At the Crossroads
for Unaccompanied
Migrant Children

1

POLICY, PRACTICE, & PROTECTION

Shawn Talbot / Shutterstock.com

 A UNIFIED VISION FOR PROTECTING
UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN:
Statement of Principles

T

his “Unified Vision for Protecting Unaccompanied Children” sets out a statement of principles developed
through a series of roundtable discussions hosted by Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. The principles
are timely in their application to current compelling events, and also timeless in their enduring applicability
to the care of unaccompanied children beyond this immediate humanitarian crisis. While current events continue
to change and evolve, along with the U.S. government’s legislative and programmatic approaches to unaccompanied
children, the relevance and necessity of these fundamental principles has never been greater, in order to ensure that
there is no erosion of humanitarian and due process protections for the lives and safety of unaccompanied children.

Principle #1
Unaccompanied children are children first and foremost. U.S. policies and practices must recognize their unique
vulnerabilities and developmental needs within a context of the best interests of the child.

Principle #2
Screening of children for persecution, abuse, or exploitation should be done by skilled child welfare professionals.

Principle #3
Children require individualized adjudication procedures that recognize a child’s need for trust, safety and time, in order
to disclose trauma and maltreatment; in legal proceedings, unaccompanied children need legal counsel to represent
their wishes, and the equivalent of a guardian ad litem (Child Advocate) to represent their best interests.

Principle #4
Children are best cared for by their families, and family unity supports children’s long-term stability and well-being.
When children are in transitional situations, they should be cared for by child welfare entities in the most family-like,
least restrictive setting appropriate to their needs.

Principle #5
Programs with care and custody of unaccompanied children must provide a safe and nurturing environment with
trained and qualified staff who have child welfare expertise, while also preparing children and their future caregivers
for a successful transition to a supportive family setting.

Principle #6
Following reunification, every unaccompanied child should receive community-based case management and support
services to facilitate healthy integration and to prevent child maltreatment.

Principle #7
Children are best served when government agencies and their partners incorporate principles of accountability,
collaboration, information sharing, documentation of best practices, evaluation, and quality improvement.

 We represent a diverse group of service providers: both faith-based and secular, providing legal and social services,
working nationally, in academia, and in local communities. Many of us have served unaccompanied children for decades,
giving us a perspective beyond this immediate crisis. Some of us have worked with and provided direct services to
refugee children in the U.S. and abroad, while others have focused on children in our U.S. child welfare systems. These
principles developed during three national “Roundtable” meetings remained consistent in their focus on the central
themes of protection, stability, accountability, and cross-system collaboration.
We are united by the certainty, and sense of urgency, that the current humanitarian crisis must be viewed through the
prism of child protection and guided by these enduring principles.

Individual endorsers:
Thomas M. Crea, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Boston College Graduate School of Social Work

Dr. Susan Terrio
Professor of Anthropology and French Studies
Georgetown University

Susan Schmidt, MSSW, LGSW
Adjunct Social Work Instructor
College of St. Scholastica (Twin Cities)

Jayshree Jani, Ph.D., MSW, LCSW-C
Assistant Professor
Social Work Department
University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Elvis Garcia Callejas
Immigration Counselor Specialist

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report has been informed by the wisdom, experience, and passion of an
extraordinary group of national and local experts, convened by Lutheran Immigration
and Refugee Service (LIRS) in a series of Roundtable meetings on the topic
of unaccompanied refugee and migrant children. LIRS thanks the Roundtable
participants who attended these meetings, who shared their insights and their
hopes for improving the United States’ current system of care for unaccompanied
children. A list of Roundtable participants follows in Appendix C.

In addition, LIRS would like to thank the following staff and consultants for
their diligent work in envisioning, planning, leading, and documenting the
Roundtable series on unaccompanied children:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Doug Brown, LIRS Children’s Services Coordinator
Kristen Guskovict, Consultant and Facilitator
Linda Hartke, LIRS President and CEO
Kim Haynes, LIRS Director for Children’s Services
Jessica Jones, LIRS Children and Youth Policy Associate
Fabio Lomelino, LIRS Director for Network Engagement
Kristine Poplawski, LIRS Children’s Services Coordinator
Angela Randall, LIRS Administrative Assistant for Children’s Services
Laura Schmidt, LIRS Children’s Services Coordinator
Susan Schmidt, Consultant and Report Writer
Aryah Somers, Consultant and Facilitator
Dawnya Underwood, LIRS Assistant Director for Children’s Services
Annie Wilson, LIRS Chief Strategy Officer

Finally, we would like to acknowledge the thoughtful contributions offered by staff
and consultants to the production of this report. Susan Schmidt is the lead author.
Significant input was provided during the drafting stages by Kristen Guscovict,
Jessica Jones, Joanne Kelsey (LIRS Assistant Director for Advocacy), Chak Ng (LIRS
Assistant Director for Quality Assurance), Aryah Somers, and Dawnya Underwood.
Final formatting and production oversight was provided by Clarissa Perkins (LIRS
Creative Services Project Manager), Nicole Jurmo (LIRS Assistant Director for
Communications), and Amanda Ghessie (Advocacy Intern).
Please note that the recommendations included in this report should be
attributed to Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. Although LIRS was
informed by many views and perspectives, the recommendations are solely our
responsibility and are not endorsed by Roundtable participants.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
PREFACE 8
INTRODUCTION 9
LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK 10
CURRENT CONTEXT, PRACTICES, AND
CHALLENGES 12
A System in Crisis 13
Apprehension and Custody of Unaccompanied
Children 13
Lack of Protections for Unaccompanied Children from
Contiguous Countries (i.e. Mexico and Canada) 14
Custody, Transport, and Return of Unaccompanied
Children 14
Placement of Unaccompanied Children 15
Home Studies Prior to Family Reunification 16
Case Coordination 17
Family Reunification Timeframes 17
Safe Release and Fingerprinting 17
Follow-Up Services 18
Legal Services and Legal Representation 18
Child Advocates 19
Immigration Court Procedures 20
Summary 20

CHILD PROTECTION PRINCIPLES 21
RECOMMENDATIONS 24
CONCLUSION 30

 5

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A:

Roundtable Series Overview 33

APPENDIX B:

Roundtable Guiding Principles 34

APPENDIX C:

Roundtable Participants 35

APPENDIX D:

Roundtable Process 36

APPENDIX E:

Roundtable Assessment: Best Practice and Ideal Practice 38

APPENDIX F:

Unaccompanied Immigrant Minors – System Overview 41

APPENDIX G.1:
UC Decision Tree: Apprehension 42

APPENDIX G.2:
UC Decision Tree: Shelter 43

APPENDIX G.3:

UC Decision Tree: Release 44

APPENDIX H:

Post-Release, Study Summary and Policy Recommendations
45

APPENDIX I:

LIRS & UMBC Research: Assessing Need & Utilization of
Community Services Among Unaccompanied Children 49

APPENDIX J:

Child Protection Laws Regarding Unaccompanied Children 52

APPENDIX K:

Roundtable Acronyms 56

 




16

ion

Children
Protect

ICE




Policy


Pra 91w 

for Unaccompan

 

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Children separated from their parents are among the
most vulnerable of migrant populations. This heart
wrenching reality, brought vividly before the public eye in
the news coverage of the large-scale flight of unaccompanied
children from Central America in the summer of 2014, has
informed critical aspects of U.S. government policy for many
years. Yet, systemic protections for unaccompanied and
separated children have also been repeatedly and consistently
undermined by immigration enforcement measures that fail to
take into account our nation’s child welfare responsibilities or
the unique legal and developmental needs of children.

various protection gaps in the systems serving unaccompanied
children. Among those detailed in this report are the following:
the flawed screening process at the border, which excludes
many children from protection on the basis of nationality
rather than individual circumstances; the use of inappropriate
holding and institutional facilities both at the border and upon
subsequent transfer; weaknesses in the system of placement,
reunification and follow-up that fail to fully ensure children’s
safety; the clear inadequacy of legal representation for
children (despite heroic volunteer efforts); and budget-driven
imperatives to fast-track procedures for children.

Caught in the volatile crosswinds of immigration politics, the
U.S. government has struggled for decades with the appropriate
treatment of unaccompanied and separated children crossing the
southern U.S. border. Today, as policymakers attempt to find a
new balance in light of the large numbers of Central Americans
who have crossed our border—with tragic stories of the violence
they left behind—it is essential that our approach recognizes the
extreme vulnerabilities of children who migrate alone.

Based on the policy, practice, and protection wisdom of
participants in these Roundtable meetings, LIRS developed
a set of child protection principles to guide governmental
and non-governmental work with unaccompanied children.
These principles, laid out in the report, have now been
endorsed by a wide range of organizations with an interest in
the treatment of separated and unaccompanied children, and
undergird the recommendations we make.

This report by Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service
(LIRS) offers a range of policy and practice recommendations
for the care and protection of unaccompanied children,
informed by a series of three “Roundtable” meetings convened
by LIRS in 2014 to consider current practice and ideal practice
with unaccompanied children. The report that follows
describes current policy and practice challenges and includes
a set of fundamental principles for approaching work with
unaccompanied children, as well as a comprehensive set of
recommendations geared primarily towards U.S. government
decision makers with responsibility for treatment of
unaccompanied children. As a faith-based national organization
with more than forty years of experience serving unaccompanied
refugee and migrant children, LIRS puts forward these
recommendations in a spirit of public-private collaboration and
with an abiding interest in the protection of children.

The President, the U.S. Congress, and federal government agencies
must not lose sight of their legal, moral, and ethical responsibility
to keep vulnerable children safe from harm. We have a proud
tradition of extending protection to those who seek refuge on our
shores. It is time to stop giving in to passing financial, political,
and institutional pressures—with the lives of children at stake—and
instead to commit to a consistent principled approach to the care
and custody of unaccompanied migrant children.

In FY 2014, over 68,000 children were apprehended, of whom
51,705 were from the Northern Triangle countries of Central
America—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—where rates
of violence exceed that in recognized war zones. The proportion
of girls and younger children also increased, creating greater
risks. This marked increase in child migration highlighted

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

• Apprehension, Screening, and Referral to the Office of
Refugee Resettlement: Department of Homeland Security
and its federal agencies should develop both standard
and emergency plans for the care of children in the least
restrictive environment appropriate to their needs and
vulnerabilities, utilizing child welfare professionals and
legal service providers, implementing expeditious transfers
to the Office of Refugee Resettlement custody, and building
in procedural accountability.
• Access to Justice: Congress, the Department of Justice,
Department of Homeland Security, and Health and Human

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
Services should maintain and build upon existing legal
protections for unaccompanied children, ensuring that
unaccompanied children have access to legal counsel and
Child Advocates (guardians ad litem) to protect their legal
and best interests, including “Know Your Rights” information,
Legal Orientation Programs for Custodians, and access to
legal proceedings with substantive and procedural integrity,
resulting in legal protection for this vulnerable population and
safe repatriation for those who are returned.
• Family Reunification: The Office of Refugee Resettlement
and its programming partners should prioritize child
protection and safety in reunification decisions by revising
assessment tools, improving collaboration, and preparing
children and families for successful reunifications.
• Post-Release Services: Congress should mandate, and the
Office of Refugee Resettlement should create, a continuum
of post-release services so that every child released from
the Office of Refugee Resettlement custody receives some
level of follow-up contact in order to safeguard children
by connecting them with educational, legal, and child
welfare resources; Office of Refugee Resettlement and its
programming partners should support and engage local
community-based service providers that help children and
their sponsor caregivers over the longer term so they are
equipped to meet the needs of unaccompanied children
and their sponsor caregivers.
• Improving Coordination: Department of Homeland
Security, Department of Justice, and the Office of Refugee
Resettlement should develop effective and efficient methods
of coordination that place child protection at the center of
cooperative efforts and set an example for staff, partners,
and stakeholders; non-governmental organizations should
proactively seek out areas for collaboration that better serve
unaccompanied children and build on existing best practices.
• Oversight and Accountability: Congress, Department
of Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services
should implement systems of checks and balances
through creation of monitoring and compliance systems
regarding the Prison Rape Elimination Act, Trafficking
Victims’ Protection Act, child protection and human
rights, Significant Incident Reports, and Ombudsman’s
offices that monitor children’s issues.

8

PREFACE
In late 2013, LIRS launched a Roundtable consultation
process to bring together a wide range of experts on the care
and treatment of unaccompanied children for the purpose of
developing shared principles and informing recommendations
for improvements to the system. Three Roundtable meetings
took place in 2014, with the last occurring against the backdrop
of the dramatic rise in child migration from Central America and
Mexico over the summer of 2014.
With this rise in migration, many of the systems and processes
that had been in place for years were thrown into crisis.
Resource constraints were severe, and at the height of the
crisis, some established legal or child welfare safeguards
were either set aside or compromised. Since then, as the
flow of migration to the United States has abated (at least
temporarily), the child-serving system has continued in a
state of flux, restoring safeguards and practices in some areas,
maintaining measures initiated during the crisis in others, and
in yet other cases, evolving new policies and procedures.
The political climate has also changed with the migration of
Central American children as a flashpoint in the unfolding
debate over immigration policy. Provisions that Congress made
for the protection and care of children in years past are under
new scrutiny and face the possibility of repeal or amendment.
It is against this volatile background that LIRS has prepared
this report with an even more powerful sense of urgency to
ensure that the rights and interests of children are protected.
It should be noted that this report addresses U.S. policies and
procedures towards children who come to the United States
unaccompanied by a parent or legal guardian. An equally
compelling policy concern—although one not within the scope
of this report—involves those children who are accompanied
by a parent or guardian when they enter the United States
(“accompanied children”). In the summer of 2014, the federal
government opened large family detention facilities in Karnes,
TX, and Artesia, NM, receiving widespread criticism of both
the conditions of confinement and the immigration legal
proceedings.1 The re-establishment of family detention is a
shameful new chapter, and the toll on children’s well-being
is of particular concern. On this topic, we refer readers to

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
our companion report, Locking Up Family Values, Again: The
Continued Failure of Immigration Family Detention, published
by LIRS and The Women’s Refugee Commission in October
2014, which updated an earlier 2007 report. In our report
we conclude, “…our findings again illustrate that large-scale
family detention results in egregious violations of our country’s
obligations under international law, undercuts individual
due process rights, and sets a poor example for the rest of the
world.”2 The Artesia facility is now closed, but a new and even
larger family detention facility has since been opened in Dilley,
TX, with the capacity to detain up to 2,400 women and children.

9

trafficking, child labor, kidnap and ransom by smugglers,
forcible recruitment by criminals or armed factions,
homelessness, teen pregnancy, physical deprivation,
and violence and trauma. The absence of adult care and
protection, in combination with a child’s lack of maturity and
inherent dependence, make unaccompanied children among
the most vulnerable of migrant populations.

INTRODUCTION
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS) has worked
with unaccompanied refugee and immigrant children in
the United States for nearly forty years. We are one of two
organizations providing foster care to unaccompanied refugee
youth who are admitted through the United States’ refugee
resettlement program. We have provided foster care and
family reunification services to Central American and Mexican
children since 2003, and to Chinese and Indian children in the
decade before that. This historical viewpoint and cumulative
experience affords a unique opportunity to offer insight and
recommendations on the United States’ current responses to
unaccompanied children coming from Central America and
other countries. LIRS puts forward these recommendations
in a spirit of public-private collaboration and with an abiding
interest in the protection of children.
For several years, the number of unaccompanied children
from Central America and Mexico who are apprehended
while seeking to enter the United States has been on
the increase. In FY 2014, over 68,000 unaccompanied
children were apprehended, of whom 51,705 were from the
Northern Triangle countries of Central America: El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras.3 Children come unaccompanied
to the United States for a range of reasons, including safety,
family reunification, economic need and opportunity, or a
combination of these factors. Several recent reports have
established a clear causal link between the rising violence in
Central America and Mexico and the migration of children
who are unaccompanied by parents or caregivers.4
Children separated from their parents due to, or during,
migration are vulnerable to a wide range of risks, such as sex

In this municipality, just like in many others, it is possible to get on
a train only when in motion. Private guards prevent access to the
station. In the south it is common for hundreds of undocumented
people to travel in a single train.
Photo credit: Ruido.

The United States has a long tradition of welcoming newcomers
and protecting the vulnerable, yet—notwithstanding this
protective tradition—the U.S. government has wrestled for
decades with the appropriate treatment of unaccompanied and
separated children crossing the southern U.S. border, vacillating
between policies that emphasize enforcement priorities on the
one hand, and those that address child welfare responsibilities
and the unique legal situation of children on the other. 5
Viewed over a twenty-year span, the United States’ treatment
of unaccompanied and separated children6 has become
more sensitive to the unique developmental needs, inherent
dependence, and fundamental vulnerabilities of children.
Critical policy changes have resulted from legal action, such as
the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement,7 or have been effected
through the enactment of legislation.8
The recommendations contained in this report are an important
step in continued forward movement to protect migrant children
in the continuously recalibrated balance of federal priorities. The
sharp increase in migration from Central America and Mexico has
unfortunately made the task more difficult, as the heated rhetoric
on immigration and increased political pressure to heighten

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
enforcement create a poor climate for reform and may actually
erode child protections previously secured.
In 2014, against the backdrop of the increase in the numbers
of unaccompanied children entering the United States, LIRS
brought together over 40 national and local experts in a
series of three full-day Roundtable meetings in Washington,
DC to consider these fundamental questions regarding
unaccompanied children:
1. Exploration: What is current practice? The first
Roundtable assessed existing policies and services,
including ideal service models, current challenges, and
promising practices. (March 18, 2014)
2. Convergence: What should current practice be? The
second Roundtable identified potential solutions to
current challenges and methods for achieving desired
change. (May 29, 2014)
3. Action: How do we achieve ideal practice? The final
Roundtable prioritized key policy and practice
improvements and developed a shared vision for
accomplishing change, both as a group and as individual
organizations. The intense media attention, heated
Congressional hearings, and variety of proposed and actual
policy changes in response to what the U.S. government
deemed a “humanitarian crisis” created a tangible urgency
for the collective deliberations. (July 16, 2014)
The practice expertise of these inter-disciplinary professionals
provided the foundational background for LIRS as we drafted
this report and developed the concrete recommendations for
a coherent protective approach to unaccompanied children,
consistent with current child welfare and refugee protection
principles. All Roundtable participants had a role to play in
the formulation of the overarching principles; however, the
recommendations were developed by LIRS and do not necessarily
have the endorsement of the participants.
The recommendations of this report are also drawn from the
following important resources:
• Child welfare principles from nationally recognized sources:
o The Child Welfare Information Gateway of the
Children’s Bureau (Administration for Children and

10

Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services): www.childwelfare.gov
o The Child Welfare League of America’s National
Blueprint for Excellence in Child Welfare (2013): http://
www.cwla.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/
BlueprintExecutiveSummary1.pdf
• United States law and legal precedent:
o United States laws and court decisions relevant to
unaccompanied children: http://www.ecfr.gov
• International treaties and guidance:
o The Convention on the Rights of the Child
o The 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol Relating to
the Status of Refugees
o Guidance on unaccompanied children from the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR): www.refworld.org
The report is structured in four parts. We begin with a brief
overview of the legal and policy framework, followed by a
discussion of the current context, practices, and challenges.
Then, we present a set of principles developed out of the LIRS
Children’s Roundtable process, which we believe should guide
policy and practice with unaccompanied minors. Finally, the
report concludes with recommendations to the U.S. federal
government agencies and entities that have responsibility for
the care and treatment of unaccompanied children.

LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
The distinctive needs of unaccompanied children have been
recognized in a number of important international legal
instruments. The drafting conference for the 1951 Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees, in which the United States
participated, unanimously adopted a recommendation for
governments to protect, “…refugees who are minors, in particular
unaccompanied children and girls…”.9 The Convention on the
Rights of the Child also specifically mentions The United States’
responsibilities to provide protection and assistance to refugeseeking children, whether unaccompanied or accompanied.10
In keeping with these international treaties, the United Nations
Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has produced numerous resources
and reports detailing the special needs of unaccompanied and
separated children,11 and the U.S. government has developed

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
systems of specialized care for unaccompanied children who
come to the United States as planned arrivals (e.g., through the
U.S. refugee resettlement program)12 and as unplanned arrivals
(e.g., those encountered by immigration authorities, particularly
along the southern U.S. border).13 National and international
organizations have developed specialized identification and
caregiving procedures to protect unaccompanied children from the
abuse, neglect, and exploitation to which they are susceptible.14
A variety of U.S. laws and legal decisions provide the legal
framework and authority from which current policies and
programs towards unaccompanied children have developed.
Described below are some of the most significant pillars of
the legal guidance. Further detail is provided in Appendix J.
Refugee Act of 1980
With passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress approved
the first major overhaul of U.S. refugee resettlement policy since
1952. This legislation brought the United States into conformity
with its treaty obligations as a signatory to the United Nations
1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status
of Refugees,15 implemented an asylum process for those
needing protection after arrival to the United States, and
removed anachronistic language so that refugee protection
was available beyond merely those fleeing communism or
the Middle East.16 Furthermore, this legislation affirmed the
principle of non-refoulement (forbids the return of a victim to his
or her prosecutor) and the U.S. responsibility to not return to
danger those whose life or freedom is threatened.
The Refugee Act of 1980 also included special provisions for
providing care and supervision of unaccompanied refugee
children, leading to the development of a network of specialized
refugee foster care programs for unaccompanied refugee minors
resettled in the U.S.17 Thus, the Refugee Act of 1980 demonstrates
the United States’ historical recognition of the vulnerabilities of
unaccompanied children needing protection and our nation’s
commitment to providing appropriate protection and care.
❖Flores Settlement Agreement
In 1997, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California approved the Flores Settlement Agreement in
response to a lawsuit brought by various organizations against
the former Immigration and Naturalization Service, and by

11

extension the U.S. Attorney General. The Flores Settlement
Agreement required the U.S. government to observe certain
due process, including custody and release provisions with
respect to children in federal custody for immigration reasons.
Specifically, the agreement stipulates that the federal government
must provide safe and sanitary care for children consistent
with children’s vulnerabilities and ensure their safety and
well-being. While children are in federal custody, governmentfunded programs for unaccompanied children are required to
provide services such as food and shelter, health and mental
health care, basic education, recreation, access to religious
services, case management, and family reunification services.
Furthermore, the Flores Settlement Agreement requires that
children be placed in the least restrictive setting, in accordance
with child welfare principles, and it established a preference for
reunification with family members over continued government
detention. A little more than ten years after the Flores Settlement
Agreement, many of the standards from this agreement were
eventually incorporated into the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA).
❖Homeland Security Act of 2002
Following years of advocacy, investigative reporting, and
litigation,18 the system for dealing with unaccompanied children
who enter the United States without immigration documents
changed significantly in 2002 with passage of the Homeland
Security Act (HSA), which transferred unaccompanied children’s
care and custody responsibilities from the former Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) to the existing Office of Refugee
Resettlement (ORR), within the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services where ORR also had the responsibility of
resettling unaccompanied refugee minors (URM). Under the
former-INS, perennial problems included the lengthy detention
of children (for months to even years) with no placement review
process, lack of trauma-informed care, the use of jail-like detention
facilities, physical restraints such as shackles, commingling with
juvenile offenders for children who had not committed crimes,
arbitrary decision making, and an intrinsic conflict of interest
in being simultaneously responsible for both removal and
caretaking in relation to children. Fundamentally, the structural
change made by the HSA moved decision-making power from a
government agency focused primarily on law enforcement, to a
government agency focused primarily on human service needs
and with expertise in migration and child welfare matters. The
long-term implications of this change should not be overlooked,

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
as it represents a tangible recognition of the U.S. government’s
responsibility to treat unaccompanied minors as children first
and foremost.
❖The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2008
In December 2008, then-President George W. Bush signed
into law the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act (TVPRA), initially passed in 2000 and reauthorized in
2003, 2005, 2008, and 2013. The TVPRA of 2008 recognized
the inherent trafficking risks and unique vulnerabilities
of children outside the care of a parent or guardian and
implemented greater protection measures for unaccompanied
children. The TVPRA took important steps to improve the
protection of children by building on existing U.S. procedures
and handling children’s cases in a more sensitive manner.
Children seeking asylum protection can now be initially
interviewed in an office setting by U.S. asylum officers trained
to hear children’s claims, rather than having their asylum
cases handled and cross-examined in the more intimidating
and formal immigration court process. Recognizing a child’s
inability to navigate U.S. immigration procedures alone,
the TVPRA expanded children’s access to pro bono counsel.
Finally, the TVPRA codified the existing federal practice of
ensuring child welfare protections were incorporated into the
custody of unaccompanied immigrant children. This included
procedural protections to intercept trafficking and guarantee
a child’s right to a hearing before a judge. This practice
safeguards due process for non-Mexican children, rather than
perpetuating a migratory “revolving door” that can enable the
trafficking of children. Concerns with the implementation
of the TVPRA—and the current threat that the law may be
rescinded or modified to the detriment of child protection—are
explored in the following sections.

CURRENT CONTEXT, PRACTICES,
AND CHALLENGES 
A majority of the unaccompanied children coming to
the United States report having fled violence, abuse and
deprivation in Central America. Although the reasons for
migration are complex, a significant factor in the countries
of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala is the endemic
violence from gangs and other armed criminal actors. In
Honduras, homicide levels surpass that in the worst war

12

zones of South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of
the Congo.19 A United Nations study of global homicide
identified Honduras as the most violent country in the
world,20 and U.S. Borders and Custom Protection (CBP)
data indicated San Pedro Sula (Honduras’ second largest
city) as the most common city of origin for unaccompanied
children.21, 22 El Salvador and Guatemala ranked fourth and
fifth in global homicide rates.23
In 2014, the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) issued a report—Children on the Run—
based on more than 400 interviews with unaccompanied
children from Central America and Mexico. The report
found that 58% of the children UNHCR interviewed in
ORR and Customs and Border Protection custody disclosed
reasons for their flight warranting international protection,
including harm from organized armed criminal actors and
violence in the home.24 Since 2008 other countries in the
region—such as Belize, Costa Rica, Mexico, Nicaragua, and
Panama—have noted a 712% increase in asylum applications
from Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans.25 Beyond
these reasons for flight, unaccompanied children are
vulnerable to particular risks during migration, including
trafficking, sexual assault, physical deprivation, violence,
trauma, exploitation by criminals, kidnap and ransom, etc.
A rise in the numbers of unaccompanied children coming to the
United States has been documented over the past several years,
and advocates and service providers have been calling attention
to the increasing child protection issues in a number of reports.
From 2003 through 2011, the number of unaccompanied
children in ORR custody was between 6,000 and 8,000 a year.26
These numbers began to noticeably rise at the end of FY 2011,
with nearly 14,000 children placed in ORR custody in FY 2012,
nearly 25,000 in FY 2013, and over 57,000 unaccompanied
children in ORR care in FY 2014.27 It is worth noting that
ORR receives into its care only a subset of the total number of
unaccompanied children picked up at the border, since about
95% of Mexican unaccompanied minors are returned to Mexico
within 72 hours.28 In 2014 the total number of unaccompanied
children who were apprehended by CBP was over 68,500.29
Within the growing population of unaccompanied children
coming to the United States, the proportion of girls and younger
children has increased. The Pew Research Center found that the
apprehension of children ages 12 and under had increased by

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
117% between FY 2013 and the first eight months of FY 2014,
while the number of girls increased by 77% during that same
period, with the largest increases across both categories coming
from Honduran children.30 This shifting demographic strongly
suggests that current migration is being motivated by fear rather
than economic opportunity. In a related development, there
has also been a dramatic increase in the migration of families
with young children to the United States, with high percentages
expressing a fear of return.31
In the following sections, we describe policy and practice
in the care and custody of unaccompanied children in
the United States. We also describe the challenges posed
by the current system. This current system overview was
heavily informed by the input of the participants in the three
Roundtables that LIRS organized in 2014.

The first kilometers of this route force migrants to cross sections on foot.
To avoid roads they venture into areas of dense vegetation. La Arrocera
is one of these spots and is famous among migratory routes for being
scenery of continuous assault and rape perpetrated by native groups.
Photo credit: Ruido.

A System in Crisis
Current practice. An array of federal agencies, spread
across different federal departments, touch the lives of
unaccompanied children in varying ways, including the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department
for Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Department
of Justice. This system for responding to unaccompanied
minors has been in constant flux for over a decade, and the
operational infrastructure has never completely caught up
with the changes that have been mandated. Even before
the steep rise in numbers in the summer of 2014, which

13

overwhelmed existing resources and capacity, the system has
been subject to repeated shifts in policy and procedure whose
full consequences are not well anticipated, and that are not
always clearly developed as guidance to the field, leaving a
patchwork of differing interpretations and approaches.
Challenges. A strong child welfare system ideally has an
intentional approach to balancing the various interests at
stake and operates in a predictable manner. When all of the
players in the system are buffeted with changing directives,
some of which undermine other aspects of the established
framework, children fall through the cracks.
Apprehension and Custody of Unaccompanied Children
Current Practice. In almost all instances, the initial government
encounter with unaccompanied children occurs at the point of
apprehension—by Customs and Border Protection’s U.S. Border
Patrol (USBP) near the southern U.S. border, or less often by
Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Field Operations (OFO)
at official ports of entry. In 2014, over 70% of the unaccompanied
children who were identified as having entered the United
States without proper documents, or who came through official
inspection sites, were apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol in
the South Texas Rio Grande Sector.32 Upon apprehension, agents
take children to short-term holding facilities with conditions that
range from enclosed cells with cinderblock benches and open
toilets, to portable modular units or outdoor cages. Under the
terms of the Flores Settlement Agreement, children from noncontiguous countries must be transferred to the custody of ORR
as quickly as possible, and within no more than 72 hours. During
the summer of 2014 when the number of refugee children from
Central America was at an all-time high, ORR did not have the
bed space to place children. As a result, some children remained
in over-crowded CBP stations for weeks at a time. To mitigate the
situation at the over-crowded CBP stations in McAllen and Nogales,
Texas, CBP opened three large warehouse-style processing
centers (“Service Processing Centers”) at Lackland Air Force
Base (TX), Naval Base Ventura County (CA), and Fort Sill (OK).
Challenges. U.S. Border Patrol holding facilities and other
holding facilities or processing centers are neither designed
for nor appropriate for children. Both children and adults refer
to the temporary holding facilities as “hieleras” (Spanish for
“freezers”) due to their cold temperature.33 Immense Service
Processing Centers are neither designed for nor appropriate

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015

14

for the care of children and conflict with basic child welfare
standards of placing children in the least restrictive and most
family-like setting appropriate to their needs.

in a timely manner, then children from contiguous countries
must be transferred to the custody of the ORR, just as
children from non-contiguous countries.37

In June 2014, a coalition of six legal advocacy organizations
filed a formal complaint against CBP with the DHS Office for
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, as well as the DHS Office of
Inspector General, on behalf of 116 unaccompanied children
between the ages of 5 and 17.34 The complaint alleges abuse
and mistreatment against these children while in CBP custody,
including physical abuse, sexual assault, beatings, use of
stress positions, verbal abuse, denial of food and medical care,
unsanitary conditions, shackling, and custody beyond the 72
hour maximum stipulated under the TVPRA.35

Challenges. The TVPRA-mandated special screening of children
from non-contiguous countries was implemented to ensure that
children (almost always Mexican) receive protections required
under the U.S. Refugee Act38 and to ensure that children are not
returned to trafficking situations. However, the implementation
of this screening is largely perfunctory and does not accomplish
its protective intent.39 This results in CBP routinely returning
unaccompanied Mexican children—many of whom face severe
risks from violent criminal actors or traffickers—without a
thorough examination of children’s protection needs. Mexican
unaccompanied children are routinely asked to make complex
immigration decisions all on their own, without a lawyer or Child
Advocate present. A child, by virtue of his or her very status as a
child, lacks the necessary capacity to consent to a withdrawal of
an application of admission without a legal guardian, lawyer, or
Child Advocate assisting him or her in the process.

In addition to enduring poor conditions and treatment,
children in CBP custody do not have lawyers or Child
Advocates and have limited assistance, knowledge, or even
phone access to try and secure such help. This means that
unaccompanied children in CBP custody are almost always
interrogated alone by law enforcement officials lacking
child welfare interviewing expertise, whether CBP agents
or other federal law enforcement agents, without any legal
representation or legal guardian present. This practice is
counter to good practice in child welfare and basic due process
with vulnerable populations.
Lack of Protections for Unaccompanied Children from
Contiguous Countries (i.e. Mexico & Canada)
Current Practice. Children from contiguous countries (Mexico
and Canada) have separate processing procedures under the
TVPRA that result in rapid return for most. The procedures
require DHS to make a determination that these unaccompanied
children are neither trafficking victims nor children with a fear of
return, and that they are able to make an independent decision to
withdraw their application of admission.36 In practice, this policy
applies overwhelmingly to Mexican children. These regulations
also stipulate that unaccompanied children should be returned
to child welfare authorities during normal business hours (so
that children are not returned without support in the middle of
the night, raising serious safety issues), and without a lasting
charge on the child’s U.S. immigration record.
Under the TVPRA, DHS (in practice CBP) must make these
determinations within 48 hours. If CBP is not able to do so

The current U.S. system for processing Mexican unaccompanied
children has, for all intents and purposes, created a two-tiered
system of processing for these children: Mexican children
are rarely given access to protective and due process legal
procedures, while Central American and other children have
access to protective measures as a matter of standard practice.
Over the past decade, the U.S. screening and adjudication process
for Central American children has become increasingly childsensitive; however, Mexican children are virtually excluded from
these approaches and instead face fast-track return procedures.
As a result, Central American children make up 93% of children
in ORR custody, and Mexican unaccompanied children make up
only 3%, a ratio that is not reflective of the protection need.40
Custody, Transport, and Return of Unaccompanied Children
Current Practice. Practices for the transport of children are
evolving and differ depending on where children are being taken.
Until this past summer, agents from Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) have had the responsibility for physically
transporting children to ORR facilities that are located far from
the border. This responsibility has rested with ICE’s Juvenile and
Family Residential Management Unit (JFRMU). On the other
hand, if the destination ORR facility is located near the border, it is
CBP officers who transport children. Typically both ICE and CBP

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
agents are armed and in uniform. Children may be transported
in federal vehicles or in vehicles contracted from private transport
companies such as G4 and Trailboss.
As part of this transportation function, ICE at times places
children in special short-term facilities during transit stopovers.
Some of these are contracted by ICE for the purpose of holding a
child in transport for under 72 hours, but children are also held in
hotels or other inappropriate locations, such as secure juvenile
detention facilities. Over the past decade, with the responsibility
for transport of children that came with the transfer of physical
custody to ORR, ICE had started to expand its use of child
appropriate shelters and instituting policies governing the
hours when it is appropriate to transport children.
Due to the high numbers of child migrants from Central
America in the summer of 2014, ICE initiated a revision
of transport procedures. One impetus was to reduce the
time burden on agents of accompanying large numbers
of children being delivered to ORR facilities, but ICE
also took into consideration NGO concerns about the
inappropriateness of having law enforcement agents
accompany children. In the fall of 2014, ICE’s JFRMU began
using a private contractor, MVM Inc., which employs an array
of professionals (from former law enforcement to child care
workers) who are assigned depending on an individualized
assessment of the child’s needs and safety factors. These
transport agents are unarmed and not in law enforcement
uniforms—recent changes that have the potential to make
these agents less intimidating to children.
In addition to transport to ORR facilities, ICE is responsible
for returning unaccompanied children to their countries of
origin. To accomplish this, ICE agents accompany children to
the home country and physically transfer custody of the child
to a representative of the child’s home country. Alternatively,
unaccompanied minors can be returned on Justice Prisoner
& Alien Transportation (JPATS) flights operated by the U.S.
Marshals Service.
Challenges. There are periodic concerns with transportation
practices that become more frequent during periods of
higher child migration flows. These concerns include
transporting children in the middle of night, using federal
law enforcement personnel instead of contracting with childappropriate workers, and using unsuitable accommodations

15

for stopovers during transport. While ICE’s JFRMU
expanded use of child appropriate shelters and civilianclothed childcare professionals are important steps in the
right direction, the specific contract with MVM, Inc. that was
entered into in the fall of 2014 remains to be evaluated.
Placement of Unaccompanied Children
Current Practice. Under the TVPRA, ORR is required to promptly
place unaccompanied children “in the least restrictive setting
that is in the best interest of the child.”41 The Homeland Security
Act (HSA) similarly requires ORR to ensure that the “interests
of the child are considered” in unaccompanied children’s care
and custody decisions and actions.42 The Flores Settlement
agreement stipulates the release priorities for unaccompanied
children, in this order: parent, legal guardian, adult relative, or
adult designated by the parent or guardian to licensed programs
and others approved by ORR.43
Once unaccompanied children are transferred to the care and
custody of ORR, most are placed within a nationwide network
of child-oriented shelter programs. Shelters are funded by ORR
and operated by non-governmental organizations (both large
and small, national and local, faith-based and secular), or in some
cases by local governments that contract with ORR to provide
a structured and supervised residential care environment.
Under the HSA, ORR has responsibility for care and placement
determinations, oversight and inspection of facilities, family
reunification, maintenance of statistical information, planning to
ensure legal counsel, and maintenance of information on Child
Advocate and legal representation resources.
Shelter programs range from large institutional shelters
housing hundreds of children, to mid-size facilities, to small
group home-like settings. In addition to shelters, ORR
contracts with a number of foster care programs around
the United States which provide care for the youngest,
most vulnerable children, and for trafficked, pregnant,
and parenting teens. ORR also contracts with a few
secure juvenile detention facilities and with residential or
therapeutic treatment centers for children with behavioral
health needs.
The following chart describes the numbers of facilities or
placement programs available for unaccompanied children.
Because of the size of the facilities, the number of children

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015

16

in the shelter care programs is much higher than those in
smaller programs such as foster care.
Total Number of ORR Placement Options for Children
All programs are licensed in accordance with state and local
child licensing laws
Placement Types

Fiscal
Year 2014

Long-term foster care: Children with legal claims
but no viable family sponsors are placed with
foster families while their legal cases proceed.

16

Transitional foster care: Short-term, home-based
placements with foster families, while family
reunification is pursued. Reserved for young
children, trafficking victims, pregnant or parenting teens, and children with special needs.

19

Shelter: Facilities ranging in capacity from under
20 children to over 200, usually privately run.
Children are placed in shelters pending family
reunification.

72

Residential treatment centers: Therapeutic programs ranging in security level for children with
more severe mental health needs.

2

Staff-secure facilities: Medium secure juvenile
detention facilities with lower staff-to-child ratios.

10

Secure facilities: Sub-contracted county juvenile
detention facilities.

5

Children and Families, the continued reliance on this model
is perplexing. U.S. child welfare programs have decreased or
eliminated institutional placements, except for children with
the most complex health or mental health needs. Best practice
standards for short-term shelters housing homeless and
runaway youth set an upper limit at “no more than 20 children
and youth at one location.”46 It therefore remains troubling
that large institutions continue to be the federal government’s
primary care and custody model for unaccompanied children.
Home Studies Prior to Family Reunification

Having access to a range of care options for unaccompanied
children—from foster care to group care to shelter care to secure
care—is in keeping with both the Flores Settlement Agreement
and the TVPRA legislation by enabling placement of children
in the least restrictive setting appropriate to their individual
needs.44 The TVPRA further requires that any secure placement
decisions be reviewed monthly, and the Flores Settlement
grants children the right to judicial review of their placements if
they disagree with the type of placement they are given.45
Challenges. While ORR has access to a range of placement
options, it primarily relies on large institutions for placing
children. The federal government’s predominant reliance upon
a large institutional model has been a concern since before
custody of unaccompanied children was transferred from the
Immigration and Naturalization Service to ORR. Now that
the custody of these children is under the Health and Human
Service Department’s division of the Administration for

Current Practice. Unaccompanied children can be released
from ORR custody to relatives or family friends who meet
certain requirements (called “sponsors”). Under the provisions
of the TVPRA, ORR is required to verify a sponsor’s identity
and relationship to the child and to determine that the sponsor
can provide for a child’s “physical and mental well-being”
and does not pose a risk to the child.47 Under the TVPRA,
ORR is mandated to complete a home study for children in
the following situations: child trafficking victims; children
with disabilities or other special needs; children who have
experienced physical or sexual abuse, or those with mental
health issues.48 LIRS is one of several national organizations
able to conduct home studies across the country, a service
provided by LIRS to ORR and the former INS since 1994.
Home studies assess the suitability of a child’s placement
with a particular sponsor through interviews with the child,
caseworker, and family members; completion of a home
visit and suitability assessment; and an analysis of other
information related to the child’s specific needs. Home study
reports include a recommendation about reunification with a
particular sponsor, followed by a review and recommendation
by a case coordinator (described below), after which ORR
makes the final decision regarding reunification.
Challenges. The federal government routinely requires home
studies for separated refugee children reunifying with relatives
in the United States under the U.S. Department of State’s refugee
resettlement program. The same principle should be applied in
family placements involving this population of unaccompanied
children; however, despite their common usage and requirement
in other types of placement decisions involving children, ORR
requests home studies on a very limited basis. Home studies are
a protective and preventive measure in safeguarding children,

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
particularly when children have been separated from caregivers
for many years, when children have not previously lived with a
particular relative caregiver, or when identified risk factors are
present. A higher number of unaccompanied children fit this
vulnerable profile than current home study usage reflects.
Case Coordination
Current Practice. Since 2010, ORR has relied upon General
Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT) to provide case
management services, as well as the review of home studies
and sponsor documentation, to inform ORR’s release
decisions for unaccompanied children. GDIT is a for-profit
contracting agency whose traditional areas of expertise have
been in defense, engineering, and information technology.
For ORR contracts, GDIT employs child welfare professionals
to conduct the review of family reunification or transfer
documents and to make recommendations regarding release.
Challenges. What ORR currently calls “Case Coordination”
(previously called a “Third-Party Review”) was originally
designed to provide a neutral appraisal of reunification or
transfer options. Since GDIT took on this function, this
process has moved away from a quasi-independent third
party review approach—where an independent entity upholds
the best interest of the child in a system replete with other
institutional pressures—to functioning as ORR staff.
In review meetings where release and transfer decisions are
made, typically the only people present are the facility staff, the
GDIT case coordinator, the ORR federal field supervisor (FFS),
and sometimes an ICE agent. The child in question and his or
her legal representative or Child Advocate are rarely allowed
to participate or make a recommendation regarding these
issues, nor is the child’s parent or legal guardian. The child’s
wishes and legal concerns are not independently represented
in the decision-making process, leaving the child and the legal
guardian with little to no voice. A parent who has a child in
ORR custody has no means to recommend a placement in
an ORR facility near the parent, nor can he or she request a
review regarding reunification decisions. Similarly, a child’s
lawyer or Child Advocate may not have the opportunity to
adequately express his or her concerns regarding the release
of a child to an inappropriate caregiver or discuss how the
transfer of a child may impact the child’s legal case. Finally,
the ORR system provides for no neutral external review for

17

the decisions made. While LIRS understands the need to
subcontract out responsibilities of compliance monitoring for
family reunification applications and transfer applications, the
need for more systemic checks and balances remains.
Family Reunification Timeframes
Current Practice. For the majority of children, ORR facilitates
placement with relatives or family friends living in the United
States. Since ORR assumed responsibility for the care and
custody of unaccompanied children, the amount of time that
most children spend in federal custody prior to placement with
sponsors has been steadily decreasing, in part as a response
to budgetary pressures. This trend became more noticeable
starting in fall 2011 with the increase in the number of children
in ORR custody. Prior to this time, children remained in ORR
custody for an average of 72 days. By the summer of 2012,
ORR accelerated the placement of children with sponsors,
with the average length of time in ORR custody ranging from
40-45 days.49 In early 2014, the average length of stay was
approximately 35 days.50 During the summer of 2014, as part
of the U.S. government’s response to the large increase in
unaccompanied children, ORR began placing children with
U.S. relatives more rapidly and with less thorough background
check procedures in order to reduce lengths of stay. With each
significant increase in arrivals of unaccompanied children, ORR
revised its reunification procedures in order to create bed space
for children awaiting ORR placement from CBP holding cells.
Challenges. ORR has issued a number of shifting directives to
shelter care providers establishing “length of stay” goals for
children in its custody. These directives appear to be driven
by financial pressures rather than children’s best interests.
In domestic child welfare situations, institutional interests
are counter-balanced by the involvement of guardians ad
litem and juvenile court judges who are not part of those
institutions, yet in the U.S. system for unaccompanied
children, even Child Advocates are dependent upon ORR for
funding. Despite the fact that ORR has potentially conflicting
budgetary and caregiving interests, there is no external
independent authority reviewing care and custody decisions.
Safe Release and Fingerprinting
Current Practice. Potential sponsors for unaccompanied
children must undergo a fingerprint clearance and

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015

18

children and their families and provide a means to track
the welfare of children for a period of time following
release. Under the current system, the only children who
routinely receive follow-up services are that small number
(estimated at less than 15%) who were found to face a level
of risk warranting a home study of the prospective sponsor.
Recommendations for services to other children whose
situations are tenuous are frequently denied by ORR.

The Guatemalan Melisa and Beverly, 24 and 7 years old, inside one
of the coaches that go toward Ixtepec. In Tapachula, Chiapas, they
were intercepted by agents of the National Migration Institute to
whom they had to deliver 1,000 pesos (about $100) in order for
them to be able to continue their journey.
Photo credit: Ruido.

background check as part of the ORR documentation
requirements established to protect the safety of the child.
LIRS operates a national network of 20 fingerprinting sites
located in nonprofit organizations. The Safe Release Support
fingerprinting program has been successful in providing
a less costly and less intimidating location to complete
sponsor processing and necessary paperwork, while also
connecting families with local legal, health and mental health
care, education, and social service providers.
Challenges. Working under tight timelines, ORR does not
uniformly require or wait for fingerprint results before
releasing children, which raises some serious safety
concerns. The fingerprinting process is also often a critical
missed opportunity to support sponsors and set children
and families up for successful reunifications by providing
additional sponsor orientation and education about the family
reunification process, legal proceedings, school enrollment
requirements, and community resources in order to create a
safety net and support system for children and families.
Follow-Up Services
Current Practice. After release to their sponsors, and despite the
significant challenges inherent in the reunification process, the
percentage of released children who receive follow-up services
fluctuates and is subject to allocation of funding.
When follow-up services are provided, they greatly assist

Where provided, follow-up services offer significant
protections to unaccompanied children. They emphasize
safety, school enrollment, connection to legal assistance
and local community services, and the critical importance
of continuing with immigration proceedings. These services
follow the child in the event the child changes address, and
they include at minimum a monthly contact with the child,
with home visits and reports required at 14-day, 60-day,
and 180-day intervals after the child’s reunification with the
sponsor. At 180 days after reunification, the child’s situation is
assessed to determine whether continued follow-up services
are needed, with extension requests decided upon by ORR.
Challenges. The number and proportion of children receiving
follow-up care is inadequate, and decision-making priorities
regarding which children are initially referred and later
extended remain unclear. Service providers working with
unaccompanied children report that many have suffered
significant experiences of trauma, including as victims
of violence, severe maltreatment, and sexual assault.
Researchers evaluating follow-up services in four program
locations found that, “Many UAC may be ‘at risk’ even if they
are not flagged as such by detention center staff.”51
Legal Services and Legal Representation
Current Practice. Children in ORR shelters are provided with
an orientation to the legal system by nonprofit legal service
organizations offering “Know Your Rights” presentations.
Similarly, parents and sponsors in many communities where
children go are provided with legal orientation presentations as
part of the release process. These presentations generally provide
an overview of the legal process and legal options available,
an individual screening to determine potential legal options,
and information on securing legal representation. They do not
guarantee legal representation during immigration proceedings.

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015

19

Legal service funding increased significantly in 2014, yet so
did the number of children needing legal assistance. Children
still come to immigration court alone and unrepresented,
left to navigate a complex system in a foreign language with
far-reaching implications for their safety and well-being. The
issues and consequences addressed in immigration court are
arguably similar in magnitude to those dealt with in juvenile
court, where children are assured either legal representation,
a guardian ad litem, or both. Nonetheless, unaccompanied
children lack the protections children have in juvenile court
and at best navigate a patchwork of legal services, with many
receiving no representation at all.

custody before they have attended a presentation. Nonprofit and
volunteer legal service providers are unable to individually screen
all children in order to identify those with possible legal relief.

Ultimately, there remains no guarantee of governmentappointed legal counsel for minors in immigration
proceedings, meaning that children still face immigration
court and removal proceedings alone. While families and
children are allowed to obtain their own legal representation,
most children and their families do not have the financial
resources to pay for a private attorney.52 ORR and the
Department of Justice provide some funding for legal
representation, but, despite additional funding and the
establishment of a “Justice AmeriCorps” in 2014, the gap
between the need and available legal services grew wider.53

Current Practice. The TVPRA authorized ORR to appoint “Child
Advocates” (immigration guardians ad litem) for children
in immigration proceedings. While attorneys represent a
child’s expressed wishes, Child Advocates are intended to
represent a child’s best interests within immigration custody
and proceedings. Conceptually similar to guardians ad
litem in juvenile court, Child Advocates are appointed to the
most vulnerable unaccompanied children in immigration
proceedings, such as children acting against their own best
interests (e.g., asking to be placed in, or returned to, harmful
or life-threatening situations). In other cases, children may
be too young to participate in proceedings, they may have a
mental health issue or physical disability, there may be a custody
dispute over which parent or relative should care for the child,
the child’s wishes may differ from the parent’s wishes for the
child, or there may be other complicated situations in which
there is disagreement about what is best for a particular child. In
these types of cases, a Child Advocate meets regularly with the
child to understand the child’s story and background, gathers
information from different sources about the child’s individual
circumstances, and makes recommendations to decision
makers about what is in the child’s best interests.

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse of Syracuse
University, which maintains statistics on the legal process,
reports that children make up about 11% of the immigration
court caseload.54 Moreover, “The representation rate of
children in immigration court has dropped precipitously, from
71% in 2012 to as low as 14-15% in some months of 2014. As
data on case outcomes indicates, legal representation vastly
increases the chances that a child will appear in immigration
court: Over the last decade, only 6.1% of children with counsel
received in absentia (in the child’s absence) removal orders,
compared with 64.2% of unrepresented children.”55
Challenges. Increased DOJ and ORR funding for legal
representation is a welcome move in the right direction, but it
is not enough. Nonprofit organizations and the pro bono legal
community simply do not have the capacity to fully meet the
need. As a result, many children are unrepresented. The rapid
and constant turnover of children within shelter facilities and
in an absence of safeguards in the legal system, create a serious
challenge to effective and child appropriate legal rights and
representation services.56 Many children are released from ORR

Furthermore, limits on the DOJ “Justice AmeriCorps” funding
means that youth ages 16 and 17, the largest segment of
the unaccompanied minor population, are excluded from
being helped by the program. Thus, a significant number of
unaccompanied children may be ordered removed because they
lack an attorney, not because they lack a claim to legal protection.
Child Advocates

Challenges. Child Advocates play an important role in the
children’s cases to which they are assigned; however, they
are provided for only a small percentage of unaccompanied
children. This contrasts with the federal government’s
requirement in the domestic child welfare context that the
states provide guardians ad litem for all children in abuse
and neglect proceedings, as a prerequisite to certain federal
funding.57 At the end of FY 2014, ORR expanded funding
for Child Advocate services, but these services are still only
provided to a small portion of cases and only in a handful

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
of designated geographic locations around the country.
Moreover, the Child Advocate’s authority depends upon
independence in championing the best interests of the child;
this independence would be strengthened by funding the Child
Advocate program outside of ORR (such as the Department of
Justice), and by ensuring that Child Advocate programs have
no conflicting financial or programmatic interests. Conflicts
of interest in relation to immigrants and children have been
recognized and programmatically fixed previously (e.g.
separating the caregiving responsibility for children from the
enforcement and adjudication responsibilities, and separating
judicial responsibilities for immigrants from enforcement
responsibilities), and a similar fix is achievable in this instance.
Immigration Court Procedures
Current Practice. Unaccompanied children are subject to
immigration removal proceedings during which they must
prove their eligibility for some form of legal relief or be ordered
removed. Children released to family sponsors continue
with immigration court hearings after their reunification
with relatives. In 2014, ICE began more routinely issuing
immigration court date “notices to appear” (NTAs) for the
location to which a child would be assigned after reunification.
This welcome change promotes due process and efficiency
for government and legal service providers by eliminating
superfluous procedural requirements for a “change of venue”
that previously prevailed in nearly every unaccompanied child’s
case. Elimination of this step helps to reduce the previously
common problem of children being ordered removed in
absentia because the child’s hearing occurred in the shelter
location after the child had already been released, or because the
child did not know when and where the hearing was being held.
The TVPRA transferred the adjudication of children’s asylum
claims from the immigration court judges (EOIR) to Asylum
Officers within USCIS. The case of an asylum-seeking child is
paused in the immigration court in order to proceed to the Asylum
Office for an adjudication interview. This agency shift results in a
more child-friendly environment and child-sensitive procedure
for handling children’s asylum claims and represents a positive
protection change implemented for children in the last several years.
Challenges. When children’s court cases languish for years,
they are denied the legal resolution that is necessary in child
development for a sense of permanency. However, when the

20

legal process is excessively speedy, children and their legal
representatives are not afforded sufficient time to adequately
prepare a case. Children’s cases pose particular challenges
because of the additional time required to establish the
relationship of trust that is necessary for children to work
effectively with legal providers. In July of 2014, EOIR began
implementing highly expedited scheduling of children’s
hearings, referred to by many immigration advocates
as the “rocket docket.” In this system, unaccompanied
children’s hearings are given priority in court docketing, with
rescheduled hearings at typically two to three week intervals.58
Other pending cases are deferred in order to keep the cases
of unaccompanied children at the front of the docket. For
reasons that appear motivated by “get tough” enforcement
priorities rather than due process or protection concerns,
the immigration court has effectively fast-tracked the most
vulnerable population under its jurisdiction.
Summary
The federal government has implemented many effective
policies and practices that are protective and child-sensitive, but
they are either limited to a small proportion of unaccompanied
children, or they are inconsistently applied and subject to the
pressures of the government’s interests rather than children’s
interests. These fluctuating policies and patchy protective
measures towards unaccompanied children are at crosspurposes, providing unpredictable assistance to a few while
leaving the majority of children unprotected. Of major concern,
as described in more detail previously, are the following:
• A disparate and discriminatory two-tiered screening
process at the border based on nationality rather than
child protection, and dependent upon interviews with
children by enforcement agents rather than child welfare
specialists;
• Use of border detention cells initially, and large
institutional facilities subsequently, as the primary care
and custody approaches with children;
• Guidelines for placement, reunification, and followup procedures that lack a consistent application of
fundamental child welfare principles and essential
conflict of interest protections;

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
• Insufficient provision of legal representation and child
advocate assistance to ensure protection and due
process for children;
• Intentional fast-tracking of legal procedures for children,
despite their vulnerability and need for more time to
build trust and case preparation.
In sum, the federal government lacks a consistent protective
approach to unaccompanied children, driven instead by a
constant flux of fiscal, political, and bureaucratic concerns.
A better approach is not out of reach. The U.S. government
has demonstrated the capacity to implement a system of care,
custody, and legal adjudication based on child welfare and
protection principles. The recommendations that follow in
the section titled “Child Protection Principles” are intended
to inform a systematic review of current practice and the
development of a more coherent framework, based on the
best interests of the child and legal protection.

CHILD PROTECTION PRINCIPLES
The federal government plays a unique role in the care and
custody of unaccompanied migrant children by directly
overseeing child welfare services for a diverse group of children
placed throughout the country. Within the United States,
almost all child welfare policies and services are established
and provided at the state or local county level, with federal
government funding mechanisms used as the incentive for
ensuring compliance with federal laws and guidelines. By
contrast, unaccompanied migrant children are taken directly
into federal government custody at the time they are initially
identified (typically near a U.S. border or port of entry), with
custody remaining the responsibility of the federal government
until children are released to the care of a responsible adult
relative or sponsor. Some professionals working with
unaccompanied children have deemed this the federal
government’s “shadow child welfare system,” since child custody
and child welfare services are typically within state purview.
Federal child welfare policies are organized around the core
goals of promoting safety, permanency, and well-being,
language introduced in the Adoption and Safe Families Act
of 1997. Together, these core goals of safety, permanency,
and well-being comprise a practical application of the best
interests of the child principle, a foundational notion in child

21

welfare. At root, this report questions whether the federal
government adequately applies the best interests principle
and core goals of safety, permanency, and well-being in the
federal government’s dual role as child welfare standardbearer in relation to states, and simultaneously child welfare
provider in relation to unaccompanied children.
This section of our report draws on resources from the
“Child Welfare Information Gateway” (CWIG), a federally
managed collection of “the best information and resources
to help [child welfare professionals] protect children
and strengthen families.”59 Through the Child Welfare
Information Gateway, the federal government identifies and
disseminates a repository of best practices for working with
children and families, including children outside the care of
a parent and children from diverse cultural backgrounds.
This storehouse of pertinent knowledge should be more
intentionally integrated into the government’s practices
with unaccompanied migrant children. Since the federal
government provides this online resource to aid state and
county child welfare providers, it is referenced here as
representative of current U.S. statutes and best practices.
The framework described below is built around a set of
principles that emerged from the Roundtable meetings on
unaccompanied children convened by LIRS. Since their
development in the Roundtable process, these principles
have been formally endorsed by a wide range of organizations
engaged with unaccompanied minors. References to the federal
Child Welfare Information Gateway, the national Child Welfare
League of America, and international treaties and guidance from
the United Nations are also included in order to situate U.S.
approaches to unaccompanied children at the crossroads of
child welfare practice and refugee and migration policy.
• Roundtable Principle #1: Unaccompanied children are
children first and foremost. U.S. policies and practices must
recognize their unique vulnerabilities and developmental
needs within a context of the best interests of the child.
The “best interests of the child” serves as the fundamental
concept in child welfare matters. This idea constitutes the
foundation for child-related decision making in all U.S. state
statutes60 and is enshrined in the Convention on the Rights
of the Child.61 The best interests of the child are federally
interpreted to include considerations of safety, permanency

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
(stability), and well-being, particularly in decisions around
children’s “custody, placement, or other critical life issues.”62
In addition, decisions concerning budget, policy, and law
must take into consideration their impact on children.63
Specific considerations related to children’s best interests include
access to basic needs; connections to family and community;
preservation of racial, ethnic, cultural, and religious identity;
protection from abuse, neglect, torture, and discrimination;
protection and representation in legal proceedings; and
participation in matters affecting children’s lives.64
Short-term and long-term decision making regarding
unaccompanied migrant children in the United States must
be based upon the fundamental principle of the best interests
of the child. All children share the same human rights,
regardless of their immigration status.65
• Roundtable Principle #2: The screening of children for
persecution, abuse, or exploitation should be done by
skilled child welfare professionals.
Initial government encounters with unaccompanied children
are important and can determine ensuing protective measures.
The U.S. government must ensure that unaccompanied
children are appropriately screened after identification in border
areas or internally. Screening mechanisms with children must
be designed to protect them from persecution, from trafficking,
and from return to or placement in abusive situations.66 Such
screening procedures should be conducted by seasoned
professionals with expertise in eliciting information from
children in a manner that builds trust, empowers children to act
in their own best interests, and avoids re-traumatizing children
through inappropriate questioning, punitive treatment, or
commingling with adults.67 Child Advocacy Centers provide
an evidence-based multidisciplinary approach to sensitively
screening children for maltreatment.68
• Roundtable Principle #3: Children require
individualized adjudication procedures that recognize
a child’s need for trust, safety, and time in order to
disclose trauma and maltreatment; in legal proceedings,
unaccompanied children need legal counsel to represent
their wishes and the equivalent of a guardian ad litem
(Child Advocate) to represent their best interests.

22

Due to their vulnerability, stage of development, competency,
and lack of maturity, children require adult assistance in
proceedings that affect their lives, including immigration
proceedings. Legal representation is required to facilitate due
process and adequate protection and to enable efficient and
effective decision making proceedings that involve children.69
As with children in domestic child welfare proceedings, Child
Advocates (immigration guardians ad litem) are also critical
to ensure that children’s best interests are brought forward in
decision making, such as when children request placement in,
or return to, unsafe or life-threatening situations.70
U.S. decision makers (including immigration judges and
asylum officers) should recognize that children often require
more time than adults to develop trusting relationships before
disclosing painful experiences.71 Asylum applications, and
other forms of legal relief, are complex and time consuming to
prepare, and even more so with a child applicant. Fast-track
procedures involving children risk re-traumatizing children
and overlooking important information with relevance to a
child’s need for protection. Fast-track procedures can also
undermine the rapport-building process necessary to develop
a child’s case and thereby make counter-productive the
proceedings intended to afford protection.72
Many unaccompanied children have experienced trauma prior
to leaving home, during transit, or upon apprehension in the
United States. Decision makers and service providers should
be knowledgeable about the impact of trauma on a child’s
psychological and emotional health, and family sponsors
should be connected with relevant community resources to
help children heal from such experiences. A trauma-informed
approach encourages the development of trusting relationships
and respect for a child’s story, emotions and psychological
health.73 This includes respecting when children are not yet
ready to talk about the trauma they have experienced.
• Roundtable Principle #4: Children are best cared for
by their families, and family unity supports children’s
long-term stability and well-being. When children are in
transitional situations, they should be cared for by child
welfare entities in the most family-like, least restrictive
setting appropriate to their needs.
Family care is the best place for children, and support
services can help families strengthen their ability to

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
appropriately provide for children.74 Unaccompanied
children may need short-term, out-of-home care while U.S.
relatives are located and screened. In keeping with out-ofhome care principles in the United States, federal custody of
unaccompanied children should occur in the least restrictive
setting appropriate to each child’s needs.75 Children who
remain in out-of-home care for longer periods of time should
have their cases reviewed regularly to ensure that their best
interests are given primary consideration.76
A small number of unaccompanied children may not be able
to be placed with family sponsors. These children should
receive specialized foster care in the least restrictive setting,
meeting their cultural and linguistic needs while immigration
legal proceedings are pending.77
• Roundtable Principle #5: Programs with care and custody
of unaccompanied children must provide a safe and
nurturing environment with trained and qualified staff
who have child welfare expertise, while also preparing
children and their future caregivers for a successful
transition to a supportive family setting.

23

principles of family support services so that parents and
other relative caregivers are connected with relevant
community services to assist them in providing appropriate
care, meeting children’s needs, and preventing and
resolving problems as needed.81
• Roundtable Principle #6: Following reunification, every
unaccompanied child should receive community-based
case management and support services to facilitate
healthy integration and to prevent child maltreatment.
Unaccompanied children, their families, and their communities
are best served by establishing cooperative and collaborative
relationships across public and private organizations.82 Followup services provided after reunification with U.S.-based family
can greatly enhance school enrollment, participation in the legal
process, and community integration through connections with
health, mental health, and social service providers.83
Follow-up services that help families in their caregiving role also
serve a preventive function by reducing contributing factors to
child maltreatment, health issues, and placement disruptions.84

Unaccompanied children should be protected from all forms
of maltreatment while in out-of-home care in the United
States, from the point of initial encounter with immigration
officials to the point of family reunification, long-term foster
care placement, or return to the child’s home country.78

• Roundtable Principle #7: Children are best served when
government agencies and their partners incorporate
principles of accountability, collaboration, information
sharing, documentation of best practices, evaluation, and
quality improvement.

Ideally, children being placed with relatives or other
adult sponsors are protected by the completion of home
assessments and provision of follow-up services to ensure
the appropriateness of the home and the child’s safety and
well-being.79 Such protective procedures are routine prior
to the placement of children in the domestic child welfare
system, and similar protective measures should be ensured
with unaccompanied children as well.

Public and private agencies that work with unaccompanied
children should share data, identify best practices,
examine program outcomes, and encourage innovation.85
Information sharing and collaboration between public
and private agencies, as well as inter-agency collaboration
between private service providers, improve service
transitions from one agency to another and support
accountability and evaluation.86 Government funders
and contracted service agencies should prioritize research
to continually improve services in pursuit of providing
effective services in the best interests of the child.87 The
federal Children’s Bureau has developed practical guidance
for effective practice, such as A Framework to Design, Test,
Spread and Sustain Effective Practice in Child Welfare.88 Such
knowledge and resources should be integrated into the
government’s approaches to working with unaccompanied
children and their families.

Staff serving unaccompanied children should have education
and experience relevant to working with the unaccompanied
minor population and should undergo orientation, training,
and continuing education to appropriately meet the
specialized needs of these children.80
Family sponsors for unaccompanied children should be
prepared for successful reunifications by incorporating

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015

RECOMMENDATIONS
LIRS’s recommendations focus on improving access to
justice for children, the long-term sustainability of services,
preventive approaches to protect children, and strengthsbased programming.
Apprehension, Screening, and Referral to ORR
The initial period after apprehension is fraught with risk for
unaccompanied children. They are in the physical and legal
custody of the Department of Homeland Security (Enforcement
and Removal Operations or the U.S. Border Patrol), which has
neither a child welfare mandate, nor deep expertise in this area.
The facilities in which children are held are unacceptable for
this population, there are significant legal risks to children who
complete legal forms and undergo the initial phases of screening
without the assistance of legal counsel, and safeguards against
various forms of abuse are inadequate. It is essential that children
be transferred into the custody of an institution with childappropriate facilities and child welfare expertise as quickly as
possible, that decisions with far-reaching consequences for child
well-being be made with an independent child welfare voice in
the process, and that safeguards against abuse be strengthened.

24

when unaccompanied children are transferred to
ORR custody. Develop guidelines and training for
situations when DHS or CBP interviewing of children
serves a legitimate law enforcement purpose.
o Ensure that all children have the support and
consultation of attorneys before signing documents
(e.g., I-770 and I-213), and have attorneys present
during any processing, interviews, or screening of
children (e.g., during completion of CBP Form 93).
o Make available to Congress and NGOs documentation
from children’s processing, interviews, or screening to
improve procedural accountability.
• DHS agencies should implement a rigorous and
accessible system for reporting abuse that is accessible
to children, their families, staff of the federal agencies,
attorneys, non-governmental organizations, and any other
entities interacting with children while in DHS custody.

• DHS agencies (CBP and ICE) should develop
contingency plans to respond to increased migration,
ensuring that children will be placed in the least
restrictive environment appropriate to their needs
and vulnerabilities. Children should be expeditiously
transferred to ORR custody
• CBP, Border Patrol, and the Office of Field Operations
should:
o Permit EIOR to have legal orientation presentation
(LOP) tables at all CBP Central Processing Centers
for unaccompanied children and allow access to
these tables by all unaccompanied children.
o Utilize child welfare professionals with backgrounds in
trauma-informed forensic interviewing, as well as child
welfare, trafficking, and asylum law, to perform all
screening in accordance with TVPRA Section 235(a).
o Refrain from in-depth screening of children from
non-contiguous countries, as such screening is not
required by the TVPRA and is conducted more fully

Border wall separating Mexico (left) from the United States.
Photo credit: Ruido.

Access to Justice
Legal protections for unaccompanied children fleeing harm are
being threatened. Existing laws provide critical protections for
some children, and they should not be overturned. However,
the existing legal system does not adequately protect all
children who are endangered. New forms of protection are
needed that recognize the particular dangers faced by children.
Even for unaccompanied children who do qualify for the
protection under existing U.S. laws, there are challenges in securing
needed protection or even a fair hearing. Among the problems are
lack of legal representation, the absence of an adult caregiver or

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
guardian to provide assistance, and a host of procedural challenges
or approaches that are not appropriate for children, which taken
together create severe barriers to access to justice.
• Congress should maintain existing protections for
unaccompanied children, upholding provisions of the
TVPRA and HSA, in keeping with the principles of the
best interests of the child. The statutory definition of an
unaccompanied child should not be changed.
• Congress should expand the legal immigration provisions
available to children to ensure that children in need of legal
protection have access to relief and that children facing
severe danger, even if otherwise inadmissible, are not
returned to a country where they will be harmed.
• All children should have an attorney, whether pro bono
or government provided, when appearing before an
immigration judge:
o Congress should ensure by statute that all children
have an attorney, and should appropriate funds for
this purpose.
o DOJ, DHS, HHS should work together to ensure
that every unaccompanied child in immigration
proceedings is appointed legal counsel and that
no child appears in immigration proceedings
unrepresented.
o DOJ should expand the “Justice AmeriCorps”
project providing attorneys for children in
immigration proceedings and increase the age of
eligibility to any child under age 18.
o Immigrant-serving NGOs should create a
centralized, updated, web-accessible legal services
database so that nonprofit legal service referrals are
easy, accurate, and standardized.
o Immigrant-serving NGOs should create a standard
referral mechanism between legal service providers so
that unaccompanied children are assured of receiving
legal service provider information for the area to which
children are being released, as well as youth service
organizations and state specific practices.
• Every unaccompanied child and their parents or caretakers
should have access to legal rights presentations. To achieve
this, EIOR in consultation with ORR should:

25

o Ensure that the Legal Orientation Program for
Custodians (LOPC) is accessible to all sponsors
and collaborates with ORR’s local follow-up service
providers for unaccompanied children.
o Introduce other mechanisms for expanding access
to LOPC services, such as video, web-based, or
telephone.
o Ensure that all materials from EOIR as it pertains
to accredited representation lists and other LOPC
materials are to be incorporated into the family
reunification packets as additional resources.
o ORR should ensure that while unaccompanied
children are in ORR custody they receive “Know
Your Rights” (KYR) information—regarding standard
rights and procedures that pertain to federal
custody, court proceedings, educational rights, and
living with sponsors—and involve NGOs and law
school clinics in provision of KYR information.
• CBP, ICE, and ORR should ensure that Child Advocates
(immigration guardians ad litem) are appointed to the
following populations, implementing concrete referral
procedures, training, and adequate financial support:
vulnerable unaccompanied children in federal custody,
children requesting voluntary departure, children facing
separation from parents or guardians, children being returned
(to ensure safe returns in the best interests of the child), and
children in both the detained and non-detained dockets.
• All legal proceedings should be carried out in a
manner that recognizes the unique vulnerabilities and
developmental maturity of children. DOJ (EOIR) should:
o Expand and require more child-friendly approaches,
recognizing the vulnerabilities and developmental
needs of unaccompanied children.
o Eliminate videoconferencing with children, in
particular for substantive legal proceedings. (Video
presentations are appropriate for information-sharing
but are not acceptable for adjudications of children.)
o Require individualized hearings for children and
eliminate group removal proceedings for children.
o Adhere to confidentiality in children’s court
hearings, with unrelated respondents removed from
the courtroom.
o Update “Guidelines for Immigration Court Cases

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
Involving Unaccompanied Alien Minors” (OPPM
07-01) and “raise the bar” across jurisdictions by
adopting uniform best practices and incorporating
child welfare principles.
o Ensure that children have a voice in the proceedings
that affect them.
o Involve Child Advocates when additional
documentation is needed, including recommendations
about what is in a child’s best interests.
o Ensure that children have the necessary
developmental and cognitive capacity before
making any determinations.
o Provide regular training and education for
immigration judges on child protection principles,
child development, specific forms of relief available to
children, and appropriate questioning of children.
o Expand use of juvenile dockets for both detained
and non-detained children.
o Designate skilled and sensitive immigration judges
to handle juvenile dockets, in addition to internal
reporting and tracking mechanisms for judges who
mishandle juvenile dockets or cases.
• Particular care should be taken in children’s cases to ensure
both substantive and procedural integrity. Hearings should
be scheduled in a reasonable time—neither too quickly, nor
with long delays. Documents should follow the child.
o DOJ (EOIR) should ensure in children’s cases that
all forms of legal relief are explored and that safe
repatriation is assured, especially when children are
unrepresented.
o DHS should ensure that the deportation of children
to their countries of origin occurs only when the
U.S. government is assured that they can be safely
repatriated and that prosecutorial discretion is used
in situations of compelling humanitarian concerns.
o DHS and DOJ (EOIR) should ensure the issuance
of notices to appear (NTAs) after the release of
unaccompanied children to sponsors to improve
procedural efficiency, to reduce unnecessary
court proceedings, and to protect children from in
absentia removal orders due to procedural delays or
notification issues.
o DOJ (EOIR) should ensure that all parts of legal
proceedings are interpreted, sensitive to indigenous

26

language needs and sidebars which sometimes go
un-interpreted.
Family Reunification
With the increase in the number of children coming into its
custody, ORR significantly shortened the timeframe for the family
reunification process. In some cases, the shortened timeframe
results in inadequate screening of families and sponsors for their
capacity to provide for children’s safety, stability, and well-being.
Children also often do not have preparation for the legal or
psycho-social issues they will be facing upon reunification. To
improve the safety of the reunification process, ORR and its
programming partners should:
• Prioritize child protection and safety in reunification
decisions over timelines based on fiscal concerns.
• Revise the ORR sponsor assessment tool and sponsor
reunification packet to ensure gathering of relevant
information that promotes children’s safety, stability, and
well-being.
• Improve collaboration between shelters and social service
providers that provide home study and follow-up services.
• Monitor the impact of changes to fingerprint
background check requirements.
• Expand prerelease services available at fingerprinting
sites as an efficient proactive approach to preparing
sponsors for reunification (e.g., peer support groups,
sponsor orientation to the family reunification process,
education about legal proceedings and school enrollment
requirements, connection to community resources, etc.)
• Effectively prepare children for the reunification
transition to new sponsors and communities, addressing
expectations, challenges, and potential realities.
Post-Release Services
One of the most critical reforms needed for the protection of
children who are released into the community is the expansion
of post-release services. At a minimum, there should be check-ins
with every child to ensure that the child is safe. For a child with
identified risk factors at the time of release or later, additional

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
support to ensure the child’s well-being is essential. Anti-trafficking
and child abuse protocols should be an integral part of the postrelease support system. Families who are receiving children must
also be provided with information and support services to aid
the reunification process. Both children and receiving families
would benefit from opportunities for mutual support.
• Congress should mandate post-release services for every
child released from ORR custody and appropriate funds
for this purpose.
• ORR should create a comprehensive post-release followup system, requiring providers to:
o Conduct home visits with reunified unaccompanied
children to promote safety, stability, and well-being.
o Develop a check-in protocol for unaccompanied children,
particularly those reunified with sponsors using “quick
release” or minimal sponsor screening procedures.
o At a minimum, make at least one follow-up phone
call following reunification to inquire about school
enrollment, court participation, connection to legal
resources, stability of placement, etc.
• ORR and its programming partners should ensure the
safety of children at risk. All partners in the system should:
o Implement identification and Anti-Trafficking
in Persons (ATIP/ORR) referral mechanisms for
victims of trafficking.
o Involve local child welfare authorities in cases of abuse
and neglect and (for programming partners) notify ORR
in cases where a local investigation is not occurring.
o Implement the Young Center’s proposal for a
bilingual “child text hotline” for unaccompanied
children seeking urgent help post-release (i.e. a
system that does not record the child’s call or text
on the phone used, for safety purposes).
• Post-release services should be designed with the particular
needs and vulnerabilities of unaccompanied children in
mind. ORR and its programming partners should:
o Implement trauma-informed approaches with
children, their families, and service providers.
o Develop model guidance for discussing “mental

27

health” issues and services in a culturally appropriate
and non-stigmatizing manner (e.g. understanding
culturally specific terms—such as evil eye, fright, or
nerves—and common somatic complaints within the
context of mental health needs).
o Ensure that unaccompanied children are enrolled
in school following reunification, recognizing that
school attendance is compulsory for most children
and serves as a local social safety net.
• ORR and its programming partners should provide
ongoing support to children and their families or sponsors
to ensure safety, stability, and well-being of the child and to
assist families and sponsors with the reunification process:
o Ensure that information “follows the child” during
transfers or release from custody, including provision
of health records, vaccinations, legal records, school
records, and federal identification documents.
o Provide information resources to children and sponsors
in a format that is engaging, useful, and culturally
appropriate, using social media formats familiar to
unaccompanied children and their sponsors.
o Because many families experience difficulties
enrolling children into school, develop a sponsor
“script” that families can use when enrolling
children in school after release to minimize school
enrollment barriers and delays.
o Develop a brief “fact sheet” on the relevance of
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act for
unaccompanied children, and share with sponsors
and post-release service providers to enable
sponsors to advocate for the children in their care
who may be considered homeless (e.g. in relation to
school enrollment hurdles).
• ORR and its programming partners should provide
opportunities for peer support:
o Create culturally sensitive and therapeutically
appropriate spaces for children to address trauma and
reunification stressors, such as support groups, peerto-peer support programs, family support services, etc.
o Expand post-release services to include support
groups for sponsors and reunified children, followup calls and visits, school enrollment assistance,

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
social service referrals, etc.
o Develop a “peer navigator model” so that children
and sponsors can be trained to support other more
recent arrivals in local communities.
o Fund new or existing Central American community
organizations to help them address the needs of
newly arrived youth and their sponsors.
• ORR and its programming partners should engage the
broader community in assistance to newly reunified families:
o Infuse public messaging about this population with
language that recognizes the strengths and protective
factors inherent in Central American families.
o Work with local communities on violence
prevention and community engagement models
to ensure that unaccompanied children are not
profiled or targeted by law enforcement or others
due to the tenor of media coverage.
o Partner with local child welfare providers on
community education and family preservation
services in order to prevent family breakdown.
o Build support mechanisms into schools systems (e.g.,
school social workers, counselors, psychologists, ESL
teachers), so they can be equipped to meet the needs
of unaccompanied children after reunification.
o Conduct outreach to national school social worker,
counselor, psychologist and teacher organizations,
as well as national child welfare organizations, to
share information about unaccompanied children as
well as relevant legal, health, and trauma issues.
o Make connections with culturally appropriate
mental health providers in local receiving
communities and provide information about new
unaccompanied child arrivals.
o Connect with national networks of newcomer
schools to good resources of cultural information on
Central Americans (example: CAL backgrounders).
Improved Coordination
The federal agencies with responsibility for the care and
protection of unaccompanied children should develop effective
and efficient methods of coordination that place child protection
at the center of cooperative efforts. Cooperation across agency
lines and a commitment to providing and replicating quality

28

care and protection set an example for staff, partners, and
stakeholders. Likewise, non-governmental organizations should
proactively seek out areas for collaboration that better serve
unaccompanied children and build on existing best practices.
• ORR, DHS, and DOJ should:
o Improve communication between agencies, improve
data sharing between agencies without compromising
a child’s safety, and facilitate communication
and best practice sharing between programs for
unaccompanied children that receive federal funds.
o To ensure legal services for unaccompanied
children and improve appearance rates, EIOR in
coordination with ORR should share quarterly
statistics of representation of unaccompanied
children who have been released to sponsors with
data organized by state and immigration court to
legal service and post-release service providers.
o EIOR should coordinate with ORR to ensure
post release services are provided in low legal
representation jurisdictions to better assist the families
with locating legal services and provide orientation to
immigration courts. Legal Service providers can use
the statistics to expand the development of pro bono
resources where there is a greater need.
o In coordination with ORR, EOIR should develop new
models of LOPC service provision by streamlining the
service model to incorporate other service offerings: safe
release sites for fingerprinting, family reunification packet
assistance, and sponsor orientations for social services.
• ORR and its programming partners should:
o Convene meetings with local communities,
stakeholders, and refugee communities to garner
support for helping unaccompanied children and
sponsors at the local level.
o Engage the Interagency Working Group on Separated
and Unaccompanied Children (in Washington, D.C.)
for outreach and information sharing with child
welfare and juvenile justice agencies.
o Organize a discussion with national refugee and
immigrant serving organizations to promote
information sharing and collaboration to help
unaccompanied children and sponsors, document

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
best practices nationally and locally, and reframe the
local and national dialogue around unaccompanied
children as a refugee protection issue.
• Roundtable Participants and Other Interested NGOs
should:
o Work collaboratively to track and respond to proposals
that would change or weaken existing protections.
o Work collaboratively on public messaging to
be inclusive of refugee and immigrant serving
communities.
o Develop working groups around “border,” “shelter,”
and “release” issues (as was modeled during this
Roundtable series), with a convening agency taking
leadership for each area and conducting follow-up
calls every 3-6 months.
o Use the LIRS-hosted “childimmigration” listserv to share
data, resources, advocacy needs, and opportunities and
to coordinate national appeals for urgent action.
o Create a web-based library of shared data and
resources regarding unaccompanied children.
• Immigrant-serving NGOs should:
o Initiate “asset-mapping” across the country by collecting
specialized service information accessible to other NGOs.
Oversight and Accountability
Unaccompanied children warrant special consideration because
of their level of vulnerability. In order to implement existing
protective measures as well as the further recommendations
laid out in this report, and to ensure that they are adhered to,
monitoring and oversight systems should be strengthened.
Checks and balances are a hallmark of U.S. government
structures and must be implemented in systems that provide care
and protection to unaccompanied children, along with regular
reporting mechanisms and reflective practices.
• Congress should require regular reporting on
compliance with U.S. and international laws relating to
unaccompanied children, as well as their implementing
regulations (ex: Flores Settlement Agreement, TVPRA,
Prison Rape Elimination Act [PREA]). Congress should
also monitor shelter care practices and track the

29

response to abuses committed against children.
• DHS and HHS should each appoint an independent
external entity with expertise in child interviewing to
undertake human rights monitoring and compliance
with U.S. and international law. Such monitoring should
look at systemic issues, including the length of time, type
of placement, and overall treatment of children while in
federal custody. Monitors should submit regular reports
to Congress and findings should be made public.
• DHS agencies (CBP and ICE) should track and report
on adherence to TVPRA requirements, including:
o Transfer of unaccompanied children to HHS custody
as soon as possible within the 72-hour mandate.
o Transfer of Mexican unaccompanied children to
ORR custody if DHS is unable to determine the
child’s fear of return or trafficking risk within 48
hours of apprehension.89
• DHS (CBP and ICE) and HHS should each create an
Ombudsman’s Office, independent from any of the
custodial agencies (Enforcement and Removal Operations
and U.S. Border Patrol under DHS, and ORR under HHS).
Children should have confidential access to contact the
Ombudsman, and all children should receive notice of this
right verbally and by having it posted throughout facilities
in a language they can understand. The Ombudsman’s
Offices should be accountable for receiving reports of
alleged abuses committed against children while in federal
custody, documenting trends, coordinating with the
PREA coordinator, ensuring investigation of such abuses,
coordinating with outside monitoring agencies, and
reporting findings of abuse to Congress and stakeholders.
• DOJ should create a reporting and monitoring
mechanism to hold immigration judges hearing
children’s cases accountable for adhering to childfriendly procedures in their courtrooms.
• ORR should monitor and respond appropriately to
“significant incident reports” (SIRs) and licensing sanctions
at ORR-funded programs, sharing information, tracking
outcomes, and implementing follow-up procedures (while
mindful of confidentiality requirements).

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015

30

• DHS and ORR should track the treatment of
unaccompanied children housed in temporary emergency
response facilities (such as Department of Defense facilities
and other new emergency facilities), ensuring adherence to
child welfare principles and practices.

With so many children at risk, this is not the time to roll
back protections for children, but rather for the U.S. federal
government to advance as a leader, both regionally and globally,
in the protection of migrating children. This should be done by
establishing clear principles for their humane and just treatment.

• DHS and HHS should allow timely access to all custodial
facilities, including emergency response facilities, by
nongovernmental organizations in order to promote
accountability and collaboration.

This report has laid out the broad principles that
should provide a framework for addressing the needs of
unaccompanied children. We have also offered an extensive
list of specific recommendations that concretely apply those
principles. These principles and recommendations are
informed by the expertise of our Roundtable participants,
and we believe them to be considered and timely, as their
relevance and necessity have never been greater.

• Immigrant-serving NGOs should document and report
abuses by federal agencies towards children, following the
complaint model used by immigration legal advocates.
• Immigrant-serving NGOs should monitor situations
in which children are separated from parents and
other family members (i.e., cases in which government
treatment creates unaccompanied minors), in order to
develop improved practice recommendations.

CONCLUSION
The federal government should adopt a consistent principled
approach, grounded in the best interests of the child, to the care
and custody of unaccompanied migrant children, rather than
allowing policy and practice to be driven by financial, political,
and institutional pressures.
Children have developmental needs for safety, permanency,
and well-being. The child welfare laws of the United States
recognize these needs. However, the principles that inform
our child welfare laws are not consistently observed in
our treatment of unaccompanied migrant children. These
children deserve safety, nurture, and care combined with a
protective responsibility towards potential asylum seekers
and victims of trafficking, child maltreatment, and other
human rights violations.
The existing U.S. protections for children represent decades
of expertise that have been developed over time in response
to increased knowledge and competence in serving this
vulnerable population. The experienced professionals who
participated in the LIRS Roundtable series of meetings
were deeply concerned by the grave danger that could face
unaccompanied children if existing protections are weakened.

Channel separating El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juarez seen
through the railings of the border crossing bridge
Photo credit: Ruido.

The opening sentence of the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980
provides clear direction:
“The Congress declares that it is the historic policy of the
United States to respond to the urgent needs of persons
subject to persecution in their homelands…”90
As a faith-based organization, LIRS takes further direction
from the biblical exhortations to welcome the stranger, to
protect the vulnerable, to love our neighbor, and to see the
face of God in those who seek our help.91
The President, the U.S. Congress, and federal government
agencies must not lose sight of their legal, moral, and ethical
responsibility to keep vulnerable children safe from harm.

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015
ENDNOTES
[1] Wil S. Hylton, “The Shame of America’s Family Detention Camps,” The New
York Times Magazine (Feb. 4, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/magazine/the-shame-of-americas-family-detention-camps.html?_r=0; Detention Watch
Network, Expose & Close: Artesia Family Residential Center, NM (2014), http://
www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/detentionwatchnetwork.org/files/expose_
close_-artesia_family_residential_center_nm_2014.pdf; Stephen Manning, Ending
Artesia (January 28, 2015), https://innovationlawlab.org/the-artesia-report/.
[2] LIRS & Women’s Refugee Commission, Locking Up Family Values, Again: The
Continued Failure of Immigration Family Detention, (October 2014): 2, http://lirs.
org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/LIRSWRC_LockingUpFamilyValuesAgain_Report_141114.pdf.
[3] U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien
Children,” (FY 2014), http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children-2014.
[4] UNHCR, Children on the Run: Unaccompanied Children Leaving Central
America and Mexico and the Need for International Protection (March 2013),
http://www.unhcrwashington.org/children; Kids in Need of Defense, The Time is
Now: Understanding and Addressing the Protection of Immigrant Children Who
Come Alone to the United States, (2013), http://supportkind.org/joomlatools-files/
docman-files/TimeIsNow_KIND_Feb_2013.pdf; United States Conference for
Catholic Bishops/Migration and Refugee Services, Mission to Central America:
The Flight of Unaccompanied Children to the United States, (2013), http://www.
usccb.org/about/migration-policy/upload/Mission-To-Central-America-FINAL-2.
pdf; Women’s Refugee Commission, Forced from Home: The Lost Boys and Girls
of Central America, (2012), https://womensrefugeecommission.org/forced-fromhome-press-kit.
[5] For example, “An underlying tension in dealing with UAC is the philosophical
positions of the government agencies involved in the handling of the children.
Specifically, the dominant cleavage line from which many other issues spring is that
of whether the UAC should be treated as humanitarian refugees or as unauthorized
aliens subject to expedited removal.” From: Chad Haddal, Unaccompanied Alien
Children: Policies and Issues, Congressional Research Service, (March 1, 2007): 13,
http://www.rcusa.org/uploads/pdfs/CRS%20UAC%20Report%202007.pdf.
[6] The U.S. government uses the term “unaccompanied alien child” (UAC) from
the Homeland Security Act of 2002, P.L. 107-296, Title IV, Subtitle E, §462(g), 116
Stat. 2202. This report uses the term “unaccompanied child.”
[7] Flores v. Reno Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Case No. CV 85-4544-RJK(Px)
(1997), http://www.centerforhumanrights.org/PDFs/FloresStpultdSetlmt%20AGMT.pdf.
[8] For example, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, and the Violence Against
Women Act of 2013.
[9] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), p. 11, http://www.
unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html. The United States is a signatory only to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which removed time limits and geographic
limitations present in the 1951 Convention.
[10] UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Article
22, (November 20, 1989), http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b38f0.html. The
CRC is considered to have the force of customary law, given its wide global ratification. The U.S. has signed but not ratified the CRC. South Sudan is the only other
United Nations member state that has not yet ratified the CRC.
[11] UNHCR, Children on the Run, (2014); UNHCR, Guidelines on Policies and
Procedures in Dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum (February
1997), http://www.unhcr.org/3d4f91cf4.html.
[12] Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), “About unaccompanied refugee minors,” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/programs/urm/about.
[13] ORR, “About unaccompanied children’s services,” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/orr/programs/ucs/about.
[14] For example, International Committee of the Red Cross, International Rescue
Committee, Save the Children/UK, UNICEF, UNHCR, World Vision International,
Interagency Guiding Principles on Unaccompanied and Separated Children (2004),
Geneva: ICRC, http://www.unicef.org/protection/IAG_UASCs.pdf.
[15] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), p. 11, http://
www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html. The United States is a signatory only to the
1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which removed time limits and
geographic limitations present in the 1951 Convention.
[16] Edward Kennedy, “Refugee Act of 1980,” International Migration Review, 15,
no. 1, (Spring-Summer 1981): 143.

31

[17] INA 412 (A)(iv).
[18] Amnesty International, Why Am I Here? Children in Immigration Detention,”
(2003), http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/detentionwatchnetwork.
org/files/unaccompanied%20children%20in%20immigration%20detention.
pdf. Women’s Refugee Commission, Prison Guard or Parent? INS Treatment of
Unaccompanied Refugee Children,” (2002); https://womensrefugeecommission.org/
search?q=prison+guard+or+parent; Human Rights Watch Detained and Deprived
of Rights,” (December 1998), http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports98/ins2/; Flores
Stipulated Settlement Agreement (1997), http://www.centerforhumanrights.org/
PDFs/FloresStpultdSetlmt%20AGMT.pdf.
[19] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Global Study on Homicide: Data,
(2013), http://www.unodc.org/gsh/en/data.html.
[20] United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Global Study on Homicide, (2013), https://www.unodc.org/gsh/en/index.html.
[21] Consejo Ciudadano para la Seguridad Pública y la Justicia Penal A.C, “Por
Tercer Año Consecutivo, San Pedro Sula es la Ciudad Más Violenta del Mundo,”
(January 15, 2014), http://www.seguridadjusticiaypaz.org.mx/biblioteca/view.
download/5/177.
[22] Data from January to May of 2014. Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, Jens Manuel
Krogstad and Mark Hugo Lopez, “DHS: Violence, poverty, is driving children to
flee Central America to U.S.,” Pew Research Center (July 1, 2014), http://www.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/01/dhs-violence-poverty-is-driving-children-toflee-central-america-to-u-s/.
[23] UNODC (2013).
[24] UNHCR, Children on the Run, 6.
[25] Data from 2008 to 2013. UNHCR, ’Statement to the Appropriations Committee on the Review of the President’s Emergency Supplemental Request for
Unaccompanied Children and Related Matters,” (July 10, 2014), http://www.
appropriations.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/UNHCR%20Statement%20
UAC.7.10.14.FINAL_.pdf.
[26] ORR, “Fact Sheet,” (November 2014), https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/
files/orr/fact_sheet.pdf
[27] ORR, “About Unaccompanied Children’s Services,” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/orr/programs/ucs/about#FAQs.
[28] Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, Jens Manuel Krogstad and Mark Hugo Lopez, “Many
Mexican child migrants caught multiple times at the border,” Pew Research Center
(August 4, 2014), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/04/many-mexican-child-migrants-caught-multiple-times-at-border/.
[29] U.S. Customs and Border Protection, “Southwest Border Unaccompanied Alien
Children (FY 2014)”, http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children-2014.
[30] Jens Manuel Krogstad, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera and Mark Hugo Lopez, Children 12 and under are fastest growing group of unaccompanied minors at U.S.
border,” Pew Research Center, (July 22, 2014). http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2014/07/22/children-12-and-under-are-fastest-growing-group-of-unaccompanied-minors-at-u-s-border/. Jens Manuel Krogstad, Ana Gonzalez-Barrera and
Mark Hugo Lopez, “At the Border, a Sharp Rise in Unaccompanied Girls Fleeing
Honduras,” Pew Research Center (July 25, 2014), http://www.pewresearch.org/
fact-tank/2014/07/25/at-the-border-a-sharp-rise-in-unaccompanied-girls-fleeinghonduras/.
[31] Supra note 1.
[32] United States Border Patrol statistics, available at: http://www.cbp.gov/document/stats/us-border-patrol-total-monthly-uac-apprehensions-month-sector-fy2010-fy-2014.
[33] John Roth, “Memorandum: Oversight of Unaccompanied Alien Children,”
DHS Office of Inspector General, (July 30, 2014), Attachment 3, http://www.oig.
dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2014/Over_Un_Ali_Chil.pdf.
[34] The complaint was filed by the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC),
the ACLU Border Litigation Project, Americans for Immigrant Justice (AI Justice),
Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project (Esperanza), and the Florence Immigrant and
Refugee Rights Project (Florence Project), https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/
unaccompanied-immigrant-children-report-serious-abuse-us-officials-during;
Jessica Jones and Katharina Obser, A Costly Choice Putting Immigrant Kids Behind
Bars (The Hill Feb. 6, 2015), available at: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/
civil-rights/231957-a-costly-choice-putting-immigrant-kids-behind-bars.
[35] TVPRA at § 235(b)(3), see also Flores v. Reno Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Case No. CV 85-4544-RJK(Px) (1997), at Section V, ¶ 12. P.
[36] P.L. 110-457, Title II, Subtitle D § 235(a)(2),122 Stat. 5074
[37] TVPRA § 235(a)(4).
[38] U.S. Refugee Act of 1980, Public Law 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (Mar. 17, 1980).

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015

[39] See: Betsy Cavendish and Maru Cortazar, Children at the Border: The Screening, Protection and Repatriation of Unaccompanied Mexican Minors,”Appleseed,
(2011), http://appleseednetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Children-AtThe-Border1.pdf. Women’s Refugee Commission & Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP, Halfway Home: Unaccompanied Children in Immigration Custody,” (2009),
http://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/programs/migrant-rights/unaccompanied-children; Center for Gender and Refugee Studies & Kids in Need of Defense.
A Treacherous Journey: Child Migrants Navigating the U.S. Immigration System,”
(2013), http://www.uchastings.edu/centers/cgrs-docs/treacherous_journey_cgrs_
kind_report.pdf
[40] ORR, “About Unaccompanied Children’s Services,” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/orr/programs/ucs/about#FAQs.
[41] TVPRA § 235 (c)(2).
[42] Homeland Security Act of 2002, § 426(b).
[43] Flores, 10.
[44] The Flores settlement requires the least restrictive setting “appropriate to
the minor’s age and special needs, while the TVPRA codifies that children be “…
promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the
child.” Flores v. Reno Stipulated Settlement Agreement, at § IV, ¶ 11; TVPRA at §
235(c)(2).
[45] TVPRA § 235(c)(2) and Flores § VII ¶ 24B.
[46] Council on Accreditation, Standards for Public Agencies, PA-SH 10: Services
for Homeless and Runaway Children and Youth (2015), http://coanet.org/standard/
pa-sh/10/.
[47] TVPRA § 235(c)(3)(A).
[48] TVPRA § 235(c)(3)(B).
[49] Women’s Refugee Commission, Forced from Home: The Lost Boys and Girls of
Central America (2012), https://womensrefugeecommission.org/forced-from-homepress-kit.
[50] Office of Refugee Resettlement, “Fact Sheet: U.S. Department of Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Refugee Resettlement,
Unaccompanied Alien Children Program,” (May 2014). http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
sites/default/files/orr/unaccompanied_childrens_services_fact_sheet.pdf.
[51] Benjamin Roth, PhD & Breanne Grace, PhD, Post-Release: Linking Unaccompanied Immigrant Children to Family and Community (2015), University of South
Carolina College of Social Work (forthcoming).
[52] The Central American born were more likely to live in poverty (23 percent)
than the native born (15 percent) or foreign born overall (20 percent).” Hondurans
and Guatemalans had a higher poverty rate than the Central American average,
witih 30% and 27% respectively. See: Sierra Stoney and Jeanne Batalova, “Central
American Immigrants in the United States,” (March 18, 2013), http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/central-american-immigrants-united-states
[53] The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) has noted that the
representative rate for children ranged from 60%-70% from 2008 until October
2012. Since then, the representation rate for children in immigration court proceedings has steadily declined, as the number of children in removal proceedings
has continued to increase. The representation rate for unaccompanied children was
71% in FY2012; 48% in FY2013; and 20% in FY2014. The difference that legal
representation makes for a child cannot be overstated: In FY2014, only 11% of unrepresented children were granted permission to stay in the U.S.; for children with
legal representation, 69% were granted permission to stay. TRAC, “Representation
for Unaccompanied Children in Immigration Court” (November 25, 2014), http://
trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/371/
[54] Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) Immigration, New Data
on Unaccompanied Children in Immigration Court, (2014), http://trac.syr.edu/
immigration/reports/359/.
[55] Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) Immigration, Representation for Unaccompanied Children in Immigration Court (Nov. 25, 2014).
[56] American Bar Association, A Humanitarian Call to Action: Unaccompanied
Alien Children at the Southwest Border, (October 17, 2014), http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/immigration/UACSstatement.authcheckdam.pdf
[57] Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(A)(xiii).
[58] Brian M. O’Leary, Chief Immigration Judge, Executive Office for Immigration
Review, U.S. Department of Justice, “Docketing Practices Relating to Unaccompanied Children’s Cases in Light of the New Priorities” (September 10, 2014), http://
www.justice.gov/eoir/statspub/Docketing-Practices-Related-to-UACs-Sept2014.pdf.
[59] Child Welfare Information Gateway (CWIG), General FAQs, https://www.
childwelfare.gov/aboutus/faq/general/.
[60] As well as the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern

32

Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
[61] UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Article 3,
(November 20, 1989), http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b38f0.html.
[62] Child Welfare Information Gateway (CWIG), Determining the Best Interests of
the Child, http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/best_interest.pdf . See also: Child
Welfare League of America (CWLA), National Blueprint for Excellence in Child
Welfare (Washington, D.C.: CWLA Press), 62-76.
[63] UNICEF, Fact Sheet: A Summary of the Rights under the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, Article 3, http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf.
[64] CWLA, p. 27-35. See also: CRC, Articles 6, 19, 22, 24, 27, 28.
[65] CWLA, p. 31; CRC, Articles 2, 22.
[66] CRC, Articles 22, 34, 35, 36.
[67] CRC, Article 37; UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidelines
on Policies and Procedures in Dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum (February 1997), ¶5.2, ¶5.12, http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3360.html.
[68] CWIG, “Child Advocacy Centers,” https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/responding/iia/investigation/multidisciplinary/advocacy/.
[69] UNHCR, Guidelines on…Children (1997), ¶8.3.
[70] “All States…provide in their statutes for the appointment of representation for
a child involved in a child abuse or neglect proceeding. Approximately 41 States…
provide for the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the best interests
of the child.” CWIG, Representation of Children in Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings (2012), 2, https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/represent.pdf; UNHCR,
Guidelines on…Children (1997), ¶5.7.
[71] UNHCR, Guidelines on…Children (1997), ¶8.2, ¶8.4
[72] CWIG, “Trauma-Informed Practice,” https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/responding/trauma/. See also: CWLA, p. 69-70.
[73] CWLA, p. 48-49.
[74] CWIG, “Philosophy and Key Elements of Family-Centered Practice,” https://
www.childwelfare.gov/topics/famcentered/philosophy/; CRC, Articles 9, 10. UNHCR, Guidelines on…Children (1997), ¶9.8.
[75] The Social Security Act, Sec. 475(5) equates least restrictive setting with more
family like settings: “(5) The term ‘case review system’ means a procedure for assuring that—(A) each child has a case plan designed to achieve placement in a safe
setting that is the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate setting
available and in close proximity to the parents’ home, consistent with the best interest and special needs of the child…”. Available at: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/
ssact/title04/0475.htm; UNHCR, Guidelines on…Children (1997), ¶7.6.
[76] CRC, Article 25; UNHCR, Guidelines on…Children (1997), ¶7.5.
[77] CWLA, p. 115.
[78] CRC, Article 20.
[79] “In all cases, before a child can be placed in the home of a relative, the
child-placing agency must do an assessment to determine that the relative is ‘fit and
willing’ to provide a suitable placement for the child, able to ensure the child’s safety, and able to meet the child’s needs.” CWIG, Placement of Children with Relatives
(2013), https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/placement.pdf.
[80] CWLA, p. 96-105.
[81] CWIG, “Introduction to Family Support and Preservation,” https://www.
childwelfare.gov/topics/supporting/introduction/.
[82] CWLA, p. 41-42.
[83] UNHCR, Guidelines on…Children (1997), ¶10.3.
[84] CWIG, “Introduction to Family Support and Preservation.”
[85] CWLA, p. 80.
[86] CWIG, “Information Systems and Data,” https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/
management/info-systems/ See also: UNHCR, Guidelines on…Children (1997),
¶10.2, ¶12.
[87] CWLA, p. 79-92. See also: CWIG, “Evaluating Program, Practice, and Service
Effectiveness,” https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/management/effectiveness/.
[88] Framework Workgroup, Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and
Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (February 2014), https://
www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/pii_ttap_framework.pdf.
[89] TVPRA § 235(a)(4).
[90] P.L. 96-212, Title I, Sec. 101(a), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-94/
pdf/STATUTE-94-Pg102.pdf.
[91] Deuteronomy 10:19; Isaiah 1:17; Luke 10:27; Matthew 25: 31-46.

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 ­– APPENDIX A

33

MOVING FORWARD FOR MIGRANT CHILDREN:
Practice, Policy, and Protection
ROUNDTABLE SERIES OVERVIEW
Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS) will host a series of three roundtable dialogues to assess the
current state of service responses by government agencies, private organizations, and local communities, towards
children arriving in the U.S. due to forced migration. The largest share of these children—referred to by the U.S.
government as Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC)—are fleeing violence and deprivation in Central America
in migration numbers that have surpassed outflows from recognized armed conflicts in Southern Sudan and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. The characteristics and root causes of this current “surge” have been examined
effectively in recent reports by KIND, the Women’s Refugee Commission and the UNHCR.
LIRS intends to complement and build on this existing work by facilitating discussions focusing on the
following overarching themes:
1.  Exploration: What is current practice? Assessing existing policies and services, including ideal service
models, current challenges, and promising practices. (March 18, 2014)
2.  Convergence: What should current practice be? Identifying potential solutions to current challenges
and methods for achieving desired change. (May 29, 2014)
3.  Action: How do we achieve ideal practice? Prioritizing key policy and practice improvements and
developing a shared vision for accomplishing change, both as a group and as individual organizations.
(July 16, 2014)
At the conclusion of the Roundtable Series, a summary of recommended improvements will be refined and
disseminated among participants. This summary is expected to include the following types of recommendations.
1.  Advocacy Priorities: Executive, legislative and programmatic recommendations will be compiled to
advance administrative practices by various federal agencies in order to improve short-term safety
and well-being of UAC, as well as long-term permanency and integration opportunities for migrating
children in the U.S. LIRS will distill these recommendation outcomes into a report on behalf of the
Roundtable consultation group.
2.  Direct Practice Improvements: Direct service recommendations, as well as documentation of existing
good practices, will be collected in order to replicate what is working well, to develop pilot projects
of promising new ideas, to incorporate knowledge and service approaches from domestic service
provision, and to explore specific service areas needing further research.

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX B

34

1

ROUNDTABLE GUIDING PRINCIPLES

We take particular inspiration for these Roundtable discussions from the spirit of Articles 20, 22, and 25 of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child:
•  “Children who cannot be looked after by their own family have a right to special care and must be looked
after properly by people who respect their ethnic group, religion, culture, and language.” [Art. 20]
•  Refugee and asylum seeking children should receive protection, humanitarian aid, and family tracing
assistance. When parents or family cannot be found, these children should be protected like any other
children unable to live with their family. [Art. 22]
•  “Children who are looked after by their local authorities, rather than their parents, have the right to
have these living arrangements looked at regularly to see if they are the most appropriate. Their care
and treatment should always be based on ‘the best interests of the child.’ ” [Art. 25]
•  In addition, the following principles are provided to guide our shared vision:
•  A child is a person below the age of 18. [Art. 1] Young adults between 18 and 21 may need additional
support and assistance in the transition from youth to adulthood.
•  Programming and decision making regarding children should be based on the best interests of the child
principle. [Art. 3]
•  Children have a right to life; their survival and developmental needs should be supported. [Art. 6]
•  “Children seeking asylum should not be kept in detention;” however, if used, detention should only be
as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.2 Children should be placed
in the least restrictive setting appropriate to their safety and developmental needs.
•  Children should be reunited with family members, provided that safety and developmental needs can
be met. [Art. 9]
•  Children should be allowed to share their views and to participate in decision making that concerns
them. [Art. 12, 13, 14]

[1] Guiding principles for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Guiding_Principles.pdf; Fact Sheet summary of the CRC,
http://www.unicef.org/crc/files/Rights_overview.pdf.
[2] UNHCR (1997). Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in dealing with Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum. http://www.unhcr.org/3d4f91cf4.pdf.

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX C

35

ROUNDTABLE PARTICIPANTS
The following individuals participated in one, two, or three of the LIRS Roundtable meetings. Their views
helped to inform this document, but their names do not indicate an individual or organizational endorsement
of the contents of this report. The contents and recommendations are the sole responsibility of Lutheran
Immigration and Refugee Service.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Stacie Blake, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI)
Nicole Boehner, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
Luis Cardona, Montgomery County (MD) Department of Health & Human Services
Aidin Castillo, Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC)
Wendy Cervantes, First Focus
Tom Crea, Boston College School of Social Work
Elvis Garcia, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York
Laura Gardner, Anne Arundel County Schools
Kristen Guskovict, Independent Consultant - Facilitator
Kimberly Haynes, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS)
Shadi Houshyar, First Focus
Jayshree Jani, University of Maryland at Baltimore County
Jessica Jones, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS)
Angie Junk, Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC)
Rebecca Katz, The Women’s Refugee Commission
Kathryn Kuennen, U.S. Conf, of Catholic Bishops/Migration & Refugee Services (USCCB)
Meredith Linsky, American Bar Association (ABA)
Fabio Lomelino, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS)
Nathalie Lummert, U.S. Conf. of Catholic Bishops/Migration & Refugee Services (USCCB)
Elba Marquez, International Detention Coalition
Vanessa Martinez, International Detention Coalition
Megan McKenna, Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)
Michael Mitchell, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS)
Gladis Molina, Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project
Lyn Morland, Center on Immigration and Child Welfare
Anne Mullooly, U.S. Conf. of Catholic Bishops/Migration & Refugee Services (USCCB)
Royce Murray, National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC)
Jennifer Nagda, The Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, Univ. of Chicago
Tiffany Nelms, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI)
Brittney Nystrom, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS)
Jennifer Podkul, The Women’s Refugee Commission
Kristine Poplawski, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS)
Angela Randall, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS)
Beth Rosenberg, Children’s Action Alliance
Laura Schmidt, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS)
Susan Schmidt, Independent Consultant - Writer
Julie Sollinger, Cook County (IL) Public Guardian
Aryah Somers, Independent Consultant - Facilitator
Susan Terrio, Georgetown University
Justin Tullius, RAICES
Dawnya Underwood, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS)
Annie Wilson, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS)
Maria Woltjen, The Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, Univ. of Chicago
Wendy Young, Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX D

36

ROUNDTABLE PROCESS
Roundtable Strategy
LIRS invited a diverse cross-section of multi-disciplinary professionals to participate in this three-part series of
meetings held in Washington, D.C. in March, May, and July of 2014. Thirty to thirty-five people participated
in each meeting, with a total 44 participants across all three meetings, representing existing stakeholders in the
current system as well as those who might provide new perspectives on the care of unaccompanied children,
including representatives from national voluntary agencies providing child welfare services for unaccompanied
immigrant children as well as refugee resettlement programming, migration and child welfare policy advocates,
immigration legal service providers, academics from social work and immigrant child welfare, and communitybased organizations from receiving communities.
Roundtable Topics
Described below are the primary discussion areas from each Roundtable meeting.
•  Roundtable #1. At the first Roundtable meeting, participants focused on the challenges and barriers that
exist within the current system of care and custody of unaccompanied children. In addition, participants
shared knowledge of current best practices in the care and custody of unaccompanied children. Barriers
and best practices were each considered within the context of prerelease (while children are still in federal
custody) and post-release (after children are released to family sponsors, released to alternative long-term
care, or returned to their countries of origin). In addition, barriers and best practices were examined from
different vantage points, including the perspectives of agencies, children and families, and communities.
•  Roundtable #2. At the second Roundtable meeting, LIRS presented preliminary findings from its own
research efforts (described below). In addition, LIRS presented an unaccompanied children “Decision
Tree” which visually charts the complex decision-making processes that occur between the time of
apprehension to the time of release from federal custody. Participant responses regarding challenges and
best practices from the first meeting were summarized and reintroduced during the second Roundtable
meeting for further prioritizing through small group discussion. Roundtable participants then broke up
into small groups to discuss system recommendations and best practices in relation to three contextualized
service areas: the southern U.S. border, ORR-funded shelters, and after placement with sponsors.
•  Roundtable #3. The last meeting commenced with an update on the rapidly changing policy situation.
Participants again broke into two smaller groups, focusing on either legal services or social services.
Small group responses from the second meeting had been further synthesized and condensed for a last
refinement during this final collective meeting. The day closed with discussion of coalition building
and methods for continuing the collaborative and collegial child protection work initiated with this
Roundtable series.
Incorporation of Research
To inform these Roundtable meetings, LIRS incorporated current research (conducted by LIRS and by others)
in order to identify and add to the existing knowledge base regarding unaccompanied children. These efforts
included the following:

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX D

37

1.  Sharing research knowledge: LIRS coordinated cross-disciplinary dialogue about current research by
facilitating a teleconference discussion between 14 professionals around the United States engaged in
various research efforts related to unaccompanied children.
2.  Conducting focus groups: LIRS staff and Dr. Jayshree Jani, Assistant Professor of Social Work at the
University of Maryland Baltimore County, coordinated focus group discussions with unaccompanied
children and with sponsors living in Maryland. In addition, six individual interviews were conducted
with sponsors living in Virginia. These focus groups and interviews focused on the adjustment of the
youth, their understanding of the legal process, and current needs. The qualitative data obtained from
these research efforts were shared during the second Roundtable and helped participants to incorporate
the voice and views of Central American families themselves.
3.  Following up with families: During the second Roundtable, LIRS staff and Dr. Jayshree Jani shared
preliminary results from follow-up phone calls with 100 family sponsors with whom unaccompanied
children had been reunified. Contact was made with adult sponsors at 14 days, 90 days, and 180 days
following a child’s reunification in order to assess specific needs of children who were not otherwise
receiving any follow-up services after release. While preliminary, these results provided insight into
both the needs and strengths of families with whom unaccompanied children have been reunited.
4.  Seeking service provider input: Between the second and third Roundtable meeting, LIRS and Dr.
Jani conducted an online survey of legal and social service practitioners regarding their assessment of
current needs of the unaccompanied children and families they were serving, and the needs of the service
providers themselves. Results of these online surveys were shared during the second Roundtable meeting.

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX E

38

ROUNDTABLE ASSESSMENT:
Best Practice and Ideal Practice
In the Roundtable meetings convened by LIRS, participants discussed current best practices with unaccompanied
children and then described ideal practice by reimagining the current system.
Current Best Practice
Best practices identified by Roundtable participants revolved around custodial services (while children are in
ORR custody) that are more family-like and more home-like, that recognize the individuality and participation
of children and their families and that use creative approaches to connect with children. Community-based
supports and services (after children are reunified with sponsors) focused on education, legal, child welfare,
and related services at the local level.
Specific best practices focused on these primary areas:
1.  Modeling home and family in-care and custody programs for unaccompanied children1
•  Adopting program models that incorporate the safe and nurturing environment of home by using
smaller facilities, more family-like placements, and more homelike settings that support and
celebrate the uniqueness of each child, and programs that allow for seamless transitions from one
type of care to another (e.g. from transitional foster care to long-term foster care without the child
having to experience a placement disruption).
•  Developing connections between unaccompanied children’s service providers and with service
providers from other fields, such as those who serve undocumented and homeless populations, in
order to learn from other programs that serve children in transition.
2.  Using approaches that empower unaccompanied children
•  Looking at children’s needs holistically, empowering them to take a more active role in decision making
about themselves, encouraging child participation, and listening to what children have to say.
3.  Implementing supportive and preventive approaches to working with sponsor families2
•  Giving sufficient time for shelter clinicians to facilitate contact and re-establish connection between
children and sponsors who have experienced lengthy separations, so that children and their families
are set up for successful kinship placements that will last and are in the best interests of the child.
•  Using pre-reunification contact with sponsor families at designated fingerprinting sites as an opportunity
[1] “Children are placed according to their best interests in the most family-like and familiar setting possible.” Council on Accreditation, Standards for Public
Agencies, PA-FKC 6.03: Child Placement (2015), http://coanet.org/standard/pa-fkc/6/.Z
[2] “Parents receive individualized services and supports that address their family’s needs, increase their capacities for effective parenting, and assist them in preparing for reunification or facilitating other permanency options for their children.” Council on Accreditation, Standards for Public Agencies, PA-FKC 8: Services for
Parents (2015), http://coanet.org/standard/pa-fkc/8/.

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX E

39

to determine broader service needs that will support children after reunification with their families.
•  Learning from family preservation models as an approach to supporting successful reunification of
sponsors and children with more complex needs.
4.  Valuing schools as protective partners3
•  Ensuring that all children are enrolled in school after placement with sponsors and recognizing
the protective role that schools play by educating children; by linking children and families to
community partners; by providing a safety net and a community integration support system.
•  Intentionally creating connections between ORR-funded community follow-up service providers
and children’s school social workers to promote children’s safety, permanency and well-being.
5.  Providing legal and Child Advocate services
•  Ensuring that children have access to legal protection and due process through provision of
competent immigration legal services while in federal custody and after placement with sponsors.
•  Provision of Child Advocates to look out for children’s best interests in immigration legal proceedings.
6.  Provision of other complementary and creative support services
•  Using creative therapeutic approaches with unaccompanied children, such as artistic expression, to
help communicate about and heal from traumatic experiences.
•  Pursuing diverse sources of funding for special programs, seeking out additional data, and engaging
in privately funded research projects to examine and improve services to unaccompanied children.
Ideal Practice: Reimagining the System
Roundtable participants considered what an ideal system for unaccompanied children might look like and how
it would be different from the existing system for unaccompanied children that has developed over time in the
United States.
An ideal system for unaccompanied children would include:
•  Building a child-centered, multi-disciplinary system developed around the best interests of the
child standard;
•  Modeling the best elements of the juvenile and family court systems (e.g., protection oriented,
grounded in children’s best interests);
[3] “Children receive support to achieve their full educational potential…” Council on Accreditation, Standards for Public Agencies, PA-FKC 9.05: Services for Children and Youth (2015), http://coanet.org/standard/pa-fkc/9/.

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX E

40

•  Providing attorneys and Child Advocates for every child;
•  Creating additional forms of relief (ex: a best interests visa specific to children);
•  Creating an information firewall between HHS & DHS;
•  Screening of children by child welfare specialists rather than law enforcement personnel;
•  Immigration proceedings that are affirmative and non-adversarial with a specialized corps of
interviewers;
•  Completing a home visit prior to sponsor placements, rather than a paper-based review system;
•  Incorporating service elements that follow children into the community after sponsor placement,
rather than services primarily focused within the shelters;
•  Linking children to local community services after release, including coordination between legal
and social service providers;
•  ORR responding proactively to emerging needs by staying focused on the big picture;
•  ORR providing program management, oversight, quality assurance, data collection and
sharing, with case management handled by qualified grantees;
•  ORR brings together the expertise and resources of other government agencies to support
unaccompanied children and build connections with state systems that can serve children and
families;
•  Accessing in-country processing for children with protection needs so that children do not have
to make a dangerous journey to the U.S.;
•  Using the refugee resettlement program as a model;
•  Addressing the root causes of migration within sending countries.
The participants in the Roundtable meetings were conscious of the current challenges in protecting and
serving unaccompanied children, but participants were also hopeful that improvements are possible through
collaboration between service providers, as well as between governmental agencies, non-governmental
organizations, local U.S. communities and Central Americans themselves.

  

UNACCOMPANIED IMMIGRANT MINORS SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Failed States

Organizer! >Advocate
Crime

Education

Legal Screening Long Term Work

Recruitment
Foster Care



Famin Know Your

Reunification Voluntary

Departure

 

 

Seeking
Better Life

Community

Society

I Release w/I  
Post ReleaseServices 7 



 

Children Crossing Border

ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 APPENDIX 







I

Deportation

Home Study
Children Turne-

Back by CBP

t_ Straight
mg Release Child Welfare



Famlly Juvenile Justice

Reunification Eval - - - .





I



I
I


I

 

 

 

 

 

 

ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 APPENDIX (3.1

 

 

Failed States

Organized
Crime

Recruitment

Family
Reunification

Seeking
Better Life

Children Crossing Border

UC DECISION TREE: APPREHENSION




Prison Rape Elimination Act Requirements 

:8 CFR Juvenile release in order of prelerence: 
I parent. legal guardian. adult relative. not in senricei
detention. [Applicability]
I 8 CFR Simultaneous release of juvenile with
parent. legal guardian. or adult relative in detention at
I discretion. [Applicabimy]

-.

Apprehension by CBP
or
Presents at OFO

Processed as
family unit for
return

Determination. 

or legal relief

Under 18 
I
I

No Legal StatusI
I

Parenl or Legal 
Guardian not I
available I

I

?may of HSA 
of 2002) I

1. I

Unaccompanied 

Contiguous Country of

Origin (Le. Mexico)

l?770 Notice of Rights 8 CFR
236.301]

CBP 93 

l-213. Record of Deportabler'
lnadmissible Alien

 

 

Accompanied

 

lNon-Contiguous 
of Origin Other than
I Mexico) I


[Notification Within 48 Hours. TVPRA ?235ibll2): Email to
I ICF. and ORR, Initial Placement ReferralForm and ORR

determination of Placement

Orantes Advisory {El Salvadorans only]

Notice of Rights! 8 CFR Call to Famin
Member in the U.S.
I-213. Record of Deponableflnadmissible Alien
H362. Notice to Appear
F286. Notice of Custody Determination

No Expedited Removal, Placement in Removal
Proceedings, TVPRA 

 

Within 72 Hours
Transfer to ORR

 

 

Safe
Repatriation
TVPRA


TVPRA ?235(b)(3)
faggot '05 Tramp?
Functions to ORR 
of 2008 ?235ib.cl. Care of I
. custody or UAC with HHS 
. 

ORR Shelter

 

 

 

 

ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 APPENDIX (3.2

 

 

UC DECISION TREE: SHELTER

ORR Shelter

 

 

lnta ke

2:1 hr Intake

48 hr Medical I
I
72 EducationalI
Assessment


HSA of 2002. 
E):

 

Upon
Arrival to
7 Days

Child I

Assesment

7 days UAC Assessment I

I
I 7 days ISP
l7 days initial Mental Ilealthl
Assessment

7 Days - 30 Days

KYR {mandatory by ORR and Legal Screening {not
mandated].
Vera contract requirements on legal screening and KYl?ts
Dl?lS option for prosecutorial discretion
DHS option to tile NTA

TVPRA of 2008 
Legal:
I Orientation 

Program . . 
- - Weekly Case Coordlnator

- - - - - - ?qIWeekly Education progress report (unless release within 7 days of arrivaltl
I Update medical as needed I
the minor is going to be released after 15 days. a UAC Case Review isI
required prior to release: it not being released needs to be completed by
day 30. Or create/ update prior to any transfer to another program I
Complete and SIRS as needed (Case Manager, Clinicians andr'Or I
Supervisors) I

30 Days - Beyond

l-l<eep UAC Case review updated every 30 days or as needed for
signi?cant info
Ongoing Case Notes (Case Management and Clinical]
Update medical as needed
Complete SIRS as needed {Case Manager. Clinicians and/or
Supervisors)

 Reunification  -  - -  --

Ongoing

- - - - - - -
I Sponsored-amin Reunification Assessment

Update UAC Portal
Home Visit to the Foster Home (pending State Requirements]
I Weekly Case Management Meetings with minor
I Coordinated ALL other external services
IRigui-res-maiag?g t_he leaime?t iuth?rizitiolREqugt E00358.

 

 



ldentify sponsor ASAP I

I Send FRP within 24 

I FRP available online or complete over

Iphone with sponsor and sign at point of
reuni?cation. I

IWithin 3 days of receiving FRP. organizel

tinger printing appointment when
I needed. run internet Criminal
I background check on ALL sponsors.
- - -

Sponsor
Assessment


Flores Agreement. 1114. Release:
in order of preference

HSA of 2002. and
making and implementing
placement determinations.

TVPRA of 2008 ?235lcll3llAl
Determine it a home study is
necessary
TVPRA of 2008 
Home study categories
TVPRA of 2008 
Follow-up services required for
children with home study.

 

 

 

 

UC DECISION TREE: RELEASE

Decision
Process

Release
Recomendation
I. I

All cases receive I
an initial I
recommendation I
which is vetted by. Party
a 3rd party beiorel ecommendatio
I a final decision is I
I made. 

FFS Decision

Discharge
Process

I- Organize travel 8? esoort 
lias applies} Within ?2 hoursl
l- Obtain airfare payment I
Iiron-i sponsor [as applies}

 

Release
Decision
Rationale

Prepare for
Discharge

 

 

 

 

l- reuni?cation 

Finalize discharge I

Minor Leaves lpaperwork I I
program I- Updale ORR on available I

 

capaCIty

Notify stakeholders (one. 
IICE JO. VolAg. service I
providers) 
I- Notify or assist wilh COA I
lorCOV.

No Sponsor Sponsor
Identified Identified

Notifications

Release to
Licensed
Program

Release to
Community

No Legal No Risk Minimal Risk Stra'ght
Relief Available Release
To Sponsor

 

 

Voluntary

Departure Removal

 

Legal Relief Not Legal Relief

leved In er leved er RISK Factor? or Sponsor Release 
Post-Release

Services

 

 

TVPRA Concerns
Long Term

Federal
Foster Care

Unaccompanied
Refugee Minor

Age Out wlo
Legal Status

 

 

'Trar-slers from the custody of tne ORR to the

:Custody DHS. Rer?nainir?g in commuan is at the 
Idiscretion of ICE JC .Outcornes c0uld include: I

I
I

i. and Hemoval bl ICE 

:2 Remain and pursue Legal Sigma 3 I . Negative Home Studyr Positive Home Study
I a. Remaining in foster home 
I b. Finding res-dense with alternate foster family: 

C. Finding local indent-2nd it liVIrig program I Acmeve Legal
Finding residence :n adult home'ess shelter I Status

ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX H

45

Introduction 
Immigrant children who enter the United States unaccompanied
by a parent or guardian and without legal status are defined
POST-RELEASE
by the US legal system as unaccompanied alien children (UAC). Recent reports from UNHCR,1 the Immigration Policy
Study
Summary
Policy
Recommondations
explored
the reasonsand
why UAC
are leaving
their countries of origin. These reports have
Center,2 and other sources3 have
documented the threats of violence and privation that explain why they would risk journeying to the US border. However,
J. Roth,
PhDto&
Breanne
L. Grace,
much less attention has been dedicated
with the exception of reports on theBenjamin
legal options
available
UAC
once they
arrive,4PhD
University
Of
South
Carolina
 
College
Of
Social
Work
to questions concerning the well-being of UAC after they are apprehended at the
border.
According to federal law, many UAC
have the right to be released to a family member or responsible adult in the US—a “sponsor”—while their deportation
proceedings are pending. This study examines well-being outcomes for a particularly vulnerable subset of UAC who are
released to sponsors: those who receive post-release services.

Introduction 
Post-release
services. Upon
apprehension
at the
border,
UAC are placed
in the custody
of the
Department
of Health
and
Immigrant children
who enter
the United
States
unaccompanied
by a parent
or guardian
andU.S.
without
legal status
are defined

1 the
by the US
legal system
alien children
Recent
reports
from UNHCR,
Immigration
Policy
Human
Service’s
Officeasofunaccompanied
Refugee Resettlement
(ORR).(UAC).
ORR then
makes
placement
and service
decisions
for each
child.
andallows
other ORR
sources
have explored
reasonsinwhy
are leaving
theirmembers—and
countries of origin.
These
have
Center,2law
Federal
to3 release
UAC tothe
sponsors
the UAC
US—typically
family
assign
themreports
to post-release
documented
themeet
threats
of violence
and privation
thatinclude
explaina why
theyofwould
journeying
to the mental
US border.
However,
services
if they
certain
risk criteria.
Risk criteria
history
being risk
trafficked
or abused,
health
concerns,
4 much less
attention
has been
dedicated
with
the exception
of reports
on the(PRS)
legal options
available
to UAC onceagencies
they arrive,
or
a disability.
Post-release
services
are provided
by ORR-funded
to facilitate
processes
of family
reunification
to questions
concerning
the These
well-being
of UAC
after
theylocally,
are apprehended
at the
border.
According
to Rather
federal than
law, many
and
community
integration.
agencies
deliver
PRS
wherever UAC
and
their sponsors
live.
offer aUAC
have the
be released
to aa list
family
member orservice
responsible
in the US—a
“sponsor”—while
their
deportation
model
forright
PRS,toORR
provides
of mandatory
goals adult
that agencies
must satisfy:
(1) ensure the
safe
placement of
proceedings
areUAC
pending.
Thisservices;
study examines
for a particularly
vulnerable(4)subset
of UAC
who are
UAC;
(2) refer
to legal
(3) assist well-being
UAC with outcomes
school enrollment
and engagement;
link UAC
to medical
released
to
sponsors:
those
who
receive
post-release
services.
services; and (5) arrange for mental health services. PRS support typically last for 6 months. We know relatively little about
how post-release services are delivered by local agencies, how the nature of these services may vary depending on where
sponsors
or the
effectiveness
of these
services.
Post-releaselive,
services
. Upon
apprehension
at the
border, UAC are placed in the custody of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Service’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). ORR then makes placement and service decisions for each child.
Study
design
Drawing
onto
case
studies
of four
post-release
run byfamily
one ORR-funded
agency—Lutheran
Immigrant
Federal
law .allows
ORR
release
UAC
to sponsors
in theprograms
US—typically
members—and
assign them to post-release
services
if they
meet (LIRS)—in
certain risk criteria.
Risk criteria
include a history
of being
trafficked
or abused,
health
and
Refugee
Service
four different
states (MD/VA,
NC, GA,
and SC),
this study
exploresmental
the scope
ofconcerns,
services
or a disability.
Post-release
services
(PRS)
provided
by ORR-funded
to post-release
facilitate processes
family
provided
by these
programs;
the needs
of are
UAC
who ORR
has classified agencies
in need of
services;ofand
the reunification
challenges
5 Semi-structured
and community
integration.
Theseand
agencies
deliver
locally,
wherever UAC
and their
sponsors
live. Rather
offer a
interviews
with
case managers
and than
program
UAC
face to finding
the services
resources
theyPRS
need.
model for PRS,
provides abylistinterviews
of mandatory
service
that agencies
satisfy: (1) were
ensurerecorded
the safeand
placement
of
coordinators
areORR
supplemented
with 20
UACgoals
and their
sponsors.must
All interviews
transcribed.
UAC;is(2)
to legal
UAC of
with
school
engagement;
(4)Itlink
UAC to medical
This
therefer
onlyUAC
evaluation
ofservices;
PRS that(3)
weassist
are aware
which
wasenrollment
conductedand
by outside
experts.
is exploratory
in nature.
services;
and (5) conducting
arrange for mental
healthand
services.
PRS support
6 months.
We of
know
relativelyservices
little about
We
recommend
a large-scale
quantitative
analysistypically
to assesslast
thefor
ultimate
success
post-release
overall,
howthis
post-release
arefirst
delivered
by local
agencies,
the nature of these
services
maythe
vary
depending
where
but
study is a services
necessary
step. Study
findings
and how
recommendations
for ORR
identify
core
elementsonthat
should be
sponsors
live, orconceptualized
the effectiveness
ofoperationalized
these services. before launching a comprehensive evaluation.
more
rigorously
and

Study design. Drawing on case studies of four post-release programs run by one ORR-funded agency—Lutheran Immigrant
Findings
and Refugee Service (LIRS)—in four different states (MD/VA, NC, GA, and SC), this study explores the scope of services

Addressing
the unique
needs
eachofUAC
heavily
by in
the
availability
of local
services
UAC are
provided by these
programs;
theof
needs
UACiswho
ORRinfluenced
has classified
need
of post-release
services;
andwhere
the challenges
placed.
The
complex
layers
of
trauma
and
exposure
UAC
have
experienced
combined
with
the
particular
characteristics
UAC face to finding the services and resources they need.5 Semi-structured interviews with case managers and program of
where
they areareplaced
can present
challenges
UAC
their
families.AllIninterviews
particular,were
UACrecorded
who settle
noncoordinators
supplemented
by distinct
interviews
with 20 for
UAC
andand
their
sponsors.
andintranscribed.
traditional
immigrant
receiving
contexts—whether
in
states
such
as
North
Carolina
or
suburbs
outside
of
large
cities—are
This is the only evaluation of PRS that we are aware of which was conducted by outside experts. It is exploratory in nature.
likely
to encounter
significanta obstacles
accessing
the supports
they need.
The convergence
of these factors
makes
it
We recommend
conducting
large-scaletoand
quantitative
analysis that
to assess
the ultimate
success of post-release
services
overall,
more
difficult
for
PRS
caseworkers
to
refer
UAC
to
the
community
services
they
need.
but this study is a necessary first step. Study findings and recommendations for ORR identify the core elements that should be
more rigorously conceptualized and operationalized before launching a comprehensive evaluation.

Findings

Addressing the unique needs of  each UAC is heavily influenced by the availability of local services where UAC are
                                                           
The complex layers of trauma and exposure UAC have experienced combined with the particular characteristics of
1placed.
http://www.rcusa.org/uploads/pdfs/UAC_UNHCR_Children%20on%20the%20Run_Full%20Report.pdf
they
are placed can present distinct challenges for UAC and their families. In particular, UAC who settle in non2where
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/no_childhood_here_why_central_american_children_are_fleeing_their_hom
traditional
immigrant
receiving contexts—whether in states such as North Carolina or suburbs outside of large cities—are
es_final.pdf
3likely
to
encounter
significant
obstacles to accessing the supports that they need. The convergence of these factors makes it
http://www.rcusa.org/uploads/pdfs/Mission%20To%20Central%20America%20FINAL.pdf
4more
http://www.uchastings.edu/centers/cgrs-docs/treacherous_journey_cgrs_kind_report.pdf
and
difficult for PRS caseworkers to refer UAC to the community services they need.
http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/the-flow-of-unaccompanied-children-through-the-immigration-system.pdf
5 This study was funded by LIRS, but the authors collected the data for the report independently. The report represents the authors’ views
based on analysis of these data. Together with the authors, LIRS hopes that this report serves to inform policymakers and practitioners of
the risks and opportunities inherent in our nation’s response to children who are seeking safety and protection at our borders.

                                                            
 1 http://www.rcusa.org/uploads/pdfs/UAC_UNHCR_Children%20on%20the%20Run_Full%20Report.pdf

2http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/no_childhood_here_why_central_american_children_are_fleeing_their_hom

es_final.pdf

3

 UAC face to finding the services and resources they need.5 Semi-structured interviews with case managers and program
coordinators are supplemented by interviews with 20 UAC and their sponsors. All interviews were recorded and transcribed.
This is the only evaluation of PRS that we are aware of which was conducted by outside experts. It is exploratory in nature.
We recommend conducting
a large-scale
and2015
quantitative
analysis to assess
46
ROUNDTABLE
REPORT
JULY
– APPENDIX
H the ultimate success of post-release services overall,
but this study is a necessary first step. Study findings and recommendations for ORR identify the core elements that should be
more rigorously conceptualized and operationalized before launching a comprehensive evaluation.

Findings

Addressing the unique needs of each UAC is heavily influenced by the availability of local services where UAC are
placed. The complex layers of trauma and exposure UAC have experienced combined with the particular characteristics of
where they are placed can present distinct challenges for UAC and their families. In particular, UAC who settle in nontraditional immigrant receiving contexts—whether in states such as North Carolina or suburbs outside of large cities—are
likely to encounter significant obstacles to accessing the supports that they need. The convergence of these factors makes it
more difficult for PRS caseworkers to refer UAC to the community services they need.
In keeping with ORR requirements, PRS case
managers help connect UAC to attorneys,
Source: ORR UAC release data from January 1 – September 30
schools, mental health services, medical
providers, and many other critical resources. PRS
                                                            
providers consistently state that legal services are the
1 http://www.rcusa.org/uploads/pdfs/UAC_UNHCR_Children%20on%20the%20Run_Full%20Report.pdf
most important referral for UAC. Yet, they also
2http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/docs/no_childhood_here_why_central_american_children_are_fleeing_their_hom
report that it can be the most challenging referral to
es_final.pdf
3 http://www.rcusa.org/uploads/pdfs/Mission%20To%20Central%20America%20FINAL.pdf
make, depending on the availability of affordable legal
4 http://www.uchastings.edu/centers/cgrs-docs/treacherous_journey_cgrs_kind_report.pdf
and Referrals to other types of services
service providers.
http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/the-flow-of-unaccompanied-children-through-the-immigration-system.pdf
can also be difficult, particularly in some suburbs and
5 This study was funded by LIRS, but the authors collected the data for the report independently. The report represents the authors’ views
rural areas—where many UAC are being placed with
based on analysis of these data. Together with the authors, LIRS hopes that thissponsors—where
report serves to inform
and
practitioners
of
therepolicymakers
are relatively
few
such
the risks and opportunities inherent in our nation’s response to children who areproviders.
seeking safety
and
protection
at
our
borders.
Regardless of geography, available services
that are culturally and linguistically accessible often
have long wait-times and limited bilingual services.
 
While services are conceptualized as separate
domains—health, mental health, education,
community—these services are compounding. For
example, education influences a child’s engagement in
the legal system, health and mental health influence
educational outcomes, and an understanding of the legal process allows children to better engage in their communities.
Unaccompanied Children Released to Sponsors, 2014

The actual implementation of PRS extends well beyond ORR’s minimum requirements, and requires extensive
capacity-building and support. Because of the challenges posed by the needs of each UAC and the distinct assemblage of
resources available in the communities where they live, the work of PRS case managers is more complex, nuanced and
expansive than outlined by ORR. In effect, PRS providers exceed the minimal program requirements stipulated by ORR.
However, this comes at significant cost to these organizations and case managers. The complicated nature of each case, the
immense geography of UAC settlement and the variation of resources by site strain organizational funds, require large
investments of time, and heavily tax case managers and their supervisors. Case management requires a teamwork approach.
Case managers need additional support and feedback to manage the idiosyncrasies of each case. Too often, however, the
demands of the position and the dispersed geography of the children they serve require case managers to be away from the
office for extended periods of time. While it is not always possible for case managers to regularly interact with one another,
support from LIRS Children Specialists provide case managers critical support through monthly meetings, email, and
assistance in the field through phone contact.
Minors who receive PRS comply with Immigration Court reporting requirements. Sponsors and UAC are told at
release that they must appear at all Immigration Court hearings, and available data suggests that the vast majority comply with
this requirement. Minors who receive PRS benefit from additional information about what to expect in Immigration Court
and referrals for local and trusted legal service providers. PRS case managers remind minors of their court dates and may even
accompany them to court. However, while PRS are time-limited, the legal process for UAC is not. During the six months of
PRS, case managers are only able to provide needed supports during the minor’s first (and possibly second) court date.

Recommendations for ORR

The screening process for determining which UAC receive post-release services needs to be rigorously evaluated.
We have some concerns about the accuracy of the instruments used to determine which UAC are in need of post-release
services. Many UAC may be “at risk” even if they are not flagged as such by detention center staff. This is not to suggest that
the professionals making these determinations are unequipped to do so. Rather, accurate assessments may be limited by the
length of time they have to assess these children, the nature of the trauma many UAC have experienced, and the location of
assessment. Based on UAC narratives of their migration experience and what other researchers have shown, many of the
factors that contribute to why a UAC presents with “at-risk” symptoms are the norm rather than the exception. These

 accompany them to court. However, while PRS are time-limited, the legal process for UAC is not. During the six months of
PRS, case managers are only able to provide needed supports during the minor’s first (and possibly second) court date.

Recommendations
for JULY
ORR 2015 – APPENDIX H
ROUNDTABLE
REPORT

47

The screening process for determining which UAC receive post-release services needs to be rigorously evaluated.
We have some concerns about the accuracy of the instruments used to determine which UAC are in need of post-release
services. Many UAC may be “at risk” even if they are not flagged as such by detention center staff. This is not to suggest that
the professionals making these determinations are unequipped to do so. Rather, accurate assessments may be limited by the
length of time they have to assess these children, the nature of the trauma many UAC have experienced, and the location of
assessment. Based on UAC narratives of their migration experience and what other researchers have shown, many of the
factors that contribute to why a UAC presents with “at-risk” symptoms are the norm rather than the exception. These
children are fleeing countries with high rates of violence. They have traveled hundreds of miles across multiple borders
without a parent or guardian, often enduring hunger, danger, and human rights abuses along the way. Why, then, are not more
UAC recommended for PRS? It is conceivable that UAC in detention would be reticent to disclose details about their
traumatic experiences to someone they do not know in an unfamiliar facility in a different country. We should not mistake
their caution under these circumstances as an indicator that they do not require post-release services.

PRS
goals need to be clarified by ORR. Case managers regularly exceed ORR expectations. Their experiences provide
 
insight into how ORR objectives can be reformulated to more accurately reflect the challenges and importance of family
reunification and community integration. LIRS centralized support mechanisms—including trouble shooting, trainings, and
print materials—are vital to case managers’ ability to do their jobs on a daily basis. Although current ORR expectations are
fairly minimal, due to a lack of resources in
Post Release Service Schedule
some locations these basic expectations are
exceedingly difficult to meet without
additional support.
We underscore that, while the goal of postrelease services is to connect UAC to the
supports they need, there is considerable
variation in (a) the sponsors that receive
them, (b) the communities where they settle
(urban, suburban, rural), and (c) the types
and availability of local service providers in
these places. The interaction of these
factors can exacerbate the need for services,
limit UAC access to services, or both. With
these variable conditions in mind, we
recommend that a more comprehensive
evaluation of post-release services is needed
to determine what works and under what
conditions.
ORR must develop a therapeutic
approach to case management. A
therapeutic case management model
involves approaching each case from an
individual perspective and creating
treatment plans based on the needs of the
UAC and sponsor, not solely on ORR
requirements. A therapeutic approach is
relevant throughout the life of a case, but
must begin right from the start. Case
managers’ ability to support UAC and their
families is predicated on rapport that is
established through extensive face-to-face
contact. This trust is necessary to effectively
match UAC needs with local resources and
services—many times connecting them to
mainstream institutions that are unfamiliar
to both UAC and their sponsor.
PRS providers need additional resources and the option to extend case management services beyond six months.
Depending on where PRS providers are located, the expectation that they connect immigrant children to community services
can be extremely difficult. In the case of legal service providers in some rural and suburban areas, there are very few affordable
attorneys familiar with immigration courts and the possible legal claims available to UAC. Our findings suggest that without

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX H

established through extensive face-to-face
contact. This trust is necessary to effectively
match UAC needs with local resources and
services—many times connecting them to48
mainstream institutions that are unfamiliar
to both UAC and their sponsor.

PRS providers need additional resources and the option to extend case management services beyond six months.
Depending on where PRS providers are located, the expectation that they connect immigrant children to community services
can be extremely difficult. In the case of legal service providers in some rural and suburban areas, there are very few affordable
attorneys familiar with immigration courts and the possible legal claims available to UAC. Our findings suggest that without
case management support it is even less likely that UAC and sponsors would connect to these resources. While we strongly
recommend a more focused and clearly delineated set of goals, indicators, and measures, we also recognize that the extreme
disparity in resources by locations poses the greatest problem. UAC do not have a uniform experience with sponsors after
release. In effect, national, local, and family contexts deeply shape individual outcomes. A model program would address these
resource and geographic disparities in order to maximize PRS effectiveness and create a more equitable engagement with the
legal system.

 

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX I

49

ASSESSING NEED AND UTILIZATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
AMONG UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN RELEASED FROM FEDERAL CUSTODY
WITHOUT FOLLOW-UP SERVICES
AUGUST 25, 2014
Research Collaboration between Lutheran Immigration & Refugee Service, Children’s Services & Jayshree Jani,
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Background and Purpose: Unaccompanied immigrant and refugee youth, referred to as “Unaccompanied
Alien Children” (“UAC”) under federal law, enter the U.S. daily to escape violence, political oppression,
extreme poverty, and chronic instability in their native countries, or as victims of human trafficking. U.S. legal
authorities place UAC in shelter care until a sponsor/caregiver is identified. The Office of Refugee Resettlement
(“ORR”) contracts with Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services Children’s Services (“LIRS CS”) to provide
in-shelter and follow-up services to UAC. These follow-up services utilize a typical case management structure
coordinated by community providers, including referrals for legal assistance, mental health and substance
abuse treatment, educational programs, and medical care.
Although these services are considered an integral component of UAC’s integration into the community, only
5-10% of youth released from shelters receive post-release follow-up services. The Trafficking Victims Protection
Re-Authorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008 requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct followup services, during the pendency of removal proceedings, for children for whom a home study was conducted.
Home studies are required if the child is a victim of severe trafficking in persons, has a disability as defined
in Section 3 of the American Disabilities Act, if the child has been a victim of physical or sexual abuse under
circumstances that indicate that the UAC’s health or welfare has been significantly harmed or threatened, or if
the proposed sponsor clearly presents a risk of abuse, maltreatment, exploitation, or trafficking to the child.
The TVPRA also authorizes the Secretary to conduct follow-up services in cases involving children with mental
health or other needs who could benefit from ongoing assistance from a social welfare agency. The rest of the
children are reunified without services to support or monitor them after release. The research reported in this
paper sought to assess the specific needs of children released from shelter care with no follow-up services.
Methods: The sample initially included 100 sponsors of UAC released from LIRS-affiliate shelters without
follow-up services beginning in July 2013. All of the children in the sample were Central American, ~60%
were male, and 86% were under 14 (See demographic characteristics below). Those sponsors who agreed to
participate were contacted at 14 days, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-shelter release, the typical LIRS’s follow-up
services home visit schedule. At each interval, a researcher gathered qualitative and quantitative data recording
the family’s challenges and successes in accessing educational, legal, health, and mental health services, and
social networks in the community without case management support.
In April 2014, research began to add a second 100 UAC sponsors of children released from LIRS-affiliate
shelters with no follow up services. This group includes only sponsors of children who are over 14 years old at
the time of release. As of August 25, 2014, 53 sponsors had agreed to participate in the research. Releases seem
to be slower than during initial data collection of the first 100 sponsors. Researchers have completed about

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX I

50

15 3-month calls, and note that of those 15, approximately 3 are unable to be contacted, and 2 are no longer
living with the intended sponsor. Six-month calls will begin in October 2014. Some trends noted during data
collection with this second group of sponsors:
•  There seem to be fewer sponsors willing to participate at the initial call/ more questions regarding the
survey since the surge on the border began.
•  A majority of sponsors report enrolling their children in school; however, they report not being aware
that vaccinations were done at the shelters, and are re-vaccinating their children for school enrollment.
•  Very few sponsors are aware of the LOPC program, nor are they aware of the LOPC telephone number.
•  It seems that few sponsors are reading or looking at the ‘packet’ given to them at release.
•  Legal issues and finding affordable legal aid is sponsors’ biggest concern.

Country of Origin

Gender
Age
Sponsor Location
(By State)

44% Honduras
35% El Salvador
18% Guatemala
3% Mexico
58% Male
42% Female
86% Under 14 (“Tender Age”)
14% 14 and Older
26% TX; 17% CA; 12% NY; 10% MD; 7% VA; 6%
GA; 6% NJ; 2% AR; 2% CO; 2% FL; 2% LA; 2% TN;
1% MA; 1%MS; 1% 1% NC; 1% PA; 1% OR; 1%
WA

Participant Demographics—First 100 Sponsors
Results (First 100 Sponsors): Preliminary data indicate that families can access and utilize communitybased services independently. At six months, 100% of UAC’s still lived with their intended sponsor; 98%
were enrolled in school; and 61% had accessed medical care. However, research also found that sponsors
had difficulty resolving certain problems on their own, the most common of which was understanding legal
processes and accessing legal assistance. By six months, only 28% of respondents had obtained legal aid. At
14 days, only 45% of respondents had accessed the Executive Office for Immigration Review hotline to gather
case status information. After being contacted by the researchers and informed about the EOIR hotline, 93%
of respondents had done so by the six month interval.

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX I

51

Key Results – First 100 Sponsors Up to 6 Months

With Intended Sponsor
Enrolled in School
Safety Problems
Accessed EOIR Hotline
Had a Court Date
Had Legal Aid
Identified MH Concerns
Accessed MH Care
Identified Physical
Health Concerns
Accessed Medical Care
Attended Church

14 Days (N=100)
100%
71%
1%
45%
2%
4%
19%
6%
13%

3 Months (N=89)
100%
97%
0%
83%
17%
15%
18%
.04%
10%

6 Months (N=71)
100%
98%
0%
93%
38%
28%
14%
.04%
10%

26%
66%

47%
75%

61%
76%

Recent Update as of August 25, 2014: 9 month calls completed for first 100 Sponsors
•  Children are still with intended sponsors and attending scheduled court appointments at 9 & 12-months.
•  Sponsors continue to report very few safety concerns.
•  9-month calls are completed, and we have completed about 50% of 12-month calls
•  Since the 6-month calls, about 10 more families have become unreachable.
•  Reports of health and mental health concerns remain about the same as at 6-months
•  A majority of children completed the school year and will move to the next grade.
•  Many children attended summer ESL classes.
•  We are noting an increase in court dates scheduled, and of those with a court date, many have an
attorney. However, at 12-months, some youth’s names are still not in the EOIR hotline.
•  Legal issues and finding affordable legal aid remain sponsors’ biggest concern.
Conclusions and Implications: The research process served as an unintended intervention by identifying the
lack of awareness of available services and service utilization among sponsors. The researchers found that while
families were initiating the process of integration, ongoing sponsor and child support was useful to facilitate
understanding of system navigation. Findings from the study underscore the importance of supporting locallybased service interventions and outreach that take into account the individuality of each community in order
to enhance the existing capacities of UAC sponsors. Such services could include support for schools as they
absorb diverse and changing demographics, are a major point of integration, and are an opportunity for social
inclusion. In addition, the research supports exploration of a peer navigation program that could tap into the
expertise of existing community members.

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX J

52

CHILD PROTECTION LAWS REGARDING UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN
Child Protection Laws Regarding
UACs
William Wilberforce Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization
Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-457,
122 Stat. 5044, § 235 (codified at 8
U.S.C. § 1232).

Protections under the Law
The TVPRA specifically sought to expand the protection of unaccompanied children by
incorporating the following ideas and principles:
• Limiting CBP custody
o Children should be in CBP custody for no longer than 72 hours, other than
exceptional circumstances.
o Mexican minors are protected from non-refoulement of Mexican by
establishing procedures to guarantee Mexican unaccompanied children are
screened for trafficking crimes and for asylum claims before being repatriated
to Mexico. If DHS cannot make a determination within 48 hours or the child
is too young to make an independent decision, the Mexican child must be
transferred to ORR.
• Protecting unaccompanied children from expedited removal procedures
o  Unaccompanied children are ensured due process by access to a full
proceeding before an immigration judge.
o  Minors are eligible for Voluntary Departure at no cost to the child, given their
inherent dependency.
o  All Mexican unaccompanied minors who are transferred to ORR also are
guaranteed this due process right. Mexican minors who do not meet the
non-refoulement criteria above are returned to Mexico in accordance with
contiguous country agreements.
• Providing access to legal orientation and counsel
o  “To the greatest extent practicable,” ORR must provide unaccompanied
children access to attorneys in legal proceedings, as a matter of protection.
This however, does not guarantee a right to legal access at government
expense.
• Codifying custody requirements specified in the Flores Settlement Agreement
o  Reaffirmed the principle that children must be placed in the “least restrictive”
setting and that secure detention should only be utilized for the safety of the
child or the community.
o  Outlined procedures for release to immediate family members, extended
relatives, and other sponsors.
o  Delineated child welfare protections for ORR
• Potential sponsors are required to have an identity verification and
assessment for potential risk to the child through background checks.
• Safe release to a sponsor requires a home study and post-release
follow-up services for especially vulnerable children
(i.e. those who survived trafficking, child abuse, or have special
needs.)
•  Permits (but does not require) ORR to provide post-release services for
children to better integrate into their new homes and communities.
• Allows ORR to appoint Child Advocates for trafficking victims and
particularly vulnerable children.
•  Advancing safe repatriation
o  Calls on ORR, DHS, and the Department of State to work together to ensure
that children are not repatriated to their home countries in unsafe manners
by running a pilot repatriation program.

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX J

53

o  Requires DHS to consult human rights reports when assessing whether to
repatriate a child.
•  Improving Special Immigrant Juvenile Status
o  Expands and clarifies the definition of Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (a
form of legal relief that is available to unaccompanied alien children who
have been abused, abandoned, or neglected) so that more vulnerable children
are eligible for this type of relief.
o  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is prohibited from
denying Special Immigrant Juvenile status to a self-petitioner, solely based on
age, so long as the person was a minor on the date the application was filed.
Perez-Funes v. District Director, INS,
619 F. Supp. 656 (C.D. Cal. 1985).

The Perez-Funes case:
• Addresses the voluntary departure process, finding that the voluntary departure
process violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
• Issues a permanent injunction requiring Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) to give detained minors notice of alternatives to voluntary departure and an
opportunity to contact a parent, close adult relative, friend, or legal services before
presenting the voluntary departure form.
•  Requires the federal government to ensure that children understand their due process
rights.
•  Prohibits the government from removing unaccompanied children through voluntary
departure procedures without first assuring that they were properly informed of and
understood alternatives to voluntary departure.

Flores Settlement Agreement,
Case No. CV 85-4544RJK(Px (1997)

The Flores Settlement Agreement, sets forth guidelines regarding the detention, release, and
treatment of children in detention. Flores is applicable to ALL children—unaccompanied and
accompanied children in immigration custody—as it so states in the class definition, “The
certified class in this action shall be defined as follows: ‘All minors who are detained in the
legal custody of the INS.’”
Specifically the agreement provides that:
• Children are entitled to legal protections that include judicial review and access to
representation, human rights monitoring, and courts.
•  Children must be held in the least restrictive setting taking into consideration to their age
and vulnerability/special needs.
•  Except in extraordinary situations, children must be released from CBP custody no more
than 72 hours after apprehension.
•  Children should be released from custody without unnecessary delay to a parent, legal
guardian, adult relative, individual specifically designated by the parent, licensed program,
or, alternatively, an adult who seeks custody who DHS deems appropriate.
•  Children may not be detained with an unrelated adult for more than 24 hours.
•  Children must be in humane living conditions while in custody.
Exhibit 1 of the Flores Agreement stipulates minimum standards for the care of minors. This
includes:
•  Suitable living conditions and adequate food, clothing, and personal grooming items.
•  Appropriate medical, dental, and mental health care.
•  Educational services.
•  A reasonable right to privacy.
The other Exhibits of the Flores Agreement set forth instructions for services officers regarding
the processing, treatment, and placement of minors; contingency plans; and agreements
concerning facility visits.

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX J

Perez-Olano Settlement Agreement,
Case No. CV 05-3604 (2010)

54

The Perez-Olano Settlement Agreement:
•  Provides that “specific consent” from DHS, HHS and DOJ is only required for applicants
in HHS custody who are seeking a juvenile court order to alter their status or placement,
otherwise Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) applicants do not need the federal
government’s “specific consent” to enter state juvenile court proceedings.
•  Any waiver of these rights must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary
•  Creates an appeal process if specific consent is denied.
•  Provides “age-out” protection by requiring that DHS not reject or deny applicants based on
age, if a complete application for SIJS was filed before reaching age 21.
• Provides that in certain circumstances United States Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE) will join in motions to reopen removal proceedings for juveniles
who were granted SIJS status and who seek to adjust their status to that of a lawful
permanent resident.
Orantes Injunction, affirmed by
Orantes-Hernandez, et al. v. Holder,
D.C. No. 82-1107-MMM (9th Cir.
2008)(unpublished).

The Orantes Injunction is a permanent injunction that applies only to Salvadorans in DHS
custody who are eligible to apply for asylum. It requires DHS to:
•  Advise detainees orally and in writing of their right to apply for asylum, right to request a
deportation hearing, and right to be represented by counsel
•  Ensure the privacy of attorney-client communications
•  Provide legal materials on immigration relief in English and Spanish
•  Provide adequate telephone access
•  Provide updated and accurate legal services lists

Under the injunction, DHS may not coerce or attempt to persuade Salvadoran detainees
to accept voluntary departure.
Homeland Security Act (2002), Pub.
L. No. 107-296, Title IV, Subtitle E, §
462 (codified at 6 U.S.C. §279).

Section 462 transfers the responsibilities of caring for and placing unaccompanied children
from the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Director of
the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2013, Pub. L.
113-4, §§ 1101 and 1261 (codified
at 42 U.S.C. §15607 and 8 U.S.C. §
1232).

The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA):
•  Extends the application of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), which requires the
adoption of standards of detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of rape and
sexual assault in federal facilities, to all immigration detention facilities that are under the
authority of the DHS and HHS.
•  Provides that DHS must consider alternatives for unaccompanied children aging out of
HHS custody. Specifically requiring DHS to consider “placement in the least restrictive
setting available after taking into account the alien’s danger to self, danger to the community,
and risk of flight. Such aliens shall be eligible to participate in alternative to detention
programs, utilizing a continuum of alternatives based on the alien’s need for supervision,
which may include placement of the alien with an individual or an organizational sponsor,
or in a supervised group home.”
•  Authorizes expansion of the Child Advocate program to three new sites within three years.
•  Extends to the ORR federal foster care program to certain U visa recipients.

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX J

Immigration and Nationality Act
(INA), sections 101(a)(42) and
208, as amended by the Refugee
Act of 1980 (based on the United
Nations 1951 Convention and
1967 Protocol relating to the Status
of Refugees)

55

The Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(42):
•  Defines the term “refugee” as “any person who is outside any country of such
person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside
any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable
or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself
of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded
fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion”
•  Establishes the authority for provision of foster care, health care, and other
child welfare services to unaccompanied refugee children.
•  Explicates in §208 asylum application procedures for “any alien who is
physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States
(whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is
brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or
United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status…”
•  Gives initial jurisdiction for unaccompanied children’s asylum applications to
asylum officers (rather than the Executive Office for Immigration Review).
•  Exempts unaccompanied children from the one-year filing deadline and
removal to a “safe third country.”
•  Provides “age-out” protection against government processing delays, by
continuing derivative eligibility as children for unmarried applicants who
reach age 21 while their applications are still pending for certain immigration
benefits (i.e. asylum, refugee status, VAWA, family-based and employmentbased visas). (Child Protection Status Act)

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX K

56

ROUNDTABLE ACRONYMS
ATIP: Anti-Trafficking in Persons, a program of the Office of Refugee Resettlement that identifies and serves
victims of human trafficking
CBP: Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland Security; includes oversight for U.S.
Border Patrol
DHS: United States Department of Homeland Security
DOD: United States Department of Defense
DOJ: United States Department of Justice
EOIR: Executive Office for Immigration Review, the immigration court system located within the United States
Department of Justice
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
HHS: United States Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the Office of Refugee Resettlement
HSA: Homeland Security Act of 2002, which dissolved the former Immigration and Naturalization Service and
divided its responsibilities into ICE and USCIS, created the Department of Homeland Security, and brought
under one departmental umbrella Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Secret Service, FEMA, U.S.
Coast Guard, CBP, ICE, USCIS, as well as other offices and responsibilities
ICE: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the branch of DHS responsible for investigative
and interior immigration enforcement activity
INS: Immigration and Naturalization Service, which formerly held responsibility for both immigration enforcement and benefits. The agency was dissolved in 2003 following the passage of the Homeland Security Act
and the creation of ICE and USCIS
KYR: “Know Your Rights” presentations providing legal rights and information to children and adults; typically given by nonprofit legal service providers
LOPC: Legal Orientation Program for Custodians, a program of EOIR providing information about legal proceedings and responsibilities of adult caregivers for unaccompanied children in immigration proceedings
NGO: Non-governmental organization; may also be called nonprofit or voluntary agency
NTA: A “Notice to Appear,” which is a letter given or mailed to an immigrant in removal proceedings with the
date the immigrant is to appear in immigration court
OPPM: An Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum, issued by EOIR on various topics

 ROUNDTABLE REPORT JULY 2015 – APPENDIX K

57

ORR: Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is responsible for care and custody of unaccompanied children;
part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services
OTM: “Other than Mexican,” a term used by Customs and Border Protection for an immigrant who is from
any country other than Mexico
SIR: “Significant incident report,” documentation submitted by ORR service providers following certain events
involving children while in ORR custody (such as maltreatment, attempted suicide, physical conflict, etc.)
TVPRA: The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008
UAC: “Unaccompanied alien child,” the term introduced in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, is defined as
“a child who:
(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United States;
(B) has not attained 18 years of age; and
(C) with respect to whom —
(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or
(ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.
UNHCR: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN refugee agency
USCIS: United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

 Founded in 1939, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service
is nationally recognized for its leadership with and for refugees,
asylum seekers, unaccompanied children, migrants in detention,
families fractured by migration, and other vulnerable populations.
LIRS serves migrants and refugees through over 60 grassroots,
legal and social service partners nationwide.

LIRS.ORG