2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
