Refugee Resettlement in Metropolitan America

Jill H. Wilson and Audrey SingerAssociation of American Geographers

San FranciscoApril 21, 2007

Data and MethodologyII

FindingsIII

IntroductionI

Refugee Resettlement in Metropolitan America

Introduction: Background and PurposeI

Little is known about refugee settlement at the metropolitan level.

Refugee flows contribute to growth of the foreign-born in U.S. places.

Describing the geography of refugee resettlement can help predict future flows and enable local actors to meet

the accompanying challenges.

Introduction: Background and PurposeI

Little is known about refugee settlement at the metropolitan level.

Refugee flows contribute to growth of the foreign-born in U.S. places.

Describing the geography of refugee resettlement can help predict future flows and enable local actors to meet

the accompanying challenges.

Introduction: Background and PurposeI

Little is known about refugee settlement at the metropolitan level.

Refugee flows contribute to growth of foreign-born in U.S. places.

Describing the geography of refugee resettlement can help predict future flows and enable local actors to meet

the accompanying challenges.

Data and MethodologyII

FindingsIII

IntroductionI

Refugee Resettlement in Metropolitan America

Data and MethodologyII

Variables included year of admission, country of origin, city, county, and state of settlement.

Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) database covering refugee admissions from 1983 through June, 2004.

We used the available geographical data to assign metropolitan areas to each record using 1999 OMB

definitions.

Data and MethodologyII

Variables included year of admission, country of origin, city, county, and state of initial settlement.

ORR database covering refugee admissions from 1983 through June, 2004.

We used the available geographical data to assign metropolitan areas to each record using 1999 OMB

definitions.

Data and MethodologyII

Variables included year of admission, country of origin, city, county, and state of settlement.

ORR database covering refugee admissions from 1983 through June, 2004.

We used the available geographical data to assign metropolitan areas to each record using 1999 OMB

definitions.

Data and MethodologyII

FindingsIII

IntroductionI

Refugee Resettlement in Metropolitan America

Findings: Refugee OriginsIII

31,180Afghanistan1228,809Poland1322,647Sudan1420,925Liberia15

34,665Romania1135,144Ethiopia1035,252Iraq947,753Somalia851,787Cuba761,349Iran671,433Cambodia5

113,504Laos4168,644Yugoslavia3387,741Vietnam2493,040Former USSR1

TotalCountryRank

Findings: Refugee Origins

1. Cold War Period: pre-1980 to 1991

III

Three periods, which we characterize by the geographical origins of the refugees:

2. Balkans Period: 1992 to 2000

3. Civil Conflict Period: late 1990s to present

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

USSR Southeast Asia Europe Africa Other Asia Latin America and Caribbean

Author's tabulations of ORR data

Refugees Resettled in the U.S. by Year and Region of Origin

Prior to 1983: large Cuban and Indochinese waves

Glastnost/Perestroika,1985-1991

Break-up of Yugoslavia, 1992

Expulsions of ethnicAlbanians in Kosovo, 1998

September 11, 2001

Political Conflict: Somalia, Sudan, Liberia, Ethiopia1990s-present

USSR dismantled, 12/91

Findings: Settlement in Traditional Immigrant GatewaysIII

22,046St. Louis602132,981Philadelphia201434,292Portland311237,436Sacramento291040,149Atlanta16941,239Minneapolis-St. Paul30841,795Washington7742,565San Jose12648,573Seattle23550,714Orange County6463,322Chicago33

114,606Los Angeles12186,522New York21

Refugees Resettled

Metropolitan AreaForeign Born Rank

Refugee Rank

Findings: Top 30 Refugee Metropolitan AreasIII

Findings: Shift away from traditional immigrant gateways to newer gateways and non-gatewaysIII

3.47,3352.320,8911.36,066Portland

1.73,7042.219,9572.712,571Boston

3.98,3342.623,7191.25,383Sacramento

4.08,6382.825,1191.46,392Atlanta

4.710,1982.219,9802.411,061Minneapolis

2.65,5372.522,8602.913,398Washington

1.22,6872.724,4713.315,407San Jose

4.08,5553.128,1292.611,889Seattle

0.91,8663.430,1384.118,710Orange County

3.57,5254.137,1314.018,666Chicago

4.39,3355.044,96613.160,305Los Angeles

5.010,86014.9134,1309.041,532New York

Share of U.S.

2000s

2000-2004

Share of U.S.

1990s

1990-1999

Share of U.S.

1980s

1983-1989

Metropolitan Area

Findings: Shift away from traditional immigrant gateways to newer gateways and non-gatewaysIII

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

1983-1989 1990-1999 2000-2004

Perc

ent o

f All

Ref

ugee

s R

eset

tled

in th

e U

.S.

New YorkLos AngelesChicagoOrange CountySan JoseSan FranciscoBostonSan Diego

Findings: Shift away from traditional immigrant gateways to newer gateways and non-gatewaysIII

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1983-1989 1990-1999 2000-2004

Perc

ent o

f all

refu

gees

rese

ttled

in th

e U

.S.

Seattle

Minneapolis-St. Paul

Atlanta

Sacramento

Portland

Phoenix

St. Louis

Findings: Shift away from traditional immigrant gateways to newer gateways and non-gatewaysIII

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

1983-1989 1990-1999 2000-2004

Perc

ent o

f all

refu

gees

rese

ttled

in th

e U

.S.

New YorkLos AngelesChicagoOrange CountySeattleMinneapolis-St. PaulPortlandSacramentoAtlanta

Findings: Refugees dominate the foreign-born population in smaller placesIII

37.614,7225,540Des Moines, IA

38.16,0962,325Manchester, NH

39.54,5591,803Burlington, VT

42.23,3071,397Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA

44.09,3984,131Lincoln, NE

48.13,8881,871Portland, ME

48.99,1314,466Spokane, WA

54.64,7602,601Binghamton, NY

74.43,9922,969Erie, PA

76.13,5722,718Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN

86.67,0136,084Utica-Rome, NY

Refugees as Percent of Recently Arrived

Foreign Born

Foreign Born Present in 2000 Who Entered

1990-2000

Total Refugees, 1990-1999

Metropolitan Area

Findings: Refugee HubsIII

Voluntary agencies often specialize in placing refugees from specific backgrounds.

Refugees from similar origins often resettled together.

Sometimes, the placement of too many refugees in one area has overwhelmed local communities or stirred

tension.

Findings: Refugee HubsIII

Voluntary agencies often specialize in placing refugees from specific backgrounds.

Refugees from similar origins often resettled together.

Sometimes, the placement of too many refugees in one area has overwhelmed local communities or stirred

tension.

Findings: Refugee HubsIII

Voluntary agencies often specialize in placing refugees from specific backgrounds.

Refugees from similar origins often resettled together.

Sometimes, the placement of too many refugees in one area has overwhelmed local communities or stirred

tension.

Findings: Refugee Hubs: Former USSRIII

Chicago

Seattle

New York

Sacramento

Los Angeles

Findings: Refugee Hubs: IranIII

ModestoSan Jose New York

Washington

Los Angeles

Findings: Refugee Hubs: CubaIII

Miami

Tampa

Las VegasAlbuquerque

Jersey City

Findings: VietnamIII

Houston

San Jose Washington

Los AngelesOrange County

Findings: Laos and CambodiaIII

Seattle

FresnoMerced

MinneapolisStockton

Sacramento

Boston

Chicago

Los Angeles

Philadelphia

Laos

Cambodia

Findings: Former YugoslaviaIII

Tampa

Phoenix Atlanta

Chicago

St. Louis

Findings: IraqIII

DallasPhoenix

ChicagoDetroit

San Diego

Findings: SomaliaIII

Atlanta

Seattle

San Diego

Washington

Minneapolis

Findings: EthiopiaIII

DallasAtlantaSan Diego

Washington

Minneapolis

Meeting local service needs: affordable housing, health care, job training and placement, language

Metro areas differ in their experience with and ability to integrate refugees.

Unlike other immigrants, refugees have access to considerable federal, state, and local support.

Conclusions and Policy Implications

Meeting local service needs: affordable housing, health care, job training and placement, language

Metro areas differ in their experience with and ability to integrate refugees.

Unlike other immigrants, refugees have access to considerable federal, state, and local support

Conclusions and Policy Implications

Local service needs: affordable housing, health care, job training and placement, language

Metro areas differ in their experience with and ability to integrate refugees.

Unlike other immigrants, refugees have access to considerable federal, state, and local support.

Conclusions and Policy Implications

www.brookings.edu/metrov i s i t m e t r o :