Issue Brief Unaccompanied Child Migrants in U.S. Communities, Immigration Court, and Schools By Sarah Pierce October 2015 U . S . I m m i g r a t i o n P o l i c y P r o g r a m Executive Summary More than 102,000 unaccompanied children from Central America and Mexico were apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection from the start of fiscal year (FY) 2014 through August 31, 2015. While steadily increasing numbers of unaccompanied minors had been arriving at the border for years, the surge that began in early 2014 caught the attention of a concerned public and policymakers after systems responsible for the processing and care of these children were briefly overwhelmed. The majority of unaccompanied children (UACs) are from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, which accounted for more than 76,000 of the 102,000 child migrants. While most of the Mexican children are quickly returned to Mexico, U.S. law provides for different treatment for unaccompanied minors from noncontiguous countries. These children are transferred by the Border Patrol into the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that is responsible for processing and sheltering the minors, who are simultaneously placed into removal proceedings. The vast majority are released by ORR into the care of a parent, relative, or family friend in the United States while they wait for their cases to progress slowly through the U.S. immigration court system. As a result, the children have tended to be placed in areas of the United States with already high levels of foreign-born populations from the Northern Triangle, presenting a unique challenge to local communities across the country. The influx of unaccompanied minors has created a difficult situation for the country’s already overburdened immigration court system. Despite having been placed on a “priority docket,” the children’s cases continue to lag. And other types of immigration cases are pushed even further back—individuals with immigration court cases now wait an average of 1,071 days for their first hearing. For the unaccompanied children, even when their cases are finally heard, the immigration court system has resolved the status for relatively few of them. A review of immigration court data shows that the majority of children show up for their hearings and, of those who attend, 78 percent receive some form of immigration relief. However, 97 percent of children who receive immigration relief do not receive a simultaneous grant of immigration status, meaning they remain unauthorized. Meanwhile, the large majority of removal orders have gone to children who have not appeared for their hearings, and as a result many removal orders have gone unexecuted. As these cases slowly make their way through the immigration system, the children become further engrained in communities and school districts across the country. While specific school enrollment data are unavailable and it U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is not possible to map the policies that every apprehended 102,327 unaccompanied chilschool has put in place to deal with these dren at the U.S.-Mexico border from the start child migrants, anecdotal evidence suggests of fiscal year (FY) 2014 through August 31, that school districts have had disparate 2015. This number included 76,572 minors reactions to the influx of new students and from Central America’s Northern Triangle associated costs. Some have created special(El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras)1 and ized programs to work with the newcomers, 25,755 from Mexico.2 While unaccompanied while others have come to different answers children have been arriving at the southern whether older students should be enrolled border for years, the number of arrivals in K-12 classes or adult education, and yet began surging in 2014, prompting increased others have pushed back against their enrollattention from the public and policymakers ment entirely. during the spring and summer of 2014 as the numbers reached their The result is a Because they are in unaupeak. patchwork of thorized status, unaccomservices that panied migrants are eligible Most Mexican unaccompanied fails to address for few public services other minors are immediately deported, many of the than public education. ORR while Central Americans (and most extensive needs offers some postrelease of this vulnerable other nationalities) have the right services, but these are limited to contest their deportation and population. to very few migrants. For seek relief from removal in immiservices such as health care or legal repregration court.3 This process can take two sentation, unaccompanied children must years or more, during which time children depend on proactive service providers, localiare typically placed with a parent or other ties, states, or federal programs that create adult relative already in the United States, a services to meet their specific requirements. family friend, or in foster care.4 And while a The result is a patchwork of services that small number of unaccompanied minors are fails to address many of the extensive needs granted formal relief, most ultimately remain of this vulnerable population. in the United States, often foregoing appearance in immigration court and remaining in unauthorized status. I. Introduction The large numbers of unaccompanied children (UACs) who have arrived at the U.S.Mexico border over the past two years raise many difficult questions for U.S. communities. The children are released by the federal government to the care of family members or other sponsors in the United States pending their immigration court hearing, but the local communities in which they are placed become responsible for their education and certain other services, with minimal federal assistance. What is the impact of these arrivals on communities within the United States, and how are communities responding thus far? This brief summarizes the available data and qualitative research on where unaccompanied child migrants are being placed, how they are faring in immigration courts, what types of services are available to them, and how communities are adapting to their arrival. II. Where Do Unaccompanied Children Settle within the United States? Figure 1 illustrates county-level populations of unaccompanied minors released to spon- 2 Unaccompanied Child Migrants in U.S. Communities, Immigration Court, and Schools Issue Brief soring relatives since the beginning of FY 2014 (indicated by circles) and state-level concentrations of foreign-born Northern Triangle populations (indicated by shading). As the figure shows, these children have mostly been placed in states with large Central American immigrant communities: California, Texas, Florida, Virginia, Maryland, and New York. For the most part, unaccompanied minors have settled in the major metropolitan areas within these states: Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay area, Houston, Dallas, Miami, Washington, DC, and New York. For a detailed list of the U.S. counties in which the largest numbers of unaccompanied children have been released to sponsors, see the Appendix.5 Table 1 provides additional details on the 20 states that received the largest number of child migrant placements since the beginning of FY 2014, along with these states’ total foreign-born populations from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. While the table confirms that the same states that are home to the largest Central American populations have received the most child placements, it also reveals a substantial degree of variation in the number of unaccompanied minors per state relative to its total Northern Triangle population. For example, California has the largest total Central American immigrant population and the second-highest number of unaccompanied minors (after Texas), but the lowest rate of child placements relative to its Northern Triangle population: 12 per 1,000. Alabama, on the other hand, has the 29th largest population of immigrants from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, but the largest share of child migrants per Central American foreign-born population: 116 per 1,000. Indiana, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Ohio have received moderate to low numbers of immigrants from the Northern Triangle, but comparatively large numbers of child placements, giving them the second-, third-, fourth, and fifth-highest ratios of Figure 1. Central American Immigrant Populations, by State (2013), and Unaccompanied Child Migrants Released to Family Sponsors, by County (October 1, 2013 - August 31, 2015) Note: The 2015 Office of Refugee Resettlement data is provided through August 31, 2015. Sources: Migration Policy Institute (MPI) analysis of data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey (ACS); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), “Unaccompanied Children Released to Sponsors by State,” accessed October 7, 2015, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/unaccompanied-children-releasedto-sponsors-by-county. 3 Migration Policy Institute Table 1. Unaccompanied Minors Released to Family Sponsors (October 1, 2013 - August 31, 2015) and Northern Triangle Immigrant Populations, by State (2013) State Texas California New York Florida Maryland Virginia New Jersey Georgia North Carolina Louisiana Massachusetts Tennessee Alabama Ohio Pennsylvania South Carolina Illinois Connecticut Kentucky Indiana Child Migrants Released to Sponsors 10,178 8,892 8,184 7,930 5,381 5,262 3,879 2,947 2,794 2,143 2,003 1,935 1,514 1,066 946 837 815 725 655 10,178 Rank for Number of Children Released to Family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Northern Triangle Immigrant Population 333,000 760,000 230,000 214,000 149,000 150,000 114,000 65,000 85,000 31,000 76,000 27,000 13,000 16,000 26,000 18,000 35,000 29,000 9,000 14,000 Rank for ForeignBorn Population Unaccompanied MInors Released, per 1,000 Foreign Born 2 1 3 4 6 5 7 10 8 13 9 15 29 24 16 20 11 14 35 28 31 12 36 37 36 35 34 45 33 69 26 72 116 67 36 47 23 25 73 31 Note: The 2015 Office of Refugee Resettlement data is provided through August 31, 2015. The data on unaccompanied child migrants are for all children registered as UAC by ORR, and are not restricted to children from the Northern Triangle, so could include small numbers from Mexico or other countries. Sources: MPI analysis of U.S. Census Bureau 2013 ACS data; ORR, “Unaccompanied Children Released to Sponsors by State.” such minors relative to their Central American populations. The relatively large child migrant populations of several Southern and Midwestern states may present challenges to their successful integration in these communities. As explained in Sections IV and V, the service needs of many of the child migrants are extensive and unique. Communities without strong Northern Triangle-origin populations may lack the cultural knowledge or language resources vital to their needs, and thus may be more easily overwhelmed compared to communities with a stronger presence of Central Americans. 4 III. Unaccompanied Minors and the Immigration Courts System The recent surge in apprehensions of unaccompanied minors has created a difficult situation for the already overburdened U.S. immigration court system. To manage this increase, in July 2014 the Department of Justice (DOJ) implemented a “priority docket” to push the deportation cases of unaccompanied minors ahead of other cases in immigration courts.6 Officials have been instructed to ensure that the children appear before an Unaccompanied Child Migrants in U.S. Communities, Immigration Court, and Schools Issue Brief immigration judge for their first hearing (i.e., a master calendar hearing) within 21 days of being charged as unauthorized—a step that normally can take more than a year.7 Yet despite being afforded priority, many unaccompanied minors remain in the United States in unauthorized status, either because their cases are still pending, because they have been ordered deported in absentia, or because their cases have been closed or terminated without a simultaneous grant of immigration status. Whether the minors show up for their court hearing, whether they are represented by attorneys, and where their cases occur have strong effects on their case outcomes. As a review of data from the nation’s immigration court system, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), indicates, the majority of the children appear in court, and most of those who show up receive some form of relief. However, of children who are not represented by attorneys, the vast majority fail to show up for their hearings and all but a fraction of their cases end in deportation, as will be discussed below. A. How the Cases Are Progressing Overall As reflected in Figure 2, despite being on a priority docket, most UAC cases (61 percent) initiated since October 1, 2013 had not been resolved as of August 31, 2015 (see also Table 2). Indeed, more than 40 percent of UAC cases initiated in FY 2013 were still pending as of August 2015—between 1.5 and 2.5 years after these cases were initiated.8 The priority docket has failed to ensure speedier removal proceedings because it affects the timing only for initial master calendar hearings, which represent a small step in the overall immigration court process. The purpose of the master calendar hearing is to go through certain procedural checks, including informing migrants of their rights, taking pleadings, setting deadlines, and (for those migrants without an attorney) advising them of available free and low-cost legal service providers.9 It is common procedure for immigration judges to continue cases at this stage if a respondent wants more time to find an attorney, resulting in a second master calendar Figure 2. Juvenile Immigration Case Outcomes, October 1, 2013 - August 31, 2015 "Informal" Relief, 11,610 Formal Relief, 313 Removal Orders and Voluntary Departures: In-Person Cases, 3,360 Removal Orders: In-Absentia Cases, 14,024 Pending Cases, 55,513 Pending Cases Removal Orders: In-Absentia Cases Removal Orders and Voluntary Departures: In-Person Cases "Informal" Relief Formal Relief Notes: The data in this figure are for unaccompanied migrants who were under the age of 18 at the time their case began and who appeared in court alone; the data are not restricted to children from the Northern Triangle, though they represent the majority of such cases. “Removal Orders—In Absentia” includes four voluntary departure orders that occurred in absentia. “Formal” relief refers to relief that comes with a grant of immigration status, such as asylum or Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. “Informal” relief refers to cases that have been administratively closed or terminated, meaning the child is no longer has an active removal case but has not received a simultaneous grant of immigration status. Source: TRAC, “Juveniles—Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings,” accessed October 6, 2015, http://trac.syr.edu/ phptools/immigration/juvenile/. 5 Migration Policy Institute hearing.10 After this, judges may schedule longer individual calendar hearings, during which applications for relief and any challenges to removability may be heard; and these hearings also may be continued multiple times.11 Thus, many unaccompanied minors appear before immigration judges three or more times—with each subsequent hearing possibly delayed by court backlogs—before their cases are completed, in effect limiting the impact of the priority docket. Since the priority docket was implemented, the immigration court backlog for other types of cases has increased significantly, rising from a backlog of 344,230 cases in FY 2013 to 456,644 in FY 2015.12 As of August 2015, the average length of time from case filing to hearing date is 1,071 days.13 Even at the end of proceedings in immigration court, most of the unaccompanied minors’ cases remain unresolved to varying degrees. The majority of children whose cases end in a removal order appear to remain in the United States in unauthorized status. For example, in FY 2014, although 13,204 minors were ordered removed, only 1,863 were actually deported.14 To a large degree, this discrepancy is likely due to the fact that most UAC removal orders are issued in absentia, after an individual fails to appear for his or her immigration court hearing. Specifically, 69 percent of all UAC removal orders since 2005 have been issued in absentia, including 81 percent of those issued between October 2013 and August 2015 (see Table 2).15 Meanwhile, 78 percent of unaccompanied minors who attended court proceedings between the start of FY 2014 and August 31, 2015 received some form of relief.16 And indeed, most unaccompanied minors attend their court proceedings: Overall, only about one in five UAC cases have resulted in in absentia orders since 2005, including just 18 percent of cases initiated in FY 2014 (see Table 2).17 Table 2. Removal Orders Ordered for Unaccompanied Child Migrants in Absentia, FY 2005-14 Cases Completed Total Unaccompanied Minor Removal Orders Absentia Removal Orders Completed Cases as Share of Total (%) Absentia Cases as Share of Total (%) Absentia Cases as Share of Removals (%) 8,912 8,824 5,536 3,650 99% 41% 66% 2006 7,909 7,829 4,678 2,621 99% 33% 56% 2007 7,052 6,954 4,092 1,801 99% 26% 44% 2008 6,250 6,104 3,573 1,409 98% 23% 39% 2009 5,728 5,453 2,215 1,173 95% 20% 53% 2010 7,176 6,526 2,429 1,630 91% 23% 67% 2011 6,435 5,553 2,073 1,324 86% 21% 64% 2012 11,472 8,780 3,584 2,731 77% 24% 76% 2013 22,253 13,337 5,180 4,360 60% 20% 84% 2014 62,456 24,638 13,204 11,470 39% 18% 87% Total 145,643 93,998 46,564 32,169 65% 22% 69% Total Unaccompanied Minor Court Cases 2005 Fiscal Year Note: The data are for unaccompanied migrants who were under the age of 18 at the time their case began and who appeared in court alone, and are not restricted to children from the Northern Triangle. Source: TRAC, “Juveniles—Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings.” 6 Unaccompanied Child Migrants in U.S. Communities, Immigration Court, and Schools Issue Brief Based on the high percentage of minors who attend hearings who go on to receive relief, there is a strong possibility that some of the minors who received removal orders in absentia would have qualified for either formal or informal relief had they appeared in court. Instead, many of these minors remain in the United States in unauthorized status and with a removal order in their record. In Absentia removal orders often do not result in actual deportations because individuals who fail to appear for their hearings are unlikely to know that they have been ordered removed and therefore do not appear for their removal. There are also individuals who knowingly fail to comply with the removal order. In all cases, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has limited resources to apprehend and deport people whose whereabouts are unknown. Child migrants may fail to appear before the court for several reasons. Anecdotal reports suggest that some court notices have arrived late, or not at all.18 Some minors may also avoid going to court due to weak cases. Regardless, under current law, as long as the judge is satisfied that the respondent is removable and that he or she was given proper notice of the proceedings, the judge must order in absentia respondents removed.19 Because of this, cases that end in in absentia orders tend to take significantly less time than cases that go through full adjudication and end in relief or even removal. Thus for recent years, in absentia orders will always make up a disproportionate share of adjudicated cases and a smaller share of total cases. Table 2 shows that in absentia orders make up the overwhelming majority of UAC removal orders (87 percent); in other words, just 13 percent of removal orders are issued to unaccompanied minors who appear for court. In addition, since the beginning of FY 2014, 78 percent of unaccompanied minors who attended court proceedings received some form of relief.20 formal relief that comes with a simultaneous grant of legal immigration status, such as a grant of asylum, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJ), U visa, or T visa.21 Instead, 97 percent of unaccompanied minors whose cases have ended without an order of removal or voluntary departure have received some type of informal relief, including having their cases administratively closed or terminated.22 When this occurs, the minor is no longer in active removal proceedings, but he or she is not granted any form of legal immigration status and continues to live in unauthorized status. Judges provide informal relief either as a form of prosecutorial discretion, so as to avoid ordering the removal of a child who is ineligible for formal relief but may still have a sympathetic Figure 3. Outcomes of Resolved Juvenile Immigration Cases, October 1, 2013 – August 31, 2015 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Total Removal Orders and Voluntary Departures "Informal" Relief Formal Relief Represented Not Represented Notes: The data are for unaccompanied migrants who were under age 18 at the time their case began and who appeared in court alone. The data are not restricted to children from the Northern Triangle. “Formal” relief refers to relief that comes with a grant of immigration status, such as asylum or Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status. “Informal” relief refers to cases that have been administratively closed or terminated, meaning the child is no longer has an active removal case but has not received a simultaneous grant of immigration status. Source: TRAC, “Juveniles—Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings.” UAC cases that do not result in a removal order rarely have a clear resolution. Few receive 7 Migration Policy Institute case, or to close or terminate the proceedings while the minor applies for formal relief through an agency outside the court system: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).23 In the latter case, the child remains unauthorized when the immigration proceedings conclude, but is in the process of applying for immigration status. In sum, the immigration court system has not resolved the unauthorized status of the vast majority of unaccompanied children. Most cases are still pending in the courts, while the children wait in the United States in unauthorized status. For those cases that have been resolved, the ones that ended in an order of deportation have largely been unexecuted; and of those ending in some form of relief, many children have not received lawful immigration status. The end result is similar: The children become more fully settled in the United States—while remaining unauthorized. B. Variation in Case Outcomes Two factors that have a significant impact on case outcomes are the child’s access to counsel and the location of his or her case. Arguably, having an attorney is the single-most important factor in whether or not unaccompanied children receive a deportation order. Figure 3 illustrates more than 90 percent of unrepresented children were ordered deported—either through formal removal orders or informally through voluntary departure—a result that occurred for just 18 percent of children with legal representation.24 Access to an attorney is important because unaccompanied child migrants are unlikely to know about the existence of or requirements for forms of relief. Some types of relief, such as the U visa for victims of crime, entail complicated application processes that require at least partial adjudication by other government and local agencies. Being represented by counsel also appears to increase the probability that Figure 4. UAC Immigration Court Cases Initiated and Percent Pending, by State, October 1, 2013 - August 31, 2015 Source: TRAC, “Juveniles—Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings,” accessed October 6, 2015. 8 Unaccompanied Child Migrants in U.S. Communities, Immigration Court, and Schools Issue Brief an unaccompanied child will show up for court and therefore for actual removal, if so ordered. Of unaccompanied minors who were ordered removed between FY 2014 and August 31, 2015, 93 percent of those not represented by counsel failed to appear in court, compared with only 23 percent of those with representation.25 Figure 4 illustrates that case outcomes vary by location. It identifies the number of cases initiated in each state since the beginning of FY 2014 (indicated by shading) and the portion of cases that are still pending (indicated by percentages). Immigration courts in different states take varying amounts of time to process UAC cases. Even though these courts are part of a uniform federal system, practices vary across individual courts and judges; some grant continuances (or schedule cases for further hearings) more often than others. Also, prior to the recent surge in child migrant arrivals, immigration courts in some states were burdened by larger backlogs than others, resulting in delays for subsequent cases. Varying levels of access to counsel across states may also affect processing times and case outcomes.26 In addition, only some immigration judges are designated to hear unaccompanied minor cases, and the number of these present in certain courts can cause variation in case outcomes. For example, just one immigration judge hears all unaccompanied minor cases in Illinois.27 Visas that require at least partial adjudication by state and local agencies and courts also create differences in processing times and the treatment of cases across states. SIJ status is a program to grant permanent residence to certain unauthorized children who have been abused, abandoned, or neglected, and who cannot be reunified with one or both parents. SIJ status has been one of the most popular immigration avenues for unaccompanied minors; by May 2015, USCIS had received more SIJ petitions in FY 2015 than were received in all of FY 2014.28 SIJ relief involves a complicated twotiered process in which a state juvenile or family court must first investigate the child’s familial situation and decide his or her best interests according to state law. USCIS then uses the state court findings to determine the child’s eligibility for SIJ status. Because they involve state juvenile courts, SIJ adjudications vary considerably across states. While the majority of states maintain that SIJ applicants need only prove that they cannot reunify with one parent, Nebraska, for example, has interpreted the statutory language to mean that the court must find that reunification with both parents is not viable.29 Other states meanwhile have introduced legislation to facilitate and streamline the SIJ process. California in 2014 adopted legislation (SB 873) that created an affirmative responsibility in state courts to issue SIJ findings and clarified the type of evidence courts may accept in support of such findings.30 Previously, some California state courts were refusing to issue SIJ findings or created barriers. SIJ adjudications also vary based on differing ages of majority in state juvenile court systems. Under federal requirements, a petitioner is eligible for SIJ so long as he or she is under the age of 21. However in many states, including Colorado and Virginia, and the District of Columbia, juvenile courts lose jurisdiction over children when they turn 18.31 Because the state court dependency order is required for the SIJ application, individuals in these states who are 18 or older and have not yet received the state court dependency order cannot apply for SIJ, even if they still qualify under federal guidelines. In other states, including California, Massachusetts, and New York, state juvenile courts maintain jurisdiction over children up to age 21.32 IV. The Impact of Unaccompanied Minors on Local School Districts The most visible and immediate impact of this new child population is felt by local school districts, which are serving growing volumes of new students, often with little time to prepare. Migration Policy Institute 9 From the beginning of FY 2014 through $14 million for local education agencies to August 31, 2015, 77,194 unaccompanied provide services targeted specifically to unacminors were released by ORR to communicompanied minors in 35 states that received ties throughout the United States.33 All of significant such arrivals.38 However, based on these minors are entitled to public educathe assumption that about 60,000 unaccomtion. The child migrants have an array of panied child migrants have been placed in U.S. particular needs, and school districts have schools since the start of FY 2014, this grant had to balance addressing these needs along amounts to about $233 per student—leavwith those of other students, within resource ing most of the cost to be borne by the local limitations. Anecdotal reports suggest school school district. districts are reacting in significantly different ways, some creating Immigration status is not a service programs Some counties have condition of eligibility for that address the developed creative the National School Lunch children’s particular approaches to addressing Program and the School needs, while others the diverse needs of Breakfast Program, so qualifyhave exercised poliunaccompanied children, ing unaccompanied minors cies that make school while others have resisted may receive free or reducedenrollment more their arrival. price meals.39 Apart from difficult. Because these programs, however, information on unacthe costs associated with the companied children released into particular specific service needs of unaccompanied chilschool districts is not shared with the school dren are borne by local counties and school districts themselves nor publicly, it is difficult districts. to make broad conclusions on their impact. A. Federal Costs U.S. law guarantees education for all youth, regardless of immigration status; thus, unaccompanied children are entitled to free public elementary and secondary education.34 In general, the costs of educating these children (like other public school spending) fall on local school districts, though several federal programs permit states and local educational agencies to receive additional funds to support the new arrivals.35 For example, Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provides assistance to schools with large native and foreign-born low-income populations—more than $14.4 billion has been allocated to this purpose in 2015.36 These funds are provided for the education of about 21 million children, of whom unaccompanied child migrants make up about 0.2 percent.37 Congressional appropriations for FY 2015 provided an additional 10 B. Local Costs Some counties have developed creative approaches to addressing the diverse needs of unaccompanied children, while others have resisted their arrival. Montgomery County, Maryland, for example, has one of the largest concentrations of unaccompanied child migrants: 1,571 such children were released there between October 2013 and August 2015 (see Appendix). The Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) had an enrollment of 153,852 students in 2015,40 and has seen Central American student enrollment increase 44.7 percent between the 2013-14 and 201415 school years.41 Montgomery County officials have identified several challenges in meeting the needs of the school district’s unaccompanied minor students, including issues related to family reunification, interrupted formal education, acculturation, and trauma. Unaccompanied Child Migrants in U.S. Communities, Immigration Court, and Schools Issue Brief In order to accommodate the needs of this large and growing population, MCPS has tapped into a number of new and existing programs42 that include: ƒƒ A specialized program of instructional and emotional support for students with limited schooling and English skills ƒƒ Bilingual parent volunteers to help families navigate the school system ƒƒ An entry-level job skills program for Spanish-speaking students who will not receive a diploma by the time they are21 ƒƒ Professional development courses and resources that train teachers and staff in skills specifically related to the needs of UACs ƒƒ Working groups to review the school district response to the needs of unaccompanied minors. tion Center serves newly arrived, Spanishspeaking elementary school students,45 and provides one- and two-year programs to help students transfer into mainstream classes. The program is more than 40 years old, but in 2014 its class sizes doubled after the arrival of unaccompanied minors.46 Prior to the increase in UAC arrivals, Sussex County, Delaware, had a large Guatemalan population and had established several bilingual programs for students who spoke little English, directed at those of elementary-school age or younger.47 In response to the influx of UAC students, teachers in the county’s Indian River School District quickly put together a newcomer program for high school students.48 During fall 2014, 46 students enrolled in the program. Similarly, Dalton Public Schools in Whitfield County, Georgia, created a Newcomer Academy, to transition new students to mainstream schools within six months to a year.49 The academy is housed on an existing high school campus, and provides classes focused on English literacy, reading, and mathematics. The broader Montgomery County government Although some districts have also has several new Other counties and school utilized specialized programs and ongoing initiatives districts have pushed to work with newcomers, to address the needs of back against the arrival of others have struggled with these children, includunaccompanied children. how to serve older, middle- and ing a mental health high school-age students who support program have limited or interrupted operating in the most formal education and students affected schools, a cross-sector committee who are over the traditional high-school age. to coordinate the county’s response to UAC New arrivals are a particular challenge, as they arrivals, and an agreement with local colleges may not be able to accrue enough high school to support certain at-risk college students.43 credits to graduate by the time they reach the The county’s Care for Kids program provides maximum age to be enrolled (usually 20 or 21, affordable primary and specialty health care but as low as 17 or 19 in certain localities).50 for children from low-income families who are Many schools and districts struggle with not eligible for other state or federal health whether high schools in the K-12 system or insurance programs.44 adult education are the appropriate placement for these youth. Some cities and school districts have created or utilized existing transitional programs or Other counties and school districts have “newcomer academies” to ease the transitional pushed back against the arrival of unaccomprocess. In San Francisco, the Mission Educapanied children. Several public schools in 11 Migration Policy Institute New York’s Nassau County, home to the fifthprogram, they are ineligible for all other major largest population of unaccompanied minors, means-tested federal benefit programs, includattempted to bar some children from enrolling ing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families for failure to present certain documents related (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance to immigration status51—even as the New York Program (SNAP), Medicaid, the Children’s Health State Education Department advised that these Insurance Program (CHIP), the Child Care and documents were not required.52 This prompted Development Fund, and direct services from the a state compliance review and, eventually, agree- Developmental Disabilities Councils.57 ments with more than 20 districts (including Yet the needs of unaccompanied Most unaccompanied ones in Nassau County, child migrants are extensive. Many children are likely to which is on Long have little formal education, are remain in unauthorized Island) that compelled not proficient in English, and have status in the United States suffered socioeconomic hardship the districts to stop for a long time. asking for these docuand trauma. ments. An emergency state regulation also The unique service needs of these clarified the list of permissible documentation children stem from their experiences prior to, that could be used to determine a student’s age during, and after traveling to the United States. and residency.53 The basic needs of many—including for proper nutrition, shelter, safety, stability, and educaSeveral counties in North Carolina have similarly tion—went unmet in their home countries.58 resisted UAC arrivals in the face of rising school Many were exposed to or directly threatened by costs. In July 2014, the Brunswick County Board gang violence.59 While on their journey to the of Commissioners, recognizing the county’s United States, many endured traumatic experilack of “excess resources necessary for relief,” ences, including violence, theft, assault, and passed a resolution calling for the immediate extortion.60 Upon arriving in the country, unacremoval of unaccompanied children and asked companied minors experience the challenges the government to refrain from releasing them of living in an unfamiliar culture and reuniting in Brunswick County.54 Following this, several with relatives they have not lived with in years, other North Carolina counties considered and if ever, or in a smaller number of cases, entering passed identical or similar resolutions.55 the U.S. foster care system. Many find themselves amid unfamiliar faces; even those reuniting with parents and family members do so after long periods of separation.61 V. General Assistance for Unaccompanied Minors Given the outcomes of immigration court hearings to date, most unaccompanied children are likely to remain in unauthorized status in the United States for a long time, and many will experience substantial economic hardship.56 While unauthorized immigrant mothers and children are eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, which can provide important support for pregnant and parenting adolescents, and for the national subsidized school lunch 12 The high levels of physical and psychological stress place these children at a relatively higher risk for emotional and behavioral consequences, such as depression, hypervigilance, low selfesteem, eating and sleeping disorders, and problems regulating emotions and moods.62 If left untreated, unaccompanied children could be at risk for long-term, more serious illnesses, including psychotic disorders.63 Yet the particular needs of unaccompanied children are difficult to address not only because they are unique, but also because culturally competent mental health services are difficult to find.64 Even more pressing is the fact that many children do not Unaccompanied Child Migrants in U.S. Communities, Immigration Court, and Schools Issue Brief qualify for services until they receive immigration status. A. Short-Term Services Offered by the Office of Refugee Resettlement though studies have shown the benefits of these services, including that the “vast majority” of child migrants who receive the services show up to immigration court.72 ORR is also authorized to appoint child advocates for children in immigration court proceedings.73 These advocates are not attorneys, but are intended to represent the child’s best interests within immigration custody and proceedings. However, child advocates are only available in certain metropolitan areas and are appointed to only the most vulnerable children, thus they serve only a small percentage of unaccompanied minors.74 Before they are released to sponsors, child migrants are housed in ORR-funded shelters. At these shelters, children receive classroom education, mental and medical health services, help in case management, and access to social opportunities and recreational facilities.65 All children also receive family reunification services to facilitate their safe and timely release to family members or other sponsors, ORR does not have a system in place to track if available. For a small number of at-risk and release data on outcomes once the chilchildren, including those who are victims dren are released from ORR custody and of trafficking or have are no longer receiving ORR ORR does not have disabilities, ORR funds a services.75 This lack of publicly a system in place to home study of potential accessible information hinders track and release data sponsors.66 A home study efforts to identify problems on outcomes once the consists of an in-depth and potential solutions related children are released from to these children’s subsequent investigation of the ORR custody. potential sponsor’s abiltreatment in the United States. ity to ensure the child’s safety and well-being. The process includes background checks of the adult members of the household, at least one home visit, and B. Health Care a face-to-face interview.67 However, home studies are conducted in less than 5 percent Unauthorized immigrants, including children, of cases, and the rest of sponsors receive little are ineligible for Medicaid, though states may screening.68 Children released to sponsors be reimbursed for emergency health services who have not been thoroughly screened are at offered to them. Under the Affordable Care Act, risk of neglect, abuse, and trafficking.69 unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for federal health insurance coverage, and may not ORR also funds limited follow-up, in which purchase health insurance on state insurance a social worker conducts home visits and exchanges. However, California, Illinois, Massahelps families obtain appropriate resources chusetts, New Jersey, New York, Washington, and services.70 This is done in all cases that and the District of Columbia have expanded involved a prerelease home study and a limited some health-care coverage and services to number of others seen to require additional include income-eligible children (including assistance postrelease.71 These services end unaccompanied minors), regardless of their when the children turn 18, when their immiimmigration status.76 For example, incomegration cases end in removal, or, for cases that eligible UACs in Illinois can receive All Kids did not involve a prerelease home study, when comprehensive health insurance, which is valid the services are determined to be no longer for any health-care provider who has enrolled warranted. Reportedly, fewer than 10 percent with the Illinois Healthcare and Family Servicof children receive postrelease services, even es.77 13 Migration Policy Institute While unauthorized pregnant women are ineligible for federally funded prenatal care, federal regulations permit states to provide prenatal care to them by extending CHIP coverage to the fetus.78 The states listed above, as well as Arkansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas, have extended this benefit to female unauthorized immigrants.79 States may also choose whether or not to limit the WIC program to immigrants in the United States legally.80 C. Legal Representation Individuals in immigration court proceedings in the United States are not entitled to free legal counsel, leaving many unaccompanied minors to navigate immigration courts alone. Many UAC caregivers receive presentations on the court system through the EOIR Legal Orientation Program for Custodians of Unaccompanied Alien Children (LOPC).81 This program is designed to inform the custodians of their responsibilities related to the immigration court proceedings; the program does not guarantee legal representation, however. Many states and localities are also providing similar funding. The state of California has extended $3 million to nonprofit organizations offering legal services to children in immigration proceedings,86 and the New York City Council and two philanthropic groups announced a $1.9 million grant to increase legal representation for unaccompanied minors in removal proceedings.87 As of July 2015, the New York City Council’s Unaccompanied Minors Initiative had provided legal support for nearly 650 UAC cases.88 New York City representatives in immigration courts also advise families on how to connect children to relevant educational, health, and social services,89 which include Child Health Plus, a public health insurance system, and English Language Learner (ELL) programs. In addition, many nonprofit organizations provide free or low-cost legal services, including Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), the National Immigrant Justice Center, Catholic Charities, and the Florence Project. Despite these programs, however, nearly 70 percent of unaccompanied child migrants still lack access to legal services. VI. Conclusion Since being unrepresented can negatively affect case outcomes, several public and Unaccompanied child migrants have been enterprivate institutions are stepping in to provide ing the United States for years, but the recent unaccompanied children with access to legal spike in their arrivals has made the issue more services. In 2014 the pressing. Unaccompanied minors federal government wait months, even years, for their granted approximately U.S. communities face cases to be decided in immigration $9 million to fund significant challenges court, and those ultimate decilegal services for in meeting the needs of sions may be heavily influenced by child migrants.82 The these children. whether they have legal represenprogram is expected tation. Even when their cases are to provide representadecided, many minors are given tion for 2,600 unaccompanied children, a small informal relief but no proper legal status, while fraction of the nearly 70,000 cases pending.83 others fail to appear for removal proceedings The Corporation for National and Community and instead blend into the larger unauthorized Service and the Department of Justice created population. Also, those ordered removed in justice AmeriCorps, which provides unaccomabsentia never have their cases fully adjudicatpanied children with free legal assistance from ed. Though the unaccompanied child population lawyers and paralegals.84 As of July 2015, the has been characterized as temporary in nature, justice Americorps program has provided coun- it is likely that a large number of these children sel to more than 1,000 unaccompanied children will live in the United States for a long period, across 23 immigration courts.85 perhaps even permanently. 14 Unaccompanied Child Migrants in U.S. Communities, Immigration Court, and Schools Issue Brief In the meantime, U.S. communities face significant challenges in meeting the needs of these children. This is particularly true of local school districts, which must meet an array of student needs within resource limitations. As the primary institution that unaccompanied minors are entitled to access under U.S. law, schools offer a venue for offering needed services to unaccompanied minors, such as mental health care. But schools must bear this responsibility with very little federal support. As the population of unaccompanied child migrants grows and becomes further ingrained in U.S. society, it would be helpful for communities and service providers to know more about their arrival and stay. The unpredictable nature of the arrivals makes it difficult for local schools and communities to allocate resources appropriately. This problem could be mitigated, to some degree, if ORR forewarned districts before releasing unaccompanied children to families in local communities. This would also help schools and other service providers ensure that the rights of minors are respected and any available resources used efficiently. Meanwhile, information on the lives of child migrants is sparse and anecdotal. ORR would do well to establish a system for collecting long-term data on these child migrants that include the outcomes of their immigration proceedings and their experiences in U.S. communities. ORR would do well to establish a system for collecting long-term data on these child migrants that include the outcomes of their immigration proceedings and their experiences in U.S. communities. For more MPI research that focuses on key aspects of the U.S. immigration debate, visit: w w w. m i g r a t i o n p o l i c y. o r g / c i r 15 Migration Policy Institute Appendix Table A-1. Counties with the Largest Number of UACs, October 1, 2013 – August 31, 2015 State TX CA NY FL MD NY VA FL TX MD NY NY LA NC NY MA VA GA FL NY CA TX FL GA TN County Total Number of Unaccompanied Minors Released to Sponsors Harris Los Angeles Suffolk Miami-Dade Prince George’s Nassau Fairfax Palm Beach Dallas Montgomery Queens Union Jefferson Mecklenburg Kings Suffolk Prince William DeKalb Broward Bronx Alameda Travis Lee Gwinnett Davidson 5,472 4,311 2,127 2,065 1,883 1,861 1,819 1,791 1,621 1,571 1,343 920 879 870 782 736 698 696 686 653 618 613 586 539 521 Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), “Unaccompanied Children Released to Sponsors by County,” accessed October 6, 2015, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/unaccompanied-children-released-tosponsors-by-county. 16 Unaccompanied Child Migrants in U.S. Communities, Immigration Court, and Schools Issue Brief Endnotes 1 This brief uses the terms “Northern Triangle” and “Central America” interchangeably to refer to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, which are the three countries in Central America that have significant migration flows to the United States. 2 U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien Children,” accessed October 6, 2015, www.cbp. gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children. 3 William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), Public Law 110–457, 49 U.S. Statutes at Large 651, sec. 235. Removal and removal proceedings refer to the administrative processes used to determine whether an individual is eligible for removal or deportation under U.S. immigration law. Individuals who are removable may apply during these proceedings for relief from removal, or for eligibility to stay in the United States. 4 Under long-standing policies codified by TVPRA (sec. 235[c][2]), children awaiting the resolution of their removal proceedings must be held in the “least restrictive setting” that is “in the best interest of the child.” In addition, a settlement agreement that followed several 1980s lawsuits on the mistreatment of unaccompanied children (UACs), the Flores Settlement Agreement in 1997, dictates policies regarding their detention, treatment, and release. See Flores v. Meese-Stipulated Settlement Agreement (U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 1997). 5 These data include only children who have been resettled by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and exclude, for example, children from the Northern Triangle region who entered with family members or through other means. Thus the total number of recently arrived immigrant youth in each county and state is somewhat larger. 6 The Department of Justice (DOJ) also hired new and temporary immigration judges, and funded legal access programs described below in Section V. DOJ, “Department of Justice Announces New Priorities to Address Surge of Migrants Crossing into the U.S.,” (news release, July 9, 2014), www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-new-priorities-address-surgemigrants-crossing-us. 7 Kirk Semple, “In Court, Immigrant Children Are Moved to Head of Line,” New York Times, August 14, 2014, www.nytimes. com/2014/08/15/nyregion/in-court-children-lead-line-of-migrants.html?_r=0. However figures from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the nation’s immigration courts system, indicate that many master calendar hearings are not being scheduled within the prescribed 21-day period. At the end of July 2015, in a general call with stakeholders, EOIR reported that 32,000 new charging documents had been issued from July 18, 2014 through June 30, 2015, but only 27,000 master calendar hearings had occurred, meaning at least 5,000 hearings had not occurred within the required 21 days. This issue was corroborated by immigration lawyers and other practitioners who indicated that some of their clients had not been scheduled for initial hearings for long periods of time, beyond 21 days; EOIR phone call with stakeholders, July 31, 2015. 8 Migration Policy Institute (MPI) calculation of EOIR data from FY 2014 – August 31, 2015, available from Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), Syracuse University, “Juveniles—Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings,” accessed October 6, 2015, http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/juvenile. 9 DOJ, Immigration Court Practice Manual (Washington, DC: DOJ, 2008), www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/OCIJPracManual/Chap%204. pdf. 10 DOJ, “Master Calendar Checklist for the Immigration Judge: The Pro Se Respondent,” accessed October 7, 2015, www.justice. gov/eoir/vll/benchbook/tools/Script_MC_Checklist.pdf. 11 DOJ, Immigration Court Practice Manual. 12 TRAC, “Immigration Court Backlog Tool,” accessed October 7, 2015, http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog. 13 TRAC, “Ballooning Wait Times for Hearing Dates in Overworked Immigration Courts” (Syracuse, NY: TRAC, September 21, 2015), http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/405. 14 MPI analysis of unpublished U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data on ICE removals of unaccompanied minors, and EOIR data from TRAC, “Juveniles—Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings,” accessed October 6, 2015. Data on actual child deportations exclude Mexican and Canadian unaccompanied minors who were voluntarily returned to their home countries by the Border Patrol. The number of minors ordered removed represents cases initiated in FY 2014, thus the orders may have come down during FY 2014 or later, while the number actually deported represents removals actually executed in FY 2014. Similarly in FY 2013, 5,180 unaccompanied children were ordered removed, but only 1,868 removals occurred; for FY 2012, these numbers were 3,584 orders and 1,809 actual removals; in FY 2011, 2,073 orders and 1,695 removals; in FY 2010, 2,429 and 1,690; and in FY 2009, 2,215 and 1,361. See TRAC, “Juveniles—Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings;” testimony of William Kandel, Immigration Policy Analyst, Congressional Research Service, “Securing the Border: Understanding and Addressing the Root Causes of Central American Migration to the United States,” before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 114th Cong., 1st sess., March 25, 2015, www.hsgac.senate.gov/ download/?id=dd88040a-b1e6-405f-a71b-1a86c6ba2599. 17 Migration Policy Institute 15 MPI analysis of EOIR data from TRAC, “Juveniles—Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings,” accessed October 6, 2015. 16 TRAC, “Juveniles—Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings,” accessed October 6, 2015. 17 In absentia orders of juveniles remain higher as a percentage of total orders than for all immigration decisions rendered. Of immigration judge decisions rendered overall, 19 percent in FY 2014 involved in absentia orders, 15 percent in FY 2013, 11 percent in FY 2012, 11 percent in FY 2011, and 12 percent in FY 2010. In comparison, of immigration judge decisions rendered on juvenile cases, 47 percent in FY 2014 involved in absentia orders, 33 percent in FY 2013, 31 percent in FY 2012, 24 percent in FY 2011, and 25 percent in FY 2010. Ibid; U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (Washington, DC: DHS, Office of Immigration Statistics, 2015), www.justice.gov/eoir/pages/attachments/2015/03/16/fy14syb.pdf. 18 Kate Linthicum, “7,000 Immigrant Children Ordered Deported without Going to Court,” Los Angeles Times, March 6, 2015, www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-children-deported-20150306-story.html#page=1. 19 8 C.F.R. §1003.26(c). 20 TRAC, “Juveniles—Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings.” accessed October 6, 2015. 21 Asylum is a grant of immigration status to individuals who have come to the United States seeking protection because they have suffered persecution, or fear they will suffer persecution, due to race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status is a grant of immigration status for certain children in the United States who have been abused, abandoned, or neglected. The U visa is reserved for victims of certain crimes who have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to government officials in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity. The T visa is for victims of human trafficking. 22 Calculated out of EOIR results from FY 2014 – August 31, 2015; see TRAC, “Juveniles—Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings.” Administrative closure temporarily stops removal proceedings by taking the case off the court calendar; this procedural mechanism does not terminate the case. See, for example, Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (Bureau of Immigration Appeal, 2012). On the other hand, termination completely concludes proceedings and is equivalent to a final order. See, for example, Matter of Sanchez-Herbert, 26 I&N Dec. 43 (Bureau of Immigration Appeal, 2012). 23 Children in removal proceedings who are applying for SIJ status typically do so through an immigration court; however, some judges may terminate the child’s removal proceedings upon the filing or approval of the initial SIJ application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Thus, some grants of informal relief may be intended as short-term measures with the expectation that the unaccompanied minor will eventually be granted a formal immigration status. 24 TRAC, “Juveniles—Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings,” accessed October 7, 2015. A grant of voluntary departure allows a foreign national to depart the United States without an order of removal, and has fewer negative legal consequences. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26. 25 MPI analysis of EOIR data from TRAC, “Juveniles—Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings,” accessed October 7, 2015. 26 David Rogers, “Child Migrants Face New Crisis: Uneven Justice,” Politico, March 5, 2015, www.politico.com/story/2015/03/ child-migrants-face-new-crisis-uneven-justice-115790.html. 27 Jonah Newman, “Finding a Lawyer a Huge Obstacle for Asylum Seekers in Chicago,” The Chicago Reporter, May 20, 2015, http://chicagoreporter.com/finding-a-lawyer-a-huge-obstacle-for-asylum-seekers-in-chicago. 28 USCIS phone call with stakeholders, August 19, 2015. 29 Meghan Johnson and Kele Stewart, “Unequal Access to Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: State Court Adjudication of OneParent Cases,” American Bar Association, July 14, 2014, http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/childrights/ content/articles/summer2014-0714-unequal-access-special-immigrant-juvenile-status-state-court-adjudication-one-parentcases.html. For a little over a year, New Jersey also interpreted the statute to mean that the court must find reunification with both parents is not possible. Ibid. However this was struck down on appeal by the New Jersey Supreme Court in August 2015. H.S.P. v. J.K, A-114-13 (New Jersey Supreme Court, 2015). 30 California Senate Bill No. 873 (2013-14). Immigration practitioners attest to varying levels of understanding of the SIJ application process across states, and particular problems in counties where the courts hearing SIJ cases have a high turnover of judges. See Lisa Frydman, Elizabeth Dallam, and Blaine Bookey, A Treacherous Journey: Child Migrants Navigating the U.S. Immigration System (San Francisco and Washington, DC: University of California Hastings College of the Law, Center for Gender and Refugee Studies and Kids in Need of Defense, 2014), 40, www.uchastings.edu/centers/cgrs-docs/treacherous_journey_ cgrs_kind_report.pdf. 31 Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), and Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network (RMIAN), “Special Immigrant Juvenile Status,” December 9, 2014, www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/resource/Special%20Immigrant%20Juvenile%20Status.pdf. 32 Ibid. The jurisdiction of juvenile courts in California was limited to children younger than 18 until October 9, 2015, when the 18 Unaccompanied Child Migrants in U.S. Communities, Immigration Court, and Schools Issue Brief California Governor Edmund Brown signed a bill extending the jurisdiction until children reach the age of 21. Assembly Bill No. 900 (2015). 33 ORR, “Unaccompanied Children Released to Sponsors by State,” accessed October 7, 2015, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/ programs/ucs/state-by-state-uc-placed-sponsors. 34 The U.S. Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), clarified that under the Constitution every child in the United States, irrespective of immigration status, has a constitutional right to free public elementary and secondary education. 35 U.S. Department of Education, “Educational Services for Immigrant Children and Those Recently Arrived to the United States,” last modified September 19, 2014, www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/guid/unaccompanied-children.html. 36 U.S. Department of Education, “Department of Education Fiscal Year 2015 Congressional Action Table,” April 20, 2015, www2. ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget15/15action.pdf. 37 This is based on the assumption that about 60,000 unaccompanied minors have been placed in schools since the start of FY 2014, and that all of these schools qualify under Title I. ORR does not release data on UAC placements by school districts, nor are the children required to reveal their status upon enrollment, meaning there are no exact numbers to show how many unaccompanied minors are enrolled in public schools. Overall, there were an estimated 21 million low-income students enrolled in the 2009-10 school year, which is the most recent school year for which the U.S. Department of Education has data. See U.S. Department of Education, “Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies (Title I, Part A),” June 2014, www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/index.html. 38 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Public Law 113-235, 113th Cong., Title III, Part A, www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/83/text. For more detail on the funds, see U.S. Department of Education, “Supplemental New Fiscal Year 2015 Awards for Immigrant Children and Youth: Purpose and Availability of Funds,” accessed October 7, 2015, www2.ed.gov/programs/sfgp/15-0061guidance.doc. 39 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Eligibility Manual for School Meals: Determining and Verifying Eligibility (Washington, DC: USDA, 2014), www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/cn/EliMan.pdf. 40 Memorandum from Larry A. Bowers, Interim Superintendent, Montgomery County Public Schools, “Memorandum: Unaccompanied Youth- Children Fleeing Violence,” Montgomery County Public Schools, March 10, 2015 (on file with author); Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS), “At a Glance,” School Year 2014-2015, www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/about/20141208AtAGlance.pdf. 41 Bowers memorandum. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Sarah Polk, Kathleen Page, and Lisa Ross DeCamp, “Unaccompanied Immigrant Children Need Access to Mental Health Professionals [Commentary],” The Baltimore Sun, September 26, 2014, www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-immigrant-mental-health-20140928-story.html. 45 San Francisco Public Schools, “Mission Education Center Elementary School,” 2015, www.sfusd.edu/en/schools/school-information/mission-education-center.html. 46 Emily DeRuy, “Newcomer Schools Ease Transition for Unaccompanied Minors,” Fusion, August 25, 2014, http://fusion.net/ story/6368/newcomer-schools-ease-transition-for-unaccompanied-minors. 47 Taylor Hudson, “Community Unites to Break Down English-Spanish Language Barrier,” Sussex Countian, October 16, 2014, www.sussexcountian.com/article/20141016/News/141019880/?Start=1. 48 Associated Press, “Eager Unaccompanied Minors Head to School with Barriers Stacking Up,” Associated Press, September 24, 2014, http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2014/09/24/eager-unaccompanied-minors-head-to-school-with-barriersstacking-up. 49 Arian Campo-Flores and Miriam Jordan, “Central American Migrant Wave Tests Schools,” The Wall Street Journal, August 13, 2014, www.wsj.com/articles/central-american-migrant-wave-tests-schools-1407968536. 50 National Center for Education Statistics, “Table 5.1 Compulsory school attendance laws, minimum and maximum age limits for required free education, by state: 2015,” accessed October 7, 2015, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab5_1. asp. 51 Benjamin Mueller, “Requirements Keep Young Immigrants Out of Long Island Classrooms,” The New York Times, October 21, 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/nyregion/rules-and-paperwork-keep-long-islands-immigrant-children-from-classroom.html. 52 New York State Education Department, “Educational Services for Recently Arrived Unaccompanied Children,” September 10, 2014, www.p12.nysed.gov/sss/documents/EducationalServicesforRecentlyArrivedUnaccompaniedChildren.pdf. Migration Policy Institute 19 53 New York Attorney General’s Office, “A. G. Schneiderman Secures Agreement with Hempstead Union Free School District to Ensure Equal Educational Opportunities For Students Regardless Of Immigration Status” (press release, March 3, 2015), www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-secures-agreement-hempstead-union-free-school-district-ensure-equal; New York Attorney General’s Office, “A. G. Schneiderman Secures Agreements With Twenty School Districts to Ensure Equal Educational Opportunities For Students Regardless of Immigration Status,” (press release, February 19, 2015), www.ag.ny. gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-secures-agreements-twenty-school-districts-ensure-equal-educational; New York State Education Department, “New York State Board of Regents Passes Emergency Regulation Concerning School Enrollment Following Joint Review by State Education Department and the Attorney General’s Office,” (press release, December 16, 2014), www.nysed.gov/news/2015/new-york-state-board-regents-passes-emergency-regulation-concerning-school-enrollment. 54 Brunswick County Office of the County Commissioners, “Resolution on Resettling of Illegal Immigrants Including Unaccompanied Minors,” July 2014, https://cliniclegal.org/sites/default/files/brunswick_county_nc_resolution.pdf; Brunswick County Board of Commissioners, “Regular Meeting Agenda,” July 2014, 316–18, http://brunswick.novusagenda.com/agendapublic/ MeetingView.aspx?MeetingID=71&MinutesMeetingID=-1&doctype=Agenda. 55 For example, both Surry and Davie counties in North Carolina passed identical resolutions, and Dare County considered a similar resolution, but it ultimately failed by one vote. Surry County Board of Commissioners, “Meeting Minutes,” 2014, 167–71, www.co.surry.nc.us/document_center/Minutes/2014.pdf; Davie County Board of Commissioners, “Minutes,” September 2, 2014, 16–17, www.daviecountync.gov/Archive/ViewFile/Item/422; Dare County, “Minutes: Dare County Board of Commissioners Meeting,” August 18, 2014, 1–2, 5–6, www.darenc.com/video/minutes/m081814.pdf; Dare County, “Minutes: Dare County Board of Commissioners Meeting,” August 4, 2014, 5, www.darenc.com/video/minutes/m080414.pdf. 56 Of the general unauthorized population in the United States, 32 percent live at or below the federal poverty level and 65 percent live below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. MPI, “Profile of the Unauthorized Population: United States,” accessed May 27, 2015, www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/US. 57 HHS, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Recon­ciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), “Interpretation of ‘Federal Public Benefit,’” 63 Federal Register 41658–61 (August 4, 1998), www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-08-04/html/98-20491.htm. 58 See Marc R. Rosenblum, Unaccompanied Child Migration to the United States: The Tension Between Protection and Prevention (Washington, DC: MPI, 2015), 10–13, www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/TCM-Protection-UAC.pdf; United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), The Global Study on Homicide (Vienna: UNODC, 2013), www.unodc.org/ gsh/en/data.html (showing that Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala respectively rank the first, fourth, and fifth highest in the world for homicide rates); United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children Leaving Central America and Mexico, and the Need for International Protection (Washington, DC: UNHCR, 2014), www. unhcrwashington.org/sites/default/files/1_UAC_Children%20on%20the%20Run_Full%20Report.pdf. 59 Rosenblum, Unaccompanied Child Migration to the United States, 10–12; UNHCR, Children on the Run; Lorna Collier, “Helping Immigrant Children Heal,” American Psychological Association, 2015, www.apa.org/monitor/2015/03/immigrant-children. aspx. 60 Ivelisse Torres Fernández, Nayeli Y. Chavez-Dueñas, and Antrés J. Consoli, “Guidelines for the Treatment of Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Minors: What Mental Health Professionals and Detention Center Personnel Can Do,” Latina/o Psychology Today 2, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 44–54, www.nlpa.ws/assets/final%20lpt%20issue_2_no_1_2015r2.pdf. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)/Migration Refugee Services (MRS) found that about 85 percent of unaccompanied children reported having some type of traumatic experience prior to entering ORR custody, some occurring during their journey to the United States, but the majority occurring while in their home country. See USCCB/MRS, The Changing Face of the Unaccompanied Alien Child: A Portrait of Foreign-Born Children in Federal Foster Care and How to Best Meet Their Needs (Washington, DC: USCCB/MRS, 2012), 8, www.usccb.org/about/children-and-migration/unaccompanied-refugee-minor-program/upload/APortrait-of-Foreign-Born-Children-in-Federal-Foster-Care-and-How-to-Best-Meet-Their-Needs_USCCB-December-2012.pdf. 61 Elżbieta M. Goździak, What Kind of Welcome? Integration of Central American Unaccompanied Children into Local Communities (Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Institute for the Study of International Migration, 2015), 12–13, https://isim. georgetown.edu/sites/isim/files/files/upload/Kaplan%20UAC%20Report.compressed%20(2).pdf. 62 Fernández, Guidelines for the Treatment of Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Minors; testimony of Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD, Associate Executive Director, American Psychological Association Public Interest, Government Relations Office, before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, “An Administration Made Disaster: The South Texas Border Surge of Unaccompanied Alien Minors,” 113th Cong., 2nd sess., June 25, 2014, www.apa.org/about/gr/pi/news/2014/immigrationtestimony.aspx. 63 Collier, “Helping Immigrant Children Heal;” Glassgold testimony; USCCB/MRS, The Changing Face of the Unaccompanied Alien Child. 64 Collier, “Helping Immigrant Children Heal.” 65 ORR, “Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied: Section 3, Services,” April 20, 2015, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ orr/resource/children-entering-the-united-states-unaccompanied-section-3#3.1. 20 Unaccompanied Child Migrants in U.S. Communities, Immigration Court, and Schools Issue Brief 66 TVPRA, sec. 235(c)(3)(B). 67 ORR, “Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied: Guide to Terms,” January 30, 2015, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ orr/resource/children-entering-the-united-states-unaccompanied-guide-to-terms. 68 Molly Hennessy-Fiske, “Young immigrants placed in sponsor homes are at risk of abuse, experts say,” Los Angeles Times, August 18, 2015, www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-immigrant-sponsors-20150818-story.html. 69 Ibid; Associated Press, “People smuggler forced teen migrants from Guatemala into egg farm work,” The Guardian, August 24, 2015, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/25/people-smuggler-forced-teen-migrants-from-guatemala-into-egg-farmwork. 70 HHS, “Post Release and Home Study Services for Unaccompanied Alien Children,” 2013, www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/foa/ files/HHS-2014-ACF-ORR-ZU-0632_0.pdf. 71 ORR, “Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied: Section 2, Safe and Timely Release from ORR Care,” January 30, 2015, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/children-entering-the-united-states-unaccompanied-section-2. 72 Benjamin J. Roth and Breanne L. Grace, “Post-Release: Study Summary and Policy Recommendations,” in At the Crossroads for Unaccompanied Migrant Children: Policy, Practice, & Protection (Baltimore: Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, 2015), 46, http://lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/LIRS_RoundtableReport_WEB.pdf. 73 TVPRA, sec. 235(c)(6). 74 Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS), At the Crossroads for Unaccompanied Migrant Children: Policy, Practice, & Protection (Baltimore: LIRS, 2015), 19, http://lirs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/LIRS_RoundtableReport_WEB.pdf. 75 Frydman, Dallam, and Bookey, A Treacherous Journey, iv, 1, 5, 82–83. 76 In June 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a budget to expand California’s state health care plan, Medi-Cal, to all low-income unauthorized immigrant children by May 1, 2016. California Assembly Bill 119 (June 24, 2015), https://legiscan. com/CA/bill/AB119/2015; National Immigration Law Center (NILC), “Table: Medical Assistance Programs for Immigrants in Various States,” February 2014, www.nilc.org/document.html?id=159. 77 State of Illinois, “About All Kids,” accessed April 21, 2015, www.allkids.com/hfs8269.html; State of Illinois, “All Kids Information for Providers,” accessed April 21, 2015, www.allkids.com/provider. 78 42 C.F.R. § 457. This is referred to as the “unborn child option.” 79 CLINIC, “Eighteen States Offer Prenatal Care to Undocumented Immigrant Women,” November 2013, https://cliniclegal.org/ resources/articles-clinic/eighteen-states-offer-prenatal-care-undocumented-immigrant-women-nov-2013. 80 7 C.F.R. § 246.7(c)(3). 81 TVPRA, sec. 235(c)(4). 82 Miriam Jordan, “U.S. Government to Provide $9 Million for Legal Aid to Child Migrants,” The Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2014, www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-government-to-provide-9-million-for-legal-aid-to-child-migrants-1412106221. 83 TRAC, “Juveniles—Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings,” accessed October 7, 2015. 84 Corporation for National and Community Service, “Justice Department and CNCS Announce New Partnership to Enhance Immigration Courts and Provide Critical Legal Assistance to Unaccompanied Minors,” (press release, June 6, 2014), www. nationalservice.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/justice-department-and-cncs-announce-new-partnership-enhance. 85 EOIR phone call with stakeholders, July 31, 2015. 86 SB-873 Human Services, September 27, 2014, http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_ id=201320140SB873. 87 New York City Council, “NYC Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, the Robin Hood Foundation and New York Community Trust Announce New $1.9 Million Unaccompanied Minor Initiative,” (press release, September 23, 2014), http://council.nyc. gov/html/pr/092314um.shtml. 88 New York City Council, “New York City Council Initiative Ensuring All Unaccompanied Minors in NYC Have Lawyers,” (press release, March 24, 2015), http://council.nyc.gov/html/pr/032415um.shtml. 89 Benjamin Mueller, “To Help Unaccompanied Minors, New York City Posts Representatives at Immigration Court,” New York Times, September 16, 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/09/17/nyregion/to-help-unaccompanied-minors-city-posts-representatives-at-immigration-court.html. 21 Migration Policy Institute About the Author Sarah Pierce is a Research Assistant with the Migration Policy Institute’s U.S. Immigration Policy Program. Prior to joining MPI, she worked as an attorney at an immigration law firm in Chicago, practicing in all areas of immigration law, with a particular focus on employment and family immigration. She has also worked and volunteered with a number of nonprofit organizations, including the California Appellate Project, Human Rights Watch, and the National Immigrant Justice Center. Ms. Pierce holds a B.A. from Grinnell College, a J.D. from the University of Iowa College of Law, and is pursuing a master’s in international affairs at George Washington University. Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Marc Rosenblum, Deputy Director of MPI’s U.S. Immigration Policy Program, who provided invaluable guidance. Thanks also go to Dr. Jodi Berger Cardoso, Assistant Professor of Social Work at the University of Houston; Aryah Sommers of Kids in Need of Defense (KIND); and Elisabeth Carlson, Attorney at Kempster, Corcoran, Quiceno & Lenz-Calvo, Ltd. The author also thanks attendees of the MPI roundtable “Regional Solutions for Unaccompanied Children: Practical Strategies for Governments and Civil Society in North and Central America” held in Washington DC, April 30 and May 1, 2015; a draft of this brief was presented at the roundtable. Doris Meissner, Director of MPI’s U.S. Immigration Policy Program; Randy Capps, Director of Research for U.S. Programs at MPI; Margie McHugh, Director of MPI’s National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy; MPI Policy Analysts Julie Sugarman and Faye Hipsman; Research Assistants Jie Zong and Ariel G. Ruiz Soto; and intern Gloriana Sojo-Lara all made indispensable contributions to this brief. This research has been made possible through the generous support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Open Society Foundations (OSF), and the Central America and Mexico Migration Alliance (CAMMINA). © 2015 Migration Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved. Cover Design: April Siruno, MPI Layout: Marissa Esthimer, MPI No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Migration Policy Institute. A full-text PDF of this document is available for free download from www.migrationpolicy.org. Information for reproducing excerpts from this report can be found at www.migrationpolicy.org/about/copyright-policy. Inquiries can also be directed to: Permissions Department, Migration Policy Institute, 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, or by contacting communications@migrationpolicy.org. Suggested citation: Pierce, Sarah. 2015. Unaccompanied Child Migrants in U.S. Communities, Immigration Court, and Schools. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. 22 Unaccompanied Child Migrants in U.S. Communities, Immigration Court, and Schools The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank dedicated to the study of the movement of people worldwide. The Institute provides analysis, development, and evaluation of migration and refugee policies at the local, national, and international levels. It aims to meet the rising demand for pragmatic responses to the challenges and opportunities that migration presents in an ever more integrated world. w w w .M i g r at i o n P o l i c y . o r g About MPI's United States Immigration Policy Program With the politics and policy issues of immigration more complex and contentious than ever, it is vitally important that policymakers and the American public have solid information, fact-based analysis, and sound policy ideas on which to base their discussions, and, ultimately, their decisions. Through its U.S. Immigration Policy Program, MPI is providing careful analysis of existing policies and articulating a series of pragmatic, workable policy proposals to overhaul an outdated U.S. immigration system so it can better reflect current realities and needs for U.S. society, employers, communities, and nativeborn and immigrant residents alike. 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036 202-266-1940 (t) 202-266-1900 (f)