An Institutional Examination of  Varying  Local Approaches to Implementing DACA

1. An Institutional Examination of Varying Local
Approaches to Implementing DACA
Shannon Gleeson (ILR, Cornell)
Els de Graauw (Baruch College, CUNY)
1

2. What Is DACA?
BENEFITS
Temporary relief from
deportation
Work authorization
(in some states: in-state
tuition, Medical edibility, &
other benefits)
REQUIREMENTS
Arrive <16, Age<31 on 6/15/12
Proof of identity & continuous presence
6/15/07 to 6/15/12
Proof of educational requirement
(graduated or enrolled in HS/GED)
No felony/significant or 3+ misdemeanors
$465
2 yr. renewal, possible “advanced parole”
2

3. Existing DACA Research
Demographic Trends
o National Undacamented Youth Survey (Gonzales, Terriquez, Ruszczyk)
o National Survey of Undocumented Millennials (Wong et al., FitzGerald, Ramakrishnan)
o MPI (Capps, Rosenblum, Bachmeier)
Social Movements
o Chen, Negron-Gonzales, Seif, Abrego, Terriquez, Chavez, Pallares, Flores-Gonzalez
Legal and Political Analysis
o Center for American Progress, Pew Charitable Trusts
o Warren & Kerwin, Olivas
Effects of DACA
o Education (Teranishi, Suarez-Orozco, Suarez-Orozco, Perez)
o Health (Brindis et al.)
Local Variation
o Silver & Cebulko, Sexsmith & Dudley, Singer & Svajlenka (Brookings)
3

4. Government Bureaucracies as
Rights Interpreters and Rights Adjudicators
4

5. Civil Society Organizations as
Rights Intermediaries and Rights Mobilizers
5
Advocacy
Mobilizing
Service

6. Consular Advocacy
6

7. 7
Field of DACA Implementation
DACA
Legal
Service
Providers
Schools
& Other
Agencies
Foreign
Consulate
Foundations
Immigrant
Rights Groups
Unions
Local
Elected
Officials

8. Research Questions
How do regions vary in their implementation of DACA?
How have a range of local stakeholders integrated DACA into
their mission and programming, and resource allocation?
What are the range of coalitions and partnerships that have
emerged around the implementation of DACA in each region?
8

9. Methodological Approach
Comparative Case Study (central city v. suburbs/rural)
◦ San Francisco/San Jose
◦ Greater Houston
◦ New York City
Focus Groups
◦ 10 UCSC & 13 Baruch students
Stakeholder Interviews (100 to date)
◦ STATE & LOCAL GVT: city officials, school districts, consulates
◦ CIVIL SOCIETY: CBOs, unions, legal service providers
◦ INDIVIDUAL BENEFICIARIES: DACA recipients (PENDING)
9

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12

13. Government Officials &
Institutions
NYC
MOIA
$18 million DYCD
$1 million NYC DOE
SAN FRANCISCO
OCEIA
DreamSF Program
$350,000
$500,000
$10 million
SAN JOSE
IRIS
$1.8 million
Measure A emergency funds
HOUSTON
OIC/MOIRA
No funding response 2012
U of H “free speech zones”
13

14. Legal Service Providers
Division of Labor (Criminal, U/T-visas, SIJS)
Outreach to non-Spanish speakers?
Varying importance of private immigration bar
Efforts to prevent notario scams
Use of BIA accredited reps
14

15. Other Nonprofit Organizations
& Student/DREAMer Groups
15

16. Who Is Funding DACA?
State/City/County Support
Private Funders
◦ Community foundations
◦ Family foundations
◦ Anonymous donors
Key Conveners
◦ New Americans campaign
◦ Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrants and Refugees
Other
◦ IOLTA accounts
◦ Service fees
◦ Loans
16

17. Outreach Dynamics
WHAT NEEDS SUPPORT
1. Outreach & Community
Education
2. Document Prep
3. Legal Service/Application
Assistance
CHALLENGES/DEBATES
Whose responsibility?
What should the fee structure be?
How to screen for holistic relief?
Utility of 1:1 client-attorney
How to maximize limited resources
How to court funders/pitch DACA?
Should we fund renewals?
17

18. When and How Do Advocates Collaborate?
NYC
Dept. of Youth and Children Services
NYCT grantees
SAN FRANCISCO
Bay Area DACA Collaborative
SFILEN
Ready Bay Area
Ready California
SAN JOSE
SCC Citizenship Collaborative
SCC Deferred Action Network
SCC for Comp. Immig. Reform
SBLISN
CLARO
HOUSTON
Houston Immigration Legal
Services Collaborative
18

19. Lessons for Admin. Relief
What role will localities play?
• Mayoral Offices, School Boards, Adult Education, DMV
How to reach underserved communities
• Non-Spanish speakers
• Older, Criminal Bars, Educational Requirement
• Suburban/Rural
Best practices for outreach and service provision
oTargeted v. Holistic
19

20. Future Directions for Research
Target:
o200 interviews with organizations
o100 interviews with individual immigrants
More focus on state agencies
Chicago as additional case study
Ongoing research on immigrant integration
oMayoral offices (de Graauw)
oConsular offices (Gleeson)
20

21. Thank You!
smg338@cornell.edu
els.degraauw@baruch.cuny.edu
21