CRMRI White Paper #2 June 2017 Standardization of Identifying and Measuring Refugee Integration Success

Transcription

1 CRMRI White Paper #2 June 2017 Standardization of Identifying and Measuring Refugee Integration Success Sheila Pollock Lisa H. Gren, PhD, MSPH Caren J. Frost, PhD, MPH

2 Standardization of Identifying and Measuring Refugee Integration Success June 20, 2017 Authored by: Sheila Pollock; Lisa H. Gren, PhD, MSPH; Caren J. Frost, PhD, MPH Introduction Refugees come from numerous countries and have a variety of experiences and backgrounds. Many are fleeing their home country due to war and persecution. On their journey to their new host country some individuals and families are first sent to refugee camps. From there, the US State Department works with international and national agencies to resettle refugees in American communities that have local refugee resettlement agencies. For the next few months, these local resettlement agencies will assist the newcomers with resources they need to initially settle in (Cook, 2015). These resources include housing, medical evaluations, and applying for school or employment. Providing these resources for refugees helps lead to more successful integration. Many refugees state that being welcomed and seen as someone who can contribute to the community has encouraged them to not only be successful but to ensure the refugee community and new host community are both prosperous (Cook, 2015). Getting an education and developing occupational skills is important to refugees because they want to be able to contribute to their new country and also be self-reliant. Those that spent time in refugee camps often recall how it felt to have no future in the camp, therefore they feel strongly about having the opportunity to create a bright future for themselves and their families (Cook, 2015). Successful integration occurs when refugees are comfortable with participating in their host community. For the past few decades, defining successful integration of refugees in the US has been largely limited to assessing employment status, school enrollment, and housing status. While these elements are important and necessary, there are additional factors that contribute to successful integration that should be considered (Lichtenstein, 2017). Therefore, identifying other areas that contribute to successful integration is crucial for understanding refugees experience in the US. Having a consistent method for identifying and measuring integration will provide better data and allow us to better assess the effectiveness of programming for refugees (Lichtenstein, 2017). More successful programming can ensure that individuals with refugee backgrounds can become more economically, socially, and culturally comfortable within the dominant system (Shaw, 2017). Many in the business community agree that refugees are hard-working, want to develop their skills, and are loyal (Lichtenstein, 2017). Some US cities have found refugees revitalizing their struggling economies. Cities in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Ohio have been experiencing declining populations, but refugees have helped increase the population and rebuild their economies. Both refugees and the resettlement agencies work to support the economy by spending money on goods and services they need (Dyssegaard, 2016). Enhancing community development is more than job attainment there are a number of indicators that should be addressed so that individuals from refugee backgrounds can have a positive and fulfilling life experience in the US.

3 Previous Findings Several studies and reports have identified indicators of successful integration. Alastair Ager and Alison Strang s Indicators of Integration study (Ager, 2004), the Refugee Integration Survey and Evaluation (RISE) project (Lichtenstein, 2016), the California Integration Scorecard (Pastor, 2012), and the Fiscal Policy Institute s report of Refugee Integration in the United States (Dyssegaard, 2016) have each identified various indicators for integrative success. Many of the indicators can be grouped into similar categories, but all four studies/reports have identified different measures of success. These different measures make it difficult to compare the various meanings of successful integration throughout the literature. Therefore, further research should be conducted to streamline these indicators into one standard measuring tool. In order to do this, a look at the methodology of the previous research to find similarities is needed. The Indicators of Integration study (Ager & Strang) provides a framework for identifying possible solutions for streamlining indicators. The framework includes ten domains categorized into four sections forming an inverted triangle. The first section is Means and Makers and includes domains that are not only markers of successful integration but are also means to get there. The domains in this section are employment, housing, education, and health (Ager, 2004). Data sources for these domains likely already exist, and settling on standardized measures will enhance the ability to compare across studies/reports. The next section is Social Connections, which looks at how community relationships can be beneficial for achieving integration. The three domains are social bonds, social bridges, and social links. Refugees need to have relationships with other refugees (social bonds), the hostcountry community (social bridges), and opportunities to interact with the community s more formal structures and services (social links) (Ager, 2004). These domains have been less well studied, and this is where a community-based participatory research (CBPR) or action research approach can benefit investigations of successful integration. Researchers using these approaches will get to know the community they are working with and train members of that community to assist in the research process (Lichtenstein, 2017). With this approach, both the researchers and the community members gain knowledge and can provide perspectives to understand the data and formulate next steps in the research, including the development of standardized measures for these domains. Section three is Facilitators and includes domains necessary for the integration process. There are two facilitating domains: language and cultural knowledge, and safety and stability (Ager, 2004). As part of successful integration, we need to ensure refugees are being placed in communities that support them and are willing to help them succeed in their new environment. For this to occur, the ability to communicate with others in a new community is necessary, as is a level of understanding of cultural practices that are important to both the refugee and host communities. The hope is to create a safer environment for refugees. Such an environment is free of harassment and hate crimes, which in turn helps build confidence and fosters more social connections (Ager, 2004). Having a safe environment can be a relief after the hardships refugees have faced in their home country (Dyssegaard, 2016). Further efforts may need to be made that encourage individuals to learn about, and share time with, each other. Foundations is the last section and includes the domain rights and citizenship. In order to establish the expectations and obligations of integration, refugees need to know their rights and have opportunities to become citizens (Ager, 2004). By identifying measures of successful

4 integration in this domain, we can improve our current refugee assistance programs so that New Americans understand how to become citizens and succeed in their adopted country. The Refugee Integration Survey and Evaluation (RISE) study was conducted in Denver, Colorado by the Colorado Refugee Services Program (CRSP) and the education research firm Quality Evaluation Designs (QED) (Lichtenstein, 2017). The goal of this study was to develop and implement a survey instrument that could assess refugee integration and conduct interviews and focus groups to fully understand the process of integration as refugees go through it. Participants were followed from and resurveyed each year. The participants of the RISE study came from Bhutan, Burma, Somalia, and Iraq in 2011 and RISE included 10 integration pathways developed from Ager and Strang s framework, mentioned above. The 10 pathways are Employment and Economic Sufficiency, Education and Training, Children s Education, Health and Physical Well-Being, Housing, Social Bonding, Social Bridging, Language and Cultural Knowledge, Safety and Stability, and Civic Engagement (Lichtenstein, 2016). Within those pathways, 32 integration indicators were identified and used for the survey (Elwood, 2017). The integration scale used in the RISE study defined overall integration as the sum of all points from each item surveyed. Low integration was identified as a score between 0-16, medium integration as 17-24, and high integration as Overall results showed that the participants integration scores increased from an average of 14.6 at baseline ( ) to 30.2 for the final year of the study ( ). While scores increased in most pathways, the RISE study investigators identified Employment and Economic Sufficiency, Social Bridging, and Language and Cultural Knowledge as the most crucial for successful integration. The refugees surveyed shared the belief that having relationships in the host community and being able to communicate in English was essential for being successful in the US (Lichtenstein, 2016). The RISE project also reported success with involving community members through community-based participatory research (CBPR). This approach ensures that researchers work not only within the community but with community members, allowing more involvement and input from the community. Additionally, this approach helps build trust among partners working on a project, often leading to future successful collaborations. In the RISE study, CBPR was used to train bilingual community members, called Community Connectors, so that they were able to communicate research needs to their neighbors and friends in their own language. This process led to better cooperation throughout the RISE project because the Community Connectors and participants felt that they were doing a service for their community. Better cooperation lead to more accurately depicted data on the refugees perceptions about integration into their hosting communities (Lichtenstein, 2016). Giving refugees the opportunity to be understood and have their communities and values respected enables newly arriving individuals to feel more confident about living in the US (Nibbs, 2016). The California Immigrant Integration Scorecard (CIIS) gathered data using Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS) from , and decennial census data from 1980, 1990, and To organize the integration indicators, this study used the following four categories: Economic Snapshot, Economic Trajectory, Enhanced Civic Participation, and Receiving Society Openness (Pastor, 2012). These categories are similar to several of the domains from Ager and Strang s integration framework. The categories are further broken down into 22 integration indicators (Elwood, 2017). CIIS investigators decided to conduct research on multiple cohorts because it would give a better picture of the average progress made by all immigrants, whereas, only following one cohort would mainly show the progress made by a single group and might be

5 biased. Cohorts were determined based on when the immigrants came to the US. Each of the 22 indicators were scored on a scale from 1-5 (1 being low integration and 5 being high integration). Then the indicators were averaged together under their appropriate category. Finally, an overall score was determined by taking an average of the category scores. These scores were then compared between the California regions of Santa Clara, East Bay, San Diego, Orange, Sacramento, San Francisco, Inland Empire, Los Angeles, San Joaquin, and Fresno. The rankings indicated that Santa Clara had the overall highest ranking with an overall score of 4.0. Santa Clara also scored highest in the categories of Economic Snapshot and Civic Engagement. Fresno ranked #10 on the list, and scored lowest in Warmth of Welcome and Civic Engagement (Pastor, 2012). Understanding how different regions score is important for researchers and program planners because it provides data on what programs are working and what areas need improvement. The Fiscal Policy Institute s (FPI) June 2016 report on Refugee Integration in the United States used data from the Census Bureau s American Community Survey, specifically from the Bosnian, Burmese, Hmong, and Somali refugee groups. The FPI report has defined successful integration through the following items: Gaining a Foothold in the Labor Force, Advancing Careers and Starting Businesses, Integration into American Society Over Time, and By Looking at US Areas Where Refugees are Making a Big Difference. Included in these four items are common integration factors identified in the other studies such as English language skills, education, home ownership, and citizenship (Dyssegaard, 2016). The FPI report concluded that refugees who have been in the US for at least 10 years are similar to their US-born counterparts, as assessed by comparable contribution to the work force (e.g., the same proportion of individuals with refugee background are employed as native-born citizens). Refugees' wages also increased over time, leading them to be in the middle range of US-born workers' wages. After 10 years, many of the refugees had learned English and could speak it very well or fluently. Homeownership also increased after living in the US for 10 years or more. For the Burmese refugees surveyed, 21% reported owning a home after living in the US for 10 years or less, and 73% reported owning a home after 10 years or more. That is greater than the 68% of US-born homeowners. The majority of refugees also gained US citizenship; all four refugee groups had 70% or more of the population who became citizens after 20 years (Dyssegaard, 2016). From this review of similar constructs of successful integration, we have determined that standardizing measures of successful integration is possible. However, each study/report used different specific measures, with very little overlap. Out of the 106 indicators identified from the four studies/reports, only two can be found in more than one study (Elwood, 2017). However, there are many similarities in the categories and indicators used across these studies. All four reports included categories and indicators that touched on employment, education, safety in the host community, and citizenship. By breaking down and organizing each indicator, our research team has identified 14 integration indicator categories (Elwood, 2017). We are now assessing how to best measure each indicator, and expect that this will lead to definitions of proposed indicators that should be included in a standardized tool.

6 Next Steps The next research step is to develop the metrics for measuring successful integration that include indicators beyond employment. In order to do that, we need to first meet with different organizations working with refugee communities and combine our efforts. For example, the Refugee and Immigrant Association-Asian Association of Utah has several refugee programs including, but not limited to, family care, English as a second language skill building, and community wellness. They gauge these programs success off the success that refugees report with the help of these programs (Cheng, 2017). Understanding how Utah refugees measure success will build on the work done in the RISE study, and will provide a way to confirm which indicators are similar across multiple populations. Following this, we will start to build trust in the refugee communities, hopefully with the help of other organizations. We want to ensure they understand why researchers want to conduct research, and what benefits we hope they will gain from the findings. After trust is established, we will be able to meet with the refugees and complete a needs assessment. The needs assessment will result in a prioritized needs list, identification of resources for evaluating refugees needs and wants, and what approaches we plan to take to meet those needs. Then we can have trained community members lead discussions with our refugee communities and introduce them to our co-created measures of successful integration. From there we will be able to come up with a list that satisfies our research needs and is congruent with what refugees believe defines success.

7 References Ager, A., & Strang A. (2004) Indicators of Integration: Final Report. Report by Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate. Retrieved from Cheng, S., & Frost, P. (2017) Refugee & Immigrant Center: Asian Association of Utah. Lecture presented at Center for Migration & Refugee Integration Symposium, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 31, Cook, L., Johanson, M., Keithley, D., Goodman, S., & Zwickl, B. (2015) Impact of Refugees in Central Ohio 2015 Report. Report by Community Research Partners, US Together, Community Refugee & Immigration Services, World Relief Columbus, and the City of Columbus. Columbus, OH. Retrieved from Dyssegaard, D., & Mathema S. (2016) Refugee Integration in the United States. Report by Center for American Progress and Fiscal Policy Institute. New York, NY. Retrieved from r-integration-in-the-united-states/ Elwood, T. (2017) Integration Indicators Breakdown. Presented to Advisory Board of the Center for Migration & Refugee Integration, April 24, Lichtenstein, G., Puma, J., Engelman, A., & Miller, M. (2016) The Refugee Integration Survey & Evaluation (RISE): Year 5 Report. Technical report by Quality Evaluation Designs. Denver, CO: Colorado Office of Economic Security. Retrieved from Lichtenstein, G. (2017). Keeping the Golden Door Open: Rays of Hope; Ways into Community. Speech presented at Center for Migration & Refugee Integration Symposium, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 31, Nibbs, F. (2016) Moving Into the Fastlane: Understanding refugee upward mobility in the context of resettlement. Published by the Forced Migration Upward Mobility Project. Arlington, TX. Retrieved from Pastor, M., Ortiz, R., Carter, V., Scoggins, J., & Perez, A. (2012) California Immigrant Integration Scorecard. Technical report by Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from Shaw, S. A. (2017). Evaluating comparative effects and outcomes of extended case management. Lecture presented at Center for Migration & Refugee Integration Symposium, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 31, 2017.