Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The growing immigrant population in the United States presents challenges for service systems, which must address diverse needs across age, language, and culture—often without sufficient cultural competency to do so effectively. These challenges are exacerbated by decentralized immigration policymaking. While federal policies focus on immigration status, local governments have the potential to respond to immigrants’ needs; however, not all cities are equipped to do so. This paper examines why some local governments provide immigrant-related services, particularly housing assistance, while others do not. Using the 2018 ICMA Local Government & Immigrant Communities Survey and a series of logistic regression models, this study identifies the factors that contribute to variation in local housing assistance programs. Results indicate that the foreign-born population and the presence of nonprofit organizations play a significant role in motivating local governments to offer housing assistance to immigrants. The findings also suggest that municipal governments’ adoption of housing assistance for immigrants is associated with political climate, whereas county governments’ decisions are more like due to their form of government.

Keywords

housing assistance inclusion immigrant local government policy innovation adoption

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ACS. (2018). American Community Surveys (5-Year Estimates) 2013-1017. Retrieved January 10, 2020, from https://www.socialexplorer.com/tables/ACS2017_5yr

Akbari

A. H.

MacDonald

(2014). Immigration policy in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States: An overview of recent trends. International Migration Review, 48(3), 801–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12128

Basolo

Huang

(2001). Cities and economic development: Does the city limits story still apply? Economic Development Quarterly, 15(4), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124240101500407

Broder

(2007). State and local policies on immigrant access to services. National Immigration Law Center.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2019, December 1). Federal Rental Assistance Fact Sheets. Retrieved April 27, 2020, from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/federal-rental-assistance-fact-sheets#US

Clark

J. H.

(2012). Examining parties as procedural cartels: Evidence from the US states. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 37(4), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-9162.2012.00059.x

Clark

Hatton

T. J.

Williamson

J. G.

(2007). Explaining U.S. immigration, 1971–1998. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(2), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.89.2.359

Coleman Battista

Richman

J. T.

(2011). Party pressure in the US state legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(3), 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00020.x

De Graauw

Bloemraad

(2017). Working together: building successful policy and program partnerships for immigrant integration. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 5(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/233150241700500106

10.

DiPasquale

Fricke

Garcia-Diaz

(2003). Comparing the costs of federal housing assistance programs. Economic Policy Review, 9(2), 147–166.

11.

Drachman

(1992). A stage-of-migration framework for service to immigrant populations. Social Work, 37(1), 68–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/37.1.68

12.

Ehrlich

Kim

(2015). Immigration, human capital formation, and endogenous economic growth. Journal of Human Capital, 9(4), 518–563. https://doi.org/10.1086/684717

13.

Erikson

R. S.

Wright

G. C.

McIver

J. P.

(1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American States. Cambridge University Press.

14.

Espenshade

T. J.

Hempstead

(1996). Contemporary American Attitudes toward U.S. Immigration. International Migration Review, 30(2), 535–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/019791839603000207

15.

Filomeno

F. A.

(2017). The migration–development Nexus in local immigration policy: Baltimore City and the Hispanic Diaspora. Urban Affairs Review, 53(1), 102–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087415614920

16.

Fisk

J. M.

Silvera

G. A.

Morris

Chen

Hume

Chen

Crayton

M.-J.

(2020). Toward the Roux: Explaining the Adoption of Inclusionary Practices in Local Governments. State and Local Government Review, 52(2), 89–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X20986845

17.

Hadjiyanni

Hirani

Jordan

(2012). Toward culturally sensitive housing-eliminating health disparities by accounting for health. Housing and Society, 39(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2012.11430604

18.

Hamilton

T. G.

Easley

J. A.

Dixon

A. R.

(2018). Black immigration, occupational niches, and earnings disparities between US-born and foreign-born blacks in the United States. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 4(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2018.4.1.04

19.

Huang

Liu

C. Y.

(2018). Welcoming cities: Immigration policy at the Local Government Level. Urban Affairs Review, 54(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874166789

20.

Hur

Strickland

R. A.

Stefanovic

(2010). Managing diversity: Does it matter to municipal governments? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(5), 500–515. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551011058501

21.

ICMA. (2019). 2018 Local government & immigrant communities survey. International City/County Management. Retrieved December 14, 2019, from https://icma.org/2018-local-government-immigrant-communities-survey

22.

Johnson

C. A.

(1976). Political Culture in American States: Elazar’s Formulation Examined. American Journal of Political Science, 491-509. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/2110685

23.

Khan-Welsh

Reese

L. A.

Reese

T. J.

(2023). How Local Contexts Matter for Local Immigrant Policies. Urban Affairs Review, 59(4), 1160-1213. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874221091496

24.

Krause

R. M.

(2011a). Policy Innovation, Intergovernmental Relations, and the Adoption of Climate Protection Initiatives by U.S. Cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(1), 45–60. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2010.00510.x

25.

Krause

R. M.

(2011b). Symbolic or substantive policy? Measuring the extent of local commitment to climate protection. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 29(1), 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1068/c09185

26.

Maciag

(2019, July 29). Where Nonprofits Are Most Prevalent in America. Retrieved April 29, 2025, from https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-nonprofits.html

27.

Mayda

A. M.

(2006). Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(3), 510–530. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.3.510

28.

McCarty

Perl

Jones

(2019). Overview of federal housing assistance programs and policy. Congressional Research Service.

29.

McDaniel

(2014). Revitalization in the Heartland of America: Welcoming Immigrant Entrepreneurs for Economic Development. American Immigration Council. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/revitalizationinheartlandofamerica.pdf

30.

McDaniel

P. N.

Rodriguez

D. X.

Wang

(2019). Immigrant integration and receptivity policy formation in welcoming cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 41(8), 1142–1166. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2019.1572456

31.

McDonald

B. D.

III (2015). Does the charter form improve the fiscal health of counties? Public Administration Review, 75(4), 609–618.

32.

Morse

(1994). America’s newcomers: An immigrant policy handbook. National Conference of State Legislatures.

33.

Muysken

Ziesemer

(2013). A permanent effect of temporary immigration on economic growth. Applied Economics, 45(28), 4050–4059. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2012.748178

34.

National Immigration Law Center. (2018). Rental Housing Programs. National Immigration Law Center.

35.

NCSL. (2018). 2018 State & Legislative Partisan Composition. National Conference of State Legislatures. https://documents.ncsl.org/wwwncsl/Elections/Legis_Control_011018_26973.pdf

36.

O’Neil

K. S.

(2011). Challenging change: Local policies and the New Geography of American Immigration. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

37.

Parilla

Liu

(2018). Examining the local value of economic development incentives. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/report_examining-the-local-value-of-economic-development-incentives_brookings-metro_march-2018.pdf

38.

Pastor

Mollenkopf

(2012). Struggling over strangers or receiving with resilience? The metropolitics of immigrant integration. In Weir

Pindu

Wial

Wolman

(Eds.), Urban and Regional Policy and Its Effects: Building Resilient Regions (pp. 100–147). Brooking Institution Press.

39.

Ramakrishnan

S. K.

Lewis

P. G.

(2005). Immigrants and local governance: The view from city hall. Public Policy Institute of California.

40.

Rangel

D. E.

Peck

(2022). A qualitative examination of work, families, and schools in low-income Latinx Communities during strict immigration enforcement. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 8(5), 184–199. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2022.8.5.09

41.

Reckhow

Downey

Sapotichne

(2020). Governing without government: Nonprofit Governance in Detroit and Flint. Urban Affairs Review, 56(5), 1472–1502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087419847531

42.

Saiz

(2007). Immigration and housing rents in American cities. Journal of urban Economics, 61(2), 345–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.07.004

43.

Scheve

K. F.

Slaughter

M. J.

(2001). Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(1), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465301750160108

44.

Sharp

E. B.

(1991). Institutional manifestations of accessiblity and urban economic development polity. Political Research Quarterly, 44(1), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299104400108

45.

Shields

Drolet

Valenzuela

(2016). Immigrant settlement and integration services and the role of nonprofit service providers: A cross-national perspective on tends, issues and evidence. Ryerson Centre for Immigration and Settlement. https://ri.ibero.mx/bitstream/handle/ibero/3946/VMKA_Art_02.pdf?sequence=1

46.

Somin

(2018). Foot voting, decentralization, and development. Minnesota Law Review, 102, 1649–1670. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/114

47.

Steil

J. P.

Vasi

I. B.

(2014). The new immigration contestation: Social movements and local immigration policy making in the United States, 2000–2011. American Journal of Sociology, 119(4), 1104–1155. https://doi.org/10.1086/675301

48.

Sullivan

D. M.

(2002). Local governments as risk takers and risk reducers: An examination of business subsidies and subsidy controls. Economic Development Quarterly, 16(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242402016002002

49.

U.S. Department of State. (2024, May 1). Fact sheet on renting to refugees and other eligible newcomers. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Refugee-Housing-Fact-Sheet-2024-05-Acessible-DIGITAL-Version-7.9.2024.pdf

50.

Walker

K. E.

Leitner

(2011). The variegated landscape of local immigration policies in the United States. Urban Geography, 32(2), 156–178. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.32.2.156

Building Inclusivity: Examine the Drivers of Local Governments’ Inclusive Housing Policies for Immigrants

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References