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)
<![CDATA[
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
]]>
