S. communities, but 

research offers a framework for measuring and facilitating integration. PRM and 

ORR both promote refugee integration, but neither agency currently measures 

integration as a program outcome. While integration is part of ORR’s mission, 

ORR officials said one of the reasons they have not measured it is that there is 

no clear definition of integration. In addition, research on refugee resettlement 

does not offer an overall assessment of how well refugees have integrated into 

the United States. Most of the 13 studies GAO reviewed were limited in scope 

and focused on particular refugee groups in specific geographic locations. 

However, these studies identified a variety of indicators that can be used to 

assess integration as well as factors that can facilitate integration, such as 

English language acquisition, employment, and social support from other 

refugees. Despite limited national information, some U.S. communities have 

developed formal plans for refugee integration.

View GAO-12-729. For more information, 

contact Kay Brown at (202) 512-7215 or 

brownke@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Letter 1 

Background 3

Voluntary Agencies Consider Various Factors in Placing Refugees, 

but Few Consult with Local Service Providers 11

Refugees Bring Benefits to Communities but Can Pose Challenges 

for Service Providers 17

Agencies Monitor Resettlement and Measure Effectiveness, but 

These Measures Have Weaknesses 25

Little Is Known about the Extent of Refugee Integration, but 

Studies Offer a Framework for Assessing Integration 31

Conclusions 37

Recommendations for Executive Action 38

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 39

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 42

Appendix II Studies Included in Literature Review 45

Appendix III 20 States with Largest Numbers of Refugees Arriving in FY 2011 and 

Refugees’ Countries of Origin 47

Appendix IV Selected PRM and ORR Grant Programs 48

Appendix V Status of Integration Working Group’s Recommendations to ORR 51

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 52

Appendix VII Comments from the Department of State 56

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Appendix VIII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 58

Tables

Table 1: Selected Refugee Assistance Programsa 9

Table 2: Sample Factors That Voluntary Agencies Consider When 

Assessing Community Capacity 12

Table 3: Benefits and Challenges of Refugee Resettlement 

Identified in Site Visits 20

Table 4: Top 10 Recommendations for FY 2011 from PRM 

Monitoring Visits 26

Table 5: Performance Outcome Measures for Major Refugee 

Assistance Programs 27

Table 6: Selected Integration Indicators, Barriers, and Facilitators 

Identified in Literature Review 35

Figures

Figure 1: Presidential Ceilings and Refugee Arrivals (FY 2001-2011) 4

Figure 2: Refugee Arrivals by State (FY 2011) 6

Figure 3: Top 20 Countries of Origin for Refugees Arriving FY 2011 7

Figure 4: General Path of Refugee Resettlement in the United 

States 8

Figure 5: Flow of Funds from PRM and ORR to Service Providers 10

Abbreviations

DHS Department of Homeland Security

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

ORR Office of Refugee Resettlement

PRM Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

State Department of State 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

July 25, 2012

Congressional Requesters

Millions of people worldwide have fled their countries because they have 

been persecuted—or fear being persecuted—on the basis of their race, 

religion, nationality, political opinions, or because they belong to a 

particular social group. The United States has traditionally provided 

refuge to such people, and continues to resettle at least half of all 

refugees referred for resettlement worldwide by the United Nations High 

Commissioner for Refugees each year. In fiscal year 2011, the United 

States resettled a little more than 56,000 refugees into communities 

throughout the country. 1

Nine national voluntary agencies—the nongovernmental organizations 

that carry out much of the refugee resettlement process with funding from 

the Departments of State (State) and Health and Human Services 

(HHS)—take the lead in determining where refugees will initially be 

placed, with approval from State. The communities in which refugees are 

placed vary significantly in size, capacity, and experience in resettling 

refugees. Major gateway cities tend to have more experience 

incorporating large and steady streams of people from other countries, 

but can be very expensive places to live. Smaller cities and towns, on the 

other hand, can be more affordable and easier to navigate, but may not 

have sufficient resources to provide refugees adequate services, 

including education and health care. While some refugees stay in the 

community where they were initially resettled, others may decide to move 

to another community that may or may not have organizations and 

programs to help them become self-sufficient.

The most recent economic downturn has made it increasingly difficult for 

refugees to become self-sufficient within months of arriving in the United 

States, raising questions about refugee placement and integration, as 

well as the oversight of refugee resettlement programs. In this context, we 

were asked to examine (1) the factors resettlement agencies consider 

when determining where refugees are initially placed; (2) the effects 

 

1 According to data provided by the Department of State, 47 states and the District of 

Columbia resettled refugees in fiscal year 2011.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

refugees have on their communities; (3) how federal agencies ensure the 

effectiveness and integrity of refugee resettlement programs; and (4) 

what is known about refugees’ integration into the United States.

To address our research objectives, we reviewed relevant federal and 

state laws, regulations, monitoring protocols, performance reports, 

performance measures, and other relevant documents. We also 

conducted a literature review of academic research on the integration of 

refugees into the United States2 and reviewed other pertinent reports. We 

met with federal agency officials, national voluntary agency staff, and 

experts on refugee programs. In addition, we conducted site visits to eight 

communities, where we met with representatives from state and local 

government entities, voluntary agency affiliates, community-based 

organizations, local businesses, and other relevant individuals and 

groups, including refugees.3 For our site visits, we selected Boise, Idaho; 

Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, Michigan; Fargo, North Dakota; Knoxville, 

Tennessee; Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Owensboro, Kentucky; and Seattle, 

Washington.4

We conducted this performance audit from May 2011 through July 2012 

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.

These eight communities represent a nongeneralizable 

sample that was selected to include geographically distributed 

communities with variations in their population sizes, levels of experience 

resettling refugees, and racial and ethnic diversity. In addition to these 

factors, several communities were selected because they are considered 

examples of best practices in refugee resettlement by federal officials. For 

additional information on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.

 

2 See appendix II for a list of the studies we included in our literature review.

3 We did not meet with all of these groups in every community we visited.

4 As part of our site visit to Chicago, we also met with city officials in Skokie, Illinois. Our 

visit to the Detroit area focused on the cities of Dearborn and Sterling Heights, Michigan. 

Our visit to Seattle included interviews with relevant groups in Kent, Washington. 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

A refugee is generally defined as a person who is outside his or her 

country and who is unable or unwilling to return because of persecution or 

a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, 

membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.5 The 

Refugee Act of 1980, which amended the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, provided a systematic and permanent procedure for admitting 

refugees to the United States and maintains comprehensive and uniform 

provisions to resettle refugees as quickly as possible and to encourage 

them to become self-sufficient.6 Several federal, state, and local 

government agencies coordinate with private organizations to implement 

the admission and resettlement process.

Each year the President, after appropriate consultation with the Congress 

and certain Cabinet members, determines the maximum number of 

refugees the United States may admit for resettlement in a given year.7

 

5 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). In special circumstances, a refugee also may be a person 

who is within his or her country and who is persecuted or has a well-founded fear of 

persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social 

group, or political opinion. Excluded from the definition of a refugee is any person who 

participated in the persecution of another. 

The number actually resettled is typically below this maximum number 

6 The Immigration and Nationality Act is Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163 (1952) (codified 

as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.). The Refugee Act of 1980 is Pub. L. No. 96-212, 

94 Stat. 102. While the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, states that 

resettlement programs should help refugees achieve economic self-sufficiency as quickly 

as possible, it does not define economic self-sufficiency. HHS’s Office of Refugee 

Resettlement defines economic self-sufficiency in its regulations as earning a total family 

income at a level that enables a family unit to support itself without receipt of a cash 

assistance grant. 45 C.F.R. § 400.2. Refugees may still be found economically selfsufficient if they receive other types of public noncash assistance, such as Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program benefits or Medicaid. 

7 The Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services submit 

a report on behalf of the President to the Congress with their recommendation on how 

many refugees should be admitted, which according to Department of State officials, takes 

into account federal agencies’ refugee processing capabilities. 

Background 

Refugee Placement in the 

United States
 

Page 4 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

and has varied over time—sometimes due to security concerns (see fig. 

1).8

Figure 1: Presidential Ceilings and Refugee Arrivals (FY 2001-2011)

The federal government gives private, voluntary agencies responsibility to 

determine where refugees will live in the United States, with approval 

 

8 The number of refugees entering the United States has increased in recent years 

compared to the relatively low numbers entering after the terrorist attacks of September 

11, 2001. In the aftermath of those attacks, a review of refugee-related security 

procedures was undertaken, refugee admissions were briefly suspended, and enhanced 

security measures were implemented. As a result of these and other factors, actual 

refugee admissions declined from 68,393 in fiscal year 2001 to 26,383 in fiscal year 2002 

and 28,348 in fiscal year 2003. Admissions gradually increased and peaked at 74,652 in 

fiscal year 2009 and leveled off in 2010 with 73,311. Admissions decreased to a little over 

56,000 in fiscal year 2011. According to the fiscal year 2012 refugee admissions proposal 

submitted to Congress by the Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Health and 

Human Services, this 2011 decrease was due largely to increased security clearance 

procedures. 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

from the Department of State. Refugees are assigned first to a national 

voluntary agency and then the voluntary agency decides where the 

refugee will live.9 More specifically, the nine national voluntary agencies, 

which maintain a network of about 350 affiliates in communities 

throughout much of the United States, meet weekly to allocate individual 

refugees based on an annual evaluation of the communities’ capacity to 

serve refugees.10

 

9 According to the Department of State, during weekly allocation meetings, cases with a 

tie in the United States are allocated to agencies with affiliates in communities where their 

friends or relatives live. National voluntary agencies then choose cases based on their 

total proposed capacity as well as local affiliates’ capacity and resources. After the 

allocation meeting, the national voluntary agencies will assign individual cases to local 

affiliates based on a variety of factors, including ethnicity, language, family size, family 

composition, or medical conditions. For example, communities with an existing population 

of a particular ethnicity may have existing infrastructure for serving refugees of a particular 

ethnicity. Some communities are better able to accommodate larger families, while others 

may be more hospitable to single households. 

See figure 2 for the number of refugees that arrived in 

each state during fiscal year 2011. Appendix III provides additional detail 

about the countries of origin for arrivals to the 20 states with the largest 

refugee populations.

10 According to voluntary agency staff, they identify new communities to receive refugees 

based on requests from local stakeholders, recommendations by state officials, and the 

need to expand services to secondary migrants, refugees who migrate from their initial 

resettlement community to a community in another state.
 

Page 6 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Figure 2: Refugee Arrivals by State (FY 2011)

In the last 10 years, refugees have come to the United States from an 

increasing number of countries, and the issues associated with these 

diverse populations have become more complex. For example, many 

refugees today arrive after having lived in refugee camps for years, and 

may have little formal education or work experience, or untreated medical 

or mental health conditions. In turn, receiving communities have needed 

to adjust their language capabilities and services in order to respond to 

the changing needs of these diverse refugee populations. Figure 3 shows 

the top 20 countries of origin for refugees arriving in the United States in 

fiscal year 2011.
 

Page 7 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Figure 3: Top 20 Countries of Origin for Refugees Arriving FY 2011 

Three federal agencies are involved in the refugee resettlement process. 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) approves refugees for 

admission to the United States. State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, 

and Migration (PRM) is responsible for processing refugees overseas. 

Once refugees are processed and arrive in the United States, PRM 

partially funds services to meet their immediate needs. PRM enters into 

cooperative agreements with national voluntary agencies under its 

Reception and Placement Program to provide funding that helps refugees 

settle into their respective communities during their initial 30 to 90 days 

and covers housing, food, clothing, and other necessities. Each local 

affiliate receives $1,850 per refugee to provide these services.11

 

11 Participating organizations are expected to combine PRM’s financial assistance with 

existing and projected private resources for the provision of reception and placement 

services.

Figure 4 

illustrates the general path of refugee resettlement in the United States.

Federal Structure for 

Refugee Resettlement 

Programs
 

Page 8 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Figure 4: General Path of Refugee Resettlement in the United States

Many refugees are then eligible to receive temporary resettlement 

assistance from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), located within 

HHS. In most states, ORR funds cash and medical assistance as well as 

social services to help refugees become economically self-sufficient. 12

 

12 Not all refugees receive cash and medical assistance through ORR-funded programs.

Refugees who are eligible for or who are receiving cash assistance from programs outside 

of ORR, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or Supplemental Security 

Income, are generally not eligible to receive cash assistance from ORR’s resettlement 

programs.

ORR provides these funds through grants to state refugee coordinators, 

who may be employed by a state agency or by a nonprofit organization 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

depending on how a state’s program is set up.13

Table 1: Selected Refugee Assistance Programs

ORR’s social services 

grants provide funding for employment and other support services. States 

also receive funding from ORR to award discretionary grants—including 

school impact, services to older refugees, and targeted assistance 

grants—to communities that are particularly affected by large numbers of 

refugees or to serve specific refugee populations such as the elderly. See 

table 1 for a list of selected refugee assistance programs.

Activities 

a

Purpose 

FY 2012 

budget 

authoritya 

Reception and 

placement 

grants

(in millions)

Provides partial financial support to nongovernmental 

organizations to provide services to refugees for 30 

to 90 days after arrival in the United States, including 

basic needs, orientation, and case management 

services

$153.7

Transitional and 

medical services 

Provides cash and medical assistance to refugees, 

asylees, entrants, trafficking victims, and special 

immigrant visa holders who participate in certain 

ORR-funded programs.

323.2

Social services Supports employment and other services such as 

social adjustment, translation, child care, and 

citizenship services as well as case management 

118.9

Targeted 

assistance 

Primarily provides services designed to secure 

employment for refugees within 1 year or less in 

counties that are impacted by high arrival numbers 

and high concentrations of refugees 

24.2

Preventive 

health 

Promotes refugee access to health screening, 

assessment, treatment, and follow-up services 

4.7

Sources: PRM and HHS Administration for Children and Families Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, fiscal year 

2013.

 

13 GAO, Refugee Assistance: Little is Known about Effectiveness of Different Approaches 

for Improving Refugees’ Employment Outcomes, GAO-11-369 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 

31, 2011). ORR also partially funds a separate Matching Grant program, administered by 

the national voluntary agencies. The Matching Grant program provides refugees with cash 

and other assistance for 4 to 6 months with the goal of helping them become self-sufficient 

without receiving cash benefits from a public assistance program. According to ORR, 

refugees who receive assistance from the Matching Grant program may not receive 

assistance or funding from any of ORR’s other three assistance programs at the same 

time.
 

Page 10 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

a

ORR also funds targeted grants for unaccompanied alien children, victims of torture, and victims of 

trafficking. According to ORR, fiscal year 2012 funding levels reflect the reallocation of funding during 

FY 2012 to support the costs associated with the unprecedented level of Unaccompanied Alien 

Children referred to HHS/ORR by the Department of Homeland Security during FY 2012.

In addition, communities may apply for grants from other nonrefugee 

programs to help provide services to refugees. Both PRM and ORR 

monitor the implementation of the refugee resettlement process, which 

involves overseeing and monitoring both government agencies and 

private organizations (see fig. 5).

Figure 5: Flow of Funds from PRM and ORR to Service Providers 

ORR and PRM officials coordinate with one another and with national and 

state stakeholders who specifically focus on serving refugees. Together 

with representatives from national resettlement agencies and state 

refugee coordinators, ORR and PRM also participate in a refugee 

resettlement working group convened by the White House National 

Security Staff, which supports both the Homeland Security Council and 

the National Security Council. The resettlement working group has 

worked on and been supportive of a variety of reforms that PRM and 

ORR have made to their processes. PRM and ORR also conduct joint 

quarterly consultation meetings with stakeholder groups, including 

voluntary agencies, state refugee coordinators, refugee health 

coordinators, ORR technical assistance providers, and ethnic community 

based organizations.
 

Page 11 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Voluntary agencies consider a variety of factors when they propose the 

number of refugees to be resettled in each community (see table 2). 

Before preparing their annual proposals for PRM’s Reception and 

Placement Program for approval, national voluntary agencies ask local 

voluntary agency affiliates to assess their own capacity and that of other 

service providers in the wider community and propose the number of 

refugees that they will be able to resettle that year.14 In making these 

assessments, local voluntary agency affiliates typically consider both their 

own internal capacity and the capacity of the community, with different 

levels of emphasis on one or the other.15

 

14 The proposals typically include information on community capacity—such as 

employment rates, available healthcare, and housing—as well as information on the 

voluntary agency’s organizational management plans and policies. PRM reviews and 

approves proposals from the national voluntary agencies.

For example, when determining 

how many refugees their community can accommodate, local affiliates in 

one community told us that they primarily consider their internal 

capacity—such as staffing levels, staff skills, long-term funding needs, the 

number of refugees they have served in the past, and success in meeting 

refugee employment goals in the previous year. Local affiliates in another 

community explained that they primarily consider community-based 

factors, such as housing availability and employment opportunities. To 

help make this process more consistent, Refugee Council USA, a 

coalition of the nine national voluntary agencies, developed guidance and 

a list of factors that local affiliates could use when evaluating community 

capacity. However, national voluntary agencies do not require their local 

15 While some local affiliates may gather information about community-based factors by 

consulting with local stakeholders, others may choose to review publicly available 

information, such as the unemployment rate and rental prices.

Voluntary Agencies 

Consider Various 

Factors in Placing 

Refugees, but Few 

Consult with Local 

Service Providers

Voluntary Agencies 

Consider Various Factors 

When Making Refugee 

Placement Decisions
 

Page 12 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

affiliates to use the guidance. Moreover, national voluntary agencies may 

adjust the numbers proposed by local affiliates.

Because refugees are generally placed in communities where national 

voluntary agency affiliates have been successful in resettling refugees, 

the same communities are often asked to absorb refugees year after 

year. One state refugee coordinator noted that local affiliate funding is 

based on the number of refugees they serve, so affiliates have an 

incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle 

each year rather than allowing the number to decrease.

Table 2: Sample Factors That Voluntary Agencies Consider When Assessing 

Community Capacity

Community factors Internal factors

Employment opportunities

Availability of affordable housing

Existing ethnic and linguistic groups

Public transportation

Health care resources

State budget trends for public assistance

Number of available co-sponsors

Language ability of staff

Staff size (ratio of staff to refugees)

Number of Matching Grant program slots

Volunteer corps

Private revenue

Long-term financial needs of the organization

Source: GAO analysis of PRM, Refugee Council USA guidance, and interviews with voluntary agency officials.

Even though they are required to coordinate and consult with state and 

local governments about their resettlement activities, voluntary agencies 

have received only limited guidance from PRM on how to obtain input 

from these and other community stakeholders when assessing 

communities’ capacity. The Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, 

states that it is the intent of Congress that local voluntary agency activities 

should be conducted in close cooperation and advance consultation with 

state and local governments,16

 

16 8 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(1)(B)(iii).

and the cooperative agreements that the 

Department of State enters into with national voluntary agencies require 

the agencies to conduct their reception and placement activities in this 

Given Limited Guidance, 

Few Voluntary Agencies 

We Visited Sought Input 

from Relevant Community 

Stakeholders When 

Placing Refugees
 

Page 13 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

manner.17 Driven by concerns that voluntary agencies were not consulting 

sufficiently with state and local stakeholders when developing their 

proposals, PRM directed local voluntary agencies to do more to 

document consultations with state and local stakeholders regarding the 

communities’ capacity to serve refugees.18

Most local voluntary agencies we visited have not taken steps to ensure 

that other relevant service providers are afforded the opportunity to 

provide input on the number and types of refugees that can be served. As 

a result, many local service providers experienced challenges in properly 

serving refugees. Most of the local voluntary agencies told us they 

generally consult with private stakeholders such as apartment landlords 

or potential employers prior to resettling refugees in an area. They also 

stated that they consult with some public entities, such as state refugee 

coordinators; however, most public entities such as public schools and 

health departments generally said that voluntary agencies notified them of 

the number of refugees expected to arrive in the coming year, but did not 

consult them regarding the number of refugees they could serve before 

proposals were submitted to PRM. Moreover, service providers in one 

community noted that because the local voluntary agencies did not 

However, PRM’s guidance on 

consultation with state and local governments does not provide detailed 

information regarding the agency’s expectations for the content of these 

discussions. While the guidance provides some examples of state and 

local stakeholders that the voluntary agencies could potentially consult, it 

does not state which stakeholders must be consulted. PRM officials said 

that they allow local voluntary agencies to decide whom to consult 

because the voluntary agencies know their communities best and 

because local circumstances vary.

 

17 The cooperative agreements provide the conditions that the recipient must meet in 

exchange for receiving federal funding. The agreements signed by the national voluntary 

agencies also require them to ensure that their local affiliates participate in meetings 

called by state and local governments to coordinate plans for the placement of refugees.

Similarly, ORR’s regulations require states to provide an assurance in their state plan for 

refugee resettlement funds that local voluntary agencies and other community service 

agencies will meet with state and local governments at least quarterly to coordinate the 

appropriate placement of refugees in advance of the refugees’ arrival. 45 C.F.R. § 

400.5(h).

18 For example, in fiscal year 2009, PRM required the voluntary agencies to provide the 

date and content of discussions with state and local stakeholders. In fiscal year 2010, 

PRM added a requirement for the voluntary agencies to include the results of those 

discussions. In 2012, PRM required voluntary agencies to include any concerns raised 

and compromises reached.
 

Page 14 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

consult them on the numbers and ethnicities of refugees they were 

planning to resettle, there were no interpreters or residents that spoke the 

language of some of the refugees who were resettled there, even though 

the providers could have served refugees that spoke other languages.

Voluntary agencies may not consult with relevant stakeholders if they 

perceive them to be unaware of the resettlement process or if they 

believe that refugees do not use certain services. For example, local 

voluntary agency staff in one community said they did not consult with 

certain stakeholders because they believed that they were not well 

informed about the resettlement process and might unnecessarily object 

to the proposed number of refugees to be resettled. In fact, one local, 

elected official we spoke to was unaware that refugees were living in the 

community. Other elected officials noted that it was difficult to tell if or 

when refugees accessed services, even though school and health 

department officials in those same communities had frequent interactions 

with refugees and wanted opportunities to provide input.

Although they bear much of the responsibility for providing services to 

refugees, some of the health care providers and schools that had not 

been consulted on, or even notified of, the number of refugees that were 

to be resettled sometimes felt unprepared to do so. For example, health 

care providers in two communities told us that they were not notified in 

advance that refugees would be arriving in their communities, and thus, 

had no time to set up screening procedures. They were also unaware of 

the specific needs and health challenges of the communities they were 

serving.

In addition, in some instances when voluntary agencies were unable to 

adequately prepare the community as a whole for the new arrivals and 

provide refugees with the services they needed, some community 

members expressed opposition toward the refugees. For example, in Fort 

Wayne, Indiana, a few case studies show that the community, which had 

been receiving fewer than 500 refugees per year prior to 2007, 

experienced a rapid increase that more than tripled the number of 
 

Page 15 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

refugees resettled in the community.19 The community, in turn, was forced 

on short notice to obtain new sources of funding and establish a new 

infrastructure in order to serve their new arrivals. This unplanned increase 

in refugees, combined with a growing unemployment rate, engendered 

frustrations that resulted in backlash from the community. Moreover, a 

number of other factors, including the high frequency of communicable 

diseases among certain populations, unmet needs for mental health 

services, overcrowding in homes, and cultural practices caused existing 

residents to become concerned or even hostile. Similarly, officials in 

Clarkston, Georgia, another community that was not initially consulted 

regarding the resettlement of thousands of refugees beginning in 1996, 

described the flight of long-time residents from the town in response to 

refugee resettlement and the perceived deterioration of the quality of 

schools.20

In a few of the communities we visited, after reaching a crisis point due to 

the influx of refugees, stakeholders took the initiative to develop formal 

processes for providing input to the local voluntary agencies on the 

number of refugees they could serve.21

 

19 General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., Building an Integrated Refugee 

Program, a report prepared at the request of the Department of Health and Human 

Services Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), November 2009. Staff of Senate 

Committee on Foreign Relations, 111th Cong., Abandoned Upon Arrival: Implications for 

Refugees and Local Communities Burdened by a U.S. Resettlement System That is Not 

Working (Comm. Print 2010). 

For example, an influx of refugees 

in Fargo, North Dakota, in the 1990s overwhelmed local service 

providers. In response, those service providers and the local voluntary 

agency formed a Refugee Advisory Committee to provide a formal, 

community-based structure for finding solutions to challenges in resettling 

refugees. The committee includes representatives from the local 

voluntary agency, state and county social services departments, various 

city departments, school districts, as well as local health care providers, 

20 According to PRM, in the past five years, affiliate abstracts submitted in annual 

proposals detail consultations and ongoing work with various state and local entities 

concerning placement in Clarkston. These consultations include regular meetings of the 

Georgia Coalition of Refugee Stakeholders, whose members include local elected 

officials. They also note discussions regarding housing, health services, and public school 

issues and consultations with the DeKalb county Board of Health/Refugee Clinic director 

and the DeKalb County school system. By request of the State Refugee Coordinator, in 

fiscal year 2011, refugee placements in Clarkston were reduced.

21 These communities were recommended to us as examples of best practices. 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

nonprofit organizations, and the assistant state refugee coordinator. The 

local voluntary agency solicits input from the committee annually on the 

number of refugees the community has the capacity to serve in the 

coming year and also meets quarterly to address other issues such as the 

needs of service providers. Committee members told us that the number 

of new refugees arriving in Fargo declined after the committee was 

developed.22

Similarly, in Boise, Idaho, city officials formed a roundtable group to 

develop a Refugee Resource Strategic Community Plan in 2009 to work 

with the local voluntary agencies, the state refugee coordinator’s office,

and community organizations to identify strategies for successful 

resettlement of Boise’s refugees, in light of the most recent economic 

downturn. The group includes representatives from the state coordinator’s 

office, local voluntary agencies, various city departments, school district 

representatives, nonprofit organizations, as well as employers, health 

care providers, and other community stakeholders. The group meets 

quarterly to review progress on the objectives outlined in the strategic 

plan. The local voluntary agencies obtain input from the group members 

on the community’s capacity for serving refugees, but they do not discuss 

the specific number of refugees that will be proposed to the national 

voluntary agency and PRM for resettlement. Roundtable members told us 

that the local voluntary agencies have worked with their national offices to 

reduce the proposed number of refugees to resettle in Boise in 2011 

based on community capacity.

Committee members and voluntary agency officials said that 

their close communication allows them to better educate the community 

and better serve the refugees, and both believe the number being 

resettled is manageable.

The state of Tennessee has passed legislation that creates formal 

processes for communication between voluntary agencies and local 

stakeholders. Specifically, the Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act,23

 

22 Data from the voluntary agency show that the number of newly arriving refugees in 

Fargo and West Fargo declined from 564 in fiscal year 2000 to 327 in fiscal year 2001 and 

to 42 in fiscal year 2002. Over the next 8 years, the number of new arrivals increased, but 

remained below the fiscal year 2000 level. In fiscal year 2010, there were 356 new 

arrivals. 

which 

was passed in 2011, requires the state refugee program office to enter 

into a letter of agreement with each voluntary agency in the state. The 

23 Codified at Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4-38-101 to 4-38-104. 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

letter of agreement must contain a requirement that local stakeholders 

mutually consult and prepare a plan for the initial placement of refugees 

in a community as well as a plan for ongoing consultation. In addition, the 

state program office must ensure that local voluntary agencies consult 

upon request with local governments regarding refugee placement in 

advance of the refugees’ arrival.24

Communities can benefit socially and economically from refugee 

resettlement. In all of the communities we visited, stakeholders said that 

refugees enriched their cultural diversity. For example, local service 

providers in Fargo commented that refugees bring new perspectives and 

customs to a city with predominately Norwegian ancestry. Some city 

officials and business leaders we spoke with in several communities said 

that refugees help stimulate economic development by filling critical labor 

shortages as well as by starting small businesses and creating jobs. For 

instance, new refugee-owned businesses revitalized a neighborhood in 

Chicago after other businesses in the area closed. In addition, an official 

in Washington State told us that diverse resettlement communities with 

international populations attract investment from overseas businesses. 

According to ORR officials, refugees also bring economic benefits to 

communities by renting apartments, patronizing local businesses, and 

paying taxes, and the presence of refugees may increase the amount of 

federal funding that a community receives.25

 

24 The law also requires the state program office to provide a written quarterly report to 

local governments to plan and coordinate the placement of refugees, provide a quarterly 

report to specified state legislative committees, and ensure that host community residents 

and representatives of local governments are aware that they should notify the state 

program office with any concerns about resettlement activities.

In Boise, officials 

25 ORR officials noted, for example, that schools might receive additional federal funding if 

the proportion of low-income students in a school increases.

Refugees Bring 

Benefits to 

Communities but Can 

Pose Challenges for 

Service Providers

Refugees Bring Diversity 

and Can Help Stimulate 

Development, but Can 

Stretch Resources and 

Affect Program Outcomes
 

Page 18 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

commented that the refugee students helped stabilize the public school 

population, which had been declining before the city established a 

refugee resettlement program.

While refugees can benefit their communities, they can also stretch the 

resources of local service providers, such as school districts and health 

care systems. In several communities we visited, school district officials 

said that it takes more resources to serve refugee students than 

nonrefugee students, because they sometimes lack formal schooling or 

have experienced trauma, which can require additional supports, such as 

special training for school staff. In addition, newly arrived refugee 

students often have limited English proficiency, and hiring interpreters can 

be costly.26 Similarly, some health care providers expressed concerns 

about serving refugees, because they said that they are required to 

provide interpreter services to patients with limited English proficiency.27

One provider told us that their clinic spent more than $100,000 on 

interpreter services in the previous year, costs that were not 

reimbursed.28

ORR offers discretionary grants to assist school districts that serve a 

large number of refugees, but we learned that district officials may be 

In addition, in some communities we visited, school district 

officials and health care providers said that locating interpreters for 

certain languages can be difficult. ORR and PRM officials noted that 

these impacts are not unique to refugees and that serving immigrants 

may pose similar challenges.

 

26 According to ORR officials, the Department of Education provides supplemental funding 

under Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended, Language 

Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students. However, school district 

officials in one community we visited said that continuous cuts in Title III funding have had 

significant impacts on schools that serve refugee students. 

27 ORR’s regulations require that in providing refugee medical assistance, states must 

provide at least the same services in the same manner and to the same extent as under 

the state’s Medicaid program. In addition, all recipients of federal funds are required to 

comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on 

race, color, or national origin under any program receiving federal financial assistance.

Several health care providers and voluntary agencies we spoke with viewed the hiring of 

interpreters as a way to comply with this requirement. This report, however, does not 

attempt to assess entities’ compliance with Title VI requirements. 

28 Under Medicaid, states may claim federal matching funds for interpreter costs; 

however, in this case, the amount reimbursed by the state Medicaid program covered 

approximately half of the cost of the interpreter services, which left the provider to cover 

the remaining cost.
 

Page 19 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

unaware of these grants or may decide that the effort involved in applying 

for them outweighs the potential benefits. For example, through its school 

impact grant, ORR funds activities for refugee students such as English 

as a Second Language instruction and after-school tutorials. However, 

school district officials in one community that was new to the refugee 

resettlement program said they had no information about where they 

could find assistance in serving refugee students. In another community, 

district officials were aware of the school impact grant, but said they did 

not apply for it because they found the application process to be 

burdensome and the funding level would have been insufficient to meet 

their needs.29

In addition to stretching school district resources, refugee students can

also negatively affect district performance outcomes. School district 

performance is measured primarily by students’ test scores, including the 

scores of refugee students. School district officials in several communities 

said that even though refugee students often have limited English 

proficiency, they are evaluated against the same metrics as their native 

English-speaking peers, which can result in lower performance outcomes 

for the district. In one community, officials told us that the district had not 

demonstrated adequate yearly progress under the state standards in 

recent years, and they attributed this in part to the test scores of refugee 

students. 30

Furthermore, refugees who exhaust federal refugee assistance benefits 

and are not self-sufficient can strain local safety nets. Refugees who are 

no longer eligible to receive cash and medical assistance from ORR after 

8 months but are unemployed—or are working in low-wage jobs that do 

not provide sufficient income—may seek help from local service providers 

such as food pantries, organizations providing housing assistance, and 

even homeless shelters. If service providers are unprepared to serve 

these refugees in addition to their other clients, it can stretch their 

 

29 For fiscal year 2012, the school impact grant program provided funding to states 

ranging from $150,000 to $1 million, depending on the size of the school-age refugee 

population and other eligible populations. States used these funds to award grants to state 

departments of education, local school districts, or voluntary agencies. 

30 Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended, all students are 

expected to meet or exceed state standards in reading and in math by 2014. Each state 

establishes its own definition of adequate yearly progress to determine school and school 

district achievement toward this goal.
 

Page 20 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

budgets and diminish the safety net resources available to others in the 

community.

Table 3 lists the benefits and challenges of refugee resettlement identified 

by stakeholders in the communities we visited.

Table 3: Benefits and Challenges of Refugee Resettlement Identified in Site Visits

Benefits Challenges

Refugees add diversity to their 

communities

The presence of refugees in a community 

teaches tolerance for others

Refugees take jobs that are difficult to fill

Refugees are reliable, dedicated 

employees

Refugee-owned businesses create jobs

Public services developed to assist 

refugees, such as transit programs, also 

benefit other vulnerable populations

Communication can be difficult due to 

language and cultural barriers

Mental health resources are limited for 

refugees who have experienced trauma

The cost of interpreter services can strain 

service providers’ budgets, and some health 

care providers have chosen to stop serving 

refugees

Refugee students with limited English 

proficiency can affect school districts’ 

performance outcomes

Some refugees live in poverty due to 

unemployment

Some refugees are unfamiliar with social 

norms and laws in the United States

Source: GAO interviews with stakeholders in selected communities.

Migration from one community to another after initial resettlement—

referred to as secondary migration—can unexpectedly increase the 

refugee population in a community, and communities that attract large 

numbers of secondary migrants may not have adequate, timely funding to 

provide resettlement services to the migrants who need them.31

 

31 According to PRM officials, refugees often migrate multiple times. Officials also noted 

that some refugees who choose to migrate from their initial resettlement communities do 

so within a few months of arrival, while others do so after a longer period of time.

According to ORR, refugees relocate for a variety of reasons: better 

employment opportunities, the pull of an established ethnic community, 

more welfare benefits, better training opportunities, reunification with 

Some Refugees Relocate 

after Resettlement, and 

This Secondary Migration 

May Strain Communities 

That Lack Adequate 

Resources to Serve Them
 

Page 21 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

relatives, or a more congenial climate.32 Not all refugees who migrate 

choose to access resettlement services in their new communities, 

according to PRM officials. However, for those migrants who need 

resettlement services, federal funding does not necessarily follow them to 

their new communities, even though refugees continue to be eligible for 

some resettlement services for 5 years after arrival. According to ORR 

officials, refugees who relocate while they are receiving cash assistance, 

medical assistance, or refugee social services are eligible to continue 

receiving those services in their new communities for a limited time.33

In addition, ORR provides grants to communities and states affected by 

secondary migration, but the annual cycle of these grants may not 

provide ORR the flexibility to respond in a timely manner. ORR uses 

secondary migration data submitted by states once a year, among other 

data, to inform refugee social services funding allocations for future fiscal 

years. 

However, ORR does not coordinate this continuation of service, and state 

refugee coordinators must communicate with one another to determine 

eligibility for each refugee who relocates.

34

 

32 According to PRM data for fiscal year 2011, 3,261 refugees, or 5.7 percent of refugees, 

moved away from their initial resettlement community within the first 90 days of 

resettlement. According to ORR data for fiscal year 2010, states reported that 

approximately 11,143 refugees moved from their initial resettlement state. ORR collects 

secondary migration data on refugees who have arrived within 36 months prior to the 

beginning of the fiscal year. Fiscal year 2010 data showed that Texas and California had 

large numbers of refugees moving both in and out. There was strong net migration into 

Minnesota, Florida, Colorado, Ohio, and Kansas. There was strong net migration out of 

Arizona, New York, New Jersey, Texas, and Georgia.

According to ORR officials, these formula grants are awarded 

annually to states based on the number of refugee arrivals during the 

previous 2 years. As a result, a year may pass before states experiencing 

33 Depending on the program in which they are enrolled, refugees are eligible to receive 

ORR-funded cash assistance for 8 months if they are enrolled in a statewide program. 

Refugees enrolled in a Matching Grant program are eligible to receive cash assistance for 

4 to 6 months after arrival. Refugees are also eligible for ORR-funded medical assistance 

for up to 8 months after arrival. Refugees are eligible to receive services through ORR’s 

social services grant program for up to 5 years after arrival. 

34 Refugee social services programs provide employment and other services such as 

social adjustment, translation, childcare, and citizenship services, as well as case 

management. ORR allocates these funds to states based on estimates of arriving 

refugees, as well as secondary migration data for the prior 2 years. These social services 

funds do not increase within a given year if the number of refugees served is greater than 

anticipated.
 

Page 22 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

secondary migration receive increased funding. For example, Minnesota 

reported to ORR that 1,999 refugees migrated into the state during fiscal 

year 2010, but under ORR’s current formula funding process, the state 

would not have received increased funding until fiscal year 2011. In 

another example, social services funding did not keep pace with a large 

number of arrivals of both newly resettled refugees and secondary 

migrants in Detroit in fiscal year 2008. According to a report 

commissioned by ORR, after this rapid influx of arrivals, caseloads rose 

to 150 clients per caseworker in the employment and training program, 

and caseworkers were forced to devote a majority of their time to 

paperwork and case management, which limited their ability to provide 

job development and training services.35 Further, ORR will not adjust a 

state’s level of social services funding to account for secondary migration 

until it verifies that the refugees migrated to the state. According to one 

state refugee coordinator, ORR rejects the data states submit if the 

refugee’s information does not match the information in ORR’s database 

or if two or more states claim to have served the same refugee. ORR 

officials said that, while their process allows states to update missing data 

and correct formatting errors, it does not allow states to resubmit data that 

does not match the information in ORR’s database or that was submitted 

by two or more states.36

ORR offers supplemental, short-term funding to help communities 

affected by secondary migration. For example, the Supplemental 

Services for Recently Arrived Refugees grant is designed to help 

communities provide services to secondary migrants or newly arriving 

refugees when the communities are not sufficiently prepared in terms of 

linguistic or culturally appropriate services or do not have sufficient 

service capacity. However, this grant is only available to communities that 

will serve a minimum of 100 refugees annually, and the funding is for a 

fixed period of time.37

 

35 General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., Building an Integrated Refugee 

Program. 

Communities must apply and be approved for the 

36 According to ORR officials, less than 10 percent of the data submitted on secondary 

migrants are rejected.

37 To be considered for the Supplemental Services for Recently Arrived Refugees grant, 

communities must demonstrate situations such as (1) refugee services do not presently 

exist or the service capacity is not sufficient to accommodate significant increases in 

arrivals; and/or (2) the existing service system does not have culturally and linguistically 

appropriate services. ORR provides grantees with funding for a grant project period of17 

months. 
 

Page 23 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

grant, and funding may not arrive until many months after the influx 

began. For example, in a draft report on secondary migration 

commissioned by ORR, the Spring Institute for Intercultural Learning 

found that one community did not receive supplemental funding until 14 

months after secondary migrant refugees began arriving.38

Without comprehensive secondary migration data, ORR cannot target 

supplemental assistance to communities and refugees in a timely way. 

Currently, the data that PRM and ORR collect on secondary migration are 

limited and little is known about secondary migration patterns. PRM 

collects data from local voluntary agencies regarding the number of 

refugees who move away from a community within the first 90 days after 

arrival, but does not collect data on the estimated number of refugees 

who enter the community during the same time period. PRM officials said 

that they use these out-migration data to assess the success of refugee 

placement decisions. In contrast, ORR collects secondary migration data 

annually from each state, but does not collect community-level data. 

Specifically, ORR collects information on the number of refugees who 

move into and out of each state every year. However, ORR officials 

explained that they can only collect these data when secondary migrants 

access services. As a result, refugees who move into or out of a state but 

do not use refugee services in their new communities are not counted. 

Even so, these refugees access other community services and their 

communities may need additional assistance to meet their needs.

Secondary migration can strain local resources significantly. For example, 

the draft report on secondary migration prepared for ORR by the Spring 

Institute for Intercultural Learning found that refugees who migrate to new 

communities can overwhelm local service providers, such as health 

departments, that are unprepared to serve them. In addition, a report 

prepared for ORR by General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. 

found that, in one community, the influx of a large number of secondary

migrants who lacked resources led to a homelessness crisis that stressed 

 

38 Spring Institute for Intercultural Learning. Rural Secondary Migration Pilot Project: 

Impacts, Challenges, and Opportunities,, a report prepared at the request of the 

Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), 

October 2009. 
 

Page 24 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

the capacity of both the shelter system and the other agencies serving 

refugees.39

Some communities that face challenges in serving additional refugees 

have requested restrictions or even temporary moratoriums on refugee 

resettlement. According to PRM, the cities of Detroit and Fort Wayne, 

Indiana, requested restrictions on refugee resettlement due to poor 

economic conditions. In response, PRM limited resettlement in Detroit 

and Fort Wayne to refugees who already have family there.40

Tennessee recently created a process by which communities could 

request a temporary moratorium on refugee resettlement for capacity 

reasons. The state’s Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act allows local 

governments to submit a request to the state refugee office for a 1-year 

moratorium on resettling additional refugees if they document that they 

lack the capacity to do so and if further resettlement would have an 

adverse impact on residents. The state refugee office may then forward 

this request to PRM.

In addition, 

the mayor of Manchester, New Hampshire, asked in 2011 that PRM 

temporarily stop resettling refugees in the city because of a shortage of 

jobs and sufficient affordable housing. While PRM did not grant the 

requested moratorium, the agency reduced the number of refugees to be 

resettled there in fiscal year 2011 from 300 to about 200. PRM officials 

said that a moratorium on resettlement would not have made sense 

because nearly all of the refugees slated to be resettled in Manchester 

have family there and would likely relocate to Manchester eventually—

even if they were initially settled in another location.

41

 

39 General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc., Building an Integrated Refugee 

Program. 

Passed in 2011, the law states that local 

governments should consider certain capacity factors—the capacity of 

service providers to meet existing needs of current residents, the 

40 PRM initially limited resettlement in these cities to immediate family members of 

refugees who were already living there. However, in response to requests from the local 

voluntary agencies and a leveling in the flow of arrivals, the metro Detroit policy was 

amended to allow placement of any refugees with ties to family or friends in the area. 

According to voluntary agency officials, the policy was amended due to high levels of 

secondary migration and the difficulty serving secondary migrants without funding. 

41 PRM has discretion to approve or deny this request, as state law is not binding on the 

federal government.

Capacity Challenges Can 

Lead Communities to 

Request Restrictions or 

Temporary Moratoriums 

on Refugee Resettlement
 

Page 25 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

availability of affordable housing, the capacity of the school district to 

meet the needs of refugee students, and the ability of the local economy 

to absorb new workers—before making such a request. According to 

PRM, to date, no community in Tennessee has submitted such a request.

PRM conducts regular on-site monitoring of national voluntary agencies 

and about 350 local affiliates to ensure that the voluntary agencies deliver 

the services outlined in their cooperative agreements. Under the 

cooperative agreements, local voluntary agencies must provide certain 

services to refugees in the first 30 to 90 days after they arrive. PRM 

monitors national voluntary agencies annually and local affiliates once 

every 5 years, and requires national voluntary agencies to monitor their 

affiliates at least once every 3 years. During its local affiliate monitoring 

visits, PRM reviews case files and interviews staff. PRM officials also visit 

a small sample of refugees in their homes to ensure that the refugees 

received clean, safe housing and appropriate furniture. PRM also requires 

voluntary agencies to report certain outcome measures for each refugee 

they resettle.

In recent years, PRM found most local affiliates generally compliant, and 

for those that were not, PRM made recommendations and required 

immediate corrective action. For fiscal years 2009 through 2011, 

according to PRM, it conducted 136 on-site monitoring visits. In over 

three-quarters of those visits, PRM determined that the local affiliate was 

compliant or mostly compliant. In about one-quarter of the cases, 

however, PRM determined that they were partially or mostly noncompliant 

(about 20 percent) or simply noncompliant (about 5 percent). PRM or 

national resettlement agencies can make return, on-site monitoring trips 

to assess the progress of affiliates when problems are identified. 

Furthermore, if the problems persist, national voluntary agencies can 

close an affiliate’s operation or PRM can decide not to allow placement of 

Agencies Monitor 

Resettlement and 

Measure 

Effectiveness, but 

These Measures Have 

Weaknesses 

PRM and ORR Take 

Different Approaches to 

Program Oversight
 

Page 26 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

refugees at an affiliate. For fiscal year 2011, PRM determined that the 

most common recommendation made to local affiliates was that the local 

affiliate should document the reason core services could not be provided 

in the required time frames. (See table 4 for the top 10 recommendations 

made for fiscal year 2011.)

Table 4: Top 10 Recommendations for FY 2011 from PRM Monitoring Visits

1. Ensure that when core services cannot be completed within the time frames 

specified in the Cooperative Agreement, the case note logs specify the reason for 

the delay.

2. Ensure that services are provided with interpretation, as needed, that allows for 

communication with the refugee in his/her native language or in a common 

language in which the refugee is fluent, throughout the reception and placement 

period.

3. Take immediate steps to ensure that infestation noted in home visits is addressed.

4. Conduct at least two home visits for each case: the initial home visit within 24 hours, 

as well as an additional home visit within 30 days of arrival. 

5. Ensure that refugees receive all essential furnishings upon arrival.

6. Ensure that a resettlement plan is developed for each refugee, including children, 

that indicates the initial assessment of employability for each employable refugee 

and includes a clear plan of action based on an assessment of the individual.

7. The headquarters should have in place a formal plan for training new headquarters 

staff and affiliate directors, and should ensure that each affiliate has a structured 

training plan for each of its new employees.

8. The affiliate should ensure that culturally appropriate, ready-to-eat food is available 

upon a refugee’s arrival, plus one day’s worth of additional food supplies. The 

affiliate should provide food or food allowance at least equivalent to the food stamp 

allocation continued food assistance until receipt of food stamps or until the 

individual or family is able to provide his or her own food.

9. Ensure minor suitability determinations are completed within 1 week of the minor’s 

arrival, and that minors’ files are segregated and can be readily identified.

10. Ensure that every refugee has a health assessment within 30 days of arrival and 

that refugees with acute health care requirements receive appropriate and timely 

medical attention.

Source: PRM.

Whereas PRM’s oversight focuses on services provided, ORR’s oversight 

focuses more on performance outcomes. In order to assess the 

performance of its programs that provide cash, medical assistance, and 

social services to refugees, ORR monitors employment outcomes and 

cash assistance terminations (see table 5). It uses a similar set of 

measures for its Matching Grant program.
 

Page 27 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Table 5: Performance Outcome Measures for Major Refugee Assistance Programs

Source: ORR program guidance.

a

ORR prepares an Annual Performance Plan, which presents goals and progress toward six 

measures of economic self-sufficiency. Each state negotiates with ORR to establish a target for each 

measure, and states are encouraged to set or negotiate similar targets with programs within the state.

ORR uses these measures for all statewide programs—publicly administered, public private 

partnerships, and Wilson-Fish programs, which are administered by a voluntary agency. For more 

information on the statewide programs, see GAO-11-369. 

According to ORR, its focus on employment outcomes as a measure of 

effectiveness is based on the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 

amended, which requires ORR to help refugees attain economic selfsufficiency as soon as possible.42 ORR considers refugees self-sufficient 

if they earn enough income that enables the family to support itself 

without cash assistance—even if they receive other types of noncash 

public assistance, such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

benefits or Medicaid. 43

ORR conducts its on-site monitoring at the state level to ensure the 

program is able to collect and report accurate data and to ensure that the 

state is able to provide services to refugees. ORR’s on-site monitoring 

identifies deficiencies as well as best practices. ORR generally monitors 

state refugee coordinators onsite once every 3 years, as the state 

coordinator is responsible for administering and overseeing ORR’s major 

grants. During the on-site visit, ORR also monitors a sample of 

subgrantees. In monitoring reports from its most recent on-site monitoring 

 

428 U.S.C. § 1522(a)(1)(A)(i). This law requires ORR to do so to the extent of available 

appropriations.

43Cash assistance includes both refugee cash assistance and payments received under 

the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. 

Statewide Measures Matching Grant program a

1. Entered Employment 1. Entered Employment 

2. Average Wage at Employment 2. Average Wage at Employment 

3. Employment with Health Benefits 3. Employment with Health Benefits 

4. Job Retention for 90 days 4. Self-Sufficient at 120th day 

5. Cash Assistance Reductions due to 

Earnings 

5. Economic Self-Sufficiency Retention at the 

180th day 

6. Cash Assistance Termination due to 

Earnings 

6. Economic Self-Sufficiency Overall 
 

Page 28 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

in the states we visited, ORR identified a number of deficiencies 

including:

• failure to inform refugees that they were eligible for certain services 

for up to 5 years,

• failure to ensure that medical assistance was terminated at the end of 

the 8-month eligibility period,

• failure to ensure that translators were available when providing 

services to refugees, and

• missing documentation in case files.

The monitoring reports contained ORR’s recommendations and noted 

when corrective action was required. ORR’s monitoring reports also 

identified program strengths and best practices that monitors observed 

while on site. For example, one ORR monitoring report noted that having 

a state refugee housing coordinator was a program strength, because this 

coordinator can locate affordable housing and research funding sources, 

which saves the caseworkers time and effort. In the same state, ORR 

found that having an employment specialist at a voluntary agency who 

can help refugees obtain job upgrades and pursue professional 

certificates was also a program strength. According to ORR officials, they 

supplement this on-site monitoring with desk monitoring, which may 

include reviews of case files, or reviews of information provided in 

periodic reports.

Neither ORR nor PRM has formal mechanisms for collecting and sharing 

information gleaned during monitoring to improve services, such as 

solutions to common problems or promising practices. ORR and PRM 

officials identified some informal mechanisms for sharing such information 

with service providers, but relied mostly on service providers to network 

among themselves or share information during quarterly conference calls 

and annual consultations. ORR also relies on external technical 

assistance providers to disseminate best practices when training grantees 

and expects state refugee coordinators to share findings of monitoring 

reports with their local partners. However, monitoring reports are not 

publicly available, and, unless the state coordinators share this 

information, service providers may not be able to identify promising 

practices, track monitoring results, identify trends, and address common 

issues. As a result, service providers do not always get the information 

they need to improve services, whether by preventing a problem or 

implementing a best practice.
 

Page 29 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

ORR’s performance measures focus on short-term outcomes, even 

though refugees remain eligible for social services funded by ORR for up 

to 5 years.44 Because it is important for refugees to become employed 

before their cash assistance runs out—8 months or less, depending on 

the service delivery model—ORR’s performance measures provide 

incentives for service providers to focus on helping refugees gain and 

maintain employment quickly. Specifically, ORR requires grantees to 

measure entered employment at 6 months for the Matching Grant 

program or 8 months for statewide cash assistance programs.45 In 

addition, ORR requires grantees to measure job retention 90 days after 

employment. This focus on short-term employment, however, can result 

in a one-size-fits-all approach to employment services and may, in turn, 

limit service providers’ flexibility to provide services that may benefit 

refugees after the 6 to 8 month time frame. That is, with limited incentives 

to focus on longer-term employment and wages, service providers may 

not help refugees obtain longer-term services and training, such as onthe-job or vocational training, which could significantly boost their income 

or benefit the refugee in the long-term or after employment is measured.46

 

44 Employment is measured for all cash assistance recipients, but after cash assistance 

expires, employment is measured only for refugees who are enrolled in ORR-funded 

employment assistance. The portion of the caseload that is receiving employment 

services but not receiving cash assistance varies widely by state. For example, in 2010 in 

California, 12 percent of the caseload was not receiving federal cash assistance, but in 

Wisconsin, 66 percent of the caseload was receiving no federal cash assistance. ORR 

requires service providers to give newly arrived refugees priority for services. Some 

service providers have said that in order to ensure that new arrivals continued to receive 

needed services, they provided employment services to refugees for only about 1 year 

rather than the 5 years allowed. 

For example, when assisting refugees who arrive with college degrees 

and professional experience, service providers may not help them earn a 

credential valid in the United States, because the providers’ effectiveness 

45 Our 2011 report provides more information about the various ways states may opt to 

deliver services. See GAO-11-369. All states, except Wyoming, administer an ORRfunded assistance program that provides up to 8 months of cash and medical assistance,

as well as other social services. In addition, some refugees participate in the Matching 

Grant program, which is only partially funded by ORR. According to ORR, a network of 

national voluntary agencies administers this program. The Matching Grant program 

provides refugees with cash and other assistance for 4 to 6 months with the goal of 

helping them become self-sufficient without receiving cash benefits from a public 

assistance program.

46 States do report to ORR the number of refugees they serve who have been in the 

United States for more than 12 months. ORR officials noted that refugees may also 

access mainstream employment services. 

ORR’s Performance 

Measures Encourage 

Service Providers to Focus 

on Short-Term Outcomes
 

Page 30 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

is measured by whether the refugee is employed. Additionally, ORR does 

not allow skills certification training to exceed 1 year and requires the 

refugees to be employed when receiving training and services.47 Several 

service providers mentioned this as a challenge for highly skilled Iraqi 

refugees, in particular, some of whom include doctors and engineers.48

In addition, voluntary agency officials noted that ORR’s employment 

measures do not allow them to report on the longer-term or nonemployment-related outcomes of the other refugee resettlement services 

they provide. As a result, services such as skills training, English 

language training, or mental health services—which provide longer-term 

benefits and benefits unrelated to employment—may not be emphasized. 

According to some local voluntary agency officials we spoke to, given the 

current performance measures, there is a disincentive to dedicate 

necessary time and resources to the nonemployment activities that create 

pathways to success for refugees. It may be particularly difficult to serve 

those who do not arrive in the United States ready to work due to trauma, 

illness, or lack of basic skills.

While much of ORR’s grant funding focuses on short-term employment, 

ORR does have some discretionary grants that provide funding for 

particular purposes that may include services that focus on longer-term 

goals or more intensive case management. For example, the individual 

development account program provides matching funds to help refugees 

save money for the purchase of a vehicle or a home.49

 

47 Obtaining credentials may require additional training, including English language 

training, which may go beyond 6 or 8 months. 

For these 

48 A study commissioned by ORR on its social service and targeted assistance grant 

highlighted a career-laddering program in Miami as a promising practice. The purpose of 

the program is to help refugees who were professionals in their native countries but who 

lack certification to do similar work in the United States. The program helps refugees with 

obtaining credentials, training, and employment in a field that is consistent with their 

career goals and similar to the work they did in their native countries. HHS, The 

Evaluation of the Refugee Social Service (RSS) and Targeted Assistance Formula Grant 

(TAG) Programs: Synthesis of Findings from Three Sites (Washington, D.C.: March 2008).

ORR also partially funds two other programs that promote professional recertification of 

refugee physicians and other highly skilled professionals. One is located in Minnesota. 

The other is located in San Diego, California. 

49 The individual development account program provides refugees with matched savings 

accounts for the purchase of specific assets: a home, capital for a small business, postsecondary education or training, and in some cases, the purchase of a car if needed to 

maintain or upgrade employment.
 

Page 31 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

relatively small competitively awarded discretionary grant programs, ORR 

gathers data on how much money was saved and what assets were 

purchased, but does not gather data on how these asset purchases 

affected earnings or self-sufficiency. Descriptions of discretionary grants 

that can be used to fund services beyond the initial resettlement period, 

as well as other selected ORR and PRM grant programs, can be found in 

appendix IV.

In addition to the employment measures’ focus on short term outcomes, 

one state coordinator also noted that these employment measures leave 

room for interpretation. Specifically, some voluntary agencies may have a 

narrow definition of employment services while others may have a 

broader definition. In turn, the percentage of refugees who become 

employed after receiving employment services could vary based on what 

types of services are considered employment services. As a result, 

according to a state coordinator, measures may not provide consistent 

information about how well a program is performing in different 

communities.

While federal refugee resettlement programs generally provide only shortterm assistance, PRM and ORR both aim to prepare refugees for longterm integration into their communities. Although there is no single, 

generally accepted definition of integration in the literature, integration 

can be defined as a dynamic, multidirectional process in which 

newcomers and the receiving communities intentionally work together, 

based on a shared commitment to acceptance and justice, to create a 

Little Is Known about 

the Extent of Refugee 

Integration, but 

Studies Offer a 

Framework for 

Assessing Integration

Federal Agencies Promote 

but Do Not Currently 

Measure Refugee 

Integration 
 

Page 32 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

secure, welcoming, vibrant, and cohesive society.50 The federal 

government’s efforts to facilitate integration begin before refugees even 

enter the United States, as PRM offers cultural orientation for all refugees 

and recently piloted English language training for refugees in certain 

overseas locations.51 According to PRM, this cultural orientation and 

language training is intended to lay the groundwork for refugees’ longterm integration into the United States. Integration is also a part of ORR’s 

mission and overall goal,52 and officials told us that they consider 

integration to be a central aspect of refugee resettlement. Although ORR 

only provides refugees with cash and medical assistance for a maximum 

of 8 months, officials noted that this initial assistance helps set the 

foundation for long-term integration. Other ORR programs provide longerterm services that are intended to further facilitate integration, but these 

services may not be as widely available as cash and medical assistance. 

For example, ORR’s social services grant program funds employment 

services and other support services to refugees for up to 5 years after 

arrival, but communities may choose to provide these services for a 

shorter period of time due to local resource constraints. ORR’s 

discretionary grants for micro-enterprise assistance and individual 

development accounts are also designed to facilitate integration by 

helping refugees start businesses in the communities where they live, 

among other goals.53

 

50 This definition is the working definition adopted by ORR’s integration working group, 

and is not an official definition adopted by ORR. ORR created an integration working 

group in 2006 to review and analyze the integration process for refugees in communities 

throughout the United States.

However, these discretionary grants are 

competitively awarded and are thus not available to all communities.

51 PRM offers cultural orientation in both overseas locations and the resettlement location 

in the United States, and recently piloted English language training programs in Kenya, 

Thailand, and Nepal.

52 ORR’s mission statement is: “Founded on the belief that newly arriving populations 

have inherent capabilities when given opportunities, the Office of Refugee Resettlement 

(ORR) provides people in need with critical resources to assist them in becoming 

integrated members of American society.” ORR’s major goal is to “provide assistance to 

refugees and other eligible persons through its various programs and grants, so that they 

can achieve self-sufficiency and integration within the shortest time period after arriving in 

the United States.” 

53 The micro-enterprise assistance program provides refugees with loans and training to 

start, expand, or strengthen their own businesses. As noted above, the individual 

development account program provides refugees with matched savings accounts for the 

purchase of specific assets, including capital for a small business.
 

Page 33 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

ORR has studied approaches that facilitate refugee integration. In 2006, 

ORR created an integration working group to identify indicators of refugee 

integration and ways in which ORR could more fully support the 

integration process. In a 2007 interim report, the working group made 

both short-term and long-term recommendations to ORR, including that it 

(1) consider expanding ORR’s discretionary grant programs; (2) focus on 

integration in the areas of employment, English language acquisition, 

health, housing, and civic engagement; and (3) identify lessons learned 

from communities where refugee integration appears to be taking place. 

ORR officials told us that they have implemented many, but not all, of the 

working group’s recommendations due to funding constraints.54 For 

example, ORR commissioned a study to identify promising practices that 

appear to facilitate integration in four U.S. cities.55

Neither PRM nor ORR currently measure refugee integration as a 

program outcome. According to PRM, it does not measure refugee 

integration due to the short-term nature of the Reception and Placement 

Program. While refugee integration is part of ORR’s mission and overall 

goal, ORR officials said they have not measured it because there is no 

clear definition of integration, because it is unclear when integration 

should be measured, and because the Refugee Act focuses on selfsufficiency outcomes related to employment. Even so, ORR officials told 

us that they collect some data related to refugee integration. Specifically, 

as part of its annual report to Congress, ORR conducts a survey to gauge 

refugees’ economic self-sufficiency that includes integration-related 

measures such as employment, English language proficiency, 

participation in job training, attendance in a high school or university 

degree or certificate program, and home ownership.56

 

54 See appendix V for a complete list of the working group’s recommendations to ORR 

and their implementation status.

However, ORR 

officials noted that the survey is not designed to measure integration and 

should not be used for this purpose, especially since there is no clear 

55 ISED Solutions, Exploring Refugee Integration: Experiences in Four American 

Communities, a report prepared at the request of the Department of Health and Human 

Services Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), June 2010. We included this study in our 

literature review.

56 Each year, an ORR contractor surveys a random sample of refugees selected from the 

population of all refugees who arrived in the U.S. in the last 5 years. 
 

Page 34 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

definition of integration. In addition, the survey has had a low response 

rate, which may affect the quality of the data.57

Studies on refugee resettlement do not offer a broad assessment of how 

well refugees have integrated into the United States. Of the 13 studies we 

identified that addressed refugee integration, almost all were limited in 

scope in that they focused on particular refugee groups in specific 

geographic locations.58

Although the studies we reviewed were not directly comparable, together 

they identified a variety of indicators that can be used to assess progress 

toward integration for both individuals and communities, as well as 

common facilitators of integration. Indicators of integration include 

employment, English language acquisition, housing, physical and mental 

health, and social connections, as well as political involvement, 

citizenship status, and participation in community organizations. One 

study noted that when assessing integration, it is important to ask 

refugees whether they consider themselves to be integrated.

The studies describe the integration experiences 

of specific refugee groups, including factors that help refugees 

successfully integrate into their communities. However, because of the 

studies’ limited scope and differences in their methodologies, they provide 

limited insight into how refugees overall have integrated in the United 

States or how the experiences of different groups compare to one 

another.

The studies we reviewed also identified a range of barriers to integration. 

Some frequently cited barriers were a lack of formal education, illiteracy 

or limited English proficiency, and insufficient income from low-paying 

jobs. For example, refugees who are illiterate or have limited English 

proficiency may be limited to low-paying jobs such as hotel housekeepers 

and may not earn sufficient income to meet their needs. Furthermore, one 

study found that the timing of employment can be a barrier to integration. 

Specifically, the study found that taking a job soon after arrival can slow 

down the acquisition of English language skills because refugees may 

have less available time to attend language classes.

 

57 For example, the survey response rate was 50.3 percent in 2008 and 36.6 percent in 

2007.

58 See appendix II for a list of the studies we included in our literature review.

Studies Offer a Framework 

for Measuring and 

Facilitating Integration
 

Page 35 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

In addition, the studies we reviewed identified facilitators of integration—

circumstances and strategies that can help refugees integrate 

successfully into their communities. English language acquisition is an 

important facilitator of integration. For example, one study found that 

refugees who are proficient in English are better able to connect with 

nonrefugees in their communities, expanding their social connections and 

sources of support. Other facilitators of integration included employment, 

social support from other refugees, and affiliation with or sponsorship by a 

religious congregation. For example, religious congregations may provide 

refugees with language classes, social activities, emotional and financial 

support, and linkages with employment and educational opportunities, 

medical care, and transportation. See table 6 for additional examples of 

indicators of integration, barriers to integration, and facilitators of 

integration.

Table 6: Selected Integration Indicators, Barriers, and Facilitators Identified in 

Literature Review 

Indicators of 

integration Barriers to integration Facilitators of integration 

Civic participation None identified • Political involvement

• Community organizing of 

refugee groups

Culture • Unfamiliarity with “Western” 

culture

• Intolerance for non-English 

speakers

• Intolerance for cultural or 

religious differences

• Availability of public service 

providers to educate 

community about refugees’ 

cultures (and vice versa)

Education or 

training

• Lack of or little formal 

education prior to arrival in 

the U.S.

• Lack of options for recredentialing for skilled 

workers or professionals

• Adult education 

opportunities

Employment • Insufficient income from lowpaying jobs

• Workplace environments with 

no opportunity to speak 

English

• English proficiency, which 

may help refugees obtain 

work that generates 

sufficient income

• Networks and support 

groups that help refugees 

find employment

• Ethnic small businesses
 

Page 36 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Indicators of 

integration Barriers to integration Facilitators of integration 

English language 

acquisition

• Illiteracy or limited English 

proficiency

• “Work first” emphasis, which 

may slow language 

acquisition if it limits time to 

attend English classes

• Opportunities to learn and 

practice speaking English

• Participation in English 

classes for an extended 

period of time

Host community • Harassment and 

discrimination

• Negative interactions with 

government entities, creating 

mistrust

• Limited resources of 

agencies serving refugees

• Preparation of the 

community to receive 

newcomers

• Bilingual and culturally 

competent staff at 

agencies serving refugees

• Community events to 

celebrate refugees’ 

cultures

Housing • Inadequate housing

• Low-income, high-crime 

neighborhoods

• Housing settings with no

opportunity to speak English

• Moving out of low-income 

neighborhoods

Social connections • Social isolation • Social support from other 

refugees

• Friendship or mentoring 

programs

• Community dinners and 

gardens

• Affiliation with or 

sponsorship by a religious 

congregation

Source: GAO literature review.

While most of the communities we visited had not established formal 

goals or strategies to facilitate refugee integration, two of the eight 

communities had developed formal plans to promote integration. The City 

of Boise, for example, developed a plan to facilitate the successful 

resettlement of refugees that includes goals related to integration. 

Specifically, the plan aims to facilitate integration by (1) establishing 

refugee community centers, (2) using a media campaign to increase 

community awareness and support of refugees, and (3) creating a 

mentoring program for refugee youth, among other things. Similarly, the 

Village of Skokie, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, created a strategic plan to 

help facilitate the integration of immigrants, including refugees, by (1) 

establishing a coordinating council of key service providers, (2) 

developing a system to improve providers’ access to interpreters, and (3) 

Some Communities Have 

Developed Formal Plans 

for Refugee Integration
 

Page 37 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

recruiting and training immigrant and refugee community leaders for 

government commissions and school boards, among other strategies.

Additionally, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Franklin & Marshall College had 

taken a variety of steps to help facilitate the integration of refugees, 

including using student volunteers to teach refugees English, tutor 

refugee students, and help refugee families enroll their children in school 

and access public health services. In addition, at the time of our visit, the 

college was partnering with a local voluntary agency affiliate to plan a 

community conference on refugee integration with the goals of (1) better 

understanding and addressing the needs of refugees, (2) identifying 

strategies for fostering rapid integration, and (3) developing a broad 

coalition of organizations serving refugees that could continue to work 

together on these issues in the future.

Each year, as part of its humanitarian role in the international community, 

the United States admits tens of thousands of refugees who add richness 

and diversity to our society but can also have a significant impact on the 

communities in which they live, particularly in cases where relevant state 

and local stakeholders are not consulted before refugees are resettled. 

Advance consultation is important because stakeholders need time to 

plan so that they can properly serve refugees when they arrive, and 

because their input on the number of refugees to be resettled can help 

communities avoid reaching a crisis point. Information about communities 

that have developed effective strategies for consultation would likely 

benefit other communities facing similar obstacles. Without more specific 

guidance and information on effective strategies for consultation, 

communities may continue to struggle to meet refugees’ needs, which 

may negatively affect both refugees and their communities and would 

likely deter integration. Similarly, while ORR has recognized that some 

service providers have particularly effective strategies for resettlement, 

neither ORR nor PRM disseminate this information to other service 

providers. As a result, not all communities are aware of ways they can do 

their work more effectively.

Furthermore, while refugees can receive resettlement services for up to 5 

years, some find it difficult to access those services when they relocate to 

another community. In addition, states do not receive increased funding 

for serving secondary migrants until the year after refugees relocate. As a 

result, in communities that experience high levels of secondary migration, 

voluntary agencies and service providers may not have the resources to 

provide services to the migrants who need them. Without a funding 

Conclusions 
 

Page 38 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

process that would respond more quickly to localities experiencing high

rates of secondary migration, voluntary agencies may have to prioritize 

serving recently arrived refugees and communities may find their 

resources for refugees stretched too thin.

As required by the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, ORR’s 

programs are designed to help refugees become employed as quickly as 

possible. ORR’s measures of effectiveness, which focus on whether 

refugees gain employment in the short term, in turn, influence the types of 

services that refugees receive. Specifically, service providers may choose 

to provide services that encourage short-term independence from cash 

assistance, but might not help refugees achieve long-term selfsufficiency. However, refugees may face unique challenges such as a 

lack of formal education or work experience, language barriers, and 

physical and mental health conditions that can make the transition to the 

United States difficult. Without some incentives to focus on long-term selfsufficiency in addition to short-term independence from cash assistance, 

refugees may be more likely to need government assistance again in the 

future, and it may take longer for both refugees and their communities to 

experience the benefits of integration.

We are making the following four recommendations based on our review:

To help ensure that state and local stakeholders have the opportunity to 

provide input on the number of refugees resettled in their communities, 

we recommend that

• the Secretary of State provide additional guidance to resettlement 

agencies and state coordinators on how to consult with local 

stakeholders prior to making placement decisions, including with 

whom to consult and what should be discussed during the 

consultations; and

• the Secretaries of State and of Health and Human Services collect 

and disseminate best practices related to refugee placement 

decisions, specifically on working with community stakeholders, as 

well as other promising practices from communities.

To assist communities in providing services to secondary migrants, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services consider 

additional ways to increase the responsiveness of the grants designed for 

this purpose. This could include asking states to report secondary 

migration data more often than once a year, allowing resubmission of 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 39 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

secondary migration data from states that was rejected because it did not 

match ORR’s database, creating a process for counting migrants who 

received services in more than one state, and establishing an emergency 

grant that could be used to more quickly identify and assist communities 

that are struggling to serve high levels of secondary migrants.

To give service providers more flexibility to serve refugees with different 

needs and to create incentives to focus on longer term goals, including 

integration, independence from any government services, and career 

advancement, we recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services examine ORR’s performance measures in light of its goals and 

determine whether changes are needed.

We shared a draft of this report with HHS and State for review and 

comment. In its written comments, reproduced in appendix VI, HHS 

generally concurred with our recommendations. Specifically, HHS stated 

that it supports our recommendation to disseminate best practices, 

including promising practices from communities, while noting that State 

and nonprofit community-based and faith-based organizations have 

traditionally taken the lead on resettling refugees. HHS highlighted the 

efforts it has made in conducting quarterly placement meetings, which 

include resettlement agencies and refugee coordinators. While these 

meetings may be helpful, we believe that HHS can also implement this 

recommendation by disseminating best practices and program strengths 

that it documents through its monitoring of states and service providers.

In addition, HHS concurred with our recommendation that it consider 

additional ways to increase the responsiveness of grants that help 

communities provide services to secondary migrants, but noted that it 

already provides Supplemental Services grants, which provide short-term 

assistance to areas that are impacted by increased numbers of new 

arrivals or secondary migrants. In addition, it raised concerns that an 

increase in the frequency of data collection would significantly increase 

the reporting burden without a mandatory need for the data. HHS also 

stated that it has a process in place for notifying states of technical 

problems with population data submitted and allowing them to make 

corrections. While we recognize that HHS has strategies in place to serve 

secondary migrants, we continue to believe that (1) the Supplemental 

Services grants can be improved to be more responsive; (2) more up-todate population data can help HHS respond more quickly to communities 

experiencing high levels of secondary migration; and (3) improvements 

can be made to the process for correcting population data.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 40 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

HHS also stated that it will consider modifying its performance measures 

and will also continue to assess the usefulness of data elements collected 

through required reporting to ensure that the program addresses both 

self-sufficiency and integration. HHS noted, for example, that it has 

already begun collecting more information about health through its annual 

survey of refugees and expanded the number of reporting elements 

pertaining to health in its program performance reporting form. In addition, 

it is developing approaches to increase the overall participation rates in its 

annual survey.

In its written comments, reproduced in appendix VII, State generally 

concurred with our recommendations and outlined steps it will take to 

address them. HHS and State also provided technical comments that 

were incorporated, 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 relevant congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary 

of State, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@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 VIII.

Kay E. Brown

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
 

Page 41 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

List of Requesters

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar

Ranking Member

Committee on Foreign Relations

United States Senate

The Honorable Patrick Leahy

Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

The Honorable Bob Corker

United States Senate

The Honorable Duncan Hunter

House of Representatives

The Honorable Gary C. Peters

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

To identify the factors resettlement agencies consider when deciding 

where refugees are initially placed, we reviewed relevant federal and 

state laws and regulations and other relevant documents, and conducted 

interviews with federal agency officials and national voluntary agency 

staff. We interviewed officials from the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau 

of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) and the Department of 

Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), as 

well as representatives from several national voluntary resettlement 

agencies. We also reviewed documents related to the refugee placement 

process, such as relevant federal and state laws and regulations, 

guidance for determining community capacity to resettle refugees, the 

terms of the cooperative agreements between PRM and national

voluntary agencies, and funding opportunity announcements for PRM’s 

Reception and Placement Program.

To understand the effects refugees have on their communities, we met 

with experts on refugee programs and conducted site visits to eight 

communities across the United States where we met with representatives 

from state and local government entities, voluntary agency affiliates, 

community-based organizations, local businesses, and other relevant 

individuals and groups, including refugees, professors from local 

universities, and a local church that provided assistance to refugees.1 For 

our site visits, we selected Boise, Idaho; Chicago, Illinois; Detroit, 

Michigan; Fargo, North Dakota; Knoxville, Tennessee; Lancaster, 

Pennsylvania; Owensboro, Kentucky; and Seattle, Washington.2

 

1 We did not meet with all of these groups in every community we visited.

These 

eight communities represent a nongeneralizable sample that was 

selected to include geographically distributed communities with variations 

in their population sizes, levels of experience resettling refugees, and 

racial and ethnic diversity. In addition to these factors, several 

communities were selected because they are considered examples of 

best practices in refugee resettlement by federal officials. All of the 

selected communities were receiving refugees at the time we visited. We

developed site selection criteria based on available literature that 

discussed factors that influence the impact of refugees on their respective 

communities and factors that either facilitate or hinder refugee integration. 

2 As part of our site visit to Chicago, we also met with city officials in Skokie, Illinois. Our 

visit to the Detroit area focused on the cities of Dearborn and Sterling Heights, Michigan. 

Our visit to Seattle included interviews with relevant groups in Kent, Washington. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

We used these criteria in combination with one another to arrive at a 

diverse set of communities with varying characteristics.

To assess the effectiveness and integrity of refugee resettlement 

programs, we interviewed federal agency officials, state coordinators, and 

local voluntary agencies. We also reviewed federal agencies’ monitoring 

plans, protocols and selected monitoring reports for the communities we 

visited. We reviewed the terms of the cooperative agreements between 

PRM and national voluntary agencies, as well as reporting guidance, 

sample performance reports, and performance measures federal 

agencies use to monitor their programs.

To determine what is known about refugees’ integration into the United 

States, we conducted a literature review of academic research on this 

topic. To identify relevant studies, we conducted searches of various 

databases including Academic OneFile, EconLit, Education Resources 

Information Center, National Technical Information Service, PAIS 

International, PASCAL, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Abstracts, 

Social Services Abstracts, Social SciSearch, Sociological Abstracts, and 

WorldCat. We conducted a search using the following criteria, which 

yielded 18 studies:

• Studies must address the integration of refugees into U.S. 

communities; 3

• Studies must have been published from 1995 to the present;

• Studies must be in English; and

• Studies must be scholarly, such as peer-reviewed journal articles.

We performed these searches and identified studies between August 

2011 and October 2011.

In addition, ORR officials provided us with an ORR-commissioned study 

of promising practices that appear to facilitate refugee integration, and 

this study met our selection criteria.

To assess the methodological quality of the 18 studies that met our 

selection criteria, we evaluated each study’s research methodology, 

including whether the study was original research, the reliability of the 

 

3 We excluded studies addressing refugees’ integration into the countries where they first 

sought asylum.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

data set, if applicable, and the study’s findings, assumptions, and 

limitations. We determined that 13 of the 18 studies were sufficiently 

reliable for our purposes. We then analyzed the findings of these 13 

studies.4

In addition to conducting a literature review, we met with officials from 

ORR and PRM to determine what, if any, efforts the federal government 

has to define, measure, or facilitate refugees’ integration into the United 

States. We discussed refugee integration in our interviews with state and 

local entities during our site visits. We also reviewed the ORR integration 

working group’s 2007 interim report and ORR’s annual reports to 

Congress.

We also obtained secondary migration data from ORR’s annual report. 

We assessed the reliability of this data by interviewing ORR officials 

knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purpose of background in this report.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2011 through July 2012 

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.

 

4 See appendix II for a list of the studies we included in our literature review.
Appendix II: Studies Included in Literature 

Review

Page 45 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Abu-Ghazaleh, F. “Immigrant Integration in Rural Communities: The Case 

of Morgan County.” National Civic Review, vol. 98, no. 1 (2009).

Birman, D., and N. Tran. “Psychological Distress and Adjustment of 

Vietnamese Refugees in the United States: Association with Pre- and 

Postmigration Factors.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 78, no. 

1 (2008).

Duchon, D. A. “Home Is Where You Make It: Hmong Refugees in 

Georgia.” Urban Anthropology, vol. 26, no. 1 (1997).

Franz, B. “Transplanted or Uprooted? Integration Efforts of Bosnian 

Refugees Based Upon Gender, Class and Ethnic Differences in New 

York City and Vienna.” The European Journal of Women’s Studies, vol. 

10, no. 2 (2003).

Grigoleit, G. “Coming Home? The Integration of Hmong Refugees from 

Wat Tham Krabok, Thailand, into American Society.” Hmong Studies 

Journal, vol. 7 (2006).

Hume, S.E., and S.W. Hardwick. “African, Russian, and Ukrainian 

Refugee Resettlement in Portland, Oregon.” The Geographical Review, 

vol. 95, no. 2 (2005).

ISED Solutions. Exploring Refugee Integration: Experiences in Four 

American Communities. A report prepared at the request of the 

Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee 

Resettlement. June 2010.

Ives, N. “More than a ‘Good Back’: Looking for Integration in Refugee 

Resettlement.” Refuge, vol. 24, no. 2 (2007).

Kenny, P., and K. Lockwood-Kenny. “A Mixed Blessing: Karen 

Resettlement to the United States.” Journal of Refugee Studies, vol. 24, 

no. 2 (2011).

Patil, C.L., M. McGown, P.D. Nahayo, and C. Hadley. “Forced Migration: 

Complexities in Food and Health for Refugees Resettled in the United 

States.” NAPA Bulletin, vol. 34, issue 1 (2010).

Appendix II: Studies Included in Literature 

Review
Appendix II: Studies Included in Literature 

Review

Page 46 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Shandy, D., and K. Fennelly. “A Comparison of the Integration 

Experiences of Two African Immigrant Populations in a Rural 

Community.” Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work, vol. 25, no. 

1 (2006).

Smith, R.S. “The Case of a City Where 1 in 6 Residents is a Refugee: 

Ecological Factors and Host Community Adaptation in Successful 

Resettlement.” American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 42, no. 

3-4 (2008).

Westermeyer, J.J. “Refugee Resettlement to the United States: 

Recommendations for a New Approach.” The Journal of Nervous and 

Mental Disease, vol. 199, no. 8 (2011).
Appendix III: 20 States with Largest Numbers 

of Refugees Arriving in FY 2011 and Refugees’ 

Countries of Origin

Page 47 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Appendix III: 20 States with Largest Numbers 

of Refugees Arriving in FY 2011 and 

Refugees’ Countries of Origin
Appendix IV: Selected PRM and ORR Grant 

Programs

Page 48 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Agency Grant Type Recipient Description

PRM Reception and 

Placement

Cooperative 

agreement 

National Voluntary 

Agencies

Provides financial support to partially cover resettlement 

services based on a fixed per capita sum per refugee 

resettled in the United States. Services include arranging 

for refugees’ placement and providing refugees with 

basic necessities and core services during their initial 

resettlement period. 

ORR Refugee Cash and 

Medical Assistance 

Formula States Reimburses states and alternative refugee assistance 

programs for the cost of cash and medical assistance 

provided to refugees

a

b during the first 8 months after their 

arrival in this country or grant of asylum. It does not 

provide reimbursement for refugees deemed eligible for 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental 

Security Insurance, and Medicaid. 

Voluntary Agency 

Matching Grant

Cooperative 

agreement

National Voluntary 

Agencies

Funds are provided on a matching basis to provide 

private, nonprofit organizations to fund an alternative to 

public cash assistance and to support case 

management, employment services, maintenance 

assistance, cash allowance, and social services for new 

arrivals for 4 to 6 months. 

Refugee Social 

Services 

Formula States Provides funding for employment and other social 

services to refugees for 5 years after their data of arrival 

or grant of asylum. 

Targeted Assistance 

Grant

Formula States Provides funding for employment-related and other 

social services for refugees in counties with large 

refugee populations and high refugee concentrations. 

Preventative Health Discretionary States and 

designated health 

agencies

Provides funds to provide medical screenings to newly 

arriving refugees, interpreter services, information and 

referral, and health education. 

Targeted Assistance 

Discretionary

Discretionary States Funds to states to implement special employment

services not implemented with formula social services 

grants. Provides funding for employment-related and 

other social services for refugees in counties with large 

refugee populations and high refugee concentrations. 

School Impact Discretionary States Provides funds to subcontract with local school systems 

and nonprofits to support local school systems that are 

impacted by significant numbers of newly arrived refugee 

children. 

Services to Older 

Refugees

Discretionary States Provide funds to ensure that older refugees will be linked 

to mainstream aging services in their communities or to 

provide services directly to older refugees if they are not 

currently being provided for in the community. 

Appendix IV: Selected PRM and ORR Grant 

Programs
Appendix IV: Selected PRM and ORR Grant 

Programs

Page 49 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Agency Grant Type Recipient Description

Preferred 

Communities 

Program 

Discretionary National voluntary 

agencies

The Preferred Communities Program supports the 

resettlement of newly arriving refugees with the best 

opportunities for their self-sufficiency and integration into 

new communities, and supports refugees with special 

needs that require more intensive case management, 

culturally and linguistically appropriate linkages and 

coordination with other service providers to improve their 

access to services.

Services for Survivors 

of Torture

Discretionary Nonprofit 

organizations, 

voluntary agencies, 

local governments

Provides funding for a comprehensive program of 

support for survivors of torture, including rehabilitation, 

social and legal services, and training for providers. 

Individual 

Development Account

Discretionary Nonprofit 

organizations, 

voluntary agencies, 

state and local 

governments

Funds projects to establish and manage Individual 

Development Accounts, which are matched savings 

accounts available for the purchase of specific assets. 

Matching funds, together with the refugee’s own savings, 

are available for purchasing one (or more) of four 

savings goals: home purchase; microenterprise 

capitalization; postsecondary education or training; and 

purchase of an automobile if necessary for employment 

or educational purposes.

Technical Assistance Discretionary—

Cooperative 

agreement

Nonprofit 

organizations, 

voluntary agencies

Grants to enable organizations with expertise in a 

particular area to provide assistance to ORR-funded 

agencies.

Microenterprise 

Development

Discretionary Nonprofit 

organizations, 

voluntary agencies, 

state and local 

governments

Provides funding to assist refugees to become financially 

independent by helping them develop capital resources 

and business expertise to start, expand, or strengthen 

their own businesses. Microenterprise projects typically 

include components of training and technical assistance 

in business skills and business management, credit 

assistance, and credit in the form of micro loans.

Refugee Agricultural 

Partnership

Discretionary Nonprofit 

organizations, 

voluntary agencies, 

state and local 

governments

Provides agricultural and food related resources and 

technical information to refugee families that are 

consistent with their agrarian backgrounds, and results in 

rural and urban farming projects that supports increased 

incomes, access to quality and familiar foods, better 

physical and mental health, and integration into this 

society.

Supplemental 

Services for Recently 

Arrived Refugees

Discretionary Nonprofit 

organizations, 

voluntary agencies, 

state and local 

governments

Provides funds to provide services to newly arriving 

refugees or sudden and unexpected large secondary 

migration of refugees where communities are not 

sufficiently prepared in terms of linguistic or culturally 

appropriate services and/or do not have sufficient 

service capacity. 

Ethnic Community 

Self-Help

Discretionary Nonprofit 

organizations 

Provides funds to support ethnic community based 

organizations in providing refugee populations with 

critical services to assist them in becoming integrated 

members of American society.

Sources: ORR annual report, ORR grant announcements, ORR program descriptions, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, and 

PRM grant announcements. ORR also funds additional programs for certain populations, including the Cuban Haitian Program, AntiTrafficking in Persons Program, and an Unaccompanied Alien Children Program.
Appendix IV: Selected PRM and ORR Grant 

Programs

Page 50 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

a

For the purposes of this table, states refers to state agencies, state alternative programs, and state 

replacement designees. State alternative programs include (1) the Wilson/Fish program, which gives 

states flexibility in how they provide assistance to refugees, including whether to administer 

assistance primarily through local voluntary agencies, and (2) the Public Private Partnership program, 

which allows states to partner with local voluntary agencies to provide assistance. State replacement 

designees are authorized by ORR to administer assistance to refugees when a state withdraws from 

all or part of the refugee program.

b

For the purposes of this table, refugees refers to refugees, certain Amerasians from Viet Nam, 

Cuban and Haitian entrants, asylees, victims of a severe form of trafficking, and Iraqi and Afghan 

Special Immigrants.
Appendix V: Status of Integration Working 

Group’s Recommendations to ORR

Page 51 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

In January 2007, ORR’s Integration Working Group made short-term and 

long-term recommendations regarding ways in which ORR could more 

fully support the integration process for refugees. 

Implemented In process

Not 

implemented

Short-term recommendations

Include integration language in all grant announcements. X 

Review discretionary grant programs offered in the standing announcement, 

ensuring that they promote integration.

X 

Establish the Department of Health and Human Services as the lead federal 

agency for integration.

X 

Consider expanding ORR’s discretionary programs. X 

Focus on integration in the areas of employment, English language 

acquisition, health, housing, and civic engagement.

X 

Focus technical assistance providers to support integration as an intentional 

process leading to civic engagement and citizenship.

X 

Seek and fund pilot programs such as the Building the New American 

Community project.

X 

Develop an initiative to support professional recertification and credentialing 

for qualified individuals.

X 

Long-term recommendations

Identify and share best practices through a survey of states, mutual aid 

associations, and voluntary agencies.

X 

Identify lessons learned, including case studies, from communities in which 

integration appears to be working well and where there are challenges.

X 

Study the effect of ORR policy and funding initiatives to promote integration 

over a three to five year period.

X 

Refine/develop/disseminate an action model to be used for other immigrants 

and marginalized populations.

X 

Seek broader collaboration with nonfederal entities such as private 

foundations, businesses, financial institutions, and the United Way.

X 

Sources: Report of the Integration Working Group, January 2007, and information provided by ORR.

Appendix V: Status of Integration Working 

Group’s Recommendations to ORR
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 52 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

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

of Health and Human Services

Page 53 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 54 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services

Page 55 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 56 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Appendix VII: Comments from the 

Department of State
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 57 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 58 GAO-12-729 Refugee Resettlement

Kay E. Brown (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Kathryn Larin, Assistant Director; 

Cheri Harrington and Lara Laufer, Analysts-in-Charge; James Bennett; 

David Chrisinger; Caitlin Croake; Bonnie Doty; Ashley McCall; Jean 

McSween; James Rebbe; and Carla Rojas made key contributions to this 

report. Sharon Hermes, Margaret Weber, and Amber Yancey Carroll 

verified our findings.

Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(131095)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.