Trouble with “the System”
As you know (if you’ve read previous posts), our two linked refugee families decided to split up nearly two months ago. Then about a month ago, we finished moving the second of the two into a new apartment.
It sounds like that should have been the end of the difficulties. From the perspective of the two families this has been a major relief. There are no quarrels, no ongoing relationship problems. Fantastic!
But there is a problem with “the System,” in this case, one small part of public assistance…
Since refugees families arrive with no income we immediately apply for a food card. This card, like older food stamps, provides the family with a credit for some of their groceries each month. This helps keep their expenses under control while we search for employment.
(For those who read this and say, “see refugee resettlement does raise my taxes,” slow down. Yes, we use this benefit. Please keep in mind that within a few months, most of our refugees are off of assistance and are paying taxes like the rest of us. They are net contributors into the system, not a burden upon the system. Part of the reason we can achieve such great results is that some assistance is available when they first arrive.)
Anyway, back to the story… With this two-family resettlement we learned an interesting thing about food assistance. When the question was raised, “do they eat together?” we answered yes. After all, they shared the same house. Well, an affirmative answer meant they would get a single food card. Ooh, big mistake. (In retrospect we understand they didn’t even like each other so there’s no way they were eating together. They weren’t even sharing food.)
So a single food card for two families created some of the tension they experienced while sharing the same house. “So and so spent too much money on that.” “I want my own card.” “How come he gets to carry the card and I don’t?” Blah, blah, blah…
Nearly two months ago the families separated. It sounds like it should be a simple task to get two food cards. But, it is not.
Initially when the first family moved out, we took them grocery shopping to use up “their share” of the food card, stocking their shelves. It was the middle of the October and they would not get a new card until the beginning of November.
Then November arrived, still only a single food card, rechared for two families. Now we had to share it. We packed up the family living near us, drove them to the family living 25 miles away, and took them all grocery shopping.
But since it is a new month, the single vs. two card scenario could be worked out, by those state employees who work out such issues.
Fast forward to early December. The original food card is replenished with about half the original amount. This represents the assistance for the family that moved to Milwaukee. At least they could just continue using the old card. That allows one family to eat. We just had to get the card into the hands of the right family.
The bigger problem arose with the family that stayed in Waukesha. Apparently, though the process was slow, the notice of the new card was mailed, and then followed up shortly by the mailing of the card. But by the end of the first week of December it had not arrived. And there was no one to question, because all associated state employees were, apparently, out of the office.
Then early this week, voice contact was once again established! We learned that the card had, indeed, been mailed. BUT, since forwarding a food card to a new address is somehow illegal, the postal service returned it to sender. (What, no one ever moves?)
The card was therefore cancelled, and no one was notified. Nice, huh?
So we start the process once again. It’s now the end of the second week in December and our family does not have their food assistance yet. Their cash is low. Our team’s funds are gone. We’re relying on individual donations at the moment.
We’ve learned a lot with this particular resettlement case. After a number of very successful resettlements, this double case has been more than double effort. At first it seemed logical to handle two related families, as if we could “kill two birds with one stone.” We deviated from our proven model and it’s costing us extra time, extra money, and risking burnout of team members.
It’s the burnout that is the worst part of all. It means little bumps in the road, which are a normal course of resettlement, seem much bigger. Stress goes up and there is reluctance to continue. A burned out team does not jump back in to take on another case. It means our future effectiveness may also be negatively impacted.
[…] Kirk’s entry on December 11th reports some bureaucratic snafus that have given them a “bump in the road.” It involves […]