National Study: Only 1 in 4 Americans Believe They Can Influence Outcomes In Their Local Community

Washington, DC — Most Americans feel safe and comfortable in their communities, but only about one in four believe they have any real influence over how those communities are run, according to a new national study released today. 

The Center for Inclusion & Belonging at the American Immigration Council has fielded a second national wave of The Belonging Barometer, this time focusing on belonging at the local level. The study offers a nuanced and actionable picture of Americans’ sense of community belonging and shows there is great opportunity to build belonging by investing at the local level. 

Belonging means feeling emotionally connected to others, safe to be yourself, and able to help shape the communities where you live, work, and participate. The findings reveal that local belonging comprises more than simply feeling connected. While many Americans feel accepted in their communities, far fewer feel able to influence local decisions or help shape their community. This gap is especially pronounced among Americans 65 and older, who report the highest level of belonging (48%) compared to younger adults ages 18-29 (34%). 

Key findings of The Belonging Barometer: Understanding Belonging Where It Is Lived include:

• 61% of Americans either do not have a clear sense of community belonging or feel excluded. A relatively low percentage (14%) of Americans report actually feeling excluded. Instead, the majority (47%) of Americans live in a state of ambiguity, uncertain about their place in their community, providing an opportunity for significant improvement through local action.
• Local media matters. People who watch or follow local news at least weekly are significantly more likely to feel a strong sense of local belonging. National news consumption shows no such relationship.
• Financial stability is linked to an increased sense of belonging. As Americans’ incomes increase, so does their sense of local belonging. Just 34% of Americans earning less than $50,000 annually report feeling a sense of belonging in their local community, compared with 47% of those earning more than $100,000.
• People feel safe in their communities, but not powerful. Respondents report feeling comfortable being themselves locally and speaking up, but only about one‑quarter (24%) of study participants feel able to influence local decision‑making or understand how their community works.
• Local belonging is not defined by geography or politics. Research shows that belonging is not significantly affected by whether one lives in a small town or an urban environment, or by one’s political party affiliation. Belonging is attainable everywhere, not limited to certain places or groups.

“Belonging has become one of the defining social issues of our time. As communities grapple with rising loneliness, declining trust, and increasing polarization, researchers and public health leaders are recognizing that belonging is a measurable condition that influences health, civic participation and community resilience,” said Emily Baird-Chrisohon, Program Manager, Center for Inclusion & Belonging.

“These findings point to clear opportunities for cities, nonprofits, funders, and local institutions to strengthen belonging by listening to what people are experiencing and creating more ways for people to participate in civic life. People don’t need perfect communities – they need to feel invited, be seen and have a real say in what’s happening.” 

This study builds on past research revealing a consistent pattern: Americans report feeling less belonging in their local communities than in nearly every other area of life. The study takes a deeper look at local belonging to better understand what shapes people’s sense of connection, where these gaps persist, and what communities can do to foster stronger, more inclusive places where everyone feels they belong. The full research brief is available at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/report/belonging-barometer-2026/.

How Communities Can Take Action

The Belonging Barometer is the first tool of its kind to measure the quality of a person’s “fit” within a group or setting. It’s a simple, research-based set of ten questions that assesses three essential dimensions: emotional connection, psychological safety, and community influence.

The Barometer is freely available to help communities gather insights that drive action. Cities, nonprofits, funders, employers, schools, and other institutions can use the Belonging Barometer to understand whether their own communities or organizations feel connected, safe, and able to contribute, as well as guide investments and track progress over time. To learn more about the Belonging Barometer and how communities and organizations can begin measuring and strengthening belonging, visit https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/report/the-belonging-barometer/ 

Study Methodology

Research was executed by SSRS. The study is a general population survey conducted during three waves of the SSRS Opinion Panel Omnibus platform. The SSRS Opinion Panel Omnibus is a national, twice-per-month, probability-based survey of 3,000+ respondents. To complement the survey findings, SSRS conducted 16 in-depth interviews with panelists who had participated in one of the three survey waves.

The Belonging Barometer tool, a ten-question survey introduced in the 2023 report, “The Belonging Barometer: The State of Belonging in America,” was used again here alongside new survey and interview data. The original report was authored by Over Zero and the American Immigration Council’s Center for Inclusion and Belonging.

This study was made possible through funding by the Walmart Foundation. The findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in this research brief are those of the American Immigration Council’s alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Walmart Foundation.

About the Center for Inclusion & Belonging

The Center for Inclusion & Belonging at the American Immigration Council is dedicated to changing the conversation around immigration and building a more welcoming nation. Through research, narrative strategy, and cross-sector partnerships, the Center works to foster a culture of belonging where all people—regardless of background—can thrive, connect, and fully contribute to their communities.

Media Contact:
Anjulee Alvares-Cinque
Center for Inclusion & Belonging at the American Immigration Council 
aacinque@immcouncil.org 

The post National Study: Only 1 in 4 Americans Believe They Can Influence Outcomes In Their Local Community appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/F8emS7t
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

Measuring What Matters: How Washington Main Street Is Using the Belonging Barometer to Strengthen Downtown Communities

For decades, community revitalization has been measured by what we can easily count: number of new businesses, jobs created, building rehabilitations, affordable housing units, and dollars invested. Those metrics matter, but they don’t show the full picture.

The Washington State Main Street Program wanted to answer a different question: Do people actually feel like they belong in their downtowns? To find out, the organization turned to the Belonging Barometer.

The Washington State Main Street Program supports approximately 80 downtown organizations across the state, helping communities preserve historic places while creating vibrant, economically thriving downtowns. For years, program leaders knew their work created social value, bringing neighbors together, creating welcoming gathering spaces, and fostering community pride, but they struggled to measure those outcomes.

“We’ve always known about the social impact of our work,” said Lydia Felty of the Washington State Main Street Program. “But articulating that social return on investment has been elusive.”

For years, success was measured through tangible outcomes: buildings rehabilitated, new businesses opened, and jobs created.  

Those metrics captured economic impact, but they couldn’t answer equally important questions: Do residents feel connected to their community? Do they feel welcome in downtown spaces? Do they believe they can help shape their community’s future?

“We kept asking ourselves, ‘How do you know if an event achieved something beyond bringing people downtown or increasing sales for local businesses?’ Those metrics are important—but they don’t tell the full story,” says Felty.

After being introduced to the Belonging Barometer by a longtime colleague, the team immediately saw its potential and worked to put it into action.

“The Belonging Barometer provides such a clear framework for how to approach this work with a very clear ‘why,'” Felty said. “It’s difficult work, but the framework makes it accessible.”

Just as importantly, the survey was designed to be replicated and adapted for different settings.

Instead of measuring belonging broadly, Washington Main Street customized the survey to focus specifically on residents’ experiences in their downtown communities. Questions explored whether people felt emotionally connected to their downtown, welcomed by others, and able to influence decisions affecting their community.

“The survey felt incredibly adaptable,” Felty said. “If it can work nationally, locally, in workplaces, schools, and communities, surely we can apply it to our own situation.”

Rather than launching statewide, the Washington State Main Street Program began with a manageable pilot. In fall 2024, four communities participated in the first cohort. The goal was to establish a baseline and understand what using the Belonging Barometer could look like in a Main Street context. Alongside the survey, the team added historical research, site visits, and community interviews to better understand each downtown’s unique story and context.

Because belonging is deeply connected to place, they wanted the data to reflect more than survey scores alone.

“We leaned into the idea of place-based belonging,” Felty said. “What does it actually mean for people to feel like they belong in this specific downtown?”

Some of the most meaningful insights came from people’s stories. One participant described attending a sensory-friendly downtown parade with a grandchild who has autism. For that family, the event was evidence that the downtown had intentionally created an accessible space and experience where they felt welcome.

“That really stood out,” Felty said. “It was one of those moments where someone could genuinely say, ‘We belong here.'”

Stories like these helped reinforce something many community leaders already suspected: intentional programming can meaningfully shape whether people feel included.

The pilot confirmed one of the team’s initial hypotheses: people who were engaged with their local Main Street organizations generally reported a stronger sense of belonging. While the team recognizes it’s too early to draw broad causal conclusions, the findings provided important cues and a starting point.

More importantly, the process itself began changing conversations. Community partners and local organizations used the findings to rethink existing programs, asking who might still feel left out, how volunteers could feel more connected, and what small changes could make events even more welcoming.

“Even if the data doesn’t immediately tell you to do X, Y, or Z, having belonging in the collective consciousness changes the way people think,” Felty said. “It encourages organizations to make small adjustments and be more intentional about integrating resources that help people feel more connected.”

For Felty, one of the greatest strengths of the Belonging Barometer is that it helps organizations measure something many have long believed was important but couldn’t quantify.

“So often we’re measuring dollars, jobs, spending, or attendance,” she said. “Those are all important, but they only tell one part of the story.”

“Being able to measure belonging—being able to measure social impact—means we’re better able to create communities where people genuinely feel connected to each other and to the places they live. That’s the heart of the work.”

Following the success of the pilot, the Washington State Main Street Program is expanding to a second cohort of communities while continuing to learn alongside others using the Belonging Barometer. Felty encourages organizations not to wait until they have a perfect plan.

“The blueprint is already there,” she said. “You can pick it up, adapt it to your own context, and start learning.” 

The Belonging Barometer offers organizations a practical starting point and a growing community of practitioners eager to share what they’re discovering. Because while every community looks different, the question is the same:

Do people feel like they belong here?

The first step toward answering that question is simply asking it.

Ready to get started?

Download the free Belonging Barometer Quick Start Guide and survey questions to begin measuring belonging in your community.

The post Measuring What Matters: How Washington Main Street Is Using the Belonging Barometer to Strengthen Downtown Communities appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/q6zdh8p
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

How One Small Nonprofit Used the Belonging Barometer to Build a Community Strategy

For decades, community revitalization has been measured by what we can easily count: number of new businesses, jobs created, building rehabilitations, affordable housing units, and dollars invested. Those metrics matter, but they don’t tell the whole story.

The Washington State Main Street Program wanted to answer a different question: Do people actually feel like they belong in their downtowns? To find out, the organization turned to the Belonging Barometer.

The Washington State Main Street Program supports approximately 80 downtown organizations across the state, helping communities preserve historic places while creating vibrant, economically thriving downtowns. For years, program leaders knew their work created social value, bringing neighbors together, creating welcoming gathering spaces, and fostering community pride, but they struggled to measure those outcomes.

“We’ve always known about the social impact of our work,” said Lydia Felty of the Washington State Main Street Program. “But articulating that social return on investment has been elusive.”

For years success was measured through tangible outcomes: buildings rehabilitated, new businesses opened, and jobs created.  

Those metrics captured economic impact, but they couldn’t answer equally important questions: Do residents feel connected to their community? Do they feel welcome in downtown spaces?o they believe they can help shape their community’s future?

“We kept asking ourselves, ‘How do you know if an event achieved something beyond bringing people downtown or increasing sales for local businesses?’ Those metrics are important—but they don’t tell the full story.”

After being introduced to the Belonging Barometer by a longtime colleague, the team immediately saw its potential and worked to put it into action.

“The Belonging Barometer provides such a clear framework for how to approach this work with a very clear ‘why,'” Felty said. “It’s difficult work, but the framework makes it accessible.”

Just as importantly, the survey was designed to be replicated and adapted for different settings.

Instead of measuring belonging broadly, Washington Main Street customized the survey to focus specifically on residents’ experiences in their downtown communities. Questions explored whether people felt emotionally connected to their downtown, welcomed by others, and able to influence decisions affecting their community.

“The survey felt incredibly adaptable,” Felty said. “If it can work nationally, locally, in workplaces, schools, and communities, surely we can apply it to our own situation.”

Rather than launching statewide, the Washington State Main Street Program began with a manageable pilot. In fall 2024, four communities participated in the first cohort. The goal was to establish a baseline and understand what using the Belonging Barometer could look like in a Main Street context. Alongside the survey, the team added historical research, site visits, and community interviews to better understand each downtown’s unique story and context.

Because belonging is deeply connected to place, they wanted the data to reflect more than survey scores alone.

“We leaned into the idea of place-based belonging,” Felty said. “What does it actually mean for people to feel like they belong in this specific downtown?”

Some of the most meaningful insights came from people’s stories. One participant described attending a sensory-friendly downtown parade with a grandchild who has autism. For that family, the event was evidence that the downtown had intentionally created an accessible space and experience where they felt welcome.

“That really stood out,” Felty said. “It was one of those moments where someone could genuinely say, ‘We belong here.'”

Stories like these helped reinforce something many community leaders already suspected: intentional programming can meaningfully shape whether people feel included.

The pilot confirmed one of the team’s initial hypotheses: people who were engaged with their local Main Street organizations generally reported a stronger sense of belonging. While the team recognizes it’s too early to draw broad causal conclusions, the findings provided important cues and a starting point.

More importantly, the process itself began changing conversations. Community partners and local organizations used the findings to rethink existing programs, asking who might still feel left out, how volunteers could feel more connected, and what small changes could make events even more welcoming.

“Even if the data doesn’t immediately tell you to do X, Y, or Z, having belonging in the collective consciousness changes the way people think,” Felty said. “It encourages organizations to make small adjustments and be more intentional about integrating resources that help people feel more connected.”

For Felty, one of the greatest strengths of the Belonging Barometer is that it helps organizations measure something many have long believed was important but couldn’t quantify.

“So often we’re measuring dollars, jobs, spending, or attendance,” she said. “Those are all important, but they only tell one part of the story.”

“Being able to measure belonging—being able to measure social impact—means we’re better able to create communities where people genuinely feel connected to each other and to the places they live. That’s the heart of the work.”

Following the success of the pilot, the Washington State Main Street Program is expanding to a second cohort of communities while continuing to learn alongside others using the Belonging Barometer. Felty encourages organizations not to wait until they have a perfect plan.

“The blueprint is already there,” she said. “You can pick it up, adapt it to your own context, and start learning.” 

The Belonging Barometer offers organizations a practical starting point and a growing community of practitioners eager to share what they’re discovering. Because while every community looks different, the question is the same:

Do people feel like they belong here?

The first step toward answering that question is simply asking it.

Ready to get started?

Download the free Belonging Barometer Quick Start Guide and survey questions to begin measuring belonging in your community.

The post How One Small Nonprofit Used the Belonging Barometer to Build a Community Strategy appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/JelFf8k
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

Deaths During ICE Operations Expose the Dangers of Mass Deportation

Washington DC, July 15 – In response to reports of a third death taking place in connection to an ICE enforcement operation in just over a week, American Immigration Council policy director Nayna Gupta issued the following statement: 

“This cannot be dismissed as a series of unrelated tragedies. This is what happens when Congress dumps billions of dollars into mass deportations instead of focusing on what’s actually broken in our immigration system.   

“The fact that ICE reportedly suspended most vehicle stops tells us that some officials recognize the current enforcement tactics are putting people in danger. But temporarily pausing one tactic is not enough. Congress has poured close to a quarter of a trillion dollars into immigration enforcement. ICE and other agencies are funded at the level of some militaries, without any of the accountability or oversight that should come with that power.  

“This is not sustainable. The impacted families and American public deserve answers about the details of these tragic killings, but this is bigger than any one incident or investigation. Congress needs to make overdue, bold changes to our immigration laws to restore credibility and humanity to immigration enforcement in American communities.   

“There is a better way forward. A working immigration system should be guided by four basic principles: first, giving longtime immigrant residents a chance to get right with the law; second, clear and targeted public safety priorities; third, more proportionate consequences for violations of the law rather than deportation for all; and finally greater accountability to rein in abuse by federal agents. Right now, the sole focus is on chasing deportation and detention quotas and that makes violence and tragic deaths inevitable. Mass deportation creates danger, not safety.”  

The American Immigration Council works to create a more welcoming and fair immigration system. Through litigation, research, and programs that expand access to legal assistance, the Council helps ensure immigrants are embraced, communities are enriched, and justice prevails for all. Follow us on BlueSky @immcouncil.org and Instagram @immcouncil.  

The post Deaths During ICE Operations Expose the Dangers of Mass Deportation  appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/rYPNLHG
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

The Work Authorization Gap: What Happens Between Spousal Arrival and Legal Employment Eligibility

The period between an immigrant spouse's arrival and the point at which they can legally work is not a bureaucratic footnote. It is a designed interval — one that shapes the financial, psychological, and logistical reality of an entire household, often for months.

This is what that gap actually looks like, what it costs, and what it reveals about who immigration administration is built to serve.

When a spouse arrives on a spousal visa, the clock does not start on employment. It starts on paperwork. The work authorization application cannot be filed until after arrival. Processing takes months. During that window, the arriving spouse cannot earn income — legally — regardless of their qualifications, their prior career, or the household's financial need. The citizen or permanent resident spouse carries the full economic weight. Savings draw down. Stress accumulates. The household operates at a structural deficit that the system created and the system does not compensate for.

The administrative requirements during this period are not light. There are forms, fees, biometric appointments, medical examinations, evidence packages. Each step requires money the household is now managing on one income. Each step requires time — time spent gathering documents, waiting for appointments, following up on requests. The arriving spouse, who cannot work, often becomes the de facto project manager of their own immigration case, which is its own form of labor the system does not count.

What confirms this pattern is not one household's experience. It is the structure of the process itself. The gap is not an accident of backlog or a temporary processing delay. It is the sequence the system requires. Arrival first. Application after arrival. Authorization after application review. Employment after authorization. That chain is the policy. The waiting is built in.

The mechanism is straightforward: employment authorization is treated as a separate determination from admission. Being admitted as a spouse does not mean being admitted as a worker. Those are two different statuses, two different applications, two different timelines. The logic, from an administrative standpoint, is about maintaining distinct categories of permission. From a household standpoint, the logic produces a period of legally enforced financial dependency with no accommodation, no bridge benefit, and no expedited pathway based on economic hardship.

Who bears the cost is not ambiguous. The arriving spouse bears the psychological cost of enforced idleness in a new country where they have no established network, no income, and no professional identity yet. The sponsoring spouse bears the financial cost of sole-income household support during one of the most expensive and logistically demanding periods of their shared life. Neither the agency processing the application nor the government that designed the sequence bears any cost at all. The fee revenue flows in one direction. The waiting flows in the other.

The incentive structure is worth naming plainly. There is no institutional penalty for slow processing. There is no refund if authorization takes longer than estimated. There is no mechanism by which the household's financial deterioration creates pressure on the system to move faster. The household absorbs the cost of delay. The agency does not. That asymmetry is not incidental — it is how the system is calibrated.

The doctrine point here is transferable. When an institution separates eligibility from admission and places the cost of that gap entirely on the applicant, it is not failing to serve the applicant. It is succeeding at serving a different priority — control of status categories, revenue from fees, administrative convenience. Understanding what an institution is actually optimized for requires looking at who absorbs friction and who does not. In this case, the answer is consistent and structural.

The work authorization gap is a small episode in a large system. But small episodes, examined carefully, show you the system's actual values. This one shows that immigrant households are expected to fund and absorb the cost of a categorization process that was not designed around their continuity. That is not a complaint. It is a description. And descriptions, held clearly, are where doctrine begins.