The Immigration Population in the Washington, D.C. Region and the Service Needs of Central American Child and Family Migrants By Randy Capps

The Immigration Population in the Washington, D.C. Region and the Service Needs of Central American Child and Family Migrants By Randy Capps Regional Conference on Advancing Health Equity for Latino Youth & Families Washington, D.C. October 5, 2016

Acknowledgments Ariel Ruiz, Faye Hipsman, and Sarah Pierce at MPI analyzed the data and wrote the slides for this presentation. Colin Hammar and James Bachmeier at Temple University, Philadelphia, and Jennifer Van Hook at Penn State University provided data on the unauthorized immigrant population.

Today s Presentation Immigration trends in the Washington, D.C., region. Trends in family unit and unaccompanied child apprehensions in the United States. Unaccompanied child and family unit outcomes in immigration court.

Foreign-Born Population (Thousands) Percent Foreign Born (%) The Washington, D.C. Area s Immigrant Population Increased Rapidly until 2010 then Growth Slowed Foreign-Born Population and Share of Total Population in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Area, 1990-2015 1,600 25% 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 20% 15% 10% 5% - 1990 2000 2010 2015* Foreign Born Population Percent Foreign Born (%) Notes: Estimates of the foreign-born population from 1990 to 2010 are based on the U.S. Census Bureau s definition of the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Data for 2015 reflect the Washington, D.C, area counties that are listed in the next slide. Source: Migration Policy Institute (MPI) tabulation of data from the 2015 American Community Survey (ACS), and the 1990, 2000, 2010 Decennial Census. 0%

About Half of the Region s Immigrants Lived in Fairfax or Montgomery County Foreign-Born Population and Share of Total Population in the Washington, D.C., Region, by County, 2015 Total Population Foreign-Born Population Percent Foreign Born (%) Washington Region 6,193,000 1,460,000 24% Fairfax County, VA 1,142,000 360,000 32% Montgomery County, MD 1,040,000 343,000 33% Prince George's County, MD 910,000 207,000 23% Prince William County, VA 452,000 101,000 22% Washington, DC 672,000 95,000 14% Loudoun County, VA 376,000 92,000 24% Howard County, MD 313,000 63,000 20% Arlington County, VA 229,000 55,000 24% Anne Arundel County, MD 564,000 48,000 9% Alexandria City, VA 154,000 44,000 29% Frederick County, MD 245,000 26,000 11% Manassas City, VA 42,000 12,000 28% Fairfax City, VA 24,000 6,000 26% Manassas Park City, VA 16,000 5,000 34% Falls Church City, VA 14,000 3,000 19% Source: MPI analysis of data from the 2015 ACS.

Immigrants in the Washington Region Were Less Likely to be from Latin America than Nationwide Foreign-Born Population in the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area and the United States, by Region of Birth, 2015, (%) Washington Region United States Asia 36% Europe/Canada / Oceania 10% Asia 31% Europe/Canada / Oceania 13% Africa 15% Africa 5% Latin America 39% Latin America 51% Note: The Washington metropolitan area is based on the U.S. Census Bureau s definition of the Washington, D.C., MSA. Source: MPI analysis of data from the 2015 ACS.

Percent of Foreign-Born Population (%) Immigrants Most Likely to Be from Latin American in Manassas, P. George s and P. William Counties Latin American Share of the Foreign-Born Population in the Washington, D.C., Region, 2010-14, (%) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Source: MPI analysis of data from the 2010-2014 ACS.

Salvadorans Represented 15 Percent of Immigrants in the Metropolitan Area Foreign-Born Population and Share of Total Population in the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area, 2015 Foreign-Born Population Percent of Foreign Born Population (%) All Countries 1,397,000 100% El Salvador 207,000 15% India 97,000 7% China 73,000 5% Korea 61,000 4% Vietnam 53,000 4% Ethiopia 52,000 4% Philippines 50,000 4% Mexico 46,000 3% Guatemala 41,000 3% Honduras 38,000 3% Other 680,000 49% Note: The Washington, D.C., metropolitan area is based on the U.S. Census Bureau s definition of the Washington, D.C., MSA. Source: MPI analysis of data from the 2015 ACS.

Two-Thirds of Region Unauthorized Immigrants Live in the Counties of Fairfax, Montgomery, & Prince George s Estimated Unauthorized Immigrant Population in the Washington, D.C. Region, by County of Residence, 2009-2013 Estimated Unauthorized Immigrant Population Percent of Unauthorized Immigrant Population (%) Washington Region 363,000 100% Fairfax County, VA* 83,000 23% Montgomery County, MD 83,000 23% Prince George's County, MD 69,000 19% Prince William County, VA* 29,000 8% Washington, DC 25,000 7% Loudoun County, VA 18,000 5% Arlington County, VA 15,000 4% Alexandria City, VA 14,000 4% Anne Arundel County, MD 12,000 3% Howard County, MD 9,000 3% Frederick County, MD 6,000 2% * Fairfax County, VA includes the cities of Fairfax and Falls Church. Prince William County, VA includes the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park. Source: MPI analysis of 2009-13 ACS data (pooled) and 2008 Survey of Income Program Participation (SIPP) data by Colin Hammar and James Bachmeier of Temple University and Jennifer Van Hook of The Pennsylvania State University Population Research Institute.

Half of the Region s Unauthorized Immigrants Come from the Northern Triangle and Mexico Estimated Unauthorized Immigrant Population in the Washington, D.C., Region, by Country of Birth, 2009-2013 Estimated Unauthorized Immigrant Population Percent of Unauthorized Immigrant Population (%) All Countries 363,000 100% El Salvador 77,000 21% Guatemala 42,000 12% Mexico 34,000 9% Honduras 27,000 7% India 14,000 4% Korea 13,000 4% Bolivia 12,000 3% Peru 11,000 3% Ethiopia 11,000 3% Philippines 8,000 2% Other 113,000 31% Source: MPI analysis of 2009-13 ACS data (pooled) and 2008 SIPP data by Hammar and Bachmeier of Temple University and Van Hook of The Pennsylvania State University Population Research Institute.

Today s Presentation Immigration trends in the Washington, D.C., Region. Trends in family unit and unaccompanied child apprehensions in the United States. Unaccompanied child and family unit outcomes in immigration court.

Salvadoran and Guatemalan Populations Largest in Los Angeles; Honduran Population Largest in NYC Top Ten Metropolitan Areas with Largest Foreign-Born Population from the Northern Triangle, by Country of Birth, 2015 Northern Triangle El Salvador Guatemala Honduras United States 2,879,000 1,352,000 928,000 599,000 Los Angeles 515,000 287,000 190,000 38,000 New York City 322,000 156,000 88,000 78,000 Washington, DC 286,000 207,000 41,000 38,000 Houston 214,000 117,000 40,000 57,000 Miami 135,000 22,000 45,000 68,000 Dallas 95,000 59,000 14,000 23,000 San Francisco 88,000 51,000 30,000 8,000 Boston 67,000 32,000 24,000 11,000 Riverside 63,000 33,000 23,000 6,000 Atlanta 54,000 19,000 20,000 16,000 Notes: Immigrant population was rounded to the nearest 1,000. Country populations may not add to the regional total due to rounding. Source: MPI analysis of data from the 2015 ACS.

Number of Apprehensions (Thousands) The Number of Families and Unaccompanied Children Peaked in 2014 and again in 2016 Apprehensions of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) and Family Units at the U.S.-Mexico Border by Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 through August 2016 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016YTD Family Apprehensions UAC Apprehensions Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Southwest Border Unaccompanied Children, data reported in FY 2012-2016 (through August) http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children.

Number of Apprehensions Honduran UAC Apps. Fell after the Peak, but Salvadoran/Honduran Apps. Rebounded Apprehensions of UACs at U.S.-Mexico Border by Country of Origin, FY 2009 through August 2016 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Source: U.S. CBP, Southwest Border Unaccompanied Children, data reported in FY 2012-2015 http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children.

Number of Apprehensions UAC and Family Unit Apprehensions Have Increased Since Winter 2016 Monthly Apprehensions of UACs and Families at the U.S.-Mexico Border, FY2016 (through August) 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Family Units UACs Jul-16 Aug-16 Source: U.S. CBP, Southwest Border Unaccompanied Children, data reported between January 2015-2016 http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children.

10% of Unaccompanied Children Have Been Released to Sponsors the Washington, D.C. Region 123,000 unaccompanied children have been released since FY 2014 13,000 (10%) have been released in the Washington, D.C., region. State County Total Number Released to Sponsors FY14-FY16 YTD MD Prince George's County 3,002 VA Fairfax County 2,981 MD Montgomery County 2,669 VA Prince William County 1,189 DC District of Columbia 928 VA Loudoun County 640 VA Alexandria City 520 VA Arlington County 390 MD Frederick County 394 VA Manassas City 214 Note: The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) only releases data on counties in which over 50 children have been released to sponsors. Source: ORR, Unaccompanied Children Released to Sponsors by County, accessed September 15, 2016, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/unaccompanied-children-released-to-sponsors-by-county.

Today s Presentation Immigration trends in the Washington, D.C., Region. Trends in family unit and unaccompanied child apprehensions in the United States. Unaccompanied child and family unit outcomes in immigration court.

Majority of Migrant Children and Women with Children Cases Opened Since 2014 Are Still Pending Family Immigration Case Outcomes, June 2014 through FY 2016 YTD Juvenile Immigration Case Outcomes, FY 2014 through FY 2016 YTD Removal Orders 28% Formal Relief 0% Removal Orders 19% Formal Relief 2% "Informal" Relief 2% Pending 69% "Informal" Relief 24% Pending 61% Notes: The data for both figures are not restricted to individuals from the Northern Triangle, though they represent the majority of such cases. Removal Orders include voluntary departure orders. Formal relief refers to relief that comes with a simultaneous grant of immigration status, such as asylum. Informal relief refers to cases that have been administratively closed or terminated, meaning the child is no longer has an active removal case but has not received a simultaneous grant of immigration status. FY 2016 numbers are through December 31, 2015. Source: TRAC, Priority Immigration Court Cases: Women with Children, accessed September 16, 2016, http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/mwc; TRAC, Juveniles Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings, accessed September 16, 2016, http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/juvenile.

Case Outcomes (Thousands) Case Outcomes (Thousands) Children and Families with Attorneys Receive Immigration Relief at Higher Rates, FY14-16YTD Family Immigration Case Outcomes 30 25 20 Juvenile Immigration Case Outcomes 30 25 20 15 10 5 Not Represented Represented 15 10 5 0 Ordered Removed Informal Relief Formal Relief 0 Ordered Removed Informal Relief Formal Relief Notes: The data for both figures are not restricted to individuals from the Northern Triangle, though they represent the majority of such cases. Formal relief refers to relief that comes with a grant of immigration status, such as asylum. Informal relief refers to cases that have been administratively closed or terminated, meaning the child is no longer has an active removal case but has not received a simultaneous grant of immigration status. FY 2016 numbers are through December 31, 2015. Source: TRAC, Priority Immigration Court Cases: Women with Children, accessed September 16, 2016, http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/mwc; TRAC, Juveniles Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings, accessed September 16, 2016, http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/juvenile.

Number of Cases (Thousands) Majority Show Up for Court, But Court Attendance Depends on Representation Number of Juvenile and Family Cases In Absentia and Other*, by Representation, FY14-16YTD 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Represented Family Not Represented Family Represented Juveniles Not Represented Juveniles In Absentia Other Cases Notes: The data for both figures are not restricted to individuals from the Northern Triangle, though they represent the majority of such cases. * Other Cases includes cases still pending as of December 31, 2015, as well as all cases decided in which the respondent appeared for court. FY 2016 numbers are through December 31, 2015. Source: TRAC, Priority Immigration Court Cases: Women with Children, accessed September 16, 2016, http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/mwc; TRAC, Juveniles Immigration Court Deportation Proceedings, accessed September 16, 2016, http://trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/juvenile.

Juvenile and Family Outcomes in U.S. Immigration Court Despite prioritization, cases are pending for years: In August 2016 the backlog of pending UAC cases reached 73,649 and the backlog of family cases rose to 83,949. Together they now account for nearly one third of the total court backlog. Many deportations are not carried out: Many are ordered removed in absentia so may be unaware of removal order. Some are removed after turning 18, so not counted in data. Some who receive informal relief from immigration judges may remain in unauthorized status: In FY 2014-YTD 16 combined, there were 28,061 grants of informal relief for UACs in immigration court. Some juveniles receive Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) or asylum status through USCIS. Grants of SIJ are backlogged by several months, while asylum applications are backlogged by over 2 years in the D.C.-metro area.

For Discussion How is the rapid growth of the Central American immigrant population affecting health and service providers in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan region? What are the specific health, mental health, education, and other service needs of migrant children and families? How strong is the service infrastructure in the major counties where these populations are located, as well as outlying areas where they are growing? Where have local policies been changed or adopted to accommodate newly assimilating immigrants? How adequate are these policies?

For More Information Randy Capps Director of Research, U.S. Programs, MPI rcapps@migrationpolicy.org For additional information and to receive updates: www.migrationpolicy.org For interactive data tools on U.S. and International migration data, visit: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub