By The International Organization for Migration (IOM)

This toolkit builds on the outcomes of two international exchanges on access to justice for migrant workers and victims of trafficking for labour exploitation and on an additional round of internal consultations, consolidated with IOM best practices and additional research inputs. Various relevant stakeholders from different European countries participated in the workshop, including law enforcement authorities, prosecutors, labour inspectors, trade union representatives, international organizations and civil society organizations, among others.

Produced under the framework of the MiRAC-funded project Enhancing IOM’s Protection Capacity in the EEA+ Region to Protect the Rights of Migrants Subject to Labour Exploitation, this document serves as a practical guidance tool for addressing the needs of migrant workers and victims of trafficking for labour exploitation in the European Union, as well as in Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. It was specifically developed to support national authorities, in particular, relevant labour, immigration, prosecution and counter-trafficking agencies, as well as other relevant stakeholders, such as civil society organizations and trade unions, to provide the tools needed to effectively support and empower migrant workers and victims of trafficking for labour exploitation.

Brussels: International Organization for Migration, 2023. 124p.

By Nina Siulc and Noelle Smart

The use of civil immigration detention has expanded exponentially over the past few decades, with a record high of more than half a million people detained in fiscal year 2019. The widespread use of civil detention—at a cost to taxpayers of billions of dollars annually—is often justified by the government as being necessary to ensure that immigrants continue to appear for their court hearings. Yet there is irrefutable evidence that over the past two decades the majority of immigrants—including adults, families, and children—have shown up for immigration court hearings. In fact, those who attend court outside detention on what are known as “non-detained” dockets almost always continue to appear for their hearings when they are able to secure legal representation, calling into question the logic of confining people in costly and inhumane prison-like conditions when representation is clearly a viable alternative to ensure continued court appearances. This fact sheet reviews evidence from the Vera Institute of Justice’s (Vera’s) programs and related studies as well as government data analyzed by independent researchers to help unpack what is known about appearances in immigration court and, alternately, orders of removal in absentia, which are issued when a person does not appear in court.

Non-detained immigrants with representation almost always continue to appear in court

Data from Vera’s programs and other studies shows that most immigrants released from custody continue to appear in court when represented by counsel.

• During the first three years of Vera’s Safety and Fairness for Everyone (SAFE) Initiative, which provides free representation through a universal access model in 21 jurisdictions across the country, 98 percent of clients released from custody have continued to appear for their scheduled court hearings.

• Similarly, Vera’s evaluation of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project (NYIFUP) found that at the time of the study fewer than 2 percent of clients released on bond had received orders of removal in absentia for failing to appear in court.

• These high appearance rates are supported by findings in an in-depth study of orders of removal in absentia published in March 2020 by Eagly and Shafer, who observed that, “those who obtained lawyers also almost always came to court: 96 percent attended all court hearings in pending and completed non-detained cases since 2008.”

• An earlier study by Eagly and Shafer also found high appearance rates among immigrants released on bond nationwide from 2007 to 2012: among immigrants with completed cases, only 7 percent of those with representation received orders of removal in absentia.

• The Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) or “remain in Mexico” program has made it nearly impossible for many asylum seekers to attend court. Yet even among this program rife with due process challenges, 95 percent of immigrants with representation have continued to appear for all their hearings. In short, representation continues to be associated with high rates of appearance in immigration court.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2020. 5p.

By Lydia Morris

This book explores the concept of civic stratification and examines its contemporary relevance for analysis and understanding of the functioning of rights in society. David Lockwood’s (1996) concept of civic stratification outlines how the rights associated with citizenship can be a source of inequality by their formal granting or denial by the state, or by informal impediments to their full realization. The purpose of this book is to explore the meaning and significance of this concept and elaborate on its potential to offer a framework for understanding the dynamic nature of rights. Lockwood’s model reverses Marshall’s (1950) view of citizenship as guaranteed inclusion in society and is linked to the way that the differential entitlement and the qualifying conditions associated with certain rights can be harnessed as a means of control. While both Marshall and Lockwood were principally concerned with the rights attached to citizenship, this book extends the insights of these two authors to show how such controls apply in various ways to both citizens and non-citizens alike. Building on Lockwood’s conception of ‘moral resources’ the book sets out a theoretical framework and empirical illustration of how the position of different groups within society is subject to shifting perceptions of social worth and is engaged both in claims to fuller access to rights and in justifications of their denial or removal. This book will appeal to scholars and higher-level students with relevant interests in sociolegal studies, sociology, social policy, and politics. 

Abingdon, Oxon, UK: New York: Routledge, 2025. 125p.

By Naomi Schaefer Riley and Rafael A. Mangual

Every year, more than 2,000 children in the U.S. die of maltreatment—and, in most of these cases, the child’s family is known to child welfare or law enforcement before the fatal incidents. Most Americans agree that the main goal of the child welfare system should be to prevent these tragedies—by closing the gaps that lead to children being left in the custody of guardians who abuse and neglect them. Balancing the safety and well-being of children with the rights of parents is no easy feat. A nationally representative poll conducted last year by the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) shows that the public is sensitive to this tension: a majority (58%) favored parents’ authority to raise their children as they see fit, over the government’s authority to intervene—but nearly the same percentage of respondents (57%) did not believe that the child welfare system is engaged in government overreach. Alarmingly, a small group of increasingly vocal activists are trying to upset this balance by pushing a radical policy agenda that would all but eliminate the government’s role in child protection. Not only is this agenda wholly incongruous with the broader American public’s views regarding the appropriate scope of child welfare systems; it also undermines the well-being of at-risk children across the country. Illustrative of this broader push to weaken, if not wholly abolish, the child welfare system is a recent report issued by the New York Advisory Committee (NYSAC) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, “Examining New York Child Welfare System and Its Impact on Black Children and Families.” One of the coauthors of this brief, Rafael Mangual, resigned from NYSAC in April 2024—after serving nearly four years on the committee—ahead of its final vote to approve its report on child welfare.

The NYSAC report offers a litany of policy recommendations that would make it more difficult for child abuse and neglect to be reported and investigated. The report calls for a “new paradigm of child welfare” that deemphasizes “reporting, investigating, surveillance, and family separation,” and it recommends that “federal, State and Local government offices and agencies” enact “legislation, policies and practices” prohibiting “the conflation of the consequences of poverty [including ‘parental/pregnancy substance use’] with child maltreatment” (emphasis added). The report also calls for federal law to be amended to:

• Eliminate or severely restrict mandatory and anonymous reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect

• Make it easier for convicted felons to become foster parents

Revise the definition of neglect to exclude parental drug abuse (including while pregnant) And for New York State law to be amended to:

• Prohibit routine drug screenings of pregnant women and newborns

• Establish a universal basic income

NYSAC’s proposals are ultimately premised on three false claims about the child welfare system: (1) what is often termed child neglect is often a consequence of poverty, which cannot justify traditional child welfare interventions; (2) parental drug abuse is an inadequate reason for intervention; and (3) racial disparities in child welfare enforcement in NY prove that the system is characterized by unlawful discrimination—particularly against black families. This issue brief provides an overview of the child welfare system’s central role, responds to each of these three claims, and highlights the dangers invited by the recommendations made in the NYSAC report.

New York: Manhattan Institute, 2024. 10p.

 By: Lauren Dunton,  Jill Khadduri,  Kimberly Burnett,  Nichole Fiore,  Will Yetvin 

The number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness, defined in this report as living in a place not meant for human habitation, has grown to more than 200,000 in recent years. That increase is driven by individuals who are not experiencing chronic homelessness. While not all individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness reside in encampments, encampments have become emblematic of the rise in unsheltered homelessness. In particular, the number of unsheltered homeless individuals has increased since 2016. The problem is most acute in major cities, on the west coast, and in markets that have seen major spikes in housing prices. Even cities with declining unsheltered populations face pressure to address visible encampments in their communities. Exploring Homelessness Among People Living in Encampments and Associated Costs was launched as a joint effort between The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Office of Policy Development and Research and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This study is intended to help policymakers and practitioners understand the nature of encampments, strategies for responding to encampments, and the costs associated with those approaches. The study offers a literature review, summaries of the four study sites, and a comprehensive final report documenting the full scope of the costs associated with the responses to encampments in the included communities. Underscored throughout the report is an understanding that a complex set of factors around housing precarity have contributed to the growth of encampments. Unsheltered homelessness is the tragic result of the country’s affordable housing crisis that stems from a combination of increasing rates of deep poverty and a lack of deeply affordable housing. Due to the impacts of structural racism, the affordable housing crisis is especially dire for Blacks and Latinos who are overrepresented among the homeless population. Within the homelessness system, shortcomings in emergency shelter policies and practices, a sense of community and safety within encampments, and a desire for autonomy and privacy contribute to some people’s preferences for encampments over shelters. The report shows that the four study sites have coalesced around a strategy that involves clearance (removing structures and belongings from encampments) and closure (requiring that people leave encampments) with support (resource-intensive outreach to connect residents with services and to ensure every resident has a place to go upon closure). Although this is the dominant strategy, outreach workers in at least one city highlight that this strategy exacerbates the challenges of moving residents to shelters or permanent housing, which research shows is the most cost-effective and humane strategy, long-term. The report also indicates that responding to encampments is resource-intensive for local governments, costing cities between $1,672 and $6,208 per unsheltered individual per year and requiring coordination across government and non-governmental actors. Since HUD funding is largely not being used for encampment related activities, city governments cover the vast majority of these costs out of their own budgets. This study was conducted before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has likely worsened homelessness rates, while simultaneously increasing the urgency for finding safe housing for residents of encampments. At the same time, many homeless shelters have reduced capacity to abide by social distancing protocols, limiting options for those experiencing homelessness and potentially forcing more people into unsheltered homelessness and encampments. Future research on the characteristics and costs of encampments should integrate the perspectives of people with lived experiences in encampments. Research should also examine the racial inequities between those who live in encampments, how encampment residents are treated under the law, and who receives supports to enter shelters or housing. Finally, future research should seek to incorporate a fuller accounting of the cost to cities, including additional municipal costs (for example, from police, fire, and health departments), and the costs associated with residents’ trauma when faced with clearance and closure of encampments. This fuller accounting of the costs of encampments should also be compared to the cost of employing a Housing First approach to residents of encampments. Overall, this report reveals that communities need more resources and guidance for addressing encampments through a focus on outreach, engagement, and connection to housing with services. Suggested solutions in the report include expanding the capacity to place people experiencing homelessness into shelters and permanent housing. This suggestion aligns with the Administration’s belief in a Housing First approach that invests in homelessness prevention, rental assistance, supportive housing, and services to ensure stable housing acts as a platform for people to access employment, seek medical care, obtain care for behavioral health conditions like mental illness or addiction, and support children. This study provides useful information to help the field better understand a growing yet under-researched segment of the homeless population—information that we will incorporate into this Administration’s holistic vision for reducing homelessness.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2020. 78p.