Detailed Information on the
Humanitarian Migrants to Israel Assessment

The President's FY 2009 request reflects current needs. PRM will meet with the United Israel Appeal to determine appropriate funding levels for out-years.

The President's FY 2009 request reflects current needs. PRM will meet with the United Israel Appeal to determine appropriate funding levels for out-years.

The Administration will work to further strengthen long-term and annual measures for this program.

The 2008 budget request includes the same level of funding as 2007 in order to support the continued movement of Ethiopians to Israel.

Measure: Average cost per migrant. Goal is to reduce time migrants stay at absorption centers, thereby reducing cost.

Explanation:

Measure: The percentage of Ethiopian humanitarian migrant households that leave absorption centers within a period of 24 months, where Ethiopian humanitarian migrants represent the most vulnerable sub-group under the program.

Explanation:Humanitarian migrants become self-sufficient members of Israeli society within the two years of grant support.

Measure: Percentage of humanitarian migrants receive mandatory services and percentage who are satisfied with these services. (Mandatory services include a plane ticket and pre-depature counseling.)

Explanation:Availability and quality of mandatory services to eligible humanitarian migrants. Mandatory services are defined as care and processing en route, transport to Israel, and relocation allowance.

Measure: Humanitarian migrants are provided with effective Hebrew language training.

Explanation:Enable Hebrew language participants to advance a full learning level. Target measures percentage of trainees from Newly Independent States (NIS) that advance a full grade level in five months and the percentage of trainees from Ethiopia that advance a full grade level in ten months. In (A B), A represents language trainees from NIS and B represents trainees from Ethiopia.

Measure: Percentage of high school students under the program who earn a matriculation certificate upon completion of the program.

Explanation:Unaccompanied minors participating in the program are expected to matriculate from high school. The Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Immigration and Absorption have collaborated with UIA and JAFI on setting a target of 80%.

Measure: Humanitarian migrants learn vocational skills that aid their employment in Israel (measured by percentage of Ethiopians completing vocational training).

Explanation:Humanitarian migrants to Israel are provided with effective vocational training.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the program can be stated clearly, "to provide assistance for the resettlement in Israel of humanitarian migrants from the former Soviet Union, countries in Eastern Europe, Africa and the Near East, and other countries of distress."

Evidence: a. United Israel Appeal Proposal for 2004 b. Federal Assistance Award to UIA for 2004 c. Policy and Program Review Committee: FY2004 Regional Policy Paper and Implementation Plan for the Grant to the United Israel Appeal d. Report of United Israel Appeal for the Period Ending March 30, 2003 e. Report of United Israel Appeal for the Period Ending September 30, 2003 f. Foreign Operations Act, FY2004 (PL108-7) g. FY2004 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act Conference Report Language h. FY2005 Bureau Performance Plan Goal Paper

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: Despite significant declines in migrant numbers since 1991, there continues to be a need for this program because Jews in many countries of the former Soviet Union (FSU), countries in Eastern Europe, Africa and the Near East, and other countries of distress continue to face anti-Semitism and risks to their safety. This program allows resettlement to Israel and the relative safety of an environment where their religion and ethnicity are in the majority.

Evidence: a. United Israel Appeal Immigration and Funding Chart b. (I.1.a), c. (I.1.c), d. (I.1.d), e. (I.1.e), f. (I.1.f)

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: There are no other Federal, state or local programs that are similar to this program. The U.S. contribution is one piece of the overall program of the Jewish Agency for Israel, the only organization with a resettlement program in Israel. Since JAFI also receives other contributions, the Federal contribution is not necessarily "unique," however, neither is it redundant nor duplicative.

Evidence: a. (I.1.a) b. (I.1.b) c. (I.1.c) d. (I.1.d) e. (I.1.e) f. (I.1.f) g. (I.1.g)

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Yearly monitoring and periodic evaluations have shown that the program is meeting its goal of integrating new immigrants into Israeli society and has no major flaws that limit effectiveness.

Evidence: a. (I.1.a) b. (I.1.b) c. (I.1.c) d. (I.1.f)

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Program beneficiaries are identified through a network of over 30 offices in countries of distress and Israel. Participation in this program is voluntary and outreach is designed to inform prospective immigrants of the types of support available from the grant. Screening is conducted by professional staff throughout the countries of distress to ensure persons qualify for the right to emigrate to Israel with program support. Program staff in Israel conduct vigorous monitoring of new immigrants to ensure assistance reaches immigrants within the context of the program.

Evidence: a. (I.1.a) b. (I.1.b) c. (I.1.c) d. (I.1.d) e. (I.1.e)

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program goal focuses on outcomes and meaningfully reflects the purpose of the program. The program's long term goal is: Humanitarian migrants become self-sufficient members of Israeli society within the two years of grant support. While the program seeks to achieve this goal for all humanitarian migrants, measure of the program's long-term goal of self-sufficiency centers on Ethiopian migrants, who are by far the most vulnerable sub-group of humanitarian migrants and serve as a marker for the program's progress as a whole.

Evidence: a. (I.1.a) b. (I.1.b) c. (I.1.c) d. (I.1.d) e. (I.1.e)

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program's goal is to accomplish its mission of integrating immigrants into Israeli society within a two-year period from arrival in Israel. Many immigrants arrive with little or no Hebrew language skills and without support mechanisms in Israel. The program's targets to reduce the length of stay in transitional housing, increase the level of language learning, and achieve high levels of vocational training are ambitious in both scope and the level of achievement. In particular, the reduction in the time spent in absorption centers indicates an improved programmatic capacity to integrate humanitarian migrants and transfer skills to migrants needed to achieve self-sufficiency. The program has targeted a 2% reduction in time/cost per annum through FY 2007 for the average stay of humanitarian migrants from different demographic groups.

Evidence: a. (I.1.a) b. (I.1.b) c. (I.1.c) d. (I.1.f)

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program has short-term goals (STGs) for five of the six services components funded by the grant. These STGs were finalized between State Department and UIA at the end of the 2003 grant year. These STGs support the long-term goal. STG 1: Maintain or reduce migrants' average stay in absorption centers STG 2: All migrants are provided mandatory services and are satisfied with these services. STG 3: Enable Hebrew language participants to advance a full learning level STG 4: High school students under the program earn a matriculation certificate upon completion of the program. STG 5: Humanitarian migrants learn vocational skills that aid them to secure employment in Israel. All of the short-term annual goals support the long-term goal of migrants achieving self-sufficiency within a two-year period.

Evidence: a. (I.1.a) c. (I.1.c) d. (I.1.d) e. (I.1.e)

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program includes both baselines and ambitious targets that continue to be developed with new performance measures. The institution of quantitative data is a recent development for UIA, owing in large measure to the PART process. As more data becomes available with the tracking of these indicators, PRM and UIA will collaborate closely to establish future targets that encourage improved performance and results.

Evidence: a. (I.1.a) b. (I.1.b) c. (I.1.d) d. (I.1.e) e. (I.1.h)

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The grant agreement and final report for grant year 2003 include the long and short-term goals and indicators to measure performance. The work done over the past two years by the grantee and the USG to set these goals and measures, regular monitoring visits, communications on grantee performance, and annual reporting indicate that all partners are committed to program goals.

Evidence: a. (I.1.a) b. (I.1.b) c. (I.1.c) d. (I.1.d) e. (I.1.e)

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: During grant year 2003 UIA commissioned an independent evaluation of program areas A-1, A-2, and A-3. A leading, independent consulting firm in Israel was engaged to survey recent arrivals and measure their satisfaction with services provided under these three program areas. Results of the survey are given in the 2003 final report and are being used to establish baselines, targets and institute program improvements. UIA has agreed to conduct this independent evaluation annually and expand its scope to other program areas. The program is considering expanding this survey to cover STG 4, 5, and 7 in the future. The State Department's IG released a comprehensive report in 1995 which highlighted management issues and made recommendations for improvement. PRM instituted a number of management changes in response to these recommendations.

Evidence: a. (II.5.a.) U.S. Department of State, Office of Inspector General, Report of Audit: Refugee Assistance: Grant Agreement Between the U.S. Government and the United Israel Appeal, Inc. (February 1995) b. (II.5.b.) Interim Report: Status of Compliance with the OIG Audit of the Grant to the United Israel Appeal (July 1996) c. (I.1.e.) d (II.5.c.) Selection of findings from survey

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Budget requests correspond directly to each of the program areas and their associated goals. Resource needs, including those covered by non-USG funding, are delineated in the grant proposal and USG assistance award. Adjustments in budgeting between program areas (A-1 through A-7) have been made over the past two years to reflect greater focus on vocational training for less-advantaged immigrants and the reductions in overall migration supported by the grant. UIA now incorporates PART and its related measures into their requests and reporting, more clearly linking performance against mutually established goals and requests for funding. PRM's budget request reflects a specific level of burden sharing among international donors, which attempt to provide consistent resources to UIA to achieve performance goals in each of the program areas. However, the State Department's budget request for this program does not directly link resources to performance goals.

Evidence: a. (I.1.a) b. (I.1.b) c. (I.1.d) d. (I.1.e)

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Over the past three years PRM has worked with UIA to set performance measurements for each facet of the program and now includes these requirements in the grant. Performance measures developed by UIA and PRM program managers are used in the program's monitoring and evaluation, ensuring that program resources are more effectively allocated to address program deficiencies and directing the program's continued development. Inculcation of these management tools is demonstrated in the program's proposals and reporting, which directly reference PART measurement indicators. PRM staff work regularly with UIA to further develop these monitoring and evaluation tools in response to completed objectives and program needs. Further, PRM instituted and conducts regular monitoring visits to UIA offices and programs in sending countries as well as in Israel.

Evidence: a. (II.7.a) United Israel Appeal Proposal for 2003 b. (II.7.b.) Federal Assistance Award to UIA for 2003 c. (II.7.c.) Policy and Program Review Committee: FY2003 Regional Policy Paper and Implementation Plan for the Grant to the United Israel Appeal d. (II.7.d) UIA Monitoring Trip Report of February 17-19, 2004 e. (II.7.e.) PRM to UIA Correspondence of February 23, 2004 f. (I.1.a) g. (I.1.b) h. (I.1.c) i. (I.1.d) j. (I.1.e)

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Performance goals and indicators were finalized for each of the six program areas at the end of grant year 2003 and are being used by grant managers to improve performance. In one example, a survey of recent arrivals indicated 5% of migrants did not know they had received their relocation allowance. UIA is following up to ensure the allowance was received and to improve information going to migrants to ensure they fully understand program benefits. A February 2004 monitoring trip by the Federal manager collected current performance information that is being used to strengthen program reporting and improve performance.

Evidence: a. (I.1.a) b. (I.1.b) c. (I.1.c) d. (I.1.d) e. (I.1.e) f. (II.7.d.) g. ( II.7.e.)

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Program managers at the State Department are rated on their ability to seek results from partners. The Bureau has worked closely with the United Israel Appeal to institute financial and accounting reforms to the grant and formulate performance measures in the grant agreement. There would be a negative impact (less funding) on the UIA for poor performance or high costs. In addition, the program partner evaluates its staff based on their efforts to achieve goals.

Evidence: a. Job Elements, b. Supervisory Foreign Affairs Officer Paper c. (I.1.a) d. (I.1.b) e. (I.1.c) f. (I.1.d) g. (I.1.e) h. (I.1.h.)

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funds are obligated soon after the appropriations bill is enacted. The United Israel Appeal submits twice-yearly reports on the U.S. grant and also has a compliance audit conducted yearly. These documents show that funds are being spent for the intended purpose.

Evidence: a. (I.1.b) b. (I.1.d) c. (I.1.e) d. (II.7.b.) e. (II.7.c.)

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program has procedures in place to measure and achieve efficiencies in new migrant housing and language learning. The program's efficiency measure is "the reduction in time migrants from the former Sovient Union (FSU) stay at absorption centers, thereby reducing costs." In 2003 the average stay in an absorption center (migrant housing) for FSU migrants was 183.3 days at a cost of $2,487. In 2004 UIA will reduce costs by at least 2% to $2,437 by facilitating earlier movement for FSU migrants from UIA funded housing to permanent housing supplied outside of the program. Midway through FY 2004, UIA reports average costs have been reduced by 2.95%. An additional 2% cost reduction is planned for FY2005 for migrants from the FSU. Also, while holding language learning costs constant at $18/trainee/month for 2003-2005, the percentage of Hebrew language trainees from the FSU or who advance a learning level in 2005 is expected to increase 6% and for Ethiopian trainees by 8% in 2004.

Evidence: a. (I.1.a) b. (I.1.b) c. (I.1.h)

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: There are no similar government or private programs.

Evidence:  

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: UIA uses an independent auditor to establish appropriate costs for the A-4 and A-5 components of this program. UIA also conducts an independent audit of the US grant on an annual basis. PRM's Comptroller reviews UIA's quarterly Federal Cash Transaction reports, biannual grant reports, and OMB Circular A-133 audit reports to ensure compliance with the terms of the agreement.

Evidence: a. Federal Cash Transaction Reports from UIA (SF 272) b. UIA Audit Report June 30, 2003 (OMB Circular A-133) c. (I.1.a) d. ( I.1.b.) e. (I.1.d) f. (I.1.e)

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Over the past three years PRM has worked with UIA to set performance measurements for each facet of the program and now includes these requirements in the grant. PRM instituted and conducts regular monitoring visits to UIA offices and programs in sending countries as well as in Israel. Based on the results of the comprehensive OIG audit and regular internal reviews, PRM has taken many steps to institute strategic planning and management improvements, including establishing a per capita cost factor for programs A-1, A-2, and A-3, abolishing the shipment of personal effects, setting time limits on provision of housing and training and informing participants of the mandatory services they are entitled to and upon their receipt.

Evidence: a. (I.1.a) b. (I.1.b.) c. (I.1.c.) d. (I.1.d.) e. (I.1.e.) f. (II.5.a.) g. (II.5.b) h. (II.7.d.) i. (II.7.e.)

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: PRM program officers complete a week-long, standardized monitoring and evaluation course to enhance review capacity and contribute to strong program oversight. The grant agreement requires two general reports and a number of program-specific reports. These reports provide information as to how U.S. funds are being spent and how quickly. The reports also provide data on how well the programs are working (vs. the baseline established in the grant agreement). Grant-specific site visits are conducted once a year, however, the Refugee Coordinator in Amman and other Bureau staff also conduct site visits when time permits or travel brings them to the region.

Evidence: a. (I.1.a) b. (I.1.b) c. (I.1.c) d. (I.1.d) e. (I.1.e) f. (II.7.b) g. (II.7.c) h. (II.7.d) i. (II.7.e) j. PRM M&E Supplementary Explanation (5/26/04)

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The Department of State collects performance data from the United Israel Appeals bi-annual reports and monitoring visits. UIA reports are posted on the PRM public access web site.

Evidence: a. State Department/PRM web site (www.state.gov/g/prm)

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: UIA and PRM have effectively established a measure for the long-term goal in FY 2004. Data from past years, to be used as the baseline for future targets, shows significant progress in achieving the long-term goal. For Ethiopian migrants, the percentage of households leaving absorption centers in 24 months has increased from 0.1% in 2002, to 4.8% in 2003, and to 12.4% in 2004, a significant gain. Even more impressive, the percentage of households that leave absorption centers in 24 months for migrants from the FSU has increased from 0.1% in 2002 to 13.1% in 2003, and to 63.8% in 2004. Performance against annual targets in 2003 also demonstrates that the program is meeting its long-term goal of integration and self-sufficiency in a two-year period. Humanitarian migrants continue to receive all of the mandatory services that they are entitled to and the program consistently achieves its targets for high school or equivalency matriculation and vocational training completion rates.

Evidence: a. (I.1.b) b. (I.1.h)

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: In FY 2003, the program was developing baselines and targets for its annual goals. Since then, the program has met or exceeded FY 2003 targets for most of these and is on target to achieve all FY 2004 annual goals. STG 1: Absorption stay ' In FY 2004 the program has achieved a 2.95% avg. time/cost reduction. STG 2: Services ' In FY 2003, 100% of migrants received all mandatory services, satisfaction ranged from 87%-91%. STG 3: Language ' In FY 2002, 94% of 17,000 participants advanced a full grade level. Disaggregated data for FY 2004 is expected 06/04; informal reporting indicates the program is on target. STG 4: High school ' 83% average matriculation rate in FY 2002-2003, against 80% goal; 86% expected in FY 2004. STG 5: Vocations' 97% and 96% completed % pre-vocational training respectively. In FY 2004, 93% completed vocational training programs overall. STG 6: Measurable goals ' In FY 2004, the grant agreement was finalized with measurable objectives for each project.

Evidence: a. (I.1.d) b. (I.1.e) c. GSAR 2004 d. Appendix to GSAR 2004

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Cost effective procedures were put into place to limit grant spending for transitional housing and training and efficiencies have been achieved by purchasing of bulk airline tickets for migrant travel and by paying a relocation allowance in lieu of the shipment of personal effects. In developing its new efficiency measure, UIA recently set targets to further decrease housing costs for migrants by 2% in 2004 and another 2% in 2005. UIA is on track to achieving its FY 2004 goal of a 2% cost reduction. UIA has also set targets to accelerate Hebrew language learning while holding costs steady, and is on track to doing so, with 6% more Ethiopian language trainees anticipated to advance a full grade level than did so in FY 2003.

Evidence: a. (I.1.d.) b. (I.1.e.) c. (II.7.a) d. (II.7.b) e. (II.7.c.)

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are no similar government or private programs.

Evidence:  

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: In FY 2003 UIA commissioned an independent consulting firm to evaluate of program areas A-1, A-2, and A-3. Survey results showed that over 87% of program beneficiaries were satisfied with program services. PRM monitoring confirms that the program is reaching migrant beneficiaries. The survey indicates that the quality of services provided under A-1, A-2, and A-3 is sufficient to meet the satisfaction and expectations of humanitarian migrants. Pre-departure services, transportation, and the relocation allowances all contribute to enabling migrants to assimilate and live a life of dignity in Israel, which the overall program goal. The fact that migrants are on the whole satisfied with services provided by the program, supports other evidence that the program is achieving its intended results. From FY 2004 and onwards, the survey will cover all program areas.

Evidence: a. (I.1.e.) b. (I.1.h.) c. (II.5.a) d. (II.5.b.) e. (II.5.c.) f. (II.7.d.) g. (II.7.e.)