United States Senate 

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

Rob Portman, Chairman 

Tom Carper, Ranking Member 

 

OVERSIGHT OF THE CARE OF 

UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN 

STAFF REPORT 

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INVESTIGATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 
OVERSIGHT OF THE CARE OF 

UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 1

II. THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S INVESTIGATION ................................................. 5

III. FINDINGS OF FACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 6

IV. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 10

A. Department of Homeland Security: Apprehension and Transfer ........................... 10 

B. Department of Health and Human Services: Care While Awaiting Immigration 

Court Proceedings ....................................................................................................... 12 

1. Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act ................................................. 13 

2. The Flores Agreement ................................................................................................. 15 

3. DHS and HHS Information Sharing While a UAC is in HHS Physical Custody .... 17 

4. Alternatives to Sponsorship ....................................................................................... 18 

C. Department of Justice: Adjudication of UAC Immigration Cases ........................... 19 

V. THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S 2015–2016 INVESTIGATION AND

IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH ............................................................................ 20

A. Subcommittee Investigation, Report, and Hearing ................................................... 20 

B. February 2016 Memorandum of Agreement ............................................................. 23 

C. Limited HHS Reforms in 2015 and 2016 ................................................................... 24 

VI. THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S ONGOING INVESTIGATION: DHS AND HHS

FAILURE TO ADDRESS 2016 FINDINGS .................................................... 25

A. Continued Denial of Responsibility for Unaccompanied Alien Children After 

Placement ....................................................................................................................... 25 

B. Failure to Enter Joint Concept of Operations on a Timely Basis ............................. 29 

1. GAO and HHS OIG Recommendation for Agreement .............................................. 29 
2. Agreement I and Joint Concept of Operations .......................................................... 30 

3. Deficiencies in Agreement II and the Joint Concept of Operations ......................... 31 

4. Limited Post-Release Services and Failure to Track UACs After Placement ......... 34 

5. Increased Rates of Failure to Appear for Immigration Court Proceedings ............. 39 

VII. ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS PROTECTING UACS AND ENSURING 

APPEARANCE AT REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS .................................... 44

A. Lack of Notification to States of UAC Placement ..................................................... 44 

B. HHS Failure to Submit Post-Placement Plans ......................................................... 46 

C. Secure Facilities .......................................................................................................... 47 

1. Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center .......................................................................... 48 

2. Yolo County Juvenile Detention Center .................................................................... 51 

VIII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 51
1 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Since 2015, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has conducted 

extensive oversight of federal government programs designed to care for children 

who enter the United States without a parent or legal guardian and ensure they are 

not trafficked or abused. Although the Department of Health and Human Services 

(“HHS”) and Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) have taken incremental 

steps toward improving the care of these children—called unaccompanied alien 

children (“UACs”) under federal law—they still do not take sufficient responsibility 

for guarding their safety and ensuring they appear at their immigration court 

proceedings. 

Most significantly, no agency claims any legal responsibility for the children’s 

well-being once HHS places them with sponsors—including sponsors who are not 

their parents or legal guardians—and no agency makes any effort to ensure UACs 

placed with sponsors appear at their immigration court proceedings. And while 

DHS and HHS recently completed a Joint Concept of Operations (“JCO”)—some 17 

months after it was due—the JCO only addresses current policy and fails to address 

any of the recommendations for improving the UAC system offered by the 

Subcommittee or the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”). Thus the JCO is 

largely a recitation of the status quo, and does little to offer hope that federal 

agencies are working effectively to improve UAC safety and ensure that the 

immigration system is functioning properly. 

HHS, DHS, and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) have taken some modest 

steps in the right direction, but major deficiencies persist that leave the children at 

significant risk for trafficking and abuse and undermine our immigration system. 

This report documents the Subcommittee’s findings over the past two and a half 

years since its initial hearing and report on UACs. 

*** 

Over the past six years, more than 200,000 children unaccompanied by 

parents or legal guardians have entered the United States without legal status. 

This influx of children strains the federal government’s limited resources and poses 

significant challenges for immigration enforcement. When DHS apprehends UACs, 

it must transfer them to the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (“ORR”) within 72 

hours. ORR then works to place those children with adult sponsors in the United 

States—typically a parent or other family member, but in some instances, nonfamily members—to await their immigration court proceedings. If ORR cannot 

place a child with a sponsor, ORR continues to house the child in the least 

restrictive environment appropriate for that specific child’s circumstances until 

completion of any removal proceedings in immigration court. 
2 

In 2015, the Subcommittee learned that over the course of four months in 

2014, ORR placed eight children with members of a human trafficking ring. The 

traffickers lured the children into the United States with promises of education and 

a better life. After DHS apprehended the children and transferred them to HHS, 

members of the ring applied to serve as their sponsors by posing as family members 

or friends of the children. Once HHS placed the children with the traffickers, the 

traffickers put the children into forced labor on an egg farm in Marion, Ohio. The 

children worked for no pay for 12 hours a day, six to seven days a week, and lived in 

deplorable conditions. The traffickers threatened them and their families with 

violence if the children did not comply with them. Ultimately, DOJ charged seven 

defendants with a range of crimes, including human trafficking, forced labor, 

conspiracy, witness tampering, and encouraging another person to illegally enter 

the United States. As of this report, six of those defendants have been convicted for 

their roles in the scheme and sentenced to prison; the seventh case has not yet been 

decided. 

In response to these tragic events, in 2015, the Subcommittee investigated 

HHS’s process for screening potential UAC sponsors and other safeguards to protect 

UACs from trafficking and abuse. The Subcommittee found that HHS failed to 

conduct sufficient background checks of potential sponsors and other adult 

members of their households; failed to conduct site visits of the sponsors’ homes; 

failed to recognize that a group of sponsors was accumulating multiple unrelated 

children; and, in one instance, permitted a sponsor to block a child-welfare case 

worker from visiting one of the victims. The Subcommittee also found that sponsors 

frequently failed to ensure that the children appeared for their immigration court 

proceedings, usually causing them to be ordered deported and to lose their 

opportunity to make their case to stay in the United States. And of particular 

significance, the Subcommittee found that once HHS places children with sponsors, 

no federal agency acknowledges any responsibility for the children’s safety. 

On January 28, 2016, the Subcommittee held a hearing and released a report 

detailing the deficiencies it found in HHS’s processes for ensuring the safety of 

these children. One month after the hearing, HHS and DHS entered into a 

Memorandum of Agreement (“Agreement I”) stating their commitment to protecting 

UACs both before and after HHS places them with sponsors. In Agreement I, DHS 

and HHS committed to establishing the JCO to define their respective 

responsibilities to protect these children within one year—by February 22, 2017. 

Through continued oversight, the Subcommittee found that DHS and HHS 

failed to address many of the deficiencies the Subcommittee previously identified. 

Moreover, the departments failed to meet their own deadline for the JCO by more 

than 17 months. When Subcommittee staff asked DHS about the delay, DHS 

Assistant Secretary for Border, Immigration, and Trade Policy Michael Dougherty 
3 

responded that he did not see the point in finishing the JCO and did not understand 

why the Subcommittee cared about it because the JCO only would reduce current 

policies to writing. The Subcommittee explained the importance of putting policies 

in writing to provide accountability and transparency. It was evident that the 

departments did not regard the JCO as a high priority. 

Following a Subcommittee hearing in April 2018 addressing the status of the 

JCO, DHS and HHS committed to completing the JCO by July 30, 2018. The 

departments completed the JCO on July 31, 2018. Completing the JCO represents 

progress: it commits to writing a process and assigns responsibilities for the 

transfer of UACs and sponsor background checks. This provides certainty to the 

departments and transparency to the public. But it only reflects longstanding 

protocol, not improvements in the system that would better guard the safety of 

UACs and ensure they appear for their immigration court proceedings. 

The Subcommittee also learned of additional problems in the UAC program 

beyond what it observed in 2015. HHS testified that when it made 30-day follow-up 

telephone calls to UACs placed with sponsors over a three-month period in 2017, it 

“could not ascertain with certainty” the whereabouts of 1,475 of those children, and 

28 had run away from their sponsors. HHS argues that it has no responsibility to 

track these children after placement and took no action based on the results of these 

calls to find those children. 

According to DHS officials, HHS regularly fails to provide required postplacement plans to DHS for children in HHS care who turn 18 years old. Through 

these plans, HHS is supposed to update DHS on the child’s circumstances and 

recommend whether DHS should take the child into custody or release the child on 

his or her own recognizance once the child ages out of the UAC program. HHS also 

does not contract with appropriate residential treatment facilities to house children 

who need both significant psychiatric services and housing in a secure setting. 

Although DOJ immigration courts have more than 700,000 backlogged 

cases—more than 80,000 of which are UAC cases—DOJ has failed to hire its 

allotted number of immigration court judges. It also has not explored options for 

making court proceedings more accessible to UACs to increase the likelihood that 

they will appear for their immigration court proceedings. 

Furthermore, some steps DHS and HHS have taken to improve the UAC 

program may have unintended consequences. At midnight on the night before the 

Subcommittee’s April 2018 hearing, DHS and HHS released another Memorandum 

of Agreement (“Agreement II”) governing information sharing between the agencies 

regarding potential sponsors. Agreement II requires HHS to share the immigration 

status of potential sponsors and other adults in their households with DHS to 

facilitate HHS’s background checks. Agreement II may improve UAC safety in 
4 

some respects because HHS will have increased information about potential 

sponsors. Advocates for UACs have expressed concern, however, that Agreement II 

will deter potential sponsors from stepping forward to claim UACs because most 

potential sponsors are undocumented and will fear providing their information for 

use by DHS. If those concerns come to fruition, fewer sponsors will be available to 

claim UACs, and HHS will have to house a greater number of UACs for longer 

periods of time. 

Although HHS and DHS have taken incremental steps toward improving the 

care of UACs, they still do not take sufficient responsibility for ensuring these 

children’s safety and for ensuring they appear at their immigration court 

proceedings. DOJ also has not done all it can to reduce the backlog of immigration 

court cases. Most significantly, no agency claims any responsibility for the 

children’s well-being once HHS places them with sponsors who are not their parents 

or legal guardians. These deficiencies compromise the well-being of children in the 

government’s care, leave the children at significant risk for trafficking and abuse, 

and undermine our immigration system. 

*** 

This report documents the Subcommittee’s findings over the past two and a 

half years since its initial hearing and report in January 2016 on UACs. The 

Subcommittee has focused on weaknesses in the care of children who arrive in the 

United States unaccompanied and are placed with sponsors who are not their 

parents or legal guardians. 

Most of these problems started under the Obama Administration and have 

continued into the Trump Administration. Over the past four months, however, the 

Trump Administration took steps that exacerbated these problems. Although this 

report does not address the ongoing family separation crisis in detail, it is important 

to note the strains that crisis currently is placing on the UAC program. On April 6, 

2018, the Attorney General directed all U.S. Attorney’s Offices along the Southwest 

Border to prosecute all DHS referrals of individuals under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), which 

prohibits both attempted illegal entry and illegal entry into the United States by an 

alien—the so-called “zero tolerance” policy.1 One month later, DHS began referring 

adults who arrived in family units to DOJ for prosecution. Under the William 

Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”)2 and a 

1997 consent decree called the Flores Agreement,3 the government must place 

                                                            

1 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Memorandum for Fed. Prosecutors Along the Southwest Border: ZeroTolerance for Offenses Under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) (Apr. 6, 2018), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pressrelease/file/1049751/download. 

2 Pub. L. No. 110-457, 122 Stat. 5044 (2008). 

3 App. 001, Stipulated Settlement Agreement, Flores v. Reno, No. 85-cv-4544 (C.D. Cal. 1997) 

[hereinafter Flores Agreement]. 
5 

UACs in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interests of the child. In 

2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit expanded that requirement to 

children arriving in the United States with their parents.4 Because those 

authorities limit detention of children with accompanying adults, when the U.S. 

Marshals Service took custody of parents, their children were separated from them 

and effectively became unaccompanied. DHS then transferred the children to ORR, 

which processed them as UACs. 

By June 20, 2018, DHS stopped referring adult aliens traveling with children 

for prosecution.5 Over those 10 weeks, however, the Administration separated more 

than 2500 children from their parents.6 Once separated, the children became UACs 

and were transferred to HHS custody. Since June, the Administration has been 

working under a court order to reunite the families. As of this report, 1,569 of those 

children were reunited with their parents in ICE custody and 423 were 

discharged—most released to sponsors. 7 Approximately 559 children, however, 

have not been reunited with their families and remain in HHS care.8 

These burdens on HHS—processing and housing these additional UACs and 

working to reunite the families—have stretched thin its already-limited resources 

for the UAC program. For example, although the Subcommittee has repeatedly 

asked HHS to update its numbers regarding the results of its 30-day wellness check 

telephone calls, HHS told the Subcommittee that it can either work to reunite 

families or update data—but not both.9 Because of the toll the family reunification 

effort is taking on HHS’s resources, HHS claims it is unable to respond to Congress 

regarding the thousands of other children who arrived in the country 

unaccompanied and who were placed with sponsors this year. 

II. THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S INVESTIGATION 

Since its January 2016 hearing and report, the Subcommittee has continued 

its oversight of the departments’ processes for caring for unaccompanied alien 

children. On April 26, 2018, the Subcommittee held a follow-up hearing to inquire 

about the overdue JCO and allow the public to hear directly from DHS and HHS 

officials regarding how they protect these children. 

                                                            

4 Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2016). 

5 See Assoc. Press, Customs and Border Protection Head Says Agency has Stopped Referring 

Immigrant Parents for Criminal Prosecution, POLITICO (June 25, 2018), 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/25/customs-border-protection-immigrant-parents-criminalprosecution-670358. 

6 S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs briefing with Commander Jonathan White et 

al., U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. (Aug. 10, 2018). 

7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. 
6 

In the course of its continued oversight, the Subcommittee has received 

numerous briefings from HHS, DHS, and DOJ. The briefings addressed the 

agencies’ processes for apprehending UACs, transporting them to HHS, placing 

them with sponsors, ensuring their safety and appearance at immigration court 

proceedings, and adjudicating immigration cases. The Subcommittee also received 

briefings from the DHS Office of Inspector General, HHS Office of Inspector 

General, and the GAO.

The Subcommittee has met or spoken with 16 organizations that provide 

services, such as legal representation and welfare services, to UACs, either on a pro 

bono basis or under an HHS grant. The Subcommittee also spoke with four state 

government officials regarding states’ responsibilities to provide services to UACs, 

including public education and welfare and emergency services. Subcommittee staff 

visited the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center, a secure facility that houses about 

30 UACs found guilty of a crime or deemed to be a risk to themselves or others. 

III. FINDINGS OF FACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Findings of Fact 

 

(1) No federal agency claims legal responsibility or authority to 

ensure UACs are not being trafficked or abused once ORR 

places a child with a sponsor. HHS officials recently offered 

conflicting testimony on this issue. HHS Director of the 

Administration for Children and Families Steven Wagner testified that 

that HHS is reviewing its policy. HHS Secretary Alex Azar testified 

that HHS’s previous interpretation—that the department has no 

authority—stands. Current ORR leadership told the Subcommittee 

staff they recognize that prior administrations’ interpretation of HHS’s 

legal authority places these children in a “legal no man’s land.” 

(2) DHS and HHS took 29 months to create a JCO governing their 

responsibilities for the care and safety of UACs and missed 

their own deadline by 17 months. Moreover, one senior DHS 

official questioned why Subcommittee staff believed the JCO was 

important, implying that he did not see value in completing the JCO 

and committing DHS and HHS processes to paper. 

(3) The JCO reflects the status quo and does not address any of 

the recommendations offered by the Subcommittee or the GAO. 

The JCO offers no clarification of the federal government’s 

responsibility for UACs once HHS places them with sponsors. 
7 

(4) No federal agency tracks UACs after ORR places them with 

sponsors. Without a method to track UACs after placement, the 

federal government has few means to determine whether the children 

are safe or to ensure they appear at their immigration court 

proceedings. 

(5) HHS’s follow-up telephone calls to UACs placed with sponsors 

from October to December 2017 demonstrate that HHS does not 

know with certainty where approximately 20 percent of UACs 

are three months after placement. ORR found that out of 7,635 

attempted telephone calls, 28 UACs “had run away” and “ORR was 

unable to determine with certainty the whereabouts of 1,475 UAC.” In 

response to those findings, HHS took no further action to determine 

their whereabouts. 

(6) HHS has directed its legal service grantees to cease providing 

legal representation to new UACs placed with sponsors 

because it believes its authority to provide such services is 

“shaky.” According to UAC legal service providers, UACs represented 

by attorneys are significantly more likely to appear at their 

immigration court proceedings.

(7) No agency ensures UACs placed with sponsors appear at their 

immigration court proceedings or enforces the sponsorship 

agreement requiring sponsors to ensure the children’s 

appearance at the proceedings. If UACs fail to appear at their 

immigration court proceedings, the court typically will enter an in 

absentia removal order. Those children lose their opportunity to 

present a case for staying in the United States unless they petition to 

re-open their case, and if they leave the country, they likely will be 

barred from future entry. 

(8) UACs are failing to appear for their immigration court 

proceedings at increased rates. The percentage of UACs ordered 

removed in absentia increased from 41 percent in 2016 (6,089 out of 

15,016 completed cases) to 48 percent in 2017 (6,634 out of 13,758 

completed cases).

(9) According to UAC legal service providers, many UACs fail to 

appear for their immigration court proceedings because the 

courts are located far from where they live and they have no 

means to get to court. Some UACs also fail to appear because their 

sponsors do not realize they need to file for a change of venue if they 

move.
8 

(10) The backlog of immigration court cases, including UAC cases, 

is significant, and DOJ does not have enough immigration 

court judges to process the cases. Currently, 732,730 immigration 

cases total are pending; of those, 80,266 are UAC cases. More than 

8,000 UAC cases have been pending for more than three years. 

(11) DOJ has not hired its full allotted complement of immigration 

court judges. Currently, 355 immigration judges handle all 

immigration court cases, including 29 judges invested on August 10, 

2018. DOJ has authority to hire 129 additional judges.

(12) The median length of time UAC cases currently have been 

pending since the filing of a notice to appear is 480 days. This 

significant lapse of time makes it less likely UACs will appear for their 

immigration proceedings.

(13) HHS does not notify state governments before placing UACs 

with sponsors in those states. Without state notification, states are 

hamstrung in providing welfare and other services to the children or to 

ensure they attend public school.

(14) HHS has a plan to notify state governments before placing 

UACs previously held in secure facilities, but HHS has failed to 

implement that plan. HHS explained it cannot implement the plan 

because it cannot determine whom to notify in the state governments. 

(15) HHS regularly fails to submit required post-placement plans to 

DHS for UACs who turn age 18 while in HHS’s care. These plans 

are supposed to inform DHS about each UAC and recommend whether 

DHS should detain the UAC or release the UAC into the community. 

(16) HHS does not contract with appropriate facilities to house 

UACs who must be held in a secure facility and who also have 

significant mental health or emotional issues. Housing UACs 

who have significant mental health or emotional issues with the 

general population in secure facilities exposes those UACs, the facility 

staff, and other children to an increased risk of harm. 

(17) Due to delays in ORR’s internal review processes, some UACs 

are spending more time than necessary in secure facilities. 

This is contrary to the statutory mandate that UACs should be placed 

in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interests of the child.
9 

Recommendations 

As discussed in detail below, HHS has not implemented most of the 

recommendations in the Subcommittee’s 2016 report, Protecting Unaccompanied 

Alien Children from Trafficking and Other Abuses: The Role of the Office of Refugee 

Resettlement. The Subcommittee offers the following recommendations in addition 

to the recommendations in that report. 

(1) HHS should acknowledge that, under the TVPRA and the Flores 

Agreement, it has the legal responsibility to ensure that children it 

places with sponsors who are not the children’s parents or legal 

guardians are not abused or trafficked. If HHS continues to refuse to 

acknowledge its responsibility, Congress should pass legislation 

clarifying HHS’s obligations. 

(2) DHS and HHS should review their information-sharing processes and 

methods outlined in the JCO to ensure that email communications do 

not lead to errors in transferring UACs from DHS to HHS custody. 

(3) DHS and HHS should evaluate their information-sharing policies 

described in Agreement II to mitigate circumstances that could 

dissuade potential sponsors from claiming UACs because of fear of 

enforcement. 

(4) HHS should track UACs after it places them with sponsors to ensure 

that they are safe and appear at their immigration court proceedings. 

(5) If HHS cannot reach a UAC after the UAC is placed with a sponsor by 

telephone, HHS should make continued efforts to determine the 

location and living conditions of the UAC. 

(6) HHS should enforce the sponsorship agreement requirement that 

sponsors ensure that the UACs appear at their immigration court 

proceedings. 

(7) HHS should increase its efforts to enlist and coordinate pro bono legal 

services for children living with sponsors. 

(8) DOJ should hire its full allotted complement of 484 immigration court 

judges. 

(9) HHS should determine the appropriate point of contact in all 50 state 

governments to notify regarding the placement of UACs within each 

state. 
10 

(10) HHS should notify state governments before placing UACs with 

sponsors in those states. 

(11) HHS should offer training to state and local government officials to 

educate them on their role, responsibilities, and authorities with 

regard to UACs. 

(12) HHS should always submit the required post-placement plans to DHS 

for UACs who turn age 18 while in HHS’s care. 

(13) HHS should contract with a secure residential treatment facility to 

house UACs who must be held in a secure facility and who have 

significant mental or emotional issues. 

(14) HHS should streamline its decision-making process for determining 

whether children in secure or staff-secure facilities are eligible to move 

to a lower level facility or for release to a sponsor. 

IV. BACKGROUND 

Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, “unaccompanied alien children” 

are children under 18-years-old who have “no lawful immigrations status in the 

United States” who either do not have a parent or legal guardian in the United 

States or whose parent or legal guardian in the United States cannot care for 

them.10 When UACs enter the United States, two DHS agencies—Customs and 

Border Protection (“CBP”) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”)—are 

responsible for apprehending them. An immigration court run by the DOJ 

Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) ultimately hears the child’s case. 

Between a child’s apprehension and final immigration court proceedings, 

HHS is responsible for caring for the child and, typically, placing him or her with a 

sponsor in the United States. Two main authorities govern the treatment of UACs 

during that time: the TVPRA and the 1997 Flores Agreement. This section details 

the responsibilities of each agency from apprehension of a UAC through the UAC’s 

immigration court proceedings and the legal authorities governing the treatment of 

UACs throughout that process. 

A. Department of Homeland Security: Apprehension and Transfer 

DHS has an intermittent role in the UAC program. Two of its divisions, CBP 

and ICE, are charged with apprehending undocumented immigrants, including 

                                                            

10 6 U.S.C. § 279(g)(2). 
11 

UACs—CBP at the country’s borders11 and ICE within the country’s interior12. 

CBP apprehends the majority of UACs.13 Once they apprehend a UAC, they hold 

the child in a DHS facility generally for no more than 72 hours.14 DHS then 

transports the child to an ORR facility and transfers physical custody of the child to 

ORR.15 In 2017, DHS referred 40,810 UACs into HHS’s care.16 As of March 31, 

2018, HHS had received 21,574 referrals in FY2018.17

Recently, ICE, CBP, and ORR signed a Memorandum of Agreement 

(“Agreement II”) governing information sharing between the agencies regarding 

UACs.18 Agreement II provides that at the time of the initial transfer of a UAC 

from CBP or ICE to ORR, the apprehending agency will electronically transfer to 

ORR through the UAC Portal—an online information-sharing system—information 

about the UAC. That information includes basic biographical data such as name, 

date and country of birth, and potential sponsor information; situational factors, 

such as information about the UAC’s health and travel companions; human 

trafficking indicators; and known criminal or behavioral issues.19 

Agreement II states that DHS “will normally include in the Transfer Packet” 

copies of relevant documents, including identity documents; immigration records; 

the record of the person and property transferred; the child’s notice to appear in 

immigration court; copies of any criminal records; and “CBP form 93, 

Unaccompanied Alien Child Screening Addendum (trafficking information), if 

conducted.”20 Within 24 hours of receiving notification from CBP or ICE that a 

UAC needs placement, ORR sends an email notifying both ICE and CBP of the 

                                                            

11 8 U.S.C. § 1357; 8 C.F.R. § 287.5(c)(i). 12 8 U.S.C. § 1357; 8 C.F.R. § 287.5(c)(vi). 

13 WILLIAM A. KANDEL, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., R43599, UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN: AN 

OVERVIEW 4 (2017). 14 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(3). 

15 Id. 16 Oversight of Immigration Enforcement and Family Reunification Efforts: Hearing before the S. 

Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. (2018) (statement of Commander Jonathan White, U.S. Pub. 

Health Serv. Commissioned Corps, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs.). 

17 Oversight of HHS and DHS Efforts to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children from Human 

Trafficking and Abuse: Hearing before the S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, 115th Cong. 

(2018) (statement of Steven Wagner, Acting Assistant Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. 

Admin. for Children & Families). 

18 App. 029, Memorandum of Agreement Among the Office of Refugee Resettlement of the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Regarding 

Consultation and Information Sharing in Unaccompanied Alien Children Matters (Apr. 13, 2018) 

[hereinafter Agreement II]. 

19 App. 030, Agreement II at 2. 

20 App. 031, Agreement II at 3. On August 13, 2018, DHS officials told Subcommittee staff that DHS 

always conducts trafficking screenings and, in this instance, Agreement II (signed April 13, 2018) 

reflects outdated policy. 
12 

placement location.21 ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations facilitates the 

physical transfer of UACs from DHS custody to HHS custody.22

For children age 14 and older, a U.S. Border Patrol agent or CBP officer 

usually serves a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) on the child, which the child must sign.23 

If the child does not speak English, CBP provides a translator.24 For children under 

age 14 or who are over age 14 and not capable of signing the NTA, CBP transfers 

the child to HHS and serves the NTA on HHS—usually via hand delivery, but 

sometimes by U.S. mail.25 After service upon the child or HHS, an ICE Field Office 

Juvenile Coordinator files the NTA with the immigration court. ICE usually delays 

filing for up to 60 days to give HHS time to release the UAC to a sponsor to ensure 

the NTA is filed in the jurisdiction where the UAC lives with the sponsor.26

B. Department of Health and Human Services: Care While Awaiting 

Immigration Court Proceedings 

ORR, a division of the HHS Administration for Children and Family Services, 

is responsible for UACs until resolution of their immigration court proceedings or 

until they turn 18, whichever comes first. This report details below the two main 

authorities that govern HHS’s care of UACs during that time: the TVPRA and the 

1997 Flores Settlement Agreement. It also describes the various HHS housing and 

care alternatives available for UACs.

                                                            

21 Id. at 2. 22 App. 147–87, Unaccompanied Alien Children Joint Concept of Operations 8 (July 31, 2018) 

[hereinafter JCO]. 

23 App. 168, JCO at 22; Briefing with policy staff, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. Off. of Strategy, Policy 

& Plans; Mellisa Harper, Enforcement & Removal Operations, Immigration & Customs 

Enforcement; Scott Lloyd, Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement; et al. (Aug. 2, 2018). 24 Briefing with policy staff, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. Off. of Strategy, Policy & Plans; Mellisa 

Harper, Enforcement & Removal Operations, Immigration & Customs Enforcement; Scott Lloyd, 

Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement; et al. (Aug. 2, 2018). 

25 Id. 26 Id. 
13 

1. Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act 

 Under the TVPRA, in general, within 72 hours of apprehension, DHS must 

transfer UACs to ORR.27 The TVPRA provides that “the care and custody of all 

unaccompanied alien children, including responsibility for their detention, where 

appropriate, shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services.”28 HHS is to “promptly place[]” the children “in the least restrictive 

setting that is in the best interest of the child.”29 

 ORR places most UACs with adult sponsors in the United States who agree 

to care for them and ensure their appearance at immigration proceedings.30 

Between October 1, 2014 and June 30, 2018, HHS released 149,867 UACs to 

sponsors.31 According to HHS, in 2017, ORR released 49 percent of UACs to one of 

their parents (“Category 1 sponsors”). It released 41 percent to close relatives 

(“Category 2 sponsors”). And it released 10 percent to distant relatives or unrelated 

adults (“Category 3 sponsors”).32 This report describes how ORR accommodates 

children for whom sponsors are not available or appropriate in subsection (d) below. 

 Before placing a child with a sponsor, the HHS Secretary must determine 

that “the proposed custodian is capable of providing for the child’s physical and 

mental well-being.”33 The Secretary also, “at a minimum,” must verify “the 

custodian’s identity and relationship to the child, if any,” and must make “an 

independent finding that the individual has not engaged in any activity that would 

indicate a potential risk to the child.”34 In practice, ORR Federal Field Specialists—

                                                            

27 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(3). 

28 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(1). Previously, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was responsible for 

the care of UACs, but the Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred those responsibilities to HHS 

(“There are transferred to the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement of the Department of 

Health and Human Services functions under the immigration laws of the United States with respect 

to the care of unaccompanied alien children that were vested by statute in, or performed by, the 

Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization.” Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002); 2 

U.S.C. § 279(a)). 

29 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(2)(A). 

30 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c). 

31 DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUM. SERVS., UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN RELEASED TO SPONSORS BY 

STATE (last accessed Aug. 9, 2018), https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/unaccompanied-alienchildren-released-to-sponsors-by-state. 

32 Oversight of Immigration Enforcement and Family Reunification Efforts: Hearing before the S. 

Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. (2018) (statement of Commander Jonathan White, U.S. Public 

Health Serv. Commissioned Corps, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs.). C.f., STAFF OF S.

PERMANENT SUBCOMM. ON INVESTIGATIONS, 114TH CONG., REP. ON PROTECTING UNACCOMPANIED 

ALIEN CHILDREN FROM TRAFFICKING AND OTHER ABUSES: THE ROLE OF THE OFFICE OF REFUGEE 

RESETTLEMENT 13 (Comm. print. 2016) [hereinafter PSI 2016 REPORT]. 

33 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(3)(A). 

34 Id. 
14 

field staff located throughout the country, Case Managers, and contractor Case 

Coordinators carry out those duties.35

 The Secretary then must determine whether a home study—an in-depth 

review of the child’s potential living circumstances36—is necessary. The Secretary 

must conduct home studies for children who meet certain criteria, such as children 

who have been the victim of a severe form of trafficking or physical or sexual abuse, 

special needs children, or children for whom the sponsor “clearly presents a risk of 

abuse, maltreatment, exploitation, or trafficking.”37 In addition, the Secretary may 

conduct home studies for other children.38 

 The Secretary must provide post-release services, such as mental health care 

and social services, for children for whom a home study is conducted.39 HHS offers 

those services through grants to service providers.40 Using its discretion, HHS also 

is offering post-release services to an expanded number of children.41 In Fiscal Year 

2017, HHS received funding to provide post-release services to 11,000 children out 

of 41,000 children released to sponsors.42 Even in cases in which HHS is required to 

provide post-release services, however, sponsors are not required to accept those 

services. ORR Director Scott Lloyd characterized them as “merely a set of 

voluntary services” HHS makes available to sponsors.43 

 In addition to governing the placement of UACs into appropriate living 

situations, the TVPRA requires the secretaries of HHS, DHS, and the Department 

of State, and the Attorney General to develop policies and programs to protect 

UACs in the United States from human traffickers.44

                                                            

35 ORR Policy Guide: Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied, §§ 2.3.1–2.3.3, OFF. OF 

REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT (Jan. 30, 2015), https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/children-entering-theunited-states-unaccompanied [hereinafter ORR Policy Guide]. 

36 ORR Policy Guide: Children Entering the United States Unaccompanied: Guide to Terms, OFF. OF 

REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT (Mar. 21, 2016), https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/children-enteringthe-united-states-unaccompanied-guide-to-terms [hereinafter ORR Guide to Terms]. 

37 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(3)(B). 

38 Id. 39 Id. 40 Briefing with Scott Lloyd, Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement, and Jonathan White, Dep. Dir. for 

Children’s Programs, Off. of Refugee Resettlement, et al. (Jan. 17, 2018). 41 Id. 42 Id. 43 Id. 44 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(1). 
15 

2. The Flores Agreement 

In conjunction with the TVPRA and other statutory provisions, a 1997 

consent decree known as the Flores Settlement Agreement (“Flores Agreement”) 

also governs HHS’s care of unaccompanied alien children.45 The former 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) originally entered into the Flores 

Agreement for the federal government. HHS inherited the INS’s responsibilities 

under the Flores Agreement in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which 

transferred to ORR “functions under the immigration laws of the United States 

with respect to the care of unaccompanied alien children that were vested by 

statute in, or performed by, the Commissioner of Immigration and 

Naturalization.”46 

The Flores Agreement arose out of a class action lawsuit initiated in 1985 

challenging INS’s policies to strip search unaccompanied alien children and to 

release them only to parents or legal guardians.47 After more than a decade of 

litigation, the plaintiffs and the INS entered into a consent decree that set out 

“nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors in the custody 

of INS.”48 It established a policy that the INS would: 

place each detained minor in the least restrictive setting appropriate to 

the minor’s age and special needs, provided that such setting is 

consistent with its interests to ensure the minor’s timely appearance 

before the INS and the immigration courts and to protect the minor’s 

well-being and that of others.49

It clarified that nothing in the agreement: 

shall require the INS to release a minor to any person or agency whom 

the INS has reason to believe may harm or neglect the minor or fail to 

present him or her before the INS or the immigration courts when 

requested to do so.50 

If the INS could not place a child with a sponsor, the Flores Agreement outlines 

conditions for housing the child in government-contracted facilities.51

                                                            

45 App. 001, Flores Agreement. 

46 Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002); 2 U.S.C. § 279(a). 

47 See Complaint, Flores v. Meese, 681 F. Supp. 665, No. 85-cv-4544 (C.D. Cal. filed July 11, 1985). 

48 App. 003, Flores Agreement ¶ 9. 

49 App. 004, Flores Agreement ¶ 11. 

50 Id. 51 App. 004–05, Flores Agreement ¶ 12.A. 
16 

Under the Flores Agreement, sponsors must execute an agreement to, among 

other things: 

 “provide for the minor’s physical, mental, and financial well-being”; 

 “ensure the minor’s presence at all future proceedings before the 

INS and the immigration court”; 

 “notify the INS of any change of address within five . . . days 

following a move”; and 

 “in the case of custodians other than parents or legal guardians, not 

transfer custody of the minor to another party without the prior 

written permission of the District Director.”52 

The agreement states that “[a] positive suitability assessment may be 

required” before releasing a child to a sponsor, including investigation of the 

sponsor’s living conditions, verification of the sponsor’s identity and employment, 

interviews of household members, and a home visit.53

The Flores Agreement makes clear that “[t]he INS may terminate the custody 

arrangements and assume legal custody of any minor whose custodian fails to 

comply with the agreement . . . . The INS, however, shall not terminate the custody 

arrangements for minor violations of [the provision requiring notification of the INS 

of change of address].”54 HHS, however, reported to the Subcommittee that it did 

not inherit that authority under Flores and cannot terminate sponsorship.55

                                                            

52 App. 006, Flores Agreement ¶ 15. 

53 App. 007, Flores Agreement ¶ 17. 

54 App. 007, Flores Agreement ¶ 16. 

55 App. 036–38, Letter from Mark. H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Sec’y, Admin. for Children & 

Families, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. and Robert Carey, Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement, 

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., to the Hon. Rob Portman, Chairman, S. Permanent Subcomm. 

on Investigations and the Hon. Claire McCaskill, Ranking Member, S. Permanent Subcomm. on 

Investigations (Sept. 13, 2016). 
17 

3. DHS and HHS Information Sharing While a UAC is in HHS Physical 

Custody 

a) Background Checks 

Under Agreement II, HHS and DHS committed to sharing resources to 

facilitate sponsor background checks. ORR is to request information from ICE on 

“all potential sponsors and adult members of potential sponsors’ households, in 

order to aid HHS in determining the suitability of a potential sponsor.”56 The 

information-sharing process is supposed to proceed as follows: ORR notifies 

potential sponsors that ORR will give their information to ICE to run a background 

check.57 ORR provides ICE with the “name, date of birth, address, fingerprints . . . 

and any available identification documents or biographic information regarding the 

potential sponsor and all adult members of the potential sponsor’s household.”58

ICE then provides ORR with information about the potential sponsors and 

other adults in the household within 72 hours, including information regarding 

“citizenship, immigration status, criminal history, and immigration history.59 ORR 

remains responsible for searching other databases, including public records, the Sex 

Offender Registry, National Criminal History, Child Abuse and Neglect, State 

Criminal History Repository, and local police records.60 

b) UAC Incident Reporting 

While UACs are in ORR care—either while awaiting sponsorship or living in 

one of the settings described below—ORR must report information regarding 

certain circumstances to various DHS components within 48 hours.61 Specifically, 

ORR must report a UAC’s unauthorized absence from the HHS facility; arrest of a 

UAC; alleged or suspected fraud, human smuggling, human trafficking, drug 

trafficking, weapons trafficking, or gang-related activity; abuse of a UAC while in 

ICE or CBP custody; violence by a UAC; or a change in the UAC’s level of care (e.g., 

from a secure facility to a staff-secure facility).62

If ICE or CBP becomes aware of any criminal information about a UAC that 

they did not have at the time of transfer, they are to notify ORR and provide 

supporting documentation as quickly as possible to help ORR determine if it should 

transfer the UAC to a different setting.63 

                                                            

56 App. 033, Agreement II at 5. 

57 See App. 039–43, ORR Authorization for Release of Information. 

58 App. 033, Agreement II at 5. 

59 Id. 60 Id. 61 Id. at 3–4. 

62 Id. 63 Id. at 4. 
18 

4. Alternatives to Sponsorship 

 When sponsors are not available or appropriate to house a UAC, HHS houses 

those children with grantee organizations in a variety of settings. As of August 9, 

2018, HHS was housing 11,423 UACs, although that number fluctuates daily.64 

The average length of stay for a UAC in HHS care is 41 days.65 

 HHS places children in settings appropriate to each child’s needs. For 

example, HHS houses children without an appropriate sponsor in either a fostercare setting or in shelters until resolution of their immigration proceedings or until 

a sponsor becomes available.66 Those facilities also include specialized housing for 

children with specific needs, such as very young (or “tender-aged”) children; 

pregnant girls or girls who have infant children with them; mentally or physically 

disabled children; and children who are victims of abuse.67

 

 HHS houses UACs who pose a risk to themselves or the community or who 

are flight risks in more restrictive settings, in accordance with the Flores 

Agreement. HHS places children who pose a moderate risk in staff-secure shelters, 

where they generally have freedom within the shelter, but are monitored by staff.68 

For children who present a higher risk, HHS contracts with three youth detention 

facilities, which house the children in a secure setting.69 Children housed in staffsecure or secure settings have the right to have their placements reviewed by the 

care provider staff, the UAC’s case coordinator, and ORR every 30 days to 

determine whether they can be moved down a level or released to a sponsor.70 

If a child turns 18 while living in an HHS facility, the child’s case is 

transferred to DHS.71 At that point, HHS is required to provide a post-placement 

report to DHS about the former UAC with recommendations for handling the case.72 

                                                            

64 Briefing with Commander Jonathan White, U.S. Public Health Serv. Commissioned Corps, U.S. 

Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. (Aug. 9, 2018) (572 of those children were separated from their 

parents from May to July 2018 under the Administration’s zero-tolerance policy; the remainder are 

traditional UACs who arrived in the United States without an accompanying adult). 

65 Oversight of Immigration Enforcement and Family Reunification Efforts: Hearing before the S. 

Comm. on the Judiciary, 115th Cong. (2018) (testimony of Commander Jonathan White, U.S. Public 

Health Serv. Commissioned Corps, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs.). 

66 ORR Policy Guide § 1.2. 67 Id. § 1.2. et seq. 68 Id. § 1.2.4. 

69 Id. § 1.2. 

70 Id. § 1.4.2. 

71 Briefing with Michael Dougherty, Assistant Sec’y for Border, Immigration & Trade Policy, U.S. 

Dep’t of Homeland Sec.; Mellissa Harper, Unit Chief, Juvenile & Family Residential Mgmt. Unit, 

Immigration & Customs Enforcement, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., et al. (Feb. 16, 2018); see ORR 

Policy Guide § 3.3.2. 

72App. 168, JCO at 22; Briefing with Michael Dougherty, Assistant Sec’y for Border, Immigration & 

Trade Policy, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.; Mellissa Harper, Unit Chief, Juvenile & Family 
19 

DHS then has the option to detain the former UAC or allow him or her to live in the 

community while awaiting his or her immigration court case.73

C. Department of Justice: Adjudication of UAC Immigration Cases 

As in adult civil immigration cases, the DOJ Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (“EOIR”) adjudicates UAC civil removal cases. ICE attorneys 

represent the government during immigration court proceedings. 74 As discussed 

above, after DHS serves the NTA upon either the child or HHS, an ICE Field Office 

Juvenile Coordinator files the NTA with an immigration court.75 For UAC cases 

currently pending before the immigration courts, the median length of time the 

cases have been pending since the UAC’s notice to appear was filed is 480 days.76 

More than eight thousand cases have been pending for more than three years.77 

UACs typically argue that they are eligible to stay in the United States 

because they qualify for immigration relief, including asylum78 or Special 

Immigrant Juvenile Status79.80 USCIS officers have initial jurisdiction over UAC 

applications for asylum81 and Special Immigrant Juvenile Status.82 During the 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

Residential Mgmt. Unit, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., et al. 

(Feb. 16, 2018); see ORR Policy Guide § 3.3.2. 

73 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Pub. L. No. 113–4 § 1261(2)(B) (codified as 

amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1232(2)(B) (2018)). 

74 JCO at 5. 

75 App. 151, JCO at 23; Briefing with policy staff, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. Off. of Strategy, Policy 

& Plans; Mellisa Harper, Enforcement & Removal Operations, Immigration & Customs 

Enforcement; Scott Lloyd, Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement; et al. (Aug. 2, 2018). 

76 Exec. Off. for Immigration Review, Current Median UAC Case Pending Time (June 30, 2018), 

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1061551/download. 

77 Exec. Off. for Immigration Review, Current UAC Cases Pending More than Three Years (July 6, 

2018), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1078571/download 

78 Asylum relief entitles asylum seekers to permanently remain in the United States if they establish 

they are a refugee—meaning they demonstrate they have a well-founded fear of persecution based on 

their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social or political group in their country 

of nationality or last habitual residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42); 8 U.S.C. § 1158. 

79 UACs are eligible for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status if they obtain a state court order stating 

that they cannot reunite with one or both of their parents because of abuse, neglect, or 

abandonment, and then apply to the United States Customs and Immigration Service for relief. 

Once granted, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status allows the UAC to apply for lawful permanent 

residency in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J); 8 C.F.R. § 2014.11 

80 Briefing by James McHenry, Dir. of the Exec. Off. for Immigration Review, U.S. Dep’t of Justice 

(June 22, 2018). 

81 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(C). 

82 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J); 8 C.F.R. § 2014.11 
20 

pendency of those proceedings, the immigration court may stay removal 

proceedings.83

If a UAC fails to appear for his or her court date, the immigration court 

typically follows a two-step process.84 First, the court determines whether the 

notice was proper, generally looking for proof that the address on file for the UAC 

matches the mailed notice.85 If so, the court considers whether the UAC is 

removable. The ICE counsel submits evidence at this point to establish 

removability.86 If the government meets its burden of proof on both steps, the court 

submits an in absentia removal order.87 An in absentia removal order can have 

serious consequences for a UAC: if the UAC leaves the country and attempts to reenter, the UAC may be ineligible for various forms of immigration relief for 10 years 

after entry of the final removal order.88

V. THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S 2015–2016 INVESTIGATION AND 

IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH 

A. Subcommittee Investigation, Report, and Hearing 

 In 2015, the Subcommittee learned that over four months in 2014, a human 

trafficking ring lured Guatemalan children and adults to the United States with 

promises of jobs and education.89 ORR failed to conduct appropriate background 

checks,90 and consequently, placed eight of those children with sponsors in the 

United States who were affiliated with the trafficking ring.91 ORR missed red flags, 

such as sponsors requesting to host multiple children and one sponsor preventing a 

                                                            

83 See United States Citizenship & Immigration Servs., Questions and Answers (June 10, 2013), 

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Refugee,%20Asylum,%20and%20Int%27l%20Ops/Asy

lum/ra-qanda-determine-jurisdiction-uac.pdf. 

84 Briefing by James McHenry, Dir. of the Exec. Off. for Immigration Review, U.S. Dep’t of Justice 

(June 22, 2018). 

85 Id. 86 Id. 87 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(A); Briefing by James McHenry, Dir. of the Exec. Off. for Immigration 

Review, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (June 22, 2018). 

88 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(7). 

89 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Leader of Human Trafficking Organization Sentenced to Over 

15 Years for Exploiting Guatemalan Migrants at Ohio Egg Farms (June 27, 2016), 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-human-trafficking-organization-sentenced-over-15-yearsexploiting-guatemalan-migrants; Emily Mills, Fourth person charged in egg farm migrant trafficking 

scheme, MARION STAR (Dec. 27, 2017), 

https://www.marionstar.com/story/news/crime/2017/12/27/fourth-person-charged-egg-farm-migranttrafficking-scheme/985614001/. 

90 PSI 2016 REPORT at 1–2. 

91 Emily Mills, Fourth person charged in egg farm migrant trafficking scheme, MARION STAR (Dec. 27, 

2017), https://www.marionstar.com/story/news/crime/2017/12/27/fourth-person-charged-egg-farmmigrant-trafficking-scheme/985614001/. 
21 

child-welfare case worker from visiting with one of the victims.92 For more than a 

year, the children were forced to work six or seven days a week, 12 hours per day on 

an egg farm in Marion, Ohio.93 Their traffickers threatened physical harm to them 

and their families and withheld their paychecks to force them to work in deplorable 

conditions.94 

 Six individuals were convicted and sentenced to federal prison for their 

participation in the trafficking scheme.95 In December 2017, DOJ charged a 

seventh defendant for his participation in the labor trafficking scheme.96 

 

 After learning about the Marion case in 2015, the Subcommittee investigated 

the circumstances that resulted in HHS placing these children with human 

traffickers, focusing on Category 3 sponsors—sponsors without a close relationship 

to the child, including distant relatives or unrelated adults. The Subcommittee 

reviewed HHS child placement case files, emails, and documents and interviewed 

ORR personnel.97 On January 28, 2016, the Subcommittee released a report and 

held a hearing regarding the investigation.98 

 The investigation “revealed that HHS has failed to take adequate steps to 

ensure that UACs are placed with safe and appropriate sponsors.”99 The 

Subcommittee found systemic deficiencies in HHS’s UAC placement process, 

specifically: 

 HHS’s process for verifying relationships between UACs and 

Category 3 sponsors was unreliable and vulnerable to abuse. HHS 

did not require Category 3 sponsors to provide any documentation of their 

relationship with the UACs they sought to sponsor.100

                                                            

92 PSI 2016 REPORT at 1–2. 

93 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Leader of Human Trafficking Organization Sentenced to Over 

15 Years for Exploiting Guatemalan Migrants at Ohio Egg Farms (June 27, 2016), 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/leader-human-trafficking-organization-sentenced-over-15-yearsexploiting-guatemalan-migrants. 

94 Id. 95 Id. 96 Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Indictment Unsealed Charging Additional Man for Labor 

Trafficking Conspiracy that Forced Minors to Work at Egg Farm Near Marion (Dec. 27, 2017), 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndoh/pr/indictment-unsealed-charging-additional-man-labortrafficking-conspiracy-forced-minors. 

97 PSI 2016 REPORT at 3–4, 29. 

98 PSI 2016 REPORT; Adequacy of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Efforts to Protect 

Unaccompanied Alien Children from Human Trafficking: Hearing before the S. Permanent 

Subcomm. on Investigations, 114th Cong. (2016). 

99 PSI 2016 REPORT at 26. 

100 Id. at 27. 
22 

 HHS was unable to detect when a sponsor or group of related 

sponsors was seeking custody of multiple unrelated children. 

Acquiring multiple unrelated UACs can be a warning sign that a sponsor or 

group of sponsors may pose danger to those children.101

 HHS failed to conduct adequate background checks on sponsors. 

Throughout the time period examined by the Subcommittee, HHS did not 

conduct background checks on all relevant adults, including other adults 

living in the sponsor’s home. HHS policy at that time also did not disqualify 

sponsors based on criminal history. 102

 HHS rarely conducted home studies. The agency performed home 

studies—that is, an inspection and evaluation of the physical home in which 

a child will be placed—in less than 4.3 percent of cases from 2013 through 

2015, and it failed to conduct home studies in even some statutorilymandated cases. HHS did not conduct any home studies in the Marion 

cases.103

 After releasing a child to a sponsor, HHS allowed the sponsor to 

refuse post-release services offered to the child—and even to bar 

contact between the child and HHS care providers attempting to 

provide those services. That policy caused HHS to miss a potential 

opportunity to uncover the crime perpetrated in the Marion cases when one 

of the victim’s sponsors refused to permit a social worker access to the 

child.104 

 HHS policy allowed non-relatives with criminal histories to sponsor 

children. HHS instructed care providers that no criminal offense was a per 

se bar to sponsorship.105 

 Sponsors often failed to ensure UACs appear at immigration 

proceedings. Failure to appear at an immigration hearing can have 

significant adverse consequences, and ensuring the child’s appearance at 

immigration proceedings is a principal task of a child’s sponsor. At the time 

of the Subcommittee’s 2016 report, 40 percent of completed UAC immigration 

cases over an 18-month period resulted in an in absentia removal order based 

on the UAC’s failure to appear.106

                                                            

101 Id. at 30. 

102 Id. at 31–33. 

103 Id. at 33–40. 

104 Id. at 40–42. 

105 Id. at 44–45. 

106 Id. at 47–49. 
23 

 No federal agency claimed to have authority or responsibility for the 

care of UACs after they are placed with non-parental sponsors in the 

United States. HHS claimed it had no responsibility for the care and safety 

for UACs after it placed them with sponsors it selected, in tension with 8 

U.S.C. § 1232, which makes the “care and custody” of all UACs the 

responsibility of HHS.107

 ORR never promulgated its policies as regulations or subjected them 

to notice-and-comment rulemaking. Instead, ORR maintained most of 

its policies in a constantly-changing Policy Guide that gives no certainty to 

UAC care providers or to UACs, nor transparency to Congress or the 

public.108

B. February 2016 Memorandum of Agreement 

Shortly after the Subcommittee’s January 26, 2016 hearing, DHS and HHS 

entered a Memorandum of Agreement (“Agreement I”).109 In Agreement I, the two 

agencies recognized their shared goals to ensure the “safe and expedited transfer 

and placement of UAC from DHS to HHS custody”; maximize efficiency in the use of 

resources; transmit information “to facilitate appropriate placement decisions”; 

“protect UAC in the custody of the United States or released to sponsors from 

mistreatment, exploitation, and trafficking”; and “promote the effective immigration 

processing and safe repatriation and reintegration of UAC.”110 Agreement I was to 

provide a “framework for interagency coordination” for the agencies’ respective 

responsibilities.111

Under Agreement I, the agencies agreed to establish a Joint Concept of 

Operations (“JCO”) “that should be completed no later than one year following the 

signing of this MOA, which should include, but need not be limited to standard 

protocols for consistent interagency cooperation on the care, processing, and 

transport of UAC.”112 The JCO was supposed to be completed by February 22, 2017; 

it was not finished until 17 months later, on July 31, 2018. 

The agencies also agreed to establish a Senior Leadership Council to 

coordinate agency cooperation with regard to UACs and to establish an Interagency 

Work Group to develop policies and resolve complaints about the UAC process.113 

                                                            

107 Id. at 49–50. 

108 Id. at 50–51. 

109 App. 044–48, Memorandum of Agreement Between the Department of Homeland Security and the 

Department of Health and Human Services Regarding Unaccompanied Alien Children (Feb. 22, 

2016) [hereinafter Agreement I]. 

110 App. 044, Agreement I at 1. 111 Id. 112 App. 045, Agreement I at 2. 

113 Id. 
24 

C. Limited HHS Reforms in 2015 and 2016 

 Following the 2015 indictment of the defendants in the Marion case and the 

January 2016 Subcommittee hearing and report, HHS announced limited changes 

to its UAC program policies, including: 

 Post-Placement Follow-Up Calls: In 2015, HHS released a new policy 

providing that ORR must attempt to contact all UACs and their sponsors 30 

days after release. According to the HHS Office of Inspector General, these 

calls allow ORR to identify and report concerns to local child welfare or law 

enforcement agencies.114 

 National Call Center: In June 2015, HHS announced an ORR National 

Call Center—a 24-hour hotline available for UACs, parents, and sponsors to 

connect them to community resources.115

 Enhanced Background Checks: Under its prior policy, HHS only 

conducted background checks on potential sponsors. In January 2016, HHS 

changed its policies to require additional background checks on other adults 

living in the potential sponsor’s household and other caregivers.116 

 Additional Home Studies: According to HHS policy, a home study is now 

required if an individual seeks to sponsor multiple UACs.117 HHS policy 

states that HHS will perform a home study and provide post-release services, 

such as mental health treatment, to a broader set of potentially vulnerable 

UACs, including children 12-years-old and under.118 

                                                            

114 HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement Improved Coordination and Outreach to Promote the Safety 

and Well-Being of Unaccompanied Alien Children, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. Off. of 

Inspector Gen., OEI-09-16-00260, July 31, 2017, https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-09-16-00260.asp. 

115 App. 050, Office of Refugee Resettlement National Call Center (June 25, 2015), 

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/orr-national-call-center. 

116 ORR Policy Guide § 2.5.1. 

117 Id. § 2.4.2. 

118 Id. 
25 

VI. THE SUBCOMMITTEE’S ONGOING INVESTIGATION: DHS AND 

HHS FAILURE TO ADDRESS 2016 FINDINGS 

After its initial report and hearing in January 2016, the Subcommittee 

continued its oversight of the executive branch’s care for UACs. The Subcommittee 

found that DHS and HHS took some steps to improve their care of UACs, such as 

running more consistent background checks on potential sponsors and other adults 

in the sponsors’ households. The Subcommittee supports those efforts. The 

Subcommittee also found, however, that DHS and HHS have failed to address many 

of its previous recommendations to ensure UAC safety. Problems that started 

under the Obama Administration persist today under the Trump Administration. 

As discussed below, the Subcommittee found that HHS and DHS have not 

addressed one of the most significant findings from the Subcommittee’s 

investigation—that no federal agency claims responsibility for UACs placed with 

non-parental sponsors (Categories 2 and 3). HHS and DHS also failed to enter the 

JCO by February 22, 2017. In fact, they finally issued the JCO on July 31, 2018, 17 

months beyond their own deadline, with no explanation for the delay. The JCO is 

limited to current, long-standing practice, and fails to address known deficiencies 

squarely within its scope. HHS still does not track UACs after HHS places them 

with sponsors, and the rate of UACs failing to appear at their immigration court 

proceedings is increasing. Neither HHS nor DOJ have taken meaningful steps to 

address those problems. 

A. Continued Denial of Responsibility for Unaccompanied Alien 

Children After Placement 

A decade ago, the HHS Office of Inspector General identified a foundational 

problem with the UAC program. After HHS places children with sponsors, no 

agency acknowledges that it has authority or responsibility for ensuring the 

children’s safety. In March 2008, the Inspector General found that there was no 

formal agreement between DHS and HHS delineating their responsibilities with 

regard to UACs. And without such an agreement, “it is not clear which Department 

is responsible for ensuring the safety of children once they are released to sponsors 

and which Department is responsible for ensuring sponsors’ continued compliance 

with sponsor agreements.”119 In December 2008, Congress passed the TVPRA, 

which states that “the care and custody of all unaccompanied alien children, 

including responsibility for their detention, where appropriate, shall be the 

responsibility of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.”120 

                                                            

119 DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUM. SERVS. OFF. OF INSPECTOR GEN., OEI-07-06-00290, DIV. OF 

UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN’S SERVICES: EFFORTS TO SERVE CHILDREN (2008), 

https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-06-00290.pdf. 

120 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(1). 
26 

In 2016, the Subcommittee confirmed that, in practice, nothing had changed 

since 2008. No agency believed it had responsibility for the care and safety for 

UACs after HHS places them with sponsors—a position in tension with the TVPRA, 

which places that responsibility on HHS.121 In its 2016 report, the Subcommittee 

explained that under the TVPRA, it is clear that the “care and custody” of all UACs 

are “the responsibility of HHS, without limitation.” The report highlighted that 

HHS’s interpretation is inconsistent with the Flores Agreement, which authorized 

the INS to terminate sponsorship in cases of abuse of neglect.122 

Over the past two and a half years, the Subcommittee has continued its 

oversight of the departments to ensure they made the recommended 

improvements—and, in particular, that HHS acknowledge its responsibility for 

UACs after HHS places them with non-parental sponsors. Some HHS officials at 

various points in time appear to be re-evaluating HHS’s responsibilities; others 

have continued to argue that HHS has no responsibility for these children. For 

example: 

 In a February 2016 letter to Sen. Claire McCaskill, the then-Acting 

Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families 

wrote, “once a child is released to a sponsor, ORR’s legal and physical 

custody terminates.” He explained that the Homeland Security Act of 

2002 and the TVPRA “set forth a system that is intended to be temporary 

in nature, with a focus on caring for children while in our physical 

custody, and releasing children to appropriate sponsors.” He argued that 

“if Congress had intended ORR’s legal custody to continue after a child is 

released to a sponsor, the TVPRA would not have needed certain of its 

post-release provisions.” He offered as an example that, had Congress 

intended HHS to have “continuing legal custody post-release,” “HHS 

would necessarily have the authority and responsibility to provide 

services to the child after release,” but, “[i]nstead, Congress specifically 

required follow-up services” in some cases, and “authorized follow-up 

services” in others. He also argued that the program would need to be 

“structured and resourced in a very different way” to accommodate longterm legal custody.123

 In response to the Subcommittee’s questions for the record after the 

January 2016 hearing, HHS stated that “[t]he Flores consent decree 

cannot grant HHS any authority that it does not have by statute.” Thus, 

it is “HHS’s view . . . that ORR does not have the same ability to remove a 

                                                            

121 PSI 2016 REPORT at 50. 122 Id. 123 App. 051–54, Letter from Mark Greenberg, Acting Assistant Sec’y, Admin. for Children & 

Families, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., to the Hon. Claire McCaskill, Ranking Member, S. 

Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations (Feb. 22, 2016). 
27 

child from a home and reassume custody as the former INS had at that 

time.”124 

 In a January 2018 briefing, ORR Director Scott Lloyd told Subcommittee 

staff ORR’s current interpretation of the TVPRA is that HHS no longer 

has responsibility for UACs once they are placed with sponsors because 

the children are no longer “unaccompanied.”125 He continued, however, 

that HHS was reviewing its interpretation of the statute. He said ORR 

had submitted a request to the HHS Office of General Counsel asking (1) 

whether anything prohibits HHS from asserting a custodial relationship 

over a UAC post-placement and (2) whether anything requires a formal 

custodial role for HHS over UACs post-placement.126 ORR sent follow-up 

questions to the Office of General Counsel after Mr. Lloyd briefed the 

Subcommittee.127 Despite repeated requests for information, HHS has not 

told the Subcommittee whether the Office of General Counsel has 

responded to those questions. 

 At the Subcommittee’s April 26, 2018 hearing, HHS’s Acting Assistant 

Secretary of the Administration for Children and Families Steven Wagner 

confirmed that “we are taking a fresh look at that question as a matter of 

both legal interpretation and appropriate policy.”128 

 In a May 2018 briefing, current ORR leadership told Subcommittee staff 

they recognize that prior Administrations’ interpretation of HHS’s legal 

authority places these children in a “legal no man’s land.”129 

 On June 26, 2018, HHS Secretary Alex Azar testified that “once [UACs] 

are placed with a sponsor, they are no longer subject to our jurisdiction. 

We cannot . . . pull a child back from a relative. We don’t have the legal 

                                                            

124 App. 036–38, Letter from Mark. H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Sec’y, Admin. for Children & 

Families, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. and Robert Carey, Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement, 

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., to the Hon. Rob Portman, Chairman, S. Permanent Subcomm. 

on Investigations and the Hon. Claire McCaskill, Ranking Member, S. Permanent Subcomm. on 

Investigations (Sept. 13, 2016). 

125 Briefing with Scott Lloyd, Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement, and Jonathan White, Dep. Dir. for 

Children’s Programs, Off. of Refugee Resettlement, et al. (Jan. 17, 2018). 

126 Id. 127 App. 055–57, Email from Off. of Legis. Affairs, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., to Subcomm. 

Counsel, S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, et al. (Feb. 4, 2018, 11:53 a.m.). 

128 Oversight of HHS and DHS Efforts to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children from Human 

Trafficking and Abuse: Hearing before the S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, 115th Cong. 

(2018) (testimony of Steven Wagner, Acting Assistant Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Health and Hum. Servs. 

Admin. for Children & Families). 

129 Briefing with Scott Lloyd, Dir. of the Off. of Refugee Resettlement, et al. (May 2, 2017). 
28 

authority. . . . We don’t have any authority to go out and pull a child back 

from a sponsor once they’re in that sponsor’s custody.”130 

 These interpretations of HHS’s responsibilities and authorities do not 

account for the plain language of the definition of “unaccompanied alien child,” at 

least with regard to children HHS places with Category 2 and 3 sponsors. Those 

children remain unaccompanied and under the HHS Secretary’s care. The 

Homeland Security Act of 2002 defines “unaccompanied alien child” as: 

 

a child who—(A) has no lawful immigration status in the United 

States; (B) has not attained 18 years of age; and (C) with respect to 

whom—(i) there is no parent or legal guardian in the United States; or 

(ii) no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to 

provide care and physical custody.131 

 Category 2 and 3 non-parental sponsors are not legal guardians of UACs 

unless they obtain an order from a state court. Thus, until the children are 

reunited with their parents or legal guardians, or until their sponsors obtain such 

an order, they remain unaccompanied alien children by definition, and still under 

the care and protection of HHS. Inferences drawn from grants of HHS’s authority 

to provide services to these children do not alter the meaning of that provision. 

HHS’s refusal to take responsibility for UACs throughout their immigration 

proceedings even in light of its statutory authority—particularly for those UACs it 

places with non-parental sponsors—undermines both UAC safety and the 

immigration system. 

                                                            

130 Prescription Drug Affordability and Innovation: Addressing Challenges in Today’s Market: 

Hearing before the S. Comm. on Finance, 115th Cong. (2018) (testimony of the Hon. Alex Azar, Sec’y, 

U.S. Dep’t of Health and Hum. Servs.). 

131 6 U.S.C. § 279(g)(2). 
29 

B. Failure to Enter Joint Concept of Operations on a Timely Basis 

1. GAO and HHS OIG Recommendation for Agreement 

 In 2008, the HHS Inspector General recommended that DHS and HHS enter 

an agreement to define their responsibilities with regard to UACs. The HHS 

Inspector General found that “[w]hen responsibilities were divided between HHS 

and DHS, no formal memorandum of understanding . . . was established to clarify 

each Department’s roles.” And as discussed above, the Inspector General continued, 

“[I]t is not clear which Department is responsible for ensuring the safety of children 

once they are released to sponsors and which Department is responsible for 

ensuring sponsors’ continued compliance with sponsor agreements.”132 

 In 2015, the GAO also highlighted the need for such an agreement. The GAO 

found that the transfer process from DHS to HHS was “inefficient and vulnerable to 

errors.” From reviewing emails from a pair of three-day periods in 2014, the GAO 

“identified miscommunications between agencies, as well as errors during both time 

periods, including UAC who had to be redesignated to different shelters after initial 

placements and UAC who were assigned to multiple shelters simultaneously.”133 

 The GAO echoed the HHS Inspector General’s recommendation, advising 

that DHS and HHS “should jointly develop and implement a documented 

interagency process with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, as well as 

procedures to disseminate placement decisions, for all agencies involved in the 

referral and placement of UAC in HHS shelters.”134 In 2016, the Subcommittee 

found that, despite these recommendations, DHS and HHS had not established any 

agreement to govern their responsibilities for UACs.135 

                                                            

132 U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUM. SERVS. OFF. OF INSPECTOR GEN., OEI-07-06-00290, DIVISION OF 

UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN’S SERVICES: EFFORTS TO SERVE CHILDREN ii (2008), 

https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-06-00290.pdf. 

133 U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFF., GAO-15-521, UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN: ACTIONS 

NEEDED TO ENSURE CHILDREN RECEIVE REQUIRED CARE IN DHS CUSTODY 51 (2015),

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-521. 

134 Id. 135 PSI 2016 REPORT at 49–50. 
30 

2. Agreement I and Joint Concept of Operations 

 On February 22, 2016, following the Subcommittee’s investigation and 

hearing, DHS and HHS signed Agreement I providing a framework for interagency 

coordination with respect to UACs. Agreement I recognized the two departments’ 

shared commitment to “protect UAC in the custody of the United States or released 

to sponsors from mistreatment, exploitation, and trafficking.”136 Under Agreement 

I, the departments also planned to establish a Senior Leadership Council to 

coordinate interagency cooperation on UAC “care, processing, and transport,” as 

well as an Interagency Working Group.137

 In Agreement I, the departments agreed to “establish a Joint Concept of 

Operations (JCO) that should be completed no later than one year following the 

signing of this MOA [on February 22, 2016], which should include, but need not be 

limited to standard protocols for consistent interagency cooperation on the care, 

processing, and transport of UAC . . . .”138 The agencies were supposed to complete 

the JCO by February 22, 2017. 

 According to the GAO, Agreement I identified priority issues for the 

departments to address related to UACs, including issues with chain of custody and 

the transport of UACs, but the JCO was to include the necessary operational 

specifics to address deficiencies identified by the GAO. To consider the 

recommendation closed, the GAO expects to see HHS and DHS complete and 

implement the JCO.139 

                                                            

136 App. 044, Agreement I at 1. 

137 Id. at 2. 

138 Id.

139 Oversight of HHS and DHS Efforts to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children from Human 

Trafficking and Abuse: Hearing before the S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, 115th Cong. 

(2018) (statement of Kathryn A. Larin, Dir., Educ., Workforce & Income Sec. Team, U.S. Gov’t 

Accountability Off.). 
31 

3. Deficiencies in Agreement II and the Joint Concept of Operations 

Only after the Subcommittee repeatedly asked DHS and HHS why the JCO 

was delayed, DHS and HHS took two significant steps: first, they entered a new 

Memorandum of Agreement (“Agreement II”) on April 13, 2018; and second, on July 

31, 2018, they completed the JCO.

a) Agreement II 

Agreement II governs information-sharing between ICE, CBP, and ORR 

regarding UACs and their potential sponsors, as described in Section IV above. 

The primary purpose of the information sharing under Agreement II is to “provide 

HHS with information necessary to conduct suitability assessments for sponsors 

from appropriate federal, state, and local law enforcement and immigration 

databases.”140 

In 2016, the Subcommittee found that HHS’s failure to conduct sufficient 

background checks contributed to the circumstances that led HHS to place eight 

children with human traffickers.141 More comprehensive background checks of 

more adults who will be living with UACs likely will increase UAC safety, and in 

that regard, Agreement II is an improvement over the processes the Subcommittee 

observed in 2016. 

 Immigration advocacy groups and UAC care providers have pointed out, 

however, that Agreement II does not limit DHS’s use of the information HHS sends 

to it about potential sponsors and other adults in their households.142 Many of 

them have expressed concern that, unless it is clear DHS will not use that 

information for enforcement purposes, fewer potential sponsors will apply to 

sponsor UACs because many of them are undocumented and fear enforcement.143 

Indeed, ORR personnel estimated that roughly 90 percent of current sponsors are 

undocumented.144 According to ORR, it is too early to determine whether the 

changes to the information-sharing process will dissuade a significant number of 

potential sponsors from stepping forward.145 ORR Director Lloyd commented that 

                                                            

140 App. 029, Agreement II at 1. 141 PSI 2016 REPORT at 27–30. 142 Briefings with UAC care providers; see, e.g., Nat’l Immigrant Justice Ctr. Comment on HHS ACF 

Notice of Sponsorship Review Procedures for Approval for Unaccompanied Alien Children, OMB No. 

0970–0278 (July 10, 2018), http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/default/files/contenttype/commentary-item/documents/2018-

07/NIJC%20Comment%20on%20HHS%20revisions%20to%20UC%20sponsor%20forms.pdf. 

143 Id. 144 Briefing with Scott Lloyd, Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement; policy staff, Dep’t of Homeland Sec. 

Off. of Strategy, Policy & Plans; Deane Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Dir. Enforcement & Removal 

Operations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. (June 5, 2018). 

145 Id. 
32 

he believed “a motivated sponsor won’t let immigration status deter” him or her 

from coming forward for a child.146 

If the advocacy groups and care providers are correct, however, and fewer 

sponsors are available, ORR will have to house more UACs for longer periods of 

time. The National Immigrant Justice Center has commented that, in this case, 

“children will remain confined in federal facilities at taxpayer expense, exacerbating 

the trauma and distress of survivors of violence and abuse in particular.”147

Furthermore, based on ORR briefings, it is not apparent that HHS has 

sufficient capacity or has made comprehensive contingency plans to house 

significantly more UACs.

b) Joint Concept of Operations 

On July 31, 2018, DHS and HHS finalized the JCO—17 months after the 

departments’ own deadline and 10 years after the HHS Office of Inspector General 

first recommended they develop such an agreement. The JCO represents an initial 

step in improving UAC care. It is important to commit each department’s 

responsibilities to paper to clarify who is responsible for taking specific actions with 

regard to UACs when the departments interact with each other. It likely will 

reduce some errors created by miscommunications between the departments. It 

also sets standard procedures that allow department leadership and Congress to 

hold personnel accountable for fulfilling their responsibilities toward UACs—at 

least where DHS and HHS interact with each other. 

Over the course of 10 years, however, the departments should have been able 

to create a comprehensive plan for ensuring UAC safety. Agreement I gestured 

toward the notion that the JCO might do more than recite the status quo. It 

discussed the departments’ shared goals to “protect UAC in the custody of the 

United States or released to sponsors” and “promote the effective immigration 

processing and safe repatriation and reintegration of UAC.”148 It provided that the 

JCO “should include, but need not be limited to, standard protocols for consistent 

interagency cooperation on the care, processing, and transport of UAC . . . .”149 

The JCO is, in fact, limited to those standard protocols—and does not resolve 

longstanding problems with those protocols. The JCO states that it “memorializes 

current practices in accordance with” immigration laws and “[d]epartmental and 

                                                            

146 Id. 147 Nat’l Immigrant Justice Ctr. Comment on HHS ACF Notice of Sponsorship Review Procedures for 

Approval for Unaccompanied Alien Children, OMB No.: 0970–0278 (July 10, 2018), 

http://www.immigrantjustice.org/sites/default/files/content-type/commentary-item/documents/2018-

07/NIJC%20Comment%20on%20HHS%20revisions%20to%20UC%20sponsor%20forms.pdf. 

148 App. 044, Agreement I at I. 

149 Id. at 2 (emphasis added). 
33 

agency guidelines, policies, and procedures.” 150 It defines its “purpose and scope” as 

follows: 

The JCO provides field guidance and standardization of interagency 

policies, procedures, and guidelines related to the processing of UAC 

encountered by DHS, whose care will be transferred to HHS, after 

being placed in removal proceedings pursuant to section 240 of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act . . . .151 

 In a briefing with Subcommittee staff, DHS personnel emphasized that the 

JCO does not replace current policies or announce new policies; rather, it describes 

“what’s been happening for years” between the departments.152 They said that the 

departments already should be in full compliance with the protocols described in 

the JCO.153

 Even within the confines of its limited subject matter, the JCO does not 

address significant problems that the GAO previously identified in the DHS-HHS 

communication process. For example, in 2015, the GAO observed that “[t]he 

interagency process to refer UAC from DHS to HHS shelters is inefficient and 

vulnerable to error. DHS and HHS rely on e-mail communication and manual data 

entry to coordinate the transfer of UAC to shelters.”154 Now, in 2018, the shelter 

placement process still relies on emails. According to the JCO, “ORR makes the 

placement determination and notifies both the Referring Agency [CBP or ICE] and 

the facility’s representative by email . . . when UAC placement has been 

obtained.”155 When asked whether current processes address the problems the GAO 

found in 2015 with email communications, a DHS official responded that the 

“important thing is that the communications are happening.”156 The departments 

do not appear to have changed their notification processes that the GAO found led 

to errors in placements in 2015. 

 Significantly, the JCO does not address care of UACs once HHS places them 

with sponsors. As discussed above, no agency takes responsibility for UACs after 

                                                            

150App. 153, JCO at 7. 

151 Id. 152 Briefing with policy staff, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. Off. of Strategy, Policy & Plans; Mellisa 

Harper, Enforcement & Removal Operations, Immigration & Customs Enforcement; Scott Lloyd, 

Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement; et al. (Aug. 2, 2018). 

153 Id. 154 U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFF., GAO-15-521, UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN: ACTIONS 

NEEDED TO ENSURE CHILDREN RECEIVE REQUIRED CARE IN DHS CUSTODY 48 (2015),

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-521. 

155App. 154, JCO at 8. 

156 Briefing with policy staff, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. Off. of Strategy, Policy & Plans; Mellisa 

Harper, Enforcement & Removal Operations, Immigration & Customs Enforcement; Scott Lloyd, 

Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement; et al. (Aug. 2, 2018). 
34 

HHS transfers them into a sponsor’s care. The JCO does not change that enormous 

gap in UAC care.

4. Limited Post-Release Services and Failure to Track UACs After 

Placement 

Over the last decade, HHS has had limited ability to track UACs after HHS 

places them with sponsors and provides post-release services in only a small 

number of cases. Post-release services in the form of social work, wellness checks, 

and legal aid provide HHS the best window into UAC-sponsor relationships, but 

HHS provides post-release services in few cases—and recently has eliminated legal 

services for children released to sponsors. These deficiencies continue to hamper 

HHS’s care of UACs and leave these children at risk for trafficking and abuse. 

In 2008, the HHS Office of Inspector General found that ORR’s precursor, the 

Division of Unaccompanied Children’s Services: 

does not have a method to track children after they are released to 

sponsors and therefore is unable to determine whether the processes 

facilities use to screen sponsors are effective and whether sponsors 

continue to provide for children’s physical, mental, and financial wellbeing.157 

In 2016, the Subcommittee found that HHS still did not have a mechanism to 

track UACs after their placements with sponsors.158 The Subcommittee observed 

that post-release services were HHS’s best means of tracking UACs and developing 

insight into their circumstances—but HHS provided post-release services in only 

about 10 percent of cases each year. 159 The Subcommittee noted that every UAC 

care provider it interviewed recommended that HHS provide post-release services to 

all UACs placed with Category 3 sponsors.160

Similarly, later in 2016, the GAO found that HHS had very little information 

about UACs after HHS released them to sponsors, and no means by which to collect 

such information systematically.161 The GAO observed that “[w]ithout processes to 

ensure that the data from its activities are reliable, systematically collected, and 

compiled in summary form, ORR may be missing an opportunity to provide useful 

                                                            

157 U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUM. SERVS. OFF. OF INSPECTOR GEN., OEI-07-06-00290, DIVISION OF 

UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN’S SERVICES: EFFORTS TO SERVE CHILDREN ii (2008), 

https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-06-00290.pdf. 

158 PSI 2016 REPORT at 44. 

159 Id. 160 Id. 161 U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFF., GAO-16-180, UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN: HHS CAN 

TAKE FURTHER ACTIONS TO MONITOR THEIR CARE (2016), https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-180. 
35 

information about [the UAC] population for the use of other government 

agencies.”162 

This situation largely remains the same today, with a few notable changes. 

HHS still has limited ability to track UACs after HHS places them with sponsors in 

the United States. HHS has reported to the Subcommittee, however, that it has 

made at least three significant changes to its post-release service practices, 

although they are of mixed effect. 

First, HHS reported to the Subcommittee that it is offering post-release 

services to an increased number of UACs, both for the total number of UACs served 

and as a percentage of UACs referred to HHS by fiscal year.163 In FY 2016, ORR 

provided 10,546 UACs with post-release services—which represents 17.8 percent of 

the 59,170 UACs DHS referred to HHS that year. In FY 2017, ORR provided 

13,381 UACs with post-release services—representing 32.7 percent of UACs 

referred by DHS that year.164 

During that same time, ORR reduced the total number of home studies it 

conducted. It conducted 3,540 home studies in FY 2016, for 5.9 percent of all UACs 

DHS referred to HHS. It conducted 3,173 home studies in FY 2017, for 7.7 percent 

of UACs referred that year.165 As discussed in more detail in the Subcommittee’s 

2016 report, home studies are universally performed before placing a child in foster 

care. Particularly for children placed with Category 3 sponsors, sponsorship 

placements are substantially similar to foster care placements.166 

Post-release services frequently provide HHS its only insight into the 

children’s well-being, and the children’s best shot at receiving help if their living 

situations prove to be unsafe.167 The Subcommittee supports ORR’s increase in 

post-release services, but cautions that the increase should not come at the expense 

of thorough home studies prior to placement. 

Second, in August 2015, HHS began calling each UAC 30 days after 

placement with a sponsor to check on their welfare.168 The Subcommittee observed 

in 2016 that “[t]hat process appears to have limited utility” because HHS had no 

means to follow up with a child with whom it had failed to make contact.169 The 

data bear out that observation. At the Subcommittee’s April 2018 hearing, Steven 

                                                            

162 Id. at 36 

163 Briefing with Scott Lloyd, Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement, and Jonathan White, Dep. Dir. for 

Children’s Programs, Off. of Refugee Resettlement, et al. (Jan. 17, 2018). 

164 App. 058–59, Off. of Refugee Resettlement, Facts and Data. 165 Id. 166 PSI 2016 REPORT at 2, 19–20, 35–36. 

167 Id. at 42–44. 

168 ORR Policy Guide § 2.8.4; see PSI 2016 REPORT at 43. 

169 PSI 2016 REPORT at 44. 
36 

Wagner, the HHS Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children 

and Families, testified regarding those 30-day wellness check calls: 

From October to December 2017, ORR attempted to reach 7,635 UAC 

and their sponsors. Of this number, ORR reached and received 

agreement to participate in the safety and well-being call from 

approximately 86 percent of sponsors. From these calls, ORR learned 

that 6,075 UAC remained with their sponsors. Twenty-eight UAC had 

run away, five had been removed from the United States, and 52 had 

relocated to live with a non-sponsor. ORR was unable to determine 

with certainty the whereabouts of 1,475 UAC. Based on the calls, ORR 

referred 792 cases, which were in need of further assistance, to the 

National Call Center for additional information and services.170

 Although the Subcommittee views the follow-up calls as a small step in the 

right direction, it is concerning that HHS apparently takes no action to address the 

alarming situations it discovers when it makes those calls. In many of the cases 

Mr. Wagner described above, HHS should have taken further action to ensure the 

children’s welfare. For example: 

 HHS either could not reach or did not get sponsors’ consent to 

participate in 14 percent, or about 1,070, of these calls. HHS should 

have a mechanism to reach sponsors and UACs, and sponsors should be 

required to communicate with HHS when contacted. It should be a 

significant red flag if a sponsor refuses to speak with HHS on the telephone 

30 days after HHS releases a child to that person. 

 HHS found that 28 UACs had run away from their sponsors. It does 

not appear that HHS took any action in response to those discoveries or had 

any means by which to determine their location. HHS should develop a 

mechanism to track those children and to inform local authorities when 

children run away from their sponsors. 

 HHS found that 52 UACs were no longer living with their sponsor. In 

these situations, HHS has no way of knowing whether those 52 UACs are 

living in safe conditions. Furthermore, under both the sponsor agreement171

and the Flores Agreement,172 sponsors are required to proactively notify the 

government if UACs change households—but HHS does not enforce that 

                                                            

170 Oversight of HHS and DHS Efforts to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children from Human 

Trafficking and Abuse: Hearing before the S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, 115th Cong. 

(2018) (statement of Steven Wagner, Acting Assistant Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Health and Hum. Servs. 

Admin. for Children & Families). 

171 App. 071–72, Office of Refugee Resettlement Sponsor Handbook at 12–13. 

172 App. 006, Flores Agreement ¶ 15(C). 
37 

portion of the agreement. UAC care providers told the Subcommittee that a 

UAC’s parents or other relatives often fear making themselves known to the 

government because they are also in the country without authorization. In 

those cases, they sometimes hire or persuade someone else to act as the 

child’s sponsor, and once HHS releases the child to the sponsor, the child 

leaves the sponsor’s care to live with her parents or other relatives.173 This 

scenario endangers these children and prevents HHS from being able to 

ensure their safety, provide follow-up services where necessary, or ensure 

they appear at their immigration court proceedings.174

 HHS “could not ascertain with certainty the whereabouts of 1,475 

UAC.” To date, the Subcommittee is not aware that HHS has taken any 

follow-up action to determine where those children are, with whom they are 

living, and if they are safe. It is inexcusable that the government places 

children with adults to await their immigration court proceedings and, within 

30 days, has lost track of 20 percent of those children. HHS must develop 

measures to track these children and hold sponsors accountable to their 

sponsorship agreements. 

The 30-day follow-up wellness call is a positive measure—but its results 

ultimately highlight the deficiencies in the current system. Moreover, the 

Subcommittee has repeatedly asked HHS to update the numbers with the results of 

the calls it has made in 2018. As of this report, HHS failed to provide those 

numbers. HHS officials told the Subcommittee that it could either focus its 

resources on reuniting families separated under the zero-tolerance policy or on 

providing new data.175 The Subcommittee supports reuniting the families quickly. 

It is concerning, however, that HHS is not tracking the results of its 30-day 

wellness check calls, reducing the already-limited visibility HHS and Congress have 

into the lives of children who arrived in the United States unaccompanied and who 

HHS placed with sponsors. 

Third, and finally, HHS has directed its grantee legal service providers to 

stop accepting new clients from the population of UACs already released to 

sponsors. According to ORR Director Scott Lloyd, HHS’s authority to provide legal 

services to children released to sponsors is “shaky.”176 This interpretation is 

contrary to law. The TVPRA provides that the HHS Secretary: 

                                                            

173 Briefing with UAC care providers (Apr. 4, 2018). 

174 Id. 175 S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. and Governmental Affairs staff briefing with U.S. Dep’t of Health 

and Hum. Servs. (Aug. 10, 2018) 

176 Briefing with policy staff, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. Off. of Strategy, Policy & Plans; Mellisa 

Harper, Enforcement & Removal Operations, Immigration & Customs Enforcement; Scott Lloyd, 

Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement; et al. (Aug. 2, 2018). 
38 

shall ensure, to the greatest extent practicable and consistent with 

section 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1362), 

that all unaccompanied alien children who are or have been in the 

custody of [HHS or DHS] . . . have counsel to represent them in legal 

proceedings or matters and protect them from mistreatment, 

exploitation, and trafficking. To the greatest extent practicable, the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services shall make every effort to 

utilize the services of pro bono counsel who agree to provide 

representation to such children without charge.177

Under the TVPRA, HHS still has an obligation to help those children obtain 

counsel. Given its decision to eliminate representation by its grantees for children 

placed with sponsors, ORR should increase its support for pro bono legal services for 

children living with sponsors. UAC legal service providers have testified about the 

positive effects legal representation has on UAC court attendance and welfare, 

noting that attorneys can provide an additional point of contact to help ensure UAC 

well-being.178

 The limitations on HHS’s ability to track UACs and its engagement with 

UACs post-placement have significant consequences. The Subcommittee has 

learned of allegations of at least one additional case of a child being placed into 

forced labor that perhaps could have been caught earlier if the child had been 

receiving post-release services. A UAC care provider reported to the Subcommittee: 

The limited use of home studies and post-release services has resulted 

in children being released to situations of abuse, abandonment, 

neglect, and trafficking. These are youth like Juan,179 who was 

released from ORR care without services to his half-uncle in Florida. 

Shortly after his reunification, Juan’s uncle withdrew him from school 

and sent him to work in the fields with his two cousins (who had not 

been in the care of ORR). This forced labor continued until Juan’s 

cousin was injured and brought, with Juan, to the Emergency Room, 

where the injury raised abuse and trafficking concerns. [Child 

Protective Services] investigated the situation and removed the 

children from the home, placing the children in state custody.180

Other care providers relayed similar, anecdotal scenarios of UACs they had seen 

put into forced labor. 

                                                            

177 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(5). 

178 See, e.g., Oversight of HHS and DHS Efforts to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children from 

Human Trafficking and Abuse: Hearing before the S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, 115th 

Cong. (2018) (statement of Jessica A. Ramos, Staff Attorney, Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, 

Inc.). 

179 Children’s names are changed to protect their identities. 

180 App. 110, Email from UAC care provider to Subcommittee Staff (Aug. 3, 2018, 2:56 p.m.). 
39 

Another UAC care provider testified at the Subcommittee’s April 2018 

hearing about a case involving a 17-year-old Honduran girl who entered the country 

and was apprehended in 2016. The care provider testified: 

ORR found Anabel’s mother in Cincinnati, Ohio and released Anabel to 

her mother. Anabel’s mother did not receive a home study before 

Anabel was released from ORR, and Anabel did not receive postrelease services. Before reunifying with her mother, Anabel had not 

seen her mother in over 10 years . . . For reasons unclear, Anabel’s 

mother kicked Anabel out of the house approximately 5 months after 

Anabel was released to her care by ORR. Anabel was forced to move-in 

[sic] with an uncle, who provided Anabel with very little supervision.181

5. Increased Rates of Failure to Appear for Immigration Court 

Proceedings 

 It is critically important for UACs to appear at their immigration court 

proceedings. Appearing at their proceedings gives UACs the opportunity to apply 

for immigration relief or protection from removal, such as asylum or Special 

Immigrant Juvenile Status, and it upholds the orderly functioning of the country’s 

immigration system. Failure to appear, on the other hand, usually results in the 

court ordering the child removed in absentia, which bars subsequent immigration 

relief for a period of 10 years if the child leaves and then attempts to re-enter the 

United States.182 

 In 2016, the Subcommittee found that a substantial number of UACs failed to 

appear for their immigration court proceedings from July 2014 through December 

2015.183 The Subcommittee now has found that over the intervening two and a half 

years since its last report, UACs are failing to appear at their immigration court 

proceedings at increased rates, as demonstrated in the table below. And of UACs 

ordered removed from the country, more than 80 percent of them are ordered 

removed in absentia.184

                                                            

181 Oversight of HHS and DHS Efforts to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children from Human 

Trafficking and Abuse: Hearing before the S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, 115th Cong. 

(2018) (testimony of Allison E. Herre, Catholic Charities of Southwestern Ohio). 

182 PSI 2016 REPORT at 47–48; see 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(4); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229 (b)–(c); 8 U.S.C. § 1225; and 

8 U.S.C. § 1258. 

183 PSI 2016 REPORT at 47–49. 

184 Exec. Off. for Immigration Review, UAC Statistics (July 2, 2018), 

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1083086/download (6,303 UACs ordered removed in FY2018; of those 

5,109 were ordered removed in absentia). 
40 

Fiscal 

Year 

Pending 

UAC Cases 

UAC Initial 

Case 

Completions 

UAC In

Absentia

Removal 

Orders 

In Absentia

Percentage185

2014 18,852 3,552 1,856 52% 

2015 31,621 13,357 6,386 48% 

2016 51,691 15,016 6,089 41% 

2017 71,534 13,758 6,634 48% 

2018 

(through 

6/30/18) 

80,266 9,621 5,109 53% 

 

 Because failure to appear at their proceedings can have significant 

consequences for UACs, by law, HHS must cooperate with DOJ “to ensure that 

custodians receive legal orientation programs” and that such programs “address the 

custodian’s responsibility to attempt to ensure the child’s appearance at all 

immigration proceedings and to protect the child from mistreatment, exploitation, 

and trafficking.”186 Before HHS releases a UAC to a sponsor, the sponsor must sign 

a form agreeing to attend the legal orientation program and to “ensure the minor’s 

presence at all future proceedings before DHS/Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement . . . and DOJ/EOIR.”187 Given the rates of non-appearance, it is clear 

that a majority of sponsors are not upholding that obligation, and no government 

agency is enforcing the agreement. 

 According to legal service providers, one of the main reasons UACs fail to 

appear for their proceedings is the significant amount of time between a UAC’s 

apprehension and his or her first court appearance. The median length of time 

UAC cases currently have been pending since the filing of a notice to appear is 480 

days.188 This significant lapse of time can cause UACs to miss their court dates.189 

The GAO also has observed that if a significant amount of time passes before a 

respondent’s hearing, witnesses are less likely to be available and pro bono 

attorneys are less inclined to accept cases scheduled far into the future.190 

Similarly, DHS attorneys told the GAO that it is difficult to assign one attorney to 

                                                            

185 Exec. Off. for Immigration Review, Unaccompanied Alien Child Cases (July 6, 2018), 

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1060871/download; 

186 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(4). 

187 App. 071–72, Office of Refugee Resettlement Sponsor Handbook at 12–13. 

188 Exec. Off. for Immigration Review, Current Median UAC Case Pending Time (June 30, 2018), 

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1061551/download. 

189 Briefing with UAC legal provider (Apr. 18, 2018). 

190 U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFF., GAO-17-438, IMMIGRATION COURTS: ACTIONS NEEDED TO 

REDUCE CASE BACKLOG AND ADDRESS LONG-STANDING MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES

28–29 (2017). 
41 

the entire life of a case, which increases the amount of time and money necessary 

for new attorneys to prepare for the case.191

 The delay is largely attributable to DOJ EOIR’s substantial backlog of 

immigration cases, including UAC cases.192 The GAO examined trends in EOIR’s 

backlog last year. From FY 2006 through FY 2015, the number of EOIR’s open 

cases grew 44 percent, from approximately 517,000 cases to 747,000 cases.193 

According to the GAO, the rate of new cases filed each year remained relatively 

steady, but the backlog gradually increased because the immigration courts 

completed cases at a reduced rate.194 In FY 2006, the immigration courts completed 

about 287,000 cases, and in FY 2015, they completed about 199,000.195 This was so 

even though the number of immigration court judges increased from 212 to 247 over 

that same period of time.196 EOIR explained that new judges process cases more 

slowly than experienced judges.197 Furthermore, cases began taking longer. In FY 

2015, the median case completion time was 43 days; in FY 2015, it was 286 days.198 

EOIR attributed this increase to changes in the complexity of the cases filed—cases 

for relief such as asylum and removal withholdings increased and voluntary 

departure applications decreased.199 And the 2014 surge of UAC cases—which tend 

to be more complex—also contributed to the backlog.200 

 As of July 2, 2018, 80,266 UAC cases were pending201—roughly 11 percent of 

the total 733,730 immigration cases pending across the country.202 Currently, 355 

immigration judges handle these cases, including 29 new immigration judges 

invested on August 10, 2018.203 DOJ has authority to hire 129 additional judges.204 

To reduce this backlog, it is critical that DOJ make full use of the resources and 

authorities Congress has given it to conduct these proceedings. The GAO also has 

recommended that EOIR develop and implement a workforce plan that accounts for 

                                                            

191 Id. at 30. 

192 Id. at 22. 

193 Id. at 20. 

194 Id. at 22. 

195 Id. 196 Id. at 23. 

197 Id. at 23–24. 

198 Id. at 25. 

199 Id. 200 Id. at 27. 

201 Exec. Off. for Immigration Review, UAC Statistics (July 2, 2018), 

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/1083086/download. 

202 Exec. Off. for Immigration Review, Pending Cases (July 6, 2018), 

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1060836/download. 

203 S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs staff briefing with Kate Sheehy, Chief of 

Staff, Exec. Off. of Immigration Review, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Aug. 10, 2018). 

204 Id. 
42 

long-term staffing needs, the complexity of cases, and EOIR’s performance goals.205 

This planning is especially critical given that as of 2017, 39 percent of immigration 

court judges were eligible for retirement.206

 At the Subcommittee’s April 26, 2018 hearing and in briefings, legal service 

and care providers have offered the Subcommittee several additional observations 

about why they believe UACs fail to appear at their court proceedings in some 

cases: 

 UACs struggle to appear in person at courts far from where they live. 

Only 29 states, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands have 

immigration courts,207 and in many cases, even courts in-state are far from 

where UACs live. In Ohio, for example, only one court—located in 

Cleveland—hears juvenile removal proceedings.208 Similarly, in Delaware, 

the nearest juvenile immigration court is in Philadelphia.209 According to a 

legal service provider, in the past, some of these courts allowed UACs to 

appear by telephone, but now, they require UACs to appear in person. The 

legal service providers explained that the UACs have to drive as far as four 

hours to attend their proceedings, and often the UACs do not have the 

resources or ability to travel.210 They suggested that it would be helpful if the 

court would hold hearings in multiple locations or allow children to appear 

via telephone or videoconference.211 

 UACs are unaware of the need to request a change of venue. One 

legal service provider testified before the Subcommittee that she frequently 

represents UACs placed into immigration court proceedings in one 

jurisdiction and released to sponsors in another jurisdiction, sometimes 

across the country. She said that many UACs and their sponsors do not 

know they need to request a change of venue in order to proceed with the case 

in the sponsor’s home jurisdiction.212 

                                                            

205 U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFF.,GAO-17-438, IMMIGRATION COURTS: ACTIONS NEEDED TO 

REDUCE CASE BACKLOG AND ADDRESS LONG-STANDING MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES

34 (2017). 

206 Id. 207 Exec. Off. of Immigration Review, Immigration Court Listing (June 2018), 

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoir-immigration-court-listing#OH. 

208 Oversight of HHS and DHS Efforts to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children from Human 

Trafficking and Abuse: Hearing before the S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, 115th Cong. 

(2018) (statement of Jessica A. Ramos, Staff Attorney, Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.); 

briefing with legal service provider (Apr. 6, 2018); briefing with legal service provider (Apr. 10, 2018). 

209 Briefing with legal service provider (Apr. 18, 2018). 

210 Briefing with legal service provider (Apr. 10, 2018). 211 Id. 212 See, e.g., Oversight of HHS and DHS Efforts to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children from 

Human Trafficking and Abuse: Hearing before the S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, 115th 

Cong. (2018) (statement of Laura Carothers Graham, Deputy Dir., Community Legal Aid Soc., Inc.). 
43 

 ICE priorities. The service providers explained that sponsors—who are 

frequently undocumented immigrants themselves—are afraid to take the 

children to court because they fear ICE will arrest them at the courthouse.213 

 Language barriers and unclear instructions. UACs and their sponsors 

receive a packet of information about the responsibilities they undertake with 

the placement. The legal service providers told Subcommittee staff that 

UACs and their sponsors often struggle to understand the legal requirements 

and the materials in the languages provided without the help of counsel, and, 

in some cases, an interpreter.214

                                                            

213 Briefing with legal service provider (Apr. 9, 2018); see also App. 119, USCIS Asylum Div. 

Quarterly Stakeholder Meeting Agenda (Aug. 11, 2017) (question and answer portion addresses 

question regarding sponsor fear: “Sponsors and other adult caregivers are expressing increasing fear 

of attending child asylum interviews as witnesses or ‘trusted adults’ because of increasing fear of 

immigration enforcement efforts. Does the Asylum Division have a policy regarding the sharing of 

witness and other adults’ information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement?”); App. 127, 

U.S. Conf. of Catholic Bishops Migration & Refugee Servs. and Lutheran Immigration & Refugee 

Servs., Post-Release Services: Family Preservation Services for Immigrant Children Released from 

Federal Custody Frequently Asked Questions. 214 Briefing with legal service provider (Apr. 18, 2018). 
44 

VII. ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS PROTECTING UACS AND ENSURING 

APPEARANCE AT REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS 

 While reviewing HHS and DHS’s progress in addressing the deficiencies the 

Subcommittee described in its January 2016 report, the Subcommittee identified 

several additional problems in the UAC program. As discussed in more detail 

below, despite relying on state agencies to ensure UAC welfare, HHS does not notify 

state governments of UACs’ placements. The Subcommittee learned that HHS 

frequently fails to provide required age-out plans to DHS when UACs in HHS’s 

custody turn 18. And HHS has not enlisted services from the appropriate providers 

to care for children who need to be in a secure setting who also have significant 

mental health issues, putting both those children and the children with whom they 

are housed at risk. 

A. Lack of Notification to States of UAC Placement 

 HHS believes that once ORR releases UACs into their sponsors’ care, their 

well-being is in the purview of local authorities.215 Even if an HHS-contracted care 

provider has concerns about a UAC’s care or safety, those providers report the 

problems to state and local authorities, not HHS.216 When state agencies call ORR 

with concerns about UACs, HHS refers them to ICE.217 HHS does not take 

responsibility for UACs under any of those circumstances,218 nor does HHS track 

the number of UACs placed into state welfare programs219. 

 Although HHS places enormous responsibility on state governments to 

ensure UAC welfare, HHS generally does not notify state or local governments 

when it places children with sponsors in those communities. The GAO found that 

representatives from city governments were unaware that UACs were living in 

their cities.220 

                                                            

215 PSI 2016 REPORT at 26; Briefing with Scott Lloyd, Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement, and 

Jonathan White, Dep. Dir. for Children’s Programs, Off. of Refugee Resettlement, et al. (Jan. 17, 

2018). 

216 App. 130–32, Letter from Mark Greenberg, Acting Assistant Sec’y, Admin. for Children & 

Families, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., and Robert Carey, Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement, 

to the Hon. Rob Portman, Chairman, S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, and the Hon. Claire 

McCaskill, Ranking Member, S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations (Sept. 6, 2016). 

217 Briefing with Scott Lloyd, Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement, and Jonathan White, Dep. Dir. for 

Children’s Programs, Off. of Refugee Resettlement, et al. (Jan. 17, 2018). 

218 App. 051–54, Letter from Mark Greenberg, Acting Assistant Sec’y, Admin. for Children & 

Families, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., to the Hon. Claire McCaskill, Ranking Member, S. 

Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations (Feb. 22, 2016).

219 Briefing with Scott Lloyd, Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement, and Jonathan White, Dep. Dir. for 

Children’s Programs, Off. of Refugee Resettlement, et al. (Jan. 17, 2018). 

220 U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFF., GAO-16-180, UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILDREN: HHS CAN 

TAKE FURTHER ACTIONS TO MONITOR THEIR CARE 37 (2016), https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-

180. 
45 

 

 The Subcommittee interviewed 16 UAC care and legal service providers. 

Most of them agreed that it would be “wonderful” 221 and “very helpful”222 if HHS 

were to notify state and local governments when it places UACs in a state. They 

explained that it would help the care providers to have lists of UACs in their 

communities so they could proactively reach out to offer services to the UACs and to 

connect them with other pro bono service providers, such as attorneys to represent 

them in their immigration court proceedings.223 Some cautioned, however, that 

guardrails would need to be in place to protect the UAC and sponsor information 

privacy.224 

 The care providers also frequently mentioned that state and local 

governments do not understand their obligations and authorities with respect to 

UACs. One said that a state’s child welfare services personnel were reluctant to get 

involved in helping UACs who had been abused.225 All agreed that it would be 

“incredibly helpful” for ORR to provide trainings to state and local governments.226

 

 The Subcommittee also spoke with state and local government officials. 

Those officials all also agreed that it would be useful for them to receive information 

about the UACs living in their communities for a variety of reasons. For example, 

Dr. Pattiva Cathell, an English Language Learner Counselor at Sussex Central 

High School in Delaware, observed that UACs frequently need special resources, 

such as language interpreters—but the school district cannot plan for those 

resources or even know to prepare for the additional number of students until the 

UACs arrive at school throughout the year.227 

 Furthermore, unless they are notified, local governments are not aware that 

UACs are living in their school districts and should be attending school. In that 

case, if UACs do not come to school, the local government has no reason to check on 

them or raise concerns about their welfare, negating a significant opportunity to 

learn of problems in a sponsorship situation.228 Dr. Cathell testified before the 

Subcommittee that schools frequently are the first to observe problems. She said 

her school identified many incidents in which UACs under the age of 18 work while 

                                                            

221 Briefing with UAC care provider (Apr. 10, 2018). 222 Briefing with UAC legal services provider (Apr. 10, 2018). 

223 Briefing with UAC care provider (Apr. 10, 2018). 224 E.g., briefing with UAC legal services provider (Apr. 9, 2018); briefing with UAC care provider 

(Apr. 23, 2018). 

225 Briefing with UAC care provider (Apr. 10, 2018). 

226 E.g., briefing with UAC care provider (Apr. 6, 2018); briefing with UAC care provider (Apr. 9, 

2018). 

227 Briefing with Dr. Pattiva Cathell (Apr. 17, 2018). 

228 Id. 
46 

attending school, often to pay rent to their sponsors, to pay the cost of their travel to 

the United States, or to send money back to family in their home country.229

 On October 30, 2017, HHS changed its policy to provide that ORR would 

notify states regarding one population of UACs: it planned to notify local law 

enforcement when releasing UACs from a secure or staff secure facility to sponsors 

in those communities.230 Currently, HHS houses about 180 UACs in secure or staffsecure settings, so this policy has the potential to affect only a miniscule portion of 

the UAC population. Moreover, HHS told Subcommittee staff that, in January 

2018, the Department had not implemented the policy change because it was 

struggling to identify the appropriate point of contact at local law enforcement 

agencies across the country.231 As of this report, HHS has begun a pilot program in 

two areas—Suffolk County, New York, and Los Angeles, California—to notify states 

regarding placement of these children.232

B. HHS Failure to Submit Post-Placement Plans 

Under the JCO—which represents longstanding policy, according to the 

departments—HHS is required to provide “post-placement,” or “post-18” plans when 

UACs in HHS care turn 18-years-old.233 Once a UAC in HHS’s care turns 18, ORR 

refers the UAC to ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”), which is 

responsible for evaluating a UAC’s immigration status.234 HHS must provide postplacement plans to ERO prior to the child’s 18th birthday.235 These plans need to 

include information to allow ICE to evaluate the individual’s circumstances and 

decide whether to detain the individual, release him or her on bond, or release him 

                                                            

229 Oversight of HHS and DHS Efforts to Protect Unaccompanied Alien Children from Human 

Trafficking and Abuse: Hearing before the S. Permanent Subcomm. on Investigations, 115th Cong. 

(2018) (statement of Dr. Pattiva Cathell, ELL School Counselor, Sussex Central High School). 

230 ORR Policy Guide § 5.9. 

231 Briefing with Scott Lloyd, Dir., Off. of Refugee Resettlement, and Jonathan White, Dep. Dir. for 

Children’s Programs, Off. of Refugee Resettlement, et al. (Jan. 17, 2018). 

232 U.S. Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Governmental Affairs staff briefing with Commander Jonathan 

White, U.S. Public Health Serv. Commissioned Corps, U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs., and Toby 

Biswas, Supervisory Program Specialist, Div. of Policy, Off. of Refugee Resettlement (Aug. 10, 2018). 

233 App. 163, JCO at 17; Briefing with Michael Dougherty, Assistant Sec’y for Border, Immigration & 

Trade Policy, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec.; Mellissa Harper, Unit Chief, Juvenile & Family 

Residential Mgmt. Unit, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., et al. 

(Feb. 16, 2018). 

234 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B). 

235 Briefing with Michael Dougherty, Assistant Sec’y for Border, Immigration & Trade Policy, U.S. 

Dep’t of Homeland Sec.; Mellissa Harper, Unit Chief, Juvenile & Family Residential Mgmt. Unit, 

Immigration & Customs Enforcement, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., et al. (Feb. 16, 2018).
47 

or her into the community after turning age 18.236 The information includes 

familial and community ties, any criminal activity, and indications of flight risk.237 

According to DHS, however, HHS frequently fails to provide those plans.238 

In Fiscal Year 2017, 731 UACs turned 18 while in HHS’s physical and legal 

custody.239 ICE only received post-placement plans for 230 of those UACs—just 

over 31 percent of cases.240 

C. Secure Facilities 

 In addition to ongoing concerns about HHS’s ability to ensure the safety of 

UACs after they are placed with sponsors, recent allegations in media reports and 

lawsuits raise concerns about the treatment of UACs in HHS’s custody at secure 

facilities. Subcommittee interviews of staff at two of these facilities highlighted the 

efforts the staff undertake to protect the UACs, but also the difficulties of managing 

the UAC population with too few employees at one facility, and caring for UACs 

better suited for a secure residential treatment facility at the other. Staff at both 

facilities recommended that ORR provide secure facilities with policies tailored to 

their function. Currently, ORR applies the same policies to shelters, staff secure, 

and secure facilities. 

 

 By law, HHS must place UACs in the least restrictive setting appropriate for 

the child’s needs.241 There are three primary settings for UACs in HHS’s care: 

shelters, staff secure facilities, and secure facilities.242 Shelters are the least 

restrictive.243 Staff secure facilities provide a heightened level of staff supervision 

for UACs with behavioral or mental health needs or UACs who pose a flight risk.244 

Secure facilities are juvenile detention facilities for UACs who require the highest 

level of supervision, such as UACs who pose a danger to themselves or others, or if 

they have been charged with a crime.245 HHS contracts with state and local 

juvenile correctional facilities for beds in three secure facilities: Shenandoah Valley 

Juvenile Center (“SVJC” or “the Center”) and Northern Virginia Juvenile Detention 

                                                            

236 Id. DHS must place individuals in the least restrictive setting available. 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(B) 

237 Briefing with Michael Dougherty, Assistant Sec’y for Border, Immigration & Trade Policy, U.S. 

Dep’t of Homeland Sec.; Mellissa Harper, Unit Chief, Juvenile & Family Residential Mgmt. Unit, 

Immigration & Customs Enforcement, U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., et al. (Feb. 16, 2018). 

238 Id. 239 U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. responses to the Subcomm. (Mar. 27, 2018) [on file with the 

Subcommittee] 

240 Id. 241 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(A). 242 ORR Policy Guide § 1.1. 

243 Id.; ORR Guide to Terms. 244 ORR Policy Guide § 1.2.4. 

245 ORR Policy Guide § 1.2.4. 
48 

(“NOVA”) in Virginia, and the Yolo County Juvenile Detention Center in California. 

As of February 28, 2018, 67 UACs were in secure facilities.246 

1. Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center 

 Because several lawsuits have focused on SVJC’s care of UACs and because it 

houses the highest number of UACs in a secure facility—34 at last count—

Subcommittee staff visited the Center on April 16, 2018. Since that visit, two 

recent investigations have yielded findings of no abuse of neglect at the Center. 

Shenandoah Valley Social Services investigated complaints alleging child abuse and 

neglect at SVJC and “did not find any clear evidence of abuse or neglect as defined 

by Virginia State Policy.” It therefore “made an ‘Unfounded’ disposition,” but 

offered several recommendations for improving UAC care at the Center.247 

Similarly, the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice released a report of its own 

review of SVJC finding that SVJC was “in compliance with applicable regulations 

and certification standards” and recommended “areas where SVJC could improve 

programming for the youth in the custody of ORR.”248 

 Subcommittee staff interviewed five staff members and several UACs 

regarding: (1) use of force and restraints; (2) mental health care; and (3) prolonged 

release time. 

a) Use of Force and Restraints 

 Prior to visiting SVJC, attorneys for UACs told Subcommittee staff that they 

had observed children with serious injuries following altercations with SVJC staff, 

including one child who suffered a broken foot.249 One said she saw marks on UACs 

wrists after the staff had used “soft restraints”—similar to seatbelt material—on 

them.250 A UAC class action lawsuit filed in October 2017 raises similar 

allegations.251 

During the Subcommittee staff visit, the Center personnel explained that the 

Center rarely uses physical restraints (meaning using their hands to physically hold 

a child) or mechanical restraints (meaning handcuffs or a restraint chair). The 

Center’s policy is to do so only when children pose a risk to themselves or others, 

and only until the child calms down. They noted that, unlike a mental health 

                                                            

246 U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Servs. briefing (Feb. 28, 2018). 

247 App. 133–34, Letter from Shenandoah Valley Social Servs. (Aug. 1, 2018). 

248 App. 135–46, Virginia Dep’t of Juvenile Justice Report of Findings: Shenandoah Valley Juvenile 

Center (Aug. 13, 2018). 

249 Legal services provider interview (Apr. 9, 2018). 

250 Id. 

251 Class Action Complaint at 2, Doe v. Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Ctr. Comm’n, No. 5:17-cv-00097-

EKD, (W.D. Va. Oct. 4, 2017). 
49 

residential treatment facility, they are unable to administer medication to calm a 

child, so they have limited options if a child is a danger to himself or others.252 

b) Mental Health Care 

 Both SVJC staff and other UAC care and legal service providers told the 

Subcommittee that UACs coming into the United States over the past several years 

are significantly more traumatized and in need of mental health services than 

children who came to the country previously.253 SVJC staff explained to 

Subcommittee staff that the SVJC is not a residential treatment center and, as a 

juvenile detention facility, they are not equipped to deal with youth who have 

severe mental health issues. On-staff clinicians focus on keeping the UACs stable 

until their immigration proceedings, not on full-fledged psychiatric care, although a 

psychiatrist is available to work with the UACs.254 

 Several of the SVJC staff recommended that HHS contract with a secure 

residential treatment facility to house UACs who need significant mental health 

treatment and who also must be in a secure setting. They explained that HHS 

already contracts with residential treatment facilities, but because they are not 

secure settings, those facilities reject UACs referred by SVJC.255 

 The Subcommittee supports this recommendation. The Flores Agreement 

provides that a “facility for special needs minors . . . or others in appropriate 

circumstances,” such as cases in which “a minor has drug or alcohol problems or is 

mentally ill,” “may maintain that level of security permitted under state law which 

is necessary for the protection of the minor or others.”256 The ORR Policy Guide 

also accounts for such a need, stating, “[i]f a child has a mental health issue in 

addition to behavioral concerns or criminal history warranting placement into a 

restrictive level of care, ORR may place the youth in a residential treatment center 

or other therapeutic setting.”257 

 ORR should contract with an appropriate secure residential treatment center 

to house and treat children with significant mental health issues who also must be 

in a secure setting. 

                                                            

252 Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center interviews (Apr. 16, 2018). 

253 E.g., interview with Brent Cardall, Yolo County, California Chief Probation Officer (Apr. 11, 

2018); briefing with legal services provider (Apr. 9, 2018). 

254 Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center interviews (Apr. 16, 2018). 

255 Id. 256 App. 002, Flores Agreement ¶ 6. 

257 ORR Policy Guide § 1.2.4. 
50 

c) Prolonged Confinement 

 In June 2017, ORR changed its policy to require that the Director of ORR 

sign off on the release of UACs from secure or staff secure facilities.258 Care 

providers, including SVJC staff, told Subcommittee staff they had observed an 

increase in the amount of time UACs are detained in these facilities. These 

providers suggested the delays may be due in part to this new policy. The SVJC 

staff said the delays and uncertainty increased UACs’ sense of hopelessness, which 

sometimes contributes to deterioration in their behavior.259 Furthermore, keeping 

UACs in a secure setting longer than necessary violates their right to live in the 

least restrictive setting that is in their best interests established in the Flores

Agreement. 

A 2017 federal district court case illustrates the problems prolonged condition 

can cause. The court held that ORR and SVJC violated a Honduran UAC’s due 

process rights after case workers recommended that the child be reunified with his 

mother, and—14 months later—ORR summarily denied his release.260 The court 

identified multiple deficiencies in ORR’s detention review procedures, but held that 

ORR’s significant and unexplained delay in responding to the mother’s reunification 

request alone amounted to a violation of due process.261 The court noted that 

psychological and behavioral reports regarding the UAC’s condition during his 

confinement “reflect a worsening of [the child’s] psychological condition in some 

respects. Perhaps if the reunification had been addressed more expediently, [the 

child] would not have had some of the behavioral problems that he has had, which 

ORR is now relying upon to deny reunification.”262 The court attributed these 

behavioral problems to his prolonged detention.263 

                                                            

258 ORR Policy Guide § 2.7. 

259 Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center interviews (Apr. 16, 2018). 

260 Santos v. Smith, 260 F. Supp. 3d 598, 601 (W.D. Va. June 1, 2017). 

261 Id. 

262 Id.

263 Id.
51 

2. Yolo County Juvenile Detention Center 

 At the Yolo County Juvenile Detention Center in California, the Chief 

Probation Officer, Brent Cardall, recently asked the County to terminate its 

contract with ORR to house UACs because of UAC assaults on staff, as well as 

concerns about the staff-to-UAC to ratio.264 He highlighted the severe trauma and 

mental illness he has observed among youth in the secure facility.265 He raised 

further concerns that ORR officials were not present at recent discussions to renew 

the county’s contract and said that the federal government is “not a great partner” 

on the contract.266 

 Cardall estimated that to improve security at the facility, the contract would 

have to increase from $3 million annually to $4.3 million annually, or ORR would 

have to reduce the number of UACs it sends to the facility from 24 down to 16.267 

The Yolo County Board voted three-to-one to seek an amended contract reducing 

the number of UACs in the facility.268 Ultimately, Yolo received an additional $2.2 

million to hire nine more full-time staff at the detention center,269 and in July 2018, 

ORR provided $150,000 to the Yolo facility to pay for the UACs’ summer 

educational programs.270 

VIII. CONCLUSION 

In 2015, the Subcommittee learned that HHS placed eight children with 

human traffickers, who sent them into forced labor in Ohio. The Subcommittee’s 

oversight demonstrated that HHS disregarded basic standards of child welfare by 

failing to conduct background checks on those sponsors and to follow up on 

situations that should have raised concerns immediately. 

 Only after that tragedy did HHS begin improving its background check 

process. And only after the Subcommittee published a report and held a public 

hearing did DHS and HHS agree to create a structure for coordinating their UAC 

operations, even though the HHS Inspector General and GAO had been 

recommending they create such a structure for almost a decade. 

                                                            

264 Anne Ternus-Bellamy, County to keep immigrant-youth detention contract for now, DAVIS ENTER., 

Apr. 4, 2018, https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/county-to-keep-immigrant-youthdentention-contract-for-now/. 

265 Id. 

266 Id. 

267 Id. 268 Id. 269 Anne Ternus-Bellamy, Supervisors Vote to Keep Housing Refugee Minors at Juvenile Hall, DAVIS 

ENTER., June 27, 2018, https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/supervisors-vote-to-keephousing-refugee-minors-at-juvenile-hall/. 

270 Cintia Lopez, $150,000 Granted to Supplement Education of ORR Youths, WOODLAND DAILY 

DEMOCRAT, July 25, 2018, http://www.dailydemocrat.com/article/NI/20180725/NEWS/180729910. 
52 

 It then took another two and a half years for the departments to put pen to 

paper and create the JCO—and it appears that the departments had no intention of 

completing that document until the Subcommittee began asking questions again. 

Once the JCO was finished, it demonstrated that the departments have not tried to 

improve their processes, but, instead, simply documented the status quo. 

In the interim, while waiting for the JCO, the Subcommittee has received 

more allegations of children placed with sponsors who put them into forced labor— 

discovered not because HHS followed up with those children, but because a school 

counselor or emergency room personnel caught the problem. Still no one in the 

federal government accepts any responsibility for children once it places those 

children with sponsors who may be complete strangers to them. Furthermore, since 

the Subcommittee’s 2016 report and hearing, the Administration has been reducing 

home studies and legal services provided to children living with sponsors. During 

that same time, the backlog of UAC cases before the immigration courts has been 

steadily increasing, causing more UACs to linger longer in a “legal no-man’s land.” 

And then when their court dates finally arrive, more than half of UACs do not 

appear for their court proceedings and are ordered removed in absentia, frequently 

costing them their opportunity to argue for immigration relief and causing them to 

be subject to a ban on entry for 10 years if they leave the country. 

These problems are in addition to those the Subcommittee observed in the 

secure detention facilities. And this report does not address concerns about other 

HHS-grantee facilities that house UACs still in HHS’s physical custody. 

The current circumstances surrounding the UAC system are untenable. The 

Subcommittee will continue its oversight efforts to identify gaps in the care of this 

vulnerable population and deficiencies in the U.S. immigration system, and it will 

work with the departments to improve these conditions.