A N E T H N O G R A P H I C E X A M I N A T I O N O F T H E I N D I A N A P O L I S C O M M U N I T Y

L I J U N H EP H D C A N D I D A T E

L I L L Y F A M I L Y S C H O O L O F P H I L A N T H R O P Y A T I N D I A N A U N I V E R S I T Y

Who Supports Burmese Refugee

Community-based Organizations

and Why?

Agenda

Research background

Literature review

Research method

Research findings

Discussions

Background

Who is a refugee

P I C T U R E S O U R C E : H T T P : / / W W W 2 . I R R AW A D D Y . O R G / A R T I C L

E . P H P ? A R T _ I D = 1 7 3 4 1

Why do the Burmese refugee come to USA

Why are they settled in Indiana

Picture http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Aung-San-Suu-Kyi-optimistic-about-Burma-3894346.php

Major life challenges faced by Burmese refugees

My Involvement in the Community

The Burmese Project, begun in 2011, is a pilot program initiated by The International Center.

two goals: 1) to strengthen partnership between and within the Burmese and broader community and 2) to enhance understanding and awareness of the Burmese community by the community at large.

Major Burmese community organizations

BACI - Burmese American Community Institute

Burmese Community Center for Education

Chin Community of Indianapolis

Chin Evangelical Baptist Church

* 3 forms of community-based organizations, including religious-based organizations, registered nonprofit organizations started by Burmese refugees and exclusively serving Burmese community, unregistered informal community groups active in the Burmese community.

Research Questions

Who are the supporters?

Why do they support the Burmese refugee community-based nonprofit organizations?

Importance of the research:

- Help better understand the philanthropic resources that available for the Burmese community organization to enhance the capacity building of indigenous community organizations

Literature review

Literature review on who gives

Religious membership (Bielefeld, Rooney, & Steinberg, 2005; Brooks, 2003; Brown &Ferris, 2007; Eckel & Grossman, 2004; Eschholz & Van Slyke, 2002; Forbes & Zampelli, 1997; Hoge & Yang, 1994; Van Slyke & Brooks, 2005); both to secular giving and religious giving (Bekkers and Wiepking,2010) ;

Education level ((Brown & Ferris, 2007; Yen, 2002; Rooney, Steinberg, & Schervish, 2001; Wilhelm, Brown, Rooney, &Steinberg, 2008; Van Slyke & Brooks, 2005)

Income levels (Bielefeld, Rooney, & Steinberg, 2005; Brooks, 2002, 2005; Schervish & Havens, 2003; Van Slyke &Brooks, 2005; Wilhelm, Brown, Rooney, & Steinberg, 2008; Wu, Huang, & Kao, 2004; Yen, 2002)

Marriage (Van Slyke & Brooks, 2005; Wilhelm, Brown, Rooney, & Steinberg, 2008; Wu, Huang, & Kao, 2004);

Number of children (Yen, 2002; Brown and Ferris, 2007; Brooks, 2005),

Race (Caucasians) (Bielefeld, Rooney, & Steinberg, 2005; Van Slyke & Brooks, 2005; Marx, 2000),

U.S. citizenship (Brown and Ferris, 2007),

Volunteering (Farmer & Fedor, 2001).

Literatures on Why Gives

Public benefits: Efficacy : impact perception, cost of fundraising event (Radley

& Kennedy, 1992; Smith & McSweeney, 2007) Awareness of need (Levitt & Kornhaber, 1977; Schwartz, 1974)• Private benefits: Reputation (Cheal, 1988; Smith & McSweeney,2007;

(Muehleman et al, 1976) Psychological benefits (Duncan, 2004; Smith & McSweeney,

2007; Andreoni, 1990) Values (Furnham, 1995; Todd & Lawson, 1999; Bennett

,2003) Cost and benefit analysis: tax incentives(Andreoni, 1993;

Brooks, 2003; Simmons & Emanuele, 2004)

Literatures on Areas of Giving

$290.89 billion: 35% to religion, 14% to education, 11% to foundations,9% to human service, 8% to health, 8% to public- society benefit, 5% to arts, culture and humanities, 5% to international affairs, 2% environment and animals, 2% individuals, 1% unallocated

(Giving USA 2011，The Center on Philanthropy, 2011).

Literatures on immigrants giving

Giving by community and immigrants have studied from colored African American giving (Hall-Russell, Cheryl et al, 1997; Rogers, 1997), Asian American giving (Chao, 1999), and immigrants giving (Osili, 2011)

Research Gap

Dominated by quantitative research;

“ Precise quantitative approached that focus on selected subsets of variables necessarily “strip” from consideration, through appropriate controls or randomization, other variables that exist in the context that might, if allowed to exert their effects, greatly alter findings”(Guba & Lincoln ,1994, p.106)

Giving to immigrant /refugee community organizations is rarely studied

Research design

Research method

Ethnographic study to explore the philanthropic culture of the Indianapolis community in supporting the Burmese community-based organizations

“Ethnography is appropriate if the needs are to describe how a cultural group works and to explore the beliefs, language, behaviors, and issues such as power, resistance, and dominance” (Creswell, 2007, p.70).

10 months work with the Indianapolis Community as part of the community supporters

Burmese community groups are identified through natural work networks

The supporters of these community organizations are identified through the organization’s executive director and program officers

Supporters include volunteers, funders, board members, and partners that are involved in the Burmese community organizations

Data sources

1,Natural observations field notes (e.g. community organizations’ events, board meetings, partners meetings, and volunteer trainings)

Data sources

2, unstructured, open-ended, in-person in-depth interview (18 people, 30-50 minutes interview per person)

Internal documents

Among the 18 interviewers:

- 4 are board members for 3 different community organizations;

- 7 represent 4 institutional supporters as partners of the Burmese community organizations

- 3 are donors from 3 different community organizations

- 16 are volunteers for 4 different community organizations

Data sources

3, internal documents

Research findings

Who supports

A typical individual supporter is :

white, married with children, have religious belief, active in volunteering and philanthropy, with professional skills and strong supportive network.

Among the 18 interviewers:

- 14 are Whites, 4 are Asians

- 10 are Christians, 2 are Buddhist followers

- 14 are married with children

- All have volunteered for community in the past

- Professions include lawyers, professors, engineers, medical students

The institutional supporters include religious organizations , health care providers , and family foundations with concentration on immigrant. All of the organizations have their own strong supportive network.

The Burmese service-providers survey shows:

Around 15 non-profit organizations in Indianapolis provide services or are engaged in partnership with Burmese community.

Why people support Burmese community organizations

They need help

“their needs motivated me a lot. Not just for coat, for furniture, rice cooker, rice… motivated by I know they need to deal with a lot of paper works. When you do job searches, do anything with Medicaid systems, it is hard for American doing it, let alone someone who couldn’t read the words” – Lucy

“the need is big in there, which is also a big challenge, the need are too big. There are too many needs and few volunteers. We need more volunteers.” – Harriet

Values (1): Religious believes

“If we say we are Christian, then how come we are not reaching out to this population”.- Lucy

“we need to go out and get involved. Not sit inside and study (scripture)”- Dr. Zhang from Ciji

Values (2): Family

“it is kind of like going back in time. .. so I can understand how first generation immigrants assimilate into this culture”.- Antonio

Values (3): Education and youth

“The only way out of poverty is through education. Or at least, it is a big part of it. That is their emphasis. Their emphasis focuses on the young people”-Robert

Joy of being appreciated

“The politeness and appreciation is very compelling”-Antonio

Charismatic community leaders

what they indigenous community leaders are doing will “make a difference and make them self-sustainable”.

Community organization’s distinct advantages

Broader community also expressed their appreciation and expectation for community-based organization to have better knowledge of the Burmese community, not only knowing the community in the own ethnic groups, but also the community as a whole Burmese community.

Gain understanding

-Cross-culture knowledge

- Expand the world view

- More aware of injustice

- More appreciative of one’s own life

- Perspectives are changed

- Professional services

Professional advancement

“it is very important for me and my profession to really give a voice to the underserved populations and to provide them health care options that they may not necessarily know about. ..”- Tina

“ I am more aware of more cultural idiosyncrasies with more traditional southeast Asia cultures through working with Burmese refugees. I will be better prepared a better physician. I will be able to better tailor my approach. It is not a one glove fits all approach”- Ron

Spiritual and personal enrichment

“It helps us become a better person, and have inner peace”- Dr. Zhang

“People pray for miracles to happen. I think every day we have the chance to be that miracle for somebody, so let’s be miracle for somebody else”.- Jack Li

“God is working and taking care of these people”. –Doris

Discussions

A review of motivations to support community organizations

Private benefits

- Values

- Joy of being appreciated

- Gain understanding

- Professional advancement

- Spiritual enrichment

Public benefits:

- They need help

- Charismatic leaders in the community organizations

- Community organization’s distinct advantages

Consistent with most of literature findings

Values and psychological benefits stand out in this study

Community organization’s charismatic leaders and distinct advantages and awareness of need stand out among all the public benefits.

Research limitations

Participants are recruited through natural network; the broader community may not be fully represented

Not all participants for the research necessarily interact with each other

The focus groups were not conducted to compare the difference and similarities of different type of volunteers (religious versus professional) or different type of supporters (individuals versus organizations, or religious organizations versus professional nonprofit organizations).

Future research questions

For the type of nonprofit organizations serving the most underserved populations that call for great compassion , does the supporters care less about efficiency and accountability?

Bibliography

Andreoni J. (1993). An experimental test of the public-goods crowding-out hypothesis. American Economic Review 83, 1317-27. Andreoni J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. Economic Journal 100, pp.464-77. Auten GE, Cilke J, Randolph W. (1992). The effects of tax reform on charitable contributions. National Tax Journal 45, 267-90. Banks, J., & Tanner, S. (1999). Patterns in household giving: Evidence from UK data. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 10(2),167-178. Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2010). Accuracy of self-reports on donations to charitable organizations. Quality & Quantity. Bekkers, R., & Meijer, M.-M. (2008). Straight from the heart. In S. Chambré, M. Goldner & R. Root (Eds.), Patients, Consumers and Civil Society: US and International Perspectives. Advances in Medical Sociology. Bekkers, R., & Wiepking, P. (2007). Generosity and philanthropy: A literature review. Report commissioned by the John Templeton Foundation. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1015507. Bennett R. (2003). Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8, 12-29. Bielefeld, W., Rooney, P., & Steinberg, K. (2005). How do need, capacity, geography, and

politics influence giving? In A. C. Brooks (Ed.), Gifts of Money in Americas Communities

(pp. 127-158). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Pub Inc.

Brooks, A. C. (2003). Religious faith and charitable Giving. Policy Review,121, 39-48.

Brooks, A. C. (2002). Welfare receipt and private charity. Public Budgeting & Finance, 22(3), 101-114. Brooks, A. C. (2005). Does social capital make you generous? Social Science Quarterly, 86(1), 1-15. Brown, E., & Ferris, J. M. (2007). Social capital and philanthropy: An analysis of the impact

of Social Capital on Individual Giving and Volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary

Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 85-99. Bryant WK, Slaughter HJ, Kang H, Tax A. (2003). Participating in philanthropic activities: Donating money and time. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26, 43-73. Christians, C.G. (2000). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Locating the field (pp.133-155).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chao,J. (1999).Asian-American philanthropy: Expanding circles of participation http://www.wfnknowledgecenter.org/documentLib/16_1102386320.pdf Cheal, D. J. (1988). The gift economy. New York: Routledge. Duquette CM. (1999). Is charitable giving by nonitemizers responsive to tax incentives? New evidence. National Tax Journal, 52, 195-206. Duncan B. (2004). A theory of impact philanthropy. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 2159- 80 Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2004). Giving to secular causes by the religious and nonreligious: An experimental test of the responsiveness of giving to subsidies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 271-289.

Eschholz, S. L., & Van Slyke, D. M. (2002). New evidence about women and philanthropy: Findings from Metro Atlanta: United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta's Women's Legacy. Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2001). Changing the focus on volunteering: an investigation of volunteers’ multiple contributions to a charitable organisation. Journal of Management, 27, 191–211. Forbes, K. F., & Zampelli, E. M. (1997). Religious giving by individuals: A cross denominational study. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 56(1), 17- 30. Furnham A. (1995). The just world, charitable giving and attitudes to Disability. Personal and Individual Differences 19: 577-83. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research”, in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln( Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2006). The Practice of Qualitative Research. Thousand

Oaks,CA: Sage. Hoge, D. R., & Yang, F. (1994). Determinants of religious giving in American denominations: Data from two nationwide surveys. Review of Religious Research, 36(2), 123-148. Keyt, J. C., Yavas, U., & Riecken, G. (2002). Comparing donor segments to a cause-based charity: The case of the American Lung Association. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 10(2), 117-134. Oldfather,P., & Dahl, K. (1994). Toward a social constructivist reconceptualization of intrinsic motivation for literacy learning. Journal of Reading Beha

Patten, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Payton, R. &Moody, M. (2008). Understanding philanthropy: Its meaning and mission. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Radley A, Kennedy M. (1992). Reflections upon charitable giving: A comparison of individuals from business, 'Manual' and Professional Backgrounds. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 2, 113-29. Rooney, P. M., Steinberg, K., & Schervish, P. G. (2001). A methodological comparison of giving surveys: Indiana as a test case. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(3), 551-568. Lather, P. (1991). Research as Praxis. In M. Apple (Eds.), Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with /in Postmodern (pp.50-69). New York & London: Routledge. Levitt L, Kornhaber RC. 1977. Stigma and compliance: A re-examination. Journal of Social Psychology, 103, 13-8. Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative research methods (3rd edition). Oxford University Press: Melbourne. Marx, J. D. (2000). Women and Human Services Giving. Social Work, 45(1), 27-38. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications. Minn, T. (2011, September 21). Personal communications conducted at the meetings of the Burmese Advocacy Center, Fort Wayne, IN.

Muehleman J, Bruker C, Ingram C. (1976). The generosity shift. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 344-51. Romney-Alexander D. (2002). Payroll Giving in the UK: Donor Incentives and Influences on Giving Behaviour. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7, 84-92. Schervish, P. G., & Havens, J. J. (2003). New findings on the patterns of wealth and philanthropy. Chestnut Hill: Social Welfare Research Institute. Schwartz S.H. (1974). Awareness of interpersonal consequences, responsibility denial, and volunteering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 57-63. Segal, U. A., & Mayadas, N. S. (2005). Assessment of issues facing immigrant and refugee families. Child Welfare, 84(5), 563-583. Simmons W.O, Emanuele R. (2004). Does government spending crowd out donations of time and money? Public Finance Review, 32, 498-511. Smith JR, McSweeney A. (2007). Charitable giving: The effectiveness of a revised theory of planned behavior model in predicting donating intentions and behavior. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology,17 Srnka, K. J., Grohs, R., & Eckler, I. (2003). Increasing fundraising efficacy by segmenting donors. Australasian Marketing Journal, 11(1), 70-86. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. (2011). Giving USA 2011: The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2010. Chicago, IL: Giving USA Foundation The State Department. (2011, September 6). [Summary of Refugee Admission]. Copy in

Catholic Charities of Fort Wayne – South Bend. Todd S. J, Lawson R. W. (1999). Towards a better understanding of the financial donor: An examination of donor behavior in terms of value structure and demographics. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 4, 235-44. Van Slyke, D. M., & Brooks, A. C. (2005). Why do people give? New evidence and strategies for nonprofit managers. American Review of Public Administration, 35(3), 199-222. Wilhelm, M. O., Brown, E., Rooney, P. M., & Steinberg, R. S. (2008). The intergenerational transmission of generosity. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 2146-2156. Wu, S.-Y., Huang, J.-T., & Kao, A.-P. (2004). An analysis of the peer effects in charitable giving: The case of Taiwan. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25(4), 483- 505). Yen, S. T. (2002). An econometric analysis of household donations in the USA. Applied Economics Letters, 9, 837-841. Van Slyke, D. M., & Brooks, A. C. (2005). Why do people give? New evidence and strategies for Nonprofit Managers. American Review of Public Administration, 35(3), 199-222. Vesterlund, L. (2006). Why do people give? Retrieved from www.pitt.edu/~vester/whydopeoplegive.pdf