NEW YORK – The Center for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research of Ukrainians in the U.S. (the Center) at the Shevchenko Scientific Society in New York is the only institution that provides comprehensive, quantitative data on Ukrainians in the U.S. The data is from official U.S. sources and is updated regularly.
The Center has constructed an integrated database on Ukrainians in the U.S. with data from the 1980, 1990 and 2000 censuses and yearly American Community Surveys starting in 2005. In addition, a separate database has yearly immigration statistics. The Center also has all of the census data for 1910, 1920, 1930 and 1940. That data offers a unique opportunity for researchers to study the first wave of Ukrainian migration to the U.S.
Results of analyzing these databases are posted on the web site of the Center: http://www.inform-decisions.com/stat. In eight years, the website received 50,600 hits, with an average of 14 hits a day. A total of 15,000 institutions and persons visited the website during this period. Visitors to the cite were based in the U.S. (58 percent), Ukraine (17 percent), Bolivia (11 percent), Canada (4 percent) and other countries from around the world, including from Russia, Austria, France, Argentina, Nigeria and the Philippines.
A module is being developed on the website with the latest available data from 2018 (More recent data is not available because most of the 2020 census results are not out yet, and the COVID-19 epidemic has complicated the release of data from more recent American Community Surveys). The module has interactive tables, maps and graphs. What follows is a description of the new module and examples on how to use it.
After visiting the Center’s site, individuals can click on “2018 Data.”
The interactive data are presented in two panels: states and metropolitan areas. The data can be considered by addressing two questions, one for states and one for metropolitan areas. A step-by-step description of how to use the module (below) will help readers answer these questions. Two simple statistical profiles can then be constructed, one for a state and one for a metropolitan area.
Data by state
The state question asks which states have the largest (or smallest) number of Ukrainians, and which have the largest (or lowest) relative growth (or decline) between 2000 and 2018?
To answer these questions, readers can use the following instructions:
First, click on “Ukrainians by State: 2000-2010-2018.” Move the cursor to hover over “2018” (at the top of the column) and double-click. The states are listed in decreasing order of the number of Ukrainians in 2018. New York has the largest number of Ukrainians with 170,000, followed by California with 135,000 and Pennsylvania with 111,000. Click again on “2018” and now the states are listed in increasing order. Wyoming and Mississippi have less than 1,000 Ukrainians, with 600 and 858, respectively.
Next, click twice on “%(2018-2000)/2000” and the states are listed by decreasing order of relative change between 2000 and 2018. South Carolina had the largest relative increase in the number of Ukrainians, 215 percent, from 3,745 in 2000 to 11,792 in 2018. Four states and one district more than doubled their number of Ukrainians between 2000 and 2018 (an increase of more than 100 percent): the District of Columbia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Iowa and Idaho.
Click on “%(2018-2000)/2000” again and now states are listed in increasing order. Delaware and Michigan had the largest relative decrease between 2000 and 2018, with a 24 percent decrease for each. Connecticut, Ohio and Pennsylvania experienced a 14 percent decline.
Next, readers can analyze South Carolina, the state with the largest increase in its number of Ukrainians between 2000 and 2018. That analysis is summarized in Table 1.
The online table “Ukrainians by State: 2000-2010-2018” has the 2000-2018 increase divided into two periods: 2000-2010 and 2010-2018. The relative increase for the first period is 103.5 percent, from 3,745 Ukrainians in 2000 to 7,621 in 2010, and 55 percent for the second period, to 11,792 Ukrainians in 2018. The increase in the number of Ukrainians in South Carolina was not uniform; there was a large increase during the first 10 years and then it slowed down during the next eight years.
The numbers of Fourth Wave immigrants can be found in the online table “Number of 4th Wave Immigrants by State: 2000, 2010 and 2018.” The data on language spoken at home is found in “Number of Ukrainians Speaking English, Ukrainian, Russian or Other by State, 2018.” Readers may select “% Row” to get the percent distribution by language spoken at home.
This simple profile provides some clues about South Carolina’s growth. First, part of the large increase during 2000-2018 was due to Fourth Wave immigrants. Second, there was a large increase in the number of immigrants during the first period and a much smaller increase during the next eight years, similar to the pattern for the total number of Ukrainians. Third, the proportion of Fourth Wave immigrants was 12 percent in 2000, it increased to 26 percent in 2010 and decreased to 22 percent in 2018. Fourth, over half of Ukrainians (aged five years or older) spoke English at home in 2018, and Ukrainian and Russian speakers were evenly divided with 22 percent each.
Tables have maps associated with them, and the “DATA” button shows the corresponding data for the map. Indicators for each state can be seen by placing the cursor over the state.
Maps add a new dimension to the data by showing the spatial distribution of an indicator. For example, “Map 1” linked with the table “Ukrainians by State: 2000-2010-2018” shows a familiar picture. Three states comprise 37 percent of all Ukrainians: New York (15 percent), Pennsylvania (10 percent) and California (12 percent). The other 63 percent are distributed primarily among border states on the east and west coasts, several central northeastern states and three southern states. Few Ukrainians reside in what are called heartland states.
“Map 2,” on the other hand, with the indicator percent change between 2000 and 2018, presents a different picture. The five states and one district with the fastest growth between 2000 and 2018 (South Carolina, the District of Columbia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Iowa and Idaho) had relatively small numbers of Ukrainians in 2000 (see table “Ukrainians by State: 2000 – 2010 – 2018”). On the other hand, the largest declines were experienced by states with large numbers of Ukrainians, such as Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
The large emigration from cities in these states is mainly related to the economic crisis of 2007-2008. The overall dynamics shown in “Map 2” are, to a great extent, due to settlement patterns of Fourth Wave immigrants that differ from settlement patterns of previous migration waves.
Data by metropolitan area
This panel has data on Ukrainians in metropolitan areas with 5,000 or more Ukrainians in 2018.
The metropolitan area question asks which area had the highest growth in the number of Ukrainians during 2000-2018 and the largest percentages of Fourth Wave immigrants in 2018? Answers to these questions are presented in table 2. As was the case with state maps, readers will be able to see the value of an indicator for a metropolitan area by placing their cursor on the metropolitan area circle.
Readers may click on “Ukrainians by Metropolitan Area, 2018” and sort the “(2018-2000)/2000” column in descending order. Jackson, Fla., had the highest percent increase between 2000 and 2018 (229 percent), from 1,665 Ukrainians in 2000 to 5,446 in 2018. Charlotte, N.C., had the second largest increase with 132.5 percent, followed by Sacramento, Calif., and Seattle, with 96 and 90 percent, respectively.
Readers may then click on “Number of 4th Wave Immigrants by MA in 2000, 2010 and 2018” and then “Map” to answer the second part of the question. They may then click on “Map % 4th wave” and then “Data.” The “% 4th wave” column can then be sorted in descending order.
Doing so shows that three of the four metropolitan areas with the fastest increase also have the highest percentages of Fourth Wave immigrants: Jacksonville, Fla., Sacramento, Calif., and Seattle. If the four metropolitan areas with the fastest increases and the four metropolitan areas with the largest percentage of Fourth Wave immigrants are listed, then there are six metropolitan areas. The six areas have similar rankings in percent growth and percent of Fourth Wave indicators, with two exceptions: San Jose, Calif., and Charlotte, N.C.
A simple statistical profile of Jacksonville, Fla., the metropolitan area with the fastest increase in its number of Ukrainians between 2000 and 2018 (Table 3) can then be created. A motivated reader can replicate table 4 using data on the Center’s website.
A good part of the extraordinary growth of Ukrainians in Jacksonville, Fla., is due to a large influx of Fourth Wave immigrants. They made up only 14 percent of the 1,655 Ukrainians in 2000, but by 2018 more than half of the 5,446 were Fourth Wave immigrants. More than half of all Ukrainians in Jacksonville, Fla., speak English, and there were twice as many Russian than Ukrainian speakers in 2018.
The maps in this panel are dynamic. That is, one can zoom them in and out and move the map on the screen (click on the “?” at the bottom of each map for instructions on how to manipulate these maps). Mapping metropolitan areas in densely populated regions can be problematic, as they are too close and difficult to distinguish. The zoom feature allows one to expand the map and examine in more detail these areas.
Maps complement the information provided in the tables. They give a general perspective on how metropolitan areas with specific characteristics are distributed across the country.
The map in “Number of Persons Speaking English, Ukrainian, Russian or Other at Home by MA, 2018,” addresses the issue of Ukrainian and Russian speakers in a community. For this map, only persons who speak Ukrainian or Russian at home were considered. In other words, persons who only speak English or other languages were excluded. The red circles indicate metropolitan areas where, among persons who speak only Ukrainian or Russian, more than 50 percent speak Ukrainian. The yellow circles indicate metropolitan areas where more than 50 percent speak Russian. In the first group, the darker red indicates those areas with more than 75 percent speaking Ukrainian. In the second group, the smaller yellow circles indicate that 13-29 percent speak Ukrainian. That is, 70 percent or more (the complement of 29 percent) speak Russian.
The map shows that almost all metropolitan areas with more than 50 percent speaking Ukrainian are located in the east; only two areas are located on the west coast: Sacramento, Calif., and Seattle. There are six metropolitan areas with more than 75 percent Ukrainian speakers. They are small- or mid-size communities with not necessarily high percentages of Fourth Wave immigrants: Cleveland, Ohio; Rochester, N.Y.; Allentown, Pa.; Syracuse, N.Y.; Scranton, Pa.; and New Haven, Conn.
The metropolitan areas with more than 50 percent Russian speakers (yellow circles) outnumber the areas with more than 50 percent Ukrainian speakers. They are also geographically more widely distributed. There are nine areas with more than 70 percent Russian speakers. They tend to be big cities with large numbers of Ukrainians, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston or Baltimore. This map and the related table provide elements for detailed research on the topic.
The currently posted data is a small fraction of what is available in the database. Besides demographic variables, the database covers education, occupation, income, immigration, citizenship, knowledge of English, etc., as well as family structure and housing characteristics. It also has detailed data on Fourth Wave immigrants, an important topic that has not been thoroughly investigated yet.
The Center is constantly downloading and processing new data and updating its databases. This has allowed researchers there, for example, to monitor the flow of Fourth Wave immigrants and analyze their impact on the Ukrainian community in the U.S. Similarly, the Center is processing, as they become available, data on the recent refugees from Ukraine and adding them to the database. Integrating these data into the database will provide the basis for a detailed analysis of their characteristics and adaptation to American society.
One immediate goal was to show what a non-technical person can do with the data posted on the Center’s website. A larger goal is to interest people in taking advantage of this unique data source on Ukrainians in the U.S.