Consolation in action : the Jesuit Refugee Service and the ministry of accompaniment /

Thesis (S.T.L.)--Weston Jesuit School of Theology, 2006.

Executive Order Number Eight, January 27, 1984

Eastablish the Iowa Refugee Service Center.

Executive Order Number Twenty One, December 24, 1985

Rename Iowa Refugee Service Center as Bureau of Refugee Programs and place it administratively in the Department of Human Services.

Na 1 Nachlass Max Horkheimer, 7 - Korrespondenzen u.a. mit Familie Cahn (p. I 4, 1-297a)

1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an die Cadillac Motor Division, 05.06.1939; 148 Briefe zwischen Erwin Cahn, Lotte Cahn, Ilse Cahn, Max Cahn, Lilo Cahn, Lina Cahn und Max Horkheimer, 1938-1942; 10 Briefe zwischen dem Transmigration Bureau og the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee und Friedrich Pollock, 1941-1942; 3 Briefe zwischen dem National Refugee Service und Max Horkheimer, 07.04.1941, 1941; 1 Brief von Julius S. Bach an die National City Bank of New York, 27.06.1940; 1 Brief von Julius S. Bach an den American Consul General Berlin, 15.04.1940; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Julius S. Bach, 15.05.1940; 16 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an den American Consul General Stuttgart, 1938-1941; 2 Briefe zwischen der Auswandererstelle Marx und Max Horkheimer, 02.06.1941; 5 Briefe zwischen dem Reisebüro Anselm Stuttgart und Max Horkheimer, 1941; 9 Briefe zwischen der Sapt A.G und Max Horkheimer, 1940-1941; 3 Briefe zwischen Emanuel Green und Max Horkheimer, 26.09.1940, 1940; 3 Briefe zwischen der Zweigstelle Wüttemberg der Reichsvereinigung der Juden in Deutschland und Max Horkheimer, 1940, 19.09.1940; 2 Briefe zwischen der Auswandererstelle Adler und Max Horkheimer, 25.05.1940; 2 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an den American Consul General Berlin, 1939; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an S. Klein, 20.03.1939; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an den Collector of Customs, 27.02.1939; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Ludwig Lewisohn,. 03.01.1939; 1 Brief von Friedlaender an Kahn, 15.12.1938; 1 Brief von Erwin Cahn an Max Horkheimer, 07.02.1935;

Na 1 Nachlass Max Horkheimer, 4 - Korrespondenzen u.a. mit Richard Bach (p. I 2, 131-358)

24 Briefe zwischen Richard Bach und Max Horkheimer, 1938-1940; 2 Briefe zwischen Alfred Chalk und Max Horkheimer, 17.10.1939, 14.11.1939; 3 Briefe von Morduch Lexandrowitsch und der American Consulate General, 1939; 4 Briefe von der American Consulate General und Max Horkheimer, 1938-1939; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an das Amtstgericht Berlin, 15.03.1939; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Stiedry, 05.12.1938; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an den Collector of Custom, 26.10.1938; 2 Briefe zwischen Josef Maier und Carson Alexandrowitsch, 28.06.1938, 29.06.1938; 1 Brief von Margarete Baruch an Alice Maier, 11.04.1938; 1 Brief von Emanuel List an Carson Alexandrowitsch, 23.02.1938; 1 Abschrift des Briefes von der Metropolitan Opera Association New York an Morduch Lexandrowitsch, 22.02.1938; 1 Brief von Jacques Barzun an Max Horkheimer, 09.07.1947; 4 Briefe zwischen K. Baschwitz und Max Horkheimer, 1938-1946; 2 Briefe zwischen E. Bauer und Max Horkheimer, 08.04.1935, 27.05.1935; 4 Briefe zwischen Fritz Bauer und Max Horkheimer, 1937-1938; 2 Briefe zwischen Lina Bauer und Max Horkheimer, 20.07.1942, 16,08,1942; 4 Briefe zwsichen Rudolf Bauer und Max Horkheimer, 1937; 15 Briefe zwischen Gertrud Bauer und Max Horkheimer, 1938-1941; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an den Collector of Customs, 15.03.1940; 2 Briefe zwischen I. Hannah Davidson vom Jewish Community Center San Francisco und Max Horkheimer, 19.09.1938, 29.09.1938; 2 Briefe zwsichen I. Bauer und Max Horkheimer, 25.09.1938, 29.09.1938; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Klopfer, 27.09.1938; 3 Briefe zwischen Y.M.H.A. - Y.W.H.A The Jewish Center of Saint Louis und Max Horkheimer, 19.09.1938, 1938; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Julius Rosenberg, 17.09.1938; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an das Jwish Center Salt Lake City, Utah, 07.09.1938; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an das Jewish Community Center San Fransisco, 07.09.1938; 3 Briefe zwischen dem New York Section of the National Council of Jewish Women und Max Horkheimer, 07.04.1938, 1938; 2 Briefe zwischen Baum und Max Horkheimer, 12.03.1946, 25.05.1946; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Charles A. Beard , 12.12.1934; 1 Brief von Charles A. Beard an C. A. Beard; 5 Briefe von Friedrich Pollock an Charles A. Beard, 1940-1941; 5 Briefe zwischen Lilo Beck und Max Horkheimer, 1940-1941; 7 Briefe zwischen Maximilian Beck und Max Horkheimer, 1939-1940; 1 Brief von Paul Tillich an Max Horkheimer , 01.10.1940; 1 Brief von dem Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars New York an Max Horkheimer, 19.04.1940; 5 Briefe zwischen Konrad Bekker und Max Horkheimer, 1936-1939; 2 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an Ludwig Bendix, 1921, 1937; 1 Brief von Peter Bendmann an Max Horkheimer; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Ruth Benedict, 30.07.1937; 1 Brief von Eric Russel Bentley an Max Horkheimer, 30.01.1945; 1 Brief von George Berg an Max Horkheimer, 12.07.1945; 2 Briefe zwischen Egon Bergel und Max Horkheimer, 18.08.1938, 22.08.1938; 1 Brief von Marie Jahoda an Max Horkheimer, 14.07.1928; 1 Brief von Theodor W. Adorno an Kurt Bergel, 09.09.1939; 15 Briefe zwischen Klaus Berger und Max Horkheimer, 1936-1943; 1 Brief von Frederick Pollock an Philip M. Hayden von der Columbia University New York, 05.03.1942; 1 Brief von Hans Venedey an Max Horkheimer, 05.03.1938; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Ida Berger-Chevant, 18.02.1939;

Na 1 Nachlass Max Horkheimer, 42 - Korrespondenzen u.a. mit Kurt Pinthus (p. I 21, 1-130)

1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Pierre van Paassen, 31.01.1944; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Frederick M. Padelford, 25.03.1941; 1 Exposé und Beilage von Karl O. Paetel sowie sowie Briefwechsel mit Karl A. Wittfogel; 2 Briefe zwischen Karl A. Wittfogel und Margot von Mendelssohn, 01.06.1941, 04.06.1941; 2 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an D. D. Paige, August 1944; 2 Briefe zwischen Maria Pape und Max Horkheimer, 23.07.1949, 29.07.1949; 1 Brief von Fritz Pappenheim an Max Horkheimer, 11.03.1939; 2 Briefe zwischen Claire Patek-Hohenadl und Max Horkheimer, 18.02.1945, 02.03.1945; 4 Briefe zwischen Wilhelm Pauck und Max Horkheimer, 1938; 2 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an Thomas Peardon, September 1941; 2 Briefe zwischen Christine Peck und Max Horkheimer, 01.02.1944, 16.02.1944; 2 Briefe zwischen Alexander H. Pekelis und Max Horkheimer, 20.10.1941, 29.10.1941; 4 Briefe zwischen Pendle Hill Wallingford und Max Horkheimer, 21.05.1940, 1940; 1 Einladung von The People Lobby an Max Horkheimer, April 1937; 1 Brief von Franz L. Neumann an Selig Perlman, 08.10.1941; 2 Briefe zwischen Florence Pfleger und Max Horkheimer, 30.10.1944, 06.11.1944; 2 Briefe zwischen The Philharmonic-Symphony Society of New York und Max Horkheimer, 11.06.1936, 22.06.1936; 2 Briefe zwischen Philosophical Library New York und Max Horkheimer, 09.09.1941; 2 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an Donald A. Piatt, Oktober 1940; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Alfred Pinkus, 27.08.1942; 20 Briefe und Beilage zwischen Kurt Pinthus und Max Horkheimer, 1940-1942; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an das American Consul General Berlin, 20.05.1941; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an den National Refugee Service New York, 30.04.1941; 4 Briefe zwischen The Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars, New York und Friedrich Pollock, 27.09.1940-1941; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an John Simon Guggeheim von der Memorial Foundation, 08.11.1940; 3 Brief zwischen Robert Plank und Max Horkheimer, 12.07.1944, 1944; 4 Briefe und 1 Beilage zwischen Richard S. Plant und Max Horkheimer, Januar 1939; 2 Briefe zwischen Caroline S. Platt und Max Horkheimer, 06.05.1942, 08.05.1942; 1 Brief und 2 Beilagen vom Pledge for Peace Committee New York an Max Horkheimer, 10.04.1944; 1 Brief vom Popular Publications, Inc. New York an Mein, 23.10.1939; 2 Briefe von Else Heim an die Popular Publikations, Inc. New York, 1939; 1 Brief und 1 Beilage von Frederick Pollock an Leonard Powers, 03.06.1941; 2 Briefe zwischen S. Pressburger udn Max Horkheimer, 18.06.1939, 05.07.1939; 2 Briefe zwsichen dem Preston Hotel, Swampscott und Max Horkheimer, 28.04.1937, 08.05.1937; 1 Brief von Lucio José F. Weil an das Preston Hotel, Swampscott, 25.06.1936; 5 Briefe zwischen F. V. Preve und Max Horkheimer, 1937; 4 Briefe zwischen Rena Proulx und Max Horkheimer, 1934, 1937; 2 Briefe zwischen dem Psychatry Journal of the Biology and the Pathology of Interpersonal Relations Washington und Max Horkheimer, 21.08.1939, 11.09.1939;

Na 1 Nachlass Max Horkheimer, 32 - Korrespondenzen mit Familie Lehmann (p. I 16, 236-480)

6 Briefe zwischen E. Lederer und Max Horkheimer, 1936-1939; 1 Brief von Theodor W. Adorno an Minna Ledermann, 26.04.1941; 1 Brief von W. W. Lee an Max Horkheimer, 15.11.1938; 69 Brief zwischen Berta Lehmann, Flora Lehmann an Max Horkheimer, 1939-1944; 2 Briefe von Berta Lehmann, Flora Lehmann an Juliette Favez, März 1939; 1 Brief vom Reisebüro Anselm Stuttgart an Max Horkheimer, 02.04.1941; 4 Briefe zwischen der Auswandererstelle Marx Stuttgart und Max Horkheimer, 28.11.1940, 1941; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an Karl Adler, 24.01.1941; 2 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an Walter C. Louchheim, 1940; 5 Briefe zwischen dem American Consul General Stuttgart und Max Horkheimer, 1939-23.11.1940; 4 Brief zwischen der Auswandererstelle Adler Stuttgart und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 2 Briefe zwischen der Auswandererstelle Stuttgart und Max Horkheimer, 20.02.1940; 5 Briefe zwischen N. C. Leites und Max Horkheimer, 17.05.1937, 1937; 4 Briefe zwischen Irmgard Lenel und Max Horkheimer, 1941, 1942; 3 Briefe zwischen Heidi Lenssen und Max Horkheimer, 01.02.1937, 1937; 3 Briefe zwischen Theo F. Lentz und Max Horkheimer, 05.07.1945, 1945; 11 Briefe zwischen Jella Lepman und Max Horkheimer,1939-1941; 2 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an das American Consul General London, 1941; 1 Brief von R. Leppla an Max Horkheimer, 21.06.1948; 7 Briefe zwischen Max Lerner und Max Horkheimer, 1941, 1942; 5 Briefe und Beilagen zwischen Adolf Laschnitzer und Max Horkheimer, 1939-1940; 2 Briefe ziwschen dem The Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars, New York und Max Horkheimer, 23.110.1940, 07.11.1940; 3 Briefe und 1 Beilage zwischen Andrée Lespiaut und Max Horkheimer, 13.11.1948; 1 Brief von Max Horkheimer an A. Lesser, 21.05.1935; 1 Brief von Bobby Level und Frank Level an Max Horkheimer, 20.07.1949; 1 Brief von Julius Walter Levi an Max Horkheimer, 15.05.1940; 1 Brief von Bernhard W. Levmore an Leo Löwenthal, 13.08.1940; 3 Briefe von Margot von Mendelssohn an Bernhard W. Levmore, 1940; 3 Briefe zwischen Ernst Levy und Max Horkheimer, 21.05.1927, 1937; 1 Brief von Erwin Levy an Max Horkheimer, 23.03.1935; 17 Briefe zwsichen Hanna Levy und Max Horkheimer, Friedrich Pollock, 1936-1937; 6 Briefe zwischen Herbert Levy und Friedichpollock, 1939-1940; 1 Brief von Friedrich Pollock an Heinz Langerhans, 11.08.1939; 2 Briefe von Max Horkheimer an die Society of the Protection of Science and Learning, The Scott Polar Research Institut, Cambridge, England, 24.11.1939; 2 Briefe zwischen Marie Levy und Max Horkheimer, 18.12.1938, 03.08.1939; 10 Briefe und 1 Beilage zwischen Max Lexandrowitz, Magarete Lexandrowitz und Max Horkheimer, 1940; 1 Brief vom National Refugee Service New York an Max Horkheimer, 19.03.1940; 1 Rechnung vom Librairie Generale de Droit & de Jurisprudence Paris an Max Horkheimer, 18.05.1938; 2 Briefe zwsichen L. Lichtwitz und Max Horkheimer, 16.04.1936, 25.07.1938;

Can the new refugee relocation system work? Perils in the Dublin logic and flawed reception conditions in the EU. CEPS Policy Brief No. 332, October 2015 Thursday, 1 October 2015

This Policy Brief argues that the newly adopted EU temporary relocation (quota) system constitutes a welcome yet timid step forward in addressing a number of central controversies of the current refugee debate in Europe. Two main challenges affect the effective operability of the new EU relocation model. First, EU member states’ asylum systems show profound (on-the-ground) weaknesses in reception conditions and judicial/administrative capacities. These prevent a fair and humane processing of asylum applications. EU states are not implementing the common standards enshrined in the EU reception conditions Directive 2013/33. Second, the new relocation system constitutes a move away from the much-criticised Dublin system, but it is still anchored to its premises. The Dublin system is driven by an unfair and unsustainable rule according to which the first EU state of entry is responsible for assessing asylum applications. It does not properly consider the personal, private and family circumstances or the preferences of asylum-seekers. Policy Recommendations In order to respond to these challenges, the Policy Brief offers the following policy recommendations: The EU should strengthen and better enforce member states’ reception capacities, abolish the current Dublin system rule of allocation of responsibility and expand the new relocation distribution criteria to include in the assessment (as far as possible) asylum-seekers’ preferences and personal/family links to EU member states. EU member countries should give priority to boosting their current and forward-looking administrative and judicial capacities to deal and welcome asylum applications. The EU should establish a permanent common European border and asylum service focused on ensuring the highest standards through stable operational support, institutional solidarity across all EU external borders and the practical implementation of new distribution relocation criteria.

Hispanic immigration and Select Commission on Immigration's final report : hearings before the Subcommittee on Census and Population of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, first session, April 27, 28, 1981.

Item 1022-B, 1022-C (microfiche)

REFUGEES AND RESETTLEMENT: A QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF REFUGEE INTEGRATION THROUGH SOCIAL & SUPPORT SERVICES

This dissertation studies refugee resettlement in the United States utilizing the Integration Indicator’s framework developed by Ager and Strang for the U.S. context. The study highlights the U.S. refugee admissions program and the policies in the states of Maryland and Massachusetts while analyzing the service delivery models and its effects on refugee integration in these locations. Though immigration policy and funding for refugee services are primarily the domain of the federal government, funds are allocated through and services are delivered at the state level. The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which operates under the Department of Health and Human Services, was established after the Refugee Act of 1980 to deliver assistance to displaced persons. The ORR provides funds to individual states primarily through The Refugee Social Service and Targeted Assistance Formula Grant programs. Since the inauguration of the ORR three primary models of refugee integration through service delivery have emerged. Two of the models include the publicly/privately administered programs, where resources are allocated to the state in conjunction with private voluntary agencies; and the Wilson/Fish Alternative programs, where states sub-contract all elements of the resettlement program to voluntary agencies and private organizations —in which they can cease all state level participation and voluntary agencies or private organizations contract directly from the ORR in order for all states to deliver refugee services where the live. The specific goals of this program are early employment and economic self-sufficiency. This project utilizes US Census, state, and ORR data in conjunction with interviews of refugee resettlement practitioners involved in the service delivery and refugees. The findings show that delivery models emphasizing job training, English instruction courses, institutional collaboration, and monetary assistance, increases refugee acclimation and adaptation, providing insight into their potential for integration into the United States.

[principles Of Universality, Comprehensiveness And Equity In A Hearing Health Care Service].

This article analyzed whether the practices of hearing health care were consistent with the principles of universality, comprehensiveness and equity from the standpoint of professionals. It involved qualitative research conducted at a Medium Complexity Hearing Health Care Center. A social worker, three speech therapists, a physician and a psychologist constituted the study subjects. Interviews were conducted as well as observation registered in a field diary. The thematic analysis technique was used in the analysis of the material. The analysis of interviews resulted in the construction of the following themes: Universality and access to hearing health, Comprehensive Hearing Health Care and Hearing Health and Equity. The study identified issues that interfere with the quality of service and run counter to the principles of Brazilian Unified Health System. The conclusion reached was that a relatively simple investment in training and professional qualification can bring about significant changes in order to promote a more universal, comprehensive and equitable health service.

A retrospective study of Traumatic Dental Injuries in a Brazilian dental urgency service

Epidemiologic aspects of traumatic dental injuries (TDI) were evaluated in the permanent dentition in a sample of 847 patients treated at the Dental Urgency Service of the Dental School of the Federal University of Goiás, Brazil, between May 2000 and May 2008. The statistical treatment analyzed data from frequency distribution and chi-square test. The level of significance was set at 5% for all analyses. The results showed a higher incident among males (610; 72.01%) with mean age of 6-10 year-old. Uncomplicated crown fracture (without pulp exposure) (502; 26.95%), avulsion (341; 18.30%) and complicated crown fracture (with pulp exposure) (330; 17.71%) were the most prevalent TDI. The prevalence of trauma throughout the years showed proportionality, being observed a larger number of cases between July and September (249; 29.39%). The most affected teeth were the maxillary central incisors (65.65%), followed by the maxillary left lateral incisors (19.67%). In 311 participants (18.25%), only one tooth was involved, while in most patients (536; 81.75%), TDI occurred in more than one tooth. Significant proportion (82.27%) of traumatized teeth presented completely formed root apex. The main etiologic factors involved in TDI were falls (51.71%), traffic accidents (22.90%) and violence (5.67%). Based on the obtained data, it may be concluded that accurate policies of TDI prevention must be established, capable of stimulating the exposure of appropriate protocols for management of these lesions. The prevalence of TDI in Goiânia subpopulation is compared to the prevalence reported in epidemiological studies in others populations.

The Process of Simulation Authoring/Creation by Chemistry Teachers: A Service Learning Experience

Two case studies are presented to describe the process of public school teachers authoring and creating chemistry simulations. They are part of the Virtual Didactic Laboratory for Chemistry, a project developed by the School of the Future of the University of Sao Paulo. the documental analysis of the material produced by two groups of teachers reflects different selection process for both themes and problem-situations when creating simulations. The study demonstrates the potential for chemistry learning with an approach that takes students' everyday lives into account and is based on collaborative work among teachers and researches. Also, from the teachers' perspectives, the possibilities of interaction that a simulation offers for classroom activities are considered.

MODELING OF AN INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR WINE TRACEABILITY BASED ON A SERVICE ORIENTED ARCHITECTURE

The purpose is to present a scientific research that led to the modeling of an information system which aimed at the maintenance of traceability data in the Brazilian wine industry, according to the principles of a service-oriented architecture (SOA). Since 2005, traceability data maintenance is an obligation for all producers that intend to export to any European Union country. Also, final customers, including the Brazilian ones, have been asking for information about food products. A solution that collectively contemplated the industry was sought in order to permit that producer consortiums of associations could share the costs and benefits of such a solution. Following an extensive bibliographic review, a series of interviews conducted with Brazilian researchers and wine producers in Bento Goncalves - RS, Brazil, elucidated many aspects associated with the wine production process. Information technology issues related to the theme were also researched. The software was modeled with the Unified Modeling Language (UML) and uses web services for data exchange. A model for the wine production process was also proposed. A functional prototype showed that the adopted model is able to fulfill the demands of wine producers. The good results obtained lead us to consider the use of this model in other domains.