Integration Outcomes & Challenges for US Refugees: Demographics & Long-Term Success, Exams of Abnormal Psychology

Download Integration Outcomes & Challenges for US Refugees: Demographics & Long-Term Success and more Exams Abnormal Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!

THE INTEGRATION OUTCOMES

OF U.S. REFUGEES

Successes and Challenges

By Randy Capps and Kathleen Newland

with Susan Fratzke, Susanna Groves, Gregory Auclair,

Michael Fix, and Margie McHugh

MPI NATIONAL CENTER ON IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION POLICY

THE INTEGRATION OUTCOMES

OF U.S. REFUGEES

Successes and Challenges

Randy Capps and Kathleen Newland

with Susan Fratzke, Susanna Groves, Gregory Auclair, Michael Fix, and Margie McHugh

June 2015

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................
• I. Introduction
• II. U.S. Resettlement Policies
• III. Refugees’ Characteristics at Arrival, FY 2002-13
  • A. Age Distribution of Refugees
  • B. Native Language Diversity
  • C. Language Proficiency at Arrival
  • D. Literacy in a Native Language
  • E. Refugee Camp Experience
    • 2009-11 ............................................................................................................................................. IV. Integration Outcomes of Refugees Living in the United States in
  • A. Employment
  • B. Spoken-Language Proficiency
  • C. Educational Attainment
  • D. Median Household Income
  • E. Low-Income Status
  • F. Public Benefit Receipt
• V. Conclusions
• Appendix: Data Sources and Methodology
• Works Cited
• About the Authors

Executive Summary There are currently more than 16 million refugees worldwide. In 2013, the United States, with the largest resettlement program in the world, accepted two-thirds (66,000) of the 98,000 refugees who were permanently resettled that year. The scale of the U.S. resettlement program and the increasing diversity of resettled refugees pose challenges for refugee service providers. The budget of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has not kept pace with inflation, while ORR’s mission has expanded greatly to include programs serving growing numbers of trafficking victims and unaccompanied child migrants encountered at the U.S.-Mexico border. At the same time, many refugees need intensive services to find employment and improve their economic self-sufficiency, with some recent groups arriving with very low levels of both English proficiency and native-language literacy. It is not surprising that in this challenging environment the resettlement program has been criticized for inadequately supporting refugees and that political resistance has emerged in some jurisdictions. The goal of this report is to inform public debates about U.S. refugee resettlement with new analyses of the characteristics of arriving refugees and their long-term integration outcomes. Using U.S. Department of State Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System (WRAPS) data that have not been previously publicly released, this report provides new findings on arriving refugees’ characteristics. For a snapshot of the overall refugee population, including those with long-term U.S. experience, the findings draw from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). Key findings include:

ƒ The origins of U.S. refugees are increasingly diverse. The nationalities represented among

new arrivals rose from 11 in 1980 to 64 in 2013, and the number of primary languages spoken rose from 114 in 2004 to 162 in 2013. This growth in diversity reflects efforts by the U.S. government to be more responsive to refugee crises worldwide. Greater diversity also means that refugees resettled today have a wider range of education levels and linguistic backgrounds, potentially complicating service delivery for resettlement providers.

ƒ The refugee resettlement program’s key goal of promoting early employment is largely

being achieved. Refugees are more likely to be employed than the U.S.-born population. During the 2009 – 11 period, refugee men were more likely to work than U.S-born men ( percent versus 62 percent), while refugee women were as likely to work as U.S.-born women (54 percent). Only three out of the ten largest origin groups of refugee men (Burmese, Iraqis, and Somalis) had lower employment rates than U.S.-born men, and each group was resettled relatively recently.

ƒ Refugees’ incomes rise substantially with length of U.S. residence, but remain low overall.

In 2009 – 11 the median annual household income of refugees with at least 20 years of U.S. residence was $31,000 higher than the median income of those with five years or less of residence. Yet, even with 20 years of residence, refugees’ household income remained below the average for the native born—in contrast to 2000, when there was no income gap between refugees with 20 years’ residence and natives. Lower starting incomes and less income The scale of the U.S. resettlement program and the increasing diversity of resettled refugees pose challenges for refugee service providers.

resettlement. Maintaining financial and political support for this program is critical as the number of refugees in need of resettlement continues to increase. I. Introduction Nearly 17 million refugees were displaced worldwide as of mid-2014, a number that was almost certain to grow amid raging conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere.^1 As the world’s foremost destination for refugee resettlement, the United States has provided a durable resettlement solution for millions. Approximately two-thirds of refugees resettled globally in 2013 (66,000 out of 98,000) came to this country.^2 Public doubts and political resistance have emerged in the absence of solid data on the outcomes of resettlement efforts. One recent criticism is that the U.S. program invests too little in integration support, particularly at the local level.^3 A lack of data also makes it difficult to identify problems that may have policy solutions, or that may be specific to particular groups of refugees rather than to the resettled population as a whole. To better understand trends in refugee resettlement and integration in the United States, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) analyzed recent, previously unpublished administrative data from the U.S. government agencies that operate the resettlement program and data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). Drawing on these data, the findings in this report highlight specific factors underlying the integration challenges facing refugees and U.S. resettlement service providers. As the world’s foremost destination for refugee resettlement, the United States has provided a durable resettlement solution for millions. This report begins by exploring existing resettlement policies and trends in refugee arrivals to the United States. It then draws on ACS data to examine refugee integration outcomes over time (with specific attention to educational attainment, English language proficiency, household income, and participation in public benefit programs. The report finds that, as their years in the United States increase, refugees’ income levels and benefits use approximate those of the U.S. born, suggesting that most refugees become self-supporting over time—a core goal of the U.S. resettlement program. There is, however, some evidence to suggest that certain groups of recent arrivals may be at a particular disadvantage relative to older cohorts in terms of their English language skills and education levels at arrival. The minimal level of support for employment, education, and language services provided through the resettlement program may be insufficient to meet the greater needs of these groups. Based on these findings, the report concludes with several recommendations for further exploration and policy development by resettlement authorities. 1 UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), UNHCR: Mid-Year Trends 2014 (Geneva: UNHCR, 2015), 21, www.unhcr. org/54aa91d89.html. 2 UNHCR, War’s Human Cost: UNHCR Global Trends 2013 (Geneva: UNHCR, 2014), 20–1, www.unhcr.org/5399a14f9.html. 3 Anastasia Brown and Todd Scribner, “Unfulfilled Promises, Future Possibilities: The Refugee Resettlement System in the United States,” Journal on Migration and Human Security 2 , no. 2 (2014): 101–20, http://jmhs.cmsny.org/index.php/jmhs/ article/view/27.

The global need for resettlement is likely to remain high in the coming years amid growing and protracted displacement in Syria and Iraq. As of March 2015, at least 3.9 million people had sought refuge outside Syria according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and at least 6.5 million remained internally displaced.^4 More than 425,000 Iraqis were refugees in July 2014, although this number has likely grown substantially since an outbreak of violence in the summer of 2014; estimates 4 UNHCR reported 3.9 million registered refugees from Syria as of May 5, 2015. A further 11,300 were awaiting registration, and reports indicate many more may have chosen not to register with authorities. See UNHCR, “Syria Regional Refugee Response: Inter-Agency Information Sharing Portal,” accessed May 5, 2015, http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional. php; UNHCR, “2015 UNHCR country operations profile – Syrian Arab Republic,” accessed April 3, 2015, www.unhcr.org/ pages/49e486a76.html.

Box 1. Data Sources

Refugee Characteristics at Arrival The profile of refugees arriving in the United States during fiscal year (FY) 2000-13 presented here is based on administrative data provided to the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) by the Department of Homeland Security, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Department of State’s Worldwide Refugee Admissions Processing System (WRAPS), among other sources. These administrative data are limited in some ways, but they represent the best available information about arriving refugees. The data are generally self-reported during the resettlement application process. MPI’s analysis of these data focuses on the ten largest national origin groups arriving during the FY 2002-13 period: Burmese, Iraqis, Somalis, Bhutanese, Cubans, Iranians, Ukrainians, Liberians, Russians, and Vietnamese. Refugees’ Integration Outcomes The section of the report focusing on integration outcomes uses American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau to analyze population characteristics and socioeconomic outcomes for refugees who arrived in the United States since the refugee program officially began in 1980. Refugee status is assigned based on characteristics available in the ACS (see Appendix for further details). More than two-thirds of the ACS population assigned refugee status arrived before 2000: 28 percent arrived in 1980-89, and 40 percent in 1990 through 1999. The remaining 32 percent arrived in 2000 through 2011. Fifty-seven countries of origin comprise the refugee population captured by the ACS sample.Vietnam and Cuba are the most common countries of refugee origin, each accounting for 20 percent. The next largest origin countries are Russia and Ukraine, at 7 percent and 6 percent, respectively. Laos, Iran, Iraq, Bosnia, and Cambodia each account for 3 to 4 percent of the refugee population. No other country comprises more than 3 percent of the refugee population. The report disaggregates the ten countries with the most refugee arrivals during FY 2000 through FY 2011, according to administrative data. These countries are Bhutan, Burma, Cuba, Liberia, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Somalia, Ukraine, and Vietnam (see Appendix for a complete list of countries for which ACS data are available). The report does not disaggregate those countries with high refugee inflows before 2000 that were not in the top ten after 2000. The ACS does not identify Bhutan, one of the ten national origins represented by the most refugee arrivals, and so this report uses 2010 Census tables for persons reporting Bhutanese ancestry. Almost all individuals who reported Bhutanese ancestry in the 2010 Census arrived after 2000, and the estimated population closely approximates the number of Bhutanese refugee admissions. Assessments of refugee progress over time are based on cross-sectional analyses of groups, not longitudinal analyses of individuals.

Once a refugee has been referred for resettlement, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines whether to admit the applicant on the basis of an interview and other evidence.^9 After a decision to admit an applicant is made, the case is referred to a resettlement agency, a nongovernmental organization that receives funding from the Department of State (DOS) and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to resettle refugees in local communities. The U.S. resettlement program emphasizes getting refugees in jobs as fast as possible. The DOS Reception and Placement Program provides resettlement agencies with funding to support refugees’ reception and accommodation for the first 30 days after arrival, including food, housing, clothing, and support for employment guidance and language training. After this initial period, refugees are expected to enroll in mainstream social benefit systems and/or obtain employment. Local resettlement agencies provide ORR- funded employment, language, and other services to refugees during their first five years in the United States, though these services are mostly concentrated during refugees’ first few months in the country.^10 While the scale of the program implemented by the U.S. government and its partners is impressive by almost any international standard,^11 it has come under recent criticism for not increasing funding and support for reception and integration sufficiently to address the growing size and needs of resettled populations.^12 ORR’s total budget increased sharply starting in FY 2013 in response to a rise in unaccompanied children crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Funding for services to refugee populations, however, has been flat for almost 25 years (see Figure 1). Additionally, in June 2014 to serve unaccompanied children ORR diverted $94 million from programs serving formally admitted refugees, although almost $23 million was returned to refugee programs later that summer.^13 Another concern has been that ORR-funded employment services focus too heavily on immediate employment at the expense of obtaining better job matches, especially for highly educated refugees. Service providers, for example, have expressed frustration that funding does not allow them to prioritize training or skills development programs that might help refugees find higher-skilled and better-paid work in the longer term.^14 9 The United States accepts resettlement cases through three streams. Priority one (P-1) refugees must be outside their country of origin and are referred by UNHCR, a U.S. embassy, or nongovernmental organization for resettlement on the basis of a fear of persecution or return to a country where they are at risk of persecution. P-1 refugees may also be referred on the basis that a long-term solution to their displacement is not possible in their current country of residence. Priority two (P-2) refugees must be members of groups identified by the United States as a particular protection priority. Nationals of the former Soviet Union, Cuba, and Iraq, and minors in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala may apply for resettlement from within their country of origin; nationals of other priority groups must apply from outside their origin country. Finally, priority three (P-3) individuals are nationals of certain countries who are admitted as immediate family members of refugees already present in the United States, or of U.S. permanent residents or citizens who originally entered the country as refugees. See U.S. Government, “Country Chapter: The United States of America,” in UNHCR Resettlement Handbook (Geneva: UNHCR, 2014), 4, www.unhcr.org/3c5e5a764.html. 10 DOS Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, “Refugee Admissions, Reception, and Placement Program” (fact sheet, December 2012), www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/onepagers/202396.htm. 11 By contrast, the other two major destinations, Australia and Canada, resettled 13,200 and 12,200 refugees respectively in

2013. Sweden, the fourth largest destination, resettled 1,900 individuals. Most other countries resettled fewer than 1, refugees. See UNHCR, War’s Human Cost. 12 Brown and Scribner, “Unfulfilled Promises;” U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Refugee Resettlement: Greater Consultation with Community Stakeholders Could Strengthen Program (Washington, DC: GAO, 2012), 30, www.gao.gov/ assets/600/592975.pdf. 13 Tina Griego, “Immigration Policy Leaves Refugee Programs Scrambling for Funds,” Washington Post , August 13, 2014, www. washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/08/13/immigration-policys-unintended-consequences-refugee-programs- left-scrambling-for-funds/?tid=ptv_rellink. 14 GAO, Refugee Resettlement: Greater Consultation with Community Stakeholders.

Figure 1. U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement Budget, by Service Population, FY 1980 – 2015 Notes: All budget figures are in U.S. dollars, not adjusted for inflation. Sources: Migration Policy Institute (MPI) analysis of budget data from Andorra Bruno, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, versions updated in 2002, 2006, 2012, and 2015), http://fas. org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31269.pdf; Joyce Violet, Refugee Admissions and Resettlement Policy: Facts and Issues (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1999), http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/98-668_19991206.pdf; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement (HHS/ORR), Annual Report to Congress (Washington, DC: HHS/ORR, 1980 – 2012), www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/annual-orr-reports-to-congress; HHS/ORR, Refugee Resettlement Program , Report to the Congress (Washington, DC: HHS/ORR, 1992), www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/orr/annual_orr_report_to_congress_1991.pdf. III. Refugees’ Characteristics at Arrival, FY 2002 - 13 The characteristics and origins of refugees targeted for resettlement by the United States have evolved substantially since the U.S. program was formally created in 1980. Not only are the refugees being resettled today more diverse in terms of national origin, they also tend to have a wider range of education levels and linguistic backgrounds, potentially complicating service delivery for resettlement providers. From FY 2002 – 13 the United States admitted 644,500 refugees from 113 countries. The number of nationalities rose steadily during the 1980s and 1990s, and stabilized over the past decade, when refugees came from an average of 66 different nation origins annually (see Figure 2). The increased $ $ $ $ $ $1, $1, $1, $1, 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Budget by Service Population (in millions) Fiscal Year Refugees and Entrants Unaccompanied Alien Children Victims of Torture or Trafficking

States in FY 2013 was 25. The majority of arrivals (66 percent) were of working age (16 to 64), while only 3 percent were ages 65 and older. Thirty-four percent were school age (5-18) or younger.^18 Seen in a wider time frame, 28 percent of the refugees resettled in the United States during FY 2002 – 13 were younger than age 14 when they arrived. Some groups were younger than others: 36 percent of Liberian and 34 percent of Somali refugees were under 14, compared with only 13 percent of Iranian and 19 percent of Cuban refugees. At the other end of the age spectrum, Russian, Ukrainian, and Iranian refugees were more than twice as likely as other refugees overall to be 65 and older at the time of resettlement. Burmese, Somali, and Liberian refugees were the least likely to be ages 65 and older. Table 1. Age Distribution of Arriving Refugees from Ten Largest National Origin Groups, (%), FY 2002 – 13 Country Under Age 14 Ages 14 to 20 Ages 21 to 64 Ages 65 and Older Burma 32 15 51 1 Iraq 27 12 57 4 Somalia 34 22 42 2 Bhutan 22 16 58 5 Cuba 19 11 64 6 Iran 13 12 67 8 Ukraine 31 15 46 8 Liberia 36 25 37 2 Russia 27 15 49 9 Vietnam 26 11 57 6 Source: MPI analysis of WRAPS data, FY 2002 – 13 pooled. Age at arrival can have implications for refugees’ integration outcomes. In the short run, refugee groups with more children and fewer adults might be expected to have lower incomes and greater reliance on social benefits. But in the longer term, refugees who arrive as children will almost certainly have more opportunities than adults to complete additional education and develop stronger English language skills.

B. Native Language Diversity

Refugees’ linguistic backgrounds are increasingly varied and complex (see Figure 3).^19 From FY 2004

• 13, the United States admitted refugees who were native speakers of at least 228 languages.^20 The ten most common native languages of refugees arriving during this period were Arabic, Nepali, Somali, Spanish, Sgaw Karen (a Burmese language), Russian, Farsi, Hmong, Chaldean (a language primarily spoken by Christians in northern Iraq), and Burmese. Sixty percent of refugees were native speakers of one of these languages. Refugees resettled in FY 2013 spoke at least 162 native languages; 1,277 spoke what can only be 18 Ibid., 59. 19 Refugees reported their native languages during prearrival intake interviews. Only one native language is coded per individual even if that individual is proficient in multiple languages. There may be inconsistencies in the way refugees define their native languages, with some individuals reporting languages indigenous to their ethnic groups, and others reporting the languages in which they were educated. Also, there may be cases of incomplete or missing information. 20 Data on the native languages and literacy of refugees admitted to the United States from fiscal year (FY) 2002 – 03 were incomplete, and these years are therefore excluded from MPI’s analysis.

classified as “other minor languages” (see Figure 3). Many of these languages (92) had fewer than 50 speakers in the United States. Refugees arriving nine years earlier, in FY 2004, spoke somewhat fewer native languages—114—most of which (59) also had fewer than 50 speakers. The linguistic diversity within some origin groups is notable. For example, Somali refugees resettled in FY 2004 – 13 reported speaking 31 native languages, while Burmese refugees reported speaking 61 languages. It is possible that many refugees who report a native language that is relatively rare in the United States are proficient in another, more widely spoken language. Among arrivals from Iraq, approximately 14, refugees who entered the United States in FY 2003 – 13 reported their native language as Chaldean. An informal telephone interview that MPI conducted with a Chaldean human service agency based in metro Detroit revealed that the vast majority of Chaldean-speaking refugees were also able to read and write in Arabic.^21 However, there are no administrative data on languages that refugees speak other than their native language and English. Figure 3. Number of Native Languages Reported by Arriving Refugees, FY 2004 – 13 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Number of Languages Spoken by Arriving Refugees Fiscal Year Source: MPI analysis of WRAPS data for individual years FY 2004 – 13. The broad and growing linguistic diversity of U.S. refugees may complicate their resettlement and increase costs for resettlement agencies and for the state and local government agencies that serve them. Providing refugees who are not conversant in English with information and case management in their native language promotes their integration; for instance, one ORR-funded report finds that the development of trust and rapport between case managers and clients is facilitated by speaking a 21 Coauthor telephone interview with staff at the Arab American and Chaldean Council, December 5, 2013.

Reported English proficiency varied greatly by nationality across the largest refugee groups resettled in FY 2004 – 13 (see Figure 4). These differences did not necessarily correlate with previous exposure to formal education, measured by refugees’ literacy levels in their origin countries’ predominant languages (see Figure 5).^28 Figure 4. Share of Arriving Refugees among Ten Largest National-Origin Groups Who Reported Speaking at Least “Some” or “Good” English, (%), FY 2004 – 13 Source : MPI analysis of WRAPS data for FY 2004 – 13, pooled. The DOS resettlement program has taken steps to provide refugees with an opportunity to improve their language skills prior to arrival. Resettlement officials recently launched several pilot programs in Kenya, Thailand, and Nepal that provide English language instruction as part of predeparture orientation. An initial evaluation of the pilot projects found that they successfully provided refugees with basic English skills and facilitated further language learning post-resettlement.^29 In fact, the Bhutanese arriving from camps in Nepal have relatively high English proficiency at arrival. Predeparture English classes may be a promising model to build on in other resettlement contexts, particularly if paired with vocational or work- focused language training.^30 28 Other studies directly measuring educational attainment have found the same lack of a correlation. See Capps, Barden, Hen- derson, and Mueller, Evaluation of RSS and TAG Grant Programs, 26. 29 DOS, DHS, and HHS, Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2015 , 4. 30 Language instruction that is paired with skills training or includes work-focused vocabulary has been found to be more effec- tive in improving non-English speakers’ access to the labor market or further educational opportunities than English educa- 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 5% 6% 11% 12% 44% 4% 18% 7% 9% 31% 20% 37% 41% 52% 89% Cuba Burma Russia Ukraine Vietnam Somalia Iran Iraq Bhutan Liberia English Proficiency at Arrival Some English "Good" English

While low levels of English proficiency may pose initial resettlement challenges, most refugees resettled in the United States improve their English proficiency over time. Russian and Ukrainian refugees in particular have relatively high levels of educational attainment (see Section IV), and are therefore likely to learn English quickly.^31 Of greater concern are those who do not learn the language after substantial time in the United States; refugees and immigrants without sufficient English skills are among the least likely to be employed—as described later in this report.^32 While low levels of English proficiency may pose initial resettlement challenges, most refugees resettled in the United States improve their English proficiency over time.

D. Literacy in a Native Language

Inconsistencies in data provided by WRAPS unfortunately prevent a direct analysis of education levels among newly arrived refugees.^33 Instead, refugees’ self-reported literacy in their native language provides a proxy for basic levels of formal education. For refugees who arrived in the United States in FY 2004 – 13, literacy rates varied greatly by country of nationality and native language (see Figure 5). 34 Among the most common nationality/language groups, the highest literacy levels were found among Cuban Spanish speakers, Iranian Farsi speakers, Russian speakers, Ukrainian speakers, Iraqi Arabic speakers, and Vietnamese speakers. Literacy levels were lower among Afghan Dari speakers, Burmese Sgaw Karen speakers, Nepali speakers from Bhutan, and Liberian English speakers. Some of the lowest literacy rates were found among Somali speakers ( percent) and Laotian Hmong speakers (18 percent).^35 tion alone. See Margie McHugh and A. E. Challinor, Improving Immigrants’ Employment Prospects through Work-Focused Language Instruction (Washington, DC: MPI, 2011), http://migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/workfo- cusedlanguageinstruction.pdf. 31 Thomas Espenshade and Haishan Fu, “An Analysis of English-Language Proficiency Among US Immigrants.” American Sociological Review 62, no. 2 (1990): 288-305; Barry R. Chiswick and Paul W. Miller, “A Model of Destination-Language Acquisition: Application to Male Immigrants in Canada” Demography 38, no. 3 (2001): 391 – 409. 32 HHR/ORR, Report to the Congress FY 2011 (Washington, DC: HHS/ORR, 2013), 41, www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/orr/ fy_2011_orr_annual_report.pdf. 33 MPI explored the data on educational attainment provided by WRAPS and found inconsistent recording of educational attainment across years and nationalities, and no data on a substantial share of refugee arrivals. 34 In some cases, the language in which refugees are educated may not be the same as their native language, or their native language may not be commonly written (as in the case of Chaldean among Iraqi refugees, Mai among Somalis, and Krahn among Liberians). For this reason, MPI’s analysis excludes languages that are not written and focuses on the most common language spoken by top national origin groups. 35 Here the analysis focuses on the most common nationalities and native languages of refugees arriving in FY 2004 – 13. MPI did not review literacy levels for all refugees because of the complexity of analyzing the data for the many uncommon languages provided by WRAPS.

Those with very low levels of educational attainment (e.g., less than sixth grade) may require basic education in their native languages in order to build foundational literacy skills. Moreover, a basic level of literacy may be required for enrollment in English-language instruction classes. Many of those with fewer than eight years of formal education will not able to enroll in mainstream workforce training programs because of program design and accountability rules. When the U.S. labor market is weak—as in the years following the 2008 recession—low literacy levels force refugees to compete with other workers at the low-skilled end of the market, where unemployment is highest. Low literacy therefore impedes many of the basic elements of refugees’ self-sufficiency: their educational progress, English language acquisition, and ability to find stable jobs with wages that allow self-sufficiency.

E. Refugee Camp Experience

Having fled their country of nationality, refugees may languish in a country of first asylum for years—

with limited rights and no legal status—before they are able to return to their homelands or secure permanent third-country resettlement. Some asylum countries’ governments restrict the free movement and access to legal employment and educational opportunities of refugees living in camps, whether for security concerns or to limit local integration.^37 The level at which host countries and international organizations invest in camps varies widely. In many cases, refugees in camps have better services and safety conditions than do refugees outside (many of them in urban areas), who lack access to the protection of international agencies such as UNHCR. Table 2. Number and Share of Arriving Refugees Whose Last Prior Place of Residence Was a Refugee Camp, Selected Nationalities (%), FY 2002 – 13 Nationality Number Percentage Bhutan 70,729^100 Burma 69,665 59 Somalia 40,347 60 Liberia 11,012 54 Source : MPI analysis of WRAPS data for FY 2002 – 13, pooled. Whether or not refugees resettled in the United States have had experience living in a camp depends to a large degree on their nationality. Virtually all Bhutanese refugees resettled during the 14-year period studied here lived in one of Nepal’s seven refugee camps prior to their U.S. arrival. The majority of Somali, Burmese, and Liberian arrivals also lived in refugee camps. Given the protracted nature of the Burmese refugee situation, some of these refugees are likely to have spent 20 or more years living in a camp in Thailand with no legal freedom of movement.^38 In contrast, virtually none of the Iraqi or Iranian refugees resettled in FY 2002 – 13 lived in camps immediately prior to U.S. arrival. Russian, Ukrainian, and Cuban refugees were also unlikely to have lived in camps. 37 See, for example, Katy Long, From Refugee to Migrant? Labor Mobility’s Protection Potential (Washington, DC: MPI, 2015). 38 Kitty McKinsey, “Departures of Mynmar Refugees from Thailand Top 20,000 Mark” (UNHCR News Stories, December 11, 2007), www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/search?page=search&docid=475e975b4&query=mae%20la.

There is some correlation between refugee camp experience and low literacy rates. All four groups with a majority of refugees resettled from camps (see Table 2) had the lowest native-language literacy levels (see Figure 5) of all groups except Hmong refugees. Although low literacy likely stems from home-country experiences, it may also be the case that the camps hosting these populations before U.S. resettlement do not provide adequate basic education for children or adults. Further international investment in educational opportunities in these camp settings may be warranted.^39 IV. Integration Outcomes of Refugees Living in the United States in 2009 - 11 The U.S. resettlement program aims to help adult refugees enter the labor market within just a few months of arrival. Refugees’ characteristics at arrival often correlate with their later socioeconomic integration. As might be expected, groups with more working-age refugees and greater language proficiency usually integrate better. Those with already established communities in the United States also tend to fare better on socioeconomic indicators. Overall, the data suggest that many refugees integrate into the U.S. labor market and society successfully over time.

A. Employment

During the 2009 – 11 period, refugee men ages 16 and older were more likely to work than their U.S- born counterparts: 67 percent versus 60 percent. Among the ten most common origins of recent arrivals, Burmese, Iraqi, and Somali men had employment rates at or below U.S.-born men, while the other seven groups had higher employment rates. Refugee women were as likely to work as U.S.-born women, at 54 percent. Refugees’ employment rates exceeded those of U.S.-born women in four of the ten most common origin groups (Vietnamese, Liberians, Ukrainians, and Russians), while six sending groups fell below the U.S. born: Cubans (49 percent), Iranians (46 percent), Burmese (42 percent), Somalis (41 percent), Bhutanese (36 percent), and Iraqis (27 percent). The relatively low employment rates of women from some refugee groups often translates into fewer workers per household and, in turn, lower household incomes. Nonetheless, with their relatively high employment rates overall, refugees in the main are meeting the U.S refugee program’s goal of promoting refugees’ self-sufficiency.

B. Spoken-Language Proficiency

In the long term, improving English language proficiency is crucial to refugees’ self-sufficiency and integration. Like other immigrants, refugees gain English proficiency with time in the United States (see 39 Sarah Dryden-Peterson, Education of Refugees in Countries of First Asylum: What U.S. Teachers Need to Know about the Pre- Resettlement Experiences of Refugee Children (Washington, DC: MPI, forthcoming 2015); Selcuk R. Sirin and Lauren Rogers- Sirin, The Educational and Mental Health Needs of Syrian Refugee Children (Washington, DC: MPI, forthcoming 2015). As might be expected, groups with more working-age refugees and greater language proficiency usually integrate better.