Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Assisting the least among us: Social work's historical response to

unaccompanied immigrant and refugee youth
⁎
Jayshree S. Jania, , Michael Reischb
a
University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Social Work Department, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Sherman Hall-B-362, Baltimore, MD 21250, United States
b
School of Social Work, University of Maryland, 525 West Redwood Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, United States

A B S T R A C T

Unaccompanied immigrant and refugee youth enter the U.S. daily to escape violence, political oppression, ex-
treme poverty, and chronic instability in their native countries, or as victims of human trafficking. In FY 2016,
nearly 60,000 UAC arrived from Central America and Mexico alone (ORR, 2017) and officials estimate that UAC
will continue to enter the U.S. at a rapid pace in the years ahead. Yet, because these youth do not have the same
legal status, the government treats them differently upon their arrival (Cebulko, 2013).
Recent executive orders by the Trump Administration have exacerbated this problem and underscore the
importance of providing comprehensive supportive services to this population. However, there is a dearth of
scholarship on this issue, and scant evidence that current programs are effective in protecting vulnerable chil-
dren (Bhabha, 2004).
This challenge is not new. In different eras social workers have addressed the needs of this population through
a combination of private and state-sponsored interventions. Several factors influenced these varied responses:
(1) the changing demographic and national characteristics of UAC and the range of needs they exhibited; (2)
prevailing attitudes toward immigrants and refugees, often influenced by the status of the U.S. economy; and (3)
the distribution of responsibilities between the public and private sectors for the development, implementation,
and funding of programs that addressed the needs of UAC.
Based on primary and secondary source materials, this article traces the evolution of social work's response to
these needs during the past two centuries. It identifies some common and conflicting themes in the profession's
assessment of the issues faced by UAC, and the purposes and outcomes of the interventions developed. It con-
cludes by examining how the treatment of this population reflected the goals of assimilation, exclusion, or
structural change, and how these goals continue to influence contemporary policy and practice.

1. Introduction
Unaccompanied immigrant and refugee youth enter the U.S. daily to
escape violence, political oppression, extreme poverty, and chronic
instability in their native countries, or as victims of human trafficking.
While all of these youth arrive in the U.S. unaccompanied, they do not
have the same legal status and the government, therefore, treats them
differently (Cebulko, 2013). Unaccompanied Refugee Minors (URM)
have applied for such status before arriving in the U.S. They also have a
sponsor in place who is responsible for the resettlement of the minor
after he or she is here. Because of their status, URM are eligible for
federally funded benefits to assist with their resettlement in the United
States.
On the other hand, unaccompanied immigrant youth, often referred
to as “Unaccompanied Alien Children” (UAC), arrive in the U.S. lacking
lawful immigration status. They often seek asylum status after entry
and, unlike URM, have no legal guardian available to provide for their
care. They are not eligible for state funded services other than educa-
tion and emergency health benefits. Thus, the basic difference between
URM and UAC is the child's location at the time he/she applies for legal
status, which, in turn, affects their eligibility to receive vital services
(Segal & Mayadas, 2005, p. 566). The determination of both refugee
status and asylum depends upon whether the child qualifies as a re-
fugee. By definition, this status requires the child to be outside their
native country and unwilling or unable to return to this country due to
past persecution or a justifiable fear of it (Office of Refugee
Resettlement [ORR], 2017).
From 2009 to 2013, between 15,000–38,000 UAC arrived annually
in the U.S. from Central America and Mexico. In 2014, the number of
UAC arrivals dramatically increased to over 67,000. In FY 2015,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jani@umbc.edu (J.S. Jani), mreisch@ssw.umaryland.edu (M. Reisch).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.02.025
Received 27 September 2017; Received in revised form 9 February 2018; Accepted 12 February 2018
0190-7409/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Jani, J.S., Children and Youth Services Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.02.025
J.S. Jani, M. Reisch
although the number dropped, approximately 40,000 UAC arrived, but
in FY 2016, the number rose again to almost 60,000 from Central
America and Mexico alone (ORR, 2017). Officials estimate that UAC
will continue to enter the U.S. at a rapid pace due to continued in-
stability in their home countries. By contrast, since the inception of the
URM program in 1985 until FY 2016, it has only served approximately
13,000 youth (ORR, 2017).
The absence of a clearly established right to state-funded legal
counsel further complicates the challenges UAC face. This is important
for two reasons. First, asylees with legal representation have a much
greater chance of the government granting them asylum status than
those without an attorney (Bhabha & Schmidt, 2008). Second, without
legal counsel it is difficult for UACs to establish that they have ex-
perience child specific forms of persecution, such as gang violence and
domestic abuse. Unless they meet this requirement, they cannot obtain
protection as a refugee.
Consequently, youthful asylum seekers “are trapped in a complex
and inconsistent system that is detrimental to their needs” (Bhabha &
Schmidt, 2008, p. 128). This Kafkaesque system results in the depri-
vation of these children's human rights and a widespread societal
failure to address their best interests (Bhabha & Schmidt, 2008; Bucci,
2004; Xu, 2005). In fact, in 2007 alone, the Department of Homeland
Security arrested nearly 8000 UAC instead of providing them with the
assistance they needed.
Recent executive orders by the Trump Administration have ex-
acerbated this problem. They underscore the importance of providing
supportive services to unaccompanied minors, particularly from coun-
tries torn by civil war and other forms of violence. However, there is a
dearth of scholarly attention given to this issue, and there is no evi-
dence that the asylum program is an effective mechanism to protect
vulnerable children (Bhabha, 2004).
This challenge, however, is not new. In different political and cul-
tural climates, social workers have addressed the needs of this popu-
lation in different ways. Throughout U.S. history, due to the scarcity of
government protection for unaccompanied migrant youth, private
charitable organizations have largely assumed responsibility for their
care and protection. This was part of the larger phenomenon that
“American social work developed largely around the provision of ser-
vices to immigrants” (Giovannoni, 2004, p. xi).
Beginning in the mid-19th century, voluntary social service agencies
began to address the issues raised by the increasing number of un-
accompanied minors on the teeming streets of American cities. For
nearly two centuries, several factors influenced social workers' response
to this issue. One was the diverse demographic and national char-
acteristics of UAC and the range of needs they exhibited. A second
factor was the nature of prevailing attitudes toward immigrants and
refugees, often influenced by the status of the U.S. economy at the time.
A third was the distribution of responsibilities between the public and
private sectors for the development, implementation, and funding of
these programs.
Based on primary and secondary source materials, this article traces
the evolution of social work's response to these needs from the 19th
century to the present. It identifies some common and conflicting
themes that emerge from an analysis of the profession's assessment of
the issues faced by unaccompanied minors, the types of interventions
developed, and the overall goals of these interventions. For example,
the motives underlying social work intervention in different eras ranged
from the provision of shelter, food, and economic support to vulnerable
and impoverished youth and to the protection of the wider society from
crime and disease. Today, there is greater emphasis in the profession on
mental health services and staff training than on responding the UAC's
basic needs. This reflects a long-term shift away from concerns about
material needs and structural change toward psychosocial issues, par-
ticularly as they affect individuals and families.
These findings place contemporary debates over the fate of this
population in broader historical context. They reflect the changing
2
Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
emphasis of the social work profession as a whole, particularly the ef-
fects of status enhancement on the focus of practice. The article con-
cludes with an examination of the extent to which the overall treatment
of this population reflected the goals of assimilation, exclusion, or
structural change, and how these goals shape contemporary social
policy and social work practice.
2. The “Old Immigration”: 1830s–1880s
Most scholars describe immigration to the U.S. as occurring in four
major waves (Delgado, Jones, & Rohani, 2005). Since the first im-
migration law in 1790, several interrelated factors influenced the U.S.
government's response to these different waves, particularly how it
developed and enforced laws and regulations: political-economic con-
ditions, particular labor force needs, external developments such as
wars, and immigrants' countries of origin and their racial/ethnic
backgrounds. In the broadest sense, U.S. policies have swung back and
forth between an “open door system” and a quota system (Takaki,
1993). They have always treated “worthy” and “unworthy” arrivals
differently and distinguished between immigrants who sought entry for
economic reasons and those seeking refugee or asylum status.
Over time, U.S. immigration policies have also become increasingly
complex. They no longer merely regulate the admission of foreigners
who desire to become permanent residents of the U.S. They now in-
volve regulations regarding different categories of refugees, steps in the
naturalization process, eligibility for citizenship and its benefits, the
deportation of illegal immigrants, and laws that affect immigrants' ac-
cess to occupational, educational, and social welfare opportunities.
Since the 19th century, this complicated nexus has had particularly
challenging and confusing implications for the definition and treatment
of UAC.
The first major wave of immigration to the United States initially
came largely from Northwestern Europe – Great Britain, the
Netherlands, and the Scandinavian nations. These immigrants were
predominantly Protestant and Anglo-Saxon. Most of them entered the
U.S. as intact families and, for the most part, the new nation accepted
them without conflict. Although they often encountered physical
challenges in resettlement, they easily assimilated into the nation's
primarily rural, agricultural economy.
By the 1830s and 1840s, however, a second wave of immigrants
from Ireland and Germany arrived, fleeing poverty and political re-
pression, similar to the risks many young Latin Americans face today.
Their arrival coincided with the onset of the industrial revolution in the
U.S. and the appearance of manufacturing centers and major infra-
structure projects such as railroads and canals, which produced a
growing demand for cheap labor. Unlike their immigrant predecessors,
many of these immigrants did not travel west to settle on farms, but
remained in burgeoning Eastern cities where they filled the economy's
workforce needs. They soon constituted a growing, often despised
urban working class (Hirota, 2017). The poverty, disease, and housing
conditions these immigrants endured in cities such as Baltimore, New
York, and Philadelphia shocked sympathetic observers like the Re-
verend Mathew Carey and had particularly deleterious effects on chil-
dren and their caretakers. In a pamphlet written in 1833, Carey de-
scribed their plight in stark terms:
…The evils arising from the inadequate compensation given for
most kinds of female labor are by no means confined to their pov-
erty. Frequently… women… are obliged to keep their children in the
streets; this leads to bad associations, and frequently to crime. Of the
children brought before me for pilfering, 9 of 10 are those whose fathers
are dead, and who live with their mothers and are employed this way
(emphasis added).
The different cultural norms, religious beliefs, and social behaviors
these new immigrants exhibited disturbed native-born Americans who
might otherwise have responded favorably to their plight. At the very
J.S. Jani, M. Reisch
least, these cultural differences justified the failure of the rest of the
population to respond sympathetically to their plight. Unlike previous
newcomers, Irish and German immigrants were primarily Catholic.
They had different attitudes about work and leisure, sobriety and
gambling. In part due to their different attitudes and beliefs, the
dominant classes even considered them a different race and used this
characteristic to rationalize the unequal treatment of new immigrants,
much as they used it to rationalize slavery. Signs that stated “no Irish
need apply” and “no dogs or Irish” vividly reflected the prevailing
sentiment.
These cultural differences compounded the economic and social
conflicts that inevitably arose in the emerging capitalist system
(Gutman, 1977). In the eyes of urban elites, the new immigrants, par-
ticularly immigrant children and youth, constituted “the dangerous
classes” that threatened the new nation's stability and their political
dominance. Although they entered the country legally, just as today,
overstated accounts created a picture in the popular mind of immigrant
children as dirty, contagious criminals threatening American morals
(Raja, 2014).
It is important, however, to point out the difference between the
unaccompanied migrant youth of this period and those of later eras.
Although during this “second wave” of immigration some youth came
to the U.S. alone, primarily in search of economic opportunity, the
larger part of this population became unaccompanied after their arrival
due to abandonment by their poverty-stricken and desperate parents.
Many of these youth soon became homeless. They formed gangs for
both economic gain and mutual protection. Some worked legally as rag
pickers or “newsies” (Staller, in press). As Charles Dickens (1838) vi-
vidly described in Oliver Twist, others became petty thieves, beggars,
prostitutes, and the apprentices of adult criminals. By the mid-19th
century, as their numbers increased, concerned citizens in the upper
classes could no longer ignore the presence of these children and youth.
As Charles Loring Brace, the founder of the Children's Aid Society in
New York City pointed out in his memoirs, they constituted both a
current and future danger to American society:
…Something must be done to meet the increasing crime and poverty
among the destitute children of New York… [who] … hardly seem
able to distinguish good and evil… Immigration is pouring in its
multitude of poor foreigners, who leave these young outcasts ev-
erywhere abandoned in our midst. For the most part … no one cares
for them, and they care for no one… These boys and girls, it should
be remembered, will soon form the great lower class of our city.
They will influence elections; they may shape the policy of the city;
they will assuredly, if unreclaimed, poison society all around them.
They will help to form the great multitude of robbers, thieves, va-
grants, and prostitutes who are now such a burden upon the law-
respecting community (1853).
Two decades before Brace published his call for action, charity
workers and reformers in the so-called voluntary (non-governmental)
sector had begun to respond to worsening social conditions among
immigrant children and youth, particularly after the disastrous “panic”
of 1837 when unemployment and poverty rates soared (Stern & Axinn,
2012). In contrast to the harsh reforms of the poor laws that state
legislatures enacted during the 1820s, the response of these charitable
organizations was benign, if patronizing and moralizing. The “friendly
visitors” of the Association for the Improvement of the Condition of the
Poor (AICP), which later evolved into today's Community Service So-
ciety, reflected these tendencies. Yet, their observations of slum con-
ditions soon led them to advocate for policy changes, particularly in the
areas of housing and public health (AICP, 1853). As Pumphrey (1959)
asserted and the above quote from Brace reflected, their initial moti-
vations combined compassion for poor children and self-protection.
Brace's efforts to assist what he termed the “dangerous classes of
New York” – the over 30,000 unaccompanied children and youth on the
streets of New York – reflected a similar mindset. In 1853, with the
3
Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
financial and political assistance of several wealthy friends, he founded
the Children's Aid Society (CAS), the oldest, continuously operating
non-profit child welfare agency in the U.S. Often described as the be-
ginning of modern foster care, the CAS also represented a new approach
to the needs of homeless, dependent children, many of whom were
immigrants (Pine & Drachman, 2005). Unlike asylums and prisons
which Brace argued “had done little to affect the evil,” in addition to
shelter, the CAS provided educational and religious instruction, health
care, and job training for these youth as part of its comprehensive effort
to “save” them and to quiet the fears of the city's better-off population.
Perhaps the most famous (or infamous) program the CAS established
were the “orphan trains” that between 1853 and the early 20th century
transported 120,000 urban children and youth to rural areas in 45
states, Canada, and Mexico. They CAS placed them with farm families
as part of an overall attempt to assimilate them into mainstream
American culture and values (CAS Website; Brace, 1880).
After the Civil War, newly formed charitable organizations, such as
the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (SPCC) and the
Charities Organization Societies (COS), adopted similar approaches to
the care of unaccompanied or orphaned immigrant children. They
emphasized vocational training and moral instruction to prepare this
population to fill their adult roles in American society. For the most
part, however, none of these mainstream organizations addressed the
needs of children from racial minority communities. While charitable
organizations tried to assimilate white immigrants from Europe, they
considered immigrants from Mexico and China, and emancipated
African American emigrants from the South unassimilable “others.” In
the absence of concern or assistance from either the government or the
voluntary sector, these communities created their own social service
networks, largely through mutual aid societies or church-sponsored
programs (Beito, 2000; Iglehart & Becerra, 2011).
Thus, even during the profession's “pre-history,” social workers
emphasized the adjustment of immigrants' behaviors and values to
prevailing social norms in the development of programs and services as
much as or more than they focused on meeting this population's im-
mediate material needs. Charity workers regarded themselves as agents
of “Americanization” and paid little attention to the importance of
immigrants retaining components of their own culture (Leighninger,
1975). By the 1880s, however, the sheer volume of what social workers
soon referred to as the “new immigration” compelled the field to re-
think some of its basic assumptions and demand that government take
an expanded role in immigration policy and programs.
3. The “New Immigration”: 1880s–World War I
At the time of the Civil War, the U.S. was primarily a rural, agri-
cultural nation, although manufacturing and mining had begun to in-
crease for several decades, particularly in the North. During the next
half century, however, the economy of the nation underwent a pro-
found transformation. By the turn of the 20th century, the U.S. was the
leading industrial producer in the world. At the same, the population
grew dramatically and became increasingly racially and ethnically di-
verse and urbanized, primarily due to the influx of 23 million foreigners
from Europe, Latin America, Asia, and the Pacific islands. By the end of
the First World War, the U.S. was an “urban nation.” These changes had
significant effects on its response to immigration.
Until the mid-1880s, Americans viewed their nation as the “New
Frontier.” Land was plentiful even if forcefully seized from its original
inhabitants. To a considerable extent, the nation accepted immigrants
as part of an “open door” policy although the non-immigrant popula-
tion often treated them with disdain (Leighninger, 1975). By the 1880s,
this attitude began to shift significantly because of social problems and
political challenges produced by the so-called “new immigration.”
These new immigrants, many of them single young men and
women, left their homes in Italy, Russia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire,
Central America, and China to escape violent religious persecution,
J.S. Jani, M. Reisch
compulsory lifetime conscription in imperial armies, or extreme pov-
erty. They settled in cities that were already overcrowded, “compli-
cating the problems of living for those already on the ground, and
confronting the municipal authorities with new and perplexing pro-
blems” (Bowen, 1909, p. 255). Unlike previous immigrants, these new
groups entered a society undergoing rapid urbanization and the growth
of modern industrial capitalism. Further complications arose because of
their religious backgrounds – European immigrants were largely
Catholic and Jewish, and those from Asia often practiced Buddhism –
and their relative lack of education, literacy, English language ability,
and job skills suitable to a manufacturing economy. Yet, elites and the
non-immigrant public could not ignore their presence. By 1910, almost
15% of the U.S. population was foreign born and in major cities like
New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia, between half and 2/3 of the
population were either immigrants or the children of immigrants (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1910). These statistics are remarkably similar to
those of today (U.S. Census, 2010). Like today, these newcomers pre-
sented unprecedented challenges to service providers in the public and
private sectors.
During this period many youthful immigrants came from China and
other nations in East Asia, the Philippines (especially after the 1898
Spanish-American War), and Cuba (particularly during the 1920s), but
mainstream social service organizations, such as the Charities
Organization Societies, public welfare agencies, and even the more
“progressive” settlement houses, focused almost exclusively on their
European counterparts. They also ignored the needs of African
American youth, who came North during the first “Great Migration”
(~1890–1920), Native American youth who had been displaced onto
reservations or forced to attend schools that attempted to erase their
culture and heritage, and Mexicans who lived along the U.S.-Mexico
border (Hernandez, 1983; Lasch-Quinn, 1993). As a result, most of
these populations attempted, with mixed success, to address the needs
of immigrant children and youth through underfunded self-help orga-
nizations and mutual aid societies (Beito, 2000; Carlton-LaNey &
Burwell, 1996).
During this period, social workers in well-established public and
private agencies were particularly concerned about the plight of im-
migrant children because, in their view, immigrant parents were “un-
able to pay any attention to the children who go out into the streets
[where] … in remarkably short time [they] become vicious and de-
moralized” (Bowen, 1909, p. 256). The number of homeless and
abandoned (i.e., “unaccompanied”) immigrant children also grew be-
cause of two other factors. As poverty and unemployment increased
during the frequent economic downturns of the era, family desertion by
immigrant men became more common. This had two important con-
sequences: it increased the need for children in such families, even very
young children, to work in dangerous mines, mills, and factories, and it
led many families to abandon their children to the streets or to place
them in orphanages or foster care out of economic necessity.
A second factor was increased intergenerational conflict within
immigrant families, particularly when immigrant children began at-
tending school after the establishment of compulsory public education.
The public school experience not only exposed immigrant children to
cultural values that diverged significantly from their parents, it also
improved their English language skills to the point where they often
acted as their family's spokesperson or interpreter, elevating their status
in the family while diminishing that of their elders. In addition, their
labor outside the home frequently became a critical component of the
family's income, especially during economic downturns. This combi-
nation of economic and cultural dislocation created increased tensions
and produced “difficulties [among immigrant families] in making suc-
cessful adjustments at home and in the community” (Hull, 1924, p.
291). It also led the social work profession to pay more attention to the
plight of children left to their own devices in dangerous urban en-
vironments.
During the Progressive Era (~1880s–1918), many social workers
4
Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
regarded these developments as threats to the morals of U.S. society,
now endangered by “the resultant evil of adulterous practices, bigamy,
fraudulently secured divorces” (Hugo, 1912, p. 259). In addition, social
workers in both Charity Organization Societies (COS) and settlement
houses perceived that immigrant children regarded the police as ene-
mies and were susceptible to the allure of dancehalls, liquor, and to-
bacco. Similar to today, immigrant girls faced a particularly difficult
challenge because of the risk of trafficking into prostitution (Addams,
1910). Young women were even more socially isolated than male youth
and the lack of “healthy” forms of amusement and recreation made
them susceptible to the lure of exploitive men. Inferior housing condi-
tions and the anti-social nature of their employment “complete[d] the
circle of life for the homeless immigrant girl” (Wald, 1909, p. 263).
Growing awareness of this complex array of issues produced for the
first time the sustained involvement of the social work profession with
the problems of immigrant youth. In an environment of enormous so-
cial and political upheaval social workers felt compelled to respond to
the needs and problems of this population as a central component of a
broader reform movement often called Progressivism. Both the friendly
visitors of the COS and settlement house residents believed they could
help these youth assimilate while altering the public's perception and
response to them. Some social workers even expressed the optimistic
view that the U.S. should cultivate immigrant youth as the future lea-
ders of their communities (Frasca, 1920).
Yet, the initial response of the emerging social work profession to
these issues also reflected the ethnic, religious, and racial prejudices of
their class. In addition, as the demand for cheap labor declined due to
the impact of technology, like other members of their class they in-
creasingly focused on the fiscal and social costs of immigration. A
number of social work leaders, particularly on the East and West coasts,
called for immigration regulation to slow the spiraling cost to state
governments of pauper support (Wrightington, 1890) which had in-
creased in states like Massachusetts over four times as fast and its
overall population (p. 287). This clamor had already produced such
restrictive immigration as the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which pro-
hibited all immigration of Chinese laborers.
In the late 19th century, the arguments of social welfare leaders in
New York City, which had the nation's largest concentration of im-
migrants, in favor of legal regulation emphasized fiscal and cultural
themes (Hoyt, 1887; Sanborn, 1898). One leader of organized charity
declared: “New York is constantly and unduly burdened by the ship-
ment of criminal, pauper, insane, and otherwise enfeebled persons to
this country by different countries of Europe” (Hoyt, 1887, p. 199). As a
consequence, the state “finds itself heavily taxed to meet the constantly
and steadily increasing demands for its criminal, insane, vagrant, and
pauper classes” (p. 200).
Other social work leaders (Sanborn, 1898) pointed to the specific
danger that unaccompanied youth, if they stayed in the U.S., would
soon become the population most likely to be susceptible to the first
attacks of insanity between the ages of 20–30, exacerbating the fiscal
burden on the state. There was also the fear that immigrants were more
vulnerable to diseases like typhus due to their previous bad health, poor
hygiene, and inability to read English (McMurtrie, 1909, p. 248). Social
workers also raised concerns about the effects of the new immigration
on the racial, ethnic, and cultural composition of the U.S. (Fishberg,
1906; Marshall, 1906; Williams, 1906). Due to this threat, they argued
that the government must “insist upon their return to their rightful
guardians” (Hoyt, 1887, p. 201). It is interesting to note here how the
rationale for social work's concern had shifted from Brace's mid-19th
century warning about the threat of unaccompanied immigrant chil-
dren to the nation's politics to these early 20th century warnings about
their threats to the nation's culture, and its physical and fiscal health.
This revised emphasis influenced the direction of both policy and
practice during this period.
The aforementioned 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law
designed to prevent a specific ethnic group from immigrating to the
J.S. Jani, M. Reisch
U.S. It effectively closed “the golden door” for most Asians (Takaki,
1998) that had remained open for nearly a century. Although the re-
sponse to European immigration was less severe, it had a particular
impact on unaccompanied immigrant youth. The 1907 Immigration Act
declared that immigrant children under 16 could not enter the U.S. in a
“normal” fashion. It established a system that largely remains in force
today in which these children are detained waiting special inquiry. At
the time, at these “inquiry” hearings, usually missionaries, immigrant
aid societies, or private citizens offered to provide care (Raja, 2014). On
other occasions, private agencies obtained “bonds” for children whose
parents died. These children went through immigration at Ellis Island;
subsequently, orphan trains transported many of them west to their
new families (Raja, 2014).
Some social workers, however, adopted a more sympathetic, if
somewhat patronizing view toward this population (Bowler, 1931;
Hagerty, 1924; Hart, 1896; Matthews, 1897). They consistently refuted
claims that aliens, including juvenile immigrants, constituted a dis-
proportionate segment of criminals and paupers and stressed the need
for liberal regulations, policy reform, and the introduction of preventive
measures. Reflecting the late Victorian morality so common among
early social workers, Lillian Wald (1909) suggested that “un-
sophisticated women [need] to be guarded upon arriving” and called
for laws to make the steamship companies that had transported these
women responsible for their safety. She demanded “ethical standards
for a moral society that benefits these women” (p. 263). In a similar
vein, Hugo (1912) proposed adoption of divorce legislation to control
the issuing of marriage licenses and stricter enforcement of the 1910
White-Slave Traffic or Mann Act that barred the transport of women
and girls across state lines or international borders for immoral pur-
poses, particularly prostitution (p. 260).
Wald and others also introduced the importance of public health
work among UAC, particularly the provision of education to American-
born children of immigrants, as part of a broader program of
Americanization (Vaughan & Mandel, 1920). The persistence of racism
and language barriers, however, complicated this work (Cannon, 1920).
This was a particularly acute problem among young Mexican im-
migrants, whose lack of education and English proficiency often made
them susceptible to fraud and exploitation (Alvarado, 1920; Sturges,
1920). Proposed solutions included better education of social workers
about immigrant cultures, improved public health education programs,
more language fluency among social workers and health care workers,
and better research. Remarkably, these solutions closely resemble re-
cent proposals emerging from the field (Author, 2017; Carlson,
Cacciatore, & Klimek, 2012; Dettlaff & Fong, 2016; Huemer et al., 2009;
Mitschke, Praetorius, Kelly, Small, & Kim, 2017; Nelson, Price, &
Zubrzycki, 2017; Raghallaigh & Gilligan, 2010; Wheeler & Mahoney,
2008).
After the demise of Progressivism's reform impulse in the early
1920s, the approach of social workers toward these problems shifted
away from structural change and cultural assimilation at the societal
level toward increased family counseling, particularly for immigrant
Italian and Jewish families, to reduce the number of “post-arrival”
unaccompanied children and youth (Hull, 1924; Kahn, 1924). Leading
practitioners of the era asserted that several external factors ex-
acerbated the problems of Jewish families. These included a period of
prolonged separation between parents and children when fathers im-
migrate first; the “social origins and racial psychology” of this popu-
lation (i.e., the effects of the historical background of Eastern European
Jews on their worldview, cultural norms, and behaviors); and the na-
tion's “unenlightened immigration policies” (Kahn, 1924, pp. 284–285).
These issues complicated the general problem of adaptation from
“Jewish life in Europe to Jewish life in America” (Kahn, 1924, p. 286).
To overcome this resistance to integration into mainstream U.S. society,
social workers in the family service field proposed that agencies
working with Jewish immigrants combine family casework with in-
creased educational and organizing efforts at the community level.
5
Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Organizations such as the Educational Alliance in lower Manhattan, the
Henry Street Settlement, and the Jewish Board of Guardians combined
“direct services” to families with recreational programs for youth, adult
education programs, and assistance to neighborhoods in establishing
local associations to address community problems such as sanitation
and safety (Author, 1989).
Yet, despite this growing interest among professional social workers
in the needs of unaccompanied minors, fraternal societies and mutual
aid organizations continued to provide the bulk of assistance to this
population through the 1920s. Some immigrant families belonged to
several of these organizations concurrently because, in addition to
modest forms of social insurance, “these neighborhood societies often
[provided social support], help in nursing, in care of children, and in
household work” (Hood, 1920, p, 488). The need for such societies
increased after the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924 – also called
the Johnson-Reed Act – that established a quota system that gave
preference to immigrants of white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant back-
grounds. Over the course of the next several decades, the values un-
derlying this legislation reinforced long-standing prejudice and dis-
crimination against immigrants from other backgrounds, fueled anti-
Catholic and anti-Semitic sentiments, and excluded immigrant youth
from these populations from the services provided by many public and
private agencies.
In sum, during these critical formative years of the profession, social
workers regarded formal and informal educational programs that fo-
cused on assimilation at the individual, family, and community levels as
primary means to address the problems faced by UAC. Efforts to create
these programs in the non-profit sector constituted a major component
of their work while reflecting a subtle shift in the meaning of assim-
ilation. Social workers, particularly but not exclusively in the settle-
ment house movement, no longer believed that assimilation required
immigrants to deny their former cultures. This was due, in part, to the
changing ethnic composition of what Andrews (1993) called social
workers of the “second generation.” Increasingly, they came from the
same backgrounds as the people their agencies served.
Consequently, often in clumsy ways, they tried to help immigrant
youth retain their connection to their cultures of origin even as they
encouraged their assimilation into the American institutional main-
stream. Without using the term, they recognized the importance and
the possibility of maintaining a bi-cultural identity. One way to facil-
itate this development was by involving immigrants in the decisions
that affect their lives to prepare them “to share responsibility in our
civic life” (Frasca, 1920, p. 500).
4. The “Third Wave”: the flight from fascism, communism, war,
and civil conflict
The legal restrictions on immigration established in 1924 further
increased after the onset of the Depression in 1929, demonstrating once
again how changing economic conditions influenced the nation's re-
sponse to young immigrants. By the early 1930s massive joblessness led
to the mistreatment of immigrants in order to reduce competition for
employment and ensure there were sufficient resources to “provide
lawful citizens with relief” (Warren, 1931, p. 461). Consequently, as
unemployment among immigrant households soared restrictions on the
provision of public relief to non-citizens exacerbated their economic
plight (MacCormack, 1934).
In response to this growing problem, Warren (1931) proposed “a
removal of our horizons from our national boundaries…in the changing
world, which is becoming increasingly international [and an appre-
ciation of] the growing necessity of [providing] minimum standards of
care…to those whom we have admitted to our shores” (Warren, 1931,
p. 471). Other social workers, however, did not adopt such an ex-
pansive and inclusive view. They called for better screening of those
who wished to enter the U.S. One speaker at the National Conference of
Social Work (NCSW) asserted that “social work ought to take part in
J.S. Jani, M. Reisch
creating the broader concept of migration as an inevitable social phe-
nomenon which resists efforts of control based solely on economic and
political considerations” (Larned, 1930, p. 477). These sentiments to
admit only the “best” immigrants persist today.
The uneven response of the U.S. to these issues during the
Depression and in subsequent decades become clearer if one notes again
the legal distinction between youth with refugee status and un-
documented asylum seekers who arrive in the U.S. with no previous
approval. Then and now the former obtain government permission to
enter the U.S. prior to their arrival and receive government-funded
services upon arrival. For the most part, the public welcomes this group
and policies generally function adequately to protect them. By contrast,
the government treats undocumented youthful asylum seekers similarly
to adults in the same situation.
For example, as the U.S. struggled to overcome the devastating ef-
fects of the Great Depression on immigrant children and youth, it also
confronted the problem of assisting youthful victims of fascism and war.
The situation in Europe became more grave and life threatening each
year and refugee children fleeing fascism, most of them Jewish, came to
the U.S. in increasing numbers. During this period, the U.S. had three
main objectives in its work with unaccompanied refugee youth: (1)
evacuate them from their current living situation; (2) resettle them into
a safe situation; and (3) facilitate the process of permanent adoption. In
response, for the most part social workers during the late 1930s and
early 1940s placed these children “in family homes through the co-
operation of [nonprofit] child-caring agencies” (Lenroot, 1941, p. 199),
illustrating the continuing importance of non-governmental organiza-
tions in this area. Kathryn Lenroot (1941) summed up the general at-
titude of the profession toward unaccompanied minors at the time:
“The children who have taken with fortitude and tolerance the ad-
venture of life without parents in a new land, give us certainty that the
spirit of freedom can never be finally overcome nor confined within
geographic boundaries” (p. 207).
Despite this sympathetic posture and the critical role played by the
nonprofit sector, the federal government applied strict standards to
approve children's admission, including assurance that the child would
not become a public charge and that cooperating non-profit agencies
would uphold foster care and employment standards developed by the
Children's Bureau and the Department of Labor. Consequently, by the
onset of World War II, the U.S. admitted a limited number of un-
accompanied minors, but only in a situation specific, ad hoc, and highly
planned way. As welfare rolls grew in the decade after the war, gov-
ernment agencies tightened eligibility requirements for services and
paid more attention to documentation status as a criterion for the re-
ceipt of services (Pine & Drachman, 2005).
It is interesting to contrast the response of government and the so-
cial work profession to European refugee children during the 1930s and
1940s with their response to youthful Mexican Americans, many of
whom came to the U.S. as laborers and faced deportation during the
Depression. Some social workers rejected the argument that Mexicans
were more likely to be involved in criminal activity than non-Mexicans
were (Balten, 1930; Sylvius, 1930). They recognized how prejudice and
discrimination, particularly against “non-White Mexicans,” lead to the
virtual segregation and isolation of this population (Hanna, 1935, pp.
692–693).Other social workers, however, repeated racist stereotypes
about Mexicans' intelligence and the potential criminality of their
children, stereotypes that predated the Depression (Hagerty, 1924).
Conflicts also persisted about the legality of Mexican immigration
and its impact on Mexican families. In a paper discussing the “practi-
cally closed Mexican border,” Balten (1930) refuted “the claim that as
many Mexicans have entered illegally, as legally” (pp. 486–487) due to
tighter border restrictions and enforcement since 1929. With unin-
tended irony, he argued that family separation is generally voluntary
because the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) “extends
every assistance to enable an entire family to deport together even
when all of the members are not deportable” (p. 489). He
6
Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
acknowledged, however, “in many instances deportees are left stranded
in their own country upon returning without money, friends, or em-
ployment” (p. 489). The primary solution he recommended was based
more on economic than humanitarian grounds. He proposed relaxing
entry requirements in order to enable Mexicans to engage in agri-
cultural work in the Southwest.
Both during and in the aftermath of World War II, several trends
emerged in the nation's treatment of unaccompanied minors. First,
there was an overall increase in international adoption due the number
of displaced persons the war created (Clague, 1945; Hurlbutt, 1944;
Powell, 1943; Rawley, 1948; Waelbroeck, 1944; Whitton, 1941a;
Whitton, 1941b). Second, consistent with the broader conservative
trend within the profession to focus on individual and family problems,
as part of its resurgent professionalizing impulse (Author, 1989), there
was greater emphasis on the impact of family tensions (within foster
care or adoptive families) and the introduction of more mental health
services to UACs and their families. Third, the focus on “American-
ization” – largely through education, English language instruction, and
cultural assimilation – continued, spurred in the 1950s by growing
concerns over juvenile crime, much like today (Georgopoulos, 2005).
It is striking that Hagerty's remarks at the 1924 National Conference
of Social Work could easily have been repeated, without approbation,
thirty years later: “Much of the immigrant's crime has been committed
through ignorance, from the lack of knowledge of what he can do and
what he cannot do… [Yet] the only Americanization that is worthwhile
is [that] which enables them to learn the language and the customs of
our country without forgetting the best in the traditions of the old
world” (Hagerty, 1924, p. 195). To some extent, this continuing focus
on assimilation masked the initial emergence of the idea of cultural
sensitivity that would flower during the 1960s and 1970s.
By the late 1950s, social workers in the adoption field “recognize[d]
that our responsibility for children has become global” (Arnold, 1959,
p. 135). Nevertheless, their perspective on UAC reflected considerable
contradictions. On the one hand, they believed there were negative
aspects to inter-country adoption primarily because of the challenges in
locating suitable homes. From this viewpoint, it was better “to keep
these children within their countries of origin” (p. 131). Yet, from a
humanitarian perspective, “for a long time to come, some overseas
children will be better off if they are given the security of an adoptive
home in another country” (p. 131).
The variety of UAC who sought admission to the U.S. from the
1950s through the 1980s sorely tested these conflicting perspectives in
the social work field (Steinbock, 1989). They included the offspring of
American GIs and native women during the Korean and Vietnam wars
(Bernier, 1992); refugees from the failed Hungarian revolution of 1956;
the 14,000 Cuban children escaping from the Cuban revolution; boat
people fleeing Southeast Asia (Blair, 2000); participants in the 1979
Marielito boatlift; and Central Americans seeking sanctuary from civil
wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua. The plight of these immigrant
children and youth spurred increased criticism of prevailing immigra-
tion policies. Simons (1962), for example, pointed out that this popu-
lation was “especially disadvantaged … by lack of education, lack of
skills, personal inadequacy, emotional problems, or difference in race
and cultural background. When they cannot get along in one place …
their woes and problems are aggravated and compounded by home-
lessness and even by statelessness” (p. 170). Different eligibility re-
quirements for services among the states further compounded their
plight.
In response, the government revised immigration policy on several
occasions. In 1953, it permitted the entry of orphans adopted abroad. In
1961, Congress amended the 1924 Immigration and Nationalization Act
to allow the domestic adoption of parentless children. It is important to
note that these changes only affected UAC with anticipated arrivals.
The government did nothing to assist those UAC who simply “showed
up” at the border.
In addition, there was growing awareness that the U.S. continued to
J.S. Jani, M. Reisch
neglect and mistreat Mexican UAC despite their presence in the nation
for decades. The mistreatment of Mexican migrants, in general, had
repercussions far beyond the child welfare field. For example, Mexican
immigrants failed to use existing mental health services, even when
they recognized their necessity, out of fear of “being locked in [to state
mental hospitals] and never being released” and losing custody of their
children (Arevalo, Soto, & Perez, 1979, p. 153). Even the relatively
progressive Model Cities Program of the 1960s generated considerable
dissatisfaction and mistrust among Mexican immigrants, in part be-
cause the program failed to respond to the specific needs of children
and youth in this community (Patlan, 1971). Although they were U.S.
citizens, Puerto Rican migrants faced similar problems throughout the
country (La Luz, 1972). In Chicago and New York, for example, the
Puerto Rican community received a disproportionately low share of the
program's resources, although its children and youth arguably had
equal or greater needs than their counterparts from other low-income
groups.
Other Latino/a immigrants from Central America and the Caribbean
experienced similar challenges. In the aftermath of the Mariel Boatlift,
unaccompanied Cuban refugee children had difficulty obtaining foster
parents. “Many of the potential foster parents [had] … quite unrealistic
expectations of what would be involved in accepting into their homes
young persons from vastly different cultural backgrounds who spoke
little or no English” (Jones, 1981, p. 132). The expectations of potential
adoptive families created further problems. For example, families who
wanted only a female child discovered that the girls needing adoption
had “severe emotional problems and were institutionalized” (p. 132). In
addition, 75% of the male youth had some history of incarceration,
often for political dissent or crimes committed out of economic ne-
cessity, such as prostitution, theft, or selling contraband goods (p. 136).
The termination of federal funding for foster home services in Sep-
tember 1981 increased the severity of this problem by creating a need
for states to fill the gaps, which they did unevenly.
The legal status of this population further exacerbated the problems
they confronted. Jones (1981) suggested that referring to Cuban UAC as
“entrants” rather than refugees created additional problems. This was
because “the status of an ‘entrant’ is an emergency one, granted on a
temporary basis, and as such it may be revoked at any time… The re-
vocation of ‘entrant’ status might find young men … facing resettlement
in yet another country” (p. 139). Some social workers at the time,
however, argued that resettlement might be preferable, particularly if
the U.S. could not or would not provide services that are linguistically
and culturally compatible with the UAC's needs. This illustrates the
clash in the social work field between humanitarian and pragmatic
considerations created by the failure of the U.S. government to respond
to this population in a compassionate manner.
Although the challenges during this period were similar to those
that existed nearly a century before, a major difference at the time was
the inability of private services to provide for the complex needs of UAC
who entered the country with a status other than that of a traditional
“immigrant.” This prompted the need for government intervention
through the creation of the Office of Refugee Resettlement or ORR (Pine
& Drachman, 2005). Thus, the relationship between public and private
sector service provision to UAC shifted once again.
The ORR developed the Unaccompanied Refugee Minor (URM)
Program in the 1980s to address the needs of children who arrived in
the U.S. from Southeast Asia because of the Vietnam conflict without a
parent or guardian to care for them. The URM Program has several
important components. First, it creates a standard procedure to admit
refugee children. Second, it authorizes federal funding for foster care
and health care for this population. Third, it clarifies the extent of
government responsibility. Finally, through federal legislation, it dele-
gates considerable power to the states to implement its programs (ORR,
2015).
Since 1980, almost 13,000 youth have entered the URM program
nationally. At its peak in 1985, the URM program provided protection
7
Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
to 3828 youth/year. As of December 2015, 1300 youth were in URM
care nationwide, most of them separated from their parents due to war,
political unrest, or political or religious persecution (ORR, 2015).
5. Civil wars & civil disorder: 1990s–present
During the past three decades, new challenges have emerged for
U.S. policies and programs focused on unaccompanied children and
youth. Although the underlying reasons for UAC seeking refuge in the
U.S. are remarkably similar to past eras, the specific populations and
the issues they confront have changed to a considerable extent. The
UAC population now reflects a wide variety of global issues. It consists
of children from 30 countries: Mexican youth seeking employment to
feed impoverished families; Central American youth fleeing gang vio-
lence and domestic abuse; Africans fleeing civil conflict and the eco-
nomic effects of climate change; young Bosnians, Syrians, Somalis, and
Sudanese traumatized by civil war; and girls and young women who are
trafficked. The Vera Institute estimated that the department of
Homeland Security would refer 7000–9000 unaccompanied children
annually from 2005 to 2012 (Byrne, 2008). Some of these UAC are
orphans; others have lost contact with their parents.
In 2002, the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107–296) introduced the
term “unaccompanied alien children (UAC) referring to children under
18 without lawful immigrant status and a parent or guardian.” On
March 1, 2003, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Section 462,
transferred responsibilities for the care and placement of un-
accompanied children from the Commissioner of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) to the Director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement (ORR) housed within the Department of Health and
Human Services. Since then, ORR has cared for more than 175,000
children, incorporating child welfare values, such as the “best interests
of the child,” as well as the principles and provisions established by the
Flores Agreement in 1997, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
2000 and its reauthorization acts, the William Wilberforce Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2005 and 2008.
Based on these principles, DHS immigration officials transfer the
unaccompanied children they apprehend to the care and custody of
ORR. ORR promptly places an unaccompanied child in the least re-
strictive setting that is purportedly in the best interests of the child,
taking into consideration danger to self, danger to the community, and
risk of flight. ORR also factors in the unique nature of each child's si-
tuation and incorporates child welfare principles when making place-
ment, clinical, case management, and release decisions (Velazquez,
Earner, & Lincroft, 2007).
ORR currently houses UAC in four different types of living ar-
rangements: institutional shelters, group homes, independent living
(older youth), and foster care (in ~17 U.S. cities). There has been a very
high re-placement rate (40–50% over 3–5 years) reflecting the pro-
gram's challenges. There is still, however, insufficient protection for
asylum seekers and no policy recognition of the trauma they have ex-
perienced. This underscores the need to create services for all youth, not
just those for whom the government has planned.
Other recent policy shifts have exacerbated the uncertainty and
insecurity experienced by UAC living in the U.S. In fall 2014, the
Obama Administration implemented the Central American Minor
(CAM) Program that allowed unmarried children under 21 years of age
residing in El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras whose parents are
“legally present in the United States” to be considered for refugee
status. The Trump administration, however, terminated this program in
2017.
Similarly, in November 2017, President Trump indicated that by
March 2018 he will rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA) Program, established by the Obama administration in 2012 to
defer deportation for undocumented migrants who came to the U.S. as
minors and grant them work permits for renewable two-year periods,
unless Congress takes action to protect them. This would affect
J.S. Jani, M. Reisch
approximately 800,000 individuals who have enrolled in DACA and,
potentially, another half million young people who are eligible but have
not yet enrolled.
Although programs such as CAM and DACA represented progress in
the government's efforts toward supporting UAC, they still did not assist
the overwhelming majority of these youth. If the Trump Administration
follows through on its proposals to prevent UAC from entering the U.S.,
that include separating even very young children from their families at
the border (Dickerson & Nixon, 2017), the tenuous situation of this
vulnerable population will become demonstrably worse.
6. Summary
The patterns of immigration and migration to the U.S. have changed
dramatically since the 19th century, including among UAC. While most
immigrants formerly came largely from Europe, now they dis-
proportionately arrive from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The de-
mographic composition of UAC – by ethnicity, gender, race, and re-
ligion – and the reasons UAC seek refuge in the U.S. have also changed
substantially. Once comprised predominantly of males who came to the
U.S. primarily for economic reasons, UAC are now more likely to be of
either gender and to come to the U.S. for reasons of physical safety. Yet,
economic factors, particularly the labor force situation, continue to
influence the nation's attitudes and policies toward immigration, al-
though race, ethnicity, and religion are more important than ever.
Since at least the 19th century, a major unresolved issue is whether
services to UAC should promote assimilation into mainstream society or
maintain their exclusion, whether for discriminatory purposes or re-
cognition of the importance of maintaining cultural identity. Blum's
comment (1978) four decades ago that “we have been somewhat con-
tent to serve immigrants in isolation from the mainstream of social
welfare activity” (p. 221) is still apt. Because assimilationists have
dominated the social work profession for much of its history, the pro-
grams it developed often lack sufficient sensitivity to the needs of UAC
from different cultures, despite the acknowledgement of these differ-
ences. As Blum asserted, unless social workers are willing “to be part of
a much broader scene… made up of diverse individuals and groups” the
nation's policies and services “will not effectively work with the new
flux of immigrants into our country” (p. 233). This would require a
redefinition of the process of assimilation and the concept of assimila-
tion itself.
7. Implications for current policy and practice
The current challenges created by the influx of UAC are not new;
they have existed in some form throughout U.S. history. For over two
centuries, private organizations such as Lutheran Immigrant and
Refugee Services (LIRS) and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,
and private individuals have been the primary responders to these
challenges. Like today, the federal government's approach has been ad
hoc; for the most part, it has only acted in the face of a humanitarian
crisis. It has consistently underfunded programs administered at the
local level by municipal governments and non-profit agencies. As a
result, most of the services provided are poorly planned, understaffed,
and uncoordinated. The tendency to respond to UAC on an emergency
basis, rather than in a proactive manner exacerbates these problems.
Currently, at least seven different federal agencies in a poorly co-
ordinated system are involved in the apprehension, care, and disposi-
tion of unaccompanied children. Although ORR has primary responsi-
bility for UAC through its Division of Unaccompanied Children, “little is
known about the circumstances that led to their arrival in the United
States or their current…needs” (Carlson et al., 2012, p. 260). By ex-
amining the consistent flow of unaccompanied youth to the U.S.
through a historical lens, the need to focus on proactive planning for
this population, rather than the current emphasis on prevention and
punishment, comes into sharper focus (Nafziger, 2006).
8
Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Despite UAC's different origins and cultures and the different rea-
sons they seek refuge in the U.S., their needs have changed little
throughout history. These include assistance with resettlement and fa-
mily reunification, education, physical and mental health issues, spiri-
tual or religious support, and, increasingly legal aid (Author, 2017).
Particularly since the passage of welfare reform (the Personal Respon-
sibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, or PRWORA) in
1996, obtaining legal status has become progressively more important
as it determines UAC's eligibility for income support, nutritional assis-
tance, and health care coverage through programs such as Medicaid
(Chang-Muy & Congress, 2009).
Regardless of UAC's legal status, service providers are continuing to
create programs to meet the needs of the growing number of UAC in
their communities and to facilitate a successful integration process. Due
to the documented difficulty UAC experience in navigating several new
systems amid constant uncertainty and with little support (Author,
2017; Ooi, 2011; Roth & Grace, 2015), many providers created school-
based programs to increase access to a larger number of UAC
(Drachman, 1995; Gonzalez-Ramos & Gonzalez, 2005). Like their
counterparts in Europe, the sponsors of UAC in the U.S. confront
challenges similar to those youth encounter. They frequently depend on
churches and schools to answer questions about how to navigate
complex systems, obtain support, and receive critical information
(Kohli & Mitchell, 2007; Raghallaigh & Gilligan, 2010).
The current reliance of UAC and sponsors on schools for assistance
reflects the historical role that education has always played in the as-
similation process (Souto, 2007). As the institution with which UAC
have the most consistent contact, schools play a critical role in the
processes of integration, acculturation, and social inclusion, particu-
larly with a diverse and demographically changing student population
(Gonzales, 2010; Miller, Bixby, & Ellis, 2016; Rania, Migliorini, Sclavo,
Cardinali, & Lotti, 2014). As in the past, however, many schools today
are unprepared to address the specific needs of UAC who arrive in the
U.S. with different levels of education and English proficiency, varying
ability to forge peer relationships, accommodate to American cultural
norms, and deal with teachers' prejudice, and different attitudes toward
authority (Bates et al., 2005; Fong, 2007; Segal & Mayadas, 2005).
Researchers have found that effective practice with UAC requires as-
sessing their educational level and providing them with English as a
second language (ESL) courses as soon as possible after arrival; com-
plementing educational programs with supportive social services; and
enhancing the cultural sensitivity of teachers and other students
through classroom activities and staff development (Bates et al., 2005).
One implication of this finding is that social workers need to expand
their practice to include advocacy for increased government funding of
policies and programs that would enable schools to address the needs of
UACs and their sponsors more comprehensively and effectively. In ad-
dition, social workers could educate school administrators and staff on
the unique needs of this population, and develop coordinated outreach
programs under the auspices of local educational system.
Although research on UAC in the U.S. is somewhat limited, during
the past two decades studies have produced some interesting insights.
Most of these findings, however, have been more successful in identi-
fying the needs of UAC and describing the range of services developed
in response to these needs than in evaluating the effectiveness of spe-
cific models of service delivery.
For example, in recent years, social workers have played an in-
creasingly prominent role in assessing the mental health issues UAC
face and creating programs in response. Researchers who have in-
vestigated this issue have found that immigrant and refugee children
are more likely to be exposed to traumatic experiences than their peers.
This because of the high likelihood of exposure to traumatic events in
their home countries, on their journey to the U.S., and in the resettle-
ment process itself, where UAC they often encounter both subtle and
explicit prejudice and discrimination (Bates et al., 2005; Bronstein &
Montgomery, 2011; Mayadas & Elliott, 1992). Other research indicates,
J.S. Jani, M. Reisch
however, that the provision of mental health services to UAC are more
effective if their mental health needs are addressed after tangible re-
settlement needs are met. As a result, social service programs have
recently shifted to a more family-centered model that emphasizes case
management and a focus on such concrete issues as UAC's legal status
(Author, 2017; Kohli, 2007).
On the other hand, researchers have also determined that efforts
that enable UAC to maintain their connection to their original culture
and language are particularly effective in helping them interpret their
experiences, understand the healing process, and overcoming barriers
to inclusion (Carlson et al., 2012; Owen & English, 2005). Studies have
found that religion is particularly important to many UACs in the ad-
justment process and that it can be a useful complement to other
educational, cultural, and community supports (Bates et al., 2005).
Heightened attention to the impact of cultural behavioral norms is
equally important in other arenas where social workers interact with
UAC. For the most part, UAC resist Western styles of helping and prefer
to use personal networks, even when these networks are in short
supply. A broad interpretation of the “ecological approach” can be
helpful in this regard. For example, social workers should be wary of
employing a U.S.-centered lens that views issues primarily from an
individual-centered perspective (Author, 2011). They also need to re-
cognize that cultural sensitivity applies as much to the organizations in
which they work as it does to individual practitioners.
A specific example of the utility of a revised perspective is the area
of foster care (Chahine & Van Straaten, 2005; Dettlaff & Rycraft, 2009).
The expectations of foster parents and UAC's difficulty adapting to
different family norms, new sibling relationships, and the prejudice of
some family members often produce intra-family conflicts and power
struggles (Phillips & Paumgarten, 2009). Social workers can reduce
these problems by including training in cultural awareness and com-
munication when orienting foster parents (Morland, Duncan, Hoebing,
Kirschke, & Schmidt, 2005); improving efforts to recruit parents who
are stable and settled; and giving foster parents ongoing support in an
inevitably challenging process.
Nevertheless, despite the array of services currently provided to
UAC, there is little evidence as to which model of care is most effective
in addressing their diverse needs (Author, 2017; Bhabha, 2004). There
is because there has been limited research about the effectiveness of the
programs and services already put in place. The articles in this special
issue discuss these issues in more detail and provide an initial body of
evidence to guide future program development for this vulnerable po-
pulation.
For example, we could study how UAC's cultural background shapes
their experience with and their perception of the processes of separa-
tion and resettlement. Because we cannot usually measure the effects of
assimilation over a short time span, we need to engage in a longitudinal
assessment of how well youth have adjusted to their new families and
communities. We could also evaluate the efficacy of different models of
foster care and determine which models of housing UAC upon arrival
work best. Finally, we could examine how the needs of UAC evolve
during and after the resettlement process (Carlson et al., 2012).
At the policy level, we need to build more flexibility into established
systems of care; improve the screening and processing of UAC; and
employ culturally sensitive liaisons to interpret the complex web of U.S.
policies to UAC and their new families, especially regarding eligibility
for vital services and clarification of U.S. institutional expectations. At
the individual level, we should provide adequate physical, economic,
and social protections to UAC and recognize that they have a stronger
claim to asylum status than is generally acknowledged (Bhabha &
Schmidt, 2008). Even in the current contentious political climate, we
should be able to provide UAC with additional protections without
making major adjustments to current immigration and migration po-
licies.
9
Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
8. Conclusion
For many years, U.S. immigration laws and the programs they
spawned paid little or no attention to the different, unique needs of
immigrant and refugee children. The courts often treated them as adults
subjecting them to the same penalties (e.g., detention and deportation)
and holding them to the same expectations. Today, policies and pro-
grams often fail to recognize the distinct issues faced by immigrant
children and youth whose lives are in crisis from those UAC whose
problems are less urgent. For the most part, the U.S. has been more
accepting of migrants for whom the nation can plan than those who
seek entry due to an unanticipated humanitarian crisis. The implication
of this historical perspective for today's policy and practice is that we
need to understand the migration of UAC as a systematic phenomenon
that will likely continue in the future. Instead of regarding the current
situation as an exception to address on a site-specific and ad hoc case-
by-case basis, we can prepare for this “new normal” proactively by
creating a child specific system of policies and services. Social workers
can play a leading role in these efforts as we have done in the past.
References
Addams, J. (1910). The spirit of youth and the city streets. New York: Macmillan Co.
Alvarado, E. (1920). Mexican immigration to the United States. Proceedings of the National
Conference of Social Work (pp. 479–480). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Andrews, J. L. (Ed.). (1993). From vision to action: Social workers of the second generation.
St. Paul, MN: University of St. Thomas.
Arevalo, R., Soto, J. A., & Perez, P. (1979). Migrant families: Provision of mental health.
Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Welfare (pp. 149–155). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Arnold, M. (1959). New trends in adoption practice. Proceedings of the National Conference
of Social Welfare (pp. 125–135). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Association for the Improvement of the Condition of the Poor (1853). Annual Report of the
New York Association for the Improvement of the Condition of the Poor. New York: AICP.
Author (1989). From charity to enterprise: The development of American social work in a
market economy. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Author (2011). Common human needs, uncommon solutions: Applying a critical frame-
work to perspectives on human behavior. Families in Society, 92(1), 13–20.
Author (2017). Reunification is not enough: Assessing the needs of unaccompanied mi-
grant youth. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 98(1),
127–136.
Balten, J. H. (1930). New features of Mexican immigration. Proceedings of the National
Conference of Social Work (pp. 486–489). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bates, L., Baird, D., Johnson, D. J., Lee, R. E., Luster, T., & Rehagen, C. (2005). Sudanese
refugee youth in foster care: The “lost boys” in America. Child Welfare, 84(5),
631–648.
Beito, D. T. (2000). From mutual aid to the welfare state: Fraternal societies and social ser-
vices, 1890–1967. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Bernier, D. (1992). The Indochinese refugees: A perspective from various stress theories.
In A. S. Ryan (Ed.). Social work with immigrants and refugees (pp. 15–30). Binghamton,
NY: Haworth Press.
Bhabha, J. (2004). Seeking asylum alone: Treatment of separated and trafficked children
in need of refugee protection. International Migration, 42(1), 141–148.
Bhabha, J., & Schmidt, S. (2008). Seeking asylum alone: Unaccompanied and separated
children and refugee protection in the U.S. The Journal of the History of Childhood and
Youth, 1(1), 128–138.
Blair, R. (2000). Risk factors associated with PTSD and major depression among
Cambodian refugees in Utah. Health and Social Work, 25(1), 23–30.
Bowen, J. T. (1909). The delinquent child of immigrant parents. Proceedings of the
National Conference of Social Work (pp. 255–260). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Bowler, A. (1931). Recent statistics on crime and the foreign born. Proceedings of the
National Conference of Social Work (pp. 479–494). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Brace, C. L. (1880). The dangerous classes of New York, and twenty years' work among them
(3rd ed.). New York: Wynkoop & Hallenbeck.
Bronstein, I., & Montgomery, P. (2011). Psychological distress in refugee children: A
systematic review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 14, 44–56.
Bucci, M. (2004). Young, alone, and fleeing terror: The human rights emergency of un-
accompanied immigrant children seeking asylum in the United States. New England
Journal on Criminal & Civil Confinement, 30, 275–304.
Byrne, O. (2008). Unaccompanied children in the United States: A literature review. New
York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Cannon, M. A. (1920). Health problems of the foreign born from the point of view of the
social worker. Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work (pp. 218–222).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carlson, B. E., Cacciatore, J., & Klimek, B. (2012). A risk and resilience perspective on
unaccompanied refugee minors. Social Work, 57(3), 259–269.
Carlton-LaNey, I., & Burwell, N. Y. (Eds.). (1996). African American community practice
J.S. Jani, M. Reisch
models: Historical and contemporary responses. New York: Haworth Press.
Cebulko, K. B. (2013). Documented, undocumented, and something else: The incorporation of
children of Brazilian immigrants. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Pub. LLC.
Chahine, Z., & Van Straaten, J. (2005). Serving immigrant families and children in New
York City's child welfare system. Child Welfare, 84(5), 713–723.
Chang-Muy, F., & Congress, E. P. (Eds.). (2009). Social work with immigrants and refugees:
Legal issues, clinical skills, and advocacy. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Clague, E. (1945). Problems of migration. Proceedings of the National Conference of Social
Work (pp. 66ff). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Delgado, M., Jones, K., & Rohani, M. (2005). Social work practice with refugee and im-
migrant youth in the U.S. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Dettlaff, A. J., & Fong, R. (Eds.). (2016). Immigrant and refugee children and families:
Culturally responsive practice. New York: Columbia University Press.
Dettlaff, A. J., & Rycraft, J. R. (2009). Culturally competent systems of care with Latino
children and families. Child Welfare, 88(6), 109–126.
Dickens, C. (1838). Oliver Twist. London, England: Bentley's Miscellany.
Dickerson, C., & Nixon, R. (2017, December 21). Trump administration considers separating
families to combat illegal immigration. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.
nytimes.com/2017/12/21/us/trump-immigrant-families-separate.html.
Drachman, A. (1995). Immigration statuses and their influence on service provision,
access, and use. Social Work, 40(2), 188–197.
Fishberg, M. (1906). Ethnic factors in immigration: A critical view. Proceedings of the
National Conference of Social Work (pp. 304–314). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Fong, R. (2007). Immigrant and refugee youth: Migration journey and cultural values. The
prevention researcher. vol. 14(4). The prevention researcher (pp. 3ff–). .
Frasca, M. A. (1920). Democracy in immigrant neighborhood life. Proceedings of the
National Conference of Social Work (pp. 500–502). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Georgopoulos, A. (2005). Beyond the reach of juvenile justice: The crisis of un-
accompanied immigrant children detained by the United States. Law and Inequality,
23, 117.
Giovannoni, J. (2004). Foreword. In D. Drachman, & A. Paulino (Eds.). Immigrants and
social work: Thinking beyond the borders of the United States (pp. xi–xii). Binghamton,
NY: Haworth.
Gonzales, R. G. (2010). On the wrong side of the tracks: Understanding the effects of
school structure and social capital in the educational pursuits of undocumented im-
migrant students. Peabody Journal of Education, 85, 469–485.
Gonzalez-Ramos, G., & Gonzalez, M. J. (2005). Mental health care of Hispanic immigrant
children: A school-based approach. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Services, 3(1/2),
21–46.
Gutman, H. (1977). Work, culture, and society in industrializing America. New York: Vintage
Books.
Hagerty, J. E. (1924). Racial and migratory causes of crime. Proceedings of the National
Conference of Social Work (pp. 193–195). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hanna, A. K. (1935). Social services on the Mexican border. Proceedings of the National
Conference of Social Work (pp. 692–693). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hart, H. (1896). Immigration and crime. Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities
and Corrections (pp. 307–313). Boston: George H. Ellis.
Hernandez, J. A. (1983). Mutual aid for survival: The case of the Mexican American.
Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Hirota, H. (2017). Expelling the poor: Atlantic Seaboard states and the nineteenth century
origins of American immigration policy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hood, L. (1920). Foreign organizations and family welfare. Proceedings of the National
Conference of Social Work (pp. 486–488). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hoyt, C. S. (1887). Alien paupers, insane, and criminals in New York. Proceedings of the
National Conference of Charities and Corrections (pp. 197–206). Boston: George H.
Ellis.
Huemer, J., Karnik, N. S., Voelkl-Kernstock, S., Granditsch, E., Dervic, K., Friedrich, M.
H., & Steiner, H. (2009). Mental health issues in unaccompanied refugee minors.
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 3(1), 13.
Hugo, E. (1912). Desertion of wives and children by emigrants to America. Proceedings of
the National Conference of Social Work (pp. 257–260). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Hull, I. L. (1924). Special problems in Italian families. Proceedings of the National
Conference of Social Work (pp. 288–291). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hurlbutt, M. E. (1944). The United Nations relief and rehabilitation administration's task
for displaced persons. Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work (pp. 100ff).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Iglehart, A. P., & Becerra, R. M. (2011). Social services and the ethnic community: History
and analysis (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Jones, J. J. (1981). Thursday's children: foster home services for Cuban refugee children.
Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Welfare (pp. 131–139). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Kahn, D. (1924). Special problems in Jewish families. Proceedings of the National
Conference Social Work (pp. 284–288). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kohli, R. K. S. (2007). Social work with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. New York:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Kohli, R. K. S., & Mitchell, F. (Eds.). (2007). Working with unaccompanied asylum seeking
children: Issues for policy and practice. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
La Luz, A. (1972). Puerto Rican migrant workers. Proceedings of the National Conference of
Social Welfare (pp. 291–294). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Larned, P. (1930). The tangled thread of migrant family problems. Proceedings of the
National Conference of Social Work (pp. 469–477). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lasch-Quinn, E. (1993). Black neighbors: Race and the limits of reform in the American
10
Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
settlement house movement, 1890–1945. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina
Press.
Leighninger, L. (1975). Social workers, immigrants, and historians: A re-examination. The
Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 2(3), 326–344.
Lenroot, K. F. (1941). The United States program for the care of refugee children.
Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work (pp. 198–207). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
MacCormack, D. W. (1934). The New Deal for the alien. Proceedings of the National
Conference of Social Work (pp. 465–472). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Marshall, L. C. (1906). Race effects of immigration. Proceedings of the National Conference
of Social Work (pp. 314–324). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Matthews, B. (1897). The nativities of the inmates of the public institutions of New York
City. Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections (pp. 282–288).
Boston: George H. Ellis.
Mayadas, N. S., & Elliott, D. (1992). Integration and xenophobia: An inherent conflict in
international migration. In A. S. Ryan (Ed.). Social work with immigrants and refugees
(pp. 47–62). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
McMurtrie, D. C. (1909). The immigrant and public health. Proceedings of the National
Conference of Social Work (pp. 247–250). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miller, A. B., Bixby, C. B., & Ellis, B. H. (2016). School-based interventions. In S. Patel, &
D. Reicherter (Eds.). Psychotherapy for immigrant youth (pp. 71–86). Cham,
Switzerland: Springer International.
Mitschke, D. B., Praetorius, R. T., Kelly, D. R., Small, E., & Kim, Y. K. (2017). Listening to
refugees: How traditional mental health interventions may miss the mark.
International Social Work, 60, 588–600.
Morland, L., Duncan, J., Hoebing, J., Kirschke, J., & Schmidt, L. (2005). Bridging refugee
youth and children's services: A case study of cross-service training. Child Welfare,
84(5), 791–812.
Nafziger, L. Y. (2006). Protection or persecution: The detention of unaccompanied im-
migrant children in the United States. Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy, 28,
357.
Nelson, D., Price, E., & Zubrzycki, J. (2017). Critical social work with unaccompanied
asylum-seeking young people: Restoring hope, agency and meaning for the client and
worker. International Social Work. http://dx.doi.org/10.177/0020872816637663.
Office of Refugee Resettlement (2015). About unaccompanied refugee minors. Retrieved
from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/programs/urm/about.
Office of Refugee Resettlement (2017). Facts and data: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/about/ucs/
facts-.
Ooi, M. M. (2011). Unaccompanied should not mean unprotected: The inadequacies of
relief for unaccompanied immigrant minors. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 25,
883–908.
Owen, C. L., & English, M. (2005). Working together as culture brokers by building
trusting alliances with bilingual and bicultural newcomer paraprofessionals. Child
Welfare, 84(5), 669–688.
Patlan, J. A. (1971). The model cities program: A Mexican American view. Proceedings of
the National Conference of Social Welfare (pp. 158–164). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Phillips, M. H., & Paumgarten, A. C. (2009). Hispanic caregiver perceptions of preventive
service. Child Welfare, 88(3), 27–55.
Pine, B., & Drachman, D. (2005). Effective child welfare practice with immigrant and
refugee children and their families. Child Welfare, 84(5), 537–562.
Powell, J. (1943). America's refugees: Exodus and diaspora. Proceedings of the National
Conference of Social Work (pp. 301–309). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pumphrey, R. E. (1959). Compassion and protection: Dual motivations in social welfare.
Social Service Review, 33(1), 21–29.
Raghallaigh, M., & Gilligan, R. (2010). Active survival in the lives of unaccompanied
minors: Coping strategies, resilience, and the relevance of religion. Child & Family
Social Work, 15(2), 226–237.
Raja, T. (2014, July 18). Child migrants have been coming to America alone since Ellis
Island. Mother Jones. Retrieved from https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/
07/child-migrant-ellis-island-history/.
Rania, N., Migliorini, L., Sclavo, E., Cardinali, P., & Lotti, A. (2014). Unaccompanied
migrant adolescents in the Italian context: Tailored educational interventions and
acculturation stress. Child & Youth Services, 35, 292–315.
Rawley, C. (1948). Adjustment of Jewish displaced persons in an American community.
Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Roth, B., & Grace, B. (2015). Falling through the cracks: The paradox of post-release
services for unaccompanied child migrants. Children and Youth Services Review, 58,
244–252.
Sanborn, F. B. (1898). Insanity and immigration. Proceedings of the National Conference of
Charities and Corrections (pp. 268–275). Boston: George H. Ellis.
Segal, U., & Mayadas, N. S. (2005). Assessment of issues facing immigrant and refugee
families. Child Welfare, 84(5), 563–583.
Simons, S. M. (1962). Services to uprooted and unsettled families. Proceedings of the
National Conference of Social Welfare (pp. 169–180). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Souto, M. (2007). Immigrant families and children (re)develop identities in a new con-
text. Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(6), 399–405.
Staller, K. (2018). Extra! Extra! Read all about it: The newsboys' lodging house and Mr.
Brace's children's aid society. New York: Oxford University Press (in press).
Steinbock, D. J. (1989). The admission of unaccompanied children into the United States.
Yale Law and Policy Review, 7, 142.
Stern, M., & Axinn, J. (2012). Social work: A history of the American response to need (8th
ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
J.S. Jani, M. Reisch
Sturges, V. L. (1920). The process of adjustment in Mexican and U.S. life. Proceedings of
the National Conference of Social Work (pp. 481–485). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Sylvius, M. (1930). Nationality and delinquency: The Mexicans in Texas. Proceedings of the
National Conference of Social Work (pp. 133–141). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Takaki, R. T. (1993). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. Boston: Little,
Brown, & Co.
Takaki, R. T. (1998). Strangers from a different shore: A history of Asian Americans. Boston:
Little, Brown, & Co (updated and revised ed.).
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1910). Statistics on the U.S. population. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (2010). Statistics on the U.S. population. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Vaughan, H. F., & Mandel, A. (1920). Health work among the foreign born. Proceedings of
the National Conference of Social Work (pp. 215–218). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Velazquez, S., Earner, I., & Lincroft, Y. (2007). Child welfare and the challenge of new
Americans. Children's Voice: Child Welfare League of America, 16(4)http://www.cwla.
org/voice/0707newamericans.htm.
Waelbroeck, P. (1944). Postwar international migration. Proceedings of the National
Conference of Social Work (pp. 91ff). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11
Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Wald, L. P. (1909). The immigrant young girl. Proceedings of the National Conference of
Social Work (pp. 261–265). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Warren, G. (1931). The widening horizon in our service to foreign-born families.
Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work (pp. 459–471). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Wheeler, D., & Mahoney, A. (2008). Caribbean immigrants in the United States – Health
and health care: The need for a social agenda. Health and Social Work, 33(3),
238–240.
Whitton, C. (1941a). Juvenile immigration. Proceedings of the National Conference of Social
Work (pp. 609–611). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Whitton, C. (1941b). The work of refugee agencies in the United States: Its successes and
inadequacies. Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work (pp. 208ff).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Williams, W. (1906). The new immigration: Some unfavorable features and possible re-
medies. Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work (pp. 285–299). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Wrightington, S. C. (1890). Effects of immigration on the community. Proceedings of the
National Conference of Charities and Corrections (pp. 281–290). Boston: George H.
Ellis.
Xu, O. (2005). In the ‘best interest’ of immigrants and refugee children: Deliberating on
their unique circumstances. Child Welfare, 84(5), 747–770.