How do employment rates of Somali immigrants compare to native-born and other immigrant groups in [country] in 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Somali immigrants in the United States in 2025 show relatively high labor-force participation—around 70%—which exceeds the national native-born participation rate reported in some sources (about 63%) and slightly outpaces the overall foreign-born average (about 68%) while trailing several other sub‑Saharan African groups such as Kenyans and Nigerians, who register participation in the high 70s to low 80s [1]. The headline numbers mask wide variation by state, gender, education and measurement (labor‑force participation vs. employment vs. unemployment), and competing reports emphasize either Somali economic contribution or socioeconomic challenges like higher poverty and lower educational attainment [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The national picture: participation and comparative rankings
Multiple compilations put Somali immigrants’ labor‑force participation near 70%, which compares favorably to an all‑foreign‑born average of about 68% and to a cited native‑born rate near 63% in the same synthesis, but other immigrant cohorts from sub‑Saharan Africa—Kenyans (81%), Nigerians, Liberians and Ghanaians (around 79%)—outperform Somalis on participation metrics [1]. These cross‑group comparisons come from aggregated ACS analyses cited by The World Data and echo local reporting that highlights Somalis’ strong presence in certain regional labor markets, but they rely on different denominators (participation vs. employment) and should be read as broad patterns rather than precise rankings [1].
2. Geography and context: Minnesota as the leading case study
Minnesota, home to the largest Somali community in the U.S., is often the locus for both positive and critical readings: one analysis shows working‑age Somali adults in Minnesota with a roughly 70.4% employment rate in 2024–25 and gender gaps—about 75.9% for men and 65.7% for women—numbers that “approach or exceed” state averages for comparable groups [1]. Local journalism and university estimates further argue Somali Minnesotans contribute billions to the state economy and sustain industries facing labor shortages, a narrative reinforced by community advocates and regional economic studies [3] [5].
3. Pockets of difficulty: unemployment, poverty and education gaps
While participation rates are respectable, Somali communities also exhibit concentrated socioeconomic vulnerabilities: multiple sources report poverty rates for Somali Americans substantially above averages (estimates ranging from mid‑20s to high‑30s percent) and pronounced educational deficits—one report cites about 39% of working‑age Somali adults lacking a high‑school diploma—which feed higher welfare reliance in some measures and complicate direct comparisons to other immigrant groups [1] [4]. Conservative‑leaning analyses emphasize joblessness and welfare dependency in Minnesota, framing employment as a “bright spot” given low education but still noting overall higher joblessness relative to some native benchmarks [2] [4].
4. Data disagreements and methodological limits
Estimates vary widely across sources and geographies—national surveys, local ACS slices, advocacy research and think‑tank reports use different definitions (labor‑force participation vs. employment vs. unemployment), sample frames, and cutoffs for “Somali” identity—producing ranges from the high‑50s to low‑70s for employment participation depending on year and place [6] [1]. International comparisons complicate the picture further: in parts of Europe (Denmark, Sweden), Somali employment has lagged more sharply, with long‑term unemployment and “parallel society” assessments reported there, underscoring that outcomes are country‑specific and tied to policy, labor‑market structure and resettlement supports [7].
5. Competing narratives and what the data actually support
Reporting splits between two coherent narratives: one emphasizes Somali immigrants as industrious contributors who often match or exceed local labor‑force participation and shore up critical sectors (promoted by regional media and pro‑immigrant research, [3]; [1]2), while another spotlights persistent poverty, educational shortfalls and welfare use that temper the employment story (flagged by CIS and critical outlets, [2]; p1_s8). Both are grounded in parts of the record: participation rates are relatively high in many U.S. settings, but deeper measures of employment quality, earnings and stability reveal real gaps that simple participation figures cannot erase [1] [4].