Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students

Advocating the health, safety and welfare of all exchange students

Advocating the health, safety and welfare of all exchange students

Advocates seek changes to industry to protect children from predators

"When we looked at 7,000 applicants, we didn't think it would uncover 700 people that have criminal histories," said Jim Samuels, a senior official at the National Center. More than half of the criminal records they found ---- including sex crimes ---- had not shown up on Web-based searches, he said. Nine percent had records that indicated the applicants should not work with children.

"I don't have any confidence in name-based background checks," Samuels said. "Even people that know they're being fingerprinted and sign a statement that they're clean, they want access to children so much they're willing to lie on the record."

--Jim Samuels, Senior Official, The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
__________

About CSFES:

CSFES is a California-based 501(c)3 non-profit corporation (EIN 43-2100110) advocating the safety, protection and well being of exchange students around the world and was instrumental in the strengthening of the U.S. Department of State regulations for the protection of these young people.

CSFES raises public awareness and provides education related to the safety of exchange students to prospective and current, exchange students natural parents and school
administrators, with a specific focus on educating exchange organizations and government agencies to ensure the protection of exchange students around the world.

Presently we are an all-volunteer organization advocating for the safety of foreign exchange students.

CSFES supports cultural exchange and is committed to the idea that every foreign student deserves a safe and memorable exchange experience. We believe without reservation that while these sons and daughters are studying abroad, they should expect and fully deserve, to be treated as if they are our own.

As an organization, CSFES strives for cooperative relationships with exchange programs, based on the explicit understanding that CSFES will always prioritize exchange student safety above all other concerns.

Given this understanding, CSFES sees the following issues as specific cause for concern exchange students should:

Never depart from their home country without a properly screened host family awaiting their arrival.
Be apprised of a completed High School permission Form prior to leaving their home country.
Know whether they will be attending a public or private high school prior to departure.
Not be placed in the homes of convicted criminals.
Not not be forced to live in the home of their area representative.
Not be expected to live in homes lacking basic standards of cleanliness.
Have the telephone number of the U.S. Department of State in case of emergency.
Be fully apprised of their rights as visitors in this country.
Be sufficiently educated on all Child Protection Guidelines.
Not be coerced to write letters/sign agreements that they do not fully understand.
Never be sent home early without an accompanying review process.
Not be made to fear being sent back to their home country for voicing their concerns.

If you are an exchange student with concerns about your safety, please contact CSFES 760-583-9593 or BeSafe@csfes.org. All international visitors may also contact local law enforcement agencies in the event of an emergency by dialing 911.

Anyone who suspects suspicious behavior or maltreatment of foreign exchange students, please report it to the proper authorities or CSFES at Complaint@csfes.org.

CSFES monitors exchange student abuse and provides information to interested parties in an effort to significantly reduce the number of children who become victims of child/sexual abuse, neglect and extortion.

As such, we encourage contact from schools, parents, exchange students. Even if there are no apparent problems, being aware and informed are the keys to prevention.

__________

March 20, 2013 Special Announcement by CSFES:

With the ongoing abuse of J1 Secondary School Students and J1 Work and Travel Participants, CSFES would like to remind you of the following:

Dear Parents, Students and School Administrators:

If you knew how "married" the State Department and the exchange industry really are, you would understand that when John Hishmeh, former Executive Director of the Council on Standards for International Educational Travel (CSIET) stated that he welcomed action as "an opportunity for the youth exchange community and the State Department to work together," he was doing so with a big wink to the State Department's Educational and Cultural Division staff. And that is the problem; they are already working too closely.

That is why complaints about abuse to the State Department haven't gone anywhere over the years. This oversight department needs a thorough cleaning, from Stanley Colvin on down. Replace them with people who are truly interested in protecting these students, not the wealthy exchange agencies. The best way we can protect these high school students right now is to reduce the number of students who are brought over here each year. These agencies repeatedly bring over kids that don't have a school or home placement to go to once they get here. Once the student placement agency gets their program fees that range between $12,000 - $20,000 for each student, and sometimes more; they care very little about what happens to them. Do we need more regulations? Yes. But what we equally need is a strong oversight department that doesn't fold to industry lobbyists. This restructured department should include at least one strong citizen child/consumer advocate.

In 2011 Stanley S. Colvin of the Department of State was "quietly replaced" by Mr. Rick Ruth as you will read below.

Respectfully,

Danielle Grijalva, Director
Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students
P.O. Box 6496 / Oceanside, CA 92052
www.csfes.org / 760-583-9593

Laws can embody standards; governments can enforce laws--but the final task is not a task for government. It is a task for each and every one of us. Every time we turn our heads the other way when we see the law flouted--when we tolerate what we know to be wrong--when we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy, or too frightened--when we fail to speak up and speak out--we strike a blow against freedom and decency and justice.
-- Robert Francis Kennedy

“A Cavalier Attitude”: The State Department’s Legacy of SWT Failure

Jerry Kammer

By Jerry Kammer December 2011

Part Four of Cheap Labor as Cultural Exchange: The $100 Million Summer Work Travel Industry

Related Publications: Panel Transcript, Panel Video

Download a pdf of "Cheap Labor as Cultural Exchange"

View the Table of Contents

Jerry Kammer is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.

The lobbying organization for the sponsors of federal exchange programs is the Washington-based Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange. Its executive director, Michael McCarry, said in a 2010 speech that his job is to “look for program regulations that are permissive and allow people to come to the United States in a responsible way, and for visa policy that supports these goals.”¹

For decades, the federal government’s management of the Summer Work Travel program (SWT), first by the U.S. Information Agency and later by the State Department, has been criticized for permissiveness – in the form of lax regulation and minimal oversight – that has tolerated decades of abuses.

High-ranking employees at some of the sponsoring agencies that partner with the State Department in administering SWT point a finger at the man who was the program’s key regulator for many years until he was removed last June, Stanley S. Colvin.

Colvin’s involvement with exchange programs dates back to the early 1990s, when he worked at the USIA, where he became assistant general counsel. He moved to State when the two agencies merged in 1999, eventually rising to the rank of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Private Sector Exchange. In mid-2011, Colvin was removed from that position and given the title of “strategic adviser” to the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.²

Several critics of Colvin agreed to talk about him, but only on condition of confidentiality because they did not want to risk antagonizing the State Department.

“He had what I’d call a cavalier attitude,” said one, who was particularly disappointed at what he called Colvin’s tolerance of SWT sponsors that became “visa mills.” That phrase describes organizations that provided little oversight and guidance to the SWT participants from whom the sponsors collect fees. The State Department acknowledged the problem in the spring of 2011 when it said some sponsors were so detached from their young charges that they became “mere purveyors of J-visas.”³

Another critic said Colvin had a tendency to be “dismissive” of those who sought to engage him in dialogue about SWT. He drew this bottom line under Colvin’s stewardship: “There wasn’t the proper oversight.”

Responding to the criticism, Colvin said his record at the State Department, including several awards and a steady rise to the prestigious Senior Executive Service, showed otherwise. He said that in just the last five years of his 25-year career as a regulator of exchange programs, “I have drafted, reviewed, edited, or signed more than 25,000 administrative actions and had one-one-one contact with literally thousands of individuals. I answer my own phone and have an open door policy.”

The long record of criticism of the federal government’s management of SWT and other exchanges in the J visa category begins well before Colvin joined the USIA in 1990. After the General Accounting Office in 1988 and 1989 studied the USIA’s work, it reported that:

“USIA’s management oversight of the J-visa program has not been adequate to ensure the integrity of the program … . USIA lacks adequate information on participant activities, does not enforce requirements that program sponsors provide periodic information on participant activities, has no systematic process to monitor sponsors’ and participants’ activities, and does not adequately coordinate the program internally or with other agencies having visa responsibilities.”⁴

What is most striking is how consistent the criticisms have been for two decades and how little anyone at State has accomplished to reform the program, protect its young foreign participants, and safeguard the international image of the United States, which the program was established to enhance.

In 2000, a decade after the GAO report, the State Department’s own Office of the Inspector General issued a report titled “The Exchange Visitor Program Needs Improved Management and Oversight.” That report found that State was “unable to effectively administer and monitor the Exchange Visitor Program primarily because of inadequate resources. It found that lax monitoring had created an atmosphere in which program ‘‘regulations can easily be ignored and/or abused.”⁵

In 2002, the Baltimore Sun reported about dozens of Polish SWT students who “had been left stranded on the streets after the summer jobs they had been promised suddenly vanished.” The story quoted Les Kuczynski, the executive director of the Polish American Congress in Chicago who said the problem was widespread. “This is becoming a national scandal,” Kuczynski said. “You can’t have this going on unregulated.”⁶

There has been a string of other harsh assessments – in 2005 by the GAO,⁷ in 2010 by the Associated Press,⁸ and in 2011 by the Economic Policy Institute.⁹

Despite the repeated criticisms and calls for reform, problems steadily accumulated. In 2010, as the Associated Press pursued allegations of widespread abuses within the SWT program, a senior adviser to Assistant Secretary Ann Stock said the department was “deeply concerned” about such allegations. Nevertheless, a circle-the-wagons mentality prevailed at State, which turned down the AP’s request for an interview.

Among other abuses, the news agency reported that “strip clubs and adult entertainment companies openly solicit J-1 workers” despite State’s own regulations that prohibit jobs that could bring the program into disrepute. It quoted one company that boasted it was “affiliated with designated visa sponsors” that could help it place J-1 students at strip clubs.

The AP also quoted Terry Coonan, the executive director of Florida State University’s Center for the Advancement of Human Rights. Said Coonan, a former prosecutor, “There’s been a massive failure on the part of the United States to bring any accountability to the temporary work visa programs, and it’s especially true for the J-1.”¹⁰

Several months before that story appeared, the State Department initiated a review of the SWT program. That led to the new regulations that were issued in 2011 in an attempt to bring order to a program widely regarded as undisciplined and subject to exploitation by negligent sponsors and unscrupulous partner agencies in foreign countries.

The new regulations did little to quell the criticism. Daniel Costa of the Economic Policy Institute wrote that while they “may slightly improve the program’s operations in a few limited ways,” oversight would “continue to be woefully inadequate.”¹¹ An AP critique said the regulations were “vague” and “have few teeth.”¹²

Preaching Transparency Abroad, Avoiding It at Home

One fundamental problem at State’s Exchange Visitor Program has been the opaqueness of its operations. Recent efforts by outsiders to examine the SWT program have been frustrated by a refusal to answer questions. Also problematic is State’s inability or unwillingness to disclose data that would help measure the performance of sponsors, the amount of fees they collect, the types of jobs students hold, the wages they receive, their effects on local labor markets, and the number of SWT participants who overstay their visas.

Such an attitude about public disclosure belies the 2009 declaration by Judith McHale, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, that exchanges are “the single most important and valuable thing we do.”¹³ It has also helped cover up the State Department’s history.

Moreover, the absence of accountability contradicts the values of transparency that the State Department preaches around the world. Last July, for example, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota in announcing a new “Open Government Partnership,” the State Department hailed it as an effort at “increasing government openness, strengthening accountability, and enhancing civic engagement.”¹⁴

Secretary Clinton added: “When a government hides its work from public view… . that government is failing its citizens. And it is failing to create an environment in which the best ideas are embraced and the most talented people have a chance to contribute.”

The administration of SWT has been infected by just the sort of dysfunction and failure that Secretary Clinton decries. But while State has failed to meet basic measures of transparency at home, it has sought to engage the interest of foreign news organizations and agencies in the expansion of the program around the world.

In May 2011, for example, when officials at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs conducted a web chat with foreign media to announce the rollout of a new J-1 website, one official said it was part of an effort “to be customer centric and user friendly.”¹⁵ This is consistent with State’s administration of SWT, which has demonstrated a preoccupation with foreign relations and an indifference to domestic concerns.

Now Stanley Colvin has been replaced by Rick Ruth. A former Foreign Service officer, Ruth has a reputation as a problem solver and a consensus builder.

But he appears to be operating in a culture of excessive rigidity and caution at the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. He finally agreed to an interview for this report only after repeated requests had been ignored and only on the condition that his comments not be published until they were reviewed and cleared at State. As a result, a significant Ruth comment about the effects of SWT was deleted from the record.

Nevertheless, as the accompanying transcript of the interview shows, Ruth made many substantive comments for the record. For instance, he said he is concerned about the program’s potential impacts on American workers. He said his challenge is to balance that concern with the value of having future leaders of foreign countries experience life in the United States. “How do we balance that?” he said. “That is one of the hard questions; I am telling you there is now a commitment to do that.”

Responding to the interviewer’s observation that Colvin was widely regarded as a laissez-faire manager, Ruth said flatly, “I am not a laissez-faire guy.”

In response to follow up questions submitted in writing, his office made these points:

“We are moving forward with a new rulemaking that will capture the 2012 summer season. As part of this new rulemaking, we will:

Retain and expand the list of prohibited employment categories, including jobs that isolate Summer Work Travel participants from contact with Americans and work that is inappropriate for a cultural exchange.

Strengthen the sponsors’ requirements for verifying job placements to ensure there are appropriate jobs for the students.

Strengthen the cultural aspects of the program to ensure that the objective of the program – positive exposure to the United States – is accomplished.

Require that an independent management audit be provided annually to the Department.”

Visa Diplomacy Trumps Concern for American Workers

In the 1980s, when the Summer Work Travel program was administered by the United States Information Agency, its regulations implicitly acknowledged that the infusion of young foreigners into local job markets could have an adverse effect on local job-seekers. The regulations required that as SWT sponsors prepared SWT participants to come to the U.S., the participants "should be fully briefed on the employment situation in the United States and advised not to seek employment in areas where a high unemployment situation exists."¹

Daniel Costa of the Economic Policy Institute has called that regulation "toothless and unenforceable."² Indeed, it was little more than a rule requiring a suggestion. That may explain why it no longer exists now that SWT is administered by the State Department.

30. jul. 2012 Norway's Bergens Tidende

http://www.bt.no/jobb/Utvekslingsaret-ble-et-mareritt-2741883.html

Exchange year was a nightmare

Student exchange agency: Pacific Intercultural Exchange (PIE)
________

(English translation below).

Norway's Bergens Tidende
30. jul. 2012

Sexpress, tyveri og utnytting

- Mange utvekslingselever opplever skrekkår i USA, ifølge amerikansk organisasjon.

AV: bt redaksjonen

- Det er forferdelig trist. Vi snakker her om unge mennesker som kommer for å oppleve amerikansk kultur og skaffe seg gode minner for resten av livet. I stedet må noen av dem bo hos familier som er ute av stand til å ta vare på seg selv, sier Danielle Grijalva.

Hun leder Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students (CSFES) som støtter utenlandske ungdommer som får problemer i USA. Flere norske jenter og gutter har kontaktet CSFES de siste årene for å få hjelp.

BT har fått innsyn i korrespondansen i en rekke saker der norske elever og foreldre har søkt bistand hos organisasjonen.

Sexpress

Beretningene handler om alt fra sexpress og om tenåringer som hevder de blir utnyttet som hushjelper av vertsfamiliene.

En jente har klaget over at hun måtte bo under elendige hygieniske forhold sammen med en tidsvis mentalt syk kvinne som hadde et tosifret antall katter. En annen skal ha blitt innelåst i kjelleren etter at vertsmoren hadde stjålet elevens penger. En ungdom sier hun måtte bo sammen med en alkoholisert kvinne. En måtte kjøpe sin egen mat og fikk mobiltelefonen konfiskert.

Dette skjer til tross for at myndighetene i USA stiller krav om at vertsfamiliene skal ha omsorgsevne og stabil økonomi.

Uten vandelsattest

Utenlandske skoleelever er dessuten blitt plassert hos straffedømte personer, inkludert seksualforbrytere. En rapport fra State Department viser at ungdommer på utveksling i 2010 og 2011 leverte inn 118 anklager om seksuelt misbruk eller trakassering.

15 av 39 undersøkte utvekslingsorganisasjoner i USA har ikke rutiner for å sjekke vandelen til vertsfamiliene, ifølge rapporten.

- Vi har siden 2005 krevd at vertsfamiliene skal kontrolleres opp mot FBIs fingeravtrykksregister for å unngå at utvekslingselevene må bo sammen med personer med kriminelt rulleblad. I dag er det ofte nok med tre anbefalelsesbrev fra venner eller naboer for å bli godkjent som vertsfamilie, sier Grijalva.

Myndighetene i USA har imidlertid avvist forslaget.

English Translation:

- It's terribly sad. We are talking about young people who come to experience American culture and gain fond memories for a lifetime. Instead, some of them stay with families who are unable to take care of themselves, said Danielle Grijalva.

She heads the Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students (CSFES) supporting foreign youths who get into trouble in the United States.   Several Norwegian girls and boys have contacted CSFES in recent years for help.

BT has gained access to the correspondence in a number of cases where Norwegian students and parents have sought the assistance of the organization.

Sexual harassment

The stories about everything from sexual harassment and teens who say they are exploited as domestic workers by host families. A girl has complained that she had to live under deplorable hygienic conditions with a tidsvis mentally ill woman who had a two-digit number of cats.   Another must have been locked in the basement after the host mother had stolen the student money. One young person said she had to live with an alcoholic woman. One had to buy their own food and got cell phone confiscated.

This happens despite the fact that the United States government requires that the host families to have care and stable economy.

Without a criminal record

Foreign students are also placed among convicted persons, including sex offenders.   A report from the State Department shows that young people on the exchange in 2010 and 2011 filed 118 charges of sexual abuse or harassment.

15 of 39 examined exchange organizations in the United States does not have procedures to check the conduct of the host families, the report said.

- We have since 2005 required that host families should be checked against the FBI's fingerprint registry to prevent the exchange students have to live with people with criminal records. Today it often enough with three letters of recommendation from friends or neighbors to be approved as a host family, said Grijalva.

The U.S. government has rejected the proposal.
_____

23 July 2012

The Voice of Greater Central Asia

News Central Asia (nCa)

Important information for students going to USA under exchange programme

_______________
Associated Press

APNewsBreak: US State Department suspends high school exchange student sponsoring organization

By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, July 19, 4:34 pm

March 20, 2012     From Denmark's Bag Facaden

Note from CSFES: English translation will post on our website upon receipt. In the meantime, temporary translation below of John Hamilton, Detective Jeremy Hinson of the Fairfax County Police Department and Danielle Grijalva of Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students below:

Click to read abuse of exchange students from Denmark

Bag Facaden, by Maria Anderson -- Reporter

John Hamilton: At that point, he still had his shorts on, which were kinda gettin' in the way because I was also using lotion --

Detective Jeremy Hinson: He ended up performing fellatio -- oral sex, as well as anal intercourse --

More to follow; thank you for your patience.

________
March 16, 2012

High school foreign exchange students repeatedly placed with convicted murder

By Anna Schecter and Kate Snow

________
March 16, 2012

Foreign Exchange Students Report Abuse by Host Families

By Rick Cohen, NPQ's Nonprofit Newswire | Source: Rock Center with Brian Williams

________
March 14, 2012

State Department: Background Checks On Foreign Exchange Hosts Not 'Feasible'

The Associated Press
________
March 13, 2012

Rock Center with Brian Williams

Foreign exchange students sexually abused in program overseen by State Department

__________
March 12, 2012

Rock Center with Brian Williams

Culture Shock: Foreign exchange students claim abuse by U.S. host parents

_________
February 3, 2012

Council for Education Travel USA No Longer Has J-1 Visa Designation

HOLBROOK MOHR and MITCH WEISS   Associated Press
________

Is DOJ cultural exchange program exploiting foreign students for profit, sweatshop labor?

Thursday, November 24, 2011 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034231_cultural_exchange_programs_sweatshop_labor.html#ixzz20H3Vcdn0

Aktion Bildungsinformation e.V.

Founded in 1968, Aktion Bildungsinformation e.V. is a non-profit organisation for the consumer rights protection in the educational field.

Active in the field of High School Exchange Programs, Aktion Bildungsinformation e.V. publishes brochures which can be found by visiting http://www.abi-ev.de to learn more.

Die Sicherheit ausländischer Austauschschüler und Hinweise und Richtlinien für die Eltern von Gastschülern:

Auszugsweise Übersetzung der vom Komitee für die Sicherheit ausländischer Austauschschüler auf der Webseite www.csfes.org ausgegebenen Informationen, Hinweise und Richtlinien für die Eltern von Gastschülern.

Übersetzung von Textteilen der Seite http://www.csfes.org/page9.html
CSFES Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students

Suche und Auswahl
einer Austauschorganisation:

Das CSFES wird immer wieder von Eltern gebeten, Empfehlungen bezüglich geeigneter Austauschorganisationen zu erteilen. Es ist dem CSFES nicht möglich, derartige Empfehlungen auszusprechen; dennoch schlagen wir die folgenden Vorgehensweisen vor:

Verfahren zur Überprüfung des Fingerabdrucks
bzw. des kriminellen Hintergrunds:

Befragen Sie die Austauschorganisation, ob sie ein Verfahren zur Überprüfung des Fingerabdrucks bzw. des kriminellen Hintergrunds durchführt. Fällt die Antwort negativ aus, so suchen Sie nach einer anderen Austauschorganisation.

Notfälle:

Überprüfen Sie, wie effizient die Austauschorganisation auf Notfälle reagiert, vor allem am Abend, an Wochenenden und Feiertagen und während der Ferien. Besorgen Sie sich die in solchen Fällen anzurufende Notfallnummer. Daraufhin rufen Sie unter dieser Nummer an. Die jeweilige Antwort wird Sie erkennen lassen, ob es sich um eine verantwortungsbewusst handelnde Organisation handelt.

Überprüfung des Schülerprofils:

Auf welche Kontrollmechanismen treffen Sie beim Durchlesen der Homepage der Austauschorganisation, um einen leichten Zugang zum Schülerprofil zu verhindern? Sind persönliche Informationen zusammen mit dem Foto des Schülers leicht zugänglich? Würden Sie diese Methode für Ihr durch die Austauschorganisation zu platzierendes Kind befürworten?

Es treten immer häufiger Sexualtäter in Erscheinung, die Kinder über das Internet gezielt aussuchen. Deshalb ist dem CSFES dieser Punkt wesentliches Anliegen.

Gastfamilieninformationen:

Wenn Sie schon an einem Punkt angelangt sind, an welchem Sie von Seiten der Austauschorganisation das Informationspaket bezüglich der voraussichtlichen Gastfamilie Ihres Kindes erhalten haben, sollten Sie genau überprüfen, ob die Interessen der Familie ähnlich zu den Interessen Ihres Kindes liegen.

Sollte Ihr Kind unter Allergien oder Asthma leiden, prüfen Sie, ob es in einer Familie mit Haustieren oder Rauchern platziert werden soll.

Seien Sie ganz besonders wachsam, wenn Sie kurz vor der Abfahrt Ihres Kindes von der Austauschorganisation unterrichtet werden, dass sich eine plötzliche Änderung in der für Ihr Kind ausgewählten Gastfamilie ergeben hat. Wenn Ihnen mitgeteilt wird, dass es sich beispielsweise „aufgrund einer Ehescheidung oder unvorhersehbarer Umstände“ nicht mehr um die selbe Gastfamilie handelt, so bereitet dies dem CSFES größte Sorgen.

Er wird Ihnen in diesen Fällen mitgeteilt werden, dass stattdessen eine Willkommensfamilie Ihren Sohn oder Ihre Tochter erwartet. Wir haben die Erfahrung gemacht, dass dies dazu führen kann, dass Ihr Kind möglicherweise innerhalb mehrerer Willkommensfamilien hin- und hergeschoben wird, bevor eine „permanente“ Gastfamilie sicher gestellt werden kann. Führt die Austauschorganisation vorab geeignete Überprüfungen der Willkommensfamilien durch, inklusive der Fingerabdruck-/Führungszeugnisüberprüfungen?

Die Vorschriften des United States Department of State (Anm.d.Ü.: US-Außenministerium), Abschnitt 62.25 (d) (3) legen folgenden Passus fest:

„Versichern Sie sich, dass kein Repräsentant der Austauschorganisation sowohl als Gastfamilie als auch als Gebietsleiter für einen Austauschschüler fungiert, den der Repräsentant der Austauschorganisation gegebenenfalls als Gast aufnimmt.“

Ihr Sohn oder Ihre Tochter sollte in keiner Familie untergebracht werden, in welcher die Gastmutter oder der Gastvater gleichzeitig Leiter, Gebietsvertreter oder regionaler Leiter der Austauschorganisation ist. Hierdurch wäre keine Neutralität gewährleistet in dem Fall, dass Ihr Sohn oder Ihre Tochter Sorgen oder einen Notfall hat.

Gesicherte Highschool-Platzierung:

Haben Sie ein Bestätigungsschreiben der Highschool erhalten, bei welcher Ihr Sohn/Ihre Tochter antreten wird?

Die Vorschriften des United States Department of State besagen hierzu unter dem Abschnitt 62.25 (f) (4): „Unter keinen Umständen darf ein Programmsponsor den Eintritt eines Schüles in die USA ermöglichen, wenn keine gesicherte Schulplatzierung zur Verfügung steht.“

Schülerausweispapier:

Die Vorschriften des United States Department of State besagen hierzu unter dem Abschnitt 62.25 (g) (4): „Es handelt sich um ein Ausweispapier, auf welchem der Name des Schülers, die Gastfamilienadresse und Telefonnummer in den USA sowie eine Telefonnummer, die in einem Notfall die sofortige Kontaktaufnahme mit dem Department of State und dem Programmsponsoren sicherstellt, eingetragen sind. Diese Ausweispapiere können noch vor der Abfahrt aus dem Heimatland oder bei der Ankunft in den Vereinigten Staaten zur Verfügung gestellt werden.

An die Eltern: Stellen Sie sicher, dass Ihr Sohn/Ihre Tochter diese Information besitzt, zusammen mit einer Telefonnummer, die eine sofortige Kontaktaufnahme mit dem Department of State bzw. dem Programmsponsoren sicherstellt.

Sollte Ihrem Kind kein Schülerausweispapier zusammen mit der oben aufgeführten Information vor der Abfahrt bzw. beim Eintritt in die Vereinigten Staaten zur Verfügung gestellt werden, so benachrichtigen Sie bitte sofort das CSFES.

Fragen Sie, wer das letzte Sagen hinsichtlich der Auswahl einer Gastfamilie hat. Wenn Sie bezüglich der Familie Bedenken haben (Alter der Gasteltern usw.) und Ihnen gleichzeitig mitgeteilt wird, dass Sie die Familie akzeptieren müssen – so stellen Sie weitere Fragen.

Das CSFES bittet die Eltern um Folgendes:

Bitten Sie um Ausgabe einer Kopie der Kinderschutzregelungen der für die Platzierung des Schülers zuständigen Agentur.

Bitten Sie um eine schriftliche Garantie, dass das Heim der Gastfamilie überprüft und die Privatsphäre des Schülers im Bade- und Schlafzimmer sichergestellt ist.

Stellen Sie sicher, dass dem Kind bewusst ist, worin der Tatbestand der sexuellen Belästigung besteht, unter Anbetracht der Tatsache, dass den meisten Vergewaltigungen ein Berühren der Schenkel, Kommentieren der sexuellen Anziehungskraft des Schülers, „zufälliges“ Berühren der Brüste usw. vorangeht, wobei die Nichtbeachtung dieser Umstände den Straftäter zu der Überzeugung gelangen lässt, dass sein weiteres Vorgehen für den Schüler akzeptabel sein muss.

Fragen Sie die Agentur, ob sie dem Schüler Telefonnummern an die Hand gibt, die er im Falle des Auftretens missbräuchlicher Handlungen anrufen kann (Polizei, Notfallzentren für Vergewaltigungsopfer usw.). Wenn nicht, sollten Sie von dieser Agentur Abstand nehmen.

Stellen Sie sicher, dass Ihrem Kind sein Pass und das Rückflugticket zugänglich gemacht werden, wenn sich eine unakzeptable Situation ergibt.

Stellen Sie sicher, dass Ihr Kind weiß, wie es aus Übersee zu Hause anrufen kann.

Stellen Sie sicher, dass es weiß, wie es sein Landeskonsulat kontaktieren kann, im Falle von Problemen, die von der Agentur außer Acht gelassen werden.

diesen Ratschlag
als PDF zum Ausdrucken

Main Navigation

“A Cavalier Attitude”: The State Department’s Legacy of SWT Failure

Sexpress

Uten vandelsattest

Is DOJ cultural exchange program exploiting foreign students for profit, sweatshop labor?