The Lost Boys of Sudan
“I remember how I walked a thousand miles with other children of my age to unknown destination.” – John Majok, Lost Boy of Sudan
From 1983 to 2005, the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) and the Sudanese Government engaged in what has come to be known as one of the most violent periods of warfare in southern Sudan.[i] The Second Civil War, which succeeded the country’s first civil war during 1955 to 1972, claimed more than 2.5 million lives and displaced roughly 4 million people.[ii] Among these individuals were at least 20,000 children, mostly boys, between the ages of 7 and 17 who were forced to flee their villages and abandon their families.[iii] These children, mostly just 6 or 7 years old, journeyed to Ethiopia in hopes of escaping death or initiation into the northern army.[iv] Trekking vast distances and battling immensely dangerous conditions, only half of the group’s population survived. Those individuals who were able to endure sought refuge at Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya. The survivors of this devastating emigration became known as the Lost Boys of Sudan. Many Sudanese refugees have been resettled across the globe—4,000 of which are in United States—but some still remain in refugee camps in Kenya, Sudan, and Uganda. Despite escaping violence, the Lost Boys continue to face hardship during resettlement and integration. The film “The Lost Boys of Sudan” chronicles the specific story of two Sudanese refugees in the United States as they journey from Africa to the U.S. The documentary details the experiences of Peter Dut and Santino Chuor, Lost Boys from the Dinka tribe, throughout their first year in America and reveals many of the disturbing realities of integration.
Refugee Integration in the United States
Tatiana Dwyer of Church World Service—one of the 10 volunteer agencies (volags) that partner with the federal government to resettle refugees—argues that by welcoming refugees, the U.S. is providing these individuals with an opportunity to rebuild their lives and secure the capacity to experience safer and brighter futures. However, integration is far from a sunny-experience; in reality, the process is notoriously challenging, presenting many obstacles for its newcomers, and rarely inspires a successful trajectory for any of the refugees who experience it. To this point, Dwyer contests that the 30-year-old United States Resettlement Program (USRP), established by the Refugee Act of 1980, which prioritizes early employment and economic self-sufficiency, has failed to ensure “full and meaningful integration.”[v] Despite decades of resettling refugees, the U.S. has yet to develop and implement a national policy on refugee integration—one that would clearly outline goals, benchmarks and funding requirements, and a universally accepted definition of integration.
Today’s U.S. resettlement community faces many challenges and will continue to miss many important opportunities for improvement if its current priorities and procedures remain unchanged. According to Dwyer, the foremost barriers to full and meaningful integration are a lack of national policy on refugee integration; the lack of a standardized set of core program elements; cultural adjustment of refugees; attitudes and patterns of host communities; English language and communications skills of refugees; economic self-sufficiency factors; and opportunities for educational attainment. Collectively, these elements might serve as a useful framework in outlining the essential components of “full and meaningful integration,” which are absent or insufficient in current U.S. policy. The following sections aim to expound upon a single facet of refugee integration, namely issues surrounding educational opportunity, and provide a brief policy recommendation for the future.
A Deficit of Educational Resources for Refugees
The UNHCR asserts that education is a vital component of successful integration for refugees and can facilitate a healthy self-reliance.[vi] However, according to the European Resettlement Network,[vii] refugees can face many barriers to accessing higher education during resettlement. The absence of English language proficiency, lack of culturally-sensitive and needs-specific guidance, and restricted access to “government student finance schemes” inhibits refugees’ ability to access higher education, or even discern how navigate the educational system. In a report to the U.S. Congressional Committee on Foreign Relations, Richard Lugar contends that current U.S. efforts to address the special needs of refugee students are “ad hoc, a drain on local education funding, and implemented in the absence of data-driven best practices.”[viii] Many schools with high refugee populations are failing to address and meet the needs of their refugee students. According to school administrators, refugees students’ poor performance on standardized tests—required during the first few weeks of enrollment, often without attaining language proficiency—reduces the school’s overall standardized testing score, which leads to troubling consequences concerning the school’s government funding. Furthermore, Lugar reports that schools receive little to no additional federal or state resources to increase staffing levels and offer additional assistance to refugee students.
Education Considerations for the Lost Boys
“In a way, education was seen like a mother and father, a way to adulthood and a successful life.” — Sasha Chanoff, Former Kakuma Camp Relief Worker
As indicated in the film “Lost Boys of Sudan,” education is a highly desirable commodity amongst Sudanese refugees. In the documentary, Santino demonstrates an unwavering desire to learn and pursue a degree in higher education. However, as the film illustrates, the limitations of the system and challenges of integration precludes his ability to profit for any educational opportunity. To emphasize this point further, in an interview with PBS (2007) Sasha Chanhoff, a former Kakuma Camp Relief Worker, explained the plight of education for the Lost Boys in the U.S.:
War, displacement, and separation from their families and community have severely disrupted education for the Lost Boys.[x] According to a report published by the University of Western Sydney (2005), the Lost Boys have spent prolonged periods of time—either within refugee camps or amongst the local population of the host country—with limited or restricted access to education. During integration, cultural boundaries hamper educational attainment for Sudanese refugees; the curriculum and language of delivery is often in a format that fits the standards for the host country, but may not be easily accessed or understood by the Sudanese. Furthermore, while the term “Lost Boys” may seem to apply to male students only, barriers also exist for young Sudanese girls. In truth, the ratio of girls attending school is low; the lack of educational attainment is further compounded by the Sudanese cultural expectations emphasizing a domestic role and early marriage.
Much of these challenges can be attributed to the current “one-size fits all” policy for refugee resettlement in the U.S. Diversity is nonexistent in integration standards and proceeding, despite the U.S.’s heterogeneous refugee population. Specific accommodations are not made to meet individual or population needs. Furthermore, resettlement locations are provided with little, if any, pre-arrival information regarding the needs of resettled refugees. If these factors were addressed—in order to allow the city to anticipate the increase in demands—it would help the city appropriately and adequately prepare its service infrastructure in anticipation of increased demands.
Policy Recommendations: Discard the “One Size Fits All” and Invest in Education
The integration of these diverse groups of refugees requires more targeted and individualized approaches rather than a “one-size-fits-all” approach.[xi] If refugee admission is a federal responsibility, then the national government also has a responsibility to the localities and states that host refugees. Prolonged support for education should be federal government priority and mandate included within the establishment of a comprehensive integration policy. To this point, Gibney, Dalton, and Vockell (1992) collectively make the argument that integration reform must make the necessary changes in order to allocate funding and resources to educational investment.[xii] Among their specific recommendations, these authors advocate for the development of “new comer” programming—designed to meet the unique psycho-social-cultural needs of refugee students—prevocational ESL training—so as to prepare refugees for language requirements during employment—grant waivers exempting refugee students’ standardized test scores from negatively impacting the overall school performance, increase funding for adult educational and vocational training, and collaborating with schools to design and implement best evidenced-based practices. Many refugees, including the Lost Boys, struggle during integration with illiteracy and limited formal education, which reduce their capacity to meet the basic needs required to compete in the job market. The U.S. must be a leader in integration policy and locating educational resources for its refugees so that no longer will the Lost Boys remain lost in their new communities.
[i] M. Zapata, “Sudan: independence through civil wars 1956-2005” (2011). The Enough Project. Retrieved from: http://www.enoughproject.org/blogs/sudan-brief-history-1956
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] UNICEF, “Lost boys of Sudan” (1996). The State of the World’s Children 1996: Children in War. Retrieved from: http://www.unicef.org/sowc96/closboys.htm
[iv] International Rescue Committee, “The lost boys of Sudan” (2014). Retrieved from: http://www.rescue.org/blog/lost-boys-sudan
[v] Tatiana Dwyer, “Refugee integration in the United States: challenges and opportunities” (2010). Church World Service Immigration and Refugee Program. Retrieved from: http://hunger.cwsglobal.org/site/DocServer/Refugee_Integration_in_the_United_States.pdf?docID=3923, p. 3.
[vi] UNHCR, “The 10-point plan.” Solutions for Refugees. Retrieved from: http://www.unhcr.org/50a4c17f9.pdf.
[vii] European Resettlement Network, “Supporting refugees to access higher education” (2010). Retrieved from: http://www.resettlement.eu/page/supporting-refugees-access-higher-education
[viii] R. Lugar, “Abandoned upon arrival: implications for refugees and local communities burdened by a U.S. resettlement system that is not working” (2010). A report to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from: https://chalk.uchicago.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2725298-dt-content-rid-5290315_1/courses/2015.02.7404692201/Abandoned%20upon%20Arrival.pdf, p. 8.
[ix] PBS, “Interview: in search of a durable solution” (2004). Retrieved from: http://www.pbs.org/pov/lostboysofsudan/special_interviews_sc_new.php
[x] VFST, “Education and refugee students from Southern Sudan” (2005). University of Western Sydney. Retrieved from: http://www.uws.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/643934/EducationRefugeeStudentsfromSouthernSudan.pdf
[xi] N.L, Zucker, “ Refugee resettlement in the United States: policy and problems” (1983). Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 467 (May, 1983). 172-186. Retrieved from: https://chalk.uchicago.edu/bbcswebdav/pid2724730-dt-content-rid5288523_1/courses/2015.02.7404692201/Zucker%2C%201983.pdf
[xii] M. Gibney, V. Dalton, M. Vockell, "USA refugee policy: A human rights analysis update" (1992). Journal of Refugee Studies 1(5), 33-46. https://chalk.uchicago.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2725298-dt-content-rid5290315_1/courses/2015.02.7404692201/Abandoned%20upon%20Arrival.pdf
