2013 Aug 24: Stephens County man charged with molestation

Posted: Aug 24, 2013 5:16 AMUpdated: Sep 02, 2013 5:00 PM

STEPHENS COUNTY, Oklahoma

A Stephens County man has been charged with molestation and indecent exposure for incidents involving two teenage girls, one is a foreign exchange student staying in his home.

James Campbell of Corum, Oklahoma was arrested after the 17 year-old student was awakened and saw Campbell performing a sexual act over her. When she screamed, the other 17 year-old woke up to see Campbell leaving.

She told investigators Campbell had previously molested her.  Sheriff McKinney says the foreign exchange student wants to go back home to Slovakia.

 “I don’t blame her she hasn’t been in the U.S. very long, she got here last Friday so that’s not a long time frame to be here and to have something this devastating to happen to her,”  said McKinney.

The Sheriff says the fact that two foreigners have come into harm’s way while in his county is sickening but hopes the actions of the accused don’t serve as a reflection of who they are.

“This is a wonderful country and we have our faults but so does every other country, but speaking of our county I wouldn’t live here, have my grandkids live here if I thought it was unsafe to raise a family here I feel this is one of the best places to live in the State of Oklahoma, ” explains McKinney.

2013 May 30: Probation for VHS coach in deal

Pleaded guilty to lewdness in incident with exchange student

From APP.com:
May 30, 2013

Written by Deborah M. Marko

VINELAND — As part of a plea agreement, a former volunteer Vineland High School assistant girls’ basketball coach pleaded guilty Wednesday to a lewdness offense admitting he exposed himself to a male foreign exchange student at his home.

John T. Kinka is now required to meet with a psychologist for an evaluation and is prohibited from any role in which he volunteers, mentors or coaches anyone under the age of 18 during a one-year probation, according the plea deal reached with the Vineland Municipal Court.

The charge stems from a Jan. 26 incident in which Kinka, who was a volunteer with the ASSE International foreign exchange program, had two visiting students stay at his Vineland home for a weekend.

The teens, assigned to a host family in Delaware, were Kinka’s overnight guests so they could attend a representative training conference in Atlantic County to give testimonials about their foreign exchange experience.

While at his home, the teens charged that Kinka exposed his genitals to one of them, requested to see him naked and unsuccessfully tried to pull down his pants, according to police reports filed about the incident.

After the students fled the home, they were spotted by a police officer about 4 a.m. who took them to the police station where they were picked up by their host family. The host family contacted ASSE officials about the incident, which was not initially reported to the police. ASSE, noting students were initially concerned they would be removed from the exchange program, notified the police about what the teens told them transpired in Kinka’s residence, according to ASSE officials contacted after Kinka’s arrest.

Last year, ASSE officials noted Kinka, a volunteer since the 2007-08 school year, was an organization representative serving as a contact for more than two-dozen students. He had a “exemplary record“ and passed three annual criminal background checks, according the organization’s records.

The Vineland school board removed Kinka as a volunteer coach after his arrest.

Initially, Kinka had entered a not guilty plea to the two counts of lewdness. Standing beside his attorney, Vincent Pancari, in Vineland Municipal Court Wednesday Kinka agreed to retract that.

Under the plea agreement, Kinka pleaded guilty to one charge of lewdness and a second lewdness charge was dismissed.

He was sentenced to one year probation and required to undergo an evaluation by a psychologist. Pancari noted the psychologist would be provided with the police reports and statements of the foreign exchange students.

The psychologist will be asked to determine if Kinka is a danger to himself or others as well as if he is in need of treatment Pancari said. If treatment is deemed necessary, Kinka agreed to complete it.

Kinka was also fined $257 and about $150 in court-related costs.

Municipal Prosecutor Inez Acosta said she spoke to the exchange students, who were present in court, and they told her “that the sentence is appropriate.”

They voiced concern that they didn’t want a similar incident to happen anyone else who might be placed in Kinka’s trust, Acosta said.

Reviewing the plea agreement with Kinka, Pancari asked him if did expose himself to one of the foreign exchange students identified in court by his initials.

“Yes,” Kinka said.

If Kinka should violate the terms of the plea agreement, Pancari explained he would be back to municipal court and could be sentenced on a disorderly person offense that carries the maximum sentence of about a year in jail.

Should Kinka comply with agreement, Pancari noted he could make a motion to vacate the balance of the probation after six months.

Acting Municipal Court Judge Nicholas Lacovara stated that Pancari said his client was “very sorry for this occurrence.”

Lacovara, noting Kinka was a first-time offender, said the sentence was “crafted primarily to make sure this did not happen again.”

Kinka has 20 days to file an appeal. He left court the room and paid his fines. He declined to comment.

An ASSE representative was in the courtroom. She referred inquiries to regional coordinator Sue Nelson, who could not be reached Wednesday evening.

———————————————————————

2013 Jan 31: Coach charged with lewdness

2013 Jan 31: Coach charged with lewdness

Written by Deborah M. Marko
John Kinka gave alcohol to two underage foreign exchange students and exposed himself, police allege.
John Kinka gave alcohol to two underage foreign exchange students and exposed himself, police allege.
VINELAND — A volunteer Vineland High School assistant girls’ basketball coach was arrested Tuesday on charges of lewdness and providing alcohol to two underage foreign exchange students.

John Kinka, 49, of the 2100 block of East Chestnut Avenue met the 17-year-old male students through his role as a volunteer with the ASSE International foreign exchange program.

Police were alerted Monday and launched an investigation that determined Kinka exposed himself to one of the teens and gave them vodka.

Two students, one from France and the other from Czech Republic, are participating in the ASSE program and placed with a host family in Delaware, according to Bill Gustafson, an ASSE spokesman.

Kinka has been a volunteer with international organization since the 2007-08 school year working as an area representative, Gustafson said. He has helped to recruit host families and held orientations, and was the contact for participating students, checking in with them on a regular basis.

During that time, Kinka has served as an organization representative to 29 students. ASSE reports he had an “exemplary record” and passed three annual criminal background checks.

The alleged incident unfolded when the host family dropped off the two teens at Kinka’s residence Friday because they were planning to attend a representative training conference in Absecon.

The teens were to stay at Kinka’s place for the weekend, then be brought back to Delaware on Sunday. The students were scheduled to attend the conference to provide testimonials about their experiences with the foreign exchange program, Gustafson said.

When the teens returned to Kinka’s residence Saturday night, police said, he provided vodka and played drinking games with them.

“After consuming alcohol with the juveniles, Kinka exposed his genitals to one of them and requested to see him naked,” according to a police report. “Kinka then unsuccessfully attempted to pull down the juvenile’s pants.”

The students fled Kinka’s residence and were spotted walking around the area by an off-duty police officer about 4 a.m., police said. The students were taken to police headquarters and their host family was contacted to pick them up.

At that time, police said, the students did not report the lewd behavior because they were concerned they would be removed from the foreign exchange program. However, ASSE was alerted about the allegations and notified police Monday.

Kinka was arrested Tuesday and provided no statement to investigators, police said. He was released on a summons.

After learning of the incident, Kinka was removed as an ASSE volunteer, Gustafson said.

Gustafson said the matter would be reported to the U.S. State Department, which regulates the foreign exchange program. ASSE also will reach out to sending offices to contact previous exchange students who were represented by Kinka, Gustafson said.

The two students have been assigned a new rep, Gustafson said. The program rules prohibit students from consuming alcohol but, in this case, Gustafson said, it appeared there was adult encouragement so the students will not be dismissed from the program.

The Vineland Board of Education has removed Kinka from his volunteer assistant coach position. He could not be reached for comment.

2009 Oct 21: USA: Former Councilman Gets Probation

Tony Licata who was arrested for “pinning down and fondling a foreign exchange student living at his home”  (unlawful restraint) was sentenced (see article below). The article on WFAA.com has been removed.

———————————–

Licata Plea Bargains for sentence of 24 months probation and a $386 fine.

October 21, 2009 Colleyville, Texas

Tony Licata former Place 2 Colleyville City Councilman was sentenced yesterday to 24 months probation for unlawfully restraining a teenage foreign ex-change student at his home last year.  Licata was instructed to continue private counseling.  If Licata completes his probation term his conviction will be set aside.

The original arrests warrants the victim’s therapist had first reported the incident to police.  The student was 17 when the incident took place at the Licata home.

The official rendition of the event had Licata having brief contact with the victim in the bedroom when Licata threw her on the bed after “hugging her and fondling her breast.”

He kissed here on the neck and shoulders then apologized for his actions and let the girl leave.

The DA’s office arranged for the victim to call Licata’s cell telephone while being recorded. On the call Licata said he had been instructed not to call her but he was concerned about her welfare and would visit with his wife to determine how best to look after the girl.

Reportedly the foreign exchange officials responsible for the program notified the U.S. State Department and Licata was removed as a volunteer and barred from hosting future students.

Nelson Thibodeaux, Editor
© 2000-2008 Local News Only.com™
Copyright – All rights reserved
Published by Local Net Com, Inc.
—————————————————————————-
2009 May: Colleyville Councilman Accused of Fondling Exchange Student
2009 Oct 20: Ex-Colleyville councilman sentenced for unlawful restraint

2012 Jul 25: Wilson guilty of sexual assault

The link to this article by Toriano Porter and Russ Pulley no longer seems to work. It was published Wednesday, Jul. 25 2012 8:46AM in Lee’s Summit Journal.

The article is about Brian J. Wilson who pleaded guilty to two counts of common assault against two teenage foreign exchange students, after initially being charged with one count of assault and one count of first degree assault, a class A felony.

A Lee’s Summit man who was the field director for an agency that helps bring foreign exchange students to the United States is serving one year of supervised probation after pleading guilty to charges that he inappropriately touched two foreign exchange students on separate occasions.

Brian J. Wilson, 49, pleaded guilty June 7 before Lee’s Summit Municipal court judge James Tobin to two counts of common assault after initially being charged with one count of assault and one count of first degree assault, a class A felony.

Wilson received a one-year suspended sentence with one year of supervised probation, which includes 40 hours of community service to be completed within six months and orders that he must not have contact with the victims. Wilson’s probation status will be reviewed in December.

Wilson is the father of Sean and Steven Wilson, two Lee’s Summit North students who were suspended in January for 180 days by the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District for posting blog posts the district deemed racist and offensive. The Wilson brothers were reinstated to North in April after a federal judge ruled the brothers could return to school.

Reached by telephone Monday, Brian Wilson denied guilt despite his guilty pleas, which stipulates that Wilson have no one-on-one contact or be in intentional close contact with children under 18 years old.

“I pled guilty, but I’m not guilty,” Wilson said of his pleas, which are considered violations of city ordinances. City officials said the charges were handled as a municipal ordinance violations because state prosecutors did not feel the cases met the threshold for sexual assault. “It was going to cost me several thousand dollars to fight the cases.

“I enjoy volunteering and working with children, but if – I don’t know how to explain it. The reason I pled guilty was I wanted to get things out of the way. Under the circumstances, the city offered a plea that eventually would not remain on my record. Rather than argue with a couple of kids – you know, ‘he said, she said,’ – and take any kind of risk of having something on my record, I pled what I pled and I don’t feel good about it. I’m trying to what’s right for myself and my family.”

Wilson was area field director for Youth for Understanding USA at the time of the accusations, but no longer works for the agency. YFU USA is a non-profit international agency that helps students from all over the world enroll in exchange programs. Wilson helped exchange students find host families for their stay in the United States.

Neil Routman, communication and development specialist for Youth for Understanding said Wilson was no longer an employee of the agency. In a telephone interview from its headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland, Routman said “It was very, very inappropriate and completely against all of our policies.”

In a prepared statement the agency said its “top priority is safety of the young people placed in its care.” It said Wilson was terminated early in 2012 following reports of inappropriate conduct. “Upon receipt of an allegation of inappropriate conduct, the local area representative followed YFU protocol and immediately notified the UFU Support Service Manager. Without delay, the Support Service Manager made arrangements to remove the student placed in this employee’s home. YFU directly contacted the Missouri Department of Social Services Children’s Division and the U.S. Department of State, alerting them of this alleged incident.”

Youth for Understanding said Child Protective Services conducted an investigation which resulted in an unsubstantiated conclusion. Despite that, YFU said, Wilson was placed on probation and prohibited from having direct contact with students or having them in his home. During the probationary period a second report of a similar incident which had occurred prior to the first reported incident. YFU notified local authorities and Child Protective Services of the second complaint and terminated Wilson’s employment.

Routman said all adult staff and volunteers undergo criminal background checks, including sex offender registries, and provides training for youth safety and to prevent sexual harassment. It trains students, volunteers, host families and staff to always report incidents to Support Service Managers, who are mandatory reporters to local authorities. Students receive training before and after arrival on identifying inappropriate behavior and how to report it to Youth for Understanding and authorities. It also screens host families, including mandatory in-home interviews, reference checks and criminal background checks.

Youth for Understanding, founded in 1951, has helped bring 250,000 exchange students to the United States from 60 countries, about 2,000 a year and sends 400 to 500 students abroad.

Wilson said he worked with more than 140 kids in two years with YFU USA, and that the two allegations were the only problems he ever had with children.

“One was lying, Wilson said, “and the other kid, it was just a misunderstanding.”

According to legal documents obtained by the Journal, Wilson was first accused of assaulting 17-year-old Camille Lingre, a foreign exchange student from France, in November of 2011.

Charging documents state that Wilson approached Lingre on Nov. 1, 2011 and asked her to come to his bedroom with him with a request for her to teach him to pronounce obscene words in French.

Later, the incident report reveled, Wilson asked Lingre to perform a sex act, which she stated to police made her feel uncomfortable. Lingre later stated to police that Wilson put his hand on her leg, apologized for making her feel uncomfortable then moved his hand further up her leg.

Lingre would eventually inform Sally Wooten, volunteer director for Youth for Understanding USA, of Wilson’s behavior, but Wooten, according to court documents, told Lingre that she and Wilson were good friends, that she had known Wilson for a long time and that she didn’t believe Wilson would do such a thing. Wooten could not be reached for comment.

Lingre, who was staying with Wilson and his family until she found a host family, later moved in with a family from Overland Park, Kan. It was there that Lingre confided in her host mother of what transpired at the Wilson home.

Child services in Kansas referred the case to Childe Protective Services in Missouri, who arranged for a forensic interview. Lingre later prepared a written statement of the incident.

Police questioned Wilson Nov. 30 of last year and he denied all the allegations. He told police at the time that he hugged Lingre when he dropped her off at her new home but he never touched her besides that.

Because of a lack of evidence, charges were not initially filed in the Lingre case, but the case was re-opened after another foreign exchange student came forward with similar accusations.

On Jan. 17, legal documents state, Lee’s Summit Police were contacted by family services in regard to a possible sex offense involving a 16-year-old girl and Wilson. The girl told police while she stayed at Wilson’s home before moving on to her host family that Wilson made her uncomfortable by asking her to translate obscene words into her primary language.

According to the incident report, Wilson touched the girl’s arm and rubbed it, then later invited her into his room where he motioned for her to sit on his bed. The girl stated Wilson was under the covers the entire time and that he told the girl a few days later that he was naked while they were sitting in his bed. The comment made the girl uncomfortable, but she also stated Wilson never touched her in any other way.

The next day Wilson was escorted to police headquarters for questioning where he denied allegations that he touched the girl. He stated that he did have her translate an obscene word into her language and agreed that the request was inappropriate. He also told police that she did sit on his bed while he was naked under covers but stated that the girl let herself in the bedroom and sat down.

The report indicates that Wilson told police that his wife was in the bathroom while the incident occurred and when contacted by police the wife first stated that she did not know what police were talking about.

After police explained the situation, the report states, Wilson’s wife told police that she may have been in the bathroom when the incident happened but that she was not positive.

Warrants were issued for Wilson’s arrest on Jan. 26 for assault on the 16-year-old girl and the previous case involving Lingre.

The Lee’s Summit host family for the 16-year-old girl declined to comment on the case.

“I’ve had several regrets,” Wilson said Monday. “I have to take care of my family and (legal fees are) an awful lot of money. I don’t know what else to say. Is (pleading guilty) something I wanted to do? No. I’m trying to get on with my life. If the city is telling me I can’t work around kids, that’s fine, I don’t have to. I have nothing inside of me that tells me I have to work with kids.”

2013 Apr 06: Norton guilty of sexual harrassment

Extracts of an article by Greg Bolt | Appeared in print: Saturday, April 6, 2013, page B1

“… Ronald Valatt Norton, 52, was placed on court probation for two years, ordered to pay $412 in restitution and was ordered to undergo counseling. … Norton and his wife were hosting the female exchange student, who was attending high school here through a program sponsored by Rotary International. But in October the girl received word that her grandfather had died, and she became extremely distraught. … The couple tried to console her and the girl eventually fell asleep in the couple’s bed with them, Hasselman said. That night, he said, Norton touched the girl improperly and she fled to her own room. … After contacting her parents via the Internet, the girl reported the incident to Rotary officials and was immediately removed from the home. She is now with a new host family and continuing her program, a Rotary official said. … Norton originally was charged with third-degree sexual abuse, but he agreed to plead guilty to the lesser harassment charge to avoid a trial.”

The entire article may be found at the Register Guard

2013 Sep 13: Host Family for Korean Exchange Students Charged with Child Molestation

(Lawrenceville, Georgia, September 13, 2013)  Gwinnett County Police Department Special Victims Unit detectives were called to a local school in reference to a sexual abuse report on September 11, 2013.  A teenager made an outcry of abuse to an employee of the school, who called police.  The victims told employees of the school that their host family had provided them with alcohol and forced them to strip and touch each other.

Detectives determined the victims were six Korean national teenagers, male and female, ranging in age from 15 to 18.  The victims were living with Woo Yi (A/M, 42 years old) and his wife, Hyun Yi (A/F, 41 years old).  The parents of the six victims had paid Woo Yi more than $15,000 each to host their children while they attended local high schools.  All six of the children lived with the Yi’s at their home: 3830 Regal Oaks Drive, Suwanee (unincorporated), Georgia.  The children attended several different schools.

When detectives interviewed the six victims, they said that the Yi’s would provide them with alcohol and have them play games.  The losers would be required to remove an item of clothing.  After the victims were naked, Woo Yi would order them to kiss and touch each other.  Detectives believe this happened four or more times.

Following the initial investigation, detectives placed Woo Yi and Hyun Yi under arrest for two counts of child molestation and six counts of furnishing alcohol to minors.  They are currently being held in the Gwinnett County Detention Center without bond.  Additional charges are under investigation.  The victims have been placed in temporary homes at their parents’ request.

2014 Dec 05: Young and State enter plea bargain to avoid another trial

According to the 2012 appeal, in the autumn of 2007 a foreign exchange student from South-Korea came forward and accused Richard Young, his host-father, of sexual abuse.

Young had hosted students several times through the exchange organization, Face The World Foundation (FTWF). He was the host-parent of this exchange student. Before arrival the two had contact and the student claimed Young “was obsessed with the sexual interests by teenagers.” At one time the student had been asked to send nude photograph of himself to Young. Upon arrival, August 1, Young continued talking about masturbation and teen sex. The first evening the student was given vaseline and tissue and encouraged the student to masturbate.

The talk about sex was kept up and Young kept on asking the student if he was gay. After grooming the student, Young touched the student’s genitals. At that time the boy was told to undress. They both laid down naked, and Young continued to touch the boy. Young told the boy not to speak to anyone of what had happened.

Young instigated another fondling session. This time the student was able to tell Young that he did not want this kind of behavior to continue. After that Young stopped.

At school, the exchange student’s behavior changed. The older exchange student also living with Young claimed the boy must be bipolar. So, that is what the boy said of his changed behavior. The boy did not speak of what had happened. Groomed people seldom do. The school became more and more concerned and contacted FTWF. Chaple sent the student to a psychologist. After that the exchange organization decided the student must return to South-Korea.

The exchange organization sent the student out of Kansas, and he stayed in Philadelphia with a friend of his family. The exchange organization representative, Connie Chaple,  told the exchange student he had to leave the country in two weeks. They boy told his father about the abuse and the father advised the student to get a lawyer.

However, Young was arrested and his house searched. Young was a frequent visitor of Asian gay and hetero porn sites. Young did not speak up in his own defence. He was convicted of three counts of indecent liberties with a child and one count of indecent solicitation of a child.

In 2011 Young appealed the conviction and February 2012 it was overturned. Young claimed evidence regarding his earlier abuse of three step-sons had been wrongfully admitted. The Judge overturned the 2008 verdict because of improperly admitted evidence.

The State Attorney sought a review of the decision with the Kansas Supreme Court. According to Fred Gough with Hutchinson News, Kansas Supreme Court summarily reverse the 2012 ruling and sent the case back to the Court of Appeals. To avoid a new trial, a plea deal was entered December 2014 and Richard Young completed his sentence November 2014.

2005: Conviction of sexual abusers of exchange students USA

This article by Wright and Aratani addresses the problem of background controls and the need for exchange organization to take their exchange students seriously when they complain. Finally, exchange organizations (sponsors) had to keep a record on sexual abuse cases. Sometimes they do, but often they don’t. The entire article can be read at:

Washington Post

By Robin Wright and Lori Aratani | August 12, 2005

Andrew Powers of Germantown admitted to sex offenses. (Montgomery Co. Police Dept. – Montgomery Co. Police Dept.) Yet the rules could not have prevented three cases of abuse now in the courts.

Gaithersburg High School biology teacher Andrew Powers sneaked into the bedroom of the 17-year-old German girl living with his family in the middle of the night last December and tried to get her to perform oral sex, according to a police affidavit. When his wife wasn’t home, Powers also “frequently” roamed the house naked in front of the student, the affidavit adds. Powers, who has resigned, is to be sentenced next week after pleading guilty to second-degree assault and fourth-degree sexual offenses. His attorney declined to comment.

The host father of a 16-year-old German girl in Plainwell, Mich., was charged in April with installing hidden cameras in her bedroom, first under her blankets, then in a dollhouse, to capture her naked. Dale Lacoss will be sentenced this month after pleading guilty to distributing the image of an unclothed person and possession of child sexually abusive material.

And this week, the coordinator for foreign exchange students in Sherwood, Ark., was charged with first-degree sexual assault for rape of three male European exchange students over the past year. In one case, during his wife’s absence, Doyle Meyer Jr. held a slumber party for students, provided them with alcohol and then masturbated one of the minors against his will, according to the police affidavit. The student was reluctant to file charges until he heard about others Meyer allegedly molested.

Meyer could not be reached for comment.

Foreign students are among the most vulnerable minors because they usually do not know U.S. laws, are unfamiliar with customs, are dependent on host families or sponsors, don’t know what to do when abused or are afraid to act, according to Lt. Frank Baker of the Allegan County Sheriff’s Office, who has been involved in the Michigan case.

“For a predator, this is the ideal situation,” Baker said.

Frank Swiderski’s abuse of a 17-year-old Vietnamese exchange student was detected in 2003, when an Eastlake, Ohio, police officer lectured to the boy’s health class about sexual assault. The student asked if the practices by his host father — nude massages, fondling and forcing him to shave Swiderski’s pubic hair — were normal. … At Swiderski’s home, police found photos of nude boys — many of whom appeared to be exchange students and some pictured with the former high school teacher — that dated to the 1970s…

Most cases reported in recent years involve host parents or personnel with sponsoring agencies.

In March 2004, California social studies teacher Peter Ruzzo was sentenced to three years in prison for having sex with a 15-year-old German student living in his home. Ruzzo told the victim “when he saw her foreign-exchange photo that he considered it a challenge, even before she got here, to have sex with her,” …

The State Department decided that publishing the regulations was worthwhile even if they do not eliminate the problem. …

Some groups, such as Bethesda-based Youth for Understanding, have been doing background checks for years. YFU uses the Internet to do a name check of all host family members. But Reed Rago, YFU’s director of development, conceded that the system is not foolproof.

Because there is no database, “we’re going to make our best effort to find out one way or another,” he said. …

In 2003, David Goodhead of Riverside, Calif., pleaded guilty to abusing a 16-year-old Danish student living with him during a trip to Yosemite National Park. Goodhead was sentenced to 36 months’ probation and a $1,500 fine.

In July 2004, Rotary Club exchange student coordinator James Anthony Dillon was sentenced to 30 months’ probation, with 18 months’ home confinement with an electronic monitor and a $2,000 fine, for three acts of molestation of a 17-year-old European student. As in many cases eventually reported, an American third party went to authorities.

(Research 1998 – 1999) Protecting Young People on European Exchanges

(CHILD-SAFE TRAVEL-SAFE)

HOLIDAY SNAPSHOTS…PROTECTING YOUNG PEOPLE ON EUROPEAN

EXCHANGES FROM ABUSE (Research 1998 – 1999)

 

Chris Gould, Chairman

Child-Safe International Ltd

Avon and Somerset Constabulary,

PO Box 37, Valley Road, Portishead, BristolBS20 8QJ, United Kingdom

Tel: + 44 (0) 1275 816131  / Fax: + 44 (0) 1275 816655

email: chris.gould@avonandsomerset.police.uk website: www.child-safe.org.uk

Background

Legislative and regulatory concerns about the policing and control of child sex offenders, convicted or otherwise, has increased both nationally and internationally during the past three to five years.  High profile cases in both the United Kingdom and Belgium have focused attention on the best way of combating such offending.

In August 1996 the first “World Congress Against Commercial and Sexual Exploitation of Children” was organised in Stockholm.  Several countries subsequently introduced extra-territorial legislation to prosecute citizens who commit crime against children overseas (“sex tourism”) and an increasing interest has been shown in the sex offender “register” concept that was initiated in the USA.  Such a register was introduced in the UK under the Sex Offender Act in September 1997.  Concerns continue about how to prevent potential child sex offenders gaining employment to work with children.  Both the European Union and the Council of Europe have taken decisions with pan-European implications.

The British Government is currently looking at preventing unsuitable people working with children, under the auspices of an interdepartmental working group.  Legislation is expected to be introduced in the Spring of 2001 which will lead to the creation of a national Criminal Records Bureau, allowing criminal record checks and, in some cases, intelligence checks to be carried out by employers on such staff.  The Premier’s Department, NSW, Australia have been working on a similar piece of legislation earlier this year, entitled “Employment Screening Procedures for Child Protection”.

Following his innovative work with the “Holiday Snapshots…” research, Detective Superintendent Chris Gould has been collaborating with the interdepartmental working group on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers, to ensure that his findings are considered for any future legislation.

Introduction

Just when it seemed that child abuse had infested all possible “child” areas of our society, and that nothing else could shock us or present itself as “new”… along came some extraordinary revelations by two experienced British police officers.

Following exposure that a Spanish boy had been placed within a host family in the policing area of the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, United Kingdom, the father of whom was a known paedophile, Chris Gould and Kaye Jones set about examining school exchanges and the cultural, educational and language commercial business within Europe. They wanted to see exactly who, and what, regulates this multi-billion dollar enterprise.

In April last year, the Home Office awarded a grant to both officers, with a remit to identify the range and extent of child abuse on international visits, focusing primarily upon the European Union.  Their research project “Holiday Snapshots…Protecting Young People on European Exchanges from Abuse” has already gained international recognition  –  even prior to publication.  By April 1999, the officers were receiving the Police Research Award for innovation from the Home Secretary Jack Straw MP.  By now, this pioneering child protection work of the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, had become known as “Child-safe” and this specialist area of investigation was referred to as

“Child-Safe Travel-Safe”.

For over a year the officers travelled extensively looking at the best practice child protection procedures across the world.  The results of their research focus on homestays by young people under the age of 18 and have now been consolidated.  The findings were then segmented into a series of practical information books targeted at the main groups involved in organising or using international homestays.  The seven books provide practical guidelines on how to set up and monitor child safety policies whilst also providing a solid background of case histories from around the world which illustrate the extent and seriousness of this problem.  This paper can only hope to give a brief overview of the issues, findings and recommendations.  Further details of the work can be found by accessing the “Child-Safe” website (www.child-safe.org.uk), or by speaking with the authors.

Some things became clear almost immediately. No-one seemed to know the structure of the industry itself, such is its complexity and diversity.  The business is totally unregulated and few, if any, checks are being done in respect of host families, agents or organisations.  Crimes against children are happening and are either not being reported or the information is suppressed.

The research project was designed to capture anecdotal evidence from across Europe of cases where young people had experienced abuse in this way.  These examples were sought in order to establish the range of difficulties that young people were encountering, without speculating as to the scale of the problem unless records and interviews made it statistically possible.  This evidence would hopefully reinforce the need for legislation, regulation of controls to be put in place across the European Community.  At the very least it would foster debate as to the level of State intervention, raise awareness of the issues, improve self regulation and ultimately lead to enhanced safety and welfare conditions for young travellers.

Objectives

The project has two primary objectives:

  • To identify a sample of cases involving child abuse to or by foreign visitors within the European Community, following placements into host families by school exchanges, twinning or other educational or cultural visits.
  • To determine how the research findings can be used to assist European Governments, relevant travel organisations or other businesses, language schools, educational authorities or twinning associations in preventing the placement of young people on European exchanges in a home where they are likely to be at risk from abuse.

The project also has three hidden objectives:

  • Publicity, to ensure that parents and organisations are made aware of the potential risks inherent with such travel
  • To work towards the creation of appropriate legislation or regulation within the UK or Europe
  • To publish informative travel books/booklets to targeted audiences offering the best practice and guidance alternatives

Methodology (in brief)

à         Press strategy…release of information re research and cases uncovered

à         Personal interviews with victims, parents, organisers, agents, schools,

host families

à         Focus days held with specialists both in the UK  and abroad

à         Telephone interviews with organisations, victims etc

à         Questionnaires sent to host families, organisations and students

(10,000 – UK only)

à         Telephone questionnaire with 54 police forces UK and Channel Islands

à         Extensive literature searches, including internet search and document analysis

à         Visits to USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Belgium,

Spain etc

Research findings

It has been established that this “industry” is extremely diverse and complex, and for some twenty, thirty or even forty years it has existed without any form of regulation.  The standards within the businesses vary dramatically from those which have set up their own professional standards body to those ”cowboys” who seasonally set themselves up to make a fast dollar.  This can mean, for instance, that children are being placed within homestays that have never been visited, let alone checked.  There are many instances where extra children have turned up on the coach and organisers have resorted to knocking on doors randomly in order to find last minute hosts, some have even flicked through telephone directories, ringing locals who may be able to assist and at the same time earn some extra cash.

Within the first three months some 550 cases of abuse had been discovered, ranging from neglect through to emotional, physical and sexual abuse.  This was enough to indicate to the authors that there is a problem and from that time their efforts were concentrated on looking for best practice and guidance from which recommendations for change could be made.  Whilst the research considers all types of travel that young people under 18 years venture upon; whether it be staying in youth hostels, hotels, igloos or under canvas: 95% of all abuse cases uncovered happened within a homestay environment.  The number of recorded cases uncovered during this research now exceeds 1,000.

For many child protection professionals, the cases discovered will not be shocking.  They will not be different in any way to those already experienced within their own professional capacities.  However, one big difference is that of those first 550 cases which were Europe wide with a handful from New Zealand, Australia, Canada and America; only three had ever reported to any law enforcement agency.

Victims give many reasons for not reporting, for example; not being able to speak the language; putting up with the situation because it is only short stay; lack of understanding in relation to culture, practices or procedures; not having a parent or guardian close by or contactable, nor any other adult with whom they feel comfortable to disclose.  In many cases, the use of a telephone to either ring home or contact an adult supervisor or guide is restricted or made difficult by homestay rules.  In some situations telephone calls are forbidden.  Young people travelling abroad or away from home are vulnerable, some more than others.

If a report is made to agents or organisers, the young person is generally removed from the host family, but that is the full extent of the action taken, leaving an offender or suspect free to host again.

Whilst the research focused on cultural, educational and language visits made by the under 18 year olds travelling abroad, there was little, if any, safety, welfare or pastoral guidance being given by any organisation.  Since this work started in the UK the officers have worked closely with the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), who, following consultation with the authors, have now published “Guidance on Pupil Health and Safety on School Visits” which includes advice about International Visits.  The British Incoming Tour Operators Association (BITOA) have also consulted the authors and produced a “Homestay Committee Report” giving advice for homestays.  The British Council, ARELS and BASELT have published some of the earlier pieces of guidance issued during this research.

The complexity and diversity of this industry, coupled with apparent under-reporting of incidents of abuse to the authorities, has resulted in law enforcement agencies having little, if any, intelligence or information on this area of criminality.  Limited intelligence and involvement, that is: until now. Law enforcement includes not only the police, but Customs and Excise, Immigration, Europol, Interpol, National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) as well as prosecution lawyers.

Specific Cases

Cases range from children not being fed at all whilst on a visit, to those fed solely on such things as peanut butter or jam in order to save money.  Others have slept three to a bed, some sleeping under beds or in a cupboard under the stairs and others as young as seven or eight who have simply been left or abandoned and have quickly found themselves to be lost.

There have been cases where the host family circumstances have changed and visitors have been turned out of the home following domestic disputes or some who were not accepted into the home in the first instance.  Many children and young people have been victims of acquisitive crime with property or money being stolen.  Some have suffered verbal and racial abuse and we have heard many reports of young people who have been exposed to domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse by their hosts.

At the more sinister, thin of the wedge, there are known, or suspected, sex offenders or child abusers who have infiltrated the “industry” – either acting as hosts or attaining more prominent positions as language school teachers or even agents or organisers.  The researchers came across cases of known paedophiles who have been trafficking vulnerable young people from places like Albania into Europe.  At this time, it is difficult to determine the full extent of abuse or the level of such incursion.  Suffice to say, that what has been revealed is considered to be just the tip of the iceberg.

There are but a few known, reported cases that have subsequently been investigated and prosecuted.  In Perth, Western Australia, a 65 year old organiser was convicted less than two years ago of the sodomy, amongst other crimes, of a 14 year indigenous boy who was en route from the north to stay with a host family in the South West.  This man had been abusing vulnerable children on such cultural exchanges for many years.

In Minnesota, USA, A 17 year old French boy who stayed with a host family, was convicted of sexual assault of the 12 year old daughter of his hosts, following several days of molestation.

In Nottinghamshire, UK a host father was convicted of possession of pornographic videos following a disclosure by the young Spanish boy whom it is believed he was sexually attempting to groom.

Scale of the problem

The scale of this problem is unknown due to the inadequate records kept within Europe in respect of youth travel.  Essentially, there is no base line from which to begin calculations.  However, to give the issue some perspective, estimates from tourist records kept by the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board, indicate that in 1998 some 4 million children under the age of 18 entered the UK. Of those, just over 1 million travelled on what are recorded as independent holidays or studies.

From a European search, the researchers estimate that in 1998 between 5 and 6 million children and young people travelled abroad on cultural, educational or language trips, the majority of which passed without incident.  Although impossible to say accurately, the officers’ professional view from the work conducted so far is that in total approximately 4-5% per annum are suffering some form of abuse.

There are some 60+ million school aged children in Europe, so the potential growth in this area of travel is huge.  Youth tourism already represents 20% of the world tourist market and this figure is growing.  In 1998, within the UK alone, student expenditure was in excess of £1 billion (including course fees, accommodation and travel).

To give a further example of the size and scale to this “industry”, the Federation of International Youth Travel Organisations (FIYTO) represent some 289 member organisations world-wide in 72 different countries.  Their turnover per annum is 6 billion US dollars, serving some 14 million young people travelling annually and selling over 6 million air and surface tickets.

Research Methodology

Within the United Kingdom the officers circulated

  • 5,280 host family questionnaires
  • 1,242 student questionnaires to international visitors within the UK
  • 574 questionnaires to school aged pupils (12-14 years)
  • 1,260 questionnaires to university students
  • 731 questionnaires to organisers

The return rate is at present in excess of 15%, however, responses continue to be received almost daily.

Following the implementation of a media strategy many individuals came forward and face to face interviews were conducted with victims, parents, organisers, agents, teachers and others.  An abundance of mail has been received from people with concerns together with supporters of this work and organisations looking to implement changes as well as many individuals who have suffered abuse whilst travelling in this way.

Experiments were conducted in various parts of the UK, and police checks were made on host families employed by certain organisations.  In one such experiment, 700 families were checked, 26 had serious convictions for offences such as supplying drugs, armed robbery, indecency offences, serious assaults and two known paedophiles were identified.

Numerous focus days have been held gathering experts together both in the UK and Spain.  Searches have been made, throughout Europe and beyond, including both literature trawls and the examination of travel statistics and existing legislation.  Meetings have taken place with Europeans from the travel industry, youth exchange, education, child protection charities, law enforcement and others both on a formal and informal basis.

Presentations have been made by the authors at both the House of Commons, UK, and the European Parliament in Brussels highlighting the concerns and problems within this area of youth and student travel. Ministers are now working towards airing these issues within the European Parliament Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs Committee.

Emerging facts from completed host family questionnaires

  • only 11.6% of host families were interviewed face to face
  • only 13% were obliged to supply references
  • around 10% were never visited by the agents or organisations nearly 10% of organisers making a home visit failed to check on students’ sleeping arrangements or facilities
  • over half were not asked to sign any form of contract
  • only 10.6% of host families received an unannounced visit
  • 61.5% work for language schools
  • only 25.5% of host families were asked if they would consent to a police check
  • only 10.9% were  required to look after students’ welfare
  • 25.2% of host families said that they had experienced “difficulties” when hosting
  • 21.2% of these said the organiser had been “unhelpful” or “very unhelpful” at these times
  • 93.9% of host families were given information about their student prior to their arrival
  • 65.6% were provided guidance and practical support from the organiser

Recommendations – the way forward

Earlier in this report the use of criminal records was alluded to.  The authors are clear, however, that at this time, this is not the answer.  A code of practice ensuring a minimum standard of operation must be implemented throughout this industry and criminal record checks may form part of this as an additional safeguard.

The following is a brief synopsis of the detail contained within the travel guide booklets which the authors have produced. The books themselves will contain suggested formats for written documentation, proformas of checklists, examples of forms and full explanations of the bullet points listed below.

  • Young people must be protected from harm and their general welfare promoted
  • Children have rights – this must be recognised and they must be treated with respect
  • Awareness of child protection issues should be raised throughout your organisation – consider addressing the following

– write a mission statement for your organisation

– ensure that you have a child protection policy

– identify a “Child Protection Officer”

  • Develop safety procedures which minimise the likelihood of children and young people being harmed and which enable organisers and others to respond effectively to accidents or suspected cases of abuse.
  • Empower children and young people and their parents

– give them information about the culture of the country in which they will stay

– tell them where they will be living

– give helpline numbers and emergency contact points

– give everyone involved in the trip an opportunity to feed back about their experiences

–  inform  parents of all arrangements and itineraries

  • Establish links with parents and other relevant organisations, both in this country and abroad
  • Create the right environment to ensure a safe and successful experience – the key points are

– Support

– Communication

– Information

– Preparation

  • Share information about any problems or concerns you may have about individuals or in general
  • with each other

  • between agencies

  • Develop good practice and
  • review and continue to progress and develop

  • hold regular seminars and invite people from all aspects of your  business

  • commercial groups who hold conferences should extend invitations to the voluntary sector and others who are involved in the same work

  • Make sure you have appropriate management practices in place

– raise your standards of child safety

– implement a preventative strategy– it is better to avoid problem than to risk

– safety of a young person

  • Ensure adequate pre-trip planning is conducted
  • consider making a risk assessment of the homestays into which young people will be placed

  • distribute bi-lingual help cards – in the visitor’s own language with the English equivalent

  • advise host families about possible requirements for insurance relating to both property and their vehicle

  • Implement proper training – host parents may be acting in loco parentis and they need to understand the implications of this, as well as your staff/employees
  • ensure a basic level of first aid

  • give adequate health and safety training

  • make sure they understand what to do if a child protection issue arises

  • record and evaluate incidents at homestays – and share the information with each

  • other and between agencies where appropriate

  • Leaders should be fully trained and aware of their responsibilities

  • Recruitment of host families – for instance, language schools in the UK can do the following
  • Contact Area Child Protection Committees to let them know you exist

  • Form a relationship with your Community Beat Officer

  • Subject access checks can currently be undertaken for a fee

  • An interdepartmental working group has been established to look at the following new pieces of legislation

  • Preventing unsuitable people working with children

  • Criminal Records Bureau

  • Check employee details against the DfEE List 99
  • Check employee details against the D H Consultancy Service
  • Define the role of a host family – all parties need to be aware of expectations
  • Address the suitability of current advertising for host families, photographs of children and some text phrases may be wholly inappropriate and attract the type of host
  • Screen Applicants
  • conduct interviews over the telephone and in person

  • make sure that every person who regularly stays within the household has been met

  • ask for a declaration to be signed by each member of the household stating there is no reason why that person should not have access to children and that they have no

  • criminal convictions

  • two people should conduct interviews wherever possible

  • check the identification of the household members – use the voters’ register

  • ask for references – and then follow them up

  • Check out accommodation
  • hosts should be made aware of the organisation’s terms and conditions

  • hosts should be aware of all relevant regulations, legislation and safety issues

  • an accommodation checklist should be completed

  • a host family application form and contract should be signed and dated

  • Remember
  • children and young people should always be listened to, given a sense of belonging and kept safe from harm

  • parents should be informed, supported and encouraged

  • staff volunteers who work with children and young people should be trained, supported and protected

European Conference, Bath 18-22 August 1999

Between 18 and 22 August 1999 invitations were extended to over 100 expert delegates from the 29 Council of Europe Countries.  These experts, from law enforcement, social services, health, youth travel, education and various children’s charities and non-governmental organisations, together with government and European Commission representatives, heard key note speeches and took part in inter-active workshop sessions. Delegates were given an opportunity to critique the work of the authors and present their personal and organisational perspectives in relation to the issues raised.

The conference concluded with each of the European experts endorsing and validating both the work and the research findings.  Undertakings were given that the Child-Safe Travel-Safe guidance would be promoted in each of the Council of Europe countries and lobbying of governments would continue.  Through this inaugural network, delegates committed themselves to continue to work in their respective countries, supporting each other to the goal of enhanced welfare, safety and pastoral care of children and young people engaged in international travel.

UK Launch – House of Commons, 11 October 1999

On 11 October 1999 the Child-Safe Travel-Safe booklets were launched at the House of Commons, London, by Home Office Minister Charles Clarke MP.  Other dignitaries present included Senator Landon Pearson, Advisor on Children’s rights, Canadian Senate; Diana Lamplugh, Suzy Lamplugh Trust; Gordon Blakely, British Council; together with representatives from the Department for Education and Employment, The Federation of International Youth Travel Organisations and children’s charities such as Childline and the NSPCC.

Conclusion

You would not send your child to a house at the end of your street if you knew nothing about the person living there.  Yet on the strength of a glossy brochure, the payment in some cases of vast sums of money, and an assumption that someone else has asked the right questions, we send our children thousands of miles across the world to stay with strangers.

The companies, organisations and individuals that abuse this blind trust cannot be allowed to continue to profit from it and we must all take responsibility for the care and safety of our young people.

7 homes/3 states/3 schools

Exchange organisation US: EF Foundation – 3 states (Oregon/Washington/Idaho)

Exchange families: 7 families – temporary and so-called permanent

My exchange year was 06/07. I had been looking forward to my exchange experience for many years. Like many here I trusted that EF was a good and trustworthy organisation – something that later turned out to be a naive expectation.

Like many others I was told by EF that it was not unusual to not have a permanent exchange family by the time I left my home country. I had been given a welcome-family that would also function as my IEC representatives.

EF told me many times that a welcome-family was plus in that it created a larger network in the US. So I felt this was the least of my problems.

I chose to attend EF’s Language and Culture Camp at Rhode Island and the friendships I found here turned out to be the only support I felt I had during my stay in the US. EF say to proudly that this will be “the best year of your life” and that they have a great support network for you, 24 hours a week. I might have been blind to this network but am afraid that it was non-existent rather than a real thing. Unfortunately I was not alone in experiencing this. At camp we were told to make certain of the subjects at the schools we were being placed at. The state I was going to was Orgeon – and I knew I could end up at three schools: McMinnville, Sheridan and Willamina. It turned out only McMinnville was a school that offered a certain spectrum of subjects – the other two were more limited. They did not offer French – something I accepted – and hardly any math classes.

I contacted my present IEC and asked if they could try to place med at McMinnville. I was told I’d been placed with a family in Sheridan – and that this was where I was supposed to live! This family was excited about having me come live with them. I felt reassured.

At the airport in Portland I was met by what I thought was to be my future exchange family and my IECs. I remember the first thing my IEC’s said to me was: “Isn’t this weird XXXX, this is going to be your family for a whole year…” The family itself was really nice, and I have nothing to say against them. The strange thing was the family situation when I got to their home. Exchange mother’s mother was dying from cancer and a lot of time was spent with her. Exchange father was a police officer who had recently been in a shooting incident where he had been the shooter. This made XXXX wonder why the family would take in a permant exchange student? I had been given the youngest daughter’s room… But this was really strange. She slept in the middle child’s room on an air mattress. This couldn’t be right? XXXX’s suspicions were confirmed when friends of the family came to visit. They asked a lot of questions about schools and other things. I think they suspected I was a bit confused – when exchange dad later talked to me about how much he liked me, and that I would have been a great fit, but that he hoped that it wouldn’t be fair for them to keep her. That they were only a welcome-family was not meant as an insult. I told him what my family and I had been told – that this was to be my permanent family!

Exchange father was extremely provoked at my IEC who had called and nagged them over a longer period. After a lot of pressure they had agreed that I could live there temporarily – max 3 weeks, while they were looking for another family. When I tried to confront my IEC with this – he told me further lies about exchange mother phoning him stating that she wanted me to stay, but not exchange father. And he did not have time to talk with me about this. Exchange father became even more provoked over these continued lies – and phoned my IEC again and told him that exchange mother had NEVER spoken with him.

EF later accused me for having complained to the exchange family that I had to attend school in Sheridan (never happened) and for me making such a mess I was practically thrown out of the family. This was not true either as I had asked to not go on a camping trip with the family and move out earlier instead, because I was at that time incredibly upset, angry and worried with EF. Therefore I did not want to join them camping because I was afraid I would ruin the experience because of the situation I was in. This led to me moving in with the RC of the area. I was supposed to live temporarily with them until something else turned up. EF has yelled at me repeatedly because I have called both of these exchange families as they were only temporary families. I realise this is correct – but they were still families I had to adjust to.  This was an elderly couple – where the days were spent with the exchange father watching sports on TV. I had little or nothing to do. I got breakfast when I rose around 9 am (i.e. cereal and milk) and there was little chance of other meals between breakfast and dinner. I did not dare to ask. Dinner was not until 8 pm. So long days, with little food.

After this I was moved to a very lovely couple. They tried to help me as much as possible. Unfortunately I was unable to stay with them as they were not able to find a school to take me in.

At this time I was given my 4th – yet first permanent family. I was told that I was to live with a German exchange student. EF once again broke their rules. They were supposed to ask my parents if it was OK for me to live with another exchange student. This never happened. From the first time I met my exchange mother I felt this would never work. This was a woman who smelled strongly of sweat – covered with strong perfume. She was very direct – and several uncomfortable episodes happened around her. When we were in a store and a guy sat selling cell-phones the woman would go up to the guy and tell him I was from Norway and interested in getting to know him. She would then laugh and walk away. The other thing she asked me about from the first days was: “XXXX, do you need any tampex or anything? Because you know, if you were my daughter, I wouldn’t let you use that stuff, it is not good for you… But I guess since you’re not my daughter I can’t control whether you use that stuff or not… But to put it plain – there’s only one thing you put up there, anyway, you’re not doing any of that while you’re here”… and looked at me angrily. This was the second day – 2 hours after we had spoken properly… The house was about 2.3 metric miles from other civilisation. It was large – but extremely dilapitated and gross. They had 10 cats and 2 dogs. One of the dogs was very unstable. It would bark and bite… The animals urinated and defecated several times in the hallway and basement and bath rooms. All exchange mother would do would be to throw sand over it all – some that led to a strong smell all over the house. The large amount of dust often led to me having problems breathing. The bath room was practically a hole in the wall – with cement floor. The house and bath-room were not washed in the nearly 3 months I lived with the family. One window was taped over with a piece of cardboard – as it was broken. It was not fixed for the longest time. The exchange family did not only live in a gross house. They were also (as several people in the neighborhood said) mentally unstable. I can tell of several episodes, but here are some of the worst.

The first episode was at the dinner table where I was doing my home-work. Exchange mother explaimed: “XXXX, do you want to see my mother?” I said, “huh?” She then said, “Yes, do you want to see my mother? I have her ashes in my closet. Do you want to see?” I said no. For an outsider this might sound like a joke – but unfortunately it was anything but. Another time she phoned a friend of mine and yelled at her because I’d not been able to get in touch with her one day. My friend thought I was very angry with her – something that wasn’t cleared up until later. When I confronted exchange mother with this, she stated that she could do anything she wanted even if it did created intrigue and misunderstandings. The day I left, I turned around and there she was with a scissor. She then said: “Come on XXXX, give me some of your hair?” “No, why should I?” I answered. She then said: “Sure, come on – I want it as a souvenir.” With a strange look in her eyes. I refused. Later she held my hand in a hard grip and said strictly: “look me in the eyes; will you miss me? ANSWER me.” While I was in that home I went to be at 6 pm every day to get through the days.

The German boy and I did not get along very well – in the beginning I blamed him too much for that. Mostly because I wasn’t possible to talk about our experiences with EF. Later on we became better friends when we realised that we only had each other. The situation in the house – plus its location which led to my driving the bus about 2 hours every day to get to and from schoo, made it a difficult situation. Only seldom was I allowed to speak with my parent and then only for 10 minutes. She could not have her telephone line held up. On her own part she spoke with her own daughter almost every day. There was no coverage for cell-phones or TV. The area was dangerous to go for walks in because of traffic. We could not go online – because of keeping the phone line busy. Fortunately I was able to speak with my parents via my Norwegian cell phone every day. I brought it with me to school and texted them. Those texts kept me going.

My IEC was extremely disrespectful. She spoke to me as if I could not understand what she said. She spoke to me as if I was a baby and it was difficult not to answer back in the same manner. On several occasions she would phone me and scream into the phone – just to yell. Everything I did was wrong. All I did was complain, try to get people to feel sorry for me etc. She never listened to what I had to say and interrupted me in the middle of any sentence. She made me cry and then called me a drama queen that would never get anywhere in life because I cried all of the time. And so on.

Today I realise that this was psychological abuse. Because how vulnerable is a 16/17 year old all alone in another country without a network. But EF would not listen to me. They refused to move me. I was desperate and talked to my Norwegian friend. She spoke with her exchange mother who reacted and demanded that EF move me there and then. This was not a great move on my part.

I was made to speak with EF in front of my exchange family. How easy is it to explain how bad the situation is then? While they were all listening in? Of course, I wasn’t able to say how I felt at that time. That was impossible. What I had thought was confidential between myself and EF was served up on a platter in for the rest of them. EF placed me on a behavioral agreement because I had broken “the chain of communication”. It stated that I should respect the family and computer and telephone usage (something I did, but OK) and I was also told that I should sign this and agree that this was the best family I could get and best school I could attend. Not only that, but I needed to treat everyone with respect etc. I refused to sign – I was not about to stay here the rest of the exchange year. I would rather end the year. I could not take any more time there. Apparently the agreement was supposed to be valid even without my signature.

In the period after this my parents were called up by EF Oslo who told them that I had been thrown out of the family and was now living with my IEC because of my behavior. My parents became terribly worried – until they were able to speak with me. These were untrue rumours – nothing even close had happened. I was in town with the other exchange student and nothing even similar had happened. I still don’t understand where that information came from. I visited my Norwegian friend and exchange mother. When they drove me home again the exchange mother entered the house because she claimed she needed to use the bath-room (probably an excuse to see my living conditions). Both she and my friend told me later that they had not realised that my situation was as bad as it was and that they were shocked. My friend exclaimed that she would not have stayed there even a day. It was simply too awful… And it probably was.

My dad phoned EF Oslo and told them what he had learned. He phoned several times. Finally he said that either you move her to a better home or you send her home. First then EF reacted. What I said meant little – only the exchange families’ versions count. To me it is incredibly that my exchange family could ever have been approved – and even more amazing that my IEC was allowed to be an IEC. I was then moved to another temporary family. But there was not space for me at a school.

I enjoyed myself there – but was of course worried because I could not go for too long without attending school. I needed my year approved.

I was moved to another state – Washington. EF called this another temporary solution. But I could stay if I liked it. I started my second school. I lived with an elderly couple. She was 86 years old and both were German. They spoke more German to me than English. He was very poorly. He used a walking frame and barely managed to get from his chair to the dinner table about a meter away. One time he fell over on the bath-room floor and I had to pick him up. During my stay there I was afraid of coming home one day finding one of them dead. I was supposed to have been included and invited by her daughter who was an IEC – and lived about 50 meters away. But was was kept alone there too. Long days filled with fear. Until I was finally told – after staying with the couple about 1.5 month – that EF had found me a permanent family. At this point my 7th family.

This family lived in Idaho – my third state. The problem was – as I discovered when I got there – that the school did not have room for me. None of the schools (three of them) wanted to take in another student until the trimester was finished. EF then decided that I could attend a private school for “problem children” – something I was fine with because it was a temporary solution. The problem was that this school was less than an hour from Idaho Falls – and that meant that it too was impossible. Later on EF talked about me home-schooling myself for 1.5 months. The did not even know if I could live there because they could not find a school. I liked the family a lot and would not agree to another move.

Even though EF said it was impossible to get into a school – my exchange mother and I want to Idaho Falls High School and asked to talk to the principal. Idaho is a gathering spot for mormons, so to speak – and the assistant principal had been on a mission to Norway and was fascinated with the country. He managed to convince the principal to admit another student in the middle of the trimester – even though they weren’t accepting any more exchange student for that school year. So I was really lucky. Who knows what would have happened if this problem had not been solved.

After getting back to Norway I sent a letter of complaint to EF – one that was somewhat like this, except this is a much less detailed one. I was recompensed – but never really apologised to. That is what I would like. Money can never make up for my being sent from one family to the other – and for experiencing one lie after the other. I never got a network in the US – and the rest of my time there was nice – but I was often home-sick because of my experiences. Sure, all organisations can make mistakes – but for me it seems as if EF are really good at making them. What kind of organisation allows such things to happen? How can they place students in such families? This is what I wonder… But a proper apology? An answer to my complaint and questions? Nah, I don’t see that coming …

2011 Dec: “A Cavalier Attitude”: The State Department’s Legacy of SWT Failure

By Jerry Kammer December 2011
Part Four of Cheap Labor as Cultural Exchange: The $100 Million Summer Work Travel Industry


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.
And so, in recent years, SWT participants have taken jobs in areas notorious for high unemployment. For example, McDonald’s restaurants in the Washington-Baltimore area have employed hundreds of SWT students, including at least two Russians who in the summer of 2010 worked at the McDonald’s one block from the White House, on 17th Street.
The State Department, whose culture and worldview are shaped by a mission to win friends and influence people in foreign lands, has been oblivious to SWT’s effects at home. Abroad, it has engaged in “visa diplomacy”, touting the J-1 visa as a ticket for college students to work and travel in the U.S.
Even in 2009, when the recession caused State to request that sponsors scale down the numbers brought to the U.S., spokesman Andy Laine told the Baltimore Sun that the request was “a temporary measure… made out of concern for our potential exchange visitors, recognizing that they will face a difficult job market and high exchange rates.”3 There was no mention of unemployed Americans.
The GAO’s Failed Attempt to Limit SWT
The first attempt to constrain the Summer Work Travel program appears to have been made in 1990, as the General Accounting Office suggested limiting employers’ access to the young participants. The GAO issued a report that criticized some job placements as inconsistent with the intentions of the 1961 Fulbright-Hays Act, which created SWT and other exchanges.
The purpose of the legislation was “to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries by means of educational and cultural exchange” and “to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic, and peaceful relations between the United States and the other countries of the world.”4
But the GAO said the employment of exchange visitors in such SWT job categories as waiters and cooks and amusement park workers did not serve “clearly educational and cultural purposes” and therefore “dilutes the integrity of the J visa and obscures the distinction between the J visa and the other visas granted for work purposes.”5
The GAO suggested changes in the federal regulations governing exchange programs in order to make them consistent with the intent of Fulbright-Hays. That proposal presented a threat to many SWT sponsors and employers, raising the possibility that their access to foreign students would be reduced.
The USIA later noted that the report had put SWT “under a cloud of uncertainty” and that exchange sponsors “have sought to resolve the question of Agency authority.”6 They got their wish. In 1998, Congress passed legislation that removed the cloud, allowing the USIA and later the State Department to continue to approve the job placements criticized by the GAO.
That point was driven home by Stanley Colvin, who at that time was director of State’s Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation. In a Hartford Courant story about Polish SWT workers who were complaining about “draconian” working and living conditions at a Six Flags amusement park in Massachusetts, Colvin told the newspaper, “These programs do not operate under Fulbright-Hays authority – period, the end.”7
The congressional move to remove the GAO’s cloud was a big victory for laissez-faire at SWT. It surprised some observers. Said Andrew Schoenholtz, director of law and policy studies at a Georgetown University, “Rather than change their policy to conform to the legislative intent, they’ve changed the legislative intent.”8
Sen. Udall Seeks “Proper Guidelines”
In 2011, Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, responding to a Denver Post article about the expansion of SWT at a time of high rates of youth unemployment, wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing concern about the situation.
“I hope we can work together to maintain the true intent of the Exchange Visitor Program as an educational and cultural exchange that can serve as an important diplomatic tool while also protecting the interests of American workers,” Udall said in the letter.9 Udall spokeswoman Tara Trujillo said the senator wanted “to ensure that the proper guidelines are being upheld for hiring through the J visa visitors program and that American workers are not inadvertently hurt.”10
As this report has demonstrated, one of the most remarkable features of SWT is the absence of guidelines to protect American workers. The 1980s regulation for employers to attempt to steer SWT workers away from high unemployment zones was so meaningless that it has disappeared. Moreover, the State Department has promoted the recruitment of SWT participants around the world and their placement throughout the United State, without regard for, labor market conditions.
Nevertheless, when Joseph Macmanus, acting assistant secretary for legislative affairs wrote a response to Udall, he made this remarkable claim:

The Department strongly believes that no program under the Exchange Visitor Program should adversely affect American workers. We are sensitive to this in every aspect of the conduct of this program and continuously monitor the public and private entities we designate to administer the exchange visitor program to ensure that American jobs are protected.”11

The State Department’s 22 years of managing SWT contradict that statement.
But now the new man in charge of State’s Office of Exchange Visitor Programs says he is serious about finding a middle ground between two competing concerns: American workers’ need for work and the State Department’s need to win friends for the United States by placing young foreigners in jobs that allow them to pay their own way.
“It is absolutely essential that we pay close attention to job opportunities for all Americans, particularly young Americans,” said Rick Ruth, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Private Sector Exchange. “At the same time, it is also very important that we are able to carry out a foreign affairs function that allows us to reach out to young people and make sure that they understand America. The hard part is finding the smart middle ground between those two competing goods.”12
Ruth declined to comment on the position of Labor Department officials who, according to a 2005 Government Accountability Office report, stated “it is not likely that the exchange programs [including SWT] will have any effect on the U.S. labor market because of the small number of J-1 exchange visitors” (including 88,600 SWT workers in 2005).13
The GAO immediately added this observation: “The U.S government does not assess any potential effect of exchange programs on the U.S. labor market.”
As other stories in this series have shown, SWT has negative effects on young Americans, especially in areas where the foreign workers are concentrated, and especially at a time of deep recession. The potential for worsening negative effects is great, especially if the program is allowed to resume the growth that it experienced in the first decade of the new millennium. There are strong economic and political interests who want that to happen.

1 22 CFR PART 62 – Exchange Visitor Program, Sec. 62.80 Summer Student Travel/Work Program.
2 Daniel Costa, Employment Policy Institute, “J visas: Minimal oversight despite significant implications for the U.S. labor market”, http://www.epi.org/publication/j_visas_minimal_oversight_despite_signifi….
3 Scott Calvert, “Losing the Accent; Recession Means Fewer Jobs for Foreigners in Ocean City”, Baltimore Sun, May 22, 2009.
4 http://fulbright.state.gov/policies/front-matter.html.
5 GAO report: “U.S. Information Agency: Inappropriate Uses of Educational and Cultural Exchange Visas.” http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat12/140621.pdf.
6 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-04-13/html/99-9163.htm.
7 Roselyn Tantraphol and Andre J. Bowser, “Polish Workers Criticize Six Flags”, Hartford Courant, September 4, 2002.
8 Ibid.
9 Nancy Lofholm, “Udall flags J visas: The senator asks about steps to prevent the program from displacing U.S. workers”, Denver Post, August 11, 2011.
10 Ibid.
11 Joseph E. Macmanus letter to Sen. Mark Udall, received from Udall’s office.
12 Rick Ruth interview with author.
13 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06106.pdf.

Interview with Rick Ruth, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Private Sector Exchange, November 3, 2011
What do you see as the importance of the Summer Work and Travel program?
The State Department oversees these programs because they are deemed to have a foreign affairs function. It is very important to reach out to the successor generation around the world, to reach out in large numbers, if possible, to make sure they have an accurate and first-hand understanding of America and who we are. We know how much misunderstanding about the United States there is in the world.
Your predecessor was widely regarded as having a laissez-faire approach to regulation and to SWT effects on job opportunities for young Americans. Is that a concern?
You’re not talking to a laissez-faire guy. You’re talking to a guy who’s interested in striking a proper balance between a number of competing interests. It is absolutely essential that we pay close attention to job opportunities for all Americans, particularly young Americans. At the same time it is also very important that we are able to carry out the foreign affairs function that allows us to reach out to young people and make sure that they understand America. The hard part is finding the smart middle ground between those two competing goods.
Summer Work Travel is under the State Department because it is supposed to be a cultural, educational experience for the participants. Work is its middle name. Work allows the participants to defray the costs of travel. That has always been seen as a worthwhile tradeoff, partly because it allows for large numbers to come, partly because it allows us to address a demographic that would not otherwise have the financial means to come to the United States.
What do you hope to accomplish with SWT?
I want to be sure that Summer Work Travel looks to you and me and any outsider like a genuine cultural experience. And to the extent that there individuals who would seek to have it be something else or use it for another purpose, that is something I have to address through reforms, through rules, through clarifications of policy, to try to preserve the core intent of Summer Work Travel.
Are you seeing intent to use it for something else?
Yes. There’s no question that any time you deal with mortal men and women and you deal with young people and stakeholders who have a variety of conflicting and competing interests, you’re going to have people who try to exploit the system.
Do you have the resources to do the job you want to do?
We have to grow our office and I plan to do that. This office will grow in size.
You need funding for that to happen.
That funding is secured … . The department has determined that the Summer Work Travel program as it exists today doesn’t look like it’s true to its original intent. It does need significant reform and there will be significant reform. We are present at the creation right now. Things are just starting.
What reforms are you looking at?
We are looking at a fundamental reorganization of the work component. Right now what we have is a fairly short list of prohibited employments. And then arguably everything else is open, subject of course to our notoriety and disrepute clause. We’d like to turn that around so that it’s much more focused on the affirmative, so that we’re talking about the kinds of employment that seem to make sense and be appropriate, such as employment that brings the students on a regular basis into contact with Americans. I would argue that contact with Americans, interaction with American society, is the essence of any cultural, educational program. So a situation where there’s a concentration of Summer Work Travel participants where they are not interacting with Americans during the day doesn’t look to me that it might fit the bill as suitable employment for a J-1 program.
Fish-processing jobs in Alaska, where some plants employ many SWT participants and few Americans, don’t seem to fit that description. But that job is very attractive to many foreign students because they offer the chance to make a considerable amount of money.
It is very attractive. But just as the Summer Work Travel program was not created to provide cheap employment for American employers, it was also not created to be a get-rich program for foreign students.
What is your opinion of the websites in which sponsoring organizations and their partners point out that if employers hire SWT participants they will pay less in taxes than if they hire Americans?
I am angry when I see those things because that is not what the program is supposed to be. Part of my job is to get the program back to where it is supposed to be and that will require some changes, not only in the regulation of the program, but in people’s expectations of it.
But you can’t change the tax structure.
I cannot single-handedly change the tax structure, but I can look at questions like what kind of work is suitable. I can look at the number of hours that young people are allowed to work every week. I can collaborate with other parts of the interagency process at the government to look at increasingly the areas of employment that may be prohibited because they may be excessively hazardous. Consultation is important here. We’ll talk to all parties as we go forward. But the main thing is we need to impose some reforms and strike a proper balance between various interests and make sure Summer Work Travel or any other J visa program is true to why it was created.
Does the culture of State require such an outward vision that you are unaware of domestic effects of SWT?
The answer is no. Of course not. When I say strike the proper balance among competing and important interests, I mean domestic interests as well.
Isn’t it clear that employers are incentivized to hire SWT students and ignore American workers?
There are employers who dispute the idea that that is a significant factor. But I understand that incentives are there.
What have you done to understand SWT’s effects on American workers?
When I came here one of the first things I looked for was a study where a university or organization has done research on the impact of the J visa holders on the American workplace. I would like to see that. I’m not sure that has been done. We might actually have to make that happen ourselves. I would love to see rigorous, independent analysis of this issue.
What is your opinion on the decline in participants in the SWT program, from a high of about 150,000 in 2008 to 103,000 in 2011?
I am comfortable with that. There is a lot of pressure from various sources to have it go up. I’m not concerned with pressures to have it go up. I’m concerned with the integrity of the program.
Do you anticipate disciplinary action against sponsors who have been negligent in overseeing the SWT program?
I can tell you we are pursuing a number of investigations against various sponsors. I can’t give you details.
Do you need to define what cultural exchange means?
That’s part of what I mean when I say I want to reorient job descriptions to be in the affirmative (not just a proscribed list), we have to have a prohibitive list. I don’t want to have: “you can’t do this” and then there is everything else. I would like to positively define the nature of the employment. I would like to pay much more attention to the cultural component. And I would like to find ways to get at the issue of the impact on Americans.
Are you confident you have the authority to reform the program?
I am confident I have the authority to do it … . The secretary has made it clear, the department has made it clear that summer work travel has merit but only if it is reformed to get back to its true intent.
Do you have a timetable?
It will be a rolling timetable. Some things can be done quickly. Others will take more time and consultation is highly important. I’m not going to go off uneducated or half-cocked.
There are competing goods. It is very important for the United States not to be misunderstood or stereotyped or hated by a new generation of young people around the world. How do we balance that? That is one of the hard questions. I am telling you there is now a commitment to do that.

End Notes
1 McCarry speech, May 23, 2008, at a symposium titled “Strategic Initiatives for University Internationalization”, at George Washington University, Washington, DC, http://www.jsps.go.jp/j-bilat/u-kokusen/seminar/pdf/h200522-sympo/p255-p….
2 Asked why he was no longer responsible for oversight of J-1 visa exchanges, Colvin replied on December 14, 2011: “Over the last three years the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs has been headed by five assistant or acting assistant secretaries, who, in turn, have reported to three, and soon to be four, different undersecretaries for public diplomacy. The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs has four employees who are members of the career Senior Executive Service. Assistant Secretary Ann Stock reassigned me and two of the other members of the Senior Executive Service. The fourth left the bureau. These reassignments were not related to poor job performance. One of these reassignments resulted in intervention by the Office of Personnel Management. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel is actively investigating this matter to determine whether Ms. Stock has engaged in statutorily prohibited personnel practices. The Department of State Office of Inspector General is also investigating whether Ms. Stock has engaged in other prohibited personnel practices unrelated to the reassignment of myself and the other career Senior Executive Service employees. “
3 Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 80 (April 26, 2011), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-26/html/2011-10079.htm.
4 General Accounting Office, “U.S. Information Agency: Inappropriate Uses of Educational and Cultural Exchange Visas”, February 16, 1990, p. 3, http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat12/140621.pdf.
5 Office of the Inspector General, “The Exchange Visitor Program Needs Improved Management and Oversight”, Audit Report 00-CI-028, September 2000, http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/7782.pdf.
6 Walter F. Roche Jr., “Students left adrift in U.S., without jobs”, Baltimore Sun, August 10, 2002.
7 Government Accountability Office, “Stronger Action Needed to Improve Oversight and Assess Risks of the Summer Work Travel and Trainee Categories of the Exchange Visitor Program”, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06106.pdf.
8 Holbrook Mohr, Mitch Weiss, and Mike Baker: “AP IMPACT: U.S. fails to tackle student visa abuses,” Associated Press, December 6, 2010.
9 Daniel Costa, “Guestworker Diplomacy: J visas receive minimal oversight despite significant implications for the U.S. labor market”, http://www.epi.org/files/2011/BriefingPaper317.pdf.
10 Mohr, Weiss, Baker, op. cit.
11 Daniel Costa, comments on SWT regulations, June 27, 2011, www.epi.org/files/2011/SWT_EPIcomments_Final.pdf.
12 Holbrook Mohr and Mitch Weiss, “Student Visa Program: New Rules, Same Problems”, Associated Press, June 20, 2011.
13 McHale speech at the 2009 board and membership meeting of the Alliance for International Educational and Cultural Exchange, http://www.alliance-exchange.org/2009-board-and-membership-meeting.
15 “Rollout of New J-1 Visa Website”, http://fpc.state.gov/164684.htm, May 31, 2011.

2009 Jun 20: Grijalva v. Brandt

The August 8, 2008 order is reversed. Grijalva is entitled to costs on appeal.

D053856.

DANIELLE GRIJALVA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. HELGA BRANDT et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One

July 20, 2009

B. Application

The primary arguments that ASSE and Brandt advanced in their anti-SLAPP motion in the trial court in attempting to carry their threshold burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs’ claims arose from protected activity are contrary to well established law. First, ASSE and Brandt claimed that the “`convenient’ “timing of the filing of this action, a “mere one month” after ASSE filed its complaint in intervention in the North Carolina action, demonstrated that plaintiffs’ lawsuit arose from ASSE’s participation in the North Carolina proceeding. However, as noted above, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the fact that a party files an action after protected activity has taken place does not demonstrate that the action arose from the protected activity. (Cotati, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 69 [fact that municipality’s action was filed “shortly after” owners filed separate action did not mean that municipality’s action arose from owner’s action].)

Second, ASSE and Brandt claimed that plaintiffs’ action was a “clearly-retaliatory lawsuit.” Even assuming that plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in retaliation for ASSE’s participation in the North Carolina action, any such retaliatory motive would be irrelevant in determining the merits of ASSE and Brandt’s anti-SLAPP motion. (Cotati, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 77; see Kajima Engineering and Const., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 921 [“Kajima wrongly focuses on the City’s filing of the amended cross-complaint as a supposed act of retaliation without demonstrating, as it must under the anti-SLAPP statute, that the amended cross-complaint `alleges acts in furtherance of [Kajima’s] right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue'”].)9

ASSE and Brandt made the related argument in the trial court that, “The SLAPP character of Plaintiffs’ action is . . . clear from the obvious insufficiency of the causes of action.” We are not aware of any authority, and ASSE and Brandt have cited none, that indicates that the insufficiency of the allegations in a plaintiff’s complaint may be used to demonstrate that the claims alleged therein arise from a defendant’s protected activity.10 ASSE and Brandt apparently intend to suggest that that the alleged insufficiency of the plaintiffs’ amended complaint demonstrates that plaintiffs’ motive in filing the action was improper. (Cf. In re Marriage of Gong and Kwong (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 510, 516 [“`”the total lack of merit of an appeal is viewed as evidence that appellant must have intended it only for delay”‘”]). However, as noted above, a plaintiff’s motive in filing an action is irrelevant for purposes of determining the merits of an anti-SLAPP motion. (Cotati, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 77.)

Any alleged insufficiency in the plaintiffs’ amended complaint regarding the context in which the purported defamatory statements were made would tend to negate, rather than support, the conclusion that ASSE and Brandt demonstrated that the statements were made in a judicial proceeding or in connection with an issue before a judicial body. ASSE and Brandt implicitly acknowledged this in their anti-SLAPP motion when they stated, “Because plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged Defendants’ allegedly `defamatory statements’ in the instant action, the exact origin of and circumstances surrounding the alleged statements are currently unknown.”

A defendant seeking to carry its burden of demonstrating that a plaintiff’s action arises from the defendant’s participation in a judicial proceeding does not carry this burden by demonstrating that the statements that form the basis of the action were made under “unknown” circumstances. Further, a defendant seeking to establish that the plaintiffs’ cause of action arises from protected activity is not limited to the plaintiffs’ pleadings. Rather, in seeking to carry this threshold burden, a defendant may submit declarations attesting to the context in which statements that form the basis of the plaintiff’s claims were made. (See, e.g., Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1057 [defendant submitted declarations of its attorney and employee demonstrating that statements forming the basis of plaintiff’s complaint arose in connection with judicial proceeding]; § 425.16, subd. (b)(2) [trial court shall consider “supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based,” in ruling on anti-SLAPP motion].) In this case, ASSE and Brandt provided no such declarations. Their assertion in their anti-SLAPP motion that the statements forming the basis of plaintiffs’ claims “appear to directly relate to ASSE’s participation in the North Carolina action,” does not establish that this is in fact so. (Italics added, formatting omitted.)

While ASSE and Brandt did request that the trial court take judicial notice of various documents from the North Carolina proceeding, there is no reference in the plaintiffs’ amended complaint to the North Carolina proceeding, and nothing in the complaint suggests that plaintiffs seek to hold ASSE and Brandt liable for statements they made in any pleading in the North Carolina action. On the contrary, rather than alleging that ASSE made the statements in a judicial proceeding, plaintiffs’ amended complaint suggests that ASSE’s statements were “directed to the parents of the students and to citizens with concerns regarding the problems caused by . . . ASSE’s misconduct . . . .” (Italics added.)

Further, while plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleges nine defamatory statements,11 ASSE and Brandt’s anti-SLAPP motion fails to address, in any fashion, eight of these statements. The only allegation from the plaintiffs’ amended complaint that ASSE and Brandt mention in their anti-SLAPP motion is plaintiffs’ allegation that the defendants had falsely accused Grijalva of “making `false statements.'” ASSE and Brandt argued in their anti-SLAPP motion that this allegation arose from ASSE’s allegation in its complaint in intervention in the North Carolina action that Grijalva had disseminated “false and misleading information.”

Even assuming for the sake of argument that ASSE and Brandt demonstrated that this single allegation is premised on a statement made in the North Carolina pleading, or in connection with an issue under review in the North Carolina action, this would not satisfy their burden to demonstrate that the gravamen of plaintiffs’ claims arises from protected activity. (Martinez v. Metabolife Intern., Inc., supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at p. 188.) “[C]ollateral allusions to protected activity should not subject the cause of action to the anti-SLAPP statute.” (Ibid.)

In sum, ASSE and Brandt did not demonstrate that the defamatory statements alleged in plaintiffs’ amended complaint were made in a judicial proceeding or in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a judicial body. (§ 425.16, subd. (e)(1) and (2).) Accordingly, the trial court erred in concluding that ASSE and Brandt carried their burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs’ action arose from petitioning activity that is protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.12

IV.

DISPOSITION

The August 8, 2008 order is reversed. Grijalva is entitled to costs on appeal.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, Acting P. J.

O’ROURKE, J.

FootNotes

1. “CSFES” is the name plaintiffs used in their complaint to identify this party. Although CSFES appears to be an acronym, plaintiffs did not provide the full name of the entity in their complaint. In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that both Brandt and Motycka were agents or employees of ASSE. Motycka is not a party to this appeal.

2. “SLAPP” stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. (See Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 53, 57.) Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Plaintiffs also claim that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow them to file a late opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion. In light of our reversal of the order granting the anti-SLAPP motion, we need not consider this contention.

4. The original complaint indicated that the case was a “Limited Jurisdiction” case, i.e. one in which the amount in controversy did not exceed $25,000 (§ 85). The amended complaint prayed for a judgment within the “unlimited jurisdictional limit” of the trial court.

5. Several of the pleadings contained in the record, including the demurrer, do not bear a file stamp. We assume for sake of this decision that the pleadings that do not bear a file stamp were filed on the dates indicated in the documents.

6. Implicit in the court’s comment is that the court’s docket no longer precluded holding a hearing on the motion.

7. In her notice of appeal, Grijalva refers to the “judgment entered on August 8, 2008.” (Italics added.) We construe the notice of appeal as referring to the August 8, 2008 order granting the anti-SLAPP motion. The order is appealable. (§ 904.1, subd. (13).)

8. ASSE and Brant did not argue in the trial court, and do not argue on appeal, that either of the plaintiffs’ causes of action arose from statements or conduct defined in section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3) or (4). Accordingly, we restrict our analysis to section 425.16, subdivision (e)(1) and (2).

9. ASSE and Brandt reiterate these arguments on appeal, claiming that plaintiffs’ filed this “retaliatory lawsuit” a “mere thirty-two days after ASSE intervened in the North Carolina action.”

10. We express no view in this opinion on the merits of ASSE and Brandt’s demurrer to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. As noted previously, the trial court concluded that the demurrer was moot, in light of its ruling granting the anti-SLAPP motion.

11. The nine statements are quoted in full in part II, ante.

12. Although the trial court ruled that ASSE and Brandt demonstrated that plaintiffs’ amended complaint arose from “statements made by Defendants in the complaint-in-intervention in the North Carolina case,” Brandt did not make any statements in ASSE’s complaint-in-intervention. (Italics added.) Further, ASSE and Brandt did not argue in their anti-SLAPP motion that Brandt had any involvement in the North Carolina proceeding. However, we need not resolve whether an employee of a entity may prevail on an anti-SLAPP motion based on its employer’s alleged petitioning activity under these circumstances, in light of our conclusion that ASSE and Brandt failed to demonstrate that plaintiffs’ amended complaint arose from ASSE’s participation in the North Carolina proceeding.

2007 Dec 9: Exchange group gets probe after teens complain

BY ROBERT J. SMITH
Posted on Sunday, December 9, 2007

The U. S. State Department is investigating complaints about where a Massachusetts company places foreign-exchange students arriving in Northwest Arkansas.

The eight cases involve Education First Foundation for Foreign Study and its Fayetteville coordinators, Gerald D. and Sherry A. Drummond, said Stanley Colvin, director of the State Department’s office of exchange coordination and designation. Six of the eight cases involve students attending Fayetteville High School, Fayetteville Christian School or Mission Boulevard Baptist School. The others attended schools in Northwest Arkansas but now live in Camden or Kentucky, Colvin said.

The complaints center on the nonprofit firm’s failure to find appropriate homes for some students before they arrive, as well as on how and where the Drummonds place the students.

“This is sloppy work,” Colvin said of the foundation’s operation in Arkansas.

The State Department is investigating whether Cambridge, Mass.-based Education First, better known as EF Foundation, violated a federal regulation by allowing some students to live in the Drummond home without assigning another EF employee as a supervisor, Colvin said.

Federal regulations require foreign-exchange companies to “ensure that no organizational representative act as both host family and area supervisor for any exchange student participant.” “If there was an emergency and she had to remove a child from a home and keep the student for a one-night kind of thing, that’s not a violation,” Colvin said.

It wasn’t clear last week whether EF Foundation had assigned a separate supervisor.

Sherry Drummond, 53, refused to answer questions about the allegations of students and host families.

“It hurts me too much, because I’ve put so much into this,” she said.

She deferred to EF Foundation spokesman Ellen Manz, who requested that questions be sent by e-mail. She didn’t respond to those queries.

MADISON’S QUESTIONS The State Department investigation — expected to be complete in a few days — began after state Sen. Sue Madison, D-Fayetteville, received complaints from host families and foreign-exchange students about EF Foundation and the Drummonds. The students and their current host families in Northwest Arkansas told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette last week how foreign-exchange students lived in what they considered unclean, unsafe homes and how they felt disliked by Sherry Drummond when they stayed with her. They also complained that the Drummonds improperly served the dual role of host family and organization representative for several students, making it awkward for the students to voice their concerns.

Rikke Stoyva, a Fayetteville High School student from Norway, didn’t care for emphasis on religion by her host family, John and Jill Foster. The family attended nondenominational church services three times a week in West Fork.

Stoyva, who is Lutheran, lived with the Fosters for three months, then was moved to Camden, where she’s attending Camden Fairview High School. She is living with EF representative Leigh Horton, Horton said Friday.

Colvin said he’s also looking into complaints that foreign-exchange students sat at tables at the Fayetteville Farmer’s Market and in front of a Wal-Mart trying to convince shoppers to allow other students into their homes. “It’s not appropriate, but it’s not a violation of the law,” Colvin said. “It may be an indication of underlying regulatory violations. Why were they down there doing that ?” It’s been a difficult year for foreign students at Fayetteville High. In September, student Marije Stam of the Netherlands repeatedly came to school upset and crying, she said, until counselors helped her move from the Drummond home.

“I did not feel like a guest, or at least a family member,” said Stam, 17, who lived in the Drummond house for a month and is now staying with Russ and Mara Cole of Fayetteville.

“I do not know how to express my feelings at that moment, but in my country, I would say [Sherry Drummond ] made me feel like a dog,” she said.

Mara Cole, along with Madison, spent much of last week spurring the State Department to investigate EF Foundation, the Drummonds and how the company operates in Arkansas. They sent statements from students and host families to Beth Melofchik, a State Department educational- and cultural-exchange specialist, describing what they say EF and the Drummonds did and failed to do. “I think we have an extra-special obligation to bring these foreign-exchange students to our country and to take good care of them, and I don’t think that’s happening here,” Madison said.

SCHOOL CONCERNED Fayetteville High teachers and counselors said they’ve had frequent issues with the Drummonds and EF Foundation placements. They’ve complained to officials in the foundation’s headquarters about the Drummonds and believe the organization did nothing in response. “I only hear about the bad [situations ], and there are several each year that are miserable for the student, and the placement in the homes get changed and the students have to be moved,” said Anne Butt, the high school’s college adviser for nine years.

Butt said she took a German student into her home four years ago because EF Foundation put her into a Springdale home she disliked.

Lesli Zeagler, a Fayetteville High counselor, said there are few problems with the international students attending the school who are brought to the United States by Rotary International. Not true with EF Foundation, she said. “With EF, I’ve experienced students who are scared, who seem to be malnourished, and they seem to be isolated,” Zeagler said. “The problems go back years, but we’ve never had a group of students who have been so vocal about it.” Doug Wright, a Fayetteville High counselor, was the counselor at Elkins High School last year. Among the nine foreign-exchange students at that school, five came to the States with the help of EF Foundation.

One EF placement was an Asian girl put in a home where the host parents were going through a divorce. The woman moved out and the man was left behind with the student, Wright said. The school reported it to EF Foundation and the girl was moved to the wife’s home, said Becky Martin, Elkins High School principal.

That instance, however, isn’t part of the State Department investigation.

“There were some questionable placements in Elkins,” Wright said. “I can’t think of a non-EF kid who had a problem.” Boglarka “Boszi” Palko, a national history champion in Hungary who’s attending Fayetteville High, found herself in an awkward situation when she arrived at the Springdale home of Bobby and Sue Hawkins on Aug. 4.

Palko, 18, said she was never happy in the small house, where she was asked to live with the Hawkinses and their 17-year-old daughter. Cousins and grandchildren also regularly spent the night.

Family members smoked inside the house. Palko said she had instructions to put toilet paper in the trash can rather than flush it. That plus cigarette smoke made the house smell bad, Palko said.

Palko said Hawkins family members described her as “overeducated” and as a “present” for their daughter. Bobby Hawkins, a close friend of the Drummonds, told Palko she’d need to understand “redneck English” to survive in the home, Palko said. Palko said she also was accused of having a sexual relationship while she lived in the home. She denies the accusation. Sue Hawkins invited a Democrat-Gazette reporter to see her Oak Street home last week then wouldn’t allow him inside. The tan-colored house was well-kept on the outside.

Palko lived eight days in the Hawkins home, then was moved to the 41-year-old, 2, 100-squarefoot Drummond home near Lake Sequoyah. In order to move, she had to sign an EF Foundation “behavioral agreement” that described the Hawkins home as “suitable” and that the problems she’d encountered were her fault.

“Sherry hated me,” Palko said. “When you speak with someone, you can feel it.” She was moved five days later to the Fayetteville home of Dave and Brenda Servies. Sherry and Gerald Drummond visited the home to check it out, and family members passed a criminal-background check, which is required by the State Department. Palko said she’s been content in the Servies home. She’s visited local stores, loves Northwest Arkansas Mall and made her first trip last week to a Hobby Lobby crafts store. She’ll travel with the Servies as part of a Christmas trip to Florida. “I’m talking about what happened with the other people to protect the next kids from this,” Palko said. “It won’t be good for us to talk, but I can protect the next ones by letting people know.” DUAL ROLE Among the most troubling issues in Arkansas are the stories of Gerald and Sherry Drummond serving as host family and EF Foundation representatives, said Danielle Grijalva, director of the Committee for the Safety of Foreign Exchange Students. The 2-year-old watchdog organization monitors foreign-exchange organizations.

Having a different EF Foundation representative serve as a supervisor doesn’t protect foreign-exchange students, she said.

“What neutrality does that provide the student when she has a concern about her host father or host mother ?” Grijalva said. “Is that not a recipe for disaster ? It’s a disgrace.” Grijalva also expressed concerns about Stoyva, the Norwegian student placed in the Fosters’ home who’s now in Camden. The EF Foundation handbook says “we are not trying to change the student’s beliefs or convert anyone to a new faith.” Efforts to reach Stoyva in Camden were unsuccessful. Horton, the EF representative in whose home Stoyva now lives, refused to let her come to the phone Friday, saying she’s a minor. School officials and state Sen. Gene Jeffress, D-Louann, refused to ask Stoyva to return messages.

“She’s doing wonderful now,” said Jeffress, a retired Fairview teacher who went to check on Stoyva last week. “She’s in a better situation now. She conveyed that to me.” John Foster said his family didn’t try to change Stoyva’s beliefs and that the family knew of her Lutheran upbringing. He’d communicated with her by email before she came to the States about the family’s frequent visits to Unity Covenant Church in West Fork. The family attends church Sunday mornings, Sunday nights and Wednesday nights. Stoyva knew what to expect, Foster said. “I think the whole thing has been blown out of proportion,” said Foster, 28, a Fayetteville police officer assigned to work at Fayetteville High. “We felt like we gave Rikke a good home. “ Church was the only place we saw her smile at all. If loving your child and trying your hardest is something bad, then we did something wrong. We tried as hard as we could to make it work.”

EF FOUNDATION Madison said she was told by an EF Foundation employee that the Drummonds are paid $ 300 to $ 400 for each foreignexchange student placed in a family’s home, including their own. The Drummonds received $ 12 per student, per month, for verifying the students are doing well and helping with difficulties they encounter, Madison said. Grijalva said most foreign-exchange student companies pay $ 400 to $ 750 for each student who is placed in a home. Host families aren’t paid.

The payment is a small portion of the $ 5, 000 for six months or $ 10, 000 for a year that the students pay EF Foundation to come to the United States.

Around 30, 000 exchange students come to America annually, said Colvin of the State Department’s exchange coordination office, adding the State Department investigates about 200 complaints each year. About 20 percent involve students brought to the United States by EF Foundation, Colvin said.

As part of its investigation in Arkansas, Colvin said the State Department could reprimand the company and require it to write a corrective-action plan to ensure it doesn’t violate federal regulations. A more severe penalty could involve shutting down the corporation or limiting how many students it can bring to the United States. Colvin sent a letter Thursday to the EF Foundation describing five media accounts and complaints last week regarding the organization. “This is not a pretty picture,” he concluded in the letter.

John Hishmeh, director of the Council on Standards for International Educational Travel, is familiar with the complaints coming from Northwest Arkansas. The nonprofit council monitors and distributes information about exchange programs. “Things go wrong, and you have to figure out if it’s a catastrophic failure or a single thing that went wrong,” Hishmeh said. Connie Williams, a counselor at Springdale High School for 35 years, said it’s wrong to “pinpoint” EF Foundation as problematic because she’s had difficulty with other companies, too. Eight foreign-exchange students are attending the school this year, she said.

“I’ve never particularly had trouble with EF, but I’ve had trouble with another agency,” Williams said.

Brad and Sarah Campbell, who are hosting a German student in their Fayetteville home, fear problems with foreign-exchange companies in Northwest Arkansas could have long-term consequences.

“These are high-achieving kids who were selected to come here,” Brad Campbell said. “They are diplomats. They want to know what it’s like in America, and they invest a year of their life to be here. We owe them a good experience. Their opinions of the U. S. are being formed.

“We’re not saying you have to be millionaires to have these kids, but you do have to have a solid foundation. A lot of the households aren’t solid. They are disruptive and filled with turmoil.” FOUNDATION FACTS

Education First Foundation for Foreign Study, founded in 1979, is the country’s largest foreign-exchange company. More than 100 companies bring students to the United States, said John Hishmeh, director of the Council on Standards for International Educational Travel. The council has certified about 70, including EF Foundation. About 30, 000 foreign-exchange students travel to the United States each year and few report problems, Hishmeh said. EF Foundation brought 3, 712 students from more than 40 countries in the year ending Sept. 30, 2006, according to the foundation’s most recent federal tax filings.

The foundation’s income tax exemption submitted to the Internal Revenue Service last February reported its 2006 revenue was $ 10, 047, 865.


Student Fayetteville

Christian fundamentalist host-family

(by Ragni Trotta)

While the U.S. Department of State actually had the power to investigate the student exchange companies, little seems to happen with the continued violations of several sponsoring organizations. In an interview with the Arkansas Democratic Gazette in December 2007, Stanley Colvin commented on complaints about EF Education and its Fayetteville coordinators, Gerald D. and Sherry A. Drummond. The U.S. State Department began an investigation after Arkansas State Senator Sue Madison, D-Fayetteville, received complaints from host families and foreign-exchange students about EF Foundation and the Drummonds. The students and their current host families in Northwest Arkansas told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette how foreign-exchange students lived in what they considered unclean, unsafe homes and how they felt disliked by Sherry Drummond when they stayed with her. They also complained that the Drummonds improperly served the dual role of host family and organization representative for several students, making it awkward for the students to voice their concerns. Rikke Stoyva, a Fayetteville High School student from Norway, didn’t care for emphasis on religion by her host family, John and Jill Foster. The family attended nondenominational church services three times a week in West Fork. Stoyva, who is Lutheran, lived with the Fosters for three months, then was moved to Camden, where she’s attending Camden Fairview High School.


Consent agenda

2007: Exchange Group Gets Probe After Teens Complain

2008: Agency dumps coordinators of foreign teens

2008: Lawmakers question foreign exchange procedures, legislation in the works

 

Hostage in America (South-Carolina)

(by Ragni Trotta)

According to local sources, it is common knowledge that the Vickers family uses foreign exchange students extensively for babysitting purposes and complaints have been raised against the family by previous exchange students. In 2007, the same family stopped providing adequate food to a 17 year old German girl  (Sina Tuscheerer) who was an exchange student staying with them, forcing teachers at Branchville High School to purchase and place food for her in the school fridge. According to the teachers, the problem was reported to local area representative Linda Davis as well as EF in Boston several times, but no action was taken. Still, much to the astonishment of the teachers at Branchville High School, the Vickers family has continued to be on the receiving end of foreign exchange students, even hosting two students from Finland (Sointu Lampinen) and Sweden (Frida Edstrøm) at the same time.

———————————————–

Honor roll student

Honor roll

Academic reception

FFA membership

Crowds crave the Taste of Orangeburg

Branchville High School enjoys cultural diversity

“I never felt like part of the family, I felt like a maid”

(Copied with permission from CSFES USA by Ragni Trotta)

Last year, 17-year old Synne Fjellvoll from Norway was one of 28,142 foreign exchange students granted a J-1 VISA to study in the U.S. as a foreign exchange student in 2009. Synne and her parents researched various student exchange programs before settling on the Education Foundation for Foreign Study (EF), which spread glossy brochures around Norway’s many highs schools and held a local EF seminar in their hometown promoting their student exchange program under the slogan “Personal Service”, “Safety”, “Quality”. At a cost of US$6,000, plus an extra US$500 to ensure that she was sent to the “Southern States”, everything seemed set for the experience of a lifetime. Says Synne; “I was so excited to study abroad in the United States of America. It was a dream come true.”

Synne’s dream was soon to turn into a nightmare. Placed in the care of what appeared to be an all-American host family in Branchville, South Carolina, she soon started to have misgivings of the people assigned to care for her wellbeing. In Synne’s case, the failure to do background checks on the host family as well as the local EF representative, both of whom the sponsoring organization had been using for years, were the gravest of several violations of Federal Regulations perpetrated by EF. Background checks would immediately have thrown up several red flags, had they ever been undertaken, as Federal Regulations clearly state. A closer look by a private investigator and ex-FBI agent has showed that the local EF representative assigned to Synne as her 24-hour support person; Linda Davis (or Linda J. Teller), in fact had 10 liens & judgments and 3 criminal convictions against her, as well as a history of using numerous aliases.  Furthermore, 36 judgments and liens are registered against her host mother Gidget Vickers. 

Federal Regulations state that foreign exchange students must be placed within a “nurturing environment” in a “financially stable home”. However, with the host father unemployed for the first 6 months of her stay and the host mother holding down two jobs to support the family’s 5 children, Synne’s chores swiftly added up to include babysitting the two youngest kids every day after school from 3:00 – 6:00 pm and on weekends, mow the lawn, walk the dogs, do the dishes and even wash her host sister’s clothes on Sundays. Explains Synne; “I never felt like part of the family, I felt like a maid. It hurt me when my 16-year old host sister was allowed to hang out with her friends and go to the movies, while I had to stay home to babysit.”

Worse, the home was clearly uninhabitable by most health & hygiene standards. Several untrained dogs were urinating and defecating around the house, which also suffered mould problems. Explains the exchange student; “The stench was disgusting. Several holes in the roof and walls were scantily covered by cardboard and boards, and the window in my room was broken. It was freezing in my room when the frost came”.

Host families are also required to provide meals for the students. However, Synne was quickly also told that she had to buy her own food as well as any other items that she needed. She was not allowed to eat from the family fridge and had to pay for her own food when the family ordered Chinese takeout, which was frequent. Branchville is a town 1,083 people, with 54% white and 43 % African American inhabitants. She was told by her host mother that “black people were a bad influence and would get her involved in drugs.”

Under the constant threat of being sent home, Synne was frequently forced to sign EF “ Success Plan for Student Behaviour” and “Academic Agreements” admitting to her many failures, presented to her by her host mother and local EF representative Linda Davis. Grounded for weeks and isolated in a foreign country far away from home, her telephone was confiscated and her internet access taken away for weeks on end, making it impossible for her to contact her family. Says Synne; “I was threatened by the host mother all the time. I was frequently told “Synne, you are in big trouble” and “if you don’t pull it together we are going to have to send you home early. And you have yourself to blame. You did this to yourself.”

Federal Regulations state that sponsoring organizations must provide a student card with a telephone number that affords immediate contact with both the program sponsor and the sponsor’s local representativeThe regulations also state that local area representatives must check in with exchange students at least once a month. As early as in October 2009, Synne spent several days unsuccessfully trying to reach her local contact local EF representative Linda Davis on the telephone number written on her student card. Explained Synne; “I tried to call Davis several times. Nobody picked up the phone.” She then dialed the number to EF’s office in Boston and requested a change of family. The phone call was answered by Program Coordinator Claudia Jackson, who told her to call her local representative who according to Jackson was “always available”. Jackson stated that anyway, it was “too late to change family”. Synne’s student card failed to include a toll free phone number to the U.S. State Department, the supervisory body of student exchange programs, which according to Federal Regulations should have been printed on the card. Says Synne’s father Per Fjellvoll; “My daughter was held hostage in a house and with a family who did not want her there as anything other than a housekeeper and a babysitter.”

When Linda Davis finally contacted Synne in late December 2009, and the Norwegian exchange student again requested a change of family, the EF coordinator told her that she was; “always complaining and whining”. According to Davis, the Vicker’s were “a good family and you are the one making all this trouble for us. It is always the Norwegian exchange students that are hardest!” EF representatives also repeatedly turned their back on the 17-year old when she repeatedly turned to them for help via phone and email in January, February and March 2010. She was called a ‘liar”, a “troublemaker” and conveniently ignored. However, she complained one time too many and was “removed from the program” by EF in a whirlwind of accusations in March 2010, after what EF claimed were “a number of chances to improve her behavior”.

According to Toralf Slovik, EF’s Program Coordinator in Oslo, Norway, who contacted her natural parents, Synne was being sent home because she had been expelled by Branchville High School. Says her father; “I called the Principal of Synne’s High School and he told me that he knew nothing about my daughter being expelled.” The “expulsion” later turned out to be an erroneous translation of the word “detention”, but EF was adamant that she still had to be repatriated due to “bad behavior”, “bad grades” and too many “social activities”. Synne in fact had little time to commit to spare time activities due to daily babysitting responsibilities, house chores and two-three weekly Church visits. Says the exchange student; “My host mother told me that I had to take most responsibility since I was the oldest.”

The Principal and teachers at Branchville High School were deliberately kept at an arm’s length and forced to watch from afar, although several posed questions with Synne’s host mother’s demands for her to be enrolled in several too advanced and unnecessary classes, contrary to the curriculum that had been chosen for her in collaboration with her local high school and natural parents prior to her departure from Norway.  While EF maintains that Synne had problems at school, neither the Principal, the school counselors or any of her teachers were at any time made aware of this fact. This highlights the total disconnect between the sponsoring organizations and the U.S. high schools to which they send their participants and one is forced to ask what kind of organization puts an exchange student with a B+ average on “Academic Agreement” without informing the school or any of her teachers. Says Synne’s father Per; “We had just received an email from EF saying that everything was fine and she was doing well in school. Of course, the positive news was sent to us along with the news that Synne had been involved in a car accident. That was probably no coincidence.”

On several occasions, host mother Gidget Vickers acted so threatening and aggressively towards the exchange student that even her teachers became concerned. More than one teacher witnessed Synne’s traumatic last day at Branchville High School; “Gidget Vickers showed up at school, verbally attacked Synne in front of several teachers and students, snatched her handbag and forced her to leave without saying goodbye to her friends and teachers.” After confiscating her phone, Vickers took her home to pack and subsequently drove the 17-year old to Charleston Airport, where the Norwegian exchange student and her luggage were thrown out of the car curbside and left to fend for herself.

According to Synne’s father, her premature repatriation was based on minor episodes and lies by EF and her host family who was just looking for a reason to send her home. “The accusations made against my daughter were subsequently proven false by emails and communications with the Principal and teachers at Branchville High School. Clearly, any serious organization would have taken immediate steps to correct the situation and let her finish the 9 weeks that remained of her school year.”

J-VISA STATUS

On the morning of March 23, Synne was told by EF that she had to be on the plane back to Norway that evening or she would be deported. At the point of her repatriation, three local families were willing to host Synne for the remainder of the school year. Torolf Slovik from EF informed the family by email that she would be in the U.S. illegally if she stayed beyond that evening and that her VISA had been cancelled. However, her host-mother Vickers and local EF representative Davis made it abundantly clear around town that anyone who took her in would be charged with harboring an illegal alien. Says Synne; “They were determined to send me home.”

Says Fjellvoll; “EF has gained a reputation for taking swift action only when it comes to sending students home, as was the case with my daughter. The family contacted the U.S. Embassy in Oslo and the U.S. Department of State in Washington and asked them to intervene so that Synne could complete the 9 weeks that remained to her graduation. The Norwegian Embassy in the U.S. was also contacted. However, the family was told that it was a private issue between the student and EF and that they could not do anything.”

The scaremongering that EF spreads regarding the deportation of students is completely untrue and inaccurate. According to Stanley Colvin, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of State and supervisor of the J-VISA student exchange programs, foreign nationals that enter on a J-1 visa are “lawfully present” so long as they are in “valid program status”, meaning that they must be successfully pursuing the activities for which they entered the United States, under the sponsorship of a designated Exchange Visitor Program sponsor. If the sponsor withdraws their sponsorship, for cause, then the participant is no longer lawfully present and has thirty days to leave the country. Says Fjellvoll; “Having to leave in thirty days is vastly different to having to leave in a few hours. One month may have permitted us to seek other alternatives so that Synne could have completed her school year.”

When Synne’s case was brought to the attention of the U.S. State Department, they said they were willing to help her reissue her J-VISA provided EF reinstated Synne’s sponsorship. Alternatively, the State Department said they would accept the sponsorship of another exchange organization. Despite several requests both directly from the family as well as a U.S. lawfirm, EF refused to reinstate the sponsorship and finding another exchange organization 9 weeks prior to graduation proved an impossible task.

COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES

Under the current system, the student is completely powerless. EF will always side with their host family in any dispute, because any acknowledgement of mistakes on their part would make them liable to lawsuits. The student has absolutely no chance from the outset. The bias of local coordinators, who in many cases place young students with friends or relatives, is another issue some students have been faced with. Norwegian exchange student Synne Fjellvoll’s host mother was a friend of the local EF area representative and had a cell number to her that she refused to give the 17 year old exchange student. The local coordinator consistently ignored Synne’s requests for help.

6 U.S. student exchange companies have been approved by the Norwegian Government’s loan association (Statens Laanekasse) for the purposes of student grant and loans to study abroad. Aside from having to redo a lost year of studies, Norwegian exchange students who are sent home early without graduating, must fully repay all grants they received from Statens Laanekasse. Says Fjellvoll; “Synne’s student exchange and unnecessary repatriation has cost the family at least US$20,000.”

Perks for host families of exchange students include free babysitting and housekeeping services, although foreign exchange students are only permitted to take sporadic jobs. When you call EF’s office in Boston and enquire about taking in a foreign exchange student, they will tell you that the issue of babysitting is “tricky” and that host families are not allowed to force exchange students to babysit. This was certainly not the case with Synne, whose far from sporadic babysitting job was performed under the threat of being sent home.


2007/2008: Three students living with the Vicker family

2010: CETUSA v. CSFES

Attempt to ‘Sue’ Child Advocate’s Mouth Shut
Court Date Scheduled for Local Child Protection Advocate 
Oceanside resident, Danielle Grijalva, will be taken to court by a student exchange placement agency for her efforts to protect foreign exchange students in Minnesota.
Grijalva formed the Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students, a California-based 501 (c)(3) child protection organization five years ago.  She has since been nominated twice for the City of Oceanside Martin Luther King, Jr. Civic Award; received a Certificate of Recognitionin 2008 by San Diego County Board of Supervisors for being selected to receive the Channel 10 News Leadership Award for her hard work and service to the San Diego region and is currently Ambassador of Child-Safe, Ltd., of the United Kingdom.
In June, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in San Diego County Superior CourtCouncil for Educational Travel USA v. Danielle Grijalva; Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students; Complaint for Damages; Slander Per Se; Libel; Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary and Permanent; Injunction; Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage.
In 2009, a Norwegian foreign exchange student’s complaints over living conditions he endured with a host family in Minnesota prompted a state investigation by Minnesota Deputy Secretary of State Jim Gelbmann.  Gelbmann called upon lawmakers to expand the state’s authority to oversee foreign exchange programs.
Star Tribune’s Aimee Blanchette’s story, “When a foreign exchange year goes bad” dated May 17, 2009, which explained, “Another Norwood parent began making inquiriesaboutEspen’s predicament, and that’s when the secretary of state’s office got involved. WhenGelbmann began contacting some of the 37 other Minnesota schoolswhereCETUSA has placed students, he found more reports ofproblemsencountered by students.”

On July 16, 2009 during WCCO News Radio 830 interview by Don Shelby with Minnesota Deputy Secretary Jim Gelbman discussed the importance protecting these visiting teens.
Part of the interview:
GELBMANN:  … “Sure, Don.  Probably the most common problem that happens with the CETUSA organization in multiple high schools throughout the state is that they would bring more students over to Minnesota than they had families to place them in.  And, again, that is against the federal regulations, as well.  Federal law requires the organization to have as signed contract with a host family one month before the student arrives in the States.  And what would regularly happen is CETUSA would have three or four host families signed up for a specific school and five or six students would be brought over, and then CETUSA would frantically search for host families for the students.  In one case that was documented actually WCCO TV a number of years ago, I think back in 2006 um, one CETUSA organization, uh, uh, coordinator had six students living in her basement, had six foreign exchange students living in her basement because she couldn’t find host families for them —
SHELBY:  And that is violation of law —
GELBMANN:  And that is a violation of law right then and there.”
To read entire interview:
 
CETUSA is allegedly blaming Danielle Grijalva, Director of the Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students (CSFES) for the attention given to the vital importance keeping foreign exchange students protected and safe.  “Foreign exchange students deserve a positive impression of our country.” she said.
Director Grijalva, remains firm, “Abuse by those in positions of trust will not be tolerated.”
“Do I believe this is an intimidation tactic?  Absolutely.”  said Danielle Grijalva.  She continued, “Let me emphasize that children’s safety must be first and foremost in foreign exchanges and every other aspect of education.  We want to ensure that visitors to our country enjoy a safe and enriching academic and cultural experience that builds bridges for future collaboration, be it social, educational or economic.”
Court date scheduled Friday, October 22, 2010 at 1:30 pm, San Diego Superior Court, North County Division, Dept. N27, 325 S. Melrose Drive in Vista, CA.
Trial date scheduled December 10, 2010 at 8:30 am, San Diego Superior Court, North County Division, Dept. N27,325 S. Melrose Drive in Vista, CA.
————————————————-

2005 Oct 30: Exchange Student Abuse Spurs Background Checks, New Rules

From Perth, Australia to Plainwell, Mich., there is a pattern of abuse that is making headlines around the world, according to the Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students, a group of concerned citizens in the United States, a voluntary organization formed to protect the exchange students that arrive in the thousands from all over the world to study in the U.S.

During their stay, the students share accommodations with a host family, or a welcome family, and in numerous cases the students were reportedly abused by their host parents.

Danielle Grijalva of Oceanside, CA, CSFES director, says that given the recent events in Florida, the U.S. States Department of State should now be requiring the student exchange industry to notify and seek the permission of the natural parents when they plan to place their son or daughter in the home of a parolee or convicted criminal. The form must include the parolee’s background and the Department of Corrections Number, when applicable, and include signature lines for the natural parents granting full permission.

Ms. Grijalva was referring to the situation of the placement of a 16-year-old female Japanese exchange student in the home of a St. Johns County family in Florida where the husband is a convicted felon. The man was convicted for burglary in 1994 and sentenced to 12 years of prison, including three years of prison in Georgia and nine years of parole. On one occasion, the man was charged with sexual battery and rape in Florida He is still on parole.

She said CSFES was notified of the situation last month.

Despite the husband being a convicted felon and a parolee, the family has hosted high school Japanese girls for the past three years.

The foreign student was placed with the St. Johns County family by a Gainesville company, the Foundation of Academic Cultural Exchange (FACE). Executive director Richard Moss, who supervised the placement of the Japanese student, admits that the firm rarely undertakes criminal background checks of prospective families. Moss said that he did not feel it was important to inform the natural parents of the fact that their daughter would be placed in the home where the host father is on parole until July, 2006. Furthermore, according to Ms. Grijalva, Moss did not notify the Japanese foreign partner of the conditions of this placement of its student.

When CSFES brought its concerns to the attention of the Department of State, Stanley Colvin informed Ms. Grijalva that the natural parents had since been notified and are perfectly fine with the knowledge that their daughter is living in the home of a parolee. He further stated to Ms. Grijalva that the 144 months the host father spent in prison and the nine counts against him was for a “minor run-in with the law.” When Mr. Colvin’s rationale was questioned by an overseas expert, he responded rudely on the lines that it was none of her business.

Ms. Grijalva said that what concerns CSFES is the effect this will this have on future placements of foreign exchange students. United States parents who are contemplating sending their son or daughter abroad should ensure that the student exchange agency does not place their children with hosts who have a criminal background. Much seems to depend on the integrity of the student exchange organization, but our experience has been that when things go wrong, the agency protects itself, not the students.

“The fact that this subject is being addressed is absolutely unconscionable”, Grijalva said. “However, due to the fact that this placement was approved by FACE, it must be addressed and brought to the attention of those concerned”.

She urges that anyone having questions or concerns about the placement of foreign exchange students should address them to Stanley Colvin , director of the Department of State office of exchange coordination at ColvinSS@state.gov or Ms. Danielle Grijalva, CSFES at DGrijalva@csfes.org. More information can be found by visiting the organization’s website atwww.csfes.org.

Earlier this year, the Bush administration proposed new rules to screen host families and to regulate the agencies that sponsor the nearly 28,000 high school exchange students each year, nearly all of them minors.

There has been no requirement for a sponsor to report sexual abuse or molestation cases to the federal government nor maintain records of such cases but Colvin said that under the proposed new rules, all adult members of host families and personnel in sponsoring groups will be screened through the sex offender registry for criminal history. Sponsors would be required to report any allegation of sexual misconduct to local law enforcement agencies and to the State Department. If they fail to do so, their program would be closed.

Exchange students would be advised during orientation of inappropriate sexual contact and how to handle such occurrences.

The proposed rules were published in the Federal Register in August and were expected to go into effect after 30 days of public comment. 10-30-05

© 2005 North Country Gazette

———————————————

1986: Foundation for Academic Cultural Exchange, California (Fred Gonzales)

1998: Foundation for Academic Cultural Exchange, Inc., Florida (Richard Moss/Regina Bach/Beverly Moss/Roger Riske/Mutsumi Terui/ )

2005: Are Foreign Exchange Students Safe?

2005: Exchange Student Living With Convicted Felon

2005: Loophole landed student in home of felon

2012: The Foundation for Academic Cultural Exchange, Nevada (Richard Wiseman/Kunxiang Chen/Judith Counter)

 

2008 May 07: Agencies Seek To Silence Child Protection Group

Posted on Wednesday, 7 of May , 2008 at 10:24 am

OCEANSIDE, CA—A child protection organization is being taken to court by student exchange placement agencies due to efforts to protect foreign exchange students.   

Danielle Grijalva of Oceanside, CA, director of the Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students (CSFES), will be in court in North Carolina on May 15 facing student placement agencies, which have obtained a restraining order to thwart her efforts. At issue is whether a child protection advocate should be restrained from reporting incidences of abuse of foreign exchange students. 

CSFES is a non-profit advocacy group for the protection of foreign exchange students. A New York teacher allegedly witnessed the physical assault of a French female exchange student by her ASSE International, Inc.  representative and sent a complaint to ASSE. The teacher provided the Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students (CSFES) a copy of his complaint, complete with translated letters from four exchange students who witnessed the assault. The teacher’s complaint was forwarded by CSFES to the Buffalo Police Department, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and the U.S. Department of State. 

On Sept. 26, 2007, the ASSE partner in France, Programmes Internationaux D’Echanges (PIE France) filed a Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Expedited Discovery against the director of CSFES. ASSE and World Heritage, Inc. filed a separate Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order against the director of CSFES.“Do I believe this is an intimidation tactic?  Absolutely.”  said Danielle Grijalva, director of CSFES.  “Let me emphasize that children’s safety must be first and foremost in foreign exchanges and every other aspect of education.  We want to ensure that visitors to our country enjoy a safe and enriching academic and cultural experience that builds bridges for future collaboration, be it social, educational or economic.”Grijalva remains firm, “Abuse by those in positions of trust will not be tolerated.”  The May 15 hearing will be held at the Forsyth County Hall of Justice, 200 North Main Street, Courtroom 4C, Winston-Salem, North Carolina  

———————————————–

1999 Jul 27: Exchange student testifies in rape case

1999 Jul 29: Witness: Student, host father had consensual sex

1999 Aug 05: Company blamed in exchange student sex case

1999 Aug 05: Exchange student may get USD 649 000 for assaults

2000 Nov 15: 233 F. 3d 441 – Kristin Beul, et al. v. Asse International, Inc., et al.

2007 Sep 03: Complaint to USSD re. ASSE temporary homes

2007 Sep 21: Programmes Internationaux D’Echanges v. Grijalva

2008 Jun 26: Advocate for exchange students says order defies free speech

2008 Nov 03: Grijalva v. Brandt

2009 Feb 04: Foreign exchange program controversy

2010: Ely faces felony charges

The original link was: wwmt.com (Newschannel 3) but the article can no longer be found there. This article has been copied from dreamindemon.com

CENTREVILLE, Mich. (NEWSCHANNEL 3) – An exchange student from Thailand who has lived in west Michigan for more than five years is facing the possibility of deportation and her former host mother is facing two felony charges in St. Joseph County for stealing the girl’s savings.

Laura Ely had an arraignment Wednesday and faces charges of larceny and illegal sale or use of a financial transaction device. The most serious charge could put her in prison for ten years.

Donnapha Kuppatikasem – known as Tak – came to Michigan when she was 16 years old with dreams of becoming a doctor.

“As long as I’ve known her,” said Theresa Hawkins, Tak’s friend, “she hasn’t changed it.”

Theresa met Tak when both attended Colon High School. She spoke to Newschannel 3 on Tak’s behalf because Tak is waiting to tell her story of what happened in court. Tak is 21 now, and may have to reconsider her dream. She may lose her student visa because she cannot afford this fall’s tuition at WMU. Detectives in St. Joseph County say Laura Ely stole thousands of dollars from Tak.

“[Tak] trusted her,” Theresa Hawkins said. “She lived with her for years and years and never knew she was that kind of person, but people can be deceiving.”

The probable cause affidavit says Laura Ely slowly drained $17,000 from an account at First State Bank in Middlebury, Indiana, first deposited in June 2008. The affidavit says Ely also took $15,000 deposited in November 2009 at Omni Community Credit Union in Sturgis.

Investigators say Laura Ely also used Tak’s credit card without permission at least 10 times at Dury Oil in Sturgis, Kalamazoo Animal Hospital, LaGrange Veterinary Clinic and other locations.

Tak’s new host family estimated the credit card purchases total about $4,000.

Theresa Hawkins says Tak never knew about the money disappearing.

“I don’t think [Tak] ever did, not until it was gone,” Theresa Hawkins said.

The affidavit says Laura Ely did not deny using the money or the credit card. She told detectives she had permission and Tak was aware of every transaction.

Laura Ely is out of the St. Joseph County jail on bond and told Newschannel 3 at her home in Sturgis on Thursday that she did not steal anything. She says the charges are retaliation for evicting Tak from her home in March.

WMU told Newschannel 3 student visa rules require a student to maintain enrollment for the entire academic year. The university says Tak has until September 7th to enroll in classes for the fall semester. Tak’s tuition bill is $13,305.38; she owes that to keep her student visa in good standing or risk deportation back to Thailand.

“Like when an unexpected bill comes, you don’t have money to pay for it, you’re frantic,” Theresa Hawkin said, “and you’re scared and you don’t know what to do. [Tak’s] basically screwed.”

will appear in court again next week. If you’d like to donate to help Tak pay her tuition, her new host family has set up an account for her at Citizens Bank in Colon. The account is under her full name – Donnapha Kuppatikasem.

2008/2009: EF threatens student with jail

Extract of the story of one Pedro Acevedo of Venezuela and his experiences with EF Foundation. The entire exchange may be read here

My name is Pedro Acevedo, I’m from Caracas, Venezuela, and I’m currently an exchange student in Southaven, Mississippi, with the company EF, also known as the Education First. During this year, I have been target of several irregularities and injustices from EF part, making this year extremely hard to endure. At the moment, i find myself in a hurry, and i dire need of help. …

… Tonight I was approached by Emily Force, my area representative, from the EF company, and i was told that tomorrow, Wednesday may 13th, i was scheduled to leave at noon, and that she was to pick me up at 9 am. She said that the department of state had “said” that i had to go home no matter what, and that otherwise i was going to get in “big trouble”. She put me on the phone with a woman named Susan, “a lady” from EF, and i was told by her that my requests of staying longer were just going to be ignored, and that i shouln’t keep asking for it, and that they didnt needed “valid reasons” to send me home. I was told that if i don’t get on a plane tomorrow morning, my j1 visa was going to be removed and i was gonna be forced to leave, no matter what. I was told that i could be “Taken” to the airport without my things if necessary, like some kind of criminal. My constant requests for reasons from them to want my early depart, are ignored. …

This is coming to me as a shock since i wasnt informed of a time, i wasnt given a ticket, they kept me in the shadows until hours before the supposed leaving time. … my natural parents, not only they dont want me to leave, but they don’t even know if they could pick me up at any random time, given the short notice. My host family have approved my stay, and they want me to stay the remaining 2 weeks. … I’m being told that if i refuse to leave at the time they want me to, i could even go to jail. I don’t understand how this can be possible. Please, any assistance on this matter will be greatly appreciated.

2008: AYUSA refused student contact with sick mother

All of the exchange organizations send their students warning letters/probation letters/agreements that make a case against the exchange students. At times these letters reflect reality and sometimes they illustrate how dangerous it is for company representatives to be good friends of host families.

In this case, there are two letters from AYUSA that demand the exchange student sign. As punishment they take away all electronic devices from the student. At the time the student’s mother had contracted cancer and the student needed to be in contact with her. Yet the student had not been allowed to speak with her for more than a month. AYUSA were aware of the situation. He was living with AYUSA regional representative, Norma Latini. Below is an extract of the communications between CSFES and the US Department of State, along with the warning letters:


The mother of a foreign exchange student from Montenegro is suffering from cancer and contacted this child protection advocacy group for help.

Her son, … has not been allowed to speak with his natural mother for over a month.

October 15, 2008 Probation Letter (see below) issued to her son by student’s placement agency, “Your computer and cell phone use has been terminate indefinitely.

Natural mother reported that her son’s Host Mother, AYUSA Regional Director, Norma Latini, … has confiscated his cell phone.

This family has spent approximately $10,000 for their son to come live his dream; live a year in America. Her son is being returned home early on November 3. …


Probation Letter:

Oct 15th, 20008

xxxx (348772)

15101 Woodson Street
Overland Park, KS  66223
Dear xxxx,

I recently received reports that (brief description of the behavior). The purpose of this letter is to inform you are officially on probation with AYUSA for the remainder of the year and to clarify with you what we expect of you as an AYUSA student. Failure to make an effort to (refer to the rule violation) could result in your dismissal form the AYUSA program.

It has been reported to me that:

You recently posted 2 exchange students on YouTube making discriminatory and inappropriate comments about each student on the video. You added personal information about the students which could be detrimental to their relationships at school and their personal well being.

You continue to transfer the blame to someone else for all of your personal infractions. ” Fadi has too much drama.”  “Norma did not have to tell Mary Lou.”

You say, “it is a joke,  just a joke” about serious violations of rules and disrespect you have shown to others.

You have violated Host Family rules and the personal privacy of others.

Because this behavior is considered unacceptable, you will be placed under close supervision by your local AYUSA representative, Tracy Ellenz, who will look for an improvement in your behavior and actions. Probation is a step before dismissal, meaning that AYUSA is giving you a chance to demonstrate a successful program experience.

As an AYUSA student, it is your responsibility to follow program rules and procedures. You were selected for this program because we believe that you have the maturity and capability to deal with the demands of a year in the United States.

xxxx, you must work very hard to prove that you should remain on the AYUSA program. In order to continue to be an AYUSA student you must meet the following requirements:

Your computer and cell phone use has been terminated indefinitely.

You will take responsibility for your own actions and take the consequences.

No more jokes, or what you consider jokes on anyone.

Respect others’ privacy and listen to staff and host family when they tell you that you are being disrespectful to teachers and other.  Change your disrespectful behavior to others upon the request.

An addendum may follow after investigation into the YouTube videos by authorities.

AYUSA expects that you will take this probation notice very seriously and will make strides toward changing your attitude and behavior and completing a successful year in the U.S. We anticipate that you will act, for the remainder of your stay, in a manner befitting an AYUSA student and a junior ambassador of Montenegro.  After reading this letter, please sign the copy enclosed and mail it back to me at the following address by October 20th, 2008.

Mary Lou Dunekacke
Regional Manager
491 32nd Rd
Rising City, NE  68658

I have read and understood this Probation Letter

_____________________________                          _________________________
(Student’s Name)                                             (Date)

Sincerely,
AYUSA International
Mary Lou Dunekacke (Regional Manager)

cc:

Zanka Samardzic
Jenna DeFabio (HQ)
Tracy Ellenz (CR)
Norma Latini (RD)


M( 17 )      9* AICEE-SM 348772

09/04/2008
Dear xxxx,

I recently received reports from AYUSA staff regarding the following

  • You have told others that you have lost 22 pounds in the USA.
  • You have told others that you were made to go to church.
  • You have demanded the food of your native country, not eating the food of your host family. In the meantime, you have ordered delivery pizza and chocolate dunkers on at least 10 occasions after the host family’s meal.
  • You act distant to relatives and friends of the host family when visiting, even though you were explained this and your host mom has a code word for you.  You said you do not think you are disrespectful.
  • You have refused to wash your clothes and wear clean clothing.
  • You spend hours on your Playstation, then ask for  help with your homework late at night.
  • You are talking to your natural mom frequently on your international cell phone and reporting to staff that she has contradicting reports about your issues.

Consequently, the purpose of this letter is to inform you that you are officially on warning with AYUSA and to clarify with you what we expect of you as an AYUSA student.  Failure to make an effort to change your behavior/attitude will result in being placed on probation with the AYUSA program.

As an AYUSA student, it is your responsibility to follow program rules and procedures as part of having a successful year abroad.  I realize that adjusting to a new situation can be challenging.  The following are suggestions on what you can do to show that you are serious about having a successful experience on the AYUSA program:

  • You will follow any and all rules of your host family
  • You will give accurate accounts to others.
  • You will read the in your student booklet pages 2-25.
  • You will report to your representative, Tracy Ellenz as to what you have read.
  • You will discontinue ordering from pizza delivery and try to adjust to American food and the special cooking of your host family.
  • Your host mom has a code word for you when you are acting disrespectful,  she will use it and you will stop your behavior. You will act respectful to teachers and  others.
  • You will wash your clothes and wear clean clothing at all times.
  • You will limit your time on Playstation until all your homework is finished, the time limits will be set as needed by your host mom.
  • Limit calls from home to once every two weeks.

Your local AYUSA representative, Tracy Ellenz, is here to support you and will closely supervise you over the next 4 weeks. She will observe your attitude and effort weekly in making the suggested changes listed above.  On October 2, 2008 Tracy will talk with you to check on your progress.  If, at this time, reports indicate that you have not made any changes or your behavior has worsened, you will be placed on probation.

xxxx you were selected for this program because we believe that you have the maturity and capability to deal with the demands of a year in the United States.  AYUSA expects that you will take this warning letter very seriously and will make strides toward changing your attitude and behavior and completing a successful year in the U.S.  We anticipate that you will act, for the remainder of your stay, in a manner befitting an AYUSA student and a junior ambassador of Montenegro. After reading this letter, please sign the copy enclosed and mail it back to Mary Lou Dunekacke at the following address by September 14, 2008.

Sincerely,
Mary Lou Dunekacke
AYUSA Regional Manager
491 32nd Rd.
Rising City,NE  68658
Fax:  402-542-2277

I have read and understand this Warning Letter.

_______________________________                  _______________
(Student Name)                                         (Date)

(Student Comment)                                                                                                                 

cc.
Zanka Samardzic
Jenna DeFabio(HQ)
Tracy Ellenz
Norma Latini

People to People Faces Wrongful Death Lawsuit

01/29/2008 | ConsumerAffairs |  People to People News

By Lisa Wade McCormick

Tyler Hill (Family photo)

Sheryl Hill hugged her 16-year-old son a little tighter — and a littler longer than usual — shortly before he boarded a plane last summer and took off on his much anticipated People to People Student Ambassador trip to Japan.

The Mound, Minnesota, woman took a mental picture of their last moments together at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport recalling every detail of the excitement in her son’s big brown eyes, his brilliant smile, and even the burgundy polo shirt and khaki pants he wore on that June 16, 2007, day.

Sheryl and her husband had worried about sending their son, Tyler — who had Type 1 diabetes and complex migraine headaches — on this People to People excursion.

But the travel organization that touts its ties to President Dwight D. Eisenhower convinced her that it had a solid safety record and a 24-hour response team that could handle any medical emergency.

That promise sealed the deal. It’s the reason Sheryl and Allen Hill let Tyler join his friends on the trip overseas.

Now that promise is at the heart of a wrongful death suit filed on Monday in Minnesota’s Hennepin County District Court.

The lawsuit alleges the organization and its delegation leaders refused to get Tyler the medical attention he requested and that his June 29, 2007, death in Tokyo is the result of their negligence.

But thirteen days before this tragedy — as Tyler and his friends said goodbye to their families in the states — Sheryl’s thoughts focused on how much this journey meant to her son.

“This was the most excited we’d ever seen him,” she says of Tyler, a history buff who was born on the anniversary of D-Day. “He dreamed of going to Japan.”

During their bittersweet farewell at the airport, Sheryl says Tyler — who had “dominated” his diabetes since its onset at age five — assured her that he’d be fine.

“He told me not to worry. Then he picked me up, did a backwards dip with me, and said ‘I love you momI’m going to make your proud of me.’

————————————————–

Are P2P part of President Eisenhower’s programs?

2007: ASSE blames student for problem-family

Sometimes students are placed with host-families that are trouble. One of the things that happen to the students if they complain about their situation is that, if they are lucky, get re-located, or unlucky, get sent back to their home countries. The below example shows the latter:


Regarding ASSE International participant:  Marc Jaubert of FRANCE

Dear Ms. Melofchik, Ms. Dickerson, Ms. Findlay, Ms. Martin and Ms. Lawrence:

Marc Jaubert of France left Knoxville, Tennessee on August 25, 2007 and is currently living with host family:

Stuart and Heidi Jackson
128 N. Van Brant Blvd.
Kansas City, MO  64123
816-418-3318

It has been reported to CSFES by ASSE International representative Amber Wallen that Marc has been crying uncontrollably since being placed in this home and feels unsafe in the neighborhood.  Amber Wallen’s contact information:  home telephone:  865-947-2823.

Marc Jaubert’s ASSE International area representative in Missouri is:  Christina Evans, telephone:  816-617-5173.

Last week, Ms. Evans gave an ultimatum to Marc that he needs to adjust or he will be sent back home.

Please be advised that on Tuesday, September 4, ASSE International is repatriating Marc Jaubert.

At approximately 8:20 am on Monday, September 3, ASSE International Regional Director Shannon Cochran will remove Marc Jaubert from the Jackson residence and will depart Missouri to France on Tuesday, September 4.

Note the names of former exchange students who were also not able to continue to reside in this residence Marc was placed:

  • Marianne of Norway
  • Rosario of Italy

Please be informed that a student from the Czech Republic has already been selected to be placed in the above-referenced residence.

It is an obvious pattern to blame the student for the placement breakdown.  This is not what the natural parents agreed to when they sent their son/daughter to the United States.

Respectfully,

Danielle Grijalva, Director
Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students
P.O. Box 6496 / Oceanside, CA 92052
www.csfes.org / 866-471-9203

ASSE: Thai student arrived in the US without a school or a permanent host family

Dear Ms. Melofchik, Ms. Dickerson, Ms. Findlay, Ms. Martin and Ms. Lawrence:

Please be advised that ASSE International participant Ravee Suksawat remains in Tennessee without a permanent host family; and remains without a high school to attend.

Mr. and Mrs. Wilburn of Knoxville, Tennessee have hosted Ravee Suksawat for the ESL program and have grown very fond of him.

ASSE International provided Mrs. Wilburn the contact information for Ravee’s next host family for the academic year; a Larry and Janifer Bell of Penokee, Kansas.

On Sept. 1, 2007, Mrs. Wilburn telephoned Mrs. Bell to introduce herself and confirm that Ravee would be on a flight from Tennessee to Kansas departing at 5:44 am the following morning.

Mrs. Bell responded to Mrs. Wilburn that she didn’t know that she and her husband had been accepted, assigned a student to host – or anything.  This concerned Mrs. Wilburn who contacted her local ASSE coordinator Ms. Amber Wallen.  Ms. Wallen suggested that Mrs. Wilburn of Tennessee telephone CSFES.

Mrs. Wilburn decided against Ravee boarding the flight to Kansas the following morning.

I would like to provide you with the following contact information:

Mrs. Theresa Wilburn:  865-922-1858      Tennessee

Mrs. Janifer Bell:              785-421-4118      Kansas

Mrs. Wilburn spoke with Laura Johnson of ASSE International of California.  Mrs. Johnson’s focus was how long ASSE has been in business.  Mrs. Johnson’s focus was how “very reputable” ASSE is” and finally, Mrs. Johnson’s response to Mrs. Wilburn was, “I don’t know why Mrs. Bell said that.”

Kansas’ ASSE area representative, Mr. Ron Fontenot can be reached at 785-737-4951.  It is Mr. Fontenot whose name is listed at Ravee’s ASSE area representative on the ASSE Host Family Placement Form.

When I spoke with Mr. Fontenot; his response was that ASSE’s Valerie Kampfer (785) 266-2715 tells him that ‘this is the way it is supposed to be done.’

While these ASSE representatives appear to focus the blame on the neighboring ASSE representative, the fact remains that Ravee continues to live in Tennessee without a permanent host family or secured high school to attend.

Ravee has contacted his mother in Thailand.  She paid $300 for Ravee to fly to Kansas and also concerned.

Thank you for your immediate attention that this matter deserves.

Respectfully,

Danielle Grijalva, Director

Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students
P.O. Box 6496 / Oceanside, CA 92052
www.csfes.org / 866-471-9203

ASSE: Three students without permanent host-families

Dear Danielle,

I confirmed that the following two Thai students do not have a permanent family as of yet. I am unsure if the third student has a permanent family or not.  I’ve been out of touch with her for a week.  I’m including their ASSE IDs in case they are helpful.

3 thai students

You may also want to talk to Ms. Syracuse and Ms. Costuros.  I have heard that these women have felt pressured into keeping their students beyond the 30 days they agreed to.  In fact, the Donelson’s asked all the host families to sign the attached document without providing them a copy to keep. It was received as attachment by some host families, however, some of the host families were elderly persons and unlikely online or computer literate. I have heard that the Donelson’s then told these women that by signing this paper they agreed to keep the students for as long as it takes to find a host family.  If you read the agreement, it says nothing like that.

ASSE: Host-family and exchange student needs ignored

I am a host parent for a Thai student who has been with us since 8/25/07.  My family and I are new to the exchange program, and this is our first exchange hosting experience.  I can tell you that I have not been pleased with the experience thus far, primarily due to the inadequacy of the agency we hosted through – ASSE.

First, our student arrived on 8/25 and was met at the airport by my family—there was no ASSE rep to be found.  Not only that, we have yet to receive a call, visit, or other communication from a local rep for ASSE.  I have complained to Ms. Helga Brandt (Western Regional person at ASSE), only to be quoted about minimum State Department requirements and that ASSE was not in violation of any of them.  From day one, our student has shown a bare minimum of English speaking and communicating capability. We were told by her high school that unless she raised her ability to a minimum level, she would be removed from school per the school district’s policy.  I voiced our concerns to Ms. Brandt and was told that our student had passed a ESL test (46 scored with 45 being a passing grade) and she sent me a PDF of a scanned test score sheet which had nothing more than multiple choice bubbles filled in.  I explained to her that a multiple choice test answer sheet does not constitute a minimum capability, and she replied that ASSE was not in violation of anything.

I am not happy with the way ASSE has handled our situation thus far.  ASSE tells me that our student has a local rep, though none of us has yet to meet him/her.  Last night our student tells me that there are 5 exchange students in New Mexico that she went to English camp with that do not have host families or a school to attend.  She has been receiving frantic phone calls from them since Saturday to ask for help in locating host families.

I find it appalling that a local rep was not present at the airport when our student arrived, and has yet to call us or our student.  I have spoken to other host families that have hosted through Rotary International, and they tell me a whole different story of what a wonderful experience their hosting is.  One gentleman and his family have hosted 27 kids over the years.  In the span of 4 short weeks,  have been soured by our experience and will not host again

Dr. Peter C. Riley
————————————-

ISE: Shipped student home to stop complaints

Nation multimedia

By mahwatthai | 2008 September 15

The core of the problems is irresponsibility and profiterring. In most the problem cases, the area rep and the sponsor simply ship the student home in order to shut them up against complaining. There was a case involving a Thai student which just concluded in court in San Diego last year with the sponsoring company being order to pay our a rather high level of damages of about half a million dollars.

I do encourage all problem case parents to collect evidence and bring the sponsoring organizers both in the US and in the home country to court. That is one of the better way of reducing the abuses on the foreign youngers’ fascination about going to school in USA.

Myself have had a very gravely disappointed experience with International Student Exchange Corporation, headquartered in New York operated through a network call SMG (Student Management Group) and INTO (Into-Edventure). the details of which already is available at:  http://groups.msn.com/HowSMGFailedtheStudentExchangeProgram

Some of the earlier blogger would remember, my daughter was shipped back after only 3 months of a 12 month program because she complainedf about the noisy and quarrelsome host family. The host family of course retaliate by charging her $5-700 in telephone fees and accused her of being unsociable illed adjusted, etc. Well, now 3 years since, she is enjoying a lot of good friends back in USA with a scholarship from one of the top 5 universities. She just attended USC football game with a bunch of American friends yesterday.

By the way the name of the sponsoring company in my case was the International Student Exchange Corp of New York. They organ in Thailand had shut down the website, apparently opened under a new name since our case.


In 2009 DM Discoveries (DMD), IntoEdVentures (INTO), and ASA International merged with ISE.

Student Management Group (established 2003) manages these four exchange companies.

IntoEdVentures

2008: Exchange student placed with unqualified host-family

The following is an excerpt from e-mails regarding DM Discoveries’ (now ISE) terrible placement of a Chinese exchange student. Her host-parents were hearing impaired. That led to her having to take care of crying children, both after school and at night. A headache started because of the high noise level from voices and television. Excrement from the children could be found in washing machine, on the floor of the bathroom and the air reeked of urine. The case came to CSFES’ attention September 2008, 3 weeks after the student’s arrival.


Dear Sir,

…. Second of all, I really like going to Sulphur Spring High and I like the classmates and teachers.

March, this year, I knew that I was assigned to TX and I was aware that the host parents have problem with the hearing and the two girls are cute from the photos. …

However, it is not what we (my family and I) thought after I live with them for about 3 weeks.

Followings are the issues I am having now:

  1. before school starts, I had stayed at home for two weeks and during the time, I only visited church twice.  Other than that, no more activities with the host family inside the house, not even mention about going outside.  I realized that no family activities taken in this family.
  2. two little girls, one is 3 and one is 4, I was awaken by their crying most of the time.  The kids were crying outside their parents door but their parents could not hear them for some reason.  Finally, it was me who opened the door and made them calm down.  Sometimes I cried with them together for helpless. It was not me to make them stop crying, it is because the kids were too tired to cry.
  3. after school starts, I am so happy and think I should be busy with school stuff and forget about the headache I am having with the family.  But the reality is, I have to face an environment which is full of mix sound of video game, TV and kids crying whenever they like to.  Host father was shouting at kids because of the hearing problem.  I can not image what I will be in the following 9 months if I were going to live with them.  Will I become a shouter, have bad temper or someone I can not accept totally?
  4. the host family is not organized, the air is full of urine smell and its mark on some places, kids droppings in the restroom sometimes and droppings found in washer and dryer sometimes. When I want to wash or dry my clothing, I have to clean the machine before I do it.

… As a high school student, my purpose is very simply here. To study with local youngster and have good interaction with host family.

… Please help me because no one does but you.

Sincerely,
Karen Chiu

2008 September 11

Ms. Grijalva-

Karen Chiu is in my office this morning …..  Becky Sanderson has told her that she must make a decision this weekend about where she is going to live ….. either in Emory or stay here with her current host family.  Becky has also told the home office that Karen’s sister is very unhappy with her host family in Indiana-and that is not true.  Karen’s sister is very happy with her situation.  Karen’s mom believes that Becky is trying to convince the home office that these two girls are just trying to stir up trouble and that they are “bad” kids.

… Karen is depressed and confused about this whole matter.

—————————————————-
The entire exchange can be found HERE

2009 Jun 29: Boskatt sentenced for forgery and theft from exchange student

Article written by Tasha Kates in 2006 about a town that takes responsibility for a host-mother’s theft and forgery of exchange student’s money. It shows just how very important it is for outsiders to keep an eye on exchange students while they stay with their host-families.

Lockport Union-Sun & Journal

… Nigina Khamidova’s … an exchange student from Tashkent, Uzbekistan, … a victim of forgery and petit larceny at the hands of her host mother. … Ranelle Boskat … took a plea deal last week. …

Boskat was charged May 31 with two counts each of second-degree forgery and petit larceny. … The stolen checks came to light after one day when Khamidova was stranded at Lockport High School for five hours. The student said it wasn’t unusual for her to have trouble getting to and from school; Khamidova and the Boskats moved to North Tonawanda during the school year and she had to be driven to school each day. … After a call from Boskat, Champagne dropped by and got Khamidova that night. The neighbor learned that Khamidova had not seen any of the local sights during her months-long stay with the Boskats. … A few days later, she spoke to AYUSA and Khamidova came to live with her. She later revealed that she had only seen one of her pocket money checks during her entire time in the United States. … She was reportedly told that the checks never came. Without a contact number for a student exchange group or for the Uzbekistan embassy, Khamidova wasn’t sure who to tell about the checks. … After some prodding by Champagne, the exchange group sent a check for more than $900 to cover the money taken by Boskat.

Things have been looking up for Khamidova ever since. She and Champagne’s family have spent time trying different foods, shopping for clothes and presents for her family and visiting the county’s sites. Khamidova went to the prom with friends last week and went through a graduation ceremony with her fellow seniors. …

Read the entire article at Lockport Journal

2006 Jul 15: Host-mother gets away with theft and inappropriate behavior

Neither PAX nor the US State Department took responsibility for their failure in taking care of , from Ghana.

The Reporter

By Julie Kay//Staff Writer | Posted: 11/06/06, 12:01 AM PST

The 30-year-old Vacaville woman investigated on suspicion of stealing money from and behaving inappropriately with an exchange student she hosted last fall will not be charged with any crime, according to the Solano County District Attorney’s Office.

… the New York-based PAX will likely avoid penalty. … The young man spent last year as a student at Vacaville High School. He excelled in his classes and played on the school’s soccer team.

His first few weeks were tough. PAX originally placed the then-17-year-old in a Trower neighborhood home Rotary Club members describe as “dilapidated.” Within weeks, the young man told a teammate and a school counselor that his host mother there had stolen his money.

In October, the young man moved to the home of Michelle Dickey, who had volunteered to take him in. The Rotary Club also “adopted” him, taking him sightseeing and providing him a monthly stipend. … Dickey discovered inappropriate e-mails on her computer from the first host mother to the young man. She confronted the student, who … agreed to go to police to report the alleged theft and inappropriate behavior … officers videotaped interviews with the young man, Dickey, and the first host mother, obtained copies of bank records, and confiscated the original host mother’s computer for evidence. Officers made multiple unsuccessful attempts to locate the host mother again, they said. They eventually handed the case over to the district attorney for further investigation. Last month, district attorney officials said they had closed the case, lacking sufficient evidence to prosecute it. …

PAX President Libby Cryer … admitted this week she knew about the e-mails to the young man from the first host mother, but defended her decision not to report them to the State Department, despite federal law which requires the reporting of questionable behavior on the part of host family members.

“PAX staff, both the community representative and senior staff in the national office, spoke personally with [the exchange student] to confirm that he did not wish to pursue this matter,” she replied in an e-mail to Reporter staff last week.

… The law states clearly that all inappropriate behavior on the part of any host family member must be reported to the State Department, regardless of whether the student asks for it to be reported or not.

Read the entire article at The Reporter

2001 Jan 13: Gault convicted of sexual abuse

Robert Gault was sentenced for sexually abusing a foreign exchange student in what was clearly a repeat action. Another former exchange student also told her story of sexual abuse. Has this happened to even more of the 12 exchange students who had lived with Robert Gault’s family? Support for the perpetrator is common in sexual abuse cases.

The Chicago Tribune

By Art Barnum | 2001 January 13

A former Wayne village trustee convicted of sexually abusing a foreign exchange student was sentenced … after a second student testified that she also had been abused by the official.

Robert Gault, 58, also received 36 months’ probation … the 17-year-old girl testified that when she sat at a family computer, Gault sat behind her and inappropriately touched and rubbed her.

Gault … claimed they were “innocent accidental brushes.” … DuPage prosecutors questioned a Finnish foreign exchange student who had stayed at the Gault home about five years ago. …

She testified that one evening while she was watching television, Gault sat next to her, rubbed her back and started kissing her neck and placed his hand under her bra. … Gault’s defense attorney, placed six of Gault’s friends on the witness stand to testify to his “good character,” … about 40 letters of support for Gault from neighbors and friends were given to Judge George Bakalis.

Read the entire article at Chicago Tribune

 

Use appropriately / give credit where due