COMING TOGETHER: UNDERSTANDING THE INTERSECTION OF UNACCOMPANIED REFUGEE MINOR STATUS AND COMMUNITY SERVICE REFERRAL AND ACCESS By Kathryn Vadnais Clements A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Psychology - Master of Arts 2015 ABSTRACT COMING TOGETHER: UNDERSTANDING THE INTERSECTION OF UNACCOMPANIED REFUGEE MINOR STATUS AND COMMUNITY SERVICE REFERRAL AND ACCESS By Kathryn Vadnais Clements Th e purpose of this study is to understand the impact o f different types of Unaccompanied R efugee M inor (URM) status (traditional URM, victims of trafficking, SIJS, and asylees) on availability and quality of community s ervices ( legal assistance, edu cation, mental health, and employment) using a qualitative approach. All nine staff working with a URM resettlement program were interviewed using semi - structured interviews, and transcriptions were thematically analyzed. Th e results of the study suggest that staff are able to identify unique needs of youth by service providers in the broader community. Most staff shared victim blaming e xplanations for differences in service utilization among youth without acknowledging systemic explanations. The author concludes with study limitations, recommendations for applied practice, and directions for future research. Copyright by KATHR YN VADNAIS CLEMENTS 2015 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must thank the agency staff who contributed their valuable time and insight to make this project possible. They work within a system not designed for their clients , yet remain committed to mak e it work for the young people in their care. I am very grateful for the freedom to pursue this topic and the support provided to me by my advisor, Dr. Bill Davidson. I owe so much more than thanks to my husband, Jason, who has made sacrifices so I could pu rsue the scholarship he knew Thank you to Jane, who provided so much physically and emotionally to make sure I knew I could do this. To my cohort community , than k you for being that when I had none. T o the indomitable Kristen J. Mills: I could not, and would not, have done this without you. Thank you for listening and providing feedback whenever I needed it. I am humbled every day by who you are and what you have accomplishe d. . Finally, thank you to the brave young people who have lived many lives already, with so v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... viii KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ ix Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 1 Literature Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 4 Unaccompanied Refugee Minors ................................ ................................ ................................ 4 Undocumented Unaccompanied Children ................................ ................................ .................. 6 Asylum Seekers ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 9 Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) ................................ ................................ ............... 9 Victims of human trafficking (T visa) ................................ ................................ .................. 10 URM Needs ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 12 Mental health ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 13 Education ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 21 Legal ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 27 Em ployment ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 30 Rationale for the Current Study ................................ ................................ ................................ 33 Current Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 37 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 40 Qualitative Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 40 Researcher Reflexivity ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 41 Participan t Selection and Recruitment ................................ ................................ ...................... 42 Semi - structured interviews ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 43 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 44 Interview procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 44 Interview gu ide ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 45 Data protection ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 46 Ethical considerations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 46 Thematic Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 47 Trustworthiness ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 49 Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 51 Research Question 1: Differential mental health, legal and employment needs ...................... 51 Legal needs varied greatly by status ................................ ................................ ..................... 52 Requirements for employment differentially affect youth with SIJS, who prioritize employment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 55 Research Question 2: Status is not generally a referral consideration ................................ ...... 59 Research Question 3: Staff perception of external community services mainly unrelated to status ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 60 vi Research Question 4: Staff perceive status as indirectly linked to utilization of services ........ 62 - appropriate priorities. .................. 63 Supported youth more likely to pursue education. ................................ ............................... 66 Gaps in understanding service utiliz ation by clients. ................................ ............................ 68 Negative Case Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 69 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 70 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 72 Differences in need by status ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 74 Status influencing community referrals, and quality of available community services ........... 76 Utilization of community - level referrals by URM ................................ ................................ ... 76 Study Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 77 Implications of this study ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 80 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 83 APPENDICES ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 84 Appendix A Recruitment of Participants - Statement ................................ ................................ 85 Appendix B Informed Consent ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 86 Appendix C Table of Theory ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 88 Appendix D Interview Guide ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 91 Appendix E Example Coding Table ................................ ................................ .......................... 96 Appendix F ......................... 97 Appendix G ................................ . 98 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 100 vii LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES ix KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Terms U NHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees U.N. United Nations ORR Office of Refugee Resettlement DUCS URM Unaccompanied Refugee Minors UAC Unaccompanied Alien/Immigrant Children DHS Department of Homeland Se curity TVPRA William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act SIJS Special Immigrant Juvenile Status LIRS Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Services USCCB United States Conference of Catholic Bishops LSSM Lutheran Social Services of Michigan 1 Introduction The 1951 Refugee Convention developed an international definition of refugees as those who have fled their country of origin and cannot return due to persecution related to race, religion, nationality, social group membership, or political orientation (UNHCR, 2011). The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is mandated by the United Nations (U . N . ) to protect stateless people worldwide and work to reduce the number of statele ss persons around the world . At the end of 2012, UNHCR estimates there were 45.2 mi llion refugees worldwide, with 15.4 million of those meeting the definition of a refugee above according to international conventions (UNHCR, 2013). These individuals will b e referred to as having legal refugee status. The remaining 29.8 million have fled their homes and are una b le to return , but have not been granted official refugee status (e.g. internally displaced persons or persons in flight who have not settled or regis tered with the U.N.). The U.S. resettled 66,300 refugees in 2012 and accepted 70,400 new asylum claims (UNHCR, 2013). A special category of refugees include those under the age of 18 who are unaccompanied or who arrive in the U.S. without caregivers able or willing to care for them. These young people are designated as Unaccompanied Refugee Minors (URMs) by the U.N . The United States developed a federal program housed in the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the Department of Health and Human Services to assist those classified as URM. Originally developed in 1980 to assist children from Southeast Asian conflicts , the U.S. URM program has since expanded to include unaccompanied minors who arrive in the U.S. without adequate caregivers and witho ut refugee status (ORR, 2013) . These youth are designated Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) and typically arrive as undocumented immigran ts ( Refugee Council USA, 2014). The process by which they attain some form of legal residency status usually includes 2 detention by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and intense interviews to determine whether they qualify for some type of Legal Permanent Resident status. Most of these youth are voluntarily repatriated to Mexico or Central America (Refugee Council USA, 2 014; Jones & Podkul, 2012 ) . UAC youth includes minors seeking asylum, meaning they assert a claim to be fleeing persecution but do not have international ly recognized refugee status . They are typically requesting protection from the U.S. government. ORR received between 7,000 and 8,000 undocumented minors annually until fiscal year 2012, when the number of UAC dramatically increased to 14,000 . The number further increased to 25,000 in fiscal year 2013 (Refugee Council USA, 2014). Often, these youth are gr anted URM status and benefits after detailed evaluations of their histories. A nother unique category of unaccompanied juveniles was created in response to children fleeing abuse and neglect in their home countries. This category is formally known as Specia l Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) . F irst established in 1990 , SIJS allows undocumented minors to petition the federal government for legal status without requiring family involvement (Junck, 2012). It was recently revised to be applicable to minors seekin g protection from trafficking under the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008 , which increased the number of eligible youth . In 2010, SIJS was only used by 1,492 youth to receive legal permanent status, of the more than 265,000 under 21 who received legal permanent status (Junck, 2012) . Currently, URM can be refugees, entrants, asylees, trafficking victims, and minors with SIJS, and are all under the care of ORR. As described above, these youth enter into federal care with diverse immigration backgrounds. Today there are approximately 1,300 URM s under the 3 care of ORR in 20 cities in the United States, including two cities in Michigan. These youth typically enter the federal foster care system . They then receive services from agencies around the country run by Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Services (LIRS) or The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) , both of which may contract with the state to provide services . Within the past two years, the dramatic influx in UAC arrivals at the national level has reflected a specific trend of older arrivals being close to the age of 18 . As a result, a wide r range of services is required to prepare for self - sufficiency. Seventy percent of UACs are between 15 and 17 years old upon arrival ( Jones & Podkul, 2012). Youth within this age range are pressured to develop many skills and relationships in a short period of time. Therefore, the provisio n of key services in the areas of mental health, education, legal, and employment are prioritized. are provided services through the URM program. However, not all childre n have permanent status. Those applying for status as asylees and SIJS are often working with courts for months or years to establish permanent residency. Ongoing u ncertain ty of the permanent resident status of youth can be an important obstacle moving forward and securing independence . H owever, i t is unclear whether and to what extent this is a perceived obstacle for URM program staff , URM youth, or community service providers. The remainder of this thesis will be organized as follows. First , the four different types of immigration status that a URM may have will be detailed (URM, asylee, SIJS, or T visa). Second, the body of literature addressing URM needs and access to the four key services of this study ( mental health, education, employment, and legal assistance ) will be outlined . Third, the method for this project will be described . Fourth, the results will be presented. Finally, the results will be discussed and the conclus ions presented. 4 Literature Review The following review of the literature was conducted between March and July 2014, immediately prior to the study for the most updated and accurate assessment of the types of status afforded unaccompanied minors, and thei r needs , at the time of the study . For assessing the state of immigration relief for unaccompanied minors, the review included legal briefs, Congressional reports, scholarly articles, nongovernmental, nonprofit agency reports, and scholarly, peer - reviewed publications . For assessing the needs of unaccompanied refugee and immigrant minors, the review started with prior literature reviews on unaccompanied and/or refugee children, and was supplemented with searches of scholarly literature in the areas of menta l health, education , legal assistance, and employment. It is organized first by the types of status, including an overview of unaccompanied refugee minors, and the different types of status granted to undocumented unaccompanied minors (asylum, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, and t - visas for victims of human trafficking) ; and second by the main context areas of need, as outlined by the literature and previous collaboration with the URM agency, including mental health, education, legal assistance, and employment. Unaccompanied Refugee Minors People become refugees after being forced to flee their homes for a number of reasons. It is not always foreseen by residents, and refugees often do not have time to prepare during this pre - flight phase. Usually t his period of flight occurs due to political persecution or civil war (Onyango, 1998; Lustig et al., 2004) . The period of flight may come on suddenly, such as when a village is attacked in the middle of the night and residents flee into the woods. The jour ney to find a safe space can take hours , days or weeks (UNHCR, 2013) . A child may become separated from their parents or other adult caregivers at any time during flight. They may be killed or lost 5 or otherwise unable to continue the journey. The U.N. main tains the most current and detailed counts of refugees worldwide. The estimates of refugee children, particularly unaccompanied refugee children, are much more difficult to estimate and have not always been recorded (UNHCR, 2013). The State Department cre ated the URM program as a way to provide care for children left without a parent or guardian as a result of conflict (ORR, 2013). URM policy and procedures vary widely internationally. The focus of this study was on a specific community in the U.S. and its URM resettlement program. Therefore, information presented regarding URM refers only to population and process descriptions within a U.S. context , except where specified . The URM program began in 1980 as a response to Southeast Asian conflicts. Similar to the adult or family resettlement process, the State Department identifies children overseas who are eligible for resettlement , but do not have an adequate guardian. Children accepted for resettlement by the State Department are prepared for resettlement d irectly with a foster family. In some cases, youth may be placed in other approved settings, such as group homes or residential treatment centers (ORR, 2013) . Foster care remains the preferred option for URM placement. URM youth identified for resettlement by the State Department and the U.N. may participate in a pre - orientation that can include cultural orientation classes from one to five days and/or a guidebook, available in 16 languages ( US Department of State, 2013 ). Rates of refugee resettlement have fluctuated since the beginning of refugee resettlement programs, and URM resettlement reflects similar fluctuations. Each year, t he State Department proposes a refugee resettlement ceiling to the President, broken down by region of the world. The proposed admissions ceiling for fiscal year 201 4 was 70,000 adults and children ( U.S. Department of State, 2013 ). In the 1980s, unaccompanied Southeast Asian children made up the 6 largest percentage of URM in foster homes around the country, and Central American ch ildren were increasingly being designated as URM after fleeing civil wars and economic hardship (Mortland & Egan, 1987; Byrne & Miller, 2012 ). In the 1990s, numbers of unaccompanied children increased after a series of civil wars disrupted the Great Lakes region of Africa, and refugee children ( U.S. Dept. of State, 2013 ). Sudanese unaccompanied minors, commonly called The Lost Boys of Sudan , made up a larger portion of r esettled URM in the early 2000s . Eighty - nine Sudanese URM were resettled in the mid - Michigan area between November 2000 and April 2001 (Bates et al., 2005). legitimized by international efforts to bolster the safety and care of unaccompanied refugee minors, as identified by the UNHCR. However, not all children in similar circumstances receive such f ormal identification, and sources of relief for them are less clearly defined, as outlined below. Undocumented Unaccompanied Children The URM program provides care for unaccompanied children resettled through the UNHCR, and also for those resettled through a more convoluted pathway domestically. Undocumented unaccompanied youth are appr ehended by U.S. law enforcement and detained in short - term shelter facilities until a determination can be made regarding further action ( Byrne & Miller, 2012 ). These children are officially, albeit unfortunately, designated Unaccompanied Alien Children (U AC). Most UAC are voluntarily repatriated but those that present a possible case for refugee or asylum status are referred to ORR and may stay and pursue legal residency through a variety of options ( Byrne & Miller, 2012 ; Drevlow & Siman, 2012 ). As Central American conflicts increase d , the threat of gender - based violence and forced gang membership 7 has become more severe, reflecting dramatically increased rates of URM from Central America since 2012 (Refugee Council USA, 2014). The Office of Refugee Resettle ment provides care and services for these youth as well , who often cross the U.S. border without documentation and are apprehended by U.S. law enforcement ( Byrne & Miller, 2012 ) . The majority of unaccompanied minors referred to ORR are now from this popula tion, as opposed to an overseas population identified by UNHCR. Of the children apprehended in the U.S., 90% are reunited with family members in the U.S., 6% are voluntarily repatriated, and 1% is referred to ORR for long term foster care based on their el igibility for some sort of immigration relief (Drevlow & Siman, 2012) . The remaining 3% age out of ORR care and are released to the community with a plan for continuing their case (approved by ICE) or are transferred to adult detention to continue their im migration case (S.D. Cuervo & A. Simy, personal communication, June 17, 2014). ORR works with other organizations to determine the best long - term solution for these youth. Regardless of how children arrive d in ORR custody, the services provided are intended to be comprehensive. These youth are resettled in federal foster care if no guardian can be found (ORR, 2013). The goal of all ORR services for unaccompanied children is self - sufficiency (ORR, 2013). They are then eligible for all of the services provided in domestic foster care, with the addition of: a) financial support; b) case management; c) independent living skills training; d) educational support including vouchers; e) English language assistance; f ) career and college counseling; g) mental health services; h) legal assistance with immigration status; i) cultural activities; j) recreational activities; k) social integration support; and l) cultural and religious preservation (ORR, 2013). The ability of individual agency sites and communities to provide each of these services varies, and some services (e.g. , recreational activities) have been made conditional to grant funding. The literature provide d a glimpse into the types of services that 8 should be emphasized for unaccompanied children. Past budget s for resettlement services have suggest ed that understanding how to allocate extremely limited funding is critical to resettlement and community services. In fiscal year 2013, ORR budgeted for 14,000 unacc ompanied immigrant children, despite an expected 20,000 arrivals. This led to an expected deficit of $125 million (LIRS, 2013). More broadly, LIRS conducted a random sampling of resettlement service providers in their network and found that on average, it costs over $5,000 per person to provide the goods and services associated with placement and initial resettlement services (LIRS, 2012). This conservative estimate is not limited to unaccompanied children, who require more services and care than adults. T he TVPRA of 2008 provided many of the protections to unaccompanied children that were denied by earlier legislation (Byrne & Miller, 2012). Byrne and Miller (2012) note d the - adversar ial attorneys, safe repatriation to countries of origin, and allowed Health and Human Services to appoint guardians ad litem for child trafficking victims in imm igration hearings. Similar to other special immigration statuses, these protections have been subject to debate over their appropriateness and effectiveness. subject to an immigration relief screening to find the appropriate solution: asylum , SIJS, or T visa (Drevlow & Siman, 2012). the UNHCR, but also unaccompanied minors that have immigrated to the U.S. without formal refugee status. These youth now make up the majority of youth in the URM program. Their options for relief are outlined below, including asylum, SIJS, and t - visa, respectively. 9 Asyl um Seekers Children seeking asylum most closely resemble UN . - designated refugees. To be granted asylum, youth petitioners must prove a well - founded fear of persecution based on race , religion, nationality, political opinion, or member of a social group (Drevlow & Siman, 2012). This is generally harder for juveniles than adults because it is more difficult for children to understand and describe belief systems or cultures (Drevlow & S iman, 2012) . Prior to the TVPRA changes , children had to present their case in Immigration Court within a strict one year filing deadline of arrival. Immigration Court was an adversarial, adult - centered context which did not require children to have legal representation or assistance. Since the implementation of TVPRA in 2009, children can apply for asylum through United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in a non - adversarial petition, without a filing deadline for UAC, and ORR has been cha rged with providing pro bono representation or other legal advocacy (although some children remain unrepresented). A sylum applications for UAC youth remain the most difficult type of immigration relief and take the longest time to process (Drevlow & Siman, 2012) . Once granted, they are reclassified as URM and enrolled in the URM program . Because asylum is so difficult for minors to justify, many youth apply for asylum concurrently with other forms of immigration relief, such as Special Immigrant Juvenile St atus , described below . Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) SIJS was originally established for abused, neglected, or abandoned children in 1997 , although children were required to supply the burden of proof of abuse or neglect themselves (Junck , 2012). Prior to 2008, DHS had to consent for youth to apply for SIJS. Additionally, those granted SIJS were not eligible to participate in the URM program. The TVPRA significantly 10 reduced barriers to accessing SIJS by eliminating the one year filing dead line and including mandated legal assistance, although hardly any of the eligible youth appl ied for it. In 2010, only 1,492 immigrant children obtained residency through SIJS out of the 265,808 immigrants under 21 who successfully obtained residency (Junck , 2012). This may have be en due to a lack of awareness about the process and availability among service providers and courts. It is often the only option for legal residency for UAC (Junck, 2012) . In order to be granted SIJS, a child first must be under th e jurisdiction of family or probate court (Drevlow & Siman, 2012). After JS is granted, youth are eligible for URM program enrollment . However, immigration removal proceedings continue throughout the application process, so youth are simultaneously involved in multiple court cases. If SIJS is not granted, the petitioner must le ave the country at age 18. As further evidence of the complex nature of SIJS proceedings, youth can apply for SIJS up to the age of 21, but most dependency orders expire at age 18, which voids their eligibility (Drevlow & Siman, 2012). For youth in Drevlow concurrently, all were awarded SIJS before their asylum case was resolved. This illustrates how an expanded immigration relief option remains complicated and tenuous for youth. In order to receive SIJS, yo uth must navigate both a local family or probate court and a federal immigration court. While the procedure is complicated and can be lengthy, it remains much less so than receiving a t - visa for victims of human trafficking, as described next. Victims of h uman trafficking (T visa) The T visa was established with the original Trafficking Victims Protection Act ( TVPA ) in 2000 for victims of human trafficking to find immigration relief (Drevlow & Siman, 2012). It 11 is valid for three years, after which recipien ts may apply for Legal Permanent Residency. In order to obtain a T visa, applicants must be victims of a severe form of human trafficking and comply with reasonable requests for cooperation on investigations or prosecutions of human trafficking. This coope ration is not required of applicants under 18. Severe forms of trafficking are defined in the TVPA (2000) as : (A) sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or (B) the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery. tra fficking under 18 years old (with or without coercion) and those over 18 who were coerced or forced into sex trafficking. The second part of the definition requires the use of force, fraud, or coercion for all other types of human trafficking. Applicants a lso have to demonstrate that they would suffer extreme hardship or danger if removed from the U.S. and returned to their country o f origin. In sum, minors face multiple layers of the burden of proof in order to be eligible for immigration protection (e.g. proof of commercial sex acts, proof of age, proof of forced labor, etc.). Once granted, they are eligible for all refugee benefits, includin g URM benefits. Thus, t - visa requires youth involvement in a criminal trafficking case and an immigration case, making it the most time consuming option for immigration relief. Because the four forms of immigration relief outlined above are grouped into the URM program once they are granted (even temporarily), they are eligible for most of the same benefits. Literature on URM in the U.S. does not differentiate between URM with different types of immigration status. It is clear 12 that each form of relief is based on different needs and contexts. However, it is observation that it is unknown to what extent different immigration backgrounds and status affect needs since they are all lumped into the URM category in the literature , as if all URM prog ram youth were a homogenous group . Furthermore, although case managers know which form of immigration relief each child has, the extent to which that influences the service referral process is unknown. G iven the array of experiences and immigration backgro unds outlined thus far, t he next section of the literature review summarizes the needs of URM. It outlines the particular areas of mental health, education, legal assistance, and employment, and demonstrates the need to explore how different needs are rela ted to different services. URM N eeds Much of what is known about URM health and well - being is due to prevalence studies in mental health research (Ehntholt & Yule, 2006; Fazel et al., 2012; Lustig et al. 2004). M any of those studies have focused on refugee and immigrant adults, and unaccompanied minors have been a small sub - section within that literature. Over the past ten years, the research focus has begun to expand and include URM in a more diverse context. To cla rify the state of URM research, t he following subsections unpack what is known about URM in the areas of mental health, education, legal, and employment needs. The subsections are organized to introduce the importance of each area of research in the contex t of URM well - being, and then funnel from the broadest information available to the narrowest and specialized research conducted thus far. A reas in which points of intervention have been identified conclude with the best available intervention research. 13 M ental health Mental health is the most widely researched area of unaccompanied refugee minor research. T he international community has published several empirical and review articles on unaccompanied minor mental health, typically in the context of refuge e child and adolescent mental health. Unaccompanied youth are generally considered one of the most high - risk groups for mental health concerns in review articles ( see Ehntholt & Yule, 2006; Fazel et al., 2012; Huemer et al., 2009 ; Lustig et al., 2004). Lus tig et al (2004) found that separation from parents or caregivers is common during the refugee process. This is especially important in light of research findings that emphasize social support and parental well - being as protective factors during flight and resettlement phases of migration. One of the most comprehensive reviews of mental health research on refugee children found that refugee camps may expose children to more trauma and unsafe conditions, as well as detention post - arrival, which contribute t o increased rates of psychological distress among URM (Lustig et al, 2004). In a review of practitioner literature on refugee children and adolescents, Ehntholt & Yule (2006) found that rates of PTSD and depression are higher in refugee children than the g eneral child population, but limited research showed that rates are higher for unaccompanied than accompanied refugee children. T hey we re unable to make firm conclusions about intervening with unaccompanied youth because there wa s less data on services designed for URM, as well as general mental health access by URM . Although mental health research has consistently found that PTSD is higher among URM youth than both the non - refugee and accompanied refugee population, samples are largely male (Huemer et al., 2009). Trafficking victims are predominantly women, and approximately half are children, although too many cases are unreported so more precise estimates are unknown 14 (Okech, Morreau, & Benson, 2012). No specific URM studies have identified a sample including trafficking victims, male or female. Data on female URM is limited for several reasons. Girls migrate less frequently than boys , due to the harsh conditions of migration and the increased risks for sexual assault and violence for girls. Girls con stitute an especially vulnerable URM population, of whom little is known. Girls also disappear after arrival in refugee camps because of indentured servitude and forced marriage (Lustig et al., 2004). Huemer and colleagues (2009) add ed valuable insight wit h the only literature review focused on the mental health of unaccompanied minors . In the largest URM mental health study conducted, Bean et al. (2007 a ) validated the Hopkins Symptom Checklist - 37 for refugee adolescents as part of the URM and the Dutch Mental Healthcare System study. The study, conducted in the Netherlands, included URM ( n = 920), Belgian immigrant and refugee accompanied adolescents ( n = 1,294), and a Dutch student sample as a control ( n = 1,059). They found that the HSCL - 37 is psychome trically sound for a heterogeneous unaccompanied refugee sample and that it can consistently differentiate between URM youth who need mental health care services and those who do not. In addition, they validated a Teacher Report Form and found that it coul d be a useful screening tool for mental health care within schools (Bean et al., 2007 b ) . Bean et al. (2006) found that almost 60% of URM reported a need for help compared to only 8% of the Dutch adolescents. Of the URM sample, 48.7% reported an unmet menta l health need, compared to only 4.5% of the Dutch adolescent sample. However, they also found that only 30% of teachers were able to detect the mental health care needs self - reported by URM (Bean et al., 2006). is extensive; it pr ovides data on cross - cultural measurement invariance of several measures, identifies prevalence of psychological distress among URMs, and highlights discrepancies 15 between non - professional screening and self - referral for mental health services. The first st udy to address URM mental health outcomes in Britain found similar results : unaccompanied asylum seeking minors report ed more traumatic events and were more likely to display PTSD symptoms (Michelson & Sclare, 2009). Research has also shown that more than resettlement conditions or types of trauma, the number of s tressful l ife e vents reported is the strongest predictor of mental health needs, particularly in PTSD treatment settings (Bean et al., 2006; Batista et al., 2007; Derluyn & Broekaert, 2007; Derluyn , Mels & Broekaert, 2009). In a random sample of 34 schools with immigrant language classes, ( n = 1,294 adolescents, n = 124 unaccompanied) researchers found that adolescents who reported more traumatic events on the Stressful Life Events (SLE) scale and the Reactions of Adolescents to Traumatic Stress scale (RATS) , scored higher on all mental health subscales. Unaccompanied adolescents typically report experiencing more traumatic events than accompanied minors and score significantly higher on anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress than their accompanied counterparts (Derluyn et al., 2009). Derluyn and Broekaert (2007) found that 37 - 47% of unaccompanied refugee youth have severe to very severe symptoms o f anxiety, depression, and post trau matic stress. Findings underscore the importance they suggest that girls with higher SLE scores were at higher risk. The study also identified placement differences, such that those URM in large - scale residential cen ters had higher internalizing scores. High rates of PTSD, depression, and anxiety were found among a sample of 46 unaccompanied refugee minors awaiting placement at an asylum center in Finland (Sourander, 1998). Sourander (1998) provides evidence t he post - migration process of detention and/or the legal process of asylum seeking may contribute to the high levels of stress and psychological 16 distress among traumatized children. One of the only empirical studies of unaccompanied minors focused on the detention and asylum seeking process, this study highlight ed the importance of attending to the effects of this phase of migration. It is particularly alarming that URM are also vulnerable to late - onset PTSD (Smid et al, 2011). Data collected one year (T1) after r esettlement and two years (T2) after resettlement in the Netherlands found that 40% of youth met the criteria for PTSD at T1, and an additional 16% met the criteria for PTSD at T2 only. The overall prevalence rate did not change between T1 and T2 , however this indicate d an alarming rate at which new diagnoses of PTSD were uncovered at T2. Of those who met PTSD criteria at T1, more than half continued to meet the criteria for PTSD at T2. These findings support ed previous research that demonstrated that most of the variance in PTSD symptoms two years after resettlement are due to older age, the number of traumatic events experienced, and baseline PTSD, depression, and anxiety scores (Bean, Eurelings - Bontekoe, & Spinhoven, 2007). Researchers speculate d this ma y be due to increasing anxiety about legal status outcomes ( for instance, in asylum seeking cases) approaching adulthood. It is reasonable to believe this may be a contributing factor to PTSD among URM in the United States as well, since seeking legal resi dent status through any of the available channels can be lengthy and outcomes vary greatly, and thus bears consideration as researchers consider URM mental health in the U.S. These legal processes and challenges will be outlined further in the legal needs section of this literature review . Although most URM mental health studies have focused on documenting prevalence, research is emerging that detail s coping strategies that have led to resilience and adaptation among URM. Early research on separated Cuban refugee girls showed that the typical psychological mourning of loss was delayed by the girls through the context of forced separation 17 and the gap they created in their minds between physical and psychological separation (Rodriguez - Nogues, 1983). The conte xt in which Cuban children were separated and resettled in the U.S. was much different than the context in which URM youth were separated and resettled in the current literature. Rodriguez - Nogues (1983) used a retrospective research design which would not address current needs and services. However, it len t support for qualitative methods that allow youth to define and share their unique experiences. More recently, t he Sudanese Lost Boys have been studied extensively as a highly resilient refugee group of unaccompanied children. Research has shown they consider their ethnic identity and cultural values to be protective factors (Carlson, Cacciatore, & Klimek, 2012; Luster et al., 2009). Th e Lost Boys also survived immense trauma and hardship through the support of their peers and maintaining a sense of purpose , which is rooted in the cultural tradition of nomadic herding conducted by northern Somali boys (Luster et al., 2009; Rousseau et al ., 1998). Taken together, it is clear that URM face considerable mental health challenges due to the ongoing stressors throughout the refugee process. URM have higher rates of psychological distress than normed samples and accompanied refugee children. The migration and post - migration experience contributes to mental health concerns, although limited research has focused on the post - migration experience of URM in the United States. Table 1 displays the nature of URM mental health research to date. The first column provides an in - text citation, the second column identifies the location in which the study was conducted, and the third column provides a brief articles. The fourth column identifies any guiding theories made explicit in the studies, and the last five columns provide a quick glance at the topics explored in each study. A s shown in Table 1, URM mental health research has largely been conducted outside of the U.S. and has been 18 epidemiological in nature , without an ecological theoretical perspective . Existing literature does not examine how different immigration pathways and backgrounds shape mental health referrals and consequently, intervention appropriateness and efficacy. Post - migration detention has been Despite multiple re view articles on refugee children and adolescents , only one review article has been written solely on unaccompanied child mental health, as most (see Lustig et al., 2004; Entholt & Yule, 2006; Fazel et al., 2012) dedicate d just one paragraph to the unique needs of unaccompanied minors. Mental health reviews conclude d that an ecological perspective would be most helpful, and that future research should incorporate multiple systems of influence affecting URM mental health. Therefore, there is clearly a metho dological gap in identifying how different types of immigrant backgrounds shape the service needs of youth. Th e study reported here sought to identify how program staff considers mental health needs of different URM youth during service referral to maximize effectiveness. The local agency that provide d URM services deliver s their own in - house mental health care, but they are not equipped to deal with all types of trauma that URM h ave experienced. Therefore, the literature and the local context suggest ed a need to understand how the staff view the local community mental health providers consider status when providing care. Furthermore, the literature and local context encouraged a h olistic approach to mental health that includes other areas of need relevant to URM, which will be described starting with education needs. 19 Table 1 URM Mental Health Literature Summary Community s ervices included Study Location Design Theory Mental health Education Legal Employment Other Ehntholt & Yule, 2006 U . K . R eview T rauma, F amily systems Fazel et al., 2012 U . K . , Belgium, Netherlands R eview T rauma/loss, review divided by ecological level Recommended mobilizing resources Lustig et al., 2004 SE Asia, U . S . , Australia, Kenya R eview R ecommend ecological develop mental model Determined resources needed Huemer et al., 2009 Europe, U . S . R eview t rauma, c oping, r esilience Suggested analysis of care system, concluded older adolescents have difficulty obtaining referrals Health Sourander, 1998 Finland E pidemiological N one Bean et al. 2007a Netherlands, Belgium S cale validation F actor structure of HSCL - 37 Bean et al. 2007b Netherlands, Belgium S cale validation F actorial structure/validity of TRF Bean et al., 2006 Netherlands, Belgium E pidemiological T rauma, H elp seeking Michelson & Sclare, 2009 U . K . E pidemiological T rauma, B arriers - to - treatment model 20 Batista, Wiese, Burhorst, 2007 Netherlands E pidemiological N one Derluyn & Broekaert, 2007 Belgium Epidemiological & E mpirical N one Derluyn, Mels & Broekaert, 2009 Belgium Epidemiological T rauma Smid et al., 2011 Netherlands L ongitudinal T rauma Rodriguez - Nogues, 1983 U . S . Qualitative (phenomenological) Unclear Psychological experience of separation Carlson, Cacciatore, Klimek, 2012 U . S . R eview/case study R isk and resiliency As protective factors Luster et al., 2009 U . S . Q ual itative (grounded theory) R esilience Rousseau et al., 1998 Canada E thnography R esilience Migratory experience, self - comparison Note. Studies listed in the order of appearance in text. 21 Education The formal educational pathway is disrupted by the refugee process (Dillinger, 1990). Dillinger describes how many refugee youth have insisted on the importance of education after resettlement. In qualitative studies regarding adaptation among URM, education has been cited as a marker of successful adaptation and a primary motive for migration (Luster et al., 2010 ; Rana et al., 2011 ; Cuervo & Ogunyoku, 2012 ; Lee, 2012 ). One of the first studies o n URM placements identified education as the primary adjustment strategy for Vietnamese URM (Mortland & Egan, 1987). In a study of both Sudanese URM and their foster parents, educational attainment was seen as the main indicator of success by the youth and foster parents . Rana and colleagues (2011) reported in a similar study that among 19 Sudanese URM and 20 foster parents, all of the youth cited education as their primary goal in coming to the U.S. All URM had achieved at least a high school diploma, and most had completed or were enrolled in post - secondary education. uncovered the prominence of education as a marker of success and independence, as well as a commitment to the value s of their culture of origin. In a needs assessment conducted with 614 first and second generation immigrant youth, the second biggest concern listed in the open - ended item was school and academics, although many youth shared positive comments and experiences (Calderon et al., 2012). Although this study was not limited to refugee participants, it offers support for the importance of multiple systems of influence in the lives of adolescents. In a study of Latin American parents who had been separated from their children during migration, parents were unable to identify the effects of their separation on academic performance, but school counselors readily identified separation 22 f rom caregivers as an important contributor to the increased education gap and dropout rates among separated students (Gindling & Poggio, 2012). While education has been noted as important to URM youth, research has identified several challenges to success ful integration in U.S. school systems. In a mixed - method study incorporating URM interviews, URM focus groups, foster parent focus groups, and individual caseworker interviews, Bates and colleagues (2005) found that educational supports varied widely by district, but that overall, most schools were unprepared to meet URM needs. Furthermore, URM reported peer relationships at school often included harassment, which was more challenging for girls than boys. In similar research, Luster and colleagues (2010) identified low pre - migration levels of education as a barrier to advancing education after resettlement, as some youth arrive with high school - aged peers but without literacy skills or age out of pub lic school opportunities before they can acquire a diploma. Moreover, mental health wa s cited in multiple studies on educational resilience of URM as an obstacle to achieving education due to depression, anxiety, or somatic symptoms such as headaches (Lust er et al., 2010; Rana et al., 2011). Discrimination and resource constraints are a common challenge for URM youth. Bates and colleagues (2005) recommend ed easing the transition into schools for URM by providing intensive educational support for youth and raising sensitivity in schools. Rousseau and colleagues (2001) interviewed 18 social practitioners working with unaccompanied minors in Canada. Practi ti oners reported that education was a critical sector for integration into society for URM youth but note d that pre - migration levels of education mediated the ease of integration. Budget restrictions in schools and discrimination within schools were cited by multiple practitioners as barriers to successful integration. 23 Educational resilience refers to the ab ility to thrive in education despite challenges and adversity (Rana et al., 2011). Despite risks at multiple ecological levels, including challenges facing schools and URM students, successful educational achievement has been documented. Rana et al. (2011) conducted one of the first studies to describe educational resilience among URM. They noted that some of the protective factors contributing to this educational resilience are personal attributes, relationships, and community resources. URM youth describe d personal distractions, their cultural values of hard work and determination, prior educational aptitude and innate resourcefulness, and biculturalism. URM descri b ed a process in which they adopted some American strategies for success and maintained some of their Sudanese attitudes. Relationships named by the Sudanese youth as contributing to their success included supportive foster parents, supportive teachers or other school staff, and American and Sudanese peers. Sudanese youth also describe the psychological presence of their biological parents as motivation and encouragement for them to continue despite the challenges of the U.S. school system. The resettlement agency provided supportive foster placements and financial support (including tuition), and thus was considered a community resource that provided opportunities for them to pursue their educational goals. Bean, Eurelings - Bonekoe,and Spinhoven (2006) prop osed school - based intervention as an effective way to address potential problems with youth who may exhibit PTSD symptoms or trauma - related behavioral problems. Schools offer a safe and structured environment which is critical to overcoming trauma, and pro vide an adequate context for teaching positive coping and problem solving skills. Teachers may be able to detect early developmental concerns and refer students to appropriate mental health services. 24 The literature on URM within the American educati on system suggests that there is a mix of challenges and resilience. Table 2 is formatted exactly the same as Table 1; the first column identifies the study with in - text citation formatting, the second provides the location in which the research was conduc columns provide a brief overview of the community level services included in the research study. According to Table 2, the literature on URM and education has flourished in the U.S. but has a limited scope of immigration background. Most of the educational research with URM has included UN - designated URM like The Lost Boys and indicated that the resettlement agency plays a critical role in mediating the relationship between the URM student and the school context. Using qualitative methods, it is evident that r esettlement program staff are privileged links between the educati onal system and their clients, and may be able to shed light on the unique needs of youth with different URM backgrounds as they enter the educational system. For example, an adolescent who spent his childhood in a refugee camp may have little to no formal education, but an asylum - seeking adolescent might have attended formal schooling until the time he fled his home country. Moreover, Table 2 illustrates resilience is exclusively described as person - focused, which suggests a methodological gap in the integ ration of ecological developmental approaches supported in other areas of URM research . Literature suggests that URM program staff are important in helping youth achieve successful educational outcomes, but the research thus far treats URM as a homogenous population without unique immigration pathways. The following section on legal assistance further confirms the importance of attending to these differences and the mediating role of program staff. 25 Table 2 Education , Legal, and Employment Literature Summary Community services included Study Location Design Theory Mental health Education Legal Employment Other Dillinger, 1990 U . S . E thnography E cological Systems, Symbolic Interaction , Developmental Luster et al., 2010 U . S . Q ual itative R esilience Resettlement agency, religious support Mortland & Egan, 1987 U . S . Q ual itative U nclear Resettlement agency Rana et al., 2011 U . S . Q ual itative E ducational resilience Resettlement agency Calderon et al., 2012 U . S . N eeds assessment N one Gindling & Poggio, 2012 U . S . E mpirical (mixed - method) A ttachment, A mbiguous loss Family reunification Bates et al., 2005 U . S . E mpirical (mixed - method) T rauma Rousseau et al., 2001 Canada Q ual itative R isk/protective factors for acculturation Lee, 2012 U . S . Q ual itative (grounded theory) C apability approach, A cculturation, R esilience Culture and identity Olivas, 1990 U.S. Law Review None Health 26 Congressional Record Service, 2007 U.S. C ongressional report URM policies Safety Derluyn & Broekaert, 2008 Belgium C ase study T rauma , acculturation, developmental Byrne & Miller, 2012 U.S. Descriptive report None Community Placement Drevlow & Siman, 2012 U.S. S econdary data None Immigration - specific services Cuervo & Ogunyoku, 2012 U.S. Epidemiologi al S econdary data None Family history, substance use, criminal history Perreira & Smith, 2007 U.S. T heoretical (non - empirical) Cultural - ecological Social services (not defined) Gilchrist, 1983 U.S. N eeds assessment None Note. Studies listed in the order they appear in text. 27 Legal In 1990, the U.S. government transitioned from releasing unaccompanied child asylum seekers to family, church groups, or community organizations, to detaining them in detention facilities across the Southwest and Western U.S. (Olivas, 1990). Detained children lacked access to education, health, c ounseling, or legal services. Detention served to deter other children from seeking asylum, and to bait undocumented adult family members to present themselves to immigration authorities. Olivas detail ed how this practice was in contrast to the way childre n we re treated anywhere else in the U.S. justice system, where they are viewed as incapable of making any independent legal decision. Furthermore, Olivas argued children need particular legal protection and assistance as they do not easily fit into require ments for asylum or refugee status and are often unable to verbalize the details of their circumstances that meet the requirement s for justifying a well - founded fear of persecution claim. Improvements in legal assistance have been made since the TVPRA of 2008 , although the ongoing challenge politically is whether to consider URM a child welfare issue or an immigration security issue (Congressional Research Service, 2007). In 2006, U.S. Border Patrol apprehended 101,952 juveniles. Most were not detained and were voluntarily repatriated to Mexico. Of the 7,746 children detained, advocates accused Border Patrol of mistreat ing the children and misclassifying them as accompanied (with adult caregivers) or as adults , among other child welfare concerns . Misclassif ication as adults places them in adult detention centers, endangering child welfare, and misclassification as accompanied precludes them from seeking legal protection from the government. Child welfare advocates state children should all receive legal repr esentation from the government during their civil immigration proceedings, and immigration security advocates argue that is an unreasonable cost for the government to bear. 28 Policies continue to be divided and contested between both sides to some degree. In ternational perspectives mirror similar contrasting views between a legal and psychological perspective on caring for URMs, which often results in differential treatment and prevents many children from accessing psychological services (Derluyn & Broekaert, 2008). Currently, the American legal process begins with removal proceedings, in which DHS files a notice to appear at the immigration court nearest ORR placement ( Byrne & Miller, 2012 ). In response to rapidly increasing numbers of children requiring imm igration assistance, m any courts have added specialized juvenile immigration dockets so many juveniles are transported at once. According to Byrne and Miller, t he children appear ed before the judge, who wa s sometimes a volunteer and often not skilled in juvenile immigration law. Usually they ask ed for a continuance to find legal representation or for ORR to work on other placement options. Often children later request ed a change of venue to the location they move for ORR or sponsor placement. ORR and the Vera Institute of Justice subcontracts with nonprofit legal services providers to educate children about the legal process, screen their cases for potential relief from removal, and recruit and train volunteer attor represent them ( Byrne & Miller, 2012 , p. 22). This program was shown to improve representation rates for children, and continues to serve approximately 7,000 children per year, with Know Your Rights orientations, legal screenings, court preparatio n and assistance, and pro bono legal represent ation in 69 facilities and programs for detained children (Byrne & Miller, 2012, p. 23). Despite legal access being more likely post - TVPRA, the wait time for immigration relief decisions can still be a long time in communities with few immigration attorneys or resources. Youth can still age out of eligibility for status while waiting for repre sentation, or because of 29 extended wait periods. The TVPRA improved immigration legal outcomes by improving successfu l legal status petitions for 23% more UAC (Drevlow & Siman, 2012). TVPRA improved the efficiency of the child immigration system and made it more accessible for children. For example, the average wait time for obtaining status after entry to foster care has been reduced by half to 9.6 months. Drevlow and Siman further recommend ed that improvements should be made by providing additional support for legal representation in all areas where UAC are in care (due to limited and scattered immigration resources), improving education within the immigration justice system about SIJS, and developing community - based care for children while they await outco mes of their cases. The average age of UAC and URM entering federal foster care is 16 years (Cuervo & Ogunyoku, 2012). This increases the need for immediate immigration relief proceedings , since most forms of immigration relief available to these youth exp ire once they reach 18 years. Some forms of relief, such as asylum, can take at least two years to resolve. In most cases, if solutions have not been found by age 18, youth age out of ORR care and are transferred to adult detention, where removal is more l ikely. Therefore, practitioner recommendations include increasing availability of legal services across the UAC foster care network, developing a continuum of care to increase placement matches, and continuing research with the UAC population to document c hanges (Cuervo & Ogunyoku, 2012). Improving and increasing legal resources and access to legal representation is mentioned throughout practitioner - focused literature, and it remains clear that immigration relief is a complex area. It appears that changes in the TVPRA have improved legal access and outcomes for children in immigration proceedings, and efforts to improve representation for unaccompanied minors has increased their access to legal services broadly (Drevlow & Siman, 30 2012; Byrne & Miller, 2012 ). To date, no research has explored how access to different types of legal assistance may vary based on the types of immigration relief sought or obtained. It is likely that different status requirements may justify specialized legal services, and to date , no literature details the effects of different types of legal assistance to youth seeking immigration relief. The current project aimed to better understand whether legal services are specialized and reflected in the referral process in one resettlement area. Table 2 consists of the education, legal, and employment literature and suggests a huge methodological gap in URM legal system research. Five of the nine table entries that included legal needs can be considered empirical studies . Three of those emp irical studies have focused on large secondary data sets and mainly serve to outline the immigration process for unaccompanied, undocumented youth, yet the authors who delve into legal issues facing URM recommend an ecological lens be taken in future resea rch to better understand the experience of URM within the U.S. legal system. The immigration system they face is unlike other systems represented in international research , and complex. The study presented here sought to understand the nuanced challenges U RM ( in all phases of acquiring URM status) face in the U.S., by expanding the methodology in this area to include a more empirical, ecologically driven research design that explicitly addressed the legal needs of, and services available to youth with diffe rent immigration status. E mployment Refugee adults have the legal right to employment immediately upon arrival. They can apply to change their status to legal permanent resident after one year and apply for citizenship after five, making the employment p rocess smoother and more familiar to employers. Very little information is available from the literature about employment among URM. However, 31 employment is often cited as a motivation for migration, even among children and adolescents (Luster et al., 2010; Mortland & Egan, 1987; Cuervo & Ogunyoku , 2012). This implies that URM who are placed in foster care systems, which do not prioritize employm ent for youth, may face difficulty adjusting to priorities of staff and foster parents. Perreira and Smith (2007) highlight the role of integration policies that include economic opportunities for refugee groups in facilitating successful adaptation in the U.S. Employment is often seen as a necessary precursor to the more important goal of sending remittances to family members in their home countries or back to refugee camps. Lee (2012) found that the measures of success for former URM included being able t o meet their basic needs, having autonomy and independence, and giving back financially to their communities of origin. All of these require employment of some sort. In research with Sudanese unaccompanied minors, former URM reported that sending money bac k to their families in Sudan or rebuilding Sudan were two of their three main indicators of success in the U.S. (Luster et al., 2010). In a study of vocational and employment needs of migrant youth, migrant students were found to be lagging behind peers in educational attainment and ability, but had high aspirations regarding careers and education (Gilchrist, 1983). Educational pursuit was discouraged by an immediate need to pursue employment to support their families and send money back to their home commu nities . Many immigrant students reported career goals that required post - secondary education but did not take advantage of vocational programs and resources that could have helped them achieve their goals . The study found many students had vaguely defined career goals, and those that did, did not understand the level of education required to meet their goals. Although most migrant students stayed in the area long enough ( M = 3 years) to participate in vocational or educational programs, they were unaware of the resources or unable to take 32 advantage of them due to the pressure to become immediately employed. Moreover, i n a needs assessment of 614 first and second generation immigrant youth ( M = 15 years), immigration concerns such as finances and employment w ere the most frequently reported concerns of students (Calderon, Giffords, & Malekoff, 2012) . Table 2 indicates only one empirical study directly addressing URM and employment. Based on the literature supporting employment as an important goal of URM youth, it can be assumed that employment or vocational training would be an equally important component of URM programming services. While URM are awaiting status, they may be legall y prohibited from seeking employment, but often foster parents and agency staff encourage a more concerted effort on academic achievements instead. Moreover, the table confirms i t is unknown whether different immigration backgrounds are connected with dif ferent motivations for migration and therefore may make employment more important for some URM youth. For example, a youth who arrived in the U.S. undocumented and unaccompanied may be primarily seeking employment by leaving a dangerous country where his l ife was threatened and his family is unable to work. This youth may enter the URM system without comprehending the cultural and legal differences in work for adolescents. In contrast, a URM youth who entered the country with U.N. designated refugee statu s may not prioritize employment because his resettlement situation was predetermined , explained more thoroughly , and his immigration status safe . In summary, the literature on URM needs is clearly underdeveloped. The research on URM mental health, while th e most developed, often treats URM as an afterthought to general refugee child research. Mental health research has begun to explore the post - migration mental experiences with education, legal, and employment systems. The education research with URM 33 remains one - dimensional in its operationalization of URM, but has emphasized the role of the URM program staff in the degree of success URM have navigating that sys tem. The three studies detailing the legal experiences and needs of youth with different status are based on secondary data and underscore the importance of forging connections between youth seeking status and qualified legal assistance providers. Finally , literature in all areas has identified that employment and financial independence is both a factor in youth migration and a priority of youth after immigration. Each of these areas of need contributes to the overall well - being and adjustment of URM as th ey navigate their new lives in the U.S., and the literature detailing differences between status indicates they may be experienced differently within the community. Rationale for the Current Study Case managers, and other staff members who work with URM p rograms, are in a privileged position to be able to identify both URM needs and community resources to meet those needs (Rousseau, Montgomery, & Shemarke, 2001). Furthermore, because they have access to and experience with both parties, they are able to un derstand what the limitations and benefits of providers are in different sectors. Literature on URM programs and resources is scarce, and mainly organized around documenting prevalence of availability. The areas of mental health, education, legal assistanc e and employment appear to be of utmost importance. URM research has focused on mental health in the past (Lustig et al., 2004; Ehntholt & Yule, 2006; Huemer et al., 2009), but mixed method and qualitative studies have underscored the relevance of educatio n (Lee, 2012; Luster et al., 2009; Luster et al., 2010) , legal assistance (Derluyn & Broekaert, 2008) , and employment needs (Calderon, Giffords, & Malekoff, 2012) among this population. Thus far, no research has been conducted to address how and why reset tlement 34 agencies refer to particular community resources in these sectors , and specifically the role of immigration status . In the U.S. specifically, URM research is incredibly sparse, while the population of URM For examp le, undocumented unaccompanied minors may be eligible for URM status under ORR care, through procedures described earlier. While the number of undocumented immigrant adults apprehended at the U.S. border along Mexico has not risen within the past year, the number of unaccompanied children apprehended has increased by a full 99% in the first eight months of fiscal year 2014 ( D epartment of H omeland S ecurity , 2014). DHS officials estimated the number of UAC that would be referred to ORR in fiscal year 2014 to be 60,000, but 52,193 unaccompanied children had been apprehended by June 15 (DHS, 2014; ORR, 2013) . Researchers can no longer ignore the heterogeneity of youth classified as Unaccompanied Refugee Minors. This population, once accepted under the care of OR R, includes trafficking victims, undocumented unaccompanied children apprehended at the border (most likely eligible for SIJS), formal asylum seekers, and youth from all over the world designated as refugees by the UNHCR. The URM literature classifies all of the youth in ORR care as URM. Therefore, no distinctions are made when assessing mental health or the educational success of youth. Yet these immigration backgrounds facilitating URM status may have a great impact on the mental health, education, legal, and employment needs of youth. The relevance of these different needs only underscores the need to better understand the intersection of immigration and services before assessing intervention efficacy. w placement and funding considerations. With funding already stretched prior to the recent wave of arrivals, it is likely that a greater burden will be placed on existing community service providers outside of 35 resettlement agencies to meet the needs of the se youth. To date, no empirical research has been conducted to assess the readiness of service providers to meet the needs of a heterogeneous it can be assumed th at this influx will require an even closer examination of areas in which resettlement agencies may refer their clients. Understanding the intersection of service providers and resettlement referrals are the key starting point for building this knowledge. T he current study has begun building this knowledge while also assessing the quality of services provided In order to better grasp the relationship between immigration status and community level services , more research is needed to understand the rationale of referral decisions on the part of the program staff . Existing literature calls for advances in URM interventions in the key areas of mental health, education, employment, and legal assistance. URM research is moving towards intervention without a clear understanding of the implications of the immigration classification system within which URM come to services. Large scale quantitative studies have shed light on URM resettlement , which includes a variety of y outh who come into the URM system of services with a variety of backgrounds. The current study sought to fill the gap in the literature available to meet their ne eds. The study was designed to elicit invaluable information to fill this gap. Specifically, it addressed how one resettlement agency considers immigration status and background when referring URM youth to services, and how program staff perceive availabil ity and access for their clients. An ecological theoretical perspective considers the different levels of analysis necessary to understand the needs and service access experiences of youth (Bronfenbrenner, 1986; 1987) . 36 The program staff are part of the mi the larger macrosystem where cultural adaptation meets policies and providers in the areas of mental health, education, legal assistance, and employment. Figure 1 illustrates how an ecological - d evelopmental theoretical perspective fills the methodological gap suggested in Tables 1 and 2. Figure 1 confirms the importance of the inclusion of multiple sy s tems of ce of other systems. For example, a youth seeking asylum may not know he is ineligible for employment without status, but still must attend school. He may be fleeing traumatic experiences that require mental health services. His asylum case may be delayed by changing or unfavorable political and public opinion climates. Resettlement program staff clearly serve a fundamental role in connecting youth to a web of complex community services. 37 Figure 1 . Ecological - developmental model i llustrating the interdependent s ystems of i nfluence for URM/UAC. Current Study As the size of this unique population increases at the federal level, local agencies providing resettlement and foster care services are challenged to meet the changing needs of these youth. On e such agency in Michigan is working to build community capacity by collaborating with community partners to increase the strength of agency - organization partnerships. Additionally , they have taken a bold look introspectively to identify mismatches in the needs of clients, the services to which caseworkers refer clients, and those actually accessed by clients. This agency is typical of other federal URM resettlement agencies, as they serve a heterogeneous URM population and have seen the same shifts in thei r client demographics as the federal URM program. However, they may be fairly unique in that the geographic scope of 38 services and foster placement is small and contained, unlike resettlement organizations in larger urban areas, like Chicago. The goal of t he current study was to increase understanding of the obstacles presented by study contribute d to efforts to close the gap between resettlement services and commun ity resources through a qualitative exploration of staff perspectives on needs and services . Program staff include d case managers, therapists, and an independent living coordinator but excludes supervisors. Each role contribute d unique experiences and know ledge both with URM and with services in the community. For example, therapists have an understanding of mental health resources for their clients, independent living coordinators have an understanding of employment resources, and case managers provide inf ormation on legal and educational resources. These staff members we re uniquely situated within this service delivery system because they have the most information on the needs of the child but also understand the range of services available and limitations of direct service interventions (Rousseau, Montgomery, & Shermarke, 2001). Th e study was based on the qualitative outcomes of my previous collaboration with this agency . That collaboration produced information about ideal services to facilitate independent living from a former and current client perspective, as well as from a staff perspective. This study is the next step in understanding the community context by asking the population of sta ff members in the mid - Michigan area to share their perspective on service referrals and access by their clients. It takes a n in - depth look at the role of immigration status and how it affects decision - making by program staff during the referral process. Bu ilding on prior collaboration, this study focuses on the areas of education, mental health, employment and legal services; areas which have also been identified as priorities by program staff and URM clients. 39 The main research question guiding the study wa s i s immigration status related to community service referral and access from a URM program staff Within this question were the following sub questions: 1. How do program staff perceive differential service needs among URM, asylee, SIJS, T - visa youth in the areas of mental health, education, legal assistance, and employment ? 2. How do es program staff perceive type of federal immigration status influenc ing referral to community - level services in mental health, education, legal assistance, and employment ? 3. How do es program staff perceive mental health, education, legal assistance, and employment service provision in their community? 4. How do es program staff perceive the utilization of their mental health, education, legal assistance, and employmen t referrals by clients? 40 Method Qualitative Methods The purpose of this study wa s to better understand how different immigration status influences service referral and access in one community. Patton (2002) call ed this a process study, in which the focus is on how individuals or organizations reach outcomes instead of what outcomes are reached. Qualitative methods allow issues to be explored in depth and from the unique perspectives of participants (Patton, 2002 ; C reswell, 2007 ). Previous literature has not explored the intersection of community resources and different types of URM status from the perspective of URM program staff , treating the URM population as a homogenous group . Due to the novel and exploratory na ture of the research questions posed here , qualitative methods we re particularly appropriate for this study (Creswell, 2007). The ability of qualitative methods to address process and not only outcomes is an important asset to this study. Consistent with a dvances in the methodological practices of the field, qualitative methods provide a more nuanced perspective in a substantive area in which context is key (Martin, Lounsbury, & Davidson, 2004). Attention to context and the specific ecology of a social prob lem or organization are important tenets of community psychology (Martin, Lounsbury, & Davidson, 2004; Tricket, 1996, Trickett, Kelly, & Vincent, 1985). Mental health service utilization has been explored recently in international research (Bean et al., 20 06 ; Michelson & Sclare, 2009; Derluyn, Mels, & Broekaert; 2009 ), but a comprehensive investigation of different types of community resources accessed by different types of unaccompanied minors has not been studied internationally or domestically. Research addressing the experiences and needs of this population in the U.S. is extremely limited and is mostly found in case studies (Hartwell, 2011; Luster et al., 2010). 41 Researcher Reflexivity Qualitative methods require a focus on the researcher herself and h er role in the research process. This attention to critical self - reflection is one of the main tenets guiding and ensuring high - quality qualitative research (Patton, 2002). Reflexivity includes acknowledging the biases and assumptions of the researcher, bu t also the ways in which she may exert influence in the field and analysis during all stages of the process (Patton, 2002; Creswell, 2007; Braun & Clarke, 2006) . In order to increase transparency and demonstrate trustworthiness, it is important to address my background, values, research experiences, and positionality. I am from an American family who has never had to flee our home country due to persecution. I therefore cannot share an understanding of that experience with the U RM in my community. Through previous collaboration with the resettlement agency, I know at least some of the staff also do not share that history and our discussion of needs and services is likely to be biased by an outsider perspective. Previous literatur e has indicated that URM youth have extremely high rates of mental health problems ( Sourander, 1998; Bean et al., 2006; Michelson & Sclare, 2009; Batista et al. 2007; Lustig et al., 2004 ), specific educational needs ( Rana et al., 2011; Gindling & Poggio, 2 012 ), legal needs (Congressional Research Service, 2007; Wade, 2011), and local collaboration has indicated a need for employment services. M y research questions have been informed by both scientific evidence and my interpretation of the local context. Qu alitative inquiry is particularly important to me as I value understanding our unique experiences as human beings . I see privilege in my white, American, middle class background and consider it necessary to be attentive to the experiences and perspectives of others whose lives have been shaped by different circumstances. International refugees and the role of 42 American military intervention (or lack thereof) are intricately tied to my feeling of responsibility as a world citizen to improve the quality of lif e and address injustice with others. I began my relationship with refugee communities as part of a refugee well - being intervention , with which I was closely involved for five years . My role in that project allowed me to build close relationships, profess ionally and personally, with members of the refugee community from diverse nationalities and ethnicities. It also gave me a unique perspective on the potential for university - community collaboration to build meaningful partnerships. I conducted many qualit ative interviews and facilitated many large group discussions over the course of the project, as well as designing a project and analyzing data for a qualitative research apprenticeship with refugee children and adolescents. Participant S election and Recr uitment In qualitative research, participants are included because they can provide substantive information about their experiences to answer the research questions (Polkinghorne, 2005). In this study, the target population wa s URM program staff in a particular context , and generalization beyond this context is beyond the purpose of this study (Singleton & Straits, 2010) . The only resettlement agency in the local community was selected as the setting of the study . Because there is only one resettlement agency in the local area, it wa s desirable and possible to select all nine of the population of program staff for participation (Creswell, 2007) . All eligible participants were included in the study ( N = 9) . Inclusion criteria include d (a) being at least 18 years of age, (b) being currently employed by the agency, and (c) currently providing agency program services to at least one URM youth. Exclusion criteria include d not being 18 years of age and/or not currently providing services to URM youth . While the number of participants was lower than is often recommended for most qualitative methods, the focus wa s 43 on capturing the experiences and decision - making processes of the entire population. It wa s not necessarily expected that each staff member would have experience managing services for youth with all four types of immigration status, therefore unique information wa s expected from all members of the population (Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Creswell, 2007) . Semi - structured i nterviews Open - ended responses allow researchers to understand the world as it is seen by participants (Patton, 2002). Well - designed questions will elicit accurate and thorough responses that provide the researcher with insight into the experiences and thought proc esses of respondents ( Patton, 2002; Bernard, 2011 ) . My research question in this study s ought to understand the perceptions among URM program staff of the intersection of immigration status, needs, accessibility of services within their communities. The re search question grew out of the context in which they provide services. Semi - structured interviews provide d a systematic framework for understa nding the topic from the p erspective of the participants. They have goals for drawing out specific information, but allow the interviewer to adapt and provide some flexibility in probing questions (Singleton & Straits, 2010 ; Patton, 2002 ). Semi - structured interviews provide sy stematic data collection by following an interview guide made up of discussion topics and specific questions to be asked, which may or may not follow in a chronological order , depending on the flow of conversation (Bernard, 2011 ; Patton, 2002 ). The quali ty of qualitative research depends in large part on the skills of the researcher (Patton, 2002) . Due to my eco - identity (Kelly, 1971), a sense of rapport w as been established with most participants (Patton, 2002). I consulted texts in developing truly open - ended, singular, clear and concise questions (Patton, 2002). Furthermore, Patton recommends the use of 44 presupposition questions, which consider the rapport built with participants and the shared contexts in which rapport has taken place. This s trategy for eliciting information involves phrasing questions such that the interviewee assumes shared knowledge with the interviewer. I developed and used an interview guide with potential probes and follow up questions in the (Appendix D ) to draw more de tailed information from participants (Singleton & Straits, 2010; Patton, 2002). Procedure Interview procedure Interviews were scheduled at the availability of the participant. The interviewee chose the location, either on - site at the agency in a privat e conference room, or off - site at a nearby location. Five interviews took place off - site and four took place at the agency. Each participant provided informed consent (see Appendix B) and gave permission to recor d the interview. Interviews lasted between 4 5 minutes and 96 minutes , with most interviews lasting over an hour . Each participant was provide d with my contact information, and was inform ed I would be following up with a copy of their transcript to check for errors or suggest changes, a part of the process known as member checking ( Marshall & Rossman, 2011). Each participant was compensated for their time with a $10 gift card. As soon as possible after interviews, I b egan interview transcription using InqScribe software. I then reviewed each transc ript for errors. After the transcript was complete, I sent it to the interviewee and solicited edits. Only one interviewee responded, and approved it in its current form. Considering the transcripts were all between 17 and 30 pages, it is not particularly surprising to me that staff members were unable to respond, given their busy schedules. 45 Interview guide Semi - structured interviews include d open - ended questions about the perceptions and experiences of staff . A table of theory was developed in order to c onceptualize and connect the flow of leading theoretical concepts, research questions, and interview questions (see Appendix C ). An interview guide (Bernard, 2011 ; Patton, 2002 ; Marshall & Rossman, 2011 ) developed from the table of theory provide d structur e for the interview and ensure d all important aspects of the research question were included (see Appendix D). The interview guide was designed to introduce the research uniformly across participants, cover the main questions, and build in transitions betw een sections. Potential probing questions were included in the guide, and (Patton, 2002; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Creswell, 2007). The interview consisted of separate se ctions for each research question, divided into the four types of services deemed necessary and important to the success of URM clients in the literature , and previous collaboration ( Batista et al. 2007 ; Bean et al., 2006; Congressional Research Service, 2 007; Gindling & Poggio, 2012; Lustig et al., 2004; Michelson & Sclare, 2009; Rana et al., 2011; Sourander, 1998; Wade, 2011 ). The four main context areas covered in the interview were education, mental health, legal, and employment services. Participants w ere asked to reflect on their experiences and share their opinions regarding service delivery by comparing and contrasting the experiences of youth of different status within the service delivery system (see Appendix D for basic script and interview protoc ol). 46 Data protection All consent forms were protected in a secure location . I was the only one who listened to the audio recorded interviews . Participants were assigned pseudonyms and all audio files were identified by a number and a pseudonym. Interview notes and memos were typed up, and de - identified. One master spreadsheet contains a list of pseudonyms and real names, and is password protected as well . All interview transcripts were typed, password protected, de - identified, and stored on the secure driv e . Participants were assured of the confidentiality of their responses. However, because findings may be shared with the agency, it is possible that their (de - identified) responses may become known to their coworkers. Ethical considerations In the event that findings are shared with the agency, p articipants will be guaranteed the option to view and edit any reports that include direct quotations . However, additional steps had to be taken to protect the participants, due to the unique nature of the topic a nd the potential for identifying members of the small population. The American Evaluation Association has outlined guiding principles for conducting evaluation research that reflect some of the principles of community - based research (American Evaluation As sociation, 2004) . One of the core guiding principles includes respect for people, and specifically notes that conclusions that have the potential to harm stakeholders should be minimized, so long as it does not compromise the overall findings. Researchers have the responsibility to anticipate and avoid harm that could befall participants simply from participating in the research. Thus, some findings are excluded from this report, to protect the confidentiality of participants as laid out by the seminal Bel mont Report (1979) and social scientists (Bernard, 47 2011; Singleton & Straits, 2010). No quotes are shared that may be linked to a particular staff (Campbell et al., 2015) . Lastly, any themes that may possib ly be identified as referring to a specific staff member are excluded from this report . Thematic Analysis a naly s ing , and reporting patterns (themes) Clarke, 2006, p. 6). Thematic analysis is widely considered the most flexible of qualitative analytic approaches, and therefore different qualitative researchers hold different opinions about how it is properly conducted. Thematic analysis can be consider ed a deductive or inductive process. Deductive analysis is more appropriate when the analysis is grounded in theory and codes are developed from theoretical expectations (Braun & Clarke, 2006). However, i nductive analysis is most a ppropriate for this study , as it is data - driven and coding is based solely in the content of the interview . It is unknown how staff members will perceive differences in immigration status affecting services, and also unknown how these perceptions will operate in this particular ecological setting. Memoing is an important part of any kind of qualitative analysis, and can be theoretical, observational, analytical, or methodological in nature (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Me moing was done after each interview as a reflection process, after transcription as an early form of analysis, and throughout the rest of the analysis process in order to integrate analytical developments (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Sensitizing concepts wer e used in the analysis in place of hypotheses to describe the process of grounding analysis in minimal expectations regarding the relationship of immigration status and service referral and access. Sensitizing concepts was originally coined by Blumer 48 (1954 inductive analyses without specific requirements necessary to satisfy empirical questions or theories (p 7). They can be tools used to formulate the beginning ideas for analysis, and have social phenomena (Bowen, 2006, p 14). In this study, the sensitizing concepts included differences in service needs depending on status , challenges in accessing services for youth without formal URM status yet, and potential conflict between service priorities of staff and youth. The Ecological Model wa s used as a heuristic, instead of an analytic framework. To use it as part of a framew ork would have necessitate d an analytic induction method for analysis, in which I would be attempting to prove particular theoretical explanations and hypotheses about interactions within the ecological model (Patton, 2002). Instead, the model wa s used to interpretive role that resettlement staff play in the experiences of youth. In order for research quality to be judged by scholarly peers, it wa s necessary for t he analytic process to be described fully (Braun & Clarke, 2006). D edoose software was used to (1985) evaluative criteria for trustworthiness. Appendix F link s the steps laid out by Braun and Clarke, a brief description of each step, and how each step in the course of this study was completed . First, I familiarized myself with the transcripts, and used excerpts from the transcripts to generate initial codes. Th en I collated codes into potential themes and reviewed the data within themes to refine and reorganize as necessary. This involved rereading the excerpts within each code to ensure the codes were adequately descriptive. Then, I refined and 49 reorganized so t hat themes included codes that were similar but mutually exclusive. The last step was to define and name the themes and any subthemes. An example of the process is found in Table 3 below. For ease of reading, the table only includes one coding thread, to t he exclusion of other codes that were applied to this excerpt. Table 3 Example C oding P rocess Excerpt Code Subtheme Theme If they have foster parents, easier sometimes have a person who theoretically can take them to appointments, or can follow up, or can you know, bring the onus of responsibility is then on the client, who the having to coordinate transportation to get those things. Youth can have transportation challenges getting to providers Youth need assistance connecting to resources General challenges connecting to providers in the community Trustworthiness Trustworthiness refers to the validity and reliability of qualitative research. Qualitative research requires interpretation by the researcher, and therefore specific standards for ensuring the conclusions drawn by researchers can be considered valid (Creswell, 2007). I used Lincoln iness , as it is widely accepted in the area of qualitative research and is comprehensive in scope . Their criteria include credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility refers to the level of confidence in indings . Transferability refers to the applicability of findings to other contexts, dependability refers to the repeatability of findings, and confirmability refers to the degree of 50 neutrality and lack of bias in the findings. Each criterion includes spec ific measures researchers should attend to in order to meet the standard for trustworthiness. An acceptable level of trustworthiness has been met for this study (see Appendix G ) , by attending to almost all of the standards for each criterion. This study d id not meet the standard for the components of triangulation and member checking, however. Triangulation was not possible with the study design, because it was conducted at only one site us ing one method. Participants participated in member checking only t o the extent of reviewing the transcripts. Although not facilitated yet, t here will likely be an opportunity for them to review analysis as my collaboration with the agency continues . However , it is not likely that there will be agreement about the conclus ions. The different roles of staff in working with the youth placed them at unique points of observation and interpretation, such that they often came to somewhat different conclusions about the needs, services, and issues of youth with different status. My interpretation is based on an analysis across participants in all roles, and would therefore likely not be verified by the group as a whole. This provided a rich description in response to answer the research questions, but makes its usefulness in estab lishing credibility a point of debate in qualitative literature ( Campbell et al., 2015; Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014) . 51 Findings Only findings that addressed the intersection of different levels of status and services are presented here . It is common in community - based research to learn many additional perspectives on new issues that the researcher had not considered when designing a study. During the course of interviews, staff shared additional concerns and agency practices outside the scope of these research questions. Due to the sheer amount of data that can be collected, Wolcott (2005) advocate d excluding irrelevant information in fieldwork. To preserve transparency, researchers should indicate the type of content excluded. In these interviews, sta ff shared their own challenges and solutions when working with their adolescent clients. Because this study was focused on their role linking youth with external, or community services, such information is not presented here. Research Question 1: Differential mental health, legal and employment needs Some providers were able to identify differences in mental health needs by status . It should be noted that the need itself was not qualitatively different; rather the degree of need experienced by you th varied based on legal and employment needs. Thus, this study did not capture differences in the types of mental health services that youth with different status needed, as the first research question was designed to assess. It did capture differences in the amount of services needed. Generally, youth all had traumatic backgrounds that contributed to pre - migration mental health concerns, but youth currently proceeding through the immigration petition process without permanent resident status yet ( i.e., SI JS and t - visa cases) were perceived as having more post - migration mental health concerns. That is, therapists observed youth developed anxiety and similar mental health concerns due to the context of uncertainty they were in with their legal status . One of the therapists described the anxiety seen in youth: 52 Well one thing for sure is that they all have anxiety around their status, that is for sure. And not, they don't receive a s tatus, like for instance at the [group home for youth not placed in refugee foster care] , if they don't receive their status by their 18th bi rthday then they can no longer stay there. Moreover, therapists were aware that youth were experiencing anxiety, and sometimes depression that was temporally limited, and had developed during their migration journey and/or during the legal immigration proc ess. One therapist commented that because the context is so important to the behaviors and attitudes he observes, he tries to never diagnose youth with any mental health disorder because of the long term consequences of disorder labeling. Similar to previo us literature, youth developed anxiety and sometimes late - onset depression waiting to hear about their residency status in lengthy cases , because it affect ed their safety and security in the community (Smid et al., 2011) . Thus, some staff linked greater me ntal health service needs to non - URM youth, or those with ongoing legal cases. Legal needs varied greatly by status One of the predominant themes throughout the interviews was the inadequacy of assigning youth one status category. Individual youth can qu alify for multiple forms of relief, forms of immigration relief at once. In these cases, youth typically end up receiving wh ichever form of relief is approve d the fastest. This often made it hard for staff to answer the first research question about differential needs. For example, a caseworker responded to the question of different needs by status : 53 Well, I don't know that you can necessarily relate that to s tatus either because someone who is a victim of trafficking could also be eligible for SIJ and get that Caseworkers did agree about ranking the degree of legal need by status. They viewed t - visa cases as needing the greatest legal assistance, SIJ cases needing the second greatest assistance, and URM needing the least. No one was familiar with the asylee needs, so they generally placed them at the end with URM. Explaining the differences in legal need, one caseworker said, starting with t - visa: Yeah. So they have to work harder to find the details and justify their actions. And I feel they have to go to court every 6 months. Interviewer: Ok, is that more often than other kids? I think it goes for a long er period . Because it takes longer for a t - visa case to be approved. For SIJ kids, once they get SIJ status, they don't need to go to court anymore. If they get the letter saying they can get SIJ status, then that's when their immigration court ends. So t hey don't need to go to that anymore. They might still be working on the application for a green card, interview for a green card, biometrics, fingerprinting, all that will still be there. But I feel like the t - visa is, the legal team has to work to get th e details and their story built to justify the t - visa URM , I don't think they really need legal services because they come with their, they pretty much come with an employment card. And then they have to be here for a year with that card to apply for a g reen card. And once they get those services to apply for a green card, that's it. The data on legal needs reflects the findings of earlier studies on legal ad vocacy; that the process takes a long time and that legal representation is important (Drevlow & S iman, 2012; 54 Cuervo & Ogunyoku, 2012 ). Due to a strong relationship between the agency and the local clinic. Although all staff considered this sufficient, fru stration in waiting for case updates and progress was a paramount concern. (e.g., independent living staff or therapists) had heard concern voiced from youth that they were unsure what the status of their case was and what was happening. Independent living staff reported that learning to read and the ability to access certain reading materials was often directly related to a desire to follow immigration policy within the U.S., and international issues within their home countries. This close relationship and simultaneous frustration regarding case updates suggest ed that the case managers may leave all legal matters to the law clinic, and are themselves unsure about This created an interesting paradox, because the staff all saw legal concerns as being important to the youth, and variations in the legal needs by status, but were generally unable to identify exactly what the needed services were. One possible explanatio n for matters. This could be due to legal confidentiality, but also suggests a communication gap between the law clinic, caseworkers, and youth about basic u pdates like upcoming hearings and required steps in a case. A ll of the staff desired legal t ransparency and clarity on behalf of the youth. Staff across roles in the agency noticed this was important to youth. Caseworkers were more aware of what is involve d with each type of status, but were not the only ones who interacted with concerned youth. Mental health staff especially saw this as intimately linked to some of the anxiety and de pression they saw in the youth: 55 I think one of the biggest needs for them is transparency and clarity. Understanding what the process is, where they stand with that, adequate communication between them and their legal providers. That just doesn't happen. I mean, there are so many times I will have a kid come in session after se ssion after session, stressed out because either they have status and they don't know what they have to continue to do, to maybe get their green card. Or they don't have status yet and they're worried about , "Am I gonna get status? Am I gonna get deported? What's gonna happen to me right now?" And they don't have the answers to those questions because for whatever reason, there's not an appropriate level of communication between their lawyer, or the team of people that are providing that legal service to th em, and them. Requirements for employment differentially affect youth with SIJS , who prioritize employment The other context area in which differences were noted by status was employment. Perreira and Smith (2007) discuss ed the importance of economic opportunities for refugee groups in facilitating successful adaptation in the U.S. Employment is also a necessary precursor to the more important goal of sending remittances to family members . This study found that employment policies and procedu res disproportionately affected youth with SIJS. One caseworker relayed : They can work, they can do all the things that require an ID. SIJ kids usually don't come with any ID and they can't get any ID until something is approved and they get an official document from USCIS. Like an employment card or a green card. Youth in the process of pursuing SIJS do not have any of the employment authorization belonging to youth who already have URM status. Staff reported that youth get extremely 56 they know of a place they can attain employment without all of the necessary documen tation. The second emergent theme in employment differences was that these youth were much more likely to prioritize employment (above education) because of the need to send remittances to their home countries, typically in Central America. To staff, thi s was seen as the biggest issue youth were facing. Previous literature has shown that even among children and adolescents, e mployment is often cited as a motivation for migration (Luster et al., 2010; Mortland & Egan, 1987; Cuervo & Ogunyoku, 2012). This t rend led to the increased likelihood that these youth According to a caseworker: Most of them are frustrated if they don't have work authorization yet, they can't [work] . Some have taken under - the - table jobs to ge t the money they want. Many of them want to send money home so it becomes pretty big. They will work as much as they possibly can and they will send almost everything home, and keep very little for themselves. S ome s taff empathized with youth, which potent ially put them in an uncomfortable position . According to another staff member: It's hard to explain why it's not ok. It's hard to explain why it's not always seen as a positive. And sometimes for those kids where that's the only thing they can make some extra money, it's hard for us to want to explain it and discourage it Which puts us in a really interesting position, I think. 'Cause we don't want to encourage anybody to do something that's not legal. Overall, staff acknowledged that there was a discrepancy between the degree to which they and the youth prioritized employment. Previous research with former URM found that measures of self - reported success included being able to meet their basic needs, having autonomy and 57 independence, and giving ba ck financially to their communities of origin ( Lee , 2012). The current study supports the importance of financial resources to URM and youth pursuing related statuses. In summary, this research question yielded differences in need by status in the context areas of mental health, legal, and employment (see Table 4 ). In the area of mental health, staff observed that the status process itself can cause anxiety and depression, and create mental health concerns that are temporally and contextually limited. In t he area of legal needs, staff clarified that youth can qualify for multiple forms of relief, which made it difficult to respond to many of the interview questions. However, youth pursuing a t - visa required the most legal assistance, youth pursuing SIJS req uired the second most assistance, and URM and asylum seekers required the least. It was important to all staff that youth receive more clarity about the legal process, particularly SIJS. In the area of employment, requirements for employment differentially affect youth with SIJS . Paired with employment being a priority for youth seeking SIJS, this often led to them seeking illegal alternatives. 58 Table 4 Inductively D eveloped T hemes for D ifferences in N eed by C ontext A rea Context area Theme Brief desc ription Mental health Status process itself can cause anxiety, depression Youth often develop transient, contextual mental health issues because of the immigration process. Legal Individual youth can qualify for multiple forms of Youth may have experienced multiple forms of hardship such that the status they receive does not mean they necessarily have different experiences. Legal needs different by status mostly in amount of need. Ranked most to least: T - visa, SIJS, URM & asylee T - visa process requires more documentation than other status processes , because they simultaneously participate in a criminal and immigration case . SIJS requires ongoing court hearings to prove that he has been abandoned or abused and has no safe place to return to in his home country. URM need only to apply for a green card. They do not have to follow up in court regularly. Most staff did not know of any youth with asylee status, and no one c ould name any specific needs they had beyond regular case managem ent. Youth need more transparency and clarity in their legal process All youth need more explanations and assistance at each step to understand their cases. Even youth with 'safe' URM status are concerned. SIJ legal process is somewhat clear to caseworkers, but not to youth or other staff. This code applied when staff talked about what is involved in SIJ legal needs specifically. Employment Requirements for employment dif ferentially affect youth with SIJS SIJ youth take longer to get employment authorization because they don't have ID and other paperwork . Employment is the main priority/goal, causing some youth to seek illegal alternatives. Many staff reported that employment is the main goal of their clients, particularly those from Central America (SIJS) , as they feel immense pressure to send money to their families. Depending on role, many staff see this need dominating youth focus and causing anxiety Alternative s to legal employment include both illegal alternatives (working under the table) and non - paid alternatives like volunteering and work around the neighborhood. 59 Research Question 2: Status is not generally a referral consideration Generally, status was not a consideration when staff thought about external referrals throughout the community. They provided three main explanations for why this was irrelevant when they were considering referrals . First, t herapists and independent living staff mainly reported never considering status when thinking about which services to refer youth. Youth without employment status were an exception. I ndependent living staff looked to connect them with more volunteer opportunities than paid employment. Se cond, status was only a immigrant status more broadly , and generally avoided making referrals to community services with which they were unfamiliar. Third , only caseworkers re ported status as a consideration, and only in the context of healthcare providers , which was not a context area of focus in this study . Recently, the agency had to shift billing practices, as youth with SIJS were no longer eligible for Medicaid or other he alth insurance. Therefore, youth could only see a limited number of providers locally who would agree to be reimbursed by the Office of Refugee Resettlement later , or free clinics that the youth disliked. While not a focus of the research questions, t his w as currently the largest referral issue caseworkers were dealing with and they were very upset that these youth could no longer receive badly needed healthcare without a cumbersome reimbursement process from the Office of Refugee Resettlement . Additionally , SIJS meant that youth were ineligible for all Department of Human Services offerings for five years, including childcare and food stamps . Although staff did not mention status driving considerations in any of the four main areas of this study, they unexp ectedly reported status as an important consideration in healthcare access. Furthermore, findings suggest that while the challenges of not having full resident status are somewhat known 60 ideology, such that they assume that community service providers do not consider status when interacting with their clients and are thus ignorant to the implications of not having full resident status. Research Question 3: Staff perception of external community services mainly unrelated to status The third research question explored the views staff held regarding external services provided from community providers outside of the agency. The only context area in which staff considered services and status to be rel ated we re mental health services. Because their clients were not American and were experiencing types of trauma with which many American therapists may be unfamiliar, therapists were unsure about the quality of care they could expect from outside providers . Mainly therapists shared a concern for the quality of services available in the community to address the trauma and background of the youth. One therapist described this concern: Yeah, if they're not familiar with the kids' stories or if this is - if th e story is something new like, if you've been dealing with nothing but American kids forever and all of a sudden you have someone who's telling you about the horrors of coming from Guatemala through Mexico to Nevada, just to get arrested - you might not be equipped to handle that So yeah, I think there's some worry about their ability to understand what it's like, well maybe not what it's like but understand the needs of our kids with status. Or at least be able to abstract it. Or to listen enough an d gather enough information to be able to do something with it. None of the staff interviewed for this study generally tried to explain to community providers what the differences in status mean. When probed about whether 61 that would improve service delivery, most of them felt it would not matter. One caseworker said simply, Although such conversations have the potential to transform a number of opportunities for youth, the staff seem to feel ill - equipped to successfully facilitate those conversations in the course of their daily work. Surprisingly , staff did not seem to perceive service provision by community providers to be affected by status in educational, legal, or even employment contexts . In fact, the independent living program coordinator is so confident in the quality of services from the community that he reported having positive relationships with volunteer and employee placements in many sectors around the mi d - Michigan area. This included banking, food services, universities, retailers, and others. One caseworker shared that a former client had been fired from her under - the - table job when her employer learned she was still in immigration proceedings, but this was an isolated case and not a pattern to be considered a theme. This overlaps with the earlier finding that staff generally do not discuss status differences with service providers in the community. It is possible that staff are unaware of differences in service provision that exist, because they are not actively pursuing conversations to ensure their clients are receiving the best quality of services regardless of status. This is not to say that staff were unable to identify challenges that youth faced when interacting with providers. Rather, g eneral challenges (e.g., communication barriers, employee skills development, grade placement in schools) were shared by staff, but were equally relevant to youth with all types of status. These types of challenges are common as immigrant and 62 refugee youth ( Derluyn & Broekaert, 2008 ; Gilchrist, 1983; Luster et al., 2010) and their new systems learn to adapt to each other. In summary, while there were no considerations of status as staff made referrals to community providers in the main context areas of this study, they reported that they do consider status when referring youth with SIJS to health providers. This has become a significant challenge for youth with SIJS, who had recently become ineligible for insurance. In the third research question, the only area in which staff perceived concern for how community services perceived status was mental health. Therapists were particularly concerned that community mental health providers would be unprepared to treat the ty pes of trauma youth have experienced. Research Question 4: Staff perceive status as indirectly linked to utilization of services The last research question addressed the extent to which youth took advantage of the referrals (formal and informal) that staff made to services and resources in the community. This included services as formal as psychiatric referrals, and as informal as encouraging them to pursue new educational or employment options. It specifically addressed the degree to which staff perce ived youth interest in said resources, and the accessibility of these resources for youth with various statuses. Staff had widely different perspectives on the ease and frequency with which youth engaged with services provided in the community, to which th ey had been referred. C aseworkers were best positioned to be able to identify context areas in which youth struggled to access services, because of their position as the gatekeeper, modeled in the ecological theoretical model. However, they were often bias services. Specifically, I detail below the ways in which staff were more critical of youth when the priorities of youth differed from the priorities caseworkers had for them , based on their idea 63 of wh Emergent themes in response to this research qu estion did not fit clearly into single context areas. Therefore, the themes are presented below as independent or overlapping of particular context areas. Staff imposed Ame age - appropriate priorities . Most staff mentioned wanting the youth to have developmentally appropriate prioritie s, resources, and services . When probed, developmentally appropriate choices were described by staff as those t hat would be appropriate for American teenagers to pursue. A large body of specific (see textbooks McGreal, 2013; Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2013 for reviews on developme ntal differences across cultures ) . Although staff worked with youth to meet their goals and find services that would meet their needs, they strongly encouraged the youth to pursue the goals that they saw as appropriate, and discouraged them from pursuing g oals that they saw as developmentally inappropriate. This most often was discussed within the contexts of education and employment. The federal URM program requires that youth be involved in education or employed. The education requirement can be fulfilled through traditional K - 12 enrollment, higher education, vocational training, or alternative settings. Employment can only be officially sanctioned once the youth receives employment authorization. This creates conflict for youth who migrated in their lat e teens with the intention to immediately seek employment. Previous research has shown that employment is a main factor in migration, even for young people ( Luster et al., 2010; Mortland & Egan, 1987; Cuervo & Ogunyoku, 2012 ). Staff made associations betwe en youth who have SIJS or t - visa status (usually from Central America) and the desire to prioritize work . As one staff member explained , 64 in education, That theme carried over as they shared how they view the priorities of youth. For example, one caseworker described a teen who was attending school while he waited for employment authorization: - if he - 'cause he came here to work. And he had to help out his family back home. That's what the point was of him coming. But for him not being able to work, he could focus on other things. Even i f he didn't want to, it made him more age appropriate, like go to school and play, that's what you're supposed to do, you don't have to work right now. - vities. The interviews were not an appropriate space for challenging these assumptions . Instead, I challenged their ideas of child development, such that there was space to normalize the priorities of both parties. Challenging the assumptions of staff arou nd developmental expectations and what might The perception of what was developmentally appropriate had two components. One, staff felt youth shou ld prioritize education because that is culturally normative in the U.S. for teenagers. Two , probing during the interview revealed that they were both frustrated with the a short - sighted future orientation represented. These probes typically revealed that staff would separate the cultural priorities from cognitive development. For example, one caseworker described: I feel that some of our Latin American populations aren't a lways the most motivated youth to complete high school. They really need an extra push to get through it. And - Interviewer: Where do you think that comes from? 65 Not entirely sure. Interviewer: Do you think they have, just different priorities, or - ? That could be it. I think there's a lot more pressure for our kids from Central America to send money to family. So a lot of them are very eager to work, and I think would prefer to do that over I think their education. And immediate employment is more gra tifying right now than putting in the work for your high school diploma to get a good job later, and that's a hard thing for them to understand at 18, 19 years old. Another staff member said: So at the end of the day, they're still very much a teenager or a young adult and so I think that plays a role too, you know, they're a little bit defiant, they're a little bit, you know, figuring out the world on their own and don't need somebody to tell them how it works. Not all staff used language that framed the issue of education or employment pursuit as developmental. URM youth have very high rates of traumatic experiences bo th before and during migration ( Fazel et al., 2012; Humer et al., 2009; Derluyn, Mels, & Broekaert, 2009). Indeed, many youth who arrive w ithout refugee status have endured traumatic migrations, which they understood to be potentially fatal (Jones & Podkul, 2012). Given the commitment to succeed as an immigrant that the journey requires, and the resilience inherent in all URM, some staff per spectives were rather perplexing. For example, when asked about their perception of how clients are making decisions on how to follow up with referrals, one caseworker said: Case by case. They, either they care or they don't care. I see a lot of our young men not really following through Because they think they know everything and they don't really need the help. But then you have some of those youth who are more sincere and serious about bettering their life from what they came from. 66 This reflection by a caseworker was not the only example of victim - blaming comments that recommendations by caseworkers. This attitude can be especially detrimental to engagement with staff tha t provide critical links to resources. Previous research in schools has shown a history of victim - blaming attitudes regarding why Latino immigrant students have poor academic outcomes and graduation rates, and an intentional disengagement from Latino s tudents when they perceive such attitudes (Katz, 1999). Moreover, this suggest ed a larger need for training social workers in particular anti - oppressive practices for work with immigrant and refugee clients (Martinez - Brawley & Zorita, 2011). Comments about what is appropriate to expect from URM youth, both develop mentally and culturally, may be suggestive of the attention paid by staff to the desires of youth to connect with employment resources in particular. Staff may be unknowingly transmitting a message to youth that their priorities are wrong, expectations. Supported youth more likely to pursue education . In slight contras t to the finding that youth are sometimes discouraged from pursuing employment when that is most important to them, this study also found that youth who have a strong network of support are more likely to pursue education and educational resources. In other words, youth who have more sup port from a variety of sources are more likely to take multiple perspectives into consideration when deciding to pursue services. This indirectly related to status, since youth with URM status already are most likely to be in contexts with established supp ort systems, because they typically are resettled directly into a foster care placement. Supportive co - ethnic friend networks seemed to be most closely associated with seeking 67 employment, according to staff. However, broader sources of support w ere associa ted with youth pursuing education. One staff member summed it up by saying: even with higher education, you know, if it seems like their friends are doing it, or it seems like that's kind of the expectation, they'll kind of go through it. I mean, I do thi nk that they listen to, to case staffing, you know, advice and stuff. 'Cause you know, I think sometimes that's where the ideas come from and so sometimes it's like, "Well my case manager suggested I do this, so..." If they have a good foster home relatio nship or host parent relationship, that definitely plays a role. We've seen youth come in and say, "Well I know I was gonna work a lot of hours but I talked about it with my host parent and we decided it's better for me to finish up school and work more la ter." Staff shared another example of a youth who moved during the school year and no longer had transportation to the high school. In a last - minute attempt to find a solution that would help the teen remain stable in his schooling, a staff member reached out to the school to see if they could help. Within a day, the teachers at the school had created a transportation schedule in which they volunteered for days of transport, including a backup schedule should any of them be unavailable. That staff member re flected on other ways in which she has seen cross - sector support from teachers : I think the youth who can get that connection to a teacher , to somebody at their school, it does make a big difference. I see some of 'em where they're pulling out a teacher's name when we're filling out an employment application for a reference and so when I ask them, they say, "Oh, they always tell me to do this, and I asked my teacher..." and so there's a few really awesome teachers out there who go beyond the school and are really good mentors and support systems for these youth. And I think that connection makes a big 68 difference for the youth in wanting to go to school and you know, it's kind of like a vote of faith in them and so I think it kind of increases their motivati on as well. The connections between finding supportive networks for engaging with the education system, and the internal motivation youth have for pursuing education were unexplored in this study. It may be that youth who arrive with employment priorities are already too disengaged from the education system to make meaningful connections there. Previous research with former URM success, among URM who prioritized education (Rana et al., 2011). Gaps in understanding service utilization by clients . An important theoretical component of this study is the ecological focus. Based on ecological model (1986; 1997) it was expected that staff in a resettlement program for unaccompanied minors would necessarily be very involved in connecting youth with community - based services, because they are in a key connecting role. Staff have privile ged knowledge of the American social service system and the needs and backgrounds of youth. In particular, the literature suggested there would be links between service systems and different types of resident status granted to minors. However, it became cl ear during data analysis that staff were particularly ill equipped to integrate their different types of knowledge when considering how their clients are navigating the world around them and those links were not always clearly stated . This provide d further support for the recommendation by Martinez - Brawley and Zorita (2011) for training social workers working with immigrants in specific anti - oppressive theoretical and practice orientations. The last research question addressed how well staff believe youth are able to (and actively) accessing services to which they refer. Interestingly, most staff believed that youth are 69 not having systemic challenges and that most access challenges are due to individual circumstances. Indeed, the code applied the most freq (needs, influence of status on referral, and community services) . It is important to note that during analysis some theme s emerged across staff perspectives that indicated there is a general consensus around challenges immigrant minors face. That was not the focus of this study, and findings of general challenges do not uniquely contribute to existing literature on immigrant challenges. Negative Case Analysis Although a formal negative case analysis was not conducted in this study, there was a minority perspective that should be noted. A small minority was very vocal in their systemic perspective. Most participants provided individualized, internal explanations for youth access outcomes, but this minority provided extremely thoughtful reflection on the roles of agency staff, responsibilities of the youth, and responsibilities of the community to provide the resources and serv ices that youth need to be meet their education, employment, legal, and mental health needs. For example, this perspective included an acknowledgement that youth who have been disillusioned with the legal system because of lengthy cases or because of unmet expectations that youth who experience what has been noted in empirical research as an exceptionally broken immigration system (Cuervo & Ogunyoku, 2012; Byrne & Miller, 2012) are less likely to access education, employment, and mental health services. This perspective hardly represents a theme in an analyt ical sense, but it speaks to the importance of staff being mindful of the ways youth feel disempowered by participating in 70 American systems, and the ways they may be able to intervene to support engagement by being more critical of the systemic barriers. T he current tendency found in this analysis to default to individual deficit explanations suggests that the services youth receive , designed to accelerate their integration into society , may be inadequate. Because this opposing perspective emerged after an alysis, the author can only speculate about what may explain this unique viewpoint. Staff with the individual deficit explanations had both longstanding expe rience with refugee foster care and were new to the field. This minority perspective, therefore, is minority perspective included staff who had relatively recently completed education, but that also did not differ from those who maintained an individual deficit explanation. Both genders were represented in both perspectives, although the minority perspective was white. Therefore, this difference that emerged in an informal negative case analysis is likely attributed to some personal characteristics developed outside of features i dentifiable by the author. Elaborating on those characteristics and experiences that allowed for a more systemic explanation may be useful in promoting that viewpoint among other agency staff. Summary This study aimed to identify how staff in a resettlem ent program for unaccompanied minors view the intersection of status (URM, SIJS, t - visa, and asylum seekers) and service access in the context areas of mental health, education, employment, and legal services. Most staff did not have experience or knowledg findings overwhelmingly suggest that status is not an important consideration to staff members working with URM, SIJS, and t - visa youth. Furthemore, staff often found it difficult to separate 71 the youth b multiple forms of immigration relief. Youth with different status had slightly different priorities, influencing their need for more education or employment services, a ccording to staff. Youth made it clear what they were interested in, and staff associated SIJS and t - visa with more employment needs and URM with more education needs. Staff all agreed that youth seeking t - visa status had the most legal needs in terms of q uantity and actual services needed, and that URM had the least legal need. Mental health was a unique area in that staff recognized all youth experienced trauma m ental health providers could offer. In those cases, need was not associated with status but therapists did express concern that they did not know if providers in the community were able to meet the needs of their clients. Specifically, they were concerned that community providers would not be equipped to handle the stories and types of trauma that SIJS and t - visa youth experienced. There was a general concern among all staff that the mental health services in the community were of high quality for their cli ents. Perhaps most illuminating in this area of research was the finding that staff felt youth had services in areas that were age - appropriate. Further probing led to the insight that staff often imposed their American id eal of whether prioritizing education or employment was age - appropriate, and thus encouraged or discouraged youth in those areas. This perspective has the potential to send messages to youth that discredit and devalue their cultural background. Most staff did not view the lack of service utilization a systemic issue, and many a system that does not value their position within it (Ryan, 1976) . 72 Discussion This stu dy aimed to explore the connection between immigration status and service access from the perspective of staff at a resettlement agency. Specifically, the connection between the different immigration statuses of youth in the federal Unaccompanied Refugee M inor (URM) program (youth with t - visas, youth with SIJS, asylum seekers, and youth with traditional refugee status) and services in the context areas of mental health, education, employment, and legal assistance. I interviewed all program staff who worked directly with youth in their URM program, including caseworkers, therapists, and independent living staff. The study was divided into four subquestions: 1. How do program staff perceive differential service needs among URM, asylee, SIJS, T - visa youth in the areas of mental health, education, legal assistance, and employment? 2. How does program staff perceive type of federal immigration status influencing referral to community - level services in mental health, education, legal assistance, and employment? 3. How does program staff perceive mental health, education, legal assistance, and employment service provision in their community? 4. How does program staff perceive the utilization of their mental health, education, legal assistance, and employment referrals by client s? Previous literature has shown that mental health concerns are more prevalent among unaccompanied refugee youth than accompanied refugee youth and refugee adults; who have more mental health problems than the general population (Entholt & Yule, 2006). Moreover, research has shown that youth develop additional mental health concerns during the post - migration detention and immigration process (Lustig et al., 2004). Qualitative research with 73 URM youth has suggested that strong supportive adul ts and an internal drive to succeed affects educational success (Luster et al., 2011; Rana et al., 2010). My own previous collaboration with the local URM agency with which this study was conducted suggested that employment access would be variable for you th based on status, although an important factor to immigrant youth as suggested by previous research ( Luster et al., 2010; Mortland & Egan, 1987; Cuervo & Ogunyoku, 2012). Finally, recent research has begun to explore the importance of legal assistance fo r unaccompanied youth seeking residence (Cuervo & Ogunyoku, 2012; Byrne & Miller, 2012). In many ways, this study reflects service delivery systems for American youth in the way they have traditionally been delivered. Community psychologists have searched for ways to combat victim blaming, deficit - oriented service delivery in human social services for decades (Mitchell et al., 1985). These traditional models still remain predominant , grounded in a deficit - oriented medical model, with the belief that staff as professionals are most qualified to both - Fishman et al., 1999) . This is unfortunately true even as researchers demonstrate empirical support for strengths - based, ecological interv entions that highlight the nuanced effects of context on child and family well - being. The service delivery system for refuge and immigrant youth is beginning to become the subject of such research (Hopkins & Hill, 2006), and emerging research suggests that it has a long way to go in breaking from the traditional service delivery mold. Moreover, the current context of youth immigration and unaccompanied child refugees is such that the current service delivery system is, in a sense, playing catch - up with its elf. Unaccompanied child immigration is happening at an increasing and unprecdented rate, particularly into the United States (Cuervo & Ogunyoku, 2012; Byrne & Miller, 2012). As global 74 migration networks evolve, public attention is shifted to the responsibilities, obligations, and care systems in place for these youth once they arrive in a destination or asylum country. The Office of Refugee Resettlement was only charged with caring for these unaccompanied children in volution in addressing their claims for immigration relief is constantly evolving (Cuervo & Ogunyoku, 2012). The refugee foster care system in place today was not designed to meet the needs of the current population entering its care, evidenced by the deve lopment of Special Immigrant Juvenile Status and shifts in qualifications for children seeking asylum within the past ten years. Individual research question findings outlined below suggest that staff within these service delivery systems have yet to devel op a schema for interpreting the difference in lived experiences of youth with different immigration statuses. Therefore, while a comprehensive literature review of youth seeking immigration relief suggests differences in needs and experiences accessing se rvices, staff have been trained in a program created for youth with designated refugee status. Refugee status itself arguably confers a less marginalized place in American society than that of undocumented immigrants. The findings below also suggest that d espite a lack of attention to status differences, this study adds valuable insight to the role of the service delivery system itself in meeting the needs of youth adjusting to new communities. Study findings suggest that beyond youth facing status - related challenges, the resettlement systems designed to ameliorate those challenges may be contributing to those challenges. Differences in need by status The staff interviewed found it difficult to identify differences in need by status, due to the whose experiences qualified them for multiple statuses. In these cases, staff reported that youth 75 received the status that was approved the fastest, so experiences of y outh often were not clearly differentiated by status. For example, youth who had SIJS were sometimes also victims of trafficking and thus their experiences could not be limited to that of youth with SIJS. The most prominent finding from this study regard ing differences in legal needs was that staff easily ranked youth by status in terms of their degree of legal need. Staff agreed that youth seeking t - visa relief needed the most legal assistance, since they have an immigration and a criminal case and they tend to go on for longer than other immigration cases. Youth with SIJS needed the second most assistance, because of a lack of understanding about the process and its ongoing, uncertain nature. URM needed the least assistance because they entered the progr am with resident status, and staff were unsure about the needs of asylum seekers. Due to the convoluted immigration system, all staff noted that youth needed more clarity and transparency throughout the process, regardless of status. A related finding wa s that youth who were going through the immigration process without certain status did appear to have more mental health needs, according to staff. Therefore, they associated increased mental health needs for youth with or seeking SIJS and t - visas. Particu larly, they noted that youth seemed to exhibit more anxiety when they were experiencing stress related to their status , which is supported by previous research ( Bean, Eurelings - Bontekoe & Spinhoven, 2007) . The last main finding regarding differences in need by status was in the area of employment. Youth with SIJS were particularly disenfranchised by a lack of available employment because of a lack of documentation for employment authorization. Employment was perceived to be a priority for youth with thi s status, so this was particularly discouraging to them and staff reported that youth often sought alternatives like undocumented employment. 76 Status influencing community referrals, and quality of available community services In most context areas, staff reported that status of their clients was not a factor in making referrals to community (outside of the agency) referrals, and that they had no concerns about the quality of services in the community for their clients of different status. The main excepti on was in the area of mental health. Therapists were the main staff members concerned that when they faced issues with which they were unqualified to assist (e.g., any psychiatric treatment, traumatic brain injuries, etc.), they had to refer to external co mmunity providers and were unsure if those professionals would have the experience and skills to handle the types of trauma and backgrounds that their clients shared. This did not differ by status, but was the only area in which staff expressed any concer n about the way the youth would be treated for not having full citizenship. This was very concerning, since a few months prior to these interviews, the city American mi grant youth, which was met with large protests and at least one arrest ( VanHulle, 2014 and treatment of their clients. This gap resembles the colorblind ideology as defined by Neville - blind racial attitudes refers to the belief that race should not and on immigration status, but more importan tly, reluctant to acknowledge ways in which outsiders may perceive these differences in status. Utilization of community - level referrals by URM youth have to comm unity providers in the areas of mental health, education, employment, and legal assistance. Two staff members in two different roles were able to identify the importance of 77 providing extra assistance to help youth access providers in the community, but the most common discourse surrounding this issue was one of individual deficit and victim blaming. Staff most frequently reported that youth did not have challenges in the community, which suggests the colorblind ideology proposed earlier. When probed, staff framed unsuccessful community academic achievement, regardless of the employment motivations of youth. Previous research with immigrant and refugee youth suggests that cultural values like work and financial family support are protective factors against negative outcomes ( Carlson, Cacciatore, & Klimek, 2012; Luster e t al., 2009 ). Therefore, it is particularly problematic that some staff disregarded the economic pursuits of youth as inappropriate and discouraged them from focusing on culturally relevant goals. Study Limitations This study was exploratory and sampled a n entire population of eligible participants. Nonetheless, it is still limited in that the study was restricted to one URM program in one geographic area. This eliminated the trustworthiness standard of triangulation, which requires multiple sites or multi ple types of perspectives (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This organization was unique in its refugee minor programming simply due to the prevalence of programs, but it was uniquely situated in the community , due to capacity building efforts. These efforts increas e d the likelihood that findings from this study will be utilized by a variety of stakeholders. However, findings we re limited because the agency selected is the only one in the area, and therefore needs to meet all of the needs of all of the URM in the mid - Michigan area. Priorities may impede the implementation of findings in any area. 78 Another weakness of this study was that it did not include the perspective of youth. This was a deliberate choice in order to develop a preliminary view of the context of cli ent/caseworker interactions. It would have been less appropriate to begin with the youth, who may not understand the roles of the staff and their full universe of service options in the community. It may have been very challenging for them to conceptualize whether or not they are receiving maximum benefit from referrals without knowing the range of referral possibilities. The lack of a full member check process also limit ed the extent to which these findings can be interpreted. Ideally, the participants would be able to provide feedback on my analysis and collaboratively work through any disagreements. This is planned for the future, but has not occurred yet. Additionally, it is not expected that the member checking process will result in consensus over t he conclusions of the study, which is not necessarily required (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). The conclusions of the study are somewhat unflattering to the participants, in that some themes contain victim blaming sentiments, and participants overall w ere unable to identify ways in which they were unable to meet the needs of their clients, even with the support of other community resources. Full member checking would also add depth to the context of the participants in this study. To minimize demand on about them personally. The staff members who spoke most freely and openly about their perce ptions of clients needs and challenges accessing referral services were those that had a strong rapport with the author (who conducted interviews) and had prior experience working with the author on r esearch within the agency. Towards the end of the interv iew, one interviewee discussed the ways in which he tries to frame discussions around refugee and immigrant youth in 79 his social circles outside of work, but no other participants discussed any overlap between their work with refugee and immigrant youth and their pursuit of justice for these youth outside of work. It is currently unknown to what extent these participants have reflected on their roles within the system of oppression that the youth encounter daily and whether they are involved with any immigra nt justice or advocacy outside of work. Child welfare workers in private agencies have an average turnover rate of 40 percent (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2003). Thus, one potential explanation is that staff may separate their professional and personal interests in order to minimize burnout an d stress. Van Voorhis and Hostetter (2006) found that social worker empowerment and commitment to client empowerment both increas degree in social work, and that higher internal locus of control was associated with both aspects of empowerment. While education level was not explicitly addressed with the participants in this study, the author is aware that approximately half of the participants interviewed have an advanced degree. Attribution of empowerment to an internal locus of control is inherently in conflict with a systemic perspective that shifts blame from characteristics of youth seek ing services to the structure of the service system. These findings suggest that social work education in itself is insufficient for creating an environment that respectfully advocates for youth in the contexts in which they live. started, the program manager was very supportive and encouraging of resea rch within the program, and very interested in what could be learned from systematically exploring issues facing their clients. About a year after the first project was completed, this program manager 80 moved up in the agency and a new program manager, previ ously a caseworker, moved into that role. The new program manager is much less supportive of research within the program and much more reluctant to engage in discussions about how research could be used. However, as the findings outline, this shift has not affected staff uniformly and there remains disagreements about client experiences within the community. Aside from this intra - agency context, n o defining demographi c characteristics serve to uniquely contextualize this group of participants, with the exce ption of having worked in their positions for approximately five years or less. Respondents were of mixed racial identities, mixed age groups , and were male and female. Although there were reports from multiple staff about internal conflict related to thei r approaches to supporting youth in their work, there is no clear indication of contextual factors that explain a strong victim blaming tendency among the majority of the staff, but a more systemic perspective among the minority. Implications of this study The ecological theoretical perspective that framed this study was , for the most part, not present in the way staff conceptualized their work with unaccompanied youth. Youth face placed a large portion of responsibility for success and integration on individual youth attributes. The goal of this project was not to educate staff on the application of ecological thinking in their work, however it bolsters the need for community base d researchers to apply ecological thinking in their research designs and methods, so as not to miss what is already missing from community based work. This design only included one level of analysis, but further studies should consider the ways in which le vels of analysis at each ecological level would improve the knowledge gained and actions proposed in research with unaccompanied minors. Furthermore, the field of study 81 with unaccompanied minors would benefit from taking a more ecological perspective in th eir work with youth, so as to better understand the challenges youth face throughout the immigration process beyond their interpersonal interactions. Community psychology as a discipline was founded on the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration ( Maton et al., 2006). Maton also describes the extent to which the field has been slow to develop these interdisciplinary relationships, partly due to academic structures and relative isolation within disciplines. However, the ecological perspective was als o an important founding principle of the field, and the current study illustrates the need for interdisciplinary collaboration, in order to understand the context of ecological relationships between actors. In this study, it would have been more difficult to build rapport with participants and understand the terminology they use, if I had not entered with an understanding of the social work field. Moreover, it will be nearly impossible to effect changes within the systems and structures that work in these y Hopkins and Hill (2006) assessed the needs and experiences of unaccompanied asylum seeking children in Scotland. They interviewed children and service providers and found similar results regard ing the need to ensure providers have sufficient training in policies, services, and equitable and respectful treatment of youth. Their recommendations included an international collaboration with other countries working with unaccompanied minors to unders tand strategies and best practices being implemented globally. The context of unaccompanied minor assistance varies widely (several of the main conclusions of Hopkins and Hill are not applicable to children in the U.S.), but organizations seeking to improv e the lives of children traveling internationally should begin to form better relationships with each other to improve their own practices. 82 social settings that integrated different points of intervention including social processes (interactions), resources, and the organization or allocation of resources. It is clear from this study that the social processes that occur in the setting of this agency between the staff and UR M youth are directed by the staff and affect the resources that youth can access. Although improved training for staff regarding anti - oppressive theoretical frameworks (Martinez - Brawley & Zorita, 2011) may be useful in improving the daily interactions betw een staff and youth, it does not change the organization of resources within which they must operate. In other words, it is limited by not incorporating other systemic challenges that affect the services youth can access. The field of community psychology was also founded on the inextricability of research and action (Maton et al., 2006) and thus we as community based researchers should consider the ways in which this systems framework can help address the limitations of improved training. Specifically, act ion research should address the ways in which resource organization and specific Of particular interest is the potential for interactive effects between resource organization and social processes. Moreover, the evidence from this study suggests there is misalignment between the social processes that already occur in these settings, another area Tseng and Seideman encouraged exploration. Beginning to address the sys tems aspect inherent in the immigration process and finding ways to improve the process for youth at all levels of the ecological framework would be a very informative start to intervention with URM and community services. Lastly, the voice of youth is mi ssing from this study. Their voice did help frame the research questions and the context areas of focus, but the degree that their experiences with community services and their needs are aligned is unknown without their input. Although there 83 are many chall enges in working with unaccompanied minors in research (Hopkins, 2008), their perspective is invaluable as service systems are designed and redesigned to meet their needs and improve their quality of life. Raising critical consciousness in immigrant youth provides a fascinating opportunity for youth to be able to engage with systems thinking and work towar ds improving the systems within which they live, work, play, and learn. Summary Overall, staff shared good intentions and concern for the well - being of t he youth. Some victim blaming attitudes were apparent, but one quote sums up the desire to see youth become the successful adults they desire to be: team that's try ing to promote that kid from where they are to where they want to be. Or where we hope they will get to, you know that magic place where they're adults, employed with good jobs, and families, and they're happy and loved. 84 APPENDICES 85 Appendix A Recruitment of Participants - Statement [Introduction of myself]: My name is Katie, you probably remember me from the project I did last y State, but before I c ame here for school I worked in New Mexico with both refugee families, and in social services as a case manager. I have a lot of respect for the work you do here and I understand you all care deeply about your work and the clients you serve. [Introductio but am here to talk to you today about a new research study starting soon. Based on what you told me last year and what we learned during the collaborative data analysis, it was clear that there were concerns about services within the community for URM youth and how accessible they are . It seems like there are a number of factors involved in the process of URM youth accessing services in our community. Some of these issues were discussed last spring with both staff and youth. I talked to program management about these issues and we came up with some important research questions that we think will help us understand these different factors that both youth and staff have descr ibed . Mainly, we want to know how different types of immigration status affect service referral and access. When I say immigration status, I mean asylees, URM in the traditional sense, SIJS, and victims of trafficking. What we learn from staff will then in form the types of things we ask youth about their experiences with service access. [Recruitment]: All of you are involved with youth from many different backgrounds, so as refugee foster care staff , you have very unique perspectives on navigating differe nt services with different kids. I know you all have full work loads f the refugee foster care staff will be able to participate, 45 mi nutes. because we want the most informed picture of service delivery that we can get. I know you all have valuable insights, and I hope to hear them all. I contact me with questions or you to talk more. Thanks for listening to my spiel, you guys are the best! I have really enjoyed working with you so far and 86 Appendix B Informed Consent Dear Refugee Foster Care Staff Member , Please carefully review the following items of the informed consent prior to giving your consent to participate in the study. Purpose of Study: The purpose of this study is to understand how different types of URM immigration status (URM, asylee, T - visa, SIJS) affect resource access and provision in your community, specifically educational, mental health, employment, and legal re sources. Location: The study is being conducted at locations convenient to participants throughout their community. Procedures: Should you decide to participate, you will be asked to share your perspective regarding the needs of your clients, the servic es available to them, and how they are utilized. Completion of this interview should take approximately 30 minutes. I would like to record this interview with your permission and/or take notes so that I can use it for reference while proceeding with this study. If you do grant permission, you have the right to revoke recording permission and/or end the interview at any time. Eligibility: You must be at least 18 years of age and currently working at Lutheran Social Services of Michigan as a staff member fo r URM youth to participate in this study. Risks: There are no foreseeable risks to participation in this study. Please respond as honestly as possible. Remember, that you are free to skip any questions . Your participation is completely voluntary and you may withdraw from the study at any time. Benefits: Your participation will help us understand how immigration status influences service access in your community. It may also help clarify how service providers are coordinating information and resources. S haring your perspective may help you reflect on partnerships important to your clients or your work. You will be provided a gift card as compensation for your time. You will receive the gift card regardless of whether you answer all of the questions. Con fidentiality: This interview is confidential. Your responses will not be connected to your name or any other identifying information. You will be given a chance to review the transcript after the interview has been transcribed. Only the researcher will hav e access to your responses, and all data will be stored in a secure location in the psychology building at Michigan State University. The results of the study will be - identified format. Results will also be presented to your agency for their benefit, however you will be able to review and edit any results that inclu de quotations to protect confidentiality. No identifying information will be shared. Right to Refuse or Withdraw: Your participation is voluntary, and you may refuse to participate or withdraw at any time from the study. If you decide not to participate there will not be any negative consequences. Who to contact with questions: You have the right to ask questions about this study and to have those questions answered by the study investigator before, during or after the research. If you have any questions about the study, please contact Katie Clements in the Psychology Department at (505) 440 - 7818 or email vadnais3@msu.edu . You may also contact the MSU IRB at (517) 355 - 2180 or email irb @msu.edu . 87 Debriefing: Before, during and at the conclusion of the interview you will be able to ask any questions about the research study or the research process. Acceptance and Signature: Your signature below indicates that you have decided to participate voluntarily in this study and that you have read and understood the information provided above. You will be given a copy of this form to keep. ( Please check all that apply) [ ] I give permission for this interview to be recorded [ ] I give permission for the interviewer to take notes during this interview Signature of Participant Date Participant Name (Please Print) Signature of Researcher Date 88 Appendix C Table of Theory Figure 2 . Table o f theory delineating t he theoretical a nd conceptual components o f t he research questions a nd interview questions Theoretical/Conceptu al Framework Bronfenbrenner's ecological - systems theory of development: Microsystem Caseworker Peers School contacts Mesosystem Caseworker - Service Providers Caseworker - School Peers - Providers Exosystem LSSM policies Agency - Macrosystem Immigration law, policies (federal) Economy - funding for services Research Questions How do caseworkers perceive differential service needs among URM, asylee, SIJS, T - visa youth? How does type of federal immigration status influence caseworker referral to community - level services? How do caseworkers perceive service provision in their community? How do caseworkers perceive the utilization of their referrals by clients? Interview Questions How you think the needs of URM, asylee, SIJS, and T - visa clients are the same or different? What about educational needs? Mental health? Employment? Legal services? Do you think the different types of status require different types of services in the community? How do you refer clients with different status? What about the different areas discussed above? Do you think services provided in [above areas] vary based on immigration status? If so, how? Do you think your clients fully take advantage of these referrals? Why? Why not? Barriers? Challenges? Successes? 89 Table 5 Relationshi p between Research Questions a nd Interview Ques tions Questions to Answer what we want to know Questions to Ask how we can find out General Specific To the participants : Needs What are the differences in needs among URM, SIJS, T - visa, asylees? 1. How do you think the needs of URM, SIJS, T - visa, and asylee youth are the same? 2. How are they different? 3. What are their educational needs? - Are these status - specific needs? Can you talk more about that? 4. Mental health needs? - What about for the different types of status? 5. Legal needs? - How does this differ across different status? 6. E mployment needs? - How are these similar or different for different status? Services To what kinds of services do you refer clients? 1. To what degree do you think youth with different status need different types of services from the community? 2. What considerations do you make when deciding how to refer clients with these statuses? 3. How do these considerations differ among educational, mental health, legal, and employment services? 4. How do you think services vary based on status, if at all? 5. Do you thin k the services available can sufficiently meet the unique needs of youth with these different types of status? 90 Access What are the reasons these services are not always utilized effectively? 1. What has been your experience with how other service providers understand the differences in status? 2. After you refer clients to different services in these areas, how easy do you think it is for them to become involved in services? 3. What are some of the challenges they face? What are some challe nges service providers face? 4. What is your perception of how they make decisions on how to pursue services in these areas or to continue pursuing them? 5. What do you think is the biggest reason services in these areas are not always effective? 91 Appendix D Interview Guide PARTICIPANT PSEUDONYM: __________ Hi interested in understanding more about the relationship between federal immigration status and local community services for your clients. and your clients we ca n skip them and you can spend more time telling me what you think is important. The interview should take about 30 - 45 minutes. As a token of my appreciation and value for your time, you will be given a gift card. The gift card is not dependent on the cont ent of your answers, and you will receive it regardless of whether you answer any or all of the questions. Your responses are confidential and anonymous and will be grouped with other people. Your participation is voluntary and you are free to end the interview or skip any questions. Here is a sheet documenting your consent to participate today. I will go ove r the main points with you so you understand exactly how your information will be used. ( GO OVER INFORMED CONSENT , GIVE PARTICIPANT GIFT CARD.) I would like to record this interview so that I can make sure that I am understanding and writing down your res ponses correctly. I will not record this interview without your permission. If you allow me to record the interview, you may change your mind at any time. Do you have any questions? YES/NO Are you ready to start? YES/NO 92 Section A: NEEDS First, Interview Questions Notes 1. How do you think the needs of URM, SIJS, T - visa, and asylee youth are the same? 2. How are they different? 3. What are their educational needs? 4. What mental health needs do they have? 5. What kinds of legal needs do they have? 6. What about their employment needs? 93 Section B: SERVICES those needs in our community. Part of your job includes referring clients to other services outside of this agency that will meet their needs. Interview Questions Notes 1. To what d egree do you think youth with different status need different types of services from the community? 2. What considerations do you make when deciding how to refer clients with these statuses? 3. How do these considerations differ among educational, mental health, legal, and employment services? 4. How do you think services from the community vary based on status, if at all? 94 Section C: ACCESS Ok. Thank you for sharing so much of your experiences! Referral is only half the battle. After you refer clients, there is still a process of accessing those services that all three like. Interview Questions Notes 1. What has been your experience with how other service providers understand the differences in status? 2. After you refer clients to services been talking about, how easy do you think it is for them to become involved with those services? 3. What are some of the challenges they face? What are some challenges providers face? 4. What is your perception of how clients make decisions on how to pursue services in these areas, or continue pursuing them? 5. What do you think is the biggest reason services in these areas are not always effective? 95 CLOSING Thank you for sharing so much of your experiences with me. The work you do is so I should have asked to understand this topic better? Is there anything else you want to add? review it. You have my contact information on my card. How should I contact you? Thanks again! 96 Appendix E Example C oding T able Table 6 Inductively Developed Themes Quotation Key terms/lower order codes Thematic category hard time focusing on school and they often have to miss class for legal hearings and one of the few URM therapists in the area who understand the kinds of trauma Focusing on school, legal and education conflict, unresolved immigration status Limited local therapists , therapist lack understanding, trafficking victims (T - visa), trauma , resources by immigration status Education challenges, Impact of unresolved status Mental health challenges, Differential resources by status 97 Appendix F Application of Braun & M ethod of T hematic A nalysis Table 7 Phases of Thematic Analysis Phase Description of the process Application in current study 1. Familiarizing yourself with your data Transcribing data (if necessary), reading and rereading the data, noting down initial ideas. Transcribed data, R eread interviews, C reated MEMOs of initial ideas. Attached MEMOs to transcript in dedoose, and separately in Word files 2. Generating initial codes Coding interesting features of the data in a systematic fashion across the entire data set, collating data relevant to each code. In dedoose, coded inductively each interview Started with a mixture of broad and specific codes Edited coding structure as I went 3. Searching for themes Collating codes into potential themes, gathering all data relevant to each potential theme. Termed those themes Grouped themes under relevant research questions 4. Reviewing themes Checking in the themes work in relation to the coded extracts (Level 1) and the entire da ta set (Level 2), analysis. Reviewed entire set of data in each code (Level 1) Re - coded as necessary into more descriptive and accurate codes Re - themed new codes into themes that better described the data set (Level 2) actual visual map in Braun & Clarke because I do not like it (confusing) 5. Defining and naming themes Ongoing analysis to refine the specifics of each theme, and the overall story the analysis tells; generating clear defin itions and names for each theme. Created a table for each research question that included themes and sub - themes, and description Generated brief descriptions (attached to codes and themes in dedoose) that described the theme and sub - themes as group Renamed theme if necessary to describe contents 6. Producing the report The final opportunity for analysis. Selection of vivid, compelling extract examples, final analysis of selected extracts, relating back of the analysis to the research question and liter ature, producing a scholarly report of the analysis. Selected compelling excerpts Organized results by research question Drafted results section of findings Produced scholarly thesis report of analysis 98 Appendix G T rustworthiness C riteria Table 8 Criteria for Trustworthiness Criteria Sub - criteria Ways I addressed this criterion in the URM study: Credibility - the level of confidence findings Prolonged Engagement Persistent Observation Triangulation Peer debriefing Negative case analysis Referential adequacy Member - checking Prolonged engagement I spent 2 years in the setting to understand the culture and context of the agency before conducting this study. The research questions were de veloped based on ongoing conversations with various people in the agency and specific program, and I interviewed everyone across different aspects of service provision. o I blended in enough for some people that they were able to tell me things that were politically unsavory within the agency or controversial. o Interview conversations and approach indicated a level of context appreciation that interviewees related to o Co - con struction of meaning was not made with participants. The interview transcripts were sent out to everyone afterwards, but only one participant responded. They are in demanding jobs and I do not expect them to want to participate to that degree Persistent ob servation (harder to define and identify in practice). Purpose is providing complementary conversations with people in different programmatic areas, I was able to learn about different contextual factors that influence their perception of the phenomena. Triangulation - this was not possible in this study due to targeted inclusion of only one site and one method (interviews) Peer debriefing talked through challenging analytical moments with colleague, debr iefed analysis with committee member (Dr. Campbell) Negative case analysis - data does contain examples across all participants. Transcripts were assigned characteristics based on role, gender, and whether or not a relationship existed with the interviewer before the study to gauge whether there was consistency in negative cases (not focus of this paper). Referential adequacy not included in this study Member checking At time of writing, participants h ad checked and edited transcripts but not findings. 99 Transferability - showing that the findings have applicability in other contexts Thick description Thick description related to different ecological levels (Bronfenbrenner) show how the findings can be applicable across contexts Dependability showing that the findings are consistent and could be repeated Sub - criteria: Inquiry audit People across roles were consistent in the type of information they provided and the perspectives th at appear to be influencing access for youth. This suggests that the findings would consistent and could be repeated with the inclusion of similar role perspectives. Confirmability a degree of neutrality or the extent to which the findings of a study ar e shaped by the respondents and not researcher bias, motivation, or interest Sub - criteria: Confirmability audit Audit trail Triangulation Reflexivity Confirmability audit see audit trail Audit trail maintained audit trail documenting coding and analysis decisions throughout study. The audit trail begins prior to the first interview and runs throughout each stage of the process. Reflexivity detailed reflexivity conducted before and throughout research process (outlined in this paper) 100 R EFERENCES 101 REFERENCES American Evaluation Association, Ethics Committee (2004). Guiding Principles for Evaluators. Retrieved from http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=51 Anker, D. E., & Posner, M. H. (1981). Forty year crisis: A legislative history of the Refugee Act of 1980, The San Diego Law Review , 19 , 9 - 90. Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2003). The Unsolved Challenge of System Reform: The Condition of the Frontline Human Services Workforce. Baltimore: MD. Re trieved from http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf - theUunsolvedChallengeSystemReform - 2003.pdf Arnett, J. J. (1998). Learning to stand alone: The contemporary American transition to adulthood in cultural and historical context. Human Development, 41 , 295 - 315. Bates, L., Baird, D., Johnson, D.J., Lee, R.E., Luster, T. & Rehagan, C. (2005). Sudanese refugee Chil d Welfare, 84 (5), 631 - 648. Batista, E., Wiese, P., & Burhorst, I. (2007). The mental health of asylum - seeking and refugee children and adolescents attending a clinic in the Netherlands. Transcultural Psychiatry, 44 (4), 596 - 613. Baxter, L. (1991). Conten t analysis. In B. M. Montgomery & S. Duck (Eds.), Studying interpersonal interaction (pp. 239 - 254). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Bean, T., Eurelings - Bontekoe, E., Spinhoven, P. (2006). Unaccompanied Refugee Minors; a challenging group to teach. The I nternational Journal on School Disaffection, 4 (1), 22 - 26. Bean, T., Eurelings - Bontekoe, E., Mooijaart, A., Spinhoven, P. (2006). Factors associated with mental health service need and utilization among Unaccompanied Refugee Adolescents. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 33, 342 - 355. Bean, T., Eurelings - Bontekoe, E., & Spinhoven, P. (2007). Course and predictors of mental health of unaccompanied refugee minors in the Netherlands: One year foll ow up. Social Science and Medicine, 64, 1204 - 1215. Bean, T., Derluyn, I., Eurelings - Bontekoe, E., Broekaert, E., Spinhoven, P. (2007a). Validation of the multiple language versions of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist - 37 for refugee adolescents. Adolescence, 42 (165), 51 - 71. 102 Bean, T., Mooijart, A., Eurelings - Bontekoe, E., Spinhoven, P. (2007b). Validation of the Journal of Psychoeducational Asssessment, 25 (1), 53 - 68. Bernard, H. R. (2011). Re search methods in anthropology (5 th ed). Plymouth: United Kingdom: AltaMira Press. Blumer (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19 (1), 3 - 10. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77 - 101. Bowen (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5 (3), 12 - 23. Byrne, O. & Miller, E. (2012). The Flow of Unaccompanied Children through the immigrati on system: A resource for practitioners, policy makers, and researchers. New York: Vera Institute of Justice. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental psychology , 22 (6), 723 . Bronfenbrenner, U. (1997). Ecological models of human development. Readings on the development of children , 37 - 43. Calderon, O., Giffords, E. D., & Malekoff, A. (2012). Understanding the concerns and needs of immigrant youth in Nassau County New York. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 93 (3), 226 - 232. Campbell, R., Fehler - (2015). The Detroit Sexual Assault Kit (SAK) Action Research Project (ARP), Final Report. Retrieved from National Institute of Justice website: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248680.pd f Congressional Research Service. (2007, March). Alien children: Policies and issues. (Order code RL33896). Washington DC: Haddal, C. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3 rd ed.): Techniques and procedures for developing gr ounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Cuervo, S., & Ogunyoku, T. (2012). The changing face of the Unaccompanied Alien Child: A portrait of foreign - born children in federal foster care and how to best meet their needs (USCCB report). Retrieved from USCCB website: http://www.usccb.org/about/children - 103 and - migration/unaccompanied - refugee - minor - program/upload/A - Portrait - of - Foreign - Born - Children - in - Federal - Foster - Care - and - How - to - Best - Meet - Their - Needs_USCCB - December - 2012.pdf Department of Homeland Security. (2014). Southwest Border Unaccompanied Children. Available from http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest - border - unaccompanied - children Derluyn, I. & Broekaert, E. (2007). Different perspectives on emotional and behavioral problems in unaccompanied refugee children and adolescents. Ethnicity and Health, 12 (2), 141 - 62. Derluyn, I., Mels, C., & Broekaert, E. (2009). Mental health problems in separated refugee adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44, 291 - 297. Dillinger, B. J. (1990). Adolescent refugees: An ethnographic study of Vietnamese youth in U.S. schools. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Department of Family and Child Ecology). Ehntholt, K. A. & Yule, W. (2006). Practitioner review: Assessment and treatment of refugee children and adolescents who have experienced war - related trauma. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47 (12), 1197 - 1210. Fazel, M., Reed, R. V., Panter - Brick, C. & Stein, A. (2012). Mental health of displaced an d refugee children resettled in high - income countries: Risk and protective factors. Lancet, 379 (9812), 266 - 282. Foster - Fishman, P. G., Salem, D. A., Allen, N. E., & Fahrbach, K. (1999). Ecological factors impacting provider attitudes towards human servic e delivery reform. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27 (6), 785 - 816. Gardiner, H. W. & Kosmitzki, C. (2013). Lives across cultures: Cross - cultural human development. Pearson New International Edition . Boston, MA: Pearson Higher Education. Gilchr ist, C. (1983). Addressing the vocational/employment needs of migrant youth: Needs assessment report. A pilot survey of secondary migrant youth and vocational programs in Connecticut and nationwide (RC 014 359). Rocky Hill: Connecticut Migratory Program. Gindling, T. H. & Poggio, S. (2012). Family separation and reunification as a factor in the educational success of immigrant children. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38 (7), 1155 - 1173. Hopkins, P. & Hall, M. (2006). This is a good pla ce to live and think about the future: The needs and experiences of unaccompanied asylum - seeking children in Scotland (Scottish Refugee Council). Retrieved from 104 http://www.scottishrefugeecouncil.org.uk/what_we_do/policy_and_research/research_rep orts Hopkins, P. (2008). Ethical issues in research with unaccompanied asylum - seeking children. (1), 37 - 48. Huemer, J., Karnik, N.S., Voelkl - Kernstock, S., Granditsch, E., Dervic, K., Friedrich, M.H. & Steiner, H. (2009). Mental health issues in unaccompanied minors. Child and Adolescent Pyschiatry and Mental Health, 3 (13). doi: 10.1186/1753 - 2000 - 3 - 13. Jones, J. & Podkul, J. (2012). Fo rced from home: The lost boys and girls of Central America. http://gallery.mailchimp.com/865416241bd45072917f c245d/files/Forced_From_Home.p df Junck, A. (2012). Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: Relief for neglected, abused, and abandoned undocumented children. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 63 (1), 48 - 62. Katz, S. J. (1999). Teaching in tensions: Latino immigrant youth, their teachers, and the structures of schooling. Teachers College Record, 100 (4), 809 - 840. Kelly, J. G. (1971). Qualities for the community psychologist. American Psychologist, 26 (10), 897 - 903. Lee, J.S. (2012). Unaccompanied Refugee M inors and their strategies to navigate a new world: A grounded theory (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University). Retrieved from https://digarchive.library.vcu.edu/handle/101 56/3862 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Establishing trustworthiness. Naturalistic inquiry , 289 , 331. LIRS (2012). The Real Cost of Welcome: A Financial Analysis of Local Refugee Resettlement. Retrieved from http://lirs.org/wp - content/uploads/2012/05/RPTREALCOSTWELCOME.pdf LIRS (2013). Office of Refugee Resettlement: Expanding Mandate, Insufficient Funding. Retrieved from http://lirs.org/wp - content/uploads/2013/03/ORR - One - Pager - Final - 2 - 6 - 13.pdf Luster, T., Qin, D., Bates, L., Rana, M. & Ah Lee, J. (2010). Successful adaptation among Sudanese acc ompanied minors: Perspectives of youth and foster parents. Childhood, 17 (2), 197 - 211. Lustig, S. L., Kia - Keating, M., Knight, W. G., Geltman, P., Ellis, H., Kinzie, J. D., Keane, T., & Saxe, G. N. (2004). Review of child and adolescent refugee mental heal th. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43 (1), 24 - 36. 105 McGreal, C. E. (2013). Lifespan development across cultures. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research . (5 th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Martin, P. P., Lounsbury, D. W., & Davidson,W. S., II. (2004). AJCP as a vehicle for improving community life: An historic - American Journal of Community Psychology, 34 (3 - 4), 163 - 173. Martinez - Brawley, E. E., & Zorita, P. M - B. (2011). Immigration and social work: Contrasting practice and education. Social Work Education: The International Journal, 30 (1), 17 - 28. Maton, K., Perkins, D. D., Altman, D. G., Gutierriez, L., Kelly, J. G., Rappaport, J., Saegert, S. (2006). Community - based interdisciplinary research: Introduction to the special issue. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 1 - 7. Michelson, D. & Sclare, I. (2009). Psychological needs, service utilization and provision of care in a specialist mental health clinic for young refugees: A comparative study. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 14 (2), 273 - 296. Miles, M., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014) . Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mitchell, C. M., Davidson, W. S., Chodakowski, J. A., & McVeigh, J. (1985). Intervention - - philo sophies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13 (5), 543 - 552. Mortland, C. A., & Egan, M. G. (1987). Vietnamese youth in American foster care. Social Work, 32 (3), 240 - 245. Neville, H. A., Lilly, R. L., Duran, G., Lee, R. M., Browne, L. (2000). Construction and initial validation of the Color - blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47 (1), 59 - 70. Office of Refugee Resettlement. (2013, March 31). About Unaccompanied Refugee Minors. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/programs/urm/about . Okech, D., Morreau, W., & Benson, K. (2012). Human trafficking: Improving victim identification and service provision. International Social Work, 5 5 (4), 488 - 503. Onyango, P. (1998). The impact of armed conflict on children. Child Abuse Review, 7, 219 - 229. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods.(3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 106 Perreira, K. M. & Smith, L. ( 2007). A cultural - ecological model of migration and development: Focusing on Latino immigrant youth. The Prevention Researcher, 14 (4), 6 - 9. Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 137 - 145. Rana, M., Qin, D. B., Bates, L., Luster, T. & Saltarelli, A. (2011). Factors related to educational resilience among Sudanese unaccompanied minors. Teachers College Record, 113 (9), 2080 - 2114. Refugee Council USA. (2014, March 31). Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC). Retrieved from http://www.rcusa.org/index.php?page=uac Rousseau, C., Montgomery, C. & Shermarke, M. (2001). Alone in a strange land: Unaccompanie d minors and issues of protection. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 33 (1), 102 - 117. Rousseau, C., Said, T.M., Gagne, M - J., & Bibeau, G. (1998). Resilience in unaccompanied minors from the north of Somalia. Psychoanalytic Review, 85 (4), 615 - 637. Ryan, W. (1976). The art of savage discovery: How to blame the victim. In Blaming the victim (pp. 3 - 30). New York: Random House. Singleton, A. R., Jr. & Strait, B. C. (2010). Approaches to social research. (5 th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Smid, G.E., Lensvelt - Mulders, G.J.L.M., Knipscheer, J.W., Gersons, B.P.R & Kleber, R.J. (2011). Late - onset PTSD in unaccompanied refugee minors: Exploring the predictive utility of depression and anxiety symptoms. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 4 0 (5), 742 - 755. Sourander, A. (1998). Behavior problems and traumatic events of unaccompanied refugee minors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22 (7), 719 - 727. Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, 22 USCS § 7102 (9) Trickett, E. J. (1996). A future for comm unity psychologists: The contexts of diversity and the diversity of contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24 (2), 209 - 234. Trickett, E.J., Kelly, J. G. & Vincent, T. (1985). The spirit of ecological inquiry in community research. In E. Susski nd & D. E. Klein (Eds.), Community research: Methods, paradigms, and applications , New York: Praeger. UNHCR. (2011). Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. (60 th Anniversary Special Report.) Available from http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.html 107 UNHCR. (2013). Statistical Yearbook. Geneva, Switzerland: The United Nations High Commission for Refuges United States Department of State. (2013). Proposed refugee admissions for fiscal year 2014. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/219137.pdf Van Voorhis, R. M. & Hostetter, C. (2006). The impact of MSW education on social worker empowerment and commitment to client empowerment through social justice advocacy. Journal of Social Work Education, 42 (1), 105 - 121. VanHulle, L. (2014, July 18). Illegal immigration protestors face off in Lansing. The Lansing S tate Journal. Retrieved from www.lansingstatejournal.com Wade, J. (2011). Preparation and transition planning for unaccompanied aslum - seeking and refugee young people: A review of evidence in England. Chil dren and Youth Services Review, 33 , 2424 - 2430.