







































Aisthesis      Volume 8,  201714

Are Refugees Integrating Successfully in Wichita, Kansas?
by Claire Branstetter

Introduction
      There was rapid Spanish flying back and forth, 
spicy posole, and lively Latin music. I was in Wichita, 
Kansas, but I felt transported to another place at my 
friend Carolina’s baby shower. How did a very white, 
native English-speaker end up at the baby shower 
of an El Salvadorian asylum-seeker? We actually 
met at a garage sale. Carolina and her husband were 
looking for bargain furniture, and I happen to be 
bilingual enough to coordinate moving a bookshelf. 
We ended up staying in touch; I would meet up with 
her and chat in Spanish. Slowly I began to piece 
together parts of her story, which included fleeing 
from gang violence in El Salvador after a gun ended 
up against her husband’s head, praying that both 
her and her husband’s asylum applications would 
be approved by the courts, doctor’s appointments 
to check on her unborn child, and hoping the rest 
of the family would be able to follow her someday. I 
watched her struggle with things I took for granted, 
like feeling safe outside. After seeing the challenges 
Carolina faced in my community, I wanted to know 
more about the situation of migrants in Wichita. 
In recent years, Wichita, Kansas has become a hub 
for refugee resettlement, but little research has been 
conducted here. I hope to fill the knowledge gap of 
integration at the grassroots level, gather information 
which can lead to better-informed policy, and 
correct misunderstandings about refugees in our 
communities.
      Refugees are integrating, but with difficulty. In 
Wichita, the surrounding community and the federal 
government have provided the most support for 
integration. However, some leaders at the state and 
local level resist refugees. To come to such a conclusion, 
I begin with a brief overview of community-level 
integration literature to outline the legal parameters 
and social obstacles affecting migrants. I then employ 
social capital theory to explain refugee integration 
in terms of the relationships developed with other 
migrants, native-born citizens, and local institutions. 

Since the investigation relies heavily on qualitative 
factors, I utilize the “Indicators of Integration” 
framework to operationalize integration into nine 
essential domains and identify potential types of 
data to proxy success in each area. I then evaluate the 
findings of refugee integration in Wichita, Kansas 
and discuss the implications of the findings in light 
of the current political climate. 

Background
Understanding Integration 
 Migrants fleeing persecution and violence enter 
the United States either as refugees or asylum-
seekers.1 The political status matters because policies 
and service agencies prioritize refugee status over 
asylum-seekers. Unlike a refugee, asylum-seekers 
must win a court case in order to stay in the U.S., 
which often means government policy is more 
reluctant to grant asylum-seekers entitlements 
to welfare services or a choice in resettlement 
location (Spicer, 2008). Furthermore, policy and 
services focus predominately on refugees, leading 
to the political and social exclusion of people 
seeking asylum in comparison to individuals with 
refugee status (Daley, 2009). Asylum-seekers tend 
to come from El Salvador, Guatemala, China, and 
Egypt, while refugees are more likely to come from 
Iraq, Burma, Somalia, or Bhutan (Mossad, 2016; 
Mossad, 2015; Young, 2001; Nawyn, 2012). Asylum-
seekers in Wichita likely face more social exclusion 
compared to refugees. While Asylum-seekers and 
asylees are a part of the migrant community fleeing 
from violence, relatively little data exists to analyze 

1 To become a refugee, a migrant must apply while outside 
of the U.S., either through the United Nations Higher 
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or to the U.S. 
Refugee Admissions Program (Mossaad, 2014). Asylum-
seekers forgo the UNHCR or USRAP process and come 
directly to the United States; the asylum applicants may 
remain in the country until the court grants asylum status 
or decides to deport the individual (USCIS).



Are Refugees Integrating Successfully in Wichita, Kansas?

Aisthesis      Volume 8,  201715

asylee integration; therefore, this investigation will 
focus on refugees. Conclusions drawn about refugee 
integration do not necessarily extend to asylum-
seekers.
      Without much of a social safety net, difficulties 
such as health problems, limited employment 
prospects, and language barriers can quickly 
compound and prevent refugee integration. The 
failure to integrate either results in isolation and 
exclusion within the new host society or, in more 
extreme cases, deportation. Social exclusion is the 
interaction of factors including poverty, social 
disadvantage, poor health, cultural marginalization, 
and limited spatial mobility (Spicer, 2008). The case 
of one Tanzanian immigrant in Wichita provides a 
relevant example: Although he was lucky to find a 
low-paying assembly plant job to help pay the bills 
and tuition, a downturn in the city’s aircraft industry 
left him unemployed and without social support 
(Dosi, 2007). The young migrant lost his apartment, 
developed an abdominal disorder, dropped out of 
school, and consequently fell out of status with the 
Immigration Department, resulting in deportation 
(Dosi, 2007). If refugees are struggling to integrate 
in Wichita, signs would include high levels of 
unemployment, incarceration, and deportation. On 
the other hand, signs of integration would include 
the availability of employment assistance, access to 
health care, and the ability to access social safety 
nets like TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy 
Families). 

The Role of Social Capital on Integration
      Social capital explains the effects of accumulated 
relationships and networks on society and 
individuals. The idea that social networks have value 
is not new or particularly surprising; people generally 
acknowledge the need for one another. However, in 
the seminal work “Bowling Alone,” Robert Putnam 
(2000) shocked sociologist peers and citizens across 
the U.S. with years of research showing the level 
of connectedness within a society to have positive 
effects in areas such as health, politics, the economy, 
and crime. Social capital theory makes intuitive 
sense, because without access to others, even the 
latest equipment and most innovative people are 
unproductive; ultimately, relationships create the 
pathways necessary for the exchange of knowledge 

and resources between individuals (Woolcock, 1998; 
Putnam, 2000). Communities possessing high stocks 
of social capital tend to find and keep good jobs, 
initiate projects serving public interests, enforce 
contractual agreements, use existing resources more 
efficiently, and resolve disputes more amicably 
in comparison to communities with low stocks 
of social capital (Woolcock, 1998). Social capital 
theory elucidates how the limited social networks 
of refugees encumber integration. When cultural 
and language barriers obstruct the development of 
connections in the host society, acquiring resources 
like employment, housing, and transportation 
becomes much more difficult. The more relationships 
refugees form with native citizens, community 
organizations, and corporations in the Wichita area, 
the more likely integration is successful. 
 Relationships fall into certain categories, 
classified by the nature of the relationship and the 
type of benefit produced. For social capital to lead 
to the greatest societal benefit, relationships must 
develop in all three of the following categories: 
bonding social capital, bridging social capital, and 
linking social capital. The first category, bonding 
social capital, accrues from networks people 
frequently access, the tight-knit communities 
formed around shared experiences or values 
(Putnam, 2000). Bonded groups feel like one unit 
and share solidarity, acting as a sort of societal “glue” 
that encourages norms of specific reciprocity and 
creates a sense of belonging (Putnan, 2000). Bonding 
commonly happens between individuals sharing an 
ethnicity, religion, or family ties and often serves as 
the primary source of emotional and psychological 
support (Ager & Strang, 2004; Putnam, 2000). 
Refugees and asylum-seekers access bonding social 
capital by settling in ethnic enclaves and by relying 
on close friends and family to cope with culture 
shock and trauma. Bonding social capital within the 
migrant community of Wichita has the potential to 
both integrate and isolate refugees. 
 Bridging social capital can counteract the 
potentially isolating effects of bonding social 
capital. Furthermore, communities high in bridging 
social capital as well as bonding social capital have 
advantages over communities relying mainly 
on bonding. Bridging social capital originates in 
networks of less frequent interaction that lack 



Are Refugees Integrating Successfully in Wichita, Kansas?

Aisthesis      Volume 8,  201716

a permanent bonding denominator and helps 
conceptualize the benefits of networking across 
social cleavages (Putnam, 2002). Examples include 
connections between communities with different 
ethnic, national, or religious identities (Ager & 
Strang, 2004). The main advantages of bridging 
social capital are the connections to opportunities, 
assets, and information not possessed by individuals 
in the bonded group and general reciprocity, which 
helps individuals to feel safe and be mindful of others 
(Putnam, 2002).  In the study of refugees, the concept 
of bridging applies to relations between migrants and 
native citizens as well as between ethnic groups. In 
order to integrate into society, refugees and asylum-
seekers must be able to develop relationships with 
members of the community outside of an ethnic 
enclave.
      The final aspect of social capital theory, linking 
social capital, seeks to address relationships not only 
with people, but with institutions or organizations. 
Knowing how to “work the system” is a sign of 
extremely high linking social capital. Links are 
connections facilitating access to services and citizen 
involvement and may include the government, health 
care providers, and social service agencies (Ager & 
Strang, 2004). There are considerable geographical 
variations in the inclusiveness of health care and 
social care services to asylum-seekers and refugees 
(Spicer, 2008). Being a refugee means interacting 
with the local government and resettlement agencies, 
and therefore, linking with organizations like the 
Episcopal Migration Ministries (EWARM) and 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(USCIS) can determine integration success as much 
as bonding or bridging social capital. Integration is 
taking place if evidence shows refugees have links 
with local government, health care providers, and 
local community organizations. 

Methods and Data
 To evaluate the integration of refugees and 
related populations, a model needs to be simple 
and consistent, but also comprehensive and flexible 
enough to adapt to a local context. Through their 
research on refugee and asylee integration in Great 
Britain, Alastair Ager and Alison Strang (2004) 
developed a workable “Indicators of Integration 
Framework” for the British government (Appendix 

A). The conceptual framework operationalizes 
integration by identifying ten essential domains 
and suggesting several techniques to measure each 
indicator on both a policy and practical level. For 
example, policy makers can look for evidence of 
social bonds in the “number of registered refugee 
community organisations and the years in operation” 
(Ager & Strang, 2004). The publicly available data 
for Wichita allows for an analysis of integration in 
the domains of Rights and Citizenship, Safety and 
Stability, Social Bonds, and Social Links. 
 I analyzed the qualitative data gathered from 
local sources and the quantitative data from the 
federal government by placing the information 
into the categories specified by the indicators of 
integration framework. Sometimes the data I found 
matched the author’s suggested data, but I often had 
to choose the best domain for the data I had. Based 
on the categories with the most evidence, I decided 
to focus on the domains of “Health,” “Social Links,” 
“Safety and Stability,” and “Rights and Citizenship” 
to analyze integration. However, I also found some 
data in the categories of “Education,” “Social Bridges,” 
and “Social Bonds.” Within each domain, I noted 
the data supporting successful integration and the 
data indicating otherwise. Based on which seemed 
stronger, I classified each domain as either “showing 
integration” or “not showing integration” in Wichita. 
“Successful integration” for refugees in Wichita 
meant a majority of the domains had evidence of 
integration.

Findings
      I estimate around 2,000 refugees live in Wichita, 
Kansas. Well-defined statistics on the population 
size are either confidential or not tracked at the 
city level. Combine the temporary nature of 
“refugee” political status with freedom of mobility, 
and the refugee population within a city is difficult 
to track. Nevertheless, between 2012 and 2016, 
the consolidated placement plan of the Bureau of 
Population, Refugees, and Migration approved 
Wichita to accept up to 1,220 refugees (Figure 
1 and Table 1). However, according to one local 
news source, in 2014, over 1,200 refugees already 
lived in Wichita (Shaar, 2014). Therefore, since 
the processing center approved almost 700 more 
refugees in 2015 and 2016, the number should at 



Year New Refugees
2016 440
2015 230
2014 215
2013 175
2012 160

Table 1 
Refugees in Wichita by Approved Resettlement Capacity

  Total              1,220

Figure 1 and Table 1. Refugees in Wichita by Approved 
Resettlement Capacity. Data adapted from the U.S. 
Department of State Bureau of Population, Refugees, 
and Migration; Office of Admissions, Refugee Processing 
Center, Consolidated Placement Plan (2016).

Figure 1. Refugees in Wichita by Approved Resettlement 
Capacity, 2012-2016.

Are Refugees Integrating Successfully in Wichita, Kansas?

Aisthesis      Volume 8,  201717

least be as high as 1,920 (Refugee Processing Center, 
2016).2 Given the possibility of changes in the refugee 
population that the government or local agencies 
may not take into account (i.e., refugees migrating 
to Wichita from other U.S. cities or growing refugee 
families), I round the number up to 2000. Knowing 
the approximate size of the population provides a 
measure to judge the adequacy of government grants 

2 Including asylum-seekers, the numbers will be larger. 
Given that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
received only a slightly smaller number of applications to 
register for lawful permanent residence (LPR) status from 
asylum-seekers than refugees, asylum-seekers likely have 
a smaller but comparable population size (USCIS, 2016). 
See Appendix E and F for asylum applications compared 
to that of refugees from 2010-2012. 

for health and education. However, the available 
data is not clear whether the numbers include only 
migrants who recently held political refugee status 
or count residents with refugee backgrounds, such as 
migrants from Vietnam during the 70s and 80s. The 
city of Wichita should attempt to keep more exact 
figures, unless protecting refugees requires city-level 
data remain confidential. 

Evidence of Successful Integration
 Refugees have links with Wichita community 
organizations beyond just refugee resettlement 
agencies. While the two resettlement agencies—
the International Rescue Committee (IRC) and the 
Episcopal Migration Ministries (EMM)—provide 
employment services and language training, refugee 
populations will have an easier time integrating with 
backing from the surrounding community as well. 
Habitat for Humanity recently built a house for Jolie 
Uwizeye, a single mother of two, who finally resettled in 
Wichita after fleeing from the Congo (Arnold, 2016). 
Wichita Refugees Connect, affiliated with Wichita’s 
Cross Cultural Institute, hosted the organization’s 
second annual Thanksgiving dinner for refugees, 
and over 70 individuals attended (Puntel-Sessions, 
2016). Students from Wichita State University began 
an organization two years ago called “Reaching out 
2 Refugees,” which addresses material needs such as 
coats and furniture (Shaar, 2014). The existence of 
multiple community connections suggests refugee 
populations are building social capital within the 
Wichita area. Relationships between refugees and 
community organizations is an example of linking 
social capital, while relationships between refugees 
and individual community members exemplifies 
bridging social capital. Refugees are building both 
simultaneously. 
 Existing bonding, bridging, and linking social 
capital among the African migrant community of 
Wichita may facilitate the integration of African 
migrants in comparison to other refugee groups. 
Newcomers can connect with longstanding African 
community organizations, easily fulfilling the social 
connections tier of the integration framework. 
Wichita boasts community organizations such as 
the Wichita African Union and two Tanzanian 
community organizations, Tawichita and Zanama 
(Tawichita, 2016; Dosi, 2007). The most recent posts 
on Tawichita’s blog include updates on changes 



4.3 Speak Spanish
1.4 Speak Vietnamese
0.2 Speak Chinese
2.1 Speak another Asian Language
0.3 Speak an Indo-European Language
0.2 Other

Table 2 
Non-English Speaking Population of Wichita by 
Language (%)

$0	 $500,000	 $1,000,000	 $1,500,000	 $2,000,000	

IRC	Wichita	

Episcopal	Wichita	Area	Refugee	Ministries	

Refugee	Social	Services	Program*	

Cash	and	Medical	Assistance*	

	PrevenDve	Health*			

2009/10	 2010/11	 2011/12	 2012/13	 2013/14	

Figure 2. State of Kansas Office of Refugee Resettlement 
Funded Programs. Data adapted from the Office of 
Refugee Resettlement (2016).

*Percentage speaking English less than “very well”

Are Refugees Integrating Successfully in Wichita, Kansas?

Aisthesis      Volume 8,  201718

for asylum-based work cards and a federal court 
ruling on immigration law, demonstrating how 
social capital helps refugees quickly access pertinent 
information (Tawichita, 2016). The existence of a 
strong African civil society in Wichita may explain 
why Swahili-speakers have been more successful at 
using public transportation than speakers of Asian 
and Indo-European languages, despite having a 
smaller population size (Table 2); Swahili is the 
second most encountered language after Spanish on 
the Wichita transit system (City of Wichita, 2016).3  
Most likely, Swahili-speaking refugees become 
comfortable using the Wichita transit system 
because other conationals already know how to use 
the buses, demonstrating how bonding social capital 
transfers information.  Although not fitting into 
one of the identified integration domains, the use of 
public transit shows successful integration because 
the refugees do not require any outside assistance to 
utilize the resource. 

 The linking social capital of refugees in Wichita 
increases access to medical and health support. The 
local resettlement agencies are not under pressure 
to provide the entirety of the assistance, but partner 
with the community and receive funding from 
the federal government.4 International Rescue 
Committee staff and community partners ensure 

3 Swahili is the official language of Tanzania, and countries 
such as The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, 
Burundi, and Somalia also speak Swahili. See Appendix B 
and C for refugee numbers by country of origin.
4 The federal government channels the funds through the 
Kansas legislature, which distributes the money to state 
entities such as the Department for Children and Families 
(Appendix D). The department will then use the funds to 
serve refugees.

newly arrived refugees have access to nutritious 
food and health care as well as provide referrals to 
appropriate care providers (IRC, 2016). However, 
the first time a refugee in Wichita encounters the 
Kansas health system is often through the Refugee 
Health Clinic of the Sedgwick County Health 
Department. At this clinic, patients often receive a 
complete health assessment, treatments or referrals 
if necessary, and advice for finding a primary 
physician and a dental provider (SCHD, 2013; 
SCHD, 2014). The federal government supports 
health services to Kansas refugees through the Office 
of Refugee Resettlement. The department gave both 
a mandatory grant to the Kansas Department of 
Social and Rehabilitation Services for “Cash and 
Medical Assistance” totaling $1,163,729 between 
fiscal years 2009/10 and 2013/14 as well as a 
discretionary grant to the Kansas Department of 
Health and Environment for “Preventative Health,” 
totaling $297,252 between 2011/12 and 2013/14 
(Office of Refugee Resettlement, 2015). Health 
funding improves chances of integration for refugees 
in Wichita. However, the existence of health care 
does not guarantee the sufficiency of the support.
 The state government has begun to provide 
support to catch up with the growing number 
of refugees. The assistance mainly addresses the 
identified integration areas of education and health. 
For instance, Wichita schools received a grant 
through the Kansas Extraordinary Needs Fund for 
nearly $687,000 during the 2016-2017 school year 
to provide instructional and emotional support 
for the 230 refugee students as well as trauma 
training for paraprofessionals; the amount nearly 
doubled the $366,000 received in assistance last year 
(Arnold, 2016). As of 2015, refugees have been able 
to access Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
(TANF), although receiving TANF disqualifies the 



Note: Data for I-485 Applications to Register Permanent 
Residence or Adjust Status in Wichita, Kansas adapted from 
USCIS (2016).

Table 3
Humanitarian-Based LPR Applications

Figure 3. Locations of Resettlement Agencies in Relation 
to Aggravated Assaults. Reprinted from Wichita City 
Agenda.

Are Refugees Integrating Successfully in Wichita, Kansas?

Aisthesis      Volume 8,  201719

individuals from accessing services from the refugee 
resettlement agencies (Kansas Legislature, 2015). 
The Wichita Transit provides translation services and 
has developed a relationship with the International 
Rescue Committee (City of Wichita, 2016). However, 
the grant was only for one school year, Kansas is 
experiencing a budget crisis, and many legislators 
have expressed anti-refugee sentiment. 

Evidence Against Successful Integration
 Too few refugees are applying for lawful 
permanent resident (LPR) status. The numbers do 
not match the arrivals from the previous year or 
even follow an increasing trend corresponding to the 
growing number of refugees. Legally, refugees must 
apply for permanent resident status one year after 
arriving in the United States (Mossaad, 2016). In 
2013, the State Department approved resettling up to 
175 refugees in Wichita; therefore, in 2014, around 
175 refugees should have applied for LPR Status 
(Refugee Processing Center, 2016).5 However, in 
2014, the USCIS received only 65 applications (Table 
3), including applications from asylum-seekers 
(USCIS, 2016).6 The number of applications are low 
either because the government lacks the capacity to 
process more applications or because refugees are 

5 The capacity numbers do not necessarily mean 175 
refugees resettled in Wichita in 2014. However, the same 
year the SCHD Refugee Health Clinic provided exams to 
144 newly arrived refugees (SCHD, 2013). Therefore, at 
least 144 new refugees should have applied. 
6 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also 
tracks how many refugees and aslyees receive permanent 
resident status. The numbers differ slightly from USCIS, 
but are still far too low. See Appendix F and G for a 
comparison with the DHS numbers.

not applying for LPR status. Either way, the data 
does not support integration in the “Rights and 
Citizenship” category because without first gaining 
the LPR status, refugees cannot become citizens. 
 Refugees in Wichita do not show integration in 
the “Safety and Stability” domain. Even if a refugee 
becomes an LPR, the individual does not possess the 
right to stay in the United States. In addition to legal 
instability, refugees also live in high crime areas. 
Deporting refugees violates international law unless 
the refugee commits a “capital crime.” However, the 
U.S. circumvents the law by requiring refugees to 
apply to become LPRs, a deportable migrant status 
(Leitner Center, 2010). In 1996, Congress expanded 
the categories of deportation to include minor crimes 
and non-violent offenses (Leitner Center, 2010). The 
resettlement agencies in Wichita are in high crimes 
areas (Figure 3 and 4). Living near crime is unsafe and 
more likely to result in deportation if an individual 
becomes involved in a minor crime or is mistakenly 
associated with a crime. Given President Trump’s 
promise to increase deportations, the problem is 
even more pressing. Future research should further 
investigate whether refugees feel safe applying for 
LPR status and living in Wichita neighborhoods.
      At the state level of Kansas politics, real anti-
refugee sentiment exists, especially against Muslim 
refugees. Some of the most vocal opponents have 
ties to Wichita, complicating refugee integration 
in the “Rights and Citizenship” and “Safety and 
Stability” categories. Governor Sam Brownback 
withdrew Kansas from the Federal Resettlement 



Figure 5. GOP Mailer, House 88th District, Wichita. 
Reprinted from GOP mailers: Watch for new ISIS 
‘neighbors’ in Kansas, by Bryan Lowry, October 28, 2016.

Figure 4. Locations of Resettlement Agencies in Relation 
to Burglary Incidents. Reprinted from Wichita City 
Agenda.

Are Refugees Integrating Successfully in Wichita, Kansas?

Aisthesis      Volume 8,  2017

program, which jeopardized around $2.2 million 
in refugee assistance from the federal government 
funneled through state programs (Lowry, 2016b)
(Figure 2). The Federal government and the Kansas 
refugee resettlement agencies continued to resettle 
migrants from Muslim countries anyway, which 
prompted House Bill No. 2661, which states, “No 
refugee resettlement agency… shall make any 
recommendation to the federal government that 
refugees relocating from affected nations7 be placed 
in Kansas (Refugee Placement Act, 2016). Of the 
twenty-two cosponsors, four are from Wichita: Peter 
DeGraaf, Blake Carpenter, Mike Khars, and Joseph 
Scapa (Kansas Legislature, 2016). Cutting federally 
funded programs would have been devastating to the 
integration of recently arrived refugees. Additionally, 
the political and legal systems of Kansas cannot 
ensure refugees’ safety if important officials see 
refugees as a danger to the community. 
 Joseph Scapa, one of the cosponsors of the 
Refugee Placement Act and the Refugee Absorptive 
Capacity Act, attempted to use fear of refugees as 
a political device for his reelection to the House 
of Representatives. The propaganda may have 
hurt the ability of refugees to create social bridges 

7 “‘Affected nation’ means any nation that is under the 
governmental control, whether wholly or partially, of 
the Islamic state of Iraq and al-Sham, also known as the 
Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant, or any other Muslim 
organization whose primary purpose is substantially 
similar to the aforementioned organization” (House of 
Representatives, 2016).

with individuals in Wichita, affecting chances of 
integration. The Republican party sent mailers out 
to Wichita’s House District 88 (Figure 5) in support 
of Scapa’s campaign with a promise to train Kansas 
law enforcement officers to “recognize and deal with 
foreign and domestic threats to our state, from those 
who support ideologies conflicting with the U.S. 
Constitution and Kansas values” (Lowry, 2016a). 
Ironically, the only example of aspiring terrorists 
in Kansas are native-born white nationalists 
attempting to bomb Somali immigrants in Garden 
City (Oberholtz, 2016). Moussa Elbayoumy, the 
chairman of the Kansas chapter of the Council 
on American Islamic Relations, criticized the 
misrepresentation of Muslims as terrorists, arguing 
the Muslim community was “mostly well integrated 
into society and happy,” aside from a few “scattered 
cases of discrimination” (Hayden, 2016). Integration 
is a preferable solution to policing refugees. However, 
local government officials’ influence on community 
attitudes can prevent integration from happening, 
paradoxically triggering the realization of unfounded 
fears. 
      Anti-refugee sentiment is not limited to state-
level politics. High ranking local officials on the 
Sedgwick County Commission share the distrust. 
A general misunderstanding about Muslim refugees 
and the screening process is evident among local 
officials and seems to fuel the push for anti-refugee 
legislation at the state level. Chairman of the 
Sedgwick County Commission Richard Ranzau sent 
letters to the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement and 
the Kansas Department of Children and Families 
asking to “Halt all refugee resettlement operations in 
the state until a state-wide policy has been developed 

20



Are Refugees Integrating Successfully in Wichita, Kansas?

Aisthesis      Volume 8,  2017

and implemented providing local jurisdictions the 
opportunity to opt-out of refugee resettlements” 
(Cobb, 2016). The Chairman’s action stems from 
concern about social service funding and safety, as 
he has stated, “I do not believe local communities 
should carry the financial burden and the increased 
safety risk.” A majority of commissioners agreed 
(Cobb, 2016). However, funding comes from the 
federal government, not the community, and 
refugees undergo vetting from the United Nations, 
the State Department, and the Department of Justice 
(Anderson, 2015). If Wichita were to “opt out” of 
resettlement, refugees would lose access to the social 
capital from established migrants and experienced 
service providers. Additionally, if political officials 
see refugees as a threat, the reaction is to limit 
refugees’ rights.

Discussion and Conclusion
      Resettlement agencies should consider making 
local websites more transparent by adding 
statistical information and sharing success stories 
of willing refugees. Some clarity may mitigate the 
misunderstanding and fear of native citizens and 
policy makers. Local officials are attempting to obtain 
information from resettlement agencies previously 
only available to the Department of State (Cobb, 
2015).  In 2016, a bill died in the legislature requiring 
resettlement agencies to submit copies of federal 
reports to state officials, local governments, and local 
law enforcement, in addition to detailed information 
of refugees by numbers, demographics, and zip 
codes as well as criminal records, incidents of abuse, 
and documentation of all public or private cash 
assistance (Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act, 2016)8. 
Detailed statistical records in the hands of officials 
known to have anti-migrant sentiments would 
likely have negative effects on refugee populations; 
however, the lack of published data also means that 
potential allies, such as researchers, community 
members, ministries, and non-profit organizations, 
often cannot access information. In the current 
political climate, resettlement agencies must be 

8 Recipients include committees on federal and state 
affairs and the judiciary committee of both the house and 
the senate, the adjutant general (Maj. Gen. Lee Tafanelli), 
and the attorney general (Kris Kobach).

more than quiet operations working with federal 
and international institutions, but serve refugees by 
advocating locally, loudly, and transparently. 
      With the current political climate and low LPR 
application rates, claiming refugees are successful 
in the “Rights and Citizenship” category may 
seem like a stretch. Some may argue evidence in 
the foundational category must negate successful 
integration. Governor Brownback tried to stop 
state funding, prevent resettlement agencies from 
accepting more refugees, and give himself the power 
to define Wichita’s carrying capacity (Lowry, 2016; 
Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act, 2016; Refugee 
Placement Act, 2016). Joseph Scapa promoted the 
bills in the legislature and sent out mailers promoting 
fear and distrust of refugees in native born U.S. 
citizens (Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act, 2016; 
Refugee Placement Act, 2016; ABC News, 2016). 
Legal permanent resident applications do not match 
refugee numbers, and the government is not explicitly 
tracking refugee citizenship applications (USCIS, 
2016; DHS, 2016). Nevertheless, the governor was 
not successful at stopping refugees from entering 
Kansas, and the bills did not become laws. Scapa’s 
propaganda did not get him reelected, and there was 
enough support in the state government to provide 
grants to schools and ensure refugees have access 
to TANF. While the Trump administration may 
embolden certain political officials to push harder 
for anti-refugee legislation, the support remaining in 
the legislature and the community can go far to help 
refugees overcome the political difficulties.
 Despite weak integration in the “Rights and 
Citizenship” and “Safety and Stability” categories, 
refugees are integrating into the community. The 
evidence of initial assistance in the spheres of health, 
education, and social links shows that Wichita gives 
refugees an initial boost.  Once confident in their 
abilities to support themselves, most refugees move 
away from public assistance (Balgopal, 2000, as cited 
in Segal, 2005); therefore, the continued support of 
the state is not a necessity for established refugees, 
only new refugees. Enough state support currently 
exists to ensure a successful start, as refugees can 
access 8 months of service from the resettlement 
agencies (IRC, 2016), health examinations and 
referrals (SCHD, 2012; SCHD, 2013), and an 
education system with increased experience and 

21



Appendix

Appendix A. Indicators of Integration Framework, 
reprinted from Indicators of Integration, by Alastair Ager 
and Allison Strang, 2004, Crown copyright 2004.

Appendix B. Kansas Refugee and Asylee Arrivals. Note: 
Data for Refugee Arrivals by Country of Origin in Kansas, 
adapted from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (2016).

Indicators of Integration Framework

Kansas Refugee and Asylee Arrivals

Are Refugees Integrating Successfully in Wichita, Kansas?

Aisthesis      Volume 8,  2017

training in working with refugees (Arnold, 2016). 
The largest unmet concern is refugee safety and 
stability. However, as refugees move away from 
social services, they may also move away from the 
resettlement agencies to safer locations. 
 Refugees are integrating successfully in more 
domains than not. The strongest areas are “Health,” 
“Education,” “Social Bonds,” and “Social Links.” The 
weakest areas are “Safety and Stability,” and “Rights 
and Citizenship.” Refugees and resettlement agencies 
cannot rely on the state to meet the integration 
requirements of refugees. However, the increasing 
social capital for refugees in Wichita decreases the 
need to rely on the state for successful integration. 
Therefore, the citizens of Wichita have a key role in 
making the city a welcoming and helpful place.

22



Appendix C. Migrants Naturalized in Wichita by Year. 
Note: Data for Refugee Arrivals by Country of Origin in 
Kansas, adapted from the Office of Refugee Resettlement 
(2016).

Appendix F. Refugees and Asylees Obtaining LPR Status. 
Note: Data for Refugees and Asylees attaining LPR 
status, Male and Female, 2003-2014, adapted from the 
Department of Homeland Security (2016).

Refugees and Asylees Obtaining LPR Status

Differences between Sources: Obtaining LPR Status

Appendix G. Differences between Sources: Obtaining 
LPR Status. Note: Refugees and Asylees attaining lawful 
permanent resident status in Wichita, KS, 2010-2014, 
adapted from the Department of Homeland Security 
(2016), United States Citizenship and Immigration 
Department (2016).

Migrants Naturalized in Wichita by Year

State of Kansas ORR Funded Programs

Appendix D. State of Kansas ORR Funded Programs. 
Note: State of Kansas Office of Refugee Resettlement 
Funded Programs. Data adapted from Office of Refugee 
Resettlement (2016).

Number of I-485 Applications to Register Permanent 
Residence or Adjust Status - Wichita, Kansas

Appendix E. Number of I-485 Applications to Register 
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status - Wichita, Kansas. 
Note: Data for Refugees and Asylees attaining lawful 
permanent resident status, 2010-2012, adapted from 
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 
(2016).

Are Refugees Integrating Successfully in Wichita, Kansas?

Aisthesis      Volume 8,  201723



Are Refugees Integrating Successfully in Wichita, Kansas?

Aisthesis      Volume 8,  2017

References
Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2004). Indicators of integration: 

The experience of integration final report. London: 
Home Office. 

Arnold, A. (2016, June 3). Habitat for Humanity 
building home at Riverfest. KSN-TV. Retrieved 
from http://www.ksn.com/2016/06/03/habitat-
for-humanity-building-home-at-riverfest/

Arnold, A. (2016, August 8). USD 259 receives funds 
to help refugee students. KSN-TV. Retrieved 
from http://www.ksn.com/2016/08/08/usd-259-
receives-funds-to-help-refugee-students/

Associated Press. (2016, August 4). Kansas school 
board approves $7.2M in extra aid to districts. 
KSN-TV. Retrieved from http://www.ksn.
com/2016/08/04/kans as-s cho ol-b o ard-
approves-7-2m-in-extra-aid-to-districts/

Bankston, C., & Zhou, M. (2002). Social capital as 
process: The meanings and problems of a 
theoretical metaphor. Sociological Inquiry, 72(2): 
285-317.

City Council of Wichita, Kansas. (2016, May 24). 
City Council Agenda (pp. 109-115). Retrieved 
from http://www.wichita.gov/Government/
Council/Agendas/05-24-2016%20Final%20
City%20Council%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf 

Cobb, L. (2015, November 17). Sedgwick County 
Commission weighing in on Syrian refugees. 
KSN-TV. Retrieved from http://www.
ksn.com/2015/11/17/sedg wick-county-
commission-weighing-in-on-syrian-refugees/

Daley, C. (2009). Exploring community connections: 
Community cohesion and refugee integration at 
a local level. Community Development Journal, 
44(2), 158-171.

Department of Homeland Security. (2016). 
Profiles on lawful permanent residents. [Data 
files]. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/
profiles-legal-permanent-residents 

Department of Homeland Security. (2016). Profiles 
on naturalized citizens. [Data files]. Retrieved 
from https://www.dhs.gov/profiles-naturalized-
citizens

Dosi, M., Rushubirwa, L., & Myers, G. (2007). 
Tanzanians in the land of Oz: Diaspora and 
transnationality in Wichita, Kansas. Social and 
Cultural Geography, 8(5), 657-671.

Hayden, M. E. (2016, October 31). Kansas GOP 
criticized for controversial ISIS-themed flier. 
ABC News. Retrieved from http://www.abcnews.
go.com/US/kansas-gop-criticized-controversial-
isis-themed-flyer/story?id=43197736

International Rescue Committee. (2016). The IRC in 
Wichita, KS. Retrieved from https://www.rescue.
org/united-states/wichita-ks#who-are-refugees

Leitner Center for International Law and Justice. 
(2010).  Removing refugees: U.S. deportation 
policy and the Cambodian-American community 
(pp. 3-7). Retrieved from the Fordham Law 
School website: http://www.leitnercenter.org/
files/2010%20Cambodia%20Report_FINAL.pdf

Lepore, M. (2015). Adventures in America: Easing 
the transition of refugees in school 
and community. Making Connections: 
Interdisciplinary Approaches to Cultural Diversity, 
16(1), 11-24.

Lowry, B. (2016a, October 28). GOP mailers: 
Watch for new ISIS ‘neighbors’ in Kansas. 
The Wichita Eagle. Retrieved from http://
www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/
article111088287.html

Lowry, B. (2016b, April 26). Gov. Sam 
Brownback: Kansas withdrawing from federal 
refugee resettlement program. The Wichita 
Eagle. Retrieved from http://www.kansas.com/
news/politics-government/article73948492.html

24



Are Refugees Integrating Successfully in Wichita, Kansas?

Aisthesis      Volume 8,  2017

Mossaad, N. (2016). 2014 Annual flow report: 
Refugees and asylees. Washington, DC: U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved 
from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/
publications/Refugees%20%26%20Asylees%20
Flow%20Report%202014_508.pdf

Miller, B. (2015, November 18). KSN fact-checks 
Commissioner Peterjohn’s comments about 
Muslims. KSN-TV. Retrieved from http://
www.ksn.com/2015/11/18/ksn-fact-checks-
commissioner-peterjohns-comments-about-
muslims/

Nawyn, S. J., Agbényiga, D. L., Breanne, G., & Gjokaj, 
L. (2012). Linguistic isolation, social capital, and 
immigrant belonging. Journal of Contemporary 
Ethnography, 41(3), 255-282. 

Office of Refugee Resettlement. (2015). State of 
Kansas ORR funded programs. Retrieved from 
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/ffy-2013-
14-state-of-kansas-orr-funded-programs

Office of Refugee Resettlement. (2015). Refugee 
arrival data. [Data files]. Retrieved from https://
www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/refugee-arrival-
data

  
Putnam, R. (2002). Bowling alone: The collapse and 

revival of American community. New York: 
Simon & Schuster.

Puntel-Sessions, C. (2016). Thanksgiving dinner for 
refugees. Retrieved from https://www.gofundme.
com/thanksgiving-dinner-for-refugees-
2u2254cs 

Refugee Absorptive Capacity Act of 2016, HB. 2612, 
Kansas House of Representatives. Retrieved 
from http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2015_16/
measures/documents/hb2612_00_0000.pdf

Refugee Placement Act of 2016, HB. 2661, Kansas 
House of Representatives. Retrieved from http://
www.kslegislature.org/li/b2015_16/measures/
documents/hb2661_00_0000.pdf

Refugee Processing Center. (2016). R&P Consolidated 
placement plan summary by city [Data file]. 
Retrieved from http://www.wrapsnet.org/
Reports/ConsolidatedPlacementPlan/tabid/318/
Default.aspx

Segal, U. A., & Mayadas, N. S. (2005). Assessment of 
issues facing immigrant and refugee families. 
Child Welfare, 84(5), 563-583.

Shaar, D. (Producer). (2014, November 20). New 
WSU group helping refugees in Wichita. KMUW. 
Podcast retrieved from http://www.kmuw.org/
post/new-wsu-group-helping-refugees-wichita

Spicer, N. (2008). Places of exclusion and inclusion: 
Asylum-seeker and refugee experiences of 
neighbourhoods in the UK. Journal of Ethnic and 
Migration Studies, 34(3), 491-510.  

Stewart, M., Anderson, J., Beiser, M., Mwakarimba, 
E., Neufeld, A., Simich, L., & Spitzer, D. (2008). 
Multicultural meanings of social support 
among immigrants and refugees. International 
Migration, 46(3), 123-159.

Tawichita. (2016). Mission and vision. Retrieved 
from https://www.tawichita.net/index.php/
about-us/mission-vision

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2015). 
Asylum. Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/
humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2016). 
Form I-485 application for adjustment of status 
[Data files]. Retrieved from https://www.
uscis.gov/tools/reports-studies/immigration-
forms-data/data-set-form-i-485-application-
adjustment-status 

Young, M. (2001). Moderators of stress in Salvadoran 
refugees: The role of social and personal 
resources. The International Migration Review, 
35(3), 840-869.

25


