In research, undocumented immigrants and mixed-status families, like other marginalized communities, are often labeled “hard-to-reach.” This is largely because social factors, such as their economic situation or identity, and a lack of trust make it difficult for them to be sampled, recruited, and engaged in studies.

Undocumented immigrants’ lack of legal status makes their daily lives difficult for many reasons, including the risk of labor exploitation, lack of access to many public programs and services, and ongoing fears of being separated from loved ones. The risk of potential immigration consequences if their status is revealed often discourages them from seeking resources for which they are eligible and contributes to heightened concerns about potentially being identified through data-collection efforts. These concerns intensified in the run-up to the 2020 Census, when the Trump administration attempted to add a question about citizenship status to the decennial census amid a climate of heightened immigration enforcement and harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric.

In 2019, an estimated 10.3 million people lacking documentation lived in the US many of whom make up a significant share of the labor in essential sectors of the US economy. Failure to include them and their families in research undermines our collective ability to build an evidence base on policies and practices that strengthen individual, family, and community well-being. But typical approaches to data collection often don’t work with people lacking documentation, and as researchers, we have much to learn about how to connect with communities who have concerns about being identified, speak a wide variety of languages, and may vary in the types of communications they typically use.

Recently, the Urban Institute partnered with the Immigration Research Initiative to evaluate the New York State Excluded Workers Fund (EWF), a historic $2.1 billion fund that provided cash assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic to workers excluded from traditional unemployment insurance—predominantly undocumented workers. We, along with advocates and policymakers, were eager to learn about the EWF’s effects on participants.

The best source of information to answer those questions was undocumented workers themselves, so from the beginning of the project, we strove to center their voices. We partnered with organizations that had trusted relationships with this community and followed their advice on preferred methods of communication. As one community partner put it, "They need to know a name, someone they trust."

We employed five effective practices to survey over 660 community members in seven languages and ultimately ended up reaching more than 400 community members from 40 countries. Other people seeking to ensure their studies aren’t extractive, ensure the communities themselves benefit from their research, and strengthen their work can consider the same steps. 

1. Build partnerships with immigrant-serving and labor organizations from start to finish. We collaborated with 10 community-based organizations in New York that serve various occupational, racial, and ethnic communities. They shared their experiences conducting outreach in their communities during the EWF application process and identified their priority research questions. They led outreach and recruitment for our survey to their constituents, and we offered different levels of partnership based on their interest and capacity. All organizations were compensated for the investment they made in the research activities. We sought their feedback on survey language and content and trained them on how to recruit participants and attain consent for participants to be contacted. The trust they built with their communities was critical to the success of our research.
2. Include researchers with lived experiences, such as experience with migration and undocumented communities, linguistic and cultural competence in several relevant communities, and on-the-ground knowledge of dynamics in the communities of interest. Our team’s insights and skills helped us make effective research design decisions, translate accurately, and build rapport with community leaders.
3. Adapt data-collection approaches to meet communities’ preferences, because traditional online modes can be exclusionary. Our community partners were concerned some of their constituents, including Chinese-speaking and West African immigrants, would feel uncomfortable being contacted by text message or email and/or navigating an online survey. So, in addition to offering an online survey in seven languages (that community partners and researchers checked for comprehension, language accessibility, and cultural sensitivity, given the limitations of formal direct translations), we offered survey administration via phone interviews and in person. For other groups, we sent survey links via WhatsApp (which partners identified as the most-used platform in certain communities).
4. Compensate participants for their time and contributions. When doing so, tailor the distribution method to acknowledge privacy and access concerns. We offered participants the option to either receive the incentive gift card at their home address or have it sent directly to the organization so they didn’t have to disclose personal information–a suggestion we took from the partner organizations. Additionally, many respondents had unstable housing conditions and couldn’t rely on mail, so an alternative location was important for them.
5. Publish short summaries from initial qualitative interviews in seven languages so community members can access the insights. We plan to do the same with key findings from the larger survey set to publish later this year. Sharing these insights with community members in their respective languages fosters social inclusion, increases trust, and empowers them to act on the findings and advocate for change.

Beyond advancing public knowledge and strengthening public policies, engaging undocumented groups in research leverages and increases community knowledge and reminds people that their insights matter. This was evident in the feedback our partners relayed to us, such as “We want our community to be represented” and “Finally, we have people who understand our community.” These sentiments highlight the positive impact that can come when intentional researchers partner with trusted organizations and meet participants where they are. We are grateful to the participants and the community partners who made our EWF work possible.