Who and Why Support Burmese Refugees Community-based Organizations

Lijun He

12/13/2011

1

I. INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE, AND RESEARCH QUESTION

The Problem:

Approximately 15,817 Burmese refugees have been brought to United States by American

federal government as of August 31, 2011, according to the Department of State (Worldwide

Refugee Admissions Processing Systems, 2011). Indiana has settled around 7,000 Burmese

refugees from 2006 to 2010. Although the U.S. government allocates stipends and basic

resources to the local designated refugee relief organizations for the first three months of their

settlement, it is still far from sufficient for the Burmese refugees to become self-sufficient in the

United States. The community-based Burmese indigenous non-profit organizations are playing

an important role in helping the Burmese refugees to meet their developmental needs. Some

examples of these are advocating, cultural integration, language training, youth education, and

employment due to their natural understanding of their community needs, language, and cultures.

Like many other U.S social service organizations, the bulk of their income comes from U.S.

government grants (Ma, 2011). With the U.S. government increasingly tightening its budget,

these social service non-profit organizations are faced with severe financial crises. Exploring

diverse revenues from private contributions can provide an alternative to these organizations to

weather the financial crisis. Charitable giving by individuals accounts for 73% of the total U.S.

giving in 2011, or $211.77 billion out of $290.89 billion (The Center on Philanthropy, 2011,

p.11). This indicates that the understanding of who and why people give is very important for

nonprofit professionals and community leaders to better identify and tap private philanthropic

resources. Furthermore, a revelation of supporters and their motivation of giving from a broader

2

community perspective can help local governments to make better polices, mobilize community

resources, and address various developmental needs for the underserved people.

Refugees and immigrants are different in their motivation of leaving home. Segal and

Mayadas (2005) describe immigrants as being pulled from their country by the allure of living in

another, whereas refugees are pushed from their homes and relocate to another country as a

result. The Burmese refugee community is an underdeveloped and under-established community.

The community-based nonprofit organizations mainly rely on the broader community, such as

individuals, nonprofit organizations, foundations, and corporations. Who are the supporters and

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

to such questions have been unknown to both the academic and professionals.

The purpose of this ethnographic study is to explore the philanthropic culture of the

Indianapolis community in supporting the Burmese community-based organizations. At this

stage in the research, the philanthropic Indianapolis community will be generally defined as

individuals and organizations that contribute their time, money, and talents to the Burmese

community-based organizations. The community organizations refer to the charitable

organizations of the Burmese, for the Burmese and by Burmese refugees.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Who gives?

Philanthropy is defined as “voluntary action for the public good” by Robert Payton (Payton

& Moody, 2008). Philanthropic giving includes time, treasure, and talents. Understanding “who

gives” can have great implication for organizations in identifying sources of income in

3

fundraising, since charitable giving accounts for a substantial portion of a nonprofit

organization’s income. The academic literature on charitable giving is enormous and spreads

over many disciplines including economics, sociology, and psychology. Empirical research on

the predictors of charitable giving is abundant. The positive correlation between religious

membership and charitable giving has been discussed thoroughly (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).

Bekkers and Wiepking (2010) found that the pattern of religious involvement and active secular

giving is strong. A wealth of literature also shows that people who receive more education tend

to give more. A positive relationship of education and secular giving was found (Brown &

Ferris, 2007; Yen, 2002; Rooney, Steinberg, & Schervish, 2001; Wilhelm, Brown, Rooney,

&Steinberg, 2008; Van Slyke & Brooks, 2005). However, some empirical studies also nullify the

likelihood of education levels and giving (Wu, Huang and Kao,2004; Brooks, 2002). The

education level was found negatively related to giving in health (Srnka, Grohs, & Eckler, 2003;

Keyt, Yavas, & Riecken, 2002; Bekkers & Meijer, 2008). The positive relationship of income

and donations are found omnipresent (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). Other variables that have been found to

be positively related to charitable giving include 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), and

4

volunteering (Farmer & Fedor, 2001). Overall, literature on “who gives” is dominated by

empirical studies.

Why give?

Studies of the motivation of giving have been examined within multi-disciplinary fields as

well. Economists categorized the motivations of giving into two groups: public benefits and

private benefits. The public benefits refer to donors’ perceptions of efficacy of nonprofit

organizations they are supporting. Survey studies find that people are less likely to give if their

contributions are not making a difference through nonprofit organizations (Radley & Kennedy,

1992; Smith & McSweeney, 2007). Perceptions of efficacy are also related to the fundraising

expenditures, such as the cost of fundraising events, direct mail materials, and designs. People

who give because of the awareness of need are also driven by public benefits. In general, the

degree of help is positively related to the likelihood that help will be given (Levitt & Kornhaber,

1977; Schwartz, 1974). A large number of people also give due to the private benefits including

reputation, psychological benefits, values, and cost and benefit analysis. Anthropological studies

indicate that charitable gifts are an important instrument to signal social standing in many

aboriginal societies (Cheal, 1988). The concern of reputation is also found true in the modern

society. Smith & McSweeney (2007) found that donations are strongly related

to the measure of social pressures. People who give to charitable causes are

well perceived by their peers (Muehleman et al, 1976). Survey findings show

that donations and volunteering make people happier and gives them a

better feeling good about themselves (Duncan, 2004; Smith & McSweeney,

2007; Andreoni, 1990). Embrace of prosocial values is closely related to

5

charitable giving. The desire for social justice is most often studied in relation

to philanthropy (Furnham, 1995; Todd & Lawson, 1999). Bennett (2003)

studied the relationship between personal values and the choice of

charitable organizations and found that the consistency of personal values

and organizational values make people more willing to give and give more

generously. A large number of studies are dedicated to the impact of tax

incentives and philanthropy (Andreoni, 1993; Brooks, 2003; Simmons &

Emanuele, 2004). In UK, tax benefits appear to be the most motive for

payroll giving (Romney-Alexander 2002). Generally speaking, the wealthy

people’s charitable giving is more likely to be motivated by tax incentives

(Auten et al, 1992; Duquette, 1999). Besides the public and private benefit

dichotomy, the majority of all giving occurs in response to a solicitation.

Bryant, Slaughter, Kang and Tax (2003) find that 85% of donation acts

among respondents in the 1996 Independent Sector survey on Giving and

Volunteering in the preceding are following a solicitation for a contribution.

Areas of giving

According to Giving USA 2011, the total contribution of $290.89 billion of charitable giving

is estimated to be distributed as follows: 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 (The Center on Philanthropy, 2011). Brown and Ferris (2007) find that U.S. citizens

give more to religion than immigrants, controlling for memberships and trust. Furnham (1995)

investigates people’s attitudes toward disabilities and their charitable giving toward the disabled. 6

Literatures on philanthropic giving are dominated by various quantitative studies. These

studies have important implications for nonprofit organizations to tap fundraising market.

However, as a social behavior, qualitative research on philanthropic giving is underrepresented.

As Guba & Lincoln (1994) argued that “ 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”(p.106). Other internal criticisms include “exclusion of meaning

and purpose”, “the etic/emic dilemma”, “inapplicability of general data to individual cases”, and

“exclusion of the discovery dimension in inquiry”. While qualitative can redress that imbalance

by providing contextual information, provide rich insight into human behavior, uncover emic

views, look into individual cases, and share the meaningful discovery dimension in inquiry

(Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Literatures on philanthropic giving from colored community and

immigrants have studied African American giving (Hall-Russell, Cheryl et al, 1997; Rogers,

1997), Asian American giving (Chao, 1999), and immigrants giving (Osili, 2011), but literatures

on philanthropic giving to the underserved immigrants or colored community, especially to the

refugee community, have been little touched. Furthermore, a majority of studies seem to serve

the nonprofit business development need, but the role of advocating for the disadvantaged clients

whom nonprofits serve is heavily overlooked. “The methodological implications of the search

for emancipatory social science”, as Lather (1991) proposed, is worthy of exploration in

philanthropic studies. The current paper is trying to understand what constitutes the philanthropic

culture in supporting minority-led community based organizations. This research not only

examines American philanthropic giving in the specific context for the most disadvantaged

populations (refugees), but also provides a deep and rich understanding of why supportive

7

individuals and organizations get involved in the minority-led community organizations. It is

believed that such a revelation through praxis-oriented qualitative research is significant, for it

aims to bring the beauty of humanity to light and call for more social justice to the disadvantaged

populations.

III. METHODOLOGY

“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). As a program assistant to the pilot Burmese project that aims to

strengthen partnerships among Burmese service providers, the researcher is a participant of the

broader community group who support and work with the Burmese refugee community-based

nonprofit organizations. Individuals and organizations support Burmese refugee community

organizations as donors, volunteers, partners, funders, advocators, and board members. The

study participants are located in the Indianapolis area and interact with each other on a frequent

basis to develop shared patterns of behavior, beliefs and language. The researcher is immersed in

day-to-day lives of the people and organizations and observes and interviews the group

participants. The researcher also interprets the meaning of the observed behaviors, language, and

interactions among members of this group of supporters. The researcher spent 10 months in a

non-Burmese nonprofit organization that aims to play a supportive leadership role in the

Burmese community. An ethnographic approach is appropriate to conduct this study.

Data collection

The supporters of Burmese community organizations are identified through purposeful

sampling. “The logic and power of purposeful sampling lie in selecting information rich cases

8

for study in depth” (Patton, 2002, p.230). The identification of Burmese community-based

organizations is done through the researcher’s natural work networks. Three forms of

community-based organizations have been identified so far, 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. The researcher identified supporters by talking to the directors and program officers

of the community-based organizations to look at their volunteers, funders, board members, and

partners. Some participants may not be directly involved with the community-based

organizations, but they are also joining in their friends to provide peripheral help and support for

this group. Snowball or chain sampling method is adopted for locating information-rich key

informants or critical cases. The sampling strategy also supports my research purpose, open to

understand and explore supporters and various reasons of supports.

Naturalistic observations is adopted to conduct this study. The strength of naturalistic

inquiry is that “the observer is sufficiently a part of the situation to be able to understand

personally what is happening” (Patton, 2002, p.326). The researcher starts the inquiry by going

to various sites to do direct ethnographic observations, such as community organizations’ events,

board meetings, partners meetings, and volunteer trainings. Field observation enables the

researcher to gain a holistic perspective through firsthand experience with settings and people

(Patton, 2002, p.262). The researcher is also open to other events and meetings held by

participants themselves, such as lectures, private meetings, and panel discussions. Field

observation notes is carefully taken manually and then typed into computer as soon as the events

finish. As a natural participant of this ethnographic study, the researcher’s active involvement

may “intrude” the natural groups (Patten, 2002, p.327), or experience a degree of 9

epistemological empowerment (Oldfather & Dahl, 1994). This may bring potential ethical issues

and trustworthiness concerns. The research of this study tries to focus on identifying the service

providers and supporters and understanding their involvement instead of advocating or imposing

any ideology on the Burmese community. The approach of changing researcher role from that of

an outsider to that of an insider through the ethnographic study is well-documented as well.

Meanwhile, the researcher prepared the consent form explaining the nature and purpose of the

study. Signatures from the participants were collected prior to the interviews. Pictures from

events, conference, and meetings are collected with consent for the context analysis and data

validation purposes.

The major data point on inquiry of why people support the Burmese community was

obtained from unstructured, open-ended interviews. Interviews are conducted in the form of one-

on-one interviewing. Each interview lasted 30-50 minutes. All the interviewees were scheduled

to talk at their convenient time in their preferred locations. To be consistent with the naturalistic

inquiry method, the researcher recorded the interviews with digital pen. Prior to the interview,

the researcher obtained consent and signed the consent form that was approved by Internal

Review Board with fill closure of knowledge and nature of the study. As soon as each interview

was finished, the researcher transcribed the audio notes into word document. The electronic

notes are sent to some interviewees that agreed to review to confirm the accuracy and validity of

the data.

The third data source comes from existing materials from the researcher’s workplace. There are

two project materials can be used. One is the service providers’ needs assessment survey

findings which include the major participants and how they got involved in the Burmese

10

community. The other is the monthly electronic blog posts which invite key supporters to share

their effort and perspectives in working with the Burmese refugee community.

Ethical issues are carefully considered to protect the participants. Christians (2000)

discussed several ethical principles in conducting value-free social science including informed

consent, deception, privacy and confidentiality, and accuracy. All the ethical issues but the

privacy and confidentiality have been addressed in various places in the above texts. To

safeguard the participants’ privacy and prevents them from any unwanted exposure, all personal

data are secured or concealed and made public only behind a shield of pseudo names.

Data analysis: All the data is coded and analyzed with professional qualitative software

Nvivo 9. Data analysis was conducted while other data is in collection. This allows the

researchers to adjust data collection strategies for new and better data (Liamputtong, 2009). All

the primary data and secondary data are examined as a whole and coded into major themes and

categories. Besides the official analysis in the professional software, other data analysis methods

such as writing marginal notes, self-reflection, and summary of field notes were integrated into

detailed data collection phases. A combination of qualitative data analysis methods is used,

including content analysis, thematic analysis (examine the emerging themes), and discourse

analysis (analyze the data/text by examining regularity and variability in the data).

Data trustworthiness: Qualitative data is looking for data conformability rather than objectivity

in establishing the value of the data. The use of triangulation in data collection through

interviews, field notes, and observations from field visits were conducted to ensure rigor and

trustworthiness of the study (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006; Miles & Huberman, 1994;

Patton, 2001). Multiple data points and sources were examined to see the consistency of the

11

findings. The findings were examined with other existing literature and theory on philanthropic

giving which are reviewed in the earlier part of this proposal. Since the researcher is immersed in

the study, “self-reflection” contributes to the validation of the work (Creswell, 2007, p.206).

IV． FINDINGS

Background Debrief: According to the factoid on the website of The International Center, Indiana is

home to about 7,000 Burmese refugees, the largest community in the US. Fort Wayne and Indianapolis

are the major two resettlement cities in Indiana. Three major Burmese ethnic group minorities live in

Indiana: the Karen, Karenni, and Chin. 71% of Burmese refugees in Indianapolis are Chin. About 85% of

Chins are Christians. Chin Burmese are mainly resettled in the south side of Indianapolis, and Karen and

Karenni are resettled in the north side of Indianapolis. Due to a larger community of chin people in the

south side, there are more community-based organizations including Burmese American Community

Institute (BACI), Chin Community of Indianapolis, Chin Evangelical Baptist Church ( CEBC) and other a

dozens of Burmese ethnic churches. Karen and Kareni have relatively smaller population and lived in a

number of apartments in the north side. The major community-based organization serving this population

is Burmese Center for Community Education (BCCE). The first Karen Baptist church was only recently

established.

Who supports

Both individuals and organizations from the Indianapolis community were interviewed with regards to

their involvement with Burmese community-based organizations. It is very common to see individuals

with following characteristics involving in the Burmese community-based organizations: white, married

with children, have religious belief, active in volunteering and philanthropy, with professional skills

and strong supportive network.

12

Antonio, a retired attorney residing in the south side of Indianapolis, has helped CEBC to get 501 c 3 tax-

exempt status and is a major member for CEBC’s build committee. He has 4 children living in various

parts of the world. He and his other church friends at Mountain Pleasant (an American church) work with

the chin churches to promote the American –chin family partnership program. Although most of time he

independently helps chin families, but he and his American friends at chin ministry of Mountain Pleasant

met once a month and discuss the common issues, concerns, and strategies to help Burmese families.

Lucy, who is married for 20 years and has 16 grand children, is a passionate and long-term supporter of

chin churches. With her help and advocacy, her church started chin ministry and partners with the chin

churches on the American- chin family adoption program. As the leader of the chin ministry, she is not

only helping matching American families with chin family but also matching chin churches with

American churches. Before she was involved with chin Burmese refugees, she volunteered for good will,

habitat for humanity. Prior to her retirement, she was working for a nonprofit organization that builds the

intercity. Similarly involving in the chin ministry, Richard is a 51 year old consultant in computer

science. He is remarried. His wife who is a large business owner and very passionate about philanthropy.

He has a daughter with his first wife and a step-daughter from his second wife. He is working with

Antonio and Lucy in the chin ministry’s family partnership programs. He and his current wife have

sponsored two chin families. Most of Richard’ charitable involvement centers on the church. Doris is a

friend of Lucy and Antonia at the church. She is white, married with two children. Doris has been a

staying-at-home mom for many years. Since her children are in the stage of on their own. Doris now has

time for community work. She participates the family partnership program with Lucy’s help and now has

adopted two chin families. Doris’s family including her parents is very supportive for her work for the

adopted chin family. Doris said her friends at the church helped her take care of the chin families when

she had a back injury several months ago. Linda is a board member of BACI and a tireless helper for chin

families. She and her husband have two sons and five grandchildren. One of her son worked for a huge

medical company in Philadelphia and another son lives in Gabon, Africa and teaches African surgery

13

residency. She is Christian and used to be a French teacher and later started her own wallpaper

businesses. Initially she was involved with a chin church in the south side and taught English as second

language (ESL). Later Lucy came to her and they worked together to start the idea of family partnership.

Linda’s family provides a big support to her involvement with Burmese community. Her family loves

what she is doing and integrates with the chin family very well. Linda has been always actively involved

in her church and volunteered missionary society before she was involved in the Burmese community.

Simon is a lawyer in downtown. He and his wife live in the north side of Indianapolis. They have a son

and daughter. Both of his son and his wife have been involved with helping the Burmese. Simon is a

member of the First Baptist church and the advisor for the BCCE. He helped BCCE set up the not-for-

profit corporation, and tax-exempt status. He commented that he is the main liaison between the BCCE

and his church. He was also a problem solver for the community “from driving license to notice from

FSSA, to someone has a car accident, do they injured, do they not, small claims court, landlord tenant, so

the legal or quasi-legal issues”. Simon works with a group of church friends and actively involves in the

BCCE’s serving populations. Helen is one of such friends. Helen is in her 70s and chairs the refugee task

force committee of the first Baptist church. This committee started earlier than the BCCE and now

partners with BCCE closely in teaching ESL class, promoting the awareness of Burmese community in

the broader community, and providing church services to the Karen Burmese community. Helen is a

widow with 3 sons and 6 grandchildren. Helen was a 4th grade teacher by profession and her husband was

superintendent in the school. Helen has been very involved in supporting children’s bureau. Helen said

all of her friends are involved in the church and helping Burmese people. Sitting in the church’s refugee

task force with Helen, David is the director of the athletic program of the Baptist church. He is white, and

works closely with Burmese kids. Robert, a 63 retired business man, is a friend of Simon and Helen in

the first Baptist church. He is married. Robert becomes a board member of BCCE through Simon’s

recommendation. He mainly teaches ESL class for the Burmese youth and regularly attends the monthly

Refugee Collaboration Committee meeting that was led by Harriet from neighborhood churches. Harriet

14

is a member of a catholic church in the north side. She is married with two children. Harriet was an

attorney and now leads a small group in her church to promote the Burmese community to the church

members and coordinate the community resources to better serve the Karen Burmese community. This

committee is open to the public and share information and coordinates various services. Harriet worked

with multiple partners such as BCCE, first Baptist church, government agencies, refugee resettlement

agencies, and schools. Besides receiving the support from the community and church network, Harriet’s

husband is also involved in helping the Burmese meet basic needs. Harriet is active in other volunteering,

such as tutoring at School of Wheels (for homeless) for 4 or 5 years, volunteering for her kids’ high

school and other “tons of volunteer work” since her retirement.

Besides the active religious network in both the north side and south side of Indianapolis, students and

faculties with professional skills are also seen in helping the Burmese community-based organizations.

Ron is a fourth year medical students and will start his residency shortly in June. His parents are Indian

physicians working in a south side hospital. He worked with BCCE and delivered presentations on health

issues that are important to this community, such as diabetes, hypertensions, headaches, cancer. He was

also involved in organizing a health screening fair for Burmese refugees in the south side. Ron works

closely with community leaders, health professional students and faculties. Dr. Hua Wang is one of Ron’s

health professional network colleagues. Dr. Wang is an occupational therapist, primarily focuses on

pediatrics mental health. She is now teaching in the School of Health rehabilitation science in the

occupational therapy department at Indiana University. One day a week she also works at Riley Children

hospital to provide occupational therapy services for children. Dr. Wang is Asian, in her later 30s,

married and has two daughters. She now works with both BACI and BCCE. Her involvement BACI

began in 2008. She initially worked with a local based Taiwanese Buddhist organizations to help the

Karen and Karenni kids with the computer literacy training. She is also a board member of BACI.

According to her, for logistic reasons, she works more closely with BACI and helped the BACI reach out

for resources, provide students to do the life skill training for Burmese high school students, and recruit 15

health providers for the health screening. Dr. Wang is volunteering regularly for her community. Tina

and Michael are Dr. Wang’s two of the many occupational therapy graduate students who are involved in

Burmese community through BACI. Tina is white, single with no kids, in her late 30s and early 40s. She

was working in accounting for 18 years and then later she decided she wants to do something different

and want to work with people. So she chooses occupational therapy as her second career. Tina goes to

church and usually does volunteer work for her community church. Tina is now helping researching and

evaluating BACI’s life skill training program and plans to be involved in the life skills training in the fall.

Michael is white, 25 years old, unmarried. He grew up in a small town in Indiana and graduated from

Purdue University with a BA degree in psychology. He now lives in the south side with his roommates.

Michael’s main involvement with BACI was the health fair. He played a leadership role in organizing and

coordinating the health fair service providers for the Burmese community. Beside his volunteer for

BACI, he volunteered in the Indiana Down syndrome and Alzheimer and raised money for the annual

event. Last year when southern Indiana was hit by devastating tornado, Michael also helped with the

tornado relief.

Professionals who are involved in the Burmese community-based organizations include Jack Li, 40 years

old, an American –born Chinese engineer, married with 2 children..Dr. Zhang, in his 50s an Asian

electrical engineer and volunteer director for a local-based Taiwanese nonprofit organization in north

side; Greg, white, in his late 20s, Burmese community liaison for a hospital in the south side; Ann, white,

in her late 40s, the executive director of a private family foundation in Indianapolis. All of them also have

strong supportive network. Jack and Dr. Zhang work closely with BCCE and other volunteers in tutoring

Burmese kids English and Math on Saturdays. Greg works with various community organizations in the

south side and works more often with other health agencies such as the county health department, the

corporate clinics, and his colleagues in the hospital. The hospital is providing health education and

wellbeing to the community through community clinics. They also work Burmese community

organizations to educate each other about needs, culture, and resources. Ann’s organization recently now 16

starts to explore the grant-making opportunity to Burmese community organizations. It helps the Burmese

community organization understand funder’s expectations and provides technical assistance to help

strengthen the community organization’s capacity building. The family foundation recently funded a

special project to the International Center to start understanding the needs of the community, helps the

Burmese community reach out to the community, and strengthen their capacity through effective

partnership building with the broader community. The foundation regularly meets with the funder

community of Indianapolis to share the emerging community issues, common problems, and best

practices in grant-making, and organizational capacity building.

Overall, the broader community that are involved with the supporting Burmese community based-

organizations are dominated by white, married people with children and religious belief, active in

volunteering and philanthropy, with professional skills and strong supportive network. The philanthropic

organizations include religious organizations, health care providers, and family foundations with

concentration on immigrant. All of the organizations have their own strong supportive network.

Why support?

The motivations of the broader community’s involvement consist of both public benefits and private

benefits. The public benefits include the needs of the community, value on education and youth, and

charismatic community leader and community organization’s cultural advantage. The private benefits

include understanding, professional advancement, spiritual and personal enrichment. However,

supporters’ involvement with refugee community is beyond the supporters’ benefits perception. They are

also motivated by their intrinsic religious believes, and their appreciation/recognition for the community

characteristics and qualities.

They need help: almost all the people who support the Burmese community-based organizations are

motivated by the needs of the Burmese refugees. Antonio’s has volunteered more than three years and he

17

commented that “they (Burmese refugees) need help, because they can’t do it by themselves at this

point”. Lucy recalled from the very first moment that she learned about the Burmese community from

her grandson’s elementary school’s handout, she decided to help the Burmese refugees as much as she

could. “The turning point was the sheet of paper from that school explaining a little bit about who those

people were. That was huge for me. That was huge”. What caught Lucy at that moment was that “ they

were prosecuted , they are refugees , and they didn’t even have coat when in the winter time. That just

broke my heart. That broke my heart. I couldn’t even fathom that, I couldn’t .” Lucy was in tears when

she spoke of her beginning moment of learning about Burmese community. As soon as Lucy found about

the chin Burmese in the community, she went to Southport Presbyterian church where they had an ESL

ministry. For a whole year, every Saturdays she sat next to Pastor Dongli’s bench and watched these chin

people learn English. She didn’t teach at first and just stayed there. Lucy further pointed out that “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”. Harriet also shared the

same reason for her involvement, acknowledging that her biggest motivation is the need: “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.” Compared to other immigrant communities in the United States, refugees

faced extremely difficulties. Robert explained that “there are so many areas we look at, dealing with

government, food, clothing, housing, and beaucracy. If you don’t have language and cultural background,

a lot of time you are just lost. Interestingly, the Karen couldn’t understand Kareni, their common

language is Burmese, but a lot of people are illiterate. With the difference, they can’t understand each

other, they don’t have the ability to help each other… and they are refugees. If you are Chinese, there is a

Chinese community have long been established, American Chinese know the system. There weren’t any

Burmese, Burmese weren’t established. There is chin, but they are in another side of town. It is very

difficult for them”. For David, his motivation for helping the Burmese kids to play sports comes more

18

naturally: “because the kids want to play sport, we feel that is an important thing to provide for family if

we could”. Realizing the inability of Burmese parents in tutoring kids, Jack Li felt he should help the

Burmese kids. He commented that “you know for American families who have children, they can tutor

their own kids, they come home from work and check their homework, help the kids, but you can’t see

the Burmese parents help their children. There is no formal education”. With the help of a Burmese social

worker at a refugee settlement agency, Dr.Zhang’s first involvement with the Burmese community was

the winter relief in 2009. He noted that the turning point “happened during the winter relief, in their eye, I

saw the helpless. They were brought here totally different environment. They don’t know what a bill

mean, many of them have never seen computer. That innocent and naive touches me. I can see from their

face they are so genuine. Their smile, they look so pure”. The needs similarly motivate the health

professionals. Tina felt “This is such a community in need of education”. Greg’s hospital receives about

120 Burmese patients every six months. He and his colleagues found that “for this population, education

is key. When they first arrived here and first start growing, they would use easy ambulance for

transportation, there are days two visits a day where they have numerous cases coming in and said their

child are warm and they don’t know how to use their thermometer. So they essentially don’t know. They

don’t know whether their child should be brought yesterday or their child is not actually having a fever”.

Greg helps set up a grant to help provide car seats for Burmese children, because “many of them don’t

know. Coming to this country, they realized that you have to learn how to drive, and how to position

yourself and your children. We have seen those use something that will use in the restaurant for car seat,

like the stool, let me think, bath tub used, the thing is that when a child legally is given birth here or at

any hospital, it has to be put in a car seat in a car upon leaving. So if they don’t have that car seat, we

have to give it to them”. The occupational student Michael’s involvement in Burmese health fair stems

from his realization of “there is little data regarding their health, regarding sexual health, blood pressure,

genetic issues, there is little information about the community. What the (broader) community should be

done is simply knowing more about this population. Not only that but they (Burmese) may not have

19

access to certain type of health fair, they may not know about certain health care could be available to

them. Through the health fair, the main thing I realized was that they didn’t know about service in the

area, it was important that we got that information to them”. “They really have no resources”, as Ron

noted. When asked what really motivated to help these people, Linda responded immediately “their

needs”. One time, Linda went to a new apartment to visit the newly-settled chin family, she bought

everything she could think of to them. When she tried to use the oxford picture English dictionary to

teach them about the kitchen appliances, she opened the dish washer, and found they have all their shoes

lining up, because they think that is a good place to store their shoes. Some new Burmese refugees have

never seen a grocery store before, so Linda would take them to the grocery store and explain everything.

Linda emphasized that “there are so many questions, so many things they don’t understand. It was just so

overwhelming to some of them”.

The refugee population faces great difficulties than any other immigrant populations, from cultural

differences to language, from daily basic needs to development, from adults to kids, from mental health to

physical health. The huge needs that presented to the broader community truly motivate them to help as

much as they could.

Religious belief: religious belief has motivated majority of participants to offer help to the Burmese

community through community organizations. The fact that the prosecuted refugees are Christians does

appeal to the church members. Lucy, the leader of chin ministry and active advocate for the church

partnership, revealed that when she went to persuade other churches to be partners with chin churches,

her talking point was “imagine you were dropped off in china, north Korea, half way around the world,

you don’t know the language, you don’t have the job skills, you don’t know how to fill out the paper

work, you are scared to death, wouldn’t you want somebody, somebody of Christian to come out to help

you, help you as a friend…. this is real. If we say we are Christian, then how come we are not reaching

out to this population”. Helen, Robert, and Simon from the Baptist church of north side of Indianapolis all

20

shared the same stories about their church’s involvement with Karen community. About 10 years ago,

before the two major refugee resettlement agencies were directly involved, the church sponsored three

refugees. Many church members helped them with apartment, medical care, and many other things.

About 5 years ago, families started arriving in their neighborhood at a faster pace. The church formed

Karen task force committee. One of the important reasons for the church to be involved in is because of

the Baptist church had a rich long history with Burma. One of the church’s first Baptist missionary and

his wife were missionary in 1800s. They lived there for seven years and helped the Karen and Karenni

become first Christians in Burma. “Their great grant parents were the first Christians, these Christians

came in, saw the church, and they know church, they knew Baptist, they were Baptist. So they came to

church on Sunday. And they couldn’t speak English. So we decided we need to help them. We didn’t go

to Burma, God sent them here. So we were the missionary here”. When asked about motivation for

Robert’s volunteerism, he averred the first and foremost reason was his sense of Christianity. Richard

also confirmed that “helping the chin is important for us knowing chin is Christians already. We feel we

are helping them, we are helping god’s children, That is a major contributing factor for us. ” Antonio’s

inspiration came from the chin hymns that the refugees sang in his church. He felt that “ it was just

magical. God put me there where I needed to be”. When Doris learned that Burmese refugees were not

allowed to practice their faith and even prosecuted for doing this, she wants to help these people be able

to really worship Jesus. Linda has been deeply dedicated to helping chin people for more than five years.

Although she doesn’t learn chin language, but she purposefully learned a phrase “ God is good” in chin.

She always says this phrase to the chin families upon her departure. At the end of a 50 minute- interview,

she took out the bible and read aloud John 34 and 35 - That you love one another; as I have loved you,

that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one

to another- “that is the main reason I interacted with the chin”, she concluded with a peaceful smile on

her face. Religious beliefs are not only confined in Christianity. Dr. Zhang, the volunteer director of the

Buddhist organization, referred to his basic motivation of helping Burmese community as the

21

philosophies of the Buddhist Dharma master that “we need to go out and get involved. Not sit inside and

study (scripture)”.

Overall, participants’ involvement was motivated both by the refugees as Christians and their own

religious believes.

Family values: the concept of traditional family values appears to be a common thread among the

participants. These family values embrace three patterns of motivation: volunteering because of the

family traditions and the bequeathing of the said traditions, volunteering because of empathy of common

immigrant kinship to the United States, and volunteering because of their compassion for refugee

families. Jack Li got involved in the Burmese community through his volunteering work at the Buddhist

nonprofit organization. Volunteering has been become part of his family tradition. He commented that,

“my wife is also very active, my mother-in-law has been an active member (in the Buddhist nonprofit

organization) for a number of years”. Jack’s involvement in tutoring Burmese kids has received great

support from his family. His family values as motivation was clearly seen at his 40 th birthday celebration

with his 25 Burmese kids. This was on one Saturday morning a few weeks ago, when he finished the

tutoring session around noon. He was asked to sit in the center of the room with her two daughters (aged

5 and 2) sitting on his lap. The 25 Burmese kids sat around him. His mother-in-law and his mom were

standing in the corner of the classroom. They sang birthday songs to him and another special song to

thank his generosity to help the students. Some students stood up and expressed gratitude to him and said

they wanted to be like him when they grew up. Some students read from a prepared piece of paper and

praised him as the best person they have ever met. Jack was touched by what the students said about him.

He responded with his gratitude to his mom and mother-in-law. He thanked his mom for going through

all hardships and bringing him up. He also thanked his mother-in-law for being such a dedicated

volunteer to this community. He continued to encourage the students to keep their English journal and

pass it down to their children and grandchildren. He said “if your children asked about how you came to

22

United States and started your life here, you give them your English journal that practiced in this tutoring

class and they will understand everything.” The students seemed very touched by his remarks. Some of

them wiped tears, looking at James sternly and hopefully. Dr. Hua Wang also retrieved her motivation in

the community services back to her parents and grandparents’ dedication to the community in Taiwan.

She had been involved in various community service projects since she was at medical school in Taiwan.

Her husband is an engineer and also volunteered at various organizations. She commented that her

husband and her “are both very similar in our spiritual and believe live beyond ourselves. We grow up in

a community that believes fairness of share. So we kind of see this as opportunity to model for our next

generation”. The hardship of Burmese refugees in the United States reminded some participants of their

parents and grandparents’ beginning life in this country. They have developed empathy of understanding

the difficult of starting a new life in a foreign country. Antonio revealed his parents were immigrants

from Greece and he is the first generation. For him, “it is kind of like going back in time. .. so I can

understand how first generation immigrants assimilate into this culture”. Helen said when she realized

they need so much help, “that reminded my mom and father moved here as immigrant from Romania.

They couldn’t speak English when they came. And there was a member from first Baptist church …..

This lady became aware of the need, so she helped them to read and get the citizenship, then my mother

and father get married, she helped with wedding. …. Remembering all of that…. I feel it is very

important for me to get involved”. Doris enjoyed helping Burmese families, “because they had a strong

determination to learn and to get used to American culture. I kind of admire leaving their homeland and

coming to America and try to start a different life here. My grandparents did the same thing”. The

empathy and family connection was also found in the family foundation that Ann worked. She said the

funder of this family foundation came from England as an immigrant. Among the funder’s fourth

generation, one of the family members married to a Burmese refugee. Ann said when the foundation

decided to have its transition from art collection to funding immigrant population, they looked at the

historical record realizing funder himself immigrated to US, “not only one of funder’s great

23

granddaughter married to Burmese refugee. One grandson married to Haitian refugees. There is a real

understanding awareness cultural challenge, access to language, and then most significantly physiological

hurdle”. In addition, the fact that Burmese refugees who were resettled in Indiana are families has a

strong emotional appeal to the Indianapolis community that has strong emphasis on family. Simon

regarded that the scene of seeing all the face, all the people, all the families together at community

meeting boosted his willingness to help. Similar feelings were shared by Richard and his wife. The photo

of his adopted family touched their heart. Lucy, Linda, Doris, and Richard all shared the excitement of

being called “mother”, “grandpa”, “grandma”. They interacted with chin family several times a week and

were even asked to name their new babies. As Richard noted, “After we met them and we know them,

they are families. There isn’t anything else to motivate us more than as we do it for my own daughter”.

Richard’s motivation also agreed with his church’s mission - change the world, one life, one

opportunity, one family a time. Antonio was very emotional when he recalled his experience of sitting in

the same room when the refugees called their family members back home. The concepts of family did run

through most participants’ motivation patterns, especially for people who are married and have children.

Personal values on youth and education. Almost all supporters found the community organization’s

mission aligned well with their personal values on youth and education. Both BACI and BCCE focus on

education and Burmese youth. They have the common understanding that the Burmese youth is the future

of this population. Robert commented that “BCCE’s focus is on education, which I agreed. 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”. Linda was also encouraged by the Burmese community’s value of

education. As a formal educator, education is very important to her. Her first turning point of helping the

Burmese was seeing a Burmese girl sitting outside of church bench and learning English. Her passion of

teaching school kids English class on weekly basis came from her belief that “the focus is really on

education not how do we hand something out, but how do we go with you and help you how to do that so

you can do it by yourself”. She felt most rewarding about her support to the Burmese community when 24

she saw a Burmese girl that she has helped going to college with nine scholarships. Before Linda was

interviewed, Linda showed me with biggest pride the featured story about this chin senior girl in the local

newspaper. The chin girl came to Indianapolis with very limited English skills three years ago and now is

honored to receive a Lilly Endowment Scholarship. The newspaper says she plans to become an

ophthalmologist, a promise she made to her grandfather, who became blind and wasn’t helped by surgery.

Linda also bought this girl a dress for her going to various luncheons when she found her parents couldn’t

afford one. Jack has volunteered for BCCE’s tutoring class for 18 months. He has a fulltime job to keep

and a family to raise, but he still feels motivated to tutoring Burmese kids on math and English every

Saturday. He noted that “my initial involvement was surrounding education, even after 18 months, this is

the place that cannot lose any support. For the refugee families, really their future is going to be on their

children. Those who are in education system here, they will have opportunity, they can graduate high

school, you know, so much more than their parents can. And if you get them through college, you know it

is another magnitude to increase opportunity…. That is the opportunity for next generation. So what

BCCE helps with the education, we are trying to make sure that these students at least get some help in

their high school curriculum, also into college… That is what I hope to see the BCCE is the first and

foremost important one. It has to impact the youth. That is what they are doing. The emphasis is on

youth.” Dr. Zhang and the Buddhist organization that he is leading in his spare time shared the similar

value. In one of the field trips, the researcher observed that at the end of tutoring session, Jack taught the

Burmese kids a beautiful sign language song called “A Clean Planet”. He used the Buddhist

organization’s DVD and TV and played the songs, leading the students to do the sign language with the

lyrics and music. The lyrics was all about the caring and loving for the children, saying that “let’s leave

for our children a planet and pure, let’s leave for our children a river crystal clear, let’s leave for our

children a blue shining sky bright, let’s leave for our children a meadow lush with life”. Among the

participants who interacted closely with Burmese kids and young people, they all found joy by spending

time with them and felt most sense of achievement from young people. Simon reflected that “I see overall

25

some great change in (young kids). The elder in the community.. it is hard”. His expectation was that

“through BCCE and our church that we will not face generational poverty. In other words, The kid will

get more educated, and they are.. hopefully get education, move forward… will be thriving citizens, there

won’t be any generational poverty. We are not going to have them on government assistance come for 10

-15 years from now. Because they are going to be doctors, lawyers, and work in the shops and did that

type of thing”. Antonio said he got a lot pleasure in working with the teenagers, “because you can tell

that they are moving on with their lives, and they are trying to make something out of their opportunity”.

Participants also saw the significance of young people in achieving the community self-sufficiency and

circulating the cycle of good deeds. Dr. Zhang commented that “those young people they are very kind

hearted and willing to help their own people. They also volunteer. You want to help people who want to

help themselves”. Harriet got involved in the Burmese community through her daughter’s intern job at

her church. When her daughter returned to school, she picked the refugee task force work. She said that

her commitment of helping Burmese community all came from the interaction with a young Karen girl

who is 24 and becoming a community leader in Karen community. From the fondness of this girl, she

grew friendship with Burmese people. And this friendship was considered as her biggest motivation to

help Burmese. Some supporters felt strongly motivated to help after learning about Burmese kids’ story

of refugee experiences. Events that featured the young Burmese views on freedom, cultural differences,

struggles in the refugee camps and United States often touched the attendants’ heart deeply. BCCE once

held an event called "Celebrating Freedom" Documentary Films Screening Night. The document was

filmed and produced by Burmese students themselves with their camera and it recorded their experiences

and reflection of their 2011 Summer Freedom Trip to Washington DC. The trip was an effort to

encourage Karen and Karenni students to appreciate the benefits of their new freedom and reflect on the

meaning of that freedom in the context of our global cultural struggle. The film screening lasted more

than two hours, and people from nearby churches, government, and partner organizations were invited.

Although most of students’ English were still broken, and their skills of using camera were poor, this did

26

not prevent attendants from understanding their deep appreciation of freedom, freedom of seeing,

travelling, learning, and expressing. As Jack noted, “all of these things helped me learn about culture,

their struggles. .. I want to do something, I know I can help them”. In addition, the personal values on

education is not only reflected on the opportunity to lift the Burmese community, but is also tied to the

participant’s own success through education. Dr. Hua Wang’s passion for education for the Burmese

community stems from her own personal story as a woman whose life was changed through education.

She was born and raised in a small village in Taiwan where the limited resources always went to boys.

Women were often not given opportunity to pursue higher education. she further illustrated that “My

mother at that time, she was very smart and humble, and quiet person, I still remember when I was in

middle school, one of my science teacher as soon as she recognize who my mother was, she told me a

story that when they two were in the same class/ they were classmates, my mom was the one in the top

class, by the time when she was working on her high school, she was encouraged to stay at home and help

other family members for farming and agriculture, will be able to send funding or money for uncles to go

on for college. My mom will never be able to go to college. So when I grow up, my parents highly value

education, they don’t really view education to be privileged for men or boys”. Later, she found that she

was almost traded with her male cousin to her uncle’s home. She said, “It is kind of that dynamic let me

realize women in that small and remote areas of Taiwan will not have the same opportunity as men do. So

I have a great sense of appreciation. However the knowledge that I have I don’t own it myself, it is not a

right, it is a privilege. I should share the same sense of privilege back to where and who can take the

opportunity”.

Qualities and characteristics of the refugee community: Though Burmese refugees are underserved

populations and need help in many areas to be able to survive in the United States. Supporters found it is

extremely rewarding to help them due to some great qualities of the Burmese refugee community. “The

politeness and appreciation is very compelling”, as Antonio mentioned. Richard also commented that “the

chin people overall very timid, understanding, respectful, very appreciative the help we have given to 27

them. That is a great driving factor for us”. Their appreciation is in their hugs, expression of love and

caring, and they even spread appreciation far beyond the United States. Linda shared one of her most

unforgettable moment. One day, when some new Burmese refugees moved into a new apartment, she

visited them and brought everything with her to help as much as she could. She had chin lady with her

and helped her translate. “When the chin lady started to talk to these people, all of sudden, she came back

and said “they know you in Malaysia, they said if you come to Indianapolis, Linda will help you”, Linda

recalled this memory tearfully and found it hard to understand “what were we doing is a little nothing,

and yet it is so important to them. They would even know my name in Malaysia. That is just because I

helped somebody”. A similar appreciation was not only found in the adults, but also in the Burmese kids

population. Dr. Hua Wang encountered a stunning moment when she did a two-hour workshop for the

Burmese youth on how to balance the physical health and mental health, and stress reduction and

management. At the very beginning, she was not sure about talking the mental health issues, which was

regarded as a taboo in this community, but “at the end of the workshop, everybody gets their lines up,

every one come to bow to you, they not only just bow, they hold your hands, they bow to you and say in

their native language to say how much they appreciated… to them, they may not get exposed to any of

that information. Even if nothing is helpful, they still came over to show their appreciation”. The medical

and occupational students who were involved in the BACI and BCCE also found the appreciation of the

community for their work very motivating. When BACI’s finished the winter upward college life training

programs, a big ceremony was held in the community township trustee building. The graduate students

who did the life skills training to the students were thanked repeatedly by both the students and parents in

presence. Everyone was wearing their best clothes and celebrated the completion of life skills training

certificate. Some even presented their hand-made traditional embroidery to each graduate students

teachers. Tina found this moment very encouraging and drove her to want to continue to work with them

even though it was not school required.

Burmese people’s determination of learning and willingness to change for the better inspired many 28

community supporters. As a public health profession, Greg saw a lot of opportunities to work with this

community, commenting that “it is wonderful to work with a group who want to be healthy, they want

their children to be well and they are willing to take necessary steps. I have found that they really want to

change. While working with American can be difficult, because you can just tell them the same story over

and over again…” Their resilience, courage, and desire to help themselves became a driving factor for

some participants. Doris acknowledged that she only wanted to help people who are willing to help

themselves; “That is very important. My drive to help them is strongly based on the fact that they have a

desire to learn, and they have desire to try to do whatever they can do to help themselves to be able to

survive in the United States”.

Although language is said to be one of the biggest challenge for volunteers to help this community,

people who have been deeply involved in Burmese families and individuals didn’t think it was as difficult

as they thought. Because they can have interpreters; “A family member who knows enough English to be

able to tell them what I am trying to say or what they trying to say will help”. Simon also received a lot of

assistance from Burmese kids he is now helping. Robert felt “the attitude is good” when he saw the Karen

Burmese started to volunteer for help their own community, not just charity. Helen and Doris shared the

similar satisfaction of seeing Karen and chin people are trying to help each other. For Jack, he and other

volunteers in the mentor program are working toward the goal of inspiring “more leaders coming from

their own community”.

Charismatic Community leaders and community organization’s cultural advantage: The Burmese

community leaders were another key factor that encourages broader community’s support to them. Most

of organizations that partner with the Burmese communities were approached by Burmese community

leaders. A survey on Burmese service providers conducted by the International Center’s Burmese project

found that most of organizations got involved in serving Burmese community were through personal and

professional network with community leaders. Their vision, passion, dedication, and capabilities boost the

29

broader community’s confidence in their support. They believed what they indigenous community leaders

are doing will “make a difference and make them self-sustainable”. They also found these community

leaders’ authority and knowledge can be very beneficial for them. Michael gave full credit to the BACI’s

leader to make the health fair happen. Ron’s health workshop was also made possible with the BCCE’s

cultural and language assistance. Ron noted that “they are in a foreign culture, foreign land uprooted from

everything you know. The challenge is that a lot of them have third –grade education from Burma, which

a lot of them don’t know English. So it is almost like you are translating several times. Translate from

medical vocabulary to lay English, and then from lay English to their lay language. And to incorporate

medical terms into that are unlike any other community I have done before… I have to work with the

confine with these organizations that I partner with. It has a learning experience. You can’t do things with

… you have to adapt, basically. You can’t do things the way you want them to, because there is

restriction of culture, language barriers, so you really need to depend on your partners”. The cultural and

language advantage was also fully recognized by Ann’s organization. “We had a youth severing

organization said we just can’t get the kids to come. You know mom wants them to be home after school,

because moms are home, which is a different thing. It is another culture. This needs to figure out the

culture, where they are, and have a program like mother-child centered, so that is where I feel we still

have Burmese refugee and family, foundation family. We are still learning”. Both the Mountain Pleasant

Church and First Baptist church also capitalize the advantages of Burmese community organization to

better serve the Burmese populations. 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. In the Burmese service providers retreat that was convened by the International Center,

about 25 organizations from nonprofit, for-profit, and government organization attended and shared their

opinions on the needs of knowing Burmese community as a whole, and build effective partnership with

community-based organizations. Potential partners expressed the challenges of applying their existing

30

services to serve the multi-cultural and multi-lingual Burmese community. A neutral, open and inclusive

community-based organization or a collaborative Burmese community organization network can

maximize their cultural and language advantage as well as boost the broader community’s confidence,

because “we want to play neutral”, and “ donors have no time and energy to pick a side to fight”. Most

supporters did see the value of Burmese community-based organizations’ “serving Burmese community

specifically”, or “their focus on education and youth”, but they didn’t mention their support because of

any preference to Karen or Karenni, or Chin. On the opposite, most participants are aware of the needs of

other ethnic groups, but due to lack of community-based organization’s collaborative network, they either

have to figure out the way of reaching other ethnic groups through their personal network, or cut back the

services due to the “logistic reason”, and “geographic proximity”. The “unrealistic expectation”, “lack of

understanding American working culture”, lack of knowledge about the whole community, and weak

capacity due to the fragmentation were said to make broader community partners less confident about

working with the community-based organization. “Recognizing that right now the economy is really

tight, the needs are greater, and it makes funder, makes us more hesitant to take a risk. Most of the

organizations here in Indianapolis are forming to providing service to Burmese are new”, as one of the

funding agency commented. The broader community expressed that they support them because they see

them as “neighbors”, want to make them “integrate in to the American culture,” and make “Indianapolis a

great place to live”. The similar expectation of having a broader sense of community is also put on the

Burmese community-based organization. The broader community feel motivated to offer more services if

they “know the big picture of the community”, “know their neighbors”, “know other churches”, and have

more diversity in the community leadership

Gain understanding. Some supporters, especially the professional supporters are primarily motivated by

the desire of understanding more about this underserved populations. Due to the participants’ interest in

global health and issues, and the nature of their professional work, they want to understand more about

the Burmese refugee community. Ron, Tina, Michael, Dr.Huang Wang, and Greg all shared their 31

motivation of understanding this community, because “there is no research about this community”. Greg

mentioned that his hospital created this position that specifically working with Burmese community

because they found Burmese community is a growing population of Indianapolis, and “it really put a

strain on the hospital’s services. There was no representation. There was no one teaching them about what

it meant to be a Burmese or Burmese culture, even examining where the refugees are, what does it mean

for the hospital to have so many non-English speaking patients” . Ann’s organization just started to look

at the Burmese community and the only formal grants has so far given to the International Center’s

Burmese project, because they got inquiries and heard the conversation on the growing population

“bubbling up” , but “we didn’t have a good feeling of what needs were. Who was the best server of those

needs”. Supporters that are actively involved in the community affairs felt they “receive” a lot from their

giving. The felt their involvement has made them have a bigger and better view on the world. Harriet

commented that “ I think I have a bigger and better view, it always give me reason to think like when you

are driving a way, you stop and start to think a variety of things. So that parts fit my worldview,

expanding my world view”. The interaction with the Burmese community made them know more about

the culture and politics about Burma as well as understand more about the American welfare system and

made them “more aware of the injustice” in the world. The impact on the personal life mainly

concentrated on helping the individual supporters have more opportunity to understand their life and find

the purpose of life. Speaking of the motivation of helping Burmese community, Simon commented that “

they teach me … I don’t have anything to worry about , I got food on the table, I got shelter, I got car, I

got cloth, I got a job, you know… they are a good role model, this is how I should appreciate life”.

Antonio confirmed that “they (the Burmese community) have made a huge difference on me. It changed

my perspective. Things were important to me before are not so important to me”. People derived

satisfaction and deeper understanding about life. Dr. Hua Wang said her major gain from her community

involvement was the deeper understanding about human spirit. She reflected that “maybe the major gain

is on the sprite side, on the things that no matter how the skin color was, no matter how diverse our

32

background come from, there is a positive human connection. That connection that sometimes the

language can even not be a barrier, for example the eye contact, and bowing, positive of spirit of

respecting each other, that is what I gained most about the human spirit”. In one of the communication

vehicles for the Burmese service providers, Ron wrote an article about his understanding of health care

through working with Burmese community. In one of paragraphs, he reflected that “ I believe that my

interactions with the Burmese population offer a preview of the next step for health care in the United

States. Medicine has moved beyond an approach that involves the physicians as issuers of mandates to

patients, but rather one in which physicians and patients are true partners. Educating the patient involves

new, personalized approaches rather than one catch-all algorithm. This is especially true when dealing

with underserved patients who may not even be able to seek regular, preventive health care”.

Professional advancement. This perceived benefit was more seen in the professional student and health

care providers. Tina and Michael shared the same view that due to the nature of occupational therapists

work, they need to work with a variety of people, and “any population would be beneficial”. From

professional ethical perspective, “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. .. it gives me experience to go forward to provider better services to underprivileged populations” .

Ron and Michael also saw the rare opportunity for making a difference for health professional students to

make a difference because the needs are so big and they are the few people that have interaction with the

community. Michael recalled that “the health fair has never done before, it is completely a start-up idea.

Once I saw that, I was motivated because I feel I saw an opportunity to initiate a great resource for the

community, something that we could start and lay the ground work and grow into something extremely

positive for the Burmese community”. Ron realized that the importance of understanding multi-culture

for a future physician, saying that “ 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”. In the health 33

fair planning meetings, health professional from county health department, children hospitals,

occupational therapy department, community nursing college, medical students, dental school, and BACI

gathered together and eager to provide whatever they can provide for making the health fair happen.

When the meeting chair talked about the huge needs of the community and the opportunity for the various

health professionals to reach out to the Burmese community, partners seemed to feel very motivated. The

health fair was not successful as they planned, because about 60 people showed up, instead of the

anticipated 600 people. Despite of the said fact, partners still felt their work is worthy, because they

realized that Burmese people are very social- “there are several wedding goes on, so people didn’t show

up”- and Burmese people usually only go to see doctors only when they are sick. “To getting them to the

health fair needs a lot of education”, as Michael observed. The young health professional also said they

gained an understanding of which clinics and pharmacy stores the Burmese went when they are sick.

They felt theses information gathering would also help them better serve the Burmese patients in the

future.

Spiritual and personal enrichment. Individual supporters felt very rewarded in the sense that

volunteering make them a “happier person”, strengthen their faith in Jesus Christ, find meaning for their

life, and self-cultivation. Harriet said even though she has no void to fill in the life, but her volunteering

for the Burmese community made her a happier person. Richard said although their life is full of chaos

due to their additional responsibility for his adopted family, but they derive satisfaction and joy from “the

immediate feedbacks for what they are doing”. Dr Zhang mentioned that helping mentor the Burmese

kids make their volunteers appreciate life more and live beyond themselves, and he personally like the joy

of “ making other people smile and be happy. It helps us become a better person, and have inner peace”.

Jack said he volunteer for humanity, elucidating that “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”. Some

supporters found a sense of salvation from helping Burmese people. Lucy recalled that “when Chin found

me, I was kind of lost. I hadn’t gone back to work. My mother-in-law passed away. Then I don’t know 34

what I am going to do with my life, then all of sudden. This happened. It has changed my heart instantly”.

Supporters say they couldn’t imagine their life without helping Burmese refugees now. Doris and Robert

said their particular take on was that “god is working and taking care of these people”.

DISCUSSIONS

Based on the interviews with all the supporting individual and organizations, field observations, and other

existing data, the motivations for the broader community in supporting the Burmese community-based

organizations mainly comes from their awareness of needs, religious believes, family values, personal

values on education and youth, the community leader and cultural advantage of community organization,

and perceived or received personal benefits of gaining understanding, professional advancement, and

spiritual and personal enrichment. Due to the newness and scarcity of the Burmese community-based

organization in Indianapolis, few supporters actually mentioned about the accountability, effectiveness

and efficiency of community-based organization as their motivations. Supporters tend to be motivated by

the expressive side of the underserved populations, such as their needs, religious believes, family values,

qualities and characteristics of community, and charismatic community leaders and cultural advantage of

community organizations. Among the community leaders and cultural advantages of community-based

organization, the broader community (especially the professional organizations) showed their concerns of

the community organization’s capacity as the barrier for their bigger support. Interestingly, although the

religious organization partners also recognized the limitations of these community-based organizations,

their motivations of helping the community-based organizations still remain. A discrepancy of motivation

and opinion on the supporting the Burmese community-based organization between the professional

organizations and religious organization, and between the different type of volunteers (such as church

volunteers and professional volunteers) was perceived during the interview. Unfortunately, the question

of the comparing different motivations among different type of supporters, or comparing motivations of

supporters for different organizations will not be scientifically addressed due to the research limitation.

35

The purpose of understanding the broader community’s motivation in supporting the underserved

minority community is still fulfilled. According to the finding, a typical individual supporter is white,

married with children, have religious belief, active in volunteering and philanthropy, with professional

skills and strong supportive network. This finding is consistent with other literatures which identify the

positive correlation between religious membership and charitable giving (Bielefeld, Rooney, &

Steinberg, 2005; Brooks, 2003; Brown &Ferris, 2007), volunteering and marriage status(Van

Slyke & Brooks, 2005; Wilhelm, Brown, Rooney, & Steinberg, 2008), race (Caucasians), and

social capital (Brown and Ferris, 2007). It is also reasonable to consider volunteers with

professional skills as a result of level of education; such finding is also consistent with the

previous literatures. Viewed from functional approach of volunteering (Clary & Snyder, 1999),

supporter’s perceived private benefits on understanding, professional advancement, and spiritual

personal enrichment (or protective function in psychology) are also found in the supporters in

helping the Burmese refugee community. The aforementioned findings were also consistent

with the surveys on the Burmese service providers conducted by the International Center. The

survey reports that they are motivated by personal values such as religion and social justice and

by organization’s mission. Other driving factors include professional development, personal

enrichment, and joy of being appreciated. Although the social justice factor is not summarized as

an motivation in this research, it is implied almost in every supporter’s answers on their

knowledge on Burma. Almost all the supporters are knowledgeable about Burma, either about

history, religion, or politics. The factor of social justice in motivating their philanthropic

behaviors is implied.

Overall, the pattern of volunteering for altruistic reasons runs more dominantly in the refugee

supporter community. For example, almost all are motivated by the shocking needs of Burmese

36

refugees, the compassion for their prosecution for being a Christian, personal values on youth

and education, and qualities of Burmese refugees population and community organizations. The

perceived private benefits are more secondary to them. The value of family is worth mentioning

in the research findings. A statistics of calculating the republican mayor of the largest cities

shows that Indianapolis is one of the three cities of the top 30 largest cities in the United States

that has a republican mayor. The family values as motivations of supporting refugees, especially

refugee families does find its ground in Indianapolis. In addition, the previous literatures mainly

approach donors or supporters’ philanthropic support from the needs of the recipients or the

accountability of the aiding agencies, but the qualities and characteristics of the end “consumers”

are found to boost more philanthropic support in this research.

Research limitation and future research questions

This research relies on the interview data, field research, and existing materials to explore the motivation

patterns of the broader community in supporting the Burmese refugee community. Most interviews came

from snow ball sampling and researcher’s natural network with community-based organizations. About

half of participants were recruited from churches. Other participants came from universities, health care

providers, and other nonprofit organizations. The broader community may not be fully represented;

especially the elementary and middles schools were omitted in the sampling. Not all participants for the

research necessarily interact with each other, thus hardly consist a real sense of community in terms of

tight network knitting. 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). The research

findings may found its constraints in practical application due to the blurring line of donors, volunteers,

and partners.

37

Some new research questions emerges from the research and are worthy of examining: first, 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? Second, does the type of volunteers or who

supports the organizations affect the performances of the nonprofit organizations? For example, does

religiosity or expressive-centered supporters undermine the organizational professionalism?

BIBLIOGRPAHY

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:

38

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.

39

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

40

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 Behavior.

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: 41

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

42

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 and43

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

44