Office Of Refugee Resettlement Research Articles

Unaccompanied Migrant Children in US Government Custody: 2014–2023

Between October 1, 2014, and March 1, 2023, the US Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) took custody of 568,890 unaccompanied migrant children. Drawing on a unique dataset that ORR produced in response to Freedom of Information Act requests and litigation, we provide the first comprehensive, long-term demographic study of the population of unaccompanied migrant children while in ORR custody. Our analysis reveals the children's differential treatment and experiences across time and demographic characteristics. We contextualize ORR's treatment of the children in its custody by identifying legal standards governing their care. We also examine how specific instances of legal, political, and social change in the United States correlate with fluctuations in the origin-based demographics of unaccompanied migrant children seeking refuge in the United States. Results highlight the differential treatment and intense uncertainty that unaccompanied migrant children face in the United States based on their age, gender, country and region of origin, ORR program placements, and discharge types.

Family Separation and Reunification Under President Trump's Zero-Tolerance Policy

The past decades have been characterized by sharp increases in the number of families, mainly from Central America's Northern Triangle, apprehended by US Border Patrol. In an effort to stem those flows, the Trump administration implemented a zero-tolerance policy (ZTP) aimed at criminally prosecuting all adults crossing the border without authorization, regardless of whether they traveled with children or sought asylum upon entry. Thousands of children were separated from their parents, reclassified as “unaccompanied,” and referred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Yet, to date, there has not been a careful evaluation of the impacts of the policy. We examine how ZTP affected the volume of unaccompanied minors, their time in ORR custody, and their likelihood of family reunification. We show that ZTP boosted the ranks of unaccompanied children through family separations by 48 percent, lowered their discharge rate from ORR's custody by 38 percent, and reduced their odds of family reunification by 49 percent. Given the growing number of families from the Northern Triangle seeking asylum in the United States, the documented mental health problems of separated children, and the rotating nature of immigration policies based on the administration in place, understanding the implications of policies like ZTP is imperative.

Evaluation of the US detention standards to protect the health and dignity of migrants: a systematic review of national health standards

ObjectiveThe US government detains hundreds of thousands of migrants across a network of facilities each year. This research aims to evaluate the completeness of standards across US detention agencies to...

Policy and Legal Implications for Working with Unaccompanied Immigrant Children in Foster Care in the United States

Unaccompanied immigrant children arrive in the US having fled deteriorating conditions and human rights violations in their home countries. Despite the large numbers of unaccompanied children, there is a lack of research on outcomes for unaccompanied children in the US and particularly for those in the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s (ORR) Long Term Foster Care (LTFC) program. This manuscript begins with a review of the existing laws that influence unaccompanied children (UC) served through the ORR’s LTFC program and a review of the current research on UC in foster care in the US. Notably, this manuscript also visualizes the numbers of UC that have arrived in the US since the early 2000s. These are used to provide a synthesis of recommendations for policy and practice with unaccompanied children.

Experiences of Undocumented Parents Reuniting with Children Who Entered the United States as Unaccompanied Minors

In 2021, the United States saw an exponential influx of unaccompanied migrant children crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Upon apprehension at the border, unaccompanied children are placed in the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) temporary shelter facilities. The ORR is responsible for locating, vetting, and releasing the children to their family, guardians, or a suitable sponsor. Undocumented parents seeking reunification may fear cross-examination and background checks. This study aimed to explore the experiences of undocumented families reunified with their children with the help of a community-based organization (CBO). A collective case study method was used to collect qualitative data from seven parents. Respondent parents expressed their rationale for allowing their children to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, their experience with the ORR, and the reasons they pursued community-based guidance. The results document the depth of trauma and difficulties parents of unaccompanied migrant children face with American service providers. It is recommended that immigration-related government agencies form relationships with culturally diverse organizations that are trusted by immigrant communities.

1.2 Understanding the Legal Rights and Mental Health Needs of Immigrant Children in US Government Custody and Beyond

This program will discuss the laws and standards designed to protect the rights of children in federal immigration custody. There are challenges in the current Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) system that are resulting in inappropriate conditions, a lack of trauma-informed services and supports, and missed opportunities to address the mental health needs of migrant children. Participants will learn about how child and adolescent psychiatrists can support efforts to improve mental health services for migrant children while in ORR custody and once released to family members.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Burden Among Unaccompanied Minors in US Custody.

BackgroundPrior to the COVID-19 pandemic, crowded and unsanitary living conditions lacking medical expertise made U.S. detention centers hotbeds for infectious disease outbreaks. There have been 30,000 COVID-19 cases, positivity rates exceeding 50%, and nine deaths in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, but the extent of disease among children under the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has not been well-documented. We sought to evaluate the burden of COVID-19 among unaccompanied minors under the ORR’s responsibility.MethodsWe analyzed SARS-CoV-2 testing results of refugees and asylum seekers in facilities associated with the ORR from 02/01/2020 to 11/18/2020, courtesy of a Freedom of Information Act request.ResultsORR facilities performed 7,132 SARS-CoV-2 tests from 3/13/2020 to 11/18/2020. Overall, the SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate was 13.4%. Factors associated with higher positivity rates were age group (16 to 17 years old); identifying as male; undergoing testing in April, August, or September; staying in a for-profit versus a non-profit facility, and detention in certain facilities. The mean detention time with a positive test was 14.8 ± 3.2 days. Greater than 10 percent of positive tests were in long-term detainees.ConclusionsThe high SARS-CoV-2 test positivity rate raises concerns about an inability to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within detention facilities housing unaccompanied migrant children, particularly those run by for-profit companies. Mandated measures for social distancing and vaccination among detainees and detention facility employees are needed to limit the spread of the virus.

Child Maltreatment & Child Migration: Abuse Disclosures by Central American and Mexican Unaccompanied Migrant Children

While gang violence, community violence, and domestic violence have been recognized as contributing factors to Central American migration, less is known about the intersection between child maltreatment and migration. This article uses secondary data from United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) interviews with unaccompanied minors from Central America and Mexico to examine child maltreatment. It provides information on the abused children, their abusers, and the questions that led to their disclosure of maltreatment. It finds that girls reported maltreatment at higher rates than boys; only girls in this sample reported sexual abuse and intimate partner violence; and boys experienced physical abuse more than any other form of maltreatment. Overall, girls experienced all forms of abuse at higher rate than boys. Fewer than half of this sample described maltreatment as an explicit reason for migration, even those who viewed it as a type of suffering, harm or danger. In addition, some disclosures suggest that childhood transitions, such as in housing, schooling, or work status, warrant further inquiry as a potential consequence of or contributor to maltreatment. The article recommends that professionals engaged with migrant children in social services, legal services, or migration protection and status adjudications should inquire about maltreatment, recognizing that children may reveal abuse in complex and indirect ways. Protection risks within the home or family environment may provide the grounds for US legal immigration protections, such as Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) or asylum. Practitioners working with unaccompanied migrant children should use varied approaches to inquire about home country maltreatment experiences. Maltreatment may be part of the context of child migration, whether or not it is explicitly mentioned by children as a reason for migration. Policy Recommendations US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) should update SIJS regulations to reflect changes in the law, and modify application procedures to incorporate research knowledge on the impact of trauma on children. The US Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Justice (DOJ), and Health and Human Services (HHS), should ensure that all children in immigration proceedings receive legal representation through public-private partnerships overseen by the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). Passage of Senate Bill 3108, the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act of 2021, 1 would at least guarantee legal representation for unaccompanied minors. Codify legal standards (via USCIS regulation, or Congressional statute) for granting asylum based on gender and gender-based violence, and include standards for children and youth. Adjudicators from USCIS, Asylum Offices, and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) should consider new information about painful, traumatic, or shame-inducing experiences—such as child maltreatment—as part of the gradual process of disclosure, rather than negatively reflecting on the credibility of the applicant. Federal agencies with immigration responsibilities such as USCIS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and ORR, should be included in the federal government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA) Interagency Task Force for Trauma-Informed Care. These agencies should require new trainings for immigration adjudicators, including immigration judges, asylum officers, Border Patrol agents, and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers, on interviewing and making decisions related to children. Legal service providers should adopt a holistic approach to service provision that includes social workers as part of the child’s legal team.

Unaccompanied immigrant children in long‐term foster care: Identifying and operationalizing child welfare outcomes

AbstractThe Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 was developed with the goal of increasing the safety, permanency, and well‐being of children involved in U.S. child welfare systems. A growing number of unaccompanied immigrant children (UC) are being served in long‐term foster care (LTFC) under the auspices of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). UC are placed in care because an appropriate sponsor is not available pending immigration hearings. Yet, the research literature has been silent on how outcomes for UC can be articulated and operationalized to guide policy and practice. This study fills this gap by exploring how safety, permanency and well‐being may be defined for this population. Seventy‐nine service providers working unaccompanied children in the Midwestern and Northeastern United States participated in 22 focus groups. Findings indicated that safety, permanency, and well‐being are fundamental for UC but include different aspects, such as emotional safety in addition to physical safety, the nuances of legal permanency and placement stability in addition to family reunification, and cultural integration as a factor of well‐being and mental health. This study's results can inform organizational data collection procedures, culturally relevant assessments, and a deeper understanding of the experiences of UC in foster care.

Care of the Immigrant Child.

Care of the Immigrant Child.

The United States detention system for migrants: Patterns of negligence and inconsistency

The United States of America (US) detains more migrants than any other nation. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detain adults and families under the Department of Homeland Security, while unaccompanied minors are housed under the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the Department of Health and Human Services. Migrants are subject to the standards and oversight of each individual agency and facility where they are detained. This paper presents an analysis of whether the current US migrant detention system upholds the standards of each agency to maintain the health of migrants. A review of peer and grey literature, along with interviews with key informants (KI) who had worked in or visited ICE, CBP, or ORR facilities since January 2018 were undertaken. Analysis of the literature review and KI interviews covered five thematic areas: health, protection of vulnerable populations, shelter, food and nutrition, and hygiene. Thirty-nine peer-reviewed publications and 28 US Office of Inspector General reports from 2010 to 2020 were reviewed. Seventeen KI interviews were conducted. Though all three detention agencies had significant areas of concern, CBP's inability to abide by its health standards was particularly alarming. The persistence of low compliance with standards stemmed from weak accountability mechanisms, minimal transparency, and inadequate capacity to provide essential services. We have five recommendations: (1) expand independent monitoring and evaluation mechanisms; (2) standardize health standards across the three agencies; (3) develop a systematic evaluation tool to help external visitors, including members of Congress, assess the degree of implementation of standards; (4) enforce consequences for private contractors who violate standards; and (5) restrict the use of waivers that allow detention facilities to circumvent compliance with standards. Ultimately, the US federal government should explore and implement alternatives to detention to maintain the health and dignity of the individuals under its care.

The Body as Borderland: The Abortion (Non)Rights of Unaccompanied Teens in Federal Immigration Custody in the Trump-Pence Era

In 2017, Scott Lloyd, the newly appointed director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) declared that henceforth pregnant teens in federal immigration custody could not obtain an abortion without his express consent. This quickly proved to be an impossibility on account of Lloyd’s deeply held and religiously saturated antiabortion beliefs. In justifying his denial of consent to all who sought it, Lloyd insisted that ORR had a statutory obligation to provide refuge to the unborn as well as to protect unaccompanied minors in the care and custody of the agency from the trauma of abortion regret.This article focuses on the origins and implementation of Lloyd’s abortion-consent policy within the broader context of the Trump administration’s “pro-life” and anti-immigrant agendas, and its contestation in the much-publicized Garza v. Hargan class-action lawsuit brought by the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. As argued, by mapping these twinned commitments onto the transgressive bodies of undocumented pregnant teens in federal immigration custody, the policy appropriated the seemingly private and intimate in order to both punish these young women by compelling motherhood as a sanction for their infractions and deter those who might otherwise be tempted to breach the Southern border as “abortion tourists.”

On Trial for Being Victims of Trauma: Sexual Abuse of Migrants in ICE Custody

On Trial for Being Victims of Trauma: Sexual Abuse of Migrants in ICE Custody

Reproductive Injustice at the Southern Border and Beyond: An Analysis of Current Events and Hope for the Future.

Reproductive Injustice at the Southern Border and Beyond: An Analysis of Current Events and Hope for the Future.

Setting the Wrong Standard: A Review of Separated:

From 2017 to 2019, Soboroff covered “the greatest human-rights catastrophe” on American soil, uncovering the systematic separation of migrant families at the US-Mexico border, which had become the official policy of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).1 The author’s experience brings a personal element to his fact-based reporting, which skillfully incorporates sources from the DHS, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Health and Human Services (HHS), and global immigration-focused nonprofits. Even when the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) condemned the policy for being an “arbitrary and unlawful interference in family life” and “a serious violation of the rights of the child,” the evasion of responsibility continued.8 In a statement following the accusation, former US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley wrote, “While the High Commissioner’s office ignorantly attacks the United States with words, the United States leads the world with its actions.” After his harrowing descriptions of children wailing for their parents in overcrowded detention centers, it is not surprising that PHR discovered mental health conditions in many of the young children they evaluated.12 In a report from October 2020, PHR detailed the conditions brought about by the trauma of family separation, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, or generalized anxiety disorder.13 In an article for Human Rights Watch, senior quantitative analyst Brain Root explains that family separation in the United States is symptomatic of a much larger global problem: a disregard for the basic human rights of migrants.14 At the height of the Syrian refugee crisis in 2015, xenophobic policies put into place by populist leaders from Italy to Hungary were similarly justified by national security. In 2019, the DHS implemented the Migrant Protection Protocols, or the Remain in Mexico policy, which primarily targeted asylum seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Mexico.17 Under this policy, asylum seekers were forced to wait for delayed asylum hearings in makeshift camps on the other side of the border, where the risk of homicide, femicide, kidnapping, and sexual assault was high.

HHS Found to Be Unprepared for Family Separation Policy

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Government & LegalFull AccessHHS Found to Be Unprepared for Family Separation PolicyKatie O'ConnorKatie O'ConnorSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:24 Apr 2020https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2020.4b8AbstractThe HHS Office of Inspector General identified numerous communication and management challenges that interfered with the preparation and response to the zero-tolerance policy that resulted in the separation of migrant, undocumented children and families.iStock/csfotoimagesAccording to a report by a federal watchdog, communication and management failures within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) left the department ill prepared to care for the thousands of undocumented children who were suddenly separated from their parents after a harrowing journey across the United States–Mexico border.The HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) detailed in a March report the various problems that impeded HHS’s response to the “zero-tolerance” policy issued by the Trump administration in spring 2018. The policy, implemented by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), resulted in the forced separation of more than 2,600 children from their families once they crossed the U.S. border. APA adamantly condemned the practice (see Psychiatric News).The OIG report is based on interviews with staff from 45 care facilities across the country, case reviews from a sample of separated children, and more than 5,000 documents.According to the report, HHS was not notified in advance of the zero-tolerance policy, despite the existence of numerous interagency channels that are meant to facilitate coordination between federal departments. Meanwhile, staff within the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which is responsible for the care of separated children, raised concerns about a significant increase in the number of separated children, yet key senior HHS officials failed to act.“One would have believed that, in light of the ‘zero-tolerance policy,’ decisive leadership would have included processes and protocols to protect the welfare of innocent children, even those who may have illegally entered U.S. borders,” said Kimberly Gordon, M.D., a child and adolescent psychiatrist; former vice chair of APA’s Council on Children, Adolescents, and Their Families; and immediate past president of APA’s Caucus of Black Psychiatrists.Communication challenges plagued the reunification process as well. Care facility staff had problems trying to confirm the relationship between parents and children, delaying reunification.One facility’s lead mental health clinician, who was not identified, stated that “not knowing what happened to their parents haunted the children,” according to the report. “We couldn’t tell them whether they would ultimately be reunited. It was challenging. We weren’t notified initially about how to connect parents with their kids. The kids had lots of questions, but we had no answers for them.”In the March report, OIG recommended that HHS work to improve communication with both other federal agencies and with ORR care facilities, as well as to improve its system of identifying and tracking separated children.The report also recommended that HHS ensure children’s interests are prioritized and represented in decisions, both within HHS and with other agencies. This is meant to “reaffirm that children’s welfare is the core, central mission,” said Ann Maxwell, assistant inspector general for evaluations, in an interview. Some HHS officials expressed to OIG a lack of awareness of the unique challenges of caring for separated children.“In this program, HHS takes legal custody of these children, and with that they take on the responsibility of ensuring their safety and well-being,” Maxwell said.OIG’s recommendations are not mandates, Maxwell explained, but the OIG does have a broad platform to ensure HHS follows its recommendations, such as through reporting to Congress and the public.Gordon said federal agencies can seek counsel from mental health professionals and child welfare agencies to develop protocols that protect the human rights of children. “This is, above all things, a human rights issue.” ■“Communication and Management Challenges Impeded HHS’s Response to the Zero-Tolerance Policy” is posted here. ISSUES NewArchived

APA Condemns Use of Therapy Records in Immigration Cases

APA Condemns Use of Therapy Records in Immigration Cases

Enabling the Best Interests Factors

In February 2020, the media reported that the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR)—an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) charged with the care and custody of unaccompanied immigrant children—was using minors’ admissions of prior gang affiliation during confidential therapy sessions as the sole criteria for “stepping up” children from low-security shelters to more restrictive and punitive detention facilities. ORR was also then sharing the therapy notes with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to use them against children in deportation proceedings. The newspaper article that broke the story noted that while the information sharing between HHS and DHS was “technically legal,” it was “a profound violation of patient confidentiality.” This article argues that these practices are not “technically legal” at all. They are illegal because they violate basic best interests principles now enshrined in the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Recovery Act of 2008 (TVPRA), and, in some instances, they may violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title II), federal anti-discrimination laws designed to protect people with disabilities. The best interests approach “is a dynamic concept that requires an assessment appropriate to the specific context,” and stepping up a child to a more restrictive setting based solely on prior gang affiliation is inconsistent with the procedural aspects of the best interests standard. Moreover, using gang affiliation revealed in therapy sessions as the sole criteria for sending a child to a more restrictive setting may also violate federal anti-discrimination statutes designed to protect children with disabilities. For instance, Section 504 and Title II’s regulations prohibit recipients of federal funds and public entities, respectively, from using “criteria or methods of administration . . . that have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient’s program or activity with respect to handicapped persons.” Because confidentiality is required for therapy to succeed, this policy may unintentionally have the effect of substantially impairing unaccompanied minors from receiving the intended therapeutic benefits of the therapy session. Although gang affiliation is disability neutral on its face, it has a disparate impact on unaccompanied minors with psychosocial disabilities because there is a correlation between gang affiliation and emotional and behavioral disorders.

Practicing Pathology: The Rhetoric of Pathology in Jane Doe's Struggle to Obtain an Abortion in Federal Immigration Custody

In October 2017, the stories of Jane Doe, Roe, and Poe, young women detained at a Texas immigration detention center run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) made national headlines. They were pregnant, undocumented immigrants who were denied access to abortion because the ORR argued that they were “not people for constitutional purposes.” Using rhetorical silence, paternalistic rhetoric, and dehumanizing rhetoric, ORR director Scott Lloyd had the ultimate power of definition that allowed him to rhetorically pathologize these women as undeserving of rights and health care. Tapping into cultural and historical discourses that treat abortion and immigration as pathological and measures of an afflicted society, Lloyd and ORR policy constituted a rhetoric of pathology that demonized these women for their “crimes” of illegal immigration, sex, and requesting abortion. Their stories and the rhetorical strategies used to justify their oppression are particularly important in the continued fight for women's bodily autonomy and immigrant rights in a time of heightened border security, deportation, and family separation.

Immigrant Youth in Juvenile Facilities: A State-by-State Review of Recreation Programming

Recent national events have increased attention towards immigrant youth. Youth placed in juvenile justice facilities go through processes overseen by the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Unaccompanied Children’s Program. While in placement youth are exposed to risk factors and face cultural barriers being in a new country. As publicity of the incarceration of immigrant youth increases, there is an emphatic need for researchers to examine the quality of care youth experience in placement facilities. One of the areas that has not been critically investigated is recreation programming in juvenile justice facilities. Recreation programs grounded in Positive Youth Development have proven to promote healthy development and offer immigrant youth opportunities to adapt to their new environment. Providing youth in juvenile justice facilities access to high quality recreation programming strengthens protective factors in youth to prepare them for adulthood, and reduces the likelihood of their committing an offense, thereby increasing public safety and saving taxpayer dollars. This paper is a first step to establish a clear understanding of the treatment of immigrant youth in detention. In this paper I discuss the results of a comprehensive examination of the minimum requirements for recreation programming in juvenile justice facilities. The results provide clear implications for immigrant youth as well as suggestions for further critical inquiry.