Undocumented individuals in U.S. society have been barred from access to federal economic relief during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Increased visibility of the vulnerability of undocumented individuals may provide a window of opportunity for inclusive policies. On the contrary, previous research about pro-immigrant sentiment shows that supporters of undocumented migrants advocate for them by using discourse that ultimately reifies their exclusion. The current study uses Twitter data collected from March to July 2020 to examine public discourse on undocumented immigrants during the pandemic. Our research question is: “How do Twitter users frame deservingness of undocumented immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic?” We find that: (1) relief for undocumented immigrants continues to be contingent even in times of crisis, (2) economic productivity is a prerequisite of deservingness, and (3) anti-immigrant frames that scapegoat immigrants are flexible to the political and public health conditions of a historical period. Implications for policy are discussed.

With an ongoing pandemic claiming hundreds of lives a day, it is unclear how COVID-19 has affected court operations, particularly problem-solving courts (PSCs) which have goals rooted in rehabilitation for participants in their programs. Even with practical recommendations from national organizations directing courts on how to manage COVID-19, whether and how PSCs met the needs of PSC participants during this time is underexplored. This study, drawn from a larger national study using a survey of PSC coordinators, examines the COVID-19 responses of PSCs to remain safely operational for participants. A sub-sample of survey respondents (n = 82 PSC coordinators) detailed how the COVID-19 pandemic led to changes to their court and treatment operations amidst the constraints of the pandemic. The courts’ shifts in policy and practice have important impacts for court participants’ treatment retention and success in the PSC program, and these shifts need more in-depth research in the future.

Problem-solving courts (PSCs) are a critical part of a societal effort to mitigate the opioid epidemic's devastating consequences. This paper reports on a national survey of PSCs (N = 42 state-wide court coordinators; N = 849 local court coordinators) and examines the structural factors that could explain the likelihood of a local PSC authorizing medication-assisted treatment (MAT) and MAT utilization. Results of the analyses indicate that MAT availability at the county level was a significant predictor of the likelihood of local courts authorizing MAT. The court's location in a Medicaid expansion state was also a significant predictor of local courts allowing buprenorphine and methadone, but not naltrexone. Problem-solving courts are in the early stages of supporting the use of medications, even when funding is available through Medicaid expansion policies. Adoption and use of treatment innovations like MAT are affected by coordinators' perceptions of MAT as well as structural factors such as the availability of the medications in the community and funding resources. The study has important implications for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners.

No abstract