Speech #910319024

organization at the staff level includes civilian personnel whose salaries are paid by USAID/VN. Its responsibilities for management of the refugee relief and social welfare programs in the field are performed. as are all CORDS functions. through the individual region. province. and district CORDS organization. As of January 1. 1970. all four regional headquarters had individual staff positions authorized to provide relief assistance. and three had authorized positions to provide social welfare assistance. At the province level refugee advisors may be performIng various functions including refugee relief and possibly social welfare functions. CORDS district personnel were responsible. in general. for all CORDS functions. including social welfare and refugee matters. In effect. the regional headquarters has both command and technical jurisdiction over social welfare matters in the field. It should be noted. however. that the GVN administers the programs. and that program improvements are dependent on GVN actions and the emphasis they give to U.S. advisers suggestions. GVN organization for refugee relief and social welfare Refugee relief was included In the Ministry of Social Welfare until a Special Commissariat for Refugees was established in February 1966. In November 1967 the Commissariat was merged again with the Ministry of Social Welfare. and in 1968 the health program was added to form the Ministry of Health. Social Welfare. and Relief. Separate Ministries were established in 1969 and. as of August 1970. refugee relief and social welfare activities were the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Welfare. Social welfare is a relatively new responsibility for the GVN. Traditionally such services were provided to needy individuals by large. tightlyknit groupings of several generations of relatives. The war. however. caused burdens which exceeded the capability of the family groups and required the GVNs assistance. Social welfare includes preventive and rehabilitation programs designed to benefit the Vietnamese population. in general. including community centers. day care centers. vocational rehabilitation. orphanages. homes for the aged. juvenile delinquency assistance. and disaster relief. Because of the war. most Ministry of Social Welfare programs have been directed toward relief and emergency assistance to war victims who include refugees. widows. orphans. the physically disabled. and the economically handicapped. Among the war victims the refugees have received the most attention from the GVN and the United States. According to CORDS. the progress made during 1969 is dealing with the refugee problem will enable the GVN to direct more attention to the other categories of war victims and longrange social development programs. Priority accorded to refugee relief and social welfare Our February 1968 report stated that. although CORDS headquarters in Saigon had taken steps to accord a higher priority to the refugee program. these measures were not translated into effective actions at the operating level. During our current review. we could find no evidence that a formal list of priorities had been established for U.S. assistance activities In Vietnam which would indicate the relative importance placed on the various programs. For example. the stated goals of the Agency for International Development (AID) for 1970 were not assigned any order of priority and were so broad as to encompass the entire range of AID programs: economic stabilization. pacification. public services. economic development. and easing the suffering of civilians displaced or injured by the war. In addition. U.S. officials at AID/ Washington and Vietnam were not aware of any U.S. or GVN formal priority list for the management of assistance programs in Vietnam. We were informed. however. that refugee relief falls within the pacification program which is accorded a high priority by CORDS and the GVN. On the other hand. it does not appear that social welfare has an assigned priority. On the basis of the data available. it appears that. within the CORDS and GVN program for refugees and social welfare. the primary emphasis from 1965 through 1969 was on providing emergency relief in the form of resettlement allowances and temporary homes to the estimated 3.5 million refugees displaced by the war. whereas the needs of other war victims such as widows. orphans. and the handicapped. received less attention. Ukewise. the development of the sites in which refugees and former refugees are located appeared to have received a low priority. During 1969 much progress was made. during the pacification program. in paying refugees their long overdue allowances. especially those refugees returning to their villages (thus reducing the number of refugees on the rolls). AID officials believed that this progress during 1969 would allow the GVN to devote an increasing amount of resources to (1) restoring destroyed or damaged hamlets for returning refugees. (2) upgrading refugee sites with better housing and other essential facilities. and (3) attending to the needs of war widows. orphans. the physically handicapped. etc. However. CORDS assessments of the 1970 refugee relief and social welfare programs have not indicated encouraging results with respect to war victims and community developments. Most of the reported activity In these areas consisted of discussions and meetings designed to reach policy agreements and to draw up program plans. and progress was described by CORDS as not rapid. As a result. although one of the key goals during 1970 was supposed to be improvement of the living conditions at resettlement sites and hamlets of returning refugees. this program continued to present many difficulties. Reporting We found that the reporting system described In our February 1968 report to the Subcommittee had undergone three major revisions designed primarily to more efficiently measure the effectiveness of the refugee program. to provide all levels of management with a basis for making decisions. and to provide for more reliable and accurate data. We found that the data derived from the system in effect through February 1970 had remained deficient and the data from the- new system was of questionable accuracy. The first revision took place in March 1969 after CORDS determined that a manually prepared report was inadequate as a management planning tool. As a result. an automatic data processing system was implemented. Under this system. the CORDS refugee advisors were responsible for preparing the report. However. the Ministry of Social Welfare provincial officials were also preparing a report for submission to the Ministry. We were informed by a CORDS Refugee Directorate official that the refugee advisors primarily used the records of Ministry officials as their sourceof information for the statistical data included in the report. Along with the accumulation of this data. the refugee advisors were also responsible for preparing the narrative section of the report. in which they were supposed to comment on important factors needing emphasis. and any problem areas requiring corrective action by CORDS. General instructions were issued by CORDS which set forth the criteria for the refugee advisors to follow in the preparation of the report. both from the statistical and narrative aspects. These instructions stressed the importance of the refugee advisors and the Ministry officials reaching precise agreement on the categories of refugees. types of sites. and number of refugees in each site. We were informed by a CORDS Refugee Directorate official that. in numerous instances. the statistics reported by the Ministry officials In their reports were not comparable to the data being reported by the CORDS refugee advisors. This official stated that the primary reason for these wide variances in the statistical data was due mainly to a difference In interpretation of the Ministry of Social Welfares regulations by the refugee advisors and the Ministrys officials. The second revision took place in May 1969 when the Ministry of Social Welfare amended its refugee reporting system to include essentially the same data items provided under the CORDS reporting system. The Ministrys report was prepared by Ministry personnel in collaboration with a CORDS advisor whose signature was required on the report to indicate his concurrence. In April 1970 a new reporting system was initiated by CORDS. Our review and evaluation of this new repoiting system were limited by time considerations. Certain weaknesses. however. are apparent on the basis of our discussions and limited review described below. A CORDS Refugee Directorate official informed us that the new automated reporting system was developed and implemented In order to have only one joint report submitted. This official stated that the primary reason for devising this new system was the lack of comparable statistics reported by the refugee advisors and the Ministrys officials under the previous reporting system. We were also told that other reasons for the new reporting system wereThe inclusion of "in returntovillage process" and "war victim" statistics and information in the reporting process. The elimination of the term "resettled" from the reporting process. and The addition ofother data requested by the Ministry of Social Welfare in the reporting process. As under the previous reporting system. the new reporting format is intended to provide CORDS and Ministry of Social Welfare management officials with reliable information for effective and efficient planning. programming. and budgeting for the refugee program. However. under the new reporting system. the statistical section of the report is prepared by Ministry provincial officials in Vietnamese. A CORDS Refugee Directorate official has informed us that. according to verbal reporting instructions. refugee advisors are supposed to review this data for accuracy and validity. Any disagreements are to be pointed out in the narrative section of the report. and any matters needing emphasis or any problem areas requiring corrective action by CORDS should be included. The revised reporting system has eliminated the old dual reporting system and will represent a needed improvement. if it is properly implemented and policed to ensure real compliance.