Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
REFUGEE INTEGRATION IN URBAN AREAS
By Inna Branzburg
© 2017 Inna Branzburg
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in City and Regional Planning School of Architecture
Pratt Institute
February 2017
2
REFUGEE INTEGRATION IN URBAN AREAS
By Inna Branzburg
Received and approved: _______________________________________________________ Date_______________ Thesis Advisor Signature _______________________________________________________ Thesis Advisor Name _______________________________________________________ Date_______________ Thesis Advisor Signature _______________________________________________________ Thesis Advisor Name _______________________________________________________ Date_______________ Chairperson Signature _______________________________________________________ Chairperson Name
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My experiences as a child immigrant from Ukraine growing up in Israel in a "melting
pot" society inspired me to learn more about the relationship between cities and
immigrants, which resulted in this thesis. I cannot thank enough my advisor, Ayse
Yonder, for your support, encouragement, and guidance that inspired and motivated me
throughout this journey. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to my second
advisor, David Dyssegaard Kallick, for sharing your wisdom and invaluable advice that
helped me develop the study. Additionally, I would like to thank the interviewees for
sharing your expertise, perspectives, and insights into refugee resettlement and
integration in Utica. Lastly, I would like to thank my family, my husband Vova Feldman
and my dear friend Lian Farhi, for your help and support along the way.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 Statement of the Issue 5 1.2 Goal and Objectives 6 1.3 Literature Review 6 1.3 Methodology 12 CHAPTER 2: REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT AND INTEGRATION 15 2.1 Refugee Resettlement Policy: A Comparison Between The Programs of The U.S. And Canada 15 2.2 What is integration? Key indicators and measurement criteria 22 CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDY OF REFUGEES’ RESETTLEMENT AND INTEGRATION IN UTICA, NY 25 3.1 Historic Background 27 3.2 Refugee Resettlement: Process and Services 29 3.3 Refugee Integration & Impacts 30 3.3.1 Housing 30 3.3.2 Employment & Economic Development 31 3.3.3 Education and Health 33 3.3.4 Social Connections 34 3.3.5 Language & Culture 38 3.3.6 Urban Development Plans 39
3.4 Neighborhood Analysis 40 3.4.1 Neighborhood Conditions: Main Findings 41 3.4.2 Neighborhood Conditions: Detailed Findings 45
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 60 4.1 Housing 61 4.4.1 Create an “Energy Retrofitting of Refugee Housing” program 62 4.4.2 Develop a range of housing options 62
4.2 Neighborhood Conditions 63 4.2.1 Provide targeted support for the refugees resettled in the Downtown and Cornhill Neighborhoods 63
4.3 Employment and Economic Development 63 4.3.1 Create Training Programs Targeting Refugee Skills 64
4.4 Transportation 64 4.4.1 Support Transportation Alternatives for Refugees 65
4.5 Civic Engagement and The Planning Process 65 4.5.1 Increase Participation Of Refugees In The Planning Process 66
4.6 Social Connections 66 4.6.1 Create Opportunities For Social Interaction Among Refugees And Long-‐Time Residents 67
APPENDIX A: THE SOCIO-‐ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF UTICA’S NEIGHBORHOODS 68
BIBLIOGRAPHY 69
5
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Statement of the Issue Conflicts, persecution, violence, human rights violations and natural disasters
caused by climate change have forcibly displaced millions of people around the world in
the past few years. By the end of 2015, more than 60 million people had left their
country of origin in search of safety in western countries, entering cities both legally
and illegally. Out of 16 million refugees around the world, more than half of the
refugees came from three countries: Syria, Afghanistan, and Somalia, while about 2.5
million refugees resided in Turkey, which became the largest refugee-‐hosting country
in the world. The scale of displacement and its escalation by more than 50 percent since
2011 had led to the highest level of migration since World War II (UNHCR 2016), which
prompted the European Union and the U.S. to set new quotas to resettle refugees.
Refugee resettlement in another country is one of the solutions provided for refugees,
although it is available to less than one percent of the refugees worldwide. Other
solutions include a voluntary return to the home country when possible and local
integration within the host country to which they fled. The literature often refers to
refugees and immigrants as the same, since both leave their country of origin for a new
one, but the reasons for migration make the difference between refugees and
immigrants. Immigrants usually follow economic growth and move voluntarily to an
area that has employment opportunities, while refugees are forcibly displaced from
their country, and if resettled in the U.S., are likely to be placed in areas with low
economic growth, which have, among other factors, affordable housing (Brandt 2010,
FPI 2009).
The resettlement and integration of refugees in urban areas affects the social,
political and economic fabric of the city, and hence is largely influenced by its current
political environment. The increasing diversity of the city's inhabitants, following the
resettlement of refugees, pose social and economic challenges for the city to
accommodate the needs of the newcomers and promote their integration into society.
Moreover, the growing diversity of different cultures, ethnicities, and religions within
6
the city, and their influence on the physical environment might bring the city identity
into question, which can cause a tension and risk for a conflict with the host society
(Lygh 2015). Therefore, this thesis explores refugee integration into urban life in cities
from both the host community and the refugees’ perspectives, and evaluates the impact
of the “neighborhood” on their integration.
1.2 Goal and Objectives The purpose of this thesis is to study the integration of refugees in urban areas
to accommodate their needs and their impacts in order to make recommendations for
integration and inclusion strategies for U.S. cities. This includes a comparison of the
resettlement policies of the U.S. and Canada to better understand the policy
implementation and process of resettlement in urban areas. The thesis also explores the
resettlement and integration of refugees in Utica, NY, as a case study, including the role
of the urban neighborhoods in integration.
1.3 Literature Review Diversity Management: Assimilation vs. Integration (Multiculturalism)
For many years, ethnic minorities were expected to assimilate into the dominant
culture and embrace its customs and language. The “melting pot” approach has changed
in the twentieth century into a “salad bowl” approach, which promotes multiculturalism
as a strategy to manage coexistence of cultural and ethnic minorities with the host
society (Jupp 2015, Burayidi 2015). Thus, multiculturalism policies adopt pluralistic
cultural programs, such as affirmative action, language programs, financial support in
cultural activities, and more. Critics of the multiculturalism approach see these policies
as a tool to promote social isolation of minority groups, which allows them to live
separately from the democratic state and its rules. However, unequal distribution of
resources, discrimination, and spatial segregation, which leads to ethnic tension with
the host society, have much greater effect on minorities’ exclusion than a personal
choice to sustain self-‐identity (Burayidi 2015, Lygh 2015).
7
In nation-‐states, where identity and self-‐determination are based on ethnic and
cultural cohesion, multiculturalism can often conflict with their customs and culture,
which might be viewed as a threat to national cohesion (Jupp 2015, Georgiou 2006).
The nation-‐state's governments are viewed by their citizens as the protectors of social
uniformity, which through laws and policies promote minorities’ assimilation into the
majority culture, as a way to manage diversity. Citizenship policies, which have a
significant effect on minorities’ integration within the dominant society, often represent
an assimilation approach in terms of their requirements regarding race and language
and often loyalty, customs, and cultural heritage (Jupp 2015). In Germany, for example,
the law defines a person as a German only by ethnicity or blood relation, not by
geography as in the U.S. Thus, immigrants cannot become German citizens, which has
resulted in the social and physical isolation of many immigrants from mainstream
German society. However, due to demographic issues of decreasing working-‐age
population, in 2005 Germany enacted the new Immigration Act that recognized the
essential role of immigrants in the German economy, and established the eligibility of
immigrants for integration assistance (Behr 2006).
The social and political environment in the state also has a significant influence
on multicultural policies, as well as immigration and refugee resettlement policies,
which recently tend towards the right wing due to recent international events. The rise
of terrorism by Islamic jihadists since 2000 has changed the political environment in
the U.S. and many EU countries, which have challenged multiculturalism and embraced
assimilation as the preferred approach to managing diversity. In light of these events,
conservative political parties, organizations, and media were able to influence public
opinion through fear and racism in order to promote their agenda against immigration,
multiculturalism, and Islam. These issues raised major controversies among the general
public about loyalty, minorities’ influence on national identity, and Islamophobia, which
had to be addressed by politicians from both conservative and liberal parties (Jupp
2015).
8
Refugee Resettlement and Integration Policies
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has the mandate
to identify, protect and find durable solutions to help refugees rebuild their lives, which
includes voluntary return to the home country, local integration, or resettlement in
“third-‐country”. If possible, a voluntary and safe repatriation of refugees to their home
country is the ideal solution. Until this becomes possible, most refugees will remain in
the asylum country to which they fled, with some being able to integrate and attain
legal status. Resettlement in a third country is a solution for less than one percent of the
16 million refugees around the world, according to UNHCR statistics in 2015. The
countries that have agreed to admit refugees provide them a legal and physical
protection by granting a permanent residence status through which they can have
“access to civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights similar to those enjoyed by
nationals” (UNHCR p.1.).
Refugee resettlement policies, which as mentioned are subject to the country's
political environment, include different programs and services to promote refugees’
integration into society (Hinze 2013). The approaches and measures of integration can
be divided into two major themes: functional integration, which includes indicators of
language, employment, political participation, education and housing; and social
integration, including indicators of identity, sense of belonging, and social networks.
However, these indicators are often interrelated and should be viewed as such when
measuring integration. Social integration, which relies on social connections and ethnic
networks, has a significant impact on refugees’ ability to find employment and access to
services, and hence achieve economic self-‐sufficiency (Brandt 2010, Kissoon 2006).
Furthermore, the integration process of refugee in urban areas is influenced by three
major themes: the characteristics of the newcomers, such as age, language, education,
etc.; the socio-‐economic context of the receiving community, such as housing market
and employment opportunities; and the attributes of the host community, such as
ethnicity, as well as social and ethnic organizations (Portes and Zhou 1993, Kraly 2011).
9
In the U.S., refugees are resettled in areas where there is available, affordable
housing, as well as job opportunities and an existing ethnic community, among other
factors (Brandt 2010, Kissoon 2006). However, there is no official integration policy at
the federal level, and the integration of refugees, as part of the resettlement program, is
measured merely by economic self-‐sufficiency (Hynes 2011, Brandt 2010, Kissoon
2006). Chapter two presents further information on the U.S. resettlement policy and its
process, in comparison to Canada, and discusses the measurement criteria and
indicators of refugees’ integration.
Refugees and Urban Planning
Resettlement of refugees increases the ethnic, cultural and religious diversity of
a city, which in turn changes its social and economic fabric, including its built
environment. As cities become increasingly multicultural, planners have the
responsibility to incorporate the needs of the newcomers and manage the planning
process of the city’s adjustments during the integration process. Treating all citizens
uniformly is often considered the best approach to promoting equality in diverse
communities, and hence the planning practice may promote the general public's
interests. However, since cultural differences influence the way people live and use
urban space, such an approach may result in ongoing inequality in the distribution of
resources and services among minority communities. Thus, planners should consider
cultural implications in the planning process in order to promote multicultural
planning, which reflects the needs of minorities and the general public alike (Burayidi
2000; 2015, UNHABITAT 2015, Lygh 2015).
In order to incorporate multicultural planning and promote an inclusive urban
environment, self-‐representation of minority groups is essential in the planning
process, either formally or informally. Providing minorities the opportunity to
participate in the decision and policy-‐making process through political, social, and
economic empowerment would naturally promote cultural integration within the city.
An inclusive planning process could also help find alternative solutions to support
integration from the experienced point of view of refugees (UNHABITAT 2015,
10
Georgiou 2006). Planning for integration must address different urban aspects, like
housing, public transportation, employment, and education, while promoting ethnic and
cultural coexistence and a mutual inclusion of refugees and the dominant society. The
social policies of the city, such as public education, health care, and income support,
which directly impact the social inclusion and integration of diverse minority groups,
helps to decrease social polarization among different groups. Furthermore, creating a
socially inclusive environment through urban initiatives and policies mitigates
inequality and discrimination, and offer opportunities for social interactions in the
neighborhoods, streets, schools, parks, and workplaces (Ray 2013; 2016, Jacobsen
2003). The urban environment, particularly the neighborhood, is a place of intersection
and interaction between policy and practice that is perceived and experienced by
refugees (and immigrants) as the entry point into society and hence plays an important
role in integration. Therefore, refugee neighborhoods can provide insight into the life
and coping strategies of refugees, which in turn can help create better methods for their
integration (Hinze 2013).
One of the ways to encourage inclusion and integration of refugees is to promote
a social and spatial access to public goods and services, such as schools, healthcare
facilities, and community centers, through urban policy interventions. Accessible public
transportation is a critical factor for integration and inclusion, which can promote
access to distributed employment opportunities and services in the city and offer an
opportunity for social interactions among different social classes and ethnic groups.
Another important intervention is encouraging the development of various housing
types, such as medium-‐density rental housing and single-‐family owner-‐occupied
housing, to promote residential inclusion and integration of new residents. In Montreal,
where these housing types were developed in response to a housing crisis following
World War II, many immigrant families were able to settle in relatively affordable
housing units in the same neighborhood as people from different social classes and
ethnic backgrounds. Living in proximity to well-‐established people provided an
opportunity for the new immigrants to create social connections that offered valuable
information and support for their integration process into society. Moreover, cities can
11
create suitable economic development programs for different communities and develop
initiatives that promote active involvement of refugees in the programs that impact
their lives (Ray 2013, Jacobsen 2003).
Refugee Migration Legislation and Trends in the U.S.
The United States experienced different periods of migration through the last
few centuries, which reflected, through regulations and policy, both the humanitarian
and political interests of the country. The massive displacement following World War II,
in which more than 250,000 people from Europe admitted into the U.S., led the federal
government to enact the Displaced Persons Act of 1948. Under the Act, the efforts of
several religious and ethnic organizations were coordinated with the federal
government to help European refugees resettle in the U.S., which shifted some of the
financial burdens to the federal government and allowed additional 400,000 refugees
enter the U.S. This public-‐private partnership was the first step towards the refugee
resettlement program in place today (Brown and Scribner 2014, Nezer 2013).
Following the Hungarian uprising in 1956 and the Cuban revolution in 1959, the U.S.
approved the admission of many refugees fleeing Europe, the Soviet Union, and Cuba
during the Cold War, which also helped promote political agenda to weaken communist
regimes.
The waves of refugees, which posed a significant burden on local resources, have
led to the establishment of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962. In order
to support the work of local agencies, the Act created a formal assistance program to
provide resettlement services, such as medical care, financial aid, education, and child
welfare services (Brown and Scribner 2014, Cohn 2015, Nezer 2013). Furthermore,
following the events of the Vietnam War in 1975, the U.S government enacted the
Indochinese Refugee Assistance Act, which regulated the private-‐public administrative
relationship under a contract with nine voluntary agencies to support refugees'
resettlement and integration into society. The programs and grants under the Act
included employment and training, English language training, job placement, and
personal and family consulting (Brown and Scribner 2014, Cohn 2015). The most
12
significant landmark in the refugee resettlement field was The Refugee Act of 1980,
which embraced the United Nations’ refugee definition and created a refugee admission
policy and allowed the government to shift from ad hoc responses to a refugee crisis to
a standardized admission process with designated annual quotas (Brown and Scribner
2014).
Since the mid-‐1990s, the resettlement program focused on referrals from the
UNHCR, which resulted in the resettlement of a diverse group of refugees from a large
number of countries. Today, the U.S. leads the world in refugee resettlement, resettling
more than three million since the Refugee Act of 1980 passed, largely from Vietnam,
Russia, Iraq, Bosnia, and Laos. In 2016, about 85,000 refugees resettled in American
communities, mainly in Texas, California, NY, Arizona, Michigan, and Ohio, which are
the top refugee-‐receiving states in the U.S. Also, due to the ongoing refugee crisis,
almost 100,000 refugees are expected to arrive in the U.S. in 2017 according to the new
quotas (Batalova and Zong 2015, Kallick and Mathema 2016, Nezer 2013).
1.3 Methodology The literature review provides the framework for the research, which defines
and distinguishes between refugees and immigrants, assimilation and integration. This
also includes a discussion on multiculturalism, a leading strategy for managing diversity
within democratic countries, and considers the critiques and issues that affect the form
and implementation of multiculturalist integration policies. Additionally, this chapter
highlights refugee legislation and migration trends in the U.S., and discusses the
practice of urban planning for diversity, as well as the role of cities in refugee
integration. The second chapter explores and compares the resettlement and
integration policies of the U.S. and Canada, to identify key differences and lessons and
make suggestions for the integration strategies and resettlement policy in the U.S.
Chapter three presents the case study of refugee resettlement and integration in Utica,
NY. Information was obtained through interviews, document and reports analysis, and
the census, to evaluate (1) the impact of refugee resettlement on the socio-‐economic
13
and physical environment in Utica, and (2) the role of the neighborhood in the
integration of refugees. The framework for this evaluation is based on the Indicators of
Integration developed by Ager & Strang (2004), which outlines the various dimensions
of integration and provides a metrics for assessing both refugee integration and the
services provided to support that integration. (Please see Chapter 2 for detailed
information). The framework includes ten indicators divided into four themes (Table
1):
1. Means and Markers – employment, housing, education and health – the key
indicators to obtain integration and enable integration
2. Social Connections – includes three forms of social relationships that support the
process of integration – ‘social bridges’ with other communities, ‘social bonds’
among the refugee community, and ‘social links’ to services and government.
3. Facilitators of integration – language and cultural knowledge, and safety and
stability.
4. Foundation – rights and citizenship – the rights and responsibilities expected
from refugees, as well as the service providers, for the integration process.
Table 1. The Indicators of Integration Means and Markers Employment Housing Education Health Social Connections Social bridges Social bonds Social Links Facilitators Language and Cultural Knowledge Safety and stability Foundation Rights and Citizenship
Source: Ager & Strang, 2004
Also, interviews with local organizations, refugees, and local residents provided
qualitative data from different viewpoints regarding the resettlement and integration
process, the challenges and opportunities for refugees and the city, and the
relationships with local communities. Interviews were held with:
1. Shelley Callahan, Executive Director, the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for
Refugees (November 10, 2017. Utica, NY).
14
2. Patrice VanNortwick, Director of Child Care and Family Services Division of the
Neighborhood Center (November 11, 2017. Utica, NY).
3. Chris Sunderlin, President of the Midtown Utica Community Center (November 9,
2017. Utica, NY).
4. Kathryn Stam, Board member of the Midtown Center and Professor of Anthropology
at SUNY Polytechnic Institute (November 9, 2017. Utica, NY).
5. Brian Thomas, Commissioner of the department of Urban and Economic
Development (November 30, 2017. Utica, NY).
6. Caroline Williams, Coordinator and Urban Planner of R2G Urban Studio (November
10, 2017. Utica, NY).
7. Focus group interview with Karen and Somali Bantu teenage refugees from Burma
and Somalia (November 9, 2017. Utica, NY).
8. Stephen Galiley, Doctor and Rabbi of the Beit Shalom Congregation (November 10,
2017. Utica, NY).
Finally, based on the analysis and research of the resettlement and integration in
Utica, Chapter four provides several suggestions for the city, the resettlement agency
and the planning department, as well as for other cities in the U.S., to support and
promote refugees’ integration in urban areas.
15
Chapter 2: Refugee Resettlement and Integration
The U.S. is the world’s top resettlement country with about 85,000 admissions of
refugees for resettlement in 2016, which along with Canada and Australia, provides 90
percent of resettlement locations for refugees from around the world (UNHCR 2012,
Nezer 2013, Margolis 2010). As mentioned, the U.S. Refugee Act of 1980, which enacted
existing practice of the resettlement agencies and formalized the private-‐public
partnership with the federal government, created the refugee resettlement program as
well as other supplemental programs to support the resettlement and integration of
refugees in the U.S. Since then, a continuous decline in federal funding and inadequate
coordination and information sharing between the federal and resettlement agencies
have resulted in an increasing stress on the receiving communities and the resettlement
agencies to assist in refugee integration. Furthermore, this pressure, among other
reasons, has resulted in public resistance to refugee resettlement in U.S. communities,
due to the perception of some of the receiving communities that refugees are a drain on
state and local resources (Brown and Scribner 2014, Nezer 2013). This Chapter
presents the refugee resettlement program and its process in the U.S. while highlighting
several aspects through a comparison with the resettlement programs in Canada that
could help streamline this process and improve refugee resettlement and integration
outcomes. The following section defines refugee integration and discusses the
indicators and criteria for its measurement, which provide the evaluation framework
for the case study in Utica, NY presented in Chapter three.
2.1 Refugee Resettlement Policy: A Comparison Between The
Programs of The U.S. And Canada Eligibility For Resettlement
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) determines
whether a person is qualified for a refugee status and whether resettlement is the
proper solution, after which the resettlement countries review their cases and decide
16
whether or not to grant resettlement based on the country’s policies and regulations.
Both the U.S. and Canada accept refugees, based on annual quotas, through well-‐
established resettlement programs that rely on UNHCR criteria, although they also take
into consideration their own factors and priorities (Nezer 2013, UNHCR 2012).
According to Article 1 of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees, a refugee is:
“A person who owing to well-‐founded fear of being persecuted for
reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social
group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is
unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the
protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being
outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such
events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.” (p.72)
Application and Case Processing Overseas
The Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (PRM)
manages the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), which includes the application
management of refugees overseas and the Reception and Placement Program of
refugees within the U.S. The U.S. resettlement process overseas is managed by the PRM
through five international and non-‐governmental organizations that operate nine
Resettlement Support Centers (RSC) around the world. Under supervision and funding
of the PRM, the Resettlement Support Centers gather information, conduct interview
with the applicants and prepare refugees’ files for the PRM to review and determine
eligibility for resettlement. These files also serve for the following step of the security
screening, which is conducted by officers from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS) of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. After USCIS approval, the
next step is a medical screening. Prior to departure to the U.S., the RSC offers refugees a
cultural orientation course designed to help prepare them for their new lives (Margolis
2010, Nezer 2013).
17
The processing procedure in Canada is similar to the U.S. and also includes
interviews, security screenings, medical examinations, and cultural orientation.
However, the average processing time of each application from the initial referral of
UNHCR to the arrival as a refugee into the resettling country, which can have serious
protection implications for refugees, is quite different. In the U.S., the average
processing time is about 18-‐24 months while in Canada it is shorter, 10-‐22 months
(UNHCR and Canada 2016).
Domestic Resettlement Program
The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration
(PRM) works with nine domestic resettlement organizations to review the applications
prepared by the Resettlement Support Center (RSC), and to match the needs of each
refugee with the available resources in a local community. Under the U.S. Refugee Act of
1980, non-‐profit organizations are responsible for resettling refugees through their 350
local affiliated offices in about 190 communities throughout the U.S. and provide them
goods and services (U.S. Department of State Website, Nezer 2013, Margolis 2010). In a
weekly meeting, representatives from each sponsoring agency review the cases and
choose which refugees they will resettle and which community will receive them while
considering factors such as health, age, and family relations. Under the program,
refugees are likely to be resettled near or with his or her relatives if they are living in
the U.S. If not, the agency decides on the location based on best match between a
community’s resources and the refugee’s needs. The main criteria for choosing a local
community for resettlement are affordable housing, available employment, and existing
community from the same refugee group that could assist the newly arrived refugees to
adjust to life in the U.S. (Nezer 2013, Margolis 2010, Singer and Wilson 2016) However,
refugees are often resettled in communities without the proper resources to meet their
specific needs because the resettlement agencies receive only basic information on the
refugees before selecting the case and the community for resettlement. Only after the
case is assigned to an agency do they receive some additional biographical and medical
information, but this is still not sufficient to help the agency adequately prepare for
their arrival (Brown and Scribner 2014, Nezer 2013).
18
Once decisions are made regarding the location of resettlement and the
sponsoring agency, the RSC works with the International Organization for Migration
(IOM), a contractor of the State Department that is responsible for transporting the
refugees into the U.S. Refugees who cannot afford to pay for their own travel, as well as
the medical examination and other related expenses, receive loans that they need to
begin repaying shortly after their arrival.
Domestic Resettlement Program: Goals And Services
As mentioned, the local affiliates of the nine domestic resettlement agencies are
responsible for providing services to the newly arrived refugees for the first 30-‐90 days
after arrival. Such services include meeting the refugees at the airport and providing
them with furnished housing, English classes, assistance with applying for social
security and medical care, and help finding employment and registering children for
school. The PRM’s Reception and Placement program provides monetary assistance of
$1,875 to the resettlement agencies per refugee to help cover costs of refugees in the
first few months after arrival. Most of the funds are used for direct support to the
refugee, which includes rent, furniture, food, and clothing, while up to $750 can be used
for the agency's related expenses such as salaries and office rent (Nezer 2013, Brown
and Scribner 2014). Through donations and volunteers, the sponsoring agencies are
able to provide additional support and resources for refugees. The Office of Refugee
Resettlement (ORR) under the Department of Health and Human Services provides
longer-‐term assistance, which includes financial aid, medical care, employment-‐related
services, English language training, and other support services. However, since federal
funding has decreased over the years to the point that it can no longer meet the needs
of refugees and their receiving communities, some services such as health care are
provided by the states and NGOs (Brown and Scribner 2014, Margolis 2010, Nezer
2013, U.S. Department of State Website).
The resettlement programs in Canada have a few similarities with the
resettlement program in the U.S., particularly regarding the program structure and its
services for refugees. However, Canada’s programs offer several insights regarding
19
funding and time frame for achieving self-‐sufficiency and local integration of the
refugee. There are three resettlement programs in Canada, under the Department of
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), which promotes the participation and
involvement of different sectors in the effort to protect refugees, including the private
sector, humanitarian and community organizations, and individuals:
(1) The Federal Government Assisted Refugee Program (GAR) is a government-‐funded
program that provides resettlement services through service provider
organizations;
(2) The Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program (PSR) is a program in which private
humanitarian and community organizations, as well as individuals, can become a
sponsor organization, upon approval, that provides resettlement services for
refugees including financial and integration support;
(3) The Blended Visa Office–Referred Program (BVOR) is a partnership program of the
UNHCR, Canada’s government, and private sponsors, which is designed to provide
further opportunities for involvement of the private sector in protecting refugees.
The program matches refugees who are referred by UNHCR with a private sponsor
in Canada, which cost-‐share the financial support for refugees with the government
in the first year of resettlement.
Canada's Private Sponsorship of Refugees program draws on private resources,
which allows Canada to resettle more refugees without increasing government costs.
Between 2010-‐2014, almost half (46 percent) of the refugees who were admitted into
Canada resettled by private sponsors. Furthermore, according to the government
report on the program, privately sponsored refugees become “self-‐supporting far more
quickly than GARs,” and they also report higher levels of satisfaction with their
resettlement experience (Citizenship and Immigration Canada 2007). In addition, the
private sponsorship program allows family members, friends, former refugees or other
individuals the opportunity to help refugees around the world. Private sponsors are
expected to fund the refugees until they become self-‐sufficient in their first year in
Canada, and provide most of the resettlement services such as basic necessities
(accommodations, utilities, clothing, transportation costs, etc.), assistance with
20
bureaucratic processes, such as school enrollment or registration for health-‐care
coverage, and social and emotional support for the first year after arrival. Other
services, such as language training and orientation, are still funded by the government.
As mentioned, the resettlement program in the U.S. views integration in terms of
self-‐sufficiency and hence encourages refugees to become employed as soon as
possible, while in Canada the time frame is three to five years. With the establishment
of the U.S. refugee resettlement program in 1981, refugees were exempted from finding
employment for the first 60 days and received services and integration support up to
three years after arrival. However, the exemption was eliminated a year after, in 1982,
and early employment became a primary objective of the program. Then in the mid-‐
1990s the eligibility periods for support were reduced, as “the U.S. refugee resettlement
program has found that people learn English and begin to function comfortably much
faster if they start work soon after arrival” (qtd. in Nezer p.6). Furthermore, unlike the
program in the U.S., Canada's resettlement program emphasizes and encourages a
process of mutual accommodation and adjustment by both newcomers and the larger
society as a fundamental approach towards integration, which suggests on the length of
the program. In addition, the U.S. program is limited to the first three months after
arrival (30-‐90 days), although in certain cases, services such as language training,
employment, and social services, are offered to refugees beyond this timeframe. In
Canada, the programs offer services and income support for basic needs up to 12
months after arrival, or until the refugee becomes self-‐supporting, whichever comes
first (U.S. Department of State Website, Nezer 2013, Brown and Scribner 2014).
Conclusion and Recommendations
The U.S. has resettled millions of refugees since World War II, and helped them
to rebuild and establish new lives. However, in the past few years, there has been a rise
in the activity and efforts to discourage refugee resettlement in the U.S., which
continues to increase in light of the changing political environment following the
presidential elections. Despite the evidence that refugees stimulate economic
development, particularly in rust-‐belt cities, refugees are often perceived as a drain on
21
state and local resources by some of the receiving communities, particularly on schools,
health care and social services. Although tension has always existed between
newcomers and local communities, a lack of federal resources to support the resettling
agencies and communities, coinciding with rising state-‐level legislative efforts to pass
restrictive migration laws, are among the factors contributing to the backlash against
refugees and the resettlement system.
Therefore, legalizing a private refugee sponsorship program, similar to Canada's
Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program, which uses private funding to resettle
refugees, could assist in solving the issues being raised. First, relying on private funding
could relieve the pressure on federal resources, which would allow some freedom to
make improvements in the domestic resettlement program and target its resources to
support local communities and refugees’ integration into society. It could also be an
opportunity to reevaluate the goals and objectives of the program and the approach to
promoting integration, including the emphasis on self-‐sufficiency and the role of the
host communities. Second, as mentioned earlier, refugees who resettled under Canada’s
Private Sponsorship program became self-‐sufficient relatively quicker compared to its
federal program. Although there is a need to learn more and examine the Canadian
program further, this program offers a practice that could strengthen the receiving
communities across the United States, and even possibly mitigate their response to and
perception of refugee resettlement, in turn relieving the tension as well.
In addition, Scribner and Brown (2014) discuss “the failure of the participating
agencies to share information adequately at each stage and to coordinate their activities
efficiently” (p.114) with the resettlement agencies in regards to the domestic
resettlement. It can be assumed that communication and information-‐sharing issues
may also impact the processing time of a refugee’s application overseas, and if so, there
is a need to examine the matter since it is a critical period for refugees. Either way,
evaluating Canada’s refugee application process overseas, which is similar to that of the
U.S. but significantly shorter, could offer some insights that would help to streamline
the U.S. process.
22
2.2 What is integration? Key indicators and measurement criteria
Integration is a multi-‐dimensional evolving process in which the conditions in
the resettlement country enable refugees to participate in the economic, social, cultural,
civic and political life of the country. Furthermore, it is a two-‐way process between
newcomers and host communities, which relies both on the interest of refugees to
interact with other groups and become a member of the society, and the acceptance by
the host society of the new members (Cheung and Phillimore 2013). According to the
Refugee Resettlement: An International Handbook to Guide Reception and Integration,
integration is defined by UNHCR as,
“A mutual, dynamic, multifaceted and on-‐going process. From a refugee
perspective, integration requires a preparedness to adapt to the lifestyle
of the host society without having to lose one’s own cultural identity.
From the point of view of the host society, it requires a willingness for
communities to be welcoming and responsive to refugees and for public
institutions to meet the needs of a diverse population. (p.12)
Integration is a term defined and used differently by different disciplines, such
as policy, practice, and academia, based on their interests and perspectives (Cheung and
Phillimore 2013, Hyndman 2011). In the academic literature, definitions of integration
range between socio-‐cultural dimensions, similar to the UNHCR definition, to functional
dimensions, which focused on education, language, employment, and housing as the
critical factors of integration. Since there is “no single, generally accepted definition,
theory or model of immigrant and refugee integration” (Castles, Korac, Vasta, &
Vertovec, 2002, p.114), there is also no one definition or agreement on what constitutes
successful integration and what are the indicators for measurement (Atfield,
Brahmbhatt, and O’Toole, 2007). Ager and Strang (2004; 2008) have developed an
analytical framework to explore the integration of refugees across multiple dimensions,
which includes both functional and social indicators. The framework consisting of ten
23
indicators divided into four domains (see Table 1), also serves as a framework to
evaluate and develop integration policy, services, and initiatives.
The first domain, "Means and Markers," refers to the functional indicators that
include employment, housing, education, and health. These indicators are widely
viewed by diverse stakeholders as the means to achieve integration, and also as the
markers of integration of refugees into the life of the community. Under this domain,
one of the key indicators of integration is employment, which has a significant impact
on other factors of integration as well. It enables economic independence, provides an
opportunity to interact with members of the host society, and presents the opportunity
to practice and develop language skills. However, refugees often face barriers to
employment due to issues such as lower educational levels, language proficiency or
cultural gaps. Also, inability to provide proof or non-‐recognition of previous
qualifications and work experience, which often leads to under-‐employment, poses a
significant challenge to finding a proper job. Therefore, vocational training and further
education programs are important factors in facilitating integration, since they create
the opportunities for social and economic advancement. Schools, for refugee children
and for refugee parents as well, also have an important role in establishing
relationships with local residents, getting information on access to local services, and, of
course, learning the host-‐society language.
Much of refugees' integration experience, as well as that of the long-‐time local
residents, is based on the housing and the neighborhood of residence. Housing
conditions influence the overall sense of security and stability in the community, and
affect the physical and emotional well-‐being of refugees. The social and cultural impacts
of housing include opportunities to establish relationships with local neighbors, which
can make the difference between a house and a home for the newcomers, and can help
refugees to access information about local services. Moreover, housing location also
impacts refugees’ access to employment opportunities, education and healthcare
services. Access and availability of health services, in particular, that meet the specific
needs of refugees is a fundamental factor in integration, which enables a greater social
24
participation and engagement in employment and education activities. (Ager and Strang
2008;2004)
Social connections, the second domain, have an important role in driving the
process of integration. Establishing social networks between refugees and other
members of the receiving community help refugees to engage with other indicators of
integration such as English language ability and employment, housing, education, and
health. This domain is comprised of three forms of social relationships and networks:
‘social bonds’ among refugees' ethnic community, ‘social bridges’ with other
communities, and ‘social links’ to services and government. Each form is an essential
part of creating a sense of belonging among refugees to the community, which is viewed
as "the ultimate mark of living in an integrated community" (Ager and Strang p.178).
The third domain is the Facilitators of the integration process. Language, cultural
knowledge and safety and stability are the necessary factors that enable refugees to
effectively integrate within the host society. The final domain, as its name indicates, is
the Foundation of the integration process, which ensures a common understanding of
the rights and responsibilities expected from refugees and the service providers as part
of the integration process (Cheung and Phillimore 2013, Ager and Strang 2008;2004).
25
CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDY OF REFUGEES’ RESETTLEMENT AND INTEGRATION IN UTICA, NY
Since 1975 about 3 million refugees have resettled in the U.S. and become a vital
part of the social, cultural and economic fabric of many American cities. For many Rust
Belt cities, such as Utica, New York, which suffered from continual economic decline,
population loss, and urban decay since the mid-‐20th century, refugee resettlement has
been a valuable source of revitalization. Unlike immigrants who are likely to settle in
areas with economic growth (Fiscal Policy Institute 2009), refugees are specifically
placed in areas where there is low economic and population growth. As described in
Chapter 2, among the factors affecting resettlement are affordable housing and
availability of jobs. Refugees are being resettled in the U.S. for humanitarian reasons but
they are also contributing to and stimulating economic growth and renewal of desolate
neighborhoods (Kallick and Mathema 2016). Refugees are expanding the labor force,
launching small businesses, buying properties and increasing tax revenues-‐
developments that, in turn, attract other migrants to the area following the economic
growth. An open letter sent by eighteen mayors last year to urge President Obama to
increase the number of refugees that the U.S. plans to admit demonstrated the
contribution of refugee resettlement to cities: “Our cities have been transformed by the
skills and the spirit of those who come to us from around the world. The drive and
enterprise of immigrants and refugees have helped build our economies, enliven our
arts and culture, and enrich our neighborhoods” (Fulton 2005, Kallick and Mathema
2016, The White House Task force on New Americans Report 2015).
The contribution of refugees to their cities and communities in the U.S. greatly
relies on the integration process of refugees into society. However, the arrivals of new
refugees, which increase the social, cultural and religious diversity of the city, pose
social and economic challenges for the city and its residents, which may lead to fear,
misunderstanding, and division. Federal and state support is provided to help refugees
succeed economically and socially, but without an official integration strategy of the
federal government (The White House Task force on New Americans Report 2015),
26
refugees’ adaptation depends on the support and services the cities provide. Therefore,
the cities have the responsibility, and the opportunity, not only to support the
integration of its new residents but also to promote social inclusion of all inhabitants.
To create a welcoming and supportive environment for refugees is to create a thriving
and a strong community (Ray 2013, Jacobsen 2003). This chapter presents the
resettlement and integration process of refugees in Utica, including an analysis of
Utica’s neighborhoods.
Summary Of Main Findings
Refugee resettlement in Utica is a story of partnership and recovery, which
carries many opportunities and challenges for both parties. Refugees brought the
population growth and the energy needed for Utica's revitalization, while the economic
conditions resulting from many years of out-‐migration offered various opportunities for
the newcomers to build their home and start a new life. Yet, the city is facing several
challenges to its urban and economic development. There are high levels of poverty and
unemployment, higher than New York State's rates. The housing conditions are poor
and include many vacant and abandoned housing units, which might result in
significant health risks such as lead poisoning and asthma. Also, the majority of foreign-‐
born residents (73 percent), which largely consists of refugees, have only a high school
education or are without any formal education at all, and of those, about half speak
English “less than well”. Moreover, language barriers and cultural gaps are the most
significant challenges for refugees' social and economic integration in Utica, which in
turn is a challenge for the city's development. The foreign-‐born population is largely
concentrated in the Downtown, Cornhill, and East Utica neighborhoods, which are the
poorest neighborhoods in the city. The conditions in these neighborhoods pose
additional challenges for its refugee residents, and hence are likely to have a negative
effect on their integration process.
27
3.1 Historic Background Utica, the county seat of Oneida County in upstate New York, is located in the
Mohawk Valley region, halfway between Albany and Syracuse. The strategic location of
the city in the valley's natural passage that connects the Atlantic Ocean with North
America through the Hudson River, alongside the Erie Canal, has made Utica a thriving
industrial center. The development of railroads and infrastructure in the county during
the 19th and early 20th century brought further industrial development and growth to
Utica, which became the center of the textile industry in America. Throughout the years,
waves of German, Polish, Irish, and Italian immigrants settled in Utica to work in one of
the numerous industries in the city (Wilkinson 2005, Bottini 2014, Burns 2009).
Since the mid-‐20th century, Utica has experienced ongoing economic downturn
due to globalization trends and the availability of cheaper un-‐unionized labor in South
America and overseas, as well as government disinvestment. (Fulton 2005, McManus &
Sprehn 2014). One by one, industries began to abandon Utica, including the textile mills,
Lockheed Martin, General Electric, and finally the Griffiss Air Force Base, the largest
employer in the region. The loss of industries and jobs has forced numerous residents
to move from the city in search of other employment opportunities, which left Utica
with a large concentration of poverty, high vacancy rates, a shrinking property tax base
and a declining city center. In just a few decades, the population in Utica dropped by
approximately 40,000 people, from about 100,000 in 1960 to 62,000 in 2010 (see
Figure 1). It would become
known as "The City that
God Forgot" (Bottini 2014,
Burns 2009, Randolph
2009, MVRCR Website
2016, McManus & Sprehn
2014).
Source: Utica Master Plan
28
The migration waves that began in the late 1970s with the opening of the
Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees (MVRCR) were "key in turning the town’s
fortunes around" (Wilkinson 2005), which helped to reverse the population loss and
revive the city. Since its opening in 1981, over 15,000 refugees from more than 34
countries have resettled in Utica, about 400 each year (MVRCR Website, Wilkinson
2005). During the 1980s, following the War in Vietnam, Utica welcomed refugees
mostly from Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos (Burns 2009, Wilkinson 2005,
Fulton 2005). In the 1990s, two large groups of refugees resettled in Utica: Russians
from the former Soviet Union fleeing religious persecution, and Bosnians who escaped
from the civil war in former Yugoslavia (Burns 2009, Fulton 2005). After the terrorist
attacks of September 11, as the U.S. government reduced the annual refugees' quotas,
refugee resettlement in Utica quickly dropped by 58%, from 577 in 2001 to 240 in 2003
(MVRCR Website, Burns 2009). Since then, most of the refugees settled in Utica have
been from Burma, while others have come from Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, and more
(MVRCR Website, Wilkinson 2005). Today, the refugees in Utica comprise 18 percent of
the population. With a high concentration of diverse ethnicities and cultures in one
small place, Utica is one of the leading refugee centers in the U.S. (MVRCR website,
Fulton 2005).
Source: MVRCR Website
29
Despite the city's economic decline, and ironically, because of it, Utica became an
attractive destination for refugees, as well as immigrants from around the world. The
low cost of living, which allowed buying cheap properties and starting new businesses,
offered ideal conditions for refugees to start over in Utica. Once established in the city,
existing refugee communities and the growing economic activity started to attract
refugees and immigrants from other countries, such as Dominicans, and Puerto Ricans.
Throughout the years, “secondary migration” has played a significant role in the
population and economic growth of the city, since refugees, who often share a similar
background with existing communities, chose to relocate their families and join the
growing community after they were resettled in other parts of the U.S. The Bosnian
community attracted over the years many Bosnian immigrants and refugees who
escaped the civil war in former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, and grew to become one of
the largest and most well-‐established refugee communities in Utica (MVRCR, La Corte
2016, Rajagopalan 2016).
3.2 Refugee Resettlement: Process and Services The process of resettlement and integration of refugees is a joint effort of the
city, the county, and nonprofit agencies, led by the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for
Refugees (MVRCR). The MVRCR is one of the local affiliates of the Lutheran Immigration
and Refugee Service (LIRS), which is one of the national voluntary resettlement
agencies. Both the Refugee Center and the county receive financial aid from the federal
Office of Refugee Resettlement to provide a variety of services for refugees, which is
also a substantial financial support for the City (Fulton 2005, Burns 2009).
The MVRCR oversees the arrival of refugees to Utica and provides a range of
services to support them in achieving self-‐sufficiency (Burns 2009, Fulton 2005, MVRCR
Website). As they arrive in Utica, the Refugee Center greets the refugees at the airport
and provides them housing and furnishing, food, clothing, cultural orientation, and
helps with access to other resources, including healthcare, language training,
30
employment, citizenship lessons, and educational opportunities for their first 30-‐90
days in the U.S. (MVRCR Website, Burns 2009, Wilkinson 2005). After the first 90 days,
the Refugee Center continues to offer job placement services, English classes, and
citizenship services, also for “secondary migrants,” refugees who were resettled by
other agencies somewhere else in the U.S. (MVRCR Website).
3.3 Refugee Integration & Impacts The following discussion highlights key points of the integration process of
refugees in Utica and its implications for both refugees and the City, according to the
Indicators of Integration mentioned in the methodology section.
3.3.1 Housing
The housing market in Utica suffered severely from the city’s overall economic
decline of the past few decades, when many properties were abandoned and the
housing prices dropped significantly. Refugees, mostly from the Bosnian community,
took advantage of a housing surplus, and purchased and renovated dozens of one-‐ and
two-‐family homes in the Old Italian area of east Utica along Mohawk Street (Fulton
2005, Wilkinson 2005). As a result, the housing values increased, as did the City's
property tax revenues, and the housing market began to show signs of recovery
(Wilkinson 2005, McManus & Sprehn 2014). In fact, refugees and other immigrants
made a vital contribution in reviving the market; as stated in Jogby’s Analytics Report,
“sales to immigrants have been a major factor in both housing sales and the
stabilization of housing values in the city” (p.6).
However, the very efforts that helped in recovery and renewal of the housing
market created a problem for the Refugee Center in finding affordable and suitable
housing for newly arrived refugees (Wilkinson 2005, Callahan 2016). According to the
Executive Director of MVRCR, Shelly Callahan, it is one of the Center’s biggest
challenges. With limited housing options, finding affordable housing is a significant
problem. The Refugee Center works with the Municipal Housing Authority and
individual landlords, and resettles refugees based on the availability of affordable
31
housing that is often located Utica’s poorest neighborhoods. The majority of the housing
in these neighborhoods is very old, built prior to 1949, and since lead-‐based paints
were still in use in residences back then, it is often associated with lead poisoning. In
fact, lead poisoning is a major problem in Oneida County, particularly among children,
including those of newly arrived refugees (Stam 2016, Rajagopalan 2016, Utica CNA
Report 2015).
3.3.2 Employment & Economic Development Most of the refugees, who often arrive with limited language abilities, seek low-‐
skilled jobs to start making money to pay bills and return the loans they received from
MVRCR, regardless of their education or previous occupations (Wilkinson 2005, MVRCR
Website). As the population decline resulted in labor shortage and many job vacancies
over the years, the newcomers seized the opportunity and filled the low-‐level jobs. The
influx of refugees also helped to sustain businesses and corporations that otherwise
might have been forced to close (Burns 2009, McManus & Sprehn 2014). The ConMed
factory of medical equipment is one example where refugees filled job vacancies and
helped the company survive the economic decline. By 2005, about half of the company's
employees were refugees who mostly worked in entry-‐level manufacturing jobs, while
some had professional-‐level positions (Wilkinson, 2005; Fulton, 2005). In addition,
throughout the years, refugees have opened many small businesses, largely in and
around the Downtown and Cornhill neighborhoods, including Bosnian salons, Russian
food stores, and a variety of ethnic restaurants, cafes, and eateries that represent the
cultural richness of Utica (McManus & Sprehn 2014, Wilkinson 2005, MVRCR Website).
During the 1980s and 1990s most of the manufacturing jobs left Utica, and the
industrial sector was replaced by the lower-‐paid jobs of the services sector, which
employs many refugees and immigrants in Utica (McManus & Sprehn, 2014). Today,
through the job placement program of MVRCR, many of the refugees find work in a
nearby Native American casino and Chobani yogurt plant in New Berlin, an hour drive
from Utica. Local factories, hotels, nursing homes and restaurants are also among the
major industries that employ refugees (Mann 2016). However, most of these jobs are on
32
night shift schedules, require manual labor, and pay minimum wage, which can be a
great fit at the beginning for new and unskilled refugees, but in the long term, cause
detachment from daily life and restrict opportunities for further education, ultimately
limiting refugees’ ability to advance (McManus & Sprehn 2014, Rajagopalan 2016).
The MVRCR and the local community colleges and universities, including the
Mohawk Valley Community College, offer training and workforce development services
for refugees to nurture entrepreneurial talents with the intent to encourage small
businesses development. The city invests substantially in promoting entrepreneurship
and start-‐ups of small businesses through incubators and numerous programs, while
the programs and services for refugees also align with the city's economic development
objectives. A major economic development project invested in by New York State and
global technology companies intends to create the state’s second major Nanotechnology
research, development, and manufacturing center at the SUNYIT University. The
establishment of the NANO Center is expected to create thousands of new high-‐tech
jobs on site and generate the development of housing and community services such as
daycare, hospitality, and retail, which would provide employment for thousands of
more employees (McManus & Sprehn 2014, Utica CNA HUD Profile Report 2015).
However, considering the low education levels and skills along with the language and
cultural barriers of many of the refugees who arrived in Utica in recent years, few of the
adult refugees, if any, are likely to benefit directly from the economic opportunities of
the NANO Center. And even the supplemental industries expected to emerge to support
the production of the NANO Center, will probably not take off until several years after
the Center's opening. Either way, the skills gap is a significant challenge for refugees to
integrate into the city's economic initiatives, as well as for the city's future
development. However, it should be noted that the second generation of refugees who
currently attend school and have grown up within American culture have greater
chances to benefit directly from these projects.
33
Transportation
The public transportation services in Utica are operated by The Central New York
Regional Transportation Authority (Centro) from Syracuse, which provides a regional
bus service for Onondaga, Oswego, Cayuga, and Oneida counties. The service only runs
along major routes in Utica during weekdays with limited operation hours during the
weekend, which poses a significant problem for low-‐income residents who cannot
afford a car, such as refugees. In fact, many of the refugees who work an hour drive
from Utica, in the Casino and the Yogurt Factory, get together to buy a car or share a
ride to get to work. Since it is a regional service, the City has tried to find alternative
public transportation solutions, but its efforts have gotten tangled up in city regulations
that stopped the city from moving forward in the matter.
3.3.3 Education and Health The schools and health care services in Utica, as well as other city agencies, have
had to adapt to accommodate the growing needs of different refugee groups. To support
these groups, for the past number of years, the City has contracted with Language Line
Solutions, which provides over-‐the-‐phone translation and interpretation services
around the clock, 7 days a week for over 200 different languages (Thomas 2016). A
local office of the Multicultural Association of Medical Interpreters (MAMI) in Syracuse
provides a telephone and face-‐to-‐face translation service for several hospitals in the
region, including accompaniment of patients to scheduled medical appointments. The
in-‐person interpretation, in particular, has been a very helpful service for both medical
care providers and people with limited English skills (Williams 2016). In addition, the
MVRCR offers cultural competency training and resources to schools, hospitals, housing
authorities, landlords and other organizations to promote awareness and skills needed
to interact with people of different cultures (Wilkinson 2005, MVRCR Website).
Utica City School District has been financially struggling in absorbing an
increasing number of refugees who speak forty-‐three different languages, some with
little or no ability at all to speak English (Wilkinson 2005, Zogby 2013, MVRCR
Website). The limited resources and staff restrict the ability of the only high school in
34
Utica, Thomas R. Proctor High School, which ranked the fifth poorest school district in
New York State, to accommodate the needs of its diverse students. However, although
the classrooms, including the ESL classes, are highly crowded -‐ the student-‐teacher
ratio is 17 to 1, a relatively high ratio compared to the New York State average of 14 to
1 -‐ many refugees and immigrant students are among the top of their class
(Rajagopalan 2016, Zogby 2013).
Last April, the School District was sued for alleged systematic discrimination
against refugee students over the age of 16. The New York Civil Liberties Union, who
represented a group of refugee students, claimed that the School District did not allow
the new students the opportunity to earn a high school diploma since they were
referred to lower quality programs instead of attending high school (Rajagopalan
2016). As the lawsuit continues, refugee youth are no longer directed to alternative
programs. It is important to note that although refugee education and related expenses,
which including English learning and remedial education for missing years of schooling,
is one of the highest expenses of the region in relation to refugees (McManus & Sprehn
2014), in the long run the revenues “from the children of immigrants in their working
years is the largest fiscal benefit of immigration” (Hagstrom p.12). Moreover, most of
the social services for refugee populations are provided by Oneida County, not by the
City of Utica, with the support of the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (Fulton
2005, McManus & Sprehn 2014).
3.3.4 Social Connections
The City of Utica has been recognized for being a very welcoming community to
the immigrant and refugee populations through the years. As a city with strong
immigration roots, the local community welcomes refugee and immigrants because of
the benefits they bring to the city. According to the Jogby report, “69% of all residents in
the Greater Utica area agree that immigration has been a good thing” (p.4). Residents
have also expressed a positive response to the impact of refugees on the housing
market, local economy and retail. However, the conviction that “the injection of a new
element [after a long decline] provides something new, almost a “Hail Mary Pass”
35
instead of despair” (Zogby p.7) is a better description of the general attitude of the local
community towards refugees. Although the arrival of refugees from South and
Southeast Asia and eastern Africa have raised some tension around cultural differences,
and there are also some misperceptions and urban myths about refugees’ “advantages,”
such as free apartments and cash benefits, the community is very accepting overall
(Zogby 2013, Rajagopalan 2016, Stam 2016, Williams 2016, VanNortwick 2016,
Callahan 2016).
Religious centers and community and ethnic organizations have been a
significant part of the support system for refugees and immigrants. Many religious
centers in the city, which include Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, Jewish and
Unitarian Universalists, offer support to its diverse population, both spiritually and
materially. In return, refugees have helped to sustain and attract new members to the
religious community. In addition, ethnic organizations for the Latino, Hindu, Somali
Bantu, Sudanese and Burmese refugees and immigrants have also been an important
part of the support network. In recent years, three mosques have been established, one
of them in a former Central Methodist Church, along with several Buddhist Temples
(Zogby 2013, MVRCR Website, ‘The Pluralism Project’ website). The transformation of
the mosque drew very little attention and the restoration of the building was heralded
as a positive step, while in contrast, in Manhattan, the intention to build an Islamic
community center raised a vigorous opposition by the public. However, the erection of
the Vietnamese Buddhist Temple saw resistance from the residents of the “North Utica”
neighborhood who claimed that it violated zoning rights and impacted property value.
However, the residents’ use of racial epithets would seem to indicate that zoning
violations were not their only concern (Zogby 2013, MVRCR Website).
Many projects and events organized by the MVRCR, community and faith
organizations, and the city such as free concerts on the 4th of July, offers different
opportunities for quality interactions between long-‐time residents and refugees. Utica’s
parks and recreation facilities, which serve many refugees in a variety of activities
including picnicking, swimming or physical exercise, also allow different opportunities
36
for social interactions. However, the interviews have pointed out the lack of social
interactions among “natives” and different refugee groups and the need to construct
such opportunities, which would help to increase the "sense of belonging" of refugees
and help to promote acceptance and understanding among the local community.
Civic Engagement
The City of Utica has made a concerted effort in recent years to promote civic
engagement and the inclusion of various minority groups. The Mayor and his
administration have strived to promote a level of diversity in its workforce to reflect the
population they serve by encouraging participation of various immigrant and refugee
populations. In particular, they have recruited for positions in the Police, Fire and Code
Enforcement Departments, which come in contact with the public in the neighborhoods
most frequently. As a result, three employees were hired that reflect three of the City’s
largest ethnicities – Bosnian, Karen and Hispanic. In addition, the City recently formed
the “Access and Inclusion” Committee to facilitate a dialogue among community leaders
and organizations, as well as representatives of some city agencies. The committee
includes delegates of local community organizations, the Municipal Housing Authority,
the Latino Association, the Bosnian Islamic Association, MVRCR, and other key
community stakeholders (Rajagopalan 2016, Utica City Website, Thomas 2016).
Promoting diversity is also a part of the latest planning efforts, including the
Master Plan, which sets goals, objectives and recommendations to enhance and broaden
diversity in the City. In general, in the planning process the refugee community is most
often represented by the Executive Director of the MVRCR. For instance in the steering
committee of the Master Plan in which the former Executive Director of the Mohawk
Valley Resource Center for Refugees, Peter Vogelaar, and Kler Eh Soe, a Karen refugee
who came to Utica in 2008, took part. The Urban and Economic Development
Department and other city agencies make an effort to promote participation of different
minority groups in the planning process, but, overall, refugees’ engagement is relatively
low. As the Commissioner of the Department of Urban and Economic Development said:
"eliciting their input on planning efforts requires a dedicated effort and creative
37
methods." The City departments post timely content regarding public meeting agendas
and minutes on the city's website, which was recently updated to offer content
translation through Google Translate. However, as learned from the latest planning
process of the Community Needs Assessment initiative, which obtained extensive input
from different community leaders through round tables and surveys, the response rate
of refugees, as well as other members from the Latino and African American
communities, "could have been better" (Williams 2016). Although surveys were
provided to the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees in several different
languages during the development of the Community Needs Assessment, the
responsiveness from adult members of the refugee community remain very low.
However, since the surveys were also distributed during English classes in school, the
refugee youth participation was significantly high (Williams 2016). Nevertheless, when
members of the refugee community start a business or purchase and renovate housing,
inevitably they become more involved in the planning process as they request building
permits or need to understand zoning districts and planning boards. Often, the process
of understanding different regulations and reading maps is more difficult than usual for
refugees due to language barriers (Williams 2016, Utica Master Plan 2011).
The political integration of refugees and immigrants in Utica has been more
difficult than other aspects. In general, there is distrust among refugees toward the
"government" and the political process since most of them left their countries of origin
due to political changes in which their government couldn't protect and support them
anymore. However, over the years, as refugees in Utica become more involved in the
community, there have been a few examples of changing attitudes towards the
government. In late 2002, the Mayor at the time appointed a woman of Bosnian descent
to the Common Council, who, through her work with the workforce development office
in Oneida County, helped other Bosnian refugees to find local jobs. In 2004, refugees
from the Bantu community issued a formal letter to the federal government claiming
the MVRCR didn't provide them the medical interpretation services they needed. While
this action was partially the result of misunderstanding, since the federal law requires
Oneida County to provide the services, the gesture of writing an official letter by the
38
Bantu refugees who suffered from an oppressive government in Somalia for many years
is a major step for them (Fulton 2005, Thomas 2016).
3.3.5 Language & Culture In recent years, refugee admissions in Utica have expanded the number of
countries they accept applications from, which has brought diversity in various aspects
-‐ culture, ethnicity, languages, religions, education, health, trauma, and much more. The
increasing diversity poses a challenge for MVRCR and the City, not only to meet the
growing needs of refugees and their families, but also to support the local community
throughout their integration process (Kraly 2011, Wilkinson 200). Similarly to many
foreigners, the cultural gap and language barriers are the biggest challenges facing
refugees in Utica, which restrict their ability to adapt and build a new life. It is also the
most significant challenge to a full inclusion of refugees into urban and economic
development, as stated by Brian Thomas, the Commissioner of the Urban & Economic
Development Department.
The successful integration of the Bosnian refugees in Utica, who escaped the civil
war in former Yugoslavia and settled in Utica in the 1990s, demonstrates the important
role of cultural background and experiences as a refugee in the integration process. For
the Bosnians, as well as for the Russians and Vietnamese refugees in Utica, who came
from countries that share relatively similar values to those of a Western country,
adjusting to life in Utica has been quite different than for refugees from other countries.
Their work habits and cultural customs helped them in establishing their lives in Utica
pretty quickly. On the other hand, for the Somali Bantus, for example, many of whom
arrived after a long stay in refugee camps in Kenya-‐ often traumatized-‐ adapting to life
in a western country has been a struggle. Most of them were previously farm workers,
who had never used a car, turned on a light switch, or seen snow. The distinct cultural
differences make it particularly difficult for them to adjust to life in Utica. Thus, for
some refugees, learning English, attaining job skills or even visiting the health clinic can
be a challenging experience for them, as well as for the service providers (Wilkinson
2005, Fulton 2005, Coughlan, Stam and Kingston 2015).
39
3.3.6 Urban Development Plans
Refugee resettlement breathed new life into the City, which launched several
planning initiatives following the population growth to promote economic and urban
recovery and renewal of the city. A community -‐ university partnership between
municipal representatives and Cornell University's "Rust 2 Green Urban Studio" (R2G
Studio) was established to support the city's community-‐based planning efforts to
identify problems and find solutions on various issues, including food systems,
infrastructure, public space and streetscape, housing and downtown revitalization. The
Studio helped to organize the Community Needs Assessment (CNA) process, which
identified the priority needs, challenges and opportunities for economic and community
development.
Following the findings, the Downtown area has been identified as a priority
target area since it is composed of twelve contiguous Census Tracts that collectively
have high unemployment, poverty and vacancy rates. Thus, the R2G Studio along with
the Department of Urban and Economic Development has been working with
community stakeholders to guide public investments and prioritize projects to
revitalize this area. These projects include a redevelopment of existing multi-‐family
housing, rehabilitation of about one hundred unhealthy and vacant housing units, and
construction of new lofts, apartments, and townhouses for sale and rent at both market-‐
rate and affordable prices (Utica Master Plan 2011). Furthermore, two major
development projects intend to stimulate residential and economic development in the
city. The Harbor Point development project is a plan to transform the historic harbor
into a recreation complex, including a mixed-‐use residential and commercial
development of chain hotels and restaurants (CNA HUD Profile Report 2015, Utica CNA
Report 2015). Also, the improvements to the Utica Memorial Auditorium venue have
already started to generate revenues and taxes, and are anticipated to promote retail
and housing development in the surrounding downtown area.
40
3.4 Neighborhood Analysis Neighborhoods play a significant role in the refugee integration process. The
places where refugees live can pose integration challenges or assist them in meeting
their needs, which include accessing public transportation, employment opportunities,
and health and education services, as well as establishing social connections with their
neighbors. As mentioned earlier, refugees are placed in economically struggling cities
where, among other factors, the housing costs are low. Since affordable housing is often
available in poor urban neighborhoods, refugees are likely to be resettled in these
areas. When refugees are concentrated in vulnerable neighborhoods, over time they
tend to imitate the residential patterns of their low-‐income native neighbors. As a
result, they struggle more to integrate into society. Although both the native and
refugee groups in these neighborhoods face similar challenges regarding economic
mobility, refugees often face additional difficulties driven by their status, such as
English proficiency and lack of connections to employment opportunities (Rawlings,
Capps et. al. 2007).
A study conducted by the Urban Institute, which compared native and immigrant
groups in low-‐income neighborhoods to identify the factors that pose specific hardship
on the advancement and integration of immigrants, found that “with education, access
to transportation, English language acquisition, and citizenship, immigrants are able to
close the gap with native-‐born whites on most measures of economic integration, even
when living in the same low-‐income urban neighborhoods" (Rawlings, Capps et. al.
2007 p.5). While citizenship is not a common challenge for resettled refugees and
immigrants, because refugees are required to apply for citizenship after one year in the
U.S., both groups share many other challenges, such as education and language
proficiency (Rawlings, Capps et. al. 2007, Ager and Strang 2008). Therefore, through a
comparison of several socio-‐economic and physical characteristics of six neighborhoods
in Utica (see Figure 3), the following analysis identifies the neighborhoods where a
specific attention is needed to help its refugee residents integrate into society. The data
for the evaluation were obtained from the American Community Survey in 2014 (5-‐
41
Year Estimates), which includes (1) educational attainment; (2) economic
characteristics: income, poverty level, and employment; and (3) Housing conditions:
vacancy rate, year built, and homeownership. Refugee groups, who in the analysis are
referred to as ‘foreign-‐born’, were identified by place of birth, ancestry reported, and
languages spoken at home.
Figure 3. The Neighborhoods in Utica
Source: City of Utica Website
3.4.1 Neighborhood Conditions: Main Findings Utica faces several challenges, including poor housing conditions, high rate of
poverty and unemployment, and lower levels of education among the foreign-‐born
population, about a half of whom speak English “less than well”. These challenges are
relatively similar across Utica's neighborhoods, which among other characteristics of
the neighborhood are likely to influence refugees’ integration. The following discussion
highlights main aspects of the neighborhoods’ conditions, while the next section
presents the detailed analysis of the neighborhoods.
Most of the foreign-‐born population in Utica is concentrated in the Downtown,
East Utica, and Cornhill neighborhoods, which respectively have the highest share of
residents who speak other languages than English (See Table 1). While about half of the
42
foreign-‐born residents in Utica speak English "less than very well," the Downtown and
Cornhill neighborhoods have the highest share of the foreign-‐born with language
barriers, higher than Utica's average. Also, compared to other neighborhoods, the
Downtown and Cornhill neighborhoods are the most racially diverse neighborhoods
with the lowest share of White residents and a high portion of African-‐American, Asian
and Hispanic residents.
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Utica’s Neighborhoods
North Utica Cornhill
East Utica Downtown
South Utica
West Utica Total
Total Population
Native 94% 71% 73% 79% 86% 91% 82% Foreign born 6% 29% 27% 21% 14% 9% 18% Language spoken at home English only 90% 57% 59% 69% 80% 85% 73% Language other than English 10% 43% 41% 31% 20% 15% 27% Speak English less than "very well" 59% 57% 53% 65% 57% 54% 55% Race
White 89% 38% 78% 58% 70% 68% 67% Black or African American 8% 30% 11% 19% 15% 22% 15% Asian 2% 25% 7% 18% 11% 7% 9% Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 5% 14% 15% 12% 8% 8% 11%
Source: United States Census Bureau American Community Survey 2014 5-‐Year Estimates
Regarding educational levels as presented in Table 2, almost half (43 percent) of
the foreign-‐born population in Utica has no formal education, and most of them reside
in the Downtown and Cornhill neighborhoods. Although the portion of foreign-‐born
residents in the West Utica neighborhood is significantly small (9 percent), the
education levels of about 60 percent of this group have less than high school education.
Moreover, a significant share of the foreign-‐born residents who have an associate
degree or attended some college without receiving a degree is concentrated in the
North Utica neighborhood, which has only 6 percent of the foreign-‐born population in
Utica. This neighborhood also has the largest share of native-‐born residents with
43
Bachelor's degree, a higher rate than the city's average in the same category. Compared
to other neighborhoods, North Utica is the least diverse neighborhood in which 89
percent of its population is white.
Table 2. Educational Attainment in Utica’s Neighborhood by Nativity North
Utica Cornhill East Utica Downtown
South Utica
West Utica Total
Native Less than high school graduate 8% 19% 19% 25% 11% 21% 16% High school graduate 26% 38% 36% 33% 29% 37% 33% Some college (no degree) or associate's degree 41% 32% 30% 31% 34% 32% 33% Bachelor's degree 17% 8% 11% 8% 16% 7% 12% Graduate or professional degree 9% 2% 4% 3% 11% 3% 6% Foreign born
Less than high school graduate 39% 57% 38% 52% 32% 60% 43% High school graduate 18% 21% 36% 16% 36% 19% 30% Some college (no degree) or associate's degree 31% 16% 16% 12% 18% 13% 17% Bachelor's degree 4% 3% 7% 9% 6% 6% 6% Graduate or professional degree 8% 3% 4% 11% 8% 2% 5%
Source: United States Census Bureau American Community Survey 2014 5-‐Year Estimates
The Downtown, Cornhill and West Utica neighborhoods have the highest
poverty level among the neighborhoods, greater than Utica's average poverty rate of 31
percent. For comparison, the poverty rate in New York State is 15.6 percent (see Table
3). The mean household income in the Downtown neighborhood of $22,760 is the
lowest average income compared to the city's average household income of $44,000.
Similarly, the mean incomes of households in the West Utica and Cornhill
neighborhoods are also below the city average. The unemployment rates in the
Downtown, Cornhill and East Utica neighborhoods are relatively similar to Utica’s
unemployment rate of 14 percent. However, the unemployment rate in the West Utica
neighborhood is significantly higher -‐ 26 percent. In the North and South Utica
neighborhoods, the poverty and unemployment rates are much lower than the city's
44
average in these categories, particularly in the North Utica neighborhood in which only
9 percent of its residents live in poverty and only 4 percent are unemployed. Also, the
mean household income in this neighborhood of approximately $60,000 is the highest
in the city.
Table 3. Economic Characteristic of Utica’s Neighborhoods
North Utica Cornhill
East Utica Downtown
South Utica
West Utica Total
Poverty
Income in the past 12 months below poverty level 9% 41% 32% 40% 26% 41% 31% Native 97% 67% 68% 85% 83% 89% 78% Foreign born 3% 33% 32% 15% 17% 11% 22% Mean Income
Mean household income
$59,916 $36,875 $42,050 $22,760 $51,242 $34,427 $44,168
Employment status (*of the population in labor force, aged 16 years and over) Employed 95% 83% 86% 86% 89% 74% 86% Unemployed 4% 17% 14% 14% 10% 26% 14%
Source: United States Census Bureau American Community Survey 2014 5-‐Year Estimates
As shown in Table 4, most of the housing units in Utica were built prior to 1949,
while the new housing units were largely built after 2010 in the Downtown
neighborhood (13 units). A large number of vacant housing units are located in the
Downtown, Cornhill, and West neighborhoods, with Downtown having the highest rate
of 35 percent compared to other neighborhoods. These three neighborhoods also have
low levels of homeownership, particularly in the Downtown neighborhood (14 percent)
compared to Utica’s homeownership rate of 47 percent. In the North and South Utica
neighborhoods, the percentage of vacant housing units is significantly low, 6 and 9
percent respectively, compared to other neighborhoods. The North Utica neighborhood
also has the highest homeownership rate (84 percent), which along with the factors
discussed, is the most stable neighborhood in Utica.
45
Table 4. Housing Characteristics of Utica’s Neighborhoods
North Utica Cornhill
East Utica Downtown
South Utica
West Utica Total
Housing occupancy Occupied housing units 94% 82% 90% 65% 91% 81% 87% Vacant housing units 6% 18% 10% 35% 9% 19% 13% Housing tenure Owner-‐occupied 80% 41% 44% 14% 47% 37% 47% Renter-‐occupied 20% 59% 56% 86% 53% 63% 53% Year structure built Built 2010 or later 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0.1% Built 1990 to 2009 7% 4% 4% 2% 4% 1% 4% Built 1970 to 1989 12% 4% 9% 32% 8% 3% 9% Built 1950 to 1969 60% 15% 27% 9% 21% 14% 25% Built 1949 or earlier 21% 77% 59% 56% 67% 82% 63%
Source: United States Census Bureau American Community Survey 2014 5-‐Year Estimates
3.4.2 Neighborhood Conditions: Detailed Findings
Socio-‐economic Characteristics:
(1) Native and foreign-‐born population
While Utica has suffered significant population loss since the 1960, this trend has
gradually started to reverse itself over the past few decades due to refugee
resettlement and secondary migration, bringing the total population to 61,852 in
2014. During the decline, all neighborhoods experienced a decrease in population,
but Cornhill and
Downtown Utica
experienced the
steepest decreases,
while South Utica
and East Utica
experienced lower
rates (Utica Master
Plan 2011). The
46
foreign-‐born population in Utica, which has grown by 23 percent since 2010,
constituted 18 percent of the total population in 2014. Among Utica’s
neighborhoods, Cornhill neighborhood has the highest rate of foreign-‐born people
(29 percent), followed by East Utica with 27 percent, and Downtown with 21
percent (see Figure 3).
(2) Languages
As a result of refugee resettlement, secondary migration and immigration, about 27
percent of the total population in Utica speaks about 43 languages other than
English while only 45 percent of them indicated they speak English “very well” (see
Table 5). The most common languages in Utica, besides English, are Spanish, Serbo-‐
Croatian and other Asian languages. The Cornhill, East Utica and Downtown
neighborhoods have the highest share of residents who speak other languages. For a
detailed list of the languages spoken in each neighborhood please refer to Appendix
A.
Table 5. Language Spoken At Home in Utica by neighborhoods North
Utica Cornhill East
Utica Downtown South
Utica West Utica
Total
Speaks English only 90% 57% 59% 69% 80% 85% 73%
Language other than English
10% 43% 41% 31% 20% 15% 27%
Speak English less than "very well"
59% 57% 53% 65% 57% 54% 55%
Source: United States Census Bureau American Community Survey 2014 5-‐Year Estimates
(3) Geographical Mobility
As Figure 4 shows, the vast majority of Utica’s foreign-‐born population arrived in
Utica prior to 2010 (88 percent). The foreign-‐born group who arrived after 2010
scattered almost equally in the neighborhoods, except in Cornhill and North Utica,
where a relatively low share of the new arrivals resided. In 2014, about 650 people
arrived in Utica from abroad, of which 500 are foreign born who largely settled in
the East Utica neighborhood.
47
Utica has also been experiencing a positive internal migration, with 19 percent of
the population indicating that they moved to Utica from a different place in the U.S.
in the past year (see Figure 5). The new residents reside in different neighborhoods,
with most settled in West Utica (29 percent), Downtown (24 percent), and Cornhill
(20 percent). About 20 percent of the newcomers are foreign-‐born, who largely
resided in Cornhill (49 percent), East Utica and Downtown.
(4) Race & Ethnicity
Over the course of Utica's history, the neighborhoods were often designated by
ethnicity or race of one or another group following the immigration trends till the
48
1950s. At that time, the East Utica neighborhood was known as the “Italian
neighborhood”, West Utica was the “Polish neighborhood”, Downtown was the
residence of the Irish, and Cornhill was known as the neighborhood of the African
American community. Today, some of the neighborhoods include one large ethnic or
racial group, such as the Bosnians in the North Utica neighborhood, but overall Utica
has become more diverse over the years as the minority population has increased
following the resettlement and "secondary migration" of refugees (see Figure 6).
The largest share of the population in Utica is still White Non-‐Hispanic (67 percent),
while Black or African American is the second most common (15 percent), and the
third largest group is Hispanic/Latino Origin (11 percent). Similarly, White people
have been the largest group in all neighborhoods, particularly in the North Utica
neighborhood where 89 percent of the residents are White. The West Utica
neighborhood shares the same hierarchy, while in East Utica, Hispanic or Latino
origin comprises the second largest group. In the South Utica, Cornhill, and
Downtown neighborhoods the Asian population makes up the third largest group.
While all neighborhoods have a distinct gap between the ratios of the White
population to other races/ethnicities, in the Cornhill neighborhood this gap is
relatively low. The White population comprises only 38 percent of the residents,
while the other largest groups include African-‐American (30 percent), Asian (25
percent) and Hispanic (14 percent).
49
(5) Age Composition
The median age in Utica is 34.5 years with the native-‐born population being
generally slightly younger (33.9) than the foreign born (36.9). Figure 7 shows the
age distribution among Utica’s neighborhoods, which reveals that Cornhill is the
youngest neighborhood with the largest share of population under 18 years old, and
“North Utica” is significantly older since it has the highest share of residents above
the age of 50.
(6) Ancestry
The population in Utica has a diverse ancestry but the vast majority of the residents
are of European origin: Italian, Irish, German and Polish. As shown in Table 6, a
significant number of the residents in North Utica, West Utica, South Utica and
Downtown have similar origins. In the Cornhill neighborhood, most of the residents
also have similar origins but their share of the total residents in the neighborhood is
much lower than other neighborhoods.
50
Table 6. Ancestry of the Population in Utica North
Utica Cornhill East
Utica Downtown South
Utica West Utica
Total
American 1% 2% 4% 2% 5% 5% 4% Arab 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% Dutch 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% English 7% 3% 2% 5% 7% 4% 4% French 3% 2% 1% 2% 2% 3% 2% French Canadian 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% German 16% 4% 4% 9% 13% 11% 9% Irish 17% 6% 7% 8% 14% 15% 11% Italian 31% 8% 24% 10% 19% 14% 19% Polish 17% 3% 5% 5% 8% 9% 8% Portuguese 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% Russian 2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% Scottish 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% Sub-‐Saharan African
1% 3% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1%
Ukrainian 1% 1% 2% 3% 0% 1% 1% Welsh 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% West Indian 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2%
Source: United States Census Bureau American Community Survey 2014 5-‐Year Estimates
(6) Household Type
As shown in Figure 8, the average household size in Utica is 2.5, while the average
family household size is 3.5. Utica’s households are 56 percent family household,
while non-‐family households (living alone and 65 years and older) highly
concentrate in the Downtown neighborhood (70 percent). Furthermore, about 35
percent of the households
in Utica are single-‐mother
households, with Cornhill,
West Utica, and South
Utica having a higher
share of single mother
households than Utica’s
average.
51
(7) Educational Attainment
Regarding the educational attainment levels, most of the total population of Utica
has a high school diploma (32 percent), followed by a group who either has an
associate's degree or attended college without obtaining a degree (30 percent).
While the data shows distinct differences among educational levels of native-‐born
and foreign-‐born populations, both have relatively similar rates of high school
education: 33 percent of the native-‐born, and 30 percent of the foreign-‐born. The
main differences between the two groups relate to the portion of residents with less
than a high school education, and those with an associates degree or attended some
college with no degree. Among the native born population, only 16 percent have less
than a high school education and 33 percent obtained an associate's degree or
attended college without obtaining a degree; compared to 43 percent of foreign-‐
born residents with less than a high school education, and only 17 percent with an
associates degree or attended some college without a degree (see Figure 9).
The foreign-‐born population with less than a high school diploma forms a significant
portion of all neighborhoods; particularly in West Utica, which holds the highest
rate at 60 percent, followed by Cornhill with 57 percent and Downtown with 52
percent. North Utica has the highest portion of foreign-‐born residents with an
associate's degree or college education without a degree among all the
52
neighborhoods, as well as the highest portion of native-‐born residents with a similar
educational level (see Figure 10).
(8) Income and poverty
Utica has a high rate of 31 percent of the population living in poverty, compared to
New York State’s rate of 15.6 percent, which is largely concentrated in Cornhill,
Downtown and West Utica (see Figure 11). The same neighborhoods also have the
highest share of households that receive food stamp/SNAP support. Other
neighborhoods also have a relatively high rate of households supported by social
security income, while North Utica has the lowest rate with 10 percent of the
households. The
mean household
income in Utica is
$44,168, while
among the
neighborhoods the
mean household
incomes range from
$59,916 in North
Utica to $22,760 in Downtown (see Figure 12).
53
(9) Employment
In 2014 the unemployment rate of Utica was 12.9 percent, higher than New York
State’s rate of 8.9 percent. Among the neighborhoods, West Utica has the highest
unemployment rate of 26 percent, followed by Cornhill with 17 percent (see Figure
13).
(10) Labor Force
Approximately 79 percent of the workforce in the City is employed by the private
sector, 17 percent by the public sector, and only 4 percent are self-‐employed.
Respectively, these rates represent the sectors in which the residents in all
54
neighborhoods employed with the exception of Downtown’s low rate of residents
in the public sector – 7 percent (see Figure 14). (11) Industries
The most common industries in the Utica-‐Rome Metro area by number of
employees are “Healthcare and Social Services” with 22,045 jobs; “Retail Trade”
with 14,275 jobs; “Accommodation and Food Services” with 13,489 jobs; and
“Manufacturing” with 12,469 jobs. Table 7 illustrates the workforce composition by
major industries for the city and its neighborhoods, which suggest that the
workforce within the neighborhoods relatively reflects the city as a whole. In all
neighborhoods, “Educational, Healthcare and Social Services” are the industries
with the highest proportion of residents. The “Accommodations and Food Services”
industry employs 12 percent of Utica’s population, which includes a large share of
the residents in the Downtown neighborhood (30 percent). This may be related to
the fact that many restaurants are located in this neighborhood. In addition, the
portion of the residents employed in the “Retail trade” industry, in all
neighborhoods, is relatively similar to the city’s rate (12 percent) except for West
Utica, which has the highest share of residents in this industry (17 percent), and
Downtown, which has the lowest portion-‐ only 5 percent.
55
Table 7. Employment by Industries in Utica by Neighborhoods North
Utica Cornhill East Utica Downtown
South Utica
West Utica Total
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% Construction 5% 4% 4% 1% 2% 4% 4% Manufacturing 8% 13% 13% 12% 9% 11% 11% Wholesale trade 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% Retail trade 12% 10% 11% 5% 11% 17% 12% Transportation and utilities 4% 3% 3% 0% 3% 2% 3% Information, finance, and real estate 12% 10% 9% 2% 9% 7% 9% Professional, management, and administrative services 4% 7% 6% 10% 6% 8% 6% Education, health care and social services 36% 29% 27% 30% 33% 27% 30% Accommodation and food services 8% 12% 12% 30% 13% 10% 12% Other services 1% 5% 5% 6% 6% 9% 5% Public administration 10% 5% 8% 2% 6% 3% 6% Source: United States Census Bureau American Community Survey 2014 5-‐Year Estimates
(12) Occupations
The most common occupation in Utica is “Management and Business” with a
median salary of $44,649. The second most common is the “Services Occupations”
with median earnings of $17,395, which includes the healthcare occupations with
a higher median salary of $20,294. The third most common occupation is “Sales
and office" with a median salary of $23,373. Similarly, most of the residents in all
neighborhoods have similar occupations, but North Utica has the largest share of
residents in “Management and Business” jobs-‐ 41 percent; Downtown’s residents
have the largest share of “Service Occupations” – 36 percent; and most of the
residents in West Utica have “Sales and Office Occupations” – 32 percent (see
Table 8).
56
Table 8. Employment by Occupation in Utica by Neighborhood North
Utica Cornhill East Utica Downtown
South Utica
West Utica Total
Management, business, science, and arts occupations 41% 21% 24% 22% 37% 22% 29% Service occupations 20% 30% 28% 36% 27% 26% 27% Sales and office occupations 19% 25% 26% 24% 21% 32% 24% Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 7% 6% 6% 1% 5% 5% 6% Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 12% 17% 16% 17% 10% 16% 14% Source: United States Census Bureau American Community Survey 2014 5-‐Year Estimates (13) Transportation
Nearly 73 percent of the population in Utica uses their private car to get to work,
while the second most common method, used by 13 percent of the residents in the
labor force, is carpooling. The average travel time to work for Utica’s employees is 17
minutes, shorter than the Oneida County mean commute time of 19 minutes. In
addition, about 8 percent of the total population bicycle or walk to work, while only 4
percent use public transportation as their primary means of transportation to work.
The public transportation service in Utica is provided by Centro, which operates bus
service routes along the major roadways within the downtown area during the
weekdays with limited service during the weekend. The limited routes and operation
days result in the very low use of public transportation, which mainly influences
vulnerable populations
including newly arrived
refugees. The vast
majority of the
residents in all
neighborhoods use their
cars as a primary means
of mobility, while
carpooling is the second
most common method
57
used by the residents in the Cornhill neighborhood (22 percent). Also, a significant
portion of the residents in the Downtown neighborhood indicated they walk or bicycle
to work (23 percent), which imply that they work in one of the many restaurants and
businesses in this neighborhood (see Figure 15).
(14) Parks and Recreation Facilities
Utica’s parks and recreation facilities, which allow different opportunities for social
interactions, serve many refugees in a variety of activities including picnicking,
swimming or physical exercise (see Figure 16). Considering a radius of 1,500 feet of
walking distance from the neighborhood to a local park, the Cornhill, Downtown and
large parts of the East Utica neighborhoods are relatively connected with local parks.
However, the North Utica, West Utica, the southern portion of South Utica, and the
northern portion of East Utica neighborhoods are underserved (Utica Master Plan
2011).
Figure 16. Parks and Recreation Facilities in Utica
Source: City of Utica Website
Housing Conditions:
The aging housing stock in Utica, which includes a high rate of vacant properties that
were abandoned, is a significant challenge for community development. About 60
percent of the housing in Utica was built before 1950 when a lead-‐based paint was used
58
in residences, which made lead poisoning a significant problem throughout the county.
In addition, high asthma rates may be related to the aging housing conditions, as
asthma is triggered by pests, mold, dust mites and moisture. These health risks are a
major concern particularly for the City's poorest neighborhoods -‐ Downtown, West
Utica, and Cornhill, where most of the old and abandoned housing is located (CNA HUD
Profile Report 2015).
(1) Housing Occupancy
The housing vacancy rate in Utica is 13 percent, while the Downtown neighborhood
has the highest
vacancy rate among
the neighborhoods -‐
35 percent, followed
by West Utica with
19 percent and
Cornhill with 18
percent (see Figure
17).
(2) Homeownership Status
The homeownership rate in Utica is 47 percent, a lower rate than the New York
State average of 53.8
percent. Among the
neighborhoods,
North Utica has the
highest
homeownership rate
of 80 percent, while
the renter-‐occupied
rate is the highest in
the Downtown neighborhood– 86 percent (see Figure 18).
59
(3) Housing Units and Year Built
Sixty-‐three percent of the housing units in Utica were built prior to 1949, while 25
percent where built between 1950 and 1969. Since 2010, 25 units have been built in
Utica, mostly in the Downtown neighborhood (13 units). Overall, North Utica
appears to have the “newest” housing stock, while Cornhill and West Utica have the
largest share of the old housing stock (see Figure 19). In addition, about 72 percent
of the housing in Utica has one or two units, while only 11 percent of the housing
has 10 or more units, again mainly located in the Downtown neighborhood (39
percent) (see Figure 20).
60
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Refugee resettlement has been a source of renewal and economic growth for the
City of Utica. Refugees have expanded the labor force, increased local revenues, and
stabilized the city's population decline. As a result, refugees encouraged further
development and economic growth, and brought hope for a change to a city that has
been among the State’s poorest for decades. Over time, Utica became a destination for
"secondary migration" of refugees and immigrants drawn by the opportunities of the
growing local economy. Since immigrants are likely to follow economic growth and
move to areas with employment opportunities, these migration patterns are a strong
indication of refugees’ contribution to the local economy, and also indicate their
successful integration. Furthermore, a study conducted by Paul Hagstrom (2000) found
that refugee resettlement has had a positive economic impact on the Mohawk Valley
region, although it can be a financial strain for the short term.
Utica has been a welcoming city for refugees and immigrants and continues to
attract many more for several reasons. The long history of Utica as a city of migration
has been a source of pride among the local community, which largely continues its
welcoming tradition. The Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees, as well as the
faith community and various ethnic and community organizations, provide refugees the
services and support to help them adjust and become part of the community. As a small
city where people know each other, which has a large and diverse refugee community,
new refugees can relatively quickly establish relationships and rely on these networks
as they start their life in a new place. Additionally, the low cost of living enables greater
opportunities for upwards mobility than larger cities where the cost of living is high,
such as New York City.
However, Utica is still in the process of recovery and faces several challenges for
its urban and community development. The unemployment and poverty rates are high,
while the aging housing stock, which includes a high rate of vacant and abandoned
housing units, poses a significant challenge to the city as a whole. Also, a large share of
61
Utica’s population has a high school education (32 percent), followed by 30 percent of
the population who obtained either an associates degree or attended college without
earning a degree. Compared to New York State's high school graduate rate of 27
percent, and 25 percent with either associates degree or some college without a degree,
the educational attainment of most of the population in Utica is slightly lower. However,
the educational level among the foreign-‐born population in the city is much lower.
About 73 percent of this group has a high school education or lower, while many of
them have language barriers that significantly limit their ability to integrate
economically and socially. The resettlement and integration of refugees in Utica offers
an opportunity to learn from the city's experiences about the challenges and successes
in supporting its refugee community. Based on the research and the analysis of Utica’s
neighborhood conditions, the following section presents major findings and several
suggestions for Utica and other cities to promote refugee integration for the benefit of
the whole city.
4.1 Housing The Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees resettles refugees in
neighborhoods where there is available affordable housing, which is largely located in
Utica's poorest neighborhoods – Downtown and Cornhill. While low-‐quality housing is a
significant problem for the City as a whole, it is a particular concern for these
neighborhoods that have a high concentration of old, vacant and abandoned housing.
The houses in these neighborhoods were largely built before 1949, which probably
leads to significant health risks, such as lead poisoning and asthma, largely among
children. Housing is a critical factor for refugee integration, which influences refugees’
physical and emotional well-‐being and their "sense of belonging" to the local
community (Ager and Strang 2008). Therefore, these housing conditions may pose
additional difficulties for newly arrived refugees. As part of recent planning initiatives,
the city is investing in the revitalization of the unhealthy and vacant housing units, as
well as in the construction of new lofts and apartments in the city center, which would
most likely increase the housing prices, and hence, cause more difficulty in finding
housing for refugees.
62
4.4.1 Create an “Energy Retrofitting of Refugee Housing” program
Finding quality and affordable housing is already a challenge for the Refugee
Center, which, without intervention and planning, may become a major problem for the
refugee integration process. Therefore, the city along with the Mohawk Valley Resource
Center for Refugees can link up with Housing Visions Company1 and create an "Energy
Retrofitting of Refugee Housing" program to transform vacant and abandoned housing
units into suitable housing. In Utica, Housing Visions rehabilitated substandard
properties into energy-‐efficient affordable housing including a development of rental
properties under the HOPE VI neighborhood revitalization plan in the Cornhill
neighborhood (Utica CNA Report 2015). A similar program could be developed for
refugee housing that would provide a solution for quality affordable housing to newly
arrived refugees. In addition, the initiative could include a training program for
refugees to become part of the dedicated construction team. Such a program could
provide training and quality jobs for refugees as well as housing for refugees, which
would provide an opportunity to practice language skills and indirectly increase a sense
of belonging.
4.4.2 Develop a range of housing options As mentioned before, Utica promotes the development of different housing types
in the Downtown area, including higher-‐density lofts and apartments, as well as
multifamily and single-‐family housing. If affordable units (especially multi-‐family
housing since many of the newly arrived refugees have bigger families with five to six
children) are available, the area can become an ideal resettlement neighborhood for a
multicultural community. Availability of different housing options in the Downtown
area would attract people from different social classes and ethnocultural backgrounds
in light of current and future development initiatives as discussed in chapter four.
Following this development, would come opportunities for refugees to create social
connections with people beyond their ethnic group, which are essential for their
1 The Housing Visions Company is a construction, development, and property management firm, which specialize in neighborhood revitalization and energy-‐efficient construction.
63
integration into society, as well as opportunities to practice their language, and overall,
would help to decrease the language and cultural barriers.
4.2 Neighborhood Conditions The foreign-‐born population of Utica, which is largely constituted of refugees, is
mainly concentrated in the Downtown, Cornhill, and East Utica neighborhoods, the
poorest neighborhoods in Utica. These neighborhoods’ conditions pose significant
challenges to the economic advancement of all their residents, but particularly for
refugees. As discussed in the previous chapter, the educational levels of the foreign-‐
born residents are significantly below the native-‐born population, and these factors,
along with language barriers and limited public transportation services, pose
substantial difficulties for the integration, economic well-‐being, and advancement of the
foreign-‐born population. Therefore, assuming that refugees are part of the foreign-‐born
group of residents in the Downtown, Cornhill and East Utica neighborhoods, the
conditions of these neighborhoods are likely to have a negative impact on refugees'
integration process, unless interventions are put in place.
4.2.1 Provide targeted support for the refugees resettled in the Downtown and Cornhill Neighborhoods
Although language proficiency and transportation are challenges for most, if not
for all, refugees in the city, there is a need to address these issues particularly for the
refugees who are resettled in the Downtown and Cornhill neighborhoods. Supporting
refugees who face additional challenges to integration by their residence would help to
enhance their chances to become productive members of the society. Also, it is
important to note that additional factors such as health, trauma, culture or other factors
related to refugee circumstances may also impact the pace and outcomes of their
economic and social integration.
4.3 Employment and Economic Development Newly arrived refugees often work in low-‐skill jobs, earning a minimum wage, in
night shifts, which allow them to obtain some degree of self-‐sufficiency while their
English language abilities are low. However, as most of them continue to work in these
64
jobs to provide for themselves and their families, the opportunities to advance in
employment are very limited. The city, the Refugee Center and the local community
colleges and universities offer job skills training and workforce development programs
for refugees and immigrant populations, which mostly focus on entrepreneurship,
technology, and small businesses development in light of the City's economic
development objectives. Since many of the refugees who arrived in recent years have
low or no formal education, the skills gap, along with the language and cultural barriers,
poses a significant challenge for refugees to take part in these initiatives and programs.
Therefore, establishing vocational programs for refugees that are suitable to their skills
could provide quality employment for newly arrived refugees. Such programs could
also present an opportunity to interact with members of the host society and improve
refugees’ language skills, which would help to promote their economic independence
and "sense of belonging" to the community.
4.3.1 Create Training Programs Targeting Refugee Skills The Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees could partner with the New
American Sustainable Agriculture Project (NASAP) to create a refugee farmer-‐training
program that is consistent with the culture and lifestyle of refugees who arrived in Utica
in recent years. The Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees could partner with
the New American Sustainable Agriculture Project (NASAP) to create a refugee farmer-‐
training program. Such a program could provide an opportunity to build upon the skills
and expertise of the refugees who arrived in Utica in recent years to promote their
integration with the agricultural production in the city and the region. Similar programs
were established in New Hampshire and Maine with the assistance of NASAP to help
refugees resettle and integrate into society through agricultural employment (ORIS
Website 2016, Cultivating Community Website 2016, Kripke 2016).
4.4 Transportation The public transportation in Utica, which is operated by the Central New York
Regional Transportation Authority (Centro), offers a very limited service to the city's
residents. Consequently, many refugees who work an hour drive from Utica to the
65
Casino or the Yogurt Factory resort to sharing a ride or team up to buy a car. The City
has tried to find alternative public transportation solutions but its efforts have become
entangled in city regulations, which have prevented the city from moving forward in the
matter. In the Cornhill neighborhood, which has the largest portion of foreign-‐born
residents, a significant share of the residents use carpooling as a primary method to get
to work, compared to other neighborhoods. Although this method provides a solution
for many refugees in Utica, it is necessary to provide additional solutions to meet the
needs of all refugees.
4.4.1 Support Transportation Alternatives for Refugees
The Employment Department in the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for
Refugees could work with major refugee employers in the city to provide vanpools and
shuttle buses for their refugee employees. Also, the Center could encourage and support
the establishment of commuter vans (jitney) by members of the refugee community to
provide an affordable and efficient service for daily commuters. In New York City,
commuter vans, known as "dollar vans" because the service generally costs a dollar,
operate in neighborhoods that are under-‐served by public transportation. The service is
owned and used by immigrants and minority communities in Brooklyn and Queens, and
has become a feasible method of transportation for many commuters, including non-‐
immigrants. Whether or not this plan is adopted, it is highly recommended that the City
and the Refugee Center conduct a study to identify the needs of refugees and the service
gaps in order to provide appropriate solutions based on local circumstances (King and
Goldwyn 2014, Byron and Conte 2003).
4.5 Civic Engagement and The Planning Process The city sees cultural diversity as an asset and has taken steps to both support
and promote its diverse population. The translation services offered by the city, the
establishment of the “Access and Inclusion Committee”, and the increased diversity of
the city’s workforce are some examples of the city’s efforts to support the integration of
its refugee residents. The Urban and Economic Development Department, as well as
other city agencies, have worked to promote community engagement and participation
66
of different minority groups in the planning process. However, as described in detail in
Chapter 4 regarding the planning process of the Community Needs Assessment (CNA)
project, the participation of refugees, as well as other minority groups was not
sufficient, and hence they had no substantial impact on the projects and initiatives that
may impact their lives.
4.5.1 Increase Participation Of Refugees In The Planning Process Inclusion of refugee communities within the planning process, as well as any
other minority group, can significantly promote a more welcoming and nurturing
community that benefits all its members. Although the Executive Director of the MVRCR
represents the refugee community in various forums including in the planning
processes, the input from refugees that reflects their daily challenges and coping
approaches would provide important insights, which could help to support their
integration process. Furthermore, obtaining their perspectives could also assist in
forming solutions to address the language and cultural barriers that remain a challenge
to the development of the whole community. The Cornell Cooperative Extension’s Rust
to Green (R2G) Utica Urban Studio team, which worked with the Department of Urban
and Economic Development in facilitating roundtables with different community
members as part of the Community Needs Assessment (CNA) project, could also assist
the city in promoting participation of various refugees groups in the planning efforts.
4.6 Social Connections The Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees, the Mid-‐Town Community
Center, and other local religious and ethnic organizations in the city offer different
programs and initiatives to promote social interactions between the long-‐time
residents and newly arrived refugees. The soccer game between groups from major
ethnic communities in Utica, the Redeemer Cup project, which is organized every other
year by a local church, is one example of such initiatives (MVRCR Website). The
establishment of the “Access and Inclusion Committee,” which facilitates dialogue and
helps build partnerships between local government, nonprofits, private-‐sector actors,
and refugees, is another important step in shaping refugees’ integration in Utica.
67
However, as mentioned earlier, there is a need to create more opportunities for
social interactions among refugees and long time residents. Such social connections
have a fundamental role in the integration process, for both parties (Ager and Strang
2008, interviews, Zogby 2013). Direct interactions can help facilitate an understanding
towards refugee experiences and cultures, change misconceptions about refugees, help
manage cultural and ethnic tensions, and, as a result, help bridge gaps between the two
groups (Jones-‐Correa 2014). Since language and cultural barriers have been identified
as a challenge for community development and as a challenge for refugees' social and
economic integration, creating opportunities for such interactions is critical to the
success of the whole community.
4.6.1 Create Opportunities For Social Interaction Among Refugees And Long-‐Time Residents
In Littleton, Colorado, several non-‐profits and public agencies organized a
community conversation between longer-‐term residents and new immigrants around
the reasons for living in the city. "The breakthrough [...] occurred when every resident,
old and new, gave the same reasons for enjoying life in Littleton." (Jones-‐Correa p.20)
Finding common interests has led to the creation of volunteer programs to help
immigrants' integration, including a mentoring program in which established residents
volunteer to help immigrants adapt to their new life in the U.S. The growing economy
and urban development in Utica presents a great opportunity to foster dialogues
through community conversations about common goals and plans for the future. These
conversations, which naturally would create social interaction between the two groups,
could become part of the city’s planning efforts. The other recommendations presented
in this chapter, which offer several approaches to supporting refugees' integration, also
incorporate various opportunities for social interaction among refugees and long-‐time
residents.
68
APPENDIX A: THE SOCIO-‐ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF UTICA’S NEIGHBORHOODS Table A. Language spoken at home North
Utica Cornhill East
Utica Downtown South
Utica West Utica
Total
Speak only English
90.4% 56.6% 58.9% 69.0% 80.3% 85.2% 73.0%
Spanish or Spanish Creole:
1.3% 10.9% 9.6% 9.1% 5.3% 4.6% 6.7%
Italian: 0.7% 0.0% 1.4% 0.3% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% German: 0.9% 0.2% 0.1% 0.6% 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% Russian: 1.9% 0.2% 2.0% 1.1% 1.4% 1.2% 1.5% Polish: 1.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.7% 0.9% 0.6% Serbo-‐Croatian: 1.0% 5.8% 17.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.6% 6.2% Other Slavic languages:
0.9% 0.5% 1.2% 2.9% 0.1% 0.2% 0.7%
Other Indic languages:
0.0% 2.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6%
Chinese: 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% Korean: 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Mon-‐Khmer, Cambodian:
0.0% 5.1% 0.1% 0.0% 1.0% 2.6% 1.3%
Vietnamese: 0.0% 2.4% 1.5% 0.6% 1.0% 0.7% 1.1% Other Asian languages:
0.0% 12.0% 3.0% 12.3% 5.6% 1.9% 4.4%
Arabic: 0.3% 0.8% 1.6% 0.7% 0.6% 0.2% 0.8% Hebrew: 0.0% 1.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% African languages: 0.0% 1.2% 0.7% 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.5%
69
BIBLIOGRAPHY A Sustainable Neighborhood-‐Based Master Plan. Rep. The City of Utica, 5 Oct. 2011. Web. http://www.uticamasterplan.org Ager, Alastair, And Alison Strang. "Understanding Integration: A Conceptual Framework." Journal of Refugee Studies 21.2 (2008): 166-‐91. Oxford University Press, 17 Apr. 2008. Web. Ager, Alastair, And Alison Strang. “Indicators of Integration final report.” Home Office Development and Practice Report. 2004. Web Atfield, Gaby, Kavita Brahmbhatt, and Therese O’Toole. “Refugees’ Experiences of Integration.” Rep. Refugee Council AndUniversity of Birmingham, Sept. 2007. Web. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273951112_Refugees'_Experiences_of_Integration Batalova, Jeanne and Zong, Jie. “Refugees and Asylees in the United States”. The Migration Information Source Journal, The Migration Policy Institute. 2015, Web Behr, Michelle. “An American in Berlin: Reflections on the German Demographic Challenge, Immigration, and National Identity”. Population Research and Policy Review 25.5/6, 2006. Pp. 465–477. Web Brandt, Karin Leah. “Making Immigrant integration work: a case study of refugee resettlement in Philadelphia, PA”. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2010. Web Brown, Anastasia and Scribner, Todd. “Unfulfilled Promises, Future Possibilities: The Refugee Resettlement System in the United States”. The Center for Migration Studies of New York, Journal on Migration and Human Security, 2014. Web Burayidi, Michael A. "Cities and the Diversity Agenda in Planning." Cities and the Politics of Difference: Multiculturalism and Diversity in Urban Planning. Ed. Michael A. Burayidi .University of Toronto Press, 2015. Web Burayidi, Michael A. "Urban Planning as a Multicultural Canon." Urban Planning in a Multicultural Society. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000. 1-‐11. Web Byron, Joan, and Elena Conte. Mobility and Equity for New York’s Transit-‐Starved Neighborhoods: The Case for Full-‐Featured Bus Rapid Transit. Rep. Pratt Center for Community Development & The Rockefeller Foundation, Dec. 2003. Web. https://assets.rockefellerfoundation.org/app/uploads/20131217143911/Mobility-‐and-‐Equity-‐for-‐NYs-‐Transit-‐Starved-‐Neighborhoods.pdf
70
Callahan, Shelley. Personal Interview. 10 November 2016. Castles, Stephen, Maja Korac, Ellie Vasta, and Steven Vertovec.Integration: Mapping the Field. Home Office Online Report 29/03. December 2002. London: Home Office. Canada. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. Communications Branch. Evaluation of the Resettlement Programs (GAR, PSR, BVOR and RAP). Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, 24 Oct. 2016. Web. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/pub/resettlement.pdf Cheung, Sin Yi, and Jenny Phillimore. "Social Networks, Social Capital and Refugee Integration." University of Birmingham. The Nuffield Foundation, Apr. 2013. Web. http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-‐social-‐sciences/social-‐policy/iris/2013/nuffield-‐refugees-‐integration-‐research-‐report.pdf Cohn D’vera. “How U.S. immigration laws and rules have changed through history.” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. 2015, Web Community Needs Assessment 2015 Hud Community Profile. Rep. The City of Utica, 2015. Web. Fratzscher, Marcel and Junker Simon. “Integrating refugees: A long-‐term, worthwhile investment”. DIW Berlin, November 12, 2015. Web. January 31, 2016. "Frequently Asked Questions about Resettlement." UNHCR. UNHCR, Apr. 2012. Web. http://www.unhcr.org/en-‐us/protection/resettlement/4ac0873d6/frequently-‐asked-‐questions-‐resettlement.html Fulton, William. "Refugee Renewal." Governing Magazine: State and Local Government News for America's Leaders. Governing the State and Localities, May 2005. Web. Galiley, Stephen. Personal Interview. 10 November 2016. Geneva, United Nations. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Handbook And Guidelines On Procedures And Criteria For Determining Refugee Status. December 2011. HCR/1P/4/ENG/REV. 3. Web. http://www.unhcr.org/3d58e13b4.pdf Georgiou, Myria. “Cities of difference: cultural juxtapositions and urban politics of representation”. International Journal of Cultural and Media Politics, 2 (3), 2006. Pp. 283-‐298. Web Hagstrom, Paul. The Fiscal Impact of Refugee Resettlement In the Mohawk Valley. Rep. Hamilton College and the Arthur Levitt Center for Public Affairs, June 2000. Web.
71
Hinze, Annika Marlen. “Conclusion: Learning from Immigrant Neighborhoods”. Turkish Berlin: Integration Policy and Urban Space. Ed. Annika Marlen Hinze. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 2013. Pp.145–162. Web Hynes, Patricia. “Social exclusion and refugees”. The Dispersal and Social Exclusion of Asylum Seekers: Between Liminality and Belonging. Ed. Patricia Hynes. Policy Press at the University of Bristol, 2011. Web Hyndman, Jennifer. "Research Summary On Resettled Refugee Integration In Canada." Researchgate. Centre For Refugee Studies York University Toronto, Canada, 2 May 2011. Web. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263843390_RESEARCH_SUMMARY_ON_RESETTLED_REFUGEE_INTEGRATION_IN_CANADA?enrichId=rgreq-‐cf5330ae86a00a4f52ff3cfe34ecbdfe-‐XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI2Mzg0MzM5MDtBUzoxMTc3NTU2MDA3MDc1ODRAMTQwNTA4NjUzMTA5NA%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf Immigrants and the Economy: Contribution of Immigrant Workers to the Country’s 25 Largest Metropolitan Areas. Rep. New York: Fiscal Policy Institute, 2009. Web. Jones-‐Correa, Michael. All Immigration Is Local Receiving Communities and Their Role in Successful Immigrant Integration. Rep. Center for American Progress, Sept. 2011. Web. Jupp, James. “Shifting dilemmas Multiculturalism and integration policies in Europe”. Migration and Integration in Europe, Southeast Asia, and Australia: A Comparative Perspective. Ed. Juliet Pietsch and Marshall Clark. Amsterdam University Press, 2015. Web Kallick, David Dyssegaard, and Silva Mathema. Refugee Integration in the United States. Rep. Fiscal Policy Institute. Center For American Progress, June 2016. Web. Kesler, Christel. “Social Policy and Immigrant Joblessness in Britain, Germany and Sweden”. Social Forces 85.2 (December 2006): 743–770. Web King, David A., and Eric Goldwyn. "Why Do Regulated Jitney Services Often Fail? Evidence from the New York City Group Ride Vehicle Project." Transport Policy 35 (2014): 186-‐92. : Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Columbia University, Sept. 2014. Web. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_King33/publication/263012423_Why_do_regulated_jitney_services_often_fail_Evidence_from_the_New_York_City_group_ride_vehicle_project/links/56c60f8f08ae408dfe4cdb77.pdf?origin=publication_list Kissoon, Priya. “Home/lessness as an indicator of integration: interviewing refugees about the meaning of home and accommodation”. Doing Research with Refugees: Issues
72
and Guidelines. Ed. Bogusia Temple and Rhetta Moran. Policy Press at the University of Bristol, 2006. Web Kripke, Gawain. "Can an Urban Farm Help Solve the Refugee Crisis? | Oxfam America The Politics of Poverty Blog." The Politics of Poverty. OXFAM, 10 Nov. 2015. Web. 15 Dec. 2016. http://politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/2015/11/can-‐an-‐urban-‐farm-‐help-‐solve-‐the-‐refugee-‐crisis Kubein, Adele M. "Portlandia’s Other Children: Refugee Communities in Urban Life." Thesis. Oregon State University, 2015. Web. Lopez, Mark Hugo, Passel Jeffrey and Rohal Molly. “Modern Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S., Driving Population Growth and Change Through 2065: Views of Immigration’s Impact on U.S. Society Mixed.” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. 2015, Web Lygh, Brian Nørgård. "Urban Planning – Handling an Increasingly Diversified and Multicultural Copenhagen." Thesis. AALBORG University, 2015. Web. http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/files/210201071/Handling_an_increasingly_diversified_and_multicultural_Copenhagen.pdf McManus, Clint, and Nancy Sprehn. UTICA: REFUGEES AND REVITALIZATION ��Taking a Closer Look at Utica’s Fiscal Stress and Opportunities for Local Solutions. Rep. Cornell University, Mar. 2014. Web. “Migration and Refugees in Urban Areas”. Issue brief. UNHABITAT, 2015. Web. http://unhabitat.org/wp-‐content/uploads/2015/04/Habitat-‐III-‐Issue-‐Paper-‐2_2_Migration-‐and-‐Refugees-‐in-‐Urban-‐Areas-‐2.0.pdf "New American Sustainable Agriculture Project." Organization for Refugee and Immigrant Success. Organization for Refugee and Immigrant Success, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2016. http://refugeesuccess.org/sustainable-‐agriculture-‐project Nezer, Melanie. Resettlement At Risk: Meeting Emerging Challenges to Refugee Resettlement in Local Communities. Rep. HIAS, Feb. 2013. Web. Portes, Alejandro. "The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530.Interminority Affairs in the U. S.: Pluralism at the Crossroads (1993): 74-‐96. JSTOR. Web. Rajagopalan, Kavitha. "Progressive City Welcomes One and All? Not So Fast." Next City. Next City, 16 May 2016. Web. https://nextcity.org/features/view/refugees-‐us-‐cities-‐immigration-‐utica-‐new-‐york
73
Rawlings, Lynette A., Randy Capps, Kerstin Gentsch, and Karina Fortuny. “Immigrant Integration in Low-‐income Urban Neighborhoods”. Publication. The Urban Institute, Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy, Center and Immigration Studies Program, 2007. Web. Ray, Brian. "The Role of Cities in Immigrant Integration." Migrationpolicy.org. Migration Policy Institute (MPI), 28 Mar. 2014. Web. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/role-‐cities-‐immigrant-‐integration "Refugee Admissions Reception & Placement Program." U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, 26 Jan. 2016. Web. https://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/factsheets/2016/251849.htm "Refugee and Immigrant Farmer Training." Cultivating Community. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2016. <https://www.cultivatingcommunity.org/grow-‐food-‐with-‐us/refugee-‐immigrant-‐farmer-‐training/>. "Refugee Resettlement: An International Handbook to Guide Reception and Integration: Contents." UNHCR. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 1 Oct. 2002. Web. http://www.unhcr.org/en-‐us/protection/resettlement/4a2cfe336/refugee-‐resettlement-‐international-‐handbook-‐guide-‐reception-‐integration.html Roosblad, Judith. “The International History Review” 27.4. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 2005. Pp. 884–886. Web Singer, Audrey, and Jill H. Wilson. "From ‘There’ to ‘Here’: Refugee Resettlement in Metropolitan America." Brookings. Brookings, 28 July 2016. Web. Stam, Kathryn. Personal Interview. 9 November 2016. "Strengthening Communities by Welcoming All Residents: A Federal Strategic Action Plan on Immigrant & Refugee Integration." The White House Task Force on New Americans. April 2015 Sunderlin, Chris. Personal Interview. 9 November 2016. Summative Evaluation of the Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program. Rep. Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 30 Apr. 2007. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/evaluation/psrp/psrp-‐summary.asp The Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees, n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2016. https://www.mvrcr.org/ "The Reception and Placement Program." U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, n.d. Web.
74
http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/receptionplacement/index.htm Thomas, Brian. Personal Interview. 30 November 2016. UNHCR Global Trends, Forced Displacement in 2015. Rep. UNHCR, n.d. Web. 8 Feb. 2016. "UNHCR Resettlement Handbook: Country Chapter -‐ Canada." UNHCR. The Government Of Canada, Oct. 2016. Web. http://www.unhcr.org/3c5e55594.html USA. U.S. Department Of State. The Bureau of International Information Programs. Refugees Building New Lives in the United States. U.S. Department Of State, July 2010. Web. VanNortwick, Patrice. Personal Interview. 11 November 2016. Williams, Caroline. Personal Interview. 10 November 2016. Zogby, John, and Jonathan Zogby. Six Continents, One Hometown: Public Opinion On Refugee Resettlement In Utica. Rep. The Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees, 1 Apr. 2013. Web.
