America has a long history of providing safe haven and opportunities to those persons of other nations who seek to improve their lives. Immigrants who apply for admittance based on family ties or occupational skills constitute the largest share of newcomers and numbered over 900,000 in 1994. Refugees, limited in numbers by federal quotas, seek to escape religious, social, political, or racial persecution, and are entitled to cash and medical assistance, social services, and preventive health care. Their common desire is for a better life . . . but at what cost? At a time of federal cutbacks and budgetary crises among the states and the federal government, the assimilation of increasing numbers of foreign-born individuals into American culture demands innovative and practical public policy.

While professing a moral obligation to provide funds to the states to aid refugees and certain legalized aliens, previous federal administration policies ran counter to stated intentions. States have experienced drastic cuts in funding while the federal government continues to allow more individuals to enter the country each year. Not only are services more expensive today, but the variety of services needed by foreign-born individuals has also expanded. As recently ·as 1993, proposed federal budget cuts for refugee program funding was halved -- from $410 million to $227 million -- on top of already reduced spending. Although federal law mandates 100 percent reimbursement to state for mandated services in some categories, assistance has been provided only "to the extent of available appropriations." This insufficiency has translated into severe reductions to state resettlement units and states are making up the difference.

The states are addressing assimilation problems by providing bilingual staff and information about services, educating about daily living and work skills, treating mental stress and illness which result, in many cases, from the acculturation process, and diagnosing and treating diseases. The needs are great and the waiting list for services often lengthy. The extent of a client's success in any given program can be directly linked to mutual understanding, agreement, and the realization that the interpretation of any given situation, no matter how minor, is shaded by ethnic background. States must emphasize multiculturalism, which is the ability to recognize, understand, and appreciate cultures other than one's own. It is only when differences are ignored that intolerance flourishes.

The Joint Subcommittee Studying the Needs of Foreign-Born Individuals in the Commonwealth has, over the four years of its work, addressed certain major issues which fall under the control of state agencies, including education, literacy, health, social programs, daily living skills, and information. Recommendations were:

Literacy and comprehension

• Many state agencies currently print some publications in at least one other language, usually Spanish. With the influx of immigrants from a variety of other countries in recent years, the need for publication in other languages is increasing, especially in the Northern Virginia area. While the state must be cognizant of costs, agencies may need to reevaluate the need for alternative language publications on a local or regional basis. The goal is to help immigrants understand important information the first time it is presented. A letter requesting an evaluation of this proposal was sent to the Secretary of Administration by the Chairman of the Subcommittee.

• State statute (§ 22.1-253.13:4) currently requires all students to pass the Literacy Passport test prior to being classified as ninth graders. To fail to do so would delay classification and prohibit students from participating in a number of activities. Handicapped students are exempted as long as they are progressing according to their individualized education programs. The Joint Subcommittee, while endorsing the concept of literacy attainment, expressed concern that new students for whom English is a second language might need additional leeway in passing the test prior to the ninth grade. In many instances, participation in school scholastic and social organizations might be more conducive to learning English. The 1993 Session of the General Assembly adopted legislation, House Bill No. 1926, which created a window of opportunity for those students by delaying the requirements of the Literacy Passport. The legislation had a one-year sunset, but that was removed by the 1994 General Assembly. (Copies of the bills are attached.)

• Underlying all of the issues which were brought to the attention of the Joint Subcommittee and constituting the greatest barrier to the success of every foreign-born individual living in the U.S. is the lack of literacy in the English language. Without this skill, efforts to find work and succeed at daily living are limited at best. Inability to converse, read instructions. use public transportation, and other necessary skills hinders the upward mobility of any individual. Currently, English as a Second Language (ESL) classes are offered in most, if not all localities, but demand far outweighs supply. To compound this issue, supply is often provided in a time-limited fashion which does not allow for true competency. In 1992, approximately $74 million additional dollars were designated to go to ESL programs in the localities, but anecdotal information provided indicated that some localities may have reduced local spending which was above their required contribution in their programs and therefore the additional funds supplanted rather than supplemented local efforts. The Joint Subcommittee felt that this is a crucial area of concern, but given the current financial status of the state budget. any action would have to be considered at a later date.

• The Department of Motor Vehicles is probably one agency with which most individuals will come into physical contact at some point in time. DMV has and continues to initiate programs, some at the behest of the Subcommittee, to (i) provide sensitivity training for employees, (ii) encourage the employment of bilingual staff: (iii) solicit comment from the public, (iv) further expand the multi-lingual publication of vital information, (v) develop a community advisory group, (vi) develop policies for document verification and other needs which are clear, consistent, and understandable, and (v) implement the Cultural Outreach Program to identify and establish agency policy for responding to the needs of non-English speaking customers.

Assuring a fair trial

• Court interpreters for non-English speaking persons are provided in Virginia courts for criminal, but not civil, actions. The subcommittee indicated an interest in expanding this provision since the basis for the provision of interpreters is based on the concept that while a potential loss of liberty would justify such an expense, the loss of home or children should be considered to be equally as dire consequences. The subcommittee reviewed some of the problems, other than cost, inherent in such a program and introduced a resolution in the 1993 Session to request the Judicial Council to study and make recommendations about the implementation of such a system. The resolution remained in the Rules Committee as a result of time constraints during the session, but was reintroduced in 1994 and passed. (Copies of the resolutions and the executive summary of the report of the Council are attached.)

• During 1994 and 1995, the Judicial Council of the Supreme Court of Virginia continued to examine the issues surrounding the use of interpreters in courts. As a result of its findings about the quality of interpreter work being done in the Commonwealth, it developed a certification program for use by the state in selecting qualified interpreters. Testing was done for the first time during the fall of 1995. The Court hopes to continue this program in such a way as to provide assistance to those persons who want to be certified as a court translator, to continue to provide testing, and to operate the program in a cost efficient manner so as to not increase the costs to the state or to litigants. The subcommittee supported these recommendations.

In addition, the joint subcommittee supported the passage of House Bill No. 1467, 1996, which adds permissive language, similar to language for criminal cases, to allow the court to appoint language interpreters for civil cases in which a non-English speaking person is a party or witness. To the extent of available appropriations, compensation for such interpreters may be paid from the general fund, but may be assessed against either party as a cost of the case. Interpretations in such cases would be protected if the communications would be considered privileged. Item 29 (E) of the 1996 Appropriations Act designated a maximum of $73,000 per year to implement the provisions of this bill in the 19th Judicial Circuit and District, to be used as a pilot project.

• One additional issue with court interpreters is the payment by the state. Currently, the Supreme Court reimburses localities by a preset amount for interpreters in criminal cases, but many localities and judges, especially in Northern Virginia, feel that this process is inefficient and more expensive than it need be. As a result, the Supreme Court agreed to work with a Northern Virginia locality to develop a pilot project whereby funds approximating the amounts currently being expended by the country for interpreters would be paid to the county in a lump-sum fashion. With these funds, the county can experiment with hiring translators on a full-time basis, rather than for each case, who would be available on a daily basis. These full-time translators might also be available to other county agencies who may have need of translators for the conduct of their business. The pilot program is currently limited to criminal cases in courts since costs can be approximated on historical data.

Health

• During the course of the study, the Joint Subcommittee heard a great deal of testimony about the health needs of the foreign-born. Many immigrants bring serious health problems with them, resulting from lack of information about personal health care, lack of immunizations, or susceptibility to diseases which were heretofore thought to be eradicated in the U.S. Compounding these problems is the lack of English proficiency and various religious and cultural differences which make treatment difficult or impossible. To begin resolution of some of these problems, the Joint Subcommittee recommended the prioritization of various health functions, most of which are labor-intensive, which would begin to address many of the identified health needs. Among these were clinic support and public outreach to provide information, public contact, and treatment; multi-lingual support personnel; environmental health specialists to restore inspections of restaurants, migrant labor camps, and shellfish quality; and funding of outreach workers under the Center for Disease Control Refugee Grant to expand standardized screenings for communicable diseases and comprehensive health assessments for refugees. In 1993, the total request was $409,334 and 27 FTE's.

• One of the key health issues centers around the lack of health professionals who either represent a minority ethnic group or who speak the language of a cultural minority. The ability to understand the language as well as the cultural nuances is crucial in the provision of care. As a result, the Board of Health Professions conducted a study to review the reciprocity procedures in credentialing health professionals and potential programs to help acclimate foreign-born professionals so that they could receive accreditation to practice in this country. The initial report found that there is a need to address this issue. but given the new push for health care reform by the federal government and the jurisdiction of the Joint Commission on Health Care, the report recommended and the Subcommittee concurred that the issue would best be studied in a comprehensive manner by the Joint Commission on Health Care.

• In addition, legislation was offered to counteract the serious problem of treating patients with active tuberculosis who refuse medical treatment, especially in the highly populated areas of the state. In conjunction with the AIDS Legislative Subcommittee, legislation was offered and passed which would provide for the temporary detention of those individuals who have demonstrated a lack of willingness to be treated for TB. While providing legal protection for the individual, this legislation allows health officials an opportunity to place the individual in treatment and remove him from situations in which others could be contaminated. (A copy of HB 2391, 1993 is attached.)

Interaction with the federal government

• The federal Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Child and Families Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) proposed to implement a private resettlement program (PRP) to begin January I, 1993. Under this program states would no longer administer Refugee Cash and Medical Assistance. Instead, a program of Transitional Cash Assistance (TCA) would be administered by public and private nonprofit agencies which have access to the targeted newly-arrived refugees. Grants would be made on a competitive basis and amounts based on a per capita amount determined by ORR. Only refugees who are ineligible for AFDC or SSI were targeted to receive TCA. The PRP would have also provided for case management and employment services for new arrivals. States would continue to administer the Unaccompanied Minors Program, Targeted Assistance Program, and Refugee Social Services Program. This concept is similar to the Oregon state program. Great concern was expressed by all states because the program appeared to begin with short notice and little planning. After a campaign by the states, in which this Joint Subcommittee participated, the plan was enjoined by the courts and put on hold until further consideration by a new federal administration. (Copy of the letter from the Joint Subcommittee is attached.)

Migrant workers in the Commonwealth

• During the course of this study, issues were raised about migrant workers on whom the state depends in many agricultural areas, especially in the Shenandoah Valley and the Eastern Shore. Although tangential to this study, the Joint Subcommittee felt that certain issues were critical and may need further attention. The Subcommittee did recommend that (i) state safety and health code boards examine field sanitation issues for those farms employing ten and fewer migrant workers who are not currently covered in regulations, (ii) the Department of Health add a check-off on its biweekly inspections of migrant camps to ensure the proper posting of informational signs for workers, and (iii) the Joint Housing Commission review and update its report on migrant housing.

Continuing Oversight

• After spending two years evaluating the plight of the foreign-born and the impact of immigration on the Commonwealth, the Joint Subcommittee unanimously concluded that the issue was too broad and complex for a part-time legislative body. While recommending general policy guidelines was clearly in the purview of the Joint Subcommittee, overview of the daily operation of the state agencies which deal with immigrant issues was not its desire. Demonstrated clearly during the study was the overlap and possible duplication of efforts by various state agencies to implement consistent and productive policy with regard to the foreign-born population. Therefore, the Joint Subcommittee endorsed the idea of requesting the Governor, by executive order, to organize an interagency policy committee on immigrant and refugee issues to be comprised of the individuals in state agencies who currently deal with the provision of services on a daily basis. The resolution cited the great needs of this population and the necessity for streamlining services to better serve them. The intent was to develop a working relationship between all agencies of state government to better serve this population in a responsible fashion. The 1994 resolution met opposition and was stricken from the House docket. (Copy of the resolution is attached.)