State of Washington et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants (Receipt # 0981-5372043) Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party Commonwealth of Massachusetts(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party Commonwealth of Pennsylvania(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party Commonwealth of Virginia(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of California(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Delaware(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Illinois(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Iowa (pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Maryland(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Minnesota (pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of New Jersey(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of New Mexico(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of New York(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of North Carolina(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Oregon(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Rhode Island (pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Vermont(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Washington(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party The District of Columbia(pty:pla), filed by State of Minnesota, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Delaware, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Washington, The District of Columbia, State of North Carolina, Commonwealth of Virginia, State of New Mexico, State of California, State of Iowa, State of Rhode Island, State of New York, State of Vermont, State of New Jersey, State of Maryland, State of Illinois, State of Oregon. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibits 1-40, #2 Exhibit Exhibits 41-80, #3 Exhibit Exhibits 81-100, #4 Exhibit Exhibits 101-110, #5 Exhibit Exhibits 111-131, #6 Civil Cover Sheet, #7 Summons, #8 Summons, #9 Summons, #10 Summons, #11 Summons, #12 Summons, #13 Summons, #14 Summons, #15 Summons, #16 Summons, #17 Summons, #18 Summons, #19 Summons)(Clinton, Laura)

Download PDF
              Exhibit 81               Exhibit 82 American Academy of Family Physicians Statement Regarding the United States Department of Homeland Security’s Policy to Separate Children from Adult Caregivers The American Academy of Family Physicians opposes the forced separation of children from their families or caregivers during border crossings unless the child’s immediate physical or emotional health or safety is at risk. While the AAFP is aware of the Department of Homeland Security’s “zero-tolerance” policy, we also recognize and appreciate the gravity of the long-term harm that can be caused by forced separation at this critical and stressful time for a family. Once on American soil, regardless of their citizenship status, migrating children are the concern of the American Academy of Family Physicians. This stance is consistent with our policies on Providing Medical Care to Undocumented Persons, Reporting Residency Status of Patients, and the Family Physician's Creed. We stand with our fellow medical societies in urging the federal government to withdraw its policy of requiring separation of migrating children from their caregivers, and instead, give priority to supporting families and protecting the health and well-being of the children within those families.               Exhibit 83 AMA Urges Administration To Withdraw “Zero Tolerance” Policy | American Medical A... Page 1 of 7 AMA Urges Administration To Withdraw “Zero Tolerance” Policy For immediate release: Jun 20, 2018 CHICAGO – The American Medical Association (AMA) today released the following letter that was sent to the Trump Administration urging the federal government to withdraw its “zero tolerance” policy that is separating migrating families from their parents and caregivers. The letter was sent to DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, HHS Secretary Alex Azar and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The full text of the letter is below. Download a PDF copy of the letter. Dear Secretary Nielsen, Secretary Azar, and Attorney General Sessions: On behalf of the physician and medical student members of the American Medical Association (AMA), I am writing to strongly urge the federal government to withdraw its “zero tolerance” policy that requires the separation of migrating children from their parents or caregivers. Instead, we urge the Administration to give priority to supporting families and protecting the health and well-being of the children within those families. The Administration’s “zero tolerance” policy was a topic recently discussed at the AMA’s Annual Meeting, which includes delegates representing over 170 state and national specialty medical societies. During this meeting we heard from delegates that the Administration’s policy will do great harm to children and their parents or caregivers, who felt compelled to make a dangerous and uncertain journey because of safety concerns in their own countries. Families seeking refuge in the U.S. already endure emotional and physical stress, which is only exacerbated when they are https://www.ama-assn.org/ama-urges-administration-withdraw-zero-tolerance-policy 6/25/2018 AMA Urges Administration To Withdraw “Zero Tolerance” Policy | American Medical A... Page 2 of 7 separated from one another. It is well known that childhood trauma and adverse childhood experiences created by inhumane treatment often create negative health impacts that can last an individual’s entire lifespan. Therefore, the AMA believes strongly that, in the absence of immediate physical or emotional threats to the child’s well-being, migrating children should not be separated from their parents or caregivers. We urge you to take prompt action on this matter. Sincerely, James L. Madara, MD ### Media Contact: Jack Deutsch AMA Media & Editorial 202-789-7442 Jack.Deutsch@ama-assn.org About the AMA The American Medical Association is the powerful ally and unifying voice for America’s physicians, the patients they serve, and the promise of a healthier nation. The AMA attacks the dysfunction in health care by removing obstacles and burdens that interfere with patient care. It reimagines medical education, training, and lifelong learning for the digital age to help physicians grow at every stage of their careers, and it improves the health of the nation by confronting the increasing chronic disease burden. For more information, visit ama-assn.org. Related Content https://www.ama-assn.org/ama-urges-administration-withdraw-zero-tolerance-policy 6/25/2018 AMA Urges Administration To Withdraw “Zero Tolerance” Policy | American Medical A... Page 3 of 7 AMA WIRE® M 5 physicians honored for work with underserved populations AMA WIRE® M Members Move Medicine: Helping patients wherever they are https://www.ama-assn.org/ama-urges-administration-withdraw-zero-tolerance-policy 6/25/2018 AMA Urges Administration To Withdraw “Zero Tolerance” Policy | American Medical A... Page 4 of 7 AMA WIRE® M AMA puts its organizational muster behind health equity push https://www.ama-assn.org/ama-urges-administration-withdraw-zero-tolerance-policy 6/25/2018 AMA Urges Administration To Withdraw “Zero Tolerance” Policy | American Medical A... Page 5 of 7 AMA WIRE® M Physicians adopt plan to combat pay gap in medicine https://www.ama-assn.org/ama-urges-administration-withdraw-zero-tolerance-policy 6/25/2018 AMA Urges Administration To Withdraw “Zero Tolerance” Policy | American Medical A... Page 6 of 7 The AMA promotes the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health. becdf AMA Careers AMA Alliance Contact Us AMPAC Events AMA Foundation Press Center AMA Insurance Copyright 1995 - 2018 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Code of Conduct | Website Accessibility https://www.ama-assn.org/ama-urges-administration-withdraw-zero-tolerance-policy 6/25/2018 AMA Urges Administration To Withdraw “Zero Tolerance” Policy | American Medical A... Page 7 of 7 https://www.ama-assn.org/ama-urges-administration-withdraw-zero-tolerance-policy 6/25/2018               Exhibit 84               Exhibit 85               Exhibit 86 Laura Bush: Separating children from their parents at the border ‘breaks my heart’ - The ... Page 1 of 3 The Washington Post Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/laura-bush-separating-children-from-their-pare... 6/19/2018 Laura Bush: Separating children from their parents at the border ‘breaks my heart’ - The ... Page 2 of 3  5172 Comments https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/laura-bush-separating-children-from-their-pare... 6/19/2018 Laura Bush: Separating children from their parents at the border ‘breaks my heart’ - The ... Page 3 of 3 Stories from The Lily Analysis Perspective Perspective https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/laura-bush-separating-children-from-their-pare... 6/19/2018               Exhibit 87 Jeb Bush on Twitter: "Children shouldn’t be used as a negotiating tool. @realDonaldTrump should end this heartless policy and Congress should get an immigration...   Search Twitter Have an account? Log in Jeb Bush‫ ‏‬  @JebBush  Follow  Children shouldn’t be used as a negotiating tool. @realDonaldTrump should end this heartless policy and Congress should get an immigration deal done that provides for asylum reform, border security and a path to citizenship for Dreamers. Donald J. Trump  @realDonaldTrump  Children are being used by some of the worst criminals on earth as a means to enter our country. Has anyone been looking at the Crime taking place south of the border. It is Jeb Bush  historic, with some countries © 2018 Twitter About places in the world. Not going to happen  the most dangerous Help Center Terms @JebBush in the U.S. Privacy policy Cookies Ads info 43rd Governor of Florida. Connect on 8:18 AM - 18 Jun 2018 Facebook: facebook.com/jebbush  Miami, FL  Joined February 2010 24,228 Retweets 79,892 Likes   8.3K 24K 80K Thinking Mom‫@ ‏‬ThinkingMomOf6 · Jun 18  Replying to @JebBush @realDonaldTrump American children are separated from their parents when the parents commit a crime. Illegal immigrants need to be aware that U.S. laws will apply to them if they come across our borders. Your feelings don't overrule our laws. #LiberalHypocrisy  130  114 565 Inger M. Daniels‫@ ‏‬supoverx · Jun 18  The parents are seeking asylum (not a crime). When US citizens commit a crime, they're children can be left with a friend, another parent or relative. The parents know where their children are and when and under what conditions they can get them back.  134  67 654 https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/1008730704497258496[6/23/2018 10:09:46 AM]  Jeb Bush on Twitter: "Children shouldn’t be used as a negotiating tool. @realDonaldTrump should end this heartless policy and Congress should get an immigration... https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/1008730704497258496[6/23/2018 10:09:46 AM] Jeb Bush on Twitter: "Children shouldn’t be used as a negotiating tool. @realDonaldTrump should end this heartless policy and Congress should get an immigration... https://twitter.com/JebBush/status/1008730704497258496[6/23/2018 10:09:46 AM]               Exhibit 88 Unaccompanied Alien Children Released to Sponsors By State | Office of Refugee Resett... Page 1 of 2 Unaccompanied Alien Children Released to Sponsors By State Published: June 30, 2017 When a child who is not accompanied by a parent or legal guardian is apprehended by immigration authorities, the child is transferred to the care and custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in HHS’ Administration for Children and Families. HHS’ primary legal authority is to temporarily house, feed, provide medical care and then safely release UAC to sponsors (usually family members), while they await immigration proceedings. Sponsors are adults who are suitable to provide for the child’s physical and mental well-being and have not engaged in any activity that would indicate a potential risk to the child. All sponsors must pass a background check. The sponsor must agree to ensure the child’s presence at all future immigration proceedings. They also must agree to ensure the minor reports to ICE for removal from the United States if an immigration judge issues a removal order or voluntary departure order. HHS is engaging with state officials to address concerns they may have about the care or impact of UAC in their states, while making sure the children are treated humanely and consistent with the law as they go through immigration court proceedings that will determine whether they will be removed and repatriated, or qualify for some form of relief. HHS has strong policies in place to ensure the privacy and safety of UAC by maintaining the confidentiality of their personal information. These children may have histories of abuse or may be seeking safety from threats of violence. Many have been trafficked or smuggled. HHS cannot release information about individual UAC that could compromise the child’s location or identity. The data in the table below shows state-by-state data of unaccompanied alien children released to sponsors as of April 30, 2018. ACF will update this data each month. NOTE: Data does not specifically reflect referrals from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s recently enacted 100 percent prosecution policy of illegal immigration cases. View unaccompanied alien children released to sponsors by county (https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/unaccompanied-alien-childrenreleased-to-sponsors-by-county). Please note: ORR makes considerable effort to provide precise and timely data to the public, but adjustments occasionally occur following review and reconciliation. The FY2014 release data posted in the chart below were updated on March 13, 2015. The FY2015 release data were updated May 9, 2016. Questions may be addressed to ORR directly, at (202) 401-9246. Unaccompanied Alien Children Release Data STATE Alabama Alaska Arizona TOTAL NUMBER OF UAC RELEASED TO SPONSORS IN FY 2015 (OCTOBER 2014 – SEPTEMBER 2015)* TOTAL NUMBER OF UAC RELEASED TO SPONSORS IN FY 2016 (OCTOBER 2015 – SEPTEMBER 2016) TOTAL NUMBER OF UAC RELEASED TO SPONSORS IN FY 2017 (OCTOBER 2016 – SEPTEMBER 2017)** TOTAL NUMBER OF UAC RELEASED TO SPONSORS IN FY 2018 (OCTOBER 2017 - APRIL 2018) 808 870 598 2 5 3 453 0 167 330 322 156 Arkansas 186 309 272 101 California 3,629 7,381 6,268 2,807 Colorado 248 427 379 183 Connecticut 206 454 412 178 Delaware 152 275 178 141 District of Columbia 201 432 294 81 Florida 2,908 5,281 4,059 2,388 Georgia 1,041 1,735 1,350 711 Hawaii 2 4 4 0 Idaho 11 39 11 17 Illinois 312 519 462 275 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/unaccompanied-alien-children-released-to-sponsors-... 6/21/2018 Unaccompanied Alien Children Released to Sponsors By State | Office of Refugee Resett... Page 2 of 2 STATE TOTAL NUMBER OF UAC RELEASED TO SPONSORS IN FY 2015 (OCTOBER 2014 – SEPTEMBER 2015)* TOTAL NUMBER OF UAC RELEASED TO SPONSORS IN FY 2016 (OCTOBER 2015 – SEPTEMBER 2016) TOTAL NUMBER OF UAC RELEASED TO SPONSORS IN FY 2017 (OCTOBER 2016 – SEPTEMBER 2017)** TOTAL NUMBER OF UAC RELEASED TO SPONSORS IN FY 2018 (OCTOBER 2017 - APRIL 2018) Indiana 240 354 366 208 Iowa 201 352 277 150 Kansas 245 326 289 188 Kentucky 274 503 364 205 Louisiana 480 973 1,043 488 4 9 11 13 Maine Maryland 1,794 3,871 2,957 901 Massachusetts 738 1,541 1,077 447 Michigan 132 227 160 78 Minnesota 243 318 320 164 Mississippi 207 300 237 158 Missouri 170 261 234 101 Montana 2 0 2 0 Nebraska 293 486 355 226 Nevada 137 283 229 78 14 25 27 13 New Jersey 1,462 2,637 2,268 1,053 New Mexico 19 65 46 15 2,630 4,985 3,938 1,577 844 1,493 1,290 565 New Hampshire New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio 2 10 3 2 483 693 584 326 Oklahoma 225 301 267 163 Oregon 122 188 170 128 Pennsylvania 333 604 501 294 Rhode Island 185 269 234 129 South Carolina 294 562 483 289 South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington 61 81 81 61 765 1,354 1,066 668 3,272 6,550 5,391 2,139 62 126 99 57 1 1 0 2 1,694 3,728 2,888 931 283 476 494 278 West Virginia 12 26 23 14 Wisconsin 38 85 94 48 Wyoming 6 23 14 10 Virgin Islands 0 0 3 0 27,840 52,147 42,497 19,658 TOTAL *The FY2015 numbers have been reconciled. **The FY2017 numbers have been reconciled. For more information, please read ORR’s reunification policy (https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/unaccompanied-childrensservices#Family Reunification Packet for Sponsors). Last Reviewed: May 31, 2018 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/unaccompanied-alien-children-released-to-sponsors-... 6/21/2018               Exhibit 89 Sponsor Care Agreement onsor Office of Refugee Resettlement You have applied to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to sponsor an unaccompanied alien child in the care and custody of the Federal Government pursuant to 6 U.S.C. §279 and 8 U.S.C. §1232. If your sponsorship application is approved, you will receive an ORR Verification of Release form and enter into a custodial arrangement with the Federal Government in which you agree to comply with the following provisions while the minor is in your care: • Provide for the physical and mental well-being of the minor, including but not limited to, food, shelter, clothing, education, medical care and other services as needed. • If you are not the minor's parent or legal guardian, make best efforts to establish legal guardianship with your local court within a reasonable time. • Attend a legal orientation program provided under the Department of Justice/ Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)'s Legal Orientation Program for Custodians (Sponsors), if available where you reside. • Depending on where the minor's immigration case is pending, notify the local Immigration Court or the Board of Immigration Appeals within five (5) days of any change of address or phone number of the minor, by using an Alien's Change of Address form (Form EOIR33). In addition if necessary, file a Change of Venue motion on the minor's behalf. The Change of Venue motion must contain information specified by the Immigration Court. Please note that a Change of Venue motion may require the assistance of an attorney. For guidance on the "motion to change venue," see the Immigration Court Practice Manual. For immigration case information please contact EOIR's immigration case information system at 1-800-898-7180. Visit EOIR's website for additional information at: http://www.justice.gov/eoir/formslist.htm Notify the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) within ten (10) days of any change of address, by filing an Alien's Change of Address Card (AR-11) or electronically, at http://l.usagov/Ac5MP http:/ /Ac5MP Ensure the minor's presence at all future proceedings before the DHS/Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the DOJ/EOIR. For immigration case information, contact EOIR's case information system at: 1-800-898-7180. Ensure the minor reports to ICE for removal from the United States if an immigration judge issues a removal order or voluntary departure order. The minor is assigned to a Deportation Officer for removal proceedings. [continues on next page] Page 1 of 2 ORR UAC/FRP-4 [Rev. 05/14/2018] Sponsor Care Agreement Office of Refugee Resettlement • Notify local law enforcement or your state or local Child Protective Services if the minor has been or is at risk of being subjected to abuse, abandonment, neglect, or maltreatment or if you learn that the minor has been threatened, has been sexually or physically abused or assaulted, or has disappeared. Notice should be given as soon as it becomes practicable or no later than 24 hours after the event or after becoming aware of the risk or threat. • Notify the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children at 1-800-843-5678 if the minor disappears, has been kidnapped, or runs away. Notice should be given as soon as it becomes practicable or no later than 24 hours after learning of the minor's disappearance. • Notify ICE if the minor is contacted in any way by an individual(s) believed to represent an alien smuggling syndicate, organized crime, or a human trafficking organization. Provide notification as soon as possible or no later than 24 hours after becoming aware of this information. You can contact ICE at 1-866-341-2423. • In the case of an emergency (serious illness, destruction of home, etc), you may temporarily transfer physical custody of the minor to another person who will comply with the terms of this Sponsor Care Agreement. • If you are not the child's parent or legal guardian, in the event you are no longer able and willing to care for the minor and unable to temporarily transfer physical custody, and the minor meets the definition of an unaccompanied alien child, you should notify the ORR National Call Center at 1-800-203-7001 or information (cOORRNCC.com. • The release of the above-named minor from the Office of Refugee Resettlement to your care does not grant the minor any legal immigration status and the minor must present himself/herself for immigration court proceedings. Page 2 of 2 ORR UAC/FRP-4 [Rev. 05/14/2018]               Exhibit 90 — Martha L. Minow, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Helping Traumatized Children Learn opens up the conversation on how to best help the students who have been victims or witnesses of violence. Removing their roadblocks can give them the opportunity to be active and enthusiastic learners. — Massachusetts State Representative Alice Wolf Helping Traumatized Children Learn is a useful and timely report. [It] lists practical steps that educators can take to recognize signs of trauma and help children who are affected by it. The report encourages state and local officials, educators, community leaders, parents, and experts in prevention and treatment to work together for the benefit of all children. The Massachusetts Department of Education will continue to work in partnership with others to achieve these important goals. Helping Traumatized Children Learn Helping Traumatized Children Learn marks a major milestone in child advocacy. Based on evidence from brain research, child development, and actual classrooms, here is a road map for parents, schools, administrators, and policy makers that shows concrete and feasible steps for making schools the life raft for children who otherwise may be misunderstood and abandoned by the community.  Helping Traumatized Children Learn supportive school environments for children traumatized by family violence A Report and Policy Agenda — David P. Driscoll, Massachusetts Commissioner of Education I endorse the recommendations in Helping Traumatized Children Learn and invite the Commonwealth’s leaders to join this powerful effort to help all children, including those who have been exposed to family violence, reach their highest potentials. —  om Scott, Executive Director T Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents Helping Traumatized Children Learn thoroughly documents the impact of the trauma of family violence on children’s ability to learn and succeed in school. The report makes a strong case for increased resources for schools and support for teachers who work with this vulnerable population. These resources are an important investment in the future of children and in the future of our communities. Let’s hope that legislators and policy makers invest in these resources.   Massachusetts Advocates for Children Harvard Law School 25 Kingston St., 2nd floor, Boston, MA 02111 (617) 357-8431 www.massadvocates.org 1563 Massachusetts Avenue Pound Hall, Suite 501 Cambridge, MA 02138 Massachusetts Advocates for Children —  etsy McAlister Groves, Director, Child Witness to Violence Project, Boston Medical Center; B Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Boston University School of Medicine Massachusetts Advocates for Children: Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative In collaboration with Harvard Law School and The Task Force on Children Affected by Domestic Violence The Governor’s Commission on Sexual and Domestic Violence has overwhelmingly endorsed the concepts, principles, and recommendations presented in Helping Traumatized Children Learn. . . . It is our sincere hope that, in the Commonwealth and beyond, educators, administrators, funding agencies, policy makers, school committees, and others will read this work and incorporate in their educational philosophies and schools the methods it recommends to address the impacts of violence on children. — arilee Kenney Hunt, Executive Director M Governor’s Commission on Sexual and Domestic Violence Helping Traumatized Children Learn is a much needed resource for educators, policy makers, clinicians, and parents. The authors have already contributed much to the advocacy for educational reform to ensure that the needs of traumatized children are met; this report is an impressive continuation of that process. — argaret E. Blaustein, Ph.D., Director of Training and Education M The Trauma Center, Justice Resource Institute Helping Traumatized Children Learn is an immensely important contribution. These proposals for enhancing success at school have tremendous potential to help a child look forward toward the positive possibilities of the future. — my C. Tishelman, Ph.D., Director of Research and Training A Child Protection Program, Children’s Hospital, Boston The Massachusetts Administrators for Special Education offers our Association’s endorsement for Helping Traumatized Children Learn and applauds Massachusetts Advocates for Children’s commitment to this most worthy need. — arla B. Jentz, Executive Director C Massachusetts Administrators for Special Education Helping Traumatized Children Learn is a groundbreaking report that can show educators and communities exactly how to help children who have experienced family violence. The considerable impact of domestic violence on children’s ability to learn has been ignored for too long. The education and policy agenda that Massachusetts Advocates for Children offers here is vitally important and can improve the lives of countless children who have been traumatized by family violence. —Esta Soler, President, Family Violence Prevention Fund Additional Endorsements: Children’s Law Center of Massachusetts, Children’s League of Massachusetts, Federation for Children with Special Needs, Horizons for Homeless Children, Jane Doe Inc., Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Treehouse Foundation Copyright © 2005 by Massachusetts Advocates for Children Sixth printing, September 2009 Library of Congress Control Number: 2005933604 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced without permission of Massachusetts Advocates for Children. All photographs are for illustration purposes only and do not represent real life situations. Cover Art: Phoebe Stone Design: David Carlson Funding for this publication was provided by Mellon Financial Corporation Fund and Partners HealthCare For information please contact Anne Eisner Massachusetts Advocates for Children aeisner@massadvocates.org 617-998-0110 (phone) 617-998-0022 (fax) Copies may be purchased or downloaded at www.massadvocates.org Helping Traumatized Children Learn Supportive school environments for children traumatized by family violence Authors Susan F. Cole, J.D., M.Ed. Jessica Greenwald O’Brien, Ph.D. M. Geron Gadd, J.D., M.T.S. Joel Ristuccia, Ed.M. D. Luray Wallace, J.D. Michael Gregory, J.D., M.A.T. Massachusetts Advocates for Children Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative in collaboration with Harvard Law School and the Task Force on Children Affected by Domestic Violence Massachusetts Advocates for Children 25 Kingston St., 2nd floor • Boston, MA 02111 www.massadvocates.org Massachusetts Advocates for Children Mission: Massachusetts Advocates for Children’s (MAC) mission is to be an independent and effective voice for children who face significant barriers to equal educational and life opportunities. MAC works to overcome these barriers by changing conditions for many children, while also helping one child at a time. For over 30 years, MAC has responded to the needs of children who are vulnerable because of race, poverty, disability, or limited English. Eileen Hagerty, Board Chair Jerry Mogul, Executive Director Susan Cole, Julia Landau, Thomas Mela, and John Mudd, Senior Project Directors Harvard Law School Martha L. Minow, Dean of Harvard Law School and Jeremiah Smith, Jr. Professor of Law Lisa Dealy, Assistant Dean of Clinical and Pro Bono Programs Susan Cole, Clinical Instructor and Lecturer on Law Michael Gregory, Clinical Instructor and Lecturer on Law Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative Susan Cole, Director Michael Gregory, Attorney Anne Eisner, Coordinator Aura Suarez, Administrator Elizabeth Cho, Skadden Fellow Board and staff updated as of September 2009 printing. Table of Contents Preface | vii Acknowledgements | ix Executive Summary | 1 Genesis of This Report | 11 Chapter 1 The Impact of Trauma on Learning | 14 The Trauma Response in the Classroom | 15 Trauma’s Impact on Academic Performance, Behavior, and Relationships | 21 Childhood Trauma and Academic Performance | 22 Language and Communication Skills | 22 Organizing Narrative Material | 26 Cause-and-Effect Relationships | 27 Taking Another’s Perspective | 28 Attentiveness to Classroom Tasks | 28 Regulating Emotions | 29 Executive Functions | 31 Engaging in the Curriculum | 31 Childhood Trauma and Classroom Behavior | 32 Reactivity and Impulsivity | 34 Aggression | 34 Defiance | 35 Withdrawal | 36 Perfectionism | 37 Childhood Trauma and Relationships | 38 Relationships with School Personnel | 38 Relationships with Peers | 39 A Note on Special Education | 40 Conclusion | 41 Chapter 2 The Flexible Framework: Making School Environments Trauma-Sensitive | 42 The Role of Schools in the Lives of Traumatized Children | 43 The Flexible Framework: An Action Plan for Schools | 47 Schoolwide Infrastructure and Culture | 47 Staff Training | 50 Linking with Mental Health Professionals | 58 Academic Instruction for Traumatized Children | 61 Nonacademic Strategies | 67 School Policies, Procedures, and Protocols | 68 Chapter 3 Policy Recommendations | 78 Conclusion Removing Trauma as a Barrier to Learning | 85 Appendix A: Safe and Supportive Schools Legislation | 87 Appendix B: PTSD and Related Diagnoses | 93 Appendix C: Factors Influencing the Trauma Response | 97 Notes | 98 Appreciation for Contributors | 113 About the Authors | 117 Pre fa c e VII Preface Helping Traumatized Children Learn is the result of an extraordinary collaboration among educators, parents, mental health professionals, community groups, and attorneys determined to help children experiencing the traumatic effects of exposure to family violence succeed in school. Years of case work, coalition building, and policy analysis lie behind this report, which stands in the proud tradition of other reports produced by Massachusetts Advocates for Children. These reports have led to significant improvements in the lives of children in the areas of special education, bilingual education, child nutrition, lead-poisoning prevention, and others. Susan Cole, the leader of the collaboration and this report’s principal author, is an attorney who had previously been a teacher. She melded her deep understanding of the classroom with her uncompromising standards of advocacy on behalf of children to produce this dynamic and interdisciplinary synthesis of theory, practice, and policy. In 1998, as head of the Children’s Law Support Project, Susan collaborated with Jacquelynne Bowman, who was then at Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, to form the Task Force on Children Affected by Domestic Violence. Clinical psychologist Dr. Jessica Greenwald O’Brien, attorney Ray Wallace, school psychologist Joel Ristuccia, and others soon joined to form the Schools Working Group of the Task Force, with Susan as its chair. The group addressed the need for trauma-sensitive approaches in schools and legislation to implement them. With Geron Gadd, a Harvard Divinity School student as staff researcher and writer, a strong early draft of Helping Traumatized Children Learn was created. It was enriched over the next several years through multiple discussions with parents, educators, psychology and language experts, and domestic violence experts. VIII H e lp i n g Tra um a t i zed C hi l d r en Lea r n The Schools Working Group wrote articles, conducted trainings, and advocated successfully under the leadership of State Representative Alice Wolf of Cambridge, Massachusetts, for a legislative budget line item offering grants to help schools become trauma-sensitive. Two schools in Cambridge and Lynn, Massachusetts, piloted various aspects of what became known as the Flexible Framework, sharing their successes and challenges with the Group. In 2004, supported by a broad constituency, the legislature made the line item into a section of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act. We are particularly pleased that several of the recipients of this grant program are working to adapt the Framework to fit the unique needs of the many schools in their districts. Their experiences are deepening our understanding and furthering the Framework’s continuous evolution. Through a partnership with Harvard Law School and its Hale and Dorr Legal Services Center, the work continued to develop under the auspices of the Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative (TLPI) in 2004. Michael Gregory, an attorney and recipient of a Skadden Fellowship joined the TLPI staff and using his expertise in research, writing, and policy analysis contributed significantly to giving Helping Traumatized Children Learn its final form. A strong and growing constituency is now in place to support this groundbreaking policy initiative designed to help further the goals of education reform. The release of Helping Traumatized Children Learn was the culmination of many years of research analysis and policy development. TLPI’s mobilization campaign continues to advocate to implement the policy agenda and spread this information to every school district in Massachusetts and beyond. Jerry Mogul Executive Director Massachusetts Advocates for Children A c knowle dge me nts IX Acknowledgements This report would not have been possible without the generous contributions of time and financial support by so many people and organizations. We are deeply indebted to the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corporation (MLAC), whose grants have enabled MAC and the Children’s Law Support Project it leads to coordinate a Massachusetts legal agenda on behalf of children living in poverty. This interdisciplinary work led to the building of the Task Force on Children Affected by Domestic Violence and later the Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative (TLPI) from which this report has emerged. The Massachusetts Bar Foundation and the Boston Bar Foundation support MAC’s intake and casework with the pro bono legal community, which is critical to identifying problems and devising new solutions for traumatized children. We are extremely grateful to the Gardiner Howland Shaw Foundation, which provided the original funding to seed TLPI and which continues as a key partner. We thank the Mellon Financial Corporation Fund, Partners HealthCare, Bank of America, trustee for Alfred E. Chase Charity Foundation, the Louis and Carolyn Sapir Family Fund, and the C.F. Adams Charitable Trust for enriching TLPI with important mental health expertise; enabling TLPI to provide outreach in domestic violence shelters; funding the research, writing, and publication of this report; and enabling us to pursue the education campaign ahead. We are grateful to the Skadden Fellowship Foundation for providing the funding for our TLPI staff attorney at the Legal Services Center. We are most grateful to Professor Martha Minow of Harvard Law School and to Jeanne Charn, director of Harvard’s legal clinic, the Hale and Dorr Legal Services Center, for creating a partnership with MAC in 2004 to launch the Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative. Their vision of teaching a new generation of law students to advocate on behalf of this most vulnerable group of children has enabled this work to flourish. We give special thanks to our partner organizations, which have actively engaged in this work: the Governor’s Commission on Sexual and X H e lp in g Tra um a t i zed C hi l d r en Lea r n Domestic Violence, Casa Myrna Vasquez, Inc., the Child Protection Program at Children’s Hospital in Boston, Children’s Charter Trauma Clinic, a division of Key, Inc., the Federation for Children with Special Needs, the Framingham Public Schools, Horizons for Homeless Children, Jane Doe Inc., Lesley University’s Center for Special Needs, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the Trauma Center, Justice Resource Institute. Please see Appreciation for Contributors at the end of this report for a list of people to whom we are additionally most grateful. Exe c utive S umma r y 1 Executive Summary T he goal of Helping Traumatized Children Learn is to ensure that children traumatized by exposure to family violence succeed in school. Research now shows that trauma can undermine children’s ability to learn, form relationships, and function appropriately in the classroom. Schools, which are significant communities for children, and teachers—the primary role models in these communities—must be given the supports they need to address trauma’s impact on learning. Otherwise, many children will be unable to achieve their academic potential, and the very laudable goals of education reform will not be realized. Trauma-sensitive school environments benefit all children— those whose trauma history is known, those whose trauma will never be clearly identified, and those who may be impacted by their traumatized classmates. Together, we can ensure that all children will be able to achieve at their highest levels despite whatever traumatic circumstances they may have endured. This report proposes an educational and policy agenda that will enable schools to become supportive environments in which traumatized children can focus, behave appropriately, and learn. It translates complex research on trauma into educational terms that are useful to teachers and schools. And it provides a Flexible Framework—which can be adapted by any school—for creating a climate in which children exposed to family violence can achieve at their highest levels.1 This report proposes an educational and policy agenda that will enable schools to become supportive environments in which traumatized children can focus, behave appropriately, and learn. Children’s exposure to family violence is a widespread problem. A National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN) survey found that interpersonal victimization primarily in the home was the most prevalent form of trauma among children treated by Network mental health professionals.2 Studies estimate that between 3.3 million and 10 million children in the U.S. witness violence in their own homes each year.3 In 2003, approximately 906,000 children were found by child protective agencies to be victims of child abuse or neglect.4 In Massachusetts, a study by the Office of the 2 H e lp in g Tra um a t i zed C hi l d r en Lea r n Commissioner of Probation reported that approximately 43,000 children were named on restraining orders, which suggests that these children were affected by family violence.5 Even these large figures appear to represent only a fraction of the problem. The 1998 Adverse Childhood Experiences study, which sent standardized questionnaires to 13,494 adult members of a large HMO, found that 44 percent of respondents reported suffering sexual, physical, or psychological abuse as children, and 12.5 percent reported having a mother who had been treated violently.6 In June 2005, the Massachusetts Department of Education presented information from informal surveys of 450 students who attended alternativeeducation programs in eleven school districts that received state-funded Alternative Education Grants (see Appendix A). The nonvalidated results of the surveys indicated that 90 percent of the students reported histories of trauma exposure, with a number of these students reporting exposure to more than one type of trauma. Of the students surveyed, 41 percent reported histories of family violence; 46 percent reported having been physically, emotionally, or sexually abused; 39 percent reported neglect; and 16 percent were living in foster care or out-ofhome placements.7 Helping Traumatized Children Learn focuses on the educational consequences of exposure to family violence, although information in this report will be useful in addressing traumatic consequences from other sources as well. When there is family Helping Traumatized violence, home is not the safe haven it is for most Children Learn focuses children. Adults who should be relied upon for on the educational nurturance may actually be a source of terror, consequences of or they may be victims themselves and unable exposure to family to provide protection.8 When the perpetrator of violence, although violence is a caregiver—the person in whom a child information in this has placed great trust and upon whom the child’s report will be useful in very life depends—the betrayal a child experiences addressing traumatic can be devastating.9 The impact on a child’s selfconsequences from perception10 and worldview11 can get carried into other sources as well. the classroom, where it can interfere with the ability to process information and maintain control over Exe c utive S umma r y 3 behaviors and emotions. The fact that family violence is frequently kept secret from schools adds to the confusion, often making it difficult for educators to discern the reasons for a child’s behavioral and learning problems. We use the term “domestic violence” to describe violence between intimate partners. Children may have watched or overheard violence between their caregivers and may live with its consequences (e.g., maternal depression or a parent with physical injuries, such as bruises). Children may also become directly involved in a violent event by trying to stop the abuse or by calling the police.12 We include in the term “family violence” three forms of harm to children: witnessing domestic violence, being the direct victim of abuse, and being exposed to neglectful caretaking. Domestic violence, abuse, and neglect frequently occur together.13 Each of these experiences can result in similar symptoms and undermine many of the same developmental foundations.14 Analyzing them separately is enormously difficult.15 We also recognize that familial alcoholism often occurs along with family violence and that children in homes where there is substance abuse may exhibit symptoms similar to children exposed to family violence.16 Traumatized children do not fit neatly into any single “box.” Although many children enter school each day carrying with them the experience of exposure to violence in the home, the symptoms of their trauma can be quite varied, as the actual experiences of the following children illustrate:17 Tyrone Six-year-old Tyrone was the terror of his first-grade class. He pinched, hit, and refused to obey the teacher. Frustrated with his unprovoked aggressive behavior, the school began holding suspension hearings. At home and at church, however, he was a different child, clinging to his sister and mother. He would often wake up with nightmares and a bed that was wet. Tyrone had fled with his mother, brother, and sister from a father who had abused them. To Tyrone, school felt threatening, rather than being the place of refuge he needed. 4 H e lp in g Tra um a t i zed C hi l d r en Lea r n Marla Fifteen-year-old Marla was an extremely bright student with an IQ of 139. She did not have problems with aggression. Instead, she stared out the window. She didn’t do her homework. She seemed to barely be there at all. Despite her intelligence, she was failing in school because of frequent absences. Her teachers wondered how a child with so much potential could be slipping out of reach. It turned out that Marla had witnessed significant violence against her mother at home, making it impossible for her to focus in school. Sonya When five-year-old Sonya began kindergarten, she could not focus in the classroom and had difficulty forming relationships with adults and making friends with her peers. Complicating Sonya’s situation was the fact that her leg had been broken by her father when she was less than a year old. Even though she had been too young at the time to remember the incident, the fear of that experience—the betrayal of trust—still haunted Sonya and made it difficult for her to reach out to new people. It thwarted her ability to adjust to a classroom environment and achieve in school. There is nothing new about the presence of traumatized children in our schools. Often without realizing it, teachers have been dealing with trauma’s impact for generations. What is new is that trauma researchers can now explain the hidden story behind many classroom difficulties plaguing our educational system. Recent psychological research has shown that childhood trauma from exposure to family violence can diminish concentration, memory, and the organizational and language abilities that children need to function well in school.18 For some children, this can lead to inappropriate behavior19 and learning problems in the classroom, the home, and the community.20 For other children, the manifestations of trauma include perfectionism, depression, anxiety, and self-destructive, or even suicidal, behavior.21 Studies show that abused children have more severe academic problems than comparison children. Specifically, they are more likely to receive special education services, have below-grade- Exe c utive S umma r y 5 level achievement test scores, and have poor work habits; and they are 2.5 times more likely to fail a grade.22 The Adverse Childhood Experiences study found that adults exposed to adverse experiences in childhood, including those who had witnessed domestic violence or suffered abuse, were more likely to engage in risky activities such as drinking, smoking, and substance abuse.23 In the opinion of some experts, these are behavioral “coping devices”—attempts to reduce the emotional impact of adverse experiences.24 When teenagers engage in these risky behaviors, however, they often face disciplinary consequences at school, such as suspensions or expulsions. Teachers can play an important role in connecting traumatized children to a safe and predictable school community and enabling them to become competent learners. To accomplish this goal, policy makers must provide schools with the tools they need to help all children learn. Many experts, including members of the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN), are calling for a community-wide effort to create contexts in which children traumatized by family violence can succeed.25 NCTSN asks schools to play a key role in this effort. School is a place where it is possible for traumatized children to forge strong relationships with caring adults and learn in a supportive, predictable, and safe environment. These are factors that can help protect children from, or at least ameliorate, some of the effects of exposure to family violence.26 In the broad-based effort this report recommends, schools will partner with parents and guardians—who may themselves be struggling with symptoms of trauma—and give teachers the support they need to teach children how to regulate or calm their emotions and behavior. 6 H e lp in g Tra um a t i zed C hi l d r en Lea r n Because we know that mastering both academic and social skills are key to the healing process, the aim is to increase teaching and learning time and reduce time spent on discipline. We are not suggesting the creation of a new category of disability that would lead to special treatment or labeling of children on the basis of trauma alone. Instead, this report provides information and an adaptable framework for addressing trauma-related challenges to children’s ability to participate in the school community, whether they learn in regular or special education classrooms. Because we know that mastering both academic and social skills are key to the healing process, the aim is to increase teaching and learning time and reduce time spent on discipline. The ultimate goal is to help all traumatized students become successful members of their school communities.27 Educators and policy makers—with the help of mental health professionals—can put the insights of research to work by implementing relatively cost-effective strategies. These strategies will help children traumatized by exposure to family violence learn and succeed in school. This report is divided into three chapters, as follows: Chapter 1 The Impact of Trauma on Learning The first step in creating trauma-sensitive schools is to help educators become aware of trauma symptoms. Chapter 1 of this report describes the trauma response and the specific ways trauma can impact learning and behavior in the classroom. Teachers can use their existing expertise more effectively when they understand that many of the academic, social, and behavioral problems of traumatized children involve such difficulties as failing to understand directions, overreacting to comments from teachers and peers, misreading context, failing to connect cause and effect, and other forms of miscommunication. This report does not suggest that teachers become therapists. However, a better understanding of the difficulties traumatized children have in modulating their emotions and behaviors should lead schools to seek out therapeutic and positive behavioral supports, rather than responding with punitive measures such as suspensions and expulsions. A better understanding of how a positive community response can actually reduce the severity of the trauma Exe c utive S umma r y 7 symptoms should encourage educators to infuse trauma-sensitive approaches for students and supports for personnel throughout their schools, because schools are the central community for most children. Chapter 2 The Flexible Framework: An Action Plan for Schools The Flexible Framework has been designed to help each school community develop a plan for integrating trauma-sensitive routines and individual supports throughout the school day.28 The Framework provides a structure that can be adapted to the unique needs of each school community, regardless of its organizational structure or educational philosophy. Each school will determine how to apply the Framework, which has six key elements: I. Schoolwide Infrastructure and Culture; II. Staff Training; III. Linking with Mental Health Professionals; IV. Academic Instruction for Traumatized Children; V. Nonacademic Strategies; and VI. School Policies, Procedures, and Protocols. Rather than prescribing any one particular intervention, the Framework seeks to help schools establish environments that will enable children traumatized by exposure to family violence develop relationships with caring adults, learn to modulate their emotions and behaviors, and achieve at high educational levels. When schools have a better understanding of trauma, they can form effective linkages with mental health professionals who have an expertise in that field, make full use of available resources, and advocate for new resources and particular interventions that directly meet the needs of their students. 8 H e lp in g Tra um a t i zed C hi l d r en Lea r n Chapter 3 Policy Recommendations Schools and educators cannot do this work alone. Chapter 3 asks policy makers, legislators, and administrators to create laws and policies that support schools in addressing the trauma-related aspects of many behavioral and learning problems. Without supports within the school, teachers are almost forced to look the other way—the problems can seem so overwhelming.29 With supports, teachers can play an important role in connecting traumatized children to a safe and predictable school community and enable them to become competent learners.30 To accomplish this goal, policy makers must provide schools with the tools they need to help all children learn, including those who have been traumatized by exposure to family violence. Chapter 3 sets forth the following public policy agenda: 1.  e Commonwealth should provide publicly funded schools and Th preschools with funds necessary to develop schoolwide action plans addressing the needs of traumatized children. 2.  assachusetts stakeholders should reach consensus on the M laws, policies, and funding mechanisms necessary for schools to intervene early to address the needs of traumatized students and to decrease punitive responses. 3.  eachers and administrators should learn approaches and strategies T for teaching children who may be traumatized. 4.  ental health professionals and other specialists providing services M in school settings should respond appropriately to trauma-related learning and behavioral problems and should provide traumainformed consultations to educators. 5.  e Department of Education should provide continuing Th information and support to schools. Exe c utive S umma r y 9 6.  esearch should be funded on the extent to which learning and R behavioral problems at school are related to untreated childhood trauma and on best schoolwide and individual practices for addressing the educational needs. * * * We are all too familiar with the extreme situation—children who try to overcome their feelings of vulnerability by inflicting violence on others.31 When child victims become victimizers, a society that failed to help these children when they needed it most faces the consequences of shortsighted policies. We can either invest in necessary supports for educators and services for children now, or we can allow the cycle of violence and failure to continue, dealing with children later through more costly institutions, including the criminal justice system.32 With the help of educators, traumatized children can flourish in their school communities and master the educational tasks of childhood, despite their overwhelmingly stressful experiences. This requires school environments that support staff, parents, and children, and that recognize and respond to the effects childhood trauma can have on children’s learning and behavior.33 10 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n Ge ne s is o f This Re po r t 11 Genesis of This Report S taff at the Massachusetts Advocates for Children (MAC), a nonprofit children’s rights organization founded in 1969, regularly respond to requests from families desperately seeking help in obtaining school services to address learning problems or behaviors that have led to suspension and expulsion hearings. In 1998, MAC’s attorneys realized that many of these cases involved children who had been exposed to some form of family violence, either as witnesses to domestic violence or as the direct targets of abuse. Questioning whether there were better ways to deal with the behavioral and learning problems of these children, MAC brought together groups of parents, shelter workers, court personnel, and experts in trauma psychology, neuropsychology, education, social work, and law, in an attempt to understand the causes and nature of the challenges presented by children exposed to family violence. These vibrant interdisciplinary discussions, along with input from focus groups held at two Boston public schools, highlighted the many learning and behavioral difficulties that can arise when children and teenagers come to school traumatized by exposure to family violence. MAC followed up by forming the Task Force on Children Affected by Domestic Violence (the Task Force), which produced a series of working papers calling for overarching policies that schools, courts, and housing and benefits programs could implement to address the needs of these children. The working paper on schools proposed funding to help educators create trauma-sensitive classroom environments. The Massachusetts legislature responded to the issues articulated by the Task Force. In 2000, it passed legislation establishing a grant program through the Massachusetts Department of Education called “Creating a Safe and Supportive Learning Environment: Serving Youth Traumatized by Violence.” In 2004, the grant program was codified into law as “An Act for Alternative Education” (see MGL c. 69, sec. 1N, included in Appendix A). This new law, which is now part of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act, addresses the educational consequences of 12 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n trauma using a two-pronged approach: grants for alternative education programs and grants for safe and supportive school environments. In the first round of grants, six schools received pilot funding to create trauma-sensitive environments. Two of these schools used the Flexible Framework, devised by the Task Force, to increase their responsiveness to the needs of traumatized children. In the second round of grants (2004) the Framingham Public Schools adapted the framework for use across its district. This framework was refined through its use in schools, the work of the Task Force, and discussions held with many schools and community collaborators. (The Framework is set forth in chapter 2.) In 2004, MAC expanded the work of the Task Force by joining in a partnership with the Hale and Dorr Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School to launch the Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative (TLPI). TLPI uses multiple advocacy strategies to carry out the Task Force’s vision, advocating for policies, laws, and practices that can help children traumatized by family violence succeed in school. TLPI attorneys, student advocates, psychological and educational consultants, and parent specialists provide individual case advocacy; reach out to educate parents, teens, educators, and other professionals; and build coalitions that enable the voices of the most vulnerable children and their parents to be heard in the policy arena. TLPI is also convening experts to develop forthcoming guidelines for making special education evaluations and school mental health consultations trauma sensitive. Parents, teachers in regular and special education, principals, guidance counselors, social workers, language experts, advocates for battered women and children, staff in governmental agencies, and attorneys made significant contributions to this report, as have the psychologists, neuropsychologists, and trauma experts who reviewed it for accuracy and content. Ge ne s is o f This Re po r t 13 Together, we can ensure that all children will be able to achieve at their highest levels despite whatever traumatic circumstances they may have endured. 14 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n Chapter 1 The Impact of Trauma on Learning The I mpa c t o f Tra uma o n L e a r ning 15 The Trauma Response in the Classroom E very day, children enter their classrooms bringing backpacks, pencils, paper—and their unique views of the world. Every child has his or her own expectations and insights, formed from experiences at home, in the community, and at school. When children witness violence between their adult caregivers or experience abuse or neglect, they can enter the classroom believing that the world is an unpredictable and threatening place. A Worldview Gone Awry Our fundamental assumptions about ourselves and about the world around us are the lens through which we view and evaluate events and relationships. They provide the conceptual framework that helps us make meaning of our experiences and enables us to function effectively.34 A nurturing home, in which children have stable attachments to adults and are treated with physical and emotional respect, generally instills a fundamentally affirmative self-image and view of the world as benevolent.35 Positive expectations tend to lead to the belief that others will appreciate our strengths, that people are essentially decent, and that there is a reason to be optimistic about the future. Children with secure attachments to adults and a positive worldview usually are able to regulate their emotions and develop the solid foundation necessary for adapting well at school.36 Conversely, violence at home can help create negative expectations and assumptions.37 Such children may have a diminished sense of selfworth and feel incapable of having a positive impact on the outside world.38 Hopelessness, self-blame, and lack of control are typical of the feelings that can result from trauma; these feelings may lead to overwhelming despair and a loss of the ability to imagine the future or hope that circumstances will change. Children in this condition can be ill-prepared for the academic and social challenges of the classroom. 16 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n In Jenny Horsman’s book Too Scared To Learn, an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse describes how her negative worldview affected her at school: I remember crying in the night. I found it difficult to hear Mrs. Patterson when she spoke in the classroom. I felt as if she were speaking from beneath tumbling water, or from the end of a long tunnel. She assumed I was daydreaming. I stopped imagining that I might one day be a teacher. . . . No longer did my imagination dance me through the leaves. The sound of ringing church bells irritated me. Mostly I felt ashamed, different.39 Children look to their parents for stability and protection. When a parent is the source of violence, the child’s sense of security and safety can be compromised or destroyed,40 replaced instead by fear and anxiety. Lacking a sense of security, a child can have difficulty exploring the world through play, developing self-confidence, and maintaining motivation.41 A parent’s unpredictable or violent behavior can lead to difficulty forming personal attachments and may foster relationships that are based on fear and insecurity.42 Many children exposed to violence view the world as a threatening place, in which danger and pain are to be expected. They see the world not through rose-colored glasses, but through a lens tinted somber gray.43 Psychiatrist and trauma expert Judith Herman explains: Adaptation to this climate of constant danger requires a state of constant alertness. Children in an abusive environment develop extraordinary abilities to scan for warning signs of attack. They become minutely attuned to their abusers’ inner states. They learn to recognize subtle changes in facial expression, voice, and body language as signals of anger, sexual arousal, intoxication, or dissociation. This nonverbal communication becomes highly automatic and occurs for the most part outside of conscious awareness. Child victims learn to respond without being able to name or identify the danger signals that evoked their alarm.44 The I mpa c t o f Tra uma o n L e a r ning Traumatized children may anticipate that the school environment will be threatening and constantly scrutinize it for any signs of danger. Their mission is to avoid this perceived danger and pain. 17 Children traumatized by family violence rarely understand that they see the world in a different way than their nontraumatized peers and teachers do.45 Traumatized children cannot simply remove their “trauma glasses” as they go between home and school, from dangerous place to safe place. They may anticipate that the school environment will be threatening and constantly scrutinize it for any signs of danger. Their mission is to avoid this perceived danger and pain.46 Sadly, this mission often sabotages their ability to hear and understand a teacher’s positive messages, to perform well academically, and to behave appropriately. Fear as a Way of Life: The Developing Brain The great risk for children who live in violent homes and who routinely operate in survival mode is that this way of functioning can permeate every aspect of their lives and can even take on a life of its own. According to brain researchers, when children encounter a perceived threat to their safety, their brains trigger a complex set of chemical and neurological events known as the “stress response.”47 The stress response activates a natural instinct to prepare to fight, freeze, or flee from the unsafe event. Under normal circumstances these responses to stress are constructive and help keep a child safe. However, when a child operates in overwhelming states of stress or fear, survival responses that may be fully appropriate in danger-laden situations (e.g., shutting down, constantly surveying the room for danger, expecting to fight or run away at a moment’s notice) can become a regular mode of functioning. Even when the dangers are not present, children may react to the world as if they are.48 Unable to regulate heightened levels of arousal and emotional responses, they simply cannot turn off the survival strategies that their brains have been conditioned to employ.49 Neurobiologist Bruce Perry and his colleagues at the Child Trauma Academy explain that the most developed areas of a child’s brain are the ones used most frequently. When children live in a persistent state of 18 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n fear, the areas of their brains controlling the fear response can become overdeveloped.50 These parts of the brain may direct behavior even in situations in which it would be more appropriate for other parts of the brain to be in charge. It is important to note that the areas of the brain active in fearful states are different from those active in calm states, and it is predominately the areas active in calm states that are required for academic learning.51 Brain researchers use the term “plasticity” to explain the environment’s enormous influence on the growing child’s developing brain.52 This means that children’s brains are more malleable than those of adults. However, just as traumatic experiences can undermine the brain’s development, good experiences can enhance it.53 In addition, skill development is a scaffolding process, with each skill building upon the one before. Both the plasticity of brain development and the scaffolding nature of skill development are strong reasons to intervene as early as possible with supportive, ameliorative, and protective experiences. Early intervention gives a child the best chance to follow a developmental trajectory unencumbered by the effects of trauma.54 Trauma: Reactions to Stressful Events Experts explain that trauma is not an event itself, but rather a response to a stressful experience in which a person’s ability to cope is dramatically undermined. Lenore Terr defines childhood trauma as the impact of external forces that “[render] the young person temporarily helpless and [break] past ordinary coping and defensive operation. . . . [This includes] not only those conditions marked by intense surprise but also those marked by prolonged and sickening anticipation.”55 Similarly, Judith Herman writes that traumatic events “overwhelm the ordinary human adaptations to life. . . . They confront human beings with the extremities of helplessness and terror.”56 The range of potentially traumatic events in childhood is quite broad, including not only physical threat and harm but also emotional maltreatment, neglect, abandonment, and devastating loss. Every traumatic experience is different, and each child’s response depends on his or her coping skills and resources and on the context The I mpa c t o f Tra uma o n L e a r ning 19 and circumstances in which the stressful event occurs. Whether a child develops a trauma reaction that increases in severity, becomes chronic, and is less responsive to intervention or has a reaction that is moderate, manageable, and time limited depends on several factors. These include the nature of the experience, the characteristics of the child, and the way the family, school, and community respond (see Appendix C). For example, chronic or repetitive traumatic experiences, especially those perpetrated intentionally by a caregiver, are likely to result in a different set of symptoms than a single shocking traumatic event.57 The age at which a child experiences traumatic events is another factor in determining its severity. The age at which a child experiences events resulting in trauma is another important factor in determining its severity. For example, an older child may have the verbal skills to articulate the experience and gain perspective on it more quickly than a very young child, whose lack of language development and perspective limits the extent to which the event can be understood and processed. On the other hand, an older child could be devastated by betrayal in a way that could go unnoticed by a younger child. Brain researchers also explain that growing children go through “critical periods,” during which certain areas of the brain develop very rapidly and are more susceptible than usual to stressful experiences.58 So many factors influence individual reactions to stressful events that even children in the same family who share similar traumatic backgrounds can have different responses. One child in a family might develop an intense drive for academic achievement. Another may engage in behavior that makes concentration nearly impossible for that child and the other students in the class. A third may appear to be unaffected, yet suffer in very quiet ways. It is critical for educators to understand that a person’s social context can have a tremendous impact on the severity of the trauma symptoms. Trauma expert Mary Harvey explains that a trauma response is influenced not only by an individual’s particular strengths and the nature of the event, but also by the level of support a person receives from the surrounding community.59 When the community responds in helpful ways, there is what Harvey calls an “ecological fit” between the person and the community: 20 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n The construct of “[ecological] fit” refers to the quality and helpfulness of the relationship existing between the individual and his or her social context. Interventions that achieve ecological fit are those that enhance the environmentperson relationship—i.e., that reduce isolation, foster social competence, support positive coping, and promote belongingness in relevant social contexts.60 Schools are children’s communities. An ecological fit for a child at school would include a welcoming environment where the staff understands trauma’s impact on relationships, behavior, and learning. In this environment, schoolwide trauma-sensitive approaches would be woven throughout the school day, and individual supports, related to skill and social development, would be trauma-sensitive. The links between exposure to family violence and children’s behavior are often hidden or unclear, but a trauma-sensitive environment can provide tools for recognizing when more supports are needed. The Flexible Framework in chapter 2 sets forth a structure for establishing such a trauma-sensitive ecology or context. So many factors influence individual reactions to overwhelming stress that even children in the same family who share similar traumatic backgrounds can have different responses. The I mpa c t o f Tra uma o n L e a r ning 21 Trauma’s Impact on Academic Performance, Behavior, and Relationships M any of the obstacles traumatized children face in the classroom result from their inability to process information, meaningfully distinguish between threatening and nonthreatening situations, form trusting relationships with adults, and modulate their emotions. For some children, the combination and extent of their reactions to trauma warrant a formal diagnosis. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is the diagnosis given to a particular set of trauma-related symptoms. (See Appendix B for an explanation of PTSD.) As PTSD does not capture the full range of symptoms often seen in traumatized children, students can come with a range of diagnoses that may be comorbid with trauma. These include depression, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, anxiety disorder, phobic disorder, and borderline personality.61 Because the clinical manifestations of trauma are exceedingly broad and not captured well by traditional diagnoses, Bessel van der Kolk has proposed a new diagnosis for children with histories of complex trauma called “developmental trauma disorder” that attempts to account for the emotional, behavioral, neurobiological, and developmental consequences of trauma.62 For many children, however, their reactions to traumatic events manifest themselves in a range of problems that do not meet the standards for a diagnosis. The children may never be identified as having trauma symptoms or may have what appear to be trauma symptoms with no indication that a traumatic event precipitated it. We caution that all children with trauma-like symptoms should not be presumed to have trauma histories. It is important to explore all possible reasons for a child’s difficulty at school. In the sections that follow, we organize the research according to the ways trauma can impact learning, behavior, and relationships at school, to broaden understanding and not to respond to a specific diagnosis. The 22 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n principles in the Framework in chapter 2 are designed to infuse traumasensitive supports throughout the school; their use is not contingent on whether traumatic events have been identified or a diagnosis reached. More research is needed on the extent to which trauma plays a role in problems children experience at school, on ways to identify when these problems might be trauma related, and on strategies to address the needs specific to various forms of exposure to violence. The research to date, however, provides considerable insight into children’s behavior and learning and the challenges educators face in their classrooms. Childhood Trauma and Academic Performance Learning to read, write, take part in a discussion, and solve mathematical problems requires attention, organization, comprehension, memory, the ability to produce work, engagement in learning, and trust.63 Another prerequisite for achieving classroom competency is the ability to selfregulate attention, emotions, and behavior.64 Not surprisingly, traumatic experiences have the power to undermine the development of linguistic and communicative skills, thwart the establishment of a coherent sense of self, and compromise the ability to attend to classroom tasks and instructions, organize and remember new information, and grasp cause-and-effect relationships—all of which are necessary to process information effectively.65 Trauma can interfere with the capacity for creative play, which is one of the ways children learn how to cope with the problems of everyday life; 66 and it can adversely affect the ability to have good peer and adult relationships.67 n Language and Communication Skills Traumatic experiences can disrupt the ability of children to learn and process verbal information and use language as a vehicle for communication. These language problems can undermine literacy skills, social-emotional development, and behavioral self-regulation. 1.  earning and retrieving new verbal information L Researchers Streeck-Fischer and van der Kolk explain that traumatized children “are easily overstimulated and cannot achieve The I mpa c t o f Tra uma o n L e a r ning 23 the state of secure readiness that is necessary in order to be open to new information.”68 When traumatized children enter the classroom in a hyperaroused state, they may be unable to attend to or process academically significant information and may have great difficulty expressing themselves verbally. (See Appendix B for a discussion of hyperarousal in traumatized children.) These findings have serious implications for the ability of traumatized children to function well within the school setting. As Perry explains, traumatized and nontraumatized children often have very different cognitive experiences in the classroom: The calm child may sit in the same classroom next to the child in an alarm state, both hearing the same lecture by the teacher. Even if they have identical IQs, the child that is calm can focus on the words of the teacher and, using the neocortex, engage in abstract cognition. The child in an Trauma can disrupt the ability of children to learn and process verbal information and use language as a vehicle for communication. 24 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n alarm state will be less efficient at processing and storing the verbal information the teacher is providing.69 One traumatized teenager gives a poignant description of how processing problems in the classroom affected her learning: I could see the math teacher’s mouth moving in the classroom but couldn’t hear a thing. It was as if I were in a soundless chamber. She was smiling and clearly talking, I just couldn’t process a word of it. I had been an excellent math student, but the day she told me I was “spacey” and unfocused was the day I stopped connecting to math. My grades dropped and they took me out of the advanced classes.70 Studies are beginning to uncover neurobiological evidence that the ability to connect words to experience can be impeded by trauma. One 1996 study scanned the brains of people diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. After baseline scans were taken, researchers induced fear in the subjects by reminding them of their traumatic experiences. The scans revealed that the areas of the brain involving anxiety and other intense emotions (limbic and paralimbic systems) activated when the subjects’ traumatic experiences were invoked. When the limbic system activated, the area of the brain associated with language (Broca’s area) became less active.71 It may be obvious to a child in a state of anxiety that something inside his or her head has shifted to inhibit language and thought processing. However, this shift may not be apparent to a teacher until the child is called upon to speak or demonstrate that he or she has understood and analyzed information that has been presented. 2.  ocial and emotional communication S Traumatized children may have a relationship to language that is different from that of their nontraumatized peers. Research suggests that communicative development is influenced by the interactive styles and social context in which early language is established.72 This can affect mastery of basic literacy skills, the ability to use verbal skills, and how and why the child communicates. Coster and Cicchetti explain The I mpa c t o f Tra uma o n L e a r ning 25 that when a caregiver’s primary interactions with a child are focused on controlling the child’s behavior rather than on responding to thoughts and feelings, the child may acquire a predominantly instrumental understanding of language. For such a child, language becomes a tool that “serve[s] to get tasks accomplished,” rather than a “medium for social or affective exchanges.”73 When this pattern of using language primarily as a tool, rather than as a means to express feelings, persists throughout the preschool years, the child may have difficulty “use[ing] language to articulate needs and feelings, which has been suggested as an important step toward development of appropriate cognitive and behavioral controls.”74 According to Coster and Cicchetti, using language in a predominantly instrumental way leads to difficulty with “the ability to convey abstractions, which has been suggested as a critical transition in the acquisition of literacy skills.”75 It can also hamper “the ability to sustain coherent narrative and dialogue, which is a key competence for social exchange with both peer and adult figures.”76 Instead of using language to build bridges with others on the basis of mutual understanding, some traumatized children use language to build walls between themselves and those they regard as potentially threatening. Instead of using language to build bridges with others on the basis of mutual understanding, some traumatized children use language to build walls between themselves and those they regard as potentially threatening. Susan Craig explains, “Abused children use language to keep other people at a distance. Their communication style is gesture oriented and is used to define the relationship between themselves and the speaker, rather than to convey meaning.”77 She reminds us that traumatized children may have difficulty focusing on the content of language, in part because they are monitoring nonverbal messages. 3.  roblem solving and analysis P Coster and Cicchetti explain that traumatized children may have had “minimal experience using verbal problem-solving methods and little exposure to adults who encourage the kind of self-reporting of ideas or feelings often expected in a classroom setting. [Children] may also have had limited experience attending to complex communications 26 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n and may have difficulty extracting key ideas embedded in more lengthy narratives.”78 This is consistent with the findings of Allen and Oliver, who found a significant correlation between child neglect and deficits in both receptive and expressive language. They hypothesize that neglected children are not adequately exposed to the types of stimulation that are critical for normative language development. 79 Coster and Cicchetti argue that a thorough language evaluation should be part of the educational assessment of children exposed to family violence. Emphasizing that impaired language development may affect the ability to use words to problem solve, these researchers make the powerful point that the language evaluation should include not only linguistic aspects of language but also pragmatic and narrative functions.80 n Organizing Narrative Material A child’s successful completion of many academic tasks depends on the ability to “bring a linear order to the chaos of daily experience.”81 Traumatic experiences can inhibit this ability to organize material sequentially, leading to difficulty reading, writing, and communicating verbally.82 The first step in the development of the ability to organize material sequentially is the establishment of sequential memory. In the earliest years of a child’s life, memories and information are encoded episodically, as a collection of random events rather than as a coherent narrative. The transition to sequential semantic memory “is most easily made in environments marked by consistent, predictable routines and familiar, reliable caregivers.”83 Many children enduring traumatic stress are deprived of such a stable environment. Instead, they may be “raised in households in which rules and routines are subject to the whim of the parent”; for them, the move into a more sequential ordering of the world may be considerably more difficult than it is for other children.84 If the development of sequential memory is delayed and the ability to learn new information sequentially is impaired, traumatized children will have difficulty organizing and processing the content of academic lessons for later retrieval and application. This helps explain why traumatized children who have trouble with sequential organization The I mpa c t o f Tra uma o n L e a r ning 27 respond well to classrooms in which there are orderly transitions and clear rules and that offer them assistance with organizing their tasks. n Cause-and-Effect Relationships When cognitive development occurs in an inconsistent and unpredictable environment, children may have trouble comprehending cause-andeffect relationships and recognizing their own ability to affect what happens in the world.85 According to Craig, “Most children grasp this process during the sensorimotor period, through an active exploration of the world around them,” in which they learn “they can make things happen.”86 In contrast, children living with violence may suffer from “physical restriction and unrealistic parental expectations that inhibit their exploration of the world and their emergent sense of competence.”87 When no logical cause-and-effect relationships govern their experiences at home, these children have difficulty internalizing a sense that they can influence what happens to them. Craig explains how a compromised understanding of cause-and-effect can undermine a child’s motivation and behavior in the classroom: An extended experience of perceived low impact on the world inhibits the development of such behaviors as goal setting and delayed gratification. These skills, so important to school success, rely on a person’s ability to predict and make inferences. Similarly, failure to establish an internalized locus of control can result in lack of both motivation and persistence in academic tasks, as well as a resistance to behavior-management techniques that assume an understanding of cause and effect.88 Children living in circumstances that do not allow them to make connections between their actions and the responses they trigger can be left wary of the future, which feels to them both unpredictable and out of their control. This may cause some children to become extremely passive.89 A child whose inability to grasp cause-and-effect relationships is extreme may not even master the early developmental task of achieving “object constancy”—the understanding that an object or person still exists when it is hidden from sight.90 Van der Kolk explains that failure to achieve object constancy is common among traumatized children who lack a sense of predictability in their environment.91 28 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n n Taking Another’s Perspective Many traumatized children have problems with academic and social tasks that require them to take the perspective of another person. When a child learns not to express a preference before assessing the mood of the parent, he or she cannot fully develop a sense of self. In particular, this can result in an “inability to define the boundaries of the self,” which can lead to difficulty making independent choices, articulating preferences, and gaining perspective.92 In addition, if stress from family violence interferes with normal playtime and with explorative play activity, the ability to “take the role of the other or to appreciate another person’s point of view may be seriously impaired.”93 Difficulty understanding the perspective of others has serious ramifications. Deficits in this area can make it hard to solve a problem from a different point of view, infer ideas from text, participate in social conversation, and develop empathy in relationships. n Attentiveness to Classroom Tasks Traumatized children can be distracted or lack focus in the classroom because anxiety and fears for their own and others’ safety chronically occupy their thoughts. Streeck-Fischer and van der Kolk explain that these attentional disorders have several causes: [The children] do not pay attention because they are unable to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information. They tend to misinterpret innocuous stimuli as traumatic, and if not interpreted as traumatic, they tend to ignore sensory input. Easily threatened by the unexpected, traumatised children are prone to become excessively physiologically aroused when faced with novel information.94 A child who is inattentive to the classroom task at hand may actually be focused on “interpreting the teacher’s mood.”95 Another child might disassociate from the immediate environment and not process information presented by the teacher at all. Children who pay attention to the wrong things and children who disassociate can find it difficult to keep up with classroom tasks. Lost and The I mpa c t o f Tra uma o n L e a r ning 29 unable to reconnect with the academic activities, their anxiety can increase, and difficulties with regulating emotion may come into play. Some of them may then engage in disruptive behavior as they try to catch up. Many traumatized children who exhibit the symptoms of anxiety, hypervigilance to danger, and language-processing problems are diagnosed as having attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Research shows that ADHD and trauma often coexist, but because both disorders have similar symptoms, trauma may be overlooked when a diagnosis of ADHD is made.96 If a child is suffering from both ADHD and trauma, appropriate treatment can be provided that responds to both sets of problems.97 Thus, it is important to assess whether a single diagnosis is masking the need to evaluate for trauma. n Regulating Emotions According to Masten and Coatsworth, the ability to self-regulate or modulate emotions is a key predictor of academic and social success.98 Providing opportunities to succeed must be reinforced by a classroom environment that supports the student’s success. 30 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n Shields and Cicchetti explain that deficits in the capacity to regulate emotion are a cause for serious concern because “the ability to modulate behavior, attention, and emotion underlie children’s adaptive functioning in a number of key domains, including self-development, academic achievement, and interpersonal relationships.”99 StreeckFischer and van der Kolk emphasize that such deficits are widespread among children exposed to family violence: “Lack of capacity for emotional self-regulation so critical to school functioning is probably the most striking feature of these chronically traumatised children.”100 Difficulty regulating emotions can lead to a host of problems in and out of school. These potential difficulties include poor impulse control, aggression against the self and/or others, trouble interpreting emotional signals, chronic uncertainty about the reliability of other people, and lack of a predictable sense of self.101 Shields and Cicchetti suggest that hypervigilance may play a key role in undermining the development of emotional self-regulation. They postulate that, unlike the nontraumatized child, the hypervigilant child cannot shift away from distressing cues in the service of maintaining emotional regulation.102 Traumatized children often experience fear, anxiety, irritability, helplessness, anger, shame, depression, and guilt, but their ability to identify and express these feelings is often underdeveloped and poorly regulated. Some of these children may express emotions without restraint and seem impulsive, undercontrolled, unable to reflect, edgy, oversensitive, or aggressive. They may overreact to perceived provocation in the classroom and on the playground. Other traumatized children block out painful or uncomfortable emotions; they may appear disinterested, disconnected, or aloof. For them, the consequence of not knowing how to communicate or interpret emotions is the dampening or constricting of their feelings. Another group of traumatized children protect themselves from unmanageable stress and anxiety by dissociating—that is, by completely disconnecting emotions from the events with which they are associated. Difficulty knowing how they feel and expressing feelings in words can put traumatized children at risk for somatic symptoms,103 including The I mpa c t o f Tra uma o n L e a r ning 31 headaches, gastrointestinal complaints, body pains, and general malaise. Fatigue, sleeplessness, eating disorders, body-image concerns, and health problems later in life are also associated with trauma. n Executive Functions The so-called “executive functions”—goal setting, anticipating consequences, and initiating and carrying out plans—are very important for achieving academic and social success and for establishing vocational goals.104 A traumatized child can develop a bleak perspective, expectations of failure, a low sense of selfworth, and a foreshortened view of the future, all of which disrupt this ability to plan, anticipate, and hope.105 Van der Kolk explains that because traumatized children often have distorted inner representations of the world, they have no “internal maps to guide them” and that, consequently, they “act instead of plan.”106 This is consistent with what researchers know about the effects of trauma on the developing child’s brain. The prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain primarily responsible for the development of the executive functions, has been shown to be adversely affected by trauma.107 One study found significant deficits in executive function and abstract reasoning among maltreated children with post-traumatic stress disorder, as compared to sociodemographically matched children with no history of maltreatment.108 In another study, boys with severe abuse histories had particular difficulty with executive-function tasks that required them to refrain from taking actions that would lead to adverse consequences.109 Children with severe executive-function deficits may benefit from small, structured classrooms where they can be carefully taught to understand the consequences of their actions. n Engaging in the Curriculum Traumatic experiences can deplete motivation and internal resources for academic engagement. Studying the effect of maltreatment on children’s academic and behavioral adjustment, Shonk and Cicchetti found that academic engagement is a powerful predictor of academic success.110 They define optimal academic engagement as “self-initiated, regulated, and persistent mastery for the sake of competence, a preference for optimally challenging tasks, and self-directed behaviors such as paying 32 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n attention and completing assignments.”111 However, as they go on to point out, because of a focus on security, “many traumatized toddlers, preschoolers, and school-age children display excessive dependency, social wariness, reduced exploration, deficits in affect regulation, and impaired autonomous mastery.”112 Not all traumatized children suffer from the academic challenges listed above. As discussed earlier, many factors impact how severe a traumatic response will be. Overall, however, many traumatized children struggle with considerable difficulties that impede progress in school. Often, these difficulties also interfere with their ability to behave appropriately in the school setting. Childhood Trauma and Classroom Behavior The school setting can be a battleground in which traumatized children’s assumptions of the world as a dangerous place sabotage their ability to develop constructive relationships with nurturing adults. Unfortunately, many traumatized children adopt behavioral coping mechanisms that can frustrate educators and evoke exasperated reprisals, reactions that both strengthen expectations of confrontation and danger and reinforce a negative self-image. Traumatized children’s behavior can be perplexing. Prompted by internal states not fully understood by the children themselves and unobservable by teachers, traumatized children can be ambivalent, unpredictable, and demanding. Traumatized children’s behavior can be perplexing. Prompted by internal states not fully understood by the children themselves and unobservable by teachers, traumatized children can be ambivalent, unpredictable, and demanding. But it is critical to underscore that The I mpa c t o f Tra uma o n L e a r ning 33 traumatized children’s most challenging behavior often originates in immense feelings of vulnerability. Researchers explain that when we believe an individual has complete control over his or her behavior, we are more likely to be angry when that behavior is inappropriate. But if we recognize the factors that shape a child’s behavior and compromise self-control, we are more likely to attempt to ease the child’s plight.113 Because traumatized children may be used to chaotic, unpredictable caregivers, they often try hard to appear in control even though they may be feeling out of control. As a result, they are more likely to be disapproved of and condemned by busy, overburdened educators, even though they are among the students most in need of nurturance. In his book On Playing a Poor Hand Well, Mark Katz describes how an adult’s view of a child’s problematic behavior might change if the reasons for that behavior were known: Not realizing that children exposed to inescapable, overwhelming stress may act out their pain, that they may misbehave, not listen to us, or seek our attention in all the wrong ways, can lead us to punish these children for their misbehavior. The behavior is so willful, so intentional. She controlled herself yesterday, she can control herself today. If we only knew what happened last night, or this morning before she got to school, we would be shielding the same child we’re now reprimanding.114 To avoid reminders of trauma or the emotions associated with it, children may consciously or unconsciously adopt strategies such as social withdrawal, aggressiveness, or substance abuse. Aggressive or controlling behavior can be a way of coping with internal turmoil and a sense of powerlessness and vulnerability; it may also arise from hypersensitivity to danger or from identification with the aggressor at home.115 Other traumatized children may try to cope with their fears by checking door locks, constantly expressing concerns about younger siblings, and so on. All these behaviors may be responses to feelings they cannot identify or describe. 34 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n Many of the effects of trauma on classroom behavior originate from the same problems that create academic difficulties: the inability to process social cues and to convey feelings in an appropriate manner. For this reason, traumatized children’s behavior in the classroom can be highly confusing, and children suffering from the behavioral symptoms of trauma are frequently profoundly misunderstood. Whether a traumatized child externalizes (acts out) or internalizes (withdraws, is numb, frozen, or depressed), the effects of trauma can lead to strained relationships with teachers and peers. n Reactivity and Impulsivity Chronic trauma can impair the development of children’s ability to regulate their emotions and to control impulsive behaviors.116 Reactions can be triggered in hypervigilant children if they feel they are being provoked or if something reminds them of the trauma. An incident or remark that might seem minor to a nontraumatized child may be perceived as threatening by a traumatized child, who then responds in a seemingly disproportionate way. It is helpful for teachers to know what triggers might cause a traumatized child to become hyperaroused or to reexperience a traumatic event in the classroom. Behaviorists may be able, through careful observation, to identify some of the child’s triggers. Often, however, the help of a mental health expert is needed to be sure of what may be triggering a particular child. n Aggression Hypervigilant children who are prone to reactivity and impulsiveness may become verbally and/or physically aggressive toward teachers and peers. The aggression may spring from misinterpretation of comments and actions due to the child’s inability to adopt another’s perspective, underdeveloped linguistic skills, and/or inexperience with verbal problem solving. Studies have shown that traumatized children often have “distorted perceptions of the intentions, feelings, and behaviors of others as well as . . . hostile/aggressive social behavior.”117 One study also found that traumatized children “were less attentive to relevant social cues, made more misattributions of others’ negative or hostile intent, and were less likely to generate competent solutions to interpersonal problems.”118 The I mpa c t o f Tra uma o n L e a r ning 35 Carlson reported that in some cases this aggressive behavior occurs “in lieu of the child’s expression of his [or her] trauma-related fears.”119 In this sense, aggressive behavior is less akin to the willful defiance of an obstinate student than the response of a frightened child to his or her experience of traumatic violence. Carlson also explains that “aggression towards others might occur because a person with a general expectancy of danger might take a ‘strike first’ position to ward off harm.”120 Shields and Cicchetti point out that “angry reactivity would be a likely response among individuals who fear victimization and exploitation. … Because maltreated children tend to perceive threat in even neutral or friendly situations, they may evidence a self-defensive reactivity that is consistent with their experiences and expectations but inappropriate to the context at hand.”121 Thus they explain that hypervigilant attention processes combine with “maladaptive social information processing to foster emotional negativity and reactivity among maltreated children; this emotion dysregulation, in turn, seems to provoke reactive aggression.”122 Because these behaviors can be based on fear, reactivity, misinterpretation of social information, and hypervigilience, most traumatized children do best in a calm environment that accepts no bullying or teasing and in which firm limits are set on negative behavior. n Defiance Children who enter the classroom in a state of low-level fear may refuse to respond to teachers either by trying to take control of their situation through actively defiant behavior or, more passively and perhaps less consciously, by “freezing.” Either way, the child is not receptive or responsive to the teacher or the demands of the classroom. Children who actively try to take control may be more overt and deliberate in their unwillingness to cooperate. This can be particularly frustrating to teachers, since these children can appear to be in control of their behavior. Teachers often attempt to gain the compliance of “frozen” children via directives, but this approach tends to escalate the anxiety and solidify the inability to comply, as Perry describes: At this point, they tend to feel somewhat out of control and will cognitively (and often, physically) freeze. When adults around them ask them to comply with some directive, they may act as 36 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n if they haven’t heard or they “refuse.” This forces the adult—a teacher, a parent, a counselor—to give the child another set of directives. Typically, these directives involve more threat. The adult will say, “If you don’t do this, I will . . .” The nonverbal and verbal character of this “threat” makes the child feel more anxious, threatened, and out of control. The more anxious the child feels, the quicker the child will move from anxious to threatened, and from threatened to terrorized.123 n Withdrawal Children who withdraw in the classroom cannot participate effectively. Unsurprisingly, these children rarely attract their teachers’ attention. Many demands are placed on teachers, not the least of which is managing children who disruptively act out their suffering. Richard Weissbourd, in his book The Vulnerable Child, describes the experience of a first-grade teacher whose classroom included several children traumatized by sexual abuse, community violence, and neglect: Mary Martinez is aware that many of her children are suffering from one or another of these quiet hardships, yet putting out the brushfires can take all her attention. Neglect does not get special attention from her until it becomes severe. Whereas [some children] may secure attention because they are provocative or display directly or symbolically how they have been hurt or abused, . . . the counselor at Martinez’s school worries especially about neglected and abused children who, instead of acting out, come to school dead to the world, withdrawn. . . . “Withdrawn kids get zero here. You have to be extraordinarily withdrawn to be referred to me.”124 Feelings of vulnerability may foster reluctance to engage in the classroom. As Pynoos, Steinberg, and Goenjian state, “Preschool tasks of cooperation and sharing in relationship to other children may be interfered with by withdrawal, emotional constriction, and disrupted impulse control.”125 Some traumatized children disconnect themselves from the present by dissociating, or “going away” in their minds; they The I mpa c t o f Tra uma o n L e a r ning 37 may not be aware that they have “left” the classroom and missed large amounts of information. Dissociation may be hard for a teacher to recognize unless it is extreme. One student explains: I couldn’t stand to be in the school. Often I felt like I couldn’t breathe. I would stare out the window and let my mind go all over the place. Sometimes whole weeks would go by and I would not even be aware that time had passed. Next thing I would know I was being told I was yet again failing a course.126 Withdrawn behavior can be a symptom of depression, anxiety, fear of negotiating interpersonal relationships, or difficulties arising from compromised self-confidence. n Perfectionism Children exposed to violence at home are often subject to the arbitrary will of caregivers who have unrealistic expectations for childhood behavior. Afraid to disappoint these caregivers and incur their explosive response, children often try, and inevitably fail, to meet these expectations. In their genuine desire for approval and success, these children may become perfectionists.127 Some perfectionists secretly long to excel but become easily frustrated and give up when they encounter difficulty mastering a task, often preferring to be viewed by teachers and fellow students as noncompliant rather than as unable. To the teacher, it may appear that such a child is simply refusing to try.128 Other perfectionists engage in an uncompromising struggle for academic success, but are never satisfied with their achievements. In an attempt to make sense of their experiences, acutely traumatized children may assume responsibility for their caregivers’ crimes and deeply internalize a sense of badness. Paradoxically, this intensely negative feeling can lead to zealously perfectionist behavior that masks a grave emotional problem. According to Herman, 38 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n In the effort to placate her abusers, the child victim often becomes a superb performer. She attempts to do whatever is required of her. She may become . . . an academic achiever, a model of social conformity. She brings to all these tasks a perfectionist zeal, driven by the desperate need to find favor in her parents’ eyes.129 Some perfectionist children may engage in coping behaviors that cement the distance between themselves and others in order to avoid the stress resulting from their inability to perform academic and social tasks. As Craig explains, “Children may develop avoidance patterns of oppositional behavior and incomplete work as ‘face-saving’ techniques for getting out of play time. Though painful in themselves, these practices may seem safer to the child than the experience of failure before peers.”130 Perfectionist children who are easily frustrated can become despondent when they encounter difficulties. Distress tends to plague even those who do succeed in achieving excellent grades and displaying exemplary conduct while in the midst of extreme adversity. These children sometimes pay a big price by living with high levels of long-term distress.131 Childhood Trauma and Relationships Perhaps one of the most important roles schools can play in the lives of traumatized children is helping them to have good relationships with both peers and adults. Positive role models and ways of dealing with peers can play a major role in the healing process and lead to strong academic, social, and behavioral outcomes. n Relationships with School Personnel Children’s struggle with traumatic stress and their insecure relationships with adults outside of school can adversely affect their relationships with school personnel. Preoccupied with their physical and psychological safety and lacking appropriate models, traumatized children may be distrustful of adults or unsure of the security of the school setting in general. To gain a sense of control, The I mpa c t o f Tra uma o n L e a r ning 39 they may challenge school personnel, or they may overact because they misinterpret classroom encounters.132 In either case, children may behave confrontationally, even aggressively, in their relationships with school personnel. Craig explains that “these children often vie for power with classroom teachers, since they know that they are safe only when they control the environment. They do not like surprises or spontaneous events, which are perceived as dangerous or out of their control.”133 For this reason, many traumatized children have particular difficulty with transitions during the school day. Researchers point out that it is important for traumatized children to form meaningful relationships with caring adults. Accomplishing this goal requires a schoolwide infrastructure that allows time for positive relationships to develop between students and both academic and nonacademic school personnel. n Relationships with Peers Traumatized children may suffer delays in the development of ageappropriate social skills. They may not know how to initiate and cultivate healthy interpersonal relationships. Their “post-traumatic symptoms or behavior . . . may acutely disturb a developing close relationship with a best friend, create a sense of isolation from peers, or lead to social ostracism.”134 Traumatized children who are reactive, impulsive, or aggressive may mask their feelings of vulnerability with a “strike-first” posture in response to threat. Seeing through the lens of their negative worldview, they often misinterpret classroom encounters and then overreact Perhaps one of the most important roles with confrontation and schools can play in the lives of traumatized aggression that frightens children is helping them to have good relationships with both peers and adults. their peers. 40 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n Because traumatized children are often “unable to appreciate clearly who they or others are, they have problems enlisting other people as allies on their behalf. Other people are sources of terror or pleasure, but are rarely fellow human beings with their own sets of needs and desires.”135 Those traumatized children who are withdrawn or “spacey” alienate peers by their lack of engagement. These children may not pick up on cues to join in with others in the classroom or during breaks, and they may not know how to communicate appropriately with peers. Young children may engage in traumatic play that “may limit the flexibility of play for other developmental purposes” and which can alienate other children who do not understand and/or are “bored” by these repetitive patterns.136 Pynoos, Steinberg, and Goenjian explain that “re-enactment behavior, especially inappropriate sexual or aggressive behavior or aggression, may lead to a child’s being labeled ‘deviant’ by parents, teachers, and other children.”137 Sexually abused girls, for example, may have little experience with healthy, nonsexual encounters with males. Coming to sexual knowledge prematurely, these girls may relate to boys only in sexual terms, behavior that can stigmatize and isolate them.138 Furthermore, as students enter adolescence, “There may be an abrupt shift in [their] interpersonal attachments, including sudden dissolution or heightened attachment, increased identification with a peer group as a protective shield, and involvement in aberrant rather than mainstream relationships.”139 A Note on Special Education Most children experiencing trauma will not develop diagnoses or disabilities that require special education, and this report is not recommending that every student be screened for trauma. However, some percentage will require special education and studies show that abused children are more likely to be in special education, have belowgrade-level achievement test scores, have poor work habits, and are 2.5 times more likely to fail a grade.140 When evaluating a student for special education, it is important to consider the possibility that trauma may be playing a role, as it is easy to inadvertently misdiagnose some of the trauma-related symptoms. The I mpa c t o f Tra uma o n L e a r ning 41 The Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative is convening experts in trauma, neuropsychology, language, and education to develop forthcoming guidelines for making special education and non– special education evaluations, recommendations, and mental health consultations trauma-sensitive. The model will propose ways in which what is known about trauma can be incorporated into discussion about a child’s cognitive profile. The hope is that these guidelines will lead to better diagnoses on school-related matters, more appropriate special education and non–special education supports and accommodations for students, and, ultimately, less-restrictive placements. Conclusion It is important to remember that trauma is a reaction to an external event. At school, it is not always possible or appropriate to discover whether a child’s learning, relationships, and behavioral difficulties are trauma responses. However, by establishing a trauma-sensitive environment throughout the school and by being aware that exposure to violence might be at the heart of a child’s learning and behavioral difficulties, school professionals can help minimize the enduring effects of trauma even among those who have not been specifically identified. In cases where trauma is known, an understanding of its effects on learning and behavior will help educators plan the most effective responses. 42 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n Chapter 2 The Flexible Framework: Making School Environments Trauma-Sensitive The F lexible F ra mewo r k 43 The Role of Schools in the Lives of Traumatized Children S chools have an opportunity to ensure that family violence does not undermine children’s chances for educational success. The idea that school can moderate the effects of trauma is supported by research from both developmental psychologists and trauma experts. For example, child-development psychologists Masten and Coatsworth explored the question of why many children develop competence even under adverse conditions, such as exposure to domestic violence, abuse, homelessness, war, and community violence. They found three key factors common to all competent children, whether or not they grow up in favorable circumstances: 1.  strong parent-child relationship, or, when such a a relationship is not available, a surrogate caregiving figure who serves a mentoring role; 2.  ood cognitive skills, which predict academic success and g lead to rule-abiding behavior; and 3.  he ability to self-regulate attention, emotions, and t behaviors.141 These authors explain that “poverty, chronic stress, domestic violence, natural disasters, and other high-risk contexts for child development may have lasting effects when they damage or impair these [three] crucial adaptive systems.”142 By the same token, they point out that bolstering these three key factors can help children be successful.143 Similarly, a white paper published by the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN) Complex Trauma Task Force supports these conclusions. Among this Task Force’s proposals is their “ARC” model for working with traumatized children through both psychological intervention and school and community supports. The three elements of the ARC model are similar to the three factors Masten and 44 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n Coatsworth outline. The ARC model consists of: 1.  uilding secure Attachments between child and b caregivers(s); 2. enhancing self-Regulatory capacities; and 3. increasing Competencies across multiple domains.144 Schools are uniquely positioned to help children reach their potential in each of the three areas identified by Masten and Coatsworth and the NCTSN. In particular, schools can: n n n p  artner with families and strengthen traumatized children’s relationships with adults in and out of school; h  elp children to modulate and self-regulate their emotions and behaviors; and enable children to develop their academic potential. Masten and Coatsworth state: If the goal is to change the competence of [at-risk] children, [multiple] strategies need to be considered ranging from efforts to change child capabilities (e.g., tutoring) to interventions directed at the context (e.g., parent education or school reform or opening of opportunities) to those directed at finding a better fit between a child and his or her context (e.g., changing schools).145 A Schoolwide Approach to Trauma-Sensitive Supports In line with this recommendation, the Flexible Framework introduced below encourages the use of multiple strategies tailored to the needs of each school community and its individual students. Rather than advocating for one particular intervention or a one-size-fits-all approach, it offers tools for infusing trauma-sensitive perspectives and approaches throughout the school community and for ensuring that The F lexible F ra mewo r k 45 mental health, academic and nonacademic individualized supports are sensitive to the needs of traumatized children. It is critical that these individual supports be provided within a context that recognizes the complexity of each child and of the traumatic experience. For an example of how a successful schoolwide approach to trauma works, we can consider the case of the Ford Elementary School in Lynn, Massachusetts. The Ford School, under the direction of Dr. Claire Crane, has been widely recognized for improving dropout, suspension, and achievement rates in a high-poverty area. The school received funding in 2000 from a grant program created by the Massachusetts legislature entitled “Creating a Safe and Supportive Learning Environment: Serving Youth Traumatized by Violence.” As part of the grant, the school trained its staff to respond to trauma symptoms. The story of George, a student at the Ford, demonstrates how the creation of a schoolwide trauma-sensitive context can revolutionize a traumatized child’s educational experience: Every child has an area of strength in which he or she excels, whether it is in academics, art, music, or sports. When educators can identify and focus on a child’s strength, they afford the child the opportunity to experience success, with all the emotional implications of doing something well. This is an important starting point in mastering academic content and social relations, which in turn can serve as a basis for success at school. George had lived with domestic violence—his mother had a series of boyfriends who were often abusive—and his behavior and academic performance were on the decline. His attendance at school was erratic. By the seventh grade, he was absent so often that the principal was on the verge of filing a truancy petition with juvenile court. The staff worried that he would drop out of school by 16—or be expelled. 46 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n Fortunately, the school had set up what they called their “trauma committee” to identify children whose actions might be symptoms of trauma at home. The staff had learned the importance of identifying students’ areas of strength as a strategy to reach difficult children. Staff came together for the sole purpose of identifying activities, talents, and interests of students who were not responding successfully in the classroom. Home and school were stressful places for George, but he found solace on the baseball field. His homeroom teacher, Mr. Herman, had noticed his talent and on occasion went to the school field to watch the after-school pick-up game. He often mentioned something to George the next day about a nice catch or hit. Mr. Herman brought George’s skill in, and enjoyment of, baseball to the attention of the trauma committee. Unfortunately, George’s grades had prohibited him from joining the school baseball team. Breaking with school policy, the trauma committee decided to approach George with an offer: he could join the team if he wrote a paper on why baseball was important to him. Then he would have to meet a further condition—he would have to keep his grades up if he wanted to stay on the team. George accepted, wrote a successful paper, and joined the team. The recognition of George’s abilities led to a turnaround. His grades, behavior, and self-esteem improved. He stayed on the team and met all his academic requirements. As the principal proudly stated, “We would never call the court now.” George’s story illustrates how a school can use its own resources to create a trauma-sensitive approach to solving a problem. Many traumatized children will need a more intensive intervention than George did, but, in all cases, providing support early on when it can do the most good is less costly and more effective than waiting for a child to fail, drop out, or become involved in the juvenile justice system. The F lexible F ra mewo r k 47 The Flexible Framework: An Action Plan for Schools T he Flexible Framework that is described in this chapter can be adapted to the needs of any school community, regardless of organizational structure or educational philosophy. Designed to enable a school to develop its own trauma-sensitive institutional structure, the Framework provides guidelines for establishing schoolwide practices and supports for staff and students. The Framework has six key elements, each of which is to be evaluated from a trauma-sensitive perspective: 1. Schoolwide Infrastructure and Culture; II. Staff Training; III. Linking with Mental Health Professionals; IV. Academic Instruction for Traumatized Children; V. Nonacademic Strategies; and VI. School Policies, Procedures, and Protocols. We hope that implementation of the schoolwide approaches that follow will in turn generate new strategies for enhancing and expanding the trauma-sensitive school environment. Although the Framework is designed for use at individual schools, several school districts are adapting it for use across their entire districts. 1. Schoolwide Infrastructure and Culture A. Principal/Headmaster The senior administrator’s leadership role is to engage staff in the process and includes participating in strategic planning and helping staff identify ways to integrate trauma-sensitive routines into existing school operations. 48 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n B. Weaving Trauma-Sensitive Approaches into the Fabric of the School There are several threads, or functions, involved in building a schoolwide learning environment for children with trauma that benefit from the use of team or committee structures. Many of these factors will fall naturally into preexisting structures within the school community; for other tasks it may be most beneficial to create new forums. Each school will find its own method for accomplishing the following goals: 1.  trategic planning with principals/headmasters, school S administrators, and other stakeholders. An ongoing planning/design group will decide how information on trauma should be integrated into the school community. This team should consider the following questions: How does this process fit into our school? How will we apply this information? How do we get cooperation at all levels? Whom do we involve in various aspects of planning and implementation? Which responsibilities lie with the school, and which should be handled by outside agencies? 2.  ssessment of staff training needs and desires. This group A will survey the staff to assess their needs and desires and will design and plan staff training. 3.  onfidential review and conferencing of individual cases. C This team’s work will be confidential. Reviews for students who have special education or accommodations plans should take place with their teams. 4.  eview of policies with an understanding of trauma. R This group, which should include administrators, will review policies, including those on discipline, filing abuse and neglect reports, and communicating with families who may need referrals for outside help. 5.  ommunity-liaison team. This group will make connections C with mental health providers and Child Advocacy Centers, battered women’s and homeless shelters, the Department of Transitional The F lexible F ra mewo r k 49 Assistance (DTA), the Department of Social Services (DSS), and the police. In addition, this group will decide who will develop community-resource lists and who will be the main contact. 6.  valuation of the success of the program. The jobs of this E team are to decide which tools will be used to evaluate the success of the program and to carry out that evaluation. At a minimum, questionnaires assessing staff attitudes should be administered both before the program is implemented and after it has been in place for a period of time, and statistics on agreed-upon outcomes (e.g., rates of suspension, trips to the principal’s office for discipline, calls to parents regarding negative behaviors, and so forth) should be gathered both before program implementation and afterward on a regular basis. Evaluation should also assess the quality of trainings and identify new barriers that may arise as the program gets underway. C. Identifying and Addressing Barriers Inevitably, barriers to incorporating trauma-sensitive approaches will arise within each school community. It is important to identify, acknowledge, and address these barriers from the outset by getting input from all levels of staff and stakeholders. Some examples of barriers among staff are: n n n n n t  he tendency to see trauma as a home problem rather than a school problem; m  isplacing blame on students or parents (whether intentionally or inadvertently); t  he personal impact on staff of dealing with these issues, including feelings of helplessness and being overwhelmed; b  alancing individual student needs with the needs of the class as a whole; and lack of skills and resources for handling trauma. The ongoing identification of barriers—through the evaluation process and by other means—will help target staff training and support to specific needs. 50 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n II. Staff Training Bridget Rodriguez was principal of the Morse School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, when it was funded as a pilot school in the 2000 “Creating a Safe and Supportive Learning Environment” grant program. She gives an example of how education in childhood trauma changed the reactions of school staff. Shortly after our training, a kindergartener had an episode that we were able to recognize as a reexperiencing of a traumatic event. Something had caused her to have a traumatic flashback. Her eyes were dilated and she looked almost catatonic. Instead of intervening immediately to bring the child back into the kindergarten activities or insisting that she immediately talk about how she felt, we knew to escort her to a quiet place and help her feel safe and calm while we sought guidance from the school counselor. That was something we put to use the day after the training. Staff training, the second of the six elements, should cover three core areas: strengthening relationships between children and adults and conveying the vital role staff play as caring adults in the lives of traumatized children and their caregivers; identifying and using outside supports; and helping traumatized children modulate their emotions and gain social and academic competence. Because staff come to the table with differing levels of experience, each school will need to assess the level of information that is needed so that training can be targeted to staff needs. The training process can often be incorporated into existing school structures, which will minimize additional investment of resources. The following training ideas are not a prescription, but rather a general outline of important issues to consider when creating a staff-training program. For an excellent book containing in-depth information for educators, please see Gertrude Morrow’s The Compassionate School: A Practical Guide to Educating Abused and Traumatized Children. The F lexible F ra mewo r k 51 A. Partnering with Parents and Other Caregivers Parents and caregivers are fundamental to creating healthy learning environments for traumatized children. The training program should help staff understand the important role a caregiver plays in restoring a child’s feeling of safety after traumatic events have occurred and identify realistic ways to integrate the parent into a child’s education. Strengthening the relationship between a caregiver and school staff will help a traumatized child feel more connected to school and can greatly increase the child’s chances for success. In addition, it is important for a child to know that his or her caregiver is respected and safe at school. 1.  nderstanding the cycle of family violence and its effects. U An understanding of the dynamics of family violence and trauma’s effects on adult and child victims can build staff’s empathy for parents, who often feel marginalized or judged by others.146 This may include understanding that a parent who lives with or is fleeing a violent partner may focus all her energy on safety, with little emotional energy for other needs, including education; that the experience of family violence can breed a feeling of unequal power and parents may be intimidated to share their own thoughts about their children; and that parents may feel guilty and thus have difficulty accepting that their children may be struggling in school. Sometimes parents withdraw because they feel unable to help their children. 2.  nderstanding the legal context. School personnel can U better support parents if they are familiar with the court orders (such as restraining orders) and laws (such as the school-records access law) that protect abused parents and children. Domestic violence advocates who work in shelters or at legal services are good sources of information on legal issues. 3.  ommunication strategies. Training by clinicians can C highlight strategies to help staff avoid the problems that frequently arise when communicating with adults who have been traumatized by domestic violence. Staff can learn ways to help parents feel trusting of the school; this parental trust can translate directly into trust by the student. At the start it is 52 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n important to assess the strengths a parent brings to the school (e.g., At what level can the parent read? What are the parents’ work hours that might make attending meetings possible? What is the parent already doing that is helping the child succeed?). While factoring in the parent’s strengths and limitations, it is important to maintain positive communications on a daily or weekly basis through written communications whether or not feedback from the parent is received. Spending time listening to parents’ goals for their children and incorporating this understanding to support the child can be very empowering to parents. When holding a parent meeting it is important to be clear and structured and to provide written outlines of what is covered. Clinicians should advise staff and even role-play ways to both communicate with parents and make successful referrals to mental health professionals. B. Supporting Staff Training should help educators understand the significance of their role as mentors and caring adults in the lives of traumatized children and focus on the supports they need to fulfill this role. 1.  dentifying needs. Staff should be given the opportunity to I brainstorm the supports they may need to work with traumatized children in the classroom. Consultation with mental health professionals who understand the impact of trauma in the classroom can be helpful in this process. 2.  nderstanding the roles of teacher and mental health U professional. Training should clarify the difference between the role of the teacher and the role of the mental health professional. The goal of training is not to turn teachers into therapists, but to enable them to create stable, supportive classrooms in which traumatized children can become full participants in the school community. Training should stress strategies for establishing stronger linkages to mental health resources and for effectively referring families to mental health professionals when necessary. The F lexible F ra mewo r k 53 3.  uilding on competencies. The training should make clear B that educators already have many of the skills needed to help traumatized children learn (for details, see section IV of the Framework, “Academic Instruction for Traumatized Children”). The focus should be on ways to build upon competencies teachers already have. For example, some teachers are particularly skilled at presenting information in a variety of ways, others are quite consistent, some are highly organized, and there are those who form positive ongoing relationships with students beyond the classroom. All these are among an array of strengths that can be reinforced and expanded with an awareness of how they can be useful in dealing with traumatized children. Teachers should also be encouraged to take advantage of resources already in place in the school. For example, a teacher might engage a physical educator or an occupational therapist to help adapt a classroom or incorporate physical activities to calm a hyperaroused child. C. Teaching Students Training should emphasize the important role teaching and learning can play in diminishing trauma symptoms and enabling traumatized children to reach their potential despite their difficult circumstances. It should also equip staff to understand the ways that trauma may manifest itself in the classroom. In addition to the particular teaching strategies discussed at length in section IV of this Framework, staff training should include the following: 1.  elping children regulate emotions in order to master H social and academic skills. School provides an important opportunity to teach children how to calm their anxieties and modulate their behaviors. Traumatized children operate at a high level of arousal and fear, making it difficult for them to process information. Anything that reminds a child of the trauma (a facial expression, the color of someone’s hair) can trigger behaviors that may not be appropriate in the classroom. Training can start by helping staff recognize when children might be experiencing intense emotions and then move on to a discussion of appropriate supports and responses. Physical activities such as martial arts, yoga, and theater are becoming 54 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n recognized as important activities that can help traumatized children reduce hyperarousal and can be enlisted in the classroom to help children focus and learn. Also, simple accommodations such as creating a safe space, or “peace corner,” in the classroom; alerting children to any loud noises (e.g., bells, fire alarms) before they occur; and giving children goal-directed tasks that involve movement (e.g., passing out papers) can help children who are aroused regulate their emotions.147 2.  aintaining high academic standards. One of the most M effective ways for children to overcome the impact of trauma is to master the academic and social goals set by the school. Upon learning that a child has been subjected to trauma, it is natural to assume that the curricula should be lightened or expectations diminished. Often adults will say, “She needs time away from academics for a while.” It is understandable to want to make things easier on a stressed child, and sometimes this is appropriate. However, careful attention should be paid to the message conveyed by lowering standards. Children often interpret lowered standards as validation of a sense of themselves as worthless, a self-image created by the trauma. Ideally, it is best to let the student know that, despite the travails of his or her life, your expectation is that the student will continue to meet the high standards set for all the children, and that the school will help to make that possible. 3.  elping children feel safe. Many of the academic and H behavioral difficulties experienced by traumatized children are consequences of the persistent state of fear in which they live. For them to be educated effectively, it is essential that they feel physically and emotionally safe at school. Training should include discussion of how the school can ensure that abusive parents do not enter the building, how to make the classroom safe from teasing and bullying, ways to help children perceive adults as safe and positive, how to reinforce predictability in the classroom, and how to help traumatized children react to the unexpected (e.g., a schedule change). The F lexible F ra mewo r k 55 Physical activities such as martial arts, yoga, theater, and art are becoming recognized as important activities that can help traumatized children reduce hyperarousal and can be enlisted in the classroom to help children focus and learn. 4.  anaging behavior and setting limits. Traumatized M students must be held accountable for their behavior. However, a behavior-management system should be based on an understanding of why a particular child might respond inappropriately in the classroom and on the relational and academic needs of that child. (For more detail, see section VI of the Framework, “School Policies, Procedures, and Protocols.”) Traumatized children may need to learn that obeying rules will make a positive difference in their lives; the experience of many children growing up in households plagued by family violence is that rules are arbitrary. It is essential to put in place a schoolwide coordinated behavior-management system that emphasizes positive behavioral supports. In addition, traumatized children may benefit from social-skills groups that teach children what behaviors are socially acceptable at school, discuss ways to make friends, and help them learn to trust adults. 56 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n 5.  educing bullying and harassment. Traumatized students will R particularly benefit from a predictable environment that is bully and harassment free. To create such an environment, schoolwide policies concerning bullying and harassment should be established and all staff and students should be trained in how to recognize and respond appropriately. The Newton, Massachusetts, Public Schools curriculum “Creating a Peaceable School: Confronting Intolerance and Bullying” emphasizes a school environment where students feel connected as a community and where older students model positive alternatives to negative peer group behavior. This curriculum also provides “opportunities for students to deal with feelings of exclusion, anger, prejudice, and disempowerment, and conversely with feelings of community, speaking one’s voice and empowerment.”148 6.  elping children H have a sense of agency. Teachers can help traumatized children cultivate a sense that they can control their environment by creating structures within which children can make choices. Making choices strengthens one’s sense of empowerment; having structured opportunities to make choices helps traumatized children overcome the chronic feeling of powerlessness that family violence induces. Learning For traumatized children to be educated effectively, it is essential that they feel physically and emotionally safe at school. The F lexible F ra mewo r k 57 to accept school boundaries and make appropriate choices within these boundaries can foster a much-needed sense of selfcontrol in traumatized children who chronically seek to be in control of others. 7.  uilding on strengths. Every child has an area of strength in B which he or she excels, whether it is in academics, art, music, or sports. When educators can identify and focus on a child’s strength, they afford the child the opportunity to experience success, with all the emotional implications of doing something well. This is an important starting point in mastering academic content and social relations, which in turn can serve as a basis for success at school. 8.  nderstanding the connection between behavior and U emotion. Traumatized children are often unable to express their experiences in ways adults can readily understand. Lacking the words to communicate their pain, they may express feelings of vulnerability by becoming aggressive or feigning disinterest in academic success because they believe they cannot succeed. Moreover, they themselves may not understand why they are upset or acting out, creating a disconnect between experience, emotion, and actions. When teachers don’t understand why a child is acting out, they are likely to focus on the behavior, not on the emotion behind it. Training should help staff understand that a traumatized child’s disruptive behavior often is not a matter of willful defiance, but originates in feelings of vulnerability. Once teachers grasp this critical insight, they will be able to work toward responding to what the child may be feeling, rather than solely on the problematic behavior. 9.  voiding Labels. Training needs to emphasize the negative A consequences of publicly labeling children “traumatized” or “abused.” Labeling carries the risk of making trauma into a prominent feature of the child’s identity. 58 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n III. Linking with Mental Health Professionals Mental health professionals with expertise in trauma can offer many kinds of assistance to schools that are helping traumatized children learn. They can consult with and provide clinical supports directly to teachers, participate in consultations about individual children, do testing and evaluations, and give trainings and presentations. In all instances, it is important to clarify when confidentiality and boundaries must be maintained. For example, it may not be appropriate for a mental health professional who is providing therapy to a student and her family to lead a support group attended by that child’s teachers. When schools already have mental health professionals on staff, it is important that they be included in the training program. Schools that do not have in-house services will need to identify appropriate mental health providers who understand trauma’s effects on academic and social development in school. We are not specifically advocating inhouse or community-based services; instead, we recognize that schools in both situations will need some outside support from mental health professionals who have expertise in trauma and its impact on learning and behavior. A. Clinical Supports for School Staff A vital part of educating school staff about trauma and family violence is providing a support system that includes didactic components and clinical components. We recommend a practicum model in which staff interact with each other and with a mental health clinician who has expertise in trauma and its impact in the classroom. In these sessions, staff can review difficult cases and process their own experiences, learning from each other and from the clinician. Clinical support by trauma-knowledgeable clinicians should include: 1.  onfidential discussion. It is essential to maintain C confidentiality when identifying and developing classroom strategies to help traumatized children learn. 2.  pportunities for staff to reflect upon how their work O is affecting their own lives. Vicarious traumatization is The F lexible F ra mewo r k 59 a common experience among those working with trauma survivors. Teachers dealing with traumatized children may feel some of the anxiety, helplessness, and anger that the children feel and may benefit from the guidance and support of a clinician. Staff should also have opportunities to describe to colleagues and experts their successes in working with traumatized children. 3.  pportunities to work on reacting positively to O traumatized children. Clinicians can encourage teachers to respond to a traumatized child’s underlying emotions rather than solely to the child’s behavior, a goal that is as important as creating a structured and predictable classroom environment. Learning to respond to a child’s affect can be stressful, and teachers will benefit from the support of clinicians and fellow teachers. 4. eaching staff behavior-management techniques. Clinicians T and behaviorists can help teachers structure the classroom for success and for behavior management. They should make recommendations that address the needs of individual children whom the teacher has a hard time reaching. 5.  pportunities to role-play communications with parents. O Clinicians should help educators practice communicating with parents who may themselves be traumatized and who therefore have difficulties hearing and processing what the teacher is saying. B. Accessing Mental Health Resources for Families and Students Teachers can play a helpful role in steering families toward appropriate mental health resources. 1.  aking referrals. A successful referral to a mental health M provider involves thought, follow-up, and giving support to the child’s parent or caregiver. Simply providing a phone number for the family to call is not likely to result in a successful referral. If possible, educators or administrators should lay the groundwork for the referral by making the initial connection with the outside provider. Be sure to 60 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n communicate confidentially with the custodial parent about the need for services to avoid any additional violence within the family. 2.  uilding relationships with parents/caregivers. Ideally, B after mental health services begin, the provider will give feedback to the school about the child’s needs. In order for educators to gain access to information from a child’s therapist, the educator is legally required to secure a parent’s written permission. This will happen in the best possible way if the educator has built a positive relationship with the caregiver. A trusting relationship between the teacher and the caregiver is always in the best interest of the child, but in the case of obtaining this permission, it is also logistically necessary. If a parent is uncomfortable giving a blanket authorization for release of information from the therapist, the educator can ask for a release limited to the child’s needs at school or can arrange for a three-way phone conversation, also focused on school issues. These options give the parent, who may herself be an abuse victim, more control over the sharing of sensitive information. Conversations with a child’s mental health provider must remain confidential unless the parent authorizes otherwise. 3.  uilding a relationship with a mental health provider. B Once a caregiver has signed a release of information, the educator should take the initiative in contacting the mental health provider. The educator should focus on obtaining information that will be useful for devising strategies helpful to that particular child, such as what self-soothing or calming techniques may be effective and what may trigger that child’s anxiety (e.g., fear of separation from a parent). Periodic conferencing between a child’s therapist and educator will keep both parties on the same page. The F lexible F ra mewo r k 61 IV. Academic Instruction for Traumatized Children Traumatized children may be difficult to identify in the classroom. Some exhibit behavioral problems, and many have learning profiles that are similar to learning-disabled students (for example, they may not be able to organize their writing or analyze narratives). Although the learning difficulties of traumatized children and learning-disabled children have different sources, similar teaching strategies are effective with both groups. Traumatized children often respond well to literacy intervention, classroom accommodations, and specialized instruction. The following section describes overarching teaching techniques, as well as more focused language-based approaches. Please note that the key to successfully applying these well-known teaching techniques to traumatized children is keeping in mind the social and emotional barriers that these children face. The relationship between educator and student is incredibly important; for these children, this is what creates space for learning. A. Overarching Teaching Approaches The particular challenge when teaching traumatized students is providing an atmosphere that allows teachers to go beyond social and behavioral issues to address the student’s learning needs. This teaching process consists of interrelated components: 1.  Islands of Competence.”149 The educator needs to discover “ a student’s area, or island, of competence. When the student is allowed to be successful in his or her area of competence, the learning process can begin to take hold and develop. Focusing on an island of competence should not be misunderstood as “dumbing-down” an activity or lesson; rather, it is tailoring learning to a child’s interests in order to achieve academic success. Not only does success bolster learning, but it is also central to developing a positive, trusting relationship with the student. 2.  redictability. Providing opportunities to succeed must be P reinforced by a classroom environment that supports the student’s success. Established routines and positive responses 62 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n are important for all children, but they are particularly helpful for traumatized children, who need a school environment that is predictable and safe, in contrast to life at home. Laura Goldman, a fifth-grade teacher at the Barbieri Elementary School in Framingham, has shared an example of how predictability can be crucial for a traumatized child: “Emma looks forward to certain activities, and can get thrown off if there are sudden changes. By posting a daily schedule on the board, she can see throughout the whole day what is coming up and what we’ve already done. If there is going to be a change, she has a constant reminder and nothing will be a surprise to her. I will take the initiative to tell her if there is going to be a big change, to let her know a day ahead to help her prepare for the change.” Enhancing predictability in the following areas will be beneficial to traumatized children: n  iming of lessons and activities. Educators enhance T predictability when they clearly communicate the schedule their lessons and activities will follow. This can be accomplished by making easily readable schedule charts and by reviewing what activities will be taking place and their projected duration. Going over the schedule on a consistent basis will reinforce predictability. n  ransitions without trauma. Traumatized children are T often particularly sensitive to transitions. To reassure them and to avoid triggering reactions, educators can preview new people and places, help children predict what will be happening next, and remind them of the uniform enforcement of rules throughout the school setting. n  afety. Traumatized children benefit from classrooms S that they know are physically and psychologically safe and secure. This sense of safety includes freedom from physical and verbal threats from, and assaults by, other students and protection from intrusions into classrooms by abusive parents. Traumatized children who are prone to acting out feelings of aggression should not be allowed to traumatize others or The F lexible F ra mewo r k 63 Traumatized children benefit from classrooms that they know are physically and psychologically safe and secure. cause harm. Supports need to be in place in every classroom to address behavior that is out of control or unsafe. (See section VI-A of the Framework, “Discipline Policies.”) Children’s sense of safety will be increased by incorporating functional safety skills into the regular curriculum, teaching conflict-resolution skills, and seeing teachers resolve conflict in appropriate ways. n  ritten plans. Individualized education plans (IEPs) or W accommodation plans for students with disabilities should describe in detail the accommodations, supports, services, and actions to take if a traumatic reaction is triggered. It is helpful to have a written action plan for traumatized children without disabilities, as well. 3.  onsistency with classmates. The academic work assigned to C traumatized students should be in line with the rest of the class. If there is a gap, it is best to be honest with the student about 64 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n where it is and how it can be closed. Enumerating difficulties and providing a roadmap to remediation takes the mystery out of academics and empowers the student, who now knows what needs to be done. 4.  ositive behavioral supports. Breaking tasks into parts and P providing encouragement and reinforcement throughout the day can help traumatized children feel safe. Behaviorists, who often are asked to observe a classroom to determine the antecedents of difficult behavior, may benefit greatly from working with trauma-sensitive clinicians to identify what may be triggering a traumatized child’s problematic behavior. With this information, the teacher can structure the classroom day so that traumatized children receive the affirmation and support that they need. B. Language-Based Teaching Approaches Many traumatized children pay more attention to nonverbal signs than to words, which results in frequently missing cues or misunderstanding information. These children can easily lose track of what is happening and misinterpret instructions or expectations in the classroom. Losing track of classroom activity may trigger anxiety, which throws the student further off and makes it harder to catch up. Familiar language-based teaching strategies are effective for reducing fear and increasing the ability to take in and learn information and follow rules. 1.  sing multiple ways to present information. Among U the essential approaches for teaching traumatized children are the use of multiple modes of presenting instructions and expectations (e.g., written and auditory), having children repeat instructions, and practice and role-playing. For example, to teach a traumatized child the rules of classroom safety, it may be helpful to not only give verbal examples (no pushing in the lunch line, no pulling hair, and so forth) but also to have the child practice walking in a line and keeping his hands to himself, etc. It can be worthwhile to have the child do a homework portion in class to check if the instructions have been understood. All these techniques reduce the fear evoked The F lexible F ra mewo r k 65 when chunks of information have been missed; a child who can move from hyperarousal into a calm state will be more available for academic and social learning. 2.  rocessing specific information. Strategies helpful for P traumatized students include going over new vocabulary and concepts prior to a lesson, putting information in context, asking questions to facilitate prediction of outcomes, and emphasizing and repeating sequences of events and cause-and-effect relationships. Language therapists recommend giving examples that range from the concrete to the abstract, and they suggest using graphic organizers and physical manipulatives to help children stay on track. 3.  dentifying and processing feelings. Trauma often impairs I the ability of children to use words and pictures to identify their feelings. Children who have trouble using language to communicate emotions cannot always “formulate a flexible response” to situations and may react impulsively.150 Learning to identify and articulate emotions will help them regulate their reactions. However, it is important to let children calm down before helping them identify their feelings. Some children have cognitive profiles that interfere with their capacity to put words to feelings; they may need specialized approaches and the help of language therapists who work closely with mental health clinicians. C. Ensuring Appropriate Evaluation When children receive school evaluations because they are not making progress at school, the evaluator should consider whether trauma may be playing a role. A trauma-sensitive evaluation should address the interface between trauma and the child’s cognitive and learning profile. 1.  sychological evaluations. When a traumatized child needs a P psychological evaluation—either through regular education or as part of a special education evaluation—it is helpful to make a referral to a mental health professional who has expertise in neuropsychology, childhood trauma, and trauma’s impact on learning. (When it is not possible to find one mental health 66 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n professional who is knowledgeable in all three areas, a team can be set up.) Following the evaluation, the mental health professional should make specific recommendations that will help the school staff teach the child. There has been much discussion about the amount of background information the mental health professional needs to share with the school in order for the school to work effectively with a traumatized child. In general, the details of how a child became traumatized are usually far less important to a school than an understanding of what the child needs to function and be successful. This information may include traumatic triggers (e.g., the child is scared of mustaches); specific ways to help the child modulate emotions and gain a feeling of safety (e.g., places to calm down if upset); special supports, such as a language-skills group or adapted physical education; accommodations, such as sound reduction; and teaching strategies that accord with the child’s cognitive profile. 2.  peech and language evaluations. As discussed in chapter S 1, many traumatized students have trouble with receptive and expressive language, perspective taking, linguistic and narrative skills, and interpreting social context. These children can often benefit from an evaluation that covers the linguistic, pragmatic, and narrative aspects of language. 3.  unctional behavioral assessments. A traumatized child F who has difficulty regulating emotions or behaviors might benefit from a functional behavioral assessment and a behaviorintervention plan. The process consists of gathering information about the cause and purpose of the problem behavior in the classroom and then developing an effective program of intervention based on that information. Critical considerations include the child’s traumatic triggers, understanding of authority, and ability to follow rules. Frequently, other clinical issues need to be factored in. In addition, there should be a careful assessment of the classroom environment. 4.  ccupational therapy evaluations. Traumatized children can O often benefit from an occupational therapy evaluation. Such an The F lexible F ra mewo r k 67 evaluation can give the teacher and parent information about the physical activities and classroom accommodations that will help induce and maintain physiological calm in a particular child. V. Nonacademic Strategies A. Building Nonacademic Relationships with Children Building a nonacademic relationship is one of the most effective ways for a teacher to help a traumatized child. When a child feels appreciated and cared for by a teacher, a sense of safety grows, and the child consequently becomes more open to learning. The mother of When a child feels appreciated and cared for by adults at school, a sense of safety grows, and the a child traumatized by child consequently becomes more open to learning. family violence states, “When Jill was in third grade her teacher really knew her. That made such a difference to Jill’s learning. When she left third grade she was reading at grade level.” Ways to build a relationship with a student include demonstrating warmth toward the student and expressing joy in accomplishments, giving the student a special job that will increase feelings of competence, and spending an occasional lunchtime with the student. One example of a successful attempt to build such a relationship with a traumatized student comes from Barbara Neustadt, a nurse at the Barbieri Elementary School in Framingham. For this particular child, Samuel, she became a central safe figure in the school. In addition to helping Samuel learn how to gain control over his ongoing medical needs, she reinforced his competence by helping him get special jobs in the school. 68 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n B. Extracurricular Activities As discussed above, helping a traumatized child locate areas of strength is essential for building self-esteem and confidence. For many children, the area of strength is not an academic subject but an extracurricular activity, such as theater or basketball. Researchers are beginning to investigate activities such as theater, yoga, and martial arts as important tools for helping children modulate their behaviors and emotions, thus making them more available for learning. Supporting participation in the extracurricular activities in which a child excels will help the child flourish in all aspects of the school setting. VI. School Policies, Procedures, and Protocols A school promulgates a culture of trauma awareness through its policies and protocols. Policies already in place need to be reconsidered from a trauma perspective, and some new policies may have to be created to make a school into a safety zone for traumatized children. We suggest that the following policies and protocols be assessed from a traumasensitive perspective. A. Discipline Policies Trauma-sensitive discipline policies can achieve the dual goals of managing problematic behavior and helping traumatized children feel respected and safe. The following principles are a starting point for planning: 1.  alancing accountability with understanding of traumatic B behavior. An understanding of trauma-induced behavior will hopefully lead to positive and proactive behavioral approaches, emphasis on the creation of routines and rules, and therapeutic supports that are responsive to the core problem. When traumatized children engage in inappropriate behavior, it is critical to hold them accountable, but for responses to be effective, they must reflect an understanding of the origin of that behavior. Educators should keep in mind the limits of traumatized children’s level of self-control, impairment in understanding rules and expectations, and frequent inability to explain why they have acted out. The F lexible F ra mewo r k 69 2. eaching rules to traumatized children. Traumatized children T sometimes come from home environments in which power is exercised arbitrarily and absolutely. It is important for these children to learn to differentiate between rules and discipline methods that are abusive and those that are in their best interest. Whenever possible, school personnel should avoid battles for control, seeking instead to engage the child while reinforcing the message that school is not a violent place. 3.  inimizing disruption of education. The goal is to keep M children in learning environments while also making school safe for all. The school must address, without exception, behavior that is disruptive to other students and to teachers. However, because it is crucial that traumatized children feel and be part of the school community, the school should address behavior before it spirals out of control by implementing positive behavioral supports and behavioral intervention plans—and more restrictive placements, though only when absolutely necessary— rather than suspension and expulsion. 4. Creating uniform rules and consequences. Consistency is  important for all children, but it is crucial for those who have been traumatized by family violence. Expectations, rules, and consequences should be consistent from teacher to teacher and throughout all school settings. A traumatized child needs to know that the rules in the lunchroom are the same as the rules in the classroom. Consistency at school will allow a traumatized child to begin to differentiate between arbitrary rules, which they may be subject to at home, and purposeful ones. A traumatized child needs to see that rules are enforced fairly and apply to all students. 5.  odel respectful, nonviolent relationships. When teachers M resolve conflicts appropriately, they are using a powerful tool for teaching about nonviolent behavior. Their behavior serves as a model for traumatized children, who may have little or no experience with resolving difficulties respectfully. 70 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n B. Communication Procedures and Protocols Communication among caregivers, the school, health and mental health providers, and outside agencies can be very helpful if carried out in a manner that respects the confidentiality and safety needs of the family. 1.  onfidentiality regarding students and families. Staff need C training (from school counsel, if possible) on what information they are allowed or obliged to share with, or are prohibited from disclosing to, parties such as parents who do not have custody or have a history of domestic violence, members of the school community, the local child protective service, and law enforcement and mental health professionals. Authorization from the appropriate parent or guardian is required before staff can discuss or provide school records or speak to a child’s mental health provider. Staff training should especially Consistency is important for all children, but it is crucial for those who have been traumatized by family violence. A traumatized child needs to know that the rules in the lunchroom are the same as the rules in the classroom. The F lexible F ra mewo r k 71 emphasize the rules that apply to communicating with noncustodial parents, particularly when there is a restraining order or a history of family violence. (In Massachusetts, see MGL c. 71, sec. 37H.) 2.  ommunicating with families of traumatized children. C Staff should be given training on how to talk to parents of traumatized children. The need to maintain the child’s trust in the school professional should be emphasized and staff should be trained to be alert to issues involving the safety of parent and child—for example, asking the custodial parent what is the best time to call. The school needs to put into place protocols for communicating with parents when trauma is suspected and with parents who are in the midst of a violent situation. Staff must be trained in communicating with parents who are alleged perpetrators of violence. 3.  iling an abuse and neglect report. School personnel are F mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect, and most schools already have policies and procedures for filing an abuse and neglect report (in Massachusetts, known as a 51A). These policies protect and support both school personnel and families. The school should have in place specific procedures to follow when abuse and/or neglect is suspected and a mandated report appears to be necessary. These procedures should specify a plan for consultation among staff, the details of who, how, and when to file, and a plan for debriefing afterwards. When intervention is needed, the nonabusive parent should be informed ahead of time, if at all possible, that a report is going to be filed; this can prevent the nonabusive parent from losing trust in the school and can allow for safety planning to help stave off a potentially violent reaction to the report on the part of the abusive parent. Consideration should be given to the point prior to filing when it will be safe and appropriate to inform parents who are alleged to be perpetrators. After the report has been filed, the school should work with parents as closely as is appropriate to support their parenting skills. 72 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n C. Safety Planning Staff should understand their role in making school a safe haven for families who are fleeing domestic violence. Family violence shelters will welcome schools’ assistance in developing school safety plans. 1.  isclosing student-record information. Sharing student record D information with perpetrators of family violence poses a danger to both adult and child victims. To ascertain if an alleged perpetrator is eligible to receive student record information, staff should seek the advice of school or town legal counsel. Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 71, Section 37H, prohibits the disclosure of student record information to parents against whom restraining orders or other domestic-violence-related court orders have been issued. Staff should NOT release information to ineligible persons. 2. ransferring records safely. Sending records from one school T to another can leave a paper trail for an abusive parent to follow. For homeless families fleeing violence in Massachusetts, the Department of Education’s Office of Health, Safety and Student Support Services (HSSSS) will serve upon request as a safe conduit for records going from one school to the next. Other agencies in Massachusetts, such as the Department of Social Services or the Department of Transitional Assistance, have also provided this service on an informal basis. 3.  eleting contact information. School personnel are required D to delete the address and telephone number of the student and the custodial parent before releasing any information to a noncustodial parent with a history of family violence. Schools also are required to give parents the option of having their names and contact information withheld from school directories. 4.  elping families select their safest school. Children often H become homeless when their families flee a violent home situation. The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is a federal law that entitles children in homeless families (including families who are doubled up in the homes of others) to remain in the school attended before the family became homeless or The F lexible F ra mewo r k 73 to enroll in school in the town where the family is temporarily residing. If the family moves again, the child retains the right to either stay in the school he or she has been attending or to transfer to a school in the new town. This right stays in force through the end of the school year in which the child enters permanent housing. School must provide transportation to enable students to continue in their chosen school (a McKinney Manual to help families fleeing violence published by MAC and the Task Force on Children Affected by Domestic Violence is available at www.massadvocates.org or at www.masslegalservices. org). The McKinney-Vento Act can be used to help keep children safe from batterers. McKinney-Vento requires that each school have a liaison who assists homeless families with enrollment and other decisions and helps support homeless children at school. This person should be consulted and informed about trauma issues affecting homeless children. 5.  upporting the enforcement of court orders. School staff S should be educated about such court orders as restraining orders, custody and visitation orders, and orders that protect confidential information. This will help the school to facilitate their enforcement. Sometimes a noncustodial parent may try to convince the school to look the other way rather than comply with a restraining order. It is best to refer parents back to the court system to resolve disputes and to avoid providing advice as to whether the court order is fair, reasonable, or justified. It should also be explained to school staff that some caregivers do not seek restraining orders in order to avoid further harm to their families. Whether or not there are any court orders, schools need policies that ensure the safety of staff and of families affected by family violence. n  btaining copies of restraining orders. School personnel O should encourage parents, or the student if of sufficient age, to give copies of active abuse-prevention orders to the school. n  nforming relevant personnel. Schools should keep copies I of active restraining orders in accessible locations and inform all relevant school personnel of their existence. 74 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n n  btaining a photo. To enable school personnel to identify O an abusive person seeking to enter school premises, schools should request a photo or description of the abusive person and attach it to the copies of the restraining orders. n  esponding to violations. A few staff members should R be trained to respond to violations of restraining orders on school grounds. Also, each school should come up with procedures to follow if an abusive noncustodial parent insists on attending school meetings or tries to communicate with a child or custodial parent through school staff. Safety should be taken into consideration when arranging transportation or school-record transfers for children fleeing an abusive parent. n  ooperating with law enforcement. School policies C should support and encourage staff cooperation with law enforcement and the courts, including providing testimony if requested. n  otifying caregiver of violations. School staff who N observe or have knowledge of a violation of a court order (e.g., a parent who is prohibited from seeing the child comes to pick the child up at school) should notify the custodial parent/caregiver or, as appropriate, the student who is protected by the order of the violation. 6.  onnecting to healthcare providers. Schools should seek C to link with a child’s community-based healthcare providers when appropriate. It can be particularly important, for example, for the school nurse to be in communication with a child’s pediatrician or prescribing psychiatrist. The school nurse is often the member of the school staff who is the first to see bruises or to learn of stomachaches; the nurse is also usually the person who administers medication to children during the school day. To the extent that a traumatized child has medical issues, this kind of collaboration can be crucial to his or her school success. The F lexible F ra mewo r k 75 The academic work assigned to traumatized students should be in line with the rest of the class. 7.  onnecting families to community resources. Schools C should be aware of resources in the community, such as legal services offices and domestic violence shelters, to which they can refer families looking for help in addressing violence in their homes. However, staff should not pressure a parent or student into obtaining a restraining order, because sometimes taking this legal step can trigger additional violence. D. Collaboration with the community Helping children and families cope with trauma requires the intervention of more than the school system. Good working relationships with community resources are essential. The best approach is for a school to establish connections with these resources before seeking their assistance for the first time. That way, when the school needs help with a specific case, a relationship is already in place. 76 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n 1.  ppoint a liaison. In order to maximize communication and A effectiveness of policies and protocols, each school should appoint a staff member to be its liaison to health and mental health providers, the department of social services, law enforcement, the court system, and other state agencies. As suggested earlier in the Framework (section 1, part B, number 5), this staff member should ideally be part of a community-liaison team. 2.  onnect with legislators, funders, and public policy makers. C Local, state, and federal legislators and policy makers have a great deal of influence in determining the resources schools have to address trauma. It is advisable to be in communication with policy makers and, if possible, to develop relationships with them. Federal grants are beginning to be available for schools to develop trauma-sensitive supports, especially when the school is part of a communitywide effort to mitigate the impact of trauma caused by family violence. The F lexible F ra mewo r k 77 78 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n Chapter 3 Policy Recommendations Po lic y Re c o mme nda tio ns 79 The long-term public policy goal is to ensure that children traumatized by family violence succeed in school. S chools across Massachusetts and beyond can become environments that enable traumatized children to focus, behave appropriately, and learn. To reach this important goal, funding is required to enable each school to adopt a framework and formulate an action plan that will weave trauma-sensitive approaches across the school day and provide individual supports to teachers, parents, and students (see the Flexible Framework in chapter 2). We need to ensure that there is an adequate number of school professionals who understand the impact of family violence on children’s learning and are knowledgeable about the best approaches for meeting these needs. We must also ensure that learning and behavioral problems are accurately diagnosed so that appropriate services can be provided. We appreciate the leadership provided thus far by the Massachusetts Department of Education, and we invite the Department to continue to play a key leadership role on behalf of traumatized children. We ask for increased research on best approaches to address the school needs of these children. We call for a major summit of key stakeholders to develop a statewide plan for intervening early to address the needs of these children and for decreasing punitive responses such as suspension, expulsion, unnecessary segregation, and referrals to the juvenile justice system. 80 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n Recommendation # 1 The Commonwealth should provide publicly funded schools and preschools with funds necessary to develop schoolwide action plans addressing the needs of traumatized children. The grant program set forth in Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 69, Section 1N (Chapter 194 of the Acts and Resolves of 2004; see Appendix A) should be expanded to provide funding for all public schools, including publicly funded day care and preschools, to develop and implement their own action plans. These plans should include the following: n n n n n n n n n n a  n administrative infrastructure responsible for weaving trauma-sensitive approaches throughout the school day; training, skill building, and clinical supports for staff; a  pproaches for partnering with parents, who themselves may be suffering from trauma; t  eaching approaches that enable traumatized students to master academic content; a  pproaches for using nonacademic activities to support traumatized children; i ndividual and group supports to help children regulate their emotions and behavior; l inkages with mental health services that are able to address the needs of traumatized students; r  eview of policies and protocols (including school records laws and court orders) through a trauma-sensitive lens; p  lans to ensure that students are physically and emotionally safe at school; and c  ollaborations with local agencies and community organizations, including domestic violence agencies and shelters. Po lic y Re c o mme nda tio ns 81 Recommendation # 2 Massachusetts stakeholders should reach consensus on the laws, policies, and funding mechanisms necessary for schools to intervene early to address the needs of traumatized students and to decrease punitive responses. Key trauma experts, leaders in education, members of the executive and legislative branches of government, and advocates should convene to develop a statewide plan to address the impact of trauma on learning and behavior and outline what schools can do to respond appropriately and effectively, without resorting to punitive responses, such as suspension, expulsion, unnecessary segregation, and referrals to the juvenile justice system. Recommendation # 3 Teachers and administrators should learn approaches and strategies for teaching children who may be traumatized. State certification regulations for administrators and teachers from preschool through high school should require completion, at the pre- and post-certification levels, of course work that includes the following: identifying trauma symptoms, understanding the impact of trauma on learning, approaches to partnering with parents of traumatized children, and classroom strategies that enable traumatized children to succeed academically, behaviorally, and socially. Administrators and teachers should also be educated in how to establish effective linkages and collaborations with mental health professionals and other experts. 82 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n Recommendation # 4 Mental health professionals and other specialists providing services in school settings should respond appropriately to trauma-related learning and behavioral problems and should provide trauma-informed consultations to educators. n Training on trauma’s impact on learning, the dual roles of  consultants and direct-service providers, and ways to assess the role trauma may be playing in learning and behavioral problems should be required at the pre- and post-licensing levels for mental health professionals, speech and language therapists, and other experts who provide services in schools. n  uidelines for assessing students’ trauma-related educational, G language, and psychosocial needs should be developed by mental health, education, and language professionals who have expertise in childhood trauma. n  ates of reimbursement for mental health and special education R evaluations should be sufficient to ensure that the traumatic aspects of a child’s needs are assessed by a qualified expert. Recommendation # 5 The Department of Education should provide continuing information and support to schools. The Department of Education should develop an office on trauma and schools. The duties of this office should include: n  aintaining a section of the DOE website on best practices and M curricula to address the educational, psychosocial, extracurricular, and safety needs of traumatized students . Po lic y Re c o mme nda tio ns 83 n  roviding consultation on best practices for linking families with P mental health services, safety planning, partnering with parents, developing and implementing curricula, gaining access to available resources, and other topics. n  eviewing policies, regulations, and laws and taking steps necessary R to ensure that their implementation is consistent with the best psychological research on trauma. Relevant policies, regulations, and laws include, but are not limited to, those pertaining to: n homelessness; n bullying; n special education; n student support services; n discipline; n zero tolerance; n filing of 51As in collaboration with DSS; n s  afety planning as it relates to domestic violence and child abuse issues; Recommendation # 6 Research should be funded on the extent to which learning and behavioral problems at school are related to untreated childhood trauma and on best schoolwide and individual practices for addressing the educational needs. Massachusetts should fund research on information learned pursuant to its grant program “An Act for Alternative Education,” codified as MGL C. 69, Sec. 1N. 84 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n Co nc lus io n 85 Conclusion: Removing Trauma as a Barrier to Learning A ll children have a right to learning environments that will help them to calm or temper their emotions, develop positive relationships and solve conflicts peacefully, and become successful learners so that they can grow up and take their place as productive citizens. In a democratic society, no group of children should be disregarded or dismissed simply because they have faced overwhelming stress or even terror in their lives and need help reengaging the world around them. The answer is not to thrust the problem onto the shoulders of teachers, asking them to solve bigger social problems on their own, but rather to develop a broad public policy agenda in which teachers play a key role. To ensure that children exposed to family violence and other traumatic experiences achieve at their highest potentials, we must put the research and experiences discussed in Helping Traumatized Children Learn to work. Resources must be directed toward developing schoolwide and individual approaches to the problem of trauma for students in both regular and special education settings. Teachers, parents, administrators, and policy makers must put the issue of traumatized children in classrooms squarely on the table, discuss it openly, and then advocate for the resources necessary to ensure that students have the support they need to reach their highest potential. The Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative will continue its work at the forefront of this issue: n  LPI is currently convening top experts in trauma psychology, T neuropsychology, speech and language, and education to develop guidelines for making school evaluations and consultations in regular and special education trauma-sensitive. 86 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n n  LPI will engage in an educational campaign throughout T Massachusetts following the release of this report. The project will conduct presentations for parents, professionals, members of the legislature, and key stakeholders. n  LPI will continue to work with parents and key stakeholders to T refine the policy agenda presented in chapter 3. n  LPI will work to build the broad consensus necessary to support the T passage of laws, the development of policies, and the establishment of funding mechanisms necessary for schools to have the supports they need to help traumatized children learn. Please go to the Massachusetts Advocates for Children website (www.massadvocates.org) and click on the Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative to sign up to receive updates and information on this effort. A ppe ndix A : S a fe a nd S uppo r tive S c ho o ls L egis la tio n 87 Appendix A Safe and Supportive Schools Legislation I n 2004, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law designed to help schools address the needs of students traumatized by exposure to violence. Specifically, MGL c. 69, sec. 1N, created a grant program, to be administered by the state Department of Education, that addresses the educational consequences of trauma using a two-pronged approach. Subsection (a) of the law creates grants for school districts to develop innovative approaches to alternative education for older children who are at risk for truancy, failure, and dropping out of school. Subsection (b) of the law creates grants for schools to develop regular education interventions that address “the educational and psychosocial needs of children whose behavior interferes with learning, particularly those who are suffering from the traumatic effects of exposure to violence.” The grants described by subsection (b) have come to be known as the “Trauma-Sensitive Schools Grants.” MGL, Chapter 69, Section 1N Alternative Education Grant Program   Section 1N. (a) The department of education, hereinafter referred to as the department, shall establish a grant program, subject to appropriation, to be known as the alternative education grant program for the purpose of providing grants to assist school districts and Horace Mann and commonwealth charter schools with the development and establishment of alternative education programs and services to students suspended or expelled from school. The grants shall support the development of alternative education programs which would: (1) allow school districts to coordinate efforts to establish interdistrict regional alternative education collaboratives to provide educational services to suspended or expelled students; or (2) establish a district based alternative education program for those students. The grants may also be used to encourage the use of technology in alternative education programs. The grants shall also encourage voluntary expansion of existing alternative education programs 88 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n in the commonwealth, and shall be used to provide alternative education programs for students who are at risk of educational failure due to truancy, or dropping out of school. Grants may also be used to assist in developing programs that provide a range of approaches to address behavior issues, such as behavior specialists, in-school suspension rooms and crisis centers, in addition to out-of-school alternative settings. Programs designed under the grants shall be developed at the middle and high school levels and shall afford students the opportunity to earn a high school diploma in accordance with section 1D, and to be taught to the same academic standards and curriculum frameworks established for all students in accordance with sections 1D and 1E. The programs shall make use of existing resources in school districts, educational collaboratives, community colleges, and other agencies, service providers, and organizations. Programs shall be designed as placements that, at a minimum, educate students to the same academic standards and curriculum frameworks as taught to all students, address behavioral problems, utilize small class size, address individual needs and learning styles, provide engaging instruction and a supportive environment, and, where appropriate, utilize flexible scheduling. The programs shall also provide a comprehensive array of social services to support a student’s remediation of issues that cause school failure, excessive absenteeism, truancy and school dropout. Grant recipients shall develop remediation plans for students that address both academic and behavioral issues. Grants may also be made available for in-school regular education programs that include self-improvement, behavior management and life skills training to help provide students with tools to better manage their lives and attitudes, to support programs that use family-based approaches, and to assist students and teachers during the transition of students back into regular education classrooms. A grant awarded pursuant to this subsection, shall require that recipients undertake ongoing program evaluations that document the effectiveness of the program in helping students to achieve academically to the same academic standards and curriculum frameworks required for all students, to develop self-management skills, and to reintegrate and remain in regular education classrooms. In awarding grants, priority shall be given to programs that employ interventions that have been empirically validated. A ppe ndix A : S a fe a nd S uppo r tive S c ho o ls L egis la tio n 89 The department shall establish guidelines governing the alternative education grant program. The guidelines shall include, but not be limited to, a requirement that when a student is transferred to an alternative education program a representative of the school district shall meet with the student and the student’s parents or legal guardian to develop an agreement that specifies the responsibilities of the school, the student and the student’s parents or legal guardian. The agreement shall, at a minimum, include: 1. a remediation plan to address both academic and behavioral  issues; 2. a plan for frequent evaluations and assessments of the student’s  adjustment, and academic achievement and progress; 3. a requirement that the parents or legal guardian of the student  attend specified meetings or conferences with teachers, or utilize such other means of communication as determined necessary to facilitate communication, to review and assist in the student’s progress; 4. a timetable for reintegrating the student into a regular education  classroom; 5. the student’s and the parents’ or legal guardian’s  acknowledgement that they understand and accept the responsibilities imposed by the agreement. (b) The department shall establish a grant program, subject to appropriation, to assist school districts with the development and establishment of in-school regular education programs and services to address within the regular education school program the educational and psycho-social needs of children whose behavior interferes with learning, particularly those who are suffering from the traumatic effects of exposure to violence. As used in this subsection, students suffering from the traumatic effects of exposure to violence shall include, but not be limited to, those exposed to abuse, family or community violence, war, homelessness or any combination thereof. The grants shall support the development of school based teams with community ties that: (1) collaborate with broadly recognized experts in the fields of trauma and family and community violence and with battered women shelters; (2) provide ongoing training 90 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n to inform and train teachers, administrators, and other school personnel to understand and identify the symptoms and trauma; and (3) evaluate school policy and existing school and community programs and services to determine whether and to what extent students identified as suffering from exposure to trauma can receive effective supports and interventions that can help them to succeed in their public school programs, and where necessary be referred quickly and confidentially to appropriate services. Grants may also be awarded to assist school districts in developing comprehensive programs to help prevent violence in schools, from whatever causes, and to promote school safety. The programs shall be designed to meet the following objectives: creating a school environment where students feel safe and that prevents problems from starting; helping students to take the lead in keeping the school safe; ensuring that school personnel have the skills and resources to identify and intervene with at-risk students; equipping students and teachers with the skills needed to avoid conflict and violence; and helping schools and individuals to reconnect with the community and share resources. The department shall develop guidelines governing the implementation of the grant program authorized by this subsection. A grant awarded pursuant to this subsection shall require that recipients undertake ongoing evaluations of the effectiveness of the program. In awarding grants, priority shall be given to programs that are based on empirically validated interventions. The department of education, in consultation with the department of public health and the department of mental health, shall establish an advisory committee to assist in implementing the grant program and in assisting public schools in addressing the learning and behavior problems of students who manifest trauma-related symptoms or classroom behavior that interferes with learning. Members of the advisory committee shall include but not be limited to: 3 educators, 1 of whom shall serve as the chair, appointed by the commissioner of the department of education; 2 leaders in the field of trauma and its relationship to school learning and behavior appointed by the commissioner of the department of public health; 2 leaders in mental health with expertise in family and/or A ppe ndix A : S a fe a nd S uppo r tive S c ho o ls L egis la tio n 91 community violence appointed by the commissioner of mental health; 1 leader in battered women’s services appointed by the commissioner of public health; 1 leader in the area of homelessness and its impact on children appointed by commissioner of mental health; and 3 parents, 1 each appointed by the commissioner of education, the commissioner of public health, the commissioner of mental health. The advisory committee, at its discretion, may select additional members with relevant experience including but not limited to child advocates, medical doctors and representatives of juvenile and probate court. (c) The commissioner shall evaluate annually the effectiveness of programs established under this section including the potential for replicating such programs throughout the commonwealth. The annual evaluation shall also examine whether students in alternative education programs funded under this section are being taught to the same academic standards required for all students, how much time students are spending in the programs, the racial profile of expelled or suspended students and the percentages of the students who are in special education or bilingual education. The commissioner shall also provide technical assistance to school districts seeking to replicate programs funded under this section, and shall provide training for teachers in the development of effective remediation plans for students in alternative education, and in the development of skills, techniques, and innovative strategies to assist the students. In evaluating programs funded under subsection (b), the commissioner shall consult with the department of public health, the department of mental health, and the advisory committee established pursuant to said subsection (b). 92 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n A ppe ndix B: PTS D a nd Re la te d Dia gno s e s 93 Appendix B PTSD and Related Diagnoses T he broad range of traumatic symptoms displayed by children who have experienced multiple, chronic, or prolonged traumatic circumstances often reach the threshold for one or more psychiatric diagnoses. While sometimes children’s behavioral, cognitive, and emotional reactions to trauma meet the threshold criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), there are many traumatized children who are highly symptomatic but who do not meet this threshold.151 One possible reason for this is that the existing criteria for PTSD are not developmentally sensitive for children. To address the range of problems observed, children are instead often given a variety of comorbid diagnoses (e.g., depression, oppositional defiant disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder) that both fail to recognize trauma as an organizing framework and function “as if they occurred independently from the PTSD symptoms.”152 Some clinical researchers have called for modifications of the official diagnostic criteria for PTSD, so that symptomatic children can receive the diagnosis and become eligible for the educational and psychological services they need.153 In order to address concerns about the inadequacies of the PTSD diagnosis for children, van der Kolk and his colleagues at the Complex Trauma Task Force of the National Child Traumatic Stress Network have “started to conceptualize a new diagnosis, provisionally called developmental trauma disorder.”154 This proposed new diagnosis would incorporate the complex array of developmental effects of trauma in children, which the current PTSD diagnosis does not adequately capture.155 However, until the criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder is modified or a new, more developmentally appropriate diagnosis is developed, it is important to understand the elements of PTSD. As described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Ed. (DSM-IV), post-traumatic stress disorder is a condition in which, following an identified traumatic event(s), a person demonstrates symptoms, lasting more than one month, of 94 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n hyperarousal, reexperiencing (i.e., involuntarily “reliving” the traumatic experience), and avoidance (i.e., avoiding traumatic reminders and/or emotions associated with the initial traumatic event).156 Children who meet the criteria for PTSD will demonstrate symptoms within all three criteria clusters: hyperarousal, reexperiencing, and avoidance. Hyperarousal Hyperarousal is the first cluster of PTSD symptoms. Hyperarousal is the body’s hard-wired physiological and emotional response to extreme danger, readying us for fighting, fleeing, or freezing. Under normal circumstances, this response is triggered only by threatening circumstances. A child who has PTSD, however, is chronically attuned to any sign of threat and tends to interpret objectively innocuous situations as dangerous. Because of the child’s inability to evaluate effectively the level of danger, the fight-flight-freeze response is activated by any hint of danger. Chronic hyperarousal is a distressing, physically uncomfortable state and interferes with other functioning. A hyperaroused child is constantly on edge. Such a child startles easily, is ever-vigilant, cannot relax, overreacts to minor provocations, and may not sleep well.157 Hypervigilance diminishes the ability to appraise a situation accurately and to regulate the intensity and appropriateness of emotions. Trauma specialist Betsy McAlister Groves explains how hypervigilance “interferes with [children’s] abilities to accomplish learning tasks in school”: These children are distractible and unfocused. They do not complete assignments. They may be highly active and restless. They notice every visitor who comes into the room; they get distracted by noise or by a change in schedule. Some children describe being preoccupied with thoughts or memories of the traumatic event. One seven-year-old girl told us that whenever things were quiet in school she would remember what happened to her mother (who had been assaulted by her father). One can only imagine the ways in which this child worked to avoid quiet time in school: She was constantly disruptive and annoying to the other children.158 A ppe ndix B: PTS D a nd Re la te d Dia gno s e s 95 Reexperiencing Reexperiencing, like hyperarousal, inundates a child with unbidden and unwelcome sensory experiences that can interfere with everyday functioning. A child reexperiencing the trauma is flooded with intrusive thoughts, flashbacks, or nightmares that can impair the ability to distinguish past trauma from present safety. The experience is visceral. It is as if the child is in the past, reliving the traumatic event. Intrusive images or memories capture not only the visual representation of the physical events but also the sensory and emotional experiences of “helplessness, terror, horror, and utter ineffectiveness.”159 Traumatic triggers, or the reminders of the trauma, are often sudden and unanticipated; the child feels unprepared and out of control, which exacerbates fears of recurrence.160 Avoidance Avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness constitute the third cluster of symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder. Avoidance, which can be deliberate or unconscious, is the child’s attempt to protect the self from recollections of the trauma and “the disturbing re-experiencing symptoms that are triggered by such reminders.”161 Children may avoid people, places, smells, and sounds that remind them of the initial trauma. To avoid potential interactions with traumatic triggers, children may show diminished interest in activities (e.g., constricted play activities in the case of young children and, for older children, decreased involvement in academic or extracurricular activities), be socially withdrawn, or experience a sense of detachment from others. This cluster of symptoms also includes the numbing or restricting of feelings, both in variety and in intensity. In school, avoidance can manifest as inattentiveness, emotional detachment from teachers, “spaciness,” or even aggressiveness (an active pushing away of traumatic reminders). 96 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n * * * Reexperiencing and avoidance often occur almost simultaneously. A child can be engulfed and overwhelmed by viscerally experienced images of the trauma and in the blink of an eye be working actively and unconsciously to move away from anything connected to the trauma. Oscillation between the two states is prevalent in traumatized children, and it can happen rapidly, sometimes within a matter of moments.162 Rapid oscillation gives rise to a confusing myriad of symptoms associated with both states. This is very difficult in a classroom, which by its very nature relies on predictable responses from students and teachers. However, educators can feel more in control of the classroom environment if they understand that shifting behavior is predictable for a child with PTSD. As mentioned above, it can be difficult for children to meet the diagnostic threshold for PTSD. Furthermore, symptoms of trauma overlap with many other problems and disorders. As a result, traumatized children frequently carry diagnoses other than PTSD. When these diagnoses do not inherently recognize the child’s traumatic background (e.g., conduct disorder, ADHD), they may have the unintended consequence of misdirecting intervention efforts. Sometimes these diagnoses are actually incorrect because no one has ever taken notice of the trauma history. Sometimes they are accurate but do not capture the full nature and complexity of the child’s problems. A ppe ndix C: Fa c to r s I nflue nc ing the Tra ma Re s po ns e 97 Appendix C Factors Influencing the Trauma Response163 Characteristics of the Individual n  hild’s age and stage C of development Characteristics of the Environment Characteristics of the Traumatic Event(s) n  mmediate reactions of I n  requency, severity, and F caregivers or those close to child duration of the event(s) n  rior history P of trauma n Intelligence n  egree of physical D n  ype of, quality of, T and access to constructive supports violence and bodily violation n  evel of terror and L n  trengths and S vulnerabilities of personality style; coping and resiliency skills n  ndividual’s culturally I based understanding of the trauma n  ttitudes and behaviors A of first responders and caregivers humiliation involved n  ersistence of P the threat n  egree of safety D afforded the victim in the aftermath n  revailing community P attitudes and values n  ultural and political C constructions of gender, race, and sexual orientation n  hysical and P psychological proximity to the event (i.e., when the individual him/herself is not the victim) 98 H e lp i ng Tra u m a t i zed C h i l d r en Lea r n Notes Executive Summary The special challenges of dealing with childhood trauma necessitates the creation of climates or contexts that are supportive both for traumatized children and for the educators who teach them. For this particular insight about the importance of community and context we owe much gratitude to Judith Herman. In her groundbreaking book, Trauma and Recovery, she emphasized the importance of a supportive community for adults who are in a helping role with trauma victims and the need for a larger social context that “affirms and protects the victim and joins victim and [helper] in a common alliance.” Herman, J. (1997). Trauma and Recovery. New York: Basic Books, p. 9. 1 Spinazzola, J., Ford, J.D., Zucker, M., van der Kolk, B.A., Silva, S., Smith, S.F., and Blaustein, M. (2005). “Survey Evaluates Complex Trauma Exposure, Outcome, and Intervention Among Children and Adolescents.” Psychiatric Annals, 35(5): 433–439. In a survey of 1,699 children served in 25 mental health treatment sites, the following types of trauma exposure were reported for approximately one in two children: psychological maltreatment, traumatic loss, dependence on an impaired caregiver (mental illness or substance abuse) and domestic violence. One in three children were victims of sexual maltreatment and neglect. Fewer than one in 10 children had trauma exposure not involving interpersonal victimization (accidents, medical illness, disaster). See also Harris, W.W., Putnam, F.W., and Fairbank, J.A. (In press). “Mobilizing trauma resources for children.” In A.F. Lieberman and R. DeMartino (Eds.), Interventions for Children Exposed to Violence. New Brunswick, NJ: Johnson & Johnson Pediatric Institute LLC; and van der Kolk, B.A. (2005). “Childhood Trauma: Our largest preventable public health issue.” Presentation at Closing the Achievement Gap: Removing Trauma as a Barrier to Learning, a briefing to the Massachusetts Legislature. March 22, 2005. (Dr. van der Kolk’s slide presentation is on file with the authors.) The authors of both presentations discuss the fact that consequences of childhood trauma, in general, constitute a major public health concern; both also point out that family violence is one particular— and very significant—source of this childhood trauma. 2 Carlson, B.E. (1984). “Children’s observations of interparental violence.” In Roberts, A.R. (Ed.), Battered Women and Their Families (pp. 147–167; 160). New York: Springer Publishing; estimating that at least 3.3 million children are exposed to violence in their homes each year. Straus, M.A. (1992). “Children as Witness to Marital Violence: A risk factor for lifelong problems among a nationally representative sample of American men and women.” Report of the 23rd Ross Roundtable. Columbus, OH: Ross Laboratories. Fantuzzo and Mohr analyze these often-cited studies and find them both methodologically flawed. They conclude, however, that “[a]lthough no databases provide reliable prevalence estimates, research findings to date underscore that domestic violence occurs in large numbers of households with children.” Fantuzzo, J.W., and Mohr, W.K. (1999). “Prevalence and Effects of Child Exposure to Domestic Violence.” The Future of Children, 9(3): 21–32; 23. 3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2003). “Child Maltreatment 2003.” Available online at http:// www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm03/chapterthree.htm. Last accessed on May 31, 2005. 4 Adams, A., and Powell, A. (1995). “The Tragedies of Domestic Violence: A qualitative analysis of civil restraining orders in Massachusetts.” Boston, MA: Office of the Commissioner of Probation. 5 Felitti, V.J., Anda, R.F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D.F., Spitz, A.M., Edwards, V., Koss, M.P., and Marks, J.S. (1998). “Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4): 245–257; 248d. Other reported measures of household dysfunction were substance abuse (25.6%), mental illness (18.8%), and criminal behavior (3.4%). 6 Burns, J. (2005). “Preliminary Report—Grant 790: Alternative Education Program.” Malden, MA: Mass. Department of Education, pp. 4–5. Grant 790 is one of two programs funded pursuant to MGL c. 69, sec. 1N. Subsection A of the law provides for alternative education for children who have been suspended or expelled or 7 No te s 99 who are at risk for such actions; Subsection B provides funding for schools to create learning environments that are safe and supportive for traumatized children. (See Appendix A of this document for the text of the law.) The report concludes, “Students at-risk, exposed to trauma, appear across the continuum in our education system. This continuum extends from pre-kindergarten to post secondary age students. This data is compelling in support of continued and expanded educational services for student [sic] exposed to trauma” (p. 5). The report also listed students’ response rates for other forms of trauma: 37.5% had a caregiver with a substance-abuse problem; 31% reported histories of bullying or harassment; 19% reported having a caregiver with a mental illness; 11.5% reported a history of sexual assault; and 6% reported histories of homelessness. See Groves, B.M. (2002). Children Who See Too Much: Lessons from the Child Witness to Violence Project. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. For a discussion of the particular effects that family violence (as opposed to other forms of violence) has on children, see Chapter 3, “When Home Isn’t Safe.” Groves states, “Domestic violence, violence that occurs between adult caregivers in the home, seems to be the most toxic form of exposure to violence for children” (p. 50). She continues, “Perhaps the greatest distinguishing feature of domestic violence for young children is that it psychologically robs them of both parents. One parent is the terrifying aggressor; the other parent is the terrified victim. For young children, who depend exclusively on their parents to protect them, there is no refuge. These situations are different from those of families who face community violence. In most of those cases, parents are not fearful for their own lives and can be both heroic and resourceful in their efforts to protect their children” (p. 59). 8 Ibid., pp. 58–59. Domestic violence and/or abuse by a caretaker introduces chaotic unpredictability and danger into a place that should be a haven where children may retreat. It also inhibits a parent’s ability to facilitate children’s coping and continued development. As a result, the need for social support systems increases. 9 10 Briere, J.N. (1992). Child Abuse Trauma: Theory and Treatment of the Lasting Effects. Newbury Park, NJ: SAGE Publications. Briere highlights the effect that family violence can have on a child’s self-perception. He describes the attempts children make to resolve what he terms “the abuse dichotomy” that occurs when they are abused by a trusted caregiver. Abused children often reach the self-perpetuating conclusion that “I was (and continue to be) hurt because of my badness, and evidence of my badness is that I have been (and continue to be) hurt” (pp. 27–28). Terr, L.C. (1991). “Childhood Traumas: An Outline and Overview.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 148(1): 10–20. According to Terr, there are four major characteristics of childhood trauma that have the ability to last long into adulthood. One of these is what she calls “changed attitudes about people, life, and the future.” She gives examples of ideas like “You can’t trust the police” or “You can’t count on anything or anyone to protect you” as ways that trauma can alter a child’s worldview (p. 14). 11 12 Fantuzzo, J.W., and Mohr, W.K. (1999), p. 22. Edleson, J.L. (1999). “The Overlap Between Child Maltreatment and Woman Battering.” Violence Against Women, 5(2): 134–154; 136. Edleson reviews studies on the overlap between domestic violence and child maltreatment and finds that, in families where one form of violence occurs, the other will also occur 30% to 60% of the time. 13 14 Kilpatrick and Williams, for example, conducted a study of children who had witnessed domestic violence and found great similarity in trauma outcomes between these children and children who had been sexually or physically abused. Kilpatrick, K.L., and Williams, L.M. (1997). “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Child Witnesses to Domestic Violence.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67(4): 639–644. In his work on child neglect, for example, De Bellis points out that “psychobiological research . . . is inherently difficult because neglected children may suffer from different subtypes of neglect and adversities other than neglect, which may also compromise neuropsychological and psychosocial outcomes.” De Bellis, M.D. (2005). “The Psychobiology of Neglect.” Child Maltreatment, 10(2): 150–172; 150. 15 16 Ritter, J., Stewart, M., Bernet, C., and Coe, M. (2002). “Effects of Childhood Exposure to Familial Alcoholism 100 H e lp i n g Tra um a t i zed C hi l d r en Lea r n and Family Violence on Adolescent Substance Use, Conduct Problems, and Self-Esteem.” Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15(2): 113–122. 17 The names of all children in this report have been changed to protect their anonymity. See, for example, Streeck-Fischer, A., and van der Kolk, B.A. (2000). “Down Will Come Baby, Cradle and All: Diagnostic and therapeutic implications of chronic trauma on child development.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34: 903–918. Streeck-Fischer and van der Kolk review the literature on the impact of chronic trauma on child development and discuss the learning difficulties that many traumatized children encounter. See also Beers, S.R., and De Bellis, M.D. (2002). “Neuropsychological Function in Children with Maltreatment-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.” American Journal of Psychiatry, 159(3): 483–486 (finding that children with maltreatment-related PTSD performed more poorly than others on measures of attention and executive function); and Nelson, C.A., and Carver, L.J. (1998). “The Effects of Stress and Trauma on Brain and Memory: A view from developmental cognitive neuroscience.” Development and Psychopathology 10: 793–809 (concluding that the developing brain is particularly vulnerable to the effects of stress and trauma, which have the potential to impair a child’s memory). 18 McFarlane et al., for example, found higher rates of internalizing, externalizing, and total behavior problems among children of abused mothers, ages 6–18, than among children of the same age and sex of nonabused mothers. These authors endorse the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect that all women receive a routine screening for abuse at the time of the well-child visit. McFarlane, J.M., Groff, J.Y., O’Brien, J.A., and Watson, K. (2003). “Behaviors of Children Who Are Exposed and Not Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence: An Analysis of 330 Black, White, and Hispanic Children.” Pediatrics, 112(3): e202–e207. Shields and Cicchetti also found that maltreated children were more likely than nonmaltreated children to engage in aggressive behaviors and to experience attention deficits and emotional dysregulation. Their data suggest that physically abused children are at particular risk for reactive aggression. Shields, A., and Cicchetti, D. (1998). “Reactive Aggression Among Maltreated Children: The Contributions of Attention and Emotion Dysregulation.” Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27(4): 381–395. 19 See, for example, Shonk, S.M., and Cicchetti, D. (2001). “Maltreatment, Competency Deficits, and Risk for Academic and Behavioral Maladjustment.” Developmental Psychology, 37(1): 3–17. 20 See, for example, Carlson, E.B., Furby, L., Armstrong, J., and Shales, J. (1997). “A Conceptual Framework for the Long-Term Psychological Effects of Traumatic Childhood Abuse.” Child Maltreatment, 2(3): 272–295. See also Lansford, J.E., Dodge, K.A., Pettit, G.S., Bates, J.E., Crozier, J., and Kaplow, J. (2002). “A 12-Year Prospective Study of the Long-term Effects of Early Child Physical Maltreatment on Psychological, Behavioral, and Academic Problems in Adolescence.” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 156: 824–830. This study found that physical maltreatment in the first five years of life predicts the development of psychological and behavioral problems during adolescence. Specifically, the researchers found increased levels of anxiety and depression among maltreated children. 21 Shonk, S.M., and Cicchetti, D. (2001), p. 5. The authors review several studies on the academic consequences of childhood maltreatment. 22 Felitti, V.J., et al. (1998). In addition to alcohol and substance abuse, the list of health risk factors among adults exposed to abuse as children included severe obesity, physical inactivity, promiscuity, and suicide attempts—all behaviors that can contribute to disease and/or early death. 23 Ibid. The authors postulate that victims of abuse may engage in increased levels of smoking, substance abuse, overeating, and promiscuity because these behaviors “may have immediate pharmacological or psychological benefit as coping devices in the face of the stress of abuse, domestic violence, or other forms of family and household dysfunction” (p. 253; emphasis added). 24 Cook, A., Blaustein, M., Spinazzola, J., and van der Kolk, B. (Eds.). (2003). “Complex Trauma in Children and Adolescents: White Paper from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network Complex Trauma Task Force.” Los 25 No te s 101 Angeles: National Child Traumatic Stress Network (available online at http://www.nctsn.org). On communitywide responses to complex trauma, see pp. 25–27. See also, Baker, L.L., Jaffe, P.G., Ashbourne, L., and Carter, J. (2002). “Children Exposed to Domestic Violence: A Teacher’s Handbook to Increase Understanding and Improve Community Responses.” London, Ontario: Centre for Children & Families in the Justice System (available online at http://www.lfcc.on.ca/teacher-us.PDF); and Carter, L.S., Weithorn, L.A., and Behrman, R.E. (1999). “Domestic Violence and Children: Analysis and Recommendations.” The Future of Children, 9(3): 1–20; and Harris, W.W., et al. (2004); calling for major collaborations and a mobilization of resources directed to “finding, treating, and helping traumatized children and their families” (p. 36). Masten, A.S., and Coatsworth, J.D. (1998). “The Development of Competence in Favorable and Unfavorable Environments.” American Psychologist, 53(2): 205–220. In reviewing the literature on favorable outcomes for children at risk, the authors recognize three key factors in the lives of children who manage to develop well even under adverse conditions, such as domestic violence, maltreatment, homelessness, and war: 1) strong parent-child relationships or, when this is not available, a relationship with a surrogate caregiving figure in a mentoring role; 2) strong cognitive skills, which predict academic success and lead to rule-abiding behavior; and 3) the ability to self-regulate attention, emotions, and behavior. They point to attending effective schools as a key characteristic of resilient children and adolescents. Cook et al., endorse a treatment model for children with complex trauma histories that echoes the three key factors outlined by Masten and Coatsworth. The model they discuss (called ARC) emphasizes three key areas: “1) building secure “a”ttachments between child and caregiver(s); 2) enhancing self-“r”egulatory capacities; and 3) increasing “c”ompetencies across multiple domains.” Cook, A., et al. (Eds.). (2003), p. 26. 26 Herman states that recovery from trauma “follows a common pathway. The fundamental stages of recovery are establishing safety, reconstructing the trauma story, and restoring the connection between survivors and their community.” Herman, J. (1997), p. 3; emphasis added. Perhaps the most important community for children is their school. Schools can help children who have been traumatized feel safe—both physically and psychologically—and enable them to become successful members of their community. Our goal is for schools to become contexts in which traumatized children can thrive. 27 There is support for this dual type of approach in the literature. Masten and Coatsworth argue, for example, that “[i]f the goal is to change the competence of children, multiple directed strategies need to be considered ranging from efforts to change child capabilities (e.g., tutoring) to interventions directed at the context (e.g., parent education or school reform or opening of opportunities) . . . . ” Masten, A.S., and Coatsworth, J.D. (1998), p. 206. 28 For this particular insight, we owe much gratitude to Judith Herman. In her groundbreaking book, Trauma and Recovery, she emphasizes the importance of a supportive community for adults who are in a helping role with trauma victims and the need for a larger social context that “affirms and protects the victim and joins victim and [helper] in a common alliance.” Herman, J. (1997), p. 9. 29 Macy speaks to the important role teachers can play in helping traumatized children succeed. He says that “local teachers . . . must be empowered at their neighborhood level to respond to and guide threatened youth, and fiscal and administrative support for these local responses must be sustained over time.” Macy, R.D. (2003). “Community-based Trauma Response for Youth.” New Directions for Youth Development, 98: 29–34; 31. 30 Lewis, D.O., Mallouh, C., and Webb, V. (1989). “Child Abuse, Juvenile Delinquency, and Violent Criminality.” In D. Cicchetti and V. Carlson (Eds.), Child Maltreatment (pp. 707–721). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. These authors explain that, while there is clearly an association between childhood abuse and subsequent aggressive acts, “most abused children do not become violent delinquents” (p. 707). Several studies do indicate, however, that while the number of abused children who become violent is relatively small, the number of violent delinquents who were abused or neglected or both has been found to be very high—as high as 80% in one study. The authors report that severe physical abuse is most likely to be associated with violent delinquency and criminality when one or more of the following additional factors is present: “the child suffers from some sort of central nervous system dysfunction that impairs his ability to modulate his emotions and control his responses; 31 102 H e lp i n g Tra um a t i zed C hi l d r en Lea r n the child suffers from some form of psychiatric disturbance that impairs his reality testing at times so that he misperceives his environment and feels needlessly and excessively threatened; the child is exposed to extraordinary household violence between parents or caretakers” (p. 717; emphasis added). Streeck-Fischer and van der Kolk describe the social costs of failing to address the needs of traumatized children early: “If not prevented or treated early, these children are likely to grow up to lead traumatised and traumatising lives. Their problems with affect modulation are likely to lead to impulsive behaviour, drug abuse and interpersonal violence. Their learning problems interfere with their becoming productive members of society. Early intervention is of critical importance, because, once they drop out beyond ordinary social safety nets, they make their presence known as individuals who pay a very high price for their (mis)behaviour. Providing these maltreated children with care, sustenance and specialised therapeutic interventions has been shown to considerably lessen the long-term risk they pose to themselves and to society at large.” Streeck-Fischer, A., and van der Kolk, B.A. (2000), pp. 915–916. 32 Herman explains quite eloquently the societal urge we often feel to remain in denial about traumatic experiences and the corresponding need for environments that support those who work with trauma victims. She writes, “Without a supportive social environment, the bystander usually succumbs to the temptation to look the other way. This is true even when the victim is an idealized and valued member of society. Soldiers in every war, even those who have been regarded as heroes, complain bitterly that no one wants to know the real truth about war. When the victim is already devalued (a woman, a child), she may find that the most traumatic events of her life take place outside the realm of socially validated reality. Her experience becomes unspeakable.” She further explains that “[t]o hold traumatic reality in consciousness requires a social context that affirms and protects the victim and that joins victim and witness in a common alliance.” Herman, J. (1997), pp. 8, 9. 33 Chapter One 34 Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered Assumptions: Towards a New Psychology of Trauma. New York: Free Press, p. 5. 35 Ibid., p. 6. Cicchetti, D., Toth, S.L., and Hennessy, K. (1989). “Research on the Consequences of Child Maltreatment and Its Application to Educational Settings.” Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 9(2): 33–55. Cicchetti et al., explain the relevance of attachment theory to children’s readiness for school: “children with sensitive caregivers come to view themselves as acceptable and worthy of care, whereas children with insensitive and/or unresponsive caregivers learn to see themselves as unacceptable and unlovable. Thus, it is argued that these internalized working models of the self and attachment figures, resulting from the infant’s early experiences of care, profoundly influence both the acquisition and integration of later developmental competencies, such as the formation of positive peer relationships, adaptation to the classroom, and the motivational orientation to achieve” (p. 38). 36 Several authors have described the devastating impact traumatic experiences can have on children’s expectations of the world. Pynoos et al., for example, propose that “the critical link between traumatic stress and personality is the formation of trauma-related expectations as these are expressed in the thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and biology of the developing child. By their very nature and degree of personal impact, traumatic experiences can skew expectations about the world, the safety and security of interpersonal life, and the child’s sense of personal integrity.” The authors describe how traumatic experiences “contribute to a schematization of the world, especially of security, safety, risk, injury, loss, protection, and intervention.” Pynoos, R.S., Steinberg, A.M., and Goenjian, A. (1996). “Traumatic Stress in Childhood and Adolescence: Recent developments and current controversies.” In B.A. van der Kolk, A. McFarlane and L. Weisaeth (Eds.), Traumatic Stress: The Effects of Overwhelming Experience on Mind, Body, and Society (pp. 331–358). New York: Guilford Press; pp. 332, 349–350. Herman also discusses the impact of trauma on one’s worldview. She writes, “Traumatic events destroy the victim’s fundamental assumptions about the safety of the world, the positive value of the self, and the meaningful order of creation.” Herman, J. (1997), p. 51. 37 38 As Katz explains, “[Exposure to violence] can alter how we see the world, how we see others, and how we perceive No te s 103 our own worth. The effects may be especially severe in children because children lack perspective. They have nothing to compare their circumstances to. It can appear as though there really is no alternative; this is how it’s going to be. The child tries over and over again to alter the painful and frustrating circumstances he finds himself in, but to no avail. It’s beyond his ability to control. His job now is to try and adapt as best he can.” Katz, M. (1997). On Playing a Poor Hand Well: Insights from the Lives of Those Who Have Overcome Childhood Risks and Adversities. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., p. 5, citing Terr, L. (1990), Too Scared to Cry. New York: Basic. Horsman, J. (2000). Too Scared To Learn: Women, Violence and Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., p. 86, quoting Brooks, A.-L. (1992). Feminist Pedagogy: An Autobiographical Approach. Halifax: Fernwood (pp. 21–22). 39 40 See Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992), p. 79. 41 See Cicchetti, D., et al. (1989), particularly pp. 40–44. Caregiving relationships in infancy and early childhood establish models upon which children approach their environment as they grow and develop. Sroufe explains: “In the secure attachment case … the child develops generally positive and trusting attitudes toward others. Along with this, the child takes forward a sense of his or her own effectance and personal worth. Being able to effectively elicit responsiveness and care from the parent, they expect to master challenges and to have power in the world. They believe in themselves. Likewise, they value relating and have an internalized template for empathy and reciprocity in relationships.” They develop a sense of curiosity, a skill in exploration, and they learn to express and modulate emotion. Anxious attachment patterns, on the other hand, undermine the development of these capacities in children. Sroufe, A. (1997). “Psychopathology as an Outcome of Development.” Development and Psychopathology. 9: 251–268; 262. 42 43 All individuals have worldviews and as such see the world through a set of “glasses.” The traumatized child’s gaze in the world brings all encounters into marked relief according to his or her expectations of danger. As Carlson et al. note, “Even after children have escaped from abusive environments, they may continue to interpret ambiguous and neutral cues as threatening and, therefore, respond with fear and avoidance.” Carlson, E.B., et al, (1997), pp. 276–277. 44 Herman, J. (1997), p. 99. Van der Kolk suggests that these children may sense that their perceptions are not entirely accurate, but not know why and to what degree. This perception can increase a child’s anxiety, compounding his or her learning problems. Van der Kolk, B.A. Remarks at “Helping Traumatized Children Learn,” a conference co-sponsored by Lesley University, Massachusetts Advocates for Children (MAC), and the Task Force on Children Affected by Domestic Violence. Cambridge, MA. January 16, 2001. (Transcripts of the conference are on file with the authors.) 45 Van der Kolk explains, “Many problems of traumatized children can be understood as efforts to minimize objective threat and to regulate their emotional distress. Unless caregivers understand the nature of such reenactments, they are likely to label the child as ‘oppositional,’ ‘rebellious,’ ‘unmotivated,’ or ‘anti-social.’” Van der Kolk, B.A. (2005), “Developmental Trauma Disorder.” Psychiatric Annals, 35(5): 401–408, p. 403, citing Pynoos, R.S., Frederick, C.J., Nader, K., et al. (1987). “Life Threat and Posttraumatic Stress in School-age Children.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 44(12): 1057–1063. 46 For a general discussion of the stress response in traumatized children and a review of recent studies on this topic, please see Bevans, K., Cerbone, A.B., and Overstreet, S. (2005). “Advances and Future Directions in the Study of Children’s Neurobiological Responses to Trauma and Violence Exposure.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(4): 418–425. 47 As Bremner and Narayan point out, this appears to be a paradox: the stress response, designed to be a survival tool, can actually be detrimental to the organism in certain contexts. Since maladaptive responses may linger even after the organism has achieved safety, they argue from an evolutionary perspective that “long-term function is sacrificed for the sake of short-term survival.” Bremner, J.D., and Narayan, M. (1998). “The Effects of Stress on Memory and the Hippocampus throughout the Life Cycle: Implications for childhood development and aging.” 48 104 H e lp i n g Tra um a t i zed C hi l d r en Lea r n Development and Psychopathology, 10: 871–885; 875. For a discussion of the loss of self-regulation in traumatized children, see van der Kolk, B.A. (1998). “The Psychology and Psychobiology of Developmental Trauma.” In A. Stoudemire (Ed.), Human Behavior: An Introduction for Medical Students (pp. 383–399; 389). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven. 49 Perry et al. explain how experiencing constant fear can affect the development of children’s brains: “The more frequently a certain pattern of neural activation occurs, the more indelible the internal representation. Experience thus creates a processing template through which all new input is filtered. The more a neural network is activated, the more there will be use-dependent internalization of new information needed to promote survival.” Perry, B.D., Pollard, R.A., Blakely, T.L., Baker, W.L., and Vigilante, D. (1995). “Childhood Trauma, the Neurobiology of Adaptation, and ‘Use-dependent’ Development of the Brain: How ‘States’ Become ‘Traits.’” Infant Mental Health Journal, 16(4): 271–291; 275. 50 51 See Perry, B.D. (2002), at note 69, infra. See, for example, Glaser, D. (2000). “Child Abuse and Neglect and the Brain—A Review.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(1): 97–116; 101. 52 Fisher et al. documented improved behavioral adjustment among children in an early-intervention foster care program. They also documented reductions in these children’s salivary cortisol levels, suggesting that early environmental interventions may indeed have the potential to impact the neurobiological system positively. Fisher, P.A., Gunnar, M.R., Chamberlain, P., and Reid, J.B. (2000). “Preventive Intervention for Maltreated Preschool Children: Impact on children’s behavior, neuroendocrine activity, and foster parent functioning.” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(11): 1356–1364. 53 Manly et al. explain this scaffolding process in children’s mastery of developmental tasks: “From infancy through childhood, children are faced with tasks that are central to each developmental period, and the quality of the resolution of these tasks primes the way that subsequent developmental issues are confronted. … Early competent resolution of stage-salient developmental tasks facilitates successful negotiation of successive developmental tasks, whereas difficulty mastering earlier developmental challenges may potentiate later maladaptive outcomes.” Manly, J.T., Kim, J.E., Rogosch, F.A., and Cicchetti, D. (2001). “Dimensions of Child Maltreatment and Children’s Adjustment: Contributions of developmental timing and subtype.” Development and Psychopathology, 13: 759–782; 760. 54 55 Terr, L.C. (1991), p.11. 56 Herman, J. (1997), p. 33. Terr, L.C. (1991), p. 14. Terr distinguishes between Type I traumas that involve “single shocking intense terrors” and Type II traumas that involve more complicated events, such as ongoing and chronic abuse. She says that the former is marked by “1) full, detailed, etched-in memories, 2) ‘omens’ (…cognitive reappraisals…), and 3) misperceptions and mistimings.” While a single event can have long-lasting symptoms, she states that Type I traumas are less likely to “breed the massive denials, psychic numbings, self-anesthesias, or personality problems that characterize type II disorders.” For another discussion of the difference between prolonged or chronic trauma and a single terrible event, see chapters 4 and 5 in Herman, J. (1997). See also Carlson, E.B., et al. (1997), p. 139. The authors explain that physical or sexual abuse can have a harsher impact—resulting from feelings of betrayal—when it is perpetrated by a “caretaker with whom the child had a previous healthy attachment.” 57 See Nelson, C.A. and Bloom, F.E. (1997). “Child Development and Neuroscience.” Child Development, 68(5): 970–987: 980, citing Bornstein, M.H. (1989). “Sensitive Periods in Development: Structural characteristics and causal interpretations.” Psychological Bulletin, 105: 179–197. 58 According to Harvey, much of the literature on trauma focuses on the psychological characteristics of individuals and neglects the importance of environmental contributions to the response and recovery trajectory. She proposes an “ecological” model to explain individual trauma responses in the context of human community. Harvey, M.R. 59 No te s 105 (1996). “An Ecological View of Psychological Trauma and Trauma Recovery.” Journal of Traumatic Stress, (9)1: 3–23. See also Carlson, E.B., et al. (1997), p 287. The authors state “the availability of social support is expected to act as a mitigating factor in the response to traumatic abuse. This is anticipated because those who do not have support are expected to feel less hopeful of achieving control over the aversive experiences.” They further explain, “The first type of social support would be provided by individuals such as a relative or teacher. The second might be provided by community or societal institutions.” Groves also argues for a contextual approach to the issue of violence and children. See Groves, B.M. (2002), particularly chapters 4, 5, and 6. 60 Harvey, M.R. (1996), p. 7. Terr, L.C. (1991), p. 10. Terr explains that these are technically correct diagnoses depending on how the symptoms might manifest on a particular day. However, she raises serious concerns about this array of diagnoses, stating, “We must organize our thinking about childhood trauma, however, or we run the risk of never seeing the condition at all. Like the young photographer in Cortazar’s short story and Antonioni’s film, ‘Blow Up,’ we may enlarge the diagnostic fine points of trauma to such prominence that we altogether lose the central point—that external forces created the internal changes in the first place. We must not let ourselves forget childhood trauma just because the problem is so vast.” See also Famularo, R., Fenton, T., Kinscherff, R., and Augustyn, M. (1996). “Psychiatric Comorbidity in Childhood Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.” Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(10): 953–956. These researchers demonstrated that PTSD was comorbid with ADHD, other anxiety disorders, brief psychotic disorder, suicidal ideation, and a trend toward mood disorders. 61 62 Van der Kolk, B.A. (2005). Greenwald O’Brien, J.P. (2000). “Impacts of Violence in the School Environment: Links between trauma and delinquency.” New England Law Review, 34: 593–599; 597. 63 64 Masten, A.S., and Coatsworth, J.D. (1998), p. 210. As Greenwald O’Brien explains, family violence “make[s] it difficult to attend, focus, or concentrate. Information is processed carelessly, or inaccurately, stored incorrectly, poorly remembered, or unable to be retrieved. When violence compromises family functioning, there may be no one at home to facilitate an education orientation, or motivate children to value learning or to excel in school. A teenager’s emotional energy is occupied with safety concerns which erode the needed momentum for school. The very nature of violence can imperil a child’s ability to trust teachers and other school professionals.” Greenwald O’Brien, J.P. (2000), p. 597. See also Craig, S. (1992), p. 67. 65 66 Streeck-Fischer, A., and van der Kolk, B.A. (2000), p. 912. De Bellis explains that the superior temporal gyrus, the area of the brain thought to be primarily responsible for the development of social intelligence, can be significantly impacted by chronic maltreatment. This may be an explanation for why individuals with a history of maltreatment often have difficulty with social relationships. De Bellis, M.D. (2005), p. 161. 67 68 Streeck-Fischer, A., and van der Kolk, B.A. (2000), p. 912. Perry, B.D. (2002). “Neurodevelopmental Impact of Violence in Childhood.” In D.H. Schetky and E.P. Benedek (Eds.), Principles and Practice of Child and Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry (pp. 191–203; 200). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. 69 70 This story comes from an anonymous member of the Task Force on Children Affected by Domestic Violence. Rauch, S.L, van der Kolk, B.A., Fisler, R.E., Alpert, N.M., Orr, S.P., Savage, C.R., Fischman, A.J., Jenike, M.A., and Pitman, R.K. (1996). “A Symptom Provocation Study of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Using Positron Emission Tomography and Script-Driven Imagery.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 53(5): 380–387. More specifically, this study monitored the regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) of PTSD patients who listened to both traumatic and neutral scripts. When the patients listened to the traumatic scripts, the researchers noted increased rCBF in rightsided limbic and paralimbic structures and in the right secondary visual cortex. They noted decreased rCBF in the 71 106 H e lp i n g Tra um a t i zed C hi l d r en Lea r n left inferior frontal cortex (Broca’s area) and the left middle temporal cortex. See also Ford J, (2005). “Treatment Implications of Altered Affect Regulations and Information Processing Following Child Maltreatment.” Psychiatric Annals 35 (5) 412–419. This article, published too close to HTCL press deadlines for analyzing in detail here, summarizes studies on the brain that explain why some women with abuse-related PTSD have impairments in information processing, including the ability to categorize information and access verbal information. Coster, W. and Cicchetti, D. (1993). “Research on the Communicative Development of Maltreated Children: Clinical implications.” Topics in Language Disorders, 13(4): 25–38; 31. 72 73 Ibid. Ibid., citing Santostefano, S. (1978). A Biodevelopmental Approach to Clinical Child Psychology. New York: John Wiley. 74 75 Ibid., citing Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s Minds. New York: Norton. Ibid., citing Hemphill, L., et al. (1991). “Narrative as an Index of Communicative Competence in Mildly Mentally Retarded Children.” Applied Psycholinguistics, 12: 263–279; and McCabe, A. and Peterson, C. (Eds.) (1991). Developing Narrative Structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 76 Craig, S. (1992). “The Educational Needs of Children Living with Violence.” Phi Delta Kappan. 74: 67–71; 68, citing Helfer, R.E., and Kempe, C.H. (1980). “Developmental Deficits Which Limit Interpersonal Skills.” In idem (Eds.) The Battered Child, 3rd Ed. (pp. 36–48). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. See also Coster, W., and Cicchetti, D. (1993), pp. 34–35. 77 78 Coster, W., and Cicchetti, D. (1993), pp. 34–35. Allen, R.E., and Oliver, J.M. (1982). “The Effects of Child Maltreatment on Language Development.” Child Abuse and Neglect, 6: 299–305. 79 80 Coster, W., and Cicchetti, D. (1993), pp. 34. 81 Craig, S. (1992), p 67. Pynoos et al. explain: “Advances in child developmental psychology are providing more refined tools to evaluate the impact of traumatic stress on developmental competencies. For example, in recent years, research has elucidated the normal developmental achievement of narrative coherence (i.e., children’s ability to organize narrative material into a beginning, middle, and end). Current research among preschool children exposed to both intrafamilial and community violence has indicated interference with this task, resulting in more chaotic narrative construction. Achievement of this developmental task is essential to subsequent competencies in reading, writing, and communication skills.” Pynoos, R.S., Steinberg, A.M., and Goenjian, A. (1996), p. 342, citing Osofsky, J.D. (1993). “Applied Psychoanalysis: How research with infants and adolescents at high psychological risk informs psychoanalysis.” Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 41: 193–207. 82 83 Craig, S. (1992), p. 67. 84 Ibid. 85 Van der Kolk, B.A. (2005), p. 403. 86 Craig, S. (1992), p. 68. 87 Ibid. Craig, S. (1992), p. 68. Perry elaborates further on the connection between cause-and-effect and the behavior of traumatized children; he explains: “the sense of time is altered in alarm states. In [traumatized] children, the sense of the future is foreshortened, and the critical time period for the individual shrinks. The threatened child is not thinking (nor should she think) about months from now. This has profound implications for understanding the cognition of the traumatized child. Immediate reward is most reinforcing. Delayed gratification is impossible. 88 No te s 107 Consequences of behavior become almost inconceivable to the threatened child.” Perry, B.D. (2002), p. 200. 89 Coster, W., and Cicchetti, D. (1993), p. 30. Craig, S. Remarks at “Helping Traumatized Children Learn,” a conference co-sponsored by Lesley University, Massachusetts Advocates for Children (MAC), and the Task Force on Children Affected by Domestic Violence. Cambridge, MA. January 16, 2001. (Transcripts of the conference are on file with the authors.) 90 91 Van der Kolk, B.A. (2005), p. 403. 92 Craig, S. (1992), p. 68. 93 Ibid. Streeck-Fischer, A., and van der Kolk, B.A. (2000), p. 912, citing van der Kolk, B.A., and Ducey, C.P. (1989). “The Psychological Processing of Traumatic Experience: Rorschach patterns in PTSD.” Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2: 259–265; and McFarlane, A.C., Weber, D.L., and Clark, C.R. (1993). “Abnormal Stimulus Processing in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.” Biological Psychiatry, 34: 311–320. 94 95 Craig, S. (1992), p. 68. See Famularo, R., et al. (1996); and Thomas, J.M. (1995). “Traumatic Stress Disorder Presents as Hyperactivity and Disruptive Behavior: Case presentation, diagnoses, and treatment.” Infant Mental Health Journal, 16(4): 306–316. 96 Perry’s study of the neurodevelopmental effects of childhood trauma reports that the ADHD diagnosis of traumatized children can be misleading. “It is not,” he explains, “that [traumatized children] have a core abnormality of their capacity to attend to a given task, it is that they are hypervigilant. These children have behavioral impulsivity and cognitive distortions that result from a use-dependent organization of the brain. During development, these children spent so much time in a low-level state of fear . . . that they were focusing consistently on non-verbal cues.” Perry, B.D. (1997). “Incubated in Terror: Neurodevelopmental factors in the ‘cycle of violence.’” In J.D. Osofsky (Ed.), Children in a Violent Society (pp. 124–149; 136). New York: Guilford Press citing Pynoos, R.S., and Eth, S. (1985). “Developmental Perspectives on Psychic Trauma in Childhood.” In C.R. Figley (Ed.), Trauma and Its Wake (pp. 36–52). New York: Brunner/Mazel; Pynoos, R.S. (1990). “Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Children and Adolescents.” In B. Garfinkel, G. Carlson, and E. Weller (Eds.), Psychiatric Disorders in Children and Adolescents (pp. 48–63). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; and Perry, B.D., et al. (1995). The relationship between ADHD and trauma is complicated and, as yet, not fully understood. Several studies have reported striking levels of ADHD in traumatized samples, while others have reported similar levels of concurrent ADHD and PTSD, and still others have reported the independent comorbidity of ADHD and PTSD with a number of additional and common childhood disorders such as oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, anxiety disorder, and depression. As a result, the level of symptom overlap contributing to the confusion of ADHD and the symptoms of trauma, particularly as manifest in the child’s classroom behavior, is complicated by the interrelationship between and concurrence of ADHD and trauma with a variety of behavioral and social problems prominent in several childhood disorders. Insofar as the relationship is not fully understood, it is important that the traumatic history of a child displaying ADHD symptoms in the classroom be considered and, when necessary, it is important that both be treated accordingly. In light of recent studies that indicate that children exposed to violence may develop a series of behavioral, social, and emotional problems, the traumatic history of a child being assessed for ADHD based on disruptive behavior in the classroom is of considerable significance. See Pelcovitz, D., et al. (1994). “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Physically Abused Adolescents.” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 33: 305–312. Simply put, the effects of trauma as they appear in the classroom can be deceptive, and school personnel need to be aware of the possibility that traumatic exposure to domestic violence may be the origin of behavioral problems, even though they need not necessarily assume at the outset that such problems are the result of traumatic exposure. 97 98 Masten, A.S., and Coatsworth, J.D. (1998), p. 208. 99 Shields, A., and Cicchetti, D. (1998), p. 391, citing Cicchetti, D. “How Research on Child Maltreatment Has 108 H e lp i n g Tra um a t i zed C hi l d r en Lea r n Informed the Study of Child Development: Perspectives from developmental psychopathology.” In D. Cicchetti and V. Carlson (Eds.), Child Maltreatment: Theory and Research on the Causes and Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect. (pp. 377–431). New York: Cambridge University Press. 100 Streeck-Fischer, A., and van der Kolk, B.A. (2001), p. 905, citing Toth, S.C., and Cicchetti, D. (1998). “Remembering, Forgetting, and the Effects of Trauma on Memory: A developmental psychopathologic perspective.” Developmental Psychopathology, 10: 580–605. 101 Ibid. 102 Shields, A., and Cicchetti, D. (1998), p. 391. 103 Van der Kolk, B.A. (1998), p. 391. Mezzacappa, E., Kindlon, D., and Earls, F. (2001). “Child Abuse and Performance Task Assessments of Executive Functions in Boys.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(8): pp. 1041–1048; 1042. 104 Lubit, R., Rovine, D., Defrancisci, L., and Eth, S. (2003). “Impact of Trauma on Children.” Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 9(2): 128–138; 133. 105 106 Van der Kolk, B.A. (2005), p. 403. De Bellis, M.D. (2005). “The Psychobiology of Neglect.” Child Maltreatment, 10(2): 150–172, 160. De Bellis explains that chronic stress and its resulting increased activation of catecholamines can “turn off” the prefrontal cortex’s inhibition of the limbic system; this can cause children to lose the ability to focus and attend in school. 107 108 Beers, S.R., and De Bellis, M.D. (2002): pp. 483–486. 109 Mezzacappa, E., et al. (2001). 110 Shonk, S., and Cicchetti, D. (2001). 111 Ibid, p. 4. 112 Ibid. Katz, M. (1997), p. 7, citing Weiner, B. (1993). “On Sin Versus Sickness: A theory of perceived responsibility and social motivation.” American Psychologist, 48(9): 957–965. 113 114 Ibid. 115 Lubit, R., et al. (2003), p. 133. De Bellis, M.D. (2005), p. 161. De Bellis explains that repeated maltreatment can result in the chronic activation of the amygdala, which inhibits the development of the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain primarily responsible for emotional and behavioral regulation. 116 Shonk, S.M., and Cicchetti, D. (2001), p. 4, citing Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., and Pettit, G.S. (1990). “Mechanisms in the Cycle of Violence.” Science, 250: 1678–1683; and Rogosch, F.A., and Cicchetti, D. (1994). “Illustrating the Interface of Family and Peer Relations through the Study of Child Maltreatment.” Social Development, 3: 291–308. 117 118 Ibid., citing Dodge, K.A., et al. (1990). 119 Carlson, E.B., et al. (1997), p. 279. Ibid., p. 277, citing Herrenkohl, R.C. and Herrenkohl, E.C. (1981). “Some Antecedents and Developmental Consequences of Child Maltreatment.” In R. Rizely and D. Cicchetti (Eds.), New Directions for Child Development: Developmental Perspectives on Child Maltreatment. (pp. 31–56). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 120 Shields, A., and Cicchetti, D. (1998), p. 391, citing Dodge, K.A, Pettit, G.S., Bates, J.E., and Valente, E. (1995). “Social Information-Processing Patterns Partially Mediate the Effect of Early Physical Abuse on Later Conduct 121 No te s 109 Problems.” Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104: 632–643; and Rogosch, F.A., Cicchetti, D., and Aber, J.L. (1995). “The Role of Child Maltreatment in Early Deviations in Cognitive and Affective Processing Abilities and Later Peer Relationship Problems.” Development and Psychopathology, 7: 591–609. 122 Ibid. 123 Perry, B.D., et al. (1995), p. 280. Weissbourd, R. (1996). The Vulnerable Child: What Really Hurts America’s Children and What We Can Do About It. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; p. 15. 124 125 Pynoos, R.S., et al. (1996), p. 344. 126 This story comes from an anonymous client of the Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative. Morrow, G. (1987). The Compassionate School: A Practical Guide to Educating Abused and Traumatized Children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; p. 36. 127 128 Ibid. 129 Herman, J. (1997), p. 105. 130 Craig, S. (1992), pp. 68–69. 131 Masten, A.S., and Coatsworth, J.D. (1998), p. 213. As Perry explains, traumatized children often “over-read (misinterpret) nonverbal cues (e.g., eye contact means threat, a friendly touch is interpreted as an antecedent to seduction and rape); interpretations that are accurate in the world they came from but now, hopefully, out of context. During development, these children spent so much time in a low-level state of fear . . . that they were focusing consistently on nonverbal cues.” Perry, B.D. (2002), p. 200. 132 133 Craig, S. (1992), p. 68. 134 Pynoos, R.S., et al. (1996), p. 344. 135 Van der Kolk, B.A. (2005), p. 403. 136 Pynoos, R.S., et al. (1996), p. 344. 137 Ibid. 138 Ibid. See also van der Kolk, B.A. Remarks at “Helping Traumatized Children Learn.” January 16, 2001. Pynoos, R.S., et al. (1996), p. 344, citing Pynoos, R.S., and Nader, K. (1993). “Issues in the Treatment of PostTraumatic Stress in Children and Adolescents.” In J.P. Wilson and B. Raphael (Eds.), International Handbook of Traumatic Stress Syndromes (pp. 535–549). New York: Plenum Press. 139 140 See Shonk, S.M., and Cicchetti, D. (2001), at note 22, supra. Chapter 2 141 Masten, A.S., and Coatsworth, J.D. (1998), p. 215. 142 Ibid. 143 Ibid. Cook, A., et al. (Eds.). (2003), p. 26. Kinniburgh, K.J., Blaustein, M., and Spinazzola, J. (2005). “Attachment, Self-Regulation, and Competency: A comprehensive intervention framework for children with complex trauma.” Psychiatric Annals, 35(5): 424–430. These authors developed ARC as a framework that can be applied across settings to address the needs of children with complex trauma. The white paper relied upon an earlier precursor to this article. 144 110 H e lp i n g Tra um a t i zed C hi l d r en Lea r n 145 Masten, A.S., and Coatsworth, J.D. (1998), p. 206. Boykin-McCarthy, J. (1999). “Emancipatory Learning: A study of teachers’ perspective shifts regarding children of battered women.” Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(09), 3325A (UMI No. 9945913). Boykin-McCarthy’s findings indicate that when teachers understand better the personal and societal complexities of battering and recent trauma research explaining how some student behaviors are not resolved by traditional classroom management techniques, they can increase their comfort level, classroom skills, and sense of competence in working with students who are children of battered women. 146 For teaching us about these and other accommodations that help children regulate their emotions, we owe much thanks to Jane Koomar, Ph.D., ORT/L of Occupational Therapy Associates in Watertown, MA. 147 Beardall, N. (2004). “Creating a Peaceable School: Confronting Intolerance and Bullying.” Newton, MA: Office of Curriculum and Instruction, Newton Public Schools, p. 2. 148 Brooks, R. (1991). The Self-Esteem Teacher. Loveland, OH: Treehaus Communications, Inc. Brooks contends that “every person in this world possesses at least one small ‘island of competence,’ one area that is or has the potential to be a source of pride and achievement. This metaphor is not intended to be merely a fanciful image, but rather a symbol of respect and hope, a reminder that all children and adolescents have areas of strength. Those who are teaching and raising children have the responsibility to find and build upon these islands of competence so that they will soon become more prominent than the ocean of self-doubt” (p. 31). 149 150 Van der Kolk, B.A. (1998), p. 391. Appendix B Van der Kolk, B.A. (2005), p. 404; citing Kiser, L.J., Heston, J., Millsap, P.A., and Pruitt, D.C. (1991). “Physical and Sexual Abuse in Childhood: Relationship with post-traumatic stress disorder.” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30(5): 776-783. Van der Kolk notes elsewhere that the consequences of childhood trauma “go well beyond the core definition of PTSD: how to trust people after you know how much they can hurt you, how to calm yourself down when you are upset, how to pay attention while faced with emotionally arousing situations, how to deal with bodily responses to upsetting events, and how to think positively about oneself when faced with adversity.” Van der Kolk, B.A. (1998), p. 384. See also StreeckFischer, A., and van der Kolk, B.A. (2000). 151 152 Van der Kolk, B.A. (2005), p. 5. See, for example, Scheeringa, M.S., Peebles, C.D., Cook, C.A., and Zeanah, C.H. (2001). “Toward Establishing Procedural, Criterion, and Discriminant Validity for PTSD in Early Childhood.” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(1): 52–60; and Scheeringa, M.S., Zeanah, C.H., Myers, L., and Putnam, F.W. (2003). “New Findings on Alternative Criteria for PTSD in Preschool Children.” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(5): 561–570. 153 154 Van der Kolk, B.A. (2005), p. 405. Ibid. According to van der Kolk, the developmental effects of trauma include: complex disruptions of affect regulation; disturbed attachment patterns; rapid behavioral regressions and shifts in emotional states; loss of autonomous strivings; aggressive behavior against self and others; failure to achieve developmental competencies; loss of bodily regulation in the areas of sleep, food, and self-care; altered schemas of the world; anticipatory behavior and traumatic expectations; multiple somatic problems, from gastrointestinal distress to headaches; apparent lack of awareness of danger and resulting self-endangering behaviors; self-hatred and self-blame; and chronic feelings of ineffectiveness. 155 No te s 156 111 The official criteria a person must meet in order to qualify for a diagnosis of PTSD are as follows:  a. The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which both of the following were present: (1) the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others; (2) the person’s response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror. Note: In children, this may be expressed instead by disorganized or agitated behavior. b. The traumatic event is persistently reexperienced. c. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (not present before the trauma). d. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (not present before the trauma). e. Duration of the disturbance is more than one month. f. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Ed. (DSM-IV). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, pp. 427–429. 157 Herman, J. (1997). See, in particular, Herman’s discussion of “Attacks on the Body,” pp. 108–110. 158 Groves, B.M. (2002), p. 47. Pynoos, R.S., et al. (1996), p. 345. The authors caution that “we tend to speak of intrusive images as if they are merely reproductions of original photographic negatives of a gruesome scene. In doing so, we risk missing the experiential and clinical significance of these ‘pictures in the child’s mind.’” (p. 345). 159 160 Ibid., pp. 341–342. 161 Carlson, B.E., et al. (1997), p. 277. 162 Ibid., p. 278. Appendix C 163 The entries in this table are credited to Harvey, M. (1996), pp. 7–8. 112 H e lp i n g Tra um a t i zed C hi l d r en Lea r n A ppre c ia tio n fo r Co ntr ibuto r s 113 Appreciation for Contributors The authors and staff of TLPI thank all who contributed to Helping Traumatized Children Learn. We thank State Representative Alice Wolf of Cambridge, Massachusetts, a legislative leader who has advocated tirelessly on behalf of children and schools. We thank the outstanding experts who read and commented on this report for accuracy and content: Harriet Allen, Ed.D., former school psychologist, Somerville Public Schools; Margaret Blaustein, Ph.D., director of Training and Education, the Trauma Center, Justice Resource Institute; Betsy McAlister Groves, LICSW, director of the Child Witness to Violence Program, Boston Medical Center, associate professor of Pediatrics, Boston University School of Medicine; Robert Macy, Ph.D., director of Psychosocial Initiatives, the Trauma Center, Justice Resource Institute; Amy Tishelman, Ph.D., director of Research and Training, Child Protective Program, Children’s Hospital, Boston; and Paula Stahl, Ed.D., executive director of Children’s Charter Trauma Clinic, a division of Key, Inc. The Flexible Framework has benefited immeasurably from the contributions of Claire Crane, principal of the Ford Elementary School in Lynn, Massachusetts; Bridgett Rodriguez, former principal of the Morse School in Cambridge, Massachusetts; and Nanci Keller, director of the Department of Guidance, Social Work, and Psychology for the Framingham Public Schools. Thank you to educators and other experts who added to the content based on actual experiences: teachers Sandy Christianson, Linda Cohn, Laura Goldman, Sheila Deppner, and the educators who attended original focus groups held at the Timilty and Lewis Schools in Boston; parents Patti Daigle, Leslie Lockhart, and Randi Donnis; school nurse Barbara Neustadt; speech and language pathologist Jane Wozniak; homelessness and domestic violence educators Stephanie Brown, Laurie Burnett, Holly Curtis, and Nalina Narain; guidance counselors Aleida Inglis and Judy Boykin McCarthy. The policy discussions and careful edits by members of the Domestic Violence and School Safety (DVASS) Work Group of the Task Force on Children Affected by Domestic Violence greatly enhanced the scope of this work, particularly with respect to safety issues. Special thanks to attorneys Jeff Wolf, Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; Dana Sisitsky, Greater Boston Legal Services; Mary Ross, formerly of South Middlesex Legal Services; Megan Christopher, South Middlesex Legal Services; Kathryn Rucker, Center for Public Representation; and Michelle Lerner, Massachusetts Advocates for Children. 114 H e lp i n g Tra um a t i zed C hi l d r en Lea r n A big thank you for the rich interdisciplinary discussions among the experts of the Trauma-Sensitive Evaluations Workgroup, which has influenced much thinking in this report. Members include: Elsa Abele, MS, CCC-SLP, professor emeritus, Boston University, Sargent School of Health and Rehabilitation; Margaret Blaustein, Ph.D., and Kristine Jentoft-Kinniburgh, LICSW, the Trauma Center, Justice Resource Institute; Lois Carra, Ph.D., Center for Children with Special Needs, New England Medical Center; Karen Chenausky, M.A., Ph.D candidate, Boston University; James Earley, Ed.D., the Walker School; Mary-Ellen Efferen, Ph.D., Efferen & Whittle, Special Education Consultants; Wendy Emory, LICSW, AWAKE, Children’s Hospital, Boston; Margaret Haney, Ph.D., Amy Tishelman, Ph.D., and Andrea Vandeven, M.D., Child Protection Program, Children’s Hospital, Boston; Gerri Owen, MA, MS, speech pathologist in private practice; Sarah Slautterback, MSW, and Jessica Burns, LPC, NCC, Massachusetts Department of Education; and Katie Snipes, Psy.D., and John Weagraff, Psy.D., Children’s Charter Trauma Clinic, a division of Key, Inc. Nicole Lake, Justin Jennings, and Brandon Brooks provided valuable research and editing while students at the Harvard Divinity School. We thank the Massachusetts Department of Education for administering the “Safe and Supportive Learning Environments” grants program (also known as TraumaSensitive Schools) and for addressing the connections between homelessness and family violence. We thank many other contributors: Mary E. Curtis, Ph.D., director of the Lesley University Center for Special Education, for hosting two conferences, both titled “Helping Traumatized Children Learn,” from which many concepts emerged; and Bessel van der Kolk, M.D., of the Trauma Center, Justice Resource Institute and Boston University School of Medicine, for his convincing presentations to educators at the 2000 conference and to legislators at TLPI’s 2004 legislative briefing. Special thanks to Susan Craig for her article “Educational Needs of Children Living in Violence” and her presentation at the Lesley Conference. Sally Fogerty, assistant commissioner, Bureau of Family and Community Health, and Carlene Pavlos, director, Division of Violence and Injury Prevention, Department of Public Health, have provided invaluable support. Nancy King, director of South Middlesex Legal Services and chair of the Children’s Law Support Project Advisory Committee, has been a constant source of wisdom. Trellis Stepter and Blair Brown, legislative staff, have done so much to further the policy agenda for traumatized children. Marylou Sudders, CEO of Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of A ppre c ia tio n fo r Co ntr ibuto r s 115 Cruelty to Children, and Janet Fine, executive director of the Massachusetts Office of Victim Witness Assistance, have provided advice, counsel, and powerful action to further the policy agenda. Marilee Kenney Hunt’s tireless leadership of the Governor’s Commission on Sexual and Domestic Violence has resulted in many gains for the Commonwealth’s most vulnerable children. Rich Robison, executive director, and Carolyn Romano, former program manager, Federation for Children with Special Needs, who have been our partners on parent outreach; Jetta Bernier, executive director of Massachusetts Citizens for Children, for building the statewide consensus to address child abuse and neglect; Joe Ailinger of Mellon Financial Corporation and Michael McWilliams of MassINC volunteered their expertise in communication strategies. Carrie Pekor Jasper, LICSW; psychologists Robert Kinscherff, J.D., Ph.D., and Jack Simons, Ph.D.; and attorneys Alexandra Golden, Ron Eskin, Janna Hellgren, Amy Karp, Sarah Levy, Steven Russo, and David Santos shared their strong collaborative vision, and Ellen Hemley made sure the Task Force meetings were well run. David Eisen remains a personal editor and tower of strength. Thank you to Susan Miller for her sensitive and careful editing of this report. We are grateful for the advice of Jeanne Charn, director of the Hale and Dorr Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School; Professor Martha Minow, Harvard Law School; Jacquelynne Bowman, associate director of Greater Boston Legal Services; and Ruth Diaz, senior clinical instructor at Hale and Dorr Legal Services, who serve as trusted advisors to TLPI. MAC staff Julia Landau, John Mudd, Leslie Lockhart, Sheila Deppner, Johanne Pino, Tania Duarte, Peggy Sargent, and Executive Director Jerry Mogul have inspired, advised, and supported at every stage. Thank you to the present and past members of the MAC Board of Directors, who have provided overwhelming support for this work from its inception. Thank you to Jeannette Atkinson, Ron Eskin, Edie Howe, Steve Bing, Larry Kotin, and Steve Rosenfeld, and as always to Hubie Jones, whose footsteps we follow. The authors are extremely grateful for the many contributors to this project and regret any inadvertent omissions. Of course, responsibility for any errors in the report rests strictly with the authors. 116 H e lp i n g Tra um a t i zed C hi l d r en Lea r n A bo ut the A utho r s 117 About the Authors Susan Cole, the director of the Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative, has served at MAC for 18 years as legal director and director of the Children’s Law Support Project. Currently, she holds a joint appointment as senior program manager at MAC and as clinical instructor at the Hale and Dorr Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School. She was deeply affected by her prior teaching experiences in the Watertown pubic schools. Ms. Cole holds a J.D. from Northeastern University, a Master’s in Special Education from the University of Oregon, and a B.A. from Boston University. Jessica Greenwald O’Brien is a forensic and clinical psychologist in private practice. She trained in trauma at Harvard Medical School’s Victims of Violence Program at the Cambridge Hospital and in forensic practice at the Children and the Law Program at Massachusetts General Hospital. Using the Flexible Frameworks presented in this report she has worked to sensitize school environments, including Framingham and Cambridge, to improve learning opportunities for traumatized children. She holds a doctorate from the Law-Psychology Program at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. M. Geron Gadd is an attorney who practices in New York. She was drawn to the work of the Task Force because of her deep commitment to social justice and the nexus between academic research, policy analysis, and social change. Ms. Gadd holds a B.A. from Southern Methodist University, a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard Divinity School, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. She is a member of the New York City Bar Association’s domestic violence committee. Joel M. Ristuccia is a certified school psychologist with many years of experience developing programs for students with emotional challenges within public schools. Mr. Ristuccia holds a B.A. from Yale University and an Ed.M. from Harvard University. D. Luray Wallace, a former high school teacher, is principal of Wallace Law Office, PC, which specializes in protecting the rights of children in education, school discipline, juvenile justice, and child welfare. Attorney Wallace holds a B.S. in Education from University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee and a J.D. from Boston College Law School. Michael Gregory, an attorney with the Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative, is focused on systemic approaches to addressing the needs of low-income children. He is a recipient of a prestigious Skadden Fellowship, which funds his work for TLPI. He holds a B.A. and a Master of Arts in Teaching from Brown University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. — Martha L. Minow, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School Helping Traumatized Children Learn opens up the conversation on how to best help the students who have been victims or witnesses of violence. Removing their roadblocks can give them the opportunity to be active and enthusiastic learners. — Massachusetts State Representative Alice Wolf Helping Traumatized Children Learn is a useful and timely report. [It] lists practical steps that educators can take to recognize signs of trauma and help children who are affected by it. The report encourages state and local officials, educators, community leaders, parents, and experts in prevention and treatment to work together for the benefit of all children. The Massachusetts Department of Education will continue to work in partnership with others to achieve these important goals. Helping Traumatized Children Learn Helping Traumatized Children Learn marks a major milestone in child advocacy. Based on evidence from brain research, child development, and actual classrooms, here is a road map for parents, schools, administrators, and policy makers that shows concrete and feasible steps for making schools the life raft for children who otherwise may be misunderstood and abandoned by the community.  Helping Traumatized Children Learn supportive school environments for children traumatized by family violence A Report and Policy Agenda — David P. Driscoll, Massachusetts Commissioner of Education I endorse the recommendations in Helping Traumatized Children Learn and invite the Commonwealth’s leaders to join this powerful effort to help all children, including those who have been exposed to family violence, reach their highest potentials. —  om Scott, Executive Director T Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents Helping Traumatized Children Learn thoroughly documents the impact of the trauma of family violence on children’s ability to learn and succeed in school. The report makes a strong case for increased resources for schools and support for teachers who work with this vulnerable population. These resources are an important investment in the future of children and in the future of our communities. Let’s hope that legislators and policy makers invest in these resources.   Massachusetts Advocates for Children Harvard Law School 25 Kingston St., 2nd floor, Boston, MA 02111 (617) 357-8431 www.massadvocates.org 1563 Massachusetts Avenue Pound Hall, Suite 501 Cambridge, MA 02138 Massachusetts Advocates for Children —  etsy McAlister Groves, Director, Child Witness to Violence Project, Boston Medical Center; B Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Boston University School of Medicine Massachusetts Advocates for Children: Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative In collaboration with Harvard Law School and The Task Force on Children Affected by Domestic Violence               Exhibit 91 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants AP At least 3 tender age NEWS shelters set up for child migrants Page 1 of 17 Log in | Sign up AP Top News Sports Entertainment Explore By GARANCE BURKE AND MARTHA MENDOZA Yesterday https://apn RELATED TOPICS Houston Immigration Latin America North America U.S. News Texas The Trump administration has set up at least three “tender age” shelters to detain babies and other young More from AP Top News https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e ✕ 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants Page 2 of 17 The government also plans to open a fourth shelter to house hundreds of young migrant children in Houston, where city leaders denounced the move Tuesday. Since the White House announced its zero tolerance policy in early May, more than 2,300 children have been taken from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border, resulting in an influx of young children requiring government care. The government has already faced withering critiques over images of some of the children in cages inside U.S. Border Patrol processing stations. It faced renewed criticism for setting up new places to hold these toddlers, decades after orphanages were phased out over concerns about the lasting trauma to children. “The thought that they are going to be putting such little kids in an institutional setting? I mean it is hard for me to even wrap my mind around it,” said Kay Bellor, vice president for programs at Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which provides foster care and other child welfare services to migrant children. “Toddlers are being detained.” By law, child migrants traveling alone must be sent to facilities run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services within three days of being detained. The agency then is responsible for placing the children in shelters or foster homes until they are united with a relative or sponsor in the community as they await immigration court hearings. But U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ announcement last month that the government would criminally prosecute everyone who crosses the U.S.-Mexico border illegally has led to the breakup of migrant families and sent a new group of hundreds of young children into the government’s care. https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants Page 3 of 17 On Tuesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order ending the separation of families at the southern border, saying that he didn’t like the sight of children being removed from their families. But the president added that the “zero tolerance” policy will continue, and children will be held along with their parents in immigration detention while the parents are prosecuted. The order does not detail how children now in the government’s care will be reunited with their parents. The United Nations, some Democratic and Republican lawmakers and religious groups have sharply criticized the family separation policy, calling it inhumane. Not so, said Steven Wagner, an official with the Department of Health and Human Services. “We have specialized facilities that are devoted to providing care to children with special needs and tender age children as we define as under 13 would fall into that category,” he said. “They’re not government facilities per se, and they have very well-trained clinicians, and those facilities meet state licensing standards for child welfare agencies, and they’re staffed by people who know how to deal with the needs — particularly of the younger children.” Until now, however, it’s been unknown where they are. “In general we do not identify the locations of permanent unaccompanied alien children program facilities,” agency spokesman Kenneth Wolfe said. The three Texas centers — in Combes, Raymondville and Brownsville — have been rapidly repurposed to serve needs of children, including some under 5. A fourth, planned for Houston, would house up to 240 children in a warehouse previously used for people displaced by Hurricane Harvey, Mayor Sylvester Turner said. https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants Page 4 of 17 Turner said he met with officials from Austin-based Southwest Key Programs, the contractor that operates some of the child shelters, to ask them to reconsider their plans. A spokeswoman for Southwest Key didn’t immediately reply to an email seeking comment. “And so there comes a point in time we draw a line, and for me, the line is with these children,” Turner said during a news conference Tuesday. The order Trump signed Wednesday directs federal agencies to work with the Defense Department to prepare facilities to house detained families. During the surge of unaccompanied children crossing the border in 2014, HHS set up several temporary facilities at military bases. The order also instructs federal agencies -- especially the Defense Department -- to begin to prepare facilities that could house the potentially thousands of families that will now be detained by the government. On a practical level, the zero tolerance policy has overwhelmed the federal agency charged with caring for the new influx of children who tend to be much younger than teens who typically have been traveling to the U.S. alone. Some recent detainees are infants, taken from their mothers. “The shelters aren’t the problem, it’s taking kids from their parents that’s the problem,” said Dr. Marsha Griffin, a South Texas pediatrician who has visited many of the shelters. Other migrant children have been sent elsewhere. The largest foster agency handling young migrant children in the U.S. is Bethany Christian Services, whose 99 available foster beds in Michigan and Maryland are filled. The group’s chief executive officer, Chris Palusky, said the youngest child separated from parents at the border is 8 https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants Page 5 of 17 months old. The average age of children in the organization’s care dropped from 14 to 7 years old in recent weeks, after the zero tolerance policy was adopted, Palusky said. The youngest children, he said, are shell-shocked — crying themselves to sleep. “Then they wake up from their naps and again they’re crying for their mom, asking: ‘Where’s my dad?’ ” he said. “They absolutely need their parents right now.” Decades of study show early separations can cause permanent emotional damage, said Alicia Lieberman, who runs the Early Trauma Treatment Network at University of California, San Francisco. “Children are biologically programmed to grow best in the care of a parent figure. When that bond is broken through long and unexpected separations with no set timeline for reunion, children respond at the deepest physiological and emotional levels,” Lieberman said. “Their fear triggers a flood of stress hormones that disrupt neural circuits in the brain, create high levels of anxiety, make them more susceptible to physical and emotional illness, and damage their capacity to manage their emotions, trust people, and focus their attention on age-appropriate activities,” she added. Parents separated from their children say when they’re able to talk with their kids, their pain is evident. Beata Mariana de Jesus Mejia-Mejia’s 7-year-old son, Darwin, was taken from her a month ago, two days after they crossed the border seeking asylum. “I only got to talk to him once, and he sounded so sad. My son never used to sound like that, he was such a dynamic boy,” said the immigrant from Guatemala. She said that https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants Page 6 of 17 during the call, an official with her son told her Darwin was “fine,” but she said she could hear son cry: “Mama! Mama! Mama!” She sued the Trump administration on Tuesday. Days after Sessions announced the zero-tolerance policy, the government issued a call for proposals from shelter and foster-care providers to provide services for the new influx of children taken from their families after journeying from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico. As children are separated from their families, law enforcement agents reclassify them from members of family units to “unaccompanied alien children.” Federal officials said Tuesday that since May, they have separated 2,342 children from their families, rendering them unaccompanied minors in the government’s care. While Mexico is still the most common country of origin for families arrested at the border, in the last eight months Honduras has become the fastest-growing category as compared to fiscal year 2017. At a press briefing Tuesday, reporters repeatedly asked for an age breakdown of the children who have been taken. Officials from both law enforcement and Health and Human Services said they didn’t know how many children were under age 5, under age 2, or even so little they’re non-verbal. “The facilities that they have for the most part are not licensed for tender age children,” said Michelle Brane, director of migrant rights at the Women’s Refugee Commission, who met with a 4-year-old girl in diapers in a warehouse in McAllen, Texas, where Border Patrol temporarily holds migrant families. “There is no model for how you house tons of little children in cots institutionally in our country. We don’t do orphanages, https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants Page 7 of 17 our child welfare has recognized that is an inappropriate setting for little children.” ___ Associated Press reporter Colleen Long contributed from New York. ___ See AP’s complete coverage of the debate over the Trump administration’s policy of family separation at the border: https://apnews.com/tag/Immigration More From AP by Taboola Lewandowski doubles down after comment about disabled child Maddow breaks down reading AP story on 'tender age' shelters All 5 first ladies speak out on family separations at border WHAT'S HAPPENING: Trump orders an end to family separations Ad Content Sponsored Links by Taboola These New SUVs May Make You Want to Trade Yours in Today - See For Yourself! Yahoo Search Clubbed Fingers; One Sign of NSCLC. Search Lung Cancer Treatments https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants Page 8 of 17 Lung Cancer Treatment | Sponsored Links This $89 Magic Air Cooler Is The Most Incredible Invention In 2018 CoolAir McKayla Maroney Is Completely Incredible Today KiwiReport Finally, A Calorie Burner You Can Eat Thermaspice supplement Twins Born In 2010 Grow up To Be Most Beautiful In The World Give It Love Ultra Luxury Senior Housing Comes To Olympia Senior Life | Sponsored Links 22 Best Retirement Jokes ThinkAdvisor https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants Page 9 of 17 Official: Hundreds of kids reunited with families since May McALLEN, Texas (AP) — About 500 of the more than 2,300 children separated from their families at the U.S.-Mexico border have been reunited since May, a senior Trump administration official said Thu... 2 hours ago GOP struggles to salvage immigration bill, postpones vote Today 'He cried and hugged me': Brazilian still separated from son 2 hours ago VIEW MORE AP NEWS THE ASSOCIATED PRESS MORE FROM AP FOLLOW AP About About Us AP Images Terms and Conditions Products and Services AP Archives Privacy Media Center AP Video Hub Company Contact Us Careers All contents © copyright 2018 Associated Press. All rights reserved. https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e Page 10 of 17 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e Page 11 of 17 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e Page 12 of 17 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e Page 13 of 17 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e Page 14 of 17 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e Page 15 of 17 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e Page 16 of 17 6/21/2018 At least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e Page 17 of 17 6/21/2018               Exhibit 92 Key Facts About Washington Public Schools Page 1 of 3 Home | Certification | Offices & Programs | Learning & Teaching | Assessment | Finance & iGrants | Data & Reports | Website Accessibility About OSPI State Superintendent Key Facts About Washington Public Schools Last updated 9/2016 Superintendent Reykdal’s First Year Leadership Contact Us OSPI Driving Directions P-12 ENROLLMENT (headcount as of October 1, 2015) (Source: http://www.k12.wa.us/DataAdmin/default.aspx) see “State Level,” “District Level” and “School Level” files. Data typically available in December. 1,088,959 Number 15,714 Percent 1.4 79,450 47,943 7.3 4.4 Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 243,582 11,192 22.4 1.0 White Two or more races 610,601 80,427 56.1 7.4 50 1,088,959 0.0 100.0 Male 561,532 51.6 Female 527,427 48.4 Asian Black/African American Not provided Total 1. Read with comprehension, write effectively, and communicate Total Student Enrollment Category American Indian/Alaskan Native State Learning Goals Total districts 295 + 6 charter schools* + 12 additional jurisdictions (Bates Technical College; Educational Service Districts; Office of the Governor; and Washington Center for Childhood Deafness and Hearing Loss) *In December 2015 the charter schools contracted with Mary Walker School District to provide Alternative Learning Experiences to their students. Largest district Seattle (King County) – 53,317 students successfully in a variety of ways and settings and with a variety of audiences; 2. Know and apply the core concepts and principles of mathematics; social, physical, and life sciences; civics and history, including different cultures and participation in representative government; geography; arts; and health and fitness; 3. Think analytically, logically, and creatively, and to integrate technology literacy and fluency as well as different experiences and knowledge to form Smallest district Stehekin (Chelan County) – 4 students reasoned judgments and solve problems; Largest school Chiawana High School (Pasco School District) – 2,626 students PERSONNEL (2015-16 full-time equivalents) and 4. Understand the importance of work and finance and how Source: OSPI research. Data typically available in November. performance, effort, and decisions Total Classroom Teachers 64,323 directly affect future career and Teacher demographics Category educational opportunities. Number Percent American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian 461 1,671 0.7% 2.6 Black/African American Hispanic/Latino 800 2,456 1.2 3.8 134 57,841 0.2 89.9 1,937 23 1.5 0.0 64,323 100.0 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander White Two or more races Not provided Total http://www.k12.wa.us/AboutUs/KeyFacts.aspx Updated 2011 6/21/2018 Key Facts About Washington Public Schools Page 2 of 3 Male Female 17,532 46,791 27.3 72.7 Elementary teachers 31,881 Secondary teachers 24,982 Classified staff (aides, laborers, service workers, etc.) 37,029 FUNDING Sources: Financial Reporting Summary, 2014-2015 – Section One: Statewide Average Financial Tables and Charts. Revenues, Table Two (page 3); expenditures, Table Three (page 4). Final data typically available in July. For state and basic and education spending: Legislative Evaluation & Accountability Program, 2015-17 Omnibus Operating Budget Overview (page 277). Data typically available after passage of biennial operating budget. Per pupil expenditures (2014-15) $10,747.21 Per pupil revenues, by source (2014-15) Source Amount State Local Taxes Percent $7,505 2,453 68.6 22.4 855 124 7.8 1.1 10,937 100.0 Federal Other Revenues Total Percentages do not equal 100.0 because of rounding. State spending (2015-17 biennium, with 2016 supplement)* $18.16 billion Basic education programs* (in billions of dollars) General Apportionment $13.24 Special Education Student transportation $1.73 $0.93 Levy equalization Learning Assistance Program $0.73 $0.45 Compensation adjustment Education reform $0.42 $0.24 Transitional Bilingual Other public schools $0.24 $0.16 Numbers do not equal total state spending because of rounding. *Near General Fund-State and Opportunity Pathways Funds Per-pupil spending, adjusted for regional cost differences, by state, 2013 Source: Editorial Projects in Education, Quality Counts, Table 29 (Subscription needed). Data available in January. 1. Vermont 2. Alaska $18,853 18,565 3. New York 17,291 US Average 39. Washington 11,667 9,246 Updated 10/3/2016 Quick Links Office of System and School Improvement (OSSI) Getting Career and College Ready School Safety Center http://www.k12.wa.us/AboutUs/KeyFacts.aspx Resources for Families Resources for Educators State Learning Standards Getting My Certification Offices and Programs Clock Hours 6/21/2018 Key Facts About Washington Public Schools Page 3 of 3 State Report Card | Data and K-12 Education Graduation Requirements K-12 Salary Allocation Reports Career Guidance State Testing Schedule Every Student Succeeds Act Career & Technical Education Understanding Learning K-12 Employment (ESSA) Dual Credit Programs Standards and Assessments Opportunies Offices and Programs | Advanced Placement Equity and Civil Rights Common School Manual Bulletins School Safety Center Education Data System (EDS) Districts/Schools: Maps & School Breaks iGrants Websites | Directory Education Awards Jobs at OSPI | Contracts Public records | Rule-making | Laws & Regulations Old Capitol Building, PO Box 47200, 600 Washington St. S.E., Olympia, WA Contact Us | Site Info http://www.k12.wa.us/AboutUs/KeyFacts.aspx | Staff Only 98504-7200 | 360-725-6000 TTY 360-664-3631 Privacy Policy 6/21/2018               Exhibit 93 Facts and Data | Office of Refugee Resettlement | ACF Page 1 of 2 Facts and Data General Statistics Data provided by fiscal year (October 1 – September 30) Age | Country of Origin | Gender | Home Studies and Post-Release Services | Length of Stay | Referrals | Release to Sponsors Age Age breakdown of unaccompanied alien children by fiscal year (October 1 – September 30) AGE FY2017 FY2016 FY2015 FY2014 FY2013 FY2012 0-12 17% 18% 17% 21% 14% 11% 13-14 13% 14% 14% 16% 13% 11% 15-16 37% 37% 38% 36% 40% 39% 17 32% 31% 30% 27% 34% 38% Country of Origin The top three countries of origin shifted slightly from FY2014, with the highest percentage of children in FY2015 coming from Guatemala, followed closely by El Salvador and Honduras. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN FY2017 FY2016 FY2015 FY2014 FY2013 FY2012 HONDURAS 23% 21% 17% 34% 30% 27% GUATEMALA 45% 40% 45% 32% 37% 34% EL SALVADOR 27% 34% 29% 29% 26% 27% MEXICO <3% 3% 6% <2% 3% 8% 3% 2% 3% <3% 5% 4% ALL OTHER COUNTRIES Gender The demographic breakdown in FY15 changed slightly from FY14 to reflect an increase in male UAC arrivals and decrease in female UAC arrivals. YEAR MALES FEMALES FY2017 68% 32% FY2016 67% 33% FY2015 68% 32% FY2014 66% 34% FY2013 73% 27% FY2012 77% 23% Home Studies and Post-Release Services Number of home studies conducted by ORR and number of unaccompanied alien children served by post-release services (PRS). YEAR HOME STUDIES UAC SERVED BY PRS FY2017 3,173 13,381 FY2016 3,540 10,546 FY2015 1,895 8,618 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/about/ucs/facts-and-data 6/21/2018               Exhibit 94 Profiles of Boston's Latinos The BPDA Research Division presents profiles of the seven largest Latino groups in Boston: Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Salvadorans, Colombians, Mexicans, Guatemalans, and Brazilians. These profiles supplement the report "Powering Greater Boston's Economy: Why the Latino Community is Critical to our Shared Future" prepared by the BPDA Research Division and Boston Indicators in June 2017. The Boston Planning & Development Agency We strive to understand the current environment of the city to produce quality research and targeted information that will inform and benefit the residents and businesses of Boston. Our Division conducts research on Boston’s economy, population, and commercial markets for all departments of the BPDA, the City of Boston, and related organizations. The information provided in this report is the best available at the time of its publication. All or partial use of this report must be cited. Citation Please cite this publication as: Boston Planning & Development Agency Research Division, June 2017 Information For more information about research produced by the Boston Planning & Development Agency, please see the BPDA Research website: http://www.bostonplans.org/research-maps/research/ research-publications Requests Research inquiries can be made through the BPDA research website: http://www.bostonplans.org/ research-maps/research/research-inquiries boston planning & development agency Director Alvaro Lima Deputy Director Jonathan Lee Research Manager Christina Kim Senior Researcher Economist Matthew Resseger Senior Researcher Demographer Phillip Granberry Research Division Research Associate Kevin Kang Research Assistants Kevin Wandrei Avanti Krovi Interns Ian Whitney Juan Rodriguez Cyan O’Garro Data Notes Unless otherwise noted data for this report come from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), BPDA Research Division Analysis. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding. “Latino” includes people who 1. self-describe their ethnicity as “Hispanic or Latino”, or 2. were born in Brazil, or 3. who self-describe their ancestry as Brazilian. Puerto Ricans bpda in Boston August 3, 2014 - Mayor Martin Walsh delivers remarks to celebrants at the 47th Annual Puerto Rican Pride Festival at City Hall Plaza. (Mayor's Office photo by Don Harney) After the Spanish-American War in 1898, the United States gained control over the island of Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory. The Jones Act of 1917 granted residents of the island U.S. citizenship. From 1898 to 1945 an estimated 90,000 Puerto Ricans migrated to the continental United States, and settled primarily in New York City. From the end of World War II into the 1950s Puerto Rican migration increased, and seasonal agricultural workers arrived in the Connecticut River Valley. Puerto Ricans first settled in Springfield and Holyoke before arriving in Boston. By the 1960s Parcel 19 in the South End was home to approximately 1,500 Puerto Ricans, and the area was slated as an urban renewal project. The neighborhood organized the efforts of Inquilinos Boricuas en Acción (IBA) and became the developer of what is today Villa Victoria, an affordable housing community. Puerto Rico has recently experienced increased out-migration to the continental United States due to stagnant economic growth and an ongoing debt crisis. The population of Puerto Rico declined from 3.7 million in 2010 to 3.4 million in 2016.1 In 2015, 5.3 million Puerto Ricans resided in the continental United States.2 With an estimated 317,142 Puerto Ricans residing in Massachusetts, the state has the fifth largest Puerto Rican population behind New York, Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Boston residents make up 12 percent of Puerto Rican population in Massachusetts. I Puerto Ricans by State Other, 31 % Connecticut, 5% Massachusetts, 6% Pennsylvania, 8% 1 2 New Jersey, 9% U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 & 2016 Annual Population Estimate, BPDA Research Division Analysis U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 1-year American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 3 | bostonplans.org Puerto Ricans in Boston According to the 2010 Census, Boston was home to 30,506 Puerto Ricans, up slightly from 28,211 in the 2000 Census. The American Community Survey suggests that their population had grown by 2015 to 37,324 (+/-5,057).3 Puerto Ricans are the largest Latino population in the city and make up 28 percent of all Latinos in Boston. Other large Latino populations in Boston include Dominicans (24 percent), Salvadorans (11 percent), Colombians (6 percent), and Mexicans (5 percent). Puerto Ricans can be found in all neighborhoods of Boston, but greater shares live in Dorchester (22 percent), Roxbury (17 percent), and Hyde Park (11 percent).4 Puerto Ricans’ median age is 27 years, younger than both other Latinos (28) and non-Latinos (32). Over a third of Puerto Ricans are under age 20. Puerto Ricans are evenly split between males and females. Perhaps due to their young age, 63 percent of Puerto Ricans have never married. The majority of Puerto Ricans were born in the continental United States (61 percent), and 37 percent were born in Puerto Rico. Because Puerto Ricans born in Puerto Rico gain U.S. citizenship at birth, less than one percent are noncitizens. Almost 77 percent of Puerto Ricans speak Spanish at home and almost 72 percent speak English very well. Among younger Puerto Ricans under age 35, 86 percent speak English very well. I Age 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Puerto Rican Other Latino Non-Latino 19.0% 11.6% a 0-19 • 20-34 • 35-64 a 65+ 3 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 & 2010 Decennial Census, 2015 American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 4 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 4 | Latinos In Boston 28% of Boston’s Latinos are Puerto Rican I Marital Status (ages 15 and older) 100% 80% 62.9% 60% 40% 20% 0% - 20.0% 28.3% 29.7% -17.1% Married 56.2% 14.1% Widowed/Dive reed/Se pa rated • Puerto Rican I 18.0% 53.7% • Other Latino Never married • Non-Latino Citizenship 100% 80% 75.0% 61.3% 60% 37.4% 37.4% 40% 2 3 1. % 12.2% 20% 2.5% 1.4% 0.5% - 0% Born in U.S. territory or abroad to U.S. parents Born in U.S. • Puerto Rican I 0.8% Naturalized U.S. citizen • Other Latino 11.4% Not U.S. citizen • Non-Latino English Proficiency 100% 80% 60% 88.5% 71.7% 53.7% 40% -13.7% 20% 0% English very well • Puerto Rican 16.9% English well • Other Latino 5.4% - 14.7% 29.3% 6.1% Not well or not at all • Non-Latino 5 | bostonplans.org Workforce I Educational Attainment (ages 25 and older) 60% 49.9% 50% 40% 32.7% 33.2% 34.1% 30% 22.9% 20% 22.2% 18.4% 18.4% • 10.2% 10% 0% Less than high school High school or equivalence • Puerto Rican • Other Latino Some college Bachelor's or higher • Non-Latino Educational Attainment | Similar to other Latinos, approximately one third of adult Puerto Ricans have not completed high school. Only 10 percent of Puerto Rican adults have a Bachelor’s or graduate degree, much lower than the 50 percent share for non-Latino adults. School Enrollment | Puerto Ricans make up 10 percent of Boston residents enrolled in pre -kindergarten through twelfth grade, but only 3 percent of Boston residents enrolled in college or university. Labor Force Participation | A lower share (57 percent) of Puerto Ricans age 16 and over participate in the labor force than other Latinos (71 percent) and non-Latinos (68 percent). Labor force participation is higher for Puerto Rican men than women (59 percent vs. 55 percent). Employment | Over 14 percent of employed Puerto Ricans work for the government, a higher share than other groups. Nearly 30 percent of employed Puerto Ricans work in service occupations, and only 10 percent work in managerial and professional occupations. Commute | A smaller share of Puerto Ricans (26 percent) work outside of Suffolk County than other Latinos (30 percent) and non-Latinos (33 percent). Puerto Ricans (38 percent) are less likely to use public transportation to travel to work than other Latinos (45 percent) but more likely than non-Latinos (32 percent). 6 | Latinos In Boston 47% of Puerto Ricans are employed I Employment Type ages 16 and older) 100% 83.7% 87.7% 82.3% 80% 60% 40% - 14.3% 20% 0% For & non-profit salary • Puerto Rican I 6.4% 11.4% 2.0% 6.3% Self-Employed and unpaid family workers Government • Other Latino 5.9% • Non-Latino Occupations of Employed Workers 29.5% Service Office & Administrative Support __.. 15 2 · % Sales & Related 11.6% Constru ction, Maintenan ce & Transportation Managerial & Professional Healthcare Practitioners & Support Education, Training, & Library Production Community & Social Service Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports & Media Other ._ 2.9% ::r- r 22 · % • 20 · % I 0 ·2% 0% • Puerto Rican 5% 10% 15% • Other Latino 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% • Non-Latino 7 | bostonplans.org Standard of Living Almost 46 percent of Puerto Ricans live below the Census poverty line, a much higher rate than other groups. Only 15 percent of Puerto Ricans have achieved a middle class standard of living, compared to 20 percent for other Latinos and 46 percent for non-Latinos. A family income four times the poverty line is used as a proxy for a middle-class standard of living. The actual income needed to achieve this standard depends on family composition. For a two-person family in 2015, the poverty line is about $15,391, and a middle class income would be $61,564. The median household income for Puerto Rican-headed households is only $18,423. Despite their low income, 95 percent of Puerto Ricans have health insurance, a higher share than other Latinos. Puerto Ricans are less likely to own their home (13 percent) than other Latinos (18 percent) and non-Latinos (37 percent).5 Over 56 percent of Puerto Rican households are housing burdened and pay more than 30 percent of their income in housing costs, a higher housing burden rate than other groups. Just 54 percent of Puerto Rican households own a car, a lower share than other Latinos (59 percent) or non-Latinos (66 percent). Approximately 59 percent of Puerto Rican households are families and the average household size is 2.5, larger than the average for non-Latinos, 2.1. I Individual Poverty Rates 0% 20% Puerto Rican 60% 80% 45.7% Other Latino Non-Latino 40% 100% 15.1% 28.8% 20.4% 46.0% 17.6% • Below Pov erty Line • 100-199% • 200-399% • 400%+ Percent of Poverty Line 5 The ACS excludes households that are vacant, being bought, occupied without rent payment, have no household income or are group quarters when reporting owner/renter costs as a percentage of household income. Therefore, the sum of housing– burdened and non-housing-burdened households may not add exactly to the total number of homeowners/renters. 8 | Latinos In Boston 46% of Puerto Ricans in Boston live in poverty I Median Household Income $34,544 $61,080 • Puerto Rican I • Non-Latino Tenure and Housing Burden Puerto Rican 35.7% Other Latino 7.9~ 37.6% Non-Latino 9.6% . i!Ffi 26.6% 31.7% • Not-rent burdened I • Other Latino • Rent burdened Not-mortgage burdened • Mortgage burdened Household Type 100% 80% 60% 59.0% 66.3% 45.0% 40% 39.2% 34.3% 23.2% --0 6.7% 10.5% 20% 0% Family household • Puerto Rican Living alone • Other Latino 15.8% Non-related household • Non-Latino 9 | bostonplans.org Puerto Rican Children The 2011-2015 American Community Survey estimates 10,710 Puerto Rican children reside in Boston. Similar to other Latino groups, 42 percent of Puerto Rican households include children, much higher than the 20 percent of non-Latino households that include children. Almost all Puerto Rican children and their parents are native-born U.S. citizens who were born either in the mainland U.S. or in Puerto Rico. However, 5 percent of Puerto Rican children have a foreignborn parent (a parent born outside of the U.S. or Puerto Rico). In contrast, 82 percent of other Latino children have a foreign-born parent. Puerto Rican children are likely to live in poverty (59 percent), but over 99 percent of Puerto Rican children have health insurance. I Parent Nativity Puerto Rican 95.1% Other Latino 18.4% Non-Latino I 56.8% • Only native-born • At least one foreign-born Child Poverty 70% 59.2% 60% 50% 40.6% 40% 24.3% 30% 20% 10% 0% Puerto Rican 10 | Latinos In Boston Other Latino Non-Latino Map of Puerto Ricans in Boston N + Q C) 0 Percentage of Total Population Puerto Rican by Census Tract 1111 Less than 2.2% ~ 2.3% - 5.3% 0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles I boston planning& development agency Source: 2011 -2015 American Community Survey BPDA Research Division Analysis 1111 5.4% - 9.8% 1111 9 % 15% .9 1111 15.1 -25.4% % 1111 No Household Population 11 | bostonplans.org Dominicans bpda in Boston August 14, 2016 - Scenes from the annual Dominican Parade on Boylston St. in Boston. (Mayor's Office Photo by Jeremiah Robinson) When the Dominican population in the United States started rapidly increasing in the 1980s, it was noted for having a circular migratory pattern with a transnational identity. As the Dominican population has developed a more permanent presence in the United States, its native-born population has increased to 45.9 percent in 2015. Dominicans first arrived in New York, Florida, and Massachusetts. Lawrence, which is over 40 percent Dominican, has a slightly larger Dominican population than Boston. One visible sign of Boston’s large Dominican population is its annual festival that started in 1985. Showing the increased presence of Dominicans in the city, the parade accompanying the festival moved to the streets of downtown Boston in 2015, and the festival is now held on City Hall Plaza every summer. In 2015, 1.9 million people with Dominican origin lived in the United States. 1 With an estimated 132,864 Dominicans residing in Massachusetts, the state accounts for 7 percent of all Dominicans in the country. Massachusetts has the fourth largest Dominican population behind New York (46 percent), New Jersey (15 percent), and Florida (11 percent). Boston residents make up 24 percent of the Dominican population of Massachusetts. I Dominicans by State and Territory Rhode Island, 3% Puerto Rico, 3% Pennsylvania, 5% New York, 46% Massachusetts, 7% 1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 1-year American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 3 | bostonplans.org Dominicans in Boston According to the 2010 Census, there were 25,648 Dominican residents of Boston, up from 15,066 in the 2000 Census. The American Community Survey suggests that Boston’s Dominican population had grown by 2015 to 32,126 (+/-5,116).2 Accounting for 24 percent of all Latinos in Boston, Dominicans are the second largest Latino population in the city. Other large Latino populations include Puerto Ricans (28 percent), Salvadorans (11 percent), Colombians (6 percent), and Mexicans (5 percent). Dominicans can be found in all neighborhoods of Boston, but greater shares of Dominicans live in Dorchester (22 percent), Roxbury (19 percent), and Jamaica Plain (13 percent).3 Dominicans’ median age is 26 years, younger than other Latinos (29) and non-Latinos (32). Over 36 percent of Dominicans are under age 20. Dominicans are predominately female (59 percent), and are less likely to be married than other groups. The majority of Dominicans are foreign born (58 percent), and 48 percent of the foreign-born Dominicans are naturalized U.S. citizens. Over 92 percent of Dominicans speak Spanish at home; 51 percent also speak English very well. Among younger Dominicans ages 5 to 34, the share who speak English very well is higher: 74 percent. I Age Distribution 0% 20% 40% 60% Dominican 80% 100% 6.9% Other Latino Non-Latino 11.6% a 0-1 9 a 20-34 a 35-64 a 65+ 2 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 & 2010 Decennial Census, 2015 American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 3 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 4 | Latinos In Boston 24% of Boston’s Latinos are Dominican I Marital Status (ages 15 and older) 100% 80% 54.3% 60% 40% 22.5% 29.7% 27.4% 23.2% 20% 0% Married • Other Latino Never Married • Non-Latino Citizenship 100% 75.0% 80% 60% 39.5% 46.7% 27.9% 40% 14.9% 20% ~ 0% - • Dominican 29.6% 26.9% -- 11.5% 12.2% 1.4% Born in U.S. territory or abroad to U.S. parents Born in U.S. I 56.2% 14.1% Widowed/Divorced/Separated • Dominican I -16.0% 56.6% Naturalized U.S. citizen • Other Latino - 11.4% Not U.S. citizen • Non-Latino English Proficiency (ages 5 and older) 100% 88.5% 80% 60% 51.4% 61.0% 40% -17.5% 20% 0% English very well • Dominican 31.1% 15.6% 5.4% Well • Other Latino 23.4% 6.1% Not well or not at all • Non-Latino 5 | bostonplans.org Workforce I Educational Attainment (ages 25 and older) 60% 49.9% 50% 40% 34.5% 32.6% 27.7% 28.4% 30% 25.4% 20.0% 20% 17.7% 18.4% 10% 0% Less than high school High school or equivalence • Dominican • Other Latino Some college Bachelor's or higher • Non-Latino Educational Attainment | Many Dominican adults have low levels of educational attainment. Almost 35 percent lack a high school education and only 12 percent have a Bachelor’s degree. School Enrollment | Dominicans make up 11 percent of Boston residents enrolled in prekindergarten through twelfth grade, but only 4 percent of Boston residents enrolled in college or university. Labor Force Participation | Almost 68 percent of Dominicans ages 16 and older participate in the labor force, similar to the rates for other groups. Labor force participation is higher for Dominican men than women (71 percent vs. 65 percent). Employment | Almost 90 percent of employed Dominicans work in private sector payroll jobs. Over 42 percent of employed Dominicans work in service occupations. In contrast, only 8 percent of Dominicans work in managerial and professional occupations. Commuting | A smaller share of Dominicans (27 percent) work outside of Suffolk County than other Latinos (30 percent) and non-Latinos (33 percent). Dominicans are more likely than non-Latinos to take public transportation to work (43 percent compared to 32 percent). Similar shares of Dominicans and non-Latinos (45 percent) travel to work in an automobile. 6 | Latinos In Boston 58% of Dominicans are employed I Employment Type (ages 16 and older) 100% 89.1% 86.2% 82.3% 80% 60% 40% 20% 8.6% 6.2% 0% For & non-profit salary 4.7% Government • Dominican I - 11.4% • Other Latino 5.2% 6.3% Self-employed and unpaid family workers • Non-Latino Occupations of Employed Workers 42.5% Service Office & Administrative Support _ . . . . lS.l% 11.3% Sales --Construction, Maintenance & Transportation Managerial & professional Healthcare practitioners & Support Production - 4.2% - . _2.9% ~ Education, Training, & Library Community & Social Service Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports & Media Other 11.1.7% I O.l% 0% • Dominican 5% 10% 15% 20% • Other Latino 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% • Non-Latino 7 | bostonplans.org Standard of Living Dominicans in Boston struggle economically. Over 40 percent of Dominicans live below the Census poverty line, and only 8 percent of Dominicans have achieved a middle class standard of living, compared to 23 percent for other Latinos and 46 percent for non-Latinos. A family income four times the poverty line is used as a proxy for a middle-class standard of living. The actual income needed to achieve this standard depends on family composition. For a two-person family in 2015, the poverty line is $15,391, and a middle class income would need to be at least $61,564. The median household income for Dominican-headed households is only $21,100. Despite their low income, 94 percent of Dominicans have health insurance. Dominicans are less likely to own their home (8 percent), than other Latinos (19 percent) and non-Latinos (37 percent).4 More than 52 percent of Dominican households are housing burdened and pay more than 30 percent of their income in housing costs, a higher housing burden rate than other groups. About 62 percent of Dominican households own a car, a higher share than other Latinos (56 percent), but lower than non-Latinos (66 percent). Approximately 75 percent of Dominican households are families and the average household size is 2.8 larger than the average for non-Latinos, 2.1. I Individual Poverty Rates 0% 20% Dominican Other Latino Non-Latino 40% 60% 80% 100% 8.4% 40.9% 30.7% 22.7% 17.6% • Below Poverty Line 46.0% • 100-199% • 200-399% • 400%+ Percent of Poverty Line 4 The ACS excludes households that are vacant, being bought, occupied without rent payment, have no household income or are group quarters when reporting owner/renter costs as a percentage of household income. Therefore, the sum of housing– burdened and non-housing-burdened households may not add exactly to the total number of homeowners/renters. 8 | Latinos In Boston 41% of Dominicans in Boston live in poverty I Median Household Income $35,457 $61,080 • Dominican I • Other Latino • Non-Lati no Tenure and Housing Burden Dominican 44.496 Other Latino 34.696 Non-Latino 11.196 1 • + 31.7% • Not-rent burdened I 4.3% 26.6% • Rent burdened Not-mortgage burdened iii+ • Mortgage burdened Household Type 100% 80% 74.5% 60.7% 60% 39.2% 40% • 20.7% 20% 0% Family household • Domincan 28.4% -4.8% Living alone • Other Latino 10 9% 15.8% 0 . Non-related household • Non-Latino 9 | bostonplans.org Dominican Children The 2011-2015 American Community Survey estimates 10,093 Dominican children reside in Boston. Almost 51 percent of Dominican households include children, a higher share than other Latinos (39 percent) and non-Latinos (20 percent). Even though 83 percent of Dominican children are native born, 83 percent of them have at least one foreign-born parent. Dominican children are more likely to live in poverty (52 percent), but over 99 percent of Dominican children in Boston have health insurance. I Parent Nativity Dominican 16.8% Other Latino 54.3% Non-Latino 56.8% • Only native-born I • At least one foreign-born Child Poverty 60% 52.2% 50% 44.1% 40% 30% 24.3% 20% 10% 0% Dominican 10 | Latinos In Boston Other Latino Non-Latino Map of Dominicans in Boston N + 0 C) 0 Percentage of Total Population Dominican by Census Tract 1111 Less than 1.7% ~ 1.8% -5% 1111 5.1 % - 9% 0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles 1111 9.1 % -15.8% boston planning & 1111 15.9% - 28.3% development agency Source: 2011 -2015 American Community Survey BPDA Research Division Analysis 1111 No Household Population 11 | bostonplans.org Salvadorans bpda in Boston Banda El Salvador at the 2013 Rose Parade in Pasadena, California. Photo by Prayitno Photography, retrieved from flickr.com/ photos/prayitnophotography (Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic). In the 1980s when Salvadoran population started rapidly increasing in the United States, it was related to people being displaced by a decade-long civil war. The U.S. Justice Department did not grant refugee status to Salvadorans, and many entered the country without visas. In response to these displaced persons fleeing from political violence and human rights violations in countries like El Salvador, and their having no legal immigration status in The United States, a collaboration of religious and immigrant organizations worked with cities like Cambridge to become “sanctuary cities.” Even though Los Angeles was the primary destination for Salvadorans during the Salvadoran civil war, sanctuary initiatives help explain the migration of Salvadorans to other parts of the country like Massachusetts. In 2015, 2.2 million people with Salvadoran origin lived in the United States.1 With an estimated 54,631 Salvadorans residing in Massachusetts, the state accounts for 2.5 percent of all Salvadorans in the country. Massachusetts has the eighth largest Salvadoran population. California (32.2 percent) and Texas (14.6 percent) are states with the largest Salvadoran populations. In the Northeast, New York (8.4 percent) and New Jersey (3.1 percent) have larger Salvadoran populations. Boston is home to 27 percent of the state’s Salvadoran population. I Salvadorans by State Other, 20% Virginia, 8% Maryland, 9% 1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 1-year American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 3 | bostonplans.org Salvadorans in Boston According to the 2010 Census, Boston had 10,850 Salvadoran residents, up from 6,067 in the 2000 Census. The American Community Survey reports that Boston’s Salvadoran population had grown by 2015 to 14,980 (+/-3,846).2 Accounting for 11 percent of all Latinos in Boston, Salvadorans are the third largest Latino population in the city. Other large Latino populations include Puerto Ricans (28 percent), Dominicans (24 percent), Colombians (6 percent), and Mexicans (5 percent). Salvadorans are concentrated in East Boston (87 percent), and smaller shares live in Dorchester (6 percent), and Roxbury (2 percent).3 Salvadorans’ median age is 30 years, older than other Latinos (27) but younger than nonLatinos (32). Unlike other groups, Salvadorans are predominately male (55 percent). A larger share of adult Salvadorans are married—36 percent. The majority of Salvadorans are foreign born (70.7 percent), and 62.3 percent are not U. S. citizens. Almost 97 percent of Salvadorans speak Spanish at home and only 28 percent speak English very well. A somewhat higher share of younger Salvadorans under age 35 speak English very well (46 percent). I Age Distribution 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Salvadoran Other Latino Non-Latino 11.6% • 0-1 9 • 20-34 • 35-64 • 65+ 2 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 1-year American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 3 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 4 | Latinos In Boston 11% of Boston’s Latinos are Salvadoran I Marital Status (ages 15 and older) 100% 80% 50.8% 60% 40% 36.3% 25.0% 29.7% --12.8% 20% 0% Married 56.2% 14.1% Widowed/Divorced/Separated • Salvadoran I 18.3% 56.7% • Other Latino Never Married • Non-Latino Citizenship 100% 75.0% 80% 62.3% 60% 40% 28.8% 13.1% 0.6% 1.4% 20% 0% Born in U.S. territory or abroad to U.S. parents Born in U.S. • Salvadoran I --- -~ 8.4% 16.6% 12.2% Naturalized U.S. citizen • Other Latino 23.5% Not U.S. citizen • Non-Latino English Proficiency (ages 5 and older) 100% 88.5% 80% 62.0% 54.8% 60% 40% 27.5% -17.6% 20% 0% English very well • Salvadoran 22.1% 15.9% 5.4% Well • Other Latino 6.1% Not well or not at all • Non-Latino 5 | bostonplans.org Workforce I Educational Attainment (ages 25 and older) 70% 62.7% 60% 49.9% 50% 40% 29.2% 29.0% 30% 22.2% 20% - 20.0% 11.7% 10% 0% Less than high school 21.1% 18.4% - High school or equivalence • Salvadoran • Other Latino - 7.9% 7.2% Some college Bachelor's or higher • Non-Latino Educational Attainment | Salvadorans have a low level of educational attainment. Approximately two thirds of adult Salvadorans have not completed high school, and only 8 percent have a Bachelor’s degree or higher. School Enrollment | Salvadorans make up 3 percent of Boston residents enrolled in prekindergarten through twelfth grade, but less than a third of a percent of Boston residents enrolled in college or university. Labor Force Participation | A higher share of adult Salvadorans (79 percent) participate in the labor force than other Latinos (66 percent) and non-Latinos (68 percent). Labor force participation is higher for Salvadoran men than women (84 percent vs. 73 percent). Employment | Over 92 percent of employed Salvadorans work in private sector payroll jobs, with only 3 percent being self-employed. Nearly 55 percent of employed Salvadorans work in service occupations, and only 5 percent work in managerial and professional occupations. Commute | A larger share of Salvadorans (35 percent) work outside of Suffolk County than other Latinos (29 percent) and non-Latinos (33 percent). Salvadorans are much more likely to travel to work on public transportation—59 percent compared to 42 percent for other Latinos and 32 percent for non-Latinos. 6 | Latinos In Boston 72% of Salvadorans are employed I Employment Type (ages 16 and older) 100% 92.2% 86.1% 82.3% 80% 60% 40% 20% 8.5% 4.4% 0% For & non-profit salary Government • Salvadoran I - 11.4% • Other Latino 3.4% 5.3% 6.3% Self-employed and upaid family workers • Non-Latino Occupations of Employed Workers 54.8% Service 15.7% Construction, Maintenance & Transportation Production Office & Administrative Support ~ - 77 . % 6.4% - - Sales Managerial & Professional 4.8% - -- - - - - - - Education, Training, & Library Other 1 1. 2% Healthcare Practitioners & Support Community & Social Service Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports & Media 0% • Salvadoran 10% • Other Latino 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% • Non-Latino 7 | bostonplans.org Standard of Living Despite their low levels of educational attainment and English proficiency a lower share of Salvadorans live below the Census poverty line than other Latinos. However, only 13 percent of Salvadorans have achieved a middle class standard of living, compared to 20 percent for other Latinos and 46 percent for non-Latinos. A family income four times the poverty line is used as a proxy for a middle-class standard of living. The actual income needed to achieve this standard depends on family composition. For a two-person family in 2015, the poverty line is $15,391, and a middle class income would need to be at least $61,564. The median household income for Salvadoran-headed households is $54,728. Despite median incomes that may be considered lower middle class and their high share of payroll employment, 14 percent of Salvadorans lack health insurance. Salvadorans are more likely to own their home own home (23 percent), than other Latinos (16 percent) but less likely than non-Latinos (37 percent).4 More than 52 percent of Salvadoranheaded households are housing burdened and who pay more than 30 percent of their income in housing costs, a similar housing burden rate to other Latinos. Almost 63 percent of Salvadoran households own a car, a higher share than other Latinos (57 percent). Most Salvadoran households are families (80 percent) and the average household size is 3.9, much large than the average for non-Latinos, 2.1. I Poverty Rates 0% Salvadoran 20% 60% 17.6% 100% 13.4% 34.5% • Below Poverty Line • 100-199% • 200-399% Percent of Poverty Line 4 80% 23.4% Other Latino Non-Latino 40% 19.7% 46.0% • 400%+ The ACS excludes households that are vacant, being bought, occupied without rent payment, have no household income or are group quarters when reporting owner/renter costs as a percentage of household income. Therefore, the sum of housing– burdened and non-housing-burdened households may not add exactly to the total number of homeowners/renters. 8 | Latinos In Boston 23% of Salvadorans in Boston live in poverty I Median Household Income $61,080 • Salvadoran I • Other Latino • Non-Latino Tenure and Housing Burden Salvadoran 37.0% Other Latino 37.1% Non-Latino 9.0% . 31.7% • Not-rent burdened I 10.296 - • Rent burdened 26.6% Not-mortgage burdened Ill • Mortgage burdened Household Type 100% 80% 60% 80.7% 62.8% 45.0% 40% 20% 39.2% - 28.0% --- 11.1% 9.2% 15.8% 8.2% 0% Family household • Salvadoran Living alone • Other Latino Non-related household • Non-Latino 9 | bostonplans.org Salvadoran Children The 2011-2015 American Community Survey estimates 3,570 Salvadoran children reside in Boston. A high share of Salvadoran households include children—58 percent compared to 20 percent of non-Latino households. Even though 86 percent of Salvadoran children are native born, 95 percent of them have at least one foreign-born parent. Salvadoran children are less likely to live in poverty than other Latinos, and over 99 percent of Salvadoran children in Boston have health insurance. I Parent Nativity . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Salvadoran 4 ' ' Other Latino 47.796 Non-Latino 56.896 • Only native-born I • At least one foreign-born Child Poverty 60% 47.8% 50% 40% 35.4% 30% 24.3% 20% 10% 0% Salvadoran 10 | Latinos In Boston Other Latino Non-Latino Map of Salvadorans in Boston N + 0 C) ay South End 0 Roxbury Dorchester West Roxbury Roslindale Mattapan Percentage of Total Population Salvadoran by Census Tract 1111 Less than 0.6% ~ 0.7% -2.3% 1111 2.4% - 7.2% 0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles 1111 7.3% -17.1 % I boston planning & 1111 17.2% - 40% development agency Source: 2011 -2015 American Community Survey No Household Population BPDA Research Division Analysis 1111 11 | bostonplans.org Colombians bpda in Boston Vivian Gutierrez de Pineres, a U.S. Air Guard recruit originally from Colombia, takes the Oath of Allegiance to the United States on July 20, 2016 in Tucson, Arizona, making her a naturalized citizen (U.S. Air Force Photo by Maj. Gabe Johnson, ANG Public Affairs). Even though Colombians migrated to the United States throughout the 20th century, their migration intensified during certain periods due to changing conditions in the country. In the 1950s, migration increased due to a civil war; in the 1980s, due to drug-related violence; and in the mid-1990s, due to collapsing of social institutions. The 1980s migration was from more rural areas, and the 1990s migration was from more urban areas and consisted of more professionals. As a result, the Colombian population in the United States represents diverse segments of the country’s population. In 2015, 1.1 million people with Colombian origin lived in the United States.1 With an estimated 33,492 Colombians residing in Massachusetts, the state accounts for 3.1 percent of all Colombians in the country. Massachusetts has the seventh largest Colombian population. Florida (32.1 percent) and New York (14.9 percent) are states with the largest Colombian populations. In the Northeast, in addition to New York, New Jersey (10.0 percent) has a large Colombian population. Boston is home to 25 percent of Massachusetts’ Colombian population. I Colombians by State Florida, 32% Texas, 6% California, 7% 1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 1-year American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 3 | bostonplans.org Colombians in Boston According to the 2010 Census, Boston had 6,649 Colombian residents, up from 4,677 in the 2000 Census. The American Community Survey reports that Boston’s Colombian population grew by 2015 to 8,440 (+/-2,676).2 Accounting for 6 percent of all Latinos in Boston, Colombians are the fourth largest Latino population in the city. Other large Latino populations include Puerto Ricans (28 percent), Dominicans (24 percent), Salvadorans (11 percent), and Mexicans (5 percent). Colombians are concentrated in East Boston (61 percent), and smaller shares live in Brighton (4 percent), Dorchester (4 percent), and Hyde Park (4 percent).3 Colombians’ median age of 33 years is older than both other Latinos (27) and non-Latinos (32). Colombians are predominately male (52 percent) compared to other Latinos and non-Latinos, both 48 percent. A higher share of Colombians are married—32 percent. The majority are foreign born (76 percent), and only 34 percent of foreign-born Colombians are naturalized citizens. Nearly 90 percent of Colombians speak Spanish at home, and only 45 percent speak English very well. Among younger Colombians under age 35, 68 percent speak English very well. I Age Distribution 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Colombian Other Latino Non-Latino 11.6% • 0-19 • 20-34 • 35-64 • 65+ 2 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 1-year American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 3 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 4 | Latinos In Boston 6% of Boston’s Latinos are Colombian I Marital Status (ages 15 and older) 100% 80% 56.8% 60% 40% 31.9% 25.7% 29.7% 21.4% 20% 0% Married -17.5% 14.1% Widowed/Divorced/Separated • Colombian I 56.2% 46.7% • Other Latino Never Married • Non-Latino Citizenship 100% 75.0% 80% 49.6% 60% 40% 20% 0% 25.9% - 22.1% Born in U.S. Born in U.S. territory or abroad to U.S. parents • Colombian I 26.0% -- 15.0% 12.2% 12.5% 2.4% 1.4% Naturalized U.S. citizen • Other Latino - 11.4% Not U.S. citizen • Non-Latino English Proficiency (ages 5 and older) 100% 88.5% 80% 60% 59.5% 44.9% 37.0% 40% -18.1% 20% 0% English very well • Colombian 24.5% 15.9% 5.4% Well • Other Latino 6.1% Not well or not at all • Non-Latino 5 | bostonplans.org Workforce I Educational Attainment (ages 25 and older) 60% 49.9% 50% 40% 33.9% 30% 20.0% 20% 15.3% 19.9% 18.4% 10% 0% Less than high school High school or equivalence • Colombian • Other Latino Some college Bachelor's or higher • Non-Latino Educational Attainment | The educational attainment of Colombians varies widely among individuals. About a quarter of adult Colombians have not completed high school, but another quarter of adult Colombians have a Bachelor’s degree or higher. School Enrollment | Colombians make up about one percent of both Boston residents enrolled in pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade, and Boston residents enrolled in college or university. Labor Force Participation | A much higher share of adult Colombians participate in the labor force—80 percent compared to 66 percent for other Latinos (66 percent) and 68 percent for non-Latinos. Labor force participation is higher for Colombian men than women (82 percent vs. 78 percent). Employment | About 8 percent of employed Colombians are self-employed, a higher share than other groups. Over 57 percent of employed Colombians work in service occupations, and only 8 percent work in managerial and professional occupations. Commute | A smaller share of Colombians (28 percent) work outside of Suffolk County than other Latinos (30 percent) and non-Latinos (33 percent). Colombians (56 percent) are more likely to travel to work by public transportation than other Latinos (43 percent) or non-Latinos (32 percent). 6 | Latinos In Boston 76% of Colombians are employed I Employment Type ages 16 and older) 100% 84.4% 87.1% 82.3% 80% 60% 40% 20% - 11.4% 8.1% 7.6% 0% For & non-profit salary Government • Colombian I 8.0% • Other Latino 6.3% 4.8% Self-employed and unpaid family workers • Non-Latino Occupations of Employed Workers 57.2% Service Healthcare Practitioners & Support . . . . 99 . % Managerial & Professional Education, Training, & Library . . G.l% Construction, Maintenance & Transportation ~ ~ Sales Office & Administrative Support Production ~ 3.0% Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports & Media 1 1.7% Community & Social Service I. 1.0% Other I O% 0% • Colombian 10% • Other Latino 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% • Non-Latino 7 | bostonplans.org Standard of Living Approximately 22 percent of Colombians live below the Census poverty line, a lower share compared to other Latinos. Only 26 percent of Colombians have achieved a middle class standard of living. A family income four times the poverty line is used as a proxy for a middle-class standard of living. The actual income needed to achieve this standard depends on family composition. For a two-person family in 2015, the poverty line is $15,391, and a middle class income would need to be at least $61,564. The median household income for Colombian-headed households is $48,903. Despite median incomes that may be considered lower middle class, a high share (14 percent) of Colombians do not have health insurance, perhaps because of the high rate of selfemployment. Colombians are less likely to own their own home (13 percent), than other Latinos (17percent) and non-Latinos (37 percent).4 More than half of Colombian households (53 percent) are housing burdened and pay more than 30 percent of their income in housing costs. Just 46 percent of Colombian households own a car, a lower share than other Latinos (58 percent) and non-Latinos (66 percent). Approximately 57 percent of Colombian households are families and the average household size is 2.7, larger than the average for non-Latinos, 2.1. I Poverty Rates 0% Colombian 20% 60% 80% 22.2% Other Latino Non-Latino 40% 25.6% 34.1% 18.5% 46.0% 17.6% • Below Poverty Line 100% • 100-199% • 200-399% • 400%+ Percent of Poverty Line 4 The ACS excludes households that are vacant, being bought, occupied without rent payment, have no household income or are group quarters when reporting owner/renter costs as a percentage of household income. Therefore, the sum of housing– burdened and non-housing-burdened households may not add exactly to the total number of homeowners/renters. 8 | Latinos In Boston 22% of Colombians in Boston live in poverty I Median Household Income $61,080 • Colombian I • Non-Latino Tenure and Housing Burden Colombian 42.1% Other Latino 36.7% Non-Latino 9.4% . 31 .7% • Not-rent burdened I • Other Latino • Rent burdened 26.6% Not-mortgage burdened .. • Mortgage burdened Household Type 100% 80% 60% 57.4% 64.7% 45.0% 40% 39.2% 26.6% 26.4% --16.0% 20% 0% Family household a Colombian Living alone • Other Latino 8.8% 15.8% Non-related household • Non-Latino 9 | bostonplans.org Colombian Children The 2011-2015 American Community Survey estimates 1,345 Colombian children reside in Boston. A smaller share of Colombian households include children compared to other Latinos– 31 percent compared to 43 percent. Even though 78 percent of Colombian children are native born, 83 percent have at least one foreign-born parent. Colombian children are less likely to live in poverty (34 percent), and over 99 percent of Colombian children have health insurance. I Parent Nativity Colombian 17.396 Other Latino 44.296 Non-Latino 56.896 • Only native-born I • At least one foreign-born Child Poverty 47.0% 50% 40% 34.4% 30% 24.3% 20% 10% 0% Colombian 10 | Latinos In Boston Other Latino Non-Latino Map of Colombians in Boston N + 0 C) 0 Dorchester Roslindale Mattapan Percentage of Total Population Colombian by Census Tract 1111 Less than 0.5% ~ 0.6% -1.8% 0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles boston planning & development agency Source: 2011 -2015American Community Survey BPDA Research Division Analysis 1111 1.9% 4.4% 1111 4.5% - 10.4% 1111 10.5% - 19.4% IIII No Household Population 11 | bostonplans.org Mexicans bpda in Boston Mexican and American flags are held high during an immigration protest in Washington, DC on March 26, 2006. Phot by Narith5, retrieved from flickr.com/photos/naritheole (Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic). Due to an economic crisis that hit Mexico in the early 1980s followed by implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990s, the Mexican-origin population in the United States ballooned from 9 million to nearly 32 million between 1980 and 2010. The Mexicanborn population increased fivefold during this period, from 2.2 million to 11.5 million. Prior to 1990, the Mexican population in the United States frequently returned to Mexico and thus remained in Southwestern states. With the change in U.S. immigration policy in 1986 that increased border control, the Mexican population in the United States limited their return trips to Mexico and expanded their U.S. residency beyond the Southwest. As the demand for Mexican labor in the United States changed from primarily agricultural labor to services, more Mexican women began arriving and greater shares of Mexicans moved to U.S. cities. These trends help explain the four-fold increase of Mexicans in Boston since 1980. In 2015, 35.8 million people with Mexican origin lived in the United States. 1 California (35 percent) and Texas (26 percent) are states with large Mexican populations. By comparison, New York has 1 percent of the U.S. Mexican population. Massachusetts ranks 38th in its share of Mexicans with 50,586 Mexican residents. Boston has 14 percent of the Mexican population of Massachusetts. I Mexicans by State Colorado, 2% Illinois, 5% Arizona, 5% 1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 1-year American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 3 | bostonplans.org Mexicans in Boston According to the 2010 Census, Boston was home to 5,961 Mexicans, up from 4,967 in the 2000 Census. The American Community Survey report that Boston’s Mexican population grew by 2015 to 6,834 (+/-1,745).2 Mexicans are the fifth largest Latino population in the city making up 5 percent of all Latinos in Boston. Other larger Latino populations include Puerto Ricans (28 percent), Dominicans (24 percent), Salvadorans (11 percent), and Colombians (6 percent). Mexicans can be found in all neighborhoods of Boston, but greater shares of Mexicans live in East Boston (28 percent), Brighton (12 percent), and Dorchester (8 percent).3 Mexicans’ median age is 25 years, younger than other Latinos (28) and non-Latinos (32). Mexicans are predominately female (53 percent), which is a greater share than other Latinos (51 percent) and non-Latinos (52 percent). Greater shares of Mexicans 15 years and older have never married (67 percent) than other Latinos and non-Latinos. The majority of Mexicans are native born (57 percent), and 68 percent are U.S. citizens. About 68 percent of Mexican speak Spanish at home, and about 73 percent speak English very well. Most younger Mexicans under age 35 speak English very well (83 percent). I Age 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Mexican Other Latino Non- Latino 9% 31.8% 19.0% • 0-19 • 20-34 • 35-64 65+ 2 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 1-year American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 3 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 4 | Latinos In Boston 100% 5% of Boston’s Latinos are Mexican I Marital Status (ages 15 and older) 100% 80% 67.0% 55.3% 60% 40% 24.7% 26.3% 29.7% 20% 8 .3% 0% Married • Other Latino Never married • Non-Latino Citizenship 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 75.0% 54.8% 44.2% ~ • Mexican 32.1% 27.3% --- 10.5% lG.l% 12.2% 12.4% 1.4% Born in U.S. territory or abroad to U.S. parents Born in U.S. I 14.1% Widowed/Divorced/Seperated • Mexican I -18.4% 56.2% Naturalized U.S. citizen • Other Latino - 11.4% Not U.S. citizen • Non-Latino English Proficiency (ages 5 and older) 100% 80% 60% 88.5% 73 .3% 57.6% 40% 10.1% 20% 0% English very well - 16.5% 5.4% Well • Mexican • Other Latino - 16.6% 26.0% 6.1% Not well or not at all • Non-Latino 5 | bostonplans.org Workforce I Educational Attainment (ages 25 and older) 60% 49.2% 49.9% 50% 40% 33.8% 29.0% 30% 15.0% 20% 20.0% 15. 7% 19.8% 18.4% 10% 0% Less than high school High school or equivalence • Mexican • Other Latino Some college Bachelor's or higher • Non-Latino Educational Attainment | The educational profile of Mexicans ages 25 and older is more similar to non-Latinos than other Latinos. Almost half (49 percent) of adult Mexicans have a Bachelor’s or graduate degree. School Enrollment | Unlike most other Latino groups, Mexicans are more highly represented in Boston’s college and university enrollment (2 percent) than in its pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade enrollment. Labor Force Participation | Almost 68 percent of Mexicans age 16 and older participate in the labor force, a similar rate to other groups. Labor force participation rates are higher for Mexican men than Mexican women—75 percent vs. 61 percent. Employment | Almost 8 percent of Mexicans in Boston are self-employed, a higher rate than other groups. Unlike other Latino groups, the largest occupation group for Mexicans is managerial and professional occupations (27 percent). Commute | Smaller shares of Mexicans and other Latinos (29 percent) work outside of Suffolk County compared to non-Latinos (33 percent). Mexicans are less likely to commute to work by car—34 percent compared to 41 percent for other Latinos and 45 percent for nonLatinos. 6 | Latinos In Boston 62% of Mexicans are employed I Employment Type (ages 16 and older) 100% 85.2% 87.0% 82.3% 80% 60% 40% 20% 11.4% 8.1% 7.1% 7.7% 4.9% 6.3% 0% For & non-profit salary • Mexican I Self-employed and unpaid family workers Government • Other Latino • Non-Latino Occupations of Employed Workers 26.6% Managerial & Professional Service Construction, Maintenance & Transportation ~ 2 2. 6% ~ 14.1% Office & Administrative Support Healthcare Practitioners & Support Education, Training, & Library Sales Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports & Media Production Community & Social Service Other _ I. LO% I o. 3% 0% • Mexican 2.5% ~ 5% 1~ 1~ 2~ 2~ 3~ 3~ 4~ 4~ • Other Latino • Non-Latino 7 | bostonplans.org Standard of Living About 27 percent of Mexicans live below the Census poverty line, and approximately 30 percent have achieved a middle class standard of living. . A family income four times the poverty line is used as a proxy for a middle-class standard of living. The actual income needed to achieve this standard depends on family composition. For a two-person family in 2015, the poverty line is $15,391, and a middle class income would need to be at least $61,564. The median household income for Mexican-headed households is $42,924. Despite their lower middle class median income, a higher share of Mexicans lack health insurance (9 percent). Similar shares of Mexicans and other Latinos own their home (16 percent), lower than the home ownership rate for non-Latinos (37 percent).4 More than 61 percent of Mexican households are housing burdened and pay more than 30 percent of their income in housing costs, a higher housing cost burden than other groups. Less than half of Mexican households in Boston own a car, a lower rate than other Latinos (58 percent) and non-Latinos (66 percent). Mexican households are more likely to consistent of unrelated roommates living together—25 percent, and less likely to be families, 42 percent. The average Mexican household size is 2.3, smaller than the average for other Latinos, 2.7. I Individual Poverty Rates 0% Mexican 20% 60% 80% 26.9% Other Latino Non-Latino 40% 30.4% 33.7% 18.3% 17.6% • Below Poverty Line 100% 46.0% • 100-199% • 200-399% • 400%+ Percent of Poverty Line 4 The ACS excludes households that are vacant, being bought, occupied without rent payment, have no household income or are group quarters when reporting owner/renter costs as a percentage of household income. Therefore, the sum of housing– burdened and non-housing-burdened households may not add exactly to the total number of homeowners/renters. 8 | Latinos In Boston 27% of Mexicans in Boston live in poverty I Median Household Income $42,924 $61,080 • Mexican I • Non-Latino Tenure and Housing Burden Mexican 29.5% Other Latino 9.4% . 37.5% Non-Latino 9.1% . 26.6% 31.7% • Not-rent burdened I • Other Latino Not-mortgage burdened • Rent burdened .. • Mortgage burdened Household Type 100% 80% 60% 65.6% 41.5% 331% 0 40% • 39.2% 26.0% 25.3% - 8.3% 15.8% 20% 0% Family household Living alone • Mexican • Other Latino Non-related household • Non-Latino 9 | bostonplans.org Mexican Children The 2011-2015 American Community Survey estimates 1,388 Mexican children reside in Boston. Just 29 percent of Mexican households include children, lower than 43 percent for other Latinos. Even though 85 percent of Mexican children are native born, 65 percent of them have at least one foreign-born parent. Mexican children are less likely to live in poverty (32 percent, and over 99 percent of Mexican children in Boston have health insurance. I Parent Nativity Mexican 34.9% Other Latino 43.5% Non-Latino 56.8% • Only native-born I • At least one foreign-born Child Poverty 47.1% 50% 40% 32.0% 30% 24.3% 20% 10% 0% Mexican 10 | Latinos In Boston Other Latino Non-Latino Map of Mexicans in Boston N + 0 C) 0 Roxbury Dorchester Roslindale Mattapan Percentage of Total Population Mexican by Census Tract 1111 Less than 0.3% ~ 0.4% -1 % 0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles boston planning & development agency Source: 2011 -2015American Community Survey BPDA Research Division Analysis 1111 11 % - 2% . 1111 2 % 3.7% .1 1111 3.8% - 7% IIII No Household Population 11 | bostonplans.org Guatemalans bpda in Boston As part of the day "Celebrating Our Identity," the Guatemalan community celebrated its culture with a fundraiser dinner. (Casa Guatemala, photo by Cameros Fotografia). Even though Guatemalans migrated to the United States throughout the 20th century, their migration intensified in the 1980s and 1990s. Guatemala’s indigenous population, known as the Maya Quiché, were the target of military repression and emigrated to the U.S. in the later years of a decades-long civil war. The Maya Quiché population in Massachusetts can be found in Southeastern Massachusetts around New Bedford. In Boston, the Guatemalan population is more likely to be non-indigenous. In 2015, 1.4 million people with Guatemalan origin lived in the United States.1 With an estimated 40,526 Guatemalans residing in Massachusetts, the state accounts for 3 percent of all Guatemalans in the country. California (31 percent) and Florida (8 percent) are states with the largest populations. In the Northeast, New York (7 percent and New Jersey (5 percent) have large Guatemalan populations. Massachusetts has the eighth largest Guatemalan population. Boston is home to 11 percent of Massachusetts’ Guatemalans. I Guatemalans by State Other, 32% Massachusetts, 3% Illinois, 3% Florida, 8% Maryland, 3% New Jersey, 5% 1 Texas, 7% New York, 7% U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 1-year American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 3 | bostonplans.org Guatemalans in Boston According to the 2010 Census, Boston was home to 4,451 Guatemalans, up from 2,554 in the 2000 Census. The American Community Survey reports that the Guatemalan population of Boston Boston’s Guatemalan population in 2015 was about the same as in 2010. (4,435 +/-2,141).2 Guatemalans are the sixth largest Latino population in the city, accounting for 3 percent of Boston’s Latinos. Other larger Latino populations include Puerto Ricans (28 percent), Dominicans (24 percent), Salvadorans (11 percent), Colombians (6 percent), and Mexicans (5 percent). Guatemalans’ median age of 30 years is older than other Latinos (28) but younger than nonLatinos (32).3 Unlike other Latinos and non-Latinos in Boston, Guatemalans are predominately male (56 percent). A higher percentage of Guatemalans are married (40 percent). The majority are foreign born (65.6 percent), and only 26 percent of foreign-born Guatemalans are naturalized U. S. citizens. Over 95 percent of Guatemalans speak Spanish at home, and only 35 percent speak English very well. Among younger Guatemalans under age 35, 56 percent speak English very well. I Age Distribution 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Guatemalan Other Latino 1.6 Non-Latino 11.6% • 0-19 • 20-34 • 35-64 • 65+ 2 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 & 2010 Decennial Censuses, 2015 American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 3 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 4 | Latinos In Boston 3% of Boston’s Latinos are Guatemalan I Marital Status (ages 15 and older) 100% 80% 60% 47.7% 38.9% 40% 25.6% 29.7% --13.3% 20% 0% Married Never Married • Non-Latino Citizenship 100% 75.0% 80% 60% 40% 20% 34.0% .. __ 45.3% Born in U.S. territory or abroad to U.S. parents Born in U.S. • Guatemalan 48.7% 17.0% 15.7% 12.2% 12.3% 0.4% 1.4% 0% I • Other Latino 56.2% 14.1% Widowed/Divorced/Separated • Guatemalan I 1s.O% 56.5% Naturalized U.S. citizen • Other Latino 26.6% - 11.4% Not U.S. citizen • Non-Latino English Proficiency (ages 5 and older) 100% 88.5% 80% 59.6% 60% 40% 43.6% 35.3% -21.1% 20% 0% English very well • Guatemalan 24.6% 15.8% 5.4% Well • Other Latino 6.1% Not well or not at all • Non-Latino 5 | bostonplans.org Standard of Living A similar share of Guatemalans (17 percent) compared to non-Latinos (18 percent) live below the Census poverty line. In contrast, only 15 percent of Guatemalans have achieved a middle class standard of living, compared to 46 percent for non-Latinos. A family income four times the poverty line is used as a proxy for a middle-class standard of living. The actual income needed to achieve this standard depends on family composition. For a two-person family in 2015, the poverty line is $15,391, and a middle class income would need to be at least $61,564. The median household income for Guatemalan-headed households is $36,143. Despite low poverty rates, 12 percent of Guatemalans lack health insurance, a higher rate than other groups. Guatemalans are less likely to own their own home (12 percent), than other Latinos (17 percent) and non-Latinos (37 percent).4 A large share of Guatemalan households (61 percent) are housing-burdened and pay more than 30 percent of their income in housing costs. A large share (74 percent) of Guatemalan households are family households, and just over half (52 percent) include children, a higher rate than other Latinos (42 percent) and much higher than non-Latinos (20 percent). I Individual Poverty Rates 0% Guatemalan 20% 60% 80% 17.096 Other Latino Non-Latino 40% 100% 14.996 34.196 19.296 17.696 46.096 • Below Poverty Line • 100-199% • 200-399% • 400%+ Percent of Poverty Line 4 The ACS excludes households that are vacant, being bought, occupied without rent payment, have no household income or are group quarters when reporting owner/renter costs as a percentage of household income. Therefore, the sum of housing– burdened and non-housing-burdened households may not add exactly to the total number of homeowners/renters. 6 | Latinos In Boston 17% of Guatemalans in Boston live in poverty I Median Household Income $61,080 • Guatemalan I • Other Latino • Non-Latino Tenure and Housing Burden Guatemalan Other Latino 9.296 . 37.396 Non-Latino 26.696 31.796 • Not-rent burdened I 7.396 . 31.696 • Rent burdened Not-mortgage burdened Ill • Mortgage burdened Household Type 100% 80% 60% 73.7% 45.0% 40% 39.2% - 26.8% --- 16.4% 20% 0% Family household • Guatemalan 9.9% Living alone • Other Latino 9.3% 15.8% Non-related household • Non-Latino 7 | bostonplans.org Workforce I Educational Attainment (ages 25 and older) 60% 53.6% 49.9% 50% 40% 30% 15.9% 19.7% 18.4% 20% 11.7% 0% Less than high school - 8.0% 10% High school or equivalence • Guatemalan • Other Latino Some college Bachelor's or higher • Non-Latino Educational Attainment | Guatemalan adults have low levels of formal education. Almost 54 percent lack a high school education, and only 8 percent have a Bachelor’s degree or higher. School Enrollment | Guatemalans make up one percent of Boston residents enrolled in pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade, but only .2 percent of Boston residents enrolled in college or university. Labor Force Participation | A higher share (77 percent) of Guatemalans age 16 and over participate in the labor force than other Latinos (67 percent) and non-Latinos (68 percent). Labor force participation is much higher for Guatemalan men than women (90 percent vs. 60 percent). Employment | Almost 94 percent of employed Guatemalans hold private-sector payroll jobs and few Guatemalans work for the government or are self-employed. More than 43 percent of employed Guatemalans work in service occupations, and an additional 28 percent work in blue collar jobs such as construction, transportation, production, installation, and maintenance occupations. Only 10 percent of employed Guatemalans work as managers or healthcare practitioners or in professional occupations such as computers, science, or engineering. 8 | Latinos In Boston 66% of Guatemalans are employed I Employment Type (ages 16 and older) 100% 93.8% 86.5% 82.3% 80% 60% 40% 20% 8.3% 2.5% 0% For & non-profit salary 3.7% Government • Guatemalan I - 11.4% • Other Latino 5.2% 6.3% Self-employed and unpaid family workers • Non-Latino Occupations of Employed Workers 43.8% Service & Healthcare Support 28.1% Blue Collar Sales & Administrative Support Managerial, Professional & Healthcare Practitioners Arts, Education & Community Service 0% • Guatemalan 5% 10% 15% • Other Latino 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% • Non-Latino 9 | bostonplans.org Transportation Guatemalan residents of Boston are concentrated in East Boston (34 percent), and smaller shares live in Dorchester (21 percent) and Jamaica Plain (13 percent). About 68 percent of employed Guatemalans work in Suffolk County (Boston, Chelsea, Revere, and Winthrop). The average Guatemalan commute time to work is 29 minutes, which is shorter than the average commute time for other Latinos (32 minutes). About half of employed Guatemalans commute to work on public transportation, and 41 percent commute by automobile. Almost 62 percent of Guatemalan households own a vehicle compared to 57 percent of other Latinos and 66 percent of non-Latinos. I Car and Home Ownership 80% 62% 60% 66% 57% 37% 40% - - 0% Car Ownership • Guatemalans I 16% 12% 20% Home Ownership • Other Latinos • Non-Latinos Transportation Mode to Work Guatemalan 40.596 Other Latino 40396 Non-Latino 45.496 • Automobile 10 | Latinos In Boston 16.296 22.596 • Public transportation • Other Map of Guatemalans in Boston N + 0 C) South End 0 • Mattapan Percentage of Total Population Guatemalan by Census Tract 1111 Less than 0.2% ~ 0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles boston planning & development agency Source: 2011 -2015American Community Survey BPDA Research Division Analysis 0.3% -1% 1111 1.1% 2.4% 1111 2.5% - 5.3% 1111 5.4% - 9.7% IIII No Household Population 11 | bostonplans.org Brazilians bpda in Boston The Dewey Square mural (2012), by the Brazilian artist duo Os Gémeos (twins Otávio and Gustavo Pandolfo), spray painted on a 25-metre wide wall on the occasion of their exhibition at the ICA in Boston (Photo by Bosc D’Anjou, retrieved from flickr.com/photos/boscdanjou). Large-scale migration from Brazil began after the military coup in 1964 when thousands of Brazilians went into exile. Although most of these exiles returned to Brazil after the amnesty of 1979, the number of economic emigrants grew in the late 1980's when an economic crisis hit Brazil. The United States has been one of the main destinations of Brazilian emigration. In 2015, 502,650 people with Brazilian origin lived in the United States.1 With an estimated 90,903 Brazilians residing in Massachusetts, the state accounts for 18 percent of all Brazilians in the country. Massachusetts has the second largest Brazilian population behind Florida (19 percent). Brazilian immigrants were initially attracted to existing Portuguese-speaking communities in Massachusetts. Nationally, California (10 percent) and Texas (5 percent) are other states with large Brazilian populations. In the Northeast, New Jersey (7 percent), New York (6 percent) and Connecticut (5 percent) also have large Brazilian populations. I Brazilians by State Other,40% New York, 6% California, 10% New Jersey, 7% The foreign-born Brazilian population in Metropolitan Boston increased rapidly during the 1990s and peaked before the recession of 2008-2009. Brazilians settled in cities and towns in eastern Massachusetts, especially in Boston, Framingham, Everett, and Somerville. Boston is now home to 5 percent of Massachusetts’ Brazilian population. 1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 1-year American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 3 | bostonplans.org Brazilians in Boston The American Community Survey reports that Boston’s Brazilian population was 4,208 in 2015, down from 5,015 in 2010.2 Accounting for 3 percent of all Latinos in Boston, Brazilians are the seventh largest Latino population in the city. Other Latino populations include Puerto Ricans (28 percent), Dominicans (24 percent), Salvadorans (11 percent), Colombians (6 percent), Mexicans (5 percent), and Guatemalans (3 percent). Brazilians’ median age of 29 years is older than other Latinos (28) but younger than non-Latinos (32).3 Brazilians are predominately female (55 percent), more so than other Latinos and nonLatinos, both of which are 52 percent female. About 41 percent of Brazilians are married, a higher share than the other groups. The majority of Brazilians are foreign born (73 percent), and 30 percent of foreign-born Brazilians are naturalized U.S. citizens. Portuguese is the official language of Brazil, and 72% of Brazilians in Boston speak Portuguese at home. In addition, 61 percent of Brazilians over age five speak English very well. Younger Brazilians under age 35 are more likely to speak English very well (73 percent). I Age Distribution 0% Brazilian 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 5.1 Other Latino Non-Latino 11.6% • 0-19 • 20-34 • 35-64 • 65+ 2 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 & 2015 1-year American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 3 U.S. Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community Survey, BPDA Research Division Analysis 4 | Latinos In Boston 3% of Boston’s Latinos are Brazilian I Marital Status (ages 15 and older) 100% 80% 60% 56.4% 41.4% 40% 29.7% 25.7% --17-9% 12.5% 20% 0% Married 14.1% Widowed/Divorced/Separated • Brazilian I 56.2% 46.1% • Other Latino Never married • Non-Latino Citizenship 100% 75.0% 80% 60% 40% 51.3% 45.4% 12.2% 0.0% 1.4% 20% 0% Born in U.S. territory or abroad of U.S. parents Born in U.S. • Brazilian I • = 12.2% 27.2% 26.9% Naturalized U.S. citizen • Other Latino Not U.S. citizen • Non-Latino English Proficiency (ages 5 and older) 100% 80% 88.5% 60.6% 58.5% 60% 40% 23.4% 20% 0% English very well • Brazilian - 5.4% Well • Other Latino - 16.0% 15.8% 25.7% 6.1% Not well or not at all • Non-Latino 5 | bostonplans.org Standard of Living Brazilians in Boston have a higher standard of living than other Latino groups. Only 11 percent of Brazilians live below the Census poverty line, and 43 percent have achieved a middle class standard of living. A family income four times the poverty line is used as a proxy for a middleclass standard of living. The actual income needed to achieve this standard depends on family composition. For a two-person family in 2015, the poverty line is $15,391, and a middle class income would need to be at least $61,564. The median household income for Brazilian-headed households is $61,000, and only 6 percent of Brazilians lack health insurance. Brazilians have higher rates of home ownership (26 percent) than other Latino groups (16 percent). However, Brazilians are less likely to own their own home than non-Latinos, who have a home ownership rate of 37 percent.4 Almost 41 percent of Brazilians in Boston are housing burdened, meaning they must spend more than 30 percent of their household income on housing costs. This is a lower rate of housing burden than either non-Latinos or other Latino groups. Approximately 68 percent of Brazilian households are families, and 39 percent of the households include children, compared to 20 percent of non-Latino households. The average household size is 2.6, larger than 2.1 for non-Latino households. I Individual Poverty Rates 0% Brazilian 20% 40% 60% 10.9% 100% 42.6% 34.0% Other Latino Non-Latino 80% 18.3% 17.6% 46.0% • Below Poverty Line • 100-199% • 200-399% • 400%+ Percent of Poverty Line 4 The ACS excludes households that are vacant, being bought, occupied without rent payment, have no household income or are group quarters when reporting owner/renter costs as a percentage of household income. Therefore, the sum of housing– burdened and non-housing-burdened households may not add exactly to the total number of homeowners/renters. 6 | Latinos In Boston 11% of Brazilians in Boston live in poverty I Median Household Income $61,000 $61,080 • Brazilian I • Non-Latino Tenure and Housing Burden Brazilian 19.296 40.196 Other Latino 37.096 Non-Latino 26.696 • Rent burdened • ' 8.896 . 31.796 • Not-rent burdened I • Other Latino Not-mortgage burdened Ill • Mortgage burdened Household Type 100% 80% 60% 68.1% 64.1% 45.0% 40% 39.2% 21.6% 26.6% 0% Family household Living alone • Brazilian • Other Latino --- 10.3% 9.3% 15.8% 20% • Non-Latino Non-related household 7 | bostonplans.org Workforce I Educational Attainment (ages 25 and older) 60% 49.9% 50% 40% 33.7% 30% 20.0% 20% 16.4% 19.6% 18.4% 10% 0% Less than high school High school or equivalence • Brazilian • Other Latino Some college Bachelor's or higher • Non-Latino Educational Attainment | The relatively high standard of living of Boston Brazilians is supported by their educational attainment. Only 13 percent of Brazilians lack a high school education, and 37 percent have a Bachelor’s degree or higher. While this level of education is lower than non-Latinos, it is higher than other Latino groups. School Enrollment | Brazilians make up less than one percent of both the prekindergarten through grade twelve enrollment and the college and university enrollment of Boston residents. Labor Force Participation | About 71 percent of Brazilians ages 16 and over participate in the labor force. Labor force participation is higher for Brazilian men than women (81 percent vs. 60 percent). Employment | A larger share of employed Brazilians (15 percent) are self -employed. More than 44 percent of employed Brazilians work in service occupations. Other leading occupational categories for Brazilians are managerial, professional, and healthcare practitioners (26 percent) and blue collar occupations (18 percent). Blue collar occupations include construction, transportation, production, installation, and maintenance occupations. 8 | Latinos In Boston 66% of Brazilians are employed I Employment Type (ages 16 and older) 100% 79.6% 87.1% 82.3% 80% 60% 40% 20% 8 .1 % 5.8% 0% For & non-profit salary Government • Brazilian I - - 14.7% 11.4% • Other Latino 4 .8% 6.3% Self-employed and unpaid family workers • Non-Latino Occupations of Employed Workers 44.8% Service 26.3% Managerial, Professional & Healthcare Practitioners 17.6% Blue Collar Arts, Education & Community Service Sales & Administrative Support 0% • Brazilian 5% 10% 15% • Other Latino 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% • Non-Latino 9 | bostonplans.org Transportation Brazilians are concentrated in East Boston, Allston, Brighton, and West Roxbury, as well as Jamaica Plain, Hyde Park, and South Boston. A smaller share of Brazilians (24 percent) work outside of Suffolk County than other Latinos (30 percent) and non-Latinos (33 percent). The average Brazilian commute time to work is 27 minutes, shorter than other groups. Only 20 percent of Brazilians travel to work on public transportation compared to 32 percent of non-Latinos and 45 percent of other Latinos. In contrast, 70 percent of Brazilian household own a car, and 55 percent of employed Brazilians commute by car. I Car and Homeownership 80% 70.4% 66.3% 56.9% 60% 37.4% 40% 26.1% - 16.0% 20% 0% Car Ownership • Brazilians I Home Ownership • Other Latinos • Non-Latinos Transportation Type Brazilian Other Latino Non-Latino 15.5% 39.8% 22.5% 45.4% • Automobile 10 | Latinos In Boston 25.1% 54.7% • Public transportation • Other Map of Brazilians in Boston N + 0 C) 0 ~ -···•,, Dorchester 46. ~~ Roxbury Roslinda~ , ,• Mattapan Percentage of Total Population Brazilian by Census Tract 1111 Less than 0.2% ~ 0.3% - 0.6% 0 0.75 1.5 3 Miles boston planning & development agency Source: 2011 -2015American Community Survey BPDA Research Division Analysis 1111 0.7 -1 % % 1111 1 % - 2% .1 1111 2 .1% - 4 .2 % IIII No Household Population 11 | bostonplans.org               Exhibit 95 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT Division of Children’s Services LEGAL RESOURCE GUIDE – LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER LIST FOR UAC IN ORR CARE PART I: OVERVIEW You have the right to retain any attorney that you choose, at no cost to the government, and are not limited to the legal service providers and attorneys on this list. Legal Services for UAC in ORR Care and Custody The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) funds the organizations listed under the subheading “Legal Service Providers Funded by ORR” to provide you free legal assistance that includes teaching you about immigration court and your legal rights and conducting interviews to assess your eligibility for immigration relief to remain in the United States. The legal service providers may help to coordinate a referral to a pro bono (free) attorney to provide you with legal representation. You are not limited to using ORR funded legal service providers. You may also contact any of the organizations listed under the subheading “Other Legal Service Providers and Pro Bono Attorneys,” or any other legal service provider or attorney that you or your family choose. Legal Services for UAC After They Have Been Released from ORR Care and Custody ORR legal service providers may help to coordinate a referral to a pro bono (free) attorney for you to provide legal services to you. You may also contact the National Center for Refugee and Immigrant Children at: http://www.refugees.org/our-work/child-migrants/ In addition, the following two resources list pro bono (free of charge) legal service providers by state: Vera Institute of Justice Pro Bono Referral Resource Guide: https://www.vera.org/publications/unaccompanied-children-pro-bono-directory The U.S. Department of Justice Free Legal Services Providers List by State: http://www.justice.gov/eoir/probono/states.htm Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/16 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 1 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services PART II: UAC SIGNATURE PAGE UPON ADMISSION Upon admission, I received a copy of the following (initial each): ____________ Legal Service Provider List for UAC in ORR Care Part I Overview ____________ Legal Service Provider List for UAC in ORR care/Legal Resource Guide (Espanol) Guia de Recursos Legales ____________ Legal service providers and attorneys for the immigration court to which I must go ____________ Notice to Juvenile Aliens in Federal Facilities Funded by DHS or HHS by Reason of Their Immigration Status ____________An Introduction to What you Need to Know about Your Rights and Responsibilities Under the Law _____________ Notice of Rights and Provisions of Services _____________ Know Your Rights Handout -------------------- CA Department of Social Services – Unaccompanied Children Legal Services Provider List (August 2016) ___________________________________ UAC’s Signature __________________________ Date __________________________________ Care Provider Staff/Witness and Name/Title __________________________ Date Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 2 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services PART III: UAC SIGNATURE PAGE UPON RELEASE Upon release from the program, I received a copy of (please initial): ____________ Legal Service Provider List for UAC in ORR Care Part I Overview ____________ Legal Service Providers and Attorneys for the Immigration Court to which I must go. ____________Notice to Juvenile Aliens in Federal Facilities Funded by DHS or HHS by Reason of Their Immigration Status ____________ An Introduction to What you Need to Know about Your Rights and Responsibilities Under the Law ____________ Notice of Rights and Provisions of Services ____________Know Your Rights Handout --------------------CA Department of Social Services – Unaccompanied Children Legal Services Provider List (August 2016) ___________________________________ UAC’s Signature __________________________ Date __________________________________ Care Provider Staff/Witness and Name/Title __________________________ Date Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 3 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services PART IV: STATE BY STATE LISTING OF LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND ATTORNEYS FOR UAC IN ORR CARE ARIZONA PHOENIX IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project (FIRRP) *Long term foster care and continued post-release representation available Contact Name Children’s Program Contact Information Address: 2025 N. 3rd Street Ste 205 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Email: kids@firrp.org Phone: (602) 307-1008 POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project (FIRRP) Contact Name N/A Contact Information Address: 2025 N. 3rd Street Ste 205 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Email: kids@firrp.org Phone: (520) 868-0191 OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Arizona State University Immigration Law and Policy Clinic * Arizona long term foster care only Contact Name Claudia Diaz Castro Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 111 East Taylor Street, 3rd Floor Phoenix, AZ 85004 Email: Claudia.diaz.castro@asu.edu Phone: (480) 727-9274 Page 4 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services TUCSON IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project (FIRRP) * Continued post-release representation available Contact Name Children’s Program Contact Information Address: 738 N 5th Ave, #103 Tucson, AZ 85705 Email: kids@firrp.org Phone: (520) 203-7912 Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 5 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Contact Name Contact Information Legal Services for Children (LSC) *Continued post-release representation available Erin Maxwell Address: 1254 Market Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Email: ErinM@lsc-sf.org Phone: (415) 863-3762, Ext. 308 Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) N/A Email: infosanfrancisco@supportkind.org Phone: (415) 694-7389 POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto Contact Name Helen Beasley Contact Information Address: 2117-B University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Email: helen@clsepa.org Phone: (650) 391-0350 OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach Contact Name Leah Price Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 1121 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Email: lprice@apilegaloutreach.org Phone: (415) 567-6255 Page 6 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Central American Resource Center (CARECEN) San Francisco Office Gladys Rodriguez Address: 3101 Mission Street Suite 101 San Francisco, CA 94110 Email: laura@carecensf.org Phone: (415) 642-4400 Immigration Center for Women and Children San Francisco Office *SIJS, U-Visa, and VAWA Cases Grace Mandry Address: 3543 18th Street, Suite #32 San Francisco, CA 94110 Email: grace@icwclaw.org Phone: (415) 861-1449 Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area Silvia Contreras Address: 131 Steuart Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94105 Email: scontreras@lccr.com Phone: (415) 543-9444, Ext. 202 Sacramento Employment Training Agency – Rescue/Restore Program *Trafficking Victim Cases Mary Jennings Address: 925 Del Paso Boulevard Sacramento, CA 95815 Email: mjenning@delpaso.seta.net Phone: (916) 263-1555 Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto Helen Beasley Address: 2117-B University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Email: helen@clsepa.org Phone: (650) 391-0350 Legal Services for Children (LSC) N/A Address: 1254 Market Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: 415-863-3762 LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA Legal Service Provider Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach Contact Name Dean Ito Taylor Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 1121 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103 1305 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (415) 567-6255 Page 7 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc. (CRLAF) Amagda Perez Address: 2210 K Street, Suite 201 Sacramento, CA 95814 Email: aperez@crlaf.org Phone: (916) 446-7904, Ext. 101 Catholic Charities CYO – Refugee and Immigrant Services *San Francisco, Marin, and San Mateo Counties Only Diana A. Otero Francisco J. Gonzalez Diana A. Otero Address: 36 37th Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Email: (650) 295-2160 Phone: dotero@catholiccharitiesSF.org Francisco J. Gonzalez Address: 990 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Email: fgonzalez@catholiccharitiessf.org Phone: (415) 972-1313 Catholic Charities of the East Bay – West County Service Center *Alameda and Contra Costa Counties Only Christopher Martinez Address: 217 Harbour Way Richmond, CA 94801 Email: cmartinez@cceb.org Phone: (510) 234-5110 Central American Resource Center (CARECEN) Lariza Dugan-Cuadra Address: 3101 Mission Street, Suite 101 San Francisco, CA 94110 Phone: (415) 642-4417 Centro Legal de la Raza Eleni Wolfe-Roubatis Address: 3022 International Blvd, Suite 410 Oakland, CA 94601 Phone: (510) 437-9111 Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto Helen Beasley Address: 2111(A) University Ave East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Email: helen@clsepa.org Phone: (650) 391-0350 East Bay Community Law Center *Alameda County Only N/A Address: 2921 Adeline Street Berkeley, CA 94703 Phone: (510) 584-4040, Ext. 395 Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 8 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services San Joaquin College of Law – New American Legal Clinic Gregory Olson Address: 901 Fifth Street Clovis, CA 93612 Email: golson@sjcl.edu Phone: (559) 323-2100 U.C. Davis School of Law Clinical Program Leticia Saucedo Address: 400 Mrak Hall Drive Davis, CA 95616 Phone: (530) 752-3426 University of San Francisco – Immigration Law Clinical Programs Bill Hing Jacqueline Brown Scott Address: 2130 Fulton Street San Francisco, CA 94117 Email: bhing@usfca.edu (Bill) jacqueline@brownscottlaw.com (Jacqueline) Phone: (415) 422-3330 SAN DIEGO IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Casa Cornelia Law Center *Continued post-release representation available Contact Name Matthew Cannon Elizabeth Camarena Contact Information Address: 2760 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92103 Email: mcannon@casacornelia.org (Matthew Cannon) ecamarena@casacornelia.org (Elizabeth Camarena) Phone: (619) 231-7788, Ext. 323 (Matthew Cannon) (619) 231-7788, Ext. 326 (Elizabeth Camarena) POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA Legal Service Provider Contact Name Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Page 9 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Casa Cornelia Law Center Matthew Cannon Elizabeth Camarena Address: 2760 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92103 Email: mcannon@casacornelia.org (Matthew) ecamarena@casacornelia.org (Elizabeth) Phone: (619) 231-7788, Ext. 326 (Matthew Cannon) Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles * Serves Southern California Kate Marr Catholic Charities of the East Bay West County Service Center *Alameda and Contra Costa Counties Only Matt Weisner Address: 1102 Crenshaw Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90019 Phone: (213) 640-3845 Address 217 Harbour Way Richmond, CA 94801 Email: mweisner@cceb.org Phone: (510) 439 -4261 LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider Casa Cornelia Law Center Contact Name Elizabeth Camarena Contact Information Address: 2760 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92103 Email: ecamarena@casacornelia.org Phone: (619) 231-7788, Ext. 326 LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Immigrant Defenders Law Center *Long term foster care and continued post-release representation available Contact Name Sofia Teodoro Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 634 S. Spring Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Email: Sofia@immdef.org Phone: (213) 634-0999 Page 10 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Immigrant Defenders Law Center Contact Name Tania Karina Vargas Contact Information Address: 634 S. Spring Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Email: Tania@immdef.org Phone: (213) 634-0999 Central American Resource Center (CARECEN) Gina Manciati Address: 2845 W 7th Street Los Angeles, CA 90005 Email: gmanciati@carecen-la.org Phone: (213) 385-7800 (213) 892-2065 Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) N/A Email: infolosangeles@supportkind.org Phone: (214) 892-2043 Public Counsel N/A Address: 610 South Ardmore Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90005 Phone: (213) 385-2977 ext. 275 OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Immigration Center for Women and Children Los Angeles Office *SIJS, U-Visa, and VAWA cases Contact Name Marina Serrano Contact Information Address: 634 South Spring Street, Suite 727 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Email: marina@icwclaw.org Phone: (213) 614-1165 Ext. 1331 LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA Legal Service Provider Catholic Charities of Los Angeles – Esperanza Immigrant Rights Project *Los Angeles, Ventura, and Santa Barbara Counties Only Contact Name Miguel Mexicano Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 1531 James M. Wood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90015 Email: mmexicano@ccharities.org Phone: (213) 251-3532 Page 11 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services International Institute of Los Angeles Robert J. Foss Address: 435 S Boyle Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90033 Phone: (323) 264-6217 Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) N/A Email: infolosangeles@supportkind.org Phone: (213) 892-2043 (213) 892-2065 Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles Kate Marr Address: 1102 Crenshaw Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90019 Phone: (213) 640-3845 Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice Gladys La Torre Address: 1241 S Soto Street, Suite 102 Los Angeles, CA 90023 Email: gladys@laclj.org Phone: (323) 980-3500, Ext. 20 Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County Yvonne Maria Jimenez Address: 1102 East Chevy Chase Drive Glendale, CA 91205 Phone: (818) 834-7531 Public Law Center Kenneth Babcock Address: 601 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701 Phone: (714) 541-1010, Ext. 272 Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 12 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services COLORADO DENVER IMMIGRATION COURT POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider Catholic Charities of Denver Immigration Services Contact Name Cheryl Martinez-Gloria Contact Information Email: cmartinezgloria@ccdenver.org Rocky Mountain Immigration Advocacy Network (RMIAN), Children’s Program (Westminster) Ashley Harrington Address: 3489 West 72nd Avenue, Suite 211 Westminster, CO 80030 Email: aharrington@rmian.org Phone: (720) 370-9104 Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 13 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services CONNECTICUT HARTFORD IMMIGRATION COURT POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider Connecticut Legal Services Contact Name Joanne Lewis Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 16 Main Street New Britain, CT 06051 Email: jlewis@connlegalservices.org Phone: (860) 357-9302 Page 14 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services FLORIDA MIAMI IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Americans for Immigrant Justice (AI Justice) *Continued post-release representation available Contact Name Jennifer Anzardo Valdes Contact Information Address: 3000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33137 Email: janzardo@aijustice.orgPhone: (305) 573-1106, Ext. 1680 POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Catholic Charities Legal Services of Miami Contact Name Kristie-Anne Padron Gracia Cuzzi Daniella Palmiotto Contact Information Address: 28 West Flagler Street, Suite 1000 Miami, FL 33130 Email: kpadron@cclsmiami.org Gcuzzi@cclsmiami.org dpalmiotto@cclsmiami.org Phone: (305) 373-1073 Ext. 213 (305) 373-1073 ext. 225 LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider Catholic Charities Legal Services of Miami Contact Name Randolph McGrorty Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 25 SE 2 Avenue, Suite 220 Miami, FL 33131 Email: rmcgrorty@cclsmiami.org (Randolph McGrorty) Phone: (305) 373-1073, Ext. 201 (Randolph McGrorty) nd Page 15 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ORLANDO IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Gulfcoast Legal Services Contact Name Adriana Dinis Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 501 1st Avenue North, Ste 420 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Email: adrianad@gulfcoastlegal.org Phone: (727) 821-0726 Ext. 243 Page 16 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services GEORGIA ATLANTA IMMIGRATION COURT POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Access To Law, Inc. *Serves Atlanta, GA, Norcross, GA, and the state of Alabama Contact Name Rebeca Salmon Contact Information Address: 2415 Beaver Ruin Road, Ste B Norcross, GA 30071 Email: rsalmon@accesstolawfoundation.org Phone: (770) 685-1499 Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Atlanta, Inc. – Immigration Services Jennifer Bensman Address: 2305 Parklake Drive, Suite 150 Atlanta, GA 30345 Email: jbensman@catholiccharitiesatlanta.org Phone: (678) 222-3932 Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) N/A infoatlanta@supportkind.org Phone: (404) 885-3629 LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Atlanta, Inc. – Immigration Services Contact Name Jennifer Bensman, Contact Information Address: 2305 Parklake Drive Atlanta, GA 30345 Email: jbensman@catholiccharitiesatlanta.org (Jennifer Bensman) Phone: (678) 222-2932 (Jennifer Bensman) The Latin American Association, Inc. Jessica Daman Address: 2750 Buford Highway NE Atlanta, GA 30324 Email: jdaman@thelaa.org Phone: (404) 638-0395 Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 17 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ILLINOIS CHICAGO IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) *Chicago Immigration Court *Long term foster care and continued post-release representation available Contact Name Immigrant Children’s Protection Project Contact Information Address: 208 S. La Salle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60604 Email: nijckids@heartlandalliance.org Phone: (312) 660-1331 POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) Contact Name N/A Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 208 S. La Salle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60604 Email: nijckids@heartlandalliance.org Phone: (773) 672-6550 Page 18 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services KANSAS KANSAS CITY IMMIGRATION COURT POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider The Clinic *Also serves children residing in Missouri Contact Name Genevra Alberti Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 515 Avenida Cesar E. Chavez Kansas City, MO 64108 Email: genevra@theclinickc.org Phone: (816) 994-2300 Page 19 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services LOUISIANA NEW ORLEANS IMMIGRATION COURT POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Catholic Charities of New Orleans Unaccompanied Children’s Programs, Immigration Services Contact Name Silvia Haughton Contact Information Address: 4200 South 1-10 Service Road West, Suite 110 Metairie, LA 70001 Phone: (504) 310-8761 OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Contact Name Annie Johnston Contact Information Address: 856 Division Street Biloxi, MS 39530 Email: ajohnston@elpueblo-ms.org Phone (228) 436-3986 Louisiana State University Law Clinic – Immigration Clinic Lauren Aronson Address: LSU Law Clinic LSU Box 25080 Baton Rouge, LA 70803 Email: lauren.aronson@law.lsu.edu Phone: (225) 578-2071 Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Baton Rouge Annie Allen Address: 1900 South Acadian Thruway Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Email: aallen@ccdiobr.org Phone: (225) 346-0660 El Pueblo Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 20 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services OAKDALE IMMIGRATION COURT POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Louisiana State University Law Clinic – Immigration Clinic Contact Name Lauren Aronson Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: LSU Law Clinic LSU Box 25080 Baton Rouge, LA 70803 Email: lauren.aronson@law.lsu.edu Phone: (225) 578-2071 Page 21 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services MARYLAND BALTIMORE IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition (CAIR) *Long term foster care and continued post-release representation available Contact Name Nithya Nathan-Pineau Contact Information Address: 1612 K Street NW, Suite 204 Washington, DC 20006 Email: nithya@caircoalition.org Phone: (202) 331-3320, Ext. 29 POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Associated Catholic Charities, Inc. – Esperanza Center Contact Name Susan Pazos Contact Information Address: 430 S Broadway Baltimore, MD 21231 Email: spazos@cc-md.org Phone: (443) 825-3429 Ayuda N/A Address: 6925 B Willow Street NW Washington, DC 20012 Phone: (202) 387-4848 Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) N/A Email: infobaltimore@supportkind.org Phone: (443) 470-9437 Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 22 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC Contact Name N/A Equal Justice Works Qudsiya Naqui Address: 1730 M Street NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20036 Email: qnaqui@equaljusticeworks.org Phone: (202) 466-3686, Ext. 142 Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) N/A Email: infobaltimore@supportkind.org Phone: (443) 470-9437 Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 12247 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, Maryland 20902 Email: LOPC@catholiccharitiesdc.org Phone: (202) 465-9245 Page 23 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Ascentria Care Alliance – Immigration Legal Assistance Program *Long term foster care only Contact Name Dayanna Moreno Contact Information Address: 11 Shattuck Street Worcester, MA 01605 Email: dmoreno@ascentria.org Phone: (774) 243-3029 POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) Contact Name N/A Contact Information Email: infoboston@supportkind.org Phone: (617) 207-4138 OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Greater Boston Legal Services – Immigration Unit Contact Name Jane Rocamura Contact Information Address: 197 Friend Street Boston, MA 02114 Email: jrocamura@gbls.org Phone: (617) 603-1808 Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic – Clinic of Greater Boston Legal Services Jane Rocamora Address: 197 Friend Street Boston, MA 02114 Email: jrocamora@gbls.org Phone: (617) 603-1808 Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 24 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services South Royalton Legal Clinic Erin Jacobsen Address: 190 Chelsea Street, P.O. Box 117 South Royalton, VT 05068 Email: ejacobsen@vermontlaw.edu Phone: (802) 831 1500 Association of Africans Living in Vermont Michele Jenness Address: 20 Allen Street, FL 3 Burlington, VT 05401 Email: jenness@gmavt.net Phone: (802) 359-2067 Catholic Charities Refugee and Immigration Services Catholic Social Services of Fall River, Inc. Address: 275 West Broadway South Boston, MA 02127 Phone: (617) 464-8100 Schuyler Pisha Address: 1600 Bay Street Fall River, MA 02724 Email: spisha@cssdioc.org Phone: (508) 674-4681 Children’s Law Center of Massachusetts Address: 298 Union Street, 2nd Floor Lynn, MA 01901 Phone: (781) 224-1433 Community Legal Aid Address: 405 Main Street, 4th Floor Worcester, MA 01608 Phone: (508) 752-3718 Community Legal Aid Address: One Monarch Place, Suite 400 Springfield, MA 01144 Phone: (413) 781-7814 Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 25 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Community Legal Services Counseling Center Address: One West Street Cambridge, MA 02139 Phone: (617) 661-1010 Justice Center of Southeast Massachusetts, LLC Subsidiary of South Coastal Counties Legal Services, Inc. Address: 231 Main Street, Ste 201 Brockton, MA 02301-4342 Phone: (508) 586-2110 MetroWest Legal Services Address: 63 Fountain Street, Ste 304 Framingham, MA 01702 Phone: (508) 620-1830 Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project ( PAIR) Address: 98 North Washington Street, Ste 106 Boston, MA 02114 Phone: (617) 741-9296 University of Massachusetts School of LawDartmouth Immigration Law Clinic Address: 333 Faunce Corner Road Dartmouth, MA 02747 (508) 985-1174 LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) Contact Name N/A Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Email: infoboston@supportkind.org Phone: (617) 207-4138 Page 26 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services MICHIGAN DETROIT IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Michigan State University College of Law – Immigration Law Clinic *Long term foster care and continued post-release representation available Contact Name Veronica Thronson Contact Information Address: 610 Abbot Road East Lansing, MI 48823 Email: veronica.thronson@law.msu.edu Phone: (517) 336-8088 / (517) 913-9677 POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Ford Motor Company Contact Name Jane Regan Justice for Our Neighbors (JFON) Katrina Pradelski Address: 207 Fulton Street East Grand Rapids, MI 49503 Email: jfon_assist@jfonwestmichigan.org Phone: (616) 301-7461 Miller Canfield Kristen Niemi Address: 840 W. Long Lake Road, Suite 200 Troy, MI 48098 Phone: (248) 267-3270 Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: One American Road, Ste 403-A1 Dearborn, MI 48126 Email: jregan18@ford.com Phone: (313) 248-6866 Page 27 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) Mary Roche Address: 208 S. La Salle Street, Suite 1818 Chicago, IL 60604 Email: mroche@heartlandalliance.org Phone: (312) 660-1331 LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider Michigan Immigrants Rights Center Contact Name Susan Reed Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 420 N 4th Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Email: susanree@michiganimmigrant.org Phone: (269) 492-7196 Page 28 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services MISSOURI KANSAS CITY IMMIGRATION COURT POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider The Clinic *Also serves children residing in Kansas Contact Name Genevra Alberti Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 515 Avenida Cesar E. Chavez Kansas City, MO 64108 Email: genevra@theclinickc.org (Genevra Alberti) Phone: (816) 994-2300 Page 29 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services NEVADA LAS VEGAS IMMIGRATION COURT POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Board of Regents NSHE University of Nevada Las Vegas Contact Name Karen Brokaw Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 4505 S. Maryland Pkwy, Box 451055 Las Vegas, NV 89154 Email: Karen.brokaw@unlv.edu Phone: (702) 895-2080 Page 30 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services NEW JERSEY NEWARK IMMIGRATION COURT POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) Contact Name N/A Contact Information Email: infonewark@supportkind.org Phone: (862) 926-2084 OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider American Friends Service Committee – Immigrant Rights Program *No Criminal/Delinquency History Contact Name N/A Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 89 Market Street, 6th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Email: irpnewark@afsc.org Phone: (973) 643-1924 Page 31 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services NEW YORK BUFFALO IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Erie County Bar Association – Volunteer Legal Project *Long term foster care only Contact Name Brenda Cisneros Contact Information Address: 237 Main Street, Suite 1000 Buffalo, NY 14203 Email: bcisneros@ecbavlp.com Phone: (716) 847-0662, Ext. 304 NEW YORK CITY IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Catholic Charities Community Services (CCCS) – Archdiocese of New York *Long term foster care and continued post-release representation available Contact Name Margaret Martin Contact Information Address: 80 Maiden Lane, 13th Floor New York, NY 10038 Email: margaret.martin@archny.org Phone: (212) 419-3710 POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) Contact Name N/A Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Email: infonewyork@supportkind.org Phone: (646) 677-9900 Page 32 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Hofstra Child Advocacy Clinic *SIJS Cases Contact Name Yvonne Atkinson Contact Information Email: lawclinic@hofstra.edu Phone: (516) 463-5934 Safe Horizon – Anti-Trafficking Program *Trafficking Victim Cases Olivia Wilson Address: 50 Court St. Suite 811 Brooklyn, NY 11201 Email: olivia.wilson@safehorizon.org Phone: (718) 943-8648 LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider Catholic Charities of Rockville Center Contact Name N/A Catholic Migration Services Sharone Kaufman Address: 191 Joralemon Street, 4th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Email: skaufman@catholicmigration.org Phone: (718) 236-3000 Ext. 206 New York Immigration Coalition Hallam Tuck Address: 131 W 33rd Street New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 627-2227, Ext. 227 Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Email: maquilon.carmen@catholiccharities.cc Page 33 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE IMMIGRATION COURT POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider Catholic Charities of Charlotte N/A Contact Name Legal Services of Southern Piedmont Sharika Shropshire Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Email: ceponce@charlottediocese.org Address: 1431 Elizabeth Avenue Charlotte, NC 28204 Email: sharikas@lssp.org Phone: (704) 971-4790 Page 34 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services OHIO CLEVELAND IMMIGRATION COURT POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc. Contact Name Jessica A. Ramos Contact Information Email: jramos@ablelaw.org Phone: (800) 837-0814 Catholic Charities Diocese of Cleveland Allyson DiPofi Address: 7800 Detroit Ave. Cleveland, OH 44102 Email: akdipofi@ccdocle.org Phone: (216) 939-3735 Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 35 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services OREGON PORTLAND IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Immigration Counseling Service (ICS) *Long term foster care and continued post-release representation available Contact Name Barbara Babcock Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 519 SW Park Avenue, Suite 610 Portland, OR 97205 Email: bbabcock@ics-law.org (Barbara Babcock) Phone: (503) 221-1689 ext. 2103 Page 36 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services PENNSYLVANIA PHILADELPHIA IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider HIAS Pennsylvania *Long term foster care continued post-release representation available Contact Name Youth Advocacy Project Contact Information Address: 2100 Arch Street, 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 832-0900 Jewish Family and Children’s Services of Pittsburgh Joyce Ramirez Address: 5743 Bartlett Street Pittsburgh, PA 15217 Email: jramirez@ifcpgh.org Phone: (412) 422-7200 Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 37 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services TENNESSEE MEMPHIS IMMIGRATION COURT POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Midsouth Immigration Advocates *Serves Memphis & Louisville Contact Name N/A Contact Information Address: 258 N Merton Street Memphis, TN 38112 Phone: (901) 244-4367 (901) 466-8819 (Spanish) OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Community Legal Center *Also Serves Arkansas, Mississippi (North of Jackson), and Kentucky (Western Third of the state) Contact Name Emily Stotts Tennessee Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence *Domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking cases only Rebecca Montgomery Contact Information Address: 910 Vance Memphis, TN 38126 Email: emilys@clcmemphis.com Phone: (901) 543-3395 Ext. 212 Address: 2 International Plaza Drive, Suite 425 Nashville, TN 37217 Email: rmontgomery@tncoalition.org Phone: (615) 386-9406 LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider Latino Memphis: Derechos - Programa de Inmigración *Also Serves Arkansas, Mississippi (North of Jackson), and Kentucky (Western Third of the state) Contact Name Casey Bryant Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 6041 Mt. Moriah Rd. Ext. Suite 16 Memphis, TN 38115 Email: derechos@latinomemphis.org Phone: (901) 410-0195 (Spanish); (901) 366-5882 for general inquiries Page 38 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services TEXAS DALLAS IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Human Rights Initiative of North Texas *Long term foster care and continued post-release representation available Contact Name Melissa Weaver Marcela Evans Contact Information Address: 2801 Swiss Avenue Dallas, TX 75204 Email: mweaver@hrionline.org (Melissa Weaver) mevans@hrionline.org (Marcela Evans) Phone: (214) 855-0520 POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider Catholic Charities of Dallas – Immigration and Legal Services Contact Name Vanna Slaughter Contact Information Address: 9461 LBJ Freeway, Ste 100 Dallas, TX 75234 Email: vanna@ccdallas.org Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES) *Long term foster care and continued post-release representation available Andrea Aguilar Address: 503 W. Jefferson Blvd. Dallas, TX 75208 Email: andrea.aguilar@raicestexas.org Phone: (214) 295-9554 Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 39 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services EL PASO IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Diocesan Migrant and Refugee Services, Inc. (DMRS) *Continued post-release representation available Contact Name Melissa Lopez Contact Information Address: 2400 E Yandell Street El Paso, TX 79903 Email: mlopez@dmrs-ep.org Phone: (915) 532-3975, Ext. 213 POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider New Mexico Immigrant Law Center Contact Name Contact Information Address: P.O. Box 7040 Albuquerque, NM 87194 Email: eeitzen@nmilc.org Phone: (505) 247-1023 Contact Name Contact Information Email: mlopez@dmrs-ep.org Eva Eitzen LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider Diocesan Migrant Refugee Services N/A Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 40 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services HARLINGEN IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider South Texas Pro Bono Asylum Representation Project (ProBAR) *Continued post-release representation available Contact Name Children’s Program Contact Information Address: 119 W Van Buren, Suite 204 Harlingen, TX 78550 Phone: (956) 365-3775 HOUSTON IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Catholic Charities of Houston – St. Francis Cabrini Center for Immigrant Legal Assistance *Serving Houston-area ORR facilities *Long term foster care and continued post-release representation available Contact Name Cynthia Garza-Schammel Contact Information Address: 2707 North Loop West, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77008 Phone: 713-595-4100 Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES) *Serving Corpus Christi-area ORR facilities *Long term foster care and continued post-release representation available Hannah Zimmermann Address: 403 Waco Street Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Email: hannah.zimmermann@raicestexas.org Phone: (361) 693-5838 Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Page 41 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Catholic Charities of Houston – St. Francis Cabrini Center for Immigrant Legal Assistance Contact Name Elizabeth Sanchez-Kennedy Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) Contact Information Address: 2707 North Loop West, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77008 Phone: (713) 595-4100 Email: ucreferrals@catholiccharities.org Email: infohouston@supportkind.org Phone: (832) 779-4030 OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Tahirih Justice Center Contact Name Javier Dominquez Contact Information Address: 1717 St. James Place, Suite 450 Houston, TX 77056 Email: javierd@tahirih.org Phone: (713) 496-0100 SAN ANTONIO IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES) *Long term foster care and continued post-release representation available Contact Name Mayra Jimenez Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 5121 Crestway, Ste 105 San Antonio, TX 78239 Email: mayra.jimenez@raicestexas.org Phone: (210) 544-7983 Page 42 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Asociacion de Servicios Para el Inmigrante Contact Name Linda A. Brandmiller Contact Information Address: 8802 Marbach Road, Suite 101 San Antonio, TX 78227 Email: lbrandmiller@asiinc.org Phone: (210) 900-0991 The Bernardo Kohler Center, Inc. David R. Walding Address: 4009 Banister Lane, Ste 240 Austin, TX 78704 Email: dwalding@bernardokohler.com Phone: (512) 831-4272 Catholic Charities of Corpus Christi, Inc. Immigration Services Doreya E. Dean Address: 615 Oliver Court Corpus Christi, TX 78408 Email: ddean@diocesecc.org Phone: (361) 884-0651 Ext. 245 Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES) Mayra Jimenez Address: 5121 Crestway, Ste 105 San Antonio, TX 78239 Email: mayra.jimenez@raicestexas.org Phone: (210) 544-7983 LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES) Contact Name Mayra Jimenez Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 5121 Crestway, Ste 105, San Antonio, TX 78212 San Antonio, TX 78212 Email: mayra.jimenez@raicestexas.org Phone: (210) 544-7983 Page 43 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services VIRGINIA ARLINGTON IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Capital Area Immigrants’ Rights Coalition (CAIR) *Long term foster care and continued post-release representation available Contact Name Nithya Nathan-Pineau Contact Information Address: 1612 K Street NW, Suite 204 Washington, DC 20006 Email: nithya@caircoalition.org Phone: (202) 331-3320, Ext. 29 POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) Contact Name N/A Contact Information Email: infodc@supportkind.org Phone: (202) 670-3585 OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Commonwealth Catholic Charities Contact Name Tim Reddish Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Address: 1512 Willow Lawn Drive Richmond, VA 23230 Phone: (804) 285-5900 Page 44 of 45 Office of Refugee Resettlement Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services WASHINGTON SEATTLE IMMIGRATION COURT IN-CARE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDER FUNDED BY ORR Legal Service Provider Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) *Long term foster care and continued post-release representation available Contact Name N/A Contact Information Email: infoseattle@supportkind.org Phone: (206) 359-3266 POST-RELEASE LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS OTHER LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS AND PRO BONO ATTORNEYS Legal Service Provider Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) Contact Name Mike Peters Contact Information Address: 615 2 Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 957-8600 Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) N/A Email: infoseattle@supportkind.org Phone: (206) 359-3266 nd LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS FUNDED BY DOJ/EOIR Legal Service Provider Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) Contact Name N/A Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC, Rev. 09/20/2016 ORR UAC/LRG-5 ORR UAC Program Operations Manual Contact Information Email: infoseattle@supportkind.org Phone: (206) 359-3266 Page 45 of 45               Exhibit 96 FY13-FY17 Per-Pupil Expenditures, All Funds Page 1 of 3 Security Portal | A-Z Index  --Select Program Area-Students & Families Educators & Administrators Finance Home | News Accounting & Auditing Chapter 70 Program Charter Schools Circuit Breaker Educational Collaboratives DESE Budget Grants/Funding Opportunities Nutrition Programs Regional Districts School Buildings School Choice School Finance Regulations Spending Comparisons Per Pupil Expenditures Transportation Chapter 74 Nonresident Tuition School Finance Contacts Links Teaching, Learning & Testing Data & Accountability Finance & Funding About the Department Education Board School Finance: Statistical Comparisons FY13-FY17 Per-Pupil Expenditures, All Funds The per pupil expenditure report has been updated to include expenditures from fiscal years 2013-2017 (this file works best with Excel 2007 or later). This update continues the effort to present Massachusetts school spending data in a way that is comprehensive, comparable, and transparent to the general public. These calculations show all school operating expenditures including those outside the general fund such as grants, private donations, and revolving accounts. They also include payments for local resident pupils who are being educated in schools outside the district. In addition to showing the overall cost per pupil, they provide detail about how much schools spend in specific functional areas such as administration, teaching, and maintenance. The file opens to a single, detailed district report by funding source and functional areas. Use the dropdown menus on the detailed report to select a district and fiscal year. By clicking on the tabs at the bottom of the workbook, there are additional reports showing a 3-year trend by major functional areas, and a summary showing per pupil expenditures for all districts. There are also tabs with the complete 5-year dataset, both expenditures and pupils, to support additional analysis. It is important to note that per pupil expenditures are not calculated for out-of-district expenditures, only total expenditures are shown, see additional explanation below. Data source and timing Per pupil expenditures are calculated from information provided on each district's End of Year Financial Report (EOYR). This is a comprehensive report of revenues and expenditures that occurred during each fiscal year. Districts are required to hire auditing firms to verify the accuracy of the data on the EOYR. In addition, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE) conducts a careful review of the data during the months following the report's submission. If any changes are necessary, districts must file amendments. Spending from all funds The following funding sources are all included in the functional expenditure per pupil measure: • • • • • • • • • • school committee appropriations municipal appropriations outside the school committee budget that affect schools federal grants state grants circuit breaker funds private grants and gifts school choice and other tuition revolving funds athletic funds school lunch funds other local receipts such as rentals and insurance receipts Typically, school committee and municipal school appropriations, approved annually by town meetings and city councils, account for seven out of every eight dollars spent upon education. Functional categories The functional spending categories included in the per pupil calculations follow the order of the DESE chart of accounts: Code Function In-District Expenditures 1110 School Committee 1210 Superintendent 1220 Assistant Superintendents 1230 Other District-Wide Administration 1410 Business and Finance 1420 Human Resources 1430 Legal Service for School Committee 1435 Legal Settlements 1450 District-wide Information Systems ADMN Administration (sub-total) 2110 Curriculum Directors (Supervisory) 2120 Dept Heads (Non-Supervisory) 2210 School Leadership 2220 Curriculum Leaders (School Level) 2250 Admin. Technology (School Level) 2315 Instructional Coordinators LDRS Instructional Leadership (sub-total) 2305 Teachers, Classroom 2310 Teachers, Specialists TCHR Teachers (sub-total) 2320 Medical/ Therapeutic Services 2325 Substitute Teachers 2330 Paraprofessionals 2340 Librarians/Media Center Directors TSER Other Teaching Services (sub-total) http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/statistics/ppx13-17.html 6/21/2018 FY13-FY17 Per-Pupil Expenditures, All Funds 2351 Page 2 of 3 Professional Development Leaders 2353 Professional Days 2355 Substitutes for Prof. Development 2357 Professional Development Costs PDEV Professional Development (sub-total) 2410 Textbooks, Software/Media/Matls 2415 Instructional Materials (Libraries) 2420 Instructional Equipment 2430 General Classroom Supplies 2440 Other Instructional Services 2451 Classroom Technology 2453 Technology (Libraries) 2455 Instructional Software MATL Instructional Materials/Equip/Tech (sub-total) 2710 Guidance/Adjustment Counselors 2720 Testing and Assessment 2800 Psychological Services GUID Guidance, Counseling, Testing (sub-total) 3100 Attendance and Parent Liaisons 3200 Medical/Health Services 3300 Transportation Services 3400 Food Services 3510 Athletics 3520 Other Student Activities 3600 School Security SERV Pupil Services (sub-total) 4110 Custodial Services 4120 Heating of Buildings 4130 Utility Services 4210 Maintenance of Grounds 4220 Maintenance of Buildings 4225 Building Security System 4230 Maintenance of Equipment 4300 Extraordinary Maintenance 4400 Networking/Telecommunications 4450 Technology Maintenance OPMN Operations and Maintenance (sub-total) 5100 Employer Retirement Contributions 5150 Employee Separation Costs 5200 Insurance for Active Employees 5250 Insurance for Retired Employees 5260 Other Non-Employee Insurance 5300 Rental Lease of Equipment 5350 Rental Lease of Buildings 5400 Short Term Interest RANs 5500 Other Fixed/Crossing Guards 5550 School Crossing Guards BENE Benefits and Fixed Charges (sub-total) IIII Total In-District Expenditures Out-of-District Expenditures (total expenditures only) 9100 Tuition to Mass. Schools 9110 Tuition for School Choice 9120 Tuition to Commonwealth Charter Schools 9125 Tuition to Horace Mann Charter Schools 9200 Tuition to Out-of-State Schools 9300 Tuition to Non-Public Schools 9400 Tuition to Collaboratives ODTR Transportation OODD Total Out-of-District Expenditures TTPP Total Expenditures Spending categories that are not included in the per pupil expenditure calculations are: Community services (6000 series), fixed assets (7000 series), and debt service (8000 series). In-District and Out-of-District Spending and Pupils http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/statistics/ppx13-17.html 6/21/2018 FY13-FY17 Per-Pupil Expenditures, All Funds Page 3 of 3 Most school spending goes toward educating local resident pupils in local schools. However, about five percent of the nearly one million public school children in Massachusetts are enrolled in publicly-funded settings outside the district. School districts pay tuition for pupils at special education schools, charter schools, and other placements. Transportation costs often add to the expense. The first ten functional categories are for services provided within the school district. In those categories, per pupil calculations are limited to the pupils enrolled at the district. An in-district per pupil expenditure is calculated for these functions and measures what is spent on the pupils enrolled at the district. The eleventh category includes expenditures made on out-of-district tuitions and transportation. Previous versions of this report included an out-ofdistrict per pupil expenditure. However, this measure was difficult to interpret when comparing districts because it is typically a combination of high-cost special education placements and lower-cost school choice, charter school, and other out-of-district settings. If we were able to assign students to each tuition function to calculate per pupil expenditures at that level, it might be more useful, but that information is not available. Instead, the report only shows total expenditures for each 9000 series function. The total per pupil expenditure includes all eleven categories of spending, and combines both groups of students, in-district and out-of-district. Measuring enrollment: the concept of full-time equivalent average membership The per pupil spending calculations published compare spending, which occurs throughout the school year, to the average number of pupils, which normally fluctuates over the school year. The enrollment statistic used is called full-time equivalent average membership or FTE. Full-time equivalency refers to the percentage of time that students are enrolled during the school year. A pupil who arrives on November 1 and is still enrolled at the end of the year, for example, would be assigned full-time equivalency of somewhere in the range of eight-tenths. District spending requirements The Commonwealth does impose a strictly enforced total spending requirement called net school spending which is an integral component of the Chapter 70 state aid formula. Net school spending includes local appropriations, Chapter 70 aid, and special education circuit breaker monies, but not grants or revolving funds. Because of this, what qualifies as net school spending is slightly lower than a district's total expenditure. Reports showing each district's actual and budgeted net school spending, compared to what is required, are available on the DESE website, see detailed compliance reports and the Chapter 70 district profiles. Otherwise, aside from one maintenance spending provision administered by the Massachusetts School Building Authority, there are no spending requirements for specific functional areas imposed by the Commonwealth. Charter school per pupil expenditures Charter schools report their spending in a different format than the districts contained in this report, see charter school revenue and expenditure data. Contacts Questions and comments can be addressed to: Rob O'Donnell 781-338-6512 Last Updated: May 16, 2018 E-mail this page| Print View| Print Pdf Search·Public Records Requests http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/statistics/ppx13-17.html · A-Z Site Index · Policies · Site Info · Contact DESE 6/21/2018               Exhibit 97 40 COURT STREET SUITE 800 BOSTON, MA 02108 617-357-0700 PHONE 617-357-0777 FAX WWW.MLRI.ORG Understanding the Affordable Care Act: Non-citizens’ eligibility for MassHealth & other subsidized health benefits March 2018 To qualify for comprehensive MassHealth benefits (not just emergency services or safety net benefits) and to qualify to purchase low-cost insurance through the Massachusetts Health Connector, people must satisfy several financial and non-financial eligibility criteria. Among the non-financial criteria is a requirement that individuals be U.S. citizens or non-citizens who have an eligible immigration status.1 This paper summarizes the rules that MassHealth and the Connector use to determine when non-citizens have an eligible status. Of course, eligible immigrants, like U.S. citizens, must also satisfy all the other applicable financial and nonfinancial eligibility criteria in order to receive benefits. To be eligible to purchase insurance through the Connector, with or without a premium tax credit or other subsidy under the Affordable Care Act, a non-citizen must have an immigration status on the list of statuses defined as Lawfully Present. A Lawfully Present non-citizen is eligible for benefits through the Connector in the same way as if he or she were a U.S. citizen. MassHealth uses additional factors besides Lawful Presence to determine when immigrants have an eligible immigration status. MassHealth offers various types of comprehensive coverage with different benefits based on age, income, health status and other factors. Some eligible immigrants can obtain the same MassHealth benefits they could obtain if they were US citizens Other eligible immigrants can obtain more than just emergency or safety net benefits, but not the same benefits for which they would be eligible if they were US citizens. Table 1 compares the relationship between the Lawfully Present category used by the Connector and the additional categories of eligible immigrants used in MassHealth. Table 2 summarizes the factors that affect immigrants’ eligibility for different types of MassHealth plans and also shows eligibility for the Connector. However, Table 2 does not summarize all the other eligibility criteria that eligible immigrants and U.S. citizens must satisfy to receive benefits. Four Appendices list the various immigration statuses and other conditions that determine whether someone falls into one of the eligibility categories used by the Connector and MassHealth as shown in Table 1 1 Two groups of non-citizens: Pregnant women and certain “grandfathered” individuals who were receiving MassHealth or CommonHealth in 1997 may be eligible for comprehensive MassHealth benefits even without an eligible immigration status. 1 Table 1. Comparing Connector and MassHealth Immigrant Categories & Terminology Connector Term MassHealth Terms Code in HIX Computer System Lawfully Present Qualified QLP Qualified Barred QAB Nonqualified Individual Lawfully Present ILP Nonqualified PRUCOL NQP Other (including undocumented) UNDOC Not Lawfully Present       Eligible Immigration Status? Yes No Lawfully Present adults are eligible for comprehensive MassHealth only if they are also Qualified with three exceptions: 1) Pregnant women who are Lawfully Present need not be Qualified to be eligible for MassHealth Standard, 2) elderly or disabled poverty level immigrants who are Lawfully Present need not be Qualified to be eligible for MassHealth Family Assistance, 3) Lawfully Present immigrants receiving benefits since 1997 need not be Qualified to remain eligible for MassHealth Standard or CommonHealth Lawfully present children and 19 and 20 year old young adults are eligible for MassHealth Standard in the same way as they would be as US citizens. Immigrants who are Nonqualified PRUCOL are not eligible for the Connector but may be eligible for MassHealth Family Assistance, or, for disabled children and young adults, CommonHealth. Pregnant women are eligible for MassHealth Standard regardless of status. Immigrants who have been receiving MassHealth or CommonHealth continuously since June 30, 1997 or who have been in a nursing home since then remain eligible for MassHealth regardless of status. They are “Protected Non-Citizens,” see 130 CMR §§ 504.003(B) and 518.003(B). Undocumented non-citizens are only eligible for safety net programs with limited benefits: MassHealth Limited, Health Safety Net and/or the Children’s Medical Security Plan. Adults who are Qualified Barred or Nonqualified Individuals Lawfully Present may be eligible for both MassHealth Limited and the Connector. 2 Table 2: Immigrants Eligible for MassHealth & the Connector Immigration Other Factors for MassHealth Coverage Connector Status MassHealth Cov. Type Type Eligibility Eligible (% of poverty level) Status? Qualified –see Qualified immigrants are MassHealth Standard, Appendix 1 for eligible for all MassHealth CommonHealth, list of Qualified benefits in the same way CarePlus, Family Yes statuses as US citizens Assistance & Medicare Savings Programs (QMB, SLMB, Q-1) Qualified Barred and Non-Qualified Lawfully Present, see Appendix 3 for list of Lawfully Present statuses & Appendix 2 for Qualified Barred Nonqualified PRUCOL - see Appendix 4 for list of statuses Other – including undocumented non US citizens Pregnant women & infants ≤200%; children 1-20 ≤150% Children 1-18 >150% ≤300% Disabled children 0-18 >150% Elderly & disabled adults ≤100% (asset test for elderly) Other adults ≤133% MassHealth Standard Other adults >133% Pregnant women ≤200% Infants ≤200% Children 1-18 ≤300% FPL Disabled Children under 19 Disabled young adults 19 & 20 ≤150% Other adults age 19-64 ≤300% ; elderly ≤100% & asset test Pregnant women ≤200% None MassHealth Standard Family Assistance Family Assistance CommonHealth Family Assistance CommonHealth Yes Family Assistance MassHealth Limited CommonHealth Family Assistance MassHealth Standard Infants ≤200%; Children MassHealth Limited & Young Adults 1-20 ≤150%; Adults 21-64 ≤133%; Adults 65 or older ≤100% & asset test Children under 19 Children’s Medical Security Plan (CMSP) All ages, ≤300% Health Safety Net On MassHealth since 1997 (grandfathered) Standard or CommonHealth 3 No No Appendix 1 Qualified (not barred) Non-Citizens 130 CMR 504.003(A)(1); 504.006(A) (under 65) 130 CMR 518.003(A)(1); 518.006(A) (65 and older) 8 U.S.C. 1641 (definition of Qualified); 8 USC 1613 (5-year bar); 8 USC 1612(b)(2)(C) (veterans) and (E) (certain Indians); Victims of Trafficking Protection Act of 2000; Pub. L. 106-386, Section 107 All Qualified non-citizens are Lawfully Present. Group A: Individuals who are qualified regardless of date of entry into US or length of time with Qualified Status (never barred):  Asylee (granted asylum)  Refugee  Granted withholding of deportation or withholding of removal under Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) but not under Convention Against Torture (CAT)  Veteran or active duty military and spouse, widow and dependent child/ren  Cuban/Haitian entrant including a Cuban or Haitian o Paroled into US after 1980, o Applicant for Asylum, or o Subject to a non-final order of exclusion  American Indian born in Canada or other member of federally recognized tribe  Victim of trafficking and his or her spouse, child, sibling, or parent  Conditional entrant granted before 1980 Group B: Individuals with one of the following statuses potentially subject to 5-year bar who are not barred either because 5 years have been met or because they satisfy additional factors that exempt them from the 5-year bar:  Lawful permanent resident (LPR/Green Card holder),  Paroled into the U.S. for more than 1 year, or  Battered spouse and child/ren, or battered child and parent 4 o Battered in US by US citizen or Legal Permanent Resident spouse or parent or family member of spouse or parent, o No longer living with abuser, and o With an approved or pending petition that sets forth a “prima facie case” that will lead to permanent resident status AND o Had Permanent Resident/Parole/Battered Immigrant status for 5 or more years or o Had such status for less than 5 years, but exempt from 5-year bar because:  Entered US prior to 8/22/96 (regardless of status at time of entry) & continuously present until becoming Permanent Resident/Parolee/Battered Immigrant,  Veteran or Active Duty Military or his/her spouse, widow or dependent child,  Iraqi or Afghan Special Immigrant,  American Indian born in Canada (or other member of federally recognized tribe),  Cuban or Haitian who became a legal permanent resident under certain special laws (not through a family member or employer),  Amerasian born in Vietnam during Vietnam War era, or  Before becoming a legal permanent resident was an asylee, refugee, granted withholding of deportation, Cuban-Haitian Entrant, or trafficking victim. Appendix 2 Qualified Barred Non-Citizens 130 CMR 504.003(A)(2); 504.006(B) (under 65) 130 CMR 518.003(A)(2); 518.006(B) (65 and older) All Qualified Barred non-citizens are Lawfully Present. Individuals with one of the following statuses who have had status for less than 5-years and are not exempt from the 5-year bar (see exemptions to 5 year bar in Appendix 1 Group B):  Lawful permanent resident (LPR/Green Card holder),  Paroled into the U.S. for more than 1 year, or  Battered spouse and child/ren, or battered child and parent 5 Appendix 3 Lawfully Present Non-Citizens 130 CMR 504.003 (A)(1)(2) and (3); 504.006(A) and (B) (under 65) 130 CMR 518.003(A)(1)(2) and (3); 518.006 (A) and (B) (65 & older) 45 CFR §§155.20 and 152.2; proposed § 155.20 and 42 CFR § 435.4 at 78 Fed. Reg. 4594 (Jan. 22, 2013) (definition of lawful presence); 45 CFR §155.305,(Exchange) 956 CMR § 12.05 (ConnectorCare) All Qualified and Qualified Barred Non-Citizens are also Lawfully Present. All Lawfully Present non-citizens are eligible for the Connector in the same way as US citizens. All Lawfully Present Children under 19 at any income level and 19 & 20 year old young adults with income under 150% FPL are eligible for MassHealth in the same way as US citizens. Lawfully Present and Qualified (as shown in Apx. 1 and 2)  Lawful permanent resident (LPR/Green Card holder)  Asylee  Refugee  Cuban/Haitian entrant  Person paroled into the U.S. for at least one year  Conditional entrant granted before 1980  Battered spouse, child, or parent  Victim of trafficking and his or her spouse, child, sibling, or parent  Person granted Withholding of Deportation or Withholding of Removal, under the INA  Member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or American Indian born in Canada Lawfully Present but not Qualified (not shown in Apx. 1 and 2)2   Person granted Withholding of Deportation or Withholding of Removal under the Convention against Torture (CAT)  2 Person paroled into the US for less than one year Individual with valid non-immigrant status (including student visas (F-visa), crime victims (U-visa), specialty workers (H-visa), religious workers (R-visa) and others) MassHealth describes this group as Non-qualified individuals lawfully present 6  Temporary Protected Status (TPS)  Deferred Enforced Departure (DED)  Deferred Action Status (except Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA); they are Nonqualified PRUCOL, see Apx. 4.)  Applicant for: o o Adjustment to LPR Status with an approved visa petition o Asylum who has either been granted employment authorization, OR is under 14 and has had an application for asylum pending for at least 180 days. o  Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Withholding of Deportation or Withholding of Removal, under the INA or under the CAT who has either been granted employment authorization, OR is under 14 and has had an application for withholding of deportation or withholding removal under the immigration laws or under the CAT pending for at least 180 days. Individuals with employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c) including: o Registry applicants o Those under an Order of supervision o Applicants for Cancellation of Removal or Suspension of Deportation o Applicants for Legalization under IRCA o Applicants for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) o Persons granted legalization under the LIFE Act  Lawful temporary resident granted under legalization program (8 USC 1160 or 1255a)  Granted an administrative stay of removal by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 7 Appendix 4 Nonqualified Persons Residing in US under Color of Law (PRUCOL) 130 CMR 504.003(C); 504.006(C) (under 65) 130 CMR 518.003(C); 518.006(C) (65 and older) Non-qualified PRUCOL non-citizens are not included on the Lawfully Present list but are residing in the US under color of law. They are not eligible to purchase insurance through the Connector. Non-citizens who are not listed in Appendix 3 and have one of the following statuses/conditions:            Granted indefinite stay of deportation; Granted indefinite voluntary departure; Have approved immediate relative petition, entitled to voluntary departure, and whose departure the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not contemplate enforcing; Granted voluntary departure by the DHS or an Immigration Judge, and whose deportation the DHS does not contemplate enforcing; Living under orders of supervision who do not have employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c); Have entered and continuously lived in the United States since before January 1, 1972; Granted suspension of deportation, and whose departure the DHS does not contemplate enforcing; Have a pending application for asylum under 8 U.S.C. 1158, or for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231, or under the Convention against Torture who have not been granted employment authorization, or are under the age of 14 and have not had an application pending for at least 180 days; Granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals(DACA) or who have a pending application for DACA; Have filed an application, petition, or request to obtain a lawfully present status that has been accepted as properly filed, but who have not yet obtained employment authorization and whose departure the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) does not contemplate enforcing; or Any noncitizen living in the United States with the knowledge and consent of the DHS, and whose departure the DHS does not contemplate enforcing. (These include persons granted Extended Voluntary Departure due to conditions in the noncitizen’s home country based on a determination by the U.S. Secretary of State.) 8 Additional Resources Massachusetts MassHealth and Connector, Member Booklet, Section 9, US Citizenship and Immigration rules; and Senior Guide to Health Coverage, Part 11, US Citizenship and Immigrations rules. https://www.mass.gov/lists/masshealth-member-guides-and-handbooks MassHealth and Connector, Immigration Document Types-description of documents, how to find codes from different documents and photos of sample documents (link from Getting Started Guide on mahealthconnector.org): https://betterhealthconnector.com/immigration-documenttypes Table comparing benefits in the different types of MassHealth: https://www.masslegalservices.org/content/benefits-included-masshealth-coverage-type Overview of benefits in Connector Care: https://betterhealthconnector.com/wp-content/uploads/ConnectorCare_Overview-2018.pdf National National Immigration Law Center, information about immigrants and access to health benefits: https://www.nilc.org/issues/health-care/ Send questions or comments to Vicky Pulos, vpulos@mlri.org, 617-357-0700 Ext. 318. This document is available on-line at masslegalservices.org 9               Exhibit 98 Vermont Agency of Education Vermont Agency of Education Classifying School Districts by Size and Type of Education Offered: FY2017 1 2 3 4 Small Medium Large X-large S <100 EqPup 100<=M<500 500<=L<1000 XL >= 1000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 B. Number of School Districts Do not operate a school, tuition all students grades K-12 Operate elementary school, designated high school Operate public K-12 Operate elementary school, tuition high school students Operate elementary school, belong to a union Belong to a union or joint elementary, tuition high school students Belong to a union or joint elementary and a union or joint H.S. Do not operate elementary, but belong to a union H.S. Gores and unorganized towns Union High School District Union Elementary School District Unified Union School District & Interstate School District 18 1 8 27 3 14 4 9 2 - 2 4 14 34 47 1 2 1 11 4 7 All towns, gores, & unorganized towns A. 86 127 703 36 269 860 4,061 7,557 9,309 125 438 131 Number of Equalized Pupils in School Districts Do not operate a school, tuition all students grades K-12 Operate elementary school, designated high school Operate public K-12 Operate elementary school, tuition high school students Operate elementary school, belong to a union Belong to a union or joint elementary, tuition high school students Belong to a union or joint elementary and a union or joint H.S. Do not operate elementary, but belong to a union H.S. Gores and unorganized towns Union High School District Union Elementary School District Unified Union School District & Interstate School District Total 7 4 12 7 1 2 10 1 3 4 2 20 5 28 47 88 4 16 5 9 25 7 12 37 16 266 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 5,091 2,692 8,932 15,437 1,119 2,325 3,982 1,032 2,463 7,812 657 2,493 5,285 2,934 972 895 24,589 11,975 22,410 197 902 246 11 17,079 1,858 7,890 4,023 30,226 27,677 27,100 89,025 17,263 14,937 19,214 20,626 18,115 16,191 16,388 8,814 21,166 - 20,291 18,369 19,285 17,822 17,996 18,969 20,982 21,345 20,659 17,778 18,900 18,181 16,781 16,927 19,967 18,103 19,170 20,125 17,420 17,971 21,364 17,397 18,101 18,233 19,584 17,621 17,784 18,654 18,516 19,028 8,814 20,560 18,201 18,426 152,714 212,396 109,128 94,277 18,877 Education Spending in School Districts (budgeted expenditures minus local revenues) Do not operate a school, tuition all students grades K-12 Operate elementary school, designated high school Operate public K-12 Operate elementary school, tuition high school students Operate elementary school, belong to a union Belong to a union or joint elementary, tuition high school students Belong to a union or joint elementary and a union or joint H.S. Do not operate elementary, but belong to a union H.S. Gores and unorganized towns Union High School District Union Elementary School District Unified Union School District & Interstate School District 10,722,480 344,066 9,019,789 28,115,013 964,258 6,142,089 1,452,040 94,035 2,737,955 - 4,435,946 13,477,055 59,845,375 110,439,756 134,486,526 1,971,028 7,633,904 2,195,356 60,669,875 14,791,989 38,018,105 70,397,098 38,028,856 124,416,675 121,722,469 10,194,815 37,771,854 222,965,289 14,037,173 33,823,947 80,427,226 42,924,668 15,158,426 13,821,121 353,207,762 171,525,574 320,842,161 2,935,286 13,775,993 3,647,396 94,035 262,819,570 27,724,759 118,714,627 All towns, gores, & unorganized towns 1 59,591,725 447,964,915 402,531,767 394,178,303 1,304,266,710 16,495 15,673 14,735 14,615 14,447 15,811 17,433 16,732 15,236 14,337 15,437 13,828 14,129 13,929 15,582 15,522 15,150 14,444 12,541 14,551 15,218 14,630 15,595 15,436 14,364 14,324 14,317 14,863 15,271 14,804 8,788 15,389 14,923 15,046 170,951 88,140 71,383 14,651 All towns, gores, & unorganized towns C. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Budgeted Expenditures as Voted per Equalized Pupil Do not operate a school, tuition all students grades K-12 Operate elementary school, designated high school Operate public K-12 Operate elementary school, tuition high school students Operate elementary school, belong to a union Belong to a union or joint elementary, tuition high school students Belong to a union or joint elementary and a union or joint H.S. Do not operate elementary, but belong to a union H.S. Gores and unorganized towns Union High School District Union Elementary School District Unified Union School District & Interstate School District grand All D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 E. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 towns, gores, & unorganized towns 607 1,845 73 464 115 11 169 Education Spending per Equalized Pupil (budgeted expenditures minus local revenues divided by equalized pupils) Do not operate a school, tuition all students grades K-12 15,250 Operate elementary school, designated high school 9,689 Operate public K-12 Operate elementary school, tuition high school students 14,857 Operate elementary school, belong to a union 15,240 Belong to a union or joint elementary, tuition high school students 13,240 Belong to a union or joint elementary and a union or joint H.S. 13,231 Do not operate elementary, but belong to a union H.S. 12,608 Gores and unorganized towns 8,788 Union High School District Union Elementary School District 16,173 Unified Union School District & Interstate School District - and to All towns, gores, & unorganized towns 119,077 83_edu-data-per-pupil-spending-fy2017.xlsx Vermont Agency of Education * Gores and Unorganized Town have not been included in statewide rankings District Name LEA Grades Operated County Town District's Entire Equalized Pupils FY 2017 Equalized Pupils * State Rank Budget per of Budgets EqPup Group per FY 2017 Budgets Rank (High Equalized per Equalized Pupil to Low) Pupils FY 2017 Education Spanding Per Equalized Pupil * State Rank of Act 68 Education Homestead Spending Per Equalized Equalized Pupil Tax Rate Size Detail Do not operate a school, tuition all students grades K-12 Winhall St. George Lemington Victory East Haven Norton Plymouth Granville Maidstone Bloomfield Searsburg Stratton Pittsfield Hancock Baltimore Kirby Granby Sandgate Brunswick Ira T248 T178 T111 T216 T064 T144 T156 T085 T118 T021 T182 T200 T153 T091 T008 T108 T083 T181 T035 T101 Bennington Chittenden Essex Essex Essex Essex Windsor Addison Essex Essex Bennington Windham Rutland Addison Windsor Caledonia Essex Bennington Essex Rutland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Data 143.90 125.03 14.98 9.93 51.15 14.51 52.48 42.20 21.34 33.76 24.65 29.49 75.97 51.33 49.30 86.98 12.01 52.05 19.18 61.79 972.03 21,668.48 18,705.81 24,471.96 18,613.49 21,564.24 18,155.82 19,307.07 15,948.60 14,132.52 14,163.89 19,491.52 19,354.32 19,169.53 18,822.11 18,278.86 16,986.41 11,915.40 17,100.61 8,395.46 11,446.84 16,755.51 2 9 1 10 3 12 6 15 17 16 4 5 7 8 11 14 18 13 20 19 15 120 36 125 31 43 46 50 55 73 74 95 105 110 144 189 192 194 202 223 16,429.21 16,570.29 23,947.80 17,880.77 19,108.93 14,147.28 17,059.55 13,714.45 12,126.29 11,332.73 14,327.18 14,583.62 18,351.32 17,134.54 15,576.15 15,878.88 9,826.31 15,471.74 7,444.53 9,969.72 14,204.80 43 40 1 11 4 162 23 186 228 241 153 136 6 21 75 62 247 85 253 246 1.6936 1.7081 2.4686 1.8432 1.9698 1.4583 1.7585 1.4137 1.2500 1.1682 1.4769 1.5033 1.8917 1.7663 1.6056 1.6368 1.0129 1.5949 1.0000 1.0277 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 1 None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None Group Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Data 407.02 178.93 149.95 123.98 35.51 895.39 20,417.31 18,597.30 15,579.76 14,690.10 14,936.58 18,023.87 1 2 3 5 4 69 131 232 245 247 18,184.27 15,558.90 12,694.48 11,196.98 9,689.27 15,166.63 8 77 217 244 249 1.8745 1.6038 1.3086 1.1542 1.0000 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 3 PK-6 PK-8 PK-6 None None Group PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 K-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 133.71 150.07 154.57 181.25 173.14 495.69 283.98 317.65 380.07 288.59 332.09 401.85 329.75 438.91 1,456.31 2,218.03 1,325.17 4,124.30 2,420.12 1,615.45 24,976.28 23,878.45 25,076.77 20,458.82 20,307.17 19,966.43 19,888.82 19,482.89 19,102.13 17,873.74 18,504.46 18,450.95 17,632.17 15,430.20 24,615.34 22,737.27 21,815.75 19,881.45 19,409.66 17,704.43 2 4 1 8 9 10 11 13 15 20 16 17 22 28 3 6 7 12 14 21 1 8 10 97 113 129 135 169 13 28 34 85 22 196 56 81 84 137 234 213 15,558.45 13,272.84 16,260.01 16,796.63 16,016.24 13,353.79 16,609.78 15,083.71 15,294.09 15,464.46 14,756.90 14,793.33 14,209.29 12,550.13 15,084.18 14,308.43 16,229.69 14,133.35 15,051.93 14,083.29 78 202 50 32 54 198 37 109 96 86 127 125 158 220 108 154 52 164 110 165 1.6038 1.3682 1.6761 1.7485 1.6736 1.3765 1.7122 1.5754 1.5766 1.5941 1.5212 1.5249 1.4647 1.2937 1.5549 1.4749 1.6730 1.4569 1.5516 1.4517 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 1000 <= very large 1000 <= very large 1000 <= very large 1000 <= very large 1000 <= very large 1000 <= very large Operate elementary school, designated high school Thetford Strafford Wells Pawlet Rupert T205 T199 T228 T150 T172 Orange Orange Rutland Rutland Bennington Operate public K-12 Rochester Canaan Craftsbury Cabot Chelsea Windsor Bethel Danville Arlington Proctor Royalton Poultney West Rutland Richford Hartford Rutland City Springfield Burlington South Burlington Milton T168 T041 T055 T038 T046 T247 T020 T057 T005 T160 T171 T158 T237 T165 T093 T173 T193 T037 T191 T126 FY 2016 Spending Per Pupil by School District Type Windsor Essex Orleans Washington Orange Windsor Windsor Caledonia Bennington Rutland Windsor Rutland Rutland Franklin Windsor Rutland Windsor Chittenden Chittenden Chittenden 3 of 7 Vermont Agency of Education * Gores and Unorganized Town have not been included in statewide rankings District Name Colchester Enosburgh Northfield Montpelier Winooski ID Williamstown Stowe Fairfax LEA T050 T068 T142 T129 T249 T243 T198 T071 Grades Operated County Chittenden Franklin Washington Washington Chittenden Orange Lamoille Franklin 5 K-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 Group Town District's Entire Equalized Pupils FY 2017 Equalized Pupils * State Rank Budget per of Budgets EqPup Group per FY 2017 Budgets Rank (High Equalized per Equalized Pupil to Low) Pupils FY 2017 Education Spanding Per Equalized Pupil * State Rank of Act 68 Education Homestead Spending Per Equalized Equalized Pupil Tax Rate Size Detail Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Data 2,277.57 511.75 585.58 1,030.46 951.02 520.66 715.63 775.89 24,589.26 16,647.02 23,118.73 18,314.39 18,029.78 17,612.45 17,387.30 17,276.53 17,089.92 19,371.43 27 5 18 19 23 24 25 26 186 60 101 164 142 153 170 179 13,297.47 11,941.67 14,631.33 15,020.53 13,358.83 13,889.19 14,566.15 12,733.82 14,522.48 201 231 134 113 197 175 137 215 1.3707 1.2310 1.5082 1.5484 1.3771 1.4317 1.5015 1.3126 1000 <= very large 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Data 137.07 128.77 229.76 143.10 100.89 119.80 122.89 306.36 165.10 311.21 173.07 294.36 288.73 327.40 486.03 194.91 226.53 279.24 280.82 128.45 155.62 251.79 296.61 180.12 329.67 164.60 170.42 210.10 148.66 299.33 114.88 211.57 395.66 183.09 1,119.29 604.41 703.75 855.92 527.56 83.01 56.22 80.11 34.95 87.59 90.32 80.24 94.67 11,974.65 22,909.85 21,238.81 20,506.45 20,097.26 19,380.76 19,976.77 18,500.90 19,428.74 19,378.46 18,740.45 18,535.30 18,620.29 18,555.05 18,393.23 18,115.17 17,883.65 17,989.98 17,985.17 17,969.99 17,840.30 17,239.20 17,403.65 17,035.20 17,271.04 17,063.09 17,032.58 16,970.26 16,795.89 16,396.19 15,552.01 15,350.71 15,297.33 15,139.55 14,469.14 17,420.11 19,657.40 17,123.03 15,418.58 15,237.64 21,396.08 21,457.26 21,215.35 17,469.41 20,493.68 16,249.45 18,376.56 17,270.13 17,328.45 1 4 6 8 12 9 18 11 13 14 17 15 16 19 21 25 22 23 24 26 32 29 35 30 34 36 37 38 39 41 43 44 46 47 28 10 33 42 45 3 2 5 27 7 40 20 31 24 76 93 103 124 127 139 149 150 156 157 162 165 178 180 187 199 201 204 209 220 237 239 248 79 182 235 240 29 45 53 66 104 188 233 128 243 52 82 47 64 77 78 98 130 154 177 18,437.27 16,675.69 16,429.03 13,793.00 15,292.34 16,587.72 15,356.71 14,981.58 15,256.71 15,028.98 15,431.38 15,573.09 15,404.84 15,326.79 15,531.88 14,906.67 15,092.55 14,890.85 15,175.61 13,814.53 14,135.84 14,890.21 15,032.95 13,651.80 14,374.86 13,563.63 13,761.59 13,727.86 12,582.77 13,136.17 11,286.42 13,839.86 11,976.94 11,969.47 12,541.14 15,583.02 14,175.17 13,334.43 13,688.19 16,995.15 15,714.41 15,725.03 12,780.23 18,112.83 11,469.41 13,412.52 13,948.62 14,351.99 5 35 44 181 97 39 93 115 101 112 89 76 91 94 79 119 107 120 105 180 163 121 111 189 152 192 184 185 219 207 243 177 229 230 221 73 161 200 187 26 70 69 214 9 239 195 173 1.9731 1.7312 1.6935 1.4218 1.5764 1.7099 1.5931 1.5443 1.5727 1.5492 1.5907 1.6053 1.5880 1.5799 1.6011 1.5366 1.5558 1.5377 1.5814 1.4240 1.4572 1.5349 1.5496 1.4073 1.4818 1.3982 1.4186 1.4151 1.2971 1.3541 1.1634 1.4266 1.2346 1.2338 1.2928 1.6322 1.4612 1.3745 1.4110 1.7519 1.6199 1.6210 1.3174 1.9300 1.1823 1.3826 1.4379 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 1000 <= very large 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Operate elementary school, tuition high school students West Windsor Marlboro Concord Sunderland Stockbridge Middletown Springs Wardsboro Alburgh Dover Dorset Tunbridge Burke Grand Isle Weathersfield Hartland South Hero Waterford Wolcott Barnet Washington Sutton Sharon Westford Lunenburg Fairfield Orange Coventry Bakersfield Walden Berkshire Stamford Fletcher Sheldon Montgomery St. Johnsbury Manchester Lyndon Georgia Rutland Town Roxbury Isle La Motte Newark Guildhall Peacham Readsboro Halifax North Hero T238 T120 T051 T202 T197 T125 T221 T003 T060 T059 T210 T036 T084 T227 T094 T192 T225 T250 T010 T223 T203 T184 T232 T116 T072 T146 T054 T007 T218 T018 T194 T077 T187 T128 T179 T119 T117 T079 T174 T170 T103 T135 T088 T151 T164 T090 T143 Windsor Windham Essex Bennington Windsor Rutland Windham Grand Isle Windham Bennington Orange Caledonia Grand Isle Windsor Windsor Grand Isle Caledonia Lamoille Caledonia Orange Caledonia Windsor Chittenden Essex Franklin Orange Orleans Franklin Caledonia Franklin Bennington Franklin Franklin Franklin Caledonia Bennington Caledonia Franklin Rutland Washington Grand Isle Caledonia Essex Caledonia Bennington Windham Grand Isle 6 FY 2016 Spending Per Pupil by School District Type K-6 PK-8 PK-8 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-8 PK-6 PK-8 K-8 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 PK-6 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 PK-6 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 K-8 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 K-8 PK-6 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 PK-6 PK-6 PK-8 K-6 PK-6 PK-8 K-8 PK-6 Group 4 of 7 Vermont Agency of Education * Gores and Unorganized Town have not been included in statewide rankings District Name LEA County Grades Operated Town District's Entire Equalized Pupils FY 2017 Equalized Pupils * State Rank Budget per of Budgets EqPup Group per FY 2017 Budgets Rank (High Equalized per Equalized Pupil to Low) Pupils FY 2017 Education Spanding Per Equalized Pupil * State Rank of Act 68 Education Homestead Spending Per Equalized Equalized Pupil Tax Rate Size Detail Operate elementary school, belong to a union Addison Albany Barnard Barre City Barre Town Barton ID Bennington ID Benson Berlin Bradford ID Braintree Brattleboro Bridport Brighton Bristol Brookfield Brownington Calais Cambridge Cavendish Charleston Charlotte Cornwall Derby Dummerston East Montpelier Eden Essex Junction ID Essex Town Fair Haven Fayston Ferrisburgh Franklin Glover Guilford Hardwick Highgate Hinesburg Holland Huntington Hyde Park Irasburg Jamaica Johnson Lincoln Lowell Ludlow T001 T002 T009 T011 T012 T013 T015 T017 T019 T023 T024 T027 T029 T030 T031 T032 T034 T039 T040 T043 T044 T045 T053 T058 T061 T065 T066 T069 T070 T073 T075 T076 T078 T080 T089 T092 T095 T096 T097 T099 T100 T102 T104 T107 T112 T114 T115 FY 2016 Spending Per Pupil by School District Type Addison Orleans Windsor Washington Washington Orleans Bennington Rutland Washington Orange Orange Windham Addison Essex Addison Orange Orleans Washington Lamoille Windsor Orleans Chittenden Addison Orleans Windham Washington Lamoille Chittenden Chittenden Rutland Washington Addison Franklin Orleans Windham Caledonia Franklin Chittenden Orleans Chittenden Lamoille Orleans Windham Lamoille Addison Orleans Windsor PK-6 PK-8 PK-6 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 PK-5 PK-8 PK-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-8 PK-6 K-6 PK-8 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-8 PK-8 PK-6 PK-6 PK-8 PK-6 PK-6 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-8 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-8 PK-6 PK-4 PK-6 PK-8 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-8 PK-6 No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No 79.31 90.93 59.75 875.31 795.94 183.00 902.52 92.54 176.01 241.53 80.01 876.87 79.17 91.45 286.74 67.24 107.27 117.76 338.31 99.90 115.24 391.33 78.99 349.91 163.29 183.93 119.66 1,077.92 1,246.60 311.58 94.02 184.69 130.72 122.46 164.51 254.65 310.98 529.15 42.34 119.27 226.33 137.19 56.25 244.86 122.16 113.65 103.29 20,258.92 19,741.38 20,500.35 15,211.37 14,434.68 15,923.39 16,645.27 17,780.64 19,208.43 17,423.80 17,509.27 18,232.60 20,245.13 22,311.11 17,510.61 17,158.98 16,014.73 17,478.66 17,341.05 19,165.37 16,190.50 18,914.47 19,520.88 16,936.34 21,285.20 22,707.29 22,778.91 17,597.17 18,293.53 17,073.58 18,876.62 18,583.97 13,632.20 18,558.80 18,761.51 18,584.43 16,102.77 17,328.90 22,744.14 18,415.19 19,394.86 15,046.06 21,252.23 17,932.11 18,141.14 16,544.74 23,365.85 23 26 21 84 87 79 72 54 33 61 59 49 24 13 58 66 78 60 62 34 76 36 29 69 15 11 9 57 47 67 37 42 88 44 40 41 77 64 10 46 32 85 16 52 51 73 6 172 26 80 37 67 190 208 89 132 236 133 167 183 176 244 119 155 63 19 225 238 116 51 3 175 21 57 121 99 231 102 250 122 17 158 148 147 61 242 185 123 94 108 117 25 218 227 15,513.08 14,420.54 14,986.13 11,862.28 11,860.45 12,604.10 13,226.37 14,209.96 15,890.47 13,780.44 13,956.07 15,291.69 16,534.17 15,250.84 14,739.11 13,604.02 11,676.50 14,884.57 13,815.77 15,266.33 11,766.00 16,014.33 15,988.10 11,609.47 17,214.12 19,856.11 16,897.50 14,712.66 14,411.10 13,947.57 15,459.67 15,869.31 11,683.80 14,451.36 15,821.06 14,956.79 12,723.14 14,782.61 13,857.68 14,948.34 14,414.65 11,168.07 15,406.99 13,960.39 15,359.24 11,676.65 16,802.79 82 147 114 232 233 218 203 157 61 182 172 98 41 102 129 191 237 122 179 100 234 55 58 238 20 3 28 132 149 174 87 63 235 145 65 117 216 126 176 118 148 245 90 171 92 236 31 1.5991 1.4865 1.5448 1.2228 1.2226 1.2993 1.3634 1.4648 1.6380 1.4205 1.4386 1.5763 1.7044 1.5721 1.5193 1.4023 1.2036 1.5343 1.4242 1.5737 1.2129 1.6508 1.6481 1.1967 1.7745 2.0468 1.7418 1.5166 1.4855 1.4378 1.5936 1.6358 1.2044 1.4897 1.6309 1.5418 1.3115 1.5238 1.4285 1.5409 1.4859 1.1512 1.6121 1.4391 1.5833 1.2037 1.7321 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 100 <= medium < 500 500 <= large <1000 Small <100 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 500 <= large <1000 Small <100 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 1000 <= very large 1000 <= very large 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 500 <= large <1000 Small <100 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 5 of 7 Vermont Agency of Education * Gores and Unorganized Town have not been included in statewide rankings District Name Middlebury ID Middlesex Monkton Moretown Mt. Holly New Haven Newbury Newport City Newport Town Norwich Orleans ID Orwell Pownal Putney Randolph Reading Ripton Rockingham Salisbury Shaftsbury Shelburne Sherburne Shoreham St. Albans City St. Albans Town Starksboro Swanton Townshend Troy Vernon Waitsfield Warren Waterville Westminster Weybridge Williston Windham Woodbury Woodford Woodstock Worcester LEA T123 T124 T127 T130 T133 T138 T136 T139 T140 T145 T147 T148 T159 T161 T162 T163 T167 T169 T180 T183 T186 T188 T189 T176 T177 T196 T204 T208 T209 T214 T217 T222 T226 T234 T239 T244 T246 T251 T252 T253 T254 Grades Operated County Addison Washington Addison Washington Rutland Addison Orange Orleans Orleans Windsor Orleans Addison Bennington Windham Orange Windsor Addison Windham Addison Bennington Chittenden Rutland Addison Franklin Franklin Addison Franklin Windham Orleans Windham Washington Washington Lamoille Windham Addison Chittenden Windham Washington Bennington Windsor Washington 7 FY 2016 Spending Per Pupil by School District Type PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-8 K-8 PK-6 PK-8 K-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-8 PK-6 PK-6 PK-8 PK-6 PK-6 PK-8 PK-8 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-8 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-8 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 K-6 PK-6 Group Town District's Entire Equalized Pupils No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Data FY 2017 Equalized Pupils 460.18 164.49 159.39 107.71 74.31 103.18 127.93 329.66 139.54 611.84 99.50 129.35 263.31 182.82 306.96 47.25 36.78 538.07 92.42 255.01 794.65 54.90 79.87 792.34 716.74 173.17 525.73 74.12 177.95 239.92 127.32 147.67 48.73 246.73 48.31 973.21 20.70 48.31 25.16 157.88 70.80 22,410.44 * State Rank Budget per of Budgets EqPup Group per FY 2017 Budgets Rank (High Equalized per Equalized Pupil to Low) Pupils 16,332.04 19,414.91 17,654.31 22,940.34 22,839.38 18,260.55 18,917.32 17,334.52 19,497.66 19,535.27 18,789.94 15,013.72 18,578.47 20,526.93 15,401.56 22,424.28 25,913.70 20,608.53 19,649.17 15,585.18 16,986.06 30,650.40 19,871.35 15,891.13 15,332.66 16,870.54 16,512.76 21,004.11 16,722.90 18,153.28 17,750.09 17,221.68 32,647.26 20,806.16 24,372.99 17,889.23 18,500.34 21,658.37 23,703.46 20,477.62 18,787.51 18,189.59 75 31 56 7 8 48 35 63 30 28 38 86 43 20 82 12 3 19 27 81 68 2 25 80 83 70 74 17 71 50 55 65 1 18 4 53 45 14 5 22 39 211 134 90 173 146 222 14 9 171 143 241 18 217 118 16 163 65 212 197 58 203 88 30 2 161 86 42 226 228 23 136 91 35 111 249 184 96 92 214 206 20 FY 2017 Education Spanding Per Equalized Pupil 14,637.88 16,804.77 15,136.95 17,697.15 17,494.64 14,200.61 13,976.63 13,420.14 14,815.02 17,746.28 12,795.95 12,814.57 14,558.89 17,025.61 13,383.98 17,359.43 17,287.85 16,362.02 15,981.37 12,498.91 14,270.73 15,577.23 15,308.20 12,866.26 13,151.32 14,390.51 13,140.22 16,440.89 12,893.35 14,720.29 15,493.41 14,006.54 16,256.68 15,988.16 19,918.53 14,276.90 14,523.14 14,858.15 9,641.81 15,239.78 14,749.83 14,680.12 * State Rank of Act 68 Education Homestead Spending Per Equalized Equalized Pupil Tax Rate 133 30 106 14 16 159 169 194 124 13 213 212 138 24 196 17 19 45 59 223 156 74 95 211 205 150 206 42 208 131 84 167 51 57 2 155 142 123 250 103 128 1.5089 1.7323 1.5604 1.8243 1.8034 1.4638 1.4407 1.3834 1.5272 1.8293 1.3190 1.3210 1.5008 1.7550 1.3797 1.7895 1.7821 1.6866 1.6474 1.2884 1.4711 1.6057 1.5780 1.3263 1.3557 1.4834 1.3545 1.6948 1.3291 1.2594 1.5994 1.4438 1.6758 1.6481 2.0533 1.4717 1.4971 1.5316 1.0000 1.5710 1.5204 Size Detail 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 Small <100 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 500 <= large <1000 Small <100 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 Small <100 500 <= large <1000 Small <100 100 <= medium < 500 500 <= large <1000 Small <100 Small <100 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 100 <= medium < 500 500 <= large <1000 Small <100 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 500 <= large <1000 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 6 of 7 Vermont Agency of Education * Gores and Unorganized Town have not been included in statewide rankings District Name LEA Grades Operated County Town District's Entire Equalized Pupils FY 2017 Equalized Pupils * State Rank Budget per of Budgets EqPup Group per FY 2017 Budgets Rank (High Equalized per Equalized Pupil to Low) Pupils FY 2017 Education Spanding Per Equalized Pupil * State Rank of Act 68 Education Homestead Spending Per Equalized Equalized Pupil Tax Rate Size Detail Belong to a union or joint elementary, tuition high school students Danby Hubbardton Mt. Tabor Stannard T056 T098 T134 T195 Rutland Rutland Rutland Caledonia 8 None None None None Group No No No No Data 124.66 27.13 14.88 30.82 197.49 18,969.20 19,759.49 17,201.08 17,109.38 48,146.26 2 1 3 4 72 115 151 193 15,811.23 15,999.08 9,701.01 12,519.53 39,920.98 66 56 248 222 1.6299 1.6601 1.0000 1.2905 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 20,668.08 21,380.23 16,363.95 18,325.55 16,947.64 16,948.31 16,393.88 16,151.87 15,865.62 14,791.48 11,580.77 13,470.65 8,285.98 2 1 7 3 5 4 6 8 9 10 12 11 13 33 39 48 140 198 205 216 224 229 246 251 253 254 17,092.03 17,866.71 12,213.55 15,507.34 14,524.69 14,523.97 12,213.54 12,880.23 13,189.75 12,127.70 8,454.95 11,327.52 6,873.14 15,451.04 22 12 225 83 140 141 226 210 204 227 252 242 254 255 256 256 1.7619 1.8417 1.2590 1.6169 1.4972 1.4972 1.2590 1.3277 1.3596 1.2502 0.8716 1.1677 0.7085 0.0207 - 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Belong to a union or joint elementary and a union high school or joint H.S. Wilmington Whitingham Bridgewater Westfield Newfane Brookline Pomfret Grafton Jay Athens Andover Chester Greensboro **Duxbury Castleton Waterbury T245 T242 T028 T231 T137 T033 T157 T082 T105 T006 T004 T047 T086 T063 T042 T224 Windham Windham Windsor Orleans Windham Windham Windsor Windham Orleans Windham Windsor Windsor Orleans Washington Rutland Washington None None K-6 None None None K-6 None None None None None None None None None Group Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Data 245.17 192.73 42.28 42.12 83.80 46.02 51.79 58.82 54.22 60.47 1.82 16.97 5.92 902.13 18,877.68 No No No No No Data 131.21 32.12 33.85 24.32 24.88 246.38 21,345.42 19,414.63 16,366.32 15,316.12 13,557.48 18,760.39 1 2 3 4 5 49 100 221 230 252 16,731.62 16,052.62 12,416.99 11,416.32 9,584.81 15,863.20 33 53 224 240 251 1.7247 1.6547 1.2800 1.1768 1.0000 100 <= medium < 500 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 10 None None None None None Group Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Data 5.45 5.25 10.70 17,305.50 - 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - 17,254.13 8,047.38 - 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 Small <100 11 None None None None None None None None None Group 9 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A Do not operate elementary, but belong to a union H.S. North Bennington ID Belvidere Morgan Westmore West Haven T141 T014 T131 T235 T233 Bennington Lamoille Orleans Orleans Rutland Gores and unorganized towns Buel's Gore Ferdinand Averill Avery's Gore Glastenbury Lewis Somerset Warner's Grant Warren's Gore T255 T258 T256 T257 T259 T260 T261 T262 T263 FY 2016 Spending Per Pupil by School District Type Chittenden Essex Essex Essex Bennington Essex Windham Essex Essex 8,103.08 7 of 7 Vermont Agency of Education * Gores and Unorganized Town have not been included in statewide rankings District Name LEA Grades Operated County Town District's Entire Equalized Pupils FY 2017 Equalized Pupils * State Rank Budget per of Budgets EqPup Group per FY 2017 Budgets Rank (High Equalized per Equalized Pupil to Low) Pupils FY 2017 Education Spanding Per Equalized Pupil * State Rank of Act 68 Education Homestead Spending Per Equalized Equalized Pupil Tax Rate Size Detail Union High School Districts Oxbow UHSD #30 Woodstock UHSD #4 Leland And Gray UHSD #34 Hazen UHSD #26 Black River USD #39 North Country Jr UHSD #22 Lake Region UHSD #24 Green Mountain UHSD #35 Bellows Falls UHSD #27 Randolph UHSD #2 Fair Haven UHSD #16 Essex Comm. Ed. Ctr. UHSD #46 Brattleboro UHSD #6 Champlain Valley UHSD #15 Mt. Anthony UHSD #14 Bellows Free Academy UHSD #48 Lamoille UHSD #18 Vergennes UHSD #5 U32 High School (UHSD #32) Harwood UHSD #19 Middlebury UHSD #3 Mt Abraham UHSD #28 Missisquoi Valley UHSD #7 North Country Sr UHSD #22 Spaulding HSUD #41 U030 U004 U034 U026 U039 U022A U024 U035 U027 U002 U016 U046 U006 U015 U014 U048 U018 U005 U032 U019 U003 U028 U007 U022B U041 Orange Windsor Windham Orleans Windsor Orleans Orleans Windsor Windham Orange Rutland Chittenden Windham Chittenden Bennington Franklin Lamoille Addison Washington Washington Addison Addison Franklin Essex Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Data 324.97 452.31 296.59 355.41 193.11 258.97 364.19 342.50 421.06 487.41 485.45 1,144.76 1,117.17 1,275.99 1,747.20 750.17 825.39 543.45 755.33 707.06 963.73 743.48 880.32 853.83 788.96 17,078.81 28,574.23 25,710.70 24,006.94 21,576.24 20,149.08 19,761.45 19,124.11 18,830.98 18,684.63 16,695.33 16,749.63 28,940.69 25,048.11 17,177.94 17,100.01 28,186.04 22,756.98 20,506.02 20,331.74 20,110.36 19,739.31 18,009.78 17,695.34 16,778.97 16,490.65 21,735.87 2 4 6 8 11 13 15 16 17 24 23 1 5 20 21 3 7 9 10 12 14 18 19 22 25 7 41 83 114 200 11 195 6 27 152 207 5 68 71 87 12 109 126 210 4 191 44 70 166 219 15,448.61 17,001.42 16,646.06 16,323.65 16,715.88 14,374.99 14,529.13 14,189.05 15,236.51 14,611.24 13,558.61 16,313.93 17,349.15 14,510.46 13,653.01 16,598.48 14,972.93 18,112.19 16,320.09 16,972.82 17,648.27 15,652.61 13,625.47 13,972.28 12,891.73 16,299.27 88 25 36 46 34 151 139 160 104 135 193 48 18 143 188 38 116 10 47 27 15 71 190 170 209 1.5925 1.7535 1.7159 1.6827 1.7231 1.4818 1.4977 1.4626 1.5706 1.5062 1.3977 1.6817 1.7884 1.4958 1.4074 1.7110 1.5434 1.9179 1.6823 1.7496 1.8192 1.6135 1.4045 1.4403 1.3289 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 1000 <= very large 1000 <= very large 1000 <= very large 1000 <= very large 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-8 9-12 7-12 9-12 7-12 9-12 9-12 7-12 9-12 6-12 9-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 7-12 9-12 9-12 Group Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Data 176.12 206.48 283.05 366.11 656.78 95.71 73.58 1,857.83 20,554.28 18,926.81 16,782.34 16,563.10 18,102.61 21,449.88 20,797.59 17,766.18 3 4 6 7 5 1 2 181 215 40 59 138 62 107 15,855.55 14,424.91 13,981.05 13,831.14 15,522.42 16,858.56 15,281.63 14,740.69 64 146 168 178 80 29 99 1.6344 1.4870 1.4412 1.4257 1.6001 1.8166 1.5753 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 500 <= large <1000 Small <100 Small <100 13 PK-6 PK-6 PK-6 PK-8 PK-8 PK-6 PK-6 Group Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Data 296.68 197.54 404.32 463.27 350.95 353.73 396.29 1,299.54 1,634.47 824.70 776.31 892.12 7,889.92 22,673.72 19,552.09 20,128.03 19,160.45 17,180.48 16,457.47 17,895.64 17,394.47 17,399.57 20,620.98 19,089.30 17,897.54 10,604.81 1 4 3 5 11 12 8 10 9 2 6 7 32 38 106 141 160 168 54 112 159 75 145 174 18,311.04 16,302.71 15,773.39 15,519.03 13,772.59 13,349.22 15,752.71 14,495.35 14,737.12 15,614.95 15,937.39 14,036.06 8,736.07 7 49 67 81 183 199 68 144 130 72 60 166 1.8875 1.6805 1.6260 1.5797 1.4197 1.2961 1.6442 1.4142 1.4591 1.5296 1.5829 1.4469 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 100 <= medium < 500 1000 <= very large 1000 <= very large 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 500 <= large <1000 Union Elementary School Districts Mettawee Community UESD #47 Chester Andover UESD #29 Vergennes UESD #44 Castleton Hubbardton UESD #42 Duxbury/Waterbury UESD #45 Currier Memorial USD U023 Lakeview USD U043 U047 U029 U044 U042 U045 U023 U043 Rutland Windsor Addison Rutland Washington Rutland Orleans Unified Union School Distircts & Interstate School Districts Rivendell Interstate School District Miller's Run USD U037 Blue Mountain Union U021 Mountian Towns RED Waits River Valley USD U036 Barstow USD 49 Twinfield USD U033 Otter Valley USD 53 Mt. Mansfield MUSD U401B Mill River USD 52 Mt. Mansfield Musd U401A Elmore-Morristown USD 50 U146 U037 U021 U301 U036 U049 U033 U053 U401B U052 U401A U050 Orange Caledonia Orange Bennington Orange Chittenden Washington Rutland Chittenden Rutland Chittenden Lamoille 14 PK-12 PK-8 PK-12 PK-8 PK-8 PK-12 PK-12 PK-12 9-12 PK-12 PK-8 PK-12 Group ** These districts belong to two unions but also have a local budget. The Budget per Equalized Pupil and the Education spending per equalized pupil are calculated using the equalized pupil count that the local budget supports. FY 2016 Spending Per Pupil by School District Type 8 of 7               Exhibit 99 REPORT  AUGUST, 2016 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont Partners The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont CONTENTS Demographics 1 Visa Demand 18 The Role of Immigrants as Entrepreneurs 2 Naturalization 20 Income and Tax Contributions  4 International Students  21 The Role of Immigrants in the Broader Workforce 6 Voting Power 22   Spotlight On: Birgit Matthiesen 10 Undocumented Population 23 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math 12 Methodology 27 Healthcare 14 Endnotes 34 Agriculture 16 Endnotes: Methodology 38 Housing 17 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Demographics Demographics I n the last decade, Vermont has struggled with population decline, particularly among the young population. The state for years had one of the lowest birthrates in the United States.1 Relative to other states, it has also sent the largest share of its high school graduates out of the state for college—with many not returning to the workforce afterwards.2 With working-age residents in short supply, many Vermont employers—from furniture manufacturers to rural resorts—have struggled to find the workers they need in recent years to expand and keep growing in the state.3 Vermont is additionally challenged by its 3.2 percent unemployment rate, one of the lowest in the nation— meaning few state residents are available to fill jobs.4 Recent trends regarding the state’s immigrant population have only added to some of these labor challenges. In the country as a whole, immigrants are much more likely to be in the prime of their working years than the native-born population. In some states, particularly in the Rust Belt, policymakers have aimed to stave off population decline—and support employers based in the state—by making concerted efforts to attract and retain young immigrants with needed skills.5 No similar statewide effort has been adopted in Vermont, a policy that could be particularly beneficial here. From 2010 to 2014, the number of immigrants living in Vermont fell by more than 3,500 people. Today Vermont is home to more than 24,000 immigrants. These new Americans play outsize roles as everything from food service managers to computer programmers. For many business owners, such immigrant workers have been a vital reason why their businesses have been able to thrive in recent years.6 24,402 -3,577 Vermont residents were born abroad. Net decrease in the number of immigrants living in Vermont between 2010 and 2014. 5.8% Growth in immigrant population, U.S. 4% Share of Vermont residents born abroad 13% Share of U.S. residents born abroad 2010 -12.8% Decline in immigrant population, VT 2014 1 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont   |   The Role of Immigrants as Entrepreneurs The Role of Immigrants as Entrepreneurs 1,350 immigrants in Vermont are self-employed Immigrant-owned businesses generated $30.3 M in business income in 2014. 3% Share of entrepreneurs in Vermont who are immigrants 27,605 people in Vermont and Rhode Island are employed at firms owned by immigrants. *  his is a conservative estimate that excludes large, publicly T owned firms. G iven that the act of picking up and moving to another country is inherently brave and risky, it should be little surprise that immigrants have repeatedly been found to be more entrepreneurial than the U.S. population as a whole.7 According to The Kauffman Foundation, a nonprofit group that studies entrepreneurship, immigrants were almost twice as likely to start a new business in 2015 than the nativeborn population.8 The companies they founded ranged from small businesses on Main Street to large firms responsible for thousands of American jobs. Recent studies, for instance, have indicated that immigrants own more than half of the grocery stores in America and 48 percent of nail salons.9 Foreign-born entrepreneurs are also behind 51 percent of our country’s billion dollar startups,10 and more than 40 percent of Fortune 500 firms. The super-charged entrepreneurial activity of immigrants provides real and meaningful benefits to everyday Americans. In 2010, roughly one in 10 American workers with jobs at private firms were employed at immigrant-founded companies. Such businesses also generated more than $775 billion in annual business revenue that year.11 Vermont is currently home to almost 1,400 foreign-born entrepreneurs. Such business owners are creating real and meaningful economic opportunities to local, U.S.-born workers. Their firms generated $30.3 million in business income in 2014. Foreign-born entrepreneurs in Vermont and Rhode Island also provided jobs to roughly 28,000 Americans in 2007.12 Currently, there is no visa to come to America, start a company, and create jobs for U.S. workers—even if an entrepreneur already has a business plan and has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to support his or her 2 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont   |   The Role of Immigrants as Entrepreneurs idea. Trying to exploit that flaw in our system, countries around the world—from Canada to Singapore, Australia to Chile—have enacted startup visas, often with the explicit purpose of luring away entrepreneurs who want to build a U.S. business but cannot get a visa to do so.13 Here in the United States, many individuals have gone to great lengths to circumnavigate the visa hurdles. Many entrepreneurs sell a majority stake in their company and then apply for a visa as a high-skilled worker, rather than the owner of their firm. And a few enterprising venture capitalists, led by Jeff Bussgang in Boston and Brad Feld in Colorado, have launched programs that bring over foreign-born entrepreneurs to serve as “entrepreneurs in residence” at colleges and universities. Because nonprofit academic institutions are exempt from the H-1B cap, such entrepreneurs can secure their visas by working as mentors at a school, and then build their startups in their free time. Currently, there is no visa to come to America, start a company, and create jobs for U.S. workers— even if an entrepreneur already has a business plan and has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to support his or her idea. These innovative programs, which are currently available at 13 colleges and universities across the country, are already resulting in meaningful economic contributions. As of mid-2016, 23 entrepreneurs had secured visas through these programs nationally. The companies they founded had created 261 jobs and raised more than $100 million in funding.14 3 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Income and Tax Contributions Income and Tax Contributions I mmigrants in Vermont play an important role contributing to the state as both taxpayers and consumers. In 2014, immigrant-led households in Vermont earned $654.7 million dollars—or 3.6 percent of all income earned by Vermonter that year. With those earnings, the state’s foreign-born households were able to contribute more than one in every 29 dollars paid by Vermont residents in state and local tax revenues, payments that support important public services such as public schools and police. Through their individual wage contributions, immigrants also paid almost $86 million into the Social Security and Medicare programs that year. By spending the money they earn at businesses such as hair salons, grocery stores, and coffee shops, immigrants also support small business owners and job creation in the communities where they live. In Vermont, immigrants held $462.5 million in spending power in 2014, defined in this brief as the net income available to a family after paying federal, state, and local taxes. We highlight the spending power and tax contributions of several subsets of Vermont’s foreign-born population below, including Hispanics and immigrants from Northern Africa or the Middle East. INCOME AND TAX CONTRIBUTIONS OF KEY GROUPS WITHIN VERMONT'S IMMIGRANT POPULATION, 2014 Asian Hispanic $27.4 M $136.2 M Total Income in 2014 Middle Eastern & North African $61.6 M $33.8 M Total amount paid in taxes $7.2M Total amount paid in taxes $20.9M $136.2M $12.9M Total income Total Income in 2014 Total Income in 2014 $4.7M $27.4M $2.4M Amount paid in federal taxes $24.0 M Total amount paid in taxes $61.6M Sub-Saharan African $12.6 M Total Income in 2014 $2.7 M Total amount paid in taxes $1.5M $19.2M $4.8M $12.6M $1.3M Amount paid in state and local taxes 4 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Income and Tax Contributions In 2014, immigrants in Vermont earned $654.7 M. $57.9 M — went to state and local taxes $134.4 M — went to federal taxes Leaving them with $462.5 M in remaining spending power. ENTITLEMENT CONTRIBUTIONS Vermont's immigrants also contribute to our country’s entitlement programs. In 2014, through taxes on their individual wages, immigrants contributed $18.5 M to Medicare and $67.3 M to Social Security. $18.5M $67.3M Medicare Social Security 5 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont   |   The Role of Immigrants in the Broader Workforce The Role of Immigrants in the Broader Workforce Because they tended to be working-age, 4% Immigrants made up 4% of the employed population in the state. 14,402 immigrants in Vermont were working in 2014. P eople who come to the United States often come here to work. Because of that, they often have skills that make them a good fit for our labor force—and a strong complement to American workers already here. In the country as a whole, immigrants are much more likely to be working-age than the U.S.born. They also have a notably different educational profile. The vast majority of Americans – more than 79 percent of the U.S.-born population – fall into the middle of the education spectrum by holding a high school or bachelor’s degree. Immigrants, by contrast, are more likely to gravitate toward either end of the skill spectrum. They are more likely to lack a high school diploma than the native born, but also more likely to have an advanced degree. This makes them good candidates for labor-intensive positions, such as housekeeping, that many more educated U.S.-born Immigrants were 14% more likely to work than native-born Vermonters. 59.0% 51.6% of immigrants of all ages worked in 2014. of the native-born population worked. workers are less interested in pursuing, as well as highlevel positions that allow innovation-driven firms to expand and add jobs for Americans at all skill levels. Immigrants in Vermont are 56.3% more likely to hold a graduate degree than natives. Both these dynamics are strong in the state of Vermont. When it comes to educational attainment, immigrants in the state are 56.3 percent more likely to hold a graduate degree than natives. They are also more than three times as likely to be educated at less than a high-school level. The foreign-born population is also more likely to be working age, which we define in this brief as ranging in age from 25 to 64. In Vermont, 61.0 percent of the 6 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont   |   The Role of Immigrants in the Broader Workforce AGE BREAKDOWN OF VERMONT'S FOREIGN-BORN AND NATIVE-BORN POPULATIONS, 2014 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF VERMONT'S FOREIGNBORN AND NATIVE-BORN POPULATION (AGES 25+), 2014 FOREIGN-BORN FOREIGN-BORN WORKING AGE 22% 61% 17% NATIVE-BORN 23% 36% 19% 22% NATIVE-BORN WORKING AGE 30% 0-24 53% 25-64 17% 65+ 7% 57% 22% 14% In Vermont, 61.0% of the foreignborn population is in the prime of their working years, or between the ages of 25 and 64, compared to just 52.7% of the native-born population. The immigrants who are working in Vermont contribute to a wide range of different industries in the state— many of which are growing and important parts of the local economy. Foreign-born residents make up almost than one in eight employees in the state’s restaurant industry. They also account for 14.3 percent of the state’s workers in nursing care, contributing to Vermont’s Bachelor's Degree High School/Some College foreign-born population falls into that age band, while only 52.7 percent of the native-born population does. That 8.3-percentage point gap has major implications for the state’s workforce. In 2014, Vermont’s immigrants were 14.3 percent more likely to be actively employed than the state’s native-born residents—a reality driven largely by the fact that a larger than average share of the native-born population had already reached retirement age. Less than High School Graduate Degree sizeable healthcare industry, which accounted for 18.8 percent of the state’s Gross Domestic Product in 2014.15 Immigrants also frequently gravitate toward sectors where employers may struggle to find enough interested U.S.-born workers. Immigrants in Vermont, for instance, make up 15.8 percent of workers in crop production, an industry that includes those picking crops in the field by hand. In recent decades, immigrants have also played an important role in Vermont’s manufacturing industry. Studies have found that the arrival of immigrants to a community can have a powerful impact creating or preserving manufacturing jobs. This is because foreign-born workers give employers access to a large and relatively affordable pool of laborers, making it less attractive for firms to move work to cheaper locations offshore. One study by the Partnership for a New American Economy and the Americas Society/ Council of the Americas, for instance, found that every time 1,000 immigrants arrive in a given U.S. county, 46 manufacturing jobs are preserved that would otherwise not exist or have moved elsewhere.16 The almost 28,000 immigrants who were living in the state in 2010 were responsible for creating or preserving almost 1,300 manufacturing jobs. 7 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont   |   The Role of Immigrants in the Broader Workforce Aside from just looking at overarching industry groups, our work also examines the share of workers that are foreign-born in specific occupations and jobs. Immigrants in Vermont, like the country as a whole, are often overrepresented in either high-skilled or particularly labor-intensive positions. While foreignborn workers make up 4.4 percent of the state’s employed population, they account for 38.8 percent of food service managers. They also make up 25.0 percent of those working as software developers for applications and systems software, and 13.9 percent of management analysts. The almost 28,000 immigrants who were living in the state in 2010 were responsible for creating or preserving almost 1,300 manufacturing jobs. INDUSTRIES WITH LARGEST SHARE OF FOREIGN-BORN WORKERS, 2014 Share of workers who are immigrants 1 2 3 4 5 Clothing Stores Administration of Human Resource Programs Crop Production Nursing Care Facilities Restaurants and Other Food Services 20% 16% 16% 14% 12% 3,679 immigrant workers 464 immigrant workers 524 immigrant workers 525 immigrant workers 2,470 immigrant workers 3,926 total workers 2,918 total workers 3,323 total workers 3,673 total workers 20,065 total workers 8 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont   |   The Role of Immigrants in the Broader Workforce OCCUPATIONS WITH LARGEST SHARE OF FOREIGN-BORN WORKERS, 2014 1 2 3 4 Food Service Managers Software Developers, Applications and Systems Packaging and Filling Machine Operators and Tenders Management Analysts 25% 39% 14% 16% 1,057 immigrant workers 2,721 total workers 359 immigrant workers 1,434 total workers 262 immigrant workers 1,609 total workers 216 immigrant workers 1,559 total workers 5 6 7 8 First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers Postsecondary Teachers Nursing, Psychiatric, and Home Health Aides Personal Care Aides 13% 13% 1,127 immigrant workers 8,728 total workers 689 immigrant workers 5,492 total workers 9 508 immigrant workers 4,269 total workers 10 Janitors and Building Cleaners 11% 12% First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales 10% 702 immigrant workers 6,749 total workers 633 immigrant workers 5,691 total workers 10% 315 immigrant workers 3,067 total workers Share of workers who are immigrants 9 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Spotlight On: Birgit Matthiesen SPOTLIGHT ON Birgit Matthiesen Advisor at Vermont-Québec Enterprise Initiative (VQEI) B irgit Matthiesen was working as a Canadian customs inspector when she struck up a friendship—and, later, a marriage—with a fellow agent, one who worked a few feet to the south and wore an American uniform. “We are,” she says, “the living example of the bilateral relationship.” Now the couple lives in Burlington, Vermont, and Matthiesen has built a 35-year career in international trade, first as an economic policy assistant at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, DC, then as special advisor to the president of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, Canada’s largest trade and industry association. She now directs Canada-U.S. cross-border business affairs for Arent Fox, a Washington, DC, law firm and lobbying group. But no matter her success or her longtime status as a U.S. citizen, Matthiesen cannot forget that, at heart, she is an immigrant in this country. “I appreciate the fact that that bureaucracy and that process approved my application, and I try every day to make sure that they don’t regret it,” she says. “I appreciate the fact that that bureaucracy approved my [immigration] application, and I try every day to make sure that they don’t regret it,”Matthieson says. For Matthiesen that means giving back financially, “as most immigrants and most foreign workers do,” she says. As chair of a cross-border business affairs group and as a volunteer advisor for the Vermont- Québec Enterprise Initiative (VQEI), Matthiesen helps businesses in her home state thrive by connecting them with Canadian goods and customers. “As an immigrant, I just felt a need to lend my voice and my experience,” she says. It’s experience that’s proven invaluable, says Tom Torti, president of the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce. “The VQEI is, in large part, a result of Birgit seeing an opportunity to strengthen her home state’s relationship with her home country.” Canada is America’s second-largest trade partner, eclipsed only by the European Union. More than $2 billion in goods and services and 300,000 people 10 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Spotlight On: Birgit Matthiesen cross the border every day, a relationship that supports millions of jobs. In Vermont, an estimated 18,900 jobs depend on trade and investment with Canada, according to the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service. Husky Injection Molding System, for example, is based in Ontario but employs 350 U.S. workers at a Vermont plant. Canadian bicycle apparel company Louis Garneau runs its U.S. operations out of Vermont and recently added an $8 million building and 30 more jobs in the state. Many more U.S. jobs are tucked inside American companies able to manufacture goods domestically by importing some of their components from Canada. “More and more, a finished retail product made in Vermont, or made in Québec, uses each other’s best product line. While one may see a long line of trucks at the border heading into Vermont, you will also see a long line of trucks heading into Québec,” Matthiesen says. “Really, we make things together.” "While one may see a long line of trucks at the border heading into Vermont, you will also see a long line of trucks heading into Québec,” Matthiesen says. “Really, we make things together.” Meanwhile, companies in Vermont significantly boost sales with Canadian marketing. Québec’s largest city of Montreal is 45 minutes by car from the Vermont border and home to 4.1 million people, more than six times the total population of Vermont. For her part, Matthiesen wants to help keep the border from acting as a barrier—to sales people, to repairmen, to anyone doing business. “Nothing kills business like an executive team that can’t get to a meeting,” she says. 11 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont   |   Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math B etween 2014 and 2024, science, technology, engineering, and math—or “STEM”—fields are projected to play a key role in U.S. economic growth, adding almost 800,000 new jobs and growing 37.0 percent faster than the U.S. economy as a whole.17 Immigrants are already playing a huge part ensuring that Vermont remains a leading innovator in STEM fields like advanced manufacturing and green energy. Despite making up 3.9 percent of the state’s population, foreignborn Vermonters represented 6.0 percent of STEM workers in the state in 2014. Our outdated immigration system, however, makes it difficult for STEM employers to sponsor the high-skilled workers they need to fill critical positions. This is problematic because it can slow the ability of firms to expand and add jobs for American workers at all skill levels. It also makes little sense, given the country’s ongoing shortage of STEM talent—an issue that heavily impacts employers here. In 2014, 7.7 STEM jobs were advertised online in Vermont for every one unemployed STEM worker in the state. 4,674 available STEM jobs were advertised online in 2014, compared to 604 unemployed STEM workers. Despite making up 3.9% of the state's population, immigrants represented 6.0% of all STEM workers in Vermont in 2014. Immigrants, however, are not just a crucial piece of Vermont’s STEM workforce now—they are also likely to help power it in the future. In 2014 students on temporary visas made up roughly one out of every four students earning a STEM PhD degree at Vermont’s universities, and 4.7 percent of students earning a Master’s-level degree in STEM. Even after America’s universities invest in their education, however, many of those students struggle to remain in the country after graduation. Creating visa pathways that would make it easier for them to stay would benefit Vermont’s economy. A study by the Partnership for a New American Economy and the American Enterprise The resulting ratio of open jobs to available workers was 7.7 to 1 12 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont   |   Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math If Vermont could retain 100 advanced level STEM grads on temporary visas in the state after graduation… 262 jobs for U.S.-born workers would be created by 2021. 5% Share of students earning STEM Master's degrees who are foreign-born. 25% Share of students earning STEM PhDs who are foreign-born. Institute found that every time a state gains 100 foreignborn STEM workers with graduate-level STEM training from a U.S. school, 262 more jobs are created for U.S.born workers there in the seven years that follow.18 13 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Healthcare Healthcare I n the coming years, the American healthcare industry is projected to see incredibly rapid growth— adding more new positions from 2014 to 2024 than any other industry in our economy.19 Already, caregivers are facing near unprecedented levels of demand. Between 2013 and 2015, the number of Americans with health insurance rose by almost 17 million,20 opening the door for many patients to receive more regular care. The country’s 76.4 million baby boomers are also aging rapidly—at a major cost to our healthcare system. Studies have found that elderly Americans spend three times more on healthcare services than those of working age each year.21 In Vermont, a state where more than one out of every six residents is currently elderly, finding enough healthcare workers remains a challenge—and one that will likely worsen in the future. While the state has a healthy supply of practicing physicians, shortages impact a wide range of other healthcare fields. In 2014, 7.2 healthcare jobs were listed online in Vermont for every one unemployed VERMONT HAS A SHORTAGE OF HEALTHCARE WORKERS 6,454 available healthcare jobs were advertised online in 2014, compared to 895 unemployed healthcare workers. Additional number of psychiatrists needed now: 46 The resulting ratio of open jobs to available workers was 7.2 to 1 Shortage of occupational therapists by 2030: 142 Shortage of dentists projected by 2025: 26 14 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Healthcare FOREIGN-BORN AND FOREIGN-EDUCATED PROFESSIONALS HELP FILL HEALTHCARE LABOR GAPS Foreign-Educated Foreign-Born Doctors Psychiatrists Nurses Nursing, Psychiatric, and Home Health Aides 347 graduates of foreign medical schools 26 graduates of foreign medical schools 477 foreign-born workers 505 foreign-born workers 15% 14% healthcare worker in the state. Other occupations that cater largely to seniors are also stretched thin. In 2016 more than one in seven physicians in Vermont graduated from a foreign medical school, a likely sign they were born elsewhere. 7% 9% practitioners also made up 6.5 percent of the state’s nurses in 2014, as well as 8.9 percent of those working as nursing, psychiatric, or home health aides. In fact, Vermont’s share of foreign-born nurses ranks in the top half of states nationwide. Immigrants are already playing a valuable role helping Vermont meet some of its healthcare workforce gaps. In 2016 more than one in seven physicians in Vermont graduated from a foreign medical school, a likely sign they were born elsewhere. Immigrant healthcare 15 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Agriculture Agriculture $516.0 M Amount agriculture contributes to Vermont's GDP annually. TOP FOUR CROPS PRODUCED IN THE STATE, AS MEASURED BY SALE RECEIPTS Milk $676.0M Misc. Crops (including Herbs and Spices) $106.3M Cattle and Calves $83.5M 5% Share of overall agricultural workers in the state who are immigrants. O ne sector of the economy that is important to the state of Vermont is agriculture. In 2014, the agriculture sector contributed almost $516 million to the state’s economy. It also directly employed more than 8,400 Vermonters. Although Vermont is not known as a major producer of fresh fruits and vegetables, the type of crops that most commonly depend on immigrant workers to harvest them by hand, the state does produce large amounts of livestock, maple, and dairy. One 2015 study found that 51 percent of the laborers on U.S. dairy farms were immigrants. What’s more, roughly 70 percent of the dairies the hired immigrant laborers reported having “low” or “medium” levels of confidence in the authenticity of their workers’ documents—indicating that such establishments are vulnerable to immigration raids or uncertainty surrounding their ability to find sufficient workers in the future.22 The current visa system for agriculture presents many problems for states like Vermont. The H-2A visa program, which is designed to bring in temporary farm laborers, is Maple Products $44.6M too expensive and burdensome for many U.S. farms.23 Farmers frequently complain that delays issuing H-2A visas often result in workers arriving late, which can lead to crop loss; dairies are also excluded from the program altogether. For the 46.4 percent of Vermont farms that do grow at least some fresh fruits and vegetables, the current labor picture is increasingly untenable. Between 2002 and 2014, the number of field and crop workers in the Northeast region decreased by 17.9 percent. Wage trends indicate that caused a major labor shortage on Vermont farms: Real wages for the state’s field and crop workers jumped by 33.2 percent during the period. The current labor picture for Vermont farms is increasingly untenable. Between 2002 and 2014, the number of field and crop workers in the Northeast region decreased by 17.9%. 16 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Housing Housing I mmigrant families have long played an important role helping to build housing wealth in the United States. One study released by the Partnership for a New American Economy and Americas Society/Council of the Americas, for instance, found that in recent decades the country’s more than 40 million immigrants collectively raised U.S. housing wealth by $3.7 trillion. Much of this was possible because immigrants moved into neighborhoods once in decline, helping to revitalize communities and make them more attractive to U.S.born residents.24 In Vermont, immigrants are actively strengthening the state’s housing market. The roughly 6,000 foreign- Immigrants are bolstering the housing market by buying the wave of homes coming on the market as the baby boomers retire. 30% Share of homeowners who are already elderly. born homeowners in the state held almost $2 billion in housing wealth in 2014. Immigrant-led households also generated 4.2 percent of the state’s rental income, even though they led only 3 percent of households in the state. Because Vermont’s immigrants are more likely to be working age, they help address another major concern of housing experts as well— that the large wave of baby boomers retiring in the coming years could result in more homes going up for sale than there are buyers to purchase them. In a state where seniors already own 29.7 percent of homes, immigrant families made up 3.7 percent of new homebuyers from 2010 to 2014— a larger than expected portion given their share of the population. 5,574 Number of immigrant homeowners in 2014 $1.5 B Amount of housing wealth held by immigrant households 3% OF TOTAL $2.9 M 4% Share of homebuyers in the last four years who were foreign-born. Amount paid by immigrant-led households in rent 4% OF TOTAL 17 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Visa Demand Visa Demand O ne key measure of the demand for immigrant workers involves the number of visas requested by employers in a given state. Before an employer can formally apply for many types of visas, however, it must first obtain “certification” from the Department of Labor—essentially a go-ahead from the DOL that the employer can apply for a visa to fill a given job or role. For the H-1B visa, which is used to sponsor high-skilled workers, an employer gains certification by filing what’s known as a Labor Condition Application, or LCA. In the LCA the employer must detail the position the foreign national would fill, the salary he would be paid, and the geographic location of the job. Firms must also attest that hiring an immigrant will not adversely impact similarly situated American workers. For two other large work visa categories—the H-2A for agricultural laborers and the H-2B for seasonal or temporary needs—employers file what is known as a Labor Certification application, or a “labor cert” for short. To get a labor cert approved, the employer must demonstrate that it is unable to locate an American worker that is available, willing, and able to fill the job. H-1B GREEN CARD CERTIFIED POSITIONS BY VISA TYPE, 2014 Number of positions: Number of positions: 637 83 Top jobs: Top jobs: Computer Systems Analysts H-1B: 637 Software Developers, Applications Software Developers, Applications Accountants and Auditors H-2B: 578 Computer Systems Analysts H-2A: 496 Foreign Language and Literature Teachers, Postsecondary GREEN CARD: 83 *  his includes only employment-based green cards T H-2A H-2B IF ALL APPROVED LCAS HAD TURNED INTO VISAS… Number of positions: Number of positions: 637 LCAs for H-1B workers could have created 1,166 jobs. Top crops or jobs: Top jobs: Apples Housekeeping Cleaners Fruits and Vegetables Cooks, Institution and Cafeteria 496 Poultry 578 Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers 637 1,166 Approved LCAs Potential jobs created by 2020 18 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Visa Demand In fiscal year 2014, Vermont employers received DOL certification for almost 1,800 positions, including jobs across a wide variety of occupations and geographies within the state. They included almost 640 positions for potential workers on H-1B visas, as well as roughly 500 for H-2A workers. Federal officials also issued almost 600 certifications for H-2B visas, which are frequently used to staff places like hotels, fisheries, and ski resorts during the high season. Given that it is expensive and cumbersome for employers to obtain labor certs—and similarly daunting to formally apply for an H-1B visa— the large interest in all these visa categories indicates Vermont employers likely were having real trouble finding the workers they needed on U.S. soil. Obtaining certification, however, is not the same as receiving a visa. The H-1B program is currently capped at 85,000 visas a year for private sector employers. In the country as a whole, this resulted in almost half of all such applications being rejected in fiscal year 2014 alone. The H-2B program is similarly limited to just 66,000 visas per year. Even permanent immigrants get ensnared in the limitations of our outdated immigration system. Only seven percent of all green cards can go to nationals of any one country in a given year—resulting in backlogs lasting years for many Indian, Chinese, Mexican, and Filipino workers.25 When companies are denied the visas they need, company expansion is commonly slowed—often at a real and meaningful cost to the U.S.-born population. One study by the Partnership for a New American Economy and the American Enterprise Institute estimated that when a state receives 100 H-2B visas, 464 jobs are created for U.S.-born workers in the seven years that follow.26 The fact that H-1B visa holders actually create— not take away—jobs from Americans has also been widely supported in the literature. A 2013 paper written by professors at Harvard University looking at the 1995 to 2008 period found that 1 additional young, highskilled immigrant worker hired by a firm created 3.1 jobs for U.S.-born workers at that same company during the period studied.27 Other academics have tied each H-1B visa award or labor request with the creation of four28 or five29 American jobs in the immediate years that follow. CITIES ARE DEMANDING VISAS ALL OVER THE STATE H-1B Top cities: 1   Montpellier 2   Burlington   Waterbury 3 H-2B Top cities: 1   Stowe 1 2   Stratton 3 2 3   Ludlow 1 H-2A Top cities: 2 1   Shoreham 1   Cornwall 2   Bennington 3 3 2 3 In this brief, we rely on a more conservative estimate of the impact of the H-1B program on the American workforce. Specifically, we use the estimate that every 1 additional H-1B visa awarded to a state was associated with the creation of 1.83 more jobs for U.S.-born workers there in the following seven years.30 On the first page of this section, we show the number of jobs that would have been created for U.S.-born workers in Vermont by 2020 if all the fiscal year 2014 LCAs for H-1Bs had turned into actual visas. 19 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Naturalization Naturalization V ermont’s immigrants are not only living in the state, they are also laying down roots in the state as well. Our analysis found that immigrants in Vermont are naturalizing, or becoming citizens, at considerably higher rates than they are in the country overall. In 2014, 50.3 percent immigrants in Vermont were already U.S. citizens. Nationally, the equivalent figure was 47.3 percent. Like almost all parts of the country, however, Vermont is also home to a population of immigrants who are eligible to naturalize, but haven’t yet done so. Embracing public policies that would help those individuals navigate the naturalization process could have an important economic impact on the state. Studies have found that immigrants who become citizens seek out higher 3,962 education at greater rates than non-citizens.31 Because citizenship allows immigrants to pursue a greater range of positions, including public and private sector jobs requiring a security clearance, it also has been found to raise a person’s annual wages. One study by researchers at the University of Southern California pegged the size of that wage increase at 8 to 11 percent.32 If the average non-citizen in Vermont saw a wage boost at the low end of that range, or 8 percent, she would earn almost $2,800 more per year— money that could be reinvested in the state’s economy through her spending at local businesses. Multiplied by the roughly 4,000 noncitizens in Vermont currently eligible to naturalize, such policy initiatives could collectively boost wages in the state by almost $11.0 million. NATURALIZATION RATES IN VERMONT Number of non-citizens eligible to naturalize in 2014 33% Share of non-citizen population eligible to naturalize. 50% Share of immigrants in Vermont who are citizens. The average non-citizen in Vermont earns $34,712 per year. If they naturalized, they each could earn an average of $2,777 more per year. $11.0 M Aggregate additional earnings if eligible non-citizens naturalized. 47% Share of immigrants in the U.S. as a whole who are citizens. 20 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  International Students International Students P olicymakers are increasingly realizing that international students provide huge benefits to the communities where they live and study. The World Bank has found that an increase in the number of international graduate students studying at American schools leads to large boosts in the number of patents awarded to local research universities in the years that follow.33 Through their tuition payments and day-today spending, international students in the broader United States also contributed more than $30.5 billion to the U.S. economy in the 2014-2015 school year and supported more than 370,000 jobs.34 Through their tuition payments and day-to-day spending, international students in the broader United States contributed more than $30.5 B to the U.S. economy in the 2014-2015 school year and supported more than 370,000 jobs. In Vermont, the roughly 1,500 international college students studying on temporary visas make up just 3.5 percent of all college students in the state. Still, their economic contribution is meaningful. They support more than 500 jobs in the state, including positions in transportation, health insurance, and retail. International students represent a very small portion of all students in Vermont, but they make a big impact… 4% International students make up only 4% of all students in Vermont. $60.4 M 596 Economic contribution of international students to the state, 2015. Jobs supported by international students, 2015. 21 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Voting Power Voting Power I mmigrants in Vermont do not only make a difference to the state’s economy, they also play a role at the voting booth. In 2014, Vermont was home to more than 9,900 foreign-born residents who were eligible to vote, including an estimated 7,000 foreign-born residents who had formally registered. Those numbers are unlikely to sway a presidential election in this relatively safe Democratic state, where President Barack Obama won by roughly 107,000 votes in 2012. Still, it can make a difference in closer statewide contests and primaries. Going forward, immigrants will likely continue to gain voting power in Vermont. Based on voting participation patterns in recent years, we would expect more than 5,700 foreign-born voters to cast formal ballots in the presidential election this year. An additional 4,000 more immigrants will either naturalize or turn 18 by 2020, expanding the pool of eligible new American voters in Vermont to almost 13,000 people. THE GROWING POWER OF THE IMMIGRANT VOTE Immigrants who will become eligible to vote by turning 18 Immigrants who will become eligible to vote through naturalization 9,941 Number of immigrants eligible to vote. 2016 851 589 2020 2,552 1,189 2% Share of eligible voters who are immigrants. 7,110 Number of immigrants registered to vote. 106,541 Margin of victory in the 2012 presidential election. PROJECTED POOL OF ELIGIBLE IMMIGRANT VOTERS, 2014-2020 106,541 Margin of victory in the 2012 presidential election 9,941 11,130 12,871 2014 2016 2020 *  argin not drawn to scale. M 22 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Undocumented Population Undocumented Population T he United States is currently home to an estimated 11.4 million undocumented immigrants, the vast majority of whom have lived in the United States for more than five years. The presence of so many undocumented immigrants in our country for such a long time presents many legal and political challenges that are beyond the scope of this report. But while politicians continue to debate what to do about illegal immigration without any resolution, millions of undocumented immigrants are actively working across the country, and collectively, these immigrants have a large impact on the U.S. economy. One recent study found that 86.6 percent of undocumented males in the country were employed in 2012 and 2013, suggesting that most immigrants who come here illegally do so because of work opportunities.35 And because employers are required by law to gather Social Security numbers for all their hires, 1,979 many undocumented individuals are paying into our tax system as well—often under falsified or incorrect Social Security numbers.36 These undocumented immigrants generally lack access to federal aid programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, so they also draw down far less from these programs than their native-born counterparts.37 One recent study found that 86.6% of undocumented males in the country were employed in 2012 and 2013, suggesting that most immigrants who come here illegally do so because of work opportunities. UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE WORKING-AGED THAN NATIVES OR OTHER IMMIGRANTS Estimated number of undocumented immigrants in Vermont. 0.3% Share of population ages 25-64, 2014 Undocumented immigrants 83% All immigrants Share of Vermont's population made up of undocumented immigrants. 61% Native-born 53% 23 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Undocumented Population Of course, there are many compelling reasons that having a large undocumented population is a problem for a society. It undermines law and order, permits a shadow economy that is far harder to regulate, and is simply unfair to the millions of people who have come here legally. But as the undocumented immigration problem has gone largely unaddressed for the past 30 years, undocumented workers in the country have begun to play an increasingly integral role in many U.S. industries. In some sectors, such as agriculture, undocumented immigrants account for 50 percent of all hired crop workers, making them a critical reason why the industry is able to thrive on U.S. soil.38 Many studies have also indicated that these undocumented workers are not displacing the U.S.-born, but rather, taking jobs few Americans are interested in pursuing. Economists have found that low-skilled immigrants, the group that most undocumented immigrants fall into, tend to pursue different jobs than less-skilled natives. While U.S.-born workers without a high school degree are often overrepresented in forward-facing roles like cashiers, receptionists, and coffee shop attendants, many less-skilled immigrants pursue more labor- 44 intensive work requiring less human interaction, filling jobs as meat processors, sewing machine operators, or nail salon workers.39 This phenomenon exists within industries as well. In construction, for instance, lessskilled immigrants often work as painters and drywall installers, allowing natives to move into higher paying positions requiring more training, such as electricians, contractors, and plumbers.40 The challenge of undocumented immigration is becoming increasingly apparent in places like Vermont, which have not historically been home to a large numbers of such immigrants. But just as with the nation as a whole, as these immigrants spend years and decades in America, they get further integrated into our economy. In Vermont, there is evidence that undocumented immigrants are playing a small but important role in the workforce. In this section, we estimate the size and the characteristics of the undocumented population in Vermont by conducting a close analysis of the American Community Survey from the U.S. Census. This work uses a series of variables to identify immigrants in the survey who are likely to THE VERMONT INDUSTRIES WHERE UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS MAKE UP THE LARGEST SHARE OF THE WORKFORCE, 2014 Estimated number of undocumented entrepreneurs in Vermont. Agriculture 4%  234 undocumented workers Other Services 3% Rate of entrepreneurship among undocumented population (ages 25-64). 1%  112 undocumented workers Manufacturing $1.8 M Total business income of self-employed entrepreneurs. 1%  337 undocumented workers Share of workforce that is undocumented Total number of workers 24 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Undocumented Population lack legal status—a method that has recently emerged in the academic literature on immigration.41 (See the Methodology Appendix for more details.) Using this technique, we estimate that Vermont is home to almost 2,000 undocumented immigrants. These individuals are far more likely than the native-born population—or even the broader foreign-born one—to be in the prime of their working years, or ranging in age from 25-64. They also contribute to a range of industries that could not thrive without a pool of workers willing to take on highly laborintensive roles. In 2014, for instance, undocumented immigrants made up 1.1 percent of all employees in Vermont’s manufacturing industry, a sector that includes manufacturing sector, which includes assemblers and fabricators, industrial tractor and truck operators, and freight, stock, and material movers. They also made up 3.6 percent of workers employed in the agriculture sector, as well as almost 1 percent of workers in health industry. Large numbers of undocumented immigrants in Vermont have also managed to overcome licensing and financing obstacles to start small businesses. In 2014, an estimated 2.7 percent of the state’s working- age undocumented immigrants were self-employed. Undocumented entrepreneurs in the state also earned an estimated $1.8 million in business income that year. Large numbers of undocumented immigrants in Vermont have also managed to overcome licensing and financing obstacles to start small businesses. The larger political debate around the economic cost or benefits of undocumented immigration tends to focus on the expense of educating immigrant children or the healthcare costs associated with increased use of emergency rooms and other services. These costs are real and can be substantial, but taken alone they paint an incomplete picture of the impact of undocumented immigration. This is because the debate infrequently recognizes that because most undocumented immigrants are working, they also make large federal and state tax contributions and frequently are net contributors to many of our most important—and most imperiled—benefits programs. Social Security’s MEASURES OF ASSIMILATION AMONG VERMONT'S UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION, 2014 Time in the United States 59% English Proficiency (population ages 5+) 28% 52% 20% Share of undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. for five years or more. Speaks only English Speaks English well Speaks English very well 25 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Undocumented Population Chief Actuary, for example, has credited unauthorized immigrants with contributing $100 billion more to Social Security than they drew down in benefits during the last decade.41 Another study found that in 2011 alone unauthorized immigrants contributed $3.5 billion more to Medicare than they utilized in care. While the debate over legalization continues without resolution, the data suggests that the undocumented immigrants in Vermont have largely assimilated into the United States. Vermont is home to so few undocumented immigrants that it is unfortunately impossible for us to estimate with any degree of reliability the amount such immigrants earn in income each year or what they pay in taxes. There is no reason to believe, however, that Vermont’s undocumented population would differ from the pattern in other many states. Several in-depth studies have come to the conclusion that undocumented immigrants represent a net benefit to the states in which they live. One paper, from researchers at Arizona State University, estimated that undocumented immigrants in Arizona pay $2.4 billion in taxes each year—a figure far eclipsing the $1.4 billion spent on the law enforcement, education, and healthcare resources they use.44 Another study estimated that, on a per capita basis, Florida’s undocumented immigrants pay $1,500 more in taxes than they draw down in public benefits each year.45 If undocumented immigrants are ultimately legalized, of course, such calculations are likely to change. On the one hand, giving unauthorized immigrants legal status would open the door for them to collect more public benefits. On the other, legalization is expected to increase their wages—as well as the amount they pay in taxes—by giving undocumented immigrants access to a greater range of jobs and educational opportunities than they have now.46 Provisions within immigration reform requiring that undocumented immigrants pay any back taxes before normalizing their status would temporarily boost U.S. tax revenues still further. But while the debate over legalization continues without resolution, the data suggests that the undocumented immigrants in Vermont have largely assimilated into the United States, making it less likely that mass deportation will ever be a realistic option. We estimate that 58.8 percent of the state’s undocumented population has been in the United States for five or more years. An estimated 100 percent speak English well, very well, or fluently. Studies show that when immigrants with limited English proficiency learn the language, they see a substantial wage benefit and become less isolated in their communities.47 The labor market outcomes and educational levels of their children increase with time as well.48 26 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Methodology Methodology The vast majority of data that appears in this brief was calculated by the Partnership for a New American Economy research team, using a variety of publicly available data sources. Our work relied most heavily on the 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year sample using the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) database.1 Unless otherwise noted this data is weighted using the person weight for analysis at the individual level, and is weighted using the household weight for analysis at the household level. Demographics The data points on the foreign-born population in the demographics section are calculated using both the 2010 and 2014 ACS 1-year sample. Entrepreneurship The data on self-employed immigrants and the business income generated by immigrant entrepreneurs come from the 2014 ACS 1-year sample. We define immigrants as foreign-born individuals (excluding those that are children of U.S. citizens or born on U.S. territories). The number of employees at immigrant-owned firms is estimated by using the 2007 Survey of Business Owners (SBO) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS),2 which is the most recent microdata on business owners currently available. The estimates are weighted using the tabulation weights provided in the dataset. We define immigrant-owned businesses as firms with at least one foreign-born owner. For confidentiality, the data exclude businesses classified as publicly owned firms because they can be easily identified in many states. Based on our own analysis, we believe that many of the publicly owned firms excluded from this data are companies with 500 employees or more. As a result, the final number of employees at immigrant-owned companies in this report is a conservative estimate, and is likely lower than the true value. Fortune magazine ranks U.S. companies by revenue and publishes a list of top 500 companies and their annual revenue as well as their employment level each year. To produce our estimates, we use the 2015 Fortune 500 list.3 Our estimates in this section build on past work done by PNAE examining each of the Fortune 500 firms in the country in 2011, and determining who founded them.4 We then use publicly available data, including historical U.S. Census records and information obtained directly by the firms, to determine the background of each founder. In the rare cases where we could not determine a founder’s background, we assumed that the individual was U.S.-born to be conservative in our estimates. Some firms created through the merger of a large number of smaller companies or public entities were also excluded from our analysis. These included all companies in the utilities sector and several in insurance. To produce the Fortune 500 estimates for each state, we allocate firms to the states where their current headquarters are located. We then aggregate and report the annual revenue and employment of the firms in each state that we identify as “New American” Fortune 500 companies. These are firms with at least one founder who was an immigrant or the child of immigrants. Income and Tax Contributions Using the 2014 ACS 1-year data, we estimate the aggregate household income, tax contributions, and spending power of foreign-born households. 27 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Methodology To produce these estimates, a foreign-born household is defined as a household with a foreign-born household head. Immigrant sub-groups are defined as follows: 1) Asian immigrants refer to the foreign-born persons who self identify as Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Filipino, Asian Indian, Korean, Native Hawaiian, Vietnamese, Bhutanese, Mongolian, Nepalese, Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Bangladeshi, Burmese, Indonesian, Malaysian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Samoan, Tongan, Guamanian/Chamorro, Fijian, or other Pacific Islanders; 2) Hispanic immigrants include those foreign-born persons who report their ethnicity as Hispanic; 3) Immigrants grouped under Sub-Saharan Africa originate from African countries, excluding the North African countries of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco ; 4) Middle Eastern and North African immigrants are foreign-born persons from North Africa as well as the following Middle Eastern countries: Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arab, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. In this brief, mirroring past PNAE reports on this topic, we use the term “spending power.”5 Here and elsewhere we define spending power as the disposable income leftover after subtracting federal, state, and local taxes from household income. We estimate state and local taxes using the tax rates estimates produced by Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy by state income quintiles.6 For federal tax rate estimates, we use data released by the Congressional Budget Office in 2014 and calculate the federal tax based on the household income federal tax bracket.7 Social Security and Medicare contributions are drawn from taxes on an individual’s wage earnings.8 This is far different from a household’s overall income, which may include other revenue streams such as rental income and returns on investments. To account for this difference between overall federal taxes and Social Security and Medicare contributions, we estimate Medicare and Social Security contributions based on wage and salary data provided at the individual level in the ACS. For self-employed individuals, we use the selfemployment income as the income base. The amount of earnings that can be taxed by the Social Security program is capped at $117,000, while there no such limit for the Medicare program.9 We use a flat tax rate of 12.4 percent to estimate Social Security contributions and 2.9 percent for to capture Medicare contributions. This estimates the total amount that immigrants and their employers contributed in 2014.10 It is also worth noting that half of the amount contributed to Social Security and Medicare (6.4 percent of Social Security tax rate and 1.45 percent of Medicare tax rate) comes from individual workers, while the other half comes directly from their employers. Self-employed workers have to pay the full tax themselves. When estimating Social Security and Medicare contributions, we include all individual wage earners in the households and aggregate the amount paid by state. Workforce We use the 2014 ACS 1-year sample to estimate all data points in the workforce segment of the report. We define the working age population as those 25 to 64 years old. When estimating how much more foreign-born persons are likely to be employed than native-born persons, however, we calculate the percentage of native-born and foreign-born residents of all ages who were employed in 2014. The reason why we choose a more inclusive population for that estimate is because we want to make the point that the increased likelihood of being working aged that we see among immigrants leads to higher employment in the vast majority of states. Because the employment status of people who are 16 years old or younger is not available in the ACS, we assume that these young people are not employed. The employed population also does not include those in the Armed Forces. To estimate how much more likely immigrants are to be employed than natives, we calculate the percent difference between the immigrant and native-born employment rates. Our estimates on the share of immigrants and natives of different education levels only take into consideration individuals aged 25 or older. 28 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Methodology The North American Industry Classification System, or NAICS Industry code, is used to estimate the industries with the largest share of foreign-born workers. All individuals 16 years old and above are included in these calculations. The total number of workers for certain industries in some states is extremely small, thus skewing results. In order to avoid this, we calculate the percentile distribution of the total number of workers per industry per state and drop the industries in each state that fall below the lowest 25th percentile. Estimated occupations with the largest share of foreign-born workers per state also follow the same restrictions — the universe is restricted to workers age 16 and above, and the occupations per state that fall under the 25th percentile benchmark are not included. Our estimates on the number of manufacturing jobs created or preserved by immigrants rely on a 2013 report by the Partnership for a New American Economy and the Americas Society/Council of the Americas. That report used instrumental variable (IV) strategy in regression analysis and found that every 1,000 immigrants living in a county in 2010 created or preserved 46 manufacturing jobs there.11 We use that multiplier and apply it to the 2010 population data from the ACS to produce our estimates. Agriculture We access the agriculture GDP by state from Bureau of Economic Analysis, which includes GDP contributions from the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting industry.12 The share of foreign-born agricultural workers is estimated using 2014 ACS 1-year sample. Additional data on agriculture output, top three crops per state, and leading agricultural exports come from United State Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s state fact sheets.13 When displayed, data on sales receipts generated by the top fresh produce items in each state come the Farm and Wealth Statistics cash receipts by commodity tables available from the USDA’s Economic Research Service.14 The agriculture section uses the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wage (QCEW) to estimate the percentage of crop farms producing fresh fruits and vegetables, and change in real wage of agricultural workers between 2002 and 2014. The QCEW data uses the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) to assign establishments to different industries. We identify the following farms as fresh fruits and vegetable farms: other vegetable and melon farming, orange groves, citrus, apple orchards, grape vineyards, strawberry farming, berry farming, fruit and tree nut combination farming, other non-citrus fruit farming, mushroom production, other food crops grown under cover, and sugar beet farming. The decline in the number of field and crop workers comes from the quarterly Farm Labor Survey (FLS) administered by USDA.15 Stephen Bronars, an economist with Edgeworth Economics, previously analyzed and produced these estimates for the PNAE report, “A Vanishing Breed: How the Decline in U.S. Farm Laborers Over the Last Decade has Hurt the U.S. Economy and Slowed Production on American Farms” published in 2015. Additional information on those calculations can be found in the methodology section of that paper.16 Finally, for a small number of states, we also produce estimates showing how growers in the state are losing market share for specific produce items consumed each year by Americans, such as avocados or strawberries. Those estimates originate in a 2014 report produced by PNAE and the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform.17 The author used data from the USDA’s annual “yearbook” for fresh fruits and vegetables, among other sources, to produce those estimates. More detail can be found in the methodology of that report. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math We use the STEM occupation list released by U.S. Census Bureau to determine the number and share of foreign-born STEM workers as well as the number of unemployed STEM workers from 2014 ACS 1-year data.18 Per U.S. Census classification, healthcare workers such as physicians and dentists are not counted as working in 29 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Methodology the STEM occupations. All unemployed workers who list their previous job as a STEM occupation are counted as unemployed STEM workers. To capture the demand for STEM workers, we use the Labor Insight tool developed by Burning Glass Technologies, a leading labor market analytics firm. Burning Glass, which is used by policy researchers and academics, scours almost 40,000 online sources daily and compiles results on the number and types of jobs and skills being sought by U.S. employers. This search includes online job boards, individual employer sites, newspapers, and public agencies, among other sources. Burning Glass has an algorithm and artificial intelligence tool that identifies and eliminates duplicate listings — including ones posted to multiple job boards as part of a broad search.19 The data on STEM graduates are from the 2014 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) completion survey.20 A study by the Partnership for a New American Economy and the American Enterprise Institute found that every time a state gains 100 foreignborn STEM workers with graduate-level STEM training from a U.S. school, 262 more jobs are created for U.S.born workers there in the seven years that follow.21 We use this multiplier and the number of STEM advanced level graduates on temporary visas to estimate the number of jobs created for U.S.-born workers. The last part of the STEM section presents data on patents with at least one foreign-born inventor. The data is originally from a study by Partnership for a New American Economy in 2012, which relied on data from U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s database as well as LinkedIn, direct correspondence, and online profiles to determine the nativity of individual inventors.22 Healthcare We estimate the number of unemployed healthcare workers using the 2014 ACS 1-year sample. Healthcare workers are healthcare practitioners and technical occupations, or healthcare support occupations as defined by U.S. Census Bureau.23 Unemployed healthcare workers are individuals who report their previous job as a healthcare occupation, and their employment status as currently not working but looking for work. We took the number of job postings for healthcare workers from the Burning Glass Labor Insight tool, a database that scours online sources and identifies the number and types of job postings. We describe this resource in detail in the section on STEM methodology. We then delve into specific occupations within the broader healthcare industry. To produce the figures on the total number of physicians and psychiatrists and the share born abroad, we use American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile data. To give a sense of the supply and demand of physicians and psychiatrists, we also calculate the physician and psychiatrist density in each state by dividing the total number of physicians or psychiatrists by the population estimates in 2015 for each state.24 As for the share of foreign-born nurses and home health aides, we use the 2014 ACS 5-year sample data because data from the 1-year sample is too small to make reliable estimates. We estimate the shortage of psychiatrists, dentists, and occupational therapists using data from the various U.S. government offices. For example, the shortage of psychiatrists refers to the current lack of psychiatrists per the U.S. government’s official definition of a mental health shortage area (1/30,000 residents) in each county, aggregated within each state.25 The shortage of dentists is from an analysis by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,26 and the shortage of occupational workers is from a journal article published by PM&R, the official scientific journal of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.27 For psychiatrists, we project future shortages by accounting for individuals in these occupations as they reach the retirement age of 65. Housing The data in the housing section comes from the 2014 ACS 1-year sample. Immigrant homeowners are defined as foreign-born householders who reported living in 30 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Methodology their own home. We estimate the amount of housing wealth held by immigrant households by aggregating the total housing value of homes owned by immigrant–led households. We also estimate the amount of rent paid by immigrant-led households by aggregating the rent paid by such families. We then calculate the share of housing wealth and rent that immigrant households held or paid compared to the total population. For characteristics of homeowners, a foreign-born new homebuyer is defined as a household with a foreign-born household head who owned and moved to the current residence within the last five years. Visa Demand The data on visa demand are drawn primarily from the 2014 Annual Report produced by the Office of Foreign Labor Certification within the U.S. Department of Labor.28 Our figures on the number of visa requests authorized for each state — as well as the occupations and cities those visas are tied to — originate directly from that report. In this section, we also present estimates on the number of jobs that would have been created if all the visas authorized in 2014 had resulted in actual visa awards. The multipliers we use to produce these estimates originate in a 2011 report released by PNAE and the American Enterprise Institute. That report, written by the economist Madeline Zavodny, used a reducedform model to examine the relationship between the share of each state’s population that was immigrant and the employment rate of U.S. natives. More detail on Zavodny’s calculations and the multipliers produced for each visa type can be found in the methodology appendix of that report.29 For purposes of these briefs, we use Zavodny’s finding that the award of 100 additional H-1B visas in a state is tied to 183 additional jobs for natives there in the 7 years that follow. The award of 100 additional H-2B visas creates 464 additional jobs for natives in the state during that same time period. We apply these multipliers to the number of visas in those categories authorized for each state in 2014. In many of the state reports, we also present figures showing how visa denials resulting from the 2007 and 2008 H-1B lotteries cost the tech sectors of metropolitan areas both employment and wage growth in the two years that followed. The economists Giovanni Peri, Kevin Shih, and Chad Sparber produced these estimates for a PNAE report on the H-1B visa system that was released in 2014. That report relied on Labor Condition Application and I-129 data that the authors obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, as well as American Community Survey data from 2006 and 2011. The authors did regressions that examined the causal relationship between a “shock” in the supply of H-1B computer workers and computer employment in subsequent years for more than 200 metropolitan areas. More information on those estimates can be found in the methodology appendix of that report.30 Naturalization Using the ACS 2014 1-year sample, non-citizens eligible to naturalize are defined as non-citizens who are 18 years or above, can speak English, and have continuous residence in the United States for at least five years. Researchers at the University of Southern California’s Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration published a report in 2012, “Citizen Gain: The Economic Benefits of Naturalization for Immigrants and the Economy,” which concluded that immigrants experience an 8 to 11 percent gain in their individual wages as a result of becoming naturalized. Because this earnings gain phases in over time — and we want to be conservative in our estimates — we model a wage increase of just 8 percent when discussing the possible gains that could accrue due to naturalization.31 We use this multiplier and the mean individual wages of non-citizens in each state to estimate the additional earnings that non-citizens would earn if they naturalized. Finally, we calculate the aggregate wage earnings boost by multiplying the total number of non-citizens who are eligible for naturalization by the average increase in wage income per person. 31 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Methodology International Students We obtain the size and share of postsecondary students who are international in each state from the 2014 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) fall enrollment data. Those figures are then applied to preexisting work previously done by NAFSA, an organization representing professionals employed in the international offices of colleges and universities across the United States. NAFSA has developed an economic value tool and methodology that estimates the total economic benefit and jobs created or supported by international students and their dependents in each state.32 The economic contributions include the costs of higher education along with living expenses minus U.S.-based financial support that international students receive. Because the enrollment data from IPEDS that we use in this brief is different from the underlying data used by NAFSA, our figures differ slightly from the NAFSA estimates of the economic contributions made by international students in the 2014-2015 school year. Voting The estimates for the number of registered and active voters who are foreign-born are calculated from the Voter Supplement in the Current Population Survey (CPS) for the years 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014 using the IPUMS database. The sample in CPS includes civilian non-institutional persons only. Foreign-born individuals who stated having voted between 2008 and 2014 are termed active voters. Using data from the 2014 ACS 1-year sample, we estimate the number and share of foreign-born eligible voters. We define them as naturalized citizens aged 18 or older who live in housing units. Persons living in institutional group quarters such as correctional facilities or non- institutional group quarters such as residential treatment facilities for adults are excluded from the estimation. We also estimate the number of new foreign-born voters who will become eligible to vote in 2016 and 2020, either by turning 18 or through naturalization, as well as the total number of foreignborn voters in these years. The estimates of newly eligible voters for 2016 include naturalized citizen ages 16 and 17 as of 2014 (thereby becoming of voting age by 2016). Those eligible to vote in 2020 include all naturalized citizens ages 12-17 in 2014. Applicable mortality rates are also applied.33 In addition, we estimate newly naturalized citizens using data from the Department of Homeland Security, which show the twoyear average of new naturalized citizens by state.34 We discount from these numbers the percentage of children below 18 in households with a naturalized householder by state. Estimates of total foreign-born voters include naturalized citizens aged 18 or older in 2014, discounted by average U.S. mortality rates by age brackets, summed to the pool of newly eligible foreign-born voters. Margin of victory in 2012 refers to President Barack Obama’s margin of victory over Republican candidate Mitt Romney in terms of popular vote. The margins are negative in states that Romney won in 2012.35 Undocumented Using data from the 2014 ACS, we applied the methodological approach outlined by Harvard University economist George Borjas36 to arrive at an estimate of the undocumented immigrant population in the overall United States and individual states. The foreign-born population is adjusted for misreporting in two ways. Foreign-born individuals who reported naturalization are reclassified as non-naturalized if the individual had resided in the United States for less than six years (as of 2014) or, if married to a U.S. citizen, for less than three years. We use the following criteria to code foreign-born individuals as legal U.S. residents: • Arrived in the U.S. before 1980 • Citizens and children less than 18 year old reporting that at least one parent is native-born • Recipients of Social Security benefits, SSI, Medicaid, Medicare, Military insurance, or public assistance 32 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Methodology • Households with at least one citizen that received SNAP • People in the armed forces and veterans • People attending college and graduate school • Refugees • Working in occupations requiring a license • Government employees, and people working in the public administration sector • Any of the above conditions applies to the householder’s spouse The remainder of the foreign-born population that do not meet this criteria is reclassified as undocumented. Estimates regarding the economic contribution of undocumented immigrants and the role they play in various industries, and tax contributions are made using the same methods used to capture this information for the broader immigrant population in the broader brief. When estimating the aggregate household income, spending power, and tax contributions, we are not able to make reliable estimates for undocumentedled households in Alaska, Maine, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia due to the small sample size of undocumented-led households in ACS. Finally, the variables giving a sense of the undocumented population’s level of assimilation — including their English proficiency and time in the United States — are estimated by examining the traits of the undocumented population in the 1-year sample of the ACS. 33 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Endnotes Endnotes 1 P  am Belluck, “Vermont Losing Prized Resource as Young Depart,” The New York Times, 2006, http://www. nytimes.com/2006/03/04/us/vermont-losing-prizedresource-as-young-depart.html. 2 S  teve Zind, “NEK Businesses Struggle To Find Qualified Workers,” VPR, 2012, http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/94763/nek-businesses-struggle-to-find-qualified-workers/; Art Woolf, “Where Will Vermont Find Workers to Fill Jobs?,” Burlington Free Press, 2015, http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/ money/2015/07/29/will-vermont-find-workers-filljobs/30833959/. R  obert Fairlie, “Open For Business: How Immigrants Are Driving Small Business Creation In The United States,” Partnership for a New American Economy, 2012, http://www.renewoureconomy.org/research/ open-for-business-how-immigrants-are-driving-smallbusiness-creation-in-the-united-states-2/; Vivek Wadhwa et al., “America’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Part I,” SSRN Scholarly Paper (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 2007), http://papers. ssrn.com/abstract=990152. 8 A  rnobio Morelix et al., “The Kauffman Index 2015: Startup Activity | State Trends,” SSRN Scholarly Paper (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, June 4, 2015), http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2614598. 9 D  avid Dyssegaard Kallick, “Bringing Vitality to Main Street: How Immigrant Small Businesses Help Local Economies Grow,” New York: Fiscal Policy Institute and Americas Society/Council of the Americas, 2015, http://www.as-coa.org/articles/bringing-vitality-main-street-how-immigrant-small-businesses-help-local-economies-grow. Ibid. 3 7 4  Unemployment Rates for States,” U.S. Bureau of Labor “ Statistics, May 2016, http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm. 5 6 D  aniel McGraw, “The Real GOP Split on Immigration,” POLITICO Magazine, 2015, http://www.politico.com/ magazine/story/2015/01/gop-immigration-split-113396. html. J  ason Margolis, “More US-Bound Refugees? Labor-Starved Vermont Businesses Welcome Obama’s Call,” Public Radio International, 2015, http://www.pri. org/stories/2015-10-02/more-us-bound-refugees-labor-starved-vermont-businesses-welcome-obama-scall; “Staff,” Sunrise Orchards, accessed July 18, 2016, https://sunriseorchards.com/about/staff. 10  tuart Anderson, “Immigrants and Billion Dollar S Startups,” NFAP Policy Brief March, 2016, http://nfap. com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Immigrants-and-Billion-Dollar-Startups.NFAP-Policy-Brief.March-2016.pdf. 11  airlie, “Open For Business.” F 12  his is the most recent year for which data on employT ment is available. 13  omini Sengupta, “Countries Seek Entrepreneurs S From Silicon Valley,” The New York Times, 2013, http:// www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/technology/wishing-youand-your-start-up-were-here.html?_r=0. 34 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Endnotes 14  raig Montuori, email message to author, June 23, C 2016. 24  igdor, “Immigration and the Revival of American V Cities.” 15  olan Langweil, “Vermont’s Health Care System N Overview: Payers and Players,” January 2015, http:// www.leg.state.vt.us/jfo/healthcare/Vermont’s%20 Health%20Care%20System%20-%202015a.pdf. 25  Visa Bulletin for May 2016,” U.S. Department of “ State, 2016, https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/ law-and-policy/bulletin/2016/visa-bulletin-for-may-2016. html. 16  acob Vigdor, “Immigration and the Revival of AmeriJ can Cities,” Partnership for a New American Economy, 2013, http://www.renewoureconomy.org/issues/american-cities/. 26 Zavodny, “Immigration and American Jobs.” 17  Employment Projections: 2014-24 Summary,” Bureau “ of Labor Statistics Economic News Release, 2015, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm. 18  adeline Zavodny, “Immigration and American Jobs,” M The Partnership for a New American Economy and the American Enterprise Institute, 2011, http://www. renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/img/ NAE_Im-AmerJobs.pdf. 19 “Employment Projections.” 20  atherine Grace Carman, Christine Eibner, and Susan K M. Paddock, “Trends in Health Insurance Enrollment, 2013-15,” Health Affairs, 2015, http://www.rand.org/ pubs/external_publications/EP50692.html. 21  ean P. Keehan et al., “Age Estimates in the National S Health Accounts,” Health Care Financing Review 26, no. 2 (2004): 1–16. 22  lynn Adcock, David Anderson, and Parr Rosson, “The F Economic Impacts of Immigrant Labor on U.S. Dairy Farms,” Center for North American Studies, 2015, http://www.nmpf.org/files/immigration-survey-090915. pdf. 27  ari Pekkala Kerr, William R. Kerr, and William F. S Lincoln, “Skilled Immigration and the Employment Structures of U.S. Firms,” Working Paper (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2013), http://www.nber. org/papers/w19658. 28  atthew J. Slaughter, “Job Clocks Backgrounder,” M Hanover, NH, 2013, http://faculty.tuck.dartmouth.edu/ images/uploads/faculty/matthew-slaughter/jobs_clock. pdf. 29  NFAP Policy Brief: H-1B Visas by the Numbers,” Na“ tional Foundation for American Policy, 2009, http:// www.nfap.com/pdf/1003h1b.pdf. 30  avodny, “Immigration and American Jobs.” Z These positive benefits have been documented despite well-known problems regarding the H-1B visa system. The safeguards to protect American workers have not been updated since 1998, opening the door to increased use of the visa by a small number of outsourcing firms. This has left many U.S. companies with no reliable avenue to bring in the top talent they need to grow. PNAE has long advocated for legislation that would reform the H-1B program, including the recently introduced Protect and Grow American Jobs Act. Read more here: http://www.renewoureconomy.org/ uncategorized/press-release-statement-of-partnership-for-a-new-american-economy-on-the-protectand-grow-america-jobs-act/. 23  atrick O’Brien, John Kruse, and Darlene Kruse, P “Gauging the Farm Sector’s Sensitivity to Immigration Reform via Changes in Labor Costs and Availability -,” WAEES and the American Farm Bureau Federation, 2014, http://oppenheimer.mcgill.ca/Gauging-the-FarmSector-s. 35 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Endnotes 31  acob L. Vigdor, From Immigrants to Americans: J The Rise and Fall of Fitting In (Rowman & Littlefield, 2010); Bernt Bratsberg, James F. Ragan, Jr., and Zafar M. Nasir, “The Effect of Naturalization on Wage Growth: A Panel Study of Young Male Immigrants,” Journal of Labor Economics 20, no. 3 (2002): 568–97, doi:10.1086/339616. 32  anuel Pastor and Justin Scoggins, “Citizen Gain: The M Economic Benefits of Naturalization for Immigrants and the Economy,” 2012, http://www.immigrationresearch-info.org/report/university-southern-california/ citizen-gain-economic-benefits-naturalization-immigrants-and-e. 33  aditya Mattoo, Gnanaraj Chellaraj, and Keith E. MaA skus, “The Contribution of Skilled Immigration and International Graduate Students to U.S. Innovation” (The World Bank, 2005), http://documents.worldbank.org/ curated/en/2005/05/5800523/contribution-skilled-immigration-international-graduate-students-innovation. 34  NAFSA International Student Economic Value Tool | “ NAFSA,” accessed June 28, 2016, http://www.nafsa.org/ Explore_International_Education/Impact/Data_And_ Statistics/NAFSA_International_Student_Economic_Value_Tool/. 35  eorge J. Borjas, “The Labor Supply of Undocumented G Immigrants,” NBER Working Paper (National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, 2016), https://ideas.repec. org/p/nbr/nberwo/22102.html. 36  isa Christensen Gee, Matthew Gardener, and Meg L Wiehe, “Undocumented Immigrants’ State & Local Tax Contributions,” The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 2016, http://www.immigrationresearch-info.org/report/other/undocumented-immigrants%E2%80%99-state-local-tax-contributions. 37  yan Honeywell, “How Language Fits Into the ImmiR gration Issue,” Governing, 2012, http://www.governing. com/topics/public-workforce/gov-how-language-fitsinto-the-immigration-issue.html. 38  homas Hertz Zahniser Steven, “USDA Economic ReT search Service - Immigration and the Rural Workforce,” United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 2013, http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/in-the-news/immigration-and-the-rural-workforce. aspx. 39  aria E. Enchautegui, “Immigrant and Native WorkM ers Compete for Different Low-Skilled Jobs,” Urban Institute, 2015, http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/ immigrant-and-native-workers-compete-different-lowskilled-jobs. 40  cott A. Wolla, “The Economics of Immigration: A S Story of Substitutes and Complements,” Page One Economics Newsletter, 2014, 1–5. 41  orjas, “The Labor Supply of Undocumented ImmiB grants.” 42  oy Germano, “Unauthorized Immigrants Paid $100 R Billion Into Social Security Over Last Decade,” VICE News, 2014, https://news.vice.com/article/unauthorized-immigrants-paid-100-billion-into-social-security-over-last-decade. 43  eah Zallman et al., “Unauthorized Immigrants Prolong L the Life of Medicare’s Trust Fund,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 31, no. 1 (2015): 122–27, doi:10.1007/ s11606-015-3418-z. 44  udith Gans, “Immigrants in Arizona: Fiscal and EcoJ nomic Impacts” (Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, 2008), http://udallcenter. arizona.edu/immigration/publications/impactofimmigrants08.pdf. 45  mily Eisenhauer et al., “Immigrants in Florida: CharE acteristics and Contributions,” Research Institute on Social and Economic Policy, Florida International University, 2007, https://risep.fiu.edu/research-publications/immigration/immigration-in-florida/2007/immigrants-in-florida-characteristics-and-contributions/ immigrants_spring_2007_reduced.pdf. 36 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Endnotes 46  herrie A. Kossoudji and Deborah A. Cobb-Clark, S “Coming out of the Shadows: Learning about Legal Status and Wages from the Legalized Population,” Journal of Labor Economics 20, no. 3 (2002): 598–628; Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, “Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” Center for American Progress and American Immigration Council, 2010, https:// www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2010/01/07/7187/raising-the-floor-for-americanworkers/. 48  ill H. Wilson, “Investing in English Skills: The LimJ ited English Proficient Workforce in U.S. Metropolitan Areas,” The Brookings Institution, 2014, http:// www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2014/09/english-skills. 47  arry R. Chiswick and Paul W. Miller, “Immigrant EarnB ings: Language Skills, Linguistic Concentrations and the Business Cycle,” Journal of Population Economics 15, no. 1 (2002): 31–57; Hoyt Bleakley and Aimee Chin, “Age at Arrival, English Proficiency, and Social Assimilation Among U.S. Immigrants,” American Economic Journal. Applied Economics 2, no. 1 (2010): 165, doi:10.1257/app.2.1.165. 37 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Endnotes: Methodology Endnotes: Methodology 1 2 9 Ibid. S  teven Ruggles, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Josiah Grover, and Matthew Sobek. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2015. 10 Ibid. U  .S. Census Bureau, Survey of Business Owner and Self-Employed Persons Data Sets. http://www.census. gov/programs-surveys/sbo/data/data-sets.html 11  acob Vigdor, “Immigration and the Revival of American J Cities,” Partnership for a New American Economy, 2013, http://www.renewoureconomy.org/issues/american-cities/. 3  Fortune 500,” Fortune, 2015, http://fortune.com/for“ tune500/2015/. 12  ureau of Economic Analysis, http://www.bea.gov/reB gional/index.htm 4  The ‘New American’ Fortune 500,” Partnership for “ a New American Economy, 2011, http://www.renewoureconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/new-american-fortune-500-june-2011.pdf. 13  nited States Department of Agriculture, “State Fact U Sheets, Economic Research Service” 2016, http://www. ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-fact-sheets.aspx 5  The Power of the Purse: The Contributions of Hispan“ ics to America’s Spending Power and Tax Revenues in 2013,” Partnership for a New American Economy, 2014, http://www.renewoureconomy.org/research/page/2/. 6  Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax “ Systems in All 50 States (5th edition),” Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 2014, http://www.itep.org/ whopays/full_report.php. 7  The Distribution of Household Income and Federal “ Taxes, 2011”, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, D.C., 2014, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440#title0. 8 14  nited States Department of Agriculture, EconomU ic Research Service, “Cash Receipts by Commodity, 2010-2015,” http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/cash-receipts-by-commodity.aspx. 15  nited State Department of Agriculture, “Farm Labor U Survey”, https://www.nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_ NASS_Surveys/Farm_Labor/ 16  tephen Bronars, “A Vanishing Breed: How the Decline S in U.S. Farm Laborers Over the Last Decade has Hurt the U.S. Economy and Slowed Production on American Farms,” Partnership for a New American Economy, 2015, http://www.renewoureconomy.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/08/PNAE_FarmLabor_August-3-3.pdf. O  ffice of Retirement and Disability Policy U. S. Social Security Administration, “OASDI and SSI Program Rates & Limits,” 2014, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ quickfacts/prog_highlights/RatesLimits2014.html. 38 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Endnotes: Methodology 17  tephen Bronars, “No Longer Home Grown: How S Labor Shortages are Increasing America’s Reliance on Imported Fresh Produce and Slowing U.S. Economic Growth”, Partnership for a New American Economy, 2014, http://www.renewoureconomy.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/03/no-longer-home-grown.pdf. 26  ational Center for Health Workforce Analysis, U.S. N Department of Health and Human Services, “National and State-Level Projections of Dentists and Dental Hygienists in the U.S., 2012-2025”, 2015, http://bhpr. hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/supplydemand/dentistry/ nationalstatelevelprojectionsdentists.pdf. 18  .S. Census Bureau, “STEM, STEM-related, and NonU STEM Occupation Code List 2010,” 2010, https://www. census.gov/people/io/files/STEM-Census-2010-occcode-list.xls 27  ernon Lin, Xiaoming Zhang, and Pamela Dixon, “OcV cupational Therapy Workforce in the United States: Forecasting Nationwide Shortages,” PM & R: The Journal of Injury, Function, and Rehabilitation 7, No. 9, 2015: 946–54, doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2015.02.012. 19  About Us,” Burning Glass, accessed July 1, 2016, avail“ able here: http://burning-glass.com/labor-insight/. 20  ational Center for Education Statistics, “Integrated N Postsecondary Education Data System,” http://nces. ed.gov/ipeds/ 21  adeline Zavodny, “Immigration and American Jobs,” M The Partnership for a New American Economy and the American Enterprise Institute, 2011, http://www. renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/img/ NAE_Im-AmerJobs.pdf. 22  Patent Pending: How Immigrants Are Reinventing The “ American Economy,” Partnership for a New American Economy, 2012, http://www.renewoureconomy.org/research/patent-pending-how-immigrants-are-reinventing-the-american-economy-2/. 23  .S. Census Bureau. “2010 Occupation Code List,” U https://www.census.gov/people/io/files/2010_OccCodeswithCrosswalkfrom2002-2011nov04.xls 24  .S. Census Bureau, “Annual Estimates of the Resident U Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015,” http://factfinder. census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview. xhtml?pid=PEP_2015_PEPANNRES&prodType=table 25  .S. Department of Health and Human Services, U “Shortage Designation: Health Professional Shortage Areas and Medically Underserved Areas/Populations,” http://www.hrsa.gov/shortage/ 28  2014 Annual Report,” Office of Foreign Labor Certifica“ tion, Employment and Training Administration, United States Department of Labor, 2014, https://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/oflc_annual_report_fy2014.pdf. 29  adeline Zavodny, “Immigration and American Jobs,” M The Partnership for a New American Economy and the American Enterprise Institute, 2011, http://www. renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/img/ NAE_Im-AmerJobs.pdf. 30  iovanni Peri, Kevin Shih, Chad Sparber, and Angela G Marek Zeitlin, “Closing Economic Windows: How H-1B Visa Denials Cost U.S.-Born Tech Workers Jobs and Wages During the Great Recession,” 2014, http://www. renewoureconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ pnae_h1b.pdf. 31  anuel Pastor and Justin Scoggins, “Citizen Gain: The M Economic Benefits of Naturalization for Immigrants and the Economy,” 2012, http://www.immigrationresearch-info.org/report/university- southern-california/ citizen-gain- economic-benefits- naturalization-immigrants- and-e. 32  AFSA, “International Student Economic Value Tool,” N http://www.nafsa.org/Explore_International_Education/ Impact/Data_And_Statistics/NAFSA_International_Student_Economic_Value_Tool/#stateData 39 The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont  |  Endnotes: Methodology 33  .S. Department of Health and Human Services, U “National Vital Statistics Reports, Deaths: Final Data for 2013”, 2016, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/ nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf 34  epartment of Homeland Security, “Yearbook of D Immigration Statistics: 2014 Naturalizations, Table 22 - Persons Naturalized by State or Territory of Residence: FY 2005 to 2014”, https://www.dhs.gov/yearbook-immigration-statistics-2014-naturalizations 35  ederal Election Commission. “Federal Elections F 2012: Elections for the President, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Representatives”, 2013, http://www.fec.gov/ pubrec/fe2012/federalelections2012.pdf. 36  eorge J. Borjas, “The Labor Supply of Undocumented G Immigrants,” NBER Working Paper (National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, 2016), https://ideas.repec. org/p/nbr/nberwo/22102.html. 40 ABOUT New American Economy The Partnership for a New American Economy brings together more than 500 Republican, Democratic and Independent mayors and business leaders who support sensible immigration reforms that will help create jobs for Americans today. Visit www.renewoureconomy.org to learn more.               Exhibit 100    Undocumented Immigrants are:          Current vs. Full Legal Status for All Undocumented Immigrants        Appendix 1: Detailed State and Local Tax Contributions of Total Undocumented Immigrant Population Current vs. Full Legal Status for All Undocumented Immigrants Sales and Excise Tax Total Personal Income Tax Total Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Dist. of Col. Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status $45,311,000 $49,842,000 $1,877,000 $2,064,000 $144,232,000 $158,655,000 $47,382,000 $52,120,000 $1,970,679,000 $2,167,746,000 $82,211,000 $90,433,000 $58,469,000 $64,316,000 $4,794,000 $5,274,000 $19,467,000 $21,414,000 $463,955,000 $510,351,000 $214,416,000 $235,857,000 $20,571,000 $22,628,000 $17,056,000 $18,762,000 $351,926,000 $387,119,000 $55,396,000 $60,936,000 $21,333,000 $23,466,000 $43,049,000 $47,354,000 $20,136,000 $22,150,000 $52,210,000 $57,431,000 $10,471,000 $23,036,000 No Income Tax $16,388,000 $36,054,000 $7,384,000 $16,244,000 $157,883,000 $308,322,000 $21,429,000 $42,346,000 $15,551,000 $25,219,000 $4,662,000 $9,937,000 $6,647,000 $11,101,000 No Income Tax $62,447,000 $137,383,000 $6,521,000 $14,347,000 $2,802,000 $6,165,000 $95,945,000 $188,141,000 $19,802,000 $41,263,000 $5,974,000 $11,741,000 $6,473,000 $11,390,000 $11,282,000 $24,821,000 $8,536,000 $17,788,000 Property Tax Total $6,530,000 $7,183,000 $2,167,000 $2,383,000 $52,954,000 $58,250,000 $8,002,000 $8,802,000 $1,070,833,000 $1,177,916,000 $35,883,000 $39,471,000 $50,682,000 $55,750,000 $4,076,000 $4,483,000 $5,651,000 $6,216,000 $134,722,586 $148,195,000 $74,856,000 $82,341,000 $5,251,000 $5,776,000 $8,754,000 $9,630,000 $311,009,000 $342,110,000 $17,001,000 $18,701,000 $9,420,000 $10,362,000 $18,322,000 $20,154,000 $5,211,000 $5,732,000 $7,244,000 $7,969,000 Undocumented Top 1% Effective Tax Rate Total State and Local Taxes Immigrant Effective Tax (All Taxpayers)1 Rate $62,312,000 $80,061,000 $4,043,000 $4,448,000 $213,574,000 $252,958,000 $62,767,000 $77,166,000 $3,199,394,000 $3,653,985,000 $139,524,000 $172,250,000 $124,701,000 $145,284,000 $13,532,000 $19,694,000 $31,765,000 $38,731,000 $598,677,875 $658,540,000 $351,718,000 $455,581,000 $32,343,000 $42,750,000 $28,613,000 $34,557,000 $758,881,000 $917,370,000 $92,200,000 $120,900,000 $36,728,000 $45,570,000 $67,843,000 $78,897,000 $36,629,000 $52,702,000 $67,991,000 $83,188,000 7.2% 8.4% 4.3% 4.3% 8.0% 8.6% 9.1% 10.1% 8.0% 8.3% 6.6% 7.4% 7.6% 8.0% 3.9% 5.1% 7.3% 8.1% 7.3% 7.3% 7.3% 8.6% 8.9% 10.7% 7.0% 7.7% 10.3% 11.3% 8.1% 9.7% 7.9% 8.9% 8.2% 8.7% 6.9% 9.0% 7.8% 8.7% 3.8% 2.5% 4.6% 5.6% 8.7% 4.6% 5.3% 4.8% 6.4% 1.9% 5.0% 7.0% 6.4% 4.6% 5.2% 6.0% 3.6% 6.0% 4.2% Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy 8 Appendix 1: Detailed State and Local Tax Contributions of Total Undocumented Immigrant Population Current vs. Full Legal Status for All Undocumented Immigrants Sales and Excise Tax Total Personal Income Tax Total Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status $2,605,000 $2,865,000 $168,717,000 $185,589,000 $81,821,000 $90,003,000 $46,699,000 $51,368,000 $49,713,000 $54,684,000 $17,180,000 $18,898,000 $28,660,000 $31,526,000 $168,000 $185,000 $21,557,000 $23,713,000 $65,830,000 $72,413,000 $1,987,000 $2,186,000 $265,945,000 $292,540,000 $50,098,000 $55,108,000 $564,962,000 $621,458,000 $163,163,000 $179,479,000 $2,214,000 $2,435,000 $47,540,000 $52,294,000 $57,647,000 $63,411,000 $15,292,000 $16,821,000 $681,000 $1,470,000 $77,970,000 $146,073,000 $42,471,000 $84,426,000 $18,499,000 $38,897,000 $14,796,000 $27,409,000 $2,796,000 $6,152,000 $8,771,000 $19,297,000 $144,000 $316,000 $4,778,000 $9,652,000 No Income Tax No Income Tax on Wages $49,148,000 $69,036,000 $3,956,000 $5,590,000 $182,675,000 $337,864,000 $59,671,000 $131,276,000 $123,000 $270,000 $15,649,000 $34,427,000 $10,935,000 $23,436,000 $29,831,000 $63,327,000 Property Tax Total $1,081,000 $1,190,000 $85,561,000 $94,118,000 $60,313,000 $66,344,000 $21,495,000 $23,645,000 $18,684,000 $20,552,000 $2,708,000 $2,978,000 $11,466,000 $12,613,000 $237,000 $260,000 $13,465,000 $14,812,000 $20,271,000 $22,298,000 $5,207,000 $5,727,000 $272,322,000 $299,554,000 $13,689,000 $15,058,000 $354,686,000 $390,154,000 $54,568,000 $60,025,000 $507,000 $558,000 $20,059,000 $22,064,000 $16,183,000 $17,801,000 $35,652,000 $39,217,000 Undocumented Top 1% Effective Tax Rate Total State and Local Taxes Immigrant Effective Tax (All Taxpayers)1 Rate $4,367,000 $5,525,000 $332,248,000 $425,779,000 $184,605,000 $240,773,000 $86,692,000 $113,910,000 $83,192,000 $102,646,000 $22,684,000 $28,028,000 $48,897,000 $63,435,000 $548,000 $762,000 $39,800,000 $48,177,000 $86,101,000 $94,712,000 $7,236,000 $8,005,000 $587,415,000 $661,130,000 $67,743,000 $75,756,000 $1,102,323,000 $1,349,476,000 $277,402,000 $370,780,000 $2,844,000 $3,263,000 $83,247,000 $108,786,000 $84,765,000 $104,648,000 $80,775,000 $119,365,000 6.5% 7.5% 8.2% 9.5% 7.0% 8.3% 6.9% 8.3% 7.3% 8.2% 7.4% 8.4% 6.8% 8.0% 4.1% 5.2% 8.3% 9.1% 5.0% 5.0% 6.0% 6.1% 7.7% 7.9% 9.1% 9.3% 8.9% 9.9% 6.8% 8.3% 7.1% 7.4% 7.8% 9.3% 7.8% 8.7% 5.5% 7.4% 7.5% 6.7% 4.9% 5.1% 7.5% 5.3% 5.5% 4.7% 6.3% 1.4% 2.6% 7.1% 4.8% 8.1% 5.3% 3.0% 5.5% 4.3% 6.5% Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy 9 Appendix 1: Detailed State and Local Tax Contributions of Total Undocumented Immigrant Population Current vs. Full Legal Status for All Undocumented Immigrants Sales and Excise Tax Total Personal Income Tax Total Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming All States Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status Current Full Legal Status $64,545,000 $71,000,000 $17,615,000 $19,377,000 $43,859,000 $48,245,000 $4,302,000 $4,732,000 $91,169,000 $100,286,000 $1,067,260,000 $1,173,985,000 $40,863,000 $44,950,000 $1,515,000 $1,667,000 $121,514,000 $133,665,000 $243,047,000 $267,352,000 $3,531,000 $3,884,000 $36,367,000 $40,004,000 $3,442,000 $3,787,000 $7,025,296,000 $7,727,826,000 $34,440,000 $75,769,000 $3,887,000 $7,571,000 $10,606,000 $23,333,000 No Income Tax No Income Tax on Wages No Income Tax $13,189,000 $29,015,000 $326,000 $540,000 $71,310,000 $152,803,000 No Income Tax $1,080,000 $2,376,000 $13,230,000 $27,273,000 No Income Tax $1,131,236,000 $2,243,067,000 Property Tax Total Undocumented Top 1% Effective Tax Rate Total State and Local Taxes Immigrant Effective Tax (All Taxpayers)1 Rate $35,887,000 $39,475,000 $9,652,000 $10,617,000 $13,288,000 $14,616,000 $1,036,000 $1,140,000 $16,260,000 $17,886,000 $493,636,000 $543,000,000 $15,718,000 $17,290,000 $1,094,000 $1,204,000 $63,142,000 $69,456,000 $73,577,000 $80,935,000 $501,000 $551,000 $22,195,000 $24,414,000 $723,000 $795,000 $134,872,000 $186,244,000 $31,154,000 $37,564,000 $67,753,000 $86,195,000 $5,338,000 $5,872,000 $107,465,000 $118,251,000 $1,560,896,000 $1,716,985,000 $69,770,000 $91,255,000 $2,936,000 $3,411,000 $255,965,000 $355,924,000 $316,624,000 $348,287,000 $5,112,000 $6,811,000 $71,792,000 $91,691,000 $4,165,000 $4,582,000 7.2% 9.0% 7.4% 8.1% 5.5% 6.4% 8.0% 8.0% 7.4% 7.4% 8.6% 8.6% 6.7% 8.0% 7.3% 7.7% 6.0% 7.6% 10.7% 10.7% 6.4% 7.7% 7.5% 8.7% 5.2% 5.2% $3,583,429,000 $3,941,771,000 $11,739,961,000 $13,912,665,000 8.0% 8.6% 4.2% 6.3% 4.5% 1.8% 3.0% 2.9% 4.8% 7.7% 5.1% 2.4% 6.5% 6.2% 1.2% 5.4% Change +$702,530,000 +$1,111,831,000 +$358,343,000 +$2,172,703,000 1 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All Fifty States, 5th Edition, January 2015. www.whopays.org Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy 10 Appendix 2: Data Used to Estimate State and Local Tax Contributions of Undocumented Immigrants Estimated Total Undocumented 1 Immigrant Population Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Dist. of Col. Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri 71,000 7,000 244,000 56,000 3,019,000 163,000 105,000 23,000 27,000 610,000 377,000 21,000 33,000 519,000 94,000 36,000 63,000 45,000 66,000 5,000 253,000 173,000 97,000 85,000 25,000 57,000 Est. Share of Undocumented Immigrant Population 2 who are Homeowners 29% 31% 36% 37% 27% 33% 24% 32% 23% 33% 33% 40% 44% 39% 40% 39% 44% 21% 20% 31% 32% 21% 40% 32% 23% 37% Average Undocumented 3 Family Income $28,000 $30,600 $25,200 $28,400 $30,300 $29,600 $35,900 $34,800 $37,000 $30,700 $29,200 $39,600 $28,200 $32,500 $27,700 $29,500 $30,100 $27,000 $30,100 $30,600 $36,700 $34,800 $29,500 $30,500 $27,900 $28,900 1 Migration Policy Institute (MPI) analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2010-2014 ACS pooled, and the 2008 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) by Colin Hammar and James Bachmeier of Temple University and Jennifer Van Hook of The Pennsylvania State University, Population Research Institute. 2 All States 11,009,000 31% $30,600 $29,000 $30,600 $30,600 $35,100 $25,000 $33,300 $27,500 $30,600 $29,300 $29,400 $28,900 $31,400 $33,300 $28,700 $30,600 $27,900 $28,200 $29,300 $30,600 $36,100 $30,900 $30,600 $30,800 $30,600 $30,700 Ibid. 4 Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Average Undocumented 3 Family Income Ibid. 3 1,000 38,000 129,000 9,000 498,000 68,000 850,000 338,000 3,000 83,000 85,000 116,000 137,000 29,000 98,000 5,000 120,000 1,470,000 81,000 3,000 272,000 219,000 6,000 71,000 6,000 Est. Share of Undocumented Immigrant Population who are Homeowners2 31% 37% 32% 31% 24% 45% 19% 33% 31% 26% 38% 30% 30% 20% 29% 31% 27% 41% 38% 31% 32% 32% 31% 32% 31% Estimated Total Undocumented 1 Immigrant Population Ibid Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy 11

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?