Introduction

On Thursday, March 11, MPI hosted a breakfast briefing and resource exchange to celebrate the launching of a new publication, Putting Data to Work for Immigrants and Communities: Tools for the Washington, D.C. Metro Area and Beyond, co-produced by MPI and Numbers in the Public Interest. This unique event included speakers and a resource exchange session that allowed attendees to meet representatives from think tanks, local State Data Centers, and a number of Census Information Centers to network and learn more about research, resources, and training.

Kim Hamilton said the report responds to a primary gap in the immigration field: the need for better demographic data. “Today is a way to practice what we preach,” by putting data in the hands of organizations working with immigrants here in D.C. who do not necessarily know what is out there or how to use it, she said. She noted that with the multitude of research institutes and community organizations present, Washington, D.C. is a particularly relevant place where the divide between research and practice can be bridged. The report also includes a “Data Users Pullout Guide” as a resource that answers three important questions: where can I find good data, why use data, and how can I learn to use data better?

Suzette Brooks Masters noted that this resource is just a beginning and has the potential to be built upon. Specifically, it serves as a template that can be replicated for other localities nationwide based on inputting local data. As a collaborative effort, it brings together different sectors of the immigration field and encourages networking. Finally, it serves as a capacity-building tool encouraging organizations to get trained and use data.

The panel of speakers highlighted new information about immigration and immigrants in the Washington, D.C. metro area, discussed the importance of good data, and focused on ways to access and use immigration-related data. Guest speakers included Audrey Singer, Visiting Fellow in The Brookings Institution’s Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy; Brian K. Ray, Policy Analyst at the Migration Policy Institute; Randy Capps, Research Associate in the Population Studies Center at the Urban Institute; and Stanley Rolark, Chief of the U.S. Census Bureau’s Customer Liaison Office. This event was moderated by Kimberly Hamilton, Managing Editor of MPI’s Migration Information Source, and Suzette Brooks Masters, Senior Fellow at the International Center for Migration, Ethnicity and Citizenship at New School University and co-director of Numbers in the Public Interest.

Presentations

Audrey Singer placed immigration to metropolitan Washington, D.C. within the context of the rise of new immigrant gateway cities, saying D.C. has been at the forefront of new settlement patterns and destinations of immigrants to the United States since the 1990s. The information she provided was based on two reports she has authored for the Brookings Institution: The Rise of New Immigrant Gateways and At Home in the Nation’s Capital: Immigrant Trends in Metropolitan Washington.

Dr. Singer began by charting the settlement of immigrants in the United States in the 20th century and classified six categories of gateway cities: Old gateways, Continuous gateways, Post-World War II gateways, Emerging gateways, Re-emerging gateways and Pre-emerging gateways. While continuous and post-World War II gateways still dominate in terms of absolute numbers of immigrants, the rates of growth of immigrant populations in emerging and re-emerging gateways are proving to be faster.

Furthermore, recent immigration to these gateways demonstrates a certain set of characteristics: more immigrants live in suburbs than in cities, recent arrivals tend to come from Asia and Mexico, they are poorer than native-born population, and they have lower rates of English proficiency and U.S. citizenship.

Focusing on suburban settlement, Dr. Singer noted that Washington, D.C. is typical of emerging gateway cities in which a high share of immigrants live in the inner suburbs versus the central city: more than a quarter of the populations of Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax and Montgomery counties are foreign born.

Dr. Singer concluded that these studies have implications for local leaders seeking to ease immigrant incorporation into communities. Specifically, their approaches should seek to understand local immigration dynamics, bring cultural and language sensitivity to service delivery, build English language capacity, provide workforce support, create linkages to mainstream institutions, and encourage civic engagement.

Brian Ray focused on “putting data to work” for immigrants in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Specifically, he highlighted the Public Uses Microdata Sample (PUMS) available from the U.S. Census. This is a five percent sample of people (covering 14 million individuals) that is available for all states and smaller geographic areas and makes it possible to match metropolitan boundaries of major cities.

This data has several advantages: it is available for every question in the Census; it can identify birthplace, ancestry and race groups with the possibility to aggregate groups; there is high levels of detail for every variable; the data is readily available; and it is free.

The disadvantages include that it is only a sample, it is not useful for small geographic areas like neighborhoods, it is limited by the size of the sample itself, one needs sophisticated knowledge of Census data to use it, and it requires an investment in time and programming effort.

Dr. Ray then demonstrated how this data could paint a picture of the employment opportunities for immigrants in the D.C. metropolitan area. Examining the foreign-born population by region of origin and birthplace, he charted industry concentration and occupations of each group. For example, data indicate that immigrants from Central America and Mexico are concentrated in the construction and retail industries.

Building complexity into this picture, Dr. Ray then charted the same information for those who arrived in the 1980s versus those who arrived in the 1990s, seeking to find what difference it makes how long immigrants have been here. Central Americans and Mexicans who arrived in the 1980s, for example, show a decreased representation in the construction industry than their 1990s counterparts, implying the achievement of a level of social mobility over time.

Finally, Dr. Ray charted unemployment and labor force participation among groups of immigrants. Overall, the foreign born in Washington, D.C. have lower unemployment rates than the foreign born nationwide, but among them Central Americans and Mexicans have the highest unemployment rates and lowest rates of labor force participation. Dr. Ray’s analysis demonstrated how organizations dealing with immigrants have the opportunity to “put data to work” to enhance community profiles and to make comparisons between groups and between cities.

Randy Capps discussed ways of measuring immigrant integration in Washington, D.C., using economic, social and political indicators, yet also highlighted the limitations of Census data.

On economic indicators, Dr. Capps noted that foreign-born workers in Washington, D.C., are better off than their counterparts nationwide. The foreign-born population of Washington has a lower proportion of low wage and low skilled workers than nationwide levels. Furthermore, though 22 percent of the foreign born in D.C. speak languages other than English, the city has a larger bilingual population than the national level, which is an asset considering that English proficiency is the single most important determinant of job opportunities. In sum, foreign-born workers in D.C. are better off, more educated, and better prepared for jobs.

Socially and politically, Dr. Capps noted that citizenship and legal status of immigrants determine their ability to integrate in areas such as eligibility for public benefits and services, voting and civic engagement, and the development of immigrant leadership and community institutions. He also noted that these indicators of integration are only available indirectly, removed from Census data.

In comparing D.C. to nationwide levels, the city’s foreign-born population has a larger proportion of legal temporary residents, undocumented immigrants and immigrants with temporary protected status. This population also contains fewer refugees and legal permanent residents.

Dr. Capps noted that Census data has a number of limitations: it may become outdated since it is collected only every ten years; it may undercount some populations; it lacks detail at local levels; it lacks political and social measures; and it provides only limited information about change over time.

He concluded by recommending that Census data be used for comparisons and for economic measures. Organizations ought to use the data as a good baseline, but they also ought to supplement it with their own resources, local knowledge, small surveys and focus groups, and input from community leaders.

Stanley Rolark concluded the panel discussion by highlighting the numerous ways people and organizations can tap into the network of Census data. The Census data dissemination network includes 52 Census Information Centers (CICs), 1,800 State Data Centers nationwide, and twelve regional offices that offer assistance in accessing all of the Census reports and data.

In addition, the Census Bureau plans workshops to assist data users with understanding the products available and surveys used. He noted that the Bureau can customize products such as maps, PUMS, and advanced queries.

Representatives from several CIC were in attendance for the resource exchange, including D.C. Agenda, Urban Institute, D.C. Office of Planning, the Arab American Institute, National Coalition of La Raza and Maryland State Data Center.

Resource Exchange
Organizations participating in the resource exchange hosted by the Migration Policy Institute that followed the panelist presentation included:

Arab American Institute
Brookings Institution
D.C. Agenda
D.C. Office of Planning
Fairfax County
Maryland State Data Center
National Coalition of La Raza
U.S. Census Bureau
Urban Institute