Understanding the Unaccompanied Children Program

Last updated 4 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The Unaccompanied Children (UC) Program is a federal initiative responsible for the care and custody of children who arrive in the United States without a parent or legal guardian and without lawful immigration status. These children, often fleeing violence, extreme poverty, or seeking reunification with family, are among the most vulnerable individuals navigating the U.S. immigration system.

This guide provides an overview of the program, including who qualifies as an unaccompanied child, the legal framework governing their treatment, their journey through federal custody, and the challenges and oversight associated with the program.

Who is an Unaccompanied Child (UAC)?

Legally, an “unaccompanied alien child” (UAC), often referred to simply as an unaccompanied child (UC), is defined by U.S. law as an individual who:

• Has no lawful immigration status in the United States
• Has not yet reached 18 years of age
• Has no parent or legal guardian in the U.S., or no parent or legal guardian in the U.S. available to provide care and physical custody

Children may also be designated as UACs if the government pursues criminal charges against their parents or legal guardians who were accompanying them. Various terms are used to describe these children, including “Unaccompanied Minors or Youth,” “Unaccompanied Children (UC),” “Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC),” and “Unaccompanied Undocumented Minors (UUM).”

It’s important to distinguish UACs from “Unaccompanied Refugee Minors (URM),” who have specific immigration statuses like refugee or asylee and are often eligible for different, state-administered foster care programs.

Most unaccompanied children are apprehended by immigration authorities, primarily Customs and Border Protection (CBP), while trying to cross the U.S. border, especially along the southwestern border with Mexico. Others are referred to ORR after coming to the attention of immigration authorities at some point after crossing the border, or they may be apprehended in the interior of the country by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Why Children Make the Journey

The motivations for these children to undertake what is often a perilous journey are multifaceted:

• Fleeing pervasive violence, abuse, or gang recruitment in their home countries (often El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, known as the Northern Triangle countries)
• Escaping dire economic hardship and poverty
• Seeking reunification with family members already residing in the United States
• Attracted by perceived economic opportunities
• Understanding that U.S. immigration law may offer more favorable treatment to non-Mexican migrant children, allowing them to remain in the U.S. while their immigration cases proceed

Their age, separation from parents, and the hazardous journey itself make these children exceptionally vulnerable to human trafficking, exploitation, and abuse.

The Legal Framework: Key Laws and Agreements

The treatment, processing, and placement of unaccompanied children are guided by a combination of federal statutes and a significant court settlement. These legal pillars establish the responsibilities of various government agencies and set standards for the care these vulnerable children receive.

The Flores Settlement Agreement (1997)

The Flores Settlement Agreement, a result of the 1987 Flores v. Reno class-action lawsuit, established a nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of all minors in the custody of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), whose functions are now largely handled by DHS and HHS.

The agreement arose from concerns about the conditions under which children like Jenny Flores, a 15-year-old fleeing civil war in El Salvador, were detained—often in harsh conditions for extended periods without access to education or recreation.

Key provisions of the Flores Settlement Agreement include:

• Least Restrictive Setting: Requiring that minors be placed in the least restrictive setting appropriate to their age and special needs.
• Minimum Standards of Care: Mandating that facilities provide safe and sanitary conditions, food and drinking water, medical assistance in emergencies, toilets and sinks, temperature control, supervision, and contact with family members.
• Preference for Release: Establishing a policy favoring release to a parent, legal guardian, adult relative, or a licensed program willing to accept custody.
• State Licensing: Requiring that facilities housing minors meet certain standards, including state standards for housing and care of dependent children, and defining a “licensed program” as one licensed by an appropriate state agency.
• Prompt Family Reunification Efforts: Requiring continuous efforts toward family reunification and release.

A significant aspect that gained prominence is the general requirement that children should not be detained for more than 20 days, a standard that was later extended to children accompanied by their parents as a result of a 2015 court ruling. The Flores Agreement has been a subject of ongoing legal and political debate, with some administrations seeking to modify or replace its provisions.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) restructured various federal agencies. A crucial change relevant to UACs was the transfer of responsibility for their care and custody from the INS (which was dissolved and its functions absorbed into the newly created Department of Homeland Security) to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the Department of Health and Human Services.

Under this Act, DHS (specifically CBP and ICE) became primarily responsible for the apprehension, initial processing, and transfer of UACs to ORR custody, as well as for their repatriation if ordered removed. ORR, in turn, was tasked with coordinating and implementing the care, placement, and services for UACs while they are in federal custody and awaiting immigration proceedings.

The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA)

The TVPRA of 2008 significantly amended and expanded protections for unaccompanied children, recognizing their acute vulnerability to human trafficking and other forms of exploitation. It established specific procedures for processing UAC cases, aiming to enhance the legal system’s ability to manage these cases efficiently and humanely.

Key provisions of the TVPRA include:

• Screening for Trafficking and Protection Needs: Mandating that DHS screen children, particularly those from contiguous countries (Mexico and Canada), within 48 hours of apprehension to determine if they are victims of trafficking, fear return to their home country, or can voluntarily return.
• Transfer to ORR Custody: Requiring that UACs (other than certain children from contiguous countries who can be voluntarily returned) be transferred to ORR care within 72 hours of DHS determining they are a UAC. This ensures children are moved relatively quickly from law enforcement settings to child welfare-oriented care.
• Placement in the Least Restrictive Setting: Reaffirming the requirement that children in ORR custody be placed in the least restrictive setting that is in their best interest.
• Access to Legal Counsel: Requiring HHS to ensure, “to the greatest extent practicable,” that all UACs in custody have access to legal counsel, often pro bono. This is a critical provision, as legal representation dramatically impacts a child’s ability to navigate the complex immigration system and present claims for protection.
• Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS): Adjusting SIJS requirements to better protect children fleeing abuse, neglect, or abandonment by one parent.
• Asylum Procedures: Eliminating the one-year filing deadline for asylum applications for UACs, recognizing the difficulties they face in detention and without counsel. It also allows UACs to have their asylum cases heard by trained Asylum Officers in a less adversarial interview setting.
• Safe Repatriation: Mandating the development of policies for the safe repatriation of UACs removed from the U.S.

A crucial distinction within the TVPRA is its different handling of children from contiguous countries (Mexico and Canada) versus those from non-contiguous countries. While children from Mexico and Canada can be voluntarily returned more quickly if they pass specific screening criteria, children from all other countries are generally placed into formal removal proceedings, allowing them to enter and remain in the U.S. while awaiting a hearing before an immigration judge. This distinction has been cited as a “pull factor” by some, as it allows many children to enter the U.S. interior.

These three legal pillars—Flores, HSA, and TVPRA—form the bedrock of the U.S. government’s approach to unaccompanied children, outlining a complex interplay of responsibilities between DHS for apprehension and initial processing, and HHS/ORR for ongoing care, custody, and facilitating release to sponsors.

The Journey of a UAC: From Apprehension to Potential Release

The path an unaccompanied child takes through the U.S. system is complex, involving multiple federal agencies and a series of procedures designed to ensure their safety and process their immigration case.

Initial Encounter and Processing by DHS (Typically within 72 hours)

The journey typically begins when a child is encountered by U.S. immigration authorities. Most UACs are apprehended by CBP’s U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) between official ports of entry, often along the southwest border. Less frequently, they may be deemed inadmissible by CBP’s Office of Field Operations at a port of entry or apprehended within the U.S. by ICE.

Upon apprehension, DHS is responsible for the child’s initial care and processing. Under the Flores Settlement Agreement, immigration officials must provide basic necessities such as:

• Food and drinking water
• Emergency medical assistance
• Access to toilets and sinks
• Adequate temperature control and ventilation
• Supervision to protect them from others

They should also be separated from unrelated adults whenever possible. CBP facilities have onsite medical staff for initial screening for visible health issues like lice, rashes, or coughs, and can make referrals to local emergency rooms if needed.

A critical step during this initial DHS custody is screening, as mandated by the TVPRA. Children from contiguous countries (Mexico and Canada) must be screened within 48 hours to determine if they:

• Have been trafficked
• Have a credible fear of persecution if returned to their home country
• Can make an independent decision to return voluntarily

While this provision is specific, a DHS policy from 2009 effectively extended this screening for trafficking and fear of return to all UACs.

For most UACs, particularly those from non-contiguous countries or those from contiguous countries who do not meet the criteria for voluntary return, the TVPRA mandates transfer from DHS custody to the care and custody of HHS/ORR within 72 hours of being identified as a UAC. ICE typically handles this transfer. This 72-hour rule is intended to move children from law enforcement environments to child welfare-oriented settings as quickly as possible.

In ORR Custody: Care and Services

Once a child is transferred to ORR, the agency assumes responsibility for their care and custody while they await immigration proceedings or reunification with a sponsor. ORR is legally required to promptly place UACs in the least restrictive setting that is in the child’s best interest, taking into account any danger the child might pose to themselves or the community, and the risk of flight. ORR policy emphasizes looking at each child’s unique situation and incorporating child welfare principles into placement and care decisions.

ORR oversees a network of over 300 care provider facilities in 27 states, most of which are state-licensed and operate under cooperative agreements or contracts with ORR. These facilities offer a continuum of care settings, including:

• Shelters and Group Homes: Standard placements for many children.
• Foster Care: Including transitional foster care for short-term needs and long-term foster care for children who may not have a readily available sponsor.
• Therapeutic Facilities: Such as therapeutic group homes or residential treatment centers for children with significant mental health or behavioral needs.
• Staff-Secure or Secure Care Facilities: For children who require a higher level of supervision due to behavioral concerns or being a flight risk.
• Special Needs Care Facilities: For children with specific medical or developmental needs.

While in ORR care, children receive a range of services mandated by ORR policy and aimed at their well-being and development. These services include:

• Education: Classroom education in basic academic subjects, English language instruction, and, where appropriate, vocational training and independent living skills. ORR facilities are required to provide at least six hours of structured education on weekdays.
• Healthcare: Comprehensive medical care, including an initial medical examination (including screening for infectious diseases) within two business days of admission, dental care, immunizations, and necessary follow-up treatment. Mental health services are also critical, involving initial screenings, assessments, and access to counseling and therapy to address trauma and other psychological needs. ORR provides vaccinations to children lacking documentation of prior valid doses.
• Recreation and Socialization: Daily opportunities for physical activity (at least one hour of large muscle activity) and structured leisure time are required to promote well-being.
• Case Management: Each child is assigned a case manager who conducts assessments, develops a service plan, coordinates services, and works towards the child’s safe and timely release, primarily through family reunification efforts.
• Legal Services: ORR is mandated to ensure, to the greatest extent practicable, that UACs have access to legal representation. This includes providing “Know Your Rights” presentations, individualized legal screenings, and facilitating connections with pro bono (free) attorneys. Children may be eligible for various forms of immigration relief, such as asylum, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (for abused, neglected, or abandoned children), or special visas for victims of trafficking or other crimes.
• Other Essential Services: Children are provided with nutritious food, appropriate clothing, personal hygiene items, and opportunities for religious observance. They are also allowed to communicate with family members; HHS policy states that within 24 hours of arrival, minors are given the opportunity to communicate with a verified parent, guardian, or relative, and efforts are made to ensure they can communicate (via telephone or video) at least twice per week, with HHS covering the cost.

The overarching goal during this period is to provide a safe, supportive environment while ORR works to identify and vet a suitable sponsor for the child’s release.

Family Reunification: The Sponsor Vetting and Release Process

The primary goal of ORR is the safe and timely release of a UAC to a suitable sponsor, who is most often a parent or a close relative already living in the United States. This process is multifaceted and involves careful vetting to ensure the child’s safety and well-being post-release.

The process begins with identifying potential sponsors, often through interviews with the child and communication with their family members abroad. Once a potential sponsor is identified, they must complete a detailed “Family Reunification Application” package, which includes providing extensive personal information and supporting documentation.

A critical component of the vetting process is background checks. ORR policy, as outlined in its Policy Guide Section 2 and updated by Field Guidance, mandates several layers of checks for the potential sponsor and, in many cases, other adult household members:

• Public Records Checks: To identify any arrests or convictions.
• Sex Offender Registry Checks: Conducted through national databases.
• FBI National Criminal History Check (Fingerprints): This check, which uses fingerprints to search FBI criminal databases and DHS immigration records, has become increasingly stringent. ORR Field Guidance #26, issued on February 14, 2025, now mandates fingerprinting for all adult sponsors, their adult household members (aged 18 and over), and any adult caregivers identified in a Sponsor Care Plan. This is a significant expansion from previous policies where fingerprinting was required for specific categories of sponsors or when red flags appeared. The rationale for this expansion is to enhance child safety, prevent fraud, and combat trafficking.
• Child Abuse and Neglect (CA/N) Checks: These checks of state child welfare databases are conducted for all localities where the sponsor or adult household member has resided in the past five years, particularly if a home study is required or other concerns are present.

In addition to background checks, Field Guidance #26 also implemented stricter requirements for identification document verification. Potential sponsors and relevant household members must now present original, unexpired identification documents at the time of fingerprinting and again when the child is physically released, in addition to submitting legible copies with their application.

Home studies are another important vetting tool, required in certain circumstances by the TVPRA or ORR policy. TVPRA-mandated home studies are necessary if, for example:

• The child is a victim of severe trafficking
• The child has a disability requiring specialized services
• The child has been a victim of significant physical or sexual abuse
• The potential sponsor clearly presents a risk of abuse or exploitation

ORR policy also mandates home studies in other situations, such as when an unrelated adult is sponsoring a child aged 12 or younger, or when a sponsor is seeking to care for multiple unrelated children. A home study involves interviews, a home visit, and a written assessment of the sponsor’s ability to provide a safe and suitable environment.

The intensive nature of sponsor vetting, particularly with the expanded fingerprinting requirements, reflects a strong emphasis on ensuring child safety after release. This heightened scrutiny is likely a response to concerns and reported incidents of child exploitation or unsafe placements in the past. However, these more rigorous and potentially lengthy vetting procedures can also extend the time a child spends in ORR custody, which child welfare advocates note can have its own detrimental effects on a child’s well-being. This creates an inherent tension between the goals of rapid reunification and exhaustive safety checks.

ORR considers numerous sponsor suitability factors, including:

• The nature and extent of the sponsor’s relationship with the child
• Their motivation for sponsorship
• Their understanding of the child’s needs (including educational and immigration court obligations)
• Their ability to provide adequate care and supervision
• Any risk factors such as criminal history, substance abuse, or domestic violence concerns

In situations where official documentation is unavailable or its authenticity is questionable, DNA testing may be used to verify parentage, especially when facing tight court-imposed deadlines for reunification.

Ultimately, if ORR determines that the potential sponsor is capable of providing for the child’s physical and mental well-being and that the placement will not endanger the child or the community, the release is approved. It is important to note that not every adult who seeks to sponsor a child is deemed appropriate, as various factors can render a placement unsuitable.

The tiered approach to risk assessment, evident in the distinction between TVPRA-mandated home studies for high-risk cases and ORR-discretionary home studies, aims to focus resources where they are most needed. However, some advocacy groups have raised concerns that the implementation of home studies could be affected by cultural or socio-economic biases, potentially leading to unfair delays or denials for otherwise suitable sponsors. This underscores the critical need for culturally competent and objective assessment practices throughout the vetting process.

After Release: Post-Release Services (PRS)

Once a child is released from ORR custody to a sponsor, the support does not necessarily end. ORR offers Post-Release Services (PRS) to assist UACs and their sponsors with the child’s transition into their new communities, aiming to promote their overall well-being and successful integration. This reflects a growing understanding that the period immediately following release is crucial and that families often need continued support.

PRS providers utilize a case management approach. The services offered are typically referral-based and can connect children and sponsors to a variety of community resources, including:

• Legal services for immigration proceedings
• Educational support, including school enrollment assistance and English language classes
• Medical and behavioral healthcare
• Services related to cultural heritage and traditions
• Integration and independence support

ORR has structured PRS into three levels to cater to varying needs:

1. Level One: Virtual Check-Ins: These are typically conducted shortly after release (e.g., at 7, 14, and 30 business days) to confirm the child’s safety, well-being, school enrollment, and awareness of court dates.
2. Level Two: Case Management Services: This level involves more sustained case management for approximately six months, focusing on referring and connecting the child and sponsor to necessary community-based services based on an assessment and case plan.
3. Level Three: Intensive In-Home Engagements: Designed for children with higher needs or facing specific challenges (e.g., medical or psychological vulnerabilities, family conflict), this level offers intensive, often in-person, case management and support from clinicians using a trauma-informed approach.

ORR may fund PRS for any child released from its care, and referrals are usually made by the ORR care provider while the child is still in custody, with ORR determining the appropriate service level. For PRS to be effective, services should begin promptly, ideally within 30 days of release. For cases where a home study was mandated by the TVPRA, PRS should ideally begin within two days of release.

Certain categories of children are legally entitled to PRS under the TVPRA, particularly those who:

• Have been victims of trafficking
• Have significant special needs
• Were victims of abuse
• Had a sponsor identified as presenting a potential risk during the home study process

For these children, PRS is often more intensive and can continue for a longer duration.

The Unaccompanied Children Program Foundational Rule, which went into effect on July 1, 2024, is expected to bring significant changes to PRS delivery. It aims to increase the services offered, provide more structure and oversight for legal and case management support, further promote a trauma-informed approach, and establish an Ombuds Office to enhance accountability and transparency. This formalization and expansion of PRS indicates a policy shift towards a more continuous model of care, acknowledging that a child’s journey to stability extends beyond the point of release from a shelter.

While the expansion of PRS is a positive development, its ultimate effectiveness depends heavily on the availability and quality of the actual community-based resources (legal aid, healthcare, schools, mental health services) that PRS providers can connect families with. If such local services are scarce, overburdened, or not culturally and linguistically appropriate—a particular challenge in some rural areas where children are resettled—then the impact of PRS may be limited. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has previously noted the limited information available on PRS outcomes and recommended better tracking systems, a step crucial for understanding what interventions are most effective and where systemic gaps in community resources lie.

The Program in Numbers: Trends and Statistics

Understanding the scale and demographics of the Unaccompanied Children Program is essential for appreciating the scope of its operations and challenges. ORR regularly publishes data on referrals, child characteristics, and program outcomes.

The number of children referred to ORR care has fluctuated significantly over the past decade, with notable surges in certain fiscal years (FY). For instance, after 13,625 referrals in FY2012, numbers climbed to 57,496 in FY2014, then saw peaks of 69,488 in FY2019, 122,731 in FY2021, and 128,904 in FY2022. In FY2023, there were 118,938 referrals, and as of September 2024 (the end of FY2024 for some data points), 98,356 referrals had been made for FY2024. These fluctuations directly impact ORR’s resource needs, from shelter capacity to staffing for case management and reunification services. The average length of care (ALOC) for children discharged from ORR custody also varies, influenced by processing times, sponsor availability, and the complexity of individual cases.

Table 1: Overview of UAC Referrals to ORR and Average Length of Care (FY2018-FY2024)

The demographic profile of children in ORR care provides further context.

Table 2: Demographic Profile of Unaccompanied Children in ORR Care (FY2024 estimates based on available data)

The data consistently show that a majority of children are teenagers, with a significant portion being “tender age” (0-12 years old), who have particularly acute vulnerabilities and require specialized care, often in foster care settings. Males generally constitute a larger proportion of UACs than females. Historically, the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador have been the primary countries of origin. However, data for FY2024 indicates a notable increase in children from Mexico, accounting for 20% of referrals, a significant rise from 3% in FY2022 and 8% in FY2023.

This shift is important because the TVPRA has different initial processing guidelines for children from contiguous countries, potentially impacting ORR’s caseload and the application of specific legal provisions if more children from Mexico are being referred to ORR care rather than being quickly returned. This could suggest that more Mexican children are meeting criteria for further protection screening (e.g., due to trafficking risks or credible fear claims) or that overall arrivals from Mexico have increased.

The average length of care (ALOC) for children in ORR custody is a key metric. For children discharged in FY2023, the ALOC was 27 days, and for FY2024 (as of September), it was 30 days. This is a reduction from earlier years like FY2020 (69 days) and FY2018 (64 days), suggesting improvements in processing or reunification timelines, though ALOC can be very high for children awaiting discharge in certain months (e.g., 112 days in March for those discharged in monthly data, or 175 days for those still in care in March in the same dataset).

Once ORR completes the sponsor vetting process, children are released to sponsors across the country. Certain states consistently receive higher numbers of UACs.

Table 3: Top 10 States for UAC Release to Sponsors (FY2023)

This concentration of releases underscores where community resources—such as schools, healthcare providers, legal aid, and social services—are most acutely needed to support the integration of these children and their sponsoring families. The data, taken together, paint a picture of a program grappling with significant and often unpredictable numbers of vulnerable children, requiring a nimble and well-resourced response system.

Challenges, Oversight, and the Path Forward

The Unaccompanied Children Program, while providing essential care, faces numerous operational challenges, is subject to government oversight, and is the focus of ongoing advocacy for reform.

Program Capacity and Influx Situations

A primary challenge for ORR is managing fluctuating and often unpredictable numbers of UAC arrivals, which can quickly strain the capacity of its standard, licensed shelter network. When the number of children in care leads to standard program capacity exceeding 85% for a defined period (e.g., seven consecutive days, or three days for activating an Influx Care Facility), ORR may activate Influx Care Facilities (ICFs).

ICFs are temporary facilities intended to provide shelter and the full range of ORR services during these emergency or influx situations. They may be located on federally owned or leased property and, due to their emergency nature, may sometimes operate without state licenses or under exemptions from state licensing requirements. ORR states its commitment to ensuring ICFs meet or exceed state licensing standards where possible and provide services like education, healthcare, and case management comparable to standard facilities. Recent examples include facilities in Carrizo Springs, Texas, and formerly in Pecos, Texas, and Greensboro, North Carolina.

The use of ICFs is a reactive measure to manage capacity crises. While ORR aims for high standards, the temporary and potentially unlicensed nature of some ICFs raises concerns among child welfare advocates regarding the consistency of oversight and the quality of care compared to established, state-licensed programs. This creates a tension between the operational necessity of managing large numbers of arrivals and the child welfare principle of placement in stable, licensed environments.

Monitoring and Conditions in Care Facilities

ORR maintains extensive policy guidelines for its network of care provider facilities, covering a wide array of standards for safety, physical and mental health, education, nutrition, recreation, behavior management, and the prevention of sexual abuse and harassment, including a zero-tolerance policy for abuse. Generally, these facilities are required to be state-licensed.

Despite these comprehensive written standards, criticisms and concerns about the conditions and practices within some facilities persist. One area of concern, highlighted by The Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, involves the over-reporting of minor incidents through “Significant Incident Reports” (SIRs). The Young Center suggests that facilities may document developmentally appropriate child or adolescent behavior, or minor rule infractions, as significant incidents. These SIRs, they argue, often fail to contextualize the child’s behavior within their traumatic experiences or the stresses of detention and can lead to children being mislabeled (e.g., as “flight risks” for expressing a desire to reunite with family) or kept in unnecessarily restrictive settings, effectively punishing them for normal reactions or mental health needs.

Furthermore, the Women’s Refugee Commission (WRC) has pointed out that the prevalent use of large, congregate care settings in the ORR network is generally discouraged in domestic child welfare systems due to potential negative impacts on children’s development and well-being. The WRC also notes that issues like chronic workforce shortages, high staff turnover due to burnout and non-competitive salaries, and inadequate staff training—particularly in trauma-informed care, cultural competency, and language access for Indigenous language speakers—can significantly affect the quality of care provided and delay reunifications.

This suggests a potential gap between ORR’s detailed policies aimed at child welfare and the day-to-day experiences of some children in care, underscoring the immense challenge of translating policy into consistent, high-quality practice across a large and diverse network of facilities, especially when under the pressure of high referral numbers.

Government Oversight and Accountability

Several government bodies are tasked with overseeing the UAC Program to ensure accountability and effectiveness. The HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducts audits, evaluations, and investigations into various aspects of the program, including grantee expenditures, adherence to safety standards, and overall child protection measures.

A March 2025 report from the Department of Homeland Security OIG (rather than HHS OIG directly on ORR) raised significant concerns about what happens after children leave ORR custody. The DHS OIG found that ICE cannot effectively monitor the location and status of all UACs once they are released from federal custody. This is attributed to multiple factors, including ICE not always receiving accurate sponsor location information from HHS and other agencies, a substantial backlog in serving Notices to Appear (NTAs) for immigration court (over 233,000 UACs had not been served NTAs as of January 2025), and limited ICE staffing and policies for monitoring UAC cases.

The report concluded that without the ability to monitor these children, ICE has no assurance that UACs are safe from trafficking, exploitation, or forced labor post-release. Recommendations included revising ICE-HHS information-sharing agreements, improving address data accuracy, tackling the NTA backlog, and updating ICE guidance for officers. These findings are particularly alarming as they point to systemic failures that can jeopardize child safety and their ability to pursue legal claims, even if ORR’s role up to the point of release is performed diligently.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) also plays a key oversight role, issuing reports on ORR’s management of the UAC program. Past GAO recommendations have focused on areas such as:

• Care provider qualifications: Ensuring clarity in grant announcements for soliciting care providers regarding licensing and past performance.
• Facility oversight and monitoring: Improving grantees’ reporting of state licensing citations and ORR’s own monitoring efforts.
• Information sharing: Enhancing communication and data exchange between ORR and state licensing agencies.
• Tracking post-release services: Calling for better data collection and systems to track the provision and effectiveness of PRS.

While ORR has taken steps to address many of these recommendations, some remain partially open, indicating that these are often deep-rooted challenges requiring sustained effort, and potentially more resources or different systemic approaches, to fully resolve.

Post-Release Challenges

The period after a child is released from ORR care to a sponsor is fraught with its own set of challenges, particularly concerning ongoing monitoring and ensuring the child’s long-term safety and well-being. As the DHS OIG report starkly illustrated, ICE faces significant difficulties in monitoring UACs post-release. Issues like incorrect sponsor addresses and the failure to issue NTAs mean that many children may miss crucial immigration court hearings, leading them to be ordered removed in absentia and effectively becoming “lost” to the system. This lack of contact and oversight heightens concerns about their vulnerability to exploitation, trafficking, or involvement in child labor.

While ORR conducts thorough sponsor vetting and offers Post-Release Services, questions about long-term sponsor suitability and child safety persist, especially if sponsors are distant relatives or unrelated adults, or if PRS is limited in scope or duration, or ineffective due to lack of local resources. The WRC report further highlights significant barriers that UACs often face post-release, such as difficulties enrolling in school (due to documentation issues or lack of understanding of their rights by school districts) and accessing necessary healthcare and mental health services.

The responsibility for a child’s well-being and successful integration becomes diffused after they leave ORR’s direct custody. While ORR’s PRS program attempts to bridge this gap, its reach and intensity vary. ICE’s role shifts to immigration enforcement, and if that agency is unable to maintain contact or ensure court attendance, children can fall through critical safety and legal nets. This points to a need for improved inter-agency coordination between ORR and ICE, as well as greater investment in accessible, culturally appropriate community-based support systems for UACs and their sponsor families.

Access to Legal Representation

Access to legal representation is profoundly important for unaccompanied children. The U.S. immigration system is extraordinarily complex, and children, especially those who have experienced trauma or speak limited English, cannot realistically navigate it alone. Legal counsel helps children understand their rights, identify potential forms of relief from deportation (such as asylum, Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, T-visas for trafficking victims, or U-visas for victims of other crimes), and present their cases effectively in court. Studies and advocates consistently report that represented children have dramatically higher success rates in their immigration cases.

Recognizing this, the TVPRA mandates that ORR ensure UACs have access to legal counsel “to the greatest extent practicable.” ORR funds programs that provide “Know Your Rights” presentations and legal screenings, and helps connect children with pro bono attorneys.

However, the provision of these vital legal services has recently faced significant threats. In February 2025, the Trump administration issued a stop-work order to organizations providing federally funded legal aid to UACs. Although this order was briefly rescinded, it was followed in March 2025 by a decision to cancel a contract worth approximately $200 million that funded legal representation for an estimated 26,000 children. This move triggered immediate legal action by service providers. In April 2025, a federal judge granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), later converted to a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the government from cutting off this congressionally appropriated funding for the duration of the injunction. Despite this legal victory, reports emerged that some children were still appearing in immigration court without legal representation due to ongoing difficulties in accessing the reinstated funds.

This instability in funding for legal services is a critical issue. Advocacy organizations like Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) and the Vera Institute of Justice have strongly condemned these actions, emphasizing that denying children legal aid undermines due process, contradicts the protective intent of the TVPRA, and can lead to children being wrongly returned to dangerous situations. They advocate for the full restoration and guarantee of funding for these programs and for establishing a universal right to government-funded legal representation for all children facing deportation. The struggle over legal aid funding highlights a significant policy contradiction: while laws like the TVPRA aim to protect vulnerable children, administrative actions can severely undermine these protections by denying access to the very services that make those rights meaningful.

Advocacy and Recommendations for Reform

Numerous child advocacy organizations, legal service providers, and researchers actively monitor the UAC Program and propose reforms to better align it with child welfare best practices and international child rights standards.

A prominent theme in recent advocacy is the call to shift away from reliance on large, institutional congregate care facilities. The Women’s Refugee Commission’s October 2024 report, “From Congregate to Community-Based Care: Strengthening Reunification and Support of Unaccompanied Children,” strongly advocates for transitioning to smaller, community-based, family-like settings. The report details how congregate care can be detrimental to children and identifies key barriers to timely reunification, such as ORR workforce challenges, inadequate language access (especially for Indigenous language speakers), and potentially biased home study assessments. The WRC recommends systemic improvements to the reunification process, a significant expansion of robust and culturally appropriate post-release services (including better access to education and healthcare), universal legal representation, and dedicated support for children who “age out” of ORR custody at 18.

Other organizations echo these concerns and offer complementary recommendations. Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) focuses on preserving legal protections, ensuring fair and appropriate treatment for UACs, addressing the root causes of child migration, and expanding access to legal services. The Vera Institute of Justice champions the cause of universal representation, arguing that it is essential for due process. The National Center for Youth Law (NCYL) offers recommendations grounded in child welfare principles, such as strictly limiting the use of restrictive placements, ensuring children are placed in state-licensed facilities, and guaranteeing access to quality education and trauma-informed mental health services.

Collectively, these advocacy efforts point towards a consensus that while the UAC Program provides an essential safety net, it requires significant reforms. The overarching goal of these proposed changes is to create a system that is more child-centered, less reliant on institutionalization, and more focused on rapid reunification with appropriate long-term support in community settings. This involves not only changes within ORR but also better inter-agency collaboration and greater investment in community-based infrastructure to support these vulnerable children and their families.

Finding Information and Getting Involved

Navigating the Unaccompanied Children Program can be challenging for families seeking children and for members of the public wanting to understand its operations or offer support. Several resources are available:

ORR National Call Center (ORRNCC)

This is the primary point of contact for parents, legal guardians, or other relatives trying to determine if a child they are looking for is in HHS/ORR custody.

• Phone: 1-800-203-7001
• Email: [email protected]

The call center collects information from the caller (name, contact information, relationship to the child, etc.) and forwards it to the shelter where the child is located. The shelter is then responsible for verifying the caller’s identity with the child or their family in the country of origin before responding. To ensure the call center can focus on its critical mission, ORR requests that media and lawmakers use other contact numbers for general inquiries.

Accessing Official Information

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) provide a wealth of information online:

• HHS Unaccompanied Children Program Overview: https://www.hhs.gov/programs/social-services/unaccompanied-children/index.html – Provides general information, links to data, reports, and FAQs.
• ORR About the Unaccompanied Children Program: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/programs/ucs/about – Details program responsibilities, services, and legal mandates.
• ORR UAC Facts and Data: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/about/ucs/facts-and-data – Offers current and historical statistics on UAC referrals, demographics, length of care, and releases.
• ORR Unaccompanied Children Program Policy Guide: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/policy-guidance/unaccompanied-children-bureau-policy-guide – A comprehensive manual detailing ORR policies and procedures for all aspects of UAC care.
• Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/ – The official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies. This is where ORR publishes changes to its regulations, often with periods for public comment.
• Oversight Reports: Reports from the HHS Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office can be found on their respective websites by searching for “unaccompanied children” or related terms.

Requesting Case File Information

Individuals or entities (such as attorneys) seeking specific UAC case file information must make a request directly to ORR following their established policies and procedures. ORR advises not to use a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for UAC case file information.

Fostering or Supporting Unaccompanied Children

Individuals interested in becoming foster parents for unaccompanied children can find information through organizations that partner with ORR. The ORR FAQs page mentions Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS) and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) as organizations involved in foster care. The U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI) also provides information on becoming a foster parent for Unaccompanied Refugee Minors (URM), a related but distinct population. Many other community-based organizations across the country are involved in supporting UACs and their sponsors through donations, volunteering, or advocacy.

Understanding these avenues for information and engagement can empower families and the public to better navigate and contribute to the well-being of unaccompanied children in the United States.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.