Otherwise known as UNRWA.
I’m guessing that the UNRWA crew will not be happy about getting attention for all the wrong reasons. (Though for those who truly believe in equality, you might say it’s all the right reasons.) So the article at the Heritage Foundation, Time to Reconsider U.S. Support of UNRWA by Brett D Schaeffer and James Phillips, will be very unwelcome.
One reason it will be especially unwelcome is that it is not a piece of low level journalism, but a paper with points to make and listed sources. Oh dear.
In among the material is this:
- As of July 1, 2014, UNRWA reported a staff of 30,252 to support 5.49 million persons (5.09 million “registered refugees” and 398,229 “other registered persons”) in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip.UNRWA reported expenditures of $1.1 billion in 2013, including $678.9 million in regular budget expenditures ($206 in total budget expenditures per individual and $125 in regular budget expenditures per individual).
- UNHCR reported a staff of 7,735 in 2013, a 2013 budget of $5.34 billion, and budget expenditure of $2.97 billion to support more than 42.9 million refugees, internally displaced persons, and “others of concern” to UNHCR in more than 100 countries ($124 of total budget per individual or $69 in budget expenditure per individual).
- The difference in the number of staff per refugee is staggering. UNHCR has one staff member for every 5,500 refugees and other persons of concern. UNRWA has one staff person for every 182 people registered by UNRWA.
That is indeed a staggering inefficiency. Even if the statistics are not an exact match, the gross disparity cannot be explained away in that manner. UNRWA looks, to all intents and purposes, as an employment agency, not an aid agency. And it’s an employment agency for its own people!
Read the whole thing here. And if you have any way of influencing USA policy, do pass it on!
[First seen at Elder of Ziyon.]