ELMORE STOUTT HIGH SCHOOL ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND M

ELMORE STOUTT HIGH SCHOOL
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND
MANAGEMENT
EDPM ASSIGNMENT # 2 – RESEARCH - EMAIL
CASE
As a member of the computer club at your school, you are
tasked with conducting research to share with your club
members. Conduct research on cloud storage to sensitize the
students in your club.
Your task is to obtain and summarize the information, prepare it
for dissemination via e-mail, and state all sources in an
appropriate bibliography.
DO NOT COPY AND PASTE ANY INFORMATION/CHARTS
FROM WEBSITES, YOU WILL BE PENALIZED.
GUIDELINES
1. Provide: Title and Cover pages
2. Provide a Table of Contents
COMPONENTS OF THE RESEARCH
1. Definition/explanation of what cloud storage is.
2. Difference between cloud and local storage.
3. A table showing five (5) examples of types of cloud storage
options available to users and their cost.
4. Comparison of two types of cloud storage options.
5. Explain two (2) challenges associated with cloud storage.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS

· Utilize Footnotes/Endnotes (two to be used in total; either one
of each, or two of one) 9. Utilize line ending hyphenation (at
least twice)
· Provide a bibliography, using the APA format. You include at
least THREE references, including references from a book,
newspaper and Internet sources.
· Print screen or screen shot’ of a least two web pages used
(Place on separate pages)
· In an e-mail, attach the research paper and the web links used.
· ‘Print screen or screen shot’ the email page, showing:
i) The two attachments (the research document and the web
links)
ii) Multiple recipients addressed inserted in the ‘To, Cc and
Bcc’ sections.
Send To: [email protected]
cc: [email protected] and one other email address [no student
doing EDPM Bcc: 2 other persons, not including students who
are doing the EDPM at ESHS or any other school.
iii) Brief message in the body of the e-mail.
6. Once you have screenshot the email page, insert the
screenshots at the end of your research document.
7. Email the document by October 15, 2021 for electronic
marking.
REMINDERS

· Use a simple cover page; No borders, elaborate font and font
size.
· Use Times New Roman, size 12 for the body of text
· Use Times New Roman, Size 14 for all headings, you may use
all caps or initial caps
· Use appropriate line spacing, TLS after heading and between
paragraphs; DLS between the lines in a paragraph.
· Use appropriate images; Use footnotes or endnotes
meaningfully.
OPIOID EPIDEMIC CASE STUDY 1
Opioid Epidemic Case Study
Gabriela M. Anthony
SPED 620.02
Brett Collins
Opioid Epidemic Case Study
Summary of Topic:
Opioids are often prescribed to patients as pain relievers. This

includes drugs such as
oxycodone, morphine, codeine and fentanyl. Heroin is a very
common illicit opiate that is
derived from morphine. Regardless if the opioids are being used
under the direction of a doctor
or not, prolonged use can lead to dependency and addiction. The
misuse of prescription drugs
includes taking the medication in order to feel high, taking a
prescription that is under another
person’s name, and taking the medication in doses other than
what has been prescribed. Opioids
are highly addictive and prolonged use can have detrimental
effects to a person's life. An
addiction to opioids can lead to overdose and even death
(NIDA). While an overdose can be
While pregnancy is often a motivating factor for many women
to get treatment for their
drug addiction, the reality is this is not the case for everyone.
Mothers who are using drugs,
especially opioids, during pregnancy are putting their child at
risk for developing an addiction.
Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome (NAS) is “a drug-withdrawal
syndrome that most commonly
occurs after in utero exposure to opioids” (Tolia, 2015). The

drugs are passed through the
mothers blood into the placenta. NAS is diagnosed using a “
standardized scale that scores the
infant on the presence and severity of common withdrawal
symptoms” (Tolia, 2015). Once these
babies are born they will be cut off throm their supply this
immediately endearing a state of
withdrawal. Their symptoms of withdrawal begin within the
first 24-72 hours after being born
and often include; high-pitched crying, trembling, trouble
sleeping, and many more. Healthcare
workers may rely on opiate replacement therapy if the child's
symptoms are severe enough. They
may turn to “opioids such as methadone or morphine, and then
weaned off over days to weeks”
(Wachman 2018).
Critique of Current Scientific Evidence:
Despite the increasing prevalence of NAS, the long-term effects
of maternal opiate
dependence have not been researched fully. No one seems to
really be sure of how this can affect

a child’s development. Researchers believe long-term effects
may include developmental delays,
motor problems, and/or behavioural problems however they
have yet to find conclusive evidence
that would support these theories.
Another big issue with the research being done is that “the
preponderance of evidence is based
on low-quality studies that are uncontrolled, use single-center
or retrospective data, have small
sample sizes, or use quality improvement methodologies not
designed for generalizability”
(Wachman, 2018). Tolia et al. article shares that studies are
often limited to hospital records and
rarely turns to firsthand accounts.
One study stated that “To further select infants in whom drug
withdrawal was the primary
reason for NICU admission, we classified infants as having the
neonatal abstinence syndrome
only if the queried phrase was assigned in the first 7 days of
life” (Tolia et al.). This however
may be detrimental to the research because according to
Stanford Children's Health NAS
symptoms can begin to develop up to 10 days after birth.

Additionally, the “severity of
withdrawal is estimated using various scoring systems, the most
common of which is the
Finnegan Neonatal Abstinence Severity Score.” (Logan et al.).
The diagnosis itself is often
estimated by healthcare providers when urine samples can be
done in order to definitively
determine whether a newborn has traces of opiate in their
system.This too would bring more
clarity and allow researchers to have more credible data.
Application and Reflection:
In order to combat NAS more research needs to be done on its
short and long-term
effects. Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU) need more
resources to treat children with NAS.
While the cases have increased, new methods have not been
developed to help treat newborns
who are dealing with withdrawals (Tolia et al.). NICUs shoul d
be a key source of information
regarding the effects of NAS.

There needs to be more intervention strategies for both the
mother and child. First and
foremost there needs to be more focus on the opioid epidemic
itself. The government better
regulate the distribution of opioids. Additionally, doctors who
are prescribing opiates freely need
to be investigated, as they are enabling this behavior. There
needs to be more education about
drug use and abuse. Fear mongering is not always the best way
to get people to stay away from
things. Being open about the short and long-term effects of drug
use people may deter people
from using.
The rise in Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome means that more
women are continuing to
abuse drugs while pregnant. Support groups and rehabilitation
facilities should be more widely
accessible especially to expecting mothers. This should extend
after the child is born to help the
women with their sobriety. Children of parents with opiate
addictions need to have a strong
support system whether this be extended family, their own
support groups, or involvement in the
community.

References
Logan, B. A., Brown, M. S., & Hayes, M. J. (2013). Neonatal
Abstinence Syndrome. Clinical
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 56(1), 186–192.
https://doi.org/10.1097/grf.0b013e31827feea4
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2021, May 17). Opioids.
National Institute on Drug Abuse.
https://www.drugabuse.gov/drug-topics/opioids.
Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome. Stanford Children's Health -
Lucile Packard Children's
Hospital Stanford. (n.d.).
https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=neonatal -
abstinence-syndrome-90-
P02387.
Tolia, V. N., Patrick, S. W., Bennett, M. M., Murthy, K., Sousa,
J., Smith, P. B., Clark, R. H., &
Spitzer, A. R. (2015). Increasing Incidence of the Neonatal
Abstinence Syndrome in U.S.
Neonatal ICUs. New England Journal of Medicine, 372(22),
2118–2126.

https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa1500439
Wachman, E. M., Schiff, D. M., & Silverstein, M. (2018).
Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.
JAMA, 319(13), 1362. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.2640
1Childhood Traumatic Grief: Information for Pediatric
Providers
Why are pediatric providers important for grieving children?
Pediatric providers often support children and families through
the death of a parent, sibling, or other important person.
One in fourteen children will experience the death of someone
close to them by age 181. Following a death, while most
grieving children will successfully adjust to the death in time,
some children may experience a condition called Childhood
Traumatic Grief, in which traumatic stress reactions related to
the death interfere with the child’s ability to grieve and
adjust.
Especially after a death, many families are willing to seek help
for physical complaints. However, they may be reluctant to
ask for help for psychological or emotional issues or be
unaware of a psychological component to physical health.
Pediat-
ric providers are in a unique position to identify children having
ongoing difficulties. Often they are the first professionals
to see a child needing help for Traumatic Grief and, therefore,
in the best position to make referrals.

1 What Is Childhood Traumatic Grief?
Childhood Traumatic Grief is a condition in which children
develop traumatic stress reactions to the death of family mem-
ber, friend, or other important person in their lives. These
symptoms then interfere with the bereavement process. In
Childhood Traumatic Grief, even happy thoughts and memories
of the significant person remind children of the traumatic
way the person died. Children with Traumatic Grief get “stuck”
on the traumatic aspects of the death and cannot proceed
through the normal bereavement process.
Childhood Traumatic
Grief: Information for
Pediatric Providers
One in fourteen children will experience the death of
someone close to them by age 18.
This project was funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), US Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS).
The views, policies, and opinions expressed are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect those of SAMHSA or
HHS.
Providers
2 Who develops Childhood Traumatic Grief?
Children with Childhood Traumatic Grief experience the cause
of death as horrifying or terrifying, whether the death was
sudden and unexpected (e.g., due to homicide, suicide, a school

shooting, motor vehicle accident, drug overdose, natural
disaster, war, terrorism) or due to natural causes (e.g., cancer,
heart attack, stroke). Even if the manner of death does not ap-
pear to others to be sudden, shocking, or frightening, children
who perceive the death in this way may develop posttraumatic
stress reactions that lead to Childhood Traumatic Grief.
3 What are the signs a child might have Childhood
Traumatic Grief?
In Childhood Traumatic Grief, the following traumatic stress
reactions may interfere with the child’s grieving process:
Intrusive reactions such as upsetting thoughts, images,
nightmares, memories, or play about the frightening way the
person died
Physical or physiological distress such as headaches,
stomachaches, symptoms mimicking the way the deceased died,
jumpiness, trouble concentrating
Avoidance reactions such as withdrawal; acting as if not upset
about the death; or avoiding reminders of the person,
the way the person died, places or things related to the person,
or events that led to the death
Negative mood or beliefs related to the traumatic death such as
anger, guilt, shame, self-blame, loss of trust, believing
the world is unsafe
Increased arousal such as irritability, anger, trouble sleeping,
decreased concentration, dropping grades, increased
vigilance, and fears about safety of oneself or others; self-
destructive or risk-taking behaviors (e.g., substance abuse,
suicidality)

Guidance for pediatric trauma screening is available at
https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-
initia-
tives/resilience/Pages/PTSD-Fact-Sheet.aspx.
3 How does Childhood Traumatic Grief impact physical
health?
Childhood Traumatic Grief can have a significant impact on
children’s physical health and be indicated by the foll owing:
Somatic symptoms severe enough to warrant sick-child pediatric
visits
Presentation of new somatic symptoms with no clear underlying
medical cause
Presentation of symptoms that mimic the deceased person’s
cause of death
Significant worsening of existing chronic medical conditions
(e.g., diabetes, asthma)
Noncompliance or decreased compliance with usual medication
regimens
Depressed affect, changes in behavior, and other psychiatric
symptoms
Self-injurious or suicidal behaviors, substance abuse, or other
risky behaviors
Changes in eating or sleeping behaviors
4 How can you assess children with Childhood
Traumatic Grief?

Children with Childhood Traumatic Grief often avoid talking
about death or the person who died. Ask children directly about
their experiences with trauma or the death of an important
person. Not asking may inadvertently communicate to the child
that it is unacceptable to discuss these things with adults. If
your questions make the child’s symptoms worse, this may be
a sign that professional help is warranted. Pediatric providers
often are in the best position to talk to children about trauma
and death because your patients already have a trusting
relationship with you.
initiatives/resilience/Pages/PTSD-Fact-Sheet.aspx
initiatives/resilience/Pages/PTSD-Fact-Sheet.aspx
Providers
You may want to ask the parent to step out of the room during
these conversations, because children with Traumatic Grief are
often overly concerned with causing their parents additional
emotional distress and may deny symptoms in a parent’s pres-
ence to avoid upsetting them. To evaluate the presence of
Childhood Traumatic Grief, pediatric providers can do the
following:
Routinely ask parents and caregivers if their children have
experienced any deaths or traumatic events since their last
visit.
Ask children directly whether anything very scary or upsetting
has happened since the last visit.

Follow up with children and families known to have recently
experienced a death or with children who are approaching
an anniversary or reminder of a death.
Pay particular attention to children who have experienced
traumas in addition to the death of a significant person, as
exposure to additional trauma may worsen Traumatic Grief
symptoms.
Inquire about adjustment to deaths that are seemingly long past,
as grief reactions sometimes surface at later points
in life or developmental stages.
5 What can you do to help children with Traumatic
Grief?
FOR CHILDREN
Assure the child that many children experience similar reactions
following the traumatic death of an important person.
Provide support and assurance that help is available.
Be sensitive when doing invasive medical procedures or
examinations that may somehow remind the child of previous
traumatic experiences or experiences related to the death.
Be aware of the effect of anniversary dates of the loss and
potential reminders of the death (e.g., Mother’s Day, Father’s
Day, holidays) and adjust medical appointments, procedures,
and treatment recommendations in light of how Childhood
Traumatic Grief impacts physical illness and treatment
compliance.
Address treatment compliance issues directly with the child and
parent. If barriers to compliance persist, a mental
health consultation is warranted.

FOR CHILD AND PARENT
Discuss making a referral for specialized treatment with both
the child and parent.
Refer the child to a mental health professional, ideally one who
has experience in treating childhood traumatic stress
and Traumatic Grief.
Encourage the family to call you if additional symptoms or
other concerns arise, or if they have difficulty in arranging
mental health follow-up.
Reassure children and parents that these problems can be
successfully treated and that children can recover with
appropriate help.
FOR PARENTS
Keep materials on hand to educate parents about Childhood
Traumatic Grief (available at https://www.nctsn.org/what-
is-child-trauma/trauma-types/traumatic-grief).
Educate parents about the value of getting professional help for
the child’s Traumatic Grief.
https://www.nctsn.org/what-is-child-trauma/trauma-
types/traumatic-grief
https://www.nctsn.org/what-is-child-trauma/trauma-
types/traumatic-grief
Providers

Where do you find additional information and help?
Effective treatments are available for Childhood Traumatic
Grief and children can return to their normal functioning.
Additional information for children, parents, professionals,
pediatricians, and educators is available at the National
Child Traumatic Stress Network, www.NCTSN.org with
materials specific to Traumatic Grief at www.nctsn.org/trau-
ma-types/traumatic-grief.
Footnotes
https://www.judishouse.org/cbem-methodology-and-sources 1.
Currently two treatment models have scientific evidence of
helping children recover from Childhood Traumatic Grief:
Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) for
children ages 3-18 years and their parents or primary
caregivers provided in 12-15 individual or group sessions. More
information is available here:
https://www.nctsn.org/interventions/trauma-focused-cognitive-
behavioral-therapy
Trauma Grief Components Therapy for Adolescents (TGCT-A)
for teens ages 13-17 years, provided in groups.
More information is available here:
https://www.nctsn.org/interventions/trauma-and-grief-
component-therapy-ad-
olescents
http://www.NCTSN.org
http://www.nctsn.org/trauma-types/traumatic-grief
http://www.nctsn.org/trauma-types/traumatic-grief
https://www.nctsn.org/interventions/trauma-focused-cognitive-
behavioral-therapy

component-therapy-adolescents
component-therapy-adolescents
Home • Resources & Services
P O L I C Y R E S O U R C EP O L I C Y R E S O U R C E
Three Priorities for Babies at the Border
Jul 11, 2019
In recent weeks, families, advocates, policymakers, and
Administration personnel have given us a
window through the walls of migrant detention camps, again
focusing national attention on the life-
altering experiences of families with children crossing the
border. As we learn more about the young
children being held in detention, often separated from their
families and under reportedly grossly
inadequate care, ZERO TO THREE is compelled to reiterate
what decades of research clearly spell out
about the impact of trauma on young children.
Babies’ brains develop at rapid fire speed, and what happens to
them today informs who they will be tomorrow. Young
children being held in detention at the border need our urgent
attention and action. We must act on their behalf
immediately.
There is a common misperception that babies are too young to

be affected by the events around them. In truth, at the
very foundation of babies’ development, intense trauma almost
inevitably creates physiological damage to their brains
and emotional damage that they will carry into the future –
particularly if their needs are not met appropriately and
immediately. Out of deep concern for young children, families,
and the future of our country, ZERO TO THREE remains
in strong, informed opposition to any practice that causes
trauma and long-term harm to children. As we apply our
research-based lens to current immigration practices and debate,
we have three priorities:
Babies do not belong in congregate care or detention.
Research clearly shows that babies’ physical and social
environments have a significant impact on their development.
Even under the best circumstances, caring for young children
outside of community-based family settings deprives
them of the proper care they need to thrive. There is definitive
scientific evidence that being held in congregate care
(24-hour residential facilities for groups of children) or
detention is harmful for young children. In congregate care,
young children are stripped of critical one-on-one relationships
that support healthy brain development. Placing babies
and toddlers in detention centers, even with their families, is
also not a viable option. The only safe placement for

young children is in a family setting. In the unique circumstance
of a young child entering our country with an adult
deemed to be dangerous or unfit to provide care, the young
child must remain in a community-based family setting,
such as with foster parents.
Congregate Care: Science tells us that infants and toddlers need
consistent and personalized care from trusted,
loving adults. When we place migrant babies in congregate care,
as recent reports indicate, we deprive them of the
nurturing relationships they need and derail their development.
In such group settings, multiple adults are
responsible for the care of a child, working rotating shifts, and
are not individuals that the child knows or trusts.
Studies from around the world show that children placed in
congregate care settings experience serious
May we use cookies to track your activities? We take your
privacy very seriously. Please see our privacy policy for details
and any questions.Yes No

https://www.zerotothree.org/
https://www.zerotothree.org/resources
https://www.zerotothree.org/
compromises in cognitive, language, and especially, social
development. Landmark studies of young children
exposed to institutional rearing in Romania show alterations in
the structure and functioning of their brains, and
serious psychiatric and social impairments lasting into
adulthood.
Family Detention: Sending infants and toddlers to institutional
detention is detrimental to their health and well-
being. The contention that children are only temporarily being
held in detention facilities does nothing to change
the impact on their development. Recent reports from detention
camps indicate that children, including babies, are
not being provided with the basics of hygiene and care,
including regular diapering and nutritious food. Beyond
these violations to basic needs, detention places children in an
environment of confinement, deprivation of stimuli -
and in some cases, overstimulation - and developmentally
inappropriate and often harsh treatment, which cause
severe stress for both the children and their caregivers.

Historically, evaluations of children who have been detained,
even with their families, reveal alarming outcomes, with many
children displaying developmental delays and signs of
emotional disturbance such as a short attention span,
aggression, withdrawal, difficulty coping, and learning
difficulties. If the legal protections established for children’s
care in such facilities (including time limits and
regulations) are not adhered to, or are reversed, infants,
toddlers, and their families in detention facilities are
vulnerable to prolonged stays, abuse, and neglect. Further
compounding the risks to their well-being, families in
detention may face inadequate access to services including the
medical and mental health care they so desperately
need.
Families who have been separated must be reunified
immediately, and
the practice of separating children from their parents must not
continue.
While the practice of separating children from their families
was prohibited by Executive Order, it is evident from
reports out of detention camps that this practice continues, with
very young children removed from the adults who
care for them, and reportedly turned over to unrelated older
children for their care. While the rapid development of

infants and toddlers makes them particularly vulnerable to
trauma, families offer an essential buffer to those
experiences. When children are separated from their parents
after crossing the border, that primary bond is severed.
This causes stress hormones to flood babies’ brains, disrupting
their neurological circuitry in ways that profoundly
affect their short- and long-term physical and emotional health,
and their ability to form relationships and learn. That
trauma is compounded when children are placed in the care of
strangers untrained to care for young children, either
older children or adults who are ill-equipped to protect them,
much less nurture their healthy development. The broad
consensus of researchers and practitioners is that to continue to
separate families in this way is tantamount to child
abuse. Additionally, children who have already been separated
must be immediately reunited with their caregivers,
providing them with the close relationship they need to cope
with the trauma they have undergone.
Young children who have been held in detention and/or have
been
separated from their families need access to voluntary infant
and early
childhood mental health services and support.
Decades of psychological and brain research have demonstrated
that adverse experiences during the first three years,

including forced parental separation and placement in
incarceration-like settings, can have profound immediate and
long-term harm on child development. In the short-term,
children may experience anxiety, depression, and self-
regulatory issues, including sleeplessness or eating issues. Over
time, they may show regression in behavior and
cognition, and demonstrate symptoms of post-traumatic stress
disorder. This type of trauma, particularly when not
addressed by an experienced and trusted clinician, has severe
implications for both physical and emotional health over
time, increasing young children’s risk for learning difficulties,
problems forming relationships, and adult health issues.
Caregivers, who are also deeply psychologically and
physiologically impacted by their recent experiences, also need
support to provide their children with the care they need. When
families have been separated, reunification itself may
be difficult, as separated young children don’t have the capacity
to understand what has transpired and may feel
abandoned by their parents. This is complex work, requiring a
focus on both parent and child, and requiring specialized
expertise and developmentally appropriate, evidence-based
support. Infant and early childhood mental health
professionals across the United States are able to help, but they

need pathways to families.Individuals interested in
connecting families with IECMH professionals can utilize this
directory
(https://www.zerotothree.org/resources/preview/98cd198a-8f4f-
4811-b6ed-fb09c7c19c5a) to find a contact in their
state.
As experts in early childhood development, we know that every
day matters for the well-being of babies and toddlers
who have experienced trauma at the border and elsewhere.
Appropriate support and treatment are urgently needed,
and time is truly of the essence for the protection and care of
young children’s rapidly developing brains. As we
consider babies at the border, we must use what decades of
science and research tell us to inform policy and practice
decisionsright now.Their future – and the best interests of our
nation – depend onit.
Take Action
Be a Big Voice for Little Kids
We have three simple ways for you to make a difference for
traumatized babies at the border.
ACT NOW!
(HTTPS://WWW.ZEROTOTHREE.ORG/RESOURCES/PREVIE
W/E500F20B-041E-47DF-B179-
C4BA3215802C)
Copyright © 2019 ZERO TO THREE All rights reserved.

https://www.zerotothree.org/resources/preview/98cd198a-8f4f-
4811-b6ed-fb09c7c19c5a
https://www.zerotothree.org/resources/preview/e500f20b-041e-
47df-b179-c4ba3215802c
Statement by Center Director Jack
P. Shonkoff, M.D. on Separation of
Families
The policy of separating families is a critical issue that
transcends political
ideology and partisanship and speaks to the heart of what the
mission of the
Center on the Developing Child is all about.
June 20, 2018
Two critical concepts at the core of our understanding of early
childhood development stand out
from decades of scientific research. First, healthy brain
development in babies and young children
requires the consistent availability of a stable, responsive, and
supportive relationship with at least
one parent or primary caregiver. Second, high and persistent
levels of stress can disrupt the
architecture of the developing brain and other biological
systems, with serious negative impacts

on learning, behavior, and lifelong physical and mental heal th.
Sudden, forcible separation of children from their parents is
deeply traumatic for both. Above
and beyond the visible distress “on the outside,” this
overwhelming experience triggers a massive
Menu
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/about/
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/key-concepts/serve-
and-return/
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/key-concepts/toxic-
stress/
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/about/press/shonkoff-
statement-separating-families/#nav
Print this page Subscribe to our mailing list! " # "
biological stress response inside the child, which remains
activated until that familiar caregiver
returns. Even more important, continuing separation removes
the most important resource a child
can possibly have to buffer the effects of toxic stress—a
responsive adult who’s totally devoted to
that child’s well-being. Stated simply, each day we fail to return
these children to their parents,
we compound the harm and increase its lifelong consequences.

There are multiple ways to mitigate this potential damage, but
the best thing we could do for
the children who have been separated from their parents at the
border is to reunite them
immediately. If children were being fed poison and someone
asked, “What’s the best treatment?”,
the best answer is not to come up with an antidote. The solution
is to stop poisoning them in the
first place.
Jack P. Shonkoff, M.D.
Founding Director
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University
See also: Migrant Family Separation Congressional Testimony
by Jack P. Shonkoff, M.D. –
February 7, 2019
More resources on this topic "
Ab out the C enterAb out the C enter
S cienceS cience
Innovation & ApplicationInnovation & Application
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/#facebook
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/#twitter

https://developingchild.harvard.edu/#email
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/#copy_link
https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fdevelop
ingchild.harvard.edu%2Fabout%2Fpress%2Fshonkoff-
statement-separating-
families%2F&title=Statement%20by%20Center%20Director%20
Jack%20P.%20Shonkoff%2C%20M.D.%20on%20Separation%2
0of%20Families%20-
%20Center%20on%20the%20Developing%20Child%20at%20Ha
rvard%20University
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/about/press/shonkoff-
statement-separating-families/print/
http://harvardcenter.wpengine.com/contact/
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/about/press/media-
coverage/separation-detention-migrant-children/
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/p eople/jack-shonkoff/
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/about/press/migrant-family-
separation-congressional-testimony-dr-jack-p-shonkoff/
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/about/
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/innovation-application/
Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions
© 20192019 The President and Fellows of Harvard College
C ollective ChangeC ollective Change
Resource Librar yResource Librar y
S earchS earch$
Site MapSite Map
InstagramInstagram

YouTub eYouTub e
Faceb o okFaceb o ok
TwitterTwitter
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/privacy
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/terms-and-conditions
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/collective-change/
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/?s=
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/site-map/
https://www.instagram.com/developingchildharvard/
https://www.youtube.com/user/HarvardCenter
https://www.facebook.com/CenterDevelopingChild/
https://twitter.com/HarvardCenter
750 First Street NE, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20002-4241
SocialWorkers.org
The primary mission
of the social work
profession is to enhance
human well-being and
help meet the basic
human needs of all

people, with particular
attention to the needs
and empowerment
of people who are
vulnerable, oppressed,
and living in poverty.
The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) is the
largest
membership organization of professional social workers in the
world,
with nearly 130,000 members. NASW works to enhance the
professional
growth and development of its members, to create and maintain
professional standards, and to advance sound social policies.
Social Justice Brief
CONTRIBUTORS:
Will Francis, LMSW
Government Relations Director, NASW–Texas Chapter
Allan Wachendorfer, LMSW
Director of Public Policy, NASW–Michigan Chapter
Mel Wilson, LCSW, MBA
Manager, Department of Social Justice & Human
Rights, National Association of Social Worker

Migrant and Asylum-Seeking Families:
Analysis of Federal Government Policies and Procedures
» 1 «
This NASW social justice brief is intended to
present a comprehensive analysis of the
complexities of that human rights crisis and
the challenges that it poses related to
» “ground-level” systems of adult and
child detention procedures;
» the conditions of detention;
» social work involvement in both adult
detention and child-welfare policies
and service delivery;
» legal due process protections for
affected families and minors;
» scope and capacities of family
detention facilities; and
» challenges related to child welfare,
foster care, and family reunification.
The brief includes recommendations for
policy reforms, best practices for justice,
and comprehensive approaches to
Migrant and Asylum-Seeking Families:
Analysis of Federal Government Policies and Procedures

National policies on responding to families and unaccompanied
minors,
particularly those entering at the Mexico-U.S. border, recently
took a sharp turn
as the Trump administration implemented the so-called zero-
tolerance policy.
This policy - when coupled with family separation policies–has
blurred the lines
between how families and children are traditionally processed
when they cross
the border. As we know by now, the results have been that these
unclear and
rushed procedures have contributed to potentially life-long harm
to both parents
and children who are entangled in this morass.
UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN (UAC)
APPREHENSIONS BY COUNTRY
COUNTRY FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
FY 2016 FY 2017 FYTD 2018
El Salvador 5,990 16,404
9,389 17,512 9,143
2,690
Guatemala 8,068 17,057
13,589 18,913 14,827

16,480
Honduras 6,747 18,244
5,409 10,468 7,784
6,350
Mexico 17,240 15,634
11,012 11,926 8,877
6,690
Source: www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/usbp-sw-border-
apprehensions
» 2 «
addressing the psychosocial needs of
immigrant children families.
Background
Migrant asylum-seeking families and
unaccompanied migrant children have been
crossing the Mexico-U.S. border for many
years. The chart shows a statistical picture of
the persistent movement of children to the
United States by their country of origin. The
trek for most of the children—and asylum-
seeking families—can be close to 2,000
miles. It is well documented that children and
their parents make such a perilous journey
due to the violent and terrible economic
conditions in their country of origin. Once at
the border, the families (or unaccompanied
children) can either declare themselves as

asylum-seeking families or unaccompanied
migrant children or illegally cross into the
United States and face a minor misdemeanor
charge under federal law.
Either scenario places their case within the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), and their first contact in the
United States will be an official from that
agency. U.S. Customs and Border Protection,
the largest federal law enforcement agency
within the DHS, is responsible for processing
asylum seekers and unaccompanied children.
The second official contact for asylum-seeking
adults is DHS’s United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services Bureau (USCIS).
Prior to the Trump administration’s zero-
tolerance and family separation policies,
the government agencies managed the
unaccompanied migrant children and asylum
seeker processes with bureaucratic
efficiencies, although there were flaws in the
system. However, the announcement of zero
tolerance by Attorney General Sessions not
only exacerbated the deficiencies in our
current system, but also created a policy and
human rights crisis.
Far-Reaching Anti-Immigration
Policies That Prolong Family
Separation
Zero-tolerance and family separation
immigration policies did not emerge from a
vacuum. As early as March of 2017, it was

becoming clear that DHS had internal
discussions about formulating and implementing
a policy of separating children from their
parents at the border. At the time, the Trump
administration’s stated goal was to deter
mothers from making the arduous journey
with their children from Central America to
the U.S. border.
The architects of the family separation policy
did not move to actualize it until later.
Between July and October 2017 the Trump
administration initiated a zero-tolerance “pilot
program” in El Paso, Texas. During that
period, court records and interviews with
migrants reveal that federal prosecutors were
aggressive in criminally charging any adult
who entered the United States without
documentation. What was significant about
the pilot program was that migrant parents
with young children were not exempt from
being charged. The administration was able
to simultaneously test its zero-tolerance and
family separation strategies.
The Trump administration saw its crackdown
as a deterrent that would reduce the number
of undocumented people—especially
families—coming to the United States. However,
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/06/centr
al-america-border-immigration/563744/

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-
zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-
zero-tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/19/ag-
jeff-sessions-trumps-unwavering-voice-zero-
tolerance/714035002/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-trumps-family-
separation-policy-has-become-what-it-is-today
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-children-
idUSKBN16A2ES
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-children-
idUSKBN16A2ES
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-
crisis/trump-admin-ran-pilot-program-separating-migrant-
families-2017-n887616
crisis/trump-admin-ran-pilot-program-separating-migrant-
families-2017-n887616
crisis/lucky-ones-maria-her-son-crossed-border-perfect-
moment-n886106
crisis/lucky-ones-maria-her-son-crossed-border-perfect-
moment-n886106
» 3 «
data reported by DHS in July 2018 suggest that
the zero-tolerance policy has had little effect.
The data show that, from May to June, the
number of arrested by the U.S. Border Patrol

dipped a meager 0.4 percent. Ironically, some
of that drop can be attributed to normal
reductions of crossings due to increased
temperature in the Southwest during that period.
More recently, the Trump administration made
a series of policy and procedural changes
that affirmed its parent–child separation intent.
For example, in June of 2018, DHS officials
began requiring that asylum-seeking parents
sign a form that gave them a two-option
ultimatum: (1) voluntarily leave the United States
with their children or (2) be deported, leaving
their children behind. There are indications
that the form is even being given to asylum
seekers who have passed a credible fear test
hearings before an immigration judge.
DHS has further exacerbated the already
confusing and ill-planned family separation
crisis by implementing the Trump
administration’s policy of intentionally denying
bond to some parents who have been separated
from their children. These parents are eligible
to apply for asylum. Under this policy, parent–
child separation is further and unnecessarily
extended. The administration has taken these
steps in spite of the fact that on June 2
through 6, 2018, a federal judge ordered the
Trump administration to take immediate steps
to reunify separated families. Migrants who
are denied bail have a right to appeal.
However, the appeal process is lengthy.
It is noteworthy that the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) increased the number of
immigration judges in anticipation of an influx

of immigration cases. DOJ also pressured
judges to expedite deportation cases to such
a degree that in August 2018, immigration
judges complained that DOJ is undermining
their independence by reassigning cases to
maximize deportations. In fact, the National
Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ) filed
a labor grievance against the DOJ after
Attorney General Sessions overrode an
immigration judge’s decision and removed
dozens of cases from the judge’s caseload.
After a person passes a credible fear interview,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) deportation officers will make a bond
determination. This is what the individual must
pay to be released from detention while his or
her case is being adjudicated. On average,
immigration bonds are close to $1,500.
Though the asylum seeker’s bond money is
reimbursed after their case is resolved, many
cannot afford to pay bail. As a result, the
parent faces a double barrier to being
released as they await their hearing. The
parent is either being denied bail or is unable
to afford bail. Needless to say, few parents
post bail.
Perhaps one of the more insidious “under the
radar” policy changes that affects asylum-
seeking adults attempting to become
financially viable while awaiting adjudication
is the rescinding of an Obama-era employment
guidance by Attorney General Sessions in
June of 2018. The 2011 guidance, issued by

the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration
Unfair Employment Practices, ensured asylum
seekers were authorized to work indefinitely
and could obtain Social Security cards
“without employment restrictions.” Sessions
deemed working rights protections to be
“unnecessary, outdated, inconsistent with
existing law,” and had been imposed without
congressional approval.
http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/i/today/z_creative/iceform.jpg
http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/07/19/children-coerce-
parents-signing-deportation/
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-
asylum/asylum/questions-answers-credible-fear-screening
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/07/ice-family-
separation-bond-denial-1/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/07/ice-family-
separation-bond-denial-1/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/26/us/politics/family-
separations-congress-states.html
http://thehill.com/latino/401011-immigration-judges-lash-out-
against-sessions
http://thehill.com/latino/401011-immigration-judges-lash-out-
against-sessions
https://www.uscis.gov/ humanitarian/refugees-
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/attorney-general-jeff-
sessions-rescinds-guidance-safeguarding-the-right-of-refugees-
asylum-seekers-to-work-in-the-us/ar-
AAzybVg?ocid=spartandhp

» 4 «
Collectively, anti-immigrant policies implemented
by the Trump administration have produced
almost insurmountable barriers for migrants
and asylum-seeking parents. It is likely that the
executive actions are tied to a comprehensive
zero-tolerance initiative. Ultimately, they create
conditions that will ensure that an increasing
number of separated children will be placed in
an Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) facility.
This will also make family reunification far more
difficult and increase the amount of additional
trauma the children and families experience.
Asylum Protections
Asylum seekers fit into a special category
which is defined as a protection granted to
foreign nationals already in the United States
or at the border who meet the international
law definition of a “refugee.” The United
Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol
define a refugee as a person who is unable
or unwilling to return to his or her home
country, and cannot obtain protection in that
country, due to past persecution or a
well-founded fear of being persecuted in the
future “on account of race, religion,

nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion.” Congress
incorporated this definition into U.S.
immigration law in the Refugee Act of 1980.
Because the United States signed the 1967
Protocol -and through U.S. immigration law- it
has a presumed legal obligations to provide
protection to those who qualify as refugees.
The Refugee Act established two paths to
obtain refugee status—either from abroad as
a resettled refugee or in the United States as
an asylum seeker.
Impact of Trump Administration
Policies on Adults and Children
Migrant Family Detention
To begin with, it’s important to clarify that
in this brief we will not be focusing on
unaccompanied migrant children, but rather
on children who are part of a detained family
unit. Since the implementation of zero-tolerance,
the distinction between these two groups has
been blurred, and DHS has been combining
these two separate groups into one.
There were nearly 49,000 adults and children
within family units apprehended at the
U.S.-Mexico border between January and
June of 2018. According to U.S. Customs
and Border Protection data, this is over twice
the number of family apprehensions as
compared with those of the previous year.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-
united-states

united-states
http://www.refworld.org/docid/3be01b964.html
united-states
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/06/border-
apprehensions-of-migrant-families-have-risen-substantially-so-
far-in-2018/
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/07/06/border-
apprehensions-of-migrant-families-have-risen-substantially-so-
far-in-2018/
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
» 5 «
During May 2018—the first month when the
zero-tolerance and family separation policies
were fully implemented—border agents
apprehended 9,485 family members at the
Southwest border. Though there was an
increase as compared to apprehensions in
May 2017, it is fewer people than in the
same period of 2014 (12,772 apprehensions).
The increase that began in 2013 was an
immigration spike due to increases in border
crossings among Central American children.
The administration’s zero-tolerance policy
resulted in a total of 2,342 children being
separated from families between May 5 and
June 9 of 2018. Close to 2,000 adults from
those families were referred for prosecution.

However, analyses of DHS records suggest
that more than 4,100 children have been
separated since October 2016.
The merging of children categorized as
unaccompanied minors with those removed
from families seeking asylum has generated a
significant rule change—one also designed to
deter asylum seeking families—that clearly
blended these two different groups to frighten
and therefore discourage families with
legitimate claims from seeking solace and
support in the United States. This change
ensures that DHS will process children of
asylum-seeking parents through different
paths from their parents. The parents will go
through the criminal justice system; the
children go through the ORR’s child-welfare
system. Perhaps reflecting the obvious scrutiny
that the administration has received about
early childhood trauma from family
separation, HHS designated three facilities as
tender age centers (a tender age child is
defined as any child under the age of 13).
As a result, the 572 children separated from
their parents—and yet to be reunited—will be
lumped in with the 30,000 unaccompanied
migrant children referred to ORR thus far in
2018. The immediate concern is that ORR’s
child placement centers lack needed capacity
and oversight as they face pressure to place
these children.
Children Required to Appear at
Immigration Hearings Alone

When asylum-seeking children are labeled as
unaccompanied migrants, this status forces
them to go before an immigration court to
determine if they qualify for refugee status
without their parents present. Procedures for
processing asylum and immigration petitions
have on occasion reached the point of
absurdity. There have been reports of children
as young as three years old being made to
appear alone in immigration court for
deportation hearings. Although having
unaccompanied minors go through deportation
hearings without a parent or guardian is not
new, since the administration’s family
separation policy an increased number of
preteen children—including toddlers—are
being required to appear alone, exposing
them to further trauma.
Some of the children recently separated from
their parents could likely be asked to endure
court proceedings—which they often cannot
possibly comprehend or understand if they do
not speak English—even as they emotionally
struggle with the ongoing trauma of being
taken from their parents. Prior to the zero-
tolerance policy, parents were usually taken
to immigration court along with their young
children. During those hearings, the parent,
not the child, was asked to explain the
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/10/number-of-
latino-children-caught-trying-to-enter-u-s-nearly-doubles-in-
less-than-a-year/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna887616?__twitter_imp
ression=true

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/dhs-
proposal-would-change-rules-for-minors-in-immigration-
detention/2018/05/09/267af486-4f00-11e8-b725-
92c89fe3ca4c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dc01c155a
304
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/dhs-
proposal-would-change-rules-for-minors-in-immigration-
detention/2018/05/09/267af486-4f00-11e8-b725-
92c89fe3ca4c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dc01c155a
304
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/20/politics/immigration-border-
separations-tender-age-shelters/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/local/tracking-
migrant-family-
separation/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2402dcafddab
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/surge-migrant-children-
government-shelters-trump-admin-pushes-zero-tolerance-
n878601
n878601
n878601
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/27/immigrant-toddlers-
ordered-appear-court-alone/
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/27/immigrant-toddlers-
ordered-appear-court-alone/
» 6 «
circumstances that led the family to seek
asylum in the United States.

We should be reminded that the children’s
health is predicated on a foundational
relationship with a caring adult—especially a
parent. When children are separated from
their parents, their stress hormones respond
with intensity, which can lead to developmental
delays. Children develop speech slower, their
motor skills don’t come along as quickly as
they should, and they start to have difficulty
forming proper attachments with other
human beings.
As pointed out by the head of the American
Academy of Pediatrics, the presence of a
social worker isn’t enough to mitigate those
effects. The younger the child—and the longer
they are in this stressful situation—the more
challenging it is to reverse the damage. Early
traumatic experiences can have lifelong
consequences, often leading to learning
disabilities, high risk for drug and alcohol
abuse, and potentially even higher risk of heart
disease or cancer when they become adults.
Trump Rescinds Family Separation
Policy, But Keeps the Zero-Tolerance
Policy in Place
In June 2018, under pressure from family and
child advocates, Trump signed an executive
order rescinding his family separation
immigration policy. However, in announcing
the change in family separations, the President
“doubled down” on his zero-tolerance policy.
By doing so, he made an already murky
situation cloudier. The truth is that his new
executive order ending the family separation

policy did not resolve the problem of
reunifying the 3,000 children who at that
time were already separated.
Family Has Long Been Plan A: Flores
Agreement’s Role in Preventing Its
Implementation
A policy of prolonged family detention is not
without legal challenges. The Flores settlement—
the court ruling that prevented children from
being kept in immigration detention with their
parents for more than 20 days—has been a
standard for over 20 years. However, in spite
of Flores, Attorney General Sessions announced
that the government had begun detaining
families throughout the completion of the
adjudication of their immigration cases. That
duration could easily mean months of detention
(or longer) for some asylum seekers. In fact,
well before Sessions’ announcement, President
Trump had argued that he should have the
power to detain migrant families who cross
the U.S.-Mexico border together.
The administration sought to modify the
Flores settlement agreement to allow for
the detention of children beyond 20 days.
However, in July 2018, a federal judge in
California pointedly rejected the
administration’s request. The U.S. District
Court judge stated the administration’s
request was “wholly without merit.” She
found that “nothing prevents the government
from reconsidering their current policy of
family detention and reinstating

prosecutorial discretion.”
The challenges to family separation continue.
For instance, in the summer of 2018, the
American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal
lawsuit (Ms. L v. ICE case) seeking to reunite
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/6/18/17475810/i mmigration-family-separation-
health-crisis
politics/2018/6/18/17475810/immigration-family-separation-
health-crisis
health-crisis
health-crisis
health-crisis
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-executive-end-family-
separation-at-border-immigration-today-2018-06-20/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-executive-end-family-
separation-at-border-immigration-today-2018-06-20/
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17443198/children-immigrant-
families-separated-parents
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17484546/executive-order-
family-separation-flores-settlement-agreement-immigration
https://www.justice.gov/opa/case-
document/file/1077076/download?utm_medium=email&utm_sou
rce=govdelivery
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-judge-rejects-
trump-administrations-bid-to-alter-rules-on-detaining-
minors/ar-AAzORNC?ocid=spartandhp

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-judge-rejects-
trump-administrations-bid-to-alter-rules-on-detaining-
minors/ar-AAzORNC?ocid=spartandhp
» 7 «
an asylum-seeking mother and her 7-year-old
daughter fleeing violence in the Democratic
Republic of Congo. Upon entering the United
States, the mother and child were forcibly
separated and placed apart in detention centers
over 2,000 miles apart. As a result of the suit,
a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump
administration from deporting parents and
children that it forcibly separated. The Judge
also temporarily put a hold on all family
separation deportations until further briefing
Jail-Like Conditions in Family
Detention Facilities
One of the most problematic aspects of family
detention polices under zero-tolerance is that
families are placed in settings identical to
jails. In a family detention model, the entire
family is part of a criminal case. Therefore,
their detention is incarceration and they are
not free to leave unless they are granted bail.
In the facilities currently used for long-term
family detention conditions and restrictions
exist for parents and children similar to jails.
For example, in Berks County, Pennsylvania,
bright lights reportedly keep children from
sleeping well, and they can be disciplined if
they try to climb into a parent’s bed for comfort.

Alternatives to Family Detention
These conditions are not necessary, as there are
alternatives to family detention. Significantly,
national law enforcement leaders have taken
a lead on making this point. In June of 2018,
over 50 high-ranking members of the Law
Enforcement Immigration Task Force signed
on to a letter to congressional leadership,
asking them to consider evidence-based
alternatives to family detention that also
ensure families attend immigration hearings
and keep required related appointments.
Some of the alternatives include regulated
and mandated check-ins with law enforcement,
communication with authorities by telephone,
linking families to community-based
psychosocial services, or electronic
monitoring of some individuals.
Studies show that asylum seekers are very
compliant in appearing for their immigration
court hearings, with around 90 percent of
children attending immigration proceedings
when a lawyer is present. The Family Case
Management pilot program was a proven
alternative to detention, yet it was terminated
last year by the Trump administration. The
program was highly successful with the families
present for hearings over 99 percent of the
time. As stated by many law enforcement
officials, immigrant families are not threats to
national security. Furthermore, there is a
consensus that incarcerating asylum-seeking
families does not make our communities safer.

Until recently, there was an effort to divert
families from detention. As previously
mentioned, the Family Case Management
Program was a promising program that
served 1,600 individuals between 2015,
when it was introduced by the DHS, and
2017. Instead of keeping children in detention
centers with their parents, families in certain
cities were released and monitored by social
workers, who helped them find lawyers,
housing, and transportation, and made sure
they attended their court hearings. The program
was designed to have social workers assume
community supervision duties until the
immigration court decided the fate of the family.
Using alternatives to family detention saves
taxpayer dollars and creates opportunities to
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/long-term-detention-
mothers-and-children-pennsylvania
https://leitf.org/2018/06/law-enforcement-leaders-urge-
alternatives-family-detention/
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/taking-
attendance-new-data-finds-majority-children-appear-
immigration-court
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/taking-
attendance-new-data-finds-majority-children-appear-
immigration-court
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-ended-successful-migrant-
monitoring-program-because-didnt-deport-enough-

bd506068c05c/
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-ended-successful-migrant-
monitoring-program-because-didnt-deport-enough-
bd506068c05c/
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/03/09/p
eds.2017-0483.full-text.pdf
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CFO/17_05
24_U.S._Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement.pdf
reinvest detention budgets to more productive
programs. In fiscal 2018, it cost ICE over
$200 per day to keep a family in detention;
detaining a person in a specialized family
detention is more than $300. Alternatives to
detention cost only around $5 or $6 per
person. Perhaps more important, alternative
programs do not result in detaining very small
children, taking children away from their
parents, or implementing policies that violate
basic American values.
Reunification: Overburdened
Child-Welfare Centers
The highest priority for children who have
already been separated from their families
and are in the custody of ORR is reunification.
This also appears to be the most difficult
challenge. Because zero-tolerance and family
separation were so poorly planned, there
seems to be little or no interagency
coordination between DHS and HHS. The

plan of identifying all children using the names
of their parents and the country of origin as
the primary identifiers is fraught with
challenges. Incredibly, when Trump rescinded
his family separation policy, it was clear that
HHS was struggling to even begin to reunify
over 3,000 children with their parents.
Recognizing the Needs of
Detained Parents
Understandably, there has been much anger
and outrage about the aggressively anti-
immigrant policies are directed at the plight of
children. However, we must not overlook the
vulnerable adults in this drama. During the
first 15 months of the Trump administration,
nearly 100,000 immigrants were
apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Over one-third of that total, more than
37,500, were unaccompanied minors and
most of the rest were the 61,000 members of
family units. We know that the children were
initially placed in an ICE family shelter. After
48 hours, the children who entered the country
with a family could stay with their parents
while the parent(s) awaited the outcome of their
request for asylum. This was euphemistically
referred to as catch and release. However,
zero-tolerance changed all of that.
Once the administration decided to place an
emphasis on criminalizing immigrant border
crossings by asylum-seeking families and
undocumented individuals, DHS and DOJ
developed plans for resulting increases in

detentions. Correspondingly, the administration
planned for increased incarcerations and
adjudications in immigration courts.
From the beginning, the administration
anticipated the need for more detention beds
for adults. During FY 2017, the daily population
in ICE detention facilities was around
38,000. Tellingly, President Trump’s FY 2018
budget’s detention beds plan included request
for $1.5 billion to significantly expand
detention capacity at the border and in the
interior to 51,379 detention beds. Under the
current “detention bed mandate,” the
government is required to fill a minimum of
34,000 beds in immigrant detention centers
per night. The budget also proposes $177
million for the Alternatives to Detention Program
and $485 million for transportation costs.
As early as February 2017, Attorney General
Sessions reversed an Obama decision that
had ended government contracts with private
prison corporations. The move was a
http://thehill.com/opinion/immigration/394732-family-
detention-is-not-the-solution-to-family-separation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/despite-
vow-to-end-catch-and-release-trump-has-freed-100000-who-
illegally-crossed-the-border/2018/04/13/839c778e-3754-11e8-
acd5-35eac230e514_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-
checker/wp/2018/06/19/the-facts-about-trumps-policy-of-
separating-families-at-the-
border/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.acefe9feb1c1
https://www.us-immigration.com/us-immigration-news/us-

immigration/catch-and-release-policy-for-undocumented-
immigrants-reinstated/
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2017/10/26/560257834/as-it-makes-more-arrests-ice-looks-
for-more-detention-centers
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/immigration-in-trumps-fy2018-
budget/
» 9 «
precursor to implementing a zero-tolerance
policy. Private prisons had the ability to
accept detainees on short notice and had
existing unused capacity. Moreover, private
prison companies had experience in housing
detained undocumented immigrants, and ICE
has already been relying on them to absorb
increased detentions during the Obama
administration. Given the administration’s
public commitment to increase immigrant
detentions, Attorney General Sessions took
steps to ensure the resource of private prisons
was available for use.
Human Rights and Injustice Aspects
of Immigration Detention
Due Process
It is not uncommon for asylum-seeking
migrants—including parents traveling with
their children—to be held in detention for
many months, while their asylum cases are
being adjudicated. One of the reasons for
these prolonged incarcerations is the high
rate of denial of parole by DHS officials. In

response to this problem, a class action
lawsuit was filed to challenge denials of
parole that cause thousands of asylum
seekers to be held in detention.
While a recent Supreme Court decision held
that the government is not obligated to
guarantee detention hearings for asylum
seekers detained for a long period of time,
release on parole continues to be a right for
detainees. The government affirmed in court
oral arguments that, as policy, it grants
paroles to arriving asylum seekers who meet
the credible fear test, as well as flight risk and
dangerousness criteria.
However, since the beginning of 2017, ICE
appears to have disregarded DHS written
policy on parole. In as many as five ICE
districts, an average of 96 percent of arriving
asylum seekers were denied parole.
Advocates have determined through Freedom
of Information documents that many of those
who were denied parole demonstrated that
they met the criteria for eligibility for being
release on parole.
Lack of Access to Legal Services
The increase in arrest and detention of asylum
seekers has led human rights advocates,
including social workers, to voice concerns
that the detained parents do not have a
constitutional right to government-funded legal
counsel. Because nearly all migrants are
low-income, they cannot afford to hire an
attorney. They are often unrepresented in

legal proceedings or dependent on pro bono
attorneys, if available. Retaining a lawyer
can make the difference for incarcerated
asylum seekers:
» Nationally, only 14 percent of imprisoned
immigrants are represented in
deportation proceedings.
» If an immigration detainee has counsel,
he or she is over 10 times as likely to
avoid deportation.
» Immigrants incarcerated in detention
facilities are seven times as likely to be
granted bond if they have an attorney.
» ICE detention centers are often located in
remote areas. This is a significant barrier
to getting pro bono lawyers.
» Prison conditions are impediments to access
and communications with an attorney.
› In one large detention center in Texas,
there are only three attorney-visitation
rooms for nearly 1,900 detainees.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doj-private-prisons-
sessions_us_58af529ce4b0a8a9b780669a
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/parole_litig
ation_Mar15.pdf
https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/parole_litig
ation_Mar15.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transc
ripts/2017/15-1204_2c83.pdf
https://www.justsecurity.org/53890/holding-asylum-seekers-
parole-unlawful/

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/us-detention-asylum-
seekers-and-human-rights
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/ijp_access_case.pdf
» 1 0 «
› Attorneys are frequently subjected to
waits of longer than an hour—and
sometimes two or three hours—to see
their clients.
› The visitation rooms do not have
telephones, and attorneys are prohibited
from bringing their own telephone.
› There is often no way to call interpreters.
The significance of addressing this compromised
due process and limited access to legal counsel
for asylum seekers is seen through the U.S.
government action. Under “zero-tolerance” it
has reinforced its prosecutorial capacity. In
May 2017, DOJ announced hiring 35 new
assistant U.S. attorneys, all of whom will be
assigned to the Southwest border. In addition,
DOJ has assigned 18 supervisory immigration
judges to hear immigration cases near the
Southeast border.
The DOJ’s increase in its adjudication staff is
based on data from DHS showing a 203
percent increase in the number of people

apprehended at the border or who arrived at
ports of entry without entry documents
between March 2017 and March 2018. The
disparity between asylum seekers’ access to
adequate counsel to plead their cases, and
the government’s capacity to adjudicate their
cases, is very apparent.
Private Prisons Are Benefiting from
Trump’s Hardline Immigration Policies
As previously mentioned, in February 2017
the Trump administration rescinded an
Obama-era directive to end all DOJ contracts
with private prison corporations. That decision,
primarily pushed by the newly appointed
Attorney General Sessions, prompted
suspicion about hidden political motives.
It was not lost on some that one of the largest
private prison corporations had donated a
significant amount of money to a Trump super
Political Action Committee (PAC). The financial
support became even more curious when
almost immediately after of the Obama
administration announced it was phasing
out all private prison contracts the GEO
Group made a $100,000 contribution to
the Trump campaign.
At the time, a government reform organization,
the Campaign Legal Center, stated, “There’s
a direct connection between GEO Group’s
contributions and a policy goal that would
directly benefit its bottom line.” Now, many
months into the Trump presidency, the private
prison industry is as strong as ever—and with

the administration’s anti-immigrant policies,
the industry is poised to greatly increase its
revenues from government contracts.
What draws more scrutiny is that currently
more than 70% of those detained by the DHS
are held in privately owned facilities. It is not
a stretch to surmise that, as it was planning its
aggressive border crackdown, the Trump
administration worked closely with the private
prison industry to identify more detention
facilities for the upsurge of undocumented
immigrants. The zero-tolerance policy will
be a boon to the earnings of the private
prisons industry.
Private Prison Industry Not Alone
in Profiteering on Increased
Immigration Detention
In rural southern Florida, Glades County
has a relatively high rate of incarceration,
immigrant detention, and deportation.
Thirteen percent of adults in the county are in
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/sessions_sends_more_p
rosecutors_supervisory_judges_to_border_to_handle_immi
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-declares-border-crisis-
homeland-security-says-crossings-200-percent-873029
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-declares-border-crisis-
homeland-security-says-crossings-200-percent-873029
file:///C:/Users/Mel/Documents/FeedbackHub
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2017/10/26/560257834/as-it-makes-more-arrests-ice-looks-
for-more-detention-centers

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/21/565318778/big-money-as-
private-immigrant-jails-boom
http://www.businessinsider.com/geo-group-corecivic-private-
prisons-trump-immigration-crackdown-good-business-news-
2017-8
» 1 1 «
jail—some at a private prison and some at
the Glades County Detention Center. That
there were many detained immigrants at the
county jail was by design.
The fact is that county leaders working with
private investors sought to increase their
community’s economic stability by increasing
immigrant detention. The plan included using
the county jail as tax-free profit for investors,
County officials were banking on the
likelihood that the then Obama administration’s
policy of increased immigration detention
would result in a high demand for
immigration detention beds.
In 2007, Glades County built a jail with a
capacity to hold over 500 people. That is a
notable fact because each year there are far
fewer arrests of non-immigrant residents of
Glades County. The jail was built with the
expressed objective of raising revenues by
leasing beds to ICE. This plan to use
immigration and deportation policy as a
business venture by a government entity
signals the movement toward the

criminalization of immigration.
For a number of reasons, the anticipated flow
of immigrants to the detention center did not
materialize during the Obama administration.
However, the Trump administration’s
well-published intent to implement a
zero-tolerance policy was actually good
news for Glades County. Since the election
of Donald Trump, ICE has been sending
substantially more immigrant detainees to the
Glades County Detention Center. As of April
2018, the jail held 450 immigrants for ICE.
Recommendations
It is important to fully describe and discuss the
implications of what many consider to be one
of the nation’s most heartless policy decisions
in decades. The Trump administration’s
executive orders on zero-tolerance and the
related family separation policies have been
rightfully compared to the President Franklin
Roosevelt’s executive order that sent Japanese
Americans to internment camps during
World War II.
The zero-tolerance and family separation
issue has shaken not only the nation, but also
the social work community as it violates so
much of what our profession stands for. It is,
therefore, especially important for social
workers to take a lead in identifying solutions
that support the well-being of children and
their parents, and that result in social justice
for these vulnerable families.

The following are recommendations that
provide guidance on child-welfare
imperatives in light of the negative and
unethical consequences of zero-tolerance
and family separation
NASW recommends the following:
» The Trump administration should end its
zero-tolerance policy. It is both ineffective
and the genesis of unfair and inhumane
treatment of families seeking asylum from
extreme violence in their home countries.
» As an extension of the executive order
ending family separation, the
administration should prioritize finding
least restrictive alternatives that utilize
community resources as opposed to
family detention centers or, effectively,
family prisons.
https://www.vera.org/in-our-backyards-stories/glades-county-
more-than-a-jail
more-than-a-jail
more-than-a-jail
more-than-a-jail
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Executive-Order-9066
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Executive-Order-9066
» 1 2 «

» The White House must take the lead in
forming an institutionalized interagency
council that includes DHS, HHS, DOJ,
and Department of Defense (DOD) and
any other directly impacted federal, state,
and local government agencies. The
interagency taskforce’s mandate will be to
coordinate services for unaccompanied
migrant children and children of
asylum-seeking families.
» Immediate creation of a comprehensive,
coherent, intra-agency coordinated plan,
led by DHS, for reunification of the over
500 children who currently remain
separated from their parents.
» Full transparency by the government as to
the total number of children being detained
and its progress toward a reasonable
timeline for reunification of all the children.
» The administration must comply with the
court order to adhere to the Flores
Agreement, which prohibits prolonged
childhood detention.
» DHS and HHS should fully commit to
providing qualified mental health
professionals to assess and provide
services related to trauma-based
emotional problems in children
separated from their parents.
» All staff, from border patrol agents to
social workers, administrative staff, and

anyone who works with children involved
in the immigration system must receive
trauma-informed training.
» Clarification of designation of children
from asylum-seeking families as different
from unaccompanied migrant children. It
is important that children who either seek
asylum or have crossed the U.S border
with their parent(s) be recognized as a
part of a family unit and not
unaccompanied.
We urge lawmakers to hold DHS and DOJ
accountable by speaking out against family
separation. Several legislative proposals have
been introduced in Congress aimed at
ensuring the safety and well-being of migrant
children and families by halting the use of
family separations. We urge policymakers to
support the following:
› H.R. 2572: Protect Family Values at
the Border Act
› H.R. 5950/S.2937: The HELP
Separated Children Act
› H.R. 2043/S. 2468: Fair Day in Court
for Kids Act 2018
› Protecting Immigrant Families
» NASW agrees with the relevant
provisions in the Help Separated Children
Act, which would help mitigate some of

the stress and instability of immigration
enforcement on children including that
the bill
› allows parents to make calls to
arrange for the care of their children
prior to being taken into custody.
› allows parents a meaningful
opportunity to communicate with
children by saying good-bye,
reassuring them, and sharing
information about their care
arrangements before they are
separated.
› protects children from having to
translate ICE interrogations for
their parents.
› requires ICE to consider children’s
best interests in decisions about
parents’ detention, transfer between
detention facilities, and release
from detention.
https://supportkind.org/media/family-separation-at-the-border/
https://supportkind.org/media/family-separation-at-the-border/
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2572
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2572
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-
bill/2937/all-info
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-
bill/2937/all-info
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s2468
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s2468
https://protectingimmigrantfamilies.org/

https://www.clasp.org/blog/members-congress-pledge-help-
separated-children
https://www.clasp.org/blog/members-congress-pledge-help-
separated-children
» 1 3 «
› allows detained parents to have
regular phone calls and contact visits
with children.
› allows parents to fully participate in
child welfare proceedings during
their detention.
» Reinstatement of the Family Case
Management Program.
» Advocacy for DHS to allocate its
budgeted immigration and removal
operations toward alternatives to family
detention programs. DHS has budget
authority to spend funds on such programs.
Conclusion
The current national immigrati on policies—
and the methods of their implementation—
discussed here unambiguously violate social
work values. More important, the Trump
administration’s approach to border protection
violates a national human rights ethos that has
been espoused in this country for centuries.
The United States has at times not lived up to
its own values and ideals, and we must learn

from those past mistakes. For those reasons,
the social work profession cannot be passive
in our opposition to family separation
immigration policies.
We must reaffirm American social justice values,
as well as social work values, by working to
reverse zero-tolerance and related polices. In
so doing, we must replace unjust policies with
those that ensure the protection of the rights
of families and children, even as we seek to
enforce immigration and asylum laws.
What Can Social Workers Do?
At the height of the outcry when the country
became aware of the Trump administration’s
family separation policy, social workers were
asking, “What can we do?” It is admirable
that social workers are anxious to lend their
skills to help these children. However, it is not
that easy. It must be remembered that the
family facilities and the facilities for
unaccompanied migrant children are
managed by private contractors under DHS
and HHS administrative control. This means
that the providers do not have the latitude to
allow social workers to volunteers to provide
services to the children.
However, there are several opportunities for
social workers to get involved. As suggested
by Social Justice

Solution
s, social workers
could consider the following:
» Volunteer as interpreters for detained
immigrants. If you’re a licensed social
worker- who is proficient in Spanish-you
can also assess a person’s mental health
for their legal file.
» Work or volunteer with community-trusted
organizations that have a proven history
of advocating for immigrant families.
Undocumented individuals are more
likely to trust organizations that have
effectively supported their community
members in the past.
» Provide support to advocacy groups that
work to unite families and to prevent
separations. Families Belong Together,
the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s
Rights, Protecting Immigrant Families and

the U.S. Committee for Refugees and
Immigrants are some examples of such
organizations.
» Educate yourself on legal and policy
issues about immigration status and how
they affect child welfare and other matters.
http://www.socialjusticesolutions.org/2018/07/11/social -
workers-can-address-trauma-family-separation/
https://www.familiesbelongtogether.org/
https://www.theyoungcenter.org/
https://www.theyoungcenter.org/
https://protectingimmigrantfamilies.org/
http://refugees.org/
http://refugees.org/
» 1 4 «

» Lobby your members of Congress,
contact local elected officials, and push
for laws to protect basic human rights.
» Social workers who are employed in a
public or private family detention center,
adult detention center, or in an HHS child
foster care facility must be cognizant of
their ethical obligation to report all
incidents of
› child maltreatment.
› inadequate medical, mental health,
and social support services.
› inadequate licensure, staff positions
and policies and procedures as
defined by federal and state standards.
In summary, NASW is a major stakeholder
for advocating for human rights, especially
for marginalized low-income populations.
The Trump administration’s family separation
policy qualifies as one of America’s most
shameful human rights abuses since the
internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans

during World War II. Therefore, it is without a
doubt that NASW must join other major
professional associations, immigration
advocacy organizations, and human rights
coalitions to never let such an inhumane
government policy take root again.
NASW and its collaborators must stay
engaged, informed, and prepared to act,
which means that we have to be committed
for the long term. It also means that we all
must recognize that there is an intersection
between voter participation, nominations and
appointments to the federal judiciary, economic
justice, criminal justice, and immigration
equity. Therefore, we have to be prepared to
respond to inequities using a multi-issue
strategy. This can only be successful if we
share expertise and advocacy resources with
a network of multidisciplinary coalitions.
Immigration Resources
American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-
rights-and-detention/fact-checking-family-separation
Detention Watch Network
www.detentionwatchnetwork.org
Families Belong Together
www.familiesbelongtogether.org
The Immigration Hub
https://theimmigrationhub.org
Immigration Taskforce – Leadership Conference
for Civil and Human Rights
-https://civilrights.org/immigration
National Immigration Law Center (NILC)
www.nilc.org

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
https://lulac.org/advocacy/issues/immigration
MALDEF
www.maldef.org/immigration/index.html
Office of Refugee Resettlement
www.bing.com/search?q=office+of+refugee+reset
tlement&qs=ONR&pq=office+of+r&sc=8-11&cvid=
D60F5D3800104C7D8A3E3097C97B09F6&FO
RM=QBRE&sp=1
Social Justice

ELMORE STOUTT HIGH SCHOOL ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND M

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ELMORE STOUTT HIGH SCHOOL ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND M

Similar to ELMORE STOUTT HIGH SCHOOL ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND M (18)

More from MerrileeDelvalle969

More from MerrileeDelvalle969 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ELMORE STOUTT HIGH SCHOOL ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND M